This dissertation has been ' microfilmed exactly as received 69-11,686 I OTTERSON, Peder Adolph, 1920- AN EVALUATION OF THE AEROSPACE TECH­ NOLOGY PROGRAM AT KENT STATE UNIVERSITY.

The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1968 Aerospace Studies

University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan

Peder Adolph Otterson 1969 ©.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED AN EVALUATION OF THE AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM AT KENT STATE UNIVERSITY

DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By Peder Adolph Otterson, B.S., M.S.

++++++++

The Ohio State University 1968

Approved by

Adviser College of Education PREFACE

The aerospace industries represent a significant segment of the nation's economy. Programs dealing speci­ fically with the preparation of aerospace technologists for the industry have been slow in developing. The rapid­ ity of technological advances has emphasized the need for more definitive standards and selection of course content i for programs of aerospace technology. Although this study is primarily an evaluation of the program at one insti­ tution, it may provide a basis for an additional investi­ gation on a national scale. The writetr expresses appreciation for the time and counsel of the members of his committee, including Professor Robert V/. Haws, adviser, Professors Robert M. Reese and Fred Staub.

ii

\ VITA February 1, 1920 Born - McGrath, Minnesota ( 1946 ...... B.S., University of Minnesota, Duluth, Minnesota 1946-1947* . . . Instructor, Air Force Technical School, Chanute AFB, Illinois 1949-1951. . •. . Instructor, Institute of Aviation, University of Illinois Urbana, Illinois 1951-1953 Pilot-Instructor, Flying Safety Officer, Chanute AFB, Illinois 1952 ...... MvS-ry University, .of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 1953-1956. . . . Assistant Professor, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 1956-1961. . . . Associate Professor, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 1961-1964. . . . Associate Professor, University of Hawaii, AID Contract of Pakistan 1964-1967. . . . Associate Professor, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 1968- - .... Professor, Coordinator Aerospace Technology Division, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Education Studies in Industrial Arts. Professors Robert Haws, Willis Ray and William E. Warner Studies in Vocational Education. Professors Robert M. Reese and William B. Logan Studies in Educational Administration. Professors David Clark, Arliss Roaden, and Fred Staub Studies in Higher Education. Professor L. 0. Andrews iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page J PREFACE...... ii VITA...... iii TABLES...... vi GRAPHS...... xi CHARTS...... ,...... xv Chapter I. INTRODUCTION...... 1 The Problem Assumptions Definition of Terms Procedures to Problem Solution Limitations II. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT...... 9 Antecedents Objectives of Early Program Kent State Program Differences in Program Types Identification of Criteria III. CURRICULUM SURVEY...... 23 Procedures Chemistry Physics Mathematics Aerospace Subjects Manufacturing Processes General Subjects Summary Interpretation of Data

iv Page

IV. INTRODUCTION...... £2 Procedure Summary V. SUMiinRY...... 90 VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 101 Problem Procedure Conclusions Recommendations APPENDIXES...... J.... 109 BIJLIOGRAPIIY...... 183

v TABLES

Table Page 1. Graduates Ranking - General Chemistry 128 2. Aerospace Industry Ranking - General Chemistry ...... 128 3. Graduates Ranking - Qualitative Chemistry 129 4. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Qualitative Chemistry...... 1...... 129 5. Graduates Ranking - Organic Chemistry...... 129 6. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Organic Chemistry...... 130 7. Graduates Ranking,- Quantitative Analysis Chemistry ...... 130 8. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Quantitative Analysis Chemistry ...... 130 9. Graduates Ranking - Physics (Mechanics) 131 10. Aerospace Industry Ranking- Physics (Mechanics)...... '...... 131 11. Graduates Ranking - Physics (Electricity) 131 12. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Physics (Electricity)...... 132 13. Graduates Ranking - Physics (Electronics) 132 14. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Physics (Electronics)...... 132 15. Graduates Ranking - Physics (Thermodynamics).. 133 16. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Physics (Thermodynamics)...... 133 vi Table Page 17. Graduates Ranking - Physics (Aerodynamics) 133 18. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Physics (Aerodynamics)...... 134 19. . Graduates Ranking - Physics (Statics & Strength of Materials)...... 134 20. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Physics (Statics & Strength of Materials)...... 134 21. Graduates Ranking - Algebra...... 135 22. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Algebra...... 135 2 3 . Graduates Ranking - Trigonometry ...... 135 24. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Trigonometry 136 25. Graduates Ranking - Analytical Geometry...... 136 26. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Analytical Geometry...... 138 27. Graduates Ranking - Calculus...... 137 28. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Calculus...... 137 29. Graduates Ranking - Differential Equations 137 30. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Differential Equations...... 133 31. Graduates Ranking - Computer Science ..... 138 32. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Computer Science...... 138 33. Graduates Ranking - Aerospace Design...... 139 34'. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Aerospace Design...... 139 35. Graduates Ranking - Aerospace Systems...... 139 1 36. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Aerospace Systems...... 140 37. Graduates Ranking - Aerospace Propulsion 140

vii Table Page 38. 'Aerospace Industry Ranking - Aerospace Propulsion ...... 140 39. Graduates Ranking - Aerospace Structures..... 141 40. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Aerospace Structures...... 141 41. Graduates Ranking - Aircraft Maintenance..... 141 1 42. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Aircraft Mainte­ nance...... 142 43. Graduates Ranking - Avionics...... 142

1 44. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Avionics...... 142 45. Graduates Ranking - Instrumentation...... 143 1 4 6 . Aerospace Industry Ranking - Instrumentation... 143 47. Graduates Ranking -.Space Guidance...... 143 4 8 . Aerospace Industry Ranking - Space Guidance.... 144 49. Graduates Ranking - Ambiance Control...... 144 50. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Ambiance Control...... 144 51. Graduates Ranking - Technical Report Writing... 145 52. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Technical Report Writing...... 145 53. Graduates Ranking - Data Processing .... 145 54. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Data Processing... 146 55. Graduates Ranking - Flight Instruction...... 146 56. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Flight Instruction...... 146 57. Graduates Ranking - Flight Testing...... 147 58. Aerospace industry Ranking - Flight Testing...... 147 59. Graduates Ranking - Testing...... 147

viii t

Table Page 60. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Testing...... 148 61. Graduates Ranking - Forming..... 148 62. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Forming...... 148 63. Graduates Ranking - Machining...... 149 6 4 . Aerospace Industry Ranking - Machining...... 149 63 • Graduates Ranking — finishing...... 149 66. Aero'space Industry Ranking - Finishing...... 150 67. Graduates Ranking - Welding...... 150 63. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Welding...... 150 6 9 . Graduates Ranking - Riveting...... 151 70. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Riveting...... 151 71. Graduates Ranking - Adhesive Bonding...... 151 72. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Adhesive Bonding... 152 73. Graduates Ranking - Plastics...... 152 74. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Plastics...... 152 75. Graduates Ranking - Numerical Control...... 153 76. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Numerical Control.. 153 77. Graduates Ranking -Graphics (Drafting).. 153 78. Aeros'oace Industry Ranking - Graphics (Drafting)...... 154 79. Graduates Ranking - Philosophy...... 154 80. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Philosophy...... 154 81. Graduates Ranking - History...... 155 " — 82. Aerospace Industry Ranking - History...... 155 1 83. Graduates Ranking - Social Sciences... 155 84. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Social Sciences.... 156 ix Table 1 Page 85. Graduates Ranking - Arts...... 156 86. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Arts...... 156 87. Graduates Ranking - English...... 1...... 157 88. Aerospace Industry Ranking - English...... 157 8 9 . Graduates Ranking - Management ...... 157 90. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Management...... 158 91. Graduates Ranking Marketing.Ip8 92. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Marketing...... 158 93. Graduates' Ranking - Economics...... 159 9^-. Aerospace Industry Ranking - Economics...... 159 95. Mechanical Aptitude...... 160 9 6 . Mathematical Aptitude...... 160 97. Integrity...... 161 93. Neatness...... l6l 1 99. Perseverance...... lo2 100. Initiative...... , 162 101. Cooperation...... 163 102. Intelligence...... 163 1 103. Indicate Wbat You Believe Was The Attitude of 'Your Professors Outside the Field of Your Major Toward the Aerospace Technology Program. lok I

GRAPHS

.Graph Page 1. Percentages From Each Group Ranking General Chemistty as {Important and Essential...... 27 2. Percentages From Each Group Ranking Qualitative Chemistry as Important and Essential...... 27 3. Percentages From Each Group Ranking Organic Chemistry as Important and Essential...... 23 I A. Percentages From Each Group Ranking Quantitative Analysis Chemistry as Important and Essential...... 28 5. Percentages From Each Group Ranking Physics (Mechanics) as Important and Essential...... 30 6. Percentages From Each Group Ranking Physics (Electricity) as Important and Essential..... 30 7. Percentages From Each Group Ranking Physics (Electronics) as Important and Essential 31 8. Percentages From Each Group Ranking Physics (Thermodynamics) as Important and Essential.. 31 9. Percentages From Each Group Ranking Physics (Aerodynamics) as Important and Essential.... 32 I 10. Percentages From Each Group Ranking Physics (Statics Zt Strength of Materials) as Important and Essential...... 32 11. Percentages From Each Group Ranking Algebra as Important and Essential...... 34 1 12. Percentages From Each Group Ranking Trigonometry as Important and Essential..... 34

XI I

I ■ge Percentages From Each Group Ranking; Analytical Geometry as Important and Essential...... 35 Percentages From Each Group Ranking Calculus as Important and Essential...... 35 Percentages From Each Croup Ranking Differential Equations as Important and Essential...... 36 Percentages From Each Group Ranking Computer Science as Important and Essential . 3b Percentages From Each Group Ranking Aerospace Design as Important and Essential...... 37 Percentages From Each Group Ranking Aerospace Systems as Important and Essential...... 38 Percentages From Each Group Ranking Aerospace Propultiop As Important and. Essential...... 50-7 O Percentages From Each Group Ranking Aerospace Structures as Important and Essential...... 39 Percentages From Each Group Ranking Aircraft Maintenance as Important and Essential...... 39 Percentages From Each Group Ranking Avionics as Important and Essential...... 40 Percentages From Each Group Ranking Instrumenta­ tion as Important and Essential...... 40 I Percentages From Each Group Ranking Space Guidance as Important and Essential...... 41 Percentages From Each Group Ranking Ambiance Control as Important and Essential...... 41 Percentages From Each Group Ranking Technical Report Writing as Important and Essential.... 42 Percentages From Each Group Ranking Data Processing as Important and Essential . 42 Percentages From Each Group Ranking Flight Instruction as Important and Essential...... 42

xii I

29. Percentages From Each Grdup Ranking Flight Testing as Important and Essential...... 43 3C. Percentages From Each Group Ranking Testing as Important and Essential,...... 45 31. Percentages From Each Group Ranking Forming as Important and Essential...... 45 32. Percentages From Each Group Ranking 1 Machining as Important and Essential 46 33. Percentages From Each. Group Ranking Finishing as Important and Essential...... 46 34. Percentages From Each Group Ranking Yielding as Important and Essential...... 47 35. Percentages From Each Group Ranking Riveting as ,Importaait and Essential...... 47 3 6 . Percentages From Each Group Ranking Adhesive Sondihg as Important and Essential 48 37. Percentages From Each Group Ranking Plastics as Important and Essential...... 48 3 8 . Percentages From Each Group Ranking Numerical Control as Important and Essential 49 39. Percentages From Each Group Ranking Graphics (Drafting) as Important and Essential 49 40. Percentages From Each Group Ranking Philosophy as Important and Essential..... 51 41. Percentages From Each Group Ranking History as Important and Essential...... 51 42. Percentage's From Each Group Ranking Social Sciences as Important and Essential...... 52 43. Percentages From Each Group Ranking Arts as Important and Essential...... 52 44. Percentages From Each Group Ranking English as Important and Essential...... 53

45. Percentages From Each Group Ranking Manage­ ment as Important and Essential.,,,....,.. 53

xiii Graph Page if 6. Percentages From Each Group Ranking Marketing as Important and Essential...... 3k

k 7 • Percentages From Each Group Ranking Economics as Important and Essential...... 3k if8. Some Significant Trends...... !...... 86

i I

CHARTS

Chart Page 1. Summary of Response to Curriculum Items Science and Mathematics...... 56 2. Summary of Response to Curriculum Items Aerospace Subjects...... 57 3. Summary of Response to Curriculum Items Manufacturing Processes...... 58 i+. Summary of Response to Curriculum Items General Subjects...... 59 5. "Do You Believe Applicants For The Aerospace Technology Program Should Be Screened Before Acceptance?"...... 65 6 . Composite of Tables 95-102 Personal Characteristics Rating Values,... cb 7. Indicate What You Believe Was The Attitude of Your Professors Outside The Field of Your Major Toward The Aerospace Technology Program...... 67 8 . Indicate Importance of Scholarship as Emphasized in The Kent State Aerospace Technology Program From Your Point of Vi e w ...... 60 9. Indicate The Extent To Whj-Ch You Believe You Can Advance With Your Present Company...... 69 10. Indicate The Extent To Which You Believe The Kent State University Administration Supports The Aerospace Technology Program...... 70 11. Check Methods by Which Additional Support Might Be Obtained...... '...... 71

xv How Favorably Did Your Present Employer View Your College Preparation When He Employed You?...,...... To What Extent Did Your Education Prepare You to Fit Directly Into Your Present Position?...... To What Extent Was Your College Adviser Available For Conference?...... Indicate The Adequacy of Equipment Used in The Kent State program...... Check The Aerospace Courses 'Where You Believe the Equipment Was Inadequate'...... Indicate the Adequacy of Laboratory Space Available for The Courses in The Program... Check the Laboratories and Shops Where the Space Was Inadequate...... To What Extent Do You Believe Your College Preparation in Use of Equipment Was Adequate...... On the Basis of Your Experience Check Any ’Weak Points of The Aerospace Technology Program at Kent Stat,e University...... On The Basis of Your Experience Check Any 1 Strong Points of The Aerospace Technology Program at Kent State University......

Check The Kinds of Positions For Which You Believe You Are Prepared...... Indicate Your Starting Annual Salary Immediately Following Graduation...... Indicate Present Salary...... Significant Trends......

xvi CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Technical programs in aviation developed far later than similar programs in many otheri fields. Commercial aviation did not begin until the 1920!s even though the first flight of the Wright brothers took place early in the century. Aviation was established on a sound legal basis when Congress passed the Air Commerce Act. The act established the Civil Aviation Authority directed by an ,

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Air in the Department of Commerce to "promote and regulate" aviation and license aircraft, pilots and mechanics.

Air transportation continued to expand very slowly until the outbreak of World War II. The technicians for this growing industry were produced primarily through the efforts of a few civilian institutions, some of which had contracts with the Government. With the United States entry into the war, colleges were called upon to play a role in aviation education. Kent State University was one of the I institutions that participated in this type of training.

Several of the aviation courses that were begun early in the 19^0 's evolved into what was to become a four year , 1 2 degree program in Aviation Technology. The Bachelor of

Science degree in Aviation Technology first appeared in the University Bulletin of the institution in 1950.

Since that time there have been 152 graduates up to and including the Winter Quarter 1968.

Although there have been several revisions' in con­ tent and a change in title to "Aerospace Technology," there has never been a specific study of the program since its be-

! ginning., This dissertation is a report of an investigation of the Kent State University Aerospace Technology program.

The Problem

Conduct an appraisal of the Aerospace Technology program at Kent State University for the following purposes: 1

1. To identify common objectives for an

Aerospace Technology program.

2. To determine range and extent of trends

influencing the program.

3. To select criteria necessary to achieve

an effective program.

To evaluate the Kent State University

program against the criteria.

5. Recommend changes necessary to improve

the Kent State University program to

more adequately meet the needs of both

students and employers. Assumptions

The writer will make the following assumptions:

1. The Aerospace industries make up a

unique and substantial part of the

nation’s economy. The total Aero­

space employment figure for 196? was

reported to be approximately l,k

million people. Even if the national

defense expenditures were to be exclu­

ded, a significant portion of the Gross

National Product would still be repre­

sented by the civilian aerospace activi­

ties. The number of aircraft on order

by the United States airlines total over

5.5 billion dollars. The National Aero­

nautics and Space Agency (NASA) had a

budget of 10 billion dollars during the

fiscal years 1966 and 1967. Aerospace

Industries Association predict a total

sales volume in 1968 to be 29.2 billion

dollars. (7, P.l)

2. The technological principles, processes'

and related terms and techniques provide

a body of knowledge important to the

preparation of technologists entering the 4

industry. This body of knowledge

would include areas such as science,

mathematics, and the special skills

used in aerospace manufacturing and

operations.

Definition of Terms

Aerospace. The atmosphere and the space beyond con­

sidered as a whole; pertaining to or con­

cerned with the design and manufacture of

vehicles, missiles and the like that operate

in the aerospace, (14, P.23)

Engineer. A person versed in the design, construction

and use of engines or machines or in any of

the various branches of engineering. (14,P.473)

Industry. The aggregate of manufacturing or techni­

cally productive enterprises in a particular i , field often named after its principal pro­

duct. (14, P.727)

Research. Diligent and'systematic inquiry or investi­

gation into a subject in order to discover

or revise facts, theories, applications.

(14, P.1219)

Science.. A branch of knowledge or study dealing with

a body of facts or truths systematically

arranged and showing the operation of

general laws. (14, P.1237) 5 Technology. The branch of knowledge that deals with

industrial arts, applied science, engineer­

ing, etc. (14, P.1458)

Technician. A person who is trained or skilled in the

technicalities of a subject. (14, P.1458)

Engineering Technology. The highest technical level;

that portion of the continuum and extending

from the schooled craftsman to the profes­

sional engineer which lies closest to the

engineer. (15, P.2)

Engineering Technician, Graduate of an associate degree

program in Engineering Technology. (16, P.13)

Engineering Technologist. Graduate of a Baccalaureate

Engineering Technology program. (16, P.13)

Procedures To Problem Solution

The following steps were used in this study.

1. A careful search was made of the litera­

ture, and consultation and correspondence

was carried on with responsible people of

industry and department chairmen of Aero­

space programs at other institutions,

j After a search of the literature a deci­

sion was made to use the Engineering Council

Professional Development criteria for

accreditation as a basic guide line for this study. These criteria can be classi­ fied in the following general categories:

A. Student Personnel

B. Staff Personnel

C. Facilities and Equipment

Ip. Administrative Support

E. Curriculum

F. Achievement of Graduates

Two questionnaires were prepared based on selected criteria. They were read and evaluated by selected staff members of Kent

State University. After several revisions the questionnaires were mailed to the two groups undet study.

A. One questionnaire was designed

to collect data on suggestions

for curricula content. These

were mailed out to 100 aerospace

industries and also to graduates

of the Kent State University

Aerospace Technology program.

B. The second questionnaire was de­

signed specifically for the

graduates and was concerned pri­

marily with their evaluation of

the Kent State program as it re­

lated to their success in industry. 3. The data collected from the returns of the questionnaires were itemized and tabulated. The information was analysed and interpreted and used to evaluate the Aerospace Technology program at Kent State University, Qualifications for the respondents were based on their experience and service in technical or engineering positions with the aerospace industries. For the one questionnaire, additional restrictions were applied to limit it to the graduates of the baccalaureate aerospace1 techno­ logy program of Kent State University,

Limitation's The ’writer recognizes the limitations for using the survey technique as a basis for generalization. The informa­ tion requested in this manner was limited to: 1. One hundred aerospace industries of which 74 responded for a total of 74 per cent1. 2. Students who have graduated from the Aerospace Technology program at Kent State University. Eighty eight responded out of one hundred twelve contacted. This represents a 79 percent return. Additional limitations would be in the degree of care and consideration used by the participants in ranking their selections. I

8

The original proposal for this study indicated that other institutions having Baccalaureate Aerospace Technology programs would be surveyed to gather data for comparative values against the Kent State University program. Of six institutions that were contacted only one consented to par­ ticipate in the study. Two'Colleges indicated that their programs webe not similar enough to contribute any appro­ priate information to provide a base for evaluating the Kent program. Three institutions did not reply even though a follow-up was sent three weeks after the initial letter.

This phase of the investigation was not pursued due to the lack of sufficient data.

i I

i CHAPTER II

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

Antecedents

It would not be totally correct to say that the present aerospace technology originated with the invention of the airplane. The success by the Wright brothers in their first flight was merely a step in the total develop­ ment of the various sciences that made their invention possible at that time. To identify and give credit to each of the person^ adding to the total knowledge that made their

flight possible is beyond the scope of this study.

The use of rockets by the Chinese before the advent

of Western civilization and Christianity is a well known

fact. The visions and sketches of Leonardo DeVinci during

the 15th century undoubtedly gave impetus to some of the

inventions and experimentations in the flights of Octave

Chanute and Otto Lilienthal. Their success with heavier 1 than air gliders encouraged the Wright brothers to build

the world's first wind tunnel and systematically study the

characteristics of lift and drag on an air foil.1 Coupled

with this embryo science of aerodynamics was a growing

knowledge in such areas as internal combustion engines,

9 10 metallurgy and others which made the flight of the first i airplane possible. (20, P.6 )

The mechanization and specialization that was taking place in the industries at the turn of the century advanced throughithe application of scientific knowledge previously attained by such men as Newton, Cavendish, Boyle and others.

New discoveries in refinement techniques for the nation's vast resource of petroleum made the internal com­ bustion engine a feasible energy converter for application

to vehicles of transportation. Hall's process for commer­

cially producing aluminum set the stage for using this

light metal in the design of aircraft. Technology defined

as "tjie application of the knowledge of science to the pro­

duction of goods" would require that this knowledge should

be included and emphasized in the technical education'of

technicians and technologists for industry. (^0 , P.31)

The evolution of the aviation industry had many

significant impacts on society and the economy. The air

transport industry has reached the status of big business.

The present value of aircraft on order by the airlines i exceeds 51 billion dollars. The total purchases by the

military and civilian users put the aerospace industry sales

up to 27.3 billion dollars in 1967, a 13% increase over

1966. The Aerospace Industries Association also reports

that a total of l,k million persons are now employed in the

industry which would make it the nation's largest single

manufacturing employer. (7, P.l) 11

The impact of air transportation on rail passenger service and marine shipping has been far reaching. There are by now ijiany more passengers being carried by air than by other commercial modes of interstate transportation.

The costs of moving materials and goods have always been a substantial part of the price of any product. Air cargo rates have undergone a dramatic series of reductions in the past few years. This has played an important part in reducing the prices of commodities thereby making the products of the industries of this country competitive on the world markets in spite of the rising costs of labor.

