SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC THEORY
33
Cambridge, or with administration and commerce in
London, and I agree that Oxford is the fittest home for
that study. But do we not seem inclined to treat it
like a closed philosophical system with Adam Smith as
Aristotle, and Ricardo as Plato ? An outsider might
gain the impression from the curriculum, with the most
recent of the set books mentioned therein a work nearly
sixty years old, and the latest date actually mentioned
that given in the heading, ‘Labour movements from 1815
to 18957, that it is not respectable to bring economics
down to the problems of to-day. Doubtless that im-
pression is erroneous, in practice, but it is abundantly
clear that the desirability of some training in published
statistical data and in technique is not recognized. If
this means that we in Oxford desire to take no part in
advancing economic science, and are content with giving
a liberal education in past history or modes of thought,
it will suffice. But let that be frankly recognized. If,
however, we desire to teach a living subject, and to make
economists with the practical touch, and not mere histo-
rians of economic thought, if, indeed, we are to be really
fair to the vast mental energies whose direction is
entrusted to us, it will be necessary to give some thought
to the new era of economic effort ahead of us.
Not much is needed in fact to give point to the present
effort. A full chair in Statistics is not necessary, and
if every student is required to take a course in elemen-
tary statistical methods, including correlation—without
any necessary mastery of the mathematical principles
underlying them—the case will be sufficiently met,
though of course it is desirable to have available facilities
for some more advanced work if possible. The truth is
that, without some such equipment, no student will
really be an © economist ’ in the sense which that term
will soon come to bear.
Chaucer, for the twentieth century, will stand :
‘ In everything, I wot, ther lyeth mesure.’
(Troilus, ii. 715.)
