November 8, 1907] 



SCIENCE 



613 



bodies, courts and political parties are not 

 what they "ought to be," but are they to 

 be indiscriminately condemned, and are we 

 to be told that we should be better off with- 

 out them! Aside from an abstract sense 

 in which it may be said that only pure 

 truth and absolute perfection are ad- 

 mirable, and all error, incompleteness and 

 insufSciency is abhorrent, it can not be 

 maintained that the existing machinery 

 employed by men collectively in society 

 serves no good purpose because of its im- 

 perfections. Such a view underlies much 

 anarchistic philosophy, discourages the en- 

 deavor of those who are laboring to better 

 existing conditions, and retards progress. 

 In the discussion of educational problems 

 the inferences and strictures of irrational 

 critics are unproductive of good result, 

 harmful in many ways, and their recom- 

 mendations if carried into effect would 

 work irreparable injury to our educational 

 system. 



In the sphere of education we have been, 

 it seems to me, unduly impressed by mere 

 size and extent of output. Having ob- 

 served the advantages that in the industrial 

 world accrue from combination and the 

 annihilation of competition, and learned 

 that profit depends upon increased output, 

 diminished cost of production and control 

 of the market, it has seemed to some fair to 

 assume that the larger schools should be 

 able to afford better educational facilities, 

 and these at a lower cost, than the smaller 

 ones, and that these therefore ought to be 

 strengthened since they would seem to be 

 destined in time to extinguish their weaker 

 and less favored competitors. We are often 

 told that the small college will have to go, 

 and so convincing appear many of the ar- 

 guments of those who hold this view that 

 it is not surprising that they find ready 

 acceptance among philanthropic million- 

 aires who are seeking for channels into 



which they may turn some of their surplus 

 wealth. But what are in reality the re- 

 sults of this concentration which produces 

 in some cases a kind of monopoly, and what 

 may we expect them to be in the future, 

 are questions well worth raising. This 

 rather startling fact I think is one of them, 

 that our richest and most liberally endowed 

 colleges and universities are the most ex- 

 pensive to the student, and that in propor- 

 tion to their gain in wealth the cost of 

 attendance upon them increases. In other 

 words, large capital, extensive plants and 

 increasing patronage do not seem to reduce 

 the cost of the educational output. This is 

 not in accordance with economic laws as we 

 observe their operation in the industrial 

 world, but the fact is one not difficult 

 to explain. Increased attendance means 

 larger buildings, with more lecture rooms 

 and laboratories, and a larger teaching 

 force, and the cost of providing these may 

 greatly exceed the increased revenue from 

 tuition fees, so that large patronage by no 

 means implies diminished cost of main- 

 tenance per capita, but often the reverse, 

 and for this reason some of our colleges 

 are now seriously considering the advisabil- 

 ity of limiting the size of the entering 

 classes either arbitrarily or by raising their 

 entrance requirements. Nor can it be said 

 that the larger institutions give so much 

 better a return that the greater cost to the 

 student is simply proportional to its real 

 value. This view might be urged with 

 some show of reason, for while it is a simple 

 matter to determine the value of the ma- 

 terial output of a manufacturing concern 

 it is by no means easy to estimate moral 

 and intellectual values. All sorts of argu- 

 ments might be advanced as to better teach- 

 ers because of better salaries, and better 

 teaching because of better equipment. I 

 do not propose to debate the question, but 

 I hardly suppose that any one would claim 



