Our three great leaders in psychology had made straight the way, James at Harvard, Hall at the Johns Hopkins, Ladd at Yale. The publication of "The Principles of Psychology" in 1890 was a declaration of independence, defining the boundary lines of a new science with unapproachable genius. Simultaneously with the printing of the articles composing James's book, Hall was developing the genetic and educational work in psychology which now occupies such a large place. At that time professorships and laboratories of psychology were established at Clark, Pennsylvania, Harvard, Yale, Wisconsin, Toronto, Cornell, Princeton, Columbia and other universities, and these gave birth to the newer generation now active among us.

Both as significant symbol of the position attained by psychology and as true cause of its further progress, the establishment of the American Psychological Association in 1892 is notable. The American Chemical Society, founded in 1876, was the first of our special scientific societies; it was followed in 1888 by societies of mathematicians and geologists. But our association is among the oldest of the fifty different national organizations now meeting here. The association of those with common interests throughout the nation and the world, so that our neighbors are no longer only or chiefly those living in the same place, is among the most remarkable changes and advances of modern civilization. The social group reacts in much the same way as the local group, there are jealousies, misunderstandings and quarrels, but also respect, friendship and cooperation, and when the group can perform a useful service or is threatened from without it develops a consciousness of kind. Groups of this character, whose individuals are bound together by common interests and objects, may become institutions more dominant over our

lives, having greater claims to our loyalty and service, than the conventional family, the helpless church or the blood-stained nation.

Our place of birth was Clark University; the day, July 8, 1892; G. Stanley Hall was our Socrates and mid-wife. The original members numbered twenty-six. It may be worth while to call the roll. Frank Angell, then as now of Stanford University, a lost angel to us, for he is no longer among the fellowship of the saints. J. Mark Baldwin, then of the University of Toronto, whose contributions to psychology have been so notable, also one of the few whose name is absent from our rolls. William Lowe Bryan and Edmund C. Sanford, pioneers in experimental research, now fallen to "that bad eminence," where they bear the load Atlantean of our humbler fates. W. H. Burnham and Bejamin Ives Gilman, the one in a fundamental branch of education, the other in the fine arts, carrying on work somewhat apart from ours, but related to it. William Noyes, recently lost to us, and Edward Cowles, distinguished alienists. Cattell-adsum. John Dewey, John the Baptist of democracy, teacher of teachers, modern master of those who know. E. B. Delabarre, then as now at Brown University. W. O. Krohn, then at Clark; Herbert Nichols, then at Harvard; E. W. Scripture, then at Yale, no longer climbing the steep stairs and eating the bitter bread of academic life. James Hyslop, now following the mystic grail. J. G. Hume, of Toronto University, who saved us from a narrow nationalism and with E. H. Griffin, dean and scholar of the Johns Hopkins University, saved us from a narrow empiricism. Joseph Jastrow, our first secretary, who this afternoon is here to tell us of the work in which he himself has been such a great part. George H. Fullerton, my first professional colleague and comrade, acute thinker, one

of our early presidents, now far away. Lightner Witmer, my first student and my successor at Pennsylvania, where he leads in an important field of research. G. T. W. Patrick, of Iowa, and H. K. Wolfe, of Nebraska, influential as teachers and in their work in psychology and philosophy. Last and most honored of the living, G. Stanley Hall and George T. Ladd, our first two presidents, then seeming to be veteran leaders, but now having become my contemporaries, men to whom we owe so much in so many ways, founders not only of our association, but also of psychology.

To the twenty-six original members, five were added by election at the preliminary meeting. Death has taken from us T. Wesley Mills, of McGill, early worker in animal psychology, and H. T. Ormond, of Princeton, distinguished philosopher. Edward Pace seems to be sheltered from us by the wings of the church in the educational work in which he is engaged. Then there were two men elected not only into the association, but selected from the whole world, because they were those whom we wanted and needed, E. B. Titchener and Hugo Münsterberg.

I once wrote: "Harvard with James Münsterberg, Royce . . . surpasses every other university in the world in its opportunity for psychological study and research." Now they all await us "where beyond these voices there is peace"-Hugo Münsterberg, always my friend since our student days in Leipzig, who with the hand of genius threw prodigally broadcast the diverse endowments of his great nation and his great race; William James, "the sweetest, wisest soul of all my days and lands"; there is none like him, none, nor will be; and Josiah Royce, his friend and ours, the well-beloved disciple, who leaves the world darker, now since his light is quenched.

