PROGRESS IN AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION. 335 



In the section on college work and administration the following 

 topics were discussed: (1) The distinctive work of the land-grant 

 colleges — their function, scope, and organization; (2) Entrance 

 requirements and standards for land-grant colleges; (3) Function 

 of land-grant colleges; and (4) How can the agricultural colleges 

 best' serve the farmers in solving rural problems? 



The first topic was presented in a paper by A. B. Storms. He 

 believed that the indei3endently established colleges were more dis- 

 tinctly typical of the norm contemplated in the original Morrill law 

 than those established in connection with State universities, and that 

 there are good pedagogic and administrative reasons for maintain- 

 ing them as separate institutions. In reference to organization he 

 favored a strong organic unity of all the college departments as 

 against a degree of independence that encourages " department 

 provincialism." The ability of men, especially of the heads of 

 coordinate departments, to work and fit with other men without fric- 

 tion was emphasized as a necessary requisite in the working com- 

 promise that must always be made between technical and administra- 

 tive efficiency. The speaker deprecated the zeal for large enrollments 

 at the expense of entrance requirements sufficiently advanced to insure 

 thorough college work, and he believed that the land-grant colleges 

 could not consistently do less than to insist upon four years of 

 approved high-school work as a condition of entrance. 



The discussion of this paper was led by E. A. Bryan and Howard 

 Edwards. The former emphasized the fact that the entire group of 

 separate land-grant colleges and land-grant departments of State uni- 

 versities together constitute the basis of a national system of educa- 

 tion. He believed this solidarity of interests should be fostered 

 among the institutions represented in the association and cautioned 

 against a too narrow conception of the scope of education contem- 

 plated in the land-grant acts. For example, the teaching of agricul- 

 ture in all productive lines is much further advanced than is the 

 teaching of methods for distributing and marketing farm products in 

 an economic way. 



President Edwards's contribution to this discussion was mainly 

 directed to the formulation of an answer to the question which had 

 been asked him by the president of the Carnegie Foundation : Wliat 

 is the definite function of the separate agricultural colleges? He 

 called attention to the more restrictive language of the act of 1890 as 

 compared with that of 1862, and proposed a resolution designed to 

 express the understanding of the association on the subject of the 

 question (see p. 332). 



President Butterfield raised a question concerning the proper place 

 for college-extension work and its director in the functions of the 



