In six of the colleges the course work is accepted for postgraduate credit. In both agriculture and home economics the courses are given by both resident instructors and by members of the extension staff in 11 of the colleges, while in 6 the instruction is given wholly by representatives of the extension service. As a part of such courses in methods of work, opportunity is given for practice work with county agents and specialists in eight of the institutions. In most instances the students serve as assistants in the counties without pay, but with field expenses provided. This sort of extension teacher training should be excellent experience for prospective extension workers. No adequate course can be given without a practice requirement. Further, courses of study without field training have proved unattractive to students in a number of the institutions because extension positions have not been offered upon graduation unless supervised practical field experience has been obtained. For this reason some of the colleges report such training courses as being offered, but with few, if any, students enrolled. As is to be anticipated, agricultural specialists are engaged most in productive work, with 226 publications to their credit. Homeeconomic specialists rank second, with 79 publications. Bulletins by the county staff are relatively meager in number, a condition that is explained by the practical nature of their major activity and by the fact that their training is less advanced academically than is the case of State leaders and specialists. Staff Management The training, experience, and productive activities of present members of the Smith-Lever extension staff give a very incomplete picture of staff problems and situations. Institutional management of the staff in large measure determines the character of the staff and the efficiency with which it operates. Certain phases of such management will be discussed in the following paragraphs under the topics. (1) selection of staff, (2) distribution of time of staff, (3) provision for training in service, (4) leaves for advanced study, (5) academic ranking, (6) salaries, (7) tenure, (8) measures of efficiency, and (9) completion of staff. Selection of staff. That administrators are mindful of the importance of institutional training and experience as qualifications for selection to important positions is indicated by Table 12. This summary of the replies from 42 institutions shows the number that have definite employment requirements and those that place pronounced emphasis upon them. The attainment of ideals in the selection of an extension staff often yields to practical conditions and even to expedient action at times. Nevertheless, it is apparent from a brief study of Table 9 that a number of institutions have not set the standard of qualification for employment high enough to insure a staff of sufficiently high caliber. 22 It would seem reasonable that all institutions should require that supervisors of extension teaching in agriculture and home economics should in the future be graduates of courses of study in these fields. It is highly essential that all subject-matter specialists be as well trained for this work as are resident teachers or research workers for their respective fields. The record indicates that such is not the case, either as to requirement or emphasis. This fact is partially responsible for the impression in many institutions of a relatively low standard of educational work in extension. The only adequate answer to this criticism is a highly trained staff with rigid requirements for selection and with opportunity for further training in service. Attention is called to the requirements for county workers, particularly for home and club agents. Only one-half of the institutions require a degree in home economics for county work and only one-third demand such training for county club agents. Unless higher standards are maintained for these positions the record of performance will not favorably compare with those in other fields of extension service. Methods of employing the State staff of specialists were described in the section dealing with responsibilities of specialists to subject-matter departments and to the extension organization.❜ The methods of employment of county workers vary with the form of cooperation developed between the State institution and the county organizations. In 18 institutions county agents are selected from assistant agents in training. This training period varies from three to nine months. In other institutions the newly employed agents are brought to the central office for detailed instruction in administrative policies, methods of county work, scheduling of specialists, office organization, report forms, and for conferences with the subject-matter staff of the college. In both plans close supervision is usually given to the county work for the first few weeks of employment. The process of selection of an agent is usually a cooperative matter between the supervisory representative of the extension administration and the local county board or committee. The ordinary practice consists of the selection of suitably qualified prospects by the college representatives, with definite recommendations as to necessary salaries and perquisites. The final selection is then made by the local representatives, usually with complete cooperation of the two agencies. The removal of a county agent is not as easily accomplished as his employment. The record of performance is often much clearer to the administrator of his work than to local people. Weaknesses in ability to organize, in developing local leadership, in handling local problems, and in coordinating the various forces with which the agent is constantly cooperating may become apparent to his supervisor long before it is discovered by the local board. In these situations it becomes necessary to convince the governing boards of the existing conditions and to arrange a change of personnel. On the other hand, the local people often discover the development of traits of character in the agent or methods of handling local problems that indicate the need for making a change in agents. The important point lies in maintaining close relations between the State supervisory force and the county groups charged with the responsibility of cooperatively administering a high standard of educational service. Distribution of time of staff.-Administrative officers must know and be responsible for the way members of the staff employ their time if an effective and coordinated organization is to be maintained and if an articulated program of extension is to be carried on in actual operation. This basic principle of organization is not inconsistent with a large degree of freedom and of responsibility on the part of individual persons to whom duties are assigned. The prob 2 See p. 452. lem is primarily one of administration and no rigid rule can be laid down that will be universally applicable. The number of days in the field for State specialists or supervisors, for instance, is not at all a measurement or even an indication of efficiency in service. It does serve as a rough index of field demand and of relative volume of extension teaching or supervision away from the college. Obviously extension teaching in agriculture and home economics is organized on the plan of carrying subject matter to groups of people in their respective communities. This naturally requires field work and an indication of the acceptance of such teaching is the demand generated among local groups for the development of specific projects as a part of the adopted program of work. Hence, the continued record of a small number of days in the field raises questions about the reception of teaching and of supervision on the part of the State staff and concerning the ability and methods pursued by county extension agents. On the other hand, there can be too many field days with insufficient time spent in the office preparing teaching material, and studying improved methods of presentation and of supervision. Wellorganized subject matter is as essential as well-organized groups for the reception of the material. Successful teaching methods are as essential in the field as in the classroom-perhaps, in many instances, more attention needs to be given to presentation because of the conditions under which the teaching is done. Table 13 presents the average number of days in the field and in the office spent by the State leaders and specialists, on the basis of a 3-year average, by staff divisions and projects, together with the average range of division of time as reported by 37 institutions. The average number of counties visited is included but the variation was very great in this item because of the wide variation in the size of the States. TABLE 13.-Distribution of time of agricultural extension staff In many States the general division of time, in the well-organized and more popular projects, runs about 60 per cent field work and 40 per cent office work-counting out annual leave, Sundays, and holidays. In those instances of minimum days in either field or office work, as illustrated in Table 13, questions might well be raised as to the causes for such extremes. More than 200 days of field work leaves very little time for constructive preparation of material and for association with institutional people. More than 150 days in the office for many staff members, for full-time workers, may indicate unsuccessful teaching, lack of proper local organization, unwise selection of projects, or weak administration of the service. Three weeks' official field work for a director would appear to be wholly inadequate for properly keeping in touch with conditions pertinent to the best development of the extension program in its relation to other agencies concerned in the educational progress of the State. Likewise, the spending of more than 200 days in the office by supervisors as a 3-year average would appear to leave a very small portion of the available time for active field contact and supervision. Very similar problems exist with reference to the time of county extension agents. Of necessity the county personnel must be largely responsible for the budgeting of their own time, but directors of extension and State leaders may very advantageously encourage and |