131 
many of the men Included In tin* estimate bad comparatively little teaching, bol 
they do serve to suggest the Importance of the question and the need for com- 
paring views upon it. 
\v. II. Jordan, of New York, if I could have the heads of the departments of 
the New York State Station give a few lectures (from ten to twenty) a year I 
would be glad to have them do it as a means of clarifying their views, looking 
up literature, and that sort of thing. It makes a difference what kind of teach- 
ing a station worker does as to whether it is an advantage to him or not. The 
most of the teaching done by college and station men in this country is the 
teaching of fundamentals, and i believe it is nothing hut a pleasant fallacy on 
the part of those who wish to reenforce their teaching staff to maintain that 
teaching the fundamentals and the drilling of classes for 50 per cent of the 
time is an advantage to the investigator. I do not helieve any such thing. 1 
believe in the differentiation of functions. What kind of a man do you want 
for an investigator'.' A man ahsorhed in the things he is doing and who shall 
not he turned aside and wearied by having to drill a class or do anything else 
but hunt his subject and the truth. You know that teaching has to he done at 
stated times, and the investigation must wait till the convenient day. That is 
exactly what happens in actual practice. My answer to the question would 
therefore be: A small amount of teaching of an advanced character along the 
line of the specialties with which the station man is engaged and on which he 
is thinking is all right. However, very much of teaching which we necessarily 
do in our agricultural colleges to-day is not an advantage, but a disadvantage 
to the investigator. 
C. D. Smith, of Michigan. I do not object so much to a subordinate doing 
the teaching as I do the head of the department, for the reason that if the head 
of a department of the station has also the management of a large teaching de- 
partment of the college he can no longer do very good station work. The dan- 
ger is, as experience has shown, that the demauds of the teaching will gradually 
encroach upon and crowd out the research work. The investigator should be 
almost, if not quite, entirely free from the teaching work. My experience has 
led me to believe most emphatically that we are not going to get the results 
that we should get from the stations until this is done. The differentiation be- 
tween the teaching and investigation must be complete. 
C. D. Woods, of Maine. I think it is easy for us to see the way we have come 
into the present position. When the stations were first established compara- 
tively few skilled men were obtainable. The stations started out on the plan 
of the college, with a great many departments in charge of young men who had 
their reputations to make. The result has been that we very materially in- 
creased the station pay roll until it reached a point where it was impossible 
for the station alone to keep all the men required and give them the amount of 
money they ought to have or could get elsewhere. So it has come about that 
this division of men between the station and the college has perhaps increased 
in the later years. With a small increase of appropriation for the station it 
would be possible to solve this problem, and in the effort to do this I think we 
will have the help of the college men. 
I thoroughly believe that a station man ought not to be a dual man. I wish 
that in our own experiment station we did not have a single man connected with 
the station who had routine instruction to do. Advanced instruction a few hours 
in the course of the year, requiring the preparation of ten. twelve, or twenty 
lectures for the students, would, in my opinion, he helpful, but any drudgery 
Of teaching for a station officer I am very sure is a detriment to the station work. 
C. F. Curtiss, of Iowa. I believe that the stations in many instances, and 
