Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 35
4
THE STATUS OF U.S. NUCLEAR ENGINEERING EDUCATION
This chapter focuses on some features of U.S. nuclear engineering education a:
gleaned from a committee survey (see Appendix G for the questionnaire and
Appendix F for results). These features include faculty age structure and
research interests, undergraduate and graduate programs, levels of financial
support, student-faculty ratios, and status of university reactors.
NUCLEAR ENGINEERING FACULTY
Age Distribution and Experience
Faculties of the academic departments in which nuclear engineering is taught
are generally weighted heavily toward the senior ranks. Such departments
developed between 1955 and 1970, with faculty appropriate to relatively high
enrollments and the expectation of further growth.
The accident at Three Mile Island and subsequent adverse publicity
apparently led many prospective students to choose other career options. A
decrease in enrollments largely halted the addition of junior faculty to many
departments and resulted in the present distribution of nuclear engineering
faculty by rank: (1) full professors account for 67 percent; associate
professors for 21 percent; and assistant professors for 12 percent.
Furthermore, 23 percent of these faculty are over 60 years of age and
approaching retirement. These experienced faculty are responsible for
teaching related to nuclear reactors and their replacement requires recruiting
similarly qualified individuals. Because such engineers are also very
attractive to industry and government, there will be stiff competition for
their services. The slow pace of recruiting junior faculty in recent years is
35
OCR for page 36
36
reflected in the fact that only 17 percent of present faculty are 40 years of
age or less (Figure 4-1~.
45
40
35
IL
o
30
25
~ 20
m
He
15
10
5
o
~1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
30
40
50
AGE
60
FIGURE 4-1 Distribution of nuclear engineering faculty by age.
SOURCE: Committee survey (see Appendixes G and F)
70
The age of the faculty raises concerns about the degree of innovation and
the reference to contemporary issues in present coursework. Although no
specific problems were identified by the committee, such concern may be
warranted any time the influx of new individuals and ideas into a faculty
group is restricted over an extended period of time (Figure 4-29. Of course,
faculty members' interest in recent issues varies and, in some cases, older
faculty do involve themselves with new areas of research.
The concern for the relatively older average age of the nuclear
engineering faculty becomes particularly serious when one considers the
difficulty of their replacement. First, it should be apparent from the
OCR for page 37
37
45
40
35
LL
o
~ 20
As
30
25
15
10
FIGURE 4-2
SOURCE: Committee survey.
0 10 20 30 40
YEARS OFTEACHING
Experience of nuclear engineering teaching faculties.
information presented elsewhere in this report regarding the capacity of the
nuclear engineering programs, and the need for nuclear engineering graduates
at the various degree levels, that the present number of nuclear engineering
faculty will have to be at least maintained and more likely increased to meet
future needs. However, the time required to bring an aspiring entry level
student through the bachelor's, master's, and Ph.D. levels, and be qualified
as a nuclear engineering faculty member is at least 8, and perhaps lo, years.
Twenty-three percent of the present faculty in graduate nuclear engineering
departments will, if they are replaced upon retirement, be drawn from students
who have been or are currently in nuclear engineering programs.
for another 30 percent of the faculty will be drawn from that group of
students entering in the next five years. The reductions in the number of
nuclear engineering departments and the sizes of their faculties that have
occurred over the last lo years have not only reduced the capacity to meet the
Replacements
OCR for page 38
38
industrial and governmental demand for nuclear engineers in the future, but
have also failed to take into account that about 15 percent of Ph.D. graduate
production will be required to replace retiring faculty over the next 10
years.
Comparison with Other Disciplines
The distribution of ages of faculty in other disciplines are available from
1987 survey data by the Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU, 19879. At
that time, the average age of nuclear engineering faculty was 8 to 10 years
greater than that of faculty in mechanical, electrical, chemical, and, in
fact, all other engineering disciplines. For example, the median and mean
ages for all engineering were 46.0 and 46.8, respectively, while for nuclear
engineering the median and mean ages were 58.0 and 55.0, respectively.
