20

had just been commercialized. As these establishments were now putting their goods on the public market, it was to their entire advantage to see that the articles were correct and well illustrated. The director of the Sèvres factory was exceptional. All that was necessary was immediately forthcoming. At the Gobelin factory the Chief of the Interior, charged with providing me with illustrations, never even responded to my letter, and when telephoned to on the day the article was due declared that no facilities for publicity existed, and finally rang off in disgust at my importunities. I was forced to borrow the photographs from a private publishing company. At Beauvais the director could not be convinced through a lengthy and explicit correspondence of the necessity of responding to a very simple questionnaire, nor did he ever send one picture. I bought my photographs in Paris, and "Foreign Trade" had to pay for the reproduction rights.

It is extraordinary how this general inability to utilize the simple forms of propaganda is current in France. It is not confined to any one class or type of organization. If I read in the news that the University of Louvain, in Belgium, is going to have an anniversary, and write the secretary for material and photographs, pictures and pamphlets are in my hands in a week. Although I have done a dozen articles on the Sorbonne in the past year, there is not a photograph which the secretary can give me.

F

ROM the point of view of personal advertising, I greatly admire the French attitude, even though it takes money out of my pocket. I quite believe that a man's private life is his own, and that if his business or political or scientific accomplishments are not good enough to stand alone, it is pretty cheap stuff to popularize him with the public by making him out a good fellow, with his charming and stylish wife thrown in for good measure. When I am refused pictures of the interior of a French philanthropist's house because he feels that his house is for his friends and not for strangers, I lose that much money, but I am entirely of his opinion. Why should M. Doumergue be trailed as President Coolidge is trailed during his vacation by a staff of special reporters assigned for the summer to make life miserable for him? It is a form of barbarism, this intrusion into the homes and private lives of the great, and the reserve and dignity of the French is admirable, as the freedom from scrutiny of her persons of prominence must be the envy of

our own.

Underwood & Underwood

The President of France, whose home is his own

ern business methods as to the steadfastness and common sense of her Minister of Finance. Advertising, when it is done, is apt to be crude and antagonizing rather than attractive. In the newspapers one finds small advertisements sprinkled through a column called "Echos" which one reads primarily in the hope of having news. In the magazines the best results are shown, for here the artists of both pen and brush do clever work. Another place where advertising is found, which miraculously has been spared the American public, is in

the theater. There is not a cinema too small, nor is the Opéra-Comique too im portant, but that the intermission sees a screen covered with often very clever animated advertisements. Here at least one may walk out into the promenade if one is bored.

Probably the worst abuse is advertising by radio. The good-will program, which has put practically every fine feature of to-day onto the American radio concert, is practically unknown. The radio is used for direct advertising, and a good musical evening will be interrupted any number of times for announcements five and often ten minutes long telling you what you will find at some department store. Printemps, for example, will pay for the relaying of an opera, and between the acts, instead of a discussion of the settings or costumes, you will be told that sheets will be sold at Printemps the following day for 105 francs.

IT

is increasingly evident that France is becoming aware of her publicity shortcomings. Her German neighbors in particular have already brought their commerce back to a pre-war basis, according to the recent statement of Dr. Julius Klein, of the United States Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce. In addition the tourist propaganda of other countries is increasing by leaps and bounds. Vienna, Prague, Düsseldorf, carry full pages in all the papers, and much money that hitherto rested in France goes on into these other cities. I have been astounded this summer to see how little my American friends buy in Paris. They feel that clothes are as well cut and as reasonable in New York. They hear that leather goods are better in Vienna. They will wait for linens until they reach Czechoslovakia. Why not? These Governments are spending money on telling the world about their products, and place better facilities within reach of investigators, who through gratitude are glad to give them the free advertising that is invaluable in lectures and magazines.

That the French attitude toward per sonal publicity will change is doubtful, for, with all the Frenchman's reputation for volubility, that instinctive reticence concerning his private affairs is a deeply rooted trait. Another five years, however, is bound to see the charms and products of the country paraded in a more scientific fashion, enabling France to maintain her national prestige in the European competition which grows yearly keener.

Paris, August, 1927.

S

The "

MALL families are supposed to

have a great advantage over large

ones, especially if the income is small. The mother of only two children can devote to each far more time than if other babies were occupying her attention. They can be taken to the seashore or mountains, attend dancing classes, go to a private school, and have fine tools, good books, and many other desirable things. Later they can spend a summer abroad, go through college without earning their way, and perhaps inherit an appreciable sum instead of a pittance. All these things might be impossible if there were six children. Do they not constitute important advantages? Another widespread belief is that the more successful people are, the less likely they are to have children. Is it not common knowledge that the upper classes have very small families?

