And just now it is vocational training that is the catch phrase, and to many this phrase seems to sound the funeral knell of the standard textbook in geometry. But does it do so? Does this present cry of the pedagogical circle really mean that we are no longer to have geometry for geometry's sake? Does it mean that a panacea has been found for the ills of memorizing without understanding a proof in the class of a teacher who is so inefficient as to allow this kind of work to go on? Does it mean that a teacher who does not see the human side of geometry, who does not know the real uses of geometry, and who has no faculty of making pupils enthusiastic over geometry,--that this teacher is to succeed with some scrappy, weak, pretending apology for a real work on the subject? No one believes in stupid teaching, in memorizing a textbook, in having a book that does all the work for a pupil, or in any of the other ills of inefficient instruction. On the other hand, no fair-minded person can condemn a type of book that has stood for generations until something besides the mere transient experiments of the moment has been suggested to replace it. Let us, for example, consider the question of having the basal propositions proved in full, a feature that is so easy to condemn as leading to memorizing. The argument in favor of a book with every basal proposition proved in full, or with most of them so proved, the rest having only suggestions for the proof, is that the pupil has before him standard forms exhibiting the best, most succinct, most clearly stated demonstrations that geometry contains. The demonstrations stand for the same thing that the type problems stand for in algebra, and are generally given in full in the same way. The argument against the plan is that it takes away the pupil's originality by doing all the work for him, allowing him to merely memorize the work. Now if all there is to geometry were in the basal propositions, this argument might hold, just as it would hold in algebra in case there were only those exercises that are solved in full. But just as this is not the case in algebra, the solved exercises standing as types or as bases for the pupil's real work, so the demonstrated proposition forms a relatively small part of geometry, standing as a type, a basis for the more important part of the work. Moreover, a pupil who uses a syllabus is exposed to a danger that should be considered, namely, that of dishonesty. Any textbook in geometry will furnish the proofs of most of the propositions in a syllabus, whatever changes there may be in the sequence, and it is not a healthy condition of mind that is induced by getting the proofs surreptitiously. Unless a teacher has more time for the course than is usually allowed, he cannot develop the new work as much as is necessary with only a syllabus, and the result is that a pupil gets more of his work from other books and has less time for exercises.