With all due endeavour to avoid the appearance of a study in total depravity， the foregoing analysis has come， after all， to converge on the growth and derivation of those peculiar ambiguities and obliquities that give character to the typical academic executive. Not that all academic executives， without exception， are (in the historical present) to be found fully abreast of that mature phase of the type that would so be reflected by the exigencies of their office as outlined above.
Nor need it be believed or argued that no man may enter on these duties of office but such as are specially fitted， by native gift and previous training， for just such an enterprise in meretricious notoriety as these official duties enjoin. The exceptions to such a rule are not altogether rare， and the incumbent may well have entered on the duties of office with preconceptions and aims somewhat at variance with what its discipline inculcates. But， it should be called to mind， the training that makes a typical executive comes with the most felicitous and indefeasible effect not in the predisposing discipline of candidature but in the workday conduct of office.
And so consistent and unremitting is this drift of the duties of office， overt and covert， that， humanly speaking， any one who submits to its discipline through an appreciable period of years must unavoidably come to conform to type. Men of unmanageably refractory temperament， such as can not by habituation be indued with the requisite deviation and self-sufficiency， will of necessity presently be thrown out， as being incompetent for this vocation. Instances of such rejection after trial will come to mind， but such instances are， after all， not so frequent or so striking as to throw doubt on the general rule. The discipline of executive office will commonly shape the incumbent to its uses.
It should seem beyond reason to expect that a decade of exposure to the exigencies of this high office will leave the incumbent still amenable to the dictates of commonplace tolerance and common honesty.
As intimated above， men with ingrained scholarly ideals and a consistent aim to serve the ends of learning will still occasionally be drawn into the executive office by force of circumstances -- particularly by force of the slow-dying preconception that the preferences of the academic staff should count for something in the choice of their senior member； and this will happen in spite of the ubiquitous candidature of aspirants who have prepared themselves for this enterprise by sedulous training in all the arts of popularity and by a well organized backing of influential "friends." The like happened more frequently a quarter of a century ago， at the time when the current situation was taking shape under the incipient incursion of business principles into university policy. But it does not appear that those incumbents who so enter on these duties， will fare notably otherwise in the end than do the others whose previous training has already bent them to the typical policy of deviation， from the outset.
An illustrative instance or two may well be to the point. And the same illustrations will perhaps also serve to enforce the view that anything like an effectual university -- a seminary of the higher learning， as distinct from an assemblage of vocational schools -- is not a practicable proposition in America under current conditions. Such seems to be the conclusion vouched for by the two most notable attempts of the kind during the past quarter-century. The two instances in question should appear to afford clear experimental evidence to that effect， though it is always possible to allege that personal or local conditions may so far have affected these experimental instances as still to leave the case in doubt.
In these two instances， in the Middle West and in the Far West， the matter has been tried out under conditions as favourable to the cause of learning as the American community may hope to offer， barring only the possible inhibition due to an untoward local colour of sentiment. Each of these two great establishments has been favoured with an endowment of such magnitude as would be adequate to the foundation of an effectual university， sufficient to the single-minded pursuit of the higher learning， with all the "modern appliances" requisite to scientific and scholarly work， if only their resources had been husbanded with a single mind to that end； and in either case the terms of the endowment have been sufficiently tolerant to admit such pursuit of knowledge without arri鑢e pens閑. The directive hands， too， under whose discretionary control each of these establishments entered on its adventures and attained its distinctive character， were men who， at one point or another in their administration of academic policy， entertained a sincerely conceived scholarly ambition to create a substantial university， an institution of learning.(11*) And， in a general way， the two attempts have equally failed of their avowed initial purpose.
