THE HOPKINS UNIVERSITY

The _Baltimore American_, discussing the plan of the Hopkins

University in that city, says: "The _Nation_ suggests to the Board

of Trustees a university that would leave Latin, Greek, mathematics,

and the elements of natural science out of its curriculum." This is

so great a mistake that we are at a loss to understand how it could

have been made. The _Nation_ has never suggested anything of the

kind. The university which the _Nation_ has expressed the hope the

trustees would found is simply a university with such a high

standard for admission on all subjects that the professors would be

saved the necessity of teaching the rudiments of either Latin,

Greek, mathematics, or natural science; or, in other words, that the

country would be saved considerable waste of skilled labor. The

reason why we have ventured to expect this of the Hopkins trustees

is that they enjoy the all but unprecedented advantage of being left

in possession of a very large bequest, with complete liberty, within

very wide limits, as to the disposition of it. In other words, they

are to found a university with it, but as to the kind of university

they may exercise their discretion.

That this is a very exceptional position everybody familiar with the

history of American colleges knows. All the older colleges are bound

to the state, or to certain religious denominations, by laws or

usages or precedents which impose a certain tolerably fixed

character either on the subjects or on the mode of teaching them, or

on both. They have traditions to uphold, or denominational interests

to care for, or political prejudices to satisfy. The newer ones, on

the other hand, are apt to have incurred a bondage even worse still,

in having to carry out the wishes of a founder who, in ninety-nine

cases out of a hundred, had only a faint notion of the nature and

needs of a university, and in endowing one sought rather to erect a

monument to his memory than to found a seat of learning. In so far

as he was interested in the curriculum, he probably desired that it

should be such as would satisfy some want which he himself felt, or

thought he felt, in early life, or should diffuse some social or

religious or political crotchet on which his fancy had secretly fed

during his years of active exertion, and on the success of which he

came to think, in the latter part of his life, that the best

interests of the community were dependent. The number of these

honorably ambitious but ill-informed and somewhat eccentric

testators increases every year, as the country grows in wealth and

the habit of giving to public objects gains in strength.

The consequence is that we are threatened with the spectacle during

the coming century of a great waste of money by well-meaning persons

in the establishment all over the country of institutions calling

themselves "universities," which are either so feebly equipped as

rather to hinder than help the cause of education, or so completely

committed by their organization to the propagation of certain social

or religious theories as to deserve the appellation of mission

stations rather than of colleges. Education is now an art of

exceeding delicacy and complexity. To master it, so as to have a

trustworthy opinion as to the relative value of studies and as to

the best mode of pursuing them, and as to the organization of

institutions devoted to the work of instruction, a man needs both

learning and experience. The giving him money to employ in his

special work, therefore, without leaving him discretion as to the

manner in which he shall use it, is to prepare almost certainly for

its waste in more than one direction. To make the most of the

resources of the country for educational purposes, it is necessary

above all things that they should be placed at the disposal of those

who have made education a special study, and who are free, as we

understand the Hopkins trustees to be, from any special bias or bond,

and are ready or willing to look at the subject from every side.

Their liberty, of course, brings with it great responsibility--all

the greater for the reasons we have been enumerating.

Now, as to the use which they should make of this liberty, the

_Baltimore American_ fears that if they found a university of the

class sketched by us some weeks ago, "the people of Maryland would

be greatly disappointed--there would not be over fifty students,"

and "there would be a great outcry against the investment of three

and a half millions of dollars for the benefit of so small a

number." Whether the people of Maryland will be disappointed or not,

depends on the amount of consideration they give the matter. If they

are satisfied that the foundation of such a university as is now

talked of is the best use that can be made of the money, they will

not be disappointed, and there will be no "outcry" at all. Being an

intelligent people, they will on reflection see that the value of a

university by no means depends solely on the proportion borne by the

number of its students to the amount of its revenues, because,

judged in this way--that is, as instruments of direct popular

benefit--all the universities in the country might be pronounced

failures. The bulk of the community derives no direct benefit from

them at all. Harvard, for instance, has an endowment of about five

million dollars, we believe, and the total number of the students is

only 1,200, while the population of the State of Massachusetts is

1,500,000, so that, even supposing all the students to come from

Massachusetts, which they do not, less than one person in every

thousand profits by the university.

The same story might be told of Yale or any other college.

