so determined. Such, however, was not the case in practice. As a matter of fact, all that the University did was to exempt the candidate from its examination in such subjects as had been found to be satisfactorily taught in the school, provided, further, that the principal should certify to the applicant's proficiency therein. Examination was still the normal method of which accrediting was merely an experimental variant.

It is perfectly natural that such should have been the attitude of the University in this matter at that time: examination was the original method; it was everywhere still considered the norm; it must continue to be the only methods for applicants from all but the few accredited schools; the new method was as yet, scarcely out of the experimental stage, even in Michigan, the land of its origin. It was certainly the part of prudence for the University to make haste slowly; and the University has acted prudently.

The beginnings of the trial of accrediting were thirty years ago. Educationally we have travelled a long road since then-the University as well as the schools. The first list of accredited schools made after the issuance of the Regents' order shows that only three schools were accredited in 1884. Consequently, a very small proportion of the intrants were admitted by the new plan. Today, the University accepts recommendations from two hundred and forty-five public and private secondary institutions in California; and nearly one hundred per cent of all freshmen intrants from California are admitted in whole or in part by the accrediting method, as administered by the University. Moreover, throughout the West, accrediting has almost wholly superseded examination as a method of admission to college; and it is making rapid progress, in a modified form, in the more conservative East.

The trial of the new plan has been abundantly justified by the results, not less so in California than elsewhere. However, the University has never clearly acknowledged in theory, nor in practice wholly acted upon, the most

natural implications of accrediting. As was the case thirty years ago, entrance examinations are still regarded, by implication at least, as the normal method of determining admission in all cases; and they are resorted to in practice for deciding all doubtful cases.

It is the purpose of this paper to set forth some of the disadvantages of the University's continuing to act on an old and out-grown ideal; to urge the frank acceptance, in theory and in practice, of the full implication of the newer way; and, finally, to point out some of the advantages that may be expected to accrue both to the University and to the secondary schools of the state from the adoption of such a course.

In order, however, to make the present situation clear, there is need of a brief survey of actual practice, past and present.

For more than twenty years after the University began its tentative trial of the accrediting system, the method pursued was really not an accrediting of schools at all, but of certain subjects of study in the schools. In practice, this simply meant that, if a given subject was "accredited," graduates of the school in the current year, whom the principal should recommend in those subjects, might receive thereby university entrance credit, and be absolved from the otherwise necessary university entrance examination in the same.

The many evils and the unavoidable injustice of such a method, as it related to the schools, only those can realize who have been at some time actively engaged in secondary school work under this system. However, since this particular feature of the method has passed, and will never return, nothing would be gained by resurrecting the dead. A far better method in this matter has taken its place.

Seven years ago this atomistic method of accrediting by subjects was abandoned, and henceforth schools were examined and passed upon as wholes.

The logic of this change might seem to suggest that the

University, having satisfied itself as to the character of the school as a whole, should put upon the school the full responsibility of deciding upon the fitness of its own graduates for admission to college.

The University does not, however, as noted above, frankly accept this natural implication of the acceptance of the accrediting system, either in theory or in practice: examination of the applicant by the University is still tacitly assumed to be the normal means for determining his fitness to enter upon college work. The University forms of application for admission still bear a legend to the effect that, in reference to certain subjects of secondary study, the applicant has earned "exemption from further entrance examination therein." Thus, the recommendation given by the school does not really touch the vital question of the applicant's actual fitness to enter upon college work; but merely certifies to a sufficient amount of knowledge of certain subjects acquired by him at some time during his secondary school course.

In retaining the old admission form, therefore, with its natural implications, the University treats with the schools as though it made the following assumptions: first, that passing examinations at the University were the best test of an applicant's fitness to do college work; secondly, that the majority of freshmen were actually so entering; thirdly, that the teachers and the principal of a school were not the best possible judges of a boy's fitness to succeed in college work; and, fourthly, that admission wholly by recommendation in its present form were a rare exception. But the truth in the matter is exactly opposite to all four of these assumptions.

So the schools continue merely to certify to earned exemption from examination in certain subjects. Consequently, the candidates for admission present each any number of "recommended" units, from one to the full number of forty-five or more; and the University proceeds to examine them in the shortage, in case such be found.

Some of the disadvantages that inhere in the present system seem to be the following:

The first occurs in the practical administration of this double standard. A candidate presents his application for admission. In case he brings "recommendations" in the full number of units required for admission, he is invariably admitted; and the process is merely a matter of a few minutes of clerical work. On the other hand, if he brings fewer than the full requirement of such "recommended" units, the University will prepare to examine him in the subjects he lacks, and must notify him accordingly of time and place of such examination. Now, since nearly all the arrangements incident to this have to be made during the summer vacation, when candidates are widely scattered, a vast deal of otherwise unnecessary correspondence is involved, and the outcome is still very often decidedly unsatisfactory. For example, applicants fail to get notices; or they are unable to be present at the appointed time; or there is some misunderstanding; or, again, there may even be a seeming disregard of the notice; or, further, the examinations may be taken, as assigned, but not all passed, and the case comes up again for adjustment. Cases of this sort cause especial trouble every year; and it seems to be the exception when matters go in these cases as expected. On the other hand, the cases of the fully recommended students give no trouble whatever.

It might be suggested by some that cases of these kinds should really give the University little or no trouble beyond that, at least, which is involved in sending out notices of shortage in requirements, and consequent need of the examinations. To an outsider such, indeed, might seem to be the case, but anyone who has ever served as a member of the Committee on Admissions knows that such cases cannot, in practice, be disposed of in this summary fashion; that they make a vast deal of trouble; have a tendency not to stay "put"; and when they are finally settled, and the applicant has been either accepted or rejected, very little

confidence can be had in the justice of the decision, whether for the applicant or for the University. The writer holds that such cases should never come before the University for decision, as he will attempt to show later.

Again, the present method tends to keep alive the notion -not to say superstition-that examination is still the only fundamentally right method for determining fitness to succeed in college, even in those cases where the state system of public instruction is a unit, from the elementary grades to the university inclusive, as is the rule in the West.

This attitude of mind, in so far at least as it relates to present conditions, is scarcely more than a tradition, based upon past practice, rather than upon any real investigation or solid ground of facts. In the good old days, when secondary school work was limited to drill in a very few subjects, and the college course was merely a continuation of the same, there may have been some reasonable grounds for holding such a view. But today, with the vastly wider scope of secondary school curricula and of college entrance subjects, by far the greater part of the work done in the secondary school is not specifically, but only generally "preparatory" to college work. Consequently, success in college depends now mainly upon health, native ability, character, intelligence, and purpose; and these are the very qualities whose presence formal college entrance examinations in specific subjects are powerless to reveal.

As suggested above, most arguments concerning the efficiency of college entrance examinations as a test of fitness to succeed in college are based mainly upon mere opinion; there have been few careful studies to determine the facts. The number of students who enter the University of California wholly by examination is too small to make a comparison worth while.

However, we are fortunate in having at least one thoroughly good study of this subject. A few years ago, Professor E. L. Thorndike studied the records made in college by two hundred and fifty-three students who had entered