Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
4 current Status of Engineering Education As was pointed out in the introduction, the most critical and con- cemed attention directed at the engineering profession in recent years has focused on engineering education. This is where the cries of crisis have been most frequent and insistent. The educational system is cor- rectly perceived as producing not just the fodder of the technology development process, but its seed corn as well. The training, skills, and knowledge of recent graduates are of critical importance to that devel- opment process, and trends that threaten their continued supply to any degree also threaten the foundations of industry and the national econ- omy. The linkage between engineering innovation, quality, and productiv- ity on the one hand, and industrial and economic strength on the other is clearly evident as we look around at the world today. That linkage is two-directional in nature; occurrences with major economic impact also affect engineering. Figure 5 illustrates how closely the enrollment of engineers {and degrees awarded) in the United States is tied to national economic events, as well as to sociological attitudes {Report of the Pane! on Infrastructure Diagramming and Mocleling). (It should be noted that underlying factors such as demographic shifts also affect the amplitude of these curves, as in number 10 on the chart. ~ A primary objective of the committee was to reexamine the status of engineering education today, to see whether time and a degree of high- level attention to these problems in recent years might have brought about significant improvements in the situation. 51
52 1 20,000 1 05,000 it' , 12 F\ ~ ~90,000 UJ us ~75,000 7 ~60000 on ' ~ 45,000 on I I 30,000 _ 1 5,000 ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE First-Year Enrollments / 10 1 I%_ I I I I A I 4/ ~/ BS Degrees _ _~ .' .~ MS Degrees 1945 1950 1955 PhD Degrees 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 YEAR 1 Return ing WW I I veterans 2 Diminishing veteran pool and expected surplus of engineers 3 Korean War and increasing R&D expenditures 4 Return ing Korean War veterans 5 Aerospace program cutbacks and economic recession 6 Vietnam War and greater space expenditures 7 Increased student interest in social-program careers 8 Adverse student attitudes toward engineering, decreased space and defense expenditures, and lowered college attendance Improved engineering job market, positive student attitudes toward engineering, and entry of nontraditional students (women, minorities, and foreign nationals) Diminishing 18-year-old pool A ASEE Evaluation Report recommends greater stress on math/science and quality graduate education FIGURE 5 Engineering degrees and lst-year enrollments: Historical factors influenc- ing changes in engineering enrollments.
CURRENT STATUS OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 53 Four separate panels of the Subcommittee on Engineering Educa- tional Systems examined relevant aspects of undergraduate education, graduate education and research, engineering technology education, and continuing education for engineers. Based on the findings of those panels, it is possible to examine engi- neering education issues in a way that cuts across the different levels and types of programs. A useful organizing principle might be to look first at areas that are of critical importance either because of their potential for doing harm or because of the timeliness of the needs they impose and then to discuss special topics that are of broad or long- ter'~ importance. Finally, we will examine a number of points at which the educational system is experiencing significant change. Critical Areas Faculty If there is one immediately pressing problem in engineering educa- tion, it is the current shortage of engineering faculty. Estimates of the severity of the shortage range from 1,567 to 6,700 (1,567 is the number of unfilled positions reported in a survey of engineering deans in 1983, and 6,700 is the number necessary to restore the student/faculty ratio to the levels of 1967-1969 and 1975-1976; see the Report of the Panel on Graduate Education and Research). The most recent survey of engi- neering colleges conducted by the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) revealed that 8.5 percent of budgeted faculty posi- tions were unfilled in the fall of 1983 {American Society for Engineering Education, 1984b). Data derived from long-term analysis of advertise- ments for faculty positions indicate that 8.5 percent is higher than normal. The committee roughly estimates that the norm is probably around 3 or 4 percent. The lack of sufficient faculty is the most important factor currently limiting attempts to increase the quality, scope, and number of engi- neering programs. The shortage has several contributory causes, including the per- ceived unattractiveness of a teaching career relative to a career in indus- try and a decrease in available Ph.D.s in combination with a rapid increase in student enrollments in recent years. The latter has resulted in overcrowded classrooms that are themselves a further disincentive to teaching: student/faculty ratios rose 37 percent between 1976 and 1982 {Report of the Panel on Graduate Education and Research). A major concern has been that these ratios are too high and that they reduce the student-faculty interaction that is essential to high-quality
