- Email: [email protected]
Changes in Dairy Manufacturing Education
sY~Posiu~
forestry and dairying. Dairy technology can be studied at Vermont or Massachusetts by students from Maine or New Hampshire or Rhode Island by the payment of in-state tuition. I understand that Massachusetts is the accepted school of landscape architecture for all of New England. Massachusetts and Maine have an exchange plan that involves food technology and agricultural engineering students. And, among Southern states, there is a working arrangement for training of students in dentistry and in veterinary medicine. The details are not important. What I am trying to call to your attentio~ is that there are interstate and regional arrangements whereby students may transfer to another state without financial penalty and with the hope of increasing their educational responsibilities. I rather feel that college and university administrations should explore these possibilities, particularly in those areas where cost of instruction is very high. Let us raise a few questions about dairying. Just what is required in a dairy herd to teach dairy judging and dairy production? This is, of course, aside from research work. Four breeds of dairy cattle, in sufficient numbers to justify a breeding program, can hardly be justified for the purpose of teaching cattle judging to freshmen or sophomores, particularly if the course has only 20 to 30 students, and for the purpose of teaching five to eight dairy majors. I raise serious questions as to what is required for teaching dairy processing. Must we have a costly dairy manufacturing plant, particularly since it is difficult, if not impossible, for the average university to keep its processing machinery current with that being used in commercial plants? One possible alternative is an arrangement for apprenticing dairy students to one of the university's graduates who is a successful creamery operator. I f this can not be done during the regular school year, perhaps the students could arrange to get summer emp]oyment at one of the very successful, up-to-date
CHANGES
IN
DAIRY
119
creameries. Perhaps these majors could be thoroughly trained in the academic areas of dairy processing, and after graduation get their practical experience in a training program where they are employed. My approach to teaching is not entirely on a "what does it cost?" basis, but I believe we should never forget that we do not operate in a vaeumn. Agriculture is not isolated from other segments of the university, nor is the university isolated from the general public. Whether we will it or not, we must make certain adjustments and justifications from time to time. This we must do in order to continue an on-going program. I realize, as you do, that we nmst insist on a good general education. May I quote from an article by Dr. Stanley Musgrave, head of the dairy department at Oklahoma State: "It could be stated that research funds, both public and private, have not been pumped into specialized areas on an equal basis. State, federal, and private grants have been employed in the areas of expected greatest retrains. As these interests increase, we should take special care to see that these special interests do not cause us to let our basic responsibility, that of good teaching at all levels, in all areas, be sidetracked." We are preparing to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the establishment of the land-grant college system in the United States.. As we look back over the past century, we see what innovations have been accomplished. My plea to you is not that we go home and say that no course that costs more than a certain number of dollars per credit hour will be offered, but that we take a new look, a fresh look, at what we are doing. Let us keep this entire land-grant concept, particularly the agricultural part of it, alive and moving. I f we are content to stay where we are, if we resist change, then whatever is moving will prevail and it will not be agriculture. I f all of us together keep working at this job, agriculture will continue to be in the forefront of" our economy and, I may even say, of our educational system.
