4—
National Needs for Education Infrastructure in Maritime Technology

Introduction

This chapter assesses the state of education in naval architecture and marine engineering in the United States and identifies steps that should be taken to strengthen the education base to fulfill national shipbuilding goals. This chapter considers the need for education to produce both military and commercial ships.

Education is a broad term. In the context of the maritime industries, it includes education or training of the following:

  • shipyard craftsmen and supervisors,
  • ship operating personnel,
  • designers of marine systems, and
  • producers of new technology.

Although this chapter does not address the education of shipyard craftsmen and supervisors or ship operating personnel, this does not imply that education in these areas is unimportant to the commercial success of U.S. maritime industries.

SNAME reported to the committee that it considers 18 schools to have undergraduate programs in naval architecture and marine engineering. 1 The list includes two military academies, six maritime academies, nine departments within the schools of engineering of various universities, and one independent school. The military academies graduate as many people with degrees in naval

1  

Femenia, Jose, Jr. Presentation to the Committee on National Needs in Maritime Technology, National Research Council. May 24, 1994.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 75
--> 4— National Needs for Education Infrastructure in Maritime Technology Introduction This chapter assesses the state of education in naval architecture and marine engineering in the United States and identifies steps that should be taken to strengthen the education base to fulfill national shipbuilding goals. This chapter considers the need for education to produce both military and commercial ships. Education is a broad term. In the context of the maritime industries, it includes education or training of the following: shipyard craftsmen and supervisors, ship operating personnel, designers of marine systems, and producers of new technology. Although this chapter does not address the education of shipyard craftsmen and supervisors or ship operating personnel, this does not imply that education in these areas is unimportant to the commercial success of U.S. maritime industries. SNAME reported to the committee that it considers 18 schools to have undergraduate programs in naval architecture and marine engineering. 1 The list includes two military academies, six maritime academies, nine departments within the schools of engineering of various universities, and one independent school. The military academies graduate as many people with degrees in naval 1   Femenia, Jose, Jr. Presentation to the Committee on National Needs in Maritime Technology, National Research Council. May 24, 1994.

OCR for page 75
--> TABLE 4-1 Schools of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering University of California at Berkeley The State University of New York Maritime College California Maritime Academy Texas A&M University at College Station Florida Atlantic University Texas A&M University at Galveston Florida Institute of Technology United States Coast Guard Academy Great Lakes Maritime Academy United States Merchant Marine Academy Maine Maritime Academy United States Naval Academy Massachusetts Institute of Technology Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Massachusetts Maritime Academy Webb Institute The University of Michigan   The University of New Orleans   architecture as all of the other schools combined.2 However, because they are structured for the primary purpose of developing U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard officers, and the continued existence of these schools is, therefore, independent of the health of the commercial shipbuilding industry, they are not evaluated in this report. Similarly, because the maritime academies have in the past been structured for the primary purpose of developing officers for the merchant marine, these academies are not evaluated. Descriptions of the schools assessed by the committee are provided in Appendix E. The committee selected a sample of the schools shown in Table 4-1 and focused attention on them.3 These schools are the University of California at Berkeley (Berkeley), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), the University of Michigan (Michigan), the University of New Orleans (UNO), Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), and Webb Institute of Naval Architecture (Webb). The committee recognizes that a broader view of education in marine fields is necessary and urges further studies, particularly of the role of maritime academies in a period of decline for the U.S. Navy as well as the U.S.-flag merchant fleet. Naval architecture is a traditional term for the hydrodynamic and structural design of ship hulls. Marine engineering encompasses the design of power systems and auxiliary equipment for ships. In U.S. universities, naval architecture and marine engineering are usually combined and considered as one program. In the United States, ocean engineering has grown from at least three distinct origins: 2   The importance of the academies to education in naval architecture is reflected by the fact that in 1993 the U.S. Naval Academy and the U.S. Coast Guard Academy together awarded more than 90 bachelor's degrees in naval architecture; the schools that the committee assessed awarded only 60 undergraduate degrees. 3   The committee convened a ''Workshop on Education in Naval Architecture" on October 18–19, 1994, in Washington, D.C. The workshop was attended by representatives of six of the schools considered by the committee. In addition, SNAME was represented, as was the Board on Engineering Education of the NRC. The schools represented at that workshop are those on which the committee focused its attention.

