LIBRARY OF THE University of California. GIFT OF Class f h ARTICULATION OF HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE REORGANIZATION OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ARTICULATION OF HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE THE REORGANIZATION OF SECONDARY EDUCATION STATEMENT OF THE HIGH SCHOOIv TEACHERS ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK CITY OPINIONS FROM COI.I.EGE PRESIDENTS, SUPERINTENDENTS, AND HIGH SCHOOI. PRINCIPAI^S RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THREE DEPARTMENTS OF THE NATIONAI. EDUCATION ASSOCIATION HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS ASSOCIATION New York City November. 1910 ^ ^jtjLx '>t^ CL^t^^ ^Hqi-O INTRODUCTION The conviction is spreading throughout the United States that our high schools are seriously handicapped by present college entrance requirements. In the west, the colleges and high schools are co-operat- ing with marked success in bringing about a better articulation of these two institutions. In order to hasten a reform in the east the High School Teachers Association of New York City at its meeting in March, 1910, authorized the President of the Association, Mr. Arthur L. Janes, to appoint a committee of five to consider what steps should be taken. He appointed the following committee: — William McAndrew, Principal of the Washington Irving High School; Ellen R. Rushmore, of the Manual Training High School; James Sullivan, Principal of the Boys High School; James F. Wilson, of the Stuyvesant High School; and Clarence D. Kingsley, of the Manual Training High School, Chairman. This committee made a detailed study of the entrance requirements of a large number of colleges and drew up a statement setting forth the Impossibility of wisely meeting the needs of our high school students on account of present college entrance requirements. The committee suggested two methods of improving the situation: 1. By the first method college entrance would be based upon the simple fact of graduation from a four-year course in a first-class high school. This method would give complete satisfaction to the high school. If supplemented by competent examination into the efficiency of each school, we believe this method would tend to develop within the high school that independence, breadth, and judgment required to pro- duce the best results. The improvement in the high schools would result in better preparation and more students for the college. 2. The second method, not as radical as the first, was proposed, in order that the high schools might derive as soon as possible some meas- ure of relief from present conditions. This second method calls for: (a) the reduction in the number of so-called "required" subjects, together with (b) the recognition of all standard subjects, as electives. The requirement of two foreign languages from every student is regarded as particularly objectionable. The committee reported its conclusions at the annual meeting of the association May 7th, 1910. The association ratified its statement, which is given on pages 8 and 9 of this pamphlet, and instructed the com- mittee to send it out and to invite correspondence upon the matters involved. The committee wrote to the Presidents of one hundred and fifteen colleges, to each State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and to a number of City Superintendents and High School Principals. The replies in which opinions were expressed are given, practically com- plete, in this pamphlet, and arranged by states, the replies from the colleges being given first under each state. Two or three replies have been omitted because they were not for publication. All the replies in Ihis pamphlet, with one exception, were received in May and June. ANALYSIS OF REPLIES. We have received expressions of opinion from the presidents of the twenty five following colleges and universities: — Adelphi, Brown, Buffalo, Case School, Chicago, Dickinson, Girard, Goucher (formerly Woman's College of Baltimore), Haverford, Illinois, Massachusetts Agricultural, Middlebury, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Rochester, St. Johns, Stevens, Swarthmore, Trinity, Tufts, and Williams. Of the presidents of these twenty-five colleges and universities, three state that they are not in favor of the change from two to one foreign language. Nearly all of the other presidents endorse some or all of the recommendations indicated in our statement. Several college presidents write that they will recommend forthwith to their faculties modifications as suggested, and in several cases the presidents are in favor of our first proposition, namely admitting students upon gradua- tion from standard high schools. In some cases, the presidents write that they have already reduced the number of required subjects and have recognized a wide range of subjects as electives. Dr. Charles W. Eliot, President Emeritus of Harvard University, is one of the few who take a different view of the situation. He dis- approves of the accrediting system. He disapproves of admitting students with only one foreign language. He sanctions a wide range of subjects as electives but his reply seems to indicate a belief that a wide differentiation of high schools may accomplish the ends of a wise reorganization of secondary education. This, however, as a substitute for a revision of entrance requirements would assume that the students in commercial and other modern courses would continue to have the present difficulties in preparing for a regular college. From the following eight colleges and universities we have received replies from professors to whom our statement was referred: Cornell, Columbia, Johns Hopkins, Ohio State, Ohio Wesleyan, Pennsylvania, Union, and theUniversity of Washington. . • ^ ^ . We have received replies from the State Superintendents of Public Instruction in the following states: Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico; from State Superintendent Joyner of North Carolina, President last year of the National Education Association; from Deputy Superintendent Tietriek of Pennsylvania; and