and instructors acquired their undergraduate training in colleges of agriculture. (Table 2.) In addition, 10 per cent of the professors, 1 per cent of the associate professors, 4 and 6 per cent of the assistant professors and instructors, respectively, secured a part of their undergraduate training in agricultural colleges. These facts are significant from two standpoints: First, the point of view and the interest in agriculture fostered in these institutions apparently are desirable assets for those who wish to teach agricultural subjects; and second, the agricultural institutions up to this time have furnished an important part of the training to the larger proportion of those who are engaged in agricultural teaching. They should be expected to do even more in the future than they have done in the past.

The question as to the number on a staff who have received their training in the institution they serve is an interesting and an important one. The facts as shown by Table 2 indicate that department heads often select and recommend for positions as instructors men from their own institutions of whose ability they are certain, through personal knowledge and experience, rather than others who must be accepted on credentials from elsewhere. Since funds usually are limited and the home product often can be secured at less cost than if selection is made from another institution, the home-trained person is appointed. Institutions, however, need to be on guard against excessive inbreeding.

The last column of Table 2 shows that of 1,269 members of the staffs slightly more than 14 per cent had served as county agents or extension specialists. Data were furnished by 1,849 individual members of the agricultural staffs concerning other types of experience. Of these 460 (25 per cent) had experience as high-school teachers, and of this number, 356 had experience as high-school teachers of agriculture. Of the total number reporting, 154 had experience as school principals or superintendents.

It is interesting to discover from the same data that 640, or almost 35 per cent, of the total number of staff members reporting had taken courses in professional education subjects. Of this number, 301 had taken less than 11 semester hours; 203 from 12 to 23; and 136 had credit for 24 semester hours or more in education. This is by no means an unfavorable display of emphasis upon preparation for teaching as compared with similar data for other groups engaged in university and college teaching.5 While method can easily be overemphasized in the busy training period when subject matter must receive attention by those who want to become well informed in agricultural fields, nevertheless the agricultural teacher of the future

See Parts VII, "Staff"; X, Engineering"; XI, "Home economics"; and Vol. II, Part III, "Teaching training" for comparisons, and also North Central Association Quarterly, IV: 213-225, September, 1930.

more and more will need to familiarize himself thoroughly with teaching methods and practices and with the historic background and philosophy of educational progress.

The survey inquiry affords some slight indications concerning two additional measures of the interests and contacts of staff that are of importance in estimating the character of the agricultural staff, the number that have written for publication and membership in professional or other scholarly organization. Of the 1,849 staff members submitting a record, 274 had published research investigations during the past five years but publications of no other type; 361 had publications of popular character only; and 492 had published both scientific and popular material. Eleven hundred and sixty-three belong to from 1 to 5 organizations that are not primarily social in character, while 221 belong to 6 or more. Only 231 stated that in 1927-28 they had attended no professional meeting, but the fact that 741 failed to record attendance may indicate that this number should be considerably larger. However, 876, or more than 47 per cent, attended at least one meeting of a professional or scientific organization, and in many cases several were attended.

It is apparent that the publications and the organization memberships and attendance of the agricultural staff indicate active and alert interest and participation in scholarly matters.

Appointments and Promotion of Staff

An institution will be as great as the personnel of its staff and its students make it, and no greater. It will contribute to the education of students who come to it and to the progress of learning and be helpful and influential in direct proportion as the staff is able, devoted to its work, and provided with a satisfactory institutional environment. Selecting the staff and retaining those who are superior are tasks worthy of the most devoted effort. No responsibilities of administrative officers are larger or more far-reaching than those involved in the appointment and promotion of staff members.

This responsibility usually is subject to careful administrative procedure. While institutions differ somewhat in methods used, the essentials of procedure are similar in all, and methods of appointment to the agricultural staff differ little from those to other divisions of the land-grant institutions.

With one exception only in all institutions that reported on methods or procedure in the selection and promotion of staff members, the president takes the first steps and exercises the major responsibility in the selection of the dean of agriculture. In one institution when the president has selected a suitable candidate or candidates, he refers the matter to the agricultural faculty for consideration and advice, and then to the board of trustees. In another institution the college faculty may suggest a candidate or name directly

to the board of trustees which then takes action. In two other institutions apparently, the board of trustees takes action on their own initiative in the appointment of the dean.

In the appointment of directors of teaching, research, and extension, the centering of the major responsibility varies with the type of organization. Where the dean is responsible for the work in all three lines, he finds suitable candidates for these positions and recommends to the president. Major responsibility of this character on the basis of reports received in this study is exercised by the dean in 18 institutions. In 22 institutions, mostly the separate landgrant colleges, the president is reported as taking the initiative and exercising the major responsibility in the selection of these officers.