Both of these ideas are untrue.

Why, then, do good authorities repeat them and almost every one believe chem? Simply because nobody has taken the trouble to investigate. are some of the facts:

SIXT

Here

IXTEEN hundred students of native white American parentage graduated from Yale College in the classes of 1922 to 1926. About half were sons of college graduates and came from a fairly homogeneous social level. Is there any relation between the success of these students in college and the number of their brothers and sisters? Yes, most emphatically.

In five different lines of activity the students from the larger families systematically excel the others. In the classroom, for instance, the thirty boys from families of six or more children **forge far ahead of the one hundred who the are the only children of their parents. le Those from families of two to five children also surpass those from the onechild families.

In extracurricular activities other than athletics the degree of activity diminishes from the one-child to the four-child families, but increases notably in the be families of five or more children. The explanation of this twofold tendency in probably lies in a combination of the effects of home and school. Boys from small families are more likely than others to attend private preparatory schools, where they learn to take part in student activities before coming to col

lege. In the large families, on the other hand, the children rub up against one another, get their corners knocked off, learn to take part in group activities, become skilled in adapting themselves to

tainly not very apparent. In fact, a boy's handicap in college seems to be almost proportional to the smallness of the family from which he comes.

In athletics the advantage of the large families is remarkably clear; the bigger the family, the greater the average boy's success. The rough-and-tumble play of one small boy with another is the best preparation for college athletics, both physically and morally. Nowhere do children learn to "play up, play up, and win the game" so effectively as in a large family where the children do not vary too much in age. Moreover, as a rule, large families of any given social grade have better health and greater physical vigor than small families. Where there is only one child in a family the reason is often found in the parents' lack of physical vigor. Among college graduates who send their sons to Yale a large family is usually a sign of good health and constitutional vigor on the part of both parents.

At Yale the seniors still cast their votes for the men who are most successful, most brilliant, most industrious, and most likely to succeed in life. Although these votes are largely an indication of popularity, the men who get many do tend to be successful later in life. The Yale classes of 1922 to 1926 gave at least a third more votes, proportionally, to their classmates from families of four or more children than to those from the smaller families. This may indicate greater ability among the men from the larger families, but it almost certainly also indicates that the free-for-all of a large family makes children good mixers and leaders, and more competent and agreeable than the petted only sons in families of one or two children.

The earnings of the sons of Yale graduates while in college average six times as great among students who come from families of six or more as among those who are their parents' only children. Yet, in spite of earning so much money, the men from the big families have time, energy, and ability to surpass the men from one-child families in every other phase of college activity. The supposed advantages of small families are cer

have not been to college fall decidedly below the sons of college graduates. Those from large families are superior to those from small in nonathletic extracurricular activities, in athletics, in senior votes, and in earnings. In classroom rank, however, exactly the opposite is the case; the smaller the family, the higher the rank. This seeming contradiction is due to the fact that Yale students whose parents are not college graduates belong to a wide range of social levels. As we go down in the social scale the general degree of ability declines, while the size of the families increases. Such being the case, the best minds naturally come from the smaller families. Nevertheless in everything except purely intellectual activity the men from the larger families have the advantage.

The strongest evidence of this advantage appears when we divide the Yale College classes of 1893, 1896, and 1898 into the following eight groups: (1) unmarried, (2) married but childless, (3) married, with one child, etc., up to (8) married, with six children or more. In the classroom the men who remain unmarried rank lowest of all; those who are later married but have no children come next; then those who will be married and have one child. All the groups which are to have two or more children succeed decidedly better than those who are unmarried or who are married but have no children, or only one.

Turning to extracurricular activities, the relation between success in college and the size of a man's family becomes clearer than ever. There is an almost steady increase in success from the unmarried men, whose average rating is two, according to the scale used in this study, to the men with six or more children, whose average is four and a half. This implies that a relatively large percentage of the college men who remain unmarried, or who have no children though married, are relatively deficient in the physical vigor which makes athletes and in the qualities which make men leaders in extracurricular activities and in life. On the other hand, the men who later have reasonably large families.

22

comprise a high percentage whose college careers evince physical vigor, push, energy, originality, and at least a fair degree of intellectuality.