from State High School Inspector Hay- ward, who writes for the State Superintendent of North Dakota. It is significant that every one of these superintendents, without exception, agrees wholly, or in the main, with our recommendations. State Superintendent Draper of New York writes, "I think that the colleges should receive the graduates of recognized high schools and give them their opportunity to show whether or not they can do college work." State Superintendent Snedden of Massachusetts writes, "The present situation is most objectionable, and especially in the restrictive effects it is having on true high school development." State Superintendent Stone of Vermont sets forth the function of the high school' thus: ("The chief function of the high school is to enable the individual to *find out what he can best do and to give him a certain degree of culture and discipline. If the individual is required to fit the school land the school does not fit the individual, the individual becomes crip- \pled, and we are having too many deformities as a result of our jp-estricted and required courses." ^ We have also received expressions of opinion from about twenty superintendents of schools in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Cleve- land, Springfield, and other important school systems. These replies have been practically unanimous in endorsing the movement. The majority were emphatic in their approval. THE FUNCTIONS OF THE HIGH SCHOOL. The articulation of high school and college should proceed upon a clear conception of the functions of the high school. These functions seem to be the three following: ' (1) To help the individual discover what he can best do in view of his own ability and the conditions in his community. (2) To give him a carefully planned course, adapted to his needs as rapidly as his bent is discovered. (3) To inspire him to continue his education further if circum- stances warrant. If this statement is sound, it follows that: (1) To perform the first function, our high school educators need to be able to help the student discover his bent and to know the vari- ous opportunities existing in the community. (2) The second function calls for many differentiated courses, and many prefer to have these courses side by side in the same school so that the student may be encouraged and not hindered in selecting the course best for him, when he discovers himself. (3) The third function calls for the broadening of the basis of college entrance, in order that we may have no unnecessary blind alleys in our high schools. In addition to those four-year courses, which we hope the college will soon fully recognize, many communities need the establishment of two-year courses and trade courses planned without reference to college admission. SAI.IENT POINTS IN THE DISCUSSION. First. Frequent reference is made in the replies received to the fact tnat no one can foretell upon a student's entering high school whether or not he will finally go to college. We wish to emphasize this as the fundamental point in our whole discussion. If it were possible to foretell, the American high school should be censured for not performing its third function, that of inspiring students to a desire for higher education. The colleges themselves have long recognized the desirability of encouraging children from the humblest families in their endeavor to obtain a higher education. Any separation of students into college preparatory high schools and other high schools would be a distinct abandonment of that which American education has heretofore regarded as its greatest achievement. Such a system might be viewed with favor m a country dominated by class distinctions. Second. We fear that the educational value of manual training and commercial subjects is not yet fully recognized. We do not agree with the idea that these subjects should be taken in the high school only by those whose college course is to contain a continuation of these subjects. On the cohtrary, if a student is going to a college where no opportunity is afforded for ^he education that comes through the hand, or where no courses are offered in commercial theory and prac- tice, his need for some such work in the high school is all the greater. For instance, engineers often fail from lack of business sense, and physicians and surgeons need skill of hand. Third. Our education would gain in power and in virility if we made more of the dominant interest that each boy and each girl has at the time. A high grade course in stenography and typewriting that appeals to the dominant interest of the boy or girl will aftord excellent training in spelling, punctuation, and composition. This training becomes of value whatever college course may be built upon it. The gain which would come to our colleges by the encouragement in the high school of courses that make their appeal to the live interests of real boys and girls is clearly brought out in the reply of Dean Daven- port of the University of Illinois and in his valuable book, "Education for EflBciency." 6 Probably as many students fail in college from a lack of determina- tion and aim, as from a lack in quantity of preparation along estab- lished lines, and consequently a reorganization of secondary education that will assist boys and girls to get a purpose in life before leaving the high school will help the college in many ways. Fourth. While it may be true that the newer subjects for which we seek recognition in many cases are not as well taught as the older subjects, still we believe that the way to raise the standard is to hold out to the schools the incentive that these subjects will be accepted just as rapidly as the work comes up to a high standard in each par- ticular school. In this way the school will be encouraged and not hin- dered, Boards of Education will more readily improve the equipment and employ capable teachers for these subjects, and the students will not be overcrowded in the attempt to carry the new subjects in addition to the full amount of the older subjects. CONCLUSION. In view of the fact that the high school itself is confronted by new and