University Administration

THE methods of university government have occasioned little discussion in this country. The theory of education, the order of studies, the relative value of classical and scientific training, the relation of general and professional studies in academic instruction, have been considered, but the form of the constitution by which a university is administered has not seemed worthy of equal regard. The voluntary character of most of our higher institutions of learning, founded as they are by private beneficence, and independent of state control, has protected their organization from public criticism. As private corporations, existing by a special charter, they have been free from legislative inquiry, and only remotely subject to popular judgment. Varied as their constitution is, it has been tacitly assumed that the mode of their government accomplishes satisfactory, if not the highest results. This diversity of administration implies that one system meets the requirements of modern learning as well as another, or that the mode of university organization is a matter of indifference, instead of demanding the profoundest study and the most thoughtful examination of the results attained in the past, and comparison with the university systems of Europe, where a longer experience has been had in dealing with the problems of advanced education.

Many vital questions connected with university organization in this country still remain unsettled ; the experience of two hundred years has contributed no general policy or established views. A period of empiricism too frequently attends the institution of a new university or the inauguration of a new administration. Were a university a private enterprise, with no responsibility to the nation as a whole, and with no further interests affected than those of the owner, we could look with greater equanimity upon the tentative methods and immense waste of resources that too often accompany its foundation. But the loss is far greater, from another stand-point: unscientific administration cripples the cause of sound learning, misdirects honest effort; and those who teach and those who receive instruction suffer the consequences of arbitrary methods and a superficial philosophy. The world has been at school for eight hundred years in university administration, and the human mind still longer as regards the process of its growth and development; but every new American institution begins from the beginning to settle its own principles of government and forms of instruction. It cannot be seriously maintained that the highest results have been achieved through these various systems ; even the most successful university shows the possibility of advance, and it is well to consider the defects of the present system.

The questions of university organization may be divided into two classes : those relating to the external government, and those affecting the internal administration. First as to the external government. The charter is usually bestowed upon certain specified corporators, in whom the property is vested, who possess the power to determine the general character of the university, to enact all needed laws for its government, and to choose their own successors. The board is thus an independent, self-perpetuating body, possessing a wide jurisdiction, and free from accountability to any revisory power. In New England, however, there are in several colleges two governing bodies, called by various names, as the “ Corporation and Overseers,” the “ Trustees and Overseers,” the mutual rights of which are not always clearly specified, but where one body practically originates action, and the other retains a power of revision and veto.

There is a different method of government in certain universities founded by states and municipalities. The board of regents of the University of Michigan is nominated by political conventions and elected by a popular vote ; the University of Wisconsin is ruled by regents, appointed by the governor from each congressional district. The equal rights of all sections of the state are thus secured, but the trustees are necessarily removed from the vicinity of the university, and consequently have a limited personal acquaintance with the needs of the institution entrusted to their care. In some cases the relation of the college or university to the state is extremely close, and it becomes a permanent protégé, often supported by an annual grant. Many of these state universities lead a stormy existence amid the strife of parties. In universities founded by cities, the trustees are sometimes elected by the city government, or appointed by the mayor, and their history partakes of the vicissitudes of city politics. Universities established by religious denominations sustain a particular relation to a bishop or church, and in some cases the trustees are elected by religious conferences.

These different systems are alike in entrusting the oversight of the interests of a university to a body of men outside the same. Nothing analogous to this is found abroad, save perhaps in some English schools; as a feature of university government in England, France, or Germany, it cannot be said to exist. It is therefore a purely American institution, and must be defended as meeting better than anything else the wants of the nation, and therefore worthy of preservation, or as having a right to exist because nothing better has been devised to take its place. The whole question demands the most serious consideration, for upon its right decision the highest development of our educational institutions depends, as well as the future position which this country shall hold in promoting the advance of learning. To our universities we must look for all intellectual training for the professions, as well as for all research which shall contribute to the progress of science.

The present organization of American colleges has changed in some important particulars from the form of government originally introduced. The first scholars of this country had been educated in the universities of Europe : most had graduated at Oxford or Cambridge, or studied at Edinburgh or Utrecht, or Leiden. The early constitution of the college was modeled after that of the English universities.

