Although it is many years since the doctrine of learning through doing was first promulgated, it has remained for the present generation to make the general application. Educators have been slowly, but surely, arriving at the conclusion that the university ideals of Europe, which naturally dominated our higher educational institution during the first century of our history, and which still hold sway in certain of our colleges, are not sufficient for our needs. Present-day conditions demand an education which will afford culture and practical preparation for the common duties at the same time. There is a loud and emphatic call for our schools to cultivate the executive quality in our young men and women and to prepare them for immediate, well-directed action in the affairs of life. Many of our states have answered nobly the call for schools where boys can be trained along practical lines which make for success and usefulness. Nearly every state has its Agricultural and Mechanical College. This is all very well for the boys, but how about the girls? In past years institutions which were organized primarily to meet the needs of men for their professional or business training have, largely from a spirit of chivalry and esteem, been opened to women. Also, largely from a spirit of social concern, some of the best friends of womankind have, in a degree, popularized the typical woman’s college. In both cases much good has been accomplished, but in neither case have the needs of the education of women been fully met. Men’s colleges that have been opened to women have given them the same training as is provided for men, and the majority of the women’s colleges have patterned their curricula after the same assumption. This theory leads women to contemplate man’s occupations and professions as their only field of action, and, while it may be the best in many individual cases, it does not provide for the mass of women the kind of higher education mostly needed. From a social standpoint, I believe in the co-education of the sexes, for education is but a preparation for life, and it seems the plain plan of creation for men and women to mingle, but from a practical standpoint co-education is not always advantageous, resulting too frequently, as stated, in making woman the competitor of man, instead of fitting her to work on her own peculiar lines. [Illustration: BASKETRY WORK BY STUDENTS] The young woman whose education has been based upon efficient scholarship, together with domestic and industrial training of a practical type, brings into the marriage relation a comradeship which grows out of her ability to sustain her part of the partnership. It is a womanly instinct to want to enter her legitimate realm—the home. Equipped with the training which gives her a righteous sovereignty, the integrity of that home is assured. Is it not worth our while to promote as many such homes as possible?