broad scholar. As his salary is insufficient, he must find outside employment, usually slavish tutoring, so that he may earn enough to make ends meet. This time and strength he would gladly give at least to the students, if not to scholarly work. Not only is the instructor robbed of his time by these harmful conditions, but with them come care and anxiety of mind, then discouragement. The next step is a loss of self-respect, and a feeling of slavery.

Secondly, what is the effect of these low salaries on the profession? Plainly, it lowers its dignity. It ought to be an inspired field of work. Will inspiration endure in the face of such a sordid obstacle? Will not only the heartless, ambitionless, those fit for nothing else drift into it as a last resort? Or shall it become so un-American a profession as to be open only to persons of means? Are such always the best scholars and teachers?

Thirdly, what is the effect of the present system of salaries on the student? In the first place, a discouraged, uninspired instructor is deleterious to the student's education. If anyone needs careful training it is the American college student. He comes poorly prepared as a result of our undeveloped system of schools. He has not been trained to think, and not been made to work. A teacher is necessary who will inspire him, urge him on, supply a real interest in things intellectual. The young man has the prevalent notion of the desirability of turning everything he learns into dollars and cents. An enthusiastic, healthy, respected teacher is needed to combat that feeling, unless, indeed, we Americans are all ready to affirm that education has no farther use than for money-making. A reverence for scholarliness for its own sake is not inherent in the American boy. He is not taught with the Japanese youth to regard his parents as the moon, but his teacher as the sun. He looks for other things, also, in the teacher he would respect. We can hardly blame him if he looks with contempt on the professor or instructor who cannot take part in the various enterprises that the student supports, because he has not the means. Must he not pity a little him who walks poorly clad by the side of the well-fed, well-groomed student?

Can he help feeling that he need not respect him whom his elders, the persons in authority, the institution apparently do not honor? Is it a wonder that he comes to look upon the instructor as one whom he hires for service? Surely such ideas are not beneficial to the student. When we consider what

little room there is for personal influence in the machine system of our universities, and then add the distance made between the teacher and the student by conditions of salary, we realize what a great cleft exists between the instructor and the instructed; and again I ask, should this cleft exist, and should the most inspiring influence in young lives, the intimate intercourse with persons of mature judgment and of enthusiasm for things of the mind and of the spirit, be set aside as of no value?

The idea of advancing salaries of instructors may be opposed by the argument that Germany holds a high rank for scholarliness, yet instructors there are paid merely nominal salaries, and often none at all. To this we respond that such an instructor also has only nominal duties. No actual work is required of him, he has no teaching or drilling to do. Instead, he has the privilege of giving a limited number of lectures a week. These lectures are usually based on the subject in which he is especially interested. He has much leisure which he employs in research; this research brings him a name, and with it a position. The American instructor, as has been shown, has practically no time for research, and spends all his energy in actual class-work. An unpleasant feature in German university life is the marrying for money and position. We are well in the way of encouraging this custom here. In Germany there is a distinction between the scholar and the teacher. The German instructor in a university represents the scholarly activity. The function of teaching devolves upon the instructor in the gymnasium. In a gymnasium the teacher has many hours of work, but he can depend upon a fixed salary which increases steadily, and a liberal pension after death or at the age of retirement. On the instructor in America devolve both functions. He has, however, neither the advantage of time for research, nor of a

competent salary, nor the feeling of security that goes with a life position, and which the German teacher enjoys. Altho it is recognized that we need in our universities both the scholar and the teacher, demands are usually made for a proof of scholarship before advancement, without a thought of the limited time allowed for such work by the system of the university, while a special gift in teaching receives no consideration whatever in the question of position or salary. As far as the financial condition of full professors in Germany is concerned, it compares most favorably with that of a full professor here. But, after all, we do not care so much what conditions are in Germany, but rather that things are as they should be in America. A most favorable state of affairs exists at Harvard which might be imitated, with the mutual profit of the university and of the instructor in many of our other institutions. There an instructor receives $250 for every three hours of instruction. An instructor teaching fifteen hours, the average amount, would thus receive $1250 a year, 25 per cent. more than the usual maximum salary of an instructor. If he has fewer hours and correspondingly less salary, he has so much more time for study, while the expense to the university is in either case the same.

The rank of professor, or even of assistant professor, is reached with a great deal of difficulty, for the reasons already mentioned, and also because in teaching, as in every other profession, there is now the keenest competition. Both intellectual and material advancement lie along a steep and stony road. University politics make the path no easier. If an instructor fails for all these reasons to rise in rank for many difficult years, shall his position not, at least, be dignified by a competent salary? Should not his increase in value to the university as a scholar and teacher, with many years of experience, be recognized by an increase of salary?

The question raised by others has been the increase of the professor's salary. If the increase were made in the instructor's salary, the average salary during the professor's life would be greater, and there would be less necessity for advancing markedly the salary of the older man, who, besides.

has already done his expensive traveling and acquired his full equipment. That more efficient and more scholarly men would be gained for our faculties in this way, I hope to have shown.

An opposing argument to the advancement of salaries might be based on the fact that modern conditions make for excessive competition, and that everything is a matter of the survival of the fittest. An instructor seeking a position and demanding a competent salary is met with the reply: "We can get all the Ph. D.'s we want for $500 a year." On the principle of supply and demand it is just that the instructor be paid as little as he will come for. But this is the principle of the sweat-shop. It is the same selfish and shortsighted policy of spending as little as possible immediately, no matter what the final cost in money or in reputation may be, that causes the owner of filthy tenements to draw high dividends from a small investment, and infest a city with disease; that causes municipal shortsightedness to refuse the immediate expense for filtration plants, and allow contaminated water to carry away many valuable lives every year; that makes national shortsightedness avoid the expense of suitable houses, equipment, and salary for the diplomatic service at a great cost of esteem and political advantages.

Shall our universities, too, stand for sweat-shop systems and for deplorable shortsightedness?

ELFRIEDA HOCHBAUM POPE

ITHACA, N. Y.

V

SOME ASPECTS OF EDUCATION IN ENGLAND

It was long a current statement made by English educators, and apparently with some degree of truth, that not half a dozen men in England understood the educational system of the country. Indeed, the statement might be considered wholly true since England has never had, until of late, any organization of its educational work that could properly be denominated a system. This reproach has been removed by the passage of the Education Act of 1902 and of the London Education Act of 1903-Acts that have not only given England a system of education, but that have been comprehensible to Englishmen and to foreigners alike.

The bitter opposition encountered by these Acts on the part of non-Anglicans is a matter of recent history and this opposition has not as yet subsided. But to a transatlantic observer it seems evident that they have been beneficial and that they have placed English education in a better position than it has ever before attained. The great gains that have resulted have been the evolution of an orderly system out of educational chaos, the establishment of a central educational authority, the institution of advisory committees made up of those actively engaged in educational work, the encouragement given free secondary education, and the extension of the age for the enjoyment of these educational privileges. These gains are in themselves so great that it may well seem unreasonable to discuss the shortcomings of English education. Yet the underlying problems of education are the same in all countries, while many of the details of educational management are identical in England and in those American states whose educational systems have been derived directly from that of the mother country. It may, therefore, be of help to note some of the features of English education that are in danger