« AnteriorContinuar »
requested to create a division of engineering, and that the officers prepare separate or joint programs, as may be deemed best, in providing for engineering meetings in connection with the next annual meeting of this association."
I want to second President Demarest's conclusion that this is a very happy way to settle the whole matter. It decides, in effect, that we had no civil war, and that no process of reconstruction is necessary.
I would also like to say that, under the second resolution passed this morning, the executive committee of the general association is to poll the separate land grant college institution as to their views concerning changes in the constitution.
It will be the duty of the representatives of the engineering departments in each of these land grant institutions to take up the subject with their presidents and authorities, so that in the vote of that particular institution on this subject the interests of the engineering departments and their views can be represented along with the others.
Finally, President Demarest neglected to state that, on his own motion, the precise amendments which were under consideration last night were referred to the executive committee along with the others. It is even conceivable that they might be adopted in the general re vision of the constitution, but without this, we have now the right to a voice in our individual institutions in their action on this matter.
You will find that your presidents will be cordial and sympathetic, I am sure, as has been their attitude all the way through.
We have, then, the right next year to appear along with the rest in the college section of the A. A. A. C. E. S. and in the general sessions and to debate any question which comes up; our college will have a vote, as before, and we will have something to say about that vote.
CHAIRMAN TYLER.—You have already expressed your gratification at this outcome. Has the secretary anything to say in regard to the matter of Extension Legislation?
SECRETARY BISSELL.-I have little to report in that connection. The executive committee depended upon the guidance of Dean Reber, as he was appointed a member of the committee for questions of this kind, and he telegraphed me day before yesterday as follows:
"Impossible to attend meeting. Hope society will consider vocational education bill before Congress. I doubt its value as proposed. The make-up of the federal board would not be effectual." The secretary does not see that the executive committee is in a sition to present a report on ex nsion legislation at this time. CHAIRMAN TYLER.-It will be understood that the committee is continued, if there is no objection.
The secretary will present a report on "Engineering at Land Grant Institutions."
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ON "THE STATUS OF
Immediately following the adjournment of the second annual meeting of the association a meeting of the executive committee was held at which "Hon. P. P. Claxton, United States Commissioner of Education, invited the association, through its executive committee, to prepare, in collaberation with the Bureau of Education, a report on the status of engineering at the land grant colleges and univer
sities, the same to be published by the Bureau as a contribution from the association."
"It was voted to co-operate with the Bureau of Education and the secretary was authorized to be the agent of the committee in carrying out the project."
After the proceedings of the second meeting had been sent to press, the secretary corresponded with the other members of the executive committee to obtain ideas as to character and scope of the proposed report. Replies were received promptly and after comparing the views expressed, a composite plan for the work was formulated and an outline submitted to the Commissioner of Education, who made some suggestions. The secretary then issued Secretary's Bulletin No. 4, giving to the members an outline of the proposed report and asking co-operation. This was readily promised and the work has proceeded as rapidly as could be expected in a project of this kind.
Progress is reported as follows in the several parts outlined in Secretary's Bulletin No. 4:
Historical matter has been received in manuscript from 39 institutions and in printed form from three institutions. The secretary knows from his own experience in this connection that the gathering of this information represents a vast amount of work and time and he appreciates fully the co-operation thus accorded.
The work under this heading is very nearly complete.
The material relating to state legislation affecting the status of engineering at the institutions is perhaps fifty per cent. collected. Some of it has been presented at this meeting directly, and some by reference, all of which will be made use of in completing the work of this portion of the report.
The statistical information included under sections (c) and (d) of the outline will be compiled from the reports of the bureau of education, and that is already very well along toward completion.
The statistical comparison of the relative weight of letters, science, technical and professional work in the engineering courses has been begun by issuing to the membership what is known as “Form B," which about half of the institutions have already returned, in which the institutions were asked to return the percentage of time expended by students in the mechanical engineering courses of the several institutions on seven different groups of subjects, into which the various topics presented in mechanical engineering courses were thought to be capable of being grouped.
