NATURE 



[May 9, 1907 



enumerated. The scheme outlined on that occasion 

 was of a more ambitious character than the present, 

 and involved an expenditure of more than half a million 

 pounds; and for its effective execution an annual in- 

 come of about 93,ooo(. was demanded, it seems 

 clear, therefore, that in order to establish the Univer- 

 sity of O.xford on a scale commensurate with 

 modern requirements — supplementing its existing 

 departments and providing accommodation and equip- 

 ment for the study of branches of knowledge of 

 recent development — there must be found, in addition 

 to a very substantial increase in the capital outlay, a 

 further 50,000/. a year by way of income. 



If it is supposed that the response made by our 

 men of wealth particularly interested in Oxford will 

 bp on something like the same scale as that with 

 which the appeal of the Cambridge University .Asso- 

 ciation was met, it is not difficult to form a good 

 working idea of the length of time which will be 

 required to provide, from this source, sums of money 

 enough to make it possible to place Oxford Univer- 

 sity in a position to invite comparison with the great 

 universities of other countries. 



The fact is, if vvc are to rely entirely upon private 

 generosity to secure for this country the advantages 

 of an adequate number of universities, planned, 

 equipped, and financed on a scale liberal enough to 

 meet modern needs, our chances of obtaining a 

 supply of places of higher education comparable with 

 that in Germany and the United States are small in- 

 deed. The vital importance of higher education in the 

 international competition for iniperial and industrial 

 supremacy is conceded by all competent judges; and 

 yet our statesmen hesitate to decide that what is so 

 much worth having is worth paying for. In this 

 country we cannot depend upon private effort to put 

 matters right. 

 _ In his presidential address to the British Asso- 

 ciation in 1903, Sir Norman Lockver reminded us 

 that our universities and other institutions of higher 

 Instruction are as much a line of national defence as 

 our .Army and our Navy. The national responsibility, 

 so far as the efficiency both of Navv and .Army 'is 

 •concerned, is fully recognised by all political parties, 

 and there is little difficulty in meeting the enormous 

 financial demands which such efficiency in the ser- 

 vices entails._ As Sir Norman Lockyer pointed out, 

 other countries are building universities even faster 

 thanthey are building battleships; are, in fact, "con- 

 sidering brain-power first and sea-power afterwards." 

 It is a saddening reflection how long it takes British 

 statesmen to appreciate facts which have long been 

 fully grasped by other nations. To leave to private 

 enterprise the provision of necessary funds for the en- 

 dowment of universities and research is as foolish as it 

 would be in these days to relegate to private 

 patriotism the duty of "finding the money for the 

 equipment of a modern armv and an up-to-date 

 navy. 



\yhat is the view of these matters taken in the 

 United States? A recent publication' gives illumin- 

 ating particulars as to the relative amounts provided 

 in the United States for certain State universities, by 

 the State on one hand and by private benefactions on 

 the other. It is well to state here parentheticallv that 

 the bulletin deals only with State universities ; there 

 are, in addition, manv other .American universities — 

 including Harvard, Yale, and others, the names of 

 which are household words — which are not dealt with 

 by the writer of the report. But the statistics provided 

 supplv amnle information as to the share taken bv 

 the State in the encouragement of higher education 

 in the United States. Details are available concern- 



1 "Bulletin of the Carnesie Founrtalion for the Advancement of Te.ich. 

 ing." No. I. (Published by the Foundation, March, 1907.) 



NO. 1958, VOL. 76] 



ing forty State universities, but it will be sufficient 

 for the purposes of comparison to refer to a quarter 

 of them only. The amounts stated are approximate 

 in everv case. The University of South Carolina 

 has received from Government support a total ol 

 511,000/. and nothing from private sources. The 

 Lniversity of Indiana has received from the former 

 source 500,000/. and from the latter 20,000!. Cor- 

 responding numbers in the case of the other universi- 

 ties selected are : — University of Michigan, 1,281,000/. 

 and 164,000/. respectively; University of Iowa, 

 705,000/. and 11,000/.; University of Wisconsin, 

 i,j2i,ooo/. and 18,000/; University of Illinois, 

 1,290,000/. and 5000/. ; University of Minnesota, 

 1,072,000/. and 40,000/.; University of Nebrasi<a, 

 761,000/. and 14,000/. ; University of Columbus (Ohio 

 State), 976,000/. and 56,000/. ; University of Texas, 

 758,000/. and 30,000/. respectively. 



.Speaking generally, the reliance placed upon private 

 benefactions for the provision of university education 

 in the United States is small compared with what 

 the Government is expected to do. Moreover, during 

 the last decade there has been a steady increase in 

 the amount received from the Government by 

 .American Stale Universities. The Western Univer- 

 sities in the United States may be taken as an 

 example. The total annual amount received from 

 Government sources by these ten .State universities 

 during the last decade shows a substantial increase 

 of about 600,000/. The annual amount thus received 

 by the University of Michigan has increa.sed from 

 45,000/. to 87,700!. ; that by the University of Mis- 

 souri from 25,500/. to 73,000/. ; by the University of 

 Iowa, from 20,300/. to 85,900/. ; by the University of 

 Wisconsin from 62,600/. to 159,300/. ; by the Univer- 

 sity of Kansas from 21,000/. to 60,400/.; by the Uni- 

 versity of California from 63,400/. to 135,600/. ; by 

 the University of Illinois from 28,900/. to 165,000!. ; 

 by the University of Minnesota from 40,000!. to 

 69,000/. ; by the University of Nebraska from 14,000/. 

 to 71,000!.; and by the University of Colorado from 

 17,300/. to 28,000!. 



The semi-official bulletin from which the figures 

 quoted have been taken leaves no doubt as to the 

 results of .American experience. To quote a remark 

 which follows the figures we have cited, " the State 

 University which has attempted to combine the 

 policy of public service with the policy of appeals for 

 private support has fallen between the two." 

 Speaking of the eight institutions which represent 

 the strong State universities of the Central West 

 States, the bulletin remarks : these institutions 

 '■ have received somewhat less than five per cent, of 

 their total support since their foundatioii from private 

 sources, and this support has come in the main to a 

 few institutions." 



University authorities in the United States may 

 well smile when they read the opinion of the Chan- 

 cellor and the Vice-Chancellor of the University of 

 Oxford : — " In this country it is of no avail to look 

 to the State " for the satisfaction of University re- 

 quirements. 



The same principle is conceded generously in 

 Germany. .An article, published in Naturf on March 

 12, 1903 (vol. Ixvii., p. 433), showed that the ordinarv 

 total income of all the German universities, exclud- 

 ing Jena, was for the year 1891-2 about 939,000/., of 

 which nearly 709,000/. was derived from State funds. 



Surely the lesson of these facts is plain to the 

 least reflective citizen. The future struggles for 

 suprcmacv among the nations of the world will be 

 contests between minds, and muscles will be at a 

 discount. The nations which have sacrificed present 

 luxury in order suitably to train their voung men 

 by attendance at modern universities will reap the 



