107 



llioir stndPTits that thoy wovo \hovo ;i1 imhlic cxitonso and would ho oxiioctcd 

 to conduct tlicnisrivcs as citizens siiould. Nearly all these nnivei-sities ahol- 

 islied the pit'iiaraloi-y school and therefore had an older ;;i'ade of sludenls than 

 could he found in c(dlej,'i's havinj; preparatory dejiartnii'nts. Kesiionsihility 

 was therefore insisted uiion from the start and students were hrouiiht to see 

 that they were dealinj: with the State. Few of the traditions conunon in the 

 earlier oollejies ever fastened themselves upon the collej;e life of students in 

 f^tate universities. The rai)i(l j^rowth of these institutions Itrou^ht the jiuhlic 

 to see a lar^e hody of students free from traditions, representing' ])ractical 

 democracy, and face to face with the prohlems of self-control. 



The elective system sometimes attriliuted to Harvard, hut really horn at the 

 University of .Michi^'an. had much to do with ch;in^in},' the ]ii-()hlems of college 

 discipline. As soon as students were found at collefie confronted with the fact 

 that the responsihility of their education was a personal i)rohlem they hecame 

 serious. The elective system jnits upon the college tlH> resi)onsihility of heing 

 geiuiine when it offers a course of study. It must have hack of the announce- 

 ment something that commends itself to the attention of students and that will 

 conunand their respect if it is taken. The college can not evade and avoid 

 responsihility hy saying it is teaching an mifortunate te.xt-hook ; the modern 

 college offers siib/rcts. not hooks, for study. It nuist \)o ])re])ared to Justify its 

 announcement hy a masterful treatment. In a similar way the elective system 

 I)Uts ui)on the student the responsihility of doing the right thing in his educa- 

 ti(m. I am aware that many people sneered at childn-n making choices and 

 deternnning careers; nevertheless the modern college has insisted that students 

 shall choose. What are the results? We lind now that the (piestions of course 

 of study and of car(>er are dehated at home and in ])uhlic high school. A few 

 students still come to college liecause they are sent, hut most of them come 

 hecause they want a larger opportunity. They are taking the college and 

 university seriously. They are taking themselves seriously. The faculties have 

 learned that such students riMjuire less (liscii)line and more lea<lership. It 

 has made the modi'rn professor wake up to his oppoi-tunity and his res])on- 

 sihllity. The college has also seen that it can not i)ri>ach religion and talk 

 upon the high ideals of spiritual culture and not he honest in its curriculum. 

 This strong insistence upon a somewhat rigid morality has |)ut a vigorous 

 tone into all our colleges. Wherever trouhlesome (juestions remain we shall 

 meet them hest V>y emidiaslzing the duty of high-grade action in our colleges. 

 Even foothall seems likely to surrender to the demands of the class room. 

 Certainly nothing will more stinudate its ethics. FiU'thermoi-e. it is worth 

 while to call attention to the heneticent resvdts that have come from the 

 development of industrial education. The presence of manual training in the 

 elementary and high schools has greatly imi)roved the sjiii-it there. In the 

 colleges of agriculture and mechanic arts, and in all institutions where technical 

 and industrial education of any sort has heen introduced, then^ has heen less of 

 trouhlesome discipline than in the older colleges. When industry heconies a 

 virtue idleness will hecome a vice. The student, consciously i)ursuing a course 

 of study that leads somewhere, hecomes enamored of his journey. The whole 

 problem of discipline lies in the proldem of securing on the i)art of the student 

 a conscious jiursuit of a desired end. All forms of industrial education put 

 emphasis upon this. No student can successfull.v pursue a technical course 

 such as the institutions in this association otfer without some choice made in 

 view of a definite purpose. At present the constant dehate hetween the student 

 and the college is as to the content of the course. The student thinks there is 

 too much irrelevant matter in the course and the institutions attempt to justify 

 these suhjects hy reasoning that the student does not appreciate. The sub- 

 jects, he thinks, are too remote from his puri)ose. I am not now justifying 

 either faculty or student ; I only call attention to the fact with the added 

 remark that the condition is ])retty conclusive proof that the coiu'se is not in 

 its final form and never can lie. My desire is to call attention to the truth as 

 I see it — that this attitude, this seriousness of purpose, has solved many of our 

 most difficult ]>rohlems in discii)line and will solve more of them as we give it 

 opportunity. In the older days the problem was to get the student to d(j what 

 was ordered. In the modern da.vs the problem is to get the college to do what 

 ought to be done. Students are now less of a problem than faculties are. In 

 proof of this witness the discussions in facult.v meetings, a few echoes of which 

 have been perndtted to slip into public print under assumed names. 'Moreover, 

 the discussions for the last two decades illustrated the same thing. Passing 

 now these general principles on disci]»line and control, let us look brielly at the 



