University of Virginia Library

XII. Methods of Instruction and Examination

There were three methods of teaching employed at the
University from the start: (1) the lecture; (2) the daily
examinations in class; (3) the written exercise. The professor
was theoretically at liberty to give preponderance
to whichever one of these he considered to be best
adapted to the character of his own course, but the lecture,
in practically every instance, was the chief means of
instruction. The system, as a whole, had been introduced
by Jefferson, and had been derived by him from the example
of William Small, under whom he had sat when a

student at the College of William and Mary. Previous
to Small's professorship, the method of instruction at
that college had been confined to recitation from the textbooks.
Jefferson was convinced that teaching by lecture
rather than by text-book would stimulate independent
thought in the student, create a desire for original
investigation, and discourage mere memorizing. Whatever
danger of incoherence and desultoriness might accompany
this manner of tuition, would, in his opinion,
be corrected by the careful oral examinations, which were
required to follow the next day. So unusual a system,
however, was not approved by all, in spite of his endorsement
of its principle as correct. First, it was asserted
that the notes of the student were necessarily imperfect
and disconnected, and that no daily oral examination
could remove the unfortunate effect of these deficiencies.
This examination, indeed, would be largely a repetition
of the original lecture in order to fill in the vacant gaps in
the student's memoranda. Secondly, however brilliant
that student might be, an undue proportion of his time
would be consumed in the mechanical effort to get these
memoranda into shape; and finally, only a few professors,
with all their learning and experience, possessed a marked
power of exposition.

In reality, the lecture method imposed as extraordinary
a burden on the professor's capacity as on the student's.
It demanded a more thorough knowledge of his subject,
and a greater talent for communicating that knowledge.
It was not enough that he should be able to explain
lucidly single points in the text: he was also expected to
grasp the principles and the details of his theme,—the
abstruse and the simple elements of it alike,—so clearly
and so surely that he could present it as a whole with perfect
perspicacity to his pupils. Nor was it sufficient that

he should voice the thoughts and theories of others; he
must be capable of reaching his own independent conclusions
and enforcing them with his own reasoning,
logically and firmly expressed. Such a method did not
shut out text-books, but it presupposed that the professor
was so discerning that he could discover what was improper
in these books and reject it. It was correctly said
at the time of the adoption of the system of lectures at
the University of Virginia that it could not be carried
out with inferior instruments; and that its benefits were
in proportion to the efficiency of the teachers in imparting
knowledge.

It seems to have been foreseen as early as 1826 that
some mechanical means must be devised to lighten the
labor of both professor and student by incorporating in
print a brief syllabus of each lecture. A lithographic
press was purchased during that year, and each member
of the Faculty was permitted to have the use of it for a
period of two days in succession. The press must have
proved, on the whole, unsatisfactory, for we find that
frequent applications were made to the proctor to increase
its working usefulness. In 1828, the professors
complained that they had been long deprived of its aid,
although it had been put in place in a room, a man employed
to manipulate it, and the proper quantity of paper
bought to supply it. In the following year, two dormitories
were assigned for its accommodation. For sometime,
it had been housed in an outbuilding. As late at
1835, a Mr. Tompkins was directed to remove it to
Charlottesville in order that he might have a chance of
acquiring there the art of handling it, and it was hoped
that, in this way, "it might render some service to the
University." It would be inferred from this protracted
discontent that the press had, throughout this period, afforded

the student little assistance in securing an accurate
copy of his professor's lectures.

The rule appears to have been for the instructor to
deliver his lecture first, and to follow this up with an
oral examination on the last lecture but one. With the
lecture of the day, and the recapitulation of the preceding
lecture, the student received the benefit of the substance
of two lectures at every meeting of his class. By the enactments
of 1825, each class was to continue in session
during at least two hours on at least three days of the
week. The first class to assemble in 1826 did so at
seven o'clock in the morning; it broke up at eight, and
spent half an hour at breakfast; and at the close of that
interval, re-assembled, and remained in session during an
hour. In July, 1827, the Board of Visitors required
lectures to begin at half past seven in the morning until
the end of the following April; and after that date, the
hour for coming together was to be half past five o'clock.
The adoption of this inconvenient time was perhaps one
cause of the discontent that so irritated the spirits of the
early students. This rising by dawn in the humid air
of early spring, and attending lectures at that hour in
damp and chill recitation rooms before breakfast, was
thought by some members of the Faculty to have had a
distinct influence in bringing on the epidemic of 1829.
The young men had a right to dispute the wisdom of a
Board that imposed on them an ordinance as senseless
from a practical point of view as it was dangerous from
a hygienic. In 1832, one of the students, Mr. Winfree,
who was charged with rising late, excused his conduct on
the ground that he was called upon to be present at
lectures five times each week at half past five in the morning.
The hour of assembling for the first class was,
in 1838, set at six o'clock; but by 1841, the original hour

of half past seven was again in force. The last class of
the day broke up, at one time, at half past three; at another,
at half past four.

