exempting their property from taxation. In many cases this was a very considerable sum. He further said that there was another point at which the state touched higher education, namely, in the partnership that existed in the matter of conferring degrees and awarding diplomas.

No institution conferred a degree except by virtue of a charter granted by the state. For this reason the states should carefully scrutinize the applications for charters and supervise the courses of study leading to degrees. Diplomas were valueless except in so far as they represent work, culture; and yet, thruout this country, except in a few states, degrees were conferred by institutions that had neither equipment nor endowment adequate for the work. They were in many cases unable to support faculties capable of giving instruction leading to the degrees conferred by them. Of the 480 colleges listed by Dr. William T. Harris, Commissioner of Education, as having the power to confer the bachelor's degree upon men, an examination of those in a number of southern states showed that if the power to confer such degrees were limited to those institutions possessed of property amounting to $100,000, the list would be reduced nearly one-half.

He cited the board of regents of the University of the State of New York, an organization more than 100 years old, as having done a great work for that state in this matter. No institution in New York was permitted to confer the bachelor's degree unless it was possessed of property to the amount of $500,000.

The establishment of a standard of $100,000 as a requisite in institutions would surely be a low standard, and yet it would be far better than the present chaotic condition existing in most of the states of the union. Bills chartering institutions coming before legislatures are oftentimes considered local bills, and as such passed as a matter of courtesy without scrutiny. These bills authorize the conferring of divers and sundry degrees. Such bills before passage should be referred to some careful organization that would see that before passage the institution seeking the charter possessed equipment in the way of buildings, museums, laboratories, and libraries, and an income sufficient to guarantee the employment and perpetuity of a faculty. In this way, and in this way only, can we hope to make college degrees worth what on their faces they represent.

He instanced three cases of offers to purchase degrees from the University of Alabama within the last three years. One came from London, England, and was in substance as follows: "For the degree of doctor of philosophy from the University of Alabama at the approaching commencement I will pay to any interest named by you the sum of $500." Another came from Germany and was similar to the first, couched in almost the same language, except that, instead of fixing the sum at $500, the writer said that he would give to any interest named any sum not exceeding $500. The similarity of the language used indicates that these parties had possibly been coached by someone familiar with methods in some parts of this country.

English universities are not open to criticism as to laxness in conferring degrees. But it is said that in some German universities an American can get a doctor's degree on work reckoned as inadequate for the same degree for a German. The third offer was from this country, and offered a small sum for the degree of doctor of divinity, stating that he could get it for much less from another institution which he named. These instances were merely cited to show that there was necessity for vigorous action among the colleges and universities of this country in this matter.

PROFESSOR RICHARD JONES, of Vanderbilt University.- President Powers has spoken of the desirability of some control over the granting of degrees. In the state of New York this desirable result is secured thru the University of the State of New York, or the regents' office. The university has control of all higher education in the state, including the high schools, colleges, law schools, medical schools, dental schools, business schools, etc. The charters for all these institutions are granted, not by the legislature ordinarily, but by the University of the State of New York. The university was

established in 1787, and its permanence is secured by constitutional provisions. The regents are elected for life by the state legislature in the same manner as United States senators are elected. It seems likely, therefore, that this method of state control, not only over the granting of degrees, but over higher education in general, will be per

manent.

The university exercises this control indirectly rather than directly; that is to say, the university establishes the standard for the degree of B.A. in the state of New York by establishing a standard for admission to the colleges, namely, a four-years' high-school course or its equivalent. The university also determines the standard for admission to the high schools. Therefore, without directly interfering with the work of any particular institution, the university does in fact exercise a good deal of influence in maintaining a high standard for the degree of B.A. Furthermore, the university determines the standard for admission to all professional schools, which is, namely, a four-years' high-school course or its equivalent. One cannot enter the law schools or the medical schools of the state of New York without first taking a high-school course.

The relations between the University of the State of New York, which is a purely administrative body and not a teaching body, and the colleges of the state, are harmonious and satisfactory. The colleges co-operate gladly with the university in maintaining the standard. The university calls together the presidents of the colleges and confers with them respecting proper standards of admission and of graduation. In this way the ordinances of the university are a legalized expression of the will of the colleges. Those institutions which are established primarily for pecuniary profit sometimes object to the control exercised over them, but the endowed institutions doing a high grade of college work welcome the control over the granting of degrees which is exercised by the University of the State of New York.

