The allotment of home economics to the school of education requires some further discussion. If all home economics work is conducted by this major division, the practice is not in harmony with the relations that exist between other subject-matter fields and the school of education. In other fields the school of education depends upon the subject-matter departments-botany, English, history, etc.— for training in subject matter; its function is that of providing professional knowledge and attitudes to be applied in actual teaching of a variety of subjects. It would seem, therefore, that if this common form of organization is sound, the same principle of organization should apply in the case of home economics. In other words, assignment of the entire home economics unit to the school of education is justified only if the sole home economics objective of the institution is that of teacher preparation. On the other hand it is just as much out of harmony with accepted principles of institutional organization to assign home economics teacher training exclusively to a major division other than the school of education when a welldeveloped school of education exists in the institution.

In 21 of the 41 institutions reporting, home economics education or teacher training is shown to be organized either entirely in or jointly with divisions of education. In 12 the home economics teacher-training course or curriculum is located in a division of education: University of Arkansas, University of California (at Berkeley and Los Angeles), Connecticut Agricultural College, University of Illinois, Purdue University, University of Kentucky, University of Maryland, University of Missouri, University of Nevada, University of New Hampshire, Pennsylvania State College, and the University of Wyoming. In six it is organized jointly in the divisions of home economics and education. These are Colorado Agricultural College, University of Minnesota, Oregon Agricultural College, Rhode Island State College, Agricultural College of Utah, and State College of Washington. In three it is organized jointly in divisions of agriculture and education: Ohio State University, West Virginia University, and the University of Wisconsin. In eight it is in the division of agriculture: University of Arizona, Georgia State College of Agriculture, University of Maine, University of Nebraska, Cornell University, University of Tennessee, University of Vermont, and Virginia Agricultural and Mechanical College. In eight others it is in the division of home economics: Alabama Polytechnic Institute, University of Delaware, Iowa State College, Michigan State College, North Dakota Agricultural College, Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College, Louisiana State University, and Rutgers University. In three it is in the division of letters and science, or general science. They are University of Hawaii, University of Idaho, and Kansas State Agricultural College. In one, Montana State College, it is in the division of household and industrial arts.

Practice in the land-grant colleges with reference to the relationships that the home economics units bear to home economics teacher training shows considerable variety and indicates frequent departure from sound principles of organization. Present conditions give rise to unfortunate situations such as that reported by 34 institutions in which members of the resident home economics staff are responsible to the titular head of the home economics unit. In 11 of these institutions this situation is due to the fact that home economics subjectmatter teachers are responsible to the head of the department or

school of education rather than to the head of their own subjectmatter field.

Of the 34 institutions 17 report members of the home economics staff responsible for home economics instruction to some one other than the head of the home economics unit; 19 report such responsibility with reference to housing and feeding of students; and report that budgetary responsibility is involved and that research is concerned. In only one of 19 institutions reporting on the point is the State home demonstration leader responsible jointly to the director of Smith-Lever extension and to the resident home economics department; in the other instances the home economics department is not concerned. Further, 13 institutions report Smith-Lever extension specialists as having no responsibility and apparently no relationship to the head of resident home economics work. In two institutions the State supervisor of home economics education is a member of the home economics staff, but in neither case is she in any way responsible to the head of the home economics unit.

Failure to articulate all home economics residence instruction, extension, and research through the head of home economics resident instruction is likely to result in undesirable duplication and a variety of standards within the institution. Further resident work should derive material benefits from connection with Smith-Lever extension and experiment station research and the resident home economics staff should be able to contribute to extension and research programs. If for any reason leadership of all aspects of institutional home economics activities can not be exercised by the head of the home economics unit and if the home economics staff is not able and prepared to participate effectively it would seem probable that the character of home economics personnel is not all that it should be or that defective organization is imposing an undesirable handicap upon the home economics staff.

When home economics is regarded as a means of developing home managers prepared to deal with the various tasks of housekeeping and homemaking these matters are likely to be interpreted by the institutional authorities that determine creation and allocation of new units pretty largely in terms of food and clothing. Hence it seems entirely reasonable to them to assign home economics work to the major division of the institution that is concerned with foods and with the production of wool and cotton, that is to the division of agriculture. This reasoning was probably in many instances supported by the fact that when home economics units were established the majority of homes were rural; in some States they still are and in all they constitute a large proportion of the homes. Further, because the college of agriculture contains the Smith-Lever extension service and the experiment station, both of which carry on home economics work, this division of the institution seemed adapted to resident instruction in home economics. When home economics is assigned to the college of agriculture the close relationship that home economics extension under Smith-Lever services and the agricultural experiment station under the provisions of the Purnell Act,

should have with resident instruction may be facilitated. We find, therefore, that home economics curricula are set up in the college of agriculture in 3 institutions and in departments in 15.