I may say, in a general way, that there is quite general uniformity in the returns under this head.
The state engineering experiment stations will be represented in the report very largely by the material presented to this association during the past two, and the present, meetings. That has been brought up into a very complete form by the paper presented by Mr. Nichols yesterday, as I am sure you will agree.
The section on the study of engineering extension will be compiled very largely from the same source as that for engineering experiment stations, but the secretary will have to rely on further assistance from the members, particularly Dean Reber and Dean Marston, but will feel at liberty to call upon others who are engaged in this work.
That is the status of the work on this report. It is hoped that it can be completed so as to be officially reported to the Commissioner of Education at the end of the current fiscal year, which ends on June 30th.
G. W. BISSELL, Secretary.
CHAIRMAN TYLER.—Gentlemen, you have heard this interesting report. It is now before you for discussion.
We are fortunate in having with us a gentleman who is not himself an engineer, but who has been delegated to make a survey of institutions in a direction which he will explain to you. May I call
Dr. C. R. Mann, of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, to make any comment or ask any questions that lie in his mind? DR. C. R. MANN.—Mr. Chairman and gentlemen:
I thank you, first, very heartily for the cordial reception I have received here, and for the many valuable ideas which I have collected at this meeting.
I have been very much interested in the report that Dean Bissell has just presented, as showing the type of problem that you are engaged in trying to solve from an educational point of view.
The work in which I am engaged was originated by the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education in 1907. They appointed a committee to make a survey of engineering education in this country. That committee made a brief start, and very soon found that it was a very extensive problem, so they sought the assistance of other engineering associations. They succeeded in gaining the attention and the co-operation of the civil engineering association and the mechanical engineering association and the electrical engineering association, and these associations appointed additional members and organized what is known as the Joint Committee on Engineering Education.
This joint committee again attempted to attack the problem, and soon found that, again, it was too complicated for anyone who did not have great leisure to put on it, and plenty of assistance. All of us, fully occupied as we are with our teaching work, are too busy to carry out an extensive undertaking of this sort.
This joint committee, therefore, appealed to the Carnegie Foundation for assistance, and persuaded that body to take up the work and supply the funds for carrying out the investigation. The problem was assigned to me.
I have met with that joint committee and discussed with them the problems it is trying to solve. The particular thing that I want to bring before you is the rather embarrassed position in which I find myself because of the multiplicity of problems and the extreme complexity of the situation.
You gentlemen have considered this matter at much length, and I want to bespeak your co-operation in helping me to define and select the problems whose discussion would be likely to result in the greatest benefit to the engineering schools.
The investigation that I am undertaking, I understand, is not an attempt to grade engineering schools and divide them into classes, or anything of that sort. It is stated by Mr. Pritchett to be the study of engineering curricula, of the educational methods of the technical schools.
It will be utterly impossible for me, in the time that is allotted for this investigation, to visit all of the engineering schools, or all of the schools where engineering work is done. There are some 160 such in the country. So we are intending to select some 25 schools, regarded as typical schools in the various classes of engineering work, and to make a more extensive study of those schools, for the purpose of testing various types of educational procedure.
It will be impossible for me, not being an engineer myself, to accomplish anything, unless I have the hearty co-operation of all
the engineering school men throughout the country. I shall therefore be particularly grateful at present, when we are trying to formulate a definite plan of action, if you would let me have a statement of the problems whose study seems to you most likely to be of service to engineering education. Also investigations have been carried on in a number of institutions—I know they have at the Universities of Ohio, Illinois, Michigan and other states-bearing upon some of these problems, and you have all gathered a large amount of data and information. If you would care to let me have that information and data, to let me have statements of the kind of problems you are trying to solve in that way, I might be able to formulate the problems and state them, and to know more definitely just how to go to work. Hence, the particular thing in which I should ask your immediate assistance is in the formulation of the problems and the statement of the results that you have obtained from studies in your own schools at present.
