I'EBBUAEY 15, 1907] 



SCIENCE 



243 



exerting undue influence on behalf of their 

 own interests or of the interests of their 

 friends or favored subordinates. I have 

 endeavored to present this argument 

 strongly, and we must admit that there is 

 justice in the objections to the attempt to 

 estimate closely the values of men by dif- 

 ference in salary. 



On the other hand, if we admit that 

 harmony would be promoted to a certain 

 extent by the same pay to men of the same 

 title, we must consider at what cost this 

 harmony must be secured. 



The above argument depends for its 

 validity upon the assumption that the pay 

 is an important element in the ambition 

 and desires of the university teacher. It 

 would be strange if it were not. Uni- 

 formity in pay, if it is to be a satisfactory 

 condition, assumes at least approximate 

 equality of value to the university. It is 

 very evident that no such condition exists 

 in any university faculty. In any faculty 

 there are wide differences in the value of 

 different men to the university, whatever 

 criteria of value may be assumed. It is 

 neither fair nor just to expect men of ex- 

 ceptional value to be satisfied with salaries 

 paid to men of distinctly inferior academic 

 value. There is injustice in not recognizing 

 increasing influence, scholarship and gen- 

 eral usefulness by commensurate increase 

 in salary. Nor should it be necessary to 

 pay men of mediocre value the higher 

 remuneration which is fairly deserved only 

 by the strongest men. 



If it be argued that none but men of 

 approximately the same ability and value 

 should hold the same rank, it can be as- 

 serted that such a condition is practically 

 unrealizable, as may be easily verified by 

 considering any given faculty. It is a 

 matter of greater difficulty for a president 

 and trustees infallibly to select the strong- 

 est men only for professors, than it is 

 to properly appraise their services when 



in the university service. Appointees do 

 not and can not equally fulfill the hopes 

 and expectations under which they were 

 appointed, but once appointed they can 

 not be summarily dismissed to make place 

 for greater men, so long as with a fair 

 degree of scholarship, industry and devo- 

 tion they pursue their career; but there is 

 no justice in paying such men the same 

 as ought to be paid to those who are of 

 distinctly higher value to the university 

 and to scholarship. Furthermore, when a 

 man by reason of merit attains a full pro- 

 fessorship early in life, if he feels that 

 thereafter with moderate attention to duty 

 his salary is assured without hope of in- 

 crease on the basis of value rendered, an 

 important incentive is lost to him for his 

 future progress and development. He is 

 deprived of a stimulus to activity and 

 ambition not without its influence upon 

 common human nature even in academic 

 circles. 



There is also the more utilitarian idea of 

 supply and demand which must be taken 

 into account. No university has unlimited 

 means at its disposal, and the problem of 

 administration is to perform the most effect- 

 ive service for education and the increase 

 of knowledge with the means at its dis- 

 posal. To fulfill its responsibilities to its 

 students and the public, it must secure and 

 hold the most efficient men possible. If 

 the law of supply and demand sets un- 

 usually high the value of the good men in 

 certain lines, or the value of •exceptional 

 men in any line, it then becomes the duty 

 of the university to pay some men salaries 

 which it can not afford to pay to all. 



It may be claimed, on the other hand, 

 that university teachers do not and ought 

 not to enter the career for the commercial 

 value of the position. The world offers 

 other opportunities for those who seek large 

 incomes, and the university teacher who is 

 fitted for the work looks to enlarged oppor- 



