In these troublous times, when apostles of Kultur assail disciples of Liberte, and hordes of Muzhiks slaughter swarms of Bauern, a neutral often wonders what is the relative worth of these men. Americans especially are interested in the character of the immigrants who flood into the melting-pot of our national life. How can we tell which will make the most desirable citizens? How shall we rate the nations? Of course there are comparative statistics of foreign countries and the figures of our own immigration, census, and police authorities, showing the proportion of illiteracy, naturalization, and crime assigned to each national group. These data are of greatest significance. But there are also important personal qualities, such as sympathy and adaptability, which are difficult to determine statistically. Nevertheless, we are convinced that the typical Celt surpasses the average Anglo-Saxon in certain traits. We might arrange representatives of different nations in order according to their relative excellence or deficiency in a given quality, just as we rate orators without any fixed scale of measurement.' If we could be sure that our exemplars were fair samples of their people and that no personal bias influenced the estimates, we might even assign them numerical values and standardize them as inspectors grade produce. One way to avoid the danger of restricted or biased selection is to consider the arrangement of samples offered by many observers and to offset their aberrancies by striking an average. Obviously the resultant rating is no better than the mean judgment of these observers. But if we should select the most expert students to