such illiberality as distinguishes the mere student of economics, or of social problems, of psychology, or of theology.
But, again, I am to speak of the "essentials" of that education which is worthy to be called liberal. Now, amid wide disagreements as to what and how much the constitution of a liberal education involves, and as to the order and proportion in which its studies should be taken, there prevails the universal assumption that some things are entitled to be considered indispensable factors in this constitution. Important changes have undoubtedly taken place in opinion on almost all the subordinate points under discussion. The oldfashioned, substantial agreement as to what are essential subjects of instruction in this particular form or degree of education has been of late largely broken up. There is even more diversity of view as to how far subjects admitted to be essential should be carried before specialization in nonessentials is permitted or encouraged. Scarcely any two curricula in any of the institutions in this country which design and claim to afford a truly liberal education, precisely agree. Yet, theoretically, all are agreed as to the validity of a distinction between essentials and non-essentials. And, practically, certain subjects are everywhere required, at least to some extent, in the earlier stages of this form of education.
