« AnteriorContinuar »
parallels of dealing with matter and dealing with mind are important and illuminating. For the purely engineering student there is a danger in dealing with people in that it involves more variables and equations. The solution is never determined, and the results vary with the most intangible and difficult elements in the swaying of the minds of individuals and masses.
There are times when the engineer knows the value of time perhaps as well as any man in practice; but there are also many occasions when the lack of alertness and adroitness and astuteness, those things that involve the sense of time and a quick perception of relations and effectiveness, is apparent. The structure of the business world and business instrumentalities are not quite the same when presented as a matter of information in education. Any business course for the engineer, however, should be so presented as to carry as much as possible of this intangible picture and dramatization of real men working together. The content varies, naturally, with the different courses. We do have admirable courses in accounting, absolutely essential, and business law that offers a substantial amoụnt of the general picture of the structure of business relations.
A different situation presents itself in teaching engineering to business students. Frequently they have to be told why they should know anything about engineering. They think they can control engineering, not realizing that the type of engineer being turned out from the modern course with the business content has a 50-50 opportunity to control them. Control is essentially an engineering approach to business. Precision and sincerity are also things that the business man in embryo has to learn. They are not essentially engineering attributes, but are so conspicuously.
Engineering achievement is a dignified and important phase of activity. Business men should be able to follow the major details of it, to sit down with engineers and sympathetically understand their point of view, their problems, and the method of attack, the only one which will successfully solve these problems.
COMMITTEE ON RESOLUTIONS. The following persons were appointed by the chairman of the conference to constitute a committee on resolutions:
P. F. Walker, dean of engineering, University of Kansas, chairman; George W. Dowrie, dean, school of business, University of Minnesota; C. R. Mann, chairman of operations and training division, General Staff, War Department; Joseph W. Roe, professor of industrial engineering, New York University; C. F. Scott, professor of electrical engineering, Sheffield Scientific School, Yale University; and W. E. Wickenden, assistant vice president, American Telephone & Telegraph Co.
SECOND SESSION. Presiding Officer: F. B. Jewett, Vice President, Western Electric Co., Inc., New
COORDINATION OF COLLEGE TRAINING WITH THE INDUSTRIAL
Joint paper by W. E. Mott, director, college of engineering, and W. V. Bingham, director of the division of cooperative research, Carnegie Institute of Technology. (Read by Doctor Bingham.)
Coordination between college training and industrial demand is easily accomplished when the two interests involved have a common viewpoint. But educational institutions are too often unresponsive to outside educative influences, and industry often does not appreciate how the colleges may be of service by providing trained men and women. The World War, however, demonstrated how much help scientific and technical institutions can render our producing and manufacturing interests, and it likewise opened the eyes of those responsible for educational methods to sources of inspiration and guidance of which they had never before been aware or at least had ignored. One may now turn to almost any line of business or industry and find at once alert minds, active, energetic executives who are more than ready to cooperate with our colleges and universities.
The highest ideals in education can not be served solely by the aid of even the fullest measure of cooperation with the industrial interests; and students must not be led to think that earning power, efficiency, high production, etc., are the fundamental considerations even in a technical engineering course. Some educators are disposed to emphasize the immediate ends of educational work. Many agree with the statement of Helmholtz, that whoever in the pursuit of science seeks after immediate practical utility may generally rest assured that he will not seek in vain.
The college tries to accomplish a double purpose, usually in four years—to train for citizenship and for earning power; to develop an understanding of the ideals of the past as well as a knowledge of our fellow workers of to-day; to impart a love for the higher things of life and a spirit of fairness and self-sacrifice in our everyday relationships. Technological institutions accomplish these ends more frequently than do the “old line” colleges. But engineering courses have a way of becoming dangerously narrow.
From the earliest days our best teachers in technical colleges have been teaching about men, but they have dwelt mainly upon the ethical questions of business and engineering.
Recent events have emphasized the necessity of training engineering students so that they will appreciate the business phases of their technical employment. There is now available a fund of knowledge with which all graduates of technical institutions should be familiar; material dealing with economic, psychological, and sociological questions, with men and their relationships one with another.
The industrial demand for curricula modifications is becoming insistent. To what extent should colleges and universities meet the demand and still do justice to the students, in the larger educative sense, and in what measure are the institutions able to satisfy this demand? In other words, how can college training be coordinated with specifications laid down by industry?
The Carnegie Institute of Technology has had, since its inception, a policy of coordination constantly in view. This may be easily seen in our educational experiments in commercial engineering, coal mining, industrial management, salesmanship, and cooperative business and industrial research.