difficult problems the solution of which is of the greatest impor- tance to the community, it certainly seems not unreasonable that the High School should ask of the College all the co-operation possible in order that working together they may advance the best interests of the educational system for the benefit of all concerned. Even though there may be fears that the results temporarily may in some cases be somewhat unsatisfactory judged from the older standards of set and finished results, yet in the interests of the enthu- siasm which comes in meeting new conditions and from the satisfac- tion which arises in solving new problems, a quality for which the American people is distinguished, we issue this pamphlet in the hope that the College may make the modifications needed by the High School. CLARENCE D. KINGSLEY, Chairman WILLIAM McANDREW ELLEN R. RUSHMORE JAMES SULLIVAN JAMES F. WILSON Committee on Conference with the Colleges. Address of the Chairman, 400 Fourth Street, Brooklyn, N. Y. Three sections of the National Education Association, at the annual meeting July 1910, passed resolutions upon the urgent need for the revision of college entrance requirements. These resolutions are given on the last pages of this pamphlet. STATEMENT OF THK HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS ASSOCIATION ON THE ARTICULATION OF HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE The Reorganization of Secondary Education We believe that the interests of the forty thousand boys and girls who annually attend the nineteen high schools of this city cannot be wisely and fully served under present college entrance re- quirements. Our experience seems to prove the existence of a wide discrepancy )3etween "preparation for life" and "preparation ,foT college" as defined by college entrance requirements. So long as this discrepancy exists, both the child and society suffer, for the following two reasons: First: — Every attempt to divide high school students into two classes and to prepare one class for college and the other class for life is un- satisfactory. Many of those being "prepared for college" drop out of school without proper education for citizenship and without the industrial or commercial efficiency which society rightly demands the tax-supported high school should develop. Those being "prepared for life" include many who, later in their course, would go to college if the work already done were recognized by the colleges. Second: — The attempt to prepare the student for college under the present requirements and at the same time to teach him such other subjects as are needed for life is unsatisfactory. Under these con- ditions the student often has too much to do. The quality of all his work is likely to suffer. The additional subjects are slighted because they do not count for admission to college. In such a course it is Impossible for the student to give these subjects as much time and energy as social conditions demand. For these reasons we desire to call your attention to the entrance requirements of Clark College. This college accepts the graduates of any New England public high school or of any other high school with equivalent standard. They report that the results are satisfactory to the college. May we ask what, in your opinion, would be the objections, if any, to the acceptance by your college, of the graduates of the high schools of New York City? Such a definition of entrance requirements would secure to the college a four years' preparatory course and would enable the high school to perform its function as a tax-supported institution. Under the present method of defining entrance require- ments, students who have not completed our courses of study repeatedly gain admission to college, often to the weakening of both college and high school. If this departure seems too radical, may we call your attention to the following statements and recommend the modifications in present entrance requirements which seem to us most urgent? There are seven distinct lines of work which we believe essential to a well- rounded high school course; to wit, language, mathematics, history and civics, science, music, drawing, and manual training. Girls must be taught household science and art. Moreover, we believe that the twentieth century demands that the high schools should not cast all students in the same mold; that the amount of science and manual training which is sufficient for one student is utterly inadequate for another; and that a training for business may be given in the high school which will be as cultural and as respectable as any other course. To enable the high schools to adapt secondary education to the varying needs of different students in such a manner as to meet the diverse demands of the professions, of industry, and of commerce, progress * seems to us to require (a) the reduction in the number of so-called "required" subjects, together with (b) the recognition of all standard subjects, as electives. The specified entrance requirement of two foreign languages, the meager electives in science, and the absence of recognition for drawing, music, household science and art, shopwork, commercial branches, and civics and economics, constitute the chief diffiulty. We should like to see it possible for a student upon entering the high school to choose Latin or German or French; to confine his work in foreign language, during his high school course, to one such language in case the remainder of his time is required for other subjects;' and to find at the end of his high school course that he has met the foreign language requirements of whatever college he may choose to enter. We should like to see no discrimination against Latin for the course leading to the B. S. degree, so that students choosing any language may enter the B. S. course. We should like to see the following subjects recognized by college entrance credits: Music, 1 unit; mechanical and freehand drawing, each 1/2 to 1 unit; joinery, pattern making, forging, machine shop practice, each 1/2 to 1 unit; household chemistry, botany, zoology, physiography, applied physics, and advanced