[1]. In each case, it is a code based upon other and older codes, codes long in practice among professional men, [2] such as lawyers and doctors. It is a code built up on religious principles, as it should be, and rarely is it ignored among men of the profession. To do unto others as you would have [3] others do with you is the basis of its precepts, though more concretely it aims to guide the engineer in his business intercourse with other men in such a way as to give all an equal chance without transgressing the law. The so-called building codes in effect in large cities are intended to hold engineers to restrictions for the greatest good of the greatest number, and the code of ethics in practice among each of the engineering professions likewise was devised toward this end. [4]

Perhaps by pointing out where engineers sometimes transgress, the writer more effectively can indicate the need of a code and the principles of which the engineering code of ethics consists. Even to-day there are engineers digressing from the path indicated by the professional body, though in such a way as to benefit still by the protection of the law, and to be not openly susceptible to admonition from the engineering societies' committees. Engineers of this stamp at best are but tricksters. Actually, they should be [5] refused from practice, just as the legal fraternity takes effective action against members of the bar who go outside the pale, though nothing is ever done to engineers. [6]. The man's name should at least be posted, or, better still, published in the society's bulletin, so that the fraternity at large could know, and, knowing, could warn men with capital to invest—the trickster's especial prey—for its own welfare.

[7] A manufacturer of paper dolls, say, having entered upon this phase of manufacturing only because he had money to invest and not because he was interested in mechanics, [8] see the need in his plant for additional mechanical devices to cut down manufacturing costs. The engineer [9] to whom I have reference would find this type of manufacturer his particular "meat," because of the man's ignorance of mechanics, and, after clinching him with a contract drawn up by the engineer's lawyer, would undertake to devise for this manufacturer a perpetual-motion machine, if that happened to be what the manufacturer wanted. [10] The engineer conducted a machine-shop in connection with his "consulting" office, where, at a dollar an hour for the use of his machine-tools he would "develop" his ideas, as passed upon by the manufacturer who knew no more of construction or the reading of mechanical drawings than he did of the chicanery of the engineer, and in this way roll up the costs against the unfortunate. [11]

Previously, most large corporations in the United States were once run by individual capitalists [12] who owned enough stock to dominate the board of directors and dictate company policy. Because putting such large amounts of stock on the market would only depress its value, they could not sell out for a quick profit and instead had to concentrate on improving the long-term productivity of their companies. [13] As a result, with few exceptions, the stock of large United States corporations is held by large institutions — pension funds, for example[14] and because these institutions are prohibited by antitrust laws from owning a majority of a company's stock and from actively influencing a company's decision-making, they can enhance their wealth only by buying and selling stock in anticipation of fluctuations in its value. A minority shareholder is necessarily a short term trader. [15] Finally, United States productivity [16] are unlikely to improve unless shareholders and the managers of the companies in which they invest are encouraged to enhance long-term productivity (and hence long-term profitability), rather than simply to maximize short term profits.

 Since the return of the old-style capitalist is unlikely, today's short-term traders must be remade into tomorrow's long-term[17] savvy investors. The legal limits that now prevent financial institutions from acquiring a dominant shareholding position in a corporation should be removed,[18] and such institutions encouraged to take a more active role in the operations of the companies in which they invest. In addition, any institution that holds twenty percent or more of a company's stock should be forced to give the public [19] one days notice of the intent to sell [20] them. Unless the announced sale could be explained to the public on grounds other than anticipated future losses,[21] and, like the old-time capitalists, major investors could cut their losses only by helping to restore their companies' productivity. Such measures would force financial institutions to become capitalists whose success depends not on trading shares at the propitious moment, [22].

New UCLA-led research finds that in states with bans on affirmative action programs, the proportion of students from underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups in U.S. public medical schools [23] had fallen by more than one-third by five years after those bans went into [24] effect.

The findings are particularly timely given medical schools’ increasing emphasis on health equity, including a push to ensure greater diversity among physicians in the workforce.

“We know that a more diverse physician workforce leads to better care for racial- and ethnic-minority patients,” said Dr. Dan Ly, the study’s lead author, an assistant professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine and health services research at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. “But we have made such poor progress in diversifying our physician workforce.

[25] Affirmative action is the practice or policy of favoring individuals belonging to groups known to have been discriminated against previously; positive discrimination.

