• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Table of Contents
 The pro and con of graduate...
 Current aspects of graduate chemical...
 Should industry assist graduate...
 Industries' views on current chemical...
 Back Cover














Chemical engineering education
http://cee.che.ufl.edu/ ( Journal Site )
ALL VOLUMES CITATION THUMBNAILS DOWNLOADS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00000383/00187
 Material Information
Title: Chemical engineering education
Alternate Title: CEE
Abbreviated Title: Chem. eng. educ.
Physical Description: v. : ill. ; 22-28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: American Society for Engineering Education -- Chemical Engineering Division
Publisher: Chemical Engineering Division, American Society for Engineering Education
Place of Publication: Storrs, Conn
Publication Date: December 1963
Frequency: quarterly[1962-]
annual[ former 1960-1961]
quarterly
regular
 Subjects
Subjects / Keywords: Chemical engineering -- Study and teaching -- Periodicals   ( lcsh )
Genre: periodical   ( marcgt )
serial   ( sobekcm )
 Notes
Citation/Reference: 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 rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 01151209
lccn - 70013732
issn - 0009-2479
Classification: lcc - TP165 .C18
ddc - 660/.2/071
System ID: AA00000383:00187

Downloads
Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover 1
        Front Cover 2
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    The pro and con of graduate accreditation
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Current aspects of graduate chemical engineering education
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
    Should industry assist graduate education?
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
    Industries' views on current chemical engineering education
        Page 15
    Back Cover
        Back Cover 1
        Back Cover 2
Full Text




CHEMICAL
ENGINEERING
EDUCATION












CHEMICAL ENGINEERING DIVISION
THE AMERICAN SOCET FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION
December 1963






























CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION

December 1963

Chemical Engineering Division
American Society for Engineering Education


CONTENTS


The Pro and Con of Graduate Accreditation,
by Carl C. Monrad - - - - - - - - - - -

Current Aspects of Graduate Chemical Engineering Education,
Allen S. Foust - - - - - - - - -......
David H. Morgan - - - - - - - - - 5- -
Harold S. Mickley - - - - - - - - - - .- 6

Should Industry Assist Graduate Education?,
George M. Buckingham - - - - - - - - - -10
C.J. Metz - - - - - - - - - - - - 11
Glenn W. Giddlngs - - - - - - - - - - - 13

Industries' Views on Current Chemical Engineering Education,
by Maurice W. Mayer - - - - - - - - - - 1





Chemical Engineering Division
American Society for Engineering Education

Officers 1963-64

Joseph J. Martin (Michigan) Chairman
George Burnet (Iowa State) Vice Chairman
J. B. West (Oklahoma State) Secretary-Treasurer


CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION (, Journal of the Chemical
Engineering Division, American Society for Engineering Education.
published Quarterly, in March, June, September and December, by
Albert H. Cooper, Editor.
Publication Office: University of Connecticut
P.O. Box 445, Storrs, Connecticut

Subscription Price, $2.00 per year.














THE PRO AND CON OF GRADUATE ACCREDITATION

by

Carl C. Monrad
Carnegie Institute of Technology

For many years professional groups have struggled with the question of ac-
oreditation of graduate work. Engineering societies such as ECPD and AIChE have
reviewed the problem almost continuously, approaching it gingerly and with mixed
feelings. At present accreditation is limited to those curricula which lead to
the first professional degree in an engineering field for which there is a recog-
nised society. The curricula are therefore evaluated and accredited as profes-
sional programs without raising the whole question of distinguishing a graduate
program from an undergraduate one. Accreditation in these few oases has been
made necessary primarily due to only one of the many purposes of accreditation,
namely the need for registration and licensing of the graduates in the various
states.

Before considering the desirability of accreditation of other graduate pro-
grams, where these are not the first professional degrees In the field, it would
be well to mention the other purposes of accreditation. One of these is to pro-
vide information to prospective students or advisors indicating whether or not
the program meets some minimum standard. Of greater importance, perhaps, is the
use of accreditation or periodic evaluation to encourage improvement in existing
programs above minimum standards. In the long run this purpose is probably most
important of all, although it need not be accomplished by formal accreditation
procedures.

The goals of student counselling and improved education have been attacked
in many ways. Internally most universities evaluate suggested new programs, con-
trol graduate faculty appointments, and often bring in distinguished scholars
from outside the university to give advice on new or even well developed programs.
Others have used visiting committees who regularly review the progress of indivi-
dual departments. One of our sister professions, (chemistry), does not really
accredit at any level, but approves undergraduate curricula as a basis of early
admission to membership in the American Chemical Society. At the graduate level
student counselling is assisted by publishing a directory showing the graduate
faculty and important recent publications. Improvement in standards is obtained
by periodic published comments on suggested good practice, and by informal dis-
cussions with department heads.

Within engineering, at present, an interim policy of ECPD is to proceed with
accreditation of graduate programs leading to the first professional degree in
the field providing qualified inspectors are available. In such cases accredi-
tation does not indicate approval at the graduate level but merely that the pro-
gram meets requirements basic to a bachelor's degree. In one specific case, sani-
tary engineering, accreditation of the M.S. program is proceeding with the advice
of the American Sanitary Engineering Intersoclety Board. Further accreditation
of graduate programs will probably await a study of graduate education by ASEE
under the chairmanship of Dean Pettit of Stanford.

In the general field of graduate education, most of the graduate school
associations have strongly resisted accreditation above the first professional
degree. University administrations and associations of accrediting agencies
would in general be loath to encourage this. If it were to be undertaken, areas
of jurisdiction would have to be carefully worked out. The whole problem of pro-
fessional school standards versus graduate school standards would need to be re-
solved before a professional group undertook the job of accreditation of Ph.D.
programs, for instance. This problem might be somewhat less acute at the M.S. or
Engineer degree level.
Pro

Many good reasons have been present for many years and many more are de-
veloping rapidly to make accreditation at the graduate level desirable, es-
pecially in engineering. Pressures from faculty and government are now such as
to encourage universities to undertake graduate work in areas where competence
is marginal. These pressures are directed particularly to the Ph.D., so schools
which would have normally developed slowly through a modest M.S. program, are
undertaking Ph.D. work before the staffs are sufficiently developed. Thus as
many such centers develop, the usual pattern of selection of graduate school,
based on recommendations of professors to universities known by them to be satis-
factory for a given student is replaced, at least in part, by independent choice
by the student. His protection from an unsatisfactory program is being weakened,
and an accreditation procedure would assist him in making a suitable choice.

