National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Materials in Government
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

laboratories.

If one focuses primarily on electrical energy, the R&D effort has traditionally been supplied by equipment suppliers and the federal government. Recently the U.S. utilities have considered playing a significantly more active role than they have in the past. A recent report by the Electric Research Council lays out a broad program for utilities, manufacturers, and government.11 The development of better, more reliable materials is an important theme in this report. A clear call is made for additional private, as well as federal, funding to support the work.

Building Materials

Many materials are used in the construction of buildings; these cover the whole spectrum of classes of materials, from low-technology materials, such as wood and concrete, to more sophisticated high-technology materials, such as plastics and composites. To identify materials needs and problems associated with buildings and construction technology, the following list provides a representative sampling of specific problems (prepared by experts in the National Bureau of Standards’ Building Research Division) of primary importance in this area. These are not in order of priority.

Roofing Materials: There have been no recent innovations in this area. This may be partly due to the fact that no performance criteria or standards currently exist for roofing materials. This problem could be further complicated in the future, as there is a shortage of asphalt. It is estimated that 8×109 square feet of roofing material is used per year. Not enough use has been made of plastics or other substitutes.

Plumbing Materials: Plastics are potential replacements for metals. However, here again we need performance criteria and standards for plumbing systems. Additional research is required in the area of plastic pipes and tubings. This problem in the plumbing area has been a subject for comment and criticism by at least one Congressional Committee.

Joining Problems—Adhesives: Here much work is lacking in surface science and the science of adhesion. Adhesive manufacturers will not guarantee their products because not enough is known about the adhesive mechanisms. Current adhesives last only about four years as opposed to the desired 40 years.

11  

Electric Utilities Industry R&D Goals Through the Year 2000, Report of the R&D Goals Task Force to the Electric Research Council, ERC Pub. No. 1–71, June 1971.

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

Sealants: These are used to provide more-or-less permanent joints between brick walls and ceilings or between marble slabs. Their main purpose is to exclude water and air. They require no structural properties, in contrast to adhesives, which bind one surface to another and must be capable of transmitting stress and strain. Better sealants are needed with greater imperviousness.

Acoustic Materials: Generally speaking, materials with good acoustic absorption do not have good moisture-absorption properties and also present a potential hazard with respect to fire safety. The best acoustic materials are not satisfactory, and further R&D work in this area is necessary.

Solar-Energy and Coating Materials: New materials are required for better solar-energy absorption, and coating transmission and reflectance properties. Current coating materials do not maintain these critical properties over a sufficiently long period of time.

Gasket Problems: This is somewhat related to the sealant problem. However, the gasket is usually coupled into a moving fixture such as a sliding door and may be subject to periodic compression and expansion. The need is for new rubberlike materials with improved resiliency and durability.

Moisture Effects: Moisture is a primary cause of deterioration in almost all classes of building materials, from concrete to metals. We need better materials that will resist the effects of moisture. Degradation of underground insulating materials due to moisture is a particularly serious problem. The corrosion of metals is another serious problem, particularly with respect to the corrosion of air-conditioning cooling towers.

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

MATERIALS EDUCATION AND RESEARCH IN UNIVERSITIES

Introduction

The marked diversity of the educational backgrounds of the professionals who work in the broad field of materials science and engineering has been emphasized earlier. It will be analyzed further in the final section on manpower of this chapter. The existence of this diversity, which had not been widely recognized hitherto, was identified early in the COSMAT study. Accordingly, it was concluded that a meaningful examination of university education and research in materials should take full account of such activities not only in those university departments that offer materials-designated degrees—such as in metallurgy, ceramics, polymer science, or materials science and engineering—but also wherever else such educational activities occur, i.e., in other university science and engineering departments and in interdisciplinary materials research laboratories.

This section of Chapter 7 describes our examination of that educational scope. Two summary points arising from this examination will perhaps clarify for the reader the wisdom of that broader approach in developing a proper understanding of university activities in materials. First, in the area of education (Table 7.28) for professionals working in the materials field, while the varieties of degree programs and academic institutions are large, formal undergraduate curricula in materials are found to be confined largely to students in the materials-designated departments. Yet, graduates from such departments make up only a fraction of the professional manpower in the materials field. Indeed, in the engineering disciplines alone (almost all of the materials-designated departments are within schools of engineering), the materials-designated bachelor’s degrees are only some 2.5% of the total first-degrees in all fields of engineering, and the master’s and doctorate’s only some 3% and 8% respectively.12

Secondly, the materials research and the related graduate degrees from the materials-designated departments amount, in the early 1970’s, to rather less than half of the materials research and graduate degrees involving faculty and students from other departments, i.e., to less than one-third of the total. In 1971, research support going directly to the materials-designated departments (of which there are almost 100) totaled some $17 million, compared to about $51 million funded to interdisciplinary materials centers and their associated faculty. (Only about one-third was direct or “block” support to the centers; the remainder was direct support to individual faculty members.) Four million dollars of the block support was assigned

12  

The data on which these figures are based are derived from the annual statistics on engineering degrees from the U.S. Office of Education, American Society for Engineering Education, and the Engineering Manpower Commission. The difficulties occasioned from the changing definitions “materials” degrees in these statistics have been discussed by Radcliffe (J.Metals (May 1969) 29–35).

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

TABLE 7.28 Types of Education and Institutions from which Manpower in the Materials Field Is Derived

TYPE OF EDUCATION

 

PRINCIPAL ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS INVOLVED

PRINCIPAL USER INSTITUTIONS FOR GRADUATES

I. Terminal B.S. in

 

State and private universities

Production & development in materials producing and consuming industries.

a) Met., Cer., Poly. Sci.

 

 

 

and

 

 

 

b) Mech. Eng., Ind. Eng., Civil Eng., Chem. Eng., Physical Sciences

 

 

 

II. Preparatory B.S. in Mat. Sci., Met., Cer., etc.

?

State and private universities involved in materials research

 

+ fraction of Physics, Chem., Main Eng. Disciplines

?

All research universities

Graduate schools

a) Headed for advanced degrees in Materials Science.

 

b) Headed for advanced degrees in related fields

 

III. Terminal M.S. as in I

 

Major state and private universities

Development & research in moderate-to-large organizations

IV. Ph.D.’s as in II

a) Mat. degrees in many fields, esp. Mat. Sci.

Selected universities esp. involved in materials

Research & development in materials consumer and producer industries, government; university teaching

b) All other related depts.

V. 2-yr. Technicians

State universities, community colleges, other institutions

Producing industries

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

to faculty in the materials-designated departments for a total of approximately $21 million. The university materials centers, which were started in the early 1960’s with the formation of interdisciplinary laboratories (known as IDL’s) in 12 universities through the Department of Defense, have increased in number to about 28. In 1971, the original 12 universities received approximately two-thirds of the total direct federal support for all university materials R&D.

The scale of the activities of the materials research centers and their associated faculty, as indicated by the foregoing, merits some discussion of how the centers came into existence, as a precursor to outlining the scope and rationale for the particular analysis of materials activities in the universities which was adopted by COSMAT.

The materials-related disciplines were the focus of the first attempt on the American university campus to create a new style of research organization and to accelerate the processes of academic curricular change resulting from federal recognition of a specific national need. At the time that physical metallurgy and the physics of metals were the principal, and largely separate, areas of materials research at universities in the late 1930’s and 40’s, the concept of task-oriented, closely coupled, interdisciplinary research was being developed in a particular sector of U.S. industry: namely, the research laboratories of the major corporations related to the electronics, communication, and aerospace industries. Such industrial prototypes served as the models for governmentally inspired changes at the universities (although industry had little direct input into the actual formulation of the programs). The federal initiative in the materials research area stemmed from advisory reports which identified the need for increased manpower for such materials research but which also stressed that the university laboratories could not afford the sophistication of industrial research because of the large investments required in equipment and manpower. The Coordinating Committee on Materials Research and Development (CCMRD) proposed specific action to the Federal Council on Science and Technology in 1959. As a consequence, the Advanced Research Projects Agency of DoD developed programs in 12 universities for “Interdisciplinary Materials Research Laboratories.” The AEC supported analogous laboratories in 3 universities, and NASA followed with a smaller program. Subsequently, several universities established similar centers without special or continuing support, so that a total of some 28 materials centers now exist on U.S. campuses. The creation of this system of interdisciplinary materials research laboratories and the strong growth of many of the materials-designated and materials-related departments resulted from federal initiative and from investments of $300—$400 million during the ensuing decade. This effort in the materials field is probably the most widespread and longest established attempt at encouraging interdisciplinary concepts and practices within universities. It has over a decade of history, and now that other fields of similar scope are emerging, an evaluation of MSE in our educational institutions is especially timely for the use of both university administrators and federal officials concerned with research policy.

From the above introductory discussion, it is apparent that an analysis of university education in materials requires a study of the following principal areas:

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
  1. Instructional activities related to MSE, including materials-designated degree programs and educational activities in disciplines related to materials.

  2. Materials research, as conducted in the materials research centers and academic departments.

  3. Institutional interactions, including the management of materials research and coupling between the universities and industry.

Because the very grouping of activities entitled materials science and engineering is only somewhat more than ten years old, comprehensive statistics, data, evaluations, and even a definitive list of the departments or degree programs proved to be unavailable. Accordingly, several questionnaires were designed to obtain the necessary data on materials-related university research and educational activities. (In interpreting this information, care has been taken to try to recognize the inevitable shortcomings of data-gathering for a new area where common definitions are not yet adequately established.) The four questionnaires that were adopted and the relevant response characteristics were as follows:

  1. Questionnaire to all departments in the U.S. granting materials-designated degrees regarding their undergraduate and graduate teaching and research activities. The responses (72 out of 112 questionnaires sent) cover the institutions granting 95% of all doctorates in such departments.

  2. Questionnaire to all departments granting degrees in fields related to MSE, i.e., Chemistry (64%), Physics (70%), Geology (45%), Chemical Engineering (42%), Civil Engineering (33%), Electrical Engineering (53%), Mechanical Engineering (42%), which were listed in the top two categories of the Roose-Anderson report evaluating graduate departments.13 (Shown in parentheses are the percentage of responses in the various fields.)

  3. Questionnaire on the research activities of all the formally designated interdisciplinary materials research centers in the country. Twenty-eight such centers were located (100% response).

  4. Questionnaire seeking individual opinions of the effectiveness of materials centers from a set of senior university, governmental, and industrial representatives in the materials field. The set used was the membership of COSMAT, its panels, the membership of the National Materials Advisory Board, and the Chairmen (only) of the NMAB major committees for the last decade. (About 40% response)

Samples of the questionnaires are provided in Appendix 7A.

13  

K.D.Roose and C.J.Anderson, A Rating of Graduate Programs, American Council of Education, Washington, D.C. (1971).

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

Before proceeding with the analysis of the response data based on the above questionnaires, we shall sketch some historical highlights of materials education in the U.S.

Some Historical Highlights of Materials Education in the United States

A broad perspective of education in the materials field is aided by recognition of the sequence in which the use of the major classes of materials must have developed. If prehistoric times are considered, there is no doubt that man’s dependence on, and hence his concern with, polymeric materials (natural fiber and wood for clothing and shelter) far predates his use of any other type of material, including ceramics (Stone Age) and metals (Bronze Age). Formal education in the science and engineering of any of these materials could not, of course, develop until science and engineering themselves took form in comparatively recent times. Yet, it is interesting to note that many pure sciences were born out of applied science; materials technology was in many ways the precursor of much physical science just as the beginnings of chemistry were grounded in extractive metallurgy. The formation of disciplines within the materials family undoubtedly arose in an order dictated by many factors, but one may speculate that foremost among these were the complexity of the chemical manipulations required to isolate useful materials, and the urgency with which they were needed.

If this is so, the reasons for the preoccupation of materials-science education with metals become clear. Most metals, as used, are nearly pure elements or relatively simple mixtures of them, at least up to very recent times. The processes needed to produce them from their naturally-occurring ores are also simple, again with some notable exceptions such as the electrolytic production of aluminum. The interest of the alchemists in precious metals must have contributed much to the early stages of the science of metallurgy. Additionally, the accessibility of metals, the relative ease with which they can be processed, and their serviceability in answering man’s needs for materials provided the impetus for the early development of the science and engineering of metals, which we now call metallurgy.

Ceramics, on the other hand, are both more complicated chemically and much less tractable. The need for these materials was great in certain areas related to metals processing, such as the refractory materials used to line furnaces or molds. Therefore, a limited portion of the science and engineering of ceramics grew up concurrently with the rise of metallurgy. Other parts of the empirical approach to manipulating brick, clay, sand, and cement chiefly into construction materials developed as a specialized branch of chemistry or chemical engineering. However, the basic science of ceramics has been some two or three decades behind that of metallurgy, principally because of the greater variation of ceramic structures on the atomic scale.

In striking contrast, organic polymers or macromolecules are materials of enormous chemical complexity, whose basic long-chain nature was still in doubt even in the 1920’s. Thus, polymer science and engineering has of necessity developed even more recently, and education in this field came after the systematization of metallurgy and ceramics.

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

Hence, it is not surprising that the first of the several materials disciplines to advance to the point where separate educational programs and curricula could develop was metallurgy. With the increased tempo of technological advances together with the proliferation of scientific and engineering knowledge, and the consequent need for specialization, formal education in MSE began in separate departments or subdepartments (often within chemistry or chemical engineering) or in schools of mining or mineral products in the early years of the present century. The early departments were also concerned to a lesser extent with nonmetallics, for the reasons cited above.

The Morrill Act of 1862 establishing the Land-Grant Colleges for training to meet society’s obvious needs in “Agriculture and the Mechanic Arts” was a landmark which signalled the beginnings of the great State universities of the U.S. Because of their mandate to supply manpower to the developing materials-industrial base of the nation, these institutions were to produce a large percentage of the trained materials specialists of the country—from the Colorado School of Mines to the State Universities of Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Other early materials departments were closely associated with specific local industries in which their graduates expected to find employment. Thus, well-established departments of metallurgy grew up in the major centers of the steel and nonferrous industries (Lehigh in Bethlehem, Carnegie-Mellon in Pittsburgh, Case Western Reserve in Cleveland, Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago). In some of the earlier departments to be formed, the faculty took a national rather than local view of the industry which they were serving. They developed close associations with some of the major metal industries across the country. Notable in this group were Columbia and Yale. One of the few examples of a department being established because of the needs of a metals-consuming industry is that of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute near the main plant of the General Electric Company in Schenectady.

Some of the early departments of metallurgy had some faculty who specialized in ceramics. As the science of ceramics developed, the subgroups within metallurgy departments which were concerned with this subject tended to expand and in some cases to separate themselves from the parent department. Before the Second World War, some 16–20 such groups existed. However, in those states where the refractory, whiteware, glass, and related industries were important, the ceramics section or departments tended to grow parallel to the metallurgy effort and sometimes in competition with it, e.g. at the Universities of Illinois, Ohio State, and Penn State. About a half-dozen institutions carried on a very large fraction of the nation’s education in ceramic science and technology (including, in the case of Alfred University, some work on the aesthetic and artistic development of these materials).

The early educational efforts related to polymers were largely descriptive rather than scientific, since they predated the development of polymer science and engineering. Courses in the technology of polymeric materials were developed as long ago as 1908 for the paper industry, and subsequently in the 1920’s and 1930’s for the textile, rubber, and paint and varnish industries. Emphasis on plastics per se came later still, for these are largely synthetic materials whereas the above-mentioned industries were originally based entirely on naturally-occurring polymers. It was not until the late 1930’s that the research on polymerization, carried out

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

chiefly in industrial laboratories, provided a sound basis for the science of synthetic polymers. Organized curricula treating polymers as a science developed only after the Second World War, by which time the dependence of industry on polymeric materials was firmly established; for example, in electrical insulation for radar and television use, and rubbers for seals, gaskets, hoses, and tires. Most of these curricula have remained within the parent departments (again usually chemistry or chemical engineering) with a few notable exceptions. The first separate effort to achieve prominence was at the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, with others formally organized more recently (chiefly after 1960) in the Universities of Akron, Case Western Reserve, and Massachusetts, and informally at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and at various industry-oriented institutions such as paper and textile institutes. In general, these departments or subdepartments concerned with polymeric materials have had little or no connection with the older metallurgy/ceramic departments. Starting in the 1960’s, however, departments which grew out of metallurgy and aspired to cover materials more broadly have added courses in ceramics and polymers to their curricula.

The materials departments established before 1930 were often associated organizationally or conceptually with chemistry or chemical engineering and most of the faculty were drawn from those backgrounds. In a few places, the organizational link with chemical engineering has been maintained, as for example at Syracuse University. Yet, for the most part the academic development has not remained closely associated with the development of chemistry, and in some instances (e.g. at the University of Michigan), a long-standing link with chemical engineering has been severed. Once formed, the materials departments have tended to be little influenced by the parent chemical discipline. Moreover, after 1930 a major change occurred. The advances in solid-state physics started to exert a much greater influence on the content of curricula in materials. The flowering, first of metal physics and then of semiconductor physics, provided a great challenge for, as well as a great impact on, pedagogy in the materials field. Since 1960 the trend towards higher-bandgap materials has further emphasized physical inquiry on ceramic or semi-insulator materials. Most of the groups concerned with polymers also started, as stated earlier, in chemistry or chemical engineering departments; they, too, have been absorbing more from the discipline of physics in recent years.

