Similar discrepancies in practice are evident in all the other subjectmatter fields. Institutions do not agree as to how much or what phases of a single subject shall be included in the curriculum and in practically every instance some institutions neglect entirely subjects that to other institutions seem essential to general home economics training. Even in the older and better established subjects indubitably elements of technical home economics, one institution requires many more hours than another. Thus in foods and nutrition one institution requires more than seven times as many credits as the institution that requires the smallest number. Nor is this situation true of only the extremes. In foods and nutrition the eight institutions requiring the greatest number of hours all demand twice as many credits as the highest among the seven lowest institutions.

Even cursory examination makes it evident that so far as similarity of course requirements and content are indicative there is not among the 35 land-grant institutions reporting a general home economics curriculum that can be understood as meaning even approximately the same thing in all the institutions. The confusion of objectives already noted, the lack of agreement in regard to relative division between requirements and electives, and the failure to reach common understanding in regard to content of the general home economics curriculum are, of course, interdependent factors.

The public expects and, in view of the fact that the great majority of women become homemakers, demands that home economics reach some degree of agreement in regard to what should constitute the college education of women through the medium and by virtue of the interest that women have in the distinctly home economics subjects.

The undergraduate student who does not expect to enter a professional or technical field is the primary concern of those who would construct a general home economics curriculum on the college level. This curriculum should be definitely directed to this end. The purpose is large and its attainment will constitute an outstanding contribution to American higher education. Other purposes may well be set aside or delayed; certainly compromise with the objective here indicated in order to provide training in specialized fields and employments will mean mediocre accomplishment in all areas.

Home Economics Teacher-Training Curricula

Consideration of the education courses in the home economics teacher-training curriculum belongs properly with the section of the land-grant college survey that deals with professional education of teachers. The detailed treatment will be found in that section. But it is desirable to include brief consideration of this important curricu

lum in its entirety at this point in order that its objectives as defined by the home economics units, its division into required and elective elements, and the content of subject matter assigned to it may be examined in relation to these three factors in other curricular programs. Objectives of home economics teacher-training curricula.-The occupational objective of a teacher-training curriculum appears so obvious that it may fairly be expected that the 35 institutions that list specific teacher-training curricula would assign but one major objective, preparation of teachers, to this curriculum. Thirty-four do assign this objective but 12 also assign to this professional and occupational curriculum the function of preparing homemakers. 7 add that it is intended to provide general culture and 4 indicate extension work as an objective. This is almost as confused as the assignment of objectives to general home economics. Of course, teachers require general culture, and many of them ultimately become homemakers, and extension work is a teaching employment that has as yet not developed adequate training in its techniques and objectives as differentiated from those of high-school teaching. Nevertheless it arouses considerable question concerning the degree of design for the specific purpose of teacher preparation when a grouping of material is expected to accomplish such varied objectives.

Required and elected hours.-Division of time among home economics required subjects, the sciences and humanities, and electives is shown by Table 20 as reported by 13 institutions.

Much the same variation between the proportions of requirements and electives is shown in this curriculum as in that of general home economics, although the list of institutions is not the same throughout. TABLE 20.-Home economics education curricula in 13 land-grant institutions

1 Includes 10 credits in general home economics subjects which are required.

Among the institutions reporting on this particular phase in teacher-training curricula, four institutions allow no free electives during the first two years; two institutions allow none during the first three years. Table 21 shows the number of institutions allowing certain semester hours of free elective years.

Among 23 institutions reporting on group electives allowed in teacher-training curricula, 17 show a larger number of hours in groupings of non-home economics subjects. Among these, six institutions report all electives in non-home economics subjects. Among the six other institutions, two report a larger number of hours of home economics subjects in groupings of electives. One divides the hours equally between home economics and non-home economics; 3 give total number of hours, but do not specify from which group they may be chosen.

TABLE 21.-Free electives in teacher-training curriculum in land-grant institutions

Content of teacher-training curricula.-Curricula designed to prepare students to be teachers of home economics show a material difference from those in general home economics in only one significant respect-the number of hours of education required when the two curricula are compared institution by institution. In other particulars they are similar in respect to the fields of subject matter in which requirements are made, the number of hours required, and their arrangement or sequence in years.

