upbuilding of such colleges as Bryn Mawr, Smith, Mt. Holyoke,
Vassar, and Wellesley,--not because they minimize the civilizing
value of either homemakers or business women in a community, or
fail to recognize their needs, but simply because women's colleges
were never intended to meet those needs.

When we go to the Metropolitan Museum of Fine Arts, we do not
complain because it lacks the characteristics of the Smithsonian
Institute, or of the Boston Horticultural Show. We are content
that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology should differ in
scope from Harvard University; yet some of us, college graduates
even, seem to have an uneasy feeling that Wellesley and Bryn Mawr
may not be ministering adequately to life, because they do not
add to their curricular activities the varied aims of an
Agricultural College, a Business College, a School of Philanthropy,
and a Cooking School, with required courses on the modifying of
milk for infants. Great institutions for vocational training, such
as Pratt Institute in Brooklyn and Simmons College in Boston,
have a dignity and a usefulness which no one disputes. Undoubtedly
America needs more of their kind. But to impair the dignity and
usefulness of the colleges dedicated to the higher education of
women by diluting their academic programs with courses on business
or domesticity will not meet that need. The unwillingness of
college faculties to admit vocational courses to the curriculum is
not due to academic conservatism and inability to march with
the times, but to an unclouded and accurate conception of the
meaning of the term "higher education."

But definiteness of aim does not necessarily imply narrowness
of scope. The Wellesley Calendar for 1914-1915 contains a list