"Yet I believe, that generally speaking, it is better for
professors and students to have fees paid for their
lectures, for various reasons, although it would be unsafe
to let professors be solely or chiefly depending upon them,
for it would be unsafe to settle such annuities upon persons
intended to live for science, or guarantee them, forever, an
easy life. It has besides been found, that generally,
students attend those lectures more carefully for which they
pay. With the different branches of instruction, the
principle upon which professorships are to be established,
ought to vary. In a city, in which many students of medicine
always will be assembled, it may be safe to let the
professor greatly depend upon the fees of the students,
whilst a professor of Hebrew ought to be provided for in
such a way, that he may follow the difficult study of
Oriental languages, without the direct care for his support,
in case the number of students would be too small for this
purpose, as it generally will prove." P. 65.
In most of our colleges, the president has some control over the course
of education in the schools of the institution; and, consequently, over
the professors. Such a plan is, however, impolitic. No control whatever
ought to be exerted over the teacher. If qualified--and if not he is not
fitted for his situation--he ought to be left to himself, and to follow
that system which he conceives best adapted to develop the intellect of
his pupils; at the same time he should be held rigidly responsible for
his free agency. In the University of Virginia, as well as in other of
the higher schools of the country, the professor is required to send in
a weekly report of the number of lectures he has delivered; the daily
examinations instituted; the length of time occupied in each; and this
report of the mode in which his duties have been executed, is laid
before the board of visitors at their next meeting. In this manner
delinquencies can be detected, and the appropriate corrective be
applied.
Occasionally, however, it may happen, that a professor may be indolent,
and inaccurate in his reports; and it may be a question, whether it is
not advantageous that the presiding officer should have authority to
attest how often a professor really does meet his class, with the length
of time expended, and the precise course of instruction adopted; and
then to report to the trustees, but not to interfere himself in the
rectification of abuses.
In the discussion of this subject in the Convention, Mr. Keating has
committed a blunder, regarding the University of Virginia.
"He would like to see the president, in truth, the head of
the university, occupying a distinguished station in the
board of trustees, controlling all the faculties,
superintending all the departments. It should be a situation
such as an experienced and retiring statesman would be proud
to fill. A good example had been set by the new University
of Virginia." P. 86.
Now, the rector of that institution is merely a member of the board of
visiters, chosen from out the body to preside over them, has no
delegated authority, but meets the other visiters once a year, and
presides over their deliberations, without, however, having a casting
vote. The chairman of the faculty, chosen annually by the board of
visiters, from amongst the professors, is the real president, and
possesses the powers usually granted to the presidents of colleges. We
are surprised, by the bye, to observe from the journal of the
Convention, that the University of Virginia was entirely unrepresented
there. It has now been established six years, and has been proceeding on
a tide of successful experiment. It is the first effort that has been
made in this country to cast off the trammels that have fettered
practical instruction; to suffer each to take the bent of his own
inclination in the selection of his studies, requiring for the
attainment of its highest honours, _qualifications_ only, and rejecting
_time_ altogether. Although the first attempt in this country on a large
scale, the plan has been long adopted in other countries, particularly
in Germany, which has been so justly celebrated for the novelty and
excellence of its academic instruction; yet in no country can such an
experiment be regarded with more interest than in the United States,
where, for the reasons already assigned, the youth are compelled to
attain, if practicable, the strictly useful, and to strive for their own
support at a very early period of their career.
In the debates of the Convention, we find few allusions to that
institution, and wherever it is referred to, the most lamentable
ignorance of its economy is exhibited, and the greatest errors are
committed. In it there is an entire separation of the legislative from
the executive power; the board of visiters exercising the former--the
board of professors, or faculty, the latter. This has its advantages and
inconveniences. In many of our colleges for resident students, the
president is, _ex officio_, presiding officer of the board of visiters,
so that he forms a part of the two _powers_. Where the president is at
the same time a professor this is apt to create heart burnings and
jealousies, and gives him a decided, and often unfair preponderance in
any dispute with his brother professors, in which the decision of the
board of trustees may be requested; whilst, if the executive power have
no voice in the deliberations of the superior board; and especially if
the visiters reside at a distance from the institution, laws are apt to
be enacted, which create great dissatisfaction and confusion, which have
not been suggested by experience, and which, consequently, are either
wholly inoperative, unfeasible, or impolitic. To obviate these evils the
executive might have a delegate at the meetings of the legislative body,
who, even if he had no vote, might be expected to take part in those
deliberations which regarded the rules and regulations of the
university, or the interests of the body to which he belonged; but in
the discussion of other topics, his attendance might be dispensed with.
In this manner, the legislative body would have the advantage of the
voice of experience, and the faculty, by choosing their own delegate,
could always be represented, should discussions arise between them and
their presiding officer. Nothing is more certain, than that laws which
seem easy of execution, and admirably conceived, are often found, in
practice, to be wholly unavailable and injudicious. But the mischief
does not end here. The respect of the student is any thing but increased
towards the board that conceives, or the executive which attempts to
fulfil such regulations. By the enactments lying before us, of almost
all the well regulated institutions of this country, we find, that the
board of professors are requested by the trustees to suggest to them
such laws as experience may indicate; this is wise; the faculty are
unquestionably the best judges, and no non-resident can possibly have
the necessary experience.
Well adapted rules are the best safeguards for the success of any
university, where the students reside within the precincts especially.
They should be simple, yet not trivial; efficient, yet not unnecessarily
rigorous, and should be drawn up, if not perspicuously, at least
intelligibly. What shall we say to such cases as the following, which we
copy from the published laws of one of the oldest colleges of this
Union?
"No person, other than a student or other member of the
college, shall be admitted as a boarder at the college
table. No liquors shall be furnished or used at table,
_except_ beer, cider, toddy, or _spirits and water_!"
"No student shall be permitted to lodge or board, or without
permission from the president or a professor, go _into_ a
tavern."