OCR Text |
Show A. C. Alumni Gets Scrappy Reply to University Alumni .and Expose their Many False Presentations. Quite recently one John C Mackey, president of tho Alumni Association of the University of Utah, published In the Salt' Lake papers an article in favor of consolidating tho Agricultural Agricul-tural College with the Univerjlty. The Honorable John C. went into pur-ported pur-ported facts and figures In a most startling way. literally chewing us up and spewing us into the gutter at least, John evidently thought ho had done that. However, wo venture the opinion that since Sundav the distinguished distin-guished Salt Laker has a reasonable doubt as to whether.he did more than make the mistake of running Into a buzz-saw. Salt Lake Sunday papers contain an article In reply to Mr. -Mackcy's effect, ef-fect, an article written by Mr. C. W. Porter, president of the Agricultural College Alumni Association, anil In that reply Mr. Mackey Is argued oil his feet and completely burled In an avalanche of facts, llgures, statistics and Incontrovertible strong points He is left without an inch of ground to stand on his llgures arc shown to bo false, his arguments unsound, his whole presentation of the case faulty in the extreme and sc thoroughly and completely biased as to be unreliable. Mr. Porter covers the whole ground oleirly.concisloy, backs up eveiy point with Indisputable evidence and makes an argument as a whole that is strong, manly, and worthy the careful consideration con-sideration of overy person interested in an honest solution of this difficult educational problem. Mr Porter's article Is of such length that it Is Impossible to present any considerable) portion of It here, and we merely segregate the pjlntsmado from tho mass of evidence introduced. The Article Proves: i That the cost of college grado student stu-dent of the Agricultural College is $.200.05 per capita instead of $1,117.43 per capita asset forth In the majority report of the committee. That duplication of courses is Indulged In-dulged in almost exclusively by tho University. That successful agricultural schools maintained separately or combined re-qulro re-qulro far more land for instructional purposes than could over be secured near the University. That combination usually results adversely ad-versely to the Interests of the Agricultural Agricul-tural School, money appropriated for it Invariably being used for university work. That in slates where combination has been affected, tho Agricultural Department gets reasonable attention only through extraordinary activity ot farming Interests. That graduates of both combined and separate Institutions argue against mergers. That government agrlcult urists hold out strongly that tho best lcsultsare obtained only in tho separate schools. That tho Agricultural Colleges in Iowa, Michigan, Washington, Kansas, Indiana and Mississippi, where the schools aro separate, enroll in their agricultural departments more than double the number of students cn rolled in the same departments of the combined schools In Illinois, Nebraska. Minnesota, California, Ohio and Tennessee Ten-nessee That eminent educators say the total enrollment In combined schools Is seldom half that of tho schools as separate Institutions. That the University, though at the center of population and of1 the suite geographically, has but eleven moic students from the Stat" exclusive of Ho.it Lata? Founty than the Agricultural Agricul-tural College exclusive of Cache county coun-ty Tliat tho Agrlcultuial College lias received stneo 1U00 but $3(15,803 compared com-pared with 8(155,581 for the University. Cost Per Capita. In disproving the majority's llgures as to the cost of college grado students at the Agricultural College, Mr Porter presents the system of llguring used by the majorltj, showa tho fallacy, absurdity, lank injustice of that llguring llgur-ing and then presents a method that must necessarily appeal to any person not prejudiced bejond reason. Wc regiet the Impossibility of going into detail here, but stilllce it to say that the majority members "arbitrarily" decided to count Freshmen at tho Agricultural College as preparatory students, while University Freshmen were counted as of college grade, this dlspltc the fact that Freshman courses are identically the same at both Institutions. Insti-tutions. The majority then charged the containing college grade students with all the cost of buildings, equipment, equip-ment, hca:, light, etc., etc. another rank injustice, inasmuch all students get equal benefit here. As to Duplication. This article, after dealing with the High School question as submitted by Mr. Mackey.and tho preparatory work of the College, takes up the matter of duplication The University cry is that tho A. C. Is duplicating its courses, and a great hue and cry is mado about the great cost of that duplication One portion of Mr. Porter's argument will ansvve here. He says: "The civil and mechanical engineering engineer-ing courses wcrb established at tho university In 1!)0.1 The same courses were org inked at the Agricultural college when it tlrst opened In 1800, 13 jears beforo the University announced any work In thdsc lines These courses had been given tweycars at the university uni-versity and 15 j ears at tho college when tho wall arose from the university univer-sity that their work in engineering was being duplicated at tho Agricultural Agricul-tural college. The department of finance