OPENING DISCUSSION OF THE TOPIC, "ORGANIZATION OF AN ENGINEERING
ALUMNI COUNCIL"
By Allen Jeter Saville, '08, M.E., Director of Public Works, Richmond, Va.
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen:
Some years ago while on a visit to the University several of us were
talking of our experiences, and discussing what we thought of the training
at the University in the light of these experiences. That conversation resulted
in my being asked to present this paper to-day.
As you know, engineers are now split up into so many different specialties
that it is not possible for a young man at college to get familiar with all
of these specialties. The best thing to be done at college, I believe, is just
what is being done here. That is, teach the foundation principles, and leave
it to the man to later supply the technic of his chosen specialty.
There are several reasons why this is the best course but perhaps the
one that will first occur to a man who has not been at college for ten years is,
that it is very difficult to dig into the fundamental principles, after a few
years out of college.
There are some drawbacks, however, to this method of teaching only
the fundamentals at college. I think that the greatest of these is, on account
of the theoretical nature of his training a graduate does not appreciate the
practical limits of application of theory. I remember hearing of the two
Engineering seniors who had to get the contours of a mountain ravine, and
set their pegs ten feet apart each way. Of course their work was accurate
but there was no need of this accuracy. Another result of the specialization
that is now in vogue is, that college men become narrow and develop in a
one-sided fashion. This is decidedly to the disadvantage of the students, as
very few of them know exactly what line of work they will get into before
they have been out of college many years.
How to retain at the University our present system of teaching the
fundamentals, and at the same time remedy the drawbacks to this method
is the proposition that we are here to consider this afternoon. When I
speak of the University teaching fundamentals, I do not mean that practical
consideration is altogether neglected, but I mean that theory rather than
practice is emphasized.
The suggestion offered for your consideration as a remedy is as follows:
That at least once each term an alumnus read a paper before the whole
Engineering School, on some practical work, in some branch of Engineering.
This scheme, I believe, has many interesting possibilities.
In the first place, it provides for the student some definite, tangible
evidence of the practical application of the work he is doing. In the
second place, these papers will necessarily be on various kinds of work so
that the student gets a view of the practical limits used, and also gets some
insight into the practical work of many lines of Engineering. Incidentally,
it will undoubtedly help the younger student to decide what branch of
Engineering he would most likely take up, by giving him a clear picture
of the work being done in the various lines. The benefit to be derived will
not be confined to the student. Such a scheme will keep the alumni interested
in the University, and I believe will be also very interesting to the
faculty in that it would keep them informed as to the methods used in
practice that would perhaps not otherwise be brought to their attention.
I do not believe it will be difficult to get the alumni to take hold of this,
as the papers are not supposed to be essays on highly technical subjects, but
rather simple descriptions of work done and methods used. I think that
these papers should preferably be written about work the alumnus was
engaged in himself. They might describe design or construction. The
main point should be that they are to be practical, and as far as possible in
detail.
Now, as to the practical operation of such a scheme, I would suggest
that there be a committee of ten, consisting of two professors, two students,
and six alumni, with the dean of the department as chairman; the two
professors to be appointed by the dean, the two students to be elected by the
student body, and the six alumni to be the last six speakers. This may seem
a rather unwieldy committee but I believe that these many are needed in
order to keep in touch with the various interests.
Of course, money will be needed to pay expenses. My suggestion would
be that the students contribute one dollar a year each, and each alumnus
be asked to contribute an amount sufficient to meet all expenses, perhaps
not over two dollars and a half each.
I think that in order to relieve any embarrassment, the University
should pay the expenses of every alumnus who returns to the University.
I believe that if this scheme is put into operation it will prove to be both
interesting and profitable.
There is no reason why engineers not alumni should not be asked to
address the student body, but I believe it would be best always to have three
a year from the alumni. Of course we all know that engineers are not very
keen for making speeches but this proposition is simply reading a paper
describing some work with which he is thoroughly familiar.
If this scheme is good enough, it should be adopted, and if adopted
carried out enthusiastically.
There are many other benefits to be derived by this contact between
the alumni and students, and I hope the scheme will be given a trial.