OCR for page 75
--> naval architecture, coastal (civil) engineering, and oceanography. The education needs of the offshore oil and gas industry have stimulated development of special-purpose programs that draw on both naval architecture and coastal engineering. In this report, except where otherwise stated, the committee considers naval architecture, marine engineering, and ocean engineering as a single field (NA&ME) concerned with the design of ships and floating or fixed ocean structures, including the hull and all machinery essential to their operation. The committee has characterized the field as the design of complex engineering systems for the ocean environment. The nearest engineering relative is aeronautical and aerospace engineering, which also addresses the design of highly complex systems that operate in hostile environments. The terms naval architect, ocean engineer, and naval architect/marine engineer will generally be used interchangeably in this report. All refer to an engineer whose work is focused on both complex systems and the ocean environment. A special kind of education is required for this field, and it is provided by the institutions listed in Table 4-1. The following sections address three questions about education in NA&ME: Question 1. Will a revitalized U.S. maritime industry require the availability of specialized university-level education in NA&ME? Question 2. How should educational institutions go about ensuring the existence of viable programs in this area? Question 3. What measures should be taken by federal agencies to help ensure the existence of an adequate educational infrastructure to support U.S. maritime industries? The fields of study and academic degrees awarded by the schools represented at the workshop are indicated in Table 4-2. The following discussion addresses the questions listed above. Need For Specialized Programs Question 1: Will a revitalized U.S. maritime industry require the availability of specialized university-level education in NA&ME? Academia will play a minor role in the short-term revitalization of the U.S. maritime industry; however, it will play an essential role in maintaining that industry. Here, "short-term" implies about five years. One cannot expect education to have real impacts on this time scale. Changes to curricula require time to develop the faculty to teach new courses. Students must elect the program, become educated, and then work for several years in the industry before they have an effect. University research might have some—but not a major—impact in the short-term. Thus the following discussion focuses on the long-term role of universities in maintaining a vigorous U.S. maritime industry.

OCR for page 75
--> TABLE 4-2 Fields of Study, Enrollment, and Degrees Awarded, by School   1994 Undergraduate Enrollment 1994 Graduate Enrollment Degree Levelsa Institution NA&ME NA OE TOTAL NA&ME NA OE   TOTAL Berkeley   18   18   20 10 30 M,Db MIT 1   9 10   52 54 106 Bc,M,E,D Michigan 80     80 72d     72 B,M,E,D UNO 90     90 12     12 B,M Virginia Tech     50 50     10 10 B,M Webb 75     75         Be a The particular name of a degree varies among institutions, but the general educational level is: B–Bachelor M–Master E–Engineer D–Doctorate b Two doctorates are offered by Berkeley—Ph.D. and Dr.Eng.; the bachelor's degree is no longer offered. Naval architecture at the B.S. level will be available only as an option in mechanical engineering. c The bachelor's degree is offered by MIT only in Ocean Engineering. d Graduate programs at Michigan are now being restructured in two tracks—marine hydrodynamics and marine environmental engineering and concurrent marine design. e A new master's program is being planned by Webb in ocean technology and commerce. In the long-term, if the U.S. shipbuilding industry survives, either by becoming internationally competitive or by a resurgence of either U.S.-Navy or U.S.-flag vessels, an educational base will be needed to maintain technological capability. That is particularly true for an internationally competitive industry. Technological competence is a necessary condition for a viable industry. The schools of NA&ME have a definite role to play in educating future shipbuilders. However, some changes in the educational programs are necessary. Kind of Specialized Education Required What differentiates specialized university education in naval architecture and marine engineering from education in other fields of engineering? In what ways is it specialized? Twenty-five years ago the answer would have been confined to its single professional product, ships. During the 1970s, designers of platforms for offshore oil and gas exploration and production, who were primarily civil and petroleum engineers, discovered that naval architects were eminently prepared by the breadth of their education to design these platforms even though they had not studied this specific application. NA&ME education was evidently not limited to ship design. Furthermore, naval architects had always been concerned with the design of whole ships, developing design tools on hydrodynamics, structures,

