The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-04-22
A CAUSE OF INDIFFERENCE TO THE
SPECIALIST.

A few evenings since, in one of the
literary clubs of the city, member who
has labored to interest those who are
spoken of as workingmen in a course of
lectures relative te the conditions of Ia
Dor, which have been delivered under
the auspices of the university extension,
complained that the efforts to induce
such men to take an interest in the lee
lures had failed. He was disposed to at
tribute the failure to an entire absence
of desire the part of wage earners
to be enlightened. If the gentleman had
extended his observations so as to in
clude all the men in the city under thir-
ty years of age, would he have found a
greater interest in the lectures of the
university extension? How much larger
per cent. of the men of the same age,
outside of those called workingmen, took
an interest in these excellent courses
than in those who are classified as work.
ingmen? Was not the attendance upon
these lectures confined to teachers, to a
few specially interested. and a few 9TH
ers who. by taking the courses, under
special conditions. could utilize the in
formation acquired as a part of a course
of study which would insure a college
diploma? In other words, is not the in
very general in this and other cities?
Time was when such courses would have
called forth more attentive listeners, but
it seems to have passed some years ago.
At the same meeting varied causes
were assigned by several intelligent gem
tlemen for the lack of interest in the
efforts of college professors to educate
those outside what have been called the
classic halls. What appears to many as
the leading cause of indifference is a
partial loss of confidence in the ability
of the professor to teach. In the courses
in this city the past season it is true
that the lectures were of historical char
acter, and consequently involved no
theories in economics, but the people
whom the lectures are specially designed
to benefit do not distinguish between the
professor as a historian and the profess
sor as an economist. The impression is
not confined to the so-called workingmen
that the theories which come from the
class room of the college professor are
valueless. and in practice often mischiev-
Gus. Such an impression may be erron-
eous. but the conclusions of the masses
regarding such matters are very gener-
ally sound.
We have an illustration in the attitude
OF the professors of economics toward
the silver question. In Harvard and
Yale. and perhaps other universities, the
professors declared for gold monomet-
allism when the question was agitated
in 1877 and 1875. They started out with
theory or an assumption, and, instead
OF investigating. they have devoted
themselves to searching for arguments
to sustain their assumption. The expe-
rience of such eminent specialists as
Cernusci. or of such eminent practical
students of affairs as John Sherman and
such bankers as Hugh McCulloch count
for nothing with them. The arguments
OF men OF much more extensive research.
| like General Francis A. Walker, are ig-
nored. The professors took that side
| early In the contention; and, while nine-