THE VESTIBULE SCHOOL 
285 
original uncertainty and indecision will be increased 
rather than cured, and he will therefore be deprived of 
one of the most powerful factors in his success. In the 
third place, when a new employee is sent to a shop, the 
sole duty of the instructor in the chop is to help that em 
ployee to succeed in a particular line of work. In the 
centralized training school, however, the general attitude 
of the instructor will inevitably be experimental and he 
will be obliged to train his pupils by the “trial and error” 
method. In this way a great deal of time may be lost in 
the process of “trying out” pupils on various types of 
work before the right kind of work is finally hit upon. 
This will defeat the very purpose for which the school is 
established; namely, the making of successful operators 
in the shortest possible time. Fourth, the decentralized 
school is less likely to raise unfavorable contrasts between 
the various classes of work. If a variety of operations 
and machines are collected in a central school, there will 
be a very strong gravitation on the part of all employees 
toward the cleaner and more desirable kinds of work. 
This difficulty can be largely avoided if the novice is not 
placed in an environment which encourages him to draw 
such disturbing contrasts. 
The suggested objections to the centralized training 
school may evoke the warm protest that this is the only 
method which is democratic and fair to new employees, 
since it is the only method which allows the employee to 
make an intelligent study and selection of the various kinds 
of work being done. It may be said that the other plan is 
too paternalistic, too coercive, and that it is morally un 
sound in so far as it fails to give every individual complete 
freedom of action in the choosing of an occupation. While 
admitting the partial truth of this contention, the practical