There is probably no school in the country with a better reputation for thoroughness than the U. S. Naval Academy; and there are many reasons why the Academy should have this fair reputation. The instructors are conscientious—both the civilians and the naval officers. The sections consisting of from 9 to 12 midshipmen are small enough, ordinarily, to allow for individual instruction in addition to the assignment of marks for gradation. Compared to other schools the sections here are only about one third as large.
The arrangements for the midshipmen are almost ideal. The quarters are comfortable; the food is good; the study and exercise hours are remarkably well balanced; during study hours there is no interference by room to room visiting; there is not the slightest ground for the criticism of the late Mr. Crane on all college courses, i.e., that a large percentage of college undergraduates spend their time getting drunk.
It would be a difficult matter to suggest any method of teaching better than the one that has been used here, with success, for many years. Lessons are assigned and the midshipmen dig them out for themselves. Day after day they recite on these lessons—tell what they have learned about them and receive a mark for the day's work. This gives them confidence and teaches them to rely on their own efforts. At the end of a month an examination brings out what the midshipman have retained of the month's work and the semi-annual and annual examinations show whether they have kept in their minds the general principles covered during the term's work. The system of teaching used at the Naval Academy is used by very few other schools in the country— in fact West Point is probably the only other school using it. The reason of this is that at the other institutions of learning the sections are too large and the instructors too few to allow much individual instruction or to allow for individual recitations. The number of instructors provided for the school is of course a function of the money provided for running expenses; the number here is, ordinarily, sufficient for the needs of the school. Where there are 25 or 30 students in a section the only feasible way to cover the subject matter is to have lectures, i.e., have the instructor do the reciting, and find, from examinations, what the students have learned. There are two main objections to the to the lecture system, (1) There is a certain amount of inattention even at the most interesting lecture; at some time during the talk the thread will be lost, and, even though this may be momentarily, the value of the lecture will be decreased by reason of such loss. (2) It is a bad policy to work out the difficult problems for a student; he will remember much longer if he is compelled to work out everything for himself. It is very probable that if the other schools of the country had enough instructors to keep the sections small they would use the same system of teaching used at the Naval Academy.
Criticism Creeping In.
Notwithstanding the fact that the methods of teaching used here are good, and that the midshipmen probably use more of the four years at the Naval Academy to advantage, on an average, than is used in other schools, criticism of the Academy and its graduates are creeping in—from the fleet and from other sources. A straw vote taken here would show that the majority of the instructors and heads of departments think that in preparing them for their life work we are not giving the midshipmen the best course we could give them.
The main trouble with our course as it now stands is that it is one year too short. Twenty-five years ago the principal studies at the Naval Academy were mathematics, English, physics and chemistry, seamanship, navigation, and modern languages. Marine engineering and ordnance required only a fraction of the time they now require.
At that time the course was well covered, for there was great competition for the comparatively few commissions issued to each ass. The time taken to graduate was the same as it is now—four years. During the twenty-five years some of the studies like mathematics, navigation, physics and chemistry, English, and modern languages have changed very little. Other studies like marine and electrical engineering and ordnance and gunnery have changed greatly. The changes in the last named have all en additive. It seems fair to say that all three have doubled the amount the midshipmen have to learn in order to thoroughly understand the subject; and yet, with the entrance requirements very close to what they were then we are trying to cram all 5 additional learning into the heads of the midshipmen in the me length of time as was taken twenty-five years ago. A comparison of the number of two hour periods spent on each subject in 1889-1900 and 1911-1912 is interesting.
| 1899-1900 | 1911-1912 |
Mathematics | 496 | 442 |
Mechanical drawing | 208 | 112 |
English | 208 | 192 |
Languages | 224 | 224 |
Seamanship | 65 | 128 |
Navigation | 176 | 176 |
Physics and chemistry | 140 | 96 |
Electrical Eng. | 110 | 192 |
Marine engineering and naval construction | 304 | 320 |
Ordnance and gunnery | 96 | 160 |
This table shows that mathematics has lost 54 periods, physics and chemistry 44 periods, and mechanical drawing 96 periods tiring the past ten years.
