18 UNIVERSITY EDUCATION IN SHIP CONSTRUCTION 
be congratulated, not merely on his valuable contribution to the Society but also, and 
chiefly, on the excellent curriculum he has worked out for Lehigh University. 
The establishment of the Lehigh course along the lines set forth by Professor Chap- 
man is all the more pleasing to me because for many years it has been my belief that a 
departure of this nature was very much needed. ‘This belief, and the general character 
of the education that I thought would best fulfill the requirements of shipbuilders and 
operators, I endeavored to set down in an article that was published in Marine Engineer- 
ing about a year ago. My conclusions were, however, that even for a course of much 
less technical nature than that offered at Lehigh, a four-year period is not sufficient. 
Professor Chapman has succeeded in drafting out a four-year program that is considerably 
richer in technical material and that, furthermore, contains some very useful courses in 
economics, languages, etc., which results in the rather heavy study schedule of about 
twenty-six hours per week, average, for the freshman and sophomore years, and about 
twenty hours per week during the junior and senior years. This, I believe, is rather 
more ground than other technical colleges have been able to cover satisfactorily. But 
if this program can be carried out without injuring the health of the students—I know 
that Lehigh University will not permit a lowering of its standards—Professor Chapman’s 
efforts are surely worthy of being crowned with every success. 
An especially fortunate feature of the Lehigh program is the requirement that the 
students spend their summers in shipyards or at sea. It seems, however, that the time 
allotted for this part of the training is not sufficient and that it might be found advan- 
tageous to substitute additional practical work in shop or at sea for the summer surveying 
course now required after the freshman year. 
AcTING PRESIDENT :—Has Professor Chapman any reply to make to the discussion? 
PROFESSOR CHAPMAN:—I am indeed gratified at the discussion that my paper has 
brought forth. This course at Lehigh was started as a departure in a new field. Ap- 
parently, most of the speakers do not realize the fact that the aim of the course is not 
to educate men for shipbuilding alone. We are also trying to prepare young men to 
enter the fields of shipping and ship operation; and we believe that anyone entering 
these fields should have a thorough training in the engineering aspects of shipbuilding, 
naval architecture and marine engineering. 
I think we are all agreed that what is wanted in any engineering course is a thorough 
grounding in fundamentals. That is what we are attempting to do in this course. We 
have dropped out some of the courses that we think are too specialized, and in place 
of them we have added fundamentals in other fields. Take, for instance, the course in 
accounting. Many men who have graduated from our technical schools in recent years 
know nothing at all of the principles of accounting and finance. What we are endeavoring 
to do is to teach the men the fundamentals of accounting and a few of the principles 
underlying finance and business management, so that, if the opportunity of a managerial 
position comes to them, they will at least feel that they have some ground work in these 
business subjects. If they have the proper preparation to start with, they can, in the 
years of training that follow graduation, build on that foundation by outside study and 
reading. 
We are endeavoring, as I brought out in the paper, to drive home to these men 
that when they finish their college course they have just started their period of training. 
