No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
“City Blood Is No Better than Country Blood”: The Populist Movement and Admissions Policies at Public Universities
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017
Extract
The gubernatorial election of 1892 unnerved faculty members at Kansas State Agricultural College (KSAC). Voted into office by a “fusion” of Populists and Democrats, Governor Lorenzo Lewelling filled four vacant seats on the college's seven-member governing board, overturning a Republican Party majority for the first time in the college's history. These new regents included radicals such as Edward Secrest, a farmer who pledged to “change the order of things” at KSAC, and Christian Balzac Hoffman, a miller, banker, and politician who had founded an ill-fated socialist colony in Topolobampo, Mexico. Populist interest in KSAC intensified in 1897, when a different fusionist governing board promoted Professor Thomas E. Will to the college presidency. Born on an Illinois farm, Will attended a normal school before proceeding to Harvard University, where he chaffed within “the citadel of a murderous economic system.” When offered the chair of political economy at KSAC, Will had been lecturing, writing for reform periodicals, and serving as secretary of a Christian socialist organization called The Boston Union for Practical Progress. Although he never formally joined a Populist organization, Will shared the movement's commitment to erasing class distinctions in politics and education. Following Will's inauguration, a Populist regent exulted that the masses had finally “scaled the gilded halls of the universities.”
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2011 History of Education Society
References
1 Willard, Julius T., History of Kansas State College of Agriculture and Applied Science (Manhattan, KS: Kansas State College Press, 1940), 95. KSAC evolved into Kansas State University.Google Scholar
2 On Secrest, , see Industrialist, 28 January 1893, 91; and April 1899, 253–55; Secrest, E. to Kelley, H., 14 May 1893, “Correspondence 1893” file, box 1, Harrison Kelley Papers, Kansas State Historical Society. On Hoffman, see “Autobiography of Hoffman, C.B.,” file 16, box 2, Christian Balzac Hoffman Papers, Spencer Research Library, University of Kansas; untitled typescript dated April 1898, file 1, box 1, Thomas Elmer Will Papers, Kansas State University Archives.Google Scholar
3 Carey, James, Kansas State University: The Quest for Identity (Lawrence: Regents Press of Kansas, 1977), 71; Charles Correll, “Revolution and Counterrevolution,” Kansas Quarterly 1 (Fall 1969): 91–93, 99.Google Scholar
4 Walters, J.D., History of Kansas State Agricultural College (Manhattan: Kansas State Agricultural College, 1909), 125–27; Thomas Will, “How I Became a Socialist,” (1904), Pamphlets in American History, Microfilm Series S440; Joseph Dorfman, The Economic Mind in American Civilization, vol. 3 (New York: Viking Press, 1949), 299–303.Google Scholar
5 Manhattan Republic, 24 September 1897, 1.Google Scholar
6 Postel, Charles, The Populist Vision (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007). Populism also resonated with the millennialism and egalitarianism of evangelical Protestantism. Creech, Joseph W. Jr., “Righteous Indignation: Religion and Populism in North Carolina, 1886–1906” (PhD dissertation, University of Notre Dame, 2000); Peter Argersinger, “Pentecostal Politics in Kansas: Religion, The Farmers’ Alliance, and the Gospel of Populism,” in The Limits of Agrarian Radicalism: Western Populism and American Politics (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1995), 64–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 While Populist advocacy for informal education and common schools has been well documented, this enthusiasm for higher education remains underappreciated. On Populism and common schools, see Theodore Mitchell, Political Education in the Southern Farmers’ Alliance, 1881–1900 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987).Google Scholar
