We often hear criticisms made not only upon Harvard, but upon other universities and colleges of the country that the training which is offered is far from being practical enough, -that in situations like the Institute of Technology do more real good than any number of colleges. It will be found, however, that most of these objections come form persons who possess a very limited idea of the true meaning of practical. To them the word practical is nearly synonymous with technical. The word should be taken in a broader sence than this. Any study is more or less practical, as it tends more or less directly towards aiding one in his life's work, whatever that may be. Hebrew is just as practical to a student of theology as a knowledge of the use of tools is to a carpenter's apprentice. What is practical to one man is almost useless to another. Hence, to make a university training more practical, the opportunities for the pursuit of different studies and different branches of studies must be multiplied. This is brought about by the elective system which allows a man to devote himself to one special subject which will be extremely practical to him, but to another anything but practical. Thus the wider the elective system is extended the more practical becomes the education which any college can offer. With the elective system and the various schools connected with our university, such as the Law, Medical and Scientific, together with the Bussey Institute, the facilities for a practical education are far better than a casual observer would suppose.

It is true we have no training in the mechanic arts, a very practical sience. A university, however, does not at tempt to give technical training to this extent, nor would it be wise that it should. Those who advocate this training as a necessary part of a college education have a mistaken idea of the true position of a university in the intellectual development of the country. There is a wide distinction between a mechanical education and a university training. Abundant opportunities are given for the former at places of instruction like the Institute of Technology with its School of Mechanic Arts. There better facilities are offered for a technical education than could ever be found at a college or university. The country has need both of technical schools and of colleges. It does not follow, however, that the two must be consolidate. Each meets a separate want. To conbine them both would be to weaken each. There is no more reason why a practical education, in the sense of a mechanical education, should form a part of a university training than that military or naval instruction, such as is given at West Point or Annapolis, should be included in the same training.