t//^ MAY, 1962

ji/mtuaA A special issue on T O M O R R O W

Jk MAY, 1962

jilumUA Volume 40 Number 7

CONTENTS

4. ENGINEERING EDUCATION FOR TOMORROW—an alumnus with a highly diversified background takes a swing at present-day technological education.

8. WINGS FOR A RACER—Frank Bigger spins a yarn so fantastic that it is absolutely true.

10. SCIENCE FOR SURVIVAL—In words by Bigger and pictures by Diehl, a unique project is unveiled.

15. COLLEGE OF TOMORROW—a special section that every alumnus and parent should read.

32. ED DANFORTH'S T GAME REPORT—the old master

gives his views on the action of April 28.

34. THE GEORGIA TECH JOURNAL—all of the news about the Institute, the alumni clubs, and the alumni of the Institute by classes.

43. THE 1962 ELECTION—New officers nominated.

Officers of the Georgia Tech National Alumni Association

J. F. Willett, '45, Pres. I. H. Hardin, '24, VP W. S. Terrell, '30, VP Jack Adair, '33, Treas.

W. Roane Beard, '40, Executive Secretary

Bob Wallace, Jr., '49, Editor Bill Diehl, Jr., Chief Photographer

Mary Jane Reynolds, Editorial Assistant Tom Hall, '59, Advertising Mary Peeks, Class Notes

THE COVER

• f l E O R B I A T E C H

« , « * » . , „ TOMORROW

Nothing portrays the joining of today and tomorrow any better than does this photograph of the Tech tower set against the new buildings of the Institute (fore­ground) and the new skyline of Atlanta. This issue like its cover is dedicated to the future with the constant reminder of how much we, of today, and those of the future, owe the past.

Cover Photo—Bill Diehl, Jr.

Published eight times a year—February, March, May, July, September, October, November and December*—by the Georgia Tech National Alumni Association, Georgia Institute of Technology; 225 North Ave­nue, Atlanta, Georgia. Subscription price (35c per copy) included in the membership dues. Second class postage paid at Atlanta, Georgia.

THE FACE OF GEORGIA TECH

IV.

THE TWO GENTLEMEN (Dr. Harold Gersch, left, and Dr. Joseph Ford) pictured on these pages typify a profession that more than any other shoulders the responsibility of shaping tomorrow. They are college teachers. And at the moment this photograph was taken they were engaged in the type of discussion of their particular area from which comes solutions to their problems and eventually the solu­

tions to the problems of their students. This part of teach­ing never changes—place different markings on the board, and this picture could have been taken in the Mechanical Engineering or Chemistry schools instead of in the Physics school. Make another change, and it could have been taken 100 years ago. Change it again, and it might portray 100 years into the future.

Photographed for the Alumnus by Bill Diehl, Jr.

MAY, 1961

Photograph by Ed Roseberry

ENGINEERING E D U C A T I O N A Tech Chemical Engineering grad­

uate of 1954 with industrial experi­

ence, a legal degree and a year's study

in France under his belt, argues for

the cultural expansion of our curricula

FOR T O M O R R O W

by Thomas E. Costner

"| N A TIME when the phrase "little red schoolhouse" is more likely to call to mind an educational institution in Soviet Russia than its bucolic American counterpart,

it is important to reconsider the educational steps being taken to insure success, or minimally, survival in the future. When such intangibles as "missile gap" dominate the daily news, the alumni of Tech, to bring the problem closer to home, can well give thought to means of aiding those who are technical college students now or who will be in com­ing years. A glance at the alumni directory shows that in addition to the predominant number of engineers, some of our people are doctors, professional military men, lawyers, clergymen, and teachers, to name several. In an effort to tap the collective knowledge and experience of these graduates an alumni survey was made fairly recently in an attempt to obtain information useful to the faculty and planners, in a form capable of tabulation and com­parison. I feel, that in addition to having provided answers to the survey questions, the alumni of the institution can, using this publication as an appropriate meeting ground, provide still more information which will be helpful to the planning bodies at Tech, and of eventual value to the students. Direct exposition of alumni ideas, from graduates who have been away varying lengths of time, can provide information which will be an aid. Some of the alumni who have gone farthest afield from their academic training have no doubt done so as a result of things they either got or failed to get in their college training. These are the areas which bear investigation.

My thesis here is that success, for engineers, is dependent on a shift in the present educational emphasis which concentrates now on making the engineering graduate a technician rather than a professional person. The emphasis has been on ultra-specialization in the technical areas to the neglect of basic subjects. For example, in one of to­day's Paris newspapers there was a large classified advertise­ment seeking qualified "Troposcatter Field Engineers," certainly a refined specialty. The men who fill that job would be, in my way of thinking, better troposcatter engi­neers if they have been given a greater foundation in certain essential non-technical courses. Despite the forward strides in technology which necessitate the production of experts on minute exotic subjects, these new experts need a better educational groundwork on which to build the technical complex. The trend toward ultra-specialization tends to produce technicians who begin talking about unionizing, in self-defense to protect the existence of their specialty. This unionization of engineer-specialists would be the death blow to what is now referred to as the "engineering pro­fession."

The Cause With the passing of over ten years since matriculation,

I have seen certain areas in which my college education was strong or weak, or in some cases lacking. When I was at Tech, culture was a dirty word. It was a quantity exclusively in the province of Emory boys, themselves un­

desirable, and largely for this reason. They read books which didn't contain numbers; they were not, therefore, men. We prided ourselves on the absence of culture, since it was not a manly thing, and reveled in our crudeness. It was a poor argument then and an even worse one now.

I thought when I entered Tech I would emerge four years later, barring mishap, as a member of the "engineer­ing profession," and that necessarily as a member of this profession I would be entitled to the label, for whatever it was worth, of "professional person." This turned out to be an erroneous notion, partly due to youth and expe­rience, but also partly due to indoctrination which I had received. There was, and I assume still is, a basic mis­conception even in the eyes of engineering graduates about the nature of a great deal of engineering work.

A Personal Example Here I must rely on personal experience, which may or

may not be typical. When my army stint was over I started looking around for a job and found that there was a good demand for engineers. From the several jobs avail­able, I chose what seemed to be the best one, with the X Company, a major steel producer. I took the standard battery of extensive tests, some of which I had seen several previous times, and was told several weeks later I had been certified "stable," "bright," and "capable of graduate study." I began work. The job was easy on the brain and hard on the body. The amount of intelligence required to perform the training functions was startlingly little, and the amount of technical work I was given to perform con­sumed a very small proportion of my time although I was classified as an "engineer." I had considerably less freedom of thought and movement than I had been ac­customed to in the army. By comparison my army job was an executive position. I was subjected to a constric­tion which I find today still causes an occasional night­mare. I was astonished to find that anyone with an engineering degree, anyone who had been trained in a profession would be subjected to a routine of abuse which combined the worst features of Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm. After eighteen months I resigned telling the X Com­pany that I was going to graduate school, not in engineer­ing. To my surprise they asked me to remain, suggested a change in plants, and promised a raise in the near future. I declined. I had decided that the work being done by X's engineers who had been employees for twenty to thirty years did not contain the freedom or expertise which I wished. I went to graduate school and picked up, after the fact, considerable information which I wish I had received, and could easily have been taught, in my undergraduate engineering curriculum.

I am aware that many of the educational difficulties which the faculty and planners at Tech, as well as at all colleges, are faced with are the products of deficiencies in primary and secondary schooling. The Tech curriculum,

Continued on page 6

MAY, 1962

ENGINEERING EDUCATION — continued

to compensate for these deficiencies, must necessarily be conformed and downgraded. College faculties must take their freshmen as they get them, within the limitations established by minimum entrance requirements.

Professor Arthur S. Trace, Jr., of John Carroll Uni­versity, recently called attention to the problems in pri­mary education by the publication of his book What Ivan Knows That Johnny Doesn't. Trace's book has caused wide-spread comment. It is a comparative analysis of Russian and American primary education systems, and as we in 1962 have become conditioned to expect, the Russian child seems to get a much stiffer dose of learning and at much earlier stages. The author also pointed out that, despite the emphasis on teaching Ivan something as com­plicated as human anatomy in the third grade, he is never­theless given a liberal helping of unadulterated Russian literature. One can conclude from this that by the time Ivan reaches his science college he will be better grounded in all areas of knowledge than his standard American counterpart. All this affects Tech to the extent that until great changes are made in American primary and secondary education its faculty will unfortunately have to make many of the correctional measures at the college level. Even when and if primary and secondary education requirements are strengthened, there will be a gap of some years before the new products appear on the college scene.

A suggested solution One of the things Tech should concentrate on most is

the production of more sophisticated engineers, not sophis­ticated in the sense of being steeped in the fine arts, but in the sense of having at least some awareness of the world beyond the slide rule. I think this can sensibly be done by beefing up the instruction offered in the available semesters of English, plus requiring all students to take a basic course in logic and one year of foreign language study. From where will the time come? Will there have to be a five-year curriculum as in the old days? My solution would be to eliminate some of the fringe technical courses, such as chemical engineering economics for the chemical engi­neers, and substitute logic and the foreign language. With the hours of English and humanities which are presently available, internal strengthening should do the trick. Some engineers argue that if one wishes to read the Theban plays, for example, he can pick up an edition in English and ap-proach comprehension of them without tutelage. They argue that it is much more difficult to learn polymer chemistry or matrix analysis by self-instruction, that the purely scientific subjects do not lend themselves as readily to self-teaching. This is no doubt true. But at some point the science major must be forcibly introduced to grammar, literature and the humanities to lay the groundwork for further personal study. One technique employing self-instruction, which has worked successfully for some years at Harvard, is to require

the returning student to stand an examination, as a degree requirement, on assigned summer reading. The examina­tion is given immediately upon return to school in the fall before the regular session of classwork begins.

You may argue that naturally a Tech student can't be taught in a four-year undergraduate engineering course an equivalent amount of knowledge which professional people such as doctors or lawyers acquire in seven or eight years of study. A B.S. is not directly comparable with a LL.B. or M.D. But even so, the degree of expertise which a B.S. holder acquires in four years needs to be greater.

A need for sophistication The degree of sophistication of American university

graduates is dramatically pointed out from my vantage point in an European university. After some years in American institutions of higher learning it was an abrupt shock to begin classwork in an European school. The attitude as well as the instruction is totally different. In most cases, the only required task during an academic year is appearance at the final examinations in May. There are in general fewer classes per week to attend and attend­ance is entirely optional. There is a complete absence of the Socratic method; no questions are asked of the students and they are permitted to ask none in class. The professor, who wears an academic gown, is given much more respect than in the average informal American class. Students rise upon his entering and leaving the lecture hall. The pro­fessor reads a prepared lecture, which is also available in verbatim printed form, from which he seldom deviates. This introduces a static note to which it takes an American some time to adjust. I don't think it can be said that European universities are superior to American ones, or vice versa, because of the wide gap in student back­grounds and the differences in the methods of teaching. All classwork in the European school is on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. In American colleges the emphasis is gen­erally that you-must-take-it. The American graduate, I think, has a better education in the sense that he has more bare information; the European graduate, on the other hand, has a better idea how to grapple with problems for himself, and how to work independently. He has greater cultural maturity. This last statement must necessarily take into consideration the family life in Europe which generally produces a more sophisticated person of comparable age than in America. Which is more desirable then, the bare knowledge which the American graduate has, or the greater sophistication which the European has? Neither. The happy combination of both is required. Therefore, it seems that American universities must combine a greater dose of in­tellectual sophistication with the dose of knowledge which they pass out. A recent statement by Dean Acheson has great relevance here. The Former Secretary of State said, "Intellectual training alone is not necessarily a sophisti­cating experience," and went on to cite several examples in the medical profession, concluding that he was often

TECH ALUMNUS

surprised by the innocence of medical men when they ventured beyond their own field into that of public affairs.

Even if an engineering graduate, or the holder of any science degree, goes somewhat far afield from the tradi­tional science jobs, for example, into medicine or the military, the same nice reasoning which he learns in a technical school is necessary. Great precision is still re­quired. Training, such as acquired in the sciences, which tends to produce habits of order, is indispensable. The ideal engineering curriculum should breed a regard for the regular connection of ideas, whether or not those ideas are ultimately manifested in a mathematical conclusion or solution.

1 don't think reliance on seminars in such Madison Avenue quantities as "group dynamics," which are current­ly popular both in schools and industry, are a helpful solution. The notion of the big think, as they call it, is repugnant to the integrity of individual thinking and scholarship. Such instruction tends to replace rather than augment individual thought. Also a greater emphasis on continuing engineering education for graduates, a program similar to those found in medicine and law, would be of tremendous value. Again there is the possible objection that the laws of thermodynamics are less likely to change than the federal income tax laws. Still, there should be more impetus given to the programs which keep graduates abreast of changes and recent developments.

I know one family which took a particular interest in the total education of their four children. Two of the four children possessed high IQs and other two had quite average IQs. Yet all four, by the time they reached college age, had acquired an astonishing amount of knowledge, and an even more astonishing maturity. The key to their greater learning was that the concept of mediocrity had never been presented to them. They had been given and had accepted a Henry Miller motto, "Genius is the norm," without question. The technique of withdrawing the concept of mediocrity is one which could be helpfully used in college life today.

A greater emphasis on language 1 urge a compulsory course in logic for all students.

This subject, above all others, builds a bridge between precision with numbers and precision with words, this precision with words being the single thing that most engi­neers lack. I would place greater emphasis on language, both English and foreign. The courses I had at Tech in English were for the most part a rehash of what 1 had been taught in secondary school. In several instances they were appreciably easier than the secondary school courses. If engineers are going to split infinitives, then I think they should do so for emphasis, with premeditation, rather than, through complete unawareness. There has been a notice­able over-emphasis in the technology which produces, not necessarily through choice, generations of mute slide rule pushers. The engineers with whom I have to deal today

are for the most part unable to express themselves with authority outside of numbers and formulae.

The moral responsibility of professionals It is painfully clear, from Europe, that America is light-

years behind in competency with other languages. This has resulted from a recent shift in burden: formerly the burden was on Europeans to learn English, but now with international business in its present state, the emphasis with American businessmen having foreign business is on their learning other languages. It is becoming progressively more essential for American business persons, in the light of forecasts projected through 1970, to speak other than their native tongue. The 1957 Treaty of Rome, which established the European Economic Community, almost of itself set in motion this shift in burden. With England's potential entry into the Common Market and our present administration's awareness of the necessity for conforming American poli­cies to insure economic survival, the problem is made even greater. Presently there are four working languages of the Common Market, none of which is English. In international business, French is no longer regarded as something for young girls to take in finishing school. One can travel around the world today and be widely understood if bilin­gual in French and English. The International Court of Justice at The Hague sits only in French and English. Need­less to say a tremendous amount of engineering work involving American companies and engineers takes place in the Common Market today, bringing home the necessity for greater familiarity with European languages.

Precision with words is as important to the technical person as precision with numbers, and the former, I submit, is more difficult to achieve. Precision is the sine qua non of a professional person. An imprecise scalpel stroke costs a patient's life, the doctor knows; a tactical error at trial and the defendant can get the gas chamber, the attorney knows. But I don't think enough engineers consider that the making of a series of errors in calculation which cost the life of an astronaut is a breach of professional responsi­bility. In each of these three cases it is impossible to make the "client" undead. This is perhaps a dramatic overstate­ment of the position of each technical person involved, but I think it illustrates my point that a technician must surround his technical capabilities with a ring of moral responsibility to those he serves, plus as much collateral learning as he can acquire.

I recall a quotation which was found near the entrance to the old Chemistry building at Tech which said, "In the first place I would put Accuracy." I walked under those words so many times that they lost their initial im­pact on me. But time and distance have recalled them and now they have a great significance for me. Accuracy with words is more difficult to achieve than accuracy with num­bers and certainly no less essential to the engineer who wishes to be a professional person. It is this phase of his educational process which needs bolstering today.

MAY, 1962

Photograph by Van Toole by Frank Bigger

A Tech professor designs

WINGS FOR THE RACER OF TOMORROW

Professor John J. Harper, the man who designed the wings for the Racer of tomor­row takes a look at his creation during its showing in Atlanta this past April.

DAYTONA BEACH, FLA.—So you think the aeronautics laboratory and the raceway are worlds apart? Well

they aren't. This fact was proved here at the International Speedway

when Bob Osiecki's racer, "Mad Dog IV," crashed the 180-mile-lap barrier recently to take home a $10,000 prize and a new world's record. An aerospace engineering professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology played a large part in accomplishing the feat by literally giving wings to "Mad Dog IV." In this case the professor was "Mad Dog's" best friend, and the wings he designed may ultimately help the racing car achieve a blazing speed of 300 m.p.h.

Smashing the Daytona speed barrier was something like scaling Mount Everest for the first time. Many of the world's mightiest racing cars had tried and failed. Some of these powerful machines spun out and crashed on Daytona's straightaways and steeply-graded turns, carrying their drivers to death.

Osiecki, a race car builder-driver from Charlotte, N. C , was fascinated by the magical lure of the 180-mile-lap barrier even though he had seen other men die vainly pursuing it. And his passion for the challenge was fired even more when Daytona Speedway chief Bill France placed a $10,000 prize on the first 180-mile lap.