Harvard University presents certain points of resemblance to the system of the English colleges. By the charter of 1650, which is still in force, the president and fellows of Harvard College became a body corporate, enjoying the right of administering the funds and making all rules for the government of the college, as well as of electing their successors in office. The’former board of overseers was retained, embracing the governor, the deputy governor, and the leading clergymen and magistrates of the adjoining towns. This double organization was designed to perpetuate in the government of the college the close relation of church and state to all educational institutions. The overseers had been the sole governing board, but, as constituted, it was not found equal to the functions which devolved upon it. Many of the members resided at a distance, and few could have an immediate knowledge of the needs of the college and an insight into its workings. Differences in religious belief also divided the colony, and introduced bitterness and strife in the election of members of the board and in the choice of the president and tutors, which continued even after later modifications of the charter. The state retained an unfavorable jurisdiction over the affairs of the college, approving the election and voting the salaries of president and professors as late as 1786. Every wave of public opinion that affected the legislators influenced the destinies of the college. In the contests of rival factions, salaries and needed appropriations were withheld, often occasioning great inconvenience and suffering. Obnoxious opinions of the president and faculty on political subjects often involved investigation and rebuke.

The influence of English usage was shown in the original character of the corporation at Harvard. As the professors were the ruling body in the Continental schools, and the masters in the English colleges, the corporation of Harvard was composed of two classes: resident or teaching fellows, and nonresident or simply governing fellows. The former were also called fellows of the house; to them, aided by the advice of some of the ablest and most learned scholars of the country, the entire administration of the college was entrusted. They chose the president, elected their successors and associates in instruction, and were responsible for the government. In this body of seven members the title of the property was vested. The overseers were a more numerous body, and possessed the right of ratification and amendment. The occasion of this double organization will be found in the early form of colonial society. Two classes were prominent, the clergymen, the single learned class, and the civil rulers, who were alike highly honored. To these two classes, the only ones available, the oversight of our educational institutions was entrusted.

The establishment of the president and teaching fellows as a separate body for government and discipline did not take place until 1725, nearly a hundred years after the founding of the college, and as thus constituted was termed the “ immediate government.” Ordinary discipline had previously been in the hands of the tutors. The system of having representatives of some one of the various faculties in the corporation has continued until recent times, and has always been regarded as beneficial, as presenting the views of the teaching staff upon all questions of university policy.

The right of every tutor — for at this time there were no professors — to a seat in the corporation was early discussed, and at one time allowed by the legislature. An eventful controversy arose in 1824, upon a demand of all the instructors to representation in the governing board, who claimed that the term “ fellow ” in its historic sense conferred the right to participate in the determination aud decision of all university matters. Edward Everett and Professors Ticknor and Norton advocated with great earnestness and ability the right of all members of the faculty to seats in the governing board, while the legal members of the corporation and overseers maintained that representation could not be claimed as a right, either from the terms of the charter or from the history and use of the word “fellow.” This position was taken by Judges Story and Jackson, and ChiefJustice Parker and others. The decision was in accordance with the latter view. Owing to questions of reorganization at the time, which occasioned diverse opinions, the application of the faculty for the election of one of their number to the corporation was refused. Precedent dating from the act of incorporation was in favor of such representation, which was held desirable and legal, but not a right to be claimed ; the privilege of such election was admitted, and a purpose to continue the former usage was expressed.

It is significant that those scholars who maintained with so much vigor the wisdom of the choice of members of the faculty to the governing board were familiar with foreign systems of university administration, while the members who opposed were lawyers, who argued strictly from the terms of the charter and from certain legal precedents. The system of faculty representation upon the executive board is therefore not a new one in this country,

A provision in the laws of the State of New York forbidding a professor to hold a seat in the board of trustees was rescinded a few years since, the repeal being favored by some of the most accomplished scholars and educators of the state. The intimate connection of the early state governments with questions of religion and education was long perpetuated, even after the original usefulness of such a relation had ceased. When the constitution of Massachusetts of 1780 was adopted, the council and senate of the state were made members of the board of overseers, in place of the clerical and judicial representatives who had previously ruled. At Yale the six senior state senators were long ex-officio trustees of the college. In many colleges the names of the leading state officers adorn the catalogues as honorary governors. The two parties in a legislature possibly look more leniently upon granting the charter of a new university, especially if a pecuniary grant accompanies it, when provision for such representation is inserted, as it seems to give a public character to the institution, and contesting political factions acquiesce and opposing rival claimants become silent.

