In his opening address at Dartmouth last week President Hopkins pronounced the following indictment of the American college press: "There, in place of any frequent discussion of what undergraduates might do to help their respective colleges, we find the tiresome reiteration of what the colleges ought to do for the undergraduate. Fortunately, these utterances do not represent the mind of the undergraduate bodies."

Any follower of the trend of college journalism in the last few years must admit the justice of President Hopkins' statement. The cry of undergraduate editorials and essays has been almost invariably for more ingenious systems, for more inspirational teaching; rarely has a suggestion been offered as to how the student might improve himself or contribute, except through criticism, to the improvement of his college. But it is more than doubtful if editors and other writers' are alone at fault in this respect. The ordinary undergraduate mind, if it considers education at all, is no less insistent that more and more be done for its benefit. The culpability of the undergraduate critic is greater than that of any other undergraduate only as the power of printers' ink is greater than that of a chance remark.

A prominent New York financier is purported to have advised the son of one of his partners, who sought advice on college electives, to choose first subjects which were hard and to choose second subjects which were interesting. Compare this attitude with that of the great mass of college student. Through their spokesmen, the undergraduate editors, they are constantly demanding that education be made easier and more attractive. Their most earnest quest is for a process of such ingenuity and perfection that it will educate them in spite of themselves. The demands of the undergraduate critic may uncover certain remediable defects in college systems and in college faculties; to a much larger extent they cover over the fundamental weakness of the undergraduates themselves.

This weakness lies far more in attitude than in capability. Every college student is familiar with the question: "Well, what do you do in college besides manage the hockey team?" The usual answer is no less illuminating than the question itself. The young man, flattered by the tribute to his executive ability, elaborates on the difficulties of his managerial position and then turns to club activities, theatres, and "brawls". Any reference to the academic will either produce embarrassment or be dismissed with a scornful, "Oh, you don't have to do any work to get through that place." It is not ability, but appreciation and understanding of educational values, that is lacking here. The American student does not want to become educated except as that result may be effected through a process in which he plays a purely passive part. A German, for instance, is surprised to find that his American friend has passed up opportunities to speak German with acquaintances at home who are fluent in the language. The American attempts, on the other hand, to learn German or French through mere exposure to a series of courses in them. When at the end of several years he is still a wretched linguist, he blames the methods by which he has been taught.

This weakness in fundamentals is not the result of a warping of sound principles. The fault lies further back, in the groundwork of mind training. Social and economic environment, primary and secondary school criteria are contributing factors. Parents want their children to be educated, but they themselves have no true understanding of education. The best they can do is thus to put their children through an educative process--a process in which progress is measured by tangible milestones of years and figures. Passing of the final marks is the attainment of the ultimate goal. At no point must the youthful wayfarer turn aside from the path; his vision is fixed continually on the next grade, the next entrance barrier, the next degree. By the time he reaches college he too has no understanding of education and little greater desire for it.

The sequence of arraignment leads, then, from the educational systems and their proponents to the undergraduate critic and from him to those who were responsible for his development. That development has brought about a selfish laxity of resolution quick to find fault and to lay blame elsewhere, and absence of the spirit of cooperation and helpfulness that is indispensable to education. The final responsibility attaches to the American conception of education as a mechanical process that lays stress on the method to the disparagement of the end, and then turns on itself, finding dissatisfaction in the perversion of its purpose.