The strongest case for graduate accreditation in engineering stems from a
growing trend toward granting the first professional degree in a special field
at the graduate level, or at least with a graduate degree. The first degree
may be in engineering science, engineering (general), and may or may not be ao-













December 1963 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION 2
creditable by such agencies as ECPD. Here the necessity for accreditation is
caused by the problem of registration, and it would appear, also, that the indi-
vidual technical societies, such as AIChE, would have an interest in accredita-
tion at the first level in such a specialty as chemical engineering. A newer
pattern is evolving in which the first accreditable degree in an engineering
specialty will be at the Ph.D. or Doctor of Engineering level.

Any profession is interested in ensuring the highest possible standards of
education consistent with available raw material and the numbers needed to serve
the national needs. Whether accreditation could be really effective at the grad-
uate level is debatable. Certainly, to the extent the curriculum is well or-
ganized and consists of a balanced sequence of courses, accreditation is as feas-
ible as it is for undergraduate work. Surely a sharp differentiation should be
possible between curricula geared to the average student and those suitable only
for the gifted. Here we run into the real problem of differentiating clearly
between a professional postgraduate degree, and a truly graduate degree. A de-
cision is necessary regarding the overall control of these two types of programs
within the university, and this cannot be done entirely on the basis of the stu-
dent quality involved. There is a good case for control by the engineering
school of programs leading to the master or doctor degree which differ from the
ones which are research oriented. A carefully developed program by ECPD might
result in a uniform approach to this general problem.

It is more difficult to justify accreditation of the normal research oriented
Ph.D. degree unless this is needed for registration purposes. Here the diffi-
culties lie in the personal guidance of a research neophyte by a thesis super-
visor. Course work in such a program is of great variety even in a single de-
partment. The real problem is that accreditation would need to be based on in-
dividual programs and supervisors. A department might have one or two excellent
men in research, and as long as the student studied under these, all would be
well. A program taken under another man might be wholly inadequate. It would
seem that accreditation under these circumstances would require a department to
meet very stringent standards in selecting thesis supervisors. This opens up
the whole problem of encouraging young staff and presently "mossback" staff to
develop sound research capabilities.

The current rapid growth of part-time and of off campus center graduate
programs could be cited as further reasons for accreditation at the graduate
level. Some of these programs may not be really under faculty control, but
serve primarily as a recruiting gimmick for eager employers. Courses may be
given by substandard teachers, and research may be largely supervised by company
personnel with inadequate standards. An accreditation procedure here might re-
sult in the elimination of mediocre programs, and an improvement in the control
of standards in the better ones.

One of the strong reasons for graduate accreditation is the present rather
frenzied growth of new graduate programs at a time when engineering enrollments
at the undergraduate level are falling. Availability of funds for research, de-
mands of staff for "a pair of hands", and university administrative pressures for
"research status" are powerful weapons which may cause a drop in admission stan-
dards at the graduate level, a consequent retention of mediocrities in the pro-
gram, and progressive downgrading of the quality of finished product. Accredi-
tation procedures would not necessarily stop this, but students would be more
adequately warned about what they were likely to encounter.

Another strong reason for accreditation, but one that perhaps could be
equally well obtained by evaluation or consultation, is the collection of infor-
mation on real operations in the various graduate centers. This could be made
generally available and would assist weak programs to develop into stronger ones.
Good ideas would be more rapidly assimilated throughout the country and perhaps
the meaning of each degree would be more uniform, hopefully, at a generally higher
level.
Con

Many individuals and organizations are firmly against accreditation at the
graduate level except where necessitated by registration problems. They argue
that accreditation is not workable in such varying programs tailored for the in-
dividual student. They argue that accreditation tends to standardize and prevent
experiment, and this is particularly undesirable at the graduate level. Univer-
sity presidents already are in rebellion against continuous visitation by various
groups and complain that they are losing control of the destiny of their institu-
tions. Almost everyone recognizes the difficulties in accreditation of graduate
programs in general, and the immense amount of time that would be consumed by the
institutions and the visitors. If it isn't necessary, why do it?

Engineering has a somewhat unique problem in graduate work. Scientists are
expected to do research and their graduate programs are tailored to this end.
Although formal course work has gradually increased, in essence the "neophy'
studies under one "master" and becomes reasonably proficient in a spec!a














3 CHEMICAL ENGOIEERING EDUCATION December 1963
In the past, engineering has largely followed the procedure developed by the
scientists, particularly the chemists, without too great questioning. We are now
entering an era, however, where post baccalaureate work in engineering encompasses
more than the production of research men, and we have "design oriented programs
as well as those which cross over various disciplines in science and engineering.
We no longer are exactly sure what we mean by an engineer and how he differs
from the scientist. Is the applied scientist an engineer? Should substantial
numbers of engineers be trained to a very high level in design, systems, or de-
cision making in broad sociological problems caused by technology? If so, how
should these programs and degrees be differentiated, and what part of the univer-
sity administration should control? Should our engineering research programs be
supervised by the graduate school using one set of standards, and the "engineering"
programs remain under the complete control of the engineering school with differ-
ent standards? We need only to look to the field of education to see the parallel.
Would accreditation of all of these programs by an outside agency such as ECPD
assist in solving these problems and prevent the development of high grade" and
"low grade" programs within each department?

The strongest argument against graduate accreditation is that in most cases
it is not necessary for registration purposes. Most students are relatively
mature and should be able to find a graduate program suitable for their needs.
No one has yet proved that accreditation results in a general improvement in edu-
cation that cannot equally well be accomplished by information exchange or private
evaluation procedures. The difficulty of accrediting a Ph.D. program tailored to
the personal needs of an individual student working largely under the direction of
one staff member is clear. Removal of the last area of free experimentation with
programs might actually result in poorer rather than better standards. With the
necessary close evaluation of individual staff members, it is conceivable that
problems of libel would arise, which are now rather unlikely where curricula are
reviewed at the undergraduate level.

