Georgia Tech Alumni Magazine Vol. 42, No. 07 1964

Page 1

THE MONEY BEHIND OUR COLLEGES-A Special Report THE MAY

1964

GEORGIA TECH

PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS: lO % of their income comes from student fees.

PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS: 39.7% of their income comes from the states.

PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS: 18.6% of their income comes from Washington.

ALUMNUS

A W E ARE PLEASED to note that lately there seems to be a great upswing in Tech men running for political offices. It was not too long ago that Culver Kidd of Milledgeville stood alone among all those Georgia men in the Senate. Then Charlie Brown and Wallace Jernigan joined him and now Brown, H. McKinley Conway, and Dan Maclntyre, III, are in the Georgia Senate along with the loyal Mr. Kidd. We look upon this as a sign of better things ahead. Too long have the engineer, scientist, and businessman avoided the active role in politics. This political treatise is prompted by a note from Morley Hudson—president of a company in Shreveport, Louisiana and a practicing engineer—who has just been elected as a state senator down that way. Normally, the election of one state senator is hardly news but in this case it is. He is a Republican (as is Maclntyre) in a traditionally democrat state and the first Tech man to serve in this legislature. He is also the only practicing engineer in that house. In his note, Morley makes a plea to Tech men to jump into the political fire. "I believe that a Republic must be based on the conviction that there are extraordinary possibilities in ordinary people," he said. "If we aren't willing to work and pay for the kind of government we want, other people are willing to make the sacrifices for their kind of government. "And as further inducement, I have found my customers more friendly, cooperative and willing to give me a business break now that I'm in politics. Contrary to popular misconception, prejudice, and/or excuses—a businessman can take a public position in his political beliefs."

Look alikes? Yes, but one is different. Our unique organization is designed to serve our clients from concept to completion for any type commercial or industrial expansion in the Greater Atlanta area. Call us, we can help you with your expansion plans.

1 PIEDMONT

DEVELOPMENT

COMPANY

65 Eleventh Street N.E. Atlanta 9, Ga. 873-1471

• I F YOU notice such things, you will be surprised at the name change of our class notes editor. Mary Peeks, who antedates the editor in her job, accomplished this through a five-minute ceremony in Atlanta on March 20, seven hours after the vernal equinox struck the city. Peeks is now Mrs. Marshall Bowie, IM '59, and for obvious reasons we excused her from writing up a class note on the event. The wedding was noteworthy for two incidents. Just as the bride got ready to say, "I will," an office phone rang in the church. Everyone who has worked with Peeks expected her to either (1) bolt from the altar to answer the phone or (2) shout for someone to answer because she was tied up at the moment. She stood fast and the ceremony continued. Then as the party was leaving the church, George Griffin, loyal but late, rounded the corner. One thing you have to say for Bowie nee Peeks, she brought spring to Atlanta in her own way this year. We hope Marshall appreciates her uniqueness. B. W, TECH ALUMNUS

...togetherness? You can have it if you like, or we'll take care of the children from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Our children's program includes everything from shell hunts and crabbing to deer spotting and "discovering" historic ruins. High strung wives have been known to gentle down from a canter to a slow, pleasant gait after a few days' relaxation here at William Hilton Inn. Their husbands look at them with renewed interest. Add the tonic of really good food, pleasantly served, the stimulation of golf played on a green carpet by the sea, horseback riding among the pines, sailing, fishing . . . or the pure pleasure of doing nothing at all. You're at Sea Pines. This dream come true is yours through June, six days and five nights, from $81 per person (2 to a room) including breakfasts, dinners and your greens fees. Special rates for children. Crabbing at Broad Creek is a delight for the whole family. We'll cook your Crustacea and serve them to you on the patio if you like.

This picture was taken from an oceanfront balcony at the William Hilton Inn. Neither party kneiv it. Too exhilarated !

Soft Atlantic breezes and cool tropical green temper the Carolina sun over our championship course.

For reservations

When the sun goes down, strike up a happy note for carefree evenings . . . starting in the Grog 'n Galley and continuing under the stars.

call or write:

WILLIAM HILTON INN/SEA PINES PLANTATION Box 10, Hilton Head Island, S. C. An easy six hourv' drive from Atlanta . . . well worth coming to from wherever you are.

THARPE

THARPE & BROOKS @ WJJ R •OOKS

INCORPORATED

reetings to students and alumni everywhere. We share

M O R T G A G E

B A N K E R S

your interest in the advancement of our alma mater, Georgia Tech.

1 NS U RO RS

ATLANTA

COLUMBUS

I N T E R N A T I O N A L OFFICE PARK SAVANNAH

ATHENS DECATUR

MACON

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

G E O R G I A ROBERT THARPE ' 3 4

J. L

BROOKS

"39

Printers OF NATIONAL AWARD WINNING

GEORGIA TECH ALUMNUS AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS OF DISTINCTION

HIGGINSJWARTHUR

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

tympany 302 HAYDEN STREET, N.W. ATLANTA 13, GEORGIA

^ g r ^ * ^ L ^

w

W . J. McAlpin, President, ' 2 7 W. J. McAlpin, Jr., Vice-President, '57 F. P. DeKoning, Secretory, ' 4 8

I.J. FINNIGAN CO., INC. O. Box 2 3 4 4 , Station D A t l a n t a 18, Georgia

Birmingham 5, Alabama. P. 0. Box 3285A Denver 22, Colorado, 3201 South Albion Street Dallas 19, Texas, P. 0. Box 6597 Kansas City 4 1 , Missouri, P. 0. Box 462 Greensboro, North Carolina, P. 0. Box 1589 Little Rock, Arkansas, 4108 C Street Houston 6 Texas, P. 0 Box 66099 Memphis 1 1 , Tennessee, 3683 Southern Avenue Jacksonville 3, Florida, P. 0. Box 2527 Mew Orleans 25, Louisiana, P. 0. Box 13214 Richmond 28, Virginia, 8506 Ridgeview Drive

TECH ALUMNUS

CAPITALIST This young schoolgirl is one of more t h a n a million General Motors shareholders. Her parents recently purchased a number of shares of GM stock as the beginning of a fund for her college education. As a shareholder, she could be called, in effect, a capitalist. Of course, there's nothing exclusive about G M ownership. Every age group and most occupations are represented. G M shareholders live in every state of the nation, every Canadian province and more than 80 foreign countries. More than half of all individual shareholders are women. Three quarters of the people who own G M stock have a hundred shares or less; 85 per cent own less t h a n two hundred. People is the key word at GM. More t h a n 600,000 employes, thousands of suppliers and dealers—plus the more t h a n a million shareholders— they are the backbone of General Motors progress.

GENERAL MOTORS IS PEOPLE... Making Better Things For You

THE MA^

GEORGIA TECH

THE FACE OF GEORGIA TECH

ALUMNUS Volume 42

Number 7

CONTENTS 2. RAMBLIN'—the editor discusses the importance of being politic and a wedding. 8. A FEW OUNCES OF PREVENTION—a special confer-

ence on Jobs, Education, and Automation kicks off a campaign to insure that Atlanta never becomes a depressed area. 11. GOOD THINGS HAPPEN IN THREES a tale of an astronaut, a contract, and a space center. 12.

THE MONEY BEHIND OUR COLLEGES—a special re-

port by a group of alumni editors who know whereof they speak. 30.

THE GEORGIA TECH JOURNAL—all the news about

the Institute, the clubs, and, of course, the alumni.

Officers of the Georgia Tech National Alumni Association W. S. Terrell, '30, Pres. M. F. Cole, '41, VP D. A. McKeever, '32, VP W. H. Ector, '40, Treas. W. Roane Beard, '40, Executive Secretary B

Staff

ob Wallace, Jr., '49, Editor Mary Jane Reynolds, Editorial Assistant Tom Hall, 59, Advertising Mary Bowie, Class Notes

THE

COVER

•-GEORGIA TECH-

& #

|

<3>

~MB

Artist Joe McKibben graphically shows how Tech stacks up, financially with the rest of America's public institutions. Torfind out where all of Tech's money comes from and how the other colleges are supported please turn to the special report beginning on page 12 of this issue.

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

of his field of study, the Tech student is aiming at becoming a professional man. Today, he is becoming a "well calculated" one and at electronic speeds. Helping this transition (as well as aiding the faculty research programs) is the Rich Electronic Computer Center. The center's newest computer is a Burroughs 5000, installed last fall with the aid of a special $500,000 grant from GovREGARDLESS

ernor Sanders, a $257,000 National Science Foundation grant, and a discount from the manufacturer, the 5000 along with its partner, the Burroughs 220, are now offered to the Tech students as tools to be used as the library is used. Professionals handle the computer preparations and operation, leaving the student free for the important tasks of thinking and problem solving.

Photographed for the Alumnus by Bill Sumits, Jr.

MAY, 1964

by Frank Bigger

A FEW OUNCES OF PREVENTION A conference at Tech sets the wheels in motion that could keep the Atlanta area from joining the ranks of the "depressed"

A-

-TLANTA—business and financial mecca of the rapidly developing Southeast, proud "City of a Million," crossroads of commerce and culture—stands today a vulnerable target for the relentless forces of automation. Cosmopolitan jewel in the new era's crown of prosperity worn by a region only now casting away the hundred-year-old shackles of war, defeat, ignorance and poverty; Atlanta could quickly slip backward toward economic depression. This gloomy prospect was revealed by the newly-created Georgia Automation Study Commission meeting for the TECH ALUMNUS

first time early in April on the Georgia Tech campus to consider methods for meeting the challenges of automation and softening its impact, and taking full advantage of the blessings it can bring. Commission Chairman Dr. Walter S. Buckingham, director of Tech's School of Industrial Management, told how Atlanta is uniquely vulnerable to automation; how the city could become a "depressed area." The vast ranks of clerical workers in thousands of Atlanta offices could in a few short years be replaced by machines. "Atlanta is basically clerical employment center with a great number of branch offices of national companies," he said. "Computers in the home offices could eliminate these Atlanta clerical jobs." The 1960 census showed 73,578 persons involved in clerical work in the metropolitan area. Authoritative estimates put the figure closer to 100,000 in Atlanta now. But precise figures are needed and the commission will ask a representative of the State Department of Labor to be on hand to supply this information at its next meeting. The commission's answer to the possible wholesale loss of clerical jobs is retraining. The best reaction to automation, Dr. Buckingham says, is the development of more and better skills. Turning to another serious problem, that of high school dropouts who have no skills to offer the labor market and often become a drag on the economy, the 10-member commission recommended that compulsory high school or trade school attendance be required to age 18. This would keep young people off the labor market longer while preparing them for a more successful career. It would, of course, require state action to raise the compulsory school age. The Automation Commission at present has no official standing and no budget. But in the capacity of a fact-finding and coordinating service to assist official agencies working on the automation problem, the commission proposes two alternatives in controlling the dropout situation. In the two additional years of compulsory school, the student could choose to take either a college preparatory program or a job training program. Far too few Georgia high schools now can offer even the minimum academic requirements for the potential college student. The commission proposes that this problem be solved through further consolidation of high schools. Georgia has the highest dropout rate of all the 50 states. A great deal more information is needed to understand this problem before logical solutions can be suggested. The commission is presently gathering needed data from all corners of the state on who drops out of school and where and why. A representative of the State Department of Education is also expected to attend the next commission meeting with additional information. Such a detailed study is also needed about workers themselves, the commission declared, to determine why workers leave certain jobs, why others are laid off, and where they are located. The commission members also MAY, 1964

agreed that unemployment of a type actually exists among people who are holding down jobs when these jobs are far beneath their ability. These were the first proposals of the commission which grew out of a "Jobs, Education and Automation" conference held at Georgia Tech March 13. The conference was an activity of Tech's newly-established Industrial Management Center and was conducted by Tech's Department of Short Courses and Conferences. To the session came over 250 leaders of business, industry, education and labor. Featured speakers were" Seymour L. Wolfbein, director, Manpower, Automation and Training, U. S. Labor Department; and Francis Keppel, U. S. Commissioner of Education. Buckingham served as conference chairman. Six discussion groups viewed various aspects of the problem and reported possible solutions back to the conference. These suggestions ranged from the creation of a federal agency to handle the automation-poverty dilemma, to the elimination of overtime and keeping young people in school longer and off the labor market. Areas of discussion were: "Acceleration of Automated Change in American Business and Industry," "The Effects of Automation on Education," "The Effects and Possible Solutions to Involuntary Unemployment Created by Automation," "The Effects of Automation on Private Management," "The Quest for Balanced Economic Progress," and "The Social Revolution of Automation." These discussion groups reported many divided opinions. Still the two points on which all agreed were paramount. These were that the conference was dealing with problems too widespread and dangerous to the well being of the nation to permit disagreement between management and labor, and that the spirit of the conference must somehow be continued with positive action. The Georgia Automation Study Commission was thus established. The commission membership is significant in that it is made up of representatives from education, the state government, business, industry and labor. Serving with Dr. Buckingham are Rawson Haverty, president, Atlanta Chamber of Commerce; J. O. Moore, president, Atlanta Labor Council, AFL-CIO; Wallace H. Stewart, Atlanta manager, International Business Machines, Inc.; Dr. John Letson, superintendent, Atlanta Public Schools; Herbert Green, representative, United Auto Workers; Robert Mitchell, vice president, Lockheed-Georgia; Dr. Carl Biven, associate professor, Tech School of Industrial Management; Mrs. Bruce Schaefer, director, Georgia State Department of Family and Children Services; and William K. Lomason, president, Associated Industries of Georgia. Surely, the conference represents an effort for laying the groundwork to meet a problem before it actually arises that other sections of the nation might do well to follow. For although the region at present has no serious problems from the triple-headed Hydra, automation-unemploymentcontinued on page 10

