Proalres: A Reply to Dean Holmes

(Ed. Note--The Crimson does not necessarily endorse opinions expressed in printed communications. No attention will be paid to anonymous letters and only under special conditions, at the request of the writer will names be with-held.)

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

It would be manifestly impertinent to sympathize with your editorial-writer and with the Dean of Barnard College, now that their recent remarks on education have been characterized as "ignorant" and "erroneous." The Dean of the Graduate School of Education, writing ex cathedra, gives us to understand that laymen are hardly qualified to deal with those technical matters. In fact, ever since education became a branch of technology, we have been left in the dark about such problems, perforce content to take the word of experts who have attained facility in experimental technique or glibness in professional jargon. Our own School--to quote its catalogue--endeavors to place "the technical training of teachers and school officers under a distinct professional organization parallel to the schools of Law, Medicine, Divinity, and (God save the mark!) Business Administration."

Your editorial-writer takes modern "educators" to task for their emphasis on "method." Dean Holmes retorts that there are more things in method than are dreamed of in your editorial-writer's philosophy. What are these things? For an answer, we might well consult that interesting but none too literate document--the catalogue of the Graduate School of Education. Its scope is indicated, more or less, by the following courses, picked at random and quoted verbatim:

The Clinical Study of Mentally Deficient Children.

Personal Traits and Interests in Relation to School Success.

School Plants, School Finance, and Business Administration.

Seminary in Psychometry.

Vocational Counseling (sic) and Organization.

And the Summer School promises what should be a fascinating course in "Atypical Children."

O soul of Sir John Cheke! Up to the last century or so, education was practically and theoretically synonymous with classical studies, or, at least, with that profound and generalized culture which the humanities connote. Today they have completely broken their bond with the past and are still experimenting to find an adequate substitute. Here at Harvard, where we hold to the past more than elsewhere in this country it is doubtful whether a school of this sort is compatible with the educational ideals which we inherit. Great men have been among us. Let the people in Lawrence Hall pursue their experiments if they will, but why--while there are still a few distinguished names on the Faculty of Arts and Sciences--give the title of educators to a group of statisticians, organizers, and playground directors? H. T. Levin '33.