New-York tribune., 1919-08-21
Education and the War


What the war taught us concerning
education and how we can benefit by
its lessons are discussed from an ex-
pert's point of view in a bulletin of the
Federal Bureau of Education, written
by Professor G. R. Mann, of the Massa-
chusetts Institute of Technology, who
served as chairman of the Advisory
Board on Education and Special Train
ing of the War Department.
First Of all comes the democratic
principle that prevailed in the army-a
mans capabilities were studied and de-
termined, and his training based there
on; his family status or financial ability
had nothing to do with the decision. Of
course our present system does the same
thing in a much more hit or miss
fashion. No boy of real ability need
lack for an education nowadays if he
has the will to work for it, There is
a healthy American sentiment to this
end, and it usually sees that the boy
goes to college or technical school, as
he desires. 1t is the beauty of universal
training that it automatically achieves
this end as matter of official routine
Can the same democratic system be
achieved by other means? Professor
Mann suggests a persistent campaign,
carefully organized in cooperation with
the schools in every community, as pos
sible alternative. Perhaps this might
work, but the ideal system would be
universal service long enough to per
NIT a searching test of each youth upon
a thoroughly democratic basis. After
ward it might be left to the communl-
ties to see that their young men receive
the training their abilities entitle them
to. At any rate each boy would know
what he was fitted for and toward what
he ought to bend his career.
Physical exercise and drill are next
stressed by Professor Mann. "a fine
physical set-up, good coordination, pre-
cision, promptness, self-discipline and
the instructive habit of doing ones best
under all conditions" are the goals to be
sought A large order, it will be SEEN
almost the whole problem of education.
Military training proved in the war to
be most effective means for accom-
plishing these ends, in Professor Mann's
opinion.
Is there substitute for peace times?
1t is suggested that the schools have not
paid sufficient attention to these virtues
and that by pursuing them, as does mill
tary training, might achieve them. Per-
haps. But we think Professor Mann has
missed an essential factor in the case.
Any one who has ever attended a mill
tary school in peace time can assure
Professor Mann that there is limited
merit IN military training as ordinarily
taught. SO far from teaching "the in
stinctive habit of doing ones best under
all conditions" we should say that after
1t has taught certain superficial alert
ness and precision it helps not at all to
develop initiative or doing anything
better than enough to "get BY"
The truth is, we submit, that it was
the great, all-stirring motive behind
military service during the war that
There was eagerness to do ones best
tor ones country, there was social
enthusiasm that swept the dullest pri-
Yates on to do better than their best
With the wars end came a slumn which
every officer will testify to. So the
problem is not nearly as simple as Pro
lessor Mann states 1t. 1t is nothing less
than to find in peace time substitute
for the great motive of patriotism
tanned into flame by war-a moral
equivalent for war, in short Universal
military training in a measure holds
this same motive, and that is the strong-
est argument in it's favor. Universal
education utterly lacks this principle Of
enthusiastic service. Would public SER
wee upon great public underta kings
create similar impulses? The Question
suggests the real problems involved in
an effort to utilize the lessons of war
IN peace time.