248 



SCIENCE 



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



the dangers of favoritism, wire pulling and the 

 whole set of evils that are commonly described 

 as political; On the other hand, such a system 

 makes it impossible to adjust the external re- 

 wards of service to differences of experience, 

 capacity and life-needs among those to whom the 

 schedule of salaries applies. It may be taken for 

 granted that there will be an upper limit of 

 salary which will be low enough to prevent the 

 position of instructor from becoming an object 

 of covetous competition, and there will be also a 

 lower limit which is not too low to enable a 

 self-respecting man to live respectably. I can 

 well understand that even within these limits 

 there is danger to the scientific and spiritual in- 

 terests of a university in a sliding scale which 

 may seem to emphasize purely what may be called 

 the market value of a man; but it should be 

 remembered, on the other side, that a thousand 

 differences of personal and family need, of general 

 make-up and disposition, not seriously affecting a 

 man's scholastic efficiency, and other differences 

 too numerous to mention, are present and must 

 be considered and ought to be considered when a 

 man in a given institution is offered a higher 

 salary in another institution, or in some other 

 occupation for which his talents may fit him. 

 Without entering into any unseemly competition 

 on purely financial grounds, an institution may 

 consider, and I think ought to consider, such 

 differences, in adjusting the salaries of instruct- 

 ors within such limits as are suggested above. 



There is not much danger that an instructor 

 will work for money chiefly, or will get rich even 

 if he does, but even in a university a man who 

 renders services of extraordinary value should 

 have a fair opportunity of receiving a larger in- 

 come than another instructor of the same scho- 

 lastic grade whose services are notably inferior 

 to his. The difference in salary will not pay for 

 the difference in service and can not be made to 

 pay for it; but it may render the more useful 

 man a little more free to make the most of his 

 useful life by travel, by acquisition of the means 

 of culture and research, and by the various other 

 ways which are within the purchasing power of 

 money; and it may render him better able to help 

 his family and friends and those who have a 

 right to look to him for help. 



9. 



1. I do not think that ' the same salary should 

 be paid to men bearing the same title.' But this 

 under the following provisos: 



2. There should be a minimum salary for each 



rank, no less than which each appointee should 

 receive upon his advancement to the rank. 



3. There should also be a maximum salary 

 for each rank, attainable by those members of 

 the rank whose abilities and performance show ■ 

 that they deserve it. 



4. Promotions within each rank should be upon 

 proved merit, judged in the light of the quality of 

 departmental work, and without reference to 

 ' university politics,' or ' work ' in the manipula- 

 tion of committees — in short, the study or the 

 courting of ' influence,' whether with authorities 

 or with students. The rate, or rapidity, of pro- 

 motion should correspond to the proved value of 

 research and teaching service. 



5. Advances in salary, as in rank, should be 

 made in sole conformity with the advice of the 

 president, and this advice should result from con- 

 sultation with the department-head under whom 

 the candidate serves, and should, unless there is 

 clear adverse reason, follow the head's advice. 



10. 



My feeling is decidedly in favor of equal 

 salaries, as tending to greater unanimity of feel- 

 ing among professors, and so to greater loyalty 

 to the university. Equal salaries seem to elimi- 

 nate, so far as possible, the whole element of 

 favor — the personal equation — and this sets every 

 one free to do his best, according to his light, for 

 the university. Equality, too, removes the possi- 

 bility of bargaining, of jewing up or jewing down a 

 salary, according to the exigencies of the moment. 

 This policy, too, seems to me to be, in the long 

 run, the more dignified for the university. A 

 man comes to it, not because he is bought at a 

 high price, but because the university as a whole 

 suits him. He takes his place in the equal 

 brotherhood of professors, feeling that his for- 

 tunes are bound up with theirs, and so with the 

 fortunes of the whole imiversity. * * * 



Of course equality of salaries will occasionally 

 prevent a university from securing an able man 

 who might have been secured by ' subsidizing ' 

 him — and it will result in some men being paid 

 more, and' some lessj than the market will 

 bear. * * * 



Of course this preference for equality does not 

 preclude an advance for years of service, so long 

 as the advance, as at Harvard, is automatic, so 

 to speak, and not a thing to be bargained for, 

 or begged for. (I have heard of one interior 

 university where advance of salary must even be 

 ' toadied ' for. ) * * * 



And yet in the long run I am convinced that 