The Charlotte racer pushed as far as he could go toward the goal with his Indianapolis-type car, but fell short of the mark. The machine was the best. Roaring under the hood was an 850-horsepower engine. Hilborn injectors, backed by supercharger, crammed fuel into the 413-inch power plant. The body shell was aerodynamically sound. Still it could not break the lap barrier. The car in one attempt flashed around the track at 166 m.p.h. before a 2,100-foot spin and slide brought the trials to an end. Driver and car were unhurt.

Osiecki was perplexed. His dream of smashing the speed barrier was fading. He knew he had plenty of power, but the cruel centrifugal drag on the curves tore away tire rubber, making control difficult, sometimes impossible. And slight rises in the asphalt sent his car into the air and its great speed kept it there too long.

TECH ALUMNUS

What was the problem? Keeping the car on the track. Osiecki had a brainstorm. If wings could hold an airplane up, why couldn't upside-down wings hold a car down? And why not add a fin like an airplane rudder to cut down yawing and give the vehicle stability? It just might work. It was worth trying. He wanted that speed record badly.

This is where Georgia Tech Professor John J. Harper came into the picture. Osiecki brought his ideas to Harper, who is in charge of Tech's nine-foot wind tunnel in the Guggenheim School of Aeronautics. He had worked with Osiecki before, helping design an aerodynamically sound body shell for another racer. Harper had at his finger-tips all the information necessary to devise the exact wing size necessary to hold a racing car down.

Harper designed the stubby, three-foot-square wings in just one day. He figured they would give the car about 900 pounds of downward thrust at speeds around 180 m.p.h., gluing the car to the track. They would actually give the vehicle reverse lift, or downward pull. Technically, they are called "cambered inverted air foils." Mounted near the car's center of gravity, the settings for the wings could be controlled by the driver. That is, the angle at which they would cleave the air could be changed for best results at varying speeds. The stationary tail fin, which would stand about 30 inches above the body of the car, presented no problem and Osiecki, with the help of one of Harper's former students at Douglas Aircraft, quickly trans­formed Harper's design into hardware at his Speed and Equipment Co. in Charlotte.

Last July "Mad Dog IV," looking like a strange cross between a car and an airplane, took to the Daytona track once more. The trials were plagued by a series of mechan­ical difficulties. Then finally, on Aug. 28, driver Art Malone piloted the vehicle around the D-shaped track at a sizzling average speed of 181.561 m.p.h. The wings and tail held the car steady through the tortuous turns and down the breathless straightaways. A new world's speed mark for closed-circuit race tracks was posted and Osiecki collected the $10,000 prize. The car was clocked at 226 m.p.h. in the straightaways during this record run. More surprising still, the throttle was only half open, according

Hot on the trail of the previously unat­tainable 180-miles-an-hour average at Day­tona, the Mad Dog IV makes its big move.

to Osiecki. "It's a weird looking machine," one mechanic remarked

as the winged "Mad Dog" whirled toward the pit after its triumphal dash. "But it works," he added, "so don't knock it."

Harper was not especially surprised that the wing de­sign worked so well. Such problems are routine for him, but the Seneca, S. C , native can usually be found applying his skills to such things as airplanes and rockets rather than racing cars.

Osiecki is already planning another great feat for his wing-sprouting racer. Plans are presently being made to modify the car for trials on the Bonneville Salt Flats of Utah. The angle of the wings will be set for maximum control on the straightaway run. Plates will be added to wing tips to keep air from spilling over and setting up speed-cutting vortexes. Special tires are being made with very little tread to give maximum traction on the salt. The grill area will be reduced and other openings will be closed to cut down air drag. A canopy will go over the cockpit.

"With these modifications," the confident Osiecki said, "our calculations of all the factors involved tell us that this car will reach a speed of 300 m.p.h. That's a pretty hot record for anyone to seek. Osiecki plans to be at the wheel during some of the Bonneville trials which are slated in August.

Prof. Harper, who helped make the success of "Mad Dog IV" possible, is a mechanical engineering graduate of Clemson College and holds a masters in aeronautical engineering. In talking with him, one gets the impression that he did the design for "Mad Dog IV" purely for kicks. His work at Tech involves wings, rotor blades and almost anything else that moves and can be improved by altering its shape to make air flow more evenly and usefully over it. His office is in the basement of the Guggenheim School among a maze of model aircraft, wind tunnels, jet engines, and a host of other paraphernalia necessary to the learning of the ways of the winds.

But it is obvious that the soft-spoken Harper is pleased at having helped wed science and racing to give, the fans more thrills.

MAY, 1962

Photographed for the Alumnus by Bill Diehl, J r .

A CITY'S SCIENTISTS TRAIN ITS

by Frank Bigger

YOUTH IN SCIENCE FOR SURVIVAL

* toft SU» TtUOW to BufttJUOAft A MUT

•*••.

The best of Atlanta's teachers and

researchers spend a great deal of

time in a unique citywide program

EACH YEAR, Georgia Tech, Emory, Agnes Scott, Ogle­thorpe and other institutions of higher learning in the Atlanta area witness a pilgrimage to their cam­

puses which, to the casual observer, may seem a little strange.

About mid-winter the procession starts. Here come high school students bearing a weird collection of items to make the line of march impressive, usually serious, sometimes humorous—always interesting. Eggs, seed, solar cells, fruit flies, bacteria, and clay are among the things they carry.

More important are the ideas they bring for scientific investigations and projects for their high school science classes.

Certainly, some come simply because it's another school chore to be performed and their interests do not lie in things scientific. But others come with dreams and definite plans for careers in science. These dreams can come true. They have for others.

This seemingly peculiar parade, then, is a well-conceived, pre-planned quest for knowledge. It is a signal triumph for the City of Atlanta, a town that is not just science-conscious, but science-minded. It illustrates how one city successfully pooled its efforts in a community-wide drive to introduce young people to the fascinating world of science, to pique their interest and make high school science studies really worthwhile. It serves as a prelude to the Atlanta Science Congress, the Georgia Science Fair, and the National Science Fair which was held this year in Seattle, Washington.

Who set the kids marching to the laboratories? It's an interesting story.

Atlanta is a place of many colleges. Scientific research carried on at these schools, particularly Emory and Georgia Tech, is counted in the millions of dollars. In addition to this, many industries and governmental agencies in the area are conducting scientific research in their own labora-

11

SCIENCE FOR SURVIVAL — continued

tories. Hundreds of scientists, experts in nearly every field from basic to applied endeavor, live and work in the metro­politan area.

A few years ago, several individuals who recognized the growing importance of science decided to take advantage of all this scientific know-how for the benefit of Atlanta's young people. Why not, they reasoned, ask these scientists to suggest projects and advise the students during the actual work? The scientists were receptive and agreed to help.

Two of the people most instrumental in this move were Dr. Harold Friedman, an industrial chemist, now head of research at Zep Manufacturing Co. in Atlanta, and Mrs. Annie Sue Brown, coordinator of science for the Atlanta City School System.

The initial steps in this science-for-youth movement came in 1952 when scientists from various institutes visited the high schools to determine just what the students and teachers wanted and needed. Out of these visits and talks came a pioneering and exciting effort which generated much enthusiasm, but poor results at first.

The plan was to list the names of the scientists who were willing to help, along with their fields of specialty, and distribute the list to high schools. This effort met with lukewarm response.

Something was wrong. It was Dr. W. H. Jones, professor of chemistry at Emory, who found the proverbial "fly in the ointment." The plan, he felt, was not working because the lists were just too specific. The students could not relate projects they had in mind to such highly technical classifi­cations carried on the lists as, for instance, "meteor propa­gation studies." Jones felt the classifications should be more general, such as aeronautics, astronomy, and so on. His idea was put into practice and interest began to pick up. More and more students began visiting the listed scientists and telephoning for consultations.

Out of this effort grew the Atlanta Science Congress, a competition for young scientists which has no peer in the Southeast.

Early in the 1950's Mrs. Brown brought the idea for a science congress to Atlanta after visiting such an exhibition in New York City. A congress differs from a science fair in that a student must keep a log of his project work and must give a short lecture explaining the project to the judges when the competition is held. Mrs. Brown explains that this permits the judges, who*re scientists, to determine if the youngster has followed the scientific approach in his work. At a science fair, students simply use posters to describe their work.

The Atlanta City School System staged its first science congress in 1955. Thanks to the efforts of Mrs. Brown, the resource and science teachers in the high schools, and the scientists who help the students, its success has grown with each exhibition. According to Dr. William H. Eber-hardt, chemistry professor at Georgia Tech who is con­

sultant to the students having projects involving the physical sciences, some of the projects are "out of this world." Tech's Thomas Kethley has found much of the work by the students "outstanding and surprisingly good from people so young." Head of Tech's Bioengineering Laboratories, Kethley advises students in biological sciences.

This year the congress staged its eighth exhibition on March 16 and 17. The fact that it was held in Atlanta's new multi-million dollar Merchandise Mart reflects the importance the city attaches to the effort. About 130 young scientists, who had been selected at the high school level, competed. Their projects covered all fields of basic science, including mathematics, physics and chemistry.

Biology entries ranged from the effects of cigarette smoke on white mice to the use of chemicals to dwarf poinsettia stems. One project involved the possibility of making wine from tomatoes.

In mathematics, work ranged from the mathematics of typewriting to the composition of velocities.

Physics included a project called: "Can a Pendulum be Used to Find the Maximum Acceleration of a Car While Accelerating Up an Incline?"

Students interested in chemistry exhibited and discussed projects involving electrolysis of brine, a study of halo-genoid amines and nitrogen halides and a study of the Fairy Cross.

Dr. Malvina Trussell, professor of science education at Florida State College, spoke during the program on the final day of competition.

Both of the young men who won the top prizes, trips to the National Science Fair in Seattle May 2-5 and visits to the Seattle World's Fair, received assistance at Georgia Tech.

William Leonard Pickard, Jr., a junior at O'Keefe High School, consulted with Kethley, Dr. Robert Fetner of Tech's Radioisotopes Laboratory, and Wayne K. Rivers, Jr., research physicist at Tech. Pickard also researched his project at Tech's Price Gilbert Library. His prize-winning work dealt with the radiobiology of pinocytosis, a process which occurs in the membranes of living cells. Pickard was also a top winner last year.

The other top winner was William Fred Moss, III, a senior at Southwest High. He worked closely with Tech's John R. Dyer, associate professor of Chemistry. Moss is also a repeat winner. Last year he won a naval cruise. His project this year concerned photosynthetic reaction in chloroplasts, which contain the chlorophyll in plants. Ac­companying the youths on their trip to the West Coast will be their sponsoring teachers—Miss Carolyn Payne of O'Keefe and Robert Haver of Southwest. The congress is sponsored by a local committee representing industry, in cooperation with the Atlanta School System.

Money for the student trips, to National Science Fairs each year is raised by a Citizens Committee for Science Education, led by Joe Browder, sales manager for the

Continued on page 14

12 TECH ALUMNUS

A group of young scientists get their final briefing from their teacher during the early-morning lull just before Saturday's finals.

The young students interested in science come from throughout fhe area to study the displays and hear the paper presentations.

Dr. William H. Eberhardt, professor of chemistry at Tech, (right) and one of his graduate students, Jerry Whitten, discuss one of the projects in the 1962 congress. While (below) Tech's Thomas Kethley (left) discusses this year's entries with Mrs. Annie Sue Brown who brought the idea of the Science Congress to Atlanta's scientists.

The 1962 winner, William Leonard Pickard, Jr. of O'Keefe High School gives his lecture on "Radiobiology of Pinocytosis" and takes first prize for the second straight year.

MAY, 1962 13

. PROJECT

BEAWWT AND AJJJJS Of THE DDPIJg

SHIFT CURRENT^ni

w

SCIENCE FOR SURVIVAL — continued Georgia Power Co. Other winners went on to compete at the Georgia Science Fair in Athens. Still others received scholarships; trips with military units; subscriptions to scientific journals; gold, silver, or bronze keys, depending on the degree of their success in the competition.

This year, representatives from the U. S. Office of Edu­cation were on hand at the competition, seeking ideas to promote science projects in other sections of the nation. Their presence was a tribute to Atlanta's efforts.

Entries in the Georgia and National Science Fairs from Atlanta Science Congress have exceedingly good records, carrying off top prizes in both competitions.

Georgia Tech scientists have been amazed, even dumb­founded at the brilliance of reasoning displayed by some of the budding scientists. Occasionally, they have a few chuckles, too.

One eighth grader awed the "eggheads" with his knowl­edge of astronomy and showed that he could use his ability in other areas as well. He built a device to study patterns of fluid flow around objects of well-characterized geometry. Still another lad had a general idea about the kinds of catalysts one should use to decompose potassium chlorate. Through experiments he showed that an entirely different agent was doing the work than was previously be­lieved. One young man, who was making solar cells to use the energy of sun-light to operate a transistor radio, so impressed a graduate student with his work that the gradu­ate student gave a science seminar on the project. Some bright young men have been hired by scientists and have gone on to outstanding careers in science.

Not all the young people exhibit such brilliance, how­ever. One youth contacted a scientist for help on an essay he had written. It carried the somewhat more than all-encompassing title of "The Universe—And Other Things."

Another wanted to study the effects of atomic fallout on future generations. He had just a couple of weeks to make this survey before his project deadline. The amused scien­tist he consulted explained to the lad he would be hard put to- find anything that could reproduce fast enough to make

the study possible. One boy wanted help in photographing an atom. He was abashed to learn this is a technical im­possibility.

Many of the students who visit Georgia Tech are in­terested in studying the effects of radiation on living things. They bring eggs, seed, and fruit flies to be subjected to x-radiation in Tech Bioengineering Laboratories. When the eggs hatch, the seeds sprout, and fruit flies become parents, they can determine how the radiation changed them.

One young lady came by with bacteria she had collected about her home. She wanted the scientists to help her identify the germs. Her project involved what kind of germs are found where in the house.

Some students working with bacteria produce their own germ-fighting antibodies. This is done by injecting the disease-causing bacteria into rabbits. The antibodies pro­duced as a natural defense in the animal's body are then withdrawn and the students, using a microscope, can see just how the antibodies attack and destroy the bacteria.

Another lad came with kaolinite, the white clay found in abundance in Georgia. It has a great many industrial uses. He asked the scientists to let him have a look at the kaolinite in an electron microscope so that he could check the arrangement of the atoms. The scientists obliged.

Quite a few young men, inspired by the Space Age, want to build rockets and see how high they can fire them. This is a very dangerous business and the students are urged to turn to things more down to earth.

It must be pointed out here that the students are not encouraged to use facilities in established science research laboratories, - but to make and use their own equipment where possible.

Preparation of the "scientist directory" for the high schools has in recent years been taken over by Sigma Xi, scientific honorary society, and the Research Society of America. The lists are prepared in such a manner that following the names of the scientists who are interested in helping are code letters which indicate how the scientists will assist. Here are some of the things they do: Give talks to high school students and science clubs. Assist students in the selection of projects. Assist students in the technical aspects of projects. Help science teachers as con­sultants or advisors. Employ high school students as summer lab assistants. Employ science teachers during summer. Participate in television or radio science programs.

Georgia Power's Joe Browder in one statement best ex­pressed the feelings of the students, the teachers, the scien­tists, and the businessmen who have worked so diligently to make the program a success. It is a serious viewpoint; one shared by the entire community.

Browder was speaking with pride of the good which has come out of this effort for everyone involved. He con­cluded his remarks with words which sum up the pro­gram's ultimate aim. It is far more important than science projects, competitions, and prizes.

"This is science for survival," he said.

14 TECH ALUMNUS

Who will go to college—and where? What will they find? Who will teach them? Will they graduate? What will college have done for them? Who will pay—and how?

TOM "W ILL MY CHILDREN GET INTO COLLEGE?"

The question haunts most parents. Here is the answer:

Yes • If they graduate from high school or preparatory school with something better than a "scrape-by" record. • If they apply to the college or university that is right for them—aiming their sights (and their application forms) neither too high nor too low, but with an individu­ality and precision made possible by sound guidance both in school and in their home. • If America's colleges and universities can find the resources to carry out their plans to meet the huge de­mand for higher education that is certain to exist in this country for years to come.

The if's surrounding your children and the college of tomorrow are matters of concern to everyone involved— to parents, to children, to alumni and alumnae (whatever their parental status), and to the nation's educators. But resolving them is by no means being left to chance. • The colleges know what they must do, if they are to

EGE of

ROW meet the needs of your children and others of your chil­dren's generation. Their planning is well beyond the hand-wringing stage. • The colleges know the likely cost of putting their plans into effect. They know this cost, both in money and in manpower, will be staggering. But most of them are already embarked upon finding the means of meeting it. • Governments—local, state, and federal—are also deeply involved in educational planning and financing. Some parts of the country are far ahead of others. But no region is without its planners and its doers in this field. • Public demand—not only for expanded facilities for higher education, but for ever-better quality in higher education—today is more insistent, more informed than ever before. With this growth of public sophistication about higher education, it is now clear to most intelligent parents that they themselves must take a leading role in guiding their children's educational careers—and in making certain that the college of tomorrow will be ready, and good, for them.

This special report is in the form of a guide to parents. But we suspect that every read­er, parent or not, will find the story of higher education's future remarkably exciting.

