7712
Nobby Cutaway and Sack Suits at Steinberg's Clothing House.
The Weekly University Courier
The Largest College Journa Circulation In the United States.
Published Every Friday Morning by the
COURIER COMPANY
For Kansas University Students.
CHAS. LYONS,
President. O.B. TAYLOR,
Secretary
EDITORIAL STAFF:
FRANK G. CROWELL, EDITOR-IN-CHEF.
F. C. PRESCOTT,
J. F. C. KEYS,
H. F. A. STEBBRINS,
H. F. M. BRAR,
W. R. ARMSTRONG,
NAN J. LOVE,
GERTR FREEMAN,
LILLIDI FREEMAN,
GERTR FD HUNNICUTI
BUSINESS MANAGERS:
EARLE L. SWOFE.  [WILL A. JACKSON.]
From the Press of P. T. FOLEY.
Entered at the post-office at Lawrence, Kansas as second-class matter.
In the last week's issue we made the statement that "an entire week of six whole days had been wasted in finding out what the student knew. Nothing had been taught and nothing learned." We have changed our minds now, and beg leave to take it back, especially the last sentence of it. We have come to the conclusion that several good sound lessons have been taught, and hence necessarily several good sound lessons learned.
It has been indisputably demonstrated, and the truth emphatically pressed home upon the minds of the students, that a man must get his lessons every day if he expects to prosper in Kansas State University. We have become thoroughly convinced that "grade one" is to mean hard work and good scholarship hereafter, and that "grade four" in two studies means a protracted visit at home. We have learned that half of what we, in our own conceit, thought we had thoroughly mastered, we didn't know anything about. By the examinations we have thus been brought to a proper sense of humility, a more just estimate of ourselves. This is not all we have learned; but to truly realize even this much is certainly worth six full days of hard labor to any student.
It has been said that the advantage of "cramming" which the examination system extends, gives to students who have neglected their daily recitations an opportunity to get as good grades for their four hours work as other students can get for the hard and faithful labor of a whole term.
This statement certainly bears indications of truth upon its face; but when we look a little deeper and take a few well-known facts into consideration, it becomes evident that it needs some modification.
For instance, in most departments the class grade is fully as important a factor in the final result as the examination grade. In some departments we have reason to believe that it has much more influence than the examination grade. This fact is in itself sufficient to render it impossible for a person by "cramming" to obtain as high a rank as the faithful student.
But this is not all. The questions which have been asked in the last examination have, as a general rule, been such as a mere superficial knowledge of a subject, obtained by stuffing the brain for a few days prior to the final test, can not satisfy. They were such questions as required a thorough general knowledge of the subject, a knowledge which had been made a part of one's self.
One plain lesson, at least, may be drawn from the examinations, and that is, that "cramming" will not count hereafter, but only hard and earnest work upon every lesson as it comes.
It might be well for the Preps. to bear this in mind.
THE PROTECTIVE IDEA.
A Lawrence correspondent of the Kansas City Times denies that Professor Canfield of the State University, uses his position to disseminate the "pernicious doctrines of free trade." If the professor does not teach free trade, he must teach "protection"; or, he gives instruction in a sort of mongrel or hybrid theory of national finances? The general impression is that Professor Canfield is a free trader, and that he teaches that doctrine, if not as a partisan doctrine, certainly as his idea of correct political economy. If he does not so teach we are glad to know it.
Atchison Champion.
The Monitor is quite as radically in favor of "protection" as the Champion, but we desire to be fair, and hence point out to our contemporary a fact or truth it seems to have overlooked. Free trade and protection are relative terms descriptive of certain theories in political economy. The history and results of neither comprehend all of the science of political economy. The study of political economy, however, includes both systems and a great deal more, and in order to form accurate and comprehensive opinions of the merits of the protective system, a complete knowledge of the theories of free trade are essential and vice versa. The question, therefore, arises, does Professor Canfield teach the history and science of political economy in its broad and comprehensive sense? If he does, the protective idea is amply able to take care of itself—Ft. Scott Monitor.
The above clipping from the Ft. Scott Monitor of January 26th, is a fair specimen of the orital effusions of a numerous class of Kansas editors, upon subjects which they know nothing about. Evidently the ideas of the present editor of the Atchison Champion as to the principles which Political Economy teaches are as narrow and contracted as his knowledge of them is limited. It is clear that he thinks that Political Economy is strictly devoted to the application of the theories of "protection" and of
freedom of competition, to the American tariff system; and that a professor of the science must teach either one theory or the other. That the study of Political Economy includes an investigation of the theories mentioned is true; but that the editor should think that it is entirely devoted to them, only goes to show how much there is in the science about which he does not know. It might be well for him to read a text book or two on the subject and find out his ignorance.
The Monitor seems to take a fairer and more intelligent view of the matter. To its question there is but one correct answer and that is; that Professor Canfield teaches the science of Political Economy as broadly and comprehensively as is possible. He clearly and accurately sets forth the established facts and principles, and leaves the student to draw his own conclusions and form his own opinions. And, when the Emporia Republican, or any other misinformed and deluded sheet, charges Professor Canfield with using his official position to disseminate partisan doctrines, we feel called upon to arise and declare that accusation utterly and unconditionally false.
A very interesting article appeared in the February number of the Atlantic Mouthly on the Roman pronunciation of Latin. This is the system according to which Latin is at present pronounced in most American colleges. As to its merits it is somewhat difficult to judge; but it seems to continue to grow in favor to the exclusion of the old English pronunciation which was in vogue some years ago.
The writer of the article mentioned is apparently an elderly gentlemen who was brought up in the old school, for he favors the old pronunciation and takes exception to the new, which he considers ridiculous and boyish in the extreme.