MANUFACTURING
EDUCATION
B. L. HERRINGTO~ Department of Dairy and Food Science Cornell University, Ithaca, New York The Education Committee is responsible for watching developments in the field of education, and for calling the attention of the Association to changes of major importance. Your Committee has been concerned by predictions of an enormous increase in college enrollment
in the next few years, and by the possible effect that such an increase may have upon our own teaching programs. I n my own state, for example, the state university is preparing to expand from 42,000 students to 145,000 within a decade. I n many states, college enrollment
120
JOURNAL
OF DAII~Y
is expected to double. It seemed to your Committee that this flood of students will strain the financial resources of all our colleges. Much more money will be needed for teaching staff, for equipment, and for floor space. We nmst soon expect very tight budgets and intense competition between departments for financial support. There seems to be stormy weather ahead. Under these conditions, your Committee thought it wise to seek a long-range weather forecast for the educational world. Dean Darlow was asked to give us that. Then, it seemed wise for us to examine our own houses, to see how well we are prepared for stormy weather. I f we are vulnerable, if we have loose shingles on our roof, we should take steps at once to fasten them down. I f we may be flooded by high water, we should look now for safer ground, and make plans to move in an orderly fashion whenever a move becomes necessary. It is not the responsibility of the Education Committee to provide answers, but it is our responsibility to bring problems to the attention of the Association. Professor H y a t t of North Carolina will discuss the problem from the viewpoint of Dairy Production. I agreed to talk about the possible effects of this flood of students upon education in Dairy Manufacturing. The preparation of this talk was very diffÉcult. What I have to say represents only one man's opinion. Should that fact be revealed by the use of the singular pronoun, I, or concealed by the use of the editorial we? The question arises because these spoken words will probably appear in print. We argued this question among myself. I I told us that if we were singular, the Editor would blue-pencil me and write us. On the other hand, we told me that our voice was singular; there can be no double-talking before this assembly. All can see that we are not plural. I reminded ourselves that on a former occasion the Editor had multiplied us by some factor to make me seem more important than we are. We argued among myself for a long time. Finally, I persuaded us to let the Editor do his darndest. I f I look like we, you have had more than milk to drink. Dean Darlow has given us a general forecast of weather conditions in the educational world during the next few years. We must all interpret it in terms of our own local situation. A forecast of a cold wave does not have quite the same meaning in Wisconsin that it does in Florida, but it should be taken seriously in both places. Likewise, you must interpret what I have to say in terms of your own local circumstances, remembering, also, that I give you only one man's opinion. As I see it, Departments of Dairy Manufacturing live in three houses: Teaching, Extension, and Research. All three are parts of one
SOIENCE
homestead, but it is quite possible that one house nfight be blown away without disturbing the others. We must consider the danger of each house separately. Research and Extension should be in little danger from the flood of students. They are organized to serve the needs of the dairy industry and the general public, not the needs of a changing student body. The importanee of Research and Extension is increasing rather than diminishing. As processing operations and machinery become more complex, there is an increasing demand for technical aid and advice from the colleges. The cost of these services is not a part of the teaching budget and they should escape nmst of the economic pressure which will fall on the teaching program. We should be much more concerned about the future of our teaching program. The flood of students will greatly increase the total cost of teaching. Each item of that cost will be scrutinized, to see where cuts can be made. We should begin now to examine the efficiency of our own teaching operation, and to improve it wherever we can. Are we efficient? I f we are not, what can we do to increase our efficiency? These are the questions I bring to you. To guide our thinking, I sent a questionnaire to the agricultural colleges of 50 states. I received 44 replies which deserve careful attention. I asked for an opinion: How many graduates are needed per year to justify the cost of teaching specialized programs in Dairy Manufacturing ? There was a very wide difference of opinion. The estimates ranged from four per year to 25. The average estimate was 11.5. However, the average number who did complete these specialized programs during" the past three years was only 5.4; less than half the number considered necessary to justify the existence of these courses. By their own estimates, only seven of these who replied had enough students to justify specialized courses in Dairy Manufacturing. A few days ago, I received the results of a questionnaire sent to dairy departments by Professor E. O. Anderson. He asked how many students would receive their Bachelor's degree in Dairy Manufacturing this June. Thirtythree colleges expected to give such degrees, but 19 will graduate three or less. Clearly, the teaching of Dairy Manufacturing is inefficient if classes are so velTf small. I f instruction in Dairy Manufacturing were a small operation, it might escape the notice of college administrators, but it is not a small operation. I asked, how many hours of instruction were offered in courses designed specifically for students majoring in Dairy Manufacturing? Some states, such as Hawaii, do not offer such training. Those that do reported from 16 semester hours (or their equivalent in