\ \ ^ h e r e will your children go to college?

1AST FALL, more than one million students enrolled

in the freshman classes of U.S. colleges and univer--^ sities. They came from wealthy families, middle-

income families, poor families; from all races, here and abroad; from virtually every religious faith.

Over the next ten years, the number of students will grow enormously. Around 1964 the long-predicted "tidal wave" of young people, born in the postwar era and steadily moving upward through the nation's school sys­tems ever since, will engulf the college campuses. By 1970 the population between the ages of 18 and 21—now around 10.2 million—will have grown to 14.6 million. College enrollment, now less than 4 million, will be at least 6.4 million, and perhaps far more.

The character of the student bodies will also have changed. More than half of the full-time students in the country's four-year colleges are already coming from lower-middle and low income groups. With expanding scholarship, loan, and self-help programs, this trend will continue strong. Non-white college students—who in the past decade have more than doubled in number and now compose about 7 per cent of the total enrollment—will continue to increase. (Non-whites formed 11.4 per cent of the U.S. population in the 1960 census.) The number of married students will grow. The average age of students will continue its recent rise.

The sheer force of this great wave of students is enough to take one's breath away. Against this force, what chance has American higher education to stand strong, to main­tain standards, to improve quality, to keep sight of the individual student?

And, as part of the gigantic population swell, what chances have your children?

TO BOTH QUESTIONS, there are some encouraging answers. At the same time, the intelligent parent will not ignore some danger signals.

FINDING ROOM FOR EVERYBODY NOT EVERY COLLEGE or university in the country is able to expand its student capacity. A number have concluded that, for one persuasive reason or another, they must maintain their present enrollments. They are not blind to the need of American higher education, in the aggregate, to accommodate more students in the years ahead; indeed,

they are keenly aware of it. But for reasons of finance, of faculty limitations, of space, of philosophy, of function, of geographic location—or of a combination of these and other restrictions—they cannot grow.

Many other institutions, public and private, are expand­ing their enrollment capacities and will continue to do so:

Private institutions: Currently, colleges and universities under independent auspices enroll around 1,500,000 students—some 40 per cent of the U.S. college popula­tion. In the future, many privately supported institutions will grow, but slowly in comparison with publicly sup­ported institutions. Thus the total number of students at private institutions will rise, but their percentage of the . total college population will become smaller.

Public institutions: State and locally supported colleges and universities are expanding their capacity steadily. In the years ahead they will carry by far the heaviest share of America's growing student population.

Despite their growth, many of them are already feeling the strain of the burden. Many state institutions, once committed to accepting any resident with a high-school diploma, are now imposing entrance requirements upon applicants. Others, required by law or long tradition not ' to turn away any high-school graduate who applies, resort in desperation to a high flunk-out rate in the freshman year in order to whittle down their student bodies to manageable size. In other states, coordinated systems of higher education are being devised to accommodate

P-7" ^fS^ I I I VI €k

it,-^r.

rgSsg

•m

W/=\ -Z-— -W//L/J,

1 K .'I

W?' m COPYRIGHT 1962 BY EDITORIAL PROJECTS FOR EDUCATION

students of differing aptitudes, high-school academic records, and career goals.

Two-year colleges: Growing at a faster rate than any other segment of U.S. higher education is a group com­prising both public and independently supported institu­tions: the two-year, or "junior," colleges. Approximately 600 now exist in the United States, and experts estimate that an average of at least 20 per year will be established in the coming decade. More than 400 of the two-year institutions are community colleges, located within com­muting distance of their students.

These colleges provide three main services: education for students who will later transfer to four-year colleges or universities (studies show they often do as well as those who go directly from high school to a four-year institu­tion, and sometimes better), terminal training for voca­tions (more and more important as jobs require higher technical skills), and adult education and community cultural activities.

Evidence of their importance: One out of every four students beginning higher education today does so in a two-year college. By 1975, the ratio is likely to be one in two.

Branch campuses: To meet local demands for educa­tional institutions, some state universities have opened branches in population centers distant from their main campuses. The trend is likely to continue. On occasion, however, the "branch campus" concept may conflict with the "community college" concept. In Ohio, for example, proponents of community two-year colleges are currently arguing that locally controlled community institutions are the best answer to the state's college-enrollment prob­lems. But Ohio State University, Ohio University, and Miami University, which operate off-campus centers and whose leaders advocate the establishment of more, say that taxpayers get better value at lower cost from a uni­versity-run branch-campus system.

Coordinated systems: To meet both present and future demands for higher education, a number of states are attempting to coordinate their existing colleges and universities and to lay long-range plans for developing new ones.

California, a leader in such efforts, has a "master plan" involving not only the three main types of publicly sup­ported institutions—the state university, state colleges, and locally sponsored two-year colleges. Private institu­tions voluntarily take part in the master planning, also.

With at least 661,000 students expected in their colleges and universities by 1975, Californians have worked out a plan under which every high-school graduate will be eligible to attend a junior college; the top one-third will be eligible for admission to a state college; and the top onc-cighth will be eligible to go directly from high school to the University of California. The plan is flexible: stu­dents who prove themselves in a junior college, for

ILLUSTRATIONS BY PEGGY SOUCHECK

example, may transfer to the university. If past experience is a guide, many will—with notable academic success.

THUS IT is LIKELY that somewhere in America's nearly 2,000 colleges and universities there will be room for your children.

How will you—and they—find it? On the same day in late May of last year, 33,559 letters

went out to young people who had applied for admission to the 1961 freshman class in one or more of the eight schools that compose the Ivy League. Of these letters, 20,248 were rejection notices.

Not all of the 20,248 had been misguided in applying. Admissions officers testify that the quality of the 1961 ap­plicants was higher than ever before, that the competition was therefore intense, and that many applicants who might have been welcomed in other years had to be turned away in '61.

Even so, as in years past, a number of the applicants had been the victims of bad advice—from parents, teachers, and friends. Had they applied to other institu­tions, equally or better suited to their aptitudes and abilities, they would have been accepted gladly, avoiding the bitter disappointment, and the occasional tragedy, of a turndown.

The Ivy League experience can be, and is, repeated in dozens of other colleges and universities every spring. Yet, while some institutions are rejecting more applica­tions than they can accept, others (perhaps better qualified to meet the rejected students' needs) still have openings in their freshman classes on registration day.

Educators, both in the colleges and in the secondary schools, are aware of the problems in "marrying" the right students to the right colleges. An intensive effort is under way to relieve them. In the future, you may expect: • Better guidance by high-school counselors, based on

improved testing methods and on improved understanding of individual colleges and their offerings. • Better definitions, by individual colleges and univer­sities, of their philosophies of admission, their criteria for choosing students, their strengths in meeting the needs of certain types of student and their weakness in meeting the needs of others. • Less parental pressure on their offspring to attend: the college or university that mother or father attended; the college or university that "everybody else's children" are attending; the college or university that enjoys the greatest sports-page prestige, the greatest financial-page prestige, or the greatest society-page prestige in town. • More awareness that children are different from one another, that colleges are different from one another, and

that a happy match of children and institutions is within the reach of any parent (and student) who takes the pains to pursue it intelligently. • Exploration—but probably, in the near future, no widespread adoption—of a central clearing-house for col­lege applications, with students stating their choices of colleges in preferential order and colleges similarly listing their choices of students. The "clearing-house" would thereupon match students and institutions according to their preferences.

Despite the likely growth of these practices, applying to college may well continue to be part-chaos, part-panic, part-snobbishness for years to come. But with the aid of enlightened parents and educators, it will be less so, tomorrow, than it is today.

yA/hat will they find in college?

THE COLLEGE OF TOMORROW—the one your children will find when they get in—is likely to differ from the college you knew in your days as a student.

The students themselves will be different. Curricula will be different. Extracurricular activities will be different, in many

respects, from what they were in ydur day. The college year, as well as the college day, may be

different. Modes of study will be different. With one or two conspicuous exceptions, the changes

will be for the better. But for better or for worse, changes there will be.

THE NEW BREED OF STUDENTS IT WILL COME AS NEWS to no parents that their children are different from themselves.

Academically, they are proving to be more serious than many of their predecessor generations. Too serious, some say. They enter college with an eye already set on the vocation they hope to pursue when they get out; college, to many, is simply the means to that end.

Many students plan to marry as soon as they can afford to, and some even before they can afford to. They want families, homes, a fair amount of leisure, good jobs, security. They dream not of a far-distant future; today's students are impatient to translate their dreams into reality, soon.

Like most generalizations, these should be qualified. There will be students who are quite far from the average, and this is as it should be. But with international ten­sions, recurrent war threats, military-service obligations, and talk of utter destruction of the race, the tendency is for the young to want to cram their lives full of living— with no unnecessary delays, please.

At the moment, there is little likelihood that the urge to' pace one's life quickly and seriously will soon pass. This is the tempo the adult world has set for its young, and they will march doubletime to it.

Economic backgrounds of students will continue to grow more diverse. In recent years, thanks to scholar­ships, student loans, and the spectacular growth of public educational institutions, higher education has become less and less the exclusive province of the sons and daughters of the well-to-do. The spread of scholarship and loan programs geared to family income levels will in­tensify this trend, not only in low-tuition public colleges and universities but in high-tuition private institutions. *

Students from foreign countries will flock to the U.S. for college education, barring a totally deteriorated interna­tional situation. Last year 53,107 foreign students, from 143 countries and political areas, were enrolled in 1,666 American colleges and universities—almost a 10 per cent increase over the year before. Growing numbers of African and Asian students accounted for the rise; the growth is virtually certain to continue. The presence of

••••••••i

such students on U.S. campuses—50 per cent of them are undergraduates—has already contributed to a greater international awareness on the part of American stu­dents. The influence is bound to grow.

Foreign study by U.S. students is increasing. In 1959-60, the most recent year reported, 15,306 were enrolled in 63 foreign countries, a 12 per cent increase in a period of 12 months. Students traveling abroad during summer vaca­tions add impressive numbers to this total.

WHAT THEY'LL STUDY STUDIES ARE in the course of change, and the changes will affect your children. A new toughness in academic standards will reflect the great amount of knowledge that must be imparted in the college years.

In (he sciences, changes are particularly obvious. Every decade, writes Thomas Stelson of Carnegie Tech, 25 per cent of the curriculum must be abandoned, due to obsolescence. J. Robert Oppenheimer puts it another way: nearly everything now known in science, he says, "was not in any book when most of us went to school."

There will be differences in the social sciences and humanities, as well. Language instruction, now getting new emphasis, is an example. The use of language lab­oratories, with tape recordings and other mechanical devices, is already popular and will spread. Schools once preoccupied almost entirely with science and technology (e.g.. colleges of engineering, leading medical schools) have now integrated social and humanistic studies into their curricula, and the trend will spread to other institu­tions.

International emphasis also will grow. The big push will be related to nations and regions outside the Western World. For the first time on a large scale, the involvement

of U.S. higher education will be truly global. This non-Western orientation, says one college president (who is seconded by many others) is "the new frontier in Ameri­can higher education." For undergraduates, comparative studies in both the social sciences and the humanities are likely to be stressed. The hoped-for result: better under­standing of the human experience in all cultures.

Mechanics of teaching will improve. "Teaching ma­chines" will be used more and more, as educators assess their value and versatility (see Who will teach them? on the following pages). Closetf-circuit television will carry a lecturer's voice and closeup views of his demonstrations to hundreds of students simultaneously. TV and microfilm will grow in usefulness as library tools, enabling institu­tions to duplicate, in small space, the resources of distant libraries and specialized rare-book collections. Tape recordings will put music and drama, performed by masters, on every campus. Computers, already becoming almost commonplace, will be used for more and more study and research purposes.

This availability of resources unheard-of in their parents' day will enable undergraduates to embark on extensive programs of independent study. Under careful faculty guidance, independent study will equip students with research ability, problem-solving techniques, and bibliographic savvy which should be of immense value to them throughout their lives. Many of yesterday's college graduates still don't know how to work creatively in un­familiar intellectual territory: to pinpoint a problem, formulate intelligent questions, use a library, map a re­search project. There will be far fewer gaps of this sort in the training of tomorrow's students.

Great new stress on quality will be found at all institu­tions. Impending explosive growth of the college popula­tion has put the spotlight, for years, on handling large numbers of students; this has worried educators who feared that quality might be lost in a national preoccupa­tion with quantity. Big institutions, particularly those with "growth situations," are now putting emphasis on main­taining high academic standards—and even raising them —while handling high enrollments, too. Honors pro­grams, opportunities for undergraduate research, in­sistence on creditable scholastic achievement are symp­tomatic of the concern for academic excellence.

It's important to realize that this emphasis on quality will be found not only in four-year colleges and universi­ties, but in two-year institutions, also. "Each [type of institution] shall strive for excellence in its sphere," is how the California master plan for higher education puts it; the same idea is pervading higher education at all levels throughout the nation.

WHERE'S THE FUN? EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITY has been undergoing subtle changes at colleges and universities for years and is likely

to continue doing so. Student apathy toward some ac­tivities—political clubs, for example—is lessening. Toward other activities—the light, the frothy—apathy appears to be growing. There is less interest in spectator sports, more interest in participant sports that will be playable for most of a lifetime. Student newspapers, observes the dean of students at a college on the Eastern seaboard, no longer rant about band uniforms, closing hours for fraternity parties, and the need for bigger pep rallies. Sororities are disappearing from the campuses of women's colleges. "Fun festivals" are granted less time and importance by students; at one big midwestern university, for example, the events of May Week—formerly a five-day wingding involving floats, honorary-fraternity initiations, faculty-student baseball, and crowning of the May Queen—are now crammed into one half-day. In spite of the well-publicized antics of a relatively few roof-raisers (e.g., student rioters at several summer resorts last Labor Day, student revelers at Florida resorts during spring-vacation periods), a new seriousness is the keynote of most student activities.

"The faculty and administration are more resistant to these changes than the students are," jokes the president of a women's college in Pittsburgh. "The typical student congress wants to abolish the junior prom; the dean is the

one who feels nostalgic about it: 'That's the one event Mrs. Jones and I looked forward to each year.' "

A QUEST FOR ETHICAL VALUES EDUCATION, more and more educators are saying, "should be much more than the mere retention of subject matter."

Here are three indications of how the thoughts of many educators are running:

"If [the student] enters college and pursues either an intellectual smorgasbord, intellectual Teutonism, or the cash register," says a midwestern educator, "his educa­tion will have advanced very little, if at all. The odds are quite good that he will simply have exchanged one form of barbarism for another . . . Certainly there is no incom­patibility between being well-informed and being stupid; such a condition makes the student a danger to himself and society."

Says another observer: "I prophesy that a more serious intention and mood will progressively characterize the campus . . . This means, most of all, commitment to the use of one's learning in fruitful, creative, and noble ways."

"The responsibility of the educated man," says the provost of a state university in New England, "is that he make articulate to himself and to others what he is willing to bet his life on."

Y V h o will teach them?

KNOW THE QUALITY of the teaching that your children can look forward to, and you will know much

• about the effectiveness of the education they will receive. Teaching, tomorrow as in the past, is the heart of higher education.

It is no secret, by now, that college teaching has been on a plateau of crisis in the U.S. for some years. Much of the problem is traceable to money. Salaries paid to college teachers lagged far behind those paid elsewhere in jobs requiring similarly high talents. While real incomes, as well as dollar incomes, climbed for most other groups of Americans, the real incomes of college professors not merely stood still but dropped noticeably.

The financial pinch became so bad, for some teachers, that despite obvious devotion to their careers and obvious preference for this profession above all others, they had to leave for other jobs. Many bright young people, the sort who ordinarily would be attracted to teaching careers, took one look at the salary scales and decided to make their mark in another field.

Has the situation improved?

Will it be better when your children go to college? Yes. At the moment, faculty salaries and fringe benefits

(on the average) are rising. Since the rise started from an extremely disadvantageous level, however, no one is getting rich in the process. Indeed, on almost every campus the real income in every rank of the faculty is still considerably less than it once was. Nor have faculty salary scales, generally, caught up with the national scales in competitive areas such as business and government.

But the trend is encouraging. If it continues, the financial plight of teachers—and the serious threat to education which it has posed—should be substantially diminished by 1970.

None of this will happen automatically, of course. For evidence, check the appropriations for higher education made at your state legislature's most recent session. If yours was like a number of recent legislatures, it "econo­mized"—and professorial salaries suffered. The support which has enabled many colleges to correct the most glaring salary deficiencies must continue until the problem is fully solved. After that, it is essential to make sure that

the quality of our college teaching—a truly crucial element in fashioning the minds and attitudes of your children—is not jeopardized again by a failure to pay its practitioners adequately.

THERE ARE OTHER ANGLES to the question of attracting and retaining a good faculty besides money. • The better the student body—the more challeng­

ing, the more lively its members—the more attractive is the job of teaching it. "Nothing is more certain to make teaching a dreadful task than the feeling that you are dealing with people who have no interest in what you are talking about," says an experienced professor at a small college in the Northwest.