OCR for page 75
--> dynamics, metallurgy, thermodynamics, electric power, controls, and the like, as required by the task at hand. They were also concerned with the uses of the product, which required them to understand shipping systems; operation, finance, government regulation; and other nontechnological subjects. Clearly the field is broad in terms of both discipline and product. Naval architecture and marine engineering education shares with the rest of engineering education the criticism that curricula must pay more attention to the development of communication and social skills; social and economic studies need to be integrated into the curricula. NA&ME curricula, like other engineering curricula, need to give consideration to business and management courses and capstone design projects. All six schools on which the committee focused attention include a capstone design course involving teaming. Numerous experiments to reform undergraduate engineering education are under way nationwide at the present time and are in various stages of development. It remains to be seen if an overall balance will be achieved between recognition of the need for reform and the necessity of imparting a necessary and sound basis of technical knowledge. Much of the detailed engineering effort required in the design and construction of complex marine systems can be done effectively by persons educated in the more conventional areas of engineering, especially mechanical engineering. Overall system design requires input from professionals, like naval architects, who are educated to address issues involving entire marine systems. All major ship design and shipbuilding firms find it necessary to recruit and employ system synthesizers. These system synthesizers play a vital and necessary role in the ship design process. Even in the current depressed state of U.S. shipbuilding, graduates of schools of NA&ME can find employment in the field. For example, Michigan reports that in spring 1994 22 B.S. graduates in NA&ME received 65 job offers in this field. Similarly, UNO is supported in NA&ME by the marine industry in the Gulf Coast region, and graduates who are not already employed by local industry readily find positions. In 1994, the 10 UNO NA&ME graduates with the degree of B.S. recorded more than 25 job offers in the field. The continued need for these schools is indicated by the employment of their graduates, notwithstanding the perception of entering students that job opportunities are poor. Changes Needed in NA&ME Education The idea that specialized NA&ME education will be critical in supporting a flourishing marine industry does not imply that no changes in NA&ME education are needed. In particular, NA&ME education has suffered from a basic shortcoming that reflects a major deficiency of the U.S. shipbuilding industry: students have been taught how to design complex ocean systems, but few have been taught how those systems are (or might be) fabricated; and there has not been much

OCR for page 75
--> emphasis on designing for producibility. Although this shortcoming has not been limited to the maritime industry, it has been especially significant there, where engineering design and manufacturing have been carried out not only by separate groups of people with distinct cultures, but even in separate companies. Educational institutions did not create this situation, but until recently they did little or nothing to correct it. Fortunately, this is now changing. Michigan took the lead 15 years ago by addressing this need at the undergraduate level and now is reorganizing graduate studies as well to emphasize concurrent engineering. MIT's Naval Construction and Engineering Program has developed a significant component on shipbuilding methods and organization. The task is certainly not completed, but the problem has been identified, and substantial steps are being taken in the proper direction. Another change needed in NA&ME education will be further discussed in connection with federal support for programs (Question 3). Education in the field is strongly affected by the interests and expertise of the faculty. Engineering professors in major academic institutions must be able to perform leading-edge research and obtain funding for it. This is a fact of academic life and an integral part of higher education in engineering in the United States. Pressures on young faculty members cause them to direct their scholarly attention toward available research funding or face serious limitations on their careers. Eventually, these forces can distort the balance of the educational experience. Ship fabrication is an important and timely example. Research on producibility has been funded by industry and government largely through the NSRP, which focuses on direct applications but not the theoretical aspects needed to further the careers of junior faculty members. Another example is found in the shortage of faculty to teach marine structural design. This is a critical field because of high industry demands for marine structural engineers to design offshore exploration and production platforms. University research funding that has been available in this area is largely through the interagency Ship Structure Committee (SSC), which does not emphasize academic aspects of research. As a result, few faculty members focus on ship structures, and few students pursue doctorates in this area. At present, there is virtually no pool of new faculty talent to provide educational or technological leadership in these areas. There is often a gulf in major research universities between the faculty and students who are oriented more towards design and practical applications and those who are more oriented towards research. Some schools have recognized this gulf and are evolving programs toward innovation and change, a process that would profit from greater industrial involvement. There is also a diversity of educational institutions, with some emphasizing design, synthesis and the application of engineering science to engineering practice, others emphasizing cutting edge research. A strength of the U.S. educational system is that students are offered choices among institutions and educational programs.

