286 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXI. No. 791 



For the sake of clearness and in order 

 to lielp our discussion of the rules, it is best 

 to consider these replies in two groups: 

 first, the replies of those who retired after 

 reaching the age of sixty-five under Rule 

 1; second, the replies of those who retired 

 below the age of sixty-five under Rule 2. 



Some one hundred and sixty-five letters 

 were received from professors who had re- 

 tired at sixty-five or over. These men can 

 be divided as to age into two groups ap- 

 proximately equal in number, the one 

 group retiring at ages between sixty-five 

 and seventy, and the other retiring above 

 seventy. The size of this second group is, 

 however, probably disproportionately high 

 because previous to the establishment of 

 the foundation many teachers continued 

 in service longer than they would under 

 present conditions. 



Of the whole number retiring on reach- 

 ing sixty-five or later, twenty-seven, or 

 nearly one sixth, state that their retirement 

 was distasteful to them. They were, in 

 their judgment, in full vigor of mind and 

 body, but either on account of some statu- 

 tory provision of their college, or by reason 

 of the advice or wish of the college admin- 

 istration, they felt their retirement to be 

 necessary. 



In addition to the twenty-seven men who 

 state frankly that they - retired against 

 their own wishes and judgment, there is a 

 considerable group who indicate that they 

 were induced to ask for a retiring allow- 

 ance through a foreboding on the subject 

 of age. They retired not on account of 

 pressure from the administration or on ac- 

 count of a statutory provision, but because 

 they wished to anticipate the formal sug- 

 gestion of such action. 



Various personal considerations were 

 given for retirement of a sort which do not 

 permit classification. For example, a few 

 professors in small colleges felt the burden 



of too much elementary teaching and the 

 hopelessness of relief in view of the pov- 

 erty of their colleges. Under such cir- 

 cumstances, they preferred to retire alto- 

 gether from teaching. A small group 

 retired out of dissatisfaction with the atti- 

 tude of their colleges toward their subject ; 

 one teacher thought that a wise husbandry 

 of the college's resources demanded the 

 abolition of his department. Recent revo- 

 lutionary changes in science caused five 

 men between sixty-five and seventy-five to 

 conclude that younger men were more 

 capable of adapting class-room methods to 

 the new discoveries. Two frankly stated 

 that their scholarship seemed to them to 

 belong to an older generation, and it was 

 too late to begin the mastery of new 

 methods. 



The largest group— fifty-two in all, 

 nearly one third of those retiring on the 

 ground of age — wrote in a serene and 

 cheerful spirit. In the main the tenor of 

 their letters was to the effect that they had 

 discharged their duties to their profession, 

 and with growing bodily infirmities they 

 were glad to retire from active duties as 

 teachers to some long-deferred study or 

 research. These men wrote with grateful 

 hearts concerning the opportunities for 

 work which their profession had given 

 them, and with equal gratitude for the 

 provision which enabled them to look for- 

 Avard to a quiet and useful old age. If any 

 man is discouraged over the outlook of the 

 American scholar, he will get new faith by 

 reading the letters of these veterans, some 

 of whom had filled professors' chairs for 

 sixty years. 



From teachers who had retired under 

 the provision of Rule 2 and who, on retire- 

 ment, were below the age of sixty-five, 

 forty-two letters were received. Of these 

 only twelve had retired on the ground of 