54 ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PM CTICE education. Also frequently cited as negative aspects of a teaching career are noncompetitive salaries and poor research facilities compared with those available in industry. In order to attack the faculty shortage problem, the ASEE Engineer- ing Deans' Council recently adopted the following policy statement to encourage top-quaTity students to consider careers as engineering fac- ulty members {American Society for Engineering Education, 1984a): At least 1000 intelligent and highly motivated individuals with doctoral degrees in engineering will be needed every year as faculty members in institu- tions of higher learning in the United States. Charged with the critical responsi- bility of educating prospective engineers, these individuals must enjoy the challenges and satisfaction of teaching, the excitement of research at the very frontiers of knowledge, and the freedom of self-d~rection. The opportunities for a lifelong, productive, satisfying, and rewarding career are unlimited. Some have argued that engineering schools should be able to handle increased student loads through increased productivity of existing fac- ulty with no loss of educational quality. Greater use of teaching assist- ants is one conventional approach for reducing a professor's per-class workload. But teaching assistants require money in the form of gradu- ate assistantships, and such funds have perennially been in short sup- PIY In addition to the current shortfall of faculty, there is a continuing need to replace retiring faculty members. Because of present age distri- butions among engineering faculty, it can be expected that some 7,000 will retire over the next 15 years an average of about 450 per year, probably increasing from 300 per year in the near term to 600 per year by the turn of the century (Report of the Pane! on Graduate Education and Research). The matter of Tow academic salaries has also been perceived as a major disincentive, and the perception has undoubtedly steered many young potential faculty members away from teaching. Although there are signs of improvement in this regard at some schools, there is still a considerable disparity between academic and industry salaries {Engi- neeringManpowerCommission, 1983c, 19834~. There are several points that should be made here that complicate salary comparisons. First, faculty salaries at every level must be com- pared with those of Ph.D. engineers in industry. In addition, an equita- ble comparison for full professors is with industry supervisory Ph.D. holders "division heads I, because some full professors are recruited into these positions. However, academic salaries are for 9 months. Because many faculty {including nearly all entry-level faculty) obtain research
CURRENT STATUS OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 64,000 60,000 56,000 52,000 ~48,000 A: 44,000 40,000 36,000 32,000 28,000 24,000 _ 20,000 Assistant Prof. Industry-Supervisor _ - _ ' - - - Professor ~ ~Industry-Nonsupervisor Associate Prof. - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16,000 0 3 6 9 12 15 13 21 24 27 30 33 and 55 YEARS SINCE BACCALAUREATE DEGREE Over FIGURE 6 Comparison of academe-industry engineering Ph.D. salaries {all professo- rial salaries adjusted to 11-month basis J. SOURCE: Engineering Manpower Commission, AAES, 1983. grants for 2 summer months, salary comparisons should reflect that augmentation {i.e., a multiplier of 11/9 must be applied).) Figure 6 compares adjusted salaries of Ph.D.-holders employed in industry and academe. Even these adjusted industrial-academic comparisons may be decep- tive, however, because they involve median salaries. This approach ignores {in the case of faculty) large school-to-school differences and many individual differences. For example, the salaries of some estab ~ At some schools, funding for all 3 summer months is the case {requiring a multi- plier of 12/9) .
56 ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE fished professors are substantially augmented by income from consult- ing or book royalties. Younger faculty generally do not have the time or opportunity to obtain these supplements to income. A crucial point is that for tenure-track positions schools typically attempt to hire the best doctoral engineers available. These same people can sometimes com- mand significantly higher than median salaries in industry {as high as $45,000 to start, in some cases), so that the real disparity may be even greater than the chart indicates. When all these factors are taken into account, the salary problem is a real one. The salaries of full professors are well below those of their counterparts in industry. Moreover, the key salary problem is with junior faculty-assistant and associate professors beyond the entry level and this is of course what discourages many young Ph.D.s con- sidering teaching as a career. Graduate Degrees Figure 5, at the beginning of this chapter, demonstrated that graduate degrees awarded have not kept pace with B.S. degrees in recent years. Doctoral degree output has been particularly hard hit. While the num- ber of engineering bachelor's degrees increased by 81 percent between 1977 and 1983, full-time doctoral enrollment increased only 33 percent in the same period. Table 2 presents numerical B.S./M.S./Ph.D. com- parisons. Note that total annual Ph.D. production has been roughly stable at about 2,800 in recent years, although it rose to about 3,000 in 1983 {Report of the Pane! on Graduate Education and Research). Cer- tainly a major reason for the lack of interest has been the starting salaries offered to B.S. engineers by industry, which are very attractive in comparison to the extremely low income afforded by graduate study. However, this situation now appears to be changing. Based on cur- rent numbers of doctoral-level graduate students, the Panel on Gradu- ate Education and Research projects that Ph.D. output will increase to approximately 4,000 in 1988 {see Figure 7~. The question must now be asked: Will this increase solve the faculty shortage? The Pane! on Graduate Study and Research initially calculated that 3,900 engineering Ph.D.s per year would be required to meet the needs for faculty, given that industry demand does not increase substantially. However, the committee concludes that advancing technology will cause industry demand for engineering Ph.D.s to increase steadily throughout the coming years. In addition, about 40 percent of the Ph.D.s graduating in recent years have been foreign nationals on tem- porary visas. Therefore, the projected supply of 4,000 Ph.D.s per year