The dean of agriculture recommends appointment of department heads in 38 institutions out of 45 reporting on this practice. The president apparently takes the initiative in seven instances (usually in smaller institutions). Where the dean recommends he does so directly to the president, except in one case where his recommendation first is considered by an institutional committee and in another case where his recommendation goes direct to the board of trustees.

In the appointment of professors and assistant professors the department head takes the initiative in 26 institutions reporting, the dean in 13, and the director of resident instruction in 2. The department heads' or directors' recommendations normally go to the dean and his in turn to the president. The appointment and promotion of instructors and assistants usually takes the same route as in the case of professors and assistant professors.

It is clear that the appointing power and the power of promotion should lie in large part where the major responsibility for the work is lodged. Since the dean is held responsible for the functioning of department heads his should be the responsibility of finding and recommending department heads for appointment or promotion. Since the department heads are held responsible for the work of the members of their departments they should function primarily in finding and recommending to the dean and he in turn to the president suitable candidates for faculties, and promotions of members of the department. The governing board and the president in the final analysis carry the responsibility for the functioning of the institution as a whole. They, therefore, must have final authority in all appointments and promotions. Any tendency for governing boards to appoint or promote except through the president, or for the presidents, deans, or directors to appoint or promote without consultation with or recommendation from those immediately responsible for specific units of work weakens the administrative structure, and is likely to cause friction and misunderstanding.

Professional requirements for appointment to the agricultural staff. In connection with staff selection it is interesting to note the professional requirements of the different institutions for appoint

ments to the agricultural staff. While sufficient specific detailed reports on this point were not received from the land-grant institutions to justify a tabulation, it is clear from the data available that requirements to-day for appointment to the agricultural staff are comparatively high and considerably higher than a decade ago. California, Louisiana, Maine, South Carolina, and West Virginia, as examples, definitely specify that the doctor's degree is required for an appointment to a professorship. Others specify at least a master's degree, while a few indicate that those with only a bachelor's degree may be appointed professors. The requirements for associate professor are similar, the doctor's or master's degrees being required by 60 per cent of the institutions reporting. For appointment as assistant professor, the master's or doctor's degree is required in a considerable number of institutions, although in many selection and promotion to this rank can be made of persons with only a bachelor's degree. A standard requirement for instructors is the bachelor's degree, although several institutions will appoint no one as instructor who has not had advanced work as indicated by the master's degree.

Coupled with advanced work as indicated by the doctor's and master's degrees, experience and personal characteristics are taken into consideration when appointments are made, especially to the more advanced positions. There is no uniformity of requirements in this respect and there can be none. For the higher positions of the better-supported institutions, successful experience in teaching or research in the specialty is a universal requirement for appointment. In the lower ranks this is not regarded as equally necessary, since there are others on the staff to guide such appointees and they are thus able to acquire experience on the job. No young man to-day, however, who contemplates taking up the teaching of agriculture in a land-grant college or university, and who is ambitious to succeed, can expect to get very far in the profession unless he takes advanced work leading to the master's and doctor's degrees and acquires suitable experience while so doing.

The progress of the agricultural staff.-The progress of the agricultural teacher through the ranks from the time he begins college teaching and the age of the teachers in the various ranks are shown in Table 3. Records of professors were obtained from 40 institutions, associate professors from 30, assistant professors from 35, associates from 1, and instructors from 14. It is evident that the large majority of professors in undergraduate agricultural teaching are in the productive period from 30 to 60. Only 11 out of 583 are less than 30 years of age, and only 41 are more than 60. The ages would indicate that it is a mature, seasoned, and vigorous group of

men. The majority, 380 out of 485 for whom records are available, began college teaching before 30 years of age.

Teaching agriculture in colleges and universities is a profession not easily adopted in advanced years after other professions have been tried. It is a calling requiring certain aptitudes and outlook, and specific training and experience. This has a tendency to limit the group to those who definitely choose this as their work because of the interest they have in it and the qualifications they possess. The large majority of the 420 professors for whom records on the period of instructorship were obtained began college teaching and became instructors at the age of 20 to 30, assistant professors at 25 to 35, associate professors at 25 to 40, and professors at 25 to 45, the large majority being 35 to 50 years of age, with a median of 42. The median years' service spent in each rank is 2 as instructor, 3 as assistant professor, 2 as associate professor, and 9 as professor. For example, the typical professor who started college teaching as an instructor at 26 became an assistant professor at 28, an associate professor at 31, and a professor at 33.

111490°-30—VOL 1- -49