Developments within materials departments have also been influenced, to a large extent, by the changes in general attitude and approach to undergraduate and graduate education in engineering. All of the early programs were designed to produce a qualified and professional metallurgist or ceramist at the bachelor’s level. Many of the graduates of such programs went directly into industry and were expected to be useful engineers very shortly after graduation. The early graduate programs were designed to lead to the doctorate and from the beginning had a strong science orientation. One trend in engineering generally over the last ten years has been to push the primary professional qualification to the master’s level. The undergraduate degree has, therefore, tended to become a more general type of education and a suitable basis for further work in a variety of professions. To some extent, the development of materials-degree programs along these lines has lagged behind those in other areas or engineering; there remains a strong inclination

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

for such departments to seek accreditation for their respective bachelor’s degrees as the first professional qualification.

Let us now turn to describing the materials teaching and training activities associated with:

  1. Degrees carrying the formal designation of materials science and/or engineering, or any one of the material classes (metallurgy, ceramics, polymer science); and

  2. Degrees in all the materials-related sciences and engineering disciplines.

Instructional Activities

In every field of technology, the contribution of universities to society is educated manpower. Correspondingly, the field of materials draws on the products of the universities’ instructional activities from several disciplines and in two major categories: (a) those departments or degree programs which are formally designated as materials (i.e. materials science, solid-state science, materials engineering, metallurgy, ceramics, polymer science and/or engineering) and hence, are wholly dedicated to the field; and (b) the materials-related disciplines which also contribute in a substantial way to the development of the field, but each of which is only partly concerned with materials as such. Corresponding data from a wide variety of university and manpower statistics (from the National Science Foundation, Engineering Council for Professional Development, Engineering Manpower Commission, the National Academy of Sciences) have been analyzed in addition to the new data obtained from the COSMAT questionnaires in order to develop the following account.

Materials-Designated Departments

In Table 7.29 are listed 89 U.S. universities with their degree programs designated as in the materials area. The degrees include metallurgy, metallurgical engineering, ceramic engineering, metallurgy and materials science, solid-state science, materials science, and polymers. Of these 89, at least 45 have graduate or undergraduate programs with the word materials in the title, as part of a phrase such as materials science, materials engineering, solid-state science (taken to be equivalent to materials science). There are 31 programs with titles involving only metallurgy, though 8 of the 14 materials and solid-state science programs have evolved from those in metallurgy. In contrast, there are only 14 degree programs in ceramics and 4 in polymerics (not including degrees in chemistry with specialization in polymers), in spite of the current wide use of the latter materials.

These program titles have changed significantly in the last decade; in 1960, there were virtually no programs with the word materials in the title. Table 7.30 lists the titles existing in 1964 and 1970 as simple evidence of this change.

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

TABLE 7.29 Materials-Designated Degree Programs+

G=Grad; U=Undergrad; B=Both; #=Also has interdisciplinary research center

 

CERAMICS

METALLURGY

POLYMERICS

MATERIALS (Departmental) *denotes hybrid title, usually with Met.

MATERIALS (Interdiscip.)

PART OF LARGER UNIT++

Akron #

 

 

G

 

 

 

Alabama

 

B

 

 

 

 

Arizona

 

B

 

 

 

 

Brooklyn Polytech.

 

B

 

 

 

 

Brown #

 

 

 

 

 

B

California, Berkeley #

 

 

 

B

 

 

California, Los Angeles

 

 

 

B*

 

 

California State Polytech. College

 

B

 

 

 

 

California, San Jose

 

 

 

B

 

 

Carnegie-Mellon

 

 

 

B*

 

 

Case Western #

 

 

G

B*

 

 

Chicago #

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cincinnati

 

 

 

B

 

 

Clemson

B

 

 

 

G

 

Cleveland State

 

B

 

 

 

 

Colorado Mines

 

B

 

 

 

 

Columbia

 

 

 

 

 

B

Connecticut #

 

B

 

 

 

 

Cornell #

 

 

 

B

 

 

Delaware

 

U

 

 

 

 

Denver

 

 

 

G*

 

 

Drexel

 

B

 

 

 

 

Florida

 

 

 

B*

 

 

Georgia Tech

B

G

 

 

 

 

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

G=Grad; U=Undergrad; B=Both; #=Also has interdisciplinary research center

 

CERAMICS

METALLURGY

POLYMERICS

MATERIALS (Departmental) *denotes hybrid title, usually with Met.

MATERIALS (Interdiscip.)

PART OF LARGER UNIT++

Grove City

 

U

 

 

 

 

Harvard #

 

 

 

 

 

B

Idaho

 

B

 

 

 

 

Illinois Chicago Cir.

 

 

 

B*

 

 

Illinois, Urbana #

B

B

 

 

 

 

Illinois Tech.

 

 

 

B*

 

 

Iowa State

B

B

 

 

 

 

Kentucky

 

 

 

B*

 

 

Lafayette

 

U

 

 

 

 

Lehigh #

 

 

 

B*

 

 

Marquette

 

 

 

 

B

 

Maryland

 

 

 

G*

 

 

Massachusetts #

 

 

G

 

 

B

M.I.T. #

G

G

 

B*

 

G

Michigan

 

 

 

B*

 

 

Michigan State

 

 

 

B*

 

 

Michigan Tech.

 

B

 

 

 

 

Minnesota

 

 

 

 

 

B

Mississippi State

 

 

 

B

 

 

Missouri-Rolla #

B

B

 

 

 

 

Montana College Min. Sci.

 

B

 

 

 

 

Nebraska

 

 

 

 

 

B

Nevada

 

B

 

 

 

 

New Mexico Institute

 

 

 

 

 

B

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

G=Grad; U=Undergrad; B=Both; #=Also has interdisciplinary research center

 

CERAMICS

METALLURGY

POLYMERICS

MATERIALS (Departmental) *denoted hybrid title, usually with Met.

MATERIALS (Interdiscip.)

PART OF LARGER UNIT++

New York State, Alfred

B

 

 

 

 

 

New York State, Stony Brook

 

 

 

G*

 

 

New York University

 

 

 

B*

 

 

North Carolina State

U

 

 

B*

 

 

North Carolina University #

 

 

 

 

 

 

Northwestern #

 

 

 

B

 

 

Notre Dame

 

 

 

B*

 

 

Ohio State

B

B

 

 

 

 

Oklahoma

 

B

 

 

 

 

Oregon State

 

B

 

G*

 

 

Penn State #

B

B

U

 

G

B

Pennsylvania #

 

 

 

B*

 

 

Pittsburgh

 

 

 

B*

 

 

Princeton

 

 

 

 

G

 

Purdue #

 

 

 

B*

 

 

Rennselaer Poly. #

 

 

 

B*

 

 

Rice #

 

 

 

B*

 

 

Rochester

 

 

 

 

G

 

Rutgers

B

 

 

 

 

 

So. California #

 

 

 

B*

 

 

South Dakota Mines

 

B

 

 

 

 

Stanford #

 

 

 

B

 

 

Stevens

 

B

 

 

 

 

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

G=Grad; U=Undergrad; B=Both; #=Also has interdisciplinary research center

 

CERAMICS

METALLURGY

POLYMERICS

MATERIALS (Departmental) *denoted hybrid title, usually with Met.

MATERIALS (Interdiscip.)

PART OF LARGER UNIT++

Syracuse

 

 

 

 

G

 

Tennessee

 

 

 

 

 

B

Texas

 

 

 

 

 

B

Texas (El Paso)

 

B

 

 

 

 

U.S. Naval Acad. (Post Grad)

 

 

 

 

 

B

Utah #

 

B

 

B*

 

 

Vanderbilt

 

 

 

B*

 

 

Virginia

 

 

 

B

 

 

Virginia Polytech.

B

 

 

G*

 

 

Washington #

B

 

 

 

 

 

Washington State

B

B

 

 

 

 

Washington University St. Louis #

 

 

 

 

G

 

Wayne State

 

B

 

 

 

 

West Virginia

 

 

 

 

 

B

Wisconsin, Madison #

 

B

 

 

G

 

Wisconsin, Milwaukee

 

 

 

B*

 

 

Yale

 

 

 

 

 

B

Youngstown U.

 

 

 

B*

 

 

+ These data are combined from reports of ECPD, the Engineering Manpower Commission, NSF Report 71–27 and J.Nielsen’s Education Yearbook.

++ Programs are typically combined with Chem. Eng. (Ch), Mech. Eng. (Mech) or part of a goal, Engineering (Eng) or Applied Physics (AP) degree.

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

TABLE 7.30 Materials-Designated Departmental Title Changes from 1964 to 1970

A. U.S. Schools with Metallurgy Faculties

Departmental Title

1964

 

1970

 

Mining and Metallurgy

1

 

 

Mining and Metallurgical Engineering

3

 

 

Mining Engineering and Metallurgy

1

 

1

 

Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineering

1

 

1

 

Mining, Metallurgical, and Mineral Engineering

1

 

1

 

Mining, Metallurgical, and Ceramic Engineering

 

1

 

 

7

 

4

Minerals and Metallurgical Engineering

1

 

 

Mineral Technology

1

 

1

 

Mineral Engineering

 

1

 

Metallurgical and Mineral Engineering

 

1

 

 

2

3

 

Ceramic and Metallurgical Engineering

1

 

 

Metals and Ceramic Engineering

1

 

1

 

 

2

 

1

Metallurgy

9

 

7

 

Metallurgical Engineering

21

 

13

 

Physical and Engineering Metallurgy

 

1

 

Institute for the Study of Metals

1

 

 

Metallurgy and Materials Science

2

 

7

 

Metallurgical Engineering and Materials Science

1

 

2

 

Metallurgy and Materials Engineering

1

 

2

 

Metallurgy, Mechanics, and Materials Science

1

 

1

 

 

36

 

33

Materials Science and Engineering

1

 

2

 

Materials Science and Metallurgical Engineering

 

3

 

Materials and Metallurgical Engineering

 

1

 

Materials Science

4

 

6

 

Materials

 

2

 

Materials Engineering

1

 

3

 

 

6

 

17

Carry Forward

 

53

 

58

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

A. U.S. Schools with Metallurgy Faculties

Departmental Title

1964

 

1970

 

Carried Forward

 

53

 

58

Chemical Engineering (with materials)

10

 

10

 

Mechanical Engineering (with materials)

4

 

6

 

Engineering (with materials)

2

 

4

 

 

16

 

20

Total Departments:

 

69

 

78

Total Associated Metallurgy/Materials Faculty:

522

 

758

 

Total Associated Metallurgy/Materials Graduate Students:

1583

 

2222

 

Total Associated Metallurgy/Materials Seniors:

864

 

851

 

B. U.S. Schools with Ceramics Faculties

Departmental Title

1964

 

1970

 

School (College) of Ceramics

2

 

2

 

Ceramic Engineering

7

 

6

 

Ceramic Technology

1

 

 

Mineral Engineering

1

 

 

Mineral Technology

 

1

 

 

11

 

9

Ceramic and Metallurgical Engineering

1

 

 

Materials Program

1

 

1

 

Metals and Ceramic Engineering

 

1

 

Mining, Metallurgical, and Ceramic Engineering

 

1

 

Metallurgy and Materials Science

 

1

 

Materials Science and Engineering

 

2

 

Materials Engineering

 

2

 

Engineering

 

1

 

 

2

 

9

Total Departments:

 

13

 

18

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

Total Associated Ceramics Faculty:

76

 

136

 

Total Associated Ceramics Graduate Students:

265

 

307

 

Total Associated Ceramics Seniors:

222

 

253

 

(Data taken from the series of Education Yearbooks by J.P.Nielsen)

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

An overall description of all the materials-degree programs at U.S. universities is given in Table 7.31. It is striking that, in view of the changing titles of the programs discussed above, there appear to be only a very few (less than 10) really new programs. Not all of these are interdisciplinary in nature, and most of them are small. In general, the constraints of the university structure make it easier to modify existing programs than to start new ones, and it is more difficult to operate in an interdisciplinary fashion than within existing departmental frameworks. Nevertheless, two or three strong new interdisciplinary programs have emerged. Other points to note are the frequency (55%) of cases in which the graduate enrollment is larger than the undergraduate; the predominance of metallurgy backgrounds among the faculties; and the concentration in industry as the first employers of graduates with advanced degrees.

While new programs typically appear to lean towards science, more program titles contain the word engineering than science in cases where only one of these words is mentioned. Curricula in metallurgical or ceramic engineering are among those with the largest undergraduate enrollments in any of the MSE programs (“engineering” in this context usually means a concern with the technology of the production and application of a designated class of material together with some understanding of the science relevant to the technology). In these programs, there is frequently considerable emphasis on laboratory courses and nearly all of them contain a project or dissertation requirement in the final year. However, the laboratory courses in the junior years tend to be traditional and the final-year projects are often small laboratory experiments reflecting the scientific, rather than the engineering, interests of the supervisor. Relatively few projects were discovered which were intended to give the senior student a realistic experience of modern problem-solving design engineering. At the graduate level, few of the materials-designated programs seem to have a substantial engineering or technology content; more often they can be described as applied-science-oriented. Less than a dozen D. Eng. or equivalent doctoral degrees have been awarded in materials in any recent year, the Ph.D. and Sc.D. being overwhelmingly more popular where there is a choice. Similarly, where a department offers both science and engineering options, the latter is typically less popular and may amount to only a paper exercise. It also seems more difficult to design engineering courses which deal with all types of materials rather than just one. These characteristics of the curricula are significantly at variance with the emphasis being sought by some industrial employers.

The distribution of faculty in materials departments among the full, associate, and assistant professorships as a function of departmental size is similar to that in other departments of science and engineering schools. The proportion of tenured faculty also appears to be in the expected range. In the majority of departments, a high percentage of the faculty members have Ph.D. degrees.

Table 7.32 shows the relation between graduate faculty and postdoctoral staff for materials-designated departments compared to that of all physical sciences and all engineering. Although intermediate, the proportion of postdoctorals in materials is closer to that in the sciences than in engineering, again reflecting the strong science orientation of the graduate materials programs.

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

TABLE 7.31 Data on Materials-Designated Degree Programs (Listed in order of average number of Ph.D.’s/yr)

STUDENTS

 

FACULTY

 

First employers of 1971 M.S. + Ph.D. graduates

 

Field (%)

No. Jr-Srs (av.)

No. Grad. Stud. (av.)

Total Students (av.) (Upperclass + Grad)

No. BS/yr (av. 5 yrs)

No. MS/yr (av. 5 yrs)

No. Ph.D. (av. 5 yrs)

Total No. Degrees (av. last 5 yrs)

% Industry

% Government

% University

% Other

Postdoctoral

Total Faculty

FTE Faculty

Tenured

% with Ph.D.’s

Materials Sci.

Materials Eng.

Metallurgy

Ceramics

Polymerics

Chemistry

Physics

Engineering

Other

37.8

146

184

14.6

12.4

29.8

57

75

3

17

5

4

30

28

21

97

56

10

17

17

74

146

220

35.4

14.6

24.6

75

53

7

28

12

24

37

28

27

95

8

22

8

5

24

14

8

8

49

115

164

27.4

16.0

16.8

60

73+

3

18

6

10

21

21

15

95

70

20

40

30

10

20

10

49.6

97

147

24.6

14

14.8

53

72

16

12

2

22

18

12

100

6

15

30

6

8

10

8

5

5

14.2

89

103

5.2

7.6

14

27

35

7

43

16

17

17

15

100

13

47

6

12

6

12

6

104

104

7.8

3.8

13.4

25

85

10

5

7

16

16

12

94

7

14

44

14

7

14

75

86

161

32.2

15.6

13.0

51

71

19

10

NA

27

16

22

88

8

53

50

7

8

20

8

20

8

17

125

87

212

25.2

17.8

12

55

70

8

22

37

22

7

20

100

8

46

78

15

11

8

11

23

1

81

82

1.6

16.6

11.8

30

40

50

10

9

15

13

13

100

20

20

7

20

33

53

68

121

26.6

21.0

9.8

57

85

4

4

7

6

20

9

16

100

7

3

4

2

0

1

1

0

2

56

26

82

26.4

3.6

8.6

39

84

9

7

2

11

9

6

80

70

20

10

32.4

47

79

25.4

17.8

8.0

5

165

15

20

1

15

15

10

86

7

62

14

17

13.8

56

70

11.4

5.8

8.0

25

58

6

24

12

10

13

13

9

92

74

46

8

30

12

11.4

52

63

5.8

4.8

7.6

18

49

3

45

3

8

13

13

11

100

8

76

8

8

87

55

142

41

18.4

6.2

66

80

15

5

3

18

16

16

55

63

9

71

9

14

9

14

23

29

52

9.6

9.0

6.0

25

60

10

15

15

4

15

13

14

93

7

40

13

13

13

7

7

39.4

53

92

16

16.8

5.6

38

62

8

15

15

2

16

15

10

91

38

31

13

19

16.8

41

58

6.0

6.0

5.2

17

38

21

18

23.3

50

18

17

12

90

40

10

10

20

5

15

55.8

60

116

24.2

9.8

4.6

39

70

10

20

3

14

13

55

76

28

44

67

14

16

14

16

15.6

30

46

9

4

13

65

1

5

26

4

27

27

15

80

4

67

15

7

4

17

17

4.4

3.6

8

 

 

 

 

0

12

6

7

92

75

8

8

8

 

24

24

12.2

2.4

4.2

19

44

21

35

6

10

10

7

100

2

1

3

3

1

23.8

17

41

 

3.0

3.4

6

73

0

20

2

7

9

6

100

17

83

 

32

32

13.2

7.6

2.6

23

75

20

5

20

11

10

7

100

33

33

33

26.4

29

55

20.8

5.8

2.6

29

75

10

15

4

14

10

4

86

36

55

9

54

27

81

1.4

8.2

2.6

12

30

14

37

19

2

13

13

12

85

16

56

7

7

7

7

2.8

9

12

6.6

0.4

2.4

9

 

 

 

 

3

4

4

4

100

1

3

1

13

15

28

5.6

2.8

2.0

10

39

9

48

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11.6

15

27

2.6

3.2

2.0

8

67+

13

20

0

7

6

7

86

100

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

STUDENTS

 

FACULTY

 

First employers of 1971 M.S. + Ph.D. graduates

 

Field (%)

No. Jr-Srs (av.)

