ABSTRACT FINANCIAL.AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES IN AND RECRUITING AND TRAINING OF PERSONNEL IN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AT LAND-GRANT INSTITUTIONS by Benjamin Tillman Lanham, Jr. Agricultural Economics as a field of study was relatively unknown prior to 1900. Since that time, as a professional field, its history has been a story of rapid deve10pment, and of continuing growth and adjustment. A l9hl study of the resources and personnel available in.Agricul- tural Economics emphasized the major weaknesses of Agricultural Econom- ics teaching, research, and extension programs and activities at that time. The changing nature, scope, and complexity of rural and related problems since 19h0 emphasize the needs for a study of: (l) the ex- tent that Agricultural Economics has adjusted its teaching, research, and extension.pr0grams and activities to meet the changes in needs that have occurred since about l9h0, and (2) the extent that these changes in needs mean additional adjustments in the future. Based on information supplied by Land-Grant institutional Agricul- tural Economics departments and on available secondary data, an analysis of these situations indicates, that despite the tremendous growth and progress that has been made in the field during recent years, many of the problems and weaknesses that existed in l9h0 continued to be major problems and weaknesses in 1955. The number of.Agricultural Economics personnel engaged in Land- ro- Benjamin Tillman Lanham, Jr. Grant institutional teaching, research, and extension work increased 50 per cent between l9h0 and 1955. Financial resources available to Agricultural Economics for teaching, research, and extension work at Land-Grant institutions increased over 300 per cent during this same period. Departmental organization and administration of Agricultural Eco- nomics work varied widely from state to state. In nearly half of the states, extension work was handled administratively separately from teaching and research. This situation was essentially the same in 1955 as in l9hO. A persistency of staff vacancies and a high rate of turnover were major problems in many institutions in 1955. Adding to the acuteness of this situation, many departments were already understaffed in terms of training, experience, and competence. Many of the problems incident to the recruiting and training of staff personnel that existed in l9h0 continued to be unsolved problems in 1955. In recruiting undergraduates, problems were more closely related to quality than to number of students. For undergraduate training, Agricultural Economics curricula continue to need revision in terms of providing broader and more rigorous and analytical training. A.major need is the establishment of more uniformity in the quality'and levels of teaching among institutions. Also needed is more emphasis on the Benjamin Tillman Lanham, Jr. proper selection and assignment of staff personnel for undergraduate teaching. At the graduate level, more adequate quantitative measures are needed for evaluating graduate capabilities and potentialities. Grad- uate training, particularly at the Ph.D. level and in the larger grad- uate training departments, often tends to be highly specialized. For :many advanced graduate students, in terms of career opportunities and employment responsibilities after graduation, a broader and a less spe- cialized program may be more apprOpriate. Professional staff recruitment faces increasing competition from other Land-Grant institutions and from private agencies for well-trained and competent staff personnel. The ability of most Land-Grant Agricul- tural Economics departments to recruit and hold competent and experi— enced staff personnel is becoming increasingly more difficult than in recent years. The high degree of inbreeding that existed in 19h0 continued to persist as a major problem and weakness in a number of institutions in 1955. In some instances, the rate of turnover of professional staffs needs to be increased as a means of solving this situation. In.most cases, however, rates of turnover are already too high to permit de- partments to build stability and continuity into departmental teaching, research, and extension programs and activities. FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES IN AND RECRUITING AND TRAINING OF PERSONNEL IN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AT LAND-GRANT INSTITUTIONS By Benjamin Tillman Lanham, Jr. A THESIS submitted to Michigan State University in.partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Agricultural Economics 1961 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author acknowledges with sincere appreciation his indebtedness to all of the personnel who cooperated and assisted in the development of this thesis. Particular appreciation and indebtedness is acknowledged by the author to his Major Professor, Dr. Lawrence‘W.‘Witt, for his initial interests and encouragement in undertaking this study; for his time, ideas, and over-all guidance during the development of plans and pro- cedures for the conduct of the study; and for his continuing interests, persistent encouragement, and unlimited patience during the time in- volved in completing the study. Gratitude is expressed to the personnel in Land-Grant institutions who cooperated and assisted in the development of the basic data on ‘which parts of the study were based. 'Without this quantitative infor- mation, some phases of this study could not have been completed. A list of the Land-Grant institutional personnel who cooperated in de- veloping and providing the requested detailed questionnaire information is shown in.Appendix B. Special appreciation is due the author's wife, Bernice, for her efficient and untiring assistance in the collection and tabulation of the statistical data from secondary sources and the basic questionnaire data that were used in this thesis. Her assistance, encouragement, and understanding patience throughout the period of the study were invalu- able. For their careful and painstaking work in typing this thesis, the author is deeply indebted to Hrs. Gayleen Andrews and Mrs. Joan Sellers. Finally, appreciation is expressed by the author to the administra- tive officials of Auburn University for approval of the leave of absence which permitted the author to complete required graduate academic re- quirements prior to the development of this thesis. Appreciation is also expressed to'Hichigan State University for the financial assistance pro- vided the author during his time in residence while completing graduate academic requirements. Full responsibility for any errors, omissions, or erroneous inter- pretations or statements in this thesis is assumed by the author. -iii- 1 1T ' :om' - rug. \ I‘- TABLEOFCONTENTS Page ACKNGATIEDGEMENTS........................ii LISTOFTABLES.........................vi LET OF APPENDIX TABIJES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O x Chapter I O INTRODUCT ION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 II. CRGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMCS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O )4 III. FINANCIAL RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO AGRICULTURAL ECONOMCS O O O C O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 10 Financial Resources for Research . . . . . . . . . lO Experiment Station Research Funds . . . . . . . . 10 Agricultural Economics Research Funds . . . . . . 17 Financial Resources for Extension . . . . . . . . . 27 TotalExtensionFunds.............. 29 Agricultural Economics Extension Funds . . . . . 3!; Financial Resources for Teaching . . . . . . . . . hO Changes in Demands for Teaching . . . . . . . . . ’43 Total Financial Resources in Agricultural Economics 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0.0 O O o O Sh IV. PERSONNEL RESOURCES IN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS . . . . 55 Increase in Personnel, 1929-30 to 1994-55 . . . . . 55 Distribution of Agricultural Economics Workers by Rank 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 61 Distribution of Agricultural Economics Workers byDegreeStatus ................. 63 Comparison of Rank, Degree Status, and Type of Work Engaged In by Agricultural Economics Workers . . . 65 Salary Levels, Differences, and Comparisons . . . . 70 -iv- V. RECRUITING AND TRAINING OF PERSONNEL IN AGRICULTURAL EC ONOMCS O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C Undergraduate Recruitment and Training . . Undergraduate Curricula in Agricultural Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Graduate Recruitment and Training . . . . . Professional Staff Recruitment and Training Outgoing Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . Incoming Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . Staff Vacancies: 1956 and Projections . VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . REFERENCES CITED 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O APPENDH A - StatiStical Tables 0 o o e a o o o a o o 0 APPENDIX B - List of Land-Grant Institutional Personnel Responding to Questionnaire . . . . . . . . APPENDIX C - questionnaire 0 o o o o o o o o o o o e o o -v- Page 80 8h 87 98 106 106 111 120 122 127 130 175 180 Table 10. 11. LIST OF TABLES Responsibilities of Heads of Departments of Agricultural Economics in.Specified Areas at Land43rant Institutions, 1955-560000000000ooeeooeeooooeeo Total Research Funds Available to Experiment Stations and to Agricultural Economics Research Work for Years Ended June 30, h8 Experiment Stations, Specified Years . Percentage of Total Research Funds Available to ‘Experiment Stations from.Specified Sources for Years Ended June 30, hB Experiment Stations, Specified Years . Total Research Funds Available to Experiment Stations in Relation to Total Number of Research Workers for Years Ended June 30, AB Experiment Stations, Specified Years 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O I I O 0 Total Research Funds Available to Experiment Stations in Relation to Farm Population for Years Ended June 30, AB Experiment Stations, Specified Years . . . . . . . . . Total Research Funds Available to Experiment Stations in Relation to Farm Income for Years Ended June 30, h8 Experiment Stations, Specified Years . . . . . . . . . . Total Research Funds from.All Sources in Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant Institutions, Fiscal Year, 1955-560eoooooooooooeeooeooooooo Research Funds in Rural Social Sciences in l939-h0 and Research Funds in Agricultural Economics in 1955-56 in Relation to Total Research Funds of Experiment Stations from All Sources for Respective Years at Land-Grant Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relative Change in Research Funds Budgeted to Agricultural.Economics at Land43rant Institutions, 1939-h0t01955-5600000000000000.0000 Tota1.Extension.Funds Available to Extension Services and to Agricultural Economics Extension Work for Years Ended June 30, h8 Extension.Services, Specified Years . . Total Extension Funds Available to Extension.Services from.All Sources for Years Ended June 30, AB Extension Services, Specified Years . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . ..vi- Page ll 13 15 16 18 19 22 25 28 30 Table 12. 13. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Page Total Extension Funds Available to Extension Services in Relation to Total Number of Extension Workers for Years Ended June 30, A8 Extension Services, Specified Years . . 31 Tota1.Extension Funds Available to Extension.Services in Relation to Farm Population for Years Ended June 30, AB Extension Services, Specified Years . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Total Extension Funds Available to Extension.Services in Relation to Farm Income for Years Ended June 30, AB Extension.Services, Specified Years . . . . . . . . . . . 3h Total Extension Funds from All Sources in.Agricu1tural Economics at Land-Grant Institutions, Fiscal Year, 1955-56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 iExtension Funds in Rural Social Sciences in l939-b0 and Extension Funds in Agricultural Economics in 1955-56 in Relation to Total Extension Funds from All Sources for Respective Years at Land-Grant Institutions . . . . . . . 38 Relative Change in Extension Funds Budgeted to Agricul- tural Economics at Land-Grant Institutions, 1939-h0 to 1955-56 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o a o o o o a o o ’4]. Total Teaching Funds from All Sources in Agricultural Economics at Land43rant Institutions, Fiscal Year, 1955-56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ht Relative Change in Teaching Funds Budgeted to Agricul- tural Economics at Land43rant Institutions, 1939-h0 to 1955-560ooooooooeoooooooeooeoooo’46 Total Undergraduate Enrollment in Colleges of Agricul- ture and Percentage of Total Undergraduate Enrollment at Land43rant Institutions Enrolled in.Agricu1ture, 1955-56 50 workers in Subjects Pertaining to Agriculture and Number and Percentage of Workers in Agricultural Economics, h8 Land-Grant Institutions, Specified Years . . . . . . . . 56 Number and Percentage of Workers in Agricultural Economy ics Engaged in Teaching, Research, and/or Extension, h8 land-Grant Institutions, Specified Years . . . . . . . . 5? Number of Teaching, Research, and Extension Workers (Full-time Equivalent) in Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant Institutions, 1955-56 . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 -vii- Table 211. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 3h. 35. Page Number and Percentage of Workers in Agricultural Econom- ics by Rank, h8 Land43rant Institutions, Specified Years 62 Number and Percentage of Workers in Agricultural Econom- ics by Degree Status, AB LandAGrant Institutions, Specified Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6h Distribution of Workers in Agricultural Economics by Degree Status and by Rank, h8 LandAGrant Institutions, l9Sh-SS o o o o a o o o o o e a a o e o o a o a e o o o e 66 Distribution of werkers in Agricultural Economics by Degree Status and by Type of Work Engaged In, A8 Land- Grant Institutions, l9Sh-SS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Distribution of Workers in Agricultural Economics by Rank and by Type of Work Engaged In, h8 Land43rant InStltutionS, 195h-SS o e o a o o e o o o a o o o o o o e 69 Average Salaries Paid for Teaching and/or Research Staff Members in Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant Institu- tions, by Rank, 1956 C . . . O C . . . . O C . . . . C . 72 Average Salaries Paid for Extension.Staff Members in Agricultural Economics at Land43rant Institutions, by ‘Rank, 1956 o o o e o o a a o o o o o o a o o o o o a o 0 7h Comparison of Salaries of Associate Professors of Agricul- tura1.Economics at Land-Grant Institutions, l939-hO and 1956 o e o o o o o a a o o e o o o o o o e o o o e o o o 78 First Positions Taken by Graduates Awarded Specified Degrees in Agricultural Economics from Land43rant Institu- tions, 1955-56 oo o e a o o o o e o o o a a e o o o e e o 82 Number of Graduate Students Enrolled as Candidates for Degrees in Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant Institu— tions, 1955-56 0 e o e o o o o e o o o o o a o o e o e e 99 Number of Graduate Degrees Awarded in Agricultural Eco— nomics at Land43rant Institutions, Specified Years . . . 102 Outgoing Professional Staff in Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant Institutions During SéYear Period, 1951—56 (By Occasion for Leaving) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Incoming Professional Staff in Agricultural Economics at land-Grant Institutions During 5-Year Period, 1951-56 (By Institutions Where Training was Received) . . . . . . 112 -viii- Table 37. Page Total Number of Staff Members (Teaching, Research, and ‘Extension) in Agricultural Economics at Land43rant Institutions Taking Leave to Pursue Graduate Work During SeYear Period, 1951-56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 ..ix... J LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES Appendix Table l. 2. 10. ll. 12. 13. Official Name and Location of the AB Land43rant Institutions Studied . C . C O O O C C C O C O O O O O 0 Inclusion of Specified Subject-Matter Areas in Departments of Agricultural Economics at Land43rant Institutions, 1955-56 0 o e e o e o o o o o o o o o o a Total Income of Experiment Stations from All Sources for Years Ended June 30, Specified Years . . . . . . . . . . Size of Farm.Population Compared to Research Funds in Rural Social Sciences in 1939-h0 and in Agricultural Economics in 1955-56 at Land-Grant Institutions . . . . Farm Income Compared to Research Funds in Rural Social Sciences in 1939-h0 and in Agricultural Economics in 1955-56 at Land-Grant Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . Total Funds Allotted to Extension, Fiscal Years Ended June 30, Specified Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Size of Farm Population Compared to Extension Funds in Rural Social Sciences in 1939-h0 and in Agricultural Economics in 1955-56 at Land-Grant Institutions . . . . Farm Income Compared to Extension Funds in Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant Institutions, 1955-56 . . . . . Total Undergraduate Enrollments in Colleges of Agriculture at Land-Grant Institutions, 1938-39, l9h8-h9, and 1955-56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Number of Workers in Agricultural Economics by Institution, h8 Land-Grant Institutions, Specified Years Average Salaries Paid for Teaching and/or Research Staff Members in Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant Institutions by Degree Status, 1956 (lZ-months basis as of July 1, 1956) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average Salaries Paid for Extension.Staff Members in Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant Institutions by Degree Status, 1956 (12-months basis as of July 1, 1956) Undergraduate Curricula in Agricultural Economics and Related Areas in.Departments of Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant Institutions, 1955-56 . . . . . . . . . . -x - Page 131 135 137 139 lhl lh3 1&5 1h? 1A9 151 153 155 157 Appendix Table Page 1h. Undergraduate Curricula in.Agricultural Economics by Semester Credits Required for Graduation and by Specified Groupings of Subject-Matter Areas at Land- Grant Institutions, 1955-56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 15. Recent Curricula Changes in Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Business, Land-Grant Colleges and Universities, 1955 to 1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 16. Source of Graduate Students in Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant Institutions, 1955-56 . . . . . . . . . . 169 17. Relative Rates of Turnover of Professional Staffs in Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant Institutions, 19fi'-56oaeooooeoooooooooooeooeo 171 18. Professional Staff Vacancies in Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant Institutions as of July 1, 1956 (In Full-Time Equivalents) ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 -xi- CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The history of America has been a story of growth, development, and adjustment. In no phase of American life has this been more evi- dent than in agriculture. Throughout the history of America, and particularly during recent years, there has been a tremendous growth in population, a rapidly increasing production capacity of both agri- culture and industry, widespread advances in science and technology, a shift from a predominately rural economy to an agricultural-indus- trial economy, a relatively high standard of living for many segments of'the population, and a present-day demand for even higher economic and social benefits for all American citizens. Recent changes in American agriculture have been influenced by both farm and nonfarm factors. The effects of these changes have been reflected in both farm and nonfarm sectors of the nation's economy. During recent years, expanding business and industrial developments and activities have both aided in solving old problems and in creating new problems in many agricultural areas of the country. This has been particularly true with respect to the development and use of the coun- try‘s basic resources in rural areas. Agricultural Economics as a field of study, concerned with the application of the social sciences to the problems of agriculture, is relatively young. As a subject for teaching and research in Land-Grant institutions, Agricultural Economics was relatively unknown prior to -2- 1900. y The history of Agricultural Economics since about 1900, like that of American agriculture during the same period, has been a story of growth, development, and adjustment. Since Agricultural Economics was deeply rooted in the affairs of agriculture, it was welcomed, early in its history, into the Land-Grant family of professional and scien- tific workers. _2_/ During 1939 and 19110 a comprehensive study of the training and recruiting of personnel in the rural social studies was conducted under auspices of the American Council on Education. In publishing the re- sults of this study with respect to Land-Grant institutions, emphasis was placed on major weaknesses in teaching, research, and extension programs and activities. _3/ No comparable study of Agricultural Eco- nomics programs and activities in Land-Grant institutions has been undertaken since the 19h0 study was completed. The changing nature, scope, and complexity of rural problems since 19140 point to the need for a re-study of Land-Grant institu- tional programs and activities in teaching, research, and extension in Agricultural Economics. Rural problems that have economic, social, and political implications call for study, analysis, and solution. Ques- tions of major concern include: (1) To what extent has Agricultural 1] Taylor, Henry C., and Taylor, Anne Dewees, The Story of A - cultural Economics, Iowa State College Press, Ames, Iowa, 1952, p. . _2_/ Schultz, Theodore w., Training and Recruiting of Personnel in the Rural Social Studies, American Council on Education, Washington, a o, ’13.. _3_/ Ibid. -3- Economics adjusted its teaching, research, and (extension) educational programs and activities to meet the changes in needs that have occurred since about l9h0? And, (2) to what extent do these changes in needs mean additional adjustments in Agricultural Economics teaching, re- search, and (extension) educational programs and activities in the future? This study is concerned with the teaching, research, and exten- sion programs and activities in Agricultural Economics at A8 Land-Grant institutions. These include the institution in each state which nor- mally does teaching, research, and extension work in Agricultural Eco- nomics (Appendix Table 1). Questionnaires were mailed to the heads of departments oangricultural Economics at each of these institutions. Basic detailed data with respect to teaching, research, and extension was called for on these questionnaires. The data Obtained from re- spondents were supplemented with other data available from secondary sources to form.the primary basis on which this study was based. Of the AB Land-Grant Agricultural Economics departments contacted, 37 completed and returned the requested questionnaire information. Nonresponding departments were located in all areas of the country and included some large and some small departments. The information re- ceived from.responding departments, therefore, was assumed to be repre- sentative of all Land-Grant Agricultural Economics departments in the country. CHAPTER II ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS At the Land-Grant institutional level, approximately half of the AB departments studied were in institutions that emphasized science and technology. Many of these were called state colleges of agricul- ture and mechanic arts. 1/ The remaining half were in institutions that normally included a liberal arts college and professional schools such as law:or medicine. Many of these were characteristically uni- versity-type institutions (Appendix Table 1). Most Agricultural Economics departments are dependent upon other departments within respective institutions for specialized service needs in teaching, research, and extension (Appendix Table 2). It is frequently much more difficult to obtain service needs in statistics, general economics, mathematics, law, and other areas, in institutions that emphasize science and technology than in those with a university- type of organization. In the 19hO.American Council on Education study, Schultz concluded that there were two important prdblems in departmental organization that confronted rural social science fields at that time: (1) the ex- tent to which the subject-matter field should be divided, and (2) wheth- er teaching, research, and extension should be combined into a single 1/ In recent years, many of the Land-Grant institutions formerly called colleges have changed their official names to include the word university. In most of these cases, however, the objectives, func- tions, organization, and operation of these institutions have remained unchanged. -5- administrative unit. 2/ Schultz pointed out that dividing Agricultural Economics into two or more subfields was undesirable. In the early years of Agricultural Economics work, there was a strong tendency to divide the field into subfields such as farm manage- ment, agricultural marketing, and land economics. Frequently, separate departments were established for each subfield. By 19h0, at most Land- Grant institutions, these separate subfields of Agricultural Economics work had been combined into single departments of Agricultural Econom- ics. Principal exceptions were at Land-Grant institutions in Kentucky, Michigan, Massachusetts, washington, and Oregon. At most of these in- stitutions, departments of farm management and departments in other sub- fields continued in existance. Since l9h0, farm.management and other subfield departments, where they previously had been separate, have been absorbed by or combined into single departments of Agricultural Economics. Of the AB LandaGrant institutions studied, the distribution of departments by name in 1960 was as follows: Agricultural Economics 32, Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology 8, Agricultural Economics and Sociology 2, Agricultural Economics and Farm Management 2, Agricultural Economics and Marketing 1: Economics and Sociology 2, and Economics 1. 2/ Thus, from the 8tEndpoint of departmental organization, the problem.of subdivision 0fthe field of Agricultural Economics into subfield departments has \ 39, Schultz, Theodore W}, Training and Recruiting of Personnel in £22_liura1 Social Studies,.American.C5unEil on.Education,‘WaShington, 9- 0., 19m, p. 32. . .3/ Compiled from "werkers in Subjects Pertaining to Agriculture in Land-Grant Colleges and Experiment Stations, 1960-61," Agriculture Handbook No. 116, ARS, USDA, April 1961. -6- been eliminated. In the 19h0 study, Schultz pointed out that to detach either ex- tension or research or teaching from the other two branches would substantially reduce the effectiveness of work in Agricultural Econom- ics. E/ Although some improvement has been made in this situation since 19h0, this continues to be a major problem in many institutions. In 19h0, half of the h8 Land-Grant institutions had complete integra- tion of teaching, research, and extension in Agricultural Economics in a single department. In 19 institutions, teaching and research in Agricultural Economics were combined but extension was separate. In the remaining five institutions, each branch of activity was separate. In 1955-56, on matters of general administration, recruitment, promo- tions, assignment of duties, and budgetary control, the responsibili- ties of heads of departments of Agricultural.Economics with respect to teaching, research, and extension personnel at the several Land- Grant institutions were widely varied, Table 1. A higher degree of integration existed in the recruitment of personnel than in other functions. The information in Table 1 indicates that the problems incident to bringing together teaching, research, and extension into a single subject-matter department were little nearer solution in 1955-56 than in l9h0. Only about half of the Land-Grant institutions studied ap- peared to have achieved complete integration in Agricultural Economics teaching, research, and extension. Thus, this particular weakness in departmental organization and administration continued to exist in _ll/ Schultz, _gp. _c_i_t., p. 32. -7- Table 1. Responsibilities of Heads of Departments of Agricultural Economics in Specified Areas at Land-Grant Institutions, 1955-56 (T = Teaching; R = Research; E = Extension) : AGeneral :Recruiting: :Budgetary State :administration:personne1 :Promotions: control R T T T Alabama Arizona Arkansas California _1/ hit-3P3 I FOP-UFO Pit-3F! Iii-"3:11:13 "38*! 1333-13 I WWI-'0 Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida raw-avers :3 Sui-17:11:13 t-a Heir-aha :11 3112132153 Georgia Idaho 1/ Illinois IndianaIl/ 1m is we raravera 1:3 nzm :fizmzm:n F1 33 F1' Pi is racemes re re titaveta I?” I:n thvtotv we I :1: ha I ail Iowa Kansas Kentucky 1/ Louisiand' iave a: nil 21:! ti =3 :m Iznzp re re :3 sin :12: be rare :0 FUIFUFU E1 Maine Maryland 1/ Mhssachusgtts Michigan v-i Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana '_1_/ P366 Fit-3 P3 P3 u:n:o:n :UFUI Fiat-3 I #32121 2323! ear-3a Pit-3 ISUFU$U tutu! I?! Pat-3'6 #3"? 0-3 leUf-U FUFUI Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire 1/ New Jersey - Fir-3 man: man: has: Pit-3 ans: New’Mexico New York North Carolina 1/ North Dakota "' I:=1 we 31:1 sin sin: a bar-3 H fill ans: 2!: .a taia we were :3! :1?! an. tli t-a ear-i a1: 0-3 hat-3 0-3 0-in-5 :1! 21:1 :1: t!) (Continued) -8- Table 1 (Continued). Responsibilities of Heads of Departments of Agricultural Economics in Specified Areas at Land-Grant Institutions, 1955-56 (T = Teaching; R I Research; E = Extension) General :Recruiting: :Budgetary State :administrationzpersonnel :Promotions: control Ohio T R E T R E T R E T R E Oklahoma T R T R E T R T R Oregon T R T R E T R T R Pennsylvania T R T R T R T R Rhode Island T R T R E T R E T R South Carolina T R T R T R T R South Dakota 1/ - - - - Tennessee " TRE TRE TRE TRE Texas T R E T R E T R E T R E Utah T R E T R E T R E T R Vermont T R E T R E T R E T R E Virginia y - - - .- Washington T R T R T R T R West Virginia T R T R T R T R Wisconsin T R E T R E T R E T R. E 'Wyoming'l/ - - - - ‘l/ Questionnaire not returned. 1955-56 on about the same level as in 191p for about half of the Land- Grant institutions studied. In Schultz's study in 19h0, it was pointed out that the rural social science fields logically form a c1usten,and should be treated as such in any institutional organization. 5/ In 1955-56, most Land- Grant institutionscontinued to have rural sociology and other related g/ Ibid., p. 39. wt: nodal :44: ..J v m. ....» :23"; h i-bV. -9- social science subject-matter areas administered in departments out- side of departments of Agricultural Economics (Appendix Table 2). This was particularly pronounced for subject-matter areas such as general economics, business administration, and statistics. CHAPTER III FINANCIAL RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS The financial resources available to Agricultural Economics in Land-Grant institutions for use in teaching, research, and extension programs and activities vary widely from one institution to another. There is also wide variation in.financial resources used in.Agricul- tural.Economics relative to total expenditures for teaching, research, and extension among different Land-Grant institutions. Financial Resources for Research Research funds used in the support of Agricultural Economics re- search are derived from both federal and nonfederal sources. In 1955-56, federal sources included principally Purnell and Bankhead-Jones funds. Nonfederal sources included State appropriations, grants and donations, and contract funds. The total amount of funds available for Agricultural Economics research in Land-Grant institution Experiment Stations increased from $1.2 ndllion in l9h0 to $6.0 million in 1955. This represented a h02 per cent increase during this 15-year period, Table 2. Total funds available to Experiment Stations increased 361 per cent during this period. Thus, Agricultural Economics research received a slightly higher percentage of total Experiment Station research funds in 1955 than in l9h0. Experiment Station Research Funds State Agricultural Experiment Stations conduct a broad and compre- -10- -11- Table 2. Total Research Funds Available to Experiment Stations and to Agricultural Economics Research WOrk for Years Ended June 30, h8 Experiment Stations, Specified Years :TotaI funds:Total research:AgriculturalIEConomics zavailable :funds avail- :research funds as a Year ‘ to :able to :percentage of total '3Experiment :Agricultural :research funds avail- :Stations : Economics 2/ :able to Experiment : 1/ : '— :Stations 1,006.601. “1,000 dOI. Per cent Fiscal year ending: June 30, 19h0 20,73h 1,192‘2/ 5-7 June 30, 19h5 27,327 9/ _Q/ June 30, 1950 63,019 E/ E/ June 30, 1955 95,562 5,982 _5_/ 6.3 Per cent Per cent Percentage change from l9bO to 1955 +361 +h02 ‘l/' See Appendix Table 3 for individual state totals. gj' See Table 9 for individual state totals. 