Chemical engineering education

Material Information

Chemical engineering education
Alternate Title:
Abbreviated Title:
Chem. eng. educ.
American Society for Engineering Education -- Chemical Engineering Division
Chemical Engineering Division, American Society for Engineering Education
Publication Date:
Annual[ FORMER 1960-1961]
Physical Description:
v. : ill. ; 22-28 cm.


Subjects / Keywords:
Chemical engineering -- Study and teaching -- Periodicals ( lcsh )


Chemical abstracts
Additional Physical Form:
Also issued online.
Dates or Sequential Designation:
1960-June 1964 ; v. 1, no. 1 (Oct. 1965)-
Numbering Peculiarities:
Publication suspended briefly: issue designated v. 1, no. 4 (June 1966) published Nov. 1967.
General Note:
Title from cover.
General Note:
Place of publication varies: Rochester, N.Y., 1965-1967; Gainesville, Fla., 1968-

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
01151209 ( OCLC )
70013732 ( LCCN )
0009-2479 ( ISSN )
TP165 .C18 ( lcc )
660/.2/071 ( ddc )

UFDC Membership

Chemical Engineering Documents


This item has the following downloads:

Full Text

September 1962

University of California at Berkeley.
by DONALD N. HANSOM and GRAHAM F. SOMERVILLE, both of the University of
California at seldey, and JOHN H. DUFFIN, U.S. Naval Postgraduate School,
Monterey, CaInia. The first book to present the mathematics of stagewise
separation Ioclae in the form of Fortran computer programs used to solve
separation p es in vapor-liquid processes and liquid-liquid extraction. It
will prove inlu as a text for advanced courses in separation operations.

by I. LE, University of Houston. A unified treatment of all aspects of
the Sow of flukd through porous materials. This book is valuable to petroleum
engineers, chemical engineers, civil engineers, and soil scientists. 1961. 280 pages.
Clemson, S.C. This book emphasizes the fundamentals upon which chemical
engineering theory is based. It contains a wealth of material on the professional
aspects of the field unavailable in other standard texts. 1959. 288 pages. $6.50
by FREDERICK A. ZENZ and DONALD F. OTHMER, both of Polytechnic Institute
of Brooklyn. This comprehensive work provides a wealth of data on fluid-
particle operations answering problems common to process industries. 1960.
523 pages. $15.00
by ROBERT J. HENOSTEBECK, American Oil Company. Here is all the information
needed to design any distillation column for which vapor-liquid equilibrium
data is available or can be estimated. New material is presented on methods
for calculating the "splits" of the "non-distributed" components in multi-
component distillations, and for minimizing trial calculations for flash vaporiza-
tions. 1961. 380 pages. $11.50
by GEORGE D. DICKEY, P.E., Consultant. A modern account of solid-liquid
separation in wet processes: water, industrial products and wastes. It offers a
comprehensive study of filtering, including a summary of mathematical theories
and formulas and a short history of filtration development by gravity, vacuum,
pressure, and centrifugal force. 1961. 364 pages. $12.00
Two Other Outstanding Chemical Engineering Books
Edited by JAMES O. KENT, West Virginia University, with the support of a
large number of collaborators. From materials handling to product application,
this book offers a handy cross-section presentation of current practices in the
major chemical and process industries. A large number of collaborators, all
recognized experts in their fields, contribute to make this one of the most
authoritative works of its kind. 1962. Approximately 950 pages.

by THOMAS B. DREW, Columbia University. A probing treatment of the vector
and tensor concepts necessary in fluid dynamics, diffusion theory, electro-
magnetic theory, and heat transmission. It is invaluable as a text for engineering
students at the advanced undergraduate and graduate levels. 1961. 112 pages.
430 Park Avenue/New York 22, New York


September 1962

Quarterly Journal
Published by the

Chemical Engineering Division
American Society for Engineering Education

Albert H. Cooper, Editor


The Chemical Engineering Curriculum,
By C. M. Thatcher 1

A Survey of Chemical Engineering Curricula,
A.I.Ch.E. Education Projects Committee 3

What Does Du Pont Look For In Its Chemical Engineers,
By Charles M. Cooper 7

The Chemical Engineer and His Place in the Long Range
Goals of Industry, by G. T. Halberstadt 12

The Importance of Attitude in Young Engineers,
by A. L. Frye 19

What Industry Expects of the Chemical Engineer,
by Mott Souders 24

Chemical Engineering Division Meeting 28

Chemical Engineering Division
American Society for Engineering Education
Officers 1962-1963

Max S. Peters (Colorado) Chairman
Joseph J. Martin (Michigan) Vice Chairman
John B. West (Oklahoma State) Secretary-Treasurer
M. H. Chetrick (Louisville) General Council

Engineering Division, American Society for Engineering
Published Quarterly, in March, June, September, December
Publication Office: University of Connecticut
P.O. Box 445, Storrs, Connecticut
Subscription price, $2.00 per year.


When you adopt a textbook for your classes,
or when you order a book for your own personal
library, please mention

Our advertisers help make it possible to
publish this journal.


C. M. Thatcher
Pratt Institute
Brooklyn, N.Y.

If it is to be completely meaningful, an analysis of chemical engineering
curricula should properly start with a consideration of the objective sought,
and only then examine the means by which the objective is achieved. A suitable
objective for chemical engineering education is suggested by the AIChEls official
definition of chemical engineering as the profession which is concerned with pro-
cesses and equipment in which material is treated to effect a change in state,
energy content, or composition.

It follows that the chemical engineering student must learn the pertinent
characteristics of "change" if he is to be successful in terms of this defini-
tion. These characteristics might be broken down as follows:

1) What changes. Here we are concerned with the states and properties of
systems, thermodynamically speaking. This area of subject matter is generally
covered in physical chemistry or in a first course in chemical engineering.

2) How much changes. The first law of thermodynamics is pertinent at this
point, but most schools teach this aspect of change in a course devoted to mater-
ials and energy balances or stoichiometry. Three credit hours are devoted to
this topic in the average curriculum.

3) Which way and (4) how far will the change go. These two considerations
are associated with second law thermodynamics and the concept of equilibrium.
On the average, approximately 5 credit hours are allocated to the subject of
thermodynamics, but it should be noted that some of this time is used to review
first law principles.

5) How fast the change occurs. The rate concept is commonly treated within
the unit operations area or, in the case of chemical processes, in a separate
course in kinetics. Since the average curriculum devotes only one credit to re-
action kinetics, it must be presumed that most of the instruction pertaining to
the rate concept comes as part of the unit operations sequence.

The foregoing might be referred to as the theoretical aspects of change. It
remains to make practical application of these aspects in seeking answers to the

6) How the change can be effected. The study of the unit operations pro-
vides needed background in this area, and the survey showed an average. of eight
credit hours to be devoted to unit operations theory and an additional four hours
to be devoted to laboratory work. It should perhaps be noted that no attempt was
made to determine the extent to which the transport phenomena approach is being

7) How to measure and control the rate and extent of change. Only one cred-
it hour is allocated to process instrumentation in the average curriculum, but
it is certain that this topic is also treated as part of the unit operations se-
quence at many schools.

8) Finally, how much does it cost. This brings us to the economic question
as it applies to design. Engineering economics is presumably taught as an in-
tegral part of the design sequence at most schools, since only 23 per cent re-
port a separate course in this area. On the average, four credit hours are de-
voted to chemical engineering design.


In passing, it can be noted that the average curriculum contains seven
credit hours of instruction which do not clearly fall into any of the above cate-
gories. For the most part these credits pertain to courses in technology or unit
processes, and to research projects or electives.

The unit operations, being concerned with the application of knowledge, skill
and judgment to the design of equipment which will be practical, safe, and eco-
nomical, have long been considered to be the strong point of chemical engineering.
Generally speaking, either of two approaches may be used: One may write the
pertinent differential rate equation and integrate it to relate equipment size or
processing time to the change to be accomplished; or, one may use the equilibrium
stage approach.

Neither of these design methods is particularly difficult to comprehend, and
it is somewhat surprising that they do not receive at least introductory atten-
tion earlier in the curriculum. The basic aspects of equilibrium stage calcula-
tions, for example, are rather straightforward extensions of mass and energy bal-
ance applications. Why should such calculations not be introduced when the lat-
ter topics are treated at the sophomore level?

An even stronger case might be made for introducing the generalized rate
concept early in the curriculum. Certainly it is at least as important as the
balance concept, and a preliminary exposure to the idea of driving forces should
be an ideal preparation for the subsequent consideration of equilibrium in ther-
modynamics. Furthermore, the general relationship among rate, driving force,
and resistance can be readily grasped at the sophomore level.

With such an introduction, instruction in the unit operations could be large-
ly devoted to a consideration of the various rate coefficients and the environ-
mental factors which affect them. The importance of economic factors and sound
engineering judgment would also receive emphasis.

The foregoing comments are not presented so much as a recommendation -- al-
though the author's personal experience has shown such an approach to be highly
effective -- as they are to stimulate thought with respect to curriculum plan-
ning and the optimum arrangement of subject matter within the curriculum. Note
that the sessions planned for the present meeting will be concerned with only ap-
proximately one-third of the total curriculum -- and only one seventh if we dis-
regard the half-day session on chemistry.

This is as it should be for a meeting which is subject-matter oriented rather
than concerned with teaching methods and curriculum planning. Yet someone must
plan curricula, and new ideas and fresh approaches in this area are no less im-
portant than are new areas of subject matter within the curriculum.

The results of the survey here presented would appear to suggest that there
has been little change in the chemical engineering curriculum in the past five
years. We all know that this is not the case, for there have been significant
changes within a relatively stable curricular framework. The lamentable fact is
that such changes are all too frequently not reported to groups such as this so
that they can be tried elsewhere, perhaps adopted, and, most important, perhaps
built upon to achieve even more satisfactory results.

Such is the responsibility with which I wish to charge you in conclusion;
Let us continually analyze our curricula, course content, arrangement of sub-
Jest matter, etc., n terms of what we are trying to accomplish, how we are go-
ing about itJ and how effective our efforts are. Let us experiment to identify
new and more eTfective ways of achieving our objective. And, finally, let us
report the results of both our analyses and our experiments.

IN 1961-1962

Report of the AIChE's Committee on Undergraduate
Curricula, a sub-committee of both the Education
Projects Committee and the Program Committee, pre-
sented before the ASEE Chemical Engineering Summer
School in Boulder, Colorado, August, 1962.


This report presents the results of a survey of the general content of 92
accredited undergraduate chemical engineering curricula for the academic year
1961-62. Included in the report for purposes of comparison are the results of
a similar survey of 81 curricula of 1956-57, prepared by Dr. A. X. Schmidt of
the City University of New York and presented at the pIChE's Golden Jubilee Sym-
posium on Chemical Engineering Education in Philadelphia in June, 1958. 1

Source and Interpretation of Data

Each member of the Committee on Undergraduate Curricula gathered data from
approximately six schools and submitted a tabulation for final compilation. For
the most part the pertinent information was taken directly from school bulletins
and catalogs. To facilitate comparison with the earlier survey made by Dr.
Schmidt, each curriculum was broken down into the same subject matter categories
as were used in that survey. In some cases this made it necessary to apportion
a given course among two or more categories, with the course description serving
as a guide for such apportionment. Doubtful cases were resolved by consulting
the department concerned.

