October 2, 1914] 



SCIENCE 



483 



seems to be that teaching only of the higher 

 grade should be rewarded by the foundation. 

 In judging the grade of teaching, however, the 

 character of the institution where the teacher 

 happens to be located, and not the work of the 

 individual teacher himself, is used as the basis 

 of selection. The present note is to suggest 

 for discussion the desirability of changing the 

 viewpoint, and using the work of the teacher, 

 rather than the institution, as the unit of 

 selection. 



Success of service in the teaching profession 

 is properly recognized for two main reasons: 

 First, as a reward for past service and, second, 

 as a stimulus for attracting and developing 

 higher grade men in the profession. The re- 

 ward would be more just if apportioned ac- 

 cording to the individual service rendered, and 

 the stimulus would be greater upon such a 

 basis. The indifferent men in accepted insti- 

 tutions may be less worthy of reward and 

 more in need of stimulus than many in un- 

 selected institutions. 



Undoubtedly one of the chief reasons for 

 making the institution the unit of selection is 

 the apparent relative ease of classifying insti- 

 tutions and administrating the system upon 

 this basis. The difficulties of classifying and 

 administrating upon the individual basis, how- 

 ever, are not insurmountable. The best judge 

 of the success of service in teaching is the 

 opinion of teachers themselves. In " American 

 Men of Science," 1,000 men from the entire 

 body of scientists are listed as of preeminent 

 rank, the number apportioned to each depart- 

 ment being in proportion to the total number 

 of scientists that it contains. The essential 

 value of this starred list is the method of its 

 selection. Those starred are thus ranked by 

 the combined vote of the leading scientists 

 in the particular department which they rep- 

 resent. Such a method of selecting individuals 

 could be extended to include all the depart- 

 ments of teaching. The number that the 

 foundation is able to directly benefit can be 

 determined and the list of beneficiaries can 

 then be prepared accordingly, but be selected 

 by the teachers themselves. 



Under the present system the value of the 



pension may seldom if ever be directly dis- 

 counted from a teacher's salary, but, to the 

 writer's knowledge, the fact of an institution 

 being accepted by the foundation has been 

 offered either as an excuse for a low scale of 

 reward or as an inducement to change insti- 

 tutions without rise in salary. Giving the 

 pension through preferred institutions has 

 little or no influence as encouragement to do 

 better work for those already in these select 

 institutions and, for individuals outside the 

 fold, is of influence only as it causes them to 

 attempt to get upon the preferred institutions 

 even at a sacrifice. 



Objection may be raised to the selection of 

 individuals that such a method gives undue 

 prominence to research and publications. In 

 the grade of institutions for which the Car- 

 negie Toundation is intended, research and 

 publication is considered as one of the neces- 

 sary activities of a good teacher. Publication 

 broadens the class room and increases the 

 number of scholars, making the influence of 

 the teacher international and not merely local. 

 The good teacher further is known by his 

 scholars and by his colleagues. It would be 

 impossible, therefore, for the worthy teacher 

 to escape recognition by a jury of his peers. 



It is not desirable to discuss here further 

 the possibilities of the scheme suggested nor to 

 point out the possible influence that a recog- 

 nized list of teachers might exert upon a 

 more direct adjustment of positions to merit 

 than is at present in vogue in many American 

 colleges and universities. What has been 

 written is sufficient as a suggestion. 



A. F. BliAKESLEE 



Conn. Agricultural College, 

 StokrSj Conn. 



Jones's " a new era in chemistry " 

 To THE Editor of Science: The reference 

 to my review of Professor Harry C. Jones's 

 " A New Era in Chemistry," which Professor 

 Franklin makes in his own criticism of the 

 book in Science of July 31, may serve me aa 

 an excuse for a few words regarding this 

 criticism. 



Of the exceptions taken by Professor Frank- 