sY~pOSIU~ quarter hours) up to 50. One state reported 87 semester hours of specialized courses, but that seems incredible; I think that there is some misunderstanding. The average number of semester credit hours in courses designed specifically for Dairy Manufacturing majors wets 29. I t seems clear that our teaching programs are not only inefficient; they are inefficient on a large scale. That is the situation today. Is it likely to grow better or worse? To answer that question, we need a crystal ball of the very largest size, and of the highest quality. Such balls are very scarce, and I found a great difference of opinion among those who answered ray questionnaire. Seventeen of those who replied thought that our classes would grow larger; 14 thought they would grow smaller. Seventeen thought that it would become easier to get money for Dairy Manufacturing when our colleges are flooded with students; but 12 believed it would be more difficult. I do not believe that we can expect a general increase in the size of our Dairy Manufaeturing classes. They have been growing smaller for some time. Years ago, many students chose manufacturing courses as eleetives; sometimes because there were few other courses available, sometimes because they had a real interest in milk. But times have changed, and I do not believe that time will turn backward. Now, fewer students from other departments choose nmnufacturing courses as electives. The nmnber of alternative courses has increased. Furthermore, as our courses have become more and more technical, and the number of prerequisites has increased, it has become nmre difficult for nondairy majors to take these specialized courses as electives. We should note, also, that the character of our student body is changing. The farm boy of yesteryear was familiar with milk and appreciated its importance. I t was natural that some of them should elect courses in milk proeessing, even though their major interest was elsewhere. But students of today come increasingly from urban areas; and they have little knowledge of, or interest in milk. This is shown by our experience at Cornell. During the past 25 years, the number of students in the general introductory com'se has dropped from more than 200 per year to about 50. Our college now offers training in 55 fields of specialization. As the nmnber of competing programs increases, we nmst expect our own classes to become smaller. I see no reason to believe that these trends will reverse themselves, and that enrolhnent in manufacturing will increase appreciably. I t can only inerease if the number of manufacturing majors increases, and I consider that unlikely. The number of dairy plants is decreasing. The nmnber of employees in dairy plants is decreasing as operations are mech-
121
anized. I t is true that these larger plants need better-trained men, but they are hiring chemists, engineers, bacteriologists, and accountants, as well as dairymen. Some dairy departments are seeking to train these other specialists, also; but I do not believe that we can improve our teaching efficiency by greater diversification of our product. The reverse is likely to be true. Some departments have tried to strengthen themselves by becoming departments of dairy and food science. Replies to my questionnaire show that eight institutions have made such a change, and ten others expect a change in the next decade. This consolidation will bring some economies. You can get rid of one depa~¢ment head, for example, and that may be very desirable. However, the consolidation of departments does not increase teaching efficiency unless the total number of class hours is reduced by combining two courses into one. I n general, that has not happened. A large majority of those who answered my question said that instruction adequate for the needs of the dairy industry could not be given if courses in milk processing were combined with courses in other foods. We must seek other ways to increase the average size of our classes. I t is possible to increase the size of classes by offering courses only in alternate years. Some departments are doing that now. I fear, however, that those who teach only in alternate years will find it difficult to maintain the intense interest in their course that is needed to teach it well. I f our courses are not welltaught, the enrolhnent may decline still more. I have painted a dreary picture, but I think we should face it. Our teaching operations in Dairy Manufacturing are inefficient because we have far more teaching capacity in this country than we need, or are likely to need. Nearly every state has thought it necessary to offer instruction in the subject. That is nonsense. I t is an extravagance than many states can not afford much longer. We have too many men teaching very small classes. What can we do about it? The New England states are trying one solution. By interstate agreement, they have decided that each state should not teach every subject. Students in Maine, New Hampshire, and l%hode Island who wish to major in Dairy Manufacturing are sent to Vermont or Massachusetts. Students from Vermont are sent to Maine to study forestry, etc. Under their cooperative plan, these students do not pay out of state tuition. I f adopted generally, such interstate cooporation to concentrate the teaching of Dairy Manufacturing in a few states might increase our teaching efficiency a great deM, and release many men now teaching very small classes for more profitable work in extension and in research.
122
JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE
I n my questionnaire, I asked if they thought a single dairy department, supported cooperatively by several states, could do a better job of teaching, at substantially less cost, than was being done by the separate states under our present system. Thirty-three said yes. Only seven said no. The opinion was nearly five to one that a single department supported by the joint effort of several states could do a better job, at less cost. I asked if" they thought such a program would impose much hardship upon those students who must go to a neighboring state for training. Twenty-seven said no; only nine said yes. I asked if any cooperative plan had been considered at their institution. Eight states, outside of New England, said that it had been discussed. How seriously it had been discussed, I do not know. I believe that many states will have to consider such a plan in the years ahead. I do not believe we can afford the luxury of very small classes much longer. It makes econoufic sense to combine v e ~ small ('.lasses into larger ones, if we can. We nmst not curtail the subject matter taught; we must not deprive the student of an opportunity to major in Dairy Manufacturing; but I believe we can reduce the number of men required to teach, with no loss of effectiveness. There will be many difficult problems to solve, but economic necessity is a very powerful solvent. We should plan now f(~r adjustments, and not wait until they are forced upon us.
