||14 THE TWO HORIZONS to which we all owe our last allegiance. It is concerned, that is to say, with men as wholes rather than with such unreal and arbitrary entities as economic man or biochemical man or rational man; and similarly with men's societies and their histories as wholes rather than with academic segments and fractions. The ideal of general education is such a development of human beings and their relations as to permit and foster the realization of the best possibilities of every man. It thus looks not only to the first horizon but past this to the second. Such aims have their consequences in the structure and emphases of college education. Among these consequences are a generous share (say about half) of the undergraduate program for general education, a considerable increase in the degree to which this program is prescribed, and a focus within the area of prescription on a few large courses integrating and illustrating basic knowledge and principles rather than a dispersion through a multitude of splinter courses developing specialties. Professional and departmental interests are served as before, except that the courses introductory to these interests can ( begin at a higher level, as founded more broadly and solidly than ever. But so far as general education is concerned, the emphasis is divisional rather than departmental, and the end in view is the happy man, the resourceful personality, the responsible citizen, rather than the proficient specialist. Pedagogic details would be out of place; some misunderstanding, however, may be avoided if three further points are made. First, although some unity as to ultimate aims and major means seems necessary (and is not in fact difficult), a variety of curricula based on local and institutional conditions seems both certain and desirable. The west need not duplicate New England, nor a small college a state university. Second, to call for "the knowledge and discipline most essential to men and women as human beings living together in a free society" is not to insist on an invariable array of particulars to be taught or some absolute academic machinery. There is no canonical "hundred greatest books" which everyone should know, but an indefinite number of significant good books from which various sound choices might be made. Minnesota gives a course centered on the three major revolutions of modern history: political, industrial, intellectual.9 Columbia gives one organized around the questions: "How have people made a living? How have they lived together? How have they understood the world and their relations to it?" 10 More than one road leads to Rome. Third, the basic general education course is not, or ought not to be, a "survey", in the sense that it attempts to cram together all the important data of history or biology or whatnot. Rather, it offers a limited and digestible series of concrete situations illustrating the nature and method of a broad area of knowledge and pertinent to our problems. Thus, President Conant of Harvard, himself a scientist, urges a course in the evolution of science as a part of cultural history, based on a few carefully studied cases stressing the progress of the past three 9 Based on an unpublished paper by Professor Alburey Castell of the University of Minnesota. 10 A College Program in Action (New York: Columbia University Press, 1946), p. 96. The whole description of the Columbia College general education program is of great interest.