« ÎnapoiContinuați »
The comparison here rests on but two points—the number of lines done, and the number of “a's” cancelled. Errors in cancellation are not counted except in so far as the making of errors lessened the a's crossed out in the two minute period. A study of individual errors in connection with language and eye-sight might furnish useful data.
In these tests which bring to a close the series, the records for the different races, as well as for the three groups used for comparison, vary; but the differences that they indicate seem to be in individuals representing a race rather than in race or nationality as such.
Probably there is no place except Ellis Island where an unselected group from every race or nationality could be brought together. Racial groups gathered from any given section of the country, are apt to be much more homogeneous, and therefore much less typical. Members of a race in a given community have gone there because of friendships, or family connection, or specialized opening for earning a livelihood-all reasons tending toward limiting kind. Studies from individual locations may easily show a low type of one nationality or another, according to the sort of opening offered to that nationality in the opportunities of the place.
At Ellis Island, the members of any given race scatter to many sections of the United States and to many different kinds of occupation, established in both town and country. For this reason the steady stream of all nationalities and races, studied as it enters the country, before existing customs of segregation have begun to operate, should offer an unusual chance for a typical representation.
In any one test, or in the case of one individual as compared to another, there may be apparent distinctions; but as the study goes on, day after day, the records as far as "race” is concerned, seem to even themselves. There may be examples of low mentality or of high powers; but for them to be located as belonging to one race as set off against another the actual tabulated results do not seem to allow. Individual differences there are in great numbers; but the curve of the scores seems not to differ in any marked degree from race to race, nor does it differ markedly, with possibly a slight allowance for differences in the strain of examination conditions, from the curves shown in studies of unselected groups of American children. With the difference in the technique probably militating against the Ellis Island children, we yet get a good sized group which shows a by no means unfavorable comparison.
That the non-language method of testing is a possibility seems certain. Standardizations and adaptations for this highly specialized use, as well as careful choice, would be necessary; but the swift and clock-like working of the color-form-size test, or the Army Picture test, or the cancellation test, show how readily such methods could be used.
1 "Performance Tests for Three, Four and Five Year Old Children.” Helen T. Woolley, Ph.D., and Elizabeth Cleveland. Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. vi, no. 1, p. 58–68. February, 1923.
"Personality Studies of Three Year Olds.” Helen T. Woolley, Ph.D. Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. v, no. 6, December, 1922, p. 381391.
3 "The Decroly Class.” Amelie Hamaïde. 1924, p. xii.
3 "Form Board and Construction Tests of Mental Ability." W. F. Dearborn, J. E. Anderson, A. 0. Christiansen. Journal of Educational Psychology, 7, 1916, p. 445.
* Memoirs National Academy of Sciences, vol. xv, p. 189. See also “Army Mental Tests." Yoakum and Yerkes, p. 118.
• Op. cit., 3. See also, (1). "The Form Board Test.” Sylvester, R. H. Psychological Monographs, xv, 1913, no. 65, p. 56.
(2) “The Form Board (As a Measure of Intellectual Development in Children).” H. H. Goddard. The Training School Bulletin, ix, June, 1912.
(3) “A Form Board Demonstration.” Lightner Witmer. Psychol. Clinic, 15–17, pp. 199–202.
(4) “Age Norms of Psycho-motor Capacity.” J. E. W. Wallin. Journal Educational Psychology, vii, 1, January, 1910.
(5) "Form Board Ability of Young Deaf and Hearing Children." Pintner and Patterson. Psych. Clinic, ix, no. 8, 1916.
(6) “A Discussion of the Index of Form Board Ability." R. Pintner and D. Patterson. Psych. Clinic, 15-17, pp. 192–198.
Op. cit., note 3, p. 450. Op. cit., note 3, p. 450. 8 "The Measurement of Intelligence.” Lewis M. Terman. 1916, p. 240.
Op. cit., note 4, p. 164. See also “Army Mental Tests," Yoakum and Yerkes, p. 79.
10 Prof. Kimball Young on p. 31 of “Mental Differences in Certain Immigrant Groups," University of Oregon Publication, vol. 1, no. 11, gives the following means for his adapted Beta scores:
Cases Mean American S. J..
307 68.30 Italian S. J..
