Had it been accepted thirty years
ago, there are at least two great American universities of to-day
which would not have come into being, the means devoted to their
support having been divided among others. These are the Johns
Hopkins and the University of Chicago. What would have been gained
by applying the argument in these cases? The advantage would have
been that, instead of 146 so-called universities which appear to-
day in the Annual Report of the Bureau of Education, we should
have had only 144. The work of these 144 would have been
strengthened by an addition, to their resources, represented by
the endowments of Baltimore and Chicago, and sufficient to add
perhaps one professor to the staff of each. Would the result have
been better than it actually has been? Have we not gained anything
by allowing the argument to be forgotten in the cases of these two
institutions? I do not believe that any who carefully look at the
subject will hesitate in answering this question in the
affirmative. The essential point is that the Johns Hopkins
University did not merely add one to an already overcrowded list,
but that it undertook a mission which none of the others was then
adequately carrying out.
Pages:
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245