previous thirty-one years about 300 students. During the next five years the number increased from six to twenty-one, and the total of engineering graduates from 300 to about 850.

The schools had very inadequate resources; engineering laboratories for general instruction were practically unknown,-although here and there a professor was improvising experiments on a small scale; (tests of materials by practising engineers not here considered;) text-books were few and many derived from abroad; instruction was probably more largely by recitation from the book, with great emphasis on purely mathematical exposition, according to the methods of Navier, D'Aubisson, Morin, Bresse, Moseley, Rankine, etc.; the subjects taught were much the same by name as those taught to-day, but not so many, not so practically developed, and without aids now deemed essential; they were, however, fundamental, and the capable student got a firm grasp of principles.*

An important feature of the situation at that time was the general sentiment of the profession towards the schools. This appeared emphatically in the memorable joint discussion of 1876 before the Engineering Socities-provoked by the notable paper of Mr. Holley on "The Inadequate Union of Engineering Science and Art." It was claimed that engineering instruction was almost solely devoted to abstract principles; that it was largely misdirected because sepa

* See Rickett's History of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, p. 99, for programme of studies and text-books in 1854. This names 29 text-books, -eight of foreign authorship,—and alludes to 129 works of reference in English, French and German.

rated from the objects, phenomena and conditions of practice; it was, therefore, ineffective and usually contemned by the practicians; the spheres of the investigators, school men and men of engineering affairs were too wide apart, and their labors not correlated; the young graduate was said to be nearly useless even as a conservator; a change was demanded which would result in a better adaptation of means to ends and make the graduate more immediately available. Never before had activity in all construction been so widespread. Railroads, bridges, water works, sewerage works, and mining and metallurgical plants were demanded over the face of the continent. Hundreds were crowding or were being pressed into service with little or no proper education. Chainmen and axmen speedily became transitmen and "engineers." To such practicians the defects of the schools were more obvious than their own deficiencies. Yet the value of technical training began to be realized by some who had only crude ideas as to what it should be. Those who believed in giving first place to theoretical instruction could point to examples of noted engineers both at home and abroad. But the field was widening; new materials and forms of construction were coming into use; new experimental data were needed; hence the proper scope for an engineering course was rapidly enlarging-and there was good reason for the demand that the schools should keep in better touch with the profession.

With this necessary background, familiar, perhaps, certainly brief and imperfect, we pass to a view of

THE PAST QUARTER CENTURY OF ENGINEERING

EDUCATION.

Extreme brevity is compulsory; the leading facts and conditions may be well enough known; suggestive outlines must suffice.

Progress appears by contrasts. A special Committee of this Society reported last year 109 institutions rated as engineering "colleges" or schools, including all grades. This is a five-fold increase since 1871 and is certainly excessive.

In 1892, the total of graduates from 52 engineering schools, recognized as such in the series of articles by Engineering News, was about 9,000. Of these, 5,400 from 45 schools were rated as civil engineers; about 2,800 from 33 schools as mechanical engineers; about 870 from 15 schools as mining engineers; and more than 200 from 20 schools, within the previous two years only, as electrical engineers. This differentiation dates from about 1867 for mining schools, from 1870 for schools of mechanical engineering, and from 1885 for courses in electrical engineering.

Within the colleges we find notable expansion into other special courses, denominated: railroad engineering, hydraulic engineering, sanitary engineering, chemical engineering, etc., to such extent that in some quarters ten or more distinct courses are offered, for some of which the proposed outcome is specialists in as many separate branches of engineering.

Thirty years ago the few schools were in modest quarters, with scant equipment. Now the many schools have ample buildings, and some occupy struc

tures which are magnificent, and even extravagant, in size and appointments, notably in Europe.

A quarter century ago student work in the laboratory was just initiated by an American professor and scientist for the study of chemistry and physics.* Now we are in an age of laboratories. Not only are they provided for testing all important properties of materials on the largest scale, for hydraulic tests and verifications, and for metallurgical studies, but a recent writer has said that a mere list of the subjects for which there exist well-equipped special laboratories, would antonish even the most well-informed man.† What is now deemed adequate instruction for the would-be mechanical and electrical engineer becomes impossible without at least a moderate provision of standard machines and measuring appliances. Although it is a fact that the magnificent library and museums of ancient Alexandria had auxiliary laboratories for researches in anatomy and physiology, the modern application for instruction is hardly older than the present generation.

Then European schools were regarded as models. Now some American schools have no superiors for meeting the demands of American practice. Moreover, both German and English educators have quite recently recognized the superiority of American schools in their ef fective use of the engineering laboratory, and have urged the adoption of similar means in their own countries.‡

* Prof. Wm. B. Rogers.

† Johns Hopkins Hospital Bulletin, No. 58, Jan., 1896.

It must be remembered, however, that as early as 1878, Prof. Kennedy established the first engineering laboratory in the United Kingdom, in University College, London, whether for general use by students the writer does not know. See Engineering, LV., 728.

Then handicraft had not been recognized in our educational methods, although shop-work instruction was just gaining some attention as an innovation from abroad. Now, not only for trade schools, but in leading engineering schools, the manual training in carpentry, smith work, foundry work and machine work is carried to its full value for an engineering courseand, perhaps, more than a little beyond.

But progress measured only by quantity, and objectively, may be more apparent than real. Schools, with their appliances, are but means to an end. From the concrete and visible we must look for an invisible or spiritual result, which like energy is measured solely by the effect produced. Hindering conditions must be recognized. Doubtless there are, to-day, too many schools and too many students; doubtless standards of admission are too low, and, consequently, too many studies are forced upon immature and half-trained mental capacity, which is unable to co-ordinate the great variety of work, and derive therefrom a wellbalanced and effective discipline; doubtless some are beginning too early, without the needed foundation of general culture, and then turning with undue haste into some specialty, so as to integrate the professional life between narrow limits from which it may be difficult, if not impossible, to retrieve it. Doubtless there have been cases of misdirected private munificence in the starting of new institutions, instead of strengthening the old and well-tried; doubtless one-half of the present number of schools with the same total of resources, might meet more effectively all real demands; yet each has apparently a legitimate field. There are