Department of the Interior, 
 
 Bureau of Education. 
 
 MINUTES'/;.: 
 
 OF THE 
 
 FOURTEENTH CONFERENCE 
 
 OF 
 
 THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON 
 STANDARDS OF COLLEGES AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS 
 
 HELD AT NEW YORK, N. Y. 
 
 MARCH 10, 1921 
 
 THE 
 
 In accordance with the instructions of the President, Dean 
 George D. Olds, the Secretary called a meeting of the 
 National Conference Committee on Standards of Colleges and 
 Secondary Schools for 10 A. M., Thursday, March 10, 1921, 
 at the rooms of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement 
 "* of Teaching, in New York City. 
 
 In advance of the meeting, each member of the Committee 
 received a note concerning the matters to be taken up at the 
 meeting, in accordance with the recommendations of the Exe- 
 cutive Committee, as follows: 
 
 I. Additional members of the Conference Committee. 
 
 II. A request of the American Council on Education that this 
 
 Committee call a conference of various standardizing 
 organizations. 
 
 III. Report of the committee on the junior college. 
 
 IV. Report of the committee on honorary degrees. 
 
 V. Report on recent studies in college entrance requirements. 
 
 VI. Further study of items in college accounting. 
 
 VII. New methods in examinations. 
 
 VIII. The problem of increased numbers in the colleges, and 
 
 possible solutions. 
 
. : ;;:.-.:; : A .ATTENDANCE 
 
 " In* accordance* 'with* riie call of the Secretary, the Committee 
 met at 10 A. M., Thursday, March 10, 1921, at the rooms of 
 the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 
 The meeting was called to order by the President, Dean 
 George D. Olds. The Secretary reported that the following 
 constituted the membership of the Committee, representing 
 the organizations indicated: 
 
 President Marion L. Burton, University of Michigan, repre- 
 senting the National Association of State Universities. 
 
 Dean George D. Olds, Amherst College, representing the 
 New England Association of Colleges and Secondary 
 Schools. 
 
 President Frederick C. Ferry, Hamilton College, represent- 
 ing the Association of Colleges and Preparatory 
 Schools of the Middle States and Maryland. 
 
 President William W. Guth, Goucher College, representing 
 the Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools of 
 the Southern States. 
 
 Headmaster Wilson Farrand, Newark Academy, represent- 
 ing the College Entrance Examination Board. 
 
 Dean Frank W. Nicolson, Wesleyan University, represent- 
 ing the New England College Entrance Certificate 
 Board. 
 
 Dr. Robert L. Kelly, representing the Association of 
 American Colleges. 
 
 Professor Frederick B. Robinson, College of the City of 
 New York, representing the Association of Urban 
 Universities. 
 
 President Henry S. Pritchett, Carnegie Foundation for the 
 Advancement of Teaching; and Secretary Clyde Furst, 
 Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 
 
 Honorable Philander P. Claxton, United States Commis- 
 sioner of Education. 
 
 President Pritchett and President Burton were unable to be 
 present. Dean J. R. Effinger, of the University of Michigan, 
 represented the National Association of State Universities. 
 
Dr. George F. Zook was in attendance as a representative of 
 Commissioner Claxton. Dr. Samuel P. Capen, Director of 
 the American Council on Education, was also present. 
 
 THE CONFERENCE 
 
 The Chairman stated that the minutes of the Conference of 
 March 23, 1920, had been printed and circulated, and that 
 accordingly the reading of them would be omitted. 
 
 The report of the Treasurer, audited by Dr. Zook, was ac- 
 cepted and adopted, showing a balance on hand of $138.77. 
 
 The following topics were considered and action taken as 
 indicated. 
 
 I. ADDITIONAL MEMBERS OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE. 
 
 Professor Robinson, Dr. Zook, and Dr. Kelly were appointed 
 a committee to consider the matter of additions to the member- 
 ship of the Committee. They reported that no action be 
 taken at present, and the report was accepted and adopted. 
 
 II. PROPOSED CONFERENCE OF STANDARDIZING ORGANI- 
 
 ZATIONS. 
 
