as they are--many of them not primarily students of books, but
individuals of ceaseless activity, physical as well as mental, vastly
more interested in the doing of things than in the learning of lessons.
And we must provide a means whereby they can learn to do all sorts of
things that have to be done in the community. The subject matter, the
methods of handling young life, the atmosphere, the activities, and the
ends in view, should be so changed or modified, or supplemented as to be
appropriate to the new and changing personalities to be affected by
them. The details would differ with different communities but the
principle is adaptable to all.
THE STATE UNIVERSITY
With the functions of these two departments thus clearly in mind, let us
look at the next in order--the State university. Fortunately this
discussion need not detain us long since there is a quite well
recognized unanimity of opinion in regard to its work.
While the State university does many things, and some of them well, and
while it can be said to have many ends in view, its one all-inclusive
function is to prepare leaders for society. It must prepare leaders in
law, that justice may be done; leaders in medicine that health may be
preserved; leaders in engineering that the State's resources may be
developed; leaders in education that the youth of the State may be
educated; leaders in research that the boundaries of knowledge may be
pushed out--leaders all along the line that character may be formed,
statesmanship developed, and the welfare of the people secured and
preserved. And the preparation of all these is not, primarily, that
those prepared may achieve fame or amass fortunes, but that society may
be better served.
We are all agreed, in the United States, that elementary education
should be universal. Many are now taking the position that I have
already advanced that secondary education should likewise reach and
serve all. But all stop at that point. No one even suggests a college
education for every boy and girl. And the reason is found in the above
statement of the function of the institution, since not all are suited
to leadership. It takes only the relatively few who stand out clearly in
their high school experiences as possessing the characteristics of
leadership, and these few it develops, equips, locates.
Coming a little closer to our subject--tho I think we have not been very
far from it at any time--let us inquire as to this relationship along
some more specific lines.
It goes without saying that the relationship should be very cordial. The
two institutions are creatures of the State, partners in the important
work of educating the children of the State. Each has its own work to
do, and neither has been given any authority over the other. At the same
time each depends upon the other, neither being able to do its own work
without the other's assistance. They should work hand in hand, each
assisting the other in every possible way to realize its largest
usefulness to the community and the State. In general, the high school
should send its students to the university well equipt to do the lines
of work for which they respectively apply. And the university, knowing
in each case just what that work is to be, and the difficulties it
presents, should be the judge as to the details of that equipment.
On the other hand, the university should not make requirements for
beginning its work that are beyond the capacity of the ordinary high
school student. Nor should it definitely require or legislate against
specific subjects upon which there is no general agreement among
educational leaders. Something is wrong somewhere, in the matter of
educational values, when some colleges absolutely prescribe for entrance
certain subjects for which others will give no credit at all: for
example, at the present time 91 colleges in the United States require at
least one unit of natural science and 8 colleges will not accept a
single unit; again, 13 require 2 units of natural science and 22 will
not accept the two. Until we know a little better than we do at present
what we are doing and why we are doing it, it might be well to move
slowly in legislating for or against specific subjects. The university
should keep in mind the fact that the high school has other duties to
perform--and possibly more important ones--than preparing a few students
for the university.
I am glad to say that in this matter of entrance requirements the two
institutions are gradually coming closer together. The university is
coming to have greater respect for and more confidence in the high
school and its work. Whereas in the earlier days all entrance work was
rigidly prescribed, now, in nearly all of our higher institutions,
several units are open to free choice from a list of accepted subjects.
In a goodly number these units may be chosen from any subjects offered
by an approved high school. And, too, there are five institutions of
good standing that allow the entire 15 units to be thus chosen. Our own,
as you doubtless know, is much more generous in this matter than the
great majority. It gives a margin of 5 units to be thus selected. I
think there are but 9 institutions in the whole country more liberal. As
you know, too, in all our colleges save Engineering we specifically
require but 4 units--3 in English and 1 in mathematics. From the others
free election among groups is allowed. The movement here and elsewhere
seems to be in the direction of requiring the completion of a full
four-year high school course, with increasing flexibility as to specific
subjects. And that seems wise.
