homes and religious instruction for the students; in short, supplying those needs which, according to our American ideas, it is not the function of the state to satisfy. There is already in progress a movement in this direction which must not be neglected by those dealing with the future organization of the higher education in the United States. One prominent religious denomination will establish in the coming fall a hall of this kind in connection with the University of West Virginia, and it is planned to establish halls or colleges under the auspices of this same religious denomination in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and South Dakota. Several denominations have made a beginning of this kind in connection with the University of Michigan, although it is scarcely more than a beginning.

It is in following out these lines of development that we may hope to combine the advantages of public and private effort. There are great advantages in private effort, and many private schools furnish rare opportunities and unusual safeguards to those enjoying their advantages. On the other hand, we should not overlook the efficiency of the public schools in the development of manliness in those trained in them. Those acquainted with our best state universities cannot help noticing the virility displayed by their students, coupled with a sound democratic spirit. Public institutions naturally keep in touch with the people. The advantages of public education must be borne in mind, as well as those excellencies that may be secured by private effort. It must always be our aim to combine all these advantages, as far as it is possible; and to a very high degree I claim that it is possible.

I must close abruptly with many things left unsaid; but I want to leave with you, in connection with my topic, "The Future Development of the Higher Education in the United States," these words of the late Professor Huxley:

I believe no educational system in this country (England) will be worthy of the name of national, or will fulfill the great object expected of it, unless it be one which establishes a great educational ladder, the bottom of which shall be the gutter, and the top of which shall be those universities of which we are justly so proud.

DISCUSSION.

D. R. BOYD, President of the University of Oklahoma.-The portion of Dr. Ely's paper that alludes to the affiliation of denominational institutions should be especially enforced, and is of especial interest to the states west of the Mississippi river. In those states the denominational schools are not generally well endowed, and depend for support on tuition, while in the state institution the tuition is free

to students. It is here that the field for affiliation is most open and available. It seems entirely practicable to erect "Houses" or "Homes" about state universities, where sectarian or denominational instruction and the means of religious culture may be given, while the students may attend those classes of the university in which the subjects are only slightly religious or entirely non-religious or non-sectarian. This would be greatly to the mutual advantage of the denominations and the universities.

PRESIDENT WILLIAM O. THOMPSON, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio.—I am heartily in sympathy with the paper of Professor Ely, and desire to emphasize one point made, namely, that of the necessity of honesty. One great evil in our country is the desire for bigness, as if bigness were a virtue and littleness a vice. I am glad for the distinction between the college and the university, and hope it may be still further emphasized. A just criticism has been made upon our de nominational colleges for attempting what they could not do, and upon our state universities for not being willing to be what their names suggest. They have been willing to have on their roll students who ought not to be in college at all. I shall hail with joy the day when our catalogues may be read by all with the assurance that they mean just what they say. Let us encourage our colleges to be strictly colleges and our universities to be universities.

H. H. FREER, Cornell College, Iowa.-It is perhaps unkind to criticise a single point in so excellent a paper as that to which we have just listened, but there was one incident related which I wish had been omitted. I refer to the story of the college president who stated, that, in all the contests between labor and capital, he was on the side of capital because he obtained donations from capitalists. If this president was not jesting, he was unworthy his position. The implication that denominational colleges are subservient to capital is not true, as donations to these institutions come largely from farmers, professional men, and working men. Such institutions are, above all others, free to teach and manage as their faculties see fit. If they are ever hampered by wealthy friends they are no more restricted than state schools that depend on politicians for annual appropriations. Those of us in denominational or private colleges will say the kindest things concerning the state universities, and ask that those connected with the universities do not accuse us of being the creatures of capitalists.

