In the third place, in free elective system is pre-eminent in its success in the moulding or manly character. Ambition and definite purpose, the never-failing result of the interest which choice inspires, guarded by the sense of responsibility which free choice implants, form manly character and a manly spirit strong when choice is free, and strongest when choice is freest, and only from the exercise of choice comes the power to choose rightly.

Other systems of college education may strive in various ways to accomplish these ends and may be partly successful, but in the free elective system alone do we find in all its purity, and at its very best, the atmosphere of responsible freedom which I have tried to prove to you supremely essential to the growth of aggressive scholarship, broad views and vigorous manhood.

Davis, the second speaker for the negative, demonstrated the evil results of the free elective system at Harvard. This system, he said, has proved in many ways, unsatisfactory. President Eliot, in his inaugural address expressed the hope that by means of the free election of studies each student would secure a curriculum, chosen with regard to natural preference and inborn aptitude. It was his aim to substitute small, interested classes for large, uninterested ones, and to foster scholarship by increasing ardor and enthusiasm in the college and by relieving the various courses of the presence of perfunctory students. The history of the system, however, bears out Professor Munsterberg in his statement in "American Traits," that two-thirds of the elections are haphazard, controlled by accidental motives. In 1903 the Committee on Improvement of Instruction reported that the average amount of study was discreditably small, and that there was a constant increase of men willing to avoid work by the use of printed notes and "seminars." It is thus evident that in many respects the free elective system has proved a failure at Harvard. The system has, moreover, developed peculiar deficiencies. There is a lack of method and arrangement in the choice of courses, and many valuable studies are regularly avoided. Mr. C. S. Moore in a report on the class of 1901 showed that out of 372 students as many as 254 took no physics, 250 no mathematics, and 140 no philosophy. Another evil attendant upon this system is the election of "snap courses." Dean Briggs in 1900 declared that nearly 30 per cent, of the college took nothing but elementary, work throughout their college curriculum. On the other hand, confronting the earnest student is the danger of early and extreme specialization. Over 20 per cent, of the University begin to specialize at least as early as the end of their Freshman year. These are some of the evils peculiar to the free elective system. They are sufficiently evident to make the most liberally minded person doubt the efficiency for the best collegiate training of such a system.

In closing the main argument of the affirmative, N. M. Thomas said that still another standpoint from which to argue the question is that of logic,--the almost inevitable consequence of existing conditions. The old education was the result of old conditions, and the colleges have had to adapt themselves to new conditions almost against their will. Mention has already been made of the inevitable trend of education towards election. The field of valuable knowledge is so broad that no man can traverse the whole ground. Choice must be made. Who shall make it? We are compelled to answer: Let the college man choose for himself; let him consider his own tastes, the demands of his own after life. If we deny this and seek for a consensus of educated opinion as to what the college should prescribe, we are lost in a hopeless maze. If we are to be guided by authority, the authorities must agree. An examination of the catalogues of the leading colleges in the country shows the widest diversity of opinion on this point. Where there is such diversity it is more rational to let the student choose for himself. Perhaps we can do nothing better than to see once more what sort of system we have been advocating. It is a system demanded by the logic of circumstances; it is a rational system, one which contains room at all times for prescription of a definite quantity and quality of work, and at the right time--in the preparatory school--even for prescription of studies. Today a man comes to college, as old man as far advanced in his studies as former generations were by the middle or even the end of their college careers. Freshman year is the natural time for beginning election, since it marks the beginning of freedom. Let us briefly consider the advantages of the system, always remembering that it is a definite system of serious work of prescribed quality and quantity. It tends at least to raise the standard of teaching and this reacts strongly on the student. It gives full scope to individual needs both as regards courses and teachers. Let me emphasize that we learn from persons more than from courses. Finally and above all else, free election gives full play to the faculty of selection. Men have grown to fame simply by developing themselves along the line of their own talents. From the days of Burke, graduated by grace and learning from his wide political reading, even until now, men have prepared themselves for the best and most useful lives by selecting what best meets their needs. If they made mistakes, they profited by those very mistakes and in the end made themselves men.

