“This is all wrong. Criticism is healthful, necessary, and desirable, but it is always abundant and infinitely less important than performance. There is not the slightest risk that the supply of critics will run out, for there are always enough middle-aged failures to keep the ranks full if every other resource should fail. Faith and hope, and belief, enthusiasm, and courage are the qualities to be trained and developed in young men by a liberal education. _Youth is the time for action, not criticism._ A liberal education should encourage the spirit of action, not deaden it. We want the men whom we send out from our universities to count in the battle of life and in the history of their time, and to count more and not less because of their liberal education. They will not count at all, be well assured, if they come out trained only to look coldly and critically on all that is being done in the world and on all who are doing it. We cannot afford to have that type, and it is the true product of that critical spirit which says to its scholars: “See how badly the world is governed; see how covered with dust and sweat the men who are trying to do the world’s business, and how many mistakes they make; let us sit here in the shade with Amaryllis and add up the errors of these bruised grimy fellows and point out what they ought to do, while we make no mistakes ourselves by sticking to the safe rule of attempting nothing.” This is a very comfortable attitude, but it is one of all others which a university should discourage instead of inculcating. Moreover, with such an attitude of mind towards the world of thought and action is always allied a cultivated indifference than which there is nothing more enervating.