 Dr. Capen presented a resolution adopted by the Executive 
 Committee of the American Council on Education December 
 9, 1920, as follows: 
 
 "On motion it was voted to request the National Conference 
 Committee on Standards of Colleges and Secondary Schools to 
 arrange a joint conference of the representatives of the principal 
 standardizing agencies with a view to bringing about uniformity of 
 definition of acceptable collegiate standards and of accrediting 
 procedure. ',' 
 
 It was voted that this Committee call a conference of vari- 
 ous standardizing agencies, associations, and institutions for 
 the purpose of discussing the whole matter of formulating and 
 administering collegiate standards, including the procedure of 
 accrediting, and that we accept the offer of the American 
 Council on Education to aid in bringing about such a confer- 
 ence. 
 
 The Chairman was requested to appoint a committee with 
 power to arrange the preliminaries of the proposed conference, 
 and to issue a call for it. He appointed Dean Nicolson and 
 Dr. Zook. 
 
III. THE JUNIOR COLLEGE. 
 
 The Committee voted to accept and adopt the following 
 report, presented by the committee consisting of Dr. Farrand, 
 President Burton, and President Guth. 
 
 The Junior College is an institution covering the first two years 
 of a standard college course, based upon the completion of four 
 years of high school work. It may be a division of a large uni- 
 versity offering a full college course but for administrative reasons 
 dividing that course into two separate units each covering two 
 years of work; it may be a separate institution, either rural or 
 urban, under private or public control, established primarily either 
 to meet local needs for post-high-school work, whether vocational 
 or cultural, or to allow students to take the early years of their 
 college course near their homes or in a comparatively small and 
 closely supervised environment; it may be a graduate annex to a 
 local high school organized primarily to gratify local pride or to 
 aggrandize the local school system. 
 
 There are over a hundred such institutions in the country at 
 present, and there is a marked tendency to increase the number. 
 The institution has had its greatest development in the West and 
 South, but it exists in all parts of the country, and the movement 
 is general rather than local or regional. 
 
 In many cases the Junior College meets a genuine need. It 
 serves in a measure to relieve the enormous pressure of students on 
 many of our universities, and by relieving ,that pressure helps to 
 solve the troublesome problem of the assimilation of the freshman. 
 It lightens the financial burden for many students by allowing 
 them to take the first half of their college course at less expense 
 than in a distant institution. For many it affords the opportunity 
 at home and at small cost to pursue vocational or pre-professional 
 studies that otherwise they would be unable to afford. 
 
 Since it thus meets definite needs, it is evidently here to stay, 
 and the problem is not whether we shall have junior colleges, but 
 how far they shall be encouraged, what standards shall be insisted 
 on, and how far work done in them shall be accredited by standard 
 colleges, by professional schools, and by universities. 
 
 It may be set down as a safe working principle that junior col- 
 leges should be encouraged in so far as they meet genuine, legiti- 
 mate needs, and that their work should be accepted and accredited 
 in so far as it conforms to the standards maintained by colleges 
 and universities of recognized standing. This means that the insti- 
 tution must possess at least the minimum collegiate equipment, 
 that the teachers must be of collegiate calibre, men and women of 
 scholarly attainment, that the work must be done under college 
 conditions, and that the atmosphere must be distinctly collegiate 
 rather than secondary in character. In other words the work done 
 in junior colleges must be recognized at its face value just as far as, 
 
and no farther than, it conforms to the standards of our recognized 
 institutions. 
 
 The Junior College as a division of a large university may be an 
 administrative device of great value, but the institution in this form 
 is something with which we are not particularly concerned at 
 present. 
 
 The rural Junior College may serve a very useful purpose, and it 
 would undoubtedly be for the best interests of this country if many 
 of the small institutions, with weak resources, which are vainly 
 struggling to maintain themselves as second and third rate colleges 
 would frankly recognize the situation, give up the struggle, limit 
 their field, and make themselves into first-rate junior colleges, 
 sending their students on to earn their degrees in standard insti- 
 tutions. 
 
