IN ADDITION to the communication of knowledge, technique, and skill, contemporary education is slowly but consciously beginning to give attention to the development of personal and social qualities considered basic to a successful career. Graduate faculties, however, are so little concerned with this aspect of education that many of them doubt whether personality development is a graduate school function. It is the purpose of this article to present the opinion of a cross-section of distinguished American educators on the issues implied in the title of this article. The 204 leaders were from 45 states and included 85 graduate deans, 66 presidents, 34 deans and faculty members, and i9 representatives of precollegiate education. Readers interested in a more detailed analysis of the implications of the opinion of these leaders on this and other aspects of doctoral study are referred to the writer's recent book, Toward Improving Ph. D. Programs, published by the American Council on Education. Perhaps no issue raised by the comprehensive study of Ph. D. programs was of greater interest than that of broadening the doctoral candidate's training to include more than purely intellectual discipline. There was substantial agreement to the effect that the prospective college teacher and research worker should be educated to work and live cooperatively, should be willing to assume social responsibility, and should live as active and rich a life as possible. There was likewise, explicit as well as implicit in the statements made, rather widespread recognition of the fact that the personal and social qualities of the average graduate student leave much to be desired in such respects. Despite this meeting of minds there was nevertheless little agreement on remedial measures; and there were rather marked differences of opinion over whether or not any remedy fell within the proper scope of advanced graduate education. Many of those who thought it promising and thoroughly realistic to use the dynamic environment of a graduate school to modify the personal and social characteristics of doctoral candidates were disturbed at the factors of negative selection that attract atypical personalities to scholarly careers. Several graduate deans were convinced that better financial rewards and social prestiges enabled medicine, law, business, and other professional schools to attract the best minds and personalities. In their opinion the way out lies not so much in rehabilitating individuals as in reshaping university careers so that with selective admissions the graduate school can attract abler recruits. Almost every objective investigation has indicated nevertheless that we can dismiss the notion that doctoral recruits are of inferior intellectual caliber. A recent check in the social science fields showed that onethird of all first-year graduate students had been graduated from college with high honors or equivalent distinction. The proportion of honors students at the doctoral level of study is more than double that for first-year graduate students. The advanced graduate school probably gets too many of the greasy grind type of mind and of mentally able individuals who have not yet chosen a career. The impression that doctoral candidates are more of an intellectual than a social elite appears to be better justified. A poll of 4,667 members of the American Association of University Professors, for example, indicated the following social origins, according to the occupational status of their fathers: businessmen, 26.6 percent; farmers, 24.7 percent; manual workers, I 2.I percent;