"An appalling number of the students I have known were bright, tested high on their College Boards, and still lacked flair and drive and persistence," says another professor. "I have concluded that much of the difference between them and the students who are 'alive' must be traceable to their homes, their fathers, their mothers. Parents who themselves take the trouble to be interesting —and interested—seem to send us children who are interesting and interested." • The better the library and laboratory facilities, the more likely is a college to be able to recruit and keep a good faculty. Even small colleges, devoted strictly to undergraduate studies, are finding ways to provide their faculty members with opportunities to do independent reading and research. They find it pays in many ways: the faculty teaches better, is more alert to changes in the subject matter, is less likely to leave for other fields. • The better the public-opinion climate toward teachers in a community, the more likely is a faculty to be strong. Professors may grumble among themselves about all the invitations they receive to speak to women's clubs and

alumni groups ("When am I supposed to find the time to check my lecture notes?"), but they take heart from the high regard for their profession which such invitations from the community represent. • Part-time consultant jobs are an attraction to good faculty members. (Conversely, one of the principal check­points for many industries seeking new plant sites is, What faculty talent is nearby?) Such jobs provide teachers both with additional income and with enormously useful opportunities to base their classroom teachings on practical, current experience.

BUT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES must do more than hold on to their present good teachers and replace those who retire or resign. Over the next few years

many institutions must add to their teaching staffs at a prodigious rate, in order to handle the vastly larger numbers of students who are already forming lines in the admissions office.

The ability to be a college teacher is not a skill that can be acquired overnight, or in a year or two. A Ph.D. degree takes at least four years to get, after one has earned his bachelor's degree. More often it takes six or seven years, and sometimes 10 to 15.

In every ten-year period since the turn of the century, as Bernard Berelson of Columbia University has pointed out, the production of doctorates in the U.S. has doubled. But only about 60 per cent of Ph.D.'s today go into academic life, compared with about 80 per cent at the turn of the century. And only 20 per cent wind up teaching undergraduates in liberal arts colleges.

Holders of lower degrees, therefore, will occupy many teaching positions on tomorrow's college faculties.

This is not necessarily bad. A teacher's ability is not always defined by the number of degrees he is entitled to

- T

write after his name. Indeed, said the graduate dean of one great university several years ago, it is high time that "universities have the courage . . . to select men very largely on the quality of work they have done and soft-pedal this matter of degrees."

IN SUMMARY, salaries for teachers will be better, larger numbers of able young people will be attracted into the field (but their preparation will take time), and fewer

able people will be lured away. In expanding their faculties, some colleges and universities will accept more holders of bachelor's and master's degrees than they have been ac­customed to, but this may force them to focus attention on ability rather than to rely as unquestioningly as in the past on the magic of a doctor's degree.

Meanwhile, other developments provide grounds for cautious optimism about the effectiveness of the teaching your children will receive.

THE TV SCREEN

TELEVISION, not long ago found only in the lounges of dormitories and student unions, is now an accepted teaching tool on many campuses. Its use will grow. "To report on the use of television in teaching," says Arthur S. Adams, past president of the American Council on Education, "is like trying to catch a galloping horse."

For teaching closeup work in dentistry, surgery, and laboratory sciences, closed-circuit TV is unexcelled. The number of students who can gaze into a patient's gaping mouth while a teacher demonstrates how to fill a cavity is limited; when their place is taken by a TV camera and the students cluster around TV screens, scores can watch —and see more, too.

Television, at large schools, has the additional virtue of extending the effectiveness of a single teacher. Instead of giving the same lecture (replete with the same jokes) three times to students filling the campus's largest hall, a pro­fessor can now give it once—and be seen in as many auditoriums and classrooms as are needed to accommo­date all registrants in his course. Both the professor and the jokes are fresher, as a result.

How effective is TV? Some carefully controlled studies show that students taught from the fluorescent screen do as well in some types of course (e.g., lectures) as those sitting in the teacher's presence, and sometimes better. But TV standardizes instruction to a degree that is not always desirable. And, reports Henry H. Cassirer of UNESCO, who has analyzed television teaching in the U.S., Canada, Great Britain, France, Italy, Russia, and Japan, students do not want to lose contact with their teachers. They want to be able to ask questions as instruc­tion progresses. Mr. Cassirer found effective, on the other hand, the combination of a central TV lecturer with classroom instructors who prepare students for the lecture and then discuss it with them afterward.

TEACHING MACHINES

HOLDING GREAT PROMISE for the improvement of instruc­tion at all levels of schooling, including college, are programs of learning presented through mechanical self-teaching devices, popularly called "teaching machines,"

The most widely used machine, invented by Professor Frederick Skinner of Harvard, is a box-like device with

three windows in its top. When the student turns a crank, an item of information, along with a question about it, appears in the lefthand window (A). The student writes his answer to the question on a paper strip exposed in another window (B). The student turns the crank again— and the correct answer appears at window A.

Simultaneously, this action moves the student's answer under a transparent shield covering window C, so that the student can see, but not change, what he has written. If the answer is correct, the student turns another crank, causing the tape to be notched; the machine will by-pass this item when the student goes through the series of ques­tions again. Questions are arranged so that each item builds on previous information the machine has given.

Such self-teaching devices have these advantages: • Each student can proceed at his own pace, whereas classroom lectures must be paced to the "average" student —too fast for some, too slow for others. "With a ma­chine," comments a University of Rochester psychologist, "the brighter student could go ahead at a very fast pace." • The machine makes examinations and testing a re­warding and learning experience, rather than a punish­ment. If his answer is correct, the student is rewarded with that knowledge instantly; this reinforces his memory of the right information. If the answer is incorrect, the machine provides the correct answer immediately. In large classes, no teacher can provide such frequent—and indi­vidual—rewards and immediate corrections. • The machine smooths the ups and downs in the learn-

;t

i-

ing process by removing some external sources of anxie­ties, such as fear of falling behind. • If a student is having difficulty with a subject, the teacher can check back over his machine tapes and find the exact point at which the student began to go wrong. Correction of the difficulty can be made with precision, not gropingly as is usually necessary in machineless classes.

Not only do the machines give promise of accelerating the learning process; they introduce an individuality to

learning which has previously been unknown. "Where television holds the danger of standardized instruction," said John W. Gardner, president of the Carnegie Corpora­tion of New York, in a report to then-President Eisen­hower, "the self-teaching device can individualize instruc­tion in ways not now possible—and the student is always an active participant." Teaching machines are being tested, and used, on a number of college campuses and seem certain to figure prominently in the teaching of your children.

V y ill they graduate?

SAID AN ADMINISTRATOR at a university in the South not long ago (he was the director of admissions, no less, and he spoke not entirely in jest):

"I'm happy I went to college back when I did, instead of now. Today, the admissions office probably wouldn't let me in. If they did, I doubt that I'd last more than a semester or two."

Getting into college is a problem, nowadays. Staying there, once in, can be even more difficult.

Here are some of the principal reasons why many students fail to finish:

Academic failure: For one reason or another—not always connected with a lack of aptitude or potential scholastic ability—many students fail to make the grade. Low entrance requirements, permitting students to enter college without sufficient aptitude or previous preparation, also play a big part. In schools where only a high-school diploma is required for admission, drop-outs and failures during the first two years average (nationally) between 60 and 70 per cent. Normally selective admissions procedures usually cut this rate down to between 20 and 40 per cent. Where admissions are based on keen competition, the attrition rate is 10 per cent or less.

FUTURE OUTLOOK: High schools are tightening their academic standards, insisting upon greater effort by students, and teaching the techniques of note-taking, ef­fective studying, and library use. Such measures will inevitably better the chances of students when they reach college. Better testing and counseling programs should help, by guiding less-able students away from institutions where they'll be beyond their depth and into institutions better suited to their abilities and needs. Growing popular acceptance of the two-year college concept will also help, as will the adoption of increasingly selective admissions procedures by four-year colleges and universities.

Parents can help by encouraging activities designed to find the right academic spot for their children; by recog­

nizing their children's strengths and limitations; by creat­ing an atmosphere in which children will be encouraged to read, to study, to develop curiosity, to accept new ideas.

Poor motivation: Students drop out of college "not only because they lack ability but because they do not have the motivation for serious study," say persons who have studied the attrition problem. This aspect of students' failure to finish college is attracting attention from edu­cators and administrators both in colleges and in secondary schools.

FUTURE OUTLOOK: Extensive research is under way to determine whether motivation can be measured. The "Personal Values Inventory," developed by scholars at Colgate University, is one promising yardstick, providing information about a student's long-range persistence, personal self-control, and deliberateness (as opposed to rashness). Many colleges and universities are participating in the study, in an effort to establish the efficacy of the tests. Thus far, report the Colgate researchers, "the tests have successfully differentiated between over- and under­achieves in every college included in the sample."

Parents can help by their own attitudes toward scholas­tic achievement and by encouraging their children to

develop independence from adults. "This, coupled with the reflected image that a person acquires from his parents—an image relating to persistence and other traits and values—may have much to do with his orienta­tion toward academic success," the Colgate investigators say.

Money: Most parents think they know the cost of send­ing a child to college. But, a recent survey shows, rela­tively few of them actually do. The average parent, the survey disclosed, underestimates college costs by roughly 40 per cent. In such a situation, parental savings for col­lege purposes often run out quickly—and, unless the student can fill the gap with scholarship aid, a loan, or earnings from part-time employment, he drops out.

FUTURE OUTLOOK: A surprisingly high proportion of financial dropouts are children of middle-income, not low-income, families. If parents would inform themselves fully about current college costs—and reinform them­selves periodically, since prices tend to go up—a substan­tial part of this problem could be solved in the future by realistic family savings programs.

Other probabilities: growing federal and state (as well as private) scholarship programs; growing private and governmental loan programs.

Jobs: Some students, anxious to strike out on their own, are lured from college by jobs requiring little skill but offering attractive starting salaries. Many such students may have hesitated about going to college in the first place and drop out at the first opportunity.

FUTURE OUTLOOK: The lure of jobs will always tempt some students, but awareness of the value of completing college—for lifelong financial gain, if for no other reason —is increasing.

Emotional problems: Some students find themselves unable to adjust to college life and drop out as a result. Often such problems begin when a student chooses a col­lege that's "wrong" for him. It may accord him too much or too little freedom; its pace may be too swift for him, resulting in frustration, or too slow, resulting in boredom; it may be "too social" or "not social enough."

FUTURE OUTLOOK: With expanding and more skillful guidance counseling and psychological testing, more students can expect to be steered to the "right" college environment. This won't entirely eliminate the emotional-maladjustment problem, but it should ease it substantially.

Marriage: Many students marry while still in college but fully expect to continue their education. A number do go on (sometimes wives withdraw from college to earn money to pay their husbands' educational expenses). Others have children before graduating and must drop out of college in order to support their family.

FUTURE OUTLOOK: The trend toward early marriage shows no signs of abating. Large numbers of parents openly or tacitly encourage children to go steady and to marry at an early age. More and more colleges are provid­

ing living quarters for married undergraduate students. Some even have day-care facilities for students' young children. Attitudes and customs in their "peer groups" will continue to influence young people on the question of marrying early; in some groups, it's frowned upon; in others, it's the thing to do.

COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES are deeply interested in finding solutions to the attrition problem in all its aspects. Today, at many institutions, enrollment

resembles a pyramid: the freshman class, at the bottom, is big; the sophomore class is smaller, the junior class still smaller, and the senior class a mere fraction of the fresh­man group. Such pyramids are wasteful, expensive, inef­ficient. They represent hundreds, sometimes thousands, of personal tragedies: young people who didn't make it.

The goal of the colleges is to change the pyramid into a straight-sided figure, with as many people graduating as enter the freshman class. In the college of tomorrow, the sides will not yet have attained the perfect vertical, but—as a result of improved placement, admissions, and aca­demic practices—they should slope considerably less than they do now.

y y hat will college have done for them?

IF YOUR CHILDREN are like about 33 per cent of today's college graduates, they will not end their formal educa­tion when they get their bachelor's degrees. On they'll

go—to graduate school, to a professional school, or to an advanced technological institution.

There are good reasons for their continuing: • In four years, nowadays, one can only begin to scratch the surface of the body of knowledge in his specialty. To teach, or to hold down a high-ranking job in industry or government, graduate study is becoming more and more useful and necessary. • Automation, in addition to eliminating jobs in un­skilled categories, will have an increasingly strong effect on persons holding jobs in middle management and middle technology. Competition for survival will be intense. Many students will decide that one way of competing advantageously is to take as much formal education be­yond the baccalaureate as they can get. • One way in which women can compete successfully with men for high-level positions is to be equipped with a graduate degree when they enter the job market. • Students heading for school-teaching careers will increasingly be urged to concentrate on substantive studies in their undergraduate years and to take methodology courses in a postgraduate schooling period. The same will be true in many other fields. • Shortages are developing in some professions, e.g., medicine. Intensive efforts will be made to woo more top undergraduates into professional schools, and opportuni­ties in short-supplied professions will become increasingly attractive. • "Skills," predicts a Presidential committee, "may be­come obsolete in our fast-moving industrial society. Sound education provides a basis for adjustment to constant and abrupt change—a base on which new skills may be built." The moral will not be lost on tomorrow's students.

In addition to having such practical motives, tomor­row's students will be influenced by a growing tendency to expose them to graduate-level work while they are still undergraduates. Independent study will give them a taste of the intellectual satisfaction to be derived from learning on their own. Graduate-style seminars, with their stimulat­ing give-and-take of fact and opinion, will exert a strong

appeal. As a result, for able students the distinction be­tween undergraduate and graduate work will become blurred and meaningless. Instead of arbitrary insistence upon learning in two-year or four-year units, there will be more attention paid to the length of time a student requires—and desires—to immerse himself in the specialty that interests him.

AND EVEN with graduate or professional study, educa-f-\ tion is not likely to end for your children.

•*• -^ Administrators in the field of adult education— or, more accurately, "continuing education"—expect that within a decade the number of students under their wing will exceed the number of undergraduates in American colleges and universities.

"Continuing education," says Paul A. McGhee, dean of New York University's Division of General Education (where annually some 17,000 persons enroll in around 1,200 non-credit courses) "is primarily the education of the already educated." The more education you have, the more you are likely to want. Since more and more people will go to college, it follows that more and more people will seek knowledge throughout their lives.

We are, say adult-education leaders, departing from the old notion that one works to live. In this day of automa­tion and urbanization, a new concept is emerging: "time," not "work," is the paramount factor in people's lives. Leisure takes on a new meaning: along with golf, boating,

and partying, it now includes study. And he who forsakes gardening for studying is less and less likely to be regarded as the neighborhood oddball.

Certain to vanish are the last vestiges of the stigma that has long attached to "night school." Although the con­cept of night school as a place for educating only the il­literate has changed, many who have studied at night— either for credit or for fun and intellectual stimulation— have felt out of step, somehow. But such views are obsolescent and soon will be obsolete.

Thus far, American colleges and universities—with notable exceptions—have not led the way in providing continuing education for their alumni. Most alumni have been forced to rely on local boards of education and other civic and social groups to provide lectures, classes, discus­sion groups. These have been inadequate, and institutions of higher education can be expected to assume un­precedented roles in the continuing-education field.

Alumni and alumnae are certain to demand that they take such leadership. Wrote Clarence B. Randall in The New York Times Magazine: "At institution after institu­tion there has come into being an organized and articulate group of devoted graduates who earnestly believe . . . that the college still has much to offer them."

When colleges and universities respond on a large scale to the growing demand for continuing education, the variety of courses is likely to be enormous. Already, in institutions where continuing education is an accepted role, the range is from space technology to existentialism to funeral direction. (When the University of California offered non-credit courses in the first-named subject to engineers and physicists, the combined enrollment reached 4,643.) "From the world of astronauts, to the highest of ivory towers, to six feet under," is how one wag has described the phenomenon.

SOME OTHER LIKELY FEATURES of your children, after they are graduated from tomorrow's colleges: • They'll have considerably more political sophisti­

cation than did the average person who marched up to get a diploma in their parents' day. Political parties now have active student groups on many campuses and publish material beamed specifically at undergraduates. Student-government organizations are developing sophisticated procedures. Nonpartisan as well as partisan groups, oper­ating on a national scale, are fanning student interest in current political affairs. • They'll have an international orientation that many of their parents lacked when they left the campuses. The presence of more foreign students in their classes, the emphasis on courses dealing with global affairs, the front pages of their daily newspapers will all contribute to this change. They will find their international outlook useful: a recent government report predicts that "25 years from now, one college graduate in four will find at least part of

his career abroad in such places as Rio de Janeiro, Dakar, Beirut, Leopoldville, Sydney, Melbourne, or Toronto." • They'll have an awareness of unanswered questions, to an extent that their parents probably did not have. Principles that once were regarded (and taught) as in­controvertible fact are now regarded (and taught) as sub­ject to constant alteration, thanks to the frequent toppling of long-held ideas in today's explosive sciences and technologies. Says one observer: "My student generation, if it looked at the world, didn't know it was 'loaded'. Today's student has no such ignoranee." • They'll possess a broad-based liberal education, but in their jobs many of them are likely to specialize more narrowly than did their elders. "It is a rare bird today who knows all about contemporary physics and all about modern mathematics," said one of the world's most dis­tinguished scientists not long ago, "and if he exists, I

haven't found him. Because of the rapid growth of science it has become impossible for one man to master any large part of it; therefore, we have the necessity of specializa­tion." • Your daughters are likely to be impatient with the prospect of devoting their lives solely to unskilled labor as housewives. Not only will more of tomorrow's women graduates embark upon careers when they receive their diplomas, but more of them will keep up their contacts with vocational interests even during their period of child-rearing. And even before the children are grown, more of them will return to the working force, either as paid employees or as highly skilled volunteers.

