Comparing these results with Mr. Bernard's, it is worthy of note that 95 of the institutions which answered the committee's questionnaire are found in Mr. Bernard's Tables I, II, and III, comprising institutions which answered him favorably. Some 27 of the answers to the committee's questionnaire were from institutions in Mr. Bernard's Table IV, comprising institutions which taught sociology but did not answer him. The remaining 23 answers of the 145 reporting to the committee's questionnaire are from institutions not contained in either of Mr. Bernard's tables but given in the World Almanac list of colleges for 1910. Of the 23 new institutions thus obtained 12 are at present teaching sociology.

The material sent in has been classified with the object in view of having such a classification as representative as possible of the general significance of the 150 odd answers. It has been the effort of the writer of this report to use an objective standard of classification obtained from the totality of the material itself. To this end the broadest possible divisions of the subject-matter were chosen and the various statements made upon the questionnaire

regarding the subject-matter of the courses were copied and marked one for each time they occurred. Thus Anthropology was definitely spoken of nearly 40 times; Poor Relief and Pauperism nearly 25 times; the Biological Method was emphasized 16 times, etc. In many instances, however, there was no such specific statement. In such cases the writer had to classify the subject-matter of the course as Historical, Psychological, Practical, etc., in accordance with the general characteristics of the textbook or reference book mentioned. This latter method was resorted to only when it was impossible to get specific statements of the subject-matter. This situation obtained in about 12 per cent of the cases.

It will be noticed that the mark for the general division is in most cases smaller than the sum of the marks of specified subjectmatter. Thus the mark for Historical subject-matter is only 84, while the sum of 40, 37, 52, and 56, the specific marks, is considerably over 150. The reason for this is that very often where the Historical subject-matter was specified there were also carefully specified several definite fields such as Anthropology, Ethnology, and Social Institutions. This same correction is true of the other divisions.

In many cases all six general divisions were emphasized, as were also the specific subdivisions. Many cases combined the practical with the theoretical. In this manner also the subdivisions became large.

The writer of this report wishes to make it emphatic that the numerical marks should not be taken too literally. The effort has been to classify a mass of very heterogeneous material so as to show its most representative elements; the effort has not been to produce an exact and exhaustive analysis. This would be almost impossible considering the nature of many of the replies. In this respect the writer found it difficult to classify such a specified field as Sociological Theory, which obviously overlaps the Historical and Psychological fields. It therefore seemed best to place this specified field by itself. The same may be said of Social Pathology, which might mean Social Psychology or some practical study of Criminology. It has therefore been placed by itself also.

TABLE II

CLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT-Matter of COURSES IN SOCIOLOGY GIVEN BY
THE INSTITUTIONS NAMED IN TABLE I

I. Emphasizing Historical subject-matter..
Including such fields specified as:

84

VII. Subject-matter overlapping some of the above six divisions and

Divisions III and IV are also subject to the same criticism.

Some eighty institutions used a textbook as the basis of the work in their beginning course. The textbooks of the following authors were in use:

TABLE III

AUTHORS WHOSE TEXTBOOKS ARE USED IN BEGINNING COURSE IN SOCIOLOGY BY INSTITUTIONS NAMED IN TABLE I

Only a few of those reporting answered part E of the questionnaire, asking for suggestions regarding the subject-matter for a fundamental course to serve as a basis for advanced work. Those who did answer part E of the questionnaire were classified in accordance with the above method as they suggested Historical, Psychological, Practical, etc., subject-matter for the fundamental course, the emphasis on each being laid in the following manner:

TABLE IV

SUGGESTED SUBJECT-MATTER TO FORM A FUNDAMENTAL BEGINNING COURSE

Historical..
Psychological.
Biological...

.28
25
7

Descriptive and Analytic.. 7
Economic.
Practical.

3

.16

Among those who suggested subject-matter for a fundamental course in sociology the comments of the following are particularly pertinent:

1. Professor G. E. Howard, University of Nebraska, believes that a differentiation of the subject-matter of sociology into three main divisions would facilitate team work. The divisions are: I. Pure or General Sociology; II. Practical Sociology; III. Social Anthropology.

He says: "The work of our Associate Professor of Practical Sociology is intended to lay a scientific basis for social service. The beginning courses in Practical Sociology and Social Anthropology are mainly concerned with the concrete; while theory is more accented in Pure Sociology, first taken up by third-year students."

2. Professor W. I. Thomas, The University of Chicago, says, in speaking