February 14, 1890.] 



SCIENCE. 



105 



law, — these being given by institutions which offer no instruc- 

 tion in these subjects. An eminent American composer is said 

 to have declined the doctorate of music conferred by Yale, on 

 the ground, that, as the university did not recognize this 

 subject in its system of education, it was presumably incom- 

 petent to pronounce judgment about it. However uniform and 

 thorough might be the standard of acquirement theoretically 

 established by our colleges, their inordinate number, involving 

 wide diversities of scholarly and teaching power, must prevent 

 their certificates of graduation from bearing any thing like a 

 uniform significance in respect to the amount and quality 

 either of the instruction offered or of the proficiency attained. 



So far as the bachelor's degree has suffered from this cause, 

 there is probably no immediate remedy. The suggestion 

 occasionally made, that the colleges of a State, or of a larger 

 extent of territory, might, for certain purposes, affiliate them- 

 selves into a kind of university, and bestow degrees through a 

 common board, is not likely to be received with favor. It is 

 possible that something may be done toward the creation of a 

 public sentiment unfavorable to the endowment and chartering 

 of unnecessary institutions; but the main reliance must be 

 upon such a gradual increase of resources and elevation of 

 standards as shall diminish the evils which cannot be wholly 

 removed. If an agreement of theory and practice could be 

 reached among our most influeutial institutions in regard to the 

 bachelor's degree, this would do more than any thing else to 

 determine usage, and to fix the connotation of the title. 



In looking over the reports of the commissioner of education, 

 one is struck with the fertility of imagination and invention 

 displayed in academic titles. The following enumeration of 

 variations of the baccalaureate title is probably not exhaustive : — 



Bachelor of arts, science, philosophy letters, laws, divinity, 

 sacred theology, surgery, music, painting, pedagogics, English, 

 English literature, Latin letters, agriculture, scientific agri- 

 culture, agricultural science, architecture, engineering, civil 

 engineering, mining engineering, metallurgical engineering, 

 mining metallurgy, chemical science, mechanic art, veterinary 

 science, domestic art. The colleges for women add a new and 

 pleasing element of variety from the fact that it seems to be 

 supposed by some that the word "bachelor" is a designation of 

 sex; and so we have licentiate, laureate, graduate, pi-oficient, 

 and, in more distinct antithesis to bachelor, maid. 



The first criticism that one passes upon this list is that most 

 of the titles indicate professional rather than liberal acquire- 

 ments. The bachelor of science, of philosophy, of letters, may 

 have pursued studies entitled to be called liberal; the same 

 may be trae of the bachelor of laws, divinity, music, of others 

 in the list ; but it is certain that the holders of most of these 

 degrees have acquired a technical rather than a general training. 

 "Why, then, it may be asked, should they lay claim to the 

 title to which usage has attached a different meaning'? Is it 

 historically just, or is it practically wise, to disregard the 

 distinction between a technical and a liberal education by 

 applying the baccalaureate title indifferently to both? Most of 

 the colleges represented in the conference distinguish between 

 the bachelor's degrees of arts, science, and philosophy, and the 

 technical degrees, practical chemist, mining engineer, civil 

 engineer, and the rest. It is important that those who hold to 

 the old idea of a broad training in fundamental studies, 

 precedent to specialization, should do this. 



A question might arise as to what modifications of the bacca- 

 laureate title should be considered permissible under this prin- 

 ciple. The degrees, bachelor of science, letters, and philosophy, 

 are so well established that it is probably useless to make any 

 objection to them; yet it is a fair question whether the subdi- 

 vision is of any advantage. If these degrees do not certify to 

 a course of study probably ranked as liberal, they ought not, 

 according to this view, to be conferred; if they do, would not 

 the simpler, more historical, more intelligible way be to 

 comprise them all under the bachelor of arts? The contrast 

 between the sciences and the humanities it may be well to 

 recognize by retaining the bachelor of science; but bachelor of 

 letters and bachelor of philosophy are of such indeterminate 



significance that it would be a relief to have them abandoned. 