2/ See Schultz, 32. £13., Table l, p. 149. ‘g/ Not ascertained. 5/ Obtained by: (l) calculating for the reporting institutions, the pErcentage of total research funds available to Experiment Stations in these institutions that were reported available to Agricultural Eco- nomics, and (2) multiplying this percentage by the total amount of re- search funds available to Experiment Stations for the h8 Land43rant institutions. Source: Compiled and calculated from."Report of the Agricultural ExperrTmen Stations," 1910, 1915, 1950, and 1955, CBS, USDA. Also, survey of Agricultural Economics departments in h8 Land-Grant insti- tutions, 1956. -12- hensive program.of research in phases of the life, physical, and social sciences related to agriculture. These stations, as one of the major divisions of Land-Grant institutions, have a long and successful his- tory of research experience. The federal government, recognizing the important part that scientific research could play in solving farm prOblems, encouraged the establishment of State Agricultural.Experi- ment Stations and a continuing grant-in-aid program through passage of the Hatch Experiment Station Act of 1887. The program was further strengthened by subsequent passage of the Adams Act of 1906, the Purnell Act of 1925, the Bankhead-Jones.Act of 1935, and the amend- ment to the Bankhead-Jones Act of 1916. Each of these provided for further endowment and increases in federal-grant payments to states. In 1955, the five measures were combined by Congress into the Hatch Act.Amended, which serves as the present authorization for grant-in- aid payments to the states. 1/ The federal government's research grants to State Experiment Stations under the Hatch Act have for many years served as an incen- tive to individual states to appropriate additional funds from state sources for research. The existence of the Federaerrant program.has also provided encouragement to other public and private agencies, organizations, and individuals to make available to Experiment Stations grant funds and donations for use in agricultural research programs and activities. A major share of the 361 per cent increase in total Experiment lj' Adapted from.Knob1auch, H. 0., "Basic Research at State Sta- tions," Science, Vol. 130, No. 3389, December 11, 1959, pp. 1639-h1. _13- Station research funds between 19h0 and 1955, as indicated in Table 2, came from nonfederal sources while federal funds less than doubled. The major contributor to increased federal funds was the Research and Marketing Act of 19h6. Ampng nonfederal sources, the largest percent- age increase in funds was in the area of grant funds. In terms of dol- lars, increased state appropriations were most important. Significant increases also occurred in sales funds and in certain miscellaneous sources. In 19h0, federal sources accounted for 32 per cent of the total research funds available in Land-Grant institution Experiment Stations; 68 per cent of total research funds were from nonfederal sources, Table 3. In 1955, increases in nonfederal sources of support for re- search were of enough importance that nonfederal sources represented Table 3. Percentage of Total Research.Funds Available to Experiment Stations from Specified Sources for Years Ended June 30, A8 Experiment Stations, Specified Years. 19ho 2 19h5 1950 § 1955 Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Item Experiment Station funds rom specifIEdsources: Federal 32 25 20 19 Nonfederal 68 75 80 81 State appropriations h5 Al 52 52 Sales 10 16 13 11 Grants 2 S 5 7 Fees 3 2 1 l Source: Compiled and calculated from."Report on the Agricultural Experiment—Stations," 19h0, 19h5, 1950, and 1955, CES, USDA. -1h- 81 per cent of the total; federal sources amounted to only 19 per cent. Despite the tremendous increase in dollar volume of State appropri- ated funds for research between 19h0 and 1955, the increase in the rela- tive importance of State appropriated funds was only from.h5 per cent of the total in l9hO to 52 per cent of the total in 1955. Among non- federal sources, the greatest percentage gain in relative importance was in the case of grants and donations, which increased from 2 to 7 per cent of the total during this lS-year period. The increase in Experiment Station research funds between l9hO and 1955 suggest that the number of personnel engaged in Experiment Station research work would also increase. Table h indicates that in 19h0, Land43rant institutions listed a total of h,h96 research workers. In 1955, these same institutions listed a total of 7,69h research work- ers. This represented a 71 per cent increase in number of research workers during this 15-year period while research funds increased 361 per cent. A number of factors were responsible for the difference between the percentage increase in research funds and the percentage increase in number of research workers. .Among these were increased salary levels per worker, increased maintenance costs, increased operating costs, and increased costs of all items used incident to conducting Experiment Station research activities and programs. This resulted in a 169 per cent increase in the amount of research funds available per research worker between 19h0 and 1955. In 19h0, research funds per research worker amounted to $h,612; in 1955, research funds per research worker had increased to $12,h20. These data are based on the inclusion of both full-time and part-time research workers. On a full- -15- Table h. Total Research Funds Available to Experiment Stations in Relation to Total Number of Research Workers for Years Ended June 30, h8 Experiment Stations, Specified Years : Tbtal funds' : Total number : Research funds : available to : of research : available per Year : Experiment : workers 1/ research worker 1/ : Stations : : 41,000 dollars Number ’Dollars Fiscal year ending: June 30, l9h0 20,73h h,h96 h,6l2 June 30, 19115 27,327 11,271; 6, 39h June 30, 1950 63,019 6,781 9,293 June 30, 1955 95,562 7,69h l2,h20 Per cent Per cent Per cent Percentage change from 19h0 to 1955 +361 +71 +169 ‘1/ These figures include both full-time and part-time resident research workers. Source: Compiled and calculated from "Report on the.Agricultura1 Experiment Stations," l9h0, 19h5, 1950, and 1955, CES, USDA. time equivalent basis, research funds available per research worker would be somewhat higher than the amounts shown in Table b. Total farm population decreased from 30 million to 20 million be- tween 19h0 and 1955, Table 5. This 32 per cent decrease in farm popu- lation occurred during a period when research funds for Experiment Stations increased 361 per cent. On a per capita of farm population '4 CU : 3‘?- 1 .‘u ‘1 '11 t v.35. 33513115 -16- Table 5. Total Research Funds Available to Experiment Stations in Relation to Farm.Population for Years Ended June 30, h8 Experiment Stations, Specified Years :TotaI funds: :Research :Number 0 arm :available :Estimated :funds avail- :people for Year :to Experi- :total farm:able per cap-:each dollar of :ment :populationzita of farm :research funds :Stations : :population :available 1,000 dol. 1,000 ‘DoIlars Number Fiscal year ending: June 30, 19h0 20,73h 30,269 0.68 1.h6 June 30, 19h5 27,327 25,190 1.08 .92 June 30, 1950 63,019 23,332 2.70 .37 June 30, 1955 95,562 20,625 11063 022 Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Percentage change from 19u0 to 1955 +361 -32 +581 -85 Source: Compiled and calculated from."Report of the Agricultural Experiment Stations," l9h0, 19h5, 1950, and 1955, CBS, USDA. Also, "Census of Population," 19h0 and 1950, Bureau of the Census, U. S. De- partment of Commerce. And, "Farm Population.Estimates," 19h5 and 1955, (BAE).AMS, USDA. basis, research funds to Experiment Stations in 19h0 amounted to only $0.68. In 1955, research funds available to Experiment Stations amounted to $h.63 per capita of farm population. This represented a 581 per cent increase during this 15-year period. In terms of numbers of people on farms per dollar expended on the Experiment Stations' total agricultural research programs, there was an 85 per cent decrease -17- between 19h0 and 1955. In 19h0, research expenditures amounted to one dollar for each 1.5 persons on farms; whereas, in 1955, research ex- penditures amounted to one dollar for each 0.2 persons on farms. Between l9h0 and 1955, the percentage increase in farmers' cash farm income (cash receipts from marketings plus government payments) did not equal the percentage increase in funds available for Experiment Station research activities and programs. In 19h0, when Experiment Station research funds amounted to about $21 million, cash farm income amounted to about $9 billion. This represented a ratio of $hhl of cash farm income to each dollar of available research funds, Table 6. By 1955, Experiment Station research funds had increased to nearly $96 million,‘while cash farm income had increased to about $30 billion. The ratio of cash farm income to each dollar of research funds in 1955 was $310, thus, indicating a 30 per cent decrease in the ratio during this 15—year period. This means that there was an increase in research funds relative to cash farm income between 19h0 and 1955. Agricultural Economics Research.Funds Research funds available from all sources for research programs and activities in Agricultural Economics at individual Land-Grant in- stitutions in 1955-56 are indicated in Table 7. Also Shown for re- spective institutions is the relative importance of federal and non- federal sources as contributors to total available Agricultural Economics research budgets. Among individual institutions, the rela- tive importance of nonfederal sources of Agricultural Economics re- search funds varied from less than 10 per cent to more than 70 per cent of the total. -18- Table 6. Total Research Funds Available to Experiment Stations in Relation to Farm Income for Years Ended June 30, h8 Experi- ment Stations, Specified Years : Total funds : available to Year : Experiment : Stations Ratio of farm income to each dollar of research funds available Total cash receipts from marketings'l/ .. O. O. O. I. O. O. O. 1:000 dol. Mil. dol. Dollars Fiscalyyear ending: June 30, 19h0 20,73h 9,1h5.2 hhl June 30, 19h5 27,327 22,286.3 816 June 30, 1950 63,019 28,611.3 h5h June 30, 1955 95,562 29,630.0 310 Per cent Per cent Per cent Percentage change from.19h0 to 1955 +361 +228 -30 ‘l/’ These figures include total cash receipts from marketings and government payments for years indicated. Source: Compiled and calculated from.“Report of the Agricultural Experiment-Stations," 19h0, 19h5, 1950, and 1955, CES, USDA. .Also, "Agricultural Statistics," Annual issues, USDA. And, "The Farm Income Situation," Current issues, AMS, USDA. Variations in amounts of research funds between states and varia- tions in sources of research funds between states are of interest but, in reality, have little meaning. As Schultz pointed out in 19h0 in -19- Table 7. Total Research Funds from All Sources in Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant Institutions, Fiscal Year, 1955-56 : : Percentage State Federal : Nonfederal : Total : , from non- sources sources : federal sources Alabama 103,88h 28,095 131,979 21.3 Arizona 52,658 19,552 72,210 27.1 Arkansas 95,802 6,10h 101,906 6.0 California 1/ - - - — Colorado 50,206 8,625 58,831 1b.? Connecticut 36,8h0 32,8h8 69,688 h7.l Delaware 28,000 8,000 36,000 22.2 Florida 87,500 111,5u0 199,0h0 56.0 Georgia 139,853 16,622 156,h75 10.6 Idaho 1/ - - - - Illinois 1h8,316 26h,h7h A12,790 6h.1 Indiana 1/ - - - - Iowa 95,12h 133,339 228,h63 58.u Kansas 25,735 56,377 82,112 68.6 Kentucky 1/ - - — - Louisiana‘ 69,289 82,157 151,hh6 5h.2 Maine 66,9ul 8,100 75,0hl 10.8 Maryland 1/ - - - - MassachuSEtts 2/ 29,595 2/ 2 Michigan 101,621 222,561 32h,182 6876 Minnesota 2/ 2/ 2/ 3/ Mississippi 78,535 18,500 97,035 19.1 Missouri 6h,8h1 27,709 92,550 29.9 Montana 1/ - — - - Nebraska h9,hh3 23,091 72,53h 31-8 Nevada 30,500 11,300 hl,800 27.0 New Hampshire 1/ - - -_ - new Jersey " h0,098 22,986 63,08h 36.h New Mexico 56,000 30,000 86,000 3h.9 New York 136,300 136,51h 272,81h 50.0 North Carolina 1/ - - - - North Dakota " 5h,220 21,59h 75,81h 28.5 (Continued) -20- Table 7 (Continued). Total Research Funds from All Sources in Agri- cultural Economics at Land43rant Institutions, Fiscal Year, 1955-56 : : : : Fercentage State : Federal : Nonfederal : Total : from non- : sources : sources : : federal sources Ohio 1h6,29h 76,hlh 222,708 3h.3 Oklahoma 115,026 h9,h30 16h,h56 30.0 Oregon 59,hh1 63,670 123,111 51.7 Pennsylvania 1h7,822 106,076 253,898 hl.8 Rhode Island 31,979 3,938 35,917 11.0 South Carolina 95,877 12,280 108,157 ll.h South Dakota 1/ - - - - Tennessee " 116,035 30,621 1A6,656 20.9 Texas 225,h09 30,711 256,120 12.0 Utah A9,825 18,561 68,386 27.1 Vermont 36,h50 13,89h 50,3hh 27.6 Virginia _1_/ - - - - 'Washington 83,h56 6h,800 lh8,256 h3.7 ‘west Virginia 2 2/ 2 2/ 'Wisconsin 39,250 111,u89 150,739 7u70 wyoming‘l/ - - - - ‘l/ Questionnaire not returned. ‘2/ Not reported on returned questionnaire. citingcomparable data for 1939-h0,‘2/ it is important to recognize the many forms of heterogeneity existing among the several Land43rant in- stitutions. These include differences in the Size of states, in the 'wealth and resources that constitute the tax base, in the importance of ‘2/ Schultz, Theodore W., Training and Recruiting of Personnel in the Rural Social Studies, American Council on Education, washington, D. 0., l9h1, p.‘52. _21- agriculture, in the complexity and intensity of farm problems, in the institutional administrative policies and procedures, and in many other factors where no two states, or even two groups of states, are alike. A comparison by states of the total amount of funds available for Experiment Station research with the amount available for Agricultural Economics research in 1955-56 is shown in Table 8. For all Land43rant institutions combined, the proportion of total Experiment Station re- search funds budgeted for Agricultural Economics research was about 6.3 per cent. Among individual states, the proportion varied from less than h to more than 15 per cent. This pattern of distribution among states in 1955-56, after allowing for differences due to grant funds, differed little from the pattern for total rural social science re- search funds in 1939-ho. With few exceptions, Agricultural Economics research budgets in 1955-56 were mainly dependent upon regular Experiment Station funds. Compared to 19h0, however, an increasing number of institutions in 1955-56 were obtaining some funds for research from sources outside of regular Experiment Station funds. Generally, the larger institutions that already had the larger budgets and the larger staffs were the in- situtions that made the greatest use of grant and other available out- side research funds. In comparing research budgets in Agricultural Economics in dif- ferent states with the importance of agriculture in respective states, Agricultural Economics research funds have been related to the number of farm.people in each state (Appendix Table h). The extreme range in ratios that existed in 1939-ho had largely disappeared by 1955-56. This was due in part to increased research funds for Agricultural Economics -22- Table 8. Research Funds in Rural Social Sciences in 1939-ho and Research Funds in.Agricultural Economics in 1955-56 in Relation to Total Research Funds of Experiment Stations from All Sources for Respective Years at Land-Grant Institutions Ratio ofIRuraIISocial. : Ratio ofIAgricultural Science research funds : Economics research.funds to total Experiment : to total Experiment State Station research funds Station rese ch funds in 1939—hog] : in 1955-56 27 Alabama h.8 5.8 Arizona 3/ 8.8 Arkansas 1h73 7.8 California 5.0 3/ Colorado 6.9 h.0 Connecticut 6.0 5.0 Delaware 12.3 6.0 Florida 3.5 5.0 Georgia 5.h 5.6 Idaho 6.8 3/ Illinois 12.h 15'." 2 Indiana 2.6 '2/ Iowa 17.9 6.h Kansas 6.0 3.8 Kentucky 11.8 3/ Louisiana 22.1 576 Maine 10.9 11.9 Maryland 8.2 3/ Massachusetts h.7 37 Michigan 8.1 1371 Minnesota 7.3 3/ Mississippi l.h H75 Missouri 6.6 6.h Montana 9.6 2/ Nebraska 5.2 h.0 Nevada 17.2 15.2 New Hampshire 12.2 3/ New Jersey 2.9 3th New Maxico 10.3 1h.6 New York 8.1 5.2 North Carolina 8.3 3/ North Dakota _3_/ 17.9 (Continued) -23- Table 8 (Continued). Research Funds in Rural Social Sciences in 1939-ho and Research Funds in Agricultural Economics in 1955-56 in Relation to Total Research Funds of Experiment Stations from All Sources for Respective Years at Land-Grant Institutions Ratio ofRural Social : Ratio of AngcfiIturaT Science research funds : Economics research funds State to total Experiment : to total Experiment Station rese rch funds : Station rese ch funds in 1939-1.on : in 1955-56 2. Ohio 5.h 7.3 Oklahoma 8.9 7.7 Oregon h.5 5.3 Pennsylvania 8.1 11.1 Rhode Island 7.6 9.0 South Carolina 6.8 9.0 South Dakota 13.2 3/ Tennessee 5.6 1171 Texas 5.7 5.6 Utah 9.6 6.8 vermont 13.6 lh.l Virginia 16.8 2/ Washington 6.6 5.7 West Virginia 12.1 3/ Wisconsin 8.0 H77 Wyoming 6.h 2/ ‘1/ Source: Schultz, Theordore W., Trainin and Recruiting of Personnel In the Rural Social Studies, American Council on.Education, ‘Washington, D. C., 19hl,‘Table 3, p. 5h. 2/' Source: Based on data shown in Appendix Table 3 and Table 9. ‘2/ Not ascertained. research in.many of the Southern.States between 1939-ho and 1955-56. Also contributing was the reduced farm population in these states during this same period. Despite the reduction in ratios for states -2u- in this region of the country, however, these states in 1955-56 con- tinued to receive fewer funds in relation to farm population than was true in other sections of the country. It is in the Southern States that Agricultural Economics research budgets continue to be relatively the smallest, that farm populations continue to be relatively the largest, and that farm problems continue to be among the most complex and intense of any area of the country. In comparing farm income of each state with the amount of Agri- cultural Economics research funds in respective states, the same general picture is obtained as when comparing Agricultural Economics research funds with farm population. The wide variations that ex- isted in ratios in 1939-ho, however, had been reduced by 1955-56 (Appendix Table 5). This was particularly noticeable in many of the Southern States. Most of the states in the Great Plains, that in 1939-ho had high ratios, continued in 1955-56 to have these same high ratios. Prior to l9h0, the Land-Grant institutions located in the South- ern States and in the Great Plains area had been less successful than had those in other areas of the country in establishing active, well- supported research programs in Agricultural Economics and related areas. 2/ Since 19h0, however, research activities in Agricultural Economics in most of the Southern States have expanded tremendously, Table 9. The relative rates of change in available research funds for Agricultural Economics research for most Southern States were above the national average for the period l9hO to 1955-56. In the Great 2/ Home pp. 57-58. -25- Table 9. Relative Change in Research Funds Budgeted to Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant Institutions, 1939-A0 to 1955-56 Research fundsIbudgeted to State : Agricultural Economics: : Percentage ‘1939-A0 : Il95§;56 : increase 1,000 dol. 'l,000 dol. Per cent Alabama 20 132 560 Arizona ‘1/ 72 - Arkansas 3A 102 200 California 62 ‘2/ - Colorado 17 59 2A7 Connecticut 15 70 367 Delaware 17 36 112 Florida 20 199 895 Georgia 13 156 1,100 Idaho 10 2/ — Illinois 72 513 h7h Indiana 23 2/ - Iowa 65 228 251 Kansas 16 82 A12 Kentucky A9 2/ - Louisiana 39 131 287 Maine 19 75 295 Maryland 17 2/ - Massachusetts 15 27 - Michigan 25 32h 1,196 Minnesota 36 ‘3/ - Mississippi 5 97 1,8AO Missouri 17 93 AA? Montana 18 _2_/ - Nebraska 17 73 329 Nevada 17 A2 1A7 New Hampshire 17 2/ - New Jersey 18 63 250 New Mexico 12 86 617 New York 92 273 197 North Carolina 20 2/ ‘ - North Dakota 1/ ‘76 - (Continued) -26- Table 9 (Continued). Relative Change in Research Funds Budgeted to Agricultural Economics at LandJGrant Institu- tions, 1939-A0 to 1955-56 ’Research fundSIbudgeted to State : Agricultural Economics: : Percentage : 1939-A0 : 1955-56 : increase 1,000Id01. 1,000501. Per cent Ohio 33 223 576 Oklahoma 30 16A AA? Oregon 19 123 5A7 Pennsylvania 26 25A 877 Rhode Island 5 36 620 South Carolina 22 108 391 South Dakota 16 2/ - Tennessee 12 IE7 1,125 Texas A3 256 A95 Utah 11 68 518 Vermont 17 50 19A Virginia 31 ‘g/ - 'Washington 16 1A8 825 West Virginia 27 2/ - Wisconsin 38 1'51 297 Wyoming 10 _jg/ - Total or average 1,192 3/ 5,982 A/ A02 _1_/ No information. ‘2/ Questionnaire not returned, or not reported on returned ques- tionnaire. '3] See Schultz, Theodore W., Training and Recruiting of Personnel in the Rural Social Studies,.American Council on Education, Washington, W ., , Table 1, p. A9. A/ Total research funds available to Agricultural Economics for the A8 lead-Grant institutions in 1955 were obtained by: (1) calculating, for the reporting institutions, the percentage of total research funds available to Experiment Stations in these institutions that were re- ported available to Agricultural Economics, and (2) multiplying this percentage by the total amount of research funds available to Experi- ‘ment Stations for the A8 LandsGrant institutions. _27- Plains area, rates of increase in Agricultural Economics research budgets were about equal to the national average during this period. In other areas of the country, where Agricultural Economics research budgets were relatively high prior to 19A0, the rates of increase since 19A0 have been at less than the national average rate. Financial Resources for Extension Of the three major divisions in the Land-Grant institutional system, the extension division is the youngest. From its inception to 19AO, extension programs and activities, and the support of such pro- grams and activities were vastly expanded. Since 19A0, financial sup- port for extension work has continued to expand at a very rapid rate. Extension funds used in the support of Agricultural Economics ex- tension work are derived principally from federal, state, and county sources. In some states, a limited amount of additional financial sup- port for extension activities comes from certain outside sources, such as farm organizations, commodity organizations, and other similar groups. The total amount of funds available for Agricultural Economics extension work in land-Grant institutions in 19A0 was about $1 million, Table 10. By 1955, extension funds had increased to a total of $3.5 million, representing a 277 per cent increase during this lS-year pe- riod. Total funds available for all Land43rant institutional extension work during this period increased 200 per cent. Thus, Agricultural Economics extension work received a higher percentage of total exten- sion funds in 1955 than in 19AO. Of the total funds available for all extension work in 19AO, Agricultural Economics extension work received 2.9 per cent. In 1955, Agricultural Economics extension work received -28- Table 10. Total Extension Funds Available to Extension Services and to Agricultural Economics Extension Work for Years Ended June 30, A8 Extension Services, Specified Years :TotaI funds: :Agricultural Economics :available :Total Extension:ExtenSion funds as a : to :funds availablezpercentage of total Year :Extension :to Agricultural :Extension funds avail- :Services :Economics 2/ :able to Extension : 1/ : - :Services 3000 dol. 1,000 dol. Per cent Fiscal year ending: June 30, 19140 32,5116 930 3/ 2.9 June 30, 19115 37,061: .11/ A/ June 30, 1950 70,737 .11/ 3/ June 30, 1955 97,757 3,503 _5_/ 3.6 Per cent Per cent Percentage change from l9AO to 1955 +200 +277 1/ See Appendix Table 6 for individual state totals. 2/ See Table 17 for individual state totals. 3/ See Schultz, 33. 933., Table 8, p. 63. _A/ Not ascertained . _5/ Obtained by: (1) calculating for the reporting institutions, the percentage of total Extension funds available to Extension Services in these institutions that were reported available to Agricultural Eco- nomics, and (2) multiplying this percentage by the total amount of ex- tension funds available to Extension Services for the A8 Land—Grant institutions . Source: Compiled and calculated from "Report on Cooperate Exten- sion Work in Agriculture and Home Economics," 19A0, 19A5, 1950, and 1955, Extension Service, USDA. Also, survey of Agricultural Economics departments in A8 Land-Grant institutions, 1956. -29.. 3.6 per cent of the funds available for all extension work. Total Extension Funds The 200 per cent increase in total extension funds between 19A0 and 1955 was made up principally of a 108 per cent increase in funds from federal sources, a 216 per cent increase in funds from county sources, and a A58 per cent increase in funds from state sources. Funds from state sources were mainly state appropriated funds, and those from county sources were mainly appropriations made by county governing bodies, Table 11. The major contributions to increased federal funds were made incident to the passage of the Research and Marketing Act of 19A6. In 1955, extension funds from state sources were only slightly less than were those from federal sources. Fifteen years earlier, in 19A0, state funds for extension work were only a third as much as were federal funds. Also, state and county funds were about equal during the 19A0‘s; whereas, in 1955, county funds were only two-thirds the amount provided from state sources. In 19A0, federal sources accounted for 56 per cent of the total extension funds available to Land—Grant institutions; 19 per cent of total extension funds were from state sources; and 22 per cent were from county sources, Table 11. By 1955, the amount of extension funds from all sources had increased; however, the proportion of the total derived from federal sources had declined to 39 per cent while the pro- portion from state sources had increased to 36 per cent. Contributions from county and other sources were relatively unchanged from 19AO to 1955.. Of the total amount of funds available for extension work at landsGrant institutions, approximately a third was expended at colleges -30- Table 11. Total Extension Funds Available to Extension Services from All Sources for Years Ended June 30, A8 Extension Services, Specified Years Item : 19A0 : 19A5 : 1950 : 1 1,000 ‘l,000 1,000 1:888"' dol. dol. dol. dol. Source of funds: Federal 18,220 18,597 30,79h 37,982 State and college 6,2A2 8,786 22,208 3A,831 County 7,092 8,A80 15,523 22,A03 Farm organizations, etc. 992 1,201 2,2A2 2,5A1 Total funds available to Extension Services 32,5A6 37,06A 70,737 97,757 Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Percentage of Extension funds from specified sources: Federal 56 50 AA. 39 State and college 19 2A 31 36 County 22 23 22 23 Farm organizations, etc. 3 3 3 2 TOTAL 100 100 100 100 Percentage of Extension funds expendedgat colleges 35 32 32 32 Source: Compiled and calculated from "Report of Cooperative ExtensIon Work in Agriculture and Home Economics," 19A0, 19A5, 1950, and 1955, Extension Service, USDA. -31- and universities throughout this 15-year period. Although total funds available to extension increased 200 per cent between 19A0 and 1955, the total number of personnel engaged in extension work during this period increased only A7 per cent, Table 12. In 19A0, there were approximately 9,000 workers in Land-Grant institu- tions engaged in extension work; in 1955,the number of personnel doing extension work was Slightly over 13,000. As in the case of changes in the number of research workers during this period, a number of differ- ent factors were responsible for the difference between the percentage Table 12. Total Extension Funds Available to Extension Services in Relation to Total Number of Extension Workers for Years Ended June 30, A8 Extension Services, Specified Years : TotaI funds : Total number : ExtenSion funds available to : of Extension : available per Year ; Extension : workers 1/ : Extensio : Services : : worker,$7 1,00073011ars ‘Number DolIarS Fiscal year ending: June 30, 19A0 32,5A6 8,936 3,6A2 June 30, 19115 37,061; 8,761: 11,229 June 30, 1950 70,737 12,132 5,831 June 30, 1955 97,757 13,121 7,1150 Per cent Per cent Per cent Percentage change from 19A0 to 1955 +200 +A7 +105 l/' These figures include all administrative, supervisory, spec- ialiSt, and county Extension workers. Source: Compiled and calculated from "Report of Cooperative ExtensIon Work in Agriculture and Home Economics," 19A0, 19A5, 1950, and 1955, Extension Service, USDA. -32- increase in extension funds and the percentage increase in number of extension workers. These included increased salary levels, and in- creased costs of all operational and maintenance items involved in extension programs and activities. The net result of these changes was a 105 per cent increase in the amount of extension funds available per extension worker between 19A0 and 1955. In 19A0, extension funds per extension worker amounted to $3,6A2; in 1955, extension funds per extension worker amounted to $7,A50. These data include in addition to all administrative, supervisory, and specialist workers in exten- sion, all county extension workers. In addition, these data include both full-time and part-time extension workers. On a full-time equiv- alent basis, extension funds available per extension worker would be somewhat higher than the amounts shown in Table 12. A decrease from 30 million to 20 million in farm population be- tween 19A0 and 1955 represented a decrease of 32 per cent, Table 13. Total extension funds increased 200 per cent during this same period. IExtension funds in 19A0 amounted to only $1.08 per capita of farm.pop- ulation. In 1955, extension funds per capita of farm population amounted to $A.7A-an increase of 339 per cent during the 15-year pe- riod between 19A0 and 1955. In terms of numbers of people on farms per dollar expended on extension work, there was a 77 per cent de- crease between 19A0 and 1955. In 19A0, extension expenditures a- ‘mounted to one dollar for each 0.9 persons on farms; in 1955, exten- sion expenditures amounted to one dollar for each 0.2 persons on farms. Between 19A0 and 1955, the percentage increase in total funds available for extension work in Land-Grant institutions was almost the same as the percentage increase in farmers' cash farm income (cash _33- Table 13. Total Extension Funds Available to Extension Services in Relation.to Farm Population for Years Ended June 30, A8 Extension.Services, Specified Years :Total funTszEstimated :Extension :Number of :available :total farmzfunds avail- :farm people Year : to :population:able per cap-:per dollar of :Extension : :ita of farm. :Extension funds :Services : :population :available 1,000 dol. 1,000 Dollars Number Fiscal_year ending: June 30, 19A0 32,5A6 30,269 1.08 0.93 June 30, 19A5 37,06A 25,190 l.A7 .68 June 30, 1950 70,737 23,332 3.03 .33 June 30’ 1955 97,757 20,625 he7h 021- Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Percentage change from.l9A0 to 1955 +200 -32 +339 -77 Source: Compiled and calculated from."Report of Cooperative Ex- tension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics," 19A0, 19A5, 1950, and 1955, Extension Service, USDA. Also, "Census of Population," 19A0 and 1950, Bureau of the Census, U. S. Department of Commerce. And "Farm Population Estimates," 19A5 and 1955, (BAE) AME, USDA. receipts from marketings plus government payments). In l9A0, exten- sion funds totaled $32.5 million; in 1955, extension funds totaled $97.8 million-a 200 per cent increase in 15 years, Table 1A. Total cash farm income was $9 billion in 19A0; it was $30 billion in 1955-— 8 22A per cent increase in 15 years. The ratio of cash farm income to each dollar of extension funds available was $281 in 19A0 and $303 in -3h- Table 1A. Total Extension Funds Available to Extension Services in Relation to Farm Income for Years Ended June 30, A8 Exten- sion Services, Specified Years : Total funds : TotaI caSh :TRatio ofIfarm : available to: receipts from : income to each Year : Extension : marketings 1/ : dollar of Extension : Services : : funds available _1,000 dol. Mil: dol. Dollars Fiscal_year ending: June 30, 19A0 32,5A6 9,1A5.2 281 June 30, 19A5 37,06A 22,286.3 601 June 30, 1950 70,737 28,611.3 hob June 30, 1955 97,757 29,630.0 303 Per cent Per cent Per cent Percentage change from 19A0 to 1955 +200 +22A +8 '1/ These figures include total cash receipts from.marketings and government payments for years indicated. Source: Compiled and calculated from "Report of Cooperative Exten- sion Work In Agriculture and Home Economics," 19A0, 19A5, 1950, and 1955, Extension Service, USDA. Also, "Agricultural Statistics," Annual issues, USDA. And, "The Farm Income Situation," Current issues, AMS, USDA. 1955, thus, indicating a slight decrease in extension funds relative to cash farm income between 19A0 and 1955. Agricultural Economics Extension Funds Extension funds available from all sources for extension programs Table 15. -35- Total Extension.Funds from.All Sources in Agricultural Economics at Land43rant Institutions, Fiscal Year, 1955-56 : State and70r : State : Federal : college Other : Total Alabama 31,135 87,818 0 118,953 Arizona 2/ - - - - Arkansas-2/ - - - - California 1/ - - - Colorado 2/ 18,27A 17,282 2/ Connecticut 32,900 26,6A8 0 59,558 Delaware 2/ - - - - Florida '— 15,000 18,A00 0 33,A00 Georgia 61,151 32,87A 1,003 95,028 Idaho 1/ - ~ - - Illinois A9,368 32,3A0 0 81,708 Indiana 1/ - - - .