graduates of the New Education have yet gone out into the world. But it will surely take more than one whole generation to prove what the real and final outcome of so profound changes in education is to be. Is it ungenerous toward progress when we declare that the experience of a single educational institution for scarcely a moiety of its four years' course—whatever that experience may have been—is a very inadequate proof of the desirableness of a "revolution" in education? We cannot sample the orchard by chewing the blossoms of a single tree.
Let it not be supposed, however, that there is reason to shrink from the detailed examination of the statistics with which Professor Palmer has argued the cause of the New Education. For one, I heartily thank him for them. They are so clearly and fairly presented, and so courteously urged, that nothing more in that direction can be for the present demanded. I am especially glad to have the affair of passing his article in critical review take so tangible a shape. It gives me a coveted opportunity to bring forward corresponding statistics which have not been formed under the influence of the Harvard method. It thus becomes a task definitely set me by the editors of the "Andover Review" to compare one college with another. I need not apologize, to remove any of that odium which almost inevitably attaches itself to