The extent of the instruction given in each category was expressed as a num-
ber of semester credit hours, one semester credit hour being equivalent to ap-
proximately three hours of a students time each week for fifteen weeks, this
time to include outside preparation as well as time in class or laboratory. The
quarter credit hours reported by some schools were converted to an equivalent
number of semester credit hours as here defined.

The reported results pertain only to accredited four-year curricula. Cur-
ricula which required one or more summer sessions in addition to four academic
years have been included in the summary, but those involving five full years of
study have not. Those curricula which require a cooperative work program have
been included-to the extent that the academic requirements of such curricula are
generally equivalent to a four-year program.


The results of the survey are presented in the appended Table 1 together
with the comparable figures for 1956-57. Column and category headings should be
largely self-explanatory with the following exceptions:

a) The numbers appearing at the left margin coincide with those used in
the 1956-57 survey and are included to facilitate a detailed comparison should
anyone wish to refer directly to Dr. Schmidt's report.

b) Gross credits (llne 6) refers to the total requirement for graduation.
However, many schools offer physical education, military studies, review mathe-
matics, orientation, etc., on a non-credit basis. Credits assigned to such
courses (lines 20 and 23) and to religious training courses at sectarian schools
part of line 14) have therefore been deducted from the gross credits to arrive
t the net credits reported on line 7.

SMaterials instruction (lines 54-58) has been broken down into two eat-


egories. Category A includes courses which are oriented toward solid state
physics, whereas Category B courses are more concerned with engineering appli-


Although the figures presented in Table 1 tell their own story, there are
several aspects of the comparison which deserve specific comment. A somewhat
clearer picture is afforded by the rounded figures and percentages given in
Table 2, which compares the "average" curriculum in 1961-62 with that in 1965-57.

It can be seen from Table 2 that
1) over the five-year period there has been a slight decrease in the em-
phasis given communications skills, despite industry's continued appeal for en-
gineering graduates with more proficiency in writing and speaking.

2) the emphasis given the humanistic-social studies area has increased sig-
nificantly; but the average, including communications skills, is still below the
20 per cent figure suggested in 1955 by the Committee on Evaluation of Engineer-
ing Education of the ASEE. 2 It is perhaps worth noting that approximately one-
third of the curricula do provide 27 or more credits in the non-technical area,

3) the mathematics requirement has been increased by two credits. Courses
in differential equations and higher mathematics account for almost all of this
increase. (Note that Table 1 shows fewer schools now giving credit for intro-
ductory and review mathematics.)

4) the chemistry content of the average curriculum is down two credits. It
is interesting to note from Table 1 that this is the result of an across-the-
board cutback rather than of cuts in a particular area such as analytical chem-

5) the physics content of-the curriculum is apparently unchanged. However,
Table 1 shows a significant change within this general category, with 38 per cent
of the schools now offering instruction in modern physics as opposed to only 9
per cent in 1956-57.

6) there has been a slight decrease in the credits allocated to graphics
and mechanics. Attention is also called to the fact that only 55 per cent of the
curricula now contain a course in materials (see Table 1).

7) the chemical engineering portion of the average curriculum is essentially
unchanged. However, Table 1 shows some internal shifts in emphasis, particularly
insofar as the number of schools offering instruction in kinetics is concerned.

8) approximately 57 per cent of the average curriculum of 1961-62 is devoted
to basic science and non-technical subjects, whereas only 24 per cent of the cur-
riculum is devoted to specialization within the field of chemical engineering.
These figures lend considerable support to the popular claim that the average un-
dergraduate chemical engineer receives a broad education.


The comparison of undergraduate chemical engineering curricula in 1961-62
with those in 1956-57 shows some changes which may be indicative of trends:
Non-technical subjects, higher mathematics, modern physics, and chemical kinet-
ics are receiving slightly greater emphasis, while the attention given chemistry
and graphics, for example, has been slightly reduced. For the most part, however
the figures do not show any great change over the five-year period.

This is not to suggest that significant changes have not in fact taken place.
The objective and nature of the survey was such that changes within various cur-
ricula were not identified. Thus such developments as the transport properties
approach to the unit operations, instruction in digital and analog computation,
and calculus at the freshman level were ignored in this survey. The implication
that a further study which would be concerned with changes within curricula might
be informative.

It may also be that the breakdown developed by Dr. Schmidt in his earlier
survey has out-lived its usefulness. New categories -- such as digital and an-
alog computation, for example -- should almost certainly be added if another sur-


vey is made some years hence. The fact that some recent curricular changes pro-
vide for elective options and degree requirements which are somewhat "elastic"
is another problem which is likely to be faced.

In conclusion, it is sincerely hoped that neither the average curriculum nor
the ranges of credit hours reported herein will be looked upon as a performance
standard. Carefully planned change and experimentation with the curriculum is
essential if stagnation is to be avoided. If this survey provides a basis for a
critical evaluation of one's own curriculum it has served its purpose.

1. A. X. Schmidt, "'hat Is the Current B.Ch.E. Curriculum," JnL of Eng.Educ,
50. NO. 1, October, 1959.
2. "Report on Evaluation of Engineering Education," Amer Soc. for Engrg.Educ.
June 15, 1955.


Comparison of "Average" Curricula


Communication Skills
Total non-technical
Total Basic science
Mech, Mech of Matls
Electrical Engrg
Total engrg science
Process Principles
Unit Operations
Other Chem Engrg
Total Chem Engrg
Economics, Bus Ad
Technical Electives

4:Percentage of total credits

Credits Per Cent*

8 6
13 9
21 15
13 9
31 23
11 8
55 40
7 5
5 4
2 1
14 10
9 7
12 9
12 9
33 25
5 4
3 2
4 3
2 1


Credits Per Cent*

7 5
17 12
24 17
15 11
29 21
11 8
55 40
6 4
5 4
2 1
13 9
9 6
12 9
12 9
33 24
4 3
3 2
5 4
1 1
13 10
1378 1i

September 1962



Average American B.Ch.E. Curriculum of 1960-61
Compared with 1956-57
Percentage Avg. Number
Range of Avg. Number of Schools of Credits
ECPD Credits of credits Offering When Offered
1957 1961 1957 1961 1957 191 1957 1961

6. Gross Credits 130-160 125-162 147.0 146.2 -- -
7. Net Credits 118-160 123-154 136.9 138.2 -- ---
0. Non-Technical Subjects
9. Written Communication Skills 0-16 0-12 6.5 5.9 98.8 97.8 6.6 6.0
10. oral Communication Skills 0-4 0-3.3 1.1 1.0 43.2 45.6 2.4 2.3
11. Subtotal, Communication Skills 0-16 0-15 7.6 6.9 98.8 97.8 7.7 7.1
12. Humanities, Required Courses 0-24 0-20 4.0 5.4 63.0 72.7 6.3 7.6
13. Social Studies, Required Courses 0-14 0-12 3.1 2.7 59.1 55.4 5.9 4.8
14. Other Required Cultural Courses 0-18 0-27.3 1.3 1.5 22.2 20.7 .7 7.3
15. Non-technical Electives 0-24 0-30 6.4 7.6 76.5 82.6 8.3 9.2
16. Subtotal, Cultural Courses 3-30 5.7-30.7 14.7 17.2 100.0 100.0 14.7 17.2
. Physical Education, etc. 0-8 0-8 .8 1.9 50.6 51.6 3.5 3.7
18 Military Studies 0-12 0-20 3.1 2.9 48.1 49.0 6.5 6.0
19. Other non-technical 0-4 0-6.7 0.3 0.3 23.5 14.1 1.3 2.0
20. Subtotal, Phys.Ed., Military, etc. 0-16 0-24 5.2 5.2 84.0 77.2 6.2 6.6
21. Total, all non-technical subjects 16-43 15-49 27.5 29.6 100.0 100.0 27.5 29.6
22. Mathematics, Chemistry, and Physics
23. Introductory and Review Mathematics 0-10 0-19 4.4 2.6 79.0 53.3 5.6 4.9
2. Analytic Geometry and Calculus 8-16 6-22 11.6 11.7 100.0 100.0 11.6 11.7
2. Differential Equations and Other 0-6 0-14 1.3 3.6 44.4 81.5 2.8 4.3
26. Subtotal, Mathematics 12-22 12-26 17.3 17.9 100.0 100.0 17.3 17.9
27. General Chemistry 4-10 4-10 8.0 7.8 100.0 100. 8. 7.8
. PhysicalChemistry 6-13 0-13 8.5 81 100.0 98.9 8.5 8.2
29. Oraanic Chemistry 3-1 8. 7.8 100.0 98.9 8.5 7.8
30. Quantitative Analysis 0- 0 4.2 3.5 98.8 94.6 4.2 3.7
31. Qualitative Anlysis 0-4 0-5 1.3 1.3 44.4 39.2 3.0 3.3
32.. Other Chemistry 0-5 0-14 0.3 0.5 9.9 9.8 3.3 5.5
33. Subtotal, Chemistry 2-37 21-38 30.8 28.9 100.0 100.0 30.8 28.9
34. General Physics -16 5.3-16 10.8 10.2 100.0 100.0 10.8 10.2
35. Moden Physics 0-3 0-6 0.2 1.0 8.6 38.0 2.6 2.7
36. Subtotal, Physios 8-20 5.3-19 11.1 11.3 100.0 100.0 11.1 11.3
37. Total, Math., Chemistry, Physics 49-68 49-70 59.2 57.9 100.0 100.0 59.2 57.9
38Engineering Graphics
39. Total Graphics 0-9 0-9 4.7 3.8 97.5 94.6 4.8 4.0
40. Economics, Business Law, Business Administration and Allied
1. Economics, Principles of 0-6 0-7.3 2.2 2.1 55.6 58.7 3.9 3.5
2. Economics, Engineering 0-6 0-3 0.7 0.5 23.5 22.8 2.8 2.2
3. Bus. Law, Bus. Admin., etc. 0-6 0-8 0.5 0.3 18.5 8.7 2.9 3.0
Total Eco., Bus. Law, Bus. Admin. 0-11 0-12.5 3.4 2.7 70.4 68.5 4.8 4.1
Mechanics of Solids
46. Mechanics 0-7 0-10 3.7 3.9 97.5 97.8 3.8 4.0
47. Mechanics of Materials 0-5 0-6 3.1 2.5 97.5 80.4 3.2 3.1
4. Total Mechanics of Solids 2-10 0-10 6.8 6. 100.0 97.8 6.8 6.6
9 Elementary Electrical Engineering
Elementary Electrical Engineering 0-8 0-10 4.7 4.0 98.8 93.5 4.8 4.3
51. Elementary Electronics 0-3 0-4.5 0.3 0.9 9.9 38.0 2.6 2.5
52. Electrical Engineering, Total 0-9 0-10 5.0 5.0 100.0 95.7 5.0 5.2
53. Nature and Properties of Materials A and B
Physical Metallurgy 0-4 0-6 1.2 0.6 40.7 20.6 2.9 3.1
Other Category A Courses 0-3 0-4 0.1 0.3 5.0 11.9 2.0 2.6
56. Metallurgy 0-5 0-6 0.4 0.6 12.7 21.7 2.9 3.0
57. Other Category B Courses 0-5 0-6 0.6 0.3 28.4 11.9 2.1 2.6
58. Total, Materials 0-8 08 2.3 1.9 67.9 55.4 3.4 3.4
59. Supplementary Sciences and Practices
60. Biology and Geology 0-8 0-8 0.2 0.2 4.9 4.3 3.8 4.0
61. Heat Power 0-6 0-4.7 0.8 0.2 23.5 .7 3.4 2.3
62. Shop Practice 0-3 0-2 0.4 0.1 23.5 8.7 1 1.3
63. Other 0-4 0-6 0.4 0.3 13.6 15.2 2.8 2.2
64. Total, Supplementaries 0-8 0-8 1.8 0.8 45.7 29.3 3.9 2.8
65. Chemical Engineering
67. Thermodynamics 2-10 1-9 4.8 5.0 100.0 100.0 4.8 5.0
6. Chemical Kinetics 0-5 0-4 0.5 1.2 18.5 53.2 2.5 2.3
69. Subtotal, Chem. Process Principles 5-17 2.7-17 9.1 9,2 100.0 100.0 9.1 9.2
70. Unit Operations Theory 4-13 0-16 7.6 8.2 100.0 97.8 7.6 8.4
71. Unit Operations Laboratory 2-7 0-8 4.1 3.9 100.0 98.9 4.1 4.0
72. Subtotal, Unit Operations 8-16 0-20 11.7 12.1 100.0 98.9 11.7 12.2
73. Chemical Engineering Design 0-12 0-8.7 3.7 3.5 90.1 86.9 4.1 4.0
74. Chemical Technology 0-7 0-7 2.7 1.8 75.3 53.2 3.6 3.3
75. Investigational Skills 0-12 0-8 2. 1.5 70.4 50.0 3.5 3.1
76. Introduction to Chemical Engr 0-4 0-10 0.8 0.9 38.3 39.1 2.0 2.3
77 Instrumentation 0-5 0-4 0.7 1.1 32.1 41.3 2.3 2.5
7. Unit Processes 0-3 0-7.5 0.6 0.7 27.2 23.9 2.2 3.0
79. Trips 0-3 0-8 0.3 0.3 21.0 17.4 1.5 1.7
8. FUel and Lubricants : 0 0-3 0.3 0.1 13.6 4.3 1.9 1.5
1. Other 0-20 0.6 1.7 19.8 42.3 2.9 3.9
82. Subtotal 5-23 0-25 12.1 11.5 100.0 98.9 12.1 11.6
83. Total, Chemical Engineering 23-45 20-53 32.9 32.8 00.0 0.0 32.8
8 l T l Technical Electives
STotal Technical Electives 0-12 0-24 3.6 5.2 65.4 75.0 5.5 7.0


