256 



SCIENCE 



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



charge of favoritism — are already here, and will 

 inevitably attend any attempt to recognize ex- 

 cellence. The way to deal with them is neither 

 to efface distinctions already established, nor to 

 refuse to carry them further as may be needed; 

 but rather ^.o make sure that every such recogni- 

 tion of excellence shall carry with it the con- 

 viction of its essential justice and desert. I see, 

 therefore, no reason wliy the principle of special 

 reward for special service, operative everywhere 

 else, should be made inoperative within the 

 charmed field of a certain academic rank. To 

 make it so suggests at once the methods of the 

 ' union,' and its results — loss of incentive towards 

 excellence because mediocrity will answer just as 

 well! 



And I make no question of recognition of a 

 pecuniary sort. Added pecuniary resource here 

 is not so much pay as it is a necessary condition 

 of further and continued effort; relieving the 

 scholar's mind from carkiug cares, and his body 

 from profitless fatigue, and setting free his energy 

 to do its proper work. Nor should it be neces- 

 sary for a man of proved value and ability to 

 work for a position elsewhere, in order to come 

 into the enjoyment of what he has deserved at 

 home. 



A graded use of salary during the two or three 

 years of one's novitiate in the professorship — if 

 the man has it in him to rise at .all — seems 

 almost the only proper thin^ — and works well in 

 practise. The associate professorship seems not 

 so distinctly to need an augmentation, since it 

 should lead betimes to the next stage. But in 

 the last stage the principle of recognition of ex- 

 ceptional quality, I think, should have large sway. 



26. 



In order to answer your question, two things 

 must first be clear, viz. : ( 1 ) The basis on which 

 salaries are fixed; (2) what is implied by the 

 same title? 



As to the first I may express the fairly obvious 

 belief that salaries should be the pecuniary com- 

 pensation for services rendered. In practise, 

 however, the salary question is frequently com- 

 plicated by the introduction of other matter. In 

 fixing salaries the only condition should be 

 ' value received.' 



Assuming this, if the same title truly indicates 

 equal usefulness among the men who hold it, I 

 believe that equal salary, equal compensation, is 

 both logical and just. But unless men equal in 

 rank are also equal in usefulness, I do not see 

 that equal compensation is justified. 



I may therefore state my opinion regarding 

 your question in these terms: 



1st. Salaries should be compensation for serv- 

 ices rendered; 



2d. They should be fixed only according to serv- 

 ices rendered; 



3d. The salary of an individual should there- 

 fore be determined solely by his usefulness; 



4th. Unequal usefulness of men in the same or 

 in any rank should necessarily imply unequal 

 salary. 



27. 



Equality of salaries would presuppose at least 

 approximate equality in scholarship; but there 

 are very few universities in this country that 

 have reached that stage. In other cases a uni- 

 form salary scale would seriously hamper the ap- 

 pointing power in its efforts to secure good men, 

 especially in universities that are at a disad- 

 vantage in consequence of their geographical loca- 

 tion or for any other reason; unless indeed the 

 salaries be placed at the maximum figure obtain- 

 ing anywhere, and that is obviously imprac- 

 ticable. 



28. 



In general, I think that it is not just to pay 

 the same salary to all bearing the same title. 

 It seems to me that there are at least four reason- 

 able grounds for such discrimination: 



1. Relative success in teaching; 



2. Relative success in research or in otherwise 

 contributing to knowledge; 



3. Various personal qualities not easily defined, 

 but going to make up character and culture, and 

 manifested in the teacher's influence for good on 

 the student; 



4. Length of experience. If the teacher does 

 not grow, he should not remain in the university. 

 If he does develop from year to year in such 

 qualities as those referred to above, it is right 

 that he should receive better pay. 



I most emphatically do not believe in salary 

 discrimination based on a ' commercial ' valuation 

 obtained from the demand for the teacher by 

 other institutions — a condition which already 

 exists to too large an extent. When the laws of 

 supply and demand govern the salaries paid our 

 teachers the infiuence of our universities for good 

 must certainly suffer. We should see such re- 

 sults within the faculties as now exist on the 

 campus — an able teacher of Latin, let us say, of 

 high character and long training, and successful 

 as a teacher, getting perhaps $1,000 or $1,200, 

 while a recent graduate, of doubtful character. 



