effective in aiding the development of this special ability. No school can, of course, make business men or successful administrators of its students; neither for that matter can it make engineers of them; but there appears no ground for doubt that it may do for their business training what it certainly now does for their strictly technical training, viz., introduce the subject to them in a systematic and rational manner and then thoroughly inculcate the fundamental principles of the subject, thus giving the young engineer a framework on which to build and classify the results of his experience.

In a paper entitled "The Study of the Principles of Administration in Engineering Schools,"* read by the speaker before this society at the Buffalo meeting in 1901, the subject was presented at some length under the following heads:

1. Are there clear-cut, definitely-expressible principles of administration which may be formulated in such general terms as to be comprehensive, and still sufficiently definite to be useful as guides in practice?

2. Does the work of the engineer, in its numerous divisions and ever-widening scope, call for administrative ability?

3. To what extent, and how, may the work of the engineering school be made to contribute most effectively to the development of this administrative ability?

It is not intended to enter again into a detailed consideration of the importance or scope of the training proposed, nor of the details of possible plans for giving the instruction. These latter must of neces

*The paper was withdrawn by the writer for some corrections after being read, and was prevented by an emergency from being returned in time for publication.-O. H. L.

sity be developed by each school in accordance with its own policies and its own controlling conditions and circumstances. The recognition of the necessity for such administrative training as an essential part of the outfitting of the young engineer, once having been generally established, the elaboration of ways and means as well as of details will naturally follow.

Turning to the other topic of suggested importance in the young engineer's training, viz., the development of his æsthetic character, the subject lays claim to a two-fold consideration-the broadening of the man and the increase in his capacity for enjoyment and for filling the sphere of a cultured citizen on one hand, and on the other the utilitarian, though not less valuable accession to his economic capacity as a designer of things that shall be at the same time beautiful and inspiring, as well as strong, durable and efficient.

Under the stimulation of a new country, the absence of trammeling precedents and conditions, and strong free competition, American engineers have taken first rank in efficiency of design and construction when tested by strictly commercial or utilitarian standards. Unfortunately less than this must be said of their work when examined for grace and beauty or for the presence of that artistic fitness which is the essential harmony between the form and the substance, between beauty and usefulness, between the artistic and the utilitarian, in the engineer's work. The reasons for this discrepancy between the constructive and the artistic efficiency of our engineers are the natural and logical results of our past national environment, necessities and development. We have neglected the beautiful in our engineering constructions because we

could and were obliged to do without it, because our people as a whole did not miss it nor demand it, and finally because our engineers were not trained to supply it. But all this is changed, or changing. Our wealth and education now make culture and art possible and warrant full consideration for the beautiful. Our people in larger measure than formerly appreciate and demand it, and our engineers must respond and supply it.

This subject has been most admirably treated by Prof. Frank O. Marvin in a carefully prepared paper entitled "The Artistic Element in Engineering," which was presented as the vice-presidential address before Section D, "Mechanical Science and Engineering," of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at the Buffalo meeting in 1896 and appears in the proceedings of that meeting. It is not over-drawn approbation of this paper to say of it that nothing has appeared which so intelligibly and so hopefully treats the subject by pointing out the shortcomings, outlining the possibilities, and urging the further development of the artistic element in engineering training and work.

FRAUD IN EXAMINATIONS.

BY FRANCIS C. CALDWELL,

Professor of Electrical Engineering, Ohio State University.

The subject chosen for this paper is one of the least pleasant with which the educator of the present day has to deal, but it is one which is now demanding his attention most urgently. The force of this demand doubtless varies greatly in different institutions. But one of the most serious features connected with this question of fraud is the difficulty of knowing when and to what extent it exists. Again and again instructors have stated that there was no fraud in their classes; they knew that they were able to watch the students so thoroughly that nothing of that sort could be done; and yet former students of these same instructors have told of case after case where fraud had occurred. One therefore accepts with much hesitation the statement of anyone that fraud is absent from his classes, without first investigating the grounds for his assurance.

Different cases of this evil can be pretty accurately distributed into two classes; in the one the students bring with them written or printed matter, commonly known as "ponies," while in the other, the illicit information is obtained from others who are taking the examination. Of these two, the latter is probably the more common form of fraud. To prepare a pony and take it into a classroom implies a degree of premeditated wrong-doing of which, it is thought, not many college students are guilty; it is a form commonly employed by the more capable students, who have

neglected their work during the term, and its successful use usually implies rather a high degree of expertness. On the other hand the obtaining of information from the other members of the class is often not premeditated and is done because the recipient finds himself in imminent danger of failure and therefore under extraordinary temptation.

From these facts it follows that the first form of fraud is the more likely to aid in sending out from the university dishonest men. While there are many who are inclined to make a distinction between dishonesty in school work and dishonesty in other matters, it is hard to believe that the man who will deliberately cheat in his class work will be scrupulous in his methods when he sees an opportunity to advance his interests in after life. On the other hand, the second form of dishonesty is chiefly responsible for lowering the standing of the college graduate as a man of ability. It unquestionably allows an appreciable number of men to gain college degrees who would otherwise not be able to complete the course.

The question as to which of these forms of fraud is the more deplorable is an open one. The obtaining of information from others during examination is unquestionably the more insidious and the more calculated to break down the honesty of weak men. There can be little doubt that many a student has committed his first fraud through accidentally catching a glimpse of the work of another student sitting near him. Thus, as an efficient means of training students in dishonesty, especially where due precautions are not taken to make such inter-communication between them difficult, this form of fraud should be regarded as a most serious menace. On the other hand, the use of