576  Chairman  s  Address  on  Education.    _  { ADecimbe^905?' 
titioner  of  pharmacy.  But  we  have  seen  that  incidentally  these 
laws  have  had  no  less  salutary  an  influence  in  elevating  and  stand- 
ardizing the  work  of  our  colleges  and  schools,  and  particularly  in 
forcing  upon  them  better  entrance  requirements.  This,  indeed,  is 
one  of  the  most  vital  and  important  aspects  of  the  prerequisite 
movement.  In  a  debate  before  this  section  last  year — one  of  the 
most  able  and  important  debates  within  the  recent  history  of  the 
association — several  high-minded  and  earnest  teachers  protested 
that  while  higher  entrance  requirements  should  unquestionably  be 
imposed,  the  good  colleges  had  always  been  absolutely  helpless  to 
establish  them.  For  the  very  instant  they  were  to  raise  the  bars 
the  rejected  students  would  pass  on  to  the  open  and  hospitable  doors 
of  the  poorer  schools,  and  thus  the  cause  of  educational  pharmacy 
would  be  retarded  instead  of  advanced.  "  Give  us  graduation  pre- 
requisite laws,"  said  these  teachers;  "  give  us  laws  which  will 
demand  certain  entrance  standards  of  schools  and  which  will  deny 
recognition  to  the  institutions  failing  to  conform  to  these  standards; 
protect  us  from  cheap  and  unfair  competition  in  this  manner,  and 
we  shall  then  be  glad  to  do  what  it  would  otherwise  be  suicidal  for 
us  to  attempt." 
Now  in  the  light  of  this  earnest  and  rational  appeal  it  can  only  be 
regarded  as  unfortunate  that  the  Pennsylvania  prerequisite  law 
establishes  no  entrance  or  curriculum  standards  of  any  sort  or  kind 
whatsoever.  It  may  be  argued  in  defence  that  the  Board  of  Pharmacy 
has  assumed  an  authority  under  the  rather  adroit  language  of  the 
amendment1  to  discriminate  between  schools,  and  that  it  has  acted 
wisely  in  deciding  to  recognize  the  twenty-one  members  of  the  Con- 
ference of  Faculties.  But  no  such  authority  and  autocratic  power 
should  be  vested  in  the  Board  of  Pharmacy  of  any  State.  The 
boards  themselves  would  be  the  last  to  desire  it.  It  would  enable  one 
board  to  undo  what  another  board  had  done.  It  would  thus  be  fatal 
to  permanence  and  stability  of  action.  It  would  cause  boards  to  be 
flooded  with  petitions  and  complaints  from  candidates  and  pharma- 
cists who  thought  their  requirements  too  severe.  It  would  subject 
the  whole  disposal  of  standards  to  the  dictates  of  graft  and  political 
influence.    In  many  States  it  would  result  in  a  fight  and  scramble 
1  Every  candidate  "must  present  satisfactory  evidence  of  being  a  graduate 
of  some  reputable  and  properly  chartered  college  of  pharmacy." 