No. Grad. Stud. (av.)

Total Students (av.) (Upperclass + Grad)

No. BS/yr (av. 5 yrs)

No. MS/yr (av. 5 yrs)

No. of Ph.D./yr (av. 5 yrs)

Total No. Degrees (av. last 5 yrs)

% INDUSTRY

% GOVERNMENT

% UNIVERSITY

% OTHER

Postdoctoral

Total Faculty

FTE Faculty

Tenured

% with Ph.D.’s

Materials Sci.

Materials Eng.

Metallurgy

Ceramics

Polymerics

Chemistry

Physics

Engineering

Other

12.6

20

33

23.6

0.4

2.0

26

50

50

2

22

14

10

20

2

4

2

1

5

2

47.6

18

66

6.2

7.8

1.6

16

45

22

33

3

10

10

8

90

70

10

10

10

12.6

14

27

14.2

4.6

1.6

20

70

20

10

0

6

4

6

6

83

17

28

18

46

 

8.6

1.6

10

69

5

26

0

12

8

4

75

25

8

8

17

25

8

26

15

41

11.2

2.2

1.4

15

80

20

1

7

7

5

100

6

1

 

21

21

 

6.2

0.8

7

57

14

3

26

1

10

12

7

70

30

20

10

20

10

10

114

20

134

48

9.4

0.6

58

90

10

1

19

15

6

79

21

16

53

5

5

15.4

14

29

5.2

3.6

0.2

9

3

10

10

7

90

30

50

10

10

40.2

24

64

 

6.0

0.1

6

22

22

44

11

1

8

8

1

87

13

13

25

13

25

13

24.4

8

32

 

3.4

0

3

50

20

20

10

0

5

5

4

100

40

100

9

2

11

4.8

2.6

0

7

75

0

3

0

3

67

100

9.6

8

18

3.8

2.8

0

7

 

 

 

 

NA

4

4

NA

100

25

50

25

8.8

3

12

2.8

1.6

0

4

80

3

0

0

3

3

0

66

7

33

17.2

16

33

6.4

5.8

0

12

80

20

0

0

NA

8

8

8

90

35

50

15

13.2

2

15

7.0

4.8

0

12

85

5

10

0

6

5

NA

3

50

50

5.4

 

5

2.4

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

NA

22

NA

13

100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

4

4

3

75

25

25

75

16.2

 

16

8

 

 

8

 

 

 

 

1

6

6

5

100

59

16

25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

14

11.5

9

93

9

38

38

15

18

6

24

4.3

 

 

4

 

 

 

 

0

8

8

7

88

20

60

10

43.6

6

50

11.2

 

 

11

80

4

12

4

0

13

7

1

90

30

10

40

5

5

5

5

A. Totals from COSMAT Returns

1409

1868

3292

588

348

259

1182

 

 

 

 

 

655

532

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B. National Totals (from other sources)

 

~920

~460

~270

 

 

 

 

 

 

749

 

 

Percentage A/B×100

 

64%

76%

96%

 

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

TABLE 7.32 Full-time Faculty and Postdoctorals, 1970

 

Total Faculty

Graduate Faculty

Postdoctorals

All fields

58,022

49,332

8,940

Engineering

11,830

9,985

791

Metallurgy and Materials

622

583

125

(Percent of all Engineering)

(5.3)

(6.8)

(15.8)

Physical Sciences

10,925

9,785

3,730

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

The size range of undergraduate enrollments in relation to the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) faculty in the materials-designated departments is shown in Figure 7.22. The data scatter widely, but the spread is reduced when the combined graduate and undergraduate student enrollment is considered, as in Figure 7.23. The faculty-student ratio is still high, at about 1 to 10 and is rather insensitive to the size of the department. In terms of total number of students, there are two large departments with more than 200 students; 25 departments having between 50 and 200 students; and 20 small departments with less than 50 students.

Graduate enrollments in materials-designated departments and their percentages of those for the corresponding engineering schools are shown in Figure 7.24 which indicates that the proportion of materials students has not changed much over the period 1967–1971. The proportion of foreign graduate students (Figure 7.25) is approximately 30% overall, compared to 20% among graduate students in physical sciences, 36% among graduate students in engineering, and 41.6% among materials-designated graduate students, as reported recently (NSF 1971, No. 71–27). In the latter report, only the materials-related fields of mining, agriculture, and petroleum engineering had more foreign graduate students than the materials-designated fields.

The data in Tables 7.33 and 7.34 show the proportion of graduate students by type of support and by the sources of federal support (data derived from NSF 71–27). The proportion of research assistants in metallurgy and materials (56.5%) is the highest in all engineering and in all fields, and the fraction of support from DoD (33.8%) and AEC (21.5%), for graduate students in metallurgy and materials is also higher than for other fields.

The size distribution of materials-designated departments in terms of number of doctoral degrees granted is illustrated in Figure 7.26. These results (taken from Engineering Manpower Commission, 1971) pertain to a median department size of 21–30 students. Of the 51 departments with doctoral programs in materials, 2 awarded 20%, 8 awarded 50%, and 19 awarded 75%. Over a quarter of the departments graduated 5 or less Ph.D.’s in 1970–71. The questionnaire data on this point (Figure 7.27) indicate an even larger proportion graduated by the larger schools.

The distribution among materials-designated departments of doctor’s master’s, and bachelor’s degrees awarded is shown in Figures 7.27, 7.28, and 7.29, respectively (Questionnaire data). The distribution of B.S. degrees is similar to that reported in the Nielson Education Yearbook (1969) for the number of senior students in 85 metallurgy departments. Of the 49 departments reporting undergraduate data in the COSMAT questionnaire, 25 graduated less than 10 students per year averaged over the period 1967–1971, whereas two awarded more than 45 B.S. degrees per year and two more between 30 and 40. Among these four, however, there was little correlation between the sizes of the undergraduate and graduate programs, only one department having large numbers in both groups.

Among the departments awarding materials-designated Ph.D. degrees, the largest producer graduated 30 per year on the average, and only two others awarded more than 15 per year. Of the 50 departments reporting, 24 awarded fewer than 6 Ph.D.’s per year, but some of these had relatively large undergraduate enrollments.

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

FIG. 7.22 UNDERGRADUATE ENROLLMENTS IN MATERIALS-DESIGNATED DEPARTMENTS

(AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTAL OF JUNIORS AND SENIORS FROM 1967 TO 1971)

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

FIG. 7.23 TOTAL STUDENT ENROLLMENT IN MATERIALS-DESIGNATED DEPARTMENTS

(AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS OF RESIDENT GRADUATE STUDENTS PLUS JUNIORS AND SENIORS FROM 1967 TO 1971)

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

FIG. 7.24(a) SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF GRADUATE MATERIALS-DESIGNATED DEPARTMENTS

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

FIG. 7.24(b) FULL-TIME GRADUATE ENROLLMENTS IN MATERIALS DESIGNATED DEPARTMENTS AS PERCENTAGE OF CORRESPONDING ENGINEERING GRADUATE ENROLLMENTS.

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

FIG. 7.25 PROPORTION OF FOREIGN FULL-TIME GRADUATE STUDENTS IN MATERIALS-DESIGNATED DEPARTMENTS

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

TABLE 7.33 Full-Time Graduate Students by Type of Support, 1970

 

Fellowship & Traineeship

Research Assistant

Teaching Assistant

Other

All fields

(145,970 students)

27.7%

21.4%

24.4%

26.5%

Engineering

(31,491 students)

23.8%

30.0%

14.0%

32.3%

Metallurgy and Materials

(1,836 students)

20.5%

56.6%

10.5%

12.3%

Physical Sciences

(29,522 students)

20.9%

30.6%

36.3%

12.2%

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

TABLE 7.34 Sources of Federal Support for Full-Time Graduate Students, 1970

 

Departments of

 

Department of

 

Other U.S. Government

 

AEC

Agriculture

DoD

NDEA

NIH

Other

NASA

NSF

All fields

(100%)

5.5%

2.2%

10.6%

9.8%

24.6%

3.3%

4.0%

27.8%

12.2%

Engineering

(100%)

6.7%

0.5%

24.3%

6.1%

8.6%

1.7%

8.5%

26.8%

16.8%

Metallurgy and Materials

(100%)

21.5%

33.8%

4.8%

4.5%

5.2%

24.5%

5.8%

Physical Sciences

(100%)

13.4%

0.1%

12.3%

7.8%

10.6%

1.0%

5.6%

41.6%

7.8%

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

FIG. 7.26 SIZE OF METALLURGY AND MATERIALS DEPARTMENTS BASED ON DOCTORATES AWARDED IN 1970–71.

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

FIG. 7.27 DEPARTMENTAL SIZE DISTRIBUTION BASED ON DOCTORATES AWARDED

NO. OF Ph.D.’s (5 YR.AV.) GRADUATED FROM 50 MATERIALS-DESIGNATED DEPARTMENTS REPORTING ON GRADUATE PROGRAMS

TOTAL (AVERAGE): 270 Ph.D.’s/YR

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

FIG. 7.28 DEPARTMENTAL SIZE DISTRIBUTION BASED ON MASTERS DEGREES AWARDED

NO. OF M.S. DEGREES (5 YR.AV.) GRADUATED FROM 51 SCHOOLS REPORTING ON GRADUATE PROGRAMS

TOTAL (AVERAGE): 354 M.S./YR

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

FIG. 7.29 DEPARTMENTAL SIZE DISTRIBUTION BASED ON BACHELORS DEGREES AWARDED

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

The total numbers of materials-designated degrees are plotted as a function of year in Figure 7.30 (data taken from Radcliffe (1969) and later Engineering Manpower Commission). For comparison, data for all engineering fields are given in Figure 7.31, and the proportion of materials to all engineering degrees in Figure 7.32. The number of bachelors degrees conferred by materials-designated departments has remained at about 2.5% of the total bachelors degrees conferred in all fields of engineering.

The conclusion is clear that the graduate degree output in materials has grown in a manner rather similar to the overall growth in engineering education. There is no evidence in these data for any special increase in materials degree production that reflects the substantial federal block-support of materials centers* during the period since the early 1960’s; in fact, the proportion of “materials” Ph.D. degrees has declined relative to those of all engineering fields since the late 1950’s—see Figure 7.32.

Curricula in the materials field, whether considered at the graduate or undergraduate level, can scarcely be discussed from a unified point of view. They exist as, and can only be described as, groups of curricula in materials science, materials engineering, in metallurgy, in ceramics, in polymerics, etc.

Table 7.35 lists the number of undergraduate curricula accredited by the Engineers’ Council for Professional Development (ECPD) in the materials area. The dichotomy mentioned above can be seen here: It is appropriate to group the “metallurgy and materials” curricula (by name) in a single group (57), and those dealing with ceramics (13) separately. There are no specific undergraduate curricula accredited in the polymer field, but the 19 dealing with mining form a separate group. The universities in which all these curricula exist have been listed in Table 7.29.

The content of undergraduate materials curricula emphasizing metallurgy changed drastically during the 1940’s and 1950’s. Before that time, emphasis

*  

Since the support of these centers is typically concentrated in the materials-designated departments and the physics departments (followed by chemistry), an attempt was made to check whether there was a major increase caused by materials center funding on the output of physics degrees. In the 1971 Survey of Physics, Table 9A in the Appendix to the Bromley Report, it is possible to compute the average increase in physics Ph.D. degrees granted between the two separate periods 1961–65 and 1966–70. One can also separate those universities receiving block funds for support of a materials center (see later for definition) and those not receiving such funds. Inasmuch as the percentage changes tended to be very large in the smaller universities (typically not block funded for materials), only those universities which produced more than 100 Ph.D.’s in 1966–70 were counted. In this group, it is difficult to perceive an increase in physics Ph.D. production caused by the materials-center programs. The block-funded universities increased their physics Ph.D. degrees an average of 50%, whereas the nonblock-funded schools increased 56%. Nevertheless, the advent of block funding undoubtedly spurred the formation of other materials centers and also inspired a new materials focus in the graduate education of many science (and engineering) students whom COSMAT could not specifically identify as “materials majors.”

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

FIG. 7.30 NUMBER OF DEGREES AT VARIOUS LEVELS AWARDED BY MATERIALS-DESIGNATED DEPARTMENTS

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

FIG. 7.31 ENGINEERING DEGREES IN ALL FIELDS (US ECPD SCHOOLS)

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

FIG. 7.32 MATERIALS-DESIGNATED DEGREES AS PERCENTAGE OF CORRESPONDING ENGINEERING DEGREES AT ECPD SCHOOLS

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

TABLE 7.35 Curricula Data from 39th ECPD Annual Report, 1971

The following are the undergraduate curricula accredited in the “materials” area:

 

Ceramic Engineering

12 (+ 1 option)

Ceramic Science

1

 

13

Engineering Materials

— (1 option)

Materials Engineering

4 (+ 1 option)

Materials Science

3 (+ 1 option)

Materials Science and Engineering

3

Materials Science and Metallurgical Engineering

1

Materials Engineering

36

Metallurgy

4

Metallurgy and Materials Science

6

Metals Engineering

– (1 option)

 

57*

Mineral Dressing

1

Mineral Engineering

1

Mineral Process Engineering

– (1 option)

Mining Engineering

17

 

19

* Some of these curricula appear in the same department.

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

had been placed on the extraction and processing of metals, and curricula included courses in ore dressing and the production of iron and steel and of nonferrous metals. The faculty of the early departments had a strong background in chemistry, and attention was given to such subjects as corrosion and oxidation. The change in the 1940–1960 period was marked by a strong expansion of the area of physical metallurgy, and later what might be called a generalized science of materials (although still primarily metals) with a dominant theme of structure-property relationships. In some schools, this shift was nearly complete, with only a remnant interest in the processing of materials. In others, little change took place. Elsewhere, and in most cases, a compromise evolved between the old descriptive program and the more quantitative and analytical materials sciences.

Among materials-designated departments, some graduate metallurgy programs have moved far towards incorporating materials science concepts with emphasis on structure-property relationships. At the present time, several graduate curricula in “metallurgy and materials science” are designed to give a working understanding of solid-state physics and its application to real problems in the manipulation of materials. A fairly common pattern has emerged with core courses in phase transformations, defect theory (sometimes restricted to dislocation theory), thermodynamics of solids, mechanics of solids (quite often described as crystal mechanics), the mechanical behavior of real solids, and the electrical, magnetic, and optical properties of solids. Most graduate programs attempt to insure that the student receives a basic education in quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, band theory, and related theories of solid-state physics. In only a few instances has an equivalent emphasis been placed in the chemical or preparative aspects such as advanced phase equilibria, solid-state reaction kinetics and mechanisms, crystal growth, elemental analysis. This modest influence of chemistry is in sharp contrast to that of solid-state physics.

Over this period of change, several schools developed graduate programs in mineral processing and extractive metallurgy based primarily on chemistry. The curricula include, heterogeneous equilibria, solution thermodynamics, surface chemistry, reaction kinetics, transport processes, and similar subjects, as they apply to the production and refining of materials, particularly metals. In general, graduate research in these areas has found little federal support, in contrast to the encouragement given to research in materials science.

Some specific metal-production research was federally supported as in the case of AEC funding of studies on nuclear materials. Nevertheless, the general outcome over this period has been the discouragement of research and education at most schools in the actual production and refining of materials in favor of an emphasis on structure-property research.

