The contents of the representative four-year engineering curriculum of the leading institutions may be classified about as in the table on page 502. In addition to the subjects listed, most institutions require freshmen to take gymnasium practice and lectures on hygiene, and many colleges require freshmen, and some also sophomores, to take military drill and tactics. Formerly many institutions required all engineering freshmen to take elementary shop work; but at present in most institutions this practice has been discontinued, owing to the establishment of manual-training high schools and to the development of other engineering subjects.

The order of the subjects varies somewhat in the different institutions. For example, instead of as in the table on page 502, rhetoric may be given in the sophomore year and language in the first. Again, in some institutions a little technical work is given in the freshman year. Further, the total number of semester-hours varies somewhat among the different institutions. However, the table is believed to be fairly representative.

Contents of Engineering Curricula

The unit is a semester-hour; i.e., five class-periods a week for half a year.

Below is a list of the principal four-year curricula offered by the engineering colleges of this country. The list contains forty different engineering curricula. No one institution offers all of these, but some of the larger and better equipped offer fifteen or sixteen different curricula for which a degree is given.

1. Architecture (which is usually classified as an engineering subject): general architecture; architectural design; architectural construction.

2. Ceramics engineering: general ceramics and ceramics engineering; ceramics; ceramics engineering.

3. Chemical engineering: general chemical engineering; metallurgical engineering; gas engineering; pulp and paper engineering; electro-chemical engineering.

4. Civil engineering: general civil engineering; railway civil engineering; municipal engineering; structural engineering; topographic or geodetic engineering; hydraulic engineering; irrigation engineering; highway engineering.

5. Electrical engineering: general electrical engineering; telephone engineering; electrical design; power-plant design; electrical railway engineering.

6. Marine engineering: general marine engineering; naval architecture; marine engineering.

7. Mechanical engineering: general mechanical engineering; steam engineering; railway mechanical engineering; hydro-mechanical engineering; machine design and construction; heating, ventilating, and refrigerating; industrial engineering; automobile engineering; aëronautical engineering.

8. Mining engineering: general mining engineering; metallurgical engineering; coal mining; ore mining.

The first engineering curriculum established was civil engineering, which was so called to distinguish it from military engineering. At first the course contained only a little technical work, but in course of time specialized work was increased; and later courses were established in mining and mechanical engineering, and more recently followed specialized courses in architecture, electrical engineering, marine engineering, chemical engineering, and ceramic engineering—about in the order named. The order of the various special courses in the several groups above is roughly that of their establishment.

In the preceding list are eight groups of curricula, each of which contains about 60 semester-hours peculiar to itself; and, considering only a single curriculum in each of the eight groups, there are 480 semester-hours of specialized work. In addition there are in the list thirty-two subdivisions, each of which differs from the parent by at least 10 semester-hours. Hence the total number of engineering subjects offered is at least 800 semester-hours. It is safe to assume that for administrative reasons, each 3 semester-hours on the average represents a distinct title or topic, and that therefore the engineering colleges of the country offer instruction in 267 different engineering subjects.

However, the diversity is not so great as the preceding statement seems to imply, since for convenience in program making and in bookkeeping many subjects are listed under two or more heads. For example, a subject which runs through two semesters will for administrative reasons appear under two different heads in the above computations. Again, the lecture or textbook work in a subject will usually appear under one head and the laboratory work under a separate title. Finally, some subjects which differ but little in character may for convenience be listed under two different titles. If the subjects that are subdivided for the above reasons were listed under a single head, the number of topics would be reduced something like 20 to 25 per cent.

Therefore, the topics of engineering instruction which differ materially in character number about 200. This, then, is the field assigned to this chapter. Obviously it is impossible to consider the several subjects separately.