Charles M. Cooper
Engineering Department-Engineering Research Division
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc.
Wilmington, Delaware

While the program implies that I will be "speaking for Du Pont, I am
sure you realize that no one can really "speak-for" an organization on a sub-
ject of this sort. In preparing the talk I have had discussions with many peo-
ple covering a wide range of interests and responsibilities and found no strong
disagreement with the points of view expressed here. However, I am sure that
had any one of these people prepared the paper, it would differ in many ways. I
quickly found that every person polled had a different opinion, in fact, I soon
despaired of producing an "opinion" useful to yoe:. Most seemed to feel that the
current graduate was not so bad but certainly could be better. There was some
thought but little, if any, firm evidence that today's graduate may not be as
broadly useful as those of some years ago, though the opposite view was also met,
Eventually I came around to asking "What does Du Pont look for in its Chemical
Engineers"? it is to this specific question that I will now address myself.

In what follows I will first attempt to give you a brief picture of what Du
Pont looks for in its chemical engineers. This will, in effect, attempt to
describe a product we want to obtain, and it will be your product I will be talk-
ing about. Next I will raise some questions regarding your responsibility for
certain important aspects in the education of chemical engineers. Finally, I
will make a few suggestions looking toward more emphasis on some of these as-

To provide background let us look at Slide 1 which shows, for 1961, the dis-
tribution of technically trained people in Du Pont among a number of disciplines.




You will note that people trained as chemical engineers make up 28,( of all tech-
nical employees, while mechanical engineers and chemists are the other major
groups. Slide 2 shows the distribution of chemical engineers in a few areas of
Du Pont effort.



I give these figures only to show that the chemical engineer is found in many
areas of Du Pont activity, including management. Other areas such as production
and research activities were not surveyed but I would not expect the distribu-
tion there to depart significantly from the company average. These figures, un-
fortunately, can no more than hint at the destinies in Du Pont for present grad-
uates. They do suggest, however, that the long-time usefulness of your graduates
will depend much more upon their abilities to cope with problems which require
integration of people, science, engineering, and economics than upon their abil-
ities, however excellent, to design equipment or plan the technical aspects of a
research study. I do not suggest that excellence in chemical engineering design,
or a sound basis in thermodynamics or an adequate background in solid state phys-
ics, as example, are no longer important. I am suggesting that such excellence
is not enough. Indeed, it has little utility until it has been applied. Appli-
cation is so important that the man who has only a little knowledge but who has
learned to employ it effectively can become the most useful; i.e., the best paid,
man in the organization. As time goes on such a man develops a wide ranging
knowledge because part of his effectiveness depends upon recognizing areas where
his knowledge is inadequate and then doing something about it. In other words
he grows. We want men who will grow and continue to grow throughout their whole
lifetimes, men with insatiable curiosities, men who meet the broad problems of
our industry and recognize them for what they are, exciting, challenging, and re-

Remember, now, that our problems involve a combination of people, science,
engineering, and economics. This is true whether the area be management, re-
search, sales, product development, or plant design. These problems do not nec-
essarily require the attention of chemical engineers, and there are many cases
where people without chemical engineering training have become exceedingly able
as solvers of chemical industry problems. Is there any unique value, then, in
a chemical engineering education? I believe there is. A chemical engineer en-
tering the chemical industry will usually start with reasonably well defined as-
signments not too far removed from his classroom experience. He is expected to
handle them effectively. It is most important that his initial efforts be suc-
cessful. Sound training in chemical engineering including as much experience in
handling problems as is practical in his schooling are the best preparation he
can have. At this point he can have a distinct advantage over, for instance, a
man trained in mechanical engineering, but also can be at a disadvantage if the
latter has learned much more effectively to employ his knowledge. Assuming
equaleffectiveness the chemical engineer will start with an advantage and should
be able to grow more rapidly provided only that he has as good an aptitude and
has received through his living and educational experiences the same sort of in-
centives to grow. But note that effectiveness in the use of knowledge can more
than take the place of specialization.

Perhaps from all this you begin to see some picture of what we want in chem-
ical engineers. First we want men well prepared to handle defined problems --
problems not too far removed from the kind met with at school but problems which
may involve many phases of scientific knowledge or experimental approach. "Well
prepared" includes undertaking with confidence of success relatively simple sci-
entific or engineering application work in fields foreign to their academic ex-
perience. In the end we want men who will grow rapidly till they can handle
quickly and effectively not only the multidiscipline problems so common in the
chemical industry but also the multiaspect problems -- people, science, engineer-
ing, and economics -- which are common to all industry.

How your current product "stacks-up" against these wants I am not prepared
to say. Many of the people with whom this paper was discussed are concerned
that the current emphasis on "engineering science" will take emphasis away from
the application of science. Science is of value to us only as it is applied.
The schools have a real responsibility for turning out graduates who are as well
prepared as possible to help us solve our immediate technical problems; they have
a much larger responsibility, I feel, for turning out people who will grow; peo-
ple with insatiable curiosity, people with a vision of exciting, challenging and
rewarding work ahead.

I suspect this statement of our "wants" while possibly interesting may not
be very helpful to you. Let me be more specific. When we employ a chemical en-
gineer (or any person for that matter), we want a man who will solve our problems,
a producer, an effective worker. We tend to take for granfltthe items of his
formal education and focus on those aspects that determine whether he can and
Uij- use, his formal training effectively. Can he write, talk, 1 stenT'oesa he

September 1962


possess initiative? Curiosity? Confidence? Reliability? We suspect that the
effectiveness of chemical engineers in doing our work is more dependent on the ex-
perience they have had in using their knowledge than on the knowledge itself. It
may be that the problem work required in the "chemical engineering" courses pro-
vides "experience" to a greater degree than is found in other engineering dis-
ciplines, and that this experience is a factor behind the chemical engineers?
reputation for versatility. If so what an opportunity there should be to turn
out a much improved strain of chemical engineers simply by ensuring still better
experience during school years in the application of knowledge

Let me be very emphatic concerning problems. I am not confining myself to
problems involved in equipment selection design, fabrication or operation. We
want men who will also tackle effectively cost analyses, product development,
patent prosecution or sales effort -- to name a few areas -- when problems in
these areas require their attention; but we do not expect trained experts in all
these and other fields. We want people who wilT employ effectively what they
know; and people who expect to acquire new knowledge as their work requires it.

Warren K. Lewis has stated the objective of chemical engineering training in
somewhat this manner "to so prepare a man that, when faced by a new and unusual
situation whether technical, social, or economic, he will handle it with confi-
dence and effectiveness." If we accept such a statement for our guide, we are
led to two questions, (1) "What knowledge and experiences does a man require in
order that he will tackle the new and unusual situations of the future with con-
fidence and effeciveness?" and then, (2) "What part should the school play in
ensuring that the student acquires both the essential knowledge and experiences"?

No one will disagree that a person must have a reasonable grasp of all co-
gent factors before he can take competent action; I wonder if it is as self-
evident that he must alsohave some confidence of success before he will take ac-
tion. Such confidence, for most of us I dare say, comes only as the result of
previous successful achievements. If you will grant me this conclusion, we are
led to three secondary objectives for chemical engineering education which back
up the main objective, these are:
1. To help the student acquire as sound as possible a grasp of the
sciences, the humanities, and the engineering disciplines. It
is of equal importance to stimulate him to continue his self-
2. To provide experience in meeting successfully new and unusual
experiences and situations which may require information from
many disciplines.
3. To make the student aware that problems in engineering (and in
life) seldom have single answers; what we seek is the best an-
swer, even though we may have to settle for less.

Under item (1), the student acquires the basic knowledge that makes it pos-
sible for him to handle the practical problems; with this knowledge he can takle
the unusual problem if he will. With the background of experience gaine- under
item (2) the student acquires the confidence he must have before he will tackle
the unusual problem. Finally with some experience under item (3) the student
becomes aware that most practical problems involve people, science, engineering,
and economics. Am I correct in believing that current teaching emphasizes item
(1) and almost excludes from active consideration items (2) and (3)? Coming
back to item (1) -- here is the field of curricula. What subject matter must
the student be exposed to; how can a proper choice be made of the most essential
bits from the mass of new and old material? Once chosen there are time-tested
teaching methods which, however, tend to rely heavily or entirely on illustrative
problems with a single correct answer. Let me return later to the problems of
choice of material and of the one correct answer.