The effects of the emergence of physical metallurgy, ceramic science, and their successor materials science upon the traditional metallurgy curriculum are more variable at the undergraduate level than at the graduate. Some departments oriented toward the terminal B.S. degree have programs with relatively less physical metallurgy and more process and extractive metallurgy, and with a focus on engineering rather than on theory. This pattern appears to have been influenced by a desire on the part of industry to employ B.S. graduates with fairly specific knowledge in metallurgy, ceramics, or

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

polymers rather than the more general exposure to all of these areas that constitute some “materials science” curricula. A few departments offer materials science as electives at the undergraduate level, in the junior and senior years. Most departments have continued with a compromise between an experience-intensive descriptive program and the more quantitative and analytical modern materials science.

The shift from descriptive to analytical curricula in the ceramics field has not gone as far as in metallurgy, inasmuch as the quantitative aspects of physical ceramics are just developing. The same is true of polymerics, the latest of the three materials-disciplines to develop. The departments dealing with polymeric and ceramic materials, moreover, are torn between the alternatives of providing bachelor-level technician-engineers for industry, or introducing more materials science in an advanced-degree program but delaying the availability of the fully qualified graduate accordingly. In the polymer field, it seems clear that a terminal bachelors degree is of limited value, whereas in ceramics this may still be otherwise.

The ten or twelve graduate-degree programs in materials science which are new within the last decade offer an opportunity to discover whether or not a new hybrid “discipline” or unified materials curriculum is emerging. These new curricula have all attempted to restructure the subject matter according to concepts other than the traditional disciplines. Typical sets of subdivisions which have emerged are shown in Figure 7.33.

There appears to be little difficulty in developing a materials science program along patterns similar to those in Figure 7.33, provided that the emphasis is on scientific principles and theory. Questions of the degree to which the individual courses should be applications-oriented rather than basic, and of how the technologies of the different materials should be introduced into the program, are more difficult, and several variations have evolved. Experience shows that it has been easier to design a new materials-science curriculum than to modify an existing one. Frequently such new programs have been able to capitalize on the interdisciplinary nature of the subject matter by using faculty from several departments in a university-wide program.

Some examples of new curricula are described in Appendix 7B. Not all conform to the concepts discussed above. In particular, it appears from a perusal of the curricula in polymer science and engineering that the degree of commonality among metals, ceramics, and polymers is apparently not sufficient to allow an across-the-board treatment of the technology of all three, even in a new program. The covalent carbon-carbon bond dominates the structure-property relationships of polymers to such an extent that major differences between polymers and other materials emerge. Especially at the points in the curriculum where chemistry becomes important, the training needed by a competent polymer scientist-engineer seems to be substantially different from that needed to train scientist-engineers specializing in other materials. To date, possibly because most polymer programs have had a base dominated by chemists and chemical engineers, the materials-oriented polymer degree is the exception rather than the rule.

During the last decade, most engineering schools have considered or implemented an undergraduate survey course in materials as a requirement for all engineers. Various properties, including mechanical, electrical,

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

FIGURE 7.33 Alternative Subfields of Materials Science Curricula

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

magnetic, optical, and chemical, are treated for a variety of materials, with particular emphasis placed on structure-property relationships. Often, a single course is given to students of the various engineering disciplines, rather than separate courses to each. The coverage is usually built predominantly on first-year subjects. Such a course must be limited in depth because of its breadth of subject matter. It is important that this necessary compromise should not isolate the course from the rest of the curriculum, a result which is not easy to achieve. Many schools have begun to regard this initial materials subject as a general materials course, much as the first chemistry subject may be a general chemistry course. The materials relationship to engineering design and practice is also considered significant, although as yet not fully implemented. However, it is remarkable that while most engineering curricula require such a course, virtually none of the science curricula do.

The emerging picture of materials science and engineering is one of an applied, problem-oriented, purposive discipline or cluster of disciplines, especially in comparison with the traditional sciences such as physics or biology. The question inevitably arises whether such a field can be studied adequately within the university, or whether interaction with industry is required. The principal form of such interaction (other than through job placement in materials-producing and consuming industries) appears to be at the undergraduate level in the various cooperative programs However, those associated with materials as such appear to be no more extensive or successful than those in chemical, mechanical, or civil engineering. While it may be that there has been insufficient effort to develop these cooperative programs, it seems more likely that a need for increasing this type of contact has not been expressed by industry.

Probably the most widespread form of communication between engineering schools and industry is through the consulting work of faculty members, and the associated industrial experiences surely influence both course content and mode of teaching. However, there are no reliable statistics to show that the faculty of materials departments are influenced any more in this way than are those of other engineering departments.

A significant question in this review of current materials programs is that of quality. The assessment of the quality in educational matters is an important but highly sensitive undertaking, since there is no simple way of combining the various parameters describing such programs so as to give an indication of general quality. Despite such difficulties, two “peer assessment” (or subjective) analyses of the relative quality of graduate programs in U.S. universities have been made covering the major disciplines in science, engineering, and the humanities (Cartter 196614 and Roose and Anderson 197115). Unfortunately, these studies did not include materials-designated programs.

14  

A.M.Cartter, An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education, American Council on Education, Washington, D.C., 1966.

15  

K.D.Roose and C.J.Anderson, A Rating of Graduate Programs, American Council on Education, Washington, D.C., 1971.

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

In an alternative approach to such “peer assessment,” the National Science Board16 analyzed a variety of physical parameters associated with universities and their relation to the quality of graduate programs. More recently, Elton and Rodgers17 have used similar parameters, and argued for a correlation between the quality of graduate physics departments assessed via these parameters and the ranking arrived at by the Roose-Anderson survey. Similar correlations have been suggested by Elton and Rodgers for other scientific fields. These various analyses point to strong correlations between program “size” and program “quality.” Such correlation is in keeping with the obvious difficulties of mounting graduate programs of range and depth with only a small faculty. Likewise, a small student enrollment reduces the opportunities for interactive learning that a large student group offers. Small size also may lead to pressures to convert formal courses to individual study or small-group seminars, which are less demanding on the faculty but often a less exacting experience for the student. However, as is well established, some students find that the individual attention they can receive in a small school can be very conducive to high “quality.”

Given the above experience with a wide range of other disciplines, the available relevant data for materials -designated departments have been plotted in terms of the relations among numbers of faculty, doctoral degrees awarded, and graduate-student enrollments. The choice of these size parameters conforms to the methodology of Eldon and Rodgers. The latter approach showed a consistent correlation between the position of a given school on such plots and the Roose-Anderson assessment of graduate-program quality. The resulting plots for the materials departments which are shown in Figures 7.34 and 7.35 do conform to the trend expected by Roose Anderson; if the general relation found for other disciplines holds for the materials field as well, the departments having the higher “strength” of graduate program are those for which the data points lie as indicated in Figures 7.34 and 7.35. These two plots correspond to comparisons of physical inputs (graduate students) and outputs (doctorate degrees). For both figures, it is found that the same 10 departments occupy the upper-strength regions of both diagrams. In alphabetical order, these schools are:

University of California (Berkeley)

Case Western Reserve University

University of Illinois

Lehigh University

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Northwestern University

Ohio State University

Penn State University

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Stanford University

16  

National Science Board, Graduate Education, Parameters of Public Policy, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office.

17  

C.F.Elton and S.A.Rodgers, “Physics Department Ratings: Another Evaluation,” Science 174 (4409) (5 November 1971) 565–568. (Elton and Rodgers have found the Cartter ratings for physics institutions to be essentially supported by objective data.

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

FIG. 7.34 “STRENGTH” OF GRADUATE PROGRAMS OF MATERIALS-DESIGNATED DEPARTMENTS AS INDICATED BY MODIFIED ELTON AND ROGERS APPROACH (SEE TEXT)

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

FIG. 7.35 “STRENGTH” OF GRADUATE PROGRAMS OF MATERIALS-DESIGNATED DEPARTMENTS AS INDICATED BY MODIFIED ELTON AND ROGERS APPROACH (SEE TEXT)

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Materials-Related Departments

A variety of academic departments in addition to the materials-related ones educate personnel for the materials field. Large organizations, especially research laboratories in high-technology areas, typically utilize a wide spectrum of graduates from university science and engineering departments. While the training in most of these other disciplines has been examined in detail in other studies, it is appropriate here to review the history and trends in their relation to the materials field. In the following, we consider the status of teaching and research in physics, chemistry, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, civil engineering, and chemical engineering—as the principal materials-related disciplines involved.

Physics: Solid-state physics as an organized subdiscipline really began at the close of the Second World War. The emphasis on solid-state devices and the development of improved semiconductor materials during the War spurred greatly expanded activity in this area. This development was coupled with the push in nuclear physics growing out of the Manhattan Project. University centers like Urbana, Berkeley, and Stanford developed curricula which provided in-depth graduate training in the structure and properties of solids, both from the electronic and physical points of view. At Urbana in 1953, the solid-state physics courses taught by Seitz and Bardeen were jammed with students, with a spectrum of advanced topic courses and seminars being available. Solid-state physics was taught from both a theoretical point of view (electronic-band theory, lattice vibrations, transport theory, etc.) and an experimental one (e.g., Seitz spent two weeks in the first semester discussing methods of crystal growth and purification, strictly from an experimental point of view.). Dislocations and grain boundaries were discussed, although not in great depth. At this time, the body of knowledge centering around the electronic properties of solids was very incomplete, with Seitz’ book pointing the general way. Only the simplest of solids, i.e., the alkali metals, and Ge and Si were understood in any detail. The polyvalent metals and particularly transition metals were quite mysterious for the most part. The central thrust of solid-state physics in the 1950’s and 60’s has been the understanding— both theoretical and experimental—of the properties of pure single-crystal (often elemental) solids. This is not to say that the large body of work that solid-state physicists have done on point defects (vacancies and impurities) has not been significant, but rather that it was peripheral to the main thrust of the field.

Some of the major advances druing this period were:

  1. The development of a reliable band theory of solids and the experimental verification and refinement of these schemes through techniques such as cyclotron resonance, de Haas van Alphen effect, anomalous skin effect, optical absorption, etc. There is now a reasonably detailed understanding of the Fermi surface of a large fraction of the pure metals and the low-lying excited states of the semiconductors and insulators. More recently, physicists have been unravelling the detailed mechanism and strength of electron scattering for states in different parts of the Fermi surface, and are

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

solving the classical problem of the one-electron properties of crystalline solids.

  1. The enormous development of many-body theory starting in the middle 1950’s has led to the understanding in considerable detail of many cooperative phenomena, such as superconductivity, superfluidity, and magnetism in the rare earths. This work has been complemented by more phenomenological studies, particularly in magnetism where a truly first-principles understanding of the itinerant ferromagnets is still incomplete.

  2. The understanding of point defects in nonmetals has been likewise developed strongly. Impurity states in semiconductors and ions in insulating crystals have been studied in great detail.

  3. Crystal-lattice vibrations have been understood in a broad class of crystalline solids, thanks to the beautiful techniques of neutron inelastic scattering. A corresponding theoretical understanding of the phonon modes is rapidly coming in, both for insulators and metals. Other collective excitations such as plasmons and magnons are also well understood in many substances.

No doubt many other areas, including device development such as transistors, lasers, Gunn devices, etc., could be listed. However, these are being pursued largely in electrical engineering departments.

The important fact is that the research advances described above have been incorporated into the solid-state graduate curriculum in considerable detail, and a well-trained solid-state scientist is expected to know a major fraction of this work in depth. Advanced seminars on special topics is the norm in solid-state programs, and this contact with the forefront of knowledge in this area has been particularly helpful to the graduate students in physics, and in other disciplines as well.

A propensity of physicists is to study a phenomenon in microscopic detail to understand what is “really going on.” One typically starts with a simple case, then generalizes to more complex situations. This pattern has led to emphasis on simple, pure, crystalline solids. Solid-state physics has largely completed this phase of development, and is now evolving into a more mature discipline by reaching out to neighboring fields for new problems. This is not in any sense a revolution, but rather an evolution of the interests and capabilities of a fraction of scientists in the field. Examples of the recent trends toward more complex systems are:

  1. A large activity by some prominent people in alloy science, both dilute alloys (nonmagnetic and magnetic) and concentrated alloys, has led to the understanding of the electronic structure of impurities in metals (i.e., virtual levels, localized moments, etc.) and after many years of work to the discovery of schemes which allow one to investigate theoretically concentrated alloys in a realistic manner (the coherent-potential approximation).

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
  1. The amorphous solid is under vigorous attack by theorists, and experiments with exciting new results are coming in rapidly. The thinking in this area bridges the gap between the chemist’s covalent bond and the traditional band scheme of the periodic solid. Based on these and related advances in band theory, alloy physics, and lattice dynamics, further progress on the problem of bands in solids in general will emerge.

  2. Surface science has long been pursued by a small group in physics. However, several years ago a significant break came when a number of outstanding scientists in solid-state physics turned their attention to the structure and properties of clean surfaces, and the interaction of surface with adsorbed atoms and molecules. This field is growing rapidly, and its impact on problems of surface bonding, corrosion, oxidation, catalysis, fatigue and fracture, etc., is likely to be enormous. There is an expanding group of solid-state people knowledgeable about the practical materials aspects of these problems, and there is a sense of excitement about getting involved in the fundamental understanding of these “messy” areas.

It is apparent that solid-state, physics has matured to a point where it is capable of making significant contributions to fields which heretofore have been just too complicated to handle in a microscopic way. For any real measure of success, a truly interdisciplinary approach is required. What is needed is a strong collaboration between the traditional materials science and engineering groups and the solid-state physics community in specific areas such as alloys, glasses, surface phenomena, and fracture. Longstanding biases have tended to separate the groups because of alleged “blue sky science” versus “dirty plumbing” being all that the “other” group is capable of handling. Leadership by the most creative and distinguished members of each community is clearly necessary to bridge the gap, and one may expect that the present contacts will be rapidly strengthened in the future. It is important to present jointly sponsored courses which cover topics involving materials science and engineering, solid-state physics, and chemistry, in which students and faculty from these disciplines work together and learn each other’s language, problems, and capabilities. Modest steps in this direction are being taken at a number of institutions. This approach is an important adjunct to, rather than replacement for, the traditional discipline-oriented teaching and research in the universities.

Chemistry: Education in materials science per se has been typically treated with “benign neglect” by chemistry departments, except in a few cases where such departments have provided a home base for polymer programs. This is true in spite of the fact that, historically, instruction in each of the three major categories of materials (metals, ceramics, and polymers) often began as a subdiscipline of chemistry. The polymer curricula have developed last, and where they exist at all, are still closely allied to chemistry departments, with three or four major exceptions.

The contribution of chemistry to materials education comes partly in the content of the basic courses. The study of materials rests on such

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

fundamental subjects taught in chemistry departments as chemical bonding, thermodynamics, kinetics, compositional analysis, and the snythesis and properties of organic and inorganic compounds. Much of what was taught as physics a generation ago is now firmly established as chemistry, including major parts of physical chemistry and almost all of instrumental analysis, now an integral part of MSE training.

The specific study of the different classes of materials (metals, ceramics, polymers) in a typical chemistry department is usually implemented by inclusion of such subject matter in core courses, and only rarely by having a separate course in any one of these categories. The amount of such content included varies tremendously from one school to another, but in the vast majority, it is rather modest. Discussion of metals will typically be limited to a description of metallic bonding in general chemistry; the analysis for metals, free or combined, in courses in analytical chemistry; and discussion of metal compounds in inorganic chemistry. Ceramics substances receive even less attention. A modern course in general chemistry may spend a day or so on the glassy state (as exhibited by both organic and inorganic materials), but otherwise very little is likely to be said about ceramic materials, even those as important as cement, mullite (the principal component of all whiteware and pottery), or modern electronic materials. Similarly, polymers are scarcely treated, though opportunities to introduce the subject matter are plentiful.

Electrical Engineering: A few years prior to the advent of the transistor, many electrical engineering departments shied away from materials. This attitude was probably generated by the fact that the materials aspects of electrical components and systems had reached a certain state of maturity. The emphasis was on terminal behavior of devices combined with some insight into the components to the extent that they affected the terminal properties. A small sector of the electrical engineering academic community, however, remained conversant with the materials aspect of electrical, magnetic, and electronic components. This was particularly true in those electrical engineering departments whose emphasis was more on electronics than on power.

At the undergraduate level, electrical students sometimes took a materials course, usually offered to students in the engineering school, taught in the department of metallurgy (and/or materials science) in those universities which had such a department. The course, generally at the junior level, presented the basic principles of the internal structures of materials aiming at an understanding of structure/property relationships. The course typically started with a qualitative description of mechanical, thermal, chemical, electrical, and optical properties of materials. It then moved to an elementary treatment of atomic bonding, which complemented previous understanding obtained in physics and chemistry courses, and then a treatment of molecular, crystal, and noncrystalline structures. The subject of imperfections would be given some consideration. Electronic processes in materials with emphasis on electric and magnetic behavior were studied in some detail, while still at a rather elementary level. When the course was taught by a metallurgist, metallic phases and their properties were covered in some detail. If not, after a cursory treatment, the course moved on to ceramic and, perhaps, organic materials. In the more elaborate courses, particularly when they were two-semester offerings, multiphase materials and equilibrium relations were

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

studied, as well as phase reactions and the stability of materials in various environments.