The loss in mathematics is the one that does the heaviest damage; it hurts the courses in physics and chemistry, in navigation, a ordnance and gunnery, and in marine and electrical engineering—practically all other subjects. On account of lack of time and lack of practice in mathematics, the students, at the present time, take up new subjects poorly equipped. They cannot perform the ordinary operations of algebra and trigonometry rapidly and accurately, and instead of spending their time and energy on new work they have to spend it in reviewing mathematics in order to apply it intelligently to the allied subject.
The loss in physics and chemistry is also a drawback. From a study of the courses at West Point, and at other schools, it appears that they spend much more time on these subjects than is spent at the Naval Academy. A knowledge of both physics and chemistry is needed in a successful naval career. We are constantly called on to use the general principles learned from them. A knowledge of chemistry is absolutely essential in the engineering of the present day. A midshipman must have a reasonable understanding of the science of physics before he can successfully take up the study of marine and electrical engineering. Laboratory measurements, experiments and demonstrations as well as recitations are necessary. The Naval Academy has excellently equipped chemical and physical laboratories, but insufficient time is allowed for their use. No college or scientific school expects a student to acquire a working knowledge of these subjects in less than three times the number of periods allotted to the study of physics and chemistry at the Naval Academy. The study of sound, light and heat is closely allied to that of mathematics; it requires the midshipmen to think and, after all, the practice of reasoning is one of the best features of the Naval Academy education.
If enough time were given to mathematics to get it thoroughly ground in so the midshipmen could apply it successfully to the allied subjects, the time allotted to marine engineering and to navigation would be sufficient as it stands. This does not take account of the loss of time in mechanical drawing which is one of the branches of marine engineering; 112 periods is not enough; 160 periods would be nearer the necessary time. Incidentally, there is good authority that the army and outside concerns are glad to get our graduates because they are good in mechanical drawing. A blue print of a piece of machinery is not an enigma to them. This will not hold true when we begin to graduate the midshipmen with only 112 periods spent on mechanical drawing.
In addition to more time devoted to mathematics, and to physics and chemistry, more should be given to electrical engineering and to ordnance and gunnery.
It is pretty generally admitted that naval officers in our service are weak in electrical engineering. There are too many things on board ship that depend on electrical gear to allow this .condition to exist. Lighting the ship, its ventilation, working the turrets and guns, supplying ammunition, interior communication, fire control, in fact the whole efficiency of the ship as a fighting machine is so vitally affected by the efficiency of the electrical installation that we cannot afford to graduate midshipmen and leave them in an admittedly weak condition as far as electrical knowledge is concerned.
Ordnance and gunnery is in the same plight—there is simply not enough time to cover the subject properly. The head of the department states that it would require one-third more time than is now assigned to that department in order to send the midshipmen away from here well qualified.
Comparison with Other Schools.
During the past four or five months the writer has obtained data from many of the leading colleges of the country. While the information was very full, it is rather hard to compare these institutions with the Naval Academy on account of the different methods of teaching and marking. In making the comparisons engineering courses were selected as they bring in mathematics and engineering, and it was thought that allowance could be made for the additional subjects taken at the Naval Academy, subjects which are strictly professional and which are not taken at other schools. While we did not get everything sought for from the information sheets from these colleges, the following facts were established beyond question: (1) The entrance requirements are higher at all the colleges heard from than at the Naval Academy. (2) The mathematics at the academy is about the same as that of the other colleges. (3) The courses in engineering are about equally difficult. (4) Not one of the colleges has a course shorter than four years. (5) Two of the colleges; although having more rigid entrance requirements than the Naval Academy, do not graduate their students in engineering- in less than 5 years. (6) Ten of the eighteen used for comparison have additional courses of from one to three years in engineering—this means after the preliminary four years -of work. We have at the Naval Academy the brothers of these college men. The average brain power here ought to equal that at the colleges. How then can we cover thoroughly the same ground in four years that they cover in an average of more than four years if the college students are better informed when entering college. But we do not cover the same ground—we cover much more.
