University of Minnesota - Gopher Yearbook (Minneapolis, MN)

Page 22 text:

 ( ta.U jOO uea te University aim ms with the college of agriculture and mechanic arts and Old Main, 1X70 OUT OF SEVERAL DISASTERS, A PERMANENT FOOTHOLD The traditional respect with which Americans always have treated the school is a clear example of the close interrelationship Ik tween democracy and education. It is fortunate for us that ioo years ago there were men living in the territory of Minnesota who recognized this hit of logic, and who knew that such tender plants as freedom and prosperity could not thrive in an environment of ignorance. It was Alexander Ramsey, earliest territorial governor of Minnesota, who first talked about a university in more than speculator)' terms. His lead was followed by Henry Sibley, territorial delegate to Congress, and Franklin Steele, a generous and farsighted pioneer real-estater. The efforts of these men and others resulted in construction of a modest, two-story building, which housed the “Pre- paratory Department of the University of Minnesota (not to cost more than $2,500). Fall quarter and the academic history of the University began on Nov. 26, 1851. Student enrollment was close to 20, and the faculty was one. He was Professor Elijah W. Merrill, who came to Minnesota under the delusion that he was to be paid a fixed salary by the Regents. The Regents, however, expected him to make a living off a percentage of student fees. He left Minnesota four years later, perhaps sensing approaching disasters. They came in the form of lumber failures on University-owned lands, an unsuccessful and foolhardy attempt to construct a new $49,600 school building and a nationwide financial panic. All these spelled bankruptcy for the University of Minnesota. Several more false starts were made during the following 10 years, but about all that was accomplished was the building of Old Main, a campus landmark which burned to the ground in 1904. At last, in 1869, the Regents tried again, and managed to secure a permanent foothold for the University. The success of this latest venture can be largely credited to two personalities. They were John S. Pillsbury and William Watts Folwcll. Pillsbury was a man of almost no formal education, but instead, a shrewd and practical businessman. Appointed to the Board of Regents in 1X6.5, he proceeded to clean up the University’s financial mess. At the end of four years he was able to report to the state senate that the University was debt free.

Page 21 text:

Ihesk people arc being graduated from the X University. Their sheltered years of college arc over and they are entering a new life. After studying the world, and its problems, past and present, they are about to take their place in it. Practical application of classroom theory is now their problem. The University has given them an education — professional, vocational, social and (Nilitical — now it's up to them to use it. These people are the intellectual resources of the nation future leaders in government, business, science and literature — upon whom that nation in time will depend. Their success will make the world a better place.

Page 23 text:

FOLWELL: NEW NOTE IN EDUCATION Perhaps rib University educator has had a more advanced outlook on the role of that institution than did William Watts Folwell, its first president. He had a well-defined plan of action, which, had it been put into more complete operation, would have placed the University far ahead of its time. Unfortunately, Folwell’s theories often met with strong opposition from Iwth the Regents and faculty. The Fol well plan (he called it the “Minnesota Plan”) may be divided into three steps. His first proposal was to let the primary (preparatory) department die a natural death. This was speedily accomplished. He proposed secondly that the curriculum of the collegiate department be greatly enlarged and that most of the freshmen and sophomore courses be thrown back to the old preparatory department. Thus began the idea that eventually led to our present system of junior and senior colleges. The third step on Fol well’s agenda was, bluntly, to get rid of inferior students, in order to use our resources for the proper University work. This “proper University work” included, in part, the establishment of professional schools, which he considered to be one of the University's biggest jobs. e . ■ ... V. .. . A....-A-- —- — T' 1 .-V A- University charter, 1X51 “MINNESOTA FLAN : LOVED BY FOL WELL ALONE The first open attack on Folwell and his ideas came in 1872 when the Board of Regents invited all members of the faculty to submit in writing their objections to the Minnesota Plan. All but one complied. The objecting professors charged that Folwell had weakened the University, that it no longer taught in accord with the American system of education and that it was a mistake to follow an unsettled and experimental policy.” Folwell fought back. He pointed out that America had no system of education and that it was the University's duty to help create one. He said the old colleges did not meet the needs of youth who were preparing to be engineers, merchants, architects, navigators, journalists . . . He added that each year hundreds of young men went into voluntary exile ... to foreign lands in search of that culture not to be had on this side of the Atlantic. Folwell hall, home of various arts college departments, 1907 Page 19