A Few Ounces of Prevention — continued

of a nation's population living at the brink of poverty can be catastrophic. poverty, stark consequences could rapidly develop unless Buckingham said that one has only to look at history. preventative measures are taken. "People who have been out of work for a long time are Congressional Representative Charles Weltner, Georgia, likely to vote for anyone—be they radicals of the left or Fifth District, who helped arrange the conference, said right—who will offer them a job. Hitler was elected to there is an urgent need to create an awareness of the prob- office in 1932 and one of his major campaign promises was that he would give everybody a job." lems and benefits of automation. "The problem," he said, "boils down very simply to the While we, in the Year 1964, can look back over the facts that skills needed a few short years ago, are no longer first half of a century and applaud the advance of techneeded. We have four million people unemployed in the nology in those years which exceeds all previous history, United States and the situation is becoming worse because a glance at the second half of the century tells us we haven't of the tremendous number of young people entering the seen anything yet! Marvels are to come that stagger the labor market and because of the development of machines imagination. They will also compound society's problems. which do the work of people." The central theme running through the many avenues of The threat of the machine can be seen, to a small de- thought which must be pursued to solve the problems of gree, in the Atlanta region, Weltner added. "In the past five automation and unemployment is change. years, the number of production jobs in manufacturing has As Buckingham says, "the good old days have been declined in the district by two-and-a-half per cent. Yet pro- swept away by technology that has given us the world's duction continues to grow. This is due to the development highest standard of living. We cannot think of the idle of the machine. It is a great thing, but it has very dramatic yearnings of the past. We must look to the future. We impact on those persons displaced by it. Our unemployment must prepare ourselves and our children for a life of conranks swell and the entire community is adversely affected tinuous change. This means change in jobs frequently rather unless we can develop some means of dealing with the than doing the same thing over and over again, because problem." that is the one thing a machine can do cheaper and more Buckingham, author of the federal job retraining pro- profitable for industry and government." gram and an international authority on automation, manThis idea of change was amplified by Education Comagement and labor, stressed the need for advanced planning. missioner Keppel at the Tech Meeting: "Although unemployment in the area is only half the "The process of change in society is continual . . . our national figure of seven per cent, unemployment tends to nation has entered a new age. This is the age of automaspread like a contagious disease," he said. tion, an era when fewer hands can produce more goods, Citing other figures, Buckingham commented that 20 when muscle is being replaced by machines. The growth of technology is not new, but what is new is the sweeping per cent of the American people live under conditions of pace at which this change is taking place. . . . Today, as poverty. "By definition of the Department of Labor, these are never before, education is everywhere summoned to servfamilies earning $3,000 a year or less. Another 20 per ice, to a growing variety of service—to meet the challenges cent live on the verge of poverty and these people are in of poverty and ignorance, to supply the skills needed in danger of having their principal wage earner lose his job this increasingly interdependent world, to prepare America for a time in which the only constant appears to be change at any time." itself." He gave automobile assembly plants as examples of manufacturing complexes where automation could quickly The benefits to be gained from automation must someproduce a calamity through unemployment. how overcome the dread. The rush of automation is creating a situation which The United States does not by any means stand alone in this predicament. Indeed, the entire industralized world is could bring about the greatest social advancement the looking to the United States for leadership in coping with world has known. For one of automation's greatest impacts economic difficulties created by the technological explosion. has been in dramatizing the shortcomings of today's society. Buckingham gives West Germany as an example where It forces us to look back critically, to look clearly at the labor must now be imported, but where signs point to a present, and to look prudently ahead. rise of unemployment in the future and a rapid spread of As President Johnson recently declared: "If we have the poverty. brainpower to invent these machines, we have the brain"There is a good chance we could lose our position of power to make certain that they are a boon and not a leadership if we don't solve the problems of unemploy- bane to humanity." ment, displacement and poverty—all of which are caused How fitting it is that the Georgia Institute of Technology, by automation," he commented. a contributor to the century's astounding technological adThe immediate problems of unemployment are evident vances, should take a leading role in attempting to solve to everyone. The long range effects of a high percentage the problems created by that technology. 10

TECH ALUMNUS

Astronaut Young-two for the orbit

Even in the race into Space

GOC D THINGS HAPPEN IN THREES has it that all good things (and bad ones) come in threes. Georgia Tech went right down the fine with tradition in its major entry into the space field during a two-week period in April. The first of the trio was the April 13 announcement that Tech alumnus, Lt. Commander John W. Young, USN, was to be one of the astronauts in the two-man Gemini ride this fall. Young, who graduated from Tech in 1952 with highest honors in Aeronautical Engineering, will join space veteran Virgil I. "Gus" Grissom in the new space attempt. The selection of Young for this important mission makes the shy, 33-year-old, ex-Navy test pilot a top prospect for the first Project Apollo shot at the moon now scheduled for 1970. It will also project him as the seventh of the U.S. space idols, a fact that will undoubtedly bother him considerably more than the ride into space itself. This announcement and its subsequent retelling for almost a week was followed on April 20 with a release from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration that Tech had received a grant of over $200,000 for its upper atmospheric physics studies headed by Dr. Howard Edwards, research associate professor of physics and head of the space sciences branch of the Engineering Experiment Station. These studies officially called "Theoretical and Experimental Research Program involving the Chemical Release Program," have represented Tech's largest NASA project to date and have been reported before in the pages of this magazine. They involve the release of chemical clouds via rocket firing in the 80-100 mile area above the earth in order to investigate the structure of winds at these altitudes.

S

UPERSTITION

MAY, 1964

The final and most important of the three announcements involving Tech's space effort broke out of Senator Richard Russell's office in Washington on April 24. It stated that NASA had approved a $1,000,000 grant to Georgia Tech for a space research building. The building— first of three planned for Tech's new $2,500,000 space technology center—is in the words of Senator Russell, "a highly significant development for the Adanta area and Georgia." There was no direct mention of future NASA grants in the statement. But James E. Webb, NASA administrator, gave an indication of them when he stated that the projected facilities "will expand the national base of research laboratories available to competent scientific manpower, and will thus permit NASA to contribute more effectively to the preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space sciences and technology." The initial building—to be located on the west side of the current campus—will contain 51,364 gross square feet of research space to be used exclusively by both government and non-government research in space-related sciences and technology in the ten-year period following its completion. The other proposed buildings in the projected center include another laboratory-office building of comparable size and an auditorium building. As Senator Russell so aptly put it in the announcement, "NASA's decision to finance construction of this space research facility is recognition of the important contribution Georgia Tech is making to the nation's space program and of the larger and broader role Tech will play in future space science and research developments." 11

is an important special report on the financial aspects of higher education today. As you read it, you may be interested in knowing how Tech looks in this area when measured against that favorite whipping boy of the writer—the average. According to the special report, the average American university derives 20.7 per cent of its income from student fees and the average of the public institution is but 10 per cent. Tech's percentage in this area in the year used as the base for this report was 18.1, fairly close to the national average for all universities and considerably above that for the public institutions. With the $300-per-year hike in tuition at Tech this fall for out-of-state students, the figure here will climb to roughly 22 per cent, which will put it above the average of all universities and lend more credence to the late President Van Leer's contention that Tech was one of the few public institutions financed like a private one. The fact that Tech's gifts-and-grants percentage stood at 7.8 per cent against 2.3 per cent for public institutions further emphasizes this contention. BEGINNING ON THE FACING PAGE

If Tech is ahead in these two areas, it is below the norm in two other important statistics featured in the report. In the matter of state support, Tech stood at 37.1, almost 3 per cent below the average for public institutions. And in federal support, Tech received 13.6 per cent from Washington against 18.6 per cent for public institutions. But in both^of these areas, the indications are that Tech is on the move. The state provided a raise for Tech faculty members that averaged out to 10 per cent for the coming year and also added some money to the operational budget. It also presented the University System with enough funds that Tech will receive 15.5 million dollars for new buildings in the near future. The announcement from NASA (see page 11) is an excellent start in increased federal support of Tech's programs in the future. 12

TECH ALUMNUS

.' - v . <

-

The Money Behind Our Colleges

MMM

A R i AMERICA'S colleges and universities in good financial health— X X or bad? Are they pricing themselves out of many students' reach? Or can—and should—students and their parents carry a greater share of the cost of higher education? Can state and local governments appropriate more money for higher education? Or is there a danger that taxpayers may "revolt"? Does the federal government—now the third-largest provider of funds to higher education—pose a threat to the freedom of our colleges and universities? Or is the "threat" groundless, and should higher education seek even greater federal support? Can private donors—business corporations, religious denominations, foundations, alumni, and alumnae—increase their gifts to colleges and universities as greatly as some authorities say is necessary? Or has private philanthropy gone about as far as it can go? There is no set of "right" answers to such questions. College and university financing is complicated, confusing, and often controversial, and even the administrators of the nation's institutions of higher learning are not of one mind as to what the best answers are. One thing is certain: financing higher education is not a subject for "insiders," alone. Everybody has a stake in it.

HESE DAYS, most of America's colleges and universities manage to make ends meet. Some do not: occasionally, a college shuts its doors, or changes its character, because in the jungle of educational financing it has lost thefiscalfitnessto survive. Certain others, qualified observers suspect, hang onto life precariously, sometimes sacrificing educational quality to conserve their meager resources. But most U.S. colleges and universities survive, and many do so with some distinction. On the surface, at least, they appear to be enjoying their best financial health in history. The voice of the bulldozer is heard in our land, as new buildings go up at a record rate. Faculty salaries in most institutions—at critically low levels not long ago—are, if still a long distance from the high-tax brackets, substantially better than they used to be. Appropriations of state funds for higher education are at an all-time high. The federal government is pouring money into the campuses at an unprecedented rate. Private gifts and grants were never more numerous. More students than ever before, paying higher fees than ever before, crowd the classrooms. How real is this apparent prosperity? Are there danger signals? One purpose of this report is to help readers find out.

T

ow DO colleges and universities get the money they run on? By employing a variety of financing processes and philosophies. By conducting, says one participant, the world's busiest patchwork quilting-bee. U.S. higher education's balance sheets—the latest of which shows the country's colleges and universities receiving more than $7.3 billion in current-fund income—have been known to baffle even those men and women who are at home in the depths of a corporate financial statement. Perusing them, one learns that even the basic terms have lost their old, familiar meanings. "Private" institutions of higher education, for example, receive enormous sums of "public" money—including more federal research funds than go to all so-called "public" colleges and universities. And "public" institutions of higher education own some of the largest "private" endowments. (The endowment of the University of Texas, for instance, has a higher book value than Yale's.) When the English language fails him so completely, can higher education's balance-sheet reader be blamed for his bafflement?

H Where U.S. colleges and universities get their income

N A RECENT year, U.S. colleges and universities got their current-fund income in this fashion: 20.7% came from student tuition and fees. 18.9% came from the federal government. 22.9% came from state governments. 2.6% came from local governments. 6.4% came from private gifts and grants.

I

COPYRIGHT 1 9 6 4 BY EDITORIAL PROJECTS FOR EDUCATION, INC.

9.4% was other educational and general income, including income from endowments. 17.5% came from auxiliary enterprises, such as dormitories, cafeterias, and dining halls. 1 6% was student-aid income. Such a breakdown, of course, does not match the income picture atanyactualcollegeoruniversity.Itincludesinstitutionsofmanysha^ sizes and financial policies. Some heat their classrooms and pay their pressors largely with money collected from students. Others receive S S S W t e f i L this source. Some balance their budgets W1th large urns f om governments. Others not only receive no such funds but may rctTveVspurn them. Some draw substantial interest from their endowments and receive gifts and grants from a variety of sources ^ T h e r e is somefhing very reassuring about this assorted, group of natrons of higher education," writes a college president. They are al Lwled ing the benefits they derive from a strong system of coleges and universities. Churches that get clergy, communities that get better citizens, businesses that get better employees-all share in the costs of the productive machinery, along with the student.... n the campus-to-campus variations there is often a deep s.gnfficance, an institution s method of financing may tell as much " ^ * p b ÂŁ ophies as do the most eloquent passages in ,ts catalogue. In this sense one should understand that whether a college or university rece.ve e n o u g h L m e to survive is on.y part of the story. How and where it g S s money may have an equally profound effect upon its destiny.

PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS: 34.3% of their income comes from student fees.

from Students 20.7 per cent TAST FALL, some 4.4 million young Americans were enrolled in the L o t i o n ' s colleges and universities-2.7 million in public inst.tutions, 1 7 million in private. . , ' For most of them, the enrollment process included a stop at a cashier office to pay tuition and other educational fees. How much they paid varied considerably from one campus to another Fo^those attending public institutions, according to a U.S. governmen survey the median in 1962-63 was $170 per year. For those attend.ng private institutions, the median was $690-four times as high. There were such differences as these: In public universities, the median charge was $268. In public liberal arts colleges, it was $168. In public teachers colleges, it was $208. In public junior colleges, it was $113. Such educational fees, which do not include charges for meals or domu-

PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS: 10% of their income comes from student fees.

