of economics or sociology offers a richer field for investigation than does agriculture.

The request which came to me for this article said specifically that a discussion of possible work in agricultural economics was desired. I can not refrain, however, in closing, from making a plea for a broader view of the question and for urging agricultural educators to consider as a unit the whole subject of what, for want of a better term, we may call rural social science, and therefore to permit just as much attention to the study of rural sociology as to the study of agricultural economies. We need more well-equipped leaders on the farm, and these leaders will find that the questions confronting them. are in no small degree sociological. Farmers' organizations, better communication in rural districts, the country school, the country church, all the broad phases of agricultural education, are pressing problems in each farm community. They need the leadership of trained minds. Viewed in all broader aspects, these sociological questions are of the greatest importance. Indeed, if I had to choose between a course in rural sociology and a course in agricultural economics, taking as a standpoint the need of the man who is getting his training in an agricultural college as a future farmer, I would be inclined to sacrifice the agricultural economics, because I believe that the adequate development of the social agencies for progress in rural life is of vital and immediate concern. If, however, the course in rural sociology can not be given, I would urge that a chapter be added to the outline submitted above, somewhat as follows. This will serve at least to call attention to the importance of the sociological factor in

rural progress:

VIII. Some sociological factors influencing the industry of agriculture.

Movements of the farm population.

Improvements in communication in rural districts-trolleys, telephones, mail delivery, roads.

The country church.

The rural school.

Agricultural education.

Farmers' organizations and societies.

Cooperation of the factors.

INSTRUCTION IN AGRICULTURE IN LAND-GRANT COLLEGES

AND SCHOOLS FOR COLORED PERSONS.

By D. J. CROSBY,

Office of Experiment Stations.

The land-grant colleges for colored persons, which are supported mainly by National and State funds, constitute a class by themselves. In their organization and work they differ in so many respects from the land-grant colleges for whites that the general statements made regarding these colleges, considered as forming one system of educational institutions, are often misleading. Much has been written about the facilities for agricultural education and the methods of instruction in agriculture in the land-grant colleges generally which is not really applicable to these institutions for the colored people of the South. It has therefore seemed desirable to give a separate account of the opportunities offered these people for instruction in agriculture in the land-grant institutions set apart by law for their race. It is intended to show (1) the requirements for admission to these institutions, (2) the number and character of courses offered and the degrees given, (3) the extent and character of instruction in agriculture, including, also, statements regarding the facilities for such instruction, and (4) some statistics showing the revenues, value of equipment, and number of students in these institutions. Incidentally, they will be compared collectively in certain of their features with similar institutions for white persons in the same States.

There are 16 of the so-called "land-grant" colleges and schools for colored persons, though, as a matter of fact, only 4 of them participate in the benefits of the land-grant act of 1862. All, however, receive funds provided by the act of 1890, the amounts received by the different institutions being determined by the ratio of colored to white persons in the States establishing separate schools for the two races. In one State (Mississippi) the colored agricultural and mechanical college receives a larger percentage of the "second Morrill fund” than that for white persons. The total revenue of the colored institutions in the fiscal year 1902–3 was $537,738.45. Of this amount $205,554.94 was received from the Federal Government, $159,264 from the States, and $172,919.51 from fees and other sources. The largest revenue ($194,046.96) was received by Hampton Normal and Agricultural

Institute, and the smallest ($9,005.49) by the Delaware State College for Colored Students. The average total income per student was $88; that of the white colleges was $173-nearly twice as much.

The equipment of these institutions is valued at nearly $2,000,000, of which 67 per cent is represented by buildings. The approximate total value of farms and grounds is $300,000; of apparatus, $41,400; of machinery, $83,300; of libraries, $30,400, and of live stock, $27,600. More than half of the live stock is owned by one institution-the Hampton Institute. That these institutions are gaining in wealth is shown by the fact that more than 8 per cent of their total equipment has been added during the past fiscal year. And yet, with two-thirds as many students as the land-grant colleges for whites, these institutions have an equipment valued at less than one-third that in the colleges for whites.

The total number of students in the colleges and schools for negroes in 1902-3 was 6,080; the number of graduates, 422; the number of degrees conferred, 119; the number of instructors, 346. There were 14.4 students for each graduate; 51 students for each graduate from a degree course; 17.6 students for each instructor. In the colleges for whites in these States there were 9,171 students; 608 graduates; 608 degrees; 15 students for each graduate; 15 students for each graduate from a degree course, and 14.4 students for each instructor. In material equipment then-income, buildings, land, apparatus, machinery, and number of instructors-the colleges for whites are relatively much better off than those for negroes. On the other hand, the latter institutions graduate a larger percentage of those enrolled than do the former.

