« PrejšnjaNaprej »
the historical aspects of mechanical engineering were discussed. The purposes
of different courses in the curriculum were analyzed through lectures, and these were followed by special talks on the methods of teaching these subjects. A series of lectures on the advanced phases and application of mechanical engineering were delivered by noted authorities.
An important part of all the summer schools is the preparation of committee reports, which are intended to summarize the conclusions reached by those in attendance.
In nearly all cases all of the teachers, including guests and staff members, are housed together. This arrangement affords excellent opportunities for the informal exchange of ideas and the formation of friendship between those in attendance.
The interest of the land-grant institution in improved teaching is evidenced by the fact that 137 teachers were represented as members and on the staff of the four schools as follows:
TABLE 8.-Teachers represented as members and on the staff of five institutions
Salaries of engineering teachers.-In Table 9 are given the maximum, minimum, median, and most frequent salaries for land-grant college engineering teachers of different ranks as derived from institutional reports. These figures are very nearly the same as those compiled by the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education as reported in Bulletin No. 4 of the Investigation of Engineering Education. Considering the earnings of engineers in practice these salaries are extremely low.
TABLE 9.-Salaries of land-grant college engineering teachers
111490°-30VOL 1 54
Individual reports from 1,425 engineering staff members, including those employed both full and part time, show the following distributions:
TABLE 10.—Number of staff members employed and salary range
These regular salaries were supplemented in relatively few instances by perquisites. The reports show 24 teachers receiving perquisites of less than $500 in value and 17 of greater value than $500. Nor are institutional earnings for extra work, such as night classes, extension and summer session, very great. In 79 cases they were less than $299; in 113 from $300 to $599; in 36 from $600 to $899; in 18 from $900 to $1,199; and in 20 more than $1,200.
It is frequently assumed that engineering teachers add considerably to their salaries by outside earnings. Reports on this point are very incomplete but are sufficient to indicate that in many cases the amount of these earnings are sometimes exaggerated. Of the 1,425 individuals reporting 890 did not furnish information, but the following summary shows relatively few large additional incomes from employment outside institutional earnings:
TABLE 11.-Number of cases and amount of earnings outside of institution
Outside engineering practice by teachers.—Only three land-grant colleges do not permit their engineering teachers to do outside engineering practice during the academic year; all of the other institutions either encourage or do not restrict such outside practice, provided it does not interfere with the institutional duties of the teacher. In practically every institution it is expected that engineering teachers will keep their superior officers fully informed of such practice. In several institutions outside engineering practice may be carried on only upon the approval of the dean of engineering, who
is held responsible by the president of the institution for the type and quantity of such outside practice. No institutions place restrictions upon engineering practice by staff members during vacations.
Only in rare cases are teachers permitted to use institutional laboratory equipment in connection with their private practice. Usually problems which require equipment become projects of the engineering experiment station of the college, and all fees for such services go to the institution. In only three colleges are engineering teachers given extra compensation for tests of materials or machinery sent to the laboratories for such tests. All of the institutions charge fees for such tests, but in nearly all cases these fees are either appropriated to the department carrying on the tests or to the engineering college.
In nearly all cases teachers are forbidden to use the name of the institution in reports in connection with their private practice. The use of institutional stationery is also discouraged for other than official correspondence.
Tenure and factors influencing promotion of teachers.—Thirtyone institutions reported indefinite tenure for deans, professors, and associate professors. Assistant professors and instructors are usually employed for terms of one to three years. Assistants and fellows are appointed for one year.
In considering promotions, 38 institutions state that they place first the teacher's ability to arouse and to interest his students, 44 institutions place teaching ability first ; 36 knowledge of the subject; 28 loyalty; 23 ability to cooperate and mental balance; 25 attitude toward the student. Nineteen institutions place promise of growth in the first place and 24 in the second place; 14 place fairness in grading in the first place and 29 in the second place. Personal traits are considered of major importance by 14, of secondary importance by 31, and of minor consequence by 2. Research ability is given first place by only 2 institutions, second place by 28, and 15 consider this of little or no importance. Personal leadership is given first place by 9, second place by 33, and 4 regard this as a minor qualification. Length of tenure is not given by any institution as of major importance, 25 consider this important, and 20 feel that it is of litttle or no importance. Authorship is given second place by 23 and an equal number consider this factor of no importance. Executive ability is placed first by 3 institutions, second by 23, and of no importance by 19.
