In case

of dismissal, Barneaud ([3], p. 349) says: Never is the victim given a chance to defend himself against his accusations. It is through proceedings which remind one of the star chamber that the professor is sacrificed.

*

* *

A visitor from Europe is struck by the prominence of the president in an American university or college, and the almost monarchical position which he sometimes occupies toward the professors as well as toward the students. Far more authority seems to be vested in him, far more to turn upon his individual talents and character than in the universities of Europe.

While in democratic America the appointments are made by the president and by the trustees of the institutions without the official cooperation of the faculty, in monarchical Germany no Government can appoint a professor who has not been proposed by the faculty.

The most recent criticism on this point is that of Caullery. He

([14], p. 47) says:

*

*

**

The common characteristic of all types of university control is that the professors have no part in the constitution of the governing board, and that of all the interests in play those of the intellectual and technical order are the only ones not to be directly represented in an assured order. This is unquestionably a defect and many voices are being raised in justice against it * * *. The board of trustees was an organization in the old college in which the unity was absolute and which comprised a small number of professors and pupils. It should now be adapted to the new institutions and their needs. The technical incompetence and excess of power of the trustees or regents is evidently a serious fault of the present régime and this defect is increased by the gigantic size which is a peril for the universities as well as for their organization. The problem is evidently to give autonomy to the individuals while maintaining a coordination in the whole institution. The teaching force in general sometimes suffers from the autocracy of the president except where the latter uses his power with discretion or where, without being compelled to do so, he officially consults the competent professors concerning nominations to be made. But even with the best intentions, one man can not comprehend equally all the needs and all the tendencies. He will necessarily favor those who accord with his personal preferences. There result from this situation some abuses of power and some conflicts which, though rare exceptions, are none the less deplorable. Some professors have seen themselves brutally dismissed from certain universities without having an opportunity to defend themselves, simply because they expressed opinions which did not please the president or the trustees. There are evidently legitimate causes for dismissal defense must be assured.

*

* * but the right of

A comparison of the foregoing criticism, which is arranged in chronological order, does not leave a happy impression concerning improvement. Cases of brutal dismissal are seemingly becoming rare but the fear of such a thing must still be a very strong influence. One thing seems certain, a more democratic type of organization is needed and in case of dismissal the right of defense must be safe

guarded. A further bad influence of the present system is that it is being imitated in the normal schools. The situation seems undemocratic, and therefore undesirable.

The present system is also detrimental in its policy concerning the recruital and advancement of professors. Thus Caullery ([14], p. 59) says:

The professors have no regular part in their recruitment and have no permanent tenure. This is due to a characteristic of American customs which has general advantages. There are no permanent positions where one can go to sleep in security and inaction at the expense of general interests. Each professor must justify his position by real activity. They are elected during good behavior or at the pleasure of the trustees. The administration has then at hand a power which it can use almost instantaneously. It is used only in rare cases, but it is none the less a real menace against which the professors are without recourse. They are totally lacking in the guaranties which higher instruction possesses in other countries.

Marchis ([62], p. 7) says:

The advancement of the professors is not based upon precise rules of choice and length of service. There exists a certain type of bargaining. When a professor feels that he is indispensable in the work which he directs he learns how to elicit from other universities more advantageous propositions from which he may profit in his actual situation. Those whom a somewhat exaggerated delicacy keeps from making overtures are the victims. obtain advancement only when they ask for it.

Münsterberg ([67], p. 106) says:

The professors

The American professor can advance only by building himself up in his own institution, since the possibility of being called to other institutions depends largely upon chance; but he can build himself up in his own institution only by either busying himself with administrative troubles, by becoming a favorite with the elementary students, by being a pleasing speaker or by writing textbooks, but not by original investigation. As a result of such a system higher teachers in America are without means and too often without breeding. They are mostly men with a passive, almost indifferent type of mind, without intellectual energy, men who see in the academic career a modest, safe path of life.

This criticism undoubtedly contains elements of truth. There is not sufficient provision for the growth of the professor. This will mean that many of the best types of men will avoid entering such careers. On the other hand, the Americans believe that the really capable man will find his level. This is true if he is left free to advance. But if certain elements of our organization tend to interfere with such freedom such is not the case. America must avoid the inaction which results when the tenure and advancement is too much guarded. On the other hand, we must also avoid the opposite extreme. The golden mean seems to lie in the direction of a more democratic form of organization-some provision by which the members of the faculty may have more access to the trustees and exert more influence in their deliberations.

There is some difference of opinion as to the value of American departmental organization. Muhlman ([69], p. 12) calls attention to the fact that assistant professors should be permitted freedom of growth in their positions. He thinks that the assistant position should not be a step toward a full professorship.

says:

Foster, in the Mosely Report ([66], p. 115), Each department of ar. American university is an organic whole. Each teacher has the opportunity of doing that particular piece of work for which he is most suited, though he is not necessarily restricted to one piece. Thus in mathematics each pupil can get just the kind of teaching he needs, while the teacher though working in a restricted field is kept in touch with the larger aspects of mathematical teaching.

Foster, in the Mosely Report ([66], p. 109), says:

The unity of departmental organization in the university exerts a modifying influence on the teacher who is inclined to cranks and fads, both in his teaching and his examining, and by constant intercourse of all the members of the department his work becomes unified without being uniform.

