be impossible to put that before you today. I am just trying to give you the spirit of our work. I would like to refer you to the report of our Committee as it has been printed in the proceedings of the Association of American Universities. The Association includes twenty-three institutions maintaining organized graduate schools. The report was presented and discussed at the annual meeting of 1916. We have set forth certain recommendations.

I just wish to touch on one or two things in this connection, and then invite more specifically the coöperation of this Society.

At the present time as has been stated by one of the previous speakers there is a tendency to introduce a certain number of other subjects, presumably in liberal culture in addition to engineering work. Mind you, I am not using that term, because having studied seven years of Greek myself and nine of Latin, I think there is just as much liberal culture in engineering as in these.

But subjects for broadening purposes should be included, and it is of course very important that they should be introduced, languages and economics, etc., so that a man can talk of things outside of his profession and become a better, broader and more useful citizen than if he is a narrow specialists.

That applies to all, not only to the engineer but it applies in particular to the Latinist for purposes of so-called general culture.

Adding other subjects has tended to lengthen the curricula, and we have to move the engineering subjects forward. Fiveand six-year courses are in the making, although you as a body have no definite idea what they should be.

Why not find out? Why not get together and find out what the ideal engineering curricula and the engineering degrees should be?

Then, there is another question. There has been a distinction for a considerable time between pure research and ap

plied research. The sensible scientific men of pure research to whom I think I belong, do not recognize such a distinction between pure and applied research. There is no distinction in scientific research.

You may lay emphasis on development. We may lay emphasis on fundamental principals. It is all research of the same dignity and value. On that account the question has arisen as to whether when research is combined with advanced training for a profession, the practising profession, it would not be proper to have a single research degree to be all.

If your engineering degree is to be a professional degree and you want a separate research degree the question arises, Shall it be Doctor of Engineering or shall it be Doctor of Philosophy or of Science? Most of you do not favor the doctor of philosophy for engineering research. But after you reflect awhile you may not feel as antagonistic to it if you realize that this degree has come to stand for professional training in research in academic subjects. And see how it would simplify things, how it would give a national significance to the expression doctor, and how it would reduce the number of degrees.

Now, it is very nearly eleven o'clock, and while there are other important points that I would like to bring before you, I think you have probably grasped the spirit of the work that the Committee has undertaken, and for which it asks your coöperation.

As Chairman of the Committee of the Association of American Universities, I should very much like to have you appoint a coöperating committee, which would undertake a study of present conditions and present tendencies regarding engineering curricula and degrees because just as the Peace Conference was based on an inquiry made under the direction of Mr. House-I do not know how much it has been used-anything you want to propose must be based on present conditions. You must find out where you stand, what the nature of the flux is that is going on now, what the ideals are that

you wish to reach, and then you will come to a common understanding.

And just one word in conclusion. The Association of American Universities has I think been very useful in the development of the common ideals of the graduate school, for it started at a period of time when the graduate school was in its infancy. It adopted at once the principle, that, no action of the Association should be binding on the individual institution. The ideals were defined, discussed, and then the sentiment of the meeting tested by a vote, and it has been found that this sentiment has been far more binding than any definite resolutions that could be adopted.

I thank you.

DISCUSSION.

The President: I did not know the specific things which Dean Leuschner would put before you, the specific statement, but I believed he would put before you a pretty clear and broad view of the case, and that the question would be put very clearly. Shall we have a committee on degrees for the coming year?

We have about four minutes before we must adjourn. Do you wish to discuss this paper?

Professor Park: May I ask Dean Leuschner if we can get copies of that report on degrees?

The President: The question is asked, Dean Leuschner, whether we may get out copies of that report on degrees.

Professor Leuschner Write to Dean Roble D. Salisbury (?), University of Chicago, who is now secretary of the Association of American Universities.

A. M. Greene, Jr.: Mr. President, in speaking regarding the paper by Dean Leuschner and also by our past president, I know that most people speak of trying out the five- and sixyear course at present. Many of us fail to realize that a fiveyear course at least was tried many, many years ago at the University of Pennsylvania. I believe from the very con

ception of the Towne Scientific School in about the year 1876 the five-year principle was carried out.

The first two years of the course were devoted to cultural subjects, mathematics, language, history, science, followed by two years of science, with a slight amount of engineering, ending with the degree of bachelor of science. Then followed a postgraduate year, the fifth year so-called, in which the work was absolutely along one of the five lines of engineering.

The last class to follow that scheme was the Class of 1901, a four-year course having been organized in 1890 or 1893. I think it was 1890.

The success of the four-year course was merely an economic result. The students could not afford and would not afford the five-year course, and so the five-year course practically disappeared.

The five-year course is not a new thing. It is an old thing and well tried out, and it had many, many advantages. Men trained at first were trained along general lines and then along the specific lines of their own choice.

VOCATIONAL CORRELATION.

BY O. J. FERGUSON,

Acting Dean, Professor of Electrical Engineering, University of Nebraska.

Many studies have been made and figures tabulated showing the very serious replacement factor for labor in industrial organizations. Some large concerns have gone through the experience of having to hire during one year a number of workmen equal to the maximum number of employes engaged at any one time. Such a 100 per cent. turn over is woefully draining. It is extravagant, for it costs from a few dollars up to two or three hundred dollars to hire a new man, break him in, pay for his inefficient development period in spoiled work, slow production and interest on value of equipment tied up. We have recognized that the problems of "hiringand-firing' are real and oftentimes vital. The drift of labor from job to job is appalling, and much has been said and done to relieve the situation.

There are striking parallels and contrasts between the case of the lobarer and the case of the college trained technical man. When the laborer becomes dissatisfied with his work he moves on to another place where he does the same kind of work, in the same way, or he may without very great effort change his occupation and do better or do worse. He will generally go adrift again. But the rut is deeper for the man who has painfully prepared himself to practice a profession, and even a mediocre success binds him to employment which he may never be able to do well. The laborer is restless, roving and desultorily ineffective; the professional man is lingering, stumbling and continuously impotent. Society suffers doubly in each case because of a piece of work poorly done, and because of a man not well employed. Although the professional man cannot be so easily tabulated as the drifter, his case is more serious than that of the laborer.