p h ‘I .. ' I? -- _ ink. "III'V' _ .340..04:04“3 - . vcs‘fl I- _-'. ‘ ‘ ' .II“-".:"-.?:‘~ .-. t” -u my)». *1 - ,, fIIIII.'.' V ' ,fi-‘Efl’lflfii :3 7733' ‘. ' ”9} {hi I-."".f'-I\.“‘.V}“:" ‘ .uoOHQ‘." "’.”"“’ ‘o_' '4'} \‘kflt W .s o~toyuoqde',": " - --‘v {q .33; k, y “.1; nodao-Qvéfi":::~3 ‘4‘: ‘n'.I:r-:..\I I._.. . 5‘! .. .‘P-v radon-1“. 3.5-1. ‘00-. .qt‘gr- 9-“. ‘pn' ’1'" ' .r {haqlgp..oo-..'oqotfi 6." .3 3 w 6 . 1 _ _ _ .1 .‘Q‘.' _“.o O... :g3.. '.:‘.". .4. -J I‘ ."" .¥ .O‘ ’2‘ .‘ OOoCos-oy"‘.. ’ OJXo- 40"“. y ..- -- foo. ”I I ‘1531': 3:- ........... -«I 0 g. - .00 .“*"F : ”q.‘ '2'. ._."-_ ‘_._‘,.-_ 0 ‘ o - 0 O ' c... . ' o. f.- ‘ I I In." I I- I . ”I I ‘ h ‘ I, -‘ J ' as . . \ o o - O... a ‘\ .f. ' 1:. ,J I. . ‘h ”It I _ II ’ II II A I (As-,0 00“ ', Afx'hmnu: n‘ z" vi‘nfi'mhl'f II 3 . . I ".. I I I II 0H9. -ol—Qfi‘ ‘ut--(I _ _ . I I J- : O O J C -0- la 0 t 4-. ' _ a .._. C .‘ F1", ‘ycv "uh" "'- ‘1 ' "K; - :IJI . .Wr-MIIHWCIII?“ '. V ‘flff’flifi' "’5 .3 v0" | £0, .q' ‘ "La ' u .- w ‘0- Ir“.- . ‘ -'.' .w- .._,_ .‘5. ,. -' y — 5.1' ' J". v . - 7 - -. ‘1" \mfi‘th . -. . '0 . . ‘..‘ '.‘ n . 0-. O:* - n h." : u, “I "‘ “filgtxk i“ w' '.l I~ _ "IJ A , _ v . . . . . I I. . . ' . . , .6. at a. -—o ' "a .jwl‘l'. .IJQ‘II)'_I'~I- |-I "‘H- . ‘n. I. " ‘ ‘ Cg)“ ‘COO. ' ‘ -‘ . . 0%.; I. . :,I "~ .' I' .‘o. " .t..‘. .olof ' r 'O I .. . . no H . , . . ' | ‘!‘Ji.. '. “_ -. .l:-'-.6.¢. . ‘ t . n ‘. H I . .'. . .. c‘ . ‘4'“. c o- . . ‘.rI Tr“ -.- ‘." 5 . ' ‘ | ‘ “f. D... .Q ' ‘ o .." - o - . <- "‘ " " 1' ' I” ' - ' - -. +."y"ri‘.-~”o.€§\ I $.‘T’l' 0-550 .00 “""‘" “ ""‘Ik’."-’," U‘h - , u‘ '1' -900- 0 .0 ‘ ' .- ' . . a ".Tl‘li. “'11:. 22‘“? """J‘ "-,'o - n . --.r °~---°‘ . ' - ‘ -.' "'v" -- 'J~ ‘ ‘ ‘ .' «g .0 o c O O ' ‘ ‘ - W0." 1. ‘ ' K 1 . y" I v... " ’ ‘ r."fi‘$,lft'fiz‘t_'.&}’ ‘ ‘ I, ‘ . '_ . ‘ I _ 'I o o .‘o o 1 I.-.‘ I‘.- 0-. ..-_-...o--_ N 0 . a-" '- l ‘."--. OO‘O .'-.'A.GIQ.OO" oz—0C$"'¢.o 0' .o00“o-IQ¢<'- -°' .. 0.0-..._.o'.- ° J k' I V. ,-. \v ‘1. '1 "q'l .' IN; ‘ ‘ ' [.92 «1.31. w --~.'-1 . . ‘-_- .~ l'. ‘.|\‘f"' _I. fifty?" " 1." ' ark ~. -""..En'5".' .5 6‘5 ‘ r . ' . .‘ U. o u c v os¢.---o o. ,' I I-‘.- -. ". O .4 - . ' ' ‘ .‘T . '.- 'I I k { -. "o o_‘.' w u - . ' .- ‘y . .b“'- j.“ ' : ' - fiat." Tana-“3‘0. - to 0 I ‘4 g . o 0 0 " ‘ “1: ‘3‘ " -’ 3 :‘Q‘P‘ZIIA .. .. ~., . ‘ V ' " ' W3“: .‘ . . l , _ o . ‘, ' '9‘ . ._o‘ ‘. . ". ’ \ ‘yl . I ' ‘ we. I.'.I. I :_~-. 'I If:_“‘k i‘. ’ ‘1“.yfi’.”l" ......A0.0 .‘ 0 O C Q ' Mb-- ”‘0 n +5) .00. O 0 O . . ‘.' ”15". ,' ‘s' v., -.n '. '97-.“ .‘H - .u‘g‘. V . -_ "'4‘- .t " " ' " ‘ . . :', . ~, " "3 -'" .y ““4?! n‘ ' ' f: ‘i'y'-'~-...' "s. . ' A 0 ‘ . _ . o o _q .0 ‘ ”NI th'Iv'W“ . I u . 3ft.“ -r'_I '. 1L" . "1'; ' . .0-0c-‘ I. . ', . .y". - .«. .L“ u '1‘: .- . . ,' " .~ .a‘I-I'm §‘ 1 ". f 1-...-. .. .- .-- . _ my_ -. - -. . .. ~ " ” ' L""?~r‘.y"k;yt-".r .|‘ .\ 1‘ - 1CQ- “-'u ‘t. l " k" 6 4 fl - ‘ I o. ‘» | F“ " .‘ 5 . ‘ . w , A <- A , . 3- ' r‘| ."- H. I‘d" - - . ' n n" 1“" ‘ .l " - .§ n n J O - ' ' - . I, . ., _:. ‘ , . I" ' I '> " ' "v ' ‘ I,” o ““*:' ‘o ‘ - \ ‘ - p.‘ '. * 1m ' 2 ' . Pin '1 I." ‘_n"_“- ‘ 3 y n : ' - ‘ - u-fi . “an. - ~ '9 - '. ‘4. Y'-':‘ , ...'-.rl..~. “ $4,} -- : . "i . :-‘ y‘r. J “ 'fw: NI . -‘ -- yr; .. ' . . . _I - ‘67 o \ . .. ' ‘ ‘ ' v . ao‘flu ' .fN. I. - . V l‘. ' ‘ .'. ; .' .' . 1‘. N " . p. ‘ . 'Vh. 9‘. ' é I!“ a; .V . . ' . . ' . .. ., ‘ ' I -'.'-.'.'-\ '-' . "‘- .. "I. ytf‘ ‘. ‘ . '. . ‘ 3'" '.' '_ 3° ' i) ‘ " ‘ s o . . - .. M .w. ‘ ‘ ‘$\."u ‘ y . . ' .e ' )' . v . l . _ ' I “I " .' -..-)\.‘.\ - I}. I‘.‘ .' _- i'.‘ In. .6 fl."f.|';_%" ._ .v 'w‘ ‘9 a -".‘.‘"- . . "L". . ‘ ‘ ' , ‘ 4 ' ‘_a a - I ' '5 c- . _- _ . '.'- I" 'I .I'. oI ' I I ' " -' - - 'I . .. . ‘- .. ‘ «N '. . ' z-‘t‘g -' ~M§ Tbs-9‘- ‘ r “43'1"? - fl ‘4‘- . ‘ .0 - y. - __-- . ‘ ' : - -j W 441"";- - 5‘ v. -. ,. run 3 E” . ‘ -'. . . 1 _ . - - ' a: ;I -. I- 'I “I”; .v .‘ I‘ I * A f I r'. -. ' ;. . . ‘ .. - " ..' . ‘. " \u ‘.. " 3" ." " ' I 3 ’ . . ' ‘. I . ~ ."2 s. - . . . ~ .‘. I -_ __ . _. _' . n h' .‘ woo. On“.. ~-,.. 5 , -o. q—w.‘ . o b - o o . Q . o_ .I. . . . . . . . - ’ . . _ p ._ ._ - . .' - ._ . ". _‘ _ . -" _n ' .J .u I .- I ’ a on": . . ~ 0 " . . ‘ - '-.. .. _ '- o “ . . s n o- . — . . _ . . . . - .' l. I’ r. . . ‘. . . . U ‘4' ‘ 0.1-“ ' I. . W _. .uf ‘. _v' n . .. ' .' . - ‘.~ .-- y . . ,:. - ' - . y . . ’ w - ' .. '.- '. "J ‘ ? I . , .. . _ _ “5'!" .‘a .. . I. ‘3- I.m.. .~ . . . .-'_ f . . . \ .53 D .,1a ‘. J! 'a- ‘35 I - . - .' 2-. "3 5‘ ' .3' ‘ "' ' ' ' ' "' .' ~ - I . ‘A . ' V ' . n g - O f . . - D. . . . . . - ' ~ fi '-..v ' \“‘ - . . . ' ' ' " ~ . . ' ‘- 1 ~ ’." . . _ .' ._- . ‘. - . . . . - - . - ._‘-0 .3‘5 ‘ So‘é 0’ '4‘ ‘ *- -4- .0 -00‘ o .0 u ‘dO-l—o-."l‘ a O 0 a {. u. . A! 'ch".. - I'II'. .u . 3‘;qu ha._y.ui “SI“. ' - ,."-' ' WK -’ {I}: 3.. Omb.‘ {I}. w .' A“ , ,2- vad-flxkxf'u.“ "‘ . II_.. . - .. .- . - y . .. . . -.\«O“"-a" .‘y- 7 g8 . - . ' K -.; - y " -.. . .' . f’yfififi ‘ .-.i y m -- . . ~ r-t”ho‘xy-’.~’-:"“ II “ — ' ‘ ' A _.. . .. .5v’ 9 o I . t - _ \ l .‘ O .0 . a . .. I - . o - .. - _ 1‘ J~ . - ‘ . ‘ - J ft — " ' ‘ . y -- ~;- -~v ~. "5'. ' -'~ *- ' .. ‘ - ' . . . - -- . a «(at-‘3 *. 9ST 'vy' r _ . ~ _ .I I I. .I . .. . . . . . . _ . ..- . h m .' . .3 '...' I. ! .‘ - .q , 'I. . .I w.“ y. . ". .‘ ‘. '. ‘ . -. r,“ "'-. ,. .‘II.II ,.:I'_o ‘V‘l O ‘ . _I . . _. ‘I . In” L . I. .' . ' "‘4 ..‘_v' ' . y ' -_' "1.. _ ' ' "L Q?» :ffl‘fi.‘ . ... .‘Ml'. .' . 4.“. ' .‘II‘ '_ '. -I I . . I' I - _, II'LI .9 .I‘ -_ . : unififl'r. "bk (rt-.4; ‘} .V‘.‘¥'?‘,-:= -, ' ‘ ‘ I . . -“. >~ . ‘. ' , . ~‘ .. " 2‘. '. .' . . a f I ' : fl-V.‘ . . ' - .- . . , I- — ' ' I . . I - °‘ . g‘ . . I '.' 'I"%'qh"' s" I...‘ ‘5 '\V\“"-‘u}‘ J .. -~ _ .. ." ._ .. . ‘ .. .. . . . . ._ ~ ' o _ . .'- -y . - . - ' " ._ _ ‘.f ..' ' " ..\VI ; .o ".I- _. "A' w .\-¢ r"""-' . I I, .~ . __ .. b .I __ . a, . ;_ _ . , . _ ..~ . _ It was: 3;.“ {‘3' .1. f ., .23.. "I” '2 4 .- .5.0 -"I- .-"' ‘ '_ I'.‘ _ _ i- 0' I O c o . _ I . ‘ . '4 -‘ . o ‘J O" . . .am‘ a ' . ‘ .I'J"\_I - .' . _ .o'. \ “I0 .I. .41 . o. m . . ‘. ' -.>‘.'9 Q'..')' 1 ‘ ' . = ' ‘ ~ Hwy . 5 -\ _\ _ ' It”... J JV" ” " 59’“. t‘ - o - ~ “5-4) I _ A. . , . ‘ . 4 , ._ .- i 7' ‘ . '0 "3b“; ' ~.fi:".' '\_uo .I - r“ . 3;- ! o 1 “:7“ "L _ 3.! . 5 "r : : --.~2~' in; _- O'Ia. ' \‘P‘_‘,-' , _‘-' o 7 {'3‘ .. . . . 41$ 3 . ‘ .’ '. " K 0 "‘ ' , | ‘ . ° "". ‘ '5 . - .. . .I ‘ 's"): U _f‘.‘ M ... g ‘ _..-f; .. , \... : - . . . -.: ';~-‘>-‘.-."-‘. ' ‘f u . I .'.. .“.k“_ - ‘ Q .‘ . " ' a -'\)II '- . '. '5 n o v ~ . w “' L ‘ .‘.. 011‘ o . ' . .‘. k . «I ". «up». ' ‘ . . ':‘_ .‘n .‘fi‘. ‘oIa oh O D... :.I. 'e; . - o o -- ‘L_ -, It. -o J 1' ‘ . . 5. '3',“ :70 “:‘ -p:.‘. . ‘ o ‘ I. : “If: . ‘ 5;: . .- .-' “M'- -’-c- . ' . t‘ -' '~ .39: .0 - ‘ —.‘ ‘ ¢ . t- in. . . - - ~ . : 1. 0 ' . €‘Q‘h‘ \ . J" 5“ - 2 ~ .. - , ~ y- “ w. ‘wh'l ' ‘ ' - .M 1’ ' ‘3 . .:-..3...,. .- . . -. -- 2a. ‘0 V II .~ . ‘ . . .I . ".‘ .I - .‘1 .co' .‘.' - . ' a; - ‘: l. . ." ' n . ‘ ‘ .l‘ . . . ll. 6' O \ J ~31 A. a. - 0 . o o . . g ' i at Q 30!?“ “a? - an! . ‘ o - - :i': k 1.5.. fl '. ".1 ' ’ ° -'V- r 'M'-'.‘, ;. ‘O ‘r _ ' . o O on U ". , a: '. .L ' "‘ I") 0 _ v. «$3.3, .fi" .. .'.' 2 .‘ ." ' . _.“ .', .‘ go:- 03‘-3.‘ o l'."“.! ; ' O ‘_.' :_‘ ‘ ‘1' q. ..-r o :.o6v(: 0‘ :dq . . "( ' o 0" 0:..3-3 g’o .- ‘ .‘.-¢ -. w n; u - 4a. . '1' _“~ .‘: ' H . .2. :- oH‘h‘,’ 'l‘fl'v'.‘ 1- - ‘NH .4" 3' < - m ' .‘II I o ' & fi.‘ . . “'0 .4 C W‘ o v . oq -\ . I. _ i U ‘9 "o +' r. 3; *- L W941; ° ” "' ‘ ,-‘: f av... . “ .ul .. 1n ulw 0.9 ,' “I?"wf dxo‘ .. .. ‘ P.4Rl»‘ . ‘ v V w u . .1 v ,V. v. -, fffixmwpar. n. .f. .. .. 7.... . .... ‘ éw... in. r..._m.....4. :; .r; w. .A W, ., ”.1...:..,..MNHMH1;TJJ~’94‘ .. .. Vr..;..‘ .‘ I . . . a to. . .. . . . 1 2... L. .ie. . g .. . l’v:o’.hrlr.lv ‘1. .. . I H. .f u A w _ T 9 'c S E .x -- . x y . . , - at}; 5: ‘ ' ' 2. .. -2 _..- ‘ . 73", tn». b‘ . . . . ‘ | _‘IA ‘ 1- z. w . A . 95L... ' x.»- '2 «3* 5 *3 'v':‘- -'..." ‘,- > .. ‘10:} K'SBN'g—rm'yfi'Cfl." / . ‘3‘qu, ~23} 1‘ ‘ . .' Vie f ’i' .' P ' .1 3 . V..; ’r; .' 5‘." .11 U l ‘ \‘ """'h'.. ”H 3“)" - - I L.” ‘3'? : ‘ c Q .-.' . -. . ' ". "Y5“. ‘1,th (”‘5 d_ {Q\ “7‘ 1 ‘ \n- . , ‘ r ‘ fl .. ~‘ r -I, .3!” ‘5 ‘ .- V. ?- sv.“.'_%3 C»?! Q QJ$CfiDJUCDO5 . 78 . 78 . SO . 86 . 90 . 92 .1CC .lCO 1C9 .114 .121 .136 .141 .144 .149 .151 .153 .154 .137 .158 .170 .176 .180 LIP3143 ,w‘ a ”JUL .3 I” FW. I) LI "‘ ITO'S 11-10 INA-1.331031." 1133:1131}? YER-GRWIP RJLAfiIOMQHI S L2ADERS.AS 1 GROUP AND II CHAPTER I. INT: DUCTION All groups at all times had leaders and all leaders thruout the ages had followers that they to some extent and in some form led. Thus, groups and leaders seen to be complimentary parts of a sociil unity. Leaders are found among practically all, if not all forms of life. The particular characteristic determining leadershipa nong the lower animals may be such p1ysical traits as strength, size, speed, sex, odor, or such psycho-social traits as slyness, cunningness, concentration, patience, or afiec tion. Hany of these traits are also characteristic of some lea aders among humans. The traits of eadership in general remain some what obscure. V9 n hate1s views leadership as "always mysterious. "e do not know t e U‘"SlCdl and mental forces, that lie back of the personality that becomes a dynamic center."(l) .C‘ Cooley is soaxev.11at of th :ane opinion for in Speaking 01 leadership or personal ascendancy he mentions that, "It must be evident tha.t we can look for no cut-and-dried theory of this life-imparting force, no algebraic formula for leadership, We know but little of the depths of human tendency; and those who Inow most are possibly the poets, whose knowledge is little available for precise uses. Moreover, the problem varies incalculably with sex, age, ra cc, inherited idiosyncrasy and previous persor9l develOpM1ent "(2) A pioneer historical and analytical study of leaders that substantiates Cooley's last stater~e nt is nuwiold'. analysis of the beginning and.genetic develogment of leadership among H .primitive peoples thru the hunting, pastora , and early agri- (nthural states. He fines the requisites for eligibility to (1) ‘Van hater, Hiriam - The Child LhJ is a Leader, Survey (Sept.l, 1927) Vol. 58, page 499. U2) Cooley, C. H. - Human Iature arm.The Social Order, page 285. leadership among primitive geoples to have been physical strength, physical endurance, promptness of decision, superior ability in making motor eoordinations, age plus some other kind of activity, exceptional ability in control of food supply, ablest warrior, orator, medicine man or wizard, health, and versatility in the cuStoms and traditions of the tribe. The origin of leadership, he finds, depends upon size of group, stability of group, degree of complexity of group activity, definiteness of its organization, nature of its food resources, its sedentary or nomandic character p (1) and its relation to other groups. The characteristics or qualities of human leaders in more civilized groups have not been fully inventoried, classified or analyzed, nor the group technique of leadership or the social forces productive of leaders. This is probably due to the increasing complexity of such social interactions. Also, leadership apparently does not always have the same weaning to all peeple. In fact leadership is often many things to dirrerent persons. Hooker reminds us that, "The word LEADER has radically different meanings, all more or less vague, for the miitician, the Y.H.C.A. county secretary, the superintendent of rural churches, and the director of 1iniversity extension. Fully as great variety and uncertainty exists regarding the functions of leaders, the qualities essential or desirable in them, their motives and rewards, the conditions .favorable to their develOpnent, and the technique of leadership. IEveIwbody desires to be moving in this matter; but all show almost 2:5.much uncertainity as the bandor log regarding the destination and the route."(2) 3 i m. Hooker, Elizabeth R. - Leaders in Villag ommunities, Journal (3.) Munford, Eben - Origins of Leadership - (2) of Social Forces (June 1928) Vol. 6, page 605. Whatever leadership may be it is a universal obserssble social phenomena that "where two or more are gathered together, there leadership is fossil"!I It is 'the special influence of one - person over other persons'!3} This influence may be temporary or transitory and operative in a single phase of interaction or in a mosaic of interactions. Any person may be called a leader writes Bernard 'who is more than ordinarily efficient in carrying psycho-social stimuli 5 to others end is thus effective in conditioning collective response This may be done involuntarily or unconsciously or consicously end intentionally. There are therefore two types of leaders, in fact in the genetic developn.nt of leaders the one often evolves into the other. Bernsrd cherscterises the activities of the two es follows: 9 It is not necessary that he (a leader) should serve in this cspscity of presenting stimuli for collective response on purpose. He may be an involuntary and unconscious leader perhaps even more frequently then s conscious and intentional leader. In fact, it is very probably’thet most leaders first learn to sssume the role leadership through discovering themselves operating unintentionally in that capacity. But of course the most effective type of leader is almost always the one who is conscious of his leadership, has s purpose in view, and studies the technique of leading successfully. Leadership is most conspicuous and most direct in the direct contact groups and it is here that most leaders are trained. But leadership may also be indirect and may sccordingly be carried on through printed symbols, through radio, moving pictures, or any indirect contact stimuli. Such leadership may make the leader conspicuous, if he reveals his personality in connection with his leadership technique or he may remain i the background, even to the point of being generally unknown. (5L Fogsrdus, E. 5. - World fiesdership Types. §choIogy and#§33TEI Resesroh, Vol 12, p. 574. 3 Ibid, P. 573 Bernsrd, L. L. - Introduction totSociel Psychology, p. 620 Ibid, p. 5:1 Leadership exists normally only among persons hrving some, usually many, culture traits in conmon. he are reminded that, "The Pope is not accepted as a leader by Protestants, and Robert G. Ingersoll, by neither Catholics nor Protestants. Al Snith is not an enthusiastically cheerod leader of the L.C.T.U.; a, and Kirby Page is not torshippec by the R.O.T.C."(l) Thus, in many instances a man becomes a leader by doing his job unusually tell and doin; it primarily for the satisfaction that accompanies work well done, or because of habits of thorough- ness developed in him by the groups in which he moved since early childhood. Ordinary any one who reorganizes existing culture traits thereby making adjustments betteen man and his environment less conflicting may be classed as a leader. The rapidity of diffusion of cultures in modern times frequently enables one to be heralded as a leader often before he hiiself has become aware of the signifi- cance of his contribution to existing culture. Leaders are contact makers. They are persons with a multiplicity of selves, in the sense that a person "haswzany social selves as there are individuals vho recognize him and carry an image of him in their minds".(2) .Practically every one carries with him an image of Hoover, Ford, Edison, Burbank and Lindbergh, because of their contacts with man- .kind, while John Doe's image is likely to be carried only by some (if his relatives arm.some of his neighbors and friends. These few introductory remarks and citations give us clues as to the significance of leadership, particularly in this industrial age, sin: especially in a democracy there everyone is supposed to be more 01' less of a leader. Ibid., pp. 573-4. James, We. - Psychology - page 179. “A N H ww Significance of Leadership. '1 Leadership is worthy of study in thatris an integral part in of all interqgroup and infra-group behavior. Since it is only in the group that man lives and moves and has his being, leader- ship is a social phenomenon that merits objective analysis. An objective research seems possible in that workers in the field of Sociology have pointed out that leadership falls within the domain of natgral law and that the frequency distribution of leadership traits, individually and collectively, are of the same general shape as the normal probability curve. In connection with a study of 140 American villages made by the Institute of Social and Religious Research under the direction of Edmund deS. Brunner, an analysis made by Elizabeth R. Hooker of 1370 resident community leaders, reveals that: "One thing is clear: the fact that on every point covered (such as number of leaders, sex, are, occupation, birthplace, country of birth, denominational faiths, and marital condition) common tendencies were evident for the villages of all regions, proves conclusively that leadership faLls within the domain of natural law. This inquiry, therefore, superficial as it is, should afford to students of social phenomena a strong inaentive toward profound and extended investigations in this field. For through such research they may discover how rural leaders may be fostered - a xmimer viEal to the progress of civilization".(l) 2) Ogburn who has studied numenous inventors, - one type of gjreat men, or leaders, believes that in as much as "When a particular trait of a random number of living organisms of? the same Species is measured, it is found to be distributed amazording to the normal probability curve," and since this holds rule for mental as well as for physical traits and for combinations anti complexes of traits as well as for simple mental traits "it seems pxnfbable therefore tiat such traitszas inventive ability or any gxrrticular combination of traits of greatness would also be similarly di stributed". (1) Hooker, Op.Cit. page 614. (2) O burn Wm. F. - The Great Man Versus S cial Forces - Journal 0‘ Social Forces, (Dec. l9“b) Vol. 5 page are. - a - It is s common observation that everything is a matter of relativity, that everything in nature is related to something lower and higher and that even human nature and leadership is much the same the world over and not a chaotic conglomerstion of inconsistencies and irregularities. Leadership, in a sense may be said to be, a relationship between those ahead and those behind. This suggests that an objective study is possible and is a method of testing the subjective theories of social philosophers that have been advanced since the dawn of history. 'It would seem that actual situations involving a number of persons in which something has been accomplished through tin efforts and sacrifice of many with discipline exercised on all and with definite focusing of attention of the group on one or a few persons regarded as leaders and with coordination of effort thru the persons or directions of these persons - it would seem that these situations are much more valuable material for the study of leader- ship than sre the theories of political scientists or 8001010 ists or even the writings of Plato and other social philosophersdé’ Variation is as natural as uniformity and should be about as regular among leaders as among any other phenomena. Due to variability in leaders, in leadership traits, qualities, motives, rewards, techniques, it is imperative from a scientific point of view to study leadership whole, that is in its relation to all contingent factors, - in its ”Gestalt". Bowman brings out the signi- ficance of the Gestalt background of leadership by saying, "If the epplicstions of the Gestalt concept apply anywhere, they do in the study of leadership. Miss Follett has brought together in creative experience the inference of the findings of several fields of study and practice that certain functions of groups experience reside in the integrating process of the group, and.other than in that integrating process disappear, or rather do not exist. Leadership apparently is one of those functions; and if so, cannot be studied except as the whole group is studied, Further as s function ofiaixperienoe it is to be observed only as the group is functioning. owmsn, eroy - An approachfito fihe Eng? of fieadership,33urns1 of Applied Sociolog , 8%. 11 p. 316 Q). Ibid, page 318 A -‘/- '1 9 This means that every leader has his group in which he functions and every group has its leader and that a leader is understood only in so far as the group in which he functions is understood. There is no understanding of leadership apart from its group. Human existence or living is an associative or group process and leadership is an integral part of that process. Another significant feature of human beings is that every one "aspires to be a leader. With some this desire to lead may be prompted by’a desire for social approval, with others an urge to dictate, or an itch to make more money, or a desire for new experience. It seems that with most normal individuals in their everyday walk of life to live is to lead and to lead is to live. is Genders says, to lead means to enlarge one's self,, "to ive one's self a greater dominion of influence; to enlhance one's per onality. It is the insatiable desire for a bigger being, or existence, that has made leaders of men. ~~'0ne's self is the resultant of past experiences plus present activities. In a very true sense, one ig_what one does. The individual who experiences most, lives most. The one who does more, and different things, is the one who has and is a bigger self. Leadership beckons because it offers greater existence, made possible through the greater activity of an organization} "Leadership is the first essential in organization, which in turn makes possible that cOOperation without which modern society could not exist.“ “u-“'Portunately our modern scheme of things which requires leadership on the one hand and followership on the other is not contrary to man's natural desires. The origins of this system can be found in the instincts of mankind as truly as in the organization of a wolf pack. The social tendency, the desire to be, work and play with others is a basic human desire which has characterized man for tens of thousands of years. The go d leader seems to have been decreed in the very nature of things.'& Leadership aspirations seem to be natural urges that are socially desirable. This is fortunate in a coming democracy such as (a Ganders, fissry 3. - A Primer on feadership - Educationaffievfes Vol. 74 pp 149-150 - ,9. - 10 ours where leaders of all kinds are needed. Chapin regards this as one of the great current needsfi in this country for to him, ”The need of today in democratic countries is the development of leadership . not the leadership of the centralized few, but rather a dif used and spontaneous leadership among the masses of the people . " 9 Higher education should materially help to supply this increasing need as larger proportions of the population secure high school and college education. Greater ease and facilities in communication and transportation also accelerate the production of leaders. Also, courses in leadership are being added to curriculums. Just a word might be said here relating to traits of leadership. Psychologists, sociolggists, personnel officers and others have from time to time listed what they termed traits of leadership. These lists vary greatly as is to be expected from subjective evaluations. Cooley remarks that, "If we ask what are the mental traits that distinguish a leader, the only answer seems to be that he must, in one way or another, he s greet deal of a man, or at least appear to be. He must stand for something to which men 1 cline, and so take his place by right as a focus of their thoughtué’ Burke has compiled personality traits from the writings of several sociologists and a psychologist as follows: "Ellwood lists the following traits of leadership: a high degree of social intelligence; large sympathy with one's group; an efficient social imagination; moral and physical courage; capacity for enthusiasm; complete consecration to the cause he represents. Allport holds the following traits to be of prime importance: ascendance of manner and physique, high motility; social participation' drive. Bogardus lists the following evidences of a democratic /) leadership: increasing the Opportunities for the development of other persons; promoting the welfare of groups as such; taking the side of injustice against special privilege; showing an at-one-ness with the humbler members of society; consulting with authorities, even Opponents, before acting; using the discussion method of securing adjustments; showing the way sacrificing self; rendering service without expectation of reward?§é? (if cEapin, 7. Stuart - Socialized Leadership -'32 of Social Forces (kw/717] v01. 5. P. 50 fl. Cooley, 0p. cit. 295 ,) Burke, Margaret M. - Leadership and Tennyson, J. of App. Sociology Chm/“3) Vol. 11, p 344. - 9- 11. The leadership traits listed by Allport are individualistic traits as tho individuals are "self-made” and can force themselves into positions of leadership without reciprocal interactions on the part of the group. Ellwood and Bogardus manifest the complimentary relationships between leaders and group life. Cooley has also expressed this mutual reciprocity between the individual and the group in declaring that, I'All leadership has an aspect of sympathy and conformity, as well as one of individuality and self-will, so that every leader must also be a follower, in the sense that he shares the general current of life. He leads by appealing to our own tendency, not by imposing something external upon us. Great men are therefore the symbols of expressions, in a sense, of the social conditions under which they work, and if these conditions w re not favorable the career of the great man would be impossible.1§’ One point further probably should be mentioned, and that possibly at some length, before the specific purpose of this study is stated and the analysis of biographicll works is presented. This point is the relative importance of heredity and environment, or nature and nurture in the development of leaders. Each of two somewhat opposing groups have claimed major credit for the existence 'of leaders, especially great leaders. Some hereditarians contend that ”leaders are born and not made" and some environmentalists argue that "leaders are made and not born“. Exceptional examples have usually been cited to supposedly ”prove" their respective viewpoints. No doubt in some instances leadership is due quite largely to heredity and in other cases to environment. Some absolute organic hereditarians night cite that it has been said that fifty members of the Bach family, in five generationstere notable musicians. Extremists from the environmental point of view might cite Lincoln as one whdJleadership could not have been predicted on the basis of the (D. Oooley, op. cit. p. 321 -19... 12 chromosome content of his germ plasm. Neither group in these cases has a true perspective of the situation. Neither group has seen the multitude of interrelations between the individual and the group, and so the social setting, the "Gestalt”, in which we live and move and have our being has not been seen whole. If any assumptions are necessary in this study it seems possible in the light of all available facts to assume that organic heredity and environment are reciprocal and complementary factors in the orgin, development and functioning of leaders. The view taken is in accord with that of Prof. C. M. Child of the Department of Zoology of the University of Chicago who after conducting laboratory experiment with lower forms of plant and animal life for more than a quarter of a century arrived at the conclusion that heredity shares equally with environment from the beginning of life "in the development of the individual from the egg” and “that heredity determines which of them shall be realized in a particular individual."ishis reciproctl and interdependent relation is recognized by Mumford as he regards leadership "as an innate and acquired modal societary tendency or force". It seems inconceivable that an individual can become a leader devoid of the influences of a home and school not an mention any of the other great social institutions and socializing agencies, and 'fii::w are environmental factors. Very probably sympathy, toleration, understanding, cooperation, suggestionnand human association are equally weighted in the balance with stature, physique, health, glands,and instincts as far as the making of the average leader is concerned. . Child, 0. M.‘ Ph;.rsiological Foundations of Siehavior, figs im. .Ilumford, Eben - Origins of Leadership. 4%Selfl '11- 13 Unquestionably the biological and the environmental influences have each been grossly over-evaluated at various times and by sarious men and the cultural aspects of leadership, have been frequently overlooked and under-evaluated. Possibly no one has analyzed the relative contributions of heredity and environment in the production of leaders more scientifically nor has anyone summarized it more clearly than Ogburn where he states: "Our conclusions are that greatness must be conceived in terms of inherited qualities and environmental traits. The distribution of inherited qualities appears to be such that the inherited qualities of greatness should be plentiful and constant, facts which minimize the importance of the great man, biologically conceived. On the social forces sidg,', there are two important factors that affect great achievement, the existing cultural materials and the social valuations. These two factors vary greatly over time and by places, and hence may be called causes of great achievement. They are of the nature of social forces. Great men are thus the product of their times. They in turn influence their times, that is, their achievement influences the times. The great man is thus a medium in social change. The phenomenon of the great man varies in the different kinds of social activities, and each situation should be separately analysed as to the relative strength of the different factors. In some cases psychological traits of personality are more important than others. These factors at the present time are only with great difficulty susceptible of precise measurement. But certain extended observations indicate that the production of great men and their influence are strongly conditioned and determined by the particular existing stage of the historical development. The great man and his work appear therefore as only a step in a process, largely dependent upon the other factors.(lh . waldo Frank would no doubt concur with this view for he says, "The corporation, the combine, were creators of Rockefeller, Hill and Morgan, even as the trade union was the creator of Gompers".@52 Williams, the comic artist, seems to have the gift of seeing, and sketching in the daily papers, life as it is lived by our leaders namely, that “Heroes are made, and not born“. LaVay in commenting on this same thing remarks, “It is true, naturally, that heroes must be born, but I do not think it true that they are born to be heroes, and I have much the (~ . Ogburn - op. cit. pp. 230-1 (JuaLJ9‘9) . Prank, Waldo - Am. Leaders - New Republic,AVol. 55 p 67 '3?- ' '14 same conviction in regard to leaders. The desire to be a leader is inherent in all of us. But whether we become leaders depends in part on early environment and the personalities with which we come in contact. The desire for leadership may be repressed by lack of understanding on the part of parents and teachers. Other factors may tend to develop emotional conflicts which make leadership impossibd However, the normal boy has a strong inclination for leadership; he wishes naturally to excell in some field endeavor, whether it be sports, scholarship or manual dexterity., ; we shall see later in Chapter III how different writers have attempted to prove by means of birthplace of leaders the superiority of heredity of urban people (or rural people) and others often using the same figures arguing that it proved the superiority of environment. The abiding thought is that the study of leadership is a sociological problem, in that it concerns the relation of the individua to the group, and of the personal process to that of society as a whole, as that it isoproblem of gradually increasing importance.Also that "Ihe lives of the most eminent men{ of history are to a certain extent public property, pen to statistical investigation and psychological ' analysis. 