Harvard announces the adoption of a new and somewhat involved plan of managership competition. A point record has been created involving Personality, Executive Ability, Industry, Reliability, Efficiency and Scholarship. Presumably the previous system at Cambridge was much like our own. Someone will probably pop up and say, "Something must be wrong with Yale's system." We seriously doubt this weakness in managership "heeling" and furthermore question whether the new plan will produce better managers, because:--

In the first place Executive Ability, Industry, Reliability and Efficiency are all inextricably interdependent. They are qualities which are inevitably brought out by the credit system which prevails in New Haven. With one stone we kill these four very similar birds, and one record of points is necessary instead of four.

In the second place scholarship has little to do with ability to manage an athletic team. Long lists of great Executives whose college standing was not phenomenally high might be adduced to back this point. A man has to be strong in his studies to stay off the probation list through a stiff competition. Provided he can thus maintain a satisfactory stand there is no reason why he should be given a managership for scholarship any more than an athlete should receive his Y for similar A grades.

As regards the high rating of personality we heartily concur with the new idea. Anyone with average intelligence can arrange an athletic schedule. Personality in meeting outsiders as a representative of the university is a gift from the Gods. There is much to say in favor of a strict merit system until a competition has been won by an unrepresentative personality. But too much is at stake to give a managership to a man that is the best errand boy.

We believe that all these factors are taken into account under the present system. It will be interesting, however, to see the Harvard plan developed. Experiment is the first school house of experience. Yale News.