The age at which men marry is closely correlated with the number of their children. Among the married men of our three Yale classes this age varies systematically from not quite twenty-seven years among the men who have six or more children up to thirty-three among those who remain childless. This difference of six years is symptomatic of the fact that men who are physically, mentally, and morally sound are not only more eager to marry than are the opposite types, but are more attractive to women, and more likely to be well established in their life-work, and hence able to support children, at a reasonably early age.

The most significant and perfect of our comparisons is based on success in life as determined by the opinions of five or more classmates. On an average, the unmarried men are the least successful; those who are married but have no children succeed a little better, but not very well. The man with one child succeeds somewhat better, and so on until the most successful group comprises those with six or more children. The differences among the fathers having three or more children are slight though systematic, but below that the differences are pronounced. Of course, some of the best men in every class fall in each group from the unmarried to those who have six children, but on an average there are many more unsuccessful men among the unmarried and childless than among those who have a number of children. The idea that successful people have few children finds no support whatever among Yale graduates.

IN

N order to be sure of our ground, let us divide our Yale graduates into ten equal groups according to their degree of success in life. On the whole, the most successful tenth graduate younger than the others, but the difference between. the two extremes averages only about half a year. The age at marriage shows the same kind of difference, the range being from thirty years among the most successful to thirty-two among the least successful. Even more marked is the relation between success, on the one hand, and marriage and children, on the other. Among the most successful tenth no less than ninety-five per cent are married, while the percentage gradually declines to only sixty-six among the least successful. The percentage who have children falls off in the same way, but even more rapidly, for eighty per cent of

the most successful group have children, and only forty per cent of the least successful. A similar, but even greater decline, relatively speaking, is apparent in the fact that among the most successful men about forty per cent have at least three children, but among the least successful only ten or fifteen per cent have.

Still another way of representing the same thing is by means of the average number of children per father, or per man. The most successful tenth have, or have had, an average of over three children per father, the least successful only 2.2. But when we take the children per graduate, and include, not only the fathers, but the unmarried men and those who are married but childless, the contrast is much greater. Among the most successful tenth of these Yale graduates of a generation or so ago the average number of children per graduate is 2.4; among the least successful tenth, only about 0.8. The intermediate groups are distributed between the two extremes at almost regular intervals.

YA

means

ALE graduates are by no unique in their correlation of large families and success in life.

At our suggestion, Dr. J. C. Phillips, of Harvard, conducted a similar inquiry in respect to nineteen hundred Harvard graduates, with results exactly like ours. His most successful group, comprising less than seven per cent of three classes, reports an average of 2.19 children per graduate, compared with 2.42 for the highest tenth of the Yale graduates. His lowest seven per cent has an average of .80 of a child per graduate, compared with .85 for the least successsful tenth of the Yale graduates. At Harvard, as at Yale, the results for single classes and for separate occupations are the same as for the whole group of graduates.

No matter whether we study lawyers, business men, bankers, professors, ministers, writers, engineers, or any other group, the most successful are the most likely to marry, to have children, and to have a considerable number of children. The evidence is so overwhelming and so unanimous that it presumably applies, not only to all college graduates, but to every group which is socially homogeneous, especially in the upper classes.

The Outlook fo

families and the lower classes large fam lies. We have overlooked the equal important, but less conspicuous fact th within any given level of society the r verse is true-the successful people ter not only to come from the large familie but to have relatively large famili themselves.

Why should this be the case? Are n many of the finest people unmarried childless? Certainly; but that has not ing to do with the matter.

The point of the problem lies in th percentage of the best men who fall each of our groups. The unmarried me for example, undoubtedly include plent of very fine individuals, but they als include a large percentage who are u successful or deficient physically, mer tally, socially, or morally. Young wome do not want to marry such men. Sti others might have been much more su cessful if they had had wives and chi dren to stir them up, encourage them and hold them to harder work and fine ideals. The same sort of reasoning ap plies to those who are married but hav no children. In this group childlessnes is often due to physiological causes fo which the individual is in no sense re sponsible. That is the misfortune o many very high-minded and successfu people. But with these fine types mus be put a large number who have no chil dren because of their own self-indul gence, selfishness, or other defects i character.

The larger the number of childre from the higher social levels, the mor certain we can be that both husband and wife are physically strong and nervously sound. That in itself is a great help to success. Moreover, parents whose equa ble, dependable temperaments help them to succeed in the world are also able to get along well with one another and with their children. They are much more likely to avoid the divorce court and to desire four to six children than are peo ple who are irritable and erratic. Altru ism likewise helps people to succeed in life, and also favors large families. Thus many qualities which promote success in life also promote large families.