DEPENDING UPON THEIR OWN OUTLOOK, parents of tomorrow's graduates will find some of the pros­pects good, some of them deplorable. In essence,

however, the likely trends of tomorrow are only continua­tions of trends that are clearly established today, and moving inexorably.

\ \ ho will pay—and how?

WILL YOU BE ABLE to afford a college education for your children? The tuition? The travel ex­pense? The room rent? The board?

In addition: Will you be able to pay considerably more than is

written on the price-tags for these items? The stark truth is that you—or somebody—must pay,

if your children are to go to college and get an education as good as the education you received.

HERE is where colleges and universities get their money:

From taxes paid to governments at all levels: city, state, and federal. Governments now appropriate an estimated $2.9 billion in support of higher education every year. By 1970 government support will have grown to roughly $4 billion.

From private gifts and grants. These now provide nearly SI billion annually. By 1970 they must provide about $2,019 billion. Here is where this money is likely to come from:

Alumni $ 505,000,000 (25%) Non-alumni individuals 505,000,000 (25%) Business corporations 505,000,000 (25%) Foundations 262,000,000 (13%) Religious denominations 242,000,000 (12%)

Total voluntary support, 1970.. $2,019,000,000

From endowment earnings. These now provide around $210 million a year. By 1970 endowment will produce around $333 million a year.

From tuition and fees. These now provide around $1.2 billion (about 21 per cent of college and university funds). By 1970 they must produce about $2.1 billion (about 23.5 per cent of all funds).

From other sources. Miscellaneous income now provides around $410 million annually. By 1970 the figure is ex­pected to be around $585 million.

These estimates, made by the independent Council for Financial Aid to Education*, are based on the "best available" estimates of the expected growth in enroll­ment in America's colleges and universities: from slightly less than 4 million this year to about 6.4 million in the

*To whose research staff the editors are indebted for most of the financial projections cited in this section of their report. CFAE statisticians, using and comparing three methods of projection, built their estimates on available hard figures and carefully reasoned assumptions about the future.

academic year 1969-70. The total income that the colleges and universities will require in 1970 to handle this enroll­ment will be on the order of $9 billion—compared with the $5.6 billion that they received and spent in 1959-60.

WHO PAYS? VIRTUALLY EVERY SOURCE of funds, of course—however it is labeled—boils down to you. Some of the money, you pay directly: tuition, fees, gifts to the colleges and univer­sities that you support. Other funds pass, in a sense, through channels—your church, the several levels of government to which you pay taxes, the business corpora­tions with which you deal or in which you own stock. But, in the last analysis, individual persons are the source of them all.

Hence, if you wished to reduce your support of higher education, you could do so. Conversely (as is presumably the case with most enlightened parents and with most col­lege alumni and alumnae), if you wished to increase it, you could do that, also—with your vote and your check­book. As is clearly evident in the figures above, it is es­sential that you substantially increase both your direct and your indirect support of higher education between now and 1970, if tomorrow's colleges and universities are to give your children the education that you would wish for them.

THE MONEY YOU'LL NEED SINCE IT REQUIRES long-range planning and long-range voluntary saving, for most families the most difficult part of financing their children's education is paying the direct costs: tuition, fees, room, board, travel expenses.

These costs vary widely from institution to institution. At government-subsidized colleges and universities, for

example, tuition fees for state residents may be non­existent or quite low. At community colleges, located within commuting distance of their students' homes, room and board expenses may consist only of what parents are already paying for housing and food. At independent (non-governmental) colleges and universities, the costs may be considerably higher.

In 1960-61, here is what the average male student spent at the average institution of higher education, in­cluding junior colleges, in each of the two categories (public and private):

Public Private Institutions Institutions

Tuition $179 $ 676 Board 383 404 Room 187 216

Total $749 $1,296

These, of course, are "hard-core" costs only, repre­senting only part of the expense. The average annual bill for an unmarried student is around $1,550. This con­servative figure, provided by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan for the U.S. Office of Edu­cation, does not include such items as clothing. And, as we have attempted to stress by italicizing the word "aver­age" wherever it appears, the bill can be considerably higher, as well as somewhat lower. At a private college for women (which is likely to get relatively little money from other sources and must therefore depend heavily upon tuition income) the hard-core costs alone may now run as high as $2,600 per year.

Every parent must remember that costs will inevitably rise, not fall, in the years ahead. In 1970, according to one estimate, the cost of four years at the average state university will be $5,800; at the average private college, $11,684.

HOW TO AFFORD IT? SUCH SUMS represent a healthy part of most families' resources. Hard-core costs alone equal, at public institu­tions, about 13 per cent of the average American family's annual income; at private institutions, about 23 per cent of average annual income.

How do families afford it? How can you afford it? Here is how the typical family pays the current average

bill of $1,550 per year:

Parents contribute $950 Scholarships defray < 130 The student earns 360 Other sources yield 110

Nearly half of all parents begin saving money for their children's college education well before their children are ready to enroll. Fourteen per cent report that they borrow money to help meet college costs. Some 27 per cent take on extra work, to earn more money. One in five mothers does additional work in order to help out.

Financing the education of one's children is obviously,

for many families, a scramble—a piecing-together of many sources of funds.

Is such scrambling necessary? The question can be answered only on a family-by-family basis. But these generalizations do seem valid: • Many parents think they are putting aside enough money to pay most of the costs of sending their children to college. But most parents seriously underestimate what these costs will be. The only solution: Keep posted, by checking college costs periodically. What was true of college costs yesterday (and even of the figures in this report, as nearly current as they are) is not necessarily true of college costs today. It will be even less true of college costs tomorrow. • If they knew what college costs really were, and what they are likely to be in the years when their children are likely to enroll, many parents could save enough money. They would start saving earlier and more persistently. They would gear their family budgets to the need. They would revise their savings programs from time to time, as they obtained new information about cost changes. • Many parents count on scholarships to pay their chil­dren's way. For upper-middle-income families, this reli­ance can be disastrous. By far the greatest number of scholarships are now awarded on the basis of financial need, largely determined by level of family income. (Col­leges and other scholarship sources are seriously con­cerned about the fact, indicated by several studies, that at least 100,000 of the country's high-school graduates each year are unable to attend college, primarily for financial reasons.) Upper-middle-income families are among those most seriously affected by the sudden reali­zation that they have failed to save enough for their children's education. • Loan programs make sense. Since going to college sometimes costs as much as buying a house (which most families finance through long-term borrowing), long-term

j£> e><s><

*ES

repayment of college costs, by students or their parents, strikes many people as highly logical.

Loans can be obtained from government and from private bankers. Just last spring, the most ambitious private loan program yet developed was put into opera­tion: United Student Aid Funds, Inc., is the backer, with headquarters at 420 Lexington Avenue, New York 17, N.Y. It is raising sufficient capital to underwrite a reserve fund to endorse $500 million worth of long-term, low-interest bank loans to students. Affiliated state com­mittees, established by citizen groups, will act as the direct contact agencies for students.

In the 1957-58 academic year, loans for educational purposes totaled only $115 million. Last year they totaled an estimated $430 million. By comparison, scholarships from all sources last year amounted to only $160 million.

IS THE COST TOO HIGH? HIGH AS THEY SEEM, tuition rates are bargains, in this sense: They do not begin to pay the cost of providing a college education.

On the national average, colleges and universities must receive between .three and four additional dollars for every one dollar that they collect from students, in order to provide their services. At public institutions, the ratio of non-tuition money to tuition money is greater than the average: the states typically spend more than $700 for every student enrolled.

Even the gross cost of higher education is low, when put in perspective. In terms of America's total production of goods and services, the proportion of the gross na­tional product spent for higher education is only 1.3 per cent, according to government statistics.

To put salaries and physical plant on a sound footing, colleges must spend more money, in relation to the gross national product, than they have been spending in the past. Before they can spend it, they must get it. From what sources?

Using the current and the 1970 figures that were cited earlier, tuition will probably have to carry, on the aver­age, about 2 per cent more of the share of total educa­tional costs than it now carries. Governmental support, although increasing by about a billion dollars, will actu­ally carry about 7 per cent less of the total cost than it now does. Endowment income's share will remain about the same as at present. Revenues in the category of "other sources" can be expected to decline by about .8 per cent, in terms of their share of the total load. Private gifts and grants—from alumni, nort-alumni individuals, businesses and unions, philanthropic foundations, and religious de­nominations—must carry about 6 per cent more of the total cost in 1970, if higher education is not to founder.

Alumnae and alumni, to whom colleges and universi­ties must look for an estimated 25 per cent ($505 million) of such gifts: please note.

CAN COLLEGES BE MORE EFFICIENT? INDUSTRIAL COST ACCOUNTANTS—and, not infrequently,

other business men—sometimes tear their hair over the "inefficiencies" they see in higher education. Physical facilities—classrooms, for example—are in use for only part of the 24-hour day, and sometimes they stand idle for three months in summertime. Teachers "work"— i.e., actually stand in the front of their classes—for only a fraction of industry's 40-hour week. (The hours devoted to preparation and research, without which a teacher would soon become a purveyor of dangerously outdated misinformation, don't show on formal teaching schedules and are thus sometimes overlooked by persons making a judgment in terms of business efficiency.) Some courses are given for only a handful of students. (What a waste of space and personnel, some cost analysts say.)

A few of these "inefficiencies" are capable of being curbed, at least partially. The use of physical facilities is being increased at some institutions through the provision of night lectures and lab courses. Summer schools and year-round schedules are raising the rate of plant utiliza­tion. But not all schools are so situated that they can avail themselves of even these economies.

The president of the Rochester (N.Y.) Chamber of Commerce observed not long ago:

"The heart of the matter is simply this: To a great extent, the very thing which is often referred to as the 'inefficient' or 'unbusinesslike' phase of a liberal arts college's operation is really but an accurate reflection of its true essential nature . . . [American business and industry] have to understand that much of liberal edu­cation which is urgently worth saving cannot be justified on a dollars-and-cents basis."

In short, although educators have as much of an obli­gation as anyone else to use money wisely, you just can't run a college like a railroad. Your children would be cheated, if anybody tried.

In sum: WHEN YOUR CHILDREN go to college, what will

college be like? Their college will, in short, be ready for them. Its teaching staff will be compe­

tent and complete. Its courses will be good and, as you would wish them to be, demanding of the best talents that your children possess. Its physical facilities will sur­pass those you knew in your college years. The oppor­tunities it will offer your children will be limitless.

If. That is the important word. Between now and 1970 (a date that the editors arbi­

trarily selected for most of their projections, although the date for your children may come sooner or it may come later), much must be done to build the strength of America's colleges and universities. For, between now and 1970, they will be carrying an increasingly heavy load in behalf of the nation.

They will need more money—considerably more than is now available to them—and they will need to obtain much of it from you.

They will need, as always, the understanding by thoughtful portions of the citizenry (particularly their own alumni and alumnae) of the subtleties, the sensitive­ness, the fine balances of freedom and responsibility without which the mechanism of higher education cannot function.

They will need, if they are to be of highest service to your children, the best aid which you are capable of giving as a parent: the preparation of your children to value things of the mind, to know the joy of meeting and overcoming obstacles, and to develop their own personal independence.

Your children are members of the most promising American generation. (Every new generation, properly, is so regarded.) To help them realize their promise is a job to which the colleges and universities are dedicated. It is their supreme function. It is the job to which you, as parent, are also dedicated. It is your supreme function.

With your efforts and the efforts of the college of to­morrow, your children's future can be brilliant. If.

"The College of Tomorrow'

The report on this and the preceding 15 pages is the product of a cooperative endeavor in which scores of schools, colleges, and universities are taking part. It was prepared under the direction of the group listed below, who form EDITORIAL PROJECTS FOR EDUCATION, a non-profit organization associated with the Ameri­can Alumni Council. Copyright © 1962 by Editorial Projects for Education, Inc., 1707 N Street, N.W.,

Washington 6, D.C. All rights reserved; no part of this supplement may be reproduced without express permission of the editors. Printed in U.S.A.

JAMES E. ARMSTRONG The University of Notre Dame

RANDOLPH L. FORT Emory University

WALDO C. M. JOHNSTON

DAVID A. BURR The University of Oklahoma

DEN TON BEAL Carnegie Institute of Technology

MARALYN O. GILLESPIE L. FRANKLIN HEALD Swarthmore College The University of New Hampshire JEAN D. LINEHAN JOHN W. PATON ROBERT L. PAYTON

STANLEY SAPLIN New York University

Yale University American Alumni Council ROBERT M. RHODES

The University of Pennsylvania CHARLES E. WIDMAYER REBA WILCOXON

Dartmouth College The University of Arkansas CHESLEY WORTHINGTON

Brown University

DANIEL S. ENDSLEY Stanford University

CHARLES M. HELMKEN American Alumni Council

FRANCES PROVENCE Baylor University

FRANK J. TATE The Ohio State University

Wesleyan University Washington University VERNE A. STADTMAN

The University of California RONALD A. WOLK ELIZABETH BOND WOOD

The Johns Hopkins University Sweet Briar College CORBIN GWALTNEY

Executive Editor

/ chose a career.

not a job!

by \fkfL (J***.**-)

"I found a satisfying job right from the beginning —and more important, American Oil is diversi­fied enough to offer varied opportunities for the future."

Peter Vossos earned his Master of Science degree at Iowa State, '58. As a physical chemist, Pete's immediate project is studying funda­mental properties of asphalts with the objective of improving their performance in roofing and industrial applications. About his 2lA years at American Oil, Pete adds, "This is a company that's big enough and dynamic enough to be doing important work, but not so mammoth that you get lost in the crowd."

Many ambitious and talented young scientists and engineers like Peter Vossos have found challenging careers at American Oil. Their choice could have special meaning to you. American Oil offers a wide range of research opportunities for graduate chemists, chemical engineers, mechani­cal engineers, physicists, mathematicians and metallurgists.

If you are interested in a career with the Research and Development Department of American Oil Company, write to:D. G. Schroeter, American Oil Company, P. 0 . Box 431, Whiting, Indiana.

IN ADDITION TO FAR-REACHING PROGRAMS INVOLVING FUELS,

LUBRICANTS AND PETROCHEMICALS, AMERICAN OIL AND ITS

ASSOCIATE COMPANY, AMOCO CHEMICALS, ARE ENGAGED IN

SUCH DIVERSIFIED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AS:

New and unusual polymers and plastics • Organic ions under electron

impact * Radiation-induced reactions • Physiochemical nature of

catalysts • Fuel cells • Novel separations by gas chromatography •

Application of computers to complex technical problems • Synthesis

and potential applications for aromatic acids • Combustion phenomena

• Solid propellants for use with missiles • Design and economics:

New uses for present products, new products, new processes • Cor­

rosion mechanisms • Development of new types of surface coatings.

AMERICAN OIL COMPANY

Ed Dcmforth Reports

A WINNING SPRING THIS YEAR

ANOTHER big bruising football team _ / \ . comparable in potential to the crew that went 7-3-0 in the regular 1961 season was paraded on Grant Field be­fore 10,300 in the seventh annual T Day game, April 28, and the gawkers got an eyeful . . . both eyes in fact.

The Whites upset the presumably more mature Blues 14-10, but more important than the score was the dis­play of backfield talent that pranced over the turf. Never in the book of the Yellow Jackets has such an impressive array of quarterbacks, halfbacks, full­backs and corner linebackers (the useful defensive specialists) put on battle gear in the same afternoon. Troops for line duty are thin in number and injuries could hurt our lads up front but the backs keep coming . . . good sized chaps who can pick 'em up and put 'em down in a hurry and knock people down. Furthermore, they play defense well.

In the opinion of one who has been watching Tech football for quite a spell, these two teams picked from the squad with an eye to evening up the match, looked well organized, well adjusted and smart . . . never ragged nor sloven­ly. Nine seniors including Captain Tom Winingder, Alternate Captain Larry Stallings and Quarterback Stan Gann,

had been excused for the term. Six others were sidelined by mild injuries. The eighty who dressed out form the heaviest Tech team in modern times and just as fast in maneuvering as that 1961 outfit.

Youngsters were spotlighted all through the drills, but in the final show it remained for Junior halfback Joe Auer of Miami, and Senior fullback Larry Lafkowitz, of Atlanta, to grab the headlines. Auer picked up where he left off in the Gator Bowl and gave a finished performance. His six yard run with a flare pass for the final White TD was a gem of clever maneuvering. The way Auer goes where it is thick suggests that he might become one of the great all-time backs at The Flats. At 6-1 and 194 pounds he is a real bull of the Billy Cannon type.

After annoying injuries had hampered him for two seasons, Lafkowitz went after 'em this spring and started driving like a runaway truck. When he broke off tackle and romped 17 yards into the end zone for the first White TD he leaped for joy as he circled under the goal posts. It had been a long road back but he arrived. He will give the one-two-three punch with veterans Mike Mc-Names and Ray Mendheim this fall at fullback.