TUITION continued tory rooms, brought the nation's public institutions of higher education a total of $415 million—one-tenth of their entire current-fund income. By comparison: In private universities, the median charge was $1,038. In private liberal arts colleges, it was $751. In private teachers colleges, it was $575. In private junior colleges, it was $502. In 1961-62, such student payments brought the private colleges and universities a total of $1.1 billion-more than one-third of their entire current-fund income. From all students, in all types of institution, America's colleges and universities thus collected a total of $1.5 billion in tuition and other educational fees.

Are tuition charges becoming too burdensome?

-lOTO NATION puts more stock in maximum college attendance by A l l its youth than does the United States," says an American report to an international committee. "Yet no nation expects those receiving higher education to pay a greater share of its cost." The leaders of both private and public colleges and universities are worried by this paradox. Private-institution leaders are worried because they have no desire to see their campuses closed to all but the sons and daughters of well-to-do families. But, in effect, this is what may happen if students must continue to be charged more than a third of the costs of providing higher education—costs that seem to be eternally on the rise. (Since one-third is the average for all private colleges and universities, the students' share of costs is lower in some private colleges and universities, considerably higher in others.) Public-institution leaders are worried because, in the rise of tuition and other student fees, they see the eventual collapse of a cherished American dream: equal educational opportunity for all. Making students pay a greater part of the cost of public higher education is no mere theoretical threat; it is already taking place, on a broad scale. Last year, half of the state universities and land-grant institutions surveyed by the federal government reported that, in the previous 12 months, they had had to increase the tuition and fees charged to home-state students. More than half had raised their charges to students who came from other states.

C

in tuition rates be stopped—at either public or private colleges and universities? A few vocal critics think it should not be; that tuition should, in fact, go up. Large numbers of students can afford considerably more than they are now paying, the critics say. "Just look at the student parking lots. You and I are helping to pay for those kids' cars with our taxes," one campus visitor said last fall. Asked an editorial in a Tulsa newspaper: AN THE RISE

MM

"Why should taxpayers, most of whom have not had the advantage of college education, continue to subsidize students in state-supported universities who have enrolled, generally, for the frank purpose of eventually earning more than the average citizen?" An editor in Omaha had similar questions: "Why shouldn't tuition cover more of the rising costs? And why shouldn't young people be willing to pay higher tuition fees, and if necessary borrow the money against their expected earnings? And why shouldn't tuition charges have a direct relationship to the prospective earning power—less in the case of the poorer-paid professions and more in the case of those which are most remunerative?" Such questions, or arguments-in-the-form-of-questions, miss the main point of tax-supported higher education, its supporters say. "The primary beneficiary of higher education is society," says a joint statement of the State Universities Association and the Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. "The process of making students pay an increasing proportion of the costs of higher education will, if continued, be disastrous to American society and to American national strength. "It is based on the theory that higher education benefits only the individual and that he should therefore pay immediately and directly for its cost—through borrowing if necessary. . . . "This is a false theory. . . . It is true that great economic and other benefits do accrue to the individual, and it is the responsibility of the individual to help pay for the education of others on this account— through taxation and through voluntary support of colleges and universities, in accordance with the benefits received. But even from the narrowest of economic standpoints, a general responsibility rests on society to finance higher education. The businessman who has things to sell is a beneficiary, whether he attends college or not, whether his children do or not. . . ." Says a university president: "I am worried, as are most educators, about the possibility that we will price ourselves out of the market." For private colleges—already forced to charge for a large part of the cost of providing higher education—the problem is particularly acute. As costs continue to rise, where will private colleges get the income to meet them, if not from tuition? After studying 100 projections of their budgets by private liberal arts colleges, Sidney G. Tickton, of the Fund for the Advancement of Education, flatly predicted: "Tuition will be much higher ten years hence." Already, Mr. Tickton pointed out, tuition at many private colleges is beyond the reach of large numbers of students, and scholarship aid isn't large enough to help. "Private colleges are beginning to realize that they haven't been taking many impecunious students in recent years. Thefiguresshow that they can be expected to take an even smaller proportion in the future.

Or should students carry a heavier share of the costs?

CONTINUED

TUITION continued

im--

"The facts are indisputable. Private colleges may not like to admit this or think of themselves as educators of only the well-heeled, but the signs are that they aren't likely to be able to do very much about it in the decade ahead." What is the outlook at public institutions? Members of the Association of State Colleges and Universities were recently asked to make some predictions on this point. The consensus: They expect the tuition and fees charged to their home-state students to rise from a median of $200 in 1962-63 to $230, five years later. In the previous five years, the median tuition had increased from $150 to $200. Thus the rising-tuition trend would not be stopped, they felt—but it would be slowed. HE ONLY alternative to higher tuition, whether at public or private institutions, is increased income from other sources—taxes, gifts, grants. If costs continue to increase, such income will have to increase not merely in proportion, but at a faster rate—if student charges are to be held at their present levels. What are the prospects for these other sources of income? See the pages that follow.

T PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS: 1.4% of their income comes from the states.

22.9 per cent

from States and universities depend upon many sources for their financial support. But one source towers high above all the rest: the American taxpayer. The taxpayer provides funds for higher education through all levels of government—federal, state, and local. Together, in the most recent year reported, governments supplied 44.4 per cent of the current-fund income of all U.S. colleges and universities— a grand total of $3.2 billion. This was more than twice as much as all college and university students paid in tuition fees. It was nearly seven times the total of all private gifts and grants. By far the largest sums for educational purposes came from state and local governments: $1.9 billion, altogether. (Although the federal government's over-all expenditures on college and university campuses were large—nearly $1.4 billion—all but $262 million was earmarked for research.)

C

OLLEGES

PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS: 39.7% of their income comes from the states.

TATES HAVE HAD a financial interest in higher education since the nation's founding. (Even before independence, Harvard and other colonial colleges had received government support.) The first state university, the University of Georgia, was chartered in 1785. As settlers

S

moved west, each new state received two townships of land from the federal government, to support an institution of higher education. But the true flourishing of publicly supported higher education came after the Civil War. State universities grew. Land-grant colleges were founded, fostered by the Morrill Act of 1862. Much later, local governments entered the picture on a large scale, particularly in the juniorcollege field. Today, the U.S. system of publicly supported colleges and universities is, however one measures it, the world's greatest. It comprises 743 institutions (345 local, 386 state, 12 federal), compared with a total of 1,357 institutions that are privately controlled. Enrollments in the public colleges and universities are awesome, and certain to become more so. As recently as 1950, half of all college and university students attended private institutions. No longer—and probably never again. Last fall, the public colleges and universities enrolled 60 per cent—one million more students than did the private institutions. And, as more and more young Americans go to college in the years ahead, both the number and the proportion attending publicly controlled institutions will soar. By 1970, according to one expert projection, there will be 7 million college and university students. Public institutions will enroll 67 per cent of them. By 1980, there will be 10 million students. Public institutions will enroll 75 per cent of them. implications of such enrollments are enormous. Will state and local governments be able to cope with them? In the latest year for which figures have been tabulated, the currentfund income of the nation's public colleges and universities was $4.1 billion. Of this total, state and local governments supplied more than $1.8 billion, or 44 per cent. To this must be added $790 million in capital outlays for higher education, including $613 million for new construction. In the fast-moving world of public-college and university financing, such headyfiguresare already obsolete. At present, reports the Committee for Economic Development, expenditures for higher education are the fastest-growing item of state and local-government financing. Between 1962 and 1968, while expenditures for all state and local-government activities will increase by about 50 per cent, expenditures for higher education will increase 120 per cent. In 1962, such expenditures represented 9.5 per cent of state and local tax income; in 1968, they will take 12.3 per cent. Professor M.M. Chambers, of the University of Michigan, has totted up each state's tax-fund appropriations to colleges and universities (see list, next page). He cautions readers not to leap to interstate comparisons; there are too many differences between the practices of the 50 states to make such an exercise valid. But the differences do not obscure

T

HE FINANCIAL

Will state taxes be sufficient to meet the rocketing demand?

CONTINUED

STATE FUNDS continued

State Tax Funds For Higher Education Fiscal 1963 Alabama

$22,051,000

Alaska

3,301,000

Arizona

20,422,000

Arkansas

16,599,000

California.... 243,808,000 Colorado

29,916,000

Connecticut...

15,948,000

Delaware

5,094,000

Florida

46,043,000

Georgia

32,162,000

Hawaii

10,778,000

Idaho

10,137,000

Illinois

113,043,000

Indiana

62,709,000

Iowa

38,914,000

Kansas

35,038,000

Kentucky

29,573,000

Louisiana....

46,760,000

Maine Maryland Massachusetts. Michigan

7,429,000 29,809,000 16,503,000 104,082,000

Minnesota....

44,058,000

Mississippi...

17,500,000

Missouri

33,253,000

Change from 1961 -$346,000 + 978,000 + 4,604,000 + 3,048,000 +48,496,000 + 6,634,000 + 2,868,000 + 1,360,000 + 8,780,000 + 4,479,000 + 3,404,000 + 1,337,000 +24,903,000 +12,546,000 + 4,684,000 + 7,099,000 + 9,901,000 + 2,203,000 + 1,830,000 + 3,721,000 + 3,142,000 + 6,066,000 + 5,808,000 + 1,311,000 + 7,612,000

- 1.5% +42% +29% +22.5% +25% +28.25% +22% +36.5% +23.5% +21% +46% +15.25% +28.25% +25% +13.5% +25.5% +50.25% + 5% +32.5% +20.5% +23.5% + 6% +15.25% + 8% +29.5%

continued opposite

the fact that, between fiscal year 1961 and fiscal 1963, all states except Alabama and Montana increased their tax-fund appropriations to higher education. The average was a whopping 24.5 per cent. Can states continue to increase appropriations? No one answer will serve from coast to coast. Poor states will have a particularly difficult problem. The Southern Regional Education Board, in a recent report, told why: "Generally, the states which have the greatest potential demand for higher education are the states which have the fewest resources to meet the demand. Rural states like Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, and South Carolina have large numbers of college-age young people and relatively small per-capita income levels." Such states, the report concluded, can achieve educational excellence only if they use a larger proportion of their resources than does the nation as a whole. A leading Western educator summed up his state's problem as follows: "Our largest age groups, right now, are old people and youngsters approaching college age. Both groups depend heavily upon the producing, taxpaying members of our economy. The elderly demand statefinanced welfare; the young demand state-financed education. "At present, however, the producing part of our economy is composed largely of 'depression babies'—a comparatively small group. For the next few years, their per-capita tax burden will be pretty heavy, and it may be hard to get them to accept any big increases." But the alternatives to more tax money for public colleges and universities—higher tuition rates, the turning away of good students—may be even less acceptable to many taxpayers. Such is the hope of those who believe in low-cost, public higher education. projection of future needs shows that state and local governments must increase their appropriations vastly, if the people's demands for higher education are to be met. The capacity of a government to make such increases, as a California study has pointed out, depends on three basic elements: > 1) The size of the "stream of income" from which the support for higher education must be drawn; 2) The efficiency and effectiveness of the tax system; and 3) The will of the people to devote enough money to the purpose. Of these elements, the third is the hardest to analyze, in economic terms. It may well be the most crucial. Here is why: In their need for increased state and local funds, colleges and universities will be in competition with growing needs for highways, urban renewal, and all the other services that citizens demand of their governments. How the available tax funds will be allocated will depend, in large measure, on how the people rank their demands, and how insistently they make the demands known.

E

VERY

"No one should know better than our alumni the importance of having society invest its money and faith in the education of its young people," Allan W. Ostar, director of the Office of Institutional Research, said recently. "Yet all too often we find alumni of state universities who are not willing to provide the same opportunity to future generations that they enjoyed. Our alumni should be leading the fight for adequate tax support of our public colleges and universities. "If they don't, who will?" o SOME Americans, the growth of state-supported higher education, compared with that of the private colleges and universities, has been disturbing for other reasons than its effects upon the tax rate. One cause of their concern is a fear that government dollars inevitably will be accompanied by a dangerous sort of government control. The fabric of higher education, they point out, is laced with controversy, new ideas, and challenges to all forms of the status quo. Faculty members, to be effective teachers and researchers, must be free of reprisal or fears of reprisal. Students must be encouraged to experiment, to question, to disagree. The best safeguard, say those who have studied the question, is legal autonomy for state-supported higher education: independent boards of regents or trustees, positive protections against interference by state agencies, post-audits of accounts but no line-by-line political control over budget proposals—the latter being a device by which a legislature might be able to cut the salary of an "offensive" professor or stifle another's research. Several state constitutions already guarantee such autonomy to state universities. But in some other states, college and university administrators must be as adept at politicking as at educating, if their institutions are to thrive. Another concern has been voiced by many citizens. What will be the effects upon the country's private colleges, they ask, if the publichigher-education establishment continues to expand at its present rate? With state-financed institutions handling more and more students— and, generally, charging far lower tuition fees than the private institutions can afford—how can the small private colleges hope to survive? President Robert D. Calkins, of the Brookings Institution, has said: "Thus far, no promising alternative to an increased reliance on public institutions and public support has appeared as a means of dealing with the expanding demand for education. The trend may be checked, but there is nothing in sight to reverse it. . . . "Many weak private institutions may have to face a choice between insolvency, mediocrity, or qualifying as public institutions. But enlarged opportunities for many private and public institutions will exist, often through cooperation By pooling resources, all may be strengthened.... In view of the recent support the libera I arts colleges have elicited, the more enterprising ones, at least, have an undisputed role for future service."

