THE DILETTANTE AGAIN

The need for a degree representing general culture, or in other words based on distribution, is discussed in a letter which appears this morning in another column. The author makes the compelling claim that three years of specialization in a field for which he has no further use is not only futile, but destroys the possibility of investigating other fields of knowledge.

To understand thoroughly how the system of concentration has evolved, one must consider what the demands of education are today. Is it as useful for the student to scrape the surface of knowledge, even though the general grasp appears most important to him, as it is for him to gain a fairly workable ground-work of some specific field? Undoubtedly, the most important element gained from a college education is the method of thinking which enables the student to get immediately to the crux of a problem. The ordinary graduate faces detailed and intricate questions which he must be able to solve. It is not what he learns as much as the way he has learned it which is the vital factor.

So far concentration has seemed the best way to meet these demands. It is not important that a man's concentration field apply directly to what he is doing later in life; but it is important that he has studied some field in detail. Under the present system, there is also room for generality in the four courses a man may take outside his requirements.

Five or six years of preparatory work should show a man along what lines he is interested. If he has failed to achieve this, the fault lies in the preparatory system or in the Freshman requirements. The deadwood which is present in every field does not wreck concentration; it most certainly is capable of remedy. Both these problems need careful consideration, but as a broad conception, concentration in college is not only the natural development of a man's education but best sharpens his mental capabilities for the complicated demands of life today.