Among the 27 institutions offering both general home economics and teacher-training curricula, four institutions include more chemistry for teachers than for students in general home economics. The additional courses required are usually physiological chemistry. Three institutions increase slightly the requirements in physiology; five increase to some extent the number of hours of applied art for teachers; one increases the economics requirement; three require

slightly more English for teachers than is required in the general home economics curriculum. Requirements in psychology are very similar, although one institution increases the hours required from six in general home economics to eight in teacher training; and another that has no psychology requirement in the general home economics curriculum requires six hours in teacher training, four in general psychology, and two in child psychology. Requirements in economics are practically identical as are those in English and other languages.

It was noted that certain of the institutions set up education requirements in their general home economics curricula. In 18 institutions making no such requirements in the general home economics curricula the frequency and range of requirements in the teachertraining curriculum are shown by the following: One institution requires 10; one, 12; one, 13; five, 15; one, 16; three, 18; one, 18%; one, from 18 to 20; two, 20; one, 21; and one, 22. Close correlation exists between the number of hours of education required in these curricula and the State minimum requirements for teacher certification.

Two institutions that require education in the general home economics curriculum raise this requirement in the teacher-training curriculum, one from 12 to 29 hours and the other from 3 to 18.

Among 33 institutions that reported in detail concerning their teacher-training curricula, 24 require courses in principles of education, usually coming in the third year of work, the hours ranging from two to five, most institutions requiring three. Thirty-two require observation and student teaching as well as studies of special methods in home economics. In most cases these requirements are made in the fourth year. One requires eight hours of observation and student teaching in the junior year with two and two-thirds hours of special methods in the same year, while another, with a student-teaching requirement also in the junior year, requires but two hours then and an additional four hours in the senior year. One other institution requires student teaching (3 hours) in the junior year. But 25 institutions among the 33 require educational psychology, the hours ranging from two to five and occurring most often in the third year. Fifteen institutions require courses in secondary education methods. Nine institutions require courses in vocational education. Among those reporting the number of hours required, the range is between one and one-third and five.

Seven institutions offer teacher-training curricula, but no "general home economics." The significant difference between the teacher-training curricula developed by these institutions and other curricula offered is again in the matter of number of hours of edu

cation required. These are for the most part similar both in course content and in number of hours to the curricula offered by the 27 institutions having both general home economics and teacher-training curricula. Slight differences between the hours of specific home economics subjects required by these institutions and others are noted in the field of foods and nutrition and housing in which less nutrition and more housing are required for teachers than for students preparing for other lines of work. Eight institutions offer no specific curricula for teacher training.

It is apparent that few institutions make material difference in subject matter between their general home economics and teachertraining curricula except in the education requirements. In some instances the time for this specialization is secured rather more largely at the expense of the specific home economics subjects, but normally the amount is taken somewhat equally from home economics and scientific and humanistic subjects and from electives.

Foods and Nutrition Curricula

Twenty institutions state that they offer curricula in foods and nutrition. Inasmuch as this subject plays so large a part in general home economics curricula and the courses appropriate to the foods and nutrition classification range from general cooking work to highly specialized dietetics courses, the objectives of these curricula can not be inferred from their title. The statements of the objectives assigned to this curriculum by the institutions serve to clarify understanding in only the slightest degree.

Preparation for teaching is listed as an objective ten times; home making, eight; research, seven; general culture, five; business, five; social science, three; extension, three; and preparation of hospital dietitians is given as the objective in one instance. This does not seem reasonable. Inasmuch as all the institutions that offer this curriculum in foods and nutrition also offer curricula in general home economics, which obviously should be designed for home making and therefore for general culture also, and since practically all also offer teacher-training curricula, it is puzzling to discover teacher training, home making, and general culture described as the objectives of a parallel curriculum. Does a foods and nutrition curriculum exist in fact in these cases? Have these institutions a foods and nutrition curriculum with its own objectives? Are curricula and subject-matter majors or their equivalent confused? These questions can not be answered exactly, but the lack of meaning of the curricular label in this instance is apparent. Business, extension, and research are conceivable objectives to certain types of foods and nutrition work, but the