Page images
PDF
EPUB

A similar form (Appendix E) was used in collecting data from the following institutions:

1. The State University of Illinois. In this case 135 questionnaires were mailed and 90 replies were received. This represents about 66 per cent of those instructing freshmen and sophomore students in this institution.

2. The University of Minnesota. Of the 110 questionnaires mailed to the instructors of this institution about 60 per cent were returned.

3. Cornell College. Questionnaires were distributed personally to 20 instructors, 16 of whom furnished the desired data.

4. Coe College. Questionnaires were distributed personally to 20 instructors, 16 of whom furnished the desired data.

5. Grinnell College. In this institution the registrar took charge of the work of distributing the questionnaires. Replies were received from 26 instructors, or about 63 per cent of those instructing first and second year students.

There are two probable sources of error in the results of these last questionnaires. In the first place, a considerable number of the instructors of each institution failed to reply. In no case, however, did this amount to more than 40 per cent of the total. In three cases it was 20 per cent or less. In the second place, conditions this year are abnormal on account of the war.

Many of the regular faculty of these institutions are in war service. This has necessitated many changes in programs, the combining of classes, etc., all which have no doubt affected the results. In several instances those replying to the questionnaires have called attention to these conditions. With these facts in mind, the writer has constantly guarded against any extreme interpretation of the results. At all events, we may presume that the war has affected all of the institutions alike and that conditions in the junior colleges are also more or less upset. On this point the reader is left to judge for himself.

Chapter II.

ORIGIN AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE JUNIOR
COLLEGE.

For more than 30 years there has been, in the United States, a gradual evolution of the idea that the first and second years of the standard college or universitiy are distinctly secondary in character, differing alike in purpose, content, and organization from the later years of the period of higher education. To this period of two years, whether attached to the high school or left with the university, the name "junior college" has been applied and at present, in a number of States, seems quite generally accepted.

The suggestion of an extended period of secondary education no doubt comes from Europe. Since the days of John Sturm, at Strassburg, one may find secondary schools offering courses in secondary training which are 9 or 10 years in length. The present German gymnasium and the French lycée are typical of this class of institutions. Not only do they cover the later years of what we call elementary education, but they include an equivalent of the first two years of the American college as well. Graduates of the European secondary school, although no older than the graduates of our high schools, are two years in advance of the latter in scholastic training. Reference will be made to this point in a later chapter.

Although the evidences of the movement appear distinctly, it seems difficult to determine just when or where the idea was first suggested in the United States. We are told that Henry P. Tappan, in his first inaugural address as president of the University of Michigan in 1852, suggested the advisability of the transfer of the work of the secondary departments of the university to the high schools.1

Likewise Col. Folwell, at the outset of his career as president of the University of Minnesota, suggested that ultimately the secondary schools of the larger centers might well undertake the work of the freshmen and sophomore years of the university.2

In the early eighties President James made an unsuccessful attempt to interest the authorities of the University of Pennsylvania in this plan.3

1 Gray, A. A.

2 Hill, A. Ross.

Brush, H. R.

The Junior College, p. 2. Quotes Hinsdale's History of University of Michigan, p. 43.
Proc. Nat. Assoc. of Universities, vol. 13, 1915, pp. 122–143.

School and Society, vol. 4, Sept. 2, 1916, pp. 357-365.

11

Since there appear to have been no immediate changes following these suggestions, we shall pass them as of historic interest only.

The first official recognition of the distinction between the early and later years of university work that we have record of is that at the University of Michigan in 1883. In that year there was introduced in the liberal arts department of the university what was known as the "university system." Under this regulation a student was required to choose by the beginning of his junior year one major and two minor subjects, and to submit himself a year and a half or two years later to a final examination over all of the ground covered. This examination was set by a committee of three representing his major and two minor subjects.1

This plan seems to have been abandoned a few years later, chiefly on account of administrative difficulties. We are told, however, that this institution agreed to accept work done above the twelfth grade in the better high schools of the State at full credit and that in the early nineties students were graduated in three years after doing the first year's work in a standard high school.2

Of far greater influence upon educational practice was the work of President Harper, of the University of Chicago. In fact we might well call that far-seeing educator the father of the junior college, for it is of him that the average individual thinks when the origin of that institution is mentioned.

When the University of Chicago opened its doors on October 1, 1892, William Rainey Harper became its first president. Under his influence the work of the freshman and sophomore years was given a distinct division of its own called the "Academic college." The work of the junior and senior years was combined into what was known as the "University college." Four years later, in 1896, these divisions were designated as "junior college" and "senior college," respectively.3

This distinction still exists, and has later been adopted by other universities.