 Is it worth while to retain degrees whose significance no one can 

 tell without knowing the institution which conferred them, or 

 then without a careful consultation of the catalogue? It 

 seemed to Professor Grififin that the baccalaureate degree would 

 be greatly augmented in dignity if it were conferred only under 

 the title "bachelor of arts," or, at most, with the variation 

 ' "bachelor of science. ' ' 



If the reduction of all the non -technical degrees to a single 

 form, or to two forms, were to be accomplished, it would be 

 necessary to reach a more definite understanding than at present 

 exists as to what constitutes a liberal education. The propo.si- 

 tion laid down by President Oilman, that "it is not essent al 

 that any one curriculum should be followed in order to attain 

 the degree of bachelor of arts," would now be generally con- 

 ceded. The rigidly exacted course of study which formerly 

 prevailed in all our institutions is now admitted to be imprac- 

 ticable. The effort to adapt it to the demands of the new 

 sciences, and the modern languages and literatures, made it so 

 fragmentary and kaleidoscopic, so far impaired its disciplinary 

 power, that some change was acknowledged to be inevitable. 

 The only difference of opinion now is as to what subjects shall 

 be insisted upon. The modifications of the bachelor's degree 

 first named (bachelor of science, philosophy, letters) ordinarily 

 indicate that one, at least, of the classical languages has not 

 been pursued. The absence of this acquisition seems to render 

 the bachelor of arts degree unsuitable; and, in default of a 

 scientific specialty, one of the other titles is resorted to. If it 

 were decided to abandon these, what could be done for the 

 class of students for whom they were designed? This must, of 

 course, depend on one's view of what is necessary to a liberal 

 culture. Why not give to those who have studied no ancient 

 language such certificates and titles as best describe their 

 work, and, to those who have suiBciently pursued one, concede 

 the full rank of bachelor of arts? 



That a liberal education may be properly held to require a 

 wider historical and moral horizon than the modern tongues 

 alone can give, can hardly be disputed. An acquaintance, at 

 first hand, witlr the manners and sentiments of a civilization 

 remote from our own, one unmodified by Christianity, is so pre- 

 eminently liberalizing, so quickens one's power of intellectual 

 sympathy, so deepens one's sense of the unity of history, so 

 enlarges the range and perspective of one's thoughts, that it 

 may properly be made the differentia between a general and a 

 special training. But are two ancient languages necessary for 

 this? Is It even necessary that one of the classical languages 

 should be pursued ? Would not Semitic or Sanscrit studies, if 

 these should happen to be unaccompanied by Greek or Latin, 

 secure the same end? The main thing is to get a genuine hold 

 upon a distant past. 



The literary and aesthetic reasons for the study of the classical 

 languages, that is, of Greek, which is the real issue in the 

 case, it is not necessary to belittle the force of. But how few 

 candidates for the degree of bachelor of arts ever acquire any 

 refinement or delicacy of Greek scholarship! How few teachers 

 — happily there are signal and distinguished exceptions to this 

 remark — teach Greek otherwise than as a grammatical drill, 

 or, at the best, a philological discipline! Was ever the Hellenic 

 spirit and form better reproduced than by Keats, who could 

 not read Greek at all? 



It is not, in Professor Griflin's opinion, easy to justify the 

 insistence upon both Greek and Latin as essential to a liberal 

 education. We may be in danger of displaying in behalf of 

 Greek studies something of the same excessive deference to 

 traditionary habits and standards which worked so powerfully 

 against their reception in the fifteenth century. It is undeni- 

 able that the majority of men in two, at least, of the so-called 

 learned professions, — law and medicine,— in editorial work and 

 in politics, are not, in the academic sense, liberally educated 

 men. Is not this due in joart to the fact that we have been 

 too rigid at certain points, making our education seem remote 

 from life and pedantic? If it should seem wise to bestow the 

 bachelor of arts degree without Greek, we could simplify our 



