PREFACE 1 It is the purpose of this introduction, first, to describe the circumstances under which the United States Office of Education 1 undertook to survey the land-grant colleges and universities of the United States; second, to indicate the purposes for which the survey was undertaken; third, to characterize the attitudes that have controlled during its conduct; fourth, to describe the methods followed and the organization developed for the prosecution of the survey; fifth, to acknowledge the voluntary assistance rendered by institutions, individuals, and organizations, and to list the survey staff; and sixth, to describe briefly the form and scope of this report, and to call attention to the wealth of material assembled that will repay further study. In the spring of 1926, through its executive committee, the Association of Land-Grant Colleges and Universities, upon the advice of the Secretary of Agriculture, invited the cooperation and suggestions of the Office of Education with reference to a survey of the landgrant colleges and universities of the United States. This undertaking did not originate in the Office of Education nor in any other office of the Federal Government. The presidents of the land-grant colleges had been discussing such a survey for some years. On April 22, 1926, Dr. John J. Tigert, then Commissioner of Education, wrote to the chairman of the executive committee of the Association of Land-Grant Colleges and Universities that the Office of Education "would not care to enter into any arrangement to participate in such a survey except upon the basis that the Office of Education be in charge and direct the work. The importance of the task, the conflicting factors involved, and the necessity that the survey agency be free from any possibility of the charge of undue interest, make this an essential consideration." Under these conditions the executive committee on May 21, 1926, extended a formal invitation to the Office of Education to undertake the survey. In the letter it was stated: The time has come when the colleges themselves feel that there should be a national study of these agencies, with a view to determine how well they are fulfilling the purposes for which they were established and what changes The name of the Bureau of Education was changed to Office of Education in October, 1929, by order of the Secretary of the Interior. or modifications, if any, are necessary in order to enable them to meet more effectively the new situations that are arising. We feel that such a study is a national problem, having to do with the work in all of the States, and that the investigation should, therefore, be headed by a national agency, and the natural agency for the study is the Office of Education. I have taken the matter up with the members of the executive committee and I am now, on behalf of that committee, officially requesting you to make provision for such a study. I can assure you that the executive committee, as well as the colleges themselves, will give every possible cooperation in this study and I am certain from it will result policies that will be of great value in the future development of these colleges in their relationship to our agricultural and industrial life. On May 25, 1926, the Commissioner of Education, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, formally accepted the invitation of the Association of Land-Grant Colleges and Universities to undertake the study. The Secretary of the Interior, Hubert Work, presented the matter to President Coolidge. The President gave his approval and authorized the Director of the Bureau of the Budget to include an item for the study in the estimates for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1927. When the project was submitted to the Congress during the hearings on the appropriations for the Office of Education, Department of the Interior, Congress gave assent immediately, with the result that an item of $117,000 was included in the appropriation to enable the Secretary of the Interior, through the office of Education, "to make a study of the organization, administration, and work of the land-grant institutions," $61,000 being available in the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1927. It was contemplated in the beginning that the study would require two years. After the work was under way it became evident that a longer period would be required. Without increasing the total appropriation of $117,000, the unexpended balances of preceding years were made available for continuation of the study in the third year. The following statement issued by Commissioner John J. Tigert on November 18, 1927, defines the purposes and attitudes of the Office of Education in undertaking the survey: (1) The Bureau of Education regards the survey as a National study of the accomplishments, the present status, and the future objectives of the land-grant type of education, and not a collection of surveys of individual institutions. (2) The bureau feels that the success of the survey depends largely upon the impartiality and thoroughness with which it may discover facts and make constructive recommendations. Therefore, it will be the policy of the bureau to maintain entire control of the work and assume responsibility for the report. At the same time, it is planned to utilize to the fullest extent all of the groups, agencies, and individuals who are now organized to carry on and promote the interests of special aspects of land-grant college education. The leaders and the rank and file of land-grant college education will be freely consulted and given opportunity to express opinions. Close contact will be maintained with the services in the Department of Agriculture which articulate with the landgrant colleges. The bureau's staff will be obtained in large part from those engaged in administration and instruction in the land-grant colleges. (3) In the broadest sense, the functions of the land-grant colleges, as defined by the Morrill Act and as developed during their past history, are regarded by the Bureau of Education to be public and democratic in nature, with ideals, practical purposes, and objectives which are worthy of full recognition in the field of higher education. Under the general direction of the Commissioner of Education, Arthur J. Klein, Chief of the Division of Higher Education, was placed in immediate charge of the survey, and a National Advisory Committee was designated as follows: The Secretary of the Interior, chairman. The Secretary of Agriculture. President