Septembeb 4, 1908] 



SCIENCE 



297 



mucli that Professor Haynes said, and I do 

 not doubt that his courses are interesting 

 and instructive, yet I question the wisdom 

 of drawing any sharp distinction in the 

 college curriculum between the mathe- 

 matics given to the engineering student 

 and to any other class of students. 



I find myself differing absolutely from 

 the gentleman from the Massachusetts In- 

 stitute of Technology, who apparently sees 

 no beauty, much less utility, in the higher 

 branches of pure mathematics. How Pro- 

 fessor Woods, who has, by the way, written 

 such a sound text-book on mathematics, 

 can live amicably in the same state, much 

 less in the same college, as his engineer- 

 colleague, I am at a loss to understand — 

 perhaps they have an occasional fight. 

 But, joking aside, there is a dangerous 

 tendency to adopt rules (slide and mental) 

 and short-cut, approximate solution to the 

 litter exclusion of rigid proofs. Is it wise 

 to make a mere machine of the young engi- 

 neer, even if thereby he becomes rich 

 faster or grows poor less slowly? I freely 

 admit, however, that too much theory 

 would be disastrous, and that there is great 

 room for improvement in the teaching of 

 mathematics. The student should be 

 taught how to use his mathematics, and the 

 existing gap between theory and practise 

 be bridged. While aiifording every pos- 

 sible facility to the student for making ex- 

 periments, collecting data, becoming expert 

 in handling instruments, making calcula- 

 tions, etc., I urge that we give them, one 

 and all, a good rigid course in pure mathe- 

 matics. 



By Arthur E. Haynes, Professor of En- 

 gineering-Mathematics, University of 

 Minnesota. 



I have been called upon, by name, to 

 defend the use of the term, "Engineering 

 Mathematics." The justification of the 

 term will be found in my paper on the 



subject in Volume XIV. of the Proceed- 

 ings of the Society for the Promotion of 

 Engineering Education. As the paper 

 was not read before this association, many 

 of the members present are not acquainted 

 with its contents. 



In brief, the reasons there given for the 

 use of the term are: 



(a) Because of the main object of the 

 study of mathematics in engineering 

 courses, viz : its use as a tool. 



(&) Because of the proper method of 

 teaching the mathematics of such courses, 

 (c) Because of the content of the mathe- 

 matics of such courses. 



It is not a degradation of mathematics 

 to make it practical, it is rather an added 

 glory. It is as justifiable to use this term 

 as to use the corresponding terms agricul- 

 tural chemistry, agricultural botany, engi- 

 neering drawing, etc. We do not degrade 

 chemistry or botany or drawing by the 

 use of these terms: but their employment 

 is justified by the objects of the study, by 

 the methods required in teaching them and 

 by their content, as in mathematics. 



It has been suggested that a less thor- 

 ough study of mathematics is advocated. 

 In reply to this, may I quote from an 

 article in Volume VIII. of the Proceed- 

 ings of the Society for the Promotion of 

 Engineering Education, on "The Teaching 

 of Mathematics to Engineering Students," 

 where in speaking of such teaching I said : 

 (a) It should be of such a character as 

 to produce an enduring stimulating effect 

 upon the mind of the student. 



(&) It should give the student the power 

 to properly interpret mathematical lan- 

 guage, and to accurately and skillfully use 

 it. 



(c) To secure these results, the teaching 

 must be based upon a proper order of 

 studies and carried forward in a rational, 

 intelligent manner. 



