Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

DUTIES OF OFFICERS.

6. The Executive Committee shall have authority to determine the time, place and program of meetings of the Association, and may by a two-thirds vote act for the Association on questions arising during the year, such action to be reported at the next meeting of the Association. The committee may conduct its business by correspondence. At meetings of the committee five members shall constitute a quorum. The committee shall keep records which shall be open to the inspection of the members. It shall have authority to fill a vacancy in any office for the unexpired term. The committee may, at its discretion, arrange for the participation of representatives of other engineering institutions in meetings or sessions for the discussion of questions of common interest.

DUES.

7. The necessary expenses of the Association and its officers shall be met by an annual assessment not exceeding $10 on each institution represented, or accepting membership. No bill exceeding $5 shall be incurred by the Secretary or Treasurer except on written authorization of the President. The accounts of the Treasurer shall be audited at each annual meeting.

AMENDMENTS.

8. The Constitution may be amended at any annual meeting by a two-thirds vote of representatives present, provided that notice of the proposed amendment shall have been given in the call for the meeting.

OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES.

1914-15.

President,
H. W. TYLER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Vice-Presidents,

W. H. S. DEMAREST, Rutgers Scientific School.
W. J. KERR, Oregon Agricultural College.
P. P. CLAXTON, ex officio, U. S. Bureau of Education.

Secretary-Treasurer,
G. W. BISSELL, Michigan Agricultural College.

Executive Committee,

The above named officers and
C. E. FERRIS, University of Tennessee.
E. ORTON, JR., Ohio State University.
J. G. SCRUGHAM, University of Nevada.

Committee on Mechanic Arts," The Executive Committee and President R. A. PEARSON, Iowa.

Committee on Engineering Extension Text-books,

DEAN L. E. REBER, Wisconsin.
PROF. J. A. MOYER, Pennsylvania.
DIRECTOR K. G. SMITH, Iowa.

Committee on Charges for Tests, Etc.
DEAN C. H. BENJAMIN, Indiana.
PRESIDENT W. M. RIGGS, South Carolina.
DEAN O. V. P. STOUT, Nebraska.
DEAN A. W. RICHTER, Montana.
DEAN F. E. TURNEAURE, Wisconsin.

DELEGATES AND VISITORS IN ATTENDANCE AT

WASHINGTON, D. C. NOV. 10-13, 1914.

Alabama_C. C. Thach.
Arkansas—W. N. Gladson.
California-B. I. Wheeler.
Colorado-E. B. House, C. A. Lory.
Illinois—D. Kinley.
Indiana-C. H. Benjamin.
Iowa—A. Marston, C. S. Nichols.
Kansas- A. A. Potter.
Maine B. J. Aley, H. S. Boardman.
Maryland-M. R. Creese, H. L. Crisp, J. A. Dapray, H. Gwinner,

G. P. Springer, T. H. Taliaferro.
Massachusetts-H. W. Tyler.
Michigan-G. W. Bissell, J. L. Snyder.
Minnesota-G. E. Vincent.
Montana-A. W. Richter.
Nebraska~0. V. P. Stout.
Nevada-A. W. Hendrick, J. G. Scrugham.
New Hampshire-C. E. Hewitt.
New Jersey_W. H. S. Demarest, A. A. Titsworth.
New York-E. E. Haskell.
North Dakota-E. S. Keene.
Ohio-E. Orton, Jr.
Oregon-G. A. Covell, W. J. Kerr.
Pennsylvania–J. O. Moyer, E. E. Sparks, E. D. Walker.
Rhode Island-H. Edwards, R. L. Wales.
South Carolina-S. B. Earle, W. M. Riggs.
Tennessee C. E. Ferris.
Texas-D. W. Spence.
Vermont-J. W. Votey.
Virginia-L. S. Randolph.
West Virginia-C. R. Jones, F. B. Trotter.
Wisconsin-E. B. Norris, F. E. Turneaure.
Wyoming—C. A. Duniway, E. G. Hoefer.
U. S. Bureau of Education-W. T. Bawden, P. P. Claxton.

PROCEEDINGS.

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 1914.

9:00 A. M.

