SEVENTH ANNUAL MEETING 47 



When agriculture is given in the first year the students of 

 course have very little knowledge of science to which they can 

 relate their agriculture ; on the other hand, the agriculture may 

 furnish a motive for further study and better appreciation 

 and understanding of the sciences which follow later. The 

 first year agriculture often takes the place of a general science, 

 since it invades freely into the field of botany, zoology, chem- 

 istry, physics and other pure sciences. 



It may be of interest to note that at the last meeting of the 

 State High School Conference at the University last fall, the 

 Agricultural section recommended that a year of general sci- 

 ence be given before, or in connection with, the study of agri- 

 culture. It was the opinion of the Section that agriculture 

 should be taught as a vocational subject and leave the related 

 scientific subject-matter of the various sciences to their re- 

 spective fields. For example, in agriculture we should teach 

 in regard to alfalfa, less of its botanical relationships and facts 

 and more of its economic value and how to grow it and use it. 



As the schools are now manned and equipped, more of the 

 science of agriculture can be taught than the art. The prin- 

 ciples governing the application of the biological and physical 

 sciences to the art of agriculture are as well taught, and have 

 as much educational value as the so-called pure sciences, which 

 have been taught for a much longer period of time. The 

 graduates from our colleges of agriculture are usually well 

 prepared in the sciences as w r ell as in practical agriculture, and 

 they are therefore better prepared to teach the sciences with 

 agriculture, than are the science men to teach the agriculture 

 with the sciences. 



Those of us who believe in agricultural education must see 

 to it, however, that the teaching be on a sound basis and that 

 high standards of scholarship be maintained. I do not believe 

 there is any more danger here than there is in the teaching of 

 other sciences. If the pure sciences are made "too pure" for 

 high school, the fault is just as grievous as it would be were 

 the applied sciences made merely recipes for action. The 

 applied sciences, it seems to me, have this additional value over 

 the pure sciences for educational purposes — in that there is 

 opportunity in the application of the science to useful ends, 

 to understand and appreciate the pure science as well. 



As to whether the teaching of agriculture in the state at this 

 time is well organized in relation to existing courses in the 

 curriculum, or whether it is on the right basis, I am not able 

 to say with any degree of correctness. The whole matter is 