192 54.00 Portuguese.
75 52.50 Spanish Mexican....
53 52.65 Italian miscellaneous..
54 54.55 American miscellaneous...
86 65.95 These children were 12-year-olds.
11 “Educational Administration and Supervision,” 1919, 5, School and Society, 1920, 11, etc.
12 "Mental Survey of Utah Schools." George S. Snoddy and George E. Hyde. Bulletin of the University of Utah, September, 1921.
"A Study of Sex Differences in Mental Traits." Elaine F. Kinder. An unpublished M.A. thesis from the University of Utah.
13 Dr. Harold C. Bingham in allowing his data to be used, writes as follows: "I suspect that the children are as typical of American school children as one can find."
14 This testing was done in the spring of 1923, at School 93, in Baltimore.
15 "Manual of Mental and Physical Tests." P. I, pp. 309–10. G. M. Whipple.
REVIEW OF THE IMMIGRATION LAW OF 1924: CONCLUSIONS
The final legislative result of all the study and far reaching examination on the part of Congressional Committees came, when, on May 26, 1924, President Coolidge signed the new Immigration Bill, which is to be known as the “Immigration Act of 1924.” By its provisions the quotas of all countries are to be based on the foreign born population in this country according to the 1890 census, on a 2 per cent basis, with the minimum quota for any nationality set at 100. Further regulations provides that after July 1, 1927, the annual quota of any nationality, shall be a number which bears the same ratio to 150,000, as the number of inhabitants in continental United States in 1920 having that national origin, bears to the number of inhabitants in continental United States in 1920, with the minimum quota still held at 100.
In regard to "National Origin,” the law explains that "such determination shall not be made by tracing the ancestors or descendants of particular individuals, but shall be based upon statistics of immigration and emigration, together with rates of increase of population as shown by successive decennial United States censuses, and such other data as may be found to be reliable.”
By the law, consular officers abroad may not issue visas to more than 10 per cent, of a country's quota in any month, except that in the case of very small quotas, certain provision is made.
The question of Japanese exclusion, which does not bear upon this study, was so much to the fore at the time of the final passage and signing of the bill, that the European side of the question, previously much discussed, received at the actual moment of the passing of the law, but little popular notice. Perhaps the fact that the general policy of the existing 3 per cent law was continued with certain practical improvements dictated by experience, and that no violent change was instituted, is sufficient explanation for this. That there are improvements in the new law, there is no doubt. The "Immigration Visa” with a definite date of expiration (not exceeding four months), the power of the consular officer to refuse to issue such a visa, if it appears to him "from statements in the application, or in the papers submitted therewith” that the alien is inadmissible to the United States; the careful provision that nothing in the Act shall be construed to entitle an immigrant to whom an immigration visa has been issued to enter the United States if, upon arrival in the United States, he is found to be inadmissible under the immigration laws; all these are clauses showing careful steps for the improvement of conditions.
The more clearly defined statements as to non quota immigrants and "Preferences within Quotas," and most of all, the bringing out of facts by a minutely and carefully planned set of questions to be answered, signed, and verified by oath on the part of the immigrant, show not only advances in the safeguarding of the United States, but also in the preventing as far as is possible, useless expense and anxiety for the immigrant himself.
One clause under the heading "Burden of Proof” is of special interest. There it is stated that when any alien attempts to enter the United States, the burden of proof shall be upon such alien to establish that he is not subject to exclusion under any provision of the immigration laws. In deportation proceedings also, the same principle is to hold.
From 360,000, the number of immigrants to be admitted in a year will fall to about 150,000. Greater care in their selection at the port of departure, as well as lesser numbers, will give the opportunity for the exercise of greater care at the ports of arrival. That the care will be on mental as well as physical grounds seems undoubted. In the report on selective immigration submitted to the House Immigration Committee by the Eugenics Committee of the United States of America, under the date of January 4, 1924, we find under "Heading III: Mental Tests for Immigrants," these words.
If our future population is to be prevented from deteriorating, physically and mentally, higher physical standards must be required of all immigrants. In addition, no alien should be admitted who has not an intellectual capacity superior to the American average. Aliens should be required to attain a passing score of, say, the median in the Alpha test, or the corresponding, equivalent score in other approved tests.