Summary Notes of "A Makeover for Engineering Education," by W. A. Wulf and G. M. C. Fisher, reprinted with permission of Issues in Science and Technology, 11 June 2002

http://www.nspe.org/hp1-edreform.asp

Summarized by J. T. P. Yao, 6/14/02

"Today's engineering schools are not preparing their graduates as well as they might for useful practice in the 21st century. … The changing nature of international trade and the subsequent restructuring of industry, the shift from defense to civilian applications, the use of new materials and biological processes, and the explosion of information technology … have dramatically and irreversibly changed the practice of engineering. If anything, the pace of this change is accelerating. But engineering education … is not able to keep up with the growing demands."

"… Fewer students find themselves attracted to engineering schools. The second regards the engineering schools, which are increasingly out of touch with the practice of engineering. … Whereas science is analytic in that it strives to understand nature, or what is, engineering is synthetic in that it strives to create. … Engineering is creativity constrained by nature, by cost, by concerns of safety, environmental impact, ergonomics, reliability, manufacturability, maintainability… As the world becomes more complex, engineers must appreciate more than ever the human dimensions of technology, have a grasp of the panoply of global issues, be sensitive to cultural diversity, and know how to communicate effectively. … These imperatives strongly influence how a modern engineer should be educated… In particular, we see six basic areas in great need of reform:

Faculty rewards. … Present engineering faculty tend to be very capable researchers, but too many are unfamiliar with the worldly issues of 'design under constraint' simply because they've never actually practiced engineering. … (… When the National Academy of Engineering convened 28 leaders from industry, government, and academia in January 2002 to discuss research on teaching and learning in engineering, the retreat participants agreed that although an increased focus on scholarly activities in engineering teaching and learning is much needed, the current faculty reward system does not value these activities.)

Curriculum. Faculty's weakness in engineering practice causes a sizable gap between what is taught in school and what is expected from young engineers by their employers and customers. …

The first professional degree. … Whereas most professions - business, law, medicine - do not consider the bachelor's degree to be a professional degree, engineering does. Maintaining such a policy in this day and age is a disservice to students… and it is a misrepresentation to employers.

Formalized lifelong learning. … The fundamentals you learned in college are still fundamental, but they aren't the only ones in this rapidly changing profession.

Diversity. An essential aspect of service to society is inclusiveness - the need to 'leave no child behind.' … Fewer than 20 percent of entering freshmen are women and underrepresented minorities account for just over 16 percent. … Such figures are unacceptable, and not just as an equity issue. It's a workforce issue and, even more important, it's a quality issue. …

Technological literacy in the general population. … Engineering schools have not traditionally provided courses for non-engineering majors, but in our view it's time they did. …"

"Steps in the right direction

… Twenty years ago, U.S. industry was seriously lagging its counterparts in other countries, but U.S. companies found answers in modern quality-improvement techniques. … How can engineering schools attract more bright young people out of high school? Part of the solution… is a massive engineering-mentor program. …

Accreditation, though necessary, is not sufficient. … One mechanism for this process is the recently established Bernard M. Gordon Prize for Innovation in Engineering and Technology Education. Awarded by the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), it is a prominent way to highlight novel teaching methods that motivate and reform the next generation of engineering educators. …"

"The NAE… is one such organization, perhaps the country's most prestigious. … We refer to the academy's programs in this area as our 'four-legged stool':

First, we've reaffirmed that high-quality contributions to engineering education are a valid reason for election to the NAE. …

Second, we've established a standing committee of the Academy's Office of the President - called… the Committee on Engineering Education - that identifies significant issues, organizes studies, develops long-term strategies, recommends specific policies to appropriate government agencies and academic administrations, coordinates with other leading groups in engineering and related fields, and encourages public education and outreach.

Third, we created the Gordon Prize, essentially the 'Nobel Prize' for engineering educators.

And fourth, the NAE is in the process of forming its very own center for focused research projects on teaching and learning in engineering. Usually we at the National Academies study things and then recommend that somebody else does something. Here we wish to also be implementers, developing innovative methods and disseminating the best results - our own as well as those of others."

"The problem has now been studied to death, and the essential solution is clear. So let's get on with it! It's urgent that we do so."

[Readers who are interested in this article are encouraged to read the original paper in its entirety. Other summary notes on faculty reward systems are available on the Internet at http://lohman.tamu.edu under the heading "Summaries of Papers ..."]