in　such　enterprises　as　professional　training；　undergraduate
  instruction；　supervision　and　guidance　of。　the　secondary　school
  system；　edification　of　the　unlearned　by　〃university　extension〃
  and　similar　excursions　into　the　field　of　public　amusement；
  training　of　secondary　school　teachers；　encouragement　of　amateurs
  by　〃correspondence；〃　etc。　What　and　how　much　of　these　extraneous
  activities　the　university　should　allow　itself　is　a　matter　on
  which　there　is　no　general　agreement　even　among　those　whose
  inclinations　go　far　in　that　direction；　but　what　is　taken　for
  granted　throughout　all　this　advocacy　of　outlying　detail　is　the
  secure　premise　that　the　university　is　in　the　first　place　a
  seminary　of　the　higher　learning；　and　that　no　school　can　make　good
  its　pretensions　to　university　standing　except　by　proving　its
  fitness　in　this　respect。（4*）
  The　conservation　and　advancement　of　the　higher　learning
  involves　two　lines　of　work；　distinct　but　closely　bound　together：
  （a）　scientific　and　scholarly　inquiry；　and　（b）　the　instruction　of
  students。（5*）　The　former　of　these　is　primary　and　indispensable。
  It　is　this　work　of　intellectual　enterprise　that　gives　its
  character　to　the　university　and　marks　it　off　from　the　lower
  schools。　The　work　of　teaching　properly　belongs　in　the　university
  only　because　and　in　so　far　as　it　incites　and　facilitates　the
  university　man's　work　of　inquiry；　　and　the　extent　to　which　such
  teaching　furthers　the　work　of　inquiry　is　scarcely　to　be
  appreciated　without　a　somewhat　extended　experience。　By　and　large；
  there　are　but　few　and　inconsequential　exceptions　to　the　rule　that
  teaching；　as　a　concomitant　of　investigation；　is　distinctly
  advantageous　to　the　investigator；　particularly　in　so　far　as　his
  work　is　of　the　nature　of　theoretical　inquiry。　The　instruction
  necessarily　involved　in　university　work；　therefore；　is　only　such
  as　can　readily　be　combined　with　the　work　of　inquiry；　at　the　same
  time　that　it　goes　directly　to　further　the　higher　learning　in　that
  it　trains　the　incoming　generation　of　scholars　and　scientists　for
  the　further　pursuit　of　knowledge。　Training　for　other　purposes　is
  necessarily　of　a　different　kind　and　is　best　done　elsewhere；　and
  it　does　not　become　university　work　by　calling　it　so　and　imposing
  its　burden　on　the　men　and　equipment　whose　only　concern　should　be
  the　higher　learning。
  University　teaching；　having　a　particular　and　special　purpose
  the　pursuit　of　knowledge　　it　has　also　a　particular　and
  special　character；　such　as　to　differentiate　it　from　other
  teaching　and　at　the　same　time　leave　it　relatively　ineffective　for
  other　purposes。　Its　aim　is　to　equip　the　student　for　the　work　of
  inquiry；　not　to　give　him　facility　in　that　conduct　of　affairs　that
  turns　such　knowledge　to　〃practical　account。〃　Hence　the
  instruction　that　falls　legitimately　under　the　hand　of　the
  university　man　is　necessarily　subsidiary　and　incidental　to　the
  work　of　inquiry；　and　it　can　effectually　be　carried　on　only　by
  such　a　teacher　as　is　himself　occupied　with　the　scrutiny　of　what
  knowledge　is　already　in　hand　and　with　pushing　the　inquiry　to
  further　gains。　And　it　can　be　carried　on　by　such　a　teacher　only　by
  drawing　his　students　into　his　own　work　of　inquiry。　The　student's
  relation　to　his　teacher　necessarily　becomes　that　of　an　apprentice
  to　his　master；　rather　than　that　of　a　pupil　to　his　schoolmaster。
  A　university　is　a　body　of　mature　scholars　and　scientists；　the
  〃faculty；〃　　with　whatever　plant　and　other　equipment　may
  incidentally　serve　as　appliances　for　their　work　in　any　given
  case。　The　necessary　material　equipment　may　under　modern
  conditions　be　very　considerable；　as　may　also　the　number　of
  care…takers；　assistants；　etc。；　but　all　that　is　not　the
  university；　but　merely　its　equipment。　And　the　university　man's
  work　is　the　pursuit　of　knowledge；　together　with　whatever　advisory
  surveillance　and　guidance　he　may　consistently　afford　such
  students　as　are　entering　on　the　career　of　learning　at　a　point
  where　his　outlook　and　methods　of　work　may　be　of　effect　for　them。
  No　man　whose　energies　are　not　habitually　bent　on　increasing　and
  proving　up　the　domain　of　learning　belongs　legitimately　on　the
  university　staff。　The　university　man　is；　properly；　a　student；　not
