problem is not one of wages; for no university can ever become rich enough to buy the independence of any man who is really worth the purchasing. This plan of coöperation would not, however, except to a limited degree, bring the trustees as men into close contact with the faculty as men. And the plan which I offer towards that second aim is put forward with much greater diffidence. The scheme of a joint standing committee would be productive, I feel certain, of most happy results; but of my minor proposition I am not so sure. This second plan is to make every member of the board of trustees an administrative officer in that branch of the college work (so far as possible) which is most congenial to him, giving him no special individual powers over his assigned department, but increasing his responsibilities by making him-together with one or more of his colleaguesthe direct and responsible channel of information between that department and the whole board of trustees. It is already customary in most colleges to create visiting committees with the duty of presenting annual reports; my suggestion would make substance out of what is now little more than shadow, by having it formally understood that in all matters relating to his department the trustee would be looked to for reliable information and responsible advice. Difficulties, of course, stand thick in the way of such a project. Among them are the unwillingness of already busy trustees to accept. further responsibilities, the danger of personal friction between the trustee and the department head, and the natural fear on the part of the teacher that "administration" might spell itself to the trustee as mere officiousness. It seems to me, however, that a short acquaintance with the minutiæ of a college department would show the trustee that the professor's as well as his own time is far too valuable to be given to details of administration, and that college funds could in no way be made more productive than by giving the heads of departments such clerks and underlings as would release them from much killing drudgery. There is no greater extravagance than to permit an expensively trained man to do ten-dollar-a-week work. And that same short acquaintance would, I believe, so interest the trustee and so increase his respect for what is being done and what is still to do, that officiousness or meddling would become impossible. These two plans, if found practicable and if developed in a spirit of enthusiasm, would lead to many other points of helpful contact between trustees and faculty and would discover, I think, unsuspected avenues of mutual help. And by these or some like methods trustees and faculties must be brought more closely together unless we wish to see the growing alienation of the administrative and teaching staffs develop into a real and fatal breach. Separation involves mutual misunderstanding and that, even among educated men, leads as in industrial enterprsies, to arrogance on the part of the employer, to suspicion and dislike on the side of the employed. If coöperation seems imperative-as I think it does-to the solution of the problems of industrialism, how much more necessary is it if we are to solve the educational riddle. Coöperation would teach the trustees the antipodal difference between the problems of a university and those of a business corporation, and, at the same time, would show the faculty the importance of business methods and thorough organization. Coöperation would get things done without compelling our universities to take refuge in an autocracy which, harmful in itself, is breeding a race of youth who scorn the slow methods of democracy. It would develop trustees who actually, instead of fictitiously, comprehend their trust; it would unite faculties which, under the strain of departmental complexity, are fast disintegrating; it would double the educational efficiency of our colleges; and, most important of all it would make our universities, as they ought to be, supreme preservers instead of conspicuous destroyers, of that genuine spirit of democracy which, more than schools, more than churches, more than any other human agency, has uplifted mankind and builded civilization. DISCUSSION By MRS. NORMAN FREDERICK THOMPSON, A. B. Trustee of Wellesley College In our American politics, there is at least one doctrine which is generally accepted, that known as the "Monroe Doctrine;" and now it would seem to me, as doubtless to you all, that the speaker, Mr. Munroe, who has just finished, has enunciated an equally to be accepted Munroe doctrine in academic politics. Certainly the ideal he has formulated of a closer union between trustees and faculty is one always to be held in mind, always to be striven for and perhaps attained, when we shall have developed a leisure class among our men of culture, with lives consecrated to social service. Just as our American life is now organized, it is a trinity that is very hard to find, that of culture united with leisure, and the desire to serve. It is not found often among the members of our trustee boards, and until it is, I doubt somewhat the practicability of the proposed plan, except for a very limited number on a trustee board. The academic Munroe doctrine, like the original Monroe doctrine, develops difficulties in attempting to apply it, and I may be pardoned for pointing out these difficulties in order that they may be avoided. Certainly a trustee board has a large and serious trust that cannot be deputized and one that must be administered in a large way. That we all admit. We also admit the necessity for as close relations as possible between that board and the faculty. Let us, for the sake of getting down to facts relative to the present relationship between the two, take up in detail a typical board. We find such a board made up of business men who are in the very midst of the strain and stress of American business life, professional men, who are clergymen or lawyers, also occupied with affairs, usually a a few older men of some leisure, perhaps two or three women, possessing indeed the trinity of which I spoke, and on many boards, representation from the Alumni, whose province is quite distinct and not to be discussed now. On examining such a board in detail, we would find the board. possessing an executive committee, whose relation to the faculty is much the same as that suggested by Mr. Munroe. But on such a board as I have described, which is, I am sure, the usual board, there would be very few men available for executive committee