Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-01-25

IF WE examined the college curric-
ulum not through the eyes of our
tradition but with a fresh and un-
4 biased outlook, we should probably
be amazed at the small provision it
makes for certain essentials of culture
We should see, of course, in the catalogue
many printed references to the arts and
sciences but in the actual instruction
and in the daily life of the students the
arts would have so meager represen-
tation that they might as we'll not be
represented at all. We teach not arts, but
sciences-mathemat physics, chem
istry, biology, geology. Our emphasis
upon these subjects is due, I suppose,
to the eloquence and energy of Huxley
and other nineteenth century advocates
of scientific education. They convinced
us that science should displace the
classics in the curriculum, just as pre-
viouS centuries had persuaded Euro
pean universities to let the secular lit
erature displace theology.
Huxley and his fellow advocates of
science, being themselves men of cul-
ture but not clear as to how they be-
came so, told us that the proper study
of a science would afford modern boy
liberal education. There now seems
to be some doubt about this result.
whether of medicine or engineering or
the law, now insist that their candi-
dates shall have collected some culture
before they present themselves for pro-
fessional instruction. The requirement
usually Is that they shall have spent
some years in college, where, by assump-
ton, culture Is impaired. In college,
however, the courses which all the stu
dents pursue are confined more mar
rowly than We perhaps realize to the
same kind of intellectual approach
which characterizeS the graduate work,
Culturally speaking, the college course
offers little which is not found in the
engineering school or the law school,
and it offers the same thing in a more
elementary, a softer and a labbier
state.
Arts and Sciences Differ.
The old balance of the arts against
the sciences was a sound contrast, and
the not unusual attempt nowadays to
confuse the two things is unfortunate;
for whatever reSemblanceS there may be
between an art and a science, the i'm
portant thing is the difference between
them. The object of science is ac-
complishment; the object Of an art is
performance. Sound training in the
perform something well, always with an
audience in mind-to speak or write a
language well, TO maintain public de-
bate, TO preach a sermon, to paint pic
ture, to sing or play music, to carve a
statue, to design and build house. Or,
IL nothing else, to stand or TO walk
well, to carry oneself with poise, to be-
have courteously.
A training in the artS-that is, a
training in performance-was once
thought essential for cultured men or
women, but the universities as such
have always, because Of their tradition,
been reluctant to impart this training.
1t has usually been acquired from pri-
vate tutors, and it has therefore been
the privilege of the fortunate classes.
The universities have by tradition pre-
ferred to stress science-the science of
God-the scientific aspects OF classical
literature, grammar, prosody, etymol-
ogy; the science Of the law, the physical
sciences.
II the universities were right in this
emphasis we might suppose that human
beings are more eager to accomplish
something than to perform; more eager
to get something done than TO live well.