The professors were under as close supervision in the
work of the class-room as the students themselves. The
chairman of the Faculty was expected to report: (1)
how often each instructor had failed to lecture as required;
(2) how frequently he had neglected to question
the members of his class; (3) how much time had been
consumed by him in delivering lectures and making his
examinations; and (4) how often he had omitted sending
in his class report to show the number of his pupils'
absences, and the degree of their attention and progress.

There were, from the start, two general examinations:
the intermediate and the final. During the first three
years, the intermediate began on the first Monday in
December. The Board of Visitors were expected to
attend in person, but no strangers were permitted to do
so. This examination took place in the "elliptical
room" of the Rotunda in 1826; but it seems that the
intention had been, except for "the unfortunate state of
the books," to hold it in the library. The final examination
came off in the presence of the students and professors
during the week that preceded the "commencement"
of the vacation; and this also took place in the
"elliptical room" of the Rotunda. In 1828, the date
of the intermediate examinations was transferred from
the month of December to any month near the middle of
the session which the Faculty might select. The final
examinations this year lasted from July 10 to July 16.
The time consumed in one day in the examination of a
single school was two hours in the morning and two in the
afternoon. The examination in ancient languages was
finished in three days; in mathematics, in four; and in

modern languages, in five. The briefest, anatomy, was
completed in one day. The remainder did not, in any
instance, spread over three days; and several fell short of
that length of time.

A change in the manner of holding the general examinations
was proposed at a meeting of the Faculty held in
April, 1829. A committee of this body recommended,
on that date, (1) that the chairman, at the close of the
session, should appoint for the examination in each
school, a committee comprising the professor of that
school and two of his colleagues; (2) that the former
should draw up in writing a series of questions to be propounded,
and that to each question there should be appended
a valuation in numbers, the highest of which
was to be one hundred; (3) that the chairman should
choose the date of examination; (4) that the class should
assemble with pen and paper, and that, for the first
time, the questions should then be given out; (5) that
the majority of the committee should be required to be
present at the examination in order to supervise it; (6)
that the professor of the school should value the answers
numerically; (7) that a report embracing all these details
should be handed in to the Faculty; and finally, (8) that
the students should be arranged in three divisions according
to their merit as demonstrated by the examination.
The one who obtained a marking of three-fourths of the
valuation of his replies was to be listed in the first class;
if less than three-fourths but more than one quarter, in
the second class; and if less than one-fourth, in the third.

The manner of proceeding on the part of the several
committees is illustrated in their action in 1832. The
entire Faculty assembled that year in the lecture-room of
natural philosophy. Harrison announced the result of
the examination in the School of Ancient Languages. He

was the spokesman of that committee, and his report was
adopted by the Faculty; and he was followed by
Blaettermann as the representative of the committee
appointed for the School of Modern Languages; by
Bonnycastle, of the one for the School of Mathematics;
and so on in turn by Patterson, Emmet, Johnson, and
Davis, as the heads of the committees of their respective
schools. No report of the numerical valuations for the
different divisions of the intermediate examinations was
made by these bodies until the valuations for the final examinations
had been submitted.

The preliminary English examination, which, in 1833,
went before the intermediate, was held by a committee
of three professors, appointed by the chairman. Unless
a student, before this examination, gave notice of his intention
to become a candidate for graduation, he was
not permitted to stand it afterwards without the Faculty's
consent. The proportion of those who, from year
to year, succeeded, or did not succeed, in it, demonstrated
the necessity for holding it,—in 1838, fifty-one
passed and twenty failed; and in 1841, the corresponding
numbers were forty-one and twenty-nine. This English
examination seems to have consisted of a rigid test of the
candidate's qualifications in his mother-tongue,—he was
required to write at least twenty-five lines in that language
touching some phase of the course in which he
was seeking a diploma; and when this had been read, he
was questoned in English syntax and orthography. Originally,
the candidate for graduation was required, not
only to pass an English examination, but also to prove his
ability to read the works of the principal Greek and
Latin authors; but this last provision was subsequently
discarded as tending to cut down the number of pupils in
the law and medical schools.