ing. Our students should be urged to prepare themselves for these higher and wider fields of usefulness. To this end, I believe that every engineering course should contain a onesemester, three-hour course, covering the general field of business economics, administration and management. Such a course should discuss the fundamental principles of business economics, finance, trade, production, labor and transportation. The students should be given considerable outside reading, and be required to solve problems and prepare reports on important phases of the subjects included. It is my opinion that such a course should be administered through the school of commerce, but subject to the approval and general supervision of the engineering school.

The writer has found upon investigation, that a number of the leading engineering schools of the country give a threehour course in business economics and management, as has been outlined above, and that this course has proved to be a successful and valuable part of the curricula. Twelve hours has been devoted to work of this nature for a great many years, in the engineering course at Union University, with considerable success. However, the writer does not approve of devoting so much time to even a subject of this general importance.

Many teachers of economics have complained of the lack of interest and attention on the part of students in their courses. The writer believes that this condition implies the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the teachers and the improper presentation of the work. A subject like economics presented in a dry, abstract way, with merely routine assignments from textbooks, is bound to result in dull and uninteresting presentations. A live teacher, with a background of practical experience in the business world, can easily arouse the interest and enthusiasm of his students by vitalizing the study of the principles of economics with illustrations of their practical application, and especially through the working out of practical problems and investigations of business and institutions. Such a

training would give our engineering graduates a thorough working knowledge of the fundamental principles of business economics, which would be of material assistance to them in laying foundations for broad and successful careers.

During the last six months since the signing of the Armistice, the writer has talked with a large number of men who are leaving the government service and returning to the practice of their professions in civil life. The majority of these men have been engineers and architects who have been working for others in more or less subordinate positions before entering the government service. Nearly every man has stated that it was his intention to either go into practice for himself, as an architect, engineer or contractor, or to enter the business side of his profession. Many of these men informed the writer that they had been preparing for this change by outside study of business courses such as are offered by La Salle University, the Alexander Hamilton Institute, and similar institutions. These men uniformly expressed their lack of business knowledge and training for which as they believe, some foundation should have been laid during their college course.

The recent Conference on Commercial Engineering held under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Education in Washington, brought out very closely the need of training for engineers in various branches of economics and commerce, and sounded a note in education, which the members of this society and the institutions they represent, should not disregard.

In conclusion, I would suggest that those members of this society who have to do with the preparation of the schedules and curricula for engineering courses, should consider the advisability of establishing the following yearly course in economics, this course to be given in the junior and senior years of all engineering courses: First semester, a three-hour course in the general principles of economics; second semester, a three-hour course in the economics of business, covering administration, management, production, finance, trade, labor and transportation.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE NO. 15-CIVIL

ENGINEERING.

ASSIGNED SUBJECT, METHODS AND DETAILS OF TEACHING STRUCTURAL DESIGN.

During the two years since the present committee was appointed it has been impossible to get more than two of the men together at one time and, therefore, the work has been done almost entirely by correspondence. After the first few exchanges of letters, it was decided to make the following assumpptions as a basis for discussion.

"1. Structural design includes the treatment of all static structures whose designs are based on scientific principles and mathematical calculations, therefore including structures of reinforced concrete as well as of steel and timber.

"2. The structural design courses are to be considered as a part of the curriculum in civil engineering and must be studied as an integral portion of it and not as independent courses; therefore—

"3. The work of the committee must include a discussion of the general features of the entire curriculum and go into detail for the courses in structural design.

"4. The general curriculum should be fundamental in character and broad in scope."

The tangible work of the committee thus far has consisted of three papers published in the June, 1918, BULLETIN and reprinted in the 1918 PROCEEDINGS, followed by eight discussions which appeared in the BULLETIN for April and May, 1919.

The committee wishes to express a hearty appreciation to the eminent engineers and teachers who have contributed to this discussion. These contributions should prove to be valuable additions to the literature on engineering education, aside from their direct bearing on the question at hand.

As a basis for putting before the convention the conclusions and recommendations which the committee feels may follow these discussions, a brief review is made.

Mr. Fowler suggests that the purpose of the first year of a college course should be to determine the aptitude of the student and that the drones should be removed as soon as practicable. He thinks that self-reliance begins to come during the course in proportion to a thorough understanding of fundamental theory and the ability to apply it; and that this cannot come to a satisfactory degree until the student is able to think in moments, shears and other basic terms.

He advocates work as draftsman, timekeeper or even as laborer.

Dr. Waddell maintains that the rank and file of technical men, the minor draftsmen, the surveyors, the inspectors, etc., do not receive the right kind of training; that they need short, limited, thorough practical courses without frills.

As a ground work for the professional engineer, he still advocates the "higher engineering course" he proposed a score of years ago. He now recognizes a post graduate course will be necessary and would make the undergraduate four years work general and fundamental. He distinctly states that this course should differ materially from the standard engineering course of today.

He does the committee the honor to discuss separately each of the four subdivisions it had made. Among his constructive criticisms for a revision of courses, he calls attention to the discouragement felt by so many freshmen and sophomores in being compelled to concentrate their efforts upon subjects which seem to them at the time to be foreign to engineering without getting even a real glimpse of what they thought they were going to do. He advocates, therefore, for the underclassmen "short preliminary courses in all subjects dealing with structures, so as to teach them the names of all principal parts thereof (including the most important details), the characteristics of the materials that enter into the construction, the

methods of manufacture and the different ways of erection to meet the various conditions."

He emphasizes the necessity for giving attention to the training of instructors by adding to Professor Smith's five essential qualifications of a good teacher, four others relating to practical experience, interest in the profession, economic phases of design and ethics and equity.

Mr. Gillette, in his discussion, refers particularly to Mr. Burt's paper on "Objects of a Structural Course," and he heartily commends it. With Dr. Waddell he believes there is need for radical changes in present day courses. His criticism centers upon the tendency, as he finds it, to discourage (he uses a stronger word, atrophy) the instincts of exploration in the student.

He expresses a fear that the present tendencies to emphasize principles may be carried too far and would reverse the usual order by teaching details first as a background for principles. He suggests the formation of habits (of study and work) as the prime object of college work.

He follows a number of definitions of structures and structural engineering with a discussion that is interesting and to the point.

Mr. Lindenthal finds an under supply of skilled structural men and an over supply of poor ones. He believes that most students are kept at school too long; that only those should be allowed to remain after their twentieth year who are worth educating for the higher branches of engineering. Those who are dropped should go directly into the trades and the more apt of them eventually given special training in night schools to provide recruits for foremen, superintendents and practical managers.

Professor Basquin feels that the committee has not given the necessary attention to the matter of training of instructors. He offers a few suggestions for approaching this neglected field and emphasizes the need of systematic work.

The committee early recognized this as an important phase