for instance,[5] for the confectioner:  “Boys in this industry must be clean, quick, and strong.  The most important qualities desired are neatness and adaptability to routine”; or, for the future baker, the boy “ought to know how to conduct himself and to meet the public”; or for the future architectural designer, “he must have creative ability, artistic feeling, and power to sketch”; or for the dressmaker, she “should have good eyesight and good sense of color, and an ability to use her hands readily; she should be able to apply herself steadily and be fairly quick in her movements; neatness of person is also essential”; or for the stenographer, she must be “possessed of intelligence, good judgment, and common sense; must have good eyesight, good hearing, and a good memory; must have quick perception, and be able to concentrate her attention completely on any matter in hand.”  It is evident that all this is extremely far from any psychological analysis in the terms of science.  All taken together, we may, therefore, say that in the movement for vocational guidance practically nothing has been done to make modern experimental psychology serviceable to the new task.  But on the one side, it has shown that this work of the experimental psychologist is the next step necessary.  On the other side, it has become evident that in the vocation bureaus appropriate social agencies are existing which are ready to take up the results of such work, and to apply them for the good of the American youth and of commerce and industry, as soon as the experimental psychologist has developed the significant methods.

VI

SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT

Before we discuss some cases of such experimental investigations, we may glance at that other American movement, the well-known systematic effort toward scientific management which has often been interpreted in an expansive literature.[6] Enthusiastic followers have declared it to be the greatest advance in industry since the introduction of the mill system and of machinery.  Opponents have hastily denounced it as a mistake, and have insisted that it proved a failure in the factories in which it has been introduced.  A sober examination of the facts soon demonstrates that the truth lies in the middle.  Those followers of Frederick W. Taylor who have made almost a religion out of his ideas have certainly often exaggerated the practical applicability of the new theories, and their actual reforms in the mills have not seldom shown that the system is still too topheavy; that is, there are too many higher employees necessary in order to keep the works running on principles of scientific management.  On the other hand, the opposition which comes from certain quarters,—­for instance, from some trade-unions,—­may be disregarded, as it is not directed against the claim that the efficiency can be heightened, but only against some social features of the scheme, such as the resulting