Under the title "Should the Colleges Educate?" Mr. Gerald W. Johnson in the current Harper's adds a fresh current to the dark grey stream of criticism directed at the colleges. He surveys what he considers the present undergraduate body--a group of carefree young men concerned primarily with extra-curricular activities and the incidental culture which may be acquired thereby, and gives it his blessing. Since he believes the incoming tides of students lack this incidental culture in the background of their homes and schools, it is better for them to learn it at college than to bother themselves with ,daf ole davil Study.

Several attitudes are possible towards this ironic benediction. One may remark, with an air of indifference, that such a "broadening" charitable phrase is not necessary in the Yard, or one may point out the obvious fact, which is that such students as go out for broadening should do it in their spare time: but the vital fact is one which Mr. Johnson has overlooked. The trend is not towards more interest in "activities", but to a more moderate use of them; the times have changed.

Even if this were not so, the duty of a university would remain the same; that its members may neglect their opportunities is no reason why the authorities should cease to offer them. Mr. Johnson is original at the price of being trivial. He concludes on the hopeful note that the collee graduate, without an education but with that je-ne-saisquoi which he lacked before, will be less likely than his brother to join the Ku-Klux-Klan. Four years and some thousands of dollars at almost any college should and usually do accomplish more than that. As for any institution which which cannot do more, which faces the broadening, and cannot combine them alternative of giving an education or a--it had best transform itself into a preparatory school.