OOTOBKE 31, 1902.] 



SCIENCE. 



685 



him and a new experiment is made with 

 another man. The comparison of the func- 

 tion of an American university president 

 with that of a king or despot, is, however., 

 an unfortunate and misleading one. Much 

 more ilhiminating would be the comparison 

 with the responsible head of an English 

 cabinet. As long as he proposes plans 

 which command the assent of his board of 

 trustees— representing in this case the par- 

 liament — the lawgiving authority— he is all 

 powerful. He has behind him the entire 

 force of the country so to speak. He can 

 build and rebuild; extend and contract; 

 raise up and cast down. But the instant 

 he loses the confidence of this board for 

 any reason, good or bad, his power is gone ; 

 his position becomes untenable. He goes 

 to join the ever-lengthening list of ex- 

 ministers always willing to criticize, always 

 willing to give their advice and counsel. 



The American system of higher educa- 

 tion would probably never have developed 

 with such astonishing rapidity if it had not 

 been for these two peculiar organs of life 

 and expression— the trustees and the presi- 

 dent ; but it is hardly conceivable that either 

 of them is destined permanently to play 

 such an important part in the educational 

 economy of the country as they have done 

 in the past and are doing now. 



If time permitted, I might discuss many 

 other interesting peculiarities of the Ameri- 

 can system of higher education which dis- 

 tinguish it from its counterparts in other 

 countries; but I must content myself with 

 a mere glance at one or two other aspects 

 of it. 



Our American system of higher educa- 

 tion is evangelistic in character. Our in- 

 stitutions — at least in the last generation — 

 have never been satisfied with merely offer- 

 ing their facilities to the public, content to 

 let those who wished such opportunities 

 avail themselves of them. They have gone 



forth into the community in one form or 

 another and preached the gospel of a higher 

 education; they have gone out into the 

 highways and hedges and compelled the 

 guests to come to the feast which has been 

 prepared for them. They have all engaged 

 in this form of university extension work 

 and the result ■ is seen in the ever- rising 

 tide of university attendance. We have, 

 generally speaking, in this country not com- 

 pelled attendance at universities as they do 

 on the continent. We have not made at- 

 tendance at a university a condition of 

 admission to the bar, to the church, to 

 medicine or other professions or callings. 

 We have left it free to our young people 

 to attend these institutions or not as they 

 saw fit. What the government has failed 

 to do in this respect, private parties must 

 do for it, if the standards of education and 

 culture are to keep pace with our growing 

 wealth and population. Hence the will- 

 ingness on the part of our higher schools 

 to preach this doctrine of the desirability, 

 nay, necessity of university training. 



This campaign for higher education— we 

 can really call it nothing else— takes on 

 different forms in different parts of the 

 country. The president in a small college 

 not a thousand miles from Chicago told me 

 of a missionary tour he made one summer 

 which doubled the attendance at his col- 

 lege. He hired a large covered wagon and 

 a strong team of horses for three months. 

 He loaded in his college glee club and a 

 few cooking utensils and started across a 

 section of country from which as far as he 

 could learn no candidates for any college 

 had ever emerged. He would drive into a 

 village, tether his horses and making ar- 

 rangements for food and drinlv begin his 

 campaign. The glee club would sing a 

 series of all-compelling college songs on the 

 space in front of the wagon or on the vil- 

 lage green. After a suitable crowd had 



