Materials science and engineering (MSE), as a field as well as a discipline, has expanded greatly in recent years and will continue to do so, most likely at an even faster pace. It is now well-accepted that materials are crucial to the national defense, to the quality of life, and to the economic security and competitiveness of the nation. Mankind has recognized the importance of manmade materials to the quality of life for many centuries. In many cases, the security and defense of tribes and nations have substantially depended on the availability of materials. It is not surprising that historical periods have been named after materials—the Bronze Age, the Iron Age, etc. The major requirements from materials in those days were their properties and performance. Today, in this age of advanced materials, the importance of materials to defense and quality of life has not changed. However, the critical role of materials has taken an additional dimension: it has become essential to enhancing industrial competitiveness.

The knowledge base within MSE has also expanded vastly throughout these years and continues to do so at an increasing rate. We are constantly gaining a deeper understanding of the fundamental nature of materials, developing new ways to produce and shape them for applications extending from automobiles to supersonic airplanes, optoelectronic devices to supercomputers, hip implants to intraocular lenses, or from household appliances to gigantic structures. We are also learning that, in many of these applications, we need to depend on the combinations or composites of different classes of materials (metals, ceramic, polymers, and electronic materials) to enhance their properties.

Robert Sproull, the director of AREA (Advanced Research Projects Agency) in the Pentagon, recorded that Pennsylvania State University and Carnegie Institute of Technology first made proposals in 1957 for “interdisciplinary block funding” in what would essentially become “materials” research. But it was the industrial push (by W.O. Baker of AT&T Bell Laboratories and C.G. Suits of General Electric) that helped ARPA start the funding of 12 interdisciplinary materials research laboratories (IDMRLs) between 1960 and 1963. Pennsylvania State University was added in 1963 as a special modest grant limited to materials preparation (synthesis and processing). NASA and the Atomic Energy Commission added six more within two years. The first interdisciplinary degree program in “materials” (then called solid-state technology), administered directly by a graduate school committee drawn from 10 departments, was started under my chairmanship, at Penn State in 1959-60. Probably the first departmental degree program in which a metallurgy department expanded its scope (and changed its name) to include other materials was started at nearly the same time at North western University by Prof. M.E. Fine. It is noteworthy that at least in these two cases the intellectual and curricular argument for integration of degree work preceded the research grants and organization. These two separate patterns have both now permeated the entire national system, and we should clearly distinguish between them. By 1969 the first national colloquy on materials, held at Penn State and published under the title Materials Science and Engineering in the U.S., took an evaluative look at materials education.

In April 1991, President Bush unveiled “America 2000,” a national strategy for improving the overall performance of students in America's school system. He and the nation's governors developed the strategy as a result of the historical Charlottesville Summit, held in Virginia in 1989.

America 2000 focuses on six national education goals, three directly related to mathematics and science education. Goal 4, in particular, states that “by the year 2000, US. students will be first in the world in science and mathematics achievement.” By the Year 2000, the report of the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology (FCCSET) Committee on Education and Human Resources (CEHR) details the federal government's strategic objectives for meeting this goal.

The primary objectives outlined in the report focus on (1) improving student performance, (2) providing a strong precollege work force, (3) ensuring an adequate pipeline for the science and engineering work force, including increased participation of underrepresented groups, and (4) improving public science literacy. I'll discuss later how a revolutionary materials science and technology curriculum developed by Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) and Northwest teachers has proved to be a model for meeting these objectives.

The FCCSET/CEHR report identified precollege as the educational level receiving the highest priority. At this level, the strategy for achieving the objectives is structured around (1) improving teacher preparation and enhancement, (2) reforming curricula, (3) organizing systemic reform, and (4) providing student incentives and opportunities.

Those in charge of creating and endorsing curricula for engineering colleges appear to generally agree that materials science should be included. More than jus an acceptance of ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology) certification requirements, the consensus view is that engineers really need to know about the materials they will someday use Unfortunately, there appears to be some disagreement about where this exposure to materials science fits into the overal scheme of things (scheduling or course sequence, so to speak). There is also dis agreement as to what engineering students should know about materials and by inference, as to who is most knowledge able and best qualified to teach this information. As a result of these disagreements students at some engineering departments have had to take, during the final semester, an introductory materials course taugh by instructors whose professional experience lies outside materials science and engineering.

A 1989 report by the National Research Council (NRC) entitled, Materials Science and Engineering in the 1990s: Maintaining Competitiveness in the Age of Materials, strongly emphasizes that the United States as a nation has devoted insufficient resources to materials synthesis and processing, yet it fails to suggest why. If we are to correct such an imbalance, it is essential that we understand the cause so we can effect a solution.

In my opinion, the cause of our failure to place sufficient emphasis on synthesis and processing is more fundamental than the study of materials science and engineering alone; it is symptomatic of the way we teach all science and engineering. We have failed to instill balanced attitudes of inquiry within our students. They have emulated our academic approach to defining and solving problems, an approach that works very well in academia but unfortunately is not always effective in the world of business and manufacturing. As a result, to be successful in the commercial sector, the young engineer or scientist must “unlearn” much of what has been taught in the universities.

Materials science has come of age. The need now exists to establish programs in education and research in materials science at colleges and universities throughout the world. It is not realistic to expect that every university will receive funds to found entirely new programs. However, the infrastructure for materials science already exists at most universities that have offered traditional studies in the natural sciences. It is the purpose of this article to provide ideas and suggestions for initiating new academic programs in materials science by using existing resources. The major prerequisite for success is a faculty and staff who are willing and able to adapt to a rapidly advancing scientific environment and who have the individual initiative to seize and profit from the many new opportunities in materials science. This article reports an experiment in progress at Bowling Green State University, Ohio which uses the strengths of the Departments of Biology, Chemistry, Geology, Physics and Technology to develop a new program in materials science. I hope it will serve as a model for other universities.

What is an appropriate educational program for preparing a PhD to enter the general work force, particularly in materials science and engineering, but also more broadly in all science and engineering fields? The question can be proposed at two different levels: What is the character of the information, knowledge, and the training a student ought to store away and be able to use after leaving the academy, and what specific information or courses does someone need to be an expert?

Since I do not have expertise in every aspect of materials science and engineering, and since the latter question can be handled through concerted effort of the appropriate experts, I will focus only on the first question.

To paraphrase the first question more starkly, how much of a generalist should a PhD be and how much of a specialist? I will try to define the generalist and specialist in polar perspective, in the sense that I use them:

1. A specialist must be grounded in that specialty, conversant with its literature and new findings, and able to converse with other specialists in the field to exchange information and perspectives.

2. A generalist must be well-grounded in the fundamentals of numerous fields. It is not necessary to be a specialist in many fields, but a generalist must have access to and be able to find and digest the happenings and literature in these other fields.