*JU JULY 1960

THE BUILDING BOOM / see page 4

jikmtu

ALSO IN THIS ISSUE

— — — — i

fHtRPE

JROOKS

THARPE & BROOKS I N C O R P O R A T E D

M O R T G A G E B A N K E R S

I N S U R O R S

TRINITY 3 - I 2 I 1 FAIRFAX 3 - 1 8 4 1 A T L A N T A C O L U M B U S

ADAMS 6 - 5 7 6 5 S A V A N N A H

G E O R G I A

ROBERT T H A R P E ' 3 4 J . L. B R O O K S ' 3 9

call Mr. Amco • J A. 1-0800

for quick delivery

XV^ELXX e t l l o i r t

29 Pryor Street • Atlanta

Augusta • Columbus

Gainesville

Macon • Rome

Gadsden, Ala. • Athens, Tenn.

Greenville, S. C.

OFFICE SUPPLIES

OFFICE EQUIPMENT

ENGINEERING SUPPLIES

PRINTING • BLUEPRINTS

—the editor's notes

A THE STATE OF THE ART of humor writing today is just about at the same level as international relations. The Thurber's, Benchley's, Lardner's, and the Shulman's are either gone or have lost their touch for one reason or another. There seems to be no replacements in sight. Here on the campus, it is even worse. The students turn out very little in the way of humor. And what little they do is usually inane or vulgar or dull.

But there are still a few humorists left. One of the best of them in these parts is Robley Tatum, IM '46, whose full-time job is assistant to the president of the Georgia Tech Research Institute. Tatum, vocationally an accounting and contract specialist, is a practical joker by avocation.

His recent announcement (unsigned as usual) concerning the opening of the Tech Engineering Experiment Station's softball league is a perfect example of the man's incurable rascality.

* * * A HEAR YE. The Station softball league will get underway officially, June 1, 1960 at the Rose Bowl diamonds, with some five teams expected to answer the call to arms.

The team from Building 7 is now engaged in spring training (charged to Project A-344) and claims they are the team to beat. The Photo Lab team says they are already beat due to having to get out late reports occasioned by Build­ing 7's spring practice.

Play will be on a challenge basis. Joe Helms will serve as Lord High Commis­sioner and all challenges will be cleared through him. A new league rule prohibits the use of vulgarity in written challenges.

* * * A RULES. Any league needs some rules and ours is no exception. We will use four bases, nine players will constitute a team, and all runs will be counted only one time.

It will be a Rainbow Slow Pitch Lea­gue. In other words a legal pitch must have a discernible arc. A pitch not de­scribing such an arc will be declared no pitch by the umpire unless such pitch shall have been hit safely by a batter who had no more sense than to swing at it. If you have a "pro-type" pitcher on your team convert him to the outfield.

He will be needed more there. Spikes are prohibited (as are brass

knuckles, blackjacks and zip guns). Runners will be limited to one base on

a throw going out of the playing field, but the base will not be awarded auto­matically and must be made by the run­ner who is still liable to be thrown out. (This rule was made to protect Allen Ivey, who, on at least two occasions last year, threw to the right base).

Players to be eligible to participate must get a check from the Experiment Station (or GTRI) . This includes wives (who get most of the checks anyway) sons and daughters (who get what's left) and husbands (who may as well play softball because they have no money with which to do anything else).

Players will have to furnish their own gloves. Bats, catcher's mask, etc., are expected to be furnished by the Station (we hope).

And remember, the umpires are in­corruptible. They may be blind, but they are incorruptible.

* * *

A OUR MARCH column on pedestrians brought in a large amount of mail. Notes ranging from "Wallace, don't move, the tips will come in handy," to "The next time I'm on the campus, I'll come by and see you if I have a dime for the ladies room" made up most of the mail. But here's one about a fellow pedestrian that actually appeared in the Norfolk Ledger-Dispatch:

Lt. Thomas R. Williams, IE '58, was recently assigned to duty in Norfolk. His orders included the following duties: (1) executive officer, Third Air Defense Artillery Group; (2) athletic and recrea­tion officer; (3) re-enlistment officer; (4) training officer; (5) claims officer; (6) savings officer; (7) voting officer; (8) information and education officer; (9) chemical and radiological warfare officer; (10) motor officer; (11) charac­ter guidance officer; (12) fire marshal; (13) safety officer; (14) postal officer; (15) utilities officer; (16) insurance of­ficer; (17) battery public information officer; (18) supply and property officer; (19) mess officer; (20) recorder of the Unit fund; and (21) custodian of the toll tickets.

^ - HJcJ&^J,. TECH ALUMNUS

Printers OF NATIONAL AWARD

WINNING

GEORGIA TECH

ALUMNUS AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS

OF DISTINCTION

HIGGINS-JWARTHUR

tympany 302 HAYDEN STREET, N.W.

ATLANTA 13, GEORGIA

reetings to students and

alumni everywhere. We share

your interest in the advancement

of our alma mater, Georgia Tech.

Serving America's Great Names in Industry for over 4 2 Years

FIRE ALARM • BURGLAR ALARM SPECIAL EMERGENCY

SIGNAL SYSTEMS

ENGINEERED

INSTALLED

SERVICED

CERTIFIED MAINTENANCE

24 HOUR SERVICE

ANYWHERE IN SOUTHEAST

BUSINESS SYSTEMS, INC. 580 14TH STREET, N.W.

ATLANTA 13, GA.

J. S. McGEHEE, Manager 35 YEARS' EXPERIENCE

TR 5-1658 TR 6-5600

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

W. J . McALPIN '27, President W. J . McALPIN, Jr., '57, Treasurer

T A N K S , SMOKESTACKS, PIPING, WATER HEATERS, BREECHING, PLATE WORK

UflHftGMlN; , N C N . W . ATLANTA

Birmingham 5, Ala., P. 0. Box 3285A Dallas 19, Tex., 4431 Maple Ave. Greensboro, N. C, P. 0. Box 1589 Hillsboro, Tex., P. 0. Box 335

Jacksonville 3, Fla., P. 0. Box 2527 Houston 6, Tex., P. 0. Box 6025 Kansas City 41, Mo., P. 0. Box 462 Little Rock, Ark., 4108 C St. Memphis 17, Tenn., 5930 Laurie Lane New Orleans 25, La., 1406 S. White St. Washington 10, D. C, 3714 14th St.

July 1960

Jk JULY, 1960

CONTENTS

VOLUME 38 • NUMBER 8

2.

6.

12

14.

RAMBLIN'—a discussion of the state of humor in this rather unfunny world of ours. ONE FOR COACH EE—five members of the tennis team play collectively over their heads to pull an upset. HONORS AT THE END OF THE YEAR— faculty members and alumni receive some overdue recognition. WHY TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION—part II of the Tech-MIT survey on freshman students. SOME GO DOWN, MORE GO UP—the campus building program caught in the transitory stage. A 1960 CONCEPT OF PSYCHOLOGY—Dr. M. Carr Payne writes in this month's Symposium on Science.

NEWS BY CLASSES—an alumni gazette. 23. THE YEAR IN SPORTS—complete varsity

scores for the 1959-60 school year.

Officers of the Georgia Tech National Alumni Association Joe L. Jennings, '23, Pres. R. A. Siegel, '36, VP Morris M. Bryan, '41, VP Frank Willett, '45, Treas.

W. Roane Beard, '40, Executive Secretary

Bob Wallace, Jr., '49, Editor Bill Diehl, Jr., Chief Photographer

Mary Jane Reynolds, Editorial Assistant Tom Hall, '59, Advertising Mary Peeks, Class Notes

THE COVER

l

I A YSCH The new Electrical Engineering Building starts to rise on the Northwest side of the campus (just back of the Textile Build­ing) . Through it you can see the new Slassroom Building (com­pleted last fall) and the old Administration Building. For more about the campus building program, please see page 12.

Cover Photo-Bill Diehl, Jr.

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

P ARTICIPATING IN COMMENCEMENT WEEK cere­monies is one of the many rewarding experiences

connected with serving as president of the Alumni Asso­ciation. This year, I had the honor of presenting the president of the Class of 1960 (A. J. Land) with the card that symbolizes the induction of the entire class into the Georgia Tech National Alumni Association. Let's take a quick look at this group of men (and women) who have just joined one of America's most active alumni organizations.

This year's class numbers 1,160. Of this group 1,002 received bachelor's degrees, 146 master's degrees, and 12 Ph.D. degrees. Twenty-six of them graduated with highest honors (3.6 average or better) and 34 of them with honor (3.3-3.5). There were 500 married students in this year's class, which is over 45% of the entire class, and there were five women graduates (one of them, Mrs. Hallie Bowen Holmes became the first woman to graduate from Tech with honors when she received her B.S. in Building Construction this June).

The geographic breakdown of the class shows 611 of them were from Georgia; 491 from out of state, and 58 of them from foreign countries. There were 97 Georgia counties represented in the class as well as 40 states of the Union and 24 foreign countries. Of the top seven graduates, five of them were from Georgia, while the other two were from Cuba and Florida, re­spectively.

The Commencement program itself went off without a hitch. The speech by Mr. Francis K. McCune, vice president of the General Electric Company, was ex­cellent. Robert H. White, ME '14, received the Alumni Distinguished Service Award, and he was a fine choice.

President Harrison did his usual superior job and managed to keep things moving so well that the cere­mony set a modern Tech record for speed: the entire ceremony consumed 14 minutes less than any com­mencement since 1947.