Faculty Research Interests
Reported research interests of nuclear engineering faculty in different age
groups were examined, to identify the emergence of new research foci or the
decay of former strengths. Some older faculty members are involved in newer
areas of research interest, reflecting their willingness to grow with the
evolution of the discipline. This tendency makes the identification of trends
difficult. Analysis is further complicated by the tendency of new
specializations to develop special nomenclatures as they evolve to address new
technologies and as they seek the "buzzwords" that seem to be required to
reassure sponsors of the timeliness of research.
Thus, it has been necessary to group the numerous research topics
identified by individual departments into a more compact set. A total of ten
categories of research were selected to cover the field:
0 Reactor physics and shielding
o Computational methods and artificial intelligence
o Reactor systems analysis and design
o Thermal hydraulics
o Reactor safety
o Reactor operations
0 Radiation effects
o Materials and nuclear fuels
0 Biological effects, waste management, and the environment
0 Fusion and plasma physics.
The first eight categories are referred to as "reactor-related
disciplines" in this report. For each heading, the ages of those faculty
claiming research activities in those areas were noted. The comments that
follow are based on the resulting profiles of each research area.
OCR for page 39
39
1. Younger faculty tended to identify themselves with a larger number of
research areas. Thus, the research population distribution in general did
not reflect the age distribution of the total faculty population. This might
suggest that younger faculty are being asked to cover more topics; it could
also reflect greater research activity.
2. For most research areas, there is a continuing level of interest,
suggesting little tendency to abandon some traditional areas. The specific
areas where this tendency is noted include reactor physics and shielding,
reactor systems analysis and design, fusion, materials and nuclear fuels, and
waste management. Interest also exists in computational methods and
artificial intelligence.
Among the topics of materials, nuclear fuels, and waste management,
there is some indication that the emphasis of younger researchers is on waste
management, with fuels and materials more commonly the declared interest of
older faculty.
3. Reactor safety interests the older faculty, thermal hydraulics, the
younger faculty. Recognizing trends in recent years, this difference could be
a semantic one.
4. In some areas, emerging trends raise some concerns. Young faculty who
identify reactor operations as their research interest are few. Only 15
percent of those with this interest are less than 40 years of age; 33 percent
are over 55 years old.
5. Radiation effects research is receiving less attention from nuclear
engineers. Currently, most of the effort in this area is in electronics,
where electrical engineers dominate.
NUCLEAR ENGINEERING ENROLLMENT AND DEGREE TRENDS
Undergraduate Programs
Undergraduate Enrollments
Based on DOE data maintained by ORAU, total enrollment in junior and senior
classes in nuclear engineering has steadily declined since 1970 (Figure 4-3
shows the trends since 1978~. Spring 1980 B.S. graduates are identified by
many as the "Chernobyl Class," reflecting the impact of that accident on the
number of declared majors. The interest of entering students in nuclear
engineering has increased in the last two years by as much as 50 percent,
according to some institutions. It is too early to assess the success rate of
these students, who are not yet reflected in these data (which covers only
graduates in nuclear engineering).
OCR for page 40
40
At the undergraduate level, about 98 percent of the nuclear engineering
students are full-time students. The enrollment of women in undergraduate
nuclear engineering has remained constant at about 8 percent of the total over
the last five years. Over the last decade, the enrollment of foreign
nationals has dropped from about 7 percent of the total to the present level
of about 2 percent.
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
_
Seniors
S ~ 1 1 ~
~| Juniors 1 ~
O L I I I I I I I I I I I
78 80 82 84 86 88
YEAR
FIGURE 4-3 Total enrollment in nuclear engineering junior and senior classes.
SOURCE: DOE Data, (U.S. DOE, 1984~.
Undergraduate Degree Awards
The award of B.S. degrees in nuclear engineering and in other engineering
fields with nuclear engineering options has shown a steady decrease over the
last decade. ORAU data are graphed in Figure 4-4. Even fewer graduates are
expected for 1988 and 1989, about 400 graduates for each of these years.
