41 The Curriculum and Courses of Study at Connecticut Agricultural College During the Stimson Era, 1901-1908 Simon Jorgenson University of Vermont Abstract Rufus W. Stimson served as president of Connecticut Agricultural College from 1901-1908. During this time, he developed and promoted a six- year curriculum that brought the college closer to its natural constituency, practical farmers, and more in line with the standards of the best of the other land-grant colleges. An examination of this curriculum and Stimson’s strategic use of it offers important sightlines into a critical early stage of land-grant college development when the land- grant colleges created parallel courses and programs for farmers and rural communities, a strategy that allowed them to expand the curricula and raise degree course standards while still meeting their historic obligation to the agricultural community. The size and scope of American land-grant universities today belies their modest origins, tenuous early history, and “long struggle for recognition and respectability” (Johnson 1981, 333). While the Morrill Act of 1862 provided an initial stimulus for extending agricultural and mechanics arts education to the industrial classes, it welded practical, liberal, and scientific education together and left significant room for interpretation (Sorber and Geiger 2014). It took decades for land- grant college presidents, trustees, and faculties to make sense of this paradoxical mandate, give institutional and curricular form to the educational ideals embodied in the act, and prove its value to Curriculum History 2018: 41-53 the general public. Public approval depended primarily on the colleges demonstrating their usefulness to farmers, which they did by offering secondary level courses for common school graduates and short courses for adult farmers until state systems of public high schools and university extension departments emerged in the early 1900s (Eddy 1956, Scott 1970, Larson 1957). By 1900 there was growing consensus within the Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations (AAACES), the de-facto national accrediting body of the land- grant colleges (Williams 1991, 183), that the colleges were slowly developing into technical universities and were destined to educate the leaders of agricultural and industrial progress rather than the “mass of farmers’ sons” (AAACES 1898, 61). From this point forward, college leaders worked to expand the curriculum and raise degree- course standards in earnest. Their primary challenge was how to do so while maintaining farmers’ support, and they were well aware of the effect of course catalogues and other printed material on popular opinion (AAACES 1897, 77). The curriculum needed to be farm focused but signal to prospective students that these were true collegiate institutions. Each institution developed different depending on state and local conditions (Sorber and Geiger 2014). Recently, historians have begun to reexamine the origins and early history of land- grant colleges and look more closely at what historian Scott Gelber (2013) calls the “fractious but productive relationship” (p. 184) between 42 farmers and academic leaders that resulted from the inherent tensions in the original legislation. This paper follows this revisionist trend in the historiography and focuses on Rufus W. Stimson and the curriculum and courses of study developed at Connecticut Agricultural College during his tenure as president, 1901-1908. Connecticut Agricultural College during the Stimson era provides an illustrative case of the tensions between populist farmers and the land-grant colleges of New England, where grangers had considerable power to shape decisions about land- grant funding, administration, and curriculum (Sorber 2015, Sorber 2018b). A publicist by nature (Stemmons 1931, 111), Stimson developed and promoted a flexible curriculum that included six years of education of students in regular courses, a winter school for practical farmers, and a summer school for rural school teachers. Stimson’s strategy was to create a curriculum so diverse that each of the college’s constituents could find a place (Sorber 2015, 75). This curriculum attracted students in record numbers, won the approval of Connecticut farmers and state legislators, and earned Connecticut Agricultural College a respectable place among land-grant colleges nationally. An examination of this curriculum and Stimson’s strategic use of it offers important sightlines into a critical stage of land-grant college development when the land- grant colleges created parallel courses and programs for farmers and rural constituents, a strategy that allowed them to expand the curricula and raise degree course standards while still meeting their historic obligation to the agricultural community (Sorber and Geiger 2014, 9, 135, Sorber 2018a, 16). This strategy was particularly crucial to