of these principles to the judgment of students themselves, and then holding them responsible for the manner in which this trust is administered. Perhaps the most useful rule ever promulgated in an American school was that simple one which declared that every student was required at all times to conduct himself in a manner becoming a gentleman and a scholar, and that he would be held responsible for the observance of this standard. Such a requirement appeals to the approving reason of the student, and on the basis of it all needed discipline may readily be enforced. If students are duly made to feel that order is as much the first law of a university as it is the first law of heaven, they will have no difficulty in understanding that rushing and hazing will not be tolerated by any institution entitled to respect.

In a word, then, the requirements in regard to conduct should be few in number and should be of a character that will commend them to the approval of all reasonable minds. It should be understood from the first that college officials cannot expend their energies in playing the part of police officers. As soon as it is unmistakably apparent that any student is disposed persistently to defy or even to disregard the requirements of the institution, he should be promptly remanded to another field of usefulness. This is the course of wisdom: any other course is the course of weakness and folly.

CHARLES KENDALL ADAMS,
President of Cornell University.

TO WHAT extent should a university control its students? This is a complicated question. There are at least five departments of student life which may be subject to control the intellectual ; the religious; the moral; the physical; and deportment in and about college buildings. Then there are two kinds of control : official-by law and penalty; and personal-by advice and remonstrance. And, finally, the name university, as popularly used in a discussion like this, includes two distinct types of institutions the centrally-located university, including professional schools and a post-graduate department; and the country college devoted wholly or chiefly to under-graduates. Hence our question includes five separate questions, each of which must be considered in two distinct relations; and all our conclusions will require

qualification according to the character of the institution to which they are applied.

First intellectual control. The official control over the intellectual work of students should be strict and absolute. A requirement should be fixed and rigidly enforced. To allow a student to remain in a college when he is not doing a reasonable amount of work is a three-fold wrong. It is a wrong to the parent; for it is receiving his money under false pretences. It is a wrong to the student; for it confirms him in habits of indolence and irresponsibity. It is a wrong to the community; for it leads people to place that confidence which training and intelligence alone merit in those who have them not. The personal control over the intellectual life of students consists in restraining from excessive study the overambitious few; stimulating to greater effort the thoughtless many, who, though well above the official requirement, are yet far below the level of their own possible attainment; and giving advice concerning methods of work and choice of studies to all. There are two methods of enforcing this intellectual control. One insists upon absolute regularity of attendance. The other demands satisfactory results. Each method has its advantages and its disadvantages. The former cultivates regular habits, and is better adapted to younger students and to small colleges. The latter develops character through freedom, and is more harmonious with the university spirit.

Second: religious control. The extent to which official religious control is profitable depends upon the nature of the institution. In universities where a considerable proportion of the students are engaged in professional and post-graduate study, and in institutions supported by the state, attendance upon religious exercises may well be made voluntary. In colleges composed chiefly of under-graduates, supported by private benevolence, where, as is the case with nearly all our small colleges, Christian character and usefulness, quite as much as intellectual training and attainments, were the motive of their founders and benefactors, it is reasonable and right to require attendance at daily prayers in the college chapel and at public worship upon the Sabbath. The personal control of the religious life of students should be gained by friendly council and conference on religious topics; by pointing out the religious bearings of college work and college life; and by

the force of Christian character and example. The fact that the convictions and ideals which are to mould character and determine conduct are being formed by scores and perhaps hundreds of their students renders this one of the most important and responsible relations of every college professor for whom religious truth and duty have a serious significance.

Third: moral control. The college should enforce outward conformity with the recognized rules and requirements of morality and the standards of gentlemanly behavior. It should repress and punish overt acts which reflect discredit upon the college, and expel students guilty of flagrant and notorious immorality. The president and professors should maintain also a watchful interest in the morals of the students, and by personal efforts, and by communication with parents and friends, should throw around each student the support and sympathy in doing right, the reproof and remonstrance for doing wrong, which he has been accustomed to receive at home, and which he might expect to receive anywhere from friends interested in his welfare.