A strong deterrent to graduate accreditation is the obvious reluctance of
most other groups to engage in such work. Our sister science of chemistry has
approached this very quietly, but has had success in several areas. For example,
the biennial graduate directory is helpful to a student since he can see what
professors are present, what their publications are in recent years, etc. Indivi-
dual consultations with department heads, and periodic publications on "good"
graduate practice has no doubt been of assistance to many departments which are
developing at the graduate level. For engineering to undertake graduate accredi-
tation it will be necessary to distinguish clearly between "graduate" and "pro-
fessional post baccalaureate" programs. It would appear desirable for a while to
concentrate on the latter, if indeed further accreditation at the graduate level
is needed if this is not required for registration purposes.
On Balance

On balance, each of you will decide in your own mind what further steps
should be taken in this area by ECPD and AIChE. I can only offer my present
feelings in this matter. First, I believe we must recognize our obligation to
accredit all satisfactory curricula for a first degree in engineering, regard-
less of the particular degree offered even up to the Ph.D. or D.Eng. Secondly,
I feel that it is probably desirable to accredit all first degrees in a broad en-
gineering field such as those represented by the technical societies affiliated
with ECPD even if a prior accredited degree is in "general" engineering or engi-
neering science. An M.S. degree in chemical engineering following an accredited
"engineering" degree is an instance of this.
I would postpone consideration of accreditation of interdisciplinary programs
or highly specialized fields. Thus an M.S. in "Systems Engineering" or in "Heat
Transfer" might be left alone until some technical group is developed of sufficient
strength to provide proper guidance for accreditation, and makes a case for the
program on a national scale.
I see no present value in accrediting Ph.D. or D.Eng. programs in general.
I do believe, however, that procedures such as those used by the American Chemi-
cal Society would be useful in assisting departments to markedly improve their
programs. In this area information exchange, private consultations with depart-
ments or department heads, publication of suggested "good practice" would be more
helpful at this time than a full scale involvement with the problems of accredi-
tation and the doubtful results that would ensue for the effort expended.
I believe that much could be done to clarify general understanding of the
admission standards and performance characteristics for the various degrees, in
very broad terms. For example, if all students are permitted to enroll in a
post baccalaureate program leading to a Master of Science degree, this should
aomshow be distinguished from a program limited to the highly gifted students.
_this is not done, we will fall into the trap of granting "graduate" degrees
waich are not really this and our remaining truly graduate degrees will be down-
-raded in general estimation by our colleagues in other disciplines.















CURRENT ASPECTS OF GRADUATE CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION

The following remarks were presented at the 1963 ASEE Annual Meeting In
Philadelphia as part of a panel discussion on "Current Aspects of Graduate Chemi-
cal Engineering Education". The session was moderated by R. N. Moddox of Okla-
home State University. The panelists were Alan S. Foust, Dean of Engineering at
Lehigh University; Brage Golding, Head of the School of Chemical Engineering at
Purdue; Harold S. Mickley, Professor of Chemical Engineering at M.I.T., and David
H. Morgan, Director of College Relations for the Dow Chemical Company.

Remarks By Alan S. Foust
In offering my opinion on the present status of graduate education In Chemi-
cal Engineering, I will state in advance that I do not offer a panacea for the
present situation. In my opinion, graduate education in Chemical Engineering is
at the crossroads, with the field flowing across us under very high gradients.
It is impossible to say now if the field 14 linear or non-linear; whether our
parameters maybe lumped or distributed, or whether the boundary conditions can be
desribable by linear equations.
In this situation, it is not surprising that we as educators have up to now
been unable to optimize this system which is our challenge for delivering today's
graduate-trained Chemical Engineers.
Before we proceed very far on this, we must decide how many of these men we
are training for research, and how many we are training for design and other true
engineering activities.
I hope there is not any universal decision among the alternatives we face in
planning our graduate programs of the future. We shall probably continue to need
some training in refinements and expansions of the Unit Operations techniques,
since it is highly probable that the time devoted to them in the undergraduate
program must shrink. Whether or not the old name disappears is inconsequential.
The pedagogical advantage of looking at each of these operations in a fundamental
framework must not be lost. Some departments will doubtless concentrate on the
proper design of catalytic reactors, rather than a simple specification which is
usually done now, and will illustrate the integration of this into a total system.
Some other departments may wish to concentrate on filling the gap between estab-
lished and usable knowledge in Chemistry and other basic sciences beyond the
amount which is normally taught in the undergraduate years to Chemical Engineers.
All of us are going to have to face some nonlinear mathematics which may provide
the eventual clue to rigorous modeling of chemical systems in tote.
These assumptions indicate that we are not likely to find much room in the
typical Chemical Engineering graduate program for the necessary physics of the
solid state and the materials with which we work. Neither will there be time for
training men in the intricacies of the electronic gear necessary to tell us how
a process is behaving. They will make it even more difficult than at present to
stimulate the student who has been trained largely by exposure to existing and
thoroughly solved problems for which there is some reasonably definite answer
under described boundary conditions toward the creativity necessary in addressing
a new situation and exploring beyond the frontiers of the material he has gotten
from textbooks. This will be absolutely necessary in the graduate education of
the design engineer.
There is serious consideration being given to the question of whether or not
the broad subject "Design" can actually be taught. This does not refer to the
routine selection and synthesis of known components on the basis of available In-
formation and handbook formulae. My concern is in the synthesis of totally new
systems, requiring projection beyond available information.

Experience in such a synthesis during a doctoral dissertation will probably
raise conflicts with purists who insist on some new information or new concept as
constituting the research we normally expect. If we had a degree designation of
prestige equal to the Ph.D. awarded to these men who have demonstrated the ability
to synthesize available information into a new system, we would probably find it
easier to satisfy in graduate school the need of industry for expert designers of
sophisticated systems.
So long as the most available money for supporting graduate students is close-
ly held for fundamental research, and as long as the majority of our Chemical En-
gineering faculties are youngsters who have just completed a similar program of
research and have never done any design, a solution will be elusive.
We must search not only for our contribution to stimulating the creative
capacity of our graduate students, but we must devise some procedure or label
which will retain prestige for design engineers, comparable to the Ph.D. for re-
search engineers.














CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION


Remarks By David H. Morgan

In opening my part of the panel today I should like to start with a quota-
tion which really "rocked" me. "In ten years it will be difficult to distinguish
between engineering graduates and science graduates." Professors in the audience
over 55 may relax in that possibly they might retire before their department
evaporates if this statement is true. However, I cannot help but believe that
chemical engineering has something unique to offer. Of course, I am assuming that
the reason there will be no difference between the engineering and the science
graduate, in the thinking of the writer of the above statement, will result from
engineering becoming science rather than from science becoming engineering.

While not detracting from the necessity for science we should point out that
chemical engineering arose from a need to apply the scientific discoveries to
mankind's use. It is this application which has made our country great.

As one who has spent over a quarter of a century in education, I have seen
movements, "fads," come and go. The disciples seize the new theory and spread
the word--many times without fully understanding the concept--far beyond the
original great idea.