With 'the advent of the supersonic transport we will reach *

a new level of rapidity in diffusing populations and cul­

tures. Each nation of the world will only be a few hours

from any other nation, (9, P . 12)

The extension of aviation to aerospace can in part

l be traced to Goddard's experimentation with rockets in

this country. Although his work received very little

attention here, Germany used the knowledge at Peenemunde

for the development of the V2 rocket which was fired against

London and other cities of Great Britain during World War

II. After the war Russia and the United States each ac­

quired a portion of the scientific knowledge and some of

the scientists from the conquered nation of Germany. This

was the start of the great "space race" which is still

gathering momentum. 12 The result of the first Sputnik was to have far reaching effects and impact upon our educational institu­ tions and the industries of this country. Man’s first venture into space in 19bl has put the American and Russian programs to testing man's ability to live and perform use­ ful operations in that environment. Proof of man's adaptability to this new frontier is not the only area in which man has greatly extended his know­ ledge. The need for efficient lightweight structures has en­ couraged the development of new material combinations and fabrication concepts which produce sandwiches of titanium, beryllium, boron and other alloys. These advances will pro­ duce superior, more reliable aircraft and other structures of the future. Great progress has also been made in new energy storage and generating systems for use in space exploration. The fuel cell, nuclear isotope, thermal,energy units, thermal electric power units and the solar cell plus advances in sto­ rage batteries are opening new avenues for energy creation, storage and conversion on earth. The feasibility of voice and picture communication with places as far distant as Mars has led to a virtual revolution in navigation and communication concepts for the public in the future. Additional "spin off" or benefits of our space pro­ gram is the significant information that will help plan the future development of the earth obtained in such disciplines as geology, meterology, photography, astronomy and others. 13 Objectives of Early Programs

Aviation technology stagnated at the wood and fabric level for over three decades. In the middle thirties mass production techniques were finally applied to the manufacturing of aircraft. There was a very limited market for aircraft both in the civilian and the military scene, therefore, there was very little need for techni­ cians. A few private commercial schools were able to train all the mechanics needed for the aviation transportation system of that day. These schools were primarily trade schools patterned somewhat after the European technical training institute. The emphasis v/as on trade skills with relatively little emphasis on theory.

By 1941 the air transportation industry v/as firmly established. , Twenty two franchised carriers were operat­ ing 32,000 miles of federally controlled airways v/ith a 1 total of 2f37 aircraft. The average speed was about 150 miles per hour. A total of 22,000 people were gainfully employed in the industry at that time.

The requirements of war mushroomed the iaircraft manufacturing industry to produce 300,000 aircraft at a

cost of i+5 billion dollars. The ultimate in mass produc­

tion of aircraft seemed to have been achieved by Henry

Ford at the Willow Run B2^f bomber plant in Michigan. The

assembly line v/as two miles long and finished aircraft

were completed and flown at the rate of one every thirty

minutes. (20, P.17) Ik One of the by-products of the expansion of the aviation technology during the war years was an overall improvement in the vehicle design. High octane fuel and new alloys made it possible to develop more horsepower per pound of engine weight. Supercharging and pressurization made it possible to fly at higher altitudes, above the major effects of weather.

The total improvements in the structure and the i systems made a more efficient aircraft possible, capable of carrying larger payloads over a greater range. As the techniques in the manufacturing and the air transportation industries became more complex the role of the technician in production and in servicing also became more sophisti­ cated. Part of the complexity of this new technology could be accommodated by a narrower range of expectation in indi­ vidual competency, knowledge and skills. This trend toward specialization 'also required a higher level in the understanding of the theory and the scientific principles applied to each given operation.

Kent State Program

At Kent State University the offerings of a few elementary courses in aviation during the early years of

World War II led to the establishment of a division of Avia­ tion Technology within the Department of Industrial Arts.

These courses were part of the University's efforts in the

Federal Government's aviation cadet program. 15 In 19^9 a four year degree program was approved in Aviation Technology. This was first published officially j in the University bulletin in 1950 with the announcement of a new Bachelor of Science degree under the College of

Liberal Arts. No objectives were listed for this new pro­ gram, but it was oriented around aviation courses typical of the aircraft mechanics training programs that developed during the war. Additional courses were also provided in the Industrial Arts area such as machine shop, welding and drafting.

Two options were open to the potential student.

The Science Option had a large block of mathematics and science in addition to the aviation, the industrial arts and the general education requirements. The Operations

Option was more in line with the people who had the apti­ tude for business management and this replaced the emphasis of science and mathematics in the other option.

It would be quite fair to say that the program was a two year aircraft technician program to which an additional two years of college requirements were attached to produce a valid baccalaureate sequence. Other public universities had introduced the air­ craft mechanics program to the campuses on a college credit basis; but the two prime examples of this, the University of Illinois and Purdue University, established them as two year terminal programs, with the primary objective to prepare a 16 higher level of aircraft mechanic for the'aviation indus­

tries. Kent State University appears to have been one of

the first to develop a baccalaureate degree in aviation

technology, although there were several other private insti­

tutes offering similar four year degree programs. Examples

of this are Parks Air College, St. Louis and Northrop

Institute in California. Parks has since affiliated with

St. Louis University.

The advent of the space age induced many institu­

tions to change the titles of their aviation activities

to circumscribe the term "aerospace." Kent State University

followed this trend and the designation of Aerospace Tech­

nology was first applied in 1962. Changes in the curriculum

to reflect this implied extension of the field of study were

restrained somewhat by the inertia of traditional concepts

in aviation education. Three new courses were added that

dealt primarily with the problems of transportation in the

space outside the atmosphere bu the major part of the curri­

culum was still oriented to conventional aircraft. A

flight instructional program was introduced in 1966. Credit

for fli'ght courses may now be earned by the aerospace techno­

logy students that have an interest in a career as a profes­

sional pilot.

Differences In Program Types

Excluding the two year programs, the program types

can be classified primarily by the level which a curriculum 17 is established between the so-called practical or mechanic- raaintenance e.nd of the continuum and the engineering, or theoretical level,

Jackson made a study of aviation courses and facili­ ties in higher education in the United States between 1947 and 1951 in which he identified the following types of courses.

Areas included were engineering, flight, aviation mechanics, military aviation, air transportation, and aviation education.

Less common courses were aviation medicine, agricultural aviation and other miscellaneous courses.

The same study identified the most common facili­ ties owned by colleges and universities as grounded war sur­ plus airplanes and engines. The next most common facility

listed by five or more schools in rank order were aircraft

and aircraft engine shops, subsonic wind tunnels, aerodynamics

laboratories, structures test laboratories, airplanes for

flight instruction, airports, supersonic wind tunnels, link

trainers, mock-up training devices, aircraft engine test

'cells, transonic wind tunnels and aircraft for experimental

testing purposes.

Although the study was involved with the status of

individual aviation courses and facilities in higher educa­

tion, it does give a picture of some of the conditions at

the time following World War II, There was a rapid retrench­

ment of many of these courses between 1948 and 1950.

(29, P.127-132). 18 A search of the college catalogs of the insti­ tutions having aeronautical or aerospace degree programs, if engineering were excluded, gives the following pattern of course description indicating two forms of curricula pattern. These were first, those based on the two year tech­ nical institute program broadened to give more depth and the second pattern focused more on a semi-professional aeronau­ tical or aerospace engineering type program.

The same pattern on the national scene is reflected somewhat by the two options within the Kent State program.

The Operations Option represents the middle management area between the mechanic and the engineer while the Science

Option with its equivalent of another major in science and mathematics approaches the engineering domain.

Identification of Criteria

After a search of the literature a decision was made to use the Engineers' Council of Professional Develop­ ment evaluation criteria for accreditation as a basic guide line for the questionnaires used in this study. This deci­ sion was influenced to some extent by a previous study con­ ducted by Keith on the evaluation of Industrial Technology.

(31, P.28-37) The National Defense Education Act gave new defi­ nition to the changing concept of the training needs of1 industry. The publication of "Occupational Criteria and

Preparatory Curriculum Patterns in Technical Education 19 Programs” called attention to the fact that the central concern of technical education is with the body of know­ ledge rather than with specific jobs. Two basic assump­ tions were made:

1. "The technical occupations whether or not they are closely related to engi­ neering functions require broad techni­ cal competence based on a knowledge of engineering and scientific principles.

2. A significant part of 1phis knowledge can best be provided by a formal syste- , matic training in organized programs of instruction." (45, P«3)

This same publication proposed five points that re­ lated to the criteria necessary to identify occupations that require technical education. These were stated as follows:

1. "Facility with mathematics; ability to use algebra and trigonometry as tools in the development of ideas that make use of scientific and engineering principles; an understanding of, though not necessarily facility with, higher mathematics through analytical geometry, calculus, and differential equations, according to the requirements of the technology.

2. Proficiency in the application of physical science principles, includ­ ing the basic concepts and laws of physics and chemistry that are per­ tinent to the individual's field of technology.

3. An understanding of the materials and processes commonly used in the tech­ nology.

4. An extensive knowledge of a field of specialization with an understanding of the engineering and scientific activities that distinguish the tech­ nology of the field. The degree of 20 competency and the depth of under­ standing should be sufficient to enable the individual to do such work as detailed design using estab­ lished design procedures.

5. Communication skills that include the ability to interpret, analyse and transmit facts and ideas graphically, orally and in writing." (45, P.5)

During the past few'years at Kent State the Aero­

space Technology course emphasis has been gradually shifting

from a shop skill and related theory application to a more

scientifically oriented approach. The decision to look

to the ECPD for criteria was further strengthened by recent

action of the Committee on Engineering Technology. Their

previous policy of accrediting only two year programs in

Engineering Technology v/as extended to four year programs.

In 1967 they granted accreditation to a total of five

programs with baccalaureate offerings in Aerospace Engineer­

ing Technology.

The Engineers1 Council for Professional Development

has provided the criteria for accrediting programs of pre­

paration for the engineering profession. During the past

few years the profession has become aware and concerned about

1 the growing number of new technology curricula whose gra­

duates are being employed in engineering or closely allied

supporting positions. In order to protect the standards of

the engineering profession, ECPD has recognized the techno­

logy programs and has established accreditation criteria 21 for these emerging curricula. ECPD accreditation is probably the most significant recognition that techno­ logy programs can achieve for attaining status with pro­ fessional standards,

A letter to the chairman of the ECPD committee,

Walter Hartung, resulted in an encouraging reply, generally supporting the designs and objective of this study. The questionnaires of this study were prepared to determine i the elements of the criteria which were classified under

-***** the following categories:

1. Student Personnel

2. Staff Personnel

3. Administrative Support

if. Facilities and Equipment

5. Curriculum

6 . Achievement of Graduates

From the six broad categories, "curriculum,11 was

selected as the primary target foy major analysis with the

others being surveyed for their secondary or supporting role

to the program.

The curriculum questionnaires were designed to

collect data from 100 selected aerospace industries and

from the Kent State Aerospace graduates. Subject elements

or course listings were rated for their degree of usefulness

to the industry. These elements were sub-divisions of the

following:

i 1. Chemistry

2. Physics

3. Mathematics

Aerospace

5. Manufacturing Processes

6 . General

This structure provides the basis for criteria that are congruent to the recommendations by the U. S,

Office of Education and the ECPD.

Since the number of graduates span a time of nearly two decades^ their replies were divided into two groups:

1950-59 and 1960-68. By comparing the data from the diffe­ rent years represented, some analysis of the trends with­ in the industry and reflections of the program development was possible. Comparison was also made between the response of the graduates on the basis of their option of study in the aerospace curriculum i.e. Science or Operations Option. CHAPTER III

CURRICULUM SURVEY

The success of any technical education program is determined to a large extent by the degree of relevancy of the course work in the curriculum to the on the job require­ ments of industry. The Aerospace industry is a classifica­ tion that includes a complex variety of technical positions ranging from the scientist in Research and Development, the engineer in planning and production, the pilot and flight

,crew, to the technicians involved in manufacturing or main­ tenance of aerospace vehicles and equipment. To determine the requirements of each technical position and establish a specific program of preparation for each specialty would be an expensive approach quite beyond the means of most institutions. From the total body of knowledge used by the industry in its day to day operation, there does exist some commonalties between functions and positions in the use of vocabulary, principles and concepts. If the more salienti areas of congruency were to be identified they should pro­ vide a core of knowledge appropriate to include in a college aerospace technology curriculum. This chapter describes the procedure used in this study as an attempt to seek out

23 24 these curriculum elements for a guideline to possible revisions in the Kent State University program.

Procedures

A one-page questionnaire was prepared listing 47 courses or subject headings. Each respondent was asked to rank the importance of each instructional area by assigning it a number from the following scale:

Rank 0 - No training necessary (not

essential)

1 - Minimal understanding or (may

be useful)

2 - Basic knowledge of subject with

emphasis on theory (important

to the position)

3 - Knowledge of subject with ability

to apply to practical situations

(essential)

The questionnaire was mailed to the graduates of the Kent State Aerospace program and to 100 Aerospace com­ panies. At the time of the mailing current addresses for

112 out of 152 graduates were obtained. From the 112 con­ tacted, 74 returned useable curriculum questionnaires for

a total of 66% for this phase of the study. From the Aero­

space companies a total of 74 useable returns were received

for a 74% reply.

The replies from the graduates were tabulated by using two different splits of the total. One was to compare I

25 those graduating in the 1950's with the graduates of this decade (1960's). The other comparison was on the basis of the student option-(Science or Operations) that each selected for his basis of course concentration.

From industry the number of 7k replies were sepa­ rated to 14 from airlines and 60 from the various types of aerospace manufacturing.

The tabulations were translated into percentages for each specified grouping. No attempt was .made to carry fractions of one percent. They were instead, rounded out to the nearest whole.

Each curricular item, therefore, was ranked by its reported importance and presented in tabular form, one table for the graduates and one table for industry. By combining the percentages of response by each group for rank two and three (important and essential), a graph was prepared to graphically compare the opinions of the I groups.

All the respondents did not react to each item, so only the number replying to a specific subject was used in computing the rank percentages of that element.

Tables 1 through 9A- presenting the raw data from this questionnaire are listed in Appendix D. 26 Chemistry

Graphs 1 through k graphically portray the opinions of the groups in regards to some of the tradi­ tional chemistry offerings as being important curriculum elements for Aerospace Technology. Each line of the graph is constructed by combining the percentages from Rank 2 and Rank 3 of the table relating to that topic. Each graph, therefore, represents the total percentage from the group that believes the topic to be either important or essential for a student majoring in Aerospace Technology,

General Chemistry was the only item in this group that received a significant response for its importance by both the graduates and industry.

I 27 GRAPH 1 PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING GENERAL CHEMISTRY AS IMPORTANT AND_ESSENTIAL______

GRADUATES

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1950-59 I...... — - 1 57%

1960-68 [ - ...... | 39%

Operations [ ~~ ----- | 40%

Sciencei i—i------1 . 65% INDUSTRY

Airlines | ...... — | 45% Aero. Mfg. | - ^ , 59%

GRAPH 2 PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING QUALITATIVE CHEMISTRY AS ______IMPORTANT AND_ESSENTIAL______

GRADUATES

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1950-59 I i 16%

1960-68 C H 9%

Operations I . I 10%

Science f I 18%

INDUSTRY

Airlines 0%

Aero. Mfg. L ) 21% GRAPH 3 PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING ORGANIC CHEMISTRY AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL

GRADUATES

0 10 20 30 ifO 50 60 70 80 90 100

1950-59 □ k% 1960-68 □ k%

Operations □ .3%

Science □ 6%

INDUSTRY

Airlines I ) 11%

Aero. Mfg. I I 9%

GRAPH if PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS CHEMISTRY AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL

GRADUATES

0 10 20 30 ifO 50 60 70 80 90 100

1950-59 □ 8%

1960-68 □ if% Operations CD 6% Science 1— 1 6%

INDUSTRY

Airlines 0%

Aero. Mfg. f I 19% 29 Physics

Graphs 5 through 10 indicate the response,from each group relating to the importance of specific course titles under the category of Physics. Each of the six items received a high rating for its importance in an aerospace technology curriculum.

In most cases the older graduates ranked the items higher in importance than the more recent graduates.

It is also interesting to note that the Operations Option

graduates generally ranked each item higher' than the Science

Option graduates. This would seem to indicate that the

Operations Option students recognize a deficiency in their

program because of not being required to take these addi­

tional Physics courses.

i 30 GRAPH 5 PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING PHYSICS (MECHANICS) AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL -

GRADUATES

0 10 20 30 ifO 50 60 70 80 90 100 1950-59 r ------97%

1960-68 c 91%

Operations 94%

Science 89% INDUSTRY

Airlines 100%

Aero. Mfg. 93%

GRAPH 6 PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING PHYSICS (ELECTRICITY) AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL

GRADUATES

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1950-59 1 ...... i n 97%

1960-68 93%

Operations 94%

Science 94%

INDUSTRY

Airlines 85%

Aero. Mfg. 93% 31 GRAPH 7 PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING PHYSICS (ELECTRONICS) AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL

GRADUATES

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1950-59 0 90%

1960-68 L 81%

Operations C 87% Science £ 76%

INDUSTRY

Airliner c 86% Aero. Mfg. Q 81%

graph 8 PERCENTAGES .FROM EACH GROUP RANKING PHYSICS (THERMODYNAMICS) AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL

GRADUATES

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 ' 70 80 90 100

1950-59 C 1960-58 61%

Operations 77%

Science 60%

INDUSTRY

Airlines C

Aero, Mfg. £ 91% 32 GRAPH 9 PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING PHYSICS (AERODYNAMICS) AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL

GRADUATES

10 20 30 ^0 50 60 70 80 90 100

1950-59 'zzz~iz:~z±iz^: 1 Bk% 1960-68 1 91%. Operations 93%

Science 77% INDUSTRY

Airlines Aero. Mfg. 86%

GRAPH 10 PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING PHYSICS (STATICS & STRENGTH OF MATERIALS) AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL

GRADUATES

0 10 20 3 0 ' kO 50 60 70 80 90 100

1950-59 IZ ...... I 97%

1960-68 C ~~| 7k%

Operations f \ 81%

Science C I 88%

INDUSTRY Airlines f i ■ 1100%

Aero. Mfg. f — 1 95% 33 Mathematics

Graphs 11 through 16 present the opinions of the groups for the importance of including six specific courses in mathematics in an aerospace technolgy curricu­ lum. Of the six courses rated, none of them received less than 70% from the industry group. Differential Equations and Computer Science were the only items receiving less than a majority by the different groupings of graduates. I

Ik GRAPH 11 PERCENTAGES PROM EACH GROUP RANKING ALGEBRA AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL______

GRADUATES

0 10 20 30 ifO 50 60 70 80 90 100

1950-59 9356

0 0 s' i960-,68 OO/o

Operation* 93%

Science 81%

INDUSTRY

Airlines

Aero. HfM. 95%

GRAPH 12 DRCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING TRIGONOMETRY AS IMPORTANT AMD ESSENTIAL ______

GRADUATES

0 10 20 30 kO 50 60 70 80 90 100

1950-59 C j 9 0/3 1960-68 87%

Operations 92%

Science 38%

INDUSTRY

Airlines 8k%

Aero. Mf£. 93% 35 GRAPH 13 PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING ANALYTICAL GEOMETRY AS IMPORTANT ______•______AND ESSENTIAL______'______

GRADUATES

0 10 20 30 k-0 50 60 70 80 <90 100

1950-59 L - ——..II 78%

1960-68 . 1 ~ . 1 69%

Operations L ...... 1 70%

Science f I 83%

INDUSTRY

Airlines I . I 75%

Aero. Mfg. 1 I 93%

GRAPH 1/f PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING CALCULUS ______AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL-______,______

GRADUATES

0 10 20 30 kO 50 60 70 80 90 100

1950-59 E- .. I 6k% 1960-68 [ 1 60%

Operations 1------1 63%

Science L. . - i 59%

INDUSTRY

Airlines £- - - - —I 72%

Aero. Mfg. L ...... ~.. — 1 88% ’ o

36 GRAPH 15 PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL______* 1 GRADUATES

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1950-59 r - ' ' j 54%

1960-68 i i 42%

Operations i i , 47%

Science i i 45%

INDUSTRY

Airlines i n 79%

Aero. Mfg. i...... i 83%

GRAPH 16 PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING COMPUTER SCIENCE AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL

GRADUATES 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1950-59 L .. 3 63%

1960-68 I...... I . . 43%

Operations 1 i 48% . i i Science 1 I 60%

INDUSTRY

Airlines f I &4%

Aero. Mfg. 1 1 70%

\ 37 Aerospace Subjects

Graphs 17 through 29 reflect the opinions from the respondents on the importance of specified aerospace sub­ jects as curriculum items. The terns: "Propulsion11, "Struc­ tures", and "Systems" each represent a sequence of courses in the Kent program as does the, general description "Flight

Instruction." The other titles each reflect a single course in the pro grain except "Design", "Flight Test" and "Technical

Report Writing" which are not currently available.

The items which received less than a majority for

their importance from either the graduates or the industry were "Aircraft Maintenance", "Space Guidance", and "Ambiance I Control." Other subjects that received less than a majority

from any of the groups were "Flight Instruction", 'Data Pro­

cessing", and "Flight testing."

GRAPH 1? PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING AEROSPACE DESIGN AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL

GRADUATES

0 10 20 30 ZfO 50 60 70 80 90 100

1950-59 90% 1960-68 88%

Operations 87%

Science 94%

INDUSTRY

Airlines 91%

Aero. Mfg. 89% 38 GRAPH 18 PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING AEROSPACE SYSTEMS AS IMPORTANT • AND ESSENTIAL ______

GRADUATES

O 1 10 20 30 ^0 50 6Q 70 80 90 100

1950-59 I _ □ 86% 1960-68 r "... ~ ...... | 93%

Operations I I 93%

Science 1 I 72%

INDUSTRY

Airlines I 1 100%

Aero. Mfg. f ...... I 8if%

GRAPH 19 PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING AEROSPACE PROPULSION AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL______

GRADUATES

0 10 20 30 kO 50 60 70 80 90 100

1950-59 [. 1 86%

1960-68 I 1 91%

Operations I I 91%

Science 1 I 82%

INDUSTRY

Airlines I . 1 100% t Aero. Mfg. f I 83% 39 GRAPH 20 PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING AEROSPACE STRUCTURES AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL

GRADUATES

10 20 30 k o 50 60 70 80 90 100

1930-39 i — ____ z :.:z: ".iz — , t : i 85%

1960-68 [ 1 88%

Operations £ 89% Science Q 82%

INDUSTRY

Airlines ]100%

Aero. Mfg. £ 78%

GRAPH 21 PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL

GRADUATES

0 10 20 30 ko 50 60 70 80 90 100

1950-59 6if%

1960-68 73' Operations C 70% Science H 6if%

INDUSTRY

Airlines 93%

Aero. Mfg. L 33% ifO GRAPH 22 PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING AVIONICS AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL______,

GRADUATES 0 10 20 30 kO 50 .60 70 80 90 100

1950-59 f 1 81%

1960-68 | I 70%

Operations \...... [ 73%

Science r ~1 76%

INDUSTRY

Airlines f~~..— ..— [ 92%

Aero. Mfg. [""" ...... — | 59%

GRAPH 23 PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING -IINSTRUMENTATION AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL

GRADUATES 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1950-59 I ------1 78% 1960-68 L------—:------1 91%

Operations I.. . . - — ----- 1 85%

Science L —. 1 —J 88%

INDUSTRY

Airlines L ] 92%

Aero. Mfg. C 81% ifl GRAPH 2i+ PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING SPACE GUIDANCE AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL

GRADUATES

0 10 20 30 \0 50 60 70 80 90 100

1950-59 70% 1960-68 57%

Operations 61%

Science 65%

INDUSTRY

Airlines 67%

Aero. Mfg. 50%

GRAPH 25 PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING AMBIANCE CONTROL AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL

GRADUATES

0 10 20 30 kO 50 60 70 80 90 100

1950-59 r 56%

1960-68 52%

Operations! 51%

Science 59% INDUSTRY

Airlines 70%

Aero. Mfg. 45% *t2 GRAPH 26 PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP■RANKING TECHNICAL REPORT WRITING AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL ' ______

GRADUATES

0 1 0 -2 0 30 IfO 50 60 70 80 90 100 1950-59 I n 95% 1960-68 r \ 79% Operations ,L x> c\J Science 1 □ 89%

INDUSTRY ■ Airlines t ...... "1 99% Aero, Mfg. 1 , - 1 9 3 %

GRAPH 27 PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANLING DATA PROCESSING AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL

GRADUATES

0 10 20 30 ifO 50 60 70 80 90 100

1950-59 C._ 1 69%

1960-68 I l A 3%

Operations r I 55%

Science I I if 8%

INDUSTRY

Airlines 1 1 82%

Aero. Mfg. f 1 68% GRAPH 28 PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING FLIGHT INSTRUCTION AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL

GRADUATES i—l0 0 10 20 30 40 50 - 60 70 80 90 O 0 eft rA

1950-59 [ 1 -

1960-68 4 ...... 1 46%

Operations 1 _ 1 46%

Science r ...... 1 34% INDUSTRY

Airlines r 1 36%

Aero. Mfg. L_... 1 21%

GRAPH 29 PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING FLIGHT TESTING AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL

GRADUATES

0 10 20 . 30 40 50 60 ?0 80 90 100

1950-59 I I 52%

1960-68 1 1 48%

Operations I ~~1 53%

Science I I 39%

INDUSTRY

Airlines I i 4,2%

Aero. Mfg. I I 34% kk Manufacturing Processes

Graphs 30 through 39 list functions or elements

related to manufacturing. Each item is shown as it is rated for its importance for being included in an aerospace

technology curriculum. All items do not carry the same

degree of specificity. The term "Testing," for example,

is a general title commonly referred to in materials or

product testing. "Riveting" and "Adhesive Bonding" are

more specific terms of material fastening that could be

identified as sub-titles under a specific material classi­

fication. "Drafting" was included with this group because of its close relationship to the manufacturing process.

