MIS for Amy Bix, Technical Education at Land-Grant institutions during WW2

Today in class our group (Xin, Jeff, Mariana and I) discussed the influence of WW2 on American Eng. Education. All of us came to agreement that WW2 had enormous impact not only on the development of engineering education, but probably on the whole American economy, higher Education, and research institutions as well. Bix stated that during WW2 engineering education came to the forefront. When the War begun, all engineering education became military orientated. Many universities (which before the War prepared civil engineers) provided on campuses accelerated engineering training for the Military. Usually, expenses for re-education and re-training of civilians to military engineers were covered by the U.S. government. Bix argued, that in 1940 the Congress passed the bill giving nine million dollars to establish new Engineering Defense Training (EDT) program, based in the U.S. Office of Education. EDT mission was “providing short intensive courses on the engineering college level in fields essential to national defense…” (p.109). In general, four month EDT courses prepared “a civil engineer to design airplane, or mechanical engineer became qualified for engine design” (p.110).
Also, Bix described a slow re-evaluation of gender roles in society (and as a result of that – in engineering education), which begun at the same time under the pressure of WW2. “Wartime programs carried an even greater significance in the way they affected women’s access to engineering training” (p.120). Before the War, unwritten rules discouraged women from attempting engineering education, because school traditions tied technical expertise to masculinity. Women who were enrolling in engineering majors were subjects for sarcastic jokes and controversial opinions from faculty and male classmates. During the WW2 the idea of “women studying technical subjects suddenly acquired patriotic value” (p.121). Because of growing manpower crisis, the U.S. Office of Education “wanted to draw women into war training from the beginning” (p.122). Women with degrees in home economics, especially who had curricula’s focus on technology, were very desirable for the engineering field. Bix stated that toward War’s end schools “started to worry about women taking up too much room on campus, as returning veterans tightened up housing” (p.127). In spite of the fact that most the girls who completed wartime engineering training did not make lifetime careers in those fields, “their experience left its mark on American colleges” (p.129). Bix concluded that in ten years after WW2, in spite of public skepticism, women enrolment in engineering programs was increased more than twice: “In 1949 there were 763 female students enrolled in engineering across the U.S.; by 1957, that total had more than doubled to peak at 1783.