IN A world in which the art and science of government bear such heavy responsibilities for the good or evil of human relations, the training of future governmental leaders takes on a significance which yields to nothing in relative importance. It is to the credit of political scientists that they have long realized the necessity of this teaching function and that they have appreciated their peculiar duty for seeing that it takes place satisfactorily. This, in itself, is an important contribution to American life, for in the United States, as the public has belatedly realized in recent years, appreciation of the need for sound leadership and effective government has not been popularly emphasized to the same extent as has leadership in scientific invention and industrial prowess. This much is clear from the record.
It is also safe to say that, as public concern for the governmental art has increased, political scientists have responded proportionately to the need and have improved both their plans for and their methods of producing better leaders for the public service. Needless to say, however, they have not assumed the whole responsibility for this effort, nor do they claim the entire credit for the improvement that has resulted.
Today, academicians, especially political scientists, are asking themselves how their total impact on pre-service teaching for the public service can be improved. For what shall we train? Just for the top positions or for all positions? Should the training be "practical" or "theoretical" or a balance of the two? How can political scientists strengthen their collective contribution to the