572 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



whether, in the course which is on our conscience, they ever did any 

 reading before examination time, and how much they found it neces- 

 sary to do then. Another interesting test® would be to compute and 

 compare the average standing of the men who take the different courses 

 year after year, not forgetting to calculate also the average of passes 

 (or perhaps of all the marks) in the various courses. It would not 

 cause great surprise to some observers if such a scrutiny of the facts 

 should indicate that birds of the D feather flock together under those 

 generous trees from which the fruit (the passes, not the intellectual 

 profit) falls with the least coaxing. But it would seem that we are 

 in for a long wait before some administrators and instructors will care 

 to collect facts in regard to scholastic conditions. The snap course goes 

 on, the lazy student stays in college, and the snap professor flourishes 

 like the green bay tree. Evidently this complacent faith of the aca- 

 demic stand-patter in the utter loveliness of the local landscape is a 

 greater breeder of popularity than is the restless spirit of doubt, criti- 

 cism and reform. 



Almost imperceptibly we have been led, in this discussion of aca- 

 demic toleration, from a consideration of its causes to an analysis of its 

 fallacies and its harmful effects. It may have been noticed, also, that, 

 in some important particulars, the influence of the educator who has 

 been characterized herein as a compromiser is in harmony with that of 

 the alumnus or the undergraduate who is altogether hostile to the 

 severely intellectual ideal; for the objection — if any there be — to the 

 ^comfortable creed of compromise lies not in its toleration of scholar- 

 ■ehip, but in its friendly feeling for ignorance and sloth, in which 

 gracious capacity it is in complete sympathy with the out-and-out 

 negative. For this reason we may treat these two types together in 

 our further attempt to point out others of their common weaknesses. 



In the first place it is quite justifiable to note a little inconsistency. 

 What shall we say of men who despise the intellectual in its practical 

 application to their own college experiences, but who reject with indig- 

 nation the accvisation of laxity in scholastic conditions in the alma 

 mater? Is it consistent and honest to boast before strangers of the dis- 

 tinction of scholars whom at home we scorn as students or hamper as 

 administrators? It is said that the late Professor Child, a scholar of 

 whom any university in the world might have been proud, was a butt in 

 the class-room for ill-bred students who took his courses with no desire 

 to learn; it would be interesting to discover whether or not some of 

 these "students" are to-day boasting of the distinction which Pro- 

 fessor Child brought to Harvard. And if an officer in a college delib- 

 erately takes a stand for a policy of compromise with idle students, 

 what just cause has he to grow angry with critics whose arraignment of 



• Suggested by President Foster, op. cit., pp. 297-303. 



