Vol. LXI. No. 2757 
NEW YORK, NOVEMBER 29, 1902. 
II PER YEAR. 
AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION IN NEW YORK. 
AN INTERVIEW WITH PRESIDENT SCnURMAN. 
From Country School to University. 
We give below a report, of a conversation recently 
(held with President J. G. Schurman of Cornell Univer¬ 
sity. It is probable that many New York farmers 
have never understood the exact relation between 
Cornell and the State Agricultural College. We are 
very glad to put the facts before them and bespeak a 
careful consideration of the plans suggested by Presi¬ 
dent Schurman. «. w. c. 
“President Schurman, will you explain your own 
feeling towards farmers, the education of farmers, 
and the agricultural interests of the country?” 
“My own experience leads me to sympathize deeply 
with the farmer’s life and work. My father 
and his ancestors for many generations were 
farmers. My own family are farmers. I was 
brought up on the farm, and know the mean¬ 
ing and realities of farm life. I believe that 
the farmers are the backbone of the country, 
the most conservative class we have, the peo¬ 
ple of the solidest character. In the citie.; 
families go to seed in two or three genera¬ 
tions, and the cities would go to destructio * 
but for their continuous recuperation by the 
coming of young men and women from the 
farms. The hope of the United States, there¬ 
fore, is in the farming population, in the 
education of the farmers I am vitally inter¬ 
ested. I know that the organization of agri¬ 
cultural education is more difficult than the 
organization of engineering education and the 
mechanic arts. But progress has been made 
in the past, and I think the time is now ripe 
for a new departure. The farmer stands 
nearer than any other man to Nature’s source 
of supply. His business cannot be syndicated; 
the individual must always play the most 
prominent part in it. I suppose that is one 
reason why the proper provision for the edu¬ 
cation of young men and women for farm life 
is really so difficult.” 
“Is it true that there is discrimination 
against agricultural education at Cornell Uni¬ 
versity and that young men and women in the 
agricultural courses are looked down upon by 
the rest of the University?” 
“No statement could be more false. Cornell 
University glories in her democracy. And if 
the day should ever come when a student in 
agriculture should not enjoy the same rights, 
privileges and opportunities and receive the 
same social treatment as a student in any 
other department, the University should close 
its doors. There is absolutely no ground for 
the suspicion of the discrimination you sug¬ 
gest. Students throughout all departments of 
the University stand on precisely the same 
footing, and no one ever thinks of asking whether a 
man is in the course of agriculture, or medicine, or 
arts, or any other course. The man’s own ability and 
character determine his standing at the University. 
And so far as concerns instruction and facilities for 
instruction the University has endeavored to keep the 
College of Agriculture abreast of other departments. 
We recognize the obligation imposed by our charter 
to make the sciences related to agriculture and the 
mechanic arts leading objects of the institution.” 
“Is there any foundation for the charge that the 
moneys received by Cornell University from National 
or State sources have been diverted to other objects?” 
“Absolutely none. The only money Cornell Uni¬ 
versity receives from the State of New York is $35,000 
a year for the promotion of agricultural knowledge 
throughout the State. And this money has been 
spent for the employment of lecturers who go about 
the country, for the holding of agricultural schools in 
different sections, and for the conduct of experiments 
on farms scattered over all parts of the State. No 
other money, I have said, is received from the State 
of New York. But from the Federal Treasury fund 
we receive $25,000 a year under Act of Congress of 
August 30, 1890, which provides that this appropria¬ 
tion shall be applied ‘only to instruction in agricul * 
hire, the mechanic arts, the English language and the 
■various branches of mathematical, physical, natural and 
economic science, with special reference to their applica* 
tion in the industries of life, and to the facilities for 
such instruction.’ And in Cornell University this 
money is sacredly devoted to the objects specified in 
the law. The University also received from the Feu- 
eral Government under the Act of Congress of July 2, 
1862, the receipts from the sale of certain public lands 
which brought in a gross sum of $688,000. This 
amount is now held by the State of New York in trust 
and it pays to Cornell University five per cent there¬ 
on, i. e., $34,000 annually. This sum by the terms of 
the Act of Congress of July 2, 1862, is to be devoted 
‘to the endowment, support and maintenance of at 
least one college where the leading object shall be, 
without excluding other scientific and classical studies, 
and including military tactics, to teach such branches of 
learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic 
arts.’ And Cornell University has scrupulously de¬ 
voted the money thus received to the objects desig¬ 
nated by the law. The $13,500 annually received for 
the Federal Experiment Station is devoted solely to 
experiments and publication of results.” 
“Does Cornell University make any pecuniary re¬ 
turn to the people of the State of New York for these 
annual Federal grants of $59,000?” 
“Yes, indeed. Cornell University educates free of 
charges for tuition four students annually from each 
assembly district of the State—in all 600—and besides 
it gives free instruction to all agricultural students—■ 
nearly 200 more. At the average charge for tuition, 
which is $125, this exemption from tuition fees 
amounts to nearly $100,000, and the cost to the Uni¬ 
versity of educating these 800 students is between 
$200,000 and $300,000.” 
“But has the College of Agriculture received its 
fair share of such Federal funds?” 
“The faculty of the College of Agriculture 
requires its regular students to take the fol¬ 
lowing studies: Technical agriculture, botany, 
entomology, zoology, English, chemistry, phys¬ 
ics, drawing, physiology, dairy husbandry, 
political economy and horticulture besides a 
year or more of electives. For the mainten¬ 
ance of these departments, under which I in¬ 
clude salaries of professors and appropriations 
for apparatus, etc., the University paid last 
year $146,000. Of course some of these depart¬ 
ments were open to other students as well as 
to agricultural students. But even if all other 
students were excluded and these departments 
were solely for the benefit of agricultural stu¬ 
dents I estimate that the net cost would be in 
the neighborhood of $100,000. If to these were 
added something for an agricultural library 
and other scientific equipment, and it account 
be taken of heating, lighting and repairs, 1 
estimate that a separate agricultural college 
supplying instruction of the same variety and 
character as that of which agricultural stu¬ 
dents now avail themselves at Cornell Uni¬ 
versity would cost about $140,000.” 
“Let us admit that this explanation is satis¬ 
factory provided it is wise for agricultural 
students to take such a general course as is 
now offered them in the regular course at Cor¬ 
nell University. But would it not be expedient 
in the interest of agricultural education to ex¬ 
clude a good many of the subjects mentioned 
above, and to limit the education of students 
in the agricultural course to the narrower field 
of agriculture, horticulture, dairy husbandry, 
and a few other subjects closely related to the 
farmer’s needs and work?” 
“In answering such a question I must say 
that in the past the Faculty of Agriculture at 
Cornell University have unanimously approved 
of the present course. I cannot doubt that the 
present course has been valuable in the past, 
and perhaps more proper than any other 
course. But I believe that in the near future 
the education of farmers at Cornell University must 
be more specialized than it has been in the past. In 
the last few years the education of engineers has in 
the same way become more specialized. And when 
the College is reorganized, as it will be in 1903 on the 
retirement of Professor Roberts—who after a genera¬ 
tion of splendid service to agricultural education 
completes his three score years and ten—I intend ask¬ 
ing the new director and faculty to consider whether 
the time is not ripe for the introduction of a more 
specialized programme of agricultural study. If they 
deem it expedient to adopt my suggestion, we should 
then be free to use a larger portion of the two Federal 
funds I have mentioned above, and which aggregate 
$59,000 annually, for the teaching of subjects directly 
connected with the business of the farmer. It might 
JACOB GOULD SCHURMAN. Fig. 324. 
President oi Cornell University. 
