456 ILLINOIS STATE ACADEMY OF SCIENCE 



the indicated change is the difficulty in presenting a list 

 of subjects sufficiently inclusive to represent the varied 

 curricula of secondary schools. This disadvantage is 

 discussed at greater length in a different connection. 



While efforts are being made to remove suggestiveness 

 from terminology, and so to present lists, questions, etc., 

 as to require more analytic thinking, it still remains that 

 the rater finds complex and over-suggestive situations 

 before him. Frequently there is little aid given by way 

 of explaining the blank form, or in trying to have the 

 subject in a proper frame of mind before self -rating is 

 attempted. This criticism is not made with the feeling 

 that lists of terms referred to are wholly bad. We can- 

 not accept even the best self-analysis schemes without 

 approving such lists. Efforts should be directed, how- 

 ever, to a further simplification, and amplification, of 

 form. 



The vague and general nature of descriptive terms and 

 qualities used presents a further disadvantage, or limi- 

 tation, of the usual self-analysis device. This vagueness 

 and generality seem to result from two sources. Em- 

 phasis on the idea of formal discipline seems to be the 

 basic explanation. As applied to the attempted analy- 

 sis of character these general terms were enhanced by en- 

 thusiasm for various phrenological and physiognomical 

 schemes in evidence in the early history of the rating 

 movement. Certain terms in general usage are so gen- 

 eral that they are meaningless. Objection to the use of 

 other common terms is not in their generality, but in the 

 evident lack of agreement as to meaning. The follow- 

 ing lists of character qualities, taken from self-analysis 

 blanks of the usual type, may be taken as sufficiently 

 representative. The lists quoted from the Rugg Scale 

 and from the New York Department of Labor Bulletin 

 represent more recent efforts toward simplification, and 

 toward more concrete terminology : 



From Scale used in U. S. Army for rating officers and 

 candidates for officers' training camps. 



1. Aggressiveness 



2. Appearance 



3. Competitiveness 



