PART XI – November 1967 - Papers - The 1967 Extractive Metallurgy Lecture - Education for Extractive Metallurgists

The proposition is advanced that edutcation specifically for exlractive metallurgy is desirable not because the course content is cmique but rather as a means of indoctrinating the student with a backgrocmd that will give him an interest and pride in the profession. Factors that have caused the decline in enrollment in metallurgical engineering courses emphasizing extractive processes are being overcome. There is a need to distinguish between the sciences of metallurgy and the engineering applications to avoid confusion both in and out of the profession. AS a first step in preparing the 1967 EMD Lecture I searched the literature to determine what my predecessors had done hoping thereby to gain some clues for my own performance. The Transactions of the Metallurgical Society show that the first EMD Lec- turer in 1959 was Dr. W. J. Kroll, known chiefly today for his pioneering work on the production of titanium and zirconium, but equally respected by an earlier generation for his contributions to lead refining. He has been followed by a series of well-known and competent metallurgists all possessing specialized knowledge that has served as a basis for their lectures. The EMD Lectures have in general been a review of the development of a certain aspect of the extractive metallurgical industry or a preview of a particular area of science or technology that has applications in extractive metallurgy. The usual format is to describe developments of the past, summarize the present state of knowledge, and make predictions for the future. There has been great variation in the relative amount of time devoted to these three subdivisions, the past, the present, and the future. For example, Professor Gaudin, the 1961 EMD Lecturer, in speaking of Separation Engineering on the Moon, did not have too many examples of past practice and so had to emphasize the future. It is cheering to observe that all of these authorities were optimistic in their predictions. Despite the fact that four of the previous EMD Lecturers have been educators, Professors Gaudin, Pidgeon, Schuhmann, and Kellogg, none of them discussed the subject of education for extractive metallurgists. I might say parenthetically that lecturers in other divisions, such as B. M. Larsen, J. B. Austin, F. D. Richardson, John Chipman, and R. F. Mehl, have commented with concern on the present state of training for extractive metallurgy. What can you say that is new about extractive metallurgy education? Certainly nothing new can be said about the educational process itself. Professional educators do have new approaches to teaching and learn-