chemistry, each 1 unit; modern history, 1 unit; civics and economics, each 1/2 to 1 unit; household science and art, 2 units; and commercial geography, commercial law, stenography and typewriting, elementary bookkeeping, advanced bookkeeping, and ac- counting, each 1/2 to 1 unit. A recent study of entrance requirements shows that many colleges are already requiring only one foreign language for admission, and that many of the above subjects have received recognition. REPLIES ARRANGED BY STATES CONNECTICUT FLAVEL S. LUTHER, LL. D., President Trinity College. I have received your letter of May 18th with the accompanying circular. I fully appreciate your position. Please understand, how- ever that, in what follows, I express only my personal opinions, with which I do not believe many college faculties would coincide. I agree with you fully that the present situation is intolerable. I agree with almost everything in your circular except, perhaps, the assignment of numerical values to a specific list of subjects. It seems to me that what the colleges ought to want is this — some process whereby they may be assured that candidates entering college have reached such a stage of intellectual maturity and training that they are capable of undertaking college work, under college methods of teaching, with a fair prospect of success. In the old days Freshmen entering college went on with the studies which they had been pursu- ing in school, and the quantitative requirements were reasonable, per- haps - inevitable. To-day the situation has been entirely changed. In Trinity College, for example, there is no subject taught, except Latin and Mathematics, which is not begun in college; that is to say, there are only these two subjects for which any specific training is necessary beyond Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic. Of course, it is proper to point out that Physics, Civil Engineering, and some other subjects, do require a further Mathematical preparation. Greek, French, Italian, Spanish, History, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Economics, Philosophy, etc., etc., are or may be begun in our institution. Again, then, it appears that what we want is some reasonable con- fidence that our students may begin these studies and go on with them rapidly and successfully, of course with the understanding that they may pick up some of these subjects at such an advanced stage as their preparation may justify. I do not believe that it makes very much difference what boys and girls study in the high school so far as their college career is concerned, provided they ^udy hard and secure suf- ficient intellectual development and training to enable them to do some kind of work appropriate to the college age and the college courses. An ideal arrangement to my mind would be one whereby a very, very large list of high schools and preparatory schools should be prepared under competent authority, with the understanding that these schools might send their students to any college in the country simply upon 10 certificate of graduation. Among other advantages this plan would result in the saving of practically a year of each candidate's life, now devoted to preparation for formal and highly unsatisfactory examina- tions. I believe that we shall come to some such plan as this, sooner or later. CHARLES W. DEANE, Ph.D., City Superintendent, Bridgeport. I consider the ideas set forth in it sound, and would be glad to see them prevail. CHARLES B. JENNINGS, City Superintendent, New London. It is high time, it seems to me, that the colleges of the country abandoned their time-honored practice and custom of prescribing a cer- tain cut and dried examination that all applicants must pass before entering college. Without any desire to criticize, I have felt for a num- ber of years that the colleges have not responded as much as the lower schools to the modern trend of public opinion in regard to education. They will all come into line eventually, for they mean right. It is simply the inertia of long continued custom. I am heartily in favor of the plan, as outlined, which you send to me. B. W. TINKER, City Superintendent, Waterbury. For a long time I have felt that the colleges were making unnecessary restrictions in regard to "preparation." The number of required sub- jects is so great that if the work of preparation is not begun immed- iately upon entering high school, it is almost always necessary for the pupils to spend five years or more in such preparation. Too much attention is paid to the amount of matter covered, and too little to how it is covered. It ought to be a question of ability. I am heartily in sympathy with the work you are undertaking. EDWARD H. GUMBART, Ph.D., Principal, Norwalk High School, South Norwalk. I heartily agree with the sentiments expressed. Please count me in to support any movement to carry out such a reorganization of sec- ondary education as you have proposed. JOHN P. GUSHING, Head Master, New Haven High School, New Haven. Your articulation of high school and college is too liberal for me. 11 ILLINOIS HARRY PRATT JUDSON, LL.D., President University of Chicago. I am much interested in your statement. It hardly needs referring to the faculty of the University of Chicago, as we have been for some time very nearly on the basis indicated. In my opinion a student who has gone through the four years' course in a high school of recognized good quality ought to be admitted to college, and the college curriculum ought to be adjusted so as to permit such student to find suitable work. ABRAM W. HARRIS, LL. D., President Northwestern University, Evanston. I was for eight years President of the University of Maine. I have now been for four years President of Northwestern University, and in between I was for five years principal of the Jacob Tome Institute, which contained a boys' boarding school of high school grade. My Tome experience gave me knowledge of the problem you are consid- ■ering, and I sympathize fully with your purposes. When at Maine I brought into use admission by certificate, which required, (1) graduation from a four-year high school, and (2) the satisfactory completion of certain specified studies that made up ap- proximately one-third of the high school course, and (3) a definite recommendation of the principal that the candidate was, in his judg- ment, fitted for the course he was to undertake. This system was intended to leave large liberty in developing the high school course to those who knew local conditions best, namely, the principals. It was intended to establish sympathetic and cordial relations with the principals. The plan was eminently successful, and under it the standard of scholarship constantly improved. Stu- dents who completed the required studies, but had not completed a high school course, were allowed to take examinations and were ad- mitted if their ranks were thoroughly satisfactory. The number of such candidates was small, and only a small proportion passed, al- though occasionally a very good man was admitted whose prepara- tion had been irregular. Northwestern University has recently modified its admission re- quirements for the College of Liberal Arts, with the express intention of accomplishing the results you desire. EDMUND J. JAMES, LL.D., President University of Illinois. I do not suppose the University of Illinois would make any objection to accepting the graduates of the high schools of New York City for matriculation in the University. There are certain fundamental sub- 12 jects varying with the course chosen, which we have to require be- cause the knowledge of these subjects is a technical requirement for success in the course. Otherwise I believe you will find the University of Illinois in full sympathy with the general proposition of your com- munication. H. A. HOLLISTER, High School Visitor, University of Illinois. President James, of the University, has just sent to me your letter of May 30th with a request that I underake to reply. I have read with interest your circular on "Articulation of High School and College." It seems to me that the general position taken by your committee in regard to these matters is fully justified by the situation. The University of Illinois has long exercised a liberal attitude in regard to electives. Foreign language work, for instance, has been prescribed only for the College of Literature and Arts, and even in this case no particular language has been prescribed for admission. A wide range of electives in science and history has characterized our attitude toward secondary schools. More recently we have broadened out still more by introducing in our list of electives for admission manual training, commercial work, domestic science, and agriculture. With the exception of work in manual training, we have had little experience, as yet, with these new subjects. We are just assigning credit to a limited group of high schools for the first time this spring. In the case of manual training work, the experience thus far has been very satisfactory. There seems to have been no indication of any depreciation in the quality of preparation offered by students who have taken advantage of this subject as an elective. We do not anticipate any difficulty with regard to other new subjects mentioned above. One of the most serious difficulties we have, however, in adjusting credits with reference to these subjects is the comparative lack of uni- formity in the nature and grade of work offered by the high school. These difficulties we are undertaking to overcome through a conference of high school teachers which meets annually here at the University. In these conferences we invite representative high school people to discuss with us standards and unit definitions with regard to all en- trance subjects, and thus far we have found it possible to base our requirements on the definitions agreed to by these conferences. In this way we hope gradually to be able to establish these new subjects on a basis of equality as to subject matter, dealing in such a way as to make the accrediting of them as simple as that of the standard high school subjects. In this connection, it may be of interest to call attention to the fact that in our experience in dealing with high schools, it seems much 13 more diflScult to get teachers as well equipped for the teaching of these newer branches as those who teach the older academic subjects. One does not have to seek very far to find reasons for this. Very few institutions are really prepared to train teachers with adequate schol- arship attainments for the teaching of the manual arts, domestic science, commercial subjects, or agriculture. If you happen to get hold of a recent publication by me entitled "High School Administrav' tion," D. C. Heath & Co., you will find in it a chapter dealing with the relation of the high school to colleges and universities, in which I have tried to explain the situation, especially with reference to the accredit- ing of subjects more modern and practical in character. I think you will agree with me that is is quite desirable that we proceed with some deliberation in undertaking to standardize these subjects which are now calling for recognition. This need is probably not BO much felt in New England and New York as it is in the Middle "West where our growth is more recent and where our development is rapid. However this may be, I feel sure that the ultimate aim and purpose of our colleges and universities should be fully as broad as that indicated in your circular on the subject of "College Entrance." EUGENE DAVENPORT, Dean of College of Agriculture, University of Illinois. First, let me say that I am glad to give this opinion for what it is worth, though I do not pose as an educational expert. The little book, "Education for Efficiency," was an outpouring of my own experi- ence in acting as a godfather to a new subject trying to blaze its way xnto good academic society. I would be the last to degra-de the high standards of this society, but, on the other hand, I have contended strenuously that when a new member comes along, he ought to be admitted. The point you raise, however, involves even a larger question in academic policy, and yet I find myself in thorough sympathy with the