work. To extend from this executive committee to the board as a whole, or to a large part of it, any such intimate connection as Mr. Munroe advocates, would be frought with great danger. Either the relationship would become perfunctory, and so of no value, or if we did require it from these men so absorbed in such widely divergent interests, short of time, biased by exclusive attention, each to his particular business or profession, we should be in a danger of hampering seriously a president and his corps of assistants. I question also whether such a plan might not lead to too much. direct participation on the part of some of the trustees in the method and plan of instruction, apart from the danger, also real, that such a division of responsibility would hardly be desirable. If a teacher should stand on the platform with one eye on the pupil and the other on the president or trustee, we should not get his best. He must have complete freedom, the German lehrfreiheit, if we are to get from him his best self. To be a truly great teacher, he must be one, who like the fabled bird that nourished its young with its heart's blood, gives of himself without counting the cost. We cannot get this if there should grow up any union of trustees and faculty that should partake in any way of the nature of interference on the part of the trustee, with methods of instruction or government. The relation should be one rather of intelligent sympathy on the part of the trustee, carried perhaps even to the point of the attitude of a learner. The point I desire to make is, that we have not now in America enough men of leisure to make such a close union as the one proposed practicable. Lyman Abbott claims that the secret of his success as a journalist is that he makes it a point to get the best man possible for a vacant place and then give him an entirely free hand. When the subject of this discussion was telegraphed to me at Washington last week, where I had gone with my husband to attend the Bankers' Convention, it seemed to me at once that there was a close analogy between the trustee boards of our educational institutions and the board of directors of a bank. I asked several prominent bankers, "Could you or would you be willing to run your banks by bringing your directors into this sort of a close relationship?" Each one answered in the negative. They were unanimous in asserting that where the greatest liberty had been given executive officers, the greatest success had been made. The directors of the bank are informed, as are the trustee boards, of the general policy to be pursued, and to a certain extent determine it, but this only in the broadest outline; the actual management rests with the officers, who would be much hampered if there was an attempt at a closer union between them and the directorate. Some such relation was in my mind when I framed these few remarks. The liberty I advocate is in intimate harmony with the entire trend of our American democracy and results in that self restraint which is the flower of liberty, and that self respect which is the flower of manhood. There is, however, a wide field outside of academic activity where trustees, even the busy business man of to-day, can and should unfold a wholesome activity, the details of which are to be taken up later in these conferences; for there is not only the academic side, but the administrative and financial side, while paramount always is the duty of watchfulness,-not of detail, but of the whole. Our colleges are founded, not merely to disseminate the knowledge the human race has accumulated, but as exponents of the best ideals of manhood, the harmonious development of man, physically, socially, intellectually morally. Often the one who is watching the trend of college life from some outside vantage point, such as a position on a trustee board would give, is better able to judge of the result attained and its relation to the larger life beyond the college walls than those in intimate contact. It seems to me whatever plan is formulated, whatever coöperation is attained, it should not be too close for this wider view and that the real province of the conscientious trustee is to watch, watch, watch! SECOND SESSION THE ACADEMIC CAREER AS AFFECTED BY By PROFESSOR JOSEPH JASTROW University of Wisconsin It is my purpose to discuss in accordance with the central theme of this conference, the influences exerted upon the Academic Career by the present administrative conduct of university affairs. Whether or not we are prepared to admit that whatever is best administered is best, it seems both fair and profitable to judge the value of administrative provisions by the success with which they further the vital ends to which they are but means. Clearly the administration of a university is no end in itself, but only a subordinate contributory measure for advancing the real interests of the higher education. Boards of trustees and presidents and deans and committees would be only a hindrance and not in the least a help to the cause for which universities exist, if these offices could not justify their existence and the methods of their maintenance by their furtherance of worthy educational ideals. Altogether too long has there prevailed alike an unquestioned assumption that such is the case, and still more unfortunately a timid suppression or unpatient frowning down of any questioning in regard thereto. It would be desirable, but may not be practicable, to consider in an historical temper, how American conditions have developed a distinctive scheme of university administration, a system that departs from the models of the Old World in a direction peculiarly incompatible with our national ideals and principles. To say that the governement of universities is undemocratic may be no fatal condemnation, but it indicates a singular departure from the spirit that animates many of our formal administrative measures even outside of the political field. The situation, moreover, is the more notable because foreign universities in pronounced aristocratic countries offer the contrast of placing the welfare of the culture and academic lifethe authority as well as the responsibility-upon those whose lifework is bound up with, and furthered by such institutions, and of thus adopting for monarchical universities a thoroughly democratic form of government. President Pritchett's review of this and allied. situations (Atlantic Monthly: September, 1905) may be cordially commended. He does not hestiate to say that our autocratic methods |