It may be doubted whether any real element of strength is added to a board of trustees by the retention of these purely ornamental personages, whose names have already disappeared from the pages of many catalogues. In most cases they feel no responsibility and exercise no interest. The contribution which they make to the deliberations of the board is practically valueless. All decisions are reached without them, and they can scarcely regard their own presence save in the light of an intrusion, and naturally hesitate to be responsible for measures which a turn of the political wheel will make it impossible for them to execute. When we consider that the same state officers, by the charter of different colleges, may sustain a like relation to several institutions, the impossibility of any effective oversight becomes manifest. A public officer would especially refrain from proposing changes in the affairs of colleges which are under the exclusive control of a religious denomination.

A new element has been introduced into university administration in giving to the alumni the right of representation upon the board of overseers or trustees. It was expected that a double object would be attained by this measure ; that new men, having a personal interest in the college and a recent knowledge of its needs, would become a part of the government; and that the alumni would retain a permanent connection with the institution when directly associated in its management. This may be regarded as an adaptation of the English university system, by which masters in residence for a part of the year form, at Cambridge the senate, and at Oxford the convocation, — legislative bodies to which all regulations are submitted for discussion and approval. Graduates who retain an intimate connection with the university are thus enabled to contribute the results of their learning and experience to the decision of all questions affecting the studies and government. The contrast which exists in the scholarship of English and American students upon graduation makes the experiment in the two countries far from identical. The class to which authority is entrusted in the English universities is, in extent of study and experience, far in advance of our own graduates, and is composed in most cases of professors and resident masters pursuing still further liberal studies. This difficulty is met in some colleges in this country by limiting the right to participate in these elections to graduates of five years’ standing. But if it is important to continue the relation of the alumni to their university, this delay in conferring the right of suffrage till after a considerable period of separation from the college has great disadvantages. The fact that so large a portion of the alumni of our colleges is scattered throughout the land, and thus removed from an opportunity of voting in person at commencement, is obviated in some cases by a provision enabling a ballot for alumni trustees to be sent by mail, which is counted as if delivered in person. Any method which will retain the active interest of the alumni in their Alma Mater is worthy of examination and possibly of trial.

The system may now be tested by its results, as sixteen years have passed since its institution at Harvard and elsewhere. It may be premised that where there is a large and intelligent body of the alumni residing in the vicinity of a college, the attendance upon the election of trustees and an active participation in university questions are possible, and the results attained of a different order from what occurs when the alumni are widely scattered. A choice of the ablest and most influential scholars and educators may be made, whose residence will permit them to give the most careful attention to the interests of the university. But it may be questioned whether the results under the present system have equaled the expectations which had been formed. The character of those elected trustees or overseers has not greatly differed from that of those chosen previously. In most colleges a majority of the trustees have always been graduates of the colleges, and the fact of an election by the alumni did not change their essential character. Where alumni trustees have been substituted for a long list of ex-officio members, as at Yale, Harvard, and elsewhere, there has been a real gain. At Harvard, however, the substantial power still rests with the corporation, which is in the main a selfperpetuating body, while the overseers have only the right of confirmation of its nominations, and do not originate action. Influences affect the election of trustees by the alumni, not always favorable to securing the most efficient members. An alumnus is chosen for prominence in social or political life, or for eminence as a lawyer or clergyman, and not because he has any intelligent acquaintance with the history of education, or is qualified to judge of the demands of higher learning at the present time. Local considerations often influence the selection of candidates, and party interests are not always forgotten. Men are elected who can snatch but a hasty moment from the pressing demands of professional life, to decide upon questions affecting the permanent educational interests of the nation, and to judge of the standing and qualifications of professors in all departments of learning. Often the election is determined by a small proportion of the alumni who are able to be present, or have an interest to vote. In such cases an active local interest or an aggressive partisanship may prevail, and a choice occur based upon some remote college or society popularity. The attendance of trustees so chosen is not always secured, and only a measure of success under favorable circumstances may at present be considered as attained by the system.