position taken by the teachers of the high schools. To me the high school is par excellence the educational center of the community in which the great bulk of the young people will receive all the training they will ever get for the life that they will pursue, and that very generally they will find their lives not far removed from the vicinity of the school. The matter you mention is fundamental in that it Is impossible to determine at any time which individuals will ultimately go to college and which will not, and therefore the training of the two in this respect must be identical, all of which means that the colleges and universities must "hitch on" (a good agricultural phrase) to the high schools the best they may, or else the high schools will be distorted into nothing but preparatory schools for college to the 14 vast detriment of the mass of students who will never see the college for which they were supposedly prepared. This University publishes a list of subjects which would be accepted for credit, and while it does not announce that it will accept for credit anything and everything that is taught in any school, yet it puts into this list every new subject that is offered in the high schools as soon as this subject is even reasonably well taught. For example, we now accept for admission in this University: Agriculture, one to two units; Business Law, one-half unit; Domestic Science, one unit; Manual Training, one to two units, etc. Foreign language is required for admission only in the College of Literature and Arts. However, foreign language is practically required for graduation in all the colleges. Certain substitutions may be made in the Colleges of Agri- culture and Engineering, but at considerable additional labor on the part of the student. This all means, I think, that we are perfectly ready to accept both information and training that come out of certain new subjects and accept them in full value for college entrance. I think our experience is that we do not get in some of these new subjects the same degree of academic training that can be brought with some of the older and better established studies like language and mathematics, but we do get, on the other hand, a lively interest, a directness and an inclination to engage in actual problems of life, which is far less assured witli those subjects whose subject matter deals largely with the past and whose atmosphere is decidedly ancient. It is, you see, the deliberate purpose of this University to meet the high schools on their own ground. It is true some of the schools complain of University domi- nance, but that is rather in a quantitative than in a qualitative sense and arises from our attempt to deal with a large number of schools of a varying degree of efficiency. So far as subject niatter is con- cerned, however, we are ready to accept anything which the schools do jand do well. Our experince is, so far as I am able to state it, that we gain in the matter of interest in life problems and ability to solve them far more than we lose in academic finish. There is no doubt that pure scholar- ship in the old sense of the term can best be developed with old and finished subjects. On the other hand, the modern American is to be made principally out of new subjects, finished off, so to speak, with the old ones. We try, therefore, to combine the two and keep as close as possible to the life and heart of the people. All this is only saying in a round-about way that my interest is entirely with the high schools in their desire to so conduct their affg,irs as to serve the varied communities which support them, and it will remain there so long as they conscientiously do this work. When they abandon this high purpose and serve only as preparatory 15 schools for colleges, I shall lose my interest in them, believing that they have sacrificed their rights as they have their opportunities. PROFESSOR OTIS W. CALDWELL, University of Chicago. Your statement is fine and represents the attitude that is being taken by many of our progressive high schools in the Central States. The High School has come to perform a function that makes it an autonomous body. It is now necessary for the High School to con- sider its own problems almost independently of the College and University. High Schools need to educate for general efficiency, and pupils who go to College need this kind of training quite as much as those who do not go. The lack of industrial and social perspective on the part of college graduates should be corrected by a High School education which deals with those matters that are of the greatest value to the largest number. PROFESSOR C. RIBORG MANN, University of Chicago. I am very much interested in this question and consider your statement the best that I have yet seen on the subject. There is a growing sentiment here at the University of Chicago in favor of the ideas which you present. The Federation of Secondary School Teachers, an association of which I am president, has a committee working on this same subject. There are about 22O0 members of the associations In the Federation scattered all over the country. J. STANLEY BROWN, Superintendent and Principal, Joliet Township High School, Joliet. I congratulate your committee on the work done, and assure you that all movements looking to the complete autonomy of the public high school will be welcomed by the teaching bodies of the whole country. JAMES E. ARMSTRONG, Principal Englewood High School, Chicago. I think we have a decided advantage over your schools in the east in regard to college entrance requirements. I am in entire accord with the point mentioned in the circular on "Articulation of High School and College." I think you will recognize that we are a long stride ahead of the eastern schools in all these relations. We have an association of all the colleges, universities, and secondary schools in the North Central States. A committee of twenty or thirty people from these various institutions make a definition of each unit of the 16 college requirements for admission; and in this way the high school men have their say as to what subjects should be