按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
of tangible fact or of intangible。
The system of standardization and accountancy has this renown
or prestige as its chief ulterior purpose； the prestige of the
university or of its president； which largely comes to the same
net result。 Particularly will this be true in so far as this
organization is designed to serve competitive ends； which are； in
academic affairs； chiefly the ends of notoriety； prestige；
advertising in all its branches and bearings。 It is through
increased creditable notoriety that the universities seek their
competitive ends； and it is on such increase of notoriety；
accordingly； that the competitive endeavours of a businesslike
management are chiefly spent。 It is in and through such accession
of renown； therefore； that the chief and most tangible gains due
to the injection of competitive business principles in the
academic policy should appear。
Of course； this renown； as such； has no substantial value to
the corporation of learning； nor； indeed； to any one but the
university executive by whose management it is achieved。 Taken
simply in its first incidence； as prestige or notoriety； it
conduces in no degree to the pursuit of knowledge； but in its
ulterior consequences； it appears currently to be believed； at
least ostensibly； that such notoriety must greatly enhance the
powers of the corporation of learning。 These ulterior
consequences are （believed to be）； a growth in the material
resources and the volume of traffic。
Such good effects as may follow from a sedulous attention to
creditable publicity； therefore； are the chief gains to be set
off against the mischief incident to 〃scientific management〃 in
academic affairs。 Hence any line of inquiry into the business
management of the universities continually leads back to the
cares of publicity； with what might to an outsider seem undue
insistence。 The reason is that the businesslike management and
arrangements in question are habitually and primarily required
either to serve the ends of this competitive campaign of
publicity or to conform to its schedule of expediency。 The felt
need of notoriety and prestige has a main share in shaping the
work and bearing of the university at every point。 Whatever will
not serve this end of prestige has no secure footing in current
university policy。 The margin of tolerance on this head is quite
narrow； and it is apparently growing incontinently narrower。
So far as any university administration can； with the
requisite dignity； permit itself to avow a pursuit of notoriety；
the gain that is avowedly sought by its means is an increase of
funds； more or less ingenuously spoken of as an increase of
equipment。 An increased enrolment of students will be no less
eagerly sought after； but the received canons of academic decency
require this object to be kept even more discreetly masked than
the quest of funds。
The duties of publicity are large and arduous； and the
expenditures incurred in this behalf are similarly considerable。
So that it is not unusual to find a Publicity Bureau often
apologetically masquerading under a less tell…tale name
incorporated in the university organization to further this
enterprise in reputable notoriety。 Not only must a creditable
publicity be provided for； as one of the running cares of the
administration； but every feature of academic life； and of the
life of all members of the academic staff； must unremittingly
（though of course unavowedly） be held under surveillance at every
turn； with a view to furthering whatever may yield a reputable
notoriety； and to correcting or eliminating whatever may be
conceived to have a doubtful or untoward bearing in this respect。
This surveillance of appearances； and of the means of
propagating appearances； is perhaps the most exacting detail of
duty incumbent on an enterprising executive。 Without such a
painstaking cultivation of a reputable notoriety； it is believed；
a due share of funds could not be procured by any university for
the prosecution of its work as a seminary of the higher learning。
Its more alert and unabashed rivals； it is presumed； would in
that case be able to divert the flow of loose funds to their own
use； and would so outstrip their dilatory competitor in the race
for size and popular acclaim； and therefore； it is sought to be
believed； in scientific and scholarly application。
In the absence of all reflection not an uncommon frame of
mind in this connection one might be tempted to think that all
this academic enterprise of notoriety and conciliation should add
something appreciable to the aggregate of funds placed at the
disposal of the universities； and that each of these competitive
advertising concerns should so gain something appreciable；
without thereby cutting into the supply of funds available for
the rest。 But such is probably not the outcome； to any
appreciable extent； assuredly not apart from the case of the
state universities that are dependent on the favour of local
politicians； and perhaps apart from gifts for conspicuous
buildings。
With whatever （slight） reservation may be due； publicity in
university management is of substantially the same nature and
effect as advertising in other competitive business； and with
such reservation as may be called for in the case of other
advertising； it is an engine of competition； and has no aggregate
effect。 As is true of competitive gains in business at large； so
also these differential gains of the several university
corporations can not be added together to make an aggregate。 They
are differential gains in the main； of the same nature as the
gains achieved in any other game of skill and effrontery。 The
gross aggregate funds contributed to university uses from all
sources would in all probability be nearly as large in the
absence of such competitive notoriety and conformity。 Indeed； it
should seem likely that such donors as are gifted with sufficient
sense of the value of science and scholarship to find it worth
while to sink any part of their capital in that behalf would be
somewhat deterred by the spectacle of competitive waste and
futile clamour presented by this academic enterprise； so that the
outcome might as well be a diminution of the gross aggregate of
donations and allowances。 But such an argument doubtless runs on
very precarious grounds； it is by no means evident that these
munificent patrons of learning habitually distinguish between
scholarship and publicity。 But in any case it is quite safe to
presume that to