T

Fiscal 1963 Montana Nebraska.... Nevada New Hampshire

Change from 1961

$11,161,000 - $

70,000 - 0 . 5 %

17,078,000 +1,860,000

+12.25%

5,299,000 +1,192,000 + 2 9 % 4,733,000 + 627,000 +15.25%

New Jersey... 34,079,000 +9,652,000 +39.5% New Mexico.. 14,372,000 +3,133,000 + 2 8 % New York.... 156,556,000 +67,051,000 + 7 5 % North Carolina North Dakota.

36,532,000 + 6,192,000 +20.5% 10,386,000 +1,133,000 +12.25%

Ohio Oklahoma....

55,620,000 +10,294,000 +22.5% 30,020,000 +3,000,000 + 1 1 %

Oregon

33,423,000 +4,704,000 +16.25%

Pennsylvania.

56,187,000 +12,715,000 +29.5%

Rhode Island. South Carolina

7,697,000 +2,426,000 + 4 6 % 15,440,000 + 2,299,000 +17.5%

South Dakota. Tennessee.... Texas

8,702,000 + 574,000 + 7% 22,359,000 + 5,336,000 +31.25% 83,282,000 +16,327,000 +24.5%

Utah Vermont Virginia Washington...

15,580,000 3,750,000 28,859,000 51,757,000

West Virginia. Wisconsin.... Wyoming

20,743,000 +3,824,000 +22.5% 44,670,000 +7,253,000 +19.5% 5,599,000 + 864,000 +18.25%

+2,441,000 + 351,000 +5,672,000 +9,749,000

+18.5% +10.25% +24.5% +23.25%

TOTALS.... $1,808,825,000 +$357,499,000 WEIGHTED AVERAGE

+24.5%

CONTINUED

18.9 per cent from Washington half my life on the jets between here and Washington," said an official of a private university on the West Coast, not long ago. "We've decided to man a Washington office, full time," said the spokesman for a state university, a few miles away. For one in 20 U.S. institutions of higher education, the federal government in recent years has become one of the biggest facts of financial life. For some it is the biggest. "The not-so-jolly long-green giant," one man calls it. Washington is no newcomer to the campus scene. The difference, today, is one of scale. Currently the federal government spends between $1 billion and $2 billion a year at colleges and universities. So vast are the expenditures, and so diverse are the government channels through which they flow to the campuses, that a precise figure is impossible to come by. The U.S. Office of Education's latest estimate, covering fiscal 1962, is that Washington was the source of $1,389 billion—or nearly 19 per cent—of higher education's total current-fund income. "It may readily be seen," said Congresswoman Edith Green of Oregon, in a report last year to the House Committee on Education and Labor, "that the question is not whether there shall be federal aid to education." Federal aid exists. It is big and is growing.

I

PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS: 19.1% of their income comes from Washington.

SEEM TO SPEND

HE word aid, however, is misleading. Most of the federal government's expenditures in higher education—more than four and a half times as much as for all other purposes combined—are for research that the government needs. Thus, in a sense, the government is the purchaser of a commodity; the universities, like any other producer with whom the government does business, supply that commodity. The relationship is one of quid pro quo. Congresswoman Green is quick to acknowledge this fact: "What has not been . . . clear is the dependency of the federal government on the educational system. The government relies upon the universities to do those things which cannot be done by government personnel in government facilities. "It turns to the universities to conduct basic research in the fields of agriculture, defense, medicine, public health, and the conquest of space, and even for managing and staffing of many governmental research laboratories. "It relies on university faculty to judge the merits of proposed research. "It turns to them for the management and direction of its foreign aid programs in underdeveloped areas of the world.

T

PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS: 18.6% of their income comes from Washington.

"It relies on them for training, in every conceivable field, of government personnel—both military and civilian." HE FULL RANGE of federal-government relationships with U.S. higher education can only be suggested in the scope of this report. Here are some examples: Land-grant colleges had their origins in the Morrill Land Grant College Act of 1862, when the federal government granted public lands to the states for the support of colleges "to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts," but not excluding science and classics. Today there are 68 such institutions. In fiscal 1962, the federal government distributed $10.7 million in land-grant funds. The armed forces operate officers training programs in the colleges and universities—their largest source of junior officers. Student loans, under the National Defense Education Act, are the major form of federal assistance to undergraduate students. They are administered by 1,534 participating colleges and universities, which select recipients on the basis of need and collect the loan repayments. In fiscal 1962, more than 170,000 undergraduates and nearly 15,000 graduate students borrowed $90 million in this way. "The success of the federal loan program," says the president of a college for women, "is one of the most significant indexes of the important place the government has in financing private as well as public educational institutions. The women's colleges, by the way, used to scoff at the loan program. 'Who would marry a girl with a debt?' people asked. 'A girl's dowry shouldn't be a mortgage,' they said. But now more than 25 per cent of our girls have government loans, and they don't seem at all perturbed." Fellowship grants to graduate students, mostly for advanced work in science or engineering, supported more than 35,000 persons in fiscal 1962. Cost to the government: nearly $104 million. In addition, around 20,000 graduate students served as paid assistants on governmentsponsored university research projects. Dormitory loans through the college housing program of the Housing and Home Finance Agency have played a major role in enabling colleges and universities to build enough dormitories, dining halls, student unions, and health facilities for their burgeoning enrollments. Between 1951 and 1961, loans totaling more than $1.5 billion were approved. Informed observers believe this program finances from 35 to 45 per cent of the total current construction of such facilities. Grants for research facilities and equipment totaled $98.5 million in fiscal 1962, the great bulk of which went to universities conducting scientific research. The National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Atomic Energy Commission arc the principal sources of such grants. A Department of Defense program enables institutions to build facilities and write off the cost. To help finance new classrooms, libraries, and laboratories, Congress last year passed a $1,195 billion college aid program and, said President

T

Can federal dollars properly be called federal "aid"?

FEDERAL FUNDS continued

38% of Federal research funds go to these 10 institutions: U. of California Mass. Inst, of Technology Columbia U. U. of Michigan Harvard U.

U. of Illinois Stanford U. U. of Chicago U. of Minnesota Cornell U.

Johnson, thus was "on its way to doing more for eu ication than any since the land-grant college bill was passed 100 yeai ago." Support for medical education through loans to stud its and funds for construction was authorized by Congress last fall, whr it passed a $236 million program. To strengthen the curriculum in various ways, fedt il agencies spent approximately $9.2 million in fiscal 1962. Samples: . S2 million National Science Foundation program to improve the c itent of science courses; a $2 million Office of Education program to iclp colleges and universities develop, on a matching-fund basis, langu; ; . and area-study centers; a $2 million Public Health Service program i > expand, create, and improve graduate work in public health. Support for international programs involving U.S. c<>! 'eges and universities came from several federal sources. Examples: I t nds spent by the Peace Corps for training and research totaled more tha S7 million. The Agency for International Development employed son c 70 institutions to administer its projects overseas, at a cost of abou S 26 million. The State Department paid nearly $6 million to support • ore than 2,500 foreign students on U.S. campuses, and an addition i SI.5 million to support more than 700 foreign professors. UT the greatest federal influence, on many U.S ( unpuses, comes through the government's expenditures for rese.i reh. As one would expect, most of such expenditures an made at universities, rather than at colleges (which, with some exc c prions, conduct little research). In the 1963 Godkin Lectures at Harvard, the Univer i of California's President Clark Kerr called the federal government's si i 1 port of research, starting in World War II, one of the "two great impac; ; [which], beyond all other forces, have molded the modern American i'iiversity system and made it distinctive." (The other great impact: the !, md-grant college movement.) At the institutions where they are concentrated, fedc i a I research funds have had marked effects. A self-study by Harvard, for .: N ample, revealed that 90 per cent of the research expenditures in the un i ersity's physics department were paid for by the federal government; > 7 per cent in the chemistry department; and 95per cent in the division ol engineering and applied physics.

B

59% of Federal research funds go to the above 10 -f- these 15: U. of Wisconsin U. of Pennsylvania New York U. Ohio State U. U. of Washington Johns Hopkins U. U. of Texas

Yale U. Princeton U. Iowa State U. Cal. Inst, of Technology U. of Pittsburgh Northwestern U. Brown U. U. of Maryland

s

government-dollar dominance in many universities' research budgets a healthy development? After analyzing the role of the federal government on heir campuses, a group of universities reporting to the Carnegie Foi nidation for the Advancement of Teaching agreed that "the effects [oi povernment expenditures for campus-based research projects] have, >n balance, been salutary." Said the report of one institution: "The opportunity to make expenditures of this siz las permitted a

I

THIS

research effort far superior to anything that could have been done without recourse to government sponsors. . . . "Any university that declined to participate in the growth of sponsored research would have had to pay a high price in terms of the quality of its faculty in the science and engineering areas. . . . " However, the university-government relationship is not without its irritations. One of the most irksome, say many institutions, is the government's failure to reimburse them fully for the "indirect costs" they incur in connection with federally sponsored research—costs of administration, of libraries, of operating and maintaining their physical plant. If the government fails to cover such costs, the universities must—often by drawing upon funds that might otherwise be spent in strengthening areas that are not favored with large amounts of federal support, e.g., the humanities. Some see another problem: faculty members may be attracted to certain research areas simply because federal money is plentiful there. "This . . . may tend to channel their efforts away from other important research and . . . from their teaching and public-service responsibilities," one university study said. The government's emphasis upon science, health, and engineering, some persons believe, is another drawback to the federal research expenditures. "Between departments, a form of imbalance may result," said a recent critique. "The science departments and their research may grow and prosper. The departments of the humanities and social sciences may continue, at best, to maintain their status quo." "There needs to be a National Science Foundation for the humanities," says the chief academic officer of a Southern university which gets approximately 20 per cent of its annual budget from federal grants. "Certainly government research programs create imbalances within departments and between departments," said the spokesman for a leading Catholic institution, "but so do many other influences at work within a university Imbalances must be lived with and made the most of, if a level of uniform mediocrity is not to prevail." HE CONCENTRATION of federal funds in a few institutions—usually the institutions which already are financially and educationally strong—makes sense from the standpoint of the quid pro quo philosophy that motivates the expenditure of most government funds. The strong research-oriented universities, obviously, can deliver the commodity the government wants. But, consequently, as a recent Carnegie report noted, "federal support is, for many colleges and universities, not yet a decisive or even a highly influential fact of academic life." Why, some persons ask, should not the government conduct equally well-financed programs in order to improve those colleges and universities which are not strong—and thus raise the quality of U.S. higher education as a whole?

T

90% of Federal research funds go to the 25 opposite + these 75: Pennsylvania State U. Duke U. U. of Southern Cal. Indiana U. U. of Rochester Washington U. U. of Colorado Purdue U. George Washington U. Western Reserve U. Florida State U. Yeshiva U. U. of Florida U. of Oregon U. of Utah Tulane U. U. of N. Carolina Michigan State U. Polytechnic Inst, of Brooklyn U. of Miami U. of Tennessee U. of Iowa Texas A. & M. Col. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. U. of Kansas U. of Arizona Vanderbilt U. Syracuse U. Oregon State U. Ga. Inst, of Technology U. of Virginia Rutgers U. Louisiana State U. Carnegie Inst, of Technology U. of Oklahoma N. Carolina State U. Illinois Inst, of Technology

Wayne State U. Baylor U. U. of Denver U. of Missouri U. of Georgia U. of Arkansas U. of Nebraska Tufts U. U. of Alabama New Mexico State U. Washington State U. Boston U. U. of Buffalo U. of Kentucky U. of Cincinnati Stevens Inst, of Technology Oklahoma State U. Georgetown U. Medical Col. of Virginia Mississippi State U. Colorado State U. Auburn U. Dartmouth Col. Emory U. U. of Vermont Brandeis U. Marquette U. Jefferson Medical Col. Va. Polytechnic Inst. U. of Louisville Kansas State U. St. Louis U. West Virginia U. U. of Hawaii U. of Mississippi Notre Dame U. U. of New Mexico Temple U.

CONTINUED

FEDERAL FUNDS continued This question is certain to be warmly debated in years to come. Coupled with philosophical support or opposition will be this pressing practical question: can private money, together with state and local government funds, solve higher education's financial problems, without resort to Washington? Next fall, when the great, long-predicted "tidal wave" of students at last reaches the nation's campuses, the time of testing will begin.

6.4 per cent from Gifts and Grants

PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS: 11.6% of their income comes from gifts and g r a n t s .

