THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE 



475 



THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE 



THE CARNEGIE FOUNDATION FOR 

 THE ADVANCEMENT OF TEACH- 

 ING AND THE STATE 

 UNIVERSITIES 



Science and higher education in 

 this country have been placed under 

 further obligation to Mr. Andrew Car- 

 negie for his generous intentions in 

 adding $7,000,000 to the endowments 

 of the two institutions that bear his 

 name. The Carnegie Institution of 

 Washington has been given $2,000,000 

 without special conditions, and the 

 Carnegie Foundation for the Advance- 

 ment of Teaching has been given 

 $5,000,000 in order that its system of 

 retiring allowances may be extended 

 to state universities. 



If the cost of steel had not been 

 excessive through the tariff and the 

 cost of kerosene had not been exces- 

 sive through monopoly, every state in 

 the union could have afforded to endow 

 institutions for scientific research 

 equaling the Carnegie Institution of 

 Washington, and universities equaling 

 the University of Chicago. But they 

 would not have done so; nor would the 

 gains of the people have been saved 

 and combined to carry forward the 

 construction of railways and other en- 

 terprises which the capitalistic system 

 has accomplished. It is one of the 

 anomalies of our complicated civiliza- 

 tion that the tariff and the trusts, 

 apparently for the benefit of capital- 

 ism, are long steps in the direction of 

 state socialism, whereas the universi- 

 ties supported by the states are the 

 nurseries of democratic individualism. 



These remarks are suggested by the 

 paternalistic and centralistic character 

 of the pension system now extended 

 to the state universities. Whether this 

 extension is a benefit or an injury to 

 these institutions is a question not at 

 all easy to answer. It was urged by 



a committee of the presidents forming 

 the National Association of State Uni- 

 versities, whose chief argument was 

 that it is unlikely that the states will 

 provide pensions for professors, as this 

 might raise the question of pensions 

 for all public officers, and that the 

 state universities would thus be at a 

 great disadvantage as compared witli 

 private institutions. President Prit- 

 chett of the foundation, in his report 

 on the subject printed last year, ar- 

 gued that the desirability of the pen- 

 sion system and its adoption by the 

 private institution would force the 

 states to provide it for their univer- 

 sities. 



But the desirability of a uniform and 

 universal pension scheme for professors 

 is at least open to question. If one 

 university pays a salary of $3,000, and 

 another pays $2,500 and provides an 

 annuity the annual cost of which is 

 $500, the charge to the institution and 

 to society is the same. In which is the 

 position of the professor preferable? 

 Those who insure themselves for the 

 benefit of wife and children are better 

 citizens than those who stint their 

 families in order to buy annuities for 

 their own old age; but it seems that 

 college professors are to be compelled 

 to join the latter class. They must 

 sacrifice a certain amount of freedom 

 in accepting annuities in place of sal- 

 ary and are put into a caste that they 

 can not leave without serious money 

 loss. 



On the other hand, it may be argued 

 that the scholar should be relieved 

 from all financial responsibility, in 

 order that he may be free to do his 

 work. It is also claimed that it is an 

 advantage for an institution to be able 

 to replace its older professors with 

 younger men. The introduction of the 

 system is of financial advantage to 