- Iowa 2/ - - - - Kansas 23,580 16,260 0 39,8AO Kentucky 1/ - - - - Louisianajg/ - - - - Maine 2/ - - - - Maryland 1/ - - - — Massachusetts 50,000 25,000 0 75,000 Michigan 92,552 12A,670 8,377 225,599 Minnesota 3A,l67 35,278 0 69,AA5 Mississippi 37,A32 23,537 3,1A6 6A,115 Missouri 66,5A1 62,3Al A,200 133,082 Montana 1/ - - - - Nebraska 11,800 2A,5A6 O 36,3A6 Nevada A,O96 550 300 A,9A6 New Hampshire 1/ - - - - New Jersey " 18,199 3A,O2l 0 52,220 New Mexico 2A,000 27,000 0 51,000 New York 105,286 95,952 h,000 205,238 North Carolina 1/ - - - - North.Dakota " 10,000 9,200 0 19,200 (Continued) -35- Total Extension Funds from All Sources in Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant Institu- tions, Fiscal Year, 1955-56 Table 15 (Continued). : State and/or : O. O. State Federal : college : Other Total 210.1- 121- 221- 221- Ohio 10A,806 63,638 7,000 175,AAA Oklahoma A6 , 2 00 37 , 800 0 8A, 000 Oregon 2/ - - - - PennsylVania _2_/ - - - - Rhode Island 12,652 6,162 0 18,81A South Carolina 2/ - - - - South Dakota 1/" - - - - Tennessee - 18,585 15,065 0 33,650 Texas 2/ - - - - Utah " 9,306 8,099 0 17,h05 Vermont 18,288 0 0 18,288 Virginia 1/ - - - - Washington 12 , 610 1A , 209 167 2 7, 986 'West Virginia 2/ - - - - ‘Wisconsin " A9,630 22,896 0 72,526 Wyoming _1/ - - - - 1/ Questionnaire not returned. _2_/ Not reported on returned questionnaire. and activities in Agricultural Economics at individual Land-Grant in- stitutions in 1955-56 are shown in Table 15. Also indicated for respec- tive institutions is the relative importance of federal, state, and other sources of extension funds that were available in 1955-56 for Agricultural Economics extension work. The data from reporting institutions, as shown in Table 15, are difficult to appraise and evaluate in terms of a true picture of Agri- cultural Economics extension work. In most states, a certain amount of _37- Agricultural Economics extension work is carried out by administra- tive personnel at the state and district level which is not included in the data in Table 15. In addition, some of the extension work of county and other field workers can often be classified as Agricultural Economics extension work, and this work is not included in Table 15. Despite these difficulties and a recognition of differences in size of states, in the importance of agriculture, in the acuteness of farm problems, in institutional policies and procedures, and in many other factors where states differ widely from one to another, the data in Table 15 indicate that there are real differences in the support given extension work from state to state. The proportion of total extension funds available in individual states that is budgeted to Agricultural Economics extension work varies widely throughout all sections of the country. For all Land43rant in- stitutions, the average is 3.6 per cent. Individual state ratios varied in 1955-56 from less than 1.0 per cent to almost 10.0 per cent, Table 16. Using the number of people on farms as an index of the importance of agriculture in individual states, farm population has been related to extension funds expended in Agricultural Economics extension work in respective states (Appendix Table 7). The extreme ratios that existed in 1939-A0 did not persist in 1955-56. This was due largely to in- creased extension funds in 1955-56 in most of the states that had highest ratios during the earlier period. Also contributing was a higher than average reduction in farm population in many of these same states between 19A0 and 1955. ‘Wide variations existed in 1955-56 in the ratios among states he- _33- Table 16. Extension Funds in Rural Social Sciences in 1939-A0 and Extension Funds in Agricultural Economics in 1955-56 in Relation to Total Extension Funds from all Sources for Respective Years at Land-Grant Institutions :Ratio of Rural SoElal : Ratio of Agricultural : Science Extension funds: Economics Extension State : to total Extension : funds to total Ext nsion : funds in 1939-1.0;; : funds in 1955-56 .2. Alabama 0.6 A.1 Arizona 3/ 3/ Arkansas 75 .3/ California LA 2/ Colorado 3/ 3/ Connecticut 7_.1 876 Delaware 7.0 3/ Florida A.1 179 Georgia A.2 3.2 Idaho 3.1 3/ Illinois 2.9 273 Indiana 3.0 3/ Iowa 7.6 3/ Kansas A.2 17A Kentucky 2.8 3/ Louisiana 1.0 3/ Maine 3/ 3/ Maryland 173 3/ Massachusetts 6.7 5.- 9 Michigan 5.9 6.5 Minnesota 3 . 1 3 . 3 Mississippi 5.3 2.2 Missouri 1.A 5.1 Montana 2 . 3 _/ Nebraska A . A 2 .1 Nevada 8.1 1.8 New Hampshire 2.A 3/ New Jersey A.A 3.58 New Mexico A.6 .6 New York 3.3 A.1 North Carolina .6 / North Dakota _3_/ 179 ( C ontinued ) -39- Table 16 (Continued). 'Extension Funds in Rural Social Sciences in 1939-A0 and Extension Funds in Agricultural Economics in 1955-56 in Relation to Total Extension Funds from All Sources for Respective Years at Land-Grant Institutions Ratio ofRural Social :Ratio oTIgricultural Science Extension funds: Economics Extension State to total Extension : funds to total Exfisnsion funds in 1939—ho l/ : funds in 1955-56 .. Ohio All 6.5 Oklahoma 3/ 3.5 Oregon AT 3/ Pennsylvania 2 . 7 :3/ Rhode Island 10.3 9.5 South Carolina A.9 3/ South Dakota .3 _3/ Tennessee 6.3 173 Texas 3/ 3/ Utah A78 276 Vermont A.3 3.2 Virginia 17.2 _3/ washington .9 1.8 West Virginia 1.5 3/ Wisconsin 7.1 277 Wyoming 8.5 _3/ _1/ Source: Schultz, Theodore W., Training and Recruiting of Personnel In the Rural Sogial Studies, Amer can Council on Education, Washington, D. 0?, 19111, Table 9, p. 61,. _2/ Source: Based on data shown in Table 15 and Appendix Table 6. 2/ Not ascertained . tween cash farm income (cash receipts from marketings plus government payments) and expenditures for Agricultural Economics extension work (Appendix Table 8). Highest ratios were in the Corn Belt, Great Plains, and Lake States areas. Lowest ratios were in states located in the -AQ- South and in the Northeast. Differences in the amounts of funds budgeted for Agricultural Economics extension work in Land-Grant institutions in 1939-A0 and in 1955-56 are shown in Table 17. In two states, there was a decrease in Agricultural Economics extension funds between these two periods. In other states, the increase varied from no change to more than a 2,000 per cent increase. A/ For all Land-Grant institutions combined the amount of fhnds budgeted for Agricultural.Economics extension work increased 277 per cent between 1939-A0 and 1955-56. Financial Resources in Teaching In terms of amounts of available financial resources, teaching in Agricultural.Economics continues to be the least important of the three major activities in which Land-Grant.institutions are involved. De- spite this situation, teaching is largely the foundation upon which research and extension relies for training and recruiting of personnel. Financial resources available for teaching in Agricultural Eco- nomics have increased throughout the history of Agricultural Economics as a profesSional field. In recent years, teaching funds for Agricul— tural Economics teaching have increased at an increasing rate, due in part to increased demands for teaching services, especially for gradu- ate training of personnel for employment in research, extension, A/ Based on.the assumption that an increase of less than 100 per cent in any individual state represents a decrease in the amount of real resources available (due to cost changes during this 15-year period), a third of the reporting states actually experienced a de- crease rather than an increase in funds budgeted for Agricultural Economics extension work between 19AO and 1955. -A1- Table 17. Relative Change in Extension Funds Budgeted to Agricultural Economics at LandaGrant Institutions, 1939-A0 to 1955-56 : ’EXtenSIon funds Budgeted—to : State : Agricultural Economics: : Percentage 1939-A0 : 71955L56’ : increase ‘lz000 dol. 1,000'301. Per cent Alabama 5 119 2,280 Arizona _1/ 2 / .- Arkansas A 2/ - California 12 Z/ - Colorado 1/ 2/ - Connecticut 22 50 173 Delaware 6 2/ - Florida 18 33 83 Georgia A2 95 126 Idaho 8 2/ - Illinois 22 82 273 Indiana 27 _2_/ - Iowa 71 2/ - Kansas A0 {A0 0 Kentucky 18 2/ - Louisiana 1/ Z/ - Maine ‘1/ 2/ - Maryland A 27 - Massachusetts 31 '75 1A2 Michigan A5 226 A02 Minnesota 23 69 200 Mississippi 50 6A 28 Missouri 12 133 1,008 Montana 8 g/ - Nebraska 16 36 125 Nevada 10 5 -50 New Hampshire 5 2/ - New Jersey 18 52 189 New Mexico 10 51 A10 New York A3 205 377 North Carolina 6 2/ - North Dakota y “[9 .- (Continued) -h2- Table 17 (Continued). Relative Change in Extension Funds Budgeted to Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant Institu- tions, 1939-A0 to 1955-56 Extension funds budgeted to State : Agricultural Economics: : Percentage : I939:AO : ‘—l955L56 : increase Tz000301. leOO dol. Per cent Ohio 38 175 361 Oklahoma 1/ 8A - Oregon 17 2/ - Pennsylvania 21 Z/ - Rhode Island A 19 375 South Carolina 30 2/ - South Dakota 1 27 - Tennessee A2 '3A . -20 Texas 1/ 2/ - than 9 I7 89 Vermont 9 18 100 Virginia 20 g/ - ‘Washington 3 28 833 ‘West Virginia 7 2/ - Wisconsin 35 ‘73 109 'Wyoming 13 39/ - Total or average 930 3/ 3,503 A/ 277 ‘1/ No information. 2] Questionnaire not returned, or not reported on returned ques- tionnaire. '3/' See Schultz, Theodore W., Trainin and Recruiting_of Personnel in the Rural Social Studies, American Council on.Education, Washington D. 5., 19A1, TableU, p. 63. A/ Total extension funds available to Agricultural Economics for the AU Land-Grant institutions in 1955 were obtained by: (1) calcu- lating, for the reporting institutions, the percentage of total exten- sion funds available to Extension Services in these institutions that were reported available to Agricultural.Economics, and (2) multiplying this percentage by the total amount of extension funds available to Extension Services for the A8 Land-Grant institutions. 443- industry, government, and in other areas requiring graduate training of employees. Total teaching funds available for teaching Agricul- tural Economics were $A01,000 in 1929-30, $593,000 in 1939-A0, and $1,668,000 in 1955-56. During the earlier 10-year period, Agricul- tural Economics teaching funds increased at a rate of about 5 per cent per year. During the later 15-year period, Agricultural Eco- nomics teaching funds increased at a rate of about 12 per cent per year. Teaching funds available for Agricultural Economics teaching in LandsGrant institutions are obtained mainly from state sources-— principally from state appropriations and from institution-collected fees, Table 18. Only a few states have obtained any additional funds for Agricultural Economics teaching from sources other than from state and college sources. The relative changes in teaching funds budgeted to Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant institutions between 1939-A0 and 1955-56 are shown in Table 19. It is difficult to evaluate the significance of changes in individual states unless adequate data are also available relative to changes in undergraduate and graduate demands for teaching, changes in "service" and "major" course demands, and changes in de- mands for other services and activities normally associated with and charged to teaching funds. Changes in Demands for Teaching The demand for teaching services in.Agricu1tura1 Economics accrue principally from four major sources: (1) teaching of students, mainly from colleges of agriculture, most of whom are majoring in fields other s, +— _f‘. F3. 2':- J I -AA- Table 18. Total Teaching Funds from All Sources in.Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant Institutions, Fiscal Year, 1955-56 : :IState and/0r : State Federal college : Other Total 221. 2.21- 1101. .1121- Alabama 0 15,3A0 O 15,3A0 Arizona 0 7,350 500 7,850 Arkansas 0 13,82A 0 13,82A California 1/ - - - - Colorado 0 13,500 0 13,500 Connecticut 0 27,187 0 27,187 Delaware 0 9,000 0 9,000 Florida 0 A9,200 O A9,200 Georgia 0 12,592 0 12,592 Idaho 1/ - - - - Illinois 0 76,125 0 76,125 Indiana 1/ - - - - Iowa 2/ - - - - KansaE' 60,260 Al,508 0 101,768 Kentucky 1/ - - - - Louisiana' 0 19,172 1,050 20,222 Maine 0 25,530 0 25,530 Maryland 1/ - - - - MassachusEtts 1A,000 11,662 0 25,662 Michigan 0 80,596 0 80,596 Minnesota 2/ - - - - Mississippi 0 18,021 0 18,021 Missouri 0 2,500 0 2,500 Montana 1/ - - - - Nebraska 0 30,930 0 30,930 Nevada 0 8,175 600 8,775 New Hampshire 1/ - - - - New Jersey '- 0 1A,562 O 1A,562 New Mexico 0 16,000 0 16,000 New York 1,125 76,935 20,000 98,060 North Carolina 1/ - - - - North Dakota '7 0 18,650 0 18,650 (Continued) Table 18 (Continued). -A5- Total Teaching Funds from.All Sources in Agri- cultural Economics at Land-Grant Institutions, Fiscal Year, 1955-56 : State and/or : State Federal college Other : Total D:_l.- 2.0.1.- 221.- 923.- ohio 0 56,600 0 56,600 Oklahoma 0 31,013 0 31,013 Oregon 0 28,569 0 28,569 Pennsylvania 0 65,531 500 66,031 Rhode Island 0 9,000 0 9,000 South Carolina 0 26,203 0 26,203 South Dakota 1/ - - - - Tennessee '7 0 25,170 0 25,170 Texas 0 56,605 0 56,605 Utah 0 16,230 0 16,230 Vermont 0 10,827 0 10,827 Virginia _1/ - - - - Washington 0 27,383 0 27,383 west Virginia 2/ - - - - 'Wisconsin '- 0 A5,517 O A5,517 wyoming‘l/ - - - - ‘1/ Questionnaire not returned. ‘2/ Not reported on returned questionnaire. than Agricultural Economics, but who take required or elective courses in.Agricultural Economics; (2) teaching of undergraduate students who are majoring in Agricultural Economics or in sub-areas within the field of Agricultural'Economics; (3) graduate training; and (A) other activ- ties which are normally associated with and charged to teaching serv- ices. Generally, enrollments in colleges of agriculture are considered as an indicator of the demands for “service" teaching of undergraduate -A6- Table 19. Relative Change in Teaching Funds Budgeted to Agricultural Economics at LandJGrant Institutions, 1939-A0 to 1955-56 : ITeaéhing funds in : State : Agricultural Economics: : Percentage ° ““l939-A0 : ‘1955-56 : increase 1,000 dol. 1,000 dol. Per cent Alabama 3 15 A00 Arizona '1/ 8 - Arkansas A 1A 250 California 23 _2_/ - Colorado 1A 1A 0 Connecticut A 27 575 Delaware 1 9 800 Florida 8 A9 512 Georgia 6 13 117 Idaho 2 2/ - Illinois 22 76 215 Indiana 18 ‘g/ - Iowa 36 .3/ - Kansas 16 102 538 Kentucky 21 2/ - Louisiana 18 2'0 11 Maine 13 26 100 Maryland 7 2/ - Massachusetts 11 26 136 Michigan 13 81 523 Minnesota 20 2/ — Mississippi 6 18 200 Missouri 17 2/ .- Montana 9 '_2'_/ - Nebraska 10 31 210 Nevada A 9 125 New HampShire 3 2/ ‘ New Jersey 7 '15 11A New Mexico A 16 300 New York 92 98 7 North Carolina 9 2/ - North Dakota 1/ i9 .- (Continued) -A7- Table 19 (Continued). Relative Change in Teaching Funds Budgeted to Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant Institu- tions, 1939-A0 to 1955-56 Teaching—funds in State : _Agricultural Economics: Percentage : ‘19394A0 : 1955-56 : increase 1,000'301. 1,000 doll» ’Per cent Ohio 12 57 375 Oklahoma 6 31 A17 Oregon 10 29 190 Pennsylvania 16 66 312 Rhode Island 2 9 350 South Carolina 7 271 South Dakota 5 2/ - Tennessee 10 150 Texas ' 37 57 SA Utah 7 16 129 Vermont 1 11 1,000 vugnua 1A 3/ - washington 3 27 800 west Virginia 3 2/ - Wisconsin 21 'A6 119 'Wyoming 6 g/ - Total or average 593'2/ 1,668 A/ 181 1/ No information. '2/ Questionnaire not returned, or not reported on returned ques- tionnaire. 3/ See Schultz, Theodore W., Training and Recruiti_gof Personnel in the Rural Social Studies, American Council on Education, washington, D. 5., I9Ul,Tab1e‘12, p. 69. A Total teaching funds available to Agricultural Economics for the A Land-Grant institutions in 1955-56 were obtained by: (1) cal- culating, for the reporting institutions, the percentage increase in Agricultural Economics teaching funds for these institutions from 1939-A0 to 1955-56, and (2) multiplying this percentage by the total amount of teaching funds available for Agricultural Economics teaching for the A8 LandsGrant institutions in 1939-A0. -h8- students majoring in areas other than Agricultural Economics. The total enrollments in colleges of agriculture at Land43rant institu- tions for the years indicated in Appendix Table 9 Show an increase from 1938-39 to 19A8-A9. In 1955-56, however, agricultural enroll- ments in Land43rant institutions had declined to about the same level that existed around 1939-A0. 5/ On the basis of these data, it might be assumed that the demand for Agricultural Economics teaching of undergraduates in 1955-56 was approximately the same as in 1939-A0. In many Land-Grant institutions, there has been, in recent years, an increase in both the relative number and the absolute number of undergraduate students taking Agricultural Economics courses either as required or as elective work. In addition, there has been, during recent years, an increase at most land-Grant institutions in the number of Agricultural Economics undergraduate courses offered to students. The demands for these types of increases in Agricultural Economics teaching are not reflected by the total number of students enrolled in colleges of agriculture. Thus, despite the current trend of enroll- ments in agriculture, it cannot be assumed that the demand for Agri- cultural Economics teaching at the undergraduate level is decreasing. Variations in undergraduate enrollments in colleges of agricul- ture from state to state are associated not only with the size of Land- Grant institutions in different states but also are influenced by the 5/ In a preliminary report on “Agricultural Enrollment in the LandJErant Colleges and Universities" prepared by Henry S. Bruner for the.American Association of Land43rant Colleges and State Universities in November 1960, it was shown that in 1960-61, there were 30,272 stu- dents enrolled in colleges of agriculture in A8 Land43rant institutions. This would represent a decrease of about 9.5 per cent in undergraduate enrollment in agriculture since 1955756. —A9- percentages of total undergraduate institutional enrollments that are in agriculture. In 1955-56, agricultural undergraduate enrollments represented 9.6 per cent of the total enrollment in Land43rant institu- tions, Table 20. By states, this percentage varied from Slightly over 3 per cent in some states to more than 20 per cent in several other states. In l9A8-A9, undergraduate agricultural enrollments for all Land-Grant institutions made up 11.9 per cent of total enrollment. Thus, the relative decrease in undergraduate agricultural enrollment between l9A8-A9 and 1955-56 was 19 per cent, while the absolute de- crease for this same period was 27 per cent. 6/ The total undergraduate enrollment of students majoring in.Agri- cultural Economics in 195A-55 was much less than the number enrolled in this area in 1939-A0. Z/ Undergraduate students who major in a particular department, however, require more teaching resources than do students who major in some other department. Majors in a particu- lar department are not only required and often elect to take mbre courses in the department than do non-departmental majors, but they are frequently in classes of small enrollment, thus, intensifying the demand for teaching. In many cases, it requires no less time to teach .6/ In Bruner's preliminary report for the American Association of LandsGrant Colleges and State Universities in Noyember 1960, the percentage that undergraduate agricultural enrollment was of total en- rollment for 1960 was estimated to be only 6.A6 per cent. 7/' Based on replies from 2A "identical" Land-Grant institutions, in teFms of numbers of juniors and seniors classified as majors in Agricultural Economics, there were 635 students enrolled in Agricultural Economics at these 2A institutions in 1939-A0, compared to 355 students enrolled in Agricultural Economics at these same institutions in 195A- 55. This represented a AA per cent decrease at these particular insti- tutions during this 15-year period. -50- Table 20. Total Undergraduate Enrollment in Colleges of Agriculture and Percentage of Total Undergraduate Enrollment at Land- Grant Institutions Enrolled in Agriculture, 1955-56 Total undergraduate : enrollment in colleges: undergraduate enrollment Percentage of total State of agriculture, :at Land43rant institutions 1955-56 : enrolled in agriculture, 1955-56 Number Per cent Alabama 5A5 7.39 Arizona 279 A.5A Arkansas 362 6.68 California 96A 3.85 Colorado 876 20.52 Connecticut 266 3.A6 Delaware 120 5.60 Florida 303 3.3A Georgia 5A5 10.85 Idaho 273 7.98 Illinois 978 5.12 Indiana 1,236 9.55 Iowa 1,899 23.1A Kansas 902 15.09 Kentucky AA2 6.99 Louisiana 69A 9.36 Maine A7A . 13.95 Maryland 532 6.71 Massachusetts 32A 8.93 Michigan 1,255 8.15 Minnesota 98A 5.36 Mississippi 615 18.95 Missouri 1,36A 16.70 Montana A01 1A.A2 Nebraska 682 9.70 Nevada 58 3.67 New Hampshire 21A 6.58 New Jersey 391 1A.67 New Mexico 278 1A.52 New York 1,531 19.05 North Carolina 606 13.99 North Dakota AlA 15.83 (Continued) -51- Table 20 (Continued). Total Undergraduate Enrollment in Colleges of Agriculture and Percentage of Total Undergradu- ate Enrollment at Land-Grant Institutions Enrolled in Agriculture, 1955-56 : Total undergraduate : Percentage OIItOtal enrollment in colleges: undergraduate enrollment State : of agriculture, :at Land43rant institutions 3 1955-56 : enrolled in agriculture, ° ‘ 1955-55 ‘_lNumber Per cent Ohio 1,500 7.81 Oklahoma 1,306 15.83 Oregon 721 12.59 Pennsylvania 1,A38 11.06 Rhode Island 163 7.A9 South Carolina 567 19.76 South Dakota 586 22.19 Tennessee 588 8.75 Texas 1,123 17.61 Utah- 379 11.22 vermont 277 10.86 Virginia 599 15.96 WaShington 567 11.27 west Virginia 332 5.60 Wisconsin 725 3.62 Wyoming 237 9.56 Source: Proceedings of 7lst Annual Convention of the American AssocIation of Land43rant Colleges and State Universities. a small class than a large class. Thus, despite a decline in enroll- ment of undergraduate majors in Agricultural Economics in many Land- Grant institutions during recent years, this does not necessarily reflect a decline in the demand for teaching of undergraduate students who are majoring in Agricultural Economics. -52- The current trend in the enrollment of graduate students in Agri- cultural Economics is opposite that of undergraduate enrollment. 8/ Schultz reported that, based on 36 land-Grant institutions, graduate student enrollment increased from 227 students in 1929—30 to 623 stu- dents in 1939-A0. 2/ This represented a 17A per cent increase during the 10—year period 1929-30 to 1939-A0, or an increase of about l7.A per cent per year. In 1955-56, there were 9A6 graduate students en- rolled in Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant institutions. 19/ Thus, graduate student enrollment in Agricultural Economics has continued to increase during recent years. 11/ Graduate student training requires specialized teaching resources, which normally can be Obtained only at relatively high costs per unit of instruction. In the early years of graduate training in Agricul- tural Economics, much of the responsibility for such training was Ey’ With few exceptions, this is also true for all graduate de- partments and curricula administered in colleges of agriculture within Land-Grant institutions. 2/ Schultz, _p. 2313., p. 75. ‘19/ Proceedings of 7lst Annual Convention of the American Associa- tion of Land43rant Colleges and State Universities. 11/ Even more pronounced is the rate of increase between 1955-56 and‘l960-6l, as reported by Bruner's preliminary report for the Ameri- can Association of Land-Grant Colleges and State Universities in November 1960. In Bruner's report, graduate student enrollment in Agricultural.Economics in 1955-56 was estimated at 8A8 students com- pared to a 1960-61 estimate of 1,213 students, thus, indicating an increase of A3 per cent during the past five years, or 8.6 per cent per year. Total graduate student enrollment in all departments and curricula administered in colleges of agriculture within Land-Grant institutions increased from 6,6A9 students in 1955-56 to 8,678 students in 1960-61. Thus, this increase of 30 per cent for all graduate students in agriculture was less than the A3 per cent increase for graduate students in.Agricultural Economics during this same period. -53- centered in a relatively small number of Land-Grant institutions. In recent years, however, most Land-Grant Agricultural Economics de- partments have initiated graduate training programs. Many of the smaller institutions, and particularly those that have recently started graduate training programs, are currently limited to graduate training at the Master's level. The major load for graduate training in Agri- cultural Economics at the Ph. D. level is still carried by a relatively small number of institutions. The over-all demand for Agricultural Economics teaching in graduate training programs, however, has been much greater in recent years than during earlier years. In terms of the total demands for Agricultural.Economics teaching in 1939-A0 as compared to 1955-56, the numbers of students enrolled in various classifications cannot be used as an accurate criteria for making comparisons between these two periods. Other factors, all of which are more difficult to measure quantitatively, are frequently the more important factors that determine the demand for Agricultural Eco- nomics teaching. Although there was an increase of 181 per cent in budgeted Agri- cultural.Economics teaching funds between 1939-A0 and 195A-55, this increase may not have been proportional to the over-all increase in needs for Agricultural Economics teaching funds that occurred during this period. If an adjustment were made in total Agricultural Eco- nomics teaching funds to allow, from the beginning to the end of this period, for differences in salary levels and for differences in other costs incident to teaching, it would be questionable as to whether Agricultural Economics teaching was better financed in 195A-55 than 15 years earlier in 1939-A0. -gh- Total Financial Resources in Agricultural Economics The total amount of financial resources available to Agricultural Economics for teaching, research, and extension for recent years has been as follows: Year Teachin Research Extension Total Mil. dol. Mil. dol. Mil. dol. Mil. dol. 1929-30 0.A 0.9 0.A 1.7 1939-A0 .6 1.2 .9 2.7 1955-56 . 1.7 6.0 3.5 11.2 In 1955-56, total financial support for Agricultural Economics activities in Land-Grant institutions totaled $11.2 million. The rate of increase in.Agricultural Economics funds in recent years has been much more rapid than during earlier periods. The increases in finan- cial support of Agricultural.Economics activities, particularly during the past 15 years, have been associated with increased demands for teaching, research, and extension in.Agricultural Economics. Also, accompanying this increased financial support have been increases in numbers of personnel in all three areas of Agricultural Economics activities in Land43rant institutions (see Chapter IV). CHAPTER IV PERSONNEL RESOURCES IN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS Increase in Personnel, 1929-30 to 195A-55 The total number of Agricultural Economics workers engaged in teaching, research, and/or extension in Land-Grant institutions in- creased from A21 in 1929-30 to 1,07A in 195A-55. This increase in Agricultural Economics workers of 155 per cent was in excess of the 113 per cent increase during the same period for all workers in Sub- jects pertaining to agriculture, Table 21. During this 25—year period, the number of Agricultural Economics workers increased at an average rate of about 6 per cent per year as compared to an average rate of in- crease of about 5 per cent per year for all workers in subjects per- taining to agriculture. Since 1955, the average rate of increase per year has continued at these same levels for each of these respective groups. Total financial resources available to Agricultural Economics during the 25-year period from 1929-30 to 1955-56 increased from $1.7 million to $11.2 million, an increase of 560 per cent, (see Chapter III). 0f the total number of workers in subjects pertaining to agricul- ture in 1929-30, a total of 6.5 per cent were in Agricultural Economics. In 193A-35, this percentage increased to 7.7. Since that time there has been little change in the relative proportion of Land-Grant institu- tion workers in subjects pertaining to agriculture employed in Agricul- tura1,Economics. Twenty-five years ago, Agricultural Economics workers engaged in extension work involved only half as many personnel as did either -55- -56- Table 21. Workers 1/ in.Subjects Pertaining to Agriculture and Number and Percentage of WOrkers in Agricultural Economics, 2/ A8 Land43rant Institutions, 3/'Speciried Years ’?Workers In sfibjects per-: WBrkers in Agricultural Economics Year : taining to agriculture : Number : Percentage of total’ Number 'Nggbgg Per cent 1929-30 6,A88 A21 6.5 193A-35 6,976 539 7.7 1939-A0 9,062 711 7.8 19AA-A5 9,099 69A 7.6 19A9-50 12,168 959 7.9 195A-55 13,700 1,07A 7.8 1959-60 16,891 1,378 8.2 1/ Includes all teaching, research, and extension workers, except county extension workers. 2/ Includes Rural Sociology workers both when shown as a part of Agricultural Economics departments and when shown as separate depart- ments. ‘3/ For a listing of the official names of the A8 Land-Grant in- stitutions included, see Appendix Table 1. Source: Compiled from."Workers in Subjects Pertaining to Agri- culture in land-Grant Colleges and Experiment Stations," Specified Years, OES, USDA. (Also, see Appendix Table 10). teaching or research. Ten years later, in 1939-A0, the number of workers in extension had increased to almost the same level as for teaching or research. In recent years, extension workers have in- volved only half as many personnel as research and about two-thirds as many personnel as teaching, Table 22. During the 25-year period from 1929-30 to l95A-55, the number of -58- Agricultural Economics personnel engaged in teaching increased 130 per cent, the number engaged in research increased 150 per cent, and the number engaged in extension increased 200 per cent. For all workers in.Agricultural Economics, the percentage engaged in teaching de- creased from 57 per cent of the total in 1929-30 to 52 per cent of the total in 195A-55. The percentage engaged in extension during this period increased from 29 to 3A per cent of the total. The pro- portion engaged in research was 65 per cent in both 1929-30 and in 195A-55 . Agricultural Economics workers, in terms of full-time equivalents, are Show in Table 23 for teaching, research, and extension workers in individual states in 1955-56. The wide variations in number of workers among states in 1955-56 were associated with a number of different factors including the Size of individual state LandaCrant institutions; type of Land-Grant institutions; scope of teaching, research, and ex- tension activities and programs; and many other factors. In 1939-A0, most of the states had between A and 8 workers in.Agri- cultural.Economics research. In.l955-56, most of the states had be- tween 6 and 13 workers in Agricultural Economics research. Generally, states with the largest research staffs had the largest research budgets. In Agricultural Economics extension work, there were from 2 to 6 extension workers in most states in 1939-A0. By 1955-56, the number of extension workers in most states had increased to from 3 to 9 workers per state. As was true with research, states with the largest number of extension workers were generally the states with the largest extension budgets. -59- Table 23. Number of Teaching, Research, and Extension Workers (Full- time Equivalent) in Agricultural Economics at Landfirant Institutions, 1955-56 : TeaEhing Research. : Extension : Total State : staff staff : staff : T - R - E Number Number Number Number Alabama 2 ll 10 23 Arizona 2 6 1 9 Arkansas 2 l2 9 23 California 1/ - - - - Colorado 2 5 A 11 Connecticut 3 A 6 13 Delaware 1 A / 5 Florida 5 13 "A 22 Georgia 3 16 1A 33 Idaho 1/ - - - .