I

Comments on the Oxford System *

By FRANK G. SWAIN, Wyoming and Wadham, '13.

HAVE read and re-read Boyd's article on "Oxford University" with a great deal of pleasure and, except for his scandalous reference to cowboys, his resumé of Oxford life is excellent. Of course I realize that he must have had Pennsylvania cowboys in mind and not Wyoming cowboys! However, at the request of the editor of the Quarterly, I am venturing to supplement Boyd's article by certain comments of my own.

The keynote of the Oxford system, or lack of system, is personal freedom. I say this in spite of the fact that there are certain features of University discipline which appear puerile to the newly arrived American; I consider these features relics of the Middle Ages (when the undergraduates were of High School age or younger) rather than true characteristics of modern Oxford.

This personal freedom is illustrated by Oxford's method of living, method of instruction and system of athletics. In each of these three features, life at Oxford is radically different from life at an American university or college. Aside from Oxford's dual college and university organization, I consider the three things mentioned her most characteristic features.

An undergraduate lives in college his first two or three years. There he has a suite of two or three rooms to himself, instead of one bedroom shared with a roommate. His suite consists always of a sitting room and a bedroom; if he has a third room, it is little used, but is called, paradoxically, a study. The sitting room has a fireplace, in front of which are easy chairs and a davenport. It is impossible to divorce from Oxford the idea of personal comfort. The sitting room is also equipped with a dining table and a full set of dishes, silver, or I should say cutlery, and linen. There is a food cupboard which is never empty. English hospitality demands that a guest be offered something to eat and the Oxford undergraduate is always prepared to comply with this demand. The Oxonian is, in short, a householder. A great deal of entertaining, wholly informal, is done in an undergraduate's rooms.

* From the Pomona College Quarterly Magazine, January, 1927.

Before the war breakfast was served in the room and breakfast parties lasting until ten o'clock or even noon were very common. Now, however, I regret to say, efficiency has triumphed, and many colleges serve breakfast in the dining hall. Lunch and tea, brought from the kitchen, buttery or Junior Common Room, are still served in a man's own rooms. It is impossible to estimate the value to an undergraduate of this training in being a host, but the point I wish to make is that by these living arrangements, Oxford gives each man complete personal freedom for social intercourse with his own friends and throws on him the corresponding responsibility for their comfort. There is no supervision in these matters; they are wholly matters of individual taste.

The idea of individual freedom is even more pronounced in the system of instruction. The tutorial system allows a student to progress as rapidly or as slowly as he wishes. A man is not held back by others slower than himself. In the hour with his tutor a student is encouraged to think for himself and to develop his own ideas; originality is encouraged. A man in honor schools is free to attend lectures or cut them entirely. There is no pressure from the Faculty in this matter. This absence of pressure is very Oxonian. Furthermore, Oxford trains a man to study by himself and under his own direction during vacations-six months of the year. This is real self discipline.

Speaking of self discipline and by way of digression, Oxford has no eighteenth amendment. On the contrary, stout ale is served in the dining hall to the students and wine is served to the Faculty. Almost any kind of liquor can be purchased on credit from the college. In strictest confidence I will tell you that the scholar who asks the blessing at dinner has to buy beer for the whole table, if he hesitates or makes a mistake. Excessive drinking is restrained by individual preference rather than by a faculty "Thou shalt not." This may be a dangerous form of personal freedom, but it is very Oxonian.

The excellence of the Oxford system of athletics lies in the fact that practically every man who so desires is able to partake in competitive athletics. Athletics at Oxford becomes exercise for the many instead of for a select few. Oxford puts out varsity teams in many more sports than our universities. These varsity teams are made up of the best athletes from all the colleges and correspond to the varsity teams in our country. In addition to this each of the twenty-one colleges puts out a college team in such sports as rowing, rugby, soccer, hockey, tennis, cricket, golf and track. Not only are there more sports

at Oxford than in this country, but there are about twenty-two times as many teams in each sport. The entire afternoon of each day from lunch to tea is given over to athletics. Exercise is considered absolutely necessary to and by the undergraduate at Oxford. A striking thing, however, is that there are no coaches, except in rowing, and even in rowing the coaches are amateurs who have volunteered for the work. The men do not practice rugby; they play it. There will be two or three games a week but no practice in between. The same is true of soccer, hockey and cricket. The college rugby team at Oxford is not the well-oiled machine that an American college football team is, but at Oxford there is no grind of practice or training and, therefore, I believe, the individual player has more real fun over there than in this country.

