titles. Food selection, clothing selection, selection of household textiles and furnishings, and similar titles show the interest being taken in presenting a larger number of courses on this basis. Specialization in industry has taken over in such large part the construction of the materials necessary to clothe, house, and feed the family, that the problem of the homemaker is, and will increasingly be, one of selection. It is becoming more and more the case that choice of commodities and activities must be based upon highly technical knowledge if it is to be intelligent and not simply in response to attractively illustrated advertising. Chapter VII.-Curricula A curriculum is merely the bringing together of various elements of instruction so related to each other and to the accomplishment of a common purpose that a definite educational objective may be attained. A curriculum is in effect a planned rather than a chance means to reach a specific desirable educational outcome. Merely to group together a series of courses haphazard and without reference to a purposeful result is not making a curriculum. The whole significance and purpose of curriculum making lies in the assembly and use of materials purposefully. Like a road a curriculum leads from one place to another; its terminal must be definitely selected. A single curriculum can not serve a half dozen major objectives. It becomes important, therefore, to discover how home economics sets about constructing its curricula, what objectives are set up by each, and how well the specific selection and groupings of elements are adapted to the accomplishment of these objectives. In discussion of methods of determining offerings some of the administrative processes adopted for the construction of home economics curricula have been presented. The arrangement of these offerings into distinct curricula is usually not rigidly prescribed throughout. Part may be required, part freely elective, or part may be elective within a limited range of choice. Many kinds of combinations and special adjustments are in practice. Thus a basic or core group of courses extending over a 4-year period (sometimes mistakenly referred to as a curriculum) may be prescribed to which various free or group electives may be attached for the purpose of attaining specialized objectives of various kinds. Or the basic courses may be grouped in the first two years and upon these various specialized curricula of two years may be constructed. Under either of these types of course grouping, what the student gets is a curriculum only in so far as the grouping and the succession represent a planned and purposeful means to the accomplishment of a definite educational end. How many curricula do the various home economics units set up and which ones are most generally offered? Without attempting to determine at this point whether what the institutions call curricula satisfy the definition given or are in fact something else, we find the following situation. Five institutions report but one curriculum. that in general home economics. Eleven report 2 curricula, 1 of which in 10 instances is the general home economics curriculum and in 9 cases is the curriculum in teacher training. Three curricula are offered by each of 10 institutions; 4 by 7; 5 by 4; 6 by 1; 7 by 3; 8 by 2; and 10 by 1. Three-fourths of all the institutions reporting offer four or fewer curricula. It would appear, therefore, upon the face of these returns that the land-grant colleges are in most instances attempting to arrange their work into articulated groups and programs for the accomplishment of a limited number of major objectives. However, this apparent conclusion must be considerably modified in view of the variety of major objectives reported in other portions of the survey returns. It appears rather that in many instances so-called curricula are in fact not groups of courses coordinated for the accomplishment of definite objectives. It seems that assemblies of practically all courses available are frequently designated by the term "curricula " merely upon the basis of the predominance of courses in a specific field. Further examination of detail with reference to certain curricula for which data were furnished will afford additional evidence upon this question. The following list of curricula given by the institutions will serve to indicate those most generally offered and will also provide a convenient order for successive discussions of each. The curriculum in general home economics is listed by 36 institutions; that in teacher training by 35; foods and nutrition by 20; textiles and clothing by 10; institutional management by 15; extension by 14; and applied or related art by 6. Various others mentioned by from one to three institutions are curricula in physical education, family life, bacteriology, hospital dietetics, research in textiles and clothing and in clothing and art, hotel management, and home management. But these are so infrequently offered that they are of little significance in a study of general practice in home economics curriculum differentiation. General Home Economics General home economics is the curriculum named by more institutions than any other. It will be examined, therefore, in considerable detail in order to determine: First, whether general agreement has been reached as to its objectives; second, whether general agreement has been reached concerning the proportion of the total time that should be allowed to required and elected work; and third, whether general agreement has been reached as to its content. Of the 36 institutions that list the objectives of their general home economics curricula, 33 name home making, thus indicating that in three institutions at least other objectives control this curriculum apparently to the exclusion of home making. Twenty-seven report that general culture is an objective. Although this is a somewhat different objective than the home-making one, the two are not inconsistent. It is of little significance, therefore, that many of the same institutions list these two objectives for a single curriculum. But additional items listed, such as teaching by 12 institutions, hospitaldietetics work by 8, extension by 5, social service and business each by 3, and research by 2, indicate clearly a somewhat amazing confusion of objectives assigned to a single curriculum. It is fairly obvious that several of these objectives are so directly vocational and specialized that a curriculum designed to prepare for home making or even for general culture must of necessity be inappropriate to the attainment of such different purposes. The conclusions that may be drawn are: First, that many home economics units have no clear conception of the functions of a curriculum. Second, that objectives are not clearly defined by many home economics units. Third, that home economics has not reached the degree of common agreement concerning the major objectives of general home economics. as would seem to be indicated by the frequency with which home making and general culture are stated as objectives. Division of time between requirements and electives in the general home economics curriculum.-Quite apart from unity of objectives in the general home economics curriculum it might be expected that a certain degree of agreement would have been reached with reference to the proportionate distribution of the time given in this curriculum between prescriptions in home economics and the sciences and humanities and electives permitted. It was possible from the returns made by the home economics units to compile this information for the general home economics curriculum in only 15 institutions. The results of this compilation are given in Table 16. The ranges shown by the table are significant. The University of Wisconsin requires that 15 per cent of the total requirements for graduation be taken in home economics subjects, while the University of Missouri requires 39.3 per cent, more than twice as large a proportion. However, 9 of the 15 institutions show a range within very narrow limits from 23 per cent to 28 per cent of the total. To the sciences and humanities one institution demands that students give 33 per cent of their credit hours while another requires 65 per cent. The intermediate steps between these extremes are fairly regular. The proportion of the total time allowed for electives shows a still wider range. One institution allows only 10.8 per cent while another per mits 51.7 per cent of the total number of semester hours required for graduation to be elected. However, 10 of the 15 institutions allow their students to elect from approximately 20 to 30 per cent of the total required hours. TABLE 16.-General home economics curricula in 15 land-grant institutions In this connection it is also interesting to examine the period in the general home economics curriculum when elections are permitted. The following table was compiled from statements made for the purposes of the land-grant college survey. |