132

EMPLOYMENT  PSYCHOLOGY

Some  were  most  intelligent  in  arithmetic,  others  in  spelling, ­
  still  others  in  geography,  some  in  English,  some  in
manual  training,  and  so  on.  To  be  sure,  there  were  pupils
who  did  uniformly  well  in  all  their  subjects,  and  some  who
did  uniformly  poor  work  in  everything;  but  they  seemed
to  be  the  exception  rather  than  the  rule.  Even  the  most
stupid  or  most  intelligent  seemed  to  have  especial  preference ­
  or  excellence  in  some  line  of  work.  Now,  take  your
own  boy,  Mr.  Lambert.  When  I  had  him  in  the  eighth
grade  I  remember  distinctly  that  he  was  very  fond  of
arithmetic  and  manual  training  and  had  very  good  marks
in  these  subjects,  but  he  did  not  do  very  well  in  spelling
and  in  grammar.
Mr.  L:  You  are  right.  And  since  he  has  gone  to  high
school  his  marks  in  English  literature  and  rhetoric  have
been  very  poor,  but  he  has  led  his  classes  in  mathematics
and  physics.  He  seems  to  have  a  peculiar  bent  toward  the
sciences.
Miss  N:  That  is  what  I  expected  of  him.  My  formet
pupils,  those  whom  I  can  follow,  are  all  developing  in
different  directions.  But  how  would  you  define  the
intelligence  of  such  pupils?  Would  you  average  up  their
abilities  to  learn  in  the  different  subjects  and  call  the  result
their  general  intelligence?
Mr.  L:  Why,  I  suppose  we  should  have  to.
Miss  N:  Then  your  son,  in  spite  of  his  brilliance  and
promise  in  the  sciences,  would  be  brought  down  to  a  much
lower  level  of  intelligence  by  his  inability  to  learn  the
languages.
Mr.  L:  I  suppose  so.  But  that  won’t  worry  me  if  h e
turns  out  to  be  a  first-class  chemist  or  engineer.
Mr.  W:  I  think  I  see  what  Miss  Nelson  is  driving  at>
and  maybe  I  can  help  her  out.  When  you  are  interviewing