Miller, Merritt F.-Professor of Soils, College of Agriculture, University of Missouri.

Morey, Lloyd-Comptroller, University of Illinois.

Morrison, Frank B.-Director, New York State Agricultural Experiment Station. Mumford, F. B.-Dean and Director, University of Missouri.

Nicholson, Edward E.-Dean of Student Affairs, University of Minnesota.

Ogan, Ralph O.-Assistant in the Department of School Administration, Ohio State University.

Pearson, Raymond-President, University of Maryland.

Peck, Francis W.-Director of Agricultural Extension, University of Minnesota, University Farm, St. Paul.

Potter, A. A.-Dean, Schools of Engineering, Purdue University.

Pritchard, George H.-Department of Physical Education, Hiram College, Hiram, Ohio.

Proffitt, Maris M.-Specialist in Industrial Education, U. S. Office of Education. Ramsower, H. C.-Director of Extension, Ohio State University.

Ratcliffe, Ella B.-U. S. Office of Education.

Ross, P. H.-Director of Extension Service, University of Arizona.

Slate, William L.-Director, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven, Conn.

Springer, D. W.—Secretary, Association of Governing Boards of State Universities and Allied Institutions, Washington, D. C.

Stange, Charles H.-Dean, Division of the Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State College.

Steeb, Carl E.-Business Manager, Ohio State University.

Stoddart, Charles W.-Dean, School of Liberal Arts, Pennsylvania State
College.

Symons, T. B.-Director of Extension Service, University of Maryland.
Thomas, John M.-President, Rutgers University.

Tavernetti, Thomas F.-Assistant to the Dean of the College of Agriculture,
University of California, Berkeley.

Thatcher, Roscoe W.-President, Massachusetts Agricultural College.

Van Rensselaer, Martha—Director, New York State College of Home Economics, Cornell University.

Walster, Harlow L.-Dean of School of Agriculture, North Dakota Agricultural College.

Watts, Ralph L.-Dean, College of Agriculture, Pennsylvania State College. Wilkinson, Robert S.-President, Normal, Industrial, Agricultural, and Mechanical College of South Carolina.

In spite of the attempt to safeguard information and to insure a high degree of completeness and accuracy, it is fully recognized that the indifference and ignorance of individuals in some cases was reflected in the returns. Guesses rather than facts, opinions rather than records, evasions rather than the truth, have in spite of all efforts doubtless crept in at certain points. Nevertheless, it is believed that the cordial cooperation and honest effort of the institutions, quite apart from the checks made by the survey itself, reduce these faults to a minimum.

It was fully recognized that in many instances the information. available permitted conclusions and inferences of somewhat broad

or general character only and did not provide a basis for the refinement of analysis that is desirable. Throughout the preparation of the survey report it was the purpose of the director of the survey to emphasize the need that specialists guard against drawing conclusions unwarranted by the material submitted. Further, it has in many cases been necessary because of practical considerations of time and expense to treat certain aspects of the study in rather broad outline, although the material for detailed treatment was available. In many instances, therefore, the survey has indicated that further presentation and study of the data are desirable for purposes more specific than those of the survey.

SURVEY OF LAND-GRANT COLLEGES AND

UNIVERSITIES

PART I.-HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION

The history of the land-grant institutions in the United States is the story of the growth of an idea-an idea centered in the democratization of higher learning.

In the beginning the idea was vague and nebulous. It came into existence about the middle of the last century with the realization that the industrial, commercial, and intellectual development of the Nation depended upon the higher education of the masses. At that time 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 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. To reach the masses of people in all parts of the country, it was necessary to establish at least one of the colleges in every State in the Union.