8 This definition includes Democrats and Republicans who formed “fusion” alliances with Populists. Kazin, Michael has argued that Populism was “too elastic and promiscuous” to be defined by organizational membership. Michael Kazin, The Populist Persuasion: An American History (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998), 3. Kazin's approach is appropriate for this study because more narrow definitions of the movement hinge on political and economic strategies that had little bearing on individuals’ views of higher education.Google Scholar
9 The accomplishments and pitfalls of these efforts are analyzed with greater detail in Scott Gelber, The University and the People: Envisioning American Higher Education in an Era of Populist Revolt (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2011).Google Scholar
10 For a classic treatment, see Merle Curti and Vernon Carstensen, University of Wisconsin: A History (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1949). Also see John A. Douglass, The Conditions for Admission: Access, Equity, and the Social Contract of Public Universities (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007).Google Scholar
11 Whereas most land grant college presidents believed that the Morrill Act charged their institutions to include basic research and a broad array of academic courses, agrarian organizations tended to lobby for a narrow focus on mass vocational education. Coy, F. Cross II, Justin Smith Morrill: Father of the Land-Grant Colleges (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1999); Williams, Roger L., The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education: George Atherton and the Land-Grant Movement (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991); Roger L. Geiger, “The Rise and Fall of Useful Knowledge,” in The American College in the Nineteenth Century (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2000), 153–68.Google Scholar
12 Veysey, Laurence R., The Emergence of the American University (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), 70–72.Google Scholar
13 Experiment stations directed by A&M colleges also struggled to win farmers’ appreciation. Margaret Rossiter, The Emergence of Agricultural Science: Justus Liebig and the Americans, 1840–1880 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1975); Alan Marcus, Agricultural Science and the Quest for Legitimacy: Farmers, Agricultural Colleges, and Experiment Stations, 1870–1890 (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1985); Scott, Roy V., The Reluctant Farmer: The Rise of Agricultural Extension to 1914 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1970).Google Scholar
14 Country Life, September 1890, 1.Google Scholar
15 Veysey, , The Emergence of the American University, 15–16. Also see Nevins, Alan, The State Universities and Democracy (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1962); Eddy, Edward D. Jr., Colleges for Our Land and Time: The Land-Grant Idea in American Education (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1956); Ross, Earle Dudley, Democracy's College: The Land-Grant Movement in the Formative Stage (Ames: Iowa State College Press, 1942).Google Scholar
16 Hofstadter, Richard, The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F. D. R. (New York: Vintage, 1955). Also see Hofstadter, Richard, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (New York: Vintage, 1963).Google Scholar
17 Classic revisions include Lawrence Goodwyn, Democratic Promise: The Populist Moment in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976) and McMath, Robert C. Jr., Populist Vanguard: A History of the Southern Farmers’ Alliance (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1975). For a more recent reaffirmation of Hofstadter's perspective on Populists and higher education, see Carpenter, Daniel P., The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputations, Networks, and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862–1928 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001), 210. For the latest sympathetic interpretation of Populism, including a perceptive discussion of education, see Postel, The Populist Vision, 45–68. Thelin, John also recognized that Populists sometimes endorsed state universities. John R. Thelin, A History of American Higher Education (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004), 140.Google Scholar
18 NCCAMA evolved into North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