accepted by the col- leges from the high school graduates. INDIANA WINTHROP E. STONE, Ph.D., President Purdue University, Lafayette. At Purdue we are entirely in sympathy with the recognition, as preparation for college, of a wide range of high school subjects and we are chiefly concerned that these subjects should be seriously and thoroughly taught in some properly arranged sequence and relation, believing that when the high school pupil has mastered them, he has in effect gained the necessary mental power and direction to enable him to do collegiate work. Since, however, Purdue is a scientific and technological institution, we find it necessary to prescribe certain preparatory studies in order that our entering students shall be able to go on with our own courses. Of the fifteen units required for admission, ten are thus prescribed, namely, English, foreign language, mathematics, science, and history. The remaining five units which the applicant must submit may be made up of subjects chosen in the departments of English, foreign language, mathematics, science, history, shop work, drawing, domes- tic science, agriculture, and commercial courses in varying weights. It is our endeavor in arranging these requirements to meet school conditions and to accomplish what is referred to in your circular; namely, the reduction of required subjects and the recognition of all standard subjects as electives. M. H. STUART, Assistant Principal Manual Training High School, Indianapolis. Your letter and circular regarding college entrance requirements which was mailed to Superintendent Kendall, has been forwarded to me for reply. Your circular is very interesting and bears directly on the vital high school difficulty. Your first suggestion — that the colleges admit all of the graduates from standard high schools — would, of course, be satisfactory to us and would enable the high school to meet the demands of the people. I fear, however, that the college people might consider this a little too radical, since the high schools are now developing such a varied course of study. So, from a practical point of view, I am inclined toward your, second suggestion of reducing the number of required subjects and giving recognition to all of the standard lines of work represented in the modern city high school. 17 This, it seems to me, is perfectly feasible and in line with the future development of high school work, I would favor reducing the required subjects to English, mathematics, and one foreign language, including among the elective subjects, all those mentioned in your circular. In brief, I am very enthusiastic regarding your second plan for solving this much discussed difficulty. Any assistance that we may be able to give you in this line will be gladly contributed. MARYLAND EUGENE A. NOBLE, LL. D., President Goucher College, Baltimore. I am not in favor of having the colleges prescribe, and command, and rigidly determine, just what work the secondary schools must do. I have objected to that consistently. It is entirely unfair for any college to assume that its requirements must give character to all the work done in the secondary schools. This point is definite in my mind: That in some measure the secondary schools must break away from what the old colleges imposed upon them as necessary aspects of activity. While I should not be willing to forecast the educational future, yet I am inclined to believe that what we shall have to do is this: To have a number of high schools that pay comparatively little atten- tion to college preparation, and some other schools that devote them- selves to that. I do not believe the colleges will admit students whose work has not been systematically arranged and conducted before they are admitted as Freshmen. This being so, I can see nothing for it but to have a number of schools devote themselves to college prepara- tion. What Clark College is trying to do, I suppose we are all trying to do, to determine in advance the ability of a student to do the work of a Freshman year, that is to admit the students "on trial." That in itself is not a bad plan. As far back as five years ago I urged such a plan upon one of the best New England colleges. I should not be averse to having it tried in this institution from schools that were on an approved list to receive students who have graduated and perhaps had made a grade of something higher than mere passing; then let their work for the first half year in college determine whether they were able to carry college tasks successfully. Perhaps you do not know that we have a list of alternative entrance requirements, a plan which was adopted in order that admission to our Freshmen class might adjust itself to the inequalities of preparation in different parts of the country. We have held that it is the business of the college to adjust its re- 18 quirements for admission in such a way that existing inequalities in different parts of the country shall be met. We believe that entirely too much deference has been paid to the rigid system originating in New England and we should be glad to see certain changes and modifi- cations made in order to satisfy the educational requirements of the whole country. So far as the work of this college is concerned, and the work as I imagine it of some other colleges, it would be absurd for us to accept handicraft, household sciences, bookkeeping, machine shop practice, pattern making, forging, stenography and typewriting, etc., for en- trance. I could wish that both mechanical and freehand drawing were recognized, and if there were -some way to determine the unit value of music, I should like to see music recognized. To determine the unit value of some of the subjects in your list seems to me to be nearly impossible. If all the high schools within our territory taught the same subject with the same sincerity of method, it would not be a difficult matter for the college to determine what it ought to receive for entrance. EDWARD H. GRIFFIN, Dean of the College Faculty, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. We fully appreciate the importance of this subject, and the