CHANGES
IN DAIRY
The cooperative plan has not worked as well in New England as some had expected, and we should profit by their experience. The students are supposed to spend the first two years in their home states in basic studies before going elsewhere for specialized training. However, after spending two years in one school, tasking many friends, perhaps joining a fraternity, the students are reluctant to leave. Many change their major rather than move to another school. That is human nature, and we should take it into account in any plafis we make. Students who must go to another state should go as freshmen, or else wait until their four years of undergraduate work is finished. Perhaps Dairy Manufacturing should be taught only at the graduate level. Alternately, the Dairy Manufacturing eurriculmn might become a five-year program leading to a special baccalaureate degree. Five-year programs are not uncommon in engineering schools. It is not my purpose to answer these questions, but to provoke discussion. We who are responsible for teaching have the added responsibility of seeing that it is done efficiently and well. Most of the decisions nmst be made by administration, but we who teach should be prepared with plans which are sound economically and educationally. Unless we plan carefully, it is possible that both extension and research may be swept away along with some of our inefficient teaching progra.ms. We should prepare now, before the storm breaks, or we nmy all be swept away at a time when we can do little about it.
PRODUCTION
EDUCATION
GEORGE HYATT~ JR.
Department of Animal Industry, North Carolina State College, Raleigh
It has been readily recognized by the public that science per se has made great strides in recent years; however, agriculture has not always been generally closely identified with other advances. An analysis has revealed the view that a new concept of agriculture is emerging. I n this new concept, agriculture is defined to include three important segments of our econonly. The first segment includes the farmers themselves, engaged in the production of crops and livestock. The second segment includes those industries which furnish supplies and service to agriculture. The third segment includes those industries which process, store, handle, and merchandise the products of agriculture. Taken together, these
three groups employ approximately 37% of the total employed people in the United States. These changes in what we know as modern agriculture, coupled with the skyrocketing enrollments within our land-grant institutions, are giving rise to complex and new problems and opportunities. From this general background emerges several basic questions relating to dairy production education. (1) Where does dairy production training, as currently presented, fit into the picture? (2) Is there going to be a need for dairy production education in the future? (3) I f training is continued, what changes in emphasis are indicated.~
forestry and dairying. Dairy technology can be studied at Vermont or Massachusetts by students from Maine or New Hampshire or Rhode Island by the payment of in-state tuition. I understand that Massachusetts is the accepted school of landscape architecture for all of New England. Massachusetts and Maine have an exchange plan that involves food technology and agricultural engineering students. And, among Southern states, there is a working arrangement for training of students in dentistry and in veterinary medicine. The details are not important. What I am trying to call to your attentio~ is that there are interstate and regional arrangements whereby students may transfer to another state without financial penalty and with the hope of increasing their educational responsibilities. I rather feel that college and university administrations should explore these possibilities, particularly in those areas where cost of instruction is very high. Let us raise a few questions about dairying. Just what is required in a dairy herd to teach dairy judging and dairy production? This is, of course, aside from research work. Four breeds of dairy cattle, in sufficient numbers to justify a breeding program, can hardly be justified for the purpose of teaching cattle judging to freshmen or sophomores, particularly if the course has only 20 to 30 students, and for the purpose of teaching five to eight dairy majors. I raise serious questions as to what is required for teaching dairy processing. Must we have a costly dairy manufacturing plant, particularly since it is difficult, if not impossible, for the average university to keep its processing machinery current with that being used in commercial plants? One possible alternative is an arrangement for apprenticing dairy students to one of the university's graduates who is a successful creamery operator. I f this can not be done during the regular school year, perhaps the students could arrange to get summer emp]oyment at one of the very successful, up-to-date
CHANGES
IN
DAIRY
119
creameries. Perhaps these majors could be thoroughly trained in the academic areas of dairy processing, and after graduation get their practical experience in a training program where they are employed. My approach to teaching is not entirely on a "what does it cost?" basis, but I believe we should never forget that we do not operate in a vaeumn. Agriculture is not isolated from other segments of the university, nor is the university isolated from the general public. Whether we will it or not, we must make certain adjustments and justifications from time to time. This we must do in order to continue an on-going program. I realize, as you do, that we nmst insist on a good general education. May I quote from an article by Dr. Stanley Musgrave, head of the dairy department at Oklahoma State: "It could be stated that research funds, both public and private, have not been pumped into specialized areas on an equal basis. State, federal, and private grants have been employed in the areas of expected greatest retrains. As these interests increase, we should take special care to see that these special interests do not cause us to let our basic responsibility, that of good teaching at all levels, in all areas, be sidetracked." We are preparing to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the establishment of the land-grant college system in the United States.. As we look back over the past century, we see what innovations have been accomplished. My plea to you is not that we go home and say that no course that costs more than a certain number of dollars per credit hour will be offered, but that we take a new look, a fresh look, at what we are doing. Let us keep this entire land-grant concept, particularly the agricultural part of it, alive and moving. I f we are content to stay where we are, if we resist change, then whatever is moving will prevail and it will not be agriculture. I f all of us together keep working at this job, agriculture will continue to be in the forefront of" our economy and, I may even say, of our educational system.