 Some of our cities maintain strong and well-equipped municipal 
 colleges and even universities, and their is no reason why, if a 
 local need exists, a larger number should not maintain junior col- 
 leges. It must be emphatically asserted, however, that if such an 
 institution is to claim collegiate standing and collegiate recognition, 
 it must maintain collegiate standards. It must ordinarily be a 
 separate institution, with its own building, its own president, and 
 its own faculty. It must possess adequate library and laboratory 
 facilities for work of college grade. Its faculty must have higher 
 scholarly attainments than the minimum necessary for successful 
 high school work, and a reasonable proportion of the staff should 
 have had experience in college teaching. The number of teaching 
 hours required of them must be smaller than are ordinarily called 
 for in high schools, in order that they may have opportunity for 
 proper study and preparation. The method of instruction should 
 be collegiate rather than secondary, and the atmosphere should be 
 the same. 
 
 The extension of a high-school course by the addition of one or 
 two years of more advanced work may meet a genuine local need, 
 but such an annex to a high school is not necessarily worthy of 
 collegiate standing. In general it may be said that such an insti- 
 tution, with the high-school principal becoming the president of 
 the college, with certain of the high-school teachers taking over 
 the work of instruction, and carrying it on with the high-school 
 facilities, does not deserve to be called a college, and should not be 
 recognized as such. 
 
 IV. DEGREES, HONORARY AND IN COURSE. 
 
 The Committee voted to accept and adopt, with certain 
 modifications, the report of the special committee on the sub- 
 ject, consisting of President Ferry, Dr. Furst, and Professor 
 Robinson. The committee was continued for another year, 
 and was requested to prepare a statement of the standard of 
 
6 
 
 awards of the several honorary degrees. The report as 
 adopted is as follows: 
 
 " Academical Degrees were originally instituted for this purpose, 
 That men eminent for Knowledge, Wisdom, and Virtue, who have 
 highly merited of the Republic of Letters and of the Common- 
 wealth, should be rewarded with the Honors of these Laurels." 
 (From the diploma of the degree of Doctor of Laws, granted by 
 Harvard University to George Washington, on April 3, 1776.) 
 
 ' ' The practice (of conferring honorary degrees) appears on the 
 whole to contribute to the sum of human happiness." 
 
 PRESIDENT LOWEST,. 
 
 1. Degrees in course should be awarded only when the full 
 catalogue requirements, or clearly demonstrable equivalents, have 
 been met. 
 
 2. The same work, in whole or in part, should never be counted 
 toward two degrees in liberal arts. 
 
 3. Nunc pro tune degrees are generally undesirable, and should 
 be very rarely conferred. 
 
 4. The number of recipients of honorary degrees in any insti- 
 tution should in each year be strictly limited. The ratio of the 
 number of honorary degrees to the number of degrees in course 
 conferred by any institution should be very small. 
 
 5. Honorary degrees should be awarded for merit only, never 
 solely in response to persistent pressure from any outside quarter. 
 
 6. Intellectual or scholarly ability, as well as character and 
 service, should be considered an indispensable qualification for 
 honorary degrees. 
 
 7. No honorary degree should ever be awarded without thorough 
 investigation, consideration, and formal recommendation by an 
 appropriate committee. Recommendations by the faculty and sug- 
 gestions by its members of candidates for honorary degrees should 
 receive particular consideration. 
 
 8. Honorary degrees should be granted only by approximately 
 unanimous votes, say a majority of four-fifths, of the determining 
 body. 
 
 9. The reasons for the award of honorary degrees should be 
 recorded in every instance, and be deemed proper matter for an- 
 nouncement. 
 
 10. Honorary degrees should not be conferred on any member 
 of the faculty or trustees while continuing in the service of the 
 institution bestowing the degrees, except in cases of long service 
 extending to advanced age. 
 
11. Honorary degrees should be granted with exceptional care 
 by state-supported and city-supported institutions. 
 
 12. It is desirable that degrees which are ordinarily conferred 
 in course should not be given as honorary degrees. 
 
 V. COLLEGE ENTRANCE REQUIREMENTS. 
 
 Dr. Furst presented the following facts for the information 
 of the Committee. No action was taken upon the report. 
 
