true, yet the fact is that the keen, unprejudiced brain of the "outsider" is often the very force needed to revive flagging ambitions and to act as a corrective on methods unconsciously grown perfunctory.

The university president can afford fewer personal prejudices than can the head of a college. He may not be the less sensitive of the two, but he cannot take time to measure his own emotions nor the emotions of others. In a way his forced exemption from the smaller details of his institution holds him aloof from faculty and student body. The personal element is thereby lessened. He must stand away from the machine and yet allow no part of it to slip from under his control. If an engine breaks down or a janitor's assistant falls out, the college president is frequently obliged to supervise the repairs of the one and enter into an active personal search for the other. The very intimacy brought about by common interest engendered by thus working hand in hand with the different co-workers of his institution is frequently of incalculable value to the success of the college. On the other hand the university president does not waste his strength upon these minor details of administration. His success as well as the success of his institution-and both are identical-lies in his ability to marshall other workers into line. He must learn first of all to get just as much labor done by forces outside of himself as he possibly can, and at the minimum expenditure of his own vital powers. He must keep in exquisite touch with his faculty as a body, and at the same time not allow himself to be unduly swayed by the opinions or prejudices or personal wishes of the individual members thereof. He must study his working force collectively and individually. He must balance the relations of one man to another. He must learn to see everything and yet judiciously overlook much. He must know men, and in his selections of professors he must make as few mistakes as possible. When he finds the right man and appoints him to his place he must learn to let him alone, learn to give all the individual liberty compatible with the obtaining of his most concentrated work, and at the same time keeping in mind the exact value of this man's labor in all its relations to that of his brother workers. This sense of "value" is a most difficult thing for the layman to grasp. And herein lies

the reason for giving the president of a university the final word in the placing of a new man. He alone knows the temper of his existing faculty, and realizes to its last degree the fact that the same man may prove of inestimable value in one institution and yet easily turn out to be a marked failure in the particular institution of which he is president.

Other writers have touched on the difference between disciplinary methods in university and college. The great difference, it seems to me, may be summed up in the fact that whereas we often hear of a boy being sent to a college- preferably a denominational one-to reform him, we never hear of his being sent to a university for the same purpose. When he goes to the latter institution it is taken for granted that he is a man capable of wisely choosing his ways, and if he chooses unwisely the authorities of his particular university can have little to say in the matter. The best the university can do is to see that the tone of the whole student body is kept healthy. If that is done public opinion amongst the students themselves is the greatest reformative agent known.

The responsibility of an executive in selecting men to fill vacancies is usually more cheerfully recognized by the executive himself than his duty to the university to dispense with the services of those who prove undesirable members of the faculty. One strong reason for the existence of an individual executive officer is that there must be some one to assume the responsibility of necessary dismissals. Every one admits the duty of the superintendent of a manufacturing concern to dismiss an incompetent workman and replace him with one more efficient. Yet here merely wood, iron, or leather and dollars are to be considered. What president ever escaped stinging criticism for requesting the resignation of a professor who was unacquainted with the literature of a subject he was assuming to teach, or who was an undisguised mischief-maker among students and faculty. The very persons most benefited by a change of professors under such circumstances are likely to be loudest in condemnation of the arbitrary executive. Of course a few years will teach them that they had been gettings husks instead of grain. As alumni they may approve executive acts which as students they scored. Yet a president who should be so cow

ardly as to neglect a painful duty, would be as little worthy of his position as one who knowingly recommended the appointment of an incompetent or vicious man.

This topic naturally introduces one closely connected with it. A man competent to administer the affairs of a university should be skillful enough to bring about the majority of necessary changes without brusqueness, severity or hard feelings. It is never necessary to dismiss members of a faculty in so brutal a manner as was used in certain well known instances within a few years. An executive need not be an executioner; and, fortunately, one who shows a tendency toward being one is speedily invited by the trustees to seek a new field.

