The

exist; but I must add that I never have met one. capable boys I have known, and some dull ones, too, have been able to master the subject when they have not suffered from bad teaching. And we may also disregard the incompetent teacher of Greek; the pedant who does not make his pupils read as soon as they can, and lets them form the bad habit of treating the language as if it were a Chinese puzzle; or the ignoramus who himself is unable to read continuously in either of the ancient tongues. These scattered individuals we may pass by. In general, it is safe to say, the teachers of the classics are trained to do their duty, and they perform their office better, on the whole, than any other set of instructors-especially in the high school. To return, then: Either Greek affects the subsequent career of the pupil as it is said to affect him, or it does not. If it does not, we are free to neglect it in our schools. But if it does, we are bound to promote this study unless we are willing to lose our own self-respect. If one never has read Greek, or, having read it long ago, has forgotten the experience, how can one decide the question of its value? No doubt the books of Kelsey and Zielinski would assist one in forming an independent judgment; but it would be desirable also to consult a number of the masterpieces themselves, at least in translation. One might read the Republic of Plato in the version of Jowett, and the Nicomachean ethics of Aristotle as translated by Welldon, and then, let us say, the Politics. If, being previously unacquainted with those fountains of good sense and lofty inspiration, one were to find in them something of permanent value, it would be right to believe the persons who read the original as well as the pale translation, and who declare that the Greek is better than the English version. And finally one might consider what we owe to the boys and girls whose education has been entrusted to our hands by our nation and our Maker.

CORNELL UNIVERSITY

LANE COOPER

IV

AN UNDERGRADUATE'S VIEW OF COLLEGE

EDUCATION

Altho an undergraduate is not presumed to be able to express his ideas on the subject of college education with the authority of an educational specialist, nevertheless, certain aspects of this subject appear to him in a different light than they do to his instructors and to the other officials of the college. Therein rests the justification for the writer's expression in this article of what appear to him to be among the chief shortcomings of college education today.

What is perhaps the most important of our educational problems is the question of vocational education, and it is as much a problem for the college as for the elementary schools. The so-called Utilitarians hold that the fundamental purpose of the college is to educate one for success in his business or professional career. All other aims should be made subsidiary to this one. Opposed to this theory is the view of Culturists that the college exists purely for the sake of turning out cultured members of society, thus entirely ignoring the vocational aspect.

While neither of these theories is the dominating force that determines the college curriculum, apparently the importance of each is appreciated by the college officials. Especially is this noticeable in the case of vocational education, for many courses bearing on business life in the field of applied economics are being added increasingly to the curriculums of the universities and larger colleges. The prevailing doctrine that seems to guide higher education today, is that altho the college has many other functions, vocational education is among the most important, and as such deserves adequate attention in the college curriculum. The problem, therefore, may be stated by asking how far

the other functions of the college permit preparation for one's future business or professional career.

Among the other ends for which the college exists are the development of character, the training for intelligent citizenship, the instruction in hygienic methods of living; and the attainment of that culture which will enable one to utilize his leisure wisely. If the student is to be educated to attain these ends successfully, it is obvious that vocational education can not monopolize the college course. The college can not become a series of professional schools, business offices, or apprentice-shops. Hence, limiting vocational education in such a way that it will not conflict with the other functions of the college, we may discuss its possibilities in the college under three heads, namely, mental training, development of character, and serviceable knowledge.

It is quite needless here to discuss the importance of mental training which results in the ability to solve complex problems, and to approach a situation with a knowledge of the proper method to go about it. It is generally admitted by business men and college graduates that this is one certain thing that a college man may be expected to possess, which might be lacking in a non-collegian. The college may be given credit for this much.

The demand of the nation for men of high character, who may be trusted to handle big undertakings without faltering and to do the right thing from the broadest viewpoint-regardless of its individual consequences when larger interests are at stake; the demand for such men has been well met in the last few decades by the influx of college graduates into places of public trust and of responsibility. It has been estimated that forty per cent of the positions of trust in this country are held by college men who constitute about one per cent of the population. How much greater will the need of men of this type be during the coming years when our industrial and political problems are becoming increasingly complex? Real industrial progress will be made only when the men at the head of our great industries are men of

high character and ideals of service to their fellow-men. And we can look to a better source for this type than to the colleges which take hold of a young man in the years when his character is most susceptible to external influence.

The obligation of the college to turn out men of high character is greater than ever, and every effort to make the colleges more efficient in this respect deserves the hearty support of college officials and alumni. Among the most meritable of such movements is the installation of the honor system in examinations, which is being adopted within the last few years by several colleges. But like all other innovations it has to meet the powerful opposition of conservatism, and has been frequently defeated. During the past few years at Columbia we launched a vigorous campaign to have the system instituted in the college department. We appointed campaign committees, held mass meetings and dinners for discussion of the question, and issued printed propaganda. When the final vote was taken the returns showed a good-sized plurality in favor of the system, but the faculty decided that the opposition vote was too heavy to warrant the installation of the system, and the measure was killed.

There is much that may be said against the system, and a great deal of the voting against it was due not to a lack of sympathy with its ideal and purpose, but to a sincere belief that it is impractical and would be so at Columbia, despite its apparent success at other colleges. The following extract from the humorous column of the daily paper, the Columbia Spectator, affords an entertaining view of a college humorist:

PROPOSED HONOR SYSTEM PLEDGE

I was born of honest parents. I was raised the same way. I have neither lookt to the right nor left during this exam. I have stuffed cotton in my ears and kept it there all the time. My clothes have no pockets. This is straight, on

the level bona fide truth. Take it or leave it.

The agitators expect to continue their campaign until they succeed.

It may hardly be expected that the installation of such an honor system would modify a student's character to any appreciable degree; but its influence in colleges where it has been tried is recognized as being beneficial. If coupled with other movements of a similar purpose, there is every reason to suppose that college morality would be improved. And it is recognized both within and without the college that there is much room for improvement, however much progress has been made in recent years.

Finally, the college ought to provide the student with the knowledge that will enable him to pursue his preliminary training in the professional school, the business office, or the shop with advantage. But in order to determine what knowledge for this purpose is most useful, the student's future vocation must be known. And here we strike what appears to the writer, the greatest defect today in higher education.

For example, the future lawyer will do well to study economics, politics, history, ethics, and psychology. All of these have a decided bearing upon his work in the law school and in his subsequent professional practise. The medical student will find it to his interest to have taken biology, chemistry, psychology, and elementary physics. The man who expects to become a producer of some commodity or a merchant, should specialize in economics, taking courses in money and banking, transportation, accounting and corporation finance, and the tariff, trust and labor problems. Commercial law, modern languages, and chemistry would undoubtedly be of value to him.

Such a choice would be possible, however, only when the student has definitely made up his mind about his future. But how is the man who has not reached a decision going to choose intelligently? I have found a large number of men at Columbia who have no idea of what their life work is likely to be. Many of them are simply victims of circumstances when they graduate, and take the first job that comes along. They are not trained for anything in particular. In certain cases this may prove to be the best