- Illinois 7 26 8 Al Indiana 1/ - - - - Iowa 5 9 13 27 Kansas 6 19 8 33 Kentucky 1/ - - - - Louisiana" 3 13 5 21 Maine 3 7 3 13 Maryland 1/ - - - - MassachuSEtts A 12 8 2A Michigan 7~ 17 17 A1 Minnesota 7 17 6 30 Mississippi 3 9 1A 26 Missouri 10 27 1A 51 Montana 1/ - - - - Nebraska A 6 A 1A Nevada 1 A 2 7 New Hampshire 1/ - - - - New Jersey '— 2 5 3 10 New Mexico 2 7 5 1A New York 8 12 17 37 North Carolina 1/ - - - - North Dakota ‘7 2 7 3 l2 (Continued) .55 ‘ u... I . AU... 5.. ‘ it 1.7.. No. .17”: .7: . G . mlam 2% My. .W“ "Mn nun llu . a. hulk HUI "J! Hula A v had 3 7.: gets Pia 1:1 31' -60- Table 23 (Continued). Number of Teaching, Research, and'Extension 'Workers (Full-time Equivalent) in Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant Institutions, 1955-56 : Teaéhing : Research : Extension : Total State : staff : staff : staff : T - R - E Number Number Number Number Ohio 6 21 17 AA Oklahoma 6 13 7 26 Oregon 3 10 2/ 2/ Pennsylvania 6 17 Z/ 2/ Rhode Island 2 8 3 13 South Carolina A 16 2 22 South Dakota 1/ - - - - Tennessee '— 3 1A 9 26 Texas 8 21 9 38 Utah 2 A 2 8 Vermont 2 6 3 11 Virginia 1/ - - - - washington 3 13 6 22 west Virginia 2 7 2 11 'Wisconsin 8 10 8 26 'Wyoming‘l/ - - - - 1/ Questionnaire not returned. ‘2/ Not reported on returned questionnaire. In the case of Agricultural Economics teaching, most of the states had from 2 to 5 teachers in 1939-A0. In.1955-56, most states had from 2 to 6 teachers, on a full-time equivalent basis. large teaching'bud- gets were associated with large teaching staffs. When all Agricultural Economics workers are considered and when placed in terms of full-time equivalents, relatively large increases in numbers of workers at most Land-Grant.institutions were apparent during the 15-year period between 1939-A0 and 1955-56. During the -61- earlier period, 1939-A0, the total number of Agricultural.Economics workers in all areas of work ranged between 7 and 19 workers in most states. In 1955-56, the number in most states was between 10 and 28 workers. Distribution of Agricultural Economics Workers by'Rank The distribution by rank of Agricultural Economics workers in all activities for all Land-Grant institutions combined is shown in Table 2A, for the period 1929-30 through 195A-55. During this 25-year period, the relative number of professorships increased only slightly. Large increases occurred in the relative number of staff members holding the associate and assistant rank. Large decreases occurred in the relative number of individuals holding the rank of instructor or specialist. In terms of absolute numbers of staff members by rank, between 1929-30 and 195A-55, the number of specialists decreased, the number of instructors showed little over-all change, and other ranks had large increases. The percentage increase in number of staff members with the rank of assistant was 381 per cent, associate was 603 per cent, and full professor was 191 per cent. In some Land-Grant institutions, relatively high percentages of Agricultural.Economics workers were in the associate and full professor ranks; in some other institutions, relatively high percentages of workers were in the instructor and assistant ranks. Reasons for these wide variations were associated with the duties, training, competence, and experience of staff members at different institutions. Also, as- sociated with these differences were rates of turnover and the employ- ment, promotion, and other personnel policies and procedures at -62- Table 2A. Number and Percentage of Workers 1/ in Agricultural Eco- nomics _2/ by Rank, A8 Land-Grant Institutions, _3_/ Specified Years : 'Workers in Agricultural Economics by rank: Year : : :ASSistant: Associate: “Specialist Instructor: Professor: Professor: Professor. Total Number Number Number Number Number Number 1929-30 129 79 69 36 108 A21 193A-35 1A6 78 105 77 133 539 1939-A0 213 16A 109 86 139 711 l9AA-A5 166 80 1A6 129 173 69A 19A9-50 125 103 28A 190 257 959 l95A-55 103 70 332 253 316 1,07A Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent 1929-30 31 18 16 9 26 100 193A-35 28 1A 19 1A 25 5100 1939-A0 30 2A 15 11 20 100 19AA-A5 23 12 21 19 25 100 19A9-50 13 ll 29 20 27 100 195Ar55 10 7 30 2A 29 100 1/ Includes all teaching, research, and extension workers, ex- cept county extension workers. 2/ Includes Rural Sociology workers both.when Shown as a part of Agricultural Economics departments and when Shown as separate depart- ments. 3/ For a listing of the official names of the A8 Land-Grant in- stitutions included, see Appendix Table 1. Source: Compiled from "Workers in Subjects Pertaining to Agri- culture In Land-Grant Colleges and Experiment Stations," Specified Years, OES, USDA. -63- different institutions. Distribution of Agricultural Economics Workers bleegree Status Agricultural Economics workers in all activities were distributed by degree status for all Land43rant institutions combined as shown in Table 25, for the period 1929-30 through l95A-55. The proportion of Agricultural Economics workers in Land43rant institutions holding the the Ph. D. degree increased from 22 per cent of the total in 1929-30 to A2 per cent of the total in l9SA-SS. The proportion of workers with master's degrees in l9SA-SS was Al per cent of the total-—a slightly smaller percentage than was true in 1929-30. The proportion of workers with Bachelor's degrees decreased from 29 per cent of the total in 1929—30 to only 17 per cent of the total in l95A-SS. There were no workers in Agricultural Economics in l9SA-SS with no degree. Changes in the absolute numbers of Agricultural Economics workers by degree status between 1929-30 and l9SA-SS were as follows: the num- ber with Ph. D. degree increased 386 per cent; the number with a master's degree increased 126 per cent; and the number with a Bachelor's degree increased 55 per cent. For all Agricultural Economics workers in Land43rant institutions in l9SA—SS, a total of A2 per cent held the Ph. D. degree, Al per cent had Master's degrees, and 17 per cent had Bachelor's degrees. A rela- tively higher percentage of Agricultural Economics workers held the Ph. D. degree in some Land43rant institutions than in others. There was at least one Agricultural Economics staff member with the Ph. D. degree in l9SA-SS in each of the A8 LandeGrant institutions. The largest number of Ph. D.'s reported for a single institution was 3A, lhu Nix » A- v .13“ NH. -6A- Table 25. Number and Percentage of Workers 1/ in.Agricultural.Eco- nomics g/ by Degree Status, A8 Land-Grant Institutions, 2/ Specified Years- workers in.Agricultural Reonomics by degree status: Year : T5. or : M.S. or : PhTD. or : : No degree : B.A. : M.A. :eguivalent : Total Number ‘Numher 322223. Number Number 1929-30 1A 120 195 92 A21 19311-35 18 115 253 153 539 1939-A0 19 197 280 215 711 19AA-A5 19 167 278 230 69A l9A9-50 23 218 A17 301 . 959 195A-55 o 186 AAl AA7 1,07A m‘erp cam "E;;'2;;c 5;: cent Toes cent 13;;“Zem 1929-30 3 29 A6 22 100 193A-35 3 21 A7 29 100 1939-A0 3 28 39 30 100 19AA-A5 3 2A A0 33 100 19119-50 3 23 A3 31 100 195A-55 o 17 Al A2 100 {l/ Includes all teaching, research, and extension workers, ex- cept county extension workers. 3/ Includes Rural Sociology workers both when.shown as a part of Agricultural Economics departments and when shown as separate depart- ments. 3/ For a listing of the official names of the A8 Land43rant in- stitutions included, see Appendix Table 1. Source: Compiled from."Workers in.Subjects Pertaining to Agri- culture in Land43rant Colleges and Experiment Stations," Specified Years, OES, USDA. -65- and, in this case, these represented 87 per cent of the total number of Agricultural Economics staff members at this particular institution. Comparisons of Rank, Degree Status, and Type of work Engaged in by.Agricultural Economics WOrkers The relationships between rank and degree status of Agricultural Economics workers in all Land43rant institutions combined in l9SA-SS are shown in Table 26. For workers with the Ph. D. degree, AA per cent were full professors, 28 per cent were associates, and 26 per cent were assistants. For workers with Master's degrees, the largest percentage (36 per cent) were assistants, although 2A per cent were associates and 20 per cent were full professors. Another 20 per cent of the workers with Master's degrees were equally divided between the ranks of instructor and specialist. At the Bachelor's level, nearly a third were assistants. Three out of ten were specialists, many of whom were extension workers. The relatively high percentage of full professors with Bachelor's degrees (18 per cent) was explained largely in terms of personnel who had acquired rank following long periods of outstanding Agricultural Economics work in teaching, research, and/or extension. In terms of rank, nearly two-thirds of the full professors in Agricultural Economics work held the Ph. D. degree, 27 per cent had Master's degrees, and 10 per cent had Bachelor's degrees. Half of the associates had Ph. D. degrees and A2 per cent had Master's degrees. A third of the assistants had Ph. D. degrees and half had Master's degrees. Two-thirds of the instructors had Master's degrees. Among specialists, many of whom were extension workers, slightly more than -66- Table 26. Distribution of Workers 1/ in Agricultural Economics 2/ by Degree Status and by Rank, A8 Land-Grant Institutions, _3/ l95A-55 : ‘Degree status :ITotal workers in Rank : B.S. or : M.S. or : Ph.D. or : Agricultural : B.A. : M.A. :equivalent: Economics ’Number Number Number Number Specialists 5A AA 5 103 Instructors 19 A6 5 70 Assistant Professors S7 159 116 332 Associate Professors 23 106 12A 253 Professors 33 86 197 316 TOTAL 186 AAl AA? 1,07A Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Specialists 52 A3 5 100 Instructors 27 66 7 lOO Assistant Professors 17 A8 35 100 Associate Professors 9 A2 A9 100 Professors 10 27 63 100 AVERAGE 17 A1 A2 100 Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Specialists 29 10 l 10 Instructors 10 10 l 7 Assistant Professors 31 36 26 30 Associate Professors 12 2A 28 2A Professors 18 20 AA 29 TOTAL 100 100 100 100 y, _2_/, and 2/ (See footnotes 1 , _2_/, and _3/, Table 25). Source: Compiled from."Workers in.Subjects Pertaining to Agri- culture in Land-Grant Colleges and Experiment Stations, l95A-55," USDA Agriculture Handbook No. 78, CBS, ARS, USDA, March 1955. -67- half had Bachelor's degrees and slightly less than half had Master's degrees. Of the total personnel engaged in Agricultural Economics teaching at Land-Grant institutions in l95A-55, approximately two-thirds held the Ph. D. degree and one-third had Master's degrees; only A per cent had Bachelor's degrees, Table 27. Of the research personnel, 53 per cent had Ph. D. degrees, 39 per cent had Master's degrees, and 8 per cent had Bachelor's degrees. For extension personnel, only 23 per cent had Ph. D. degrees, while Al per cent had Master's degrees and 36 per cent had Bachelor's degrees. For all workers in Agricultural Economics, 83 per cent had formal training at the Master's level or above, with half of this number having completed the Ph. D. degree. At all levels of formal training, a higher percentage of Agricul- tural Economics workers in Land43rant institutions were engaged in research work than in either teaching or extension work. At the Ph. D. level, the smallest percentage (only 19 per cent) was engaged in exten- sion work. But at the opposite extreme, at the Bachelor's level, the largest percentage (71 per cent) was engaged in extension work. For all Agricultural Economics areas combined, individual workers fre- quently were engaged in more than one type of work. For all personnel in Agricultural Economics at Lanerrant institutions in l95A-55, 65 per cent were engaged in research, 52 per cent in teaching, and 3A per cent in extension. The distribution of all Agricultural Economics teaching personnel in Land43rant institutions in 195A-55 by rank as shown in Table 28 in- dicates that 3? per cent were full professors, 28 per cent were assoc- iates, 29 per cent were assistants, and 5 per cent were instructors. -68- Table 27. Distribution of'Workers 1/ in Agricultural Economics 2/‘hy Degree Status and by Type of Work Engaged In, A8 Land-Grant Institutions, 2/ 195A-55 : *Degree status: : Total workers in Type of work engaged: 1B .S2 or : M. S. or : Ph.D. or : Agricultural in : B. A. : M. A. :equivalent: Economics Number Number Number Number Teaching 22 185 353 560 Research 57 27A 371 702 Extension 132 1A9 85 366 TOTAL A/ 186 AAl AA7 1,07A Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Teaching A 33 63 100 Research 8 39 53 100 Extension 36 A1 23 100 AVERAGE 17 A1 A2 100 Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Teaching 12 A2 79 52 Research 31 62 83 65 Extension 71 3A 19 3A TOTAL A/ 100 100 100 100 1/ Includes all teachin§.research, and extension workers, except county extension workers. 2/ Includes Rural Sociology workers both when shown as a part of Agricultural Economics departments and when shown as separate depart- ments. 3/’ For a listing of the official names of the A8 Land-Grant in- stitutions included, see Appendix Table 1 A/ Teaching, research, and extension will not add to this total because some staff members were reported as being engaged in more than one type of work. Compiled from "Workers in Subjects Pertaining to Agricul- Source: ' ture in LandATrant Colleges and Experiment Stations, 195A 55," U S. Department of.Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook No. 78, OES, ARS USDA, March 1955. -69- Table 28. Distribution of Workers 1/ in Agricultural Economics 2/ by Rank and by Type of WOrk Engaged In, A8 Land-Grant Institu- tions, 2/ 195A-55 : IRank: {Total workers‘in Type of work : Spec- : In— : Asst. : Assoc.: : Agricultural engaged in :ialist :structor: Prof. : Prof. : Prof. : Economics N2. ‘N3. 'N2. 'NE. ‘N2. ‘N2. Teaching 3 32 163 155 207 560 Research 9 A7 235 181 230 702 Extension 9A 15 89 66 102 366 TOTAL A/ 103 70 332 253 316 1,07A Teaching 1 5 29 28 37 100 Research 1 7 33 26 33 100 Extension 26 A 2A 18 28 100 AVERAGE 10 7 30 2A 29 100 :11. P_°_’E- 222- 222- 2.22- P_°'2- Teaching 3 A6 A9 61 66 52 Research 9 67 71 72 73 65 Extension 91 21 27 26 32 3A TOTAL A/ 100 100 100 100 100 100 ‘1/ Includes all teaching, research, and extension workers, except county extension workers. '2/ Includes Rural Sociology workers both when shown as a part of Agricultural Economics departments and when shown as separate depart- ments. 3/ iFor a listing of the official names of the A8 Land-Grant in- stitutions included, see Appendix Table l. ‘A/ Teaching, research, and extension will not add to this total because some staff members were reported as being engaged in more than one type of work. Source: Compiled from.WWorkers in.Subjects Pertaining to Agricul- ture In Band-Grant Colleges and Experiment Stations, l95A-55," U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook No. 78, ms, ARS, USDA, March 1955. -70- A similar situation existed for Agricultural Economics research per- sonnel. In.the case of Agricultural Economics extension personnel, there was a different picture of personnel distribution by rank in l95A-55. Only 28 per cent of extension workers held full rank, while 18 per cent were associates, 2A per cent were assistants, and A per cent were at the instructor level. In extension, 26 per cent were classified as specialists. For all academic ranks from instructor through full rank, from one-half to three-fourths of all Agricultural Economics workers in l95A-55 were engaged in teaching and research; about a fourth were engaged in extension work. For workers classified as specialists in 195A-55, more than 90 per cent were engaged in extension work. Salary_Levels, Differences, and Comparisons Salary levels and salary differences were cited by Schultz in 19A0 as the mainspring which moves many of the forces that are continuously at work with respect to institutional and other differences relative to types of work engaged in by Agricultural.Economics workers; differ- ences in degree status and rank of Agricultural Economics workers among Land43rant institutions; problems, policies, and procedures in Land-Grant institutional recruiting and training programs; and other activities relating to Agricultural Economics within and among Land- Grant institutions. Schultz emphasized that salary scales and levels "are plainly one of the chief causes back of the movement of workers from one state to another and from the states to federal agencies. Salaries and salary changes afford the most Satisfactory rationale for explaining much of what happens to institutions and to workers te ci at it in -71- in this field." 1/ Salary levels, in general, have traditionally been higher in some areas and in some Land-Grant institutions than in others. In recent years, the wide variations and differences that formerly existed have tended to become smaller. Despite this trend, however, current salary levels continue to be higher in some areas and in some institutions than in others. Among the factors influencing the relative salary levels among Land43rant institutions in recent years have been the degree of competition among states, competition from industry and from government agencies, a recognition of the professional opportunities afforded in the smaller institutions, changes in administrative poli- cies and procedures among areas and institutions, and a number of other factors incident to changes in the social, economic, and polit- ical framework within different states and regions. Since a high percentage of the Agricultural Economics personnel in Land43rant institutions who are engaged in teaching and in research are on joint appointments, average salaries paid, by rank, for this group of workers in 1956 were reported jointly as shown in.Table 29. Average salaries paid, by rank, for extension workers in 1956 are shown in.Table 30. For teaching and research workers in 1956, the highest salaries paid at all levels of rank were in institutions located in the Corn Belt, Lake States, and parts of the Northeast. Lowest salaries paid were in the Southern States and in some of the Western.States. In the 1/' Schultz, Theodore W., Training and Recruiting of Personnel in the Rural Social Studies,.American Council on Education, Washington, D. C., 19Al, p. 9A. -72- Table 29. Average Salaries Paid for Teaching and/or Research Staff Members in Agricultural Economics at Land43rant Institutions, by Rank, 1956 (l2-Months basis as of July 1, 1956) : ° :Assistant :Associate : : :InstructorzProfessor :Professor :Professor State :Specialist: or : or : or : or - :equivalent:equivalent:equivalentzequivalent Dollars IDollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Alabama - A,125 - 6,650 8,000 Arizona - 5,750 6,150 7,200 8,800 _ Arkansas - A,600 5,557 6,666 - California 1/ - - - — — Colorado - A,800 5,600 6,533 - Connecticut - - 5,820 7,890 8,820 Delaware - 3,500 6,600 7,700 8,000 Florida - - 5,350 6,5A3 7,787 Georgia - 3,600 5,500 6,000 7,950 Idaho 1/ - - - - - Illinois - 6,125 6,900 7,972 9,631 Indiana 1/ - - - - - Iowa - 5,700 6,700 7,100 9,100 Kansas - A,812 6,165 6,912 8,8AO Kentucky 1/ - - - — - Louisiana— - A,800 6,800 7,800 8,800 Maine - A,150 5,620 6,500 7,500 Maryland 1/ - - — — - MassachusEtts - 5,000 6,000 6,800 8,000 MiChigan - A,800 7,A85 8,398 10,933 Minnesota - 5,A00 7,000 8,350 10,500 Mississippi - A,250 5,A80 6,700 7,100 Missouri - 3,750 5,750 7,750 9,000 Montana 1/ - - - - - Nebraska - A,A00 5,000 6,100 8,300 Nevada - 5,600 7,000 8,000 9,500 New Hampshire 1/ - - - - - New Jersey '_ - 5,500 6,660 7,700 9,100 New Mexico - 5,2AA 6,132 7,A76 8,700 New York A,5A3 - 6,5A8 7, 3A3 9,A67 North Carolina 1/ - - — - - North Dakota " A,700 - 5,700 6,720 8,100 (Continued) -73- Table 29 (Continued). Average Salaries Paid for Teaching and/Or Research Staff Members in Agricultural Economics at Land- Grant Institutions, by Rank, 1956. (12-Months basis as of July 1, 1956) :Assistant :Associate : :Instructor:Professor :Professor : Professor State :specialist: or : or : or : or : :equivalent:equivalent:equivalent:equivalent D011ars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Ohio - 5,300 6,580 7,588 9,932 Oklahoma - A,AOO 6,200 7,000 8,200 Oregon 2/ - - - — - PennsylVania A,A56 - 6,650 7,A95 9,32A Rhode Island - 5,050 5,9A2 6,720 - South Carolina - A,200 5,200 6,200 7,200 South Dakota 1/ - - - - - Tennessee ‘- - A,800 5,520 6,750 7,275 Texas - - 5,520 6,A03 8,092 Utah - - 5,600 6,500 8,000 Vermont - A, 867 5, 700 6, 500 — Virginia 1/ - - - - .- 'Washington - A,783 5,783 7,517 9,850 West Virginia - - 5,750 6,900 8,500 Wisconsin - 5,025 5,952 8,8A3 10,625 ‘Wyoming 1/ - - - - - 1/' Questionnaire not returned. '2/ Not reported on returned questionnaire. case of extension workers in 1956, the same general pattern existed as for teaching and research workers. As Schultz pointed out in 19A0, the South and the West have more acute and more difficult social and economic problems in agriculture than do other areas of the country. Land-Grant institutions in these two areas have acute needs for highly trained and competent staffs in -7u- Table 30. Average Salaries Paid for Extension Staff Members in.Agri- cultural Economics at LandeGrant Institutions, by Rank, 1956 (lZ-Months basis as of July 1, 1956) : : :ASSistant :Associate : : :Instructor:Professor :Professor :Professor State :Specialist: or : or : or : or : :equivalent:equivalent:equivalent:equivalent D ollars D ollar s D ollar s D ollars Dollars Alabama 6,A98 - - - - Arizona 6,500 - - - - Arkansas 2/ - - - - - California 1/ - - - - - Colorado 6,900 - - - - Connecticut - A,7A0 5,700 - 8,820 Delaware 2/ - — - - - Florida 7,000 - — - - Georgia - - 5,300 6,100 6,900 Idaho 1/ - - - - - Illinois 5,93A - 7,277 7,600 8,973 Indiana 1/ - - _ - - Iowa - 6,000 6,700 7,100 7,100 Kansas - - 6,8AO 7,1A0 7,110 Kentucky 1/ - - - - - Louisiana 8,000 - 5,600 - - Maine 2/ - - - - - Maryland 1/ - - - - - Massachusetts - 5,000 6,000 6,800 8,000 Michigan - 6,100 7,571 8,800 9,850 Minnesota - 5,376 7,066 7,AOO 8,200 Mississippi - - 6,000 6,000 7,A00 Missouri - A,OOO 5,750 6,750 7,750 Montana 1/ - — - - - Nebraska - - 5,600 7,200 - Nevada - - 7,000 - - New Hampshire 1/ - - - - - New Jersey - 5,500 6,660 7,700 9,100 New Mexico 5,880 5,A00 5,700 5,880 - New York 5,881 - 6,A50 7,322 9,150 North.Carolina 1/ - - - - - North Dakota - - - 7,500 - (Continued) -75- Table 30 (Continued). Average Salaries Paid for Extension Staff Members in Agricultural Economics at Land- Grant Institutions, by Rank, 1956 (l2-Months basis as of July 1, 1956) : :AssiStant :Associate : : :Instructor:Professor :Professor :Professor State :Specialist: or : or : or : or ' :equivalent:equivalent:equivalentzequivalent Dollars Dbllara Dollars Dollars Dollars Ohio - 5,675 6,A12 8,000 7,350 Oklahoma 6,570 - - - - Oregon 2/ - - - - - Pennsylvania 2/ - - - - - Rhode Island - - 5,650 6,890 - South Carolina 2/ - - - - - South Dakota l/- - - - - - Tennessee _ 6,100 - - - - Texas 2/ - - - - - Utah " - - - 6,550 - Vermont - - A,900 - 7,700 Virginia 1/ - - - - - washington - - - 7,517 8,525 west Virginia 2/ - - - - - Wisconsin 2/ ‘- - - - - - Wyoming 1r - - - - - 1/ Questionnaire not returned. ‘2/ Not reported on returned questionnaire. Agricultural Economics for teaching, research, and for extension work. 2/ And yet, based on salary levels in these states in 1956, many of the Southern and'Western States were not paying salaries at levels suffi- ciently high as compared to other states to recruit, train, and hold 'g/ Ibid., p. 97. -76- the competence and experience that is needed to cope with the pre- vailing social and economic problems in these areas. Salaries paid by degree status of Agricultural Economics workers in 1956 are shown in Appendix Tables 11 and 12 for individual Land- Grant institutions. At most of the Southern and Western institutions, the salary differentials between personnel with Master's degrees and those with Ph. D. degrees were much smaller than were those for insti— tutions in other areas of the country. Also, the salaries paid for personnel with Master's degrees in Southern and Western institutions were nearer the average of the salaries paid by other institutions for Master's degrees than was true when comparing salaries for Ph. D. de- gree personnel between.Southern and Western.States and the states out- side these two regions. The implications of these comparisions are that many institutions in the Southern and'Western areas of the country ap- peared in 1956 to have had relatively low ceilings on the salaries of senior and/or better trained personnel, and, therefore, were unable to hold many of these types of staff members much beyond the period of breaking them.in. Also, many'Southern and western Land43rant insti- tutions appeared to have been paying relatively high salaries to obtain personnel but were unable to advance these staff members in salaries at the rates being followed by Land-Grant institutions outside these two areas. In discussing the results of an analysis of the salaries paid by LandJGrant institutions for incoming staff members in Agricultural Economics in 19AO, Schultz indicated that at that time "the schools with salaries below the average for their senior staff are in the main forced to pay more than average rates to bring to their institutions -77- senior staff members." He further indicated that "institutions which have built up their own major senior staffs and have the advantage of a large going concern are able to obtain the services of junior staff members at rates of pay distinctly lower than is common for institu- tions as a whole." 2/ The data from Land-Grant institutions for 1956, as shown in Tables 29 and 30 and in Appendix Tables 11 and 12 indicate that this situation, as described by Schultz in 19AO, has changed veryy little, if any, during recent years. An indication of the changes in salary levels for Agricultural Economics workers in Land-Grant institutions between 1939-A0 and 1956 is shown in Table 31. The data shown for these two periods are not strictly comparable. For 1939-A0, the salary levels shown were the highest salaries paid by respective institutions for associate pro- fessors of Agricultural Economics. For 1956, the salary levels shown were the average salaries paid by individual institutions for staff members at the associate level in teaching and/or research and in extension Agricultural Economics work. In general, the institutions that were paying the lowest relative salaries in 1956 were the same institutions that paid the lowest relative salaries in 1939-A0. _3/ Ibid., p. 99. -78- Table 31. Comparison of Salaries of Associate Professors of Agricul- tural Economics at Land-Grant Institutions, 1939-A0 and 1956 : Average salary of’Associate Professors engaged in: : Top salary of :Associate Professor: State : 1939-A0 :Teaching or research:Extension : : 1956 : 1956 Dollars Dollars Dollars Alabama 3,300 6,650 1/ Arizona 1 7,200 '1'/ Arkansas 3,AOO 6,666 'l/ California 3, 900 1/ :1'_/ Colorado 3,050 6,533 1/ Connecticut A,180 7,890 '1/ Delaware 3,800 7,700 17 Florida 3,300 6,5A3 ‘1/ Georgia 2,700 6,000 6,100 Idaho 2,800 1/ 1/ Illinois A,500 7,972 7,600 Indiana A,500 g/ _l_/ _1_/ Iowa A,2OO 7,100 7,100 Kansas 3,500 6,912 7,1AO Kentucky A,200 l/ 1/ Louisiana 3, 500 7 , 800 '_l'/ Maine 3,600 6, 500 1/ Maryland 3,900 1/ l7 Massachusetts 3,500 2/ 6,800 6,800 Michigan 3, 900 " 8, 398 8, 800 Minnesota A,6OO 8,350 7,AOO Mississippi 2,AOO 6,700 6,000 Missouri A,500 7,750 6,750 Montana 3, 500 _l_/ _1/ Nebraska 3,000 6,100 7,200 Nevada 3,200 8,000 1/ New Hampshire 3, 500 2/ l/ 1/ New Jersey 3,600“ 7,700 7,700 New Mexico 2,900 7,A76 5,880 New York A,375 7,3A3 7,322 North Carolina 3,000 l/ 1/ North Dakota 2,A00 g/ 6,720 7, 500 (Continued) -79- Table 31 (Continued). Comparison of Salaries of Associate Professors of Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant Insti- tutions, 1939-A0 and 1956 : TOp salary Of’ :lAverage salary of AssoOlate :Associate Professor: Professors engaged in: State : 1939-A0 :Teaching or research:Extension : : 1956 : 1956 Dollars Dollars DOllarar Ohio A,AOO 7,588 8,000 Oklahoma 3,A00 2/ 7,000 1/ Oregon A,OOO " l/ ‘1' Pennsylvania A,OOO'E/ 7,A55 ‘i/ Rhode Island 3,500 6,720 6,890 South Carolina 2,600 6,200 1/ South Dakota 2,600 1/ 1/ Tennessee 3,200 6,750 ‘l/ Texas 2,750 6,A03 1/ Utah 3,000 6,500 6, 50 Vermont 3, 500 6, 500 1/ Virginia 3,AOO _1_/ y washington 3,AOO 7,517 7,517 West Virginia 3,300 6,900 1/ Wisconsin A,250 8,8A3 l/ Wyoming 3,200 l/ I/ ‘1/ Not ascertained or not aVailable. .3/ No figure available for top salary of associate professor but lower salary of full professor was given and used as a basis for making the estimate shown. Source: Data for 1939-A0 from; Schultz, Theodore W}, Recruiting and Training of Personnel in the Rural:§ocial Studies, American Council on.Education, Washington, D. CT, 19A1, Tablel2A, p. 96. Data for 1956 from: Tables 29 and 30. CHAPTER V RECRUITIN} AND TRAINEE OF PERSONNEL IN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS Agricultural Economics is deeply rooted in the affairs of agri- culture. Departments of Agricultural Economics, in a like manner, are generally deeply rooted in the affairs of colleges of agriculture. And, in a similar manner, the personnel in Agricultural Economics are usually closely associated with agricultural interests both in terms of background and training and in terms of the activities and programs in.which they are engaged. Recruiting and training of personnel in.Agricultural Economics as a process involves three major phases: undergraduate, graduate, and staff. As a process, one phase or stage follows another. The process is characteristically a highly dynamic procedure for selecting and de- veloping Agricultural.Economics personnel. The process begins at the undergraduate level. Most undergraduate students who have interests in developing careers in.Agricultural.Eco- nomics are found in Lanerrant colleges of agriculture. Despite a de- crease in the number of undergraduates enrolled in colleges of agricul- ture during recent years, total enrollment has been.maintained at a level sufficiently high to assure adequate numbers of undergraduates from which Agricultural Economics students have been recruited and trained. In a report made in 1960, based on an analysis of the changing agricultural curricula in Agricultural Economics in the Southern Land- Grant institutions, it was pointed out that total undergraduate enroll- ment in 13 Southern Land-Grant institutions had increased 20 per cent -80- -81- during the period between 1955-56 and 1959-60. During this same pe- riod, undergraduate enrollment in agriculture decreased 12 per cent. In Southern Land43rant institutions, agricultural enrollment repre- sented 8.3 per cent of total undergraduate enrollment in 1959-60 com- pared to 11.3 per cent in 1955-56. Between 1955-56 and 1959-60, the number of agricultural students who majored in Agricultural Economics at these institutions increased 15 per cent. Thus, while total insti- tutional undergraduate enrollment increased 20 per cent and agricul- tural enrollment decreased 12 per cent, undergraduate enrollment in Agricultural Economics increased 15 per cent. 1/ In this area of the country, during this recent 5-year period, decreasing undergraduate enrollment in colleges of agriculture did not adversely affect the ability to recruit an increasing number of student majors in the field of Agricultural.Economics. Although Departments of Agricultural Economics are concerned with recruiting and training of personnel for careers in Agricultural Eco- nomics as a professional field, many students, particularly at the undergraduate level and to a lesser extent at the graduate level, do not go into professional Agricultural Economics work after completion of their formal training programs, Table 32. In 1955—56, 26 per cent of the graduating seniors from Land-Grant institutions with majors in l/ Lanham, Ben T., Jr., "Changing Agricultural Curricula in Agricfiltural Economics and Rural Sociology to Meet Current and Future Needs," Proceedings,;Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology Section,_Association of Southern Agricultural Workers,l960, 731ume I, pp. 125-’26. -82.. Table 32. First Positions Taken by Graduates Awarded Specified Degrees in Agricultural Economics from.Land-Grant Institutions, 1955-56 y : B.S. : M.S. : Ph.D. Item : graduates: graduates: graduates Number Number Number Federal employment: Research A 5 A Extension 0 2 1 Service 6 11 0 Foreign assignment 2 0 0 State employment: Teaching 0 3 10 Research 8 13 18 Extension 3 8 0 Service 1 2 1 Military service A8 11 0 Private employment: Production fields 7 6 0 Marketing fields 9 7 1 Sales, promotion, etc. 15 A 0 Research 2 3 O Other 11 3 0 Self employment: Farming 38 2 O Other A 3 0 Graduate study: Home institution A0 20 O Other institution 1A 16 0 Return to foreign countries 0 17 A TOTAL GRADUATES _l_/ 212 136 39 ‘1/ Includes the following number of graduates from specified state LandAGrant institutions: B.S. M.S. Ph.D. State graduates graduates ,graduates Arizona 1 ‘l 0 Arkansas 3 5 0 Connecticut 3 A 0 Delaware A l 0 Florida 2 3 2 (Continued) -83— '1/ (Continued): B.S. M.S. Ph.D. State graduates graduates ggraduates Georgia 77 3 0 Illinois * l2 8 Iowa 12 7 11 Kansas 32 A 0 Louisiana 5 11 2 Maine 6 0 0 Massachusetts 2 2 0 Michigan 10 5 3 Mississippi 1 2 0 Missouri 25 A 0 Nebraska 20 7 0 Nevada 3 O 0 New York * 21 8 North Dakota- * 2 0 Ohio 20 7 1 Oklahoma 6 A 0 Oregon * 2 1 Pennsylvania 13 ll 3 Rhode Island 2 l 0 South Carolina 6 3 0 Tennessee . ll 7 0 Utah 5 6 0 Vermont 11 1 O washington 2 O 0 * Not reported on returned questionnaire. Agricultural Economics entered graduate training. 2/ In the same year, an equal proportion of Master's graduates continued their graduate training with.work toward advanced degrees. Of the total number of Agricultural Economics graduating seniors in 1955-56, nearly a fourth entered military service. Principal types of employment of B. S. graduates included employmentwwith private firms 2/ In 1938-39, only 16 per cent of the graduating seniors of that year entered graduate training, thus, reflecting the increasing proportion of undergraduate Agricultural Economics majors who have entered graduate training in recent years. -8A- or organizations 20 per cent, farming 17 per cent, state employment (including Land43rant institutions) 6 per cent, and federal employment 5 per cent. For graduates with Master's degrees in Agricultural Economics in 1955-56, 8 per cent entered military service. Major types of employ- ment included state employment (including Land-Grant institutions) 19 per cent, private firms and organizations 17 per cent, federal employ- ment 1A per cent, and farming and other forms of self-employment A per cent. A total of 13 per cent were foreign students who returned to foreign countries after completing Master's degrees. 