ing force. It has greatly aided superintendents and teachers in maintaining high standards of scholarship. Through the presentation of university ideals, it has quickened the whole intellectual life of the community, aroused an interest in higher education on the part of many, which college education only, later could satisfy. COLLEGE DOMINATION. While the good that has already resulted from this system can hardly be over-estimated, the criticism today is that the universities and colleges exercise too strong an influence over the secondary schools, that the former practically prescribe the courses of study of the latter and name their teachers; that these courses of study are framed in the interests of the few who later attend college and do not meet the needs of the great mass of high school students. Whatever reasons there may be for such criticism, it should be remembered that in raising the cry of domination of colleges and universities over secondary schools, that any school whatsoever which receives pupils for admission from a lower one exerts an influence over the latter, directly or indirectly. This, moreover, in any system of education is important. "Any substantial uplift in a system of education must come from above. Any great improvement or advance in a class of schools must come from a class of schools higher up. This fact is now actually coming to be recognized by the lower schools themselves, in America, and that of itself is giving unwonted trend and character to the national school system. But it necessarily follows that the factors which enter into the scheme and give returns to the plans of the upper schools, exert very strong influence upon the kind of uplift and the direction of the development which these schools give to the lower and middle schools."2 The right of universities to determine their own conditions for admission cannot well be denied. To maintain that all high school graduates irrespective of their training or experience are equally well prepared for college work is simply a re-statement of the theory of formal discipline. Instead, however, of the discipline formerly believed to be derived from the continued study of Latin and Greek, it is now intended to substitute subjects that meet modern industrial or local needs. As it makes no difference, seemingly, as far as college work is concerned, what these sub jects are, all that is nécessary is that the candidates for college are bright and capable, the implication obviously is that what is required is discipline, power. "There is nothing in the make-up of the human being, taken in an isolated way, which furnishes controlling ends and serves to mark out powers. If we leave out the aim supplied from social life we have nothing but the old 'faculty psychology' to fall back upon to tell what is meant by power in general or what the specific powers are. The idea reduces itself to enumerating a lot of faculties like perception, memory, reasoning, etc., and then stating that each one of these powers needs to be developed. But this statement is barren and formal. It reduces training to an empty gymnastic."3 To demand that any high school graduate shall be admitted irrespective of his preparation is not only unpedagogical and inconsistent with modern psychological thought, but puts a premium upon vacillating purposes of high school pupils. That such free admission would tend to lower the standard of university, as well as high school work, is evident. No teacher of any experience will maintain that the character of the work in a class is uninfluenced by the preparation of the members of the class. It would take away from the high school the stimulus which comes from having to meet certain standards of efficiency. Nor does it appear that it would especially serve the needs of those high school pupils who have no thought of a college course. To maintain that college courses and entrance requirements should be so framed as to afford equal college opportunities to the high school graduates who early determine upon a college career and those whose only aim is to manage in some way to obtain a high school diploma but later decide to attend college, is not dealing fairly with the former nor is it in accordance with natural law. The saying, "It is never too late to be what you might have been," would be nearer the truth if changed to "It is always too late to be what you might have been." While some high school students left wholly to their own devices may not decide to attend college until at the close of the high school course, it may well be doubted whether any real high school graduates who had a genuine desire to attend college were ever kept from so doing by college entrance requirements. What shall be the future of the high school graduate is determined in 3 Dewey: Ethical Principles Underlying Education, p. 12. 4 Halleck: Education of the Central Nervous System, p. 94. no small degree by parents, teachers and friends and the ideals. which they uphold and personify. College, as well as high school courses, must undergo changes, to meet the varying demands of the time. College entrance requirements have been greatly modified in recent years. That other modifications are desirable, especially in respect to language, is maintained by many. It is not apparent, however, that high school courses formed wholly in view of local interest, or dominated by the spirit of commercialism, or imposed from without, irrespective of the demands of higher education, will give a better training to those pupils for whom the people's college is the finishing school. University requirements are now generally broader than those of state departments. The admission of graduates from any secondary school course would take away from the high schools the inspiration and help that necessarily comes from professional inspection. As supervision and inspection is absolutely essential to effective state control over education, the abolition of such inspection on the part of the universities and colleges would mean the further centralization of this power in state departments. It is difficult to see how such a change from double to single inspection would be in the interests of freedom so loudly demanded. Nor is it apparent that a board of inspection independent of the universities, unfamiliar with college needs and conditions, except such as gained from outside observation and hearsay, would carry on this voluntary work of supervison more effectively and further the interests of all more successfully than is now done. This work of inspection on the part of universities and colleges is a development of recent years. The accrediting system originated in Michigan in 1871, was adopted by Indiana in 1873, by Wisconsin in 1878, and has met with such marked favor that, in 1894, the United States Commissioner of Education reported. forty-two state universities and agricultural and mechanical collegs, and about one hundred fifty other institutions as having adopted it, and in 1902, a list of three hundred fifty colleges which at least in part used this method of admission. While this may not, strictly, be denominated state control, it is at least state wide in its influence and is indicative of the tendency toward centralization in education. 5 Report of Com. of Education, 1894-95, vol. II, p. 1172. |