C. REASONS FOR THE ADOPTION OF THIS DEFINITION AS THE BASIS OF COLLEGE ADMISSION

College admission should be based solely upon the completion of a well-planned high-school course. The committee submits the following argument in defense of this proposition.

First: On the one hand, many students do not go to college because they took those courses which were dictated by their aptitudes and needs instead of courses prescribed by the colleges.

A committee of the Boston Head Masters' Association, in a report approved by that association last fall, stated the difficulty as follows: "It frequently happens that a pupil in the public high school does not discover that he is likely to go to college until one, two, or three years of the high-school course have been completed. As matters stand now, many of the courses in which he has received instruction and in which he may have done excellent work are entirely useless to him in so far as he may apply them to the purposes of college admission. The Committee are of the opinion that this is decidedly wrong."

The idea that the student should, early in his high-school course, decide whether he is going to college ignores one of the chief functions of the high school; namely, that of inspiring capable students with the desire for further education. It is coming to be clearly recognized that the chief characteristic of education in a democracy as contrasted with that in a society dominated by class distinction, is the principle of the "open door." This principle of the "open door" is part of the great idea of the conservation of human gifts. It demands that personal worth should be recognized wherever found. The college is one of the many doors that should be kept open. The colleges themselves bear tribute to this principle in the innumerable scholarships that they offer to boys and girls in humble circumstances. In fact, it has long been recognized in this country that one boy who seeks a college education because of a strong inner purpose in the face of obstacles is worth to the college and to society a dozen boys who go to college merely because it is regarded as the proper thing to do.

Second: The attempt that is often made to supplement the work now required by the colleges with such additional work as is required by the community and by a more adequate understanding of the needs of real boys and girls, is highly unsatisfactory. May 7, 1910, the High School Teachers Association of New York City issued a statement in which they affirmed:

"We believe that the interests of the forty thousand boys and girls who annually attend the nineteen high schools of this city cannot be wisely and fully served under present college-entrance requirements. Our experience seems to prove the existence of a wide discrepancy between 'preparation for life' and 'preparation for college' as defined by college-entrance requirements.

"The attempt to prepare the student for college under the present requirements and at the same time to teach him such other subjects as are needed for life is unsatisfactory. Under these conditions the student often has too much to do. The quality of all his work is likely to suffer. The additional subjects are slighted because they do not count for admission to college. In such a course it is impossible for the student to give these subjects as much time and energy as social conditions demand."

Third: Even by faithfully following the usual college prescription, the best preparation for college is not secured. Abraham Flexner, in his book The American College, shows how the college is standing in its own way. He says that "The motive on which the college vainly relies, self-realization, has got to be rendered operative at the earlier stage." "As a matter of fact," he adds, "the secondary period is far more favorable than the college to free exploration of the boy." The restrictive preparatory courses prescribed by the colleges do not afford the kind of experience needed in the high school.

Fourth: In the attempt to prepare for the widely varying requirements of different colleges the energies of the school are dissipated. The energy that should be devoted to meeting actual individual needs of students is expended upon the study of college catalogs. An institution that should be encouraged to develop internally is made subordinate and subservient. As an illustration of the confusion in the requirements of different colleges, we find that one college requires one foreign language, counts work in a second, and gives no credit for a third; another college requires two foreign languages, and requires one unit in a third, unless music or physics is presented as a substitute; and a third college absolutely requires three foreign languages.

Fifth: But by far the most serious objection to the present condition is, as Commissioner Snedden says, to be found in the restrictive effect upon true high-school development. The high school today is the arena in which our greatest educational problems should be worked out. High-school attendance in this country has increased almost fourfold within the last twenty years. If the college will recognize the true function of the high school this marvelous growth will continue unabated and the American high school will become an institution unparalleled as a factor for democratic living. It is doubtful whether any nation ever before possessed such an opportunity.

SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT

The committee submits the following additional statement and recommendation: The universal education to which our institutions are now committed is radically different from the education for a literary class to which we were formerly devoted. So long as our education was designed for the few it was possible to require candidates for that education to conform to a certain definite intellectual type, and to reject all other candidates. That type was defined in terms of Latin, Greek, and Mathematics -substitutes not allowed. This definition actually debarred many individuals who did not entirely conform to the type but who possessed other strong qualities that would have made them valuable members of the learned professions. Nevertheless, the injustice of this procedure aroused no strong opposition because there were a sufficient number of other candidates conforming to the type to fill the very limited number of positions in the then existing professions.