0f the 1955-56 Agricultural Economics graduates with the Ph. D. degree, 70 per cent went into teaching and research work in LandsGrant institutions. Fourteen per cent went into federal employment, prin- cipally research. Eleven per cent were foreign students who returned to foreign countries for employment. Based on the data shown in Table 32, the task of recruiting and training of personnel in Agricultural.Economics should have multiple Objectives at both the undergraduate and the graduate levels. Only about a fourth of all students go into graduate work; this is equally true at both the Bachelor's and the Master's level. Also, only part of all students go into professional Agricultural Economics work; this is true at all levels of formal training. Thus, in terms of recruit- ment and training, recognition should be given, at all levels, to the wide variations in the objectives of the personnel involved. Undergraduate Recruitment and Training Although Agricultural Economics is a relatively young professional -85- field, it has acquired and established a firm and respected status in Land-Grant colleges of agriculture. Despite this situation, however, there continues in existence a number of major obstacles in the re- cruitment of personnel in competition with other subject-matter areas, particularly at the undergraduate level. Among these obstacles, many of which were discussed in detail in Schultz's study in 19A0,‘2/ are the lack of understanding on the part of students of the relative ad- vantages of and opportunities in various subject-matter areas. Most students entering colleges of agriculture, because of their previous background, experience, and training, are more familiar with produc- tion and technical phases of agriculture than with its social and economic phases. These students, therefore, are more likely to enroll in non-social science areas than in Agricultural Economics. It is for this reason that, in some Land-Grant institutions, Agricultural Economics undergraduate enrollments may consist of as many transfer students as of students who initially enroll in the area of Agricul- tural'Economics. A major prOblem in the recruitment and training of undergraduate students revolves around the question of quality of students. Schultz pointed out in 19AO that, at that time, many Land-Grant institutions were weak in attracting good students, and in fact, were failing to attract the most competent students enrolled in colleges of agriculture. A/ In a more recent report, Nicholle implies that there has been some .2/ Schultz, Theodore W}, Training and Recruitment of Personnel in the Rural Social Studies, American Council'on Education, WaShington, D. 0., 19Al, pp. 103:113. A/ Ibid., pp. 109-113. -86- improvement in the quality of Agricultural Economics students during recent years, but that the over-all quality of students in colleges of agriculture is still far from encouraging. 5/ Schultz indicated that in l9AO there was considerable evidence that those Agricultural Economics departments which concentrated on the teach- ing of graduate students usually did not obtain the best undergraduate students on their own campuses. 6/ This was attributed to the inclina- tion of the teaching staffs at such institutions to neglect the inter- ests of undergraduate students. Also involved was the general practice of assigning the less competent and less experienced teachers to undergraduate teaching duties. ‘When the more mature, better trained, more experienced, and more competent teachers are assigned or devote their major efforts and interests toward graduate training programs and graduate teaching, there is always a tendency for the undergraduate program and undergraduate teaching to suffer. The first permanent impressions which students form of the field of Agricultural Economics often constitute a major factor affecting recruitment of students into the field. These first impressions are frequently made in the first courses taken by students under an Agri- cultural.Economics teacher. For this reason, particular emphasis needs to be placed on the organization and content of these first courses in Agricultural Economics, and special attention needs to be given to the selection and assignment of the teaching personnel who handle such '5/ Nicholls, William H., "Higher Education and Agricultural Economics: A Critical Appraisal," Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. XLII, No. 5, December 1960, pp. 971-97A. _6/ Schultz, 2p. cit., p. 111. -87- courses. 1/ It is often argued that the personnel assigned to teach these first courses in.Agricultural Economics should be the best teachers available within individual departments. 8/ To accomplish this often involves a change in departmental attitudes and policies and also changes in the attitudes and values that are held by the in- dividual staff members who are assigned such teaching responsibilities. Undergraduate Curricula in Agricultural Economics Most Land-Grant institutions provide, within colleges of agricul- ture, a major in Agricultural Economics or in some closely related area (Appendix Table 13). In some departments of Agricultural.Economics, 7/ This would be true in terms of both departmental interests in recruiting of undergraduate students in.Agricultural Economics and de- partmental interests in stimulating non-departmental majors to elect to take additional course work in Agricultural Economics and in related social science areas. The needs for (or the lack of knowledge in) basic economic training for non-departmental majors is frequently mis- understood or ignored in departmental planning, policies, and pro- cedures with respect to undergraduate teaching. See, for example: Knight, 'Willys R., Probin into the Economic Attitudes of College Students, Research Paper No. 3, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Georgia State College, Atlanta, lGeorgia, February 1958. Rasmussen, Wayne D., Liberal Education and A iculture, Institute of Higher Education, Teachers College, COlumBia, New Iork, 1959. 8/ For a more detailed discussion of the philosophy of under- graduate teaching and of some of the problems incident to improved college teaching, see: James, H. B., "The Philosophy of Undergraduate Training," Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. XLI, No. 5, December 1959. Nicholle, _p. gill, Kelly, Fred J., "The Case for Improving the Preparation of College Teachers," Chapter I, Toward Better College Teaching, Bulletin 1950, No. 13, Office of Education, Federal Security Agency, Washington, D. C., 1950. -88- curricula are available for undergraduate majors in more than one sub- area er subfield of Agricultural.Economics. At Land-Grant institutions that do not provide a major in Agricultural Economics, students can usually concentrate their course work in the offerings of Agricultural Economics departments to the extent that they can often obtain the approximate equivalent of a major in.Agricultural Economics. The organization of major curricula within colleges of agricul- ture vary widely from state to state. In those institutions where a uniform program of work is given all students in colleges of agricul- ture during the first year or during the first two years, with pro- visions for subject-matter area specialization to follow, students have an opportunity to view all fields before selecting a major field. Also, students do not lose course credits nor time in transferring from one curriculum to another in the event that such transfers are made. In addition to the above cited differences among LandAGrant in- stitutions, there are wide differences among institutions in the credit hour requirements for completion of a Bachelor's degree in Agricultural Economics. Even wider differences exist among institu- tions in the curricula content for Agricultural Economics majors with respect to requirements in technical agriculture, in basic sciences, in social sciences, and in the use of electives. 9/ 2/ The question of undergraduate curricula in Agricultural Eco- nomics has been of major concern to Agricultural Economists, partic- ularly in Land-Grant institutions, for a number of years. .Among recent studies and comment relating to this question have been: James, pp. 233. (Continued) -89- The general content of the curricula for majors in Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant institutions in 1955-56 is shown in Appendix Tables 13 and 1A. In three-fourths of the Land-Grant institutions, only one major option was offered in Agricultural Economics (or in a related area). In the other one-fourth of these institutions, options in.Agricultural Economics ranged from two to five. In 1955-56, only a few institutions listed options in agribusiness or agricultural admin- istration. 19/ Most institutions appeared to be placing major emphasis on a single option to meet the needs of students interested in Agricul- tural Economics. In 1959, at the American Farm Economic Association's annual '2/ (Continued): Lanham, 9p. git. Nicholls, 2!: 332° Schultz, pp. 213. Stucky, H. R., "Adapting Agricultural Economics Curricula to a Changing.Agriculture," Proceedings, western Farm.Economics Association, 1960. Black, John D., "Economics in Agricultural College Curricula," Journal of Farm.Economics, Vol.XXXV, No. A, November 1953, pp. ABA-A95. Renne, Roland R., "Land43rant Institutions, the Public, and the Public Interest," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, VOl. 331, September 1960, pp. AB-Sl. 10/’ The trend in many sections of the country since 1955-56 has beenfln the direction of placing more emphasis on agribusiness options or agribusiness types of training. In 1960, for example, 9 of 11 Southern.Land43rant institutions had agribusiness majors in effect. Only one of these institutions had an agribusiness curriculum 5 years earlier. See Lanham, 2p. cit. Also, see Stucky, gp. git. -90- meeting, H. Brooks James, in discussing the philosophy of undergraduate training, emphasized that a new program of instruction was needed to meet the needs of a modern agriculture and to develop enlightened citi- zens for the kind of world to be faced in the years ahead. James in- dicated that, in many institutions, conditions have changed tremendously since curricula were developed‘Mhile in others, current curricula are not adequate. He stated that "past programs have been aimed mainly at farming and not at agriculture in its broadest sense. Programs have been weighted heavily with applied training and have been weak in fundamentals. Many programs have failed to achieve a reasonable bal- ance between science, technology, and liberal arts and thus have failed to produce the kind of behavior in their graduates for which they were planned." 11/ This analysis by James indicates that what appears to be needed is a curriculum designed to bring into existence 3 new combination of cul- tural, scientific, technical, and business courses. Such a curriculum would include training at the undergraduate level in the humanities, history, political science, and social relations as well as technical and scientific work in agriculture and business courses. Student pro- grams would emphasize broad general training rather than narrow spec- ialization. Individual student programs would be developed in accord- ance with individual student needs and interests. Graduates would continue to be trained for work in agricultural production and mar- keting, but would also be qualified for employment in many of the agri- 11/ James, pp. 2113. -91- cultural industries that are closely related to agriculture. 12/ At the American Farm Economic Association's annual meeting in 1960, WilliamlH. Nicholls, in a critical appraisal of higher education and Agricultural Economics, warned that there are real dangers in going too far in the direction of developing practical and applied curricula for Agriculturaleconomics students even at the undergraduate level. 13/ Nicholle concludes that the Land-Grant undergraduate colleges of agri- culture start with relatively poor quality freshmen who, by the time they receive their Bachelor's degrees, make an even poorer showing relative to most other graduating seniors. This, Nicholle attributes in part, to the curricula in existence in many Land43rant institutions. One of the characteristics of general significance relative to Agricultural Economics curricula in Land-Grant institutions is the wide variation among institutions in the credit hours required for gradua- tion. Appendix Table 13 indicates that in 1955-56, the number of credit hours required for a Bachelor's degree ranged from 120 hours to 155 hours. Institutions with relatively low hourly requirements were those located in the Corn Belt Area, the Lake States Areas, and in California and New York. Relatively high hourly requirements were in institutions located principally in the Southern and in the Northeastern areas of the country. Of more significance than the total hours required for graduation were the variations among states in the types of courses or general content of Agricultural Economics curricula. These variations are ‘12/ Lanham, 22, £32, 3.3/ Nicholls, _o_p. git. -92- shown in Appendix Table 1A. Social science courses in the student's major field comprised less than 10 per cent of total hourly requirements in eight insti- tutions. They comprised more than 20 per cent of total requirements in 10 institutions. Thus, for most Land-Grant Agricultural Economics departments, courses in the students major field made up between 10 and 20 per cent of the hourly requirements for degrees in Agricultural Economics. In the case of non-rural social science courses, the range in re- quirements was from a low of 2 per cent to a high of 30 per cent of the total hourly requirements for graduation. For most institutions, non- rural social science courses represented from 10 to 20 per cent of total requirements. For most institutions, total social science requirements ranged from 22 to 36 per cent of total requirements for graduation. For all institutions, combined the average hourly requirement for graduation was 137 hours, of which 39 hours (or 30 per cent of the total) were required in social science courses. Technical agriculture courses, including the basic plant and animal science courses, soils, agricultural engineering, and related courses, varied in requirements from 2 per cent at one institution to A6 per cent at another. Many of the courses in this category were laboratory-type courses, and therefore, frequently occupied a rela- tively large part of the student's time. Agricultural science courses are related both to technical agri- cultural courses and to basic science courses. These include, in general,the applied basic science courses, many of which occur in -93- curricula during the junior and senior years. In Agricultural Economics curricula, this category of courses was relatively unimportant at most institutions in terms of credit hours required. At 20 institutions, no credit hours were required in this area. At other institutions, the requirements were up to about 5 per cent of total hourly requirements for graduation. Basic science courses, including basic courses in chemistry, physics, botany, zoology, and related courses, were relatively impor- tant in all institutions. The variation in requirements was from about 10 to 20 per cent of total hourly requirements in all institutions. Mathematics and statistics were not listed in the curricula of two institutions, however, this does not necessarily mean that the Agri- cultural Economics students at these institutions did not obtain train- ing in mathematics and/Or statistics. This type of training can be, and frequently is, made a part of other courses in Agricultural Eco- nomics or in general economics. In only one institution were the re- quirements in mathematics and statistics more than 10 per cent of the total hourly requirements. English, as an indicator of training in communication skills, was required in all institutions. In only six institutions were English requirements in excess of 10 per cent of total hourly requirements. In most institutions, English requirements represented from 5 to 8 per cent of total requirements. Electives, in some institutions, were restricted to approved list- ings of courses. In some cases, student-faculty advisory arrangements were used to determine the use of electives. And, in other cases, stu- dents were free to use electives for courses of their choice. The -9A- number of hours of electives in Land-Grant.Agricultural Economics cur- ricula varied widely from state to state. In some institutions, the number of hours of electives was less than 10 (in one case, it was less than 5) hours. In such cases, student programs lacked flexibility and all students were required to follow essentially the same program. ‘With additional hours of electives, more flexibility is possible and in many cases, programs can be developed that are more nearly in line ‘with student needs and interests. A modal curriculum, based on information shown in Appendix Table 1A, compared to a modal curriculum, based on a comparable analysis for 1939-A0, lA/ indicates that few major changes occurred in the over-all Agricultural Economics curricula setup within.Land-Grant institutions between 1939-A0 and l955-56.{15/’ The only substantial change during this period was an increase in the required hours in the social sciences (in areas outside the major field). This and other changes of lesser importance are shown below: Semester hours required in: 1939-A0 1955;56 Technical Agriculture 2A 23 Agricultural Economics 19 21 Social Sciences 12 18 Basic Sciences 20 18 English , 9 10 Mathematics and Statistics 9 7 Military and Physical Education 9 8 Agricultural Science 5 3 Electives 27 29 Total credits for graduation 13A 137 _1_A/ Schultz, 22. 313., p. 119. 15/ For an indication of changes that have been made since 1955-56 or tfiat were contemplated in 1960, see Appendix Table 15, based on in- formation from Stucky, pp. cit. -95- During recent years, the over-all problems and weaknesses in undergraduate recruitment and training in Agricultural Economics have included the following: 1. Increasing enrollments in Land43rant institutions have been in areas outside of colleges of agriculture. Despite these decreasing enrollments in colleges of agriculture, the field of Agricultural Eco- nomics has been able to recruit and enroll an increasing percentage of undergraduates from colleges of agriculture. The principal problem has not been numbers of students but quality of students. In colleges of agriculture, the quality of students during recent years has been below institutional averages in terms of back- ground, capabilities, and performance. Since Agricultural.Economics students have been recruited primarily from colleges of agriculture, this has posed a particularly acute problem in terms of obtaining quality students. The competition for good students has been keen between all departments within colleges of agriculture. ‘With only a small number of good students available, this problem.will become even more acute in the years ahead. 2. Student objectives in Agricultural Economics training often have differed widely from one student to another. Most students have obtained a Bachelor's degree as a terminal degree and have obtained employment immediately after graduation. Some students, however, have been interested in entering graduate training following graduation with the idea of later going into professional Agricultural Economics work. These two groups of students have had different Objectives, different interests, and different needs. Most departments of Agricultural Eco- nomics have been limited to a single departmental major, thus, have -96- been unable to provide different programs for different groups of stu- dents. Factors associated with such Situations have included a rela— tively fixed curriculum, a small number of elective credit hours, and the existing departmental attitudes, policies, and procedures with re- Spect to undergraduate training. 3. Departmental objectives in Agricultural Economics undergradu- ate training have been.widely variable from one institution to another. Some departments have placed major emphasis on the development of undergraduate training for students who planned to seek employment following graduation. Some have placed emphasis on undergraduate training designed to train and develop students for qualification for graduate training following graduation. And some have been so in- volved in graduate training programs that undergraduate training may have suffered from lack of planning, attention, and resources. A. The prOblems of recruiting and training have been directly affected in some institutions by existing departmental policies with respect to the assignment of teachers to handle first courses in Agri- cultural Economics. 5. The curricula in Agricultural Economics at most institutions have been continuously under study. Frequent changes have been made, but generally such changes have been minor and thus have had little effect on over-all curricula requirements. Many curricula lacked flexibility and few were adapted to the different needs and interests of students. Only a few institutions have developed dual-purpose cur- ricula, or separate curricula that permitted different training pro- grams for training students for employment on the one hand and for training students for graduate school qualification on the other. -97- 6. The quality or level of teaching has been highly variable from one institution to another. A particular course at one institution may have been offered in the sophomore year, at another in the junior year, and at still another in the senior year. Also, at one institu- tion a textbook may have been used in a sophomore introductory course and used as the textbook at another institution for an advanced course in the junior or senior year. The results of such differences obvi- ously mean differences in levels of training and in quality of degrees granted among institutions. These kinds of differences have been due in part to institutional and departmental policies and procedures, but have been also influenced by teachers themselves. It was emphasized in a recent report relating to improving the preparation of college teachers that "college teaching is the only major learned profession for which there does not exist a well-defined program of preparation directed toward developing the skills which it is essential for the practitioner to possess." 16/ The solution to many of the problems incident to undergraduate training in Agricultural Economics is not necessarily in the develop- ment of more specialized curricula, although in many cases these are basic needs. More important,in most cases, are the needs for increased teaching interests, improved teaching competency, better student- faculty relations, more rigorous and analytical teaching, and more flexibility in the development of individual student training programs. 11/ _1_63/ Kelly, 32. 333., p. 1. 17/ For a detailed discussion of a suggested procedure for accom— pliSEIng these types of Objectives in undergraduate curricula develop- ment,see Nicholls, 32. cit., pp. 977-979. -98- Graduate Recruitment and Training Despite the many problems and weaknesses in undergraduate train- ing programs in Agricultural Economics, there has been, during recent years, an increasing number of personnel going into graduate work in this area. They have represented an increasing percentage of the undergraduates coming out of undergraduate training programs in Agri- cultural Economics. Between 1929—30 and 1939-A0, the number of Agri- cultural Economics graduate students increased about 100 per cent or at the rate of 10 per cent per year. Between 1939-A0 and 1955-56, the number of graduate students increased about 75 per cent or at a rate of 5 per cent per year. Total graduate student enrollment in Agricul- tural Economics was estimated to be 9A6 in 1955-56. 18/ This figure, which includes statistics and rural sociology, overstates the number of graduate students in Agricultural Economics. Also, this figure in- cludes,in addition to graduate students who were preparing for profes- sional careers in Agricultural Economics, 3 number of graduate students who happened to be enrolled in Agricultural Economics graduate work but who were not working toward Agricultural.Economics graduate degrees. These include federal agency and extension workers who were obtaining various types of special training in social science areas to fit into their respective jOb requirements that involve economic, sociological, and political training needs. Enrollment of graduate students,as candidates for graduate degrees, varied widely from one institution to another in 1955-56, Table 33. 18/ Proceedings of the 7lst Annual Convention of the American ASSOEIation of Land-Grant Colleges and State Universities. -99- Table 33. Number of'Graduate Students Enrolled as Candidates for Degrees in Agricultural Economics at Land43rant Institutions, 1955-56 y :Number'OIgraduate students enrolled as candidates State : for degrees in Agricultural Economics: : Master's : Ph.D. : Total Number Number Number Alabama 0 O 0 Arizona 1 O 1 Arkansas 1 O 1 California 0 l 1 Colorado 9 O 9 Connecticut A 3 7 Delaware 2 O 2 Florida 3 3 6 Georgia 5 2 7 Idaho A O A Illinois 18 16 3A Indiana 22 1A 36 Iowa 18 30 A8 Kansas 0 O 0 Kentucky 1A 1 15 Louisiana 1A 2 16 Maine 0 O 0 Maryland 10 5 15 Massachusetts 2 l 3 Michigan 27 29 56 Minnesota 5 8 13 Mississippi A O A Missouri 7 O 7 Montana A O A Nebraska 7 O 7 Nevada 0 O 0 New Hampshire 0 O 0 New Jersey A O A New Mexico 3 O 3 New York 16 2A A0 North Carolina 10 9 19 North Dakota 8 O 8 (Continued) -100- Table 33 (Continued). Number of’Graduate Students Enrolled as Candidates for Degrees in Agricultural Economics at land-Grant Institutions, 1955-56 _1/ :Number of graduate students enrolled as candidates State : for degrees in.Agricultural Economics: Master's : Ph.D. : —T0tal Number Number Number Ohio 4 29 20 A9 Oklahoma 0 l 1 Oregon 8 5 13 Pennsylvania 8 3 11 Rhode Island 3 O 3 South Carolina 3 O 3 South Dakota 8 O 8 Tennessee 11 0 11 Texas 7 2 9 Utah 7 O 7 Vermont 2 O 2 Virginia 0 O 0 ‘Washington 0 O 0 'West Virginia 0 O 0 Wisconsin 2 12 1A Wyoming 2 O 2 1/ Source: Tabulated from "Candidates for Graduate Degrees" as reported in the Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. XXXVIII, No. 2, May 1956. These variations were associated with the size and scope of institu- tional graduate training programs, institutional differences in re- sources available for graduate training, and a number of other factors. Differences in the relative enrollments of the total number of graduate students seeking degrees in.Agricultural.Economics and of the number enrolled at the Master's and at the Ph. D. levels in different Land- Grant institutions for the year 1955-56 are shown in Table 33. -101- Graduate enrollment in Agricultural.Economics at Land43rant in- stitutions in 1955-56 was heavily concentrated in only a few institu- tions. This situation has been true for a number of years. In 1955-56, 10 institutions accounted for nearly two-thirds of the Agricultural Economics graduate enrollment. It is usually in institutions of this type that emphasis is placed on training students for professional careers in Agricultural Economics. Most of these institutions have relatively high enrollments of graduate students at the Ph. D. level. Other Land-Grant institutions, many of which provide graduate training at the Master's level only, in many cases, place major emphasis on training programs for graduate students who wish to use the Master's degree as a terminal degree and for those who are seeking additional training in the social sciences for use incident to their regular em- ployment situations. The sources of graduate students in Agricultural Economics in the larger, more specialized graduate training departments are principally from outside institutions; whereas, for smaller, less specialized graduate training departments (particularly for those that offer only the Master's degree), the sources of graduate students are mainly from within these same institutions (Appendix Table 16). This situation is more pronounced at the Ph. D. level than at the Master's level. The relationships between graduate student enrollment and gradu- ate degrees awarded in.Agricultural.Economics at Land43rant institu- tions in 1955-56 are indicated by the data shown in Tables 33 and 3A. Although these ratios of output are highly variable, and in some in- stances are very high, they, in themselves, have little significance without additional detailed knowledge relative to individual institu- ~102- Table 3A. Number of’Graduate Degrees Awarded in Agricultural Eco- nomics at Land-Grant Institutions, Specified Years Master's degrees : State awarded in: Ph. D. degrees awa ded in: I938-39i27 I955 27 :I938-39 I7: I 955 27 :I950 37 Number ’Number Number Number _Number Alabama 0 O O O 0 Arizona 0 l O O 0 Arkansas 0 6 O O 0 California 5 O 2 5 10 Colorado 1 0 O O 0 Connecticut 2 O O O 1 Delaware 0 O O O 0 Florida 0 O O O 0 Georgia A 3 O O 0 Idaho 0 O O O 0 Illinois 12 9 O 8 7 Indiana 2 9 3 7 IA Iowa 5 l 1 7 9 Kansas 5 9 O l 0 Kentucky 9 3 O 2 0 Louisiana 7 7 O 2 1 Maine 0 2 0 O 0 Maryland 5 l O O 0 Massachusetts 5 O O O 0 Michigan 2 11 O l 7 Minnesota 9 9 5 A A Mississippi 0 3 O O 0 Missouri 3 O 0 O A Montana 6 ll 0 O 0 Nebraska 10 6 O A 0 Nevada 0 O O O 0 New Hampshire 0 O O O 0 New Jersey 1 O O O 0 New Mexico 0 O O O 0 New York 21 18 1A 12 A North Carolina 1 5 O 5 5 North Dakota 0 O O O O (Continued) -103- Table 3A (Continued). Number of Graduate Degrees Awarded in Agricul- tural Economics at Land-Grant Institutions, Specified Years Master' 5 degrees State awarded in: WD degrees awarded in: :1938-3941: 1955 2r:1'9‘38'T'_17—1—§3‘Z7'—T‘37"- 9 - 19 0 Number Number Number Number Number Ohio 5 S 1 1 11 Oklahoma 6 9 O l 3 Oregon 2 6 O O 0 Pennsylvania 1 8 O 2 3 Rhode Island 0 O O O 0 South Carolina 0 5 O O 0 South Dakota 1 l O O 1 Tennessee 5 6 O O 0 Texas 6 A O 2 2 Utah 0 6 O O 0 Vermont 1 2 O O 0 Virginia 5 2 O O 0 'Washington 1 O O O 0 West Virginia 0 l O O 0 ‘Wisconsin 8 2 A 9 5 'Wyoming 3 O 0 O O 1/ Source. Schultz, Theodore Training and Recruiting of Personnel in the Rural Social Studies, American Councilion Education, 'WEShington, D. C., l9Al, Appendix Table XXII, p. 260. .2/ Source: Tabulated from Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. XXXVIII, No. 2, May 1955. 2/ Source: Tabulated from Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. XLIII, No. 2, May 1961. tional setups. The implications of these ratios, however, do raise questions relative to problems and policies of recruitment of graduate students, financing graduate programs, requirements for graduate de- grees, and other questions relating to graduate training. -1oh- Among the major problems and weaknesses in graduate recruitment and training in Agricultural Economics during recent years have been the following: 1. Selections of beginning graduate students have been made by different criteria among Land-Grant institutions. The problems of selection and.recruitment have been complicated by the absence of suitable quantitative measures or other criteria for evaluating grad-i uate capabilities and potentialities of individuals. Part of these difficulties have been due to shortcomings of undergraduate training programs, particularly the inability of undergraduate curricula to attract the better students who were enrolled in colleges of agricul- ture, and the general lack of rigorous and analytical training pro- vided by some institutions at the undergraduate level. 2. ‘With the bulk of the graduate training in.Agricultural Eco- nomics for students seeking professional careers being centered in only a few institutions, there have been both advantages and disadvan- tages. On the favorable side,this situation has made it possible for both the better students and the more outstanding graduate teachers to be attracted by the larger graduate centers. Larger classes for many of the advanced courses at these institutions have been more effi- ciently handled than would have been possible if only a few students had been available. On the unfavorable side, there have been dangers in over-centralization in that some graduate programs have attained such size that the advantages of personal guidance, close student- faculty relations, adequate research supervision, and other features of a more nearly optimum arrangement may have been lost. Also, there has been the danger of having too few individuals dominate the training, -105- the thinking, the points of view, and the ideas that should normally be promoted on a broad base during an individual's graduate training period. l2/ 3. In the smaller graduate training departments, many of which have offered graduate training at the Master's level only, most gradu- ate students have been recruited from their own institutions. Thus, a tendency toward pronounced regionalism.may have been promoted within such graduate training work. Since many of the graduate students in these institutions have not gone into other institutions for additional graduate work, this problem has been particularly acute for the insti- tutions concerned. h. Graduate training at many institutions, particularly at the larger graduate centers and at those that emphasized training at the Ph. D. level, frequently has tended to be highly specialized. This type of training was criticized by Nicholls in 1960 when he pointed out that such training provided specialists who were incapable of tackling the current wide range of economic and social problems that relate to agriculture. 