176 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS must know much more than their students. The missing unit in the whole program of regulating cosmetology has always been the recruiting and training of teachers. The requirements for preliminary qualifications and professional training vary widely throughout the United States. It is hoped that the former may be standardized with: (1) Graduation from high school (2) complete course in cosmetology at an approved school (3) three to five years' practical experience. Several states include cosmetology in their programs of Trade and Industrial Teacher Training. New York (best known to this investigator) has long had a very successful program for the public schools, to which teachers of cosmetology were admitted in 1928. In-service courses for teachers in private schools we?e added in 1945. In all state training pro- grams everywhere, because the years of practical experience imply mastery of art and skill, the emphasis is not on subject matter but on analysis and organization of the student's trade, and methods of teaching it. Classes are heterogeneous, instruction is necessarily general, and each student must be able to adapt the information dispensed to his or her own needs. It is a clear case of "If you don't know what it's all about you won't know whvt it's all about." In the related work art, science, mathematics, etc., those in cosmetology occasionally have difficulty because many instructors, knowing little or nothing of cosmetology, teach their subjects entirely in terms of the men's trades. This is particularly frustrating in science because of all the sub- jects taught as trades cosmetology is the only one (except, to an extent, barbering) in which the principal working material is not wood, metal or stone, but the living human body. In New York, those that complete the state program (480 hours) for public schools are allowed one year of credit toward a B.S. degree in the School of Education at New York University. In devising a curriculum for teachers of cosmetology (14), the author found that the required general biology, anatomy (of living body), and other useful courses were ready-made in the department of physical education and health. Physics and chemistry could be taken either "straight" in the science department, or "applied" (diluted) in home economics. All required art was available, make-up (dramatic art) and business (School of Commerce) so it was necessary only for the cosmetologists to know how to utilize the informa- tion obtained in their own work. Given a competent and sympathetic adviser, a satisfactory curriculum can be assembled for ambitious cosmetoL ogists anywhere. Conspicuously absent from all programs of advanced study (as far as known to date) are courses on cosmetology, itself, which all teachers need to refresh and expand their early book knowledge of their own subject. Courses on the chemistry, composition and manufacture of cosmetics,

COSMETICS AND COSMETOLOGY IN EDUCATION 177 as given in scattered colleges of pharmacy and occasionally sponsored in the industry, are rarely of practical help to the large groups of teachers. The wise among them do not teach the making of cosmetics, and they dis- courage their future cosmetologists from amateurish competition with the many lines of standard commercial products in the .market. Cosmetology has come a long, long way in its short lifetime, and credit for improved standards and accomplishment should go to its own members. For reasons well known to those in the work, cosmetology is still classed with the service trades. It is still far from the professional status to which it aspires, but this is a worthy goal. Many other vocations have aimed at top place but have been content with a rating of semiprofessional or semitechnical. It is hoped that this brief presentation may have brought the field of cosmetology more sharply into focus. Both the cos.metic industry and professional education have common interests in cosmetology, and there should be close cooperation for ultimate benefit to all. Certainly, if the ever-better products from the industry can be ever-more intelligently applied and promoted to all the prospective consumers, the improved appearance of those in the passing scene will make our world at least a much better-looking place in which to live. REFERENCES (1) "Webster's New International Dictionary" (1909). (2) "Webster's New International Dictionary," 2nd Ed. (1934). (3) Godefroy, C. W., Personal communication (1956). (4) Wall, F. E., "The Principles and Practice of Beauty Culture," 3rd edition, New York, Keystone Publications, Inc. (1956). (5) Montez, L., "The Arts of Beauty," New York, Dick and Fitzgerald (1858). (6) P(erkins), S. D., "The Ugly-Girl Papers," New York, Harper Brothers (1875). (7) Cooley, A. J., "Handbook of Perfumes, Cosmetics and Other Toilet Articles," Phila- delphia, J. B. Lippincott Company (1873). (8) Moler, A. B., "Ambition or Just Plain Laziness," Chicago, Privately printed (1930). (9) •lmerican Hairdresser, 35, 30, 58 (1912). (10) "State Board Cosmetology Guide," New York, Milady Publishing Corp. (1955). (11) "Basic Model Bill," St. Louis, Allied Cosmetology Council of State Boards, Schools and Shops (1948). (12) Wall, F. E. "Opportunities in Beauty Culture," New York, Vocational Guidance Manuals, Inc. (1952). (13) Wall, F. E., "A Ward for Physical Education .... A Plea for Educated Beautification," New York University, Unpublished (1935). (14) Wall, F. E., "The Education of Teachers of Cosmetology," New York University, Unpublished (1938).