From the foregoing it is evident that ability to interest students, teaching ability, knowledge of subject matter, and loyalty are the major factors which are considered in connection with the advancement of teachers.
Chapter VI.-Support and Organizations
Budgets of expenditure8.—The annual budgets of the expenditures of land-grant engineering colleges for a 5-year period are given in Table 12. These figures show that about $11,000,000 were expended for engineering education at land-grant institutions during the year 1927–28. .
TABLE 12.-Annual budget of expenditures for engineering in land-grant
Salaries and wages.
884, 137 273, 814
$6, 112, 701 $6, 216, 710 $6,854, 017 $7, 274, 571
578, 003 619, 172 670, 398 650, 90S
339,098 197, 325 432, 780
10, 810, 22
This expenditure has increased $3,045,414 during the 5-year period, or 39 per cent. The budget allowance for salaries and wages has increased during the same period $1,148,951, or 19 per cent. It should also be noted that the total expenditures of the land-grant institutions for salaries and wages were $70,709,216 for the year ending June 30, 1927. The expenditures for engineering salaries and wages for the same year were $7,274,571, or slightly more than 10 per cent. For materials and supplies in the year 1927–28 the engineering colleges received $650,908 out of a total of $34,937,742, or less than 2 per cent. The capital outlay for engineering for the same year including replacements and new equipment was $541,494 out of a total of $4,990,478, or nearly 11 per cent. Land, buildings, and other permanent improvements represented $849,546 out of a total of $14,076,455, or about 6 per cent. During the same year the engineering enrollment of these institutions was 29,528, plus 1.216 in architecture, out of a total of 149,606 students, or nearly 21 per cent. Since slightly more than half of the teaching load of engineering students falls upon the colleges of engineering, the budget allowance for engineering is low. The engineering student enrollment in the land-grant colleges during the period from 1923 to 1928 has increased from 24,792 to 29,528, or 19 per cent, and the budget allowance was increased by about the same amount.
Gifts for engineering. During the 5-year period 1923–1928 the land-grant institutions received from industry a total of only $1,410,305. Of this amount only $140,880 was contributed for resident teaching, $28,682 for engineering extension activities, and about one and one-third million dollars for engineering research. Actually, the gifts from industry for resident teaching are somewhat in excess of the $140,880 already indicated, as considerable equipment is being
presented by industry to the engineering colleges, the exact value of which can not be accurately estimated. Despite a popular impression that industry is contributing considerable sums to engineering education, it is clear that it is contributing directly only a fraction of 1 per cent of the actual cost of this type of education. The responsibility for this type of education as for others lies, and should continue to lie, with the public.
Budgets for engineering research. For the year ending June 30, 1928, the total expenditures for engineering research at 48 landgrant institutions were $498,646 of State funds as compared with $8,492,639 for agricultural research at the same institutions. In 1925 the ratio of expenditures for agricultural and for engineering research was 21 to 1, in 1920 it was 30 to 1, and in 1910 the ratio was 50 to 1. These data show that support for engineering research at land-grant institutions is increasing, but that the total amount is small considering the great numbers of industrial problems that are dependent upon engineering research for solution.
Budget for engineering extension.—The amount expended for noncollegiate technical instruction and for other types of engineering extension in all land-grant colleges was $311,451 for the year ending June 30, 1929. During the same year the Federal, State, and county funds for agricultural extension totaled $12,758,067 for only 36 States. Better support should be provided for this type of instruction which, as is indicated in another part of this report, is greatly needed by the industrial population of this country.
The Physical Plant for Engineering Replies to questionnaires indicate that only in exceptional cases are the facilities in buildings and equipment adequate for the large number of students. The following information is presented as a summary of the present conditions.
Buildings.—Twenty-five institutions report that their laboratories are inadequate only eight state that they are ample.
Twenty-nine institutions have insufficient facilities for the assembly of large classes and only seven are well provided for in this respect.
Twenty-three institutions lack classrooms, 17 have inadequate space for shops, and 14 have too little drafting-room space.
The offices are ample only in 11 institutions, sufficient in 19, and inadequate in 18.
The engineering equipment of 14 land-grant institutions is housed, at least in part, in temporary quarters and 1142 per cent of the engineering instruction in these institutions must be housed in these temporary quarters.