THE  IL      SOCI 
C  o t t e e   o n   Po f e s s i o n a l   S t n r   C o l u m b ia   ,
o.M 
                                                 August 19, 1 
 
TO C     tee mi                 , Erringten,_ Hubbs, King, Leopold, 
     -                yor, (Bennitt).     : Allen, Cahalane. 
 
Gentlemen:- 
 
     Replies to my June 1 letter have been received from all exept 
King and        They were      and detailed (as requested) and I 
can't send them t you verbatim;  instead, I will try to     ize 
the opinions presented. 
     We are much further along our road than we have been, and it 
seems to be clear in the minds of the mjority of the Comttee 
that we should now concentrate on two ingst:. (1) Standards for 
Active Membership in the Soieety, with the cooperation of the Mem- 
bership Comiittee; (2) standards which can be presented to pro- 
spective students and which trai   nstitutions may use if they wish. 
     Turning first, however, to some of the collateral matters men- 
tioned in my letter of June l:- 
Publication stadrs 
 
     ngn           inster, Hubbs, and (by implication) Taylor believe 
it is feable t prepare a bulletin or article on publication stand- 
ards.   Stoddrd feels we should wait before publishing It until we 
are further along--a view which I share---and Leopold doesn't think 
we can do anything that Mc.tee is not now doing. 
     Ap     tly the entire Comittead feels that something i      ro 
with ago    deal of published materil,  But is this not anefc 
of         sio-eow scintific standards, rather than something thatd oeto

now be treated separately?  A man is apt to write in much the way 
that he       ,  It seems to me that if we are successful in emph- 
szing certain standards of         , the writing will take care of 
itself, with the aid of the vaous editors;   if we aren't, it won't. 
     Therefore, important t     the matter is, I suggest that we 
defer concrete action on it until more progress has been made in the 
two matters mentioned in the second pragrap abve.    Meanwhile, I 
am going to ask Rrrington to develop, in publishable form, the ideas 
which he has already expressed; these will be submitted again to the 
Committee and will form a valuable suppmtary opinion to back up 
our statements concerning the standars  ntioned above. 
Consultation with Societi membership anid institutions. 
     Edinster, Leopold, and Errington think not, though Eninster 
properly suggests that we should feel free to consult selected indi- 
viduals and institutions if we wish. Taylor says, "After submission

to the directors of the Society and whoever corresponds to our Zecu- 
tive Committee, we should refer all these matters to the general mem- 
bership of the Society."  Hxbbs and Stoddard agree with Ruhl's pro-

posal Win principle", but think the results would not Justify the enor-

mous amount of paper-work involved. Most of us, then, agree that