42 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XL. No. 1019 



nearer to equality,* giving a net cost per 

 working hour, department I>i, of 13.8 cents ; 

 department D^, 18.8 cents; a difference of 

 5 cents as compared witli 12 cents under 

 the more carefuV analysis. 



In other words, by neglecting the analy- 

 sis of the elements of cost, and by failure 

 to allocate the various items where they 

 should be incident; that is, by dealing 

 with "general averages" instead of with 

 specific charges, the cost per working hour 

 becomes more nearly uniform. Conse- 

 quently, exact information as to actual de- 

 partmental costs is lacking or disguised; 

 a result in precise agreement with mana- 

 gerial experience in general. To be of prac- 

 tical value cost per workman per hour, in 

 the educational factory, must be based 

 upon exact and detailed analysis. 



Further consideration of one or two 

 points in the above discussion is desirable. 

 Objection may be made to the inclusion of 

 time spent by the student-workman in 

 study at home, outside of the factory. Un- 

 less we limit the product (instruction) to 

 the actual imparting of information in the 

 class-room, a view altogether too narrow 

 even on a strictly utilitarian basis, it must 

 be granted that this home work is as essen- 

 tial to the product as is the factory labor, 

 the work in school. The fact of the work 

 being done outside of the factory does not 

 affect the actual overhead expense or wages 

 of the plant. It is conceivable that the 

 student-workman might spend his entire 



* Total working hours 494,400. Working hours, 

 I>„ 308,000, or 62.3 per cent; D., 186,400, or 37.7 

 per cent. Whence, general administration costs, Di, 

 62.3 per cent, of $20,000, or $12,460 ; D^, 37.7 per 

 cent, of $20,000, or $7,540. Therefore, net costs, 

 A, are $12,460 -|- $60,000 — $30,000 = $42,460 ; D„ 

 $7,540 + $42,500 — $15,000 = $35,040. Whence 

 the net cost per working hour is, X>i, $42,460 -i- 

 308,000 = .138 ; A, $35,040 -h 186,400 = .188. 



working time in the factory without change 

 of results. That he spends 50 per cent, or 

 more of his working time outside of the fac- 

 tory amounts simply to his paying an addi- 

 tional premium for his apprentice privi- 

 leges in the saving to the factory of expense, 

 heat, light, attendance, etc. Theoretically 

 each department should be credited with 

 the amount of this salvage ; practically the 

 saving is nil as the expense, with the excep- 

 tion, perhaps, of light and attendance, is 

 continuous in any case. The weakness of 

 the plan adopted consists not in the inclu- 

 sion of the student-workman's outside time, 

 but in the exclusion of the outside time of 

 the teacher-workman. If this latter were 

 included there would be a further diminu- 

 tion of the cost per working hour in every 

 department. 



A real weakness of the plan under dis- 

 cussion lies in the fact that the outside stu- 

 dent work is unsupervised to some extent, 

 and may not be up to standard. This weak- 

 ness, however, is inherent in the whole work 

 of the educational plant; but not more so, 

 by and large, than in the industrial plant. 

 If it could be assumed that the inside work 

 were 100 per cent, efficient and that all ex- 

 amination papers were perfect, then the 

 percentage obtained on an examination 

 would measure the quality and amount of a 

 student's outside work. If, still with per- 

 fect examination papers, it could be as- 

 sumed that all outside work Avere 100 per 

 cent, efficient, the examination percentage 

 would measure the efficiency of the com- 

 bined student and instructor factory work, 

 but would not differentiate between the two. 

 If it could be assumed that all outside and 

 inside work were 100 per cent, efficient, 

 then the examination percentage would 

 measure the efficiency of the work of pre- 

 paring the examination paper. This might 

 be called an equilateral triangle of unten- 

 able hypotheses. 



