Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

duplication), and harmony. The success in accomplishing these ends at the University of Nebraska gives me confidence to recommend the organization. The instruction and experimentation in what has been defined as the secondary field, and in part the subject of machinery in the primary field, are handled by a department of agricultural engineering. This department is considered as belonging to neither of the divisions, agriculture nor engineering. The head of the department is a member of the faculties of both divisions. The agricultural engineering group of study (a four year course leading to the degree of B. Sc. in agricultural engineering) embraces instruction in both the primary and secondary fields, some advanced courses in the primary field being given by the older engineering departments. The group is listed in and is under the supervision of the division of engineering. Students in the group are registered in the division of engineering and affiliate with students of architectural, civil, electrical and mechanical engineering in a general engineering society and an engineering fraternity. The engineering faculty formulates the agricultural engineering group, the dean of agriculture being available for consultation but exercising no formal authority. The agricultural faculty determines what engineering work shall be given in the groups of that division. Either or both of the deans may with propriety support the professor of agricultural engineering in requests for buildings, equipment or instructors. The agricultural engineering group has attracted students from the older groups, both engineering and agricultural.

The question may arise as to whether all subjects of joint interest should be taught in a department or departments of agricultural engineering. This must be decided in view of the circumstances attaching to the case in hand, having in mind chiefly where the subject may be taught to the best effect. The decision will be governed largely by the qualifications of the instructors in the respective departments, and whether the subject has previously been taught effectively, indifferently, or is newly introduced. It is also to be remembered that in view of there being a primary and a secondary field, a subject may properly be handled on one plane in one department and on a different plane in another.

CHAIRMAN STOUT.-The point which I tried to bring out most prominently is the primary and secondary field of engineers, with respect to agriculture; that in the primary field the present training will make men available as well as competent and that under the present circumstances there must be some change in the process of selection in order that in the secondary field we will have men who will be available as well as competent, and I tried to point out the attitude and duties of the profession with respect to the development of these two types.

CHAIRMAN STOUT.-The discussion of this subject will be opened by President J. L. Snyder, of Michigan.

PRESIDENT SNYDER.-I am very glad that this organization has taken up this problem. I think it is a very fruitful field to consider and one that should be not only discussed but followed up with definite action.

The discussion this forenoon brought out many of the points that I had intended to speak upon particularly, but I wish to say just a few words about agricultural engineering and the field that it seems to me it should occupy. We heard this morning considerable about agriculture and mechanic arts. Our institutions were organized with

these two distinct and separate departments. It seemed to be taken for granted that these departments were to serve two different classes: of people the mechanic arts was to serve those who are engaged in manufacturing and engineering work, and the agricultural department was for all those following agricultural pursuits. We have, I think, built unfortunately too rigidly along these separate lines. These two departments have not always worked together harmoniously. The engineers have had little to do with the agricultural end of the institution or with the farmers of their respective states. The agricultural teachers have maintained about the same attitude toward engineers and engineering problems. These two departments have thus grown along separately. Until recent years agricultural engineering was given but little consideration by any one.

Engineers did not seem to appreciate the necessity of taking care of the agricultural problems in engineering as they have come to the front in the great agricultural development which has taken place in recent years. They did not seem to realize that farm machinery, heating and lighting farm buildings, individual water systems, disposal of sewage, drainage, road construction and many other rural problems lay within their domain. Agricultural students were in some institutions not permitted to receive shop work in the engineering buildings.

The engineers as a rule have left the agricultural problems alone, hence we have had developed in these land grant institutions another class of engineering known generally as agricultural engineering. Some times it is in charge of an engineer; very often it is not. It seems to me that the engineering departments of our land grant colleges have let slip past them a great opportunity. They should have entered the field of agricultural engineering 15 years ago and should have been the leaders in this line of development.

Visit one of our state fairs and you will see acres and acres of farm machinery and no engineer connected with a land grant college and interested in that line of work, on the ground. The development of this farm machinery as well as many other purely rural engineering problems should have been in the hands of engineers but they have not been.

Now, the time has come when we see the mistake. I do not lay the blame for the present condition entirely upon the engineering departments of our colleges. Those of us who are in charge of these institutions did not sense the problem as we should have done.

I believe that engineering should be taught by an engineer and that we should either place an engineer in charge of the agricultural engineering in our colleges or get the agricultural engineering into the engineering department. Drainage, farm sanitation, farm machinery, etc., are agricultural problems and must be solved as the agricultural expert directs. Yet the work must be done by engineers. It would seem, therefore, that there should be some system of cooperation between these departments in the handling of these problems.

Considerable was said this morning concerning the necessity of stronger financial support for our engineering departments. We should realize that these land grant colleges are looked upon generally by the public as preeminently the farmers' schools. In every state of the Union, as far as I know, the farmers secure appropriations for these institutions. The members of the engineering profession render very little assistance. They somehow are not good politicians. At least they have not been effective in getting appropriations. I think

it is true in every state that the college must go to the farmer for active and effective support in securing appropriations.

If the engineering departments of these institutions wish more money they should connect up with the farmers and assist them in solving their peculiar problems. The presidents and board of these institutions must have public sentiment back of them in turning over money for instruction in engineering. There is a higher power than a board and you can go back to this source of power if you so desire, but you must not go back empty handed. Get up something good in the way of farm power, farm buildings, lighting or farm sanitation. Let some of your brightest, keenest men present this work at farmers' institutes; show the farmer that you are interested in his problems and ready to assist in solving them; cultivate a sympathetic attitude toward the man on the land and the problem of support will solve itself. Engineering can and is contributing a great deal to the development of agriculture but it is not getting proper credit for it. You should connect up with agriculture in such a way as to get credit for the engineering work being done for rural development. I very much fear that the engineering departments of our land grant colleges have trouble ahead of them. I believe that one of the best methods that can be taken to ward off the impending danger will be to help the farmer with his problems in an active and sympathetic way. I use the word "sympathetic" advisedly, because I believe that many engineers and especially young engineers on our faculties do not have a very friendly feeling toward the agriculturist: such an atmosphere in any department of an institution will not bring support. While ten years ago the engineer in our colleges was in the lead, the very reverse is true at present. Agriculture is now leading, but it should not be allowed to occupy the whole field. The engineer has something just as good for the farmer, as much of the work now being done for him by the trained agriculturalist. He should not wait for the farmer to come to him. It is his business to go to the farmer and when he does this in the proper spirit, he will receive a hearty welcome and cordial support.

CHAIRMAN STOUT.-A few years ago in the University of Nebraska there were two young mechanical engineers who saw the large possibilities in agricultural engineering; they recognized the opportunity and went into that line. We have managed to hold one but the other one got away. Professor Davidson has worked up a course of agricultural engineering at Iowa State College and perhaps is one of the best experts in that line at this time. He is next on the program for discussion of this topic.

PROFESSOR DAVIDSON.-I thank the chairman for his compliment and would say further that anything I may have accomplished along agricultural engineering lines is in part due to the inspiration I obtained from our worthy chairman while I was sitting in his classes.

In taking up the discussion of this topic I wish to discuss four features of the subject: First, agricultural engineering instruction for agricultural students; second, the training for professional agricultural engineers; third, experiment station work; fourth, organization of the agricultural engineering instruction. Perhaps if I should attempt to tell you what we are doing at Iowa I will explain our views of this branch of education which lies between two of the long recognized divisions of technical education, agriculture and engineering.

In taking up the discussion of the first topic, the studies for agricultural students, we believe that the agricultural student has need

for our work. We do not offer anything to the agricultural student which we do not believe will be of direct value to him in his work. Agriculture may be likened to a manufacturing industry producing agricultural products. Consider, if you will, the example of the growing grain crops. The work of preparing the soil, the plowing, the seeding, the harvesting and the threshing, and finally the transportation of the crop to the centers of distribution, are all engineering operations, and instruction in engineering applied to these operations must be of direct benefit to the agricultural student and raise his capacity as a producer.

I am inclined to think that engineering has been as large a factor in raising agriculture to a high plane, as anything else, and that without it agriculture could not develop or progress. Before the advent of modern farm machinery, the farmer was known as "the man with the hoe."

We not only aim to give to our agricultural students work which will be of direct benefit to them, but we also try to give it to them in the very best way we know how. Our best instructors teach the studies for agricultural students. We have perhaps at Iowa as much agricultural engineering work required in agricultural courses as any other institution in the country. The work amounts to about eleven credit hours of required work in nearly all of the agricultural

courses.

The next topic I wish to discuss is the training of agricultural engineers. Some four years ago we found that there was a demand from colleges for men trained especially to give instruction in agricultural engineering. To train men for these positions, we induced our faculty to let us outline a professional agricultural engineering course. Our ideas as to what this course should be have changed somewhat but not greatly. We believed in the beginning this should be primarily an engineering course, that it ought to have the same foundation, the same backbone in the way of mathematics as other engineering courses. In addition to that we wished to give our men enough agriculture so that they would be in sympathy with, and understand, agricultural problems. We introduced something over 20 hours of agriculture in the beginning-three studies in farm crops; three studies in animal husbandry; three studies of horticulture; two studies in soils and one study in dairying. Then in addition to this we emphasized as thoroughly as we were able to, the seven branches of agricultural engineering as we have been able to outline them. These seven branches are as follows: Farm machinery; farm power, farm structures or farm buildings, sanitation, including the subjects of water supply; sewage disposal and heating and lighting of buildings; then the three older lines of engineering, which Dean Stout mentioned-drainage, irrigation and public roads.

Our course has been criticized because it was too general and that it did not meet a definite end. The best argument I could present to meet that criticism would be the course itself. We have been able to introduce more instruction in drainage and irrigation than is usually found in other courses. We have been able to introduce all the material we could arrange for in all seven branches in this four-year

course.

The students taking this new course do not have pronounced engineering or agricultural inclinations. I think they are largely students who would have taken an engineering course if this new course was not available. A survey of the freshman class last year indicated that 53 per cent. of the class had clearly determined what their future work was to be. Out of this 53 per cent. I found 20

per cent. of the whole intending to farm. The only way I can explain it is that these young men from the farm with practical farm experience have recognized that modern farm machinery and engineering methods have been a large factor in raising the vocation of farming to its present plane, and for that reason they selected the agricultural engineering course. About half of the graduates to date have found other more favorable fields of work than teaching.

Since I have been connected with Iowa State College, we have carried on some experiment station work. At the present time, we have two men devoting their entire time to experiment station work. We have thought that the thing needing emphasis more than anything else at this time, is farm structures or rural architecture and we have an experienced architect working on the subject of farm structures. We believe that this subject is important. The capital invested in farm buildings is large. The health of the animals housed in farm buildings depends largely upon the sanitation of the buildings. The quality of the products and especially the dairy products depends largely upon sanitation of the farm buildings. The farmer has been compelled to work out problems related to farm buildings himself, and as the buildings now exist they represent to a large extent individual effort.

The subject of drainage has been given very careful attention by the Iowa Engineering Experiment Station. There are many agricultural engineering problems worthy of attention.

I now come to the fourth topic of my discussion-organization. Dean Stout says that the department of agriculture belongs neither to the agricultural college or to the engineering college. At Iowa it belongs to both. The courses we offer to agricultural students are controlled by the agricultural faculty. The courses offered primarily for agricultural engineering students are under the control of the engineering faculty. The department is administered by both deans of agriculture and engineering. The agricultural engineering faculty members are members of both the engineering and agricultural division faculties.

A thought occurred to me while President Snyder was talking. Naturally I am very much interested in the welfare of agricultural engineering. I believe this work is of sufficient importance that instead of tieing it to some of the older lines of engineering, it should be given the recognition and emphasis by more or less separate organization. If you want to emphasize a thing, set it out by itself. If you want to smother it, hide it where people can't see it. I feel convinced that if this work is to be recognized and supported it should be given a separate place.

CHAIRMAN STOUT.-Tomorrow afternoon Dean Orton will read a paper on the subject of "Military Instruction in Land Grant Colleges," and General Wood, Chief of Staff of the United States Army, will be present to take part in the discussion of the paper.

At 3:15 p. m. Professor J. B. Davidson of Iowa took the chair, and presented the following paper:

« AnteriorContinuar »