'él (P1. IaVay, Kenneth R. - I'Teaders 30m or Bade? School and Society, ‘M°’/’7"‘)Vol. as. p. 683 (EB. Cattell, J. M. - A Statistical Study of American Men of Science - (mt,.a3_,Im)Science, Vol. 24 p. 659 The Purpose of This Study The primary purpose of this study is to discover some of the more significant sociological factors in which the contemporary leaders in United Statesfi;aswc'oznpiled by the editors of the 14th or 1926-27 issue of "Who's Who in America? differ from the general ‘ adult pOpulation as revealed to us by the Federal Census, and where differences are found to discover the nature and degree 5? variation and the forces that cause or influence these differences. More specifically, the purposes of this stidy are to discover in what reSpects and to what extent contenporary American leaders differ from the general adult population of the State with regard to place of birth, age, education, occupation, marital COHLitiOD, group affiliations,and officership. Concretely, the aims in View are: (l) to discover whether leaders migrate in larger relative numbers and farther from their state of birth than the general pOQulation or not. Also the rehative prolificacy of urban and rural areas in producing leaders. (2) To discover the range in ages'of leaders and the age groupsxthen leaders are most numerous. (37 To compare the extent of education of leaders with that of the . general adult population and to discover the relative apparent influence of various institutions of higher learning in producing Ileaders. (4) To discover the extent to which leaders follow the same occupation as that of their fathers, the number of positions laeld.in and also outside of their principal field of vocational ndeavor and the more or less inmortalization of their ideas in the (D AfOTHIOf writings (books). (5) To discover whether leaders are :married in larger relative numbers or not than the general adult I / d. 16 Q population, tne range in age at narriage, and number of chiltren. ) '4'.‘ (6) To discover the exte nt and nature 0‘ their group al‘ 11 iliations particularly in church, lodge, club, technical, )rof essional, and Greek Letter organizations, and the influence of such groups in stimulating achieveuent. (7) Officership in city, county, state, re ional, national, inter-national and foreign technical and professional organi: ations. The essence of this study, if it can be condensed in to one sentence, is to determine to what extent the nation's contemporary leaders are group-made products and the product of essentially what groups. As a means t‘n at may aid in this discovery the "Who's Hho in America" is, for the above reasons, considered the best single source. No study of this kind ‘as ever been made. The importance and need of such a study is readily perceived especially in a republican form of government where all of the various social institutions are more or less democratic and where everyone is supposed to be somewhat of a leader. A number of stutie s have been nace of certain types of leaders and of certain traits of leadership, but none have been made of leadership in its totality. "Lives of Great hen" have be.n compiled prinarily as reference material, since the beginning of historic ti es and tEese have been portra; ed in all their glory w ndi d e:{amples of eiulation. A biography is hie life history (‘1 as Spl J 01 an individual. A life history is virtually {n enumer tion of the various groups in which one is living and has lived and how he has been conditioned by them, and if he is a leader how he has {modified thes groups. ’17' 17 Biographical Works Oi Lea_d_e.r.s_ The present trend in biographical works seems to be one volume editions issued annually, bisnnially, quinqusnnislly, or slightly less frequently containing short biographical sketches of usually from five to over thirty thousand contemporaries in all the various walks of life, or in a particular field of social or economic Iv endeavor, without eulogy or criticism. "Biographical dictipnaries the earlier ones were called and Who's Who in ------ ”/tbe modern cuss. Practically every country is at present attempting to compile a list of its achievers and notables. The ”Who's Who” idea in the modern sense may be said to have originated in England in 1849. This is the dsts that the first Who's Who publication appeared in London. This book was primarily a directory of the nobility and landed gentry of the British Isles. For about half a century tho English who's Who was little more than a red book or blue book of English aristocrats. It was about 28 years cg: when Douglas Slsdsn, one Australian writer, revised the book and democratizsd it. Ths annual edition for 1928 gives over 30,000 brief biographical sketches of notable living English men and women whose position or schisvsment make them of general interest. Germany has her "War ists?', Franco her ”Qui Etes-Vou7'f Ittiy her "Chi 3?”, Sweden her ”Von sr Dot?', Norway her "Hvsm.sr HvemY', and so on. The first edition of "Who's Who in America” was published in 1899 and has been revised and reissued biennislly since that time. Tho first edition contained 8602 biographies. The number of sketches in such biennial issue has increased and in the 19f32192' issus biographical histories of 28,806 contemporary American achievers and notables are given. Those biographies are of men and woman engaged \ sts. Certain comparisons will be made betreen the genera 1 lead eels, that is leaders in all of the various Sields of hiaan enneavor, such as are chronicled in "who's Lho", and the R U a’or agricultural leaders in Kichigan, the total acult population of United States, anc between laymen such as are found among more or less it Hp esentative persons in Iichigan, whenever adequate, representative data is available to make comparisons comparable. RUS is the biographical register of contehporary rural leaders in United States and Candis. The third edition published in 1925 contains 6,065 biograqhical entries of whom 182 are residing in Lichigan. The 33 sin of this Cork is "to incluce those persons who are prominently e r21eé in rural wo1k, anC whom the ouClic has reason to be interested, as iarxers, 3 a131ers, investigators, business men, lecturers, m1nisters,iar1 c. intgr and hozne Ce1onstration agents, authors, eCitors, 211C tr1e leaCing f}- tione l, oolitical and uuulic-serrice :‘iele as they Cirectly injluence o ersonalities in the aC_ninist1ative, 00M11ercial, coooera. tive, or jani- 1r riculture anC country life." 0 About 1/7 of the sketches in RUS are :‘erw rs and the others are teachers n agricultural colleges, tenchers of agriculture in high x...) H. schools, agr C1ltursl extension Corkers or persons tho are er trgea in commercial a1: icultw1el inCustries. Ho list of only Iarner leaders anC their biographical S'etches has yet been compileC. Eventually the "ma ter Iarners" shoulC form an excellent nucleus for S1ch an (0 1nCertaking. However RUS series as an ercellent storting point for an analysis of proiess onal agricultwrists. The 1920-27 Yolu1e of "‘uho' s bho" contains 26,915 biorra1hical sketches, of whom 4C4 are native-born anC resiCing in Iichigan. Lsnihns seems a very fair work to aaply to a select group so shell 98’ 'Venty million. (I) ( f1 (:1 27,0CO out of a total aCult pooulation of so» ack of number of cases has see med a'xi‘a Chort0011r~ of nunerous investigations enC that 01 leaCership has not elvays been an e: (ception. 31rokin who has made a study of 600 of M rica' s wealthie st peOple half of whom are living and half of whom are Ceceased anC all data obtained from inCirect sources, somewhat deplores the smallness of the number of his cases but consoles himself that, "Similar studies of men of science by Galton and LeCanColle, that of the royal familiss oi-Savorgnan, Suanae rg and F. WooCs, that of literary 1en by H. Ellis and OCin xere prac ically be seC on the number of cases fluctuating between one hunC1eC anC eight huntred" anC that "Such cases indicate that six ‘uz1 reC cases provide a ttsjs for ag)roxitate results."(l) (l) Syro”in, P. - American Killionaires and ;u1t1-H1lliszai1es, (May 1980) J01rnel of )cial Forces, Vol. 5, p. C87. irx 4 Judging fi‘om these earlier stuties OJ leadership it see1s t1£t e nu1ber of cases involved in this stucy are abuncontly adeguate for the ourQOses for which the that are the signiiicant social characteristics of the nation's 1eecers? How have the men an: “oien in the ouhlic eye, achieved the J siccess in their verious vocations which has plscec t1en there? To answer these questions is the purpose of this stwdy. "who's Mho in Ase ric a" for 1926- 27 is the nojor source of the investigation in U‘ (u atte mptin gto Pnsxer the e (lC'uiOHS. This biographical volume is at & ..1 least a 1erit1rious sterting ooin 1or an ingartial, comprehensive, Cf- stetisticnl, scient iiic 13 search on conten;orary leacership in America. It herits consideration in t1at it is a cirectory of the nation's J. '_J sad (‘0 rs in all wicks of life pregared by persons without anv bias in _p‘. d 3 ation to the 1n1wes mifators oresent research study. 30 comprehensive st~1dy he 8 ever been made of the leaders listed therein, at least not Iron the standooint of he ir C1arccter1stic social traits, and parti- iations ant narticipatiors. The indivitnal's f-J cularly their group afri ”rentrge, ecicction 811d gioup li1e is Sifificiently me 1 and clearly sxet fled that conparisons o: indivicwals in Cirrerent occupations, 1C (f) O H u yleces of residence, of various ages, a on, are possible. The 1 23'10. 1 sh tcnes is given is Suf- m (I) I 5.4 H. number of indivicuels whose biog H iiciently large so that it lends itself to giantitntive or stetisticcl tre at1ent and any ge11ers lizatio: s that are c 1e1ully are mn 113m the data should be valid anc signifiicant. The biographical cats ogtai ed 1ro:1 original or pri.ary sources and are es accurate as it is 1‘0 goner 11y )0o3ible to obtain t1cn, In 58 11eral, we Jay conclnce that "Who's tho in America" is a good and authentic source of exact ingornstion 1wr‘e1n11y to the cereers of well known living Awericans in all the (im‘f rent :ielCS of huncn ..I-CJ. ectivi ty and that it urovides a satisractory basis for a . 1~w AAL: ’-A‘-:--A sociol0g1ctl ":5 35 The biopraphiccl data of the Lho's the leaders MES placed on punch cards (see germ below) to insure greeter accuracy, and to facilitate comoutation in the ~orrelation tables. Hum" Place of iv‘ __. . a Vs). («f (ML-1 | Xl‘li‘uft H'L‘L ‘ ‘ , i i“ £14011 ‘ Uni?! :4 5;. 5 Age at 5‘2 hilvmbcrri- Uhu‘v'IW-Lm (1'31“; 8 ’ 4;.“- Occupa- Age :1_ -Uma '2: :4 Harris; ;- g, _ .13 5. 551 _ 5 EM". Lodge Club 011mb M :9 " : Skater 5' do“ Sunder 3’ 3 Mater ..' d "it “E B = 3: :3 5 ’5‘ 3: t. nit) “F53 él __, Sauna?) Hmong: {‘3 6337:133er 9‘ n“: :- ~ “3315i; gm. ho :3 ”0000000 OOOOOOOOO‘OOOOOOOOOOOOOOUO;O+OOOOOOOLOOOO§ ...... [ .-----..-....-..- -- »-—--—- ~—»~-.--‘--1__-. — ---.-—,.--r-- «-- --- _--.-- ~ - — , ,- _- -- .——--- ------ ..- .z 1111111111111111111111111111111‘311111111‘11111E ~722222222222222222222222222222222’2!2222222222222:: l O .33j33333333333333333333335333333?ashes-333333333E 5444444444444444444444444444444444.414444444444143: 25555555555555555555555555555555555555555555553 ' 1:1 #:66666666666666666J6666666666666666666,66666666333 :--~--~--- ----------------------- ---------- ----- ------ -.-—+—.-——---—-—-- 1.--? -~~-—----1-——- ----- a ------ ~---- {-3 37777777777777777777777777777777777777777777775 3888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888* 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 12348670910.111213141516171819202‘1zzasuzsunzazoaoaxazaa341535373030404142‘434445' ! l l CHAPTER II. BIRTHPLACE, RESIDENCE, AND MIGRATIONS OF LEADERS. The poet, Thomas Gray, in his "Elegy" figuratively reminds us that "many a flower is born to blush unseen And waste its sweetness on the desert air" when one's place of birth and of residence is barren of leadership opportunities. Not all of the saharas of leadership nor the cases of leadership in the great American society have been discovered and not all of those that have been "charted“ are well known to the wayfarer traveling through life. Opportunities for leadership vary considerably in different parts of the country and in the same area from time to time as the needs and wants of the groups in these areas change and as the richness of culture and the frequency and affluence of social stimuli vary. In the analysis of birthplace and residence of leaders the phases that seem worthy of some consideration, are (1) state born in, (2) migration of leaders born in Michigan to other states, (3) state of residence, (4) state of birth of leaders residing in Michigan, (5) size of city or place born in, and (6) size of city or place residing in. Several of these phases of leadership have been pursued by some investigators in their analyses of bio- graphical works and one has been the particular verbal battlefield of some biologists and environmentalists. The geographic origins and distribution of leaders seem worthy of some consideration. In 1902 when Cattcll began his study of distinguished scientists he called our attention to the fact that almost the only thing which had so far escaped scientific study was the lives and origins (i? of great men. With respect to distribution of plants, animals and humans he believed that 'In recent years the distribution of plants and animals has received increasing attention in botany and zoology, and apart from its pertinence as a correct description of the world in which we live, it has proved, on the one hand, to have certain practical applications, and on the other hand, to throw light on certain general problems of heredity and evolution. Similar study may accrue from a scientific study of the distribution of human ability and performance.'(l) Iith Wiggam a knowledge of origin of leaders is of paramount importance, as “Nothing could be more serviceable to democracy than to know with certainty where its leaders come from, what are the biological, psychological, and economic influences that reside at their birth, and what are the agencies which guide them to their places of service and power."(2) One of the certainties of life is change and one form of change is migration. This migratory tendency exists both socially and physically. The physical aspect will be principally considered in this chapter and some phases of the social aspects in succeeding chapters. We shall first see how much more migratory leaders are than non-leaders as is indicated by inter-state migration. (l) Cattell, J. M. - A Statistical Study of American men of Science, Science, (December 7, 1906) Vol. 24, p. 732. (2) Wiggam, A. E. - Brains Where They Come From, World Today,6ept. 1926) Vol. 48, p. 477. See also World's Work, (Oct. 1926) Vol. 52, pp. 578-86. 5M3 State of Birth. Every state, the District of Columbia, most of the territorial possessions of United States and.seventy foreign countries are represented in "Who's Who" by one or more native-born men and women from these states and countries. Ninety per cent of the 26,915 leaderstare native-born of whom almost 1/2 (47 per cent) were born in the five states of New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Illinois. About such a proportion is to be expected, other things being equal, since these states rank among the six highest in the number of their pepulation, since exactly 1/3 of the popu- lation in United States live in these five states, and since in these states are located most of the largest cities in United States and the headquarters of so many national organizations. The relative ranking of the states with respect to the pro- duction of crops, live stock and minerals of all kinds is common knowledge, but of the relative productiveness of various states with respect to its most important crop of all - human leaders - little is known. It is thought by some that the South produces relatively few leaders and the New England, the Middle Atlantic and some of the North Central States relatively many. In his study of 331 wealthy contemporary Americans, Sorokin(1, found that new Ybrk, massachusetts and Pennsylvania produced 47.9 per cent of them. These three states about 1870, or about the time that the majority of these millionaires were born, comprised about 42 per cent of the total population of the country. Thus these two (l) Sorokin, P. - American Millionaires and Multi-Millionaires, JOurnal of Social Forces (May 1925) vol. 3, p. 654. 3:? Middle Atlantic States and one New England state had a slight edge on other states in the production of millionaires. Since riches are often inherited and since these three states have been the natural habitat in the past of wealthy peOple this margin of dif- ference would naturally be expected. ' Cattell found the New England states, particularly Massachusetts, the birthplace of a much larger proportion of America's thousand leading man of science than other states. He states that "The adjacent states of Massachusetts and Connecticut, with a population of 1,691,213 in 1860, have produced 174 of our thousand leading scientific men, whereas the adjacent states of Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, with a population of 3,661,218 in 1860, have produced but seven. The one region has produced per thousand of its population more than fifty times as many scientific men as the other. This great difference, it appears, is more probably due to social conditions, educational institutions and Opportunities for a career than to stock, and is thus evidence in favor of scientific productivity being in the main due to Oppor- tunity rather than to heredity. It is probable that if the 174 babies born in New England who became leading scientific men had been exchanged with babies in the South the scientific productivity of New England would not in that generation have been materially de- creased nor the scientific productivity of the South have been greatly increased. It is certain that there would not have been 174 leading scientific men from the extreme southern states and only seven from Massachusetts and Connecticut."(l) "Be born in Vermont and move to Massachusetts" says Harvey, seems to be the surest formula for success when one compares the Who's Who figures with the Census figures, for "One out'of every 1039 born in the!Green Mountain State has achieved a place in Who's Who in America, the accepted authority on eminence. This is one-fourth the ratio for the entire United (1) Cattell - American Men of Science and the Question of Heredity, (Aug. 13, 1909) Science, Vol. 30, pp. 209-10. State Taken by and large, every Aml Ii icon bo;f..... has he comforting essu ance that he has one clance in 4,168 o: acnieving fame." (I ) In his study of the first 10,000 native-born persons listed in the 1912-13 edition of Who's Who, He aring found the New England States far in the lead in the production of persons of eminence. Selecting the first 2,000 pers ans in the tho's the for 1914-13 born in the United States since 1869 and tebulating their state of birth he found the tligliShed Anericens to have been born in the U) younger generation of di \J a ~v. n . .j that "(1 north and east sections of the United stetes. he lOLhL t ‘ 4—! J. ,4 cu h FJ L-L‘ he lead of You England is not so pronounced as it has in the earlier , (2) 0308688, 1t 18 still considerable.""1n all out one suogect Lew 4.1- England produced more literati in proportion to pepulation, than did any other group of states" according to Clarke and "Jesse chusetts and ' Connecticut stood far above the other K>w England States and Lassa chu- ~etts had a large lead over Connecticut". All $1ch attempts to di scovei the fertile lender aroducing areas 21011 (C of United States merit consideration thougi the worthwhileness of studies would no doubt be increased many fold if attempts were made to discover the relative productiveness of the different parts of United tates in leaders of various kinds, such as agricultural leaders, engineers, triters, artists and leaders of various quelities such as emoeratic, autocratic, radical, conservative, constructive, etc. 3" mother defect of such studies as have attempted to point out the .L. D (1.) Harvey, P. C. - The Road to Esme. Inteoendent (Oct. 24, 1925) Vol. 115, p. 467. (2) Nearing, Scott - The Younger Generation of Americ nGenius, Scientific Monthly, Vol. 2, p. 50. (Trn. 1910)? (3) Clarke, Edwin L. - American Men of Letters - Their N ture and Eurture, pp. 48 and 32. y 1 a; a I“)- leader-producing areas of the country is that the ligures for the various states have not alneys been comparable. The composition of population as to age, sex, nationality, marit’l status varies con- siderably from state to stvte, and their relation to the qroduction of leaders has generally been ignored. The only str ctly eonparable D m thod of determining the relative orolificacy of states in producing ( general leaders is by comparing the number of leaders born during some decade, say 1800 to 1870, with the number of births during the same decade. This, houever, is im,ossible due to the absence of data relating to births previous to 191;, and is not yet available for all of the states. An alternative method, though the figures are not ‘ strictly conparable, may be :sei, in fact, has been used by othehs. W 38 alternative method therefore lies in comparing the number of leaders born in a state with the number of people living in the state J‘ about the tine that these leaders Lere born. The table below shone how many pd3ple were living in the different states in 1870 (approximately the date that the average Who's Who leader mas born), the number of hho's the leaders who mere born in each of them and the ratio betteen the the factors. fihe states are ranked from highest to lonest according to the number of leaders born in pro- gortion to total oopulation. This table includes all the native-born listed in Who's Who whose state OB birth is known, totaling 24,067. , / Rankings f States in Production of Hhofs Who_§eadcrs :Number of :No. of Persons : :dho's Who :per Who's Who : Total :Leaders BonmLeaderi Born : Population :in Speci- in Specified Stats : 1870 :fied State :5tate South Dakota! : 14,181 : 48 : 295 District of Columbia : 131,700 : 207 : 636 Massachusetts : 1,457,351 : 2,050 : 710 Nebraska : 122,993 : 163 : 754 Connecticut : 537,454 : 606 : 886 Washington : 23,955 : 26 : 921 Rhode Island : 217,353 : 232 : 936 New Hamoshire : 318,300 : 339 : 938 Idaho : 14,999 : 15 : 999 Utah : 86,786 : 85 : 1,021 Montana : 20,595 : 20 : 1,029 Vermont : 330,551 : 315 : 1,049 Maine : 626,915 : 533 : 1,176 Delaware : 125,015 : 106 : 1,179 New.York : 4,382,759 : 3,565 : 1,229 Wyoming : 9,118 : 7 : 1,302 Ohio : 2,665,260 : 1,975 : 1,349 Kansas : 364,399 : 258 : 1,412 California : 560,247 : 396 1,414 Oregon : 90,923 : 61 1,490 Wisconsin : 1,054,670 : 698 1,510 Iowa : 1,194,020 : 788 1,515 New Jersey : 906,096 : 579 1,564 Maryland : 780,894 : 495 1,577 Illinois : 2,539,891 : 1,608 : 1,579 Arizona : 9,658 : 6 : 1,609 Michigan : 1,184,059 : 718 : 1,649 Pennsylvania : 3,521,951 : 2,129 : 1,654 Virginia : 1,225,163 : 706 : 1,735' Indiana : 1,680,637 : 914 : 1,838 Nevada : 42,491 : 20 : 2,124 West Virginia : 442,014 196 : 2,255 Missouri : 1,721,295 . 726 : 2,370 South Carolina ; 705,606 : 283 : 2,493 Kentucky : 1,321,011 : 510 : 2,590 North Carolina : 1,071,361 : 385 : 2,782 Texas : 818,579 : 274 : 2,987 Tennessee : 1,258,520 : 419 : 3,003 Minnesota : 1,054,670 : 337 : 3,129 Alabama : 996,992 : 295 : 3,379 Florida : 187,748 : 52 : 3,610 Georgia : 1,184,109 : 325 : 3,643 Mississippi : 827,922 : 218 : 3,797 Arkansas : 484,471 : 120 : 4,037 Louisiana : 726,915 : 165 : 4,405 Colorado : 39,864 : 79 : 5,046 New Mexico : 91,874 : 7 : 13,124 Oklahoma : - -~- : 8 : - .- United States : 38,558,371 : 24,067 : 1,602 *Including North Dakota The Dakotas apparently rank very hiph there being nne leader born there for every 295 persons living in the Dakota territory in 1870. The District of Columbia produced one leader fior every 636 persons. massachusetts ranks 3rd, Nebraska 4th, Connecticut 5th, Washington 6th, Rhode Island 7th, New Hampshire 8th, Idaho 9th, Utah 10th, and so on. All of the southern states rank low in the production of leaders, the majority of them having produced but one leader per 3,000 to 5,000 people. One can hardly expect many leaders to come from backward regions such as the South where illiteracy is high, where superstitions and conservative natures prevail, where the educational system is at low eob, religion is primitive, 000perative endeavors are relatively few, and where time-saving and labor-saving devices are scarcely known. 5ha—horedétary-make-upsefwthe~peeple~i8mpossibiy~en—abeat~the WW“; audr 's-7-oc'i-a~1*'e-nv-iresmefit . In the westward migration of the past hundred years a se- lective human process seems to have existed in which the ener- getic, ambitious and farsighted kept going "West" and "Northwest". Their children acquired these traits of initiative and they are showing up in Who's Who at present. The "great Open spaces" tended to select "leaders" rather than "followers", and it tended to develop in those who survived the hardships of pioneer life, resourcefulness, patience, stability and idealism. It cannot be said that the foreroing Table is an accurate index of the relative productiveness of the various states in the production of leaders even of dho's Who leaders. Some of the eastern states by 1870 had been settled for a century while many of the western states, seven of them still territories then, were 4.- 4 Just being settled. Some states had many more men than women. The age composition also varied considerablgy All three factors, as will be seen in subsequent chapters, greatly influence the ratio of leaders per 100,000 population. The Dakota territory, for example, in 1870 had but 14,181 population and in the next ten years the p0pulation had risen to 135,177. If, therefore, the ratio of Who's Who leaders born within the various states is made with the total population of these same states in 1880, Dakota territory in this event will have produced but one Who's Who leader per 2,816 population. The Dakota territory will then rank 27th instead of first. Nebraska, Washington and Idaho, due to their relatively rapid increase in p0pulation during that decade, thereby would likewise acquire lower rankings. The District of Columbia and Massachusetts10n the contrary7wou1d continue to maintain their relative positions as ranking areas in the pro- duction of leaders. It can thus be said that the District of Columbia and Mass- achusetts produce many more Who's Who leaders in proportion to population than other states. Massachusetts as a state of leaders dates back to the Boston Tea Party and numerous other Pre-Revolutionary War events. As for Washington, D. 0 every state sends among her 7 best leaders, especially her political and agricultural, to the nation's capitol. Naturally the children from these homes, being‘%§%“;: 1 products of nazéeutt excellent heredity and unquestionably superior social environment, would be leaders of their generation. Anthro- pologioally and Sociologically, leadership begets leadership, and it is abundantly manifested by Massachusetts and by Washington, D. C. ‘Migration of Leaders Born in.Michigan to Other States and Countries. The emigration of Michigan-born leaders to other states is about three times that of the emigration of Michigan-born general population to other states. The same general tendency also pre- vails in other states. The exchange of leaders between states therefore is much greater than the exchange of followers. The following figures show how much more mobile leaders are than laymen in the migration of native-born of Michigan to other states. Born in :Living in :Living in Group Michiganfg __ :Michigang_flwflu_ :Other States Nimber : Pct.:Dumber : Pct.:flumber iPct. Total Pop- ulation 2,711,279 :100.0: 2,223,333: 82.0: 487,946 : 18.0 Who's Who Leaders 701 : 100 : 172: 24.5: 529 : 75.5 R U 8(1) ~ Leaders 237 :100.0: 93: 39.2: 144 : 60.. *Those who were born in Michigan but migrated to foreign countries or territories outside of Continental United States are not included. Eighteen per cent of Michigan's native-born population have migrated to other states, whereas 75.5 per cent of Michigan-born Who's Who leaders and 60.8 per cent of Michigan-born R U‘S leaders have migrated to other states. Thus leaders are 3 to 4 times as likely to migrate from Michigan to other states as laymen. Who's Who leaders are more likely to migrate to other states than R U S leaders. This greater migratory tendency of Who's Who leaders as compared with R U’S leaders may be partly due to their greater avergge age. The demand for Who's Who leaders, who are active on many different activities)would naturally be greater than for R‘U S (1) A biographical register of 6005 rural leaders in the United States and Canada compiled by Liberty Hyde Bailey and Ethel Zoe Bailey and published in 1925. w 1- 4:3 leaders, whose activities are primarily agricultural. Do the three groups tend to migrate to the same or different states? Table 2 shows that of the total number of native Michi- ganders living in other states according to the 1920 Census, totaling 487,946, 11.2 per cent were living in Ohio, the same percentage were living in Illinois, 10.7 per cent in California, 7.8 per cent in Washington, 7.5 per cent in Wisconsin, and so on, Of those born in Michigan and now residing in other states the Who's Who leaders tend to migrate to the same states as the general Michigan-born migrants to a Slighter greater extent than the agri- cultural leaders. This is indicated by the coefficients of corre- lation .54 f .07 and .49 f .07.N/éhese coefficients also show a rather marked degree of association in the migration of leaders and of laymen to the same states, but that there must be a considerable number of deViations from this tendency. , One-fourth of the general leaders born in Michigan who have moved to other states are living in New York, chiefly New York City, between 1/6 and 1/7 (é®g%?per cent) are living in Illinois, principally in Chicago, 8.5 per cent are living in California and 7.9 per cent are living in the District of Columbia. This means that the general leaders in comparison with the general population are much less likely to go to Ohio, Washington, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, Oregon,‘Montana and Iowa and somewhat less likely to migrate to the states of California, Colorado, Texas, Nebraska and Florida. This 'indicates that the general population in migrating tend to move to a neighboring state while the Who's Who leaders are less bound by propinquity. MY, an .\ anal \E Hichigan's native-born agricultural leaders are twenty-five times as likely to go to hashington, D. C. as the general population. This is due to the Unite‘ States Department of Agriculture being located there and the rapidly increasing yrswth of this Department and the ‘enand for trained agricultural research norkers. Other territories that Xichigan's native-horn agricultural leaders tend to migrate to in considerably larger relative numbers than Iichigan's general native- 1 ‘ 1 born pogulation are to tae states of New York and hortn Dakota. New York, largely due to Cornell University, has always been a leading state agricultirally. It is only natural, therefore, that it shorld attract outstanding agriculturalists. 1 0 Ohio, hasnington and Linaesota do not seem to attract Lichigan's native-born R U S leaders to near the extent that they attr . 4- ‘ t0 0 tile (‘1 neral native-born population of the state. The number of R U S (l' leaders is small and so the ten"encies may be temporary rather than permanent. 