II. DIFFERENTIATION IN ENGINEERING CURRICULA

For a considerable number of years there has been much discussion by both college teachers and practicing engineers concerning differentiation in engineering curricula; and the usual conclusion is that undue differentiation is detrimental. But nevertheless specialization has gone on comparatively rapidly and extensively—as shown in the previous article. Since the degree of differentiation determines in a large measure (1) the spirit with which a student does his work, (2) the method of teaching that should be employed, and (3) the results obtained, it will be wise briefly to consider the merits of specialization. The arguments against specialization have been more widely and more earnestly presented than those in favor of specialization. The usual arguments pro and con may be summarized as follows:

1. It is frequently claimed that the undergraduate is incapable of wisely choosing a specialty, and that hence specialization should come after a four-year course,—i.e., in the graduate school or by self-instruction after graduation. But the parents and friends of a student usually help him in deciding upon a profession or on a special line of study, and therefore it is not likely that a very serious mistake will be made. Of necessity a decision must be made whether or not to seek a college education; and a decision must also be made between the great fields of knowledge,—liberal arts, agriculture, engineering, etc. If the student decides to take any branch of engineering, he usually has his whole freshman year in which to make a further specialization. At the end of the sophomore year the specialization has not gone very far; and therefore if the student finds he has made a mistake, it is not difficult to change.

2. "The undergraduate seldom knows the field of his future employment, and hence does not have the data necessary for an intelligent decision." The young man will never have all of the data for such a decision until he has actually worked in that field for a time, and there is no reason why he should not make a decision and try some particular line of preparation.

3. Some opponents of specialization claim that the more general the engineering training, the easier to obtain employment after graduation; but this is not in harmony with the facts. The opposite is more nearly true. For example, who ever heard of a practicing engineer preferring a liberal arts student to a civil engineering student as a rodman?

4. Specialized courses require that the college should have larger equipment and a more versatile staff. The larger institutions can prepare for specialized sections nearly as easily and cheaply as for duplicate sections; and institutions having only a few students or meager financial support should not offer highly specialized courses.

5. The opponents of specialization claim that to be a successful specialist one should have a broad training, and that therefore the broader the curriculum the better. It is true that to be a successful specialist requires a considerable breadth of knowledge, but that does not prove that the student should be required to get all of his general knowledge before he gives attention to matters peculiar to his specialty. No engineer can be reasonably successful in any field with only the knowledge obtained in college, whether that be general or special.

6. It is claimed that specialization should be postponed to a fifth year. It seems to have been settled by experience that four years is about the right length of the college course for the average engineering student, and that in that time he should test his fitness and liking for his future work by studying some of the subjects relating to his proposed specialized field.

7. The chief reason in favor of specialization is that the field of knowledge is so vast that it is absolutely necessary for every college student—engineering or otherwise—to specialize; and in engineering this specialization is vitally important, since fundamental principles can be taught most effectively in connection with their application to specialized problems. In no other way is it possible to invest theoretical principles with definite meaning to the student, and by this process it is possible to transform abstract theory into glowing realities which under a competent teacher arouse the student's interest and even his enthusiasm.

8. Specialization in engineering curricula is a natural outgrowth of the evolution of engineering knowledge, and is in harmony with sound principles of teaching. For example, all engineering students should have a certain amount of mechanical drawing; but the best results will be obtained if the civil engineer, after a study of the elementary principles, continues his practice in drawing by making maps, while the mechanical engineer continues his by making details of machinery. Both will do their work with more zest and much more efficiency than if both were compelled to make drawings which meant nothing to them except practice in the art of drawing. Similar illustration can be found throughout any well-arranged engineering curriculum. A vitally essential element in any educational diet is that the subject shall not pall upon the appetite of the student. He should go to every intellectual meal with a hearty gusto. The specialized course appeals more strongly to the ambition of the student than a general course. The engineering student selects a specialized course because he has an ambition to become an architect, a chemical engineer, a civil engineer, or perhaps a bridge engineer, a highway engineer, a mechanical engineer, or perhaps a heating engineer or an automobile engineer; and having an opportunity to study subjects in which he is specially interested, he works with zest and usually accomplishes much more than a student who is pursuing a course of study only remotely, if at all, related to the field of his proposed activities after leaving college. Further, the more specialized the course, the greater the energy with which the student will work.

Many of those who have discussed specialization seem to assume that the only, or at least the chief, purpose of an engineering education is to give technical information, and that specialization is synonymous with superficiality. From this point of view the aim of a college education is to give a student information useful in his future work, and the inevitable result is that the student has neither the intellectual power nor the technical knowledge to enable him to render efficient service in any position in which he will work whole-heartedly. The weakness and superficiality of such a student, it is usually said, is due to excessive specialization, while in reality it is primarily due to wrong methods of teaching. Within reasonable limits specialization has little or nothing to do with the result; and under certain conditions, as previously stated, specialization helps rather than hinders intellectual development. If a subject has real educational value and is so taught as to train a student to see, to analyze, to discriminate, to describe, the more the specialization the better; but if a subject is taught chiefly to give unrelated information about details of practice, the more the specialization the less the educational value.