Some of you experienced the growth of progressive education in the elemen-
tary and secondary education levels during the early thirties. Later some of
these theories spread to general education at the college level. The testing
movement came in and reached the stage where you could hear one superintendent
of schools say to another, "Congratulations, John, I hear that you have installed
a testing program The purpose of the testing program did not seem important.
Methods versus subject matter in teaching has long been a source for speeches and
articles.

These movements or fads are introduced merely to show that many times in
education, as in other fields, the true purpose or value of a new concept depends
on the degree to which a given objective is achieved. At the same time we must
remember that there are other valid objectives which may or may not be affected
by the new concept.

While I have no quarrel with some programs being developed to meet a specific
need for engineering science, I am concerned over the appearance of the move be-
coming a "fad"--getting on the band wagon--throwing everything out of the window
that has been found good, and solid, and productive.

We live in a new world. Engineering design taught today may be outmoded to-
morrow. Therefore, the specific thought in engineering may give way to newer con-
cepts, but the specifics are not the objective of education. We are interested in
the development of the engineer. If learning the specifics which later became out
r-date has deveYoped-hls ow edge of principles and applications of science to
engineering, then they have achieved their purpose.

In some of the arguments which I have read on basic science versus engi-
neering, the author seemed to believe that basic science will remain unchanged.
This is a fallacy, as we all know, because just as engineering applications will
change with advancement in knowledge so has our knowledge changed. I learned a
basic fact in chemistry, "The atom is the smallest indivisible body of matter."
Nothing could be more basic than that.

One of Dow's summer employees, within a year of completing his dissertation,
performed a certain function all summer. In one of his courses the next fall he
learned that what he had been doing all summer could not be done. In fact, he
missed the question on the final examination because he answered according to
what he had been doing and not according to the text and the professor. (On his
oral he answered according to the professor)

I am concerned with the number of requests for money to help develop Ph.D.
progriamrin cnhiEcal engineering. Money, if granted, would have to come from
perhaps some of you. What will be the effect on your program? Departments repre-
sented here will provide the staff. What happens to the department? Present grad-
uate departments have staff, equipment, and research geared to a certain size of
operation. The statistics recently crossing my desk show that the number of chemi-
cal engineers is decreasing. Do we need more graduate schools, or do we need more
beginning students in chemical engineering?

I am concerned over the B.S. and M.S. Programs being geared to the Ph.D. en-
gineering se .nce. Certainly all of these students are not going on for a Ph.D.
engineering science degree. I do not favor "dropping off" places in a sieve to
separate the true engineering scientists from those without ability, or inolin-
dion. What happens to the student in an educational program of this nature? He
is not prepared for the work which he could enjoy doing.


December 1963















Decemberr 1963 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION

Perhaps one way to look at this would be to examine what chemical engineers
are doing at the Dow Chemical Company.

All Chemical Engineering Per Cent No./1,00O

Research 30 300
Production 30 300
Technical Service and
Development 10 100
Sales 10 100
Design & Process Engineering 10 100
Non-engineering Management 2 20
Miscellaneous 8 80
Although the number actually exceeds a thousand, it is close enough to give
us an understanding of the numbers of individuals involved rather than the per
cent. From these figures, it is evident that basic chemical knowledge is desired,
but engineering is essential.

Of course, if we take the Ph.D.'s alone, the statistics change markedly.

All Chemical Engineering Per Cent

Research 76
Production 3
Sales 1
Technical Service and
Development 3
Design 5
Non-engineering Management 3
Miscellaneous 9
What do we want? A good grasp for fundamentals, an adequate engineering
background to fit into our organization, the ability to think systematically,
dedication to the profession so that there is a desire to keep abreast of de-
velopments persistence, perseverance, and sustained drive to accomplish solution
of technical problems of considerable complexity.

One of the strengths of the chemical engineer has been a balance of business
judgment, knowledge of scientific principles, and technical pr-ole~-solving ability
which has made him valuable to industrial management. Certainly,in fundamental
research there is a need for the individual well versed in theory in depth. But,
should the purpose of chemical engineering education be to make all schools of
this type? Should not certain schools concentrate in certain areas of specific
competence? Should a school with outstanding reputation in a certain area (e.g.
chemical process engineering) abandon that area to start turning out carbon copies
of the latest image of an engineering scientist? Is there sound engineering edu-
cation thinking behind the move--if made--or is it immediate prestige seeking?

Don't misunderstand me. Prom the Company's point of view, if you have a
super-superior chemical engineering scientist finishing his Ph.D. this summer--
industry oriented--then sell him on my Company and send him c.o.d. to ust We
can use him, but we still shall have need for many Production, Technical Service
and Development, and Sales oriented engineers to make the profit after taxes to
pay his salary.

Remarks By Harold S. Mickley

Despite the pessimistic views held by some, we are not here to attend a wake
or to discuss the best way to bury engineering. Rather, we are here to explore
ways to capitalize on our past accomplishments in order to ensure greater ones in
the future. My optimistic attitude is borne out by hard economic facts.

The June 10, 1963 edition of "Chemical and Engineering News" reports starting
salaries for college graduates. Technically trained people continue in high de-
mand and of these, Chemical Engineers are among the beast paid. The median starting
salaries for Chemical Engineers are greater than those for chemists:

Degree Median Startin Salary
Chemist --Cemical Engineer
B.S. 500 560
M.. 578 645
Ph.D. 825 875














7 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION December 1963
On the cther hand, engineering is not without its problems. The report of
t, Pres.dent, Science Advisory Committee: ("Meeting Manpower Needs in Science
anu Technology", Report No. 1, Graduate Training in Engineering, Mathematics, and
Physical Sciences, Dec. 12, 1962, Washington, D.C.) states that we have no lack
of engineers but we are critically short of engineering leaders. unstated but
certainly implied i dissatiaction with theechnician type work now done by a
large fraction of our engineering graduates. In my opinion this minimal skill
employment is responsible for the growth of unionism in engineering; a growth,
which if unchecked, will dissipate the professional status of the engineer. The
advisory committee advocates greatly increasing the number of engineers who go
on to graduate work. It points out that engineers are far behind the scientist
in the fraction that go on for advanced work:

Discipline % Ph.D.
Biology 33
Chemistry 25
Physics 17
Mathematics
All Engineering 3.5
Chemical Engineering 11

Chemistry alone produces more Ph.D.'s than all of engineering.

It is safe to say that the universities will soon receive Federal support
for graduate training in engineering on a scale undreamed of five years ago. Our
job is to capitalize on this support.

What is our principal task? I believe it is to nurture Chemical Engineering
as a true profession. Our product, the chemical engineer, must satisfy the fol-
lowing criteria of a true professional.