The defects of these various and conflicting methods of government are obvious. Permanent and uniform principles of administration are not secured, neither is the system such that the ablest scholars become members of the governing board. All sound learning, whatever its direction, has as its chief aim the pursuit of truth. Absolute independence and freedom of investigation and instruction should be guaranteed. This liberty is impossible, save as a university is free from the strife of parties and the liability to change through the caprice of the dominant power. When a reform is necessary, a calm investigation and the study of desirable changes should be elevated above partisan considerations, and based upon scientific principles of education. The question which naturally arises is, Under what control shall our universities he placed, in order to secure that intelligent and uniform administration which shall enable them to develop in accordance with the advance of science ? There can be but one answer to this, and that is that all questions relating to courses of study and the bestowal of degrees, as well as the nomination of professors, should be entrusted to the appropriate faculty for decision. It would be equally as absurd to trust the decision of an important legal question to a body of artists as to confer the control of educational questions upon a corresponding body of lawyers. Education is a science, and has a history coincident with the growth of knowledge and the development of the human mind. It is therefore in itself a historical question, as well as one of philosophy. The history of every particular science must be investigated, in order to choose wisely the methods of study in that science. It is here advocated that the faculty of a college, or of each school connected with a university. as that of law, medicine, or divinity, should be the active and responsible governing body ; that it should determine the character of the instruction, and elect or nominate all professors and instructors, and should be the one unit of administration. The trustees should hold in trust the property, and confirm or reject all nominations, and in conjunction with the faculty make all the regular appropriations. It is held that the faculty is alone competent to estimate the amount and variety of instruction required, the number of departments and instructors, and the needs of the library, museums, and laboratories. It should also judge of the expediency and character of all buildings to be erected. As regards the establishment or enlargement of departments, the resident instructors, who devote all their attention to an institution of learning, are best fitted to judge of the wisdom of any change. Too often the multiplication of departments causes the regular and most essential courses of instruction to be neglected.

It may be assumed that the power to decide these questions should inhere in some one body, and we have now to consider the possible solutions of this proposition. It may rest, first, in the trustees alone, who act upon their independent judgment and knowledge of the needs of the university and the qualification of its professors. This involves a power to act without consultation with the members of the faculty, and possibly with no intelligent acquaintance with the special demands of the question at issue. But the trustees may be guided and enlightened in their opinion by the president, who is supposed to represent the views of the faculty before the trustees. Even in this case there may be an inadequate conception and representation of the wants of various departments; and without a full presentation of the views of the entire faculty, a wise consideration of all needs is impossible, a symmetrical growth will not be attained, and a single field of study may often be developed at the expense of all others. Were the faculty allowed absolute liberty of election, or were they represented by delegates who directly presented their views to the governing board, an adequate expression of all the interests involved would be obtained, and every decision or choice would be the voice of a body of scholars.

The history of every college presents numerous illustrations of action taken by the corporation directly contrary to the judgment of the faculty, and with uniformly unfavorable results. A permanent president is unknown in most foreign universities. The rector, who is chosen for a year, serves as the chairman of the senate in a German university, and a similar usage has prevailed in this country in the University of Virginia and other institutions. There is, it is true, a powerful and valuable personal element in education, but the idea of an individual shaping and reforming instruction in all departments may well provoke skepticism. The absence of fixed convictions on the part of non-educators makes them too often a mere registering board, to ratify the recommendations which are made to them. The lack of independent knowledge forces unprofessional judges to follow the formulated and positive views of one of greater experience. Thus we have either independent and unskillful action or dependence upon a single presiding authority. The latter alternative makes a body of learned men, each master of his department, the personal staff of the president. Long ago this was foreseen at Harvard, and a similar proposition in the days of President Kirkland was rejected, as degrading every professor to the position of a purely ministerial officer. President Gilman, in a published paper, has well shown that it is impossible for one individual, however able, to know adequately the special needs of all departments and of the various faculties of a university. No individual is so universal that he can determine and direct the methods of instruction in the different branches of literature, science, philology, history, and philosophy. If we add to this list the requirements of special schools of advanced instruction, as law, medicine, and divinity, the impossibility of one responsible direction and supervision is readily conceded. The unity of government must be found in the various faculties. Among the many worthy and useful men who have filled the office of president of our universities, few can claim the reputation of great educators. Often—and this condition is imposed by the terms of some charters — the presidency must be held by a clergyman, and the choice may fall upon men who are not practical educators, nor familiar with the present demands and history of higher education.