10. Experience has conclusively shown that an engineering student is very likely to slight a general subject in favor of a simultaneous technical or specialized subject. This fact, together with the necessity of a fixed sequence in technical engineering subjects, makes it practically impossible to secure any reasonable work in most general subjects when a student is at the same time carrying one or more technical studies. For these reasons it is necessary to make the later years of the curriculum nearly wholly technical, which makes specialization possible, if it does not invite it.

III. AIM OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION

The three elements of engineering education, as indeed of all education, should be development, training, and information. The first is the attainment of intellectual power, the capacity for abstract conception and reasoning. The second includes the formation of correct habits of thought and methods of work; the cultivation of the ability to observe closely, to reason correctly, to write and speak clearly; and the training of the hand to execute. The third includes the acquisition of the thoughts and experiences of others, and of the truths of nature. The development of the mental faculties is by far the most important, since it alone confers that "power which masters all it touches, which can adapt old forms to new uses, or create new and better means of reaching old ends." Without this power the engineer cannot hope to practice his profession with any chance of success. The formation of correct habits of thinking and working, habits of observing, of classifying, of investigating, of discriminating, of proving instead of guessing, of weighing evidence, of patient perseverance, and of doing thoroughly honest work, is a method of using that power efficiently. The accumulation of facts is the least important. The power to acquire information and the knowledge of how to use it is of far greater value than any number of the most useful facts. The value of an education does not consist in the number of facts acquired, but in the ability to discover facts by personal observation and investigation and in the power to use these facts in deducing new conclusions and establishing fundamental principles. There is no comparison between the value of a ton of horseshoe nails and the ability to make a single nail.

The engineering student usually desires to reverse the above order and assumes that the acquisition of information, especially that directly useful in his proposed profession, is the most valuable element of an education; and unfortunately some instructors seem to make the same mistake. The truth is that methods of construction, details of practice, mechanical appliances, prices of materials and labor, change so rapidly that it is useless to teach many such matters. However important such items are to the practicing engineer, they are of little or no use to the student; for later, when he does have need of them, methods, machines, and prices have changed so much that the information he acquired in college will probably be worse than useless. Technical details are learned of necessity in practice, and more easily then than in college; whereas in practice fundamental principles are learned with difficulty, if at all. A man ignorant of principles does not usually realize his own ignorance and limitations, or rather he is unaware of the existence of unknown principles. The engineering college should teach the principles upon which sound engineering practice is based, but should not attempt to teach the details of practice any further than is necessary to give zest and reality to the instruction and to give an intelligent understanding of the uses to be made of fundamental principles.

As evidence that technical information is not essential for success in an engineering profession, attention is called to the fact that a considerable number of men who took a course in one of the major divisions of engineering have practiced in another branch with reasonable success. The only collegiate training one of the most distinguished American engineers of the last generation had was a general literary course followed by a law course. Further, a considerable number have successfully practiced engineering, after only a general college education, and this in recent years when engineering curricula have become widely differentiated. Examples in other lines of business could be cited to show that a knowledge of technical details is not the most important element in a preparation for a profession or for business. The all-important thing is that the engineering student shall acquire the power to observe closely, to reason correctly, to state clearly, that he shall be able to extract information from books certainly and rapidly, and that he shall cultivate his judgment, initiative, and self-reliance. A student may have any amount of technical information, but if he seriously lacks any of the qualities just enumerated, he cannot attain to any considerable professional success. However, if he has these qualities to a fair degree, he can speedily acquire sufficient technical details to enable him to succeed fairly well.

The chief aim of the engineering college should be to develop the intellectual power that will enable the student not only to acquire quickly the details of practice, but will also enable him ultimately to establish precedents and determine the practice of his times. Incidentally the engineering college should seek to expand the horizon and widen the sympathy of its students. In college classes there will be those who are either unable or unwilling to attain the highest educational ideals, and who will become only the hewers of wood and drawers of water of the engineering profession; but a setting before them of the highest ideals and even an ineffective training in methods of work will prepare them the better to fill mediocre positions.

