It is maintained by some, that all the Normal School work is professional, in that throughout the curriculum the aim is to present the subject matter of instruction in the way that the teacher should present it to his or her class of children, and so to make the lessons model lessons. I was present at some excellent lessons of this kind: a geography lesson and a history lesson in the Bridgewater Normal School. But for the most part the needs of the Normal School pupils themselves, and not the needs of imaginary future school children, have to be considered, and the Normal School lessons or “recitations” resolve themselves into ordinary school lessons. Even if we assume, however, that this is not the case, and that great skill is shown on the part of the Normal School teacher, may not such a plan of teaching “Methods” be dangerous, in that it encourages imitation and rigidity. Such appears to me to be the tendency of the generally adopted plan, of giving professional training in “Methods,” by actual lessons in the various subjects given by the Normal School teacher; and the danger of encouraging cut and dried methods is intensified where it is the custom for a Normal School student to give a lesson to children, or her fellow-students in that subject and section of a subject which has just been presented to her by the Normal School teacher. It is maintained by others that apart from any advantage which may accrue to the students from hearing good lessons in the various subjects they will have to teach, it is absolutely necessary that each student should change her standpoint, and review the various branches of knowledge as a teacher, rather than as a pupil. This, it is argued, is secured by such a plan of teaching “Methods.” As a third motive, it is held that direct teaching of ordinary school subjects is necessary before beginning pedagogical instruction, on account of the inadequate and unequal preparation which the future teachers bring to their work. It seems to me that both these necessities might be obviated by more rigid requirements for admission to Normal Schools. The well-equipped High Schools can do the academic work of the Normal Schools with less effort than can the Normal Schools themselves; and were the standards of admission such as to necessitate a thoroughly sound preliminary knowledge in common school subjects, might not the Normal School students be found more capable of themselves reviewing old facts from a new standpoint, and the schools have more time and opportunity to carry out other means of training? ACADEMIC STUDIES.