title: The organization and administration of a state's institutions of higher education,
text: ik''^':l:i:n:ii:lB(i"ii!iyv'V, ■;:'■'■''/ ''il'ill"'!"'.- liliil .j;i;!!;;irp iin S:i|i, fflifec ii^i' liii'i';:-!;': HkS!ii-:;i-;:;.'; •; ■ i.;l:;f:;;;;;lt;.;<.;: .!; W'^ ft;.. wmm t-^*;.; Book CopyrigtitS" COKRIGHT DEPOSIT THE ORGANIZATION AND ADMINIS- TRATION OF A STATE'S INSTITU- TIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION BY ARTHUR LEFEVRE SOMETIME SECRETARY FOR RESEARCH OF ORGANIZATION FOR THE ENLARGEMENT BY THE STATE OF TEXAS OF ITS INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION AUSTIN, TEXAS VONiBoECKMANN-JONES Co., PRINTERS 1914 THE ORGANIZATION AND ADMINIS- TRATION OF A STATE'S INSTITU- TIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION BY ARTHUR LEFEVRE SOMETIME SECRETARY FOR RESEARC OF ORGANIZATION FOR THE ENLARGEMENT BY THE STATE OF TEXAS OF ITS INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION AUSTIN, TEXAS Von Boeckmann-Jones Co., Printers 1914 LB ^3-^ 14- All bulletins published by the Organization for the Enlargement by the State of Texas of its Institutions of Higher Education are intended to stimulate critical thought. In order that correct conclusions may be reached the Board of Control would welcome care- fully considered communications discussing the prob- lems treated in such publications, or any other ques- tions concerning the State's work of education. Copyright 1914 by Arthur Lefevre JAN26i9lb )CU393421 U CONTENTS ^' PAET I Features of Organization for Which the State Legislature is Kesponsible (With Special Reference to the State of Texas) I. Prerequisite Conceptions 1 II. Diverse Institutions. Two Eemedies for the Evils of Eivalry Under Precarious Support — The Question of "Duplication^^ 5 III. Inexpediency of a Central Board of Control. Historical Summary — ^The Standard System — The Only Needed Adjustment of the Texas System 11 IV. State Normal Schools. Correlation with Colleges^ — Schools for Defectives ... 24 V. Voluntary Co-operation. Timely Suggestions : The Necessary Tax ; Appor- tionment of the Proposed Tax; Co-operation by Fed- eral Government; with Colleges; with Theological Seminaries; by Individual Citizens 33 PAET II Internal Organization and Administration I. Preliminary. Internal Effects of Precarious Support — A Needed Service — Method of Presentation 70 II. The Governing Board. Eeasons for the Essential Features of the American System — Proper Nature of the Board^s Control — Ee- lation to the President — Two Theories of University Management — The Two Essential Eesponsibilities — The Status of the Faculty — Faculty Participation in University Government — The Cornell Plan — Prac- ticable Solutions — The Final Eesponsibility 85 IV CONTENTS i III. Business Management. Bookkeeping — The Budget — Business Manager — Grounds and Buildings — ^Financial Eeports and Audits — Mistaken Analogies — Suggestions — Eegis- trar^s Office — Advertising 138 lY. The Executive Officer. Full Conception of the Presidential Office — Essential Functions — The Problem of Elimination — The Atti- tude of Colleagueship with Faculty — Secondary Ad- ministrators 196 y. The Faculty. The Deanship — Faculty Secretaries — Libraries and Museums — Department Organization — Eank-Ten- ure-Salaries^ — Eecruiting a Faculty — Freedom of Teaching— Ideals 234 yi. Administration of the Curriculum. Existing College Curricula— The Elective System — Mistaken Devices — Credit for Quality — Grading — Admission Eequirements — Proper Eelation of the American University to the American High School. N'ote on Elementary Schools. N'ote on Industrial Training , ; 312 yil. Student Life and Work. Undergraduates — Graduate Division — Extension Di- vision — Athletics — Dormitories and Fraternities — Student Self- Government — The Honor System — Co- Education — Concludinof Eemarks 407 '■i=) Appendix — Note on the subject of Part I : 515 Index 517 THE ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF A STATE'S INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION PART I FEATURES OF ORGANIZATION FOR WHICH THE STATE LEGISLATURE IS RESPONSIBLE WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE STATE OF TEXAS I. PREEEQUISITB CONCEPTION'S It is needful, to-day in America, to pause at the outset of any serious discussion either of organization or administration, by a man who does not share the prevalent notion that organization and administration mean the same thing, to explain the very ideas to be invoked by the words. It is the confusion of those ideas, and not ^^education^"' that is really "the great American super- stition." The misconception is manifested in almost every social or political movement. The desire to "do things'' is seldom di- rected by knowledge of the importance of accomplishing them through proper agencies. Or, only some nearest relation or par- ticular consequence of a measure is regarded, and its distant con- nections or permanent tendencies are ignored. Associated with the main misconception, in educational affairs, has been the notion tliat "executive ability" is a thing apart from and independent of masterful knowledge of the business in hand. Also, because financiering combinations have been successfully administered Avithout being truly organized, it has been supposed that univer- sities (and school systems) could be prospered in like manner. In this error it has been forgotten that a dividend was the simple object and criterion of success in the financiering combination; whereas a university should be a true organism, not a mere combi- nation, and its parts can healthfully subsist only in an atmosphere of confidence and fellowship and through spontaneous mutual service. 