Mainly, it would seem, because the work of obtaining an education is
principally that of absorption and assimilation; while that of active
practical life is principally the direct reverse, namely, that of giving
out.

In selecting men to be tried as foremen, or in fact for any position
throughout the place, from the day laborer up, one of two different
types of men should be chosen, according to the nature of the work to be
done. For one class of work, men should be selected who are too good for
the job; and for the other class of work, men who are barely good
enough.

If the work is of a routine nature, in which the same operations are
likely to be done over and over again, with no great variety, and in
which there is no apparent prospect of a radical change being made,
perhaps through a term of years, even though the work itself may be
complicated in its nature, a man should be selected whose abilities are
barely equal to the task. Time and training will fit him for his work,
and since he will be better paid than in the past, and will realize that
he has been given the chance to make his abilities yield him the largest
return--all of the elements for promoting contentment will be present;
and those men who are blessed with cheerful dispositions will become
satisfied and remain so. Of course, a considerable part of mankind is so
born or educated that permanent contentment is out of the question. No
one, however, should be influenced by the discontent of this class.

On the other hand, if the work to be done is of great
variety--particularly if improvements in methods are to be
anticipated--throughout the period of active organization the men
engaged in systematizing should be too good for their jobs. For such