College Teaching Part 53

XXVIII BUSINESS EDUCATION _Frederick B. Robinson_

XXV

THE TEACHING OF ENGINEERING SUBJECTS

Each of the preceding chapters of this volume treats of a subject which is substantially a unit in method and content; but the subjects a.s.signed to this chapter include a variety of topics which are quite diverse in scope and character. For example, such subjects as German and physics represent the work of single collegiate departments; while engineering subjects represent substantially the entire work of an engineering college, of which there are many in this country, each having a thousand or more students. It is necessary, then, to inquire as to the scope of this chapter.

I. SCOPE OF THIS CHAPTER

=Contents of engineering curricula=

The contents of the representative four-year engineering curriculum of the leading inst.i.tutions may be cla.s.sified about as in the table on page 502. In addition to the subjects listed, most inst.i.tutions require freshmen to take gymnasium practice and lectures on hygiene, and many colleges require freshmen, and some also soph.o.m.ores, to take military drill and tactics. Formerly many inst.i.tutions required all engineering freshmen to take elementary shop work; but at present in most inst.i.tutions 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 inst.i.tutions. For example, instead of as in the table on page 502, rhetoric may be given in the soph.o.m.ore year and language in the first.

Again, in some inst.i.tutions a little technical work is given in the freshman year. Further, the total number of semester-hours varies somewhat among the different inst.i.tutions. However, the table is believed to be fairly representative.

CONTENTS OF ENGINEERING CURRICULA

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

--------------------------------------+-----------------------+-------- | COLLEGIATE YEAR | GENERAL SUBJECT +-----+-----+-----+-----+ TOTAL | I | II | III | IV | --------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------- Mechanical drawing and descriptive | | | | | geometry | 10 | ... | ... | ... | 10 | | | | | Rhetoric | 6 | ... | ... | ... | 6 | | | | | Modern language | ... | 8 | ... | ... | 8 | | | | | Pure mathematics | 10 | 8 | ... | ... | 18 | | | | | Science--physical and social | 10 | 9 | 6 | 4 | 29 | | | | | Theoretical and applied mechanics | ... | 3 | 10 | ... | 13 | | | | | Technical engineering | ... | 8 | 20 | 32 | 60 | ----| ----| ----| ----| ---- Total | 36 | 36 | 36 | 36 | 144 --------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------

=The different engineering curricula=

Below is a list of the princ.i.p.al four-year curricula offered by the engineering colleges of this country. The list contains forty different engineering curricula. No one inst.i.tution 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 cla.s.sified 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; munic.i.p.al 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; aeronautical 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.

=Number of engineering subjects=

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 a.s.sume that for administrative reasons, each 3 semester-hours on the average represents a distinct t.i.tle 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 t.i.tle. Finally, some subjects which differ but little in character may for convenience be listed under two different t.i.tles. 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 a.s.signed 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 soph.o.m.ore 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 inst.i.tutions can prepare for specialized sections nearly as easily and cheaply as for duplicate sections; and inst.i.tutions 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 ill.u.s.tration 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 appet.i.te 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 a.s.sume 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 a.n.a.lyze, 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

=Disciplinary values of engineering subjects=

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 cla.s.sifying, 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 acc.u.mulation 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 establis.h.i.+ng fundamental principles. There is no comparison between the value of a ton of horseshoe nails and the ability to make a single nail.

=Utilitarian aim of the engineering subjects: information and training=

The engineering student usually desires to reverse the above order and a.s.sumes 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.