After reading Al’s
very cool post yesterday about UVA law professor James Holcombe's 1859 intermediate examination, I couldn’t
help but click through and read the referenced The
Virginia University magazine article in its entirety. If you haven’t looked at it yet you
should, as there are several gems, including a discourse on the “peculiar mode
of conducting examinations at this institution,” which renders UVA not “as at
other places, a matter of time and connexion, but one of merit exclusively.”
My favorite part is the division of UVA students into “four distinct
classes”:
1. Real
students – i.e. “those who come here for the purpose of taking advantage of the
unusual facilities afforded for acquiring a thorough education.”
2. Bad students – i.e. “those who come with as full a
determination to study as the others, but who unfortunately have not the gift
of continuance, or application, . . . and after intermitting efforts, finally
become discouraged and careless.”
3. Slacker students – i.e. those who “for decency’s sake,
together with a well-bred respect for the request of professors . . . attend
lectures and study when they have nothing
else to do.”
4. “Mama’s”
boys – i.e. those who were “pets at
home” and “’Mama’s big baby,’ and are sent here to wean them.”
(All emphasis in original)
I’ll leave it to Lounge readers who are UVA professors,
alums, or students to opine on the changed class composition, if any, during the
intervening 150-odd years.
Love this, Kim. Further evidence that if you want to know something about an institution, look at its literary output! (Like the literary magazines that they published — or the orations given to student literary societies).
If anyone's interested in knowing more about UVA students in the decade before Civil War, Peter Carmichael has a great book on this topic, The Last Generation: Young Virginians in Peace, War, and Reunion (UNC, 2005).
Thanks for finding it, Al — it was a fun read.
Yes, that made me giggle. And that exam was tough going!!
Me too Miriam. Don't know if they were *trying* to be funny or not . . .