Summary Notes on "The Urgency of Engineering Education Reform," by W. A. Wulf, President, National Academy of Engineering, Plenary Speaker of the 2002 ASEE Annual Conference, at http://www.asee.org/conferences/annual2002/wulfplenary.cfm

Summarized by J. T. P. Yao, 8/23/02

"… My favorite operational definition of engineering is 'design under constraint.' Engineering is creating, designing, what can be - but it is constrained by nature, by cost, by concerns of safety, reliability, environmental impact, manufacturability, maintainability - indeed the long list of such 'ilities.' …"

"There are four parts to the remainder of this talk:

1. Why do I feel this urgency?

2. What needs to change?

3. Why isn't it changing (faster)? And

4. Some information on what the NAE is doing?"

"Why do I feel this urgency?

… The practice of engineering has changed, but engineering education hasn't (not much anyway)… I feel this urgency for change because I am afraid that we will soon be educating engineers that cannot compete, that cannot innovate in the way that has brought such prosperity to the developed world."

"What needs to change?

…

1. curriculum

2. pedagogy

3. diversity

4. retention rate

5. the notion that the BS is the first professional degree

6. the system of faculty rewards, and

7. technological literacy in the general population

This list is long and the space is short, so I will say only a few words about some of these to give you a sense of both the vector of needed change and why I feel urgency about it. …"

"Retention Rate

It is a disgrace! Depending on whose numbers you use, something approaching half the students entering engineering do not finish with an engineering degree. … We are not 'weeding out' the poor students. Rather, the poor retention rate is a measure of our failure to convey the pleasure and impact of engineering. …"

"The First Professional Degree

Most professions - business, law, medicine - do not consider the bachelor's degree a professional degree. Engineering does. Doing so is a misrepresentation to both the student and employer; … We can't just add these "new fundamental (e.g., IT, biology, and globalization)" to a curriculum that's already too full, especially if we still claim that the baccalaureate is a professional degree. We have to look critically at the current cherished "fundamentals," and either displace them or find ways to cover them much more rapidly."

"Faculty Rewards

I don't especially want to engage in the teaching vs. research debate. … Faculty are, for the most part, judged by criteria similar to the science faculty - and the practice of engineering is not one of those criteria. The faculty reward system recognizes teaching, research and service to the profession - but not delivering a marketable product or process, or designing an enduring piece of the nation's infrastructure. … At most school, for example, it's hard to bring someone onto the faculty who has spent the career in industry, even though such people would be extremely valuable to the students; their resumes simply don't fit those the reward system values. Sometimes it's even hard to get recognition for a sabbatical in industry. … I am criticizing a system that prevents enriching the faculty with a complementary set of experiences and talents. … It should not be a big surprise that industry leaders have been increasingly vocal about their discontent with the engineering graduates."

"Technological literacy in the general population

… Every person with 'liberal education' needs to be technologically literate! … Engineering schools have not traditionally provided courses for liberal arts majors - but in my view they must. …"

"Why haven't things changed (faster)?

… That hypothesis is simply that the faculty don't believe that change is needed. They are following the wise adage, 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.' If one hasn't had recent experience in industry, …, and if the change is a mosaic in multiple dimensions whose pattern is hard to discern, then the fact that it's 'broke' is not easy to see."

"What is the NAE doing?

… I believe that a clear and consistent message from the NAE that

1. The NAE believes change is necessary, and

2. The NAE values contributions to that change

will, over time, change faculty attitudes. To that end, we are taking four concrete actions:

1. We have created the Committee on Engineering Education (CEE),

2. We have made contribution to engineering education a valid criteria for election to the Academy,

3. We have established the $500,000 'Gordon Prize' for innovations in engineering and technology education, and

4. We will establish a Center for the Scholarship of Engineering Education (CSEE) at the NAE.

…"

"Engineering, the process by which our understanding of nature is combined with constraints to create artifacts and processes, is changing. Indeed it is changing very rapidly. Engineering education has to change too! … The NAE will support you in ASEE in any way that we can, and specifically we are doing a number of things to try to make your colleagues on campus more receptive to the innovations we all know need to happen. Let's hope that all this effort will soon pay off!"

[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 ..."]