the higher learning in america-第6章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！





university；　but　merely　its　equipment。　And　the　university　man's



work　is　the　pursuit　of　knowledge；　together　with　whatever　advisory



surveillance　and　guidance　he　may　consistently　afford　such



students　as　are　entering　on　the　career　of　learning　at　a　point



where　his　outlook　and　methods　of　work　may　be　of　effect　for　them。



No　man　whose　energies　are　not　habitually　bent　on　increasing　and



proving　up　the　domain　of　learning　belongs　legitimately　on　the



university　staff。　The　university　man　is；　properly；　a　student；　not



a　schoolmaster。　Such　is　the　unmistakable　drift　of　sentiment　and



professed　endeavour；　in　so　far　as　it　is　guided　by　the　cultural



aspirations　of　civilized　mankind　rather　than　by　the　emulative



strategy　of　individuals　seeking　their　own　preferment。（6*）



　　　　All　this；　of　course；　implies　no　undervaluing　of　the　work　of



those　men　who　aim　to　prepare　the　youth　for　citizenship　and　a



practical　career。　It　is　only　a　question　of　distinguishing　between



things　that　belong　apart。　The　scientist　and　the　scholar　on　the



one　hand；　and　the　schoolmaster　on　the　other　hand；　both　belong



within　the　later　growth　of　civilization；　but　a　differentiation　of



the　two　classes；　and　a　division　of　their　work；　is　indispensable



if　they　are　to　do　their　work　as　it　should　be　done；　and　as　the



modern　community　thoughtfully　intends　that　it　should　be　done。　And



while　such　a　division　of　labour　has　hitherto　not　been　carried



through　with　any　degree　of　consistency；　it　is　at　least　under　way；



and　there　is　nothing　but　the　presumption　of　outworn　usage　that



continues　to　hold　the　two　lines　of　work　together；　to　the



detriment　of　both；　backed；　it　is　true；　by　ambitions　of



self…aggrandizement　on　the　part　of　many　schools　and　many　of　their



directorates。



　　　　The　schoolmaster　and　his　work　may　be　equally；　or　more；



valuable　to　the　community　at　large　　presumably　more　rather　than



less　　but　in　so　far　as　his　chief　interest　is　of　the　pedagogical



sort　his　place　is　not　in　the　university。　Exposition；　instruction



and　drill　belong　in　and　professional　schools。　The　consistent　aim



there　is；　and　should　be；　to　instruct；　to　inculcate　a　knowledge　of



results；　and　to　give　the　pupil　a　working　facility　in　applying　it。



On　the　university　level　such　information　and　training　is　（should



be）　incidental　to　the　work　of　research。　The　university　man　is



almost　unavoidably　a　teacher；　by　precept　and　example；　but　he　can



not　without　detriment　to　his　work　as　scientist　or　scholar　serve



as　a　taskmaster　or　a　vehicle　of　indoctrination。　The　student　who



comes　up　to　the　university　for　the　pursuit　of　knowledge　is



expected　to　know　what　he　wants　and　to　want　it；　without



compulsion。　If　he　falls　short　in　these　respects；　if　he　has　not



the　requisite　interest　and　initiative；　it　is　his　own　misfortune；



not　the　fault　of　his　teacher。　What　he　has　a　legitimate　claim　to



is　an　opportunity　for　such　personal　contact　and　guidance　as　will



give　him　familiarity　with　the　ways　and　means　of　the　higher



learning；　　any　information　imparted　to　him　being　incidental　to



this　main　work　of　habituation。　He　gets　a　chance　to　make　himself　a



scholar；　and　what　he　will　do　with　his　opportunities　in　this　way



lies　in　his　own　discretion。



　　　　The　difference　between　the　modern　university　and　the　lower



and　professional　schools　is　broad　and　simple；　not　so　much　a



difference　of　degree　as　of　kind。　There　is　no　difficulty　about



apprehending　or　appreciating　this　difference；　the　dispute　turns



not　on　the　practicability　of　distinguishing　between　the　two；　but



on　the　desirability　of　letting　such　a　distinction　go　into　effect。



It　is　a　controversy　between　those　who　wish　to　hold　fast　that



which　once　was　good　and　those　who　look　to　make　use　of　the　means



in　hand　for　new　ends　and　meet　new　exigencies。



