115 



and we can not afford to do that. First of all, we must have men of some 

 power. A nsan may know all about agriculture, or certain subjects in agri- 

 culture, and still be so lacking in power as to be worthless. We must not forget 

 that, when we divide ixp our courses in agriculture into such small fragmentary- 

 pieces, we lose the continuity of study and that close application a student 

 must give, for example, in preparing his work in mathematics. We throw away 

 the great value of our enlarged courses, and we can not afford to grant degrees 

 on any slipshod or fra.gmentary course of instruction which fails to give the 

 great power and development that comes from a good four years' college course. 



Mr. Bailey. You would distinguish, then, as I understand, between the train- 

 ing-apprenticeship idea and the pedagogical idea as the result in teaching? 



Mr. Snyder. Yes, sir. 



Mr. CuRTiss. Do you not think that a student who thoroughly masters these 

 technical subjects from start to finish gains power by it? 



Mr. Snyder. That depends very largely on how they nve taught. I do think 

 that technical subjects can be presented in such a v\ay as to give power, l)ut I 

 fear that if a student is allowed to enter college and select his work wherever 

 he pleases and whatever he pleases that he will lose to a great extent that val- 

 uable training he would get from a systematic course laid out by an older head 

 than his own. He must have a certain a.mount of English and a certain amount 

 of science work back of his training. It is usually better to have the scientific 

 training first. At one time we thought that the only way to do was to give the 

 science first and the practical part afterwards. Now that view has changed 

 largely, and in a great deal of our work I think the two come pedagogically 

 together. But the student must have a scientific basis for his technical work, 

 for the latter is not all art ; there is a science behind it, and if he is going to 

 receive thorough training he must have a foundation in science. 1 do not 

 believe he can receive such an education as we expect four-year men to have, 

 the men who receive a degree without thorough training in chemistry, physics, 

 and the other natural sciences. I do not believe you can give a man an educa- 

 tion which would entitle him to a degree simply by giving him the art without 

 giving him the sciences. 



Mr. Davenport. But is there not science in the subject itself if it is well 

 studied and well taught? 



Mr. Snyder. I think a great deal of this technical work could not claim to be 

 strictly scientific. Of course it may be based on scientific principles, but if the 

 student is not familiar with the sciences, he simply commits the definitions as 

 based on science. 



Mr. CuRTiss. I wish to distinguish between splitting up a course into small 

 fragments and concentration. I think that distinction should be clearly made. 

 Take, for instance, the animal-husbandry training given in our own institution. 

 We have separatetl the animal-husbandry training from the other training and 

 established an animal-husbandry course. We have supplemented it with the 

 scientific training that bears on the subject. We have also established a course 

 in horticulture, reenforced with the greatest possible amount of science which 

 bears on horticulture, and so with all of our courses. Instead of splitting up 

 into fragments, we have concentrated and strengthened the courses to the 

 largest possible extent. As regards training, force, and power, I do not believe 

 the students have suffered by that kind of concentration where the subjects are 

 properly related and the underlying sciences taught. In our institution the 

 engineering courses are concentrated and rigid, and we are making our agri- 

 cultural courses more and more of that type each year. The engineering courses 

 have but very little of the general culture studies, the agricultural students 



