of specialized technical courses and of fundamental science courses is offered. Still other courses both in technical subjects and in basic sciences and economics are ordinarily provided for graduate students. Nearly all land-grant institutions offer the master's degree, and about one-third offer the doctorate, in one or more specialized agricultural fields. In the field of home economics, the program of resident instruction of the land-grant institutions is not so broad as it is in agriculture. This situation is undoubtedly due in part to the later introduction of home economics into the curriculum as a subject of study. A group of courses is ordinarily offered in each of several specialized fields and undergraduates are required to take some combination of these courses along with specified science prerequisites. Graduate courses in one or more fields of specialization, and the master's degree in the field of home economics, are offered by a large majority of the land-grant institutions. Only a few offer the doctorate in the field and only a very few have recently reported candidates for this degree. In the field of home economics also, work for the master's degree tends to be represented by a research thesis and subjects planned for the research worker, rather than by courses designed to increase the proficiency of students in their specialized technical fields.

The program of instruction in engineering maintained by the land-grant institutions is about as broad as that maintained in agriculture. In the main it consists of a group of specialized undergraduate courses in the several engineering fields, based upon a foundation of prerequisites in mathematics and other physical sciences. Most of the land-grant institutions offering undergraduate instruction in engineering also offer work leading to the master's degree in engineering. In connection with this work, somewhat greater effort is apparently made to increase technical skill than in the fields of agriculture or home economics. The doctor's degree in the field of engineering is offered by about one-fourth of the land-grant institutions.

The educational programs of the land-grant colleges maintained for Negroes differ consideraby in general char

acter from those in other land-grant institutions. One of their chief functions is the preparation of teachers for service in the elementary and secondary schools for Negroes in the South. As a result, about three-fifths of the students in these institutions take their majors in the arts and sciences, or in education.23 They have shown wisdom in adapting their instruction to the needs of their situation, as the opportunities in publicly controlled institutions in the South for Negroes to secure preparation for teaching are limited. For the remaining students instruction is provided chiefly in agriculture, mechanic arts, and home economics, with some offerings in business and commerce, nursing, and other fields.

By far the larger part of the instruction offered in the landgrant colleges for Negroes is of undergraduate or even, in some instances, of subcollegiate rank. In agriculture, the collegiate level of instruction has been attained with difficulty and there is a tendency to include courses of a secondary school grade. This tendency is also especially pronounced in the field of mechanic arts since training for the ordinary industrial pursuits, such as auto mechanics, carpentry, etc., is almost always necessarily substituted for instruction in engineering offered by the other land-grant institutions. In evaluating this situation it should be borne in mind that the inadequacies of Negro schools at the elementary and secondary levels place limits on what higher institutions can undertake, and that the economic opportunities for the Negro still further limit the lines of study that it is worthwhile for him to undertake.

In evaluating the instructional work of the land-grant colleges it must be borne in mind that their growth in their early years was conditioned by the fact that they found themselves in an educational environment that was far from hospitable. Their difficulties in this respect are well set forth in the following statement:

At that time [the early years of the land-grant institutions] most of the American universities and colleges were private institutions and they confined themselves principally to the teaching of the traditional classics, letters, and scholastic subjects. The scientific, the technical, and the practical as applied to the industries and trades, in which the 23 See Biennial Survey of Education: 1932-1934, ch. IV, pp. 470 ff.

vast majority of the people were engaged, had no place in the scheme of their curricula. Higher education was limited largely to those who planned to enter the learned professions. From the first the idea of democratizing higher learning received little sympathy from the existing private universities and colleges. The proposal was regarded as more or less visionary. The early leaders, therefore, realized that a new type of college would have to be created a college that would provide instruction in both the liberal and practical arts for the classes of American citizens that had previously not had the means nor the social background for higher education in the old institutions.24

Suggested Modifications

of Curriculums

Although the instructional programs of the land-grant institutions may appear from this brief survey to have been very effective, it may still be reasonably held that these programs would probably have been more effective if those charged with determining their form and substance had possessed a somewhat larger vision of the purposes of the educational efforts of these institutions.