JkS A SOURCE of income for U.S. higher education, private gifts and x l grants are a comparatively small slice on the pie charts: 11.6% for the private colleges and universities, only 2.3% for public. But, to both types of institution, private gifts and grants have an importance far greater than these percentages suggest. "For us," says a representative of a public university in the Midwest, "private funds mean the difference between the adequate and the excellent. The university needs private funds to serve purposes for which state funds cannot be used: scholarships, fellowships, student loans, the purchase of rare books and art objects, research seed grants, experimental programs." "Because the state provides basic needs," says another publicuniversity man, "every gift dollar can be used to provide for a margin of excellence." Says the spokesman for a private liberal arts college: "We must seek gifts and grants as we have never sought them before. They are our one hope of keeping educational quality up, tuition rates down, and the student body democratic. I'll even go so far as to say they are our main hope of keeping the college, as we know it, alive."

F

PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS: 2.3% of their income comes from gifts and g r a n t s .

ROM 1954-55 through 1960-61, the independent Council for Financial Aid to Education has made a biennial survey of the country's colleges and universities, to learn how much private aid they received. In four surveys, the institutions answering the council's questionnaires reported they had received more than $2.4 billion in voluntary gifts. Major private universities received $1,046 million. Private coeducational colleges received $628 million. State universities received nearly $320 million. Professional schools received $171 million. Private women's colleges received $126 million. Private men's colleges received $117 million. Junior colleges received $31 million. Municipal universities received nearly $16 million.

Over the years covered by the CFAE's surveys, these increases took place: Gifts to the private universities went up 95.6%. Gifts to private coed colleges went up 82%. Gifts to state universities went up 184%. Gifts to professional schools went up 134%. Where did the money come from? Gifts and grants reported to the council came from these sources: General welfare foundations gave $653 million. Non-alumni donors gave $539.7 million. Alumni and alumnae gave $496 million. Business corporations gave $345.8 million. Religious denominations gave $216 million. Non-alumni, non-church groups gave $139 million. Other sources gave $66.6 million. All seven sources increased their contributions over the period. UT THE RECORDS of past years are only preludes to the voluntary giving of the future, experts feel. Dr. John A. Pollard, who conducts the surveys of the Council for Financial Aid to Education, estimates conservatively that higher education will require $9 billion per year by 1969-70, for educational and general expenditures, endowment, and plant expansion. This would be 1.3 per cent of an expected $700 billion Gross National Product. Two billion dollars, Dr. Pollard believes, must come in the form of private gifts and grants. Highlights of his projections: Business corporations will increase their contributions to higher education at a rate of 16.25 per cent a year. Their 1969-70 total: $508 million. Foundations will increase their contributions at a rate of 14.5 per cent a year. Their 1969-70 total: $520.7 million. Alumni will increase their contributions at a rate of 14.5 per cent a year. Their 1969-70 total: $591 million. Non-alumni individuals will increase their contributions at a rate of 12.6 per cent a year. Their 1969-70 total: $524.6 million. Religious denominations will increase their contributions at a rate of 12.7 per cent. Their 1969-70 total: $215.6 million. Non-alumni, non-church groups and other sources will increase their contributions at rates of 4 per cent and 1 per cent, respectively. Their 1969-70 total: $62million. "I think we must seriously question whether these estimates are realistic," said a business man, in response to Dr. Pollard's estimate of 1969-70 gifts by corporations. "Corporate funds are not a bottomless pit; the support the corporations give to education is, after all, one of the costs of doing business. . . . It may become moredifficult to provide for such support, along with other foreseeable increased costs, in setting product prices. We cannot assume that all this money is going to be available simply because we want it to be. The more fruit you shake from the tree, the more difficult it becomes to find still more."

B

Coming: a need for $9 billion a year. Impossible?

CONTINUED

But others are more optimistic. Says the CFAE: "Fifteen years ago nobody could safely have predicted the level of voluntary support of higher education in 1962. Its climb has been spectacular. . . . "So, on the record, it probably is safe to say that the potential of voluntary support of U.S. higher education has only been scratched. The people have developed a quenchless thirst for higher learning and, equally, the means and the will to support its institutions adequately." A

will have a critical role to play in determining whether the projections turn out to have been sound or unrealistic. Of basic importance, of course, are their own gifts to their alma maters. The American Alumni Council, in its most recent year's compilation, reported that alumni support, as measured from the reports of 927 colleges and universities, had totaled $196.7 million—a new record. Lest this figure cause alumni and alumnae to engage in unrestrained self-congratulations, however, let them consider these words from one of the country's veteran (and most outspoken) alumni secretaries: "Of shocking concern is the lack of interest of most of the a l u m n i . . . . The country over, only about one-fifth on the average pay dues to their alumni associations; only one-fourth on the average contribute to their alumni funds. There are, of course, heartwarming instances where participation reaches 70 and 80 per cent, but they are rare. . . ." Commenting on these remarks, a fund-raising consultant wrote: "The fact that about three-fourths of college and university alumni do not contribute anything at all to their alma maters seems to be a strong indication that they lack sufficient feeling of responsibility to support these institutions. There was a day when it could be argued that this support was not forthcoming because the common man simply did not have funds to contribute to universities. While this argument is undoubtedly used today, it carries a rather hollow ring in a nation owning nearly two cars for every family and so many pleasure boats that there is hardly space left for them on available water." Alumni support has an importance even beyond the dollars that it yields to higher education. More than 220 business corporations will match their employees' contributions. And alumni support—particularly the percentage of alumni who make gifts—is frequently used by other prospective donors as a guide to how much they should give. Most important, alumni and alumnae wear many hats. They are individual citizens, corporate leaders, voters, taxpayers, legislators, union members, church leaders. In every role, they have an effect on college and university destinies. Hence it is alumni and alumnae, more than any other group, who will determine whether the financial health of U.S. higher education will be good or bad in years to come. What will the verdict be? No reader can escape the responsibility of rendering it. LUMNI AND ALUMNAE

JLJL

> h

The report on this and the preceding 15 pages is the product of a cooperative endeavor in which scores of schools, colleges, and universities are taking part. It was prepared under the direction of the group listed below, who form MM TORIAL PROJECTS FOR EDUCATION, a non-profit organization associated with the American Alumni Council. (The editors, of course, speak for themselves and not for their institutions.) Copyright © 1964 by Editorial Projects for Education, Inc. All rights reserved; no part may be reproduced without express permission of the editors. Printed in U.S.A. DENTON HEAL

Carnegie Institute of Technology DAVID A. IH.'RR

The University of Oklahoma DAN ENDS! FY

Stanford

University

BEATRICE M. Ft) LD

Tulane University MARALYN O. O i l I ISPIE

Swarthmore

College

L . FRANKLIN HFALD

The University ofNcu

Hampshire

CHARLES M. Hi I MKEN

American Alum"; Council J O H N I. M A ' III I.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology KEN METZi IR

The University of Oregon JOHN w . PA ION

Wesleyan

University

ROBERT L . PAY ( O N

Washington

University

ROBERT M. RHODES

The University of Pennsylvania VERNE A. STADIMAN

The University oj ( alifornia FREDERIC A. S I O I T

Phillips Acadeni},

indover

FRANK J. TAN

The Ohio State I 'niversity CHARLES E. WIOMAYBR

Dartmouth

College

DOROTHY F. W i l l JAMS

Simmons

College

RONALD A. WO) K

The Johns Hopkins I niversity ELIZABETH BOND WOOD

Sweet Briar College CHESLE Y WORT) IINGTQN

Brown University CORBIN GWA1 rNT.Y

Executive Editor Acknowledgments: The editors acknowledge with thanks the help of Sally Adams, Washington State University; Harriet Coble, The University of Nebraska; James Gunn, The University of Kansas; Jack McGuire, The University if Texas; Joe Sherman, Clemson College; Howard Snethen, Duke University; Jack Taylor, The University of Missouri. Photographs by Peter Dechen Associates: Walter Holt, Leif Skoogfors, Peter Dcchert.

These 4 Mass Mutual men achieved outstanding success in their first full year!

'60 graduate of

Dartmouth

Col-

Owner

and operator

John B. Boyd

Gordon E. Bergstrom

Marion E. Marshall

Ned G. Patrick, II A

of

a funeral

twenty-three

A

graduate

of

the

University

of

With

10 years of experience in the

lege, he joined our Omaha Agency

business for

years, he

Minnesota, and a Bishop in the Mor-

construction

of which his father Is General Agent,

Joined the Mattoon Agency in Au-

mon Church, he held a series of key

Joined

in December, 1962, immediately fol-

gust, 1962. He was honored as First

posts in aero-space engineering for

March '62. Producing almost a quar-

lowing

our

supplies Springfield

he

Agency

in

lieu-

Year Man of the Month In March '63.

15 years before joining our San Jose

ter

tenant in the Infantry. Honored as

He was second among the first year

Agency in August, 1962. Last Decem-

months, he was honored as First Year

Mass Mutual's First Year Man of the

men for

all

ber

15 consecutive

Man of the Month in May '62 and as

Month for October

Mass

He

months of more than $30,000 ordinary

Second Year Man of the Month in

production,

as

October

In

secutive months of over $30,000 of

military

service

as a

'63, he placed

1963 and 51st among

Mutual

agents

$30,000

in

In

lives.

ordinary

new

he

over $50,000 in each of the last nine

exceeded

months and is first year leader not

business in each of the last 16 con-

First

only in volume but in lives with 81.

secutive months.

July '63.

Less than two years ago, these men were asking themselves a question you may be asking yourself t o d a y . " W h e r e will I be a year from n o w ? " They found the answer with Mass Mutual. They invest i g a t e d a whole new career — a career in life insurance. It turned out to be one of the most important decisions of their lives, because t o d a y they are among the most successful first-year men in their company!

completed

Year

and Man

was of

honored

the

Month

of a million

business,

in his first three

'63. He now has 22 con-

new business each.

If you are concerned about your rate of progress in your present job, and are interested In learning more about an opportunity with Mass Mutual, write a personal letter to Charles H . Schaaff, President, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, Springfield, Mass. This organization has a record of over a century of dynamic growth and over $2.9 billion in assets. There's always room for a good man at Mass Mutual.

Can you think of any other business where such rapid achievement would be possible, particularly without any kind of capital outlay? A n y other business which permits you t o make money while you help people, where you choose your own customers and are your own boss?

JTUAL | J 5 | LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY ^ j p ^ SPRN I GFE I LD. MASSACHUSETTS • ORGANZ IED 1851 fl^^fli

Some of the Georgia lech alumni in Massachusetts Mutual service: Stanley A. Elkan, '22, Macon

Donald I. Rosen, C.L.U., '49, Macon

Robert H. McDonough, '59, Atlanta

William C. Gibson, '39, Atlanta

Henry F. McCamish,Jr., C.L.U., '50, Atlanta

Norman C Oien, '61, Atlanta

Charles R. Mehaffey, '58, Atlanta

•

71) e- InstituteNew advances conference held at Tech

A CONFERENCE that presented for the first time to industry new advances made in technology by the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was held at Georgia Tech, April 2-3. Speakers at conference luncheons and banquet were John Sweeney, Director of the President's Commission on the Appalachian Region; Vice Admiral William F. Raborn, Jr., (retired), vice president of Aerojet General, Inc.; and W. Kenneth Davis, vice president, Bechtel Corporation. Introductions of these speakers were made by Carl Sanders, Governor of Georgia; and President Edwin D. Harrison. The conference, "Industrial Applications of New Technology," was called because some of the new techniques developed by the AEC and NASA in nuclear and space technology may have wider uses in many branches of industry. This type of event is referred to in Space Age terminology as a "spin-off," meaning that bits of information useful to public functions are spun off government nuclear and space research. The conference brought together engineers and industrial managers with process experience and plant operation responsibilities to receive these new ideas and developments. The conference waf established to stimulate wider use and appreciation for this technology and assist engineering development in a number of fields. In addition to reviews of new developments, presented for the most part by the men directly responsible for them, a panel discussion by senior representatives from government agencies and industry covered practical problems and procedures of getting such technological data into the hands of industry. 30

The panel session on April 3, final event of the conference, was entitled "Transfer of Technological Information from Government to Industry" and was moderated by Dr. W. B. Harrison, director of Tech's School of Nuclear Engineering. Panelists were: J. T. Dennison, special assistant for Technology Utilization, NASA; Dr. J. F. Sutton, director of Research, LockheedGeorgia Company; Dr. D. A. Schon, director, Office of Technical Services, Department of Commerce; E. B. Tremmel, director, Division of Industrial Participation, AEC; Alan A. Smith, Arthur D. Little, Inc.; and Gayle Parker, Office of General Counsel, NASA. New Water Resources Center set up on campus

THE ORGANIZATION

of a new water Re-

sources Center at Tech has been completed, according to J. W. Mason, dean of Engineering, and chairman of the Center's administrative committee. As authorized by the Board of Regents, it is the purpose of the Center to facilitate and stimulate the development of a broadbased, interdisciplinary program in water resources education and research. Thus, working with the several schools and departments concerned, the Center will assist in bringing to bear on the water resources problem all of Tech's competence in such related fields as hydrology, hydraulics, water-control structures, soil mechanics, sanitary engineering, systems analysis and computer technology, water chemistry and biology, geology, social science, resource economics, city planning, industrial engineering and industrial management, as well as physics, chemistry and mathematics. One of the first important activities of the Center will be to expand and strengthen the existing program in Water Resources Engineering which is centered on hydraulic engineering and the water-quality aspects of sanitary engineering within the School of Civil Engineering, Mason explained. The Board of Regents has approved the appointment of Regents' Professor Carl E. Kindsvater as director of the Water Resources Center. Kindsvater has devoted the major portion of his time for the past three

years to an analysis and evaluation of current trends in water resources technology and education. He is widely recognized as eminent in the field of water resources engineering, and his broad contact with leaders in related fields makes him especially qualified to direct the Georgia Tech program. Policies and activities of the Water Resources Center will be governed by an Administrative Committee consisting of the dean of Engineering, the administrator of Research, the dean of the General College, the dean of the Graduate Division, the director of the School of Civil Engineering, and the director of the Water Resources Center. An Advisory Committee is comprised of faculty representatives from schools or departments having a major interest in the social, scientific, and engineering aspects of water resource conservation and development. Serving on the Advisory Committee with Chairman Kindsvater are: Frederick Bellinger, chief, Chemical Sciences and Materials Division, Engineering Experiment Station; John L. Fulmer, Industrial Management; Robert S. Ingols, director. Applied Biology; Robert N. Lehrer, associate director, Industrial Engineering; Howard K. Menhinick, Regents' professor of City Planning; Charles R. O'Melia, Civil Engineering; and Harrison W. Straley, Geology. Tech men win two top awards

RODERICK F. O'CONNOR, Industrial Manage-

ment, has received an award from the National Ornamental Metal Manufacturers Association for research conducted by the school during 1963. Entitled "The Julius Blum Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Ornamental Metals Industry," the engraved plaque is presented to the single individual or organization that does the most for the ornamental metal industry during a given year, and is given in honor of Julius Blum, founder of one of the country's largest suppliers of the ornamental metals industry. The research conducted by the graduate school of Industrial Management included Continued on page 32 TECH ALUMNUS

Bob Turley, on right, American Oil Company Sales Engineer discusses cutting oil problem with Walter Binkley of Schwinn Bicycle Company.