the development of institutions, such as Connecticut Agricultural College, that were founded as practical farm schools and assumed the land-grant designation only later, a situation that seriously impeded the development of advanced courses in the liberal arts and sciences (Geiger 2015). When Rufus Stimson became president of Connecticut Agricultural College in the fall of 1901, the Connecticut State Grange had already succeeded at stripping the state’s land-grant fund from Yale and forcing the resignation of Stimson’s predecessor, George W. Flint. In this paper, I draw on archival data at the University of Connecticut and recent histories of the New England land-grant colleges (Sorber 2013, 2015, 2018a) to more closely examine Stimson’s efforts to win back farmers’ support. As I argue in the paper, Stimson succeeded in reversing farmers’ opinion of the college, and repairing the damage done by his predecessor, not because he rejected the university ideal of broad curricula and high standards but because he recognized the political expedience of practical courses in agriculture and the need to balance curricular developments at the degree course level with parallel improvements in service to farmers and rural communities. Stimson not only saved Connecticut Agricultural College, he moved the land-grant colleges significantly closer to the concept of cooperative extension, two accomplishments for which he deserves greater attention and recognition among historians. Connecticut Agricultural College Prior to Stimson On April 21, 1881 Connecticut’s General Assembly established Storrs Agricultural School to teach “the business of agriculture” to boys 15 years of age or older who were of good moral character and whose parents were citizens of the state (Stemmons 1931, 34). The school’s founders developed a two-year agricultural course that combined instruction in agricultural practice with instruction in agricultural science (physics, chemistry, botany, zoology). Students also 43 received instruction in English, arithmetic, geometry, carpentry, and smith work and wrote essays on farm-related topics (Stemmons 1931, 39- 40). A revised two-year course in agriculture would remain part of the institution’s curriculum for nearly 50 years (Stimson and Lathrop 1954, 79). Connecticut, a small New England state, gained little from the sale of federal lands granted to the state legislature by the Morrill Act of 1862 (Sorber 2015). Rather than build a new land-grant college with supplemental funds from the state treasury, Connecticut’s General Assembly designated Yale’s Sheffield Scientific School as Connecticut’s land-grant institution. Yale’s Sheffield School was widely criticized by Connecticut’s agricultural community because the curriculum was classically based, the agricultural course had few graduates, and the school had no working farm. After the (Second) Morrill Act of 1890 awarded significant additional federal funds to land-grant colleges, the Connecticut State Grange lobbied successfully to have Storrs Agricultural School named the state’s land-grant institution, and on April 21, 1893, the General Assembly transferred the state’s land-grant funds from Yale to Storrs and renamed the school Storrs Agricultural College (Stemmons 1931, 67-69). Rhode Island farmers undertook a similar revolt against Brown University (Sorber 2015). To create a semblance of college-level instruction at Storrs Agricultural College, the president and trustees added five new academic departments, expanded the agricultural course to four years, and began awarding a Bachelor of Agriculture degree at the end of studies. In reality, the curriculum remained much the same as the old two-year course but with expanded offerings (Stimson and Lathrop 1954, 78). In 1895-1896 the college added a six-week summer term, offered its first winter school short course, and developed an extension program for farmers at home. In 1897 the agricultural course was modified to include technical subjects (e.g., agrotechny, zootechny) recommended by the AAACES, although to a limited degree (State of Connecticut 1898, 13). On July 1, 1898 George W. Flint became the second president of Storrs Agricultural College. A year later the Connecticut General Assembly marked the institution’s growth and expansion by renaming it Connecticut Agricultural College (Stimson and Lathrop 1954, 78). Other than this auspicious moment, Flint’s presidency was a disaster in terms of farmer relations. Flint had little interest in educating practical farmers and favored a curriculum of general education in the liberal arts and sciences as preparation for graduate studies and professional training in non- agricultural fields (Sorber 2015, 70). In his first address to the State Board of Agriculture, Flint mentioned agricultural education only once (Sorber 2015, 69). Dissatisfaction with Flint’s administration grew with newspaper reports