The following monograph upon the history and present status of the university development in the
Purpose and definition.
Many striking changes have taken place in the educational and religious worlds during the past quarter of a century.
It is impossible to separate the history of education in
America from the history of the
Church.
Changes in one have affected the other.
The purpose of this statement is not to present statistics with reference to particular institutions, but to make an effort within brief space to show how certain great factors have been worked out, together with the results of this working.
The term “university” has many usages in this country.
In the proper sense of the word it designates not a college or institution doing college work; not an institution made up of a college and of professional schools in which the latter are of the same grade as the college.
A college of arts and a college of medicine are to be treated as of the same grade provided the students in the two institutions are of the same degree of maturity and preparation.
The term is rather to be used of institutions in which work of a more advanced character than college work is offered to students, and in which
[
566]
emphasis is placed upon research and the training of students for research.
In this last and highest sense, the term is properly applied to an institution which has only a single faculty of instruction and a comparatively small number of students.
The only question in a given case is this: Is the institution intended as a training school for the development of character, or are the students of the institution those who have had no previous college training?
In either of these cases the institution cannot be called a university in the largest and best sense of the word.
It is unnecessary at this point to indicate the line which separates the college from the university.
From my own point of view, I would draw such a line at the end of the sophomore year in college work.
There is something to be said on both sides of this question, but it is a question which need not here be discussed.
What makes a University?
Two things combine to make possible the existence of a university.
The first is opportunity for research and investigation; the second is freedom to enjoy this opportunity.
Either without the other is, of course, of little value.
Among the elements which go to make the opportunity for investigation are the factors connected with (1) libraries and laboratories; (2) preliminary training of a satisfactory character; (3) flexibility in the constitution of the immediate environment; (4) a sufficient number of students possessed of the proper spirit of inquiry.
Other factors might be included, but these are the most fundamental.
Freedom to enjoy the opportunities for research is dependent largely upon the organization of the institution.
If it were possible to trace the history of the birth of the university, and to examine closely the inherent characteristics of which it was possessed at the time of birth, three things would be noted:
1 (1) the right to govern itself; (2) freedom from control of State or Church; (3) the right of free utterance.
Without these characteristics in an institution of learning, whatever may be its name, it cannot be a university.
All universities are of necessity “privileged,” and in one form or another supported by the people.
It is natural that universities should be influenced by the changes which are going on among the people.
But when for any reason the administration of a university, or the instruction in any one of its departments, is changed by an influence from without; whenever an effort is made to dislodge an officer or a professor because the political or theological sentiment of the majority has undergone a change, at that moment the institution has ceased to be a university, and it cannot again take its place in the rank of universities so long as there continues to exist, to any appreciable extent, the factor of coercion.
Neither State nor Church nor private patron has any right to interfere with the search for truth, or with its promulgation when found.
With schools and colleges organized for the training of youthful minds it is entirely different; and here, if nowhere else, may be drawn sharply the line of differentiation between college and university.
An institution under State control almost inevitably withholds freedom of research in certain subjects; an institution under Church control in certain other subjects; while, indeed, an institution under the control of a board of trustees and upon private foundation is not infrequently limited by the prejudices of the trustees.
A good definition for a university is the following: “A self-governing association of men for the purpose of study; an institution privileged by the
State for the guidance of the people; an agency recognized by the people for solving the problems of civilization which present themselves in the development of civilization.”
A university touches every phase of life at every point; it enters into every field of thought to which the human mind addresses itself.
It has no fixed abode far away from man, for it goes to those who cannot go to it. It is shut in behind no lofty battlement, for it has no enemy which it would ward off. Strangely enough, it vanquishes its enemies by inviting them into close association with itself.
The university is a democratic institution, constituted by the people and for the people.
[
567]
University education in the past.
University education, in the sense defined above, has come into existence very largely since the
War of the
Rebellion.
A university could hardly be said to have existed in this country before 1870.
Let us consider briefly the situation as it presented itself:
1. In even the largest institutions, the library was scarcely of sufficient size or value to deserve the name.
It was open for consultation during perhaps one hour a day of two days in the week.