When you drill • tap • form • mill • shape all in 22 seconds,

i •

•

what do you use for oil?

•

T h a t ' s the kind of p r o b l e m a sales e n g i n e e r h e r e at American Oil comes up against. It actually happened to Bob Turley when the Schwinn Bicycle Company asked him what oil he'd recommend for this complicated metal cutting problem. He had the answer—one of our special cutting oils—he solved the problem, and made the sale. Bob's a graduate of Purdue—and the American Oil Company Sales Engineering School. He knows machines and oils. He's our " o u t s i d e " man with the inside track on lubricants. And, he likes meeting people. That's why he's a sales engineer, combining two fields into a successful career.

Bob's a mechanical engineer. Yet, he might have been working for us if he were a metallurgist, chemist, mathematician or physicist. Petroleum takes on a multitude of uses and requires people of every skill. For information regarding a career in sales engineering or other fields, write to C. L. Wells, Room 1036, American Oil Company, 910 S. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, 111. ZIP Code 60680

AMERICAN OIL COMPANY

THE INSTITUTE - continued reports on "New Products and New Product Development," "The Customer and Ornamental Metal," and "Potentials of NOMMA." The membership of N O M M A is made up of fabricators throughout the United States engaged in the fabrication, design, and installation of ornamental metals products, and has national headquarters at the Merchandise Mart. Georgia Tech has just received the "Outstanding Craftsmanship Award" for the final quarter of 1963 from the Linweave Paper Company for the design and printing of the 75th Anniversary convocation invitations and programs. The award carried a purchase prize of $150. It marked the first time that any organization in the State of Georgia has ever won this honor. Tech's entry, produced by Higgins-McArthur Printing Company of Atlanta, was selected as the best of over 500 entries submitted by printing firms in nine states. T h e judges included publishers from Printer's Ink and National Lithographer magazines. Bob Wallace, director of publications, received the award at a luncheon in Atlanta.

•

U

DEAN

i

l

GRIFFIN

X IN FLORIDA

—

Between

quarters, Dean and Mrs. George Griffin along with Executive Secretary Roane Beard made an excursion into Florida. Here are the highlights on the Dean's last swing through Florida: MIAMI — Seventy-six were present for the stag dinner meeting on March 23. Special guests at the meeting included George's old friend Mills McNeel, Miami syndicated columnist Morris McLemore and four Miami area football players who have signed with Tech — Mike Ajhar, Paul Bailey, Larry Davidson and James Kiltie. Outgoing president, James Walmy presided over, the meeting at which the following officers were elected for the coming year: Ike Stanton, president; Jason Koesy, vice president, and Thomas Maxwell, secretary-treasurer. The club presented an autographed book to Dean Griffin and advised him that a plaque was on order for him. W E S T P A L M BEACH — On May 24 the cara-

van moved to West Palm Beach where 38 turned out for the meeting presided over by Mayor Ray Behm who is also president of the West Palm Beach Club. New officers elected for the year included Gleason Stambaugh, president; David H. Brady, vice president; and Reginald A. Hurley, secretary-treasurer. This club presented Dean Griffin with a leather traveling bag, a day's supply of golf balls, and a thermos bottle. TAMPA — Over 110 members of the Florida West Coast Club and their wives and guests were on hand to greet Dean Griffin and his party on March 25. Special 32

guests were Mr. and Mrs. Rumsey Taylor, Sr.; Mr. and Mrs. Ray Ellis; Mr. and Mrs. Norman Cannella and their son, Ted, a Tech freshman; and Mr. Flores. President Walton Hicks, presided at the meeting and George E. Edmondson introduced Dean Griffin. President Hicks announced that the next meeting will be held on May 20 at the Schlitz Brewery with Coach Jack Griffin as the guest speaker. The Dean was presented with a set of steak knives in a box engraved with suitable poetry by Dolph Hanson, the club's poet laureate. ORLANDO — On March 26, 80 alumni and wives and guests heard Dean Griffin speak to the Orlando Club. Frank McNulty, the club president, was master of ceremonies for the evening and during the business meeting he heard reports from Charles Becker on the Roll Call and Floyd Faucett on a proposed club trip to Jacksonville for the Tech-Navy game, October 9. DAYTONA BEACH — The final meeting of

the exhausting trip was held in Daytona Beach on March 27 with 28 present. Charles Johnson presided and introduced Roane Beard. Dean Griffin was introduced by T o m Mitchell. And Lou Fuchs presented four special guests all bound for Tech on grant-in-aids: Greg Dexter, Jim Gibson, Ricky Nelson, and Charles Cobb. During the business meeting Lou Fuchs was appointed to look into the possibilities of an academic scholarship program for the club and John Tennant was asked to investigate advantages and disadvantages of making a club trip to Jacksonville for the Tech-Navy game. MACON, GEORGIA — Publications

Director

Bob Wallace spoke on the trials and tribulations of writing a college history to 49 members of the Macon Club on March 3. Roberts Pendleton presided over the meeting and introduced special guest, Jeff Tutt, who had flown combat with Wallace during World W a r II. The two had not seen each other since the day Tutt was shot down over Poland. N E W ORLEANS, LOUISIANA — Over 50 mem-

bers of the New Orleans Club along with their wives and dates heard Bob Wallace talk about his work on Dress Her in White and Gold at the February 27 meeting. Fred Fuchs, the club president, introduced the guest speaker and presided over the business meeting. PITTSBURGH,

PENNSYLVANIA

—

A

record

crowd of 72 alumni, wives and guests turned out for the February 28 meeting of the Pittsburgh Club. The guest speaker was President E. D. Harrison, who was well received by the crowd for his talk on Tech's present and future growth. Special guests were Associate Professor George Maddox of Tech's Industrial Management School and Associate Secretary T o m Hall of the Alumni Association. Officers elected at the meeting included John A. Jordan, president; J. K. Dillard, vice president; and Henry D . Beeson, secretary.

' Q O John Low Zachry died March 3 in 3 ^ an Atlanta hospital. During his career, he served as chief location engineer for the Gulf, Colorado & Santa F e Railroad. F o r the past 50 years he was in the real estate business in Atlanta. Mr. Zachry is survived by his widow who lives at 3643 Stratford Road, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia. ' f l C William C. Burns, T E , retired con" * J tractor, died February 24. His widow lives at 3916 Brookhaven Drive, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia. 'nO UO

Albert V. Jones, Canton, Georgia, died November 22. 1963.

'1[| Robert Vernon Hellams, T E , died •" February 16. His widow lives at 600 Manning Street, Kinston, North Carolina.

'1R

Cdr

'

Maller

y

K

-

Aiken

>

EE

> USN

•" (retired), died in San Francisco on March 3. He is survived by his widow who lives at 2929 Scott Street, San Francisco, California; two daughters and a brother, Frank D . Aiken, Jr., TE '17, of Griffin, Georgia. M l James V. Thomas, ME, died un• ' expectedly March 3. He was retired from American Brake Shoe. After retirement he opened the Book Nook in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. L ' 9 f l CoL Thomas - Stephens, USA, Ret., fcf died September 30, 1963 at Walter Reed Hospital. His home was in Sarasota, Florida.

' O O Thomas C. Nicolas, M E , of 1728 ^ ^ North Oak Park Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, died October 4, 1963. O. J. Oosterhoudt died at his home in Jacksonville, Florida March 12 after a short illness. He was a permanent member of the Gator Bowl Association and served as finance chairman from 1947 until his death. He is survived by 2 sons, Dr. James Oosterhoudt, Atlanta, and Mr. Allen Oosterhoudt, Jacksonville, Florida. ,f

)A Ira H. Hardin was installed as vice *-* president of the Associated General Contractors, Inc. at the Association's annual meeting in March. The meeting was held in Las Vegas. Mr. Hardin is president of the Ira H. Hardin Company, 174 Mills Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia.

» O C Andrew L. DeFoor, 1274 Oxford fcJ Road, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia, died November 26, 1963. Frank Newton, EE, vice president of Southern Bell, has been named Birmingham, Alabama " M a n of the Year." TECH ALUMNUS

This man's career in Seattle began 2,052 miles away

New England Life agent Arlen Prentice (University of Washington '59) discusses a key-man insurance program with Larry Mounger (University of Washington '59), secretary and legal counsel of Pacific Trail Sportswear Corporation.

It started in Chicago. After college and the service, Arlen Prentice took a position there as a salaried officer of a national fraternity. It was interesting work, but for Arlen something was lacking: challenge . . . long-range potential. Then a prominent fraternity brother had a talk with him about plans for the future. This man was a New England Life general agent. He pointed out the opportunities with this company and convinced Arlen that life insurance could give him the kind of career he was after. Arlen liked what he heard. But there was one drawback. Much as he felt that here was the man who could guide him to his full potential in this business, he had

always hoped to settle in the Seattle area. Although he regretted losing Arlen, our Chicago general agent quickly assured him that he could also get what he wanted in our Seattle agency. He then wrote his counterpart in Seattle, strongly recommending Arlen. "Our loss is your gain," he said. For Arlen this is already working out very well. He's found he can provide a service to businessmen that is welcomed. And he's getting direct results in earnings. As Arlen puts it: "Even as a new man in the business, I didn't have to limit myself to any particular 'class' of prospect. New England Life has prepared me for going

NEW ENGLAND LIFE

after big accounts as well as modest ones." Our general agencies throughout the country provide support and direction to help men with aptitude for our business realize their full potential. If a career like Arlen Prentice's interests you at all, there's an easy first step to take. Send for our free PersonalityAptitude Analyzer. It's a simple exercise you can take on your own in about ten minutes. Then return it to us and we'll mail you the results. (This is a bona fide analysis and many men find they cannot qualify.) It could be well worth ten minutes of your time. Write to New England Life, Dept. AL, 501 Boylston Street, Boston, Mass. 02117.

NEW ENGLAND MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY: ALL FORMS OF INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP LIFE INSURANCE, ANNUITIES AND PENSIONS, GROUP HEALTH COVERAGES.

tJacestntfje^ews C. P. "Roy" Goree, '12, recently received his 50-year service pin from the Frick Company, Atlanta Branch office. He was among the first professional engineers in Georgia to apply refrigeration to comfort air conditioning. Goree is currently regional consultant for a 4-state area.

A. Carter Crymble, '19, has been chosen as the "Engineer of the Year" for 1963 by the Upper East Tennessee Society of Professional Engin e e r s in i t s a n n u a l award. Crymble, a consulting engineer in Kingsport, retired from Tennessee Eastman in 1962. Leonard F. Bradley, '32, has been' named manager of field services in the newly formed Technical Services Department of the National Coal Association, with headquarters in Washington, D. C. He will supervise all field engineering staff operations for NCA. Roy Richards, '35, is one of the ten men to be a recipient of the Free Enterprise Awards Association's 12th annual American Success Story Awards as an example of the success possible under America's free enterprise democracy. He is a resident of Carrollton, Ga.

tfijfa

George D. Ray, Jr., '38, recently was promoted to President, Southern Mills, Inc., Atlanta. The company is the nation's largest manufacturer of laundry and drycleaning textiles and is one of the leading fiber fabric manufacturers. Ray served as vice president<-of the company for many years. Jack G. Fleming, '39, has been appointed manager of production planning for the Southern Metal Division of Continental Can Company, Tampa, Florida. Fleming is now responsible for the planning of production facilities for eleven can m a n u f a c t u r i n g plants.