The senior reception and luncheon sponsored by the Alumni Association was well planned as usual by Roane Beard and his staff. All in all, June 11 was a good day, the kind of day you like to remember for a long time.

(&JLt*suu^

TECH ALUMNUS

The 1960 Southeastern Conference cham­pions: L to R, standing, co-captain Ned Neely, Dave Peake, Jerry Averbuch, and Coach Earle E. Bortell. Kneeling, co-captain Harry Thompson, Paul Metz, and Dave Pearsall. This was Tech's third SEC title under Coach Bortell. The others were in 1938 and in 1946, Bortell's two best seasons.

In one of the sport's biggest

ONE FOR COACH E. E. uPsets-five b°vs b r i " g t h e i r

coach the SEC championship

' ECH'S ONLY 1959-60 SEC TITLE was a tribute, pure and simple, to E. E. Bortell, physics teacher by profes­

sion and tennis coach out of love of the sport. The man who holds the longest head coaching tenure in the SEC (29 years) was completely overwhelmed at the way his squad hung on against seemingly unsurmountable odds to bring Tech its first tennis title in 15 years and the third one in the school's history.

Trailing both Tulane and Florida at Knoxville going into the final day's play, the Jackets had to win all five of their final matches to edge Tulane 26-24 for the championship. That afternoon, Tech's top man, Ned Neely, set the pace by beating for the first time in his career Tulane's top-seeded Crawford Henry, 8-6 and 6-3. Harry Thompson took the number two singles over Tulane's Phil Petra, 2-6, 6-2, 6-3. Then Paul Metz won his singles match oyer Austin Robertson, also of Tulane, 1-6, 6-4, 8-6. It was the first match that the Tulane senior had ever lost in SEC competition. Tech's top-seeded doubles combination of Neely and Thompson had an easy time with Tulane's Henry and Elliott Bell, 6-1, 6-3, and Tech's other doubles'

finalists Dave Peake and Dave Pearsall took Mississippi State's West and McQuaig to complete the sweep and clinch the title.

Coach Bortell, who had started the season in despair when one of his best prospects failed the academic grind at Tech, was the happiest man on the campus after the matches. "Ned Neely is the best we have had around here in eight years, and the Neely-Thompson team is one of the very best doubles combinations in collegiate circles," he was saying on his return to Atlanta. "But, the key to this one was teamwork. The boys wanted the title badly enough to go out and really scrap for it. All year, this team has been looking towards that title. It was a chain-reaction sort of thing that probably never would happen again in a hundred tries. The. way they won it was one of the great thrills in my life."

This may well qualify as one of the understatements of the year as Tech won the title by a scant two points, only because on that Saturday afternoon in Knoxville, four seniors and a junior went out to win one for Coach E.E., who deserved it.

July 1960

During the recent all-day Purdue University graduation, Dr. Paul Weber, Tech's Dean of Faculties, received the degree Doctor of Science honoris causa from Purdue president Dr. Frederick L. Hovde (left). Dean Weber was honored for "his great contributions both to education and educational and re­search administration." When he received his Ph.D. from Purdue, Dean Weber was the last man to receive a degree; this year he was the first in the long afternoon session.

AT THE END OF THE YE R HONORS COME TO MAI r

P H E END OF ANY SCHOOL YEAR seems to set off a J- chain reaction of honors. The students have their

own honors day when the top students receive their cups and plaques and citations. But, you seldom hear anything about the honors won by faculty members and alumni at this time of the year. On these two pages, is a sampling of the types of awards that de­serve much more publicity than they manage to get.

After 41 years of teaching in Tech's School of Civil Engineering, Professor J. H. Lucas, '15, has retired. Upon his retirement, he received a special plaque from his colleagues in the CE School. The plaque, in background of the picture above, said in part, "this testimonial of our sincere respect, admira­tion, and affection is given to you on the occasion of your retirement "

Professor Noah Warren of the School of Industrial Manage­ment retired at the end of this school year after 38 years of teaching accounting and related subjects at Tech. At the faculty dinner on May 19, he was honored along with six other retirees for "dedicated service to Georgia Tech and its students."

TECH ALUMNUS

Harry Passmore, III, '56, has received a $7,800 fellowship for two years graduate study at Princeton University. The award, the Institute of the Aeronautical Sciences Flight Test Engi­neering Fellow for 1960, is considered one of the most signifi­cant honors in the aerospace engineering field. He is presently an aerophysics engineer with Convair in Fort Worth, Texas.

Oscar P. Cleaver, EE '28, (R) has received his 8th "Outstand­ing" rating in recognition of his work as chief of the Electrical Engineering Department at the U. S. Army Research and De­velopment Laboratories, Corps of Engineers, Fort Belvoir, Va.

Monie A. Ferst, '11, received a special cita­tion from the Georgia Tech chapter of the Society of the Sigma Xi for his "fourteen years of devotion and support of the ob­jective of the Society "

Robert E. White, ME '14, received the 1960 Alumni Distinguished Service Award from Dr. Edwin D. Harrison, president, at Tech's Commencement. White was cited for "his unselfish devotion to the cause of higher education and to his Alma Mater. . . ."

July 1960

WHY

TECHNOLOGICAL

EDUCATION?

by N. Z. Medalia Associate Professor, Social Sciences

In the second segment of his analysis of Tech and MIT

freshmen, a Tech faculty member uncovers some of the reasons why students

select a technological university for an education

IN 1958-59, odds were that the Georgia Tech freshman was a young man (17-18 years old) from a small city

(10,000-50,000 population) or a metropolis (100,000 plus population) in a Deep South state. As Tables I and II indicate, his expectations of academic achievement at Tech were apt to be modest, relative to his standards of academic achievement—possibly a reflection of only one or two months actual experience" on the part of the fresh­man with college grading systems.

Despite Tech's relatively low tuition, this average stu­dent would probably say it was "somewhat difficult" for him to finance his college education (49% responded in this manner to a question regarding educational financing; while 18% stated that it would be "very difficult," and 31% said it would "not be very difficult"). In three cases out of four, Georgia Tech would have been the student's first choice of college. And, in most cases his first choice

Table I—Expected Vs. Satisfactory Rank in Class, End of Freshman Year

Pretty close Class Rank: to top

% who expect to rank: 1

% who would be satisfied to rank: 6

In top 1 0 %

6

13

In top 2 0 %

21

34

In top half

62

45

Lower

10

2

was an engineering college or an institute of technology, rather than a college of liberal arts (20 % of the freshmen claimed that another institute of technology had been their first choice of college, while only 8% stated that their first choice had been a liberal arts college).

TECH ALUMNUS

Table II—Educational Objective Freshmen at GIT and MIT Think Will be Most Important to

Their Families

Objective*

Getting good grades

Getting intellectual enjoyment out of your work

Getting a thorough preparation for your future occupation

% GIT

33

6.3

55

% MIT

25

5

65

*AII other responses less than 2 % each.

Why did he choose a technological education? If his own answers to this question can be trusted (in other words, to accept his own definition of his educational situation) his chief motive was vocational and specific: to get a thorough preparation for this future occupation. Ninety-eight per cent of the freshmen said this was "very important" (rather than "somewhat important" or "not important" to them in their career at Georgia Tech). No other educational value received such unanimous approbation from them: "getting good grades" and "getting intellectual enjoyment out of your work" were "very important" to 70 and 71 per cent respectively; "making close friends" to 6 1 % . At the other end of the scale, "achieving distinction in some extracurricular activity," "making a favorable impression on the faculty" and "having fun generally" were "very important" to only 15, 14, and 12 per cent, respectively. The educational evaluations of MIT freshmen in 1957 were quite similar to those of the 1958 group at Georgia Tech, except that more of them, 2 3 % , said that "having fun generally" loomed large in their schedule of life in college; while only 16%, compared to 29% at Tech, stated that "making a favorable impression on the faculty" was "not important" to them in their college career.*

When these freshmen were asked to narrow down their educational values to the one which they thought would be most important to them personally in their career at Geor­gia Tech or MIT, 78% at Georgia Tech said "getting a thorough preparation for my future occupation"; 9.3% "getting intellectual enjoyment from my work," and 6.7% "getting good grades." Freshmen at MIT were only slightly less vocationally oriented: for 69%, getting a thorough preparation for their future work was the one value most important to them in their college career, for 15%, intel­lectual enjoyment from their work, and for 1 1 % , good grades.

Two further pieces of evidence support the contention that preparation for a specific occupation is the Tech and MIT freshman's primary and explicit education mission. When asked to choose between a learning situation in

*Figures for MIT are taken from a study of the entering fresh­men. Class of 1961, at MIT, made by Dr. Leila Sussmann. The writer wishes to thank Dr. Sussmann for providing the frequencies obtained in her study.

which "instructors assume primary responsibility for show­ing you what must be learned," and one in which "primary responsibility for selecting what is important is given to you, with instructors available for guidance when needed," over half the freshmen at Tech (52%) and roughly two thirds at MIT (66%) said they preferred the second, inde­pendent study, type of situation. However, when the ques­tion of vocational preparation is raised, these freshmen beat a hasty retreat into the security of a faculty-designed curriculum.