Fourth: physical control. The extent to which physical control can be carried profitably depends upon the extent to which formal requirements are carried in other departments. Where attendance at prayers and recitations is largely voluntary, and where studies are elective, required physical exercise would be incongruous. Yet where definite requirements as to time, place, and method are made in other departments, it is proper to require a thorough physical examination and regular prescribed physical exercise of every student. The college authorities should exclude from severe athletic contests all who, from constitutional defects or from inadequate training, cannot engage in them with perfect safety; and should limit games and contests to such times and places as will not interfere seriously with study.

Fifth deportment in and about the college buildings. The college should aim to secure such order and quiet as are necessary for successful study. This should be done in such a manner as to leave the students as free as possible from interference and inspection. In the smaller colleges this control may be delegated to a representative body of students. Such a body will tolerate in minor matters some things which the faculty would not approve; yet, on the other hand, they can ascertain and punish much more precisely and effectively such offences as are clearly

detrimental to the general welfare. And any lack of rigor that may result from such a system is more than counterbalanced by the greater self-control and self-respect it develops in the students, and the more sympathetic and confidential relation it renders possible between students and faculty. And where this spirit of selfcontrol is developed, and this friendly relation between students and professors is maintained, the general overthrow of foolish customs, handed down from earlier days, when students were mere schoolboys and the faculty was regarded as their natural enemy, will be only a question of time.

Such being, in brief outline, the chief lines of legitimate control of the university over its students, what results may we look for? If we expect students in all cases to be as eager in the pursuit of learning as members on the floor of the Stock Exchange are in quest of gain; if we expect them always and everywhere to be as sedate and solemn in their demeanor as deacons at a religious meeting; if we expect them in all relations to be as considerate of each other's feelings as polite people at a party; if we expect them to be as discreet and judicious in all they do and say as Senators engaged in a serious deliberation,-of course we shall be disappointed, and captious critics will find abundant opportunity to make merry over the short-comings of college authorities and the misdoings of college boys. If, however, along with some false ambition and more shirking indifference, we secure a fair amount of mental growth and intellectual attainment from nine-tenths of every class; if, with a good deal of healthy protestantism toward traditional dogmas and some conceited contempt for spiritual realities, we develop in the majority a reasonable and reverent regard for religious truth and duty; if, with deliberate vice in a few and more or less thoughtless folly in many, we cultivate in nearly all an honest and earnest purpose to do right and a willingness to sacrifice private interests to noble and generous aims; if, with an occasional physical break-down from too little exercise and an occasional mental failure from too much sport, we send out the great mass of graduates with sound minds in sound bodies; if, with now and then a spontaneous outbreak of general disorder and with habitual neglect of opportunities on the part of individuals here and there, the average student is kept profitably employed throughout the year,-the college and university accomplish as much with the youth committed to their charge as faithful

parents succeed in doing with their own sons and daughters of the same age, and as much as a thoughtful public reasonably can expect. WILLIAM DEWITT HYDE,

President of Bowdoin College.

ANY title that the writer may have to be regarded as an authority on this important question arises from the fact that for thirty-three years he has been at the head of a growing university, which has risen in that time from little more than fifty to nearly six hundred students, and in which there has been no instance of any college rebellion or serious disturbance. For this exemption, however, I do not take credit to myself. The McGill University has had an able and devoted governing board, a body of competent, diligent, and popular professors, derived from a large number of different universities on both sides of the Atlantic; and the Canadian student is, on the whole, a hard worker, and not too self-asserting. In these circumstances, my experience may not have been exactly the same with that of some other college officers.

The question, How far should a university control its students? seems to imply that some control should be exercised. It would seem at the present day that this should scarcely be taken for granted. When it is the custom to govern nations by the votes of the plebs, however uneducated and incompetent, why should not the students control their professors, and dictate what they should be taught and how they should learn, or at least what restraints, if any, should be imposed on them. Independently of this, we are, by would-be reformers, referred even to the ancient medieval customs which, in the origin of university life, made the community of students that which constituted the university, simply by resorting to some popular teacher for instruction. But in those days both professor and student were supposed to be under the control of mother church, which regulated all their doings and left little scope for private judgment of any kind. To some extent this ecclesiastical control still exists in certain denominational colleges, but in these it is a fertile source of disturbance, owing to the friction between the countercurrents of modern and ancient ideas, which, by their movement in opposite directions tend to produce whirlwinds or tornadoes of