ACADEMIC AND INDUSTRIAL EFFICIENCY

In October, 1910, appeared a bulletin of The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Learning which has caused more discussion perhaps than any other publication of that institution. Conscious of the existence in our institutions of higher learning of new and large problems, and inspired by critiisms of American colleges and universities by business men,—criticisms made possible by the fact that there is a resemblance in the United States more than in other countries between the administrative organizations of educational and of industrial institutions —the Foundation decided to undertake an investigation to ascertain whether any of the principles of organization and administration which prove most efficient in the industrial field are applicable in the college and the university. The now-famous Bulletin No. 5 presents the result of that' investigation.

An educator could not have been chosen to make the investigation, for the especial object of the Foundation was to see the organization and administration of educational institutions through the eyes of a business man familiar with modern practice in business management. It secured the service of Morris Llewellyn Cooke, a consulting engineer, an associate of Frederick W. Taylor and expert in "Scientific Management." What is not less important, Mr. Cooke is a college graduate, and a man of wide culture and many interests. He has been reporter on one newspaper and financial editor on another. He has been active in civic improvement and is at present Director of Public Works in the reform administration of Philadelphia. He had accomplished—one of the reasons he was chosen by the Foundation—a notable piece of constructive work in reorganizing the administration of the American' Society of Mechanical Engineers, a society of which a principal activity is the education of its own members. The Foundation therefore chose an agent who was not only expert in business organization and administration but who could also appreciate educational aims and consider sympathetically college problems.

It appears that neither the Foundation nor Mr. Cooke were under any illusions concerning the nature of the undertaking. It was understood that a manufacturing plant makes products of measurable quality and quantity, while "scholarly and spiritual leadership is the highest quality Of college efficiency," and "in the last analysis the 'usefulness' of a university is the measure of its mental, moral, and spiritual product." It was acknowledged that "the cost per student-hour has absolutely no value in distinguishing relative educational values." But it was believed that, while industrial principles may be not at all applicable in the field of university activity concerned with individual re- search, they are distinctly applicable in the field concerned with the handling of money, property, and materials; and that between these two. extremes there lies a wide field to which principles of business organization and administration "have seldom been applied and within which it is open to discussion as to how far they are suggestive or helpful." It was, therefore, the aim of the Foundation and of Mr. Cooke to make the investigation "as a friendly attempt to contribute to the solution of college problems from the standpoint of one who has to do with industrial efficiency, and without any preconceived opinion as to how far the analogy .... may be pushed."

It was impossible, of course, for one man to make an intensive investigation of all institutions of higher education or of all departments of instruction in any considerable number of them. It was decided, therefore, to investigate departments of physics only,—that department being chosen as a fair sample of college work, including laboratory, lecture, and recitation methods—and to confine the investigation to such departments in eight institutions. Of these institutions five were universities, two were colleges and one a school of engineering; three were in New England, three in the Middle Atlantic States, one in the North Central States and one in Canada. A great variety of conditions were found, some departments showing a greater- degree of efficiency than others, as measured by the business man's standards; but all showing great enough inefficiency as measured by such standards to make possible general conclusions. It should be noted that no attempt was made to estimate "the relative merits of different methods of teaching."

One of the most fundamental and conspicuous contrasts between industrial and university administration is afforded by the general financial administration observed. This was conspicuous in two respects: the failure to make important use of the budget and the absence of any attempt to gauge the relative desirability of different activities in part by the cost per some standard unit. The budget is used by some educational institutions and could easily be used by all; it is simply a schedule drawn up at the beginning of a fiscal period indicating in what proportions the estimated income of the period shall be apportioned to various departments and activities in order to effect the greatest efficiency of the whole. Its especial importance in educational administration is due to the fact that no institution has an income sufficient to finance all the activities it considers desirable. The fund is limited and out of limitless desirable activities certain ones must be selected; this selection involves relative valuation and this valuation must be made out not only in terms of the product but also in terms of the cost.

In the business world estimates of cost are not considered safe unless made in terms of some standard unit. Mr. Cooke, therefore, naturally raises the query whether some such unit may not be established for educational administration. He suggests the cost per student-hour. This would be determined roughly by dividing the cost of conducting a course of instruction for an hour by the number of students in the course. Its computation for a given course should include not merely a proper proportion of salaries, but the cost of the room and equipment used for instruction, a proper proportion of overhead costs - administration expenses, and so on. Having always "quality a background"; realizing always that "it will 'pay' the university and the world to protect some branches of learning in the face of extreme indifference" and at a relatively high cost; having always in mind "the different grades of student-hours,"—advanced instruction to small groups more expensive per student-hour than elementary instruction to large groups; research more expensive per student-hour than lecturing—guarding always against the danger of having an instructor reduce the unit cost by attracting more students at a sacrifice of quality of instruction; would not the college president find some such standard unit of cost of great assistance ? The budget makes necessary relative valuations of different opportunities for the application of funds; a standard of cost makes such valuations more exact.