Finally, and most explicitly, when faced with a choice between general or specific vocational preparation, and personal growth and development as "the basic purpose of the 4-year B.S. program in a technological university," 50% of the Georgia Tech freshmen voted for the specific vocational goal—"to teach knowledge and skills necessary to prepare men for a definite career in science or engineer­ing applications to industry"; 37% for the general voca­tional goal—"to train students to analyze and think logi­cally, so they can engage in any career that serves their fellow men"; and only 13% for the objective of personal growth and development—"to develop the student's total personality by challenging his curiosity and knowledge of self, nature, and society." (MIT freshmen were not asked this question.)

Moreover these freshmen feel that their parents and college both reinforce their choice of primary educational objectives. When asked to name the one educational objec­tive which they thought would be "most important to your family" they gave the responses shown in Table II.

When asked to name the one educational objective to which they thought their institute gave top priority, over two thirds of the freshmen at Georgia Tech (68%) said it was "Teaching knowledge and skills necessary to prepare men for a definite career in science and engineering applica­tions to industry." This is 18% more than said this should be the primary objective of the 4-year B.S. program in a technological university. Only 20% felt that Georgia Tech gave top priority to the broad vocational objective; only 9% said that Tech stressed primarily the objective of in­dividual development via intellectual stimulus. These figures show how the educational value of gaining intellectual stimulus from college work becomes squeezed out between the freshman's image of parental expectations and the image he holds of his college's primary educational mission.

Given this reiterated emphasis upon preparation for a specific occupational objective as the primary goal of their college career, we may fairly ask, what occupations do these freshmen have in mind when they enter college? At Georgia Tech we find that the freshmen, in answer to the question, "what occupation are you planning to enter or are you leaning toward most heavily?" overwhelmingly say "engi­neer" ( 7 0 % ) . Their remaining occupational choices in order of frequency are "scientist" (9% ); industrial or busi­ness management (8% ); other, unspecified (7% ); architect

Continued on Page 10

July 1960

TECH-MIT—continued

( 4 % ) ; high school teacher and college teacher, 1% each. Occupational preferences of MIT freshmen differ in only

one significant respect from those of Tech first year men, in that they stress much more heavily the profession of scientist: 57% of MIT freshmen compared to 70% at Tech say they want to become engineers, while 34% at MIT com­pared to only 9% at Georgia Tech list "scientist" as their occupational preference.

How do they feel about the occupation?

So far so good. Tech freshmen say they come to a college like Georgia Tech because they want to become engineers; because they want to acquire the knowledge and skills nec­essary to prepare themselves for this occupation; because they think their parents are sending them to college pri­marily to get a thorough preparation for their future occu­pation; and because they think Georgia Tech lays primary emphasis on the educational objective of preparing men for a definite career in science or its engineering applications to industry.

At this point, however, two further questions arise: just how definitely committed are these young men to their choice of occupation? And secondly, what conception or image do they have of their preferred occupational role?

Considering the salience to these young men of specific vocational preparation as an educational value or objective, we are first of all struck by the fact that they have not made very firm decisions about the kind of career they wish to follow. They are much more certain that their college should prepare them for an occupation, than they are about the occupation for which they want to prepare.

Three lines of evidence would seem to support this con­tention. In the first place, we have the freshmen's answer to the direct question, "Have you made definite plans about the kind of career you want to have?". Only 22% checked the response "I have made definite plans." In con­trast, another 22% said "I have not made definite plans," while the majority, 56% answered "I have made plans but they are not too definite." These responses were given by almost exactly the same proportion of MIT freshmen ( 2 3 % , 19%, 5 8 % ) .

Secondly, we find that in a majority of cases the occupa­tional preferences of Georgia Tech freshmen are quite recent, relative to their age at college entrance. In answer to the question, "at what age did you first think of entering this occupation?" (i.e. the one they said they planned to enter or were leaning towards most heavily) 50% said between the ages of 15-19. Forty per cent claimed they had first thought of entering this occupation between the ages of ten and fourteen; 2% before the age of ten; while 8% did not respond. At MIT, freshmen said they had reached their occupational preferences at an earlier age than at Georgia Tech: 57% between the ages of ten and

fourteen, and ten per cent prior to the age of ten. By contrast to the students at these two engineering schools, nearly a fourth (24%) of the students in six successive classes at a medical school (the University of Pennsyl­vania) said they had first thought of entering a medical career before the age of ten. (Rogoff, M., "The Decision to Study Medicine," in Merton R.K. et al. The Student Physician, Harvard, 1957, p. 111.)

In the third place, the career preferences of the freshmen, both at MIT and at Georgia Tech, reflect more strongly influences generated by parental pressure or by general aptitude (i.e. "what I seem to be good at") , than by specific role models (i.e. engineers, scientists, or engineering and science students) with whom the freshmen have had direct or indirect experience; or by systematic, objective assess­ment of their potentialities, through occupational counsel­ing or the advice of teachers. This conclusion emerges from freshmen's responses to the question, "whether you have definite occupational plans or not, how important has each of the following been in your thinking on the subject?" Considering only those influences checked as "very im­portant" (rather than "of some importance" or "not im­portant at all") and eliminating items checked by fewer than 10% of the Georgia Tech freshmen as "very im­portant" ("relatives and friends other than those in the occupation you plan to enter," "books, movies, plays, TV") the following distribution emerges, ordered by frequency of response at Georgia Tech and MIT:

% TECH % MIT (who claimed influence was "very important")

Influence upon occupational choice What you seem to be good at . 66 78 Father 43 31 Aptitude tests or vocational

counseling 29 29 People in the occupation whom

you know 28 20 Mother 22 12 Teacher 18 22 People in the occupation you

plan to enter whom you've read about 15 21

Friends preparing for the same occupation you plan to enter 12 8

Relatives in the occupation you plan to enter 11

What was the most important influence?

When asked to name the most important single influence upon their choice of occupation, 16% at Georgia Tech listed a person whom they knew in this occupation; 9%, a teacher or vocational counselor; 2 % , persons in this occu­pation whom they had read about. By contrast, 35% said "what I seem to be good at"; and 20% mentioned a parent. ( 1 1 % said "other" and 4% did not respond.)

Concerning the conception which these freshmen have of engineering, the occupation 70% said they were planning

10 TECH ALUMNUS

to enter or leaning toward most heavily, we find that the three points on which freshmen agree most strongly are that it is prestigeful, pays well compared to other profes­sions; and in particular, offers good opportunity for future advancement.

Thus 82% of Georgia Tech freshmen said "yes," in answer to the question, "among the public generally would you say engineering is regarded as a profession?"; 13% were not sure, and only 9% said "no." Between 77 and 78 per cent thought that the prestige of engineering was higher in the U. S. than that of a life-science (Biology); a social science (Economics); or than the field of Business Administration. Only 38 and 36 per cent respectively thought that the prestige of engineering was lower than that of law and physics. In answer to the question, "if a friend asked what are some of the things that make engineer­ing a worthwhile career to train for, what would you tell him?", 61% said they were "pretty sure" they would tell their friend "it's an outlet for creative desires; the work is interesting because it is creative"; on the other hand, 77% and 86% respectively claimed they would say that the pay of engineering was "pretty good in comparison to other professions"; and that "engineering has opportunity for the future—there is good chance of advancement."

V do they come to Tech or MIT?

Engineering then would seem to represent to these fresh­men a prestige status and means of occupational advance­ment through the use of scientific or technical abilities, rather than a specific occupational role with which they have become acquainted through the example of particular persons whom they know, and to whose detailed functional activities they have given some serious consideration. For example, only 23 % of the freshmen said they had ever dis­cussed the question, "who is, or who should call himself an engineer" with other people; and less than half (43%) said they had "ever actually thought about how engineering is related to management."

We return then to our central question: if many freshmen at a technological university like Georgia Tech or MIT are uncertain or unclear about the occupation they want to pursue, why then do they come to this type of an insti­tution for the avowed primary purpose of getting a thorough preparation for their future occupation? To this question we may advance three tentative answers: (1) In terms of the general background of many of these freshmen, the main value of a college education—the only one, perhaps, which really makes sense—may be vocational preparation: i.e. taking college courses because of their presumed specific relevance to some type of work in business or industry, rather than because of their value in providing wider cul­tural knowledge, or frames of intellectual reference. To be sure, this emphasis in education may derive not only from the student's image of his parents' expectations but also from the general utilitarian orientation in our culture that makes it seem natural for higher education to have to justify

As a research fellow of the Southern Regional Education Board, Dr. N. Z. Medalia, asso­ciate professor of Social Sci­ences at Tech, spent the year 1958-59 studying rather than teaching Tech students. He wishes to acknowledge assis­tance from Associate Dean of Students John Pershing and Dr. William F. Atchison of the Computer Center.

itself in terms of the services it can render for business and industry. (2) Because these students are anxious to become adults, and occupational status rather than maturity of judgment or breadth of outlook appears to them the single most salient component of the adult male role. (3) Because they are anxious to achieve or to maintain middle class status, and an engineering school fits its students into prestige (i.e. middle class) occupational categories from the freshmen year on, by classifying them as EE's, ME's, ChE's, etc. Undoubtedly there are many freshmen for whom these occupational titles represent a serious and realistic commitment to a course of study and future career. But one may also conjecture that there are others for whom these titles serve the same psychic function as did the space suits they put on at an earlier age: they simply satisfy their need to identify with a powerful male image. The only difference is that now these freshmen are playing on a college campus; to take off their suits or to exchange them for some other which may fit them better, they must now petition department heads; secure permission from deans; possibly lose expensive college credits; and in the process perhaps accumulate a real-life low-point average.