CHAIRMAN TYLER.—The chair hopes the response to Dr. Mann's invitation may be quite general.
Is there any discussion of the report, or any question that any member of the association would like to address to Dr. Mann?
In connection with the report which has been made about our relations to the A. A. A. C. E. S. the chair assumes that this organization will continue for the present, irrespective of the vote adopted, and that the nominating committee will, in due course, make its report.
DEAN MARSTON.-I think perhaps we should give our new executive committee some special authority in this connection, and to bring the matter before you I move that the new executive committee be authorized to take such steps during the coming year as may be found advisable in effecting the merger with the general asso ciation. This amounts to taking from the table and passing a motion made at the business session on Wednesday afternoon.
DEAN TALIAFERRO.-I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN TYLER.—Is there discussion? Those in favor of the motion will say aye; those opposed no.
The motion was carried.
DEAN MARSTON.—The remarks of Dr. Mann concerning his connection with the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Educa. tion remind me that that society has a very cordial attitude toward the work of this society. There was at one time a little fear on the part of some members of the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education that we were starting a duplicate organization. promised the secretary Monday that at this meeting I would boost for the next meeting of the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education. I am trying to make it impersonal. You all know it is going to be at Ames.
CHAIRMAN TYLER.—The next item on our program is, “Agricultural Engineering at Kansas State Agricultural College,” by Dean Potter.
AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING AT KANSAS STATE AGRI
DEAN A. A. POTTER, MANHATTAN, KANSAS.
The substitution of mechanical power for hand and animal labor, the increased use of agricultural machinery, and the necessities for irrigation and drainage in certain parts of this country brought about a definite demand for men who combine engineering training with a knowledge of agriculture and rural conditions.
At the second meeting of the Land Grant College Engineering Association, Dean Stout and Professor Davidson pointed out that there are two fields where this combined knowledge of agriculture and engineering may be valuable.
To take up the duties in the primary field, the agricultural engineer must be mainly an engineer, but should have sufficient knowledge of agriculture to enable him to be in sympathy and to understand the problems which will confront him.
The secondary field is suitable for men whose tastes are primarily agricultural, but who wish to have sufficient knowledge of engineering to enable them to handle the ordinary engineering problems on the farm or to act as farm advisers.
Part of the engineering faculty of the Kansas State Agricultural College have been of the opinion for several years that an agricultural engineering course is a necessity in a land grant college. It was also felt that the establishment of such a course would lead to better understanding and to much closer co-operation between the agricultural and engineering divisions and experiment stations of the college.
The present agricultural engineering course which was established about a year ago covers the primary field. Three options are offered preparing men for irrigation and drainage engineering, flour mill engineering, or for positions with companies manufacturing farm machinery and farm motors.
The work of the secondary field is covered by offering electives in engineering to agricultural students. These electives include gas and oil engines, traction engines, steam engines and boilers, practical electricity, rural architecture, shop work, concrete construction, road building, irrigation and drainage, and drafting. These electives should enable the agricultural student to understand the fundamental engineering problems with which the farm adviser may be confronted.
No separate department of agrcultural engineering was organized, the opinion being that better results can be expected if the various subjects in the agricultural engineering course are given by the regular engineering departments.
The Division of Engineering at the Kansas State Agricultural College gives instruction to five different types of students:
1. To students in the standard older engineering courses of civil, electrical, and mechanical engineering and architecture.
2. To agricultural engineering students.
3. To students in the agricultural division pursuing electives in engineering.
4. To students in the secondary school.
5. To students pursuing short courses in agriculture or in the mechanic arts.
It would be impossible for one teacher to adapt himself to all these classes of instruction. The present plant is to have each teacher handle only those courses for which he is best adapted by training, experience and sympathies.