In the field of agriculture, for example, much emphasis has been placed upon productive efficiency. This was especially true in the earlier days. As a result not only the liberal elements which were, by specific mandate, to have been included in all curriculums, but also other offerings having important agricultural objectives, have been denied the consideration they might well have had. As examples, there may be cited three crucial objectives of agricultural education that have received relatively limited attention in the agricultural instruction offered by the land-grant institutions, although there is some evidence of increasing concern for them in recent years. They are: (1) Skill in business management; (2) economic insight; and (3) an active, unselfish disposition to cooperate in programs of social better

ment.

As an ultimate determinant of success or failure in farming, skill in business management is highly important, especially in the better agricultural regions. Yet provision

24 U. S. Office of Education, Survey of Land-Grant Colleges and Universities, Bulletin, 1930, No. 9 (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1930), vol. I, pt. I, p. 1.

for this type of training is frequently not sufficiently stressed in the curriculum of the student interested in agriculture. Similarly, it is a matter of common observation that large numbers of American farmers are not so aware as they should be of the significance of their economic relationships to other industrial groups in the Nation, and likewise to the manner in which their economic interests are affected by international relations and policies; problems growing out of these economic relationships and policies have long threatened not merely the prosperity but the very existence of American agriculture. Further, the replacement of the traditional individualistic attitude of all past generations of American farmers with new and unselfish social attitudes actively favorable to cooperative effort appears to be so crucially important that it should under no conditions be omitted from education for agricultural service.

A similar tendency in the past to omit important offerings may be observed in the field of home economics. Great emphasis has been placed upon certain physical aspects of home and family life, such as foods, clothing, and household equipment, whereas the study of the human qualities and relationships and the spiritual influences and values that have great significance in determining the place of the home as a social institution have been practically excluded from the curriculums.

Engineering curriculums in the land-grant institutions seem generally to have been organized more nearly upon the basis of the subsequent needs of the students than have been the curriculums in agriculture and home economics. Even here, however, emphasis upon the technical aspects of the professional work has tended to exclude training that would enable the students to work well with others and come into positions of influence and leadership in later life. This omission has been recognized and efforts are being made, at least in some institutions, to make provisions for this type of training.

Generally those responsible for instruction in agriculture, engineering, and home economics in land-grant institutions

have underestimated the importance of a more ample background of general education than is furnished by the high school alone. The tendency in recent years has been to make the instruction in agriculture, engineering, and home economics specialized and to attempt to develop a definitely professional basis for these fields of service. This movement, however, should be accompanied by an extension of the period of general education to at least 2 years above the high school for degree students, which is the level at which the professional work is generally begun in agriculture, engineering, and home economics. In the Middle West and the Far West, at least, the rapid development of the junior college promises to raise practical considerations that will accelerate this development.

Enrollments, Degrees, Size of
Staffs, and Expenditures

Student enrollments, degrees granted, size of faculties, and expenditures are not complete measures of the contribution of an institution or a group of institutions. They are, however, frequently used as indexes of influence. The total enrollment in degree-granting institutions in the United States in 1935-36 was 1,088,177; 17 percent of the students enrolled were in land-grant institutions. In that year 21 percent of the 79,571 graduate students were enrolled in land-grant institutions. The land-grant institutions awarded 21 percent of the 143,125 baccalaureate and first professional degrees, 23 percent of the 18,243 master's degrees, and 31 percent of the 2,770 doctorates that were granted in the United States in 1935-36.25

Table 2 presents comparative data on the size of staffs in the land-grant institutions in 1933-34 and 1936-37. All classifications within the institutions have been included. It will be noted that between 1933-34 and 1936-37 there was a marked growth in the entire staffs of the land-grant institutions and in all but one of the classifications.

25 Data obtained from the U. S. Office of Education.