EVOLUTION OF THE COLLEGE CURRICULUM. 233 



wanting, that in this curriculum of Latin, Greek, 

 Mathematics, and a varnish of Philosophy, not all 

 the studies pursued were useful studies. Much of 

 this complaint was unjust, for a college is not a 

 school of technology. Higher education is not 

 learning a trade, nor is its purpose to enable its 

 possessor to get a living. Lowell's definition of a 

 university as '* a place where nothing useful is 

 taught," is, I think, one by which we as college 

 teachers must loyally stand. But some of this 

 complaint has been just. No part of a man's 

 education is of much value to him, unless it is 

 in some way concerned with his future growth 

 Thousands of students never look at a Latin book 

 after leaving college. This matters nothing, if the 

 skill they have acquired in reading Latin gives 

 them greater mastery over their future study or a 

 deeper insight into the problems of life. This 

 matters much, if this knowledge has in no wise 

 given either insight or mastery. For in such case 

 a knowledge of Horace and Homer would be as 

 useless as the learning by heart of the laws of the 

 Medes and the Persians or an enumeration in order 

 of all the kings of Shanghai or Yvetot. The tree of 

 knowledge is known by its fruits. " Culture," says 

 the younger Holmes, '' in the form of fruitless 

 knowledge, I utterly abhor ! " 



Now, to those who found culture, the college 

 course had served its end ; to others, it had not. 

 It was good or bad, not in itself, but in its results. 

 It is idle for us to say, " It is sufficient for all; " 

 " It is sufficient for none." The discussion of 

 these rival theses has not helped much in the 