[26]Examining the enrollment data from 1985 through 2019, 53 medical schools at public universities, focusing on students from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, Black, Hispanic, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, were found to decrease by researchers. The authors studied medical schools at public universities, not private ones, because states’ bans on affirmative action applied to public postsecondary institutions.

Of the medical schools, 32 were in 24 states without affirmative action bans. And 21 were in eight states that banned affirmative action during that period — Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas and Washington. [27] Those states affirmative action bans were enacted from 1997 to 2013; Texas’ ban was reversed in 2003.

In the year before the bans were implemented, underrepresented students made up an average of 14.8% of the total enrollment of those states’ public medical schools. [28] By five years later, the research found, enrollment of underrepresented students at those schools had fallen by 37%.

[29]. The data may have also captured the indirect effects of affirmative action on undergraduate admissions, public discussion of affirmative action bans may have affected medical school enrollment even before [30] the bans were implemented. Some students may not have fully identified with the mutually exclusive racial and ethnic groups defined by the study. And the researchers did not assess the possibility that some schools without bans did not consider race or ethnicity in their admission decisions.

But the findings could lead to a better understanding of the lag [31] diversifying the medical student body and the physician workforce.

“As our country has spent the last two years weaving through the twin pandemics of racial health disparities amplified by COVID-19 and structural racism at large, our findings are critically important,” said co-author Dr. Utibe Essien, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh. “As we observed, affirmative action bans have resulted in a loss of underrepresented physicians, who could have been at the front lines of caring for [32] vulnerable populations throughout the pandemic and helping to alleviate disparities in care.

“My hope is that our findings will help provide policymakers with the tools to push back against affirmative action bans, not just for the diversity of the physician workforce, [33] but the equal and just health of our society.”

The study’s other authors are Andrew Olenski of Columbia University and Dr. Anupam Jena of Harvard University.

Any discussion of the art of music—of its significance in relation to ourselves, of its æsthetic qualities, or of methods of teaching it—to be comprehensive, must be based on a clear recognition of the one important quality which is inherent in it, which distinguishes it from the other arts and which gives it its peculiar power. [34] Painting and sculpture are definitive. It is not possible to create a great work in either of these mediums without a subject taken from life; [35] however imaginative the work may be, it must depict something. In painting, for example, the very soul of a religious belief may shine from the canvas,—as in the Sistine Madonna,—but [36] that cannot be there presented without physical embodiment. [37] The physical embodiment is reduced to its simplest terms, as in some of Manet’s paintings, there is still the necessity of portrayal; Manet’s wonderful light and opalescent color must fall on an object. Turner paints a mystical landscape, a mythological vale, such as haunts the dreams of poets, but it is impossible for him to produce the illusion by itself; the vale is a vale, human beings are there. Sculpture, which makes its effects by the perfection of its rhythms around an axis, and by its shadows,—effects of the most subtle and, at the same time, of the most elemental kind,—it, too, must portray; [38].

In poetry the same limitations exist. It, too, must deal in human life with a certain [39] touchiness. But the greatest poetry is continually struggling to slough off the garment of reality and free the soul from its trammels. [40] It trembles on the verge of music, seeking to find words for what cannot be said, and attaining a great part of its meaning by a sublime euphony. The didactic is its grave.

[41] Before I attempt to describe the peculiar quality which distinguishes music, it will be well to state quite clearly what it cannot do. This can best be understood by a comparison between it and poetry, which of all the arts is nearest to music, because it exists in the element of time, [42] . Poetry is made up of words arranged in meaning and euphony. Each of these words signifies an object, idea, or feeling; the word “chair,” for example, has come to mean an object to sit upon. Now, while notes in music are given certain alphabetical names indicating a pitch determined by sound waves, the use of these letters is [43] illogical and has no connection with their original hieroglyphic and hieratic significance. The musical sound we call a, for example, means nothing as a sound, has no common or agreed-upon or archæological significance. Combine the note a with c and e in what is known as the common chord and you still have no meaning; combine a with other notes and form a melody from them, and you have perhaps beauty and coherence of form,—a pleasing sequence of sounds,—but still no meaning such as you get from the combination of letters in a word like “chair.” Combine a with a great many other notes into a symphony, and this coherence and beauty may become quite wonderful in effect, but it still remains untranslatable into other terms, and without such definite significance as is attained by combining words in poems. [44] So we say that notes have no significance in themselves; that musical phrases have no meaning as have phrases in language; that melodies are not sentences, and symphonies not poems.