THE CHEMICAL ENGINEER'S POINT OF VIEW
By John Marshall, '13, Chem. E., of Swarthmore, Pa.
Mr. Thornton has asked me to discuss from the standpoint of the
Chemical Engineer the organization of an Alumni Council which would
presumably be advisory to the Faculty of the Engineering Department of
the University in the outlining of courses of instruction. Such a subject as
this at first resolves itself into a discussion of the necessity for the organization
of this Council. Certainly it would have no excuse for existence unless
deficiencies existed in the present courses of instruction which are within
the power of the Alumni to assist in remedying. I wish, therefore, to confine
myself to a discussion of the advisability of establishing this Council.
With my present ignorance of the courses which are offered now in the
Chemical Engineering work at Virginia, it is impossible to give a discussion
of the subject as applied to Virginia alone. So far as I know, the work here
is practically the same as that offered by the other Engineering schools of
the country, and I believe that the Chemical Engineering graduates of
Virginia are on an equal footing as regards knowledge and ability to apply
it with the graduates of other Engineering schools.
There are, however, a number of points which I have noticed in the
Chemical Engineers I have seen in the industry, and things which other
chemists and Chemical Engineers have told me which I believe indicate a
lack in the fundamental training given men of this profession.
In the first place I have never met a man who was able to give me a
good definition of the term "Chemical Engineer." I imagine the first man
to call himself by this title was engaged in the design of chemical plants and
chemical apparatus, and that the usual course in the subject has been based
upon this same idea. The requirements for the Chemical Engineer have
expanded mightily since that time, however, and to-day I suppose that only
a small percentage of the men calling themselves Chemical Engineers are
engaged in apparatus design alone.
My own idea at present of what should constitute a Chemical Engineer
is a man qualified to design a plant for a chemical process, operate the plant,
and develop the process economically, but I would not venture to offer this
as a definition.
It is certain, however, that a satisfactory college course for the Chemical
Engineer cannot be designed unless we have arrived at a sufficiently broad
definition of Chemical Engineering; and here is the first point at which the
Alumni could give assistance, because from their direct contact with the
industry, they should have learned first hand what is required of the Chemical
Engineer.
The next point I have had in mind is linked up in a way with the foregoing,
and has to do mainly with the method in which the colleges bring
home to the student the real nature of the profession he is studying. Chemical
Engineering is a relatively new profession, and the courses of instruction
in it are in the main the result of selection from already existing courses
offered in the same college. As a result, therefore, we have Chemical Engineering
taught as a more or less of a hodge-podge of Civil Engineering,
Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, and Chemistry, instead of
as a single well-rounded course in Chemical Engineering designed to meet
the needs of a Chemical Engineer. Under this system, the men taking the
work are not given a fair chance to learn what is the nature of their profession
and what will be expected of them in after life.
I realize that this condition of affairs has been inevitable. We cannot
justify the teaching of Chemical Engineering by Chemical Engineers until
the profession has assumed sufficient importance, and until enough men are
applying for Chemical Engineering training to justify it. But I do believe
that constant contact of the Engineering faculty with the chemical industry
and familiarity of the faculty with the needs of the industry as brought out
by that contact would go far towards overcoming the difficulty. The Alumni
Council would present an obvious means by which this contact could be
brought about.
So far I have dealt with generalities, and perhaps the two points so far
raised are sufficient, but there is one particular phase in the training of
Chemical Engineers that I feel should be mentioned as being particularly
lacking. To my mind the thing the Chemical Engineer needs most, and the
thing that he apparently gets least, is ability to analyze a problem or a
process in order to develop the proper method of attack. Perhaps this is
just another way of saying that he lacks research experience. It is reasonable
that he should lack this experience, for his time is sufficiently filled up
while in college with all the other things he must study. But, nevertheless,
it is all-important that he get this ability from his college work, for most of
his success in after years will depend on how rapidly he can reach a conclusion
on questions of change in process or apparatus, and the rapidity with
which he reaches the conclusion will depend directly on the accuracy with
which he has sized up his problem in the first place.
Inseparable from this is the ability to analyze costs. Cost is the final
deciding factor of any chemical operation, and yet, in spite of its evident
importance, I believe I have never seen a Chemical Engineer, or for that
matter a graduate chemist of any description, who when he left college had
any knowledge of how to develop a problem from the cost standpoint. Cost
analysis is not easy under any circumstances, and on a plant producing many
interdependent products, it may be extremely difficult, but the successful
Chemical Engineer will have to learn it some time. If he can learn it in
college, his advancement will be hastened by years.
I do not believe that ability to analyze costs can be gained by a study
of accounting methods, but I do believe that it could be developed in a well-designed
industrial research course in which would be gained research ability
as well. I believe the Alumni could be of assistance here, in helping lay out
such research courses and in selecting problems.
To summarize briefly, it appears to me that the terms Chemical Engineer
and Chemical Engineering have been too vaguely defined in the past
to permit the most logical arrangement of college work; that the various
subjects taught Chemical Engineering students in the past have been imperfectly
correlated; and training in research and cost analysis have been
slighted. I believe the Alumni would be more than glad to give any assistance
possible in overcoming these defects, and it appears to me that the
proposed Alumni Council would be an excellent agency through which this
could be accomplished.