As soon as the advantages of a higher education made a strong appeal to a somewhat larger group of men and women, the rigor of the former requirement of Latin, Greek, and Mathematics was relaxed by reducing the amounts required and by allowing a substitution of modern language for part or all of the classical languages. This process was characterized by its opponents as "letting down the bars." Such it was, not so much in the sense that it made education easier, as in the sense that it permitted education to make its appeal to a much larger group of men and women.

We believe that the time has arrived when it is the duty of those engaged in education to consider the importance of making our education appeal to still other students. Today it is impossible in many communities for a boy or a girl to obtain even a highschool education unless he or she can do passing work in both mathematics and a foreign language, Schoolmen in general are familiar with students, usually girls, who do good work in languages, history, and certain sciences, but who cannot master high-school or college mathematics. There are other students, mostly boys, who do good work in mathematics, science, and history, but who have exceptional difficulty with foreign languages. A student of the latter type would find ample field for the exercise of all his linguistic ability in a reasonable mastery of the English language.

In the East we find a tendency to attach particular importance to the study of foreign languages, and in the West we find a tendency to emphasize mathematics. But native abilities are not geographical quantities.

We believe that insistence upon the study of mathematics and foreign language as a sine qua non of an education is based largely upon the belief that both are indis

pensable for intellectual discipline. But we know that many of our greatest men have been deficient in one or the other of these accomplishments. They evidently secured their intellectual power by other processes. The disciplinary possibilities of other subjects are not yet fully recognized.

In view of the foregoing statement, we recommend that Section 4,of the definition of a well-planned high-school course be supplemented by the following additional statement: 4 (a). IN PLACE OF EITHER TWO UNITS OF MATHEMATICS OR TWO UNITS OF A FOREIGN LANGUAGE, THE SUBSTITUTION UNDER PROPER SUPERVISION SHOULD BE ALLOWED OF TWO UNITS CONSISTING OF A SECOND UNIT OF SOCIAL SCIENCE (INCLUDING HISTORY) AND A

SECOND UNIT OF NATURAL SCIENCE.

In other words, there should be allowed under proper supervision the selection of four units from the following:

1) Two units of one foreign language.

2) Two units of mathematics.

3) Two units consisting of a second unit of social science and a second unit of natural science.

According to this provision it would be possible under proper supervision to substitute the work in columns (B) or (C) for the work in column (A).

Consequently the student without mathematics must present three units in two subjects and two units in the two remaining subjects, thereby demonstrating ability in four lines of work.

Similarly, the student without foreign language must present three units in two subjects and two units in the two remaining subjects.

To carry out this plan we would urge that at least many of the larger colleges should make special provision to continue the education of students of whom it has been discovered that the requirement of mathematics or the requirement of foreign language is an obstacle to the continuation of their education.

Respectfully submitted,

CLARENCE D. KINGSLEY, Chairman

Manual Training High School, Brooklyn, N.Y.

WILLIAM M. BUTLER,

Principal, Yeatman High School, St. Louis, Mo.

FRANK B. DYER,

Superintendent of Schools, Cincinnati, Ohio.

CHARLES W. EVANS,

Principal, High School, East Orange, N.J.

CHARLES H. JUDD,

Professor of Education, University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill.

ALEXIS F. LANGE,

Dean of College Faculties, University of California, Berkeley, Cal.

W. D. LEWIS,

Principal, William Penn High School, Philadelphia, Pa.

WILLIAM ORR,

Deputy State Commissioner of Education, Boston, Mass.
WILLIAM H. SMILEY,

Principal, East Side High School, Denver, Colo.

See 4 above.

Committee

The chairman herewith appends the following statement from Professor Charles H. Judd, expressing the opinion that even greater latitude should be allowed to the high school and explaining an important principle that should at this time be brought to the attention of all concerned with the relations of school and college.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In signing the report, I am very glad indeed to express my sympathy with the general outlines of the whole statement which is here made by the committee. It is my opinion that somewhat greater latitude should be allowed the high school in the organization of its courses. To this end, I should personally prefer that the various requirements be not specific in terms of the subjects. The only specification which I find it possible to favor is that which requires a certain amount of coherent work in the high school. To this end, I believe that it would be wiser to require two majors of three units, and one minor of two units. This is in keeping with the plan recently adopted by the University of Chicago.

