I am working on some of the arguments in the press which involved H.G. Wells, and came upon the issue of lab equipment for students.
In 1896, H.G. Wells wrote in the Saturday Review a complaint about the lack of cheap microscopes for students. His larger point was that British manufacturing was always behind when it came to scientific apparatus for students, and that this held back progress. He wrote that cheap, good student microscopes had not been available 7 years prior (when he was teaching biology) — students either bought good ones costing over 5 guineas or did without. He saw student microscopes, the ones they brought to labs, and experienced their various problems. German microscopes had since come in that were good but also inexpensive. In response, British microscopes were finally better and more affordable.
| Just as an example, this Steward “college” model cost £3. According to this calculator, that’s £357 in today’s money. This ad is from 1885. |  |
|
Here is one is in the Wellcome Collection. |
 |
So at first I wasn’t sure what to make of Wells’ argument, since I don’t know much about microscopes (I only saw milk, like in the Thurber story). But if Wells was correct, than this Steward’s model (the “college” microscope) was probably not very good, and the “complete” microscope better at £5 5s.
Wells’ piece was followed by extensive arguments in Correspondence. Henry Crouch, a microscope manufacturer, rebutted every point Wells made. He insisted that cheap and good microscopes had been available seven years prior, and that the German optical improvements had indeed influenced the manufacture of all microscopes. Wells countered that he’d had requests for the addresses of the German manufacturers so people could order, and said if there was a British model with good high and low power in a stout box for three and a half guineas or less, he’d like to know the address of the manufacturer.
Two other manufacturers then wrote in (James Parkes and Sons, and R. & J. Beck, giving their shop addresses). Both said they indeed sold many microscopes fitting Wells’ specifications, and had done for over a decade.
I’m suspicious, given Wells’ extensive experience with crap microscopes. But one has to consider that he could have been wrong, or that his students weren’t looking hard enough for good equipment, or that they were humiliated when shopping (he mentions this possibility in the article too).
Wells declared that the chemical balance (right) would soon be the new example of British manufacturers again creating only expensive equipment that students could not afford, until pushed by competition from elsewhere.
Of course, his original point wasn’t about microscopes, or balances. Those were just examples (people always jump on the examples). It was about British manufacturers trying to rip off a captive student market because they could. That’s not unlike textbook publishers today.
While it may be possible for governments to fund educational access, with scholarships and grants, they don’t produce the equipment necessary for educating groups of students. They have to purchase it from specialists, or the professors do, or the students do, or some combination. Usually the cost falls, then as now, on the student. And this is why Wells saw it not only as a national problem, but as a problem of private enterprise taking advantage.