The statistics show that 71 per cent of the students in the negro institutions were in the preparatory courses and only 12 per cent in the collegiate courses. But of the graduates of these institutions only 28 per cent received bachelors' degrees, and, furthermore, 269 (nearly 36 per cent) of the students reported as being in collegiate courses were in attendance at an institution which is admittedly a secondary school and grants no degrees; so it is safe to assume that not more than three or four per cent of the students in the land-grant colleges for negroes were in four-year courses leading to bachelors' degrees. This, in itself, is not to be taken as an unfavorable criticism of the institutions, except in so far as the figures are slightly misleading, for it is known that much of the most useful work done by them is done in the secondary and special courses; but it is an indication of the grade of instruction that must be provided for nearly all of the people served in these colleges and schools.

Most of these institutions are doing their utmost to meet the real, most urgent, and most immediate needs of the young people within

their doors and to guide aright those who have gone out from the shadow of the college walls to labor among their people. And they are succeeding in their mission in just such proportion as they have inculcated lessons of temperance, morality, industry, and dignity of service, whether it be labor of the hands or of the head.

And yet there are some among the teachers in these schools who seem to forget that a child "must creep before it can walk," who would teach the classics and the higher mathematics and theology and international law to the exclusion of a thorough grounding in English, arithmetic, and the industrial arts; who forget that it is the "mission" (and it may be a most honorable mission, a most high calling) of the great majority of all the people, both black and white, to labor, to be producers. And these teachers are the ones who send out "kidgloved" graduates to lives of miserable failure, whether it be as instructors and leaders among their people, or as producers of the necessities and comforts of life.

In general, however, it may be said that considering their limited resources most of the negro schools endowed by the Federal Government are making an honest effort to offer their students good opportunities for training along industrial lines. As regards agriculture, this is shown by the fact that all but one of them are teaching agriculture and more than one-fourth of all the matriculates in these schools are taking agricultural courses of some sort. This is a good showing, when it is considered that so many of those enrolled are in primary and grammar grades when 71 per cent of all the students are in preparatory courses. It is a better showing by over 15 per cent than similar institutions for whites in the same States are making with only 14 per cent of preparatory students. This is not intended to be a comparison of the quality of instruction, but of the number taking agriculture as shown by official returns from each institution.

It is likely that in the agricultural colleges for whites more pedagogical courses and higher grades of instruction in agriculture are found, and it would be strange if this were not true. The negro, like the white man, has had to evolve his own courses in agriculture, but the latter has had the advantage of long experience in educational work, while the former is but 40 years from slavery. He has had textbooks, but not the inspiration and guidance of experienced teachers. He has had the example of his white neighbor, but not the benefit of that white neighbor's agricultural college, except in the rare cases where one of his own race has been trained in the colleges of the North. So, while we must admit that the Southern agricultural colleges and schools for negroes have many shortcomings and many needs, a careful study of the whole situation must convince us that the outlook is, on the whole, very encouraging, that earnest and noble S. Doc. 148, 58-2-46

effort is meeting its reward in the upward trend of educational methods and in the more wholesome attitude of the negro race toward industrial education.

And yet, optimistic as we may be, we should not lose sight of the fact that the institutions under consideration have many needs. Some of the more prominent of these needs as regards instruction in agriculture may be summed up as follows:

(1) Better instructors: These should be better trained in up-to-date methods of teaching agriculture and should have a broader and more hopeful view of the agricultural situation than is now prevalent in these institutions. They should be primarily teachers of agriculture; not teachers of chemistry or botany as related to agriculture. It would also be infinitely better if they could broaden their horizon by taking postgraduate work in some other college than the one from which they graduate.

(2) Better text-books of agriculture: Many of those now in use are antiquated. At one time they were comparatively sound, but later and better books have appeared and should speedily replace those not thoroughly suited to the more modern method of teaching agriculture.

(3) Better library facilities: Few of these schools have anything like adequate reference libraries. The total value of their libraries ($30,396) is less than that of single libraries in many of the agricultural colleges for whites.

(4) Better laboratory facilities: Only two or three of these institutes have any laboratory equipment for teaching agriculture.

(5) Better farm buildings, live stock, machinery, and other equipment: Some of these schools have farms with thoroughly modern equipment and are practicing diversified farming, but they are the exception to the general rule.

(6) More liberal funds: It has been shown above that the income per student of the colored schools is scarcely more than half that of the colleges for whites. It will hardly be possible to make much improvement in their staff of instruction and material equipment until they have better financial support.

(7) Better methods of instruction: These will surely come and can only come when the other needs are more or less fully supplied. With better-trained instructors, better text-books and library facilities, better laboratory and farm equipments and methods, we shall speedily have in these schools better methods of instruction and a more rational attitude toward the fundamental industry of the South. Detailed statements regarding the facilities and methods of instruction in agriculture in the different colleges and schools for negroes in the South are given below. An article by C. L. Goodrich describing the methods of instruction in agriculture in Hampton Normal and Agricultural Institute is given on page 739.