ing and interior decoration, as preparation to select furnishing and textiles in harmony with the architecture peculiar to hotels. Twelve hours of foods and nutrition are required including courses in marketing and large quantity cooking; counter supply for institutional management; food selection and 77 hours in preparation and service of foods. Thirteen hours of institution management including study of institutional equipment and construction problems arising in connection with institutions; 14 hours of accounting and financing are required.

As an example of a vocational curriculum of the scientific rather than the business type, which has developed relatively close adaptation of content to the attainment of a specific desired outcome is the hospital dietetics curriculum offered by the universities of Missouri and Minnesota and Cornell University. Table 26 summarizes briefly some of the major distributions of content material in this curriculum in terms of semester hours.

Additional examples might be given of isolated cases in which curriculum construction has been determined by formulation of attainable objectives and content material selected for such definite purposes. Such examples might be discovered in individual instances among several of the curricular groups already discussed and also among other specialized curricula that the limitations of space make it inadvisable to mention.

TABLE 26.-Hospital dietetics curricula in three land-grant institutions

It is not the purpose of this survey to submit models or lay down standards in the case of specific curricula. The purpose is to examine and report on the general situation with respect to home economics curricula in the United States with reference to the educational principles and policies that prevail in the higher educational

world and to suggest procedures and policies looking to the further development of the functions of college home economics in harmony with the future evolution of educational life in the United States. These purposes are no doubt obscured for the general reader and perhaps to a degree for the home economics specialists also, by the details that have been presented. It is advisable, therefore, to summarize certain tendencies and conditions revealed by the preceding discussion and to relate these conditions and tendencies to other aspects of home economics education and to trends in general higher educational development.

The Curricular Situation

This most obvious superficial situation revealed by study of home economics courses and curricula is confusion of objectives, confusion of means adapted to the attainment of objectives, and confusion of lines of demarcation between subject-matter fields. Nevertheless, judgment of home economics solely upon the basis of these contradictions and obscurities would miss entirely the elements in home economics that give it such unmistakable vitality. These elements are essentially those that have always caused the great advances and the great disturbances in the world, unwavering faith in what has not been demonstrated and stubborn conviction that this faith can and ultimately will be justified by its works. Historically and currently the distinctive faith and function of home economics must be defined in terms of sex. Home economics is the educational expression of a changing social world in which women seek to define in new terms their relationships to all the factors of living. It is not concerned especially with what has come to be connoted by "women's rights." Although removal of artificial disabilities that stand in the way of women receives whole-hearted support it is noteworthy that home economics has never been characterized by "militant" feminism. It is above all concerned with discovering and utilizing the means by which the capacities of women may be fully developed and through which their abilities may find free expression. Home economics shares the common confidence that this like all other important problems is one of education. Only by such an interpretation as this is it possible to explain the vigorous and aggressive position of home economics in education in the United States. The offerings of home economics in the landgrant colleges and universities afford evidence of the substantial validity of such an interpretation and are in turn clarified by it. These abstract generalizations may be made concrete and specific; they are derived from a thousand facts and provide the pattern that gives the facts meaning.

Three threads run through the entire mass of data concerning the courses and curricula that constitute home economics offerings. They appear again and again in the statements of objectives. First is the constant concern with the education of women as members of the family social unit, second is interest in women as earners, and third is the pursuit of new and more exact knowledge that will contribute to both these aspects of women's functions. These things are clear; upon them there is agreement. It is only when practical expression of these purposes is attempted that the impression is created that home economics is bewildered by the wealth of possibilities, by the necessity of selecting from the multitudinous materials available those best suited for its purposes, by the variety of demands, and by the chasms of ignorance that must be bridged. Shall the interests through which it is believed that impetus may be given to women's development be defined and presented in terms of science, of economics, of the material, of the level and sociological, or in some other terms?

Women's interests provide a starting point for all these forms of educational attacks, all provide a wealth of material that has been developed and organized for other purposes but that may be adapted to the uses of home economics. This confusion is reflected in the striking lack of agreement in regard to emphasis upon the various subjects that compose any one of the curricula that is offered in a number of institutions and is especially evident in the curriculum designed for general home economics education.