This reorganization of the university was, however, only a beginning of President Harper's plan. From that point his influence was felt logically in two directions; in the high schools and in the small colleges scattered throughout the country. Though each of these problems will be given a separate chapter later, they will be discussed at this point, for out of them have developed two distinct types of junior colleges as we find them to-day.

1 Lange, A. F. Sierra Educational News, June, 1909.
a Ibid.

& Catalogues of University of Chicago, 1892-93 and 1896-97.

There can be no doubt as to President Harper's view in regard to the relation of the first two years of university work to the high school, He says:1

*

*

*

The work of the freshman and sophomore years is only a continuation of the academy or high-school work. It is a continuation not only in subject matter studied, but in methods employed. It is not until the end of the sophomore year that the university methods of instruction may be employed to advantage. At present this constructive period of preparation, covering six years, is broken at the end of the fourth year, and the student finds himself adrift. He has not reached a point when work in any preparatory subjects is finished.

For him this view was more than theory, for he made every effort to put in operation some plan of organization that would recognize these essential facts. In 1902, at the annual meeting of the schools affiliated with the University of Chicago, the opportunity presented itself. As chairman of that meeting he recommended that a committee be appointed to study the entire educational system with a view to the adoption of the following plan: 2

1. The connecting of the work of the eighth grades of the elementary school with that of the secondary schools.

2. The extension of the work of the secondary schools to include the first two years of college work.

3. The reduction of the work of these seven years thus grouped together to six years. 4. To make it possible for the best class of students to do the work in five years.

One year later, at the seventeenth annual conference of the "Academies and High Schools Affiliating or Cooperating with the University of Chicago," the committee presented a majority report in favor of the extension of the high-school study to include two additional years. Another committee, representing seven large universities, also reported favorably on the plan.3

There can be little doubt that President Harper was thoroughly convinced of the wisdom of this move. Addressing the meeting of 1903, he said: 4

Ten years from now the high schools all over the country will have added a fifth and a sixth year and will be doing college work which now falls to the first two years of the college courses. In Minnesota and Michigan the State universities are accepting work done in many of the high schools for the first year of college study. I have no doubt that the high schools are going to do college work in the future.

Although more than 10 years have passed, it can hardly be said that the movement has gone as far as President Harper hoped. Nevertheless, his prophecy is being fulfilled at present in some sections of the country with amazing rapidity. A glance at the table presented in a later chapter will show the truth of this statement. That the high school may safely be intrusted with the first two years of college work seems to have been demonstrated by at least one institution

1 Harper, W. R. The Trend in Higher Education, p. 378. Harper, W. R. Sch. Rev., vol. 11, p. 1.

Harper, W. R. Sch. Rev., vol. 12, p. 15.
Rep. Commis. of Educ., 1903, p. 573.

(Joliet High School, organized junior college department, 1902), which under the direct influence and encouragement of President Harper added two years to its regular course. Later chapters will present many evidences of the permanency of this change.

A second direction of the influence of President Harper, as far as it concerns us here, was that relating to the small colleges. In 1900 in an address before the National Education Association he said: 1

In my opinion the two most serious problems of education requiring solution within the next quarter century are, first, the problem of the rural schools, which falls within the domain of lower education; and secondly, the problem of the small college, which lies within the domain of higher education. The second problem is at the same time serious and delicate, because the greatest interests, both material and spiritual, are at stake.

That the years since the utterance of this statement have found the problem of the small college to be both serious and delicate, no student of higher education will question. This fact will be discussed in a later chapter. The point of interest for us here is the remedy which that great educator suggested. Discussing the struggle through which the small college has risen, he said: "

While, therefore, 25 per cent of the small colleges now conducted will survive and.. be all the stronger for the struggle through which they have passed, another 25 per cent will yield to the inevitable, and one by one take a place in the system of educational work which, though in a sense lower, is in a true sense higher. Another group (50 per cent) of these smaller institutions will come to be known as "junior colleges." There are at least 200 colleges in the United States in which this change would be desirable.

Again President Harper did not stop with theory. With all his energy and enthusiasm, and with ample funds at his disposal, he set about to induce several such struggling colleges to affiliate with the University of Chicago, and limit their course to two years beyond their regular academy work. The arrangement was then made whereby the student upon graduating from such an institution was permitted to enter the junior year of the university without examination. Although this plan (with few exceptions) did not meet with favor at the time, it is interesting to note that it is substantially the arrangement that is being made by several of the State universities at present (notably Missouri) and is being eagerly accepted by smaller institutions. In fact it may be more truthfully said that the smaller institutions themselves are now often taking the lead in bringing about this adjustment.

In 1892, independent of the work of the University of Chicago, but influenced by what Dr. Lange calls a "beneficently potent bacillus" coming from the University of Michigan, a committee of

1 Harper, W. R. The Trend in Higher Education, p. 349.
* Ibid, p. 378.

« PreviousContinue »