OCR for page 41
41
9oo
800
~ 700
O 600
en
IL 500
~ 400
LO
o
cry 300
LU
m
200
100
o
1 1
77 79 81 83 85 87
YEAR
FIGURE 4-4 Total undergraduate degree awards in nuclear engineering,
1977-1987.
SOURCE: DOE Data (U.S. DOE, 1984~.
Employment of B.S. Graduates in Nuclear Engineering
Figure 4-5 shows the first-job employment distribution for B.S. graduates in
nuclear engineering between 1983 and 1988. Nearly one-third enter graduate
studies, 20 percent are employed by utilities, and significant numbers by
reactor vendors, the military, national laboratories, and others. The
employment base is relatively diverse.
OCR for page 42
42
Other
(1 5.5%)
Utilities
(20.3%)
"'"I'm
Military
(10.1%)
L ~ ~ - ^ b ~ Graduate School
r L , b ~ 1 ~ ~ (27. 8%)
~ 1 ~ ~ ~ < ~ 1 \
~ ~
~ a, rLr ~ `1 ~ `,~ `~ ~ L\
:< 7 (i, ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ 7 Jo
Reactor Vendors
(8.0%)
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (2.8%)
National Laboratories
DOE contractors & DOE
Consul ants
(5.0°/O) (1 0.5%)
FIGURE 4-5. First-job employment distribution for B.S. graduates in nuclear
engineering for the past five years.
SOURCE: Committee survey.
Capacity of Undergraduate Programs
The estimated maximum capacity of existing undergraduate programs is based on
the assumption of no change in the number of faculty, but with additional
support through proportional increases in operational resources for
OCR for page 43
43
laboratories and classes. Thus, the addition of class sections and the
teaching of additional classes both semesters is not considered in the
estimate, since either of these alternatives would require the addition of
faculty. The estimate of capacity is based on respond-in" institutions answers
to the committee's questionnaire and by raising estimated class sizes to 20.
Based on these assumptions, the entry class capacity of present undergraduate
nuclear engineering programs is 800 students per year. This figure
corresponds to all entry class enrollments reported by ORAU for as recently as
1985. As nuclear engineering programs contract, and in some cases are
eliminated, their ability to expand readily will be diminished.
Graduate Programs
Graduate Enrollments
Enrollments in graduate nuclear engineering programs reported by ORAU are
shown in Figure 4-6. In the past 10 years, the number of M.S. degree
1.1
1.0
0.9
08
07
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.1 _
Masters
_
-
O 1 1 1
78 80 82
YEAR
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
84 86 88
FIGURE 4-6 Graduate student enrollments in nuclear engineering programs,
1978-1989.
SOURCE: DOE Data (U.S. DOE, 1984).
OCR for page 44
44
candidates has decreased by about 255. The impact of the Three Mile Island
accident is perhaps recognizable in the plot. There has been a slight
increase in the fraction of women students in the master's programs, from
eight percent in 1982 to nearly 10 percent in 1987. Enrollments of foreign
nationals in M.S. programs have remained steady, at 30 percent.
The number of Ph.D. students has remained very nearly constant, at about
600, with perhaps a slight increase recently. The fraction of the enrollment
by women Ph.D. students has grown steadily from 5 percent in 1982 to 9 percent
in 1987. Ph.D. enrollments of foreign nationals have constituted between 45
and 50 percent of all Ph.D.s over the past decade.
Figure 4-7 shows the distribution of undergraduate majors of students
entering nuclear engineering graduate programs over the last five years, for
Electrical
Engineering
Ci il (4.9%)
Engineering (0.2%)
Other
Engineering (4.4%)
Chemical
Engineering (2.9%)
I\Aath (1.2%)
Mechanical
Engineering
(1 3.8%)
Other
(3.1%)
=::
Chemistry
(1 .4%)
Nuclear
. .
Engineering
(54.9%)
FIGURE 4-7 Weighted distribution of undergraduate majors for students
entering nuclear engineering graduate programs.
SOURCE: Committee survey.