PROFESSOR ELY.-Colleges supported by farmers and professional men are very advantageously situated so far as freedom of discussion is concerned. I think the classes which President Freer mentioned will generally be found to be disposed to insist upon the largest freedom in instruction. I have in mind one college in the state from which President Freer comes which is a conspicuous illustration of a college managed in a large and generous spirit. I do not mean to imply that all private foundations are on the side of the capitalists because they expect from them money. Nevertheless, the quotation which I gave from the president of the university was one which illustrates a danger not to be lost sight of and one from which the state universities are comparatively free, as they are dependent upon the whole people and not upon any one individual or class of individuals. The words which I quoted I can assure you were not spoken in jest.

In conclusion, I would like to say, that, so far as I have been able to observe, the best universities are not hampered by dependence on politicians for annual appropriations. These universities-I speak now of the better class of state universities are supported by tax laws which operate continuously. Many suppose that each year a state university depends for its life upon what the last legislature granted. This a great mistake. In the second place, politicians have learned to keep their

hands off the state universities. I know from experience that there is no interference from politicians in my department at the University of Wisconsin, and that is the department which would be most likely to have such interference. The at mosphere of the University of Wisconsin is delightful because it is such a large and free one, one worthy of the noble commonwealth whose name it bears.

PRESIDENT A. A. JOHNSON, University of Wyoming.—I rise simply to indorse the most excellent paper of Dr. Ely, and the broad and generous spirit which permeated the address. We must remember that the subject which Dr. Ely discussed was "The Future Organization of Higher Education in America," and he has surely and truly given us the trend of this age towards a better organization of our institutions of higher education. As one who labors in the West, I desire to say that Professor Ely has correctly stated the tendency in some of our Western States to lay the foundations of higher education upon the broad principles outlined in his address.

I do not believe a denominational college will ever be founded in Wyoming. The churches are rallying around the State University, and are erecting halls to take care of the home and religious life of the students. I believe this is a good thing for the churches, and a most excellent thing for the university.

PRESIDENT W. H. BLACK, Missouri Valley College, Marshall, Mo.-The paper on the organization of the University of Toronto, together with Dr. Ely's suggestions concerning the University of New York, should receive more consideration on account of the fact, that, taken together, they outline a plan by which the pri vate schools, which do sixty-five per cent of the higher educational work of the nation, can be made a part of the national or state scheme. As it is, the private schools are chartered to do everything, and no requirements made of them except in New York and Michigan. These should be made to conform to recognized standards of work or surrender their charters. The colleges should confine themselves to undergraduate work.

DR. B. A. HINSDALE of Michigan University. I wish to direct attention to two points. First, is it a profitable expenditure of time to attempt a definition of the term "university" that should be of universal value and application? There was a time when that could be done; but it is well known that the German universities, the Italian universities, the French universities, and the English universities have developed each along their own lines of movement. The definition that Professor Ely has formulated applies well to a German university, in a less measure to a French university, and to an English university hardly at all. In America we have grossly abused the term; but, in the attempt to rescue it, it is very questionable whether it is wise to adopt a definition, that, at the present time, will apply to the German universities alone. Certain it is, that, no matter what type of university may be finally established in the United States, we are not going to rob the English institutions of higher learning of the name that they have borne for centuries. Still further, it is more than questionable, in my opinion, whether the typical American university of the future will be an institution that will answer to Professor Ely's definition. The second point is closely connected with the first one. It is presented in the question, whether institutions that shall do graduate work, exclusively or characteristically, in the German sense, if they are to be developed at all, can best be developed out of our state universities. They are creatures of the state; they are dependent upon the state legislatures and upon public favor. American institutions and American society are democratic, and the question arises whether it will not be necessary indefinitely to keep these institutions in close and vital touch with the commonwealths that maintain them. Cer

tain I am, that there is no American state in which you will find at the present time a public opinion that would support the establishment and maintenance of a university of the German type. Do not the very facts that constitute the environment of these institutions compel them to be, and will they not compel them to be, popular institutions, that shall touch the life of the commonwealth at other points than those that are embraced in what our German-American friends call university work? I have often questioned whether a foundation private in its character, like Harvard, Yale, Columbia, or Chicago, does not offer peculiar advantages for the development of an institution that shall devote itself to graduate teaching exclusively. I neither affirm nor deny, but I have often thought about the question. So saying, I wish to add, that I belong to a state university, that I believe in the state universities, and that I allow no man to question my loyalty to the institution to which I belong.