Of the ten items listed, only "Testing" and

"Drafting" received a majority of support for its curricular

importance from all the groups of respondents. 45 GRAPH 30 PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING TESTING AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL ______

GRADUATES

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1950-59 f ------~ I 75%

1960-68 f" "..... — ...... ^ -1— \ " 75%

Operations f " ' n 78%

Science r | &5%

INDUSTRY

Airlines f | > 59%

Aero. Mfg. { t- | 57%

GRAPH 31 PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING FORKING ______AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL______

GRADUATES

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1950-59 r ~ 66%

1960-68 1 I 65%

Operations f 1 65%

Science 1 I 66% I INDUSTRY

Airlines [ 50%

Aero. Mfg. [ 42% kS GRAPH 32 PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING MACHINING ______AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL -______

GRADUATES 0 10 20 30 kO 50 60 70 80 90 100

1950-59 L • ~1 75% 196O-S8 f 1 66%

Operations f t 7k%

Science f | 59%

INDUSTRY

Airlines r I 53%

Aero. Mfg. I ~~ | if3%

GRAPH 33 PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING FINISHING ______AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL______

GRADUATES

0 10 20 30 ifO 50 60 70 80 90 100

1950-59 [ 1 59%

1960-68 f — 1 53%

Operations f 1 56%

Science I | 56%

INDUSTRY

Airlines I | 3k%

Aero. Mfg. f | 39%

1 I

^7 GRAPH 3k PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING WELDING ______AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL______

GRADUATES

0 10 20 30 kO 50 60 70 ■ 80 90 100

• 1950-59 r ^ 1 60%

1960-68 I...... :.. n 61%

Operations . | | 57%

Science f ^ 72%

INDUSTRY

Airlines |-...... 1 5k%

Aero, i-ife'. |------1 kk%

GRAPH 35 PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING RIVETING ‘ ______AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL______

GRADUATES

0 10 20 30 kO 50 60 70 80 90, 100

1950-59 I...... - > 59%

1960-68 1. -H 3 55%

Operations 1--- - H D 52%

Science I...... - 70% INDUSTRY

Airlines 1 ... ZD 5^%

Aero. Mf£. L — . — -HI] 36% 48 GRAPH 36 PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING ADHESIVE BONDING AS ______IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL______

GRADUATES

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1950-59 C — I 71%

1960-68 ■ r ------: I 63%

Operations f " | 65%

Science f ~~| t 66%

INDUSTRY

Airlines f | 46%

Aero* Mfg. | 1 41%

GRAPH 37 PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING PLASTICS ______AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL______

GRADUATES

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1950-59 ' L .. — ZZ3 _ 59%

1960-68 t - I 61%

Operations f I 61%

Science C 1 , 59%

INDUSTRY

Airlines C I 46%

■ Aero. Mfg. f I 42%

i I

k9 GRAPH 38 PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING NUMERICAL CONTROL AS IMPORTANT ______AND ESSENTIAL______

GRADUATES

0 10 20. 30 ifO 50 60 70 80 90 100

1950-59 r ; [ 77%

1960-63 r ~i 41%

Operations | ~ [ 5k%

Science • p" — T 81%

INDUSTRY

Airlines [ —| , 36%

Aero. Mfg. f — ] 50%

GRAPH 39 PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING GRAPHICS (DRAFTING) ______AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL______

GRADUATES

0 10 20 30 kO 50 60 70 80 90 100

195C5-59 r ’ — - - I 79%

1960-68 I ...... — ...... ■ ' I 75% 1 Operations 1 | 77%

Science f [ 72%

INDUSTRY

Airlines | " --}L00%

Aero. Mfg. 1 — 1 83% 5° General Subjects

The general subjects which are reported in graphs ifO through k7 show the opinions of the respondents to the importance of each item for a program in aerospace technology. The topics represent the areas of general college requirements in the Kent program. "English",

"Economics", and "Management" were the only subjects receiving combined support from both the graduates and industry. i 51 GRAPH AO PERCENTAGES FROM E'ACh " GROUP RANKING PHILOSOPHY AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL

GRADUATES.... 0 ' 10 20 30 kO 50 60 '70 80 90 ' 100

1950-59 I---- :---1 17% 1960-6 8 - f ~ 1 • - - • 17%

Operations f | , 21%

Science 1=1 6%

INDUSTRY

Airlines f ~~| 50%

Aero. Mfg. [ 1 8%

GRAPH J+l PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING HISTORY ______AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL______,____

GRADUATES

0 10 20 30 kO 50 60 70 80 90 100 - -

1950-59 1 I 21%

1960-68 I I -- 9%

Operations I I 13%

Science ( ~1 18%

INDUSTRY

Airlines I I 31%

Aero. Mfg. I I 8%

\ 5.?. GRAPH kZ PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING SOCIAL SCIENCES AS ______IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL 1 ______

1» GRADUATES 0 10- 20 30 i»0 50 60 70 80 90 100

1950-59 ' I ... I , 38% 1960-68 I ~1 Z2%

Operations r I . z^°

Science , 1 ~1 35%

INDUSTRY

Airlines f I ^°%

Aero. Mfg. 1 1

GRAPH k3 PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING ______ARTS AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL______

GRADUATES

0 10 20 30 kO 50 60 70 80 90 100

1950-59 I - 1 _ 31%

1960-68------I-1 8%

Operations t I 9%

Science 1 U 18%

INDUSTRY

Airlines [.. I ^5%

Aero. Mfg. □ W 53 GRAPH L& PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING ENGLISH AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL

GRADUATES

0 10 20 30 LO 50 60 70 80 90 100

19-50-59 ' |...... , .7 - 96%

1960-68 I "" — . .. ..------7 88%

Operations 1 ~ 1, 93%

Science f j 88%

INDUSTRY

Airlines |...... | 85%

Aero. Mfg. | .. . — ' 1 91%

GRAPH PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING MANAGEMENT ______AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL______

1 GRADUATES

0 10 20 30 ifO 50 60 70 80 90 100

1950-59 m ... □ 97%

1960-68 I______— ______I 78%

Operations I I 85%

Science 1 I 87%

INDUSTRY

Airlines I I 93%

Aero. Mfg. I 1 50% 5h GRAPH kt PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING MARKETING AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL

GRADUATES

0 10 20 30 kO 50 60 70 80 90 100

1950-59 ' I"'" 1' ' 71%

1960-68 j | k&%

Operations [ " | ' 59%

Science [— ...... 1 — ----- 1 .• 56%

INDUSTRY

Airlines f 11 ~~ 1 50%

Aero. Mfg. r------1 33%

GRAPH PERCENTAGES FROM EACH GROUP RANKING ECONOMICS AS IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL

GRADUATES

0 10 20 30 i+0 50 60 70 80 90 100

1950-59 I— ----- '------I ' 75%

1960-63 |— ------■...... — -j 68%

Operations I- .... 1 67%

Science 1-- ■■■-.-.... — . — — I 62%

INDUSTRY

Airlines i .... — 1 8^%

Aero. Mfg. f, — — , ...J ^9%

\ 5 5 Summary

The data collected and tabulated in this chapter have implications for curriculum analysis. Each instruc­ tional item rated in the questionnaire was evaluated for the response by the groupings of the graduates and by the industries. Any item receiving between a 50% and 70% rating i as an important or essential subject by all the groups is listed as "important" for all Aerospace Technology majors.

The items receiving more than a 70% rating by all the re­ sponding groups is listed as "essential" for all majors.

If a significant difference is noted between the response of the graduates of the two options or between the response of the airlines and the aerospace manufacturing industries the item is listed as appropriate for one speci­

fic option. For those items that do not have a close corre­ lation of rating by the graduates as compared with the response of the industries, a composite evaluation was made

to establish its curricular priority.

Charts 1 through if provide a tabular summary of the

analysis of the response to the curriculum questionnaire.

Each item is rated as either "important", "essential", or

"non-essential" as indicated in the column headings of the

first three columns. 'The fourth column, with the heading

of "KSU-Status" indicates the condition of the item in the

Kent State program as either "required", "not required" and

"electives." CHART 1 SUMMARY OF RESPONSE TO CURRICULUM ITEMS SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS

Rating of Response Curriculum Not KSU Element Essential Important Essential Status

Chemistry General R(S) Qualitative X NR Organic X NR Quantitative X NR

Physics Mechanics X R Electricity X R Electronics X E(S) Thermodynamic s X R Aerodynamics X R Statics X E(S)

Mathematics Algebra X R Trigonometry X R Analytical Geometry X R(S) 1 Calculus R(S) Differential Equations X NR Computer Science X R

Legend S - Science R Required 0 - Operations Option NR Not Required X - Both Options E Elective CHART 2 SUMMARY OF RESPONSE TO CURRICULUM ITEMS AEROSPACE SUBJECTS

______Rating of Response______Curriculum Not KSU Element______Essential Important Essential Status

Aerospace Design X NR Systems X R Propulsion X R Structures X R NR Avionics X , Instrumentation X R Aircraft Maintenance , S 0 E Space Guidance X E Ambiance Control X E Technical Report Writing X NR Data Processing X R Flight Instruction X R(0) Flight Testing X NR

Legend

S - Science Option R - Required 0 - Operations Option NR - Not Required X - Both Options E - Elective I

58 CHART 3 SUMMARY OF RESPONSE TO CURRICULUM ITEMS MANUFACTURING PROCESSES

Curriculum Not KSU Element______Essential Important Essential Status

Testing X NR Forming X NR Machining X E Welding X R Riveting X R Finishing S 0 NR Adhesive Bonding XNR Plastics XNR Numerical Control 0 X NR Graphics (Drafting) XR

Legend

S - Science Option R - Required 0 - Operations Option NR - Not Required X - Both Options E - Elective 59 CHART if SUMMARY OF RESPONSE TO CURRICULUM ITEMS GENERAL SUBJECTS

1 Rating of Response______Curriculum Not KSU Element______Essential Important Essential Status

Philosophy X E History' X E Social Sciences X R Fine Arts X > R English X R Management X R(0) Marketing S 0 E(0) Economics S 0 1R(0)

Legend

S - Science Option R - Required 0 - Operations Option NR - Not Required X - Both Options E - Elective 60 Interpretation of Data

The curriculum pattern synthesized from the questionnaires returned from the graduates and industries indicates that the Kent State program would require some adjustments if it were to assume a closer correlation to the I recommendations. These are listed 'as follows:

Science and Mathematics. Additional courses in Physics re­ quired of all majors should include Electronics plus Statics and Strengths of Materials. Analytical Geometry would be added in the Operations Option. It is already required in the Science Option.

Aerospace Subjects. Aerospace Design, Avionics and Technical

Report Writing would have to be added to both options. Air­ craft Maintenance would be changed from an elective to a requirement for the Operations Option. Flight Instruction would be changed from a requirement to an elective.

Manufacturing Processes. With the exception of Graphics, none of the items listed in this category fulfilled the criterion for the rating of an essential subject. Welding and Riveting which are now treated as laboratory activities in conjunction with the Structures series would be required to be down-graded from requirements to electives.

General Subjects. The general subjects listed as being not essential to the program are some of the traditional cultu­ ral courses required by the college for all graduates. These 61 requirements are usually sacrosanct and cannot be changed extensively for individual program development. Management would be added as a requirement for the Science Option.

In addition to the curriculum items specifically

listed for rating by the respondents, spaces were available

on the questionnaire to volunteer' individual viewpoints for

contributions as curriculum subjects. A total of topics were suggested by the industries of which only those receiv­

ing two or more separate mentions will be reported. Be­

havioral Science, Human Relations and Oral Communication

were the most frequent contributions in the general cate­

gory. Metallurgy, Statistics, and Physical Chemistry were

the only other topics that were volunteered by more than

one industry.

The graduates suggested 19 topics for curriculum

subjects. Oral Communication, Human Relations and Statis­

tics were the primary areas mentioned by two or more grad-

uates that also had been cited by the industries. Environ­

mental Testing was another subject that received multiple

citations by the graduates. CHAPTER IV

INTRODUCTION

The nature of any curriculum i. influenced by the

structure and climate of the environment in which it func­

tions. This chapter is a report of the graduates' responses

to a questionnaire that was basically a rating form of the

Kent State Aerospace Technology program.

Procedure

A three page questionnaire was prepared and mailed

to 112 graduates who had been previously contented. A total

of 88 (79%) returns were received. These replies are pre­

sented in tabular form v/ith the same comparison groupings

used in Chapter III. Each respondent did not complete all

the items. The percentages presented on each question are

based on the number of people answering that specific

question. Some questions used a six level ranking scale (low

to higii) to which one check was to be placed to indicate the

individual's level of opinion for that response. On this

type of question a neutral or random condition of response

would be assumed if 50% would be in the lowest three levels

and 50% in the upper three levels.

A rating scale was devised by matching the two extreme ends of the scale and comparing the percentage of 62 63 these two (rank 5 with rank 0). If the percentage of rank 3 exceeded the percentage of rank 0, a positive num­ ber equal to the difference was noted. If the rank 5 percen­ tage was less than the rank 0 percentage, a negative number equal to the differences was noted. By continuing this pro­ cess with the other ranks and pairing them according to their position from the mid-point between the high and low extremes it is possible to algebraically arrive at either a positive or negative value relative to the question. The rating will be used on the appropriate following tables, and will be identified by the term "Rating Value." This should provide a more significant comparison of opinions between the various groupings. The following example shows in more detail how the rating value is derived.

Rank Response

High 5 (25%) Rank 5 (+25) + Rank 0 (-35) = -10

k (10%) Rank 4 (+10) + Rank 1 (- 5) = + 5

3 (10%) Rank 3 (+10) + Rank 2 (-15) = - 5 Null- Rating Value of Question -10 2 (15%) | 1 ( 5%)« Low 0 (35%) Positive values are assigned the percentages above

the null and negative values to the percentages below the

null. By comparing Rank 5 with Rank 0 a difference of -10

is found, Rank k with Rank 1 gives a value of +5, and Rank

3 paired with Rank 2 gives a -5. The above example would 6k have a rating value of -10 which indicates more of the response was below the null than above. This procedure provides a grading scale of a potential 100 points above and

100 points below the null. This allows the reader a quick method of comparing the opinions expressed by the different groupings of the graduates.

The questions used in the questionnaire provide the titles for each of the Charts 5 through 2if.

i

1 ]

65 Student Selection. Screening is defined as a process to "interview or test in order to separate according to skills, personality, aptitudes, etc." Chart 5 shows the graduate opinions on student selection.

CHART 5 "DO YOU BELIEVE APPLICANTS FOR THE AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM SHOULD BE SCREENED BEFORE ACCEPTANCE?"

Operations Science 1950-59_____ 1960-68______Option_____ Option

No. % No. No. k No. % Yes 26 25 50 36 59 15 75

No 5 16 25 50 25 kl 5 25 Totals 31 50 61 20 N 81

The Aerospace Technology Division at Kent State University has not used any screening or selection procedure for enter­ ing students. The University does not deny entrance to any graduate from an accredited secondary school of the State of

Ohio. This policy does not, preclude the possibility of setting up ,,a selection process into certain curriculum areas where aptitudes' could be identified as appropriate for predicting success in the program.

Chart 5 indicates that a majority of the graduates believe , a selection process should be used for applicants to the program. Although the graduates from 1960-68 were split 50-50 on the question, the 'total combined responses from all the

1 graduates was 59% for and /+1% against selection. 66 Personal Characteristics. Tables 95 through 102 in the appendix represent the opinions of the graduates in rank­ ing eight personal characteristics for their importance.

There was no attempt to define the terms for the respondents except the limitation expressed by the questionnaire which requested that the ratings should reflect personal charac­ teristics important for success in the program.

Chart 6 is a composite of the rating values from these tables.

CHART 6 COMPOSITE OF TABLES 95-102 PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS RATING VALUES

Operations Science ______;______1950's 1960*5_____ Option_____ Option

Mechanical Aptitude +81 +85 +90 Mathematical Aptitude +9k +88 +88 +100 Integrity +99 +96 +97 +100 Neatness +88 +88 +87 +90 Perseverance +99 +96 +100 +90 Initiative +100 +100 +100 +90 Cooperation +100 +100 +100 +100 Intelligence +100 +100 +100 +100

The changing nature of the curriculum is represented to some

extent by the difference between the graduates of the 1950

decade as compared with the 1960's in rating "Mechanical

Aptitude" and "Mathematical Aptitude." The trend indicates

an apparent emphasis for mechanical aptitudes followed by a

lesser degree with a decrease for "Mathematical Aptitude." 67 Program Status on Campus. There are probably very few

campuses where there is perfect harmony between disciplines

and departments. Acceptance of a program of studies by the

total faculty can never be decreed or assumed. Chart 7

shows the opinions of the graduates relating to the status

of the Aerospace Technology program on the Kent State Univer­

sity campus.

CHART 7 INDICATE WHAT YOU BELIEVE WAS THE ATTITUDE OF YOUR PROFESSORS OUTSIDE THE FIELD OF YOUR MAJOR TOWARD THE AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

Operations Science ______1950-39 1960-68______Option______Option_____

Rating Value -3 +1+ +1 0

The response indicates a very low status for the program as

viewed by the graduates through the attitudes of the professors

outside the Aerospace Technology Division. An increase of

seven points on the rating value scale between the graduates

of the 1950's as compared with the 1960's shows a slight

improvement in the status for the program. 68 Scholarship, The quality of knowledge or the standard of work expected of the students in the Aerospace program as viewed by the graduates is reflected in Chart 8,

CHART 8 INDICATE IMPORTANCE OF SCHOLARSHIP AS EMPHASIZED IN THE KENT STATE AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW

I Operations Science Rank______1930-39 1960-68_____ Option______Option No. A No. A No. A No. A High 5 3 10 5 11 5 9 3 Ik k 12 ki Ik 30 18 33 8 38 3 13 k5 21 ^5 2b kl 8 38 2 1 3 7 15 6 11 2 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Low 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Totals 29 k7 55 21 N 76 Rating Value +93 +71 +78 +80

The data appear to have uncovered a definite decline in scholarship requirements as the program developed from the

1950's into the 1960's, No significant difference is indi­ cated between the Operations and the Science Options, 69 Expectation for Professional Advancement. This is a complex relationship between factors such as personal ambition, awareness of self-competency within the job re-< quirements, growth potential and policies of the company and others. Chart 9 reveals the graduates' assessment for future promotion in his present employment.

CHART 9 INDICATE THE EXTENT TO WHICH YOU BELIEVE YOU CAN ADVANCE WITH YOUR PRESENT COMPANY

Operations Science Rank______1950-99 1960-68_____ Option______Option Ho. A Ho. % No. A No. A High 5 , 10 29 17 36 19 31 8 ko k 20 59 21 k3 31 51 10 50 3 2 6 7 15 7 11 2 10 2 1 3 1 2 2 3 0 0 1 1 3 1 2 2 3 0 0 Low 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---- — U— —— Totals 3k kl 61 20 N 81 Rating Value +88 +92 +87 +100

The graduates of the 1960's have a slightly higher level of expectation for advancement. This may be partially explained by the possibility that some of the older graduates have already been promoted to their levels of expectation. The

graduates from the Science Option have a level of expectation

significanly higher than the Operations Option. 70 Administrative Support for The Aerospace Program. The

students' viewpoint on the institution's support by the administration would probably be influenced to a great

extent by the facilities and environment provided for the program as compared to the physical and fiscal provisions made to other programs on campug.

CHART 10 INDICATE THE EXTENT TO WHICH YOU BELIEVE THE KENT STATE UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION SUPPORTS THE AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

Operations Science Rank______1950-39 1960-68______Option_____ Option No. A 'No. A No. A No. A High 5 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 6 4 5 19 9 18 14 24 0 0 3 13 48 10 20 18 31 5 28 2 8 30 19 38 18 31 9 50 1 1 4 8 16 7 12 2 11 Low 0 0 0 3 6 2 3 1 6

Totals 27 50 59 18 N 77 Rating Value +33 -20 +9 -33

The graduates show a decline of over fifty points on the

rating value scale for the University's support of the

Aerospace Technology program since the 1950's. The Science

majors' opipion of the administrative support is forty two

points lower than the Operations Option. This response may

be due to formerly inadequate science facilities which have

been replaced with new buildings. 71 Additional Program Support. The graduates were asked the methods by which additional support might be obtained for the program. Four suggested general headings were pro­ vided for their choice. Also, a blank "Other" space was available for additional possibilities.

CHART 11 CHECK METHODS BY WHICH ADDITIONAL SUPPORT MIGHT BE OBTAINED

Operations Science 1950-59 1960-68______Option_____ Option No. A No. A No. A No. A Public Relations 11 32 Ik 26 17 26 8 36 Industrial Support 28 82 '30 57 33 51 15 68 Alumni Support 4 12 10 19 10 15 4 18 Curriculum Modification 11 32 25 47 29 45 7 32 Total N 74 N=34 ]M=53 N=65 N=22

In Chart 11 each respondent could check all four items if he wished, so the total number in each column1 exceeds the number of graduates in that group. The greatest frequency occurred for "Industrial Support" with "Curriculum Modifica­ tion" being in second place as a suggested method for gaining support. The more recent graduates rated "Curricu­ lum Modification" more necessary than the earlier graduates.

The Science Option graduates did not think that curriculum change was as imperative as the Operations majors. 72 Employers Acceptance of The Program. The Aerospace

Technology curriculum is relatively unique as a bacca- alureate program up to this time. There are no national syllabi available for definitive purposes. Descriptive explanations of the program to employers probably varied with i the individual graduate's personality and ability to analyse problems and communicate ideas. i

CHART 12 HOW FAVORABLY DID YOUR PRESENT EMPLOYER VIEW YOUR COLLEGE PREPARATION WHEN HE EMPLOYED YOU?

Operations Science Rank______1950-59 1960-68_____ Option______Option No. °k No. % No. % No. % High 5 1 3 9 21 7 13 3 16 k 11 3k 11 26 16 29 6 32 3 13 kl 17 ko 25 45 5 26 2 7 22 5 9 7 13 5 26 1 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 Low 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Totals 32 k3 56 19 N 75 1 Rating Value +56 +76 +72 +48

There has been an upward shift in the employer's acceptance of the program. The earlier graduates had to describe and i interpret their course of study to potential employers.

