SMALL COLLEGES 6i 



only two were graduates of large colleges ; while nearly ninety per cent. 

 of the distinguished men in congress from 1870 to 1895 were furnished 

 by the small colleges, which in addition have provided many of the most 

 prominent men in the cabinet and other departments of the government. 

 This is a thoroughly typical argument and is an admirable example of 

 non sequHur, but it is effective, being easily comprehended by the most 

 indolent intellect. One miglit take exception to it throughout on the 

 ground that there are directions other than politics along which men 

 achieve success, and that a training which induces men to seek political 

 preferment as the summum honum is hardly to be commended ; but this 

 would be merely a reflection on the speaker and not criticism of his 

 argument. 



The statement is partially true as to fact and wholly false as to 

 implication. When tlie men referred to were graduated every Amer- 

 ican college was small; even Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Columbia 

 were small, and two of them had fewer students than are claimed by 

 some colleges whose presidents are bombarding the generously inclined 

 with letters, circulars and speeches denouncing the evils of great uni- 

 versities ; on the other hand, even the smallest colleges of the older days 

 had more genuine college students than can be found in two thirds 

 of the mendicant concerns to-day. The statement is imperfect in that 

 it is a suppression of the truth. Geographical considerations enter 

 into the choice of presidents, congressmen and cabinet officers. Polit- 

 ical parties do not go to the eastern border alone for candidates; not 

 every office seeker in the central and western part of this country could 

 attend the older colleges of the east. If among the candidates there 

 were men with college degrees, they were necessarily men from the local 

 schools. 



But exception must be taken to the lists as usually given. Selecting 

 men from colleges which since the war have become great, and com- 

 paring them with those from colleges which, for various reasons, have 

 remained small may be ingenious, but no stretching of courtesy could 

 make it ingenuous. Yet even with that, the larger colleges do not 

 suffer. No one would consider accidental or compromise presidents, 

 such as Polk, Pierce, Hayes, Buchanan and some others as in any sense 

 comparable with the Adamses, Madison, Roosevelt or Taft.^ More, the 

 mode of comparison makes use of ancient history as though it were that 

 of recent times. No conclusions are to be drawn from lists of men 

 prior to 1895, for present conditions did not exist in their college days. 



^ Jefferson is not included, because, through bad location and the mishaps 

 of the Civil War, his college remained small; he is often listed as proving the 

 superiority of the small college, though at the time of his graduation William 

 and Mary rivalled Harvard in public esteem. 



