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 employee
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 unsound
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
