a greater solidarity of feeling would pervade the student body; the attainment of the Junior Certificate or its equivalent would more positively mark the completion of a definite stage in the student's career; and this sense of completion is educationally beneficial.

Another important advantage would be that the existing vocational colleges would be afforded a point of departure for a better organization. These would then have no immediate concern with the problems of general education and the special training for which they primarily exist would be their only care. Building upon the Junior Certificate, these colleges might then erect a three-year curriculum. The two years at present allowed for vocational training, the junior and senior years in engineering for example, is too short for the purpose. The students are suffering from a congestion of subjects in these years and an increase of 50 per cent of the time now allotted would, I am confident, more than double the educational efficiency of the courses. These colleges should be recognized as schools, or a school, with a three-year curriculum leading to a professional degree.

These changes in the organization of the established Vocational colleges from a four-year course, half general and half special, to a three-year special course will probably be delayed by the usual obstacles to reform. These obstacles are (1) the general unrational inertia and antipathy to change which characterize every institution; (2) the reasonable doubt on the part of the faculties concerned as to the educational benefits of the change; and (3) the institutional sense of danger to the maintenance of the colleges if their enrollment should be reduced. Once the second of these obstacles is overcome and the wisdom of the change is generally conceded the other two will not, I am sure, long delay action.

One other objection may perhaps be urged against the expansion of the vocational curriculum, as typified in the

engineering colleges, from two to three years, and this is that students would on the average be a year older before being released from university training to engage in their life work. This is undoubtedly a serious consideration; but the cure for the evil, if such it be, lies in the general uplift of the engineering profession. In law, medicine, and architecture the necessity for more time for preparation for professional practice is freely recognized, and there is good reason for the engineering faculties adopting similar standards. It is, however, not necessary that the average age of graduation of our students should remain as high as it is; and I may digress for a moment to point out that there is a considerable waste of time in the preparation of probably half the boys and girls in our elementary and secondary schools; and that, if this waste could be avoided, most of the matriculants of the University might enter a year earlier than they do at present. The waste of time is largely due to the fact that the classes are advanced in the grades at six months intervals, and that the rate of advance is determined by the slow pupils of the class. If the advance in the grades were made every quarter instead of every half year, the opportunity for the bright, quickminded pupils to pass the slow ones would be greatly increased. The slow pupils could, without hardship, take two quarters for the same training that the quick ones could secure in one. By such an increase of the differential of advancement the pupils who would naturally proceed to the University would come up for matriculation at an earlier age with minds less injured by the contagion of stupidity, and so would graduate earlier.

Still another consideration which affects the question of the reorganization of our engineering curricula is what other Universities throughout the country think of the proposal. In the development of the general programme of University studies during the last quarter of a century the University of California has shown singular indepen

dence and initiative, and enjoys a certain reputation for leadership in such matters; but in the discussions that I recall connected with innovations in that programme there has always been a deference to the practice of other institutions, never probably to the extent of inhibiting action, but always sufficient to influence, if not modify, our convictions. It would seem probable, therefore, that one condition governing a movement to expand the two-year course in engineering to three, would be a favorable attitude toward the proposal by the engineering faculties of the country, the expression of which might come through the medium of some such body as the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education.

I have suggested that the curriculum of the professional and vocational schools as reconstituted should be built upon the fundamental education of the first two years of the College of Letters and Science; but admission to the various vocational courses implies in each case particular qualifications. The fundamental education is not the same for all the vocations. It would be unwise to admit to an engineering curriculum, for example, a student unacquainted with mathematics, chemistry and physics. A prospective medical student would have to give attention to biology and chemistry, a prospective agricultural student to botany, and so on. We might have to expand plans A, and B, to A, B, C, and perhaps D. The procedure adopted at present with regard to the pre-medical students, would have to be amplified and made more general. Either a particularly defined Junior Certificate would be necessary for admission to each vocational curriculum, or the vocational schools would have to admit students to their courses by examination. The latter would probably be the better method, since the students would then be constrained to study subjects and not merely courses, and would in general have to submit to tests prescribed by others than their immediate teachers.

The purpose of this paper is, however, not to discuss the details of a new arrangement of things, but rather to call attention to the fact that under the present system we suffer from two main defects of organization both of which hamper effective teaching and for both of which the proposed reorganization would, in some measure at least, be a cure. One of these defects is our failure to classify students properly according to their purpose as students, and the other is our failure to fully appreciate and utilize the natural stages of the educational process whereby young men and women are prepared for their chosen vocations. By means of the existing vocational colleges some of our students are indeed classified, but the classification is put into effect too soon. The time for segregation on the basis of vocational purpose is naturally about the beginning of the third year of our present four-year scheme. The growth of the Junior Colleges will soon bring this home to us, and it will become apparent that the Lower Division is nothing more than a central, standard Junior College, maintained at the seat of the University for the purpose of establishing ideals and setting the pace for the other colleges doing the same work under less favorable conditions throughout the state.

In his third year every student should be attached to his proper faculty. The number of these faculties is not a matter of importance. In the modern world the number must be large if the University is to adequately serve the community which sustains it. The chief obstacle to reform in this matter of classifying students is the conservatism of universities as expressed in their reluctance to multiply faculties in order to keep pace with the immense intellectual activity of our time, an activity by no means confined to University circles.

The classification of students is of course intimately connected with, and, indeed, dependent upon, the recognition of the distinctness of the two stages of education,

the general and the vocational, the significance of which I hope I have made clear. There is a third stage, however, which we distinguish in our organization as the Graduate Division. This nominally embraces all those students graduating from any of the existing colleges who again enroll for the purpose of engaging in the work of investigation. The transition to the graduate status marks a change from receptive or acquisitive scholarship to productive scholarship; and it is generally assumed that the latter is as much the logical development of one undergraduate curriculum as another. Logically this may be so, but practically there are conditions which determine that the great majority of the graduate students shall be those devoted to scholarship without regard to its application to the arts, students who have followed the curriculum of the Upper Division of the College of Letters and Science as it would appear if stripped of its offshoots, Law, Architecture, Home Economics, Public Health, etc. We have practically no real graduate students in Engineering. Those in Law, Medicine and Architecture are in the receptive or acquisitive stage of vocational training rather than the productive, and should be classed under an extended vocational curriculum. The same is true for the most part of those listed as graduate students in Agriculture and Education. Very few of our graduate students who are here to qualify for the teacher's certificate are real graduate students, in the sense in which I understand the term, and should be attached to the faculty of the School of Education with an extended vocational curriculum.

The reason for the failure of the engineering and other vocational curricula to develop a body of graduate students is that the opportunities for creative work are far better outside the University than within it. The main effort of those curricula is to keep pace with the development of ideas evolved in professional practice in the world of affairs. The young men in the vocational courses who are