March 6, 1903.] 



SCIENCE. 



367 



cially mechanics and electricity) learned 

 in the lecture- and class-rooms. 



That is to say, there must be as complete 

 a cooi'diuation of theoiy and practice as is 

 possible in an institution of learning. 



The tremendous activitj'' in the indus- 

 trial field creates a constant pressure for 

 the inclusion in our course of closer 

 specializations within our specialty. As 

 our course is now so crowded that no addi- 

 tional work can be safely included without 

 the elimination of an equal amount, this 

 pressure, if not resisted, will almost surely 

 result in the slighting of the essential 

 fundamentals. 



As in the past we have stood for the 

 harmony of theory and practice and 

 thoroughness, so we have stood for concen- 

 tration on one broad course in mechanical 

 engineering. While we have thiis differen- 

 tiated from the other broader divisions of 

 the engineering profession, such as civil, 

 mining and electrical, we have covered 

 much that is included in these other divi- 

 sions. 



In any case we can not expect to gradu- 

 ate our men as engineers. As they get out 

 in the world probably natural bent or 

 necessitj' will lead most of them to further 

 specialize. If so and they have taken 

 advantage of the opportunities we have 

 offered them and even forced upon them, 

 they will find they are able to quickly and 

 surely build upon the broad and strong 

 foundations they have here laid. 



There are certain studies which can not 

 be properly or safely omitted from any 

 engineering course, be it mechanical, civil, 

 mining, electrical or any other. I should 

 include in this list English, logic, history, 

 modern languages, economics and business 

 methods. 



Outside of the question of culture, an 

 engineer needs a working knowledge of his 

 own language. He must be able to convey 

 to his employers or associates in language 



concise and explicit the res\ilts of his work 

 or investigations. 



In the department of economics he 

 should at least have sufficient insight into 

 the science to guard himself against the 

 danger of drawing conclusions from in- 

 sufficient or inconsistent data. 



He should have such a knowledge of 

 business methods, and especially the prin- 

 ciples of accounting, as to qualify him to 

 exercise a close and independent super- 

 vision of manufacturing cost. He must 

 appreciate the necessity for and be capable 

 of instituting a system of charges, based 

 upon a complete study of local conditions, 

 to provide for the depreciation of plant 

 and stock; he must appreciate the danger 

 of confusing capital or investment items 

 with revenue or expense items. 



While we can not expect to give the engi- 

 neer-student a working knowledge of the 

 law of contracts, we should try to give him 

 such instruction as wiU serve to warn him 

 of the pitfalls to be avoided, and to impress 

 him with the wisdom of seeking competent 

 legal advice in all cases outside of estab- 

 lished routine. 



All this and more must be covered in a 

 course which claims to harmonize theory 

 and practice, for the engineer who is most 

 practical in the shop may be most unprac- 

 tical in business affairs — and here it is to 

 be understood that the engineer must find 

 his success within the limitations of com- 

 mercial conditions. 



Much of this part of the instruction may 

 well be included in lectures on engineering 

 practice, and preferably these lectures 

 should be delivered by men who have them- 

 selves been successful as engineers and 

 speak from that standpoint; for it is most 

 difficult to impress upon students the neces- 

 sity for the inclusion of these subjects in a 

 course of engineering study. This applies 

 particularly to the study of English, and 

 every possible effort should be made to 