MANUFACTURING
EDUCATION
B. L. HERRINGTO~ Department of Dairy and Food Science Cornell University, Ithaca, New York The Education Committee is responsible for watching developments in the field of education, and for calling the attention of the Association to changes of major importance. Your Committee has been concerned by predictions of an enormous increase in college enrollment
in the next few years, and by the possible effect that such an increase may have upon our own teaching programs. I n my own state, for example, the state university is preparing to expand from 42,000 students to 145,000 within a decade. I n many states, college enrollment
120
JOURNAL
OF DAII~Y
is expected to double. It seemed to your Committee that this flood of students will strain the financial resources of all our colleges. Much more money will be needed for teaching staff, for equipment, and for floor space. We nmst soon expect very tight budgets and intense competition between departments for financial support. There seems to be stormy weather ahead. Under these conditions, your Committee thought it wise to seek a long-range weather forecast for the educational world. Dean Darlow was asked to give us that. Then, it seemed wise for us to examine our own houses, to see how well we are prepared for stormy weather. I f we are vulnerable, if we have loose shingles on our roof, we should take steps at once to fasten them down. I f we may be flooded by high water, we should look now for safer ground, and make plans to move in an orderly fashion whenever a move becomes necessary. It is not the responsibility of the Education Committee to provide answers, but it is our responsibility to bring problems to the attention of the Association. Professor H y a t t of North Carolina will discuss the problem from the viewpoint of Dairy Production. I agreed to talk about the possible effects of this flood of students upon education in Dairy Manufacturing. The preparation of this talk was very diffÉcult. What I have to say represents only one man's opinion. Should that fact be revealed by the use of the singular pronoun, I, or concealed by the use of the editorial we? The question arises because these spoken words will probably appear in print. We argued this question among myself. I I told us that if we were singular, the Editor would blue-pencil me and write us. On the other hand, we told me that our voice was singular; there can be no double-talking before this assembly. All can see that we are not plural. I reminded ourselves that on a former occasion the Editor had multiplied us by some factor to make me seem more important than we are. We argued among myself for a long time. Finally, I persuaded us to let the Editor do his darndest. I f I look like we, you have had more than milk to drink. Dean Darlow has given us a general forecast of weather conditions in the educational world during the next few years. We must all interpret it in terms of our own local situation. A forecast of a cold wave does not have quite the same meaning in Wisconsin that it does in Florida, but it should be taken seriously in both places. Likewise, you must interpret what I have to say in terms of your own local circumstances, remembering, also, that I give you only one man's opinion. As I see it, Departments of Dairy Manufacturing live in three houses: Teaching, Extension, and Research. All three are parts of one
SOIENCE
homestead, but it is quite possible that one house nfight be blown away without disturbing the others. We must consider the danger of each house separately. Research and Extension should be in little danger from the flood of students. They are organized to serve the needs of the dairy industry and the general public, not the needs of a changing student body. The importanee of Research and Extension is increasing rather than diminishing. As processing operations and machinery become more complex, there is an increasing demand for technical aid and advice from the colleges. The cost of these services is not a part of the teaching budget and they should escape nmst of the economic pressure which will fall on the teaching program. We should be much more concerned about the future of our teaching program. The flood of students will greatly increase the total cost of teaching. Each item of that cost will be scrutinized, to see where cuts can be made. We should begin now to examine the efficiency of our own teaching operation, and to improve it wherever we can. Are we efficient? I f we are not, what can we do to increase our efficiency? These are the questions I bring to you. To guide our thinking, I sent a questionnaire to the agricultural colleges of 50 states. I received 44 replies which deserve careful attention. I asked for an opinion: How many graduates are needed per year to justify the cost of teaching specialized programs in Dairy Manufacturing ? There was a very wide difference of opinion. The estimates ranged from four per year to 25. The average estimate was 11.5. However, the average number who did complete these specialized programs during" the past three years was only 5.4; less than half the number considered necessary to justify the existence of these courses. By their own estimates, only seven of these who replied had enough students to justify specialized courses in Dairy Manufacturing. A few days ago, I received the results of a questionnaire sent to dairy departments by Professor E. O. Anderson. He asked how many students would receive their Bachelor's degree in Dairy Manufacturing this June. Thirtythree colleges expected to give such degrees, but 19 will graduate three or less. Clearly, the teaching of Dairy Manufacturing is inefficient if classes are so velTf small. I f instruction in Dairy Manufacturing were a small operation, it might escape the notice of college administrators, but it is not a small operation. I asked, how many hours of instruction were offered in courses designed specifically for students majoring in Dairy Manufacturing? Some states, such as Hawaii, do not offer such training. Those that do reported from 16 semester hours (or their equivalent in