September 7, 1927

of three or more children almost immeasurably excel the others in practically every kind of real success. Moreover, the children born in the large famlies reap inestimable advantages.

Thus the available evidence seems strongly to indicate the desirability that

people with a fine inheritance physically, mentally, and morally should have an average of four to six children, not only for the sake of society, but for the sake of the children. Such tends to be actually the case, in spite of the common supposition to the contrary. But this

23

tendency needs to be strengthened in order that children of the right type may

be so numerous that their kind will not only be preserved, but will increase in relative numbers, thus giving the world a larger and larger proportion of highsouled leaders.

A

T a recent meeting of the Executive Committee in Paris the International Olympic Committee voted to permit the members of the national teams taking part in the Olympic soccer or Association football tournament to receive compensation for the salary lost during the time they participate. That this money is to be paid to their employers instead of directly into the hands of the players themselves fails. to remove the suspicion of professionalism which results from the decision. If soccer players are entitled to compensation, are not the runners, swimmers, cyclists, gymnasts, and other Olympic athletes entitled to similar consideration? In Europe it is felt that the amateur character of the Games is endangered. Sport circles are perturbed.

To understand completely the deep interest of the European countries in the Olympic Games one must first be aware of the feelings of close national rivalry which exist. Dual meets of an international character are frequent occurrences in Europe, and arouse all the enthusiasm of intercollegiate contests in the university communities of the United States. An analogy is to be found by imagining each of the forty-eight States in America to be separated by national borders. rather than by State lines, and each having its own language and customs. Athletic rivalry under such circumstances becomes more intense because of the close geographical proximity yet distinctly separate nationality of the groups. In Europe the Olympic Games, bringing together many countries, is the sum of such national rivalries.

Since their inception the modern Games have been restricted to amateur athletes. It was Baron Pierre de Coubertin, that noble sportsman of France, who first conceived of organizing an amateur meeting of many nations in athletic rivalry every four years. was inspired by his personal admiration of the English public school system and the English ideals of sport, and he determined to impart those ideals to France and the rest of the world. The

By DAVID F. DAVIS

first renewal of the Grecian Games took

place in 1896-in Athens, appropriately, place in 1896-in Athens, appropriately, where young Hellenic manhood had been accustomed to gather in ancient times. At the fourth celebration of the Games, in London in 1908, the Baron was able to see the representatives of twenty different nations compete in twenty different forms of sport. At the most recent celebration-the eighth Olympic Games, in Paris in 1924-he saw fortyfive nations contribute a total of competitors three times as large as that in 1908. Nearly two thousand amateur athletes took part in the track and field events alone.

In Europe it is felt that much depends upon whether the International Olympic Committee rescinds its decision in regard to the soccer players; if allowed to stand, it is feared that the Games may become merely a professional world championship. The Olympic Committee, so its defenders say, was forced to take such a decision in order to save the Dutch Olympic Committee, as the organizer of the contests that are to be held in Amsterdam next year, from suffering a financial loss.

Trouble had developed when the International Association Football Federation declared for non-participation at Amsterdam unless the International Olympic Committee recognized the right of the players to compensation for lost salary. Ordinarily it is left to the Federation of each sport to determine what constitutes an amateur athlete, but such a proposal as the soccer authorities made was hardly acceptable. More trouble developed between the International Olympic Committee and the International Lawn Tennis Federation, and the Dutch Olympic heads faced the prospect of organizing a programme that would have neither soccer nor tennis. The receipts from these two sports form no inconsiderable part of the total, and Holland began to lose much of its optimism. A deficit appeared to be a certainty unless something could be done; it was under these conditions that the. International Olympic Committee capit

ulated to the soccer authorities, and attempted to save its face by making the reservation which has been mentioned— that no money should pass directly into the hands of the players. However, Count Baillet-Latour, the President, and his fellow-members of the Executive Committee failed to observe the elements of consistency. At the same meeting in which the soccer players gained the privilege of recompense without having their amateur status endangered it was voted to notify the tennis authorities that former professionals who had been requalified as amateurs by their national association could not be admitted to the Olympic tennis tournament.

Few people have a quarrel with the professional in sport as such, but many harbor an understandable dislike for those who assume the guise of the amateur but who accept the rewards of the professional. Therein lies the so-called problem of amateurism, and it has kept pace with the growing complexity of our system of sports and games, national and international.