Billy Lothridge looks like the boss quarterback. In the big game he steered the Blues from kick-off to close range with a smartly mixed attack and scored from close up on a keeper. He con­verted, for the PAT and later kicked a field goal to give his team a 10-7 lead. Priestly and Fischer had managed a good drive in the first half that Lafko­witz capped with a burst off tackle. Fischer was at the controls most of the way for the last quarter touchdown that Auer scored on his fine run.

The Yellow Jacket team that will go out to open the season against Clem-son will have good big ends like Ted Davis, Billy Martin, Frank Sexton, John Wright and George Morris; Larry Stallings and Ed Griffin at tackles with Bill Paschal, son of the former half­back, and Tom Ballard as fine young prospects; Dave Watson and Rufus Guthrie, two of the finest guards in the section with Brad Yates and Bubba Shell eagerly behind them.

Bobby Caldwell and Ed Chancey are top centers backed by Bill Curry and Dave Simmons.

Lothridge, and Gann will take off at quarter with Priestly and Fischer ready to lend a hand and Dave Sewell, who has had the rough edges rubbed oflf, McNames and Lafkowitz will be ade­quate at fullback with Mendheim, Bar­ber and Daughtry standing by.

Where Billy Williamson and Chick Graning carried the load last year, the halfbacks who can get the job done well now are Auer, Zollie Sircy, Wining­der, Doug Cooper, Jeff Davis, Johnny Gresham, Tommy Jackson, Johnny Nix and Jerry Bussell.

YELLOW J A C K E T - C O N F I D E N T I A L , Ed Danforth's intimate on the scene report on the Georgia Tech football team goes into its twelfth season, more popular with Tech men than ever, the next best thing to a seat on the 50-yard line in the West Stands.

GET YOUR 1962 ORDER IN NOW

Tech men scattered far and wide . . . Djakarta, Indonesia . . . Bangkok, Thailand . . . Salvador, Brazil . . . Air Force bases in England and the Pacific . . . keep up with the Engineers through these colorful letters. The Clemson letter will be forwarded to you on September 23.

| Order your YELLOW JACKET-CONFIDENTIAL now to j start with the Clemson Letter followed by 9 regular j game Letters. i Enclosed is my check for $4 (by air mail $5).

Name_

j Address.

City.

Make check payable to Yellow Jacket-Confidential, P.O. Box 1126

Atlanta 1, Georgia i

—i

32 TECH ALUMNUS

The Periodic Table listg all the known elements of the world we live in . . . more than half of them used by Union Carbide

This is the world of Union Carbide . . bringing you a steady stream of better products from the basic elements of nature

You're probably one of the millions who have used such Union Carbide products as PRESTONE anti-freeze, EVEREADY flashlights and bat­teries, or PYROFAX bottled gas. But the major part of Union Carbide's output is in basic materials, employed by more than 50,000 industrial customers to fill your life with useful things.

The 70,000 people of Union Carbide operate more than 400 plants, mines, mills, laboratories, Warehouses, and offices in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. With these vast resources and skills, and the help of 35,000 suppliers, they create a variety of products in the fields of metals, carbons, gases, plastics, and chemicals.

It is men and women working together to provide new and better materials that gives full meaning to Union Carbide. And the people of Union Carbide, backed by 128,000 stockholders, will go on bringing you the necessities and conveniences that will help keep our standard of living the highest hi the WOrld. Periodic Chart ©Welch-Chicago

The terms "Eveready" "Prestone'' "Pyrofax," and "Union Carbide" are trade marks of Union Carbide Corporation.

Learn more about the products of Union Carbide and its work in atomic energy. Visit the science exhibit at 270 Park Avenue, New York, or write for booklet F50, "The Exciting Universe of Union Carbide." Union Carbide Corpora­tion, 270 Park Avenue, New York 17, N. Y. In Canada, Union Carbide Canada Limited, Toronto.

UNION CARBIDE

. . . a h a n d i n t h i n g s to c o m e

The-Institute-Publishing executive is Commencement speaker

EUGENE MILLER, a 1945 graduate of Tech, will be the speaker at the June 9 Commencement ceremonies scheduled for 8:45 a.m. in the Fox Theater. Miller, di­rector of communications and public rela­tions for the giant firm of McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, is also a special con­sultant to Secretary of Commerce, Luther Hodges.

Other Commencement week activities will include Baccalaureate on Friday, June 8 at 2:00 p.m. at the Coliseum and the Honors Exercises on Thursday, June 7. The Very Rev. Vincent P. Brennan, S.M., president of Marist College will deliver the Bac­calaureate Sermon.

Trie- Clubs ATLANTA, GEORGIA —The names of seven outstanding Tech athletes were placed in the Georgia Tech Athletic Hall of Fame on April 25 at the annual spring meeting of the Greater Atlanta Georgia Tech Club. Named to the honor were Jesse Thrash (deceased), football; Craig C. Day, football, baseball and track; John J. "Jack" McDonough, football; Perrin Walker, track; Billy Reese, tennis; Jim Nolan, basketball; and Paul Rotenberry, football. Handling the installation of the new members was Hall of Fame selection committee chairman, George Griffin.

Feature speaker at the meeting was Coach Bobby Dodd who briefed the over 180 in attendance on the 1962 spring prac­tice sessions.

CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA — Over 80 alumni and guests turned out for the Charlotte Club's ladies night meeting on March 16 to hear R. A. "Pop" Siegel, immediate past president of the Alumni Association, talk about the operation of the

Association and its relationship to the In­stitute. Association Secretary Beard also made a short talk and Bill Terrell, vice president of the National Association, dis­cussed the possibilities of establishing a scholarship or loan fund program for the Charlotte Club.

COLUMBUS, GEORGIA — Bob Eskew, business manager of athletics, was the fea­tured speaker at the March 10 meeting of the Columbus Club. Eskew talked about the relationship of academics and athletics at Tech, conducted a question and answer period, and closed the program with the filmed highlights of the 1961 football sea­son.

DAYTONA BEACH, FLORIDA—John L. Tennant presided at the March 20 meeting of the Daytona Beach Club at which Dean George Griffin and Secretary Roane Beard were the featured speakers. Twenty-three members attended the meeting which closed with the "Highlights" movie.

MIAMI, FLORIDA—The Greater Miami Georgia Tech Club held its annual stag meeting in Coral Gables on March 23. Dean George Griffin and Secretary Roane Beard, on their annual swing through Flor­ida, were the featured speakers at the meet­ing presided over by O. K. Houston. The 67 members present elected the following officers: James Walmy, Jr., president; Ike Stanton, vice president; and Thomas H. Maxwell, secretary-treasurer.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA —On March 21, Dean Griffin and Roane Beard were fea­tured speakers at a ladies night meeting of the Orlando Georgia Tech Club. John E. Getzen presided at the meeting attended by 57 alumni and guests. The football highlights rounded out the evening's pro­gram.

PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA—Coach Bobby Dodd talked about Tech's athletic program at the March 15 meeting of the Pittsburgh Georgia Tech Club attended by 56 alumni and wives. Dodd was introduced by Frank Willett, president of the National

Alumni Association. B. G. Davenport pre­sided at the business meeting at which the following new officers were elected: James Thompson, president; Robert S. Holmes, vice president; and T. Allen Johnston, sec­retary-treasurer.

WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA —The annual meeting of the West Palm Beach Club was held on March 22 with Dean George Griffin and Secretary Roane Beard furnishing the program. Roy Simon of Del Ray Beach presided at the meeting at­tended by 41 alumni and guests. Officers elected at the meeting included Ray G. Behm, president; Robert E. Rankin, vice president; and Robert DeMarcellus, secre­tary-treasurer.

»QQ DuPont Murphey, Sr., EE, died **v March 7 in an Atlanta hospital. He

retired in 1947 as division manager of the Standard Oil Company of Kentucky. He had been with the company for 41 years. Mr. Murphey's widow lives at the Georgian Terrace Hotel, Atlanta, Georgia.

We have just been informed of the death of Thomas M. Gibbs of Seattle, Washing­ton. No further information was available at this writing.

'07 John E. Yarbrough died in Feb­ruary, 1962. He was retired presi­

dent of Yarbrough Motor Company in At­lanta.

1Q L. W. "Chip" Robert, CE, Chairman of the Board of Robert and Com­

pany, has been given a Life Membership Card in the Georgia Engineering Society. His business address is 96 Poplar Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia.

More news on page 36

34 TECH ALUMNUS

Some things you must tie down!

Funds for a higher education, for example. In the pas t twenty years college costs have doubled and they may well redouble in the next twenty. I t pays, therefore, to make cer­tain . . . well in advance . . . t h a t the necessary money will be available, come what may .

Life insurance offers you the means. And Connecticut M u t u a l Life offers you a choice of popular plans. In Plan A, all the money for college is provided, whether you live or die. In Plan B, par t of the money is provided if you live . . . all of it if you do not .

Talk with a C M L man. Ask him to explain in detail how easily you can guarantee money for the higher education of your children. You'll find him a helpful man to know.

Dividends paid to policyholders for 116 years

Owned by its policyholders, CML provides high quality life insurance at low cost and gives personal service through more than 300 offices in the United States.

Connecticut Mutual Life INSURANCE COMPANY • HARTFORD

Your fellow alumni now with CML

Charles E. Allen, '55, Atlanta Frank R. Anderson, '29, Miami Mac H. Burroughs, '39, Miami John W. Cronin, Jr., CLU, '49, Miami

Elmer W. Livingston, Jr., '43, Jacksonville

Norris Maffett, CLU, '35, Philadelphia James T. Mills, '50, Atlanta R. Herman Swint, '32, Griffin, Ga. William C. Walden, '35, Swainsboro, Ga. John A. Wooten, '29, Bradenton, Fla.

THARPE

E! Wu BROOKS

THARPE & BROOKS I N C O R P O R A T E D

• .

M O R T G A G E B A N K E R S

TRINITY

I N S U R O R S

3-1211 FAIRFAX 3 - I 8 4 I A T L A N T A C O L U M B U S

LIBERTY

ADAMS 6 - 5 7 6 5 S A V A N N A H

3 - 3 4 6 7 SHERWOOD 6 - 9 6 9 1 A T H E N S M A C O N

ROBERT

G E O R G I A

THARPE '34 J. L. BROOKS '39

Printers OF NATIONAL AWARD

WINNING

GEORGIA TECH

ALUMNUS AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS

OF DISTINCTION

HIGGINS-JWARTHUR

tympany 302 HAYDEN STREET, N.W.

ATLANTA 13, GEORGIA

' S *

NEWS BY CLASSES - continued »1 C H. L. Millis, Dallas, Texas, died last

I D July. His widow lives at 5310 Morn-ingside, Dallas' 6, Texas.

Alexander L. Schlesinger died in Feb­ruary in Tarpon Springs, Florida.

»1 O David J. Arnold, EE, died March 29 • 0 in a Griffin (Georgia) hospital. He

was president of Commercial Bank and Trust Company and the Middle Georgia Mutual Insurance Company. Mr. Arnold had served in the State House of Represent­atives and State Senate. He was a past president and trustee of the Georgia Tech National Alumni Association.

' 1 Q Frank C. Owens, EE, has been ' *» elected Chairman of the Board of

Draper-Owens Company, Atlanta realtors. His office is in the Grant Building.

' O l F. B. Gessner, EE, retired from ^ I Southern Bell Telephone and Tele­

graph in February. He had been with the company for 39 years. His home address is 275 Forest Hills Drive, Atlanta, Georgia.

James F. Reynolds died December 20, 1961. His widow lives at 2221 LeGrand Avenue, Anniston, Alabama.

' O O Max M. Cuba, Com., Atlanta at-{•^ torney, recently received the 1961

Distinguished Service Award from the Gate City Lodge of B'nai B'rith in Atlanta. He is head of Max M. Cuba Company.

R. Roddey Garrison, ME, retired in March after 38 years of service with Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation. He was district sales manager at the time of his retirement. Mr. Garrison lives at 1950 Garraux Road, N.W., Atlanta 5, Georgia.

**)A Chauncey E. Dorn, TE, died un-~ * expectedly January 5. He was in

charge of machinery development at Dan River Mills, Danville, Virginia.

' O C Joseph A. Miller, CE, died in Feb-£•** ruary at his home, 5 Farnham Place,

Metairie, Louisiana. He was a consulting engineer for Woodward Wright and Com­pany, Ltd. His widow lives at the above address.

' O C Robert Kane died February 16, *•" 1962. His widow lives at 5 Town-

view Road, Rome, Georgia.

' O Q Clarence H. Evans, ChE, retired in ^ * * February after over 32 years with

DuPont. He was senior consultant with ESD's engineering evaluation group at Du­Pont at the time of his retirement.

' O f t Mark E. Johnson, former Atlantan *»** and buyer for Mt. Vernon Mills,

Baltimore, Maryland, died April 2 of in­juries received in an automobile accident March 31. His widow was seriously in­jured in the accident and at this writing is in a Conway, South Carolina hospital.

H. I. Neeley, Ceramics, died January 25. At the time of his death he was plant man­

ager with U. S. Gypsum at their East Chicago (Illinois) plant.

' 9 0 Dr. Charles Lee Harmon has been W ^ named president of the American

Association of Junior Colleges. He is presi­dent of Bluefield College, Bluefield, Vir­ginia.

William F. McGowan, ChE, has been named director of manufacturing divisions for DuPont's Textile Fibers Department at Wilmington, Delaware.

,giA Mclver Evans has been elected **' president of Draper-Owens, Atlanta

real estate firm. His office is in the Grant Building.

W. T. Pond, Jr., died January 5. His widow lives at 721 Riverview Drive, Suf­folk, Virginia.

Jack L. Riddick, regional manager of Lee Rubber and Tire Company in Atlanta, was murdered while on a combination business trip-vacation in Mexico. His body was found in a ravine near Cuernavaca, Mexico. His widow lives at 1200 East Gun Club Lane, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia.

T. Griffin Walker, President of Walker Nail Company, has been elected Mayor at Americus, Georgia.

' O C John Oster, Jr., EE, has been elected W v to the Board of Directors, Civic

Finance Corporation, Milwaukee, Wiscon­sin. He is president of John Oster Manu­facturing Company.

* A 1 Frederic Gooch, ME, died January T" ' 12, 1962.

Lt. Col. Benjamin S. Lowry, Jr., USAR, EE, has completed the associate command and general staff course at the Command and General Staff College, Fort Leaven­worth, Kansas. He is an engineer with Dow Chemical Company in Plaquemine, Louis­iana.

W. L. Sullivan, EE, has been appointed General Engineering Training and Person­nel Supervisor with Southern Bell in At­lanta. He will continue to have general supervision of the company centralized training activities in the Engineering Serv­ice Bureau and will also assume responsibil­ity for the operation of the Bell System Regional Engineering School to be estab­lished at Clemson College.

' J . 9 John Q- Edwards, USN, IM, has • ^ been promoted to Captain. He is

stationed at Fort George, S. Meade, Mary­land.

* AQ Sam A. Lyons is vice president and *& general manager with Joe Brashears

Steel, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia.

M E Engaged: William Douglas Kerr, •** IM, to Miss Jane Robbins. Mr. Kerr

is with the attorney general's office in At­lanta.

William O. Ritter, AE, has been named Eastern region vice president for Auto-netics, a division of North American Avia­tion, Inc., with offices in Washington, D. C.

36 TECH ALUMNUS

Grover Dunn, ChE, has established his own analytical and consulting

laboratory, Dunn and Associates, at 414 Sixth Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia. The new firm will deal with chemical and chem­ical engineering problems. He lives at 1929 Cummings Drive, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia.

William Robert Halstead, EE, is now Director, Gaston Technical Institute at Gas-tonia, North Carolina.

Dr. Jerome Kruger, Chem, has been awarded the Silver Medal for Meri­

torious Service with the U. S. Department of Commerce. He was cited for exceptional achievement in surface metallurgy. Jerome is a physical chemist with the National Bureau of Standards in Washington, D. C.

Robert R. Warren has been promoted to district manager of Otis Elevator Com­pany. His office is in the Liberty Life Build­ing, Charlotte, North Carolina.

Dr. Eugene F. Cox, Chem, has been promoted to group leader in the Re­

search and Development Department of Union Carbide and Chemical Company, South Charleston, West Virginia.

Edwin B. Feldman, IE, will be an in­structor at a Housekeeping Seminar to be held in Atlanta, May 23-25. The seminar is being held by Service Engineering Asso­ciates, Inc. Mr. Feldman is president of this firm.

Randolph Page Griffin, TE, has been made a full partner in the investment firm of Wyatt, Neal and Waggoner, Atlanta, Georgia.

Frank E. "Dusty" Hankinson, HI, IM, is now assistant controller for the Missis­sippi State College for Women. He lives with his wife and four children at 120 Poplar Street, Columbus, Mississippi.

Charles L. Ray, ME, has been named manager of the newly created bid and pro­posal coordinating department in the Mar­keting Branch at Lockheed in Marietta, Georgia.

Engaged: Richard Warren Cheatham, IM, to Miss Janet Wade. Mr. Cheatham is manager of the bond department of J. C. Bradford and Company, Atlanta, Georgia.

/ . O. Allred, ChE, has been pro­moted to senior Chemical Engineer

in the fuels and specialties section of Cen­tral Technical Division at Humble Oil and Refining Company's Baytown, Texas re­finery.

