242 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXV. No. 633 



These again are held on an equality pend- 

 ing the opportunity to rise to greater re- 

 sponsibilities and greater remuneration. 

 The second system is a modification of the 

 first, with the added recognition of the fact 

 that, with university men, the expenses of 

 living increase with the years. The third 

 system considers the problem from the 

 standpoint of the efficiency of the univer- 

 sity organism and of the actual value of 

 the professor to his students. In it, the 

 element of competition appears, and the 

 greater pecuniary reward goes with the 

 greater academic service. The first and 

 second systems imply a static organism, a 

 university with its form and scope fixed 

 once for all, and the professors as incum- 

 bents of established positions. The third 

 system is dynamic. It implies the growth 

 of the university organism, and the value 

 of personality as a factor in different 

 phases of growth. 



Taking universities as they are, the in- 

 stitution is not a republic of letters on 

 the one hand, as there are students as 

 well as professors to be considered. On 

 the other hand, it does not find its homo- 

 logue in a great business enterprise. It 

 is not alone what the members of the 

 faculty do, but the ideals they represent, 

 which is important. 



In the practical discussion of the first 

 and second of these systems, we may as- 

 sume that if promotion is impossible or 

 automatic within the grade, the promotion 

 from one title to another is not likewise 

 automatic. In such cases there would be 

 no possibility of any discrimination be- 

 tween men of different value except by 

 the difficult method of dismissal of such 

 as fail to reach the plane of efficiency de- 

 sired in the highest positions. 



One of the most obvious arguments in 

 favor of like remuneration for equal 

 grades is that it relieves the university au- 

 thorities from the difficulty of attempting 



to assign different money values to serv- 

 ices extremely difficult, even impossible, 

 equitably to appraise. No university 

 president and no board of trustees, nor 

 indeed any other body of men, can have 

 the intimate knowledge of the values of 

 the services of men in a university faculty 

 adequate for the establishment of just dis- 

 criminations in salary on the basis of serv- 

 ice rendered. Even if we assume such 

 intimate knowledge, we are at once con- 

 fronted with even greater difficulties of 

 establishing the standards of judgment as 

 to the value of these services. The ele- 

 ments entering into the value of a univer- 

 sity teacher are many; — e. g., originality, 

 scholarly productivity, teaching capacity, 

 industry, energy, personal influence, char- 

 acter, executive capacity. Different, men 

 place the emphasis very differently on the 

 relative value of these different qualities, 

 and agreement as to their relative im- 

 portance is impossible. Such being the 

 case, discriminations in salary between men 

 of approximately equal standing can not 

 be equitably administered. 



When, therefore, it is attempted to 

 establish such discrimination, there results 

 dissatisfaction in the faculty. " Faculty 

 members criticize the discrimination in the 

 light of their own knowledge of the men 

 and their work and according to the em- 

 phasis they place upon their various quali- 

 fications. This engenders jealousies and 

 gives rise to attempts to influence the presi- 

 dent to recognize the claims of individuals, 

 and cliques and factions are created. Stim- 

 ulated by the uncertainties as well as by 

 the possibilities of the shifting basis of 

 salaries, political methods, personal in- 

 fluence, and 'wire-pulling' become preva- 

 lent. Discontent, lack of harmony among 

 the faculty members, and between faculty 

 and president, are the natural conse- 

 quences. The president is charged with 

 favoritism, and professors are accused of 



