Ld3668m31969 00226

of their own state. If the children were educated away from the farm, he declared, the real culprit was the common school. In effect, Bassett's remarks were a criticism of the entire state for not showing a proper interest in agricultural education.
Members of the University agricultural staff did their best to convey that farmers who opposed scientific agriculture were cutting their own throats. It was only by scientific management of their farms that they could hope to prosper; the farmer who rejected education had to settle for a lower standard of living and an inadequate income. State leaders and newspaper editors were agree that something must be done to encourage farmers to adopt scientific methods.
What did Chancellor Andrews think of the agricultural problem within the University? No one for certain. H. C. Filley has written that before Andrews came to Lincoln none of the regents had asked his views on agricultural education, but "they felt certain that a man of his mental ability would be quikc to see that a prosperous agriculture was the key to university finances." Not long after the Chancellor assumed office, Regent John L. Teeters took him on his first visit to the farm campus. "During the trip, Mr. Teeters explained why the regents were interested in the development of agricultural research and the School of Agriculture," wrote Professor Filley, "Dr. Andrews grasped the situation at once." Andrews asked for greater support for agricultural education, but its most fervent supporter at this time was Regent George Coupland of Elgin. A native of England, Mr. Coupland had come to Nebraska in 1880, attracted by the promise of cheap land. He took out a homestead in Antelope County and over the years expanded his holdings. By 1900 he belonged to that class of affluent farmers who had accepted and profited from the new ways of agriculture. Elected to the Board of Regents in 1907, Coupland dedicated himself to helping the farmers of the state. "I realize," he said, "that Nebraska has not done what she ought to have done-- educate her sons and daughters to return to the farm, but rather our higher education has had a tendency to lead them away from their country homes." Coupland meant to reverse the trend.
Andrews and Coupland believed that if farmers were approached properly they could be persuaded of the value of scientific practices. They were aware that while the principal aim of agricultural education was to return the graduate to the land, the University was also expected to turn out teachers of agricultural subjects, scientists, and a variety of specialists to man the experiment stations and research laboratories of the state and nation. Federal funds, though not plentiful, were adequate for setting up experimental and educational programs. In 1907 the Agricultural College and experiment station were in line to receive fifty-five thousand dollars from the federal government.2 In part as a resultof the impetus provided by the federal money and in part because of the determination of farm leaders to expand the University's agricultural branch, work on the University farm was increased and accelerated. The Department of Agronomy had been formed in 1906 from previously existing agricultural courses, and in 1907 the Department of Agricultural Engineering came into being, although it was not known by that name until 1910. The departments of Dairy Husbandry and Agricultural Chemistry had existed sinec 1902, and forestry, originally considered a branch of horticulture, was established as an independent department in 1903. Thee were advances in the areas of entomology and animal pathology, and a strong effort was put forth to establish courses in agricultural
2: The sources of the money were: Hatch Act (1887)-- $15,000; second Morrill Act (1890)-- $25,000; Adams Act (1906)-- $10,000; and the Nelson Amendment to the second Morrill Act (1907)-- $5,000.


Page Notes

Nobody has written a note for this page yet

Please sign in to write a note for this page