2 PREREQUISITE CONCEPTIONS In an organism it is not sufficient that there should be a sepa- ra^te agency for discharging every essential function, nor is the right idea completed by adding the conception of the proper autonomy of each organ. Genuine organization requires, besides both of those characteristics, that every organ should sympathize and co-operate with ever}^ other organ. The administrative organ of the entire organism can not fully or rightly discharge its func- tion unless that condition exists. If disorganization has occurred at any other point, the admin- istrative function strives to restore the local responsibility and the general harmony; and in the wise order of nature administration is not conceived as established for the deranged part until both its local responsibility and the general harmony have been restored — that is to say, until it has been organized again. On the other hand, if a university or college president acts as an autocrat usurping or inhibiting functions not his own, or if all within the sphere of his administration can not depend upon his competency and courage and on his absolute fidelity in transmitting the com- munications from part to part made through him and on the com- plete truthfulness of his statements to any part concerning an- other part, — then such a university, however busily administered, is disorganized at its most vital point; and its condition is, in the strict sense' of the word, insane, and comparable to the condition of a body administered by a brain whose reports, messages, and commands are faithless, conflicting, founded in vain conceits. Disorganization of a different sort, but equally injurious, ensues, if a governing board transgresses its proper legislative function. Supreme power of every kind, subject only to the law of the land, is vested in the governing board ; but nothing short of an incurable state of insurrection could justify the assumption of administrative functions normally committed to the executive officer of the board or belonging to the faculty. The condition is comparable to the suspension of a country's regular laws and the proclamation of PREREQUISITE CONCEPTIONS 3 martial law. Any overstepping of the bounds of its proper func- tion should be recognized as a last recourse by the governing board of an educational institution. Such a remedy is applicable only to a desperate disorder, because the remedy would be worse than the disease in any case less than desperate. Worst of all may be the disorganization superinduced by im- proper exercise of power by a state legislature. Such disorganiza- tion is absolute and permanent, and without remedy until the institution involved is, as it were, refounded by another legisla- ture. There is, indeed, truth in the Greek maxim, "No law is a good law unless it is has good executors^^; but Commissioner Draper, of the State of New York, speaks out of an abundance of experience and observation when he says: "Troubles in adminis- tration [of educational institutions] seldom come from the pres- ence of vicious characters; they arise from a confusion of powers and prerogatives, and from a disposition which men seem to have to direct matters the most about which they know the least. When powers are based upon principles the troubles will largely disap- pear." The fundamental principle for the case in question^ is that the legislature ought never to infringe upon the sphere of admin- istration. It is the part of the legislature to create a governing body for the institution, in the way that is shown to be best calcu- lated to secure the most competent and faithful execu.tors of the Staters general purpose. Such an organ having been created, to it should be committed the government and control of the insti- tution. It is the function of the board of regents to govern the institution, and to supervise the administraion of all its enter- prises in accordance with a soundly organized procedure. The legislature, of course, retains a regulative power which, normally, ought to be exercised only in its decisions concerning appropria- tions of money in addition to the proceeds of an established tax, for new developments recommended by the governing board. 4 PREREQUISITE COI^CEPTIONS In a previous study, published March 28, 1912, the present writer offered the first results of his endeavors to fulfill the duties and opportunities of "Secretary for Research'' for the Organiza- tion he had the honor of serving. That investigation, entitled "A Study of the Financial Basis of the State Universities and Agri- cultural Colleges in Fourteen States/' contributed, as its main object, a reliable practical calculation of the amount of money that must be supplied annually by the State of Texas for the sup- port of its three institutions of higher education, if the people of this State desire to secure for themselves the average serviceable- ness of the corresponding institutions "in all the States that have seriously undertaken to secure efficient services from such institu- tions." Of course, efficiency depends more upon the wisdom of persons than upon the financial basis, but it was not possible m a statis- tical discussion to take the wisdom factor into accoimt. The present study enters the domain of judgments based upon prin- ciples and practical experience, as distinguished from calculatious based upon statistics, yet even here it is possible only to consider arrangements conducive to good results. In the ultimate execu- tion of any design it is the individual that counts. We