"Little Energy Left for Association Outside of Classroom"---Humphreys

This is the last of a series of articles written for the Crimson by Arthur R. Humphreys, Commonwealth Fellow at Harvard from Cambridge University.

I do not wish to offer a judgment of superiority or inferiority. I critize Cambridge more severely than my American friends who have worked there. The unctuous epigram is too apt to be handed out as a substitute for statement. Et surtout, messieurs, pas trop de zele. On balance, though the assets in each case are quite different, there is perhaps not much to choose between the two. But if Cambridge tends too much to the dilettante, Harvard is not dilettante enough. Apart from that, I think that Cambridge, though harassed about its aims, subconsciously postulates certain functions of a university and satisfactorily fulfills them, whereas Harvard seems undecided as to what its functions should be. In preparing for livelihood rather than life it loads the undergraduate with course work, assignments, and examinations, in the attempt to teach him a variety of subjects. Very little energy is left for association outside the classroom another name for this lack of energy is indifference. Despite its superficiality, the ordinary Cambridge society which forms itself round any interest from the ballet to archery, not forgetting politics and chemistry, performs one of the most valuable functions of university life. I believe the Houses are developing from the dormitory ideal to that of spontaneous organisms in which discussion and association will take place freely and naturally on the initiative of the undergraduates themselves. The more that happens the better; but at present advances towards such a method are met by protests that hour exams or other trials of strength are impending. I believe hour exams the less important of the two.

No one would advise the approximation of Harvard to the Cambridge model. It can improve on that. It has a tradition of thoroughness which is unknown in England outside the sciences. But why are Americans so anxious to organize things? External organization extends from one's first registration under an incubus of forms, through work, exams, even sport, until the Ph.D. is safely landed. Because spontaneity is rendered difficult I doubt the claim that the system at least assures to the second rate man an adequate education. But if the sincerity and thoroughness of Harvard can be allied with the faith that allows the fullest, individual initiative, I believe the future of American scholarship will be unexcelled anywhere.