What kind of experiences are needed (item 2) to develop confidence leading
to action? For this, I suppose, personal success in handling analogous problems
is the necessary experience. I recall the first church fund drIve nwich I
participated. This I would have avoided almost by any means but in the situation
I could not do so and finally with actual dread I approached the first call. You
know what happened, it was a pleasant, not an unpleasant, experience. That one
experience opened the door to me for all kinds of personal contacts which I other-
wise might have hesitated to make. By the same token, the student who has suc-
cessfully employed energy and material balances to solve problems ranging from
the efficiency of a coal fired boiler plant to the heat of reaction in a fluid-
ized bed converter, should now be confident that the same tools can be usefully

September 1962


employed in any area where there is a transfer of mass and energy. As I have in-
dicated before, experience in this specific area may be back of the chemical en-
gineers' willingness to tackle problems outside the scope of his direct experi-
ence. Under item (2), I would suggest that, among other things, a student should
meet a few problems where he must supply missing data; others where there is un-
necessay-information; and still others where the actual problem turns out, after
analyzing the information, to be different than that originally stated. Moreover
the student should have practice in thinking his way through problems to obtain
approximate answers quickly -- to size the problem before spending time to get
the exact solution. I feel that ability and initiative in thinking through prob-
lems in a quantitative way is of sufficient importance both for developing con-
fidence, for stimulating curiosity, and for increasing effectiveness that no one
should be allowed to graduate in chemical engineering without formally demonstrat-
ing such ability. Note, however, that facility at mental mathematics is essen-
tial. Do you ask for proof that a student has achieved even this facility?

Tom Sherwood, some years ago, published a paper in the ASEE Journal on the
subject "Should Engineering Schools Teach Engineering." He was talking about
item (3).. It seems unlikely, to me, that many of the illustrative problems used
in teaching can be of the open ended sort because the staff effort required to
handle them would be too great. There should, however, be enough such examples
and with the proper emphasis so that the student appreciates he is dealing with
problems more nearly like those to be met with in industry. I believe this can
be done if the need is recognized and the effort made. I would expect that im-
plementation of items (2) and (3) would not require more courses, but would be
handled by the way in which existing courses are taught.o Note that AIChE's
Chemical Engineering contest problem has at times constituted a step in this di-

Let me recapitulate what we think we want in chemical engineers.

We in the chemical industry see continual increase in the variety as well as
the depth of the problems our chemical engineers must face, with the new and un-
usual the daily fare for many. We need men who have a sound basing in the sci-
ences and mathematics, a reasonable acquaintance with technology, enough exper-
ience in applying their knowledge to problems requiring bits from several disci-
plines including economics so that they will know it can be done, some acquain-
tance with the open-ended problem -- the one requiring a "best" answer, a well
developed curiosity, -- and the ability to communicate. I have emphasized the
importance of "people, science, engineering, and economics." We all work for
some one and others work for us. The importance of science, engineering a-nTec-
onomics are, no doubt, refa-ly apparent to the student. He cannot, however, pos-
sibly understand the importance of people until he has had organizational exper-
ience in working for another or in directing others. While nothing can take the
place of actual experience, he should be aware of the problem, particularly of
the problem of communication, to the extent that he will expect it and look for
it. Perhaps you could use every report or examination paper as a specific exam-
ple of a problem in communications. Individual conferences with student could
appraise the students deficiencies and emphasize communications difficulties.

Now let me conclude with a few thoughts regarding curriculum -- the material
largely contained in item (1) of the slide. This may be "old stuff." If so, I
apologize in advance. One may organize the material a student will encounter in-
to the categories of:
Tools mathematics; physical and chemical
laws; communication which includes
spelling, writing, speaking, lis-
tening, languages; etc.

Knowledge the sciences, technologies -- organ-
ized information in general

Information- largely how things are done, mechan-
ical and electrical devices, pipe-
fitting, matching, equipment generally

Experience knowledge derive from one's own action.

The tools are the student's most basic asset. They are used to manipulate
knowledge to put it to use. Choice of the tool subjects required is rela-
tively easy and good methods of teaching are available with the single exception
of communication which seldom, if ever, is adequately covered.


Knowledge covers an enormous span and here there is real trouble deciding
what areas esould and can be included. Minimum coverage of important areas should
include emphasis on general principles with enough application to specific prob-
lems so that the student will be confident that, with a little study, he can han-
le practical problems. Many important areas cannot be covered even to this
extent but contact should be carried to the point that the student will remember
he has heard of it, and will carry away the impression that this area too can be
mastered by study if need be. In considering the "what to cover" and "how to
cover it," the prime consideration should be "what does the student need to es-
tablish his confidence that he can find his way around in this field."

Information covers a far wider field than knowledge. Here, I feel, we have
much to learn regarding choice of material and teaching methods. For example,
there are many physical tools which the student may well need to use in later
life but which time is too short for him to experience with his own hands. Orsat
analysis, surveying tools and methods, pipefitting, lathe operation, operation
of a distilling column, excavating equipment, pile drivers; or information re-
trieval systems, and computers. Here is needed only some kind of mental index
that tells him yes, I saw that, I am sure I can find the information. For exam-
ple -- when I was a student at M.I.T., all chemical engineers had a year of
machine tool lab; today that laboratory does not exist. I feel that both ap-
proaches missed the point. One doesn't need a year's lab work on machine tools
to convey an understanding of what can be done -- yet no engineers' education can
be considered complete without some such understanding. Here a carefully pre-
pared movie series in perhaps three, one-hour periods, could, I believe, give a
broadly, useful understanding of the whole field and leave in the student an ad-
equate feeling of confidence that he understand the essential features of the
technology. Application of this principle to many existing courses could, I
would hope, reduce the amount of effort required and at the same time provide a
very much broadened base of information.

As I am sure you are aware most everything I have said could be applied to
other engineering disciplines equally well. This would be fine -- it could pro-
vide Du Pont with better engineers in every field.

To Summarize:

We look for men, including chemical engineers, who will apply their know-
ledge effectively to the wide range of unusual, multidisclpline problems that
they will be exposed to in the chemical industry; problems that cannot possibly
be anticipated during their school years. We want men who will continue to grow
in breadth and depth. We want men with insatiable curiosity.

We suspect that confidence in his ability to handle unusual problems, con-
fidence based upon experience in actually handling unusual problems, is neces-
sary before the man can be confident of ultimate success. Without such confi-
dence it is unlikely tat effective action will result. The schools have a high
degree of responsibility for providing such experience.

We suggest that in choosing what to teach and how to teach it the guiding
principle should be "how much need the student know and how much practice must
he have to gain a soundly based confidence that, given time, he can master the
unusual problem." We would hope, as a result of such an approach, that cur-
ricula could be simplified but at the same time be greatly strengthened.

You may probably feel that the suggestions just made are naive and impracti-
cal -- perhaps they are. They are offered only in the hope that somehow you
can find the ways to give us engineers -- chemical engineers -- who both can and
will tackle still more effectively the broad range of unusual, exciting, c-al-
lenging and rewarding problems which characterize the chemical industry. Such
men will have curiosity of a high order and will grow in usefulness to them-
selves and to industry throughout their lifetimes.

In closing, I would like to leave two different but related questions in
your minds. (1) Do you make a real attempt to bring to your students a feeling
for their responsibilities as professional men and as citizens? Perhaps per-
sonal example would be the best teacher here. How many of your staff take ac-
tive parts in professional society, civic, or a church work? (2) Are you look-
ing to the secondary schools for long-range help in your own curricula? Is
there not a good chance that some share of the time spent by college freshmen
could be covered in high school? Are you doing something about it?


G. T. Halberstadt
Research & Development Dept.
Proctor & Gamble Company
Cincinnati, Ohio

Ny topic, "The Chemical Engineer and His Place in the Long Range Goals
of Industry", raises many questions. What are industry's goals? Which industries?
When? What implications do these goals have for the Chemical Engineer? For hi
education? These are the questions I should like to discuss with you today.
I believe it is most pertinent to these questions to focus specifically
on the period when the students of the sixties will be assuming their highest
levels of responsibilities. This will be some 20-25 years from now.
In order to obtain some answers to the questions posed, I believe we
would do well to heed the advice of Abraham Lincoln, who said:
"If we could know first where we are, and whither we
are tending, we could then judge what to do and how
to do it."

With this advice as a guide, let us look at some data. Many of the figures that I
shall present are necessarily estimates. They have been derived from many sources,
including studies by Departments of Commerce and Labor plus factors that we have
developed over the years.
Let us consider first the growth in Gross National Product (Exhibit 1).
The line for the G.N.P. is in terms of fixed (1954) dollars; it reflects the oha
in actual goods and services. Since the war, the increase per year has varied fror
2.5% for the past 5 years to 3.2% for the past 15 years. There is much attention
these days to goals for America that visualize increases in the O.N.P. Optimisti-
oally, and I hope realistically, I shall assume an annual increase for the G.N.P.
between now and 1985 at least equal to that actually achieved on the average sines
the end of the war 3.2%. In order to put the G.N.P. in perspective, the popula-
tion growth is shown at the bottom of the chart.

Exhibit 2 shows the industries employing Ch.E.'s and the approximate
number and percent of Ch.E.'s in each of these industries. The classifications
used here are those used in studies by the National Science Foundation, Departments
of Labor and Commerce, and others. Chemical Companies are those producing products
generally recognized as chemicals or pharmaceuticals. They employ approximately
one-half of the Chemical Engineers.

Chemical Process Companies, as used here, are those producing products
not generally recognized as either chemicals, pharmaceuticals, or petroleum, but
whose technology is based primarily on chemistry foods, paper, textile manufao-
turers, detergents, cement, glass, etc. They employ approximately one-eighth of
the Chemical Engineers.

Petroleum Companies include exploration as well as refining, and products
of coal as well as petroleum. These companies employ about one-fourth of the
Chemical Engineers.

Others metal, electrical, aircraft, etc. employ about one-eighth of
the Chemical Engineers.


Exhibit 3 shows the growth of these industries which I shall call
Chemical Engineering Industries. The figures shown here were calculated from td
average sales growths of 8 chemical companies as a group, of 8 chemical prooesi
companies as a group, and of 8 petroleum companies as a group. Each group avera'
was then weighted in proportion to the percent of Ch.E.'s it employs; namely, th
50%, 12.5%, and 25% shown in Exhibit 2. All figures were then converted to fixed
(1954) dollars. During the past 10 years the annual fixed dollar growth has averWa ,
3.6% per year. This is g, greater than the 2.9% growth of the O.N.P. in the am
period shown on the preceding slide.
What are the goals for these "Ch.E. Industries" for the next 20-25 yearet
These, of course, will be influenced by the goal for the G.N.P. The record of the
past decade, current activities, and the aggressive managements of the "Ch.E. Indud-
tries" make me feel that when one talks goals, he must assume a goal for these
industries higher than the goal for the G.N.P. A reasonable 1985 goal would seem
to be one at least comparable to the record of the past ten years, namely an annual
growth in sales 25% greater than the assumed 3.2% annual growth in G.N.P., or 4.0%
for these industries on a fixed dollar basis. Exhibit 4 shows the results of such
growth along with the estimated population growth. By 1985, the population will
be up 50% from that of 1961. The G.N.P. on a fixed dollar basis will be up twice
that. The goals for "Ch.E. Industries" are sales up about one-half again as much
as the G.N.P.

Exhibit 5 shows the number of Chemical Engineering college graduates in
industry from 1930 through 1961. During the past ten years, the number of Ch.E.'s
in industry has increased on the average 5.7% per year.

