higher learning. I cannot agree with those who claim that this aspiration of large numbers of our youth to enter the universities is significant of a real desire for enlightenment and a thirst for knowledge for its own. sake. It seems to me to be largely due to economic impulses. But that is a consideration which does not concern us here directly. Suffice it to say, that the condition exists and that it has been much aggravated by the close of the World War. At the present time our universities are all overcrowded. The education of every student represents a very considerable monetary expenditure. The result is that even liberal appropriations in any institution are inadequate for its work. Many more instructors are required and much more equipment is necessary. If it could be determined that it is the proper sphere of universities to furnish better mental or technical equipment for the masses we could not of course cavil at the situation which obtains. But there is much reason to doubt that the highest centers of learning in our states should be the vehicles of ordinary technical education for average or below-average students. At much smaller expense and doubtless more thoroughly we could provide the necessary technical education for the less than average intellects among our youth in the high schools and technical schools which exist and in others which could be added. It seems to me entirely reasonable to expect that our universities should be reserved for the best intellects among our young men and women, and that the opportunity for a university education should not be cheapened but made a sort of prize for the best minds and those who are destined to be leaders among men. There always must be and will be leaders among men, just as there always must be and will be among them the "hewers of wood and drawers of water."

If all this be assumed, and the assumption appears to me to be entirely reasonable by whatever system of

ratiocination we accord it, why should we not select for our universities by entrance examinations the best of our young intellects so as to have at least none of less than average ability within the academic walls. This plan moreover would be entirely consonant with the other proposal made above to render adequate or nearly so the present financial resources of our universities. The examinations set need not be very difficult nor numerous. Indeed they can be made very simple and a choice from only four or five groups of subjects would suffice for them. Even with such simple requirements there is good reason to believe that we could eliminate from thirty per cent to fifty per cent of those who are now admitted merely on a high school certificate. This surmise would seem to gain much support and acquire a new significance from the results of the recent "intelligence tests" which have been applied in an experimental way in some of our institutions during the past few months. Surely it would seem reasonable to suppose that young persons who are incapable of passing an easy "power" test in four out of five fields of study such as mathematics, natural science, foreign language, history, and English are not suited to university work and do not justify large expenditures of time and money by the university; especially since all such students are a hindrance to the speedy and inspiring progress of their more gifted and industrious fellow students. In view of these statements one is naturally led to inquire why so many high school graduates are considered incapable of passing such simple tests. How comes it that such meager mental equipment suffices to allow graduation from high school? That is a question which for lack of space cannot adequately be treated here and it is probably not directly germane to the subject of this paper. It may be indicated briefly, however, that the answer to such questions is to be found in the inferior teachers in which our high schools abound, in the willingness of

teachers and principals to "pass" students because of pressure exerted by parents and local school authorities, and in several other considerations. To those who have observed the situation closely there can be no doubt of the facts.

I would like the reader to note particularly that this proposal for the limitation of number of students does not, like the increase in tuition fees, savor of anything undemocratic; nor is it so. It merely offers a competitive system like others already in use in other fields of human endeavor for recognizing the able and gifted and placing in their proper sphere those of inferior mental and general intellectual equipment. It places a premium on and furnishes an incentive to high grade intellectual development in our youth which is bound to redound to the untold credit of the country. It helps to solve one of the biggest problems in university support. It makes possible a more speedy and more effective education of those naturally destined for intellectual leadership.

I wish in addition to point out most emphatically that the adoption of such entrance requirements in all our colleges and universities will not work hardship to any class of our youth. Those young men and women who are not endowed by nature for education of university grade may be provided with technical education in junior colleges or advanced or technical high schools whereby they may be prepared for the numerous lesser tasks in our industrial and commercial life. It should be observed also that this proposal makes possible an assistance to the first proposal discussed above since it will permit of the removal to such secondary schools or junior colleges of many of the departments which have thus far been thrown helterskelter into our universities. It has always seemed to me ludicrous, and a serious reflection on the faculties and governing boards of our universities, that subjects of very widely different values in intellectual training should be given the same

university credit and taught within the same walls. That "three unit" courses in cooking, typewriting, millinery, grading of apples, and so on should be regarded as equivalent in intellectual training to "three unit" courses in mathematics, physics, chemistry, mechanics, and physiology, seems to me to be a sad commentary on either the judgment or the honesty of those responsible for such a system. No reasonable and informed person can maintain that such equivalence exists.

This should not be taken to mean that I do not approve of instruction in the first-named subjects. On the contrary, I favor much wider and more thorough teaching of those subjects in every state in the union, but in special schools-not in the university. Let it not be assumed further from my remark that I am attempting to cast aspersions on those who are unfit for the study of mathematics, the sciences, or the languages. Far from it. I do not yield to anyone in my respect for those who are by nature endowed with skill for mechanical tasks but are not highly gifted intellectually. But the two groups of persons are different; they have different missions to perform in the world, and each should receive training in the environment best suited to itthe future intellectual leaders in the universities, the future leaders in the manual arts in technical schools.

These proposals in the interests of ameliorating if not of curing the deplorable financial condition at present obtaining in our universities may have been made before in one form or another. Certainly their possibilities must have occurred to thinking college men. But I have seen nowhere in print an emphatic, specific, and straightforward attempt to place the situation clearly and briefly before the public. This I have attempted in my humble way to do. Let no one say that these proposals are not feasible. Expediency and politics, and individual selfishness aside, they are perfectly feasible and practicable. What we need for the consummation of the end sought

is a clear vision, an unselfish attitude, a willingness to coöperate for the general good. It would be my suggestion that a conference of representatives of colleges and universities be called for the purpose of formulating plans whereby the proposals here submitted may be put into effect. A general conference might first be held followed by special conferences in different geographical centers. It is needless to say that some of the changes will have to be made gradually. The adjustment of different faculties to the new situation might necessitate a period of two to three years in order that no unfairness to individuals might ensue. But all that is a matter of detail. I am chiefly concerned now with acquainting the public with the situation as I see it and with proposing perfectly practicable measures for its cure if we will but use them.

It is important to note that this discussion of the subject puts another face on the matter of financial support for our institutions of higher learning; that the cry for help which has gone up from those institutions, while in a way justified, is distinctly misleading in another way since it does not tell the public the whole truth, which is that the power to effect the cure for the present distressing condition is to be found largely within the institutions themselves. Merely another viewpoint, greater honesty, and more regard for the common weal are requisite for the purpose. A wonderful opportunity presents itself now for the universities to help themselves and to raise the plane of our higher education much higher than it now is. Will they avail themselves thereof?

1

"