The better class of students, it was understood, had no time for reading.
In fact, reading was a degradation.
William Frederick Poole, the late librarian of the
Newberry Library, a few months before his death made this statement: “To those of us who graduated thirty or forty or more years ago, books outside of the text-book used had no part in our education; they were never quoted, recommended, nor mentioned by the instructor in the class-room.
As I remember it, Yale College library might as well have been in
Waterville or
Bridgeport as in New Haven, so far as the students in those days were concerned.”
It is only in comparatively recent years that the largest institutions have had a librarian giving his entire time to the care of the library.
And the laboratory occupied as small a place in the situation of forty years ago as did the library.
It was something unknown to a college graduate of thirty years ago. The first chemical laboratory in
Germany was built by
Liebig at Giessen in 1826.
This factor, which to-day takes its place side by side with the library, is something which formed no part of education in days past.
An institution of higher learning with no library worth mentioning, and with no laboratories, could scarcely be called a university.
2. The curriculum of study in those days dealt wholly with the past.
It was largely Latin,
Greek, mathematics, and philosophy.
Questions of living interest could gain no recognition.
The study of English literature, and indeed of modern literature of any kind, was rigidly excluded until within two or three decades. The attention of the students was directed to the past.
The method employed was in large measure the a priori method.
As
Professor Remsen has described it:
2
“When the philosopher in those days wished to solve a problem, his method was to sit down and think about it. He relied upon the working of his brain to frame a theory, and beautiful theories were undoubtedly formed.
Many of these —probably all of those which had reference to natural phenomena—were far in advance of facts known, and even directly opposed to facts discovered later.
Minds were not hampered by facts, and theories grew apace.
The age was one of mental operations.
A beautiful thought was regarded as something much superior to knowledge.
We have not learned to think less of beautiful thoughts, or of mental processes, but we have learned to think more of facts, and to let our beautiful thoughts be guided by them.”
3. Still further, the curriculum was not one of high standard, from the present point of view.
It is probably a correct statement that the curriculum of
Yale and
Harvard sixty years ago was not much higher than the curriculum of the best grade of high schools to-day.
It certainly was not as broad in the opportunities furnished for diversity of work.
As late as the year 1843 the requirements for admission to the freshman class were as follows:
In Latin:
Cicero's orations, Virgil, Sallust, Latin grammar and Latin prose, and Latin prosody.
In
Greek:
Greek grammar and the reading of three books of the
Anabasis.
And in addition, arithmetic, English grammar, and geography.
Still later, at Harvard, 1850:
In Latin: Caesar, Virgil,
Cicero's select orations, with Latin grammar and prose.
In
Greek:
Felton's Greek reader, “writing of
Greek with the accents,”
Greek grammar.
In mathematics: arithmetic, algebra, first lessons; introduction to geometry.
Worcester's ancient geography and history.
4. The numbers in attendance were very small.
A single case may be cited: In 1834 Harvard had 336 students in all departments; in 1840, 448 students; in 1850, 584 students; and in 1866-67, 959 students.
No institution of learning up
[
568]
to the time of the close of the war had as large a number as 1,000 students.
During Harvard's first sixty-five years of history there were graduated an average of eight students a year.
During Yale's first 128 years, an average of between thirty-four and thirty-five students graduated each year.
There was no such thing as a large college; the university was something not yet dreamed of.
5. The constituency of the college in those days was to a large extent students who were preparing themselves for the ministry.
The college was practically a theological seminary.
In
Harvard, Hebrew was required of all students down to 1780.
Those subjects which have found their way into the curriculum in more recent years, because demanded by men having in mind the profession of medicine or the profession of the law, or a business career, were entirely lacking.
The percentage of graduates entering the ministry was as follows: At
Yale, one student in every four graduated from 1702 to 1830 became a minister.
At
Harvard, during the first fifty years, one out of every two entered the ministry.