19 “Polk's Handwritten Account of the Farmers’ Mass Convention and Galley Proofs of “Farmers’ Mass Convention,” 26 January 1887, file 88, box 6, Leonidas Lafayette Polk Papers, Southern Historical Collection, University of North Carolina; Progressive Farmer, 2 February 1887, 4 and 9 February 1887, 5; Report of the President of the Board of Trustees of the North Carolina College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts, 1896 (hereafter NCCAMA Report), 10; Catalogue of the North Carolina College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts, 1890 (hereafter NCCAMA Catalog), 2–3, 52–53.Google Scholar
20 Escott, Paul, Many Excellent People: Power and Privilege in North Carolina, 1850–1900 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985), 243–49; News and Observer, 6 March 1895, 12 June 1897, and 8 September 1897.Google Scholar
21 Kansas, ’ two fusionist governors also appointed members to the University of Kansas board, though KU never fell under full fusionist control. Griffin, Clifford S., The University of Kansas (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1974), 185–87.Google Scholar
22 Kansas State Agricultural College, Biennial Report of the State Agricultural College (hereafter KSAC Report), 1892–1899; College Symposium of the Kansas Agricultural College (Topeka: Hall and O'Donald, 1891), 32; Kansas State Agricultural College Faculty Records, vol. D, 12 November 1897, 20, KSU archives; “The Reorganization of the Kansas State Agricultural College,” file 9, Will Papers, KSU Archives; Industrialist, 4 January 1897, 15 July 1897, and 16 August 1897.Google Scholar
23 University of Nebraska, Biennial Report of the Board of Regents, 1897–98 (Hereafter NU Report), 59.Google Scholar
24 Biehn, Albert L., “The Development of the University of Nebraska, 1871–1900” (MA thesis, University of Nebraska, 1934), 34; Nebraska Independent, 9 November 1899, 4 and 28 December 1899, 2; People's Banner, 2 November 1899, 4.Google Scholar
25 Kantrowitz, Steve, Ben Tillman and the Reconstruction of White Supremacy (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000); McGiffert, Michael, The Higher Learning in Colorado: A Historical Study, 1860–1940 (Denver: Sage Books, 1964); Cedric Cummins, The University of South Dakota, 1862–1966 (Vermillion, SD: University of South Dakota Press, 1975); Louis G. Geiger, University of the Northern Plains: A History of the University of North Dakota, 1883–1958 (Grand Forks: University of North Dakota Press, 1958); Charles Gates, The First Century at the University of Washington, 1861–1961 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1961).Google Scholar
26 Thelin, , A History of American Higher Education, 171–74. For examples of the conventional wisdom about the ease of college admissions in the nineteenth century, see David O. Levine, The American College and the Culture of Aspiration, 1915–1940 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986), 137, 211; Nicholas Lemann, The Big Test: The Secret History of the American Meritocracy (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1999), 4.Google Scholar
27 Geiger, Roger L., “The Era of Multipurpose Colleges in American Higher Education,” in The American College in the Nineteenth Century (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2000), 128, 149.Google Scholar
28 Wechsler, Harold, The Qualified Student: A History of Selective College Admissions in America (New York: Wiley, 1977), 24, 121–22.Google Scholar
29 Proceedings and Addresses of the National Educational Association, 1889, 374–75.Google Scholar
30 Before the Civil War, the requirements typically included classics, basic mathematics, some philosophy, and perhaps elementary physics or astronomy. After the Civil War, universities added English grammar and composition, algebra, geometry, geography, history, and additional science. By 1890, most universities offered alternative degrees, such as the Bachelor of Letters or Bachelor of Science, which replaced classics requirements with modern subjects. Marc A. VanOverbeke, The Standardization of American Schooling: Linking Secondary and Higher Education, 1870–1910 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), 102–3; Broome, Edwin C., A Historical and Critical Discussion of College Admission Requirements (Princeton, NC: College Entrance Examination Board, 1963), 82; Chase, W.J. and Thurber, C.H., “Tabular Statement of Entrance Requirements to Representative Colleges and Universities of the United States,” The School Review 4 (June 1896): 341–412.Google Scholar
