and look.

And then, if you have breathed in ever so little of the beautiful spirit of the place, have become aware of an inward sense of reverence which may in the slightest degree have influenced you towards feeling healthier, and better, and cleaner of soul, then you have seen Oxford. You may not understand the deeper meanings that Time has written on the gray walls-perhaps you are too new a product for that-and you may not altogether realize what life means within them. but this you cannot fail to comprehend,-that Oxford itself is almost the noblest place you shall have seen in England. Take this idea out to the Back of Beyond. You will never lose it. "The world, surely, has not another place like Oxford."

III

THE DISTRIBUTION OF DISTINCTION IN AMERICAN COLLEGES 1

1

It is alike interesting and important to control casual impressions of the efficiency of educational provisions by the convincing testimony of statistical evidence. The value of such statistical deductions is often questioned, and perhaps most often by those least conversant with the nature of the data and the principles underlying their proper treatment and interpretation. It certainly is true that no instrument of modern research requires more skillful handling than is demanded for the just interpretation of number-relations. The problem of ascertaining how far the education and the inspiration that come from college years are really formative and influential factors in the life of the college graduate individually, and in the life of the nation collectively, is one that strongly tempts the application of every promising kind of test. The question thus proposed is not mainly the narrowly personal one of whether and how far a college education pays, and in what sense it is an equipment for success; it is the more general one of the extent to which college graduates participate in the successful careers upon which our national status and welfare are intimately founded: what type of college is most successful in performing for its students the service that places them most favorably in line for preferment, more particularly what historical, geographical, social, and educational factors may be shown to be the most influential contributors to the desired result? The suggestion

'It is pertinent to explain that the present study was begun and nearly completed shortly after the appearance of the second edition of Who's who; that it has been delayed in completion thru several unlooked-for circumstances; and that, notwithstanding its limitations, it seems desirable, in view of the unlikelihood of a similar investigation for many years to come, to place on record the present results. Tho they have been gained at an unprofitable expenditure of energy, it is believed that they are of sufficient intrinsic interest to warrant the present publication.

is near at hand that such a test may be found in observing the proportion of men graduating from college who achieve distinction in after-life; the proportion who receive the stamp of approval from the world at large, and who receive it in a greater measure than those who are without the advantage of a college education. The difficulty is to fix upon any such standard yardstick of success or distinction that may be applied with reasonable accuracy. But even a poor standard is better than none at all,-just as a watch that departs appreciably from chronometric precision is a better means of regulating one's engagements than no watch at all; and with judicious use and insight, practical results may be obtained with decidedly imperfect tools.

The publication of Who's who in America (1st edition 1899, 2d edition 1901, 3d edition 1903) makes possible many statistical comparisons that are inviting, and if properly carried on, instructive. Unquestionably the appearance of one's name in Who's who is not a final or authoritative standard of one's merit or even of one's reputation. Individually, the test would frequently fail; but it is as needless as improper to make any such individual application. It is fortunately true that what is statistically correct and legitimate does not appreciably lose its value by minor fluctuations of accuracy in sporadic cases. Not only is it unquestionably true that the average of distinction of those persons mentioned in Who's who decidedly and overwhelmingly exceeds the distinction of the average citizen, but also that, considered in large groups, the names of this volume represent the uppermost level of ability (in some callings, if not in all) in American life. After making all possible allowance for accidents of various kinds, it remains conspicuously true that the use of such a book, with proper precaution, is entirely legitimate as a test of distinction and of the ability that leads to success,provided always that such test is applied fairly and statistically to large groups, and with allowance for the probable error of the compilation. Several studies of this kind have appeared within recent years; and in the preface of the second edition of this index to contemporary America, certain interesting com

parisons are recorded; and these are corroborated and not altered in any vital manner by the data of the third edition. It is there shown that college men occupy places in the volume to the extent of 39 per cent. of the whole number of names mentioned (4521 out of 11,551). It is sufficiently obvious that college graduates, of the ages eligible for admission to Who's who, do not form any approximation to this percentage of the population at large. If we look about for a fair comparison of college graduates with the community at large, we meet the difficulty again of fixing the larger group from among which each special group that achieves the Who's who type of eminence may be said to have been selected. Of the adult male white population between the ages of 32.5 and 72.5 (between which ages are included 90 per cent. of all the collegians mentioned in Who's who) there are only about .061 per cent. (1 in 1628) who find a place in Who's who. If we in turn take the larger body of eligible graduates from among whom the Who's who collegians have in reality been selected, we should get a ratio of one mention in Who's who for every nineteen such graduates. This contrast is, however, altogether overdrawn, because the ratio, I in 19, is derived from a selected list of colleges, and from the graduates in arts, who in a measure represent the most highly selected portion of the college-graduate population. If we adopt the broadest interpretation of the term "college graduate," we may accept Professor Dexter's estimate that in 1900 there were 334.000 college graduates living. Of these there would be between the ages above specified, about 184,000. With these data we may calculate that I in 41 of all college graduates of all types would find his way into Who's who. Next, if we regard the native male white population as the one from which in a very much larger measure than any other group (89 per cent. according to the third edition of Who's who) the Who's who candidates are drawn, we may still further reduce the advantage which the college graduate has over the average citizen to achieve the Who's who distinction. According as we compare these numbers (and according further as we prefer the first or second edition of Who's who for our standard), we

would conclude that a college graduate has 86, or 60, or 40, or 28, or 20 times as great a chance as the non-collegian to find his name in Who's who. Somewhere between 20 and 86 may be said to lie the relative superiority of the college graduate for this special type of distinction. I am willing to add my own impression from a careful survey of the data, that a number not differing very much from 40 represents a fair comparison between the average eligible college graduate and the average eligible citizen.

I have deemed it worth while to present somewhat in detail the data supplying the basis of comparison between the distribution as to distinction of the collegian and the non-collegian, in order to make it clear upon the basis what kind of material such comparisons must be made; the material is not ideal for the purpose, but it yields a suggestive comparison, provided always that one appreciates and makes allowance for the probable error of one's measuring instruments. So many of the studies in this field have been pursued without due recognition of this principle, and have accordingly led to conclusions so very unreasonable and obviously improbable, that a presentation of the kind of comparison which the data really make possible, seemed necessary at the outset of this discussion.

It has likewise been shown that not only does the college man meet in a very decidedly greater degree than the noncollegian, the requirements of a successful career in after-life, but the high-grade college man meets these requirements very much more generally than does the average college man. For this comparison there are available in a fair percentage of the important colleges the records of the honor society of Phi Beta Kappa. Confining our attention to those institutions in which this society has existed for twenty years or more, the proportion of Phi Beta Kappa men mentioned in Who's who, when compared with the proportion represented in this book, of those who did not receive this distinction in their college days, would furnish the desired datum. The result is to establish the superiority in point of future distinction of the high-grade college man. It is not so easy to express in num