OCR for page 45
45
all schools responding to the questionnaire. While 45 percent of the graduate
students in nuclear engineering were undergraduate majors in other fields,
obtaining an undergraduate degree in nuclear engineering is still a strong
preference. The most noticeable shift in recent years is the increased number
of mechanical engineering undergraduates that go on to graduate studies in
nuclear engineering. Undergraduate physics majors have traditionally been a
source of graduate students in nuclear engineering.
Graduate Degree Awards
DOE data on the number of M.S. and Ph.D. graduates in nuclear engineering are
shown on Figure 4-8. There has been a steady decrease in M.S. degrees awarded
in recent years following the drop by approximately one-third in 1979-1980.
Ph.D. awards have remained steady, at about 100 per year throughout the
decade.
f : ~
400
co
LU
~ 300
LL]
LL
o
~ 200
m
it
100
o
. IT
Masters of Science
S
Doctorates
-
· ~
1 1
77 79 81 83 85 87
YEAR
FIGURE 4-8 M.S. and Ph.D. graduates in nuclear engineering.
SOURCE: DOE Data (U.S. DOE, 1984).
OCR for page 46
46
Employment of M.S. and Ph.D. Nuclear Engineers
Figure 4-9 shows the first-job employment distribution for M.S. and Ph.D.
degree recipients over the last five years. The large sector marked "other"
in part reflects the large nonresident enrollment in graduate programs in
.
nuc ear engineering.
Utilities
(1 4.0%)
National Laboratories
DOE contractors & DOE
(1 8.0%)
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (1.1%)
Consultants
(8.3%)
Reactor Vendors
(5.8%)
Academic
(7.5%)
FIGURE 4-9 M.S. and Ph.D. nuclear engineering graduates' first-job
employment distribution for the past five years.
SOURCE: Committee survey.
OCR for page 47
47
Capacity of Graduate Programs
The current total graduate enrollment is about 1400--while a decade ago it was
1,648. The committee estimates the capacity of existing graduate programs to
be from 1,650 to 2,000 students. The former number is based on a student-to-
faculty ratio of 7:1. The latter estimate is based on scaling up enrollment
to 30 students per class, which is assumed to be possible with current faculty
resources. However, this last figure may be too high in that the greatest
faculty load in graduate programs is directing research for theses and
dissertations. On the other hand, for the first two years or so of graduate
study, many students do not require research direction. For this reason, the
estimate covers a broad range and an accurate assessment will require a more
detailed analysis for each institution.
FINANCIAL SUPPORT
It is difficult to identify the exact funding levels for nuclear engineering
research for academic departments. The fiscal year used differs from campus
to campus. Further, some institutions are reluctant to identify the exact
amounts of funding by government agencies and industry organizations. With
these uncertainties acknowledged, total funding for the 1988-1989 calendar
year is estimated at approximately $43 million, distributed as shown in
Table 4-1.
TABLE 4-1 Percent of Funding and Amount of Funding (millions of dollars)
from Various Sources for Departments of Nuclear Engineering
Funding Source
Percent of Funding Amount of Funding
National Science Foundation 12.3 5.29
National laboratories 6.3 2.71
Department of Energy 43.9 18.88
NASA 18.7 8.04
Electric Power Research Institute 4.7 2.02
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1.0 0.43
Industry 6.8 2.92
Foreign institutions 1.2 0.52
Other 5.1 2.19
SOURCE: Committee survey.
OCR for page 48
48
Based on this total funding, an average faculty research support level
would be about $180,000. However, the distribution of funding among
institutions is uneven and much research funding is in multidisciplinary
programs. Some faculties receive research funds several times this average,
while others receive very little. Moreover, in many of the large research
projects, postdoctoral researchers and members of research staffs play major
roles. Some of this funding is not allocated on the basis of a competitive
process. There are research laboratories and institutes in some universities
that receive industrial funding, which is then allocated to research projects.
The industry category refers, for the most part, to funding for specific
problems.
