deas have not yet been adopted in other parts of Germany. Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Austria have done as much along industrial educational lines as Germany has done outside of Munich. The paper does not give just appreciation of our work of teaching industrial education. The educators of this country have done more for industrial education than the industrial people have done, and we should give due credit to the work of the teachers. Permit me to say that the idea of industrial education is quite old in Germany. Emperor Charles the Great, during his reign in the tenth century, engaged men to teach agriculture to his subjects, and his wife and daughter personally taught weaving, to the peasant women. An industrial drawing school was opened in Vienna in 1750, and in 1751 the Austrian government sent out traveling teachers to teach weaving to the villagers. Continuation schools were established in Munich in 1803. Long before I became an apprentice in 1856 the law compelled the employer to send his apprentices to the industrial continuation school up to the eighteenth year of age. In those days these schools were held on Sundays and holidays from 8 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. The guilds laid the foundation for the German industrial-school system, and this environment and history gives the European industrial schools their advantage. Our disadvantage lies in the newness of our schools, and time will correct this. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON COLLEGE-ENTRANCE REQUIREMENTS To the Manual-Training Section of the National Education Association: Your Committee on College-Entrance Requirements appointed at the Boston meeting of the Association, submits herewith the following report of progress: Owing to the wide geographical distribution of the members of the committee, no meeting of the full committee has been possible since the time of its original appointment at the Boston meeting of the Association; but thru correspondence and thru conferences with most of the members of the committee, a plan of procedure has been agreed upon and a considerable amount of work has been accomplished. It has been the belief of the committee that the purpose which this section of the National Education Association had in appointing this committee could be most effectively realized in the following ways: (1) by securing information regarding the growing tendency on the part of many colleges to be more liberal in their definitely prescribed entrance requirements; (2) by circulating such information as widely as possible among the proper authorities, urging other colleges to make similar reductions in their list of prescribed subjects; (3) by securing similar information regarding the increase in number of elective subjects which may be offered for admission to colleges, and especially by securing information regarding the colleges that have recently added shopwork, drawing, household science, and art to the list of their elective entrance subjects; (4) by urging other colleges to follow the lead of those that have given such recognition to the subjects. It has been our aim to make our plea general for the granting to preparatory schools greater freedom in planning their courses of study to fit local needs, and to develop interests, tastes, and abilities of their students whom they serve. This, it is felt, would make it possible to concentrate time and attention on a smaller number of subjects, and thus improve the quality of the work in the preparatory school. Wherever this broad principle is first recognized there should be comparatively little difficulty in securing the recognition, as elective subjects in the list of entrance requirements for which credit may be given, of shopwork, drawing, household science, and art-wherever these subjects are thoroly well taught and form part of a well-planned and approved four-year course of study. In order to secure the information required to carry out this plan the committee sent to the presidents of a list of 167 colleges and universities the following list of questions: a) Do the entrance requirements for the year 1911, for the regular undergraduate cours of the institution which you represent, differ in any way from the requirements duri the past four years? b) If so, what subjects have been added to the list of prescribed subjects? c) What subjects have been omitted from the list of prescribed subjects? d) What subjects have been added to the list of those in which there is freedom of choi e) What subjects have been omitted from the list of those in which there is freedo of choice? f) At what date did these changes go into effect? g) Have any changes in entrance requirements been announced to go into effect lat than September, 1911? h) If so, what subjects will be added to the list of prescribed subjects? i) What subjects will be omitted from the list of prescribed subjects? j) What subjects will be added to the list of those in which there is freedom of choic k) What subjects will be omitted from the list of those in which there is freedom choice? 1) Are committees of your faculty or other persons definitely at work studying t question of entrance requirements, with a view to recommending possible changes Accompanying this list of questions were letters expressing the opinions set for in this report, and asking in reply for an expression of views of the president, or exec tive officer, of each institution. Replies were received from 141 institutions. Many of these contained detaile answers to all of the questions accompanied by letters fully expressing the person views of the president or other administrative officer to whom our communication w referred. Because of the great volume of interesting material that has thus been obtaine it has not been possible to prepare an adequate report doing full justice to the subje in the time available. A brief description of the returns received, however, will given. The most conspicuous examples of the increased liberality in entrance requiremen of the past year are the University of Chicago and Harvard College. The new requir ments for admission to Chicago require credit in fifteen units, no conditions being p mitted. These must be 3 units in English; 3 units in a second major subject, which may be either Language, Science, Math matics, or History; 2 units in a minor subject, which may be either a Language, Science, Mathemati or History, but differing from the major subject; 2 more