Such conventions are very strong, illustrating our common tendency to cherish most those customs which we cannot justify! The reductions of denominate numbers ascending and descending were, until recently, in most courses of study, kept until grade 4 or grade 5 was reached, although this material is of far greater value for drills on the multiplication and division tables than the customary problems about apples, eggs, oranges, tablets, and penholders. By some historical accident or for good reasons the general treatment of denominate numbers was put late; by our naïve notions of order and system we felt that any use of denominate numbers before this time was heretical; we thus became blind to the advantages of quarts and pints for the tables of 2s; yards and feet for the tables of 3s; gallons and quarts for the tables of 4s; nickels and cents for the 5s; weeks and days for the 7s; pecks and quarts for the 8s; and square yards and square feet for the 9s. Problems like 5 yards = __ feet or 15 feet = __ yards have not only the advantages of brevity, clearness, practical use, real reference, and ready variation, but also the very great advantage that part of the data have to be _thought of_ in a useful way instead of _read off_ from the page. In life, when a person has twenty cents with which to buy tablets of a certain sort, he _thinks of_ the price in making his purchase, asking it of the clerk only in case he does not know it, and in planning his purchases beforehand he _thinks of_ prices as a rule. In spite of these and other advantages, not one textbook in ten up to 1900 made early use of these exercises with denominate numbers. So strong is mere use and wont. Besides these conventional customs, there has been, in those responsible for arithmetical instruction, an admiration for an arrangement of topics that is easy for a person, after he knows the subject, to use in thinking of its constituent parts and their relations. Such arrangements are often called 'logical' arrangements of subject matter, though they are often far from logical in any useful sense. Now the easiest order in which to think of a hierarchy of habits after you have formed them all may be an extremely difficult order in which to form them. The criticism of other orders as 'scrappy,' or 'unsystematic,' valid enough if the course of study is thought of as an object of contemplation, may be foolish if the course of study is regarded as a working instrument for furthering arithmetical learning.