5. President Lilley, the first in charge of the agricultural college, just from the East foresaw the new developments in applied science and forthwith outlined a comprehensive scheme of engineering departments, including, civil, mechanical, mining, electrical engineer. ing. The 4-year course in chemistry was really a curriculum in chemical engineering. There was also a 2-year course in assaying. There were four courses in agriculture, mechanic arts (college grade, not trade school), and domestic science; and a 2-year course in pharmacy. A preparatory department is described in the catalog. 53 Each of these was a 4-year course. This was years before there were college students prepared to pursue them.

6. Dr. Bryan was likewise from the Middle West, reared under the eaves of Purdue University, one of the oldest (organized 1869) of the land-grant colleges. As a graduate of the University of Indiana he was near to the Universities of Illinois and Wisconsin, Michigan, and Iowa Agricultural Colleges, and Cornell University-all of them land-grant institutions and with well-developed engineering schools.

He was imbued with the spirit of the newly developing applied sciences, full of zeal for the new institution entrusted to his guiding hand. He visioned the great possibilities due to the absence of any competing institution in the State, and the wonderful backing through the resources of the Federal Government. Dr. Bryan honestly and properly alined himself with the interpretation of the paper organi zation left by President Lilley.

Dr. Bryan calls attention to the fact that there was at least one other person besides President Lilley in the State who believed that the new land-grant college of Washington, established by the legislative acts of 1890 and 1891, had a large and important field to occupy. In fact, he would give this person much more credit than he would President Lilley, who was head of the State College of Washington for only a few months.

Upon coming to the Pacific Northwest, Dr. Bryan learned that a Scotchman, a graduate of the University of Edinburgh, had a great dream in connection with the new institution. This man-Robert Connel-who had been an active member of the Scotch Mortgage Loan Co., and a world traveler, was living on a farm in Garfield County, a few miles from Pomeroy, the county seat. Mr. Connel had discussed with Mr. W. S. Oliphant, the first representative of Garfield County, and chairman of the agricultural committee, the bill Mr. Oliphant in

First Annual Catalog, 1891-92.

tended to propose, and, as a matter of fact, actually drafted it. Through Mr. Connel, correspondence was carried on with most of the colleges of agriculture and mechanic arts then established in the United States. Mr. Connel also corresponded with the educators in the leading European countries who were interested in the teaching of the basic and applied sciences and technology. It was Mr. Connel's belief that the new land-grant college should be divorced from political influences and given wide latitude in its curricula and in its opportunity to carry on research work in the basic sciences and in the growing technological fields.

Robert Connel lost all interest in the institution the very moment he discovered that the location of the college was to be determined by political considerations; but, undoubtedly, the legislative acts of 1890 and 1891, giving wide scope to the curricula of this new institution were suggested by Robert Connel, in accordance with the advice and encouragement he had received from many of the great educators of that time.

The University of Washington, steeped in classical traditions, was lethargic and did not realize what was transpiring until it was too late to escape from the momentum of the new and rival institution.

7. The legislature was ignorant of educational meanings and tendencies and bungled terribly in the formulation of their legislative enactments relating to education.

8. Most of the legislators and their constituents were apparently more interested in distributing political patronage than they were in studying and formulating sound educational policies.

9. When President Harrington (1896) and President Graves (1898), both with the modern vision and knowledge of what was actually transpiring, took charge, it was too late to check the new trend. The die had been cast. The university had been outgeneraled.

10. There is no record to indicate that the State college, prior to 1917, exceeded any of its legal powers, permissive though some of them were, and not actual mandates.

11. There is similarly no indication that the university has ever exceeded any of the powers granted to it.

12. As recent trends are showing, the university should have retained the complete organization of all higher education in the State. Many States, notably Iowa, Montana, Idaho, and Oregon have sought to undo the original mistakes by completely reorganizing their higher education under unitary control. The Morrill, Hatch,

Adams, and other Federal grants might just as well have been placed in the university, as they are in 28 States, typical of which are Wiscon sin and Illinois.

13. For geographical reasons it might have been feasible to establish an agricultural college in a separate locality, but it should have been as a branch of the university, as is the case in California.

14. There should never have been more than one public higher educational institution giving work in mining, forestry, pharmacy, engineering, agriculture, architecture, journalism, graduate work in arts and sciences, the training of high-school teachers and school administrators, research directors in education. Any other procedure is wasteful and unjustified. With a vastly increased population branches might be necessary as in California, but that is far distant in Washington.

Both Dr. Bryan and Dr. Holland strongly dissent in connection with the foregoing statement. There is a distinct disadvantage in one institution, regardless of its size, attempting to serve all parts of a great State. It is true that there is a branch of the University of California at Davis especially devoted to certain phases of agricultural teaching and research problems; but it is only a part of the land-grant institution at Berkeley, dreamed of by Turner of Illinois, Morrill and other leaders of 75 years ago.

CHAPTER XV

Teacher Training in the University and the State College I. The University

1. In Territorial Days

Initial motives for offering.-The training of teachers for the public schools was early conceived as one of the functions of the university. During the entire territorial period of nearly 40 years, 1853–89, there were no public normal schools in the commonwealth. A few private academies and private normal schools of a very inferior type attempted some professional training. At best it was very meager.

The university offered some courses on school law, methods, theory and art of teaching, and school management of a very elementary character. They were not considered of college grade. Probably one of the dominant motives was to get students and extra tuitions to help float the academic work. Most of the early presidents were classically trained and regarded the classical course as the only standard college course. But as there were not enough classical students to maintain a college they offered a scientific course of lower college standard, and then added a preparatory department, for a long time a primary department, a commercial course on a par with the business college, a normal course, and then offered additional work with no classification, in music and art.

The first teacher training work. The first announcement of any teacher training work at the university appeared in the "Annual announcement" of 1878. It was then stated that "The normal course is especially designed to assist those intending to teach in the public school." The studies listed in the course for teachers were as follows:

President Anderson was listed as teacher of psychology and mathematics.1 At that time seven students were listed in the subject of Washington Territory school law. There may have been some enrolled in psychology and pedagogics but there is no record. In 1879 the "normal course contained "normal training" throughout the first year and "pedagogics" for 2 terms and psychology for 1 term of the second year. Fifteen students were enrolled in the first year and none in the second. President Anderson was listed as teacher of psychology, pedagogics, literature, and mathematics. In 1880 there were 15 enrolled in the first year and 6 in the second year. "Methods of instruction" took the place of “normal training" in the announcement. In 1881 the "normal course" was extended to 3 years and listed as "second year", "first year", and senior preparatory", the last being the most advanced year. The second year (lowest) contained the psychology, the first year methods, and the "senior preparatory" year contained no professional courses but was about like a ninth grade course at the present time.

the

Primary training school.-The catalog of 1882-83 announced that A primary training school has been organized in connection with the normal department of the university for the purpose of giving illustrative lessons in the art of teaching to students of the normal department who wish to fit themselves especially for the work of teaching."

Mrs. McPherson was the teacher of the training school.

The academic trend.-The work of the "normal course" became less professional and more academic. The catalog for 1882-83 shows that no professional work was given in the first year (then) and methods through 3 of the 4 terms of the second (middle) year. The third year contained 2 terms of mental philosophy. Trigonometry, geology, political economy, mensuration, and surveying were offered for a term each during the third year. In the second year a term each of comparative biology, malacology, ornithology, and economic entomology were offered. Erudition instead of professional training was the chief objective and no integration of professional training was apparent.3

1 Annual announcement, University of Washington Territory, June 1878. 'Catalog of the University of Washington Territory, 1882-83, p. 7.

Catalog, 1882-83, p. 14.