Should the roll be called of the present

membership of the association, there would be three hundred and seven to respond, and there are besides ten former members and others who stand among the hundred leading psychologists according to the list which I have compiled by objective methods." The number of those professionally engaged in psychological work has increased nearly tenfold in twenty-five years. The original members represented 14 colleges and universities. There are now 122 institutions in which our members teach. Then the American Journal of Psychology, recently established, stood almost alone; now the published directory of American psychological periodicals contains eighteen titles. This is a growth of our work that has scarcely been paralleled in the history of science.

While it is not feasible to name all the individuals now composing the association, it may be well to give some data in regard to their distribution. The numbers in our chief institutions-including my own-are larger than I had supposed before counting them up. They are: Columbia 23, Chicago 11, Cornell and Harvard 10, Clark, Johns Hopkins and Ohio State 8, Illinois and Michigan 7, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Princeton, Wisconsin and Yale 6, Minnesota and Pittsburgh 5, Bryn Mawr, California, New York University, Texas and Western Reserve 4, Brown, Northwestern, Vassar and Wellesley 3. There are 96 institutions with one or two psychologists—32 universities, 42 colleges and 22 normal

2 They are: Frank Angell, J. Mark Baldwin, J. E. Creighton, Edwin B. Holt, J. H. Hyslop, Herbert Nichols, E. A. Pace, George Santayana, E. W. Scripture and C. A. Strong. Several of them are primarily interested in philosophy; three reside in France. More than 90 per cent. of our psychologists are thus members of the association.

3 On Christmas day died Naomi Norsworthy, associate professor of educational psychology in the Teachers College, skilled in research, a truly great teacher, a noble woman.

272 of our 307 members are now or were recently engaged in teaching (including educational administration). This is a larger percentage than in any other science except mathematics. Most of the remaining 35 have also taught. Of these there are eleven who are engaged in work unrelated to psychology, supposing this to be the case for married women, for there are nine women among the eleven. We have one museum curator, two clergymen, and two practising physicians. Then there are sixteen connected with boards of education, hospitals, laboratories of reformatory and charitable institutions and the like. It is not impossible that this group, now so small, may at our fiftieth anniversary surpass in numbers those engaged in teaching.

258, or 84 per cent., of our members are recorded as holding the degree of doctor of philosophy. Psychology is the most academic of all subjects, a larger percentage of psychologists having taken the advanced university degree than is the case in any other science. Thus in a study made several years ago I found that about 60 per cent. of zoologists and of mathematicians, who in this respect come next to psychologists, have taken the degree and the percentage falls to about 10 for anatomists and pathologists. The American universities which have conferred more than two of these degrees are: Columbia 46, Harvard and Chicago 31, Clark 25, Cornell 24, Johns Hopkins and Yale 15, Pennsylvania 11, Iowa 6 and Michigan 4. The foreign universities are: Leipzig 15, Würzburg, Berlin and Freiburg 3. These fourteen institutions have conferred all but 27 of the 258 degrees. But while psychologists have taken their advanced degrees from a small number of institutions their college origin is very wide. They come largely and in

tral and western states, but the data at hand do not permit of a numerical statement. In my previous study I found that psychologists were as likely to come from small colleges as from large institutions having strong departments, and that those from the smaller institutions were equally likely to be distinguished.

At our second meeting, held in New York in 1893, Professor Mary W. Calkins and Mrs. C. Ladd Franklin were elected to membership. We were thus tolerably prompt to recognize equality of opportunity for the sexes, and this record we have maintained, for we now have 39 women among our members. Thirteen per cent. of women may be an unlucky number-it does not represent the ratio of the sexes-but it is larger than in any other science. I have recently counted up the number of women in my Biographical Directory, and find that among the 224 psychologists, 9.8 per cent. are women. Zoology stands next with 7.5, and the percentage falls to 2.1 for chemistry and 1.3 for physics and geology. Of our 39 women members 36 have the degree of doctor of philosophy, 11 from Chicago, 5 from Cornell and 3 from Columbia. If we should use the illegitimate method of projecting the curves of attendance in our courses in psychology at Columbia, we could set the date when it will be no longer a coeducational institution.