1. He must recognize that he forms one of the bridges between science
and the fulfillment of human aspirations.
2. He must assume the responsibility for recognizing and solving a
complete problem. Handling the purely technical aspects is not
enough he must take on the political, economic, and social head-
aches as well.
3. He must have a technical area in which he excels and must be pre-
pared to maintain this excellence by continued self-education
throughout his career.

An adequate discussion of possible means to achieve these requisites is not
feasible in the limited time available. Consequently, I shall focus on item 3.

The technical area of the chemical engineer is the optimization of compo-
sition change. It is a vital, exciting, and growing area.. Our position in this
area is challenged from two sides by the scientist, principally the chemist, on
one hand and by sister engineering disciplines on the other.

The Challenge of the Scientist

The main challenge which the scientist poses is: "Is a University education
devoted exclusively to science a superior training for a man who intends to
function as an engineer?" The key words are function as an engineer for there
is no cause for alarm if he functions as a scientist. There should be no gnashing
of teeth if an industrial scientist makes a basic discovery, as engineers we should
cheer since this is the wheat from which we fashion our bread. When, however, the
scientists by education show signs, as they now do, of carrying a basic discovery
into the production stage more rapidly and more effectively than the engineer by
education it is time to sound the alarm.

I think that the rapid evolution of new technology of increasing complexity
has created a situation where the scientist now has some definite advantages.
These advantages principally reside in the ability to size up a new situation
faster and explore it in more depth. They are derived from

1.) A better grasp of basic laws and phenomena.
2.) A greater familiarity and experience with prediction methods.

There are some important disadvantages which show up when a scientist starts
to practice engineering.

1. He avoids incompletely understood techniques.
2.) He tends to carry analysis and research past the economic optimum.
3. He is not accustomed to thinking in terms of synthesis of the whole
in contrast to analysis of individual segments.















December 1963 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION 8

It is perhaps trite to say that we should seek to incorporate the advantages
of scientific training into engineering education without adding its disadvantages
but I think we can do a better job than at present.

The Challenge of other Engineering Disciplines

Most other engineering disciplines are based on physics. They present a
challenge because in some respects they are better qualified than chemical engi-
neers to treat the problems of composition change.

The changes in physics-based engineering education directly reflect the
changed directions taken by the technology which they take to be their special
areas. This technology has emphasized the importance of attention to fundamentals
and deflated the position of specialized knowhow. They have been frankly con-
cerned with the skill with which the scientist has handled problems in their areas.
The result has been a realignment of their educational philosophy with renewed
attention to basic science. They are now doing what the chemical engineer has al-
ways felt to be essential, but using as a base physics rather than chemistry. The
results are somewhat different however. In many ways physics is a tidier science
than chemistry and the phenomena of interest to the engineer are more susceptible
to analysis. Further, the mathematical description and analytical approach to
apparently different phenomena turn out to be closely related and the results of
intensive work in one area are readily applied to another. For example, the elec-
trical engineer is well prepared to attack problems involving potential flow of
any kind (fluid, heat, mass) and to carry on with fluctuating phenomena (i.e.,
turbulence) because of the effort which he has made to analyze and understand
similar phenomena in electromagnetism.

The other engineering disciplines have begun to devote considerable effort
to formalizing the synthesis of systems and have made considerable progress.

What significance do these changes in the educational approach of the other
engineering disciplines have for chemical engineers? It seems to me that in
certain overlapping activities we are currently being pushed hard; for example:

1. The other disciplines are attacking momentum, heat, and mass transfer
in an intensive 'and fundamental manner.
2. In operations carried out under extreme conditions with or without inter-
acting fields, the interests of the other disciplines in such things as plasma
jets, extremely high speed flight, defoimatlons under very high stress, etc. has
led them to undertake work of an advanced character. Further, much of this work
involves chemical reactions which they have taken in stride.
3. It is known that semi-conductors are closely related to chemical reaction
catalysts. The solid-state work of the electrical engineer and metallurgist is
carrying him further into the fundamentals of catalysis.
4. In systems synthesis, the pace is accelerating.

The above and similar circumstances represent challenges to the chemical en-
gineer to look to his own laurels and to make certain that he'is truly operating
at maximum effectiveness.

It is with these opportunities and challenges to the profes!'nn of Chemical
Engineering in mind that I suggest the following objectives for the technical part
of his University Education. How this accomplishment is split between graduate
and undergraduate years will vary from institution to institution.

1. A broad but penetrating exposure to the areas of both fund mental and
applied technology. Much of what is traditional in Chemical Engineering education
belongs in here but it needs redoing.

2. More depth in chemistry but with emphasis on understanding and appli-
cation rather than on manipulative technique. Wet analytical chemistry is not
our dish. Emphasis structure and synthesis approached from quantum ideas at the
atomic scale; how does one tailor-make molecules? Formulate and use the connec-
tions between the molecular and continuum approaches to the behavior of matter.
Give increased attention to interphase phenomena adsorption, liquid/liquid equil-
ibria, etc. because their applications are so important. Investigate non-equilib-
rium phenomena: kinetics, interaction with electromagnetic and high energy par-
ticle fields, extreme temperatures.

The subjects which in combination provide this depth in chemistry will not
all be given by the chemistry faculty. Physics and other engineering disciplines
may well offer more suitable material; the chemical engineering faculties will
need to develop programs of their own.














CEECOAL WOGInERIIS DWATION December 1963

3. Depth in a field theory diaoiplines continuum mechanics (which includes
ftld mehanies) or eleotromagnetio theory. A real understanding in depth in
n erf these areas is readily used as a springboard to real understanding in a
related eon. Everywhere we turn we find old and new applications of field
phenomena.

4. A meaningful experience in synthesis and design. This is fundamental
to engineering and very difficult to accomplish. We have not done well here.
*Plant design' etc. is in the right direction but too artificial and contrived.
We need a no-holds-barred experience which includes laboratory experiment, econom-
los, polities, and technical theory. Industry can be of great help here and I
think we should seek new ways of drawing an their ideas and experience. In my
own institution I have seen the project oriented Instrumentation Laboratory (Guid-
anoe System) and Lincoln Laboratory (Radar Systems) used as superb training
grounds for engineers. These laboratories operate at high levels of technical
competence with real hardware to produce under pressure of deadline, budgets,
contract negotiations, etc. Men trained in this way, on moving into industry,
become project managers and ultimately top management people. We in Chemical En-
gineering ought to be able to do something like this if we really set our minds
to it.

