against anything which could be detrimental to their best interests. The report provides only for degrees recommended by the University examiners, and further provides for electing these University examiners from the college professors of the state. Thus the question of who shall receive degrees is put in the hands of the college men themselves.

THREE OR FOUR YEARS FOR A COLLEGE course

Prin. W. E. Bunten - It seems to me that the only possible result of a reduction of the college course to three years must be one of two things, either the standard of scholarship must be lowered or additional work must be thrown on the already overburdened secondary schools. It would be foolish to argue that any student in college could do as much in three years as in four. I do not suppose that Harvard or any other college is seriously thinking of lowering the standard of scholarship. It follows that the larger portion of the work of the freshman year must be thrown on the secondary school, if this change takes place. What possible good can this bring about? There can be no saving of time. There is just so much work to be done either in school or in college.

There may be

a saving of expense, especially if the preparatory course is pursued in the public schools. The colleges have always provided for this by admitting to the higher classes any student who can pass the examination. Beyond this there is absolutely nothing to be gained by the proposed change. The colleges are better prepared to do the work of the freshman year than the secondary schools can possibly be. It is not practicable in most of these schools to have its faculty so complete that each professor is a specialist. In most of them the same person must teach several subjects, and no one can spread himself over many subjects without being thin in spots. It may not be true of some of the large schools but it is of the smaller ones. All discussion of questions pertaining to secondary schools is apt to be from the standpoint of the large schools and what they can do well, and is usually taken as a standpoint for all of the schools. Such discussion generally has reference to the comparatively few students who are preparing for college and totally ignores the vastly larger number. The colleges are prepared to do all the work of a four years' course. They have the professors, they have endowment funds increasing to an unprecedented extent, and there is absolutely no reason why they should not do all the work required for the last four years of student life leading to a degree in the arts.

Prin. J. Anthony Bassett I have had a little experience for 16 years in preparing students for college. The one point that I wish to make is this. I do not believe, and I do not believe that any principal of a union school or academic department will admit, that he čan train a boy at the age of 12 to apprehend or comprehend the requirements of our colleges to-day so as to enter college. I can not do it, and, if there are principals here who can do it, I would like to have them tell me how it is done. I believe we graduate our pupils from college too young. I believe that the man who goes into college at 20 grasps things better than the boy at 16 or 17. I believe he can grasp things so that he can complete a course in three years. When the colleges will make the examination entrance requirements such as we can come up to, and can finish at the age of 12 to 16, then we will come up to the point and do all the work. Very few pupils can master the regents' preliminary requirements to-day

at 12.

The rank and file of common school scholars throughout the country are the ones to depend on. We do not expect to make college professors of boys and girls at the age of 19. I am in favor of a four years' course in college, unless this coordination is perfected so that the union schools can feed into the colleges, and the colleges into the universities, a thing which I believe can be done. I had four years, and if I had another year I should be better prepared to discuss this question now. I am in favor of four years' course in college. Give us four years.

Sup't A. Gaylord Slocum - I urge that the public schools are not necessarily preparatory schools for the colleges. They can not be so, they were not intended to be so. And yet it seems to me the necessity of preparation in the public schools for college is very great. I should not be willing to ask that the requirements of the high schools should be lessened. I am glad that we are requiring so much. I hope we shall never require less, not only because of the influence on the men who go to college, but also on the boys and girls who never go. I can see that if the time should come when the universities should be able to take the last part of the work of the colleges and carry it on, that we might shorten the course of the colleges, but till that time comes I am sure we can not do this. I hope that the time will come, and that the time between then and now will be short, when the university will not take students till they are prepared for true university work.

SHOULD DEGREES BE GIVEN ON COMPLETION OF EXAMINATIONS, REGARDLESS OF TIME OF RESIDENCE

bent!

Prof. A. B: Kenyon What is a degree? What does it repreWhat ebould it represent? Webster deftes degree as the "grade or rank to which scholars are admitted in recognition of their attainments, by a college or university."

Accepting this definition, a degree represente certain attainments, a certain amount of culture, usually gained or completed at the col lege or university which confers the degree. A given degree should represent, as nearly as possible, the same amontt of enture whereever and whenever conferred. Because a degree should represent a given amount of culture, it would seem just and right to confer that degree when the candidate attains that culture. I am therefore of the opinion that degrees should be given on completion of examinations, regardless of time of residence.

