New-York tribune., 1920-11-30
What Is Wrong With Education?


OF lis university and the universe,
and no one will wish to dispute what
he has to say upon these general
topics. But in his specific condenl-
nation Of present-day education
there seems good deal more heat
than light--rnore melodramatic dis
approval than discriminating and
helpful analysis. Like a great many
other leaders in education, not to
say plain parents, he feels strongly
that there is much wrong with
teachers and pupils to-day. When
it comes to Offering a clew to our
present psychological maze one can
not feel that much satisfaction is
yielded.
The central diagnosis offered by
DR.. Butler is summed up in his
assertion that "both school and col
lege have in large part taken their
minds off the true business of edu-
cation, which is to prepare youth to
live, and have fixed them upon some
thing which is very subordinate,
namely, how to prepare youth to
make living" Now, the objections
to the accuracy of this analysis are
obvious; they are suggested else
where in DR.. Buffers report when
he speaks of the ''faddists and en-
thusiasts" who have seized upon the
elementary school in the interest of
'all sorts of enterprises which have
their origin in emotionalism, in
ignorance or in mere vanity" What
IS here suggested applies with equal
force to the college. Toward tech
nical, practical training, calculated
to earn dollars in later life, Ameri-
can education has turned a far from
favoring face. The attempt to de-
velop the dye industry in this coun-
try as a result Of the war revealed
an appalling lack Of thoroughly
trained chenists-traned with the
completeness of the G1rman chemist
for instance. Our educational fail
ure was shown up in this one con-
spicuous respect; that equal short
comings exist all along the line seems
all too likely. If any generalization
was possible on the question we
should say that Dr.. Buffers asser-
tlon should be exactly reversed
that American education has too
largely pursued a vague effort to
teach our youth how to live at the
expense Of hard, definite learning.
We must also disagree with DR..
Buffers explanation of the sources
Of our educational predicament. A
sort Of diabolism of the young
and a new paganism Of al. Of US
appear to loom large in his mind.
A larger view Of the problem sug-
gests that our present educational
shortcomings are the natural conse-
, quences of old processes. Psychol
: ogy has yielded much new wisdom
on the subject in the past genera
: tion-ample to suggest infinite cy-
. periments and hypothesis without
+ yielding any sure ground for prog
F. ress We are now in the confusion
of this transition, and doubtless the
present upcoming generation will
suffer-as other generations in sim
= liar periods Of experimentation
have suffered. But progress is be
= ing made; the theory of "full and
free expression to a child's individ-
uality" (Which particularly arouses
:. DR.. Buffers WRATH will not be
wholly annihlated when the battle
is over, it is already safe to sur
mise. Owe wonder, by the way
= whether the elective system of oul
colleges does not deserve the blame
or credit, for initiating this partic
ular doctrine rather than our sec
ondary schools.)
y DR.. Buffers bugle call can, how
ever, do excellent work if it vii
u stir our educational leaders to &
new attempt at clarification Of suct
wisdom as is in hand. The CHIEF
intellectual evil Of the hour, we sug
{ gest, is superficiality; part and par
ce. of the American readiness te
bluff it through; Of the nationa
= desire "to. get results This i.
! nothing new. 1t is as old as tho
q fact that we have always been, II
s. large measure, n nation Of pioneers
r Action rather than wisdom was ou,
c god-nccessarly, rightly, as LONG
q as frontier lasted. Put that from
C tier is ending; We must compet.
r with the Old World upon an eoual
l. ity in the near future. In tha
n competition we shall need all tn,
d exactitude and research and pains
% taking mentality that we can mus