Socio-Economic Status of a Sample of Rural Future Teachers Compared with Status of Rural Pupils in School

Within the past ten years p5ychologists have seen more and more evidence from their research that the influence of social class of the school pupil may be as important in determining the success of the individual child as is his mental age, his chronological age, his physical development and his emotional stability. Eells, Davis, Havighurst, Herrick and Tyler (1) have presented this kind of information. Of special importance to the teacher as she considers the problem of classroom motivation is the wide differences which have been found between the social class of the teacher and the majority of her pupils. Davis (2) has said, More than 70 out of every 100 of our elementary school children come from .... lower socioeconomic groups .... (but) more than 95 out of every 100 teachers are from the middle socio-economic groups

Some Recent Changes in Rural Living Which Have Psychological Implications

Eric Johnston, president of the Motion Picture Association of America told the American Farm Bureau Federation in Chicago last December, A few years ago our Department of Agriculture entitled its yearbook, \u27Farmers in a Changing World.\u27 That was a good title, but I think a better one would have been \u27A World of Changing Farmers.\u27 As teachers and instructors of students from rural communities we are part of this world of changing farmers here in the United States. Since the time and example of the Master Teacher, Jesus Christ, the best teachers have known about the environment in which they have worked and have used it in their teaching. Many changes in rural life are interesting from a psychological point of view as they influence the student and his learning. The changes in rural life I will consider are those changes in the farm population and in rural community living which have some psychological implications

Using Fertilizer Nitrogen Effectively on Grain Crops

Fertilizer nitrogen is necessary for the efficient production of grain crops throughout the midwest. Farmers have recognized this need by tremendous increases in nitrogen consumption duhng the past decade. Fertilizer nitrogen where needed for optimum yield usually increases slightly the total water used by the crop. The water required in making this optimum yield, however, is used a good deal more efficiently than where nitrogen is omitted. Nebraska studies on fertilizer economy have demonstrated nitrate leaching losses in some cases, especially serious on sandy soils of low water holding capacity and with irrigation. Strong circumstantial evidence also suggests denitrification of nitrate leached into the subsoil of some fine-textured subsoil types and resultant escape of elemental nitrogen gas. In other cases, ammonia volatilization losses have proved serious, particularly with surface broadcasting of products containing or producing ammonium ion on neutral to alkaline soils. Magnitude of ammonia evolution is accentuated by drying conditions and by surface residue where nitrogen carriers are applied in solution form. Loss by volatilization is reduced greatly as the fertilizer is mixed immediately with the soil. Summer sidedressing of fertilizer nitrogen for row crops, regardless of chemical form, has usually proved superior to fall or spring applications. This superiority has been especially apparent at the lower application rates. Not only has this been noticeable in the year of application, but the carryover nitrogen effect has been greater than with earlier application times. Thus, losses are minimized by delaying application to a time when crop roots are actively absorbing nitrogen from the soil. In getting the most out of fertilizer nitrogen in grain crops, soil incorporation of the fertilizer and delayed application time seem in order