CURRENT STATUS OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION TABLE2 U.S. Engineering Degrees 1950-1983 57 Bachelor's Degrees Year Foreign Ending Nationalsa 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Total Master's Degrees Foreign Nationalsa Total Doctor's Degrees Foreign Nationalsa Total n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1,565 1,944 2,136 2,436 2,468 2,799 2,996 3,084 3,788 4,895 5,622 5,410 6,151 48,160 n/a 37,887 n/a 27,155 n/a 24,165 n/a 22,236 n/a 22,589 n/a 26,306 n/a 31,221 n/a 35,332 n/a 38,134 n/a 37,808 n/a 35,860 n/a 34,735 n/a 33,458 n/a 35,226 n/a 36,691 n/a 35,815 n/a 36,186 n/a 38,002 n/a 39,972 n/a 42,966 n/a 43,167 2,930 44,190 2,973 43,429 2,551 41,407 3,099 38,210 3,250 37,970 3,628 40,095 3,825 46,091 3,579 52,598 3,944 58,742 4,402 62,935 4,589 66,990 5,216 72,471 5,145 n/a n/a n/a n/a 4,865n/a492 5,134n/a586 4,132n/a586 3,636n/a592 4,078n/a590 4,379n/a599 4,589n/a610 5,093n/a596 5,669n/a647 6,615n/a714 6,989n/a786 7,977n/a943 8,909n/a1,207 9,460n/a1,378 10,827n/a1,693 12,246n/a2,124 13,677n/a2,303 13,887n/a2,614 15,152n/a2,933 14,980n/a3,387 15,548n/a3,620 16,3837413,640 17,3567733,774 17,1527083,587 15,8851,0143,362 15,7738913,138 16,5061,0602,977 16,5519932,813 15,7368742,573 15,6249292,815 16,9419822,751 17,6431,0542,841 18,2891,1672,887 19,6731,1793,023 Data from 1950- 1952 taken from Facilities and Opportunities for Graduate Studyin Engineenng, American Society for Engineering Education, Washington, D.C., March 1968. Data from 1953- 1976 supplied by Engineering Manpower Commission, New York, N.Y. Data for 1977-1979 from Engineering ManpowerBulletin #50, November 1979, Engineers Joint Council, New York, N.Y.1980- 1983 data from Engineering Manpower Commission. a For these data, "foreign nationals" refers to non-U.S. citizens on temporary visas.
58 4,000 ~ 1~ of us ~ 3,0t)0 an J Z o O UJ ~ 2,000 ~ Z J ~ A: O: O ~- O <.n 111 1 ,000 ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE ,-~' Estimated New Doctoral Students Each Year (Current doctoral students, displaced 5 years to the right) /\ ~' Engineering Doctoral Degrees - 1970 1 975 1 980 1985 1 990 YEAR FIGURE 7 Engineering doctoral degrees per year. SOURCE: Report of the Panel on Graduate Education and Research. will be inadequate to meet the nation's needs in particular, those of academia. The percentage of Ph.D. students who are foreign nationals in the United States on temporary visas rose from about 14 percent in 1970 to about 42 percent in 1983 {Report of the Panel on Graduate Education and Research) . Generally, only about half of these individuals expect to remain in the United States. Although foreign-born graduates of U.S. doctoral programs tend to go disproportionately into teaching (and in that sense have been the salvation of engineering education in recent years), the increase in the percentage of those who cannot stay in the United States threatens to dilute the advantage gained through increased Ph.D. output. On this basis, the committee concludes that the pool of doctoral candidates should include a higher proportion of U.S. residents. To ensure that even the projected increase in Ph.D. output does in
CURRENT STATUS OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 59 fact occur that is, that it does not short-circuit into a large exodus at the master's level and to increase the proportion and numbers of United States residents, will require additional funding by government and industry. The committee concludes that in order to minimize the financial disincentive, doctoral fellowships should carry stipends equal to at least half of the starting salary of a new B.S. graduate for about $13,000 in 1984 dollars). Based on projected requirements for perma- nent-resident engineering Ph.D.s, the Pane! on Graduate Education and Research estimates that 1,000 doctoral new starts per year will be needed. The pane} calculated that these fellowships will cost the nation in the range of $60-$70 million per year, divided between the federal government and industry2 Report of the Pane! on Graduate Education and Research) . Such figures can be misreading, however, in that they do not reflect a range of other costs that are driven by Ph.D. output and faculty growth. First, the additional doctoral production will require a corresponding increase in funded research. Second, more faculty will require more office space. Third, to improve the percentage of graduates opting for an academic career, careful attention must also be paid to starting faculty salaries. Untilthe Ph.D. offers a reasonable return on the investment of time, energy, and lost income, there will not be sufficient incentive for seeking it. Some universities are already addressing the latter problem. Although the most serious concerns have focused on Ph.D. output, the importance of the master's degree should not be overlooked. In some areas of civil engineering and in most fields of electronics and computers, the M.S. has become the standard level of academic prepa- ration for those engaged in design work. However, the proportion of M.S. degrees to B.S. degrees has been decreasing since about 1976 {Table 2~. The master's affords a level of specialization and familiarity with research practices not usually found in the B.S. graduate. Industry utilization of M.S. holders varies from company to company, from assignment to the same tasks as B.S. graduates to a more specialized role closer to the research-oriented work of Ph.D.s. Thus, this degree offers a versatility that is becoming increasingly important in light of the multidisciplinary and complex nature of much engineering work today. 2 Assuming a 4-year Ph.D. program, with some attrition occurring, for a total of 3,500 students by the fourth year of the program; slight yearly increases in stipend, for an overall average of $14,000 per year per student; and an accompanying grant to the institution of $6,000 for tuition and fees.
