Chapter III.-Administration of Department

Under both university and college organizations the department of military science and tactics in a land-grant institution is an independent department. It is not a part of any other division and the professor of military science and tactics, who is the senior officer detailed to the institution, reports directly to the president. This is the appropriate organization, since the military department has relations with all undergraduate instruction divisions alike.

In all cases the senior military officer holds the rank of a full professor and other officers and noncommissioned officers are accorded appropriate rank. Military personnel have full faculty status according to their rank and in accordance with the custom of the institution as to other departments. Where there. is a university senate, the professor of military science and tactics is usually a member of that body. Officers frequently serve on faculty committees and bear their share in the general activities of the institution according to their tastes and capacity. In no case may they be called upon for any teaching outside of the military department.

In recent years it has often been impossible for an institution to secure an adequate military staff for the number of students enrolled. Institutions have increased their student numbers beyond the apparent ability of the War Department to detail officers to Reserve Officers' Training Corps duty. Twenty land-grant colleges in 1927-28 found their military staff below the numerical standard of War Department practice. Overloading of instructors has the same unfortunate results in military instruction as in any other field. Contrary to the impression that sometimes has prevailed, Reserve Officers' Training Corps schedules call for full-time efforts of active men.

To an inquiry whether officers detailed for Reserve Officers' Training Corps duty have been men of sufficient general education and culture for academic positions, 21 institutions replied that such has always been the case, while 22 answer "usually,” and one "infrequently." In general it may be said that officers on duty in the land-grant institutions are well qualified for their positions both by professional training and by character, devotion to duty, and enthusiasm for their work. Military education has now been so long established in these institutions that it is taken as a matter of course and particular administrative difficulties almost surely occur.

Officers on Reserve Officers' Training Corps duty have a dual responsibility, on the one hand to their military superiors, and on the

other to the institutional authorities. This is a situation which might easily give rise to misunderstanding and trouble, and it speaks well, both for the military authorities and the executions of the land-grant colleges, that such difficulties have been rare. Where they have occurred, the particular trouble has usually been settled speedily to the satisfaction of all concerned and the cause of friction has been removed.

With two exceptions, units of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps in land-grant institutions have no relations with the organized militia of the State or the National Guard. Those exceptions are the University of Missouri and West Virginia University. Probably it is better that the military organizations in educational institutions should have relations exclusively with the Federal military establishment and that students pursuing an education should not be liable for local military duty. When great emergencies occur, however, institutional authorities do not hesitate to place their military organizations, as well as other facilities, at the disposal of the public authorities. This was done in the case of the great flood of the Mississippi a few years ago, during which the Reserve Officers' Training Corps units of Louisiana State University and Mississippi Agricultural and Mechanical College and the University of Arkansas rendered much appreciated service. Similar action was taken by the University of Vermont after the great flood in that State in 1927.

One chronic subject of discussion, perhaps it should not be said of difficulty, has been the rating of institutions by the War Department according to the excellence of their military instruction. Each year a certain number of institutions, after careful inspection and study of their records, were published to the world as "distinguished colleges." There was no other classification, and the public was left to draw what inference it might as to institutions not pronounced "distinguished." There was much discussion of the rating sheet used in the comparison of institutions and some criticism of methods sometimes employed in the inspections, but no common argument as to practicable methods of reform. Objections raised frequently were that colleges essentially military had an unfair advantage, and that the public understood that the adjective "distinguished" applied to the institution as a whole and not merely to its military department. On the other hand, it was urged that institutions which had superior military departments should have some official recognition of their merit, and that the annual inspection and award served as an incentive to both officers and students.

No progress seemed to be made in the argument and the War Department in 1928 settled the discussion by abolishing the practice of rating educational institutions. A year thereafter 29 land-grant

institutions recorded their approval of the discontinuance, while 17 registered their disapproval. By a vote of 36 to 7 the institutions declared that if rating should be restored, some means should be found to grade M. C. and C. institutions separately. Inquiry has brought forth no practical suggestions as to methods by which institutions could be rated or classified by the War Department in a manner to meet with general satisfaction.

