Page images

properly accomplished. This resolution, it will be seen, concerns itself only with courses of study which profess to be "classical.” It does not imply that any school may not prepare pupils for courses not so described, in the case of colleges which admit such students, with a shorter term and a smaller amount of study in Greek.

The immediate occasion of this resolution was the proposal made to various associations of teachers to recommend to the schools and colleges which they represent the adoption of the four programs recently submitted by the committee of ten as providing adequate preparation in all lines of study for the colleges and scientific schools of the United States. Only one of these four programs includes Greek at all, and this is styled the "Classical Program;" its general adoption would therefore do much to fix the standard of preparation in classics for all our colleges. This so-called "Classical Program” provides that Greek shall normally begin in the third year of the four years' preparatory course, and that only two years shall be given to it. It is true, that, in certain exceptional cases (mentioned in a footnote), schools may “substitute" Greek for German or French in the second year; but this substitution is evidently not what the authors of the program desire or expect, or they would have made this the regular, and not the exceptional, arrangement. Nothing can be more obvious than the deliberate intention of the committee of ten (at least of those meinbers who accept the report in full) to confine Greek to the last two years of preparation for college, and gradually to establish two years as the maximum of time which even the best schools will regularly give to that language.

It is of the highest importance that all classical teachers in both schools and colleges, and all who have the direction of schools in which classical students are prepared for college, should understand what this "Classical Program” means. It means that the standard of preparation in Greek for our colleges is to be lowered to what has been known as the "elementary Greek" or the "minimum Greek" in elective schemes of admission; in other words, that there is to be no systematic study of Homer, or Herodotus, or of Greek composition, in even our best schools; and that no provision is to be regularly made, even for pupils who show special aptitude for classical study, to advance beyond the merest elements in Greek. It means that our schools are seriously advised to adopt a course of study which now would not admit their pupils at all to any first-class college having fixed requisites for admission, and would not admit them to any of the freshman Greek courses which are regularly taken by classical students and are necessary to prepare them for the higher courses in any college having elective requisites for admission. The scheme is therefore unintelligible unless it anticipates a reduction of the grade of all the regular Greek courses in the colleges, so that the work now done in the last year of school shall become the ordinary work of the first year in college, with a corresponding reduction of all the higher work. There is no escape from this alternative. Either the schools which adopt this “Classical Program” must cease to prepare pupils for the ordinary classical courses in our colleges, or the colleges must lower their standard in Greek by a whole year to suit such schools. Either of these results would be disastrous; and we can hardly beliere that either of them, with all its consequences, was seriously contemplated by the framers of the proposed program.

The bad effects just indicated would not be confined to the classical courses in college. The importance of Greek to students who intend to devote themselves to the study of English or any other modern language, whether from the literary or the philological point of view, has never been denied in Europe, and is not denied by any competent American scholar in these departments of learning. For students specially interested in English literature, for example, to enter college with no knowledge of Homer, under the impression that their time has been spent to the

best advantage in the preparatory school, would be a grave error. For such students to be forced to begin their acquaintance with Greek literature in the freshman year would seriously cripple their work in their chosen department. And this would be the result if the program in question were adopted; for it is not till he reaches Homer or Herodotus that a boy begins to understand, that, in studying Greek, he is dealing with a great literature. The elementary or minimum Greek generally does not acquaint him with literary material that appeals to him. These objections apply with equal force to students who intend to make a special study of the literary history of any modern tongue.

The department of theology would feel the proposed reduction of Greek as a severe blow. It is difficult now for theological schools to require of their students such a knowledge of Greek as is necessary for the study of the New Testament; the discouragement which would result from this plan would aggravate this evil immensely, and would be felt in every school of theology in the country.

This "Classical Program" is exceedingly liberal to all departments except the classics. It requires four years' study of English, and provides for three of history, three of German or French, and four of mathematics (including trigonometry and higher algebra). In these studies, therefore, pupils might be carried a year beyond the ordinary requisites for admission to most colleges, while in Greek they would fall short of these requisites by just a year, so that Greek would be degraded relatively by two years. It is well known that there is a vigorous and increasing demand for putting back either geometry or algebra and a modern language into the grammar schools; and this has actually been done in some important schools. The pressure of other studies in the high schools—the only excuse which is made for depriving Greek of a year-is, therefore, likely to be temporary, while the reduction of Greek to two years, if once accepted, will be permanent.

The committee of ten asked and received the advice of nine conferences, composed of experts in nine departments of study, and they justly attribute great weight to the careful judgments of these conferences, which give the proposals of the committee their chief authority in matters of detail. It may surprise many to learn that the Greek conference introduced its recommendations with the following general statement:

The conference recommends that the study of Greek be begun at least three years before the close of the course preparatory to college.

This primary recommendation, which is the basis of the whole report of the Greek conference, is set aside by the committee of ten almost without consideration. This is, we believe, the only case in which the decided opinion of one of the conferences, on such a fundamental matter, has been so summarily rejected. It is true that other studies are not allowed by the committee all the increase which they desire; but Greek alone is to be reduced and crippled. The resolution of the Philological Association is simply an appeal from the decision of the committee to the judgment of the experts who advised the committee. The unanimous and enthusiastic approval of the action of the Philological Association expressed by the large classical conference recently held at Ann Arbor shows that scholars in the West are in perfect harmony with their colleagues in the East on this important subject.

