that the validity of such tests have been demonstrated. Our Society should by all means raise a committee to study more thoroughly these tests, and if found to be what the psychologists claim for them they should be standardized for engineering students.

In order to popularize the S. A. T. C. movement a publicity campaign under the direction of the American Council on Education, of which the S. P. E. E. is a constituent member, was inaugurated. The estimated probable enrollment in the United States was 111,097; the actual enrollment was in excess of 250,000. While this sudden influx of students more than kept the enrollment of the schools up, nevertheless, on account of the required changes in courses and methods, on account of the necessity of housing and feeding the students, the schools were hard put to it, and considerable dissatisfaction due to these more or less chaotic conditions existed in many schools.

SOME REASONS FOR FAILURE OF S. A. T. C.

The general plan of the S. A. T. C. was excellent. The students were to receive regular military and educational training, a definite number of hours per day of each. Had the plan been carried out in its entirety, it is thought by those who have made a close study of the work, it would have been extremely successful. In addition to the unpreparedness of the colleges the following causes may have been conducive to the feeling of dissatisfaction with S. A. T. C.: First, there was considerable delay at the beginning of the school year because the process of induction was slow; the military blank forms were not forthcoming; the work was new to the young, inexperienced officers in charge; the students had not become accustomed to the new life, and class and study periods were not definitely arranged. Second, about the time these difficulties were overcome the epidemic of influenza struck the camps, thousands of student soldiers had to go to the hospitals, excitement ran high, and matters became disorganized.

Third, just as everything was again beginning to become stabilized the armistice came. Students, though sufficiently patriotic to submit to military supervision and restrictions in time of war when there was real need believed as soon as the war was over they should be restored to their old time freedom of movement and action. They were actually glad when their discharges came.

Some day when time lends perspective the true history of the S. A. T. C. movement will be written by someone capable of setting forth its good and bad points in a systematic, concise manner. We, who had something to do with it, may be proud that we rendered every help possible to make a success of the greatest educational experiment ever attempted. An experiment stopped by a great world blessing, the signing of the armistice. Organization had not been completed; mili-. tary men inexperienced or not wholly in sympathy with the educational side were in command; and the inflenza epidemic and various other causes prevented a fair try out. Educators, as a rule, were glad to give it up, but some there are who yet believe there is much good in the principle of having students, especially in the lower classes, under rigid discipline; that eventually the dormitory system will take the place of the military barracks and that facilities for supervised study will greatly enhance the efficiency of our educational institutions, that though seemingly put to death by the ending of the war, its good points may still live and influence the world's education for all time to come.

DISCUSSION.

C. J. Tilden: This is one of the most interesting, instructive and valuable papers that has ever been published by this Society. I am sure that I voice the sentiment of the entire membership in expressing the gratitude and appreciation of the Society to Professor Chatburn for preparing it. One needs only to glance through it to see the great amount of work that has been put upon it, and the admirable and valuable shape in which it now stands.

It is a remarkable record really; and perhaps the first thought that comes to one on reading it, especially in view of the particular time we are in now, is what the next twenty-five years are going to bring to the Society and to the field of education that we represent? I am not going to attempt prediction, but there are one or two points that come to mind, and one of these that I should like to emphasize is touched on on page 26 of this paper in what Professor Chatburn has to say about history and biography. Not only is the history of engineering education important, but I think it is the duty of this Society to take up the whole question of the history of engineering activity. It is a profession that has a wonderful history, a history that goes far back into the past and it is a subject that has been much neglected. It could certainly be made a most valuable part of the inspiration and education of college students. They are particularly susceptible to the records of the achievements, the study and past performances of men in the profession they seek to enter, and that is something that ought to be taken up more in detail, and something that this Society could well foster.

Another point is also one that has had suprisingly little attention. Professor Chatburn speaks of the emphasis that has been placed, in the past quarter century's record of the Society, on what to teach rather than how. And if the "how" is important how much more so are the personal qualifications of the teacher. But there is no general specification for a teacher of college grade, no attempt anywhere to formulate his training, experience, personal qualities, etc. For a profession that is severe and exacting in most of its relationships, we are singularly haphazard in picking our teachers, the very place it would seem where the most severe and most exacting requirements should be demanded.

This need for plans and specifications of a strict engineering sort, for the guidance of those who could become teachers as well as for those who must choose them, is one of the greatest needs today in the development of engineering education.

If something of the sort could be done it would easily be the next big step forward. It could hardly be done by this Society alone, but in coöperation with the national engineering societies a formulation could be accomplished that would be satisfactory—at least for a time-and carry great weight of authority. This suggestion was made in Minneapolis last week at the meeting of the Development Committee of the American Society of Civil Engineers. The expressed desire of the national societies to make their organizations more effective and useful would lead to a ready and prompt response from all of them if the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education expressed a wish for coöperation or help.

I want to express again my own great satisfaction and profit in reading this paper, and that I am sure is something we all feel.

R. L. Sackett: Mr. President, I have enjoyed very much this survey of the history of the Society.

I happened to be one of those present at the first session when this Society was organized, and I shall never forget the inspiration from the high ideals expressed by those members of the profession there present. We look back upon them and realize that they were the leaders and that they had the vision of the Society.

I want to emphasize one thing. In the earlier session of this Society there was presented to its membership the ideals of engineering education; and where the ideals have been presented and the defects shown and suggestions made for improvement there has been an enlarged measure of success, it seems to me.

The Society has on occasions attempted to suggest action on specific matters. I shall illustrate by over emphasis: For instance, where we have attempted to unionize or suggest a specific procedure or the number of hours to be devoted to a given subject we have not succeeded. Where we have pointed out defects and suggested what the ideal should be we have

won our greatest success. Take English for instance. It is not important it seems to me for the engineering schools that this Society should specify the quantity of English. But it is highly important that now somehow we should coördinate with the teachers of English to engineers, in order that we might get a closer coöperation between the teachers of English and the teachers of engineering, so that each might understand the ideals and the ideas of the other.

I submit again that the most important thing in the history of this Society is the constant maintenance of high ideals, suggestions of how improvements can be made, without any attempt to specify what the content of subjects for entrance or in the curriculum should be.

J. J. Flather: I wish to call attention to a paragraph on page 32, in which it is stated that the results of the five and six years' courses have not proved to be satisfactory in practise. At the present time the question is debatable as to whether it is desirable to open up our courses and extend them to five years. Personally I am a firm believer in a five years' course for engineers. If we are to give our engineering students the necessary preparation for engineering work and at the same time fit them for citizenship and for those positions which an educated man ought to occupy in his community, we must introduce subjects other than engineering, which in the crowded state of the curriculum of four years seems almost impossible, therefore, I think a five-years' course is the logical and proper course. From an experience of eight or ten years at the University of Minnesota, when we have had seventy to seventy-five per cent. of our seniors come back for the postsenior year, it would seem as if the students themselves were in favor of the longer course.

At the same time even in the five-years course we should use every possible means to speed up the process, as Professor Chatburn has mentioned. It might be interesting to state here that one way in which we are accomplishing results that were undreamed of five or six years ago is by using the task