Much time is given to “Methods” in all the Normal Schools. Besides the so-called “Methods” taught by means of academic studies, the subject is usually taken up again in connection with applied psychology. The school subjects, treated one by one in detail, are used to illustrate principles of education, while much reference is made at every stage to the personal experience of teacher and students. Many different plans are adopted in teaching “Methods.” At the Normal School, Westchester, I heard a lesson which was in the form of a modified “recitation.” A certain point had been chosen for discussion. The students had prepared the subject beforehand, and some had written short essays, which they read in turn. Afterwards the whole class was questioned by the teacher. As new ideas were brought forward, they were noted on the blackboard by the students who supplied them, until a complete sketch was made. A discussion on “Noise in Class” was carried on somewhat in the same way. At Westfield, Massachusetts, the lessons on “Didactics” are carried out on a similar plan, the students being called upon in turn to furnish certain parts of the subject, and to build up a sketch on the blackboard. At the Normal School, Albany, methods are taught thus:--With each of three terms of psychology, certain subjects are chosen for consideration. A syllabus of work in a certain subject is given in by each student. It is carefully discussed in class. Then parts of the detailed syllabus are taken in order, methods of dealing with any particular part discussed, and one method decided upon as best. For the next day, all the students prepare a lesson on the part selected, and any one of them may be called upon to give it to his or her fellow-students. Then follows criticism by teacher and students. The plan of requiring all students to consider detailed methods in all subjects seems not to be altogether a good one. It assumes a knowledge of all the subjects of study on the part of all students, a condition only attainable at the price of superficiality. Even where a general knowledge of subjects can be relied upon, details in method cannot do other than encourage empiricism, in cases where the knowledge of the subject matter is not thorough and complete. It would seem better, especially in the case of training institutions like that at Albany, designed to give purely professional training to teachers of higher grades, to encourage more specialization, and to allow all students some choice of method subjects, so that dead forms of method might be made as few as possible. The system of giving detailed methods to all stimulates, too, a tendency to rigid forms of lesson-giving, and somewhat encourages the idea that there is only one good arrangement of subject matter for a particular lesson, and one good way of giving it. This is, I think, a danger of all method-teaching; but it is much intensified where methods are discussed in great detail.