Chapter 5: The Postwar Period: 1946-1950 

The Institute 

With the end of hostilities in Europe and the Pacific, MIT faced the task of reconversion to peacetime activities. This called for the demobilization of wartime projects, the organization of instruction for returning veterans and other students, the rebuilding of a long-range educational program, and the planning of research, as well as the necessary physical and financial arrangements. The wartime constraints were being removed and prewar goals reestablished, but the reconversion was far more than a return to the status quo of 1939. 

Many of MIT's staff had been dispersed functionally or geographically. There had been a significant diversion from normal educational activities. Scientists and engineers from other institutions had come to work at the MIT campus. A great deal of professional cross-fertilization had occurred. A generation of students with new outlooks and motivations was about to enroll. The political, social, psychological, and intellectual environment differed greatly from what it had been only half a dozen years earlier. 

Several questions were raised by the demobilization of wartime projects: At what pace was a given project to be liquidated or transferred to another unit? Which projects should be continued at the Institute? What should be done with past or ongoing classified research? 

The World War I precedent was not reassuring. At the end of that war important scientific and technical developments such as the thermionic and cathode ray tubes had been put on the shelf by the government (Bement). 

At the end of World War II, it was clear that many projects could not be discontinued. For example, the research on nuclear materials under Professors Chipman, Cohen and Kaufmann was transferred from the MIT Metallurgical Project to an off-campus location and was eventually turned over to Nuclear Metals Incorporated. A personal account of this project by a staff member was privately published (Santangelo). The research of Professors Gaudin and Schuhmann on uranium ores remained at MIT under strict security for some time after the war. 

The resumption of normal teaching created problems (Killian). The number of students grew rapidly into a tidal wave causing operational difficulties. Changes in the scientific and technical environment and in the general intellectual climate called for a new educational philosophy. The situation offered unique opportunities for innovation. Viewed from the distance of 40 years, MIT's administration, faculty and staff deserve much credit for not allowing immediate operating problems to interfere with the rethinking of the educational program. 

The teaching overload was met by continuing the wartime schedule of three regular terms per year, offering major courses in each term, and using the plant with maximum efficiency. The housing problem was solved in part by a program providing quarters for married students, especially returning veterans= the first such program in the country (Killian, p. 314). 

Only a few years after the end of the war, a committee under the chairmanship of Professor Warren K. Lewis of the Department of Chemical Engineering examined the Institute's undergraduate program. The "Report of the Committee on Educational Survey to the Faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology" (1949) recommended a strengthening of general education at MIT. This recommendation was implemented effectively. 

The Department of Metallurgy 

World War II had brought fundamental changes to the science and technology of metals, ceramics, and other materials. The development of atomic energy had led to the entirely new science and technology of nuclear materials concerned with such metals as uranium, plutonium, and beryllium, as well as with ceramics. The atomic energy project had called special attention to the importance of materials processing. It also demonstrated how much the collaboration of the fundamental sciences of physics and chemistry with applied disciplines such as metallurgy and ceramics could accomplish. It revealed challenging aspects of materials research and, in fact, acted as a curtain raiser for materials science and engineering. 

There had been many other important materials developments. The National Emergency steels, new magnesium technology, and new aluminum alloys had extended the range and depth of applied metallurgy. jet engines, gas turbines, and other advanced technologies depended on high-temperature alloys. New materials, especially polymers, assumed major importance. Research problems such as the ship steel problem became especially urgent because of wartime operations. 

The advances in materials technology had been achieved in laboratories operated by industry, the government, and acadernic institutions. No single organization could lay claim to a unique level of contribution. The significant fact in the present context is the high rate of participation by members of MIT's Department of Metallurgy in wartime research and development. Their experiences had a lasting effect on the Department's postwar policies and programs. 

Review of Objectives 

The period 1939-45 had not been a time for changes in the Department's programs, except for those dictated by the war, but it did not preclude all consideration of objectives and policy. In 1937, before the new undergraduate curriculum went into effect, President Compton had recommended for the metallurgist not only a thorough knowledge of metallurgy but also the highest degree of scientific training, as already quoted in Chapter 4 (Technology Review, Vol. 39, p. 289). 

