University of Massachusetts Amherst - Index Yearbook (Amherst, MA)

Page 28 text:

First, no. Second, yes. Third, do not know. Foiirth, no, no, no. Talk is cheap, and opinions are to be had, but facts are not easily obtained. Things have changed since my day, and I believe the agricultural department has not been brought up with the others and kept to the front, and made the most prominent of them all. ( Business Alan and Partner.) XVII. Farmers ' sons do not want to be educated at a farm college, and I am in doubt as to whether the change would not be the best ; yet I answer : First, undoubtedly, in time, agriculture as a profession would suffer, as far as it was taught to the students. Second , it certainly could and doubtless would, so long as the present professors remained. Third, in my opinion there would be double, if not many times more students under a different name. Fourth, it certainly is not reaching the masses ; but simply a change in name will not do it all. (Business Matt and Farmer.) XVIII. First, no ; there seems to be nothing lacking except students. I think were the methods of Western colleges more closely followed, in advertising the college before the high school students, the fault would be remedied. The excellence and originality of the work which has been done by the college and its splendid equipment should be advertised through the entire country. It must be especially advertised to the young men of the cities. (Chicago Btisiness Man.) XIX. First, if the purpose of the college is to be teaching only agriculture, a change of name would certainly be injurious. Second, no ; because the class of students drawn to the college would have no thought of agriculture, rather adverse to it, and to keep them the course would have to bend to their desires ; and agriculture, if studied by them, would be quite a secondary matter, and this would stand in the way of the best interests of agriculture. Third, yes, were members being considered, because a scientific school can draw from all classes ; as an agricultural college, it must be advertised as such. Fourth, if this question means along the line of agriculture, I will answer, yes ; because it is trying to instruct in branches as indicated by the name. I therefore say, let the name alone but manage the college differently. (Physician.) XX. A practising physician desires to leave his opinion to others better informed. OPINIONS IN FAVOR OF THE CHANGE I. First, agriculture would not suffer, as the most important aid to agriculture comes from the Experiment Station. Second, do not see why agricultural work would suffer. Third, the State is small agriculturally, hence the name ' agriculture ' has no attraction for the business man who wishes his son to be educated, and I am afraid that some people believe agriculture the only prominent feature. I also have heard, Do you think that you can raise any better corn than I do because you went to the Agricultural College ? Then the same parties will point with satisfaction to some graduate who has been unsuccessful in farming. Fourth,! z.-m afraid the name is misleading; there ought to be farmers enough loyal to the college to fill it with students, and it is a question if simply a change of name will remedy the trouble. (Massachusetts Fanner.) II. Agriculture would not suffer; it would only suffer through the spirit of the Board of Managers, or the Professor of Agriculture. The college has never been successful agri- culturally. I personally like the name of ' State College. ' I know of several fellows who would have attended the institution if it had not been named ' Agricultural. ' The impression that a cheap, sloppy, unsystematic education goes with the name ' agriculture ' is abroad ; others think it a farm where wayward boys are sent. The ridiculous ideas of educated people considering the college are astounding. Thirty years have not educated them away from such ignorant ideas. Such being held by a majority of educators, injure the institution. I believe that the name of agriculture has decreased the number. The name has nothing to do with the quality of the work ; that depends upon the Faculty. (An Agricultural College Professor.) III. First, I believe agriculture could in no way suffer. Second, the work which the college is now doing for agriculture could be done just as well, if not better, under a

Page 27 text:

to the background. Thi7-d, the number of students is largely dependent upon character of Faculty and students, and the ability and enthusiasm with which they come in contact with the people. Fourth, I do not believe the agricultural department of the college is as efficiently working as it should. [An 4gric2ilhiral College Professor.) XI. First, I think the change alone would weaken the hold of the college upon the farmers and that the result will be a modified course that pays little attention to agriculture and its influence upon the agriculture of the State, and in securing students would go out with the old name. Secotid, I do not think it could. Third, while some students will not attend, who might be induced to do so if the name was changed, I believe with false pride thrown aside and the college made what its founders intended, it will secure the confidence of the farmers, and the accommodations would be crowded to the utmost, as is the case here, where we have a hundred more students than we have dormitory accommoda- tions for. Fourth, I believe if the original idea as to agriculture was carried out similarly to the manner in which the Institute of Technology attends to mechanic arts, the college would be doing its proper work. {An Agricnltiiral College Professor.) XII. First, I do not know whether agriculture would suffer, but am inclined to think that it will continue to survive as long as mankind needs three meals a day; if it dies, we will have to take up hunting and fishing for an existence. Second, ' A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, ' or a skunk by any other name would smell as strong. If the college worked upon the present lines, I think the name would make very little difference in results accomplished. Third, I went to the college as it was agricultural, for I am interested in farming and fond of the country. If agriculture received the interest and study that its importance deserves, I think the name would attract students. Fourth, we hear too much about the common people. What the college wants is to do its best for all the people, irrespective of creed, color, nationality or former condition of servitude. I think part of the desire for change of name comes from the ' great American spirit of unrest ' which makes changes often for the worst. ( Veterinarian, and connected with Agrictclture.) XIII. First, I do not think agriculture would suffer by any change, neither do I think that science would suffer by making no change. I do think to cut out the word ' agricultural ' would be understood by the agricultural community as a slur. Second, I think the work could be done as well, but do not think it would be so well appreciated by the agricultural community. Third, do not know as to students being lost. Should think that the plan of agricultural colleges is well enough known that intelligent persons should not misunderstand them. Fourth, I think the college is doing as good work now, both w ith the common people and the uncommon people, as it can under any name. [Publisher, connected with Agriculttire.) XIV. First, yes. Second, ' X. might be, but there are ninety-nine chances out of one hundred that there won ' t be. Third and Fourth, no, to both. The trouble is in the manage- ment; handled rightly it should have a larger number of students every year. Massachu- setts is well supplied with colleges of science. If M. A. C. has any future, it is on the lines of the present, but under revivification of college, State Board of Agriculture, Farmers Institute manageinent, etc. (Agricultural Editor). XV. There has never been any healthy demand for the institution, and very probably will not be any in our time. Massachusetts has both good colleges in abundance, and high grade scientific and technical schools With these the college cannot successfully compete, despite the fact that it has never been so strong in funds, teachers and equipment as to-day. The phenomenal and fatal blunder of the well-meaning, but misguided and short-sighted trustees in planting the college at Amherst, cannot be undone. The college must be content, and confine itself to the legitimate work of teaching agriculture and the cognate subjects. I think it would be better for the college if it should be called the ' Massa- chusetts School of Agriculture. ' (Physician.) XVI. If it should appear that the good of the institution required a change, I should make it, no matter what my personal opinions are. Taking up your questions, I answer :