Now, most of the larger national aerospace industries are cognizant of the curriculum and its product. Some of this

awareness may be in part due to the distribution of a

printed brochure, but much credit must also be attributed to

the graduates' successful performance on their jobs. 73 Relevancy of Program to Graduates Position. The job de­ scriptions of the graduates cover a wide spectrum of spe­ cialization. Many of these special requirements need specific educational activities at the site of the indus­ try. Chart 13 shows the graduates1 opinion on how well their education prepared them for their positions.

CHART 13 TO WHAT EXTENT DID YOUR EDUCATION PREPARE YOU TO FIT DIRECTLY INTO YOUR PRESENT POSITION?

Operation's Science Rank______1930-39 1960-68_____ Option______Option 0/ No. A No. % No. (2 No. A High 5 2 6 9 18 7 11 k 20 k 11 32 1 13 25 19 29 5 25 3 12 35 12 2k 18 28 6 30 1 2 7 21 9 18 1J+ 22 2 10 1 2 6 6 12 6 9 2 10 Low 0 0 0 2 k 1 2 1 5

Totals 3k 51 65 20 N 85 Rating Value +k& +33 +35 +50

A decrease of thirteen points since the 1950's indicates a lessening for the relevancy of the program to the graduates' position requirements. This would seem to suggest that the curriculum has failed to keep pace with the advances of 1 industry. The science majors report a higher relevancy for

their education than the operations students. 74 Student Counseling. Each of the aerospace students is assigned to one of the program's faculty members for coun­ seling. The number of advisees served by each faculty mem­ ber has varied from about twenty students in the 1950's to approximately sixty at the present time. The availability of the advisers for student counseling is shown in Chart 14.

CHART 14 TO WHAT EXTENT WAS YOUR COLLEGE ADVISER AVAILABLE FOR CONFERENCE? Operations Science Rank 1950--59 1960-68 Option Option No. 2° No. °k No. % No. °A High 5 19 58 13 26 23 36 9 4,7. 4 7 21 15 30 17 27 5 26 3 5 15 12 24 13 20 4 21 2 1 3 2 4 2 3 1 5 1 1 3 5 10 6 9 0 0 Low 0 0 0 3 6 3 5 0 0

Totals 33 50 64 19 N 83 Rating Value +88 +60 +66 +89

The influx of students has approximately tripled the number that each adviser has been assigned for counseling. A de- I crease of twenty eight points since 1950 on the reported availability of the adviser for conference is not surprising in view of the conditions. The higher rating by the science majors has no apparent logical explanation since the assign­ ment to advisers does not separate the two options. It may be that the random distribution, by coincidence, placed a

greater number of the science students under,the guidance of

a staff member who was more generous with his time. 75 Adequacy of Equipment. Many of the Aerospace courses have laboratory requirements. The equipment used for de­ monstrations and student practice range from several com­ plete aircraft to separate systems and component parts such as reciprocating and jet-type engines and accessories* Other laboratory equipment includes specialized testing devices, metal working machines, and standard shop tools.

CHART 15 INDICATE THE ADEQUACY OF EQUIPMENT USED IN THE KENT STATE PROGRAM

Operations Science Rank______1950-59 1960-68_____ Q-ption______Option 0/ No. °A Ho. % No. No. °k High 5 2 6 3 6 5 8 0 0 k 3 9 5 10 6 9 2' 11 5 15 kk 13 26 19 29 9 kl 2 9 26 18 36 23 35 k 21 1 k 12 9 18 10 15 3 16 Low 0 1 3 2 k 2 3 1 5

Totals 3k 50 ,65 19 N 8k + Rating Value Oo -16 -7 +16

The graduates' rating for the adequacy of the equipment used in the Kent State program was low in the 1950's, but it descended thirty four points to a negative 16 for the 1960's.

This indicates a significant decline. The science students

indicate a higher rating for the equipment in their program

than that reported by the Operations Option. This would seem

to indicate that the science laboratories are equipped more

adequately than the aerospace laboratories. 76 Specific Areas of Equipment Inadequacies. The graduates were offered six major instructional areas to identify more specifically their opinions as to the location of inadequate equipment.

CHART 16 CHECK THE AEROSPACE COURSES WHERE YOU BELIEVE THE EQUIPMENT WAS INADEQUATE

Operations Science 1950--55 1960-68 Option Option No. A No. A No. Ik No. A Power Plants 12 38 22 kk 27 kk 7 35 Structures Ik kk 28 56 31 50 11 55 Instruments Ik kk 30 60 38 61 6 30 Materials 12 38 22 kk 29 kl 5 25 Electrical 18 56 31 62 38 61 11 55 Fuel Controls 13 kl 23 kS 29 kl 7 35 Totals N=32 N=50 N=62 N=20

In Chart 16 each respondent could check all six items if he wished so the total number in each column exceeds the number of graduates of that group. All the instructional areas listed suffered a decline in equipment adequacy by the opinion of the graduates from the 1950’s to the 1960's. A composite rating by the total population would indicate that the

"Electrical" course is the most inadequately equipped, followed by "Structures" and "Instruments". 77 Adequacy of Laboratory Space. The aerospace laboratory space consists of approximately 2,500 square feet, partially divided by a stairway and office area extending nearly half l way through the center. At least ten different types of courses are taught throughout the year in the laboratory.

Frequently, two courses will be in the room at the same time.

CHART 17 INDICATE THE ADEQUACY OF LABORATORY SPACE AVAILABLE FOR THE COURSES IN THE PROGRAM

1 Operations Scipnce Rank______1950-59 1960-68_____ Option______Option No. A No. A No. A No. A High 5 3 9 1 2 3 5 1 6 4 7 21 9 18 13 20 3 17 3 12 36 16 32 24 37 4 22 2 8 24 14 28 14 22 8 44 1 3 9 7 1h 8 12 2 11 Low 0 0 0 3 6 3 5 0 0 i Totals 33 50 65 18 N 83 Rating Value +33 +4 +23 -10

The graduates of the 1950's rated the adequacy of the Kent

State Aerospace laboratory space low. It has declined twenty nine points since then. The science graduates rated the laboratory space thirty three points lower than the Opera­ tions Option graduates. This significant difference may have been due to the inclusion of the science laboratories in the consideration by this group. 78 Specific Areas of Space Inadequacies. The graduates were offered six instructional areas to identify their opinions as to the location of space inadequacy.

CHART 18 CHECK THE LABORATORIES AND SHOPS WHERE THE SPACE WAS INADEQUATE

Operations Science 1950-59 1960-68 Option Option No. °k No. °k No. °k No. % Power Plants 8 25 20 40 21 34 7 35 Structures 12 38 23 46 26 42 9 45 Instruments 10 31 16 32 21 34 5 25 o 00 Materials 10 31 19 38 21 34 -p- Electrical 9 28 15 30 20 32 4 20 Fuel Controls 7 22 13 26 16 26 4 20 Total N=82 N=32 N=50 N=62 N=20

The percentages expressed on each line represents the number

I of people checking the items out of the total number of re­ spondents in that particular group. The adequacy for all six listed areas declined in the opinion of the more recent graduates as compared to the earlier graduates. "Structures" was rated with the greatest frequency of inadequacy. One student stated that the question was absurd because all the instructional areas listed have to share different portions ^ of the same general laboratory. Adequacy of College Preparation in Use of Equipment.

There are probably laboratories at some institutions that are spacious and well equippped with sophisticated appara­ tus which experiences very little student use* Chart 19 reflects the Aerospace graduates views for the extent that their college preparation in the use of equipment was ade­ quate.

CHART 19 TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU BELIEVE YOUR COLLEGE PREPARATION IN USE OF EQUIPMENT WAS ADEQUATE

Operations Science Rank 1950-•?9 1960-•68 Option Option 0/ 0/ No. °k No. °A No. £ No. £ High 5 b 12 b 8 6, 10 2 ii b 8 2b 9 19 11 18 6 32 3 16 b8 22 bt> 28 b5 10 53 2 b 12 9 19 13 21 0 0 1 l 3 2 b 2 3 1 5 Low 0 0 0 2 b 2 3 0 0

Totals 33 b8 62 19 N 81 \ Rating Value +72 +b6 +b6 +91

The rating by the graduat es of the previous decade was moderately high, but it declined 26 points into the I960*s.

The Science graduates as a group rated their preparation

in the use of equipment b5 points higher than the graduates

of the Operations Option.

\ 80 Identification of Program Weak Points. > Each respondent was asked to identify weak points in the Aerospace program from eight offered choices. In addition to the select/check items, voluntary identifications were also invited.

CHART 20 ON THE BASIS OF YOUR EXPERIENCE CHECK ANY WEAK POINTS OF THE AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM AT KENT STATE UNIVERSITY

Operations Science 1950-59 1960-68 Option Option 0/ No. °k No. %. No. 11 No. °A Faculty 1 Qualification 3 9 19 36 18 28 k 18 Student Selection k 12 k 8 5 8 3 Ik Curriculum Content 18 53 35 66 k2 65 11 50 Teaching Methods 6 18 16 30 20 31 2 9 Space Facilities 15 kk 29 55 3k 52 10 k5 Equipment 18 53 36 68 k2 65 12 55 Administrative Support Ik kl 35 66 37 57 12 55 Scholarship Requirements 1 3 k 8 5 8 0 0 Total N=3k N=53 N=65 N=22

Of the eight items, seven received a greater frequency of identification in the 1960's when compared to the 1950’s-.

The weak points of the program as selected by the majority of the students of the 1950's were "Curriculum Content" and

"Equipment." These were also marked by a majority of the graduates of this decade (1960's) as well as two additional items, "Space Facilities" and "Administrative Support." 81 Identification of Program Strong Points. The same criteria offered for possible selection as weak points in

Chart 20 were also presented for detecting opinions of strong points. Voluntary identification of other strengths were also invited. i CHART 21, OK THE BASIS OF YOUR EXPERIENCE CHECK ANY STRONG POINTS OF THE AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM AT KENT STATE UNIVERSITY

Operations Science 1950-59 1960-68 Option Option No. %. No. A No. A Ho. % Faculty Qualification 22 65 21 40 31 48 12 55 Student Selection 2 6 5 9 6 9 1 5 Curriculum Content 8 24 11 21 13 20 6 27 Teaching Methods 11 32 14 26 '16 25 9 41 Space Facilities 4 12 4 8 5 8 3 14 Equipment 1 3 2 4 3 5 0 0 Administrative Support 1 3 7 13 2 3 1 5 Scholarship Requirements 2 6 5 9 5 8 3 14 Total N=87 N=34 N=53 N=65 N=22

The percentage expressed in each line represents the number of

people checking the items out of the total number of respon­

dents in that particular group. The primary strong point in

the program identified by the graduates of the 1950's and

receiving the highest frequency for the 1960's was "Faculty

Qualification." It did, however, lose 25% in status during

the period. 82 Positions Graduates Are Qualified For. Five general position classifications were presented for the graduates to select those for which they were prepared.

CHART 22 CHECK THE KINDS OF POSITIONS FOR WHICH YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE PREPARED

Operations Science ______1950-39 1960-68______Option_____ Option 0/ No. °A 'No*. 12 No. 2 No. 2 Engineering 16 k? 32 60 32 k9 16 73 Management 19 56 26 k9 33 51 12 | 55 Marketing 10 29 13 25 15 23 8 36 Aerospace Teaching 8 2k 21 kO 20 31 10 k5 Flight Crew or Operations 15 kk 30 57 36 55 10 k5 Total N=87 N«3*f N-53 N-65 N=22

The earlier graduates rated "Management" first, with "Engineer­ ing" second and "Flight Crew or Operations" third in the order of sequence for which they believed they were prepared.

The more recent graduates placed "Engineering" first,

"Flight Crew" second, and "Management" as third. The Science graduates rated their preparation higher than the Operations

Option on all the criteria except for the "Flight Crew" posi­ tion. I

83 Starting Salaries for New Graduates. One criterion that is important to everyone connected with the Aerospace Tech­ nology program is the market value of the degree at the time of graduation. Chart 23 shows the distribution of the re­ ported starting salaries of the graduates.

CHART 23 INDICATE YOUR STARTING ANNUAL SALARY IMMEDIATELY FOLLOY/IDG GRADUATION Operations Science 1950-59 I960.-68 Option Option '■/ /• / Do. Ik Do. 70 Do. k Do. % $ 5,000 22 89 1% 30 23 %o 13 59 0,000 9 28 13 28 16 28 6 27 7,000 1 3 12 26 11 19 2 9 r 8,000 0 0 7 15 0 11 1 5 9,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,000 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 0

Totals 32 %7 57 22 D 79

The graduates' starting salaries in the 1950's were nearly all

(97%) clustered between 5 6 thousand dollars per annum.

Only 3% were as high as $7,000. The graduates since i960 show a wider reported spread with W5% starting at $7,000 or higher. The highest reported starting salary for this group was $12,000 for a graduate from the Operations Option.

The Operations Option graduates' starting salaries were signi­

ficantly higher than those from the Science Option. 84 Graduates1 Present Salaries. There may be some reluc­ tance to relate the success of the Aerospace technology

.program to the dollar sign, but money does provide a mea­ suring device common to our society. Chart 24 indicates the distribution of the graduates' reported salaries as of 1968.

CHART 24 INDICATE PRESENT SALARY

Operations Science 1950-59 1960-68_____ Option______Option

of 0/ No. 1 ° No. /O No. /O No. ° k $ 5,000 0 0 2 4 1 2 1 5 6,000 0 0 3 6 3 5 0 0 7,000 0 0 3 6 3 5 0 0 8,000 2 6 5 10 5 8 2 10 9,000 2 6 9 19 7 11 4 20 10,000 3 9 7 15 9 15 1 5 11,000 5 15 7 15 9 15 3 15 12,000 3 9 6 13 9 15 0 0 13,000 3 9 0 0 1 2 2 10 14,000 1 3 2 4 3 5 0 0 15,000 4 12 1 2 2 3 3 15 over 15,000 11 32 3 6 10 16 4 20

Totals 34 48 62 20 N 82

The graduates from the 1950 decade reported that 44% are

currently earning salaries of $15,000 or better. Three

volunteered the information that they were receiving appro­

ximately $25,000 per year. This was included as part of

the 32% who are earning over $15,000. The graduates from

the I960 decade report that 8% are earning $15,000 or more. 85 Significant Program Trends. The charts that were de­ signed for reporting rating values on selected items are presented collectively in Chart 25. This provides the reader with a ready comparison in these program trends based on the graduates1 experiences.

CHART 25 SIGNIFICANT TRENDS

Rating Values Operations Sciei 1950's 1 9 6 0 ' s Option Optii

Program Status on Campus - 3 + 1+ + 1 0 Scholarship in , Program +93 +71 +78 + 8 0 Graduates1 Expectation for Professional Advancement + 8 8 +92 +87 + 1 0 0 Administrative Support for Program +33 - 2 0 + 9 -33 Employers1 Acceptance of the Program +58 +76 +72 +if 8 Relevancy of Program to Employment +1+6 +33 +35 +50 Student Counseling + 8 8 + 6 0 + 6 6 +89 Adequacy of Equipment in Program +18 -16 - 7 + 1 6 Adequacy of Laboratory Space +33 + k +23 - 1 0

Adequacy of Preparation \ in Equipment Use +72 +i+6 +1+6 +91 86 GRAPH A|8 SOME SIGNIFICANT TREUES

The following graph 'shows so mo significant' trends in Aero- ) space Technology as reported by the graduates of the 1950's and I960*s.

2 ' 3 4 5 6 . 7 8 9 10 100 90 80 70 I bO I 50 40 30 I I 1 20 I 10 0 m tZZL I -10 1 -20 1 -30 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 1950«s a 1960'S Y?S///A

1 - Program Status on Campus

2 - Scholarship 3 - Graduates Expectation for Advancement Administrative Support for Pro grains on Campus 4 - 1 5 - Employers Acceptance of Program

6 - Relevancy of Program 7 - Student Advising UO — Adequacy of Equipment 9 - Adequacy of Laboratory Space

10 - Adequacy of Preparation in Use of Equipment 87 Summary

The viewpoints of the graduates relating to the

Kent State University Aerospace Technology program are

summarized as follows.

Student Personnel

A 5^% majority of the graduates were in favor of

some form of student selection for entry.

The personal characteristics that were rated the

highest as being necessary for successful completion of the

program were ’'intelligence’1 and "cooperation", followed

closely by "initiative", "perseverance", and "integrity."

Mechanical aptitude and mathematical aptitude were rated as I having equal importance by the students from the 1950's.

The more recent graduates ranked mechanical aptitude as the

least important-of the eight characteristics. Tv/enty one

respondents contributed a total of fourteen other personal

characteristics they thought were important. Only one of

these was volunteered by more than two people. This was

the single word term "desire" written in by six of the

graduates.

The response indicates a trend toward a reduced

emphasis on scholarship and less availability of.the ad­

visees for counseling in recent years.

Staff Personnel

Faculty qualifications emerged as the only item re­

ceiving confirmation by the majority as a strong point in 88 the program. This viewpoint has declined 25% in the last

eight years.

Facilities

The adequacy of laboratory space and equipment was

rated very low by the graduates. The greatest frequency

listed the structures laboratory as having the most inade­

quate space and the electrical laboratory as the most defi­

cient in equipment.

Administrative Support

On the basis of the graduates’ observations, ad­

ministrative support for the program declined the greatest

amount of all thb criteria rated. This corroborates the low

! rating received for facilities as there is obviously a close

correlation between administrative support and the facilities

provided for the program. ,

Curriculum

'An ambiguity may at first seem evident in comparing

the trends between relevancy of the curriculum and the em­

ployers acceptance of it. The graduates of the 1960's show

a decline in their rating of curriculum relevancy as com­

pared to the 1950's, while at the same time showing a signi­

ficant increase in the employer's acceptance of the program.

Achievement of Graduates

Of the graduates responding to the questionnaire,

56% are holding positions in some type of engineering with

the aerospace manufacturing industries. Thirty one percent 1

89 are in professional flight crew categories of which about half are with the commercial airlines. Forty four percent of the graduates from the 1 9 5 0 's are earning annual salaries of $15,000 or higher. The top salaries were re­ ported by three airline captains near the $25,000 bracket.

The Science Option graduates report higher current salaries than the Operations Option although they had a lower start­ ing salary. >

Of the graduates, 83% had talien additional training or education since graduating. Thirty nine percent have obtained additional licenses or certificates; 8% have re­ ceived either company or government awards for exemplary

service; 7% have received advanced degrees (including one doctorate)' 6% had published one or more technical articles

and one had registered a patent.

6% reported themselves as being in management posi­

tions. Some of the senior engineers could probably be

listed in the same category.

7% reported miscellaneous positions outside the

aerospace field. These included such descriptions as

science teacher, optometrist, chemist, and others.

All categories reported a high degree of expectation

for professional advancement. I

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY

The graduates completed a personnel form in con­ junction with the questionnaire reported in Chapter IV.

Information from this form is included with this chapter as well as a synopsis of the overall program situation and its relationship to the national economy.

Kent State University has been quite unique in being one of the few public supported institutions having a baccalaureate degree program in Aerospace Technology during the past two decades. There now appears to be a trend developing for other institutions to offer programs of Aerospace Engineering Technology, both at the two year associate degree level and the four year level.

The program at Kent was originally established with aircraft mechanics as the primary emphasis. This pro- l , vided a general education in aviation terms and concepts, while the students were developing some basic manipulative

skills.

During the last twenty years, engineering educa­

tion has shifted upward to a more scientific emphasis,

leaving a larger void between the "practice" and the I "theory" in many technologies. This area of "practical 50 9l engineering" or technician-technologist preparation is a domain worthy of academic position in four year as well as two year programs.

The aerospace industry is the largest manufactur­ ing employer in the United States, with over 1,1+ million employees. One in fifty of all people employed in the country works for the aerospace industry. The industry provides a primary reservoir of technical personnel that has been referred to as the "cutting edge of technology"

for the nation. i Gerson Chanowitz, chief economist of the Aerospace

Industries Association, claimed in a recent speech, that

by 1970 almost 50% of the aerospace products will be new.

This represents the results of a massive research and

development effort since World War II. In 1967, Chanowitz

reported that 37% of the nation's total expenditure on re­

search and.development was for aerospace programs. The

significance of the influence of these activities on the

economy was predicted to generate 568,000 jobs based on

the Bureau of Labor Statistics matrix. Of this total about

25% will be technical-professional personnel. It is quite ! apparent that the demand for technicians and engineers will

continue to increase.

New problems, especially those that are confronted

in the environment of space, force new discoveries that

proliferate the application of new materials and processes.

1 92 The tempo of change in the technology presents a chal­ lenge for the institutions that attempt to keep their techni- i cal programs in pace with the industry. Specialized tech­ niques that are appropriate to learn today may no longer he relevant by the time the student graduates. A solid foun- 1 i dation in science and mathematics continues to be one of the most common starting points for preparing technicians. The explosion of knowledge has evoked tremendous change in these areas also. The science of today compared to that of thirty years ago is as different as the Boeing SST is from the Douglas DC-3. Many of the engineers that are working on supersonic and hypersonic aircraft designs had their start on the welded truss-type fuselages.

The nation's posture in international affairs will probably continue to enlarge the degree of importance of the aerospace industry to the economy. This will increase the need for more engineers, scientists and technologists.

The added enrollment in Aerospace Technology at Kent reflects I the relevancy of the students' awareness to this demand.

During the past three years the enrollment in the program rose over 300%

Administration

The Aerospace Technology curriculum is a division

of the Department of Industrial Arts and Technology which

is one of seven departments in the College of Fine and

Professional Arts of Kent State University. There are I

five administrative levels in the hiearchy from the faculty member to the president. The budget for Aero­ space Technology is determined by competing for funds with two other divisions in the department. The allocation to the department is arbitrated at higher levels. An airport manager and assistant manager supervise the business aspects of the university owned airport which serves the' general public as well as the flight instruc­ tional phase of the program. , A university airport committee has been function­ ing for several years to suggest policy for utilizing the airport facilities. The Aerospace Technology Division, the activity with the greatest primary interest in the air­ port, has not had membership on the committee during the past three.years. The graduates rated the administrative support for the program very low and suggested that industry may provide the key for gaining additional support. Facilities - Space and Equipment The aerospace laboratory (111 Van Deusen Hall at the Kent State University main campus) was originally set up as a general aviation laboratory-classroom facility with about 5,300 square feet of floor space. The classroom, office space, tool and parts storage, parts cleaning room and general storage has reduced the total area for labora­ tory activity to less than 2,500 square feet. 9k Most of the laboratory equipment is over twenty years old. Several items were purchased in the past

three years with Title VI assistance. These include a

LabRoc-, small rocket testing machine; a fuel flow bench;

a DoAll, metal cutting band saw; a Tinnius Olson tensile

tester; six sets of Scotts demonstration units and one

small vacuum chamber capable of producing a simulated i

200,000 foot altitude.

Instructional facilities at 'the airport are

located in a frame-construction type building. Three open

office cubicles, a small conference room and a weather

briefing room totaling about 220 square feet are provided

for ground instruction and student briefing. Three

Cessna 150*s, one Cessna 172 and one Cessna 182 are the I training aircraft. Aircraft communication is on the Unicom

frequence of 122.8 MHz. There is one black-top runway

60,x3000f running north and south. Ho control tower is lo­

cated on the site for controlling air traffic. i The graduates rated the facilities provided for the

program very low.

Occupations of Graduates 1 Information returned by the graduates of the Kent

State Aerospace Technology program indicate that 56% are

holding engineering type positions with aerospace or related

industries. A total of 31% of the graduates are in profes­

sional flight crew positions of which about half are airline

pilots with the other half engaged as military pilots. The 95 remaining 13% have job titles that vary such as: scientist, chemist, editor, technical writer, purchasing agent and manager. Only 7% are no longer in positions re­ lating to the aerospace industry. This category includes one optometrist and one science teacher.

