opportunity by rendering themselves indispensable members of the body
corporate. In their case much is required of those to whom little is
given. Above all they must avoid the temptation to live entirely in
the absorbing interests of the present: they must remember that it is
the business of a University to make contributions to learning as well
as to teach. Secondly, they must insist on equality of payment and
status when there is any disposition, overt or acknowledged, to
differentiate on the score of sex. It is not right to yield on these
points, for an important principle is at stake. On the other hand the
time and place for insistence must be wisely selected, and any
claim made must be incontrovertible on the score of justice and
practicability. Lastly, women on committees and elsewhere are
not justified in keeping unduly in the background. When they have
something worth contributing to the discussion, it is not modesty but
lack of business capacity, which makes them silent. "Mauvaise honte"
is as much out of place as undue pertinacity. Women who are unwilling
or unable to assert themselves when necessary, are not in place at
a co-educational University. Most women, however, will derive
intellectual stimulus from the free interchange of opinion, possible
only when both sexes are working happily together, with common
interests and common aims.

If relatively too much space in this article has been given to women's
work at mixed Universities, the excuse lies ready to hand. In Women's
Colleges there is, of course, no sex bar, and the way lies clear
from the bottom to the top of the ladder. Conditions of appointment,
tenure, and work do not greatly differ from those described, except
in so far as the stipends tend to be lower, especially for more
responsible posts, when these are ordinarily occupied by women. It is
a sign of the times that in at least one Women's College in a mixed