August 9, 1912] 



SCIENCE 



177 



good safeguard. (2) As most of my own 

 preparation was in a German university, I 

 heartily endorse tbis view. It is not a promo- 

 tion when an able and active professor is 

 asked to assume the executive duties of a 

 president. It frequently stifles the man and 

 does not magnify the office. (3) These groups 

 should not have enough autonomy to allow one 

 group to pool its interests against those of 

 another. It can be remedied easily by enlarg- 

 ing the relations you outline in (5). There 

 is danger of lessening the community of in- 

 terests with other departments when one or 

 two groups grow in numbers and importance. 

 Other groups may be forced to the wall. Foot- 

 notes 8 and 9 meet my hearty approval. An 

 instructor should not feel that it is simply a 

 matter of routine to await promotion, but 

 rather that it lies largely with himself whether 

 he advances. 



In general, taking your plan for granted, 

 and without going behind it at any point, I 

 should say: It is too bureaucratic; it substi- 

 tut€s one mode of high organization for 

 another. But I do not believe in organization 

 at all; or rather, given the minimum with 

 which an institution can exist, I should prefer 

 to let the organizations within the institution 

 grow at haphazard. My ideal, still in terms 

 of your plan, would be: (1) A faculty with an 

 annually changing chairman; (2) a board of 

 trustees; (3) an annually changing faculty 

 committee of say ten men, to meet with a 

 similar trustee committee; and (4) paid 

 permanent extra-faculty officials ; registrar, 

 treasurer, secretaries of faculty, whatever 

 they may be called and as many as the size of 

 the university may demand. Everything else 

 in the way of predetermined or foreseen or- 

 ganization — directors, deans, school-units, ap- 

 pointing boards, etc. — I regard as cumber. 

 And, publicity being presupposed, I should 

 let every institution follow its own natural 

 line of development. If I turn now to your 

 proposal in detail, I should have the follow- 

 ing criticisms; I can only state them dog- 

 matically: (1) I think that the state univer- 

 sities are not comparable to the endowed uni- 



versities ; I think it will be a long time before 

 they can possibly be universities ; and I think 

 that they are tending away from that ideal 

 towards the development of vocational and 

 professional schools. Your plan contem- 

 plates the perpetuation of the large universi- 

 ties, i. e., of the present college-university 

 mixture. I believe that college and univer- 

 sity should be personally and spatially sepa- 

 rate. I do not think that one can start with 

 the corporation; and it is not necessary to do 

 so, as we have boards already. I mistrust 

 alumni, in anything like equal numbers with 

 faculty; here, I suppose, everything depends 

 on the age of the university, the character of 

 its student body, etc.; I can only speak from 

 experience. I also mistrust the " community," 

 if that means the immediate surroundings of 

 the university. (2) All right as an intermedi- 

 ate measure; but I believe in annual rotation, 

 and I think it would suffice. (3) These are 

 natural units, and need no organization. To 

 make them formal would have its positive dis- 

 advantages (inbreeding of ideas, cliquism) 

 and would also do injury to the smaller di- 

 visions, which would have to be affiliated to 

 some stronger unit. Psychology, e. g., would 

 have to go to philosophy or education or biol- 

 ogy. If a formal unit is required at all, I 

 prefer a unit in which men of very varied in- 

 terests are bound to meet together in behalf 

 of the university. It would, I think, be a 

 good thing for me to have to dine once a 

 month with an architect, engineer, historian, 

 agriculturalist, biologist, lawyer. These units, 

 if necessary or advisable, might be determined 

 by lot. (4) Far too bureaucratic. Let all 

 business be wholly public, but let representa- 

 tion, appointment, etc., be settled in detail 

 locally by the separate institutions. Do not 

 try to measure " amount of work " ; let the 

 candidate understand the present duties of the 

 chair, and then, if he is elected, give him a 

 free hand. (5) Still too bureaucratic. Let 

 every proposed measure that finds a specified 

 number of seconders be voted on always by 

 the whole faculty by postcard; if a meeting is 

 wanted, let it be demanded of the permanent 

 secretary by a specified proportion of the 