The Association was called to order in the Red Parlor of the New Ebbitt Hotel by the President, Dean Anson Marston, of Iowa, who requested President W. H. S. Demarest, of New Jersey, to preside.

CHAIRMAN DEMAREST.—The first item on the program is the address of the President, which will be given by Dean Marston, of Iowa.

THE IDEALS OF MECHANIC ARTS AT THE LAND GRANT

COLLEGES.

PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS.

DEAN A. MARSTON, AMES, IOWA. Is there properly any real difference between the ideals of Land Grant Colleges and those of other technical colleges? Yes, for the Land Grant Colleges are under special obligations, not placed on other institutions, to the state, to the nation, to the industries and to the industrial classes.

Of course, there are very many and most important common ideals. All technical colleges worthy the name are striving to instill into the souls of their students ideals of sterling integrity, of culture and of good citizenship. Even harder, because it is their peculiar work, all the technical schools are trying to turn out thoroughly prepared graduates, of the highest scholarship, who shall inevitably become entirely competent engineers, devoted to high ideals of professional service.

Yet there are important differences between the three great classes of American technical colleges: Those privately endowed; the state universities, and the Land Grant Colleges. Each of these classes has special obligations and ideals imposed upon its members by differences in history of establishment, in character of endowment and charter, and in source of support.

Privately Endowed American Technical Colleges. In early American education the typical institution of higher learning was the old denominational classical college, and the school of theology was about the only professional school. Since the separation of church and state has always been a fundamental principle of American policy, it was natural, even inevitable, that these colleges should also be separated from the state; should receive no state support; should have no authoritative part in the activities of the state.

Schools of medicine and of law were developed later. The members of these learned professions, also, while they were trained to high ideals of professional service, bore no obligation to help build up a national industry, nor to render state service as distinguished from personal service.

These colleges and professional schools were democratic, in that

they were open to any qualified man who could find the means. But in the case of the sons of the farmer or of the mechanic they led to vocations entirely different from those of their parents; to an aristocracy of learning, in fact, whose members felt that their occupations were above those of men engaged in agriculture or the mechanic arts.

From these classical colleges and professional schools grew in time our great, privately endowed American universities. In course of time science has won recognition at these institutions as well as philosophy and literature, and the classics have lost much of their artificial importance. In course of further time engineering secured a somewhat grudging recognition. Now it is welcomed with eagerness.

Yet still the privately endowed college of engineering retains much from its former characteristics which shows in its engineering ideals. It emphasizes the individual, rather than the state. It has the same high professional ideals in engineering as in other learned professions. Nevertheless criticism is still made of some privately endowed colleges that they have a tendency to train their engineers to think that they are members not only of a profession but of a caste, to which employment in the general activities of mechanic arts would be something of a degradation.

Such criticism cannot properly be made of the privately endowed institutes of technology, for from the beginning of their history they have aimed at training leaders for the industries rather than professional fee earners, and they have not held themselves bound by the rules of the classical colleges.

State University Engineering Colleges. In the middle half of the 19th century our newer states broke away from the early American tradition by establishing state universities, supported and regulated by the state. These were planned to be integral parts of the public school system, forming their crowns. They thus had and still have very important obligations to the state, as distinguished from the individual, and in certain lines act with the authority of the state. They were a natural culmination of the American principle of separation of church and public school.

These institutions were from the first more liberal than the privately endowed universities in their treatment of the sciences, and came more readily to welcome engineering.

Yet they retained many of the customs and prejudices of their privately endowed predecessors. They willingly trained lawyers, doctors and teachers; and engineers after engineering had won a hard earned recognition as a learned profession. But they did not recognize any special obligations to the industries of the state, or to the industrial classes.

After all, the ideals of the engineering colleges at state universities have to large degree been taken from the ideals of the colleges of law and medicine, of very high and worthy character.

The Land Grant Colleges. In 1862 the national government entered American education as a new factor. The prevailing idea in the administration of American schools has always been local control. The directors of the school district have been all but supreme over the rural school. Each city has built up its high school to suit its own whims, without regard to an efficient state educational system. We have never had an adequate, organized corps of competent teachers, engaged in a profession rather than a temporary job.

« AnteriorContinuar »