The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in 1920 had a total fund of $24,628,000 and its retirement allowances for that year were $875,514.04, with allowances then in force to 555 individuals, or an average to each of $1,568.77. The fund was originally administered solely in the form of gifts but the unexpected number of applicants made it necessary to gradually change to a contractual plan involving very moderate contributions from the institutions benefited, which now include those of Canada as well as of this country. It is one of the most wise and beneficent gifts of the great philanthropist who founded it and its influence in giving permanence in the sense of security to active professors still efficient, and relieving institutions of those past their usefulness to make way for younger men, is unquestionably for good. The President of the Foundation has grappled with the whole subject of industrial pensions. It was at first planned that the same principles should be applied here as those in the more stabilized professions but this is impossible because of the labor turnover each year, which amounts to 100 to 200 per cent of their employees in some industrial establishments. It is one of the functions of the pension system to reduce the turnover and to secure continuity of service and avoid migrations. Many systems do not provide for the return of the employee’s contributions in the cases of withdrawal or dismissal, or for the use of such contributions for other purposes, so that the fund accumulated would soon, in some cases, run into millions. It does not follow, however, that the opposite tendencies now manifest to seek a solution of the problem in a non-contributory scheme are sound, for this would still encounter the opposition of labor unions, who see in all such schemes a return to feudalism or an attempt to make labor stick to its job by the use of vague promises, to the fulfillment of which the employee himself contributes in the long run in the form of depressed wages. The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, however, seems to have found a way out and has proposed to “write annuity contracts maturing at the age of 65 under which the pension is purchased each year in small units representing either flat rate or a percentage of salary. The employer, the employee, or both, make a contribution each year toward the pension to fall due on the retirement of the employee,” who receives a bond each year that assures him a pension when he retires, each bond being complete in itself. This scheme costs little to administer and it meets the objection against a non-contributory system, that although pensions defer pay only the employee who survives in the same service until retirement receives the benefit promised, by the provision that this bond is given each year and becomes his property, to be realized at a fixed age in later years.