The nearly universal engineering college course requires four years. The field properly belonging to even a specialized curriculum is so wide and the importance of a proper preparation of the engineers of the future is so great as appropriately to require more than four years of time; but the consensus of opinion is that for various reasons only four years are available for undergraduate work—the only kind here under consideration. Hence it is of vital importance that the highest ideals shall be set before the engineering students and that the methods of instruction employed shall be the best attainable.

IV. METHODS OF TEACHING

Instruction in technical engineering subjects is given by lectures, recitations from textbooks, assigned reading, laboratory work, surveying, field-practice, problems in design, memoirs, and examinations. Each of these will be briefly considered.

The term "lecture system" will be used to designate that method of instruction in which knowledge is presented by the instructor without immediate questioning of, or discussion by, the student. In the early history of engineering education, when instruction in technical engineering subjects was beginning to be differentiated from other branches of education, the lecture was the only means of acquainting the student with either the principles or details of engineering practice, since textbooks were then few and unsatisfactory. But at present, when there are so many fields of technical knowledge in which there are excellent books, the lecture system is indefensible as a means either of communicating knowledge or of developing intellectual strength.

It is a waste of the student's time to present orally that which can be found in print. At best the lecturer can present only about one third as much as a student could read in the same time; and, besides, the student can understand what he reads better than what he hears, since he can go more slowly over that which he does not understand. The lecturer moves along approximately uniformly, while some students fail to understand one part, and others would like to pause over some other portion. A poor textbook is usually better than a good lecturer.

It is a fundamental principle of pedagogy that there can be no development without the activity of the learner's mind; and hence with the lecture system it is customary to require the student to take notes, and subsequently submit himself to a quiz or present his lecture notes carefully written up. If the student is required to take notes, either for future study or to be submitted, his whole time and attention are engrossed in writing; and at the close of the lecture, if it has covered any considerable ground, the student has only a vague idea of what has been said. Further, the notes are probably so incomplete as to afford inadequate material for future study.

If the subject matter is really new and not found in print, the lecture should be reproduced for the student's use. It is more economical and more effective for the student to pay his share of the cost of printing, than to spend his time in making imperfect notes and perhaps ultimately writing them out more fully.

The lecture system is less suitable for giving instruction in engineering subjects than in general subjects, such for example as history, sociology, and economics, since technical engineering subjects usually include principles and more or less numerical data that must be stated briefly and clearly.

If a student has had an opportunity to study a subject from either a textbook or a printed copy of the lecture notes, then comments by the teacher explaining some difficult point, or describing some later development, or showing some other application or consequence of the principle, may be both instructive and inspiring; but the main work of teaching engineering subjects should be from carefully prepared textbooks. However, an occasional formal lecture by an instructor or a practicing engineer upon some subject already studied from a textbook can be a means of valuable instruction and real inspiration, provided the lecture is well prepared and properly presented.

In the preceding discussion the term "lecture" has been employed as meaning a formal presentation of information; but there is another form of lecture, a demonstration lecture, which consists of an explanation and discussion by the instructor of an experiment conducted before the class. The prime purpose of the experiment and the demonstration lecture is to explain and fix in mind general principles. This form of lecture is an excellent method of giving information; and if the student is questioned as to the facts disclosed and is required to discuss the principles established, it is an effective means of training the student to observe, to analyze, and to describe.

This system of instruction consists in assigning a lesson upon which the student subsequently recites. In subjects involving mathematical work, the recitation may consist of the presentation of the solution of examples or problems; but in engineering subjects the recitation usually consists either of answers to questions or of the discussion of a topic.

The question may be either a "fact" question or a "thought" question. If the main purpose is to give information, the "fact" question is used, the object being to determine whether the student has acquired a particular item of information. Not infrequently, even in college teaching, the question can be answered by a single word or a short sentence; and usually such a question, even if it does not itself suggest the answer, requires a minimum of mental effort on the part of the student. This method determines only whether the student has acquired a number of unrelated facts, and does not insure that he has any knowledge of their relation to each other or to other facts he may know, nor does it test his ability to use these facts in deducing conclusions or establishing principles. Apparently this method of conducting a recitation, or quiz as it is often called, is far too common in teaching engineering subjects. It is the result chiefly of the mistaken belief that the purpose of technical teaching is to give information.

