New-York tribune., 1901-11-04
THE COLLEGE PRODUCT.
DUCE TAME MEDIOCRITY, SAYS
A FORMER PROFESSOR.

A>N''OAN
A thoughtful woman who until recently held
professorship IN Massachusetts college for
women-from which she resigned account Of
home cares-wr1tes thus practically in academic
annual Of what she terms The College Product: {:
The cause Of the higher education needs no
champion in America. But, while colleges
and universities are increasing with marvellous
rapidity in size and number in wealth and In
iuence and while the chorus of graduation and
applause grows louder and more unanimous, It may
I te well occasionally step aside for moment
and examine critically and mpartally the actual
results brought about by this vast and elaborate
machinery that has been in motion.
'Undeniaby, the higher institutions Of learning
have been raising the standard OF Intelligence and
knowledge In the community. The lives of
thousands throughout the country have been the
worth living because Of the Increased useful
ness of men and women who have had the ad-
vantage Of a collegiate training. II. how
ever in examining the product of our colleges and
universities do content ourselves with what
IS on the whole passably good, but ask for evidence
OF ability of a really high grade. are apt 10
meet with disappointment
The college graduate often bears the sign
of being a machine made artfcle-not by any means
badly made article; rather one that IS extremely
! ,,sefuI for MANY purposes He is. moreover, al
ways bound 10 up to certain standard, for
the college. like any other well regulated factory
| will refuse TO stamp with It's trademark and put
| upon the market goods that have serious flaws.
But we look IN vain for traces Of originality the
stamp OF a master mind, the cachet that denotes
! the genuine work of art
, The ordinary college student during his four
Years course gains much: he has his crudy toned
| down his roughness sroothed away; he takes on
| a certain intellectual polish. II he possesses aei-
ties of about average amount the contact with
! other minds is the whole beneficial. and he
! gains in knowledge and in POWER. But II at the
outset he is endowed with germ OF originality
In character intellectual talent greater than
! that of most men, II he of those fortuitous
| variations which nature now and then sends. are
| not the Influences OF his college life likely 10
sti1e as develop the possibility of greatness?
In a word with best endeavors TO level Up. do
We not perhaps bring about also deporable level
| ling down?
NO SEX DISTINCTIONS.
Now. this is a question concerning which sex
distinctions do not count. The line or cr1,icisn1
aprlies fully as much Harvard or Cornell as to
| Bryn Mawr or Mount Holyoke. But the extraOrdi-
/ n.-v .,.ssen emergence and rapid development OF
| institutions for the higher education of women IN
| the last quarter OF century provide an effective
II somewhat rough and ready, test OF the facts on
which such criticism IS based. Considering the e1-
tremely limited opportunities for intellectual de-
| yelopnent that the last generation Of women pos
| sessed and how widespread now are the privileges
| of a collegiate training We might reasonably ek-
| pect a marked improvement In the QuaLity
| of work done by women at the present day
| Our college women graduates include many In
| dustrious snd useful laborers In the educauohai
| field MANY conscientious and enlightened phfian-
thropists the writer's graceful OF readable
| essays and of short stories that satisfy the ex-
pectation of the average magazine reader but 10 70
ourselves tht the achievement OF the COZ
| lege woman, with q few exceptions. has not risen
above q tolerable mediocrity we have only TO con-
trast with IL the intellectual output or women II
| the period preceding their admission to the ad-
| yantages Of higher education. What names nave
| we to match with those Of Margaret Fuller ana
| Mrs. Stowe, Of George Eiot and George Saiio. OF
| Harriet Martineau and Mrs. Browning! ana OF
| our women contemporaries whose names are ue
| unworthy be cassed with these how very
| few indeed part OF the college product Docs
suspicion ineTtte bly, arise that our ooasIeG
college training has tendency TO check origiait'
| and spontaneity. reduce the expression OF a
vigorous personality the dead level or TIE mohot-
| and commonplace?
| Moreover. this tendency toward the producti
of respectable but somewhat tame rnedlocrit!
| appears only IN regard the Intellectual &C
tivty that is called out but to extent In the
kind of character that the college life produces.
The individual is apt to lose something or his ind-
! yiduaty The life of the student ls aD-
sorbed in life of the mass; he breathes q spe-
| cial mental atmosphere: he learns to think In a
| given way. act in given way. The result Is
| conformity a type. We the Harvard type,
the Princeton type. the Smith and Wellesley types.
| All excellent doubt Many a and many a
| woman is distinctly improved by being brought up
through the impeTcept:ble Influences of the college
| environment a level with the college standard
| of conduct and character. Only, once more. there
is ant to be danger Of loss of Individuality
| of that which makes each of different from his
| fellows
TOO MUCH WORK ATTEMPTED.
with our present methods teaching in col
leges there is apparently too much wholesale work
ATTEMPTED. Far satisfactory results
would be reached II the students taught in
small groups instead large classes. .