PROFESSOR I. W. HOWERTH, University of Chicago. There is one thought which has occurred to me during the progress of this discussion which may possibly be worth presenting, and that is that the final justification of the demand for state aid in education is not to be found in the nature of the state, but in the character of the education provided. State assistance in education is almost an inevitable result of state organization; for at the very inception of the state a state or national ideal is projected, and education is seized upon as an obvious means of realizing that ideal. It is conceivable, however, that the character of this ideal, which becomes the educational aim, is such as not to warrant the demand for state assistance in movement toward it thru the work of the schools. The ideal of the American people, for instance, is democratic, while that of Germany is imperialistic. If, now, for one reason or another, the ideal fostered by our schools should become un-American, assuming the correctness of our present ideal, we should not be justified in calling on the state to help us along. The function of the sect in matters of education, to use another illustration, is diminishing, because we are outgrowing the sectarian ideal. State aid to sectarian education fails to find justification solely because of the character of the education which the sect provides. It is conceivable that a similar situation might arise with regard to the state.

If, then, the demand for state aid in education is justified only by the character of the education provided, and the character of the education is largely determined by the state or national aim, the important influence of the common ideals of a state upon the work of the schools may be clearly perceived. It is all-important that these ideals be

correct.

It may be interesting to notice in this connection that, while state and national ideals should remotely blend into one, they are not now, and have not been, the same. They originate at different points of departure and evolve, in the case of civilized nations, in one general direction. But they are often behind the real requirements of the time. In the past, for instance, the struggle for existence between different types of

states has been so severe that the national ideal embodied only the interests of the national group. Education was justified in fostering an intensely national spirit. Today, however, the struggle between nations has been greatly modified. A different kind of education is therefore needed. Our ideals have not changed pari passu with the changes brought about by commercial, social, and scientific intercourse. Much of what we call patriotism in our schools is consequently nothing more than national arrogance or racial hatred. It is possible that the ideals we strive to realize thru the schools may lag so far behind the real demands of the times that a demand for state aid to common-school education would find no better basis than the demand of a religious denomination for corporate assistance in carrying on its work. The danger, of course, is remote, but the point of what I have been trying to say is that the more nearly education fulfills the actual requirements of the state, the more nearly perfect is the justification of the demand for state assistance. When ideal requirements are fulfilled, we should talk, not of state aid in education, but of education by the state.

AN ETHNIC VIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION

PROFESSOR I. W. HOWERTH, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, CHICAGO, ILL.

The conviction from which the remarks of this paper proceed is that the value, the means, and the methods of higher education, as of all education, can be rightly determined only by constant reference to its effect upon both the individual and the race, and that in all questions pertaining to this subject the present tendency is to give undue consideration to the individual. Suggested improvements of the course of study, discussion of the expediency and limits of the elective system, and attempts to solve the problem of articulating higher and secondary education reveal the fact that the needs and interests of those who are to be benefited immediately by college and university training are the primary objects of concern. The same narrow range of vision is betrayed in much of the current discussion of such questions as, "Does a college education pay?" On the one hand it is asserted, for instance, that the individual profits by it; and, on the other, that it unfits him for businessas if these were conclusive arguments. But such problems of higher education are not primarily economic, and they cannot be settled by comparison of income and outlay. Socially or ethnically considered, a college education may be a profitable investment, even if it does not pay in dollars and cents; and if it unfits one for business, it may be so much the worse for business. No educational question is strictly or chiefly individualistic. None can be finally settled without careful consideration of its bearing upon the interests of the race. Neglect of this consideration is sure to produce error and confusion in educational thought. "Most of the controversies relative to this great question of education," says Fouillée, "seem to me to be due to the fact that we fail to reach a sufficiently general point of view, i. e., the national, international, or even ethnical." We need, therefore, both for practical and theoretical purposes, a new educational orientation. It is with the hope of contributing

in some small degree to this orientation that I invite your attention to an ethnic view of higher education.

