mechanical engineering, 3; naval architecture, 3; marine engineering, 2; technology forms, 2; electrical engineering, 3; architecture, 3; applied chemistry, 4; technology of explosives, 1; mining, 2; metallurgy, 3; applied mechanics, 1; dynamics, 1; a total of 32. In addition, students in each college take courses in other colleges, so that the effective faculty is largely increased. Geology, for example, is taught to students in mining and engineering, by the professors in the College of Science.
In examining these lists the reader will probably be struck first with the breadth of the instruction given. For example, in no American law school of which I know is it possible to take courses in three systems of foreign law, and in America political economy and the related group of subjects would be taught by a separate faculty instead of as part of the law course. In Japan as in America, a law course is the common preparation for many branches of the public service, but in the former country only is that fact recognized by placing under charge of the faculty of law the whole of the instruction in politics and public affairs. The Japanese are an intensely practical people, and this is one instance of their regarding university education from the utilitarian standpoint—using that word, I repeat, in a broad sense. The same disposition is shown in the College of Engineering. Provision of instruction in naval architecture, technology of arms, and technology of explosives, is not common in American universities. It is the more striking since Japan maintains a separate school corresponding to our own West Point for training army officers, and others for preparing officers for the navy, the railway service, and even for educating officers for the merchant marine. University instruction in these branches is of a higher type than in these special schools, and is more closely related, through University Hall, with research. Another peculiarity is the provision of several professors in the same subject. In Japan there is more democracy and less organization within each department than in the United States. There are coordinate professors, each perhaps with his specialty, rather than a rigorous system of head professors, professors, assistant professors, assistants and so down to the nth order. Still another instructive feature of the system may be seen by examining the courses in some one department. For that purpose those given in mining and metallurgy at Kyoto may serve. It will be noted that the courses provide for what in the United States would be considered undue specialization and make almost no provision for fundamental training. It is true that Japanese students are supposed to have this before taking up their university work and have in fact much better opportunity for acquiring it than have American students. One may none the less retain a doubt whether in this case practise and theory run hand in hand.