A second fundamental contrast between educational and industrial institutions, important in the eyes of a business man, is found in the general types of organization. "Committee' management seems to be the scheme under which colleges and universities are administered, although many cases of "military," or one-man management, exist. "Functional" management which in business administration is replacing the other two, is absent, and Mr. Cooke is of the opinion that the best results could be secured by its adaptation to college administration.

Military management is illustrated by a department administered entirely by one man who both determines policies and executes them, no matter how wide the range of departmental activities. General policy, policy in particular cases, hiring of instructors, determination of salaries and determination of courses of instruction, of students, advancement, direction of janitor service, purchase and care of apparatus, and so on, indicate the possible range of his activities. Committee management is illustrated by the other extreme, authority centered in a department staff instead of a department head. In one respect the military and the committee schemes are alike; the range of responsibilities of the head in one case is as wide as that of the staff in the other. The functional scheme differs from the other two in that the administrative activities are classified by classes, or functions, and some individual or agency, selected because of special ability with respect to a function, is .made responsible for its performance. The purchasing of supplies and apparatus, for illustration, under such a scheme of administration would be relinquished by the several departments and purchased upon requisition from the departments by an expert central purchasing agent. Instead of each department having an individual stores room, there might be a central stores room from which stores and apparatus could be delivered by its responsible head to the several departments upon order. Mr. Cooke suggests that under such a scheme of administration even the disciplining of students or the examination into and determination of the causes of failures might be relinquished by departments or by committees evervarying in their composition, and left to expert central agencies.

Mr. Cooke's opinion concerning the relative merits of these forms of organization may be summed up as follows: The military system has the advantage of efficiency in that it may concentrate authority in a responsible head of unusual administrative ability; it presents a disadvantage in that the same head may become in time conservative and out of touch with current ideas and methods and that expression may not be allowed to the ability of the younger men in a department. The committee system presents the advantage in most instances of solidarity of staff and department, but the disadvantages are great,—too much departmental _ autonomy impairs institutional solidarity; the heads of departments lack the essentials of real authority;, initiative and a sense of individual responsibility are lacking; log-rolling is possible; action frequently consists of compromises which leave problems unsettled; there is a great waste of time in all members of a department attempting to participate in all administrative activities. The advantages of the functional system are that from the view-point of the institution or of any department each function is performed most efficiently because directed by a person or agency fitted to direct it, and that from the view-point of the individual his energy and ability are not rendered inefficient by too many responsibilities and he is safeguarded in the performance of that which he is best fitted to perform.

. It should be noted that Mr. Cooke's discussion has reference primarily to purely administrative and not to legislative and consultative activities. The committee system is used in the business field for advisory purposes and for considering questions of policy affecting all functions, such "as can be thrashed out in open meeting." But functional management "takes the position that even in a partnership of two men the best results will be brought about by assigning to the one partner the final authority in one class of questions .... and to the other the final authority in another class."

A third contrast between the administrative methods of industrial and educational institutions is found by the business man in the absence in colleges and universities of standardization and uniformity. Mr. Cooke makes but few specific suggestions and otherwise is content with the general observation. For instance, while he specifically states that it was outside his province to study "the relative merits of different methods of teaching," he suggests for consideration whether better facilities for interchange of .ideas concerning the pedagogical methods and results of different departments might not result in more uniformity of method and higher general efficiency. The suggestion calls to the mind of the reader the fact that many young instructors begin their service with no definite ideas 'concerning efficient methods of instruction,'bring with them perhaps poor imitations of the methods of their latest experience, the graduate school; calls to mind also the fact that older instructors are sometimes using the methods of the instructors of their student generation. The suggestion also raises the query in the mind of " the educational reader whether the human material of the colleges may not be made more uniform if standardized by some test of "power" rather than of knowledge of a wide range of specific subjects; and whether likewise the graduates of the colleges may not be made more uniform by some such test.