Areas that receive research support cover a broad span of activity (Table
4-2~. Again, identifying research areas by category is complicated, both
because of many disciplinary designations (such as materials, thermal
TABLE 4-2 Percentages of Total Research Funds for Various Areas
Research Area
Percent of Funds Amount of Funds
(million dollars)
Basic nuclear sciences 11.3 4.86
Civilian nuclear power 14.6 6.28
Space nuclear power 2.0 0.86
Medical applications 3.8 1.63
Materials sciences 10.9 4.69
Energy research 0.5 0.22
Fusion and plasma physics 44.0 18.92
Environmental assessments 2.7 1.16
Other 10.2 4.38
SOURCE: Committee survey.
hydraulics, dosimetry, radiation transport, plasma physics, and reactor
physics) and because of broad project definitions (such as fusion,
waste management, environmental effects, civilian nuclear power and space
power) adopted by funding agencies and thus by principal investigators.
The activity in fusion and plasma physics is the largest (about $19 million),
mainly because of very sizeable programs in those areas at two of the
institutions in the survey. One institution has $11 million, the other $5.5
million, in fusion and plasma physics research. In these two institutions,
those programs involve nonteaching professional staffs and faculty
OCR for page 49
49
and students from other academic disciplines inside and outside the
engineering community. Fusion and plasma physics research funding at other
institutions is about $2.7 million, with one institution at $0.5 million, and
at several others $0.2 to $0.3 million. Perhaps a more representative figure
for total research support would be determined by considering fission systems
and the related engineering research. This figure of about $24 million would
reflect research on fission energy production systems, materials, and basic
nuclear sciences.
The commitment of university funding to the support of nuclear
engineering programs varies widely by program. Low enrollment is the norm for
many of the programs, so an evaluation of average program costs, which
attempts to be reflective of enrollment, has been made. This evaluation
examined the degree programs and groups of one or more nuclear engineering
options available in other engineering discipline programs in U.S.
universities. Total enrollment in all of the programs, counting juniors and
seniors and all graduate students, is 2,603. Fifty percent of the nuclear
engineering students are enrolled in 14 of the 64 programs or option groups,
90 percent are in 40 programs or option groups. There are 20 programs and
option groups with fewer than 20 students enrolled. In computing the averages
of committed resources, these 20 smallest programs are not included.
With respect to the level of support the nuclear engineering programs
receive, comparative numbers are very difficult to determine. Institutional
support includes a wide variety of categories, including operations, supplies,
facilities, capital equipment, staff salaries, travel, and so forth. Research
support covers all categories (fission, fusion and plasma physics, materials,
etc.), but in many cases includes nonteaching faculty, interdisciplinary
efforts, and other such cases. Department staff are typically not separated
into instructional and research categories, or by research specialties. Thus,
"averages" can only be representative of resource availability and do not
necessarily meet any criterion for full consistency.
Table 4-3 shows level of support for the "high," "median," and "low"
institutions. "Low" institutions are those with the lowest level of support
among those 40 programs that account for 90 percent of the enrollment.
UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULUM
Results of the committee survey indicate that the educational requirements for
undergraduate nuclear engineering degrees are fairly standard from institution
to institution. About 130 to 135 semester hours are required for a four-year
program. In addition to the usual first and second year courses in English,
social sciences (including economics), and humanities, there is strong
emphasis on basic sciences and mathematics. Many of the courses are
determined by university policy that establishes minimum course requirements
OCR for page 50
50
TABLE 4-3 Levels of Institutional and Research Support (in dollars)
Type of Institution
Institutional Support Research Support
(per FTE faculty) (per FTE faculty)
High 117,000 667,000
Median 87,000 214,400
Low 38,500 20,000
NOTE: "FTE" stands for "full-time equivalent."
High is the highest value among institutions; low is~the lowest.
for bachelor's degrees. It is in the last two years of study that specialized
courses are taken. This curriculum is increasingly driven by the
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) requirements and by
policies of the particular college of engineering or department. It includes
courses required for a general engineering education and special courses
providing basic background in the performance and design of nuclear power
plants and other systems.