Exhibit 6 gives a comparison of this growth rate with other growth rates.
Population will continue to grow 1.9% per year. G.N.P. fixed dollars, 2.9% past
10 years; 3.2% for 1961-85. Ch.E. Industries Sales, 25% faster than O.N.P. in each
period: 3.6% past 10 years; 4.0% for 1961-85. Ch.E.'s in industry: 5.7% past 10
years; what will be the rate of increase 1961-85? The other figures on this chart
have implications with respect to the answer to this question. (Exhibit 7) This.
shows the possible needs and possible supply of Chemical Engineers.

The black lines are two estimates of the number of Ch.E.'s needed if
"Ch.E. Industries" are to achieve their 1985 goals. Each of these black lines
recognizes that these industries have achieved specific sales with a specific num
ber of Ch.E.'s in 1961. The lower black line labelled +4% assumes also that
if sales in fixed dollars are to increase 4% per year, a similar 4% increase will
be required in the number of Ch.E.'s The upper black line labelled +6.3% on
the other hand, recognizes the fact s..own on the preceding chart that it required
a 5.7% annual increase in Ch.E.'s in industry to increase the fixed dollar sales
3.6% (1951-1961) and, therefore, assumes that it will take a 6.3% annual increase
in Ch.E.'s to increase sales 4.0% in 1961-85. Many companies have indicated they
will need an increase of this magnitude. The overall estimate given by the
Chemical Industry to Department of Labor for N.S.F. study of future needs shows
that between 1959 and 1970 an average 5.6% increase of engineers would be needed
per year.

Now let's look at the gray lines. These are estimates of the number of
Ch.E.'s that would be available to industry under three different conditions, Each
estimate includes allowances for attrition over the years based on approximations
that seem reasonable in view of what has happened generally from 1930 to 1961 and
other related information. The lower gray line marked 100% assumes also that
the same percent of 20-24 year males will obtain B.S. degrees in Ch.E. as in the
past 5 years: just under .05%. Under this condition, the "Ch.E. Industries Saless
will be growing faster than the number of Ch.E.'s employed by these industries.
Note the 4.0% black line is above the 100% gray line. This is a good trick if it
can be done; but it is contrary to the past.and indications given by "Ch.E. Indus-
tries" managements in personal conversation that I have hadas well as in their
estimates, for N.S.F. studies that I have mentioned.

September 1962


To achieve the middle gray line marked 140A which in effect dupinsee
the industry sales increase in fixed dollars of 4% per year, would require a 40.
lirease by 1970 in the 20-24 year male population graduating as Ch.E.'s and a oh-
tinuation at that level to 1985. To get this kind of increase, industries, aoadeo
institutions, and A.I.Ch.E. must do more than they have done in the past to inter&
boys in Ch.E. I believe such an increase could be obtained; it will, however, be
most difficult. It means 6000 B.S. degrees per year in the early '70's ve about
3000 this year.
To achieve the upper gray line marked 250% which in effect duplicates
the 6.3% increase per year needed to maintain the same increase in Ch.E.'s relative
to the increase in sales as occurred in 1951-1961 would require a 150% increase in
the 20-24 year males graduating as Ch.E.'s, or about 11,000 B.S. degrees per year
in the early '70's vs 3000 this year. This would be nice, perhaps; but I believe
we should face the fact that this is not going to happen.
Ch.E.'s have brought many benefits to industry. Future benefits will be
less obvious and will require a more complex technology and better organized effort
to achieve. This is the history of all industrial progress. For instance, our
basic steel industry which is older than "Ch.E. Industries", at one time used only
rich ores, largely surface mined with surface mined coal. Today, this industry is
compelled to dig deeper for its ore and coal, and devise methods to process lower
grade ores to finished products of higher specifications. So it is and will be
with "Ch.E. Industries". Overall, it seems safe to assume, therefore, that the
work to be done will increase faster than industries' fixed dollars sales and that
the supply of Ch.E.'s will not grow as fast as the work to be done. This is very
interesting; it is Parkinson's law in reverse.
Chemical Engineers perform various functions in industry as shown in
Exhibit 8. The lines between Adm.-Mgt. and Supervisors-Technologists-Specialists
are not sharp and vary company to company up and down from those shown in this
exhibit. Also, there are similar overlapping among R&D, Production-Operations-
Exploration, and Others. The lines in this exhibit are based on definitions and
data in the National Science Foundation report on a 1959 Survey of Scientific and
Technical Personnel in American Industry.

The future will bring changes in the job details and some reapportioning
among R&D, Production, and Others. Also, there will be a greatly increased work
volume in the various functions. In Exhibit 9, the areas of the two charts are
proportional to the sales in the two years. The area for 1985 is 21 times the
size of that for 1961. As indicated previously, the actual work volume to be
handled may be even greater than this and with a much smaller increase in Ch.E.'e.

Who are the Ch.E.'s that perform these functions in 1961 and who will
they be in 1985? This is shown by Exhibit 10.

Absorb this chart slowly, please, one piece at a time. Focus your atten-
tion fiest on the lower 4/Sths of the charts; notice that in 1985 about 90% of the
area is light gray, meaning that these functions must be performed by the graduates
of 1962-1985. The other 106 will be performed by those shown in black who are all
that will be left of those that carried out these functions in 1961. In total, the
Chemical Engineers must be able to carry out the functions, regardless of whether
the 41 -44%-15% distribution remains as shown here or changes. Further, they must
be able to handle the job details not as they are today, but as they will be then.
And finally, they must be able to handle the increased volume of responsibilities
per ma. Effective utilization of new tools such as computers and better project
and personnel management techniques will be mandatory.

Now focus your attention on the top of the chart representing the Ada.0j
groups in 1961 and 1985. The 1985 group is made up of about 10% that perf-ortmeld
function in 1961 (shown in black), and about 20% that were in the Supervisor.
Technologist-Specialist group in 1961 (shown in dark gray). There are no other~
from 1961. About 70% of the Adm.-Mgt. group (shown in light gray) must o0e RfU

September 1962


Sreauates of the next 10 years. If these functions in Alyo are carrne out 0*
or inadequately, "Ch.E. Industries" will not achieve their goals and the Ch.E..,i
the Chemical Engineering profession will have lost an opportunity for stature in
our society.

In total, this chart reflects what I believe are the basic problems Oa-
fronting Ch.E.'s and Ch.E. Education, namely quantity and quality of Ch.E.'s.
The problem of quantity is obvious. Can it be solved? So far there has been
lethargy or, at best, talk, and even then much of it has been pretty much as you
and I are doing now talking to each other instead of to high school boys and
councilors and college freshmen. Industry can offer opportunity, lend encourago-ol
and support; but this is a grass roots problem and needs a direct attack by people*
close to the grass roots. It seems to me that the Ch.E. faculties are close to
those roots; but they need a tool in order to make better contact. I believe the
A.I.Ch.E.'s proposed movie might well be such a tool. It warrants support by.
industry and vigorous use by faculties when available. Perhaps with it and similar
positive action we can obtain some of the needed increase in Ch.E.'s.

The problem of quality is not so obvious. It is only when one weighs
the implications of each color and each line of this chart that he fully appre-
ciates it. With this appreciation comes realization that although the problem of
quantity is a major one, that of quality is at least as great. Can the problem
of quality be solved? I believe the answer is yes if the Chemical Engineering
graduates, in addition to having achieved specific scores when tested in the sub,
jects included in the Ch.E. curriculum, are truly educated men.

What is an educated man? Many definitions have been given, varying froa
the cynical by Martin Fischer "The educated man is one who has had a set of
prejudices driven down his throat," to the exalted by Aristotle "An educated man
is to the uneducated as the living is to the dead." Somewhere in between these tMwv
and in a more practical vein, I offer for your consideration the definition, "An
educated man is one who is able to contribute his maximum potential to society." -
Let me repeat "An educated man is one who is able to contribute his maximum
potential to society." If we accept this definition, then the educated Ch.E. amust
have four characteristics.
k() (Exhibit 11) Knows technique of learning. Although some studenia
are educated on this subject when they enter college, most are not. For all pra-.
tical purposes, the undergraduate level is the last chance for education in thU
area. There is a pitfall namely, that the student get the impression that
mastery of methodology is all there is to being educated. I believe that almost,
everyone in this group knows some of the bitter aftermaths that we have experienced
in our primary and secondary school systems, particularly in the math and scienAe
areas, as a result of overemphasis of methodology.

(2) Has acquired specific knowledge. The student must learn enough
facts to enable him with some additional training to perform his immediate speoifieu
assignments. He must, therefore, be taught facts. The trend toward teaching un4er
lying concepts that has followed the Grinter report is an important stride tav d'
covering this area of education for the Chemical Engineer. Here, again, there a'
a danger. The mere acquisition of facts, as was the fashion among learned s
before the Renaissance, can be greatly overdone to the detriment of true eduati

The Chemical Engineering faculties have a major responsibility in this
area, particularly where broad principles are involved. Industry, too, has a
responsibility. It can and must teach the specific facts of its industry. .Iz M
must provide, also, the atmosphere and facilities that will encourage the
to keep himself knowledgeable in his field as new engineering and scientific
oiples evolve.

(3) Can recognize pertinence of acquired knowledge. In farp.
when less basic concepts were taught, specific applications were seen eaa l
frequently were used to teach the concepts themselves. Now that the oonownta .

September 1962


more basic, their pertinence to specific problems is seen less readily. It is
important, therefore, that a special effort be made by the faculties lest the
student feel that the objective of Chemical Engineering education is merely the
acquisition of knowledge of the broad underlying concepts. He should understand
that in addition he must be able to recognize the pertinence of a concept in any

(4) Has the will to achieve. This requires the toughness of mind and
spirit to compel the application of knowledge to any condition; and, if this
knowledge is inadequate to control the condition, to acquire whatever knowledge
is needed to bring the condition under control. This desire for accomplishment
comes from an inner source, inherent in the man himself, his heritage, and his
early environment. It is a frame of mind, or a spiritual value, if you will. In
youth it is intertwined with and almost inseparable from faith, hope, and expecta-
tibn. When limited failures and frustrations begin to repeat and they do -
little is left of faith, hope and expectation unless there is this will to achieve.
Its importance increases exponentially with time for many years. The faculties have
a responsibility in this area. They must find a way to do a better .ob of screening
out before enrollment, or at least in the first year, those who do not have this
will to achieve. They must also develop and not bury this will to achieve in those
that have it.

Industry has an equal or perhaps greater responsibility because the
individual is with industry longer. Industry must not stifle or destroy whatever
will-to-achieve there is in the young graduate it employs, and, in addition, must
nurture this will to achieve. This, I believe, is possible only when the man is
encouraged to grow. This in turn means industry as well as educators must treat
the man as an individual, a separate personality in full recognition of his innate
personal characteristics. This is easier to say than do, for the pressures today
are mostly in the opposite direction. Classification of Chemical Engineers by
industry into groups such as Levels I, II, III, etc., for instance, is very attrac-
tive. It makes administrative problems simpler, for then the company can make major
decisions by considering what to do with just a few classifications rather than what
to do with a great number of individuals. Some of this is good and necessary; iuch
of it can be harmful, such as restricting certain types of work to certain classifi-

Society does not move forward by ideas and actions determined by groups.
Rather, an individual provides the initial spark or spearheads the action of groups
from a mere handful to large numbers. Putting individuals into categories for pur-
poses other than those essential for administration, lessens the identity of each
individual, with a resultant loss in his drive, his toughness of mind, and his
creativity. Industry must avoid this for with it comes a plodding ponderous inching
forward by the group in place of the big step, the finesse step that only the indi.
vidual can provide.

