858 
a board or committee composed, say, of two 
members of the department, two members 
of allied departments and two distin- 
guished representatives of the subject out- 
side the university concerned. Such con- 
trol would prevent undesirable inbreeding 
or the further deterioration of a weak de- 
partment. Nominations should be made 
publicly—the English plan of definite can- 
didates with printed records has much to 
commend it—and the power of veto should 
perhaps be given to the faculties as well as 
to the trustees. 
The apportionment of the existing in- 
come of a department varies but little from 
year to year, and can safely be left to the 
department. Questions arise only when 
an increase which the department can not 
itself obtain is wanted, and there are gen- 
eral funds available, but not sufficient to 
supply all the needs of the university. 
Under the existing system each head of 
department grabs for everything in sight, 
and the president plays the part of an in- 
scrutable and sometimes unscrupulous 
providence in the semi-secret distribution 
of his favors. No scheme could be more 
demoralizing. The correct plan is for each 
department to draw up its budget, with 
requests for increases and the reasons 
clearly indicated, the proposed budgets 
being printed and open to all concerned. 
Under these conditions unreasonable claims 
would not often be made by the depart- 
ments. Plans for new departments and 
new lines of work could also be submitted 
by any responsible group. An elected com- 
mittee of professors, with the assistance of 
an expert curator or controller, would then 
pass on the various budgets and proposals 
and adjust them to the available income, 
the reductions made by the committee be- 
ing of course published. The budget for 
the university would then go to the trus- 
tees. It may be objected that under this 
SCIENCE 
[N.S. Vou. XXXV. No. 909 
plan existing work would be strengthened 
rather than new ground broken. But 
might not this be better than the existing 
presidential mania for expansion? It 
seems in fact probable that if many pro- 
fessors and junior instructors were con- 
cerned, there would be more new ideas than 
when the initiative is left to a single man, 
and further that wise plans would be more 
likely to be adopted and inexpedient 
schemes to be rejected. 
When schools and departments have 
autonomy, there is no need for much super- 
legislation and super-administration in the 
university. The machinery should be as 
simple as may be. Departments may be 
united into a school or college and elect a 
dean and a faculty or an executive commit- 
tee to coordinate the work. A department 
can elect members to represent it in allied 
departments and on the faculties of the 
schools and colleges with whose work it is 
concerned. There should be an elected 
council or senate to represent the entire 
university and an executive committee 
which can confer with the executive com- 
mittee of the trustees. There may at times 
to advantage be faculty meetings or plebi- 
scites of large groups or of all the officers 
of the university. Questions concerning 
the entire university can be discussed to 
advantage by the fly-leaf method of the 
English universities, and a vote can be 
taken without a general assembly at a poll- 
ing booth or by mail. 
There are advantages and disadvantages 
in large faculty meetings. When all im- 
portant matters are decided by administra- 
tive officers or executive committees and 
only trivial questions are discussed before 
the faculty, usually by certain polyphasiac 
members, its meetings are likely to fall into 
disrepute. Men are efficient in direct pro- 
portion to their responsibility. Further, a 
body of men is effective inversely as its 