In a word, therefore, higher education in the past was intended largely for a single class of men. The numbers were consequently very small; and in the training of these men the entire emphasis was placed upon that which stood related to ancient times, rather than upon anything that concerned the times in which the men lived; and besides, those methods of work which to-day constitute the very essence of higher education, employed in connection with the library and the laboratory, our fathers utterly lacked.
In reference to the control of higher education in this early stage of its development, the following points deserve consideration:
1. Nearly all the institutions of higher learning were established by denominations.
Harvard came first, in 1636, established by the Congregationalists.
In 1693 the college of William and Mary was founded by the
Church of
England in the colony of
Virginia.
Yale followed in 1701, under the Congregationalists.
Then in 1746 the Presbyterians established Princeton College, and this was followed in quick succession by
Washington and Lee University in 1749, under the
Church of
England; the university of
Pennsylvania in 1751; Columbia University in 1754, under the
Church of
England; Brown University in 1764, in charge of the Baptists; Rutgers College in 1766, under the Dutch Reformed Church; Dartmouth College in 1770, by the Congregationalists; and Hampden-Sydney College in 1776, under the Presbyterians.
It was not until long after this that the
State universities were established.
In the earlier times, when Church and State were one in the colonies, the
State may have had to do with the maintenance of the college; but State foundations, in the realm of higher education, have come for the most part since 1840.
Of the more prominent State universities, the following are the dates of establishment:
Higher education, until times comparatively recent, therefore, was the child of the
Church, and in each particular case the special offspring of a denomination.
It has been in accordance with this policy that everywhere throughout the
Middle and Western States the different denominations of Christians have sought to strengthen their work by establishing colleges, the absolute control of which they have maintained.
The debt of education to the several Christian denominations is something incalculable.
It may almost be said that down to 1830 or 1840 there was no higher education except that which was provided for by the denominations.
2. In this period, likewise, the officers and the students of the college were very largely members of the particular denomination which controlled the college.
This was a natural consequence of the fact that the majority of the students were preparing for the ministry.
Just as today the staff of the theological seminaries must be composed of those who are communicants of the particular denomination in control of the seminary, so in those
[
569]
days the staff of the college consisted exclusively of those who were members of the particular denomination in control of the college.
In many of the smaller institutions under denominational control this condition still exists, while in the larger institutions a survival of it is seen in such a charter as that of Yale, which requires a large proportion of the corporation to be Congregational clergymen of the
State of Connecticut.
3. But it is to be noted that denominations in those days were what we would to-day call sects.
Inasmuch as the distinctions between the denominations were more clearly marked and greater emphasis was placed relatively upon these distinctions, and since the spirit of those days was narrow as compared with that which frequently permits to-day the co-operation of different denominations in the same great work, the denominationalism of that time may fairly be called “an undue denominationalism” —that is, sectarianism.
From the point of view in which these words are used, the difference between the spirit of sectarianism and the spirit of the denominationalism of today is something world-wide.
In those times there had not yet sprung up these great modern movements like the Young Men's Christian Association and the
Young People's Society of Christian Endeavor, which have contributed so largely to broadening out the denominations and to placing emphasis upon the essentials of Christianity as distinct from the peculiarities of sects.
Under these circumstances, the lines were drawn as strictly between the
colleges of the several denominations as between the denominations themselves.
4. As a result of this narrow and sectarian control, and of the fact that the largest single factor in the student body was made up of those engaged in preparation for the ministry, there was a unity of plan and purpose, and a unity in teaching, which is to-day unknown in institutions of higher learning.
Only that might be taught which was in strict accord with the tenets of the sect or denomination in control, and only that side of truth was presented which it was desired the student should accept.
To have placed before the student three or four points of view and to have allowed him to make choice for himself would have been regarded as a method of policy wholly disastrous in its effects.
There was no choice of subject; there was no choice of opinion.
The curriculum was a castiron curriculum, and the whole process consisted of a series of mechanical contrivances devised to make every student exactly like every other student, in order that each and every one might seem to have passed through the same mould, with each individual characteristic cut off. Time does not permit me to show the direct results of this kind of higher education.
It is enough to say that it was characteristic of its times.
The exclusive spirit still prevailed.