Finally, we should reassess our Ph.D. program. There is a real need for
competence in areas outside of research and development. The present format of
the Ph.D. degree, entailing several years effort on a single research problem,
is borrowed from antiquity. Although well suited for training for a career In
research, I have serious doubts as to its efficiency for training men for other
jobs in engineering. A shortened research interval, perhaps oriented more toward
a projeot-type problem, might be far better. The introduction of another edu-
cational path requires a break with tradition but to be an engineer one must
pioneer. -


















SHOULD INDUSTRY ASSIST GRADUATE EDUCATION?

The following prepared remarks inaugurated a panel discussion at the 1963
ASEE Annual Meeting. John K. Wolfe of the General Electric Company presided.
Members of the panel included George M. Buckingham, Executive Secretary of the
Esso Education Foundation;Glenn W. Giddings, Consultant in Educational Relations
for the General Electric Company; and C. J. Metz, Trustee and Secretary of the
Union Carbide Educational Fund.

Remarks By George M. Buckingham

Education evolves from and feeds upon scholarly study. However, education
lives only if it succeeds in motivating young minds to seek the best available
learning experience and concurrently works very hard to make the best learning
available to the largest number of minds capable of profiting from the experience.

Since all education involves teachers, since some learning is best carried
on by individual research, and since we are talking of corporate financial assist-
ance, I have chosen for this brief presentation the title "Educators, Researchers
and Shareholders."

In my opinion each corporation management should thoroughly thrash out the
reasons why it should consider financially supporting education, before any pro-
grams are adopted.

I am sure that many of you own stock in various enterprises and for just a
moment I would ask you to look at industry contributions, not as educators or re-
searchers, but as shareholders. A corporation may contribute to institutions such
as colleges, hospitals and United Funds as much as 5% of its net taxable income
and take an allowable tax deduction under Internal Revenue Service regulations.
Since the corporate tax rate gets up to 52% very quickly, since the average busi-
ness percentage of contributing is less than one per cent of net income before
taxes, and since less than half of that flows to educational institutions, it is
fairly obvious we are talking of only pennies or less per share. While we know
from experience that the majority of shareholders agree with the proposition in
general, we also know we must be prepared at all times to give an accounting of
our stewardship to the owners of the business. It is for this reason that I be-
lieve each management ought to determine whether it should assist education with
corporate funds and, if so, what it intends to accomplish by those expenditures.

Justification may be based on a sincere desire to put money to work in an
area where it will benefit society and hence benefit the company and its owners,
on the premise a business can exist only as long as the society which it serves
and of which it is a part permits it to exist. On the other hand, justification
may be much closer to a quid pro quo situation, such as establishing close ties
with departments that are good sources of topflight manpower for the corporation
or a wish to advance a discipline or disciplines closely associated with the
business.

One does not have to examine these three rationales for long to see there
is no pat answer as to why a corporation considers investing in education at
one level or another or in one phase or another.

As Executive Secretary of the Easo Education Foundation, which sl inter-
ested in the whole spectrum of higher education, I sense some real differences
in the present situation as regards undergraduate and graduate areas. When we
make a grant to an outstanding liberal arts college, we can be pretty sure it is
going to be used primarily to educate those who are probably going to lead future
generations. I am not quite so sure we can always be as certain of this when we
make funds available at the graduate level.

Before getting on with the reasons for the uncertainty, let me state un-
equivocally that I most assuredly have no desire to alienate anyone and hope not
to do so. If, however, the point to be made is valid, it is a risk seemingly
worth taking.

There are just enough cases of smoke to indicate that there are some fires
fed by private and public funds intended for graduate training apparently being
diverted to personal faculty research and publications; with the result that
seemingly playing second fiddle is the education of those upon whom education it-
self, as well as government, society, labor, and industry,must depend for future
leadership. 10

















IX CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION December 1963

I am not about to take a stand on the "right" teaching load per professor,
nor on teaching methods, nor on the university ideal of being the cradle of new
ideas and breakthroughs in knowledge. But, gentlemen, I will take a stand on the
importance of every faculty member assuming the responsibility of seeing to it
that his masters and doctoral candidates, and post doctorals too, acquire the best
possible training to prepare them for becoming the outstandingly competent teachers
researchers, administrators and leaders'of the future. If university faculties
can convince industry that they are bending their energies in this direction, in-
stead of seeking funds to do research for the sake of research, I think they will
wind up with a valid claim on industry, which industry will stand ready, willing
and able to pay.

In other words, I think industry should certainly invest corporate funds in
graduate education, but only under conditions and for purposes that are compat-
ible with the objectives which the company has previously selected as being worthy
of achievement and that are mutually satisfactory to both the donor and donee.

Remarks By C.: J. Metz

S"Is the pattern of corporate support of graduate education changing?" To
get the best possible answer to this question, I decided to survey my friends in
25 major corporations including the leading chemical and oil companies. All are
known to be knowledgeable in their approach to educational support. All are in-
terested in chemical engineering and chemical engineers. I am grateful for their
help.

Because of the diversity of their programs, I encountered some difficulty
summarizing the information provided. However, it shows rather clearly that the
pattern of corporate support at the graduate level, the oldest form of.assistance
with most companies, is changing.

In the next 10 minutes I should like to discuss how the current practices
of these companies evolved and make some predictions regarding future trends.

ORIGINAL PROGRAMS:

The first company to embark on a formal program in support of graduate edu-
cation did so in 1918. Others followed suit during the next four decades with
the largest number starting in the 401s.

During this period the most popular forms of support were fellowships and
research grants, particularly in science and engineering.

The expenditure of company-earned dollars was justified for a number of
reasons. The principal ones were:

1) A recognition that graduate education is necessary in maintaining
strong faculties at the collegiate level.
2) To help ease the shortage of professionally trained people.
3) To expand knowledge.
4) A feeling of responsibility for support of academic work in techni-
cal fields closely related to a company's interests.
5) The desire for closer relations with academic leaders in these fields.

RECENT AND CURRENT PRACTICES:
Corporate support at the graduate level has gained tremendously over the
years, and I believe the reasons for giving have remained about the same.
More recently, during the past three or four years, there has been a notice-
able shift in the type of graduate assistance. In some cases the changes have
been gradual and in others quite abrupt. More than half the companies surveyed
have shifted partially or completely from standard fellowships to more flexibly
administered departmental grants which can be used by the recipients as they
choose.

In some cases existing grant arrangements have been made more general and
one company has converted its graduate research grants to unrestricted grants to
universities.