The "thought" question is one which requires the student to reflect upon the facts stated in the book and to draw his own conclusions. This method is intermediate between the "fact" question and the topical discussion; it is not so suitable to college students as to younger ones, and is not so easily applied in engineering subjects as in more general subjects such as history, economics, or social science. It will not be considered further.

The topical recitation consists in calling upon the student to state what he knows upon a given topic. This method not only tests the student's knowledge of facts, but also trains him in arranging his facts in logical order and in presenting them in clear, correct, and forceful language. (1) One advantage of this method of conducting the recitation is that it stimulates the student to acquire a proper method of attacking the assigned lesson. Many college students know little or nothing concerning the art of studying. Apparently, they simply read the lesson over without attempting to weigh the relative importance of the several statements and without attempting to skeletonize or summarize the text. The ability to acquire quickly and easily the essential statements of a printed page is an accomplishment which will be valuable in any walk of life. In other words, this method of conducting a recitation forces the student to adopt the better method of study. (2) A second advantage of the topical recitation is that it trains the student in expressing his ideas. It is generally conceded that the engineering-college graduate is deficient in his ability to use good English, which is evidence that either the topical recitation is not usually employed, or good English is not insisted upon, or perhaps both. (3) A third advantage of the topical recitation is that it trains the student in judgment and discrimination—two elements essential in the practical work of all engineers.

Apparently many college teachers think it more creditable to deliver lectures than to conduct recitations. The formal lecture is an inefficient means of either conveying information or developing intellectual power, and hence no one should take pride in it. The textbook and quiz method of conducting a recitation is more effective than the lecture system, but is by no means an ideal method of either imparting information or giving intellectual training. Neither of these methods is worthy of a conscientious teacher. The textbook and topical recitation affords an excellent opportunity to teach the student to analyze, to observe, to discriminate, to train him in the use of clear and correct language, and in the presentation of his thoughts in logical order—an object worthy of any teacher and an opportunity to employ the highest ability of any person. In the conduct of such a recitation in engineering subjects, there is abundant opportunity to supplement the textbook by calling attention to new discoveries and other applications, and to introduce interesting historic references. It is often instructive to discuss differences in construction which depend upon differences in physical conditions or in preferences of the constructor, and such discussions afford excellent opportunities to train the student in discovering the causes of the differences and in weighing evidence, all of which helps to develop his powers of observation and analysis and above all to cultivate his judgment. If a teacher is truly interested in his work, such a recitation gives opportunity for an interchange of thoughts between the student and teacher that may be made of great value to the former and of real interest to the latter. The conduct of such a recitation should be much more inspiring to the teacher than the repetition of a formal lecture which at best can have only little instructional value.

The recitation is such an important method of instruction that it is believed a few suggestions as to its conduct may be permissible, although a discussion of methods of teaching does not properly belong in this chapter. (1) The students should not be called upon in any regular order. (2) If at all possible, each student should be called upon during each recitation. (3) The question or topic should be stated, and then after a brief pause a particular student should be called upon to recite. (4) The question or topic should not be repeated. (5) The student should not be helped. (6) The question should be so definite as to admit of only one answer. (7) "Fact" questions and topical discussions should be interspersed. (8) Irrelevant discussion should be eliminated. (9) The thoughtful attention of the entire class and an opportunity for all to participate may be secured by interrupting a topical discussion and asking another to continue it. (10) Clear, correct and concise answers should be insisted upon. (11) In topical discussions the facts should be stated in a logical order. (12) Commend any exceptionally good answer.

A student is sometimes required to read an assigned chapter in a book or some particular article in a technical journal as a supplement to a lecture or a textbook. Sometimes the whole class has the same assignment, and sometimes different students have different assignments. Each student should be quizzed on his reading, or should be required to give a summary of it. The method of instruction by assigned reading is most appropriate when the lecture presentation or textbook is comparatively brief. This method is only sparingly permissible with an adequate textbook.

