91 



It iieods no excess of self-coinpliu-eni y for us to rejoice that the prohlem of 

 hehtteil {iriKhiatioii is one wliicii eii^'ineeriiif; newl not share with tlie oUler pro- 

 fessioiis ; Imt it Ix'hooves us not to underestimate tlie iui|tortance and tiie diffi- 

 culty of our own correspondinf; prolihMu — that of possii)ly premature specializa- 

 tion and j,'rM(hiation. 



Tlie i|uestion Jnst how to comhine our three ingredients, science, technologj', 

 and the humanities, confronts us even in the determination of our entrance 

 re(iuirements. I low much shall we demand in mathematics, how nuich in lihy- 

 sical scienc«>. how nmch in lan^uaj,'e and history'.' How shall we deal with the boy 

 who is deticiiMit in tin* latter, hut is ai)i)arently (pialitied to succeed in an eugi- 

 neerint: courseV While any answer of value must deitend on local and personal 

 conditions. I venture to say that in general it is useless to admit a candidate to 

 an engineering college unless he can meet the mathematical retiuirements, that 

 insistence u|)on the others may depend greatly upon the age and antecedents 

 of the candidate, with due care not to admit students with too many conditions 

 either for their own good or for the maintenance of standards in the collateral 

 subjects in the jireparatory schools and the colleges. 



The distribution of time in the curriciUum nuist represent the consistent 

 working out of a logical educational theory. The student should be jirotected 

 against the zeal of his teachers and his own enthusiasm by an arbitrary time 

 limit on the amount of re(iuired work per term. The time available should then 

 be ajiportioned with the utmost care among the various [irofessional. semipro- 

 fessional. and nonjirofessional subjects which seem on the whole most important 

 and best adapted to the formation of a well-designed curriculum. The most 

 attracive errors lie. I think, in the direction of overspecializatioii along tech- 

 nical lines. It is these which aiipeal most strongly to the immature student 

 and often to the professional specialist its well. But the advantage which they 

 may give the graduate is a short-lived one. Training in technical specialties 

 may. if luckily chosen, stand him in good stead in tive years; at the end of 

 twenty-five years his degree of success will have depended far more on his edu- 

 cation in fundamentals. This is the basis for one limitation of the " practical " 

 element. 



It is doubtless imposs-ible to dr.-iw a definite Itoundary line between science 

 and technology. The distinction is ftnidament.-illy a subjective one of point of 

 view. Time was when the work of our enginei'ring colleges was stigmatized 

 as utilitarian and mercenary, and we must be alwa.vs on our guard lest our stu- 

 dents exaggerate the imiiortance of immediate commercial applications of the 

 facts and laws with which they are concerned. Our students have a natural and 

 proper interest in their own jiersonal welfare, but I would not for a moment ad- 

 mit that their whole interest in their scientific work is measured by this selfish 

 motive. They choose their tareers and their manner of education by reason of 

 well-defined natural predilections. The utility of their studies, apart from mere 

 personal profit, is an additional and not unworthy motive. 



As to the detailed api)lication of these principles to an actual curriculum, 

 no college or individual may speak with autliority. Each may learn something 

 from The ex])erience of every other. As one contribution to the subject I 

 present an expression of opinion based on our efforts to solve the problem as it 

 presents itself in Boston. We do not claim to have succeeded ; we venture to 

 hope we are working in the right direction. 



All courses include modern languages, English literatiu-e, history, and eco- 

 nomics. The time assigned to these is in general 27 per cent in the first two 

 years, 17 per cent in the third year, making 18 per cent in the entire course. 



This should not be understood as representing a curricidum of which 82 per 

 cent is technical. While it is scarcely practicable to make a precise quantitative 

 statement as to the distribution of time between general subjects on the one 

 hand and professional on the other, I believe it is safe to say that in our owu 

 case the division would be not far from an equal one. 



If I were to venture on a generalization, not intended to be in the least 

 exclusive of others, I shovdd be inclined to say that if a given curriculum gives 

 half of the first year to science, including mathematics, a third to the humani- 

 ties, and the remainder to drawing; if. the professional work occupies one-third 

 of the time in the second year, two-thirds in the third, and the whole in the 

 fourth, and if the time remaining in the second and third years has been given 

 somewhat more to science than to the humanities, the student will have fallen 

 not far short of the golden mean of " a ilberal and practical education." 



As to the distribution of time among the literary subjects, some freedom of 

 choice may well be left to the student. lie is apt to take less interest in work 

 of this kind, and any interest he may have in a particul.-ir line should be thus 



