the schools which are required, and we are taking eight or nine common subjects and are trying to get down to a common basis of definition. That is all we are after now.

It seemed to the speaker undesirable to single out shop work in preference to many of the other subjects which might properly be defined and put in this list; that we should keep the list as it has been given us, and get together on that first, and later on it may be feasible to make an additional list and define that.

PROFESSOR SPANGLER.-Professor Spangler said that botany had been defined as to the amount which should be presented, primary and intermediate French and German, chemistry, physics, and many subjects with which engineers have nothing to do, and it seemed to the speaker that this very subject, shop practice, which is a matter of considerable moment, has been dropped entirely; that the associations of colleges and schools in the East and Middle States have entirely ignored the fact that there are such things as manual training schools. The speaker thought it desirable that, as quickly as may be, we should get the manual training work where we can take care of it.

PROFESSOR TALBOT.-Professor Talbot said that for several years until last year the University of Illinois had among its electives of entrance requirements the subject of manual training, but that it was found that the best manual training schools, including the two manual training schools in Chicago, teach manual training well enough to be applied upon the work in shop practice in the engineering courses, and that other schools were doing so little or so poorly that their work

in manual training was not acceptable for entrance. The speaker thought, therefore, that some standard should be made which would allow the schools to know what was expected in such a subject.

PROFESSOR C. M. WOODWARD.-Professor Woodward said he still thought that manual training is the one characteristic of those courses of study which are specially preparatory for engineering. That the others are not specially characteristic, and he thought, therefore, that the time has come when recognition should be given to the subject and he accordingly made a motion to that effect, which motion was adopted.

EXCESSIVE DIFFERENTIATION IN ENGI

NEERING COURSES.

BY EDGAR MARBURG,

Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Pennsylvania.

The subject of specialization in engineering courses may be presented in numerous phases calculated to give rise to prolonged and inconclusive discussion. If attention be confined, however, to its salient features a substantial unanimity of opinion will be found to prevail among engineering teachers. This is manifest from a comparison of the engineering curricula at different institutions. There are, it is true, occasional tendencies towards specialization to an extent which most of us, perhaps, would deprecate. Such instances are, however, exceptional; the curricula, on the whole, exhibit a remarkable degree of accordance.

It should be stated at the outset that the present discussion will be limited to a consideration of the question in its bearing on courses in civil engineering in the commonly understood scope of that division. The aim will be to keep in view average, present-day conditions, rather than conditions more or less ideal which may or may not be realized at an uncertain period in the future. It will accordingly be assumed that the prescribed requirements for admission to the engineering course are such as can be fairly met by the average high school in our larger cities, and that the length of the course is four years. These conditions, fairly characteristic of our better engineering schools, will

tend to restrict debate to definite and somewhat narrow limits.

It will doubtless be conceded that the first two years should be devoted mainly to language and science studies, with especial emphasis on mathematics, as the indispensable groundwork for the later technical subjects. The program may also advantageously include various courses in drawing, descriptive geometry, surveying and elementary mechanics. It is believed that this represents fairly the usual curriculum for the first two years. Nor is it easily conceivable how, under present conditions, this program is susceptible of improvement in any essential particular.

I shall not assume to designate more definitely the particular subjects to be included in this first half of a four-year course in civil engineering; still less to specify the relative time to be devoted to each subject. Within reasonable limits these matters must be governed by attendant circumstances and individual judgment. There are, for example, some who hold that all students in civil engineering should receive practice in shop work, and make provision accordingly during the first or second year. Others claim that such work, to the extent to which it can be introduced, is of little or no permanent value. There are again those who, conceding the desirability of such instruction, consider the time element prohibitive. And, finally, there are some who, endowed perhaps with a keener insight or a larger vision, avow their own uncertainty. What man, or tribunal of men, can assume to settle such questions with confidence and precision? And who, indeed, will insist that they should be settled to a nicety?

In a general way it is true, however, that the subjects commonly prescribed for the first two years are of such fundamental and far-reaching importance, that there can be little thought of specialization. While it is conceivable that certain minor options may be safely offered, the curriculum in all essential features must be a rigid one, or the students' interests will inevitably suffer.

In the upper years the course naturally grows more uncompromisingly technical. The cultural subjects are sacrificed to the relief, usually, of the student, though possibly to his ultimate disadvantage. However that may be, the more immediate technical needs are so numerous and apparently so pressing that it seems hazardous to pursue a different course. Moreover, it is necessary to make provision during this period for a group of collateral subjects which in the aggregate make no inconsiderable inroads on the limited time available. It is believed that no plea for differentiation can avail to justify the excision of such subjects as astronomy, metallurgy, mineralogy, advanced physics, and the law of contracts, however much opinion may differ as to the time that may properly be assigned to these topics. The recognition of geology and assaying, however desirable, appears less essential. Again, any projected scheme of specialization in civil engineering, aiming to exclude instructionelementary though it be-in steam engines, boilers and pumps, and in applied electricity, seems fairly open to serious criticism.

Coming now to what for present purposes may be termed the purely civil engineering subjects, and leav