R. A. Pearson, of the University of Maryland, College Park, Md., representing the Association of Land-Grant Colleges and Universities. President R. S. Wilkinson, of the State Agricultural and Mechanical College, Orangeburg, S. C., representing the Conference of Negro Land-Grant College Presidents. State Superintendent of Public Instruction of Illinois, Francis G. Blair, Springfield, Ill. President L. D. Coffman, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn. President S. W. Stratton, of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass. President Charles A. Lory, of the State Agricultural College of Colorado, Fort Collins, Colo. Miss Martha Van Rensselaer, Director of the New York State College of Home Economics, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. Dean F. B. Mumford, College of Agriculture, University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo. The National Advisory Committee has performed the following services: It met with the Commissioner of Education and the director of the survey and discussed and approved the plans of procedure submitted by the director of the survey. The sections of the final report as tentatively completed have been submitted to the individual members of the committee for comment and suggestion prior to publication of the report. In addition, individual members of the committee have been consulted by the director of the survey concerning the problems of procedure and policy in the fields with which committee members were especially concerned. In harmony with the fundamental attitudes it was determined: First, that the study should be a cooperative one and that the funds available should be utilized primarily to direct, coordinate, and release the efforts of individual institutions and cooperating organizations; secondly, that the study should be presented, not from the standpoint of a collection of surveys of individual institutions, but from the standpoint of the functional lines of interest and activity that run through all or through a large proportion of the institutions. As a first step in the definition of the problems that concern the entire group of institutions and of the functional fields that would need to be covered by the survey, the director of the survey visited 38 of the land-grant institutions. At each of the institutions he met as a group faculty councils, deans of schools and colleges, and such other members of the staff as the president desired. The general problem of the survey was presented and an opportunity given for questions and suggestions. Appointments were then made with individual members of the staff, and at these individual conferences two questions were propounded: First. What problems in the field of interest of the person being interviewed he would like to have the survey consider; and secondly, who in his field in the United States was best qualified to assist in the undertaking? Individual conferences lasting from one to three hours each were thus held with approximately 700 presidents, deans, directors, professors, and members of the administrative staffs of the landgrant colleges and universities. Notes were made listing the problems suggested by individuals and the personnel recommended for prosecution of the work. The problems suggested were then classified and grouped in accordance with the fields of interest that indicated substantial unity of concern. Upon the basis of suggestions concerning the personnel to assist in the survey, frequency tables for each field were constructed. From these tables it was possible to reach conclusions concerning the specialists in each field who would command the largest degree of confidence of the workers in that field. This preliminary study served to define the problems that would need to be considered and to determine the personnel that should be called in to assist upon the survey. Final analysis of the problems resulted in a classification under the following general heads: 1. Control and administrative organization. 2. Business management and finance. 3. Work of the registrar. 4. Alumni and former students. 5. Student relations and welfare. 6. Staff. 7. Library. 8. Agriculture. 9. Engineering. 10. Home economics. 11. Arts and sciences. 12. Commerce and business. 13. Teacher training. 14. Military education. 15. Professional veterinary medicine. 16. Summer session. 17. Extension services. 18. Research work. 19. Graduate work. The next step in the development of the survey work was obviously the planning of the inquiry in each of these fields. The general problems had been defined and a desirable personnel for the work indicated. It was obvious that it would be impossible with the money available to set up field staffs in each of these lines of interest and carry on the study by having each such group visit all the landgrant institutions in the United States. It was, therefore, determined to prepare questionnaire schedules and to divide the field work. Accordingly, advisory committees upon subject matter and functional fields were selected and organized by the Commissioner of Education largely from the personnel of the land-grant colleges upon the recommendation of the national technical groups concerned. It was the policy to consult the appropriate committee in the preparation of the questionnaire in each technical field, and the members of the committee were given an opportunity to review the tentative questionnaire after it was prepared. In addition, these committees have reviewed the tentative reports pertaining to their fields prior to review by the National Advisory Committee. The following advisory committees were designated: ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON EXTENSION P. H. Ross, Director of Extension Service, University of Arizona, Tucson. J. R. Hutcheson, Director, Agricultural Extension Division, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va. Paul V. Maris, Director of Extension Service, Oregon Agricultural College, Corvallis, Oreg. M. S. McDowell, Director, Agricultural Extension, Pennsylvania State College, State College, Pa. L. N. Duncan, Director of Extension, Alabama Polytechnic Institute, Auburn, Ala. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON HOME ECONOMICS Ava B. Milan, Dean, School of Home Economics, Oregon Agricultural College, Corvallis, Oreg. Jean Krueger, Dean, Division of Home Economics, Michigan State College, East Lansing, Mich. Margaret M. Justin, Dean of Division of Home Economics, Kansas State Agricultural College, Manhattan, Kans. |