The plan of the committee, if adopted, would aggravate most unnecessarily one of the greatest evils in our system of education-that the colleges are compelled to do work which belongs to the scbools, and which in most other countries is done by the schools with much greater efficiency and at much less cost. This evil is acknowledged and deplored by all; and yet the colleges are to be asked to lower their standard of classical scholarship, that they may assume a new burden of elementary work, which the schools are now doing with ever-increasing efficiency. On the other hand, the loss of this work would be seriously felt in the schools. Every step which limits the range and quality of study in school increases the difficulty of obtaining and keeping able and enthusiastic teachers, and nothing attracts men of taste and cultivation to teach in a classical school more than the literary work of the higher classes in Greek.

The undersigned believe that both colleges and schools have a common interest in opposing a scheme which threatens to degrade them both at the expense of good scholarship. They therefore appeal earnestly to all who have the interests of sound learning at heart to unite with them in opposing the introduction of the socalled "Classical Program" of the committee of ten into the schools of the United States.

WILLIAM W. Goodwin, Professor of Greek, Harvard University, Chairman.
CECIL F. P. BANCROFT, Principal of Phillips Andover Academy.
FRANKLIN CARTER, President of Williams College.
WILLIAM G. HALE, Professor of Latin, University of Chicago.
WILLIAM R. HARPER, President of the University of Chicago.
FRANCIS W. KELSEY, Professor of Latin, University of Michigan.
GEORGE L. KITTREDGE, Professor of English, Harvard University.
ABBY LEACH, Professor of Greek, Vassar College.
Thomas D. SEYMOUR, Professor of Greek, Yale University.
CHARLES F. SMITH, Professor of Greek, University of Wisconsin.
MINTON WARREN, Professor of Latin, Johns Hopkins University.
ANDREW F. WEST, Professor of Latin, Princeton University.



FIRST SESSION.-THURSDAY, JULY 11, 1895. The Department of Higher Education met in the high school building, at 3 o'clock p. m., President Baker of the University of Colorado in the chair.

President Swain of the University of Indiana was elected Secretary in the absence of Secretary Horace Goodhue.

On motion, it was ordered that hereafter the regular officers of this department should constitute the Executive Committee.

By the request of the Department of Secondary Education of the National Educational Association, it was determined that the officers elected for 1896 should appoint a committee of five to confer with a committee from the department of Secondary Education to consider questions suggested by the following resolution:

Whereas, The most pressing need for higher education in this country is a better understanding between the secondary schools and the colleges and universities in regard to requirements for admission; therefore,

Resolved, that the Department of Secondary Education appoint a committee of five, of which the present President shall be one, and request the appointment of a similar committee by the Department of Higher Education, these ten to compose a Committee of Conference, whose duty it shall be to report at the next annual meeting a plan for the accomplishment of this end so urgently demanded by the interests of higher education.

This resolution was reported as adopted by the Department of Secondary Education, and the following Committee on Conference as appointed from that department:

Principal W. H. Smiley, Denver; Prof. William Carey Jones, University of California; Supt. A. F. Nightingale, Chicago, Ill.; J. Remsen Bishop, Cincinnati, Ohio; Principal C. H. Thurber, Hamilton, N. Y.

Prof. W. H. Fraser of the University of Toronto not being present, his paper on “The University of Toronto" was read by Dr. Charles S. Palmer of the University of Colorado.

The next paper, by Dr. Richard T. Ely, University of Wisconsin, was entitled "The Future Organization of Higher Education in America."

A discussion of Dr. Ely's paper followed, by D. R. Boyd, University of Oklahoma; William 0. Thompson, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio; H. H. Freer, Cornell College, lowa; Richard T. Ely, University of Wisconsin; A. A. Johnson, University of Wyoming; W. H. Black, Missouri Valley College, Marshall, Mo.; B. A. Hinsdale, University of Michigan, and was closed by Dr. Ely.

President Baker appointed the following as members of the nominating committee for the Department of Higher Education:

Prof. William C. Jones, University of California; President Robert B. Fulton, University of Mississippi, and President William Thompson, Miami University.


In the absence of Professor Perrin of Yale College, Prof. James E. Russell opened the discussion on the subject, “Conservative View of College Electives."

The discussion was continued by Prof. Edward Channing, Harvard University; Prof. W. R. Rothwell, William Jewell College, Missouri; President Richard H. Jesse, University of Missouri; Dr. A. B. Hyde, University of Denver.

Dr. J. N. Hall, Secretary State Board of Medical Examiners, Colorado, read a paper upon "Standard of Admission to Professional Schools."

Prof. T. R. Bacon of the University of California read a paper on the 'Relation of College Courses to Professional Schools."

The Chairman of the Comunittee on Nominations made the following report:

The Committee on Nomination of Officers for 1895-96 begs leave to introduce the following resolution:

Resolved, That, for the more useful and effective work in the Department of Higher Education, closer relations should be cultivated between the colleges and universities and the National Educational Association; that to this end, the Department of Higher Education should mark out a line of policy, and make every effort to give it a continuous and well-defined character; that the President of the department be invited to make an address at the opening of the session in 1896, which shall set forth the lines upon which the work of the department may be most profitably conducted.

The committee respectfully reports the following as Its nominees for officers of the Department of Higher Education for 1895-96:

For President-James H. Baker, University of Colorado.
For Vice President-Dabney Lipscomb, University of Mississippi.
For Secretary-Joseph Swain, University of Indiana.


Committee. This report was adopted by the department.

The following Committee on Uniformity of Requirements for College Admission was appointed to co-operate with committee of the Department of Secondary Education:

Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, Columbia College; Prof. Paul H. Hanus, Har vard University; Dr. B. A. Hinsdale, Michigan University; Dr. James E. Rus. sell, University of Colorado; Principal John T. Buchanan, Kansas City High School.

After two very successful and well-attended sessions the department adjourned until the next annual meeting.


Secretary pro tem.

« PreviousContinue »