THE DUAL DEGREE FOR ENGINEERING

COURSES.

BY PAUL C. NUGENT,

Professor of Civil Engineering, Syracuse University.

The College of Liberal Arts of Syracuse University graduates its best students according to their class standing during the four years of the college course, "cum laude," "magna cum laude" and "summa cum laude." Since the organization of the L. C. Smith College of Applied Science, its faculty has followed, in this matter, the example of the College of Liberal Arts. Lately, however, there has been some discussion as to the desirability of this plan when the students in question have pursued engineering courses. A committee having been appointed to investigate the matter, it was decided to correspond with a number of prominent engineering schools located in the same general section of the country, and to ascertain their customs and opinions on this subject.

A number of letters were thus received; and, while only one pronounced very strongly against the honor system, most of the schools have not adopted it, and the general trend of opinion seemed opposed to the plan.

The purpose of this "graduation with honors" is twofold; first to reward merit, and, second, to stimulate the student to more strenuous efforts to gain high standing in his class, and thus result in graduating a better class of men. In a measure it fulfills the first of these purposes. It is a satisfaction, and a justly deserved one, for the good student to have his work

publicly recognized. It may be questioned, however, whether the second purpose is accomplished at all. For the honor men will almost always be those who, in the absence of the honor system, would still stand at the top of their classes. There are too many students, both in engineering and elsewhere, who are perfectly contented to graduate, and to these men the obtaining of honors, even if possible, offers very little incentive to more extensive and laborious effort. What can be done then during the college course to obtain better work, not from the best, but from the worst of our graduates. It may, of course, be assumed that all students absolutely unfitted to pursue a course in engineering have been dropped from the college rolls early in the course. Now there are in vogue in the schools of this country two systems of granting degrees in engineering work. Under the first system, on the satisfactory conclusion of the course, the student is granted the full engineering degree and may sign himself C.E., M.E., E.E., etc., as the case may be. Under the second system, the degree granted is that of Bachelor of Science in Engineering. The full engineering degree is given on the completion of say a year of post-graduate work, or perhaps two or three years of practical work and the presentation of a thesis.

This makes practically three systems. As among these three, the writer is strongly in favor of the first and very strongly opposed to the last. It is intended. to suggest a fourth and entirely different plan. The advocates of the third system claim that the average graduate is not fitted to be called an engineer. The same objection applies to the granting of the M.D. degree on the completion of the medical course, or if

it does not, it is because the medical teachers and courses are superior to those found in engineering schools, which we are entirely unwilling to admit. There is no reason why engineering cannot be taught just as practically and just as professionally as is medicine.

The objections to the third system are first, that it amounts practically to making the whole question a matter of quantity instead of quality. What we need is not to have our students learn more things but to learn things more. Compare for instance the cases of a graduate of high standing who for some reason does not follow the profession of engineering for the first few years after graduation and of his classmate who having barely graduated goes out, runs levels for three years, writes some sort of a thesis, and gets his full degree. In the second place, by what right can a school grant a degree for work done outside of its own supervision? How can it determine just what the kind and quality and amount of this work have been? In one case, the candidate may have done a large amount of high class work, and in another practically only routine duties. In the third place, considering the cases of two graduates, force of circumstances may throw work in the way of one while it deprives the other for a considerably longer time of the practical work demanded for the full degree. In these days of "graft" and "pull," the school should be one place where as far as may be possible the same opportunity is open to every man and where recognition follows merit just as sure as merit exists. If we think it best, before granting the full degree let us hold our students to one or more post-graduate years. But let that degree be given as the reward of work,

open as far as possible to everyone, and done under the direct supervision of the school's officers of instruction.

The second plan has its origin in the same idea as has the third. Here we have again quantity vs. quality. The four years of the usual course are full enough in all conscience, but they are long enough to determine pretty thoroughly the stuff that is in a man. The student who has not in four years assimilated enough facts and learned to think and reason clearly enough to deserve the full degree, will not, in all probability, become so qualified at the end of another year. The average engineering course covers the ground pretty thoroughly in four years, and postgraduate work will probably consist mostly of special investigations. As far as the schools have anything to do with it, a man is an engineer when he has suffi cient mental ability and sufficient familiarity with the theory and facts of his profession to practice it with a reasonable degree of intelligence and ease. Four. years is long enough to accomplish this result. It is possible that the graduation, in the past, of a certain percentage of weak men has had its effect in inducing some schools to defer the full degree. These schools would possibly be willing to confer the full degree at once were their worst graduates of equal rank with their best.

The consideration of these facts has suggested to the writer a fourth plan. At the end of the regular four- or three-year course, let two degrees be granted, the B.S. being given to those who have passed in all required subjects but have failed to attain a certain set grade. This grade to take into account (in the case of four-year courses) all the work of the last three years. The required percentage, while reason

ably high, should not be as high as that demanded for what is now known, particularly in Liberal Arts courses, as graduation with honor. This plan places the engineering degree where it should be-on a higher plane than that occupied by the baccalaureate. This is recognized by the schools which now consider the full degree as post-graduate.

The general details would have to be worked out, but it is believed by the writer that no other plan would so stimulate the activity of the lower half of a class. Many an engineering student who would not give a thought to graduating with honors would redouble his efforts when it came to the case of graduating as an engineer. This would especially be the case were the plan adopted among engineering schools generally. Another result would be that almost every engineering graduate would be a man to whom his school could point with confidence and pride. It might perhaps be desirable to hold the way open for the B.S. men to return for a year to obtain the full degree. But in such cases the dominant thought should be that of quality. The post-graduate work should deal not so much with the teaching of new things as with the better and more thorough teaching of the old. It should aim to produce, if possible, better reasoning powers and general ability in the student, and, failing that, the full degree should never be granted.

The writer does not know whether these ideas would be entirely satisfactory in practice, but is inclined to believe, on the whole, that they would. They are offered for the consideration of the society in the hope that a discussion will be had, which, whether or not favorable to this plan, will be of value to the cause of engineering education.