The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-08-14
Dr.. Arid for Consolidation

Editor Tribune:-Mr. Carlisle OF
Logan, In his argument in The Tribune
for the continued separation OF the State
university and college. asks; Which
would be for tho greatest good Of the
greatest number OF the citizens OF the
State, the consolidation or the separate
| maintenance"
1 answer without doubt or hesitation
that consolidation would be "for the
! greatest good of the greatest number
| for the simple reason that Salt Lake
| City has within q radius of few miles
over half the population of the State,
| and Is the natural center Of it's edu-
| cation. Annually that city eutertains
| tens of thousands of tourists and sight
seers What an advertisement for Utah
| II they could see the magnificent school
| that would be created by consolidation.
| How many Utah farmers have ever been
| able TO inspect the agricultural work at
| Logan? Where one Utah farmer Will
| ever observe the experimental farms,
etc. at Logan, 100 would see them at
Salt Lake City. Where one student can
| earn his way through school at Logan
| ten can and do earn their way through
| school In Salt Lake City. Why compel
| students to travel so far to school In
stead Of having the chief school at the
| center OF population? AS Mr.. Carlisle
| says further on: Most OF the patronage
| Of all colleges Is local" Undoubtedly,
therefore. the patronage Of the Agrlcul-
| tural college In Salt Lake would be
| many times greater than 1t Is in Logan,
| because 1t would be easily accessible, II
| In Salt Lake or some other central To-
| cation, to ten times as many students
as it is in Logan.
MIR. Carlisle urges that since "75 per
cent Of the students live within the
neighborhoods (within fifty miles) Of
] the colleges IL is readily seen
that to unite the Agricultural college
with the University at Salt Lake would
| cut out a large number of students"
Not at all. For every Cache valley stu
| dent that might be cut out there
would be added. according to relative
| population, at least ten from the regions
| within fifty miles of Salt Lake, Mr.,
| Carlisle's argument on this point tells
very strongly in favor Of removing the
| college TO some more accessible To-
| cality. 1t Is a fact that most students
| cannot afford to leave home and go to
school. In Logan only fifty students
above high school grade were found at
| the college by the commission, and
| in domestic science 6. in commerce 13,
In civil and mechanical engineering 13,
| and In general science 9. This small
| attendance really proves Mr.. Carlisle's
| argument, SO far as showing that not
| many students can afford to go away
from home to attend school Mt Logan.
| but It also goes for to prove that many
more students would take these courses
II the college were within reach OF "the
| greatest number" as II would be, for
instance, in Salt Lake City.
| Mr.. Carlisle answers the argument
| against the waste due to duplication OF
work In the two schools by saying that
Work is frequently duplicated in the
various common and high schools" Ger
tainly; but-and here is the point-the
duplication OF work In the district
schools involves almost no additional
expense. Put all the district schools OF
a city of any size together in one build
| Ing and the saving would be small; for
| every teacher has practically rs many
students now to teach as he would have
II the district schools should be COM
bined. How many district school
| teachers are teaching from one to fifteen
| students In class. as is the case
| today in practically all the higher classes
| In the college and the university? So
| with high schools. II classes are small
combine them, provided the students
can reach them. But In the case Of
|
tion will cut the expense of instruction
in two. and will also bring the school
nearer to the people, then both OF the
| things desired by Mr.. Carlisle will be
accomplished by the consolidation. What
say you, Mr., CarlIsle2
The argument for the distribution Of
| schools throughout the State applies only
to district and high schools, not to uni
versty or college. AS to high schools,
| consolidation would save enough money
| to enable every largo town to have one
OF It's own-the very thing Mr.. Carlisle
| argues for. And since. as he says, there
will be more (hgh schooD students in
| two than In one school, there will be
| many times more students receiving high
school education when by consolidation
Of university and college there are high
schools all over the State.
| MT, Carlisle seems to assume that for
| the supposed advantages Of keeping the
schools apart. the State should be willing
| to lose the million dollars every fifteen
| years that would be saved by con-
| solidations because ''the State is rapidly
| growing in population and wealth
But the demands for higher education
outstrip the increase in wealth, as
| witness how much more the expenses OF
| these schools have exceeded the growth
| Of wealth and population in the past ten
years. The simple fact is that the State
has nearly reached its limit 10 provide
for these schools. The taxable property
1 in the State is now about S146, 900, 900
and the rate OF taxation is mills
But as soon as the property reaches
| $500, 100000. the rate Of tax will be only
8 mills, by provision in the Consti-
tuition. These schools are, therefore,
getting about all they can hope to get
II they are to grow with the State they
must be combined. For efficiency aud
| economy. j. w. ARD, NJ D.
| Provo, August 49, 1906