OCR for page 75
--> Number of Professional Graduates Required Most of the engineers who participate in the design of complex ocean systems do not need to be educated specifically for that purpose. Many subtasks can be performed by individuals educated in other engineering disciplines. But it is critical that some engineers be educated in the design of complex systems and that they understand the unique constraints imposed by the marine environment so that there will be some leaders in marine system design. These unique requirements are recognized by several state boards for registration of professional engineers that provide separate licenses for NA&ME. How many NA&ME graduates are needed? Realistic estimates would require accurate predictions of the size of the industry some years in the future. Such numbers are not available, and the current level of employment provides no insight for this purpose. Since future marine-industry needs for specially educated engineers are not known, the committee chose to ask instead what the minimum level of education in this field must be to survive. Based upon the number of current faculty members, the nation now has some over-capacity for producing new graduates at the bachelor's and master's levels. This is because all of the institutions listed, except Webb, could quickly increase throughput to meet any foreseeable short-term demand for graduates (provided, of course, that they can recruit more students). But the number of programs is so small that the diversity of programs will be lost if that number is significantly reduced. Some differences among the programs will be described later in connection with Question 3. Current programs operate on different philosophies, attract students from varied sources, produce graduates with somewhat differing identifiable capabilities, and support themselves in different ways. The committee considers this diversity just as important as the capacity to produce a prescribed number of graduates. The capability of growing in the future, should a resurgence of either commercial or naval shipbuilding occur, also requires that these programs continue to exist. Program Viability Question 2: How should educational institutions go about ensuring the existence of viable programs in this area? There is no single prescription for all six institutions listed above. With the exception of Webb Institute, the educational programs relevant to this study reside within larger institutions. Among these, there is tremendous diversity in size, scope, organization, and culture. We can set down some general conditions for viability of the educational enterprise in this field, but they do not apply equally to all of the institutions listed. Nevertheless, program viability requires generally that:

OCR for page 75
--> the program address real-world engineering needs; employment and career opportunities exist for graduates; students be attracted to the program; means be available to pay the costs of offering the program; and institutional expectations of the program be satisfied. The paragraphs that follow discuss the five conditions listed above. For the most part, this discussion is limited to bachelor's and master's degree programs, which are the primary source of professional engineers for the field. Addressing Real-World Engineering Needs The need to teach ship production and producibility was mentioned above. This change in curriculum should be part of a larger effort to address more than traditional academic needs. In order to be viable in the current economic and political climate, engineering academic institutions must identify and address the real-world needs of the professions they serve. Because they vary widely, institutions inevitably define real-world needs in different ways and respond to them differently. As an example, consider the historic, ongoing dialogue between academia and industry as to whether engineering graduates should, or can, be produced who are ready to perform useful engineering work from day one or whether employers should plan on providing a period of intensive training for new graduates who are well versed in basic principles. There is no single answer to this question. Either approach can be claimed to address real-world needs. In fact, the nation needs both. One of the most important real-world needs that should be addressed is the health of the U.S. shipbuilding industry. Outside the NA&ME faculties, there is extensive knowledge in process simulation. As was shown in Chapter 2, this knowledge is essential if U.S. yards are to restructure themselves at minimum capital cost in order to approach world-class yard economics. Individual faculty members can also become deeply involved with the members of the industry in trying to become competitive through purely technical improvements and through a mix of technical and economic improvements in process engineering, tooling, material processing, and the like. In many countries, including some of the leading ship-producing countries, higher education is centrally controlled, and dual levels of engineering education were established precisely for the purpose of providing the two kinds of engineering graduates described above. The two tracks are rigidly defined and are distinguished by different diplomas or degrees. In the U.S., each institution constructs its own engineering curriculum within the framework of minimum accreditation criteria, and each awards the bachelor's degree. This diversity among educational institutions is a great strength of the U.S. education system. It allows schools