34

NEWS BY CLASSES - continued ' O C Richard R. Nash, Marietta, Georgia, £ . 0 died February 25. He was with Bothwell and Nash, Atlanta architectural firm. John Winfred Youmans died March 3 at at his home of a heart attack. He was in the naval stores and farming business. His widow lives at Laxey, Georgia. 'Q1 We were recently advised of the 01 death of Russell K. Prater. N o further information was available at this writing. ' 0 0 Charles M. Graves, Park and Recrewfc ation Specialist for Atlanta, has been elected Chairman of the Advisory Council of the Georgia Recreation Commission. Norman A. Smyth, Arch, has been elected president of Daniel Construction Company International with headquarters in Brussels. For the past few years he has been manager of the company's overseas operations headquarter in Brussels. » O C Dr. Frederick A. L. Holloway, ChE, » J has been promoted to President of Esso Research and Engineering Company at Linden, New Jersey. ' Q Q Laurence W. Dabney has been « U elected to a two year term as vice president of the Consulting Engineers Council of the U. S. He heads the Atlanta firm of Laurence W. Dabney and Associates. Mr. Dabney lives at 2624 Lenox Road, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia. Morley Hudson, ME, has been elected to the Louisiana Legislature from Caddo Parrish on the Republican ticket. He is president of the Hudson-Rush Company. Mr. Hudson lives at 4609 Gilbert Drive, Shreveport, Louisiana. Capt. J. F. Parker, USN, AE, retired February 1 after 24 years of service in Naval Aviation. He was recently appointed Manager, Downey Test & Operations, Apollo Program, North American Aviation, Downey, California. 'Afll Edward D. Biggerstaff, ME, has been '" promoted to chief engineer, Polaris Missile Base, Charleston, South Carolina. Mr. and Mrs. J. Warner Morgan were killed in a plane crash in New Orleans February 25. They were returning from a vacation in Mexico. Mr. Morgan was president of the Mcintosh Paving Company. They are survived by two daughters, Misses Bonnie Jean and Lannie Morgan, 2291 Woodward Way, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia. , i

A) William T. Clearman, Jr., PhE, is " f c chief of the Saturn projects office at the Kennedy Space Center, NASA, Cape Kennedy, Florida. John G. Wilder, AE, has been appointed head of the propulsion department, engineering sciences subdivision of the Applied Mechanics Division, Aerospace Corporation, Los Angeles, California.

'A'} Roy H. Lange is manager of the *** Advance Concepts Department at Lockheed, Marietta, Georgia.

William Cobb Matthews, Macon architect, has merged with two other firms. The new company is Matthews, Holliday, Cough and Hollis, Architects, with offices at 653 Second Street, Macon, Georgia. George R. L. Shepherd, ChE, has been named an assistant director in the process research division of the Esso Research and Engineering Company, Linden, New Jersey. 1

A^\ Edgar W. Kopp has been named as •J first dean of the new College of Engineering of the University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida. He has been assistant dean of engineering and assistant dean of academic affairs at the University of Florida since 1955.

' ^ Q Fred Cornish, IE, has joined the " O Information Management Sciences Division of the Auerback Corporation, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as a Program Manager. William 1. Steele, Jr.. ChE, has been appointed Vice President and General Manager of Sepsco-Charlotte, Inc. His business address is P.O. Box 3742. Dilworth Station, Charlotte 3, North Carolina. Nathaniel J. Couch has announced the merger of his firm with two other Macon architectural firms. The new company is Matthews, Holliday, Couch and Hollis, with offices at 653 Second Street, Macon, Georgia. We were recently notified of the death of Dr. A. Kirven Gilbert. Jackson R. Holliday, Macon architect, has merged with two other firms. The new company is Matthews, Holliday, Couch and Hollis, with offices at 653 Second Street, Macon, Georgia. Married: Hoyt M. Kirby, IM, to Miss Helen Marie Haynie. The wedding took place April 11. Mr. Kirby is with C & S Bank, Atlanta, Georgia. Howard E. Spangler, ChE, died December 15, 1963. His widow lives at 820 Allen Avenue, Ashtabula, Ohio. Robert F. Swenson, IM. has been named industry development representative — strapping, for U. S. Steel Supply Division of U. S. Steel Corporation. He lives at 184 Harper Street, Jesup. Georgia.

'49

'50

Georgia, died January 19 of brain tumor. He was with Lockheed at the time of his death. Thomas W. Tucker has announced the formation of the firm of Lindsey, Tucker & Ritter, Inc., consulting structural engineers, 415 Pine Avenue Building, Albany, Georgia.

'51

named stress analysis engineer in the prototype product section of design engineering in The Babcock & Wilcox Company's boiler division at Barberton, Ohio. Capt. Kendall S. Barker, USAF, has been selected for promotion to the rank of major. He is stationed at Patrick AFB, Florida. James L. Lindsey has announced the formation of the firm of Lindsey, Tucker TECH ALUMNUS

Is if true that the leading producer of oxygen for steelmaking had a hand in preparing Tricia McDonald's orange juice? You'd expect that a company with 50 years' experience in exFor Union Carbide is also one of the world's largest protracting oxygon from the air would lead the field. You might ducers of petrochemicals. As a leader in carbon products, it even assume —and you'd be right—that it knows a lot about is developing revolutionary graphite molds for the continuhow oxygen can speed the making of steel. As a result, the ous casting of steel. It is the largest producer of polyethcompany soils oxygen by the ton to steelmakers to help them ylene, and makes plastics for packaging, housewares, and produce faster and more efficiently. floor coverings. Among its consumer products is "Prestone" You'd also expect that a leader in cryogenics, the science brand anti-freeze, world's largest selling brand. And it is of supercold, would develop an improved process for makone of the world's most diversified private enterprises in the ing the frozen orange juice concentrate that starts Tricia field of atomic energy. McDonald off to a bright, good morning. In fact, few other corporations are so deeply involved in so But there might be some doubt that two such many different skills and activities that will affect the activities as helping to speed steel production and technical and production capabilities of our next UNION helping to improve frozen orange juice could come CARBIDE century. from one company. Unless you knew Union Carbide. We're growing as fast as Tricia McDonald. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, 270 PARK AVENUE, NEW YORK, N . Y. 10017. IN CANADA: UNION CARBIDE CANADA LIMITED, TORONTO Divisions: Carbon Pioducrs, Chemicals, Consumer Products, International, Linde, Metals, Nuclear, Olefins, Ore, Plastics, Silicones, Stellite and Visking

^acestntfjeNews Oslin D. Whiddon, '43, has been made superintendent of The Detroit Edison Company's St. Clair Power Plant. Since 1962, Whiddon had been head of the Conners Creek Plant. Prior to this he had held a number of staff and supervisory posts for the company. Frank L. Gay, '45, formerly a media supervisor with D'Arcy Advertising Company in New York, has been elected a vice president of the agency and named associate media director of its New York office. In 1950 he was moved to the New York office from St. Louis. W. C. "Cliff" McGahee, '48, has been appointed manager, Eastern Operations for the Pollock Paper Division of the St. Regis Paper Company. He has been associated with the company since 1943 when he began as a management trainee at Pollock's Atlanta plant. William E. Hines, '49, has been promoted from assistant vice president to vice president of the Birmingham Trust National Bank. Hines works at the Bank for Savings Office of BTNB. He is a native of Tennessee and attended Tennessee Military Institute as well as Georgia Tech. James O. B. Wright, '51, resigned from the position of manager of Chemical Engineering Research at the Tensyn Division of Velsicol Chemical Corp. in Alton Park to open a new Chemical Engineering Consultant office in Chattanooga.

William L. Draper, '53, has been promoted to sales engineer in the Atlanta district office of Armco Steel Corporation's Metal Products Division. He will handle the company's complete line of drainage and construction products. Draper's sales territory will include the metropolitan Atlanta area. 36

NEWS BY CLASSES - continued & Ritter, Inc., consulting structural engineers, 415 Pine Avenue Building, Albany, Georgia. A. F. Stapleton, Huntsville, Alabama, died October 9, 1963. Marshall C. Stone, Jr., has been promoted to vice president of planning and merchandising coordination for the Excelsion Woolen and Barnwell Woolen Mill divisions of Deering Milliken, Inc. • C O Capt. Thomas V. Brooks, Jr., USA, *»™ IM, has completed the combat operations course at the Air Force AirGround Operations School at Hurlburt Field, Florida. He is a survey Officer at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Albert M. Wright, Jr., has been named Miami District Sales Manager for U. S. Gypsum Company. He lives at 785 N.W. 198th Street, Miami, Florida. ' C O Jack Grass, Arch, has opened an J J architectural office at the Wheaton Plaza Office Building, Wheaton, Maryland. Jimmy Hill, IE, has been named superintendent, primary mills, for U. S. Steel's TCI Division. He lives at 1820 Saulter Road, Birmingham 9, Alabama. Cedric G. Roberts, Jr., TE, has been appointed technical service representative for Chemstrand at Akron, Ohio.

'RA

Capt

-

Ralph

K

-

Baber

> USAF, is a

* * " pilot at the Military Air Transport Service stationed at Charleston, South Carolina. ' E C Born to: Mr. and Mrs. A. P. "Neil" » " DeRosa, IM, their fifth child, a daughter, Lindsey, February 26. Neil is placement director at Georgia Tech. Born to: Mr. and Mrs. John H. Hellweg, Jr., ChE, a daughter, Susan Evelyn, March 27. Mr. Hellweg is assistant production superintendent in charge of manufacturing for the Memphis Mill of Kimberly Clark Corporation. They live at 5378 Denwood, Memphis 17, Tennessee. Engaged: Ralph William Hinson, IM, to Miss Ann Fordham. The wedding will take place May 7. Mr. Hinson is with EBSCO Industries, Inc., Birmingham, Alabama. Capt. Lynwood Roberts, USAF, was killed March 16 in the crash of a jet trainer near Camden, South Carolina. He was stationed at Shaw AFB, North Carolina. He is survived by his widow, twin daughters and one son. James Walker, TE, has been promoted to supervisor, Nylon Technical Service with Chemstrand at Pensacola, Florida. ' K f i Engaged: Rev. Harwood Bartlett, JO Math, to Miss Eleanor Lee. The wedding will take place July 11 in Richmond, Virginia. Rev. Bartlett is college chaplain for Georgia Tech and Agnes Scott for All Saints Episcopal Church, Atlanta, Georgia. Engaged: William James Milam, HI, to Miss Demetra Mary Botzis. The wedding will take place May 16 in Atlanta, Georgia. We recently learned of the death of

Robert C. Rogers of Tifton, Georgia. No further information was available at this writing. ' C T Married: Frederick Anderson Ware, J ' Jr., ME, to Miss Rose Marie Voorhies, March 14. Mr. Ware is a production design engineer, Value Analysis Department, with Lockheed, Marietta, Georgia. ' C O Born t o : Mr. and Mrs. John M. JO Goodloe, IM, a daughter, Kimberly Karol, January 5. John is with Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland. They live at 1386 Lawrenceville Road, Decatur, Georgia. Rev. Ralph Philip Lebkuecher, Jr., is assistant pastor at Druid Hills Baptist Church, Atlanta, Georgia. ' C Q James M. Bower has been promoted J J to associate systems engineer with the Data Processing Division of IBM. He lives at 3130-B Brookwood Drive, Macon. Thomas C. Hamlin. EE, has been promoted to Los Angeles District Sales Manager of Transitron Electronic Sales Corporation. L. William Harper, IM, has been promoted from personnel supervisor at the Sarnia Refinery of Shell Canada Ltd. to Personnel & Industrial Relations, Atlantic Provinces, Canadian Oil Division of Shell Canada Ltd., Moncton. New Brunswick. Dale P. Hopkins, ME, is staff engineer, utilities and services, with FMC, American Viscose Division at the Nitro, West Virginia plant. He lives at 514 Third Avenue, St. Albans, West Virginia. Ma]. Carey M. Milligan, USA, has completed the combat operations course at the Air Force Air-Ground Operations School, Hurlburt Field, Florida. He is a staff officer at Fort Huachuca. Arizona. Born to: Mr. and Mrs. Herbert Allen Smith, IE, a son, Herbert Allen, Jr., March 15. They live at 223 Owens Street, Wake Forest, North Carolina. Married: Hal M. Smith, Jr., TE, to Miss Edith Burnham, in December. They live in Eastman, Georgia. ' f i f l Engaged: Marvin William Alston, " U jr., IM, to Miss Joanna McElrath. The wedding will take place May 23. Mr. Alston is with Southern Bell, Atlanta, Georgia. Lt. Gerald P. Carson, Jr., BC, has completed the Basic Airborne Course of the 10th Special Forces Group in Bad Tolz, Germany. He is assistant aviation officer of the 11th Combat Engineer Group, Heidelburg, Germany. Born to: Mr. and Mrs. James P. Chapman, Arch, a daughter, Emily Ousley, February 22. Mr. Chapman is with Stevens & Wilkinson, Architects & Engineers. They live at 116 Garden Lane, Decatur, Georgia. Born to: Mr. and Mrs. Joel Esmond, IM, a son, Leonard Ian, September 4, 1963. Mr. Esmond was recently appointed material control manager, Stone Manufacturing Company. They live at 109 Karan Drive, Greenville, South Carolina. Engaged: Ed Vernon Hungerford, III, Phys, to Miss Mary Dennard. The wedTECH ALUMNUS

Before you buy insurance look into the'Blue Chip'company that's low in net cost, too Take two life policies. On the surface: same benefits and cost. But a closer look shows one gives you many additional values—if it's written with Connecticut Mutual. That's the finding of astute men who have analyzed and compared. For this 117-year-old institution has a record for investing most profitably. Our higher earnings come back to policyholders in higher dividends. This reduces insurance cost. Now add to low net cost the counseling services of professional insurance men, company-trained to serve you. And add to that a choice of more than 90 generous benefits and options to suit your own personal needs. It all adds up to insurance well worth looking into—CML Blue Chip insurance. Low in cost, but second to none in value.