are prone to put too much faith in systems, and look too little to men. Still, a bad system of organization demoralizes the cooperative spirit of the group and leads to the selection of weak or bad in- dividuals. II. DIVEESE INSTITUTIONS The scope of the study presented in Part I of this book must be limited by an immediate reference to the existing state institutions of higher education in the State of Texas. It would go beyond its subject to include modifications of organization applicable only to the private corporations of endowed or denominational institu-, tions. The individual permanence and autonomy of the three institu- tions already established by the State of Texas — University of Texas, Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, State College for Women^might, without rashness, be assumed; but it will be advantageous to consider the question thoroughly. Two Remedies for Evils of Rivo^hy Under Precarious Support All the arguments advanced in favor of combining two or more state institutions of higher education in one university, or in favor of one central board of control for separate institutions, reduce to two: (1) duplication of work, and (2) injurious rivalry before legislatures in ever-recurring scrambles for appropriations. The second argument refers to a serious evil in many States; and, if there were no remedy but consolidation, decisive weight would attach to this argument in spite of valid objections to re- stricting all educational work beyond secondary schools to one institution. But there is another remedy for the evil. A state tax for the institutions of higher education adequate to their regular support and definitely apportioned between them by the law levying the tax, would remove the ground of injurious rivalry. It is remarkable that this effective remedy for the evils of rivalry under precarious support seems not to suggest itself to advocates of concentration or of central boards. This subject is developed in Chapter Y, treating of voluntar}^ co-operation, where the tax 6 THE QUESTION OP DUPLICATION^ necessary for the maintenance and improvement of the Texas institutions and the proper method of apportioning it are discussed. The Question of "Duplication" There remains the argument founded on duplication of work. Perusal of many published discussions of the question has not dis- covered a single attempt to estimate the extra cost* of duplica- tion. Even as strong a man as President "Van Hise contents himself with assuming that duplication causes such waste that separate institutions must be consolidated, or that the objectionable central boards ^''are inevitable." In my judgment the case is by no means so bad or so hopeless. Speaking of a separate univer- sity and agricultural college, it is exclaimed, "Each of these in- stitutions must have a department of physics and a department of chemistry," also that there must be "in each studies in English and economics, French and German." Such exclamations are not arguments. In cases where each institution has overcrowded labor- atories and insufficient teaching force, how would the cost be mate- rially reduced by removing to one of them the students at the *Tlie report of the U. S. Commissioner of Education for 1912, issued six months after the publication of Part I of this study (here reprinted together with Part II), includes a report on this question by Dr. K. C. Babcock, Chief of the Division of Higher Education. No estimate of the cost of duplication is made, but he states : "The waste due to duplication of faculty, equipment, and buildings is frequently overestimated. While it may be temporarily noticeable in weak, new commonwealths, which have distributed their institutions, the perm.anence of this defect in a given State system will depend largely upon the rapidity of the growth of popu- lation and the upward reach of the work undertaken. The work done at the present time by the three higher institutions supported by the State of Michigan, and the two supported by the State of Indiana, would not greatly gain in efficiency if it were all combined in each State in one place and under one management, while the economies would be confined to a few administrative salaries saved in the process of centralization." Never- theless, Dr. Babcock refers with apparent approval to an opinion favoring "combining in one institution the colleges of liberal arts and sciences and all the professional schools, including colleges of engineering and agricul- ture, for a given State." A list is given of institutions that have been THE QUESTION OF DUPLICATION 7 other? Certain administrative and overhead expenses are indeed duplicated; but they are not sufficient in amount to compel a reck- less ignoring of strong affirmative reasons, where such exist, for the continuance of deeply-rooted historical developments. Enor- mous size does not make an institution great, neither does it insure economy, or efficiency, or desirable progress. President Yan Hise opened his address to the iSTational Associa- tion of State Universities, at Minneapolis in October, 1911, by saying: "So far as I know, there is a general consensus of opin- ion among educators that it is advantageous to make a single uni- versity for a given State. The separation of a part of higher education into a university, another part into an agricultural and mechanical college^ another into a school of mines necessarily re- sults in duplication.'' Everything implied in this statement, ex- cept the fact of "duplication,'' may be questioned, as was pointedly developed in the discussion that followed. One of the speakers (the