« ForrigeFortsett »
Normal School seem a little more strict regarding the entrance of students from unaccredited high schools. All the normal schools follow a somewhat loose policy in permitting students to enter at any time. Notwithstanding the reduction in credit for those who enter late, the commission is of the opinion that a definite date ought to be set each semester after which students will not be received. To permit students to enter at any time is seldom a real accommodation to them, and it is of decided disadvantage to the other students whose classes such belated students enter. There are other matters relating to the entrance of students about which there might well be a common policy at all five of the institutions.
THE FUNCTIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY AND OF THE
Referenge has already been made to the fact that in the State constitution there is a provision to the effect that there should be established a State university "for the promotion of literature and the arts and sciences, including a normal and an agricultural department.” In 1863, however, at the time that the legislature selected Lawrence as the site of the university, it also passed acts accepting the conditions of the Morrill Act and located the college of agriculture and mechanic arts at Manhattan. At the same time it located at Emporia a State normal school, the exclusive purposes of which shall be the instruction of persons both male and female, in the art of teaching, and in all the various branches that pertain to a good common school education, and in the mechanic arts, and in the arts of husbandry and agricultural chemistry, and in the fundamental laws of the United States, and in what regards the rights and duties of citizens.
Attention is drawn to these provisions in the constitution and in subsequent State laws to show that the constitution wisely laid the basis for including all forms of cultural, scientific, professional, and technical education in a single State university, but that, perhaps largely because of a strong difference of opinion as to where the university should be located, the State legislature unfortunately took the easy road and established the university at Lawrence and the land-grant college at Manhattan. The extracts from the State laws illustrate further that there was at that time no definite conception in the minds of the legislators of the respective educational fields of the several institutions; otherwise the normal school, founded in the same month with the agricultural college, would not have been charged with instructing students "in the mechanic arts, and in the arts of husbandry and agricultural chemistry.”
With so indefinite a conception of their respective fields of work, a situation shared by all the States, particularly the 24 States where land-grant colleges were established apart from a university, it was quite natural that each of the State institutions in Kansas should be guided in its development by experience rather than by the constitution or early State legislation. For this reason one finds that although the university, following the dictates of the State constitution, early established a normal department, it was abandoned in 1885. The constitutional injunction to establish an agricultural department at the university has never been seriously contemplated. On the other hand, the college of agriculture and mechanic arts at Manhattan, in common with all other separated land-grant colleges, found little response in the early days to instruction in agriculture, largely because at that time farming was not intensive and also because agriculture had scarcely developed into a real science. Much of the work, therefore, of the agricultural college in those days was a weak imitation, as in other States, of the usual arts and science curriculum, with a certain amount of "practical" work thrown in.
In the development of their respective fields of educational work the university and the agricultural college in Kansas have not been guided altogether by local conditions; there is not therefore in Kansas a unique situation. Both of them are a part of the larger development of the respective functions which the two types of institutions ought respectively to carry out. In part this consensus of opinion has been written into State and Federal statutes; in part it is unwritten and flexible but nevertheless important educational policy.
In Kansas practically the only legislation which defines the respective fields of the university and the agricultural college has been the character of the State appropriations made to each institution from biennium to biennuim and the well-known Federal statutes relating to the purposes for which the Federal subsidies to the landgrant colleges may be used. By accepting these Federal subsidies the State has obligated itself, according to the Morrill Act of 1862, to use the income from the Federal land-grant forthe endowment, support, and maintenance of at least one college, where the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies, and including military tactics, to teach such branchss of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, in such a manner as the legislatures of the States may respectively prescribe in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life.
In the later acts Congress provided that the additional Federal subsidies were for the more complete endowment and maintenance of colleges for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts now established, or which may be hereafter established, in accordance with an act of Congress approved July 2, 1862
* to be applied only to instruction in agriculture, the mechanic arts, the English language, and the various branches of mathematics, physical, natural and economic science, with special reference to the industries of life, and to the facilities for such instruction.