But standardization and the attainment of uniformity of high quality in product can be secured only by an efficient system of inspection. In the absence of some central agency of inspection the business man again finds a contrast between the administrative methods of the industrial world and of the college. Mr. Cooke believes that in the latter there is desirable an an inspecting agency similar to those the necessity for which has been experienced in most other lines of human endeavor. He found in one institution a departmental inspection method of a sort in force; why not perfect it and inspire its adoption in other departments; why not centralize the "inspection function of an entire institution? Mr. Cooke raises for consideration the question whether it would not be "comparatively easy to train one or more men to be especially helpful to their associates in teaching methods." "Such a bureau .... would quickly develop special means of scenting sources of trouble and inefficiency." It might "make a specialty of studying the failures and classifying the causes," and "keep correlated the record—scholastic and otherwise—of each individual scholar for the purpose of providing special treatment for those who require it." "With some scheme of getting quick returns on the charcter of work done by each individual student in the various departments, even a few preceptors, representing the bureau of inspection, and following up intelligently the student farthest in arrears, would bring up the character of the work done by the whole student body." "In the industrial world it is being found out that rewards and disciplinary measures must follow quickly the act for which they are meted out if they are to have the maximum effect." Therefore Mr. Cooke believes "that it will pay in the college world not to permit all the pressure on students to be piled up at the end of the term, when it is frequently too late to be of any avail."

The four contrasts to which attention has been called represent, to the eyes of the business man, a failure on the part of educational institutions to adapt to their administrative requirements four cardinal principles of efficient industrial management. A large part of Mr. Cooke's report, however, is devoted to a consideration of other contrasts, each of which represents the failure to adapt a principle which one may consider a corrollary to one or more of the cardinal principles.

Mr. Cooke finds, from the industrial view-point, an inefficient use of buildings and equipment, of instructors' time and ability and of student time.

One of the serious problems of administration in growing colleges is the provision of adequate lecture, recitation and laboratory room. At the same time that the number of students and of instructors is increasing there is an increasing tendency for instructors to desire to hold their recitations during certain favorite hours of the day. The result is a congestion at certain hours and a plethora of unused rooms at other hours. Mr. Cook found 2.5 hrs., 3.7 hrs., 3 hrs., and 3.75 hrs. the average time per day the rooms in a large number of buildings he inspected were in use. He raises the question whether it is really necessary to reduce the use of these buildings to such a small proportion of the day. He also raises the question in the reader's mind whether after all it is not the instructors' and the students' convenience rather than necessity which brings about the situation. And he suggests that the working out of the cost per some standard unit~of course and departmental instruction,—including in the cost the cost of instruction room, and charging that cost along with others to the appropriations of the respective departments concerned,—might inspire the department heads to voluntarily assist the college administration to a more efficient use of buildings.

Likewise with regard to material and equipment. It is the prevailing custom for departments individually to purchase and store their material and equipment. There is much duplication, for much of the material and equipment of various departments is the same. To the extent that there is duplication, might not a central purchasing and stores agency save funds which could be applied to larger salaries, a larger instructing force or to other desirable ends?

It should be noted that more efficient use of instructors' and of students' time does not necessarily mean more hours' work; it may mean less hours' work. To Mr. Cooke's mind it signifies particularly greater concentration of the instructors' time and ability upon the respective activities for which that ability makes them the efficient men, and less time upon activities which might be performed by less expensive instructors and by expert functional agencies.

"Everything must be done to safeguard the time of the teacher." One of the principal ways of doing this is having as much as possible of his routine work done for him. During the interviews which Mr. Cooke had with college professors, he found them spending their time "in taking inventories, keeping track of appropriations, mimeographing examination papers and handling routine correspondence." Such routine activities as these, together with most of the committee work, might be taken care of through .a specialization which would come as the result of functional management. That would make possible an "effort .... to segregate the important functions now being performed by the teacher, and .... to arrange the scheme of management so that he will have the fullest opportunity to perform these well." . With such a segregation it might be possible to determine what constitutes a day's work in each of various classes of instruction. Mr. Cooke is of the opinion that their too long hours operates against the efficiency of a teaching staff.

More than anything else to "safeguard the time of the teacher" means to Mr. Cooke protection from distractions in that activity for which he is functionally intended—teaching and the constant preparation for teaching. The educational processes which really determine the quality of the college product are carried on in the lecture room, recitation room, and laboratory, and nowhere else. Into those rooms should be brought all the power of inspiration an instructor can command, powers intensified when the instructor has had sufficient freedom from other responsibilities not only to make thorough preparation but also to secure new physical and mental strength following the preparation.

To "safeguard the time of the teacher" and the efficiency of the institution means also to clearly define the function to which the teacher is assigned. Mr. Cooke looks upon teaching and research as distinct functions to which respectively different men are differently adapted. To throw upon a man especially adapted to teaching the responsibility of conducting important research means inefficiency; likewise it means inefficiency to throw upon a man peculiarly adapted to research the responsibility of teaching. Industrial principles, of course, permit exceptions and the business man recognizes the right of college principles of organization to do the same; especial provision can always be made for the exceptional genius—a Huxley or a Shaler—who is efficient both in research and in teaching.