The advent of the transistor and the emergence of solid-state electronics as an important branch of technology not only introduced dramatic changes in electrical engineering as a discipline, but also influenced the curricula of electrical engineering departments. The outcome of the changes was the addition of new courses concentrating on electronic processes in materials and containing the following topics: structure of crystals, quantum mechanics, atomic bonding, statistical mechanics, free-electron theory, semiconductor theory, semiconductor materials, and introduction to semiconductor devices. Some attention was given to electron emission, dielectric processes, magnetic and optical processes. This course served as an introduction to physical electronics, the emphasis of which was essentially semiconductor phenomena and devices, and was to be followed by courses in electronic circuits.

All the courses mentioned above were actually required in most electrical engineering (EE) departments until the late 1960’s. Somewhat earlier many such departments recognized the need to incorporate computer courses into the curriculum. In fact, pressures from many sectors suggested the introduction of at least one hardware-oriented course besides the one on computer programming offered at the freshman or sophomore level. In many instances, the new computer courses were given as electives, a development that frequently compelled the offerings in materials to become electives, too. At present, while physical electronics is still required in many EE departments, the preceding courses (i.e. materials science and/or electronic processes in materials) are becoming elective. In some EE departments, students still take a sophomore elective in materials taught jointly by several instructors. However, the semiconductor field has come of age, and the availability of integrated circuits is forcing systems design at a different level, while helping deemphasize the importance of the individual device, if not the materials aspects. If semiconductors are losing prominence in the field, materials at large are regaining attention. The thrust toward more relevance in the curriculum coupled with a new emphasis in interdisciplinary programs, even at the undergraduate level, may be providing impetus for a broader materials offering in EE departments.

At the graduate level in most EE departments, students are usually not required to take any specific courses in materials. Those interested in semiconductors usually take one or two graduate courses in quantum mechanics in the physics department, followed by one or two semesters of solid-state physics, and then at least two EE courses in solid-state devices and one in integrated circuits. Other courses with a materials orientation depend a great deal on the particular emphases and strengths of the EE research programs. It is not unusual to find combined offerings in thin films, magnetic phenomena, materials, and devices. In EE departments at universities which have good materials science departments and/or interdisciplinary programs in materials, students may take a variety of specialized courses on materials from the respective departments.

Many EE departments engage in materials research. Some of these departments may not have the standard EE title but rather electrical sciences, electrophysics, etc. However, their faculty members publish in journals and participate in meetings that are a part of the EE community.

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

Typical designations of the research efforts related to materials are: materials, with emphasis on electronic phenomena and devices; solid-state electronics, where the effort is usually more concentrated on phenomena and devices than on the materials per se; magnetics, with only minor emphasis on materials; electrophysics; applied quantum mechanics. In the latter two areas, work is usually done which utilizes some materials as vehicles for the investigation of physical phenomena.

The materials most commonly utilized for electronic and device studies in EE departments have been the major semiconductor families: silicon and germanium, III–V and II–VI semiconducting compounds. Integrated circuits with silicon and gallium arsenide as base materials have provided topics for a few groups to conduct research with some materials orientation. However, most of the research and/or development work on the latter subjects, which is mainly of a processing nature, has taken place in industrial laboratories.

In recent years, some EE departments have become active in research on optical materials. Most research efforts on optical integrated circuits are spent at present on searching for materials of good optical properties (such as low-loss materials for optical waveguides, etc.). So far, the materials that have been studied include ZnO, ZnS, Ta2O5, sputtered glass, polyester epoxy, and organic polymers. Another area of endeavor is connected with electro-optic materials for nonlinear optics and parametric devices. At present, the best known electro-optic materials are LiNbO3, LiTaO3, Ba2NaNb5O15, KD*P, PbMoO4, and ZnO. Such materials are essential for various kinds of optoelectronics (nonlinear optics, parametric devices, and modulators for laser communication).

A third area of research on optical materials is connected with large-scale displays and/or holographic displays. Photopolymers, photochromic materials, liquid crystals, magnetic thin films of MnBi, thermoplastics, and electro-optic crystals are the most useful optical materials in this field.

Mechanical Engineering: In recent years, mechanical engineers have become more and more involved with materials and their behavior in the design, construction, and use of many devices. A few years ago, it was sufficient to consider materials to be homogeneous and to design with relatively simple stress analysis based on the theory of elasticity. Today the mechanical engineer must be almost as familiar as the metallurgist with modern theories of bonding, microstructure, and the important role of defects. This is, in part, due to the advance in design requirements relative to stresses and temperatures to be carried by structural members. It is also due to more advanced processing procedures that have resulted from competition in performance and manufacturing costs. The kinds of materials available to the engineer have increased enormously since World War II. Where a few simple structural and tool steels were previously on hand, the modern mechanical engineer utilizes a variety of alloy steels, carbides, and oxides, and a whole host of nonferrous materials including titanium alloys and refractory materials. The modern mechanical engineer has also had to carry his design well into the plastic regime and to take into account the inherent dispersion in performance of relatively brittle materials.

Two major design requirements have become particularly important to recent graduates in mechanical engineering; structural reliability and long service life. Thus, mechanical engineers have to be knowledgeable in the areas of

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

fatigue-life estimation and flaw sensitivity of materials. These materials questions have become critical because of contractual responsibilities for safe structures with much higher performance requirements. The mechanical engineer must not only understand such materials properties as strength, fracture toughness, fatigue and creep resistance, wear and corrosion of changing alloys, but he must also be able to assess the use of a broad range of materials.

The jet engine, virtually unknown in this country in 1946, has made it necessary for design and manufacturing engineers to adopt an entirely new approach to materials. The continuing demand of engine designers for more heat-resistant materials so that operating temperatures and hence efficiency can be increased has been met by metallurgists and materials engineers. However, the newer materials are much more difficult to cast, forge, and machine, and they have introduced some very difficult challenges for mechanical engineers who are involved with production.

The development of the nuclear-power industry has led to several unique materials problems for mechanical engineers. The design requirements include fail-safe and safe-life assessments for constructional alloys under conditions of irradiation, multiaxial stress states, elastoplastic deformation, creep, and nonlinear fracture mechanics. One of the major design deficiencies is turning out to be a lack of suitable data on the material response to complicated loading and history.

Aerospace structural requirements have also become more stringent as greater performance is demanded. Material selection has changed from a few basic aluminum alloys to many new aluminum alloys, titanium alloys, very high-strength steels, and composite materials including the new advanced boron- and graphite-fiber reinforced epoxy materials. A whole new technology is being developed for the composite materials, with mechanical engineers and materials engineers working to create optimally useful forms of composite materials for advanced structures.

Civil Engineering: In principle, civil engineers are deeply involved in the engineering of large-scale materials systems. However, the materials in question are not being subjected to much basic research. These materials seem to be of interest mainly to civil engineers and are of quite low cost, in the cents-per-pound range, and include sand, rock, cement, bituminous concrete, tar, asphalt, steel, aluminum, fiberglass, epoxies, polyesters, glass block, glass foam, paper-rag felts, etc. The civil engineer is required to specify the materials to be used in many structures such as bridges, pavements, buildings, and industrial equipment. Often, however, he is inadequately trained for this task. In fact, most degree programs in civil engineering do not interface well with materials departments. The maximum interaction tends to occur where there are interdisciplinary materials-oriented research programs involving systems of importance in civil engineering.

Research in civil-engineering material groups over the past years has not been very fundamental in nature. There was a period in the mid-1960’s when some departments were beginning to do more basic research on materials of construction, motivated by the availability of NSF grants. A few civil engineering departments now have cement chemists or soil scientists who have been studying the basic properties of these materials.

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

Understandably, most of the materials research in civil engineering departments is application-oriented; that is, there exists a problem and the research is directed toward solving this problem. Some investigations of this type are carried out through cooperative highway research programs. However, the amount of basic research done on materials for construction is very small throughout the civil engineering departments of the U.S. Moreover, there is no indication that this pattern will change in the foreseeable future because (a) the time devoted in civil engineering curricula to materials is quite small; only one or two courses are typically devoted to materials and the science of materials at the undergraduate level, and (b) there seems to be a shortage of qualified personnel to teach civil engineering materials subjects in a modern way and to carry out the corresponding research.

Chemical Engineering: Since materials can be regarded as chemicals, and chemical engineering is a discipline that applies the science of chemistry to the problems of society, it is not surprising that chemical engineers and chemical engineering education have had a long association with materials. On the other hand, few would say that the chemical engineering curriculum is strong in the subject. Some perspective on this point can be gained through a discussion of specific areas.

One of the first courses to become established in the undergraduate chemical engineering curriculum was often called strength of materials. Another subject widely required until about 15 years ago was related to some aspect of metallurgy. Yet, very few chemical engineers have become involved with the design of structures from the standpoint of mechanical strength, or with the processing of ores to the refined metal. These courses were regarded as part of the chemical engineer’s general background, but such content has been steadily decreasing.

Two other areas related to materials became of primary concern to chemical engineers. The first was corrosion, undoubtedly because of its role in equipment failures during the growth of the chemical process industry before World War II. Instruction in corrosion was typically covered in a course on both corrosion and electrochemical processes, perhaps in a course concerned with chemical plant design, or in one related to metallurgy. By building on the electrochemistry content of physical chemistry, the treatment of corrosion could be made relatively quantitative. The second materials area developed in the chemical engineering curriculum could be identified by the title of a text published in 1942; namely, Industrial Chemistry of Colloidal and Amorphous Materials. At first, this type of course covered such natural materials as leather, rubber, paper, and textiles. Later, the development of the synthetic organic chemical industry led to the production of the more complex molecules, such as polymers. However, while polymers have been growing in industry, chemical engineering departments have decreased or eliminated their courses in industrial chemistry where coverage of polymeric materials might occur. A widely read document relating to accreditation of chemical engineering curricula states that instruction in materials from the point of view of the physics and chemistry of the solid state is desirable. Many schools satisfy this requirement with a one-semester course containing the word “material(s)” in the title, but others rely on the materials content of the chemistry courses and such topics as corrosion and strength of materials which are

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

covered elsewhere.

The opportunity for specialization at the graduate level has permitted many students and faculty in chemical engineering departments to concentrate in the materials field. Those schools that built materials research laboratories in recent years have usually attracted one or two collaborators from the chemical engineering department, particularly in the area of polymeric materials. Polymerization kinetics and other problems related to polymer synthesis and manufacture are also attractive fields of research in chemical engineering. Polymer processing and catalytic materials have been of major interest to chemical engineers, but most of the important developments here have occurred in industry rather than at the universities. Recently, the relationship between catalytic activity and crystal structure of the catalyst has been demonstrated for some systems, and research along these lines is enjoying increased attention. Similarly, porous solid adsorbents that have high selectivity for certain materials owing to their surface structure are being developed. Another new material being studied in some chemical engineering laboratories is the porous film used in reverse osmosis. Materials handling is being investigated by some chemical engineers in the collection of particulate solids and the separation of solids by various means. Problems in corrosion are also under study at a few locations.

Where graduate-student and faculty interest in materials exist, one or two graduate courses related to materials are frequently offered by the chemical engineering department.

Some Comparisons of Materials-Related Departments: There is rather wide agreement that physics departments have played an important role in the development of materials science, while chemistry departments appear to have been less directly involved. Similarly electrical engineering is generally held to have been much closer to the recent advances in materials than mechanical engineering has been. Nevertheless, it is difficult to describe, quantitatively, the various materials activities in the traditional disciplinary units. Obviously, a part (solid-state physics) of the activity of a physics department is likewise part of MSE; the same can be said for polymer programs in chemical engineering or chemistry departments. Through a questionnaire, an attempt has been made to obtain comparable data on the extent of materials activities in all the materials-related departments. A number of such departments were asked for their own evaluation of their involvement in materials science and engineering in answer to the following two questions:

What percentage of your faculty/student and research effort has been concerned with problems which are relevant to the scientific understanding of materials? __________%

What percentage of your students would qualify, in your opinion, to be considered as materials scientists or materials engineers? This percentage could be estimated on the basis of the following parameters: __________%

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

Extent to which courses offered and taken might especially qualify a student for research in the field of materials.

Extent to which the thesis topic is concerned with materials.

Extent to which the first job (where known) is in materials education or research.

The resulting data plotted in Figure 7.36 offer some picture of the “materials-relatedness” of various disciplines. The findings for chemistry are surprising, and may reflect some misunderstanding of the terms used in the questionnaire. For example, a few chemistry departments claiming no contact with their own materials centers reported that 100% of their work was in materials.

Materials Research in the Universities

Magnitude of Materials Research Effort

The overall distribution of the federal R&D support at universities is shown in Table 7.36. (Such support comprises more than 90% of the funding for materials research in the universities.) From this table, $17.6 million goes directly to the materials-designated departments, but the data do not identify how much of the support to other science and engineering disciplines is devoted to materials research. The significant magnitude of the latter is shown in Figure 7.37, which presents available data from various sources for the different categories that make up the total materials research effort at U.S. universities. The figures from the COSMAT questionnaires have provided the most detailed picture of this materials research funding. The findings from the different sources are reasonably self-consistent with the exception of the discrepancies between columns (a) and (d). These discrepancies appear to arise from the fact that the COSMAT data include support from university, state, and industrial sources, and that slightly different definitions were used by the ICM.* The COSMAT data (column (d)) are more precise than any available previously up to the $68.2 million, total, since this comprises two easily-identified categories. The estimate of an additional $7 million for all the other “materials research,” includes the materials work in the science and engineering departments at universities which have a materials department but no materials center, and also the “non-center” part of the work in those cases where a center exists. In addition, to obtain the total federally funded materials research at universities, we include the work supported in the science and engineering departments at several dozens of the largest advanced degree-granting institutions in the country, which have neither a materials center nor a materials department. The resulting total is close to $75 million per year.

In the following section, the research being conducted at the universities within the scope of materials science and engineering is discussed under the

*  

Interagency Council on Materials

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

FIG. 7.36 DEGREE OF “RELEVANCE” TO MSE OF VARIOUS DISCIPLINES

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

TABLE 7.36 Distribution by Field of Science of Federal R&D Support to Universities for FY 1970*

Field

Amount (Dollars in Thousands)

Percent of Total

1. Physical Sciences:

283,114

20.28

Astronomy

32,111

2.3

Chemistry

70,205

5.03

Physics

176,629

12.65

Physical Science (n.e.c.)

4,169

0.30

2. Mathematics:

44,582

3.19

3. Environmental Sciences:

106,722

7.65

4. Engineering:

141,533

10.14

Aeronautical

16,217

1.16

Astronautical

18,002

1.29

Chemical

8,167

0.59

Civil

9,981

0.72

**Electrical

31,963

2.29

**Mechanical

11,904

0.85

Metallurgy and Materials

17,603

1.26

Engineering (n.e.c.)

27,696

1.98

5. Life Sciences:

565,094

40.48

6. Psychology:

62,298

4.46

7. Social Sciences:

47,144

3.43

8. Other Sciences (n.e.c.)

144,748

10.37

 

$1,395,923

100.

* Courtesy of Dr. C.Falk, NSF.

** A substantial fraction of the support within these categories is also devoted to materials research.

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

FIG. 7.37 DATA ON SUPPORT FOR MATERIALS RESEARCH AT U.S. UNIVERSITIES IN FY 1971

(a) INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON MATERIALS SURVEY OF TOTAL DIRECT FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR MATERIALS RESEARCH IN UNIVERSITIES.

(b) NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION DATA FOR DIRECT FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR “METALLURGY AND MATERIALS” (DEPARTMENTS) RESEARCH IN UNIVERSITIES.

(c) NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION DATA FOR MATERIALS RESEARCH AT THE 12 NSF-MRL (ARPA-IDL) UNIVERSITIES.

(d) DATA FROM COSMAT UNIVERSITY QUESTIONNAIRE.

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

following headings:

  • Research in materials research centers (interdisciplinary materials research laboratories)

  • Research in the materials-designated departments

  • Research coupled with industry

Materials Research Centers (Including Interdisciplinary Materials Research Laboratories)

It has been rightly claimed that formation of the materials research centers constituted a major landmark in experimentation with federal support of university research. Correspondingly, an evaluation of the experiment in terms of research administration, of the nature and quality of the research programs, and the interdisciplinary interaction developed, has significance beyond the materials field.

