115 
and we can aol afford to do that First <>t' all, we must have men of some 
power. A man 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 up our courses m agriculture into such small fragmentary 
pieces, we lose the continuity of study and that <-los<- application a Student 
must give, for example, in preparing his work in mathematics. We throw away 
the great value dt our enlarged courses, and we can not afford to grant degrees 
on any slipshod or fragmentary 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, res, sir. 
Mr. CUBTISS. 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 pre taught. I do think 
that technical subjects can he presented in such a way as to give power, but 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 amount 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. I 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. Sxydkr. 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 separated 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 
