The polar effects of alkyl substituents in electrophilic and nucleophilic chemical and electronic transitions is discussed. The question of the importance of hyperconjugation in the electron donor properties of alkyl substituents is raised. In view of the cogent arguments of Dewar, it is doubtful whether quantum mechanical calculations embodying hyperconjugation constitute proof of this effect. That the art of quantum mechanics may not yet be sufficiently developed to be used as proof for or against secondary resonance effects also is evidenced by the calculations of Simpson, who found that an internal dispersion force model (in which conjugation was neglected) reproduced the properties of butadiene just as satisfactorily as the models embodying conjugation. The experimental facts do not unequivocally support the hyperconjugation hypothesis and indeed are, at least in part, contradictory to it. In particular, the demonstration that the Baker-Nathan Effect 2 may be due to the influence of alkyl substituents on the differential solvation of ground and transition states casts doubt on the interpretation that this experimental effect is due to a dominant role of C-H hyperconjugation. In nucleophilic chemical reactions, rate or equilibrium constants for para (or meta) alkyl derivatives are somewhat smaller than those of the corresponding hydrogen compounds. A number of authors have interpreted this in terms of a permanent electron donor role of alkyl substituents (e.g. by hyperconjugation) relative to the hydrogen substituent. However, this static viewpoint of substituent effects fails to account for the finding that p-alkyl substituents function as apparent electron acceptors (relative to the p-hydrogen substituent) in appreciably lowering the energy of the nucleophilic principal electronic transition of phenol, anisole, aniline and N,N-dimethylaniline. These results are qualitatively rationalized in terms of ‘substituent-polarizability” and electronegativity. The p-neopentyl substituent lowers the energy of both electrophilic and nucleophilic electronic transitions to an appreciably greater extent than either the p-methyl or p-t-butyl substituent. This extra stabilizing effect of the neopentyl substituent on both electron deficient and electron rich centers may be due to an internal dispersion force interaction, since the geometry of the neopentyl compounds is particularly favorable for such an interaction.