The chief purpose of laboratory work is to illustrate the principles of the textbook and thereby fix them in the student's mind. The manipulation of the apparatus and the making of the observations is valuable training for the hand and the eye, and the computation of the results familiarizes the student with the limitations of mathematical processes. The interpretation of the meaning of the results cultivates the student's judgment and power of discrimination, and the writing up of the report should give valuable experience in orderly and concise statement. Sometimes the student is not required to interpret the meaning or to discuss the accuracy of his results, and sometimes he is provided with a tabular form in which he inserts his observed data without consideration of any other reason for securing the particular information. He should not be provided with a sample report nor with a tabular form, but should be required to plan his own method of presentation, determine for himself what matter shall be in tabular form and what in narrative form, and plan his own illustrations. Of course, he should be required to keep neat, accurate, and reasonably full notes of the laboratory work, and should be held to a high standard of clearness, conciseness, and correctness in his final report. Providing the student with tabular forms and sample reports may lessen the teacher's labors and improve the appearance of the report, but such practice greatly decreases the educational value to the student.

In its aims surveying field-practice is substantially the same as engineering laboratory work, and all the preceding remarks concerning laboratory work apply equally well also to surveying practice. Ordinarily the latter has a higher educational value than the former in that the method of attack, at least in minor details, is left to the student's initiative, and also in that the difficulties or obstacles encountered require the student to exercise his own resourcefulness. The cultivation of initiative and self-reliance is of the highest engineering as well as educational value. Further, in the better institutions the instructor in surveying usually knows the result the student should obtain, and consequently the latter has a greater stimulus to secure accuracy than occurs in most laboratory work. Finally, the students, at least the civil engineering ones, always feel that surveying is highly practical, and hence are unusually enthusiastic in their work.

When properly taught an exercise in design has the highest educational value; and, besides, the student is usually easily interested, since he is likely to regard such work as highly practical and therefore to give it his best efforts. Instruction in design should accomplish two purposes; viz., (1) familiarize the student with the application of principles, and (2) train him in initiative. Different subjects necessarily have these elements in different degrees, and any particular subject may be so taught as specially to emphasize one or the other of these objects.

Sometimes a problem in design is little more than the following of an outline or example in the textbook and substituting values in formulas. The design of an ordinary short-span steel truss bridge, as ordinarily taught, is an example of this method of instruction. Another example is the design of a residence for which no predetermined limiting conditions are laid down and which does not differ materially from those found in the surrounding community or illustrated in the textbook or the architectural magazine. Such work illustrates and enforces theory, gives the student some knowledge of the materials and processes of construction, and also trains him in drafting; but it does not give him much intellectual exercise nor develop his mental fiber, although it may prepare him to take a place as a routine worker in his profession. Such instruction emphasizes utilitarian training but neglects intellectual development, mental vigor, and breadth of view.

The exercise in design which has the highest educational value is one in which the student must discover for himself the conditions to be fulfilled, the method of treatment to be employed, the materials to be used, and the details to be adopted. An example of this form of problem is the design of a bridge for a particular river crossing, without any limitations as to materials of construction, type of structure, time of construction, etc., except such as are inherent in the problem and which the student must determine for himself. A better example is the architectural design of a building to be erected in a given locality to serve some particular purpose, with no limitations except perhaps cost or architectural style.

Experience of several teachers with a considerable number of students during each of several years conclusively shows that students who have had only comparatively little of the design work mentioned in the preceding paragraph greatly exceed other students having the same preparation except this form of design work, in mental vigor, breadth of view, intellectual power, and initiative. This difference in capacity is certainly observable in subsequent college work, and is apparently quite effective after graduation.

The term "examination" will be used as including the comparatively brief and informal quizzes held at intervals during the progress of the work and also the longer and more formal examinations held at the end of the work. Usually the examination is regarded as a test to determine the accuracy and extent of the student's information, which form may be called a question-and-answer examination or quiz. A more desirable form of examination is one which requires the student to survey his information on a particular topic, and to summarize the same or to state his own conclusions concerning either the relative importance of the different items or his interpretation of the meaning or application of the facts. Such an examination could be called a "topical examination." The remarks in the earlier part of this chapter concerning the relative merits of the question-and-answer and the topical recitation apply also with equal force to these two forms of examinations. However, the topical examination can be made of greater educational value than the topical recitation, since the student is likely to be required to survey a wider field and organize a larger mass of information, and also since the examination is usually written and hence affords a better opportunity to secure accuracy and finish.

It is much easier for the instructor to prepare and grade the papers for the question-and-answer examination than for the topical examination, and perhaps this is one reason why the former is nearly universally employed. Of course, the topical examination should not be used except in connection with the topical recitation. Some executives of public school systems require that at least a third, and others at least a half, of all formal examinations shall be topical; and as the examination papers and the grades thereon are subject to the inspection of the executive, this requirement indirectly insures that the teacher shall not neglect the topical recitation. Apparently a somewhat similar requirement would be beneficial in college work.

