242 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXIII. No. 842 



that of Germany, is erroneous; since in 

 Germany the minister of education to a 

 large extent performs the functions that 

 the president does in America. Indeed, 

 with reference to the appointment of pro- 

 fessors it is clear that the power of the 

 minister in Germany is quite as great as 

 that of the president in America. 



The proposal to have the faculties make 

 nominations of professors has a certain 

 plausibility, and, as we have seen, is prac- 

 tised in four institutions, but the plan has 

 not generally appealed to the governing 

 boards, nor do I think it probable that it 

 will in the future. 



The fatal defect in the administration of 

 a university by the faculty rather than by 

 the educational executive officers is its 

 extravagance. When an educational insti- 

 tution was small the faculty could do its 

 administrative work. But in large uni- 

 versities, in the consideration of educa- 

 tional policies, which are agreed should 

 belong to the faculty, progress can only 

 be made by sending a matter first to a 

 faculty committee. The committee spends 

 much time in whipping the matter into 

 shape. It then goes to the appropriate 

 faculty. After consideration more or less 

 prolonged, if favorably acted upon, it goes 

 to a university faculty, academic senate, 

 or academic council. This body in turn 

 goes over the subject and finally acts. It 

 must be admitted that this procedure is 

 extremely expensive. 



While expensive, I am not arguing for 

 a change. University unity is more im- 

 portant than administrative efficiency; and 

 in order to secure harmony in a university 

 it is necessary that the faculty exercise au- 

 thority with reference to educational 

 policies. While costly, it will be necessary 

 to leave educational policies in the hands 

 of the faculty. 



If all the questions of administration, in- 



cluding that of appointment, were to be 

 handled by the faculty acting either as a 

 committee of the whole or through its com- 

 mittees which in turn report to the faculty, 

 the faculty would have much less time to 

 devote to their main duties — instruction 

 and investigation. This would be the re- 

 sult of "increasing the legislative and ad- 

 ministrative responsibility of the faculty" 

 as proposed by Munro.* 



At this point there is a curious incon- 

 sistency in the position of many members 

 of the faculty. At the very same time that 

 they are complaining of the extent of au- 

 thority of the executive officers they are- 

 also complaining of the amount of com- 

 mittee work which is required of them. 

 They state that even with the situation as 

 it is so much committee work is required 

 that they are unable to do satisfactorily 

 their own work. 



These and other considerations have re- 

 sulted in a tendency not in the direction of 

 curtailing the power of the president in 

 reference to appointment, but, on the con- 

 trary, for the governing boards to place 

 that power in his hands and hold him re- 

 sponsible. This is illustrated by Virginia, 

 an institution which, after having lived 

 nearly one hundred years without a presi- 

 dent, has created that office; and the 

 University of Toronto which was even 

 more recently reorganized along American 

 lines with a president having practically 

 the same powers as in the United States. 



The only constructive suggestion which 

 I have seen in reference to the president is. 

 to have the professors, rather than the gov- 

 erning boards, elect him and determine his 

 powers.^ While it is not probable that the 



* " Closer Relations between Faculties and Trus- 

 tees," James P. Munro, Science, Vol. 22, 1905, 

 pp. 848-855. 



^ George M. Stratton, " Externalism in Amer- 

 ican Universities," Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 100, 

 1907, pp. 512-519. 