In the basic engineering sciences, considerable variation exists among
schools but, in general, the curriculum includes courses in mechanics,
material and thermal sciences, electricity and magnetism, and computer
programming. For the most part, these basic engineering requirements are
taught by faculty members outside the nuclear engineering department or
program. However, it is the committee's opinion that experienced nuclear
engineering faculty members are essential for the most effective teaching of
advanced undergraduate courses, such as applied nuclear physics, reactor
theory, reactor engineering and design, the nuclear fuel cycle, radiation
effects, systems design, and thermal hydraulics.
In addition, the nation's larger undergraduate programs offer elective
courses in such areas as fusion technology, safety analysis, nuclear
instrumentation, and in some cases, medical issues related to nuclear
processes. In general, the survey indicated that curricula meet the needs of
employers, although more training in reactor systems engineering and
biological effects of radiation may be desirable. Tables F-21 and F-22,
-Appendix F. show undergraduate required courses for nuclear engineering and
compare their overall content to other engineering disciplines. Note that the
nuclear engineering program credit requirements are more evenly spread among
the basic and engineering sciences. Also, more physics credits are taken.
OCR for page 51
51
THE GRADUATE CURRICULUM
U.S. master of science programs in nuclear engineering typically require 30 to
36 semester hours, including minor courses from other engineering and science
programs and sometimes a thesis. They commonly take about two years. In some
of the new waste management programs, minors in water resources or hydrology
can be selected. The doctorate requires a dissertation based on at least one
and one-half to two years of research and additional formal work beyond the
master's in the major and minor disciplines. Institutional requirements are
generally stated in terms of semester hours of major and minor subjects.
Advanced courses in reactor theory and design, thermal hydraulics,
computational methods, radiation transport, nuclear instrumentation, and
safety analysis are common in core curricula at the beginning graduate level.
The more advanced graduate courses vary greatly from program to program and
often bear little resemblance to the more traditional reactor-oriented nuclear
engineering courses. Research activities in nuclear engineering programs are
quite varied and reflect research funding rather than the classic view that
nuclear engineering research focuses on civilian nuclear power. Funding of
traditional reactor-oriented research represents less than 15 percent of total
academic nuclear engineering research funds (see Table 4-2~.
Driven by the availability of research funds, nuclear engineering as a
discipline has evolved and broadened to encompass the utilization of nuclear
processes and nuclear forces in diverse engineering applications, not just
fission power. Research and teaching in such areas as basic nuclear science,
fusion research, environmental engineering, nuclear medicine, and general
materials science are common. Since research is both a training tool for
graduate students and a mechanism for faculty members to further knowledge,
the content of advanced courses usually reflects faculty members' active
research. These trends in graduate education and research are having a
profound effect on nuclear engineering education and will be addressed in more
detail later in this report.
STUDENT-FACULTY RATIOS
Nationally, the total size of the undergraduate nuclear engineering student
body is somewhat small relative to the total faculty of approximately 200
full-time equivalents (FTE). With about 1200 juniors and seniors in the
country (U.S. Department of Energy, 1989), the student-to-faculty ratio in
nuclear engineering is about 6 to 1 (see Table 4-4 -for a finer breakdown).
This suggests modest growth is possible in undergraduate nuclear engineering
enrollments with present faculty size. Over a short period, a 40- to 50-
percent increase could perhaps be achieved.
At the graduate level, the student-to-faculty ratio is comparable to
other engineering disciplines. The graduate student population is
OCR for page 52
52
approximately 1,400, resulting in a student-to-faculty ratio of 7 to 1 without
faculty increase, which suggests graduate enrollments could be increased
slightly. Table 4-4 also shows a breakdown of student-to-faculty ratios, and
also faculty teaching loads, by type of institution.
These data are averages and fail to distinguish FTEs devoted to teaching
and those associated with research. A realistic analysis of growth potential
should be made for each institution with a detailed calculation of how FTEs
are distributed among teaching and research. In this regard, comparing
nuclear engineering enrollments per FTE faculty with those in other
disciplines at the same institutions is more instructive than comparing
nuclear engineering departments at different institutions. This takes into
account characteristics of a given university that exist across departments.
In fact, there are large differences in enrollments per FTE faculty and,
hence, the capacity for increased enrollments is related to the unique
characteristics of individual institutions.
