THE UNIVERSITY COURIER.
Published weekly at the University of Kansas.
LAWRENCE, KANSAS, MARCH 15, 1894.
VOL. XII.
No. 18.
The Courier is published every Thursday during collegiate year by the University Courier Publishing Co.
Subscription $1.00 per year in advance, single copies 5 cents.
Address all communications and contributions to the editor-in-chief; all business communications to the business manager, and subscriptions to the circulator.
Laurence, Kansas.
Entered at the Lawrence postoffice as second-class matter.
F. E. BUCHAN, Editor.
FRANK BOWKER, Local Editor.
E. W. PALMER, Literary and Exchange Editor.
ROLLA MITCHELL, Athletic and Amusement Editor.
E. P. LUPFER, Managing Editor.
C. R. TROXEL, Business Manager. L. S. CHAMBERLAIN, Circulator. A. B. BATES, Treasurer.
As we walk through the halls and see students hurrying to the different class rooms we wonder how many of them go to recitations with the expectation of gaining something new, something aside from that contained in their text-books and assigned reading, and how many on the other hand, go with fear and trembling least they have not prepared their lesson so they can recite in just the way it pleases the Professor.
The answer comes at once. It depends very largely upon the instructor, and somewhat upon the subject. True, there are professors and professors. We go to one class and find the instructor has something new and original to say in his talk, something in his lecture that instils in the student a desire to read and search for himself. Here we find much of the time spent in opening up new channels of knowledge to the student and to broadening what he has already acquired. We go to another class room and we find the instructor bent on getting through the assigned text in sufficient time to allow a review of what has gone before. Thus the same mechanical process is gone through with day after day. Here the student pays but slight attention to what the professor has to say but contingally looks ahead wondering if he can answer the next question should it fall to him. He has no desire to read anything aside from the text; his knowledge of the subject is strictly confined to one writer; he has no room for conflicting opinions or original research.
In the second instance we are treated to a remnant of the process in vogue in American Universities only during their earliest days, a process long since abandoned by the progressive. The University is comparatively free from the latter class, but there are a few members of the faculty who can well afford to step ahead at a little faster pace.
In the first we see, at once, the true University Idea; the spirit of original investigation and research with a tendency to broaden out a student's views and to teach him to draw his own conclusions on subjects from different authorities.
We have noted with interest the recent crusade upon college athletics and while we think some attacks have been rather radical we nevertheless see many evidences of needed reform. From the following, taken from one of the New York dailies, we are able to gain a fair idea of what has been done in way of reform at Yale and Pennsylvania University:
A REAL ATHLETIC REFORM.
"The work of reforming college athletics is still going on. Yale has just adopted new constitutions ror all her athletic associations, and bound herself to rules of eligibility which more nearly resemble the Harvard-Pennsylvania agreement than the undergraduate rule. In fact, the net result of the college politics, which became so tiresome last year, is a victory to the Harvard idea, championed by Harvard and Pennsylvania. There can be no question, however, that Yale will enforce her new rules as strictly as the new Harvard rules are
being enforced at Cambridge; and it is said that Princeton will soon follow the example of the other colleges and put a restraining code into application.
In the meantime an important step has been taken at Pennsylvania which places her for the present in advance of the rest of the great universities, and that is the adoption of the principle of faculty control of athletics. The new rules at Pennsylvania, far more stringent in the right direction than ever was the undergraduate rule, are drawn up with the intention of keeping the balance true between the studies and the athletics of the undergraduate, and of making his scholarship the test of his eligibility to the University teams. If he cannot pass his examinations he must not represent the University. That is sound common sense, and to this all the colleges will have to come in the near future.
For if collegiate athletics have grown too great and have interfered with the proper administration of the college curriculum, the faculties are the persons to correct this. No set of rules can be drawn up by an athletic association which will make men study if at the same moment they are being tempted from their books by the glories of the foot ball or base ball field; and if neglect of studies is imperative if the severe course of athletic training now prescribed is to be carried out, then, again, nothing but action by the faculties can reduce the demands of the trainers and coaches. They never will do it of their own accord, no matter how they try.
The new Pennsylvania rules coincide in one very important particular with Dr. Eliot's recent recommendation. Dr. Eliot is an extremist, and appears to believe in the total abolition of college athletics, but one of his suggestions was valuable, that which looked to the limitation of the amount of competitive exercise to be taken by the student. By the new Pennsylvania rules no man can represent the University in two different sports in the same year, unless by permission of the faculty. This would naturally be extended in all proper cases; a man might easily play foot-ball in the fall and compete at Mott Haven in the spring without danger to his studies, but no man ought to have the temptation to undergo hard athletic training in both the spring and the fall, to play foot-ball and row or play base ball, when his lectures and recitations are suffering; and therefore the solution of the difficulty is a prohibition of this kind which may be suspended when a clear record is shown. The presumption is nowadays that foot-ball in the autumn and base ball in the spring do not mean a degree in the summer, for training has gone too far.
To remain in the lead the University has only to enforce the new athletic code temperately, but without relaxation. The faculty should never be blind as any bad effect that athletics may be having, for that is the only way in which the college may profit by their good effects; and placed in control of the athletic interests of the institution, the responsibility will be with them to restrain or enlarge them as may be most beneficial."
How much of this we can take to ourselves, we will not attempt to say. One point however seems especially applicable: namely, the rule prohibiting a student from representing the University in two different sports in the same year. A rule of this kind would not only avoid the injury arising out of excessive training, but would tend to raise the standard of different sports and at the same time dispel the idea, some of our athletes have developed, that they can not only play foot-ball and base-ball just a little better than any one else but also have more ability to teach others. We won't say that they are not right in their conception of their own ability, but the evidence shown us by the success of the foot-ball team makes us a trifle sceptical.
We should recognize the fact that in athletics as in all branches of University work the tendency is to specialize. This is rendered absolutely necessary by the severe training required to obtain success in important contests. If we allow our athletes to "dabble" in all branches of sport they will not become proficient in any, and this will result in our success being conspicuous by its absence. Let us all lay aside our old-time prejudice, and recognizing in Mr. Cowan a trainer of superior ability, all work together for the good of our Alma Mater.