In many sections of the country men were monarchists or aristocrats without knowing the fact.
The principles of democracy had not yet exerted their full influence.
The times were not yet ripe for the full fruitage in the educational field of democratic methods and democratic ideals.
George Eliot's description in
Middlemarch of certain English institutions would have been strictly applicable to these, for they were “institutions which sought to lift up the higher learning by making it exclusive.”
New factors in the present situation.
If, within fifty years, there have been changes in our industrial world; if, with the coming of the railroad and the telegraph-line methods of transportation have been revolutionized; if everywhere growth and development, which are only other words for expansion, have been phenomenal, just so in the field of higher education.
The changes have been so great that one may hardly speak of evolution.
It might almost be called revolution.
Higher education, as it stands in relationship to the different denominations of the
Church, finds itself to-day engaged in a serious struggle for the solution of the problems which arise out of this new and strange environment; and we should remember that these changes owe their origin to the same cause as do the changes in methods of transportation, business in general, and life at large.
The high school, called the people's college, is a development of twenty or twenty-five years. Much work done
[
570]
formerly by colleges is now done by high schools; the course of study in many of these schools is more extensive and more thorough than was the course in many of the better colleges forty years ago, and many of the poorer colleges to-day.
The educational policy involved in the maintenance and conduct of the high school is something very pleasing to the public, and everything points to a still higher development; for already in many States the high school is doing the work of the freshman year in college.
Several things are to be considered:
4
1. Much of the constituency of these schools is drawn directly from the college or the preparatory school connected with the college.
2. The graduates of these schools have distinct advantages in any effort to secure positions as teachers in the lower schools.
3. So strong is the work done in the high school that many parents who have the means to pay the tuition fee in a denominational institution prefer the high school; while the absence of any fee is a great incentive to many to patronize them.
4. The equipment for science is often far better than that possessed by the college, and the instruction is more modern.
5. Preparatory schools in the West and South are no longer crowded, because students are going to the high schools.
6. In a word, the high school is a distracting element to the friends of the college, which at one time controlled the situation.
Another factor of great importance is the development, especially in the
Western States, of the State university.
At first only a college, the State university has slowly gained ground, until in some States it has become almost impossible for the non-State colleges to continue their work with satisfaction.
So strong has the antagonism come to be that in more than one State the smaller colleges have joined themselves together in an alliance the object of which is to meet the rapid encroachments of the
State institution.
In the whole Mississippi Valley there are not more than two or three non-State institutions which to-day do not stand in actual fear of the
State institutions.
The explanation of this is clear.
With a political influence which naturally lends itself to the
State institution; with the large number of alumni occupying the chief positions as principals and teachers in high schools; with no tuition fee, because provision has been made by the
State, and instruction is offered free; with excellent facilities for work in nearly every line; with fully equipped laboratories, and with libraries far more complete than any ordinary college can ever hope to possess, the State university presents an inducement to the prospective student which the smaller college cannot under any circumstances duplicate.
The introduction of the library and the laboratory into modern education presents other difficulties.
These may be summed up in one word—lack of means.
The work of the junior and senior years at college cannot in these days be properly done without large libraries and wellequipped laboratories.
The modern method of teaching and of study rests absolutely upon principles which demand for their operation books and apparatus.
The introduction of the principle of election, which has now been universally adopted in so far as the financial resources of institutions make it possible, is a source of many changes and much embarrassment.
The student-world is now least of all concerned in preparation for the ministry.
The average class of even the smaller college turns out more men for medicine and law than for the ministry; while even a larger number, perhaps, of those who leave the college enter business.
These, having in mind the careers which they are to follow, demand studies which shall bear directly on that career.
Educators, for the most part, accept the doctrine that any ordinary subject, well studied, will produce discipline and furnish culture.
Students wish modern literature, rather than ancient literature; modern history, rather than ancient history.
They wish political economy and political science, and sociology, instead of philosophy.
Many prefer French and German to Latin and
Greek.