OCR for page 75
--> flexibility to adapt to changing environments. But there must be enough viable institutions in the field to allow for experimentation. The alternative is for a higher authority to define multiple tracks and ensure that at least one institution survives in each track. Employment and Career Opportunities Many young people study history, literature, philosophy, and so on, because they perceive that such studies give them a well-rounded education. Engineering education is by its nature professional education. If the profession and related industries are not vigorous, the supporting academic programs will wither away. On the other hand, if the U.S. shipbuilding industry does indeed succeed in competing internationally, thus revitalizing itself, it will need many more naval architects and ocean engineers than are entering the profession at present. There are more than five years between the time an undergraduate engineering student elects a program of study and the time that individual becomes sufficiently competent to work in the field. Therefore, students should be recruited now if commercial shipbuilding becomes a viable industry in five years. However, because engineering students select fields of study based on their perceptions of the future job market, schools may have to broaden the range of engineering activities to assure students that good jobs will indeed be available. In effect, the marine field accomplished this in the 1970s when the offshore oil and gas industry recognized the relevance of NA&ME education. This broadening of activities could be repeated today by addressing marine environmental issues. Potential careers may not be the ones traditionally identified in the marine field, but the education needed for such careers will be similar to the education for NA&ME. Among the schools of NA&ME assessed by the committee, most have already taken some steps to diversify in ways that expand professional opportunities for their students. In this respect, UNO may be an exception, for the simple reason that its geographical location and intimate involvement with successful local industry make diversification unnecessary and, perhaps, undesirable. If the marine industry succeeds in building itself up once again nationally, other educational institutions may be able to follow UNO's example in this respect. In general, educational institutions must be able to identify future employment and career opportunities for their engineering graduates if their programs are to remain viable. In addition, employment in the marine industry can begin with work-study programs, such as the eight-week winter work term at Webb, or through other co-op programs where the student spends one semester in school and the next on the job. Such programs require substantial commitments from industrial sponsors, but the results can be substantial. Benefits to the school are increased enrollment, to the student a realistic perspective on industry needs, and to the industry sponsor greater educational focus on industry needs.

OCR for page 75
--> Attracting Students Engineering academic staff members are continually impressed by the sensitivity of students to perceived fluctuations in job markets. When the aerospace industry went into decline after the shutdown of the U.S. moon-exploration program in the early 1970s, aeronautical and aerospace programs across the country experienced catastrophic drops in enrollment; decreases of 75 percent were common. There was a similar phenomenon in chemical engineering in the early 1980s, when enrollments dropped by as much as 50 percent in just two years—also in response to changing job markets. It is hardly surprising then that most NA&ME and ocean-engineering programs have difficulty attracting students at this time. Only at UNO are students likely to opt for NA&ME because they know that good jobs are available locally. In fact, many full-time NA&ME students at UNO have obtained part-time employment in New Orleans naval architecture firms and local shipyards, and only five of UNO's 90 NA&ME students are part-time. But students have also been attracted to NA&ME for other reasons. In annual polls taken by the Michigan NA&ME Department over a number of years, more than 80 percent of the students said they wanted to design sailing yachts. Many students were willing to sublimate that desire to designing commercial or military vessels or even offshore platforms. Other countries constitute another source of NA&ME students. For decades, outstanding young people from other countries have been attracted to U.S. universities, especially to graduate programs. Many have subsequently moved into U.S. industry and government. In large academic institutions, low undergraduate enrollment is viewed as a sign of weakness in the field, the program, or both, and a department is viewed critically if the number of student credit hours taught per faculty member is unusually low. Student/faculty ratios strongly influence the status of a program, including faculty positions, office and laboratory space, equipment, support services, and the like. The full negative impact of low undergraduate enrollment may be mitigated by large graduate student enrollment and high research volume, but a department with low undergraduate enrollment can expect trouble. Thus, attracting more students is a high priority of all university-based NA&ME and ocean engineering undergraduate programs. Institutions need to find ways to convey to potential students that career opportunities are not limited by the current state of the U.S. shipbuilding industry. That message should be addressed to students in high school, or even younger, preferably by involving active professional engineers. Reducing Costs Most universities in the United States are now facing severe financial constraints; containing costs and expanding revenues have become major objectives. All of the educational institutions serving the maritime sector, including those