Location of Graduates ' ■ ■ -i - i - - It 'might be assumed that most of the graduates would have located in either California, Florida, or some other aerospace oriented state. This has not been the

pattern as kl% are employed in Ohio, The next largest con­

tingent was 9% located in California. The rest are fairly

evenly distributed in 23 other states.

Staff Personnel

The aerospace teaching faculty consists of the

following seven full-time permanent staff personnel: one

professor; two associate professors; two assistant professors

and two instructors. Six of these staff members individually

have masters degrees from five different institutions and

two have engineering degrees. Five additional part time

or temporary teaching members are utilized, of which two

are engineers who teach technical courses and three instruct

flight courses. One temporary flight instructor is the

only member of the instructional staff with less than a

baccalaureate degree. In addition, there are two permanent

non-teaching staff members; the chief pilot (who is also the

F.A.A, flight examiner) and; the supervisor of aircraft i 96 maintenance. The total staff represents a diversity pf education and teaching backgrounds, with a variety of industrial experience.

The majority also are members of one or more pro­ fessional organization and attend meetings quite regularly.

Several staff members hold patents and have published articles for technical journals. Others have served as consultants periodically.' I The aerospace staff has organized and presented

several workshops and seminars that have drawn widely from

the profession.

The graduates rated the aerospace faculty as the

strongest point of the program.

Student Personnel

The Kent Aerospace Technology program does not

have a student selection process at present. Any student

accepted by the University can choose the curriculum as

his major either as an incoming freshman or as a transfer

student.

The campus examination center has recently

developed a success prediction factor for freshmen that is

based on standardized ACT scores and high school academic

grades. No attempt has been made to correlate this to stu­

dent success in the aerospace courses.

Appropriate course credit is granted to transfer

students for satisfactory work completed at other accredited 97 institutions of higher education. Credit by examina­ tion is also available.

Each student in the program is assigned to one of the five aerospace faculty members for advising and counseling. There are over 300 students majoring in the program so the ratio of advisees to each adviser is over

60 to 1.

The University Placement Bureau is availalbe to all graduates. Appointments can be scheduled with prospec­ tive employers. References and credentials are kept on file to be mailed out on requfest.

No consistent follow-up process has been applied to the graduates of the program.

Curriculum

The objectives of the Kent State University Aero­ space Technology Division are stated rather indirectly in the 1967-69 University Bulletin as follows:

Students in this program receive pro­ fessional preparation for careers in the field of aerospace transportation. Emphasis is on technical scientific aero­ space theory and its applications in the laboratory as well as in the industry.

The statement was purposely made general enough to include both the "Science" and the "Operations" options.

1 Since the tv/o are distinctive by the degree of concentration of mathematics and science in one option, it would seem appropriate to identify the purpose for each separately. 98 There are 25 aerospace courses currently

offered in the program at Kent State University. Ten

of the courses are required of all majors and each is sche­

duled tv/ice during the academic year. Nine more aero-courses

provide an elective block from which all the majors are re­

quired to select additional credits. These are scheduled

once each academic year and during alternate summers.

Five flight courses and two flight related

courses are listed specifically for the Operations Option.

Three of the courses, including one flight course, are re­

quirements and four are electives. The flight and related

courses are scheduled each quarter, including the summer. i The 25 aerospace courses represent a total of 91 quarter

hour credits for an average of 3*6^ hours per course. Due

to the elective block, a Science Option major may graduate

with if5 to 70 hours of aerospace courses while the Opera-

1 tions major must accumulate between 5*f and 79 quarter hours 1 of aerospace courses.

Industrial practice or "co-op" with industry is

available on an elective basis. All the students are re­

quired to take if6 quarter hours of general college credits.

This includes 9'in English, 10 in the Social Sciences,

9 in Humanities, and 15 in the Arts.

The mathematics and science requirements for the

Science Option include 18 hours of physics, 25 hours of

mathematics, 15 hours of chemistry and 10 hours of science 99 electives, for a total of 68 quarter hours in science and mathematics. The Operations Option student is re­ quired to take 18 hours of physics and 10 hours of mathe­ matics.

Course levels originally based on the vocational aspects of aviation are being raised to a more technolo­ gical emphasis. The evolution in course content continues.

The quest is not only for new theory and new practices, but to find the proper balance between the two that can be institutionalized.

The graduates were moderate in their rating of the relevancy of the program, but rated its acceptance by employers as quite high.

Scholarship apparently is not being stressed as highly now as in earlier years.

Professional Achievements of Graduates

Over 80% indicated that they had taken additional training or up-grading, with eight entering graduate school, 1 four completing masters degrees and one a doctorate.

Seven graduates are classified as senior engineers,,six are in other management positions and three have achieved the top flight-rank of captain with major airlines.

Forty f o u r percent of those graduating before i960 report annual salaries of $15,000 or higher. This is com­ parable to the compensation for graduates of engineering colleges with a similar length of service. Technical 100 articles had been published by five graduates and patent rights had been granted to one. A total of 60% belong to one or more of sixteen different professional organizations. The American Insti­ tute of Aeronautics and Astronautics was the organization with the greatest frequency of membership. This may be due to the fact that the University sponsors a student chapter on campus. There was no indication that the option (Science or Operations) completed by the student had any determin­ ing factor in the nature of his initial position placement. The Science Option graduates eventually reach a higher average salary level than those of the Operations Option.

i I

CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Problem This study was undertaken to evaluate the Aerospace Technology program at Kent State University. Procedure A search was made of the literature and correspon­ dence was initiated with several national leaders in the field of aerospace education. Two questionnaires were designed, evaluated, revised and mailed. The first instrument was a curriculum survey that was sent to technical administrative or engineering personnel of 100 aerospace industries. The same curriculum survey was also mailed to 112 graduates of the Kent State University Aerospace Technology program. Curricular ele­ ments were rated by the respondents for their degree of importance to an aerospace technology course of study.

These ratings were U jsed - to analyse the course requirements 1 of the Kent program. The second instrument was sent only to the graduates. This was a rating form of other program elements such as adequacy of space, equipment, staff, administrative support i

101

I 102 and so forth. The ratings were compared by the two decades (1950's and 1960's) of graduation dates represented by the participants. The comparison provided an opportunity I to determine significant trends for this period of program development. Comparison was also available between the two options (Science and Operations) of major course concentra­ tion completed by the graduates.

Conclusions The findings indicate that the aerospace technology program at Kent State University is fulfilling its purpose in preparing students for professional positions in the I aerospace industries. Ninety three per cent of the graduates are employed in aerospace or related firms. Of this group, 5b% are in engineering type, positions and 31% are in profes­ sional flight crew status. The achievements of the graduates substantiate their opinions of a high and increasing degree of acceptance of the program by industry. The level of re­ sponsibility and expectations for advancement reported by the graduates indicate successful performance and a remunera­ tion comparable to individuals that are graduates of engineer­ ing schools. The curriculum phase of the study determined that there is a fairly high degree of congruency between the course offerings in the Kent program and the elements selected as important or essential by the graduates and the industry. This also generally corresponds to the criteria established I by the Engineers1 Council of Professional Develop­ ment. Scholarship and the relevancy of course work shows I a downward trend according to the opinions of the graduates. This is a serious tendency that can jeopardize the future of the prograin if allowed to continue. The fact that the graduates rated the curriculum as being in need of revision but at the same time agreeing with the major course require­ ments indicates a lack of confidence in the treatment of course content rather than the subject itself. This would be closely related to the decrease in the adequacy of pre­ paration in the use of equipment noted by the graduates, which in turn is related to their viewpoint on the loss of equipment adequacy. The graduates report a slight increase in status for the program on campus in spite of a large drop in ad­ ministrative support which is correlated with a similarly marked decrease in the adequacy of building space provided for the program. The sharp decline observed for admini­ strative support was not due to a curtailment in facilities and budgeting, but rather a lack of matching increased enrollments with a similar increase of facilities, staff and funds. i Administrative support, adequacy of space, and adequacy of equipment were the three categories that re­ ceived the greatest downward trend in ratings. The situation represents either a lack of awareness or a lack 10k of concern on the part of the administrative levels that have the responsibility and the ability to influence change. This appears to be the most critical condition facing the program.

Re c omrae nd at i o n s Although the ECPD accreditation criteria for four I year engineering technology programs have not been specifi­ cally referred to, item by item, they have provided some of the general guidelines for this study. It may be assumed that the University would welcome ECPD accreditation if the Aerospace Technology program met the necessary standards. These standards and the viewpoints of the graduates and I the industries that responded to the questionnaires form the basis for the following recommendations. General An advisory board or committee should be established I of knowledgeable and influential'people from the industry. This was one of the major recommendations made by the gra­ duates to gain additional support^ for the program. It would also provide a closer relationship with the current practices of industry. 1 Objectives The program should have clearly stated, concise objectives. This is a specific requirement in the ECPD standards. 105 Since the present program o'ffers two options it is really two programs. These should have distinct objectives listed separately. The Science Option should be retitled as "Aerospace Engineering Technology", and its objective would be: "to prepare students in the application of established scientific, engineering and managerial knowledge and methods appropriate to the aero­ space industries." The other program, "Aerospace Techno­ logy - Operations" should identify its objective as "to i prepare students for the positions of technical, opera­ tional management in the aerospace industry and/or pro­ fessional pilot careers." Student Personnel 1 An entrance examination should be applied to all applicants to appraise each individual's potential for successful completion of the program. This is substantiated by the opinions of the majority of the graduates and by ECPD criteria. Scholarship standards need to be raised, to correct a downward trend detected from the graduates' responses. A plan should be devised to encourage and reward scholar­ ship that is not based on point averages alone. The student counseling assignment and procedures require some changes. The students report a trend of a decreasing amount of time available with their faculty ad­ visers. Realistic advising schedules need to be coordinated with teaching and other duties of the staff. 106 Curriculum Curriculum revisions need to be initiated to create a higher rate of relevancy for the program to the needs of industry. The graduates rated this as being essential for improvement. They generally agreed that a I stronger background in science and mathematics was impor­ tant. Additional research will be necessary to identify more specifically the appropriate ratio between theory and practice in deciding the treatment necessary for the aero­ space manufacturing processes. The aerospace technical courses should be sequenced from a descriptive treatment into a quantitative, analyti­ cal approach with a decreased emphasis on manipulative skills. ^ Additional effort must be made on integrating mathematics, physical science, human relations and commu­ nicative skills with the total program as evidenced by the graduates' opinions. The catalog descriptions should be concise, accu­ rate explanations of course contents. All basic mathema­ tics and science courses should be prerequisites to the applied technical courses to comply with ECPD criteria. Staff Personnel A definite system should be started to provide and encourage periodic employment experience in the aerospace industries by the staff members. The staff was rated 107 as the strongest aspect of the program, but the de­ cline in the rating of the relevancy of the course work indicates that some action is necessary to tie the instruc­ tional staff closer to the practices of the industry. Summer work experience and sabbaticals in the employ of appropriate aerospace activities should probably carry as much weight for promotion and pay increases as other criteria. Consultancies and industrial research programs need1 to be sought after to widen the total inter-relation­ ship between the staff and industry. A diversity of faculty education and experience must be maintained. "In-breeding" or selecting several staff members from one institution or company should be avoided. Admi ni s t r at i o n The Aerospace Technology Division should be raised to departmental or school status or be given the autonomy appropriate to the size and special nature of its enrollment. The data collected by this study shows the lowest rating for the administrative support of the program. This condition can be in part attributed to the long communication lines i to the points Of decision making and influences on budget policy. Positive public relations action is required to raise the status of the program and for technical education I

108 in general. These efforts need to be applied.to ejlLI media available both on campus and to the community I at large. The study indicated a slight gain for the pro­ gram status on campus, 'but there is much room for improve­ ment. Sufficient funds must be made available to imple- i ment the necessary improvement^ and expansion of the pro-

I j " V cUil • Facilities Space and equipment adequate to meet the objectives of the program must be provided. This apparently obvious requirement is specifically referred to in the ECPD stan­ dards but the adequacy of both space and equipment for the Kent program was rated very low. Proper housing of instruc­ tional programs are normally considered to be the respon­ sibility of the institutional administration so the same recommendations cited under Administration would apply to this category. The "squeaky wheel" concept is not totally lacking in determining financial "lubrication", even on a university campus, where rational logic should prevail over emotional arguments. A concerted, continuous effort must be made to communicate the critical needs for replacing or rennovating old and obsolete equipment. ilew facilities for the program should be constructed at the airport so that all the phases of the operation can be conducted at one location. APPENDIX A

INDUSTRIES SURVEYED

Airlines Allegheny Airlines, Inc. Lake Central Airlines, Inc. Hangar 12, National Airport Weir Cook Municipal Airport Washington, D. C. Indianapolis, Indiana American Airlines, Inc. Mohawk Airlines, Inc. 633 Third Avenue Oneida County Airport New York, New York Utica, New York Braniff International National Airlines, Inc. Braniff Tower P. 0. Box 2055 P. 0. Box 35001 Airport Mail Facility Exchange Park Miami, Florida Dallas, Texas North Central Airlines, Inc. Continental Airlines, Inc. 6201 3^th Avenue, South International Airport Minneapolis, Minneosta Los Angeles, California Northeast Airlines, Inc. Delta Airlines,, Inc. Logan International Airport Atlanta Airport Boston,’ Massachusetts Atlanta, Georgia Northwest Airlines, Inc. Eastern Airlines, Inc. Minneapolis-St. Paul Inter­ 10 Rockefeller Plaza national Airport New York, New York St. Paul, Minnesota The Flying Tiger Line, Inc. Ozark Airlines, Inc. World Headquarters Box 6007 International Airport Lambert Field Los Angeles, California St. Louis, Missouri > Frontier Airlines, Inc. Pan American World Airways 5900 East 39th Avenue Pan Am Building Denver, Colorado New York, New York

109 Trans World Airlines, Inc. 10 Richards Road Kansas City, Missouri

Trans 'World Airlines 605 Third Avenue ,New York, New York

United Air Lines, Inc. > P. 0. Box 66100 O ’Hare Int'l Airport Chicago, Illinois

Western Air Lines, Inc. 6060 Avion Drive P. 0. Box 90,005 Airport Station Los Angeles, California

British Overseas Airways Corp. Executive Offices 2if5 Park Avenue Hew York, New York

KLM - Royal Dutch Airlines U. S. Executive Offices KLM Bldg. 609 Fifth Avenue New York, New York

Lufthansa German Airlines ^10 Park Avenue .New York, Hew York

Alaska Airlines Seattle, Washington

Allegheny Airlines Greater Pittsburgh Airport Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Ill

Aerospace Manufacturers

ACF Industries, Inc. The Bendix Corp. 750 Third Avenue Executive Offices New York, New York 110/f Fisher Bldg. ' Detroit, Michigan Aeronautical Research & Development Corp. Flight & Engine Instruments 395 Maverick Street Division Logan Int,ernational Airport Bendix Corp. Boston, Massachusetts South Montrose, Pennsylvania

American Aviation Corp. Research Laboratories 318 Bishop Road The Bendix Corp. Cleveland, Ohio Southfield, Michigan

American Machine & Foundry Co. Electrical Components Div. 261 Madison Avenue The Bendix Corp. New York, New York Delaware Street Sidney, New York Avco Corp. 750 Third Avende Scott Testers, Inc. New York, New York 101 Blackstone Street Providence, Rhode Island Avco Missiles, Space and Electronics Group The Boeing Co. 201 Lowell Street P. 0. Box 3707 Wilmington, Massachusetts Seattle, Washington

Avco Lycoming Division Aerospace Group 550 S. Main Street P. 0. Box 3707 Stratford, Connecticut Seattle, Washington

Beech Aircraft Corp. Borg-Warner Corp. 9709 East Central 200 S. Michigan Avenue Wichita, Kansas Chicago, Illinois

Bell Aerosystems Company Marvel-Schebler P. 0. Box 1 2195 S. Elwin Road Buffalo, New York Decatur, Illinois

Bell Helicopter Company Pesco Products Division P. 0. Box i$2 2if700 North Miles Road Fort Worth, Texas Bedford, Ohio

Bellanca Aircraft Corp. The Bunker-Ramo Corp. P. 0. Box 62if 277 Park Avenue Municipal Airport New York, New York Alexandria, Minnesota

\ 112

Burroughs Corporation General Dynamics Corp. 6071 Second Avenue Convair Division Detroit, Michigan 5001 Kearny Villa Road P. 0. Box 1128 Cessna Aircraft Company San Diego, California P. 0. box 1521 Wichita, Kansas General Dynamics Corp. Electric Boat Division Champion Aircraft Corp. Groton, Connecticut Osceola, Wisconsin General Dynamics Corp. Chrysler Corp. Fort Worth Division 3 k l Massachusetts P. 0. Box 7^3 Highland Park, Michigan Fort Worth, Texas

Continental Motors Corp. Aerospace & Defense Grp. 205 Market Street General Electric Co. Mu s ke g 0 n, Mi c hi g an 570 Lexington Avenue Rev; York, New York Curtiss-Wright Corp. One Passaic St. General Electric Co. Wood-Ridgq, Hew Jersey Commercial Engine Program Cincinnati, Ohio Emerson Electric Company Electronics and Space Div. General Electric Co. 8100 Florissant Avenue Military Product Engine St. Louis, Missouri Programs 1000 Western Avenue Fairchild Hiller Corp. West Lynn, Massachusetts Germantown, Maryland General Electric Co. Fairchild Republic Aviation Div. Apollo Support Dept. Farmingdale, L. I., Rev/ York 1800 Volusia P. 0. box 2500 Ford Motor Company Daytona Beach, Florida Ed. & Tech. Services Div. 515 Pennsylvania Avenue General Electric Co. Ft. Washington, Pennsylvania Space Sciences Laboratory Valley Forge Space Tech. Franklin Engine Co., Inc. Center Old Liverpool Road P. 0. box 8955 Syracuse, Rev; York Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

The Garrett Corp. General Motors Corp. 9851 Sepulveda Blvd. Aviation Division Los Angeles, California AC Spark Plug Div. 1300 N. Dort Highway Flint, Michigan 113

AC Electronics Div. International Telephone 7929 S. Howell Avenue and Telegraph Corp. Milwaukee, Wisconsin 320 Park Avenue Hew York, Hew York General Precision Systems Inc. > 50 Prospect Avenue Kollsraan Instrument Corp. Terrytown, Hew York 575 Underhill Blvd. Syossett, Hew York General Precision Systems Inc. Kearfott Group Lear Jet Industries, Inc. 1150 McBride Avenue P. 0. Box 1280 Little Falls, Hew Jersey Wichita, Kansas

The General Tire & Rubber Co. Ling-Temco-Vought, Inc. 1708 Englewood Avenue P. 0. Box 5003 Akron, Ohio Dallas, Texas

The General Tire & Rubber Co. Lockheed Aircraft Corp. Aerojet-General Corp. 2555 H» Hollywood Way 9100 E. Flair Drive Burbank, California El Monte, California Lockheed Missiles and The'. General Tire & Rubber Co. Space Co. Von Harman Center P. 0. Box 50^ P. 0. Box 29o Sunnyvale, California Azusa, California The Marquardt Corp. Goodyear Aerospace Corp. 1 Corporate Offices 1210 Massillon Road 16555 Saticoy St. Akron, Ohio Van Huys, California

Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp. Martin Marietta Corp. 1 Bethpage, Aerospace Hdqtrs. L. I., Hew York Friendship International • Airport Honeywell, Inc. Maryland Corporate Office 2701 J+th Ave., S. McDonnell Douglas Corp. Minneapolis, Minnesota Box 516 St. Louis, Missouri Hughes Aircraft Co. Centinela Ave. & Teale St, Mooney Aircraft, Inc. Culver City, California Kerrville Texas International Business Machines Route 22 Korth American Rockwell Armonk, Hew York Corporation 2300 E. Imperial Hwy. El Segundo, California Ilk

Rorth American Rockwell Corp. Rocketdyne Division 6633 Canoga Avenue Canoga Park, California

Ilorthrop Corp. 97/+q V/ilshire Blvd. Beverly Hills, California

Piper Aircraft Corp. Lock Haven Pennsylvania

RCA Aviation Equipment Dept. 11819 Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, California

Sperry Rand Corporation 1290 Ave. of the Americas Hew York, Hew York

Sperry Rand Corp. Aerospace Div. P. 0. Box 302 Troy, Michigan

TRW Inc. Corporate Offices 23555 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, Ohio

United Aircraft Corp. i+00 i-lain Street East Hartford, Connecticut

TRW Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Div. kOO Main Street East Hartford, Connecticut

Westinghouse Electric Corp. 3 Gateway Center P. 0. Box 2278 Pittsjurch, Pennsylvania I

APPENDIX B

KENT STATE UNIVERSITY AEROSPACE GRADUATES

Employment 1968

Name and Company Address Job Title and Description

ALLEN, Marvin F. Department Manager - Caradco, Inc. Manages a production department 11th & Jackson Sts. which does vinyl laminations. Dubuque, Iowa

ANTONCZAK, John A. Field Service Engineer - General Electric Co. Technical representative on Evendale, Ohio J85 gas turbine - presently covering Cessna A35s/Bs/c at Wichita, Kansas and Edward AFB, California.

AUNGST, William P. Physical Scientist - Interior Ballistics Combustion research - solid Laboratory rocket propellants, napalm Aberdeen Proving Grounds studies, nuclear radiation Aberdeen, Maryland studies related to propulsion systems.

BARKEY, Jacob 0., Jr. Field Engineer- Bellows-Valvair Field sales and service of 200 West Exchange St. industrial automation controls. Akron, Ohio

BEEMAN, Don R. Materials Engineer - B, F. Goodrich Co. Involved in all areas of pro­ Aerospace & Defense duct engineering from initial Products Division design of product through to 500 South Main St. final installation and check Akron, Ohio out.

115 ) I

116

Name and Company Address Job Title and Description

BELITSKY, Joseph A. Maintenance Engineer - McDonnell Douglas Corp. Work in various areas of pro­ St. Louis, Missouri duct support department which includes aircraft and space­ craft .

BEREIT, Norman E. Senior Electrical Engineer - General Dynamics Convair Design of data systems San Diego, California airborne and ground

BEERY, Jacob E. Engineer Specialist - Goodyear Aerospace Head-All Weather Correlation Akron, Ohio Guidance Section, Advanced Avionics Systems Department

BLUNDELL, Frank IV. Stress Engineer - Piper Aircraft Corp. Structural substantiation 820 E. Bald Eagle St. of light aircraft Lock Haven, Pennsylvania

BOOKWATLER, Daniel H. Project Engineer - Allison Div. Test engineer in R & D lab for Cleveland Tank Plant military track laying vehicles Cleveland Army Tank Automotive Plant 6200 Riverside Cleveland, Ohio

BRAY, Ri c h ard A . Captain - USAF Aircraft commander qualified in KC 135, but now in transit to EB 66 school

BRAY, William R. OTS & pilot training USAF BREWER, Bruce L. Project Engineer - Morgan Engineering Co. Proposal Engineer Alliance, Ohio

BRINKERHOFF, Brian R. Staff Engineer - Midland Ross Corp. Sales engineering - formulating i if200 Surface Rd. pertinent design data from custo­ Columbus, Ohio mer to design engineering - trouble shooting

) I 117

Karae and Company Address Job Title and Description

BROWN, Eugene W. Materials Engineer - B.F. Goodrich Co. Product Development 500 S. Main St. Akron, Ohio

BRUBAKER, Davicl B. Project Coordinator - North American Rockwell 'Write and coordinate the pre­ Corp. paration of sales proposals, 4300 E. 5th Ave. brochures, reports and docu­ Columbus, Ohio mentary motion pictures

RUSH, Robert M. Student Pilot USAF

3US0HY, Goerge L. Flight Officer United Air Lines, Inc. Co-pilot on DC-6 P. 0. Box 8800 Chicago, Illinois

C Or,TER, J ame s A . Undergraduate Ravigator USAF Mather AFB Sacramento, Calif.

