PRINCETON WON THE DEBATE

The Harvard debating team was last evening defeated by Princeton in Alexander Hall, Princeton, before a large audience.

The question for debate was "Resolved. That, the free elective system is the best available plan for the undergraduate course of study. It is understood, that: 1. The free elective system is one based on the principle that each student should select for himself all his studies throughout his college course. 2. The free elective system, thus defined, exists even when a minor part of the studies of the freshman year is prescribed."

The judges were Rev. Anson Phelps Stokes, Jr., secretary of Yale University; Professor James Edwin Creighton, Ph.D., of Cornell; and Rev. W. R. Richards of New York. Dr. John Huston Finley, president of the College of the City of New York, presided.

The strength of the Princeton team lay in the consistency and flawlessness of its argument, due to the care with which it had prepared its speeches. The Harvard speeches, on the other hand, attempted a bolder attack, and seemed more mature in their delivery. The best speaking of the evening was done by R. B. Fosdick of Princeton. Of the Harvard debaters B. V. Kanaley spoke with great fluency and wit, and A. Tulin with commendable power. Princeton's essential argument emphasized the necessity of the development of the individual for his particular career, while Harvard claimed that a student's judgment was not mature enough to choose what is best, and showed that a course of broad culture was the ideal college education. The judges were out about half an hour, and upon their return reported that the decision had not been unanimonsly in favor of Princeton.

After the debate, a dinner was given in honor of the members of the Harvard team.

The Main Speeches.

R. B. Fosdick opened the debate. Free election, he said, must not be interpreted as involving an abondonment of system. It is a prescribed quantity and a prescribed quality of work on a variable topic. In criticising this system it is important to discriminate clearly between results attributable to administrative methods and those which are manifestly attributable to the broad principle of free election. The affirmative does not underestimate the value on prescribed work, but maintains that the proper place for that work is not in the college but in the preparatory school.

The free elective system is the most natural system of undergraduate work, as it is the only one in which the element of individual fitness is allowed to play a part. There are as many different temperaments in a college community as there are different men. All cannot be made to conform to the same standard. The attempt to establish such a standard gives us merely the out-word form of scholarship and not its real benefits. The worth of a liberal study does not depend primarily upon the subject matter studied but upon the response which it awakens in a student.

Another advantage of the free elective system is that it allows adequate room for the individual interest. This depends upon the psychological law that action varies as interest. A student will reap no benefits from a study unless he is to a certain degree interested in it. The attempt to compel a man to apply himself to subjects in which he has no interest does not result in any aggressive intellectual effort.

These two elements, individual fitness and individual interest, constitute the essence of vital scholarship, which reacts upon the student for his own benefit by raising the standard of instruction throughout his college course. Official protection is withdrawn from certain studies and the professors are compelled to establish course of such intrinsic interest as to cause students voluntarily to elect them.

Kanaley opened the case for the negative. The difference between a restricted elective system and the free elective system, he said, is best illustrated by the difference between restrained liberty and unrestrained liberty. We can distinctly trace the origin of the free elective system of Harvard to the German universities. Conditions in American colleges, however, are quite different from those abroad, and, even admitting the very questionable success of this system at Harvard, it does not necessarily follow that the system would prove successful in other colleges and universities throughout the country. Although the system may be theoretically sound, it has never been tested to any extent, and it is impracticable to carry into effect.

It must be borne in mind that the negative is not called upon to defend any particular regime. It believes that every college should maintain that system which is best qualified to meet its special needs. The affirmative, on the other hand, must prove that the revolutionary system which it defends is better than any other available method of education for all American colleges.

The free elective system is not merely an evolution, as the affirmative will maintain; it is a revolution. And against it stands the weight of opinion held by the majority of eminent educators of the day. The tendency of American colleges, beginning with the University of Indiana in 1888, and ending with Princeton in 1905, has been away from the free elective system. There is no demand or necessity for the system, which would indeed, owing to the varying conditions existing in our colleges, prove in many cases impracticable and unsatisfactory.

H. Hagan, in continuing the case of the affirmative, said: It shall be the purpose of this speech to show that the free elective system is equally well justified by its supremely practical efficiency in preparing men to be useful forces in life because more than any other system of college education. It promotes (1) sound habits of work, (2) broad views and (3) manly character. A study of conditions at Harvard and Princeton shows that free choice is supremely efficient in promoting a vital scholarship. If this is so, is it of any consequence that students are drifting away from the so called disciplinary studies? It is not of far more consequence that they are drifting towards disciplinary effort? It is far better that a man should take studies which really to train him than studies which are supposed to train him. The value of a study to any man can be measured only by its effects upon the man in question.

