latures are notoriously niggardly in granting funds for the building of residence halls, this does not wholly exonerate the institutions for this failure, since there are devices of which they could have availed themselves, independent of legislative provision.

In the year 1927-28, there were 136,659 students registered in the 44 land-grant institutions reporting on this question. Of these 21,472, not quite 15 per cent of the entire number, were housed in institutionally-owned and operated residences; and yet only when the college owns and operates its residence halls can it really control either the physical conditions or the social influences that so vitally affect its students. Of the 44 institutions replying to this section of the questionnaire, 31 house some of their men students in institutionallyowned dormitories, and 32 house some of their women students.

The institutions which make the most adequate provision for their men students seem to be those where military or semimilitary organization is maintained. Three institutions assume no responsibility whatsoever for housing any of their students and the provisions that they make for feeding them affects only a comparatively small part of the student bodies. In the University of California, indeed, there is not even any regulation as to approved rooming houses, and the only supervision of any sort exercised is a requirement that freshman women must live in houses approved by the dean of women. The situation at Colorado Agricultural College is quite different, since this institution is located in a small coherent community where the college is the main interest of the town. The situation at the University of Nebraska more nearly parallels that of California, for Lincoln is not only the second largest city in the State of Nebraska, but it is also the State capital and the center of an active urban life. Anyone who has worked in a State-supported institution knows that the residents of the locality in which that institution is located assume an almost proprietary right to make a living by various services rendered to the student body. State-supported institutions have had the all too frequent experience of formulating a residence hall program only to be met with concerted opposition from the citizens of the community who fear that such a program will invade their assumed right to profit by housing and feeding the students. On the other hand, every institution that has gone forward with its program in spite of this opposition has found that the erection and operation of even one well-planned, well-furnished, and wellrun residence hall has set a standard for student housing in the locality which affects almost immediately the type of accommodations furnished by private owners. When students can obtain good rooms, well heated, well lighted, well furnished, and well run, for a sum no greater, and in many instances lower, than the less attrac

tive and more poorly maintained private residences that the community offers, the result is not long in doubt. The poorer houses can not rent their rooms, and even those students who do not live in the college residences can make their choice of living accommodations from among the better private rooming houses.

It is interesting to see that although practically all of the institutions report that they are desirous of building more residence halls both for their men and their women students, only 17 have definite plans for expansion of dormitory facilities within the next two years for their men students, and only 10 for their women.1 It is evident also that the plan of segregating students by classes in residence halls finds very little favor. Only eight of the institutions reporting said that they provided freshman dormitories, and several in replying to this question remarked that they did not regard freshman dormitories as desirable. While it is probably true that freshmen need more help and supervision in making their adjustment to college living than do upper-classmen, it is argued that assimilation takes place more rapidly and painlessly when the freshmen are living in close daily relationships with upper-class students who can both consciously and unconsciously influence them in a thousand ways.

A point of contrast between the residence halls of privately endowed colleges and universities and those of the land-grant institutions is in the type of individual accommodation. Practically all of the land-grant institutions make slight provision for single rooms. This again is probably due to the fact that State-supported institutions are under the necessity of showing members of legislatures that they have housed the greatest number of students possible with a given appropriation; a great many more students can be accommodated in a given space if double rather than single rooms are provided. Few of the land-grant institutions use the dormitory method of housing their students-by this is meant large undivided space with many beds where the students sleep, although they have individual dressing and study rooms. Instead, practically all of the land-grant institutions use double rooms, although occasionally they may have suites which accommodate three students. Rarely do they have the arrangement so common in English colleges, a study in common with individual sleeping cubicles adjoining. It may be questioned whether the effect upon the individual student is desirable when his whole college life trains him in dependence upon constant companionship in both his sleeping and his waking moments, his study hours and his play time. It would seem that administrators should take more cognizance of the already overcrowding influence

1 See Part III, Business Management and Finance, for methods of financing residence and dining halls.

and stimuli upon young people in their formative years and should nake some definite provision for individual solitude.

Thirty-seven of the land-grant institutions report that they furnish student rooms with everything but bedding. It is encouraging to see that only 3 of the institutions use double beds in the students' rooms, although 15 use double-deck beds to some extent. Twentynine require the students to furnish their own bed linen, and 27 of these also depend upon the students caring for their own laundry. Thirteen both furnish the bedding and launder it. Perhaps in no single respect does an institution control certain conditions of student life more completely than in furnishing and laundering the bed linen. Even though the initial expense and the cost of upkeep in furnishing the linen and laundering may seem prohibitive, an institution might well cut down on some other furnishings in order to insure this control.

In 25 of the land-grant institutions the women students care for their own rooms and in 20 the men students do so also. Forty-two of the 44 reporting institutions said that they made some inspection of student rooms. In four institutions that use the military form of organization this inspection followed military regulations, the report of the inspection being made to the commandant. In the other reporting institutions the inspection was made by various officials, by the dormitory hostess or director, by an assistant to the dean of women or the dean of men, by a representative of the housing committee in the institutions where the general direction of housing is in the hands of a committee, by the director of the housing bureau in two instances, and by a student committee in one institution. The reports were made to many different institution officials, to the deans of men and women, to the director of dormitories in the four institutions where all the housing and feeding of the students is under a single director, to the health officer, to the superintendent of buildings and grounds, to the president, to the business manager or comptroller, to a housing committee, and to a dormitory board.