31 MacLean, George Edwin, “Present Standards of Higher Education in the United States,” United States Bureau of Education Bulletin, no. 4 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1913), 40–41.Google Scholar
32 VanOverbeke, , The Standardization of American Schooling, 120.Google Scholar
33 James, H. Canfield's Chancellor's Journal, 17 November 1893, James Hulme Canfield Papers, Office of the Chancellor, Archives and Special Collections, University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries (hereafter Canfield Journal).Google Scholar
34 Biennial Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction of North Carolina, 1898–1900, 69; H. Leon Prather, Sr., Resurgent Politics and Educational Progressivism in the New South, 1890–1913 (Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1979), 38–42.Google Scholar
35 Link, William A., A Hard Country and a Lonely Place: Schooling, Society', and Reform in Rural Virginia, 1870–1920 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986), 6, 53–54; Theobald, Paul, Call School: Rural Education in the Midwest to 1918 (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1995), 119; Leloudis, James L., Schooling the New South: Pedagogy, Self, and Society in North Carolina, 1880–1920 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996), 10–13.Google Scholar
36 Broome, , A Historical and Critical Discussion of College Admission Requirements, 105–6. At the turn of the century, less than 50 percent of high school students studied Latin and only 5 percent studied Greek. The proportions taking courses in modern languages were no higher, with roughly 10 percent and 15 percent studying French and German, respectively. Mathematics requirements were within reach of more students, but still challenged the 50 percent of students who did not take algebra and the 75 percent who did not study geometry. National Educational Association, Report of Committee on College Entrance Requirements (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1899), 75.Google Scholar
37 Nidiffer, Jana and Bouman, Jeffrey P., “The Chasm Between Rhetoric and Reality: The Fate of the ‘Democratic Ideal’ When a Public University Becomes Elite,” Educational Policy 15 (July 2001): 431–51.Google Scholar
38 Faculty Meeting Minutes of the North Carolina College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts, 6 January 1890 through 4 December 1893, box 2.4.1, Chancellors Office Papers, North Carolina State University Archives and Special Collections (hereafter NCCAMA Faculty Minutes); NCCAMA Report, 1896, 41; Gappa, LaVon M., “Chancellor James Hulme Canfield: His Impact on the University of Nebraska, 1891–1895” (PhD dissertation, University of Nebraska, 1985), 105; Marjean Snyder Mallard, “The Development of the University of Texas during the 1890s” (MA thesis, University of Texas, 1970), 14.Google Scholar
39 In The Professor's House, a student teaches himself Latin (including the entire Aeneid). Cather, Willa, My Antonia (1918, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1994), 249–50: Cather, Willa, The Professor's House (1925, New York: Vintage, 1990).Google Scholar
40 VanOverbeke, , The Standardization of American Schooling, 123.Google Scholar
41 A minority of presidents, such as Baker, James H. of the University of Colorado, stated that most young people would not benefit from college. Baker and other defenders of elite public higher education argued that the superior training provided to a small number of students trickled down to benefit all state residents. Journal of Proceedings and Addresses of the National Educational Association, 1888, 167; Baker, James H., “The Modern University and Democracy,” in Educational Aims and Civic Needs (New York: Longmans, Green, & Company, 1913), 145. Also see Frederick Jackson Turner, “Pioneer Ideals and the State University” (1910), in The Frontier in American History (New York: Henry Holt, 1920), 283; Biennial Report of the Board of Curators of the University of the State of Missouri, 1892–93, 22–24.Google Scholar
