Students graduating from the department were ineligible for recruitment to engineering positions by major industrial companies and public utilities, and were further not permitted to take the Engineer-in-Training examination, the first step toward registration as a professional engineer in California. The roadblock was the lack of ECPD (Engineers Council for Professional Development, a national organization) accreditation. Accreditation became the primary goal of the department.
A near primary goal was the cultivation of big industry like General Electric Company and Westinghouse Corporation. The motive was two-fold.
1) secure opportunity for engineering employment for the graduates even though non- accredited, and
2) gain their support in the accreditation struggle.
Ground work, at first an inquiry to the Board of Registration for Civil and Professional Engineers, was started by Mr. Knott as early as June, 1949.
In a memorandum to the department heads, dated July 20, 1949, Mr. Knott states he had written to ECPD for an accreditation visitation, but was told that the request had been referred to the Chairman of the Committee for the Western Region. He further confirmed his belief that accreditation should be sought as rapidly as a department felt it was ready.
The Chairman, Dean Butler from University of Arizona in Tucson, confirmed that a visit could be set up for the fall of 1949 with the other two members being Dean Terman, Stanford University, and Dean Evans, University of Colorado.
Since the application fee and accompanying expenses were not budgeted, President McPhee sent a request to Governor Warren for coverage of the costs from his emergency fund. This request alerted the Alumni Association of the University of California, Berkeley.
At this time in State History, few were visualizing the coming industrial growth in California and the demand which would be generated for engineers. Hence, each entity was jealously guarding its turf. The Alumni Association was able to hold up the release of the emergency funds long enough to allow pressuring of ECPD to remove Dr. Terman from the visitation committee and to replace him with Dean O'Brian, University of California, Berkeley. Dean Terman was known to be sympathetic to the efforts in engineering education of the electrical engineering department. He would approach the visit with an open mind.
With a change in composition of the committee, the visitation was scheduled for Friday, April 14, 1950 (to allow Dean Butler to travel home on Saturday and Sunday). It is interesting to note that Dean Butler earned an E.M. degree from Colorado School of Mines in 1902, and had been at the University of Arizona from 1915.
At the time of the accreditation visit, Dean Evans spent more than six hours in the department. Late in the day he came back to work on his report in the department office, seeking the help of Mr. Glover and Mr. Anderson in its preparation.
It was learned some months later that a California Alumni staff person helped Dean Butler write the final report of the committee on Saturday, April 15, in the Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles. Dean Evans' visit was to the department, Dean O'Brian visited the shops and laboratories primarily outside the department. He seemed more interested in engineering facilities than in the accreditation of the Electrical Engineering Department. He was close mouthed, but pleasant. It was obvious that he was playing his cards close to his chest.
Dean Butler concentrated on the administration of the college. He never visited the Electrical Engineering Department.. In some of his correspondence to Mr. Knott, one could easily read between the lines that he considered the visit a waste of time and an imposition on him.
One could have predicted that Dean Butler cast his no vote upon receiving the application for the visit. Dean O'Brian commented as little as possible, and would vote no for political reasons. Dean Evans was understanding and sympathetic~. He offered suggestions for improve~ment and pointed out weaknesses. He would vote yes as a statement of encouragement, but felt that higher levels of ECPD would object to accreditation. Dean Evans' pertinent comments were',
1. Laboratory equipment appears to be adequate.
2. Course organization appears to be best of any college visited. The ECPD application was the best ever reviewed by the committee or any of its members in 18 years.
Dawes' Volumes I and II are not recognized as college level text.
3. College work in electric circuits cannot be assimilated the first year or until the student has an appropriate mathematical background.
4. Too many instructors were young and had too little experience.
5. Not sufficient background in mathematics for some of the science and engineering science courses appearing early in the curriculum.
6. Engineering Reports (senior project) shown in the library were excellent.
7. Colorado should have a college like California Polytechnic.
8. With a freshman class of 110 members in 1946, why were there only 22 seniors?
(So what's new?)
It appeared that the principal weakness was a result of having to conform to the "upside-down" concept of curriculum development.
The decision by the ECPD body was released October 30, 1950. The release read:
ENGINEERS COUNCIL FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
A Conference of Engineering Bodies
29-33 West ~39th Street, NY 18
California State Polytechnic College
Electrical Engineering Curriculum
The curriculum in electrical engineering is not recommended for accreditation because of unsatisfactory entrance requirements, serious curriculum deficiencies and lack of professional emphasis.
Plane and Solid Geometry are not required for admission and students may graduate without these subjects. Mathematics and Mechanics requirements for graduation are below standard. Physics is taught in the freshman year before the students have studied calculus. Analytical mechanics, two credits, is taught concurrently with the calculus. Some of the electrical engineering courses are taught too early in the curriculum, before the basic courses in physics have been studied.
The objective of the college, as stated in the questionnaire, is to furnish mental and manual training in the arts and sciences for the nonprofessional walks of life. A curriculum with such an objective, meritorious as it is, does not fall within the province of ECPD accrediting of engineering schools.
The administration's response to the long hours of preparation and strong progressive leadership of Mr. Knott and Mr. Glover upon notification of rejection of accreditation was to state categorically that no engineering discipline would seek accreditation by ECPD again. This edict held firm through Mr. McPhee's tenure as president (1933-66).