Read more in Opinion
In the Princeton Review for September, President Porter in a paper entitled "Greek, and a Liberal Education" reviews the opinions of President Eliot as expressed in The Century of last June and calls in question the outcome of the present liberal tendency in education. The paper is written in particularly interesting in that it contains the essence of Yale teaching as contrasted with that of her rival. It would be invidious to compare the increase in the entrance class at Harvard with the decrease in the same class at Yale, but it would seem upon investigation that President Eliot's theory appears the more practical. President Porter decrees those studies which receive the greatest attention from the students of Harvard. It is true that these studies are not by any means ignored, but they do not receive more attention from President Porter than the subject of outside reading. It is claimed that a college is not to be held responsible for the individual culture attained by its students through their own endeavors. While it is not acknowledged that a liberal education is or can be free from a thorough basis upon the classics, it is asserted that a determined student will make up by outside reading any failure in the instruction given him. This appears to be the point of the reply to President Eliot. The necessity of a liberal education is allowed. A possibility of there being a failure or a lack in a certain rigidly prescribed course is tacitly granted. But the college is not to be held responsible for this failure and its presence must be counteracted by the outside individual efforts of the students. But no allowance is made for the fact that where choice is possible it may happen that Greek O is very thinly attended while History XXV is crowded to the doors. This tendency of the student towards one course, coupled with the shunning of another would come under "outside individual efforts" and would not at all weaken the necessity of a thorough study of the less popular course. This is the spirit of President Porter's reply, and it is an effort well calculated to provoke serious reflection and, perhaps, conviction. English is declared unequal "academically" with Latin and Greek. A thorough knowledge of the classics is declared necessary, while History and Political Economy and subjects akin to them are reserved for later reading. Modern languages and Science are given the preparatory schools as their proper sphere. Whether the conservative ideas of President Porter have been formulated into the recent unquestionably radical reforms at Yale, or whether the changes were simply to aid the "outside individual efforts" of the students is an open question. But it is contended that the degree of Ph. D. covers all the radical tendencies of President Eliot's theory and that Harvard in her radicalism is simply leading the way for a speedy deterioration of the degree of A. B. Thus it would appear that while the course of Harvard would tend toward a liberal education, the degree which today characterizes a liberal education must not be allowed longer to continue with it. In other words the liberally educated man should be a doctor of Philosophy.