60 ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE Equipment Obsolescence A major problem, alluded to earlier, is the age of teaching and research equipment in engineering colleges. One retired executive of a large U.S. corporation recently reported that, upon visiting his alma mater, he found engineering students in the laboratory using the same equipment he had used in the 1930s. The useful life span of laboratory equipment is currently considered to be about 10 years. The impact of new, advanced technologies and the rapidity of techno- Togical change are probably shortening that span even further. Yet the average age of laboratory equipment in engineering schools nation- wide is 20 to 30 years (National Society of Professional Engineers, 1982~. Governmental and industrial support programs in this area have been sporadic, so that a serious mismatch exists between the need for equipment and the level of support. Obviously, the cost of state-of-the- art equipment is enormous. Even industry has substantial difficulty in remaining current. Yet the median age of instruments in the schools is about twice that of industry instrumentation. This means that indus- try gifts of used equipment to schools, while generous, are of limited value in increasing the technological currency of students and faculty. Leadership in engineering research in many fields has now clearly passed from schools to industry, so that the direction of technology transfer has reversed its traditional flow to a certain degree. Thus, this problem has major implications for the quality of education and the efficiency of the technology development process overall. A related and important problem is seen in the aging of physical plants, including "bricks and mortar," in engineering schools. This condition is worsening at a time when the importance of engineering education to regional and national economic development is being recognized. For some time, the practice has been for the federal govern- ment and industry not to provide support for bricks and mortar. The committee urges a change in this practice. A national program of govemment-industry-college matching grants is required to address the problem of equipment and facilities, includ- ing bricks and mortar. The federal government and industry should be prepared to match funds raised by colleges from state governments or from philanthropic sources for this purpose. In addition, industry, aca- deme, and the professional societies need to join forces in developing rational approaches to facilitate gifts of laboratory equipment to col- leges of engineering; one approach could be to promote legislation for this purpose where necessary.
CURRENT STATUS OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION The Two-Tiered System 61 Beginning in the 1950s the federal government initiated a compre- hensive system of support for academic research and graduate educa- tion in the sciences. As the system grew, engineering research and graduate education began to be included. The objective was {and is) to develop knowledge and improve research techniques across a broad spectrum of disciplines, as well as to ensure a flow of graduate-level personnel to meet the nation's research needs. However, an unin- tended effect of this focused funding has been the creation of a two- tiered system of engineering colleges. Rapid growth in funding took place during the 1950s and 1960s, followed by another upswing in the late 1970s that slowed to a modest increase in the 1980s. By 1981, fecleral government support for aca- demic RED was about $2 billion annually. The impact of this comprehensive program of federal funding has been substantial. Three decades of rising annual funding fostered a group of research universities or institutions the first-tier schools- whose graduate and research programs became heavily dependent on contract research. This system of government grants and contracts has greatly benefited many engineering colleges, but its focus has been almost exclusively at the graduate level. As a result, it has been the driving force in graduate engineering education. It has produced an array of sophisticated laboratories, so that some 15 to 20 schools now have one or more unique and cutting-ecige laboratory facilities for research. The rise of the government-funded research university also affected industrial support for engineering education. Many in industry believed that, because of large, continuing government funding, the universities were no longer interested in working with industry. Con- sequently, the industrial contribution to university RED decreased slightly for a period after 1960. It later rose again; but considering the greatly increased government contribution, inclustry's share ton a per- centage basis) was cut nearly in half between 1960 and 1981. Recently, some major corporations have made sizable grants to a relatively small number of institutions. However, most of these initia- tives have focused on the graduate research level and the same group of institutions that have been the primary recipients of government fund- ing. Industrial support for academic RED expenditures now amounts to about 4 percent of the total Although it is around 10 percent for engineering research) National Science Board, 1982~. Thus the federal government plays the dominant role in funding academic RED.
