AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES.

BY ETHELBERT D. WARFIELD.

[Ethelbert Dudley Warfield, president and professor of history of Lafayette college; born March 16, 1861, at Lexington, Kentucky; graduated from Princeton in 1882; continued his studies in Oxford, England, the next year, and in 1885 was graduated from the Columbia college Law school; from 1886-88 he practiced law in Lexington, when he became president and professor of history in Miami university, whence he resigned in 1891 to become president of Lafayette college; in 1891 he was ordained to the ministry in the Presbyterian church; he is the author of The Kentucky Resolutions of 1898, An Historical Study, At the Evening Hour. The following is from Munsey's magazine by special arrangement.] Copyright 1901 by Frank A. Munsey

No phase of social progress is more characteristic of the development of the United States than the growth of our universities. Indeed, the whole field of education has been so fertile in ideas and undertakings that European critics, and especially English critics, have declared that America is education mad. The fact is that the growth of democracy demanded a leveling principle, and the growth of wealth made this a leveling up and not a leveling down, as it rendered it possible for the poor boy to work his way to an education, and the educated man to become a leader in political and-which is true of America almost alone-in social life.

One of the most marked features of our educational growth has been its spontaneousness. It has sprung from the people, from local needs and, even more, from local aspirations. On this account it has lacked unity and system; but it has gained something far better than either unity or system-vitality. It has been a part of the social life of the people, and the divergence in the social life of Massachusetts and of Georgia, of Pennsylvania and of California, has been no less than the difference in the school and college growth of those states.

As the educational institutions were the outgrowth of local needs, they were nearly always adapted to the field in which they sprang up; as they were not less the progeny of local aspirations, they were often vastly ambitious in plan and name. Fortunately those ambitions were allowed to

slumber in the charter till the time was ripe for their prophecy to be fulfilled in fact.

The early colonists were jealous of their position as educated men, and determined that their children should not decline in knowledge and intelligence. Yet few of the colonies made permanent foundations of schools upon such a liberal basis as insured a proportionate growth with the colony. The notable exceptions are Harvard, founded in 1636; Yale, in 1701, and William and Mary, in 1693. Among the colonial institutions still in existence, nearly all have had a more or less broken continuity. They are Bowdoin (Maine), Brown University (Rhode Island), Kings, now Columbia (New York), Dartmouth (New Hampshire), Princeton and Rutgers (New Jersey), the University of Pennsylvania, and Washington, now Washington and Lee (Virginia). Of these, Harvard and Yale, of the earlier group, have grown with each generation and are typical American universities, and the same is true of Columbia, Princeton, and the University of Pennsylvania in the second group.

Immediately after the revolution there was a movement for the founding of academies and colleges, a movement which spread rapidly into the new west. There, in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio, it gave birth to academies which somewhat prematurely set up the curriculum of colleges, and in the largeness of expectation which has ever characterized the west-whether trans-Appalachian, trans-Mississippi, or transcontinental, first flung out the banner of the university. Thus Transylvania university burst its chrysalis on January 1, 1799, while Harvard and Yale, long after they had become universities in fact, clung to the time honored name of college.

The early type was based upon the colleges of the English universities, especially Cambridge, in which the American clergy had largely had their academic training. The instruction was relatively upon a low standard, and tended to gravitate rather to the type of the so-called English colleges, or public schools, of Eton and Winchester. The chief subjects of instruction long remained elementary mathematics, Latin and Greek. The impulse in the founding of the earlier schools having been given very largely by the clergy, there was

always some instruction in mental and moral philosophy, and generally in history, which was really treated more as applied philosophy than as pure history. The practical demands of the pulpit and the controversial atmosphere of the times put a high value on what now appear to have been very dry and formal courses in rhetoric and logic. The sciences were in their infancy, but the claims of chemistry, physics, and astronomy were not wholly neglected. Indeed, the fact that they early found a place in the American curriculum shows the relative liberality of our colleges as compared with those European schools of the same grade and purpose.

