THE SUCCESSFUL SCHOLAR

Ever since college graduates, began going into business, much has been said and many opinions aired about the value of college training in business procedure. Until recently the dominant note seems to have been that college training is by no means necessary to business success, and some have gone so far as to say that it is almost a detriment. In contrast to the professions, it has been felt that a business career does not require intellectual keenness of the sort that colleges seek to develop in their students. In this connection, therefore, the conclusions reached by Walter S. Gifford, president of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, in an article in the current issue of Harper's Magazine are particularly arresting.

Mr. Gifford, on the basis of a systematic and statistical analysis of the personnel of the Boll System, has shown that success among the college graduates employed, has come in greatest measure to the men with the best college records. The relation seems to be something more than a coincidence, wherefore, if Mr. Gifford's observations among the men in one company may be taken as representative of other cases, it seems to follow that scholastic attitude is in the majority of instances the precursor of success in business.

Two shortcomings are admitted by Mr. Gifford in his analysis. One is that his only basis of argument is from the relative salaries of the employees, and obviously salary is not a certain indication of success. Nevertheless, it seems a valuable one under the circumstances, and particularly suggestive is the fact which Mr. Gifford adduces in connection. Not only are the college honor men in general higher paid, but they have achieved promotions with increasing regularity as they have progressed. In the cases of the lower grade college men, on the other hand, promotions have come fastest at the very start, then with decreasing regularity.

The other shortcoming in his tabulation is that there are too many exceptions to permit any blanket conclusions being drawn. Most important of these exceptions seem to be the low grade men at college who had the ability to be higher grade. In these cases lower grades cannot be taken as an indications of lack of ability.

Now Mr. Gifford does not set out to show that a college education is an advantage to a business man. His arguments are directed to an end more cogent for the undergraduate, for he makes a definite answer to the question whether scholastic aptitude is an asset in non-professional work. He believes that it is, on the ground that it has been found to be so in some thousands of cases. His findings, however, it valid, undoubtedly put a premium on good work at college. To be sure the man who has the ability to do well but does not use it at college will not lose his ability thereby, but if success at college studies is to be accepted as an evidence of a capacity for business, then certainly the opportunity to prove that capacity is one well worth having.