Currently, there are 28 universities in the U.S. with officially designated materials centers. While these centers go under a range of titles at the different universities, the term “materials center” will be used here to refer to any such officially constituted center or laboratory with materials as its focus and involving several disciplines. These centers include four limited in scope to one class of materials, e.g. polymers—but no less interdisciplinary. The centers have been supported predominantly by various federal agencies, some with block* grants, some without. A simple classification of the centers can be made on the basis of their source of support as given in Table 7.37. (Note that some universities appear in more than one place in the subsequent tabulations.)

The COSMAT questionnaires provided a description of the activities of these centers, together with the principal related activities in materials research. All these centers provided data, though that for one were incomplete. The findings presented here also include opinions regarding centers from a sample of senior materials research administrators in industry, government, and academia.

Table 7.38 summarizes the main characteristics of the university activities in materials research; Table 7.39 lists research capabilities of the materials centers; Table 7.40 indicates the distribution of support for the total materials research on campus; and Table 7.41 gives the support data for the materials-designated departments.

From analysis of the data in these tables, a useful classification of the centers on the basis of their principal distinguishing characteristics is the

*  

A block grant is awarded to an institution, rather than to an individual; it implies that the decisions on exactly what research is done are made locally.

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

TABLE 7.37 Universities with Materials Centers in the U.S.*

GROUP I.

Block Supported by AEC—3

(U. Calif., Berkeley; U. Illinois; Iowa State)

GROUP II.

Block Supported by ARPA—12

(Brown U.; U. Chicago; Cornell; Harvard; U. Illinois; U. Maryland; M.I.T.; U. North Carolina; Northwestern; U. Pennsylvania; Purdue; Stanford)

GROUP III.

Block Supported by NASA—3

(R.P.I.; Rice; U. Washington)

GROUP IV.

Block Supported by JSEP—1

(U. Southern California)

GROUP V.

No. Block Support—10

(Case-Western; U. Connecticut; Lehigh; U. Missouri, Rolla; Penn State U.; U. Wisconsin; Washington U.; St. Louis; U. of Akron; U. Massachusetts; U. Utah)

(The last three have institutes dealing with only one class of materials—polymers.)

* For statistical purposes, only organizations in existence for more than three years at the time of the survey are included. The materials center at the University of Illinois is sponsored by both AEC and ARPA.

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

TABLE 7.38 Materials Activities at Universities with Materials Centers, 1971

 

Industry Coupling

Interdisciplinary Index

Materials Center Building

Major Materials Departments

New degrees in Mat. Sci. or Solid State

“Strength” of Interdiscip. Administration

Official Program

% Res. Support

% Joint Contracts

% Joint Papers

 

 

 

XX

 

 

5

X

 

 

X

 

2

8

13

X

 

 

X

 

 

 

26

X

X

 

XXX

 

 

2

1.3

 

 

 

X

 

 

2

1.3

X

X

X*

XXX

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

XX

 

 

16

10

 

 

 

X

 

0.2

20

5

X

X

X*

X

 

 

X

X

 

XX

 

 

1

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

2

 

 

 

X

 

 

2

2

X

X

X

XXX

 

1

44

19

X

X

X

XXX

X

7

40

10

X

X

 

XX

X

1.0

40

25

 

 

 

X

 

 

5

5

X(?)

 

 

XXX

 

3

80

92

X

 

X

XX

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

 

33

18

X

X

 

X

X

20

53

12

 

 

 

XX

 

 

20

5

X

 

X

XXX

X(?)

0.1

 

 

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

 

Industry Coupling

Interdisciplinary Index

Materials Center Building

Major Materials Departments

New degrees in Mat. Sci. or Solid State

“Strength” of Interdiscip. Administration

Official Program

% Res. Support

% Joint Contracts

% Joint Papers

 

X

 

XX

 

 

 

 

X

 

X

XX

 

15

10

10

X

X

 

X

X

 

25

 

 

 

X

 

 

0

3

* X* = Mat. Sci/Eng degree subsumed previous metallurgy degree.

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

TABLE 7.39 Research Capabilities of Materials Research Centers at Universities, 1971

Total External Research Support via Center (1000$)

Facilities in Center

Faculty

Support via Staff

Research Space 1000 sq.ft.

Equipment (1000$)

Total

Partly Paid

FTE Paid

Postdocs

Technicians

Secretaries

7,279

210

10,000

84

74

41

139

63

23

3,648

67

2,250

52

44

13.9

34

21

8

3,456

85

4,259

45

39

8.9

29

14.5

16

3,588

53

2,670

36

36/3

10

28

35

12

2,943

85.2

1,400

39

32

5.52

0

13

.5

3,799

35

1,900

57

57

12**

61

30

11

3,420

60

2,500

 

53

10

115

86

70

1,832

41.8

1,050

48

30

3.1

9

3

3.5

*2,400

 

 

 

58

 

 

 

 

1,562

46.5

1,690

38

38

14.2

8.5

8

6

2,197

100

3,000

44

44

8

29

4

8

1,794

40

550

24

13

3.5

46

9

9.5

1,560

35

600

35

29

8**

18

2

2

1,332

69

2,100

62

13

13

7

8

5

1,190

40

1,000

36

25

12

27

6

7

1,132

34.5

700

89

60

25

35

10

24

676

40

660

50

6

1

11

6

1

480

20

1,200

12

16

7

7

4

2

400

8.5

1,000

11

~11

~3

 

0

2

450

5

250

8

6

3.5

1

3

1.5

380

6.2

220

14

10

7.2

5

2

1.6

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

Total External Research Support via Center (1000$)

Facilities in Center

Faculty

Support via Staff

Research Space 1000 sq.ft.

Equipment (1000$)

Total

Partly Paid

FTE Paid

Postdocs

Technicians

Secretaries

250

15

400

19

2

0.5

3

0

3

240

45

2,000

45

8

3.4

6

5

1.5

310

11

300

17

14

~2

1

0.5

1.5

225

33

1,500

12

12

8

6

8

2

225

40

334

26

5

1

3

1

3.5

210

2

14

4

4

 

5

4

.5

* Data from this university are only fragmentary.

** Prorated from other data provided.

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

TABLE 7.40 Support for Materials Research at Universities, 1971

Funds to Center

Support to Academic Depts.

Total (in 106$)

From Block Funding (in 106$)

Total Support Other Than Block and University (in 106$)

Support from Industry (in 103$)

Block Funds Per Member Receiving Support (in 103$)

Total Nonblock External Funds per Member (res. sup.) Received through Center (in 103$)

Research Support via Mat. Dept. Excluding Centers ($)

Related Departments with Substantial Research Activity#

8.02*

7.82*AEC

0

 

100.3

0

0.2

P,C,CH

4.83

2.8ARPA

1.15

92

63

89

0.25

C

4.28

3.69 ARPA

AEC

0

 

94.6

0

0.2

P,G

3.9

3.6AEC

0

3

100.0

0

0.19

P,C.EE

3.9

0.85ARPA

2.09

 

26.6

65.3

 

3.8

1.35ARPA

2.45

 

24

43

0.46

CH

(3.06)

1.35ARPA

1.92

 

25.5

36.2

No

P,G

(2.8)

1.08ARPA

0.95

8

36.0

31.7

0.23

P,C,G,CV

2.7

2.7ARPA

0

 

0.9

P,C.

2.6

1.97ARPA

0.06

 

51.8

2

0.45

C,CH

2.4

2.4ARPA

0

 

54.5

0

1.9

P,G,CH

(2.1)

0.8ARPA

1.0

 

61

69

 

1.93

0.75ARPA

0.91

 

27.4

32

G

1.8

0

1.33

18

0

102.3

G,CH,CV

1.27

0**

1.11

90

0

45

0.56

P,C,G,CV

1.25

0.7JSEP

0.43

124

12

7

C

0.76

0.71ARPA

0.04

 

118

7

 

0.71

0

0.48

20

0

30.0

0.12

 

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

Funds to Center

Support to Academic Depts.

Total (in 106$)

From Block Funding (in 106$)

Total Support Other Than Block and University (in 106$)

Support from Industry (in 103$)

Block Funds Per Member Receiving Support (in 103$)

Total Nonblock External Funds per Member (res. sup.) Received through Center (in 103$)

Research Support via Mat. Dept. Excluding Centers ($)

Related Departments with Substantial Research Activity#

0.50

0

0.4

100

 

 

C

0.46

0

0.45

 

0

75

 

0.42

0

0.38

103

0

38

0.83

CH

0.38

0.25NASA

0

 

0.13

P,EE

0.33

0

0.24

7

0

30

1.3@

P

0.32

0.25NASA

0.01

10

18

2

0.45

C

0.30

0

0.225

45

0

18.8

C

0.24

0.23NASA

0

 

46

0

0.73

P,G

0.2

0

0.21

 

0

53

0.66

P

* These figures are approximate estimates of a larger total effort supported at the university.

** A year-to-year contract with ARPA averaging near 0.28M, limited to one area, was a major factor in the funding here.

@ This figure includes a “polymer institute” funded at 0.72 which should possibly be counted as a second materials center (i.e., in column 1).

(__) Numbers in parentheses mean that the unit actually handling the Materials Center work has a wider scope than just materials, e.g., a “Division of Applied Science.”

# “Activity” in related departments recorded where self-analysis indicates more than 25% in MSE. P=Physics; C=Chem; CH—Chem. Eng.; G=Geology; EE=Elec. Eng.; CV=Civil Eng. (See text.)

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

TABLE 7.41 Research Support in Materials-Designated Departments at Universities Having Materials Centers, 1971

Total (in 106$)

From Block Funds (in 106$)

Total Less Block and University Support (in 106$)

Support from Industry (in 103$)

Research Support per Faculty Member (Including All Faculty: in 103$)

From Center

All Other Sources

Total

0.34

0.32

0.014

3

53

3

56

1.06

0.85

0.21

 

65

16

81

0.72

0.41

0.24

38

51

31

82

0.19

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.46

 

0.46

 

 

 

1.5*

1.3

.2

48

11

22

33

0.41

0.18

0.17

65

36

34

70

1.22

0.28

0.94

12

26

85

111

0.45

0.39

 

26

26

2.41

0.53

1.9

298

20

72

92

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.57 (1970)

0

0.44

153

 

13

13

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.12

0

0.07

42.5

0

6

6

0.5

0

0.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

Total (in 106$)

From Block Funds (in 106$)

Total Less Block and University

Support (in 106$) Support from Industry (in 103$)

Research Support per Faculty Member (Including All Faculty: in 103$)

From Center

All Other Sources

Total

0.94

0.10

0.599

198

8

50

58

0.19

0.06

0.10

 

1.36

0

1.32

333

0

65

65

0.78

0.32

0.46

16

160

230

390

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.83

0.11

0.62

125

8

44

52

0.66

0

0.616

15

0

41

41

* This refers to a larger unit.

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

following (Note: Within each group, the schools are listed alphabetically):

GROUP A: Major Materials Institutions (MMI). Institutions which have a materials-center building providing a physical and intellectual focus for major materials research programs, relatively strong centralization of administration, a major degree program in materials, together with strong materials research in solid-state physics and chemistry.

University of California (Berkeley)

Case Western Reserve University

Cornell University

University of Illinois

Lehigh University

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Northwestern University

University of Pennsylvania

Penn State University

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Stanford University

GROUP B: Major Materials-Teaching and Research Schools (MTRS)*. Institutions which have a major and/or specialized research program in materials science or engineering and an official though small centralized research laboratory.

University of Connecticut

University of Massachusetts

University of Missouri

University of Southern California

University of Washington

GROUP C: Materials Research Programs (MRP). Institutions with materials research programs not focused in a centralized laboratory, but often large and typically strong in the basic sciences, and run by a committee of senior faculty, with no (or small) materials-designated degree programs. The term “materials research program” MRP, appears accurately to distinguish the typical characteristics of such centers from the laboratories of the MMI above.

University of Akron

Brown University

University of Chicago

Harvard University

Iowa State University

University of Maryland

University of North Carolina

Purdue University

Rice University

University of Utah

University of Wisconsin

Washington University (St. Louis)

At this point, it may be useful to review briefly the initial objectives of the materials-center concept as a precursor to examining their present character and effectiveness. (The origin of the concept and the history of the initial centers in the early 1960’s, following upon the recommendations to the Coordinating Committee on Materials Research and Development (CCMRD) of the Federal Council for Science and Technology (FCST), are outlined in Appendix 7C.) In the late 1950’s, federal agencies, particularly the

*  

The newly established Processing Research Institute at Carnegie-Mellon University would likely place in this category.

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

defense agencies, were already investing heavily in materials research at universities. A widespread belief developed that many more Ph.D. graduates would be required to work on the development of the new materials technologies needed by the aerospace and atomic-power industries and by the defense and other national programs of the period. It was recognized that solution of associated advanced materials problems depended on integrated contributions from a number of scientific and engineering disciplines. The strong pace of solid-state science pointed to a need to broaden and strengthen correspondingly the scientific background of many of the Ph.D. graduates entering the materials field. The idea of interdisciplinary materials centers arose as a means of meeting these various needs. A novel feature of the original federal advisory committee recommendation was the block-grant funding mechanism, whereby the decision process for selecting individual research topics was transferred from the agency to the campus. Later in the 1960’s, following the establishment of more than a dozen centers on this federal block-funding basis, a number of other universities organized centers without such support. Instead, they derived support from a variety of sources, including the university and the state, but principally by the aggregation of smaller contracts. Currently, about one-third of all the centers operate in this way.

The general objectives of the initial block-funded materials centers were defined by the work statements accompanying the contracts with the universities from ARPA and AEC. These statements were as follows:

(a) Work Statement for Interdisciplinary Laboratory Programs in Materials Science Supported by the Advanced Research Projects Agency, Department of Defense

“The contractor shall establish an interdisciplinary materials research program and shall furnish the necessary personnel and facilities for the conduct of research in the science of materials with the objective of furthering the understanding of the factors which influence the properties of materials and the fundamental relationships which exist between composition and structure and the properties and behavior of materials. To this end, theoretical and experimental studies in such fields as metallurgy, ceramic science, solid-state physics, chemistry, solid-state mechanics, surface phenomena, and polymer sciences shall be conducted, as well as other research investigations which may be mutually agreed upon by the contractor and the Advanced Research Projects Agency.”

(b) Work Statements for Materials Laboratories Supported by the Atomic Energy Commission. Research to be Performed by Contractor (1962)

  1. The scope of the work under this agreement is unclassified and shall consist of research as may be mutually agreed upon by the contractor and the Commission in the broad fields of ceramics, chemistry, metallurgy, and solid-state physics. The research will be directed toward or supportive of the furtherance of a fundamental understanding of the nature of materials, predominantly solids. Because of the strong interest of the Commission in radiation effects and in the influence of defects, both chemical and physical in the

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

properties of matter, it is anticipated that particular, although by no means exclusive, attention will be devoted to the study of defects in solids or surfaces.

  1. The work will also include such other studies, investigations, and services in this general area as may be mutually agreed upon between the parties.

Research to be Performed by the Contractor (Modification in 1967)

The scope of work under this contract is unclassified and shall consist of research in the broad fields that follow:

  1. Metallurgy and Materials Research

  2. Physical Metallurgy and Ceramics

  3. Materials Properties and Processes

  4. Structure of Materials

  5. Solid-State Physics and Crystal Physics

  6. Energetic Particle Interactions

This research shall be directed toward, or in support of, furthering a fundamental understanding of the nature of materials, particularly solids.”

While neither of these agency work-statements mentions education or the training of manpower as an objective (this area was outside the DoD and AEC authority), it is clear that starting such programs at universities implied such a goal also. Discussions during the COSMAT study with administrators involved in the initial materials center programs indicate that their general perception of the intent of the federal agencies in initiating these laboratories was as follows:

  1. To develop the basic sciences of materials to new levels of sophistication and to develop an applied science which could harness this new knowledge to national efforts to solve advanced materials problems.

  2. To increase the number of Ph.D. graduates trained in these developing pure and applied sciences.

  3. To establish university research units which would emphasize interdisciplinary activities in research and teaching.

Consideration is now given to describing the principal resources for materials research at those universities with materials centers—funding,

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

space and equipment, faculty, students—and to the corresponding research emphasis, output, extent of interdisciplinary effort, and interaction with industry that has developed.

Data on research support for the 28 institutions were listed in Tables 7.39 and 7.40. It is important to exercise some caution in interpreting this information. For example, the data reported in the column on Total External Research Support via Center will vary in meaning depending on local administrative arrangements. In some cases, the center appears to be principally a vehicle for the distribution and management of the single block grant (e.g., M.I.T., Northwestern, Illinois). At the other end of the spectrum, there are centers which serve principally as the main channel for materials research support for faculty from several departments (e.g., Chicago, Iowa State) or in a larger administrative unit which incorporates the center (e.g., Brown, Harvard). Unfortunately, it has proved difficult to determine accurately the total materials research support at any university because the term “materials research” is interpreted differently at different institutions and the nature of record-keeping also varies widely.

