596 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXIII. No. 851 



was not far short of sixty, and had taught 

 and thought on educational problems since 

 very early manhood. He had discussed 

 some such project as that of the institute 

 for twenty years at least, and his ideas 

 thereon had gradually clarified and crys- 

 tallized, as can be' seen from the record of 

 their development wliich is accessible to all. 

 Rogers has sometimes been charged -with 

 setting up a school in a spirit of antagon- 

 ism to existing institutions. There is no 

 ground for such a charge. He was too 

 catholic in his tastes to fail to appreciate 

 the good in others, and in advocating some- 

 thing new, he took the safe ground that 

 there was room for difference in the field 

 of education. He knew, as every educated 

 man must know, that the fear of what is 

 called useful knowledge, is exaggerated, 

 and for the most part groundless. He 

 knew, as others do to-day, that the oldest 

 universities all began with a clear recogni- 

 tion of the bearing of their studies on 

 definite callings ; and he recognized clearly 

 that it was not a merit but a defect of these 

 schools that most of them had failed to 

 keep pace with the changes in the charac- 

 ter of human occupations that time had 

 brought forth. He saw, as Lowell did, that 

 ' ' new times demand new manners and new 

 men ' ' and that new conditions demand new 

 schools. For the guidance of the new 

 school, he laid down a few simple, but far- 

 reaching, principles, which have governed 

 the institute ever since. The first of these 

 is the importance of being useful. There 

 is, of course, no necessary antithesis be- 

 tween the individual and the social end in 

 education. However, the laying of the 

 emphasis is important, and Rogers laid it 

 unhesitatingly on efficiency in the service 

 of society. In his first address to the stu- 

 dents at this institute, he set forth the 

 value and the dignity of the practical pro- 

 fessions for which they were to prepare 

 themselves. (Rogers, himself, be it re- 



membered, was a pure scientist. President 

 of the National Academy of Sciences, the 

 friend of Darwin, Kelvin, Helmholtz, and 

 the like.) In earlier discussions with his 

 brother with reference to the plan of the 

 institute, emphasis had been laid on "the 

 value of science in its great modern appli- 

 cations to the practical arts of life, to 

 human comfort, and health, and to social 

 wealth and power." And so when the 

 institute was actually founded the impor- 

 tance of science was kept steadily in view. 

 He regarded the scientific habit of thought 

 as specially valuable in practical afi'airs 

 and consequently in ediication he laid 

 greater stress on broad principles and their 

 derivation than on details of fact, and he 

 held that the spirit of science was more 

 to be desired than all the gold of scientific 

 knowledge. These are his words: "In the 

 features of the plan here sketched, it will 

 be apparent that the education that we 

 seek to provide, although eminently prac- 

 tical in its aims, has no affinity with that 

 instruction in mere empirical routine 

 which has sometimes been vaunted as the 

 proper education for those who are to 

 engage in industries. We believe, on the 

 contrary, that the most truly practical 

 education, even in an industrial point of 

 view, is one founded on a thorough knowl- 

 edge of scientific laws and principles, and 

 one which unites with habits of close obser- 

 vation and exact reasoning, a large general 

 cultivation. "We believe that the highest 

 grade of scientific culture would not be 

 too high as a preparation for the labors of 

 the manufacturer." It will be seen from 

 this that Rogers made no fetish of science, 

 and that he welcomed every really liberal 

 study. Some of the champions of the new 

 school joined in the attack on the older 

 learning; but Rogers had no sympathy 

 with such views. "The recent discussions 

 here and elsewhere," he said, "on the 

 relative value of scientific and classical cul- 



