home and that the R. O. T. C. exerts a stablilizing effect upon youth at a time when it is most productive of good. While granting that a number of students disliked the ideas of drilling or subjecting themselves to disciplinary restraint, the majority asserted that such students could advance no serious reasons against it. They felt that those who most needed the training physically would be the very ones not to take it if the course were made entirely optional. Many stated that while they had opposed required training as undergraduates, they now support it as alumni for the reason that its disciplinary and educational benefits were not realized until after graduation. The point was often raised that those who received their education partly at Government expense owe to the Government an obligation to be reasonably familiar with military tactics to the end that their services may be of prompt use to the country in time of stress.

The minority, who favored an entirely optional course, stated that a stronger R. O. T. C. would result if the enrollment were limited to those genuinely interested. It was said that required military training blinds a student to the inherent good contained in the training, and creates a negative attitude that adversely affects the morale and progress of those who are interested. It was argued that the government receives little benefit from the considerable effort and expense spent upon indifferent or unwilling trainees. This opinion asserted that it was against the modern spirit in education to force courses upon students that were unrelated to their educational objectives.

For the sake of a clearer understanding of the replies to this question, it may be stated that the matter of whether freshmen and sophomores shall or shall not be required to undergo disciplinary military training 3 hours per week during the academic sessions has been widely discussed, and has become a problem in several institutions. It should also be noted that while numerically the alumni by a ratio of 4 to 1, favor military training as a curriculum requirement, as groups they support the "status quo" basis at their own institutions. The only exceptions comprise the replies received from the alumni groups representing DePauw University, University of Cincinnati, University of Pennsylvania, and Georgetown University-all optional— the majority of whose R. O. T. C. graduates favor required training.5 Although the subject of optional training is legitimately debatable, it is an institutional and not a general problem. Much of the excited discussion on both sides according to the replies, originates off the college campus, and that which permeates its confines is said to be instigated largely by outside sources. Although the land-grant colleges, with the exception of the University of Wisconsin, continue the compulsory requirement, they individually have very different views as to those upon whom it shall be made compulsory. Exemptions

5 See appendix.

vary as high as 30 per cent, and average about 20 per cent," and apply principally to aliens, the physically unfit, and to athletes.

8 (c). Judging by your own experience, would you abolish the R. O. T. C. from collegiate institutions?—The replies show that 98.5 per cent of those replying to this questionnaire view military and academic education as complementary, and are emphatically in favor of the continuance of the R. O. T. C. in educational institutions. In their opinion the abolishment of this activity would be a decided step backward.

The graduates do not view student dissatisfaction with the R. O. T. C. seriously, and observe that unfavorable attitudes frequently change to support as the purpose of the training becomes more clearly revealed. They believe that attacks upon the training are largely due to unfamiliarity with its objectives and are too often based upon superficial observation of the campus drill rather than upon classroom procedure. A considerable number stated that were there no military objectives they would still favor the inclusion of the R. O. T. C. or some similar activity in the college curriculum as a training in citizenship and as a medium for character and physical development.

One and five-tenths per cent favored the abolition of the R. O. T. C. course on these grounds: (1) That it would advance the course of world peace; (2) the expense does not justify the results obtained; (3) military training does not rightfully belong in an educational curriculum; (4) there would be sufficient time to give intensive military training after the emergency has arisen.

SUMMARY

1. The volume of opinions drawn from more than 10,000 college graduates who completed the R. O. T. C. course in military science and tactics gives full recognition to the educational values derived from the course. This is apparent from the standpoints of both general education and discipline and educational subject matter. The course is recognized for its utility in developing right habits of mind and body and qualities of character that are fully as useful in everyday experience as they are when applied to military objectives.

2. The R. O. T. C. is especially recommended by graduates because it has brought to them a more definite and serious recognition of a number of the more important duties and responsibilities of a democratic citizenship.

3. Graduates of the R. O. T. C. have come to feel that some college authorities and faculties have not given sufficient recognition to the R. O. T. C. as an educational instrument, largely through a Every Man a Brick. M. M. Chambers. Public Schools Publishing Co., Bloomington, Ill., 1927.

failure to perceive many of the educational values that have been developed through its agency.

4. Although graduates recognize on the whole that military education is equal in quality to that which is academic or professional, they feel that the R. O. T. C. course could be strengthened by better pedagogical training on the part of the teachers of military science, and by their placing greater stress upon the study of principles rather than upon military technique.

5. The graduates would strongly oppose the abolition of military training from institutions of collegiate grade, and are of the opinion that the contribution made by the R. O. T. C. to a young man's general education is sufficient in value to warrant the continuance of the course as a curriculum requirement.

6. Ninety-three and six-tenths per cent of the 9,636 replies attest that R. O. T. C. training does not create a militaristic attitude in the minds of those who have experienced it, but that it does furnish graduates with a sense of individual responsibility toward national welfare and security.

APPENDIX A

Evaluation of the Quality of the R. O. T. C. Curriculum by Class Groupings, Based on Question 3. A Comparison Showing Variations in Opinions Between Graduates of Separate Periods

The following tables present the percentage rating given by the composite replies of graduates of the 1923 to 1926 classes, inclusive, contrasted with those of the 1927 to 1930 classes, inclusive, upon the quality of the R. O. T. C. course with respect to content and organization, as compared with other courses given at their respective institutions. For the purpose of comparison the returns from the first 18 institutions covered by this study are used.1

1 Georgetown University is omitted for reason that comparative figures are not available.

22

APPENDIX B

Attitudes of Three Special Groups of Institutions Respecting Required versus Optional
Training for Freshmen and Sophomores

The subject of required versus optional training for freshmen and
sophomores is illuminated by the following tables:

ATTITUDE OF R. O. T. C. GRADUATES OF 12 OPTIONAL INSTITUTIONS

ATTITUDE OF R. O. T. C. GRADUATES OF 12 LAND-GRANT COLLEGES

Enrollment in junior division (of lower than college grade) - - .

41, 637

Total for all R. O. T. C.............

117, 423