42 McGiffert, , The Higher Learning in Colorado, 34; Dennis, Michael, Lessons in Progress: State Universities and Progressivism in the New South, 1880–1920 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2001), 4, 92–93; Proceedings of the Annual Convention of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations, 1891, 61. Also see Pollard, James E., History of The Ohio State University: The Story of Its First Seventy-Five Years, 1873–1948 (Columbus: The Ohio State University Press, 1952), 37–39; Solberg, Winton U., The University of Illinois, 1861–1894: An Intellectual and Cultural History (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1968), 232, 269.Google Scholar
43 Saloutos, Theodore, Farmers Movements in the South, 1865–1933 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960), 85–86, 209; Garland, Hamlin, A Spoil of Office (Boston: Arena, 1892), 30.Google Scholar
44 Polk cited in Stuart Noblin, Leonidas Lafayette Polk: Agrarian Crusader (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1949), 171.Google Scholar
45 Jeffersonian, 28 October 1897, 2; Industrialist, April 1899, 212; James, E. Hansen II, Democracy's College in the Centennial State: A History of Colorado State University (Fort Collins: Colorado State University Press, 1977), 111.Google Scholar
46 The movement's gravitation toward electoral politics over the course of the 1890s limited the avenues for women's participation. Southern Populists dissuaded national organizations from endorsing women's suffrage. Goldberg, Michael L., An Army of Women: Gender and Politics in Gilded Age Kansas (Baltimore: Hopkins, Johns University Press, 1997); Maryjo Wagner, “Farms, Families, and Reform: Women in the Farmers’ Alliance and Populist Party” (PhD dissertation, University of Oregon, 1986), 35–44.Google Scholar
47 Hollis, Daniel Walker, University of South Carolina, vol. 2 (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1956), 170–71; Kantrowitz, , Ben Tillman and the Reconstruction of White Supremacy, 117–19, 169, 182.Google Scholar
48 Proceedings of the North Carolina Farmers’ State Alliance, 1890, 35; Prospectus of the Normal and Industrial School of North Carolina, 1892–1893, 6. However, Populists did not lobby for coeducation at UNC. Minutes of the Board of Trustees, vol. 9, 18 February 1897 and vol. 10, 14 February 1899, UNC Trustees Papers, UNC Archives. Yet Populists did occasionally advocate for women's access to faculty appointments and governing board seats. Nebraska Independent, 10 February 1898, 4 and 10 March 1898, 4; Peoples Poniard, 25 October 1895, 1; Wealth Makers of the World, 29 August 1895, 1; Jeffersonian, 28 Oct. 1897, 2; Fairchild, George T., “Populism in a State Educational Institution,” American Journal of Sociology 3 (November 1897): 392–404.Google Scholar
49 Gerteis, Joseph, Class and the Color Line: Interracial Class Coalition in the Knights of Labor and the Populist Movement (Durham: Duke University Press, 2007); Gerald Gaither, Blacks and the Populist Revolt: Ballots and Bigotry in the “New South” (1977, Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2005); Omar Hamid Ali, “Black Populism in the New South, 1886–1898” (PhD dissertation, Columbia University, 2003); Logan, Frenise, “The Movement in North Carolina to Establish a State Supported College for Negroes,” North Carolina Historical Review 35 (April 1958): 167–70. Few records of black Populists have survived. There is no evidence that black Populists targeted access to higher education. They focused on anti-lynching campaigns, voting rights, and access to common schools.Google Scholar
50 Nye, Russel, Midwestern Progressive Politics: A Historical Study of Its Origins and Development, 1870–1950 (East Lansing: Michigan State College Press, 1951), 136. Also see Wealth Makers of the World, 14 November 1895.Google Scholar
51 Alliance Independent, 18 May 1893, 4. Also see The Weekly Toiler, 26 February 1890, 7.Google Scholar
52 Johnson, Alvin, Pioneer's Progress (New York: Viking, 1952), 79.Google Scholar
53 Mitchell, , Political Education in the Southern Farmers’ Alliance, 124–27.Google Scholar
54 Journal of Proceedings and Addresses of the National Educational Association, 1886, 290; Henderson, Joseph L., Admission to College by Certificate (New York: Teachers College, 1912), 73, 83.Google Scholar