Professor Francis Bitter in an "Abstract of the Present State and Possible Developments in Physical Metallurgy" wrote in the Fall of 1939: " ... in this field ... there is now an opportunity for rapid and fundamental development through an appreciation of the concepts and techniques of physics and chemistry." He emphasized the need for a more "fundamental attitude" and research undertaken with aims of "formulating physical laws" rather than with industrial aims. Bitter, after naming several "fundamental problems of metallurgy," suggested that there should be an expert on each of these in the Department and proposed bringing in specialists. Professor Williams responded, explaining that lack of money prevented the carrying out of such a plan, but expressing interest in Bitter's ideas and proposing a meeting of several professors close to physics, metallurgy, and the physics of metals. Williams, on December 21,1939, also wrote to the Chairman of the Visiting Committee proposing several types of programs. 

In a memorandum to Acting President Killian dated May 23, 1945, Williams described a possible Division of Engineering Materials, which would serve both Mechanical Engineering and Metallurgy "in the Metals Processing Laboratory." The Division would give instruction and would provide research facilities in engineering materials "to any course, especially II and III" (Mechanical Engineering and Metallurgy). One section would deal with metals and another with "nonmetallic materials (timber, rope, concrete, plastics, glass, ceramics)." 

In another memorandum, Williams wrote that "the great weakness in the department lies in the field of what can be called rather inadequately 'Mechanical Metallurgy.' This is related to Metal Processing, where the metallurgist is concerned with the 'effects of the operations on the characteristics of the metal.'" Most of these projections were soon to be realized in the Metals Processing Division established in 1946 (see below) and the Metals Processing Laboratory in 1952 (see Chapter 6). 

On September 11, 1945, Professor Williams forwarded to Executive Vice President Killian a memorandum by Professor F.H. Norton entitled "A Plan for Post-War Undergraduate Study in Metallurgy." Williams strongly endorsed its basic philosophy, but added that "certain details do not seem practicable in the near future." 

Norton's memorandum distinguished three parts of the undergraduate curriculum in metallurgy: (i) general education; (ii) technical education based on the fundamental sciences; and (iii) instruction in metallurgy. He considered the arguments for and against a single option versus several options such as process metallurgy and physical metallurgy. Norton favored a single option partly on the grounds that industry preferred people with a good background in basic subjects rather than shallower training in specialties. For a single option, he proposed a balance between process and physical metallurgy. He questioned whether mineral dressing should be taught to undergraduates in the Department since he considered it more closely related to mining engineering than to metallurgy. His approach was pragmatic and he proposed basing decisions on the working experience of graduates of the Department. 

Norton also considered staff requirements and particularly the qualifications of staff members. He stressed the importance of laboratories in undergraduate education. He stated that the nonferrous metallurgy laboratory needed to be revitalized. Laboratories should illustrate principles rather than reproduce processes. Although his memorandum was not directly concerned with graduate education, he emphasized the need for a graduate school to keep undergraduate teaching vital. He argued that a graduate school required fellowships in order to support graduate students and that industry would provide financial aid only if there were good physical facilities making good research possible. 

Undergraduate Education 

In 1946, Professor Chipman, the incoming head of the Department, approached the fundamental restructuring of the undergraduate curriculum in metallurgy as a major task and opportunity. In his first report to President Compton dated May 13, 1946, he described his conception of metallurgy as including science and engineering. He made a case for a strong scientific program in the Department. Although he acknowledged the overlapping of the subject matter of metallurgy with physics, chemistry, mining engineering, chemical engineering, and mechanical engineering, he gave compelling reasons for maintaining a separate department.

In the next year's report dated May 19, 1947, Chipman discussed the new curriculum. He pointed out that the previous year's outline had served as the basis of the new curriculum, "which, by the way, has the unanimous endorsement of the Department." In particular, it "replaced the previous descriptive courses with new and more quantitative subjects." It also gave students "the largest possible measure of free choice among the more specialized or advanced subjects" and accordingly one-fourth of the senior program consisted of electives.

A major innovation was the introduction of a sequence of courses in Physical Metallurgy I, II, and III, which dealt with the scientific and applied aspects of the subject. The sequence Metallurgical Engineering I and II covered the principles underlying production processes, e.g., heat transfer, and unit processes, e.g., smelting. The traditional distinction between ferrous and nonferrous metallurgy was abandoned. Mineralogy replaced a course in ceramics; the language requirement for undergraduates was dropped. 

A new curriculum for the mineral engineering option included more metallurgy, more geology, and less traditional mineraI dressing than formerly. In view of subsequent developments in the metal mining industries, the following statement in the President's Report for 1946-47 is of interest: "Graduates of such an option are needed if the United States is to continue to hold its economic position as the leading producer of most metals in the face of dwindling supplies of high-grade ores." 

Several publications by members of the Department's faculty during this period relate to educational philosophy and practice. Chipman (1947) analyzed the personnel needs of the steel industry and the nature of metallurgy, and drew from his analysis conclusions regarding metallurgical education. He discussed educational questions also in an article in 1948 and in the 1949 Howe Memorial Lecture (figure, opposite page). Bever and Floe, in "Undergraduate Instruction in Physical Metallurgy at Massachusetts Institute of Technology" (1949), described undergraduate instruction in physical metallurgy at MIT in the context of the new curriculum. 

Metals Processing Division 

In a press release dated June 19, 1946, President Compton announced an expansion of the facilities for instruction and research in the field of engineering materials and the establishment of a laboratory of mechanical metallurgy. The announcement stated: " ... the requirements of government services during the war for rapid, high-quality production of materials and devices demonstrated the need for a fundamental re-examination of materials processing techniques such as casting, welding, brazing, and forging. Research and development during the war was limited not only to new devices, but included new methods of fabrication. This experience revealed promising avenues for future research in a field of fundamental importance to almost every branch of industry." It should be noted that the announcement used the term "materials," although in the context it referred essentially to metals. 

The Metals Processing Division was established through the transfer of facilities, developed by the Department of Mechanical Engineering, to the new laboratory, which was to be administered by the Department of Metallurgy. The laboratory was placed under the supervision of Professor John Wulff, who was joined by Professor Howard Taylor and several junior staff members. The arrangement provided for cooperation in teaching and research between the two departments under the guidance of an interdepartmental committee composed of Professor C. Richard Soderberg for the Department of Mechanical Engineering and Professor John Chipman for the Departmentof Metallurgy. Later the two departments shared the occupancy of the Sloan Metals Processing Laboratory, as will be mentioned in the next chapter. 

Some teaching functions were transferred in 1946 to the Department of Metallurgy from the Department of Mechanical Engineering, along with the transfer of the physical facilities. Undergraduates in mechanical engineering, metallurgy, and the Physical Sciences option of business management were instructed in engineering metals in the Department of Metallurgy. 

Graduate Studies 

In the first postwar academic year, the enrollment of graduate students in the Department increased fourfold over prewar years. At the same time, advances in metallurgy, ceramics, and mineral engineering called for more elaborate and expensive research equipment and techniques. The graduate program required flexibility, new standards, and funding of equipment, supplies, and services. 

Graduate programs were offered in process metallurgy, physical metallurgy. and ceramics. In 1947, a graduate program in mineral engineering was added. Master's and Doctor's degrees were offered in all these areas. In 1948-49, the degrees of Metallurgical Engineer, Ceramic Engineer and Mineral Engineer were introduced. The Master's, Doctor's and Engineer's degrees required course work and research in different proportions and at different levels. The Master's degree did not call for a general examination and the Doctor's degree did not require credit for a specific set or number of courses. The Engineer's degree emphasized course work more than thesis research. 

Research 

Nearly the entire research program of the Department in the second half of the 1940s was carried out as graduate thesis research, as reported by Professors Chipman and Floe in a memorandum of April 29, 1948 to the President's Office. A brochure issued in 1949 stated that new graduate students "often start a research project as soon as they arrive." Looking beyond the 1940s, it should be mentioned that in the 1950s postdoctoral research associates and, later, several grades of full-time staff members participated increasingly in the Department's research. 

The President's Report for 1946-47 stated that "government sponsored research continues on a large scale" and gave the following examples: 

  • Two projects sponsored by AEC (the Atomic Energy Commission) 
  • Development of alloys for high-temperature service
  • Iron-nitrogen alloys 
  • Vapor deposition of refractory metals 
  • Development of high-temperature refractories with good temperature-shock resistance 
  • Dimensional stability of metals 
  • Physical chemistry of steelmaking 
  • Study of erosion-resistant materials 
  • Permeability of porous metal parts 
  • Effect of strain on hardening of steel 
  • Hard metal carbides 
  • Chemical properties of intermetallic compounds 

The booklet "Current Research in the Department of Metallurgy" (1949) listed the following classes of research: 

  • Physical Metallurgy 
  • High Temperature Metals Corrosion 
  • Chemical and Process Metallurgy
  • Mechanical Metallurgy and Metal Processing
  • Foundry 
  • Mineral Engineering
  • Ceramics 
  • Classified Research 

The absence of physics of metals should be noted. 

Department Organization 

Professor Williams, after. serving as Deputy Dean of Engineering and Dean of Army and Navy Students during the later war years, returned to his position as head of the Department in August 1945. He retired at the end of the academic year 1945-46 and was succeeded as Department Head by John Chipman (1946-62) with Carl Floe as Executive Officer (1946-52). 

In 1945-46, faculty members who had been involved in war-related activities were able to resume their academic work. Scientific and technical developments and changes in lecture and laboratory courses called for regrouping and promotions of faculty members, as well as additions to the faculty. The Department's new teaching commitments in the areas of engineering metals and metals processing, foundry metallurgy, and powder metallurgy, followed by deformation processing, brought Howard Taylor to the Department as a senior faculty member in 1946 and required a greatly enlarged junior teaching staff. Other subject areas also were expanded and required new faculty assignments accompanied by promotions (Bever and Grant in 1946) or recruitment from outside, as in corrosion (Uhlig in 1946). Promotions and appointments are shown in the chart of faculty members (see Chart 2 or Appendix E). 

Facilities 

Professor Williams submitted to the Visiting Committee of the Department a report dated October 1, 1945 on "Post-War Requirements for the Department of Metallurgy." He pointed out that several academic institutions "are increasing staffs and planning new laboratories for metallurgy. If MIT is to continue as a leader in this field, funds must be obtained to make laboratories and staff equal to those available elsewhere." He added that "it has never been the custom at MIT to exploit any special field of metallurgy, but rather to excel in all phases of the science and to maintain the best possible balance between them. It is therefore necessary for us to have larger staffs and more laboratories than the average institution." 

Williams's report listed the following needs of the Department: 

  • Modernization of the laboratories; 
  • Additional space for increased numbers of students, particularly research space; 
  • Additional space and equipment for research to serve the needs of government and industry; 
  • Fellowships and grants in aid to increase the amount of research. 

The report estimated the total cost of meeting these needs as $565,000. In addition, a recommended Option 1 would have involved the construction of a new building, the ground floor of which "with two-story ceiling would house the mechanical metallurgy laboratory" and would have cost $875,000. Alternatively, an Option 2 proposed a shop-type building "to house the mechanical metallurgy laboratory and all other large-scale equipment now in Building 8" at a cost of $300,000. 

The report gave as its "purpose ... to put the problem before the Visiting Committee in the hope that suggestions will be made as to the best methods for its solution." No record of the Visiting Committee's response seems to be available. However, the report was the first concrete proposal of a metal processing laboratory. Several years later this came to fruition as the Sloan Metals Processing Laboratory. In the meantime, the teaching program and laboratory in mechanical metallurgy under Professor John Wulff had been initiated in 1946, as mentioned earlier in this chapter. 

  • No labels