These ' ' gnios' ' , that they had become alone, in the truth they had needed to pass for a long effort for, as self-taught, to learn everything alone. This knowledge could, simply, be apprehended in simpler and systematic way in a school. Instead of if having a genius, forty could be had. The affirmation of that the journalism is learned in the practical one also easily is struck by Pulitzer: ' ' Nobody in a writing has time or vocation to teach to a raw reporter the things that would have to know before carrying through the simplest work jornalstico' '. It is an undeniable truth. In the current society, that fights against the time and glorifies the imediatismo of the publication of the notice, more undeniable still.
Another objection presented for the critics to the implantation of the school, is of that the character, as the professional instinct, cannot be acquired, therefore is something with which already it is born. Pulitzer doubted this. After all, everything what we are is product of a process in stages, resulted of an allied education to the professional experiences and the context where we live. The journalism school can help to fortify this character, showing to it what it is certain, and what is not. Pulitzer defended despite the education of substances as history, literature, ethics, right, modern languages, and rudimentos of sociology, physical statistics, sciences and economy; it was essential so that the journalist had a good base to be able to write. At the same time, it fought the introduction of one fierce disciplines of commercial administration of a periodical, reason for which argued with the director of the University of Harvard, giving up to implant the school of journalism in the related institution, opting to Columbia. The reason of the protests of Pulitzer to this respect is simple.