80 STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. 



tage? It seems to me a little unfair to select the work departments for such 

 criticism as I have named. A student takes his mathematical course (I use 

 this only to illustrate the point, as it is equally true of all courses). He man- 

 ages to get tlirough the examinations, but he has had no liking for mathe- 

 matical studies. Now, how much does he know of mathematics? It is safe 

 to say that he does not know nearly as much as he might have known. Does 

 any one tiiink of criticising the mathematical department because of his stu- 

 pidity, or carelessness, or lack of application? Most assuredly not. And so in 

 practical work we should remember that not every student (most do) will be 

 interested and make the best use of his opportunities. Some will fail in 

 application and attention to practical work, and as a necessary result go out with 

 very limited knowledge of tlie farm and its details. I think there is a ten- 

 dency to look upon the labor system as a part and parcel of the farm and 

 horticultural departments — a something for which these departments should be 

 held to strict account, while the other college departments are relieved from 

 all responsibility in the adjustment of this, the most difficult and perplexing 

 of all our college work. Now, I think I am right in saying that while the farm 

 and iiorticultural departments have the oversight of this labor directly, and 

 are in no wise to shirk any responsibility which consistently attaches thereto, 

 it can only fairly be said that they in common with each and every other 

 department are responsible for its success or failure — no more, no less. The 

 rules of labor are made by the Faculty. Each department has voice in these. 

 Is the farm or horticultural departments in any way benefited by the exercise 

 of this labor system more than the chemical, the mathematical, the botani- 

 cal, the entomological, the English? Does not this college owe its very exis- 

 tence to-day to this labor system? Are not the departments which enter into 

 its make-up, then, alike dependent upon it and responsible, to a certain 

 extent, for its management? It is not the labor system of the farm or the hor- 

 ticultural departtnents, of the chemical or botanical. It is the labor system 

 of the Michigan State Agricultural College. To succeed, it must have the 

 moral support of all college authorities; it must be thought of sufficient 

 importance to receive such place and recognition in the curriculum of study as 

 its value and the grave interests attaching to its administration demand. I 

 believe there should be at least a half hour of each week assigned to the 

 superintendents who have the labor in charge, and this should be in the curric- 

 ulum and observed as strictly as any college recitation, when the superinten- 

 dent should discuss, in a practical way, questions connected with the labor 

 system — the rate of wages, plans of work, details of operations, etc. Much 

 might be done even in this brief time to encourage the good feeling and 

 mutual understanding between the department and students, which are so essen- 

 tial to success in relations of this character. 



Again, the Professor of Agriculture, who superintends the farm, and the 

 student labor thereon, and who is held directly responsible for its manage- 

 ment, should have the class assigned to the farm for labor, for class-room 

 instruction, to make the work efficient. Now I have the freshmen, their second 

 term, in agriculture, and do not see them again for class-room instruction 

 until the last term of their senior year. The Sophomores are now, and have 

 been for years, assigned to the farm department for labor the entire Sopho- 

 more year, but as Professor of Agriculture I do not have a single opportunity to 

 see tliein in class-room during tiiis time. It seems to me this is a grave mis- 

 take, and increases perceptibly the difficulties of managing student labor. 