Before considering higher education specially, we must glance briefly at education in general. What aspect does the nature and function of education as a whole present when considered from the standpoint of the race?

As soon as we contemplate education from the racial or ethnic point of view, it reveals itself as fundamentally a process of social transformation. It represents the latest and, potentially if not actually, the most effective factor of social evolution. While it deals with individuals, its primary object is the progress of the race thru the improvement of its individual members. The goal of education is, therefore, not a single one, as is sometimes represented; it is double. It lies in the individual and in the race. In the education of the individual the goal is the maximum development of social efficiency. This involves the application of physiological and psychological principles to the development of mind. and body. Hence the pedagogical importance of physiology and experimental or psycho-physical psychology. In the education of the race the goal is the successive realization of higher and higher stages of humanity. "Given the hereditary merits and faults of a race," the problem of education becomes, as Guyau rightly stated it, "to what extent can we by education modify the existing heritage to the advantage of a new heritage?" This implies a knowledge of the means and methods of social evolution, the laws and causes of the social process. Hence the importance to the educator of social history and the science of sociology. Educational psychology should be racial as well as individual. The essential fact, however, is that education — elementary, secondary, and higher—is primarily a social or ethnic expedient for accelerating progress. All its problems are therefore social problems.

Another fact which, from this point of view, leaps to the eye, as the French say, is that, contrary to the hypothesis upon which Rousseau and his followers have attempted to found a science of pedagogy, education is not a slavish imitation of nature, but an interference with so-called natural laws. Its sole raison d'être is the inadequacy of nature's methods. It is the negation of laissez-faire in individual and social evolution. The assistance it has rendered nature in the development of the individual is perfectly obvious, but its possibility as a social factor has only begun to be appreciated. Down to the present time it has acted almost wholly as a socially unconscious or genetic force in the evolution of the race. To be sure, it has long been recognized as a means of social improvement, but there has been almost no attempt to use it scientifically in the development of a people as it is now used in the development of a person. Plato and the Spartans had the idea, but not the ideals and the science. Altho books on education are as thick—and with regard to many of them I

might add, as light-as autumnal leaves, I know of but few worth mention. ing which have urged its ordered application as a national, social, or ethnic lever. Its purposive use has not been consciously directed toward a social end; that is to say, educational teleology has been limited to the individual. The time has come, however, when it may be extended to the race. "Through education," says Dr. Dewey, "society can formulate its own purposes, can organize its own means and resources, and thus shape itself with definiteness and economy in the direction in which it wishes to move."

With this comprehensive view of education as a whole from the ethnic standpoint, we may now turn to the consideration of higher education. The first question that confronts us is: How are we to separate it from the work of the common schools, and what is the relation between them?

In the first place, higher education is, of course, a continuation of secondary education, as the latter is a continuation of elementary. They are all a part of the same process. And yet there is a difference, due to the necessary division of labor, between the function of higher education and the function of the common schools, which, altho it may not justify an entirely separate classification, is yet sufficient to enable us to draw a pretty firm line between them. When we consider the work of the common schools, we find that, however clearly it perceives the educational ends, and however ambitious it may be to realize them, it is chiefly limited to the task of transmitting from one generation to another the mental, moral, and physical acquirements of the race. It preserves the racial inheritance. We have reached, for instance, a stage of civilization at which the average man is expected to be able to read, write, and cipher, to possess common morality and a certain amount of knowledge in regard to nature and man. Elementary and secondary education is devoted to the development of the efficiency represented by these acquirements and the assimilation of this knowledge. It has little time or opportunity for doing more than to maintain the average social level. On the other hand, higher education begins at this point and should be expected to raise it. It selects a comparatively small number of individuals, and professes to elevate their intelligence and efficiency to a higher power. Moreover, it has the opportunity to add new increments to the general stock of knowledge. The function of higher education is, therefore, especially that of providing the scientific and personal elements which are to urge the race onward to a new and higher stage of civilization. Elementary and secondary education is chiefly devoted, on account of its limitations, to the preservation of the social status quo. To higher education is given a superior opportunity of raising the social level. The one preserves order, the other secures progress. Elementary and secondary education, so far as social progress is concerned, is primarily static; higher education, dynamic. We thus see that there is a certain degree