I think it is safe to state that we are now doing more work in psychology than any other nation. I once counted up the entries in the Index covering the first 25 volumes of the Zeitschrift für Psychologie-from 1890 to 1902-containing references to the articles published in the journal or reviewed by it, the more important contributions to psychology from the German point of view. It was disclosed that during this period America led all nations in experi

mental work, exceeding Great Britain in a ratio of 10 to 1, that in theoretical contributions we were about equal to Great Britain, but were doubled by France and tripled by Germany. In contributions of a physiological and pathological character we fell far below these nations and below Italy, Germany surpassing us in a ratio of nearly 10 to 1. I have found no convenient way of making a similar comparison for the more recent period, and all contemporary international comparisons are now impossible. "Who's Who in Science," published in England in 1913, attributed 84 of the world's leading psychologists to the United States, as compared with 31 to Germany, 27 to England and 13 to France. This is a predominance which according to the book the United States holds in no other science. We may wonder whether the importance of the work accomplished in this country for psychology has increased in the same ratio as the number of those engaged in it. It would not be fair to expect to see ten Jameses in this room, just as it would be unreasonable to look for five Darwins in England, because its biologists may have increased five-fold in a generation; or twenty Newtons, because the physicists may have increased twenty-fold since his time. But do we have a hundred members doing work as valuable as that of the more productive ten of those whose names I have recalled among our first members? Probably we have; in so far as it may seem otherwise, this may be because there are in the earlier days of a science more opportunities for original departures, but more especially to the fact that the relation of eminence to numbers follows a psychophysic law of its own. The number in a group who become eminent tends to be a constant, dependent on the limitations of the attention and the interest of the members. Thus a savage tribe may have as

many distinguished chiefs and warriors as a nation of a hundred million. We may be unable to see the trees for the forest.

It would be impossible in the time allotted to me to give a history of the development of psychology during the past twenty-five years or an account of American contributions. It seems to me that the lines of development, especially in this country, have been in the directions which from the beginning I have followed, though my advocacy and example have doubtless been epiphenomenal. been epiphenomenal. These are to ally psychology and its methods with the nat ural and exact sciences rather than with philosophy; to replace introspection and verbal descriptions by experiments and measurements; to investigate behavior and conduct rather than mind and consciousness; to study individual and group differences; to make practical applications and develop a profession of applied psychology.

Mr. Dean R. Brimhall has counted up for me so my own prejudices are eliminated -the papers presented at the twenty-five meetings of the association. The reports have been printed in The Psychological Review and Bulletin, except those of the first two annual meetings, which were printed in a brochure which was edited by me as secretary. On the chart is shown for fiveyear periods the percentages of papers in accordance with their character. Applied psychology and individual psychology are cross classes, the same papers being listed for a second time and also largely in both classes. Only a rough subdivision is feasible, but it serves to show the distribution of our interests and the changes that have taken place in the course of twenty-five

years.

In order to obtain information concerning present work, I have used the method of the questionnaire-a psychological tool which we owe in large measure to Stanley

Hall, though some of us may at times regard it as an invention of the devil. Members of the association were asked to fill in a blank stating the psychological researches in which they are engaged or plan to take up soon and the amount of time they are able to spend on research. Of the 220 who replied, 68 either reported that they are not at present doing research work in psychology or signed the blank without making a report. Of the 87 members who have not replied there are only a few who are doing work of consequence. More than 90 per cent. of those working in psychology are members of the association, and the replies consequently represent fairly well the work now in progress.

The last ordinate of the curve is for this work. When more than one research was reported the subjects were distributed fractionally so that the 152 replies give an equal number of researches and represent the work of so many individuals. The most impressive exhibition is the small amount of attention given to historical, critical,

philosophical and analytical subjects, and that half of all the work is devoted to genetic and educational psychology. The suicide of philosophical papers is in part accounted for by the birth of our childThe American Philosophical Associationand does not necessarily represent a decreased interest in philosophy in America. It does, however, mean the establishment of psychology as a science completely independent of philosophy.

We are each year carrying forward more and more research work and, I trust, are continually improving its quality. We are doing a larger quantity of work than any other nation and work of equal value. But our accomplishment falls far below what it might be and should be. Psychology does not attract a sufficient number of able men and adequate opportunity is not given to them. I suppose the median salary paid psychologists who teach is less than that of employees in the railway unions, nor do we have the eight-hour day. The Ph.D. with all its outfit is a trap baited for mediocrity rather than for intelligence, and the victim gets caught at the advanced average age of 28 years. Then he must teach or starve or both. He has done research work of a kind, but whether it has been the mere routine attempt to solve a set problem or promises original performance, he is stewed in the same juice. He is not given a position unless he has done the modest amount of work required for the doctorate, but the position is usually such that further research work is prohibited. If he shows exceptional ability he may receive a minor university appointment with extension and summer courses, and if he continues to show ability he may become a dean or a president or some such thing. Scientific research and productive scholarship are regarded as desirable accomplishments, and men are sometimes called from one institution to