Since the industrial classes in the United States during the period prior to the outbreak of the Civil War were largely agricultural, the initial discussion centered about the organization of agricultural colleges. In several States such institutions were organized through private subscriptions. Similar colleges under State control and support were established in one or two other States. The private agricultural colleges failed. The State-supported institutions continued to operate. It then became evident

that if the movement was to succeed, if higher education was to be furnished, the industrial classes, and if it was to be available in every part of the country, the new type of college would have to be supported by public taxation rather than private endowment and that it would have to be State-controlled. Any plan of inducing the governments of all the States on their own initiative to organize the colleges was an impossible undertaking.

The final recourse was the Federal Government. As early as 1787 the Congress of the Confederation passed an ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory by setting aside public lands for the support of education. Later as new States were organized, the Congress of the United States made land grants for common schools. Public agitation was started, therefore, for the establishment of the new type of institution, vaguely referred to as the Industrial University, the Agricultural College, or the People's College, through grants of public lands by the Federal Government to each of the States. Under this plan, it was assured that every State would have one of the colleges; that the institutions would be supported through public sources, and that they would be open to the The proposal succeeded. Congress enacted a law providing for the grant of public lands to be utilized in creating an endowment to support a college in each of the States. This law opened the way for the emancipation of higher learning from its classic and formal traditions and for the recognition of the principle that every American citizen is entitled to receive higher learning of a practical type. It was the beginning of the modern institutions of higher education supported by public taxation.

masses.

Even with the establishment of a college in each State through Federal land grants, the movement was but in its inception. The discovery was soon made that the idea of furnishing scientific, technical, and practical instruction to the industrial classes could not be carried into effect immediately by the colleges for the reason that no suitable organized body of scientific, technical, and practical knowledge existed. The industrial and the agricultural classes knew as much or more about the practical side of their employments than the teachers in the newly organized colleges. It was necessary to build up a body of scientific knowledge. For a number of years, the institutions were mere trade schools in agriculture and mechanic arts of secondary grade supplementing instruction in the classics, letters, and scholastic subjects that were given in the old colleges and universities. Between 1880 and 1885 scientific research into agriculture, engineering, and industry was inaugurated. Agricultural experiment stations were established by the States and located at the colleges for the application of science to agriculture and for the dissemina

tion of the knowledge thus obtained. The Federal Government gave financial aid to the experiment stations through annual subsidies. The work of the institutions was gradually brought up to the collegiate level. The secondary trade schools in mechanic and industrial arts were transformed into engineering colleges. As more scientific, technical, and practical knowledge was obtained, new courses of instruction were introduced into institutions and the entire scheme of higher education underwent a metamorphosis. With these developments the States began making larger appropriations for the support of the colleges and further assistance was granted by the Federal Government.

The idea of the democratization of higher education was making progress. Much, however, was yet to be accomplished before direct service was actually provided for the great mass of people. Then came the extension service. Through their own representatives, permanently located in the various communities and rural sections, the colleges commenced to furnish instruction by practical demonstration to the people themselves. Great impetus was given this nation-wide system of extension education by the enactment of a law by Congress which provided for the payment of half of its cost while the other half was paid by the State governments or through local sources.

With the broadening of industrial, vocational, and agricultural knowledge, education of these types was introduced into the secondary and elementary schools. The colleges next undertook the training of teachers for this work, the Federal Government also giving financial aid for this purpose. In the original idea of the democratization of higher education, no conception existed that women. had any special interests or rights. They did not belong to the industrial classes. Their place was in the home, an institution that it was then thought required no higher learning. But with the modern change in American society, in which women occupy as prominent a place in the social structure as men, it became necessary to include their interests in the college program. Real recognition had to be given not only to the industrial and economic sciences but also to the social and home sciences.

The foregoing presentation is an attempt to picture in general terms the growth of the idea of the democratization of higher learning in the United States, which found realization in the land-grant institutions. It is now proposed to describe their detailed history. These colleges were established as a result of the first Morrill Act, passed by Congress in 1862, but the germ of the idea developed prior to this time. As early as 1845 Jonathan B. Turner was active in the State of Illinois advocating higher education for the industrial