president of a State university whose experience includes eight yea,rs' service as the president of an agricultural college) consolidated, but no item in it has tke least bearing on the question before us. The item of the (sadly brief) catalog characterized as '"'the latest and most noteworthy merger," is the union of Scio College and Mount Union College, Ohio. The former had 64 college students and total income of $6550, the latter 127 students and income of about $23,000. The incident is recent, but why so "noteworthy"? The two little institu- tions were under the direction of the same church and less than fifty miles apart. There are in Ohio over forty private and denominational colleges, whereof the majority ought to be consolidated or abolished. Great good would result. But such affairs have nothing to do with a State's policy concerning two firmly established institutions of standard rank. It ought not to be necessary to abolish either of such institutions to prevent useless duplication of expensive specialized work, or technologi- cal branches requiring costly equipment. Really wasteful duplication by two state institutions is immoral; but if real, it is provable. If proved, show the proof to the presidents and governing boards. They would prob- ably adjust the matter. If not they should be criticized until it is cor- rected. The important point would be to prove any waste or other injury in a given duplication. That would be a better way and certainly an easier way, than to attempt to abolish a large, flourishing college. 8 THB QUESTION OF DUPLICATION differed diametrically, holding: "It would be to the disadvantage of the agTicnltnral interests of the country if all agricultural col- leges were made parts of the State universities." Eef erring to a particular institution, he was of the opinion that it did "more for the particular purpose for which it was instituted by very reason of its separate existence." But it might be granted that, abstractly, or as an original d^ign, one comprehensive university should be preferred to more than one institution, yet it would not follow tl^iat several established institutions ought always to be re- duced to one. Texas may well determine that no "School of Mines," or any new department, shall henceforth be established as a separate in- stitution; but it may also rest contented with the historical de- velopments which have created its State University, Agricultural and Mechanical College, and State College for Women. The ques- tion of duplication would become serious for such institutions only at the stage of graduate departments, and in the case of certain technical branches that require very costly equipment. ]^o school of mines, for instance, ought to be duplicated in them. Graduate departments in the full sense have not yet come into existence in Texas. The necessary means for graduate work, such as would justify advanced students in seeking in this State the specialisf s degree (the doctorate), have never yet been provided. When such developments are made possible for the University of Texas, there should be little danger of wasteful duplication in the other state institutions. If the scramble before each Legislature to continue a precarious existence is replaced by a sufficient tax apportioned in a fixed ratio, rational hopes may be cherished that the separate institutions will be administered so that the cost will not be se- riously increased by duplication, and that mutual stimulation will conduce to a steadily improving service. In the second part of this study (treating of internal organization and administration) will be indicated far more wasteful application of teaching force THE QUKSTTON OF DUPLICATION 9 than could be involved in duplicated undergraduate work of two institutions. There, also, will be considered the internal effects of rivalry under precarious support. Finally, while duplication beyond undergraduate work is gen- erally to be avoided by state institutions, in regard to others it should be understood that even total duplication is often consistent with true economy and with thoroughly wholesome conditions. The establishment of Leland Stanford undoubtedly helped the University of California immeasurably^ and the University of Chi- cago still more definitely and effectively assisted the University of Illinois. The president of the University of Illinois himself testified last July in an address before the National Education Association, that the "foundation of the University of Chicago, by the bold and striking way in which it raised high aloft the standard of science, gave an impetus to the university idea which made the work of [all the surrounding universities] more ade- quate and more easy.^' It is a matter of high congratulation for the people of Texas that the Rice Institute of Literature, Science, and Art is going to "duplicate^' many of the undertakings of our State institutions. The Johns Hopkins University with half the endo"wment of the Eice Institute caused a great uplift in every im- portant institution of learning in the United States. Although no such unique opportunity is open to the Eice Institute, its untram- meied self-government, and the comprehensive views and lofty ideals and practical purposes already indicated by its manage- ment, constitute very valid grounds of hope that the parallel ac- tivities of this new institution will in due time prove to be most beneficial to all other enterprises for higher education in Texas. There is a matter that ought never to be confused with the question we have briefly discussed, which I shall not take up in this study at