29/ Nicholls suggests the need for developing the types of graduate programs that will prepare graduate students to be able to find useful solutions to problems, with the most efficient tools available chosen in a problem-solving context. 19 For a complete and detailed discussion of graduate training in the ield of economics, see: Bowen, Howard R., "Graduate Education in Economics," American Economic Review, Vol. XLII, No. b, Part 2, September 1953. Also see, Nicholls, pp. 333. 29/ Nicholls, 22. cit., p. 98h. -106- Professional Staff Recruitment and Training Professional staff recruitment and training can best be discussed and evaluated in terms of two different, yet closely related, aspects: outgoing staff members and incoming staff members. The going and coming of staff members within a department is a normal phenomenon. The rate of turnover of staff members in a department is an indicator of growth, stability, or deterioration. Outgoing Staff During the S-year period between 1951 and 1956, a total of 30h staff workers in Agricultural Economics left their positions at 36 Land-Grant institutions, Table 35. This resulted in a rate of turn- over gl/ only slightly lower than that of 10 to 15 years earlier. More than a third of the personnel leaving Land-Grant institution positions during this period moved to other colleges or universities. Slightly less than a third went with the U. S. Department of Agricul- ture or some other public agency. Nearly 20 per cent went into private agency types of employment. Of the remaining number of staff members who left Land-Grant institutions during this period, about 10 per cent were retired, and about 5 per cent became self-employed. The principal competition faced by Land41rant Agricultural Eco- nomics departments during this period was in the very high rate of movement of staff members from one institution to another. Although the U. S. Department of Agriculture research agencies took about a ‘gl/ The calculated rate of turnover for the period 1951-56 was 7 per cent per year (Appendix Table 17), compared to a rate for the pe- riod l933-h0 of 8 per cent per year (Schultz, pp. git.). -lO7- Aumsfipcoov fl 4 I a H I I a I a 3&3on a I I I I I H H I N appondnuamnmz I I I I I I I I I I \m unnamed: m I H m H H H I I H onHmz 0H H I a m m I m I H andHuHsoq I I I I I I I I I I \m.hxoapnom 4H I H m H H H w I I naqum m I I I H I I a I I don I I I I I I I I I I mafiafi NH I H m m m I m m H “HQGHHHH I I I I I I I I I I H ande 4H I I N m a I N I a «fiancee o H I m I I I m I I wvHHOHh o I I I I I I I I I onmawHoa m I I I I I I a I H paOHpoonnoo o I I I I I I a I m onquHoo I I I I I I I I I I \H. agenda w H I I I H H a I I nuquxhd w I I H H I H a I I «nouHud m I I m I I m m H I dadgaHd umnsdz umbszzr. pmnasz .nmnasz nomadz nmnssz nomadz nommmz :mmm. nonasz . .mmcmwm.NoCmma. nonpo.nonaommn.AWHuho>Hqs. « Hdpoa. nonpo. IUmAOHQEoIHHmmM mpm>Hhm.0HHnsm. dam: « dam: .ho mmeHooI npmoQIHGQEoAHpomu opdvm . . . «92$o. u u uflfip n u u Amqw>wmq new :OHmaooo hmv *omIHmmH 32$ amem manna mnofigflmfi pauses...“ a. 328.com Ufipgotma 3.. ufipm aoammmuoum gowns .mm 383 -108- Acmsaapeoov m I I I H I I J I I 830539 I I I I I I I I I I \m «pagan Assam m I I m I H H m I I 3.30.30 5.50m m. I I m I H I m I I psdeH 398 m I I I I I H m I H wflnthnSuom m I H I I I I m H I commune N I H H I I H m I H 39330 N. I I m I H I m I H 0.30 m I I I m I I m I I 30de 5.202 I I I I I I I I I I \H «chaotao apps: 4H I m a I m I m I m x90» :02 a H I H H I I H I I oceans: 302 N I I I I H I I H I hogan. 302 I I I I I I I I I I \m ofimafim 3oz m I I H I I I H I m 3252 m I I I H I N J I N dxmdhnoz I I I I I I I I I I \H. 389cc: m I I m I I I m. I I H.333: ea I I m H N a a a N Haaammamuaz m I H I I I I H H N 3305 $852 89:52 pogz $852 moorssz Sega Amped—z nomad? 393:2 hoe—32 . u u N hozmwwnmocomwu monocunofiomomuhfimnonrg“ « " H.309“ nonbouvmunoneaIHHomnopaSum“oHHobmu «mm: H «am: ”no omoHHoou spammupcmaahgomn madam « u u u .850“ u « pogo « u u Agarmog no.“ QOHowoOOJHmV ImmIamma .uoanom nuowIm waauzn mcoaazpapmcH pawnoquaq pa seasonoom Hauspasoauma ca uuapm auqoaumouogm mnaompso .Aumsqapaoov mm magma 68:55.2 pa: 858533850 \m .88QO .Ho mo>mmH 8deon pun. :38 .memSothon «$.3de movdHqua. _ 9 m I I I I I I I I I I \H snag; a I I H I m H H I m 598033 0 I I I I I I I I I quHmnH> paws. 0N H m a a m m o I I 5953: I I I I I I I I I I \m dHGHmHH> o I I I I I I m H I #:85on o I I H H H I m I I 43.: m I I H I H H H H I @339 .8952 .8852 80.852 88.82 .883 8 .8852 885.2 885% . _N N N No8 nonpoNsoHnmmththmnouandN N N HdpoaN nonpoNvmhonEmImHmm8.5353399? dam: N «am: Nno monHooN spooQanmeothomN 0.89m. N N N N 85.9 N N .8ng N N N mgufimq no.“ GOHmdooo hmv *chHmmH 602$ toHIm mfifin 303:3ng sfinqufiH no 8228on 383383 5 .HHSm 858388 wfiompso .Aeosfipnoov mm mHnua -llO- third of the staff members who went into public agency employment be- tween 1951 and 1956,the competitive role of the U. S. Department of Agriculture has been less in recent years than during the lO-year pe- riod prior to l9h0. Between these two periods, industry, business, and other private agency employment have rapidly increased in importance as users of trained personnel in Agricultural Economics. Of the total number of professional staff members leaving Land- Grant Agricultural Economics work between 1951 and 1956, approximately a third were engaged primarily in research work. Another third were primarily engaged in joint teaching and research responsibilities. Slightly more than a fourth were extension workers. Most of the re- maining staff members who left during this period were primarily full time teachers. A total of to per cent of the Agricultural Economics staff members who left Land-Grant institutions between 1951 and 1956 held Ph. D. degrees; 52 per cent had Master's degrees. More important at individ- ual institutions, some departments lost very high percentages of their senior staff members, while others did not. Some departments were large enough that loss of a few staff members did not disrupt depart- mental organizations and operations. Departments that suffered greatest from.high turnover were those that recruited competent but inexperienced personnel and after seeing these personnel become more experienced and more productive, then, these departments, because of financial or other reasons, were unable to hold them. Losses of professional staff in Agricultural Economics at Land- Grant institutions were greatest at the assistant and instructor levels during the period between 1951 and 1956. More than a third of the -111- staff losses were at the assistant level; approximately 20 per cent were instructors. Losses of senior staff members made up nearly a third of total losses. Staff with full rank contributed 17 per cent of losses and those with the rank of associate made up 12 per cent of the total. Incoming Staff During the 5-year period between 1951 and 1956, a total of hlB incoming staff workers were reported by 36 Land-Grant Agricultural Eco- nomics departments, Table 36. These additions represented both re- placements for staff members who left during this period and net addi- tions to teaching, research, and extension staffs in.Agricultural Eco- nomics. Since this group of Land-Grant institutions lost 30h staff members during this period (Table 35) due to retirement, deaths, and acceptance of positions elsewhere, there was a net increase in Agri- cultural Economics workers at these 36 institutions of 109 persons during this 5-year period. 22/ Selection and recruitment of personnel in Agricultural Economics are influenced by a number of different factors. .Among these are the supply of available personnel, type of training and experience of potential employees, type of training and experience required by ems playing institutions, budgetary limitations, degree of competition faced, and many other factors. Table 36 indicates that approximately half of the incoming staff workers in Land-Grant.Agricultural Economics 22/ The net increase in staff members during the period 1951-56 was at a rate slightly higher than for the period 1933-h0, when hSh persons were appointed to positions in h8 Land43rant institutions. Ta‘: -112- Table 36. Incoming Professional Staff in Agricultural Economics at Land—Grant Institutions During S-Year Period, 1951-56 By institution where : Byfinstituion where undergraduate training : highest advanced degree State : was received: held was received: : Own : Other Own ' : Other : institution: institution 3: ins titution : institution 5 Number Number Number Number Alabama 7 S 3 9 Arizona 0 8 O 8 Arkansas 7 3 5 5 California l/ - - - - Colorado 1 6 O 7 Connecticut 0 8 2 6 Delaware 1 l O 2 Florida h 10 h 10 Georgia 15 9 9 15 Idaho _1_/ - - - - Illinois 10 10 9 11 Indiana 1] - - - - Iowa 2 3 2 3 Kansas 9 6 7 8 Kentucky 1/ - - - - Louisiana 18 l 15 14 Maine 5 5 l 9 Maryland J_./ - - - - Massachusetts 6 5 l 10 Michigan 10 16 9 17 Minnesota 2 h 2 h Mississippi 15 h 9 10 Missouri 2 h 0 6 Montana y - - - - Nebraska 1 5 2 )4 Nevada 0 S 0 5 New Hampshire 1/ - - - - New Jersey 3 3 2 h NEW‘Mexico l 5 O 6 New York 8 12 15 5 North Carolina y - - - - North Dakota 3 3 0 6 (Continued) -113- Table 36 (Continued). Incoming Professional Staff in Agricultural Economics at LandeGrant Institutions During S-Year Period, 1951-56 By institution‘where undergraduate training highest advanced degree : By institution where State : was received: held was received: 0. O. .0 Own : Other Own : Other institution:institutions:institutionzinstitutiona Number Number Number Number Ohio 17 9 13 13 Oklahoma 6 7 l 12 Oregon 0 h 0 h Pennsylvania 2 10 3 9 Rhode Island 3 9 O 12 South Carolina 2 5 O 7 South Dakota.1/ - - - - Tennessee 1 h 0 5 Texas 8 10 7 11 Utah 5 - 2 3 Vermont 9 1 2 8 Virginia _1_/ .. - - .. 'Washington 8 15 2 21 west Virginia 1 l 2 0 Wisconsin 3 2 2 3 'Wyoming 1/ - — - - 1/ Questionnaire not returned. departments were recruited fromIpersonnel who had completed their under- graduate training at the same institution where they were appointed. Some of these persons, however, had attended other institutions between 'the time of completing undergraduate work and the time of appointment. Of the remaining incoming professional staff between 1951 and 1956, he per cent completed their undergraduate training at other Lanerrant 1n- stitutions and 10 per cent at nonALandsGrant institutions. -llh- Of particular significance was the situation at individual insti- tutions. One-third of the responding institutions shown in.Table 36, recruited and appointed more than half of their incoming staff from personnel who had completed their undergraduate training at the same institutions to which they were appointed. Many of these institutions were located in the Southern States. Incoming professional staff members during the 1951-56 period were employed in all areas of Agricultural Economics work. A total of hO per cent were employed primarily as research workers. An additional 30 per cent were employed on joint teaching-research appointments. The remaining 30 per cent were employed primarily as extension workers. Only 29 per cent of the incoming staff workers between 1951 and 1956 had received their Ph. D. degrees. 22/'.A total of 5h per cent had completed their Master‘s degrees. Many of the workers in this group had received some graduate training beyond the Master's degree, but they had not completed the Ph. D. degree. In terms of individual Land-Grant institutions, for 6 of the 36 reporting institutions, more than half of the incoming staff workers during this period had com- pleted their Ph. D. degrees. For an equal number of institutions, only about 10 per cent of the incoming staff workers had completed the Ph. D. degree. All of this latter group of institutions were located in the Southern.States. Data for incoming professional staff members indicating the insti- tutions from which the' highest advanced degree held at the time of '23/ This was slightly higher than the 27 per cent figure for in- coming staff workers during the period l933—h0. -115- appointment was received are shown in Table 36. For the 36 institu- tions reporting for the period from 1951 to 1956, a total of 131 out of th incoming staff members with advanced degrees received their highest advanced degree attained at the time of appointment from the appointing institution. This represented 38 per cent of the total. Excluding this group, it is possible to determine the relative importance of dif- ferent Land-Grant graduate departments of Agricultural Economics as sources of staff personnel for other departments within the Land-Grant institutional setup. Such an analysis indicates that during the pe- riod 1951-56, the graduate departments in seven institutions supplied more than 58 per cent of the incoming professional staff of other Land43rant institutions. Four institutions-—Cornell, Iowa State, Wisconsin, and Minnesota-—accounted for hh per cent of the total, and supplied staff personnel as follows: Cornell 29, Iowa State 26, Wisconsin 20, and Minnesota 19. Other institutions of importance during this period included Purdue 11, Harvard 11, Illinois 10, California 8, Florida 6, and Michigan State 6. The institutions that supplied from 2 to h staff members each included Chicago, Kansas State, and Pennsylvania State (h each); Connecticut, Oklahoma State, North Carolina State, Missouri, and Kentucky (3 each); and Louisiana State, Montana State, Nebraska, and Texas A & M (2 each). Most of the incoming professional staff workers during the period 1951-56 were appointed at the instructor or assistant level. These two groups made up 70 per cent of the total. Of the total, h2 per cent were appointed as assistants, 28 per cent as instructors, 9 per cent as associates, and 3 per cent at full rank. The remaining incoming staff workers were primarily appointments in extension work with the rank of m -116- specialist. Staff training under formal leave of absence arrangements was in relatively wide use both in terms of participating institutions and in terms of numbers of staff members involved. During the 5-year period 1951-56, a total of 29 out of 36 reporting Land-Grant institutions had one or more staff members on leave to pursue graduate work at some time during this period. The number of personnel involved averaged about four per reporting institution, and the variation in number was from one for several institutions to more than 10 in three institutions- all of which were in the Southern States, Table 37. During this S-year period, of the staff members who were on leave of absence to pursue graduate work, three-fourths were on leave of absence for 1 year or more; the remaining one-fourth were on leave of absence for less than 1 year. There were wide variations in financial arrangements for such leave both with respect to different institutions and with respect to length of leave periods. For individuals on leave for more than 1 year, h per cent were on leave with full pay, 37 per cent with part pay, and 59 per cent without pay. For the personnel on leave for less than 1 year, 38 per cent were on leave with full pay, 38 per cent with part pay, and 2h per cent without pay. Three-fourths of the Agricultural Economics staff personnel that were on leave of absence to pursue graduate work during the period 1951-56, were persons on joint teaching-research appointments; the re- maining one-fourth were extension workers. A relatively high propor- tion of the teaching-research personnel taking leave for graduate study were on leave with pay and for periods of 1 year or more. Most of the extension workers who were on leave for graduate study were on Table 37. Total Number of Staff Members (Teaching, Research, and -117- IExtension) in Agricultural Economics at Land43rant Insti- tutions Taking Leave to Pursue Graduate Work During 5—Year Period,l951-56 State Alabama Arizona Arkansas California‘l/ Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho 1/ Illinois Indiana _1/ Iowa Kansas Kentucky 1/ Louisiana— Maine Maryland 1/ MassachusEtts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana 1/ Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire 1/ New Jersey '— New Mexico New York North Carolina 1/ North Dakota ‘— —_ ‘Leave fOr 1 year 01‘ more :ILeave'forgless than : With : With :Without: full : pay N3. : part : pay “io- lt—‘N II-‘UJINI I ”NI-J Pay let‘lg Il—‘lw boll—’14 P‘I Cr: 1 year : With : With :Without: ' full : part . pay : pay Pay Na- ‘a- Is- 1 (Continued) Total N2. INICI) woov—J gwmm |\OO 1 [...—II ...: 'mWH WNIH l-‘lOE" OIOO -118- Table 37 (Continued). Total Number of Staff Members (Teaching, Research, and Extension) in Agricultural Economics at Land- Grant Institutions Taking Leave to Pursue Gradu- ate Wbrk During 5—Year Period, 1951-56 Leave for 1 year : Leave fer’less than : : or more : 1 year : State = With : With :Without: With : With :Without: Total : full : part : pay : full : part : pay : : pay : pay : : pay : pay ° N2. N3. N3. N3. 'N3. N3. 'N3. Ohio - - - - - - 0 Oklahoma - 2 3 - 1 l 7 Oregon - l - - - - 1 Pennsylvania - - 3 - - 2 5 Rhode Island - - - - - - 0 South Carolina - - - - 2 - 2 South Dakota 1/ - - - - - - - Tennessee '- - 2 8 - - - 10 Texas - - l - - - 1 Utah - l - - l - 2 Vermont - 3 - - - - 3 Virginia l/ - - - - - — - 'Washington - l 2 - - - 3 ‘West Virginia - - 2 - - - 2 ‘Wisconsin - - l - - - 1 ‘Wyoming 1/ - - - - - - - ‘l/ Questionnaire not returned. leave with part pay and for periods of 1 year or more. In the past, some institutions have been reluctant to grant leaves of absence to staff members, even for purposes of pursuing graduate study, partly because of a fear that many such leaves were often consid- ered to be one-way tickets to new positions. 35/ This situation has gh/ Schultz, 22. 22., p. 161. -ll9- apparently changed in recent years. Based on 36 reporting institutions, of the total number of persons taking leaves of absence during the pe- riod 1951-56 to pursue graduate work, 97 per cent returned (or planned to return) to their respective institutional staffs. The proportion who returned (or planned to return) was the same for both those on joint teaching-research appointments and those on extension appointments. The principal problems and weaknesses in professional staff re- cruitment and training during recent years have included the following: 1. Rates of turnover have been excessively high in many institu- tions, and particularly in those institutions located in areas of the country where the social and economic problems of agriculture have been the most difficult and complex, and where professional staff experience, competence, and stability have been greatly needed. 2. Competition from other LandsGrant institutions and from private agencies has been of growing importance as a major factor affecting the ability of many Land-Grant institutions to hold their best trained, most experienced, and most competent workers. This has been a particularly acute problem in the smaller Land—Grant institutions that frequently ‘have been short on finances and other resources needed to meet such competition. 3. Serious problems have continued to persist in many Land-Grant institutions with respect to inbreeding of the professional staff in Agricultural Economics. This has occurred both in the case of institu- tions that have trained young.Agricu1tural Economists and then kept them on their staffs as permanent staff workers, and in the case of in- stitutions that have recruited all or the major part of their incoming staff from a limited number of graduate schools. The latter case has -l20- been characteristic of many of the institutions in the Southern States. b. It has continued to be difficult for many institutions to re- cruit and hold well-trained personnel. This has been particularly true with respect to personnel with Ph. D. training, and has been an eSpec- ially acute problem in many Southern States. 5. Many Land-Grant institutions have made use of leaves of ab- sence to encourage staff members to pursue graduate or post-graduate work, but in only a few of the institutions where leaves of absence have been used for these purposes have institutions provided adequate leave with full pay or with part pay. In many instances, individuals have been granted leaves of absence for graduate study only under the provision of leave without pay. 6. Since most professional staff appointments initially come from graduate ranks, the increasing emphasis being placed on highly special- ized graduate training in some graduate departments has been of growing concern as a factor influencing recruitment and training of professional staff members. Specialized training is needed in many areas. But, in the future as in the past, the greatest demand for and the better op- portunities for young Agricultural Economists may lie not in specializa- tion but in the broad, fundamental, practical areas of study relating to the social, economic, and political aspects of agriculture. 25/ Staff Vacancies: 1956 and Projections The heads of departments of Agricultural Economics were requested to indicate the number of staff vacancies in Agricultural Economics ‘25/ Also see Nicholls, gp.'git., p. 98h-985. -121- teaching, research, and extension in their respective Land-Grant insti- tutions as of July 1, 1956. In 37 responding institutions, a total of 95 vacancies (full-time equivalents) were reported. In terms of areas of work, 13 per cent of these vacancies were in teaching, 50 per cent in research, and 37 per cent in extension (Appendix Table 18). As an additional indication of the personnel needs in Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant institutions, heads of departments of Agricul- tural Economics were requested to indicate their estimates of antici- pated increases in number of professional staff members that would be needed as Agricultural Economics workers in their respective LandAGrant institutions during the 5-year period from 1956 to 1961. Based on estimates made as of July 1, 1956, the increase in workers needed at the 37 reporting institutions for this 5-year period was 26h additional workers (in full-time equivalents). 26/ In terms of broad areas of work, estimated total needs were made up of 22 per cent teachers, 51 per cent research workers, and 27 per cent extension workers. 26/ These estimates represent the equivalent of about 352 additional Agriaultural Economics workers that would be needed in all LandJGrant institutions between 1956 and 1961. The actual increase in the number of Agricultural Economists in Land-Grant institutions that occurred be— tween 1956 and 1961 was 365, representing the increase from.l,O7h workers in l95h-55 to 1,h39 workers in 1961. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Agricultural Economics as a field of study concerned with the application of the social sciences to the problems of agriculture and as a subject for teaching and research in Land-Grant institutions was relatively unknown prior to 1900. Since that time, the history of Agricultural Economics has been a story of rapid development and growth, and of continuing change and adjustment. 1/ In 19h1, the re- sults of a comprehensive study of the resources available in the field of Agricultural Economics and of the training and recruiting of person- nel in this field were published by the American Council on Education.§y' This particular study placed emphasis on major weaknesses of teaching, research, and extension programs and activities in Land-Grant institu- tions at that time. No comparable study of Agricultural Economics programs and activities in Land-Grant institutions has been undertaken since the l9hO study was completed. The changing nature, scape, and complexity of rural and related problems since 19h0 emphasize the needs for a re-study of Land-Grant institutional programs and activities in teaching, research, and ex- tension work in.Agricultural Economics. Questions of major concern include: (1) To what extent has Agricultural Economics adjusted its 1/ Taylor, Henry C., and Taylor, Anne Dewees, The Story of Agri- cultural Economics, Iowa State College Press, Ames, Iowa, 1952. 2/ Schultz, Theodore W., Trainin and Recruitin of Personnel in the Rural Social Studies, American Council on Education,OWashington, D. Go, 1914].. ~122- -123- teaching, research, and extension programs and activities to meet the changes in needs that have occurred since about l9h0? And, (2) to what extent do these changes in needs mean additional adjustments in Agricultural Economics teaching, research, and extension programs and activities in the future? Based on information supplied by Land-Grant institutional Agri- cultural Economics departments and on available secondary data, an analysis of the situation with respect to Land-Grant institutional pro- grams and activities in Agricultural Economics in 1955, and a comparison of the 1955 situation with that of l9hO, was made. Many of the compar- isons made indicate, that despite the tremendous growth and progress that was made in the field of Agricultural Economics during this 15-year period, that some of the problems and weaknesses that existed in l9h0 have continued to be major problems and weaknesses during recent years. For the field of Agricultural Economics, the period between 19h0 and 1955 was a period of growth and adjustment. The number of person- nel engaged in Land-Grant institutional teaching, research, and exten- sion work in Agricultural Economics increased from 711 in 1939-ho to 1,07h in 195h—55 -— a 50 per cent increase. 3/ Throughout this period, the number of Agricultural Economics workers represented about the same percentage (7.8 per cent) of the total number of workers in subjects pertaining to agriculture at Land-Grant institutions. The total amount of financial resources available to Agricultural Economics for teaching, research, and extension in Land-Grant institu- 3 In 1959-60, the number of Agricultural Economics workers in Land rant institutions was 1,378, thus, representing a 30 per cent increase since l95h-55. -12h- tions increased from $2.7 million in 1939—ho to $11.2 million in 1955-56 -— a 315 per cent increase during this 15-year period. Largest increases were for research.work and smallest increases were for teach- ing. Departmental organization and administration of teaching, research, and extension work in Agricultural Economics varied widely from state to state in 1955. In nearly half of the states, extension work was handled administratively separately from teaching and research. This arrangement works to the disadvantage both of extension workers and of research workers and teachers. This situation was essentially the same in 1955 as in 19m. A persistency of staff vacancies and a high rate of turnover of professional staff members in Agricultural Economics departments were major problems at many Land-Grant institutions in 1955. In looking into the immediate future at that time, heads of departments of Agri- cultural Economics estimated that staff needs would continue to increase in teaching, research, and extension. Adding to the acuteness of this situation, many Land-Grant Agricultural Economics departments in 1955 were already understaffed in terms of numbers, training, experience, and competence. These conditions focused major attention toward the problems of recruiting and training of Agricultural Economics staff personnel for Land-Grant institutional work in teaching, research, and extension. The process of recruiting and training of Agricultural Economics staff personnel begins at the undergraduate level, primarily in col- leges of agriculture within Land-Grant institutions. During recent years, increasing enrollments in Land-Grant institutions have been in -125- areas outside of colleges of agriculture. Despite this situation, the field of Agricultural Economics has been able to recruit and enroll an increasing percentage of undergraduates from colleges of agriculture. In recruiting undergraduates, problems have been more closely related to quality than to numbers of students. At the undergraduate training level, Agricultural Economics cur- ricula continue to need revision in line with changing needs, partic- ularly in tenms of providing broader, yet more rigorous and analytical training. A major need in undergraduate training is the establishment of more uniformity in the quality and levels of teaching among institutions. Also, more emphasis needs to be placed on the proper selection and assignment of staff personnel who are to be responsible for undergrad- uate teaching. In the selection and recruitment of graduate students, adequate quantitative measures for evaluating graduate capabilities and poten- tialities need to be developed. In the smaller graduate training departments, most graduate stu- dents are enrolled in graduate schools at the same institutions where their undergraduate work is done. In these cases, such students should be encouraged to seek graduate training at other institutions. At the same time, these institutions should intensify efforts to bring in graduate students from outside institutions. Graduate training, particularly at the Ph.D. level and at the larger graduate training centers, often tends to be highly specialized. For many advanced graduate students, and particularly in terms of ca- reer Opportunities and employment duties and responsibilities after —126- graduation, a broader and a less specialized program may be more appro- priate than a highly specialized training program. Competition from other Land-Grant institutions and from private agencies is a major factor affecting the ability of departments to re- cruit and hold well-trained and competent staff members. This type of competition is also affecting the ability of many departments to hold their most competent and experienced permanent staff members. Inbreeding of professional staff in Agricultural Economics con- tinues to persist in many institutions. This is a particularly acute problem in some regions of the country. In these instances, the rate of turnover of professional staffs may need to be increased as a means of solving this situation. In most cases, however, rates of turnover are already too high to permit departments to build stability and con- tinuity into departmental teaching, research, and extension programs and activities. REFERENCES CITED REFERENCES CITED Black, John D., "Economics in Agricultural College Curricula," Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. XXXV, No. LI, 1953. """""' Bowen, Howard R., "Graduate Education in Economics,‘I American Economic Review, Vol. XLII, No. h, Part 2, September 1953. Bruner, Henry 8., "Agricultural Enrollment in the Land-Grant Colleges and Universities,“ Report to the American Association of Land- Grant Colleges and State Universities, November 1960. James, H. B., "The Philosophy of Undergraduate Training," Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. XLI, No. 5, December 1959. Kelly, Fred J., ”The Case for Improving the Preparation of College Teachers,n Chapter I, Eggard Better Colle e Teach‘ , Bulletin 1950, No. 13, Office of Education, Federal ecur ty.Agency, ‘Washington, D. C., 1950. Knight, Willys R., Probi into the Economic Attitudes of Colle e Stu- dents, Research Paper No. 5, BEFeau of Business and’EEonomic Re- search, Georgia State College, Atlanta, Georgia, February'1958. Knoblauch, H. 0., "Basic Research at State Stations,” Science, Vol. 130, No. 3389, December 11, 1959. Lanham, Ben T., Jr., ”Changing Agricultural Curricula in.Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology to Meet Current and Future Needs,” Proceedéggs, Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociolo Section, Associa on o Southern,AgFicuIturéI workers, VoI. I, I965. Nicholls,‘William H., "Higher Education.and Agricultural Economics: A Critical Appraisal," Journal of Farm Econmmics, Vol. XLII, No. 5, December 1960. Proceedings, 7lst Annual Convention of the American Association of Land-Grant Colleges and State Universities. Rasmussen, wayne D., Liberal Education and A riculture, Institute of Higher Education, Teachers ColIege, Cqumbia University, New York, New York, 1959. Renne, Roland R., “Land-Grant Institutions, the Public,and the Public Interest,” The Annals of the American.Academy of Political and Social Science, VoI. 3§I,Septefiber I965. Schultz, Theodore'W., Traig%gg and Recruit of Personnel in the Rural '§EC131 Studies, or can ouncil on ucatiEh,‘Washingt0n, 5.5., HI. -128- -129- Stucky, H. R., I'Adapting Agricultural Economics Curricula to a Chang- ing Agriculture," Proceedings, Western Farm.Economics Associa- tion, 1960. Taylor, Henry 0., and Taylor, Anne Dewees, The Story of Agricultural Economics, Iowa State College Press, Ames, IEwa, 1952. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, USDA, ‘Washington, D. 0.: Government Printing Office, Annual'Issues. Farm Income Situation, AMS, USDA, DwaShingtOn, D. 5.: GEvernment PFinting Office, Current Issues. Farm Population Estimates, AMS, ODD DA 1washington, D. 0.: Government PrintingiOffice, I955 and 1955 ,Repprt of the ricultural Experiment Statifins ,Washington,D . 5.: Gtvernment Printing Office, I9h0,19h5, 1950, and 1955. ,Report of Coo erative Exten- sion Work in A icTfiture and Home Economics, FEE, USDA, Wash- in-g'ton, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 19h0, 19h5, 1950, and 1955. ,Wbrkers in sub ects Pertain- in to A LicultureIIHULand:Gran t coileges and§¥geriment Stations, Wthington“ vernment t ng ice, Annual Issues. United States Department of Commerce, United States Census of Popula- tion Bureau of the Census, United States Departmefit of Commerce, as ington, D. 0.: Government Printing Office, 19h0 and 1950. APPENDIX A STATISTICAL TABLES Appendix Table 1. -131- Official Name and Location of the NB Land-Grant Institutions Studied * (As of 1955-56) : : Location : D-C State : Institution : of :code : : institution : ll Alabama Alabama Polytechnic Institute Auburn 0 Arizona University of Arizona Tucson U Arkansas University of Arkansas Fayetteville U California University of California _2/ Berkeley LI U Colorado Colorado Agricultural and Mechanical College Fort Collins 0 Connecticut University of Connecticut 2/ Storrs C Delaware University of Delaware Newark U Florida University of Florida Gainesville U Georgia University of Georgia 5/ Athens U Idaho University of Idaho Moscow U Illinois University of Illinois Urbana U Indiana Purdue University Lafayette 0 Iowa Iowa State College of Agri- culture and Mechanic Arts Ames 0 Kansas Kansas State College of Agri- culture and Applied Science Manhattan 0 Kentucky University of Kentucky Lexington U Louisiana The Louisiana State Univer- sity and Agricultural and Mechanical College Baton Rouge 3 U Maine University of Maine Orono U Maryland University of Maryland :7 College Park U (Continued) Appendix Table 1 (Continued). -132- (As of 1955-56) Official Name and Location of the CB Land-Grant Institutions Studied * : : Location : UT State : Institution : of :code : : institution : ll Massachusetts University of Massachusetts Amherst C Michigan Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Sciences East Lansing C Minnesota University of Minnesota St. Paul 1 U Mississippi Mississippi State College State College C Missouri University of Missouri Columbia U Montana Montana State College Bozeman C Nebraska University of Nebraska Lincoln U Nevada University of Nevada Reno U New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Durham U New Jersey Rutgers University' New Brunswick U New Mexico New Mexico College of Agri- culture and Mechanic Arts State College C New York Cornell University'é/ Ithaca North Carolina North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineer- ing Raleigh C North Dakota North Dakota Agricultural College Fargo C Ohio Ohio State University _7/ Columbus 10 U Oklahoma Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College Stillwater C Oregon Oregon State College Corvallis C (Continued) -133-‘ Appendix Table 1 (Continued). Official Name and Location of the h8 Land-Grant Institutions Studied * (As of 1955-56) Location : U-C State ; Institution ; of :code : : institution : L Pennsylvania Pennsylvania State University State College C Rhode Island University of Rhode Island Kingston C South Carolina Clemson Agricultural College Clemson C South Dakota South Dakota State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts College Station C Tennessee University of Tennessee §/ Knoxville 16 U Texas Texas Agricultural and Mechan- ical College (System) College Station C Utah Utah State Agricultural Col- lege Logan C Vermont University of Vermont and State Agricultural College Burlington U Virginia Virginia Polytechnic Insti- tute g/ Blacksburg C 'Washington State College of'Washington Pullman C west Virginia ‘West Virginia University Morgantown U Wisconsin University of Wisconsin Madison 6 U ‘Wymming University of Wyoming Laramie U *Since 1955-56, the official names of’many of the Land-Grant in- stitutions have been changed. In most cases, however, the objectives, functions, organization, and operation of these institutions have re- mained unchanged. 1/ U-C code refers to UniversityBCollege code as follows: University (U) refers to those institutions that include a liberal arts college and such professional colleges as law and medicine -— the characteristic university-type of organization (See Marsh: AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES). (Continued) -13h- l/ (Continued): College (C) refers to those institutions that emphasize science and technology -— the so-called state colleges of agriculture and mechanic arts. This classification and description adapted from Schultz, Theodore ‘w., TRAINING AND RECRUITING OF PERSONNEL IN THE RURAL SOCIAL STUDIES, American Council on Education, Washington, D. C., 19hl, pp. h2-h3. 2/ Includes units of the University of California located at Davis, Los Angeles, and Riverside. 2/ Includes Agricultural Experiment Station located at New Haven. g/ Includes Agricultural Experiment Stations located at Tifton and Griffin. é/ Includes State College Division located at Princess Anne. é/ Includes Agricultural Experiment Station located at Geneva. 1/ Includes Agricultural Experiment Station located at Wboster. §/ Includes University Branch located at Martin. 2/ Includes Agricultural Experiment Station located at Norfolk. Source: Compiled from “Workers in Subjects Pertaining to Agricul- ture iH—Land-Grant Colleges and Experiment Stations, 1955-56," U. S. Dept. of Agri., Agriculture Handbook No. 95, OES, ARS, USDA, March 1956. Appendix Table 2. -135- Inclusion of Specified Subject-Matter Areas in Departments of Agricultural Economics at Land- Grant Institutions, 1955-56 : Sociology :_: Economics :Business:Statis- State :Rura :Genera :Consumer:General: Adm. : tics Alabama no no no no no no Arizona no no no no no no Arkansas yes no no no no no California I/ - - - - - - Colorado yes yes no yes yes - no Connecticut no no yes no no no Delaware no no yes no no yes, Florida no no no no no yes Georgia no no 2/ no no 3/ Idaho 1/ - - '3 - - - Illinois yes no no no no yes Indiana l/ - - - - - - Iowa yes yes yes yes no no Kansas yes no no no no yes Kentucky 1/ - - - - - - Louisiana-' no no no no no yes Maine yes no no no no yes Maryland l/ - - - - - - Massachusetts no no no no g/ yes Michigan no no no no no no Minnesota no no yes yes no yes Mississippi no no no no no yes Missouri no no yes no no no Montana l/ - - - - - - Nebraska yes no no no no yes Nevada yes 2/ no no no no New Hampshire l/ - - - - - - New Jersey y 2/ .2/ z/ 2/ z/ New Mexico no no no no no no New York no no yes no no yes North Carolina 1/ - - - - - - North Dakota .' yes no yes no no no (Continued) C((E E ‘h I“ I 1 Appendix Table 2 (Continued). -136- Inclusion of Specified SubjectéMatter Areas in Departments of Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant Institutions, 1955-56 -_ : Sociolo : OECCnomics : usiness:Statis- State : ura : nera :Consumer:§eneral: Adma : tics Ohio yes no no no no no Oklahoma no no no no no no Oregon no no yes no no yes Pennsylvania yes no no no yes yes Rhode Island no no yes yes no no South Carolina yes no no no no yes South Dakota l/ - - - - - - Tennessee '— yes no yes no no no Texas yes yes yes no no yes Utah no no no no no yes Vermont yes no yes no no no Virginia l/ - - - - - - washington no no no no no yes ‘Nest Virginia yes no no no no no Wisconsin no no no no no no vmingy - - - - -' - l/ Questionnaire not returned. 2/ Not reported on returned questionnaire. -137- Appendix Table 3.“ Total Income of Experiment Stations from All Sources for Years Ended June 30, Specified Years State : 19h0 : 19h5 : 1950 : 1955 ' “1,000 ' 1,000 ' I,000 ' 1,000— dol. dol. dol. dol. Alabama 599 722 1,669 2,280 Arizona 225 262 A92 822 Arkansas 279 382 929 . 1,303 California 1,615 1,912 h,939 8,377 Colorado 281 h23 8S7 1,h6S Connecticut h36 379 1,111 l,h01 Delaware 1&2 23h 389 597 Florida 730 1,023 2,996 3,969 Georgia 317 th 737 2,787 Idaho 171 205 756 1,022 Illinois 692 861 2,019 2,713 Indiana 1,117 1,260 2,737 3,1h2 Iowa 522 910 2,205 3,537 Kansas 3h? 621 1,027 2,166 Kentucky 515 h68 97S 1,52h Louisiana 262 h97 1,580 2,683 Maine 208 305 h82 630 Maryland 271 355 67h 1,108 Massachusetts 320 330 6&1 891 Michigan hos h5b 1,333 2,h82 Minnesota 613 69h 1,898 2,909 Mississippi 376 71h 1,631 2,170 Missouri 355 h99 1,053 1,hh3 Montana 2&2 396 1,022 1,315 Nebraska 328 39h 1,131 1,817 Nevada 108 128 182 276 New Hampshire 167 138 189 370 New Jersey 621 709 1,210 1,8h5 New Mexico 173 230 1471; 589 New York 1,388 1,5h0 3,h2l 5,283 North Carolina 307 hSS 1,637 2,383 North Dakota 221 339 93h 1.566 (Continued) -138- Appendix Table 3 (Continued). Total Income of Experiment Stations from All Sources for Years Ended June 30, Specified Years : State 1980 : 19h5 : 1950 1955 1,000 ° 1,000 ' 1,000 1,000 dol. dol. dol. dol. Ohio 1,100 1,505 2,366 3,0h8 Oklahoma h82 657 1,388 2,125 Oregon h38 585 1,511 2,330 Pennsylvania h22 610 1,h11 2,292 Rhode Island 99 125 252 hOO South Carolina 365 752 771 1,198 South Dakota 18h 251 h9h 82h Tennessee 265 351 890 1,327 Texas 1,11h l,h62 3,h58 8,588 Utah 178 261 583 1,00h Vermont 117 132 232 355 Virginia 272 377 1,069 1,760 'Washington 3A6 538 1,701 2,617 west Virginia 2&7 316 789 957 Wisconsin 669 901 2,187 3,180 ‘Wyoming 187 230 570 681 Total 20,73h 27,327 63,019 95,562 Source: I'Report on the Agricultural Experiment Stations," 19h0, 19u5, I950? and 1955, USDA. Appendix Table 8. -139- Size of Farm Population Compared to Research Funds in Rural Social Sciences in 1939-ho and in Agri- cultural Economics in 1955-56 at Land-Grant Insti- tutions :Number of farm peoplefor?Number of farm people for :each dollar budgeted for :each dollar budgeted for State : Rural Social Science : Agricultural Economics : research in 1939-h0411 : research in 1955-56 2! Number Number Alabama 70 6.3 Arizona %/ 1.0 Arkansas 9 6.3 California 10 2/ Colorado 17 .3 Connecticut 6 .9 Delaware 3 .9 Florida 16 1.1 Georgia 10h 5.6 Idaho 20 2/ Illinois 13 1.7 Indiana 38 2/ Iowa 12 3.0 Kansas 39 8.7 Kentucky' 2h 3/ Iouisiana 16 370 Maine 10 1.6 Maryland 13 3/ Massachusetts 11 3/ Michigan 25 270 Minnesota 22 2/ Mississippi 25h 9.8 Missouri 53 8.1 Montana 9 2/ Nebraska 3h h.7 Nevada 1 .3 New Hampshire 5 2/ New Jersey' 8 1.8 New Mexico 1h 1.8 New York 8 2.0 North Carolina 69 3/ North Dakota 3/ 2.9 (Continued) -1h0- Appendix Table A (Continued). Size of Farm Population Compared to Research FUnds in Rural Social Sciences in 1939-ho and in Agricultural Economics in 1955-56 at Land-Grant Institutions ENufiEer of farm people'forifiumber of‘farm people for :each dollar budgeted for :each dollar budgeted for State : Rural Social Science : Agricultural Economics : research in 1939-h0fil/ : research in 1955-56 3! Number Number Ohio 31 3.6 Oklahoma 25 2.7 Oregon 13 1.8 Pennsylvania 33 2.7 Rhode Island 3 . 3 South Carolina h2 5.8 South Dakota 17 3/ Tennessee 108 6.0 Texas 5h h.l Utah 9 1.2 Vermont 7 1.5 Virginia 26 2/ Washington 15 1.8 'West Virignia 21 3/ ‘Wisconsin 20 h.5 wyoming 7 2/ _ 1/ Source: Schultz, Theodore W., Training and Recruiting of Personnel 15 the Rural Social Studies, American Council on ucat on, Washington, D. C., 19M,Table h, p. 55. 2/ Source: Based on data shown in Table 9 and farm population estimates for 1955. 3/ Not ascertained. -ud- Appendix Table 5. Farm Income Compared to Research Funds in Rural Social Sciences in 1939-ho and in Agricultural Economics in 1955-56 at Land-Grant Institutions Cash farm income for each:Cash farm income for each dollar budgeted for : dollar budgeted for State Rural Social Science : Agricultural Economics research in 1939-ho ll : research in 1955-56 26 Dollars ’Dollars Alabama 5,659 3,568 Arizona 3/ h,708 Arkansas 3,801 6,039 California 9,278 3/ Colorado 8,096 7,25h Connecticut 2,122 2,hh3 Delaware 1,098 2,889 Florida 6,195 3,050 Georgia 11,236 h,135 Idaho 9,667 3/ Illinois 6,951 8,160 Indiana 12,h71 3/ Iowa 8,h58 9,1lh Kansas 15,038 10,268 Kentucky 2,799 %< Louisiana 2,hhh 2,h Maine 2,87h 2,533 Massachusetts h,971 Michigan 6,707 1,991 Minnesota 8,b30 3 Mississippi 31,78h 5,9 0 Missouri 12,057 10,699 Montana. )4, S73 3/ Nebraska 1h,386 13,h38 Nevada 789 881 New Hampshire 1,2h6 3/ New Jersey 5,575 5,333 New Mexico h,287 1,977 New York 3,056 2,967 North Carolina 10,085 .3/ North Dakota 3/ 7,079 (Continued) Appendix Table 5 (Continued). -1142- Farm Income Compared to Research Funds in Rural Social Sciences in 1939-ho and in Agricultural Economics in 1955-56 at Land-Grant Institutions :caSH’farm income for each:CaSh farm income for eaCh dollar budgeted for : dollar budgeted for State : Rural Social Science : Agricultural Economics : research in 1939—h0 1/ : research in 1955-56 66 Dollars Dollars Ohio 9,18h b.637 Oklahoma 11 3 709 3 3 055 Oregon 5,658 3,106 Pennsylvania 8,999 3,063 Rhode Island 1,295 69h South Carolina h,973 3,278 South Dakota 6,00h 3/ Tennessee 10,765 3,027 Texas 12,860 7,hh1 Utah 3,076 2,162 Vermont 2,h27 2,200 Virginia 2,912 3/ ‘Washington 6,631 3,622 west Virginia 1,518 3/ ‘Wisconsin 6,026 6,h77 wyoming h,817 2/ 1/ Source: Schultz, Theodore W., Training and Recruiting of Personnel in the Rural Social Studies, American Council on Education, Washington,iD. C., 1951, Table 5, p. 56. 2/ Source: estimates for 1955. 3/ Not ascertained. Based on data shown in Table 9 and cash farm income Appendix Table 6. -lh3- Total Funds Allotted to Extension, Fiscal Years Ended June 30, Specified Years State 1910 2 19115 1950 : 1955 ‘ 1,000 ' 1,000 . 1,000 I,000 dol. dol. dol. dol. Alabama 1,206 1,387 2,2h9 2,913 Arizona 179 20h 372 501 Arkansas 812 932 1,681 2,031 California 9A7 1,081 3,118 14,662 Colorado 377 h3h 837 1,232 Connecticut 305 3h5 510 698 Delaware 9h 9h 15h 253 Florida ASS 536 1,179 1,716 Georgia 1,0h6 1,187 2,139 2,97h Idaho 269 265 65h 917 Illinois 1,206 1,2111 2,555 3,522 Indiana 966 1,051 1,878 2,787 Iowa 1,251; 1,131 2,h70 2,932 Kansas 988 1,035 2,171 2,901 Kentucky 912 953 1,810 2,505 Louisiana 651 1,050 1,998 2,717 Maine 2M; 269 1:03 565 Maryland h86 835 850 1,h57 Massachusetts h81 552 859 1,269 Michigan 732 1,021 2,038 3,h89 Minnesota 811 832 1,579 2,10h Mississippi 1,058 1,066 2,175 2,957 Missouri 893 983 1,918 2,602 Montana 355 hlZ 79h 985 Nebraska 607 6h1 1,133 1,685 Nevada 133 150 236 281 New Hampshire 2h5 2h6 359 h62 New Jersey' hhl 520 867 1,361 New Mexico 271 372 759 850 New York 1,760 2,100 3,636 h,959 North Carolina 1,300 1,1109 3,685 5,205 North Dakota 360 1:09 801; 1,009 (Continued) Appendix Table 6 (Continued). -1hh- Total Funds Allotted to Extension, Fiscal Years Ended June 30, Specified Years : : : State : l9h0 ° 19h5 : 1950 1955 . 1,000 . 1,000 . 1f000 1,000 dol. dol. dol. dol. Chic 1,051 1,123 1,865 2,693 Oklahoma 8&6 938 1,761 2,372 Oregon 506 696 1,h60 2,1h1 Pennsylvania 1,023 1,125 1,991 2,703 Rhode Island 79 89 1hO 199 South Carolina 687 752 1,511 2,08h South Dakota 369 381 778 1,121 Tennessee 929 1,036 1,99h 2,577 Texas 2,016 2,191 3,929 A,988 Utah 200 2&0 ASA 6A5 Vermont 219 232 3h5 556 Virginia 889 1,189 2,079 3,050 ‘Washington 395 558 1,2h8 1,539 ‘West Virginia 506 617 1,02h 1,258 ‘Wisconsin 799 9&1 1,789 2,696 wyoning 189 228 h81 636 Total 32,5A6 37,06A 70,737 97,757 Source: ”Report of Cooperative Extension‘Work in Agriculture and :Hone'EEEEEEics,' 19A0, 19A5, 1950, and 1955, USDA. _1AS- Appendix Table 7. Size of Farm Population Compared to Extension Funds in Rural Social Sciences in 1939-80 and in Agricul- tural Economics in 1955-56 at Land-Grant Institutions {Nimber of farm people foerumber offifarm.peop1e for :each dollar budgeted for :each dollar budgeted for State : Rural Social Science : Agricultural Economics : Extension in 1939‘8911/ : Extension in 1955-56 2! Number NumEer Alabama 277 7.0 Arizona 3/ 3/ Arkansas 305 3/ California 89 2] Colorado 3/ 2/ Connecticut -7 1.0 Delaware 8 ‘3/ Florida 18 6.5 Georgia 3h 9.1 Idaho 23 2/ Illinois 3h 8.7 Indiana 32 3/ Iowa 12 3/ Kansas 18 9.6 Kentucky 56 g/ Louisiana 123 ‘d/ Maine 3/ g/ Maryland E6 _{ Massachusetts 5 1. Michigan 19 2.9 Minnesota hO 9.h Mississippi 27 1h.8 Missouri 99 5.7 Montana 23 2/ Nebraska 25 8.9 Nevada 2 2.h New Hampshire 1h 3/ New Jersey 8 272 New Mexico 19 2.3 New York 1h 2.7 North Carolina 265 2/ North Dakota 3/ 11.6 (Continued) -lh6- Appendix Table 7 (Continued). Size of Farm Population Compared to Extension Funds in Rural Social Sciences in 1939—A0 and in Agricultural Economics in 1955-56 at Land-Grant Institutions :Number offifarm people foriNumber of farm people for :each dollar budgeted for :each dollar budgeted for State : Rural Social Science : Agricultural Economics : Extension in 1939-h0_;[ : Extension in 1955-56 2( ‘Nufiber ’Number Ohio 25 h.6 Oklahoma % 5.3 Oregon %/ Pennsylvania 39 _/ Rhode Island 3 .6 South Carolina 32 3/ South Dakota 358 5_/ Tennessee 26 2 .9 Texas 3 3 Utah 15 h:é Vermont 1h 8.1 Virginia 30 3/ washington 112 9.8 ‘West Virginia 80 3/ Wisconsin 18 9:3 Wyvming 6 _3/ 1 Source: _/ Schultz, Theodore ‘W., Trainin and Recruitin of Personnel 15 the Rural Social Studies, American 80unci1 on EdEE§t13n, WaSHington, D. 0.,19h1f5Tab1e711, p. 67. 2/ Source: Based on data shown in Table 15 and farm.population estimates for 1955. 3/ Not ascertained. -1h7- Appendix Table 8. Farm Income Compared to Extension Funds in Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant Institu- tions, 1955-56 :Extension funds: :Cash farm income for :in Agricultural: Cash farm :each dollar of Agri- State : Economics : income _2_/ : cultural Economics ' ’ : : : Extension funds 1,000 dol. Mil. dol. 29.1.- Alabama 119 1471 3,95 7 Arizona 1/ 339 - Arkansas I/ 616 - California 1/ 2,601 - Colorado 1/ h28 - Connecticut 60 171 2,850 Delaware 1/ 10h - Florida 33 607 18,391; Georgia 95 6h5 6,789 Idaho g 323 - Illinois 2 l, 718 20, 951 Indiana y 1,0h3 - Iowa 1/ 2,078 - Kansas 50 8h2 21,050 Kentucky %/ 539 - Louisiana _/ 372 - Maine 1/ 190 - Maryland 1/ 237 - Massachusetts 75 189 2,520 Michigan 226 6h; 2,851; Minnesota 69 1,215 17,608 Mississippi 6h 581 9,078 Missouri 133 995 7,h81 Montana l/ hoo .- Nebraska 36 981 27,250 Nevada 5 37 7,h00 New Hampshire 1/ 70 - New Jersey 52 336 6,h62 New Mexico 51 170 3,333 New York 205 810 3,951 North Carolina 1/ 9hh - North Dakota 19 538 28,316 (Continued) -lh8- Appendix Table 8 (Continued). Farm Income Compared to Extension Funds in Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant Institutions, 1955-56 :Cash farm income for :Extension funds: :in Agricultural: Cash farm :each dollar of Agri- State : Economics : income 2/ : cultural Economics : : : Extension funds 1,000 dol. Mil. dol. 293.1.- Ohio 175 1,031; 5,908 Oklahoma 8b 501 5,96h Oregon 1/ 382 - Pennsylvania 1/ 778 - Rhode Island 19 25 1,316 South Carolina 1/ 35h - South Dakota 1/ 506 - Tennessee 3h hhS 13,088 Texas 1/ 1,905 - Utah 17 1h? 8,6h7 Vermont 18 110 6,111 Virginia I/ lino .— Washington 28 536 19,1h3 West Virginia l/ 117 - Wisconsin 73 978 13,397 Wyoming 1/ 130 - 1/ Questionnaire not returned, or not reported on returned questionnaire. 2/ Cash receipts from marketings including government payments. .-o -1&9- Appendix Table 9. Total Undergraduate Enrollments in Colleges of Agriculture at Land-Grant Institutions, 1938-39, l9h8-h9, and 1955-56 :Under raduate enrollment in colleges of agriculture in: : I? State 38-39 12 : 19h8:fi9 1955- 56 Number Number Number Alabama 722 903 ShS Arizona 270 350 279 Arkansas 378 56& 362 California 2/ 1,828 96& Colorado 391 986 876 Connecticut 2/ 373 266 Delaware ‘88 l&& 120 Florida 2/ hll 303 Georgia g/ 800 5&5 Idaho 2 7 370 273 Illinois 1,053 1,208 978 Indiana 2 1,5&2 1,236 Iowa 1,&38 2,397 1,899 Kansas 731 1,306 902 Kentucky 390 697 th Louisiana 6&8 l,0&& 69& Maine 216 7&6 h7h Maryland 308 811 532 Massachusetts 175 h38 32& Michigan 3/ 1,630 1,255 Minnesota 1,858 1,51& 98& Mississippi 2/ 780 615 Missouri 1,05& 1,765 1,36& Montana ‘2 509 &01 Nebraska 513 829 682 Nevada 103 66 58 New Hampshire 1&0 276 21& New Jersey 2/ 6&6 391 New Mexico 3&5 hSS 278 New York 1,616 1,563 1,531 North Carolina g/ 976 606 North Dakota 3 2 h96 hlh (Continued) -150... Appendix Table 9 (Continued). Total Undergraduate Enrollments in Colleges of Agriculture at Land-Grant Institutions, 1938—39, 19&8-&9, and 1955-56 :Undergraduate enrollment in colleges of‘agriculture in: State : 1938-39 1[ = 19h3-H9 : 1955-56 Number *Number Number Ohio 1,662 1,860 1,500 Oklahoma g( 1,851 1,306 Oregon 82 980 721 Pennsylvania 92& 2,019 1,&83 Rhode Island 125 183 163 South Carolina hfi/ 601 567 South Dakota 5 582 586 Tennessee &30 795 588 Texas 1,959 2,2&1 1,123 Utah 501 727 379 Vermont 88 290 277 Virginia 65h 837 599 ‘Washington 569 739 567 west Virginia 232 571 332 Wisconsin 2/ 1,136 725 Wyoming 2] 298 237 Total (&8 states) XXX h5,833 33,h53 Total (3& states) 21,&89 30,752 22,5h3 1/ Data available in 1938-39 for only 3& Land-Grant institutions. 2/’ Data not available. Source: Data for 1938-39 from: Schultz, Theodore W., Training and Recruitinggof Personnel in the Rural Social Studies, American Council on Education,lWhSHington,lD. 0., 19hI, Table IE, p. 72. Data for l9h8-h9 and 1955-56 from: Proceedings of 7lst Annual Convention of American Association of Land-Grant Colleges and State Universities. -151- Appendix Table 10. Total Number of WOrkers l in Agricultural Econom- ics g/ by Institution, & Land-Grant Institutions, 2/ Specified Years : 1929:*: 193&- : 1939- : l9hh- : 19h9- : 195b- Institution.3[: : 1930 : 1235 19&0 : l9h5 : 1250 : 1955 Alabama 7 6 5 17 30 23 Arizona - - 5 & 6 6 Arkansas 6 8 9 16 20 20 California 13 19 22 20 33 &0 Colorado 9 l3 8 8 15 13 Connecticut 7 15 13 12 15 19 Delaware 3 3 h 3 h h Florida 7 10 12 7 18 2h Georgia 5 8 13 11 23 28 Idaho 3 6 5 & 6 8 Illinois 18' 20 27 28 38 us Indiana 12 12 l& 17 28 32 Iowa 23 3h &8 bl &6 38 Kansas 9 12 25 19 31 &0 Kentucky 12 15 23 20 18 35 Louisiana - h 9 20 22 22 23 Maine 6 8 11 10 1h 11 Maryland 7 10 13 1h 26 26 Massachusetts 11 11 10 10 13 17 Michigan 16 18 23 19 3h 37 Minnesota 17 22 21 22 23 25 Mississippi 8 9 18 16 25 26 Missouri 12 9 13 11 28 30 Montana 8 9 9 9 ll 19 Nebraska 8 11 12 12 1& 20 Nevada 6 7 5 5 3 & New Hampshire 3 7 6 6 7 7 New Jersey' 6 8 11 7 6 7 New Mexico 2 3 7 6 12 13 New York 22 31 35 28 32 39 North Carolina 7 7 12 1& 2h 27 9 6 10 7 1h 11 North Dakota (Continued) -152- Appendix Table 10 (Continued). Total Number of workers 1/ in Agricul- tural Economics 2/ by Institution, &8 Land-Grant Institutions, 3/ Specified Years : 1929- : 193h- 2*1939- : 19hh- : l9h9l: 195h- Institution.3/ : 1930 : 1935 : 19&0 l9h5 : 1950 : 1955 1211212119.;12121 Ohio 19 21 17 18 22 31 Oklahoma 6 8 15 20 27 2& Oregon 11 11 16 13 22 28 Pennsylvania 1& 13 18 21 31 30 Rhode Island 2 3 5 6 10 12 South Carolina 6 12 19 22 21 29 South Dakota 10 10 10 6 16 22 Tennessee 6 1h 26 26 25 29 Texas 12 16 29 38 31 . 30 Utah 5 7 12 9 15 19 Vermont 6 5 5 h 5 8 Virginia 9 11 15 17 18 21 washington 7 9 10 10 2h 19 ‘West Virginia 7 10 10 11 11 11 Wisconsin 13 21 28 25 35 37 wyoming 2 2 7 3 7 7 Total &21 539 711 69h 959 1,071 1/ Includes all teaching, research, and extension workers, except county extension workers. 2 Includes Rural Sociology workers both when shown as a part of Agricultural Economics departments and when shown as separate depart- ments. 2/ For a listing of the official names of the &8 Land-Grant insti- tutions included, see Appendix Table 1. Source: Compiled from.”Workers in Subjects Pertaining to Agricul- ture In rand-Grant Colleges and Experiment Stations," Specified Years, OES, ARS, USDA. -153- Average Salaries Paid for Teaching and/or Research Staff Members in Agricultural Economics at Land- Grant Institutions by Degree Status, 1956 Appendix Table 11. (12-months basis as of July 1, 1956) . . :Preliminaries: Ph.D. or :B.S. or B.A.:M.S. or M.A.: State for Ph.D. :equivalent 1101. 1.221- 291- 921- Alabama - h, 12 5 7, 700 7, 100 Arizona - 6,000 8,&00 7,275 Arkansas - 5,&70 6,020 6,600 California 1/ - - - - Colorado - 5,333 6,000 6,500 Connecticut - 7,&60 5,6&0 8,292 Delaware 2/ - - - - Florida 6,000 5 ,783 7,033 8,2&0 Georgia &,600 5, 850 5,950 7,170 Idaho 1/ - - - - Illinois 5,633 7,55h 6,000 8,3h3 Indiana 1/ - - - — Iowa - - 5, 700 8,300 Kansas &,850 5,220 6,166 7,380 Kentucky'l/ - - - - Louisiana - 5,&80 7,038 8,0&6 Maine h,150 5,250 6,150 6,860 Maryland 1/ - - - - Massachusetts 3,500 6,800 8,000 Michigan - 8,300 - 9,110 Minnesota 2/ - - - - Mississippi 1;, 250 5, 200 6, 900 6, 7&0 Missouri 3,000 h,500 7,000 8,000 Montana 1/ - - - - Nebraska - &,&00 - 6,500 Nevada - 6,200 6,800 8,500 New Hampshire 1/ - - - New Jersey 2/ - - - New Mexico - 6,2&& 6,132 7,060 New York h,&15 &,800 - 8,&05 North Carolina 1/ - - - - North Dakota " 11,700 5,860 6,660 8,100 (Continued) -15h- Appendix Table 11 (Continued). Average Salaries Paid for Teaching and/or Research Staff Members in Agri- cultural Economics at Land-Grant Insti- tutions by Degree Status, 1956 (12 months basis as of July 1, 1956) . . :Praliminaries: Ph.D. or :B.S. or B.A.:M.S. or M.A.: State for Ph.D. :equivalent Ohio - 5,100 6,7h2 7,9h0 Oklahoma - &,&00 6,000 7,500 Oregon 5,052 7,037 - 7,593 Pennsylvania &,308 &,530 6,&08 8,210 Rhode Island 3,600 5,050 6,026 6,592 South Carolina 2/ - - — - South Dakota 1/. - - - - Tennessee - 5,920 7,000 6,910 Texas 2/ - - - - Utah - 5,300 6,600 6,750 Vermont - h,867 5,700 7,067 Virginia 1/ - - - - ‘Washington 5,500 5,669 6,733 6,988 West Virginia - 5,666 6,860 7,800 Wisconsin 5,12& 6,392 9,800 9,601 'Wyoming 1/ - - - - 1/ Questionnaire not returned. 2/ Not reported on returned questionnaire. -155- Appendix Table 12. Average Salaries Paid for Extension Staff Members in Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant Institu- tions by Degree Status, 1956 (l2-months basis as of July 1, 1956) . . :Preliminaries: Ph.D. or :B.S. or B.A.:M.S. or M.A.: State for Ph.D. :equivalent 121. .1221- .D.o_1_- in. Alabama 6,&66 6,570 - - Arizona - - - 6,500 Arkansas 2/ - - - - California'l/ - - - - Colorado 2/ - - - - Connecticut - 6,090 - 7,8&0 Delaware 2/ - - - - Florida - 7,500 6,500 7,000 Georgia 5,300 6,050 6,&00 - Idaho 1/ - - - - Illinois 7,872 7,5h3 5,800 7,965 Indiana 1/ - - - - Iowa - 6,900 - 6,&00 Kansas 6,990 7,110 6,8&0 - Kentucky 1/ - - - - Louisiana-' - 7,600 - 7,&00 Maine 2/ - - - - Maryland 1/ - - - - Massachusgtts 3,500 6,800 - 8,000 Michigan 7,360 7,063 - 8,706 Minnesota 5,376 7,000 - 7,600 Mississippi 6,257 6,267 - - Missouri 2/ - - - - Montana 17 - - - - Nebraska &,900 6,300 6,800 7,h00 Nevada 2/ - - - - New Hampshire 1/ - - - - New Jersey'g/ - - - - New Mexico - 5,800 - - New York - 5,h2h - 7,778 North Carolina 1/ - - - - North Dakota " - 7,h00 7,608 - (Continued) -156- Appendix Table 12 (Continued). Average Salaries Paid for Extension Staff Members in Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant Institutions by Degree Status, 1956 (l2-months basis as of July 1, 1956) : : :Préliminaries: Ph.D} or :B.S. or B.A.:M.S. or M.A.: State for Ph.D. :eguivalent Ohio 7,500 5,930 6,270 6,500 Oklahoma 6,580 6,560 - - Oregon 2/ - - - - Pennsy15ania‘2/ - - - - Rhode Island - 5,650 - - South Carolina 2/ - - - - South Dakota l/‘ - - - - Tennessee ‘- 5,500 6,300 - 7,000 Texas 2/ - - - - Utah - "" 6,550 6,550 - Vermont &,900 6,&00 - - Virginia 1/ - - - - ‘Washington 7,&00 7,950 7,200 8,525 west Virginia 2/ - — - — ‘Wisconsin 2 l. - - - - ‘Wyoming 1 - - - - 1/ Questionnaire not returned. 2/ Not reported on returned questionnaire. -157- Appendix Table 13. Undergraduate Curricula in.Agricultural Economics and Related Areas in Departments of Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant Institutions 1/ : Semester :Scholastic: Name of under- :credit hours Institution 2/ : year : graduate curriculum :required for : : : graduation Number Alabama 1955-56 Agricultural Administration 1&1 Arizona 1955-56 Agricultural Economics 130 Arkansas 1955-56 Farm.Management 132 Arkansas 1955-56 Marketing 132 Arkansas 1955-56 Interdepartmental 132 California 1955-56 Agricultural Economics 12h Colorado 1955-56 Agricultural Business 1&0 Colorado 1955-56 Farm and Ranch Management 1&0 Connecticut 1955-56 Agricultural Economics 12& Delaware 1955-56 Agricultural Economics 1&2 Delaware 1955-56 Agricultural Business Management 1&3 Florida 1955-56 Agricultural Economics 133 Georgia 1956-57 Agricultural Economics 137 Idaho 1956-57 Agricultural Economics 136 Illinois 1955-56 Agricultural Economics 130 Indiana 1956-57 Agricultural Economics 1&6 Indiana 1956-57 Agricultural Administration 1&9 Iowa 1956-57 Agricultural Economics 133 Iowa 1956-57 Farm Management 133 Iowa 1956-57 Marketing 133 Iowa 1956-57 Public Service and Administration 133 Kansas 1955-56 Agricultural Administration 131 Kentucky 1956-57 Agricultural Economics 1&0 (Continued) Appendix Table 13 (Continued). -158- Undergraduate Curricula in Agricultural Economics and Related Areas in Depart- ments of Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant Institutions 1/ Institution g/ Louisiana Maine Maine Maryland Massachusetts Massachusetts Massachusetts Massachusetts Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Montana Montana Nebraska Nevada New'Hampshire New Jersey year 1955-57 1956-57 1956-57 1953-5h 1956-57 1956-57 1956-57 1956-57 1956-57 1955-56 1955-57 1956-57 1955-56 1956-57 322:? 1956-57 1956-57 1956-57 1956—57 Scholastic: Name of under- graduate curriculum Agricultural Economics Agricultural Economics Farm.Management Agricultural Economics Agricultural Economics Farm Management Agricultural Economics - Fruits and Vegetables Agricultural Economics - Animal Science Agricultural Economics - Feeds and Fertilizers Agricultural Economics Agricultural Economics Agricultural Economics Agricultural Economics (General) Farm Operations Agri-Business Public Service Agricultural Economics Agricultural Economics Agricultural Economics Agricultural Economics : Semester :credit hours :required for : graduation Number lhh 1&7 1&7 lho 135 135 135 135 135 128 128 lhh 128 lho 1&0 128 135 136 155 (Continued) _159- Appendix Table 13 (Continued). Undergraduate Curricula in Agricultural Economics and Related Areas in Depart- ments of Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant Institutions 1/ : : : Semester :Scholastic: Name of under- :credit hours Institution.g/ : year : graduate curriculum :required for : :ggaduation Number New Mexico 1956-57 Agricultural Economics 1&& New Mexico 1956-57 Farm and Ranch Operations 1&& New Mexico 1956-57 Agri-Business 1&& New York 1956-57 Agricultural Economics (Agriculture) 120 North Carolina l95&—55 Agricultural Economics 1&6 North Dakota 1956-57 Agricultural Economics 136 Ohio 1955-56 Agri-Business 1&0 Oklahoma 195h~55 Agricultural Economics 130 Oregon 1956-57 Agricultural Economics 131 Pennsylvania 1955-56 Farm Planning and Management 1&0 Pennsylvania 1955-56 Agricultural Marketing and Business 1&0 Pennsylvania 1955-56 Rural Services and Administration 1&0 Rhode Island 1955-56 Agricultural Economics 1&& South Carolina 1955-56 Agricultural Economics 150 South Dakota 1955—56 Farm Management 136 South Dakota 1955—56 Agricultural Finance 136 South Dakota 1955-56 Agri-Business 136 Tennessee 1955-56 Agricultural Economics 1&1 Texas 1955-56 Agricultural Economics 1&3 Texas 1955-56 Farm Management 1&3 Utah Agricultural Economics 12& 1956-57 (Continued) -160- Appendix Table 13 (Continued). Undergraduate Curricula in Agricultural Economics and Related Areas in Depart- ments of Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant Institutions y : Semester : : :Scholastic: Name of under- :credit hours Institution 2/ : year : graduate curriculum :required for : : :_graduation Number Vermont 1956—57 Agricultural Economics 138 Virginia 1956-57 Agricultural Economics 133 washington 1955-56 Agricultural Economics (Science) 135 ‘Washington 1955-56 Agricultural Economics (Technical) 135 west Virginia 1956-57 Agricultural Economics 1&& Wisconsin l95h-55 Agricultural Economics 12& Wyoming 1956-57 Agricultural Economics 133 1/ Based on college and university catalogues for years as indicated in column 2 of table. 2/ For full name of institutions, see Appendix Table 1. Note: For a breakdown of credit requirements for graduation by major suEJect-matter categories, see Appendix Table l&. Avmseapsoov ~161- m~-m~ 0H ~H-p 6 mm aH mm o mH aaH asanHaoA an 0H m b on pH on m eH osH masseuse em s OH m mm HH mm o bH HmH mousse m 4 3 ma 3 mm a: 4 AH mma seon-H @0700 Ha m m NH m w VT. mmumm 02H «:sausH mm eH e \m \m 0H mm m an emH eaeeaHHH om w a HH an 0H s a «H emH oaseH mm s OH e NH mH an m an FMH «Haaooo Hm a m HH an an mH o NH mmH seaaeHe a «H «H m am mm mm a on NaH oaasaHon mm m a m mm a a 0 on smH asoasoossoo AH m o m on eH H: m AH oaH eesaeHeo on m a a mH Hm m o mH :NH sHsaemaHso Hmuma a m To mm m union 0 Hm Nma meme-8E4 e~-mm a NH-HH a an HH on o om-mw omH ssosHae mH a HH OH 4H em on o eH HnH mesaoH< u u a u a n v a u u u a as a a - N-v. a do a .3 - Q-v. - as a J o a m .mnmm .m ”mm .mm .ms .mm .mm .m .mmwm w W ”meH “fl .4m "00 auo an “no “um «PIIm . .l n. anus-mas «res an. ”mm. a an. a arm a an. a mm. - mane“ » Escape-33mg c Q. B 3 6+. 