What do they expect from the Institute?

These three conjectures add up to the single hypothesis that the vocational outlook of many freshmen at an engi­neering school may simply mean that they look to their college education to fit them right away into a prestige occupational slot; rather than that they look to that educa­tion to develop in themselves the capacity to identify meaningfully with an occupational role. It may be worth­while to try to analyze briefly the implications of these contrasted attitudes to work and education. The first atti­tude emphasizes education as compulsion: working for grades or to meet the qualifications of a work role external to the self. The second stresses self-discovery and develop­ment by meeting the challenge of new ideas. The first atti­tude leads to the conception of work as a job, the second to work as self-expression or realization. Do students, by laying immediate stress upon preparation for specific occu­pational roles in their education, learn to see their future work as an expression of themselves; or do they learn to see their future work simply as a job? Do these contrasts pose a challenge for educational practice and philosophy at institutes of technology such as Georgia Tech and MIT?

July 1960 11

Late in May, Crenshaw Field House had been reduced to nothing but a shell by the wreckers. By early June, it was all gone.

Dedicated June 24 was the new Joseph Brown Whitehead Memorial Infirmary lo­cated on Fifth Street just above Rose Bowl.

SOME COME DOWN BUT MORE GO UP

Tech's biggest building program begins to show some results with more to come

T ECH'S "biggest building boom in history" is continuing on schedule as the summer of 1960 approaches. The

new Classroom Building has been in use since the beginning of the winter quarter and the Radioisotopes and Bioengi-neering Building opened a year ago already is busy on over $500,000 worth of research contracts. The research reactor has finally been given a construction permit by the AEC and bids are now out on this $3,500,000 facility, and, as these pages indicate a number of other buildings are on their way up as the campus continues to change.

Photographs by Bob Bland

The new Wesley Foundation Building at the corner of Fourth and Fowler Streets starts to take shape. The air-conditioned struc­ture will be ready sometime this fall quarter.

TECH ALUMNUS

mmMM

EVEN THE VARSITY (NOT A TECH BUILDING BUT A PLACE KNOWN TO MOST RECKS) HAS A NEW LOOK.

VAN TOOLE

The new dormitories at Third and the Ex­pressway begin to look like something. The four new buildings will be ready in 1961.

July 1960 13

Portrait of the Photograph—Bill Diehl, Jr.

Dr. Maxwell Carr Payne, Jr. is an assistant professor in one of Tech's newest degree-granting schools, the School of Psychology. He joined the Tech staff in 1954 after a three-year stint as a research associate at the University of Illinois. He has an A. B. (Magna Cum Laude) from Van-derbilt in psychology and an A.M. and Ph.D. from Prince­

ton. Extremely active in professional societies, he is present­ly secretary of the Georgia Psychological Association and a member of the American and Southeastern Psychological Associations. During 1958 he was a college faculty asso­ciate with Lockheed Aircraft where he worked on the man-in-space problem which he discusses in this article.

14 TECH ALUMNUS

SYMPOSIUM ON SCIENCE: V ^ ^ ^ • • i

PSYCHOLOGY AND THE SIXTIES

by M. Can Payne, Jr., Assistant Professor of Psychology

- ^ H E ENTIRE CIVILIZED WORLD is presently excited over the prospects of sending a

l_ manned satellite into orbit around the earth and returning both the satellite and its occupant safely to earth. Problems associated with accom­plishing this feat have aroused the imagination and enthusiasm of the American people as have few scientific or engineering projects. The prospects of a man entering a hitherto unknown environ­ment are intriguing to say the least.

Problems associated with the man-into-space programs have focused attention on an often over­looked fact: any system which involves both a machine and a man who operates it is limited by the capabilities of both the man and the machine individually as well as how well they perform together. Until World War II, applied research in this area was almost entirely restricted to work on the characteristics of machines. Today, one of the limiting factors in actually designing, construct­ing, and placing a manned satellite into orbit is our lack of knowledge of how well man can per­form in a variety of systems and environments.

Finding the limitations of a human in many environments requires studies by persons trained in a number of different fields. For example, problems of how to feed a person in space and how to dispose of bodily wastes when there is no gravity are the concern of the biologist or physi­ologist. Problems of where controls should be placed which must be operated by a man to con­trol his vehicle might be of interest to the indus­

trial engineer. However, much of the work in the so-called specialty of human factors is performed by individuals trained in psychology.

That psychologists work with engineers to try to solve some of the problems of designing a space vehicle must seem strange indeed to persons accus­tomed to the popular conception of psychology. The relationship between sending a man into a new environment and the public concept of a psychologist as a man who works with personality problems by some procedure of talking with a person, usually involving the individual's lying on a couch, does seem far fetched. Of course, the obvious answer is that the public concept of psychology, frequently obtained from movies, books, or newspapers, is often incorrect. For example, I once noticed that not a single book about the field of psychology as most psychologists view it was shelved in the section marked psychol­ogy in the book department of a large department store, although several used the term, psychology, in their titles. In addition, public media and the general public itself often confuse psychology with the medical specialty of psychiatry.

Psychology is defined as the science of behavior and experience. Whatever else he may be, a psy­chologist is trained to be an objective scientist. He uses the same procedures as the physical scien­tist uses to observe his subject matter, but the psychologist uses these to study behavior and those variables which influence behavior. As B. F. Skinner, professor of psychology at Harvard, points

July 1960 15

Psychology and the Sixties—continued

out in Science and Human Behavior (Macmillan, New York) a psychologist is trained to reject "even his own authorities when they interfere with the observation of nature."

LJIKE OTHER SCIENTISTS, psychologists have en­deavored to formulate theories of behavior which serve to guide further work in the field. These theories, as J. B. Conant described them in Modern Science and Modern Man (Doubleday, 1955), are "a series of interconnected concepts and concep­tual schemes arising from experiment and obser­vation and fruitful of further experiments and observations." Historically they were formulated for no particular applications but were simply explanations of relationships observed by the re­searcher. A man was curious about a particular phenomenon. He investigated it until he felt that he could describe the event and predict with some assurance under what conditions the event would occur in the future. However, the demands of World War II and the Cold War which have con­tinued since then have forced psychologists along with other scientists to test hypotheses drawn from our theories for practical applications to problems which arise every day. Some of the predictions have been so fantastic that officials outside of psychology did not believe them to be possible when they were suggested as proposed solutions to practical problems. Sometimes, these officials did not believe the predictions even after they had personally seen evidence that the prediction was valid. For example, who would have thought that research to determine how often a pigeon would peck a given disk if the experimenter changed the frequency that the grain wa^. presented for peck­ing, would eventually lead to a serious suggestion in 1940 that a pigeon could be trained to guide a winged-bomb to a target (Skinner, B. F., "Pigeons in a Pelican," American Psychologist, 1960). Controlled experimentation showed that this idea was quite feasible. And, although a pigeon was never used in combat for guiding a bomb, the device developed by engineers on this project has

been used by human radar operators ever since. The limiting factor today in working with human

characteristics for applied purposes (such as de­signing a machine for best use by the human) is the shortage of theories from which to formulate predictions. However, basic psychological methods of studying behavior have proved to be invaluable in investigating problems of an applied nature.

The idea of studying behavior objectively by the scientific method is a most disturbing one to many people. They ask the questions: "Does this mean that people are all alike?" "What are the implica­tions of a science of behavior to an individual?" To answer these questions we must take a broad look at the kinds of things which psychologists study. These may be briefly described as learning, perception, and individual differences. Most psy­chologists consider these to be the basic processes which make up behavior. They are the functions which lead to observed behavior. In other words, these are the things which a man does in his everyday life.

a 'F ALL THE BEINGS ON EARTH, man has the great­est ability to learn. This one characteristic combined with his ability to communicate things he has learned has created the civilization which modern man enjoys. Thus, it is no wonder that psycholo­gists have emphasized the study of how man learns and have endeavored to find the basic principles which underlie the learning process.

Learning is the process by which our environ­ments exert their influence upon us. Hence, an understanding of the learning process is necessary for an understanding of the problems of person­ality which is at least partially determined by environment. This does not mean that learning involves only those things which someone deliber­ately teaches us. Instruction for a deliberate pur­pose, such as an industrial or military training program does make use of the principles de­scribed in psychology, but scientific study of the learning process is a broader subject than the study of deliberate instruction.

Much work in the field of learning is performed with animals. The psychologist studies the animal

16 TECH ALUMNUS

in the hopes of comparing animal behavior with human behavior. Because of the similarities be­tween the nervous system of man and that of many animals, particularly monkeys and apes, many of the principles discovered in animals have been found to apply to man. For this reason, we have already sent several monkeys into orbit around the earth to study their physiological process and their performance on a learned task before we have completed our plans for sending a man on the same journey.

In addition to learning, men interpret the world about them. They may learn these interpretations but the study of the interpretations themselves and how they came to be as they are is referred to as the study of perception. Man is a psychophysical being instead of being a purely physical one, as his perceptions do not directly follow in a linear manner, changes in stimulation as defined by physics. Thus, a sound of a given frequency does not sound twice as loud if we double its physical intensity, although physically we should expect it to. Psychologists are concerned with measuring the extent of these psychophysical relations, the changes that occur with a known physical change in a stimulus. We are also concerned with the broader problems of interpretation. Questions are asked such as "Why do not the appearance of colored objects change as illumination changes?" "What are the functions of the senses in interpret­ing the world?" A very important application of interest to sending a man into space is how much information must be presented to the different senses if a man is to perform his job in a satellite satisfactorily. Since outer space will not contain stimuli for sight, sound, gravity, temperature, or balance except as these are provided artificially by mechanical means the answers to this question will control the design of a space satellite.