　　　　The　lower　schools　（including　the　professional　schools）　are；



in　the　ideal　scheme；　designed　to　fit　the　incoming　generation　for



civil　life；　they　are　therefore　occupied　with　instilling　such



knowledge　and　habits　as　will　make　their　pupils　fit　citizens　of



the　world　in　whatever　position　in　the　fabric　of　workday　life　they



may　fall。　The　university　on　the　other　hand　is　specialized　to　fit



men　for　a　life　of　science　and　scholarship；　and　it　is　accordingly



concerned；　with　such　discipline　only　as　will　give　efficiency　in



the　pursuit　of　knowledge　and　fit　its　students　for　the　increase



and　diffusion　of　learning。　It　follows　that　while　the　lower



schools　necessarily　take　over　the　surveillance　of　their　pupils'



everyday　life；　and　exercise　a　large　measure　of　authority　and



responsible　interference　in　that　behalf；　the　university　assumes



（or　should　assume）　no　responsibility　for　its　students'　fortunes



in　the　moral；　religious；　pecuniary；　domestic；　or　hygienic



respect。



　　　　Doubtless　the　larger　and　more　serious　responsibility　in　the



educational　system　belongs　not　to　the　university　but　to　the　lower



and　professional　schools。　Citizenship　is　a　larger　and　more



substantial　category　than　scholarship；　and　the　furtherance　of



civilized　life　is　a　larger　and　more　serious　interest　than　the



pursuit　of　knowledge　for　its　own　idle　sake。　But　the　proportions



which　the　quest　of　knowledge　is　latterly　assuming　in　scheme　of



civilized　life　require　that　the　establishments　the　to　which　this



interest　is　committed　should　not　be　charged　with　extraneous



duties；　particularly　not　with　extraneous　matters　themselves　of



such　grave　consequence　as　this　training　for　citizenship　and



practical　affairs。　These　are　too　serious　a　range　of　duties　to　be



taken　care　of　as　a　side…issue；　by　a　seminary　of　learning；　the



members　of　whose　faculty；　if　they　are　fit　for　their　own　special



work；　are　not　men　of　affairs　or　adepts　in　worldly　wisdom。







　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　III







　　　　In　point　of　historical　pedigree　the　American　universities　are



of　another　derivation　than　their　European　counterpart；　although



the　difference　in　this　respect　is　not　so　sharp　a　matter　of



contrast　as　might　be　assumed　at　first　sight。　The　European



（Continental）　universities　appear　to　have　been　founded；



originally；　to　meet　the　needs　of　professional　training；　more



particularly　theological　（and　philosophical）　training　in　the



earlier　times。　The　American　universities　are；　historically；　an



outgrowth　of　the　American　college；　and　the　latter　was　installed；



in　its　beginnings；　largely　as　a　means　of　professional　training；



chiefly　training　for　Divinity；　secondarily　for　the　calling　of　the



schoolmaster。　But　in　neither　case；　neither　in　that　of　the



European　university　nor　in　that　of　the　American　College；　was　this



early　vocational　aim　of　the　schools　allowed　to　decide　their



character　in　the　long　run；　nor　to　circumscribe　the　lines　of　their



later　growth。　In　both　cases；　somewhat　alike；　the　two　groups　of



schools　came　to　their　mature　development；　in　the　nineteenth



century；　as　establishments　occupied　with　disinterested　learning；



given　over　to　the　pursuit　of　intellectual　enterprise；　rather　than



as　seminaries　for　training　of　a　vocational　kind。　They　still　had　a



vocational　value；　no　doubt；　and　the　vocational　needs　of　their



students　need　not　have　been　absent　from　the　considerations　that



guided　their　directorates。　It　would　particularly　be　found　that



the　（clerical）　directorates　of　the　American　colleges　had　more



than　half　an　eye　to　the　needs　of　Divinity　even　at　so　late　a　date



as　when；　in　the　third　quarter　of　the　century；　the　complexion　of



the　American　college　situation　began　seriously　to　change。　It　is



from　this　period　　from　the　era　of　the　Civil　War　and　the



Reconstruction　　that　the　changes　set　in　which　have　reshaped　the



academic　situ