All students do not require the same amount of time to accomplish the same results. Some students can thoroughly master three subjects in the same time that others can master two, or still others one, perhaps, in exceptional cases. The usual course of study with a fixed time of residence required is supposed to be adapted to the ability of the average student. A student above the average either wastes the time not needed to accomplish the required work, or devotes it to something outside the immediate object in view. A student below the average falls out and is compelled to use at least another year, if perchance, the mortification of belonging to the class below him and going again over the year's work, does not discourage and deter him from completing his course and obtaining his degree.

By abolishing the time limit the brilliant and the hard working students are not compelled to await the pace of the average students for whom the course is planned, and the slowly paced may complete their work without the embarrassinent of going twice over the same year's work. Each one may arrange his work in accordance with what his experience soon teaches him he is able to accomplish creditably, or which his instructors determine for him after careful measurement of his ability, both mental and physica.. By this plan the attainment of a degree might be made possible to some bright and ambitious individual, of means too limited to permit the full four years residence in college, yet who, by dint of earnest effort might be able to do the work in three years for instance, and might have the means for that amount of time.

Further, by doing away with the time limit an inducement is held out to the industrious and to the diligent, to utilize carefully the opportunities of college life. As in the active work of life they have the assurance of a reward for their industry and their diligence; not only the reward of culture attained, of mental strength added, but in addition thereto, the immediately tangible reward of time and money saved. Moreover a healthy rivalry may be incited, whereby even the listless may catch the spirit of emulation and be benefited. The examinations must of course be kept well up to the standard ; the instruction must be as thorough and painstaking as usual; and wise regulations and careful supervision prevent the abuse of such a privilege. Thus guarded and guided, I see no sufficient reason why this should not become the plan of this progressive age.

For several years past Alfred university has conferred degrees at the next commencement (in June) after the completion of the required examinations, without regard to the time of residence. The plan has proved to be so satisfactory in its practical working that we have no thought of returning to the former plan. Some students have used less than four years in completing the college course; others more. This has been done by some taking more subjects, more classes per term than others. The graduates compare favorably with those sent out in the old way, and as the years go by we hope, and expect, more fully still to demonstrate the wisdom of the experiment.

The regents of the University have set us the example, in granting their diplomas on completion of the examinations. In due time may the example be followed by every institution of learning in the Empire state, and degrees as well as diplomas be granted upon completion of examinations, regardless of the time of residence.

In this matter, as in the performance of all life's duties, let us say, "We live in deeds, not years; in thoughts, not breaths; in feelings, not in figures on a dial.”

HIGHER EDUCATION OF WOMEN

Discussion

OPENED BY PRES. JAMES M. TAYLOR, VASSAR COLLEGE

When Mr Dewey asked me to speak to the Convocation to-day on what at the time I supposed was the general question of women's education, I replied that in the first place, I did not represent women; in the second place, I did not believe in women's educa

Now there was a certain

tion; and in the third place, I would not. exaggeration in the statements I made to him, as you perceive by my presence this afternoon. But there was no exaggeration in what I said in regard to a disbelief in these discussions of women's education. It has a firm foundation in my own conviction. I am in a sense, weary of discussing the question of women's education. I have been doing that for several years, with a growing conviction that there is nothing in it; that there is no occasion for prefixing "women" to the question at all; that there is nothing involved in the education of womankind which is not involved in the education of mankind; and for that reason I have shrunk from addressing you on the subject at all. Still there is an aspect, as I look further into the question presented to us, that I have not been used to discussing, and perhaps there may be a certain freshness in my personal views on the question of coeducation, or separate education of the

sexes.

Let me say, before proceeding with my few remarks, that as I was going to the desk, a copy of the New York Sun was placed in my hand containing the following statement: "The first certificate of admission which Yale university has ever granted to a woman has just been received by Miss Irene W. Coit of this city, daughter of Gen. James B. Coit, formerly congressinan from this district. Prof. T: D. Seymour of Yale notified Miss Coit to-day, saying that she had passed the examination satisfactorily and would be admitted." I give it to you for what it is worth. You may investigate the truth of it later.

In regard to this question of coeducation, let me say that it does not seem to me to be in the least degree a question as so many make it, of right and wrong, that it is simply a question of expediency. We are all in favor of education; education everywhere and anyhow; education at home or in college; education by individuals or in classes; education together or education apart; any way to secure the