- ERCEPTION is also of interest to persons who are concerned with personality. The major way avail­able to us to determine when someone is suffering with a major personality problem is to study his perceptions. If an individual's perceptions are greatly different from those of a large sample of

people then we have evidence that something about him is disturbed.

Psychologists do not believe that every person is alike. In fact, we believe that each individual is different from every other individual who has ever lived. The psychologist tries to find ways of measuring these individual differences. He also tries to determine what factors led to differences and how these factors produced the differences. He does believe that the principles which describe how individual differences are produced are the same for everyone.

TH -HE STUDY of individual differences has created one of the best known tools of psychology, the psychological test. These instruments have been designed to measure the differences among people in their intelligence, aptitudes, abilities, interests, and personalities. The attempt is to get an objec­tive description of an individual as he compares with other individuals on the variables being measured. These instruments have found broad use in all sorts of applications. Industrial psychologists use tests to assist in the selection of employees and to help determine the effectiveness of industrial training programs. Military men use them for assigning service men to different jobs (classifica­tion rather than selection for a job). Experts in education use them to help place a child with a group of students with whom his abilities are com­patible. There is hardly a facet of American life that does not use objective testing for one purpose or another.

By now you have probably concluded that psy­chologists are interested in rather broad kinds of problems in their objective studies of behavior and experience. What is the probable future of this field? Of course, one can only speculate, but I feel certain that the future will see an increased demand for psychologists. Within the past decade the American Psychological Association has more than doubled its membership. This trend is likely to continue. As our nation increases in technology, we are forced to take a more objective view of man's capabilities and potentialities as regards behavior—a view characteristic of psychology.

July 1960 17

Charles W. Cravens, ME '31, has been appointed assistant vice president in charge of steel plant operations for Republic Steel Corporation. Cra­vens, a veteran of 27 years service with Republic, joined the company as a sales engineer in Canton, Ohio. In 1953, after several promotions, Cravens was named superintendent of the open hearth shop in Cleveland. He was named assistant district manager in 1956 and district manager in 1959.

'29

»QO Harvey T. Phillips of Atlanta died **Q this past March. No further infor­

mation was available at this writing.

' | j Q Matthew Livingston Freeman, III, UO TE, professor emeritus of drawing at

Mississippi State University, died Febru­ary 24 in Starkville, Mississippi. He taught at Mississippi State for 51 years and had served as head of the Drawing Department.

' 1 4 . Witt's !• MUner, retired official of ' * the Life Insurance Company of Vir­

ginia, died May 1, while on vacation in San Francisco. After his retirement he served as consultant to several insurance compan­ies in Atlanta. Mrs. Milner lives at 2 Emma Lane, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia.

»01 Cornelius C. Whelchel, Jr., EE, has ^ • been made a fellow of the American

Institute of Electrical Engineers "for con­tribution to design of large steam turbines and power plants and evolution of practical nuclear generation." He is chief mechanical engineer with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company in San Francisco.

' O O Arthur W. Davis, EE, of Route 1, ^*» Powder Springs, Georgia, died last

January. Frank W. Manning, Arch, retired May 1

after 36 years of service with Southern Bell. His entire career with the company was in the architectural field of planning aifd de­veloping Telephone Company buildings. He lives at 36 Pinecrest Avenue, Decatur, Georgia.

' O C Benjamin A. Alford, TE, general ^*J manager of domestic operations for

the Sanforized Division of Cluett, Peabody & Company, Inc. in New York City, died May 22 after a brief illness. He had been with the company for 29 years. His widow lives at 120 East 75th Street, New York, New York.

Charles D. Atkinson, Ch.E., assistant manager of DuPont's Newport, Delaware plant, has been appointed specialty products sales manager of the company's Pigments Department.

John Pharr Holmes, TE, formerly of Gainesville and LaGrange, Georgia, died May 29 at his home in Bronxville, New York. He was vice president of the Celanese Corporation.

'28 James F. Corbitt, Com., Retired Army officer and former football

player at Tech, died of a heart attack April 27 at his home in Warner Robins, Georgia. Mr. Corbitt had been in Japan for the past 6% years and had arrived in Warner Rob­ins two days prior to his death to become a civilian supervisor at Robins Air Force Base. He is survived by his wife, daughter and two sons.

Dr. Wayne J. Holman, Jr., EE, Chairman of the Board of Chicopee Manufacturing Corporation, delivered the commencement address at Presbyterian College in June.

H. R. Pund, Com, has been promoted from assistant to the vice president to as­sistant vice president, Shipbuilding Division, Bethlehem Steel. His office is 25 Broadway, New York 4, New York.

Alfred A. Varena, Jr., GE, died January 24 in Sebring, Florida. He is survived by his wife.

Graham S. McCloy, GE, has been named manager of engineering for

the major appliance division of Westing-house Electric at Columbus, Ohio.

Joseph W. Walker, Arch, died May 2 of a heart attack. He was with Ayers & God­win at the time of his death. His widow lives at 977 Stewart Avenue, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia.

'32 E. W. Fuller, AE, former staff en­gineer at Lockheed's Marietta, Geor­

gia branch, has been named manager of the company's Special Products Division in Atlanta.

'34 Hendrik R. Hudson, ME, assistant professor of physics and astronomy

at Agnes Scott College, has been named chairman of the Southeast Region of the Astronomical League.

'35 K. D. Bickers, ME, manager of the export department, Continental Gin

Company, has been named Vice President-Export, in Birmingham, Alabama.

Edgar G. Morrison, ME, has been named director of Corporate Product Planning of Miehle-Goss-Dexter, Inc. His home address is 119 North Lincoln Street, Hinsdale, Illi­nois.

F. I. Thomas, formerly manager of Al­coa's real estate division, has been elected assistant secretary. He will be responsible for the real estate, records control and translating divisions. His business address is Aluminum Company of America, 1501 Al­coa Building, Pittsburgh 19, Pennsylvania.

'36 Chauncey W. Huth, ME, has been named chief of the Management

Analysis Office of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's George C. Mar­shall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala­bama.

'37 Thomas T. Flagler, Jr. has been elected president of the Georgia

Robert H. Chapman, ME '50, was the official representative of Georgia Tech at the May 14 inauguration of Dr. Andrew Holt as president of the University of Tennessee. The inauguration ceremonies featured a speech by Dr. Grayson L. Kirk, Columbia University president. Chapman is a group leader in the reactor experimental engi­neering division of the Oak Ridge National Labo­ratory. He resides with his wife and daughter at 7114 Sheffield Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee.

18 TECH ALUMNUS

Milo A. Johnson, Jr., ME '50, has been appointed development engineer, manager of Mechanism Development, at the Owego, N. Y., facility of IBM's Federal Systems Division. Johnson joined the company in 1941. After military and educa­tional leaves, he returned to IBM in December, 1949 and the following August entered the engi­neering training program. His most recent assign­ment has been as project engineer, manager of Mechanism Development at Owego.

age the company's new northside office lo­cated at 5636 Peachtree Industrial Boule­vard in Chamblee, Georgia.

branch of Associated General Contractors of America, Inc. Mr. Flagler is president of the Flagler Company, located at 305 Techwood Drive, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia.

Merritt Pope, EE, has qualified for the 1960 Million Dollar Round

Table of the National Association of Life Underwriters. He is with the Volunteer State Life Insurance Company in Panama City, Florida.

Wiley P. Ballard, Ch.E., is co-patent­ee of a patent assigned to Texaco,

Inc., covering improvements-in the recov­ery and utilization of normally gaseous olefins. Mr. Ballard is assistant supervisor of Fuels Research with Texaco. His home address is 4235 Sunken Court, Port Arthur, Texas.

L. B. Barnes, TE, has been pro­moted to controller with Fulton Cot­

ton Mills in Atlanta. Prior to this appoint­ment he was chief cost accountant.

Joseph Hubert Taylor, EE, of 1974 Longdale Drive, Decatur, Georgia,

died April 23 in Jacksonville, Florida of a heart attack. He was a senior engineer with American Telephone and Telegraph at the time of his death. He had been with the company for 15 years. His widow, daughter and son live at the above address.

Eugene Miller, Ch.E., associate man­aging editor of Business Week since

1954, will become director of McGraw-Hill Publishing Company's public affairs and communications July 1.

Dan C. Kyker, EE, is the 1960 presi­dent of the Junior Chamber of Com­

merce. Mr. Kyker is with General Electric in Atlanta.

Paul H. Richards, EE, received his Doc­tor of Theology degree in June from Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, Virginia. He is now pastor of Parkway Presbyterian Church in Metairie, Louisiana.

/ . E. House, EE, has been named president of the newly formed com­

pany, Semco Electric Controls, Inc., Hous­ton, Texas. Semco designs and manufactures all types of special control systems, variable speed drives and special static process con­trol systems. His business address is 2308 Bingle Road, Houston 24, Texas.

July 1960

John E. McDaniel, Jr., IE., has joined John A. Denie's Sons Company, building mate­rials firm of Memphis, Tennessee, as sales engineer.

James D. Murphy, Jr., IM, has been ap­pointed manager of the warehouse division of Atlantic Steel Company in Atlanta.