48 Native Population, Who's Jho Loaders,and R U S Leaders, .TlBDE 2. Born in Hiehiggn, ggsiding in Other States. :Native-born :Who's Who :3 U S Leaders :Ponulation Born:Leaders Born:30rn in Michigan :in Michigan Re-zin miohigan :Living in :sidinp in OtherzLiving in :Other States State Residing In :States :Other States: :thher : Pct. : Jo. : Pct. : N0. : Pct. Total : 487,946:100.0 : 529 :100.0 : 144 :105.5 Ohio : 54,886 : 11.2 : 21 : 3.9 : 2 : 1.4 Illinois : 54,622 : 11.2 : 83 : 15.7 : 10 : 6.9 California : 52,112 : 10.7 : 45 : 8.5 : 13 : 9.0 Washington : 38,130 : 7.8 : 8 : 1.5 : 3 : 2.1 Jisconsin : 36,926 : 7.5 : 12 : 2.2 : 10 : 6.9 Minnesota : 50,058 : 6.1 : 17 : 3.2 : 4 : 2.8 Indiana : 26,858 : 5.5 : 9 : 1.7 : 5 : 5.5 New York : 25,047 : 5.1 : 13 : 25.6 : 15 : 10.4 Oregon : 16,698 : 3.4 : 4 : .7 : 5 : 3.4 hontana : 12,570 : 2.6 : 5 : .5 : 1 : .7 Colorado : 10,184 : 2.1 : 9 : 1.7 : 4 : 2.8 Pennsylvania : 10,091 : 2.1 : 20 i 5.7 : 5 : 5.5 Iowa ° 9,557 : 2.0 : 5 : .5 : 2 : 1.3 missouri : 9,446 : 1.9 : 21 : 3.9 : 5 : 3.4 Kansas : 8,599 : 1.7 : 4 : .7 : 2 : 1.4 Eassaohusetts : 7,894 : 1.6 : 22 : 4.1 : 4 : 2.8 Texas : 7,509 : 1.5 : 5 : .9 : 2 : 1.4 Nebraska : 7,132 : 1.4 : 4 : .7 : 2 : 1.4 Florida : 6,544 : 1.3 : 4 : .7 : 0 : Idaho : 5,752 : 1.2 : O : : 5 : 2.1 South Dakota : 5,460 : 1.1 : 5 : .5 : 1 : .7 Oklahoma : 5,173 : 1.0 : 1 : .2 : o : north Dakota : 5,104 : 1.0 : 5 : .9 : 4 : 2.8 New Jersey : 4,571 : .9 : 8 : 1.5 : 2 : 1.4 Arizona : 5,099 : .8 : o : : 1 : .7 Virginia : 2,849 : .6 : 2 : .4 : o : District of Columbia: 2,813 : .6 : 42 : 7.9 : 22 : 15.5 Arkansas : 2,642 : .5 : 1 : .2 : o : Tennessee : 2,408 : .5 : 5 : .9 : 1 : .7 Wyoming : 1,996 : .4 : l : .2 : o : Connecticut : 1,980 : .4 : 9 : 1.7 : 1 : .7 Maryland : 1,918 : .4 : 6 : 1.1 : 1 : .7 Alabama : 1,828 : .4 : 2 : .4 : 1 : .7 Kentucky : 1,782 : .4 : 1 : .2 : 1 : .7 Louisiana : 1,765 : .4 : O : : 1 : .7 Utah : 1,751 : .4 : 1 : .2 : 1 : .7 New Mexico : 1,532 : .5 : 2 : .4 : 2 : 1.4 Georgia : 1,479 : .3 : 4 : .7 : O : West Virginia : 1,325 : .3 : 0 : : 1 : .7 Nevada : 1,014 : .2 : 1 : .2 : 1 : .7 Mississippi : 993 : .2 : 0 : : o : North Carolina : 795 : .2 : 3.: .5 : 1 : .7 Maine : 787 : .2 : 5 : .5 : 1 : .7 Rhode Island : 759 : .2 : 0 : : o : New Hampshire : 686 : .1 : 1 : .2 : 2 : 1.4 Vermont : 545 : .1 : 1 : .2 : 1 : . South Carolina - 440 : .1 : 1 : .2 : o : Delaware : 519 ' .1 : 2 . .4 : 1 7 W 49 Leaders come from many states and countries to Michigan and they leave Michigan for many different parts of the world, while followers or laymen are relatively stationary. The following map shows the present residence of the 718 Who's Who leaders and the 239 R UIS leaders who were born in Michigan. 172 of the Who's Who leaders and 95 of the R U'S leaders are still residing in Michigan. 76 per cent of the Iho's Who leaders and 61 per cent of the R U’S leaders born in Michigan have migrated to other states and countries. Of the general or Who's Who leaders, 130 went to New Yerk, mostly to New York City, 83 to Illinois, mostly to Chicago, 45 went to California, 42 to Washington, D. C., 21 to Ohio and 20 to Penn- sylvania. 0f the agricultural leaders, Washington, D. C. attracted 22, a larger number than were attracted to any one state. Fifteen went to New Yerk, 13 to California, 10 each to Illinois and Wisconsin. Thus general leaders and.agricultural leaders in general have the same meccas in common. The coefficient of correlation is .74 f .05. This indicates that the general leaders and the agricultural leaders quite commonly migrate to the same states, at least much more likely than either group: tends to migrate to the same states as the general native-born population of Michigan. Practically all of the Michigan-born leaders living in United States possessions and in foreign countries are government officials, most of them being in consular service. Frederick Griggs, born at St. Charles has been field secretary of the Far Eastern Division of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, since 1925)at Shanghai, China. Arthur C. MillSpaugh, born at Augusta is in consular ) service in Persia. Clifford D. Ham, born at Detroit, is collector 5;! CD 2; 6‘ general of customs, Republic of Nicaragua, and fiscal agent for bonded foreign loans of Nicaragua since 1911. Boise C. Hart, born at Adrian has been with the National City Bank in various parts of Brazil since 1918. Will L. Lowrie, born at Adrian has been in consular service in various countries since 1898, and since 1924 consul-general in New Zealand. 0. Gaylord Marsh, born at Buchanan, has been in consular service since 1915, and in Uruguay since 1925. Other Michigan-born Who's Who leaders have migrated to Eu30pean emintries, Canada and United States possessions. 51 . 8me3: 3 mega?“ 33m one mnoowoa Hwnocow msa dam maedwoa m b m oonnpuhpmswz .moaapssoo nmfimnou op use mopspm umpas: can we wanna penpo op damage“: a“ anon mpoowma Hendpadoanw< mnm asp cum muonwoq flamenco was on» no soupwamas msfisonm mopapm doaflsb no as: FII ‘ ‘! i M“.\\ \o Ox'ob onoosog m b m can mendmfim com \lhflfimfihb Cg; maogk ORG WQHSWHM MOde ‘uafimnom .r. \ucswawmw.z » dudfi>psg \ucswaonH \nhnmwcsm inasfigo Tfimsd HprQmo inafiaman . A ~udsmamsm /: ~uccwcmo \ mlooqmfim . \m .-Numsowm 4Avxa a Immmmom .n.b i N. r \LH.m e'u‘c'o '.'. ' u .\. -‘I‘c‘e'e'OI-I. NW 6 a} «to; neaapeeoo can unseen scape oe . 53:32 5 23 2.33 m p m see 23 Boss no 222$ng State of Residence Notables whose biographies appear in this standard reference book are found to be residing in all 48 states, the District of Columbia, all of the territorial possessions of United States and in 58 foreign countries. Only 2 per cent of the 26,915 leaders are residing in foreign countries. Those who live abroad are in the main representatives of the United States government. Most of the others are either salesmen or missionaries. Larger numbers of them are residing in France, England, China, Canada, and Italy than in other foreign.countries. In table 5 is shown the numberjpf people in each state 21 years of age and over, July 1, 1926. The Department of Commerce's estimate of total pepulation for each state on this date was multiplied by the per centage of population which was 21 years of age and over in 1920 in order to obtain the number of people in each state 21 years of age and over, July 1, 1926. It is assumed that the proportion of the total pepulation 21 years of age and over was the same in July 192é as in January 1920/which is a valid assumption. All the leaders in Who's Who, with one exception, . '_ ', are 21 years of age or over.' Writers in comparing the ratio of leaders to population in determining the abundantly or sparsely supplied leadership areas have invariably used the ratio of leaders to total population instead of adult population. Obviously, it is a fairer comparison to compare the number of leaders per 100,000 adult population than per 100,000 of the total population because of differences between states in the age com- position of their p0pulations. In South Carolina, for example, only 47.47 per cent of the pepulation was over 20 years of age in 1920, the lowest, while in the District of Columbia as many as 70.94 per cent were in the adult age group. There is also a wide variation between states in the sex composition of their populations. Hence, still more adequate comparisons would.be made by making separate computations for each sex, and then.compute the number of Who's Who men per lO0,0COadult male population, and the number of Who's Who women per 100,000 adult female population. In this analysis, however, the sexes are combined and table£3 indicates that in the District of Columbia there are a much larger prOportion of general leaders per 100,000 adult population than in any single state. This is to be eXpeeted since Washington, D. C. is the habitat of so many army and navy officials, diplomats, consulates, ambassadors, research workers, scientists, statisticians, educators, newspaper correspondents, and i | I V . . a ‘ ’3: ~, (1 ‘1'".4 ‘I,‘_,J f\_‘ (- ,- . H r {(1 (A. 1;.) .‘A'vw (\A‘q "3 1'“, a J a ( f. ‘ ”(A Rd E 71514 [-Qv—t £11,; U u I’ other classes of leaders. New York state harbors the second largest number of general leaders,78 per 100,000 adults, followed in order by Connecticut, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maryland, California, Rhode Island, and so on. There are relatively few Who's Who leaders residing in the Southern states and in most of the predominantly agricultural states. The coefficient of correlation between the number of leaders chronicled in Who's Who per 100,000 adult popu- lation and the percentage of total population that is classed as urban in 1920 is .52 f .07. This indicates that in general those states that are predominantly urban are somewhat more likely to have re- latively larger numbers of Who's Who leaders resining within them. \AH 5 4 Table 5. Number of Adult Population, Who's Who Leaders, and Ratio of Leaders per 100,000 Adult Population : 1926. Number of Who's Number of Who' Total POpulation Who Leaders Re- Who Leaders Per 21 years and over siding in Speci- 100,000 Adult State July 1, 1926. : fied States. Pepulation District of Columbia 374,478 1,451 387.5 New Ycrk 7,188,896 5,590 77.7 Connecticut 987,992 765 77.5 Mhssaehusetts 2,662,540 2,027 76.1 Nevada 52,675 40 75.9 New Hampshire 291,398 191 65.5 Vermont 219,739 128 58.2 Maryland 954,524 524 54.9 California 2,950,731 1,495 50.6 Rhode-Island 428,354 211 49.2 Colorado 644,656 510 48.1 NewiMexieo 205,194 87 42.8 New Jersey 2,245,990 932 41.5 Illinois 4,442,079 1,788 40.2 Delaware 149,114 59 39.5 Maine 495 , 284 194 39.2 'Utah 266,051 100 57.5 Arizona 254,195 95 37.5 'Iyoming 142,026 51 55.9 South Dakota 379,625 127 55.4 Virginia 1,540,141 427 51.9 Iinnesota 1,558 ,172 490 51 .4 Oregon. 561,410 175 50.8 ‘Pennsylvania 5,635,552 1,715 50.4 ,‘Missouri 2,126,171 645 50.5 Iashingtcn 985,697 291 29.5 Nebraska_ 801,050 255 29.1 Florida 742,746 191 25.7 Ohio 4,152,551 1,041 25.1 Tennessee 1,306,142 527 25.0 Berth Dakota 525,725 79 24.2 Montana 410 , 655 98 23 .8 Iowa 1,461,502 546 25.6 Idaho 287,248 65 22.6 South Carolina 866,812 194 22. North Carolina 1,580,911 505 22.0 ‘Iiseonsin. 1,698,820 375 21.9 Kansas 1,070,141 227 21.2 Indiana 1,925,754 404 20.9 Georgia 1,575,151 526 20.6 IKentucky 1,369,152 275 19.9 Michigan 2, 689, 259 526 19.6 .Alahama 1,256,180 229 18.2 We at Virginia 872, 722 154 17.6 Oklahoma 1,200,986 197 16.4 iLouisiana 1,006,495 158 15.6 Texas 2,825, 679 427 15.1 Arkansas 960 ,088 111 11.5 Mississippi 896,025 102 11.5 State of Birth of Leaders Residing in Michigan. Not only is the emigration of Michigan-born leaders into other states about three times as great as that of the general Michigan-born population, but the immigration of American-born leaders to Michigan is about three times that of the immigration of the general American-born population to Michigan. The same general trend seems to prevail in the other states. Apparently "A prophet is not without honor save in his own country' is as true today as it was twenty centuries ago. At least the eminent people in a Specific state are two to three times as likely to be natives of other states as the general p0pulation. The United States Census for 1920 Shows that of the 2,939,120 native-born people living in.Michigan 24 per cent were born in other stateB- 0f the 464 native-born Who's Who leaders residing in Michigan 290 or 62 per cent were born in other states. This means that 2% times as many eminent people residing in Michigan were born in other states as is true of the general population. In other words, 5/4 (76 per cent) of the general population living in.Michigan were born in this state, while less than 2/5 (58 per cent) of the Who's Who leaders living in.Michigan were born in this state. number and Per Cent of Michigan Residents Born in Michigan and in Other States American-Born Re- Born In Born In Class siding in.Michigan IMichigan Others States RumEEr 'Pct. Nifiber Pct. Number 'PEtT Total pop- 2,939,120 100.0 2,241,755 76 697,365 24 ulati on who's Who Leaders 464 100.0 174 38 290 62 :R.U s (1) Leaders 185 100.0 90 52 85 48 CH 33 0f the 175 native-born R U S leaders residing in Michigan, 83 or 48 per cent were born in other states, The Census Bureau does not tabulate separately the rural from the urban population in the matter of state of birth of the native-born migrants into hichisan. It is commonly and quite Validly assumed that the rural, and particularly the agricultural population, is much less mi- gratory, including migration from one state to another, than the urban ponulation. If this is true it means, since 24 per cent of the total population were born in other states, that less than 24 per cent of the agricultural population of Michigan were born in other states. In this event, more than twice as many leading apriculturists residing in Hichigan were born in other states as is true of the general pOpulation of the stateaw’tfl $'~*’*zmv‘" ’ This greater migratory tendency of leaders into iichipan than of other peoples is not unique for this state for a similar tendency prevails in other states. In most states, from Two to three times as many eminent people as laymen of a specific state were bofn in other states. ' The 290 who's Who leaders living in Lichipan who were born in other states are natives of 37 different states - 52 of Ohio, 3 of New York, 30 of Illinois, 25 of hasaachusetts, 19 of Indiana, 1 5 of Iowa, and so forth. Did the Who's Who and the R U S leaders F.) in Kichigan who were born in other states come from the Same states as the general population? This question is answered in the af- firmative as will be seen in the following Table, and coefficients. The coefficient of correlation between the native-born Who's Who leaders migrating to Michigan from the same states in the same re- lative proportion as the general native-born population of the same specified states is .921L .01. That between Native-born R U s migrants to Michigan and general migrants to Michigan is .85 1 .05. These figures indicate significantly close associations between the L Q]: variables altho Agricultural leaders aretless likely to migrate to Michigan from their native states than.%eneral leaders. This is to be expected since Michigan is somewhat less of an agricultural than an industrial state. , State of Birth of Michigan's General Population, Who's Who Leaders and R U S Leaders. :Native-Born Popu- :1ation of Speci- - :fied States Who :Migrated to and are :Native-Born Who's:Native-Born R U 3 :Who Leaders of :Specified States :WholMigrated to :Leaders of Speci- :fied States Who :Migrated to and :Living in Michigan :and are Living :are Living in State Born In :U.S. Census, 1920 .:in.Michigan _fi :Michigan - : Number : Pct. : Number : Pct. : Number : Pct. Ohio : 145,520 : 20.6 : 52 : 17.93: 10 : 12.04 New'Iork : 113,576 : 16.5 : 46 : 15.86: 15 : 18.07 Indiana : 74,937 : 10.8 : l9 : 6.55: 2 : 2.41 Illinois : 71,826 : 10.5 : 50 : 10.34: 11 : 15.25 Pennsylvania : 62,635 : 9.0 : 15 : 4.48: 6 : 7.25 Wisconsin : 57,504 : 5.4 : 10 : 3.44: 4 : 4.81 Kentucky : 18,181 : 2.6 : 2 : .69: 0 : Kissouri : 16,251 : 2.5 : 8 : 2.75: 4 : 4.81 Massachusetts : 13,856 : 2.0 : 25 : 8.62: 4 : 4.81 Iennessee : 12,124 : 1.7 : 5 : 1.05: 0 : Iowa : 11,552 : ‘1.7 : 15 : 5.17: 2 : 2.41 tinnescta : 10,162 : 1.5 : 5 : 1.72:q 4 : 4.81 Georgia : 9,802 : 1.4 : 2 : .69: 0 : Alabama : 9,516 : 1.5 : 0 : : 1 : 1.21 New Jersey : 8,243 : 1.2 : 4 : 1.38: 1 : 1.21 Virginia : 6,801 : 1.0 : 1 : .55: 2 : 2.41 Kansas : 6,085 : .9 : 7 : 2.41: 4 : 4.81 iaryland : 5,512 : .8 : 5 : 1.03: 0 : zonnecticut : 5,084 : .7 : 7 : 2.41: 1 : 1.21 test Virginia : 4,865 : .7 : 4 : 1.38: 0 : . Hebraska : 5,987 : .6 : 2 : .69: l : 1.21 Vermont : 5,816 : .5 : 5 : 1.72: 0 : Iississippi : 5,756 : .5 : 1 : .55: 1 : 1.21 (“eras : 3,629 : .5 : 5 : 1.05: 0 : 3a11fornia : 5,620 : .5 : 1 : .55: 0 : Iorth Carolina : 5,512 : .5 : 0 : 0 : iaine : 5,265 : .5 : 5 : 1.72: 2 : 2.41 South Carolina : 2,797 : .4 : 0 : : 0 : eransas : 2,645 : .4 : 1 : .55: 0 : :olorado : 2,505 : .5 : 1 : .55: 1 : 1.21 iouitna : 2,205 : .3 : l : .55: 0 : Iorth.Dakota : 2,192 : .5 : 0 : : 1 : 1.21 s‘lorida : 2,152 : .5 : l : .55: 0 : South Dakota : 2,149 : .5 : 1 : .55: 2 : 2.41 Iashington : 1,938 : .3 : 0 : : 1 : 1.21 [hode Island : 1,657 : .2 : 5 : 1.72: 0 : lklahoma : 1,591 : .2 : 0 : : 0 : Isa Hampshire : 1,579 : .2 : l : .35: 1 : 1.21 tontana : 1,446 : .2 : 1 : .35: 0 : tregon. : 1,061 : .2 : 0 : : 1 : 1.21 >istrict of : Columbia : 1,045 : .1 : 2 : .69: 0 : :elaware : 899 : . : : . : : . rev Mexico : 626 : .1 : :JL, : .33. 25 g 1 21 ‘dsaua : 529 : ..l : 0 : : 0 : “tah : 517 : .1 : 0 : : 0 : yoming : 585 . : .1 : l : .55: 0 : rizona : 512 : .0 : 0 : : 0 : errada : 162 : .0 : ‘ 0 : : 0 : Otal 3 697.365 ‘ 10.51-13 . Dan - a..- - An ----.. ..... \2“\ Ohio and New York rank first and second respectivelyrboth in the contribution to hichigan's general population and in the contribution to nichigan's Who's Who leaders, and third and first respectively in the contribution to Xichiaan's R U S leaders. Ohio and New York, decade after decade, have furnished hichigan with many more people than other states. The significant fact gleaned from this Table is tlat these two states are also the two leading states, both absolutely and relatively, in furnish- ing Xichigan with Who's tho leaders and among the three leading states in furnishing Kichigan with R U S leaders. Propinquity and the general westWard movement of ponulation since the settling of this country are no doubt the principal contributing factors. Possibly population streams and leadership currents when once started keep much to the same channel as does the Gulf Stream andcther ocean currents. At least, neither Who's Who leaders nor R U S leaders have migrated to Lichigan from Indiana and Pennsylvania to anywhere near the extent that laymen from these states have. Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Iowa rank third to eleventh respectively in contributing to Lichipan's general population. All of these states, excepting Kentucky and Tennessee, also rank among the nine highest states in the contribution of Who's Who leaders to hichipan. 0f the 11 ranking states con- tributing to Michigan's general population 7 are also among tic ranking states in contributing to Hichigan's R U 8 population, Hence, the great bulk of nichipan's leaders come from the same states, most of them adjoining or nearby states, as the non- Who's Who 33373 U S leaders. GO A number of states have furnished Hichigan with relatively more leaders than non-leaders. In proportion to numbers, con- siderably more Who's Who leaders than average peOple came from Massachusetts, Iowa, KanSas and Connecticut. The number of mi- grant leaders into nichigan is too small to warrant generaliza- tions other than to indicate current tendencies. Massachusetts has always had an enviable reputation for producing able leaders. Possibly she has produced a surplus of leaders so that the excess find it expedient to migrate to michigan as well as to other states. gichigan may exert a pronounced demand for leaiers of the type produced by these states. Apparently there is some stimuli existing in the stated adequately powerful to attract them in preference to the leaders of other states. The 83 R U S leaders in Michigan who were born in other states are native of 25 different states - 15 fl? jew York, 11 of Illinois, 10 of Shio - the same three states that lead in the contribution of Jho's filo leaders to Michigan. PennsylVania ranks fourth. Wisconsin, Kissouri, fiassachusetts, hinnesota and Kansas each contributed a of their native-born agricultural lead- ers to lichigan. fihe number of R U S leaders who migrated to :ichigan is too small to in‘icate more than possibly approximate tendencies. In spite of the meager numbers lichigan's agricul- tural leaders seem to be born in about the same states as her Who's who leaders and as the general population. ehe accompanying chart shows more visually the states ani countries of birth of “ichigan's 440 immigrated who's Who and R U S leaders. The greater migratory tendencies of leaders as compared with the general ponulation is no doubt possibly about C) pa in the same ratio within a state as between states. The Census gives us no light on the extent of intra-state migration of the general population. The factors responsible for the relatively greater migration of leaders are not readily discernible. In a settled country the migration towards urban centers greatly exceeds the counter moveaent of peoples. It is commonly assumed that those who migrate to urban centers are the natural leaders of the community - those with initiative, ambition, energy arn.farsightedness. It is well known that the migratory tendency is greater among the youth than among the old folks, and somewhat greater among the educated than among the unlettered. Those Whotl Who leaders who were born in other states and who are now living in Michigan are younger than those leaders who have always lived in Hichigan, by an average of 2.1 years - the age of the former group averaging 57.6 years and the latter group 59.7 years. The more youthful average age of native immigrant leaders into Michigan as compared with the average age of native-born Iichigan leaders prevails for 28 of the 38 states from which Who's Who leaders have migrated to Hichigan. The most youthful native immigrant leaders cane from the mountain states, whose ages average 47.5 years, next from the West North Central states, 52.6 years, then those from the West South Central states, 55.0 years, then those from the East North Central st tes, 56.9 years, etc. It is seen therefore that the migratory tendency is greater among the relatively younger persons, whether leaders or the general population. This greater migratory tendency on the part compared with laymen is not prima facie evidence leaders because they are relatively mobile. Nor their greater mobility is primarily due to their 62 of leaders as that leaders are can it be said that capacity for leader- ship. The two factors are not reciprocal to each other nd both rL dependent upon inter-relationships to the groups leaders are affiliated. with which the 63 . smmfinofiz oan moHapmdoo use nouwpm o>prz aflonp aonm mnoomoq Hwnoqmo men was myocaog Handpadofiamm mm Mo moapwawfiz mcwxanm mopmum dopfinb Mo nag J ‘NJ. 0:. li 3“ \0 .\'9o‘ - mpmummg m b m ohm wmadmflm com 0:9 m.o£h mam moudwwm Madam «engosxch . . . _ \uzoxmdm . .. . ,_ . ml:!lu annocosm .uluosmapoom ‘umflmmdm anhwanoz ‘umappwq mndcwaopH lucanHom auooooao wqudanou snoonwpm Sndnwawcm, NJ . . séuuwcmcmu , . a . \ . \umHHmupm5¢ . . , a .. .......... l ; \ .uafinpm54 fin“-.‘r..1 I k .3 § 1 Ski 1.7 ./ saw “no a: 5“ vodnooom unmocon no spnfim no mnpndoo no opcpm mqa>an m.b m :H and on; m.ona nH Size of City or Place of Birth. If more people were well born, geographically and environmentally, as well as biologically, fewer people would probably be urged to spend energy in hoping to be "Born again". It is a common obser- vation that poor cultural environments are not conducive to the deve10pment of leaders. Small places are commonly regarded as areas with relatively poor social environment with their absence of libraries, museums, and institutions of higher learning. The cities, especially the larger ones, are regarded as the<3ases where the cultural heritages of the ages are principally stored. An attempt is made here to evaluate/to the extent that it is possible, the relation of size of place of birth to eminence. The average median age of the leaders in Who's Who is 59 years so that their average date of birth would be a few years before 1870. We may ask, in proportion to population.what size cities or places have been.the most productive of leaders listed in the standard reference book of contempOrary leaders. The number of people who were living in different sized places in 1870, the number of leaders born in each of these places, and the ratio between the number of leaders born per 100,000 population living in each of these different sized places is presented in the following table. Thurs are 3,455 leaders who were born in cities of a quarter million or more inhabitants. There were seven cities of this size in 1870, at about the time more people in Who's Who were born than at any other. This means that 110 men and women who are among the nation's eminent achievers today were'born.per 100,000 persons living in cities of 250,000 or more at that time. According to these figures the smallest places, including rural territory, were birth I"; 65 number of People Residing in Different Sized Places In ‘ United States, 1870, Number of Who's Who Leaders Born In Different Sized Places and Ratio of Leaders per 100,000 Population. - POpulation of No. of Who's No. of Who' U.S. Living in Who leaders born Who leaders No. of Specified sized in Specified per 100,000 Size of Place PLaces places in 1870 Sized Places ngulation 250,000 and over 7 3,140,134 3,455 110 100,000 to 250,000 7 989,855 1,618 163 50,000 to 100,000‘ 11 768,242 949 124 25,000 to 50,000 26 901,796 1,311 145 10,000 to 25,000 51 869,947 1,984 228 5,000 to 10,000 187 1,279,307 1,664 130 Less than 5,000 --- 30,609,090 13,047 43 Total 38,558,371 24,028* ,V *Foreign-bornonot included.as are a few native-born leaders, the size of whose place of birth could not be ascertained. places of relatively few eminent leaders, and the small cities with 10,000 to 25,000 inhabitants were the birth places of relatively many distinguished contemporaries. ' There is no consistency between the different sized cities in the relative production of persons of eminence. Apparently size of place of birth is not a factor of major significance in the production of leaders. It will be noted that 13,047 leaders or more than half, were born in rural territory and in places of less than 5,000 in- habitants. However, in proportion to the total p0pulation living on farms and in places of less than 5,000 relatively few general leaders were born there. One naturally expects agricultural leaders to be ‘l 9 1 EH? farm or village-born and general leaders to be born in urban centers. This is Just what has happened. An analysis of R U S leaders shows that in proportion to number rural areas produced many more agri- cultural leaders than urban centers, just as the analysis of Who's Who shows the birth place of urban leaders’as a rule)to have been urban centers. However, some writers, seem either to have mixed up in their minds (1) the figures relative to the absolute production of leaders in rural areas with the relative production of leaders, or (2) types of leaders, whether agricultural or non-agricultural. Professor Visher seems to have made the most comprehensive analysis of the place of birth of the nation's leaders and also to have interpreted the results of his findings more reasonably than some others have. The 24,278 persons in the 1922-23 edition were asked to indicate the type of place of their birth, such as farm, country village, small city, large city, or suburb of large city. Obviously what might be classed as a small city by one person might be classed as a large city by another. However, using a few broad general classes as was done here, is reasonably satisfactory for jpurposes of general analysis. Professor Visher makes the following summarization and interpretation of the place of birth of the 18,356 nation's leaders who reported this fact. He says, '1 study of the returns reveals that 6,288, or 25.9 per cent of these were born on farms; 5,948, or 24.5 per cent, were born in villages and towns with a population of less than 8,000; 6,045, or 24.8 per cent, were born in small cities; 5,001 or 20.6 per cent, were born in large cities (over 50,000); and 996, or 4.1 per cent, were born in suburbs of large cities. "At the 1870 census, the census nearest the birth of most of the notables, about 10 per cent of the pOpulation of the United States lived in cities of over 50,000; 10.9 per cent in small cities (8,000 to 50,000); 8.2 per cent in villages up to 8,000 and about 69.9 per cent on farms. The suburbs are estimated to have contained about 1 per cent of the population. 67 "Thus in proportion to population, the large cities yielded 2.1 times as many notables as the average for the nation, the small cities 2.3 times as many, villages three times as many, and suburbs four times as many, but the strictly rural sections (farms) yielded only about one-third the nation's average. Expressed in another way: In prOportion to population, the cities, contributed nearly six times as many notables as did the farms, whereas villages contributed nearly nine times as many and suburbs nearly eleven times as many as the farms. "This does not prove that early life on a farm was not con- ducive to future eminence. numerous bits of information indicate that a large share of the older American notables spent part of their youth on farms and considered that these experiences had been helpful in their development. Many, indeed, have spoken of them- selves as having been.reared on a farm.when in fact they were born in a village or city and merely Spent part of their formative period working on a farm, usually during their summer vacations."(l) Possibly a word of caution should be added to the summarization given and that is, that Who's Who is a biographical record of leaders in all fields of human endeavor and not only in farming and in agri- cultural activities. Baok in 1909, Spillman had several beliefs relative to the birth places of the nation's leaders, which he publicly expressed, namely, "I believe there are some things which have higher pedagogic value than anything taught in our schools today, else why is it that with only 29 per cent of our population actually living on the farm, with miserably poor school facilities:as compared with our city popu- lation, this 29 per cent furnishes about 70 per cent of the leaders in every phase of activity in this country? "I believe that it is the pedagogical value of farm work and the chance of placing responsibility on the child that has more than any thing else to do with the deveLOpment of efficiency and character in farm children, and this accounts for the fact that 29 per cent of our population on the farms furnishes 70 per cent of the efficient men in this country."(2) (l) Visher, Stephen S. - The occupations and Environment of Fathers of American Notables, Who's Who, 14th Ed. p. 29. See also, Amer. Journal of Sociology (March 1925) Vol. 50, pp. 551-555. (2) Spillman W. J. - Education and The Trades - Science, (Feb. 12. 1909 V01. 20, DP. 255-60 Frederick A. Woods, immediately takes exception to Spillman's beliefs and turns to Who's Who for evidence of an objective nature to prove his point. The only statement that needed to have been made was that Spillman was comparing non-comparable factors. He should have taken the percent of population living on farms at the time the nation's leaders were born in order to make comparisons comparable. p .JDI‘ILH) Wood's argument/is worthy of detailed consideration. He argues that in answer to the question "Does the farm produce more than its share II of leading Americans? that "Such a question must be answered on a statistical, impartial, and as far as possible, scientific basis. It is first necessary to determine who are the 'leaders in every phase of activity in this country.’ I have turned to 'Who's Who in America' to answer this question. This book has already been successfully used in several sociological studies, and has great value as a starting point for such.researches. The editor doubtless tries to be as impartial and comprehensive as possible; but its greatest value to one who wishes to answer a question similar to the present discussion, is that here he finds a list of names prepared by some one else, without any idea or bias in relation to the investigators present problem. Thus the first, and one of the most important requirements is obtained, the subjective element is eliminated. "Some will not be willing to accept conclusions drawn from a list which like this, doubtless has certain flagrant omissions, and where he sees names that he considers should not have been included. If he will stop for a moment and think, he will see that the very objection he raises only argues in the other direction from what he supposes. If, for instance, I find a marked correlation between city birth and more or less notable subsequent achievement, drawn from an imperfect list, the correlation would be even higher were the list of names ideally perfect. "In 'Who's Who in America' the birth places are given in nearly every instance, although they seldom enable one to differentiate between farm or village. This difficulty can, however, be overcome by making the question one of urban.as against non-urban nativity. “The leaders of today are about fifty years old on the average, so we must go back a half century and picture American population as it was then distributed. According to the census of 1860, there were 5,072,256 persons living in cities of over 8,000 inhabitants, out of a total population of 31,443,321 or 16.1 per cent. This standard of 8,000 or more is the one arbitrarily taken by the census bureau as constituting a city, and is 331ised to illustrate the growth of urban populations. There were ninety-six such cities, and a list of them is given in the 'Annual Cyclopedia' for 1861. It is easy then to see if these cities have done better or worse than might be expected in producing leading men. Under initial A in 'Who's Who in America' we find 128 born in cities out of 433, or 29.6 per cent as against the 16.1 per cent expected. "Under initial A we find 128 out of 433 or 29.6 per cent Under initial B we find 404 out of 1477 or 27.5 per cent Under initial C we find 362 out of 1143 or 31.7 per cent Under initial D we find 213 out of 676 or 31.6 per cent Under initial E we find 97 out of 273 or 35.6 per cent "For the sake of being on the safe side I have added all the unrecorded birthplaces to the suburban and rural, and yet the latter fail to produce their proper quota in every single group, and in fact every little group of fifty or a hundred taken at random alphabetically will show the same result. "It seems unnecessary to carry investigation further to establish the fact that the urban beats the non-urban by nearly two to one. The towns, villages and farms should have produced more than five times as many leaders as the cities. They have failed to produce more than about twice as many. Thus the entire non-urban which should have given rise to about 85 per cent of the total has only produced about 70 per centUYl) If Who's Who was a biographical sketch book of agricultural leaders Woods would no doubt have found "the towns, villages and farms to have produced more than five times as many leaders as the cities", but since Who's Who is a record book of the nation's leaders in every field of activity, it virtually becomes a biographical sketch book of urban leaders and hence it is not be expected that any con- siderable number of them are of:rural origin. Hearings study of the place of birth of the native-born persons listed in the 1912-13 edition led him to say thac "The cities appear 2) to be far in the lead as producers of eminence," and one city in particular, Cambridge (Mass.) with 47.5 per 100,060 is far.in the lead.(3] (1) Woods, Frederick Adams - City Boys Versus Country Boys, - Science, (April 9, 1909) Vol. 29, pp. 577-9. (2) Nearing, Scott - The Geographic Distribution of American Genius, Popular Science Monthly (August 1914) 70. 85, p. 196. Ibid,- The Younger Ceneration “9 Q - - . r1 ' O o . s , . _ fl oi AMGTICEH Jenius “oientific flouttly (January 1810), Vol.2, p 51. '.J '2 be ’70 White chose 1297 biographies appearing in the 1922-3 edition of Who's Who and finds that "Not only does the rural pepulation fail to produce a preponderant number of leaders,'but it produces only about half as many per hundred thousand pepulation as the cities do. It has been assumed that the bulk of our public leaders were born in rural communities, and that is tube of absolute numbers but not of relative numbers. "There may be several explanations of the above fact, but it would take investigation to prove any of them. The stimuli are more numerous in the cities, and interstimulation is multiplied many times; these require many and varied.responses, and the exigencies of city life are such as to demand accurate reSponses. Such a condition tends to develop to the limit whatever capacities for leadership the individual may have." (1) Holmes in his study of the 21,600 native-born Americans in the 1924-25 edition of Who's Who also finds the city to have been more productive than the country in producing leaders. He however, finds that from 1840 to 1890 that, “There has been a nearly continuous and somewhat marked decline in urban excess productivity of eminent individuals....... In 1840 the urban part of our population was about four times as productive of distinguished men and women as the rural. In the 70's, 80's, and 90's the urban production of such individuals was less than two and one-half times as great as rural........ The cities superior showing as compared with the country is due to a more favorable combination therein of the factors of heredity and environment....... whether the forces producing this change have been mainly operative within the city or the country, one cannot expect to determine with certainty.'(2) Another significant discovery that Holmes has made is that "while the city has been more productive than the country in the case of all the occupational divisions exnept agriculture, its pro- portionate productivity has been much the greatest in the case of /‘(21 Holmes, Roy Hinman - A Study In the Origins of Distinguished Living Americans. American Journal of Sociology (January 1929) Vol. 34, pp. 671-4. ~ (1) White, R. Clyde ~ The City Drift of Population In Relation to Sgcigé Efficiency. Journal of Social Fbrces (Nov. 1923) Vol. 2, artists, and somewhat the least of all in the case of educators." (1) At least t\.o o hers have found that cities are not equally (2) fimund in all kinds of leaders. Hearing re eoorts relatively Lew dye gym 1en being citv corn, at least less than a fifth of then having been born in cities. he ‘inds 1515:8r troportions of actors, authors, mm.business men, more than two-Qiiths, :o be of city origin thcn ot er occup.tional classes. Huntington found 74 per cent of the 19 agriculturists, 66 per cent of the 357 educators and 62 per cent of the 137 religious leaders ted in the thirteenth edition of Who's {ho to have be en born in J. ral districts, or larger preportions than for other occupations. He nd 93 ...‘q 4.‘ y. '7 .‘J ‘ _1 .° J- ‘ "1" ' ,_ _‘m 1‘. a" 1 v A... 1 less t1nn 1/3 01 t1c QTtlSJS and loss than 1/2 of tflG llLlnch :nn, on,ino rs, musicians, latv rs, journalists snc meticel me having been born in rural districts. As far as littercti are concerned, Ciarl:e thinks that the "Capita ls a11d chief cities of the seve oral states had never con- ‘ained over nine per cent 3' the to 91 yo iLrtion of t e lnitcd Sta es, th:;/ ha? een the birthplace of eiiro"11“*’ly thirty- txo per cent of t1e men of etters".(4 +U ( V It is Thorndikc's contention that the "That cities give birth to C11 undue or not in the least urove that citgx life made that cities attract and retrin greet hen, Lhose borrfl'.(5) t gr cit tmni does it may orove e hus city (1) Ibid. (3) Ibid. - The YOunger Gen e11 tion of American Genius. Ibic., p. 51. (3) Huntington, Ellsworth - T1e 3iftin:;201er or Cities - Scribners, (Sept. 1926) Vol. 80, pp ‘) Clarke, Lenin L. - ‘1e Eurture, p. 61. O Ulb’Z4o- ' g ‘ ', . 4" " ,1 ‘1 ‘ ‘7 - I rican “en 01 setters - lieir Mature and A .P (5) Thorndike, 2. L. - A Sociologist's Theoyy of Education - The Bockman, Vol. 24, p. 200. Cattell finds the rural birth rate of scientific men, as found in the 1910 issue of "American hen of Science" to be less than half that of the urban. This he claims is a reversal of a common opinion and accounts for this difference as follows: "The supierior position of the towns (urban areas) is doubtless due to a more favorable environment, but it may also be in part due to the fact that the parents of those scientific men were the abler clergyman and others of their generation who were drawn to the cities." (1) Mr. Wiggam of course thinks it is "due to the superior biologi- cal quality of city people."(2) (3) Davies discovered a high coefficient of correlation between the amount of talent of a small sample of men taken from "Who's Who in America", "Who's Who in Science", and "American Men of Science", and the density of population in which they lived. He concluded as a result of this study that urban districts are more fecund of talent than rural areas. It will be noted that practically all writers on this phase of leadership have "lumped" all kinds of leaders together regardless of type or occupation. (1) Cattell, J. M. - "A Statistical.Study of American Hen of Science", (Dec. 7, 1906) Vol. 24, pp. 738-9. (2) Wiggam, A. E. - Brains where They Come From, World Today, (Oct. 1926) Vol. 48, p. 477. See also Worlds Work (Sept. 1926) Vol. 52, p. 578. (3) Davies, George R. - Social Environment, passim. Size of City or Place of Residence. The larger cities are the meccas for particularly eminent leaders of all kinds. MetrOpolitan centers are areas of diverse activities and the headquarters of practically all of the more important national andwcsofic-organizations of all kinds. These metropolitan centers are the social ganglia of communication and transportation. One would therefore naturally expect leaders to be relatively more numerous in the larger cities than in the smaller cities. Yet because of the large relative numbers of clerical workers, helpers, and laborers of all kinds in large cities it may be that leaders are relatively most numerous in the medium-sized or smaller cities. The following table shows the distribution of the general population and of Who's Who leaders by size of city or place of residence and the ratio between them. In.general, the larger the city the larger the number of eminent men and women, it contains, in proportion to pepulation. The trend as indicated in the table under the column headed, number of Who's Who leaders per 100,000 population, does not seem to be regular or uniform. This is due largely to a rather detailed classification. When the 10 groups of cities are reclassified or combined into four, five or six classes a uniform increase in the number of leaders per 100,000 pOpulation is noted with each increase in size of place. Who's Who is not primarily a biography of agriculturists. Hence relatively few Who's Who leaders reside in rural territory. Never- theless, as many as 3,075 of them reside in places of less than 2,500 -7 is“ 7‘1 .4111.“ Li L‘ number of People Residing in Different Sized Places In United States, 1920, Number of Who's Who Leaders Residing in Different Sized Places, 1926, and Ratio of Leaders per 100, 000 Population :POpulation of U.S; No. of Who's :No. of Who's Size of Place :No. of:Living in Speci- :Who Leaders Liv- :Who Leaders No. of Inhabi-:P1aces:fied Sized Placeszing in Specified :Per 100, 000 tants : :in 1920 :sized places 1926: Population Million or more 3 10,145,532 6,812 67 500,000 to one million 9 6,223,769 2,893 46 250,000 to 500,000 13 4,540,838 3,223 71 100,000 to 250,000 43 6,519,187 2,817 43 50,000 to 100,000 76 5,265,747 1,493 28 25,000, to 50,000 143 5,075,041 1,585 31 10,000 to 25,000 459 6,942,742 2,292 33 5,000 to 10,000 721 4,997,794 1,253 25 2,500 to 5,000 1320 4,593,953 853 19 Less than 2,500 ---- 51,406,017 3,075 6 Total 105,710,620 23,479* 500,000 or more 12 16,369,301 9,705 59 100,000 to 5OOQOOO 56 11,060,025 6,040 45 25,000 to 100,000 219 .10,340,788 3,078 30 5,000 to 25,000 1180 11,940,536 3,545 20 Less than 5,000 ---- 55,999,970 3,928 10 I"Those residing in foreign countries are not included.as the present population of their place of residence could not always be determined. Nor could the size of place of residence of 2,812 leaders residing in this country be satisfactorily determined.and are therefore not included. ‘v '7 ’75 inhabitants or on Earns and as many as ;,926 in glfices of less than c.CCO inhabitants or on farms. Urbaniz a'ion and (ivers 14‘ L d 109 der- fiup are complements of arch other. Hunce he n0t1‘ally 3: gect the .ore urbanized ce 1te rs to have relatively more leaders of various kinds. Ids is born out by the M1 ures in this table. Spearaan's rank-order correlation between size of places ant HEJSST of Inc's Uhv leaders per lCC,6C0 population is .92 1nuicatin; thst the as ocirtion bet sen Imbanization and relative abunhance of Uho's who leade.s is ver“ close. hoods analyzed the race oi the Who's Rho oeogle (1912-18) “esiding in Hen York Cit", Chicago, 9h1lrhephia, sad 3 ston nd ocvs, "it is safe toe?”r that at thc 11'ssnt time, those of anlis 22d Scotch ancestry are Listinctly 1n Jossession o: tz1c leading “ssitions, at least fr'n the stfndJOint of being xiCely knawn, a11d that, in par; 01tion t' their number, the Inglo- Saxons are irom three r ‘ ‘aces to achieve positions of H 9‘: M O) to ten tines as lire tionel Ci: W1 'ct on."(l) (1) 33.3998. 3. Ac - The Racial Origin of 3.1008 :-.1'ul A lerica ns - rl‘he Dominance of the alrlo-oaxon Scientiiic dw:ricrn gun “a u, 1 ' J. _3 1. J .1154. . )le'.1bl‘1 I“ (’1 x 30, 19 4) V51. 77. pp. 351- g: .1 t (1 J ‘78 Huntington rerards "Who's Who in America" as the "best available record of the migrations of competent persons in the United States." He contends that the common supposition that the percentage of such persons increase according to the size of the cities in which they live is only half true. He finds, "In the great states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Minnesota the number of persons in 'Who's Who' per hundred thousand in communities of various sizes is as follows: Cities above 300,000 — 40 Cities of 100,000 to 300,000 - 30 Cities of 25,000 to 100,000 - 28 Small cities of 10,000 to 25,000 - 25 Towns of 5,000 to 10,000 - 28 Villages of 2,500 to 5,000 - 29 Rural population - 3 "Similar gigures" he says "prevail in other parts of the country. They indicate that the increase in competent people according to the size of the communities is not regular, out in steps as it were."(l) If Huntington had grouped his cities into half as many classes, which should have been done he would have a regular increase. Since birthplace and residence of leaders of social progress and other social phenomena has so often been confounded with the relative influence of heredity and environment, it seems well to summarize this chapter by means of extracts from Ogburn, possibly the most scientific worker in this field, who in speaking about the biological bases of the different kinds of greatness in the normal probability curve of frequencies, he says, "The significance of such a distribution is that we are enabled to form an idea of how frequently a oarticular degree, of mental ability, such as greatness, may be expected to occur. For, in a normal probability frequency areas, three times the standard deviation on each side of the point of the arithmetic mean on the base line is considered as practically the limits of the distribution. And,such being the case, if a biological trait of greatness were measured on (1) Huntington, Ellsworth - The Sifting Power of Cities, Scribners, (Sept. 1926) Vol. 80, pp. 316-2 . a line from the least to the greatest, then the greatness represented by the upper tenth of the line woulc be possessed by about 1.5 per cent of the population, that is about 1,500 out of 100,000 on the average. And the greatness represented by the upper quarter of the line would be possessed by about 13,000 out of 100,000. "It would appear from the foregoing that high order of greatness in so far as they are biologically determined are fairly plentiful. That is, the potentiables of greatness are common. "If inherited abilities of a high order are probably fairly constant and plentiful in very large groups of civilized peoples it seems questionable whether one is right in attributing so much weight to inherited greatness as a cause of progress and also in explaining the absence of'achievement to the scarcity of inherited abilities." "There are various ways by which social conditions make great- ness rare or frequent...... Ken become engineers, monks, shepherds, or military men according to the different cultural conditions, which vary from time to time and from group to group....... what great achievements these organized personalities of adults may make depends upon two cultural situations...... the opportunities arising from the existence of cultural elements or materials favorable for making great achievements and the social valuations of the group.... men do what the group values."(l) ' Consequently leaders will vary in type from state to state and small town to large city, and from decade to decade, and all largely due to cultural environments. "The times make the man" yet, "men influence the times because ail cultural change must occur through the medium of human beings." We shall now proceed to analyze the social and cultural phenomenon which condition leaders. (1) 0gburn, W. F. - The Great Man Versus Social Forces - Journal ( ) of Social Forces (Dec. 1926) Vol. 5, pp. 226-7. 2 0"; '1‘ 'kL-yfi in) . ~ («I ..Ir' "f ‘V "‘15"1"’7‘ WP 'fl. (ii; SEX}AGE,'MARI?AL AYE f; 1. a _~ a U1 nta"u;3 That this is a man-made world, culturally speaking, is common knowledge. The great najority of the outstanding figures that present themselves to our minds as we recall the world's leaders in science, business, industry, religion, education, law, medicine, music, literature, and other fields, have been men. However, an increasing number of women, both absolutely and relatively have appeared decade by decade in the past half century in practically all trades and professions. Sex Of Leaders Tho the sexes are approximately equal in number in United States, the ratio among those 20 years of age and over being 100 females to 106 males, yet there are practically 12 times as many adult men as adult women recorded in "Who's Who In America". 0f the total number of leaders here_recorded 1973 or 7.3 per cent are women and 24,942 or 92.7 per cent are men. The basis of selection by the Who's Who editors, as noted earlier, was "an attempt to choose the best known men and women of the country in all lines of useful and reputable achievements". 0f the male pooulation 20 years of age and over one man in every 1380 and of the female pogulation 20 years of age and over one in every 16,475 is recorded in Who's Who. That the proportion of men is aoparently quite large may be due in part to the arbitrary and generous inclusion of government officials above certain ranks, United States Senators and Representa- tives, etc., among whom relatively few women aopear. This advantage. to men is no doubt compensated in part by the inclusion of a relatively large proportion of educators, among whom women appear comparatively often. Among less "Well known" leaders, women apparently are relative- ly more numerous. For example, Miss Hooker, who in attempting to discover the leaders in local communities found that one-fourth were women and that the variation from the ratio of 3 male leaders to one female leader, either for villages of different sizes or for those in (1) different regions was slight. ~— —=::- a. (l) Eboker, Elizabeth - Leaders In Village Communities, - Journal of Social Forces,(June 1928) Vol. 6, page 609. 80 1 Age Leaders Women, no matter how "well known" they are, seen to be quite as tinid in stating their ages as their less well Known sisters, as only 64 per cent of these women stated their ages. 0f he men 98 per cent stated their ages. Eminent men and women are guite as reticent in giving their ages to the public as they were a quarter f1. a century ago. Of the 239 women in the 1903-5 edition of Who's Who 70 per cent stated their ages, while 98 per cent of the men stated it. The married wonen were as reluctant to disclose their ages as (1) the bachelor maids. This guarded secrecy about age among women certainly stands in striking contrast against that of the men. The "cake of custom" as Bagehot states, dissolves slouly. Distinction seems to add no leven to the situation. Traditionally, youth and beauty are women's greatest assets. Apparently this tradition has not been outgrown. Proverbially woman's value, however measured, was supposed to diminish on the hypothetical or potential matrimonial marts and elsewhere with age. Woman's traditional value was, of course, only matrimonial, and people have not become accustomed to women oossessing economic value, value which might become enhanced with age and experience, the same as with men. The mean age of the leaders is 57.1 years and the median age is 59.6 years. Half of them are between 52.2 years and 67.4 years of age. Leaders therefore, are considerably older than the general gopulation, even cansiderably older than the average adult population since the median age of the general pOpulation is 24.05 years and of (1) Who's Who In America, 1903-5 edition, preface. 81 the adult population (20 years and over) 34.62 years. The men in "Who's Who" average two years older than the women. The mean age of the men is 57.2 years and of the women 55.3 years. The median age of the men is 59.6 years and of the women 57.3 years. Half of the women leaders are betveen 49.5 and 66.2 years of age. The average age of the men in the 1903-5 edition mas 53. years and of the women 50.6 years. Casual observation might cause some to conclude that the eminent leaders of a quarter century ago were younger on an average than those of today. This however is not the case, since the average age of the general pOpulation was correspond- ingly younger then than at oresent. The population of United States is getting older. If the age of the population in United States in 1903-5 had been the same as it is at present, then the average age of the men and of the women in "Who's Who" would have been approxi- mately the same as the average ages of those now recorded therein. The range in age of those recorded in the 1906-7 edition of "Who's Who" is from 13 to 98. The youngest, now an ex-eetor, is Jackie Coogan, born October 26, 1914. Iarian Talley who was born December 20, 1906 is the second youngest. She also, has apparently retired. Jackie Coogan by aqpearing in "Who's Who" at the age of 13 was one in over two million fir his age with this distinction,and Marian Talley was one in nearly tto million for her age to attain such ‘istinction. The likelihood for attaining distinction in general, increases with age, particularly amorg the men. Among the men eight in every 100,060 persons in the age group 25 - 29 has attained eminence, followed by 46 in the next 5-year age group, then 173, 462, 816, respectively for the next three age groups. when the age group 90 8, to 94 is reached 3,019 men in every 100,000 is a distinguished leader. The ratio of leaders to the general pOQulation rises quite gradually and fairly regularly until the age group 65 to 69 is reached after which the rate is rather irregular. Among the men all of the 5-year age groups beyond "three score years and ten", excepting the age group 95 to 100, are represented in larger relative numbers in Who's Who than are the 5-year age groups under 65, indicating that eminence and age and closely associated. Dr. William Osler's theories as to the comparative uselessness of men above 40, and the entire superrluity and advised asphyxiation of the sexagenarian are certainly nullified as regards the nation's eminent leaders. For an elderly person to be distinguished is not necessarily news, but for an adolescent to be famous is universally news. The youngest persons whose biographies appear in this book are usually‘ either musicians, singers, or actors, or authors. In the 1901-2 edition appeared Mary Antrim, the "child author" who was born in 1883. In the same edition appeared Xargaret Horton Potter, the authorbss, born in 1881.(1) In the 1918-19 eCition appeared Winifred Sackville Stoner Jr., born August 19, 1902, who at that time had written and published 12 books, beginning when she was seven years old. Her mother was a child training expert who demonstrated her theories in the case of this daughter. The youngest man in this same edition is the Russian violist, Jascha Heifitz, born February (2) 2, 1901. It is commonly supposed that when an adolescent becomes (1) Who's Who In America, 1901-2 edition, Preface. (2) Gray, A. - Picking People For Who's Who: An Interview vith Albert N. Marquis, American Hagazine (January 1921) Vol. 91, page 7. l nationally knotn that he must be an infant prodigy. The history of Winifred Stoner, Jascha Hei; itz, Harian Talley and others \.ho became eminent in their t ens or early twenties incieate that a lot of perspiration was interspersed xith their talent, and that these 180918 like other leaders are the product of their cultural environ- ment plus a satisfactory compleientary physical endowment. As a social product, we are that our mothers, ur fathers, brothers, sisters, and other associates and the circles in which we more molded us to be. There are very few young people among the business men, Iinanciers, engineers, inventors, clergymen, lawyers, statemen, soldiers, and sailors. Dexter noted the same tendencies among those recorded in 1 an early edition of this biographical work.( ) A study was made of 954 women list ed in the 1901-2 edition of Who's Who by Amanda Hort rop who found the musicians, art U) 18 ) N and actresses to be younger than those in other fields. It is cemmonly assumed that this era is outstanding as an era of young men in positions of responsibility, and such instances as Robert H. Hutchins, the 31- year old or youngest large university President, and Glenn Frank, President or the University of hisconsin at 37 are commonly cited. The business MOIlC also has some youthful leaders. As a matter of fact every era has had a goodly number of men who were outstanding leaders in their thirties. Alexander Hamilton became Secretary of the United States Treasury at 32. (1) Dexter, Edwin G. - Age and Eminence - Popular Science Konthly (April 1905) Vol. 66 - pp. 538-43. (2) Korthnip, Amanda - The Suceessful Uomen of America - Popular Science Konthly - (Jan. 1904) 64:23 -44. I In proportion to number there are nanyymore matureyééfyoung persons as heads of arfairs and this is true in all fields of human endeavor. Only eight men in every 100,060 in the age group 25 to 29 has distinguished himself. In the age group 30 to 3 there are 46 per lCL,CCC. The number of distinguished leaders per lC0,0CO population increases fairly regularly and gradually with each successive older are group. Of course many of the older men of eminence have been eminent for years. Andrew oarnegie, born in 1837 and Thomas A. Edison born in 1847 have been appear ng in every edition of Who's Who. This means that the ages of these men in the present edition is 89 and79 respectively while their reapective ages at the tiie they first appeared in hho's Who was 62 and 52. :any other instances could also be cited to illustrate the fact that altho the great majority of the people having biOgrauhical mention in this volume are mature men they were already eminent when they were much younger. -- 1”” gumber of'Males and of Females In United States And In Who's Who, Classified By 5-year Age Groups, And Ratio of Leaders To General Population, In the Various Age Groups: 1926* ,.------- ------------”-”--- ----------- ------------------------------------ go :No. of males In: No. of Who's: Ratio ::No. of Females :No. of Who's: Ra Lump:U.S. in speci- :Who Men in - : per ::In U.S. In spec-:Who women in:per :fied age groups:Specified age:100,000::ified age groups:8pecified :ICO : 1926 : Groups : 1926 :age groups :000 L52 """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 24 : 4,846,737 : 2 : 0 :: 5,085,089 : l : 0 39' : 4,858,785 : 37 : 8 :: 4,869,256 : 19 : 4 o - 34 ° 4,422,303 : 203 : 46 :: 4,218,505 : 44 : 10 59.: .4,362,063 : 754 : 173 :: 3,962,040 : 79 : 20 26:: 3,517,671 : 1,626 : 462 :: 3,275,859 : 106 : 32 39- . 3,337,639 : 2,722 : 816 : 2,832,815 : 157 : 55 .34. ~ 2,714,585 : 3,920 : 1444 :: 2,354,666 : 210 : 89 39-- '2,012,704 :: 4,331 : 2152 :: 1,786,802 : 187 :105 :4. . 1,693,604 : 3,873 : 2287 :: 1,499,783 : 166 :111 ?. 1,156,263 : 3,165 : 2737 :: 1,058,364 : 137 :129 :4 : 756,270 : 1,990 : 2631 .: 737,214 : 96 :130 P- : 449,562 : 1,088 : 2420 :: 467,423 : 36 : 77 :4.: 198,964 : 540 : 2714 :: 232,086 : 18 : 78 F- : 74,009 : 211 : 2851 :: 93,615 : 14 :150 ?-: 17,555 : 53 : 3019 :: 25,354 : l : 39 H- : 4,131 : 10 : 242 :: 6,176 : 0 : 0 le: 34,422,845 : 24,525 : 71 :: 32,505,047 : 1271 : 39 in United States Census estimate of pOpulation for July 1, 1926, of :Ihl35,817 was used. Also, the claculations are based on the assumption' int 59.137 per cent of the total population was 20 to 100 years of age and Wmt the ratio of males to females between these ages was 105.9 to 100}.55m¢w 83 ‘harital Status Of Leaders- Many euphonious thoughts have been expressed about marriage and the family being the cornerstonesor-themfoundatianmof civili- zation and o£m$h15;reputiie and the God-mother of all other insti- tutions and organizations. One's happiness is reputed to be doubled and his sorrows halved through marriage. In this analysis of the characteristics of leaders we are interested in the similarily and variation of the marital and family status of America's leading men and women in comparison with the general population and the influences that may cause such variations as exist. Slightly less than three-fourths (73.9 percent) of the total 4 3 male pOpulation in United States 20 years of age and over is or have been aarried. If the age distribution of the total male pOpulation in United States was the same as that of the men recorded in "Who's Who" the percent of married, widowed and divorced would then be 89.5.* 0f the 24,941 men in "Who's Who" twenty years of age and over 90.1 *The method used in holding age constant is illustrated below in the computation of the proportion of the total male population that would be married, widowed or divorced if their age distribution were the save as that of the men in "Who's Who". "x" "y" :Pct. of males in No. of males in total pogulation Who's Who By Age ever married, by Groups “xy” Age Periods _fiage groups 30 - 34 75.8 203 15,387.4 35 - 44 83.8 2,380 l99,444.0 45 - 54 88.0 6,642 584,496.0 55 - 64 90.2 8,204 740,000.8 65 - and over 92.6 7,057 653,478.2 73.9 24,525 2,Lg§,10341 2,195,103.1 9 24,525 : 89.5 per cent of males in total”bopulation ever- married if the age distribition were the same as that of Who's Who men. i N H o ‘ J ‘ ..L o W p r _ _ I - fl ' _ ‘ ‘ ‘ if i‘ “1‘\ f, T _ 1 (_ | :1 "I.7ILL' "IN-J 'jltx'ul' l L I‘Lr;(k, \,'l 11 V '1) :11 r it » ~~' - * *‘ ‘ \" *1, I " ' J ' " I ' 1 - 7' ’- 4.‘ L‘\." ‘ 1' ‘ - ' -| P ,‘.‘4‘ ’1’7'4' ' “. .“l‘n . 1"14 " ' I ' :41 . \Z‘ 1-9131011 ' 53 1.91;? H: n 01 5'12; . .16 E g .5 . A. ‘1': 1 an ”Ely , 1 f3 :1 1. 3...; 1 O: ..L-f ..l 1 ._. ' ’- -‘ - 1. ‘fi . . L ’ ' . .‘ ' ‘. " ‘ l . V I' - t1 7 L‘l— :: tin't a; yet or INUEUlllzu'.ln 1:u_11—nc17:.:yni in o: 1'1ap o1 anJtier 11 b J l A 3 ...: U f—A “.3 O + L.) '1'. H Li C 3 + .J I ..J ( d L. d- L’. 3) {I I a .L C. p. 9 'L- '1 HI 1..) Q 'J 5.. fl \ q I: a. I r. f—J cf 0 U; (U '13 F3 ’2‘ l... (D CJ 5." M p—v ..J I" C) Ll K. a“ T1 I ‘1 C C J (I' ’I y. r: C+ .‘ d L; r—I C O 3 A J O I ,1? U ".3 r. J '1 6+ b—Je .. . ' .‘ ' .4 . ... .L . _4 V -. 4- J— . ‘ -. -. l- . ,,. 1 —‘ 3 '~ -. L"- ', ‘1 +13 _,-\ ..3 ’- “ :L-‘tlve hilltzgs Of .J‘.’ul'\"C )ffl.‘t.:11571‘c.‘, 11).-.-.l;.__fl-.)VI‘H “-1155, ul‘ “poi-.9 x)»- L.“ r. a ‘3" ‘ ‘\ ’ ‘ - 1 . {v A" .1 J' . - v‘ r R r‘ol“ ‘1 ~ 1. , ‘W‘X’fi . WW ' I: ‘ ‘I ‘,' f— ’,y ‘ 54 ‘1 ' "r ‘3 01 6'16 Emil”? '5‘ ,4 T3 (1-19:1?11'. )1\;.1-Q'.1.Y (L) 1:); UL o -‘:=-)1' Inn 1145‘ J1") LA; 5 .1~,)3.r 5:. w , -. .: ”4 1 .~" '~ ‘7 .-"-'*—-‘.» ~ +1. J- -» (J:Ie {ill‘qu'j ”I.101—4L11‘311i1 _L";’J.)~-‘._e( “.3 L11 tLr-J‘ lgbl-“J €)-.J 1;»)34 ll'l'r'lu) ‘J7L~ 4"...)2"; L3‘Jt‘\'~lll "an '1“ 4 ‘ .. (T ' 4 a ‘4‘ -' “"1". r .3 ‘ 7 fi‘." ‘ 0' “‘m ‘ -.-- ’. i ..‘L‘ .2 " ' r“ '1" v; , ac rs 01. 8- 1’3 E: 0131‘ can «.1 14.3-2. .l 1 1 1 -.Li , r 1.10. 01 wins»; L: o shawl; L .1 (.116- n. p . ~ r a : 41.. 1~ 4 , ,,~ , _. , .21 cent 1.9.“: - Irina. A.) Lgnlm, ,;.-?{L, LL11 ()1 Meow :- £9.11 planinvzx, .. ._ - " . . _ L'V - . . ‘ .- ‘ .-" “ - ‘ F ,1 .' i. , 4.. _ . J. - - . fl, , n - 7 ., -, 1.\ ~ r (1., » , x » .. . C" e .‘ “I", r . ,- . "‘"JHllf 69.1).(4 L161) (.18 1‘1": r153 U I”: .1! .1111. r1116 .21,.-'»4 , s: [1." 1 1C ..J.1 u. .- I“ Ix.) an}. . LJTL fixed Opinion. Anong WJJCH a distinct contrast prev'iln batten- .arried and unnarriec m r—h (L. f.‘ 1. , . ,-,‘ - I7 I; fir) ‘_, 4.. ..1 V, 4.. a". 1 - _ .4.‘ .1.’ A ' -,Atly hoie tian 3/4 (up.0 percent) 01 txe total 15121e .511-Foion in H g f O H, C C: ' 4 \a v- P \. -—-.4 ...) L. KL} 1 C" H r. 5"" .4 b I L, c. 0} C Q h. C" ‘ - + ,_ (D J C. ’3’ If. ,_ p— cf kV (A 1 k ) H I no I d fJ to" .7, f\ t x. H l P , U ‘“the womniin '1 _\ (l n- p. 3 *3 D H ... t— 5' O H d <1 G) C. I 61 FY‘ k L hi ...: ix 5.- m y. . ( *x * O , 2v 0’) :‘f- H n .4 k F w, - _ -‘ .o x“), .1. 4.1: . ' i ., fl ,, .x.~~~.'3 1- -, 1,. 1" .. ‘4.- L'...‘1 ~6..\ :,,_ n tilell‘ i" ..E‘tl’vd I‘Uglzuuiior o 011 111 2.71.! 1:11 QIU UUOI‘. 01 1-571.510-1511. L11 Uulll;t er~- I“: _.1 + .-.--.~ a». --.- -.-» . ..-~A. - Jadll 0-1‘QWKJCA tz'J 5)“)? ”VIIIU UO (".3 Li'r L41 .LC'C.0 .13'1' 1‘“ f9. Wit-311,37 MPLUIL i... 155.1..L'JT' "I1 4‘, - .. - ., 1. , . ‘1 .-. ~ . - . , -. - ..‘ 4* - .. A ”I L 1.. .. ...1..: . . . ‘1 . .. 1'; nation ' .3 111119.16 ...t: :Lfli‘S 2‘ Tu 181.5131 tii... 11" I) 01. L. is 11.? .1011 ' S 1-1-2.1:- 1-63 U -, A . 1:24. ' + a ..4— . . ~-- — —~- I 'r sin 1U SL3 CLLQ) JiIl \ lb]. 311. ‘1. ’;)"J.'J.1tl{] 1i. 3 in.) ~10, 1””le lr|.L u i ..-Q 1 4. 1 ' J-‘ L - +- ,- , 4 0,4 A + -9 . Mf‘t the (“311531191 )1] 15‘s lo 18 1160‘; 'T07 LJI‘ 1 u .811 JO 0 “JUS'J «k who: 1 , ‘1‘ _ ‘ w w. \ 4 1 -- ‘0 e ’10 - - _ 1 - y I ' l 8 car». ~11" 5.) .5 1r; (2:11.01) 1'." 11:; .11.)“. ...,” 11,) :21 1.11 1m '11. :‘Lo‘wfl 31‘ , J a - 4, ’ ‘fi ‘_ C“ A ,3 L1 V} v H + l ‘ _‘ ._ n _ _La 4 V _ a '- ,. 1 u .173“ 1211 a- 5.13 ))JU _I-')1.n \m 1*:11 111 .1. either ’ ’1 ., ml" '19 d L: .- ‘. ‘_"‘J f“ P! ‘1 [fl L 1;“ ,- L‘ 0', ' . ’2 ‘: 9 * " ', — v , , - r 4' -\ . \ - -. -. r- - .I'ul , Q 'J;].' '1 ‘J) .l'). .i ‘_ 1 ar': 5.3 DE'.) r qr, - / In h 110 r1.) 1 l W.) ..... 1.1".) ‘71). ‘2 in. 4 .~. 1?" . . ".|.~ 1. . ,‘ 1. - w .. »~ ., v . I 7.1.1161 t)'1 «M .. 1181.1; - -16 11 1.1/nuns d1. .. JJ'u .. .5. .16‘ UL .100. \ 131‘ EQ‘LSt ‘94 a 1S ‘4 ) V _‘31- ° 1‘40 9 I’d ‘53 («-0 . ...} ..‘ .1- a _ - - x - ‘ f o 7’ ’. ‘_ ‘ ._ n I J. {I‘IL‘I4L1\.84‘.‘ '1 j (,1 ‘4. "' " II: L’~ 'v F 1;)11" J 1 Int) _.21 "- 1.") 1’11?” Q‘jJ Clip. - (.4 'I" ‘ r‘.\r‘ - 21'.) 110 t .LLCL; Lil :U5J(\-Jo ,_\ ,.—_ . . . 7"- . . -‘F ' ' .).;t'.‘f F5116 'r 3f SLJOUh - ...).13'11 111 noranocr 192') 15:447. C q (I) C F :1 *1 I) I (. Q L—I J. l’ P... 7) 88 The percentages of the nation's leaders who have never married, who are married, widowed or divorced vary somewhat from that of the general adult pepulation. This is especially true of the women. lever Class Karried Married Widowed Divorced Male pop. of Who's Who 9.9 87.0 5.0 .1 Male pop. of United States* 10.5 75.2 15.4 .9 Female pop. of Who's Who 46.9 43.3 8.7 1.1 Female pop. of U. S.* 9.4 62.1 27.7 .8 *Of the same age distribution as that of Who's Who population of the same sex. Among the men, and age distribution being the same, practically the same proportions of America's leaders as of her laymen have never married, 9.9 percent and 10.5 percent respectively. A significantly larger proportion of the men in "Who's Who" are married, and con- Spicuously fewer are widowed and divorced than of the general male population of the same age distribution. The reporting of a divorced status is probably not as accurate as of the other marital conditions. .~L. We The same may be true to some extent of'widowed-eenaitions. Five times as many women leaders never harried as of the general female population of the sane age distribution,46.9 percent for the former as compared with 9.4 percent for the latter. It would seem from this wide difference that the belief eXpressed by Jane Porter, flamely, "In the career of female fame, there are few prizes to be ob- tained which can view with the obscure state of a beloved wife, or a happy mother? still has a considerable following. The proportion of women who are divorced is oractically the same for both groups, about one in every hundred. Of the women in the ..X 1‘ i —,—’ 89 Nation's Red "Blue" Book 8.7 percent are widowed as compared with 27.7 percent for the general female pepulation of the same age dis- tribution as of those in "Who's Who". In prOportion to number there are relatively few men and also relatively few vomen in "Who's Who" who are widows or widowers. Apparently a "break" in the family group exerts Sifficiently disastrous influences upon one's achievement to curb and frequently prevent the attainment of national prominence. Data is not available as to the proportion of the married males or married females who have been married but once and how many have been married twice or more times. Of the 22,479 men in "Who's Who" who have ever-marriedflz,07l or 9.2 percent have been married twice, or oftener’and at least 100 of whom have been married three times or oftener. Of the 1,048 women in "Who's Who" who have ever married 132 or 12.5 per cent have married two or more times. . Whether the percentage of multiple-marriagesamong the nation's eminent persons is hirher or lower than it is for the general married population of United States remains unsolved until reliable extensive data in this connection has been.gathered. In either event it can be said that tribute is paid to wedlock and as Johnson says, “Were a man not to marry a second time, it might be concluded that his first wife had given him a disgust to marriage; but by taking a second wife, he pays the highest compliment to the first, by showing that she made him so happy as a married man, that he wishes to be so a second time." American millionnaires, according to Sorokin have strong pro- clivities to be married and he finds that lC.8 percent of them have (1) married more than once. (1) Sorokin, P. - American Millionaires and fiulti-millionaires. Journal of Social Ebrces, (May 1925) Vol 5, page 29. 90 Ase at Marriage. Women of prominence seem to be just as reluctant to give the interested public their "date of marriage" as they are to state their date of birth, as only 64 percent of those who married indicated this item. hen of eminence seem to be less likely to state their "date of marriage" than they are to give their date of birth, as only 91 percent of the men who are married reported this fact. No doubt most people can recall their ”date of birth" much more readily than they can their "date of marriage", since the former is "asked for" scores of times to one of the latter. The nation's leaders do not marry at as early an age as her lay- . men. The average age at marriage of the 20,510 men who stated their "date of marriag e" was 29.8 and their median age at marriave was 29.0 years. Half of those who are marriec entered the. state of wedlock " r . c a .1. 4 _ .r" we m_.l_ £,-_ ’LL’ ‘4 “0 4.1.1 . :in LA .‘ 1M -315qu ‘ ..‘1‘t V ’4’,“ y //'I "' h "‘ ‘l " t ‘ H ‘1’ ‘ ...t-I .‘i‘ .‘4/ .h I‘ '1‘ (- between the ages of 25.9'ye rs and $3. 8 years.,\0ne Jerson, Edward Childs Carpenter of New York City, author of at least four books and a dozen plays, married at the youthful age of 15. At the other extreme in matrimonial adventures are three men who embarked after living three score and ten years. Albert Sidney Bolles, an author of financial books of Williamston, Massachusetts, born in 1846 married in 1917. Charles Norman Fay an author from Cambridge, massachusetts born in 1848 married in 1922 at the age of 74. Henry Walters, a New York City capitalistwas born the same year as hr. Fay) and likewise married the same year. More than a score married in their sixties. In general those in "Who's Who" married later in life than those among the general pogulation. 9'1. Sorokin found American millionaires to have married the first time at the average age of 29.1 years.(1) The average age at marriage of the 668 women who mentioned their "date of marriage" was 27.0 years and their median age at marriage was 26.6 years. Tho half gbt' na¥¥$$a between the ages of 22.7 and 31.8 years one got married as young as 14. Bessie Parker Brueggeman of Washington, an active Red Cross worker during the War, and in Republican circles since, married her first husband at the age of 14. At least three women and all authors married at the age of 15 years. Mrs. Owen (Leito Anida Bogardus) Kildare of New Rochelle, New York, married her first husband with whom she collaborated in writing plays, books, etc., at 15. Mrs. LaSalle Corbell Pickett born in 1848 and who lives in Washington also married at 15. Mrs. Bertha muzzy Sinclair-Cowan, pseud. B. M. Bower, born in 1875 married the first of her three husbands at 15. (1) Ibid. 92 Number of_Children. In 1925 in the Birth Registration area of United States there were 1,718,982 mothers who bore children that year. The mean average number of children born by these women was 3.2 and the median number born by them was 4.1. Both of these averages are larger than they are for the total married female p0pu1ation of United States for the reason that about 15 percent of married women are childless. Furthermore, both of these averages are considerably larger than they are for the total ever-married. female pOpulation of the country as the per capita number of children for widowed and divorced persons is smaller than for married persons. However, averages for the general female pOpulation ever-married are not at present available with which to compare the average number of children born by the women in "Who's Who". Data on the number of children that men are fathers or is also scanty. Consequently there is no data regarding the general population with which the number of no-child, one-child, two-child, etcetera, Who's Who fathers and mothers can be compared. The mean average number of children per ever-mtnried man in Who's Who is 1.8 and the median number is 2.9 and the mean average Innnber of children per ever-married man having children is 2.8. These trverages are slightly lower than they are in reality for the fact that some men having children failed to mention either the number or the names of their children. This was especially true of the widowed arui divorced men. The information as called for by the "Who's Who" (yiestionnaire reads "Children - please list here (christian names in fuJJJ all of your children (if any) in the order of birth. Names of husbands of married (aughters should be added. Deaths of children should be indicated." This information was solicited for the first time in compilingjthe 1926-27 edition,and so some parents may have slighted or overlooked the request for their children's names. The mean average number of children per ever-married woman in "Who's Who" is 1.1 and the median number is 2.5, and the mean average number of children oer ever-married woman having children is 2.4. These averages are lower than they are in reality for the reason already mentioned in the analysis for men. These averages suggest that tho there are apparently many leaders without children those whh do have children aoparently have a considerable number of them. Comparisons between the two groups in regard to this fact will be taken up later. Sorokin found the average number of children that American millionaires have is 2.5 . J. McKeen Cattell found the mean family among American Men of Science in general to be 2.23 children. In comparing leaders with laymen in fecundity comparable com- parisons can not be made when the number of children born is used as a criteria because of the very much higher infant mortality rate and general death rate among the laymen than among the leaders. More adequate comparisons can be made by using number of living children with age of oarents the same, as a criteria. This however, is not pOssible at present due to absence of comparable data. 0f the 1,718,982 mothers who in 1925 in the Birth Registration area of United States bore children tho the meap_average number born by them is 5.2, the mean average number living is 2.9; and tho the median number born by them is 4.1, the median average number living is 5.9. Similar averages for "Who's Who" leaders is not at hand. How- ever, the two gro,ps may be compared in another way, by comparing the 5 ad percentage of oneechild, and more child mothers in the two groups. Apparently about 5/8 (57.1 percent) of the men and over 1/2 (52.5 percent) of the women among the married, widowed and divorced persons listed in "Who's Yho" have no children. Of this same group 15.5 percent of the men and 16.4 percent of the women have one child, and 19.0 and 14.5 percent respectively have two children, etc. Considering only those who have children which includes 14,154 of the men and 500 of the women we note that 21.5 percent of the fathers and 54.4 percent of the mothers have but one child. Of the mothers in the birth registration area who bore children in 1925 for 29.5 percent it was their first child. Between 29 and 50 per cent of . . _'[.:= “71;: the mothefsybearing children in any one year it is their first-born child. 0f the leaders, 50.2 of the fathers and 50.0 percent of the mothers have two-children and as many as 11.4 of the fathers and 9.2 percent of the mothers have as many as five or more children. Comparing "Who's Who" mothers with mothers in the birth regis- tration area it will be noted that among the former the percentage of one-child, two-child ant three-child mothers are more common than among the latter, and conversely among the latter four-child and larger multiple-child mothers are rebatively more numerous than among the former and this tendency prevails in spite of the fact that the latter are considerably young r. As many as 86 percent of the women in "Who's Who" are beyond the child-bearing age of 45 years, and because of this difference in age the two groups of women cannot be compared directly. It is quite evident, however, that the women {M3 o.ooa www.maa.a o.ooa o.ooH meo.a o.ooa o.ooa mae.mm Hence H.m amo.mn e. m. m e. m.. mm macs ho OH m.H eaa.am a. m. an m a.m mam.ne o a. n. noa m a.m Hmm.no m.a m. m e.H m. com a 0.0 emH.am o.H m. m m.H m.H ace 0 0.5 noa.oma e.n n.m am a.o m.e mam n H.0H mam.naa o.m o.e we m.ea o.m noo.m e m.ma neo.oom m.eH o.m em a.mm m.ea Ham.n n m.Hm eon.oan o.on n.ea ooa m.on o.ma nem.e N n.mm ema.aon ¢.em e.oa maa n.an n.nH mmo.n H ----- ----- ---- n.mn men ---- H.5a men.m o .pom nNmH nepoawzo Canoe cmoao>wu :mHeHfiSO . nos dooaobfiu may coneawmo wqfipwn prop doaooas msflpmm prOp umaoofis udafino mewamop omofip Mo.pom definawz mmonp mo .pom coahpwfi no .02 memepos e0 .pom no .pom ‘ - ‘11 -------------------mmaaw----u - ----------------mmw»-----------. ...i- nmma - mmpmpm aspen: do .rl mead noflpmapwfidom spafim scammed aw 0:3 m.o:ml anom aoaeafino Mo unmade an mpzonmm Mo qofiponmHmmmao \% 98 who have attained national prominence and who are married tend to be childless more often than laywomen, and those who are mothers tend to restrict the size of their family to a more reasonable size than do laywomen. This trait has been observed by others and thus formed the basis of numerous prosaic and reformist discussions. The authors of "Builders of America" view the figures of less than 60 percent of the women in "Who's Who" being married and less than 5/4 of those married having had children as indicating that, "Feminism appears to be like monogamy, religion, philanthrophy, and many other modern institutions -- admirable socially, but self- destrictive biologically".(1) Limiting their attack upon the marital status of wedlock they say, "The institution known as marriage illustrates an age-old tendency for social gain to take place at the expense of biological loss."(2) Voods generalized in studying 1,000 graduates of the Harvard classes of 1900, 1892, 1894, and 1898 that high birth rate and achieve- ment are related to each other since 9.7 percent of those aopearing in "Who's Who" were still bachelors, 16.4 percent were childless, 16.9 percent had one child, 16.8 percent had two children, 18.9 per cent had three children, 18.1 percent had four children, etc.(3) Wiggam naturally accepts Wood's figures as, "real evidence that the parental instinct, the desire for children and an abundant family life, is biologically linked with intelligence, character, and those factors which enable a man to fight his way to distinguished acheivement."(4) (1) Huntington and bhitney - Builders of America, page 149. (2) Ibid., page 111. _ (5) Woods, F. A. - Is the Human Kind Still Evolving, Journal of Heredity, (July 1927) Vol. 18, page 505. (4) iiggam, A. E. - The Rising Tide of Degeneracy - Worlds World, (Hovember 1926) Vol. 58, page 55. Some millennially inclined writers are continually figuring that the average number of children per fertile married couple necessary to keep pepulation stationary must be between three and four and that college graduates, people of eminence, and leaders of all kinds on this basis are not reproducing themselves. As an illustration we read "In order to hold their own with the rest of the American depu- lation, the leaders ought to be reproducing at such a rate that a thousand persons of the present generation will have fifteen to eighteen hundred great-grandchildren. As a matter of fact, even if we make the most liberal allowances, the men in 'Who's Who' bid fair to have scarcely nine hundred great-grandsons, or not much more than half enough to maintain their present proportion in the community. Among the women, even with still more liberal allowances, the number of great-granddaughters per thousand persons gives promise of being scarcely two hundred. Not much hepe for the guture in that."(l) Obviously no two persons get the same ansunr in counting chickens before they are hatched or babies before they are born. "The hard practical fact is that the pepulation of the United States is now (2) certainly headed for a stationary point as early as 1932". This statnment was prompted on the basis of the present commendable de- clining birth rate in United States. The still more rapidly de- clining death rate was of course ignored. All kinds of generaliza- tions can be made relative to population of the future when the declining death rate, increasing marriage rate, greater longevity, greater'overlapping of generations, immigration, excess of birth over deaths, and other allied factors are not concomitantly considered. The population of United States has been increasing at the rate of about one and one-half million a year during the current decade, less than one fourth of which was due to immigration, so that any statement that the population of this country will be stationary in a fewfis utterly absurd. The most scientific piece of research in predicting (1) Huntington and Whitney - The Descendants of Who's Who - Outlook (August, 24, 1927) 301. 146, page 539. (2) Editorial, Lansing State Journal, Harch 11, 1930. 98 the pepulation of the future was recently done by Whelpton of the Scripp Foundation for Population Research who predicts 175,000,000 persons for 1975 and 186,000,000 for 2000 for Con- tinental United States.(l) The contention that leaders are not replacing their kind in sufficient quantitative numbers has also not been proved. The major premise that a couple must have at least two children to replace them is not valid, for the reason that parents keep on living when the children marry and begin producing children, and often are still alive when the grandchildren marry and start begetting. There are numerous contemporary cases where four generations of the same family are living. With peeple marrying younger(2) than they did formerly and longevity being greater than ever the contemporary factor of overlapping of generations id a problem practically unthought of and unheard of, even among population specialists. If the 26,915 "Who's Who" leaders produce and rear to maturity twice that number of children they will have reimbursed their biological selves and that of their wives. If the 26,915 leaders, however, do not die off (which few do) as their children start begetting there will be an increase in biological numbess among the leaders. In actuality, therefore, the 26,915 leaders, by having somewhat less than 58,850 children will still be main- (1) Whelpton, P. K. - POpulaticn of the United States, 1925 to 1975 - American Journal of Sociology (Sept. 1928) 34:265 (2) Oahurn, W. F. - Eleven Questions Concerning American Marriages - Journal of Social Forces (Sept. 1927) Vol. 6, p. 6 99 taining themselves numerically as long as there is an increasing- ly overlapping of generations. Since the 26,915 "Who's Who" lead- are including single, widowed, divorced and childless persons as well as those with children have 41,210 children already, it would indicate that about 4/5 of the leaders are repf%§§giag them- selves and that the overlapping of generations is sufficiently adequate possibly to counterbalance the 1/5 of the leaders who.&34’ <1: .r‘ L f I“ . r .1], .' . ..I! r . b {:,[}|, not repnéfigfie thIlUUQVGQnbiologically)i.~»~.wv “an. a. ,a . o ‘ . z: 1, LAW WW (ll/W a, ' , V 100 IV. EDUCATION OF LEADERS. How much more likely are college graduates in attaining emi- nence, and positions of leadership than peeple without baccalaureate degrees? In spite of the fact that there are ten to twenty-five times as many non-college graduates as college graduates in most communities, it is a common observation that the leaders in most communities are more likely to be college graduates than non- graduates, when compared on the basis of the relative number of each. The editors of Who's Who compiled data on the education of the nation's notables recorded in the 1899-00, 1901-2, 1905-5, 1910-11 and 1918-19 editions of Who's Who and the summary find- ings are presented in the preface to these editions. Several others have also made studies along this line as will be noted later. Extent Of Education Over 3/4 (84 per cent) of the 26,915 men and women in Who's Who attended college. Over 2/3 (69 per cent) graduated from college of whom 72 per cent have two or more degrees. It will be recalled that the median age of these leaders is 59 years so that about half of the college graduates among these leaders graduated from col1ege previous to 1890, in an age when relative- 1y few went to college. The number_and per cent of leaders receiving bachelor's, master's or doctor's degrees, et cetera are shown in the follow- ing table. Many received twi. three or more degrees. |gglzwghg highest degree received gggigggorded. 0f the men 16.1 per cent received the Ph.D. degree, 1.8 per cent received either the 80.1). or the Litt.D. degree, 19.7‘per cent received a doctor's degree in some technical field, 11.1 received a master's degree, 19.4 , cf Uinp Ehghestogchooling Ifighest,Degree . J4, 7 ~ Received Self-educated, or Privately educated Common school Efigh school College student - non-graduate Men 1474 1350 752 3658 EMchelors' degree in technical field(l) 1118 LB., B.S., B.Ph., or Litte B. degree .msters' degree in technical field(2) LM., MtSc., M.Ph., Idtt. M., degree hetor's degree in technical field(3) LSc., or D.Litt., degree h.D. Dagree bnorary Degree (all kinds) 1) B. Aces. B. Arch. B. B. H. B. Chir. B. C. E. 2) 1.1. 0.3. C.M. nut. 3.3. 13.11. 3) A.F.D. Ch.D. A.Agr. Ed.D. 3715 714 or 2067 4918 3.0.5. B.E. BOEOE. B.D. BOFOA. B.LL. ELM. L.I. LL.M. M.Accs. M.Arch. MOBOAO DOCOL. DOD. D.D.S. J.D. Percent 5.9 5.4 3.0 14.7 4.5 14.9 2.8 8.3 B.Lss. B.M.E. B.Mus. B.0. BoPde 01‘ B.Pg. MCCOE. M.C.S. 4:331” Met.E. mm. DQHOL. (D.H.D.) D.M. J.V.D. Women 580 105 61 492 23 250 134 88 B.Th. 0.3.3. MOFOA. M.L. M.M.E. M.Mu8. LIOPOE. M.P.I.. D.M.D. D.Oec. D.P.H. LL-D- Percent Combined Percent thent or nature Of Education 0f hho's the Men And women 1-01 29.4 2054 7.7 5.3 1455 5.4 3.1 813 3.0 24.9 4150 15.4 1.2 1136 4.2 12.7 3965 14.7 .6 726 2.7 6.8 2201 8.2 4.4 5006 18.6 1.8 733 2.7 8.4 4180 15.5 1.4 496 1.9 100.0 26,915 100.0 Ed.B. J.B. J.C.B. M.B. Pe.B. S.T.B. M.S.A. PhareMe Ph.M. Th.M. V's. - D.S.T. D.V.S. S.C.D. DQTOLI. EDD. or SOJOD. D.V.M. D.Eng. Th.D, v-n. Phar.D. 102 per cent received a bachelor's degree, 14.? per cent more attend- ed college but did not graduate, 3.0 per cent received only a high school education, 6.4 per cent have only a common school ed- ucation and only 5.9 per cent were more or less privately educated by their parents, governesses, tutors, or received specialised educational training, usually a musical or vocal training, under private tutors or at private schools or institutions not infre- quently in foreign countries. Two per cent were honored with honorary degrees. Almost universally they had previously earned one or more degrees, so that the percentages of men earning bachelor, master and doctor degrees as the highest degrees re- ceived are each actually slightly higher than the figures in the table indicate. A previous edition contained the biographical sketch of Woodrow Wilson who is reported to have had a longer list of honorary degrees than any other man as he received ten honorary LL.D.'s, one Lit.D., and one L.H.D.(1) In the current edition Herbert Hoover is recorded to have received honorary de- grees frow 28 different universities after earning his 1.3. in Engineering at Stanford in 1895. L.much larger proportion of the women than of the men were privately educated or went to college but did not graduate, while smaller proportions earned degrees of each of the different general kinds. At least 2/3 of the women who were privately edu- cated were born abroad and almost all of them are either operatic singers or actresses. a few representative examples are: :Msria Jeritsa, soprano, born in Czechoslovakia, studied music (1) Gray, Picking People for Who's Who, Ibid. 'drr) under Professor Auspitzer of Brunn. Martha Hedman, actress, born in Sweden, studied under the first wife of August Strindberg, Seri Von Essen. nary Garden, operatic soprano, born in Scotland, began to learn violin at the age of six and played in concert at twelve. Lina Cavaliers (Mrs. Lucian Muratore), an Operatic singer; born in Italy, studied music under Mme. Mariani-Mase. Frances Alda, who married Guillo Gatti-Casazsa of Italy, born in New Zealand, studied singing for 10 months with Mme. Marchesi of Paris. This list if extended would include nearly 600 examples of eminent women. Thoughf’such persons are commonly cited as examples of self-education, in reality they are examples of intensive special- ised education of a specific kind almost from infancy. Education is unquestionably in the majority of cases a de- oided stepping-stone to success, eminence, and leadership. A college graduate is about nine times as likely to attain national recognition as one who is not a graduate. It is estimated that there were 67,928,000 persons in United States 20 years of age and over on July 1, 1926. This means that since there were 26,914 persons 20 years of age and over in Who's Who at that time, that one adult in every 2,524 attains eminence. It is estimated that there are about 5,000,000 living college graduates in United States, biographies of 18,915 of whom appear in Who's Who. This indicates that one college graduate in every 275 is eminent, or nine times as many college graduates in proportion to their number are ”well known” nationally as is true of the general adult popu- lation. This general conclusion corresponds favorably with Dexter‘s study of the first or 1890-1900 edition of Who's Who, 1.04 "A mention of 8,602 names in the volume in question means, if we assume that every inhabitant of the United States above the age of twenty-one was eligible to such mention, that one in every six hundred was so honored. This then would be our ratio of success for all degrees of education - good, bad and indifferent. We find, however, that of the whole number mentioned, 5,257 had received the bachelor’s degree in arts, literature, science or philosophy at some college or university. But a study of the slum- ni lists of such institutions shows us that after the commencement season of 1899 there were 554,000 living graduates. A comparison of the number mentioned in the book (5,257) with this whole number alive shows us that one college graduate in each one hundred and six found a place. Here then we have the ratio of success for cellege graduates. But to carry our process of comparison one step farther, taking 1:600 as the ratio of success (the who’s Who kind) for the adult American, and 1:106 as that for the college graduate, we find that the probability of success is increased more than 5.5 times by a college education.‘ (1) J. Jastrow who made an analysis of approximately 60 per cent of the 11,551 persons recorded in the second or 1901-2 edition of Who's Who found 4,521 or 59 per cent to be college men and, in comparison with the adult male white population, finds that college men "meet in a decidedly greater degree than the nop-collegian the 2) requirements of a successful career in after-life". Scott Nearing finds in his study of an early edition of Who's Who that only 15.1 per cent had never attended college and that ”the per cent of distinguished persons having no college affilia- (5) tion does not vary greatly from one geographic area to the other”. itliIIIUiItIiflIittIIIiIIIIiIIIiIlpIkilling-.i-pllinhilfl-oni- usimImIiiIsIwIsmsmmm-mmsmg-mmiisgm-Imm-mmmmmum-Immsmimsi-Immmilsmmf 4. (1) Dexter, l. G. - A Study of Modern Success - Current Literature, Vol. 55, page 165 (Aug. 1902). See also A.Study of 20th Century Success - Popular Science Monthly, Vol. 61, pages 241-251 (July 1902). (2) Jastrow, J. Distribution of Distinction in American Colleges - Educational Review, 701. 51, pages 24-54 (Jan. 1906). ( I ‘ g 4. ~ A V v — — ..- _ — o I a ‘ a. 1 - O ' . 's... q . . . .-.-_-.: ¢ 9." ' we -g‘m.-‘ "We .....Va :! :alr‘. ' . 3". :a- . who u “w!- 0 '~‘ g a l-“"' *9... ¢/ / o » 105 (I) 118 1»- Clerk in tudy of literary hen found that "Over fifty per cent of all literati studied receiver a full coil {e educatign. 30 figures are available for the number of college graduatz: in that part of the American peoyle which was born before lbsl. Certainly they did not number more than a few score thousand. Since this comparatively snail number or people procnced more literati than the tens o: millions of peeples without a college degree it is apparent that the nan or woman with an academic education was several hundred tines as likely to be a person who would achieve literary distinction as was the person without that training".(l) It has already been shown in the preceding section that eminence increases with age up to about the age of 76 years or more. Jastrou shows that eminence anon; college men increases with the 5. "<1 hunter 0: years they have been out of collefie, He sa "Hot 1 in 76C of the men out of college from O to 5 years find a place in 'hho's -ho'; abomt l in 140 of all out of college lC years or less are mentioned in 'Lho's Lho; l in 68 or those 15 years org) less out of coilege; l in 46 for the e 20 rears out of college". 7. (l) Clahke, E. L. -Anerican Ken 0; Letters-Dheir Iature and Eurture,p t‘ (2) Hearing, Scott- The Younger Generation Of American GOHils. Scientific Honth y (Jan. 1916) Vol.2, 9 b4. makers of leaders. .A. 713:) 1.3—,1” w? ‘L 1“.) .l\)‘ V ll‘ZJ‘Ldf {)0 -JV 0 Q _ a ‘ 11:3! 111 .4 ‘; ‘ wh 0 re n k PRC nnivcrsity environicn L (:11 It }I110\*-Jl~3(: , e . "?io nsac.)-1i115°"" r3120 [6;g. ‘ caiuser trn?t t:we " T] “ \"_‘ \Jr JO] 19 Ugh) sake ”phi 5,4. .5_1U 5 1‘4, 1.)); ‘ 71., .-..‘~" ' ., x lie quLLC QOAJUl :‘5 *\ F I f\ f. .. Cm 4 x‘ (0 O (D \‘l '33 H H (— ti:ierent men s . -.. ”4.. ‘ J ixrilcrfigr suinuL nieveicnt ant wo :rincipfl Jarpoae country in t \_,A _ "I '1 , ..., , .3 ,~ Ollupuo 9T8 given 1 , ,. .. " -. . olicye grrciftcs I w '.\ ‘Js 108 a c: «i dency some people educate their own children, such as Mr. and Mrs. J. Mchen Cattell who personally educated all of their seven children at home and none of them attended school until they en- tered college.(1) Many of the cases of so-called self-educated or privately educated persons, some of whom have already been mentioned, also illustrate this point. Others who feel similarly inclined are usually restrained from such practices by a recog- nition of the fact that although their children may acquire but little book learning in school they will learn invaluable lessons there that cannot be learned at home, namely, practice in living, playing and working together with others of their own age and interests, learning the principles of fair play, of give and take, of loyalty, of cooperation - all those factors that make it possible to live harmoniously with one's fellow men throughout life. I pays to go to college if one has aspirations for leader- ship. This was abundantly manifested in the compilation.that Prof. Jones(z! made in 1914 when he showed that although less than 1 per cent of American men are college graduates, yet this 1 per cent of college graduates furnished 55 per cent of our presidents 36 per cent of the members in the 54th and 55th Congresses 47 per cent of the speakers of the House 54 per cent of the vice-presidents 62 per cent of the secretaries of state 50 per cent of the secretaries of treasury 67 per cent of the attorney generals 69 per cent of the Justicls of the Supreme Court (1) Science, Vol. 54, page 346 (Oct. 8, 1926) (2) Jones, J. C. - Does College Education Pay, Forum (1914} 26:554-563. See also Ellis, A. G. - The Money Value of Educatiaz, Department of Interior, Office of Education, Bulletin 1917, No. 22. 1' “ 108 ,n_ > 1 +.r ‘ v‘ "." ' 1V . i ,‘ 5 r, '1 ~. "' . \. ' college soucsolon a11r19ut1; 1s JJFZ nbuuw~fi" 1n sole ‘ callings tnfn in others, 2t lsrst tha yerccrtsgs of cells gracufitcs 1n so_c Jrolssslons ls ilva to ten bl o‘ as m1L: ' 4.x ... .. y '2 I“ —V 1 : ' 5' ' t. ‘ " , .. i- - 4'- as in otuexs. 1n tne lQlc-ll acitlon o1 "no‘s nne tuc total number on "red 1n pr0139n10ns ass E,LCC. 0; this nugbsr there K___: h J here c,C@l lawyers, 1,34s gHrs1cians L, 00 Cldltrfiun, 033 {‘4 artists, 267 nusicipns 5nd 1,124 who Here an aged in technical fi ‘ ‘ '. >"\ — .11": I " ’ "‘ ' ..l , ' ‘ 1“ ~ ‘, ‘ I ' "‘ ' : “ 1 ' plrsul o. :10 paras“ 2,0 01 each E,rotlp use here Holluhu t_m1.11.9.tcs " 3 J.“ 1 vv-A" :6‘ ‘1 ._ ,. A. ‘\J.L brie 13"..JJ’I’S U .‘a3 ;j(:1‘ .Ul’lt \J ‘- "‘. ,-‘- ' , r7‘ ..- ‘1 tie 9.;slc1sns 49.Uu uvr cont , L) g ‘ ‘ “_.. ~ f w oh | 01 t1: clugufinsn o1.na gar ant a “I +~ m4. 4.. K) 'r') u 4. U4- u 1b 911118113 ‘1'. :0 7‘33.“ Cg’lu ”‘ ‘> icisns " J 1 (1) Who's Lao, 1910-11 Ldition , fil‘uiEI ce 109 High Scholarship and Eminent Leadership The chances for attaining national distinction are nine times as great for college graduates as for others is indicated on preceding pages. Among the college graduates those who have won Phi Beta Kappa honors are three times as likely to become achievers of national importance than non-Phi Beta Kappa graduates. Undergraduates are elected to this preeminently honorary scho- lastic fraternity entirely upon the basis of their grades as recorded in the college registrars' books. Most Phi Beta Kappa chapters choose members from 1/6 to 1/10 of the graduating class having the highest scholarship averages. Phi Beta Kappa is the oldest of the Greek-lefier societies or fraternities in this country, and is, in fact, the progenitor of the entire college fraternity system. The first charter was established at William and Mary at Williamsburg, Virginia, in 1776 and during the four succeeding years chapters were organized at Harvard and Yale. At present over 100 colleges and.universities have Phi Beta Kappa chapters. The number and per cent who are members of various hon- orary Greek Letter Fraternities are as follows: 110 Number and Per Cent of College Hen and of Fraternity gig in “WhoTsFWBB in America“ who are Members Bf' Various Creek Letter Fraternities : :Per Cent :Per Cent :Per Ceht :of 21,566:of 7,774 :of 24,992:College :Fraternity :Men in :Men in :Men in :nwho’s :"Who's :"Who's :Who” who :Who" who :Who" who Honorary Greek Let- Number ofzare Mem- :are Mem- :are Mem- OO 00 99 ee 00 ee De 00 00 ee ter Fraternity Men :bers :bers :bers Phi Beta Kappa 2950 : 11.7 : 15.7 : 57.7 Phi Kappa Phi : 509 : 1.2 : 1.4 : 4.0 Sigma Xi : 1259 : 5.0 : 5.9 : 16.2 Alpha Zeta : 104 : .4 : .5 : 1.5 : 5.6 : 9.9 All other Honorary : 772 : 5.1 More than 1/9 (11.7 per cent) of the total number of men in Who's Who won Phi Beta Kappa honors. Of the college men in Who's who over 1/8 (15.7 per cent) won these honors. Con- sidering only the college men in "Who's Who in America" who indicated affiliation with some Greek Letter Fraternity, over 5/9 (57.7 per cent) distinguished themselves scholastically to the extent of having P.B.K. honors conferred upon them. The somewhat over a hundred chapters of this Society in 1986 had a total membership approximatdng 60,000* of whom probably about 40 per cent at 24,000 are men. This would indi- cate that about one out of every 82 Phi Beta Kappa men in the country is in Who's who. Thus the probability of a man who has attained the scholastic honors of membership in the P.B.Ki Society is about 17 times more likely to attain sufficient achievements in after life to merit Who's Who mention than is the average man. * Encyclonedia Britannica, 14th Edition, p. 701 The Phi Kappa Phi is also an honorary scholastic society of which 509 men in Who's dho are identified. This number is 1.2 per cent of the total number of men in Who's Who, and 4.0 per cent of the men in "Who's Who in America" who indicated membership in Greek Letter Societies. Sigma Xi honors are conferred upon those pursuing courses in the Sciences. There are 1259 men who mention membership in this Society. This is one person in every 20 among the entire list of men recorded inNWho's Who. There are 104 Alpha Zeta men and 772 men who are members of honorary Greek Letter Socie- ties other than of the Societies already mentioned, all of which indicates that the men who are leaders in Colleges in their courses tend likewise to be the peers of their associates in the game of life. I -.- 112 Dexter finds the high-grade men in college are still high grade men when put to the severer tests of active life - using membership in the Phi Beta Kappa fraternity as a criteria of high-grade college men and mention in “he's Who in America as a criteria of high-grade men in active life. His investigation was based on the 1899-1900 edition of Who's Who and so he selected the twenty colleges which had a chapter of Phi BetatKappa for at least twenty-two years previous to 1900 and graduates only of these colleges were considered. He found that of the 8122 living Phi Beta Kappa members of these 22 colleges 481 or 5.9 per cent were in Who's Who as compared with 2.1 per cent of the total num- ber of living graduates of these same colleges. He concludes that “The Phi Beta Kappa man's chances of success (getting into Who's Who) are nearly three times that of his classmates as a whole'.(1, Jastrow's study of the college men in the 1901-2 edition of Who's Who led him to say that "not only does the college man meet. in a very decidedly greater degree than the non-collegian the requirements of a successful career in after life, but the high- grade college man meets these requirements very much more generally than does the average college man" sincethe Phi Beta Kappa man has 2.8 as great s chance to get into Who's Who as has the average college graduate.(2) Phi Beta Kappa students have always been prominent in every walk of life. Ten Presidents of United States were accorded Phi (1) Dexter, Edwin G. - High Grade Men in College and Out, Popular Science Monthly (Mar. 1905) 62:432 (2) Jastrow, J. - Distribution of Distinction in American Colleges. Jan. 1906) 51:24-54 113 Beta Kappa honors. Twenty-eight or 44 per cent of the men and women honored by tablets in the Hall of Fame at New York Univer- sity were members of Phi Beta Kappa. A.surprising1y large rep- resentation of Phi Beta Kappa members are found in all lists of achievers. That high scholastic standing in college is apparently as- sociated with national recognition in future years is demonstrated by figures collected by Prof. Lowell. He took the 4011 graduates of Harvard in the classes of 1861 to 1887 of whom he found 501 or 1 in 15.5 to be in Who's Who. Speaking about the high or best. scholars he says "Take the men who graduated in the first seventh of their classes during the same period, we find that they number five hundred and.seventy-three, of whom eighty-two are in Who's Who; so that their chance of distinction is a trifle better than one in seven, or nearly twice as great as that of the average graduate... Scholarly attainment of every kind in college tends to be followed by distinction in after life, though not to in equal degree.“ (1) (1) Lowell, 1. Lawrence - College Rank and Distinction in Life, Atlantic Monthly (Oct. 1905) 92:514 11.4 dlma.Maters fiké’a larger proportion of the alumni of some colleges than of others appearing in Who's Who? Or, are some colleges appar- ently more proficient in producing leaders of eminence than are other colleges in proportion to their'number of living graduates? In general, institutions offering courses in many different col- leges, divisions or departments, such as law, medicine, engineering, arts and sciences would be expected to contribute more persons to the ranks of Who's Who than institutions with a limited variety of courses. Similarly, institutions‘would as a rule be expected to contribute to Who’s Who in proportion to the number of their living graduates. The relative proficiency of universities in producing eminent men and women can be determined fairly satisfacton&(only by the percentage of living alumni of specific graduating classes whose biographies appear in Who's Who. A comparison of universities on the percentage of living alumni of all graduating classes whose biographies are sketched in the "Red Book" obviously gives the older institutions a decided advantage over those which are younger, since the probability of an alumnus gaining’national prominence ‘increases each year as he grows older and.with each year that he is out of college. At least three investigators have made attempts to determine 'the dggree of fecundity of chlleges in turning out graduates who won false later in life. Dexter, as a result of his partial analysis of the first or 1899-1900 edition of Who's Who, found that 5,257 of the 8,602 indi- Ln .11 viduals, "were college graduates distributed among 200 colleges. One hundred and forty-four of these colleges embracing all the more important institutions, have in round numbers 260,000 living grad- uates, only 2, 655 of whom were mentioned in Who's Who. Classifying these 144 colleges according to size, we have the following table: Total Mentioned No. of Number of in Percentage 30.0: students Colleges Graduates Who's Who mentioned Below 500 85 67,587 955 1.40 500 to 1,000 26 54,810 528 .94 Above 1,000 55 157,617 1,571 .85 ”Although this table would seem to show conclusively that the smaller college is best (sends out the largest percentage of its graduates to fields of broadest usefulness, thus contributing most largely in preportion to its size to general culture and progress), it should be remembered that the larger universities furnish men from graduate or professional schools who are not accounted for in this list which includes only gsaduates with bachelor's degree. On the other hand, men are accredited to large colleges who really graduated from small ones. The Who's Who names show almost no graduates of more than ten years standing, and many colleges, notably the western state universities may no doubt have passed from the small class to the large since their prominent sons were graduated; so that the classification is hardly accurate. These facts, however, do not seen to disturb the advantage of the smaller colleges. For though Harvard and Yale - leaders for the large colleges - far exceed the average, there are nine of the colleges with a membership below 500 which surpass them." (1) Jastrow made a partial analysis of approximately 60 per cent of the 11,551 cases appearing in the second (1901-2) edition of "Who's Who in America” as to when and from what institution they graduated with a baccalaureate degree. He found the six most distinguished colleges (those having the largest pronortion of its graduates eligible to entry in Who's Who recorded in it) in order of rank from the highest on down to be: Columbia, Cornell, Harvard, University of Michigan, University of Pennsylvania and Yale. He believes that, (1) Dexter, E. G. - What is the Best College, World's Work (April 1905) 5:5502 #5 H- :0 ”It is obvious at once that the most distinguished colleges come from the group of the largest colleges.....those which have continuously been the most prominent and prosperous institutions in their environment.....have the widest and most honorable and influential reputations." (1) Scott bearing in attempting to find the degree of associatiax between college affiliations and eminence by partially analysing the leaders in an early edition of Who's Who found that the number of distinguished persons graduating from Harvard is 155 the highest number, then Yale 85, Columbis 52, Michigan 44, etc. In this con- nection Hearing made an interesting discovery which.possibly serves as a partial explanation for the meritorious positions of several of these large universities in this respect. He found that ”Yale, even more than Harvard, seems to have drawn her dis- tinguished alumni from all parts of the country, and both of these colleges have done this in a unique way,that is, without parallel among the other colleges for which returns were tabulated, with the single exceptionof Stanford.” (2L Cattell in classifying the 1,000 outstanding men of science by institutions at which these men pursued their under-graduate studies is less positive in £55 conclusions than are the other writers cited,for he says, “It is not certain that a preponderance of scientific men has been produced at any institution as compared with the total.number of students‘.(5) As far as American “men of science“ are concerned Cattell made the interesting discovery that "those who attend the larger universities are not of higher (1) Jastrow, J. - Distribution of Distinction in American Colleges, Educational Review (Jan. 1906) 51:24-54 ‘ (2) Hearing, Scott - The Younger Generation of American Genius, Scientific Honthly (Jan. 1916) 2:48-61 (5) Cattell, J. M. - Statistical Study of American Men of Science, Science, Vol. 24, page 740 (Dec. 7, 1906) 1117’ average performance than others. Thus of the 106 who have thken the bachelor's degree at Harvard, 55 are in the first rank and 51 in the second. ‘Yale, Cornell and Mechigan have produced men above the average rank, and the excess is such that it is probably significant." (1) In the present study of Who's Who the ranking universities in distinguished alumni as found by the foregoing investigators are still found to be among the ranking institutions. The edu- cational institution from which an individual received his first degree is credited as one's alma mater in this discussion. There are 487 colleges and universities in the United States which are represented in Who's Who by one or more of their alumni. There are many colleges and universities in foreign countries, especially Canada, some of whose alumni found their way to eminence in America and entrance into Who's Who, The educational institutions with the largest absolute number of eminent alumni and the number of such distinguished alumni from. each of these is presented in tabular form together with the year of first opening of eachcf these institutions. (1) Ibid 1-18 College Graduates (Men) in Who's Who Classified by Alma Mater Number of Men Year of Alumni of Specified First Alma Mater in University Opening Who's Who Harvard University 1639 1348 Yale University 1701 876 Princeton University 1746 426 Cornell University 1868 418 University of Michigan 1841 593 University of Pennsylvania 1740 388 University of Wisconsin 1848 252 Hassachusetts Institute of Technology 1865 252 Brown University 1765 251 Dartmouth 1769 288 U.S. Military Academy 1802 221 Chicago University 1892 203 Columbia University 1754 197 Johns Hopkins University 1876 197 The number of eminent Harvard male alumni totals 1348, the highest, then Yale, 876, Princeton 426, Cornell 418, Michigan 393, et cetera. The order of these universities may be quite different when arrayed from highest to lowest in the order of the largest preportion of their living male graduates chronicled in Who's Who. .Huch more significant than the ranking of universities in the absolute number of their distinguished male alumni ts the ranking of the universities in the number of distinguished male alumni in proportion to the number of living male graduates. Since some universities are co-eduoational institutions, some are or have been primarily men's colleges and others are ‘somen's colleges it is.necessary to obtain the number of living graduates by sex. These figures are not readily available for some universities so that it is impossible to determine the relative proficiency of the various colleges in producing either male 119 leaders or female leaders. Furthermore, some colleges are pri- marily graduate institutions and others are primarily under-graduate institutions. Likewise some are academic institutions and others are professional institutions so that much sifting is necessary to select homogeneous institutions in order that comparisons between institutions are strictly comparable. The University of Michigan from 1860 to 1926 (the period in which practically everyone ithho's Who'sho is a college graduate received his baccalaureate degree) graduated 10,733 men, which means that since 393 of them are in Who's Who that 37 per 1,000 of them have attained national prominence. In the same peribd of years 14,797 men have graduated from the University of Wisconsin so that 17 per 1,000 are represented in the volume. From the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 11,033 men have graduated so that 23 out of every 1,000 of them have son national recognition. Dartmouth has graduated 9,061 men of whom 25 in every 1,000 have achieved national prominence. There are 7,352 men who have re- ceived baccalaureate degrees from the University of Chicago of whom 28 per 1,000 are recorded in the /fva book of the nation's notables. The number of male graduates for all of these insti- tutions is for the years 1860 to 1926 inclusive. The variation betseen the various institutions cited and for uhomtthe number of men receiving baccalaureate degrees is at hand, the number of emi- nent alumni per 1,000 graduates can be largely accounted for due to chance fluctuations, years of first opening and type of cur- riculum. It is difficult to say which is the ”best college". Each college might be able to indicate how it is superior to the majority of other colleges in some respect. n."- 120 The 16 colleges and universities with the largest absolute number of female alumni recorded in Who's Who are: Vassar with 69 distinguished alumni, Smith 51, Wellesley 38, Bryn mawr 30. Columbia 27, Michigan 27, Radcliffe 27, Cornell 23, Chicago 21, California 19, Leland Stanford 15, Ht. Holyoke 14, Wisconsin 14, Minnesota 13, Northwestern 13, and Oberlin 13. It will be noted that 6 of the 16 colleges listed are women's colleges; also that the four colleges with the largest absolute number of distinguished alumni are women's colleges. The respective position in relative rank of these colleges would no doubt be somewhat different if arrayed on the basis of the number of eminent alumni in proportim: to the total number of living graduates. The foregoing figures indicate that higher education is a significant contributing factor in the making of leaders. This is brought about through contacts in the more formative years of life - contacts with men and books, organizations and ideas, super- iors and inferiors, all in the course of four to seven years the like of which the averagd non-college person does not experience in the course of an entire lifetime. As a rule the college man at the age of 25 has experienced and lived so much more than a non-collegian of the same chronological age. Of course, selective processes of all kinds are also in continuous operation, and es- pecially so at present in some institutions, which tend to select rather specific types of high school seniors. The coordination of these two factors naturally forces the college-trained men into the limelight. 1.2 fl VT. OCCUPATION 0F LE; HRS Herododotus tells us that "Every Egyptian was commanded by law annually to declare by what means he maintained himself; and if be omitted to do it, or gave no satisfactory account of his way of living, he was punishable with death. This law Solon brought from Egypt to Athens, where it was inviolably observed . as a most equitable regulation.” ,To learn a trade has been more or less obligatory of all young men in the majority of countries in the past. Seneca philosOphized that "nothing is more disgraceful than that an old man should have nothing to show to prove that he had lived long, except his years". It was a maxim with the Jews, "that he that did not bring up his son to some honest calling, brought him up to be a thief". The United States Census of 1920 shows 92.4 per cent of the men and 28.1 per cent of the women twenty years of age and over to be engaged in gainful occupations - the men predominantly in Manufacturing and.Mechanical Industries and in Agriculture, Forestry and Animal Husbandry, and the women in Domestic and Personal Service and in Manufacturing and Mechanical Industries. MR? aims is lead erg" The nation's "best known” persons, both men and women, are engaged predominantly in professional pursuits, both in absolute numbers and in relative numbers. Both the professional people and those engaged in public services appear in Who's Who in numbers larger than their preportion in the total population, and all other general occupational groups appear in smaller relative numbers. Percentage Distribution of the Gainfull Emplo ed ‘PbpulatIOn offiUnited States, 25 Years 0% Age 5%! Over and of Who's'Who LeadersL Classifiedby Sex. Males Females U.S. Who‘s U.§. Who's General Divisions 1920 Who 1920 Who of Occupations P. t. P.Ct, .C . P. . Agriculture, Forestry and Inimal Husbandry 28.7 1.1 11.0 .1 Extraotion of Minerals 3.3 .3 .0 .0 Manufacturing and Mechanical Industries 33.4 6.9 20.8 2.0 Transportation 8.9 1.5 2.1 .1 Trade 11.2 6.5 7.8 1.0 Public Service 2.3 9.9 .3 .9 Professional Service 3.7 73.6 13.7 95.9 Domestic and Personal Service 3.8 .0 28.6 .0 Clerical Service 4.7 .1 15.7 .0 Three and seven-tenths per cent of the gainfully employed adult male pOpulation in United States are engaged in professional services, whereas 20 times as many or 73.6 per cent of the men listed in Who's Who are thus occupied vocationally. Thirteen and seven-tenths per cent of the gainfully employed adult female pepulation in United States are engaged in professional services, whereas 7 times as many or 95.9 per cent of the Who's Who women are similarly employed. Those engaged in professional pursuits have had many more years of schooling, as a rule, than those in other callings. Most of the professional people who attain national cognizance are highly specialized specialists. For example, many of the physicists are not mere physicists, they are astrOphysicists, a $0 ' I J." biophysicists and electrophysicists. The M.D.'s are not mere M.D.'s but they are aurists, dermatologmsts, gynecologists, laryngologists, neurologists, oculists, ophthalmologists, oral surgeons, orthopedists, oto-laryngologists, otologists, pediatricians, roentgenologists, urologists, et cetera. Similar tendencies prevail in most of the other professions. Each is a skilled and trained expert or specialist and a peerless authority in his special field of vocational activity. Educators are by far the largest single occupational group, both in absolute numbers and in relative numbers, among those listed in Who's Who. Biographies of as many as 5,054 College Presidents and Professors appear therein. The Federal Census in 1920 enumerated 23,322 males in this professional group, so that about 1 in 5 among them appears in Who's Who. The editors of this reference work realized that although there are possibly more persons of eminence in the field of education than in any other phase of human activity they felt Justified in reducing the relative number of educators in the subsequent edition. Educators of all kinds representing about 22 per cent of the entries in the 1926-27 edition were reduced in the 1928-29 edition to about 16 per cent.(1) Next to College presidents and professors there are more lawyers, Judges, Justices and attorneys in Who's Who, totaling 2,795, than persons of any other single profession or specific occupation. In 1920 there were 120,781 men in United States (1) Personal interview with one of the editors, December 27, 1928. classed under the general category of lawyers and judges, which means that about 1 in every 43 of them is recorded in Who's Who. From all available data, it appears that very few professional or specific occupational groups are represented in Who's Who in larger relative numbers than are lawyers. Number of Persons (Males) Engaged in Specified Professions and—Occupations in 1920. and the Number and Ratio of Each Recorded in Who's Who. Males in Males in Occupation U. S. 1920 Who's Who Ratio College Presidents and \ Professors 23,322 5,054 5 Lawyers, Judges and Justices 120,781 2,795 43 Authors, Editors and Reporters 32,129 2,367 13 Clergymen 125,483 2,356 53 Bankers, Brokers, and Money Lenders 156,309 976 160 Physicians and Surgeons 137,758 748 184 Artists, Sculptors and . Teachers of Art 20,785 603 34 Chemists, Assayers and Metallurgists 31,227 398 78 JMusicians and.Teachers of Music 57,587 312 184 ‘Railway Officials and Superintendents 35,830 303 118 Architects 18,048 264 68 Religious, Charity and Welfare Workers 14,141 232 61 Librarians 1,795 182 10 School Teachers ‘ 116,848 120 973 .Actors and Showman 33,818 90 376 Insurance Agents and Officials 129,589 63 2,057 Designersand Inventors 12,107 48 252 Dentists 54,323 34 1,598 Telegraph and Telephone Officials 11,059 25 442 Real Estate Agents and Officials 139,927 19 7,364 All other Occupational Groups 30,974,005 7,953 3,895 «b m College Presidents and Professors, Librarians, Authors and Artists, however, seem to appear in Who's Who in even larger relative numbers than do lawyers. Clergymen, religious, charity and welfare workers, architects and chemists, appear among the notables in only slightly less relative numbers than do the lawyers. It was indicated earlier that one adult in every 1,380 adult males in United States in 1926 was recorded in Who's Who. Using the 1920 pepulation figures instead of the estimated population for 1926 the ratio would be 1 in every 1,293. It is apparent that all the occupational groups listed in the accompanying table, aficept real estate agents and officials, insurance agents and officials, and dentists, are several times to several hundred times more likely to attain national recognition than is the average person. Of the approximately 31 million of adult workers (20 years of age and over) engaged in‘ocbupations other than the 20 listed in the above table, only 7953 or 1 in every 3895 has attained national distinction. Evidently professionalization and eminence are closely associated. The man who is working at something that anybody can do and do equally well does not get into the limelight. The man who does something of some significance that nobody else can do as well or which has never been done before, his name and his achievement soon reaches practically every household. Among the men recorded in the biographical sketch book appear 31 anthropologists, 26 archaeologists, w p ' . , 89 astronomers, 33 bacteriologists, 109 bi010gists, 141 botanists, 206 economists, 209 geologists, 107 mathematicians, 25 meteor- ologists, 11 mineralologists, 26 museum directors, 51 naturalists, 1 .25 121'; 14 ornithologists, 3O palaentologists, 27 philologists, 159 physicists, 24 plant pathologists, 124 psychologists, 74 sociologists, 54 statisticians and 154 zoologists. The changes of a person who is engaged in professional service of attaining eminence, as evidenced by admission to Who's Who, is 26 times greater than that of the average person, since over 18,000 professional men of the 1,100,000 professional men in United States 20 years of age and over, or 1 in every 50 is recorded in Who's Who, as compared with 1 in about every 1300 among the total population. Of course those who are en- gaged in the arbitrary admission to Who's Who class of occupa- tions, such as Judges, authors, cehkege presidentsfaxdflchigf ecclesiasticists, would naturally loom conspicuously numerous among the list of the nation's notables. However, if they were not arbitrarily included their relative numbers among the country's "best known" men would doubtless not be materially changed since they are preeminently moulders of thought and leaders of men. They are workers with human beings rather than with material things. These men have Opportunities for the in- fluences of personal traits. Writers have always been accorded great honor for sharing with us their thoughts and for not permitting their ideas to die within them. That which is not expressed in some form dies. Waitings are possibly one of the few reasonably assured means, besides rearing a family, of immortalizing their progenitors. In the Hall of Fame are 63 men and women 15 of whom are known to all of us and chiefly by their writings, and the others, though not authors, a majority of them are known to us by their writings quite as much as by their other works. It is largely through writings that we are privileged to share the choicest thoughts of the ages and this is possibly one reason why so many persons view books as immortals. Plato said : ”bokks are immortal sons deifying their sires", and Rufus Choate said, "a book is the only immortality“. Channing regarded writ- ings as "the voices of the distant and the dead, and makes us heirs of the spiritual life of past ages”. Henry Ward Beecher £353¥;:d~a book as "the symbol and presage of immortality”, Certain it is that more peeple get into the public eye through writings than through any other channel. Though the career of only 1343 of the men in Who's Who is classed as that of author or writer as many as 7810 or nearly 1/3 (31.2 per cent) of the total number of men in the entire volume have written one or more books. Of the men who have written books the largest number, 1696 or 21.7 per cent have written but one book, 20.2 have written two books, 14.7 have written three books, et cetera. Most of those whose careers are classed as that of author or writer have written more than just one or two books. As many as 13.3 per cent of all who are authors of books have written nine or more. More than half (52.0 per cent) of the women in Who's Who have written one or more books. This relatively high percentage might be expected since 756 or 38.3 per cent of the Who's Who women practice writing as their major career. A larger percentage of the women who have written books are authors of nine or more books than there are women who are authors of but one book or of two or three books. Most of those who have written but a few books listed some career other than "author" as their principal vocation. Number and Per Cent of Who's Who Men and Women Who Have ‘Written Becks, Classified by Number ofPBooks Written Number of Books Written Men Women fiumfier P.Ct. Number P.Ct. 1 1696 21.7 118 11.5 2 1575 20.2 169 16.4 3 1145 14.7 128 12.5 4 843 10.8 123 12.0' 5 615 7.9 78 7.6 6 419 5.4 78 7.6 7 28 3.6_ 51 5.0 8 18 2.4 43 4.2 9 or More 1043 13.3 238 23.2 Total 7810 100.0 1026 100.0 All studies of genius, great men, leaders and achievers indicate that such persons are predominantly professional people and in general are sons of professional people and come from relatively well-to-do families. Prof. Visher has made the most exhaustive study of the occupations of the fathers of the notables in Who's Who and found that ”8,546 or 35.2 per cent were business men; 8,327 or 34.3 per cent were professional men; 5,681 or 23.4 per cent were farmers; 1,530 or 6.3 per cent were skilled or semi-skilled laborers; but that only 121 or 0.4 per cent were unskilled laborers. There were also 73 reported as men of leisure. "At the 1870 census, about 5 per cent of America's men were business men; about 2.2 per cent were professional men; about 29.5 per cent were farmers ’not including farm laborers, of which there were about an equal number); and 18 per cent —— (P'- were skilled or semi-skilled laborers, while 45 per cent were unskilled laborers. "Thus the business and professional man fathered seven and sixteen times, respectively, the number of notables that would be expected on the basis of the small proportion they made of the population. Farmers, on the other hand, fathered shunt one-fourth less than the prOportionate share, but the farmers did much better than other manual workers, contributing two and a third times as many as skilled and semi-skilled laborers and 70 times as many as the nearly one-half of all the men of the nation who were classed as unskilled laborers. "Expressed in other words, the production of these notables by the higher type of laborers was about 30 times as great in preportion to population as by the unskilled laborers, whereas the farmers did 70 times as well as the unskilled.1aborers, business men 600 times as well, and professional men 1,400 times as well. Thus, although only one unskilled laborer in about 37,500 (about the year 1870) fathered a son or daughter sufficiently noteworthy to win a place in Who's Who, one skilled laborer in 1,250 had that distinction, one farmer in 550, one business man in 62, and one professional man in 27.” (1} E. Albert Odin's study of "Genese des Grands Hommes" covering a period of 500 years showed that the rich people of France composing only 3 per cent of the pepulation produced “a" 117 10 times as much genius as did the other 97 per centanaamFA/ !