The standard of instruction in all our universities must be constantly raised to keep pace with the advance of knowledge, if they are to retain their influence upon human thought and culture. To accomplish this constant development, the faculty, which has a continuous existence, must be the permanent repository of power. The standing of every college depends upon the reputation and ability of the men who are there called upon to give instruction. To place the most eminent scholars where they can exercise the widest influence upon the culture of their age, and where the best resources for study and discovery are at their disposal, is an obligation which every institution owes to the cause of letters. To secure such a result, all minor considerations should be subordinated. Questions of locality, of political and personal views, should not prevail in making such choice. The judgment of those most capable of forming an estimate of the standing of scholars in various departments of learning should be obtained. Men devoted to science and letters have an acquaintance with the reputation and standing of scholars in different branches, such as an individual cannot possess. Whenever a vacancy in the academic corps occurs, the faculty should be notified to that effect, and authorized to nominate some one for that position. It is only occasionally that an election to a professorship implies that the candidate is the most capable scholar that could be chosen. Men are often appointed to positions of the highest importance who have enjoyed no special advantages for study in the held in which they are to give instruction, and who have made no recognized contributions to the department in which they are expected to be masters and teachers. In filling an appointment in literature, the question is not asked, What scholar is most eminent for his attainments and contributions to our knowledge of the history and development of a given language, whose opinion upon a doubtful point would have the greatest weight among scholars ? An answer to such an inquiry is not impossible, and may be impartially obtained. The filling of vacancies in the Scotch universities is often deemed of so much importance that the testimonials of the different candidates are printed, in order that it may be seen upon what grounds the appointment is based. At Oxford the professor of comparative philology is appointed by the vice chancellor and the professors of Hebrew, Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and Anglo-Saxon, men eminently qualified to judge of the standing of any candidate. The professor of English law is selected by the vice chancellor, the principal of Jesus College, the professors of civil law, international law, modern history, moral philosophy, and all other professors of law. The professor of physiology is appointed with the aid of the presidents of the College of Physicians in London, of the College of Surgeons of England, and of the Royal Society ; the professor of international law and diplomacy through the Lord High Chancellor, the Judge of the High Court of Admiralty, and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. At both Oxford and Cambridge provisions exist for entrusting nominations to the most competent judges. A few appointments are still in the hands of Convocation, — resident masters, who are not necessarily teachers. Matthew Arnold, referring to his own election as professor of poetry, said, “ Convocation made me a professor, and I am very grateful to Convocation ; but Convocation is not a fit body to have the appointment of professors. Even the crown, that is the prime minister, is not the fit person to have the appointment of professors ; for he is a political functionary, and feels political influence overwhelmingly. The faculty should have the right of proposing candidates to the minister.” In Germany, Holland, and the schools of superior instruction in France, the members of eachfaculty recommend candidates to the minister of education for confirmation.

Gruber, in his sketch of the needs of the new University of Gottingen, said, in answer to the question, “ How shall a large attendance of students be secured ? ” “ The most important and the chief consideration is the employment of able, learned, and distinguished professors in all the faculties. It is of great importance, of absolute necessity, that favorable inducements should he presented to them.” In discussing the qualifications of these who might be appointed, he objected to one candidate because, though clever, he was not known, and had never given instruction, and would not attract pupils. Münchhausen, the celebrated Hanoverian minister said, “ If the University of Göttingen is to be distinguished above others, its professorships must be bestowed upon the most distinguished and ablest men, who will attract a great number of students.” “It is the professor, and not the charter, which really makes the university,” said an eminent Italian scholar. Few American colleges have acted upon this principle in the choice of professors. Men really admirable in some profession, or in some one department of knowledge, have been called to an entirely different chair. Such appointments, instead of being “ a homage to intelligence and study,” not only indorse superficiality and a lack of proper preparation, but do incalculable injury to a generation of students, and, in a broader sense, to the cause of learning throughout the nation. Inability on the part of a professor to impart to a student the distinct methods and training of a scientist, or a philologist, or a student of history, is to pervert and misdirect the energies, and often to vitiate the fruits of years of study. The efficiency of many a department has been permanently crippled by a mistaken appointment, and this error contains within it the seeds of wide-reaching evil consequences. No one can be elected to a position in a foreign university who has not made special contributions to the subject which he will be required to teach, and who is not known as an authority in that subject. The purpose of a university is not simply to hoard what the world knows, and to dispense elementary knowledge to immature scholars, but by investigation and study to enlarge the bounds of human knowledge. A professor should be not merely a teacher, he should be an investigator, and fitted to guide and inspire advanced study. The stream will never rise higher than its source. The neglect of these simple facts has placed men in positions of importance on the outposts of learning who, by sheer supineness, have been a hindrance to the growth of knowledge.