So many subjects are demanded, libraries of such extent are needed, laboratories with such equipment are called for, that to-day $1,000,000 will not suffice to meet the
[
571]
wants of an institution of higher learning which, twenty years ago, would have been amply provided for by $100,000. The elective principle, which calls for large expenditure not only in the way of books and equipment, but also of increased instruction, is the rock on which many institutions are being dashed to pieces.
Added to this, there has come into existence, gradually but surely, what is called the university idea.
As has been said, a university, in the proper sense of the term, was something which did not exist in the
United States before the war. It might be said that this idea goes no farther back than three decades. All institutions before that time, and many of the larger institutions of to-day, are large colleges, but not universities.
Two years ago, in the city of
Chicago, was organized an association of American universities.
The association includes fourteen of the 480 colleges of the
United States—one in thirty-four.
In some of these institutions are gathered students the total number of whom would make thirty or forty colleges.
This university spirit has now taken root and its most rapid development may be expected; for the same spirit which has drawn so large a portion of our population to the cities, where special advantages are thought to exist and special privileges may be secured, is drawing the best men to the larger institutions (State universities and institutions only nominally under denominational control) because of their larger libraries, their better equipped laboratories, and their more direct contact with life and modern civilization.
This element in the present situation is one which the denominational college is compelled to face, and with which it has already entered into serious struggle.
The older institutions of higher education, the denominational colleges, are, therefore, confronted to-day by many changes from the earlier situation in which these colleges had birth and the first years of their growth.
The difficulties which thus present themselves are many, and among them not the least is the greatly increased cost of maintenance.
The number of denominational colleges with an endowment of less than $100,000 is very large.
These, for the most part.
have less than 100 to 150 college students.
The total income from all sources of more than one-third of all the colleges and universities in the
United States is in each case less than $10,000. The cost per capita for high-school instruction in a city like
Peoria, Ill., is larger than the cost per capita of instruction furnished in many of the colleges.
The demands of modern methods have multiplied the cost of education many times, and at the same time the income on investments is steadily decreasing.
The denominations recognize the fact that, as such, they lack the means necessary to make provision for the work of higher education in the largest sense.
No denomination, as such, has yet established and endowed an institution which has the rank of university.
The denomination can provide for a college.
It is not strong enough, and there is not sufficient interest, to secure means for the maintenance of a university.
Universities on large foundations have come as a result, on one hand, of generous gifts from men of many denominations, including gifts from those who have had no denominational connection.
(In this class will be placed
Harvard, Yale, and
Chicago.) Or by individual men, either out of touch with Christian work altogether, or without reference to it. (Here are to be placed Girard College and the Leland Stanford University.) Or by the collective strength of a State.
(Here belong the
State universities, especially of the
Middle and Western States.)
A denomination, as such, cannot to-day furnish the faculty for a university.
It would be literally impossible for even the strongest denomination in the
United States to man a strong university.
It would be difficult for any three denominations combined to do this.
If such a university were organized and if its faculty were in large measure of a particular denomination, it would be still more difficult for that denomination to impress its particular doctrines upon the university.
A denomination may establish a college, and, if it is a small college, may furnish the membership of its faculty.
It may likewise furnish the largest number of the student body; and it might, although this is improbable, make a strenuous
[
572]
effort to propagate through this institution its peculiar views.
But to attempt this in the case of a university would be futile, and no body of men likely to be placed as trustees in control of a university, even if as individuals a majority of them are members of the same communion, will today, or in the future, make an effort to impress upon that institution a denominational point of view.
This, then, is the present—with, on the one hand, many new educational problems difficult of solution, and, on the other, a changed relationship between denominationalism and higher education.
If the past was the period of denominational higher education, what shall we call the present?
In the field of activity, as in that of theological thought, and as in that of business, it is a period of transition;
transition from a lower to a higher plane; from a narrower to a broader spirit; from a smaller to a larger work; a transition in process because we are now coming into a fuller knowledge, and understand the significance of the teachings of the great Teacher,
Jesus Christ; because we are really just beginning to apply the principles of democracy to our religion and educational work; because the new century places before us possibilities of increase, of readjustment, and of realization even beyond our dreams.