Other variations in the pattern are provided by a small number of companies
which have diverted fellowship support dollars to other uses, such as professor-
ships, undergraduate scholarships, the purchase of instructional and research
equipment, and support of the company's own employees in their graduate studies.














December 1963 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION 12

I believe there are two basic reasons for these changes in graduate supports

First, the ever-increasing number and size of fellowships and grants avail-
able from other sources, particularly from the various departments and agencies
of the federal government. Some companies felt that the impact of their previous
arrangements with the universities had been lessened and that their standard
fellowship and grant arrangements were losing out in competition with their own
tax dollars which are being administered more generously by the government.

Secondly, flexible or unrestricted departmental grants are more acceptable
to the recipients. They supplement more effectively the designated grants from
other sources.

This brings us up to the present.

FUTURE:

Now, looking to the future, the companies surveyed were asked if they con-
templated any changes in the scope or character of their graduate support pro-
grams.

Company responses to this query fall into two categories those who have
already attempted to "come to grips with the problem and have recently revamped
their programs, and those "still on the fence".

As previously indicated, the companies in the first group have already
shifted the emphasis of their support from fellowships to grants and, in some
cases, to other areas of need. They plan to gear their programs to changing
business conditions, changing needs of education and other circumstances) but
have no plans for major changes in the immediate future.

The second group is comprised of companies still seeking their own solu-
tions. They, too, are overwhelmed by the proliferation of graduate support
opportunities and frequently refer to the programs sponsored by NASA, NSF, NIH,
etc. They are uncertain regarding their role in support at the graduate level.

It is my opinion that this group will work out solutions to the problem on
an individual basis. In all probability, steps taken will be diversified but,
in the main, they will follow the pattern established by the companies which have
rearranged their types of assistance in the past three or four years.

CONCLUSIONS:

In conclusion as an amateur crystal-ball-gazer, I would like to make
several observations regarding the future of corporate support at the graduate
level:

1) I don't envision a wholesale withdrawal of corporate support in
the near future. The present total is substantial it may in-
crease in total dollars but as corporate support to higher edu-
cation in all forms continues upward, the percentage of the total
which goes to graduate education may decline.

2) Graduate assistance will become more selective, more closely re-
lated to the business of the donor. Companies will examine more
thoroughly the university programs and the other sources of income
at each institution with which they deal. Administrators of company
programs, like myself, are finding it increasingly difficult to justify
the expenditure of company dollars in the present atmosphere of un-
certainty and change.

3) Some of the dollars previously spent on fellowships and grants at the
graduate level may be assigned to other areas of need. In addition
to professorships, unrestricted grants to universities, undergraduate
scholarships, equipment purchases and other donations, and the support
of company employees in their graduate studies all previously men-
tioned there are indications that some of these dollars may flow to
plant-town colleges, urban universities, undergraduate programs at
liberal arts colleges, and other special areas such as business, econ-
omics, and medical education.

If these changes occur, as predicted, and graduate education loses some
direct support from companies, I am sure you will agree that it stands to gain,
at least indirectly, from the dollars spent in tie other areas of need.

To paraphrase a statement attributed to the former head of General Motors
while serving as Secretary of Defense -- "What's good for general education is
good for graduate education" -- or perhaps I should say --"To assist highe -u-
cation in general is to assist graduate education."















IHHoCAL EKrIIRIoNG EDUCATION December 1963

a- uukmJ s" liinC. i.ddainigs

Most persons would probably give a quick affirmative answer to
the question, "Should Industry Assist Graduate Education?" It might come
as a surprise, as indeed it did to me, to find that a strong case can be made
for the negative.

In opening the discussion on the question of assisting graduate edu-
cation, I think it might be helpful to try to view it in a larger context. Support
to graduate education cannot be isolated; it is a part of the larger problem of
support to education. And further, although we all recognize the interdepen-
dence of education and industry, a still broader question may appropriately be
asked, "Does industry have responsibility to education?". Or, to put it even
more strongly, "Is Industry obligted to assist education?". This question,
in turn, is part of a still larger problem, "Does business have social responsi-
bilities?". What is the business of business?

Theodore Levitt of Harvard University, writing in the Harvard BVsi-
ness Review, has this to say, "In the end, business has only two responsi-
bilities -- to obey the elementary canons of every-day, face-to-face civility
(honesty, good faith, etc.) and to seek material gain.rl Milton Freedman,
Economist of the University of Chicago, has declared, "If anything is certain
to destroy our free society, to undermine its very foundations, it would be a
widespread acceptance by management of some social responsibilities in some
sense other than to make as much money as possible. . And consider this
further testimony from Kelso and Adler on the responsibilities of management.
In The Capitalist Manifesto these authors conclude that ultimate control of a
corporation "should rest with those who own it, not with those who merely run
it. . For the management of a corporate enterprise to dispose of what right-
fully belongs to its stockholders without their free, present and affirmatively
expressed consent is despotism, and it remains despotism no matter how
benevolent or wise management is in acting for what it thinks to be the 'best
interests' of its stockholders,"3
These negative pronouncements have all been made within the past
five years. In sum, they sound a cautionary note, and provide food for con-
siderable thought on what the social responsibilities of business actually are.
The predominance of current opinion, however, is positive, that is, that indus-
try does indeed have social responsibilities, including an obligation to assist in
supporting education.

The famous A. P. Smith Case in New Jersey a decade ago has been
widely taken as precedent. In that case, as you may recall, the A. P. Smith
Company sought approval in the courts for an unrestricted gift of $1,500 to
Princeton University, to which the stockholders had objected. Judge Stein of
the Superior Court of New Jersey found in favor of the Company. His decision
was upheld by the Supreme Court of New Jersey, which held, in effect, that a
corporation has social responsibilities, including not only the right but the duty
to assist education as being in the common good. An appeal to the Supreme
Court of the United States was dismissed, "for the want of a substantial Federal
question.".

Judge Stein's decision in the Smith Case, although not tested outside
of the New Jersey courts, has undoubtedly been a factor in increasing industrial
support to education. It has come to be felt that it is no longer necessary to
have a specific quid pro quo, some demonstrable direct benefit to the corpo-
ration that may be used in justification of each gift of the stockholders' money.

This practice of giving without a specific quid pro quo is a relatively
new factor in corporate support to education. In a book on Corporation Giving,
that was published by F. Emerson Andrews of the Russell Sage Foundation at
just about the time the A. P. Smith Case arose, the author makes this comment,
"Corporation giving, however, is not based on pure altruism. . Enlightened
selfishness is a legal requirement." The author proceeds, "Much corporation
giving undoubtedly proceeds from mixed motives. It is done in behalf of a
soulless entity, with selfish advantage obligatory, but by persons whose hearts
sometimes outvote their heads. This is a very good statement, for until
fairly recently, many appeals for corporate contributions were made on an
emotional and personal basis, and giving was capricious.