Born to: Mr. and Mrs. E. E. "Gene" Frizzell, ChE, a daughter, Veronique Fran-coise, January 4. Gene is spending a year in The Hague, The Netherlands at the central office of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group. They will return to Denver, Colo­rado in August.

James Henton, IM, received his doctorate in chemistry from Temple University in February. His address is 250 West 14th Street, New York 11, New York.

Engaged: Lloyd Milton Perry,- IM, to Miss Marguerite Lambert. Mr. Perry is

More news on page 38

reetings to students and

alumni everywhere. We share

your interest in tht advancement

of our alma mater, Georgia Tech.

COUVK^

\sso A * ^

S e r v i n g A m e r i c a ' s G r e a t N a m e s in I n d u s t r y f o r o v e r 4 2 Y e a r s

is a sure thing in each hot water generator built by FINNIGAN Finnigan Hot Water Generators are engineered to give you large quantities of hot water for low operating cost. The finest materials, creative skill and quality construction assure efficient performance . . . "Fabricated by Finnigan" assures quality. Finnigan builds hot water generators to your specifications. Call, wire or write today for complete information with no obligation to you.

^ ^ W. J. McAlpin, President, '27

J f r £ * W. J. McAlpin, Jr., Vice-President, '57 £ l ^ F. P. DeKoning, Secretary, '48

I.J. FINNIGAN CO., INC. P. O. Box 2344, Station D Atlanta 18, Georgia

Birmingham 5, Alabama. P. 0. Box 3285A Denver 22, Colorado, 3201 South Albion Street Dallas 19, Texas, P. 0. Box 6597 Kansas City 41, Missouri, P. 0. Box 462 Greensboro, North Carolina, P. 0. Box 1589 Little Rock, Arkansas, 4108 C Street Houston 6, Texas, P. 0. Box 66099 Memphis 11, Tennessee, 3683 Southern Avenue Jacksonville 3, Florida, P. 0. Box 2527 . Mew Orleans 25, Louisiana, P. 0. Box 13214

Richmond 28, Virginia, 8506 Ridgeview Drive

M A Y , 1961 3 7

tjfocestntfjeNews W. W. McCrea, '19, staff building engineer for the west area of Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co., re­tired on April 30 after more than 40 years of service. Except for brief periods, his entire career has been with the gen­eral engineering depart­ment in Atlanta.

George C. Griffin, '22, was presented the annual award by The ANAK Society, April 3. Griffin received a Tech class ring and a silver box inscribed: "To Dean Griffin as one more token of the respect, the gratitude, and the love that all Tech stu­dents owe to him . . ."

Thomas E. Bell, '25, has been appointed director of marketing for Re­public Flow Meters Co., subsidiary of Rock­well Manufacturing Co. of Chicago. Bell served as the company's gen­eral manager prior to this appointment. He has also been its district sales manager in Atlanta.

David F. Shaw, '34, has been named gene ra l manager of General Electric's large jet engine department in Cincin­nati. Formerly manager of GE's aircraft nuclear . propulsion department, Shaw now directs the group that develops, tests, and manufactures large jet engines.

Henry S. Black, '41, has been elected vice presi­dent and general man­ager of the data record­ers division of Consoli­dated Electro-dynamics Corp. Black joined Con­solidated nine years ago and has been general manager of the data re­corders division since it was formed in 19£1.

Eugene Miller, '45, di­rector of communica­tions and publications for the McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., will de­liver the Commence­ment address at Georgia Tech on June 9. Miller also has degrees from Bethany College, Co­lumbia Graduate School and N.Y.U.

NEWS BY CLASSES - continued

with Lockheed in Marietta, Georgia. The wedding will take place June 16.

Turner Warmack, IM, has been ap­pointed administrative assistant to the presi­dent of Getz Extermination, Inc. in At­lanta, Georgia.

• C O Born to: Mr. and Mrs. Oliver W. * » ^ Reeves, EE, a son, Robert Allen,

February 1. Mr. Reeves is a project en­gineer with Control Data Corporation. They live at 9230 Nicollet Avenue, South, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

' C O Born to: Mr. and Mrs. James E. *»*» Hannigan, AE, a son, Thomas

James, February 5. Jim is a civilian flight test engineer for the Air Proving Ground Center, Eglin Air Force Base. They live at 39 Coral Drive, Fort Walton Beach, Florida.

David M. Ramsey, Jr., USA, IM, has been promoted to Colonel. Colonel Ramsey is an instructor at the Command and Gen­era] Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

ft\A Louis F. Barth, Jr., IM, has been ** • promoted to branch manager with

American Standard Industrial Division. He lives at 3325 Vance Avenue, Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Born to: Mr. and Mrs. Donald Stern­berg, Arch, a son, L. Michael, February 15. Mr. Sternberg is a construction engi­neer with Electronic & Missile Facilities, Inc. They live at 1575 St. Paul Avenue, Apartment 25, St. Paul, Minnesota.

' E C Born to: Mr. and Mrs. T. L. "Tom" **** Anderson, AE, a son, Donald Lloyd,

October 8, 1961. Tom is a senior research engineer involved in the recovery of space satellites at Lockheed. They live at 44326 12th Street, East, Lancaster, California.

Darryl C. Aubrey, ChE, has been pro­moted to Chemical Engineer in the Polyole-fin Department of the Process Technical Division at Humble Oil in Baytown, Texas. He lives at 421 North Burnet Drive, Bay-town, Texas.

Walter B. Cook, ME, died unexpectedly last September 27. His widow lives at 1910 S. W. Third, Grand Prairie, Texas.

Donald Gerald Jackson, IM, is a safety engineer in the Missile Systems Safety Ordnance, Army Ordnance Missile Com­mand at Red Stone Arsenal, Alabama.

Engaged: Harry Edward Phipps, ChE, to Miss Margaret Hamlett; Mr. Phipps is roll­ing mill plant manager for Crown Aluminum Corporation, Roxboro, North Carolina.

B. W. Roberts, ME, is a field engineer with the Lincoln Electric Company of Cleveland, Ohio. He will work out of Phila­delphia, Pennsylvania.

Richard C. Russell, ChE, has been pro­moted to Chemical Engineer in the Central Technical Division at Humble Oil's Bay-town, Texas refinery.

James C. Hundley, EE, has been appoint­ed development engineer, ASQ-38, Produc­

tion Engineering at IBM's Space Guidance Center in Owego, New York.

' C C Thomas A. Jackson, IM, has been " » transferred by Southeastern Under­

writers Association from Norfolk, Virginia to Atlanta. His home address is 1586 Ocala Avenue, S.W., Atlanta 11, Georgia.

Engaged: James Andrew Poston to Miss Linda Anne Grant. Mr. Poston is with the Globe Ticket Company in Charlotte, North Carolina.

' C 7 Engaged: Charles Woicott Amason *» » to Miss Anne Clare King. The wed­

ding will take place June 23. Mr. Amason is associated with Amason Enterprises in Valona, Georgia.

Dr. Norbert Burske, research chemist at Calvert Distilling Company, is now on the faculty of Bellarmine College, Evening Di­vision, Louisville 5, Kentucky.

/ . Harry Chaney, ChE, has joined the technical services department of Monsanto Chemical Company's Organic Chemicals Division, William G. Krummrich Plant at Monsanto, Illinois.

J. M. Chew, ChE, has been promoted to assistant chemical engineer in the Solvents and Polymers Department, Process Techni­cal Division at Humble Oil's Baytown, Tex­as refinery.

William H. Hickson, Jr., USAF, IE, has been commissioned second lieutenant after graduation from Officers Training School at Lakeland Air Force Base, Texas. He is now assigned to Laredo Air Force Base, Texas for undergraduate pilot training.

Married: Lt. Jerry Christopher Kelley, USAF, IE, to Miss Dinah Sue Gait, April 7. Lt. Kelley is stationed at Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas.

Kerry B. Magee, IE, IM, has joined the Panama Canal Company as an industrial engineer with the Executive Planning Staff. He was recently promoted to lieutenant in the U. S. Naval Reserve. His address is Box 128 Balboa Heights, Canal Zone.

William R. Probst, IM, has been elected president of Gateway Properties, Inc., At­lanta land development firm.

Born to: Mr. and Mrs. Jack Jacobs '/.bar, ChE, a son, Adam Clay, February 16. Mr. Zbar is now president of Colonial Chem­ical Corporation in Dalton, Georgia. They live at 1314 Sherwood Drive, Dalton, Ga.

' C O Born to: Mr. and Mrs. James H. ^ ^ Archer, Jr., IM, a daughter, Cynthia

Gale, January 6. Mr. Archer completed three years in the Air Force last August and is now a meteorologist with Delta Air Lines. They live at 1135 Dolphin Drive, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia.

Engaged: Franklin Owen Carlisle, Jr., IE, to Miss Elizabeth Warren. The wedding will take place in June. Mr. Carlisle is a management consultant with Stevenson, Jor-don and Harrison, Inc.

Born to: Mr. and Mrs. Balus S. Chastain, IM, a son, Steven Balus, January 9. They live at 13-C Lewis Village, Greenville, South Carolina.

More news on page 40

38 TECH ALUMNUS

The Laboratory's

enco ss^p^dfgrowth

Photomicrograph of protons trapped in the lower Van Allen Belt. These protons entered the nu­clear emulsions at an altitude of about 800 miles.

At LRL the skills of virtually ^tLE[L^{ every scientific and technical

discipline are used in con­ducting fundamental explorations of the atomic nucleus and developmental programs growing out of nuclear re­search. The "project" appoach to the various programs enables the special­ist to perform with maximum effective­ness and to familiarize himself with the activities in several fields other than his own. The broad range of activities at the Laboratory can be divided roughly into three categories:

PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY

The many fields of physics investiga­tion include fission reactions, neutron-ics, hydrodynamics, high- and low-energy physics, numerical analysis, geophysics and astrophysics. The broad scope of the problems encountered re­quires the imaginative efforts of both theoretical and experimental physicists with many different interests.

In Chemistry, long-range experi­mental and theoretical studies, applied

research programs, materials develop­ment work, and, on occasion, limited production of novel materials needed by the Laboratory exemplify the vari­ety of work performed by chemists and engineers of many specialties.

ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT

The successful collaboration of engi­neers and scientists has made LRL a leader in the development of unique research apparatus and diagnostic equipment. Mechanical Engineering responsibilities include design and fab­rication of nuclear and high explosive devices, analytical and experimental studies, mechanipal design, non-destruc­tive and environmental testing, metrol­ogy, and production coordination.

Electronics designs and develops sys­tems for automatic and servo control, reactor control, instrumentation and simulation, data acquisition, data re­duction and energy storage and trans­fer, and provides electronics consulting service throughout the Laboratory.

COMPUTATION

The LRL computer complex, one of the

largest in the nation, includes 3 7090's, a 650, a 1401, LARC, STRETCH, and attendant input-output equipment. The majority of problems are concerned with multidimensional, coupled, partial differential equations of hydrodynam­ics, heat transfer, and neutron diffusion.

CURRENT PROJECTS

The Laboratory's manifold activities are conducted at three locations — Berkeley and Livermore in the San Francisco Bay area, and the Nevada Test Site near Las Vegas, Nevada.

The Laboratory at Livermore is presently active in four long-range research projects: Whitney, the design and testing of nuclear and thermonu­clear explosives; Plowshare, the devel­opment of scientific and industrial uses for nuclear explosives; Sherwood, re­search into control of the fusion reac­tion, and Pluto, the development of a very high temperature reactor for powering a ramjet propulsion system.

LRL particularly needs scientists and engineers who have the skill and imagination to solve an ever-changing array of new and novel problems.

nuclear extexoY researc

MM

For further information on facilities and work at LRL, write to: B. R. Graf, Associate Personnel Mgr., Box 808, Livermore, Calif.

L A W R E N C E R A D I A T I O N L A B O R A T O R Y An equal opportunity employer. U.S. citizenship required.

Operated by the University of California for the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission

Donald B. Ross, '45, has been appointed assistant to the president of Mid-America Pipeline Co. Prior to joining Mid-America, Ross was a director, vice president, and treasurer of the Dorchester Corp. of Dallas, Texas. His offices are now at the com­pany's headquarters.

Frank Willett, '45, cur­rent president of the National Alumni Asso­ciation, has been named sales manager for spe­cial accounts at Ten­nessee Stove Works with offices in Chattanooga. He joined the company after 16 years with Westinghouse where he was a zone manager.

/ . B. Reid, '47, has been appointed director of development in the re­search and development department of the Union Carbide Olefins Co. He joined Carbide in 1947 in the Isopropanol unit and was connected with the works administration department prior to his latest promotion.

Sidney F. Williams, Jr., '49, is one of six em­ployees of the U. S. Army's engineering re­search and development laboratories, Fort Bel-voir, Virginia, nomi­nated for the director's Technological Achieve­ment Medal. He is the nominee for the me­chanical department.

John W. Stonig, '51, has been appointed to the new position of man­ager of military and government sales for General Electric's tech­nical products operation in Syracuse, New York. He has been with the operation since 1957, and joined GE in 1951.

William B. Mevers, '59, has j o ined Ka i se r Aluminum and Chemi­cal Sales, Inc. as field engineer for highway products. Formerly as­sociated with Armco Drainage and Metal Products. Mevers' new business address is 16030 S.W. 101 Ave­nue, Miami, Florida.

NEWS BY CLASSES - continued Lt. Merrill C. Cook, Jr., USAR, IM, re­

cently completed a week of Army training tests with the 844th Engineer Battalion at Fort Rucker, Alabama. He is a platoon leader with the battalion's Company B.

Born to: Mr. and Mrs. Robert Dowler, IM, a daughter, Kelly Ann, March 3. Mr. Dowler was recently transferred by Minne­apolis Honeywell from Greenville, South Carolina to Atlanta where he is serving as customer service supervisor for the south­east. They live at 3543 Cloudland Drive, Stone Mountain, Georgia.

Born to: Lt. and Mrs. Samuel Marvin Griffin, Jr., USN, IM, a son, Samuel Mar­vin, III. Lt. Griffin is stationed at Norfolk Naval Base, Virginia.

Engaged: James Harvey Hammons, ChE, to Miss Norma Jean DeMary. Mr. Ham­mons is with the Union Carbide Chemical Company in West Virginia.

Born to: Lt. and Mrs. Harry L. Hazlett, USN, IM, a daughter, Tamara Ann, De­cember 11. They live at 21-B Riverside Drive, Patrick Air Force Base, Florida.

Born to : Mr. and Mrs. Cecil D. Hender­son, IM, a son, Cecil David, Jr., March 24. They live at 1320 East 42nd Street, Savan­nah, Georgia.

Dr. Cecil I. Hudson, Jr., Phys, is a phys­icist with the University of California Lawrence Radiaton Laboratory in Liver-more, California.

Born to: Mr. and Mrs. Leonard A. Lam-pert, 'CE, a son, Scott Lawrence, May 25, 1961. Mr. Lampert will graduate from St. John's University School of Law in June, 1962. He recently entered the securities, brokerage and underwriting business as a partner in the firm of Drourr-Lampert & Company, Inc., with offices at 82 Beaver Street, New York, New York.

Born to: Lt. and Mrs. James W. Mc-Cook, HI, IM, a son, James W., IV, March 8. Lt. McCook is stationed at Fort Hood, Texas.

William H. Savell, IM, has been awarded a trip to Washington, D. C. by the Greater Cleveland (Ohio) Young Republican Club. The award was donated by a congressman from Ohio and was made for leadership ability. Mr. Savell is with Jones Laughlin Steel Corporation. He lives at Robinwood Lane, Gates Mill, Ohio.

Engaged: Harold Maurice Shadron, IM, to Miss Annie B. McCaskill. Mr. Shadron is with the Shadron Furniture Business in Brunswick, Georgia. The wedding will take place June 9.

'59 Engaged: Lt. Edward Francis Baze-more to Miss Susan Little. Lt. Baze-

more is stationed at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The wedding will take place April 28.

Lt. John H. Boykin, USN, IM, is now Disbursing Officer on the USS Whetstone (LSD-27), c /o FPO, San Francisco, Cali­fornia.

Married: Rowan Carven Campbell, Jr., to Miss Dolores Pippen.

Born to: Mr. and Mrs. Richard E. Dix, AE, a son, Steven Ashley, March 9. Mr. Dix is a research engineer at ARO, Inc.,

Arnold Engineering Development Center, Tennessee. They live at 1203 Woodland Drive, Manchester, Tennessee.

Lt. and Mrs. Henry L. Eskew, USAF, IM, were in Griffin, Georgia recently for the christening of their daughter, Marian Kathryn. Their address is Box 201, An­drews Air Force Base, Washington 25, D. C.

Born to: Mr. and Mrs. Thomas B. Har-rell, Jr., Arch, a daughter, Frances Wither-spoon, February 3. They live at 2790 Hid­den Forest Court, S.E., Atlanta 16, Georgia.

Married: Lloyd Felsenthal Kahn, Jr.. IM, to Miss Charlene Center, March 3. Mr. Kahn is with Alkahn Silk Label Co.. Los Angeles, California.

Engaged: Charles Edward Marshall, Jr., Arch, to Miss Gail Sauls. The wedding will take place May 19 in Atlanta. Mr. Marshall is employed by the State of Georgia.