If home economics continued to define its objectives in terms of skills or knowledge this condition would be more serious than it is, for in that case the best choice of content and method would be relatively limited to vocational purposes that can be rather easily analyzed. But despite the fact that there is doubtless much surviving adherence to these interpretations of educational purpose, home economics leaders are expressing with increasing clarity the more fundamental objective of creating what may be called educated attitudes, educated viewpoints, and educated methods of dealing with all problems by which the individual may be confronted. The educated attitude is interpreted as one of intellectual rather than emotional reaction. The educated viewpoint is one of tolerance and of wide interest in all the activities of the world. The educated method is that of reasoned and logical treatment of facts. These purposes are the basic ones of general home economics. To attain them requires a synthesis of the viewpoints represented by the scientist, the economist, the sociologist, and the humanist-a synthesis that utilizes subject matter derived from the special interests and functions of women as members of the family unit. The purpose is

not that of a profession-the profession of homemaking, motherhood, or being a woman-for it contemplates the activities, duties, and functions of women in quite another realm of values than that of professional occupation.

The objectives of general home economics may be stated in much the same terms as those of the college of arts and sciences but its field and its subject matter are much more exactly and clearly limited. The college of arts and sciences has assumed that there is a body of knowledge that may be so treated as to create in anyone the initial interest and experience, the attitudes and habits of action that characterize the educated or intellectual classes. General home economics retains the basic purposes of liberal education but takes its departure from interests already strongly developed among women and seeks to select and relate subject matter from these fields in such fashion as to release and to develop the abilities of women in directions that will lead them to educated viewpoints and methods of dealing with life as women find it.

With this objective the confusion of subject matter now found in general home economics curricula may be explained and, in so far as confusion represents experimentation, directed to the discovery of the best selection of subject matter for this purpose. However, the present condition does not in fact arise simply from causes of this kind. In part it is due to acceptance of the educational emphasis developed by special subject-matter fields in the legitimate pursuit of their own proper places in the sun, in part to traditions of the 4-year college course, and in part to failure to distinguish clearly between the general home economics objective and objectives of vocational or research character.

The emphasis upon chemistry without corresponding integration with the initial interests of women or with other elements of the general home economics curriculum which developed with the increasing importance of chemistry in industry is now giving way somewhat to emphasis upon economic and social subjects that developed effectively, so far as the land-grant colleges are concerned, with discussion of agricultural marketing, farm relief, and other elements of rural welfare not immediately phases of agricultural production. General home economics may very properly, of course, utilize these aspects of learning, but it should be with conscious and specific reference to its own objectives rather than as a reflection. of tendencies in industrial or agricultural education.

The tradition of the 4-year college course represents the background and environments in which the college curriculum in general home economics has developed. The hold of this tradition is now becoming weaker but will persist and perhaps should persist in

many college organizations and curricular plans. The problem of the general home economics curriculum becomes one, therefore, of determining which of four general policies it shall follow. Shall it adhere to the principle of the 4-year arts and science course in which interest is aroused by inserting courses of specific home economics character throughout the entire period? Shall it attempt to develop what may be called an isolated college of general home economics in which the basic core about and through which the abstract sciences and humanities are made to function upon the consciousness of its students in home interest? Or shall it accept the principle that home economics shall during the first two years complete the general education of its students by utilizing home economics subject matter to vitalize the elements of education that in their abstract form appeal less to women and to follow this general training by other specialized 2-year curricula looking to occupational or research preparation? Or shall it abandon any special emphasis upon home economics during the first two years, and depending upon a type of general education designed to prepare during this period for almost any kind of specialization, undertake to set up distinct 2-year general, vocational, and research curricula in home economics upon the basis of these two years of general education. All these tendencies are evident in current educational development. Probably all will persist and be embodied more or less permanently in different types of institutions in spite of the present strength of the tendency to emphasize the advantages of two years of general junior college education upon which specialization may be based. The survey does not recommend any single one of these plans to general home economics for adoption by all institutions. It does earnestly recommend that in harmony with the policy of the institution of which it is a part each home economics unit definitely select one of these four choices and reexamine its curricula, especially its general home economics curriculum, in accordance with the general theory and policy adopted. At present this has not been done. Much of the confusion in the present construction of home economics curricula arises from attempts by single home economics units to adhere simultaneously to two or more very different and divergent plans.

Confusion of general home economics objectives with vocational and research purposes that is evident in the statement of objectives and content of home economics curricula arises in part from attempted adherence to two or more of the theories of educational organization just presented. In part this confusion is due to the inadequate educational training and experience of home economics personnel which results apparently in inability to relate specific