We pass now to our second proposition, that the free elective system is unrivalled in the promotion of broad views. As far as it is a question of securing to the student a wide and same view of the world in which he lives, the number of studies which have an equal claim upon his attention are as numerous as the many and diverse activities of our complex modern life. In view of the fairly comparable values of the great number of studies in promoting breadth of view, it is ridiculous to fasten upon any single study or department of study and compel the student to take it. It is only when a student neglects some wide field of study that he can be called guilty of narrowness of choice; and an examination of the programs of students in elective colleges will show that they are not prone to such narrowness. Moreover, in the development of the sense of responsibility the free elective system has no equal; for it alone makes the student feel himself essentially responsible for the broader issues and interests of life.

In the third place, in free elective system is pre-eminent in its success in the moulding or manly character. Ambition and definite purpose, the never-failing result of the interest which choice inspires, guarded by the sense of responsibility which free choice implants, form manly character and a manly spirit strong when choice is free, and strongest when choice is freest, and only from the exercise of choice comes the power to choose rightly.

Other systems of college education may strive in various ways to accomplish these ends and may be partly successful, but in the free elective system alone do we find in all its purity, and at its very best, the atmosphere of responsible freedom which I have tried to prove to you supremely essential to the growth of aggressive scholarship, broad views and vigorous manhood.

Davis, the second speaker for the negative, demonstrated the evil results of the free elective system at Harvard. This system, he said, has proved in many ways, unsatisfactory. President Eliot, in his inaugural address expressed the hope that by means of the free election of studies each student would secure a curriculum, chosen with regard to natural preference and inborn aptitude. It was his aim to substitute small, interested classes for large, uninterested ones, and to foster scholarship by increasing ardor and enthusiasm in the college and by relieving the various courses of the presence of perfunctory students. The history of the system, however, bears out Professor Munsterberg in his statement in "American Traits," that two-thirds of the elections are haphazard, controlled by accidental motives. In 1903 the Committee on Improvement of Instruction reported that the average amount of study was discreditably small, and that there was a constant increase of men willing to avoid work by the use of printed notes and "seminars." It is thus evident that in many respects the free elective system has proved a failure at Harvard. The system has, moreover, developed peculiar deficiencies. There is a lack of method and arrangement in the choice of courses, and many valuable studies are regularly avoided. Mr. C. S. Moore in a report on the class of 1901 showed that out of 372 students as many as 254 took no physics, 250 no mathematics, and 140 no philosophy. Another evil attendant upon this system is the election of "snap courses." Dean Briggs in 1900 declared that nearly 30 per cent, of the college took nothing but elementary, work throughout their college curriculum. On the other hand, confronting the earnest student is the danger of early and extreme specialization. Over 20 per cent, of the University begin to specialize at least as early as the end of their Freshman year. These are some of the evils peculiar to the free elective system. They are sufficiently evident to make the most liberally minded person doubt the efficiency for the best collegiate training of such a system.

In closing the main argument of the affirmative, N. M. Thomas said that still another standpoint from which to argue the question is that of logic,--the almost inevitable consequence of existing conditions. The old education was the result of old conditions, and the colleges have had to adapt themselves to new conditions almost against their will. Mention has already been made of the inevitable trend of education towards election. The field of valuable knowledge is so broad that no man can traverse the whole ground. Choice must be made. Who shall make it? We are compelled to answer: Let the college man choose for himself; let him consider his own tastes, the demands of his own after life. If we deny this and seek for a consensus of educated opinion as to what the college should prescribe, we are lost in a hopeless maze. If we are to be guided by authority, the authorities must agree. An examination of the catalogues of the leading colleges in the country shows the widest diversity of opinion on this point. Where there is such diversity it is more rational to let the student choose for himself. Perhaps we can do nothing better than to see once more what sort of system we have been advocating. It is a system demanded by the logic of circumstances; it is a rational system, one which contains room at all times for prescription of a definite quantity and quality of work, and at the right time--in the preparatory school--even for prescription of studies. Today a man comes to college, as old man as far advanced in his studies as former generations were by the middle or even the end of their college careers. Freshman year is the natural time for beginning election, since it marks the beginning of freedom. Let us briefly consider the advantages of the system, always remembering that it is a definite system of serious work of prescribed quality and quantity. It tends at least to raise the standard of teaching and this reacts strongly on the student. It gives full scope to individual needs both as regards courses and teachers. Let me emphasize that we learn from persons more than from courses. Finally and above all else, free election gives full play to the faculty of selection. Men have grown to fame simply by developing themselves along the line of their own talents. From the days of Burke, graduated by grace and learning from his wide political reading, even until now, men have prepared themselves for the best and most useful lives by selecting what best meets their needs. If they made mistakes, they profited by those very mistakes and in the end made themselves men.