A college acquaintance with Latin, or Greek, or mathematics was once considered sufficient to justify an appointment to a professorship. A successful pulpit orator was held to be fitted for a professorship of rhetoric and oratory, or for that difficult position of professor of English literature. But a knowledge of literature is based upon language and history ; and as no literature Stands alone, a familiarity with other languages which have made contributions to it is implied, as well as an acquaintance with all the influences, religious, political, and personal, which have affected literary production. Similarly, no science stands alone, and success in a single department demands proficiency in many subsidiary branches. The geologist must know chemistry and botany and zoölogy and physics, in order to make the highest contributions to knowledge in his field of study. Every branch of learning now demands a special and exclusive preparation. Ability in a single department does not prove corresponding ability in another. In the early days of American scholarship, and in the poverty of all our colleges, a professor gave instruction in the most diverse subjects. Many branches of physical science were then comparatively unknown. Language has since become a science, and the teacher’s work is now an established profession, for which advanced study is requisite, either in this country or abroad.

Permanence of position is necessary to successful work on the part of the teacher. No intelligent development of any department is possible where uncertainty regarding tenure of office exists, and the highest efforts of an instructor are not obtained when he is constantly aspiring after a different position. In Germany all professorships are for life. In England most are permanent; some, however, which are more truly lectureships, are tenable for five years, with an opportunity for reëlection, as the professorship of poetry at Oxford. Many who hold such temporary positions enjoy fellowships, benefices, and other university appointments at the same time. A position with a limited duration can never command the highest scholarship and ability. A scholar, in selecting his field of work, cannot view with equanimity the necessity of early removal. Frequent changes in the teaching force of a university mean a varying and doubtful standard of instruction, new methods, untried men, and uncertain results. A university cannot exist with an unorganized faculty, forever tentative in its men and measures, — an attitude which cannot but be regarded as a humiliating confession of weakness.

For subordinate positions in a university, service for a fixed period is advantageous, if it holds out a reasonable prospect of promotion in case success is achieved. When this fact is established, a limited tenure loses all advantage, and becomes injurious, as offering no permanent inducement, and creating unrest in the instructor. The report of the Schools Inquiry Commission in England presents a variety of opinions upon this question in its application to the educational institutions of the kingdom. The principles of civil service reform should prevail in university administration. No position should be regarded as the private property of an individual. Graded promotion should be introduced, as perpetual subordination paralyzes all ambition and growth.

In comparing the French and German systems of appointment, it is manifest that in perfection of detail, which makes the whole educational system of the country a delicately constructed machine, France presents a more compacteducational organization than Germany. To be an agrégé, that is to have a diploma authorizing a candidate to hold the office of professor in a lycée or faculté, the utmost security is required. An examination covering the entire range of instruction which the candidate will have to give has first to be passed. Five years’ preliminary experience in teaching is necessary. Records of service and seniority are strictly kept. To be a professeur titulaire, the candidate must be a doctor or member of the Institute.

The strength of the German university consists largely in the Privatdocenten. from whom the professorships are filled. This class of authorized independent instructors, attached to a university, is engaged in vindicating its right to a higher position by study and instruction. These subordinate teachers often make contributions recognized as of great value, and attain a world-wide reputation in their various departments before promotion. Only in a university after the German model, where Lehrfreiheit and Lernfreiheit are found, could this important class exist. Here, where there is a fixed curriculum, with all its parts adequately provided for, there is scarcely room for an additional class of instructors, without great modifications in our present system. Academic jealousy would perhaps regard their claims and their rivalry as an infringement upon established rights. Nothing of the kind exists abroad; there is the most generous and helpful relation existing between the Privatdocenten and the professor, and the instruction of the former is carefully provided for in the schedule of lectures of each semester. It is a defect in the French system that it fails to present the opportunity of free study and instruction which develops the highest gifts of those who are to become public teachers. The German system has this advantage over that of English fellows : the Privatdocenten not only investigate, but teach as well. Study apart from teaching often becomes unpractical and theoretical, while teaching without investigation becomes narrow and technical. The presence of such a class of young scholars, full of vital energy, acts as a powerful impulse to keep fresh the quality of instruction given by the professors.

The verdict of publication, which is always insisted upon in Germany preliminary to an appointment to a professor’s chair, is valuable as a test of capacity for investigation. A system which assumes nothing for granted in the choice of professors, but always demands some production as a test of merit, would elevate the character and work of all candidates for positions. We could then dispense with paper testimonials, and the personal element in making appointments would be largely eliminated. Elections to positions in our higher institutions of learning should be so conducted that a choice would become the goal of a worthy ambition.

That a reform is possible in the position which professors hold in a university cannot be doubted. The present method of appointment has not secured the ablest men, and the external government is not such as to accomplish the best results. It is useless to utter the truism that American universities are not on a par with European; the fact is too painfully manifest, and a continuance of the present system is powerless to effect what is needed. It does not secure the best men; it does not place the best scholars in a position where their views can exercise the widest influence; but under the jurisdiction of a loosely constituted board, chosen often for the most diverse reasons. The universities owe a higher debt to national education than they have ever paid ; they have not accomplished for national learning that which might reasonably be expected of them.