CRAIGLOW, George W. Planning Engineer - Western Electric Co. Initiating information used by 50 W. Broad St. installation division Columbus, Ohio

CURTIS, Myron C. Product Engineer Hayes-Albion Corp. Design and development of 437 Fern exhaust and muffler systems Jackson, Michigan

D 1AURORA, Joseph R. Flight Officer United Airlines Pilot O'Hare Airport i Chicago, Illinois

DI BARTOLOMEO, Frank Nav-Bomb Student USAF Mather AFB Sacramento, Calif.

DREHER, Richard E. Instructor Pilot USAF Instruct students in transi­ Webb AFB tion, formation,>instruments, Texas navigation 118

Name and Company Address J 0 Title and Description

EVANS, David P. Contract Administrator - B. F. Goodrich Co. Administration of government Aerospace & Defense contracts, negotiation of pro­ Prods. Div. posals, etc. 500 S. Main St. Akron, Ohio

FALOON, Robert L. Pilot Fighter Interception - USAF Performs air to air intercep­ 322 Fis Kingsley Field tion of hostile air breathing Oregon , vehicles

FEELING, Robert D. Quality Control - Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Quality control inspection of Akron, Ohio mechanical goods

FIELDHOUSE, Kenneth N. Market Manager - B Sc K Instruments Inc. Management of sales force in 5111 West lG^th St. sales to education market - Cleveland, Ohio market promotion - advertise­ ment - training

FISCHER, Jay W. Flight Test Engineer - LTV Aerospace Corp. In charge of engineering test Vought Aeronautics data analysis on individual P. 0. Box 5907 test airplane Dallas, Texas

GIELING, Thomas G. Evaluation Engineer - General Electric Evaluate engineering on the I 75 TF 39 project Cincinnati, Ohio GOMEL, Dale E. Field Engineer - Bellows Valvair Application engineer and sales - Akron, Ohio some service on hydraulic and pneumatic system

GOSS, Phillip IT. Technical 'Writer - Reliance Electric Co. Writes instruction manuals and 2^701 Euclid Ave. 1 comprehensive publications on Cleveland, Ohio specific industries

GRIKTER, Edwin A. Packaging Films Representative Goodyear Tire & Rubber Sales and service of accounts Akron, Ohio requiring packaging applications with PVC and Polyisoprene plastic films

1 119

IT sane and. Company Address Job Txtle and Description

HAMBLETON, David K. Senior Design & Develop. Engr. - Honeywell Aero Div. Mechanical engineering (Electro­ St. Petersburg, Fla. mechanical packaging of develop, systems)

HALTTA, William R. 1 Mechanical Engineer - Clevite Corp. "Secret" - torpedo propulsion Ordinance Div. development program 18901 Euclid Ave. Cleveland, Ohio

HAWS, Robert A. Quality Assurance Engineering - Goodyear Aerospace Corp. System analysis and control of 1210 Massillon Rd. vendor supplied1 hardware and/or Akron, Ohio components

HEISTER, Daniel Lead Engineer - Eocketdyne Responsible for the technical A subsidiary of North direction of engineers in con­ Arnerica Rockwe11 ducting engine and components 6633 Canoga Ave. testing and accomplishing faci­ Canoga Park, Calif. lity modifications in support of rocket engine test programs

HENDERSON, Charles A. Tool Project Engineer - 1 LTV Aerospace Corp. Overall rnfg. responsibility to P. 0. Box 5907 see that aircraft is designed Dallas, Texas so as to be economically built, to see that tools and test sets are correctly designed, built and used.

HENKIKGER, Glenn S, Evaluation Engineer - General Electric Co. On the G. E. Engineering pro­ Cincinnati, Ohio gram which includes three 6- month assignments. Respon­ sible for the build-up and testing of the TF 39 Fan jet engine

HINDLE, Edward J. Pilot - Delta Air Line Flight Crew Atlanta, Georgia

HUTCHESON, Charles M. Mechanical Engineer - AFPRO Aerojet General Monitor contractor's effort Corp. on solid rocket motor develop­ P. 0. Box I5846 ment Sacramento, Calif.

1 120 Name and Company Address Job Title and Description

HUTCI-IESON, Richard L. Senior Service Engineer - B. F. Goodrich Aerospace Redesign of in-service equip­ & Defense Products ment to perform to customer Box 3^0 satisfaction Troy, Ohio

INGOLD, Richard W. Development Engineer - Goodyear Aerospace Corp. Special testing and instrumen­ Akron, Ohio tation ,

JAFFE, Gilbert M. ' Industrial Engineer- Schedule Boeing Co. Planner - Space Division Status and assessment of 7 0 99 N. Atlantic Ave. various phases of the Apollo- Cape Canaveral, Fla. Saturn I program in support of Apollo program manager's office N.A.S.A.

KAPLAN, David A. Aeronautical Engineer - USAF, SMAMA Service Engineer in the aerodynamics Engineering and flight control section. McClellan AFB Work primarily in flight con­ California trols on F105 Sc F10/+ aircraft.

KEMP, Ri c h ard V . Chemist ‘B. F. Goodrich Research on plastics and rubbers Brecksville, Ohio

KINSEL, Thomas L. Senior Project Engineer - NASA - Marshall Space Provides technical coordination Flight Center between the booster staff, mecha­ 12.2.1k Lake view Blvd. nical and propulsion systems, Dpvmey, Calif. and the engine contractor in all aspects of design, development and production

LAMB, Charles P. Mgr. Eng. R. CCD Cleveland Pneumatic Provides engineering backup to 3781 E. 77 Resign and shop technical groups Cleveland,(Ohio or new processes and techniques

LOTZE, Charles A. ’ Teacher Ashtabula Area City Science Teacher Schools Ashtabula, Ohio 121

Name and Company Address Job Title and Description

MEHAFFEY, Larry C. First Officer - Continental Airlines Boeing 320, 720, & 727 co­ Los Angeles, Calif. pilot. Presently a flight engineer instructor

MIDAY, Russell P. Engineer Scientist - Douglas Aircraft Facilities engineer at Santa Monica, Calif. missiles and space division

MIRACK, Frank A. Manufacturing Engineer - The Boeing Company Determine tooling requirements; Seattle, Washington order designed & undesigned , tools; perform detailed assembly and installation planning

KEEL, Wayne J. Intelligence Research - USAF - Foreign Analyse and interpret trajec­ Technology Div. tory, performance and charac­ Wright-Patter'son AFB teristics of IR? 1CBM weapon Ohio systems

NEHRER, James E. Pilot - USAF C-123/K aircraft Hurlburt Field, Fla.

KELSOK, Terry W. Pilot - USAF RC-135 and KC-135 aircraft

0«CONNOR, Michael A. Aero. Engineer USAF Systems analyst Wright Patterson AFB Dayton, Ohio

ORR, Janes V. Group Engineer * Martin Marietta Corp. Supervise local and offsite Sand Lake Rd. weapon system tests for the Orlando, Fla. Pershing system. Direct technical staff personnel and operational personnel for programs at WSMR, Elgin AFB, and in Orlando

ORR, Vince C. Product Engineer - B. F. Goodrich Tire Div. 'Works as a tire construction Fort Wayne, Ind. engineer and advises production

1 122

Name and Company Address Job Title and Description

OSBORNE, Robert U Aircraft Commander - Pilot - USAF KC 135 aircraft - same as flying for SAC at Lockbourne AFB, Ohio

PAVLISIN, Stephen W, Aircraft Commander & Mission USAF Controller - 86 Mas Travis AFB Coordinates all flight require­ California ments from higher headquarters with all sections at squadron. Security, plans, and intelli­ gence officer PEIRCE, Walter L. Field Engineer - Micro-Switch Div. Sales and Application Honeywell 231^ Stanley Dayton, Ohio

PERRIN, Roger C. Quality Control Engineer - Janitrol Aero Review specs, set up inspection Div. Midland Ross Corp. and test procedures, handle 1+2.00 Surface Rd. corrective action, failure ana­ Columbus, Ohio lysis, set up and evaluate sam­ pling plans, salvage engineer, participate on material review board, etc.

RAMICORE, Michael Engineering Specialist and Lockheed Missiles & Assistant Manager - I Space Co. Sunnyvale, Calif.

RYNEARSON, Richard A. Second Lieutenant - USAF Student Pilot Laughlin AFB Del Rio, Texas

SAMPSELL, Rex L. Flight Officer - United Air Lines First officer or co-pilot on Chicago, 111. DC-6 aircraft and first officer/engineer on viscount

SAUER, Richard J. Test Engineer Supervisor - Allison Div. GMC Supervision of salaried electro­ Plant 8 nic and mechanical technicians Tibbs Ave,, involved in engineering and Indianapolis, Ind, parts testing, both production and research. 123 Name and Company Address Job Title and Description

SAVOY, Peter J. Mfg. Systems Manager - Standard Pressed Responsible for design & imple­ Steel Co. mentation of totally integrated L\.l[L\.hs. Lee Rd. manufacturing information and Cleveland, Ohio control system via computer

SCHMELTZER, Donald J. Navigator - USAF Navigation and air refueling 17th Bomb Wing operations (kc-135) in conjunc­ 922nd Air Refueling Sqd. tion with the SAC mission Wright-Pat terson AFB, Ohio

SHAFFER, Richard L. Purchasing Agent - General Electric Co. Procure all materials for plant Campbell Road operation. In charge of receiv­ Willoughby, Ohio ing, graphite inspection and stockroom, also raw material inventory control

SHUFELT, Ro bert W ., Jr. Product Sales Engineer - GUI Corporation Sales Engineer responsible for 930 Kinnear Rd. all sales of large test chambers Columbus, Ohio and space simulation facilities for CUI such as the new 39th spherical chamber, space flight test facility at Philco-Ford, Palo Alto, Calif.

SHUTAK, Robert J. Manager Space & Industry Affairs Radib Corp. of America Corporate marketing representa­ 8621 Bellanca Ave. tive for RCA’s defense divi­ Los Angeles, Calif. sions on the West Coast

SIANO, Richard P. Captain - Trans World Airlines Airline Captain, Boeing 727 Newark, Hew Jersey

SHEARMAN, Daniel J. Captain - Trans World Airlines , Airline Pilot, DC-9 O'Hare Int. Airport Chicago,,111.

STRALEY, Donald E. Pilot - Frontier Airlines 5900 E. 39th Ave. Denver, Colo.

j Name and Conipan?/ Address Job Title and Description

SWASEY, Richard H. Pilot - USAF F105 Tactical Fighter Bomber

SZA3ADOS, Robert A. Mechanical Engineers Assistant - U . S . Array Help assist in preparing small Redstone Arsenal missiles for launch on small Alabama missile range. Also help to survey missile impacts 1 TESTA, Henry IT. Senior Instrumentation Engineer - Columbus Div. Responsible for installation, ITorth American Rockwell operation and maintenance of Tf300 E. 5th Ave. special equipment on board flight .Columbus, Ohio test aircraft to record dyna­ mic flight characteristics

THOMSON, James G. Materials Engineer - B. F. Goodrich Co. Production engineering of pres­ Aerospace & Defense Div. sure sealing zippers and product 500 S. Main St. engineering of military vehicle 1 Akron, Ohio support equipment

THONEN, Paul A. Instructor - USAF Systems instructor for the Dept, of the Air Force RF-A-C Washingt 0 n, D . C .

TY3URSKI, James L. Pilot/Second Officer - Northwest Orient Airlines Performs complete aircraft pre­ St. Paul, Minn. flight, control fuel, hydraulic, pressurization, air cond., electrical systems, monitor all operations

VAR DEi'TA, Albert I-i. First Officer - United Airlines Go-pilot 011 scheduled trips on Chicago, 111. 3-727 aircraft, based at Chicago O'Hare airport

VAN DUSEN, Dr. David L. Optometrist - Self employed 2031 Front St. Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio

VON GUNTEN, William II. Navigator - USAF Primary navigator and assistant Homestead AFB, Fla. bombadier on the 3-52-H 125 Name and Company Address Job Title and Description

WALLACE, Herbert D. Sales Engineer - B. F. Goodrich Co. Product sales engineer support­ P. 0. Box 3A-0 ing district sales organization Troy, Ohio with technical assistant on ground vehicle brakes ,

WALTER, Gerald L. Specialist-Engineer - Geo. J. Meyer Mfg. Co. Manager of certain equipment A-751 S. Meyer Place test program, write equipment Cudahy, Wise. instruction manuals, develop new maintenance procedures for equipment, serve product engin­ eering on a staff basis as re­ quired

WISE, Robert C. Senior Soft Goods Design Engr. - ILC Industries Inc. In charge of design for the Dover, Delaware Thermal-Micrometeoriod garments for the Apollo mission and var­ ious other space suit design- responsibilities

ZASIO, Arthur R. First Officer - Trans World Airlines Co-pilot on Boeing 727 10 Richards Rd. Kansas City, Mo.

i APPENDIX C

CURRICULUM QUESTIONNAIRE

Company______Address______Date

Number of Employees______Major Product or Service_

Indicate by using the appropriate number from the following scale the level of achievement in each instructional area that should be reached by an Aerospace Technology major with a Bachelor of Science Degree:

0 - No training necessary or (not essential) 1 - Minimal understanding of subject or (may be useful) 2 - Basic knowledge of subject with emphasis on theory (important to the position) 3 - Knowledge of subject with ability to apply to practical situations (essential)

CHEMISTRY MATH

General Algebra , Qualitative Trigonometry Organic Analytical Geometry Quantitative Analysis Calculus Other: (Identify)- Differential Equations Computer Science Other: (Identify) PHYSICS

Mechanics MANUFACTURING PROCESSES Electricity Electronics Testing , Thermodynamic s Forming Aerodynamics Machining Statics and Strength Finishing of Materials Welding Riveting Other (Identify) Adhesive Bonding Plastics Numerical Control Graphics (drafting) Other: (Identify) AEROSPACE GENERAL

Design Phi1o so phy Aerospace Systems History Aerospace Propulsion Social Sciences Aerospace Structures Arts Aircraft Maintenance English Avionics Management Instrumentation Marketing Space Guidance Economics Amoiahce Control Other: (Identify) Technical Report Writing Data Processing Flight Instruction Flight Testing Other: (Identify) I

APPENDIX D"

TABLES OF DATA COMPILED FRCll CURRICULUM QUESTION!;AIR'il

TABLE 1 GRADUATES RANKING - GENERAL CHEMISTRY 1950'-59 1960-68 Operations Science Sank Option Option Option No. °k No. % No. , °k No. °i

0 0 . 0 8 18 7 12 1 5 1 12 b b 19 bb 26 bl 5 ' 30 2 9 32 13 30 16 29 6 35 3 7 25 b 9 6 11' 5 30

Total 28 b b 55 17 N 72

TABLE 2 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING - GENERAL CHEMISTRY Rank Airlines Aerospace M a m of No. k No. % 0 0 0. 0 0 1 6 55 23 b l 2 b 36 22 39. 3 1 9 11 20

Total 11 56 N 6?

128 I 129

TABLE ’j GRADUATES RANKING - QUALITATIVE CHEMISTRY 1930--59 1960-68 Operations Science Rank. Option Option No. 5/ r.f /£ No. 12 No. °k ' No^ % 0 13 52 23 56 27 55 9 53 1 8 32 Ik 3k -27 , 35 5 29 2 2 8 5 7 3 6 2 12 3 2 8 1 2 2 k 1 6 Total 25 kl k9 17 N 6(

TABLE k AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING - QUALITATIVE CHEMISTRY

Rank Airlines Aerospace Manufac turin.i: cf cL !■« 0 • !2 •UUT-Tr» # i2 “7 0 J 38 15 27 1 5 61 29 52 2 0 0 12 21 0 0 0 0 3 I j Total 0d 56 II bk

TABLE 5 GRADUATES RANKING - • ORGANIC CHEMISTRY 1950-59 1960-•68 Operations Science Rank Option Option No. °A No. A No. A No. % 0 15 63 30 67 35 66 10 63 1 8 33 13 29 16 31 5 .31 2 1 k 2 k 2 3 1 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 2if k3 53 16 N 69 130 i

TABLE 6 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY HARKING - ORGANIC CHEMISTRY Rank______Airlines______Aerbs-pa.ce Manufacturing No, °k No. 0 4 50. 24 1 3 38 25 22 1 11 5 3 0 0. 0 , Total ~8 54 N 62'

TABLE 7 GRADUATES RANKING - QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS CHEMISTRY 1950-59 I960--68 Operations Science Rank Option Option No. 26 No. (2. No, % No. % 0 15 60 29 71 33 67 11 65 1 8 32 10 24 13 27 5 29 2 1 4 1 2 2 4 0 0 3 1 4 1 2 1 2 1 6

Total 25 41 49 17 N 66

TABLE 8 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS CHEMISTRY Rank______Airlines______Aerospace Manufacturing No. °k No. % 0 4 44 24 42 1 5 56 22 2 0 0 7 11 3 0 0 4 . 7

Total 9 57 N 66 131

TABLE 9 GRADUATES RANKING - PHYBIGS (MECHANICS) 1950-59 1960-58 Operations Science Rank Option Option No. °k No. % No. % No. °k 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 b 9 3 6 2 ' 10 2 k lb 10 23 12 22 , 2 10 3 2b 83 30 68 39 ’.72 15 79

Total 29 bb 3b 19 N 73

TA3LB 10 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING - PHYSICS (MECHANICS) Rank______Airlines______Aerospace Manufacturing No. °k No. °k 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 If 7 2 If 29 11 20 3 10 71 bo 73

ital Ilf 55 II 69

TABLE 11 GRADUATES RANKING - PHYSICS (ELECTRICITY) 1950-59 1960-68 Operations Science Rank Option Option No. °k No. °k No. £ No. % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 3 7 3 5. 1 6 2 9 31 17 If0 20 36 6 35 3 19 66 23 .53. 32 58 10 59

Total 29 b3 55 17 H 72

I TABLE 12 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING - PHYSICS (ELECTRICITY) Rank______Airlines______Aerospace Manufacturing No. °A No. A 0 0 O 1 7 1 2 14 5’ 9 2 3 21 25 A3 3 9 64 29 50

tal 14 i 58 N 72

TABLE 13 GRADUATES RANKING - PHYSICS (ELECTRONICS.) 1950-59 1960-68 Operations Science Rank Option Option 0/ No. A No. £ No. A No. £ 0 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 6 1 2 7 7 16 6 11 3 18 28 6 2 11 33 23 53 51 n 35 3 15 52. 12 28 20 36 < kl.

Total 29 k3 55 17 N 72

TABLE 14 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING - PHYSICS (ELECTRONICS) Rank______Airlines______Aerospace Manufacturing; , No. & No. % 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 14 10 .17 2 6 43 24 41 3 6 43 23 40

Total 14 53 N 72 I

135

TABLE 15 GRADUATES RANKING - PHYSICS (THERMODYNAMICS.) 1950-59 1960-68 Operations Science Rank Option Option of No, % N0j_ °A No. il 1 M i . % 0 0 0 5 12 3 6 2 13 1 2 7 11 27 9 17 b 27 2 10 36 17 b l 25 b6 2 13 3 16 ..57 8 20 17 31 7 b7

ital 28 b l 3b 15 N 69

TABLE 16 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING - PHYSICS (THERMODYNAMICS) Rank______Airlines______A-erospace Manufacturing

No. % No. 2 0 0 ' 0 0 0 1 1 . 8 5 8 2 7 .3k 20 33 3 5 38 35 58

Total 13 60 N 73

TABLE 17 GRADUATES RANKING - PHYSICS (AERODYNAMICS) ’1950-59 196 -68 Operations Science Rank ______Option____ Option 0/ of No. % No. fo No. fo No. 2 0 0 O' 0 0. 0 0 0 0 1 b 15 b 0> 8 b ?-b 2 15 17 ^0 18 35 3 18 4 10 3 18 69 22 51 30 .58 .59 ital 26 ^3 52 17 N 69 I

134

TABLE IS, a e r o s p a c e In d u s t r y r a n k i n g - p h y s i c s (aerodynamics ) Rank_____A i r l i n e s ______Aerosoace Manufacturing No. % No. °k 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 c 7 12 2 5 36 19 33 3 64 3 1 53 Total 14 38 N 72

TABLE 19 GRADUATES RANKING PHYSICS (STATIC s & STRENGTH OF MATERIALS) 1950-59 1960-68 Operations Science Rank i Ootion Ontion No. No. %. No. % No. % 0 0 O' 2 5 2 4 0 0 1 1 k Q 21 8 15 2 11 2 8 29 Ik 32 18 33 4 23 3 19 6o 18 42 26 48 11 65

Total 28 43 , 54 17 N 71

TABLE 20 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING PHYSICS (STATICS & STRENGTH OF MATERIALS) Ra'nk______Airlines______Aerospace Manuf ac turin,1?; 1 No. £. No. % 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 -y 3 p D 23 17 30 3 10 77 37 65

Total 13 57 N 70

t 135

TABLE 21 GRADUATES HARKING - ALGE3RA 1950-59 1960' ■68 Operations Science Rank ______Option '_____ Option No. of °A No. % No. 22 No. A 0 0 0 1 2 1 • 2 0 0 1 2 7 if 10 3 r 5 3 2 2 7 5 12 0 11 1 6 3 25 .86. 32 76 45 82 12 75 Total 29 ' 42 55 16 II 71

TABLE 22 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING - ALGEBRA Rank ' Airlines______Aerospace Manufacturing No. No. £ 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 15 3 5 2 4 31 9 15 3 7 54 47 80

ital 13 59 II 72

TABLE 23 GRADUATES RANKING - TRIGONOMETRY 1950-59 1960-68 Operations' Science Rank Option _ Option No. A No. °A No. A No. °A 0 0 0 2 5 2 4 0 0 1 1 4 3 7 2 4 2 12 2 4 14 9 21 11 20 2 12 3 23 .82 29 66 39 72 13 76

>tal 23 43 54 17 N 71 136

TAriLE 2k AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING TRIGONOMETRY Rank Airlines Aerospace Manufacturing; °u No. % No, /o 0 0 O' 0 0 1 2 15 k 7 2 5 3§ 9 15 3 6 if 6 kS 78

Total 13 59 N 72

TABLE 25 GRADUATES RANKING - ANALYTICAL GEOMETRY 1950--59 1960-•68 Operations Science Rank Option Option of No. % No. % No. a No. °k n 0 2 ( if 10 5 9 1 6 1 k Ik 9 21 11 21 2 12 2 6 21 lif 33 16 30 if 2if 3 16 57 15 36 21 ifO 10 59 1 Total 28 i+2 53 17 K 70 1

TABLE 26 AEROSPACE II[DUST‘RY Ra NKI NG -- ANALYTICAL GEOMETRY Rank Airlines Aerospace i:4anufacturinfs C/ (V No . It No. /O 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 25 if 7 2 5 if2 17 30 3 if 33 35 .63. Total 12 56 N 68 137

TABLE 27 GRADUATES RANKIMG - CALCULUS 1950--59 1960-bO Operations Science Rank Option Option No. % No. % No. % No. % 0 3 11 5 12 7 13 1 6 J. 7 25' 12 29 13 25 6 35 2 k i^i 13 31 13 25 k 2k J Ik 50 12 .29 20 , 38 6 .35-

