tic, and comprehensive instruction and training in the use of this material. A few cases, or for that matter many cases, used illustratively will wholly fail to produce this result. For the reasons thus briefly indicated the case method is to-day the principal method of instruction in the great majority of the schools of this country. It may indeed be desirable, as was said in the report of 1893, that law be taught more with a view to its elements and to its system than is possible under present methods. But our inability at the present time to approach law in this way is not due in any degree to the use of the cases. The truth is that Anglo-American law is not yet an exact science nor a complete system. In some respects it is less so than when Blackstone and Kent wrote the only great systematic treatises of the English common law. Granted that many principles of law relating to contracts and property, for example, are now well settled, the fact remains that our body of law as an entirety is passing through perhaps its period of greatest change and transition. Certainly this is true in respect to many topics. This being the condition of the law, it is obviously impossible to make a scientific and systematic statement of it, based upon its supposed elements. No such pretended statement could be true or accurate. Hence the impossibility of teaching law as if it had been reduced to anything which might properly be called the corpus juris. In the accepted sense of that term, we have no corpus juris, despite the ambitious and unwarranted use of that term made for commercial purposes in some quarters. A great deal of scholarly work has now been done which may prepare the way for a corpus juris in a not too distant future, but at present it is nonexistent. ADMISSION TO THE BAR. This report has been confined primarily to a discussion of legal education, but some mention of conditions with reference to admission to the bar may be appropriate. As was indicated in the earlier part of the chapter, great advances have been made in this respect. An examination of the reports of the committee on legal education of the American Bar Association, many of which have been admirable, will show how great has been the progress in this respect. Twentyfive years ago examinations for admission to the bar were in most States either unknown or more a subject of jest than of serious attention. To-day more than three-fourths of the States have what may reasonably be considered acceptable laws relating to admission to the bar-laws that are administered either by the courts directly or by boards of examiners appointed by them or provided for in the statute. The examinations are not always scientifically conducted, but in most of the States they are honest and genuine tests, to pass which requires at least a reasonable degree of proficiency. Most of the States now require, as preliminary to the taking of bar examinations, a high-school education and the completion of three years of law study. The State of Michigan has made a distinct advance in requiring that those applicants for the bar who are not graduates of a respectable law school shall have studied law at least four years instead of the three required of law-school graduates. This puts an effective and very salutary check in that State upon the practice of going to the bar by unregulated office or private study or by means of instruction in correspondence law schools. The matter of requiring an apprenticeship of one year or more in a law office before the graduate in law shall be eligible to admission to the bar has been debated in the American Bar Association and in several of the State bar associations, particularly in New York. Theoretically this move is in the right direction. In Germany, France, and some other countries a long apprenticeship of this sort is required, and the effects are beneficial. It may be doubted, however, whether the results would be as satisfactory in this country, where law offices are on a more commercial basis, and are not standardized, so that they are not in as strong position to be helpful to students as in other countries. In this and in many other matters relating to legal education and admission to the bar, the activities of the American Bar Association have been most helpful. THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN LAW SCHOOLS. One of the greatest single factors in the progress made during the last few years is the Association of American Law Schools. This association was organized in 1900, for the "improvement of legal education in America, especially in the law schools." The association is composed of law schools which require the completion of a four-year high-school course for admission, which offer a course of three years of at least 30 weeks each, and which have law libraries. of not less than 5,000 volumes. Forty-five schools are now members of this association. The establishment and maintenance of the eligibility requirements as thus indicated have been a great stimulus to advance in these respects in many law schools. At the annual meetings, papers on subjects relating to legal education are read and there is general discussion of the papers. These papers and discussions have been instructive and stimulating to the law teachers of the entire country. Many questions have been thrashed out thoroughly and an approach to a reasonable standardization in law-school methods has resulted. The work of the association during the first 15 years of its life has been confined largely to the matters above referred to. There has been a disposition to criticize the association for not having been more vigorous in its policies and action. It may well be doubted, however, whether a voluntary organization of this kind could have undertaken effectively more than the association has accomplished. During the greater part of that period it has been the wise course to encourage and stimulate rather than to criticize and attack schools which were at least endeavoring to live up to the requirements of the association. Notable advancement has been made in most of our law schools since the organization of this association, however, and perhaps the time has now come when those schools which are not fully and fairly living up to the reasonable requisites for membership should be regarded and treated as standing squarely in the pathway of progress and reform in legal education. THE CARNEGIE FOUNDATION INQUIRY. This paper should scarcely close without a reference to the investigation of legal education and admission to the bar now being conducted by the Carnegie foundation. The foundation has now been prosecuting this study for nearly two years, and is making a most thorough examination into the claims and the actual practice of all of the law schools of the country. This investigation covers every aspect of law-school work, including the important matter of method of instruction. The foundation is also making an exhaustive study of the laws, rules, and practice of every State relating to admission to the bar. The result should be a mass of information, analyzed and systematized, of the utmost value, since the work is in thoroughly competent hands and is apparently being conducted with impartiality, thoroughness, and intelligence.1 1 See Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. The common law and the case method in American university law schools. Report by Dr. Josef Redlich. New York City, 1914. XI, 84 p. (Bulletin no. 8.) CHAPTER XI. PROGRESS IN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION By WILLIAM T. BAWDEN, Specialist in Industrial Education, Bureau of Education. CONTENTS.-Report of the commission on national aid to vocational education-Training teachers for vocational education-Investigations and surveys-State systems of vocational education-Organizations interested in vocational education-New positions created-Achievements in typical centers. The movement for vocational education in the United States at the present time is a complex of forces, representing diversity of motive, if not of objective, and operating in an arena too vast to be comprehended in a single glance. To undertake a summary of the year's progress for presentation within the limits of a few pages is a big task, and he who essays it must be careful not to claim too much in respect to breadth of vision. This chapter has been prepared after consultation with many of the recognized leaders in all parts of the country, and their assistance, by way of reports and suggestions, is here cordially acknowledged. 1. COMMISSION ON NATIONAL AID TO VOCATIONAL EDUCATION. The important event of the year in vocational education was the appointment by President Wilson, pursuant to act of Congress approved January 20, 1914, of a commission of nine members "to consider the subject of national aid for vocational education and report their findings and recommendations not later than June 1." The following persons were appointed to serve as members of the commission: Senator Hoke Smith, Georgia. Senator Carroll S. Page, Vermont. Representative D. M. Hughes, Georgia. John A. Lapp, director Indiana bureau of legislative information, Indianapolis, Ind.; secretary of Indiana commission on industrial and agricultural education, 1912. Miss Florence M. Marshall, director Manhattan Trade School, New York City; member of Massachusetts factory inspection commission, 1910. Miss Agnes Nestor, president International Glove Workers' Union, Chicago, Ill.; member of committee on industrial education, American Federation of Labor. Charles A. Prosser, secretary National Society for the Promotion of Industrial Education, New York City. Charles H. Winslow, special agent, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, D. C.; member of Massachusetts commission on industrial education, 1906–1909. The commission organized April 2, 1914, by electing Hon. Hoke Smith, Senator from Georgia, as chairman. Mr. Ernest A. Wreidt, director, Public Education Association, New York, N. Y., was appointed secretary April 17, 1914. An office and statistical staff of 45 persons assisted in the work. On June 1, 1914, the commission made its report to Congress, after six weeks of strenuous activity that included a number of public hearings, conferences with representatives of all interested departments and bureaus of the Federal Government, examination of the results yielded by questionnaires, as well as independent study and research. The report was issued from the Government Printing Office in August as H. Doc. No. 1004, in two volumes: I. Report of the commission, with text of the proposed legislation; II. Hearings before the commission. The bill for the proposed act prepared and recommended by the commission was introduced into the House by Representative Hughes, of Georgia; and into the Senate by Senator Hoke Smith, of Georgia. In each case the bill was referred to the committee on education. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMISSION. Interested persons are referred to the published report for the full text of the recommendations of the commission, and the proposed law. The following is a condensed summary: I. SCOPE OF THE GRANTS. 1. That national grants be given to the States for the purpose of stimulating vocational education in agriculture and in the trades and industries. 2. That grants be given in two forms: (a) For the training of teachers of agricultural, trade and industrial, and home economics subjects. (b) For the paying of part of the salaries of teachers, supervisors, and directors of agricultural subjects and of teachers of trade and industrial subjects. 3. That appropriations be made to a Federal board for making studies and investigations which shall be of use in vocational schools. II. AMOUNT OF THE GRANTS. 1. For the salaries of teachers, supervisors, and directors of agricultural subjectsthat there be appropriated to the States the sum of $500,000 for the fiscal year 1915–16; this amount to be increased at the rate of $250,000 a year until a total of $2,000,000 is reached in the fiscal year 1921-22, and thereafter the annual increase to be at the rate of $500,000 a year until a total maximum appropriation of $3,000,000 is reached in 1923-24. 2. For the salaries of teachers of trade and industrial subjects-that there be appropriated to the States the sum of $500,000 for the fiscal year 1915-16; this annual amount being increased for each subsequent year in the same manner as the grants for the teachers of agricultural subjects, until the same maximum of $3,000,000 is reached in 1923-24. 3. For the training of teachers of agricultural, trade and industrial, and home economics subjects-that there be appropriated to the States the sum of $500,000 for |