PROFESSOR ELY, taking up the suggestions of Professor Hinsdale, spoke as follows: "I have not presented a goal which I thought the state university could reach at once, but rather an idea towards which it should work in order to bring harmony out of our chaotic educational situation. The state universities have continually raised their standards, and have met with the approval of the people in so doing. The fact must not be overlooked, that the policy which I have outlined would bring new support to the state universities. I see no reason to doubt that the state universities will be able to undertake advanced special work, and will meet with support from the people in so doing. It seems to me that anyone who studies our educational history may expect this with confidence. What we are now doing in the state universities would have seemed impossible, and I think was declared impossible by many, a few years ago. There is no reason why the state universities should, on account of the advanced character of their work, separate themselves from the people.'

In reply to the question of Prof. J. H. Paul of Utah Agricultural College, in regard to the agricultural college, which seemed to him to carry on university work according to the definition given in the paper, Professor Ely replied, that, of course, some work of a university naturally would have to be done in other institutions than the state universities in those states in which the agricultural college, schools of mines, etc., were separate and distinct institutions from the state university. The thought of the paper was, that the resources for the most special and advanced work should, so far as practicable, be centralized at some one point in the state..

It may be remarked that no departure on the part of the university has been received with more favor than the establishment of the School of Economics, Political Science, and History three years ago, although it was openly said at the time that it was designed especially for graduate students. The movement received only warm praise from newspapers in close touch with the people.

A CONSERVATIVE VIEW OF COLLEGE ELECTIVES.

DISCUSSION.

DR. JAMES E. RUSSELL, Professor of Philosophy and Pedagogy in the University of Colorado.-The American college is an outgrowth of English university ideals modified by comparatively recent German influences. Its early growth was determined by conditions inherent in American life. Even the largest institutions could not maintain a variety of courses. As wealth increased and public demands became greater additional facilities were offered, until the curriculum contained too much for any one student to take. Selections became necessary. At about this time men trained in German universities became influential in shaping courses. The German ideal came to the front, and, consciously or unconsciously, it has increasingly dominated American progress.

What is the German ideal? The German student enters the university after a nine-years' prescribed course of study-prescribed not only in subjects and amount but also in order of development and general treatment. So well organized is the German secondary school system that its graduates have a remarkably uniform mental equipment. The university teacher knows precisely what he has to work on; the student is well aware from tradition what to expect. Thus, up to his eighteenth or nineteenth year, the student follows a definite course of study, and all (with few exceptions) have the same course of study. The university, however, makes its work elective, but elective only in definite lines. Whatever freedom a student might have is lost sight of in the uniform practice of preparing for definite ends. The German university is essentially a group of professional schools; its students are almost to a man engaged in professional study, be it philosophy, science, law, medicine, or theology.

In following the lead of Germany, whether intentionally or not, it behooves us to consider carefully the German ideal. At bottom, that ideal is, that every student should first receive a liberal training before advancing to professional work. The German student upon entering the university is probably in most respects the equal of the average American student at the end of the sophomore year. At that point the Germans consider the student capable of profiting from special lines of study; special lines of study, I say, rather than indiscriminate choice. And here, I believe, is the vital point for us to consider. A system of election which amounts to license is not worthy of consideration. A rational selection based upon a deep interest in certain lines of work already partially developed and prepared for in a broad course of liberal study is not only desirable but necessary to our American colleges.

Theoretically we are bound to provide for some system of electives. Prac tically, too, we must accede to the demands of the times for more and better training in special lines. The very fact that we are unable to agree upon a particular course of study either for our secondary schools or colleges suggests uncertainty as to whether we are capable of giving precisely that liberal training in our schools and colleges which we may consider essential to future success. So long as we are ourselves in doubt, we can scarcely expect our students to follow blindly our lead, or to convince the world at large that there is no better or