THE NAVAL ACADEMY AS A TECHNICAL

SCHOOL.

BY IRA N. HOLLIS,

Professor of Engineering, Harvard University.

The education of youth may proceed along two lines: The first, or what might be called the natural method, is by means of lectures, conversations, and conferences, acting as a stimulus to the student to educate himself. He must arrange his own time and do what reading he sees fit. The only tests are examinations after long intervals. The other method is one wholly of control or direction. Every moment of the time is arranged, and all of the student's work is planned for him. There are no lectures and he must recite from text-books. The first of these two types exists only in modified form in the United States. Harvard University approaches it very nearly, where, in the college, the system is one almost wholly elective, conducted mainly by lectures and conferences. The second of the two types exists at Annapolis and West Point, where the control is parental. The technical schools throughout the country probably approach nearer to the Annapolis type than to that of Harvard, although large classes and small means force the larger schools towards the methods of the latter. It is by no means clear which of the two types is the better in the long run for young men aiming towards the engineering profession. Schools are too often measured by the few graduates who have achieved reputations, and we must remember that large men are ( 159 )

not the product of schools or methods, but rather of inheritance and home influence. What a technical school must aim at is to train the average boy to do the ordinary routine work of engineering satisfactorily, leaving to experience and the world the development of reputations. A school must be judged by the large mass of graduates it sends out. Measured from the standard of initiative and accuracy it seems to me that most technical schools are deficient, and have something to learn from the military schools. There is a theory held by many that the natural method of education promotes independence and initiative, thus leaving students from the civil schools more able to grapple with the problems of daily life and of commercial undertakings than graduates from a military school are likely to be. My own experience leads me to think that the popular impression is wrong and that the Naval Academy is more capable of developing the power of initiative along given lines than a civil institution.

The Naval School was founded in 1845 by George Bancroft, Secretary of the Navy, in the administration of James K. Polk as President. It was formally opened on October 10 of that year. The course was fixed at five years, of which the first and last were to be spent at sea. The whole theory of the course was based upon the demand for practical seamen, who knew navigation, gunnery, and sails. It was highly technical and gave comparatively little time to general education. As sails have gradually disappeared from ships and steam has taken their place, machinery has become the most important factor in naval warfare. At first the school responded slowly to the changed conditions and

it was not until 1884, when cruisers and battleships without sails were common, that the course approximated to that of an ordinary engineering school. Since 1898 its curriculum has been almost wholly engineering, with sufficient mathematics and mechanics to enable the midshipmen to understand the engineering courses well.

The course is in theory six years, four of which are spent in undergraduate study at Annapolis, and two at sea in what might be called graduate apprenticeship. The final examinations for commissions are held at the end of six years and the young officers then receive the commissions which correspond more or less to the professional degree in technical schools. There have been many attempts to have the course reduced to four years. As will be seen, the course of studies is more elementary than would be found in the best technical schools and there seems to be no place for graduate study. The chief merit of the school is in the thoroughness and system with which its work is done.

To them

There are in general four branches of engineering which are studied at the Naval Academy: marine or steam engineering, electrical engineering, ordnance engineering, and construction or ship engineering. These form the backbone of the course of studies. must necessarily be added instruction in navigation and a large amount of practical instruction in seamanship, including the handling of ships by means of sails. Seamanship, at the Naval Academy, has, however, come to mean the practical knowledge of all the elements which go to make a ship and the practical skill in handling the ship as a whole or any one of its elements separately. In this sense, seamanship is nothing but a

department of the larger subject of engineering. The Naval Academy is therefore essentially a school of engineering, of a highly technical character. Some instruction is given in subjects intended to enable an officer to express himself clearly in his reports and to be able to understand or converse with foreign officers. It might be said truthfully that it is the only school in the country (except the professional schools for law and medicine) which has cut loose from the idea of general education and which confines its instruction absolutely to the needs of the service. The theory is that a young officer must be a gentleman, he must be able to express himself concisely and clearly on any subject related to the service, that he must be able to deal intelligently with foreigners in the interests of his country, and that he must know his profession. Outside of this there is no attempt whatever to give an officer broad mental resources or literary equipment of any kind. It might be fairly claimed that an officer's contact with the world and with people of all nations would be of itself sufficient outside education. To some extent this claim is justified. It has always seemed to me, however, that the merit of the Naval Academy is in its rigid discipline. Ordinary excuses for delinquencies are not accepted, as they are in civil schools. If a student fails his examination, no consideration is taken of the fact that he has been sick or unlucky. He pays the penalty of failure. It seems to me that in this way a sense of responsibility is taught as it can not be in a school dependent upon tuition.

Another inducement to efficiency is the reward ahead of a successful graduate. Every midshipman knows

that a commission awaits him and he is absolutely sure of support all his life in case he passes the examinations. Furthermore, he has every evidence that the service is attractive and that its officers have the respect of the nation.

The course of instruction begins in June every year, the fourth class having been admitted by examination under the auspices of the Civil Service Commission. These examinations are held in all of the large cities in the country. They cover the following subjects, a description of which is taken bodily out of the annual register of the Naval Academy.

Reading and Writing.-Candidates must be able to read understandingly, and with proper accent and emphasis, and to write legibly, neatly, and rapidly.

Spelling.-They must be able to write from dictation, paragraphs from standard pieces of English literature, both prose and poetry, sufficient in number to test fully their qualifications in this branch. The spelling throughout the examination will be considered in marking the papers. The Academic Board are instructed not to reject a candidate whose only deficiency is in spelling when the mark therefor is above a certain figure, to be fixed by the board, subject to the revision of the department.

Punctuation and Capitals.-They must be familiar with the rules for punctuation and for the use of capitals. In order to test their knowledge, sentences will be given for correction.

Grammar.-Candidates must exhibit thorough familiarity with English grammar; they must be able to analyze and parse any sentence given, showing clearly