The best index of materials research activity at a given university appears to be given by a composite of three columns in Table 7.40. The first lists block-funded support via a materials center, which is known unambiguously. The second lists the research support via the materials departments which is also accessible, although there may be some modest overlap with the center in allocating technician and facility charges, etc. The third column names the related departments which have indicated that their faculty are involved in materials research to an extent “greater than 25%”; it was not feasible to assign research-support levels here. In some instances, the figures for research support in the materials center include only the funds administered or processed explicitly by the center. This may be the single block grant only, but in other cases it may include 50–100 individual contracts for research within the interdisciplinary setting of the center. In still other cases, where the figures are for the total research of all the faculty members affiliated with the center, these numbers tell little about the materials research on a campus, inasmuch as many of the faculty in the related departments may devote only a portion of their total research to the materials field.

Despite these shortcomings in detailed information, the tables indicate significant general characteristics concerning the overall scale of activity. Thus, there are some dozen institutions with total annual materials-research funding above $2 million (including six at $4 million or greater), and a half-dozen institutions at the other end of the scale with annual funding below $0.5 million. The variation in the size of the block grants ranges from $4.25 to less than $0.3 million annually. In fact, the centers tend to fall into three groups, with 9 having block support in excess of $1 million/ year, 9 having block support of less than 1 million, and 10 having no block support at all. The larger 9 receive 85% of the total available block support ($22.5 million) and the middle 9 some 15% ($4.6 million). An unexpected finding is the circumstance that, among these three groups, the nonblock-supported group has some well-established programs with buildings, degree programs, etc., even larger than the block-supported groups. Also, the middle group includes a number of major materials institutions despite the

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

lower support level.

The division of support of the total materials research at the universities with materials centers has changed substantially over the 1960’s and early 1970’s, especially over the past five years. After FY-1974, the National Science Foundation dominates the support picture, with about 50% of the total. The initially dominant DoD proportion diminished significantly in that period, even aside from the ARPA transfer of the IDL program to NSF. However, while there had been some expectation that civilian agencies such as the Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development would begin to increase their support for materials research, this has not yet developed in a substantial way.

For space and equipment, the COSMAT returns indicate that the major centers involve between 30,000 and 80,000 net sq. ft. of laboratory space. Capital equipment among the centers shows a much bigger spread, even in equally well-funded laboratories. The minimum for a substantial operation would seem to be about $500,000, while a major center appears to require equipment in the range of $2 million. There is a good correlation between the scale of block funding and the amount of equipment at the centers.

The number of faculty associated with each materials center (Table 7.39) varies from 4 to 89, with 50% of the centers each involving between 20 and 50 faculty. The full-time equivalent (FTE) faculty members paid through center funding varies correspondingly; for universities receiving between $1 and $4 million annually, the number of such faculty ranges from 3.5 to 25. In any assessment of the effectiveness of a center, the total materials research of all faculty who are members, whether paid by the center or not, is an important indicator of the total university effort. The level of active participation in, and intimate concern for, the affairs of a given center by the faculty involved is likewise an important factor. Attempts to measure these parameters are difficult, and the delineation of the FTE faculty paid through the center is one such attempt. (In most universities, it has been common practice to charge outside contracts approximately in proportion to the faculty member’s time devoted to that particular research and hence the FTE faculty paid could be the best measure of research involvement.) In view of this significance, a revised second questionnaire was mailed to respondents to try to insure that there had been no misunderstanding as to the definition of full-time equivalent. No changes resulted.

From the data returned, of those faculty receiving some salary support from center funds, the average FTE involvement is found to be between one-third and one-fifth of the salary. However, it appears likely that some universities may have paid some research salaries under research categories other than the materials center, although the activities might be relevant to the center. Others may not have charged any grants for research time. Finally, it was not always clear from the data that the FTE returns were referring to the same year (academic or calendar) in all cases. In trying to estimate the possible effects of such uncertainties on the data, it was recognized that some faculty members may concentrate their research in the summer months and, in addition, may devote up to half their time to research during the academic year. Hence, a few faculty members, very active in research, could be devoting two-thirds of their time to research on a 12-month basis. In cases where the universities do not charge the contracts for the

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

research time of the faculty, they would have underestimated the FTE involved. Comparing the averages noted above and the maximum research activity estimated to be possible, it would appear that for an institution where all of the “exceptional” circumstances are realized, which is the unlikely extreme case, the effect could be a factor of two. Given this assessment of the FTE faculty parameter as an indicator of faculty effort in the centers, its relation to total center funding can be examined for the full spectrum of centers currently in operation. Such a relation is plotted in Figure 7.38 to provide a measure of the total center support for one hypothetical faculty member’s research program, who devoted full time to research with a complement of postdoctorals, graduate students, technicians, and his share of central-facility costs. Figure 7.38 shows that there are several universities where the ratio of annual center support to FTE faculty exceeds $500,000/FTE and that there are only a few where it is less than $100,000/FTE. The ratios should not necessarily be interpreted as the cost of a FTE-supported man-year of faculty research, but the rather large differences in the investments per unit of faculty time do point up the need to examine the corresponding variations in what results from such investment. This concern will be addressed later.

The above figures for research at the materials center provide some useful budgetary indicators for administrators. Thus, a major materials center at a university would seem to require a minimum effort of 10 to 15 FTE faculty members. An annual average dollar support per FTE in the range of $200,000 to $250,000 should be anticipated. The total associated research support of a faculty group of, say, 30 active participants, each involved one-third time in research and associated students, postdoctorals, and technicians, would be at least $2 million per year. If the group consisted of as many as 50 faculty, a total minimum annual budget of about $4 million appears necessary. Such a group would seem to need a total capital equipment inventory of about $2 million.

As to research emphases at the various materials centers, the data obtained through the COSMAT questionnaire were not sufficiently informative. General impressions of the research in the 12 laboratories started under the ARPA-DoD program are given by the disciplinary distribution of the faculty involved:

Number of Associated Faculty

1967

1971

Physics

200

143

Materials

110

98

Chemistry

100

102

Electrical Engineering

30

41

Other Engineering, Math., Science

30

24

 

470

408

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

FIG. 7.38 ANNUAL SUPPORT VERSUS FACULTY EFFORT ASSOCIATED WITH UNIVERSITY RESEARCH IN MATERIALS

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

Furthermore for both the AEC and ARPA laboratories, while work statements of the block grants of over a decade ago mentioned all classes of materials, specifically including ceramics and polymers, the qualitative evidence is that these classes of materials received much less attention than did metals and semiconductors. However, in many centers this imbalance has begun to be rectified in recent years. Nevertheless, all the major materials programs concerned principally with polymers have grown up in nonblock-funded laboratories. An analysis of the 28 laboratories’s plans for future emphases, as compared to their present, indicate that, without exception, there is a desire to extend their programs in the applied direction. However, the new research areas most frequently proposed are in biomaterials and substantially more effort is being projected there than for ceramics or polymers. These two directions of future change appear somewhat inconsistent in that the magnitude of the industrial technology associated with ceramics and polymers is enormous compared to that for biomaterials.

We turn now to the question of the product of the research carried out by the materials center, i.e. knowledge about materials. Most commonly this knowledge is communicated to the scientific and engineering world by publication in specialist journals and other publications. A valid measure of the effectiveness of the contributions from a particular center is hard to obtain because the overall impact is obviously dependent upon factors such as quality, as well as on number of publications. Some research which has had a major influence on the direction of science has been published by faculty members whose rate of publication may be low. However, a useful index can be obtained if the count of the number of papers is restricted to those published in refereed journals, and if the reported data refer to a large group of scientists, to individuals over a large period of time, and to a coherent subject-matter field. In the COSMAT inquiry, all these conditions were reasonably well satisfied. The resulting data are shown in Table 7.42 in terms of papers per year per faculty member. It is evident from these figures that while some trends may exist, the total faculty and total output of a center as tabulated here may not provide a proper assessment of the materials research on a given campus. In other words, the spread in data is worthy of note and it also appears that some universities with outstanding reputations may rank rather low on those scales.

It is instructive to compare the ratios of materials-center support to the number of published papers for the various universities. From the responses to the COSMAT questionnaire, averages over a large group and over five years could be computed. The results are shown in Figure 7.39. Here again, there is a wide range of values, from below $10,000 per paper to above $40,000 per paper. While there are other products or outputs resulting from the same support, these relative figures are of interest, since publications are usually considered to be the major indicator of the amount of new knowledge generated. The ratio of dollar support to another principal product of university research—the number of graduate degrees per year— was also computed and is plotted in Figure 7.40. Unfortunately, the

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

TABLE 7.42 Research Output of Materials Centers (Ranked in order of Papers/Paid+ Faculty)

Number of Papers Per Year*

Papers/Total Faculty

Papers/Paid Faculty

Papers/FTE

206

3.62

10.3

17.16

28**

1.47

7

28

90

1.45

6.92

6.92

32

1.24

6.4

32

148

4.22

5.28

18.5

124**

3.44

4.96

10.33

143

2.97

4.76

46.12

57

2.37

4.38

8.76

137

3.51

4.28

24.9

153

4.22

4.22

15.3

24**

0.48

4

24

144**

3.2

3.69

16.17

199**

2.36

2.68

4.85

96**

2.52

2.52

6.76

25***

1.8

2.5

3.47

103

1.99

2.34

7.41

110**

2.07

11

24**

2

2

3

26

2.16

1.62

3.71

33

0.76

0.76

4.1

3

0.75

0.75

35

0.39

0.58

1.4

8**

0.47

0.57

0.57

* 4-yr average unless noted.

** 5-yr average

*** 3-yr average

+ Paid Faculty means paid by the center.

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

FIG. 7.39 ANNUAL SUPPORT VERSUS NUMBER OF PUBLICATIONS AT MATERIALS CENTERS

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

FIG. 7.40 ANNUAL MATERIALS RESEARCH SUPPORT/GRADUATE DEGREES VERSUS NUMBER OF GRADUATE DEGREES

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

questionnaire combined M.S. and Ph.D. degrees, and so the data are not as fully informative as they might have been. Again, analogous to the publications, it must be emphasized that any attempt to identify this ratio uniquely with costs involved in training graduates would be misleading. What these various results do show is that there are large variations from school to school in the research support per year required to result in a paper or a graduate. Hence, depending on whether the principal result sought is research papers or graduates different choices might be made to obtain the most appropriate result for which the research support is intended.

In view of the initial IDL center objective of fostering interdisciplinary research, an attempt to measure the degree to which the centers have been able to develop such interdisciplinarity was undertaken by asking the centers to report on the “number of joint programs,” meaning programs on which the principal investigators were from different departments, and the number of joint papers per year. The returns relating to joint publications proved to be more complete, although a few of the major centers failed to report. These results show that in at least three-quarters of the centers, 5–10% of the papers published per year are written jointly by faculty from two or more departments (see Table 7.38, page 7–175). To some extent, these data underestimate the real interdisciplinary activity in that a number of the materials departments (Table 7.31, page 7–133) have recruited their faculty from a variety of backgrounds, and so papers written jointly by members of the same department could be interdisciplinary, and yet not appear in Table 7.31. The indications are that the number of “joint papers” across departments or disciplines published in other areas of science and engineering is much smaller than shown here. Thus, the publication records for materials research through the centers do provide evidence that an encouraging degree of interdisciplinarity has been achieved within the materials centers. Nevertheless, the fraction of “joint papers” is still substantially less than derive from the major interdisciplinary laboratories in industry, as discussed below.

Subjective views on the extent to which centers had succeeded in promoting interdisciplinary work were also requested by COSMAT. Many observers close to the materials centers, some of them being current or past center directors, expressed the view that the interdisciplinary activity was much more extensive and profound than is suggested by an examination of joint publications or contracts. For example, that by day-to-day contact with other members of the center, many faculty members had themselves become much more interdisciplinary in their own experience and outlook. It is also claimed that many interdisciplinary contributions may be important but still not reach the co-authorship stage.

In contrast to opinions from within the universities, the responses of senior materials administrators from outside the universities revealed much more mixed feelings about the achievements of the interdisciplinary centers; indeed, a few respondents expressed the view that interdisciplinary work had been achieved to only a negligible degree. Moreover, a study of the authorship of papers emanating from the materials research laboratory of a high-

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

technology industrial research organization* reveals that their interdisciplinary publications were as high as 40%.

Since the most novel and distinctive feature of both the administration and funding in the materials area during the past decade was the interdisciplinary center, a survey was made by COSMAT of the expectations of the materials community, and the degree to which these expectations were met. Table 7.43 summarizes the results. It is interesting to note that “effective coupling to industry” showed up most poorly in the evaluations. Also, “Genuinely closely-coupled interdisciplinary research” was judged well below expectations. On the other hand, the centers “overperformed” in the traditional academic areas of educating students and individual research.

Interactions with industry by the materials research centers have been relatively modest. Only 5 (University of Pennsylvania, Southern California, Lehigh, University of Massachusetts, and Penn State) of the centers reported receiving substantial (approximately $100,000 per year) financial support from industry (Tables 7.40 and 7.41), and it constituted more than 10% of the budget in only 3 of these. However, the total research funds provided by industry for materials research at universities is substantially larger than it provides for the centers. Thus, Table 7.41 indicates that there are 5 departments with an average of over $200,000 each in industrial support, constituting over 20% (on the average) of the department’s total research support. On the whole, though, the data reported in Table 7.40 reflect a sparcity of working interactions between most centers and industry. The attempts to establish productive interactions between university materials laboratories (departmental or center controlled) and various industries will be discussed later.

The data on the centers, as presented and discussed in the preceding pages, and including both the costs and the output in terms of students educated and research published form part of the essential information for

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

TABLE 7.43 Expectation and Performance of Materials Centers

(COSMAT Survey of Opinions)

Expectation

Performance

1. The most important goals which should be achieved by materials centers are: (on a scale of 5 (most important) to 1)

Genuinely closely-coupled interdisciplinary research

4.0

2.5

Training M.S. -Ph.D. personnel in Materials Science

3.3

3.7

Support of individual faculty projects of excellence

3.3

3.7

Establishing unique central facilities available to all

3.1

3.4

Efficient start-up of new work

3.0

3.2

Mission-oriented multiple investigator research

2.7

2.3

Effective coupling to industry

2.7

1.5

Applied research, possibly relevant to industry

2.2

1.7

2. The general concept of long-range block funding for support of university materials centers is:

3 Very sound approach

 

 

2.35

2 Good but not essential

1 Undesirable

3. What is the “critical-mass” for a good materials research laboratory concentrating in even a limited area?

In man-years of senior faculty effort (i.e., each m.y. includes necessary postdocs., students, etc.)

 

10 man-years

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

 

Expectation

Performance

4. If in your view it is a good approach, what median annual level of funding provides the best compromise in the typical major university between the benefit of stability and creativity and the possible loss of outside evaluation and responsiveness to national changes?

$ 250,000

500,000

 

 

 

1,000,000

other

Av. $600,000

 

 

5. The materials centers have devoted:

3 Too many resources to materials science & engineering departments or programs

 

 

2 Good balance

 

1.5

1 Too many resources to related fields; physics, chemistry, mech. engineering, etc.

 

 

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

evaluating the effectiveness or “quality” of a center. One other approach to this difficult question may be found in attempting to assess the component departments whose faculties are involved in a center. This approach assumes that the quality of the associated departments can be taken as an index of the center quality. The appropriate information is available from the quality ratings of departments by the American Council on Education (ACE) as reported by Roose-Andersen in 1970, based upon questionnaires circulated in the spring of 1969. Taking the aggregate of the ACE ratings of the Departments of Chemistry, Geology, Mathematics, Physics, Chemical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, and Mechanical Engineering, results in a list which contains most of the universities with block-supported materials centers together with a few nonblock-supported centers. It has also to be emphasized, however, that many universities which have high-quality materials efforts, but without materials centers, such as Caltech, Princeton, U. Mich., also appear high in the AEC ratings.

Research in Materials-Designated Departments

It was noted earlier that the formally-designated materials departments carry out roughly one-third of the total materials research at the universities. In characterizing the research of these departments, of most interest is the emphasis on specific research topics, the resources applied, and the resulting output, i.e. what research is done, how much does it cost, and how effective is the research activity. The nature of the research emphasis proved to be difficult to ascertain. Surprisingly, none of the federal-agency analyses provides such information on the university sector. The only indication of the research scope obtainable was through the items of research interest cited by faculty of materials departments in the U.S. universities.18 The results of this analysis, shown in Table 7.44, point to the relatively modest faculty interest in various aspects of processing; the stronger concentration on mechanical properties than on physical properties; the dominance of research on structure; and the limited effort on materials other than metals.

Specific data on the distribution of sources of federal research support for the materials-designated departments were presented earlier. The distribution of funds, by source, for such departments in 1971 is summarized in Table 7.45. The support total is close to $21 million. Of this support, some 20.5% originated in block funding. It is evident that DoD is the largest funding agency for the materials-designated departments, with 35% of the total. This is in marked contrast to the funding at centers where NSF has become the dominant agency.

