PAID STUDENT LEADERS

In an adjoining column appears a communication the writer of which looks ahead to the time when many of the more responsible undergraduate positions may have become paid jobs. The loss of glamor in the high places and the growing proclivity of students to study are evident today. Must the assurance of pay counteract these forces to keep life in the extra-curricular work in the University?

The first and most ovious reply is that the idea of pay is inimical to the idea behind college activities. All of these, whether they be athletics, newspapers, or dramatic associations are generally backed by a seal for the greater glory of the college or of the men in the activity itself. The feeling that all the work is intracollegiate, that it is merely a mimicry of the outside world, leads to something very like that dubious sprite, the amateur spirit.

But at Harvard, at least, the amateur spirit, in its crusading aspect, is not fiercely active. Where there is no driving force of a cause to be advanced, there must be a substitute to preserve the initiative. It may be that salaries for undergraduate executives might furnish this substitute. It is certain, at all events, that the placing of a job on a salary basis leads to a deeper sense of responsibility on the part of the incumbent.

Against these rather superficial recommendations for the realization of the possibility of paid student leaders are ranged a number of disadvantages. Chief among these is that substantial remuneration for the administration of important activities would bring about a decline in the quality of competitors for the important positions. Many of the able men of the college have sufficient means to enable them to go through college without help. These men would be inclined to feel that it would be unfair for them to compete against men who were actually in needs of funds. Even in the absence of pure altruism, such men might use this aspect of the situation to justify a lack of initiative on their part. Work in an undergraduate activity for pay might seem detrimental to their self-respect, as savoring too much of "professionalism." These considerations would tend to eliminate from competition for high positions most of those who did not need the money.

The field would be left open to those needing financial aid. While the proportion of ability might be as large in this group, the competition for a lucrative position would attract many whose efforts at earning had better be directed to other jobs, and the result might be disastrous to many.

The hard time for the activities may be a passing phase, and they may be forerunners of worse. But to call in the dollar as the doctor is a step which is still ahead, the wisdom of which must be carefully weighed.