[COPYRIGHTED] U. S. NAVAL INSTITUTE, ANNAPOLIS, MD. A POST GRADUATE COURSE IN EXPOSITION INTRODUCTION In 1916, at the request of the Secretary of the Navy, the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education appointed a committee to inspect the Post Graduate School of the Naval Academy, and to make recommendations concerning its needs, as well as to compare it with other technical schools. Among the recommendations of this committee was the following: The work of the Post Graduate School should not be confined to the year which the students spend at Annapolis. The school should be a living force permeating the entire corps of officers of the Navy. All graduates of the Naval Academy, in whatever branch of the service, should be encouraged to correspond with the officers of the Post Graduate School and to resort to them for advice and assistance in any technical problems with which they may have to deal. The Post Graduate Department should send out printed or typewritten information which it considers of service to officers, and should keep in touch with them after graduation. The School must not become an . . . . institution for a few . . . . men. Every officer in the Navy should feel that it is his school whether he has ever been a student there or not. . . . . The School should be liberally supported by Congress, and recognized as a most important and valuable branch of the Navy Department. .... Further to accentuate the increasing importance and the enlarged possibilities of the school, two concrete illustrations will suffice: First, the Post Graduate School now has a large and well-equipped building of its own. Since its foundation as the School of Marine Engineering in 1909, and until its studies were temporarily stopped by mobilization in 1917, it had occupied cramped and inadequate quarters in the loft of the Marine Engineering and Naval Construction building, Isherwood Hall. It opened its post-war career, however, in the spacious structure formerly used as the Marine Barracks, which for some months previous had been thoroughly remodeled and renovated. Secondly, as evidence of the complete recognition of the school's standing and prestige, it is worth while to quote from the address delivered by the Secretary of the Navy at the opening exercises, June 16, 1919. Mr. Daniels then said, in effect, that in the future no naval officer "should reach the rank of captain unless he had had engineering experience, and particularly in this Post Graduate School." This article on one of the so-called non-technical courses at the Post Graduate School is written, then, partly because it is consonant with the recommendations of the visiting committee in 1916, and partly as the beginning, however modest, of a possible series of articles in the Naval Institute which shall keep the naval service in touch with the school, and, what the committee might well have added, as equally or more important, keep the school in touch with the service, by discussion and correspondence. One of the less strictly technical courses at the Post Graduate School is chosen as the subject of this article because the scientific courses in the curriculum are being reorganized, and the methods to be followed in the near future, no less than the schedule, have not as yet been definitely decided upon. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION Before describing, however, a specific course in Exposition adapted to the requirements of the Post Graduate School, it seems necessary to consider the fact that the circumstances to be found at a post graduate school for naval officers differ to a considerable degree from the circumstances to be found at the leading civilian technical colleges. Not only is the naval profession distinct from all others, but the time available for all courses at the Navy's Post Graduate School is much less than the time given to study at institutions of a technical character with which it may to some extent be compared. For these reasons the problem involved in planning a course in English for the Post Graduate School at Annapolis will be more clearly understood if we outline the background, or the recent developments in engineering education which have aroused the keenest interest of leading engineers, engineering societies, and the presidents and faculties of engineering schools. A brief review is therefore given of recent discussions tending to improve courses in English for technical institutions. Although the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education was founded in 1892, and has held annual meetings since then, there is as yet no general agreement as to the material and methods to be used in English courses. Engineering Education, the magazine of the Society, established in 1918, has published in almost every month's issue one or more articles discussing the question, and the Society has appointed a standing committee to investigate the problems involved in English courses. This committee on English is composed of C. W. Park, Chairman, University of Cincinnati; Frank Aydelotte, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; J. R. Nelson, University of Michigan; and S. A. Harbarger, New York City. In its preliminary report (Engineering Education, June, 1919) the committee makes the following statement: "From communications received since the re-opening of the colleges, it is evident that the temporary suspension of the usual courses has been in some respects beneficial. Instructors show a disposition to revise their subject matter and methods, and they bring to the revision a variety of experience and a fresh point of view, gained in some form of war service. The new start in all lines of instruction makes the time a propitious one for a re-examination and, where desirable, a reconstruction of the curriculum." It is evident from the foregoing statement that the committee expects substantial improvements in the teaching of English in engineering schools; it is also evident that at the present time they consider the situation to be in general unsatisfactory. Their report then refers, as might be expected, to the most thorough investigation of engineering education ever undertaken, namely, that of Dr. Charles R. Mann, whose report upon his three years and more of effort devoted solely to this subject was published in 1918 by the Carnegie Foundation for the advancement of Teaching. In order to appreciate the value of Dr. Mann's report, and