D O C U M E N T 2 7 3 M A Y 1 9 2 6 2 8 7 certainly is not easy and differs depending on the point of view I take. If I were to decide, without regard for the individuals, only according to the originality and the probable enrichment that the congress would gain, I would probably choose Heisenberg and Franck, because the other two cannot offer discoveries of their own of such scope. If one wanted to limit oneself to theoreticians, I would choose Heisenberg and Born for, it really would be hard if Pauli were given preference over Born. There always is an element of force involved in such kinds of choices that cannot be changed. I find it very fine—indeed, admirable—of the Belgians to have overcome their very understandable resentment for the sake of this matter.[4] My respects. Kind regards, your A. Einstein 273. To Chaim Weizmann [Berlin,] 1 May 1926 Dear Mr. Weizmann, I am very curious to find out how you assess the state of affairs with the univer- sity. One thing occurs to me. Although Magnes may even be a person with good intentions, he has insufficient aptitude to be entrusted with important decisions, and insufficient discipline to faithfully abide by the resolutions of the Board of Governors.[1] What is to be done here is not clear to me. I am, as I said, curious as to how you view the development. Also important is the management of the Technion, an issue we failed to resolve in Munich.[2] I would like to be able to talk to you before the next meeting of the Board of Governors. I looked at the Skrichevsky materials. He obviously has completely proper mas- tery of the methods of statistics and also knows how to write. This is certainly wor- thy of recognition given the irregular university education he received.[3] We could well make use of him if we undertake something in meteorology or statistics in Palestine. It cannot be discerned from the material submitted whether he can also do something else. Warm regards, your A. Einstein