When home economics instruction is conceived in terms of utilizing subject matter derived from home and family relationships as a medium for a combined humanistic and scientific college education it is entirely logical to set up an independent major division of home economics coordinate with the other schools and colleges of the institution. In 19 instances such organizations are reported by the home economics units of the land-grant institutions. In this connection it is interesting to note that the home economics work of eight of these institutions was originally assigned to the college of agriculture; more than one-third of the home economics units originally placed in the college of agriculture have become major divisions of home economics. To this number should probably be added another division of home economics that is connected with the college of agriculture for administrative purposes only. It appears that the affiliation of home economics work with the college of agriculture has provided opportunity in many instances for rather free development. Further evidence also points in this direction, since many of the home economics units still in colleges of agriculture are well developed and exercise a degree of autonomy far in excess of the self-control permitted to other subject-matter departments.

The tendency to desire organization as independent divisions is shown by the fact that 12 of the home economics units that are not organized as major divisions desire to become independent schools or colleges within their institutions. Eight of the home economics units that express this desire state, however, that they do not regard their present organization affiliation as especially unsatisfactory. It may be, therefore, that the wish to make the home economics unit an independent one is in some instances a conventional notion of what is needed rather than an indication that home economics objectives are such as to require separate control. It should be fairly obvious that "freedom" and "independence" might be unsatisfactory both for home economics and for the institutions when the actual local situation and home economics preparation to exercise the full responsibilities of independent major division are not sufficiently weighed. In what ways and under what circumstances an independent administrative unit for home economics can excel in the accomplishment of the objectives of home economics must be defined and demonstrated in terms of institutional situations and home economics resources before it can be accepted and adopted as a standard by any individual land-grant organization.

The four assignments of the home economics units described are typical. It frequently happens, however, that in a single institution the home economics work directed to the attainment of different purposes may be assigned to a number of more or less appropriate major divisions. Thus home economics work may be conducted in a single institution by as many as three different schools or colleges— arts and sciences, education, and agriculture-although the dual situation, agriculture and education, is more common.

One test of the actual position of home economics in institutional organization is the line of administrative responsibility that connects the home economics unit with the chief administrative officer of the institution. If the home economics unit deals directly with the president, a considerable degree of administrative autonomy is implied. On the other hand when home economics matters must pass through a number of subordinate administrative heads before reaching the president it is relatively safe to assume that the immediate heads of home economics work may frequently be compelled to modify their objectives and activities in accordance with policies and attitudes determined primarily upon grounds other than those of development of home economics purposes. However, the validity of such reasoning is considerably modified for the land-grant institutions because approximately half of these institutions are State universities and the remainder separate land-grant colleges. Of the 17 institutions in which the home economics unit reports directly to the president only 3 are State universities and of the 20 institutions in which the home economics unit is administratively responsible through the dean of a major division, usually the college of agriculture, only 3 are separate land-grant colleges and in 1 of these cases (Pennsylvania State College) the institution is in effect the State university. In view of the fact that the dean of the college of agriculture in a State university occupies a position in many ways, although not exactly, comparable to that of the president of an agricultural college, it would seem that a considerable number of the home economics units have immediate access to administrative officers of extensive authority.

It is probable that the interposition of a dean between the home economics unit and final administrative authority works quite as frequently to the advantage of the home economics unit as to its disadvantage. This is especially likely to be the case when the intermediate officer is the dean of the college of agriculture who is responsible for the Smith-Lever extension service and the agricul

tural experiment station which both carry on home economics work. In a properly administered organization the home economics unit will gain strength from the relationships with extension and research that should be facilitated through the dean of agriculture. Detailed examination by subsequent pages of this report of the responsibility and powers of the home economics unit in selection of staff, management of the budget, and determination of offerings should reveal whether in these important functions home economics is unduly restricted by the existing lines of administrative responsibility.

The official relationships of home economics to the registrar's office might well be indicative of the place of the unit in the institutional organization. However, the facts as shown by institutional reports reveal little that is of special significance. Although the home economics unit and the registrar's office are in the great majority of cases jointly concerned with evaluation and transfer of credits and with the recommendation and approval of substitution of courses these relationships are normally those that exist between a subject-matter department and the institutional office of record.

Quite apart from formal organization the institutional estimate of the home economics unit is revealed to a considerable degree by the extent to which the unit is represented upon ruling bodies and institutional committees.

The facts concerning these relationships are, therefore, presented. In 34 of the 39 institutions reporting on this point, home economics has representation upon the faculty bodies of the institutions. In four of the cases, however, the head of the home economics unit apparently has no power to vote in such bodies. Membership is quite frequently rather strictly limited by institutional rank. In only one institution are all ranks admitted and in one other ali ranks are admitted with the condition that instructors must first serve for a definite term in the institution. Four report that all members of the home economics staff with the rank of assistant professor or above sit upon the faculty ruling body. Apparently in the remainder of the institutions admission is limited to the higher academic ranks.

Forty-two institutions submitted reports concerning the representation of home economics staff members upon general faculty committees. These statements are summarized in Table 1.