sY~pOSIU~ quarter hours) up to 50. One state reported 87 semester hours of specialized courses, but that seems incredible; I think that there is some misunderstanding. The average number of semester credit hours in courses designed specifically for Dairy Manufacturing majors wets 29. I t seems clear that our teaching programs are not only inefficient; they are inefficient on a large scale. That is the situation today. Is it likely to grow better or worse? To answer that question, we need a crystal ball of the very largest size, and of the highest quality. Such balls are very scarce, and I found a great difference of opinion among those who answered ray questionnaire. Seventeen of those who replied thought that our classes would grow larger; 14 thought they would grow smaller. Seventeen thought that it would become easier to get money for Dairy Manufacturing when our colleges are flooded with students; but 12 believed it would be more difficult. I do not believe that we can expect a general increase in the size of our Dairy Manufaeturing classes. They have been growing smaller for some time. Years ago, many students chose manufacturing courses as eleetives; sometimes because there were few other courses available, sometimes because they had a real interest in milk. But times have changed, and I do not believe that time will turn backward. Now, fewer students from other departments choose nmnufacturing courses as electives. The nmnber of alternative courses has increased. Furthermore, as our courses have become more and more technical, and the number of prerequisites has increased, it has become nmre difficult for nondairy majors to take these specialized courses as electives. We should note, also, that the character of our student body is changing. The farm boy of yesteryear was familiar with milk and appreciated its importance. I t was natural that some of them should elect courses in milk proeessing, even though their major interest was elsewhere. But students of today come increasingly from urban areas; and they have little knowledge of, or interest in milk. This is shown by our experience at Cornell. During the past 25 years, the number of students in the general introductory com'se has dropped from more than 200 per year to about 50. Our college now offers training in 55 fields of specialization. As the nmnber of competing programs increases, we nmst expect our own classes to become smaller. I see no reason to believe that these trends will reverse themselves, and that enrolhnent in manufacturing will increase appreciably. I t can only inerease if the number of manufacturing majors increases, and I consider that unlikely. The number of dairy plants is decreasing. The nmnber of employees in dairy plants is decreasing as operations are mech-
121
anized. I t is true that these larger plants need better-trained men, but they are hiring chemists, engineers, bacteriologists, and accountants, as well as dairymen. Some dairy departments are seeking to train these other specialists, also; but I do not believe that we can improve our teaching efficiency by greater diversification of our product. The reverse is likely to be true. Some departments have tried to strengthen themselves by becoming departments of dairy and food science. Replies to my questionnaire show that eight institutions have made such a change, and ten others expect a change in the next decade. This consolidation will bring some economies. You can get rid of one depa~¢ment head, for example, and that may be very desirable. However, the consolidation of departments does not increase teaching efficiency unless the total number of class hours is reduced by combining two courses into one. I n general, that has not happened. A large majority of those who answered my question said that instruction adequate for the needs of the dairy industry could not be given if courses in milk processing were combined with courses in other foods. We must seek other ways to increase the average size of our classes. I t is possible to increase the size of classes by offering courses only in alternate years. Some departments are doing that now. I fear, however, that those who teach only in alternate years will find it difficult to maintain the intense interest in their course that is needed to teach it well. I f our courses are not welltaught, the enrolhnent may decline still more. I have painted a dreary picture, but I think we should face it. Our teaching operations in Dairy Manufacturing are inefficient because we have far more teaching capacity in this country than we need, or are likely to need. Nearly every state has thought it necessary to offer instruction in the subject. That is nonsense. I t is an extravagance than many states can not afford much longer. We have too many men teaching very small classes. What can we do about it? The New England states are trying one solution. By interstate agreement, they have decided that each state should not teach every subject. Students in Maine, New Hampshire, and l%hode Island who wish to major in Dairy Manufacturing are sent to Vermont or Massachusetts. Students from Vermont are sent to Maine to study forestry, etc. Under their cooperative plan, these students do not pay out of state tuition. I f adopted generally, such interstate cooporation to concentrate the teaching of Dairy Manufacturing in a few states might increase our teaching efficiency a great deM, and release many men now teaching very small classes for more profitable work in extension and in research.
