January 1, 1909] 



SCIENCE 



It is so in America as elsewhere, but 

 abroad the dictum of the university is 

 authoritative; with us the term academic 

 is one of contempt. European practise is 

 confidently based on theory, but in 

 America men of affairs habitually use the 

 word theoretical as synonymous with im- 

 practicable, unworkable and not in accord- 

 ance with fact. 



It is necessary, therefore, in considering 

 the place of America in science, to contrast 

 the standing of our educational institu- 

 tions, not pedagogically, but as centers; of 

 research, with those of our neighbors. I 

 attempt no general comparison but offer 

 only a single simple ilhistration drawn 

 from the one branch of science for which I 

 feel competent to speak: Holland has but 

 four universities, with less than four thou- 

 sand students in all. There are in this 

 country at least fifty institutions larger and 

 better equipped on the average than the 

 Dutch universities. If we were on a par 

 with Holland in physics, for example, we 

 should have seventy or more university 

 teachers, who were, at the same time, in- 

 vestigators of the rank of Lorentz, Zeeman, 

 Julius, Ohnes, Haga and Van der Waals. 

 I shall not venture into other sciences, but 

 leave my colleagues to make their own 

 comparisons. 



"We have less than our share of men of 

 science because we have not, as yet, uni- 

 versities that sufBciently foster and en- 

 courage research. When in any of our 

 institutions a man distinguishes himself by 

 productive work he is frequently made a 

 dean, director or even president, and is thus 

 retired from what might have been a great 

 career as an investigator. Thereafter he is 

 compelled to devote himself to adminis- 

 trative duties, which some one not 

 equipped for the important task of adding 

 to the world's stock of knowledge might 

 just as well perform. It is as though the 

 authorities were to say: X has written an 



admirable book; we must appoint him 

 bookkeeper— or Y is developing a decided 

 genius for landscape; we will increase his 

 salary and ask him to devote all his time 

 to painting the woodwork of the university 

 buildings. Nor does the mischief stop 

 with the sacrifice of a few bright spirits. 

 It extends to the bottom. The head of 

 each department is a petty dean, cumbered 

 with administrative detail. He is expected 

 to hold every one under him to account, 

 not for scholarly productiveness, but for 

 the things which chiefly hinder it. 



In this exaltation of administrative 

 ability over creative gifts which are much 

 rarer and more precious, our institutions 

 share the weakness which pervades our in- 

 dustrial establishments where the manager 

 or superintendent usually gets larger pay 

 and is regarded as more important than the 

 most expert craftsman. In both we see 

 the same striving for a certain sort of 

 efSciency and economy of operation and for 

 the attainment of a completely standard- 

 ized product. This tends in both cases to 

 the elimination of individuality and to 

 sterility. In the university it retards in- 

 stead of developing research. In industry 

 it discourages originality. I would that 

 there might be displayed in the administra- 

 tive offices of every institution of higher 

 education this testy remark once made by 

 an eminent scholar: "You can not run a 

 university as you would a saiu-mill!" 



If any one questions the responsibility of 

 the American university for the shortcom- 

 ings of American science and is inclined to, 

 seek some more obscure cause for the condi- 

 tions that I have endeavored to portray, 

 let him consider the history of astronomy 

 in this country. This science for some 

 reason was from the first accorded favors 

 not vouchsafed to any other branch of 

 learning. Colleges that made no pretence 

 of research and had neither laboratories 

 nor libraries worthy of the name were 