Saul D. Wills, ME, has joined the staff of REF Manufacturing Corp., Mineola, Long Island, New York, as project engi­neer. He lives at 2 Meryll Place, Bethpage, L. I., New York.

'49 John Cronin, Jr., IM, a representa­tive in Miami, Florida for Conn­

ecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company, has qualified for the 1960 Million Dollar Round Table of the National Association of Life Underwriters.

/. Trent Howell, Arch, received his Mas­ter of Theology degree in June from Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, Vir­ginia. He is now pastor of Hapeville Pres­byterian Church, Hapeville, Georgia.

Wesley F. Johnson, GE, has been ap­pointed Division Sales Supervisor of the Georgia Power Company's Rome, Georgia Division.

'50 Ralph L. Day, IM, assistant profes­sor of marketing administration at

the University of Texas, has been selected to attend the Ford Foundation—sponsored seminar in New Developments in Business Administration at the University of Chi­cago in August. He lives at 7725 Woodrow Avenue, Austin 5, Texas.

T. Earl Dudney, IM, has been named to head the Leominster, Massachusetts sales office of the plastics division of Eastman Chemical Products, Inc.

Born to: Mr. and Mrs. Theodore M. Forbes, Jr., Chem, a daughter, Margaret Paty, May 10.

Dr. James A. Jordan, Jr., IM, will join the faculty at Emory University in Atlanta this fall as assistant professor of teacher education. He is currently teaching at the University of Chicago.

Lewis B. Nichols has joined the Roy D. Warren Realty Company, Inc. He will man-

'51 William D. (Bill) Beard, IM, former Atlantian, died unexpectedly May 15

in Miami, Florida. Bill was a salesman for the Formica Corporation, a subsidiary of American Cyanamid. His parents, Mr. and Mrs. Paul E. Beard, Sr., live at 2445 Saga­more Drive, N.W., Atlanta.

Married: Samuel Jones Mitchell, Jr., IM, to Miss Ethel Scott, May 21. Mr. Mitchell is with the Copeland Sausage Company. They reside in Gainesville, Florida.

Robert Harold Walling, IE, has been named visiting assistant professor of law at Emory University. He holds law degrees from Emory and Yale. Mr. Walling is Dep­uty Assistant General, Tax Division, Law Department, for the State of Georgia.

'52 Born to: Mr. and Mrs. Ben F. Brian, Jr., ME, a son, Ben Frank, III,

March 31. Ben is a shift supervisor with the Film Department, DuPont, at Old Hickory, Tennessee. They live at 2505 Mid-vale Drive, Nashville 14, Tennessee.

Robert F. Pickens, IE, is now planning and control engineer for International La­tex Corporation's Manchester, Georgia plant. He lives with his wife and daughter at 513 Farris Boulevard in Manchester.

'53 Dr. T. F. Davenport, Jr., Chem, has joined Ethyl Corporation in Baton

Rouge as a chemist in the Research & De­velopment Department.

Married: James Malcolm Fiveash, ME, to Miss Clara Liles, June 18.

Paul L. Webb, EE, has been promoted to chief engineer, Electronics Division, U. S. Naval Weapons Plant in Washington, D. C. His home address is 313 Branch Circle, Vienna, Virginia.

'54 Married: Charles W. Davis, Ch.E, to Miss Kay Donham, April 30. Mr.

Davis is with Alcoa as sales development engineer in East St. Louis, Illinois.

Fred E. Ehrensperger, ME, received his MS in Nuclear Engineering from Tech this past June. He is employed by Lockheed Aircraft in Marietta, Georgia. His home ad­dress is 2185 Leith Avenue, East Point, Georgia.

Joe Bush Hobart, Jr., ME, has been pro­moted to engineer-insulation with U. S. Gypsum and transferred to Chicago. He was formerly project engineer in Green­ville, South Carolina.

Harvey Hochman, AE, was killed in a helicopter accident in April. His widow, Mrs. Sylvia Hochman, lives at 400 Argyle Road, Brooklyn 26, New York.

More news on Page 20

Leonard F. Bradley, ME '32, has been named Southeastern district engineer for the National Coal Association. Bradley, a member of the American Society for Mechanical Engineers, re­sides in Atlanta.

H. McKinley "Mac" Conway, Jr., AE '40, ran into Herbert K. Laster (r) '49 in Belfast, North­ern Ireland on a recent overseas trip. Conway, head of Atlanta's Conway Publications, Inc., was looking over industrial development areas overseas when he met Laster who is general manager of the Mission Manufacturing Co., Ltd. in Belfast. Conway is now engaged in a rare thing for a Tech man—running for political office. He's a candidate for the Georgia State Senate from DeKalb County.

NEWS BY CLASSES-confinuec/

Married: Richard Grady Roberds, Ch.E, to Miss Margaret Jenking, June 25. Mr. Roberds is with the Olin Mathieson, Chem­ical Corp. in Lake Charles, Louisiana.

Married: John T. Sanders, Jr., to Miss Joy O'Neal, June 12. Mr. Sanders is em­ployed at Robins Air Force Base, Georgia.

Engaged: Charles Clement Somers, Jr., CE, to Miss Andrea Zunzer. The wedding will take place July 15. Mr. Somers is em­ployed by Southern Pipe and Supply Com­pany in Atlanta.

Engaged: Harry B. Vickers, Jr., to Car­d a n LeRoy Salley. Mr. Vickers is with Bestwall Gypsum Company in Brunswick, Georgia.

'55 Born to: Mr. and Mrs. Jeremiah E. Abbott, CE, a daughter, Mary Coyle,

March 30. Mr. Abbott is a civil engineer with Vulcan Materials Company. Their home address is 1002 Broadway, Birming­ham 9, Alabama.

Engaged: Percy Dexter Allen, Jr., IE, to Miss Evelyn Davidson. The wedding will take place July 9. Mr. Allen is with Con­solidated Systems Corporation in Atlanta.

Engaged: Dr. Julian Denver Fleming, Jr., ChE. to Miss Sidney Howell. The wedding took place June 28. Dr. Fleming is a re­search engineer at the Georgia Tech Engi­neering Experiment Station.

Born to : Mr. and Mrs. James R. Mc-Cord, III, Ch.E, a son, Neil Alexander, last July. Mr. McCord is working on his Ph.D. in math at MIT and is teaching in the math department. He is recipient of a National Science Foundation Graduate Teaching Assistantship for this summer. The McCords live at 58 Monmouth Street, Brookline 46, Massachusetts.

Born to: Mr. and Mrs. Wayne Saterbak, ME, a daughter, Deborah Ann, March 10. Mr. Saterbak is with Chicago Bridge "STron Company. They live at 616 Hoadley Drive, Birmingham, Alabama.

Born to: Mr. and Mrs. Harvey G. Wil­liams, IM, a son, John Conner, March 6. Mr. Williams is a sales engineer with J. A. Postell, Air & Hydraulics Engineers in Atlanta.

'56

Married: David Charles Jimmerson, Jr., CE, to Miss Ernestine Willis, June 19. Mr. Jimmerson is with the J. E. Greiner Com­pany, Consulting Engineers, Tampa, Florida.

Lt. Cary H. Rutland, AE, was recently on active duty at the Atlantic Missile Range Army Field Office at Patrick AFB, Florida. He is an aeronautical engineer in the Future Projects Design Branch of the Structures and Mechanics Laboratory, Army Ballistic Missile Agency, Huntsville, Alabama.

Engaged: James Haddon Sullivan, Jr., Ch.E, to Miss Rubyedora Pickren. The wed­ding will take place June 26. Mr. Sullivan is with Union Bag-Camp Paper Corpora­tion in Savannah, Georgia.

John E. Worm, IE, recently completed a tour of duty with the U. S. Air Force and has returned to work with Armstrong Cork Company. He is an industrial engineer in their Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania plant. He lives at Apt. A-14 Virginia Terrace Apart­ments, Second Street, Baden, Pa.

57 Born to: Mr. and Mrs. John Black, IE, a daughter, Martha Nell, April

21 in Newport News, Virginia. Married: Robert Michael Black to Miss

Joanna Knight Hereford May 21. Mr. Black is associated with Rich's, Inc. in Atlanta.

Married: William McKinley Braselton, Jr., EE, to Miss Annette Woods, June 18. Mr. Braselton is an electronics engineer with Radiation, Inc. in Melbourne, Florida.

Engaged: John Dudley Cannon, CerE, to Miss Rose Louise Broeckel. The wedding will take place July 17. Mr. Cannon is at­tending Graduate School at Georgia Tech.

Garnett L. Keith, Jr., IE, has been awarded the J. Spencer Love Fellowship for the first year of study in the two year pro­gram leading to the Master in Business Ad­

ministration degree at Harvard Business School.

Engaged: Lt. John Frederick Kennedy, USN, IM, to Miss Katye Carolyn Lee. Lt. Kennerly is a naval aviator and is currently stationed at San Diego, California.

Harry Passmore, 111, AE, has been given a $7,800 Fellowship for two years of grad­uate work at Princeton University. He is an aero-physics engineer with Convair in Texas.

Wilfred B. Smith, Jr., IM, has joined Shell Oil Company in Atlanta. He lives at 1263 Bywood Lane, Atlanta, Georgia.

Married: Walton Edwin Smith, IE, to Miss Anne Sturgis, May 14. Mr. Smith is with Choice Flavors, Inc. in Atlanta.

Engaged: Robert Lewis Stephens, ME, to Miss Sharlene Kinser. The wedding will take place in July. Mr. Stephens is with Coats and Clark, Inc. in Toccoa, Georgia.

Married: Richard Davis Austin, IE, to Miss Judy Rogers Button, April '58

23. Engaged: Charles Leonard Cook, IM, to

Miss Margaret Alice Elliot. The wedding will take place July 9. Mr. Cook is now serving with the U. S. Army at Fort Hood, Texas.

Married: Lt. William Dennis Daniel, USMC, IM, to Miss Roxane L. Brown. They live in Quantico, Virginia where Lt. Daniel is a jet pilot.

Lt. Walter E. Dunderville, USA, TE, is executive officer with Company B, 91st En­gineer Bn. (Combat) , 79th Engineer Group at Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

Born to: Mr. and Mrs. Wendell P. Hooper, EE, a daughter, Karen Gale, March 25.' Mr. Hooper is with Litton Industries. They live at 2629 Nicholson Street, Apart­ment 203, W. Hyattsville, Maryland.

Engaged: Larry B. Jones, IE, to Miss Fran Joyner. Mr. Jones is with Robins Air Force Base. His home address is 4885 New Columbus, Road, Macon, Georgia.

Married: Robert P. Lofblad, Jr., AE, to Miss Barbara Ryan last July. Mr. Lofblad is with Aerojet-General Corporation. They live at 2927 Marconi Avenue, Apartment 90, Sacramento 21, California.

Noel H. Malone, Jr., Ch.E, has been as­signed to Eastman Chemical Products' New York City office as sales representative.

John Michael Michon, Arch, died April 21 of cancer. Since graduating from Tech he had been associated with several archi-

Engaged: Thomas Frederick Daven­port, IE, to Miss Janet Sandidge.

The wedding will take place July 30. Mr. Davenport is with IBM in Atlanta.

Thomas J. Quinn, IM '49, has moved to Abadan, Iran, where he has taken a position as a manage­ment analyst with the Iranian Oil Refining Com­pany. For the past five years, he has been em­ployed as a senior industrial engineer with the Lone Star Steel Company in Daingerfield, Texas. His wife, who was employed at Tech's Engineer­ing Experiment Station while Quinn was at Tech, and his three daughters accompanied Quinn when he sailed from New York on May 2.

20 TECH ALUMNUS

p>j*4

Walton T. Carter, Jr., IM '51, of Valdosta, Georgia, has become the first representative of a local agency of the Hartford Fire Insurance Company Group to qualify for the President's Club of the Hartford affiliate, the Columbian National Life Insurance Company. As a member of the President's Club, Carter, manager of the Roberts Insurance Agency of Valdosta, will attend the Club's 1960 conference in July. He has also qualified as an associate member of the Hartford's Life Producers Club, this year.

tectural firms in Atlanta. He is survived by his mother and sister, both of Poland.

Engaged: Thomas Alan Mitchell, ME, to Miss Frances Bynum. The wedding took place June 26. Mr. Mitchell is employed at Turner Air Force Base in Albany, Georgia.

Lt. Henry P. Morrell, USA, ChE, has completed the officer basic course at the Chemical Corps School at Fort McClellan, Alabama.

Lt. Homer B. Nichols, USA, IM, par­ticipated in Operation Safecarry II as a member of the 7th Evacuation Hospital group in Darmstadt, Germany. He is a de­tachment commander at the hospital in Darmstadt.

Married: Lt. John Byron Reeves, USA, TE, to Miss Sue Ritz, June 10. Lt. Reeves is stationed at Ft. Benning, Georgia.

Born to: Mr. and Mrs. Donald E. Saire, Ch.E, a son, Donald E., Jr., March 25. Mr. Saire received his masters degree from Tech this past June.

Lt. G. C. Smith, ME, is now stationed at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota.

Engaged: Robert Lee Smith, IM, to Donna Ann Dugger. The wedding will take place July 9. Their address will be 5 F Pine Circle, Peachtree Hills Apartments, Atlanta, Georgia.

Born to : Dr. and Mrs. Robert W. Steven­son, Chem, a son, Robert, Jr., May 10. Their address is 31 Eardley Road, Edison, New Jersey.

Engaged: Lt. Guy Pollard York, USAF, CE, to Miss Virginia Sumerford. The wed­ding took place June 23 in Edinboro, Scot­land. Lt. York is stationed at Hahn Air Force Base, Germany.

Married: Ens. Bolivar Aviles-Alfaro, Jr., IM, to Miss Mary Grace Pal-

mour, June 7. Ens. Aviles-Alfaro is sta­tioned in Naples, Italy at the Naval Sup­port Activity.

Married: Robert Paul Barton, AE, to Miss Anita Louise Sheldon, June 18. Mr. Barton is with Delta Air Lines in Atlanta.

Married: Franklin Paul Belk, Jr., IE, to Miss Betty Anne Singletary, June 18.

Lt. Gary C. Bonds, USA, IM, recently participated in the annual NIKE Missile fir­ing exercises at McGregor Range in New Mexico. He is executive officer with the 62nd Artillery, Battery D in Hamburg, New York.

James M. Bower, ME, has been pro­

moted to research project engineer in Corn-

July I960

bustion Engineering's Kresinger Develop­ment Laboratory, Chattanooga, Tennessee. His home address is Peter Pan Road, Look­out Mountain, Tennessee.

Married: George L. Converse, Jr., ME, to Miss Mary Lucille Helms, June 18. Mr. Converse received his masters degree from Tech this past June.

Engaged: Robert Davis Turner, IM, to LeClare Cowart. The wedding will take place August 6. Mr. Cowart is with Con­solidated Investors, Inc. in Atlanta.

James Thomas Ford, ME, graduated in June from the American Institute of For­eign Trade in Phoenix, Arizona.

Engaged: Curtis Wayne Gunter, IM, to Miss Carolyn Arang. The wedding will take place July 1. Mr. Gunter is in the executive training program with Sears in Atlanta.

Engaged: Russel demons Harris, Jr., IM, to Miss Rena Clark. The wedding will take place in the fall. Mr. Harris is associated with the Harris Foundry & Machine Com­pany of Cordele, Georgia.

Engaged: Ens. William Shelton Harris, IM, to Miss Laura Ann Lee. The wedding will take place July 9.

Engaged: Byron York Hill, Ch.E, to Miss Virginia Pauline Sperling. The wed­ding will take place in June. Mr. Hill is attending graduate school at MIT.

Engaged: Robert Martin Hoffman, IE, to Miss Mary Anise Hoffman. The wedding took place June 26. Mr. Hoffman is em­ployed at Warner Robins Air Force Base, Georgia.

Married: Richard Karl Johannes, Ch.E, to Miss Linda Robinson April 23. Mr. Johannes is employed by DuPont's Wash­ington Works.

Married: John Milton Jones, BC, to Miss LaSage Coombs, March 18. Mr. Jones is with Williams Contracting, Inc. in Cham-blee, Georgia.

Engaged: Lt. Bernard A. Kilgore, ME, to Miss LeRee Tuggle. The wedding will take place in July. Lt. Kilgore is currently an assistant flight line maintenance officer at Larson AFB, Washington. He will re­port to Tachikawa Air Force Base in Japan in July.

Lewis A. Lassetter, Jr., IM, is serving as an Ensign in the Coast Guard at Base Sand Island, Honolulu, Hawaii.

John R. Paulk, ME, has joined Dynamic Center Engineering Company in Norcross,

More news on Page 22

Robert Johnson, Missile and Space Systems Chief Engineer, reviews results of a THOR-boosted 5000 mile f l ight with Donald W. Douglas, Jr., president of Douglas

Missile is space veteran at the age of three

The Ai r Force THOR, bui l t by Douglas and three associate prime contractors, shows how well a down-to-earth approach to outer space can work. Since its first shoot in 1957, it has had more than fifty successful launc'hings . . . at a variety of jobs from re-entry vehicle testing at ICBM ranges to placing satellites in orbit.

Initial planning for THOR included volume production tooling, ground handling equipment and operational systems. This typical Douglas approach madethe giant IRBM avail­able in quantity in record time, and THOR has performed with such reli­ability that it has truly become the workhorse of the space age.

Douglas is now seeking qualified engineers, physicists, chemists and mathematicians for programs like ZEUS, DELTA, ALBM, GENIE, ANIP and others far into the future. For full information write to Mr. C. C. LaVene, Douglas Aircraft Com­pany, Inc., Santa Monica, California, N Section,

DOUG,

MISSILE AND SPACE SYSTEMS • MILITARY AIRCRAFT DC-8 JETLINERS • CARGO TRANSPORTS

AIRCOMB® • GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT

Announcing

GEORGIA TECH HOMECOMING: 1 October 2 0 , 2 1 , and 2 2

Football Ticket*

Special rounion ••ctfon

at th« Toch-Tulano gam*.

Limit 2 tickott por man.

Ordtr from AthUtic Attoc.

190 3rd St., Atlanta. Cot!

(• $5.00 por Mm.

Othor Evonti

Th« famod Rack porado,

the cako ract, tho alumni

annual mooting, tho

alumni lunchton, tho homo-

coming dance, plui

many other*.

NEWS BY CLASSES-confinued

Georgia as plant superintendent. He lives at 727 Scott Circle, Decatur, Georgia.

Lt. Robert Singleton, AE, is stationed at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota.