The maintainance of discipline among students is unquestionably less of a problem in recent years than formerly. Long lists of rules and prohibitions have in general been abandoned in both college and university, yet occasionally traditions of socalled college pranks are revived and wanton mischief is perpetrated. The large and rapidly growing universities seem, however, less liable to be disturbed by such outbreaks than those colleges that have made less change in form or spirit. The great numbers of mature graduate students in large institutions, men who, often at considerable sacrifice, are pursuing special and advanced courses, no doubt have a sobering effect on the less serious youngsters. After all, is it not better to let the harmless, silly pranks languish and die from lack of notice than to dignify them by making them conspicuous. Malicious mischief, or the destruction of property, should be dealt with by the civil authorities, whether the miscreants be registered as students or are ordinary loafers or toughs. Chancellor Andrews' remarks on discipline in his article in the Educational Review for March, 1906 are worth careful thought, as also every paragraph of his excellent paper.

The study of administration in general, national, municipal, corporate, etc., is sure to increase the efficiency of those in administrative positions. It is to be hoped that successful administrators in the educational field may contribute much from their valuable experience. Such experiences will be of immense advantage to the younger generation of college and university executives.

School Instruction in Religion

PAUL H. HANUS, PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION, HARVARD UNIVERSITY

I

I

N order to study the aims and scope of religious education one turns naturally to the utterances of those who are teachers of religion, and of others who have given serious thought to religious education, whether teachers or not. For statements of Protestant views on religious education I am indebted chiefly to the proceedings of the Religious Education Association. For statements of Roman Catholic views I am indebted to letters received in answer to my requests for information from Rev. L. S. Walsh of Salem, Mass., and from Brother Peter, head master of La Salle Academy in Providence, R. I., and to a paper by Rev. Dr. Pace of the Catholic University, Washington, D. C., published in the proceedings of the National Educational Association for 1903.

Turning to the proceedings of the Religious Education Association, and disentangling the aim of religious education from the discussions found therein, that aim may be formulated as follows: The inculcation of the spirit of Christ, i. e., of an all pervading and controlling love of God and of our fellow-man. This aim is to be achieved in such a way that the spirit of Christ becomes an ever present reality in the thought of every individual the determining influence in his attitude toward God and man, and in his conduct.

The means of this education are found in (1) a wise use of the Bible, and particularly in the life and teachings of Jesus and his disciples as contained in the Bible, and (2) insistence on the conditions essential to the growth of the spiritual nature, i. e., an environment in which the life of the spirit is revered, and in which the instruction in spiritual things finds constant exemplification and application.

The emphasis throughout the discussion of these aims is generally on the principle that religion is a growth, and t

the immediate result of a direct inculcation of spiritual truths, no matter how conscientiously this may be attempted; and hence that religious education is effective only when it results in a progressive recognition by each individual of religion as truth, solace, inspiration and guidance in his daily life.

Although this summary gives, I think, a just idea of the aims of religious education as viewed by the writers referred to, it does not give any idea of the fervor and of the great sense of the importance of religious education with which all their discussion of that subject is imbued. But the earnestness and enthusiasm of the writers on religious education must be borne in mind if one would have a fair idea of the full significance of their utterances.

The essential features of Roman Catholic statements of the aim of religious education seem to me to be: To teach the creed of the Roman Catholic Church as the only true basis of religion and of conduct in harmony therewith, and hence to inculcate reliance on the authority of the Roman Catholic Church on all matters of religion and morals. To this end the catechism is the chief means employed. In Catholic discussions of religious education we find even greater fervor, enthusiasm and conviction of its importance than in Protestant writers, and there is similar emphasis on conceiving religion as a growth to that found in the Protestant discussion. But in addition to the conditions of growth laid down by Protestant writers, there is very great emphasis on obedience to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, and on the pious observances which it prescribes.

With these statements of the aims and scope of religious education in mind let us see to what extent, if at all, they are possible of realization in our public schools through explicit or formal instruction.

The summaries given above make it plain that both the great divisions of the Christian Church have substantially the same aim. In spite of obvious and important differences in the formulation of that aim it is clear that both Roman Catholics and Protestants seek to imbue their children with the spirit and faith of Christianity, and to render this spirit and faith a controlling influence in their lives. Further, the advocates of