THE SCHOLAR AND THE COLLEGE

For 364 days in the year, the average preoccupied undergraduate forgets about his obscure brother, the scholar; but one day each year is set aside in which the student comes into his own. This spring that day, "Phi Beta Kappa Day," is next Monday.

The reason for the insignificance of the scholar in undergraduate affairs during such a large part of the year is a problem which thwarts the insight of any ambitious Oedipus who hopes to settle the question, but certain conclusions may be drawn safely, as in most cases the blame can best be laid to both parties--the average undergraduate, and the scholar.

The average undergraduate is at fault for not attaching enough importance to scholastic attainment. He forgets that the reason for our coming to college is to get an education, and that studies play, in some respects, as important a part in our education as do football or hockey.

Another cause of the low rating of the scholar is the opinion (very prevalent among the a. u.) that "I could get just as good marks if I spent as much time studying as he does." This is a very comfortable belief, which can never be disproved in the college because it is certain that the a. u. will never try the "studying" experiment. In the Graduate Schools, however, where scholastic attainment is more highly prized, a comparison of grades shows the evidence to be heavy against the complacent belief of the a. u.

These two opinions--the low value set on scholastic achievement and the belief that it is easy to obtain--work in a vicious circle which lowers the prestige of the scholar.

But at the real bottom of the matter, it is the scholar alone who is responsible for his standing in the college and it is up to him, not the average undergraduate, to make a worth-while position for scholarship.

The fault lies somewhat in a lack of self-confidence, which is partly due to the failure of the college authorities to give any public encouragement to the student, except at the present time of the year.

The main trouble is in the "narrowness" of nearly all men of scholastic attainment, who limit themselves only to studying. The man whose sole ambition in college is to get a "key" is fully as objectionable as the man whose one ambition is to get an "H" with as little studying as possible--although the pendulum of faculty approval swings toward the former, while student approbation swings decidedly the other way.

As long as the majority of "students" have their vision so firmly set on high marks that they fail to see anything else on the landscape, any "broader" man who does receive high grades will have to keep it secret (as he does now) for fear of being classed as a "grind," and there will continue to be no place for the "student" in the social makeup of the college.