University of Virginia Library

XIX. The Students—Their Number

Down to 1871, the prosperity of the University, as
indicated by the number of students enrolled, showed no
symptom of decline. There were two reasons for the
continuation of the high rate of attendance. First, a
prompt enlistment in the armies of the Confederacy had
stood in the way of the education of many young men,
who, so soon as the conflict ended, matriculated. Had no
hostilities intervened, their studies would have been completed

before the session of 1865–66. Of the two hundred
and seventeen who were admitted in the course of
that session, only twenty-five were in their second year,
twelve in their third, and two in their fourth. Secondly,
during the interval between 1865 and 1871, the colleges
situated in the Southern States, upon which these latter
commonwealths had, before the war, principally relied for
the education of their sons, had, with few exceptions, remained
either entirely unrehabilitated, or so crippled by
lack of money that they were left with few practical facilities
for pushing forward their work. The University of
Virginia, always the most conspicuous institution below
the Potomac and Ohio, was, during several years, almost
without a rival; but after 1871, this position of supremacy
was not so impregnable, owing largely to the progress
towards complete revival which had begun among the
old competitive colleges.

A passing circumstance in 1872 further accelerated
that tendency towards a numerical decline which was
now becoming perceptible in the University's enrolment.
During this year, the income of the Southern States from
the sale of raw cotton was very much diminished by an
unusual shortage in the volume of production, in consequence
of which, as in the era of slavery, the ability of
parents to send their sons to any seat of higher learning
was, for the time being, destroyed. The University of
Virginia suffered along with the rest. In 1871, there
were entered on its books the names of two hundred and
sixteen students who had come up from the other States
of the South. In 1872, the number so entered sank abruptly
to eighty-nine. During the years immediately ensuing,
this numerical falling off continued, largely, however,
because of the existence of two conditions that were
independent of any temporary disaster to crops or the

growth of rival institutions. The impoverishment of the
South, which had begun with the decline of the Confederate
cause, was increased (1) by the predatory governments
so-called of the Reconstruction period; and (2) by
the more or less permanent shrinkage in the prices of the
staple products of its fields. The general financial depression
that prevailed during 1877 and 1878, the outbreak
of yellow fever along the Gulf Coast during the latter
year, a devastating drought in Virginia in the summer
of 1883,—such were some of the other events that exercised
a perceptible influence in reducing the number of matriculates
during the sessions of their respective occurrence.

There were several observers who believed that the
cause of this numerical decline lay, in large measure, in
other conditions besides the low prices of crops, disasters,
or an increasing competition with other seats of
learning. "Our people," Professor James M. Garnett
wrote in the Andover Review for 1886, "have been occupied
with their material interests and have starved
their minds. Young men are growing up all around us
with a mere smattering of education, but as it is sufficient
for them to enter an agricultural, manufacturing,
mercantile, or commercial life, they are satisfied. Education
costs money, and postpones the time for money making."
Professor Garnett was of the opinion that the
number of matriculates seeking a higher academic training
in the institutions of the South was smaller in 1886
than in 1860; and this was quite possibly so, in consequence
of the poverty of those formerly wealthy States
after the war, and the increased need of a thoroughly
practical education.

A thoughtful writer in the magazine questioned the
pertinency of competition as an explanation of the falling
off in numbers. "A seat of learning," he said,

"should be of such a character that its patronage cannot
be drawn away. Johns Hopkins, Vanderbilt, and Texas
Universities, have all sprung into usefulness in the last
ten years. But when we compare the decrease here, it is
so gradual and so slight, during that interval, that we are
tempted to reject the main excuse which has been offered
for our shortcomings. We must look the facts in the
face. That a great University should decline in a new
and growing country cannot be without its causes."

Now what, in this writer's opinion, was the principal
one among these causes? "The instruction is too high
for a college," he said, "too low for a university, too
special for the general student, too general for the special
student. The result of this arrangement is that both
classes of students seek more suitable instruction elsewhere.
In the present condition of affairs, the only class
of students to which the University is adapted consists of
such as have completed college courses, and desire to pursue
them further without becoming specialists."