OCR for page 75
--> with high tuition, provide education at a loss. This loss must be covered by a combination of income from endowment, gifts, and (in public universities) state funds. In this climate, universities cannot be expected to recognize any intrinsic obligation to support U.S. maritime industries or the U.S. Navy. Among the six institutions considered by the committee, only Webb and UNO have deep commitments to this field. As they try to reduce costs, institutions may decide to offer fewer but larger classes, taking advantage of an economy of scale. If undergraduate enrollments are very low, however, as they are in NA&ME and ocean engineering programs, this option is not available. In this case, administrative attention is likely to turn to the larger savings that can be realized by eliminating small programs and saving the cost of faculty salaries. Merging small departments into larger ones is another mechanism for achieving modest savings, and the administrations of MIT, Michigan, and Berkeley have considered this option for the departments of concern here. The intent would be that the programs would continue to exist, although the departments would vanish. Such mergers appear to be on hold at these institutions for the moment. Reducing costs and increasing revenues will be continuing concerns for all universities and will be especially pertinent to the future of small programs, such as the ones considered here. Except at Webb, the consequences could be alleviated by the increased enrollment that would accompany a renaissance in the marine industry or a major diversification of the field. A similar result might be achieved in all institutions, including Webb, if alternate sources, such as gifts to endow professorships, could be found. Research funds do not reduce the basic cost of engineering education. They can pay the tuition costs of graduate students who participate in the research, broaden the institution's indirect-cost base, and pay a fraction of the salary of faculty grantees. But the financial benefits of research funding, while important, are minor compared to the cost of the educational programs themselves. Federal Support For Programs Question 3: What measures should be taken by federal agencies to help ensure the existence of an adequate educational infrastructure to support U.S. maritime industries? Background Much of the educational infrastructure in this filed would not exist if it were not for actions by federal agencies in the past. In particular, naval architecture programs at Michigan, MIT, and Berkeley can all be traced directly to U.S. Navy initiatives, which took completely different forms in the three cases. It is worth noting how this happened before we look ahead for new models of cooperation.

OCR for page 75
--> In the late 1870s, Congress authorized the U.S. Navy to assign officers to a number of universities as ''professors of iron shipbuilding and steam engineering." These fields were at the forefront of technology of the day. In the field of steam engineering, the Navy was the national leader in developing new technology. U.S. universities were ill-prepared to teach these subjects—a condition the new program was intended to correct. About a dozen young officers were sent to as many institutions, and a plethora of teaching programs came into being. Most of these programs vanished in the following decades, but the one at Michigan survived because the young lieutenant sent there in 1881 was a remarkable leader who dedicated his life to the university. The creation of the MIT NA&ME Department in 1893 did not result from specific U.S. Navy action, but a strong Navy presence was soon established. Since 1901, MIT has maintained a graduate program primarily for engineering duty officers who go on to manage the design of U.S. Navy ships. For much of that time, the Navy has also assigned active-duty engineering officers to MIT's teaching staff. There has never been a contract between MIT and the Navy relating to this program. U.S. Navy students are admitted, and Navy faculty members are appointed, through normal MIT procedures. There have been times when the Navy program dominated the department and other times when it did not.4 Over the years, the program has been a model of voluntary collaboration for the mutual benefit of MIT and the Navy. Currently, most of the graduate students in the ship design option at MIT are U.S. Navy officers. In the mid-1950s, ONR determined that the nation needed a new program of graduate study and research relating to ships. A generous and flexible research contract was awarded to the University of California at Berkeley to help make this happen. At the same time, ONR encouraged U.S. Navy agencies to send civilians and officers to Berkeley to earn master's or doctor's degrees. The result was a generation of young people educated in a research tradition different from that of either MIT or Michigan. The Berkeley program continued with little change in concept until the late 1970s, when an undergraduate degree program was added and diversification into offshore engineering was incorporated. (The B.S. program is no longer offered as a separate degree at Berkeley.) It is unlikely that any of these institutions would have started and maintained such programs but for the intercession of the federal government. These are all institutions that had previously been described as having no "intrinsic obligation to support U.S. maritime industries or the U.S. Navy," but they all recognized the opportunity of serving the nation and providing leadership in education and research. They picked up on U.S. Navy initiatives and extended them. Eventually, each of the schools devoted substantial resources of its own to meeting these national needs. A clear indication of the educational need as perceived by industry is the 4   At present, less than one-fourth of the students in the NA&ME Department are military personnel.

