No question of vocational fitness has been more eagerly discussed than the contrasted fitness of men and women, and the consequent basis of differentiation of career desirable or necessary for the two, both as wage-earners and in every other relation of life. A discussion of this problem from the point of view of this volume is wisely included, and in turn a definite negative conclusion reached. It is shown that in the main capacities tested--with several and significant exceptions--men and women, boys and girls, are comparable; individual differences outweigh sex differences. The interpretation of this result will not be uniform, even when due allowance is made for the range of tests responsible for the conclusion. The biologist will continue to insist upon the significance of fundamental differences; the experiences of life reinforce as they express the fact that men and women live with as well as upon a different perspective of psychological equipment; the psychologist may suggest that the tests and comparisons--based in large measure upon comparable and derivative facilities--naturally bring forth the parallel measure in which secondary qualities yield similar issues. It must be noted how largely a large share of conventional vocations call upon specialized and late varieties of intellectual traits; for these precisely, men and women may have comparable fitness, while none the less psychologically contrasted in realms closer to natural function. Women have proved that they are as fit to study--and, if you like, to vote--as are men; as fit to enter and succeed in vocations in terms of tested qualifications. How far the less measurable and collateral qualities make them fit and successful on a different basis, and still leave them contrasted in fundamental reactions, is a very different question. It is well to understand the bearing as well as the range of the ascertained facts of the case.