hence give it its true weight, it should be understood that his exhaustive investigation-to quote the President of the Carnegie Foundation, Dr. Henry S. Pritchett-" arose out of the action of a joint committee on engineering education, representing the principal engineering societies. More than three years P ago (or about 1914) the committee had gathered a considerable amount of material bearing on the subject, and had come to the opinion that the work could be best carried out by the employment of some one trained in applied science, who should devote his entire attention to the study, working under the general direction of the committee and in touch with it. The Carnegie Foundation agreed to appoint such a man and to bear the expense of the study. Professor Charles R. Mann, of the University of Chicago, undertook the work under these conditions." Such is the prestige of the Mann report that it is still being studied by the heads of engineering schools the world over. Therefore, if we cannot find in this highly respected bulletin of the Carnegie Foundation some definite idea of the status of English courses in engineering schools, we cannot find it anywhere. Accordingly, the more important points dealing with this division of Dr. Mann's report are quoted in the following extracts: With regard to instruction in English, the engineering schools may be divided into two approximately equal groups, the one composed of those schools that maintain the current standard college course; and the other composed of those that are trying to discover a type of work better suited to engineers. In the standard type, of course, the student studies a textbook of composition and rhetoric, learns the rules of correct punctuation and paragraphing, together with the four forms of discourse, and then writes themes on assigned subjects selected by the instructor to give practice in either description, narration, exposition, or argumentation. In some schools the strict adherence to this plan is mitigated [sic] by allowing a choice from among several assigned subjects. The accompanying study of literature consists of a brief survey of the lives of great writers and the analysis of selected passages from their writings. This well-known type, of course, was developed during the latter half of the past century for the purpose of making English an acceptable substitute for the classics in high schools and colleges. Doubtless because the professional engineers have been so frank in their demand for better training in English, about half of the engineering schools are experimenting with their methods of teaching this subject. These experiments are so varied in plan and execution that it is not possible to classify them. One of the more radical of these is described in Chapter X. The description thus referred to is as follows: Perhaps the most striking experiment with this aim is that now being made by Professor Frank Aydelotte in coöperation with the members of the department of English of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. At this school English is a required subject for all students throughout the first two years. The first half of the freshman year is devoted to general composition, with the object of eliminating the more common errors of construction and of leading the student to see that excellence in writing comes not so much from the negative virtue of avoiding errors as from the positive virtue of having something to say. The work of the second term of the freshman year begins with a class discussion of such questions as: What is the difference between a trade and a profession? What is the meaning of the professional spirit? What should be the position of the engineer in this new era of the manufacture of power-that of hired expert or that of leader and adviser? Is the function of the engineer to direct only the material forces of nature, or also human forces? Such questions readily arouse the interest of engineering students and bring on thoughtful discussion, in which different points of view are expressed by the students and debated with spirit. Essays by engineers are then assigned for reading, and after further discussion each student is asked to write out a statement of his own position on the mooted questions. These themes are criticized in personal conferences in which faults are corrected by asking the writer first what he intended to say; and, second, whether the sentence or phrase in question really says it, rather than by reference to formal rules of grammar and rhetoric. Those who have had experience with this work claim that once the habit of self-criticism from the point of view of the idea is established, the student makes astonishing progress in the ability to express himself clearly and independently; he gathers hints from all sources; and in ways too complex for pedagogical analysis he is more likely to acquire such power over language as he is naturally fitted to possess, than he is by current formal methods. . . Having discussed the question: What is engineering? the class proceeds in the same manner to wrestle with such problems as: What is the aim of engineering education? What is the relation between power of memory and power of thought? Is there any connection between a liberal point of view and capacity for leadership? What qualities do practical engineers value most highly in technical graduates? . . . . What is the relation of science to literature? The authors read in connection with the discussion gradually change from engineers to scientists like Huxley and Tyndall, and then to literary men like Arnold, Newman, Carlyle, and Ruskin. The student seems to read this material with no less keen interest than was shown for the writings of engineers; so that through his own written and oral discussion of masterly essays each comes to work out for himself some rational connection between engineering, with which he began, and literature, with which he ends. No orthodox point of view is prescribed; his own reason is the final authority. A similar experiment along analogous lines is being made by Professor Karl Young [formerly Professor of English at the Naval Academy] and his colleagues in the department of English at the University of Wisconsin. Reports indicate that this type of course is a great success there also. The materials used in both these courses have been reprinted in book form for the convenience of the classes. [Aydelotte: English and Engineering. |