The establishment of an environment and a modus operandi conducive to the
preservation of the identity of the individual and the development of his will to
achieve is industry's major responsibility.

In conclusion, I should like to leave you with the thought that the
future of the Profession of Chemical Engineering, like that of any Profession,
will depend on just one factor the quality of its individual members. Quality
is not a happenstance. It develops from the standards sought and achieved tb the
educators and by those utilizing the talents of the Profession. My personal opinion
is that the Chemical Engineering faculties and "Chemical Engineering Industfiesa
have done a good job but much remains to be done. Let each of us acCept this
challenge and not shrink from it.


September 1962


6- POPULATION ,1oo-,P-s
S- 000

o0ps tS oeia p -: ',

0- -1 -40

A I40 S 50 $5 AU .0 70 75 50 55 '0




-200 t'

-100 o'


0 I .' . '. I
195 1950 955 1960 19%5

ChE i (1000's) ChEs(IOOs)

0 --- 60

40 ---- ---- .% EAR- 40
:0 ,-------- 20

1930 1940 150 1960 1470

Industries Ekhlorine Chemical Enalneera 1961



Chemical Process


Chemical Engineer,

27,000 50.04

6,750 12.5%
13.500 25.04

6.750 12.51
56,000 loo.o0



N.. (2% pe YEA R)


Il1 ISs, 17T0 ITs5 14Oo iSs

Average Annual Per Cent increase
Actual goals s
1951-1961 1961-1985
Population 1.9% 1.9%
C.N.P. (fixed dollar.) 2.9% 3.2
Ch.E. Industries Sales 3.6% 4.0
(fixed dollars)
25% nore than G.N.P.
Ch.E.' employed in 5.7
Ch.E. Industriae

September 1962



196 185 ChE's
*,, -----(woo',)

*5* 050 OI*BVUIrE I tflAivt TO zoo


+4%/YR. 150
..... .. .. o

0% 50

061 W165

1970 1975 980 1985

i II 185 -i


-4%4--4%-s m 41% -, 44% -15-





I--1961 ---


R61 50 05 PROPIR'


*% l-- 44%7,--- 41% 44% -15%-

Chemical Engineer
suitable to the requinreant of his profession, he--

1. knous technique of leaurig;
2. has acquired lapeific knowledge;
3. can recognize pertinence of acquired knowledge;
4. Is eaer for accompllehnnt.



September 1962


by A. L. Frye

Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company
St. Paul, Minnesota

I know how Rip Van Winkle felt after being out of touch for 20 years,
for like our friend, it has been 20 years since I left the University.
Under these circumstances, it would be very impertinent to tell this
outstanding audience how the students of today should be taught.

On the other hand, I do not believe it would be out of order for me
to report certain observations that my colleagues and I have made on
the products of your universities. From these remarks, it is hoped
you will find an idea or two for reflection.

Having personally hired several dozen young chemical engineers and
having worked with scores of others, one cannot help but classify
or develop a pattern of thinking (or perhaps you may add "or get into
a rut"). I have noted together with some of my contemporaries that
three characteristics are important to becoming a successful engineer
in most companies including our own. These characteristics are ability,
drive and attitude. Although I will discuss all three characteristics,
most of the time will be spent on the latter.


By the term ability, I mean inherent aptitude plus its cultivation
(i.e. knowledge gained by experience and knowledge gained by formal
training.) These characteristics are absolutely second to none for
the most responsible jobs in industry either at the top of the admin-
istrative pyramid or at the top of the purely technical pyramid. I
won't be-labor a discussion on inherent aptitude, however, since my
definition of inherent aptitude would rule out anything being done
to improve this characteristic and any deficits will have to be made
up with additional cultivation which comes with experience.

Relative to knowledge gained by experience, industry is looked to in
this area. The one obvi-rs exception to this is the cooperative plan
offered by many universities. No purpose is served by stirring con-
troversy in this area other than to say cooperative schools have their
merits and my company participates in a program of at least two major
universities. I don't believe anyone could disagree that the cooper-
ative program provides a vision for the young student (let me add. I
think the instructor can provide a better balanced one.) Broadly
speaking, however, the schools that are in the greatest need for
cooperative programs are most likely located in areas where industry
is sparse and cooperative programs are more difficult to arrange.
(Even though historically, they did not grow up in this manner.)


Relative to formal acade-mi training, I would be considered a coward,
unless I gave you at least a thought or two on this subject. While
it is recognized that great advances have been made in putting chem-
ical engineering more on a theoretical basis, I believe the concept
that was popular 20 years ago that. "we simply teach engineers how
to think" is not as old faqhiconed as some may believe. For example,
Scan recall that some companiess years ago would ask young engineers
the best way to crush a ton of rock. A good many students would
recite the chapter on crushing and grinding in Badger and McCabe
or Walker, Lewis and McAdams with unbelievable accuracy. Often
times, however, one of the sharper students would say "Get a sledge
hammer if all you want t, .::rush i3 1 ton of rock." Fortunately,
trick questions are for the most part taboo in these times. (In
jest, if anyone dared ask a young engineer such a question today,
he would suggest the c:rusher be programmed to a high speed computer.
He might expect a bonus if he suggested buying time on the "Stretch"
computer located at the Lawrence Laboratories.)

The point is simply this: It is as important to keep in mind the
overall objective and use good judgment in 1962 as it was in 1932.
Slide rules, computers, courses in Astro-Physics are for the engin-
eer to use and to control. He should not let any of these tools
control him--not if he wants to be an engineer. More on this later.


From a practical point of view, one is often inclined to brush the
factor of drive aside with the comment that you have it or you don't.
Of course, we all know that nothing can be further from the truth.
You have all seen students or technical people who will respond under
a particular type cf environment and be completely unresponsive in
another set of circumstances. Drive (the word motivation is much
better) is a specialty of industry and a responsibility of industry.
As an example, I have a Section Head who has the philosophy which
runs something like this, "My job is to see that each of my Chemical
Engineers has the greatest challenge that he is capable of accepting."

As to suggestion for the academic area to help out, there are two:
First: I cannot over-emphasize the value of good counseling. An
example of this can best be illustrated by a Chemical Engineering
student from a large midwestern university, who was 6 months away
from getting his Ph.D. He did not seem to know what he wanted to
do and after considerable discussion, he stated what he really
wanted to do was to become a minister. He would have made a wonder-
ful minister, but the demand for those with 8 years of Chemical
Engineering is not very largely Good counseling can reduce the
number of heart-breaking experiences such as this.

Second: I suggest that you watch what motivates your students. Tips
to their employer (after jobs have been accepted) could save years
in the development of engineers especially for those who have excep-
tional abilities and are somewhat temperamental as far as motivation
is concerned. (I find some of the best graduate engineers are tem-

September 1962


An example of how tips to an employer can be useful can bewt'.
demonstrated as follows During the Korean War, oar Company had
the responsibility of starting up a government plant. In a 3-week
period I had to hire all of the people for the technical department.

One man interviewed had been discharged from his past job. The past
employer readily admitted it was partly his fault and gave an
objective analysis of the individual concerned. His past employer
stated there was one problem that would have to be improved, namely
the ability to get along with others. After a long talk about this
problem during the interview and by keeping a watchful eye during
the first few months, this man turned out to be the best of six men
hired. The main point is that if one can go to work right. away on
problems instead of taking several months to define them, the odds
of a mutually successful employer-employee relationship are greatly


Nothing is more important than a good attitude in getting the young
engineer off on the right foot on any job and especially his first one.
The following six characteristics are examples of a good attitude
for the young engineer.

1. A real desire to get a job done.
2. Positive thinking.
3. Eye on the ball--not be overly concerned with the machinery
4. Show more concern for what you can do for the company,
than what the company can do for you.
5. Not leave opinion that he is too good to do a given job.
6. Ethics and integrity.

The most important characteristic of a good attitude is a real desire
to get a job done. Whereas talking about what one is going to do may
buy time, it suffices to say that for the long run it is the results
that count. I have seen few performance rating sheets that do not
ask for a comment on the results and also a desire to get a given job

Positive thinking is a very strong asset for a young engineer. It
is very easy to get in the frame of mind that our job as engineers
is to be the watch dog of the scientist and tell him what cannot
be done. The only thing that can be worse than this is to have no
ideas of our own.

Relative to Item #3, I have to admit that the phrase of keeping the
eye on the ball sounds trite. What I'm trying to say is the young
engineer should not become overly enamored with any one phase of
his engineering training. Kinetics is very useful for scaling up
a process, but it is only a tool to get a job done. Although I do
not want to get into the controversy over the amount of theoretical
and applied mathematics that are given in the Ch.E. curricula, let
me say that it is possible to become so involved in solving prob-
lems that one loses sight of defining the problem in its broadest
terms or for the accuracy of the data used.

September 1962


A couple points of illustration: Recently a Department Head of
Ch.E. of one of the Eastern schools told me that it was very common
for his engineers to tell him the thermometer reads such and such
a value without seeming to care about the accuracy.

As long as a number was available, it made the manipulation of the
mathematics possible. (I might add, I'm sure this professor has
now solved this problem since recognizing and defining problems,
as we all know, is often as difficult as solving them.)

Relative to the student becoming overly enthralled with computers,
one midwestern university with which I am very well acquainted, a
few years back started introducing computers in the Sophomore or
Junior year in order for the engineer to look at the computer as
a very wonderful tool in the way we used to look at our slide rules.
I might add, that I notice the students from this university are
very well balanced.

I do not mean to imply by this that there is no room for specialization
in the field of Chemical Engineering, particularly for those who go
on to graduate school, but I believe that the mark of the experienced
specialist is the ability to use the field of specialty to the proper
degree in solving problems.

Item #h, show more concern for what you can do for your company than
what your company can do for you. This statement would have needed
no comment even though President Kennedy had not borrowed my comment
and made a parallel statement to the nation a year or so ago.

It seems obvious that the young engineer should not leave the opinion
that he is too good to do a given job, however, this mistake is made
quite often.

I have a friend who tells the story that as the top man of his Chemical
Engineering class from a large midwestern university, he was employed
by one of the large chemical companies and put in a department along
with several top Chemical Engineers who had graduated from neighboring
colleges. There was one man in the group who was different.

In the language of today's juvenile crowd, he would have been known
as a "queer" as he was the first to volunteer for a job whether it
be one that he could make himself look good on or not.

Regardless of how insignificant the job or how difficult, this "eager
beaver" would jump at the chance. The rest of the young engineers
including my friend were more selective. In the end, however, the
fellow who was willing to do any job ended up as President of the

Contrast the attitude of the young engineer in the previous story
to that of "I am too good to be supervised by industrially oriented
supervisors." Yet, a certain Department Head of a prominent Chemi-
cal Engineering college has repeatedly made this statement of his
students. We all know this is true, but it only aggravates a situ-
ation when this attitude shows up in his students.

September 1962


Humility is not out of style at the top level of a company and al-
though I'm afraid it is found less often in the lower echelons,
nevertheless, I feel it is still in good taste.

