Marcu 1, 1901.]° 
PROBLEMS OF STATION ORGANIZATION. 
- Much attention has been given during 
the past year to questions relating to the 
more perfect organization of the stations. 
As the stations develop, the importance of 
a clearer definition of the functions of dif- 
ferent officers in administration and inves- 
tigation becomes more apparent. Condi- 
tions which existed when institutions for 
higher education and research were estab- 
lished in this country have materially 
changed, and the old forms of organization 
are now, in many cases, a serious hindrance 
to their best development. For example, 
the theory on which the laws relating to 
the governing boards of many of the State 
colleges and experiment stations are based 
is that the board is to have the direct con- 
trol and management of the institution. 
For this purpose it is to meet frequently, 
keep the details of the business of the in- 
stitution well in hand, consult freely with 
officers of various grades and pass rules 
and regulations governing every operation. 
This may, perhaps, have been well enough 
when the institutions were in a formative 
period and trained executive officers were 
searce, but to-day this theory is out of date 
and its application to the intricate and 
specialized business of our colleges and 
stations is highly injurious to their best in- 
terests. It works just as badly when ap- 
plied to a college or experiment station as 
it would in the case of a railroad or a bank. 
The fact is that boards of control are most 
useful when their functions are confined to 
a broad, general supervision of the policy, 
finances and work of the institution and 
the choice of its chief officers. For this 
purpose annual or semi-annual meetings 
would ordinarily be sufficient, since the 
number of matters requiring the attention 
of the board should be reduced to a mini- 
mum. The best reason for the continuance 
of such boards is that when composed of 
broad-minded and successful citizens they 
SCIENCE. 
333 
represent the best sentiment of the com- 
munity regarding these institutions, and 
are able to give the public an adequate 
guaranty for the wise and liberal manage- 
ment of the great interests involved in the 
State colleges and universities. Otherwise 
it would probably be best to do away with 
the boards and make the heads of the col- 
leges directly responsible to some State 
officer of high rank. One especially an- 
noying and unjustifiable feature of the 
present system is the maintenance at many 
of the colleges of an officer, commonly - 
designated secretary of the board, who acts 
as a representative of the board in the in- 
tervals between their meetings and exer- 
cises important functions relating to the 
business of the institution independently 
of its president. There is thus divided re- 
sponsibility in the daily administration, 
and in case of friction between the presi- 
dent and faculty or students often a con- 
venient center for discontent and disloyalty 
is ready at hand. All the legitimate func- 
tions of a secretary of the board might 
easily be performed by a registrar or other 
officer attached to the president’s office, 
and thus an important ‘rock of offense’ 
might be removed from the administrative 
systems of these institutions. 
The successful college president is no 
longer preeminently a great scholar, but 
rather a broad-minded and well-trajned 
man of affairs, understanding the require- 
ments of modern educational and scientific 
institutions and able to administer the 
affairs and manage the personnel of such 
institutions. He will look to his governing 
board for advice and counsel on the larger 
matters of general policy, but he ought not 
to have their intervention in the details of 
the business. To his hands should be fully 
committed the administration of the whole 
institution, and his work should be judged 
with reference to its successfulissue. There 
should be no doubt in the mind of any offi- 
