The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1890-07-17

Last year Prof. CHARLES FORSTER SMITH
OF Vanderbilt University read paper before
the National Educational Association, in
session nj Nashville, on the subject OF hon
oragy degrees as conferred by American col
lcgCs. 1t appears from statistics gathered
10y him that between 1872 and 1885 the num-
Der of such degrees so conferred was $3.50,
of which 2273 were d. DIS, 1871 LII. d.
and 3jS Phi. DIS.
These are interesting facts, showing that
the desire for titles is strong In this republic,
However it may be with tho progross of
sound learning The number Of degrees Is
lie. than we should have supposed it to be;
md we arc inclined to think that the Pro-
fsssors statistics are not complete for last
year there were 357 colleges and so-called
universities In the Union. 1t therefore might
be assumed that Doctors OF Laws Doctors
of Divinity, ana Doctors OF Philosophy are
made ut tho rate Of at least 500 yoar.
That seems to us q moderate annual
product in tho way OF such titles. Undoubt-
cdly, too, 600 or even 1000 new doctors
might be made yearly without lowering the
standard OF learning established for those al
ready holding the degrees. Nay, the number
might be increased greatly without reducing
tho existing average value OF the degrees
as indicative OF remarkable attachments.
But what strikes us most is not the merits
OF Prof. SMITHS elaborate paper, but the
circumstance that it comes to us as public
document, published by the Washington
Bureau OF Education, and printed ut the
cost OF the people ut the Government Print
ing Onlcc. 1t Is tho 164th Of the bulletins
issued by that bureau, and evidently has
been selected for printing as proof that
the concern continues In existence. There
is no other conceivable reason for Its pub
licaton. 1t Is Of no use to the people, save
as interesting reading for the curious in
such matters; and the Government might as
reasonably and much more probably pub
lish lists Of the champions OF the prize ring,
the base ball field. the tennis courts, and
the polo grounds, or charge the people with
the cost of printing national stud book.
The comforting of honorary degrees is an
entirely lawful and generally harmless
pastime for the colleges who have
authority to exercise the function. The
titles please the recipients, oftentimes are
tho means of bringing needed funds
to the institutions, and are In no wise
contrary to our democratic principles and
practice. They crafty the love OF dlstlnc-
ton, and may stimulate efforts to merit It,
At any rate, they do no harm, unless the
cheapening Of the degrees be harm, and
that is a very debatab!e matter. Prof.
SMITH troubles himself because there are
many men who lay pipes and work wires to
get them; but that, Of course, Is inevitable.
II people did not want them. 1t would be
sign that they had fallen i'll the popular es-
timation. Tho eager demand for them shows
that they are still priced as decorations.
He also Ia annoyed because two or three
"femae colleges" have already conferred
those honorary degrees, and becomes aghast
Mt tho thought that the legion OF those So
called colleges" may follow their example.
But why should not womcn's colleges con-
fer honorary degrees? Women are as much
entitled to be doctors Of learning as the run
Of the men who now bear the nominal dis
tinction. Very likely scholastic degrees
should only come rs n recognition OF at
talnmcnts determined after demonstration,
but honorary degrees are mere compli-
ment. Even when they are conferred by our
greatest colleges, they are often that and
nothing else. Hence the intelligent public
are not deceived by them.
But IL there Is to be any change. with a
view to making the prize of an honorary
degree more valuable, the subject concerns
the colleges and not the Federal Govern
ment, which has no power whatever to inter-
fere in the matter. 1t might as well try to
regulate the salaries OF the professors