132 
EMPLOYMENT PSYCHOLOGY 
Some were most intelligent in arithmetic, others in spell 
ing, 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 prefer 
ence 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