20 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXVI. No. 914 



their limitations of productivity and would 

 interfere witii progress. If one man is a 

 greater and more important man than another 

 he is worth more to a university than a lesser 

 man, even though both do the same amount of 

 actual university work. I should approve of 

 having a certain percentage of trustees grad- 

 uates of other institutions and, except in the 

 case of state universities, have, say, half of 

 them reside elsewhere than in the town where 

 the university is situated. I would also require 

 that four fifths of the trustees should them- 

 selves be university graduates of some sort. 

 This would still leave some places to be filled 

 by uneducated rich men who know nothing of 

 a university's needs — ^but not a majority. 



I should say that the plan is an excellent 

 one in theory, but whether we shall ever see it 

 tried practically may be a question. Of 

 course universities, like ever3^hing else, are a 

 product of evolution. Such institutions in 

 this country appear to have reached the stage 

 where they call for an autocrat, precisely as it 

 appears necessary to have a boss in city and 

 state government. In process of time we may 

 expect the important universities of the coun- 

 try to outgrow this condition of things, but 

 precisely what will take its place no one can 

 say. It is not necessary or desirable that all 

 should be organized on one plan, and i)erhaps 

 the autocrat may remain a permanent feature 

 of some institutions. 



I should very much like to see one or more 

 of the universities of the country put into 

 practise a plan of control along the lines that 

 you have suggested. There is fortunately a 

 rivalry so keen that the universities which 

 best serve the community are going to be 

 those that will most prosper, and service to 

 the community depends fundamentally upon 

 an organization which will attract and hold 

 the best men to its faculties. I have seen 

 thoroughly bad results under the head-pro- 

 fessorship system and equally unfortunate 

 conditions in departments largely autonomous, 

 where a group of older men of similar sympa- 

 thies are holding back progress with serious 



results. The difficulty is to strike the means 

 by which a department may be left autono- 

 mous as long as its actions are progressive, 

 but may be brought up with a firm hand 

 when it appears that a group of its professors 

 are working for selfish ends or are exhibiting 

 evidences of servile incompetency. I am in- 

 clined to think that the best checks are 

 through criticism freely expressed by deans 

 and other administrative officers and by com- 

 mittees, and freely asked by the president. 

 The university in which is possible such crit- 

 icism and consultation among its adminis- 

 trative officers is most fortunate. 



Excepting in some minor details, and in the 

 matter of the status of the president, I am 

 entirely in agreement with you. Eegarding 

 the president, it seems to me that as condi- 

 tions are changing much from time to time a 

 longer tenure of office than that of the rec- 

 tors of German universities would be desir- 

 able, and I think that for many reasons it is 

 desirable that greater power should be con- 

 centrated in one technically qualified person 

 than your scheme seems to allow. This need 

 not run counter to your idea of a democratic 

 institution, since the power is, after all, dele- 

 gated from the faculty to the person selected 

 by them for the position of president. An as- 

 surance of considerable tenure of office and a 

 somewhat distinctly higher position, both in 

 salary and in dignity of position, should, I 

 think, be given the person known as president. 



I believe the reform in university adminis- 

 tration which you propose to be a very desir- 

 able step in advance. Perhaps I may be per- 

 mitted to suggest an amplification in one or 

 two points: (1) The meeting of the corpora- 

 tion for the election of trustees should not be 

 under the chairmanship or influence of any 

 of the trustees. Not uncommonly the meet- 

 ing of a larger body when presided over by a 

 member of the smaller directing body is 

 merely a nominal affair, approving the propo- 

 sition agreed upon beforehand by the members 

 of the smaller body. The larger body usually 

 does not take the initiative in any matter of 