Tulin, in closing the direct debate, said: My colleagues have shown you the marked tendency in American colleges to shun the free elective system, which has proved so unsatisfactory at Harvard, not withstanding its restriction by many limitations. When a few weeks ago the Harvard Faculty instituted a new degree--an A.B. with distinction--which requires that a student shall pursue his courses in a single department under the supervision of the Faculty, they stamped work done under special direction as of higher value than unrestricted study. What more eloquent testimony than this illustrates the tendency away from the free elective system? Underlying the theory of this system is the idea of individual development. The student is to cultivate only his peculiar aptitudes. College, however, is not principally intended to prepare a student for his profession, but to cultivate his mind and form his character. As Dean West of Princeton said, "College should teach a man to make a life, rather than to make a living." After leaving the university the fierce struggle to make a fortune or attain success absorbs every other motive. It is therefore, at college that a man should realize the high ideals, breadth of mind and varied interests, which lend such an additional charm to life. It is the individualistic principle of the free elective system, which emphasizes out of all proportion the need of preparation for a narrow and personal success, and with danger of giving him ideas on the subject that are radically wrong. Life has many activities, and men should be educated to take an intelligent interest in political and educational problems. "We are specialists," says Professor Munsterberg, "in our handiwork, but our heart-work, is uniform, and the demand for individualized education ignores the great similarities." The system of education which produces this uniformity of interests must be under the direction of an experienced faculty. Such a system is being organized at Princeton, and already exists in slightly altered forms at Yale, Columbia and Johns Hopkins. The primary aim of individualistic training--efficiency in one's calling--is defeated by the free elective system, for experience teaches us that relative knowledge and a sympathetic understanding are necessary to success, and it is only a liberal and broad education which can produce these essentials.

Another principle underlying the free elective system is that we can study best those courses which interest us most. But we must not forget the difference between the undergraduate, who is apt to be indifferent to the good his studies may do him, and the mature man, who is actuated solely by a desire of self-improvement. To conclude, the free elective system assumes the evident fallacy that the student's aim is earnest and his judgment nature, and it fails to emphasize the development of character and the broadening of intellect.

The Rebuttal Speeches.

Davis of Harvard, was the first speaker in rebuttal. He declared that the affirmative had failed to demonstrate by concrete examples that the free elective system solves all educational problems. On the other hand, the negative had proved that the tendency of the foremost educators of the United States is against this system. The negative had also emphasized the evil effects of the free elective system at Harvard, and had illustrated their arguments by specific cases. He advocated a system which would necessitate an organization and supervision of studies by men of more experience and judgment than undergraduate students.

Hagan, the first speaker for Princeton in rebuttal, pointed out that the negative had offered no alternative system of study. The Harvard system has proved successful, he said. It has not produced an undue number of specialists, and is the direct outgrowth of modern scientific advancement. By it are developed the responsibility, self reliance, and individually which characterize the college man who is fit to take that place in life for which opportunities in college mark him out.

Kanaley, the second speaker in rebuttal for Harvard, said that at Harvard the elective system had been characterized by laziness on the part of the students which demonstrates that the elective system is impracticable. College in New York and in the West have adopted systems radically different from that of free election. He refuted the assertion of the affirmative that an undergraduate can successfully choose his own course of study by referring to the extreme complexity of the average university catalogue--upon which fact there has been decided comment by professors at Yale.

Thomas of Princeton in reply argued that in these days freshmen are competent to select for themselves their courses of study. Princeton has adopted a system whereby this is permitted. To require a man to take unnecessary subject is high injustice; it is of prime importance that a system of study does not bring restriction to certain fixed courses.

Tulin concluded the rebuttal for Harvard. Our opponents, he said, have jumped at the conclusion that we of the negative are arguing for a prescribed system of study. We suggest that men of broad experience in education know what is best for the undergraduate, and these men have given their opinion against free election. To show that the system of free election is not to be recommended we have pointed out that it is a revolutionary experiment in education, that the tendency in American colleges is away from free election of courses, and that the system has already worked evils.

Fosdick of Princeton was the last speaker in the debate. He pointed out that the negative had not shown that there was anything better than the free elective system, and that what the negative had said did not reflect upon the principle of free election, but merely upon the way the system is conducted at Harvard.

The college curriculum should be made to help the man who comes to college with the intention of working, and should not be adapted merely to the man whose only aim is to spend his four years of college life as enjoyably as possible. The affirmative requires much more convincing proof than the negative has brought forward, to accept the statement that because the elective system has failed at Harvard it will necessarily fall in all other colleges