THE MECHANICAL ENGINEER'S POINT OF VIEW
By William Carrington Lancaster, '03, M.E., E.E., of New York City
It is a far cry from the young engineer graduate proudly wearing the
emblems of many college societies, and glorying in a long list of honors won
in the classroom and in athletics, to this same graduate, a few months later,
in overalls and a flannel shirt. No matter how brilliant has been his career
through college, no matter how high have been his marks on examinations,
no matter how profound his knowledge of mechanics, of hydraulics, or of
thermodynamics, the mechanical engineer graduate must don the garb of the
laborer, and learn by the sweat of his brow, the practical details that are
essential to the successful practice of his profession.
More appealing is the early work of the civil engineer. His life is largely
in the open. "The Call of the Wild" attracts him. His is a picturesque
figure as he peers through a transit, standing in sunny fields of green and
waving to his rod-man away off across some babbling brook. He appeals
to the popular imagination. The hero of the novel, if he is an engineer, is
always a civil engineer.
Not so happy is the lot of the young mechanical engineer. There is
nothing picturesque about the grease and grime of the machine shop, or the
rattle and bang of the boiler factory. But he must spend several years, at
least, in some such shop or factory, before he has learned enough of the
practical side of engineering to be eligible for a position of responsibility.
This is true even when he had graduated from one of the large colleges with
magnificently equipped shops and laboratories, where he has spent many
hours and has become familiar with every machine. How valuable then is
the college degree to the mechanical engineer?
The great national engineering societies all have as a requirement for
full membership, an engineering degree plus a certain number of years of
experience in responsible charge of engineering work; or, a certain larger
number of years of experience without the college degree. For example, the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers requires an engineering degree
and three years, or five years without the degree. In other words the degree
is considered equivalent to two years of experience in responsible charge of
engineering work.
The engineering college then does not turn out a finished product.
When he leaves college, the engineer graduate is nowhere near ready to
practice his profession. To a limited extent, the same thing may be said of
the other professions. The graduate in medicine generally takes a postgraduate
course at some hospital; the young lawyer often serves as little
more than a clerk in some large law firm; and the preacher begins with a
small country church.
But the medical graduate is very soon a full fledged doctor. His hospital
course may last only a few months, or he may elect to take none at all.
Just as soon as he passes the State Board examinations, which he does
promptly before he forgets what he has learned at college, he starts the
practice of medicine and is in responsible charge of the lives of his patients.
The graduate in law likewise passes the Bar Examinations just as soon
as possible and can then practice law. He is in responsible charge of the
rights of his clients.
The preacher starts to preach as soon as he enters his little country
church and immediately is in responsible charge of the souls of his flock.
It is not so with the engineer. He has no State examinations to pass.
The law does not create him an engineer by giving him a license to practice.
No license is required of him. He stands solely on his merits. Perhaps it is
partly for this reason that he must go through long years of arduous work
with small pay before he is recognized as a real engineer.
An important question then presents itself.
Is there something fundamentally wrong with our method of teaching
engineering, and should the engineering college attempt to turn out the
graduate so thoroughly instructed in both theory and practice that he can
more quickly take his place in the world as an engineer ready and capable
of taking responsible charge of engineering work?
Apparently the answer is both "yes" and "no."
In the first place of course the graduate is too young to be immediately
put in responsible charge of important work. He must first learn such
things as organization and directing the work of others. His judgment is
apt to be faulty. These things come only with experience and the passing
years. But we are not concerned with these. His shortcomings merely
because of his youth cannot be helped by the college, and they apply equally
in other professions.
What we have to consider are questions as to whether the courses of
instruction can be changed for his benefit, and if so how we Alumni can
help to do it.
Doubtless many young men are deterred from taking up engineering,
and especially mechanical engineering, by the thought of the long years of
disagreeable and poorly paid work that must follow their graduation. Possibly
many brilliant minds are thus lost so far as mechanical engineering
is concerned. Other professions get them. For this reason it would seem
desirable to so change the course of instruction, if possible, that the young
engineer may arrive at the desired goal with less time given up to drudgery
of his profession.