OCR for page 75
--> establishment of the NA&ME academic program at the UNO, which is part of the Louisiana State University system. In the late 1970s, the expansion in offshore oil-field development resulted in a shortage of naval architects and marine engineers. This shortage of trained engineers limited commercial opportunities and led a group of industry leaders in the New Orleans area to develop the intellectual and political case for the creation of an NA&ME program in the Louisiana State University system. Their case proved to be so strong that the State of Louisiana appropriated funds for new facilities for the entire UNO College of Engineering to ensure that the new NA&ME program had well-equipped laboratories in a modern engineering environment. Today, the UNO NA&ME program is well established and respected, fulfilling the vision of industry leaders in that area 15 years ago. Webb, Virginia Tech, and UNO all established their NA&ME/Ocean Engineering education programs without direct federal involvement. This demonstrates that education in this field is not necessarily dependent on the federal government. However, it is noteworthy that three-quarters of a century elapsed between the founding of Webb Institute and the establishment of the next program not initiated by the Navy, the ocean engineering program at Virginia Tech; UNO came still later. Although the federal government is not the only organization providing support for education in NA&ME, it has played a crucial role. Some academic programs have managed to survive and sometimes even thrive because of research support from federal agencies. Such support at universities does little to reduce the cost of professional education, but it does benefit marine education by enhancing the image of the recipient department in the eyes of the university administration. This increases the likelihood that the department will receive institutional resources to support partially faculty researchers, pay for laboratory development, and support the development of the next generation of professors. ONR has been, by far, the most consistent source of research funds in this field in the post-World War II era. However, significant support has also been received from U.S. Navy laboratories, MARAD, the U.S. Coast Guard, the National Science Foundation, and the Sea Grant Program of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). There has been no sustained federal interest in the education of engineers to design and build ships, although, occasionally, there is an especially articulate advocate for education within an agency. This occurred in ONR in the 1950s and led to the creation of the program at Berkeley. In the mid-1970s, NA&ME education found a temporary champion in the National Science Foundation (NSF) Education Directorate. But these episodes were short-lived, and they did not reflect sustained concern for the promotion of education. Mechanisms for Support of Education Support of education in NA&ME is an important and ongoing concern of several government agencies, but it is not the dominant concern of any. Mechanisms

OCR for page 75
--> are needed for strengthening that support, possibly by bringing agencies together to combine available resources for the support and development of education. Four alternative support mechanisms are: individual federal agency efforts; coordination among agencies and with academia; public-private partnerships; and academic-led consortia. Individual Federal Agency Efforts If a coordinating group were established for support of education in NA&ME, it would operate best if it had nongovernmental members, including academic institutions and industry. In the current atmosphere of federal austerity, it is not expected that federal agencies will devote major new resources to maritime education infrastructure. However, ONR-funded research currently supports graduate students, some of whom are future professors. ONR has also awarded graduate-study fellowships that are not directly linked to research programs. Indeed, ONR has an explicit mandate to promote the development of manpower in its mission areas, but there appears to be little discussion between ONR and other interested groups on how these programs might better serve long-term purposes. Two examples illustrate the importance of early and broad consultation. Ship production was not systematically taught in any of our universities until very recently. At the same time, MARAD (in the 1970s) and the U.S. Navy (in the 1980s) funded the NSRP. However, because of the way the NSRP is structured not all universities can participate. Development of research programs that meet the combined needs of the academic institutions, industry, and government will promote the growth of programs in this area. The present critical nationwide shortage of professors of ship structures may be largely attributable to the fact that the U.S. Navy, MARAD, and the U.S. Coast Guard have not meaningfully addressed professional development in this area. They have sponsored research in ship structures, but not enough to develop the needed faculty or to encourage graduate students to elect studies in this area. Additional basic research at the universities is needed. Certain areas have been neglected in our academic institutions because of insufficient research opportunities for faculty and graduate students. As a result, the pool of potential faculty talent is inadequate. In naval architecture and ocean engineering, this has been the case for at least two decades in structural mechanics. It was also the case in manufacturing technologies. These fields to not have priority in terms of the technological needs of the U.S. Navy to justify expenditure on a large scale. Because of a lack of funding, faculty development is not encouraged in these areas.

OCR for page 75
--> In the fall of 1994 the ONR established the Gulf Coast Marine Technology Center at UNO and at Lamar University in Orange, Texas. The goal of the center is to make the U.S. shipbuilding industry more competitive on an international scale. MARAD designated the National Maritime Enhancement Institute (NMEI) program in 1990, under which all academic institutions were eligible to compete for NMEI designation. Four institutions were selected: Berkeley, MIT, Memphis State University, and Louisiana State University. Each was selected for a "program area" or an area of specialty for which they demonstrated "world class" competence. Although very little funding has been made available for the implementation of this program, and although its future is in doubt, the program represents another possible base on which to build a broader program of support for research that can enhance the educational base. Coordination among Agencies and with Academia Several federal agencies have an interest in supporting education in NA&ME, but no agency has the resources or the charter to do this alone. A unified effort among several agencies may make a significant difference. A possible organizational model for coordination among agencies is the SSC, an organization of several government agencies that promotes safety, economy, marine environmental protection, and education in the North American maritime industry. Although the SSC is effective in supporting research in ship structures, the research projects do not coincide with the needs of some educational institutions to develop and maintain faculty members who specialize in ship structures. The SSC is currently assessing education in ship structural design and construction to determine how to correct these problems. This effort could be expanded with a combined effort to cover education in the entire field on NA&ME. Public Private Consortia There are several industry consortia today that support research at schools of NA&ME. Examples are discussed below. Joint MIT-Industry Project on Tanker Safety This project began at MIT in 1992 with the support of about 20 different sponsors representing shipyards, ship classification societies, shipowners, and government agencies. The consortium has an annual budget of about $500,000 for investigating methods of predicting damage to oil tankers that run aground. To date, 26 graduate students have worked on the tanker-safety project and prepared these and dissertations based on that work. Ten graduate students were financially supported by the project.