Robert L. Mclntyre, EE, is now develop­ment engineer with Minneapolis-Honeywell in St. Petersburg, Florida. He is married to the former Joan Keasler. They live at 1543 Satsums Street, Clearwater, Florida.

Engaged: George W. Murphy, 111, Tex, to Miss Sandra Jane Lawson. The wedding will take place June 16. Effective June 1 Mr. Murphy will be associated with United International Corporation, Caixa de Correo 1470, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Married: Richard K. Nickelson, EE, to Miss Joyce Rice. Mr. Nickelson is a re­search engineer in the Flight Control Lab­oratory at Lockheed. They live at 794-A Atlantic Drive, N.W., Atlanta 13, Georgia.

Mr. and Mrs. Eugene H. Rape, ME, are now living at 6549 7th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida. He is a product engi­neer with General Electric at the Atomic Energy Commission's St. Petersburg Plant.

Born to: Mr. and Mrs. Franklin Clark Price, ME, a son, Franklin Clark.. Jr., March 9. They live at 2495 Tredway Drive, Macon, Georgia.

Engaged: Irvin Lee Serenco, IM, to Miss Deanna Spector. Mr. Serenco is with Wurz-burg Brothers, Inc., Memphis, Tennessee.

William L. Simmons, USA, IM, has been promoted to major. He is plans and training officer with the 7th Brigade at Rhein Main Air Base in Germany.

Joseph P. Warren, IE, is now methods engineer with Production Engineering Com­pany in Austell, Georgia. He lives at 309 Wright Street, Marietta, Georgia.

Joel Weinstock, IE, completed the re­quirements for his masters degree in In­dustrial Engineering at Stevens Institute of Technology in January. He lives at 47 Eastern Parkway, West Caldwell, New Jer­sey.

' C O (--nar^es Bamford, ChE, is now an O U assistant editor of Chemical Engi­

neering, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company. His new address is 211 East 18th Street, New York 3, New York.

Lt. John R. Baugus, EE, is with the 4683rd Civil Engineering Squadron at Thule Air Base, Greenland.

Engaged: Peter Derek Bergstrom, EE, to Miss Joanna Roden. Mr. Bergstrom is

More news on page 42

40 TECH ALUMNUS

A BROAD SPECTRUM OF OPPORTUNITY M I T R E works on the leading edge of a new technology — the creation of large computer-based systems (such as SAGE, NORAD, and BMEWS) tha t enable the military to detect at tack and retaliate. Their purpose is to prevent war.

This work creates a wide range of career opportunities in many broad areas.

For instance, you might want to devote your talents to the full exploration of a single component in one system.

Perhaps, instead, you would prefer a more general assignment, such as the design of circuits, the development of radar, or the analysis of space hardware.

Or perhaps you would be more at home working on overall design of future command and control systems.

At M I T R E the work ranges all the way from the detailed problems of electronic design to the abstract problems of national defense.

Whatever area you choose, you would find work tha t is important to your country. . . . and work tha t is creatively challenging

You would have the opportunity to grow, professionally, in an atmosphere of free and objective inquiry.

At M I T R E you would become identified with projects of the utmost national urgency — projects that offer a real challenge to the talented scientist and engineer.

The rewards are great. Salary and benefit plans are competitive. M I T R E offers excellent Educational Assistance and Staff Scholar programs tha t give every encouragement to employees who wish to continue their academic interests. (At the present time, M I T R E employees are attending 15 different institutions, including M I T , Harvard, Northeastern, and Boston University.)

Currently assignments are available in the following broad areas: • Data Processing Development • Computer Application • SAGE Des ign and Testing • Operations Research • Communications • Human Factors • Range Instrumentation • System Cost Analysis • Advanced System Design • Econometrics • Radar Systems and Techniques • Air Traffic Control • Space Surveil lance • Space Systems Command and Control • Astrodynamics

MITRE is located in pleasant, suburban Boston. Openings are also available in Colorado Springs, Colorado; and Washington, D. C. Requirements are high — rewards are competitive. Minimum requirements, B.S., or M.S., or Ph.D. Write in confidence to Vice President — Technical Opera­tions, The MITRE Corporation, Box 208, Dept GTA5 Bedford, Mass.

*v.

THEI

MITRE I J . I I J . l f H I . i l

An Equal Opportunity Employer

MITRE is an independent, nonprofit corporation working with — not in competition with — indus­try. Formed under the sponsorship of the Massa­chusetts Institute of Technology, MITRE serves as Technical Advisor to the Air Force Electronic Systems Division, and chartered to work for such other Government agencies as FAA.

NEWS BY CLASSES - continued

with Minneapolis Honeywell Regulator Company, Aeronautical Division, Clear­water, Florida.

David A. Bishop, EE, has been promoted to senior associate engineer at the Engi­neering Laboratory of IBM, Electric Type­writer Division, Lexington, Kentucky.

Robert W. Caldwell, USA, Tex, has been promoted to first lieutenant He is serving with the 8th Division's 16th Infantry in Germany.

Born to: Mr. and Mrs. Edwin H. Cal­houn, IM, a daughter, Tracy Leigh, March 14. Mr. Calhoun is with Oxford Manu­facturing Company. They live at 1108 Tum-lin Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia.

Born to: Lt. and Mrs. William C. Clon-inger, Jr., USNR, IM, a son, David Clin­ton, February 25. Lt. Cloninger is stationed at Clarksville Base, Tennessee. They live at 30 Halsey Circle, South, Clarksville Base Annex, Fort Campbell, Kentucky.

Lt. Raymond K. Elderd, Jr., USA, IE, is stationed with the 17th Signal Battalion, A Company, Karlsruhe, Germany. He is Wire Officer in the Operations Company. His ad­dress is A Company, 17th Signal Battalion, APO 164, New York, New York.

Lt. Hillra H. Felty, Jr., USAF, IM, has been awarded the Navigator Wings after completing navigator training at Harling-ton AFB, Texas.

PFC Ronald E. Giuntini, USA, IM, is a survey data recorder in the 844th Engineer Battalion's Headquarters Company at Fort Rucker, Alabama.

Engaged: Lucian G. Guthrie, Jr. to Miss JoAnn Agrilla. The wedding will take place May 26. Mr. Guthrie is with the U. S. Department of Agriculture in Nashville, Tennessee.

Lt. Douglas F. Huie, USAF, ME, is with the 4683 Civil Engineering Squadron at Thule Air Base, Greenland.

Lt. Philip O. Meadows, USA, ME, has completed the officer orientation course at The Chemical School, Fort McClellan, Alabama.

Richard A. Nail, ME, has been pro­moted to machine design engineer with Sonoco Products Company, Hartsville, South Carolina.

Lt. Tommy R. Sommer, USA, CE, has completed the chemical, biological and radiological officer course at The Chemical Corps School, Fort McClellan, Alabama.

Engaged: Ensign Bennett David Strick­land, USN, IM, to Miss Diane Duke. He is stationed aboard the USS Antietam at Pensacola, Florida.

Lt. Clarence E. Suggs, III, USA, Tex, has completed the officer rotary wing avia­tor course at the Primary Helicopter School, Camp Wolters, Texas.

»C1 Lt. John W. Anderson, USAF, IE, " • has completed the officer orientation

course at the Air Defense School, Fort Bliss, Texas.

Lt. Donald F. Backer, USA, EE, has completed the officer orientation course at the Signal School, Fort Monmouth, New

Jersey. Engaged: Ensign Lewis Ray Baker, Jr.,

USN, AE, to Miss Dorris Home. He is stationed at Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Lt. William N. Beall, USA, Phys., has completed the signal officer orientation course at the Army Signal Training Cen­ter, Fort Gordon, Georgia.

Ensign Ed M. Beckham, II, USN, IM, is now assigned to the Sandia Base in New Mexico where he is an instructor in Atomic Weapons School. His address is 1501 - 15th Troop, Sandia Base, New Mexico.

Lt. David L. Brilliant, USA, EE, has completed the orientation course at the Chemical Corps School, Fort McClellan, Alabama.

Lt. Donald W. Burke, USA, Ch.E., has completed the officer orientation course at the Chemical Corps School, Fort McClel­lan, Alabama.

Lt. Robert A. Christian, Jr., USAF, IM, has been awarded his navigator wings after completing navigator training at Harling-en AFB, Texas.

Lt. Harvey B. Clarke, USA, IE, has com­pleted the basic officer orientation course at the Army Signal Training Center, Fort Gordon, Georgia.

Ensign Alfred D. Cobb, USN, IM, re­cently completed a course in Damage Con­trol and Atomic, Biological and Chemical Warfare Defense. His address is USS An­tietam (CVS-36), c /o USNAS, Pensacola, Florida.

Engaged: David Alan Crawford, IE, to Miss Alice Williams. He is attending the Graduate School of Business Administra­tion at the University of North Carolina.

Lt. William R. Delk, USA, EE, has com­pleted the officer orientation course at the Southeastern Signal School, Fort Gordon, Georgia.

Lt. George T. Gannaway, USA, CE, has completed the airborne course at the In­fantry School, Fort Benning, Georgia.

Married: Patrick P. Garvin, ChE, to Miss Margaret McCrary, December 2, 1961. Mr. Garvin is stationed at White Sands Missile Range. They live at 210 Watervliet, White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico.

Engaged: Eugene Talbot Harrison, HI, EE, to Miss Carol Ann Rollins. The wed­ding will take place June 10. Mr. Harrison is attending Graduate School at Georgia Tech.

Born to: Mr. and Mrs. Douglas A. Hart-man, IE, a daughter, Virginia Rose, March 13. Mr. Hartman is with Mack Trucks. They live at Long Meadow Apartments, Hagerstown, Maryland.

Born to: Mr. and Mrs. Dwight E. Holmes, a daughter, Lea Sheryl, March 24. They live at 2701 Avent Ferry, Raleigh, North Carolina.

William N. Johnson, USAF, EE, was commissioned in February and is now in flight training. His address is P. O. Box 518, Moody, AFB, Georgia.

Engaged: William Dunn Mallard, Jr., IM, to Miss Edith Ann Yarbrough. The wedding will take place lune 17. Mr. Mal­lard is attending Graduate School at Geor­gia Tech.

Lt. John F. Manuel, USN, Chem, re­

cently graduated from Submarine School at New London, Connecticut. He is now serving aboard the USS Atule (SS 403), FPO, New York, New York.

Henry R. McKenney, Jr., ChE, has been transferred by Hercules Powder Company from Wilmington, Delaware to Hercules, California. He lives at 2150 Stanton Ave­nue, Le Roy Heights, San Pablo, California.

Robert D. McPhail, IM, is an associate engineer in the Engineering Planning Group of the Engineering Administration Depart­ment at Chance Vaught. His home address is 243520 Jefferson, Apt. 106, Dallas I I , Texas.

Lt. Glenn D. Peake, USA, IE, has com­pleted the officer orientation course at the Air Defense School, Fort Bliss, Texas.

A3C Larry D. Williams, USAF, ME, has been assigned to Dobbins AFB, Georgia following graduation from the U. S. Air Force technical training course for aircraft mechanics.

Major Dan H. Williamson, Jr., USA, MS, recently graduated from the nuclear wea­pons employment course at the Command and General Staff College, Fort Leaven­worth, Kansas. He is regularly assigned as a project officer with the U. S. Army Armor Board at Fort Knox, Kentucky.

Engaged: James Hill Wylie to Miss Eli­zabeth Gatewood. Mr. Wylie is attending the Graduate School of Fine Arts at the University of Pennsylvania.

' C O Married: Shakespeare Harris Cald-**fc well, Jr., IM, to Miss Jane Lowry,

April 8. William A. Clute has been promoted to

general manager of Bituminous Products and Application Company, Inc. He lives at 327 Devon Drive, San Rafael, California.

Lt. Juddson A. DeWar, USA, has com­pleted the officer orientation course at the Air Defense School, Fort Bliss, Texas.

Engaged: Gerald Allen Epps, IM, to Miss Charlotte Denman. Mr. Epps is with U. S. Steel Corporation in Pittsburgh, Penn­sylvania.

Married: Marvin White Griffin, Jr., IE, to Miss Grace Roland. The wedding took place April 8.

Married: Lt. Daniel Dowling Hull, USAF, CE, to Miss Carolyn LaFaye Smith, March 31. Lt. Hull is attending basic pilot training school at Moody Air Force Base, Valdosta, Georgia.

John R. Powers, IE, has been reassigned to San Diego as Delta Air Lines represent­ative to General Dynamics/Convair. His business address is Delta Air Lines Office, c /o General Dynamics/Convair, Building 19, San Diego 12, California.

Married: Donald H. Rutledge, IM, to Miss Linda Smith, April 6.

Lt. Richard E. Simmons, Jr., USA, ChE, has completed the officer orientation course at the Chemical Corps School, Fort Mc­Clellan, Alabama.

PFC Richard L. Stevens, USA, recently completed a German language course con­ducted by the 4th Armored Division in Germany. He is assigned to Headquarters Company, 66th Armor in Illesheim, Ger­many.

42 TECH ALUMNUS

Vote Now for Officers and Trustees

Election Moved Up for 1962-63 Officers r HE OFFICERS and elected trustees

will be selected by members of the Alumni Association three months early this year in order that the new adminis­tration may take office prior to the be­ginning of the fiscal year, July 1. This new policy—adopted by the 1961-62 Board of Trustees—will be continued in future years.

Heading the list of candidates for 1962-63 is Ira H. Hardin, '24, who has been nominated for president. Other candidates picked by the nominating committee (Randy Whitfield, chairman; Fred Storey; and Larry Gellerstedt) are William S. Terrell, '30, vice president at large; Daniel A. McKeever, '32, vice president; and W. Howard Ector, treas­urer.

The committee also nominated the fol­lowing alumni for three-year terms as trustees: G. P. Robinson, '48; C. T. Ox­ford, "30; John P. Pickett, '32; and John S. Thibadeau, '47.

The Board Election

Under Article VIII of the amended By­laws, four trustees shall be elected by the members of the Association each year for three-year terms. In addition, the im­mediate past president (J. F. Willett, '45, in this case) and six alumni named by the incumbent president also will be members of the new Board. The other 12 members of the Board include the Association officers and carryover trus­tees with one or two years to serve on their elected terms.

The Nominees

For President—A past president of the Greater Atlanta Georgia Tech Club, Ira Hardin has served two terms as vice president of the Association. A top At­lanta civic and business leader, he is president of the Ira Hardin Company of Atlanta.

For Vice President at large—An out­standing Tech leader in the Charlotte area. William S. Terrell is currently serving in this position with the Associa­tion. He is owner of the Terrell Machine Company of Charlotte, North Carolina.

For Vice President — Daniel A. Mc­Keever has been a member of the Asso­ciation's Board of Trustees for the past two years and has headed many of the important committees including the Roll Call Committee. He is head of J. E. Hanger, Inc. of Atlanta.

For Treasurer—A former secretary of the Association and the Georgia Tech Foundation, and once the business man­ager of Athletics at Tech, Howard Ector is currently a trust officer with the Trust Company of Georgia. He is one of Mar­ietta, Georgia's best-known civic leaders.

For Trustee—Glen P. Robinson, Jr., a former member of the staff of the Engi­neering Experiment Station is one of the founders and president of Scientific At­lanta, Inc., one of the South's fastest-growing young companies.

For Trustee—Charles T. Oxford, a top business, civic and Tech alumni leader in the Albany, Georgia, area is president of Oxford Construction Co., and the Flint Concrete Products Co. of Bain-bridge. He is past president of the Sow-ega Club.

For Trustee—John P. Pickett, president of the Pickett Chevrolet Co., is one of the top Tech men in the Cedartown area. A civic leader, Pickett has been active in Alumni Association and Tech-Georgia Development Fund drives in Cedartown.

For Trustee—John S. Thibadeau, a part­ner in Thibadeau, Shaw & Co. of Deca­tur, Georgia, has been active in real estate and insurance circles in Greater Atlanta ever since his graduation from Tech.

How to Vote

All active members of the Association who desire to confirm the above nomina­tions for officers and elected trustees or who wish to present write-in candidates may do so by filling out the official ballot on this page and mailing it to the Geor­gia Tech National Alumni Association, Atlanta 13, Georgia. This vote is for election. Be sure to sign your ballot.

I. H. Hardin, '24 D. A. McKeever, '32

W. S. Terrell, '30

\ l l W. H. Ector, '40

mi

G. P. Robinson, '48 C. T. Oxford, '30

J. P. Pickett, "32 J. S. Thibadeau, '47

~ BALLOT FOR NATIONAL ALUMNI ASSOCIATION OFFICERS AND TRUSTEES, 1962-63

• My check in box indicates approval of nominees or I vote for the following write in candidates:

FOR PRESIDENT:

FOR VICE PRESIDENT:.

FOR VICE PRESIDENT (at large):

FOR TREASURER:

FOR TRUSTEES (vote for four)_

Signed:. Class:' Mail before June 20 to Georgia Tech Alumni Association, Atlanta 13, Georgia

MAY, 1962 43

Coke Refreshes TRADE-MARK ®

you Best! BOTTLED UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE COCA-COLA COMPANY BY

THE ATLANTA COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY