UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON ARCHIVES
ORAL HISTORY PROGRAM

Interview #517
GREENFIELD, LOIS

Narrator: 	Greenfield, Lois
Interviewer: 	Paul Morledge
Date: 		1997
Location: 	Madison, Wisconsin
Oral History#:	517
Series: 		College of Engineering; Women in Science and Engineering

00:00:00	Start of First Interview Session

PM:	This is Paul Morledge from the Oral History Project. Today is Tuesday, December 16th, and I am in the home of Lois Greenfield in Hill Farms District. 

00:00:20

PM:	We'll begin by asking Professor Greenfield-- if you could briefly describe your childhood and your early years of schooling. 

LG:	I didn't know what you wanted me to comment on there. I grew up in Chicago, and left home at the age of 18 or 19, because the war was on. This explains my tie to engineering, too. The Curtiss-Wright Corporation of Columbus, Ohio offered a year of study to women, who wouldn't be drafted, to study engineering and take the place of the men that they felt were going be drafted. A friend of mine put my name down, and I went to University of Minnesota for a year and studied engineering, and went to Curtiss-Wright in Columbus, Ohio, and worked as a junior engineer. 

PM:	How did you end up in Minnesota? 

LG:	That's where Curtiss-Wright sent you to study engineering before you went to work there. 

00:01:31 

PM:	Did any family members and or teachers influence the direction of your studies when you younger in Chicago? 

LG:	No, it was just always a given that I was going to go to college. Neither of my parents had been to college. My father had taken occasional courses because he had had a CPA, but my mother didn't even go beyond elementary school, so it was very important to her that I have education-- my sister, too, my older sister. 

PM:	Did any instructors in high school or college influence you? 

LG:	The instructor in high school than influenced me most was my math teacher. I took four years of math in high school, and he had also been a teacher of the man who was associate dean of college of engineering at that time. He came to work here, and that's how I got hired, because he knew I was in Madison. I got hired to work on the project that the engineering was doing, which was identification of bright kids in high school, and trying to get them to come to the university to study engineering. 

	They did broaden it to try get them to come to the university-- it didn't matter what they wanted to study. That was the connection with my background-- my high school math teacher was here. 

00:02:45 

PM:	Were you considered a talented and gifted high schooler? 

LG:	They didn't have that classification then, but in elementary school I skipped three times, so that meant I was bright. 

PM:	You skipped three grades? 

LG:	It was half grades in Chicago-- it was half yearly promotions, so it was year and a half ahead that I was. I skipped fractions, and still regret it. 

PM:	You skipped fractions? 

LG:	In the fifth grade math was when they introduced fractions, and that's one of the grades that I skipped and had to learn on my own, but I made it up-- I can do them now. 

PM:	Oh, that's good. Did you have any early career aspirations when you were a child? 

LG:	I think everybody was going to be a doctor. 

PM:	You thought you were going to be a doctor? 

LG:	Yeah, but then I decided that wasn't what I wanted. I guess I didn't really have a designated career, and certainly not engineering, because it wasn't considered to be a career for women at that time. 

PM:	Any reason why you didn't want to be a doctor? 

LG:	I decided I didn't want to spend the time, and I wasn't really interested in it. It was just kind of a group thing-- everyone wanted to grow up and be a doctor. When I said I wanted to be a nurse, my family said, no-- smart girls don't study nursing, they become doctors, but I didn't want to be a doctor, so I just kind of drifted in college for the first two years and got a general education. 

PM:	That sounds familiar. 

LG:	I'm very sympathetic when they say they don't know what they want to do. 

00:04:24

PM:	At the University of Minnesota, you studied what type of engineering? 

LG:	Aeronautical engineering, because we were going to go to work for Curtiss-Wright, who built airplanes. 

PM:	Curtiss-Wright is based in--? 

LG:	It had a plant in Columbus, Ohio. That's where we went after we finished studying at the University of Minnesota. 

PM:	How long were you at the University of Minnesota? 

LG:	It was about 10 months, and I earned 60 semester hours of credit. 

PM:	In 10 months? Wow. 

LG:	We went to class 40 hours a week-- it was intensive. 

PM:	What year was this? 

LG:	I started in February of 1943. 

PM:	So they tried to rush everybody through during the war? 

LG:	Yes, the girls-- because we knew we weren't going to be drafted, and they thought a lot of their engineers were going to be drafted out of their plants. They were preparing us to be junior engineers to take the place of the men that were drafted, but the men weren't drafted, and we went to the plant anyhow. We entertained ourselves by riding the bikes back and forth. Anyhow, after I was there for almost a year, I quit, and went back home, because I didn't think I was accomplishing anything. It was fun, but I wasn't contributing anything. 

PM:	What's meant by junior engineer, versus just an engineer? 

LG:	You get a lower salary, and you're not capable of doing as much-- because, after all, I only had 60 semester hours, and engineering degrees are usually at least twice that at a minimum. The thing I got credit for when I went back to the University of Chicago was for the calculus that we took. They had us divvied up according to our math background, and I had had two years of math in college already by the time I joined up with Curtiss-Wright. I did get some calculus and got credit it for it in Chicago-- all the other engineering courses were not credited at Chicago, because they didn't have a college of engineering. 

PM:	Why did you decide to go back to University of Chicago? 

LG:	I was there before I went to study with Curtiss-Wright-- I had one semester there, and then I left to go to the University of Minnesota. I always planned to come back to Chicago. 

PM:	Did you grow up in that Hyde Park area? 

LG:	No, I didn't. 

PM:	What part of Chicago? 

LG:	I grew up on the north side of Chicago. 

00:06:55

PM:	When you got back to the University of Chicago, what course of study did you pursue? 

LG:	Well, I got a degree in psychology, because I was interested in it. It looked like a thing I could mostly quickly get a bachelor's degree in, and so I studied psychology. 

PM:	That was one of the main reasons you chose psychology? 

LG:	Well, I was interested in it, too. I got my degree by 1945, having started college in 1940, with two years of junior college. I had two years of junior college, and then I started at the University of Chicago. I left to study engineering, and to help win the war through Curtiss-Wright. A friend of mine put my name down, and I was accepted. 

PM:	A friend just put your name down, without you knowing about it? 

LG:	The reason it's important that she put my name down is because she put hers down, too, and she was not accepted because she discovered she was an enemy alien at that time. She had been born in Germany, and always thought she was an American citizen, because she came to the United States about two months after she was born. To find out in the midst of a war that she was an enemy alien was kind of discomfiting to her. Anyhow, she's the one that put my name down-- I didn't hear about it, because I wasn't taking math at the time. 

PM:	Why did you start in junior college? 

LG:	It was cheaper-- it cost something like seven dollars a semester, and the University of Chicago must have been 100 a quarter then, so it was a big difference. 

PM:	Did you always have the intent of going onto the University of Chicago? 

LG:	I always had the intent of going to the University of Chicago, because one of my favorite cousins was there and talking about it all the time. I thought it was the only place in the world to go, so I got that impression-- it was the only place in the world to go. 

PM:	Was it a highly competitive school to get into back then? 

LG:	They were particular, but I don't think I would have had any trouble. I just saved two years of tuition by going to the right junior college, which was a city college in Chicago. 

PM:	So you had some of your credits transfer, then, to the University of Chicago? 

LG:	Yes, all of them transferred, because a lot of the teachers there were graduate students at the University of Chicago-- the teachers in the junior college-- and so it worked on their system with the survey courses. The had required survey courses in physical science, biological science, humanities, and social studies. 

PM:	At the University of Chicago, you worked as a research assistant while you were also juggling classroom work. What research project or projects did you assist with? 

LG:	My research area was problem solving, and I worked on that. I was at Illinois Tech at the time, teaching psychology there after I got my bachelor's at Chicago. I don't know whether it always got into the material that I gave you, but I was at the University of Chicago and left, and then went to work for Curtiss-Wright in Columbus, came back and got my bachelor's degree, and then I got my master's degree directly. It was partly because I was working on this research project, and if I were enrolled in school, I could live on the south side at University of Chicago and not have to go an hour and a half each day by public transportation one way from my house to the University of Chicago. That's why I got a master's degree, initially, so I could be a student. 

00:10:51

PM:	How did you become interested in problem solving? 

LG:	The first job that I had as a research associate was with Ben Bloom, who is an illustrious researcher in the field of psychology-- educational psychology. We were trying to find out-- he was on the board of examiners of the University of Chicago, and he was curious to find out why kids who should have been making A's on these exams that were given at the end of the year survey were failing some of them, and some of them were doing well. We had a project going where I asked them to think out loud as they did the questions on the exam, and my master's thesis came out of that. That's how I started in the area of problem solving-- trying to find out why kids failed exams when they shouldn't have, and why some of them passed when they should have. 

00:11:50 

PM:	So you got your master's degree at the University of Chicago, as well? 

LG:	No. 

PM:	So your work as a research assistant-- 

LG:	It's just a title, really, so that they could pay me, but I was doing research in problem solving. 

PM:	That was undergrad when you were doing your research, correct? 

LG:	I carried it through and got my master's degree. 

PM:	You liked it so much that-- 

LG:	It was fascinating to see how people think and solve problems. 

PM:	Is that why you went on to get your master's? 

LG:	Yeah, and also to have a place to live on the South Side. I was a student and I lived in International House there, which I couldn't have lived at if I hadn't been enrolled as a student. An hour and a half each way-- it's three hours out of your day, so it was worth working that much. 

PM:	Did they have the elevated train back then? 

LG:	Sure. 

PM:	Was that what you would have taken? 

LG:	I took the El downtown, and then I got on the IC-- the Illinois Central Railroad-- because that was faster than the El for the rest of way from downtown to the South Side. 

PM:	Before going on for your doctorate-- as you said, you spent the time working as a research assistant at the Illinois Institute of Technology. 

LG:	I was actually teaching a psychology course. 

PM:	You were teaching a course at the Illinois Institute of Technology? 

LG:	I was listed as a research associate-- I didn't have a Ph.D. One of the professor in the department said if I ever really wanted to do anything, I needed a Ph.D. in my field. Then I was accepted at Berkeley and went there. 

00:13:31

PM:	Why Berkeley? Did you apply to a bunch of different schools? 

LG:	I applied to Berkeley and Stanford. 

PM:	You wanted to go west. 

LG:	I wanted to go west-- I wanted to go someplace I didn't have any relatives. Don't tell anybody that. Berkeley responded first, so I went to Berkeley. I was admissible in either place, I'm sure, because my record was good. 

PM:	Do you ever wish you had gone to Stanford instead? 

LG:	No. 

PM:	You enjoyed Berkeley? 

LG:	I enjoyed Berkeley. 

PM:	At Berkeley, what was your focus of study there? 

LG:	Educational psychology is what I got my Ph.D. in. At Chicago, I'd gotten a bachelor's and master's in psychology, but the area that I was interested at Berkeley was under educational psychology-- the school of education-- so that's where I got my degree. 

LG:	Your dissertation topic was--? 

LG:	It was problem solving. 

PM:	So you continued the whole way through? 

LG:	I did more particular aspects of it, but yes. It's an interesting area-- there's still a lot to be discovered, although I haven't done anything in that area for a long time. 

PM:	When you were a doctoral student at Berkeley, you also worked as a teaching assistant? 

LG:	Yes, in the psychology classes. 

00:15:00 

PM:	Did you enjoy the teaching aspect? 

LG:	We didn't do much teaching-- you would prepare a little topic for each week, but the teacher in charge of the course really did all the teaching, and then you had a kind of question and answer period when you had the kids for one hour a week. It was a big class of 500 kids, and they divvied them up into sections of about 25 to 30. As a teaching assistant, I had a couple of those sections. 

PM:	So you didn't do much actual--? 

LG:	Research, no. 

PM:	Or teaching, really-- you did more question and answer sessions. 

LG:	Yes, but that's a way to teach, too. 

PM:	Right. Being in front of the class, did that sort of give you a sense that you might enjoy being a teacher? 

LG:	No-- I just liked trying get people to understand what the they were reading about, if they had questions. 

PM:	Did any professor or fellow students in the University of Chicago or Berkeley influence you in any significant ways? Did the professor you worked under at Berkeley-- did you go to Berkeley because of the professor's work? 

LG:	I didn't go for that reason-- I went because it was a good school in the field of psychology. It was just that all their graduate departments in education and in psychology both were pretty good. 

PM:	So there's no professors there that really influenced you? 

LG:	There were some outstanding professors there, and they influenced the way I looked at things, but didn't influence my direction, because I knew which way I wanted to go. 

00:16:52 

PM:	You headed back East after you got your doctorate from Berkeley. 

LG:	I got married, and my then husband got a job at Portland-- the University of Portland medical school, which was in Portland, Oregon, so we went there. Then, he got a job here at Wisconsin, so we came here. That's how I had headed to the middle West--- in those days, women followed their husbands. 

00:17:20 

PM:	Your husband was--? 

LG:	He had a Ph.D. in psychology. 

PM:	He was in your program with you at Berkeley? 

LG:	Yes, I met him in a class in dynamic psychology my first year there. 

PM:	So then your husband got a job at UW here? 

LG:	Here, yes. 

PM:	Was there a period where you didn't work at UW, and he did? Did you get a job with them in addition? 

LG:	I got a job in addition. 

PM:	At the same time? 

LG:	Shortly after, when I knew where I was going to be. 

PM:	Can you describe your hiring process? 

LG:	You just go knock on doors, but the hiring process here was due to the fact that my high school math teacher was also the math teacher of the associate dean of the College of Engineering. They were doing a research project, trying to get students who were bright to come to the University of Wisconsin College of Engineering. It turned into the program that is now called talented and gifted-- it wasn't that when I was in it, but that's how I got started in the College of Engineering. 

PM:	You said your high school math teacher became associate dean? 

LG:	No, he was also the math teacher of the associate dean-- the then associate dean, who was Dean Marshall, at that time. We were trying to identify bright kids to get them to come here. I had them do problem solving out loud, and we could sort out the kids that we wanted to try to influence, and tell them something about the College of Engineering. 

00:19:21 

PM:	So you based your decision on who was bright by their problem solving strategies? 

LG:	We also had test scores, but yes-- it was partly how they solved problems. We were looking at that. 

PM:	Could you describe some of the differences? 

LG:	A simple minded thing was that they weren't necessarily so gifted, but they were smart-- they read the directions before they started working a problem. Some of the not so bright kids never read the directions. For instance, on a multiple choice test when they ask you for the best answer-- that doesn't necessarily mean the true answer, because they may all be true, but you want to pick out the best. The bright kids, having read the directions, knew what they were supposed to do, whereas some of the other ones would come to the first one and say, that's true, I take that one, and it would be the wrong answer. One of the things we did was develop a checklist as to the differences between the good, successful problem solvers and the non-successful ones. I tried to teach some of the less successful how to do better problem solving. 

PM:	So these are still high school kids? 

LG:	At that time, that was college kids. 

PM:	They were freshmen and engineering students? 

LG:	Yes. 

PM:	You said you were trying to get gifted students to come to UW. 

LG:	Yes, but then after they got there-- 

PM:	Could you particularly explain that process of trying to channel gifted students to come to UW? 

LG:	It was really kind of informal, because they really couldn't do what they were planning to do-- they were just exploring the avenues for trying to influence these kids. I never actually influenced them directly-- I just had them solve problems and analyze their problem solving, and then put it in a report about the kid that had other information about the kid. 

00:21:24 

PM:	You began working at UW Madison in 1956, correct? 

LG:	Yes. 

PM:	And you were a project associate for the Engineering Experiment Station? 

LG:	That's where Dean Marshall was-- he headed the Experiment Station, and that's where my high school teacher worked, so that's where I worked. 

PM:	So Dean Marshall hired you? 

LG:	Technically, he hired me, but I got the job because of my high school math teacher who recommended me and knew I was in Madison. I was here already before I started working here. 

PM:	What were your daily duties as a project associate for the Experiment Station? 

LG:	Mostly I had appointments with these kids to have them think aloud as they solved problems, and we analyzed that and gave them back a report-- they had a report in their folders. I didn't think to get any examples for you, except for that one about reading directions, but people who are successful problem solvers, who make good grades on exams, solve problems differently from kids may be just as bright but don't seem to have a method for working on multiple choice tests or true-false test questions. That's one of the things we were exploring. We were working to make the kids better problem solvers, but also to have better tests made up as a result of the information that I was finding out about what caused kids to be misled. Some of it's delivered on the part of the examiner-- the person making up the test-- but some of it they didn't realize they were doing by shutting out kids for the wrong reasons. 

PM:	It was a pretty vital role you were playing, then. 

LG:	I thought it was. 

PM:	Do you know if other engineering schools or other universities had the same sort of approach, as in someone in your position that analyzes-- 

LG:	Not that I know of. 

PM:	It was fairly innovative, then. 

LG:	I guess so. I never thought of it that way. 

00:23:43 

PM:	Kurt Wendt was dean of the College of Engineering when you were hired, correct? 

LG:	Yes. 

PM:	Could you just talk about Dean Wendt for a moment, if you would? How effective did you think he was at dean, and what were some of his accomplishments? 

LG:	That was a long time ago, but he was really one of the most effective administrators I've ever run into, since then and before then. One thing I think that was fairly good about him-- he would let you do what you wanted to do, and back you up. People were, I think, willing to try new approaches, because he wouldn't let you louse anything up. He kept track of what his people were doing, but he gave them freedom to pursue it-- what they wanted to do. Dean Marshall was his associate dean-- Dean Marshall, who was the reason I was hired. 

00:24:42 

PM:	So Kurt Wendt stepped down, and then Marshall became dean. 

LG:	That's right. 

PM:	Could you describe his deanship? Are there maybe any contrast comparisons to Wendt? 

LG:	It was kind of a different style. I'm not sure that he kept as close track of people, but then again, he had more people to keep track of as Dean Wendt had. I don't know how to put into words the difference in their style, but he was eager to let you be innovative, too. I just think he was doing more things, and didn't keep as close a watch on everybody, as I had the feeling Dean Wendt did. 

PM:	Do you think Marshall was just busy with so many other things? 

LG:	He was doing so many other things, and he was innovating, for instance, a junior year abroad program in the College of Engineering, which was unheard of. Engineers supposedly can't learn languages-- that wasn't true-- and that was one thing that he influenced with Dean Marshall. A junior year abroad for engineering student—which was a most successful program. 

00:25:59

PM:	You spent a period of time under Dean Bollinger, correct? 

LG:	Yes. 

PM:	Could you talk about Dean Bollinger? 

LG:	I had been here long before Bollinger came, and he didn't interview with me at all. 

PM:	Did you know he was a student. 

LG:	I didn't know him as a student. 

PM:	You didn't know him as a student, then? 

LG:	I knew him first as department chairman. He was chairman of mechanical. 

PM:	You didn't help him with his problem solving skills? 

LG:	No, not at all. 

PM:	Any more comments on his effectiveness as a dean? 

LG:	I think he's effective. As I said, I was most impressed by Dean Wendt of all the administrators that I knew. 

00:26:50

PM:	In 1959, you became involved with engineering administration as an assistant professor? 

LG:	Yes. 

PM:	And you worked in this capacity for 11 years? What were some of your administrative duties, and whom did you work for? 

	The engineering freshman office-- the College of Engineering had a program where there was a man who was dean and who was freshman adviser. There were 600 or more freshman engineers, and so he had people helping him advising and counseling the freshmen-- that's where I worked. Dean Shiels was the dean-- he was an assistant dean when I started working in the freshman office. I worked with him and did what he did. 

PM:	Dean Shiels? 

LG:	Shiels-- S H I E L S. 

PM:	What were some of your daily duties? 

LG:	They set up appointments for kids who needed counseling, who needed some information about what classes to take, or in some cases, were having trouble passing their classes. I taught problem solving skills to some groups at that point. I think from the questions that you asked-- being in administration was just the title so they could pay me, but you could be doing a number of different things as a research associate, including not any research. 

00:28:26 

PM:	In 1970, you started teaching engineering graphics under one core appointment, in addition to your-- 

LG:	They figured I had to be teaching something, or I couldn't be an assistant professor. I'd had some drawing when I was studying engineering, so I learned something about descriptive geometry and taught it. 

PM:	You sort of had to reteach yourself. 

LG:	I never had had a course in it, so I would sit in on a class that somebody taught in the morning, and I would teach it in the afternoon. I was familiar with geometry. 

PM:	That very afternoon, after you had just learned it? 

LG:	Drawing and descriptive geometry is the theory behind the engineering drawing, and I knew the engineering drawing, so it was just learning some of the theory. It was a theoretical approach of the study of points, lines, and planes in space, instead of drawing machine part. 

PM:	Did you enjoy teaching drawing? 

LG:	I like teaching other things better, because I felt a little insecure with this learning in the morning and teaching in the afternoon. It's not the best way to go. 

PM:	When you weren't teaching drawing, you were still--? 

LG:	I was working with the freshmen, and I could understand some of the problems some of them were having with drawing. I had good spatial sensitivity, too, which is helpful in drawing. Some of the kids didn't, but they don't even require drawing in some of the courses in engineering these days--you can do it on the computer. 

PM:	--CAD system. In 1976, your teaching load doubled? 

LG:	I went to full time. 

PM:	You were half time teaching drawing, and the other half teaching--? 

LG:	-- helping the freshmen. 

00:30:34

PM:	You had on your resume that you began teaching technical writing. 

[Break in audio; end tape 1, side 1; begin side 2]

PM:	was in the service? 

LG:	It was a service department. It didn't have degree student-- it taught drawing courses. Then when technical writing became a requirement in almost all of the departments, they took over the teaching of that, because they had people like Gretchen Schoff in the department who was there for a tenure home. So, they needed somebody, so I learned it and taught it. 

PM:	Did you volunteer to teach it? 

LG:	I was there. I don't think I volunteered, but I said I wouldn't be ongoing. It's fun to learn something new that wasn't completely new-- I could write a reasonable letter-- I just had to know how they did it in industry, which I learned. 

PM:	When I think of technical writing, I think of a pamphlet for how to operate your lawn mower, how to put together--

LG:	It can be a pamphlet, it can be letters-- it can be a whole bunch of things having to do with whatever it is the plant is manufacturing. 

PM:	So when you say letters, that just threw me, I didn’t know--

LG:	Oh, no-- business letters. You put what you're dealing with in the first paragraph, because that's where people generally look first. 

PM:	Did you also teach the kind of writing where--? 

LG:	No, I just taught technical writing. It includes regular writing. 

PM:	Isn't it also like put bolt A in slot B? 

LG:	That's directions on the graphic, generally, but it might include that if you're writing the procedure down-- certainly, that would include a form of technical writing. 

PM:	Did you find it difficult to teach technical writing, or was it just another type of writing for you? 

LG:	It was just another type of writing for me-- it was interesting, because it had a different emphasis. It's nice to keep learning things. 

00:33:00

PM:	I also have here that you taught Introduction to Logical Thought and Logic Circuits. 

LG:	That was something I got interested in. Jim McNeary, who's recently deceased-- or I guess not recently-- was teaching this logic circuit board thing, and he was teaching in the summer. I sat around and helped him when I could, and learned how to develop logical thinking and show it on this board. There's lights going and flashing and stuff like that-- it was a course that was open for freshman. 

	Jim McNary was teaching high school when he first started working in the college summers, and it was just something else that was interesting to learn. He gave the lectures, and I kind of acted as his teaching assistant, at first. 

PM:	It was just to learn the ropes, and then you took it over and taught it. 

LG:	I never lectured-- he always lectured. 

PM:	Logical thought-- 

LG:	It's logic circuit boards. 

PM:	I got the logic circuit part, but the logical thought aspect of it--? 

LG:	That's an extension of it. What does this mean when you apply it to what you're thinking? It's related to my interest in problem solving, so it's not so far apart. 

00:34:28 

PM:	Of all those different type of courses that you taught, did you find any of them particularly difficult to teach, more so than others? 

LG:	No. I liked the freshman orientation class best of all, because I thought I could function there most as an educational psychologist. That course, which was managed by other people before I took it over, would have the chairman of each of the degree granting departments come and talk to this class of freshmen. They would tell them salary, and stuff like that. It got to be a bore, so I asked young engineers who had just gone out to work to tell about what they did, which was much more interesting to the freshmen students than what the chairman of the department had to say about it, and much less repetitive. 

	As a matter of fact, I just got a request for a recommendation from a young man, who was a minority, who told what it was like to be a minority in engineering. He came back and talked to my class in freshman orientation. 

PM:	Do you remember any of the things he said? 

LG:	Not really-- it was twenty some years ago. This is a big span of time you've got. 

PM:	What you're describing is the General Engineering 100 course, and you sort of redesigned it? 

LG:	I had different kinds of speakers. I don't know whether somebody looking at the schedule of classes would know it was so redesigned, but it was. It had younger people talking about what they were doing, and introducing some other topic that they hadn't covered besides salary requirements and formal stuff. 

00:36:13

PM:	You also told me that this class was also intended to help freshmen engineering students decide if they truly wanted to be engineers, and necessarily what type of engineer? Can you explain some of that? 

LG:	The problem in the class was kid who were bright and good in math in high school were told by various teachers that, oh, you should be an engineer-- you're good in math. That's not necessarily the only thing you should good at or interested in to become a good engineer, so we helped sort out these new young engineers talking about what they did and what they like to do, and it gave the students-- the freshman students-- a broader idea of what it was going to be like to be an engineer. Some of them decided that was just their cup of tea, and others decided on the basis of the information that they got that they really didn't want to be engineers, and they were going to do something else with the math that they were good in. 

PM:	Did this course also serve the function of helping them decide do I want to be a chemical engineer, or electrical engineer? 

LG:	Yes, by the speakers that came. We also had discussion sections where they could ask questions and talk to people on a one-to-one basis. 

PM:	I take it this wasn't a graded course. 

LG:	They got a satisfactory or unsatisfactory grade, which was based, in some part, on attendance. 

PM:	Or if they ultimately still were indecisive. 

LG:	I had them write a paper, which meant that there were some 500 papers I had to read. It depended on what kind of questions they were asking themselves-- if the paper was unsatisfactory, they didn't pass the course. 

PM:	What type of paper were they asked to write? 

LG:	It was to tell where they were in their thinking about what they wanted to be when they grew up-- if they wanted to be an engineer and why, and if they didn't want to, why. Some of them thought that they would be demoted or something if they didn't want to be engineers, but I tried to make that clear that it was a perfectly reasonably choice for some people not to go into engineering. 

PM:	It sort of reminds me of the talking out loud problem solving. 

LG:	I suppose. That's my approach to a lot of things. 

PM:	It's a general theme. 

LG:	Yes, to ask people what they're thinking about. 

00:38:41 

PM:	Generally, what were some of the concerns of these freshmen in this course? Was it that they were getting in way over their head? 

LG:	No, it never really was over their head, but some of the descriptions and some of the things that people did they didn't really like, or they liked tremendously-- there were different reactions. Some of them thought it was going to be held against them if they decided they didn't want engineering, and we made it clear that it wasn't. By answering certain questions like this on their papers, I could tell whether or not they were understanding when I was trying to present-- if they weren't, I would call them in for a conference and try to explain one-on-one. 

PM:	Did you ever calculate any attrition rates? 

LG:	Generally, about 50% of the kids start as freshmen finish with an engineering degree, if you give them enough time. They don't finish in four years, mostly, because they had more credits required. When I first started working in the College of Engineering, I think they needed like 156 credits to graduate. In engineering and in letters of science, it was 120, so it generally took them longer. 

PM:	Do you have the roster? 

LG:	No, there wasn't a roster. 

PM:	Oh, there wasn't? 

LG:	No. 

00:40:20 

PM:	Could you discuss any of your fellow general engineering faculty members for a moment? Were there any ones you worked closely with? 

LG:	I worked most closely with Dean Shiels, who was the freshman adviser and also taught drawing courses. When he retired, I worked with Fred Lidell and became the freshman adviser. 

PM:	Did you team teach any courses with--? 

LG:	No, I didn't. 

00:40:53 

PM:	During your tenure at the College of Engineering, your research interests had focused on engineering education, such as effective teaching methods for instructors and problem solving techniques for students, as well as student advising and guidance. Could you discuss the aspect of effective teaching methods-- how did you get involved in that? That's sort of the flip side of problem solving. 

LG:	I was named to the Committee on Engineering Education, and ultimately I was chairman of that committee. We tried to present programs to the faculty in engineering that would tell them some of the things that would help them be good teachers. Currently, Sandy ? r ?] in engineering, whose name I gave you as a possible reference, runs that, and she has a better situation now, because it's now required, and it wasn't required when I tried to get people to come to the classes. There are certain physical techniques, like don't talk to the blackboard-- it's just simple minded things like that. 

PM:	Were the faculty members very amenable to suggestions? 

LG:	No, but the teaching assistants would come. It was never a required program, which it now is for new teaching assistants, to try to improve their teaching quality. 

PM:	In 1961, you wrote an article entitled "Why Do Freshmen Fail In College?" 

LG:	I couldn't find that article. 

PM:	You don't remember what you said? 

LG:	No, I don't really remember what I said, but I suspect it was because they weren't interested and weren't studying. 

PM:	Because they weren’t interested in studying? 

LG:	They weren't interested in engineering, really-- they just got there by accident, and they weren't studying. What happened is you get kids who were very bright in high school, and things were very easy for them in high school, so they didn't learn to study. When they got to college, they had to scramble to learn how to study, because things were not that easy for them, and some of them didn't scramble hard enough or fast enough. 

PM:	You have to imagine the transition from high school to a engineering program is-- 

LG:	It's pretty hard for the kids who were bright and always had pretty easy in high school-- it depends on what the high school expected of them, in part. 

00:43:30 

PM:	Did you notice any differences from where the students were from, like if they were from private schools or out East, if they had an easier time? 

LG:	Most of the kids who go into the College of Engineering are Wisconsin residents-- kids who come from out of state aren't usually choosing engineering. I don't know. 

PM:	So it's more on an individual basis? 

LG:	I tried to do a study one time, but it didn't come into anything to find out where they were from or where they got the best education preparation for engineering here-- I didn't come up with anything. I didn't have a lot of time, and that was before computers became the way to go-- information had to be gotten at on each person's record, written in longhand someplace. I didn't have much time to do it, but I never got anything formal out of it. 

00:44:40

PM:	Your publication record reveals a number of articles about methods for, again, channeling gifted high school students into engineering programs. 

LG:	A lot of the recent ones are about women in engineering. 

PM:	We'll get to that. Were your suggestions implemented by the College of Engineering, through your literature? 

LG:	Sometimes somebody would do something different because of what I'd written, but the faculty were teaching they way they had been taught-- a great many of them were-- and they weren't interested in changing. They thought they were doing just fine. 

PM:	Even though you would tell them otherwise. 

LG:	I didn't say they weren't doing fine, I said they ought to try this or that-- but if they didn't, they didn't. There was no compulsion. Could we stop for a minute? 

	One of the things you've got to remember in all this is that I functioned not as an engineer, but as an educational psychologist on the faculty of the College of Engineering, so I was interested in these things. 

PM:	So for a period of time, engineering was one of the few disciplines at the UW which had programs geared toward improving teaching skills of teaching assistants. 

	A lot of the individual departments do, like economics-- it had a good program for their new teaching assistants. When I was on the committee on undergraduate education, which was a college committee-- not a college committee, a campus committee-- we'd discuss with other people what they were doing in their departments to try to improve teaching. One problem that engineering had that I didn't do very much about was that they had a lot of non-native students teaching engineering who understood the engineering but had a hard time expressing what they thought because of their language problems. It was a difficulty we never solved. 

PM:	They didn't have ESL programs back then? Did you try to help some of these non-native speakers with their English? 

LG:	Not really, but we pointed out to them that they needed help. That ESL program didn't get started until a few years later, after we'd started trying to help foreign students. 

PM:	Can you explain how this teaching assistant program evolved? Were you responsible for it? 

LG:	For some of it. People were always concerned that the teaching assistants do a good job. Individual faculty members were more concerned than some of the others who didn't care-- just so they had a teaching assistant, you know, they dragged me out. We tried to point out to people that things could be improved, and if the faculty member stressed it, then the teaching assistant did it, but it was up to the individual faculty member more than to anybody else. 

PM:	What was your specific role in this program? 

LG:	At one time, I chaired the committee on engineering education-- I don't remember what the years were. We ran programs for teaching assistants, and the faculty could come, but didn't very much-- they didn't take very much advantage of it. 

PM:	Did you personally conduct some of these seminars? 

LG:	Mostly I organized it, and got people who were experts in various fields to do things or explain things-- to try to present information that they could use. 

00:48:45 

PM:	So you organized it-- did you design any of the methods? 

LG:	No, not really. I knew a lot about them, and made sure that they were presented. people took what they could from it-- the way it's run now, it's required of teaching assistants and new faculty, I think. We don't require anything of anybody at this university, and the teaching level, I think, has improved over time. 

PM:	What did you mean by that last comment, that you don't require anything of anybody that's at the university? 

LG:	Oh, you can't really make any faculty member do anything he doesn't want to do-- that's academic freedom. 

PM:	You didn't mean to CW specifically. 

LG:	No. I think it's probably true other places, but this is the only place I've really been. I think people are more independent minded. Somebody once explained to me the difference between having a department chairman, who's elected by the members of the department, and a department head, who was appointed by the dean. It has a much more I'm your boss role that somebody who's a colleague that elected by his constituents. It's difference in the attitude. 

PM:	I imagine there is. 

LG:	We had department chairman elected each year. 

PM:	You served as chairperson for the planning committee for honors programs in the College of Engineering? 

LG:	That was a sadness. A lot of the other colleges had honors programs-- LNS did, and Ag did, and so on. But the people that were in engineering said, engineering is an honors program as it is, and we don't need a special honors program, so I got slapped down with that. They didn't want to do it-- the faculty in engineering said it wasn't necessary. 

PM:	But you thought it was? 

LG:	Yes, but I didn't persuade anybody. 

PM:	So that program didn't last very long. 

LG:	It was a couple of years that we were trying, but it never amounted to anything. 

PM:	You can't take honors classes in the College of Engineering, though-- they consider all their classes to be honors. 

LG:	Sort of-- they can take honors classes in letters in science, like in math or chemistry, but there's no honors program, unless it's changed and I hadn't been told about it. 

00:51:24 

PM:	You also served as the chairwoman for the College of Engineering freshman year committee, and the committee responsible for engineering course instructor evaluation forms. 

LG:	Yes, we developed that in the committee on engineering education, and made it available to everybody. That's another thing we can't require-- you couldn't plan to have everybody fill out teacher evaluation forms. People began to use them for promotion to tenures, so then they were more interested in doing it. When it first came out, just some people are willing to try, and other people weren't. 

PM:	Was it your idea to have evaluation forms? 

LG:	It was a group thing. 

PM:	It was the committee's? 

LG:	Yes, I don't even remember-- I might have introduced it and they supported it. 

PM:	Do you know if other departments at the time in the university had course evaluation and instructor evaluation? 

LG:	A lot of them do. Now it's pretty routine, but it wasn't then. 

PM:	They publish all the results. 

LG:	They didn't do that at first. 

PM:	I wonder how much of an incentive that is for instructors? 

LG:	For people wanting tenure, it's important, because in order to get tenure, you have to show that your teaching is good. 

PM:	Even in engineering? 

LG:	Even in engineering, yes-- teaching, research, and service. 

PM:	What was the freshman year committee, exactly? 

LG:	It was to look at the freshman year, which was largely the same across the college to see whether or not we wanted a freshman year common to all the departments-- that was one of the big things that we looked at. They never could agree, for instance, that chemical engineers wanted the harder chemistry course for their students, and other people required only one semester of chemistry, or just two semesters of the easier chemistry. 

PM:	You mean the other electrical and mechanical? 

LG:	Yes, and chemical engineering wanted 109-110 series-- I don't know if that's the course they require now or not. It was five credits for both semesters, and the other course was four credits, one semester, and five together, so we never could get a really common first year. We hashed it out, and some things changed. 

00:54:07 

LG:	One of the things that was changed, I think, was that each department for awhile had its own orientation course, instead of taking the one that everybody took. That was helpful, but then they stopped doing it, because it required teacher time and there was a crunch of too many students and not enough time. The freshman orientation, then, was no longer required, whether it was a departmental course or a general course. 

PM:	So the freshman committee-- does that still exist today? 

LG:	I don't know-- probably. 

PM:	Can you give me examples of issues that faced, for example, the course instructor evaluation form? 

LG:	It was getting people to use it in the first place. 

PM:	Were some faculty members opposed to it? 

LG:	They weren't opposed to it, but they just didn't want to bother with it-- they didn't think it contributed anything, because they weren't going to listen to the results anyhow. Some people who teach in the College of Engineering teach because they like teaching, and some of them teach because it gives them time to do their research and gives them context to do their research. 

00:55:25 

PM:	From your feeling, what is the balance at College of Engineering? Do you think that there are more that are interested in teaching, or more that are interested in the research? 

LG:	There are more interested in their research, but I haven't been in the department for awhile now. 

PM:	Right-- I meant when you were there. 

LG:	I think most of them were more interested in the research. The ones that liked to improve their teaching were unique. 

PM:	As you said, general engineering faculty were the only ones that didn't conduct research. 

LG:	They don't have a degree. 

PM:	What's that? 

LG:	They don't have a degree. Some of them conduct research. 

PM:	It's just sort of funny that it's the inverse of the situation for most-- you guys are known for your teaching, but not your research. I always wondered if there was times when many of the general engineering faculty wished they could have been involved in research more. 

LG:	I don't think so. As a matter of fact-- you didn't show me the roster, but most of the people in general engineering were not Ph.D. people, so they hadn't gotten a research degree. 

PM:	My impression is, though, that a lot of the engineering faculty didn't have Ph.Ds either, during this period. 

LG:	When Dean Wendt was dean, he only had a bachelor's degree-- he had an honorary doctorate from some place or other, I don't remember where. He had only earned a bachelor's degree, but he was a bang-up teacher, and he did some research that went over a period of 25 years, I think. He was in engineering mechanics-- that was his home department-- and something with concrete. 

PM:	Was it the 100 year concrete? 

LG:	Maybe, if that's still around. 

PM:	Yeah, it is, actually-- I saw it the other day. 

LG:	He was there for, I think, about 50 years of it, because he started it as a new faculty member before he became dean. 

PM:	Basically, what you're saying is for people to take your research seriously, you needed a Ph.D. 

LG:	To be a researcher-- a Ph.D is a research degree. 

PM:	Right, but you can be a good researcher without a Ph.D. 

LG:	Yes, you can, but you're not as likely to be interested in it.

PM:	Not as credible. And people won’t take you seriously.

LG:	Some people just look at your degree and evaluate you that way. I always thought that it was interesting that in College of Engineering that although most of the faculty were Ph.Ds, they were addressed as Mr. So-and-So, never Doctor So-and-So as they are in some other places and other colleges. 

PM:	Not Professor? 

LG:	Professor, but Mister, rather than Doctor. 

PM:	Between the faculty members? 

LG:	Yes. 

PM:	I think that's more of a humanities—occurs more like in English and history. 

LG:	Maybe, in Letters & Science. 

PM:	Then again, I can't really comment on it because I'm not in there. 

00:58:34

PM:	You served on the Engineering Education Committee, the Public Relations committee, the Human Rights committee, the Long-Range Educational Improvement Programming Committee, as well as host of other committees not mentioned-- there's a long list of them on your resume. 

LG:	I've served on committees in the college and on the campus. 

PM:	Any comments about your service on these committees? Do any of them stand out in your mind? 

LG:	The Undergraduate Education committee probably was the thing that I felt was most important-- to try to improve teaching for undergraduates. I don't how much we did. 

PM:	You don't know how effective you were? 

LG:	Yes. 

PM:	What was the Human Rights Committee? What did you do on that? 

LG:	I don't even remember that. Was that the one that [Cy Hallett?] chaired? I don't know-- I don't remember what that was. 

PM:	Public Relations Committee? 

LG:	In the college, that was to organize Engineers' Day, which still goes on. It honors alums-- each department picks an alum, and they give them a citation. 

PM:	The Long-Range Educational Improvement Program Committee-- that sounds like that's up your alley. 

Yes, but I don't remember anything called that. 

PM:	That's sort of a long name for a committee. 

LG:	I don't know what that was, unfortunately. I threw away a lot of the stuff that I had about the committees. 

PM:	I imagine it's hard to remember a lot of these. You did serve on the faculty Senate, though. 

LG:	I was elected from the drawing and descriptive geometry for one two year term. That's when they had organized the faculty Senate-- it wasn't really organized. 

PM:	That year was the first year? 

LG:	No, it was a couple of years after that, but early on. 

PM:	Do you recall any issues that the Senate faced during your incumbency? 

LG:	The only thing I remember was trying to establish what grade was the best grade for giving credit for pass/fail courses, C or D, and they changed it from D to C, but you had to make a C in order to get credit for taking a course pass/fail. You know they translate the grade. 

PM:	So if you get a D, that was considered a fail? 

LG:	It was going to be after we got that passed. 

PM:	Is it still the same way today? 

LG:	I don't know-- I think so, but I have been out of touch with that for a long time. 

PM:	Do you recall any other issues that you dealt with in the Senate? 

LG:	No. That was the Education Committee. 

01:01:28 [End tape 1; begin tape 2] 

PM:	You invested a great deal of time in the freshman summer orientation advising for registration program, otherwise known as a SOAR program. Do you have any comments on your many years of involvement with this program? 

LG:	Well it was fun to be involved in it, because the kids were starry-eyed and bushy tailed from high school. And this was their introduction to the college. And you could help them decide how many credits they should carry, what courses they should carry, what they can profit from most. And they signed up for courses. Now, I think they actually register for them, where, at that time, they signed up for them, and they could go home and think about what you told them, and change them mind, or solidify their decision. But it was a nice orientation. Some people tried to scare the freshmen, but we didn't in Engineering. 

PM:	So you were responsible just for SOAR for engineers? My impression was there was a campus-wide SOAR program, regardless of what the student is-- 

LG:	They might run it that way. They did, initially, because there weren't enough students. And people that did SOAR early on did whatever group they happened to get. But when I was working on it, we just got engineering freshmen. 

PM:	Do you recall about how many years you served? 

LG:	A lot of years. 

PM:	Did it change over time? Did you notice changes? 

LG:	No. It changed after I left. 

PM:	Can you describe the changes that you know of? For better or for worse. 

 LG:	Well, different. I don't know. I don't know what I can say about that. I don't know how it changed exactly. Except that after we finished with them, in other years, they actually registered for their courses. And I thought it was better the way we had it, so they still had thinking time before they registered. But that was before there was computer registration. This is when they had to run to each department to get a signature in order to get enrolled in the class. 

PM:	Boy. That would have been a hassle. Now you can just do it from lying down on your couch. 

LG:	Yeah. But there are some advantages in reviewing this process. You get all the information one day. And then you register that same day is the way it's done now, but the other way, you've got all the information and then you can go home and talk to your friends who have been here. And think about what you wanted to do. Maybe make a more reasoned choice of courses. 

PM:	So, you think now, with all the technology, it's almost too quick of a process? 

LG:	It might be. 

PM:	And maybe actually doing the leg-work of going from building to building, and meeting faculty-- 

LG:	Well. That was hard to do. 

PM:	Right, but that might of-- 

LG:	It triggered some other things that were good. 

PM:	Triggered some decision making factors maybe. 

01:04:43

PM:	And you were a member of a number of professional societies for both education and educational psychology. Any comments of any of these societies? 

LG:	The one that I was probably most active in was engineering education society, which had people in it who were engineering professors, in general, who were interested in educational aspects of it. Not just the technical side of what they were teaching, but rather how they taught it. And we ran programs across the nation. We had meetings and talked about it. And I found a few kindred souls who had a degree in engineering, and then had gotten an advanced degree in education, and were interested in teaching and doing things to improve teaching across the colleges. 

PM:	Any other professional societies come to mind? 

LG:	Well I belong to Society of Women Engineers, but was never active in that. Mostly it was the-- 

PM:	Which is because you weren't really an engineer. 

LG:	Well. But the one I was most often active in was the Engineering Education. 

01:06:06

PM:	OK. Now I'm going to just touch on Women In Engineering for a moment here. In 1974, you developed "Introduction to Engineering, a Summer Program for High School Girls". Can you discuss how this program evolved, and how effective with this program was in meeting its goals? 

LG:	Well, it began to be importance to have women come into engineering. So that was the way we tried to do it. We had summer programs for one week. We had two one week programs. And one of the gals that was in one of our early programs, I think has become a dean someplace, is very active in engineering. For some of the kids, the girls, it was the first time anybody ever presented engineering to them as a career. And we had people demonstrating from the different departments what they did, and influenced some of those girls to go into engineering, and some them to stay out of engineering. But it was a small group. So then we thought we could do better when they left the high school-- those girls-- there was nothing left of the program for engineering for women. So we made a couple programs for high school faculty to try to tell them what engineers did if they happened to be female, or male, for that matter. Because a lot of the teachers didn't know what engineers did. They never encountered them in their own undergraduate lives, because they were in colleges of education. And then, we developed a program for women who would come into engineering, which still stands in the college, I think. And some of the women students go out and talk to high school kids during the semester. I used to do that too-- go out and present a program for engineers and have all the engineers that came with me be female--things like that. 

PM:	Yeah, I notice you've been to East High School, West [High School], Memorial [High School].

LG:	Yeah, and take some engineering students—

PM:	Well, what did you do? Just go into individual classrooms or have all the—

LG:	No, sometimes it was a classroom if the teacher invited us or sometimes it was a whole group if the counselor at the school invited us—depended--

PM:	They would just organize all the females in the high school to come and listen or just only those that--

LG:	Well, it depended on what the individual teacher did or thought was important or counselor--. Early on it was just important to get them to consider that girls could be engineers. And then later on when we had more girls in engineering, we could go out and talk about it, their teachers or somebody in their family would encourage them to study engineering and we tried to support those efforts. And we did increase the number of women, the percentage of women in engineering at the college.  It never got to be 50%--

PM:	What did it get up to by the time you left? 

LG:	Well, it got up to a high of about 18%, which was pretty good from 1%.

PM:	When you started at UW, what was it?  1%?

LG:	1 to 2 %, yeah.

PM:	Do you feel that you, personally, were responsible for a lot of that dramatic increase? 

LG:	At least I was the impetuous for getting the girls to do it themselves. 

01:10:15

PM:	In 1977, you, along with, Linda Remus designed "Why Not Engineering", a program intended for high school science and math teachers, counselors and female students. How effective was this program in meeting at schools. 

LG:	It wasn't very effective. But it was a good idea. But the timing was a little bit off. We were ahead of our time in trying to get that to go. 

PM:	What do you mean the timing was off? 

LG:	Well, that was before the word was abroad that women can be anything they wanted to, even if it was a technical man's field, which engineering was considered up until then. 

PM:	About what year would this be? 

LG:	Around then. When we started. 

PM:	'77. Right. I said that. 

01:11:16

PM:	Former Associate Dean John Asmuth was quoted as saying, "I don't-- 

LG:	Yeah where was he quoted as saying that? 

PM:	This was in a Capital Times article "I don't think we engineers know how to present our work properly for girls". Can you comment on the statement, if you would, and discuss what you believe to be more effective ways of reaching female engineering students? 

LG:	I can't comment on the statement. I'm not sure I know what he meant by that-- that they didn't know how to present their work properly for girls. I think you present it the same way, and you present it the best way that you can. Doesn't matter whether its male or female. And I think the best way to reach perspective female engineering students is to have female engineering students who are dynamic and thinking that the thing that they're doing is the best thing that ever happened to them, that they're studying engineering, and then go out and talk to these kids. Or invite the kids to follow them around for a day or so, see what school is like, what engineering college is like, and how hard they're going to have to work. 

PM:	Yeah, you’d think that would dissuade some from—

LG:	No, it would be a challenge for some of them. If it would dissuade some, they should have been dissuaded. Initially, it used to be very hard. I remember one woman in chemical engineering telling me that whenever anybody in the class, when nobody in class, could answer a question, then the teacher would say, well, Cathy, what do you think? Because he knew her name, because she was the only girl in the class. Which meant she always had to be prepared. And she was an honor students. Or at least, that's the way I tell. 