that he was more interested in classical and scientific studies than agriculture and planned to eliminate the college’s manual labor requirement (Stemmons 1931, 97-99). The Hartford Daily Courant reported that professors at the college “made game of all agricultural matters” and “many of the best farmers of the state…refused to send their sons to Storrs because the conditions that existed were likely to ruin the boys” (Demand of Farmers 1901, 1). Low student enrollment numbers fanned the flames of negative publicity as did misunderstanding of the land-grant mission. Many questioned the idea of maintaining a state agricultural college that provided such low return on investment. Farmers and the press were particularly critical of the college’s curriculum and administration (Stemmons 1931, 105). This situation came to a head in August of 1901 with votes of no confidence in the Flint 44 administration by the Connecticut Pomological Society and Connecticut State Grange and press reports that only one candidate for admissions appeared at the five entrance examination locations in the state (Stemmons 1931, 101-104). The Hartford Daily Courant reported on August 30, 1901 that in calling for Flint’s immediate resignation, the Connecticut State Grange, which represented 12,000 Connecticut farmers, cited Flint’s failure to “attract students or inspire the farmers of the state with confidence” (Mr. Patterson's Vote 1901, 8). The trustees had no choice but to act and act swiftly, and on October 5, 1901 they forced Flint’s resignation, made Rufus W. Stimson acting president, and resolved to recommit the college to agricultural instruction (Stemmons 1931, 104-105). Stimson received word of his appointment via telegram (Stimson 1939, 24). Stimson’s New and Improved Service to Farmers Rufus W. Stimson had come to Storrs four years earlier, in the fall of 1897, after graduating from Harvard and the Yale Divinity School to teach courses in rhetoric, elocution, ethics, and English literature (Moore 1988). Stimson four years as a faculty member (1897-1901) at the college coincided with the turbulent presidency of G. W. Flint (1898-1901). When Stimson became acting president in the fall of 1901, the state had not approved an appropriation for improvements in over ten years, and the college had only eighteen students enrolled in its longer courses (AAACES 1907b, 71, Stimson 1909, 2). Stimson approached this situation with a definiteness of purpose and set out at once to improve the college’s standing among farmers. To do so, he proposed to reorganize the college’s agricultural courses and radically expand its winter school of short courses. Rather than turn his back on farmers, he would strive to make Connecticut Agricultural College the best farming school in the country (Stimson 1939, 25-27). His commitment to farmers ran deeper than political expedience, however. He was born and reared on a farm, claimed several generations of superior farmers on both sides of his family, and had acquired significant farm experience by the time he was twenty-one years old (Stimson 1939, 1909). Farming for him “had about it a nimbus of nobility” he would later admit (Stimson 1939, 7). He saw farmers as the “natural constituency” of Connecticut’s land-grant college and believed he was both free and legally obligated under the land- grant acts to design lower level courses on “anything and everything which it is found practical to teach” to serve this constituency better (AAACES 1905, 83). Stimson realized, too, that times had changed in Connecticut and the college could not survive on practical courses or agriculture alone (Stimson 1939, 25). About one third of the college’s students were from towns and villages, and the state’s long-term prospects in manufacturing were far more promising than in agriculture (AAACES 1907b, 71). As was the case at the other land-grant colleges in New England, many students that came to Connecticut Agricultural College with secondary diplomas had no interest in practical training or becoming farmers but wanted an advanced scientific and engineering curriculum that would allow them to pursue middle class careers as teachers, scientists, engineers, or civil servants (Sorber 2018b, 117). Although Stimson respected the college’s history as a practical farm school, he was also aware of the need to provide students with opportunities to pursue advanced training in other emerging fields. In this case, improving service to the farming community meant preparing farmers’ children to pursue ‘higher’ callings. 