Mat 22, 1908] 



SCIENCE 



823 



discussed theory of distribution. What, it 

 is often asked, is the important change de- 

 manded by social progress ? One answer is : 

 a fairer distribution of wealth and more in- 

 come to individuals. The other answer is : im- 

 prove the conditions under which men live so 

 that each generation starts on a sounder basis 

 with better health and fairer conditions for 

 work. Those who hold the first view talk of 

 economic equivalents and contend that gains 

 in any quarter are followed by losses in others, 

 so that modified social conditions give no net 

 gain to the worker except as they increase his 

 income. If I should say to a man holding 

 this view that the introduction of a new food 

 or better sanitation would improve the condi- 

 tion of workmen, he would reply that the 

 cheaper food would be followed by a rise in 

 rent or by lower wages, so that no net eco- 

 nomic advantage would remain. I might 

 grant this and yet contend that the main 

 benefit of the change was not the added in- 

 come but the better health that workmen 

 would enjoy under the new conditions. If 

 trolley lines opened up a new residential sec- 

 tion it would also be contended that the cost 

 of transportation to this district and the rise 

 of land values in it would make the expenses 

 quite as high as if the workmen remained in 

 their old houses. Even if this be true it is 

 not a matter of indifference to the workman 

 and his family whether they live in a subur- 

 ban cottage or in a few back rooms in a 

 crowded tenement district. The conditions 

 under which people live, their health and their 

 vitality, are of far more importance than their 

 income. 



Let me illustrate this principle by an ap- 

 plication to the university of which I am a 

 member. During recent years salaries have 

 risen from 15 to 20 per cent., but the cost of 

 living has risen much more rapidly, say from 

 20 to 40 per cent. I do not think it an over- 

 statement to say that the salary of a pro- 

 fessor twenty years ago would purchase in 

 goods and services $500 more than it will now. 

 Measured in economic equivalents here is a 

 distinct loss that should be the cause of de- 

 terioration. In fact, however, the very oppo- 

 site has taken place in so marked a degree 



that it creates a veritable revolution. This 

 change is plainly due to the better conditions 

 under which teachers work. Twenty years 

 ago Pennsylvania had practically no environ- 

 ment, the instruction was drawn from 

 teachers' heads, there was little effective in- 

 tercourse, no stimulus that called forth the 

 best efforts of teachers, and no objective tests 

 by which the progress and failures of stu- 

 dents could be measured. Now we have a 

 modem plant with laboratories, libraries, mu- 

 seums, dormitories, pleasant lecture rooms and 

 other modern conveniences. It is this en- 

 vironment that has counteracted the depress- 

 ing effects of low salaries and has given a 

 tone to both teacher and pupil which no mere 

 increase of salaries could have effected. 



Suppose, for example, a university with 

 fifty teachers should offer either to pay $10,- 



000 a year for typewriters and similar helps, 

 or to raise the salary of each teacher by $200. 



1 doubt if there is a teaching body in the 

 country that would not take the increase of 

 salary, spend the money as they or their wives 

 pleased, and go on with old methods of teaching, 

 writing letters and keeping records. And yet 

 I doubt if there is a single well-informed pro- 

 fessor who would not admit that this use of 

 the money would be far less effective in rais- 

 ing university standards than would the 

 environing changes that a staff of typewriters 

 brings about. The difficulty with the most of 

 us is that we will not pay out our own money 

 to get better environing conditions or to free 

 ourselves from routine self-degrading work. 

 But when these conditions are given, the best 

 of us respond to the invigorating stimulus of 

 a good environment and do work of a kind 

 and character that lifts the tone of the uni- 

 versity and its scholarship to new levels. 

 Standards are thus set and comparisons made 

 which force the less vigorous and more in- 

 different into new forms of activity. Soon 

 the whole university feels the throb of a new 

 life, better traditions are formed, the student 

 body catches the new enthusiasm and goes out 

 with better preparation, more efficiency and a 

 greater love of work. All these are due to 

 changes in the environment of teachers and 

 not to the increase of salaries. Income is a 



