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

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

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 30 text:

Experiment Station, and must be continued. Second, certainly, yes. Third, yes ; the cost of the study of medicine at the present time is very heavy. I know of no institution which is giving a better preparatory course for such professional life than our college. Rightly advertised, under the name of the ' Massachusetts College, ' it ought to have l oo students yearly of such kind. Fourth, no ; the farmer has had the college thirty years and does not appreciate it. The more that he is given, the more he cries out. Farmers save up the money to educate their sons in classical institutions and go by our own college. The common people of the cities and large towns should have the benefit of our institution, under a new name. Legally, I believe that all of the appropriations and grants can be held under the name of ' Massachusetts College. ' (Physician.) XL First, as the Experiment Station is an adjunct of the college, and such effective work is done by both institutions for agriculture, I cannot see how injury would result to scientific agriculture, assuming, of course, that the general scope of the scientific work be not abridged. The college should bear the State name, but I am not convinced that the word ' agriculture ' is a benefit. Seco7id, yes. Third, I believe many students are lost because of the impression that the college Ks purely agricultural, dJidfrotn lack of knowledge as to the scope of studies pursued. Fourth, I do not believe the college is doing its best work for the common people of the State, not because of its name or for lack of name, but because the value of the education given is not generally known or appreciated. (Civil Ftigineer.) XII. First, no. Second, yes. Third, yes. Fourth, no. (Business Man and Civil Engineer. ) XIII. ' ■ First, in my judgment it would not suffer. The work accomplished and not the name is where the importance of the institution is, as relates to agriculture. Second, I cannot see how the name affects the quality of the work. Any of the bulletins which go out relative to crops, analysis, etc., could go out headed, ' From the Agricultural Depart- ment. ' Third, from a limited number of students, which has been the rule for the last twenty years, one ' s judgment would be that the name had been rather of a hindrance in the getting of students ; as other institutions in the country, not as favorably situated nor with an equal corps of professors, seem to have been favored with an increased number of students. Fourth, the college is doing a very limited amount of work, and whether the name is altogether the cause might be an open question ; but any change or any bid for students would seem, if it resulted in an increased number, for the benefit of the people of the State. {Business Man and Farmer.) XIV. ' First, yes. Second, yes. Third, yes. Fourth, no. [Business Man connected ■with Agriculture.) XV. First, no. Second, yes. Third, yes. Fourth, no. The farmer has had the college for thirty years and has almost repudiated it. A splendid plant is there, and by a change of name and by other means possible, a large number of students should be edu- cated. Men who are not going into agriculture, yet getting a knowledge of agriculture at our college, no matter what course they may pursue, will always be friendly to agriculture, and therefore, under a change of name and a larger number of students, agriculture would be directly benefited. (Business Man cojinected with Agriculture.) XVI. ' ■ ' ■First, no. Second, yes. Third, yes. Fourth, I think not. [Business Man.) XVII. Am heartily in favor of changing the name as a possible, and I think, proba- ble means of increasing the attendance and popularity. It is certainly time some decisive step was taken to secure that result, and I have always felt the present title failed to do the college justice. [Business Man.) XVIII. ■First, I do not think that agriculture would suffer by a change in name that would make the word ' agricultural ' less prominent. A large percentage of students attend the college for its scientific work, and I think the change in name would increase this number. Second, I do not see that the change in name could alter the character of the work. Third, yes. Fourth, no. [A Professor of Mathematics .) JOHN ASHBURTON CUTTER, M. D., New York. Class of ' 82. 24