The personal freedom element in athletics is that a man exercises when and because he wants to and not when and because the coach requires it. Furthermore, there are no gym classes and the horrors of Swedish exercises are unknown. Physical training is entirely voluntary but is almost universal. To say that every man is an athlete would require a poetic license, but to say that every man takes some outdoor exercise would be approximately correct.

The result of this system of personal freedom in living, studying and exercise is that a man either falls down completely or learns to stand on his own feet. Do not get the idea that the University neglects its men. It surrounds the undergraduate with every conceivable influence of culture and learning. There is a richness to life in Oxford that is scarcely equalled elsewhere. The University furnishes the opportunity but the undergraduate must seize it himself; the chance is offered him but is not forced on him. The man who responds to the Oxford system, leaves the University better prepared to stand on his own feet in the world than a man who comes out of a college where he has learned to take orders from the Faculty but not to take orders from himself.

I am very enthusiastic about Oxford. Its student life is almost ideal. But I have sometimes wondered if my enthusiasm for Oxford was generated by the facilities for loafing; by the abundance of leisure; by the fact that physical wants were cared for by a trained corps of servants; by the fact that I could lie in bed until breakfast was brought to my room by a scout; by the fact that I had cold chicken every Sun

day morning for breakfast; by the fact that I had more money to spend than I had ever had before; by the fact that I could swim to my heart's content in summer term or pole the river in a lazy punt; by the fact that vacation came every eight weeks and that during vacations I was free to wander about the British Isles or the continent at will. I enjoyed all of these to the full. I enjoyed the company that met at "brekkers" and teas. I enjoyed the afternoons of play. I enjoyed the buttered toast and hot crumpets after a strenuous match. I enjoyed the picnics on the river. I enjoyed the fun around the fireplaces. I enjoyed the evenings of bridge. I enjoyed the care-free vacations. But while I realize that Oxford adds a richness to life by giving her sons a capacity for enjoyment and appreciation, yet I believe that her best gift is a power of self direction produced by her system of personal freedom.

Entering the U. S. Foreign Service

By S. W. WASHINGTON, West Virginia and Hertford, '20.

[EDITOR'S NOTE. Washington devoted himself with much energy at Oxford to the study of international affairs, holding the office of Secretary of Delegations in the Oxford International Assembly and other posts. He took a B.A. in Jurisprudence and taught, 1924-26, at the Carnegie Institute of Technology. In the winter of 1925-26 he took the Foreign Service examinations referred to in this article, and in the autumn of 1926 entered the Foreign Service School of the State Department at Washington. In February of this year he was designated Vice-Consul at Buenos Aires, Argentina, and sailed, March 26, to take up his duties.]

T

HE Foreign Service of the United States now offers a career which should appeal to many men who have enjoyed three years of the life at Oxford. Some people entertain the idea. that to become a member of the diplomatic service of the United States requires only the friendship of a senator and a desire to live in elegant leisure abroad. The consular service has been described in terms, if not similar, at least just as imaginative. If such were ever an accurate appraisal of the requirements for entering the body of America's representatives abroad, it is far from being the case at the present time.

Under the Rogers Act of 1924 the diplomatic and consular services became branches respectively of the Foreign Service of the United States. The procedure for entering this organization includes an entrance examination and a period of at least six months' training in the Foreign Service School of the State Department. Upon overcoming these two obstacles, one is sent into the field for service as a ViceConsul. After this the normal steps of promotion involve transfer to the diplomatic branch or continuance to the higher grades of the consular branch, the wishes of the individual being taken into consideration so far as possible. An interesting feature of the new service is the provision of the Rogers Act which allows the assignment of officers of both the consular and the diplomatic branch to the State Department for periods of not more than four consecutive years. Under this rule there are now many Foreign Service Officers occupying positions in the Department and thereby keeping up their contacts with the seat of government and with the home country in general.