L.—EDUCATIONAL SCIENCE 211 
partly dictated by snobbery, and partly by the feeling that the market 
value of a man is increased if he is known to have been educated at a 
public school. Snobbery doubtless has some influence, but surely very 
little ; and if the market value of a public school boy is on the average 
higher than that of boys educated at grant-aided secondary schools, 
it is not merely because of the reputation of his school, but because he 
learnt something there that he could not get elsewhere. The obvious 
answer of the public schools to all general criticism is that it is not com- 
pulsory for anyone to send their boys to them. So long as they perform 
a useful function they will continue to exist and to be solvent ; when they 
cease to provide a better all-round education than other schools they will 
die a natural death. 
There was a time when some universities were in the same happy posi- 
tion as the public schools. As self-supporting institutions they could go 
their own autocratic way, impervious to outside criticism. They took 
special measures to encourage the influx of students of outstanding 
ability ; and as for the rest, the chief conditions of entry to a college were 
that they should be capable of paying highly for the privilege, and of 
passing a very elementary examination—often waived for men of noble 
birth or athletic renown. ‘Those were the days when a headmaster is 
reported to have advised parents to send their sons to Oxford or Cam- 
bridge on the grounds that they would there make a number of very 
desirable acquaintances, and be kept out of mischief during a dangerous 
period of their lives. 
The chief advantage of this complete independence was that it en- 
couraged individuality in teachers and students ; the chief disadvantage 
of the many reforms that have taken place since then, resulting finally in 
financial dependence, is that they tend to discourage individuality. Is any 
university school of physics or chemistry, for instance, noticeably different 
from any other? In London we do our best to encourage individuality 
by having different final examinations for certain degrees in different 
colleges ; at the Imperial College the B.Sc. degree of London is awarded on 
the results of college examinations in which outside examiners take part. 
The advantage of this is that it is not necessary to bring our syllabuses 
and methods of teaching exactly into line with those of other London 
colleges. There is, however, a strong but fortunately not a majority 
body of opinion in the university in favour of common examinations, 
chiefly on the grounds that they are easier and cheaper to organise. [hope 
it will be long before our measure of independence disappears. I would 
go so far as to say that individuality, which should be a natural growth 
in universities, needs to be deliberately encouraged in these days of 
committee rule. Any step taken to discourage it is a step downwards. 
Oxford and Cambridge still have considerable freedom of action, partly 
because of their old traditions, but mainly, I think, because of the financial 
independence of the colleges. I do not know how far the ancient univer- 
sities of Scotland preserve their own complete independence, but, in spite 
of apparent autonomy, the newer universities of England have not quite 
the same measure of freedom as Oxford and Cambridge. Their income 
can normally only just cover their expenditure, for if the margin were 