The last item, ethics and integrity, in my opinion, can be taught
only by example in the classroom. I wouldn't go so far to advocate
a complete honor system, but this is one way to help the student
build a background to meet temptations when they occur.

No discussion of attitude would be complete without injecting the
thought that the young engineer as well as his employer, has a
responsibility in his development.

Since the Engineers' Council for Professional Development has made
kits available to help guide the young engineer during the early
years of his career, I will not elaborate on this point.

I agree with the suggestion that the young engineer as he leaves
college should have the pre-graduation kit and know how additional
literature on professional development can be procured just in case
his employer is not familiar with the good work of the Council.
Above all, however, I believe you should make him aware that he has
a responsibility for his development.


In summation, I recognize, as does industry in general, that young
engineers are better trained academically than ever before. (I might
add that it is fortunate for those of us who graduated 20 to 30 years
ago that we do not have to compete with your young students of today.)

I would like to emphasize the value of Counselor guidance to assure
as best one can that the time of students, professors and industry
are not wasted by those who are not cut out to be Chemical Engineers.

Most important, however, I believe that you more than anyone else,
control the attitude of our graduating engineers. I believe there
is much room for improvement. Professional orientation, appreciation
for economics, and the recognition of the importance of other pro-
fessions in addition to the items covered previously would at least
be a start on the problem. Above all, we should be careful about
mimicking the scientist.

If I could leave only one thought with you, it would be this: more
emphasis on human relations call it humanities if you will not
formal courses which are all too often considered a waste of time by
the young engineering student--but informal education by example of
ethics, integrity and chemical engineering philosophy woven in during
the daily classes by their own chemical engineering faculty with
whom they have placed their trust.

September 1962


by Mott Souders

Shell Development Company, Emeryville, California

You have spent a week of concentrated effort on the content
of courses in chemical engineering education. As a finale to this
strenuous week of looking at the trees, perhaps it is well to take
a few minutes to look at the forest.

Much has been said about the diverse occupations of
chemical engineers and the wide scope of chemical engineering activi-
ties in industry. On the surface, the multiplicity of duties seem
to elude classification. They seem to deny any simple statement
of what industry expects of the chemical engineer and what should
be his education.

The chemical engineer is one who realizes that local
temperatures differ from bulk temperatures; that laboratory experi-
ments are neither adiabatic nor isothermal; that a slender pressure
vessel is cheaper than a fat one; that the heart of a control system
is the primary signal; that mixing is not instantaneous. He knows
that the container walls are part of a reaction system; that dq is
not a perfect differential; that a major part of the cost of heat
is the cost of transfer surface; that all practical materials contain
minor and perhaps unknown impurities that can build up in a process
or alter the reactivity of a catalyst or surface. He knows that
problems of mechanical fabrication require a compromise with requirements
of physical chemistry; that designs technically feasible are often
unacceptable economically; that actual process plants are subject
to leaks, mechanical failures and mis-operation.

The chemical engineer knows these things and many more.
He has learned them partly from fundamental courses, but mainly
from solving design problems in school and in practice. If he
hasn't learned them, he's in trouble no matter how thorough his
theoretical science.

Through all of these diverse bits of knowledge there is
a thread of continuity, a unifying theme. Thattheme is process
development and design. The career of the chemical engineer is
process centered. He may be measuring transport properties,
correlating reaction data, doing research on fluid mechanics,
operating a pilot plant but always the goal of his team is new
or improved processes.

Process design is much more than heat and mass transfer
and reaction chemistry, more than a series of black boxes inter-
connected by heat and material balances the insides of which are the
responsibility of some equipment supplier. Processes have become


increasingly complex, involving more specialized hardware, more
sophisticated control and advanced techniques of optimization.
More and more players are on the team and the chemical engineer is
the focal point of communication among them. He is required to
understand and interpret the data and ideas of the chemist, mechanical
engineer, instrument engineer, applied mathematician.

Now, let us look at the forest instead of the trees.

There appear to be two aspects to what industry expects
of the chemical engineer. First there are the functions he is
expected to perform, and second there are the attitudes he is
expected to have.

As to functions, industry expects the chemical engineer
to be able to participate in various parts and stages of process
development and design. In some situations he is expected to be
a specialist in those fields of knowledge that are traditionally
identified with chemical engineering. He is also expected to be the
generalist who brings to a focus the work of many specialists. The
focus is a commercial process that will operate efficiently, safely
and economically.

The chemical engineer doesn't have to be an expert in
everything. 'e don't expect him to compete with chemists, mathema-
ticians or electrical engineers. We hire organic chemists to
synthesize new compounds, physical chemists to develop new catalysts,
electrical engineers to design amplifiers and pulse generators,
mechanical engineers to design tube sheets. But we do expect the
chemical engineer to be able to talk to all these people, to under-
stand their functions and above all to know how to use their help.

'hat does this signify for education? It means first of
all, that the young man learning to be a chemical engineer must
spend a large part of his academic career solving problems related
to design, simple ones and specific ones, complex ones, and varied
ones. The problems begin in engineering science courses for
mechanics, thermodynamics, and transfer fundamentals and continue
into courses specifically for design. But first he has to learn
the fundamentals of physics, chemistry and mathematics, an array of
difficult and demanding courses.

These requirements don't leave much room in the curriculum
for courses with such labels as Biochemical Engineering, High-
Polymer Technology, Ceramic Processes, and Cryogenic Engineering.
Vhat is needed is not a proliferation of novel courses, but rather
that his science courses be up-to-date and that his concepts of the
nature of the physical world be modern. '.e in industry can teach
him biochemical engineering as applied to the biochemical process
we are designing or high-polymer technology as applied to the polymer
we are developing, and we can probably do it better than a college
course since we are likely to know much more about our process or
product than any author of a general text on the subject. But if to
make use of a specialized cryogenic engineer we in industry have to

September 1962


teach him the fundamentals of thermodynamics, mass transfer, and
fluid mechanics, the situation is hopeless.

We need both scientists and engineers, but we don't
expect a scientist when we hire an engineer. The engineer differs
from the scientist in interests, motivation, goals and accomplishments.
The scientist strives to know, the engineer to produce. Understanding
is the goal of the scientist, utilization the goal of the engineer.
The accomplishments of the scientist are based on analysis, those
of the engineer on synthesis. If the education of the chemical
engineer shifts to science, even engineering science, at the sacrifice
of the arts of design, industry will use the future "chemical
engineer" as a scientist, but will have to look elsewhere for process
engineers. Does anyone really expect industry to be happy with two
curricula in chemical engineering, one in engineering science for
the good students and one in process design for the poor students?
Industry must have good process engineers. Some industrialists go
so far as to say that quality in process engineers is even more
important than quality in applied scientists. In any case to give
up design in chemical engineering education is to give up engineering.
But an industrial society cannot give up engineering.

It was stated earlier that industry expects the chemical
engineer to have developed some well-defined and essential
attitudes. In addition to the general attitudes of the professional
man industry expects the chemical engineer to have the attitudes
characteristic of the engineer. Most important among these
engineering attitudes are:

1. Willingness to proceed in the face of incomplete
and often contradictory data and inadequate knowledge of the problem.

2. Recognition of the need to develop and use intuitive

3. Questioning of every bit of data, every method, every

4. Recognition of experiment as the ultimate arbiter.

5. Willingness to accept responsibility for the ultimate

There is no need, I think, to enlarge on the significance
of these attitudes. They are generally acknowledge and have been
often discussed.

It is generally agreed that the goal of the engineer is
to use knowledge of the physical world for the benefit of mankind.
He reaches his goal by designing apparatus, processes, and systems
with sufficient precision to permit actual construction. The design
problem forecasts actionaid ultimate physical hardware; operation
"in principle" is not enough.

September 1962


It is characteristic or the design problem that there
is no one perfect solution, Usually there are incompatibilities,
compromises and alternatives. And the solution finally chosen
i' profoundly influenced by social values, economics, safety, effect
on neighbors (air pollution, etc.). Design usually involves several
different disciplines, mechanics, electricity, as well as reaction
chemistry, thermodynamics and transport processes, and skill in design
is proportional to the designer's ability to focus various disciplines
on the immediate problem. This focus is binocular, knowledge of
science in one orb and art of application in the other.

"The obvious content of an engineering education is a
body of knowledge (from science and experiment) and a set of skills
(techniques and experience) useful in solving design problems. But
education is much more than this. Students acquire attitudes and
habits as well as information and techniques.

"College courses in chemistry, mathematics and physics,
in mechanics, thermodynamics end transport processes have a common
characteristic; they present to the student a series of single-
answer problems. Such problems are those which can be answered with
numbers or functional relationships, those which have answers
generally agreed upon.

"Examination of the effect on engineering attitudes of
single-answer problems reveals:

1. Incomplete or contradictory data have little place
in single-answer problems;

2. Engineering Judgment is not required of either the
student or the instructor;

3. The existence of a standard answer puts the instructor
in an impregnable position where skepticism and the challenging
attitude are not encouraged. Neither the data, the method, nor the
result are open to question.

4. The single-answer problem usually suggests the
infallibility of logic rather than the ultimate rule of experiment.
The early history of science bears witness to the paralyzing effect
of this attitude."*

Vould this difficulty be lessened by crowding the curriculum
with more specialized courses? Or is it more likely to be resolved
by making room for comprehensive problems in design? These are loaded
questions, I know. Also I well realize that it is much easier to call
attention to problems in education than it is to solve them, especially
when there is no pat answer. And I know, too, that you are well
aware of this problem and have long been struggling with it. I
merely recommend it to you as currently the dominant problem in
chemical engineering education, as it has been in the past and probably
will be in the future.
* Quoted from "Report on Engineering Design", J. Eng. Education,
V. 51, p. 645 (April 1961).

September 1962


The Annual Meeting of the Chemical Engineering Division was held on Aug-
ust 21, 1962 at Boulder, Colorado. Seventy-eight members of the Chemical En-
gineering Division were in attendance.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Charles Littlejohn, Clem-
son College. Chairman Littlejohn introduced the Officers for the coming year.
These officers are: Dean Mpx Peters, University of Colorado, Chairman; Pro-
fessor J. J. Martin, University of Michigan, Chairman-Elect; Professor John
B. West, Oklahoma State University, Secretary-Treasurer; Professor M.H. Chet-
rick, University of Louisville, Council Representitve. Following the introduc-
tion of the new officers the meeting was turned over to Chairman Max Peters.

Dean Peters announced the appointment of the nominating committee for the
coming year. Members of the nominating committee are: Professor Charles Little-
John, Chairman; Professor S. W. Churchill, University of Michigan, and Profes-
sor Charles R. Wilkie, University of California.
Chairman Peters then announced the appointment of a program committee for
the next annual meeting to be held in Philadelphia in June, 1963. Members of
the Program Committee are: Professor Robert Beckmann, University of Maryland,
Chairman; Professor Robert E. White, Vilinova University; Professor Vincent Uhl,
Drexel Institute; Prdfessor J. T. Banchero, University of Notre, and Pro-
fessor Robert N. Maddox, Oklahoma State University.