Considered as what are called popular institutions--that is,

institutions from which everybody can or does derive some

calculable, palpable benefit--the universities of this and every

other country are useless, and there ought on this theory to be a

prodigious "outcry" against them, and they ought, on the principle

of equality, if allowed to exist at all, to be allowed to exist only

on condition that they will give a degree, or at least offer an

education, to every male citizen of sound mind. But nobody takes

this view of them. The poorest and most ignorant hod-carrier would

not hold, if asked, that because he cannot go to college there ought

to be no colleges. Sensible people in every country acknowledge that

a high education can in the nature of things be only obtained by a

very small proportion of the population; but that the few who seek

it, and can afford to take it, should get it, and should get it of

the best quality, they hold to be a public benefit. Now, why a

public benefit? The service that Harvard or Yale renders to the

community certainly does not lie simply in the fact that it

qualifies a thousand young men every year to earn a livelihood. They

would earn a livelihood whether they went to college or not. The

vast majority of men earn a livelihood without going to college or

thinking of it. Indeed, it is doubted by many persons, and with much

show of reason, whether a man does not earn it all the more readily

for not going to college at all; and as regards the work of the

world of all kinds, the great bulk of it is done, and well done, by

persons who have not received a university education and do not

regret it. So that the benefits which the country derives from the

universities consists mainly in the refining and elevating

influences which they create, in the taste for study and research

which they diffuse, in the social and political ideals which they

frame and hold up for admiration, in the confidence in the power of

knowledge which they indirectly spread among the people, and in the

small though steady contributions they make to that reverence for

"things not seen" in which the soul of the state may be said to lie,

and without which it is nothing better than a factory or an

insurance company.

There is nothing novel about the considerations we are here urging.

The problem over which university reformers have been laboring in

every country during the past forty years has been, how to rid the

universities, properly so called, of the care of the feeble,

inefficient, and poorly prepared students, and reserve their

teaching for the better-fitted, older, and more matured; or, in

other words, how, in the interest both of economy and culture, to

reserve the highest teaching power of the community for the most

promising material. It is forty years since John Stuart Mill wrote a

celebrated attack on the English universities, then in a very low

condition, in which he laid it down broadly that the end above all

for which endowed universities ought to exist was "to keep alive

philosophy," leaving "the education of common minds for the common

business of life" for the most part to private enterprise. This

seemed at the time exacting too much, and it doubtless seems so

still; but it is nevertheless true that ever since that period

universities of the highest class, both in Europe and in this

country, have been working in that direction--striving, that is to

say, either to sift the applicants for admission, by imposing

increasingly severe tests, and thus presenting to the professors

only pupils of the highest grade to work upon; or, at all events, if

not repelling the ill-fitted, expending all their strength in

furnishing the highest educational advantages to the well-fitted. In

the last century, Harvard and Yale were doing just the kind of work

that the high schools now do--that is, taking young lads and

teaching them the elements of literature. At the present day they

are throwing this work as far as possible on the primary schools,

and reserving their professors and libraries and apparatus, as far

as the state of the country and the conditions of their organization

will permit, for those older and more advanced students who bring to

the work of learning both real ardor and real preparation. A boy has

to know more to get into either of them to-day than his grandfather

knew when he graduated. Nevertheless, with all the efforts they can

make after this true economy of power and resources, there is in

both of them a large amount of waste of labor. There are men in both

of them, and in various other colleges, much of whose work is almost

as much a misuse of energy and time as if they were employed so many

hours a day in carrying hods of mortar, simply because they are

doing what the masters of primary schools ought to do, and what no

man at a university ought to be asked to do. It is a kind of work,

too, which, if it have to be done in colleges at all, is already

abundantly provided for by endowment. No Maryland youth who desires

to learn a little mathematics, get a smattering of classics, and

some faint notions of natural science, or even to support himself by

manual labor while doing this, will suffer if the Hopkins endowment

is used for higher work. The country swarms already with

institutions which meet his needs, and in which he can graduate with

ease to himself and credit to his State. The trustees of this one

will do him and the State and the whole country most service,

therefore, by providing a place to which, after he has got hold of

the rudiments at some other college, he can come, if he has the

right stuff in him, and pursue to the end the studies for which all

universities should really be reserved.

Reflections and Comments 1865-1895 · 第 20 / 33 题