The relation between the research support going to the individual materials-designated departments and the number of FTE faculty is shown in Figure 7.41, and the corresponding research support per faculty member is plotted in Figure 7.42. The latter indicates some tendency for the support per faculty member to rise with increasing departmental support and faculty size,

18  

Directory of Metallurgy/Materials Education, J.Nielsen, editor, New York University (1970).

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

TABLE 7.44 Distribution of Areas of Faculty Research Activities in Materials-Designated Departments

 

% of Cited Activities

MINING AND MINERAL BENEFICIATION

 

2.3

PRIMARY PROCESSING (Metals)

 

8.7

SECONDARY PROCESSING (Metals)

 

7.7

NATURE, DEVELOPMENT, AND CHARACTERIZATION OF STRUCTURE

 

 

Fields

4.8

 

Gases and Liquids

2.4

 

Solids

1.4

 

Phase Equilibria, Transformations, and Reactions

9.4

 

Diffusion

3.3

 

Lattice Defects

3.4

 

Characterization

10.4

35.3

PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY OF CONDENSED MATTER

 

3.2

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES AND BEHAVIOR

 

 

Optical

0.5

 

Electronic

2.5

 

Magnetic

1.6

 

Surfaces and Thin Films

2.8

7.5

MECHANICAL PROPERTIES AND BEHAVIOR

 

11.1

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ON PROPERTIES AND BEHAVIOR

 

 

Corrosion and Oxidation

1.3

 

High Temperature

1.3

 

High Pressure

6.2

 

High Energy Radiation

1.6

8.0

SPECIFIC MATERIALS*

 

 

Metals

1.5

 

Ceramics and Inorganic Glasses

5.9

 

Polymers

2.9

 

Composites

1.1

 

Biomaterials

1.6

13.0

EDUCATION, HISTORY, AND ARCHEOLOGY

 

0.6

 

100.00

* It appears likely from the nature of the Metallurgy/Materials Directory used for this tabulation that most of the research items not associated specifically with a given material relate to work on metallic materials.

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

TABLE 7.45 Source of Research Support for Materials-Designated Departments, 1971

SOURCE

PERCENT

Universities

9.0

Foundations

1.7

State Government

0.8

Industry

10.2

NSF

11.9

DoD

34.9

AEC

22.3

NASA

8.5

Other

0.6

 

100.0

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

FIG. 7.41 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NUMBER OF FTE FACULTY IN MATERIALS-DESIGNATED DEPARTMENTS AND DEPARTMENTAL RESEARCH SUPPORT

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

FIG. 7.42 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESEARCH SUPPORT PER FTE FACULTY MEMBER IN MATERIALS-DESIGNATED DEPARTMENTS AND DEPARTMENTAL RESEARCH SUPPORT

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

but to level out at some $10,000 annually per faculty member when the departmental support exceeds about $1 million annually.

The doctoral and publication outputs corresponding to the above research support are presented in Figures 7.43 and 7.44. The relationship between the average number of doctorates awarded annually by a department and the level of annual research support (Figure 7.43) again shows a wide variation—from less than $50,000 to more than $150,000 per year per doctorate. Likewise, the research output expressed as the number of publications per faculty member in relation to the number of graduate degrees awarded (Figure 7.44) also shows considerable spread, with the faculty output generally increasing (up to 4.5 to 5 papers per year) as a function of increasing number of graduate degrees awarded by the department.

Research Interactions with Industry

The evidence from the COSMAT survey indicates that there is relatively little interactive research in materials being done jointly by the universities and industry. Specific coupling efforts exist in only 4 of 5 materials groups in the country. The most active of these are in four universities with materials centers having no block-fund support, and in one center having such support. Although the industrial perception tended to be that the degree of this interaction was too small, the universities alone do not appear to be accountable for this state of affairs; industrial management seems to have been unimaginative in its approaches to utilizing the potential resources of the federally-funded basic research groups at the universities. A longer discussion of the problems and opportunities of industry-university coupling, including descriptions of the various programs, is given in Appendix 7D.

Two basic patterns of coupling have been tried in the materials field: A: Industrial Coupling or Liaison Program between universities and industries alone; and B: the ARPA-coupled contracts and NSF experiments where the sponsoring agency serves a special role.

Pattern A

Lehigh University—“Industrial Liaison Program” —Materials Science Center with approximately a dozen companies. About 10 years old.

Penn State University—“Industrial Coupling Program” —Materials Research Laboratory with approximately a dozen companies. About 10 years old.

Stanford University—“Industrial Affiliates Program” —Chemistry and Chem. Eng. Departments with 13 companies. About 3 years old.

U.C.L.A. —“Materials Affiliates Program” —Materials Division with six companies. 3 years old.

Case Western Reserve University—“Industrial Coupling” —Macromolecular Institute and about a dozen companies. About 7 years old.

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

FIG. 7.43 ANNUAL NUMBER OF DOCTORATES FROM MATERIALS-DESIGNATED DEPARTMENTS IN RELATION TO DEPARTMENTAL RESEARCH SUPPORT

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

FIG. 7.44 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLICATION RATE AND GRADUATE-DEGREE OUTPUT OF MATERIALS-DESIGNATED DEPARTMENTS

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

Pattern B

Washington University (St. Louis) —Monsanto (continuing)

 

All with ARPA support (about 8 years old)

Case Western Reserve University—Union Carbide (terminated)

University of Denver—Martin Marietta (terminated July 1, 1973)

American University, Carnegie-Mellon, Georgia Tech., Lehigh University

Boeing—Naval Research Laboratory (terminated)

Carnegie-Mellon University—“Processing Research Institute” —Mechanical, Chemical, and Materials Engineering Departments. (Just starting)

 

With NSF support

Seven Universities—Ultrahard Materials Program with 30–40 companies in cutting tool and grinding materials area.

The ARPA approach was aimed very specifically at advancing selected areas of technology, on the basis of the following criteria:

  1. It must be of major DoD interest.

  2. It must be lacking in sufficient commercial interest unless stimulated by adequate DoD support.

  3. The field must be small enough that support of the order of a million dollars per year is enough to permit a laboratory operation to attain close to world leadership.

  4. The area must be large enough that it is not intellectually confining, so that good people will find a wide enough assortment of problems to attract and maintain their interest.

  5. It should be a field in which there is on-going work at present, “since we do not wish to attempt to build from scratch a large program that we then have to feel responsibility for.”

The ARPA experiment was basically not an attempt to innovate in interinstitutional interaction, but rather a program to accelerate science-technology transfer.

The principal active model, which emerges for the other and longer-lived programs, is of a small (10–15) list of companies, specifically associated in a formal manner with a particular laboratory. A key common feature is that the area of specialization of the university laboratory be of specific and particular interest to the companies involved. This is the crucial distinction

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

from the generalized university-wide “industrial associates” programs which many distinguished universities have developed since the War. Thus, among the examples given, it will be seen that the Lehigh program attracts chiefly metals companies, while that at Penn State University chiefly attracts electronic materials and ceramics companies.

For the most part, interaction with industry was not a primary purpose of the federally block-funded materials research centers. Nevertheless, some of the block-funded centers have had wide-ranging, but informal, interactions with materials and local industries, and have participated in materials problems of practical interest. These interactions have occurred via informal discussions, by members of the centers acting as consultants to industry, by the participation of members in national problem-solving study groups such as the ARPA Materials Research Council, and by industrial research administrators serving on the visiting committees of materials centers.

Some General Aspects of Materials Science and Engineering at Universities

A variety of organizational units within the universities make a contribution to the science and engineering of materials. In the educational area, about 90 formally-designated materials degree programs of all kinds (including materials science, solid-state science, materials engineering, metallurgy, ceramics, and polymer science—alone or in various combinations) produce some 1000 B.S., 450 M.S., and 300 Ph.D. degrees per year. These constitute roughly 3%, 4%, and 8% of the corresponding numbers for all of engineering. In addition, several hundreds of bachelor’s and advanced degrees are granted to students who enter the wider field of materials science and engineering; in that group of disciplines, physics, chemistry, electrical engineering, etc., some 500 Ph.D. degrees are awarded annually in university materials-related programs.

Educationally, MSE has a relatively weak presence on the campus as a disciplinary activity—having some impact on the engineering curricula and essentially none on science departments. Of the 250 or so engineering schools, only about 65 have departments of materials. In part, this state reflects the stage of development of the field. At many universities, materials as a field is new enough to be considered in an “interdisciplinary” phase.

Materials research is conducted within interdisciplinary centers, materials departments, and a wide variety of related departments. A particularly important development during the last decade in university research administration has been the emergence of the materials center and its block-funding concept. Nevertheless, a great deal of misinformation and misunderstanding appears to exist as to the current character and state of that area, even among those closely connected with the field. From the COSMAT analysis, the principal facts may be summarized as follows:

  1. There are some 28 interdisciplinary materials research centers of various kinds existing as formal units at institutions in the U.S. They receive about $51 million annually (FY ’71) from all external sources to support their research.

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
  1. Eighteen of these are block funded, with the amounts varying from $250,000 to $7 million annually.

  2. Ten are not block funded, but a few of these are as large and diverse as several of the block-funded institutions.

  3. Taken as a group these centers constitute a major national resource for sophisticated education and research in MSE. There is general agreement in the universities that block funding on campuses is a desirable and workable arrangement. However, there is a wide spread in all the quantifiable measures of the actual performance of such centers. Within the materials community, considerable diversity of opinion exists on the effectiveness of block funding as a whole with respect to the costs for producing research and training students, the degree of interdisciplinarity achieved, innovation in education, and interactions with government or industry.

Research in the materials-designated departments is funded at about $20 million annually, followed in funding by materials research in departments of physics, chemistry, and electrical engineering.

Coupling of the university materials programs to industrial research has been modest. Generally speaking, the coupling experiments by ARPA do not seem to have left a major mark. Five formally organized programs coupling a materials center or unit to a group of industries exist, all save one at nonblock-funded universities. The adopted patterns have similar features, and provide a valuable starting point for other attempts.

The last ten years have been an era in which the conceptual and industrial aspects of the science of materials have been developed and refined, along with a burst of activity in the basic sciences. The next decade should see the test of the validity and utility of these concepts with thrusts toward the more applied areas.

A study of the objectives of the materials centers and of the important novel characteristics of the materials science/engineering field suggest certain criteria which may serve usefully in future evaluations of the materials-center programs, particularly in relation to national concerns. These criteria are:

  1. Effectiveness of materials center management.

  2. Outputs per dollar of support, development of unique central facilities to aid materials research across the whole campus, graduate degrees, publications.

  3. Quantity and quality of research and graduate students in both materials-designated and materials-related areas.

  4. Degree of interdisciplinarity achieved.

  5. Balance between basic and applied orientations and among different classes of materials.

  6. Balance between individual idea-pursuit and work on coherent areas.

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×

In addition to evaluating the center as an organization for research, the question of the effectiveness of the block-grant mechanism of funding requires attention. That the potential benefits of block funding fall into two categories may not have been clearly recognized:

Benefits automatically accrued:

  1. Longevity. Stability of research planning, hence ability to tackle long-range, more basic problems.

  2. Creativity. Major savings of faculty time in not writing proposals and in minimizing related administration.

  3. Flexibility. Availability of funds to get new faculty going, for acquisition of major pieces of new instrumentation, starting new areas as the ideas arise, etc.

Benefits which may be achieved:

  1. Genuine Interdisciplinarity. Can be developed by propinquity, joint research programs, writing of joint papers, etc

  2. Coherent Programs. Focused research is made possible on larger and applied problems.

  3. Central Facilities. Major equipment items and services can be developed and utilized by large numbers of faculty from different departments.

When evaluated against these criteria, it is seen that the main areas where the materials center concept can be regarded as successful include:

  • It drew attention to the emergence of coupled materials science and engineering as a new interdisciplinary focus of activity in a way which could not have been achieved otherwise: the development on several campuses of a true intellectual center of materials research, with a building, central facilities, key faculty members and their graduate students interacting with each other, and (occasionally) with government and industry. These institutions now constitute a national resource of vast importance.

  • It demonstrated that block funding is perfectly feasible on a campus.

  • The support led to several excellent research groupings of faculty members, the building-up of a reputation and attraction for good students, and the training of first-rate materials scientists, physicists, chemists, and other professionals.

  • Another unique benefit was in efficiency through faculty saving their time in writing proposals and seeking support, and the agency officials likewise saving a great deal of administrative time.

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
  • A large number of students were trained in an excellent environment for advanced degrees.

Conversely, criticisms or questions about the materials-center programs arise with respect to the following:

  • Why is there so little evidence for the special impact of a $25–30 million/year program on advanced-degree production? The increase in the materials degrees shows no evidence that this increase was any more than the normal growth curve of U.S. science.

  • The development of any special administrative mechanism for centralization or other effective sharing of facilities, etc., is not particularly marked in at least half of the centers.

  • The dollar support associated with the output of research (publications) and with numbers of advanced degrees show a large variability. Allowing for all the factors which might affect these values, changes neither the fact nor the magnitude of the wide range in cost at universities which are otherwise very similar. Whether the differences are attributable to particular management or accounting patterns, or actually to more effective work, merits attention, if the universities are to make best use of their resources in the future.

  • The degree of interdisciplinarity has developed only modestly compared with industry, although better than in the traditional departments. Coherent-area research was almost non-existent up to the date of the COSMAT survey (1971).

Taking into account the fact that the block funding of materials centers included many schools with the best faculty and reputations, the question that recurs is: “What was achieved by block funding for the materials centers that would not have been achieved by funding the faculty directly?” Specific points that raise this question are:

  1. There is little or no correlation between magnitude of block funding and development of the institution as a “materials school.” (i.e., a university with an excellent physics department receiving a block grant for materials research would have been expected to acquire some “materials” reputation outside of physics.)

  2. There is only modest correlation between the availability of block funding and the existence of specialized laboratory buildings, or central facilities, or their scale.

  3. There is a negative correlation between existence of block funding and interaction with industry.

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
  1. There is no correlation between large block grants and degree of interdisciplinary interaction.

  2. Excellence was achieved at many of the block-funded centers in the very same areas, while other important areas were neglected. For example, all the major polymer-research centers came into existence outside the block-funded schools.

On the question of what has been achieved by block funding which could not have been achieved otherwise, one of the most significant management developments has been the parallel emergence of strong university groups without the benefit of block funding; that is, the entree of block funding stimulated equivalent efforts without block funding. Case studies of such experiences might tell even more about the requirements for effective interdisciplinary work on campus.

During the 1960’s there was a rapid coalescence of the materials field, so that what were separate degree programs in metallurgy, ceramics, and, to a lesser extent, polymer science, were being brought together both by the logic of a common science of materials and by administrative fiat. Yet, while there has been a great deal of discussion about the development of “materials science” degrees, the changes have been evolutionary rather than revolutionary. A total of only ten departments call themselves “materials science and/or engineering” without a qualifier. This includes no more than 4 or 5 entirely new Ph.D. degree programs in what may be called materials science, and only one or two of those have produced any appreciable numbers of Ph.D.’s. Many of the major metallurgy departments have introduced solid-state subject matter and have adopted the title (substituting or adding) “materials science.” However, rarely does the degree program provide much exposure to ceramics or polymers, or new conceptual frameworks, or applied courses dealing with several classes of materials. This appears to be due, at least in some measure, to the fact that the educational programs themselves have not been supported by federal funding but simply reflect the existing departmental structures or new research emphases. Private institutions have not fared significantly better than their public counterparts in this respect.

There is still some question as to whether or not a new academic discipline of materials science or of materials engineering will emerge. An unresolved issue on this point is the extent to which polymer science can be integrated into the rest of materials science. There is as yet no example of a well-known polymer-oriented Ph.D. curriculum sharing a basic core with other materials science students. Either such a new materials discipline with metallurgy, ceramics, and polymer science becoming branches or subfields within it (more or less like chemistry and its division into physical, inorganic, organic, etc.) will develop, or increasingly what may appear is a group of materials sciences affiliated loosely with each other. Indeed, the solution presently adopted by some of the largest departments points in the latter direction. These departments may offer three or four options in ceramics, metals, polymers, and a more basic undifferentiated materials science, which is an arrangement that allows a degree of specialization but simultaneously provides a common foundation. At present, there are real difficulties in achieving genuine intellectual innovation on curricular

Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 154
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 155
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 156
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 157
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 158
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 159
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 160
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 161
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 162
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 163
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 164
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 165
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 166
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 167
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 168
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 169
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 170
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 171
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 172
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 173
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 174
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 175
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 176
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 177
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 178
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 179
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 180
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 181
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 182
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 183
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 184
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 185
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 186
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 187
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 188
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 189
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 190
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 191
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 192
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 193
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 194
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 195
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 196
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 197
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 198
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 199
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 200
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 201
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 202
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 203
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 204
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 205
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 206
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 207
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 208
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 209
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 210
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 211
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 212
Suggested Citation:"Materials Education and Research in Universities." National Research Council. 1975. Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10438.
×
Page 213
Next: Materials Manpower and Professional Activities »
Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering -- Volume III, The Institutional Framework for Materials Science and Engineering Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!