OCR for page 75
--> Structural Maintenance for New and Existing Ships This project began at Berkeley in 1990 with the support of about 15 different sponsors representing oil-tanker owners, shipbuilders, ship classification societies, and government agencies. The consortium had an annual budget of about $450,000 to study the structural maintenance of oil tankers. This project was completed in 1993 but has been replaced by a series of smaller projects. There are usually four or five projects every year, with four sponsors for each who contribute $15,000 apiece. These consortia are models of how to provide industry support to universities. The money provided supports research facilities and graduate students throughout their dissertations. Most important, a link is established between industry and the university so that research is relevant to both academic and commercial interests. The examples above highlight current efforts to support education in NA&ME. What they do not provide is a unified approach to the problem. A possible forum for a unified effort is the Education Committee of SNAME. The overall society membership comes from all aspects of NA&ME. Although the committee currently has members from both industry and academia, there is only one member from a government agency. The current interests of the committee are licensing naval architects and marine engineers, continuing education in NA&ME, and accreditation of university programs in NA&ME. To be effective as a public-private-academic partnership to strengthen the teaching of NA&ME, representation is needed from government agencies, and support of education must become a primary focus. Other efforts to support education in NA&ME include Panel 9, Education and Training, of the NSRP. Although the emphasis of the panel is on shipyard training, there have been efforts to promote the teaching of ship production in universities (see Appendix D). Recruitment of Students It has already been noted that, as modest as the demand is for naval architects and ocean engineers, the supply is even poorer. The perception of bad times in the industry has outrun reality, and the pool of interested young people is inadequate to meet the current demands of industry and government. ONR has had difficulty finding outstanding college seniors interested in applying for existing fellowships. A fundamental approach to these problems would involve addressing students in high school or even earlier. Since that might require an effort beyond the scope of these agencies, an alternative might be a campaign to attract undergraduates from other fields of engineering. One model for doing this is the NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates Program. Of course,

OCR for page 75
--> ONR contracts and grants already support some undergraduates in research projects, but not in a coordinated program to attract students. For example, most or all of the NA&ME/Ocean Engineering institutions could offer summer research opportunities, even if they did not have relevant ongoing ONR projects. These summer positions would be attractive to undergraduates both financially and intellectually, and the cost would be moderate. Summary Life at a university can be extremely competitive on both a personal level and a program or departmental level. There is no simple "bottom line" by which evaluations can be made, a fact that gives added importance to some subjective criteria. The health and even the survival of NA&ME programs may depend on their being able to demonstrate that intellectual diversity is critical. At the same time, programs must also demonstrate their worth according to the standards, both objective and subjective, applied to more conventional programs. Universities will need the active support of industry and government to accomplish this. The institutions discussed in this report are expected to produce the naval architects and ocean engineers for future naval construction and a resurgent commercial shipbuilding industry. Their ability to do so, however, depends upon their continued existence. Many programs are in decline, and there is no unified effort to change the situation. If the number of programs in a field is too small, there will not be enough latitude or redundancy for experiments to be made in institutional programs. If the number of institutions decreases, the United States risks losing the capability to educate engineers specifically for the marine industries. If this capability is ever lost, it will be extremely difficult to recover it. This study would suggest that modest steps and investments can avoid such a national crisis as the loss of our NA&ME educational pipeline; absent such attention, a crisis looms. The committee recognizes that a broader view of education in marine fields is necessary and urges further study, particularly of the role of maritime academies in a period of decline of both the U.S. Navy and the U.S.-flag merchant fleet.