The Chairman introduced Professor J. J. Martin, who presented a revision
of the Constitution of the Chemical Engineering Division. Professor Martin
pointed out that the Constitution had not been revised in a number of years.
He discussed, in detail, various revisions of the constitution, and moved the
adoption of the revised constitution. The motion was seconded by Professor
M. C. Molstad of the University of Tokyo. Professor H. D. Sims Bucknell
University, moved the adoption of an amendment, changing Paragraph 2 of Article
VII from "the new officers shall take office following the meeting of the Nat-
ional Society" to "the new officers shall take office 10 days after the close
of the annual meeting."
Professor Sims. pointed out that this amendment would bring the division
constitution into harmony with the constitution of the National Society. The
motion was seconded by Professor Baker of the University of South Carolina.
After a short discussion, it was approved. The revised constitution was brought
to a vote and the motion for adoption passed.

Chairman Peters then pointed out that under the newly adopted constitu-
tion the executive committee was increased to six members through the election
of two members to the executive committee. He pointed out that Professor
Robert Beckmann, University of Maryland, and Professor Lloyd Berg of Montana
State College had been serving in the capacity on the executive committee. Pro-
fessors Beckmann and Berg were elected to the executive committee by acclam-

Professor Robert Beckmann was introduced and he discussed briefly the pro-
gram for the Philadelphia meeting. Professor Beckmann suggested the general
theme for the meeting be "Graduate Programs in Chemical Engineering." He also
stated that it is not necessary that the entire program be devoted to this
theme and asked for suggestions from members of the Division.

Professor M. H. Chetrick of the University of Louisville called the at-
tention of the membership to the fact that the official publication of the
Chemical Engineering Division is the Journal of Chemical Engineering Education.
Professor Albert H. Cooper, the University of Connecticut, Storrs, has been ed-
itor of this journal for many years. Professor Chetrick then suggested that
the publication policy presented to the Executive Committee be adopted as the
publication policy of the Chemical Engineering Division. The proposed police
is: (1) That the Journal of Chemical Engineering Education be the official
publication of the Chemical Engineering Division of the American Society of
Engineering Education. (2) That the Journal of Chemical Engineering Education
be a quarterly starting with the June, 1962, edition. The Journal will appear
in March, June, September, and December. (3) That the Chemical Engineering Div-



Taion of ASEE cooperate with the Education Projects Committee of the American
Institute of Chemical Engineers in publishing papers, reports and news of the
Projects Committee activities; (4) That the contents of the Journal include
papers from the School for Chemical Engineering Teachers, papers from the An-
nual Meeting of the Society, and other papers submitted to the Editor as indi-
vidual contributions, news and of trends in Chemical Engineering education and
of the programs in Chemical Engineering at the various schools and colleges.
(5) The Journal will be distributed free to all of the members of the Chemical
Engineering Division and all Chemical Engineering teachers who are members of
the AIChE. The 1962-63 issues containing papers presented at the School of
Chemical Engineering Teachers will be will be distributed free to all regis-
trants of the School. A subscription price of.$2.00 per year will be charged
to all others.

It was moved by Professor Chetrick that the policy statement be adopted
as the policy of the Chemical Engineering division. The motion was seconded
and considerable discussion ensued. In particular, the discussion centered a-
round the suitability of some of the papers from the 1962 Summer School and
book reviews as material for the journal. It was generally agreed that it would
not be appropriate to publish papers which had appeared elsewhere. Professor
Berg stated that it was his understanding that the Chemical Engineering Division
was not obligated to the National Science Foundation to publish every paper pre-
sented at the School for Chemical Engineering Teachers. Professor Robert Lem-
lich of the University of Cincinnati stated that he felt the Journal of Chemi-
cal Engineering Education and the independent journal of which he is editor,
fulfilled complimentary roles and that he hoped both publications would prosper
in this role.

On being brought to a vote, the motion adopting the policy statement was
passed. Professor Don White, Vice-Chairman of the Chemical Engineers discussed
briefly the relationship of the Education Projects Committee to the Chemical
Engineering Division of ASEE. He asked the cooperation and participation of
members of the Chemical Engineering Division in the activities of the Education
Projects Committee of AIChE. He noted the interest of the Education Projects
Committee in publishing papers and reports of committee activities in the Journ-
al of Chemical Engineering Education.

Chairman Peters noted that members of the division should begin thinking
toward the next Summer School for Chemical Engineering Teachers which will be
held in about 7 years. He urged division members whose school would like to
host the School for Chemical Engineering Teachers to contact Professor Lloyd

John B. West

September 1962



Adopted by the Chemical Engineering Division at Minneapolis, June 20, 1947.
Revised June 25, 1951 and August 21, 1962.
Article 1 Name
The name of this division shall be the Chemical Engineering Division of
the American Society for Engineering Education.
Article 1 Membership
Membership shall be composed of all members of the American Society for
Engineering Education interested in the teaching of chemical engineering subjects.
Article III Objects
The objects of the Division are those of the National Society as they
pertain to chemical engineering education and the promotion of educational
intercourse, friendly cooperation, and mutual help among its members.
Article IV Officers
The officers shall consist of a Chairman, Chairman-elect, Secretary-
Treasurer, and a Representative to the National Society, all of whom shall be
members of the American Society for Engineering Education. The Chairman-elect
shall be elected annually and shall automatically become Chairman the year
after his election. The Secretary-Treasurer and the Representative shall be
elected bi-annually, the former in the even-numbered years and the latter in
the odd-numbered years. Should any officer or member of the Executive Committee
be unable to serve, the vacancy shall be filled by the Executive Committee until
the time of the next election.
Article V Executive Committee
The affairs of the Division shall be administered by an Executive Com-
mittee of seven members; the officers, the immediate past-chairman and two
persons elected from the Division membership in alternate years for two-year
periods. The Chairman of the Division shall serve as chairman of the Executive
Article VI Meetings
There shall be at least one meeting a year open to all persons interest-
ed in chemical engineering. The Executive Committee shall arrange the place,the
time, and the program for all meetings. Insofar as practicable the required
annual meeting shall be held in connection with the annual meeting of the
National Society. The secretary of the National Society shall be supplied upon
his request with copies of all papers presented at Division meetings. The
Secretary-Treasurer shall notify all members at least three weeks in advance of
any scheduled meeting. A quorum to conduct business shall consist of 15 members
of the Division.
Article VII Elections
The officers shall be elected by mail ballot. The Nominating Committee
shall supply the Secretary-Treasurer with the names of two nominees for each
office or Executive Committee position at least 90 days before the annual meet-
ing of the National Society. The Secretary-Treasurer shall mail a ballot to
each member of the Division at least 60 days before said date. The returns from
the mail ballot shall be mailed to the Secretary not later than 15 days before
said date. In case of a tie the Executive Committee shall cast the deciding
The new officers shall take office ten days after the close of the annual
meeting of the National Society.
Article VIII Committees
The Chairman may appoint committees, and the scope of their work shall
be strictly defined at the time of their appointment. The Nominating Committee
shall be appointed and its membership announced before the close of the annual
Article IX Amendments
This constitution may be amended by two-thirds vote of members respond-
ing to a mail ballot. Amendments may be proposed by the Executive Committee or
by majority vote of members attending a scheduled meeting of the Division.
Article X a Dues
The dues of the Division shall be determined each year by the Divisid
in' session and shall be only for such incidental items as are not supplied
the National Society.


a New Series

from Prentice-Hall


Prentice-Hall is pleased to announce this new series of ad-
vanced works by prominent authors in the field of physical
and chemical engineering. Editing the series is Neal R.
Amundson, Chairman of the Department of Chemical
Engineering, University of Minnesota. Advisory editors are:
Andreas Acrivos, Stanford University; Michel Boudart, Uni-
versity of California, Berkeley; Thomas J. Hanratty, Uni-
versity of Illinois; David E. Lamb, University of Delaware;
John M. Prausnitz, University of California, Berkeley; and
L. E. Scriven, University of Minnesota.
Because of its international appeal, the series will receive
world-wide distribution and will encompass books by
scholars from abroad. Both English and foreign language
editions will be published, in association with Prentice-
Hall International, Inc., United Kingdom and Eire; Pren-
tice-Hall of Canada, Ltd., Canada; and Berliner Union,
West Germany and Austria.
Vectors, Tensors and the Basic
Equations of Fluid Mechanics
by Rutherford Aris, University of Minnesota
Approx. 288pp., Text price: $6.75
Multicomponent Distillation
by Charles D. Holland, Agricultural and Mechanical College of
Theory of Energy and Mass Transfer
by Aleksei Vasil'yevich Lykov and Yuriy Anan'yevich Mikhaylov,
Institute of Power Engineering, Academy of Sciences, Byelorussian
Soviet Socialist Republic, Minsk. Translated from Russian by
William Begell, Royer and Roger, Inc., New York.
1961, 324pp., Text price $9.00
For a Physicochemical Hydrodynamics
approve by Veniamin Grigorievich Levich. Translated from the Russian
copies, write: by Royer and Roger, Inc.
BOX 903

PRENTICE-HALL, INC., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey

4 important publications from McGraw-Hill

By. C. 0. EBnrT, Manager, Prooess Research an Development, The L--m
Company; and J. N. MWRS, Purdue University. McGraw-Hill Series in ahemiae
engineering. 691 pages. 13.50
An outstanding new made introduction to chemical engineering. The authors
have set forth the frusdnmtals of momentum, heat, and mass transfer a
have applied them to engnerng problems, particularly those in the process
industry. The ia exsuatian makes this book especially suitable for
an undergraduate tst in egt l laig. Lucid writing results in comprehensive
yet oonoise eeovaose Ith fumdamentals of momentum, heat, and mass transfer,
with a numberf IVialttei in engineering in general, and chemical engin-
eering In particular. A di4se1Ueio of the unit operations is included but
the order of the aibjeet mtter has been determined more by the structure of
the theory tha by the usual division into unit operations.

By jEREST J. BHE ,Y, Stevens Institute of Technology, and ERMAN BIEBER, Esso
Research and Engineering Company. MoGraw-Hill Series in Chemical Engineering.
41 pages, t9.50
Fundamental concepts, rather than technology and empiricism, are stressed
throughout. Engineering techniques such as graphical methods, approximations,
trial and error of the calculus is made throughout. A unique feature of this
book is its inclusive coverage of thermodynamics, material balances, phase
equilibrium, and chemical reaction equilibrium. The first nine chapters
provide a rudimentary treatise in problem solving techniques, as illustrated
by material balance calculations. Next a detailed exposition of the First Law
is offered, and finally illustrations involving all previously discussed
disciplines are given.. The Second Law is used, and derived in the Appendix,but
is not discussed in detail.

By LEON LAPIDUS, Prinoeton University. McGraw-Hill Series in Chemical Engin-
eering. 432 pages, $11.50
Discusses various areas of digital computer mathematics of importance to the
chemical engineer. The increasing emphasis on complex calculations for chem-
ioal engineering analysis has led to the increasing use of digital and analog
computers. This text is designed specifically for the teaching of digital
techniques in the chemical engineering curriculum.

By RALPH J. SMITH, Stanford University. 424 pages, $4.95(Cloth), $3.50(paper).
This introductory orientation and problem text in engineering provides a
comprehensive and factual picture of an engineer's duties, qualifications and
training needed, and career opportunities available. The author explains the
engineering profession in terms of functions as well as branches. New chapters
included: "Adjustment to College" and "How To Be a Better Student". New ex-
amples, illustrations; material updated.

330 West 42nd Street New York 36, N.Y.

Full Text