all. It is so special, and in some States so impor- tant, that it should be treated in a studv devoted to it alone. I 10 THE QUESTION OP DUPLICATION- refer to cases in which some "school'' of a university, such as its school of medicine, and the main body of the university are situ- ated in different localities. It may be remarked in passing, how- ever, that the idea and. practice recently wrought out by the Uni- versity of Michigan offer to any one desirous of studjdng the or- ganization and conduct of university schools of medicine the most significant lessons to be found in this country. The existing facts about medical education and a discussion of the organiza- tion and administration of medical schools have been presented by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in two great bulletins. These reports by Abraham Flexner, Med- ical Education in the United States and Canada, 1910, and Med- ical Education in Europe, 1912, ought to be epoch making. III. INEXPEDIENCY OF A CBNTEAL BOAED OF CONTROL Logically, the notion of a central board of control has been dis- posed of by showing that duplication of undergraduate studies in separate institutions is not injurious and may be advantageous, and by pointing to a better and surer remedy for the evil of in- cessant rivalries before legislatures. Nevertheless, it will be ad- vantageous to discuss directly the subject of a central board, if only because logic is generally ignored by persons who are ever ready to approve any legislation proposed as a cure for an evident disorder. Eespectable advocates of a central board of control all see great evil and greater risk in such a board, but they deem it a lesser evil than "duplication" and "rivalry before legislatures." Such is the attitude of President Van Hise, whose paper upon the sub- ject, already referred to, comprises everything that could be found in less vigorous discussions favoring a central board of control. He considers the dangerous central board inevitable unless university and agricultural college are united in one university, or overlap- ping is kept at a minimum. Like everyone else, he has only two arguments. Those arguments, having been dealt with, the gloomy prophecies based upon them fall with their foundations. If the "rivaln^" argument be removed by a sufficient and definitely appor- tioned state tax, it is difficult to conceive how a vague objection to "duplication" could be deemed more weighty than the downright objections to a central board which he himself indicates, to say nothing of others that exist. The following objections are acknowledged by President Van Hise: "If there be a central board which is to govern several institutions at different localities, it will be impossible to get the best men of a State 12 OBJECTIONS TO CEXTRAL BOARDS to give sufficient time to master the details in reference to them. (They would be unwilling to take a position involving responsibility for several institutions at different localities.) Further, if compensation be offered, the fact that the service is not free will make men of the highest type reluctant to take positions on such boards. To illustrate: at the Uni- versity of Wisconsin, for many years, we had the services of Colonel William F. Vilas. No cash estimate of the value of this service can be made. The larger part of his estate will also finally go to the uni- versity. Nothing could have induced Colonel Vilas to accept the place of regent with compensation. If compensation of a board be small, it will be composed of inferior men; if it be large, places on the board will be sought by unfit men, and it will be extremely difficult to fill the positions without political interference." "A difficulty with central boards, which has appeared as a result of experience, is that some of the men are interested in one institution and others in another; and this has led to trading back and forth in grants to the different institutions." "It is possible in such a board to have the special friends and cham- pions of each of the institutions, and then you have the same collisions and collusion of interest that you have in a city council or other bodies of similar character." "Another difficulty with central boards created at one time is that a break is thus made in the continuity of the government of an institution. The recognized aims and practices which have grown up through many years are likely to be ignored by a new board having no knowledge of or experience with the several institutions which they are to govern." "It is not wise to separate educational and financial control. . .. Iowa, has attempted to meet difficulties by creating a non-paid central board, and outside of this board a finance committee of three, which in large measure administers the institutions under the general principles laid down by the board. Under this plan a finance committee may be advantageous where a central board is inevitable, but undoubtedly there are grave dangers in such a committee; for whenever there is a financial board giving full time to the administration of educational affairs there is a constant tendency for them to take the initiative in reference to policies, and to supervise and circumscribe the faculty in their eduea- HISTORICAL SUMMARY 13 tional work in a manner which is wholly unwarranted, and is contrary to the best interests of higher education." "An additional difficulty, as shown by experience, is that there is a tendency in a central board to place the normal school in the same posi- tion of dignity as the university." [This refers to the practice in sev- eral States of putting totally