Both of these difficulties have

During the years succeeding the World War the stock of uniforms left in the hands of the Government was drawn upon for issue to students in Reserve Officers' Training Corp units. With all patriotism it must be said that they were not such as to inflame the college men who wore them with pride in their personal appearance. In the same period there was a widespread dissatisfaction with the allowances for cadet officers' uniforms. been resolved. The allowances for uniforms have been increased and the supply of war uniforms is reported to be nearing exhaustion. The requirement of six weeks' attendance upon a summer training camp which is imposed upon students in advanced courses is generally regarded favorably. Four institutions-University of California, University of Delaware, Michigan State College, and the Agricultural College of Utah-however, report that they have not found the results beneficial. The cost to the student in spending time at camp which he might employ in a gainful occupation is not found a serious difficulty.

In a few of the corps areas conferences of college executives and officers on duty in the institutions located within the corps area, including others than land-grant colleges, have been arranged by corps-area commanders. In the Fourth Corps Area such conferences have been held annually. When held they have been exceedingly helpful and stimulative to all participants. Both military and institutional authorities have learned to appreciate their mutual problems and personal contacts have prepared the way for ready solution of subsequent difficulties. The practice is to be commended for general adoption as well worth the time and trouble involved.

In the land-grant colleges and universities, accustomed to military education in some form for more than a half century, the presence of the Army officer on the campus is regarded as a matter of course and his work is given place in the schedule of studies with no more thought of reconsideration of its value than is paid to retention of studies in chemistry or English. Popular agitation against certain phases of military education evidently have had little impression on administrative officers, faculties, or students.

To the inquiry "What is the general public sentiment in your State toward military education in the land-grant college?" 40 institutions replied that it is favorable, 6 answered that it is neutral, and none reported that it is un

favorable. Such opposition as has existed is believed to have diminished in recent years in 32 States, and to have increased in 4 States. Five reported no marked change in sentiment.

Such favorable attitude toward military education could not exist unless benefits therefrom were clearly in evidence, and unless, further, the instruction was not thoroughly in accord with the prevailing sentiment of a Nation which seeks and pursues peace and cultivates only such measures of preparedness as are required by enlightened patriotism. The Reserve Officers' Training Corps in the land-grant colleges, while it makes ready a considerable body of the choicest youth of the Nation for exceptional service in case war should come, does nothing to refute the teaching of the department of economics that modern war is fearfully wasteful to all nations concerned in it, nor the lessons of international law that there are wiser methods than armed conflict to settle disputes between nations, nor the holy influences of the college chapel toward meekness, forbearance, and love.

Chapter IV. Financial Phases of Military Education

Military education in the land-grant colleges being a cooperative enterprise between the Federal Government represented by the War Department and the land-grant institution in each State, the expense of its operation is shared by the Government and the institutions.

The United States pays the officers and men of its Army on duty in the institutions direct through Army channels at the same rate and with the same allowances officers and men of corresponding rank receive in other forms of service. The Army also furnishes an allowance for uniforms and rations of cadet officers and pays them while on active duty in camp. All equipment is also supplied by the Army, arms and ammunition for the various branches of the service, horses for cavalry and field artillery, uniforms for privates and noncommissioned cadet officers, band instruments, and a variety of special equipment for the more technical branches.

Here is an indirect annual Federal appropriation to the landgrant institutions of quite substantial size. As reported by all the institutions for 1927-28 it amounted to $2,101,222 for personnel and $1,427,648 for equipment, or a total of $3,528,870.

This indirect appropriation is not noted in annual reports of the institutions, since the funds do not pass through the hands of their treasurers nor does it appear in the statistics of the Federal Office of Education. It is, however, a real contribution for educational purposes and in fairness should be included in any statement of the Nation's support of higher education. The expenditures of the Federal Government for military education for 1927-28 are shown in Table 4.

TABLE 4.-Expenditures of the Federal Government for military education in the land-grant colleges, 1927-281

1 Extracted from War Department appropriation bill for 1930, Part I, p. 889. 2 Pay and allowances of Regular Army personnel on duty with unit, officers and enlisted

men.