A source of weakness in the past has been the strictness with which appointments in minor colleges have been limited to their own graduates. To fill certain chairs, a laborious search is often made for one of the alumni of the college who, by chance, may possess some part of the qualifications needed. Nothing of this kind exists abroad. It is not asked where the scholar received his degree, if his merits point him out as the most desirable candidate. Men are constantly called from one university to another. Eminence in any branch of scholarship finds instant recognition, and that without envy.

Independence of the changes wrought by the success of a new party in power, or a new shade of popular opinion, is essential to a permanent and intelligent university administration.

The relations between the faculty and the governing board have been already indicated. In order that the voice of the faculty may be heard in all questions affecting the welfare of the university, and to prevent them, while sitting apparently in the places of authority, from being powerless to correct abuses and carry out needed reforms, it is necessary that representatives of the faculty should become members of the corporation. Without any change in any university charter, it is within the power of the corporation to take independently such action as will effect this result. The faculty should be authorized to elect annually two or more delegates to sit with the corporation, participating in its deliberations, and expressing freely their views on all questions; becoming thus the medium of communication between the faculty and trustees. Changes in the charter should embody the right of resident instructors to representation. That provision in the statutes of several states which forbids professors in a college from becoming members of the corporation is so framed as to exclude those who have devoted a life-time to the study of educational questions from having any voice in settling the most important interests connected with academic culture. It has been shown how all European examples are contrary to the American system, and that our early colleges found the principle here advocated useful in its operations. Members of the faculty of Harvard have served in the corporation and in the board of overseers repeatedly during the present century, as in the case of Henry Ware, who was an overseer from 1820 to 1830, of Dr. James Walker, who was a fellow, both of whom were academic professors ; James Freeman Clarke was an overseer from 1866 to 1872, and Judge Story was a fellow nearly the entire period in which he held his professorship in the law school. The wisdom with which the finances of Harvard were managed by the corporation of seven members, of whom a portion were resident instructors, shows the practicability of the plan here urged; and the disorder which followed a transfer, the lavish outlay and subsequent retrenchment, show how necessary is a competent acquaintance with the needs of all departments for judicious expenditure. The principle of autonomy in the faculty which is here advocated prevails in most professional schools in this country, in its leading scientific school, and in the admirable Museum of Comparative Zoölogy in Cambridge : having been thus successfully tested, its application may safely be extended to the academic faculties.

The bestowal of degrees should also rest with the faculty. It is quite anomalous that a body of non-educators should confer all marks of honor in letters, where they are necessarily dependent upon the judgment of those who give instruction. Those institutions which continue to bestow honorary degrees usually do so without any consultation with the appropriate faculty. Lawyers who have attained a local success, popular clergymen and patrons whose benefactions enrich the university treasury, commencement orators and congressmen, are the recipients of these valuable badges. Upon what basis of scholarship these degrees are.conferred no one has ever attempted to ascertain. The University of Virginia, the Cornell University, and the Johns Hopkins University are, I believe, the only prominent institutions which have never bestowed these honors except for the completion of a regular course of advanced study. No satisfactory reason has ever been given why the immediate control of a university should be taken from the faculty, a body of competent scholars, and entrusted to others with less experience in educational questions. The president was originally a teacher, ‘primus inter pares, like the rector of a German university, — a relation which has been changed by the unwise limitation of the powers of the faculty, and by the increasing needs of a general executive officer. A feeling of responsibility upon the part of each professor for all measures is necessary to give dignity to his work. A sense that his private interests are intimately associated with the success of the institution with which he is connected imparts increased efficiency, gives conscientiousness and fidelity in the discharge of duty, and a watchful care of all its interests.

The size of the faculty and its complex character make it advisable in many universities to elect a limited number from various departments to form a senate or council, to whom a general oversight of the administration and discipline may be entrusted. The senate should receive the instructions of the general faculty from time to time, and as an executive committee discuss and prepare measures to be laid before the greater faculty, and receive all applications for advanced degrees. There is a great waste of time in the cumbersome deliberations of a large body, which might be saved by entrusting minor matters to a standing committee, acting under general rules. Within the faculty an organization of the various related departments is valuable.