Connecticut Mutual Life INSURANCE COMPANY • HARTFORD AND 300 OFFICES FROM COAST TO COAST

Your fellow alumni now with CML Frank R. Anderson Mac H. Burroughs

.

.

.

'55

.

.

'29

.

.

.

.

Atlanta

.

'39

.

John W . Cronin, Jr., CLU

.

'49

.

Stanley K. Gumble

.

'56

.

.

.

'43

.

. Jacksonville

.

'35

.

. Home Office

.

'50

.

Atlanta

.

'32

.

Griffin, G a .

.

'35

.

Swainsboro, G a .

.

'29

.

. Bradenton, Fla.

.

Elmer W . Livingston, Jr. Norris Maffett, CLU .

.

R. Herman Swint William C. W a l d e n .

.

Philadelphia .

Atlanta

East Lancaster, Apartment 704-B, Fort Worth, Texas. Lt. Jere A. Drummond entered the Corps of Engineers in March, 1963. He is now executive officer of "A" Company, 2nd Swinton B. Burkhalter, Engineer Battalion, Fort Eenning, Georgia. '57, has been promoted Born to: Mr. and Mrs. Robert S. Friedto manager and secreman, IE, a son, Douglas Alan, March 18. tary-treasurer of Dixie They live at 1700 Brook wood Drive, High Plywood Company of Atlanta. For the past Point, North Carolina! two years he has been Lt. Raymond D. Gent, USN, IM, is with the Bradley Plystationed at Headquarters, Warner Robins wood Corp. of SavanAir Materiel Area, Robins AFB, Georgia. nah as plant engineer. He lives at 100 Elmwood Street, Warner Robins, Georgia. George W. Hammett, USAF, IM, has been promoted to the rank of lieutenant. William D. Roberts, '62, He is assigned to the 641st Aircraft Conhas joined The Trane trol and Warning Squadron as an interCompany's Washington, ceptor director at Melville Air Station, D. C , sales office as a Labrador. dealer specialist after completing the Trane Allen S. Hargrove, Jr., ME, former Atspecialized graduate enlantan, died March 13 of injuries received gineering training proin an automobile accident. He was emgram. Roberts also re- ployed by Alcoa in Alcoa, Tennessee. ceived a Master of SciEngaged: Robert M. King, TE, to Miss ence degree in industrial management from Tech. Jean Terrell. The wedding will take place May 16 in Slater, South Carolina. NEWS BY CLASSES - continued Engaged: Robert Davis Landel, ME, to Miss Helen Brokhoff. The wedding will take ding will take place May 30. Mr. Hungerplace June 13 in Atlanta. Mr. Landel is a ford is attending graduate school at manufacturing engineer with Westinghouse Columbia University. Electric. James H. Maddox, USA, EE, was recently promoted to first lieutenant. He is Marvin J. Dunaway, Jr., IM, is now u an aerospace engineer at NASA, Langley ' with the General Adjustment Bureau. He lives at 2427 Laurel Drive, Columbus, AFB, Virginia. Georgia. Lt. James D. Marquis, USAF, AE, has been awarded the Air Training Command Engaged: Alan Sanford Karolek, Phys, Commander's Trophy for being selected as to Miss Leslie Ann Kasper. Mr. Koralek is distinguished graduate of his class. He attending graduate school at the University recently completed flight training at of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. Laughlin AFB, Texas. Married: David Middleton Pearsall, Lt. Thomas P. Morris, USN, Phys, will ChE, to Miss Sally Olive Heltzell, Septembe assigned to the U.S. Naval Amphibious ber 7. Mr. Pearsall is a project engineer in School to Attack Squadron, NAS, Oceana, the Research Department of International Virginia in June. He will serve aboard the Paper Company, Mobile, Alabama. USS Enterprise as the squadron air intelBorn to: Mr. and Mrs. Joseph R. Turner, ligence officer. His current address is VA-65, Jr., EE, a son, Gregory Maddox, January FPO, New York, New York. 24. Mr. Turner is with RCA on the Missile Test Project. They live at 490 Second Married: Sidney H. Newburger, IE, to Avenue, Satellite Beach, Florida. Miss Barbara Fein. The wedding took place April 11 in Atlanta. Mr. Newburger Engaged: Berner Freeman Wilson, Jr., is president of the National Carpet ComIE, to Miss Beverly Sue McKee. The pany of America. wedding will take place in April. Engaged: Thomas Leslie Spradling, III, EE, to Miss Saralyn Souter. The wedding ' C O Born to: Mr. and Mrs. David H. will take place April 25. Mr. Spradling is " ™ Abernathy, AE, a daughter, Stacy with IBM in Greenville, South Carolina. Lynn, January 20. Mr. Abernathy is with the Boeing Company, Cape Kennedy, Married: Lt. Harry Stephen Shoemaker, Florida. They live at 370 Jefferson Avenue, EE, to Miss Brenda Carole Whitlow. The Apartment 2, Cape Kennedy, Florida. wedding took place March 28. Lt. Shoemaker is training as a Marine pilot at Engaged: Charles M. Chastain, ME, to Milton, Florida. Miss Diane Nixon. The wedding will take place May 3. Mr. Chastain is with Lockheed in Marietta, Georgia. ' C O Lt. Stanley A. Brooking, USA, has Born to: Mr. and Mrs. Holmes W. Cle*»•» completed the officer orientation ments, III, CE, a son, Holmes W. Clements, course at the Army Engineer School, Ft. IV, March 14.. Mr. Clements is with the Belvoir, Virginia. Georgia Highway Department. They live Lt. Gould E. Brown, Jr., USA, has comat 2637 East Wesley Terrace, N.E., Atpleted the officer orientation course at the lanta, Georgia. Army Infantry School, Ft. Benning, Georgia. Born to: Mr. and Mrs. Alfred M. Davis, a daughter, Michelle Susan, February 12. Lt. Charles M. Carmack, USA, comAl received his Masters in Engineering pleted the officer orientation course at the Mechanics in December. They live at 4909 Army Infantry School, Ft. Benning, Ga.

tJaceswtf)eKews

38

Wallace E. Chapman, IM, is now a Systems Analyst with the National Cash Register Company, 655 South Flagler Drive, West Palm Beach, Florida. Lawrence P. Coulter, IE, is a methods and incentives analyst with Eli Lilly and Company. He lives at 3360 Meadows Court, Indianapolis, Indiana. Married: Richard J. Davy, CE, to Miss Dorothy Mulligan, April 4. Mr. Davis is a civil engineer with the State of California in San Diego. Born to: Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth E. Eklund, IM, a son, David Andrew, February 2. Mr. Eklund is a sales promotion representative with Westinghouse. They live at 25 Tudor City Place, Apartment 617, New York, New York. Martin F. Hall, ME, has recently completed the Engineer Officers Basic Course at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. He is now stationed with the 72nd Engineer Company at Fort Benning, Georgia. Lt. Brian E. Mickler, USA, has completed the officer orientation course at the Army Engineer School, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Engaged: Larry C. Reinhardt, IM, to Miss Joan Ritchel. The wedding will take place in the fall. Lt. John R. Sellmer, USAF, IM, has completed his first solo flight in the T-33 jet trainer. He is in flight training at Laughlin AFB, Texas. Lt. Don A. Ricketson, USA, has completed the artillery officer orientation course at the Army Artillery and Missile Center, Fort Sill, Oklahoma. Married: Lt. Charles H. Wimberly, USAF, IM, to Miss Dorothy Sweat, March 29. Lt. Wimberly is a student pilot at Moody AFB, Valdosta, Georgia. ' C ^ Engaged: Lt. John Marvin Dollar, " ™ USA, IM, to Miss Priscilla Westfield, April 4. Lt. Dollar is with the U. S. Army Chemical Corps, Edgewood, Maryland. Ernest R. Eason, U S A F , . IM, has been commissioned a second lieutenant following graduation from Officer Training School at Lackland AFB, Texas. Milton M. Leggett, USAF, IM, has been commissioned a second lieutenant following graduation from Officer Training School at Lackland AFB. He is now in training for a management engineer at Lowry A F B , Colorado. Edmond D. Maddox, BC, is with Levy & Kiley, Architects. He lives at 1415 Second Street, Apartment 3, Savannah Beach, Florida. Lt. Robert E. Sheridan, Jr., USA, IM, has completed the officer orientation course at the Army Infantry School, Ft. Benning, Georgia. Lt. William C. Standifer, USAF, EE, recently completed his first solo flight-in the T-37 jet trainer. He is in flight training at Laughlin AFB, Texas. Lt. William V. Waters, III, USA, IM, has completed the officer orientation course at the Army Infantry School, Ft. Benning, Georgia. Lt. Jimmie E. Wray, USAF, IM, is in pilot training at Reese AFB, Texas. TECH ALUMNUS

VOTE R

YOUR 1964-65 OFFICERS, NOW

EADING THE list of candidates nominated to lead the Georgia Tech National Alumni Association during the 1964-65 year is Daniel A. McKeever, '32, of Atlanta. The nominating committee (Fred Storey, '33, chairman; H. C. Allen, '26; and J. S. Budd, '18) named the following men to run on the slate with presidential-nominee McKeever: Madison F. Cole, '41, vice president-at-large; Alvin M. Ferst, '43, vice president; and L. L. Gellerstedt, '45, treasurer. The committee also named the following alumni for three-year terms as trustees: J. Leland Jackson, '35; L. Massey Clarkson, '50; J. Erskine Love, '49; and S. B. Rymer, '37.

at Tech, has been a member of the Board of Trustees for the past year.

The Board Ele I Under Article VIII of the amended Bylaws, four trustees shall be elected by the members of the Association each year for three-year terms. In addition, the immediate past president (William S. Terrell, '30, in this case) and six alumni named by the incumbent president also will be members of the new Board. The other 12 members of the Board include the Association officers and carryover trustees with one or two years to serve on their elected terms.

For Trustee — J. Erskine Love, Jr. is the 1963 winner of the George McCartyANAK Award as the Institute's "Outstanding Young Alumnus of the Year." He is president of Printpak, Inc. which he founded in 1956.

H

The Nominees For President — Daniel A. McKeever has been a member of the Association's Board of Trustees for the past four years and has headed many of the important committees including the Roll Call Committee. Currently a vice president of the Association, he is head of J. E. Hanger, Inc. of Atlanta. For Vice-President-at-Large — Madison F. Cole, a life underwriter with The Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, is currently serving in this position for the Association. He lives in Newnan and is active in civic and church activities there. For Vice President — Alvin M. Ferst, Jr., a vice president of Rich's, is currently a member of the Association's Board of Trustees. A top civic leader in Atlanta, Ferst headed up the Association Board's important research committee during the past year.

For Trustee •— J. Leland Jackson of Macon, Georgia, is currently an appointed member of the Association Board. One of Tech's outstanding civic and business leaders in the Macon area, he is president of Jackson Oldsmobile, Inc.

D. A. McKeever, '32

A. M. Ferst, Jr., '43

M. F. Cole, '41

L L. Gellerstedt, '45

J. L. Jackson, '35

L. M. Clarkson, '50

For Trustee — L. Massey Clarkson, a past president of the Greater Atlanta Georgia Tech Club, is currently an appointed member of the Association Board. He is a registered representative of Courts and Company of Atlanta.

For Trustee — S. B. Rymer, Jr. is president of Magic Chef, Inc. of Cleveland, Tennessee. An outstanding alumni leader in Tennessee, Rymer is also on the executive committee of both the Institute of Appliance Manufacturers and the Gas Appliance Manufacturers. How to Vote All active members of the Association who desire to confirm the above nominations for officers and elected trustees or who wish to present write-in candidates may do so by filling out the official ballot on this page and mailing it to the Georgia Tech National Alumni Association, Atlanta, Georgia 30332. This vote is for election. Be sure to sign your ballot.

J. E. Love, '49

S. B. Rymer, '37

BALLOT FOR NATIONAL ALUMNI ASSOCIATION OFFICERS AND TRUSTEES, 1964-65

[~J My check in box indicates approval of nominees or I vote for the following write in candidates: FOR PRESIDENT: FOR VICE PRESIDENT: FOR VICE PRESIDENT (at large):. FOR TREASURER: FOR TRUSTEES (vote for four).

For Treasurer — Lawrence L. Gellerstedt, Jr., is president of the Beers Construction Company of Atlanta. Gellerstedt, a top student and student leader MAY, 1964

Signed:. Class:. Mail before June 20 to Georgia Tech Alumni Association, Atlanta, Ga. 30332

39

Coke Refreshes you Best! TRADE-MARK 速

BOTTLED UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE COCA-COLA COMPANY BY

THE ATLANTA COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY

Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.