25 cents (35 cents in Canada)
THE JOHN DAY PAMPHLETS—No. 16
COLLEGE
PROLONGS INFANCY
by
HORACE M. KALLEN
“... the ideals and methods whichare dynamic in our institutions ofhigher learning are false. They are falseto the students, false to the social purposewhich nourishes them, false to theinward nature of education itself. Theyare false because they are irrelevant.And they are irrelevant because theyare for the most part unabsorbed survivalsfrom a pre-industrial past in anindustrial age.
“Though education is customarily describedas ‘preparation for life’, theways and works of high schools and collegesare so irrelevant to ‘life’ that theirprime achievement remains perforce theprolongation of infancy. They makeadulthood harder to reach, not easier.”
***
See back flap for the complete list of
THE JOHN DAY PAMPHLETS.
THE JOHN DAY COMPANY
386 Fourth Avenue, New York
COLLEGE PROLONGS INFANCY
COLLEGE PROLONGS
INFANCY
by
HORACE M. KALLEN
New York
THE JOHN DAY COMPANY
Copyright, 1932, by Horace M. Kallen
Printed in U. S. A.
by The Stratford Press, Inc.,
New York City
AN IRONIST reviewing higher education inAmerica since 1920 would find himself struck by threethings.
First, perhaps, he would appreciate the gargantuaninflation of pedagogic lore, with its elaborate formalism,its pretensions to precise measurements of mind and character,its blowing up “scientific method” into a meticulousceremonial with the efficacy of a church ritual. Second, theovergrowth of the educational plant might captivate him:the immense accretion of endowment, the blowsy additionsto properties, and the multiplication by millions of teachersand students. Lastly, our ironist might admire a wideand spreading unrest about the effectiveness of the systemas an instrument of education. He would take note ofmuch fuss and ferment respecting “progressive education”and “adult education.” He would overhear oracles byparents, teachers, and college presidents on why studentsdo anything but study and on how to make them study.He would discern how the prescriptions vary, all the wayfrom Mr. Lowell’s house-system at Harvard University toMr. Meiklejohn’s “experimental college” at the Universityof Wisconsin. As a popular alternative, the suggestionwould intrigue him that far more students are enrolledthan are “fit” for the higher education, and that thisaristocratic privilege should be limited to the “fit” alone;the “fit,” of course, being those young people who areshown to be as nearly like their teachers as differences ofage, income and interest permit.
“The idea that going to college is