who are not attending other types of schools. As yet this compulsory feature is not general. In Pennsylvania the state law which went into effect January 1, 1916, forbids the employment of any minor between the ages of fourteen and sixteen who does not attend such a school or one giving equivalent instruction.

These schools are as yet in the experimental stage and, in consequence, have no well defined aim nor course of study, nor have they developed any methods specially adapted to the needs of the pupils. They have been established because of a conviction that the boys and the girls between fourteen and sixteen or older who are at work still need further school training. Whether this training shall be along general lines, supplementing the fundamental work of the elementary school, or whether it shall be in the direction of supplementing, broadening and intensifying the industrial, commercial or other work in which they are engaged has not yet been determined; it may well be both. It must in addition provide for a study of different occupations with a view to a more intelligent choice of vocations. The obstacles met with in the establishment of these schools are much the same as those in the other types of schools already described: (1) lack of properly qualified teachers; (2) limited time, eight hours a week which is at best a small fraction of the time needed; (3) the tremendously varied needs of the pupils in each school, making it extremely difficult to outline any course of study which is adequate. An initial difficulty often met was the refusal of the employer to coöperate and a threat to discharge any young employee who should go to such a school, but this is due largely to lack of understanding and in most cases has been successfully overcome. These schools bid fair to accomplish much that is worth while for the young worker, and present experience will show ways in which they can be modified to meet more fully the needs of the young people reached.

These varying types of continuation schools illustrate clearly the double purpose of education as it is seen in this country: (1) to give every individual that education and training which will furnish him equality of opportunity; (2) to educate and train every individual in such a way as to provide for the safety and for the development of the state. The gradual assumption by the state of the organization and support of such work shows the develop

ment and enlargement of our educational ideal and the widening of our educational horizon. It is a reasonable inference that at no very distant time the state will be compelled to assume larger responsibility for all those forces that train and educate not only the immature but also the adult.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Sadler, M. E. 1908.)

Continuation Schools in England and Elsewhere.

(Manchester,

Jones, Arthur J. The Continuation School in the United States. United States Bureau of Education, Bulletin 1907, No. 1.

UNIVERSITY EXTENSION

BY LOUIS E. REBER, D.Sc.,

Dean of University Extension Division, University of Wisconsin.

The phenomenal growth of University Extension in the United States in the past ten years may be looked upon as indicative of a new interpretation of the legitimate scope of university service. Nevertheless, it is still maintained in many of our learned institutions that higher education should be removed from any possible intimacy with the common things of life. These institutions repudiate the idea that organized extension of their services may become a worthy function among their acknowledged activitiesworthy not only in enabling them to reach greater numbers than the few who may assemble within their gates, but essentially so in its influence upon their own life and growth. Though with these, as with the more liberal, pursuit of the truth is the fundamental and all-embracing object of existence, they apparently fail to realize that truth does not belong to the cloister more than to the shops and homes or to the streets and fields, but is inseparably of them all.

The return of power to the institution is not, however, the main justification of University Extension. Such justification exists primarily in the fact that the university is the one great source and repository of the knowledge which the people-all, not merely a few, of the people-need in order to reach their highest level of achievement and well-being.

Is it not a very uncharacteristic view of the field of the university which seems to limit its functions to those of a sealed storehouse with facilities for giving out its invaluable contents only to the few who may be able to learn the cabalistic passes that unlock its doors? More in keeping with the modern spirit is the new slogan of unlimited service which lays upon the university a command to retrieve to the world its losses from undiscovered talent and undeveloped utilities and to give freely to humanity the pleasures and profits of which so many are deprived by ignorance of the work of the masters of art and learning, and of the laws of sane living. For such purposes as these the university, in the full

ness of its possessions and powers, must inevitably be acknowledged to be, in the words of President Van Hise, "the best instrument."

WHAT IS UNIVERSITY EXTENSION?

University Extension may be defined as an agency of popular education by which the benefits of the university are extended to the entire population without other prerequisite on the part of this large student body than the desire to learn and the ability to make use of the service. This does not imply a new or original philosophy of education, but presents a practical and proportionate method by which are met the requirements of a democratic form of government, a form which theoretically, at least, rests upon the principle that the vigor and permanence of the nation depend upon the intelligence of its whole people.

In England, as early as 1850, an expression was used that has since become a by-word in the language of University Extension. "Though it may be impossible," said an early advocate of the movement, "to bring the masses requiring education to the university, may it not be possible to carry the university to them?" This phrase, "carry the university to them" (the people), expresses very simply the underlying purpose of extension. Another phrase of earlier date points to the need for "the taking of a definite part by the university in the education of persons who had not been matriculated." Thus over half a century ago and under the more aristocratic circumstances of English life, the university was called upon to take a part in the spread of education among the masses and the name, University Extension, even at that time, was added to terms already familiar in educational nomenclature. The words intramural and extramural also came into use at this time as applied to work taken at the institution and outside of or beyond its walls, and later the words resident and non-resident were used as applied to students and courses of study. These terms explain themselves in a general way but have slowly grown to connote certain definite relations in modern education, the significance of which will appear in the following account of the development of extension.

HISTORY OF UNIVERSITY EXTENSION

The old English system of University Extension which grew out of the deliberations and experiments made in the middle of the nineteenth century consisted in lecture courses accompanied by

syllabi, with assignments of collateral reading and, finally, written examinations. The work was conducted by university professors, who through the agency of local committees or by personal solicitation formed classes in circuits of non-university communities. This method depended for its success almost wholly upon the superficial gifts and personality of the lecturer, who in order to hold his classes together must possess the faculties not only of a scholar, but also of a teacher, a social leader, and an orator. So versatile a professor was seldom found and yet for a time this form of extension met with an encouraging reception. The weaknesses of the method developed soon and modifications were adopted which led to the establishment of the present tutorial system. These changes were accomplished through the agency of an administrative board comprising representatives of both the capitalistic and the laboring classes. Extension methods became in this evolution less severely academic and more serviceable to persons who must study without interrupting the ordinary interests and occupations of their lives.

When in 1887 University Extension, its more aristocratic form as yet unmodified, was brought to America, its liberal promise of educational opportunity in exact keeping with democratic ideals, at once gained for it many friends. The method was first described at a library conference, in Albany, N. Y., and almost immediately beginnings of University Extension were made in the cities of Buffalo, Chicago, and St. Louis, as a form of library service.

In 1889, Columbia University announced through Teachers College elementary courses in science for the benefit of school teachers in New York City and its environs.

In 1890, the American Society for the Extension of University Teaching, supported by private subscription, was organized in Philadelphia.

In 1891, the first state appropriation for University Extension, $10,000, was made by the state of New York.

In 1891, Chicago organized a privately endowed society which in 1892 was taken over by the University of Chicago. In the latter year, the University of Wisconsin also began its organized work of extension.

In December, 1891, a national congress on University Extension was held in Philadelphia. This meeting brought together