disparate institutions under one board. The limit of that mistake is reached when university, agricultural col- lege, normal schools, schools for blind, deaf, and feeble-minded, and reform schools are put under one board.] Historical Summary The States that have had an}^ experience with central boards of control are Florida, Georgia^ Iowa, Missisippi, Montana, Okla- homa, Oregon, South Dakota, West Virginia. Their practices, in my judgment, represent the worst possible devices. The opinions of: men dependent upon the central boards are conflicting, but the short histories reveal only warning examples. The vagaries of rash legislation in the respective States are summarized as follows: Florida. — Bad conditions called for some remedy, and doubtless some of the institutions ought to have been abolished. All existing institutions were abolished, and a state university including normal school for men, a State College for Women, an A. and M. College for Negroes, a Normal Colored School, and an Institution for Blind, Deaf, and Dumb were established. The permanent arrangement for the government of these institutions is perhaps the worst that could be devised. One board of control was put over them all, of five members, none to be appointed from any county in which any of the institutions is located; but this board was made "'at all times imder and subject to the control and supervision of the State Board of Education." The latter consists of Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, State Treasurer, and State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Although a sovereign State has committed this act, the mere statement of its provisions sufficiently exposes its errors. Satisfaction with the enlargement of the university resulting from the abolishment of several weak and low-grade colleges may blind some eyes to impending evils; but the strife, and the dead- lock over the election of the president of the university, already experi- 14 HISTORICAL SUMMARY encedj are but foretastes of worse evils yet to come. For details the reader is referred to President Pritchett's fourth annual report to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Georgia. — ^All institutions (white and negro) including normal schools are branches of the university, and under a board consisting of the trus- tees of the University of Greiorgia, the presidents of each institution con- cerned (except the university), the Governor, and George Foster Pea- body. There is no need of the Chancellor's testiiaony that "the method of government involves many difficulties." lotua. — In 1909 a law was enacted which put the University of Iowa, A. and M. College, and State Teachers' College under a board composed of nine members, to be appointed by the governor. It is provided that not more than one alumnus of any institution concerned shall be on the board. The board appoints a finance committee of three, not members of the board, nor more than two from one political party, at a salary of $3500 a year and expenses. President Van Hise's just criticism of the last mentioned feature has been quoted. It may be noted (without prej- udice) that, during the first year of the board's authority, the president of the university, the president of the agricultural college, and the dean of the law school resigned. Mississippi. — In 1910 four institutions were put under one board of eight appointed by the Governor. Montana. — In 1909 all educational institutions, including orphans' home, school for deaf and blind, and a reform school, were put under a board of education of eleven members, eight appointed, three ex-officio. A subordinate local board of three members is provided at each institu- tion, one of whom is the president of the institution. The local board can not expend for a single purpose an amount exceeding $250. But there is a further complication: the ex-officio members of the board of control (Governor, Attorney General, Superintendent of Public Instruc- tion) constitute a separate and supreme board in all financial matters. President Van Hise judges that this Montana way shows "a larger num- ber of objectionable features than any other system." Recalling my own assignment of Florida to that bad eminence, I stand corrected. They are on a parity except that Montana adds the petty local boards, and also adds a penal school and orphans' home to the school for blind and deaf and the other institutions. Oklahoma. — In 1911 the Legislature created a State Board of Education consisting of the Superintendent of Public Instruction and six other PIISTORIC'AL SUMMARY 15 members serving without salary appointed by the Governor. The ex- ofl&cio member has his salary of $2500. Absurd as it may seem, this board is required to exercise exclusive supervision and control over the whole common school system (including duties of a State Text-Book Board, and a board of examiners for issuing teachers' certificates), and over eighteen different institutions, viz., state university, two prepara- tory schools, school of mines^ college for girls, six normal schools, agri- cultural and normal university for negroes, school for blind, school for deaf, school f®r feeble-minded, school for orphans, reform school, and an orphanage and school for defectives for negroes. The agricultural col- leges were not put under this board because the Constitution placed them under the State Board of Agriculture. The short but stormy history of this application of the central-board-of-control idea may be read in Presi- dent Pritchett's sixth annual report. The heads of six of the institu- tions, including the university, and more than half of the members of their faculties were summarily removed. Some removals were made against the advice of both the removed and the new presidents. The new appointees were chosen by the Board, without nomination by responsible administrative officers, from "applications" made directly to the board. It would be irrelevant to consider the merits or demerits of individuals involved. If it were granted that all persons dismissed were either in- jurious or inefficient, it is certainly incredible that the majority of the new appointments, derived as stated, could have been made wisely. Good intentions on the part of members of the board does not ameliorate the situation. The method of procedure was fatally wrong. The condition of the patient may have been very bad, but the intended remedy must prove worse than the disease. President Pritchett says of the situation: "No real university can exist under such conditions." President Van Hise says, that, for the present, "it would be extraordinary if any man of ability who has a fair place in another State should accept a position in any of the educational institutions in the State of Oklahoma." Oregon. — A board of four, appointed by the Governor, known as the Board of Higher Curricula, passes on all the courses offered at the uni- versity and at the agricultural college. It is in the power of this board to determine absolutely what work shall be given at each institution. South Dakota. — An appointed board of five mebers, salaries of $1000 a year, govern the University, A. and M. College, School of Mines, and three normal schools. A number of difficulties have been experienced. West Virginia. — A board of regents, consisting of four appointed mem- 16 HISTORICAL SUMMARY bors with salaries of $1000 and the State Superintendent, was created in 1909 to govern the university, agricultural college, two preparatory schools, six normal schools, and two institutes fof negroes. But the same act of the legislature created a board of control of three, appointed, salaries $5000, to have full control of charitable and penal institutions, and also "control of the financial and business affairs" of the educational institutions. This control goes to the extent of approving salaries of the teaching force, or naming a total amount to be paid for instruction. The board of regents is required to meet with the board of control when the latter so desires. Every feature of this law violates fundamental principles. Kansas. — The Legislature of Kansas recently passed an act abolishing the boards of regents of the university, agricultural college, and normal schools, and creating one board of control of three members. The Gov- ernor vetoed the act. Chancellor Strong of the University of Kansas, writing in October, 1911, says: "Agitation over duplication led to the introduction into the last legislature of several bills. Some contained grotesque features. The bill [that was passed] provided for a board of ^control of three persons, to receive $2500 per year each, the board to 'elect, outside of its own number, an educational expert to act as its sec- retary, at the same salary. Each member was to give his entire time to the work of the board. There were then serving upon the dif- ferent boards of regents some of the ablest men in the State, whose serv- ices could hardly have been secured at any price if one had attempted to hire them. The positions contemplated by the new bill were offered to several of these men and refused. The Governor was told that, while they would gladly serve the State for nothing on an honorary board, they could not under any circumstances accept a position like the one indi- cated. The Governor took counsel by telegraph with many uni- versity administrators, who, almost without exception, advised against the bill. The grounds of objection were, in the main, first, that the provision for , an educational expert as secretary would almost certainly interfere with the internal administration of the institutions, and pro- duce friction and inefficiency; secondly, that a salaried board, especially at the salaries indicated, would bring mediocre men. ; thirdly, that the method proposed would almost certainly invade the real person- ality of each institution, take away its fundamental and individual char- acteristics, and so deprive it of its real independence. ... As it was expressed by one college administrator, the University of Kansas HISTORICAL SUMMARY 17 needs to keep its own soul as much as Harvard does. The bill was vetoed." Vice-President Carruth summarized the history for the National Association of State Universities as follows: "We were threat- ened last winter with what is known as the Keene bill. President Van Hise says: "The most serious danger of a commission such as that of Kansas, composed of an equal number of representatives from each board, is that several weaker institutions may unite against a stronger one and so prevent its growth. . . . Each having equal representation upon the commission, the representatives of the institu- tions other than the university may unite and unduly limit the scope of the university; not only so, but they may recommend more than propor- tional support for the weaker institutions, and aim to make them the equals of the university." This is certainly wise foresight, and many other evil eontingencies are equally foreseeable. It is, therefore, sur- prising that the same writer should conclude his remarks by saying: "If it works out that the recommendations of the commission are rea- sonably respected by the different boards, the natural step would be to 'See Appendix— /S'ome Recent Events. 