When the British team of professional golfers journeys to Worcester to dispute the Ryder Cup matches, it is received with much of the enthusiasm that is paid Bobby Jones, the great American amateur, when he reaches England on the way to St. Andrews. When Suzanne Lenglen appears in the United States on a professional tennis tour, she is accorded all the courtesy and admiration that is offered to Tilden when he walks onto the courts at St. Cloud or at Wimbledon. The professional-unlike the prophet-is not without honor in his own land or in the lands he may chance to visit as long as his identity is clear. The amateur is recognized as one who participates for the sake of the pleasure afforded rather than for pecuniary gain. For the amateur, sport is a recreation and not a business; and he devotes to it a portion of his leisure time, and not his working hours. Probably as long as athletic competitions and games continue to be regarded as pleasurable forms of recreation there will exist this distinction

24

between the amateur and the professional. Inability to distinguish is at the root of the problem of amateurism.

The Outlook f

tallized a world-wide amateur definiti which will cover every sport. In strivi toward this ideal, Count Baillet-Lato could have no better example to follo than that set by the man he succeeded the presidency of the Olympic organiz tion-Baron Pierre de Coubertin,

The most encouraging aspect of the Olympic situation as it now stands is that faith has not been lost in the ability of the Games to rise above the taint of professionalism which seems to threaten. What do our readers think of this

Paris, France.

E

VEN more than two years ago at the first Conference the problem of China engaged chief attention. The magnitude of the issue about China is by this time pretty well perceived by the nations. Four hundred millions on the march. Time still counts little in China, but it counts more than it used to. New and varied forces are impinging upon the arousing National consciousness. Hundreds of able students being educated in the politics, the science and economics of America, and returning to be leaders in their native land; others trained in the Japanese military colleges-Chiang Kai-shek, the recently deposed general of the Nationalist forces, is one of these; Russia's deliberate and subtle influence upon Chinese students and labor leaders and her propagandist zeal with the multitude; the mass-education movement spreading among the illiterate population; the industrialization of the country arousing the workers to discussion and organization and a fighting spirit against the low economic standards of the past; the mounting cost of living unbalanced by corresponding rise in the earning capacity of the Chinese people; a new desire to live a life as far above the hunger line as possible; the old educational system of training a man how to live among his fellow-men giving place to a system of training a man how to make his living; all issuing into a struggle for the unification of China, for an authoritative government efficient and honest as Chinese Governments have never been, and based upon the will of the Chinese people.

come suddenly aware that foreign peoples have taken away from them territory and sovereign rights, and they are bent on regaining them as quickly as possible. It may still be a long time, but four hundred millions are on the march, have turned their backs upon their past, are now wandering in the wilderness, but are on the way to the Promised Land.

And foreign governments are scurrying to adjust themselves to the new order.

Germany and Russia no longer have special privileges in China. The Allies drove Germany out, and the Chinese drove Russia out. Russia as a Government is back again by the door of subtle penetration, but on the outward basis of equality. Japan and Britain are profoundly concerned about the new order. Japan has many hundreds of thousands of people in Manchuria and precious rights there, and is churia and precious rights there, and is in sore need of more land area for her population; furthermore, if China is given back her full right of tariff autonomy, and the import rates should be ruthlessly raised by China on certain commodities, it might mean starvation and upheaval for industrial Japan, which so depends upon China for an expanding market. Britain has already seen the handwriting on the wall. Force, concessions, the power of finance-she no longer relies on them. She is ready for new policies at once; and new treaties, as soon as they can be authoritatively written.

America's power in China is mainly the power of missions and education. We have relatively little trade, although at this point, in taking advantage with

other countries of foreign-made tari and foreign-controlled courts in Chin we have to an extent profited by China structural weakness and government submission to foreign influence. We a a bit like the little boy who was goi by an orchard with some other boy The other boys proposed to steal t farmer's apples, and the first little b said, "Oh, no!" The rest of the lit boys stole the apples and eventual caught up with the first little boy farth down the road and offered him an a ple, which he accepted and placio munched!

But nevertheless Chi knows that the heart of the Americ people has been with her through t years and is with her now, and al gether the best record in China f square dealing and true friendship h been made by America.

And the Chinese are not blameless. a people they have had great private i tegrity but little public integrity. Th attitude toward their own Governme hitherto has been one of despoiling and grafting upon it. It is no wond that their Government has been we and pusillanimous in the presence of t advanced nations of the earth; and co cessions in international settlements a court and tariff control by foreigners had their rootage originally in the nee of the moment if China were to do bu ness and profit by relations with t advancing peoples of the earth.

My personal impression from t Honolulu Conference is that by far t best lead for American public opinion follow is the support of the right wing the Nationalist movement. Anythi that this country, its Government or people, can now or later reasonably