Editorial - Education - Theory Or Practice

EDUCATION is a business; and, if the consumer is satisfied with the product, no one has any grounds for complaint. "Pretty well satisfied" about slims up the attitude of the mining industry toward the young graduates presently entering the field. Yet, with amazing regularity the controversy over the five-year curriculum recurs in educational circles. The educational mills grind out their products, some higher grade than others, depending on individual proclivity. The cycle continues almost without interruption. Arthur Taggart, however, takes his bowie knife to some of the sturdiest limbs of the tree of knowledge in his article on engineering education on page 770 of this issue. As all who know him might suspect, the pruning is not restrained. With one swing of the knife, such practically-labeled courses as Mine Design are stricken from the tree and transplanted to the field of Graduate Education. Emphasis on the basic sciences and the study of man through courses in history, economics, and literature are recommended to constitute an undergraduate curriculum. Such courses show the least depreciation and therefore give the student the most for his money. Partial justification for this dramatic departure from tradition is explained by the increasing number of companies giving training courses. Why make the student pay for what he can get paid for learning after graduation, the author argues. Other leading educators espouse this doctrine. Dean S. C. Hollister of Cornell, for the Committee on Adequacy and Standards of Engineering Education, recommended to ECPD in 1951 that emphasis be placed on the basic sciences. "Sifting back through the curriculum, it seems clear that instruction in the basic sciences, if taught in a manner such that knowledge of them makes available working tools, contributes the most sustaining part of the curriculum", reported the committee. Note that he would utilize practical problems from the fields of engineering in teaching the sciences. In our opinion the important thing to learn in college is how to think the engineering approach. Recitation on traditional solutions of classic problems sharpens the memory, not the ingenuity of the student. The engineering schools of the nation recognize the advantage of great emphasis on fundamentals, and the inclusion of cultural courses in the curriculum. However, industry presently requires graduates to have a substantial knowledge of the tools of the trade upon graduation. This means that the colleges are forced to pare to the bone to encompass the required studies in the time allotted. In addition, there is the limitation of student money. College educators also claim that entering freshmen are often improperly prepared in such subjects as writing and mathematics. These considerations make it difficult for the critic of the engineering graduate to make any headway with the educators. Actually with the mounting problems imposed by lower grade and more complex ores, a new breed of engineers is needed. The impetus for this new product must come from industry. If there was a concerted effort from industry for an improved type of engineer, the colleges would modify their aims to meet the demand for the kind of individual desired.