Few universities have a constitution fixing the mutual relations of the faculties and trustees, of the various departments, of professors and subordinates, their rights and times of service. These important matters are undetermined, and hence usage is variable and inconsistent, and disastrous consequences ensue.

A question which affects the general public, as well as concerns all our institutions for secondary education, is the character and value of the degrees which are conferred by different institutions. It must be confessed that a higher moral sentiment should be aroused in the various colleges of our country, to protect the people against diplomas issued by colleges and scientific and professional schools for superficial merit. The poverty of many schools, and their dependence upon numbers for their support, contributes to produce this unsatisfactory state of affairs. The modern haste in entering a profession, and the unwillingness to submit to thorough and long-continued study, have aided to bring about the present situation. An acquaintance with a few law books and a few facts regarding procedure is enough to make a lawyer, and many a physician receives his degree with little knowledge of chemistry, botany, physics, or comparative anatomy. Two solutions are possible : first, by state superintendence of our educational institutions, regulating the requirements for both academic and professional degrees. When it is considered that the school system of Germany in its present form is the product of the present century, that its excellence largely dates from the time when William vou Humboldt occupied the office of Minister of Public Instruction in Prussia, we cannot doubt that a similar success is possible in America. The state, by appointing a board of examiners, consisting of the ablest representative scholars from different colleges, could prescribe a course by which a degree might be conferred under the seal of the state, which would certify to scholarship in the liberal arts and sciences, or confer the title of civil engineer or the right to practice law or medicine within its limits. Such a provision would cause courses of study in law and medicine in all schools to be assimilated to the requirements of a state examination. Assuredly, the state has sufficient interest in the orderly administration of justice and in the lives and health of its citizens to take measures to secure such valuable results.

The action of a single state would harmonize the conflicting standards of the many colleges within its borders. A national conference, like those held in Jena in 1848 and in Berlin in 1849, which at that time, unfortunately, failed to accomplish what was hoped, but were a valuable contribution to the discussion of educational questions, might lead the way to a higher standard of study and examinations throughout the country.

A second solution may be found in the voluntary union of the faculties of the different colleges of a section or a state, like the conferences held annually by delegates from the New England colleges, which have aided to elevate and make uniform the requirements for admission. A commission which agreed upou some equal or parallel conditions for the bestowal of different degrees might not secure uniformity, but would set up a goal towards which educational efforts would be directed.

The proposition which is here advocated, namely, the participation of the faculty in the government, has been shown to be the prevailing system in the Continental universities, to have been in part the usage at Harvard for one hundred and fifty years, and to be, with shades of difference, the practice in the English universities. In one or two of the great universities of this country, and in its most successful scientific school, the government rests practically with the faculty. The sense of responsibility which is felt for the prosperity of a university on the part of all the professors is one of the most valuable results of this system. Instead of being merely assigned to a department of instruction, and administering laws laid down for them, powerless to remedy flagrant abuses and errors of government, they become the active custodians of the order and the culture of the university. The German and English universities are the centre of the learning of those countries; they are the seat of an enthusiastic and chivalrous scholarship. The organization which has made these universities so remarkable in literary industry and productions is certainly worthy of consideration, if investigation and critical scholarship are to find a home in this country. If this nation is to bear an equal part in the advance of learning, we certainly cannot rest content with the methods and instrumentalities of the past. Old organizations must be expanded and assume a new life ; the connection of instruction with investigation, which has been ignored so long in England, must be recognized. Study without a practical aim becomes dreamy and unproductive, while entire absorption in the work of instruction renders advanced study impossible. A lack of unity of action on the part of our higher institutions of learning has given rise to the varying standard of instruction, and to the unequal value of degrees; even where a fixed curriculum of study exists, designed to secure the general culture of students, greater uniformity of action is possible and desirable.

Another aim, akin to that which has been suggested, would be a unifying of the number and meaning of the different degrees. State control of education abroad establishes a certain uniformity in the value of degrees. It would be easy to mention a score or more of first degrees which are conferred in different colleges of our country. Many are practically meaningless ; others are worse than useless. Each college gives to the degree of bachelor of literature, of science, and philosophy whatever signification it chooses, and the public acquiesces with a quiet skepticism, and an increased conviction that under the present system all degrees are worthless. The reckless creation of new degrees thus produces merited fruit, but a result in which the cause of education suffers.

Among the subjects, then, which demand consideration in higher education are the constitution of the governing board in a university, the relation of the faculty to the general administration, the organization of faculties and departments, and the question of academic degrees.

W. T. Hewett.