122
JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE
I n my questionnaire, I asked if they thought a single dairy department, supported cooperatively by several states, could do a better job of teaching, at substantially less cost, than was being done by the separate states under our present system. Thirty-three said yes. Only seven said no. The opinion was nearly five to one that a single department supported by the joint effort of several states could do a better job, at less cost. I asked if" they thought such a program would impose much hardship upon those students who must go to a neighboring state for training. Twenty-seven said no; only nine said yes. I asked if any cooperative plan had been considered at their institution. Eight states, outside of New England, said that it had been discussed. How seriously it had been discussed, I do not know. I believe that many states will have to consider such a plan in the years ahead. I do not believe we can afford the luxury of very small classes much longer. It makes econoufic sense to combine v e ~ small ('.lasses into larger ones, if we can. We nmst not curtail the subject matter taught; we must not deprive the student of an opportunity to major in Dairy Manufacturing; but I believe we can reduce the number of men required to teach, with no loss of effectiveness. There will be many difficult problems to solve, but economic necessity is a very powerful solvent. We should plan now f(~r adjustments, and not wait until they are forced upon us.
CHANGES
IN DAIRY
The cooperative plan has not worked as well in New England as some had expected, and we should profit by their experience. The students are supposed to spend the first two years in their home states in basic studies before going elsewhere for specialized training. However, after spending two years in one school, tasking many friends, perhaps joining a fraternity, the students are reluctant to leave. Many change their major rather than move to another school. That is human nature, and we should take it into account in any plafis we make. Students who must go to another state should go as freshmen, or else wait until their four years of undergraduate work is finished. Perhaps Dairy Manufacturing should be taught only at the graduate level. Alternately, the Dairy Manufacturing eurriculmn might become a five-year program leading to a special baccalaureate degree. Five-year programs are not uncommon in engineering schools. It is not my purpose to answer these questions, but to provoke discussion. We who are responsible for teaching have the added responsibility of seeing that it is done efficiently and well. Most of the decisions nmst be made by administration, but we who teach should be prepared with plans which are sound economically and educationally. Unless we plan carefully, it is possible that both extension and research may be swept away along with some of our inefficient teaching progra.ms. We should prepare now, before the storm breaks, or we nmy all be swept away at a time when we can do little about it.
PRODUCTION
EDUCATION
GEORGE HYATT~ JR.
Department of Animal Industry, North Carolina State College, Raleigh
It has been readily recognized by the public that science per se has made great strides in recent years; however, agriculture has not always been generally closely identified with other advances. An analysis has revealed the view that a new concept of agriculture is emerging. I n this new concept, agriculture is defined to include three important segments of our econonly. The first segment includes the farmers themselves, engaged in the production of crops and livestock. The second segment includes those industries which furnish supplies and service to agriculture. The third segment includes those industries which process, store, handle, and merchandise the products of agriculture. Taken together, these
three groups employ approximately 37% of the total employed people in the United States. These changes in what we know as modern agriculture, coupled with the skyrocketing enrollments within our land-grant institutions, are giving rise to complex and new problems and opportunities. From this general background emerges several basic questions relating to dairy production education. (1) Where does dairy production training, as currently presented, fit into the picture? (2) Is there going to be a need for dairy production education in the future? (3) I f training is continued, what changes in emphasis are indicated.~