Page 29 text:

new name, although the present system of forcing every one to take agriculture, whether he has a taste for it or not, might not be continued in force. Third, it seems to me that there can be no doubt that students are lost to the college through its present name. With another name there would not be the need, which has always existed, of explaining that the college teaches much besides agriculture, and that it is an excellent place for those intending to be other than farmers. Many must hear the name, and without hearing the explanation, o-ive the institution no further thought, since they would naturally connect its name with technical training, in a line undesirable to them. Fourth, if students are lost to the institution for any cause or fault which may be corrected, then the college is not doing its best work. The 1862 Morrill Bill says, ' To teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts .... without excluding other scientific and classical studies .... in order to permit the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions of life. ' Does it mean what it says or not. The college, without those who came from other places than the farm, would have been a rank failure long before this. The words of the bill did not declare that the sole object is to teach only branches relating to agriculture. (An Agriailtiiral College Professor.) IV. ' ■ ' ■First, I fear that it would. Second, I believe that the quality of work would be quite as good, but that the department of agriculture would be somewhat embarrassed by the relatively small attendance in its courses, as shown in other colleges where agriculture has been made an elective. Third, I am convinced that very many prospective students are lost because of its present name. Fourth, no, I do not believe that it is. There is no doubt that its work would be more far-reaching if the name were changed, and if agriculture were to be an elective. The name is an embarrassment to those not in agriculture. Per- sonally, I should like to see the change made, though that should not constitute any reason for it. (A Professor in Biology.) V. First, no, I do not think agriculture would suffer by a change of name. Second, I think it could. Third, there may be a loss, but I hardly think so. Foii7-th, no ; I think the general impression is that it is only for farmers, therefore those outside the farming class, or those who want to be farmers, are kept away from the college. (Clergyman.) VI. First, I do not think agriculture would suffer, but a change of name would be considered by the farmers as unfair to them. Second, yes, without doubt, if I understand the question. Third, yes, I think so. Fourth, if not doing its best work under its present name, it is not doing its best work for the common people. ( Lazvyer.) VII. From the little I can discover, I understand that the friends of the college believe if they are to continue to receive State aid to any extent, they will have to convince the people that the sciences as well as agriculture are taught at the college, and certainly so long as the word ' Agriculture ' is retained, it will be hard to make the general public believe that it is a school where an engineer or chemist, or a physician, or a lawyer, or a person can be trained in the preliminary stages for his life work. (Lawyer.) VIII. First, no. Second, yes. Third, undoubtedly, yes. Fourth, too much for me ; I do not know, I do not care. Who are the common people ? Over twenty-five years ago I heard a windy speech by a gentlemen who stated that the college was designed to raise up an enlightened, intelligent ' yeomanry. ' The idea that impressed me was that he meant ' peasantry. ' That idea should be ' squelched. ' The common people can take care of themselves. The rich man ' s sons we have got to look out for, and it is to be hoped that they will go into agriculture. I think there may be a University of Amherst at some distant future time, and if so, I hape that our college will not be belittled. (A La-ivyer.) IX. First, agriculture would not suffer, as the ' Massachusetts College of Science, ' or ' Ma ssachusetts College. ' Second, the work could be done just as well under the new name. Third, many prospective students are lost to the college, because of the impression that nothing but farming is taught. Fourth, the college is not doing all that it is capable of doing for the largest number of the common youth of the State. (Physician.) X. First, no; the college ' s reputation was made largely by the work of Clark. Stockbridge and Goessmann, in experimental lines. This work is now done by law by the 23