AND MARINE TRANSPORTATION. 9 
give; or we could have kept the marine engineering and left out some naval architecture, 
but to put in all the things they wanted, many of which seemed absolutely unessential, 
did not appeal to us. The regents themselves stated that it would doubtless hamper the 
efficiency of our work as a school in naval architecture to attempt to give a degree with 
the laws of the state as they are at present framed. 
We have tried to keep our course as full as we can on the technical side. In com- 
paring our course with that at Lehigh University, I find the chief difference in the Lehigh 
course is in the amount of detail on the marine engineering side and the substitution for 
those details of courses in finance, economics and management. Evidently the aim of 
the course at Lehigh is somewhat different from the aim of our course. If things work 
out right at Lehigh, perhaps the executive in charge of work may be a graduate of the 
Lehigh course and he may employ one of our men to do some of the marine engineering. 
I have been glad to see recognition given by Professor Chapman to the fact that 
it is impossible for any one student to take up and carry out in the four years the com- 
plete design of a ship and make all the calculations for it. Those of us who have worked 
in drawing offices know how long it takes to make a general arrangement plan, an in- 
board profile and outboard profile, line drawing, deck and shell plating plans, to make 
the model and lay off plating and make the necessary calculations carrying out the 
details of the design. I like to see recognition of that limit. No one student, doing all 
the other things he has to do, can accomplish more than a finished draughtsman would 
attempt. 
With regard to summer work, we have eight weeks of it, not as a requirement for 
a degree, as we do not grant degrees, but each summer we have required this work ever 
since our courses at the institute were started. We find it one of the best things we have 
done. It tends to make the student alert and leads him on in his studies—he gets in 
touch with practical conditions. Turning a cylindrical bar as a class exercise in a uni- 
versity shop does not compare in efficiency in the education of a shipbuilder and marine 
engineer with his going on board a ship, working as a ship fitter’s helper or working under 
commercial conditions in a machine shop. 
This course at Lehigh is a beautifully balanced course, and I think we can compli- 
ment Professor Chapman on the way he has planned it. 
Mr. Haroip F. Norton, Member:—There is one point I wish to bring out in con- 
nection with this paper. I remember very well when I was studying in the course of 
naval architecture at Cornell a number of years ago that, having had considerable shop 
experience before going to the university, the thing that always puzzled me was how 
a ship was built with the knowledge we gained at the university. We used to draw up 
a set of lines, a midship section, and an inboard profile, and I used to say, ‘‘A ship surely 
cannot be built with these plans only. How do you build the rest of the ship?” They 
said: ‘‘Oh, you have to make a lot of plans, of course, of all the details of the ship 
construction.” I then asked: ‘‘Where are the plans?’”’ The reply was: ‘‘We do not 
happen to have any.” 
It has always been remarkable to me that the universities did not possess themselves 
of a complete set of plans of at least one type of ship to show the student. If he could 
not draw all the plans, at least he could see them all and could appreciate how a ship is 
really built. It has been astonishing to me in all the years I have been at Newport News 
that there have been so few applications from colleges and universities throughout the 
