214 SECTIONAL ADDRESSES 
some technological departments. . . . It would be in the worst interests 
of industry itself if the study of scientific problems were to be approached 
by the universities from the point of view of immediate material advantage. 
. . . We believe it to be urgently necessary, therefore, to define more 
closely the aim of university courses in engineering and technology, and to 
differentiate such courses from work properly assignable to technical 
colleges.’ 
With these views and criticisms, I heartily agree: what is more to the 
point, perhaps, is that they have, I feel sure, the approval of many univer- 
sity professors of engineering, who would say that their aim is to teach 
principles, not practice ; to train the mind without neglecting the training 
of the hand ; and to send out ultimately from the university resourceful 
men whose education and outlook enable them to attack with confidence 
the new problems that are perpetually arising in the engineering world. 
A university school of engineering should be primarily a school of what is 
now called classical physics, the principles of which are illustrated in 
lecture room and laboratory by examples and problems which have a 
special bearing on engineering. To a less extent it should be a school of 
mathematics and chemistry. I think we are inclined, at universities, to 
value too highly mathematical ability in an engineer. Many students 
have obtained first-class engineering degrees mainly through their mathe- 
matical ability ; but such students do not necessarily become first-class 
engineers, and some of the most original and distinguished engineers are 
poor mathematicians: one of whom I can think had to be content with 
a pass degree at his university. 
I am inclined to think that there are too many students of engineering 
at universities. ‘There are many young men who have a practical flair, 
but who cannot respond to the kind of teaching that I believe to be appro- 
priate to the university. Their presence at the university, where everyone 
wishes to do their best for them, inevitably encourages the introduction 
of practical instruction of a kind more suited to technical schools. The 
university school is then trying to fulfil two functions, and runs the risk 
of failing to fulfil either well. Such men often have qualities which will 
carry them far in the engineering profession, which is large and varied 
enough to provide opportunities for men of very different types, but they 
are really out of place at universities, and would be well advised to take 
advantage of some of the excellent schemes now in operation for combined 
training at works and technical schools. 
The same is true, I suggest, of other branches of technology. The chief 
aim of a university department of technology should be to produce the 
leaders of the profession. ‘The best education for potential leaders is not 
the same as the best education for the rank and file. It cannot be expected 
that all university graduates will become leaders ; but at least we ought 
to look for, and develop, the qualities of leadership. ‘This we cannot do 
if we fall into the temptation of mass production. 
Highly specialised schools of science at universities present somewhat 
different problems. How many students, for example, should one 
encourage to study subjects such as mining geology, biochemistry, plant 
biology, entomology, when the demand for such specialists may be small 
