Standardization in Scientific Education 51 



have sat in the past? Imagine! Would it not be a pleasant occasion if 

 each of those teachers had taught the same things in the same way as 

 did all other teachers of like subjects, so that one might drift from 

 one class to another "without losing any time in the process"? And 

 would our society meetings not be charming little affairs if we had all 

 been turned out of such a perfect system so that, mentally speaking, we 

 should be like the little cast-iron kewpies that our engineering college 

 foundry makes by the thousands to give to visitors as souvenirs? 



A committee of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers has 

 recently made a comprehensive survey of the curricula of a large num- 

 ber of American colleges who give work in chemical engineering. The 

 results are extremely interesting and there is no doubt that they will be 

 useful, as well, to those who are charged with the planning of such 

 curricula. It is well that we should exchange ideas to the greatest pos- 

 sible extent, to the end that human experience shall be utilized in this, 

 as in other tasks of similar nature. 



One thing that is shown very strikingly is that nobody seems to 

 know very definitely just what a "chemical engineer" really is and 

 that nobody appears to have arrived at a very convincing definition of 

 what should be called "chemical engineering", at least so far as this 

 term applies to curricula leading to a specified degree. Such con- 

 ceptions appear to range all the way from engineering with a smat- 

 tering of chemistry to chemistry with a smattering of engineering, and 

 from a supreme emphasis upon scientific fundamentals to a like emphasis 

 upon plant practice, with every intermediate degree of opinion repre- 

 sented. 



After all, why should this condition of affairs not be a reasonable 

 expectation? To the extent that these differences in emphasis result 

 from different grades of teaching success in the various departments, 

 they are natural and inevitable. They are even desirable, if not over- 

 done. In one institution, let us say, is a commanding figure at the 

 head of the faculty of physics. He is not only a well trained scientist, 

 able to give authoritative information along the lines of his own spe- 

 cialty, but he is likewise a man of splendid idealism and of outstanding 

 ability as a teacher, eminently successful in his contact with students. 

 He is familiar with the value of his science as applied to the industries 

 and he is apt and energetic in acquainting his students with the prin- 

 ciples of such applications. His colleagues will, very likely, be inspired 

 with his spirit and his department will be inclined to develop, in per- 

 sonnel and in methods of work, to outstanding eminence. This depart- 

 ment will then be known, on and off the campus, as a very desirable 

 and profitable place to study. 



In the same hypothetical institution the work of certain other de- 

 partments may be of mediocre character, not because of the lack of 

 that much to be desired "material equipment" but because of the lack 

 of human qualities necessary for building really meritorious courses of 

 instruction. As to the divisions of work within the departments, the 

 situation may be similar to that which we have imagined as between 

 departments. 