 Certain interesting tendencies are indicated by a study of the 
 requirements for entrance to candidacy for the bachelor's degree 
 in liberal arts, as these requirements were in 1912 and 1920, in the 
 one hundred and twenty-five universities and colleges that were 
 approved by the Association of American Universities in 1918. 
 
 These tendencies, as reported to the Association of American 
 Colleges in 1921, are briefly: 
 
 (1) The number of institutions having but one requirement for 
 the various bachelor's degrees in liberal arts increased from 70 to 
 77, that is, from 56 to 61 per cent of the entire 125. 
 
 (2) The number of requirements for entrance that demand 15 
 units of preparatory work increased from 91 to 145, that is, from 
 nearly one-half to more than three-fourths of the total of 189 
 requirements. 
 
 (3) The total number of units required for entrance in the 125 
 institutions increased from 2786 or 2834, that is 13 per cent. 
 
 (4) The number of units prescribed as to subject decreased from 
 2025.5 to 1268.5, that is from 72 to 44 per cent of the whole number, 
 a decrease of 37 per cent. 
 
 (5) The number of units left entirely free as to subject increased 
 from 101 to 348.5, that is from 3.6 to 12 per cent of the whole 
 number. 
 
 (6) The number of elective units increased but slightly, from 
 659.5 to 697.5, that is from 23 to 24 per cent of the whole. 
 
 (7) A comparatively new feature, alternate requirements, that is 
 units to be taken in either Latin or Greek, mathematics or chem- 
 istry or physics, and so on, has come to include, in 1920, 519.5 units 
 or 1 8 per cent of the whole. 
 
 Further study indicates interesting variations in these tendencies 
 in different groups of institutions. 
 
 (8) Both in 1912 and in 1920, the 49 institutions of the North 
 Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools required, 
 on the average, the largest number of units for college entrance; 
 the 28 institutions of the Association of Urban Universities come 
 next; the 31 institutions associated with the College Entrance 
 
Examination Board come next, all three representing require- 
 ments above the average of the whole 125 institutions, both in 1912 
 and 1920; these requirements were, respectively, 15.03, 14.01, and 
 14.79 units, as compared with an average of 14.74 in 1912; and 15.07, 
 15.06, and 15.03 units, as compared with an average of 14.98 in 1920. 
 
 (9) The 31 institutions represented in the National Association 
 of State Universities and the 17 of the Association of Colleges and 
 Secondary Schools of the Southern States had an average require- 
 ment lower than the general average in 1912, namely, 14.67 and 
 14.38 respectively, but in 1920 both had an average requirement 
 higher than the general average, namely, 15.01 and 15 units, re- 
 spectively. 
 
 (10) The 28 institutions represented in the Association of Col- 
 leges and Preparatory Schools of the Middle States and Maryland, 
 the 21 represented in the New England Association of Colleges, 
 and the 10 in the New England College Entrance Certificate Board, 
 required, on the average, a number of units for entrance smaller 
 than the general average, both in 1912 and in 1920, namely, 14.58, 
 14.58, and 14.28 units, respectively, in 1912, and 14.92, 14.86, and 
 14.63, respectively, in 1920. Both in 1912 and 1920 the institutions 
 associated with the New England College Entrance Certificate 
 Board required, on the average, the smallest number of units for 
 entrance. This group alone had, in 1920, a smaller average require- 
 ment than the general average in 1912. 
 
 (n) With regard to prescribed subjects the institutions associ- 
 ated with the Middle States, the Entrance Examination Board, and 
 the two New England groups had, on the average, larger require- 
 ments than the general average, both in 1912 and in 1920. The State 
 Universities and the North Central Association had, on the average, 
 smaller requirements than the general average, both in 1912 and in 
 1920. The Southern Association and the Urban Universities aver- 
 aged more than the general in 1912, but less in 1920. 
 
 (12) With regard to alternate requirements, which are specified 
 only for 1920, the Middle States, Examination Board, Urban Uni- 
 versities, and the two New England groups have larger, the South- 
 ern, North Central, and State Universities groups smaller, require- 
 ments than the average. 
 