Engaged: Melvin Robert Sorton to Miss Judith Rideout. The wedding will take place June 26. Mr. Sorton is with Remington Rand Univac in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Engaged: James Andrew Stubbs, Jr., IM, to Miss Martha Elizabeth Starrett. A fall wedding is planned. Mr. Stubbs is with Vitro Laboratories in Key West, Florida.

' R fl Arnold Berlin, EE, has been awarded " " a J. Spencer Love Fellowship for the

first year of study in the two year pro­gram leading to the Master in Business Administration degree at Harvard Business School.

Engaged: Robert C. Blakely, ME, to Miss Margaret Lipham. The wedding date will be announced later.

Engaged: William Joseph Bomar, IM, to Miss Janice Perry. The wedding will take place in August.

Married: Malcolm R. Broaddus, IM, to Miss Patricia Patterson, June 12.

Engaged: William Clinton Cloninger, Jr., IM, to Miss Billie Diane Parnelle. The wed­ding will take place August 6.

Engaged: Tully James Dawson, IE, to Miss Sandra Lee Swatek. The wedding will take place July 16.

Engaged: Lt. Henry Lawrence Eskew, Jr., IM, to Miss Gloria Kathryn Harrell. The wedding will take place July 16. Lt. Eskew is stationed at Headquarters Air Research Development Command, Andrews AFB, Washington, D. C.

Lt. Jesse F. Hammontree, USMC, AE, recently completed the officer candidate course at Marine Corps School at Quantico and is now attending Basic School at Camp Barrett, Quantico, Virginia.

Married: James R. Helton, EE, to Miss Wylene Moore, June 11.

Married: Hall Caldwell Howard, Jr., CE, to Miss Mary Crook, June 18. Mr. Howard is with Southeastern Underwriters Associa­tion in Mobile, Alabama.

Lt. James H. Humphreys, USA, TE, re­cently completed the officer basic course at the Chemical Corps School at Fort Mc-

Clellan, Alabama. Married: Jerome Alan Michel, Math, to

Miss Lucy Aldridge, June 12. Married: Louis Netherland Drake, Jr.,

IE, to Miss Mary Maund, June 11. Engaged: Richard Neal Houze, Ch.E, to

Miss Barbara Dame. The wedding will take place July 16. Mr. Houze is with Humble Oil in Houston, Texas.

Married: Peter Anthony Martellotto, IE, to Miss Mildred Carberry. The wedding took place June 11.

Robert E. Morris, EE, has been ap­pointed manager of the Industries Group's Midwest region at Allis-Chalmers Manu­facturing Company. His business address is 1205 Olive Street, St. Louis, Missouri.

Engaged: Theodore George Reddy, III, IE, to Miss Amy Jackson. The wedding will take place July 31.

Engaged: James Herbert Rogers, Jr., TE, to Miss Sherry Schuessler. The wedding is scheduled for June.

Married: Robert Davis Shults, EE, to Miss Joan Norris, June 18. Mr. Shults is attending graduate school at Georgia Tech.

Married: Walter Wallace Tribble, IE, to Miss Patricia Ada Patterson, June 5.

35 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE TO HELP YOU SOLVi ELECTRICAL SUPPLY PROBLEMS

For a third of a century our^prganization has worked closely with electrical supply wholesalers to help them meet

their problems in serving the rapidly expanding electric industry. This experience is at your command to help you.

EDGAR E. DAWES & CO. 405 RHODES BUILDING

STEEL CITY ELECTRIC CO.

WAGNER MALLEABLE PRODUCTS CO.

JAckson 4-7571 ATLANTA 3, GEORGIA SPANG-CHALFANT (Conduit Division)

PLASTIC WIRE & CABLE CORP.

22 TECH ALUMNUS

i HE YEAR IN SPORTS A complete rundown of all of the 1959-60

scores of the Georgia Tech Varsity teams

OOTBALL (won 6 - lost 5) Tech . . . 14 Kentucky . . Tech . . . 16 S.M.U. . . Tech . . . 16 Clemson . . Tech . . . 14 Tennessee . . Auburn . . 7 T e c n • • • Tech . . . 21 Tulane . . Duke . . . 10 Tech . . . Tech . . . 14 Notre Dame . Alabama . . 9 Tech . . . Georgia . . 21 Tech

Arkansas

12 12 6 7 6

13 7

10 7

14

Gator Bowl

14 Tech

SS COUNTRY (won 3 - lost 4) Tennessee Tech Alabama Florida Tech Tech

Auburn

. 21 Tech . . . 36

. 27 Clemson . . 29

. 25 Tech . . . 32

. 25 Tech . . . 30 17 Furman . . 45

. 25 Wm. J. Bryan 30 S.E.C. Meet (5th Place)

. 26 Tech . . . 29

SKETBALL (won 22 - lost 6) Tech Tech Tech Tech Tech Tech S.M.U. Tech Tech Tech Tech Tech . Tech Tech Auburn Tech Tech Tech Auburn Tech Tech Tech Tennessee

59 Duke . . . 49 91 Furman . . 63 68 Louisville . . 56 69 Alabama . ' . 53 70 South Carolina 64 80 N. C. State . 53 80 Tech . . . 71 63 Texas Tech . 60 83 Georgia . . 65 62 Kentucky . . 54 82 Miss. State . 60 91 Mississippi . 66 80 Georgia . . 64 74 Vandy . . . 66 66 Tech . . . 59 74 Tennessee. . 69 65 Kentucky . . 44 60 Alabama . . 48 48 Tech . . . 45 74 Tulane . . . 55 76 L.S.U. . . . 56 66 Ga. Southern. 53 57 Tech . . . 56

Tech . . Tech . . Vandy . .

Tech . . Ohio State

69 Georgia . 69 Florida . . 62 Tech . .

NCAA Tourney

. 57 Ohio Univ.

. 86 Tech . .

SWIMMING (won 4 - lost 8) Citadel . Florida F.S.U. . Georgia Sewanee Illinois . Emory . Tech Tech Tech . Davidson Duke . Tech

S.E.C.

61 Tech 64 Tech 56 Tech 61 Tech 54 Tech 58 Tech 56 Tech 49 Kentucky 51 Vandy . 53 Clemson 74 Tech . 74 Tech . 53 Alabama

Championships (placed 5th)

68 55 57

54 69

29 34 34 32 39 31 36 45 43 36 20 20 40

GYMNASTICS (won 2 - lost 4) F.S.U. . Tech F.S.U. . Pittsburgh West Va. Tech

89Vi Tech 80 Citadel 95 Tech 71 Tech 50V2 Tech 83 Citadel

54Vi 21 45 25 45^2 16

Ga. AAU Jr. & Sr. Invit. (placed 4th)

BASEBALL Tech Tech Tech Miami Tech Miami Clemson Tech Auburn Kentucky Tech . Tech . Tech Florida Florida

5 4

(won 14 —lost 12 Stetson 9 Stetson

13 Army 5 Tech

Army Tech

10 Tech 3 Auburn 5 Tech .

11 Tech . 4 Kentucky

17 Tennessee 6 Tennessee

11 Tech . 14 Tech .

11) 3 8 0 1 2 3 0 2 4

10 3 6 1 3 8

Tech Tech Tech Tech Tech Tech Florida Mercer Georgia Georgia

7 12 14 8

12 5 5 9 9

11

Auburn Auburn Vandy . . Georgia Mercer Florida Tech . . Tech . . Tech . . Tech . .

. 6 0

. 4 0 2 2 4 7 4 8

.#-, TRACK (won 4 - lost 3)

Tech Florida . Furman Tech Tech Tech Alabama

85 851/2 79 71 72 69 76

Stetson . Tech Tech Georgia Miami . Auburn . Tech

46 45 Vi 52 60 59 67 60

S.E.C. Championships (4th place)

Georgia AAU (1st Place)

TENNIS (won 1 0 - l o s t 8)

Florida . Tech . . Miami Tech . . Tech . Michigan St. Tech . . Tech . . Miami Tech . . Tech Tulane . Florida Presbyterian Tech . . Presbyterian Tech .

7 6 7 5 6 5 8

Tech . . Rollins . Tech . . Princeton Georgia . Tech . . Emory

7V2 Vandy Tech . . Cincinnati L.S.U. . Tech . . Tech . . Tech . . Tennessee Tech . . Georgia .

2 3 2 4 3 4 1 \V2 2 3 1 2 4 3 1 4 1

Go. Open Collegiate Championships (first place)

Tech . . . 9 Tennessee . 0

S.E.C. Tennis Championships (first place)

GOLF (won 9 - lost 4)

F.S.U. . . 16 Florida . . 2\Vi Tech . . 14V2 Fla. Southern 17 Yz Tech . . 151/2 Tech . . 14 Tech . . 23 Vz Georgia . 22 Tech . . 25 Vi Tech . . 24

Tech . . 11 Tech . . 5V2 Rollins . . 12V2 Tech . . 9Vi Michigan St. 11 Yi Florida . . 13 Vandy . . VA Tech . . 5 Tennessee . 1% Auburn . 3

S.E.C. (4th place)

Southern Inter-Collegiate (8th place)

Tech . . 27 Tennessee . 0 Tech . . HVi Georgia . \2Vi Tech . . 21 Auburn . 6

July 1960 23

Enjoy its real great

taste

There's life... there's lift... in ice-cold Coke

Coke puts vou at your sparkling best

BOTTLED UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE COCA-COLA COMPANY BY Regular King

THE ATLANTA COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY