THE ETERNAL QUESTION.

It is well recognized that the present method of selecting managers is unsatisfactory. Generally speaking, a good manager must combine three qualities: executive ability, cheerfulness in doing protracted and often disagreeable work, and that indefinable faculty of getting on with the members of the team called "personality." There would appear to be nothing in common between the competitions now conducted and the finding of such a man.

In practically all managership competitions--those for University football and baseball alone excepted--the main work is the collection of money. At the start of the competition the understanding is that the man who collects the most money will get the job, provided he is personally acceptable. This underlying condition has led to many sharp decisions and much ill-feeling--we cite no instances, but the air is full of them. This must necessarily continue, so long as the present system is adhered to. What is the use of having a competition, if the best competitor does not win out? The money itself is hardly a consideration, since there are other and less obnoxious ways of raising that. The sole actuating cause seems to be the idea that there must be a competition of some sort, while there is not enough other work to be done to try out the capacity of the contestants.

Obliging the manager conducting the competition to make a final report to the "H" men of the sport, or even to the Student Council, stating his decision and reasons, although it undoubtedly eliminates the possibility of graft, cannot cure an evil in itself incurable. We should strike at the root. The fairest and most effective remedy seems to leave the whole matter to the Student Council. Abolish competitions; let the applicants for each managership hand their names in to the manager; let him, after investigation, report to the Student Council decide, upon their past records. This plan has been found to work in other colleges--why not at Harvard? It would allow no room for personal grievances, since it would do away with competitions, the facts of which always leak out. The Student Council would not be hampered by the necessity of balancing the results of a competition, which at best is no real test of executive ability, against the personal equation. The Council would be reasonable and fair in its judgments. The candidates would not have the chagrin of doing invidious begging to no avail. Finally, the friends of contestants would not have to drain their pockets to help in the glorious victory or dire defeat.