The pos seriously into account in its organization. session of a well-equipped laboratory for student instruction is very properly a strong card for any engineering school and if, in addition, the organization and equipment are such as to admit of making important research, it becomes of still greater value to the reputation of the school. It is to be remarked, however, that those features of laboratory which are most effective as an advertisement are not commonly those which are of most use for laboratory purposes, and it is greatly to be feared that in some instances the desire to attract public notice causes the incorporation of some expensive features only calculated to serve this purpose. The possession of unusual machines which may be exploited in the newspapers or shown to visitors with a catalogue of the remarkable investigations which might be made with them is sometimes very attractive. It is so gratifying to be able to exhibit an apparatus with the remark that "it was made for us in Switzerland, a similar one is in use at Munich, but this is the only one in this country," and hear the admiring visitor exclaim, "Just think, the only one in the country, isn't it lovely and complicated!” Apart, however, from the buncombe apparatus to be found in some laboratories, there seems to be a tendency toward the excessive increase of laboratory appliances. The effort to keep up a continual publication of researches, with the introduction into the courses of student researches, causes a large increase in laboratory apparatus intended for all sorts of experiment. Much of it is devised without reference to the value of the work to be accomplished and considerable in genuity is sometimes expended in finding subjects for investigation and inventing complicated appliances for doing quite useless things. This tendency is unfortunate because it belittles genuine investigation and lessens our appreciation of the value of the work of the laboratories. These laboratories are now a most important feature in engineering education. The value of an engineering course depends largely upon the efficiency of the laboratory instruction, and it is of prime importance that the laboratories be so equipped and operated as to secure the best results. To this end it is essential that the laboratory man, although largely concerned with the construction and operation of apparatus, keep in view the fact that his work is intimately connected with that of other departments of instruction, and that, while an effort should be made to teach the student to be skillful in the manipulation of apparatus, and accurate in observation, these things are not in themselves the most important object in laboratory work. REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON ENTRANCE REQUIREMENTS.* In making the present report it may be of interest to review briefly the work of the Committee in successive years since its appointment at the Brooklyn meeting in 1894. In that year circulars were sent, first, to heads of colleges and schools giving instruction in engineering subjects, asking information as to existing entrance requirements, and second, to select secondary schools, asking replies in regard to facilities and expressions of opinion as to various questions connected with admission to engineering colleges. In 1895 a preliminary report was presented based on the replies to the above circulars, and including tabulations of the requirements of one hundred and nine colleges: As to entrance conditions; As to admission by certificate; As to uniformity of requirements; In 1896 a second report was presented including a fuller analysis of the material collected in 1894, and, in particular, a classification of colleges into five groups on the basis of entrance requirements; a tabulation of the number of colleges requiring particular subjects; a table of subjects required by 25 per cent., 50 per cent., or 75 per cent. of the colleges reporting; a tabulation as to entrance conditions; a tabulation * The names of the members of this Committee appear on page v. as to admission by certificate; statements in regard to assistance to preparatory schools; considerations determining changes of requirements; individual expressions of opinion; an analysis of replies from schools with particular reference to the following: the proportion teaching advanced subjects; length of course; definitions of entrance requirements; desire for uniformity; admission by certificate. The report further contained a general statement of principles and a series of conclusions and recommendations. In 1897 an informal report was presented and the Committee was made a Standing Committee to carry out the recommendations of the previous year. In 1898 a second circular was sent to colleges included in the 1896 list asking for criticism of the statement of principles for admission by certificate embodied in the previous report and for information as to changes in entrance requirements since the earlier tabulation. At the meeting of that year the Committee presented a third report based on replies to this circular and the question raised by the Committee of attempting an expansion of its work in the direction of formulations of requirements in particular subjects accompanied by an increase of the size of the Committee. This question was referred to the Council and ultimately answered in the affirmative. In 1899 no report was presented in view of the brief interval since the action referred to by the Council. In 1900 an informal report was presented calling attention to the organization and plans of the College Entrance Examination Board of the Middle States and Maryland. In 1901 a fourth circular was issued to members of the Society containing formulations of the following At the meeting of the Society no formal report was presented other than the text of the above circular. Replies were received from representatives of about thirty-five colleges. It must be admitted at the outset that the significance of any inferences deducible from the replies is seriously impaired by a misunderstanding of the inquiries themselves on the part of many of our correspondents. In spite of the fact that the circular letter sought criticism of definitions and not change of the list of requirements of any institution, the replies to Question No. 3-"What is the probability of the acceptance of the above formulation by your institution?" were repeatedly of the form-"We require it now," or, "We cannot require this subject," and entirely inconclusive as to approval or disapproval of the formulation as such. It seems, therefore, unwise to attempt to make specific quantitative statements in regard to these more or less ambiguous answers. The following criticisms among others are embodied in various replies. It will be observed that some of these apply rather to the choice of subjects defined than to the definitions themselves. |