45 Stimson asked a faculty committee to design a new two-year course in farming for high school graduates “to put in the proper place the man who had not developed his brain” (AAACES 1905, 83). This arrangement helped differentiate between students preparing to be farmers and students with the academic aptitude and interest in becoming agricultural teachers, researchers, and civil servants. In addition, the college dropped its long-standing compulsory student labor policy and moved the practicum component of its agricultural courses from the college farm to the laboratory (AAACES 1905, 83). This made the courses more efficient for students who wished to return to the farm, which raised the college’s standing among farmers. It also created more time for “real training in technical operations” for students in more advanced courses (AAACES 1907a, 88). Soon after taking office, Stimson developed a series of new short courses for men over twenty that were especially featured in college circulars as “furthering profitable agriculture” (Stimson 1936). These courses echoed the farm school’s founding mandate of preparing boys for the business of agriculture. One brochure pitched a ten-week poultry course for “men who mean to make poultry farming their business” (Stimson 1901a). Another described a twelve- week course in pomology for “busy men”—a course designed by Stimson to win back the favor of the Connecticut Pomological Society, whom he also invited to tour the college farm and orchard (Stimson 1901b, Stemmons 1931, 113). Stimson considered short courses “pioneer work, more or less temporary expedients, for the purpose of extending the influence of the college and of drawing students to the long courses” (AAACES 1904, 84). He could envision a time when agricultural colleges had a more efficient means of serving the needs of practical farmers than bringing them to campus and housing them in the dormitory for weeks or months at a time (Stimson 1939, 29, Stimson and Lathrop 1954, 585). Until then, he would use short courses to secure farmers’ respect and support. Short courses drew farmers to the college. When the instruction they received helped solve a problem or turn a profit back on the farm, the college gained a strong advocate (AAACES 1907b, 71). Stimson would quickly learn to leverage their support to secure additional appropriations from the state. Stimson’s summer school for teachers, which was devoted exclusively to nature study and country life, was key to winning the respect and support of rural farmers. Stimson believed that if he could prove to farmers in Connecticut’s towns and villages that the college knew how to train teachers well, then they would be more likely to send their sons and daughters to the Connecticut Agricultural College (AAACES 1907b, 71). Stimson probably knew too that farmers were more likely to tolerate land-grant curriculum that diverged from agricultural concerns if the benefits they received from outreach and extension activities uplifted the rural communities they called home (Sorber 2018a, 147). As a demonstration of the college’s commitment to rural communities, teachers paid no tuition or room rent to attend the four-week program (Connecticut Agricultural College 1902, 65). The summer school was entrusted entirely to Stimson’s care (Stimson 1909). He invited Edward F. Bigalow, a well-known authority on the teaching of nature study in public schools, to serve as lead instruction for the inaugural summer session of 1902. At the end of that summer’s program, the Hartford Daily Courant printed a detailed description of the summer’s work that included testimonials from teachers about the quality of instruction they received and the “kindness offered by all connected with the college” (Summer School at C. A. C. 1902). 46 On December 18, 1901, less than three months after becoming acting president and two years after his predecessor G. W. Flint had alienated the very same body, Stimson went before the Connecticut Board of Agriculture to share his vision for the college. Stimson pledged to put Connecticut Agricultural College “right back at the door of the common schools” as a first step toward “making it more useful to the farming classes” (State of Connecticut 1902b, 157). This included providing farmers’ sons with opportunities to pursue non-agricultural callings. The land-grant colleges, he told them, stood for two kinds of education—an education which was “down close to the people” and an education which would lift students “to the highest positions among the people” in work and service (State of Connecticut 1902b, 123). He described the college’s four-year agricultural course and how it had been carefully attuned to the needs of the farm. He expressed regret that the course still combined high school and college level education. To fix this, he proposed to give “two years more of thorough- going college grade instruction in agriculture” (State of Connecticut 1902b, 159) and noted that the next college catalogue would include new courses leading to a Bachelor of Science degree. He directed the board’s attention to circulars showing the twenty short courses planned for that winter and encouraged them to apply. These courses, he said, reflected “the best literature…the best and most