I detail these figures out of the great array of statistics simply to enforce my statement that the history of higher education in this country prior to 1870 was the history of the small college, a fact often apparently lost sight of. Since 1870 there has been a rapid development in higher education, and the country now has a considerable number of schools where great congregations of students are found, and where catalogs are so bulky that a college faculty of fifty years ago would have been hopelessly lost in an effort to explain their contents.

It is within this period that the state universities have made their wonderful growth. In the same time have arisen such institutions as Cornell, Chicago, and Stanford. The older institutions of the East, like Columbia, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and the University of Pennsylvania, have in this same period made a phenomenal development, both in resources and in students.

Out of this condition of things has arisen a considerable debate about the college of the future. Many have thought that the great institutions were to be the only ones, and that the small institutions would soon have no place in the educational economy. It were a hopeless task to undertake to settle the question, but it is a very pleasant privilege to bring before you a few truths concerning the past of the small college.

First of all I desire to emphasize the fact that the criticism often made of the small college by inference, if not by direct statement, is both unfair and untrue. It is not quite fair for us to cast a reflection upon the only institution that fostered higher education prior to the past thirty years. That institution, as we have seen, was the small college. Furthermore, the test of greatness is the ability to meet, or the actual meeting of, the emergencies of the hour. The questions at issue, therefore, are whether the small college met the issues of its time and whether present small colleges are actually meeting an existing need. Presently I shall state the evidence in support of an affirmative reply to these questions. I remark, in passing, that the inference against the small college is not drawn from any facts that prove that the large college or modern university would have done the work then needed in any superior way. Indeed, there is a lack of evidence that the modern idea would have been at all suitable to conditions fifty years ago, and we are not at all sure but the close of the twentieth century may see present universities so changed and modified as to be practically new. The business of an educational institution is to meet the needs of the times. The fact that in our attempt to meet present needs we have developed a considerable number of great institutions does not at all prove that the small college has not had a place, or that it is not now meeting a real need. The fact is, the large college and modern university are rather new institutions. They are so young that their real value and efficiency are still problematical. The alumni of the modern large university have yet to win a distinction that

will eclipse the glory of their fathers. It may yet develop into an eclipse of the son. However, we hope for better things. Let us now turn to a brief statement of the ideals of the small college. These will tell us

something of its character and work.

First, I remark that the small college was set for the development of manhood. In 1854 President William A. Stearns, in his inaugural address at Amherst, said: "The idea of education is the formation of men, men capable of high scholarship, of professional eminence and honorable achievement, but first of all men."

This was neither new doctrine nor unfamiliar statement. It was the common and popular sentiment. The college of those days was set for the upbuilding of character in men. Often it was declared to be a Christian character and manhood. The college recognized that character and manhood were the supreme need of society. The college curriculum was an instrument that men of lofty ideals used to these great ends.

The measure of success that has attended these efforts is but little appreciated. To read the alumni roll of Yale, Harvard, and Princeton, when they were very small colleges, or the rolls of Amherst, Bowdoin, and Williams in New England, of Hamilton in New York, or of Washington and Jefferson in Pennsylvania, Centre College in Kentucky, and Miami in Ohio, is an inspiration to any young man struggling for place and usefulness in his generation. I freely confess that three hours with these rolls gave me a new appreciation of the splendid possibilities of American manhood. These men have been the embodiment of the best things in civilization. They have stood for the best things in religion, in scholarship, in politics, in society, and in the state. What the world would have been without them I know not, but for what it has been with them we are indebted to the small college. That debt will forever remain unpaid, but it is here most gratefully acknowledged.

Secondly, I remark that the small college put an important emphasis upon the personal contact between the professor and student as a powerful influence in determining character. The professor in the small college has always been a man of character, who recognized his opportunity. The heroic service that many of these men have rendered is sufficient testimony to their excellence. Senator Hoar has recently said, in speak ing of the Harvard of fifty-eight years ago, that men were then called to professorships because they had attained an eminence in their professions. The result was that young men were brought under the instruction of men whose lives were an inspiration and whose characters were a most wholesome influence. These men recognized the possibilities in their service. Without offering any criticism upon the modern professor, I may say that eminent men are not now called to professorships. The conditions have so changed that they prefer another life. The modern Longfellow or Holmes is not a professor. The college of these days must

train its professors up to eminence. They attain it as a part of their reward to patch out a meager salary. Moreover, the modern professor with his specialty often looks upon his work as merely teaching, and makes a rather narrow business of it. A broad education is looked upon as impossible, or undesirable, and broad and deep sympathy with the student as unnecessary. Just here the small college has always put its emphasis. It has insisted that teaching is personal where inspiration and leadership are quite as important as instruction. To lead out into the larger world with a proper perspective requires a master-workman. This leadership, I grant you, may be found in the larger colleges. If not, then something vital is wanting. That such work has been done and is still done in the small college is beyond any question.

