Considering the problems of graduate study in American universities, we must not overlook the fact that Slavic studies in Europe developed entirely under the methods and system of German scholarship. Although this may seem surprising, it was at Vienna, Leipzig, and Berlin that the outlines of the modern sciences were laid. The early universities at St. Petersburg and Moscow were largely staffed by Germans and the oldest university in Slavic lands, the Charles University of Prague, lost its Czech character during the Thirty Years War. A Czech section of the university was begun as an adjunct only in the 1880’s and did not recover its original insignia until after the liberation of Czechoslovakia. Hence, the German system of scholarship was considered basic, even though it was greatly altered by later development of Slavic studies at the universities of Prague and Krakow. The influence of Prague and Krakow was natural, for it was in Slavic universities in Slavic lands that Slavic would become the cornerstone of humanistic teaching, acquiring a position similar to that of English and American literature and history in American institutions. We can never hope to equal or surpass the work in these institutions though we can admit it without any sense of failure. Since American graduate schools have been based on German models, they inherited the German division of faculty with history and its allied subjects separated from literature and philology. Nor have these divisions been changed noticeably by grouping various chairs in allied subjects into departments. While there have been attempts, as at Harvard, to bring together in the Slavic pattern, all courses dealing with Slavic subjects, this practice has not been generally followed. The result is that history and literature have been taught separately and have been combined only in part in more recent Russian and Slavic institutes. In both general fields, the usual methods and regulations can be applied easily and completely; hence, the introduction of Slavic and East European into the general curriculum has not caused difficulties. There remains only this question: should there be some provision for normally including one or more general courses from either section in the curriculum of the other to augment the background of those students tempted to specialize too closely, who might thus fail to see the general cultural problems which any literature or history presents.