units in any of the above departments; 5 units in any subject that any approved school grants for its own graduatio The Harvard plan requires evidence of work in English, history, language, scien and mathematics; no students with conditions will be accepted. Two majors mu be offered in any of the above five subjects; four examinations must be passed as follow First: English; Second: In a Language other than English; Fourth: Any of the list of five subjects-English, History, Foreign Language, Scien or Mathematics not already included in the first three examinations. Many other colleges and universities have revised their requirements making the somewhat more liberal and granting greater flexibility to preparatory schools. AI of such changes is too long to include in this preliminary report, but it may be w to note that of the total 141 institutions that have been heard from, 62 have made charg in the direction of decreasing the number of prescribed subjects or increasing the fre dom of electives. II Only I have increased either their total requirements or the definiteness of t list of subjects offered for entrance, while 53 have made no changes of any kind in the entrance requirements recently. In considering the above facts, too, it should be remembered that many of the instiations that have made no changes in their entrance requirements are already among e list that have been most liberal in their requirements. It should also be rememered that the great majority of the 11 schools that have increased their requirements I have become less flexible than formerly in their requirements, are for the most part nong the institutions that have had unusually low standards for admission. The tual facts, therefore, when all things are taken into consideration, are even more conincing than figures themselves appear. They show conclusively that there is a tendency, which is rapidly increasing thruout e collegiate institutions of the United States, to recognize the broad principles for hich this section of the National Education Association has been working. The other act that is especially encouraging to the Manual Training Section of this Association, the fact that 26 institutions have reported the comparatively recent addition of shopork, drawing, household science, and art to the list of subjects which may be elected r college entrance. The committee regrets that it has not been possible to analyze more fully the valuable ata which it has received and to present it more in detail, but if it is the wish of the ection, it would be glad to continue its work with the colleges and also to present next ar a more complete report. Respectfully submitted for the committee, ARTHUR L. WILLISTON, Chairman STITUTIONS WITH STATED REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION AMOUNTING TO 12 UNITS OR MORE, DECEMBER, 1909 delphi College, Brooklyn, N.Y. aker University, Baldwin, Kans. arleton College, Northfield, Minn. tholic University of America, Washington, D.C. entral College, Fayette, Mo. Entral University of Kentucky, Danville, Ky. ark College, Worcester, Mass. e College, Cedar Rapids, Iowa Charles H. Levermore, Ph.D. Rev. Boothe C. Davis, Ph.D. Wilbur N. Mason S. P. Brooks, LL.D. Rev. Edward D. Eaton, LL.D. T. E. Cramblet, LL.D. Rev. Thomas Gasson, S.J. L. H. Murlin, S.T.B. Rev. William DeWitt Hyde, LL.D. Herbert Perry Faunce, LL.D. A. B. Church, LL.D. Rev. John Howard Harris, LL.D. Donald J. Cowling, A.M. Charles Sumner Howe, Sc.D. Rev. T. J. Shahan, D.D. Rev. F. W. Hinitt, Ph.D. William S. Aldrich, M.E. Rev. Elmer Burrett Bryan, LL.D. College of the City of New York, N.Y. Dakota Wesleyan University, Dartmouth College, Hanover, N.H. Earlham College, Richmond, Ind. Fairmount College, Wichita, Kans. Fordham University, Fordham, N.Y. Franklin College, Franklin, Ind. Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. Grinnell College, Grinnell, Iowa Hamilton College, Clinton, N.Y. Illinois Wesleyan University, Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind. James Millikin University, Decatur, Ill. Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio Lafayette College, Easton, Pa. Macalester College, St. Paul, Minn. Marietta College, Marietta, Ohio Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, Mass. John H. Finley, LL.D. Rev. S. F. Kerfoot, D.D. Robert Lincoln Kelly, Ph.M. Alexander C. MacKenzie, LL.D. H. E. Meyer, D.D. Rev. Joseph Himmel, S.J. Charles W. Needham, LL.D. Rev. M. Woolsey Stryker, LL.D. William A. Millis, LL.D. Rev. Langdon C. Stewardson, LL.D. Theodore Kemp, D.D. Albert R. Taylor, Ph.D. Ira Remsen, Ph.D. Rev. William F. Pierce, A.M. Thomas McClellan, LL.D. Rev. Ethelbert D. Warfield, LL.D. David Starr Jordan, LL.D. Rev. Lewis B. Fisher, D.D. T. Morey Hodgeman, LL.D. Alfred T. Perry, D.D. Richard C. Maclaurin, LL.D. Miami University, Oxford, Ohio Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vt. Mount Holyoke College, So. Hadley, Mass. New York University, New York, N.Y. Northwestern College, Naperville, Ill. Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill. Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio. Pennsylvania State College, Polytechnic Institute, Brooklyn, N.Y. Randolph-Macon College, Ashland, Va. Ripon College, Ripon, Wis. Rutgers College, New Brunswick, N.J. State University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. State University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, N.Dak. State University of Oklahoma, Stevens Institute of Technology, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pa. Transylvania University, Lexington, Ky. Union University, Schenectady, N.Y. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn. University of Mississippi, University, Miss. University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo. John M. Thomas, D.D. Mary E. Woolley, Litt.D. Elmer Ellsworth Brown, LL.D. Rev. H. J. Kickhoefer, Ph.D. Nathan W. Helen Rev. Henry Churchill King, D.D. Rev. William O. Thompson, LL.D. Allston Ellis, LL.D. Ellsworth G. Lancaster, Ph.D. Edwin E. Sparks, LL.D. R. E. Blackwell, LL.D. William W. Smith, LL.D. Frank Morton Erickson, A.M. Carl Leo Mees, Ph.D. Dr. W. H. S. Demarest, LL.D. John G. Bowman James K. Patterson, LL.D. Frank L. McVey, Ph.D. A. Grant Evans, D.D. Alexander C. Humphreys, LL.D. Joseph Swain, LL.D. Rev. James Roscoe Day; LL.D. R. H. Crossfield, Ph.D. Rev. F. W. Hamilton, D.D. Edwin B. Craighead, LL.D. William E. Milliken, Ph. B. George E. Vincent, Ph.D. A. A. Kincannon Albert Ross Hill, LL.D. |