Recently there has been a marked change. Many companies have
established separate components for developing policies and practices of giving,
and some have established their own educational foundations. But there is one
thing that must not be lost sight of -- the money that corporations give in sup-
port of education is still business dollars. If it were not given to education, it
might be used for the direct benefit of either the stockholders through increased
dividends, or of the customers through lower prices. When diverted to sup-
port of education, the objective should be to support the long-range interests of
the business.
















Deoeber 1963 CHEICAL hOIM EIm G EDUOATIO f .

John A. Pollard, Vice President of the Council for Financial Aid to
Education, has put the case well. In an article in the Harvard Business Review,
he says, "Now, management sees clearly that support of education in its many
forms is not just philanthropy; it is also an investment that benefits the corpo-
ration --

1. By stimulating the growth of new knowledge and making
possible a wider dissemination of present learning.

2. By recognizing that an adequate supply of educated man-
power results from good teaching under favorable circum-
stances.

3. By fostering a social, economic and political climate in
which the company can continue to progress."6


Let us return now to the specifics of our question: What are the obli-
gations of industry to assist graduate education? I should like to mention two
areas in which I think industry has a pretty well defined obligation to assist in
supporting graduate education.

One of them is the preparation of teachers, college teachers particu-
larly. The supply of adequately qualified faculty members seems likely to be
the greatest bottleneck in American higher education during the next decade. In-
dustry, in considering its dependence upon a continuing supply of educated man-
power, might well take careful thought as to how it can assist graduate edu-
cation in the production of teachers.

Another area in which, it seems to me, neither industry nor edu-
cation has made a full assessment of the needs, is the whole field of what has
become known as continuing education. Whose job is it to bring up to date and
keep up to date the many thousands of college graduates that populate industrial
laboratories? Is it the job of the man himself? Certainly, in part. Is it the
job of the educational institution that once helped him to learn, but perhaps did
not help him sufficiently in learning how to keep on learning? . .Should edu-
cation give any "in-service warranty" with its product? Or is it the job of the
employer to sense inadequacies or imbalances in the background of employees
engaged in practicing changing technologies, and to pay for correcting them?
Certainly, at least in part.

The magnitude of the problem of continuing education has not yet, I
believe, been fully sensed, and both industry and education must be prepared
to participate in a careful assessment of the needs in this area and how to fill
them.
List of References for
SHOULD INDUSTRY ASSIST GRADUATE EDUCATION?


1. Levitt, Theodore "The Dangers of Social Responsibility"
Harvard Business Review, XXXVI
September-October, 1958 pp. 41-60

2. Freedman, Milton Eighth Social Science Seminar, March 19, 1958
Quoted by Richard Eells in The Meaning of
Modern Business p. 79
Columbia University
New York 1960

3. Kelso, Louis D. and The Capitalist Manifesto
Adler, Mortimer J. Random House 158
New York pp. 204-7

4. Eells, Richard Corporation Giving In A Free Society -
Harper & Brothers 1956
New York pp. 16-28

5. Andrews, F. Emerson Corporation Givin
Russell Sage Foundation 1952
New York p. 113

6. Pollard, John H. "Emerging Pattern In Corporate Giving"
Harvard Business Review Vol. 38, No. 3
May-June. 1960 p. 103





















INDUSTRIES' VIEWS OP CURRENT CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION

by
Maurice W. Mayer
Esso Research and Engineering Company
In preparation for a paper presented at the Philadelphia meeting of ASEE,
an extensive survey was undertaken In order to determine the industrial attitude
toward current chemical engineering education. The result is a monumental 161-
page report which has been distributed to all collegiate chemical engineering
departments in the United States.

Results of the survey were sumarized at the Philadelphia ASEE meeting, and
the conclusions certainly will give chemical engineering educators food for
thought. A few of the salient conclusions are quoted in the following paragraphs.

"There was a strong plea from industry for more chemical engineering and less
engineering science. Industry does not expect a scientist when he hires an engin-
eer. The engineer must have utilization and not knowledge as his goal!
"Industry is less displeased with undergraduate training than with graduate
training, even though some schools are neglecting undergraduate activities in
order to emphasize graduate work, too often of a research or pure-science flavor.
Worse than this, good B.S. engineers interested in industrial careers in
operations, management, and engineering are directed into graduate work simply
because they are highly capable students. Industry has no objections to research-
oriented graduate work for men headed for research or teaching. But it doesn't
like a situation where all available B.S. men for industry are mediocre or poor
students while the best students are enticed into doing graduate work in which
they might not happen to be particularly interested. The problem is further
aggravated when industry hires Ph.D.'s groomed in research, to do B.S. work in
operations. Neither the man nor the company will be happy with this type of
arrangement. And I won't even get Into the problem that this causes with salary
administration."

"Some comments from industry refer to the possibilities of graduate work
leading to a Doctor of Engineering degree. This degree would differ in its object-
ives from the Ph.D. degree and proficiency in research alone would not qualify a
man for It. What is really being said here is that extra schooling can be used to
good advantage if it is used to reinforce the basic training of the first four
years. Broadening the student, counselling him, and exposing him to the types of
complex multi-answer problems that he will encounter in industry appeals to many
of the industry people. Many companies have had good experience with M.S.
graduates whose training was geared to industrial work. Likewise, industry has
need for Ph.D.ts for research work or highly specialized engineering work, as well
as Doctors of Engineering for design, operations, and management functions. The
big problem is to get the proper types of individuals into the correct type of
program under the proper group of teachers."

"One of the things that is so distressing to technical people in industry
who are employing new engineers is the fact that so many of these new men come to
work without being aware of the fact that good writing and good speaking are very
important requirements vital to their success in their professional careers."

"Industry comments on Improvement of chemical engineering faculties followed
a definite pattern. One of the biggest objections is that too few faculty members
have had industrial experience or are able to fully appreciate the situations with
which the student will be confronted after he gets into industrial work. There is
a feeling that industry could help with this problem by improving liaison between
faculty and industry, by having members of industry visit the schools and talk with
the students, and by having faculty members actually work in industry on going
problems."

Copies of the complete report may be obtained by writing M. V. Mayer, Esso
Research and Engineering Company, P.O. Box 209, Madison, New Jersey.










University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2011 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated May 24, 2011 - - mvs