3 3 nu 9 9 6+ 9 O a A... p U. .1. o u D. u u S u l- 8 a a u E u u u a - a a r/;L ” ”_Ku a T. a a u m s ” \m 3-32 .23... aspapncH pnsaouvssq pa mmoa< umpeszwpoonnsm no mwsadsono befimaooam an new soapssusac new poafisvom newsman umpnosom hp uoasoeoom HanspHsoaam< ed sdsodnnso opsseuamnoeep .AH manna Hapnoma< Acmsnfipcoov -162_ HN J OH NH NH NH MH wN m mN ON 0 a m H: e an m an emH mm OH NH m NH mm 0 mm 03H mpoxma anhoz mH NH d a o eH 44H anew amz an s a ma an m eH eMH unease aoz a NH a mm o a mMH oaaaedssm aez cm 0 OH m ON QNH uvm>oz QH m 0 M NN Om mH dv-mdhnmz MW e NH a H. m an m 6H eeH 0 6H m an Hm mm mm maH assess: a: m o m mm mNH Hmmwmmammflz M: NH NH M MH Q...” m...” gamma—”S mm eH eH 4H d an e sH mmH a: b m NH om mH m o NH mma sawdnowz m mm m H 0 0H mavensnowmmmz . . . mH a mH mmw essHmusz m ”mam - MS ”3V - S . V a . cans: e . u . w .mmmm mm .mm .mm .m “mm .mw .m H as . n. a mut.e m” . U” a mum“ - m o a m m. o o a Mun” « .r - an.m a u % .om .s .we .Vm .mw .nm .wo .mm .enms. «UT-mo” «U. «warm. ”new-m. ”SW- uma « Wm.— uwm. M mmnflm u « a s . 01 a J a S o s . . . “a. .r a... “a. .a .33... u a _/ u T. H a u .w m u a » aoaaazraoefine e \m.bm-mmaH .nsoHpaa e seasons hasseemmmmanmuwmwmmmmeeHaHoedm an eewasmmawmmmmmemaq as means Home cm on pasoauw<_sa sflsoannzo ovsscwpwwwwmm .Avoseap coov 4H mHnma NH nnoam< -163- HousaHpaoov mm N OH : 4N m om m NH mmH NNHsahz NN o N o m a HH 0 NH NNH angoomH: NH 0H N N NN HN Nm N 4N 44H .HqHNuH> paw: oN HH OH NH NH mm N N NN mmH :cpmgHgamz Hm m NH N mN NH HN m NH NNH NHNHNNH> Hm 0 NH N Hm N NH 0 HH NNH Hausa.» : 4 NH N NN NN NN o NH NNH nap: NN N NH N NN HN NH 0 NH mHH magma NN m NH N NN N NN N NN HNH oommoqcoa NN N N N N NN NN N ON NNH «poxan apnea :N 4 NH OH NN N NN N NN omH mcHHonmo :paom NN NH N N N N NH o NH 44H ucwHwH ovogm Nm OH NH o NN NH NH 0 NH 04H uHcapHquapN Nm N N N NH NH NH m NH HNH cowopo on N m N NN NH oN m NH QNH «soanxo Hm HH HH N NH NH N m NN ONH OHno N u u u n «V N u N u H n W» n “9 «WV «Wu Nauru a We” u mug «3.43 n N .mwam. N .Nm .Nm .us .NN .Nu .N .NmNN . N .NNNn. N .mm .N. .NN .mm .N. .Nm .NINN . - u. “mmrem. M. ”We a Mum. » 9.... u 4.... N am. « at. N em 9 « \mnoggwpmcq 1 .82 mo .84 so QPQQ % “WWW.“ u U. «warm. «Sm . 9T. N am. . film ”(s «WJME a a D. u "8 «fin «_/ “g «fw... »./ “um“ » u a u a u u a u u N \m NN-NNNH .m:0HpspHpm:H pg..¢-ucaH pa uaouH noppmxapoohnsw mo $595.5 6330on ha. can 5.35:ng no.“ conggm 3.25.6 nopuofimm .3 mowEocoom ggpgoiwd 5 30.2.30 33623095 .Auosfipnoov 2H 0.3.8. 5.3093. ammm¢ .Hzma .40 .n Naopmcanmmz..noapmosnm co Haonsoo qwoanosd .moHuspN HaHoom HansN map cH Hoccomgom No chHanooN an. mchHmua ..3.ououoosa .apHsnom .cau .pmuamNH :H modfioaoom Hahupauoaum< ca upcoSmnfiswmn wasoanndo mpmsvmuwnovqs gpaz nomwanEoo a Mom ”mpoz .Uocfiwpuooua 902 \m .mmmusoo vopwamu cad «cowpmosuo Hwnspasoanma NNonoHoom Hanan Nnowaoqooo Hanspasowuwa amusaoaH \M -16h- .mmmudoo vopuamn was .coagmupchHEum mmmqwmsn .mofisocooo Hmnmnem .Nwoaonohmm .hnmwnmoom .huopmfin Npcosuum>om ma noun .monnsoo oocofiom Haaoom Hanuanco: Haw amusaonH \m .momuuoo copaaou cud .mcfiuooqawcm Hanspadowhmw «caspasoapnos .hsoqonma .mHHom .hnvcwnmsg hnpasom qhhvcanmgn hhfimu “haunanmun Hasfinm mu scum moondoo mmvsaqu \W .mo pmcmm wad .NMoHoHuopowp amuspasoHnma Nhnpmfismno HdhdpfldoHuma .Nmoaosopcm .hwoaozpwm pnwaa movsaocH ; .NMoHoHuopomn Una NNMoHomm .hwoaoou .hnmpon .moamhnm .hupmfiemno mouuHo:H \N .H mamas wavcmmmd mom .mnowpspwpund no mean Hana new \M .Nmnmmma nopma no onommn umnpao amok oasmuaoa onv op uomon «can .mmocwpmca oaom :H .mHanHw>m mums: .wmummma pom mmsmoaapmo hpamnm>wqa Una oonHoo no vouum \m .Avoscapcoov 4H candy wavnommd -165- HomsCHpcoov mow mm» *mm» H mow szmpo>HcD mpmpm cmeson mm» mow x x wow wow mo szmnm>HcD «mpgomonommmmz wow wow oz \m. H m wow wow mo thmpm>HcD Noothhmz wow wow N no» mo thmum>HcD NmsHmz wow no» mo» H z N m mm» mm» mo szmnm>Hc= thospcmz mow mm» mm» H wow wow thmhm>HCD mumpm mwmcmz mow mow mow H oz mow mo thmuo>HcD NmHocHHHH mow *mmz m H oz mow mo szmhobHcD NonmoH wow wow wow H m m mow mo szmpobHcD NmHmpomo wow now Now m H mow oz mo thmpobHoD vaHpon no» mow m H mow mow mo szmuopHcD NohmszoQ wow wow mm» oz oz mo szmuo>HCD NpooHpowccoo . mm» mm» x oz mow mo szmuo>Hcs NchnomHHwo mow oz x x wow wow mo szmnobch wamcoxNH no» mow w H 02 mm» mo szmpo>ch choNth mow mow m N H 2 oz mow thmp0>ch snons< .awnm. .mmz oz, wow, u n u I I oz. wow oz mmw N N .d N v.N SN nNN nNN N N N N w N m.N m.N.® N % N N N N zoom on N m_N m N w.N %.N u N oopmoncooN N oopmmmo N stoHpnoo N mm N.3 N w.N N N wchn so: N mumohnm pmmHN coHpspHpmcH moouwoa N mmmchsm N N N s N N Nmmwcmso mudemwcmso nonmzN N uth< o>mm N “H mmwcwno N N wchQEoun moohom Aome op mmmH Nomno>oo voHpomv moHHHmpo>HcD new moonHoo pcmpo loomH .mmmchsm HandesoHpm< new moHEoooom HoudeooHuw< cH momnoso «Haothzo pcooom .mH oHnme.xHocoaQ< -166- AcoNNHpcoov thono>ng ooonnm thmno>Hca opmpm oHoo>Hhmqqom omoHHoo opwvm cowono NNHmNm>Hoo opmpm Nauanxo NanNm>qu «papa ngo mNoHHoo .HNNH «pagan NNNoz onHHoo mNNNN acHHono :pNoz mo thonobHcs NHHmonoo thmuo>Hnb opapm ooHHmz 3oz mo huHoNo>HoD NoNHnogEmm :02 mo hnHuuopHnb Novm>oz no thmnmpHaD Noxmonpoz omeHoo opmpm «cacao: mo NuHmnmbHaD NHNoommHz thmNmbch opopm HmmHmmHmon mo hunno>Hca NovomoncHx u a wow wow wow H H H H H oz wow wow no» mm» H H H H H oz no» mm» mm» *mm» m N H mow mm» mm» wow no» N H mm» mm» mm» mow H H H H H oz mow no» oz _\M oz now no» no» no» H wow wow mow mow oz oz wow wow N H mm» *mow m N a H oz no» no» mo» oz wow no» no» mow \M. x oz mow mow mow *oow I. H mm» mm» wow no» \N N H oz mow mow no» mm» x H now no» wow wow H mow .nwzm. Mm.z oz, wow. u a u u n oz mm o no N N .d N N SN nNN nNN N N N N e N WHN 1.N a N e N N N o n .a . a N zoom no N m.N m N m.N m.. u N wououHmcooN N vmuomwo N «HooHnnoo N mm N.+_N w.N N N wcHon 3o: N onwmhnm panN moouwma N nmqumom N N N s N N Nmowzwno ondNuomqmno NondzN N anm< o>mm N Na momcmzo N N N N N N NGHNQEonm moonoh :OHNNNHNNNH NONNHnmw NNNH NNmNmpoo NOHnomv mmeHmNo>ch com mmmoHHoo pounusocmq Nmmochsm HonopHooHuw< vow moHSocoom HauspHooHnw¢ nH momcwno wHooHuuso poooom .Hooochcoov mH «Hams NHocoQQ< -167- Hooochcouv .monHoo HonspHoOHnm< nH mnonos Hopop o>Hm no moan» op omnago u * hfiHwnobHap mpwpm ovmuoHoo NuHmuo>an opopm maonHooH No NNHNN0>HNN .NqHspN3 mo NuHmnm>HcD NqucoomHE mo thmnopch NquHNNH> pmmz NuHoNopHoD opmpm noHNNHnmmz Nmeuo>Hoo oNNNN «NOH cNoHHoo opapm NHNHNNHN mo NJHmuo>Hc= anosno> NuHmNm>Hno oNaNN Nap: zuw 4 «wave mo NfiHmuobHco Nommmmqaoa mmoHHoo :omEoHo NocHHonwo spoon mo thonoanD NocaHmH ovonm mow no» a m N oz wow wow mow wmw N wow wow mm» wow mm» \M x N mow oz mow N H mm» 02 wow oz H N m oz wow wow *mmw \M m H oz wow now mm» H H oz oz mow m N H no» no» no» mow \M oz mow mow m a H N wow wow mow no» no» no» oz wow mm» m N H oz wow mm» now now H H H H mow oz wow mm» H oz mow .pwmm .m.z. oz owm. u u u u u oz mm o mo N N N N N N N N N N N “_N WNN mWN MN. mNN N N o n .d . w N zoom no N m.N m N w.N w.N N topoVHmcooN N conommo N «HooHunso N .M.N t.N m.N N N mcHon so: N mnmohnm pmeN moonwon N omqumom N N N s N N Nmomcdso oHHNmownmno Nowsz N anm< mpwz N “H mowcono N N N mchQEoNQ mooumh N N N cOHNNNHNNcH HauopHooHde can moHEoooom HouopHooHde :H momooso «HooHuuoo pooomm HoNNH op mmNH NcmNm>oo NOHNoNV moHpHmNo>Hcp vow moonHoo paunovocoH Nmmochsm .HcoszHNcoov NH «Haas vaquNH -168- .oomH NcoprHoomm< moHsocoom sham :N09m03m4wwcHooooonm gaonopHooHNMH mchcmzo a op «HooHNNoo NOHEoooom HanovHsoHNm<.w:Hmev<= N.m .m thoopm Eonm copmmu< Noonoom .ooppHEEoo ommHHoo oochommo :4. \M .muosmom ooanEoo on can oocuopon mouqucoHpmoov Hopop voooxo muesqu \m .coHpanw> no :opradHQHo meow £963 nosunm ca mcuuoHunH u N .Huosfipcoov NH 39% 52234 -169- Appendix Table 16. Source of Graduate Students in Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant Institutions, 1955-S6 :Source of graduate students in A ricultural Economics: :Master‘s candidates: ’?h.D. can idates :Total number State :Own in- :Other in- : Own in- :Other in- z of graduate :stitution:stitutions:stitution:stitutions: students Number Number Number ’Number ’Number Alabama 2 l O O 3 Arizona 1 l O O 2 Arkansas h 3 O O 7 California l/ Colorado 5 h 0 O 9 Connecticut 3 S l 3 12 Delaware 2 l O O 3 Florida 9 2 3 6 20 Georgia 6 O O O 6 Idaho l/ - - - - - Illinois 10 9 5 16 ho Indiana y - - - - - Iowa 9 12 8 23 52 Kansas 6 O 0 O 6 Kentucky'l/ - - - - - Louisiana 6 1h 2 2 2h Maine 1 0 0 O 1 Maryland l/ - - - - - Massachusetts 0 0 O O 0 Michigan 9 15 h 18 h6 Minnesota h 9 10 12 35 Mississippi 8 O 0 O 8 Missouri 13 '1 h 7 25 Montana l/ - - - - - Nebraska 7 3 O O 10 Nevada 0 O O O 0 New Hampshire 1/ - - - - - New Jersey '_ h 1 0 O S New Mexico h 1 0 O 5 New York 8 l3 7 19 87 North Carolina l/ - - - - - North Dakota h S O 0 9 (Continued) -170- Appendix Table 16 (Continued). Source of Graduate Students in Agri- cultural Economics at Land-Grant Institutions, l9SS-S6 :Source of_graduate students in Agricultural Economics: :Master's candidates: Ph.D. candidates {fatal number State : Own in- :Other in- : Own in; :Other in— : of graduate :stitution:stitutionszstitution:stitutions: students Number Number Number Number ‘Number Ohio 16 6 9 6 37 Oklahoma 7 h 3 h 18 Oregon h 5 O 5 1h Pennsylvania 16 h 7 12 39 Rhode Island 2 l 0 0 3 South Carolina h 3 0 O 7 South Dakota 1/ - - - - - Tennessee h 7 0 0 11 Texas 2 - - - - - Utah 7 2 O O 9 Vermont 0 3 O 0 3 Virginia 1/ 'Washington 0 1 ~ 0 2 3 West Virginia j j j j 2 Wisconsin 2 2 2 2 5h Wyoming y - - - - - l/ Questionnaire not returned. 2/ Not reported on returned questionnaire. -l7l- Appendix Table 17. Relative Rates of Turnover of Professional Staffs in Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant Institu- tions, 1951-56 (Size of Staff in 1955-56 - 100) :Outgoing profESSiOnal: ’Size off» : State : staff during : professional . Rate of : period 1951-56 :staff in 1955-56: turnover!- Ng. N3. Rate Alabama 9 23 39 Arizona 7 9 78 Arkansas 7 23 30 California ‘1/ ‘l/ 3/ Colorado 6 11 55 Connecticut 5 13 38 Delaware 0 S 0 Florida 6 22 27 Georgia 1h 33 h2 Idaho 1/ 1/ £4 Illinois I? El Indiana 1/ 1] 2/ Iowa 5 27 19 Kansas 1h 33 h2 Kentucky 1/ l/ 2/ Louisiana 16 21 76 Maine 8 13 62 Maryland lfi éfi 3/ Massachusetts ‘T7 Michigan 1h bl 3h Minnesota 5 3O 17 Mississippi 16 26 61 Missouri 5 51 10 Montana l/ l/ 2/ Nebraska 9 1h 6h Nevada 5 7 71 New Hampshire 1/ 1/ 3/ New Jersey .2 1b 2b New Mexico h 1h 29 New York 1h 37 38 North Carolina 1/ l/ 3/ North Dakota ‘3 I2 52 (Continued) -l72- Appendix Table 17 (Continued). Relative Rates of Turnover of Profes- sional Staffs in Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant Institutions, 1951-S6 (Size of Staff in 1955-56 = 100) :Outgoing proféSsional: Size of : State : staff during : professional : Rate of : period 1951-56 :staff in 1955-56: turnoverit 'N2. ‘N3. Rate Ohio 7 hh 16 Oklahoma 7 26 27 Oregon 5 2/ 3/ Pennsylvania 5 g/ 27 Rhode Island 6 l3 h6 South Carolina 7 22 3h South Dakota 1/ l/ 3/ Tennessee _5 26 19 Texas 5 38 13 Utah 6 8 75 Vermont 6 ll 55 Virginia 1/ l/ 3/ 'Washington 26 22 118 west Virginia 0 11 0 Wisconsin 8 26 31 'Wyoming 1/ l/ 3/ * Based on outgoing professional staff during the period 1951-56 and measured in terms of number of professional staff in 1955-56 = 100. l/ Questionnaire not returned. 2/ Not reported on returned questionnaire. 2/ Not ascertained. -l73- Appendix Table 18. Professional Staff Vacancies in Agricultural Economics at Land-Grant Institutions as of July 1, 1956 (In Full-Time Equivalents) State 2 Teaching Research : Extension Total 1N3. .EE' ‘N2. ‘N2. Alabama 0.50 2.50 2.00 5.00 Arizona .00 .OO .00 .00 Arkansas .00 3.00 _2/ 3.00 California 1/ - - - - Colorado .50 1.50 .00 2.00 Connecticut .00 .20 .80 1.00 Delaware .00 .OO .00 .00 Florida 2.00 3.00 1.00 6.00 Georgia .00 h.00 h.OO 8.00 Idaho y - - - - Illinois 1.50 1.50 .00 3.00 Indiana 1/ - - - - Iowa 1.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 Kansas .50 .50 3.00 h.OO Kentucky 1/ - - - - Louisiana” .00 1.00 .00 1.00 Maine .00 .OO 2/ .00 Maryland 1/ - - ‘_- - Massachusztts 1.50 2.50 b.00 8.00 Michigan . so 2 . so 5 . 00 8 .00 Minnesota .00 3.00 2.00 5.00 Mississippi .00 2.00 .00 2.00 Missouri .00 1.00 .00 1.00 Montana y - - - - Nebraska 1.00 1.00 .00 2.00 Nevada .00 1.00 1.00 2.00 New Hampshire 1/ - - - - New Jersey' .00 .OO .00 .00 New Mexico .00 .00 1.00 1.00 New York .00 .00 .OO .00 North Carolina 1/ - - '- - North Dakota .50 .50 .00 1.00 (Continued) Appendix Table 18 (Continued). -17h- Professional Staff Vacancies in Agri- cultural Economics at Land-Grant Institutions as of July 1, 1956 (In Full-Time Equivalents) State : Teaching : Research : Extension 2 Total 53. ‘Eg. .EE- N2. Ohio .00 .00 1.00 1.00 Oklahoma .50 .50 2.00 3.00 Oregon .30 .70 g/ 1.00 Pennsylvania .00 1.00 d/ 1.00 Rhode Island .00 .00 .OO .00 South Carolina .00 3.00 .00 3.00 South Dakota 1/ - - - - Tennessee _ 1.00 2.00 1.00 h.00 Texas .00 1.00 1.00 2.00 Utah .30 1.70 .00 2.00 Vermont .00 .00 .00 .00 Virginia l/ - - - - ‘Washington .hO 1.60 .00 2.00 west Virginia .00 2.00 2/ 2.00 - 'Wisconsin 1.00 1.00 h.00 6.00 wyoming 1/ - - - - l/ Questionnaire not returned. 2/ Not reported on returned questionnaire. APPENDIX B LIST OF LAND-GRANT INSTITUTIONAL PERSONNEL RESPONDING T0 QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX B LIST OF LAND-GRANT INSTITUTIONAL PERSONNEL RESPONDING TO QUESTIONNAIRE Institution 1/ Personnel Responding to Questionnaire Alabama . . . . . . . . Ben F. Alvord, Department of Agricultural Eco- nomics, Alabama Polytechnic Institute, Auburn, Alabama Arizona . . . . . . . . R. E. Seltzer, Department of Agricultural Eco- nomics, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona H. R. Baker, Agricultural Extension Service, University of Arizona, Tucson,.Arizona Arkansas ..... . . Henry J. Meenen, Department of Rural Economics and SociolOgy, University of Arkansas, Fayette- ville, Arkansas California . . . . . . No response Colorado . . . . . . . Rex D. Rehnberg, Department of Economics and Sociology, Colorado.Agricultural and Mechanical College, Fort Collins, Colorado Connecticut . . . . . . P. L. Putnam, Department of Agricultural Eco- nomics and Farm Management, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut Delaware ...... . R. O. Buasman, Department of Agricultural Eco- nomics, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware Florida . . . . . . . . Henry G. Hamilton, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida Georgia . . . . . . . . J.‘W; Fanning, Division of Agricultural Eco- nomics, University of Georgia,.Athens, Georgia Idaho . . . . . . . . . No response Illinois . . . . . . . G. L. Jordan, Department of Agricultural Eco- nomics, university of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 1 For full names and a listing of Land-Grant institutions as of 1955- 6, see Appendix Table l. -176... -177- Indiana ........ No response Iowa . . . ...... Karl A. Fox, Department of Economics and Soci- ology, Iowa State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts, Ames, Iowa Kansas . . . . . . . . George Montgomery, Department of Economics and Sociology, Kansas State College of Agriculture and Applied Science, Manhattan, Kansas Kentucky ....... No response Louisiana . . . . . . . Bueford M. Gila, Department of Agricultural Economics, The Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, Baton Rouge, Louisiana Maine ......... Charles H. Merchant, Department of Agricultural Economics and Farm Management, University of Maine, Orono, Maine Maryland ....... No response Massachusetts ..... A. H. Lindsey, Department of Agricultural Eco- nomics and Farm Management, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts Michigan . . . . . . . L. L. Boger, Department of Agricultural Eco- nomics, Michigan State University of Agricul- ture and Applied Sciences, East Lansing, Michigan L. W. Witt, Department of Agricultural Econom- ics, Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Sciences, East Lansing, Michigan Minnesota . ...... 0. B. Jesness, Department of Agricultural Eco— nomics, University of Minnesota, University Farm, St. Paul, Minnesota H. P. Hanson, Agricultural Extension Service, University of Minnesota, University Farm, St. Paul, Minnesota Mississippi . . . . . . D. W. Parvin, Department of.Agricultural Eco- nomics, Mississippi State College, State College, Mississippi J. V. Pace, Agricultural Extension Service, Mississippi State College, State College, Mississippi Missouri . . . . . . . O. R. Johnson, Department of Agricultural Econom- ics, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri Montana . . . -178- . . . . . No response Nebraska ..... New Hampshire ..... New Jersey ..... New Mexico ..... New York ....... North Carolina North Dakota Ohio . . . . . . . Pennsylvania Rhode Island . Howard W. Ottoson, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska John L. Fischer, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada No response Allen G. Waller, Department of Agricultural Economics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey H. R. Stucky, Department of Agricultural Eco- nomics, New Mexico College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts, State College, New Mexico A. E. Trivia, Agricultural Extension Service, New Mexico College of.Agriculture and Mechanic Arts, State College, New Mexico T. N. Hurd, Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York . No response . Fred R. Taylor, Department of Agricultural Eco- nomics, North Dakota Agricultural College, Fargo, North Dakota Mervin G. Smith, Department of.Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio J. H. Sitterley, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio G. Burton'wood, Department of Agricultural Eco- nomics, Oregon State College, Corvallis, Oregon M. E. John, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Pennsylvania State Univer- sity, University Park, Pennsylvania Niels Rorhclm, Department of.Agricultural Eco- nomics, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota . Tennessee . . Texas . . . . Utah 0 O O O 0 Vermont . . . Virginia . . . washington . . West Virginia Wisconsin . . wyomin g C O O -179- G. H. Aull, Department of Agricultural Econom- ics and Rural Soci010gy, Clemson Agricultural College, Clemson, South Carolina No response D. M. Thorpe, Department of Agricultural Eco- nomics and Rural Sociology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee T. R. Timm, Department of Agricultural Econom- ics and Rural Sociology, Texas Agricultural and Mechanical College, College Station, Texas George T. Blanch, Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, Utah State Agricultural College, Logan, Utah T. M. Adams, Department of Agricultural Econom- ics, University of Vermont and State Agricul- tural College, Burlington, Vermont No response E. J.'Working, Department of Agricultural Eco- nomics, State College of Washington, Pullman, washington R. M. Turner, Agricultural Extension Service, State College of Washington, Pullman, Washington W} W; Armentrout, Department of Agricultural Economics,'West Virginia University, Morgantown, west Virginia Marvin A. Schaars, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin No response APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRE Survey of Teaching, Research, and Extension Activities in Agricultural Economics State Respondent Date Title This schedule is being sent to the Head of the Department of Agricultural Economics at the major LandJlrant college or university in.each of the NB states. Results of this survey, together with available secondary data, will be used in making an analysis of teaching, research, and extension work in.Agricultural Economics at these institu- tions. Particular attention will be given to an evaluation of future trends in the field. -181- -182- 1. 'With respect to teaching, research, and extension work in Agricul- tural Economics at your institution, check areas where the Head of the Department of Agricultural Economics has specific responsibility Item : Research : Teaching : Extension Over—all administration ............: g ‘ ; Recruitment of personnel ...........; i ; Assignment of duties ...............: : : Promotions ........... ...... ........; f Budgetary control ..................: : : Comments with respect to present and/or future degree of integra- tion of all teaching, research, and extension work in Agricultural Economics at your institution: 2. Indicate whether the Department of Agricultural Economdcs at your institution includes the following subject—matter areas: If No, comments as to speCial relations with specified sub- ject-matter areas Subject matter areas Yes No . co 00 ee e ee 0. co co ee 00 ee Rural Sociology ...........: 0. 0 General Sociology ......... Consumer Economics ........ 00 00 00 0. 0 Business Administration ... Statistics 0.00....00000000 .0 .0 00 .0 00 00 .0 General Economics ......... ee 00 ee e. co co co 00 Farm and Home Development : Programs of Ext. Service .: -183- 3. Distribution of Professional Staff in Agricultural Economics by Type of Work Engaged In, July 1, 1956 (including staff members on leave). - : Professional staff in AgriculturaI’Economics Item. : Number of workers All : Full-time equivalent 2/I : Number Number Type of work : .. 0. .0 .0 Teaching .......: 0. Research .......: Extension ......: TOTAL ......: XXX l/ ‘WOrkers engaged in more than one type of work will be included op- '_ posite each type of work done. Totals of teaching, research, and extension in this column, therefore, may not add to total number of workers on the staff. 2/ Totals shown for teaching, research, and extension in this column - should add to total number of workers on the staff. h. Distribution of Professional Staff in Agricultural Economics by'De- gree Status, July 1, 1956 (including staff members on leave). Professional staff members by major " types of work engaged in:.lz Teaching and/or Research:Extension sta Item staff members : members Number Number Degree status: 2/ B.S. or B.A. degree ...... B.S. plus 1 year ......... M.S. or MgA. degree ...... M.S. plus 1 year ......... M.S. plus 2 years ........ Prelims for Ph.D. degree . Ph.D. degee 000000.000... a. ee 00 co 00 g. a. co co co co .. a. .. ee TOI‘AL 0.00.00.00.00... ‘l/ Totals in these columns should check with totals in column 1 of Ques- tion 3. g/' Designated degree status or equivalent. _18h- 5. Professional Staff in Agricultural Economics Taking Leave to Pursue Graduate WOrk and Number Who Have Returned or Who Plan to Return for At Least One Year, SeYear Period, 1951-56. :Staff members :StaffImembers who :taking leave to :have returned or Item :pursue graduate :whc plan to return :work, 1951-56 :for at least one - :year Number : Number Teaching and/or Research : : staff members: : Leave for 1 year or more - : With full pay.............: : With part pay.............: : Without pay...............: 0 0 Leave for less than 1 year -: With full pay.............: With part pay............. Without pay............... co so 00 00 co o. co co co co TOTAL0000000000000000. Extension staff members: Leave for 1 year or more - : : with full pay0000000.00000: 'With part pay............. e co co 0 00 co co co .. Without pay0000000000000.00 Leave for less than 1 year -: : With full pay000000000.... e co .. ee .. .0 With part pay.............. Without pay...000.0..00..0: TOTAL00000000.00000000: : 6. -185- Outgoing Professional Staff in Agricultural Economics During the mar-Period, 1951-56. y Staff’ member (A, B, C! etc.) :Major’type of :work engaged :in at time of :leaving dept. :(T, R, or E) : 2/ :Degree status :at time of :leaving :department a. 0. 2/ :Rank at time :of leaving :department : £/ :Place employed :and type of :work engaged :in after leav- :ing department A w > . o O .0 .. .0 0. 0. .0 .0 Q “ co co co Include deaths, retirements, etc., but exclude staff members on leave. Indicate "T" for teaching, "R" for research, and "E" Indicate B.S., M.S., Prelims, or Ph.D. Indicate professor, associate (professor), assistant instructor, or specialist. for extension. (professor), Indicate kind or place of employment 329 type of work. For ex- U.S.D.A. - research, university-teaching, self employed- farming, private-marketing, etc. ample: ~186- 7. Incomin Professional Staff in Agricultural Economics During the S-Year Period, 1951-56. 'TSEETIP :Major type ofP:Degree status?Rank of fifst:lnstitution from member :work engaged :at time of :appointment :which individual (A, B, C,:in at time of :joining :in the :received: etc.) :lst appoint- :department :department : :ment in the : .3/ : .2/ :B.S. :AdVancedI :department : : :degree:degree :(T, R, or E) : : : : h/ : ‘l/ : ° : : A ; Q ; E f . .z 3 F . 3 i i G . f f f H 2 f f 3 I ' f . z. i 3 J .' 3 f f f K 3 f f f f L f f f 3. f M f f f f f N ‘. i f f f o f f i f f P f f f f i Q ; f f ‘ l/ Indicate "T" for teaching, "R" for research, and "E" for extension. '5/ Indicate B.S., M.S., Prelims, or Ph.D. 2/ Indicate professor, associate (professor), assistant (professor), instructor, or specialist. h/ Highest advanced degree held (beyond B.S. degree) at time of joining the department. -187- 8. Current Professional Staff Vacancies in.Agricultural Economics - (July 1: 1956) ' : Current staffivacancies in Type of work : full-time equivalents ° Number Teacmng0.0000000000000...: Research..................: ExtenSion00.000......0..0.: 0. TOTAL0000000.00.0.00..: What are the general areas of work where current vacancies exist; what training and experience is desired of applicants; and what are your current problems of filling such vacancies? Other comments with respect to problems of recruitment of profes- sional staff and/or prOblems of maintaining a "full" staff: 9. -188- Estimated Changes in Number of Professional Staff Members in Agri- cultural Economics During the S-Year Period 1956-61. Estimatedlchanges in number of staff Type of work : members in full-time equivalents Increase : *Decrease Number : Number Teaching.............: Research.............: Extension............: : TOTAL...000.000..: : For Increases, what are the general areas of work where new posi- tions will develop; what training and experience will be desired of applicants; and what is the present outlook for filling such positions? For Decreases, what are the general areas of work where positions willfbe curtailed; and what will be the reasons for this curtailment of work? -189- 10. Average Salaries Paid (lZ-months basis) for Professional Staff in Agricultural Economics by Rank, July 1, 1956. l/ _Professional staff memberswby major types of work engaged in: Item Teaching and76r Research: Extension staff staff members members Dollars Dollars Professor................ Associate Professor...... Assistant Professor...... :[11E51317‘1<31DCDI‘0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . 0 0 .. .0 .0 .0 00 0. 00 .0 0. 00 00 .0 .0 .0 00 00 co ee 00 00 00 00 e. 00 00 00 00 Specialist............... l/ Include all staff members regardless of length of tenure with your department. Are the above differentials between ranks equitable? Yes No If not, how should they be changed? 11. Average Salaries Paid (lZ-months basis) for Professional Staff in Agricultural Economics by Degree Status, July 1, 1956. l/ PrOIeSSIOnal staff members by major types of work engaged in: Item Teaching andlor Research: Extension staff staff members : A_members Dollars Dollars O 00 o. 00 00 as ea B.S. or equivalent........ M.S. or equivalent.......: Prelims for Ph.D. degree.: 0 0 0 . 0. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 00 00 0. Ph.D. degree.......nnoo l/ Include all staff members regardless of length of tenure with your department. Are the above differentials between degree status equitable? Yes No If not, how should they be changed? -190- 12. Research Funds from All Sources, Agricultural Economics, Specified Years. 19514-55 1955-56 Dollars : Dollars Item Federal: ; Hatch.........................: ; Adams.........................: : Purnell.......................: ; B-J’ seCtion Seeoeeeeeeeeeeeee: : B‘J, 580. 9 (b) l and 20090000. : B-J, Sec. 9 (b) 3.............: : B-J, Title II.................; : Other.........................: : TOTAL FEDERAL FUNDS.......; : Non-Federal: : : State appropriations..........; : Grants l/.....................: ; Fees..........................; : Sales.........................: : Balance from previous year....; : Miscellaneous.................; : TOTAL NON-FEDERAL FUNDS . . . GRAND TOTAL........0.0..0.: : l/ Include special endowments, industrial fellowships, etc. -l91- Contrast the use of research funds in your department with respect to major fields or areas of work between the preawar period (l939-h0) and the present period (1955-56): Contrast the recruitment and assignment of research personnel in your department with respect to major fields or areas of work between the pre-war period (1939-ho) and the present period (1955-56): 13. Teaching Funds from All Sources, Agricultural Economics, Specified Years Item : l95h-55 = 1955-56 D01Iars : Dollars '0 ~00 ee Federal-00....00.0....00000000000000 00 0. 0. .. State and/or College............... 0. 0. 00 .0 Grant l/0'000000.00.000.00000000000. Othereeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeeoeeee TOTAL FITNDS.000000000000000000: l/ Include all special gifts, endowments, fellowships, etc. ~192- lh. Extension Funds from All Sources, Agricultural.Economics, Speci- fied Years. 19su-ss Q 1955-56 Ddllars - : Dollars Item Federal0000000000000000..000.....00: State and/or College...............: county000.0.00....0.000000000000000: other l/.0.000000.0000000.0.0.0000. . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL FUNDSeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee l/ Include farmers' organizations, etc. Contrast the use of Extension funds in.Agricultural Economics at your institution with respect to major fields or areas of work between the preawar period (1939—ho) and the present period (1955-56): Contrast the recruitment and assignment of Extension_personnel in Agricultural Economics at your institution with respect to major fields or areas of work between the pre-war period (1939-ho) and the present period (1955-56): -l93- 15. Undergraduate enrollment in Agricultural Economics and Related Data, Fall Term, Specified Years. :Total under-: PTotaI Junior and senior :Number of :graduate : enrollment in: :B.S. degrees Year :enrollment : :Agricul- :awarded to :in your :InstituticnzAgriculture:tural :majors in :institution : : :EconomicszAg. Econ. Number : Number : Number : Number : Number 1939-ho 19hh-h5 : § § § : 19h9-So 19Sh-55 ; ; ; i i 1955-56 16. Graduate Student Enrollment l/ in Agricultural Economics, Fall Term, Specified Years Item : 1939-ho : 19uu-us 19u9-50 19su-ss : 1955-56 Number : Number Number Number Number M58. candidates..... Ph.D. candidates.... .0 0. 0. 0. 00 0. 0. .0 Post Doctoral....... Special............. 0. 0 0. .0 0. 0. 0. .. . TOTAL0000000000: l/ Include both on-campus enrollment for specified years and those students formerly enrolled who were actively working on theses or other phases of a continuing graduate program in specified years. 'What is the present outlook for changes in graduate enrollment in your department in the future? -19h- 17. Source of Graduate Students in Agricultural Economics, Fall Term, 1955-56. :Indicate num- : :ber, if any, M.S. : Ph.D. :recruited Item :candidates:candidates:from full- : : :time employ- : : :ment : Number : Number : INumber Source of graduate students: I/ ° : Your institution...................: Other institutions: : : : TOTAL GRADUATE STUDENTS 2/ . . . .: : : XXX ‘l/ Institution granting each student the highest degree held prior to his present enrollment at your institution. . ‘3/ These totals should check with totals in last column of Question 16. -19S- 18. Total Number of Advanced Degrees Awarded in Agricultural Economics, l/ Specified Years Year : Masters : Ph.D. Number : Number 1939-ho 19ho-h1 19h1-h2 19h2-h3 : 19u3-uu ' 19hh-b5 19hS-h6 19u6-h7 19h7-h8 19u8-h9 . 19h9-So : 2 1950-51 : Q 00 0. 0. 0. .0 . .0 1951-52 . 1952-53 : ; 1953-su : § 19Sb-SS ‘ : 1955-56 ; : 1/ Include Agricultural Economics degrees only. Do not include ad- ‘— vanced degrees awarded to majors in general economics, consumer economics, general sociology, rural sociology, business admini- stration, or statistics. Comments on above: -196- 19. First Positions Taken by Students Awarded Specified Degrees in Agricultural Economics from Your Institution 1955-56. Item : graduates TLS. graduates Ph.D. graduates Federal employment: ResearCheeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee: EmenSj-On000000000000000000000: serVice00000000000000000000000: Foreign assignment................: , State employment: Teaching......................: ResearCh0000000000000.000.0000: EmenSion000000000000.00.00000: Service.......................: Military semice000000000000000000: Private employment: Production fields.............: Marketing fields.............. Sales, promotion, etc......... Resear0h00000000.00.000.000... other00000000000000.00.000.00. o co 00 ee 0. 00 Self employment: Farming000000000000.000.00.000: Other000000000000000000.000...: Graduate study: Your institution..............: 3 Other institution.............: Returned to foreign countries.....: TOI‘AIJ GRADUATE50000000000: : Number : Number -‘LY a b mm USE o: