« AnteriorContinuar »
University at Missoula, the College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts at Bozeman, the School of Mines at Butte, and the Normal School at Dillon, shall constitute the University of Montana, the control and supervision of which shall be vested in the State Board of Education. This act also makes it the duty of the State Board of Education, in the exercise of its discretion, in the government and control of the University of Montana and its component institutions, to take such steps and provide such rules as may be necessary to prevent unnecessary duplication of courses of instruction in the various institutions composing the University of Montana.
On July 17, 1913, the State Board of Education took a decided step and, in accordance with the above act, all engineering courses supported by the State, except the course in mining engineering at Butte, were concentrated in the State College at Bozeman. As a result of this concentration of effort, important additions and improvements have been made during the past year, very important additional laboratory space has been provided, and extensive and important additions have been made to the equipment, largely without cost to the State.
As an immediate result of this concentration, laboratory space was provided by the erection of a brick structure, 40 by 192 feet-50 feet of which is two-story. This two-story portion of the structure is temporarily used for class room instruction, but will be used later for laboratory purposes. Co-operation has become a prime factor with its attendant good results. It is expected that this will lead to the development of an important and more extensive laboratory system, which will be of great service in the development of the State of Montana.
Since practically all the engineering courses were duplicated in the former two institutions, consolidation made it unnecessary to employ all of the former duplicate instructors, resulting in a considerable saving. Even with this partial elimination, the combined corps of instructors increased the facilities, thus permitting greater concentration of effort on the part of the faculty, with the attendant good results. Naturally, such changes tend also to create a better and closer relationship between the student body and the faculty, as well as among the different members of the engineering faculty.
The contentions existing between rival institutions of a state naturally extend to the alumni. One of the great problems was to unite the alumni of the former rival engineering schools. This has been accomplished to an extent hardly thought possible. The whole engineering alumni appear to be loyal to the one engineering college. There has been established an engineering alumni committee, which committee has an equal representation from both institutions. The purpose of this committee is to consult with the Dean of Engineering on matters concerning the engineering college and which are of interest to its alumni. Two meetings have been held and considerable interest and good feeling was manifest.
The people of the community and state are taking a greater interest in the College of Engineering, as is evident from many substantial and valuable recent donations.
Changes in the curriculum have also been made possible by this combination. Additional courses in irrigation engineering, architectural engineering, and chemical engineering, have been introduced and are now being developed.
As a direct result of the changes that have been made possible by the action of the State Board of Education, the attendance has increased 123 per cent. as compared with that of last year, and 161
per cent. as compared with that of two years ago. The freshman class has increased 230 per cent. since the action of the State Board of education, on July 17, 1913.
It is evident that many obstacles to the further development of our engineering college have been removed and we feel that we are now in a position to successfully appeal to the Legislature for funds permitting the erection of a new engineering building, central heating plant, and further additions to equipment and instructional force, thus permitting continued improvement in its service to the State.
Whatever the opinion may be as to the advisability of maintaining two engineering schools in our older and more populated states, no one with an intimate knowledge of Montana conditions and having the interests of the boys and girls of Montana at heart, would argue in favor of two separate and distinct engineering colleges for the State of Montana. It might be claimed by some that Montana, being the third largest state in the Union, has such a vast territory that it might, in the future, support two engineering schools, as well as any of the eastern states or as well as any two states of smaller size. But it must be remembered that an engineering college probably requires more expensive equipment in its laboratories than any other department of a university or college, and if the available funds are dissipated by attempting to have two such colleges, each of the two must be very seriously handicapped and its growth slow and unimportant. Consequently, each must, for many years, necessarily occupy an unimportant position among the engineering colleges of the country.
We should not forget that, although we are building for the future, we must also fulfil our obligations to the present generation of boys and girls. It would be far better and more economical to pay the railroad fare of students to one engineering college than to attempt to maintain two such colleges with their attendant duplicate expenditures for faculty, buildings, and equipment.
During the past three years important extension work has been carried on along the line of the Northern Pacific Railway. Its continuance has recently again been requested by railroad officials. We have been prevented from extending this work to other lines, through lack of funds. It is expected that this deficiency will also be supplied by the legislature this coming winter, permitting us to extend our activities to other railway lines and to the manufacturing centers of the State.
Preliminary steps have also been taken for the establishment of an engineering experiment station. This advance will require legislative action and will undoubtedly be presented at the next session of the Legislature this coming winter. It is needless to point out the advantages of such an addition in a state having such great engineering possibilities in its development.
As many of you know, at the election of November the third, the people of our State voted upon an initiative measure which had for its object the consolidation of the State University at Missoula, the State College at Bozeman, and the School of Mines at Butte. The consolidated university to be located at either Bozeman or Missoula. This measure was defeated at the general election, but as there is considerable agitation in the State concerning this important question, it is still to be seen whether the agitation will continue with its natural effect upon the immediate growth of the institutions in question.
In accordance with the present conditions, there is a tendency to adopt the Indiana plan with the exception that all of our institutions of higher learning are component parts of the University of Montana; all are under the supervision of the State Board of Education. This State board may exercise its power and elect a chancellor who would have supervision over all of these institutions and who would probably be expected to still further prevent duplication of courses in the component parts of the University of Montana.
It will thus be seen that present conditions indicate that one engineering college will be maintained in Montana. As an immediate result, we will have continued greater concentration of effort in engineering education; consequently, more buildings at the one college, more equipment, and a better and larger instructional force.
As a consequence, the engineering college will be of greater service to the State in the training of its young men and women in its usefulness in public service.
As in all new states and many of the older ones, many of Montana's citizens have considered engineering more or less a trade, rather than one of the leading professions. We believe that, as the consolidation of the engineering schools has called attention to the work and to the general improved conditions, engineering is now, in the minds of the general public, taking its true position as one of the important learned professions.
The State of Montana has vast natural resources; the engineer will play an important part in their development. As a consequence, the engineering college should continue to prosper if it is properly supported by the State. It is to be expected that with increased facilities for instruction and investigation, the engineering college can easily reimburse the State for the expenditures it may make in its behalf.
PRESIDENT MARSTON.-Our final report is from Oregon by Dean Covell.
THE ADJUSTMENT OF ENGINEERING WORK BETWEEN THE OREGON AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE AND THE UNIVERSITY
DEAN G. A. COVELL, CORVALLIS, OREGON.
The adjustment of the engineering courses between the Land Grant Colleges and the State Universities, where separate institutions are maintained, has proved a difficult problem in several states. This is particularly true where the two institutions happen to be located near together, and in states where the population and resources do not seem to justify the maintenance of two separate schools of engineering. The State of Oregon illustrates this latter condition, and I trust that members of this association may be interested in the plan adopted for a solution of the problem as presented in that commonwealth.
To understand the nature of the case one must know that the present development in Oregon is largely agricultural, that the state has vast resources in timber, mines, water power, and manufacture which have so far scarcely been touched. The development which has taken place has been slow and tardy, at least until recently. The land grant college was established by legislative enactment in 1868 to take advantage of the Morrill act, but no real work either in agriculture or mechanic arts was accomplished until 1885, when the college was permanently established in Corvallis under control of a board of regents appointed by the governor. The institution then began its function of giving instruction in agriculture and mechanic arts. The work at first was rather elementary in character, but courses in shop work, mechanical drawing, and plain surveying were established and immediately became popular. As time passed other engineering subjects were added and developed finally into well defined courses in mechanical, electrical, civil, and mining engineering.
Meanwhile development along similar lines had been going on at the State University until with civil engineering work as a basis, independent courses had been established there in electrical, mining, mechanical and chemical engineering. Naturally, larger and larger appropriations were demanded for developing and maintaining this engineering work at the State University and at the State Agricultural College, only forty miles distant. Faculty and regents of each institution regarded the engineering courses as vital parts of the curricula and maintained that if engineering must be eliminated from either institution, theirs should be the one to retain it. Although the State had been fairly liberal in its appropriations for higher educational purposes, the demands of these two growing institutions were never satisfied, and some pointed questions began to be asked about the necessity of duplicating work in the College and State University. Engineering was immediately singled out as a glaring example of such duplication. The taxpayers were anxious to reduce expenses, and accordingly, a bill was passed by the legislature and approved in March, 1909, creating a Board of Higher Curricula, composed of five members appointed by the governor. Section 6 of the law creating this board reads as follows:
“The exclusive purpose and object of the Board of Higher Curricula shall be to determine what courses of studies or departments, if any, shall not be duplicated in the higher educational institutions of Oregon, and to determine and define the courses of study and departments to be offered and conducted by each such institution.”
At this time the State University maintained courses in civil, electrical, mechanical and mining and chemical engineering, having a total enrollment in these courses of 128 students. The Oregon Agricultural College offered courses in mining, electrical, mechanical and civil engineering and had 337 students taking four-year courses, and 53 students doing secondary work.
The newly appointed board organized, and entered upon its work with vigor, evidently determined to bring about a speedy settlement of the whole question. A careful investigation of both institutions was made, extending over a period of one year, during which time the presidents of the two institutions were invited to present facts and arguments in support of engineering and other duplicate courses in their respective schools.
On April 28, 1910, the board issued its first order affecting the work of the state institutions as follows:
"1. The Departments of Mechanical Engineering and Mining Engineering shall be confined to the State Agricultural College.
“2. In view of the fact that strong departments in Civil Engineering and Electrical Engineering are now established in both State Agricultural College and the University, these departments shall continue to be a part of both institutions.
"3. The School of Education, as such, shall be confined to the University of Oregon, but this rule shall not be construed against the maintenance by the State Agricultural College of a Department of Industrial Pedagogy, and the provision by this institution for such work in connection therewith, or related thereto, as may be necessary in training persons to teach industrial subjects in the common and high schools, in accordance with the provisions of the Nelson
amendment of 1907 to the Morrill Act of 1890, and the interpretation thereof, and the instructions given in connection therewith, by the United States Department of the Interior.
“5. The course in commerce in the State Agricultural College as described and defined in the current issue of the catalog of the State Agricultural College (1909-10) on pp. 90, 91 and pp. 165-169, shall be continued in the State Agricultural College.
“6. No new school, department, or course may be established in either the State Agricultural College or the University of Oregon until the plan of such school, department, or course shall have been submitted to this Board and have received its approval."
This decision was not received with general favor by the friends of the University and the Agricultural College, or by the general public, because it did not settle the question at issue. Both institutions still maintained engineering courses and duplicated each other's work. Each was trying to build up its work with the idea of becoming so firmly established that it would be impossible to shake off the engineering courses.
Meanwhile, public dissatisfaction grew to such an extent that the question of consolidating the two institutions was freely discussed. The members of the Board of Higher Curricula evidently realized that a great responsibility rested upon them and again approached the problem with the determination of reaching a final decision. After collecting an immense amount of data and argument, both from the friends of the two institutions concerned, and from outside sources, the Board issued a second order on December 19, 1913, eliminating the Departments of Electrical and Chemical Engineering from the University of Oregon, and assigning them to the Oregon Agricultural College, conditioned upon the college requiring a fouryear high school preparation for all engineering courses leading to a degree. By this action the Board reaffirmed its purpose of transferring the engineering work to the Agricultural College, which policy had been entered upon three years before when the first order was issued. Action on the course in Civil Engineering was withheld for further consideration, but on February 7, 1914, a further order was issued by which the courses in Civil Engineering were eliminated from both the State University and the Agricultural College. Exception was made that the Agricultural College may give such courses in civil engineering as are required in other departments of engineering, including Highway and Irrigation Engineering, and in the Departments of Forestry and Agriculture.
Both institutions had vigorously contested the case from the begin. ning. The University argued that the engineering courses should be given at the University on account of the broadening influence to be obtained from contact with the liberal arts; also on account of the more advanced engineering work which it would be possible to establish there, and on account of the good influence upon the student life of the University to be derived from a large number of serious minded engineering students permeating the student body. Finally, doubt was expressed whether the land grant colleges were originally intended to maintain engineering courses, and it was suggested that in most cases where such courses had been established, the result had been detrimental to the agricultural interests of the colleges.
To President Kerr, of the Oregon Agricultural College, belongs full credit for presenting the argument for that institution in a most thorough and convincing manner. He showed that the land grant colleges were established as a revolt from the old classical education,