The Place of Sociology in Education

Abstract

a philosophical setting and orientation for those which follow. It indicates the general frame of reference in which the Commission has worked. More concretely, Dr. Hayes discusses the status of education in general, the objectives of sociological instruction, and the relation of sociology to the social sciences. The critique is written by Dr. E. A. Waters. The second paper, by Dr. Robert I. Kutak, discusses the sociological curriculum and faculty of colleges and universities in the states east of the Mississippi River and south of the Ohio and Potomac Rivers, as described in the catalogues of these agencies. A questionnaire provided data for a study of enrollment, organization and objectives of curriculum, methods of instruction, and philosophv underlying instruction. The critique is by Dr. Ira De A. Reid. The third paper, by Dr. Belle Boone Beard, reports concerning the testing experiment of the Committee on Standards and Measurements. The immediate purpose of the experiment was to determine whether there is a conceptual framework and a basic core of sociological knowledge which might constitute a standard course in Introductory Sociology (i.e. that which all students in Introductory Sociology might be expected to learn) and which might be tested objectively. The procedure employed in constructing the test, the reliability and validity of the test as determined by its use as a preand end-sociology examination and the results are discussed in detail. The critique was prepared by Dr. C. Horace Hamilton. The final paper Some Regional Implications of Sociological Instruction was written by Dr. Lee M. Brooks. It sets forth a sociological emphasis in education for the southern region, indicating the fields and topics which need definite consideration. The critique is by Dr. Carl C. Taylor. No attempt has been made to integrate the papers and critiques. They are presented in the order indicated above, under the names of the respective writers and stand as the work of the individual authors. It is regrettable that the Commission is denied the benefit of the critical examination and discussion which would follow direct presentation of these and other papers to the Society in seminar procedure, as in the last annual meeting. This detracts in no way, however, from the appreciation the Commission holds for the editors of SOCIAL FORCES for making available this medium of presentation of these individual papers and this partial report of the Commission to the members of the Southern Sociological Society. W. B. JONES, JR.