Total 28 k2 53 17 K 70 '

TABLE 28 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING - CALCULUS Rank Airlines Aerospace Manufacturing 0/ No. A> No. A 0 0 ’ 0 1 2. 1 .3 .27 6 11 2 k 36 1.5 26 3 k 36 35 62

Total 1 1 57 N 68

TABLE 29 GRADUATES RAMKING - DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS 1950--59 1960-•68 Operations Science Rank Optio n Optioin No. % No. A No. A No. A 2 1 ' 8 16' 5 28 0 kn 15 9 1 O 31 16 .37 19 37. 5 28 2 Ik 33 Ik 27 5 28 5 19 I, 3 9 .35 9. 10 20 3 17 Total 26 kJ> 51 18 N 69 138

TABLE 30 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING - DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS Rank Airlines Aerospace f-ianufaccuring No. % Ho,L % 1 0 1 7 2 3 1 14 9 ’ 16 2 7 50 12 21 1. 3 29 35 62 > Total x'-|. 58 N 72

TABLE 1 iGRADUATES RANKING - CC;•ipiJTER SCIENCE 1950--59 19 SO--■58 Operations Science Rank Option Opcion 0/ 7.r^ No > % .1 i 0 # /£ L»U « % Ho. % 0 1 2 7 3 7 4 7 < l 7 1 3 30 21 50 24 44 5 33 10 2o 2 7 2b n 24 14 3 20 3 10 37 0 19 12 .22 6 40 ■ Total 27 42 54 15 N tk TABLE 32 SRO SPACE INDUSTRY RANKING - COMPUTER SCIE? Ran.:. Airlines Aerospace I'lanu: Ho. % No. % 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 15 16 28 2 7 54 19 33 3 4 30 21 37

Total 13 57 N 70 139

TABLE 33 GRADUATES RATIKING - AEROSPACE DESIGN 1950-■59 1960-■68 Operations Science Rank Option Option No. °k No, °k No. 0//O No. % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 10 5 12 7 13 1 6 2 9 31 22 52 26 ’ 48 5 29 3 17 59 15 36 21 39 11 65

Total 29 42 54 17 N 71

TABLE 34 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING - AEROSPACE DESIGN Rank______Airlines______Aerospace Manufacturing No. /'0 No. 0/fO 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 9 6 10 2 7 64 18 31 3 3 27 35 58

Total 11 59 N 70

TABLE 35 GRADUATES RANKING - AEROSPACE SYSTEMS 1950-59 1960-■68 Operations Science Rank Option Option No. % No^ % No. % No. % 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 6 1 3 10 3 , 7 4 7 2 12 > 7 24 15 35 16 29 ■ 6 35 18 o2 25 58 35 64 8 47

Total 29 43 55 17 N 72 I

140

TABLE 36 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING - AEROSPACE SYSTEMS

Rank Airli nes Aerospace M an i! f ac t u r i n 3 I No. No. % 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 8' 14 2 2 20 2.5 42 3 . 8 80 25 42

Total 10 59 M 69

TABLE 37 GRADUATES RANKING - AEROSPACE PROPULSION 1950-59 1960-68 Operations Science Rani". Option Option No. % No. % No. % No. % 0 1 3 1 2 1 2 1 6 1 3 10 3 7 4 7 2 12 2 10 34 18 41 19 34 9 53 3 15 52 , 22 50 32 57 5 29

Total 29 44 56 17 K 73

TABLE 33 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING - AEROSPACE PROPULSION Rank______Airlines______Aerospace Manufacturim No. % Noj. % 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 9 15 2 2 17 24 40 3 10 83. 26 43 Total ,12 ! < 60 N 72 1, Ik-

TABLE 39 GRADUATES RANKING - AEROSPACE STRUCTURES 1950--59 I960-~68 Operations Science Rank Option Option No. % No. 1 No. % No. % 0 1 4 0 0 0 , o 1 6 1 3 11 5 12 6 11 2 12 2 11 39 13 41 22 41 7 41 3 13 46 20 47 26 48 7 41

Total 28 43 54 17 N 71 I

TABLE 40 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING - AEROSPACE STRUCTURES Rank______Airlines______Aerospace Manufacturing

No. % < IiSLl % 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 11 19 c„ 1 8 19 32 3 11 92 27 46

12 59 N 71

TABLE 41 GRADUATES RANKING - AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE 1950-59 1960-68 Operations Science Sank______Option______Option 0/ No. £ No. % No. % No. % 0 4 14 4 9 7 13 1 ( 6) 1 6 21 8 18 < 9 17 5t— (29) 2 o 21 20 46 21 37 N (29) 3 12 43 12 .27 18 33 6 (35)

Total 28 44 55 17 1 kz

TABLE ij-2 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING - AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE Rank Airlines Aerospace Manufacturinp; N o , % Ko. % 0 0 0 15 26 1 1 . 7 ^1 2 if 29 11 19 3 9 ok 8 lif

Total Ih 58 N 72

TABLE JLf-3 GRADUATES RANKING - AVIONICS 1950-59 1960-68 Operations Science Rank Option Option No. % No. % No. °A No. % 0 1 if' 0 0 0 0 1 6 1 if 15 13 30 lif 27 3 13 2 12 i+6 20 if 7 25 if3 7 ifl 3 9 35 10 23 13 25 6 35

Total 2b if3 52 17 N 69

TABLE kk AEROSPACE INDUSTRY1 RANKING - AVIONICS Rank______Airlines______Aerospac e Manufac turinA No. °A No. °A 0 0 0 7 12 1 i 8 17 '29 2 5 if 2 19 32 3 6 50 16 27

Total 12 59 K 71 I

lk3

TABLE 45 GRADUATES RANKING - INSTRUMENTATION 1950-59 1960-68 Operations Science Rank Option Option No. °A No. % No.. °k No. $ 0 1 4 1 2 2 , V 0 0 1 5 18. . 3 7 6 11 2 12 2 9 32 , 24 55 25 45 8 47 3 13 46. 16 36 22 40 7 41

Total 28 44 55 1 17 N 72

, TABLE 46 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING - INSTRUMENTATION Rank Airlines Aerospace Manufacturing No. % No. °k 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 8 11 19 2 3 25 25 43 3 8 67 22 58 Total 12 58 N 70

TABLE 47 GRADUATES RANKING - SPACE GUIDANCE 1950--59 I960-68 Operations Science Rank Option Option r\t 0/ No . 2° No. 22 No. /O No. %

0 1 4 5 11 2 4 4 :24 1 7 26 15 31 18 35 2 12 2 12 44 16 38 21 40 7 .41 3 7 26 8 .19 11 21 4 24

Total 27 42 52 17 N 69 •144

TABLE" 4 8 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING - SPACE GUIDANCE

Rank Airlines Aerospace Manufacturing -L % No. % 0 1 11 10 18 1 2 22 : IS 33 2 6 67 19 35' 3 0 0 8 15-. Total 55 N 64

TABLE 49 GRADUATES StAKKIKG IKCE CONTROL 1950-59 1960-■68 Operations Science Rank Ortion Option 0/ 0/ 1 No. 2k No. % No. /O No. & r 0 2 S 3 7 3 O 2 12 1 9 36 19 42 23 43 5 29 2 9 36 16 36 19 36 6 35 3 5 20. 7 16 8 15 4 24 I 1 Total 25 45 17 N 70

TABLE .50 AEROSPACE INDU STRY RANKING - AMBIANCE CONTROL Rank Airl.ines Aerospace Manufacturir c/ HOo £iV No. /£ 0 1 10 10 18 1 2, 20 22 39 2 S 50 19 34 3 2 20 5 9 • Total 10 56 N 66

i /

TABLE 51 GRADUATESRANKING - TECHNICAL REPORT WRITING 1950.-59 1960-68 Operations Science Rani Option Option o ' Of No, % NOj /O No. /o No, 12.

0 0 0 J. 1 • * 2 0 0 1 2 7 8 18 ■ 9 16 1 6 2 6 21 II 25 12 21 5 2k 3 21 72 2b 5k. 5k- 61 11 65

Total 29 kk 5o 17 N 73

TABLE 52 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANTING - TECHNICAL REPORT WRITING Rani-:______Airlines______Aerospace Hanufacturinff No. J/o No. % 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 k 7 2 lx 33 18 31 3 O 6b 36 62

Total 12 58 N 70

TABLE 53 GRADUATES RANKING - DATA PROCESSING 1950-59 1960-68 Operations Science Rank ______|______Option______Option c/ No. /O No. A No. % No . % c 0 2 ni k 10 9' , 1 6 Q 1 ( 2k 20 b7 19 35 U b7 2 9 31 I k 33 19 35 b 2b 3 11 33 b 10 11 20 b " 2b -- — — Total 29 b2 5b 17 N 71 lif 6

TABLE 54 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING - DATA PROCESSING Rank Airlines______Aerospace Manufacturing No. °k No. 2 0 0 0 4 7

1 , 2 18 15 25 2 7 64 51 3 2 18 10’ 17 >tal 11 59 K 70

TABLE 55 GRADUATES RANKING - FLIGHT INSTRUCTION 1950--59 1.960--68 Operations Science Rank Option Ontion No. & No. °k No. % No. % 0 7 2b 13 30 15 28 ' 5 28 1 10 37 10 23 13 25 7 39 2 6 22 10 23 13 25 3 17 ~Z J 4 15. 10 23 11 21 3 17

Total 27 4 3 52 18 N 70

TABLE 56 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKINrG - FLIGHT INSTRUCTION Rank Airlines Aero spac e Manufac turlnn;

> ' V No. 22 No. % 0 3 2? 24 ifO 1 if 37 23 38 2 2 18 8 13 3 2 18 5 8

Total 11 60 N 71

I I 147

TABLE 57 GRADUATES RANKING - FLIGHT TESTING 1950--59 1960--68 Operations science Rank Option Option No. 0/ A No . A No. A No. fO 0 6 20" 7 16 11 , 21 2 11 1 8 28 15 36 14 26 9 , 50 2 11 38 13 31 19 36 5 28 3 4 • 1^ 7 17 9 17. 2 ‘ 11

Total 29 42 53 18 N 71

■ TABLE 58 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING - FLIGHT TESTING Rank Airlines Aerospace Manufacturing No. A No. A 0 1 8 16 29 1 6 50 21 38 2 3 25 14 25 3 2 17 5 9

Total 12 56

• TABLE 59 GRADUATES RANKING - TESTING 1950-■59 1960-•68 Operations Science Rank Option Option No. A No. No. A No. % 0 1 4 5 :.11 4 7 2 12 1 6 21 6 IV 8 14 . 4 '24 2 8 29 15 34 21 '38 2 12 3 13 4b 18 , 41 22 40 9 53

Total 28 44 55 17 N 72 ITS

TABLE 60 . AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING - TESTING R a n k _____Airlines______Aerospace Manufacturing No. % No^ % 0 0 O' 3 5 1 5 T2 22 .38 2 2 1? 15 , 25 3 5 T2 19< .32

Toi^al 12 59 N 71

TABLE 61 GRADUATES RANKING - FORMING 1950-59 1960-68 Operations Science Ran'? 1 Option Option _ g No. No. % No. % No. ck s 0 0 0 k 9' 3 5 1 0 1 9 33 11 25 15 29 5 28 2 9 33 22 51 25 T8 6 33 3 9 33 6 1^ 9 17 0 33

Total 27 T3 52 18 N 70

TABLE 62 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING - FORMING Sank Airline: Aerospace Manufacturing No • % No^ % 0 0 0 if 7 1 6 50 30 51 f \ 33 15 25 3 2 17 10 17 Total 12 59 N 71 I

149

TABLE 65 GRADUATES RANKING - MACHINING 1950-59 1960-68 Operations Science Rank ___ Opti on Opt ion N_o, °k No. °k No. °/v ' No. °k 0 \j 0 4 10 3 6 1 . 6 .u1 7 25 10 -24 11 , .21 6 35 2 9 32 19 45 2b :4° 2 .12 5 12 .43 9 21 13 25 8 47 !i -4- OJ To I a 1 28 53 17 N 70

TABLE 64 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING - MACHINING Rank______Airlines______Aerospace Manufacturing ' No. °k No,. % 0 0 0 2 3 1 6 46 31 53 2 5 38 15 26 3 2 15 10 17 Total 13 58 N 71

TABLE 65 GRADUATES RANKING - FINISHING 1950-■59 1960--68 Operations Science ins Option Option No. k Ko. °k No. °k No. % 0 0 0 5 12 4 8 1 6 1 11 41 14 34 18 36' 7 39 2 7 26 17 41 21 42. 3 17 3 9 33 5 12 7 14' 7 .39

) tal 27 41 50 18 N 66 150

“’Ta b l e 66 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY BANKING - FINISHING Rank Airlines Aerospacg Manufacturing

No. % No.L % 0 0 0 7 1 6 ■b& 31 53 2 3 23 13, 22 3 b .31 10 17.

Total 13 58 N 71

TABLE 67 GRADUATES RANKING - WELDING 1950-59 1960-68 Operations Science Rank Option Option No. % No. % No. °k No. % 0 0 0 b 9 3 1 6 1 11 39 13 30 20 3$> b 22 2 6 ~7 21 17 bO 18 3b 5 28 y 11 39 9 21 12 23 8 bb

Tot al 28 b3 53 18 N 71

TABLE 68 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING - WELDING Rank Airlines Aerosnace Manufacturing

No. % No. %. 0 0 0 f 3 5 J.. O bo 30 51 2 b 31 17 29 3 3 23 9 15

Total 13 59 N 72 TABLE 69 GRADUATES RANKING - RIVETING 1950-59 1960-68 Operations Science R a n k ______,____ P o t i o n ______Option No. % No % No. %. No. 0 1 4 7 17 7 14 1 6 1 10 37 12 29 18' 35 4 23 2 7 26 18 43 19 , 36 6 35 3 9 33 5 12 8 .16 6 35

ital 27 42 52 17 N 69

TABLE 70 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING - RIVETING Rank Airlines Aerospace Manufacturing 0/ No. JO 0 0 0 6 10 1 b 46 31 53 2 4 31 14 24 3 3 23 7 12

Total 13 58 N 71

TABLE 71 GRADUATES RANKING - ADHESIVE BONDING 1950-59 1960-68 Operations Science Rank Option Option kti O No. % •[ No. % No. % 0 0 0 4 -9 3 6 1 6 1 5 30 12 28 , 15 28. 5 28 2 11 41 19 44 24 46 1 6 33 3 8 30 8 19 10 19 6 33

Total 27 43 52 18 N 70 -1.52

. TABLE 72 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING - ADHESIVE BONDING ; Rank______Airlines Aerospace Manufacturing

r,t 0/ No, 'jo No. /O 0 0 0 6 10 1 7 5b 29 b9 2 b 31 -1?, 29 3 2 15 7 12

Total 13 '59 N 72

TABLE 73 GRADUATES RANKING - PLASTICS 1950-59 1960-68 Operations Science Rank______;______Option______Option 0' 0/ No. fO No. jo No. °A No. % 0 0 0 5 11 b 8 1 6 1 10 b2 12 27 16 31 6 35 2 9 38 22 50 2b' b7 7 M l 3 5 21. 5 11 7 lb 3 8

Total 2b bb 51 17 K 68

TABLE 7b AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING - PLASTICS Rank______Airlines______Aerospace Manufacturing 0/ No. /£ No. % 0 0 0 5 8 l 7 5b 29 49 2 b 31 16 27 3 2 15 9 15

tal 13 59 K 7 2 1 5 3

TABLE 75 GRADUATES RANKING - NUMERICAL CONTROL 1950-59 1960-68 Operations Science Rank. Option Option 0/. No, /£ No. % No. % No. °A 0 0 0 6 15 k 8 2 12 1 6 22. 18 kk 19 • 38 5 28 2 12 kk Ik 3k 21 kz 5 28 3 •9 . 33 3 7 6 12 6 33

Total 27 kl 50 18 N 68

TABLE 76 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING - NUMERICAL CONTROL Rank______Airlines______Aerospace Manufacturing No. °A No. %. 0 2 18 10 17 1 5 k3 20 3k 2 3 27 21 36 3 1 9 8 l^f

Total 11 59 N 70

TA3LE 77 GRADUATES RANKING - GRAPHICS (DRAFTING' 1950-59 1960-68 Operations Science Rank Option Option

n / —Qrf No. No. 1 No. E No. E 0 0 0 3 7 3 6 0 0 1 - 6 21 8 .19' 9- 17 5 28 2 8 29 12 28 18 3k 2 •11 3 1'+ 50 20 k 7 23 k3 11 61

ital 28 k3 53 18 N 71 I

154

TABLE 76 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RAiJKING - GRAPHICS CDRAFTING) Rank______Airlines Aerospace Manufacturing n o. % Koj, % 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 9 15 2 5 38 29, . 49 5 8 62 20 34-

Total 13 59 N 72

TABLE 79 GRADUATES RANKING - PHILOSOPHY 1950-59 1960-68 Operations Science R a n k ______Potion Option No. % No. % No. °k No. % 0 8 23 12 '29 17 32 3 18 1 16 56 22 54 25 47 13 76 2 5 17 5 12 10 19 0 0 3 0 0 2 5 1 2 1 6

Total 29 41 53 17 IT 70

.TABLE 60 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING - PHILOSOPHY Rank Airlines A.erosoac e Mann f ac tuning: n/ H o . 70 No. k 0 T 8 26 47 . 1 5> 42 25 AS 2 b 50 2 ' A 3 0 0 2 4

Total 12 55 N 67 155

TABLE 31 1 ' GRADUATES RAi’IKTNG - HISTORY, 1950-59 1960-68 ■ Operations Science Rank Option Option rt/ No. /o No. C*/- No. % ' ' No. % 0 ' • 8 28 ■ 11 27 15 '’ 2.8 4 '24- 1 15 52 26 63 31 58 10 58 . 2 1 6 . 21 3 7 6 11 3 18 3 . 0 0 1 2. 1 2 0 0

Total 29 41 - 53 17 N 70

TABLE 82 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING - ‘HISTORY Rank Airlines Aerospace Manufact unity: V No. 11 No. % 0 2 15 22 42 1 7 54 27 51 2 3 23 4 8 3 1 8 0 0

Total 13 53 N 66 > r.O ' TAB! rn GRADUATES RANKING - SOCIAL SCI SNCES /" r‘- 1950 59 1960- oO Operations Science Rank Option Option •-,/ ,7 _ C*/ No. 11 No. No. il i<0« /o 0 5 17 7 17 9 17' 3 18' 1 13 5 25 61 30 57 8 48 2 8 2 8 . 7 1Z 10 19 l 5 29 3 3 10 2 4 3 1 6

Total 29 41 53 17 .. N 70 156

.. TABLE 34' AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING - SOCIAL SCIENCES Rank Airlines______Aerospace Hanufacturin'r; -V o/ No, A> ' No. (0

0 ' 0 0 17 31 1 7 34 29 53 2 5 33 7 ’ 13 3 1 8 2 4

Total 13 55 N 68

TABLE 85 GRADUATES RANKING - ARTS 1950-59 I960.-68 Operations Science Rank Option Option No. % No. 22 No. % No. % 0 7 24 15 38 16 32 6 35 1 13 45 22 55 27 51. 8 4-8 2 8 28 3 S 9 17 2 12 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 6

Total 29 40 52 17 N 69 < TABLE 86 . AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING - ARTS Rank Airlines Aerospace Manufacturing 0 ' No. £> No. 0//O 0 0 o' 28 53. 1 9 73 23 43 2 3 0 0 3 0 g : 2 4

To t al 12 53 N 65 157

TABLE 87 GRADUATES RAISING - ENGLISH i CA • 1950-■59 1960- CO Operations Science Rank Option. 0-ption y~r

Qt o|

No. /o No. °A No. % 1 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 0 0 1 1 A A 10 3 ’ 6 2 12 2 7 25 Ik 35 17 33 k 23 3 20 ■ 71 21 53 3! .60 10 63

Total 28 i k o 52 16 N 68

TABLE 88 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY'RANKING - ENGLISH Rank______Airlines______Aerospace Manufacturinp; No. °k No. 0 0 0 2 k 1 2 .15 3 5 2 3 23 10 18 3 8 62 kO 73

Total 13 55 N 68

'TABLE 89 • GRADUATES RANKING - MANAGEMENT 1950-59 1960-68 Operations Science Rank Option Option No. % No. % No. % No. °k 0 1 3 1 3 2 k 0 0 1 0 o- 8 20 5 9' 3 19 2 11 38 20 50. 2k A5 7 AA 3 17 .59 11 28 22 AO 6 38 Total 29 AO 53 16 K 69 TABLE 90 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY PARK IIV G - MANAGEMENT Rank Airlines Aerospace Manufacturina No. la No. t 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 7 27 48 2 G 36 23 41 "5 8 57 5 '9 a 14 56

TABLE 91 GRADUATES RANKING - MARKETING 1950-■59 1960-■o3 Operations Science Rank Option Option oL of No . °k No. £ No. /O No. % 0 3 li 2 5 3 b •2 12 1 5 18 19 46 19 36 5 31 2 9 32 17 41 22 42 4 25 3 11 39 3 7 9 17 5 31

Total 28 41 53 16 N b9

. TABLE 92 AEROSPACE INDUSTRY-RANKING - MARKETING Rani; , Airli pac ' i Aerospace 1•I an uf acturin?-: N o . % No. * r\ 0 0 7 12 1 G 50, 32 55 2 b 50, 15 2o 3 0 0 4 7

Total 12 98 N 70 159

TABLE 93 GRADUATES RANKING ~ ECONOMICS 1950--59 I960'-68 Operations Science Rank Option Option

r,/ n / Ko. 70 No. To No. °A No. % 0 3 10 2 >■c,' k r 1 6 1 k Ik 15 37 Ik 26 5 31 2 12 k l 21 ?1 28 52 5 31 3 10 3k 3 7 8, 15 5 31

Total 29 kl 3k 16 N 70

TABLE 9k AEROSPACE INDUSTRY RANKING - ECONOMICS Rank______Airlines Aerospace Manufacturinp; No. % No. % 0 0 0 3 3 1 2 15 26, k6 2 6 i+6 19 33 5 38 9 lb

Total 13 57 N 70

l I

1 6 0 TAB LIS ?S - 10?. 'EPSOHAL CHARACTERISTICS

c h s c k t h e p e r s o h a l characteristics w h i c h y o u b e l i e v e a s i u s h o u l d h a v e t o successfully c o m p l e t e THE PROGRAM

1 PiT.7'"1 Q c MECHANICAL APTITUDE Operations Science Rank 1950--59 I960' AJ (J Opti on Cotio>n of c/ No. A '2J Ho. /O Ii2.iL £ c High 5 " 3 O 21 33 22 34 7 32 4 17 53 15 27 2L 37 .Q 36 3 6 19 14 25 lit 22 'o 27 c, 2 1 3 > Q✓ „/ 8 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lov: 6 0 n 0 0 0 0 0

Totals 32 55 65 22 L 87 Rating Value s -3a +61 +85 +90

TABLE 96 MAWHEM ATICAL APTI TIDE Operati ons Scierice .Rank 1950-59 I960'-68 Ontio r Opticin ’1 0! Ho. A Ho. A Ho. Vo Ho. /o High 5 3 9 b 12 5 8 ;r/. 20 56 48 k—r 19 • 19 38 31 7 35 J 11 32 22 kk 2 A 38 oy 45 2 1 3 6 k 6 c 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 Low 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i Totals 3k 50 6i+ 20 Lr 8 A Rating Value +94 +33 +83 +100 161 TABLE 97 INTEGRITY