practical thought” (State of Connecticut 1902b, 125). To those who questioned the teaching of subjects other than agriculture (e.g., engineering, horticulture, business) Stimson said: “If you have five boys on your farm, and you have a farm that will not support more than one when you are through with it, what are you going to do with the other four?” (State of Connecticut 1902b, 122). Stimson’s Curriculum Goes Public Stimson reported to the trustees at the end of 1901 that radical changes and readjustments to the curriculum had been made and apologized for the delay in printing the next year’s catalogue, which typically appeared in the same volume (State of Connecticut 1902a, 9). When the 1901- 1902 catalogue arrived, it included a detailed description of the college’s “newly organized courses of study” which “embraced the sciences that bear directly on practical agriculture” as well as “general culture studies” (e.g., mathematics, English, German, ethics, drawing, civics) to guard against over specialization. The catalogue emphasized that students were free to choose any course for which they had “special liking and aptitude” and could expect to be associated with students “as earnest” as themselves (Connecticut Agricultural College 1902, 39). The catalogue argued: Provision has been made for the young men and young women to desire to return to the farms; and for those, also, who desire to go into civil engineering, business, teaching, or some one of the other leading pursuits or professions. (Connecticut Agricultural College 1902, 39) Although the courses overlapped considerably, they were classified separately in the catalogue to more clearly show that the college provided education “to meet the needs of students of different grades of preliminary training and of distinctly different prospective callings” (Connecticut Agricultural College 1902, 40). The courses sent a clear message to the citizens of Connecticut that Connecticut Agricultural College remained steadfastly committed to agricultural education. It would be difficult to argue, based on the courses outlined in the catalogue, that Stimson 47 had dropped agriculture to a secondary place in the curriculum as his predecessor G. W. Flint had. The college’s longer agricultural courses were now listed as “Preparation for Farming” courses. There were three of them: a four-year farming course for common school graduates and separate two-year farming courses for students with and without a high school education. In all, there were nearly thirty courses—four-year, two- year, twelve-week, ten-week, and ten-day courses—specifically designed to meet the needs of farmers and their families, including short courses on a variety of agricultural, industrial, and domestic topics (e.g., poultry production, blacksmithing, table service) open to men and women fifteen years of age or older (Connecticut Agricultural College 1902, 40, 58-68). In addition, a new four-year Bachelor of Science degree course on “Preparation for Agricultural Teaching, Experiment Station Work, or Work in the U.S. Department of Agriculture” was available (Connecticut Agricultural College 1902, 40). The four-year Bachelor of Agriculture degree had been abolished. Stimson’s Curriculum Goes Visual The catalogue for the following year, 1902- 1903, included a print diagram of Stimson’s curriculum which was circulated widely by the college and used by Stimson personally in his public and professional addresses (Connecticut Agricultural College 1902, 40, 58-63, Stimson 1939, 27). The diagram (Figure 1) helped the college argue that it provided education to meet the needs of many different kinds of students. It also signaled that Connecticut Agricultural College valued the same curricular principles as the other- land grant colleges: breadth, depth, balance, and choice (Stemmons 1931, 112-114, AAACES 1907a, 87). Figure 1: Curriculum and courses of study, 1902 48 Stimson modeled the six-year curriculum after the Ontario Agricultural College in Guelph, Canada (Stimson and Lathrop 1954, 585). The first two years served as a general education preparatory program for students who came to the college from the common schools to pursue a four- year course in farming, mechanic arts, general science, business, or housekeeping, the last of which was typically branded by land-grant colleges as ‘domestic science’ to make the subject appear more technical. The work in these first two years was the same for all students: a blend of general culture studies, elementary/secondary science, basic agriculture, and military drill—a subject required by the land-grant acts. The middle two years, years three and four, were the practical unit. Each course now had a separate schedule, and in year four students in the general farming course elected either dairying or horticulture as a concentration. High school graduates and qualified others could enter directly into the practical