November 18, 1910] 



SCIENCE 



703 



fore, to fui-nish evidence of considerable 

 value on various obscure problems of col- 

 lege administration. If a man's success in 

 life is in any marked degree correlated 

 with the subjects studied in college, or the 

 grades attained in college, or the extent of 

 distribution or specialization of his courses, 

 then scientific studies of the programs of 

 successful men contrasted with the pro- 

 grams of men taken at random will reveal 

 such correlations. The results of such 

 studies would enable ils to say at least this 

 much: that successful men do or do not 

 elect more courses in classics, chemistry, 

 etc. ; that they do or do not attain higher 

 standing in scholarship ; that they do or do 

 not scatter or concentrate more than col- 

 lege students as a whole. 



The initial difficulty in any such study 

 is the definition of "success." The mode 

 of selecting men for distinction will seri- 

 ously affect any conclusions that may be 

 deduced. And, obviovisly, whether or not 

 the conclusions of such a study will influ- 

 ence the administration of college curricula 

 depends in part on the extent to which 

 those in authority agree, in their concep- 

 tion of ".success," with the adopted defi- 

 nition. "Who's Who in America" has 

 been taken by many investigators as the 

 sole criterion of distinction. Professor 

 Dexter used this method in attempting to 

 answer the question. What is the be.st col- 

 lege?' His conclusion that the small New 

 England colleges are the best is unwar- 

 ranted from his evidence, for the reason 

 that the errors incident to the use of 

 "Who's Who" as the measure of success 

 have the least effect on the older, small 

 New England colleges. Professor Jastrow, 

 on the other hand, in his study of the dis- 

 tribution of distinction in American 

 colleges, has used "Wlio's Who" with 

 greater care. He has assumed merely 



' irorWs ^yorlc, April, 1903. 



that the average of distinction of those 

 persons mentioned in "Who's Who" over- 

 whelmingly exceeds the distinction of 

 the average citizen ; and that, consid- 

 ered in large groups, the people selected 

 for this distinction represent the upper- 

 most level of ability, in some callings, 

 in American life. With the treatment 

 of large groups by approved statistical 

 methods, and with due allowance for the 

 various probable errors of compilation, 

 "Who's Who" may be made the basis of 

 trustworthy studies. For our purposes, 

 however, the main objections to this defi- 

 nition of success are that certain callings 

 are still unduly weighted, and that prom- 

 inence overshadows inconspicuous worth. 

 There is a kind of life which does not ex- 

 press itself in offices or publications or 

 advertised philanthropy, which, never- 

 theless, the best men of our best colleges 

 would be glad to promote, if possible, by 

 the course of study. 



For a single study in this field, three 

 men were asked this year to select from the 

 class of 1894 of Harvard College the stu- 

 dents who since graduation had won suc- 

 cess. The judges were LeBaron R. Briggs, 

 dean of Harvard College when these stu- 

 dents were undergraduates, Edgar H. 

 Wells, secretary of the Harvard Alumni 

 Association, and Frederic E. Parrington, 

 adjunct-professor of educational adminis- 

 tration at Teachei*s College, Columbia Uni- 

 versity, and a member of the college class 

 in question. Each judge was asked to 

 make his own definition of success. That 

 is to say, he was asked to choose those men 

 who had achieved the kind of success 

 which he would be glad to have Harvard 

 College promote, if possible, by the ad- 

 ministration of its curriculum. The only 

 qualification was that men whose careers 

 appeared to be greatly aided by social 

 position or hereditary wealth should not 



