82 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BALTIMORE MEETING 



and Geography of the National Research Council outlined courses and pre- 

 pared texts and syllabi on the understanding that geology should take a 

 prominent place in the program of studies of the Students' Army Training 

 Corps. As finally issued, the program Included a required course in surveying 

 and map-making — a course such as is commonly given to students in railroad 

 engineering and which involved no knowledge of geology and little practice in 

 the use of topographic maps. Geology, including physiography, was listed 

 with 24 other subjects which were open to election. The result was that about 

 5 per cent of the prospective officers received instruction in geology. 



This unsatisfactory showing led to a study of the status of geology in edu- 

 cational institutions. It was found that the number of high-school students 

 studying geology has been rapidly decreasing and now is about 0.5 per cent; 

 that of 512 colleges and universities large enough to qualify for Students' 

 Army Training Corps units, 43 per cent offer no geology. In the 294 institu- 

 tions which provide for undergraduate teaching in geology, the department 

 faculty consists of one man who gives all or part of his time to this subject 

 in 58 institutions, and in 173 colleges and, universities geology is taught by 

 Instructors in other subjects. The statistics show that since 1900 the number 

 of students electing geology has suffered a large relative decrease and probably 

 an actual decrease. 



There is much food for thought in the status of geology as revealed by ex- 

 perience with the Students' Army Training Corps and by a study of university 

 faculties and curricula. 



Is geology taking its proper place in educational systems? Is it making a 

 satisfactory contribution to national progress and welfare? And if not, why 

 not? Is it true that a knowledge of geology is fundamental in efficient ex- 

 ploitation of the soil and in the development of mineral resources? If so, why 

 are geologists rare in agricultural schools, experiment stations, and on the 

 staffs of mining and quarry companies? Has geology significant contributions 

 to make to engineering problems and to military operations? Then why are 

 most of the dams, tunnels, and foundations and wells constructed without the 

 aid of geologists, and why has it required such skillful maneuvering to assign 

 geologists to the Army staffs in France? Has geology a message for high- 

 school pupils and college students? Is it true that this subject is particularly 

 valuable in developing the imagination, in weighing evidence, in gaining an 

 intelligent notion of time? Is it fitted to increase the happiness of people by 

 enlarging their enjoyment of natural scenery? Belief in the educational value 

 of geology is common among geologists, but many college presidents and facul- 

 ties view the idea with skepticism. Shall we consider a knowledge of geology 

 as a special attainment within the range of a small group, and shall geologists 

 continue to write books for each other to read and criticize, or shall we con- 

 sider that the facts and methods and principles of geology should form part 

 of the mental equipment of intelligent citizens and write books which can be 

 understood by the average man? These are some of the questions which re- 

 quire study if progress in our science is to be stimulated ; for advanced study 

 flourishes best in a sympathetic environment, and the training of students and a 

 wide public knowledge of the value of geology are primary conditioning factors 

 in research. 



Read l^y the author from manuscript. 



