Apbil 6, 1906.] 



SCIENCE. 



537 



for other matters of university administra- 

 tion must rest with the trustees, the general 

 policy of development and administration 

 should lie with the president and faculty. 

 As to the relative shares which should be- 

 long to the president and the faculty there 

 were developed decided differences of opin- 

 ion, some, as ex-President Draper, stand- 

 ing for the policy of selecting a wise and 

 strong president and entrusting him with 

 the entire responsibility of the policy and 

 administration, and others, as President 

 Pritchett, favoring a policy of control by 

 the faculty, relegating the president to a 

 position of more limited authority. Cer- 

 tain facts may be considered as fairly es- 

 tablished by the consensus of opinion of ex- 

 perts. 



First. The trustees, usually men of 

 affairs devoting but a limited portion of 

 their time to university administration, are 

 not often and can not often be experts in 

 academic administration. While their 

 education and experience may make them 

 appreciative of the aims of university edu- 

 cation, and may qualify them to administer 

 wisely the financial and legal business of 

 the university, their experience in univer- 

 sity administration does not qualify them 

 to conduct the internal administration nor 

 the educational aims of the university. 



Second. The faculty and the president, 

 if he is, as he always should be, a univer- 

 sity scholar of experience, are the real ex- 

 perts in educational policy and internal 

 administration. They are selected because 

 of their ability as scholars and educators 

 and their whole attention and experience 

 are given to the profession. They know, 

 as no trustees can know, the needs and 

 internal conditions of the university. 



Third. It seems to be quite generally 

 admitted that a strong, wise and experi- 

 enced president with authority centered in 

 his control is the most powerful agent for 



the effective growth and development of 

 the university. 



The problem, then, is how to preserve a 

 proper balance of power between trustees, 

 president and faculty so that all three fac- 

 tors shall most effectively cooperate for the 

 material and intellectual development of 

 the university, how to preserve the energy 

 and initiative of the strong president, to 

 utilize the administrative experience of 

 trustees and the expert knowledge and ex- 

 perience of the faculty. 



There is experience to justify the opinion 

 that when trustees assume to manage the 

 university and to control the policy of 

 president and faculty, disorganization and 

 weakness result. There is experience also 

 to justify the opinion that a faculty uncon- 

 trolled by a strong guiding hand is not an 

 effective governing body and that eventu- 

 ally control is assumed by the trustees or 

 the president selected by them. This is 

 particularly true with respect to such regu- 

 lation of the personnel of the teaching force 

 as is necessary to preserve a proper effect- 

 iveness and proportion in university devel- 

 opment. Among other reasons for this are 

 the fact that there is a divided responsi- 

 bility, and a 'professorial courtesy' which 

 stand in the way of needed reforms, and a 

 dislike to take the initiative in personal 

 discriminations which are sometimes neces- 

 sary. 



The most successful university adminis- 

 trations in this country are those in which a 

 strong president has been legally vested 

 with large powers of administrative con- 

 trol, or, because of his personal force, has 

 been tacitly given and has used such con- 

 trol. Unquestionably government by a 

 strong president who keeps in sympathy 

 with his faculty and consults freely and 

 frequently with its members and who also 

 keeps in sympathy with and has the confi- 

 dence of his trustees, is the most effective 

 government and most economical of the 