All three of these criticisms seem to possess value for America. There is, unfortunately, a tendency for a difference in standing to grow up between the assistants and the head professors. The president, particularly, tends to be set upon a pedestal, as it were. Both the president and the head of the department are often selected for their positions through local or even political influences. To glorify either of these officials is objectionable, because the emphasis tends to be placed upon the ability to play politics rather than upon professional merit. A still more serious objection is the fact that it violates the American principle of equality and respect for personality. It seems much more desirable in a democracy such as ours for the educational policies to be determined by the faculty as a whole or by the department as a whole, thus making the president and the heads of departments merely representatives of the faculty or parts of the faculty in this respect. It should be the duty of these officials to carry out the wishes and directions of the faculty rather than the reverse. Under such conditions the rapidly developing class system of our higher schools could be prevented. The administrative duties of a professional nature should be in the hands of some lower-salaried assistant rather than directed by a high-salaried autocrat.

The influence of American control and organization upon college and university students receives some attention from the critics. De Martonne ([25], p. 428) thinks that—

In general the American student is followed up, guided, and watched more than the French student is. * * * Each course carries with it an hour of obligatory study in which the student must review his notes and do reading prescribed by the professor, must attend recitations, and stand final examinations. This tends to destroy individual initiative.

Muhlmann ([69], p. 8) says:

The university students have no academic freedom such as the German students have, but are under a fixed compulsion as to attendance and are subjected to a finely divided examination system.

American students are required to attend too many lectures a week. The students are overworked or the work done is not of a very advanced character. When we consider how much freer the discipline of American schools is than that customary in England, it seems strange that college life there should offer so narrow a field for self-direction of the individual. We feel * * that the cause of this is the exaction of 15 hours per week attendance upon lectures. The pupils need time to think, but such a privilege it seems to us few college

students can ever enjoy.

Caullery says ([14], p. 154):

*

In accordance with old college ideals, the university has retained a practice of continual and methodical control over the work of the pupils. They are treated in this regard like boys who must be watched attentively and not like men who should be allowed to act as such. The American student is not left to himself enough. Instead of being encouraged to reflect, he is constantly guided.

On the other hand, there is a sense in which college students are more free in America than they are in Europe. The American student is more free to choose his course, and is not driven by the fear of external examinations. The law of use favors frequent practice rather than cramming. While this may interfere slightly with the student's freedom and may cause him to abandon some task in which he is engaged in order to attend class, the advantages of the plan are worthy of serious consideration. Therefore it does not seem advisable to change the present plan, at least below the graduate level.

One should carefully avoid encroaching too far, however, upon the student's time for continued work and reflection.

As in the secondary school, there is much favorable comment upon student life in America in connection with the colleges and universities. Walther ([89], p. 15) thinks that the memory of happy college days is one of the causes of the liberal support which is provided for American colleges and universities. College and university fraternities are condemned as snobbish, expensive, and lacking in distinct literary and intellectual ideals. The college dormitory seems peculiarly attractive. Thus Cestre ([15], p. 28) says:

The college dormitory assures an abundant and sane life to its occupants and nourishes local patriotism. It furnishes conditions of comfort and even luxury, which the French student rarely knows.

The critics are universally attracted by the relations between the

professors and the students. Barneaud ([3], p. 272) says:

*

The students have entire confidence in their professors. They know that they are in good hands. The most happy impression which remains to me of my visit * * is the absolute certainty which has resulted from conversation with students that they could not have more devoted or more perfect professors. I have detected among the students none of the criticism, ridicule, or unkind allusions which unfortunately have come to me in some noted schools.

Cestre ([15], p. 28) says:

He descends from

The American professor opers his door at all times to those of his students who by their intellect and tact merit this favor. his professional dignity and receives them into his home and fireside.

Compayré ([19], p. 218) says:

The students do not live in barracks like ours do. The quarters are pleasant. Self-government is the rule, and there is not the least instinct of revolt.

Douarche ([27], p. 503) says:

The students have much freedom. The old morose pedagogue has disappeared and the growth of athletic games and plays in the open air has improved the moral and physical health of the college population. Moreover, it has created little by little an esprit de corps which is the surest guaranty of happy emulation and progress in American colleges.

It is noticeable that all of the preceding criticisms come from Frenchmen. It seems a convincing testimonial to the superiority of the American practice over the French in this regard.

The critics quite generally agree that American college life is. democratic. The students not only respect the professors but they respect each other. The idea that college boys and even college girls can work their way without losing the respect of their schoolmates seems a never-ending cause of wonder.

The criticism with reference to the method and content of American university instruction is quite limited. De Martonne compliments our work in geography, and there is much favorable comment concerning our science teaching. Langlois objects to the content of our work in the educational psychology. The first two criticisms seem merited. In the third case the content of the work has changed so markedly for the better that the criticism no longer applies.

The criticism in method covers the points already noted under elementary and secondary education. It also centers somewhat about the research method which is universally praised.

In general, the part of the American higher education which is of most interest and which is perhaps most worthy of study and improvement is that which deals with the spirit and the organization of the work.