and they still follow that policy, although the need for it is not so great as it was a century ago. The results of the introduction of the new materials of instruction in higher education that attended the development of the land-grant institutions and their democratic social outlook have had a marked influence on the development of higher learning in the United States. They have been a potent force in bringing higher education close to life. Their democratizing influence has been carried far beyond those who came to their halls for instruction. The development of the experiment stations has resulted in greatly extending the ranges of human knowledge in the natural sciences, agriculture, engineering, veterinary medicine, and forestry. The benefits to be derived from these researches were from the beginning made available in printed form as well as in the instructional work of the classroom. More recently through the extension service in agriculture and home economics, which is a part of the land-grant college movement, the results of the work of the experiment stations and other research agencies have been made even more readily available. As a consequence millions of persons on farms and in farm homes feel every day the beneficial influence of the work of the land-grant colleges. The close relationship that has been maintained among the land-grant institutions, especially through the Association of Land-Grant Colleges and Universities, has fostered a valuable spirit of self examination. The colleges have accepted a responsibility for leadership in agriculture and to a less degree for rural life. This attitude, combined with their relationship to the Federal Government, has resulted in an interest in the solution of problems of practical concern that is unique in the field of higher education. When a broad view is taken of the contributions of this group of institutions, it may well be concluded that they have been among the major agencies of educational progress in the United States. Their influence has been felt in the conservation of natural resources; the preservation and improvement of rural life; the strengthening of the farm home; and the training of a force of workers in fields largely neg lected by other institutions of higher learning. There are, however, inherent in the legislation or in the manner in which it has been administered, certain weaknesses that must be given attention in any attempt at a complete evaluation of the relation of the Federal Government to the work of these institutions. Relationship of Separate Land-Grant Colleges and State Universities The increasing complexity of research problems and the evident failure of attempts to delimit the fields of research by institutional boundaries clearly raises the question of the wisdom of the requirement of the present legislation to the effect that all grants for research shall be made to the landgrant colleges. The tendency of the Purnell Act has been to increase greatly the amount of research in such fields as economics, sociology, nutrition, and marketing, and this tendency promises to continue. The existing legislation requires the expenditure of funds to be made through the land-grant colleges. In some States in which the land-grant college and the university are separate institutions, the State universities are better staffed and equipped to undertake research in some of the fields mentioned than are the landgrant colleges; and in all probability, in every State in which the two institutions are separate, more effective programs of research could be carried out through cooperative effort. Furthermore, the economies that could be effected would make it possible to conduct more comprehensive research programs than are being realized under present conditions. A larger measure of cooperation in research and advanced instruction is essential to their maximum development. Regional cooperation, as well as cooperation within States, is already under way and promises to have a marked growth in the future. In some instances it is true that problems arising from the making of grants to the States for higher education are due, in whole or in part, to the inadequacies of provisions for coordination of the higher educational institutions within the States. The trend of recent years has been toward a greater degree of coordination among publicly controlled higher institutions, and Federal legislation should not, even indirectly, interfere with movements of this character within the several States. There is much to be said for the Federal Government making grants to the States for research and extension in engineering and business. The benefits that have flowed from Federal aid to agricultural experiment stations and to cooperative extension work are the basis for the view that similar ventures in engineering and business might be highly beneficial to the country. If grants are made for these or for other similar purposes to be carried out by publicly supported higher institutions, they should be made in such a manner as to interfere not at all, or to the minimum degree, with the autonomy of the States in the determination of their own educational policies. This statement does not deny to the Federal Government the right to prescribe general educational standards, to guard against race discrimination, or to designate the purposes for which the grants are to be used; but it does mean that the Federal Government should not attempt to determine for the States the institutions that should conduct the specified work. The difficulties that have already been pointed out in connection with research under the Purnell Fund will only be accentuated in some of the States in which the land-grant colleges and the State university are separate institutions, if the land-grant colleges are designated by the Federal Government to administer grants for engineering or business. Matching Requirement The executives of the land-grant colleges have come to doubt the wisdom of the "fifty-fifty principle." At the 1920 session of the American Association of Land-Grant Colleges, five recommendations affecting the experiment stations were presented to the executive committee. The first of these provided for: The amendment of the Hatch Act to provide for each agricultural experiment station an increase of $15,000 for the first year and a subsequent increase by annual increments of $10,000 until the total additional funds shall be $85,000 per annum, exclusive of the original Hatch appropriation.3 This was followed by a second recommendation as follows: That the appropriation provided, exclusive of the original Hatch appropriation, be contingent upon equivalent local appropriations being made in the several States.1 The published minutes of the executive body show that members of this group had grave doubts regarding the wisdom of the fifty-fifty provision. Questions that were raised related to such aspects as "the fact that the proposed measure, calling for dollar for dollar offset would be of little avail in the smaller States, already heavily loaded with the obligations of similar fifty-fifty laws," and "the grave danger that new fifty-fifty requirements would result in the withdrawal in several States of State funds now appropriated in behalf of the instructional phases of land-grant college work." 5 As a result of the discussion the following action was taken: on motion, it was voted that it was the sense of the Executive Body that the Executive Committee should seek to secure the passage during the coming session of Congress of suitable legislation which should appropriate to the agricultural experiment stations in the several States gradually increasing amounts of money which should not be subject to equivalent State appropriation. 6 The following considerations seem to raise serious doubt concerning the wisdom of attaching a matching requirement to grants made to the States for educational purposes: 1. The remarkable support from State sources for resident instruction and agricultural experiment stations without a matching requirement. 2. The temporary impairment of the work of the agricultural experiment stations that resulted from the competition for funds arising from the inclusion of a matching requirement in the Cooperative Extension Act. This experience may easily be repeated in other aspects of the work. 3 Association of Land-Grant Colleges, Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Annual Convention 1920, p. 287. • Ibid. Ibid., p. 288. • Ibid. Extension Work in Home Economics The Cooperative Extension Act requires that the Federal funds for extension in home economics must be expended through the land-grant institutions in each State. Difficulties arise in two ways from this requirement: 1. In some of the Southern States the land-grant colleges are not coeducational. Since they have no women students they have not developed departments of resident instruction in home economics. That phase of the work is to be found in the university or a publicly supported woman's college. The separation of resident instruction and extension resulting from the Federal legislation does not make for the maximum degree of strength for either extension or resident instruction. 2. In some States having separate land-grant colleges that are open to women and have departments of home economics, the State university also has a strong program of home economics work, but it is not within the power of a State to allocate any part of the funds for extension to the university. This is clearly Federal interference with a State's program of higher education. This limitation is a departure from the practice under the original Morrill Act, which permitted the States to locate work where they saw fit. Under this early policy, the State of Massachusetts, for example, gives a part of the Morrill Fund to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology rather than to establish another engineering college. The rigid limitation of extension work to a particular institution is an illustration of Federal control that would seem to be undesirable. There is some evidence that the land-grant colleges as a group have steadily been building up the theory that the Federal Government should deal only with them in matters affecting higher education within the States. This policy, if followed, will result in increasing confusion in the administration of higher education within the States. The evidence points clearly toward the need for increased Federal grants to the States for the development of higher education, but it also points quite as clearly toward the need for leaving a |