55 Nidiffer, and Bouman, , “The Chasm Between Rhetoric and Reality.”Google Scholar
56 Pollard, , History of the Ohio State University, 43.Google Scholar
57 Dennis, , Lessons in Progress, 76, 92.Google Scholar
58 VanOverbeke, , The Standardization of American Schooling, 64–65; Wechsler, , The Qualified Student, 6, 11, 21; Henderson, , Admission to College by Certificate, 82.Google Scholar
59 “To Teachers Preparing Students for the University,” 1 October 1889, file 601, box 18, UNC Papers; President's Report, 27 February 1889, vol. S-8, UNC Trustees Papers; Report of the President of the University of North Carolina, 1902, 19–21; Report of the President of the University of North Carolina, 1903, 9–10.Google Scholar
60 For a typical statement about preparatory departments, see Eldon L. Johnson, “Misconceptions about the Early Land-Grant Colleges,” Journal of Higher Education 52 (July-August, 1981): 333–51.Google Scholar
61 Alliance Independent, 8 September 1892, 3.Google Scholar
62 Populists were not unanimous on this point. Bettersworth, John K., People's University: The Centennial History of Mississippi State (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1980), 132–34.Google Scholar
63 Attendance in the KSAC preparatory department increased from 67 in 1896–1897 to 110 in 1898–1899. KSAC Report, 1899–1900, 47; Meeting of the Board of Regents, 25 March 1898, vol. B, Kansas State Agricultural College Papers, KSU Archives.Google Scholar
64 Griffin, , The University of Kansas, 299–300.Google Scholar
65 Record of the Proceedings of the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, 11 June 1890 and 12 June 1890, vol. 3, Record Group 01/01/02, Archives and Special Collections, University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries (hereafter NU Regents Minutes); Farmers Alliance, 7 March 1891, 4; Report of the Committee Appointed by the General Faculty on Extensions of Courses of Study, 6 June 1893, file 86, box 11, Papers of the Board of Regents, University of Nebraska, 1869–1910, NU Archives (hereafter NU Regents Papers).Google Scholar
66 Hesperian, 15 February 1894, 2–4; Journal of Proceedings and Addresses of the National Educational Association, 1889, 384; Gappa, “Chancellor James Hulme Canfield,” 182. Canfield agreed to phase out the preparatory department when adequate secondary schooling was available in all towns of 5,000 or more residents. NU Report, 1893–1894, 14–19.Google Scholar
67 Johnson, , Pioneer's Progress, 82; Nebraskan, 27 September 1895, 1; Robert Manley, Centennial History of The University of Nebraska (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1969), 127.Google Scholar
68 Nebraska Independent, 13 May 1897, 20 May 1897, 10 June 1897, 17 June 1897, 2 September 1897, 23 September 1897, and 30 September 1897. MacLean's plan to phase out remediation hit a roadblock when the Nebraska Supreme Court overturned an 1897 law that had forbidden public high schools from charging tuition to nonresident students. In the absence of free secondary schooling for most rural students, NU's regents refused to dismantle the Latin School. NU Report, 1896–1898, 8;J. Dickinson to G. MacLean, 7 February 1898, file 101, box 13, NU Regents Papers; NU Regents Minutes, vol. 4, 3 August 1897.Google Scholar
69 Preparatory enrollments crept upward during the 1890s. Geiger, Roger L., “The Crisis of the Old Order: The Colleges in the 1890s,” The American College in the Nineteenth Century (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2000), 266.Google Scholar
70 On the early struggles of the land grant colleges, see Johnson, “Misconceptions about the Early Land-Grant Colleges,” 336–42.Google Scholar
71 Proceedings of the Annual Convention of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations, 1896, 19.Google Scholar
72 Allen, Christopher, “The Land Grant Act of 1862 and the Founding of NCCAMA” (MA thesis, North Carolina State University, 1984), 32.Google Scholar
73 Progressive Farmer, 24 November 1886, 3.Google Scholar
74 NCCAMA Catalog, 1890, 39–40.Google Scholar
75 During this period, 83 percent of NCCAMA's peer institutions required applicants to their college-level divisions to know algebra, 43 percent required geometry, and 39 percent required English proficiency at a high school level. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations. 1896, 19.Google Scholar