The term "memoir" is here employed to designate either a comparatively brief report upon some topic assigned in connection with the daily recitation or the graduating thesis.

The former is substantially a form of laboratory work in which the library is the workroom and books the apparatus. This method of instruction has several merits. It makes the student familiar with books and periodicals and with the method of extracting information from them. It stimulates his interest in a wider knowledge than that obtained only from the textbook or the instructor's lectures. It is valuable as an exercise in English composition, particularly if the student is held to an orderly form of presentation and to good English, and is not permitted simply to make extracts. The value to be obtained from such literary report depends, of course, upon the time devoted to it, and also upon whether the instructor tells the student of the articles to be read or requires him to find the sources of information for himself.

The thesis may be a description of some original design, or a critical review of some engineering construction, or an account of an experimental investigation. The thesis differs from other subjects in the college curriculum in that in the latter the student is expected simply to follow the directions of the instructor, to study specified lessons and recite thereon, to solve the problems assigned, and to read the articles recommended; while the preparation of the thesis is intended to develop the student's ability to do independent work. There is comparatively little in the ordinary college curriculum to stimulate the student's power of initiative, but in his thesis work he is required to take the lead in devising ways and means. The power of self-direction, the ability to invent methods of attack, the capacity to foresee the probable results of experiments, and the ability to interpret correctly the results of experiments is of vital importance in the future of any engineering student. Within certain limits the thesis is a test of the present attainments of the student and also a prophecy of his future success. Therefore, the preparation of a thesis is of the very highest educational possibility. Unfortunately many students are too poorly prepared, or too lacking in ambition, or too deficient in self-reliance and initiative to make it feasible for them to undertake the independent work required in a thesis. Such students should take instead work under direction. Further, it is unfortunate that, for administrative reasons, the requirement of a thesis for graduation is made less frequently now than formerly. The increase in number of students has made it practically impossible to require a thesis of all graduates, because of the difficulty of providing adequate facilities and of supervising the work. Again, it is difficult to administer a requirement that only part of the seniors shall prepare a thesis. Consequently the result is that at present only a very few undergraduate engineering students prepare theses.

All of the preceding discussion applies only to undergraduate work. Only comparatively few engineering students take graduate work. A few institutions have enough such students to justify, for administrative reasons, the organization of classes in graduate work, but usually such classes are conducted upon principles quite different from those employed for undergraduates. No textbooks in the ordinary sense are used. Often the student is assigned an experimental or other investigation, and is expected to work almost independently of the teacher, the chief function of the latter being to criticize the methods proposed and to review the results obtained. Such work under the guidance of a competent teacher is a most valuable means for mental development, training, and inspiration.

Ira O. Baker
University of Illinois

Bibliography

Below is a list of the principal articles relating to engineering education, arranged approximately in chronological order.

1. The annual Proceedings of the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education, from 1913 to date, contain many valuable articles on various phases of engineering education. Each volume consists of 200 to 300 8vo pages. The society has no permanent address. All business is conducted by the secretary, whose address at present is University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The more important papers of the above Proceedings which are closely related to the subject of this chapter are included in the list below. Many of the articles relate to the teaching of a particular branch of engineering, and hence are not mentioned in the following list.

2. "Methods of Teaching Engineering: By Textbook, by Lecturing, by Design, by Laboratory, by Memoir." Professor C. F. Allen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. An excellent presentation, and discussion by others. Proceedings of the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education, Vol. VII, pages 29-54.

3. "Two Kinds of Education for Engineers." Dean J. B. Johnson, University of Wisconsin. An address to the students of the College of Engineering of the University of Wisconsin, 1901. Pamphlet published by the author; 15 8vo pages. Reprinted in Addresses of Engineering Students, edited by Waddell and Harrington, pages 25-35.

4. "Potency of Engineering Schools and Their Imperfections." Professor D. C. Jackson, University of Wisconsin. An address presented at the Quarto-Centennial Celebration of the University of Colorado, 1902. Proceedings of that celebration, pages 53-65.