unit and graduate in two years. Stimson called years three and four the “great years” at the college due to their success at preparing students for farming and other “practical operations” (State of Connecticut 1907, 11) or, if they elected to continue their studies elsewhere, degree courses at top-tier institutions such as Cornell, Massachusetts Agricultural College, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (AAACES 1907a, 88, Stimson 1939, 25-26). The last two years of the six-year curriculum were the professional unit. To earn a Bachelor of Science degree students were required to complete the professional unit, two additional two years of college level coursework, years five and six for students who entered the college directly from the common schools. The six-year curriculum remained relatively unchanged for the first five years of Stimson’s presidency. In 1906, a revised curriculum and diagram appeared (Figure 2). Figure 2: Curriculum and courses of study, 1906 49 The two-year secondary business course had been replaced by a two-year course in preparation for teaching nature study in rural schools. This revision likely reflects the rising popularity of nature study among teachers and public interest in correlating nature study and agricultural education (Eddy 1956, 60-61, Williams 1991, 182). It most certainly reflects the fact that Stimson’s summer school for teachers had become the most popular course at the college. The 1906 summer school enrolled eighty-four teachers from Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey—two more than all of the students enrolled in the college’s six years of regular courses combined at that time (Connecticut Agricultural College 1907, 111-113). Graduates of the summer school proved to be among the college’s strongest advocates (AAACES 1907b, 71). It would have benefitted the college greatly to have these teachers enrolled in its regular courses. Connecticut Agricultural College was not the only land-grant college to find itself training public school teachers at this time, although providing this educational service was not part of the original design (Ross 1969, 135). In other changes, an elective option in poultry was added for fourth year students in the general farming course and the Bachelor of Science degree course options were reduced from five (agriculture, horticulture, engineering, home economics, general science) to two (agriculture and home economics). The degree course changes appear not to have impacted many students as there were only two enrolled in the fifth and sixth years at the college at that time (AAACES 1907b, 71). This revision may have been undertaken to reemphasize the college’s commitment to agricultural education, which is how Stimson used the diagram in his report to the board of trustees in 1906 (State of Connecticut 1907, 10). For Stimson, the diagram also represented a compact exhibit of how he had adapted the land-grant idea to local conditions in Connecticut (AAACES 1907a, 87). Stimson Wins the Approval of Farmers and Saves the College Stimson’s curriculum development and promotion activities were immediately successful at reversing farmers’ opinion of the college. As the education provided by the college became better known demand for it increased. By the end of 1902, the Connecticut Pomological Society and Connecticut Editorial Association had reversed their previous positions and endorsed the college after visits to inspect its facilities and farm, visits hosted by Stimson himself (Stemmons 1931, 113). Regarding the Connecticut Pomological Society visit, the Hartford Daily Courant reported: The members expressed themselves as well pleased with the work of the college under the new management and the result of the meeting will undoubtedly result in placing the college in a better standing with the farmers about the state. (Field Meeting at Storrs 1902, 8) Stimson reported to the trustees in 1902 that forty- four new students had been admitted that year, bringing the total enrollment at the college, including winter and summer schools, to 152 (State of Connecticut 1903, 7). These numbers far exceeded the college’s rooming capacity. Stimson wrote to the Hartford Daily Courant on September 30, 1903 that due to high enrollment numbers some boys were forced to live outside and in the president’s house and “it may be necessary to do away with the short courses” (C. A. C. Opening 1903, 3). Readers must have feared a return to the disarray of the Flint administration and farmers the loss of profitable training opportunities. By the end of 1903, enrollment was over 200 as demand for longer courses and short winter 50 courses continued to grow (State of Connecticut 1904, 8). Stimson used this opportunity to mobilize the Connecticut State Grange, who joined him in securing $65,000 for a new brick and stone dormitory and $50,000 for a new horticultural building and