TABLE 4-4 Student-to-Faculty Ratios and Faculty Teaching Loads, by Type
of Institution (per full-time equivalent faculty)
Type of Undergraduate Nuclear Graduate Nuclear Student Credit
Institution Engineering Students Engineering Students Hours Taught
High 13.0 11.0 393
Median 4.0 5.1 192
Low 1.3 3.9 82
NOTE: High is the highest value of the institutions; low is the lowest value.
Values are per academic year.
The institutions with either high or low undergraduate nuclear
engineering student enrollments are not necessarily those with the same
pattern at the graduate level. The three institutions with the most student
credit hours taught per FTE faculty have nuclear engineering faculty that take
core engineering or science teaching assignments outside the nuclear
engineering program.
The technician support level varies widely by program. Where a reactor
is available, some technical support staff are normally needed. Where there
are large research efforts, larger technical staffs are absolutely necessary.
Finally, if the nuclear engineering program is embedded in a larger academic
department, the devotion of personnel to nuclear engineering support is hard
to determine. These points also apply to secretarial and clerical support.
OCR for page 53
53
UNIVERSITY REACTORS
A nuclear reactor is a resource that can play an integral role in the
formulation of courses in many nuclear engineering programs and helps students
gain an important understanding of the complexities of nuclear power
processes. In particular, a reactor can provide the basis for much of the
experimental laboratory experience that students receive. Most reactors
located in educational institutions today are simple, and their operation is
basically determined by the dynamics of the nuclear fission process and the
chain reaction. The effects of other phenomena, including the thermal
hydraulic behavior of the system, pressurization of coolant, and so on, are
either not present or only so in terms of net properties like the average
temperature of the moderator.
Thus, the student in the educational reactor laboratory has the
opportunity to examine and understand the dynamics of fission without the
complications of many transient phenomena that pertain to power generation
systems. Further, the opportunity to work with radioactive materials that
show relatively low levels of activity, to develop an understanding for the
principles of safe material handling and material containment, provides
valuable training. Finally, the use of the nuclear reactor in support of
research in a wide variety of other disciplines provides the young engineer
experience with the interdisciplinary role that nuclear engineering can play
in the technical community and with the challenges and satisfactions of
successful interdisciplinary activity.
A detailed study of the use of university nuclear reactors was conducted
by the National Research Council (NRC, 1988~. Two decades ago, about 76
reactors were in operation in universities in the United States. That number
has declined: in May, 1987, only 40 university research reactors were in
operation. Twenty-seven of these were located at universities that offered
nuclear engineering degrees or options in nuclear engineering (ANS, 1988~.
Currently, only 21 reactors are operating at universities with nuclear
engineering degree programs or options. In addition, there are 7 reactors at
institutions that do not have nuclear engineering programs. The reactors and
their operators are licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; thus, some
professional nonacademic staff are usually required.
Operation of these reactors can impose additional costs that may be
attributed wholly or in part to maintaining the nuclear engineering program.
These costs include personnel, equipment, operations, and insurance. In some
institutions, the reactor budget is included directly in the nuclear
engineering academic budget. In others, usually where the reactor and
associated facilities are larger, the reactor is budgeted as a separate item.
There are advantages and problems in both approaches. In the former, a higher
cost of instruction is calculated. If it is budgeted as a separate item, it
may be vulnerable to reduction since no academic programs are directly
OCR for page 54
54
associated with it. This attitude is misleading because reactors support many
disciplines in the university community (NRC, 1988~.
Judging by the past attrition of reactors and the role that university
reactors have played, the committee believes it desirable to integrate the
reactor into the undergraduate laboratory program and to encourage the wide
availability and use of the reactor by researchers from the entire campus
community.