One institution stated that the reports of inspections were posted on a bulletin board in the women's dormitory so that the women might see how they were rated in comparison with their corridor mates. The comment was frequently made "inspection of women's rooms, no inspection of men's rooms." The assumption does not seem justified that supervision in minute detail is essential to insure right living conditions for women but that no such inspection or regulation is either necessary or desirable for men. No one who has once made an inspection of a house where men have lived under no supervision for even a brief space of time can doubt that the need for inculcating right habits is probably even greater for the male of the species than for the female.

Sixteen of the land-grant colleges report that they use student proctors but it was quite evident that a number understood the term "proctor" in a different sense than that of a resident who has direct responsibility to the head of the residence hall for living conditions in some portion of the hall. A good many showed by their replies concerning the proctors' compensation that they had taken the term to mean simply a student who, in the operation of the student government organization of the hall, is responsible for maintaining quiet during

quiet hours and for certain other minor observations, but who is answerable to the student government organization rather than to the college authorities directly. Where pay was given for this work it was usually in the form of room rent or its equivalent. Sixteen of the land-grant institutions reported that they employed students as janitors in the dormitories, but only eight felt satisfied with the arrangement.

The replies to the questionnaires showed a wide divergence of practice in fixing the responsibility for right health conditions in the dormitories.

In eight, the health officer of the institution was held responsible; in one, the department of hygiene; in four (under military organization), the commandant; in eight, the dean of women was mentioned as the responsible officer; in five, the dean of men; in four the dormitory nurse; in one, student government officials; and in another the health captains appointed from the student body and cooperating with the dean of women.

Two stated that it was not the duty of any definite officer to see that proper health conditions were maintained in the residence hall. Thirty-nine reported that the toilet facilities were adequate and properly cared for, but only 23 felt that they could be regarded as models of what such equipment should be. When the age of many of the college residence halls is considered and the length of time that their toilet facilities have been installed, it is easy to understand the reluctance of the college authorities to speak of them as models in any sense, even though earnest effort may be made to keep them

in usable condition.

Thirty-five of the land-grant institutions reported that their residence halls were centrally heated and 34 that they were adequately protected in case of fire. Only 15, however, use frequent fire drills to accustom the occupants of the halls to the use of fire escapes. It would seem that better observance of the regulations that are on the statute books in most States in regard to fire drill in school buildings would be a wise precaution for the safeguarding of residents in dormitories.

Nowhere in the land-grant institutions did the home economics department have any real responsibility for the housing conditions of the students. Perhaps one should qualify this by stating that a large number of the land-grant institutions have one or more practice houses where the students who are taking household administration are required to live for a definite period of time in a setting as nearly as possible that of a normal family. These practice houses, however, have no part in the housing program of the land-grant institutions but are more properly considered laboratory facilities for the teaching of courses. Only three of the land-grant institutions mentioned cooperation between the home economics department and those responsible for the institutional housing program. In two of these cases a representative from the home economics department sat on the committee that was concerned with the plan

ning of dormitories. In one other the dean of women, who was responsible for the housing program in the institution, was a member of the home economics staff.

For the woman student who must support herself while she is in college, the expense of living in the dormitory is often too great to permit her to take advantage of the opportunities this offers for congenial companionship. An answer to her demand that she be given a chance to earn part of her expenses while still enjoying group life has been found in the organization of cooperative cottages. Six of the land-grant institutions support some 18 of these residences.

The land-grant institutions where these cooperative houses are operating are Alabama, with three, Iowa with one, Minnesota with six, Washington with one, and Wisconsin with four. The usual number of students living in a single house is about 15. This means that these cottages are a good deal smaller than the ordinary dormitory.

In most cases the institution has found itself possessed of residences that were built for family use. The houses are not ordinarily designated for large-group living. Many times they are old structures that would not justify large expenditures for improvements, but they do make at least a return of a small percentage on the investment when they can be converted into residences for the women students who are anxious to form a group and to lower the cost of living by doing a large part of their own work. The land-grant institutions, therefore, own all but 2 of the 18 cooperative houses which they operate. The two exceptions are being bought on an amortization plan. Eventually the university will own these two houses, which will have been bought and paid for, and presented to it, by the rental that self-supporting students have paid into the financing company.

The amount of work which students have to do in these houses in order to reduce the expenses range from one-half hour to two hours per day. All 6 of the institutions report that the women care for their own rooms; in 5 of them they care for the other rooms in the house also, although 2 institutions report that they hire a woman to do a weekly cleaning through the whole house. In three of the institutions the students prepare all the meals themselves, while in 3 they hire a cook. The cost of board and room averages $230 per year in these houses as compared to an average of $360 in the dormitories or in private houses. The reduction ranges from 33% per cent to 50 per cent. In all but one of the institutions the management of the houses is supervised by an administrative officer, in each case the dean of women. One institution reported that the management was in the hands of the house director, but even in this case the dean of women had final supervision over the living conditions. In none of the institutions did the home economics department have any direct supervision of the cooperative houses.

The advantage of the cooperative cottage plan of living for the self-supporting student is obvious. The students in most cases do little more than they would if they were living in their own homes and helping with the normal housework of their families. They are, however, the very girls who have to work their way by going