25 cents (35 cents in Canada) _THE_ JOHN DAY _PAMPHLETS_--No. 16 COLLEGE PROLONGS INFANCY _by_ HORACE M. KALLEN “... the ideals and methods which are dynamic in our institutions of higher learning are false. They are false to the students, false to the social purpose which nourishes them, false to the inward nature of education itself. They are false because they are irrelevant. And they are irrelevant because they are for the most part unabsorbed survivals from a pre-industrial past in an industrial age. “Though education is customarily described as ‘preparation for life’, the ways and works of high schools and colleges are so irrelevant to ‘life’ that their prime achievement remains perforce the prolongation of infancy. They make adulthood harder to reach, not easier.” * * * _See back flap for the complete list of_ THE JOHN DAY PAMPHLETS. THE JOHN DAY COMPANY 386 Fourth Avenue, New York COLLEGE PROLONGS INFANCY COLLEGE PROLONGS INFANCY by HORACE M. KALLEN _New York_ THE JOHN DAY COMPANY Copyright, 1932, by HORACE M. KALLEN Printed in U. S. A. by The Stratford Press, Inc., New York City An ironist reviewing higher education in America since 1920 would find himself struck by three things. First, perhaps, he would appreciate the gargantuan inflation of pedagogic lore, with its elaborate formalism, its pretensions to precise measurements of mind and character, its blowing up “scientific method” into a meticulous ceremonial with the efficacy of a church ritual. Second, the overgrowth of the educational plant might captivate him: the immense accretion of endowment, the blowsy additions to properties, and the multiplication by millions of teachers and students. Lastly, our ironist might admire a wide and spreading unrest about the effectiveness of the system as an instrument of education. He would take note of much fuss and ferment respecting “progressive education” and “adult education.” He would overhear oracles by parents, teachers, and college presidents on why students do anything but study and on how to make them study. He would discern how the prescriptions vary, all the way from Mr. Lowell’s house-system at Harvard University to Mr. Meiklejohn’s “experimental college” at the University of Wisconsin. As a popular alternative, the suggestion would intrigue him that far more students are enrolled than are “fit” for the higher education, and that this aristocratic privilege should be limited to the “fit” alone; the “fit,” of course, being those young people who are shown to be as nearly like their teachers as differences of age, income and interest permit.