One other principle should, I believe, be incorporated in any report which deals with the relations of high schools and colleges. These two institutions should follow up the work of high-school students much more completely than is now done. A student who comes from a high school into a college, should have his relative rank in the high-school class reported to the college. The work he is carrying on in the college should be carefully observed, and reports should be sent back to the high school, stating the rank of the student in college. Both institutions would profit by this exchange of information. The college would learn by such a comparative study of the student's work whether or not its courses are articulating directly with those of the high school. The high school would learn whether or not it is articulating with the college. It does not necessarily follow that the high school should in every case articulate with the college in such a way as to insure the high standing of its students in college.

Without attempting to pass on that question, however, the information that would be gained by the study of relative marks would be very valuable for the purpose of bringing to the consciousness of both institutions the character of the work which the students are able to do.

I should appreciate the opportunity of adding this comment to the report if you do not feel that it would encumber the committee's statement. In any case, I am prepared to sign the general report. These comments are merely added in the hope that the principles outlined in this report may be extended somewhat further than the committee has found it expedient to carry them.

CHARLES H. JUDD.

THE NEW HARVARD PLAN FOR COLLEGE ADMISSION

HARVEY N. DAVIS, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS,
HARVARD UNIVERSITY, CAMBRIDGE, MASS.

What is now called the "old plan" at Harvard was adopted substantially in its present form in 1898. It is essentially a quantitative scheme. Each of the academic subjects commonly taught in high schools at that time is assigned a value in points, determined partly by the length of time required for its study and partly by the probable maturity of the student at the time in his course when it is usually undertaken. Of these points each candidate is expected to collect twenty-six, much in the same spirit that he might collect trading stamps, the possession of a complete collection entitling him to a premium in the form of a college education. Even if this collection is not quite complete, a candidate is usually admitted

"on condition" and is expected to supply the missing points later, either by attempting other admission examinations in addition to his regular work, or by "sacrificing" courses. In either case, the weaker the student, the heavier the burden which he invariably undertakes to carry in his first year, so as to keep up with his class. The number of men admitted under a handicap of this sort is appallingly large in every American college where such a system is used. At Harvard until within two years, it regularly included more than half the class. The result has been an inevitable lowering of the standards of work wherever these overloaded freshmen appeared in any numbers, and an inevitable relaxation of the minimum. standard of admission thru a false belief that the system safeguarded itself.

These and other facts led the faculty about two years ago to undertake a thoro investigation of the admission situation.

It appeared that in each of the two ways in which an admission system ought to be useful, this quantitative scheme was not a success. In the first place, regarded merely as a machine for attracting and recognizing desirable freshmen, it was far from efficient. Thru its complication, its inelasticity, and its merely quantitative rigor, it was steadily opening an already overwide breach between Harvard University and the public high schools of the country. The percentage of freshmen entering from public high schools was found to be only between 40 and 45, and if three large schools near Cambridge, which are practically fitting-schools for Harvard, are omitted, the percentage of public-high-school boys was below 30. Furthermore, these freshmen were largely drawn from the immediate neighborhood, only about a fifth of them having been prepared outside of New England. And all this was largely due, I am sure, not to provincialism, but to the administrative barriers set up by peculiarities and maladjustments in the scheme of admission. It is indeed significant that of the 114 applicants who were examined at the first trial of the new plan in June, 1911, over 80 per cent were from public high schools and 50 per cent were prepared outside of New England.

But no scheme of admission is merely a mechanism of selection. It invariably has an indirect but powerful influence on the policies and standards of the schools that deal with it. Often in the past, this indirect influence has been regarded as the most valuable aspect of an admission system, and requirements have been framed, and examinations have been set, with great and even chief regard for their "educative effect upon the teachers.' This mixture of purposes I regard as extremely unfortunate. There can be no question but that, in the formative period of American high schools, some such external pressure was valuable to them. But I hope and believe that that period in their development is past, and that the colleges may now regard their admission systems solely as instruments of selection.