Thirdly, I remark that the small college has done a great work in cultivating a respect for scholarship. It may as well be conceded that no very great scholarship is possible within the limits of a college course. One of the silliest fallacies in modern times is the frequent assumption that because a boy has graduated from a large college he is both a gentleman and a scholar. As a matter of fact, he is often neither the one nor the other. The honest college has never made any pretensions in this regard. Scholarship is the ripe fruit of years of patient toil. It is to be kept in mind, however, that the college-bred man has been usually a man of broad sympathies, of a reasonably liberal culture, and of a sufficient intelligence to appreciate the scholarship of men who have been the pathfinders in the world's research. The considerable body of such men in the country has made it possible for the scholar to hope for a reward in his labor. The college has been the bulwark of scholarship. In this field the college man has done a great service. The fact that his studies in the small college have widened his horizon and given him a bird's-eye view of the knowledge and scholarship of his day is a reason for his readiness. to appreciate scholarship. The elective principle has deepened the study of many a student, but often at the expense of his sympathy with other men. The lack of unity in college life so often apparent in the larger schools is no doubt due in a considerable degree to the relative isolation of the student in his work. He does not know his classmate. There is no common feeling, and but little that is common in their thinking, and hence no fellowship in scholarship. I regard this appreciation of scholarship as a great help in the progress of the world. There is no man who should more appreciate the work of the small college than the man whose life is given to research and the development of critical scholarship. The small college is something more than, and better than, a feeder for the university. It is building and maintaining the foundation on which the university must rest. But for the work of the college the university would not have had a field in which to work. That it is now preparing the men who will in the future do the best things for scholarship is perhaps not

too much to say. Whether the large college can do this work without the aid of the small college is at any rate a debatable question.

Fourthly, I remark that the small college has done great service for its immediate vicinage. It is so evident as to need only a passing remark that all colleges receive the large portion of their support from the adjacent territory. Even Harvard still draws a considerable proportion of its students from the immediate vicinity. This has been the history of the small college. It has done great things for its territory. Here young men have received an intellectual awakening that has been an intellectual regeneration to them. Many a so-called poor college has been the birthplace of a noble soul. It has brought within the reach of these boys an uplift that the larger school could not have brought. In this small college the individual more easily rose to a limited leadership. You may say the opportunities were limited, but they were sufficient to arouse the boy to his own prophetic powers. My own native state has been sneeringly called the land of freshwater colleges. Men have spoken disparagingly of her numerous colleges. There is a justice in some of this criticism, but quite as much injustice. The most luminous pages of Ohio's history have been made and written by men trained in her small colleges. Those trained at home have not fainted in the race with those who were able to go to more expensive schools without her borders. Ohio would never have had her men or her leadership but for the small college. But, aside from the men graduated from those colleges, there is no room to doubt that the presence of such colleges has done a great deal to give tone and character to the communities. They have been an object of pride to the citizens and something of an inspiration to the people. Of the 450 colleges in the country a large proportion must be classed as small colleges. They are, however, centers of life and light to hosts of people whom the greater schools do not and cannot reach. They are constantly seeking out boys, many of whom rise to eminence. These men more than justify the reason for existence. In the poorer grade of the small college there may be found much to criticise. No doubt the standards are often too low. Some harmful results do follow, but it is a mistake to be too sweeping in our condemnation. The small college is winning today more than its proper share of the honors in our great universities. These facts persist and are very stubborn things. The self-denial, the hardship, the heroism still found in many of these colleges with the lack of some modern fancies, are pretty useful ingredients in the coming man. The small college has usually been the poor man's college. It cultivated the habits of economy and has usually been free from the vices that accompany a liberal use of money. Its own poverty and economy have been an object-lesson to the student. The democratic sentiment usually prevailing has bound the students in a close friendship. Here have been trained many of the recruits who have saved the interests of the

people. Some of them have risen to eminence, but more of them have quietly but efficiently served the community which supported the college. The unwritten history of the small college is liable to be overlooked and forgotten in the annals of the great, but there are a thousand hillsides and as many fruitful valleys in our country where the service is gratefully recognized. What Webster said of Dartmouth many a man will say of others: "She is small, but there are those who love her.”

THE SMALL COLLEGE

II. ITS PROSPECTS

WILLIAM RAINEY HARPER, PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

In my opinion the two most serious problems of education which require to be solved within the next quarter of a century are, first, the problem of rural schools, which falls within the domain of lower education; and, secondly, the problem of the small college, which lies within the domain of higher education.

This second problem, which forms the subject of our consideration here, is at the same time serious and delicate; serious, because the greatest interests, both material and spiritual, are at stake; delicate, because there are involved special and peculiar questions of privilege and right. The study of the problem is a difficult one, because it deals with data insufficiently gathered and not yet properly tabulated; because, also, the territory covered is so vast and so differently situated.

I may be pardoned for mentioning my personal experience: My student life was divided, my undergraduate work being done in a small college, my graduate work in a large college or university. My life as a teacher has been almost evenly divided, twelve years having been spent in institutions termed "small," thirteen in institutions which may be called "larger." I approach the subject, therefore, with no prejudice born of lack of experience in one or the other kind of educational institution.

We shall consider

I. Some factors which would seem to guarantee the life and the growth of the smaller institutions.

II. Some factors which will be found to stand in the way of such development.

III. Some changes affecting the small colleges which are to be expected and which are to be desired.

1. SOME FACTORS WHICH WOULD SEEM TO GUARANTEE THE LIFE AND THE GROWTH OF THE SMALLER INSTITUTIONS

Prevalence of belief in the advantages of smaller colleges.-Let us notice, first of all, as constituting one of these factors, the widely prevailing