greenhouses from the state legislature (Stimson 1939, 28, 1909, 2). It was clear that the Connecticut State Grange was now on Stimson’s side. In March 1903 Grange Master B. C. Atterson argued before the Connecticut General Assembly: The institution has passed through some serious times but the tide has turned and how the institution is heading in the right direction…. The farmers are more and more appreciating this college and the work it does. I believe it needs help from the state and I believe such help ought to be given it. (cited in Sorber 2015, 75) Stimson obliged, telling farmers that he appreciated the fact that the college was “the offspring of the Connecticut State Grange” (President Stimson of C. A. C. 1905, 11). All of these positive developments were reported in the press. Additional state appropriations and private gifts followed (Stimson 1909). Stimson attributed his success at Connecticut Agricultural College to “the practical working through a period of years of our industrial courses of secondary grade—courses to which the Connecticut community instantly and heartily responded” (Stimson 1909, 3). Stimson fixed the subjects and hours for these courses himself (Stimson 1909, 2). Stimson left Connecticut Agricultural College in 1908 to become director of Smith’s Agricultural School in Northampton, Massachusetts, the first permanent public secondary school of agriculture in the state. Upon his departure, the trustees of Connecticut Agricultural College passed a resolution acknowledging his exceptional service to the college and the state. At Smith’s Agricultural School, Stimson developed his ideas around cooperative extension and applied them to vocational agricultural education at the secondary level, work that has attracted the attention of historians of curriculum, vocational education, and agricultural education (Kliebard 2004, Moore 1988, Roberts and Harlin 2007, Smith and Rayfield 2016). As this paper suggests, his contributions to Connecticut Agricultural College—now the University of Connecticut—and the early history of land-grant colleges are just as significant. Conclusion The curriculum and courses of study developed by Stimson during his tenure as president of Connecticut Agricultural College provides insight into a critical early stage in the history of land-grant colleges when short courses and specialized programs were used to build support among farmers and rural communities for institutional and curricular expansion. By developing the college’s practical courses offerings, creating a new summer school for rural school teachers, and maintaining the most intensely agricultural curriculum of any land-grant college in the country (Stemmons 1931, 117), Stimson managed to win the respect and approval of Connecticut farmers, which he leveraged to increase state appropriations. Under Stimson’s leadership, Connecticut Agricultural College provides a case of a land-grant college in New England that became more liberal and scientific by becoming more practical. References Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations. 1897. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Convention of the Association of American Agricultural Colleges 51 and Experiment Stations. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations. 1898. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Convention of the Assocation of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations. 1904. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Convention of the Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations. 1905. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Convention of the Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations. 1907a. Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Convention of the American Association of Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations. 1907b. Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Convention of the Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. C. A. C. Opening. 1903. The Hartford Daily Courant. September 30. Connecticut Agricultural College. 1902. The Connecticut Agricultural College Catalogue, 1901-1902. Hartford, CT: Case, Lockwood & Brainard. Connecticut Agricultural College. 1907. The Connecticut Agricultural College Catalogue, 1906-1907. Hartford, CT: Case, Lockwood & Brainard. “Demand of Farmers.” 1901. The Hartford Daily Courant. August 23. Eddy, E. D., Jr. 1956. Colleges for our land and time: The land-grant idea in American education. New York: Harper. “Field Meeting at Storrs.” 1902. The Hartford Daily Courant. August 15. Geiger, R. L. 2015. "Land-grant colleges and the pre-modern era of American higher education, 1850-1890." In Science as service: Establishing and reformulating American land-grant universities, 1865-1930, edited by A. I. Marcus, 9-29. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. Gelber, S. 2013. "The populist vision for land- grant universities, 1880-1900." In The land- grant colleges and the reshaping of American higher education, edited by R. L. Geiger and N. M. Sorber, 165-194. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Johnson, E. L. 1981. "Misconceptions about the early land-grant colleges." Journal of Higher Education 52: 333-351. Kliebard, H. 2004. The struggle for the American curriculum, 1893-1958. 3rd ed. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Larson, V. C. 1957. "The development of short courses at the land grant institutions." Agricultural History 31 (2): 31-35. Moore, G. E. 1988. "The forgotten leader in agricultural education: Rufus W. Stimson." Journal of the American Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculture 29: 50-58. Mr. Patterson's Vote. 1901. The Hartford Daily Courant. August 30. President Stimson of C. A. C. 1905. The Hartford Courant. January 23. Roberts, T. G., and J. F. Harlin. 2007. "The project method in agricultural education: Then and 52 now." Journal of Agricultural Education 48: 46-56. Ross, E. D. 1969. Democracy's college: The land- grant movement in the formative state. New York: Arno Press. Scott, R. V. 1970. The reluctant farmer: The rise of agricultural extension to 1914. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Smith, K. L. , and J. Rayfield. 2016. "An early historical examination of the eduactional intent of supervised agriciutural experiences (SAEs) and project-based learning in agricultural education." Journal of Agricultural Education 57: 146-160. Sorber, N. M. 2013. "Creating colleges of science, industry, and national advancement: The origins of the New England land-grant colleges." In The land-grant colleges and the reshaping of American higher education, edited by R. L. Geiger and N. M. Sorber, 41- 71. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Sorber, N. M. 2015. "The rise and fall of the Grange's Yankee land-grant colleges." In Science as service: Establishing and reformulating land-grant universities 1865- 1930, edited by A. I. Marcus, 61-92. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. Sorber, N. M. 2018a. Land-grant colleges and popular revolt: The origins of the Morrill Act and the reform of higher education. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Sorber, N. M. 2018b. "Early land-grant colleges and students in the Northeastern United States: A history of regional access and mobility patterns in Maine, Massachusetts, and New York, 1862-1878." Agricultural History 92 (1): 101-123. Sorber, N. M., and R. L. Geiger. 2014. "The welding of opposite views: Land-grant historiography at 150 years." In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, edited by M. B. Paulsen, 385-422. Dordrecht: Springer. State of Connecticut. 1898. Annual report of the trustees of Storr's Agricultural College. Hartford, CT: Case, Lockwood & Brainard. State of Connecticut. 1902a. Annual report of the trustees of the Connecticut Agricultural College, 1901. Hartford, CT: Case, Lockwood & Brainard. State of Connecticut. 1902b. Thirty-fifth annual report of the secretary of the Connecticut Board of Agriculture, 1901. Hartford, CT: Case, Lockwood & Brainard. State of Connecticut. 1903. Annual report of the trustees of the Connecticut Agricultural College, 1902. Hartford, CT: Case, Lockwood & Brainard. State of Connecticut. 1904. Annual report of the trustees of Connecticut Agricultural College, 1903. Hartford, CT: Case, Lockwood & Brainard. State of Connecticut. 1907. Annual report of the trustees of the Connecticut Agricultural College. Willimantic, CT: Chronicle Printing Company. Stemmons, W. 1931. Connecticut Agricultural College--A history. Storrs, CT: Connecticut Agricultural College. Stimson, R. W. 1901a. Winter short course in poultry farming circular. Box 1, Folder 2. Rufus W. Stimson Papers. University of Connecticut Libraries. Stimson, R. W. 1901a. Winter short course in pomology circular. Box 1, Folder 2. Rufus W. Stimson Papers. University of Connecticut Libraries. Stimson, R. W. 1909. Stimson to Paul Hanus. 5 August. Box 2. Rufus W. Stimson Papers. University of Connecticut Libraries. 53 Stimson, R. W. 1936. Stimson to Massachusetts Commissioner of Education. 15 January. Box 2. Rufus W. Stimson Papers. University of Connecticut Libraries. Stimson, R. W. 1939. Stimson to North Atlantic Regional Conference, U. S. Office of Education. 3-6 April. Box 2. Rufus W. Stimson Papers. University of Connecticut Libraries. Stimson, R. W. , and F. W. Lathrop, eds. 1954. History of agricultural education of less than college grade in the United States. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. Summer School at C. A. C. 1902. The Hartford Daily Courant. August 4. Williams, R. L. 1991. The origins of federal support for higher education: George W. Atherton and the land-grant college movement. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.