December 4, 1003.] 



SCIENCE. 



11 



subjects of eagei' discussion in engineering 

 circles. 



This extended interest now manifested in 

 the work of the engineering schools pro- 

 duces a situation which may be of great 

 usefulness to the schools. The character 

 of a college may be that which its alimini 

 determine, and .any engineering school may 

 be improved by thoughtful suggestions and 

 broadly considered criticisms emanating 

 from its ahuuni and others who have its 

 best interests at heart. 



Two fundamental propositions must be 

 held clearly in view in all such criticisms, if 

 they are to be of sei-vice to the educational 

 administration of the engineering colleges: 



1. That it is the business of these col- 

 leges to train young men into fertile and 

 exact thinkers guided by common sense, 

 who have a profound knowledge of natural 

 laws and the means for utilizing natural 

 forces for the advantage of man. In other 

 words, it is the business of the engineer- 

 ing colleges to produce, not finished engi- 

 neei-s, but young men with a great capacity 

 for becoming engineers, the goal being ob- 

 tained by the graduate only after years of 

 development in the school of life. 



2. The problem to be met by the engi- 

 neering colleges is more particularly a 

 problem in how to properly train to the 

 stated purpose. The names attached to 

 the subjects taught are not so important 

 as the results produced by the teaching— 

 namely, the effect impressed on the stu- 

 dents' powers. This is a teacher's prob- 

 lem—a question of pedagogy, rather than 

 of the engineering profession. It must be 

 met with all the directness and power of 

 the engineer's best efforts, but it can not 

 be solved as solely relating to the engineer- 

 ing profession. ^luch error on this point 

 lies in the minds of many who assume the 

 part of critics of the curricula of the en- 

 gineering schools. 



In this connection T may be permitted 



to point out that proposals set up as ap- 

 parently new in the presidential address 

 one year ago, by Pi-esident Steinmetz of 

 the American Institute of Electrical En- 

 gineers, have for many years been largely 

 included within the ideals of numei-ous 

 American colleges of engineering. It 

 must be admitted that only a few of the 

 engineering schools are living up to their 

 better ideals. This is partially due, on the 

 one hand, to personal or institutional am- 

 bitions which foster the sensational or 

 spectacular and thereby inevitably ruin 

 good teaching, and, on the other hand, to 

 the meager support in both encouragement 

 and funds which I have noticed is the lot 

 of the engineering schools attached to 

 many universities. The latter like the 

 former is often the result of personal prej- 

 udices or ambitions. 



iMost of the faults which are so trench- 

 antly and indiscriminately charged to 

 engineering colleges by many engineers 

 should, so far as they are real, be laid to 

 the pedagogical inexperience and faulty 

 ambitions of the authorities of the many 

 colleges; and exception should be made of 

 the few of the first rank, in which, it is safe 

 to say, the ideals are high and well cen- 

 tered and the administrative organizations 

 hold the ideals continuou.sly in view. 



The query here naturally arises: Of 

 what do these ideals properly consist and 

 how fairly should the}' be met by the col- 

 lege before its course in electrical engineer- 

 ing may be approved as of first rank? 



Electrical engineering demands indus- 

 trial engineers— men with an industrial 

 training of the highest type, competent to 

 conceive, organize and direct extended in- 

 dustrial enterprises of broadly varied char- 

 acter. For the highest success, these men 

 must be keen, straightforward thinkers who 

 see things as they are, and are not to be 

 misled by fancies; they must have an ex- 

 tended, and even profound, knowledge of 