76 NCCAMA Faculty Minutes, 30 December 1889, 27 January 1890, 10 February 1890, and 27 October 1891; NCCAMA Report, 1890, 4; NCCAMA Trustees Minutes, 17 June 1891 and 3 December 1891.Google Scholar
77 NCCAMA Report, 1896, 12–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
78 NCCAMA also raised the minimum age limit to 16 and launched an admission by certificate policy. NCCAMA Trustee Minutes, 2 August 1899; NCCAMA Faculty Minutes, 5 March 1900.Google Scholar
79 KSAC Report, 1891–1892, 7; Catalogue of the Kansas State Agricultural College, 1891–1892 through 1897–1898; Proceedings of the Annual Convention of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations, 1896, 19, n64.Google Scholar
80 Industrialist, 23 June 1894, 163, and October 1898, 558–62; Manhattan Republic, 10 September 1897.Google Scholar
81 Industrialist, July 1898, 443–49.Google Scholar
82 Manhattan Nationalist, 7 October 1897, 21 October 1898, and 18 November 1898.Google Scholar
83 Willard, J.T. to Fairchild, G., 4 May 1899 and 15 May 1899, Kansas State College History in Letters, 1897–1899, Collected and Arranged by J.T. Willard, Kansas State University Archives and Special Collections.Google Scholar
84 KSAC Regents Minutes, 6 June 1899, 272, vol. B; Industrialist, July 1899, 468. Manhattan Republic, 2 June 1899; Student Herald, 1 June 1899, 2.Google Scholar
85 Manhattan Republic, 2 June 1899.Google Scholar
86 KSAC Report, 1899–1900, 41; Industrialist, July 1899; Willard, Julius T., History of Kansas State College of Agriculture and Applied Science (Manhattan: Kansas State College Press, 1940), 124.Google Scholar
87 Student Herald, 28 September 1899, 31.Google Scholar
88 The Industrial College required fewer English and foreign language credits, but more science credits. The University of Nebraska, The Industrial College: A Brief Historical Sketch (Lincoln: 1892), 12–13; NU Regents Minutes, vol. 4, 11 April 1900.Google Scholar
89 NU Report, 1887–1888, 10–11.Google Scholar
90 Gappa, , “Chancellor James Hulme Canfield,” 43, 45; Nebraska State Journal, 12 July 1891; Manley, , Centennial History of The University of Nebraska, 114–16.Google Scholar
91 Johnson, , Pioneer's Progress, 47, 77.Google Scholar
92 Johnson, A. to Don Mauricio Hochschild, 4 April 1946, file 41a, box 2, Alvin Johnson Papers, Yale University Library.Google Scholar
93 Canfield to Examiners, 8 September 1892, Canfield, James H. Correspondence, NU Archives.Google Scholar
94 Canfield Journal, 2 January 1892 and 4 January 1892; Gappa, “Chancellor James Hulme Canfield,” 105.Google Scholar
95 Canfield Journal, 10 July 1891; “Recommendations of the General Faculty for Curricular and Calendar Changes,” 9 April 1895, file 92, box 12, NU Regents Papers.Google Scholar
96 Journal of Proceedings and Addresses of the National Educational Association, 1894, 623–24.Google Scholar
97 Nebraska Independent, 20 May 1897, 10 June 1897, 17 June 1897, 2 September 1897, 23 September 1897, 30 September 1897, 29 December 1898, and 26 January 1899.Google Scholar
98 On Andrews, see Hansen, James E., “Gallant, Stalwart Bennie: Elisha Benjamin Andrews (1844–1917), An Educator's Odyssey” (PhD dissertation, University of Denver, 1969).Google Scholar
99 Manley, , Centennial History of The University of Nebraska, 91, 171; Report of the School of Agriculture, 9 April 1898, NU Regents Papers, file 102, box 13; NU Regents Minutes, vol. 4, 11 April 1900; NU Report, 1899–1900, 19. On the 14-unit requirement, see Ellen Condliffe Lagemann, Private Power for the Public Good: A History of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1983), 95.Google Scholar
100 NU Regents Minutes, vol. 4, 9 April 1901.Google Scholar
101 Eddy, , Colleges for Our Land and Time, 67. Google Scholar
102 NCCAMA Report, 1893, 39–40; NCCAMA Faculty Minutes, June 3, 1895.Google Scholar
103 KSAC Reports, 1883–1884 through 1903–1904.Google Scholar
104 The proportion of freshmen leaving the college of literature had been 30 percent during the late 1880s and remained at 32 percent among students entering in 1900. Biannual Report of the Nebraska State Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1886–88, 8; Biannual Report of the Nebraska State Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1900–02, 44–45.Google Scholar