But when, as a result of his school and University training, a scholar has passed the linguistic portals and found pleasure in the worlds beyond, we may say of him that his education has fostered the growth of one of his expansive instincts,--perhaps the most important of all, but still only one.

When Science is effectively taught, the growth of the _inquisitive_ instinct is similarly fostered; but the inquisitive instinct, though of great value, when trained in conjunction with other instincts, has but little value as a "formative" when trained by itself.

From this point of view it compares unfavourably with the communicative instinct, being as much less formative than the latter, as the mysteries of the material world are less significant and less able to inspire and vitalise their interpreter than the mysteries of human life; and a purely (or mainly) scientific training is therefore worth far less as an instrument of education than a purely (or mainly) humanistic training.
But why should the boys at our Great Public Schools and the young men at our Universities have to choose between a scientific and a humanistic training?
Why should these ancient and famous institutions be content to train one only of the six expansive instincts instead of at least _two_?
Here, as elsewhere, the scholarship system blocks the way.

Some scholarships are given for Classics, others for History, others for Mathematics, others for Natural Science.

Not a single scholarship is given, at either University, for general capacity, as measured by the results of a many-sided examination.
Why should this be?
The answer is that under any system of formal examination many-sidedness in education necessarily means _smattering_; and that against smattering the Universities have, very properly, set their faces.