101 



I folt 1h;it tlio first two yoavs of tlio fourso slunihl bo fjivon to fundamental 

 'oursi's, ,111(1 that in tlu> third and fonrtli years a man mi,;,'lil liave tiie jirivi- 

 li'iTc of s|K'cializiiifr in dairy work or hortieultnral work, as tho v-as--; misiht be. 

 I did not a.iirt'c witli Trofessor Kane's idea that some technical horticnlture 

 and dairyiiii: slidiild be reiiuired in the early course and that a man .graduated 

 in that course should be well litted for takinj; up one or more of these profes- 

 sions if the necessity should arise. 1 wouhl rather think that he should be 

 exceediiit,'ly well prepared to take ui> one occuiiatioii. I am not (luite sure 

 whether in the future we shall have departments of horticultuie. I ratliei 

 think that we shall not; that is, on the lines on which they are now organized. 

 Horticulture as now outlined in the institutions of the country is very largely 

 an occuiiational subject rather than a iiedagogical subject. I would like to see 

 all colleges reiiuire. for exjiniple. ;i course in pl:int iirojuigation. which should be 

 in .some w:iy related to bot;iny. I think that the fund:iiiiental pl;int-growing 

 subjects should be a part of the botanical or similar courses in the early part of 

 a ;'onr-year course of instruction. 



The drift of opinion seems to show tli.-it tli(>re is a g(Mieral h:irmoiiizing of the 

 i-onduct of the courses of instruction in all the land-grant institutions, and a 

 determination, even in the midst of the many new subjects which are clamoring 

 for admission, to teach what are really the fundamentals. I think the tendency 

 in our land-grant colleges, as also in the secondary schools, is going to be to 

 simplify rather than to add more. 



Again, there is an increasing sympathy with the workaday life. There is an 

 increased (lesir(>, nevertheless, to introduce other subji'cts that have relation 

 to the t'veryd.ny lives of the iieople. but they can b(> so treated as not to conflict 

 with the other subjects, but rather to aid .-ind comiilement them. It seems to 

 me that these discussions indicite that the land-grant colleges are Iiecoming a 

 concrete ex]>ression of democratic ideas. 



The home-making subjects are dwelt on in some of the papers. The reason 

 for these courses is not the si)ecific occupations for women; the home is the 

 center and the reason. The various speakers have mentioned the difficulty of 

 securing a name for a course covering these subjects. I have challenged them 

 all. Temiiorarily I use the words "home economics" as ])erha])s broader than 

 most others and having less objectional connotations. I like to think of the 

 course of home economics as comjirising more than housekeeping sulijeets, 

 larger than "domestic science," as that term is commonly used. We have been 

 trying to increase the productivity of the land ; we have not emiihasized the 

 value of the home as an entity. It is time that we emphasize the home, study 

 it in relation to the community, to the school, to the church, to organization, and 

 to all the large economic features which h.-ive to do with the relation of the 

 home to the general welfare. 



The generjil drift of this discussion shows that the land-grant colleges, par- 

 ticularly on the agricultural side, do not regard the courses as professional or 

 at least not as severely technical. And if that is true, I think it means a very 

 great gain for agricultural educ.ntion. This education is industrial in a broad 

 sense. It is natural education, and is founded on general pedagogical principles 

 and methods. I am coming to like the phrase " education for country life " 

 instead of " agricultural education." The idea no longer stands for technical 

 agricultural instruction alone. It stands also for all the social and economic 

 relations of the farm to its community. It stands for the discussion of the 

 rural church, the rural school, rural literature, sanitation, good houses, good 

 i-oads. organization, and all the laws that govern trade in farm products. So I 

 like to think that the agricultural college now stands for the open country in- 

 its largest and broadest sense. Possibly we feel this more forcibly in the East 

 from the fact that the cities are so exceedingly important in our old Common- 

 wealths. For example, in New York State there are ,8,000.000 persons, about 

 l.(X)0,000 of whom are on the farms. Therefore the character of instruction 

 which we are called upon to give may be somewhat different frcni that which 

 colleges in the corn-belt States find to be best, where perhaps half of the 

 persons are on the land or directly connected with it. 



I was very much impressed with the fact that the papers emphasize the peda- 

 gogical ideas more than they would have done a few years ago. This means, of 

 course, that we are looking on the courses of agriculture and mechanic arts as 

 courses having training capabilities as well as fitting for a distinct occupation 

 in life. 



There is another feature of the work at the agricultural colleges which has 

 not been mentioned. It ia spirit. I can conceive of an institution with no agri- 



