IN THE fall of 1935 Bucknell University effected a significant change in its set-up for internal administration. For three years the policies of internal government had been determined by a council of five faculty members and several administrative officers. When opinions had been crystallized in the council, they were, in most instances, presented to the general faculty for formal ratification. Uninformed concerning the backgrounds of purposes and occasions for items of legislation, the faculty at large was in no position to deliberate intelligently upon issues. Faculty meetings during these three years, therefore, were wholly formal. This outcome was, of course, far from the intent of the administrative officers of the college who were concerned with the establishment of a council system of organization. The members of the teaching staff, who had voted unanimously for the council, likewise had no reason to anticipate that it would work out badly. Nevertheless, the attempt to pattern our mode of internal administration after such a plan as that of the University of Chicago proved to be an unfortunate experiment. For twelve years preceding the establishment of a council system of government, the institution had been administered internally by numerous committees. Some committees accomplished little, whereas others assumed potent functions. A committee on advanced standing, for instance, agreed to empower its efficient chairman to carry out its work. Another group which dealt with the curriculum initiated important legislation vitally affecting the whole college community. Before a committee proposal could become effective, it had to meet with acceptance by the whole faculty. During the twelve years while we experimented with the committee system of control, therefore, many stirring debates were held in general faculty meetings. These debates often raised questions fundamental in the philosophy of higher education, and they served to acquaint every instructor with the problems of internal administration. Often, to be sure, the issues were trivial and the contributions banal. In general, however, our experience with the committee system was highly satisfactory. The faculty originated and voted upon practically all matters