To the eyes of the business man the college seems inefficient in its duty to safeguard also the time of the student. The business man is especially severe in his condemnation of the colleges' ineffective regard for habits of punctuality and attendance. He criticizes this kind of "preparation for a life which begins the moment colleges closes, where one 'cut' brings a serious reprimand, and two will probably lose a position." In addition to inspiring in the student better habits of attention to his business, the college should teach him how to make better use of the time devoted to that business. As in the case of conserving the time of the teacher it does not necessarily mean more recitation hours per day; it may mean less. It does mean teaching the student better methods of study and the habit of greater concentration when at work. It means "dealing with each student individually as to his progress, both mental and moral," rather than dealing with the students in masses. In large institutions this can be secured only through such a specialized functional agency as has already been described.

In fact, a further contrast between industrial and educational institutions, the eye of the business man sees in the college and university an abseace of intensiveness. "Let it be admitted that a certain amount of tranquility is an absolute essential" in certain phases of college life. That does not mean that it is essential in every phase. The industrial manager requires tranquility when he is thinking out the solution of new problems, but when the solution is found and execution is demanded tranquility is disastrous. Two or three or more hours of every student's day may be spent profitably in leisurely and dreamily reading his favorite poet or historian or philosopher, but that same leisure carried into the laboratory may degenerate into laziness. And the business man fears that he sees the habit of tranquility spreading over all the phases of student activity in any way related to the recitation room and laboratory.

The Carnegie Foundation, in presenting Mr. Cooke's report to the college world, suggested that it would be interesting for the latter to consider how far the observations of a buiness man have suggestive significance. Opinions were forthcoming immediately. They sustained all the traditions relative to the conservatism of educators as a class. The- writer has had the pleasure of looking over a large collection of these criticisms; newspaper interviews, and editorials; addresses and articles by college professors and college presidents. Almost without exception they deny any suggestive significance except for the obviously business phases of college activity. An attempt to classify them according to the nature of the denials was singularly disappointing, they were so much alike.

The first class of criticisms, by far the largest, represents the reaction to external suggestion of the spirit of a sensitive profession. The criticisms of this group simply beg the question. They posit the premise that industrial principles of organization and administration are in the nature of the case not applicable in college administration and then draw the conclusion that any suggestions of applicability are therefore ridiculous. These were the criticisms called forth by the first newspaper accounts of the investigation, before the authors had had opportunity to read and digest the report, and a spirit of kindness prompts one to forget them.

A second class of criticisms, second as to the number represented, consists of that group in which the author fails to apprehend the general principles presented in Mr. Cooke's report, seizes upon and magnifies the importance of some minor suggestion or fails entirely to apprehend some minor suggestion, argues plausibly and perhaps conclusively that the action in the minor suggestion is not feasible and then concludes that the report as a whole has nothing of suggestive value. There is hardly a criticism of Mr. Cooke's suggestions concerning the organization and direction of research which is founded on a correct apprehension of those suggestions.

The third class of criticisms represents the views of those educators who had given more careful attention to the report. Practically all present variations of the following argument. The product of an industrial plant is a material thing, capable of precise measurement qualitatively as well as quantitatively ; the product of an educational plant is the scholarship, culture, and manliness of its graduates, attributes quantitatively and qualitatively immeasurable. The processes of an industrial plant are mechanical and subject to exact and known laws and subject to precise variation in application with reference to their effect; the processes of education are functions of the contact of minds and personalities. The material of the industrial plant is matter, capable of as precise quantitative and qualitative measurement as is its product; the material of the educational plant is the human mind and human nature,—intangible and immeasurable, and never the same in two individuals. The principles of organization and administration of the one cannot be therefore the same as those of the other.

It seems to the writer that this group of valuable criticisms does not settle the question: that its great service is in opening the question at the proper point of approach to discussion, experiment, and other investigation; and that the educational world will be unfaithful to its trust if it remains satisfied in matters of organization and administration with less than it seeks in all other phases of its activity—the truth.

There is one ideal of scientific management in industrial activity which might well become an ideal of education : "the belief that there is one best way to do any one thing, and that usually this best way can be determined by scientific methods if people will use them." Not an absolute best way, a belief in which destroys the desire for improvement, but a relatively best way for any moment and under any given conditions. Complementary to this is another ideal of the industrial world which . should be adopted with it as an ideal of education; conditions are always changing and there is, therefore, always a better way to do anything than the best way known under present conditions.

1 Academic and Industrial Efficiency. Bulletin No. 5, by Morris Llewllyn Cooke, M.E.

Harlow Stafford Person, Director of the Amos Tuck School ofAdministration and Finance