ties to existing universities, because both institutions differ in their character and method of instruction." Those assembled, after laying stress on the fact that members of the engineering profession should be judged by the same educational standards as other educated professional men, adopted the above resolution in substance, but, in deference to the university men, the last clause of the resolution was not emphasized; I think, though, that the correctness of the statement is generally admitted.
In spite of these conclusions we find in this country at least a tendency in the opposite direction. In our strongest state universities and in others built on private foundations, we find either engineering departments or colleges. The union of Harvard University and the Institute of Technology is under consideration. Something can, therefore, undoubtedly be said in favor of this arrangement. Of course, the presence of the 'sublimated tinker' in the university has been deprecated, but not by the leaders of educational thought in America.
It is recognized that the presence of a body of hard working, straight thinking young men in a university, even if they intend to make some practical use of their education, is a good antidote for intellectual snobbishness. On the other hand, it must be conceded that the technical student, too, is benefited by being thrown in contact with men in other lines of work, many of which have no direct practical application. Students become acquainted with one another, learn to appreciate one another's point of view, and mutual respect and goodwill result.
While fully recognizing the benefits which come in a general way to the engineering student from this environment, it must, nevertheless, be asserted that, as our universities in their development follow in the wake of the German universities, they too, like them, become unfitted for doing the general culture work, not only for engineering students, but for all students. The tendency toward specialization in subjects and subdivisions of subjects leads to the offering of many undoubtedly valuable courses. But they are courses for the specialist, fitted for his needs, and capable of being understood by but few. The giving of general culture courses is discouraged; and there is some justification, as long as the aim of many so-called students is merely to get hours enough to graduate. The summing up of the results in any given line of work and its presentation, so that the non-specialist may get a general view of the field, are dangerous, because of the 'little learning' thus imparted, which, of course, is 'a dangerous thing.'
Even in poetry: "The learned guardians of these treasures insist that they can not be appreciated unless there has been much preliminary wrestling with a 'critical apparatus' and much delving among 'original sources.'"