It gives me pleasure, at this point, to say that the relationship
between the University of North Dakota and the high schools of the State
has ever been most cordial. I think there has never been a time when the
two, tho differing at times in details, have not co-operated in the most
frank and cordial manner to bring about the best good of both and to
secure the best service to the State. Neither one has been selfish,
trying to secure undue advantage over the other. Where domination of the
university over the high school can be seen--as it most certainly can be
seen--and even tho, as I have said, the work of the high school is what
it ought not to be--mainly a preparation for the university--_this_
University and _these_ high schools are not at fault. It is not a local
situation. It is nation-wide, and even nation-wide as it is, it does not
include, consciously and directly, the State universities. The older
colleges and universities did dominate, but the relation between the
State university and the high school has ever been cordial. They have
always recognized their partnership and have acted in accordance with
it. But yet we have all been caught in the maelstrom, and it would be
difficult for any one institution or any one State to get out of it. So
no immediate or rapid change can be expected. Large bodies move slowly.
The change will come, but it will come gradually thru claiming a little
here and granting a little there.
But before leaving this topic of entrance requirements, I desire to
refer to one of its broad factors and touch, incidentally, upon the
large matter of university attendance in general. In discussing the high
school, and again the university, I have tried to make clear the fact
that not all high school students should be urged or expected to go on
to the university. Remember that the high schools should be made to
serve all the youth of the State but that the university's work is to
take but the choice ones of these, or, better yet, the scholarly output
of the high schools, and equip them for leadership in society, and the
point is clear. It is a new problem but coming to be a very real one.
Going to college is getting to be the fashion--almost a fad in some
places. We all know that a goodly number of students, boys and girls
alike, enter the universities, East and West, every year who have no
characteristics of leadership, who are not fitted for real university
work, either in academic equipment, maturity of judgment, point of view,
or earnestness of purpose. Many of these young people are wholly worthy,
well meaning, and ambitious in a weak way, but they have been misguided.
They have listened to the attractive preaching of the popular but
unintelligent gospel of college attendance for all and, caught by the
glamor--the foot-ball, the track meet, the declamation contest, the
fraternity pin, the Junior prom, etc.--have answered the hail of "All
aboard for the University!" without knowing what university work really
is or what it is for.
The college and the university are also coming to be thought a
convenient place for rich fathers to dump their incorrigible sons and
marriageable daughters for a few years. And in some sections these rich
fathers are increasing in numbers at an alarming rate. The presence of
all such people (they can not be called students) in various classes is
a drag, and the wheels of the institution are clogged. These people
themselves are soon disillusioned but ashamed to quit; the home people
are dissatisfied with results; the university is unjustly blamed for not
developing them into leaders--there is trouble all around. I am not
speaking of our own institution alone; others are experiencing the same
difficulty and are seeking a way out. Michigan University, for example,
is now urging its alumni to discriminate carefully in sending students
to their Alma Mater; it wants only those fitted by nature as well as by
the preparatory school.
As said above, this is coming to be a real problem and difficult of
solution. What shall be the relationship of the university to the high
school touching these various classes of its graduates? Should it
receive them all? If not, where shall the line be drawn? And who shall
draw it? Shall one factor of the entrance requirements be the
recommendation of the high school principal or superintendent? Would it
be well for the high school to have two distinct grades: one for local
graduation and a higher for university entrance? That is done in some
places. The entire matter is worthy of careful thought of both high
school and university.
With the discussion of one more point of contact, the preparation of
teachers for the high schools, I am thru.
If, as stated above, the great function of the State university is to
provide leaders for society, then, in a broad way it is easy to answer
the question as to what it should do for the preparation of teachers for
high schools--it should prepare them. For where else is clear-headed,
unselfish leadership more needed than in the high schools from the
students of which are being selected, thru direction and competition,
the boys and girls who are to pass out to the colleges and then into the
world as leaders? We all know that that is what happens. The man or
woman, untouched by college or university, who yet occupies a
responsible position of leadership is an exception to the rule. And
where else than in a university can preparation for high school teaching
be secured? But of what sort should be this preparation? The answer to
the question in general has long been clear--it should be professional
as well as academic in character. Mere acquaintance with the subject to
be taught is no longer held adequate by people at all intelligent along
educational lines. And during the progress of the movement that has
demonstrated to us the need of professional preparation, there has been
worked out also, along somewhat general lines, the details of this
preparation. We are now, the country over, in approximate agreement that
it should cover the History of Education, Philosophy of Education,
Psychology, including the study of adolescence, and Methods of Teaching.
Institutions differ somewhat in minor matters within these broad fields,
but the development of the movement in the United States has resulted in
approximately the above program--professional preparation for all
teachers in the high school and that along the four lines suggested. But
the movement has gone much farther than suggested by my statement. The
results are found in something more authoritative and more permanent
than tentative agreement among educational leaders, or even among
educational institutions. The law-making bodies of the land have taken a
part, and by legal enactment have required about what I have suggested.
The State of North Dakota, for example, requires professional equipment
of every teacher within its borders--no, not quite, it does not require
it of its teachers in the special schools--the reform school, the
schools for the deaf, blind, and the feeble minded--nor in its
institutions of higher education, including the normal schools and the
University. And in this North Dakota does not differ from other states
of the Union. But it is strange, isn't it? that the state absolutely
requires professional preparation of all its elementary and secondary
teachers and yet does not require it of those whom it engages to equip
them? Some of them have it, of course, and the majority of those who
give the specifically professional courses, but the greater number of
all teachers in the higher institutions are lacking in this respect.
That doesn't mean that all university teachers are poor teachers. Many
of them have learned how to teach in the crude and expensive school of
experience. They have, at last, the professional equipment, but gained
at high cost. Perhaps this lack of professional equipment accounts, in a
mesure, for the admittedly poor character of much of the teaching in our
colleges, normal schools, and universities.
But to come back to the high school and the preparation of high school
teachers. What does North Dakota require, and how does the University
meet the requirement?
All teachers in classified high schools, save special teachers of music
and drawing, are required to hold certificates that presuppose
proficiency in psychology, history of education, principles of
education, school administration, and methods. Special teachers in
music and drawing are required to have covered in professional lines
only psychology and pedagogy. But in cases where the certificate is
granted on the basis of college work instead of on results of an
examination, the law requires that the applicant shall have covered at
least two year-courses, or sixteen semester hours, of professional work,
and it recommends that this be distributed among the four great fields:
history of education, principles of education, methods of teaching, and
school management.
The School of Education has been organized within the University for the
specific purpose of preparing teachers for the high schools of the
State. To graduate from the School of Education and thus receive the
B.A. degree and the Bachelor's Diploma in teaching, which is accredited
by law as a first-grade professional certificate, and also to be
recommended for teaching specific subjects in the high-school, an
applicant is required, first, to have specialized, academically, in the
subject to be taught. The amount of work required for this specializing
varies with the different subjects, but in most cases it is from 20 to
24 semester hours. Recall what is meant by the work of a semester hour
and you will easily see how broad our academic requirement is. It means
that in addition to one's high school work he is required to carry the
subject in practically daily recitation for from 2-1/2 to 3 years in the
University. To some that may seem too much, but we feel that the first
requirement for teaching in the high school should be a thoro grounding
in the subjects to be taught.
The academic matter thus disposed of, let us note the professional. For
this, in its various phases, we require 20 semester hours covering
psychology, history of education, secondary education, philosophy of
education, and methods of teaching academic subjects in which the
student has been specializing and which he expects to teach. The course
in methods includes observation and practise teaching of the same
subjects in the Model High School under expert supervision. Many of our
students voluntarily take more than 20 hours, but that is all that is
required. We have cut down the professional requirement to the minimum
so as to leave ample opportunity within the course for thoro mastery of
the subjects to be taught, and also for general culture and the
development of broad-mindedness, not being willing to send teachers into
the high schools as narrow specialists.
Were there time I should like to go more into detail in regard to these
various requirements and try to show the contribution of each; but I
must pass on to speak of another way by means of which the University
enables students to meet the legal requirements for teaching in the high
schools--thru the College of Arts. A student who graduates from the
College of Arts and who has had, during the progress of this course, 16
hours of Education is, upon application to the State Board of Education
and the payment of a fee of $5, granted a first grade professional
certificate. But this method of preparation is seen to be quite
unsatisfactory when contrasted with the one just outlined. The Arts
student is a relatively free lance, practically wholly so in the choice
and arrangements of his professional work. In the School of Education
the program is for all the professional subjects, save general
psychology, to be taken after the beginning of the junior year and so
immediately prior to the actual work of teaching, and too, when the
student is relatively mature. But with the Arts student, it may all be
taken much earlier, during relative immaturity and making a long period
elapse between it and the work of teaching--quite long enough for the
influence of the professional atmosphere, always valuable in such
matters, to be wholly lost. The question of the professional work of the
School of Education student is carefully planned to meet the ends in
view. Each course has its definite contribution. The Arts student may,
and often does, select courses that are not the most appropriate for
high school teaching: for example, instead of a course in adolescence he
may select one in child study which deals only with the child in the
grades. Instead of a special methods course in the subjects he plans to
teach in high school, he may select a course in methods in elementary
subjects; and he may not take any course in secondary education nor have
any practise teaching in the Model High School. The work may be--quite
often is--ill-arranged and of little value as a professional preparation
for high school teacher.
I have dwelt upon this contrast because the University and its School of
Education has suffered by the laxness of this second mode of
preparation. Some of the people who thus go out are not good
representative products of the institution's professional activity.
Just a closing word as to this phase of the subject. You see what we are
trying to do and how we are trying to do it. From the work of the young
people whom we have sent you from time to time, how successful have we
been? Our work as to time and content of courses and our general
equipment are about the same as found in similar institutions in other
states. We differ somewhat, of course, in personalities and in
individual point of view but, taking everything together, we are doing
the best we know how with the material that you send us as students. How
does our product suit you? What criticism have you to make and what
changes to suggest?
III
THE UNIVERSITY AND THE TEACHER
_An Address delivered at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada,
March 30, 1916, in the Exchange Lectureship existing between the
University of Manitoba and the University of North Dakota. It was
printed in the "American Schoolmaster," December, 1916_
Having accepted the kind invitation of the University of Manitoba to be
one of the exchange lecturers from the University of North Dakota, for
the current year, I made inquiry as to the nature of the different
groups of people whom I should be expected to address. I did this so as
to be able to select appropriate themes for discussion.
For this gathering, therefore, semi-popular in character and made up, as
I was told it would be, of the more thoughtful and intelligent people of
the community, University, and city, I selected as my topic for
discussion, "The University and the Teacher."
To a group of educated men and women who have visions--people who are
characteristically looking beyond the present and trying to plan for the
development of a great democratic state and for the welfare of a free
people, I know of no line of thought more appropriate or suggestive.
This is true because in such a state and with such a people, the state
or provincial university is the recognized leader of thought and action.
And this is true since the one great function of such an institution is
to take the choice youth and maidens from the various sections of the
state and, thru the work of the class room day in and day out, week by
week, year after year, give them knowledge, shape their opinions, mold
their characters, and develop their minds, and then send them back into
society as recognized leaders of the next generation.
The topic is doubly suggestive when we stop to inquire as to what makes
a university or any other institution of learning--what it is that
really gives it its reputation, its character, its influence. What is
it, anyway? Its towering brick walls? Its libraries and its
laboratories? Its athletic prowess? Its beautiful campus? Why, no, of
course not. Not any one of these nor all of them combined, complete and
extended and excellent as they may be, or as useful as they all are,
ever yet made or ever can make a great university. A real university, or
any other institution of learning, is made up of the men and the women
who form its student and its teaching bodies. The character of the
institution, its very life blood, is drawn from them. Their points of
view, their motives, their scholarships, their visions, their
aspirations, make it what it is in every instance.
You recall that ex-President Garfield's description of a university
included only two factors as essential--the teacher and the student. The
external equipment--buildings, libraries, laboratories--what not--is
merely a tool in their hands. Please do not misunderstand me. I am not
inveighing against these things; they are necessary. What I am insisting
upon is that not _things_ but _teachers_ make a university. And so my
topic, "The University and the Teacher," launches us at once into the
midst of a great big thought. So big, indeed, it is, that it goes
without saying that it cannot be adequately handled in the brief space
of a single address. Only certain phases of the large topic can be
touched upon at all, and they treated but briefly.
But, after all, the function of a speaker, certainly upon such an
occasion as this, is not merely to give information. It is not to speak
with finality upon any subject. Is it not, rather, to direct the
thoughts of the listeners along worthy lines? For any good that shall
result from the meeting together of speaker and audience will be the
direct outcome of their thoughts and not of his words. So, after having
thus spoken briefly of the university as a whole--of its place in the
state, its great influence and that of its teaching body--I invite you
to think with me as I touch the subject here and there briefly
discussing these three sub-topics: 1. The Kind of Teachers the
University should Employ; 2. The University Teacher in His Classroom; 3.
The University's Attitude Toward the Preparation of Teachers. Our first
discussion, then, will be of
THE KIND OF TEACHERS THE UNIVERSITY SHOULD EMPLOY