for instance, whose last years of preparation are spent in hospitals and in attending clinics, where he is in the same atmosphere, meets the same men and finds the work almost identical with that of his future professional life. With the engineer, however, there is a very broad element of training which he cannot get in college, because the engineer's work is with men—with common and uncommon men, working men, men in all walks of life. He cannot be a leader, his character cannot be developed (for character is not synonymous with education by any means), until he has had the experience of personal contact with these men; and it seems to me that it is possible for him to delay this contact with the outer world and the men he is to deal with later until after the formative period of his life has passed. Possibly some of this experience may be obtained by a conscientious effort on his part to get into the shops and field-crews during the vacations of his college years; but unless he does that, he is apt to come out into the world at twenty-four or twenty-five or more, too old to adapt himself to the conditions of what we may call the lower spheres of life. It is absolutely essential that he should have a working knowledge of men, and that working knowledge can only be obtained by working shoulder to shoulder with them, during the years when he is not ashamed so to do, and when it is very natural for him to mingle with all classes. So, as I said before, it is possible for one to get too much of a scholastic education at the expense of the real vital experience with the outer world. I understand that the University of Cincin

nati has inaugurated a system of coöperation with the shops of the city whereby students may obtain practical shop experience and academic training simultaneously. This is a practical recognition of the principle I have just stated and I for one shall await the outcome of the Cincinnati experiment with great interest.

DEAN RAYMOND: Professor Chatburn has wondered whether he will have any students in the six-year course. He will. In Iowa we are more nearly situated as they are in Nebraska. Last year forty per cent. of our freshman class were more or less selfsupporting. It is entirely possible for graduates of our College of Arts to finish the engineering work in two more years if they have made proper elections in their college course. We graduate one such man this year, another next year, and probably one or two the year following.

Defending Professor Atkinson's theory of training leaders from the attack made by Professor Franklin, I fancy if Professor Franklin had been trained thirty years ago in language and poetry he would be a leader to-day in literature and politics. Professor Atkinson proposes to pick the best men he can get for the purpose indicated, and then to train them in the best and most efficient wayindividually.

PROFESSOR D. C. JACKSON [Secretary in the chair]: This paper of President Atkinson contains a number of pertinent suggestions. I commend a number of the paragraphs to the thoughtful consideration of this Society. Now, I wish to add, that I do not agree

with Professor Franklin's views and arguments. The engineering teacher ought to study his students with great care and become acquainted with them and with their characters in a manner that is analogous to the manner in which an executive in an important industrial enterprise studies his subordinates. Such a man is able to weed out the poorer men and drop them into some other enterprise, while he selects the better men and boosts them. It is the duty of the engineering instructor, if he is doing his best by his students, to study his students in the same way, and to do it even more carefully if possible. If he gets acquainted with the characteristics of his students in such a complete manner as they pass through his classes, he will be able to say with a reasonable degree of certainty which of the men are going to be the leaders twenty years hence, and which are going to be the men that will never be able to advance beyond' the positions of foreman or superintendent, or something of that nature.

PROFESSOR COOLEY: I wanted to refer to Professor Kent's remarks concerning the four-year course, and the requirements of Latin for entrance. He carried me back twenty-six years. When I went to Michigan I had the same view regarding what a course in engineering should be. Then we aimed to make a young man able to do some one or two things. We attempted to accomplish that much, anyhow. But I have a different opinion now, due, I suppose, to the fact that I have been teaching engineering for twentysix years.

While it is well that a man shall be able to do

some one or two things at least on graduation, it is far more important to-day that he shall be broadly educated, that his education shall fit him to mingle with men and be a leader among them socially as well as professionally. The opportunities for good influence are great, and he should be trained so as to make the most of them.

The young man's preparation for college should be of a kind which will admit of rapid progress after he enters. First of all, in preparing for college, he should have learned how to study. The neglect of this is a sad defect in our preparatory schools, and must I believe be conceded to be the cause of most of the failures which befall the student in his work, and which lead to great and sad disappointments on the part of student and parents alike. Personally I do not care so much what his preparation covers if he has really learned to study. He must of course be entered on the subjects which are to be continued immediately after he gets into college. These are the required entrance studies. The others are immaterial; or, at least, they are not so very essential. At Michigan we like to have a young man come with two or even four years of Latin. We will credit him with Latin on his English entrance requirements if they are deficient. We are glad to do that. We also give a man credit for Greek. We recognize two years of Greek and three years of history, and personally I would recognize anything else that makes for the training of the student preparatory to taking up college work.

I would like to make this point in relation to the

four-year course vs. the five- or six-year course in engineering. Twenty-five years ago in Michigan there was no field for mechanical engineers. I had lived in Michigan three years before I struck my first professional job, and when I rendered my bill at ten dollars a day, it caused surprise. They said they never heard of such prices. Referring to our course of instruction they said, "Your men can't do anything. We want practical men." That was the talk twenty-five and twenty years ago, and even fifteen years ago. But now, what do these men say when they write for graduates. We do not have to offer them our graduates now. They say, "Give us technically educated men. We don't care whether they are civil, mechanical, or electrical engineers. But we do want them technically educated." If that is the demand to-day, it is not so necessary for us to start the student engineer so as to get certain subjects into his four years. I say, give this young man a general training in the engineering subjects which are common to all branches of engineering, and at the end of four years graduate him. Offer courses for the fifth year, and for the sixth year if you will, in advance of those that are offered for the fouryear course. Let a man specialize along any line he pleases in his fifth year, and at the end of that time give him a master's degree. We have a number of men every year who are working for the master's degrees in engineering. We have graduates from the literary department coming into the engineering department taking five and six years to complete their studies-A.B. men-and they graduate with us as