 (13) With regard to electives, the State and the North Central 
 Institutions had more than the average, and the Middle States, the 
 Urban Universities, the Examination Board, and the New England 
 Certificate group had less than the average, both in 1912 and 1920. 
 The Southern institutions had less then the average in 1912, and 
 more in 1920. The New England Association institutions had more 
 than the average in 1912, but less in 1920. 
 
 (14) With regard to free units, the Southern, Examination Board, 
 and the New England groups offered nothing in 1912, and their 
 
allowance was below the average in 1920, as was the offering of the 
 Middle States in both years. The State Universities were below 
 the average in 1912, but above in 1920. The Urban and North 
 Central groups were above in both years. 
 
 (15) In studying the relative frequency of the various subjects, 
 some ratio of evaluation between prescribed, alternate, and elective 
 units is necessary. In the following comparison this ratio has been 
 taken as one, one-fourth, and one-seventh, the average alternate 
 group containing four subjects, the average elective group seven. 
 
 (16) The most frequent entrance subjects, considering prescrip- 
 tions, alternates, and electives, all together are thus English, 
 Mathematics, Latin; the History, Civics, Economics group; Ger- 
 man, French, Greek, Spanish, Physics, Chemistry, Business, and 
 Botany, in the order named. 
 
 (17) The most frequent subjects among prescriptions alone are 
 English, Mathematics, Latin, the History and Civics group, and 
 General Science. 
 
 (18) The most frequent alternate subjects are French and Ger- 
 man, Latin, Greek, and Spanish. 
 
 (19) The most frequent electives are German, History and Civics, 
 French, Latin, Greek, and Mathematics. 
 
 VI. COLLEGE ACCOUNTING. 
 
 Dr. Furst indicated various sources from which valuable in- 
 formation could be collected on the subject of college account- 
 ing, mentioning the recent report of Dr. Arnett, of the 
 General Education Board, a recent report of the Carnegie 
 Foundation, and certain investigations made by President 
 Cowling. Other sources of information were suggested by 
 the members, and it was voted to appoint a committee, with 
 power to enlarge its numbers, whose duty it shall be to gain 
 information on the whole subject of college accounting and 
 report at the next meeting. The committee appointed con- 
 sists of Dr. Furst and Professor Robinson. 
 
 VII. NEW METHODS IN EXAMINATIONS. 
 
 Dr. Farrand reported the present status of psychological 
 tests in college examinations, and some recent experiments in 
 so-called "standardized" or "measured" examinations. 
 
10 
 
 VIII. THE PROBLEM OF INCREASED NUMBERS IN COLLEGES. 
 
 Dean Nicolson spoke of the problems before the colleges on 
 account of the increase in the number of students, and men- 
 tioned certain proposed solutions for the difficulty, pointing 
 out the unsatisfactory nature of each. It was voted to appoint 
 a committee to consider this subject and report at the next 
 meeting. The committee appointed consists of Dean Nicolson 
 and President Ferry. 
 
 It was decided that among the subjects to be considered at 
 the next meeting should be the question of the comparative 
 value of the certificate system, properly guarded, and the new 
 method of admission to college by comprehensive examina- 
 tions. The following committee was appointed to prepare a 
 report on this subject: President Guth and Dr. Farrand. 
 
 It was voted to extend the thanks of the Committee to the 
 Carnegie Foundation for their hospitality in providing rooms 
 for the meeting and luncheon for the delegates. 
 
 On recommendation of the Nominating Committee, con- 
 sisting of President Guth, Dr. Furst, and Dean Nicolson, the 
 former officers were re-elected, as follows: 
 
 President, Dean George D. Olds. 
 
 Vice- President, Headmaster Wilson Farrand. 
 
 Secretary-Treasurer, Dean Frank W. Nicolson. 
 
 The Committee adjourned at 3:30 P. M. 
 
 FRANK W. NICOLSON, Secretary. 
 
 The address of the Secretary of the Committee is: Dean 
 Frank W. Nicolson, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Con- 
 necticut. 
 
 Press of Pel ton & King, Inc. 
 Middletown, Conn. 
 

 48675 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY