1.--_Journal of the Proceedings of a Convention of Literary
and Scientific Gentlemen, held in the Common Council Chamber
of the City of New-York_. October, 1830. New-York: pp. 286.
8vo.
2.--_Catechism of Education, Part 1st, &c_. By WILLIAM LYON
MACKENZIE. _Member of the Parliament of Upper Canada_. York:
1830. pp. 46. 8vo.
3.--_Address of the State Convention of Teachers and Friends
of Education, held at Utica_. January 12th, 13th, and 14th,
1831. _With an Abstract of the Proceedings of said
Convention_. Utica: 1831. pp. 16. 8vo.
4.--_Oration on the advantages to be derived from the
Introduction of the Bible and of Sacred Literature as
essential parts of all Education, in a literary point of
view merely, from the Primary Schools to the University:
delivered before the Connecticut Alpha of the Phi Beta Kappa
Society_. On Tuesday, September 7th, 1830. By THOMAS SMITH
GRIMKE, of Charleston, S. C. New-Haven: 1830. pp. 76. 8vo.
5.--_Lecture on Scientific Education, delivered Saturday,
December 18th, 1830, before the Members of the Franklin
Institute_. By JAMES R. LEIB, A. M. Philadelphia: 1831. pp.
16. 8vo.
The subject of practical education has always been one of intense
interest with every reflecting individual in this Union. It is a
universally received axiom, that the foundation of a republic must be in
the information of its people; and that whilst the monarchical
governments of other countries may be successfully administered by an
oligarchy of intelligence, a government like our own cannot be carried
on without an extensive diffusion of knowledge amongst those who have to
select its very machinery. The political circumstances of a country will
also modify, most importantly, the course of instruction; and that
system which is adopted in the old Universities of Oxford, Cambridge,
and Dublin, in a nation in which the law of primogeniture exists, where
wealth is entailed in families, and where the colleges themselves are
richly endowed, may be impracticable or impolitic in a country not
possessing such incentives. Education must, therefore, be suited to the
country; and a long period must elapse before we can expect to have
individuals as well educated as in those universities, although the mass
of our community may be much more enlightened. We have no benefices, no
fellowships with fixed stipends, to offer for those who may devote
themselves to the profound study of certain subjects. In England and
Ireland, it is by no means uncommon for a student to remain at college
until he is twenty-two or twenty-three years of age, in the acquisition
of his preliminary education, or of those branches that are made to
precede a professional course of study--the whole period of his academic
residence being consumed in the study of these departments. In this
country, such a course would be as unadvisable as it is generally
impracticable. The equal division of property precludes any extensive
accumulation of wealth in families. The youth are compelled to launch
early into life: the more useful subjects of study have to be selected,
and the remainder are postponed as luxuries, to be acquired should
opportunity admit of indulgence.
In no country are the colleges or higher schools so numerous, in
proportion to the population, as in the United States.
In France there are three universities; in Italy, eight; in Great
Britain, eight; in Germany, twenty-two; and in Russia, seven: whilst in
the United States, we have thirteen institutions bearing the title of
universities, and thirty-three that of colleges; making in all forty-six
higher schools capable of conferring degrees: yet a very wrong inference
would be drawn, were we to affirm that the education of a nation is
always in a direct ratio with the number of its higher schools. Such
would be the fact, did these institutions assume an elevated standard in
the distribution of their highest honours, and were the condition of the
intermediate schools such that the youth could be sent to the university
so prepared as to be able to cultivate his studies there to the greatest
advantage. Unfortunately, in many parts of the United States the
condition of the intermediate schools and academics has been grievously
neglected; and the authorities of the universities have been compelled
to lower their standard, and to admit students totally unprepared for
more advanced studies. In this way many of the higher schools have
degenerated into mere gymnasia, or ordinary academies. This
circumstance, with the multiplication of institutions capable of
conferring degrees, has been attended with the additional evil, that, in
some, the highest honours have been, and are conferred for acquirements,
which would scarcely enable the possessors to enter the lowest classes
in others.
It seems, indeed, that the real or fancied insufficiency of most of our
existing institutions, gave occasion to the proposition for establishing
a university in New-York, and to the Convention, a review of whose
proceedings will enable us to offer some practical considerations and
reflections, deduced from some experience and meditation on this
momentous subject. "Much as our country," observes the Rev. _Dr.
Mathews_, in his opening address in behalf of the committee of the
university, "owes to her excellent colleges, the sentiment seems to be
general, that the time has arrived when she calls for something more;
when she requires institutions which shall give increased maturity to
her literature, and also an enlarged diffusion to the blessings of
education, and which she may present to the world as maintaining an
honourable competition with the universities of Europe." p. 14.
The establishment of a university in the city of New-York having been
determined upon, and "an amount of means" pledged to the object, which
would place the institution at its commencement on a liberal footing,
its friends, "believing it to be desirable, and that it would prove
highly gratifying to all who feel an interest in the important subject
of education, that a meeting should be convened of literary and
scientific men of our country, to confer on the general interests of
letters and liberal education," appointed a committee, with powers to
invite, as far as practicable, the attendance of such individuals in
behalf of the university. Accordingly, on the 20th of October last, a
number of literary and scientific gentlemen assembled from various parts
of the United States, when President Bates, of Middlebury College,
Vermont, was appointed president of the convention; and the Honourable
Albert Gallatin, and Walter Bowne, Esq. Mayor of the City, were named
vice presidents. The convention sat daily until the 23d inclusive, when
it adjourned _sine die_; but not without having provided for the
perpetuation of its species at a future period.
In an assemblage so constituted, it was not to be expected that,
excepting the notoriety occasioned by it, any great advantage could
accrue to the university or to the public from its deliberations; the
most discordant sentiments on almost all points of discipline and
instruction;--the views of the experienced and inexperienced--the
_experientia vera_, and the _experientia falsa_--of the contemplative
and the visionary, were to be anticipated; but we must confess, that
humble as were our expectations from the results of its labours, the
published record of its proceedings proves that we had pitched them too
high. The committee appear to us to have had no definite object--no
system--in bringing many of the subjects before the convention; every
discussion is arrested, without our being able to decide what was the
conclusion at which the meeting arrived: and
"Like a man to double business bound,
They stand in pause where they shall first begin,
And both neglect."
Of these debates the "Journal" is, doubtless, a faithful record, so far
as regards their succession; the brevity, however, of the minutes,
published by the secretary, renders the work very unsatisfactory; and
scarcely elevates it above the character of a log-book, if we make
exception of one or two excellent addresses--such as that of Mr.
Gallatin--which are reported at length; and of some (generally
indifferent) communications transmitted by their authors.
The first topic presented for the consideration of the convention,
was:--"_As to the universities of Europe; and how far the systems
pursued in them may be desirable for similar institutions in this
country_." On this subject, Dr. Lieber read a communication of interest
in relation to the organization, courses of study and discipline of the
German universities, which was referred to the committee of
arrangements. Mr. Woolsey, of New-York, gave an account of the French
colleges; their system of instruction and discipline; a few desultory
observations are next made by Mr. W. C. Woodbridge. Mr. Hasler flies off
at a tangent, and offers "a few remarks on the appointment of
professors," and is followed by Professor Silliman on the same subject.
Mr. Sparks presents a few observations and alludes to the organization
of Harvard College. President Bates gives the plan of choosing
professors adopted at the college over which he is placed; and Mr.
Keating, of Philadelphia, puts a _finale_ to the proceedings of the day
and to the question at the same time, by the expression of his views.
After this, we hear no more of this "topic," and we are left in the dark
whether the system or any part of the system of the universities of
Europe be desirable for similar institutions in this country.
It is a mere truism to remark, that the success of an institution must
be greatly dependent upon the character of its professors; hence, in all
universities, the best mode of selecting them has been a point of
earnest and careful inquiry. In some countries, they are appointed by
the government; in others, the office is obtained _au concours_. The
candidates being required to defend theses of their own composition, and
the most successful receiving the office; whilst in others, the faculty
have the power of supplying vacancies in their own body. In our own
country, no uniformity exists on this point. Harvard, by the scheme of
organization, is under the supervision and control of two separate
boards, called the _Corporation_, and _Board of Overseers_. The former
is composed of seven persons, of whom the president of the college is
one, by virtue of his office; the other six being chosen from the
community at large. The board of overseers consists of the governor and
lieutenant-governor of the state, the members of the council and of the
senate, the speaker of the house of representatives, and the president
of the college _ex-officio_; and, also, of fifteen laymen and fifteen
clergymen, who are elected, as vacancies occur, by the whole board. This
board has a controlling power, which, however, is rarely exerted over
the acts of the corporation.
The professors are all chosen, in the first instance, by the
corporation, or rather nominated for the approval or rejection of the
board of overseers: "but as a case has rarely, if ever been known, in
which such a nomination has been rejected by the overseers, the election
of all the professors and immediate officers, may be said to pertain in
practice to the corporation alone. It is probable, however, that this is
seldom done without consulting the members of the faculty into which a
professor is to be chosen." _Journal_, p. 82.
In the generality of our institutions, the appointing power is vested in
a board of trustees, who have no controlling body placed over them. In
almost all, however, we find from the Journal of the Convention--that
the faculty are consulted--"that" according to Dr. Bates, "experience
had proved the wisdom of consulting the faculty on any contemplated
appointment of a professor; and that, in fact, though not professedly,
yet in effect, professors are appointed by the instructers or
faculty,--and thus by securing their good will towards the new
incumbent, amity was enforced." P. 83.
The great difficulty exists in becoming acquainted with the
qualifications of the candidate, especially if he has not been
previously engaged in teaching. There can be no better mode of testing
the capacity of a teacher, than in the class room; but if this be not
available, the recommendation of _sufficient_ individuals, with us, has
always to be taken; and in this, a certain degree of risk must
necessarily be incurred. It is never, however, a matter of so much
moment to procure a professor, who is pre-eminently informed upon the
subject of his department, as one that is capable of communicating the
knowledge he possesses, is systematic, has a mind that can enable him to
improve and to take part as a member of the faculty in the management of
the university, in which the greatest firmness, good sense, and ability
are occasionally demanded. "A man," says the illustrious Jefferson, "is
not qualified for a professor, knowing nothing but merely his own
profession. He should be otherwise well educated as to the sciences
generally; able to converse understandingly with the scientific men with
whom he is associated, and to assist in the councils of the faculty on
any subject of science in which they may have occasion to deliberate.
Without this he will incur their contempt and bring disreputation on the
institution."[1]
Young professors are, on the above accounts, _caeteris paribus_,
preferable to old. They have not had time to acquire any bad system; are
energetic in the acquisition of information, and become attached to the
occupation. In institutions where the faculty live within the same
walls, it is, likewise, important that the disposition of the individual
should be taken into the account, in order that every thing may go on
harmoniously. A kind, conciliating deportment, will also gain the
respect of the student, and tend materially to discipline.
The best system for the appointment of professors, perhaps, would
be--that the faculty should nominate, and the trustees approve or
reject. It is improbable, that they would ever be guided by any feelings
which would be counter to the prosperity of the institution; whilst they
would generally have better opportunities of becoming acquainted with
the qualifications of individuals than the board of trustees. This
course appears to us less objectionable than any other; and we are glad
to find that it was suggested by Mr. Sparks, in the convention.--
"No good policy," he remarks, "would introduce an efficient
member into a small body, where such a step would be likely
to endanger the harmony of feeling and action. For this
reason, it may be well worthy of consideration, whether, in
the scheme of a new constitution, it is not better to
provide for the nomination of a professor by the members of
the faculty, with whom he is to be associated. Such a body
would be as capable as any other, to say the least, of
judging in regard to the requisite qualifications of a
candidate, and much more capable of deciding whether his
personal qualities, traits of character, and habits of
thinking, would make him acceptable in their community. It
seems evident, therefore, that something is lost and nothing
gained by referring this nomination to another body of men,
who have no interest in common with the party chiefly
concerned. It is enough that the electing or sanctioning
power dwells in a separate tribunal." P. 83.
Much diversity of opinion has prevailed on the subject of remuneration
to professors. In some universities they are paid entirely by fees from
the students. The objection urged against this, is, that the professor
is too much dependent upon the student, and that this feeling may
materially interfere with discipline. To those who consider that there
ought to be no discipline in our universities--and strange as it may
seem, such views were expressed in the convention--this plan of
remuneration can be liable to no objection. Nor to institutions in which
there are no resident pupils, like the one proposed in New-York, would
the objection apply. On the contrary, the mode in which the professor
receives his remuneration entirely from the students, the stimulus which
is thus excited, and the feeling that his emoluments may be
proportionate to his energy and success in conveying instruction, may
have the most beneficial effect upon his exertions. Accordingly, we find
the most meritorious application on the part of the professors in our
great medical schools; and a degree of enthusiasm aroused, which might
not be elicited were the mode of recompensing them other than it is.
On the other hand, it has been maintained, that the professor should be
in no wise dependent upon the student; that he should receive no fees,
but be paid by a fixed salary. The objection urged against this system
is, that there is here no stimulus, and that as the professor feels his
income altogether independent of his exertions, he will relax in his
efforts, neglect his duties, become inattentive to his own improvement,
and uncourteous in his behaviour to the pupil. This is plausible in
theory, and doubtless, has occasionally been found to be the fact. It is
not likely to occur, however, if the professor be held rigidly
responsible, and if the tenure of his office be on good behaviour,
instead of for life. It is to be calculated, likewise, that every
professor is a gentleman, and that the honour of the situation is a part
of the emolument. These should be a sufficient guarantee that his duties
will be performed energetically, and that his behaviour will be
courteous. Should this not be the case, he is unfit for his situation,
and the trustees should have moral courage enough to remove him.
Experience, too, has, we think, sufficiently proved, that the evils of
fixed salaries, under the tenure _dum bene se gesserit_, are more
imaginary than real: some of the very best institutions are conducted
upon this system, in various parts of Europe and of this country. On the
whole, perhaps, where the students reside within the precincts, a
combination of a fixed salary, of a sufficient amount to enable the
professor to be, to a certain extent, independent of the student, with
the payment of a fee from the student for tuition, is the most politic
and satisfactory mode of remuneration. In this manner, he receives a
certain stimulus to exertion, whilst other objections to both exclusive
systems are obviated. Experience, however, shows, that although the zeal
and industry of a professor may occasion a slight fluctuation in the
numbers that resort to his school, this influence is very limited in its
action. It is the character of the study which attracts followers; and
whilst one department will be crowded to excess, independently of the
merits or demerits of the professor, others will be almost entirely
neglected. This will occur in all institutions in which professional, or
extremely advanced, or unusual studies are taught. Every student,
whether he may be intended for one of the learned professions, or for
any other pursuit, considers it absolutely necessary to attend certain
academical departments;--those of ancient languages and mathematics for
example;--whilst comparatively few can be expected to attend the
professional chairs, or the higher branches of study, notwithstanding
the subjects may be taught in the most attractive and sufficient manner.
Unless the manners of a professor are strikingly obnoxious, but little
effect will be produced in the numbers frequenting his school: and if
they are so, it is a sufficient ground for removal.
In those universities in which the professors are remunerated by a fixed
salary, this inequality of attendance is not felt; but it is a serious
evil, where the emolument accrues wholly or in part in the form of
tuition fees. The greatest inequality may prevail in the compensation;
and those teachers who are engaged in the most abstruse departments,
will necessarily be worse paid than those who are engaged in
superintending the elementary branches. Suppose the department of
mathematics to be divided into the elementary and transcendental: if
each be remunerated by an equal fee from his students, the latter cannot
expect to have an income of more than one-twentieth part of that of his
colleague. This we know is a ground of much dissatisfaction in many
institutions, and attempts have been made to obviate it. Meiners,[2] a
reflecting writer on the subject of universities, thinks it would be
proper to correct this inequality by making a portion of the fees
received common stock: but if we admit that the abilities and attention
of the professors are equal, and that the same number of hours is
employed in teaching the various branches, there seems to be no reason
why the remuneration of one professor should be permitted to exceed that
of his colleague. On this subject, some pertinent remarks were made by
Dr. Lieber, in which he agrees, in many respects, with his countryman,
_Meiners_.
"Now I ask," says he, "how much even Professor Gauss, _le
plus grand des mathematiciens_, as _La Grange_ called him,
has realized from his lectures? Mathematics, at least the
higher branches of them, never can be very popular; I mean,
it is impossible that they should be generally studied, and
it would be to consign a professor to absolute indigence, if
government should leave professors of mathematics dependent
on the honorarium paid by their students. I studied
mathematics under the celebrated Pfaff at Halle, whom _La
Grange_ called _un des premiers mathematiciens_, and we were
never more than twenty in his lecture room, of whom I fully
believe not much more than half paid the _honorarium_, which
was very small." P. 58.