Rhodes Scholars, Oxford, and the Creation of an American Elite. Thomas J. Schaeper
gum?” Happily, the student could admit to this bad habit. The don had no gum to offer him, for that commodity was still a novelty in England. Soon thereafter the student ordered a large supply from home and sent some to his tutor. The result was that the two became fast friends.17
John Crowe Ransom (1910) experienced one of the most awkward first encounters. He planned to read Literae Humaniores at Christ Church. His studies began this way:
And I was very confident, and I finally got to my philosophy tutor who was a very eminent philosopher named Blount. And he said, “Have you read any philosophy?” And I said, “Yes, I had two years of philosophy at college.” “What did you take?” And I said, “We took a course in deductive logic-Aristotelian logic.” And he said, “Whom did you read?” And I said, “We had a book by Noah K. Davis.” And he said, “Ah, I don't know the name; but did you do anything else?” And I said, “Well. we had a course in inductive logic.” And he said, “What did you read?” And I said, “We had a book by Noah K. Davis.” And he said, “A most ubiquitous man.” And then he said, “Did you take any other courses?” I said, “Yes, then we had a course in ethics.” And he said, “Whom did you read? But please don't say Noah K. Davis.” I said, “Noah K. Davis.” And he said, “My education is faulty. I don't know Noah K. Davis. But did you take any other courses?” I said, “Yes, then we had a course in psychology” And he said, “I can't bear it, but I feel that you had Noah K. Davis.” I said, “Yes.” And it was perfectly true that we had had Noah K. Davis, and no other philosopher, living or dead. And so he said, “Come to my rooms next Thursday evening at eight, and bring me an essay entitled, “What is Thought?”18
This widely read Davis was an author whose textbooks were used in all the philosophy courses that Ransom had taken at Vanderbilt University.
Ransom quickly adapted to the Oxford system and enjoyed a full life of study, sports, and socializing. He and his tutor quickly got over their rough start, and Ransom just missed getting a First in schools.
Others never got on well with their tutors. Ebb Ford (1905) was a droll, proud Mississippian who was not intimidated by his law tutor at Christ Church, a man named Carter. The two sparred verbally during Ford's first term, and the American was “gated” for insulting his tutor. Ford steadfastly refused to apologize. Somehow the two reestablished a working relationship, and Ford was awarded a First in jurisprudence. It galled him, however, when he learned that the tutor was bragging that one of his protégés had won such an honor.19
Carter would haunt many years' worth of Rhodes Scholars. Several decades later a Rhodes Scholar wrote in an obituary of his classmate, Robertson Paul, of the class of 1913:
He was reading Jurisprudence, and along with Valentine Havens (an equally keen youngster) met as his tutor Mr. Carter, one of the crustiest and most sardonic among the antediluvians of Christ Church. These two young bloodhounds from the backwoods set out on the trail of a savage old bear. No one could tell who had the better sport or who dealt the more sanguinary blows. But all three emerged victorious, for both pupils won first class honors.20
In the case of these students, a tutor's intimidating manners apparently did spur them to do great work. In many other cases, however, the opposite resulted.
Warren Ault (1907) was generalizing, but nonetheless reflecting the view of perhaps half of the Americans, when he asserted that the dons were “unwelcoming, if not downright disdainful.”21
There were yet other reasons for the Americans' less than glittering academic performance. One was the education that they had received prior to arriving in Oxford. Many British observers, American educators, and Rhodes Scholars themselves concluded that the lackluster performance in Oxford was proof of the sorry state of American education. Rhodes Scholars who were twenty-two years old and had graduated with honors in some of America's best universities were having trouble keeping up with eighteen-year-old British freshers. A 1906 New York Times article on Rhodes Scholars reported that education in the U.S. was “mongrel.” Americans got a smattering of knowledge in a wide variety of areas but studied nothing in depth. Thus they were not prepared for serious work in Oxford.22
Despite the jeremiads on both sides of the Atlantic about the condition of American schools and universities, a neutral observer can see that the problem was not that American education was inferior, but rather that it was different. American high schools and universities stressed giving students a well-rounded education. Regardless of his aptitudes, a student took courses in the natural and social sciences, the humanities, the fine arts, and even physical education. In British secondary schools students began to specialize in their last two years. Their studies in university were even more specialized. Thus a student entering an Oxford college in 1904 intending to study modern European history would already have been concentrating in that area for the previous two years. Furthermore, during his three years in Oxford that is all he would “read.” A new student planning to read French literature was expected already to be fluent in French and to have a good knowledge of the major writers. On the other hand, Rhodes Scholars arriving in Oxford with B.A.'s in hand from American universities would perhaps have spent only one-fourth of their time studying history, and that history would have included perhaps all periods and all parts of the world. Thus a twenty-two-year-old Rhodes Scholar hoping to read in modern European history would have far less background in the subject than his eighteen-year-old British rival.
This situation continues to the present day. There are advantages and disadvantages to each system. Americans are educated more widely but less deeply, whereas their British counterparts are trained more narrowly but more profoundly. Oxonians would argue, however, that their system is not as narrow as it might appear. The Oxford student in modern history can learn about other fields through the hothouse atmosphere of the college where he/she lives, eats, and socializes with students and dons from all the other disciplines. Furthermore, Oxonians would assert that the heavy stress on students training themselves to read, write, and analyze prepares them for all sorts of careers.
An additional problem that soon became apparent was that the great majority of Americans arriving in Oxford had already obtained B.A.'s in the United States. They did not “need” a second undergraduate degree – even if the Oxford undergraduate degree did oblige them to delve deeper into a subject than they had previously. A second B.A. was not going to add much to their résumés back home. Those who planned to obtain a Ph.D. or to attend law or medical school would be starting from scratch after they returned from Oxford. Their three years in Britain would not have counted toward the additional degrees needed for their careers.
Most Rhodes Scholars nevertheless chose to read for a B.A. in Oxford. Many were compelled to pursue studies in areas other than those they would have liked. George Parkin warned Rhodes Scholars that in the fields of chemistry, biology, and physics Oxford was not equal to the better American universities – though for Canadians and colonials Oxford was superior.23 Edwin Hubble (1910), for example, chose to study jurisprudence though his real interest lay in astronomy. The situation in the social sciences was little better; sociology and psychology were still suspected of being newfangled and trendy. Engineering was just beginning as a subject for serious study, and there was no such thing as a course in business. Oxford was many things, but it would not stoop to being vocational! In addition, one could not read American history, for the dons insisted that the United States was too young to have enough history worth extended study. This dismissive attitude, however, was not the result of any cultural or nationalistic prejudices. Oxford treated recent British events in the same way – by ignoring them. In the early years of the twentieth century anyone who read “modern” history studied the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, with Napoleon being about as recent as most tutors would permit.
The fields most popular among Americans were law (jurisprudence), modern history, and English literature. Law in Oxford was an undergraduate field of study. One who aspired to become a barrister in Britain would obtain a B.A. in law and then study at one of the Inns of Court in London. Jurisprudence in Oxford differed markedly from what one encountered in American law schools, for in Britain it included heavy doses of history and Roman law.
Over the years American law and medical