5. "Technical and Pedagogic Value of Examinations." Professor Henry H. Norris, Cornell University. A discussion of the general subject, containing examples of questions in a topical examination in an electrical engineering subject. Discussed at length by several others. Proceedings of the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education. Vol. XV, pages 605-618.

6. "Limitations of Efficiency in Engineering Education." Professor George F. Swain, Harvard University. An address at the opening of the General Engineering Building of Union University, 1910. A discussion of various limitations and defects in engineering education. Pamphlet published by Union University; 28 small 8vo pages. Reprinted in Addresses of Engineering Students, edited by Waddell and Harrington, pages 231-252.

7. "The Good Engineering Teacher: His Personality and Training." Professor William T. Magruder, Ohio State University. An inspiring and instructive presidential address. Proceedings of the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education, Vol. XXI, pages 27-38.

8. "Hydraulic Engineering Education." D. W. Mead, University of Wisconsin. An interesting discussion of the elements an engineer should acquire in his education. The article is instructive, and is broader than its title; but it contains nothing directly on methods of teaching engineering subjects. Bulletin of the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education, Vol. IV, No. 5, 1914, pages 185-198.

9. "Some Considerations Regarding Engineering Education in America." Professor G. F. Swain, Harvard University. A paper presented at the International Engineering Congress in 1915 in San Francisco, California. A brief presentation of the early history of engineering education in America, and an inquiry as to the effectiveness of present methods. Transactions of International Engineering Congress, Miscellany, San Francisco, 1915, pages 324-330; discussion, pages 340-348.

10. "Technical Education for the Professions of Applied Science," President Ira N. Hollis, Worcester Polytechnic Institute. A discussion of the methods and scope of engineering education, and of the contents of a few representative engineering curricula. Transactions International Engineering Congress, San Francisco, 1915, Miscellany, pages 306-325.

11. "What is Best in Engineering Education." Professor H. H. Higbie, president Tau Beta Pi Association. An elaborate inquiry among graduate members of that association as to the value and relative importance of the different subjects pursued in college, of the time given to each, and of the methods employed in presenting them. Pamphlet published by the Association, 107 8vo pages.

12. "Some Details in Engineering Education." Professor Henry S. Jacoby, Cornell University. A president's address, containing many interesting and instructive suggestions concerning various details of teaching engineering subjects and the relations between students and instructor. Proceedings of the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education, Vol. XXIII, 15 pages.

13. "Report of Progress in the Study of Engineering Education." Professor C. R. Mann. Several of the National Engineering Societies requested the Carnegie Foundation to conduct a thorough investigation of engineering education, and the Foundation committed the investigation to Professor C. R. Mann. First Report of Progress, Proceedings of the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education, Vol. XXIII, pages 70-85; Second Report, Bulletin, same, November, 1916, pages 125-144; Final Report: A Study of Engineering Education by Charles Riborg Mann, Bulletin Number 11, Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching, 1918.

14. "Relation of Mathematical Training to the Engineering Profession." H. D. Gaylord, Secretary of the Association of Teachers of Mathematics in New England, and Professor Paul H. Hanus, Harvard University. An elaborate inquiry as to the opinion of practicing engineers concerning the importance of mathematics in the work of the engineer. Bulletin of the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education, October, 1916, pages 54-72.

15. "Does Present-Day Engineering College Education Produce Accuracy and Thoroughness?" Professor D. W. Mead, University of Wisconsin, and Professor G. F. Swain, Harvard University. An animated discussion as to the effectiveness of a collegiate engineering education. Engineering Record, Vol. 73 (May 6, 1916), pages 607-609.

16. "Teach Engineering Students Fundamental Principles." Professor D. S. Jacobus, Stevens Institute. Address of the retiring president of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. A clear and forceful discussion of general methods of studying and teaching, and of the choice of subjects to be taught. Engineering Record, December 16, 1916, pages 739-740.

17. A considerable number of thoughtful articles on the general subject of technical education appeared in the columns of Mining and Scientific Press (San Francisco, California) during the year 1916. In the main these articles discuss general engineering education, and give a little attention to mining engineering education.

18. Since the preceding was written there has appeared a little book, the reading of which would be of great value to all engineering students, entitled How to Study, by George Fillmore Swain, LL.D., Professor of Civil Engineering in Harvard University and in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York City, 1917. 5 x 7½ inches, paper, 63 pages, 25 cents.

XXVI