Some light will be cast upon the correctness or incorrectness
of these remarks by comparing the attendance at
the University of Virginia with the attendance at the
other seats of learning in the State during this period. If
the decline was common to all, then there must have been
some cause affecting all which we must look for beyond
their precincts. We obtain from the records the following
facts: that, in the interval between 1871 and 1886,—
during which at least seven important scholastic institutions
were established or reopened in the other Southern
States,—the patronage which the University of Virginia
derived from its own Commonwealth showed a
slight tendency to increase, while the patronage of the
other colleges in Virginia, from the same source, fell off
at least eleven per cent.; that the patronage which the

University derived from the States of the South beyond
Virginia decreased thirty per cent., while the patronage
of the same colleges from that quarter decreased sixty
per cent.; that the shrinkage of the total patronage of
the University amounted to eleven per cent., and the
shrinkage of the total patronage of the colleges to thirty-two.
These statistics at least demonstrate that, whatever
may have been the origin of the decline in the attendance
at the University at this time, the cause was
common to every seat of learning in the State. "The
University lost less of the patronage than the colleges,"
very truly said the Faculty, "and held it longer."

What were the measures which this body considered
proper for increasing the attendance? First, to improve
the character and broaden the range of the courses of
study; second, to augment the appliances for promoting
health and comfort within the precincts; and third, to
diminish the volume of necessary expenses so far as to
throw open the benefits of the institution to a larger
number of young men.

The remedy urged by the writer of the article in the
magazine which we have already quoted was altogether
scholastic in its character. "The present system of unstable
equilibrium between college and university," he
said, "must be one in reality, giving to the students facilities
for the highest education. At the same time, to
perform its duty to the State of Virginia, it must provide
college education. The two are not inconsistent.
The standard of special education must be elevated; the
standard of general education must be lowered. The
hope of the University,—the Ph.D. degree,—should be
popular because not too exacting. Above all, the University
should recognize the degrees of other colleges,
allowing their graduates to study directly for the degree

of Ph.D. There should be a curriculum for a college
course, to be followed by a university course."

It was not until the session of 1889–90, that the number
of students at the University of Virginia mounted,—
with a shortage of only seven,—to the level of the session
of 1866–67, the most prosperous recorded in the
institution's history in the interval between the close of
the war and 1890. Four hundred and ninety during the
session of 1866–67, it was four hundred and eighty-two
during that of 1889–90. The proportion of matriculates
from Virginia enrolled during the former session
was forty-five per cent. of the whole attendance, while,
during the session of 1891–92, the proportion advanced
to fifty-nine per cent. The centre of gravity had, therefore,
shifted from the other States as a whole to the Commonwealth
within the borders of which the University
was situated. The session of 1891–92 was a remarkable
one, for it was then that the increase in the attendance
began, which, steadily continuing, has now (1919–1920)
swollen to a small army of young men. During the session
of 1894–95,—the last in the Seventh Period,—
there were enrolled a total of five hundred and sixty-two
matriculates.[10]

During the four sessions ending with July, 1870, 1,093
students were entered as in their first year; 431, as in
their second; 115, as in their third; and 29, as in their
fourth. In the course of the twenty-three sessions beginning
with 1871–72, the proportion was 4,993 for the first
year; 2,462 for the second; 1,047 for the third; and 167
for the fourth. It will be perceived, through these figures,
that, during both intervals, one alone of every two
matriculates returned for the second year. The disproportion
became larger and more abrupt for the third and
the fourth year as compared with the first and the second.

The system of State students was only temporarily
interrupted by the war, and its importance after the
close of the conflict was, from some points of view,
greater than it had been previous to that violent course of
events. This was due to the impoverishment that followed
the downfall of the Confederacy, which caused the
sons of so many families of social distinction to apply for
the privilege of gratuitous instruction. Among the students
enrolled anterior to 1876 were many men, born in
famous Virginian homes, who afterwards rose to a high
rank in the learned professions.

In 1875–76, the General Assembly appropriated for
the benefit of the University the annual sum of thirty
thousand dollars, on condition that no charge for tuition
should be imposed upon matriculates from Virginia who
were eighteen years of age at least. This limit was
afterwards lowered to sixteen. The privilege was to be
restricted to the academic schools. There was a very
general apprehension among the friends of the higher
seats of learning in the State lest this measure should have
a depressing influence on the prospects of these institutions
by drawing away the patronage, which, without this
inducement in favor of the University, they would be

certain to enjoy. But time demonstrated that the law
was not damaging to their welfare. On the contrary, the
fact that all the Virginian students were, by its terms, required
to pass an examination for admission to the University
had a direct tendency to increase the prosperity of
the minor schools and colleges by making a preliminary education
more essential than it had been, when entrance to
the higher institution was subject to no scholastic conditions
of any real importance. Where could this preliminary
training be obtained? Only in the subordinate institutions,
public or private.