difficulties of the problem which it presents. It is now too late in the year to invite an expression of opinion by our academic staff, but I shall be glad to bring the subject up for discussion next year. I am personally in favor of accepting properly guarded certificates, from properly accredited high schools, for admission to college. I am also in favor of accommodating the entrance requirements, as far as possible, to the needs of the high school. But I do not see how "vocational subjects" — if I may use that term — can be substituted for the standard subjects, to any very considerable extent. MASSACHUSETTS CHARLES W. ELIOT, LL.D., President Emeritus Harvard University. I have read the statement regarding the articulation of high school and college which you were good enough to send me under date of June fourth. It discusses a very large question in public secondary education, and I am free to confess that my own mind is not clear as to the best interests of the public high school. In Boston and Cam- bridge, where there have long been free Latin schools supported by taxation, the solution of the problem has been very different from that which your statement suggests; and of late years an active differenti- 19 ation in high schools has been going on, so that we now have three well-marked types of high schools. On the other hand, Harvard College already counts for admission physics, chemistry, civil government, anatomy, zoology and economics, freehand and projection drawing, astronomy, harmony and counterpoint, various kinds of shop work, and English and American history. On the whole, this is a more compre- hensive list than that which stands on the third page of your state- ment, — considering that Harvard College admits no girls. The weak points of your statement seem to me to be the follow- ing: (1) You call attention to the entrance requirements of Clark C!ollege. These are the lowest and most enfeebling for secondary schools ever made in New England. (2) You approve the certificate method of entrance, which has had a most deplorable effect on the -quality of secondary schools all over the country, and has distinctly lowered the quality of the entering classes of the American universities in general. (3) You recommend that a youth whose education is to be prolonged learn but one foreign language up to his nineteenth year. This doctrine flies in the face of all experience concerning the right age to learn the elements of foreign languages. The policy is right for children whose education is to stop at eighteen, or earlier; but it is utterly wrong for those whose education is to be prolonged. (4) You seem to sanction in your first paragraph the absurd antithesis between "preparation for life" and "preparation for college." "Prep- aration for life" in this sense means only that imperfect preparation which those can receive who must begin to earn money at eighteen years of age, or earlier. "Preparation for college" means preparation for a training subsequent to eighteen years of age, which may last from three to seven years. College education, in short, is much more truly and effectively preparation for life than any other form of edu- cation. I agree with you that the changes you advocate amount to a "re- organization of secondary education"; but the essence of the re-organ- ization, in my opinion, will be differentiation among high schools and greater range of selection among studies for pupils. FREDERICK W. HAMILTON, D.D., President Tufts College. I doubt if any serious consideration can be given to your state- ment until next fall, owing to the pressure of matters incident upon the closing of the college year. Personally, I believe that a closer articulation between the high school and college is desirable, and I am personally much more in sympathy than are most of my colleagues on the Faculty with the specific changes you desire to make. I am by no means certain, however, that it is wise to attempt to lay out a high school course in such a way that it may hit any mark which 20 UNIVERSITY OF the shooter may make up his mind he would like to bring down after the projectile has left the gun. While I believe in a good deal of latitude in college entrance requirements and in the acceptance of well taught subjects of almost any kind for admission to college, it does seem to me quite clear that the aim of the high school education ought to be fairly well determined upon at an early period of the course. It does seem to me that a boy who intends to be a bookkeeper im- mediately on graduation from the high school, may properly direct his high school course rather differently from a boy who intends to be a clergyman, or a lawyer, or an electrical engineer. In a word, I find myself agreeing with your definite conclusions much more fully than with your premises. HARRY A. GARFIELD, LL.D., President Williams College. I enclose herewith a letter from the Dean of our Faculty whose position as Chairman of our Committee on Admissions, and also as a member of the College Entrance Examination Board, gives his judgment especial weight. I am in accord with his opinion. So far from aband- oning the work in language, I should much prefer that students enter- ing college were through with the beginners' work in Latin and both modern languages, or with Latin and Greek and one modern language, but I realize that, at the present time, it would appear to put upon the schools too great a burden to have accomplished so much. FREDERICK C. FERRY, Sc. D., Dean Williams College. It seems to me that "preparation for college" and ''preparation for life" are not necessarily separate and incompatible. I am not at all clear that the boy or girl who is to go no further than the high school seriously needs "for life" courses in drawing, advanced chemistry, stenography and typewriting, rather than Latin and Greek. It is my own belief that the list of subjects which we prescribe for admission to college are at least equal in their preparation for life to the more modern and vocational course which the high school people propose. Manifestly Williams College cannot undertake to carry all possible <