The Savannah morning news., 1903-04-23

regard to education often killing a
mans individuality has a grain II
ruth in it. That is. undoubtedly. one
trouble with modern education. We
resemble -he great shoe factories that
tnfn out many boots of very fair dur
aolllty but all of one typo, neither as
strong nor as individual as the old
fashioned handmade footwear. Still
(and I1speak from experience it is
often the fault of the man himself that
ne merges with the general type and
thinks and acts in a rut. We cannot
blame a shoe because it is machine
made; we can very frequently blame
the man because he is machine made.
again, we must not forget that this
machine-made shoe of to-day is far
more comfortable far more agreeable
ana much more pleasant to the eve
than its predecessors. Are these char
acteristics not good ones for col
!ege men to possess? Clothe a strong
man IN such qualities and he often
mas the world at his feet; clothe a
weak man in such qualities and he is
less liable to make a fool of himself.
In other words the wheels of life will
be found to run more effectually and
with less friction.
Along this line Mr. Eltzbacher
spends some time in proving also that
because the men of Staff College were
anything but military heroes in the
Boer War, theoretical ideas had driven
out their common sense, as we'll as
crippled their initiative. This argu-
ment has nothing to do with educa-
ton. 1t only proves that Staff Col
lege had better be modelled more on
the plan of West Point. 1 say this
with no intention of sarcasm. Jack
son and Lee, Sherman and Grant were
West Point cadets.
Before l leave the college man there
is one more statement by Mr. Eltz-
bacher l wish to combat very forcibly.
He says substantially: "Why not
specialize in college. Why should men
wish to become lawyers, c1ergymen,
physicians, be compelled to take the
same courses? Why not have a school
for each branch where men can prop
erly specialize and master their pro-
tession?' Cor example, a textile cot
ton school in the Georgia belt) The
answer is-for the very reason that
there exists specialization now.
There is too much of it. AS yet the
elective system, which is but a means
to specialization, has not penetrated
Cambridge and Oxford as it has Yale
and Harvard. 1t is a great danger
nowadays, for a narroW-gauge, not
broad-gauge man is the result of sys-
tematic specialization. Imagine how
interesting the conversation would be
between Mr.. A, who is absorbed in the
Greek Iota and does not know what
mathematics mean and cares less, and
Mr.. B., whose pet subject is the re-
lation of calculus to the economic diff
ficulties of our day!
For the very reason that a man has
tc specialize so greatly when he en-
ters the world permit him in college
to gain fairly general education that
he may be an interesting and sympa-
thetic man, not a monomaniac.
Education as a whole might be de-
fined as a method for the increase
of usefulness and enjoyment among
mankind. Mr.. Eltzbacher says that
harmful reading and sapless plays
please the average human being. That
is perfectly true, still his TRADE against
'Bookishness" probably does not affect
this country as much as it does his
own. 1t is a standing accusation
against college men for instance that
they are seldom students. In regard
to the masses it is perfectly true that
they read trash as soon as they have
mastered their A, B, Cs. But when
the statement is made that the mind
of the public is dulled by this scrappy
Erudition, there is a long gap where
proof is wanting. 1t is also claimed
that too many read for enjoyment.
Why not read for enjoyment3 Is not