PM:	But given your knowledge of problem solving skills, you don't see any gender differences in ways of tackling math, engineering type problems? 

LG:	I didn't really formally see any differences. Individual differences, yes. But not gender differences. I think if you're going to be a good problem solver, you're a good problem solver. A successful problem solver. 

PM:	Because you know, obviously, tests have shown boys perform better in math. 

LG:	Well, because they take more. They still do, but not nearly as much more as they used to. 

PM:	Plus there's sociological factors involved I think. 

LG:	But I think those are changing. It isn't, oh, I'm a girl. I can't do math anymore. No girl would dare say that now. 

PM:	Again you said the number of women in engineering at UW has increased dramatically. 1% when you started up to about? Today, it's about? 

LG:	I don't know what it is today. I haven't checked. It went higher than it was, and then it started down again when nobody was pushing it. It went up, I guess you could say when most women were saying a woman can do anything. And then they were proving that a woman could do anything. It was higher then. And then went down a little bit. But it must be at least more than 10% now. 

01:15:02

PM:	Did you see any other females get tenure when you were there? In the School of Engineering?

LG:	Gretchen Schoff was a tenured professor, but she was in our department. And she was the one that taught technology, science interaction kinds of courses and technical writing courses. She was a magnificent teacher. She died very young. 

PM:	You don't know of chemical, mechanical, electrical? 

LG:	Well I think there are some now, in each department. 

PM:	But only recently? 

LG:	Well in the last ten years. You know, I've been retired since '69. 

PM:	That's the year I was born. 

LG:	Well. I won't comment on that. 

01:15:57

PM:	So since women were a growing presence in the college of engineering, can you comment on the accommodations that the college of engineering made? 

LG:	The only thing that I really influenced-- and this is not to be taken seriously-- I did a survey of the bathrooms in the engineering building, which is a thing that's known as engineering hall. And there were not enough bathrooms for women. There were women staff bathrooms and the students felt they couldn't go in there. It said women staff only. And there were faculty wash rooms, and men's rooms. And the faculty were all men, except me, and I wasn't in that building. So I kicked up a fuss. I did a survey. And we got a women's bathroom on each floor, at each end. 

PM:	What do you mean you did a survey? 

LG:	I did a survey. I went around and read the doors. 

PM:	Oh. I thought you meant a more formal survey. 

LG:	No. I just went around and looked and marked where there were bathrooms. Like in engineering research building, there was a woman's bathroom every fourth floor. And a men's every second floor. 

PM:	What is it now? Do you know? Is it equal? 

LG:	I think it's equal. That building, and in the engineering building, there are longer women staff. There's a woman's room at each end of that building and on each floor. There just weren't enough bathrooms because there weren't very many girls. 

PM:	Quite an accomplishment though. 

LG:	They used to tease me, and say I couldn't come into that building because I had taken away the men faculty washroom. I got kidded. They didn't want to let me spy. 

01:17:54

PM:	You served as faculty adviser to women in the engineering student committee and the society of women engineer student chapter. 

LG:	Yeah. The first one-- the women in engineering committee-- turned into a society of women engineering chapter. That's a regular, professional society. Society of Women Engineers. 

PM:	OK. As faculty adviser, can you comment on any issues that were presented to you and maybe advise you gave, or how you helped the committees resolve them? 

LG:	Well I don't know of any problems, but both groups were interesting in getting more women to come into engineering, and performed various-- they gave talks at various schools, and held programs. I don't know of any specific difficulties other than the bathroom. But that was when it was women in engineering group, not Society for Women Engineers. It was early on. 

PM:	So for awhile, it was probably almost like a support group for the women who were there. Probably weren't more than what? How many were in a chapter? It couldn't be more than what? 10? 15? 

LG:	Maybe that many active. It depended. You know the enrollment in engineering has gone up and down marketedly. And when there were more students, there were more girls. 

01:19:24 

PM:	Do you have any idea how the UW compared to other engineering colleges across the nation, as far as the reception of women? 

LG:	The one school that did a much better job with women students was Purdue. And Purdue had, when we had like 15%, they had 25% females. I haven't talked to anybody there for a long time. They probably still have a lot more than we do. 

PM:	What do you attribute that to? 

LG:	Probably because it's known as an engineering school. If you want letters in science, you might consider Purdue, but ordinarily wouldn't. You'd go to one of the other schools. 

PM:	You don't think they did any more active recruitment? 

LG:	They had several full time people working on recruitment of women and running programs for women. And we had me working in my spare time in some of these occasions. 

01:20:31

PM:	Now we're at your retirement, as we sit here now. When and why did you decide to retire? 

LG:	I was old enough. I reached 65, and I retired. 

PM:	In 1969? And have you worked-- 

LG:	And also I was beginning to have Parkinson's and stuff like that. My health. I could have stay on till 70, but I didn't feel up to it. 

PM:	Have you done any work for the college of engineering since your retirement? 

LG:	I worked part time for awhile to help them in the freshman office. 

PM:	Doing? 

LG:	Doing counseling and talking to individual students. Same thing I'd been doing before. 

PM:	Since retirement, you continue to be active in encouraging women to explorer the, still male dominated, field of math, science and engineering? 

LG:	We call them non-traditional, rather than male dominated. They're not traditional for women. They still aren't, although there have been women in engineering and more women going into other fields. 

01:21:52

PM:	Comment, if you would, on your involvement with conferences like "Expanding Your Horizons" and "Retooling Strategies For The Future". 

LG:	"Expanding your Horizons" is a program I'm still on the advisory board for that. I volunteered to do it. Well, now it's being run for seventh and eighth grade girls to introduce them to math related careers-- largely engineering and some of the sciences. And out that, the people who came with the girls, because they were too young to drive, and were teachers or counselors, and said, why don't you have a program like this for us? So that was the retooling strategies program. It was run for mature women who were interested, who were either under educated, or uneducated, and were interested in pursuing something more. We tried to get them to come into engineering. 

PM:	So did you design these? 

LG:	I, personally, didn't, but I was involved in the planning boards of both of them. I had input. 

PM:	They're both ongoing? 

LG:	The retooling strategies is not, because we couldn't find anybody who had time to do it, or support from a department to do it. So just the "Expanding Your Horizons" one is still going on once a year. 

PM:	How successful has the "Expanding Your Horizons" has been? 

LG:	We'd get more kids than we could accommodate. We could take maybe 150 and we'd get like 300 requests. 

PM:	OK. In closing, do you have any comments you'd like to make? 

LG:	No I don't. I'd like to hear how disconnected this interview was? If you have a better picture of what I've done in engineering, and engineering education? 

PM:	I'm sorry? 

LG:	I'd like to know what the result will be, and also how much you know about why I was active in engineering education? Would it make sense to you? My life? 

PM:	Does to me. 

LG:	All right. That's good. 

PM:	OK. 

01:24:16	End of First Interview Session