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 I 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 struc ́.tural 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

of its work and regrets that it was not given more attention in the discussions.

Mr. Hollister finds it necessary, as the committee did, to express his views on education in general, as a background for specific discussion of the matter at hand. He says the object of any educational process is to awaken the spirit; that the process is dynamic and deals more with the relationship of accumulated facts than with the retention of facts for their intrinsic value. He closes as he opens with emphasis upon methods of teaching and the insistence that real live vitality is an essential ingredient.

He makes the usual plea for a broad course and suggests that much of it should be considered as a background for the accumulation of details during subsequent study and practice.

He states the generally accepted fact that structural engineering is founded upon the mechanics of engineering and upon the theory of elasticity, but recognizes the need for much greater emphasis upon the latter than is usually given to it.

He believes in a more rigorous undergraduate course than now prevails as well as a broader one, and the four years' training should be supplemented by graduate work, which delves deeply into the theory of structures.

Mr. Godfrey contends that the emphasis, in college work, is wrongly placed; that theory receives too much attention and "ordinary horse sense" is inexcusably neglected. He cites a number of failures of engineering structures to sustain the position; and, to make his criticism constructive as well as destructive, gives many an illustration when a structure could have been saved, and theory left unscathed by a searching review from a purely practical standpoint.

We cannot but agree with him that an instructor's success will be enhanced as he succeds in instilling the common sense view point into his students and we will hope that this can be done in connection with rather than at the expense of a rigorous theoretic analysis.

Mr. Schmitt makes effective use of the opportunities, the

powers of observation and the facility of expression of the technical editor. He not only agrees with previous writers that the present day courses need revision but points out that just now an opportunity exists for replanning courses and revising methods that has never come before and that may never come again.

He agrees also with Dr. Waddell and Mr. Indenthal that a large proportion of the college men do not get value received from the present engineering courses. He joins the former in a request for a short practical course as a quicker means to prepare the routine man and a higher engineering course for the one with the ability and the inclination to dig deep, recognizing also that this may have to be more than four years in length. He makes the suggestion that, for local reasons, the two may have to be adjusted so as to coördinate to a certain

extent.

Mr. Schmitt notes that practice and the schools are not in complete harmony and assumes that the trouble lies chiefly with the schools. At least he says it is the school's duty, to the state as well as to the student, to equip the student for the demand, not to equip him for a non-existent demand or to misequip him for the existing demand.

The committee admits the premise without accepting the conclusion in its entirety. No doubt the schools could devote more study to the demand to advantage; but wouldn't the harmony which Mr. Schmitt fails to find be more apt to follow from coöperation between the colleges and the employers of college men? Are we sure that the present "demand" is the best for all concerned?

In direct reference to the structural courses, Mr. Schmitt calls for unity of treatment. Teach structures, he says: emphasize the structural principle rather than teach this or that class of structures. He thinks that the teaching of design as a specific subject is a mistaken policy. He would use examples of design when necessary to illustrate principles.

It is significant to note that nearly all of the men who have