Eliot vs. Lowell

(Ed. Note--The Crimson does not necessarily endorse opinions expressed in printed communications. No attention will be paid to anonymous letters and only under special conditions, at the request of the writer, will names be with-held.)

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

Now that divisionals are upon us, and spring nights have come, and with them a vague longing for things probably never to be realized, I am prompted to give voice to a conclusion which is more or less the fruit of four years of academic exploration, and which I offer for argument.

It concerns the rigidity of the present concentration requirements, and proposes two types of degrees: one for the scholar who has a real desire to specialize in any one field, and another to the general student, who desires not a specialized acquaintance with any one subject, but a general familiarity with all the knowledge the University has to offer--a generalized "culture," if you will. In the first category would belong those who intend to continue on in post-graduate work--embryonic doctors, engineers, economists, professional sociologists, potential English A instructors. For them, the existing concentration requirements are a necessity. But three years of specialization in a field which I do not intend to pursue in later life, have impressed upon me the futility of these same requirements for others in a separate category, who like myself have no intention of following an academic career, and whose curiosity for other fields of knowledge has been necessarily nipped in the bud.

Perhaps this suggestion is due to an incomplete understanding of the underlying purpose of the concentration system. In defense, however, I point out the following: That it would be one thing if all the material in each field were vital, significant stuff. But this is patently and pathetically untrue. There is an appalling amount of dead wood in each field, imposed willy-nilly on the concentrator, and of no conceivable significance except to those who require an encyclopedic comprehension of that field.

The fundamental point, of course, is whether or not the existing concentration requirements permit sufficient latitude in other fields. And I submit with conviction that they do not--that freshman distribution is palpably inadequate in this sense; and that the bulk of knowledge thus inflicted upon those of the second category above is infinitely less valuable to them than a corresponding expenditure of time and labor among the high spots of other fields. I do not think that such a course of education would be a superficial one. "Snap" courses are virtually extinct. And there is no correlation between superficiality per so and a broad knowledge of many things (as opposed to a specialized knowledge of one.)

One other aspect of this proposal is that it would limit noticeably the attendance in those courses which, as dead wood, have thrived parasitically within each department upon the milk of concentration--which perhaps would be not an unhealthy thing. E. E. Stowell '34.