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

and bonus system applied to various forms of our work, not only in the shop but in the drawing room as well, and to a certain extent the class room; but particularly in our shop and drawing room, in which we are using the typewriter more than ever before. Each student in the drafting room for instance is assigned to project clearly stated; cases are referred to-references, magazines, books, periodicals, textbooks and others in which the page and reference may be given so as to save the student's time. A time limit is set on that project, the date is given when it is to be finished, and the student is urged in every way possible to save time, and whatever he saves counts as a bonus.

In the upper classes we find this to be the case: that the men are doing thirty to fifty per cent. more work than they ever did before. If they wish to take the time saved as a bonus, they can spend that time on something else, because they have accomplished the work, and they have done it in a shorter time; or if they desired they can go on and do more work, accumulating a bonus in that way. They have learned to think more expeditiously; to run a machine more intelligently, and to draw with less loss of time than formerly.

Now, in addition to that, grades are assigned for efficiency in this work. A man may secure such a grade as will give him a thirty-three per cent. additional credit so that he will graduate in a shorter time, or as it works out he may use those additional credits for graduation.

Those are some of the ways in which we are trying to expedite the work and we are not able to accomplish much more and with better results for the individual than ever before.

TEACHING SAFETY IN ENGINEERING SCHOOLS.

BY GEORGE W. CASE,

Professor of Sanitary Engineering, University of Pittsburgh.

Workmen have been injured in the course of their daily labor for as many centuries as we have had men toiling for their food and shelter. When the causes of these injuries could be traced to the negligence of the workman or his fellow workman, no one felt any particular concern, for of course, certain chances had to be taken and in some kinds of work more than in others. If it were quite evident that the fault lay with the employer, as our civilization progressed, there was a legal battle and a damage suit to be won or lost. About twelve years ago the heads of several industrial corporations started investigations to determine the causes for the large number of injuries to workmen that were occurring in their plants. Accompanying the realization that these injuries would gradually develop in the minds of the public, an opposition to the industries represented, was an objection to the waste and suffering resulting therefrom. These investigations indicated that many injuries from so-called accidental causes were preventable and that it was possible and highly desirable to reduce their number. It was decided that although the workman might be considered legally negligent when he put his hands into unguarded gears, it would nevertheless be best to guard the gearings and the plants proceeded to guard them. Danger points were thus sought out and industrial operations began to be studied from the standpoint of safety for the workman, as well as speed and economy of production and quality of the product.

At about this time workmen's compensation laws came along and the movement gained additional converts. Of necessity the progress was slow, since plants doing such work