Ph. D.—A Post-Graduate Course in Philosophy, and one or more other liberal studies.
In pursuance of our purpose to show how much we shall require, and still that such requirement may be met by him who will, and to answer the inquiries on the subject, we add our proposed course of study for the diploma and degree of Bachelor of Arts. This is not sent out as final, or as not subject to modification. It is, however, substantially the basis of all work in the Chautauqua University, and is as follows:
The completion of the following courses of study, and the possession of certificates from the directors of the various departments which these courses represent, will be required before the student will be recommended for the degree of Bachelor of Arts: Two full courses in Greek; three full courses in Latin; four full courses in Mathematics; two full courses in French or German; three full courses in English; two full courses in History; one full course each in Philosophy, Political Economy, Physics, Chemistry, Moral Philosophy, Astronomy, the History and Literature of Art, and two full courses in Biological Science. The student will not be required to pursue these courses exactly as prescribed, as wide opportunity will be given the individual to substitute other branches than those named, or more courses in particular departments than are here specified, as he may elect. But in every case full courses equal in number to those specified will be required. For the other degrees the scheme of study now pursued will form the basis, such omission and substitution being made as are suited to the particular degree; but in no case will a diploma be given for less than twenty-two full courses. With this outline of work before them, students will be able to begin at once without further inquiry. Select the courses which you will first attempt; and with purpose never to cease your effort till success has crowned it, we bid you enter the Chautauqua University.
EDITOR’S OUTLOOK.
A DANGER FOR LOCAL CIRCLES.
We are often slow to believe that our pet institutions have points of attack. We become so enamored with their merits that we close our eyes to their dangers. Particularly is this true, we fear, in regard to the local circle. Its members rejoice so heartily in its existence that they are prone at times to forget that even a local circle is heir to the frailty of all human institutions, and that it may be threatened by dangers which, unless arrested, will destroy its usefulness. One danger at a time is sufficient to consider; certainly so when so serious a one as narrowness is announced.
The whole plan of the C. L. S. C. is broad—it is literally for all men. Any department of the work which is conducted on any other principle fails to discharge its full allegiance. We fear that the local circle is in danger of losing sight of this great principle. Most natural is it for circles to so limit themselves. When a club of ten, twenty or thirty congenial members has been formed, when a pleasant plan of work has been adopted and thoroughly organized, it is comfortable and natural to decide that the circle is large enough; that a larger number would spoil the informality, would bring in an uncongenial element, would be unmanageable. The growth of the circle is stopped in the community, and the harm done is threefold. Probably the most serious evil is that the exclusiveness of the circle has abridged the usefulness of the C. L. S. C. Intended for all men who need a course of reading it naturally asks from its members fidelity to this underlying catholicity of spirit. The original plan of its founder did not include the local circle. His idea was to ask from every reader faithfulness to the broad and inspiring principle on which he had based the plan. Every member was to lead others to the well. The local circle has grown up and is undoubtedly a wonderful help in many ways, but it is in danger of keeping the C. L. S. C. from the very people who need it most. A circle once formed, and which has closed its doors to all outsiders, naturally spreads the idea that the C. L. S. C. is a sort of a private club, that only certain kinds of people are admitted, or it is suitable for only such and such people. Utterly false and harmful in the extreme to the work, it is but a logical result from this exclusiveness.
An injury almost as deplorable is the encouragement this limitation gives to the widespread social evil of “sets.” “Our set” is the bane of church union; it breaks up the harmony of Sabbath-schools; it divides our towns into a vast number of petty, jealous cliques. This spirit is contrary to the fundamental principles of our work, yet we encourage, rather than hinder it by narrowing our borders in the local circle.