at a college nearer to his home than the engineering college from which he hopes to graduate. This helps to provide the Nation with critically needed trained engineers.

The student who is undecided as to the general direction of his future, particularly the boy who is perhaps a little immature for a large institution, might well enter the smaller nonengineering college. If he finds his college mathematics and physics uncongenial, he can shift to a program with less emphasis on science without the need of transferring elsewhere. In general, the student who wishes a taste of life in a smaller college and who is willing to devote 5 years to his undergraduate education may well find the plan suited to his needs.

During the 3 years of study in the nonengineering college an undergraduate is a member of a group with the same interests and tastes. He is likely to absorb much of its atmosphere as well as to acquire a basic knowledge of mathematics and the sciences. Entering the engineering college as a junior on the semiprofessional basis, he is able to devote himself primarily to courses which have an immediate bearing on his future as an engineer.

This program provides a planned sequence of courses which guarantees acceptance at an engineering college, an opportunity which might be denied a student of equivalent standing not participating in the program.

Lafayette College, Easton, Pa., which is sponsored by the Board of Christian Education of the Presbyterian Church, has established three-two programs with 25 nonengineering colleges similarly sponsored, making it possible for students to pursue the entire combined curriculum "with the advantages of attending a more personal church-related college."

Student Difficulties

Students in the three-two program appear to have no more difficulty in making the adjustment to a new institution than students usually have in transferring from one institution to another.

One college official states that the three-two students often become leaders in student activities. He says, "Apparently their three years of experience in an environment where there may not have been quite as heavy an academic responsibility, has meant that they get started doing other things besides academic work, and they continue to do so after transfer."

In another institution an official writes; "There is a break in student activity. Most students do not carry on with their activities— they feel they have had their college life and now wish to receive professional training." He believes that the majority of boys with

a clear-cut interest in and a bent for engineering or science prefer to enter his school directly from a secondary school. This course of action in his opinion has many advantages, among them: (1) Saving of time, which is of particular importance to those who expect to do graduate work; (2) the opportunity to enter at once into the purposeful and stimulating professional atmosphere of the engineering college, and (3) the ready availability of guidance for engineering freshmen in the selection of a professional curriculum.

Another difficulty suggested by a college official is that "the major reason for lack of interest in the plan is the expectation of military service... The ROTC program does not fit in with a five-year college course, and I suspect that draft boards are not very sympathetic to such a program."

Scholastic Success

Few data are available on the scholastic success of three-two students. The most complete statement indicates that over a period of 5 years the three-two students have earned slightly higher average grades than the institution's regular students have. It is pointed out, however, that these figures should be used cautiously, since the institution accepts only students who are recommended by the collaborating colleges, which frequently demand a dean's list rating with no mark below "B" in mathematics and science. In other words, the three-two students are a highly selected group.

Another official states that the scholastic records of three-two students in his institution are above the all-student average by about 25 percent. Several other officials state that the three-two students do as well as the regular students, or better.

Advantages to the College

Several institutional officials speak of the advantages to the engineering college inherent in this plan. One says that the combined plan provides the engineering college "the opportunity to concentrate its effort upon giving an outstanding engineering education to a group of mature, highly selected students who have had full opportunity to determine their choice of career."

Another points out that vacancies caused by attrition in freshman and sophomore engineering classes can be filled by these excellent students. He says further that "we feel there is a beneficial influence brought to our campus by these transfer students, who have had educational and social experiences different from those of our own students."

Two others call attention to the fact that the nonengineering college attracts students it might not otherwise get, and avoids the expense of setting up an engineering curriculum.

It is to be presumed that the nonengineering part of the program operates as a screening device to help select the students who have strong aptitudes and abilities for the engineering part of the program.

General Appraisal of Plan

The expansion which has taken place in the adoption of the threetwo program indicates rather clearly that this type of program is a worthwhile development in the general field of engineering education. While it is still new enough to be considered as an educational experiment, it holds promise of forming one basis for an effective synthesis of liberal and technical education.

However, the rate of growth in number of programs has declined since 1955, while a growing number of colleges have increased the "humanistic-social" content of their engineering curriculums.

The data concerning the three-two plan of education which were collected in connection with the preparation of the bulletin on Trends in Engineering Education, 1949 to 1959, which has been previously mentioned, show that prior to June 1949 eight three-two programs had been established. Between June 1949 and June 1955, 29 new three-two programs were established, an average of 4.8 per year. Between June 1956 and June 1959 there were 11 new programs established, an average of 3.7 per year, and 7 were established in years which were not stated on the information supplied by the engineering institutions. During the 10-year period three programs had been discontinued, and the colleges reported that four additional programs were definitely planned to be started during 1960 and 1961, an average of 2.0 per year.

The date of June 1955 mentioned above is used as a dividing point in the time sequence because in that year the American Society for Engineering Education published its report on "Evaluation of Engineering Education." This report has had a marked effect on engineering education, and many institutions have taken action toward implementing its recommendations.

Among these recommendations was one concerned with the distribution of time in engineering curriculums among five major blocks of courses, one of which is called "humanistic-social studies." The committee recommended that in a scientifically oriented engineering curriculum about one-fifth of the total time should be devoted to this block of courses.

The data collected in the fall of 1959 indicate that between 1949 and 1955 a total of 86 curriculums had been modified, an average of 14 per year. Between 1956 and 1959, the date of the questionnaire, 113 curriculum changes had been made, an average of 28 per year. Definite plans were reported for 114 curriculum changes during the years 1960 and 1961, an average of 57 per year.

Of the changes reported in the humanistic-social content, 195 were in the direction of an increased amount of time devoted to these courses, as compared to 39 changes in the opposite direction. The average percentage of curriculum devoted to this block of courses had increased continuously from 14.5 in 1949 to 14.7 in 1955, to 17.0 in 1959, and to 18.3 projected for 1961.

Since one of the major objectives of the three-two program is to give opportunity for strengthening the liberal content of an engineering education, it is interesting to compare the two trends mentioned above. It can readily be seen that while the numbers of three-two curriculums have increased over the entire period, the rate of increase has been much slower than has been the rate of increase in the percentage of the regular engineering curriculum devoted to this block of courses. Perhaps it is only logical that as one method of strengthening the humanistic-social content increases the other might be expected to increase at a slower rate, which has actually happened.

The number of students enrolled in the engineering part of the three-two program and the numbers of students who have actually completed the entire program indicate quite clearly that numerically the three-two program is not making a very large contribution to the production of engineers for the Nation. However, the combined program does provide a broader and more diversified type of education than is provided by the 4-year engineering curriculum alone.

Institutions Conducting Three-Two Programs

The two lists which follow contain names of the institutions which were conducting three-two programs in the fall of 1959. In the first list, starting on page 10, the engineering colleges are listed by geographic location, and the name of each engineering college is followed by a list of the nonengineering colleges which were collaborating with it in the conduct of these programs. This will enable anyone interested to determine quickly and easily which engineering colleges are conducting this type of program, and to ascertain for any particular engineering college which nonengineering colleges are collaborating with it.

In the second list, starting on page 20, the nonengineering colleges are listed alphabetically by location, the name of each being followed by the names of the engineering college or colleges with which it is collaborating in the conduct of these programs. This table will enable an interested person to determine quickly and easily whether or not a particular nonengineering college is engaged in this type of program, and if so, with which engineering college or colleges it is collaborating.