In the act of 1907 it was further provided “that said colleges may use a portion of this money for providing courses for the special preparation of instructors for teaching the elements of agriculture and the mechanic arts."
Through the passage of the Hatch and Adams Acts the Federal Government also provided for the establishment of agricultural experiment stations at the land-grant colleges. As has been mentioned earlier, the State, by accepting the conditions of the SmithLever law of 1914, obligated itself to carry out, through the agricultural college, extension work in agriculture and home economics. Also, the fact that the agricultural colleges have developed agriculture, home economics, and manual arts more extensively than other institutions, has naturally made them the chief beneficiaries of the funds provided under the Smith-Hughes Act for the training of vocational teachers in agriculture, trades and industries, and home economics.
By accepting the conditions of the Federal statutes providing subsidies for the development of certain fields of work at the agricultural college the State has marked out some of the main lines of work to be followed at that institution. To be sure, there is no obligation, specific or implied, to prevent the State from also developing work of exactly similar character at the State university, nor, on the other hand, is there any obligation not to develop work of other kinds at the agricultural college than those specifically mentioned in the Federal statutes. Both things have been done in every State in the Union where there are two institutions, as witness the nearly universal presence of sciences, engineering, and home economics at both the universities and agricultural colleges. The fact that certain of these developments are now so nearly universal and yet comparatively recent should make us hesitate about the possibility of setting ironclad bounds to the development of such growing organizations as a State university or a State agricultural college. After all, their development in particular directions is normally in response to well-defined State needs. No institution gets very far in an attempt to develop courses for which there is little or no demand. It can not afford to keep up such attempts either from the point of view of money unwisely spent or from the reaction of public opinion against such ill-advised action. For the most part, therefore, all State institutions of higher learning have developed those fields of work which the public has demanded. Particularly is this true in a great State like Kansas, with two large institutions, one with nearly 4,000 and the other with nearly 3,000 resident collegiate students during the regular session. There was a time, and it was a long time, when the separation of the institutions was an educational crime which caused expensive duplication of work and tended to lower standards of work. Even yet there are losses, caused by the separation of the institutions, which are irreparable. Nevertheless, the enormous growth of the student body at both institutions
in recent years has alleviated this condition considerably and even produced some compensating advantages in the ability of the two institutions to reach a larger number of students than would probably be served by a single institution. Certainly the increased student body at both institutions has solved many problems of costly duplication and turned them into advantages to the State. In discussing the respective fields of work which should be developed at each institution, it is well to remember that the future growth of the two institutions may solve as many if not more of the embarrassing problems of duplication which arise from time to time than the past has solved. Furthermore, as will appear later, the commission finished its investigation with the definite feeling that there is at present at the two institutions a minimum of undesirable duplication.
Notwithstanding the fact that future events will necessarily determine in large part the nature of the development at both the university and the agricultural college, there is much that can be said concerning the proper division of functions between the two institutions. These things are all the more clear now that each has had the experience of more than a half century to develop not only along the lines needed in the State but also in accordance with the traditions and history of similar institutions in other States.
At the outset it may be well to point out that, inasmuch as both institutions were established and have since been supported and maintained almost exclusively from State appropriations, the only consideration which can enter into this discussion is such a division of functions and of work as will best serve the interests of the people of the State. The ambitions of particular institutions have no place in the matter save as they can demonstrate that the programs of development which they hope to follow are in line with the needs of the State.
The State university, in keeping with the constitutional mandate and in common with other institutions of similar character, has developed as major lines of work the liberal arts and sciences, engineering, architecture, medicine, pharmacy, law, fine arts, education, journalism, and graduate study. The agricultural college, on the other hand, has developed as major lines of work agriculture, veterinary science, engineering, home economics, industrial journalism, music, general sciences, architecture, and graduate study. At once it becomes clear that the present division of functions affects the technical and professional courses of study primarily. Medicine, pharmacy, and law are taught only at the university, while the agricultural college has always been conceded the entire field of agriculture and veterinary science. In the other fields of work there is frankly an overlapping of functions, each of which will be discussed in turn.