Operations Science Rank 1950-59 1960-68______, Option Option No. °k NOr °k No. °k No. °k High 5 12 36 21 43 24 39 9 45 4 12 , 36 16 33 24 39 4 20 3 9 27 11 22 13 21 7 35 2 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Low 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0

Totals 33 49 62 20 N 82 Rating Value +99 +96 +97 +100

TABLE -93 NEATNESS

Operations Science Rank______1950-59 1960-68______Option Option of No. °k No. a No. ' °k No. °k High 5 5 16 11 22 10 16 6 30 4 10 '31 22 44 26 42 6 30 3 15 47 14 28 22 35 7 35 2 2 6 3 6 4 6 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Low 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 0 0 0

Totals 32 50 62 20 N 82 Rating Value +88 +88 +87 +90 TABLE 99 PERSEVERANCE

Operations Science Rank 1^0- I960--68 Option Option No. °k No. °k . No. k No. °k

High 5 11 33 13 37 21 34 8 3§ 4 14 1 42 23 47 29 48 8 38 3 8 24 ■ 7 14 • 11 , 18 4 19 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 ■ 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t 0 Low 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( 0

Totals 33 . 49 61 21 N 82 Rating Value +99 +96 +100 +90

TABLE 100 INITIATIVE

Operations Science Rank______1930-59 1960-68 ...... Option______Option 0/ No. k • No. °k No. £ No. °k High 5 14 42 21 43 21 34 8 33 4 10 30 23 47 29 48 8 38 3 o> 28 5 10 11 18 4 19 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lov; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Totals 33 49 61 21 N 82 Rating Value +100 +100 +100 +90 TABLE 101 COOPERATION

Operations Science Rank > 1950-59 1960-68______Option _____ Option

... No. °k No.- °k No. °k . No. 1 °k High . 5 12 36 U 29 19 31 7 35 k 12 36. 28 58 32- , 52 8 40 3 9 27 6 13 10 16 5 25 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 o ■ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Low 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Totals 33 kS 61 20 N 81 Rating Value +100 +100 +100 +100

TABLE 102 INTELLIGENCE

Operations Science Rank______1930-39 1960-68______Option 1 Option 0/ No. °k No. (1 No. °k No. °k

High 5 11 35 l*f 29 18 30 7 39 h 12 39 28 58 32 52 8 3 8 26 6 13 11 18 3 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0

Totals 31 kS 61 18 N 79 Rating Value +100 +100 +100 +100 iSk TABLE 103 INDICATE WHAT YOU BELIEVE WAS THE ATTITUDE OF YOUR PROFESSORS OUTSIDE THE FIELD OF YOUR MAJOR TOWARD THE AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

Operation Science Rank______-1950-59____ 1960-68______Option______Option rJ ^ / No. & Ho. % No. 22 No. °k

High 5 0 0 2 k 2, 3 0 0 A k 12 11 22 12 19 3 Ik 3 12 36 13 25 17 ' 27 8 36 2 13 39 17 31 23 37 7 32 1 k 12 7 1** 7 11 L 18 Low 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 6 0

Totals 33 . 51 62 22 N 8k Rating Value -3 +k +1 0

1 APPENDIX E

QUESTIONNAIRE TO GRADUATES EVALUATING THE KENT STATE PRO GR API

AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY GRADUATE RECORD

Name______Date_ Last First Middle

Present Address ______Street City State Zip Code

Permanent Address ______(Where mail will always be forwarded)

Birthdate Marital Status

KSU Graduation Date______Option: Science_

Operations_ I Other Special Training Since KSU Graduation:______

Name of Present Employer_

Address of Present Employer_

Title of Present Position______From______To_

Description of Position______

165 1 6 6 In the following table, indicate previous employment, other than present, since your graduation from KSU.

Kame of Employer Address of Official Approx. dates (list most recent Employer Title of of Employment first.) your posi- From To tion

Military Service______

Special Awards______

Publications______

Special licenses or Ratings______

Professional or service organization membership. GRADUATE SURVEY

Do you believe applicants for the Aerospace Technology program should be screened before acceptance?

a.______Yes b.______No

Check the personal characteristics which you believe a student should have to successfully complete the pro­ gram.

High Low

a . Mechanical Aptitude 5 if 3 2 1 0 o. Mathematical Aptitude 5 if 3 2 1 0 c . Integrity 5 if 3 2 1 0 d. Neatness 5 if 3 2 1 0

e. Perserverance 5 if 3 2 1 0

f. Initiative 5 if 3 2 1 0

g. Cooperation 5 if 3 2 1 0

h. Intelligence 5 if 3 2 1 0

i. Other , 5 k 3 2 1 0

5 if 3 2 1 0 Indicate what you believe was the attitude of your pro­ fessors outside the field of your major toward the Aerospace Technology program.

5 if 3 2 1 0 High Low I

1 6 8

£).. Indicate the importance of scholarship as empha­ sized in the Kent State Aerospace Technology program from your point of view.

5 ^ 3 2 1 0 High Low

5. Indicate the extent to which you believe you can advance with your present company.

5 ^ 3 2 1 0 -High Low

6. Indicate the extent to which you believe the Kent State University administration supports the Aerospace Techno­ logy program.

5^-32 1 0 High Low

7. If your rating to the previous question is low, check methods by which additional support might be obtained.

a. 3y improving public relations______

b. By increased support from industry______

c. By increased support from alumni______

d. By curriculum modification______

e. Other (Identify)______

8. How favorably did your present employer view your college preparation when he employed you?

_ _ _ _ =, _ High Low

9. To what extent did your education prepare you to fit directly into your present position?

5 5 3 2 I 0 High Low 169 10. Indicate the extent to which your college adviser was available for conferences.

5 4 0 High Low

11. Indicate the adequacy of equipment used in the courses of the Kent State program.

5 4 3 1 0 High Low

12. Check the Aerospace courses wherein you believe the equipment was inadequate.

a. _Power Plants e .___ Electrical Systems

b._ ^Structures f .___ Fuel Control Systems

c ._ instrumentation g .___ Other (Identify)____

d. Materials Processes

13. Indicate the adequacy of laboratory space available for the courses in the program.

5 4 0 Low

14. If your answer to the previous question was low, check the laboratories and shops wherein the space was inadequate.

a._ _Power Plants e*. _Electrical Systems b*. _Structures f. _Fuel Control Systems c .. instrumentation Other (Identify)____

d. Materials Processes

15. To what extent do you believe your college preparation in use of equipment was adequate?

3 Zj~ T ~z~ T o High Low I

170

16. On the basis of your experience, check any weak points of the Aerospace Technology program at Kent State University.

a .___ Faculty Qualification

b. ___ Student Selection Criteria

c .___ Curriculum Content

d .___ Teaching Methods

e. ___ Space Facilities

f. ___ Equipment

g .___ Administrative Support

h. ___ Scholarship requirements

i .___ Other (Identify)______

17. On the basis of your experience, check the strong points of the Aerospace Technology program at Kent State University.

a .___ Faculty Qualification

b. ___ Student Selection Criteria

c. ___ Curriculum Content

d. ____Teacting Methods

e .___ Space Facilities

f. ___ Equipment

g .___ Administrative Support

h .___ Scholarship Requirements

i .___ Other (Identify)______171 18. Check the kinds of positions for which you believe you are prepared.

a .___ Engineering

b .___ Management

c ,__i__Marketing

d .___ Aerospace Teaching

e .___ Flight Crew or Operations

f . Other (Identify)______,______

19. As a source of information for present and future under­ graduate students, indicate your approximate annual salary:

(X 1000)

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 H 15 over 15 ' At the ------present time

Immediately following graduation I

APPENDIX F

AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY DIVISION KENT STATE UNIVERSITY

1 CURRICULUM l i* gen er a l college requirements

(1967-69 Catalog)

A. Prep. Subjects (if required)

course credit Math 21 3 50 5

B._ English*...... (9 hours required)

Eng. 160 3 161 3 162 3

*Must be completed by end of sophomore year I (96 hours)

C. Humanities...... (select 9 hours)

Hist. 150 3 151 3 152 3 250 3 251 3 252 3 Phil. 260 5 Eng. 371N 3 372N 3 373 3

1 7 2 I

173 D. Social Sciences (select 10 hours) course credit Pol. Sci. 110 5 Econ. 261 5 Soc. 130 5 Psych. 162 5 Geog. 160 5

E. HPE-ROTC*. ,.(3 hours required)

*Refer to "College Requirements Applic to All Degrees", ■page 176 of General Catalog

F. Fine Arts. ..(select 15 hours)

Arch. 182 3 Art 180 3 Hm. Ec. 265 3 I.A.T. 251 3 Journ. 200 3 Music 285 3 Spc}i. 111 3 (or 213) 3

I I

II. AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY CONCENTRATION

(1967-69 Catalog)

A. Required: All Aerospace Technology Majors

Div. Course Title Credit

A.T. 197N Aerospace Vehicles 3 A.T. 390 Applied Aerodynamics Laboratory 3 A.T. 391N Aerospace Instrumentation 3 A.T. 392N Structures I 5 A.T. 393K Structures II 5 A.T. 39*fN Aerospace Electrical System 5 A.T. 396N Propulsion I 5 A.T. 397N Propulsion II 5 A.T. 398N Materials & Processes 3 A.T. ^ 98 Aerospace Seminar 3

I . T. 180 Engineering Graphics I 3 I . T. 320 Fundamentals of Electronics 3 1 Total Credit Hours M5

Electives: (30 Hours Required)

A.T. 292N Aerospace Systems I 3 A.T. 293K Aircraft Propellers 3 A.T. 29ifN Aerospace Systems II 3 A.T. 399N Structures III 5 A.T. if 9 IN Maintenance Performance and Analysis 5 A.T. if 95 Guidance of Space Vehicles 3 A.T. 496 Ambiance Control , 3 A.T. if9 7 Propulsion III 5

I.T. 182 Engineering Graphics II 3 I . T. 28if Elementary Kinematics 3 I.T. 325 Industrial Electronics 3 I.T. 361 Fundamentals of Physical Metallurgy 5 I.T. 363 Materials Science I, General 3 I.A.T. 2Zf6 Graphic Arts Technology I 3 I.A.T. 261 Elec. Arc & Oxy-Acet. Welding 3 I.A.T. 266 Machine Shop I 5 I.A.T. if55 Industrial Practice 1-12 Total Credit Hours Required 76 I

175 III. SCIENCE OPTION

i(1967-69 Catalog) A. Required; Dept. Course Title Credit

Math 191K Freshman Mathematics 5 192 Analytic Geometry & Calc. I 5 193 Analytic Geometry & Calc. II 5 197 Elements of Programming 5 294 Analytic Geometry,& Calc. Ill 5

Physics 230(160) Principles of Mechanics 5 231(161) Principles of Elec. and Mag. 5 232(162) Principles of Heat 5 362 Aerodynamics 3

Chem. 160 General Chemistry 5 161 General Chemistry 5 162 General Chemistry 5

Total Credit Hours 58

ElectiVes: (10 Hours Required)

Math 297 Interrnediate Pro gramming 5 231 Introduction to Probability 3 232 Introduction to Statistics y- 7 295 Analytic Geometry & Calc. IV 5 Physics 361 Intermediate Electricity k Intermediate Mechanics k 381 Electronics' 5

Chera 211 Elementary Quan. Analysis 5 212 Elementary Quan. Analysis 5 Total Credit Hours Required 68 176 IV. OPERATIONS OPTION

(1967-69 Catalog)

. Required:

Dept. Course Title ! Crec

A.T. 1961-1 Private Pilot ' 3 A.T. 198H Elements of Flight 3 A.T. 199N Air Navigation 3

Econ. 261, Principles of Economics 5

Math 19111 Freshman Mathematics 3 197 Elementary Programming 5

iigt. 363 Principles of Org. & Adrn, 3

Acct. 220 Principles of Accounting 3

Physics 160 General Physics 5 161 General Physics 3 162 General Physics 5 362 Aerodynamics 3 Total Credit Hours 52

Electives: (15 Hours Required)

1 A.T. J+92A Commercial Flight, Phase I 3 A92B Commercial Flight, Phase II 3 ’/+92C Commercial Flight, Phase III 3 ^93 Instrument Flight Econ. 262 Principles of Economics 3 Market. 310 Marketing 5 > 378 Industrial Purchasing 3 Manag. 255 Principles of Statistics 5 358 Operations Research I 5 360 Basic Production Systems 5 335 Group Dynamics ( 5

Trans. 320 Transportation 3 k'o9 Ind. Traffic Management I 3

Speech 100 Fundamentals of Speech 3

Total Credit Hours Required 67

1 APPENDIX G

BASIS FOR ACCREDITING CURRICULA III ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY

The following general requirements are basic to the qualification of a curriculum in engineering technology for accreditation by ECFD:

1. Duration. Not less than two academic years of full-time resident academic work beyond the secondary school or the equivalent in part-time resident academic work.

2. Requirements for Admission. High ischool gradua­ tion or the equivalent. A high school transcript indicating graduation, or satisfactory evidence and/or certification of equivalency, must be available for each student and indicate a sufficient background in mathematics and science to achieve the objectives of the curriculum.

3. Curricula. Technology in nature, employing the application of physical sciences and the techniques of mathe­ matics to the solution of practical problems, and comprising a prescribed and integrated sequence of related courses in a specific field; though not excluding a reasonable amount of elective appropriate subject matter.

/+. Instruction. By accepted class and laboratory methods. Laboratory work shall comprise an important part of each curriculum. 177 1 7 8

5. Teaching Staff. Qualified as to education and professional technical experience, and sufficient in num­ bers to provide adequate attention to each student.

6. Educational Institution. An organized school or a division of an institution devoted to the specific aim of providing engineering technology programs; a stable organization having adequate financial support and demon­ strated capacity and achievement in the engineering techno­ logy field. The school shall demonstrably maintain a high standard of ethics in its educational program and in all its dealings with students and prospective students. In its correspondence, published materials, and other public announcements, the statements used shall be frank and factual and shall not be misleading.

7. Physical Facilities. Adequate for the purposes of the curricula offered.

Evaluative Criteria

Curricula are evaluated on the basis of both qualitative and quantitative criteria, the general scope of which is indicated in the following items:

1. Qualitative criteria include the following:

(a) Qualifications and experience of members

of the faculty as well as the ratio of

numbers of faculty to the numbers of

students taught. (b) Standard and quality of instruction:

(1) in technical courses.

(2) in basic scientific and other

required courses.

(c) Progression and integration of courses

and the manner,and extent to which

technical subject matter as taught

will demand and utilize the student's

training in communication, mathema­

tical manipulation, and technical

calculation.

(d) Scholastic work of students.

(e) Records of graduates; nature of and

performance in employment.

(f) Attitude and policy of administration

toward its engineering technology

program.

Quantitative criteria include the following:

(a) Auspices, control, and organization

of the institution and of its

engineering technology division.

(b) Curricula offered.

(c) Graduation requirements; completion 1 <*■ credentials awarded.

(d) Basis of ancKrequirements for admission

of students. 1 8 0

(e) Number of .students enrolled:

(1) in the institution as a whole,

and in its technical institute

division.

(2) in the individual curricula.

(f) Teaching staff and teaching loads.

(S) Physical facilities devoted to techni­ cal institute curricula.

(h) Finances: investments, expenditures,

sources of income.

3. An engineering technology curriculum acceptable to ECPD will normally be characterized by:

(a) At least the equivalent of one-half

academic year of basic sciences, about

half of which is mathematics and of

which the mathematics includes carefully

selected topics suited to each curriculum

from appropriate areas of mathematics

beyond college algebra and trigonometry,

and including basic concepts of calculus.

(b) At least the equivalent of one-fourth

academic year of non-technical subjects

including oral and written communica­

tions, exclusive of courses in industrial

organization and management, personnel

' administration, orientation, and physi­

cal education. l8l

(c) At least the equivalent of one aca­

demic year of technical courses.

(d) The specifications listed in (a), (b),

and (c) total less than the minimum

period of two academic years required

to achieve an integrated and well-rounded

i engineering technology curriculum.

This additional time is available for

the implementation of the educational

objectives of the individual institu­

tion. Humanistic-social studies, for

example, are acceptable additions to the

curriculum.

A. The criteria above have as their objective the assurance of a minimum foundation for the preparation of an engineering technician. Building on this foundation, an insti­ tution may follow a variety of patterns in the remainder of the curriculum, such patterns being consistent with the ob­ jectives of the particular program and the overall aims of the institution. The minimum foundation insures sufficient emphasis upon the technical specialty courses which are the essence of any engineering technology curriculum.

5. ECPD accredited engineering technology curricula may extend beyond the minimum standards of duration and quality. Curricular content beyond the minimum foundation may be planned for any one of several objectives, i.e. 132 greater technical emphasis, increased liberal studies, management courses, etc. 6. The ECPD requires a high degree of speciali­ zation for engineering technology programs, but with field orientation rather than job orientation. The engineering orientation of this technical specialization should be manifest from faculty qualifications and course content.

(16, P.82-33)

i I

I

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Allen, David. A study of The Aviation Mechanics Occupation. University of California, 1966.

2. American Educational Research Association. Encyclopedia of Educational Research. New York, The MacMillan Co.

3. American Council on Education. Directory of American Colleges and Universities. if. American Council on Industrial Arts Teacher Education Fifteenth Yearbook. Status of Research in Industrial Arts. McKnight and McKnight, Bloomington, 111., 1966.

5. American Society for Engineering Education, Characteristics of ExcelleEx ce1lence in Engineering Technology Education, University of Illinois, 1962.

6. Aviation Distributors and Manufacturers' Association. Report of States' Aviation Education Program. Philadelphia, Pa., June 196?.

7. . Aviation News, Vol 3. No. 1, Allentown, Pa., Feb. I960.

8. Barlow, Melvin L. History of Industrial Education in The United States. Chas. A. Bennett Co., Peoria, 111., 19b7»

9. Bryan, Leslie. "Significant Impact of Aviation on Society and Industry". National Aeronautics. Sept. 1967.

10. Bryan, Leslie. Personal Letter To Peder A. Otterson, Feb. 1968.

11. ______. Careers in Technology '68. Careers Incorporated. New York, N. Y.

12. ______. Conference on New Technology. NASA SP5015 Lewis Research Center, (Cleveland, 196if.

\ 183 I

l&f 13. Draper, Charles D. "Remedial Technology Must Be Supported By Information". Technology Week. Jan, 1967.

Ik* . Dictionary. Random House, New York, N. Y., 1967.

15. Engineering Council for Professional Development "Four Year Curricula in Engineering Technology". Thirty Third Annual , Report, New York, 1965. 1

16. Engineering Council for Professional Development. Thirty Fifth Annual Report. New York, 1967.

17. Engineering Council for Professional Development. "Information Concerning Accreditation of Engineering Technology Curricula. 1 New York, 1965.

18. Engineers Joint Council "Assessment of The Goals of 1 Engineering Education in The United States". Report of the Panel on Engineering Educa­ tion. New York, Sepit. 19o6.

19. Engineers Joint Council, Demand for Engineers and Techni­ cians 1966" New York, 1967.

20. Fairbanks, Jesse I. Air Transportation. Epsilon Pi Tau, Inc. Columbus, Ohio, 1967.

21. Federal Aviation Administration. Flight Training Schools Affiliated With Institutions of Higher Learning^ Washington, D. C. Jan. 1968.

22. Fehr, 'Dick. "Of Flight and Bold Men*. Aerospace Historian Vol XIV No. 3 , Autumn, 1967.

23. • "Goals for Technology". Technology Week 10th Anniversary Issue. Washington, Jan. 1967.

2k* Good, Carter. Introduction to Educational Research. Meredith, N. Y. 1963.

25. Guide to Careers In Aero-»Space Technology. NASA, Civil Service Announcement No. 3^-73, 1965*

26. Hartung, Walter. Personal Letter to Peder A. Otterson, March 1968. 185 27. Industrial Teacher Education Directory. 1967-68 ACIATE

28. Industrial Arts and Technology - Past, Present and Future. 29th Annual Convention Pro­ ceedings, American Industrial Arts Association. Philadelphia, Pa. 1967.

29. Jackson, Lev/is. A Study of Aviation Courses and Facilities in Higher Education in The United States With Predictions of 1 Future Trends. Unpublished Doctoral Disseration,_The Ohio State University, 1951. 30. Johnson, C. L. "Ten Urgent Aeronautical Tasks’'. Technology Week. Jan. 1967.

31. Johnson, Melvin R. "Recent Doctoral Dissertation Research". Journal of Industrial Teacher Education. NAITE, 1967

32. Keith, Charles W. Industrial Technology Program at Kent State University. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio State University. 1964.

33. Kent State University Bulletin. General Catalog 1940-47. Kent, Ohio, Feb. 194b

34. Kent State University Bulletin, General Catalog 1947-48. Kent. Ohio. 1947.

55. Kent State University Bulletin, General Catalog 1948-49. Kent, Chi6'; "1948.----

36. Kent State University Bulletin, General Catalog 1967-68. Kent, Ohio, 1967.

37. Kranzberg, Melvin. "Technology and Culture". American Industrial Arts Association Convention. Philadelphia, March, 1967.

38. Kranzberg, Melvin. "Technology Is Important - Really It Is." Journal of Industrial Arts Education! Sept-Oct. 1967

39. Mehallis, George. "New Orbit In Aero Tech Training". School Shop. October 1967.

40. National Aerospace Education Council. Aviation Counselors Guide. Washington, D. C. T 96F! 1 8 6 41. National Aviation Goals, Project Horizon, Federal i Aviation Agency, Washington 1961. if2. National Trade and Professional Associations of The United States. Potomac, Wash. 19'66. I 43. Norgren, Paul. Pilot Study of Obsolescence of Scienti­ fic and Engineering Skills. M.DTA 15-64 Contract, March 1965.

44. Olson, Delmar W. Technology ahd Industrial Arts. Epsilon Pi Tau, Columbus, Ohio 1957.

45. Rama, Simon. "Science Turns To Challenge of Satisfying Human Needs". Technology Week. Jan. 1967.

46. Roney, Mauip.ce W. Occupational Criteria and Prepara­ tory Curriculum Patterns In Technical Education Programs. U.S. Office of Education OE8O015, Washington D. C. 1962. 47. Seaborg, Glenn T, "Man Must First Choose Goalb" Technology Week. Jan. 1967

48. Schill, W. J. and Arnold, J. P. Curricula Content for Six Technologies. University of Illi­ nois, Urbana, 111. 19b5. 49. Schriever, Bernard A. "Military Technology and The Great Society". Technology Week. Jan. 1967.

50. Sicillano, Sam P. "1968 Aerbspace Sales". Aviation Week. Vol 8,. No. 24. June 10, 1968

51. Sieber, Sam D. "Survey Research in Education". Phi Delta Xappan Vol. XLIX. Jan. 1968.

52. Strickler, Mervin K. Special Assistant for Aviation Education, Federal Aviation Administra­ tion, Washington, D. C. Personal Letter to Peder A. Otterson. April 2, 1968.

53* Survey of Research Projects in The Field of Aviation 1 Safety. Guggenheim Aviation Safety Center. Cornell University, New York, I960. 54. Technical Education News. "Facts and Figures". Jan. 1968, McGraw Hill, New York. 1 8 7 55. Trupp, Philip. "Aerospace 'Killing' Seen With or Without War". Metalworking News. Sept. 25, 1967.

56. Von Braun,. Wernher. "Space Technology and Progress". , Technology Week. Jan. 1967. 57. World Aviation Directory. American Aviation Publications, Washington, D. C. 1968.

I

I

\

I