The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1893-03-30

academic department is failure, as
he says, why 80? Is it possible that a
kind OF mental paralysis seized the
board OF regents as soon as 1t touched
the affairs of the academic depart.
ment, and that its members then sud-
denly became imbeciles and tools?
But it is useless to argue this point
further, unsupported as 1t is by the
slightest proof. 1t is evident that
Professor Cooper's stand of efficiency
is something other than that OF ordi-
nary men.
The second count in this formidable
indictment is the inefficiency of the
faculty of the academic department.
1t is expressed in the following SEN
fences quoted from the memorial"
"The standard of this institution
that is the academic department-is
far below the standard of first class
universities in this country;n "the
standard of the university of Texas,
in its academic department, is far be-
low that of the first class institutions
of this country. The standard OF ad-
mission is from one and one.half to
two years below the usual standard;"
"the average teaching ability OF the
faculty at Austin is below that of first
class colleges" "sOme of the instruc-
ton Is far behind the times, and some
of the teaching would hardly escape
criticism in a high school. In
demonstration of this fact 1 in
vite comparison of the requirements
for admission, as prescribed in the
catalogue of The University of Texas
with the requirements for admission
in university of the first.class but
little older than the University of
Texas.n In demonstration of what
fact is this comparison invited? Why,
| If the fact that "some of the instruc-
ton is far behind the times, and some
of the teaching would hardly escape
criticism in high SCHOOL," How in
the name of reason can a comparison
of the requirements for admission in
two universities be demonstration
that the teaching in one twill hardly
escape criticism in high SCHOOL,"
The trouble with Professor Cooper is
that he thinks his opinion is indie
pendent of reason. TO establish a
point it is only necessary for him to
say 81 think so and So" But to re-
turn to the comparison which he thus
so formally introduces and which he
subsequently SO deliberately unfolds.
What university does he select
with which to compare the University
of Texas? Meme other than the Johns
Hopkins. The selection itself is a
compliment to the University of
Texas. The Johns-Hopkins was es-
tablished primarily for graduates.
Subsequently it was found that it
could not depend entirely on grad
yates for its students. An under
graduate department was then estab-
lished, and the requirements for adj
mission were made presumably as
high as possible to carry out in some
sense the iginal Intentions. Again,
the selection Of the Johns-Hopkins
for this comparison is virtual sur
render Of his assertion that "the
standard of the University OF Texas,
in its academic department, is far be.
low that of the first-class institutions
OF this country. The standard of adj
mission is from one and one-half to
two years below the usual standard.
| Why did he take the foremost institu-
ton in the country with which to
compare the University OF Texas? If
our standard is from zone and
one.hali to two years behind the usual
stan dard," why was it not compared
with the standard of Harvard, of
Yale, of Cornell, of the University of
Virginia, of Vanderbilt? The lower
the Institution in reputation the
stronger and more telling would have
been Professor Cooper's parallel com.
parisOn. He took the highest one
maniiestly because it was the only one
he could find with which the Uni.
versity of Texas would suffer in COM
parisop. The truth is, and l refer to
all the catalogues of all the universi-
ties in the country as evidence, the
University of Texas compares very IA
vOrably with other institutions in its
requ rements for admission. With
most OF them these requirements are
identical; with some they are superior.
L have before me now tabular state
ment of the requirements ia mathe.
MATES for admission into thirteen
universities, as published in their
latest catalogues, These universities
include Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Uni.
versity of Pennsylvania, University OF
Wisconsin, University of California,
University of Kansas and others. In
none of these are the requirements in
mathematics higher than in the Uni
versity OF Texas, and in many of them
they are lower. The same fact can be
ascertained if the requirements in En-
glish for admission into the University
of Texss be compared with other uni
versities of the country. How then
can it be true, as Prof. Cooper asserts,
that "the standard of admission is
from one and one. half to two years be-
low the usual Standard" But fina ly
under this head in the Johns-Hopkins
the undergraduates course is a three
years course, while in the University
of Texas it is four-years course. In
other words students enter the Johns
Hopkins practically in the sophomore
year, and therefore Prof. Cooper has
contrasted the requirements for the
sophomore year in the JohnsHoBkins-
with the requirements for the Fresh
man year liz the University of Texas.
No wonder, all these things being con-
sidered, he finds there is some differ
ence.
But the charge is that the faculty
in the academic department is ineffici.
aot fi,l n "A if6opIt 70 ,nnol- ,,,;,I