and commcrco was organized at the university In 1001 At the col' lege It was established In 1801. Again the university was 13 years behind, and now it Is claimed that the college Is duplicating tho university work in this Held. How long will it be before the university will establish courses in agriculture, domcstlo science, and mechanlo arts, and then declare that the Agricultural college Is wasting ' Continued on 4th page. - ., .. i , . Alumni Article. Continued from 1st Pago. state funds by "duplicating" university univer-sity worn In these lines? The Agricultural Agri-cultural college of Utah has graduated graduat-ed a class In engineering each year since 1601, and has engineers In charge of government work In the reclamation reclama-tion service and geological survey, as well as teachers In colleges and universities. uni-versities. From the flies of tho university uni-versity catalogues to tho present year It cannot be found that a single stud' ent has graduated from any of tho courses In commerce or mechanical engineering, and only two from civil engineering." Need of Land. Thcconsolldationists urge that no great amount of land Is needed In case of consolidation, the experimental work being done on larms throughout the State. Mr. Porter Insists that for Instructional purposes the Agricultural Agri-cultural College needs otcn now more land than It has, and cites from Agricultural Agri-cultural College catalogues the land needed elsewhere lie sajs In part: '.Moroiand Is required for agricultur al experimentation and for feeding ex-prlments ex-prlments with cattle, sheep, hogs, and poultry than Is available In the vicinity of the university. The soil experts quoted In the alumni address had not discovered a new world when -he decided that agiicultural experiments experi-ments should bo carried on Indifferent . parts of the state where specific problems prob-lems suggest themselves for solution. Hut large tracts of land are required for Instructional purposes and must be located near the school. For these purposes the Ioua agricultural college makes good use of 10.r0 acres. Missouri Mis-souri has (11.1 acres California found 270 acics entirely inadequate, and secured se-cured last year an appropriation of 5150,000 for the purchase of land. Texas has 211(1 acres; Colorado OflO.and Illinois 50 acres Our Salt Lake friends assert that 1" acres are suill-clent; suill-clent; but even If their 02 acres of dry bench land were actually tertlle enough to grow alfalfa, how many head of cattle, sheep and hogs would It support and allow room for barns, yards, feeding sheds, and other buildings, build-ings, and campus? As a matter of fact, the university land has not yet been made to grow a lawn " Unsatisfactory Results. In speaking of the general results of consolidation Mr. Porter presents an 'opinion from a ver eminent authority i as follows1 "Prof Urand.of the bureau of plant Industry of the department of agriculture agricul-ture while visiting land grant institu tions, spent a few dajs inspecting tho work of the agricultural college at Lo-Igan. Lo-Igan. When asked his views on the advisability of consolidating the agricultural agri-cultural college with tho unlverslty.he made a statement to this effect: "What do I think of tho Idea of consolidating con-solidating agricultural colleges with state universities? 1 don't think much of It. It sounds well In theory. The economy plea and the plea of broader education all sound good, but work out poorly. 1 am a graduate of a consolidated school (the University of Minnesota) and my experience with agricultural colleges, generally, places me In a position to judge In our school and every other school w bete consolidation has been carried into effect, It has been my experlenco that It has been the agricultural student who holds the sack. Take Illinois or Cornell. At Cornell It Is practically Impossible for an agricultural student to make a fraternity or to even Join the better literary societies They are Isolated from active participation in the student life of tho school altogether. altogeth-er. Intho lnstanco cited the student gets good tralning.but It has not work-ed work-ed out so here In the west. Idaho, Wyoming, Wy-oming, Nevada and California aro conspicuous con-spicuous examples of western consolidated consoli-dated schools. In the Institutions of these states ,ou will rind very, very few agricultural students; Idaho has less than a half-doen, and California comparatively few considering tho agricultural wealth and population of the state. In fact, my expeilcnco In the past has taught me that about the only function of tho agricultural departments de-partments of universities seems to be their ability of obtaining money from tho taxpaycrs,money which they find useful In building up rival departments of the university. With the strong agricultural school you already have.lt would be tho worst thing possible for tho agricultural Interests of the state to consolidate It with tho state university uni-versity " In Conclusion. Mr. Porter continues at considerable consider-able length, produces lluures to show small agricultural attendai.ee at combined com-bined t.-liools, makes a plea for fairness fair-ness and Justlco only and argues for settlement of the present dlillculty by the mill tax method of raising funds for both schools. The article should be read by every Utah cltl.en Interested Interest-ed or uninterested In the piesent contention. |