COLLEGE DIVERSIONS 73 



days, when colleges neglected the physical welfare of students and de- 

 voted their attention so strenuously to intellectual work as to endanger 

 the health of those entrusted to their care. This is hardly exact, for 

 there never was a time in this country when the curriculum was so 

 severe as to endanger any man's health; in any event, the study of 

 alumni catalogues shows that in pre-athletic days college students were, 

 as they are now, a selected class, with tendency to long life and were, 

 on the average, excellent risks for life insurance. But whether or not 

 the statement be true that colleges in former days neglected the 

 physical welfare of students, the fact remains that they are doing little 

 better now. 



The plea for funds with which to purchase athletic fields and erect 

 gymnasiums was successful and vast sums have been expended, far out 

 of proportion to any possible good that might result. But what has 

 been gained by the expenditure? Some colleges have a brief compul- 

 sory course in the gymnasium; but the great equipment is utilized 

 more and more each year for teams composed of men whose bodies 

 need no such anxious care. The vast majority of students must gain 

 their physical culture by proxy, by paying generously toward support 

 of the college champions, just as they must secure much of their esthetic 

 culture by supporting publications or teams in chess and debating and 

 by purchasing tickets to glee club concerts — all for the advancement of 

 the college. The chances for neglect of physical culture are greater 

 than formerly, as the pocket money which enabled the boys of other 

 days to have their little baseball and rowing clubs is now consumed in 

 purchasing admission tickets to concerts, contests and the rest. 



The method in which defenders of intercollegiate contests have 

 conducted their side of the discussion does no credit either to their 

 manliness or to their integrity. Those who oppose the waste of time 

 and the diversion of funds have been stigmatized as men indifferent to 

 the health of students, as effeminate, as desiring that young men be- 

 come " mollycoddles " ; sneers have taken the place of argument. But 

 the statements and characterizations are false throughout. By far the 

 great majority of those who criticize the present deplorable condition 

 are warm defenders of physical culture; they would be gratified if the 

 course in gymnastics were made more extensive and compulsory, for 

 they recognize that young men who need such training have no desire 

 for it; they not only maintain that physical exercise, singing, chess 

 playing, debating and the rest are commendable, but they assert also 

 that such diversions are necessary for they are firm believers in the old 

 adage that "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy, they say." 

 But they denounce the present system which has relegated study to the 

 background and has made the proper college work merely an annex to 

 exhibitions. That which is only incidential has been made all-im- 

 portant. 



