64 
agriculture itself is now being constructed. But this method of procedure, as we can 
now see, had also some unfortunate results from which we are seeking to escape 
through the more thorough formulation of the science of agriculture and of courses 
based thereon, ami the readjustment of the courses in the natural sciences to meet 
this new condition of agricultural pedagogy. 
One result of the prolonged study of the relations of science to agriculture was to 
lead both teacher and student too far afield in the pursuit of problems which, though 
important scientifically and even economically, had too remote connection with 
agriculture itself to make it worth while for the student whose aim was to be a master 
of the theory and practice of agriculture to follow after them. Thus, for example, 
agricultural chemistry developed a system of analysis of fertilizers, feeding stuffs, and 
adulterated products which in the minds of many teachers came to be so prominent 
a part of this branch of chemistry that it often assumed an undue importance in the 
general agricultural courses in our colleges. Now, we shall always need expert 
analysts of fertilizers and feeding stuffs, and special courses for the training of those 
experts should be offered in our agricultural colleges. But these should be clearly 
differentiated from the courses intended to lay the foundations for the scientific study 
of agriculture. Under the old system the emphasis was often laid so much on 
analytical work that the colleges produced many analysts and but few agricultural 
experts. So in botany it is easily possible, for example, to lay so much stress on 
studies of fungi and bacteria, or grasses, that the students are led to strive to become 
experts in vegetable pathology or agrostology. It is true we need many more such 
experts, but, nevertheless, it should not be the object of botanical studies underlying 
the general course in agriculture to aim at the training of pathological experts, or 
agrostologists, or any other kind of botanical experts. While botanical experts and 
agricultural experts may for a time profitably study botany together, their paths 
should soon diverge, and this must be kept in mind by teachers of botany. 
Another unfortunate result of the old arrangement of courses in our agricultural 
colleges was that the study of the general principles and outlines of the various 
natural sciences was often unwisely abridged in order to give more attention to their 
economic applications. This has, perhaps, not been so much the fault of the science 
teachers as of the managers of the agricultural colleges. The attempt to createa very 
practical atmosphere in these institutions has often led to great disregard of estab- 
lished pedagogical principles in the teaching of the complex subjects relating to 
agriculture and other arts. Nothing is more firmly established in pedagogical science 
than the principle that, before proceeding to the study of complex problems, the 
pupil should become acquainted with the elementary facts and principles involved 
in the solution of these problems. It is also very generally agreed that an outline 
study of a general subject which will enable the pupil to have some comprehension of 
the subject as a whole and the relations of its different parts should precede detailed 
study of special topics included in this general subject. Thus it is best both prac- 
tically and pedagogically that the boy in the graded schools should be taught an 
outline of the history of the United States. He will thus acquire a certain amount 
of information which will be useful to him if he goes out into life from the graded 
school, and he will also have laid the best foundation for such special studies of 
United States history as he may have opportunity to pursue in higher courses of 
instruction. In like manner in the natural sciences there should be a sufficient 
period of general study before special topics are taken up, and the abridgment of 
this preliminary course throws the future course of the student out of pedagogical 
balance. 
The general readjustments of science teaching which are demanded by the present 
development of our agricultural colleges are, therefore, first the more thorough teach- 
ing of the foundations of the natural sciences; secondly, the clearer differentiation of 
the courses in natural science associated with the courses in agriculture from those 
which are intended for the training of experts in various economic specialties related 
to agriculture; and, thirdly, the separation from the science courses of those subjects 
which may be more appropriately taught by the instructors in the various branches 
of agriculture itself. From the nature of the case it is obvious that the details of 
these readjustments can be worked out only as the result of many experimental 
efforts and long discussion of the practical and pedagogical points involved. The 
evolutionary forces which are to result in the elaboration of more perfect and satisfac- 
tory courses of instruction in agriculture are already at work in our agricultural insti- 
tutions and they will continue to work for an indefinite period. It has seemed, how- 
ever, to your committee that at this juncture it would be helpful to call attention to 
some of the general factors of this evolution and even to suggest a somewhat definite 
mode of procedure to secure the sought -for ends. In this, as in other lines of its work, 
the committee has assumed that it would be more useful to present a definite scheme 