The mathematics and engineering are about the same. The English and physics and chemistry are perhaps a little easier than in the engineering courses at other schools. But many things are covered here that engineering courses in colleges never touch, as for instance—navigation, astronomy, modern languages, seamanship, international law, ordnance and gunnery. How can we ever cover this extra work in less time than the other schools take when their men are better prepared at entrance. There is at hand a letter from a Naval Academy graduate so apropos that I must quote an extract from it: "I am a graduate of the U. S. Naval Academy, retired, and have been teaching twenty-five years. There is no doubt that your course should be one of five years for the best results to the student. Time is required to do good work anywhere. To teach students fundamental principles so that they cannot forget them even if they try; to teach students to do things, to originate, instead of copying, requires time."
Lack of Competition.
Competition at the Naval Academy was killed ten years ago with the advent of the big classes. It seems unnecessary to call attention to the value of competition. The wonderful improvement in gunnery and in engineering in the navy are examples of the result of competition. In the days when the commissions per class were but few, there was a scramble for them and the best man got them. The commissions were the reward of hard work and well cultivated intellect, and the graduates who got them were the thinkers of the class.
With the large classes came the need of a greater number of officers. We had to have them to man the ships. The midshipmen knew this and studied less. The marks went up; 2.5’s gave way to 3.0's, for they all had to be graduated.
All this resulted in what was near kin to a union. The midshipmen realized that if the bright ones studied hard the ones who were "wooden" could not get through. It became bad form to "study out of study hours," and why not? It is against human nature to do more than one needs to do. The plane of marks was necessarily shoved up in order to supply our own needs, and, once up, it became difficult to lower. It is not my desire to go on record that these men will not make good officers. I trust they will, I believe they will if they work hard. This much, however, is certain; they must cultivate out in the service the thinking power that they should have more nearly perfected while at the Academy.
Next year, unless the laws are changed, the large classes will cease to exist. This will be a bad thing for the Academy and for the service at large. The classes should be kept as large as they are now, but only the number needed to fill the vacancies should be commissioned. This would give a lot of education at the expense of the government, but the money would be well spent. Furthermore, the students who spend 5 years at the Academy, even though not commissioned in the navy at graduation, would be of great value in war time.
The Bureau of Navigation could decide how many are needed each year. Out of an entering class of say 300 there might be too or 120 to commission, and competition, one of the most powerful incentives ever used at the Naval Academy, or anywhere else, would help work out the Naval Academy problem.
Age of Entering.
The age of admission and the entrance requirements should be low for many reasons, among which are: 1. Algebra and geometry form the foundation of all mathematics; if those two subjects were taught here we could be sure the midshipmen have the proper foundation to build on. 2. The Naval Academy would get a more ambitious set of boys. Suppose, for instance, the lower age limit to be 18 years; most boys of that age who are ambitious have decided what they are going to do in life, and, even at 17 many of them have started the education that is to fit them for their life work. 3. The younger the midshipmen are the more impressionable they are and the easier it is for them to drop into the "Customs of the Service." 4. If taken, say on an average of two years younger, they could put in the additional year required for a proper education and still become commissioned officers two years and a half younger than they do now. The age of entrance is now 16 to 20, a mean of 18 years; add 6 years for the present course (counting the two years at sea) and the average age for commissioning is 24 years. The Smith Bill makes the entering age 15 to 18, a mean of 16.5 years, add to this the 5 years which are need here and there results an age for commissioning 21.5 years, which is two and a half years less than the present age when commissioned.
Summing Up.
A five year course would give sufficient time in mathematics to properly fit the midshipmen for studying the other subjects taught here; it would give sufficient time in physics and chemistry, in ordnance and gunnery and in electrical engineering. It would give a total time of one year on summer cruises, which ought to furnish enough sea experience to justify a commission on graduation.
And if the congressmen and senators are allowed, after 1913, the same number of appointments they now have the percentage of commissions issued to a class at the end of 5 years would be small enough to keep alive the keenest kind of competition.