  a　schoolmaster。　Such　is　the　unmistakable　drift　of　sentiment　and
  professed　endeavour；　in　so　far　as　it　is　guided　by　the　cultural
  aspirations　of　civilized　mankind　rather　than　by　the　emulative
  strategy　of　individuals　seeking　their　own　preferment。（6*）
  All　this；　of　course；　implies　no　undervaluing　of　the　work　of
  those　men　who　aim　to　prepare　the　youth　for　citizenship　and　a
  practical　career。　It　is　only　a　question　of　distinguishing　between
  things　that　belong　apart。　The　scientist　and　the　scholar　on　the
  one　hand；　and　the　schoolmaster　on　the　other　hand；　both　belong
  within　the　later　growth　of　civilization；　but　a　differentiation　of
  the　two　classes；　and　a　division　of　their　work；　is　indispensable
  if　they　are　to　do　their　work　as　it　should　be　done；　and　as　the
  modern　community　thoughtfully　intends　that　it　should　be　done。　And
  while　such　a　division　of　labour　has　hitherto　not　been　carried
  through　with　any　degree　of　consistency；　it　is　at　least　under　way；
  and　there　is　nothing　but　the　presumption　of　outworn　usage　that
  continues　to　hold　the　two　lines　of　work　together；　to　the
  detriment　of　both；　backed；　it　is　true；　by　ambitions　of
  self…aggrandizement　on　the　part　of　many　schools　and　many　of　their
  directorates。
  The　schoolmaster　and　his　work　may　be　equally；　or　more；
  valuable　to　the　community　at　large　　presumably　more　rather　than
  less　　but　in　so　far　as　his　chief　interest　is　of　the　pedagogical
  sort　his　place　is　not　in　the　university。　Exposition；　instruction
  and　drill　belong　in　and　professional　schools。　The　consistent　aim
  there　is；　and　should　be；　to　instruct；　to　inculcate　a　knowledge　of
  results；　and　to　give　the　pupil　a　working　facility　in　applying　it。
  On　the　university　level　such　information　and　training　is　（should
  be）　incidental　to　the　work　of　research。　The　university　man　is
  almost　unavoidably　a　teacher；　by　precept　and　example；　but　he　can
  not　without　detriment　to　his　work　as　scientist　or　scholar　serve
  as　a　taskmaster　or　a　vehicle　of　indoctrination。　The　student　who
  comes　up　to　the　university　for　the　pursuit　of　knowledge　is
  expected　to　know　what　he　wants　and　to　want　it；　without
  compulsion。　If　he　falls　short　in　these　respects；　if　he　has　not
  the　requisite　interest　and　initiative；　it　is　his　own　misfortune；
  not　the　fault　of　his　teacher。　What　he　has　a　legitimate　claim　to
  is　an　opportunity　for　such　personal　contact　and　guidance　as　will
  give　him　familiarity　with　the　ways　and　means　of　the　higher
  learning；　　any　information　imparted　to　him　being　incidental　to
  this　main　work　of　habituation。　He　gets　a　chance　to　make　himself　a
  scholar；　and　what　he　will　do　with　his　opportunities　in　this　way
  lies　in　his　own　discretion。
  The　difference　between　the　modern　university　and　the　lower
  and　professional　schools　is　broad　and　simple；　not　so　much　a
  difference　of　degree　as　of　kind。　There　is　no　difficulty　about
  apprehending　or　appreciating　this　difference；　the　dispute　turns
  not　on　the　practicability　of　distinguishing　between　the　two；　but
  on　the　desirability　of　letting　such　a　distinction　go　into　effect。
  It　is　a　controversy　between　those　who　wish　to　hold　fast　that
  which　once　was　good　and　those　who　look　to　make　use　of　the　means
  in　hand　for　new　ends　and　meet　new　exigencies。
  The　lower　schools　（including　the　professional　schools）　are；
  in　the　ideal　scheme；　designed　to　fit　the　incoming　generation　for
  civil　life；　they　are　therefore　occupied　with　instilling　such
  knowledge　and　habits　as　will　make　their　pupils　fit　citizens　of
  the　world　in　whatever　position　in　the　fabric　of　workday　life　they
  may　fall。　The　university　on　the　other　hand　is　specialized　to　fit
  men　for　a　life　of　science　and　scholarship；　and　it　is　accordingly
  concerned；　with　such　discipline　only　as　will　give　efficiency　in
  the　pursuit　of　knowledge　and　fit　its　students　for　the　increase
  and　diffusion　of　learning。　It　follows　that　while　the　lower
  schools　necessarily　take　over　the　surveillance　of　their　pupils'
  everyday　life；　and　exercise　a　large　measure　of　authority　and
  responsible　interference　in　that　behalf；　the　university　assumes
  （or　should　assume）　no　responsibility　for　its　students'　fortunes
  in　the　moral；　religious；　pecuniary；　domestic；　or　hygienic
  respect。
  Doubtless　the　larger　and　more　serious　responsibility　in　t