~*: vt¢f /_¢ euvt‘ ‘i”, fifflk‘wM/CL gfl4jodxlhflfa~m+ L ad M Jflr Mzdéfmwi (L 19‘ “:“*”1 we‘vioods, the biologist'mtogethe Witmh fiy3% Ireland the publicist, found on studying the English "Dictionary of National Biography" which contains the records of achievements of approximately 30,000 distinguished persons of British and Irish blood during the past 1000 years that artisans, craftsmen, skilled and unskilled laborers furnished only 11.7 per cent of all the 30,000 eminent persons although they were five to ten (3) times as numerous as the so—called "upper classes”. Havelock (1) Visher, Stephen S. - The Occupations and Environment of Fathers of American Notables, Who's Who, 1926-7, pages’27. (2) M. Albert Odin, "Genese des Grands Hommes" ¢254é~7 (3) Wiggam, A. E. - America as a Nursery of Genius - Worlds Work (Oct. 1926) 52:684-5 Ellis' investigation or gne lives 0: lCLO British man and . . .. . . ., . (l). , women 0i genius in 180% lee to Slnliar conc1181ons. BrOL. nnwin n. Clarke found in his study of the origin of poo American men of letters that 49.2 oer cent cane 1101 the professional classes, 22.7 per cent cane from the commercial c’ce e“ 2‘ per cent came iion agricultural classes, ant 7.2 per cent cane iron nechanical, cle 21 ans U_nskilled classes. He found four giofsssions furnishing overl/Z and eleven occupations over 3/4 of all the American men of letters..£e else found the families who were living in econgnic security )TOQlCin? far more than their name-icel proportion of authors, thus indicating that ’.. I‘D .' ,_ ‘ 1“ , s- . .. 1;. a 8.1 l; :2301w3 at: 330163rt No L L) l1n Ne cendi udate for literary ho: ors a ,. 1"‘Fxt (1337 I"-‘ I H "‘ '1‘ 'T “n.— .-., :1' -'«I 1.,,: .- 1 -,.. nllis, develock- $.11, oi jritLSn Ceniis, A "\ I" " v Clarke, '3. 4.. - 1.116;, p 7;; 3 1,31. _‘ 0 _IO ' A ~__ , ,._ 4'- __ ’ 4: ‘0 +0 'Yir an clfi;-1.1_p. ”LC 0L n: *vd «1“‘\)L 5L;t~( " 3 -‘ Q J 4“ r \ L. ‘ o ‘ . 1‘" ‘ ‘ . *fi' ’ \ “ CALM : M f. H) ~.. viI‘ UM" ' ,4 )' ; “'\ -»)‘.n(1 I‘)L ~‘ L "1211 ~- — —. ‘ - T " ‘ ' ' L ~ -.‘ J— L‘ ~- " ° . - v .1(J.9 L.L‘.; iwfl ttil f; vi: I a ',u).’, J'u ;JL10 .MYPX1f58 -. 4 4. - v ‘- .‘ g . ~ 4.. 4.? 3 -, A. ' - ' a , 1 group 1.1: 'ul .mo‘ 1 _.S -‘ IDLE, ”.1“, (3d 117120va1 n+3?“ 1.0;. _:~ I‘O'lp A?) ' ° m“ ~ »- --—' ‘- ‘ 1' -‘ r‘ -..-‘ - v”, ' ‘. x. ‘ “a. , t1 cs 1ts omflre, any tuw inuus,gL«1 .131), LfllCJ ¢0J3113&d - . .“n q-..~L. -r' n A “‘1 +-‘ , ‘ #" '- -,. z”, 7 '3 [15811;] L), 9231‘ Lyn-J a; 1'”: :JDJILJ“ pl )n 31 “ref; 0151-533 #13101 JUC " ’1‘1‘ 71' ‘ "y I ‘ L‘ 'w (I): F: :1 . 4‘r‘ ‘IN ln 1).": b “I'Lflv‘r, 00:4114‘1 0 1. .1 d O [LLLr 0 up OI‘ 1.1/VJ 01 1. DZ: Slig.re Of (1‘ I é“:“jl‘}_b. f" - ——‘_‘ ' 0 fl _ J— an ‘ _ f: z 9. o ‘ 1‘ L,‘ _-' _' _(J L." --.- .-.“ ‘h er 2.1 ('71 110.1 C G311. Don I. J 'llfl; .1 I] “ 1E) .i". U'.',‘.-..LL» O; t ’11:? JL'JILID Of. 1 '...1 3 *‘T‘. 1' i : 7H4," ...“ ,_‘_,- ,, . fish. n 6‘; 1,. 1. aliqbr An 4180 Jutgbu nowgrlng 9 gerLud 0L cpC cdsrs tnat ‘ q “ ~ . ‘ 1 "' 1‘ '“fi ’ ", .V . “Y ‘ g ‘1 ‘f‘ ' tne ban 0; E gnu,c ufib LCC tluoo rs wrnt oqnnaes OL us- - . ~r. . I . -- rl ,~~ ..1 v .4 . , ‘ . ‘ '-- -~ ‘. (x 7‘ -' , g + " "\ COthfi CwthHt EH tie FVziflge J‘Fodu bith PJJHL “‘3 (fl 0 "V y_ U) n ‘7‘ . I‘a‘ 3‘ 1 ¢ " f , -. I" v ’~ :v . r.“ . {"- “,',\ . ‘ ‘ "- ‘ x c,- ’\ ‘ OI .41hllufl1 dUCngS'Dfle 4J1 uwcxdr<31L1t 14)audln:1d:vI5. .n_‘ ‘. . Y? 3 r": rV-v-rv ‘7 '3', w 5' '-, e ”'9 ‘ \YV ‘- r .‘TT1 T's-"'1 :"v .- f" i JLOI' VI e “ -.1. )L‘ZLLJ 11;) lb) V.Lu.il..l.un LlUL-«Q ..ia‘l/ .Li--_.a;'{ (firm '.' "1"3 9 "1* n" wry “3:5 \15\ 14.) _‘WIJJJ-Lk- iU¢-|L)A.i.L J . oinj sections have disclosed some groups pith which TTnB fOIG T“ (+- (I) h o's hho leaders are con83iCiously iggntificd - such as etc of ('1 v—e 1 e - -, ‘ _.“g e ‘ ~ _‘ ‘ ”T1 -~ e .3 f V f ,;‘e 0 I" oirtn, state of reSicehce, glece or :irth ant glece 31 reel; 1 ‘1 q C x-T 'F" '-‘ 'a w]- ' rm . c‘ ' r- 03" r- i ”-3 ("v1 ‘ ‘r- ° +011 C‘L“ +‘1fi c..." «3.31.11.6(1 8‘1001 u.l.-_f‘_ v0 01.1.8, och-LTO‘ID, a; u'gflao 1p, (Girl ”('1 "u«-' J'VLD gr03p, e weetionel grow; ahi 3'au etionnl sroup. There are other 1.1) groups, some of which are more or less formal organiz tions smong than leaders a pee” relatively often, that rs sin for conciocration. C' .ifet3s for ad1mi sion to who's the in Anerics are nskc€ to C. J C3 indicate on the information blank that is sih3-tt c to them the names of firoies si iinsl A: S3cie tions, Learned and Technical Societies, Fraternities, secret Societies, Clubs, and helig i318 hono1ihition (if any) of which the* are members or with which they a-e siiil iated. ion is slso called for. Likewise a :re1uest is hate to indicate if they are Cirectors or tr3st3e s of any edzcationel or public institutions. Co"flpet31c:s in the listing =3; all such organireVionsl and institutional memberships ENC effil- ietions is hardly to be cxycctch oi' ll peisons. Such omissions, lionever, are no doi3t a bout equally prevalent among the ciffercnt classes and therefore do not bins general tCHuChClGS. A nult’plicitv of secondary or:snizations CWIPTRCterlCBS the ;nOCern era. Associations were once largely circumscribed by 83308. jglso they were largely confire to infor1s contacts of a visiting imature and orilarily tith kins 1en or near relatives. Today persons :xf si3ils r int em' sts, whether social, economic, civ7c, recreational, edsm cations l or that not, are 3nited.toyethcr, honeier uiacly separated tfliey may be, and menege to carry on together as a 1itual Sp; ial iraterest group. I 3‘] C 1' {KIJ1 Extent of Temoershio in Organizations. An attempt L83 hens in this study to en3nerate the Clubs, Longes, Greek Letter Fraternities, Religions Eenonination, City, County, State, egion l, Ia ional, International, and Foreign organizations with >21 0;: which each person in the 1920-27 enition of who's tho is arriliated or of which he is a member. T.e sum total or such group memberships an: arfiliations is taxen as incicative of the total number of group affiliations. The biographical sketch pertaining to nenbership in organisations of the late Luther Burbank serves as an exauple. This sketch in the 19no-37 edition reads: "Hem.An. Pomol. 330.; life fellow A.A.A.A.; hon. men. Royal Bot. Soc. of Sueden, Calif. State 3c. Trade, Calif. State floral Soc., Calif. Acad. Sciences, Italian Royal A rl. Soc., Amer.Genetic Assn.; Life men. Red Cross; hon. Pres. Chenber of Com3erce, Santa 3358; L kw 5. J 9 ',...: SD hon. Pres. 8“ Co. Calif.) Boy Scouts; hon. mem. Ah. Plryground Soc.; fellow Royal Hort. Soc. (London); Clubs: (Hon.) Rotary, Lions, \" Knights of the R and Cable, Loodmen, Elxs, o riners, tooge, Crnadian Camp (Hew Yerk) Cangfire Girls, 30he1ian, Vniversity, Sigma Xi, etc." A total of twenty-five organixations are listed in this instrnce. Qiite a nunber of these memberships are honorary memberships. It is an indication of the high esteen held by his countrymen she even by those in foreign countries of his contributions to mankind. fract- ically all outstandingly eminent leaders are preferred honorary members in sons orranisation. The 24,942 men in Who's Who are affiliated with a total of 1e3,713 Slflh {TOlpS, or an average of $.04 per person, - the necian oeing 7.1 groups. The 1,975 none are eqfiliated mith a total of ,736 xroups. 7hc average woman is therefore affiliated with 2.9 (_n 4.1 .7. _ 7’ ‘ -. '0‘ . ‘ v~. 4" by ‘ _a ‘g, ‘1, Q ‘O—J“ J J" 4' 1 ".1 , 7:3 rw‘“ ‘ firO‘UDS arm. one LU5019I1 nopvrl nlLdl u.L glAgwfls. incb.. uOJFJJS €14. "\bIT% LS —. ‘3 obvious y neiln be WHOH nianer if every loc'l 1015;11y organized arouo, A. \f‘ Slch as x rent-?e <3her Association, afiietic club, hunting clue, stidy club, and past-tixe élnb, with which every peison in who's "no is affiliateé mere given snn included. There are eJJErently ;,cco men, Generising 1;.n per cent of the entire coterie who 9112:2339rent1y uneffilict3c \dflfl1runv 81rr1110 nt sec01u2ugy ”T019. .1 soimfidlst lnimvfi: geixn31v ye 01"fi1e to mn1 (38.0 {Mir cent) sp3c cified "zero" aroug efiiiliations. Ten nno SdYSH thntns per cent of the men are affilietqd VZ'ith one orNPnizegion, 9.3 U t“o, lCoO )1 (A; ‘ _i U (1) nt 11th three, 9.9 per cent with 4, end so an. Six ( \O hundred and 11fty-five or 3.6 per cent are eggiliatee Lith as neny PS 15 or more rgenizations, three of Lth are efiiiliated with more than forty groups. Graup egiilietions are elonrently less connon sun 1ess extensive among MJncn than aiong the men. Table 10. - Inmber 9nd Ber C,nt of hho's M“o ’eeoers who 1e L '5111 ata ie Witn.lk), 0n;I 1km), etc. (Jrgeidjwuuionsi {Zlessii d b‘r;3ex. 91 no. of Ken Women o {Cd’29tiois Lnnber Hunber in Mt W‘1iich of Ber of Per 9111 M1 ted Persons Cent Berson§_ Cent 0 3005 12.2 5c2 02.0 1 2061 10.7 218 10.1 2 LL25 9.5 192 9.7 3 2498 10.0 208 lC.b 4 ”408 9. 190 9.6 3L3 . 158 8.0 leS 1756 15C7 108 10 890 11 614 12 466 15 34 118 6.0 81 4 50 a 36 l. 24 1 1e 12 5 O 0C3®MOCBGN4CDCMP$>O (OGDQCFUT O “CEDJCMDPOCDUH4 (UFJHFJDJUH503QCD¢> O 14 249 . 5 . _15 and over 655 . 10 .u Total 24,942 100.0 975 100.0 14.6 :3 *2: (0 C1" F U‘ n U) 03 5 ‘1 O *1 [‘3 b *— i 1 FA cf Ho U 54 ,_J (U 9'1 (n layment Cflna 34,942 Lho's the 91:1:in Vnited Stat 9193 meM1o IS on (D (1) an aver99e of $.04 organisations, the 497 LAo's gen residing in Hichi 9n of 6.23 or; enizations 3, and 5,785 randomly selected men, or l9ynen in Iichi99n are members of only 1.79 organizations on an average. Oryenizstion menbershi; averages slightly hi Aer emong the hho's a U) Who men in Lichigen th9n euong the LAo's fine on in t“: 9 country 9 whole. Churehes 9nC lodges seen to attract lsvgen uhile clues, Creek ’01 Letter Societies, Foreign, International, sitions , Jtete 9n: hegionel organizations seem to a tr9ct le'Cers 0ré.nizfition Aembe ship aversgcs higher among leecers then among leyAen :or 39ch tyge oi (‘1 organization, excegting lodres 9nd chur one s. Lodge membership and H Ho cAurch aehber3 io 9vereges s :ht lg; Airher among laymen then 9nong le9Ce 3 due 9999rently to the feet tA9t aunmel dues or eontritntions t these or99ni99tions are usually camperstirely suell 9nC to the feet tfiat every connunity-usuelly h9s 9 liiera l 9sgortment of both of these orgenizstions. Kenbership in City 9nd County orgenisetions sveyases sliphtly higher suing the lesters tAen anon9 leynen. lemoershio in St9te, L39ix)nel_, ifiitiorual, foiwaigii elui liltelfiuitlADHQJ. Orgfrnizerti01rs ezml ill Green Letter societies 9nd in Clubs evereye very mnch Ai9her anong the leeCers tVMWlfifinonf 93mmn1. .Agperently'a peimgni's orgenization 91. affiliations tens to neep pece with the Arenbn or one's interests. Loc9l-ninced persons tend to restrict their 9Jiili9tions to locel groups while internotionel-hinced persons zine setisreetions in inter- nation9l aroups. .iliilbe I“ O f V 7 .n ‘/ ..J "I f1 1L1‘Q‘LL 1331711.) e I‘ or-..“ ...—.— ...“ _- ' -.— -..—...- ..— -- “—..—....-.- \OfI M)u r“ ' 'J-L‘u o o g: ,. L e} ,— L7 1.1 Ulla, 11 .1041 PJCJ‘. 114‘ -H u .f' a“ i ’) i'o‘ L 571:: I i 941(‘3. ...ioi ‘ o 1 ‘ . ' .onreigi 4— I i n f “I; 4. LL. _____.— 1 V!) L ‘713. . Ad"; ‘3‘. . y'.1-’ .A.-' V ‘u.LLJ-- .— of ble ll. organi- g0. {WV JA 3 0 "lo _ _ nanonbfifillnédlgp udlna . .90 Trutul uOlnu4n& 9....u . 9010 12CPOQ..BO.. 1 04 1 04C Jru A. A. C; 7. 9p 7 11 AL . C (... 9L ...... ml A. nu l 1 1 (rs mu _ .0 up Cu 117 .../N .. ..... 8 C C9 90 [i 8 C 9.... 9.9 2 Z 7 O _ ...N 7 L 1 7 ..a _ Z 4 8 L ATV .0 a: Q. .1 or ’ .1 c: O _ , no 0 _ Q. on O .0 “O. .6 ..0 Wu 1 l Ru _.C . .../u .../N .10 ~ 7 7 m. 3 _.u 1 L _ _ 3 l 11 . _ 00 o. .0 o. o. o. o. 00 on o. I. on 00 o. o. co _ so 00 o. oo oo oo oo oo 00 90 oo o. no _ 00 o. o. o. oo oo o. oo o. o. wfl 7.90 F0 m0 . .1 .0 ...O ..C _ g A. C .....u (L. n0. 4. _ C A... , 4: ....u . no. C W1 Cl. C]. C... O _ up nrw . .../w o _ Cu 8 “L , I, Q: _ l. - ca .1 .1 2 1 1 _ _ 1 ..o C 11 1 _ n _ O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. .0 C. O. O. O. O. O. - h.“ .0 O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. .0 O. Q. ~ 0. I. O. O. O. I. O. O. O. O. 1. 0 9d 7 or, 0,. 9.. .b 0 cu A. ..O . 1 no 3 9a a ..C 9v 8 CO .../H O O 9 _ 2 4. 5 1 1 b .u .b an ...m. .r. 4. C 7 C 9n “-0 .(. _ .l C.. ru 9». A. .mu 2 1 1 a. r: _ n .L C 7 n... C. 3 8 3 4 9 .b 4 2 2 3 1 . _ h 1 cc . _ e 3 3 WI“ 3 Q. up . ,l _ C l _ ml. I: flU up nu Oh Op 1 a...» _ .1 _ .r... Lu 1 4 _ .7“ . .0 on u. on on on on so .0 o. o. oo o. 00 .0 o. — 00 o. o. oo o. co oo o. co .0 00 on no _ vfi on .0 on 00 on .0 on no on .0 259 ..o_.u0n022218.n C808 1 14. C29C1C652 e . L ma ...0 may n... nu 1 Ga 99 . .1 4 7 a...» ..C bu _ n _..u l [.1 Cu 7 hp a...” C .L 8 3 1 C . _ C 1 . _ a... C 7 .0 2 10.. a 9 a _ “L _ .. 9 .. O AIU HV 7 ~ ~97.“ . _.1 qrAU l - ,. _ .1 _ l u. .o m \g/m .9 .- .o o. oo o. o. oo no 0. co .0 _ «u on o. o. oo .0 o. oo oo .0 no to o. oo _ On to on to c. on .0 o. .0 so on TV... 8543044211075 _.1 48201717.. 8.0.1 014 e 6 vol .0 7 7 1 9... 9 3 no 5 _ S ...o 8 E Z , .3 7 . K 6 ..o t t ..E 1 L 2 8 2 C . _ .u .... Z . . 90 +0 8 .1 ’ «a .1 Q. — “9)..“ _ AC 3 e .9. n. 7 4.. Z a . _ V 5 .99. l l _ n .. _i .0 co .0 .0 o. oo o. o. o. to o. 00 00 00 no 00 g .....«J. O. o. no I. .0 o. o. 00 00 .0 on o. o. — +U .0 o. 00 no 00 so 0. 0| 9. 00 . . .0 ....u 2 7 Cc 00 1.97 .J. 8 O 1 5 _ _.....“ .. . 1 9 no 1 “115849832 181. 92.,0430012 10.9.. 2 r .c r ..C A. 4 1 b . _ O 9 nu 9 B _ H 7 0 .Tu. +.u 9 S Q. ~ ...Id Cu 0 _ J 3 n r... .L 1 3...... . n1... _ ..o ......1 .1..." 2 3 _ .6 oo oo .0 so oo o. o. co oo 00 on on o. o.“ oo o. _ S o. no on on on on o. o. oo o. no so — 1L to .4 oo o. oo o. o. .0 on o. _ 0 ug u 25900C77Q 7 _ I 3 :u 5 1 ..U 72 mm 51 4 no.0 _ J 8 41 . 1 7 Lu ...0 C. . D .(J .U 0.. A. «1 l _ O O-.. 0.. "O A. rd 1 1 0.. .....u . ..u r... .1 C tnmuu14119m021 5 . _h 1 ..b . .1 03 nd ”.L i 9 3 ’ ... ’1 _ v-" .1; - 3 I J L A. I 2 1 9 _ . 3 5 .1; 1L .n _ 7 — ru 00 on no go on o. so on on o. o. to o. o. so .0 — cl»; 0. no on 00 o. no no o. oo 00 on o. — 7 no 00 o. 0. no no .0 no on on ”7245145111166.4 : 74.. 274 e ....vru_..n0../x..11 were. 730,011 . C..[;.r.. 7.9u +u ..9C..&41 C .. 0.10.3 1 .. b a r a..- o: c; a: .1 . F/N 11 — ca LIU O ”V ......» Ali 1 )J _ - _hu 3 .... 1 1 _ .. no on o. o. .0 o. o. o. o. 00 I. .0 o. o. 00 o- — on on no .0 Co 00 o. to 00 o. .0 o. .0 - o. to a. .0 00 .0 .0 a. 0. VJ * 15430746011909. 805121 69. 0580 .Tu v _.....“ ..U l u. C _..O l 7 0,." . or” 8 na 11 7- Up _ 7 .0 7 n6 urtJZrolnul 1 ._ 3 1 .. A. ”A O ...... I no 3 1. . c , ca 0 C O 3 1 7 . . Z. 11 C 0 _ . C o. 1“ r .o .0 so .0 o. .o o. oo o. o. e to e ¢ 0. o. co o. on so 90 o. o. oo o. o. oo o. - o. go so .0 oo o. o. oo oo .mr. .c e r F _ e _ O nalb «J a _ e rs. .; J .3 d n. a r . r r 1 9.. _ .1 ”I. as 012n04fiu ”0789 r t e _ O O n... .1 - mi. 3 ... OOV. 01254156789 mte. 0125456780 7 at. C m. A _ O O V _ z o a 1 . 1 T A . 9 clubs. J N ‘ltLln; \ .cl 1 .---------------—------_—--~-——---------—_-—-.--—-.——.——~‘---------_------ .41 *3 Possibly more significent then extent of fern 1'“ 1 organization 0 nembe*ship is kind or type of orrcnitstionel effilietions. Cluos, perticulerly sociel luncheon clubs heve mode a phenoninal growth in the oresent generation. noages , now tot ling soout 8C0 Ciiierent kinds as “' - , . 9.. . " ‘ _. 1.- ' . 9, .. . . 3 ..w, + 1 4. ‘ iar es names ere eoncernec tno rcls.iv3lr net are souetueu oloer than ’ v ’ Luncheon Clufis as me iuns of nevelooing sociil brotherhood. Greek .‘n ‘, ere relatively young, being an intejrsl part of uodern higher educetion end an iaportent .hsse of the extra-curricular 1 Ho 1") e of college students. Every oecupetionel and professional group ..3 39s its national organiLstion. Commercial end industrial a soei {_‘J tions in United States alone number spororinately ten thousend. U The organization or institution that more uepple throughout history .sve formelly joirsd, ant supported in terms of time and noney has been the church. The church may be said to be the pro- 4L genitor of seconcery group fictivities. As soeeislizstion took .- I place in the es.ocistionel ectivities of life fraternities, lodges, (f 'rsde end 8960181 interest organizations and clubs sprang into being. Church membership of thr C u (6 cf 1..) O '- a ..J U] H GQLGTS hey therefore, vell be considered in considerable detail after 2 rather brief oescrijtion isaoers in lodge, Greek Letter, Club and other 0 H: Ct L) (D Y) '.. P‘. H. H }_J 1 kL H U ‘3 O *‘J .J organigations. 14'?) 1 Clubs H ‘ 1' ‘ . O o nemoership 1 Over 1/2 (61.6 per cent) of the men fine almost 2/5 (38.0 per cent) of the women in pho's ago are members of one or more clubs which are usually either civic-luncaeon, educationzal-luncheon, social- luncheon, or economic-luncheon in function. The first 825 peisons listed in who's Who ere e Silig te l with 540 aifrerent clubs. This gives some perspective of the inportence that clubs clay in the life of Who's Who leaders. A larger number of the nation's notables, men as tell as women, are affiliated with clubs then with churches, lodges or Greek Letter Societies. ?he eeitors of Uno's Rho nore than 25 years ago observeu 1st club nembershi. Wes cogsoicuous enong bfle $ .. -‘ 1es oecone so important a ~.\a nation's notables ant remarked, "The club reature of .'...'Lerice n life that the list of club Jb to Vufi‘nic n a mu or woman belongs is a significant item of inoiviCuel testes and environ- (l) ment." The men in Uho's Who bclon: on en averefle to 1.7 clubs. urtifieu with some club their C . (D Considering only the men who are i average number of clubs is 3.2. The verege s for the women are some- Lnst less, .8 and 2.1 respectively. Teble 12. - Kunber and Per Cent of Lho's Who Leaders Who are members of Clubs, Cl ssified By Rumber of Clubs of which a Iember, and by Sex. Iteri 2101;531 30. of clubs of Number Humber *———— which a member of ceses Per Cent of cases Per Cent 3,360 2 . 230 33. 2,885 2“. 22' 30.1 2,296 . 182 20.3 HFJ 1,487 tomflomfitflNi—J NHDJB‘C‘Wflk-‘x‘ll‘ O QOHNOJAOKOrbl-J H C. 948 . r”7 3.6 649 1.7 405 . 6 .8 276 . 2 .3 202 . l .1 10 or more 333 . 2 .3 TotEl 12,861 100.0 75 lC0.0 Ave. all persons 1.7 .8 AV 8. club members 3.2 2.1 *x‘" "510'8 Who, 1303-5 edition, wax-e ll. f) (‘ 150 Three thousand.th1%&:innr1red and sixty'or'zhiflljperrcent of the gen who are identified with some club are members of but one club, 2 ,885 or 22.4 per cents r members of two clubs, 2,2 “96 or 17.9 per cent are members of three clubs, etele te 9 There are 353 men or 2.7 per cent the are members of ten or more clubs. 0f the women who are club members 220 or exactly 1/3 are 1embers of out one club, 20.1 - , 1.‘ fi‘ _ . - ‘fl r, A V ‘ l,‘ ‘ J ' 3‘ _. 1 . _ .0 .L_ ‘1 ..‘J. ‘ are menbers o1 tko clues, 20.3 yer “out ar:; nenbers 01 Circe clues F- and so on . 0f the men who incicateC that they were nenbers of sone club 4,181 or 31.5 per cent specifiec nembership in golf or country clubs, 790 sta ted that they were nembers of Rotary clubs, 460 incicatea member- ship in Chambers of Commerce or COHLulCl l Clugs, 297 specified member- ship in Kiwanis Clubs, 67 in Lions Clubs, 53 in Exchange cluos, and 27 in Knife and Pork Clubs. Brectically all of the principal clubs in .1 the larrer cities, unich n‘inber be Veen 50 anc 10C in soue of the large cities, are represezmt d in hho's Uho 0y one or more of their illustrious members. T1e ini luence oI a perticuler club upon its members Vas exoressed by the late University of Chicago President, in the following words: "he have, at the Tniv rsi 1ty, that is eflleC the Quacrangle Club, and one of my collca'ucs rena1c3c to me a few cays a; that this social club was the 1083 v.rluaole asset the University had from a scientific point of v'ew. At noontime, the physicist, the chemist, the botanist, the historian, aru;*“r3£3strononer sit Conn aroune the sane lunch table anr there is no const1aint and no program. A chance renark of the historian brings the ootanist sue the chemist into the CisC1ssion and perhaps ei'ore they have finished their 111cn heon each one has gathered from his colleagues something which has helped to corrhct the one sidedness of his thinking Or to en: us an entirely new lin ne of thought. The mere Ia t that one can, tith little effort or none, learn the latest thought of investi ators in remote or sinilar lines of thoughtn serves to broaCen our horizon, increase our goints of contact ant stimulate our thinking ."(1) 1 Lany other clubs exert Joseibly equally soc1rl1 inr in luences. (l) Birton, 1rnest D. - The BusinuSS Of 9 3niVCTSltU, Kniv. of Chicago Alunni Panghlet no.1. (D Ienbership in Secret Soci ties or LOCyes. Four th 013a M11 nine huntred 81C ten men or 1/t (19.7 per cent) of the total number of gale leaCers inCicateC membership in some lnge. The average number of lodge eIIiliations per person for these 1,910 men is 1.44. AlfiOSt 2/4 (71.8 per cent) 1f them inCicateC membership in only one secret orCer, usu le the gasonic orCer, 17.7 per cent in icr ~i menberehig in tho loCrcs, 6.9 per cent in three lodges, 2.7 per cent in four lodres anC one per Cent in five r more Kore n'n inCizateC membership in the :ecret orCe s of fiasons, ,nts of Bythias and ORQ Fellows than in the other Iratennal Orders. Practieally 9/10 ($2.4 per cent) of the men tho inCicated nembershii in some loC:e inCicateC nenbership in the ICsonic oruer. There are 4,240 men tho lnCiCC‘LVC that they Cere Free1asons. The innher of gree mesons in nited States in 1926 \as C,l2u,151*. This inCicates tint one in ever ry 720 Ere masons in this coun ry is in fiho's tho and that a member of the Lesonic order is about thice as apt to be recorCeC therein as the everege person. There were 822 men or 16.7 per cent of all those who inticated --\ naubership in lOdgCS tho surted that they were members of the slks. ’\ (fir Tie membership in the "les" in Unites Strtes in 1926 1% s 822,;52**. I J :113 iIMC cates tiat one in every 1,002 of then is reeorCeC in this World Aluanec, 1927 pagé 414. *torld Almanac, 1927 page 41:. oiawrenhicrl volume, or a slightly higher oroyortion then 2revails :or the general 10)ulation. Iembership in the Knights of Bythies Lodge was mentioned by 529 men or by over l/lO of all those who specified airiliations with lodges. Pomr hundred and twenty-four or 8.6 per cent claimed to be "Ocd fellows", freternelly epeFking. One hundred snaninety-one or 3.9 per cent specified membership in the "Loodmen" rrpternel orders, llO claimed to be "looses", 54 "Enai Briths", 40 "Eagles", 35 "Red Ken", 26 "Knifhts of Lalta", 16 "Eastern Stars", 15 "Knights of Iaccabbee", ll "Grangers", 4 "O ls", 8 "Leers", and 407 who cleiwed membership in other orders, usually the higher Lasonic orcecs, the "Knight Templar" end the "Shriner". If a. ". J1 b0 C l ’D H (D c ‘f' H. (D 0’) O Ienber snip in irfle” Letter Slightly more than 1/5 of the colle; men in Lho's tho indicates Greek Letter fraternity sililletioLs. This includes Greek Letter U) ocieties or all kinés )Oth honorary end non-honorary, or social. Of the Ll,3o6 men in "Uho's the in America" who attenced college, 7,774 or 86.4 per cent indicate membership in some G1eek Letter Fraternity, and average of 1.7 per l'rite rnity men. The najority, 4,275 or 5 per cent, incic e'te membership in only one fraternity, (Y: (‘3) L0 2,874 or per cent sgecify airilietions uith tto iraternities, 810 or 10 per ceit with three fraternities, 28C or epproximntely 4 per cent with four fraternities syn lCZ or 8 per cent with five or :iore fraternities. The relation of membership in honorary Greek .' Let er Societies to laemc rship Les indicrtec in the section per- taining to education. x89 b .. . Other OrganizationsAfriliations Besides clubs, lodges, churches and Greek Letter societies, there are trade, professional, recreational, educational and other types of organizations to which people belong. Some of these organizations are confined to a city or county as a city or county medical association, some are state or regional in the scepe of their activities as a state or tri-sta36 medical association, others are nation-wide,in the breadth and scope of their activities, and some hflwgzinternational‘éfigigggg. Some are affiliated with organizations in foreign countries. The list of commercial and industrial organizations of the United States compiled by the bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce of the Jnited states Department of Commerce(1)in 1926 totals "approximately 9,000 made up g; 1,199 interstate, national and international, 1,130 state and 6,449 local organizations" which are "strictly commercial ani industrial organizations" as all governmental, educational, professional, civic, agricultural and religious organizations were eliminated. The Essearch Division of the National Education Association has compiled data on membership in several professional and technical organizations and made the following computations. They state that the membership in the American Medical Association numbers 91,792 or 62 per cent of the 148,644 physicians in United States in 1926. The membership in the American Bar As— sociation totaled 24,751 in 1926. This is about 21> per cent of the total number of lawyers in the country in 1920. The mem- (1) Domestic Commerce Series No. 5, page IV bership in the National Education AssOciation was given as 170,053 in January, 1927. The estimated number of teachers in this country for the year 1926-27 was 891,555 so that about 19 per cent of them were members of the N.B.A. Almost 1/5 (18.8 per cent) of the men listed in Who's She are affiliated with either city or county organizations, nearly 1/4 (24.2 per cent) with either state or regional organizations, slightly less than 1/2 (48.5 per cent) with national organizations, and nearly 1/10 (9.2 per cent) with either foreign or interna- tional organizations. The women in Who's Who belong to these same respective regionally classified organizations to a slightly less extent than do the men, the percentages being 16.8, 16.9, 59.7 and 5.4 respectively. Nearly 2/3 (65.0 per cent) of the men mentioned in this volume are identified with one cdty or county organization and slightly more than 1/5 claim membership in two or more state or regional organizations. Slightly less than 2/5 indicated affili- ation with two or more national organizations and a trifle more than 1/5 with international organizations. The distribution of the membership of the women between one/and two or more organi- zations is practically the same for the women as it is for the men. ,3 in 33 . j n 1 ...q — ,. . -A "'7 ‘ q '7 '7 H 7": w: A ~ 5 3 '1” F ‘ r 1‘ Y N .- ’ La!“ (5. . _. .‘7 '11.?) J11 0 1.1.1:; 1,231 n. 51‘). .L l. .1311?) J1 n O b La-1'.) f .2 '. S WW; r" _..,f T—v . ‘ 1 V ’ 7 717.7‘ -;-’—:—-—_- 0 -—-—;-.—‘ --—.. “__-: c._-'-—.‘ -—>_‘-'-_-O-— W W , ‘ '- ’ . .ii‘ . ~- - - ,r V .. ' - - . 7,‘ ' 1 , , l '1' -' 11.-.; 1. 48. .... Ml. uni LIL/.111 \Ji, - .11 .11., “L411. , 4.1-- _..-» -L 1.. -11..- JV, cox. ‘ -— . -. ”-.*- - - “-- - - .— — -i— .. -‘ h - -—* .- r, ,1 w r " l‘ _a I‘ r E‘ 7. n I r,’ i .1 , b C. ..(. ) ‘- 1. ..) I... JA- .. .. J. ,. _..-.)...i e ‘T 101.91]. _7_ ,T .1 _... fi""‘""fi’ .__.. _..—..--..-....—_.. -..... --?'__'-n- ... J- - e, _» ‘1 ,A‘ ‘ "pa . - \ . a nu. r» , ,- f. —\ - , m . . J .1 '. ’ i I -'-- ’- “'51- di VL" o 1" 1_'_Ll3’./-. '~Jr-- ...‘Jzi'ouiio .. J.‘.-. J ...u .' i.‘ :‘I A ' l. --. I, i” - O T—f.1'-,—:,... rs’f’lf-- . - I ,1 1-, . ", . ‘l ,3. ? .... r. 1.. " Q - on ' 0 - :r 0 . ‘.' ' ' . ‘r 3- . A ,-- ' i "‘ r l‘ " 1113a JlOllu (3-- .‘J—' Liar oJ--"‘ uh; o a“: l 51;:le 0U.- Lid a“): - -"C/oJ.'..-.- .L. -J 41;}- 1 ‘ V. " vv HI 'ir: 3 - ..N . ..—'» .~ TM .-:1 .=1-.;?111)<"r‘:31‘ :0” nit-:ié-z- :OI' I:l‘6-. .01? :0. rut-.11.; -.1.--.Jl‘ -I 1-1- f“ :Connty:yion"l:tio *lzrat'l ::oowntyngrelzfl‘__nvwigb__._— l : FCQS : 4C$2 : {£93 : 1435 :: ct.C: 66.8: &;.c' ué.Q 2 : 1114 : 18nd : SlLZ : 448 :: 23.6: Z£.b: L6.Z: 1;.3 5 : 563 : 485 : L?SE : 197 :: 0.1: 7.2: 17.7: 8.6 4 : lCC : 141 : 1;;3 : {8 :: 2.1: 8.5: 1C.2: 3.9 5 : L7 : 44 : 6-. . 38 :: .8: .7: 5.5. 1.8 6 or more 22 : 89 : 59; : 48 :: .4: .5: 5.5: :. --—-------—-—-------—-—---—-—--_--———--—----—-—--——-_———— _—-—-—----—-—--— - Total : 4721 : 6C35 :15060 : LL86 :: lCC.C:lCC.C:1CC.C‘ lCC.G O r o ". -‘ ‘- '-. r“ C: r" F; I c : c a : .: oi.o: oc.c: u .~ 7C () .r, r; l" r ,-. 9 0 cc. ~Q.5 7 - $3153 0:) O C“ 0 O) i“ 03 0. It‘ 1. C“ , F4 m O H (n (n H (n H l--’ C C O O (‘1 Q .0 .0 (D t. I)? to O .0 D .- C. 1 .0 to. (TA-P . \‘ICflLB ‘08’ C04. 1.8 .9 2 :: .9: .0: (,7 C. : e : 4 6 or more 5 01 pix (n to H )3}- 0 .q 1‘ C C7 (Q t o .Z‘_j( 00 0 KO 0. 00 N -Q ;l Total : 532 : 334 : CZ : 107 :: 1L0.0:1CC.G:1CC.O: lCC.: --—-----—-~-_------_‘—’----~—--—---———_-——-—-—-——-——‘-—_-———-_--—-———---——-—- Officership in Orgen'Q tions. A11 orgfi zations are engineered by oijicers, usually a p1esident,a ViCG-QTCSiheht, a secretary and a treasurer. Approximately 2 per cent of the total nulber oi men in the biographical regis ter of leading Americans are officers of either city or county organizations, 5 per cent of either state or regional organisations, and 4 per cent of either foreign or inter-national orflcnizations. Consideri;a only the men tho are members of these a.) regionallv clas;ified organizat' 1 ue-find 10 per cent of them to be officers or either county or organizations, 12 per cent of either state or =egionnl organizations, 8.4 per'cent of national organizations and 5.5 of either foreign or international orjrni zations. The pr portion of match the are officers of these same respective organizations 13 in most instances not appreciably less turn it is for 1 )0 ied 01 licerJlip in sooe organization E93 hose who speci are officers in but one organization. Zetever, an appreciable pro- portion are i entiiied with tto and Lith t rec or more ocgahizations in the capacity of an official. Table 14. - Number and Per Cent of who's who Leaders Ice ntiiied with Organizations as Officers, Classiiied by Sex and by Sunber of Org enizctions o: thich an Officer. w.’ 'w A- Lhai‘b fl i?r.1ber of 0°— : Eunber of Bersons :: : Per Cent : gani izations of: City :Stete : Bore Wr:City : Statezha- :Foreign uiich an : or :or Regehationzor In-:: or : or Reetiona1:or In, officer :Clunty: ional: a1 :ternsth:County:gional: :ternstl 1 : 59“ : 618 : 754 : 69 :: 84.0: 84. 5 : 74.1 : 90.8 2 : 67 : 95 : 192 : 6 :: 14.1: 12.7 : 18.9 : 7.9 5 or were: 9 : 2 : 71 : l :: 1.9: 5.0 : 7.0 : 1.5 Total : 474 : 7c5 : 1017 : 76 ::1CC.0:1CC.O :100.0 :100.0 v ”3‘ W??? H 1qu] W 54 ‘ N (‘0 CPD Jam I‘M-(3 1.5.9. ‘ '0, '3 " .. -,‘ ' Courcn “BHhBTbflly A larger proportion of people undoubtedly a;filiate uith some religious denomination than with any other —inr1e tyoe of orerniz :ation. The churc ch is one of history' 8 oldes; institutions. In United States slightly more than 1/2, 55.7 per cent of the people 15 years of are and over are church menbers.* The exact definition of church membership varies, lepending uoon the constitution and ore 06 ee 01 t11e church or denouination under co1s ide re tion. ’The Federal Census instructed each church to reoort the number of its members. articular rm "Luniber” "According to the definition of member used in that church or orjtnization. In sene religious bodies the e is aioliet only to com unicants, 1.hile in others it incl1 baptized persons, and in still other bOLies it coxers :1 persons". In this analysis of the association of denominational affiliation PD n1 leadership church members under thirteen wears of age are ex- ‘I O luded. This makes conparisons between denominations reasonably ‘ ~ o 0:, -\ o r) ~ congeraole. Data 18 not auilable relatiie to the number 01 church members tnenty-one years of age arm.over for the various deno ination s. C. since some nenomihations have rele11"cl" many auherents between 15 and 21 veers of are and others rel -gively Lew, cou>rrisons between Cenoxinations are not strictly comparable. The women in bho's the are gen rally aeh erent s 01 the same * The Rederal Census esti1a. es tie pogul ation of the Tnited State 0 to have oeen 117,155,817 on Tuly 1,1926. Assuming the a 1e prooortion of population to have been 15 greens old ene over in 1926 as in 192C .nn1ely 72.06 per cent, results in a population of 84,498, 070 above 12 years of age at the time the 1926 Eodera nol1 ious Census was taken. The total church membership in fnited States is 54,624,976 according to the 1926 Religious Census, of thich 82.96 per cent weie 15 years of aje aid over. This gives a church membership of 44 ,95o,264 and a non- church uenber141o 01 40,472, 806 abo1.e the age of thelve. relL ious Lcnon the following figures: Church Hembership Religious Bodies Adventists Baptist Catholic, Roman Christian Christian Scientist Congregational Disciples of Christ Eoisc copal, Bro tent Eve n~el1cal “riends Latter Day Saints Lutheran 11061131} Presbyterian Reformed EHLitariarl 'United Brethern Universalist All others Total +0.“ Jvu KIA: The coejficient of of menznnimoncn is t t1~mn1't1e txo fector C“ O prilarily in the M31 t mtion s as the men in Mao's nmo end is evidenced by BI Princigal Heli§ious Bodies, of Who' who Ken and Uo1en 'HIQ'S Uho Ken tho's Who urns. El 1 1648 36 573 as 67 107 1428 EEO coco 27 92 El 290 lELC 8490 101 671 '2 L; 2 18 1C0 6 D5 \‘2 L C“ a \V, H C11 QLWOC‘QHC’NUW‘QH £1 correlation between denominational a m 1‘filiation .88 I E .05 inoicating that the ssociation be- is ignificently close. He are interested U) 0 ive jTOflCiCHCJ of tie ver101s Canoninations in grouucing ennent and nationally xnown leaners end in the Iorces accointing Tor such variations as any exist. 1‘11 rity- seven and five tenths per cent 01' the men and 257.5 per cult of tflusxxlaen irlLdio'S \fiu) scecificd.xun1bership illiiWJe relL J:)_is (legs. nation. Table 13 shows tnat lithE 7 of tlc leacers in hho's ELO clain membership in some religious Lenomination. T 11” nczns that 28 per lCC,CCO church members ane 25 per lCC,CCC non-church members attain natio fl Listi: ction, as SVlCGRCLu by lDBTShip in this oicngia “oio."'re._1hic"l record. us 3 slizntlv errier nu::1‘oer of non-church 161’) Ienbers than 0: church members are recoreed in Who's tho. Ho doubt there are some gurgosive owiSsions and commissions on the part of some persons when filling out their biographic"l sketches. It may be that some of the notables felt that there has little or nothing to gain but possibly sonething or much to lose, Jossibly in ‘3 the form of niestire, ii a :nOKlecge of thc1 Cir c urch irriliation ‘3 become public property. Such pers ens may have reirained from stating their denominational allegiance. This ma" be true of a few of those ‘1 LhO are members 0‘ some of the nTtra-liberal or of the ultra-con- \ 4'- U 'ns. It is ,robrbly equally likely that some 01 H. C) serva ‘olVG C GHQ .11 l'i.‘ Q‘ the notables MhO are not church members at present relt that there has little or nothing to lose but possibly something to grin by mention- ng affiliatian with some deno1ir nation ti ith which they Were iorxerly identified. The ‘ifference between church members and non-church members in their relative repxesentation in "She's tho" is not great. Zhere is however a great vari 1a ion in the relative number of national leaders between the adherents of the various religious (eneminational. From table 15 it till be noted that there are 138,749 persons in United States 13 years of age and over who in IS 2b mere ad lnerents (of the various Adventist denominations, LC of when had- attained r11.1101ent notabil ity to be listed in "Lho's Who". This inaicates tes attain 'I‘ L. that 16 out of every 100,0CO Adventists in United St national eminence. Two of the 8,182 adventists living in Iichifian are listed in "Who's Who", a rate of 25 per lCC,CCO*. In spite of the fact that Iichisan is a rather small sample for ’5' k (1:! 9‘ *Michi an is too small an area an t1i01 the rat per lCC OCO can be determined accurately. For example: 150 only one of tie 8 ,122 Ad ventists in liciigan 83‘0“”‘Q in ” Zmo' who" the rate per lCC,CCO waild then be 18, and had 3 0; then been listed t:1e te would than have been 37. Due to the sarllnezs or the sanple(1ichi n) "zero" rates are CiYNthGd to Cmyae Tfiljjf:0?8 111;i s. I'D f1 determining accurate nahcrents of 6 1111191100 Ufiltgd States (s 2 thole anal indic2tes the Iichigan as 2 sample is a good representative scuplc of the mhole of United States in this rcspsct. The cocjriciont of corral tion bet.ccn the total Lho's Who church membership in rnitccl States and the total Who's Lho church Refilbe ship in Iichi;an is 9.94 1.C2, an unusually higi1degree of association of v2rious in Kichiga more than orginary signifi / v rates of attainimr national pl omincncc 2uong 4.1, . U-i v religious Csnominstions, yet rate of n parallels prisinglv Clo; cly the rate for :ancc and reliability. Tablel5. - Church Hemoership 3" Prix mo 1.21 Religious Bodies Unit 3d 8 2tcs Relijious Bodics Euncer of Church .112 1 1113 21 s l u‘ 3'1 s . 1111.211) 8 r 03 2fe and over in Rate per 1926* 'J1o' s Rho lCC C,0C0 Ad v;ntist 158,749 22 16 ?2:3tist 7,9C5, 788 1C84 l4 C.tholic, Rowan 15,358,L92 8C9 5 C1ristisn 153,7; 2 69 51 C1rist12n Scientist 2C2,o78 125 62 Jon,reca+10n21 865,180 1528 177 Disciples of C rist 1,279 x‘Co 22 18 Wisc 0391, Bro cstcntfl,372,0C5 2925 215 UV H’FllCMl 528,898 28 5 Frie nds 92,892 99 107 Igstter 32y Saints 478,815 58 8 IJMICle 2n 5,740,459 292 8 Liet}1odist 7,284,584 1910 26 .zr221mtcr12n 2,185,560 2611 12 IZciorm ed 52A,l;5 108 21 Tjnited Brethcrsn 380,214 50 8 Tjnit2ri2 n 59,550 727 1‘2 Iniversalist 54,245 74 156 All otho 4,415,02g 184 4 Total * Computed from 4 :'?;. _, 4 13“"‘7‘7— 4&,SUU,‘—JU‘: ‘J’UKJ/ Ynitc 3t2tcs Lcligious Ccnsus, 1926. Adventist Baptist Catholic, Roman Christian Christian Scientist Congregational Disciples of Christ 15,774 Episcopal, Brotestcnt 46, L2 Evangelical 37,3; Friends 817 Letter Day Saints 8,001 Lutheran Elo,oe2 ‘r ,-‘ .T' --otnonist Presbyterian T‘Ififl ,-/- ABLOTJUd T . .' F, T ' -, r ‘ )7 Jnitco firetueran 49o '7‘ g L . ’f ‘7 4:11 Carlan UH1V€T891 st The rate of eminence varies consider religious denominations, beinr the highest, follived by ‘5 s '_ v? {‘3 I“? H 18 (’TT (9. Q 7 ‘ (NI-JOCTOQHi—‘Cfl -\ " D n l- v H F‘ r4 C“ (>3 NNQON$HOOHH©O®OUQ®N COx‘I H {\3 H10 H (”i m CDnrq<3fi>orqc3C>t 04 C F D] \‘1 ably between the various l:i;;:.l per lCC,C(‘C for the 'JILitpri_nns, ‘- 1 r1 0 :A". p “a 1 e13 :or the LQlSCOpaLt, 177 lor tne Con- greetionfllists, 186 :or tie nivererlists, 131 for the jrcslyterizns, 107 for the “ocietv 0“ Friends, 62 ior the Christian Scientists, 51 for the adherents of the Christian Churches, 2’ for the Lethodists, 2 Jor the members of the Reformed Churches, 8 for the T“isciples of Christ, 16 f r tne Adventists, l4 lor the Raptists, C .Jr {Re setter Day Saints, Lutherans and United B etheren and 8 for the Evangelicals and'RJJXICetholics. There are 1:0 or more tines as many Unitsrinns in tlo's who in grogortion to their number as there are Rowen Catmolics, Evengelicels, CH. .JJL Latter Day Saints, Lutherans or United C, Jrr‘ 0: “‘3: gregstionslist Universalis Presbyterians, ethern. EgisCOprlians, Con- l" ,0! _nd Friends (ineliers) 16,. are ot1er church ai‘erents 110 111r in "who's Uho" in much larger relative nnmbe13 than the ateiege church 1 ”ber or th.¢ in tie average non-church member - in fact thr ti1es as orten or oftener than the everage church membei, end e1 tir as often or 3: ener than Regan Cathglics and Brianyelic'ls. Lian}; fretors no doubt contribute to the great writ-1 ion in the r e11 tive nn1oer of lealers of nationzl prominence a1ong the vczions reli us bodies. A small part of the diii'e ence 19y 3e Cue to some denomirations having relatively more .f‘ '1‘ 4.“ L1 . ‘ .g .. ' ‘ ”1’1" a.,, 11cn Ooflel‘iiflurllfat 10 _1e (it! 118. grinarily due to other rectors, erincioa no 11,) 1" mil l\. ‘J and inter-group :iiiliations, 1 content of deno1inational the close associas tio n in churc fl men .s r1ready 0681 noted. church nenlers 18 years of ege end over erwfii or ttua 1ri1m3inel imfilifiioaj:.1odi;s ~ A per lCC,CCO of sack religions body 'iven. “or y-four Adven In prooortion to their number ”nitarien ‘) 6.; PA; any religious body. re are 579 this faith reéorded in Lho's Who W ’1. o o ‘ _'_ f o .. _. the ipisCOQalians Conbregati U=11 ts U) ..‘c .- ,1, 01 ‘di‘Lr’ L h ne1berohio betreen Table 15 repres *istanen)per 1CO,CCC ‘Unita IollOML Tr.-' , - - , 11111 V31‘:~_;f.l nd 21 '7‘.) years of Li'rlgf; 11 06 CO 11y certain social forces, such ation, extent an; LiVBTSlty teacnings. Lina's 1510 shows the number of and of Who's ’n‘ho leaders in class1fied by sex. T1e rate ented in Uho's Rho is also men a_1_1ear in Lho's who. men ar; the nos t nuw1+r01s of rien men per lCO,CCC men of in OITEH‘ of Imfl;.tire ITUfl< by U. J." (" _ J‘v‘H. UL), .LJ. ;s)~tJ:/err3rir1(' S. H. ea 1 . F‘ 7 #. J“: , 4' ' ‘ V ‘ ‘ .. ‘ov 1 "‘ fi ‘2 .lrlelchS, C [I‘ls it‘ll “0.1..‘41 5).].‘5- 1:, .1 - 0‘ lg.) b0, 1L JALJI. 1 Url .1011 l\J\/_ U, ‘1 . A "3 fl” (wJ‘ ‘ ;’ . 1r“ “ J A", J“ a T‘ o . I J“ 1:]. 3n]. 71.68 04. .inlale’ ‘mfl VOL) Ll. J , J I J 1. ,1 ’ 14F U91.“ #51:], Dijlntb, .LJ‘ LI.I $631.!- US T ' 1'1 1 1 . “ O ‘I 3 1. ' Ilitzd w 1e‘"n, even c-1ccls en' h01an t;01108. ., . .‘J ‘. .- _. v a. I I 1 9 ‘ I.“ .-\ . f) .. ..., . Tie relative reikirg oi She “1 en in ”10's hAO is in fiwflalfil defl ‘ ,. .. . .u 1, - , , 1 ° ,1 0. , .r ,. -. '1 '11 4. . , w,‘ 4.1. «J ,.,l. 1.- . the same as wnet ior men. The principal e,Ce1t13n lo that among the no“ 0% .J H F4 Ho d .33 H H. '1) :5 :17 ‘GJ of the Christian Science Church, who ran: n.1t to v, l! nniscopfl tomen. There are 174 initerinn women per lCC,C(G vo1en 0“ this denonination suificiently ironinent to attain bio ra1hical 1ention in flho's the, followed in order 0: relative rank by the V cv'o1.'11<.sn 110.1“. 0 : ‘.T)"+'(‘t d.) PT'. j 7r 1 r-' c 1Y1?- “floulan vcicntis 3, Con 1 LH1101rLIUJS, nive rsal sts, rriencs, Psesjvterians, Christians, Reformed Church members, Latter Bey Shirts, nodists, “ave ntis ts, Ragtists, Tiscinles of Christ, Ro;en Cath lies l 9 gVflhéuliCElS, Lutherans and ”nited 3*etheran. Table 16. Church he.n oers~ip by Brinci1el Religious Bodies, Clesriiied av Sex q- -en fiel i imris Llofiiz LTL115“‘ o; Clutrcli members 15 years hunber in Rate per of 9:: ant over hho's nho lCC CCO Adventist 47,561 81 44 haptist 2,591,189 1,048 56 Catholic, Hanan 6,ClC,555 575 10 Christian 55,541 67 185 Christian Jc’entist 48,845 107 are Can erational 526,470 1,45 457 Disci:fl£ns 3; Cdrist 5C8,789 23 45 331500391,110o501rfit 547,217 5,bLO 484 2V-‘7.’ r“"llpfil c521),007 27 12 .1 .‘1‘1 ends Latter Day Saints A O C- ?C‘- k. 0 92 225 ,1 1e 31 14 ,571,765 290 ie 1 t: (1’ La cf- cf- D J O CD 9*: +4- 2“) m :3 c+ {‘13 l-—‘ [13 1.4 .7 _q Presbyterian ~ €81,567 8, /9C 25 P rde 349,106 1C1 41 d Bretheran 144,557 5 2 1 an 22,521 671 £879 alist - 8,595 69 575 ...-6 31 61 Haven Atventist 9C,4C6 1.11 Beptist 4,195,269 5 .66 Catholic, Roman 6,446,690 5 .6 Christian 75,676 2.64 Christian Seientist 72,2 6 . l 24. 95 Consre atioLal 55 6, 662 1C 18.65 Disci;les oi C1rist 755,2 C mcqu<,noomroo=ozi—J O O 03 391300139], 3150532365‘1r1t 3'6 ,C13 ‘67 (57.26 Evangelical 28%,870 .55 Friends 49,614, 14.65 Latter Day Saints 226,632 p.22 Lutheran 1,865,965 .11 ”ethodist 5,969,665 6 .5 316sbvte ian 1,462,166 12 8.65 201 rmed 564,949 ‘ LTnited Bretheran C5 ,664 Unitarian ,168 Universalist 51, 552 (71 CFCIOQi—‘Oi a: . C‘ A number or other uorkers heve 1 Ce this aaie discovery re froing the relatives 01H a nce of Congregationalists, Universalists, nelro) litns, ant 6s;ecially of Uniteriens,in Who's tho, the "Hall of fame" and in other halls of honor, and the relative scarcity oi members of certain other denominations. Dr. C. C. Little recorded the den6nina tionrl aifiliatiJns of the lawyers, medieal men, scientists, authors, editors and writers eppearing in "Who's Rho" whose names begin with A, M and t, with a view of seeing ‘what influence religious grererence had noon liberality and achievement. lie clainec tie; if religion exerted no influence there should be approx- inately the same percentage of each 6 k L) 1m1i11ation in "Lho's tho" as Chere is in the general poggLation. Xe, however, fauna tide vsriation s. Says Dr. Little, "Tnitariens, 39 S1 cogelians, Congre a ionrlists, Universalists, and.ETesbyteria1s ere among the growls iar n1oie numerous in 'Mho's ‘Uho' than LOllC be expected on t e insis of the grogortion of the :xagnletior1xd1ich they Ltnxn. Hep is s, iwetl Ju166s, arm Ck are distinctly less numerous than tonld o: aIpeo ted ii there MES no correlftion betyeen C6nomination end 11.6111w ion in the fields above :nentionee".(l) (1) Little, 3. C. - The Lisspjearing Personal Touch in Celleyes - Scribners, (fiov. 1586) Vol. 60, pg. 470-1. firs «L T Lu comu1ulztinj on the Little st9t Les, ”It is jsrhups vorthy Lenominntions wropowtio_r.t(; have strong fwnLedethlist fangs sut9list in i p‘ 10 95-sons f0 Vt .L. or note, hox gver, tga ans?" (1 d 1 Who' y lens represents 9 Lings or gsrtiss 1L n3 is sapny gnu tcaen1ng."( ) LQV.e oose ;‘“wd_the asso:19f10n 00 } 'J *3 O r 3 0: 0:» 3110 tzlree 1 "' . S “-10 ' tho J" W,_ Lranhly u1‘3'31’l educ + on enl denominati019lism and consents on it 1n n1; usual ‘ .~ ' 4“ -- 7'. :- CH“’90tGTlS¢U3\£Q7by'LQJlng, V O _ ‘ O _ ‘ ' t _'_ _II ‘ ‘ ... _“ . ’, 1 .' "I u.cyxst ;Qr1*t a«L1 .L £3 .1 an qJOlUt‘, 30gb. a4, 19u7, Vol. 8D, 9. 599. 1 G"? "In 1ro1ortion t the to tal church 111e:.1‘:1e1‘sl1ip the T-'11:'1{saris-“1118 have iRDrtfi';isrrs their (giota i11 "Who's .Jra'; the ;)yisco:v1 icns 4C3 ti1cs, the Con- rcrntiorolists 5.32, the friends 4.67 911C t11e rresby- teriens ‘ .17 times their tuotes. All the other (1hu1 chcs frll below their quotes ith the 23:1en CFtholics 51¢ a large group of minor sects “37'sterin le 35 than ttcntv per cent of their emote accorCi11.7 to c11urch m1 mbersliip."(l) ‘ .: . ' I- -..-- 1‘ r n --_ 1 '1, - 1:. «I -,.~.: 4.- . ’2. _~. 1 ~ '1 ..;.'— ,. r7 :1 . ~ ollec 13 pr. 3. n. oer1oil lor the 1.11st1an he 81o, iSQc, an“ ioanc ' ‘ ,~ ' ' -. f. V1 - ' ’ - 2 ‘ _ \ v? ‘- 0~' . 7 ’ ‘l " -‘ 1 '- . ‘5 T ‘ . ‘ ' in the “Oflu Almanac ior 1937 ud two in 011er "to 31 ce it on QQOdt the same basis es the largely adult membership oi the Brotestznt 110618". i J h): *— r)- O __J \1 :3 f: L!) I...J k; ::4 C] 99 p ( - O r—J T F evantr;e to the Catholic cox1stiticncy H. H F J :3 {V \L d‘ (D 'flJ (11 (D L. 0‘) Religious Cets1s of 1986 shows 71.78 per cent of 1,. rd; (1) '3. 5‘ v '3 U3 0 *- C+ H (D Roman Cefigolic Church to be 13 years or age and over ‘ .-_..‘-&-. [:1 .0 . ...l“ , I _- a" 1 lzlmotsfo. Or 0111;] 011:: -1511. The study of Ellsworth I'11111i11;ton 9.1.11 Leon 3. ‘..'hit11e;,r le ads supoort to the tendency elr Edy mentioned. Taking the religious affiliations of the men in the 12th ecition of Lho's Who one CO1JrllIé their results tith the size of the n1i1erent denominations 3 C) H A C) :3 H :3 the Year 310k of the Churches for 1925 thov find the United Brethern, unfelic ls ,Lutherens, Brethern, and Roman Catholics have only from 3 to 8 persons in "Mho's tho" for each.lCC,OCG adherents. Then at a far higher level then t1esc cenoninetions, and the Loraine, DiSCioles, Adventists, me;orned, Shotists, Lethcoiots one the Jews appear the resb"te1*iens tith 62 men in every ltC,CCC echerents, the Con 'e ation- alist s 1ith 113, the Eoisc oot lirns 1ith lto, and the Jniverselists'tith 1185. The: iounn the contrasts even greater for the non n than among the men. They find, gor example, that "A Uni t r. ' n Q “I a”? 8.?) 1 be 110 ltd N ‘ .1 \ . >‘-‘ :8 fl 3.40 (1 '1. L. :1 Tn- I" ‘3'" lrlbg +- ' ‘ r S U9-t1 (11" , W 'v. "1.18 3:1 '2‘ . 1" ‘- Q .‘ i' M11101 Ila-3 u .; ~'.fi I vi 1, ‘ " '1 ’v't'.l-.)..1 tle J. ILt txet ratner Clarke Unitariane, 1.1, , «r 3.x, - J. 1 LUXV_;£kflLDLl ‘u LLLLDCCLyils, _3e 11'- n ).-)r‘;nnc~ J‘.«r_‘:+ pxrn-rnr S U - -A_ 4’ LID u..\ d v .L')’ Uniterians p rel 1:3 ion. (3 “Tn tP“'rns e The nito‘ Stetes Bell; selery of DES tors in the Tni ill 91;; oifi1e1‘(;crnyiitm;fii011. Conventions of the Sew ::laries o” meetors in the denoninetions f'. — 1 .w 1 +‘ 4. ‘DLlllCL a-LOl’ng p.18 ’1. ._ ., ,. ‘. ' 7. ' 4- JJnLlcgaUlOmullS' H l ULLO. 11148.46 CL 1n mi lation and regnom3abunee Uhetzwwgthe ceuses everaged very Ail nt then a d T61 11.5.)“ 1.01:). eriCtn OS, ;sts, ans 1 11 all uncerlyi end. relative numbers "rien \QLVQl 17 2pc times eesILikely to be 111 gho's qho' n Catholic wontn, en¢.over CO ti as as lit 1” rs even a e ”nited Bretbern". l) ilein the vrrietion in tenaminetionel regrecenteiwon b* iteriens are the grodnct of a proloxw process of selection en greewir ntly iitel ectuel. Onl‘ a :nougntful person in el_ ct (climates th e rtions islihclv to be attract::c to cold, self-contnilec cre;C."(2) n of levee-s relivtively many end Universalists an~ relatively ”01“ lio‘en J(.nol ics.(3 (T) as been uede of 1 over eny other ST]. n5 this pneHJ;Enon. r ‘7‘ i J ‘ ‘1 ‘~‘\ ”‘u ' ‘1 'i 4‘“ " oi lJlb s1ous tnet tne altlELe “- ’2 "n m IA 17r 3::“(1‘ ‘w ' - .7. tW-‘h' ~ ‘21.le I-C- ‘1le MA 1.1!} ..llf—AXLI‘ {lCnfl e Jewish Congregations, the and grotestent inscojel tqose in other denominations --inisters like other leecers nnc workers re swell" psic recording to tEeir worth or the volue of their services. The rizher svcrtve salaries among Unitarien preachers woulu inciccte reletively excellent services ron tnei. (l) Iantingtan, ;ll3w01th fine L“1,L3,, Leo: J. - Religion and ”JO' “ Uno - Americen LerC‘rv, (Ai.. S2 } Vol. I . pp. 438-43. See also - BLilCers of America. (2) Ibid. (4) U.3. “olifious ”H310, 1916, Bulletin 142, I). 73-75. 1:; C“! ..r‘ u The n CT 0 s Lis tinguisning large of Jnitariansm toca' are its "i11sist encc u1on booi1 e i'1m3 the suprez-1e 11(0n e oi 1, its olrsnnce 31 t' religious 01inion, itsrievo tion to m 1ca ion and g} enpnesis u13n cW1ai cter, as the 11inci1olesoi LUH(" religion".(l) (_ozl ir1 DuliLu., its IF‘ ifg l nthropb, and its 1e11tel 1.13ri‘nce in The Unitarian church is unique in never having adopted a creed 'norg rec tired 01 ”18 Wb ers or .1n1ster'o 1rogeo'1on of a particu ar octrine. Their eughasis is ugon nose rather noon creed - noon personal religion, moral advancenent, ani civic and social rerorm rather than ugon predestination, re engtion, vicrrious atonenent, ;1irccuioxs conczgtion, infant damnation, reincarnation, transnb- (I) tantiation, original si’fi, regeneration, 13311ti3n, 9-;11a-1‘1ce, (‘3 resurrection, eucnar'st, extrege unction, prenillennial no i.ninent coiink 01 Jesus, auricula; conjessions, Livine healin3, eternal ounish1ents ant regards, and sanctification. Unitariinism is essentially a p ilosophy of human telJrre thru education and this no doubt occo1‘ sfor the fact that it 9336818 to the educated em; rati onal-znineed 160913, the rec list, scientist, and lover of facts. that is true of Unitarianisn is more or less true of Con r e~agi3nali$¥n Universalism anu EgiSCOQillEhiSfl. (1) United 3totes Religious Census, delirious Bodies, Vol.11, 3 153s. " ” 3 in"??? Inter-group Ajfiliations of Zen Lon ers. To what extent Lo male adherents o: the Lifterent religious p, 1‘8 (U bocies ajjilii ate 1ith other organize groups? An attemgt is 1 Hate to answer this Question as iar as the ll,770 hho's Rho men tho are members of the 18 pievioi sly n3n ioneu religious bouies Ere con- {‘3 . cernc The Jnita ri n lc aeers belong to an average of e.t7 organizations,fl~e the igiscopals to 6.50, the Jniversalists to 0.40, the Congregationals to 5.88 and the Bresoyterians to 5.80 organizations. The acherents of the other eli ious no: is s belong on an.avera§e to fe er t‘.n 3.80 organizations. It t11ecrs that the denominations with relatively .any prominent national leacers are the very ones those members are iCentii i ed with consirerably more than an average number of sec01cary groups. Reciorocal influences are no aoubt it work. Thet is, t}1e relative liberalness of those Len01inations which pernitted its aLge ents to -'_‘ join organizations "ithOJt being circumscui"ed by restrictions has ‘ V caused nerbers of suco chircr1es to nultioly the number of their soci:l selves thereby leaning to arcs ironinence, and the diversity of interest. anc liberal-nineerness of the neubers of t1ese genominations paves th way towards re.noMn for then. A relatively Sial ;ercent§,e of Jnive 1salists, Jnitcrians, Ejiscooa li ns, and Congregatio'als "re neubers of only one organization. Conoaratively many Liiscogalians and Unit .ri.ns are ideztifiec with 12 or more to mally or a‘iZeo seconcarv groups. spisco1aliens and JnitarienS‘tenc to be members of relatively .39 clubs for the loime r and 3.21 to '1any clubs rs a rule, averaging clubs for the latter. The averages for all other denominations are , esz. 3~e 033.1icient oi corn“ lation bet sen the rate per lCC,0CO church members per {enoiination in who's the and average number of club affiliations is +.bl inLicatinn a merged eegree of JQSlthG association betzeen the two factors. Sixty-five and nine tenths per cent of the Unitrrians belong to one or xnre clubs. The Episcooal _o -_v ‘ .1 .V V ’_ _ o 1 _s A u. v: ,1 ' ,. ,-. ’1‘ _4 ... "'4 V ..- ‘4 . u ‘ church 1&3 tic ozn f .vnooinaio~ 1 18V11M,€l lrigilr palChA-3OéC in. its 0 c t- “‘7‘ U) '3 CD H notables identified with one or more clubs. Seven and six ten cent of the Jnitarian leaLers are members of seven or nore clubs. Of the notables among the friends as high a oer centage and of the EpiscOpal leaeers a higher percentrge are members of seven or nore clubs. flineteen enL eight tenths per cent of the ~Tnitcritn leaLers J. are a nenbersof Golf or Country Clubs. A somethat larfier percentage of the Episcopal and Presbyterian leaeers are nenbers of Golf or Country Clubs. As members of Chambers of Cowaerce or Commercial clubs or of Rotary or Kitanis clubs the iajority of followers or the various religious faiths are as linely or more likely to be henbers as are the Unitarian leaLers, 2.1 per cent of whom'belong to Chambers 01 2.4 per cent to Rotary clubs anL 1.2 per cent to Kiwanis clu LoLges are not one or the favorite organizations of the leauers as only 19.8 9e cent are nembers of one or more loeges. H Lodses seen to egpeal to the Universalist leeLers) then belong to one or more lodges, one to the Christian Scientists, as.47.8 per cent of Discioles of Christ, Iethodist and Christian leaJers. As many as .5 per c3nt of the Christian leaders ane 5.2 per cent of the Disciples 1 of Christ leaders are .enbers of four or more lodges. The Elks Lodge appears to fascinate t1e Universalist, the Christian and the Disciples of Christ, leaders)as 13.0, 7.5 and 6.7 per cent resioctively are ~_' _J' W. I._ ' 1“ [I 1'- ’3 ‘ r. "- '11., Tr v f 4" 4_ n \, _3' _' -. _. . - ..1-3. .JLIS o1 b.1588 01’”. ’31 S. ..118 11121911118 01 jiflxllfi S Lodg ‘d 8180 SLICK-1 gpeculiarly attractive to the thEbLUo 1 tieee sale Luise couicoes. .O .O .C :00 .A- v I . 2.1 x} 1: .C 9 .0 a) o O o o o UTCROKOC Q Uni—J O C Q j‘: CDQKOKO-QC Forty-t1roe our cant of the 011i stie - SoieLce l 2Cers cl 2im membership in the X2soz1ic order, followed in OTLST by 40.1 per cent for the 3nivers2lis s, 38.8 per cent for the Chi istiens 2L0 58.6 per cent for the Lethotists. The Universelist and the Christian le2cers 2120 seem to ‘nre ve stro :3 1g proclivities to join the one Bellow lodge cs over l/lC of each sgecify neohersnii in it. Over forty per cent of the Tniversclist, Congregetionel, Iethocist, Presbyterian 2n 32gtist leeCers sijr Wif a11ilietion v.ith one or more Greek Letter oci (:0 ties. A tenth of the Congregational le2 Cers st2te c+ that they ere members of aree or more Greek Letter Societies. Pr-ctically 1/4 of the notables of the Reformed church indicete aifi li 2.tion *ith the th Beta Kappa Society. The cerc 911t2'e for the £0 :‘ri.:f,=:1Cs in this reopect is l .5, the Con; re vet1on2l1sts 19' .0 per cent and the Tniversalist s 18.8 per cent. Over 2 tenth of the congre- g2. ti3nal lee Cers specify 2ifilietion in the Sigma Xi fraternity. The 9ercent2ges of United Brether2n, frienis, Letter 32y Saints and finiterien leesers 1»'-.-":1o are members 01“ the Si; :22 Xi 21‘s elzmst 2s high 28 ior the Congreg2tion21 le21ers. One-111rth (35.5 per cent) of the Uniterien leeCers ere members of county or city 2131ts11ox l or tecq1icrl or 2n1'2 ions. 311s is a higher proportion then grevrils 21ong the notebles of other religions faiths. Over 1/5 of the Episcopnl 22C Iniverselist l; 2(e ere sinilarly affiliated. Dtenty-eight 2nC six tenths oer cent of the Unitarian leaners are members of State or Reg wiol l projessional or technio2l or22 nizations in \hich TCSQUCt they are e}:cee CeC only by the Unive1selist 2mg the 3;ristie n ler2 Cers. Over 1/2 (17.2 per cent) of the inn «L119 n 1m Cers 21%31nexflyxrs of thnnl.LDP{LTf2KV“iOHS. *1he Frienos, 3on2rrga,ioLil latte r32y Saints, 2n1 jois0092l 2re the only T ,_ T. 0 f. ' . t I H 3‘ ' a" __‘o ‘1‘ _ ‘ _ ‘ — -- I \o o .‘ otier 1elib1ous booies oo:e tien hel; o1 xuose leeters ere 911l119tga 1/W 1fi741 onel orqenir£t1o1s. :rfcticfilly a tenth o: the Tnitariens \ ...—30 . .' 11 J- ‘-l til Ina U '8 W ere we1orr° 01 -orazL n or In te1*nstional orgcnigctions ”LL in union JW‘I . V v .' ‘ ~ :7‘ I 3 - + ‘LA ’4 'xv. 1 Z . ‘ . , (‘4 1 \\ t Lued rsn1 aoove a1l 011L1 lellalJUS gTOngo (T. L” Q m Q As a rule the more liberrl flnL (emocratic religions COLies have larger 3roportionsof their Lrt13n llv proninent nLqerent‘ acting in o11ici€ l C'pr ci ie 8 in 00111 W, City, State, fiegionel, Lntionel, Soreign 91nd Internqti a1 or enizetions. 3f the Tnitea Bretheran leFLers only 6.7 per cent end of the Rafor ed Ch'wr c11 leeters only 11.9 oer cent have less than a coll ewe (. q a '1 . .- _ I ‘ . 1 ‘ 3 ‘. 1 ~ '3 1-- .3 . ‘ ' \ 1, J." '_ 'f-‘u‘ ’. a _‘ ‘- 0 ('V ' NJ ‘93 .‘ ‘4 — "_ r GCL‘ 119311311, 371:, L‘LO 1011,1317, 1.11136 OJ. 3-16 3:.llbtlfrn uClLI’lCG 11.3%"..(161‘8 3.0 oer cent 2nd of the Ronnn Crthglic lenLers 45.4 per cent have F4 in a :1; I} J t n 9 college ed1cetion, the tto highest in this resoect. 11ere seems to be a fairly‘.r1fitL,Cegree of positive association betteen the relative number of 3rominent leaLers in “eligious boLies and the Percentflfle oi church members nirilietEL thh ‘0r101s orrcni- \ I‘- O U Zn ZOHS. the 003111010Lt o1 corrclction bettetn the rate )er lCC,CCC church members (men) per den3min9tion of national prominence, thich .iey Je chrrecterized by the symhol, D, end the 9er cent 110 are neibers of City or County organizations is +.02; that between D and per cent who are members of astionel organizations is +.44; that betteen D end the per cent who are tembers of foreign or Internetionel organize'ions is e.52; that between D sno the per cent tho hold a}. J. 0110191 go itions in city anL countv organizations is +.41; and that betWeen D and the pverrge number of clubs of which a member is +.El. J — All of these Luentitntive errressions of Legree of relstiohship ere positive end 'nLicrte that the (en31inati3ns whose 1Lnbers tenL to restrict their formal group 11111tions3 there3y limit the exgnns i3n of their 3ersonslity, the number of their sociel selves and thereby their 073ort1nities for ccfirieve1ent of national.11xxxn1ition or attei: | J t—J- Ow) "YV L nenti3n 1n Hho's Who. ,5»- _-,. 4. 81111c1ent not to :"wri t ‘-: J; 0,; ‘1‘8. ’7’L 1P~c' \_ '. 317::1'11’1RY 1511:) 311;..x31'1331o'11b L stersni, is a universal hunen phenonenon. The social :Luolit as, the :roup e”1ilietions, find the inter- ; roup rels,ionships - of contemporary lenders in all fields of human ectivities has never been comprehensively st 1Li L. fhe "fiho's tho in America" functions as a hiogrnghicel ieierence Lork o: sugvosedly the "best known men end women of the country", the "most notchle living Americens in all 3erts of the world - the men enL Loqen those position or echieve- ments make them of gt e1ere 1 interest". The 1920-7 edition with £o,915 biogrrphicrl sketches serves es s ressonetlv cstisfsctory list of Aiaricen lenders ago in edeguete nutioer. -1e lender-irocucing ire es of the country, as far es tho's tho lesLers are concerned, Fre Catsschusetts 11c largely t Hervsrd ) ’1 'Universitv sun its influences end the District 01 o luibia d1e to the I. , feet thtt it is the n9 ation's most diversified service center. In general, tiers is no consistency betteen the rijferent sized cities in the raletive pronuction.or‘echievers. 1:3 enirretion of Kichifen-born leaders to other stotes is three times thct o1 the emigration of Tichi;sn-horn.genersl 3oouletion to other sttte‘. jfigditaen yer cent of Yiehignrnqxnnigqenercl poo1gstion have migrated 30 other states theress 75.5 per cent of fichivsn- born hho's Lho lenders cnd LC.8 per cent of Lir: wi"n born R U S or Agricultural lenLers have nigrtted to other s;"‘>s. L15L ers end leymen both tend to migrate to the cane states tho leaders ere less restricted by 3rooinLuity. The iinigrstion of Anericen-born lenders int fiichigen is 2 l/Z i..1es thet of the 1.111ig' 2 Lion of American-own general populttion into Iichiqrn. o: the American-born populetion residing in Iichi en 24 -- a r: 1 ~ .. :- . 3.- 1- - . - J»! ,- 4. .' -. - , 4.. .. 4. 1 4.-. . ‘-, .3 - . pei Cent 01 t1e generel 1opulet1on rre naolVHm o1 QLJUU surges, Lier as )7 / 1h~7y as 1er cent of the 11o11c n-to1n Lho's “1o leaL —rs and 48 per cent of the Aqeri,sn-born R U S leaéers 1n Lic1iran are natives of other states. The inn gration of American-horn migrants into Xichixan, “0th leaders anfi lrymen, tend to be from the sane states - Ohio, SSW w«DIR, 111111013 1‘7? {1(1. IT-dj—QILE‘J fir 7:) le leaLers are 12 tin s as anl rous as female leaders. The CD median are of the men is 39.6 rears enL of the women 57.3 years. The groportion of leaders to total zoiilation is many tlfluS nig her for the olL.r are gro1-s then for the younger age groups. The number of eminent men per lCC,CCC male 101119 tion increases fairly rerularly and gradually tith each s1ccessive age group up to and I H. neludirg; fine 90 to 94 fear e g:MCNl). A very sliyhtly greater proportion o: the nation's male leaders are ntrrien or have b en 1nrried than of the nation's laymen e. A very much staller oroportion of the nation's feiale leaLers are narried than of the nation's general thfllG fe Listpioution. Leaders do not Larry at as pogul.ti n oI the sane a rr,‘ early an age as laymen. The LeLian age at marriage is 29.0 years Ior ‘ h r. ‘ ‘ m I‘ r i ’- .' ‘~ 1 1 ’1 ' ‘1' " "1 '1' 1‘ 1' " vi‘ _ - "1 ‘ >1 '1: “v . ‘ . ' ' 1 < '1- tne hen anL Leu131fi1s ior tJCMJLrJlLflm JCTltbQ Lentrniijiuho's who. ’7,’ , / . ,1 1 1 ,1 ,1 - - - A ., .1 ,. ,.,-. Jver o/& (84 ger Cent) oi tne leaLJrs attenLei college an PNJ over 2/3 (09 per cent) graduatrc Irgm college. A collese graduate is about nine ti1es as likelv to attain national recognition as one who is not a :raduate. Stnientsirraiuating Irom college with honors (l/L to l/lC of tht quitatirg class hgving the hig1est schoLarship verages) are three ti es1=s li.ely to becone leaLers of national iwaortince than other college grecnates. Lany who attain ti? scholastic honors of HLJDerehip in the Bhi Beta Kagpa Society ere abo1t 17 times more likely to attain squici nt "cuiove ants in arter life to merit Lho's ”Q3 n.ntign thfin is thct s bola. ic lC.< ership in college is le Cersn 9 later in the affairs of the professional people tors ‘, - 0:191‘90 = portion in the totil 1011lation. ICn C'! 0 men 7 times 0ft 1 '13 apgear 20 times and to numerical ratio in the v1n'11ll’r “11101“ C 89,8191122t13n chfrflcteri es the 1ajorit fcss-aseli ation nut 31incnce re closel LiSCBTS are 1C1so.*s \ith n11Cr ous nijiliCtlons CLC memberships - one -:nl membership in $013 ,11 ions (Cnominetis 0118 01“ 7.101%“, ever"Cay 8 EC. 1~ man, indicating with V; O 1‘ l (L 0 Ce Cn rCed in public services ~er numbers th9n their pro- in proressional service en in hho's hho as their (1 gogulatflxni. Speciifilisz V of the thables Bro- y aSQOCiPtmd. Civersified orgpnizatioual f o; to: zen Cosihaate 1 / ' 3 ‘o 7‘ r w‘ on“? ' n, 1,2 pCC113 1C3011C113 in college men 1nCicnte Géeek Latte Fraternity afril1rtio 1, 1/5 11th some trsCe, technical, >rofessional or ot1er orgrnibgtion thpt is - ,- .- A 1. ' 1 / 1.x- . - : ,1 1 «- 1 0115 or ~ouiuy-ui