NUCLEAR ENGINEERING AS A SEPARATE DISCIPLINE
Nuclear engineering undergraduates generally receive a more balanced exposure
to basic and engineering sciences (physics, including nuclear physics,
materials science, thermodynamics and fluid mechanics, and electrical and
electronic systems) than engineers in other disciplines. For example, many
electrical engineers no longer take thermodynamics or fluid mechanics, and
many civil engineers take limited physics offerings beyond mechanics and
introductory electricity and magnetism. The need for breadth in the nuclear
engineering curriculum becomes obvious when one examines the various roles
that the nuclear engineer may play. Nuclear safety, fusion and plasma
physics, nuclear waste management, and nuclear plant operations involve
mechanical, thermal, fluid, electrical, and materials science, and statistics
and logic for accident progression and probabilistic risk assessment methods.
The committee believes that nuclear engineering programs are important to meet
the needs of the discipline. They can also serve as the route for many
engineering students to gain the breadth of understanding necessary to handle
other engineering problems and the environmental, safety, and social impacts
of engineering activities.
INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS
The assessment of the availability of resources to departments of nuclear
engineering can provide insight about the level of commitment being maintained
by the institutions. In making the assessment, the influence of several
somewhat independent forces should become evident. Each is identified and its
influence analyzed. Programs in nuclear engineering can be expected to have a
higher unit cost in dollars per student credit hour taught or degree granted
than other programs in engineering. Since enrollments are small, the number
of student credit hours generated per faculty contact hour is low. Costs
arise from faculty contact time, while resources are allocated based on
student credit hours. The relatively senior average age of the nuclear
engineering faculty means that salaries are higher. Thus, the average cost of
a unit of faculty effort is generally higher in nuclear engineering
departments.
OCR for page 55
55
An important influence on the resources available to a nuclear
engineering department is its location. Many programs are in colleges of
engineering of the first rank. At least 15 of the programs listed in the DOE
data base on nuclear engineering programs are in colleges that are be included
in virtually any listing of the top 25 U.S. engineering schools. The
engineering programs in these schools are relatively better supported than
those in most other schools.
The number of students enrolled in a program also significantly
influences available resources. Funding allocation is increasingly based on
enrollments, which results in small programs getting lower allocations to
support faculty, equipment, operations, travel, and other expenses.
Specialization
While degree requirements are similar for the institutions surveyed, there is
considerable variation in their areas of special strength (see Table 4-5~.
Not all of the programs are alike in terms of their research activities and
there are considerable differences. Note that only one institution has an
accelerator, for example. One might ask the question as to whether the
instructional directions are complemented by the research activities at each
institution.
TABLE 4-5 Numbers of Institutions with Given Areas of Strength
Area ~_ _
Reactor engineering
Systems analysis and safety
Artificial intelligence
Advanced reactors
Radiation transport
Radiation effects
Nuclear materials
Radiation detection
Health physics
Criticality safety
Waste management
Fusion and plasma physics
Accelerators
SOURCE: Committee survey.
Number of Institutions
10
10
2
5
7
6
4
5
5
4
7
10
1
OCR for page 56
56
FINDINGS
In summary, the committee arrived at the following findings:
o Undergraduate senior enrollments in nuclear engineering decreased
from 1,150 in 1978 to about 650 by 1988. Enrollments in master's programs
peaked in the late 1970s, at about 1,050 and have steadily declined, to about
750 in 1988. Since 1982, the number of students enrolled in doctoral programs
has remained relatively steady at about 600.
o Declines in nuclear engineering enrollments have limited the addition
of junior faculty members, leading to high proportions of older faculty.
O The number of young faculty that identify "reactor-related" research
as an area of interest is lower than among older faculty.
O The content of the nuclear engineering curriculum is basically
satisfactory, with the exception that more training in reactor systems
engineering, biological effects of radiation, and communications skills seems
warranted.
0 The current size of the nuclear engineering faculty is adequate. At
the graduate level, the student-to-faculty ratio is about the same as for
other engineering faculties. Faculty levels are also adequate for the present
number of graduate students. However, timely replacement of faculty nearing
retirement will be necessary to maintain stable programs.
o The number of university reactors has significantly declined over the
past two decades. These research reactors are important assets to the nuclear
engineering programs that have them and can substantially add to the
undergraduate and graduate educational experience.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
engineering faculty