The chief criticisms of the young mechanical engineer, fresh from college,
seem to be:
1. Ignorance of the value in dollars and cents of engineering materials,
and how to estimate the cost of engineering work.
2. A tendency to be too theoretical, and not to give due weight to
the commercial side of the problem. He forgets that the added cost of
making a machine of a few per cent. higher efficiency may be more than
the capitalized annual saving in power consumption due to this higher
efficiency. Manufacturers' standards mean little to him, and yet they are
all-important to the experienced designer.
3. An inadequate knowledge of fundamental theory, especially as
regards pure and applied mathematics and mechanics.
4. Insufficient knowledge of engineering practice. This applies to
practical things to be done with the hands, such for example, as what to
do when a bearing runs hot; and also to the practical calculation of engineering
problems, such, for instance, as how to figure the characteristics
of a centrifugal pump for a new set of working conditions.
5. A lack of knowledge of the English language. The engineers who
are quite unable to write a good engineering report are all too many.
And sadder still is the fact that many young engineers cannot even write
a grammatical letter.
On the other hand, can the engineering college be expected to give
sufficient training in shop work and practical engineering methods? Obviously
it cannot. Not even the great northern and western colleges, with
endowment funds of vastly more than "three million dollars," can afford
the large and expensive machinery, nor could they keep up with the rapid
changes and improvements even if they once had this machinery. And too
something more must be learned than mere familiarity with this and that
type of machine. One must rub elbows with the mechanic and eat from the
same dinner pail to reap the full benefits of the democracy of the flannel
shirt.
It would seem then that some middle ground must be found. Certainly
there is room for improvement in the teaching of theory and its
practical application to engineering problems. As regards shop work, would
it not be better to let it be clearly understood that the college makes no
attempt to educate the engineer along these practical lines? Let us tell the
prospective young student of mechanical engineering, frankly, that he will
receive only the theoretical side of his training at college and that he must,
after graduation, devote several years to learning practical things in some
large machine shop, power house, or factory. Then reduce the amount of
time that the student must spend in the college shops to a minimum. Use
the machinery only to illustrate the application of the theory. Give the
student every minute of time possible to work on fundamental theory; for a
man can do only so much in a day, whether that work be done by his hands
or with his brain. There is no use in his learning to be an expert lathe hand
in the college shops, for he may have to go all through it again on a bigger
and better lathe. If he learns this work at college he neglects his theory,
which he will find it vastly harder to learn in the years that follow his graduation.
Four years are little enough to learn even the fundamental theory,
especially when each college year is only some eight months long.
But these are all grave questions. They are perplexing. Engineers
doubtless differ regarding them. They require deep study. Changes in
existing methods of instruction should be approached carefully, and with a
full knowledge of modern engineering practice and what will be required of
the young engineer. How then can the college professor be expected to
answer these questions and plan the courses of study without the continual
coöperation and assistance of the practicing engineer?
An Engineering Council, to act in an advisory capacity and composed
of some ten members chosen from the engineering alumni, has been proposed.
Surely such a council would be of inestimable assistance to the
engineering faculty, and aid them to shape the courses of instruction so as
to best meet the difficulties that have been pointed out.
As loyal alumni we have given of our means to the endowment fund,
every cent that we could afford, but every one of us would like to have given
more, had he been able. Here then is an opportunity to give of our time and
our brains. The Council will be of little value unless its members give it
their best thought and are willing to sacrifice ample time to it. Those who
are not on the Council, too, can be of assistance by answering intelligently
and promptly the questions that the Council will doubtless put to them.
Our beloved Alma Mater asks us, through her engineering faculty,
to help her. Let us welcome the opportunity. Let us have the Engineering
Council.
