100 



science and nioro torlinifal woi'k and aro fittinj; pupils Ix'ttor for cntranci" into 

 real (•ollcm' \v<>ii< in a.tiricultural and nu'cliauifal colli'^'cs. 



In tlic lourtli phu-f. tliis wliok' land-tyrant fullej,'e enterprise has l)een seized 

 with tile iuissionary spirit, it has heen thoroughly denioeratized. and the effort 

 is being made to carry it to the homes of the i)eople l)y means of extension prop- 

 aganda. K.vtension work is eonung to be an important jtart of the work of the 

 eolleges, although it is not perhaps a part of the curriculum, but it has niodified 

 the character of the course work that is done in these institutions. I look 

 upon the winter courses and short courses in agricultural colleges as i)ur<'Iy 

 extensional. 1 do not regard them as college work. 



I lament the fact that it is so necessary for the agricultural colleges to hold 

 short courses. It is necessary, however, because there are no other institu- 

 tions in which that kind of work can be done. Speaking of our own case, I may 

 say that we organized a winter course at Cornell Uinversity some ten years ago, 

 supported by univei'sity funds. P.ut there came a time when certain funds were 

 given by the State for extension work. It seemed perfectly legitimate, as it 

 was necessary, to maintain the winter courses on the extension fund, and they 

 have been so maintained. The winter courses at our college of agriculture have 

 no relation to the regular academic work of the college. At the present time 

 they do have relation, so far as the teaching force is concerned, but if our 

 plaiis hold we shall soon have a separate faculty for the extension work, includ- 

 ing the wilder course and some other extensional work. 



I was very much impressed with the increasing confidence with winch the 

 different sjieakers dwelt upon the value of agricultural and mechanical educa- 

 tion, showing that it has ac(iuired a iiermanent place in the educational policies 

 of the country. 



There are several ways in which the general drift of this discussion possibly 

 might be expressed. I'note that all the speakers insist on the general peda- 

 gogical value of applied and technical subjects when these subjects are well 

 taught. They regard these subjects as of ecpial training value with conven- 

 tional subjects, provided the teaching is equally well done. On the other hand, 

 there seemed to be a tendency to urge the introduction of many new subjects 

 into the curriculum merely because they would find a place in the subseipient 

 life of the person. I am somewhat inclined to challenge this point of view, 

 for I conceive that the primary purpose of introducing any subject is it-; train- 

 ing and educative value and its power to put the pupil into sympathy with his 

 environment. It may or it may not be worth while to introduce a subject 

 merely because it is needed as a pai't of a livelihood. 



Again, there is a marked tendency to react from the exclusively or specially 

 technical undergraduate courses and to hold somewhat closer to some of the tra- 

 ditions of education. I think that the general tenor of these discussions en- 

 forces this i-emark. We are now considering a nnddle course, it seems to me, 

 between the exclusively professional work of these colleges and the traditional 

 or conventional education. If we can not teach everything, neither can we 

 afford to break with experience, and the question is how much of the new we 

 shall combine with something of the old. Through the papers there seems 

 to run a sentiment that training for mere manual skill should be eliminated 

 from courses that lead to degrees. This you will recall is very forcibly (ex- 

 pressed in the change of attitude in the agricultural colleges during the last 

 twenty years in respect to comi)ulsory m;imial labor. All of them have now 

 giv(Mi it up, and th(> labor now i-e(iuired in the agricultural colleges is on an 

 edui-ational basis, namely, laboratory work. The growing disposition to occupy 

 the lirst two years of a college course with fundamental, or what somo jieople 

 wish to call "pure science" subjects, is a further indication that mere technical 

 training is insufficient. 



'l was nuK'h interested in the chart i)resented yesterday by Professor Kane, 

 in which he tried to put back the fundamental courses in the first two years 

 of the agricultural course. I fully syuq)athize with that idea, and I think 

 all the speakers have given suggestions along the same line. It may be worth 

 while to speak of the disposition of the horti<-ultural courses at Cornell T'niver- 

 sity, inasnuich as they were mentioned by Professor Kane. You will recall 

 that certain institutions were conqiared with resjiect to the horticultural 

 i-oiirses Every one of these institutions excejd Cornell Cni versify retjuires 

 horticulture as part of the four-year coursv. I have had something to do with 

 horticulture at Cornell in the past years. There was a regulation at one time 

 that all students gr.Miluating in the college of agriculture should have had a cer- 

 tain amount of horticulture. At luy instance that obligation was removed. 