18 HISTORICAL SUMMARY legalize the commission and give its actions the sanction of law." I understand him to use "natural" in a commendatory sense; but, in my judgment, the statement that such a step is the natural course, is to assert that only folly is to be expected of state legislatures. Voluntary consultation and co-operation is always desirable. It is undoubtedly the proper course, especially upon certain occasions. But why, — in the name of sober intelligence, — if voluntary consultation works well, should it be "natural" to replace it by compulsory subjection to a joint commission, or any other sort of central control? Minnesota. — There is only one comprehensive state institution of higher education in Minnesota, and the question of a central board of control could not arise. Yet that State has had an experience which is both interesting and encouraging, in its bearing on the question of a dual control of any one institution. In 1901 a board of control was put over the regents of the university in all financial transactions. The regents resisted for two years, but their attempt to relieve the univer- sity failing in 1903, they became subject to the board of control. "After two years' trial, conditions were such as to make further continuation of the arrangement wholly intolerable." In 1905 the legislature, by a nearly unanimous vote, gave the long sought relief. One bad consequence of the original mistake of 1901 remains. In the placing of insurance, purchase of fuel, and erection of buildings the board of regents still remains subject to another state board. The legal theory that the board of regents is incompetent or untrustworthy for buying insurance and fuel, is irritating; but those matters are so petty that they could not cause directly any serious misgovernment. New buildings, on the con- trary, are important affairs, and are so intimately connected with the educational work for which the institution is conducted that a separate government of that matter must have many injurious consequences. The preceding paragraphs have briefly summarized all experi- ence with central boards of control. President Van Hise admits that the experience has not been encouraging. I understand that his own preference, where consolidation in one institution is not practicable, is for co-operation through "a commission composed of representatives of each of the institutional boards." But his conclusion is that, where consolidation is not practicable, it is so "necessary to have sharp delimitation of scopes (to avoid over- HISTORICAL SUMMARY 19 lapping), and co-operation in financial requests to the legisla- ture/^ that "if co-operation be not successful, central boards are inevitable." We are left to marvel why so bad an end is inevitable, even if living^ thriving institutions refuse to give up their separate exist- ence and continue to duplicate or parallel some of the teaching that is done in a university. Is it to be supposed that everywhere men will see those evils of a central board of control which Presi- dent Van Hise himself mentions, not to mention many others, only to forget them? Will "duplication*' or "overlapping^' seem such a horrible idea to everyone, or a little extra expense appear so fearsome, that, to escape them, the known evils of a central board will be embraced? Of course, a temporary commission might be needed in some situations, such as that of the State of Virginia, in order to pre- pare legislation for defining the general nature and scope of several ill-adjusted institutions. Virginia has more (four), and prob- ably less advantageously correlated, state-supported colleges grant- ing academic and professional degrees than any other State. A commission for such a purpose is one thing, and a central board permanently controlling subordinated boards is another and very different affair. If duplication were truly an essentially bad and wasteful thing, the only wise course would be to abolish our A. and M. College and College for Girls and confine the State's higher educational work in one institution. Happily, no one need think so ill of "duplication" or even of "overlapping." In no event, it seems to me, would it be wise either to replace our properly independent boards of regents by a central board, or to subordinate them to a superior board of control. There is no need to add to the reasons already stated, to show the inexpediency of a central board, either with or without inferior boards; but concerning the latter I may add one important consideration, not yet mentioned, to wit: de- 20 THE STANDARD SYSTEM sirable men would, in general, refuse to serve on the subordinate boards. The Standard System. The independence of their governing boards characterizes the standard form of government for state universities, from which only discredited innovations have deviated; but there is great di- versity in the number of members and term of office, — the latter varying from two years to life-tenure. The prevailing method of appointment is by the governor of the State, impaired in some cases by ex officio accessions. Appointment by popular election, a;S in Michigan and Illinois is the chief variation, and peculiar exceptions exist, such as (in Iowa) the election by the legislature of a trustee for each congressional district, and (in Indiana) elec- tion by the State Board of Education. The popular election of trustees has worked well only when political conventions have con- ceded the selection of university regents to disinterested friends of the institution and made the nominations regardless of politics. 