Tulin, in closing the direct debate, said: My colleagues have shown you the marked tendency in American colleges to shun the free elective system, which has proved so unsatisfactory at Harvard, not withstanding its restriction by many limitations. When a few weeks ago the Harvard Faculty instituted a new degree--an A.B. with distinction--which requires that a student shall pursue his courses in a single department under the supervision of the Faculty, they stamped work done under special direction as of higher value than unrestricted study. What more eloquent testimony than this illustrates the tendency away from the free elective system? Underlying the theory of this system is the idea of individual development. The student is to cultivate only his peculiar aptitudes. College, however, is not principally intended to prepare a student for his profession, but to cultivate his mind and form his character. As Dean West of Princeton said, "College should teach a man to make a life, rather than to make a living." After leaving the university the fierce struggle to make a fortune or attain success absorbs every other motive. It is therefore, at college that a man should realize the high ideals, breadth of mind and varied interests, which lend such an additional charm to life. It is the individualistic principle of the free elective system, which emphasizes out of all proportion the need of preparation for a narrow and personal success, and with danger of giving him ideas on the subject that are radically wrong. Life has many activities, and men should be educated to take an intelligent interest in political and educational problems. "We are specialists," says Professor Munsterberg, "in our handiwork, but our heart-work, is uniform, and the demand for individualized education ignores the great similarities." The system of education which produces this uniformity of interests must be under the direction of an experienced faculty. Such a system is being organized at Princeton, and already exists in slightly altered forms at Yale, Columbia and Johns Hopkins. The primary aim of individualistic training--efficiency in one's calling--is defeated by the free elective system, for experience teaches us that relative knowledge and a sympathetic understanding are necessary to success, and it is only a liberal and broad education which can produce these essentials.

Another principle underlying the free elective system is that we can study best those courses which interest us most. But we must not forget the difference between the undergraduate, who is apt to be indifferent to the good his studies may do him, and the mature man, who is actuated solely by a desire of self-improvement. To conclude, the free elective system assumes the evident fallacy that the student's aim is earnest and his judgment nature, and it fails to emphasize the development of character and the broadening of intellect.

The Rebuttal Speeches.

Davis of Harvard, was the first speaker in rebuttal. He declared that the affirmative had failed to demonstrate by concrete examples that the free elective system solves all educational problems. On the other hand, the negative had proved that the tendency of the foremost educators of the United States is against this system. The negative had also emphasized the evil effects of the free elective system at Harvard, and had illustrated their arguments by specific cases. He advocated a system which would necessitate an organization and supervision of studies by men of more experience and judgment than undergraduate students.

Hagan, the first speaker for Princeton in rebuttal, pointed out that the negative had offered no alternative system of study. The Harvard system has proved successful, he said. It has not produced an undue number of specialists, and is the direct outgrowth of modern scientific advancement. By it are developed the responsibility, self reliance, and individually which characterize the college man who is fit to take that place in life for which opportunities in college mark him out.

Kanaley, the second speaker in rebuttal for Harvard, said that at Harvard the elective system had been characterized by laziness on the part of the students which demonstrates that the elective system is impracticable. College in New York and in the West have adopted systems radically different from that of free election. He refuted the assertion of the affirmative that an undergraduate can successfully choose his own course of study by referring to the extreme complexity of the average university catalogue--upon which fact there has been decided comment by professors at Yale.

Thomas of Princeton in reply argued that in these days freshmen are competent to select for themselves their courses of study. Princeton has adopted a system whereby this is permitted. To require a man to take unnecessary subject is high injustice; it is of prime importance that a system of study does not bring restriction to certain fixed courses.

Tulin concluded the rebuttal for Harvard. Our opponents, he said, have jumped at the conclusion that we of the negative are arguing for a prescribed system of study. We suggest that men of broad experience in education know what is best for the undergraduate, and these men have given their opinion against free election. To show that the system of free election is not to be recommended we have pointed out that it is a revolutionary experiment in education, that the tendency in American colleges is away from free election of courses, and that the system has already worked evils.

Fosdick of Princeton was the last speaker in the debate. He pointed out that the negative had not shown that there was anything better than the free elective system, and that what the negative had said did not reflect upon the principle of free election, but merely upon the way the system is conducted at Harvard.

The college curriculum should be made to help the man who comes to college with the intention of working, and should not be adapted merely to the man whose only aim is to spend his four years of college life as enjoyably as possible. The affirmative requires much more convincing proof than the negative has brought forward, to accept the statement that because the elective system has failed at Harvard it will necessarily fall in all other colleges