port in America. 23 The experiments conducted at Harvard and Radcliffe Colleges by Dr. Allport prevailingly showed a quantity increment in the case of work performed in a group. In written argument, for example, the subjects tested showed an increased flow of thought attributable to the social stimulus. On the other hand, it was found that of the ideas produced, those of superior quality were of relatively greater frequency in the solitary than in the group work. A beginning of the experimental investigation of the influence of an audience upon performance has been made by Dr. Georgina S. Gates. The experiments reported showed a performance increment attributable to the influence of the audience. This increment was greater in the case of inferior individuals tested than in the case of superior subjects.24

A problem of fundamental importance for the educator is that of the psychological limitations to the possibilities of social progress. This problem concerns the question as to whether the socialization of modern man is psychologically possible to an extent sufficient to adapt him to the complex life of modern civilization. It is maintained by some psychologists that a stable adjustment to a civilization wholly unlike the simple life of primitive man involves controls depending upon relatively uncertain and unreliable adjustments through habit formation, and that reversion to the more primitive levels of behavior may always be unavoidable. Other psychologists hold that progressive adaptation to ever higher levels of civilization is wholly practicable. If the former interpretation be the true one, a limit is set to the possibilities of socialization through education. If the latter view be correct, education is equal to meeting the challenge to virtually boundless progress. In any case there is for education as a socializing process a psychological problem of capital importance. Upon the an

23 Cf. Meumann, Ernst, "Abriss der experimentellen Pädagogik, pp. 36-37; Allport, F. H., "The Influence of the Group upon Association and Thought," Journal of Experimental Psychology, III (1920), 159-182; also the same author's "Social Psychology," Chapter XI.

24 Gates, Georgina S., "The Effect of an Audience upon Performance," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. XVIII (1923-4), 335-344.

swer to this question will depend the optimism or the pessimism of the educator's view.25

We have already noted the singular fact that the conventional field of educational psychology has been concerned with problems relating to individual endowment and to the technique of instruction and the mastery of the subject matter of instruction, leaving out of account the vitally important factors relating to classroom and school management and control. We have likewise emphasized the point that the school is not a collection of isolated entities reacting each with the teacher in bipolar fashion. The school, nay indeed, the schoolroom, is a society in miniature. In this social world in epitome, the child is being confronted with a great number and variety of social situations approximating and preparing for life situations. Through these social experiences the pupil is being socialized and fitted for assuming his place in the more diversified situations and complicated relations which await him upon attaining maturity. Hence in the understanding of the socializing function of the school environment, social psychology is an indispensable factor in the preparation of the educator. Group influences are important factors, likewise, in the school society. These influences become adjuncts or hindrances in school control according as they are understood and directed, or permitted to develop in unsocial or anti-social directions.

To conclude, we may say of the social psychology of education, in the language of the subtitle given by William James to his Pragmatism, that it is a new name for some old ways of thinking. Psychological literature affords discussions of all the problems which have been touched upon. There is advantage, however, in their explicit formulation in their proper relationships. Their separate treatment will tend to throw their various aspects into proper perspective, and correct the misplaced emphasis in current discussions of educational psychology.

25 Cf. Ellwood, C. A., "Psychology of Human Society" (New York, 1925), page 92.

The Social Aspect of College Entrance

Restriction

BENJAMIN DEUTSCH, 1319 CLAY AVE., NEW YORK CITY.

I

I

N recent years a very curious phenomenon has developed in connection with higher education. There has been a greater demand for college education than ever before, so great as to tax to the utmost all existing facilities. Instead of welcoming this as a splendid triumph and opportunity for education, college authorities view it merely as offering an opportunity for raising scholastic standards. This is an extremely narrow view. It is based on the assumption that only those gifted with scholarly instinct and ability are deserving of higher education-a distinctly unworthy view from the standpoint of the highest educational ideals. There is an extremely important phase of this matter which has not yet been brought up for discussion.

With our great industrial development there is a very real danger that the more intelligent portion of the human race will die off and the less intelligent survive, resulting in the disappearance of civilization. The more intelligent always tend to die off, and our industrial civilization accentuates this tendency. This is because industry constantly demands an increasing number of individuals who are content to spend their lives in the performance of extremely simple mechanical tasks requiring a minimum of intelligence. A number of ancient civilizations disappeared, and we have good grounds for believing that the future of our own civilization is by no means assured. Under these circumstances, education should be spread as widely as possible, and intelligence should be encouraged and developed to the greatest extent, in order to

counteract as far as possible the advantage in the matter of survival which our industrial and commercial civilization gives to those of low intelligence.

There is general complaint that the crowding of the colleges and the expansion of the college curriculum tend to lower scholastic standards. This view indicates a fundamental misconception on the part of teachers generally of what the function of the college should be. While it is true that the vocational trend in the college curriculum is not in accord with purely scholastic ideals of higher education, it is nevertheless, a fatal error to keep school and society as aloof from each other as in the time previous to industrial revolution. A modern view of the potentialities in the relations between school and society would suggest that the college can assume an even higher function than the mere nurture of learning and scholarship, by bringing under its influence the largest possible number of those who have sufficient intelligence to go to college. In view of the ends to be attained, modification of the conventional curriculum in order to attract the largest possible number is fully justified, since such modification does not necessitate abandonment of scholastic ideals.

The conduct of our economic and political affairs is largely in the hands of those of low intelligence and ideals, and this is one of the things that menaces the continuance of our civilization. Previous to the industrial revolution, with its accompanying transfer of power from the few to the many, the direction of human affairs was in the hands of those of high intelligence to a much greater degree than is the case today. In those days, for example, a revolution usually meant the accession to power of those who were really more able to conduct affairs than those who were deposed. For example, the overthrow of the Roman republic gave Rome a much more able government than it had had previously, and the same thing can probably be said of every other revolution down to our own times. But the Russian revolution, which is probably the exemplar of all future revolutions, shows that in our

time, and henceforth, those of low intelligence tend to become dominant, and high intelligence, even outside politics, tends to become very much discounted. That seems to be the ultimate significance of the abolition of private property and the suppression of private initiative, which is the economic development toward which the world seems to be slowly drifting.

II

Under these circumstances, it would seem to be an essential function of the college to equip for greater understanding and sympathy with human affairs than is the case at present. This does not necessarily imply a lowering of scholastic ideals, but it does imply that the only restriction (above minimum qualifications) on college numbers should be physical limitations, and that instead of taking these limitations as a matter of course, the college should make the most strenuous effort to remove them. The college should welcome the opportunity to train the greatest possible number of those who have any gift for leadership whatever. The college has always loudly proclaimed training for leadership as its paramount function, but critical examination of the college conception in this matter shows that it refers largely, if not exclusively, to leadership in the professions. It is obvious that under the regime of democracy, leadership in human affairs is not confined to the highly educated, but is shared, often disproportionately, by those who have more than average intelligence or force of character, regardless of whether their degrees of intelligence was sufficient to take them through college or not. Besides, in our industrial and commercial civilization, and under the regime of democracy, it is obvious that leadership in a number of directions can often be achieved by individuals distinguished neither for intelligence nor force of character. Inas much as the interests of professional people are largely restricted to professional matters, leadership in human affairs devolves largely on those intelligent individuals whose intelligence was not sufficient to take them through college or