He argues that, as far as actual authority is concerned, one rests upon no better foundation than the other; that neither can claim to be the true Roman pronunciation, because the advocates of neither ever heard the Romans speak; that a large portion of English words are derived from the Latin, and that as far as possible such words should be spoken in English as they were in Latin. Then if the Roman system be the correct one why not carry it out in the pronunciation of Latin-English words?
To show the effect of pronouncing the "Inglish langwag" according to the Roman system, he asks that the reader read aloud the following paragraph, taking care to pronounce all "gs" with "tenatic" hardness:
"An ekkentrik gentleman innocently exerkising keremonious kiwiliity and wigilant solikitude in kelebrating his akkession to easy kirkumstankes after warious wikissitudes, the kensorious akerbity of the wikinity exkruliated him by the general and inkessant, ungenerous and unwerakious wokiferations that his inwinkableiwikiew prokeeded from kerebralinkapakity. Wikions elderly wirgins of the prekinkt, especially prepitimately prewented his geniality in the reekation of his fellow kitizens into a takit ewidenke of mental hallukination and degeneration, nekessitating a yudikious vegetable regimen, if not medicinal agents and inkkeration."
Has anyone considered carefully Prof. Canfield's scheme for magazine reading? This is matter to which it will pay every student to give some careful attention. The Professor does not intend to introduce his plan unless the students signify their assent, and are willing to take hold and carry it through with vigor.
The scheme which he offers we cannot but regard as a good one. It will make it possible, even necessary, for those in his department to read a large amount of valuable current literature which they could in no other way find time to read. But this is not all. Every one would get the benefit, not only of his own reading, but also of all research of every other one. A student can thus get in a few hours the substance in a compact and convenient form of what it would take him days to read by himself.
THE "EXAM" FIEND AGAIN.
To the Editor of The Courier:
There appeared in last week's COURIER a number of reckless statements about examination. Suppose some of them be examined to see what they are made of.
Second, "M." asserts, indirectly, that the Faculty of K. S. U. are prone to give "catch" questions.
Third, nothing is learned during examination week; therefore, the week is wasted.
First, the average student is now convinced of the foolishness of examination.
Fourth, "M." says that "it seems" that the poor student that "crams" for "exams," has the advantage over the faithful student.
Fifth, the "exam." is of more importance than the student's class record.
Lastly, the broad assertion that all these are abuses and evils.
But think a minute, "M." Are these "facts" true? It may be true that the "average" student is convinced of the foolishness of "exams." but the "exams" are also convinced of the foolishness of the "average" student. Probably this is the reason why the "average" student "kicks" against "exams."
More news! Did you ever know a professor to make a list of questions to "down" a student? No, it is to the interest of the Faculty to pass as many as possible; but they wish those who pass not only to know something, but also to be able to tell what they know, therefore the questions.
Is anything learned during exam week? The poor student surely learns something; the good student spends his spare time in reading, in outside work,—in "storing away useful knowledge," but the "average" student, oh! where is he?
"Seems, madame, way 'it seems.'"
It may "seem" so to you, but it does
not "seem" to me that the profession of cramming for examination is a very profitable one.
Again, any Prof. will tell you that the class grade and "exam." grade are both considered equally, so that objection falls flat.
What is there so bad in examination? Nothing, except to some who fear it, and to some who affect to despise it. If we could have more "exam," instead of less it would be better for us.
That the Faculty may never become so tender of the young plants of K. S. U. as to abolish fair and thorough examinations, is the prayer of YOUR UNCLE BOAZ.
VIEWS.
To the Editor of The Courier:
OREAD has gone the way of the world, and now the members of Orophilian are engaged in a bitter discussion as to the proper manner of chanting the requiem over the remains of their once proud and glorious society. Some are for selling the effects and giving the corpse a decent burial; some are for mortgageing the poor thing even in its grave; while others desire to leave what the society has to any literary society which shall establish itself in the University.
This latter view will surely be considered by every one as the broader-minded and more sensible. The furniture and belongings of a literary society are purchased for the use of a literary society, by students who have an interest in such work. These students pay their share in the expenses of the society, pass through college and out into the world, leaving their interest as an inheritance for future students. And it seems to many that, for a few students to attempt to sell this property and pocket the money, would be an injustice and an outrage. It would certainly be a wiser policy for the present members either to revive Orophilian or leave their property to some other literary society, than to sacrifice it at public sale in order to realize a few paltry dollars themselves.
While we grant that the society has the right to dispose of its property as it pleases, yet we hope and believe that it has enough of the old pride left not to scatter its effects, and that it has enough regard for the future of literary work in the University to see that this property comes into the hands of some society which will use it for the purpose for which it was intended.
In any event, the society will do well to make some disposal of the property, for fear that the "powers that be" may confiscate it for the use of the University, as they did the property of Oread, much to their shame. M.
Prof. Max. Muller, of Leipsic University, has forty-two titles and honorary suffixes to his name.
Geo. Pefen, the baseballist, will enter Middlebury college the first of January, having been offered his tuition and the gate receipts of baseball games if he will enter the college and instruct the nine. —Ex.
6
Best 7
WV
Amh from a
which spec
Chau article of Han
The is in de
The bred and winter :
A sta made 1 It is the
John
don, End
of 820,
interest
Univers
Amho prizes a
over la
$180,000
The large n at Moso of that sacks w riot, am arrestin it is sa expelle. Stude cites him by his dressing. Small. Small. Small. Sever istic of versity. were s black o ber 48 The ing to
Saturday Morning we Open a Choice Line of New French