The course in commercial engineering was begun in 1909. In this course we are interested in problems of management and finance as related to engineering work fully as much as in the elements of design and construction. Commercial engineering is that branch of engineering which deals with the problems of production, finance, and distribution in which the elements of management and personnel are of importance. Analysis of the positions held by the graduates of engineering colleges shows, according to “Industrial Management,” that only 15 to 18 per cent remain in technical work. The major portion enter widely different pursuits, although many seek positions of executive or managerial responsibility. This situation, and the need of industry for trained intelligence to direct and operate its complex activities, has caused a number of engineering schools to establish new courses to educate executives, based on a background of mathematics, physics, chemistry, mechanics, economics, and psychology. Commercial engineers are interested in the use and application of engineering tools, while the older type engineer is interested primarily in design and construction.
One of the oldest and most conservative of our local industries is coal mining. In this industry changes in methods of development and operation have come slowly. Workings have extended both laterally and vertically to such an extent that new or modified engineering methods have become imperative. Coal-mining engineering has never attracted many graduates of engineering schools. This situation has been recognized for some years by thoughtful men in the coal-mining industry, as well as by those responsible for training mining engineers in the technical institutions.
On the advisory board are men representing nearly every important coal-mining interest in the Pittsburgh district. The board advises relative to the curricula for four-year mining students, twoyear coal-mining men, and graduates. The companies represented open their mines for inspection and instructional work, send engineers and others who lecture on practical phases of the work and cooperate on research conducted by the officials of the Bureau of Mines and our graduate students. Manufacturers of mining machinery—not less than 35 companies—have either donated or loaned us the equipment for our laboratories. This intimate contact with the industry makes the students feel that they are a part of the business. They are practically assured of summer work and a job when they complete their studies. The companies have sent their promising young men to the school, even financing them in whole or in part. The Carnegie Institute of Technology is so convinced of the soundness of this plan of coordination that we hope to organize similar advisory boards in connection with each of our professional courses.?
The financial index and the salary scale indicate that industry to-day needs engineering graduates who have, or who can develop, executive ability as managers of production, as salesmen, and business managers quite as much as it needs men competent in engineering design.
Another way to measure industrial demand is to note the lines of employment in which technical graduates tend to find their level in industry. When the Carnegie Institute of Technology was founded in 1905, one of its four main departments was called the School of Apprentices and Journeymen. This department aimed to meet the needs of the workers of the Pittsburgh district for a vocational training supplementary to what they could get on the job. Eventually, this school developed a three-year curriculum with a backbone of courses in English, science, mathematics, and drawing, as well as a rich variety of shop practice in the elements of the trades germane to the student's chosen specialty. As the years went on, the graduates of these courses came more and more to be sought by industry, not for jobs demanding manual expertness but for minor executive, managerial, or supervisory positions. In 1919 the course expanded into a full-fledged four-year curriculum for the training of future executives in building construction, machine production, and in printing.
7 Prepared from this point on by Doctor Bingham.
One way of building curricula is to make a more or less arbitrary selection from among the branches of study available, add one or two new ones of an intensive sort with specialized title, arrange these courses in a judicious sequence, and call the whole program a curriculum. The attempt is seldom made to find out whether the topics are really essential, or whether the essential topics are adequately covered. One prime reason why the evaluation of the content of instruction is but seldom attempted is that we do not know with sufficient definiteness and detail just what we hope to accomplish in these several courses.
We knew that we wanted to develop and improve three curricula. But what is an executive? Just what does a manager in each of these three fields do? What are the differences between a successful and an unsuccessful manager? What must the successful executive know? What abilities must he have which this school through its instruction and training can help him acquire? Basic questions of this sort are ordinarly answered by a concensus of opinion.
But the time has come when higher technical education is asking for detailed itemized facts as to what is actually expected by industry of its executives. Our problem was to make a job analysis of the manager in industry.
The technique of making duty analyses and personnel specifications has notably advanced since Frederick W. Taylor published Shop Management in 1911. We undertook in pioneer fashion to use this technique in getting first-hand information from industryas an aid in coming to a decision regarding the content of the new four-year industries curricula. The men spent the entire summer of 1920 in selected typical industries of Pittsburgh and other cities, securing descriptions of duties and personnel specifications of all the executives from the foreman to the president. Whenever a manager was not able to give an entirely adequate account of his own responsibilities, his immediate subordinates and superiors were interviewed; and then, having written out as complete and definite an inventory as possible, the latter was finally checked once more by the executive himself.
These descriptions of executives' duties, or job specifications, were studied and reclassified according to subject matter for the purpose of improving the new curricula. While certain facts only strengthened opinions already reached, others pointed toward large gaps in the program of training. The only function found to be common to all executives, for example, is that of managing men, a function for which the typical curriculum of the past provides no overt training whatever and which many contend can not be taught. We are not certain. We now have courses in management, in personnel administration, and in psychology, which aim to ac