It was unfortunate for the American people that, while they were struggling with high ambitions and keen practical vision for some basis for their educational system, they had so little to aid them in the mother country. The English universities had fallen into a sleepy old age in the eighteenth century, from which they have even yet but half aroused themselves. Jefferson saw this, and invoked the French influence in his foundation of the University of Virginia, in 1825, setting an example which affected many southern institutions.

About 1840 England turned to Germany for more vital methods; the leaders of thought in New England took the same course at a somewhat earlier time. Gradually German influence brought about radical changes. The new suggestions fell upon a rich field. The time was fully come for American educational growth. Many ideas of native origin were stirring, such as those associated with the personality and work of Horace Mann, which embraced the thorough organization of the public schools, a normal school system, and the co-ordination of the education of women with that of men.

Two or three definite ideas became clearly marked in American education in the first half of the nineteenth century. They were not always properly connected, but as they were more and more widely accepted, it became necessary for educational reformers to unite them.

The first to become really dominant was the necessity of a college education. It was somewhat on the economic prin

ciple that in the progress of civilization luxuries precede necessities. Where few enjoyed this distinction, it was highly valued. The energies of an entire family were devoted to the proud purpose of giving the most promising son the privilege of going to college. As the privilege was rare, the most unusual knowledge acquired was the most highly valued. Hence, instead of the colleges being degraded to the practical requirements of a new country, they were stimulated to maintain an honorable eminence as intellectual leaders in communities that were rapidly advancing in wealth and material progress.

The second was the growth of professional schools, often independent of college connection, sometimes connected with colleges. The early training in the professions was obtained by the sending of young men to study under preceptors. The clergy first departed from this method, to establish theological professorships, which grew into separate seminaries. Always the leaders in intellectual movements, they first insisted on a thorough college preparation before the commencement of the studies embraced in the theological course. Gradually independent schools were affiliated or absorbed, and the American colleges began to be universities-at least, so far as mere groups of faculties can constitute such institutions.

The third of these ideas was that of the public obligation to provide free schools-an idea of vast possibilities, many of which have been realized, and the end is not yet. It flourished first in New England. Gradually it carried the free school over the northern states and made steady conquests in the south. From primary it advanced to secondary education, then to normal training. From time to time it showed its power in this state and that by leading to the state taking up collegiate work; then, in the act of 1862, it invaded national legislation, and gave birth to the great system of land grant colleges, originally planned for education in agriculture and the mechanical arts, but which have assumed many and various forms and proportions undreamed by their founders.

These three ideas may be said to have been the great shaping influences that have given form to American university development. They have been combined in endless variety; they have been reinforced by many other influences; yet these have been fundamental. In general, we may say that university growth has been due to a widespread popular estimate of the value of a college education, to the bringing together into a single system of independent schools, and to a great public system of free education, which has prepared students for collegiate and professional courses, and has set up rivals for the older institutions in a great number of state colleges and universities.

But university expansion in America has had some very unique features, which need to be specially noted. Those under the influence of the more formal type of German thought are wont to define a university as an institution of higher education which has faculties of arts, medicine, and theology. This is a poor definition, setting form above substance, and the body above the spirit; yet it has had a great influence in university growth. Thus Harvard, chartered in 1636, maintained its faculty of arts alone till 1783, when it first added a medical faculty. The law department dates from 1817, and the divinity school from 1819. The sister university in Connecticut, in many ways a contrast to Harvard, developed in this direction more slowly, and always with great conservative loyalty to the arts course as the center of Yale life. Yet Yale entered, by affiliation, into the medical field in 1814, into law in 1843, and divinity in 1867.

It is interesting to note that Columbia, situated in the metropolis, while following a similar course with the opportunity of affiliation almost thrust upon it, did not incorporate departments of law and medicine till so late as 1858 and 1891, and has now only very slender ties with the nominally affiliated theological faculties. The University of Pennsylvania only recently provided a law school, and is still without any sort of theological faculty. It is yet more striking to observe that, of the three great American colleges, Princeton has steadily resisted the temptation to add professional faculties and has advanced to the university rank and name by virtue