students from the draft by special legislation at the time of the passage of the selective-service law. But no similar measures were taken to defer the military service of students in other technical lines and in colleges of arts and sciences. The reason was evidently twofold. In the first place, few people realized that there was danger of serious shortage either of engineers or of arts-college graduates. In the second place, it was regarded as unwise public policy to protect from military service a class of persons which was enjoying already special advantages. The draft must appear absolutely democratic in its operation; otherwise it could not command the support and confidence of the entire country. College officers appreciated the cogency of this argument. They were reluctant to put themselves in a position of asking special favors. Particularly did they hesitate because their motives might seem open to suspicion, a shortage of students having a depressing effect upon the financial status of their institutions.

The draining of the trained and educated resources of the country came not alone from the operation of the draft. College and university students were among the first to volunteer. Until enlistments were entirely barred, colleges were the happy hunting grounds for recruiting officers of every branch of the military service. The sentiment grew that to wait for the draft was the mark of a slacker. College officers were therefore faced with an exceedingly difficult and delicate problem. It would have been disastrous for the morale of the institutions to discountenance volunteering. Without taking this step, the arguments in favor of delay and of a wise, long-distance patriotism were not very effective.

The way in which educational leaders and other public men went about solving the difficulty is of special interest. Indeed, one of the striking aspects of America's first year in the war is the long series of efforts to conserve the supply of men of higher training and to render the selective-service law truly selective in its operation. The history of these efforts is worth recording briefly.

The first public pronouncement appeared in the statement of principles adopted at the meeting of May 5, quoted above. This was followed by a circular issued May 22 by the Commissioner of Education, entitled "Suggestions for the conduct of educational institutions during the continuance of the war, to the end that their educational efficiency may not be lowered and that they may render the largest amount of service both for the present and for the future." In the section addressed to colleges, universities, and technical schools the commissioner made the following statement:

All students should be made to understand that it is their duty to give to their country and to the world the best and fullest possible measure of service, and that both will need more than they will get of that high type of service

which only men and women of the best education and training can give Patriotism and the desire to serve humanity may require of these young men and women the exercise of that very high type of self-restraint that will keep them to their tasks of preparation until the time comes when they can render service which can not be rendered by others.

On July 19 the Secretary of the Interior brought to the attention of the President the serious falling off in the number of students in higher institutions. The President replied on July 20, as follows:

MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: The question which you have brought to my attention is of the very greatest moment. It would, as you suggest, seriously impair America's prospects of success in this war if the supply of highly trained men were unnecessarily diminished. There will be need for a larger number of persons expert in the various fields of applied science than ever before. Such persons will be needed both during the war and after its close. I therefore have no hesitation in urging colleges and technical schools to endeavor to maintain their courses as far as possible on the usual basis. There will be many young men from these institutions who will serve in the armed forces of the country. Those who fall below the age of selective conscription and who do not enlist may feel that by pursuing their courses with earnestness and diligence they also are preparing themselves for valuable service to the Nation. I would particularly urge upon the young people who are leaving our high schools that as many of them as can do so avail themselves this year of the opportunities offered by the colleges and technical schools, to the end that the country may not lack an adequate supply of trained men and women.

Cordially and sincerely, yours,

WOODROW WILSON.

In spite of this advice and similar counsel from many other influential persons all over the country, the exodus from higher institutions continued. The actual effect of the war on student enrollment at the beginning of the academic year 1917-18 is shown in the following tables compiled by the Bureau of Education from a questionnaire issued October 1, 1917:

Other figures compiled by the Bureau of Education during the summer of 1917 with regard to the total available supply of engineers and engineering students, revealed a particularly serious situation with respect to this group of persons. It became evident that the only hope of a satisfactory solution of the difficulty lay in action by the War Department, giving a special military status to engineering students. The university committee of the Council of National Defense, therefore, brought the facts in its possession to the attention of the following bodies: The Association of American Universities, the Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations, the National Research Council, the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education, the Council of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Council of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, and the Council of the United Engineering Societies. Most of these agencies memorialized the Secretary of War, urging in effect that engineering students be placed upon the same military status as students in medicine.

On December 8 the Secretary of War authorized the issuance of regulations which permitted students in schools of engineering to finish their courses before being called upon for active military service. This ruling was embodied in the Revised Selective Service Regulations and read as follows:

Under such regulations as the Chief of Engineers may prescribe, a proportion of the students pursuing an engineering course in one of the approved technical engineering schools listed in the War Department as named by the school faculty may enlist in the Enlisted Reserve Corps of the Engineering Department and thereafter, upon presentation by the registrant to his local board of a certificate of enlistment, such certificate shall be filed with the questionnaire and the registrant shall be placed in Class V, on the ground that he is in the military service of the United States.

The status of engineering students thus established persisted until the abolition of the Enlisted Reserve Corps in 1918, and the establishment of the Students Army Training Corps. By later regulation of the Secretary of War, students in applied sciences were also allowed to enter the Enlisted Reserve Corps of the Quartermaster's Department, the Signal Corps, and the Ordnance Department.

FURTHER EFFORTS TO SECURE FEDERAL DIRECTION OF CIVILIAN TRAINING AGENCIES.

The measures just mentioned resulted in only a partial and inadequate utilization of college resources in the great task of training for war service. They did not furnish the colleges with the authoritative and intelligent direction which was necessary. Neither were they sufficiently definite and drastic to conserve the supply of experts and of officer material. The colleges recognized these defects. From

May, 1917, to February, 1918, a series of efforts were made to induce the Government to coordinate civilian training agencies and to carry out through them a training program appropriate to the immediate needs of the Nation. Since Congress had placed in the hands of the War Department the destinies of young men of college age, it was clear that the responsibility for such coordination rested in the first instance with that department. In fact, the cause of most of the difficulties which colleges faced was the lack of any agency in the War Department itself to consider the question of training in a comprehensive way and to make use of the vast training facilities afforded by civilian institutions. Whatever the opinion of the Secretary of War and the heads of the staff corps with regard to the greater serviceableness of men who had finished their technical training, the inexorable machinery of the selective-service law nevertheless operated to drive technical students as well as others into the Army prematurely. Numerous plans were proposed to the War Department both by individuals and by educational associations looking toward the establishment of such an agency. Indeed, the full ultilization of the civilian educational plant by the Government was the principal topic of discussion at nearly every higher educational gathering during this period.

Limitations of space do not permit the complete enumeration of these efforts. The cumulative effect was doubtless influential in securing the action eventually taken. Naturally the governmental agencies for education, especially the educational committees of the Council of National Defense and the Bureau of Education, were in a strategical position to reinforce these efforts and to exert a constant pressure toward the same end. In fact, these two bodies served as foci through which the opinions of the leaders in the university world were brought to bear upon the persons in charge of training for military operations. This whole movement can therefore best be followed by recording the acts of the two bodies mentioned.

COMMITTEE ON THE RELATION OF ENGINEERING SCHOOLS TO THE

GOVERNMENT.

In July, 1917, the Commissioner for Engineering and Education of the Advisory Commission of the Council of National Defense appointed a committee to study the relation of engineering schools to the Government, this committee functioning as a subcommittee of the university committee noted above. Its members were Dean F. L. Bishop, of the Engineering School of the University of Pittsburgh (chairman); Dr. S. P. Capen, of the United States Bureau of Education. (secretary); President C. S. Howe, of the Case School of Applied