62 ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE The major recipients of government funds for graduate education and research enjoy a distinct advantage that influences both graduate and undergraduate engineering education at those institutions. · Their recruitment of faculty is enhanced because the young assis- tant professor can continue working in a research environment similar to that experienced in graduate school. Their policies thereby sustain and perpetuate the academic value system. · Teaching loads at research universities are relatively low, and a faculty member has a cadre of research assistants. · The research infrastructure includes laboratory facilities, access to modem machine shops, and extensive library holdings, along with- most recently extensive computer equipment. · Typically, the benefits also include strong secretarial and techn cal support as well as ample travel funds. Taken as a whole these benefits give a powerful impetus to academic research in graduate engineering education. At the undergraduate level, no set of national policies or programs recognizes the important role of engineering education in contributing to-the imperatives of a technology-based world economy. Because gov- ernment and industry focus on research and graduate education, col- leges that have as their primary focus undergraduate education in engineering have not enjoyed the advantages just described. They occupy a second tier within the engineering educational system. Because approximately half of the B.S. engineering degrees are granted by colleges of the second tier, government, industry, and aca- deme will continue to depend upon graduates of these primarily under- graduate colleges for at least half their engineering work force. Yet, because both government and industry focus their funding on graduate study and research, these colleges are forced to depend on other, appre- ciably smaller sources of funding. In order to provide a measure of balance in this two-tiered system, the needs of primarily undergraduate institutions require recognition. Funding for modern laboratory equipment is an urgent need {see the section, "Equipment Obsolescence". Colleges are experiencing a wave of computerization at the undergraduate level but most lack the resources to respond in a timely and comprehensive manner. In addition, faculty who carry heavy undergraduate loads need sup- port and access to creative programs of faculty development. Release time is especially valuable because it enables the individual to stay current in a professional field and develop new teaching techniques at
CURRENT STATUS OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 63 the undergraduate level. Although the number of advanced academic research laboratories is limited, faculty members in primarily under- graduate programs nevertheless need access to major research centers in industry, government, and other universities in order to remain vital. Thus programs and policies are needed to enable these faculty members to take advantage of such facilities. The separation in the two-tier system will widen unless both govern- ment and industry introduce imaginative programs accompanied by more than token support. Ways must be found to provide for more equitable distribution of the many benefits that accrue to first-tier schools. Such efforts need not entail much higher costs. For example, schools applying for government funding of major research facilities should be required to include a plan for involving outside faculty in research at the facility. Without strong public policy in support of a balanced system, undergraduate education will not be able to maintain the pace required to meet national economic and strategic objectives. {See the report of the Panel on Undergraduate Education for further discussion of this problem. Student Demographics Given the traditional view of the engineering profession as a bastion of white males, the change in composition of the engineering student population in recent years has been dramatic {see Figure 8~. The most noticeable change has been in the enrollment of women students, which has risen steadily in recent years from about 1 percent in 1970 to 15 percent ~ 1983-1984) of the roughly 400,000 full-time undergraduate engineering students nationwide {Engineering Manpower Commis- sion, 1984a). However, the increase in percentage of women students may now be leveling off; it did not change substantially between 1983 and 1984. The influx of women has been a significant factor in elevating engi- neering enrollments {end graduates) to their current high level. In 1970, for example, only 358 women graduated with bachelor's degrees in engineering. Ten years later there were 5,631 women graduates; the number rose to 6,357 in 1981, 8,140 in 1982, and 9,566 in 1983 {EMC, 1984b}. Yet considering that women constitute about 50 percent of the general population, they are still greatly underrepresented in engineer- ing. As a result, many find engineering school to be a stressful environ- ment in which they may experience a sense of isolation and a lack of acceptance on the part of faculty and male students {Report of the Pane! on Undergraduate Education) .
64 20,000 1 5,000 z UJ o cr He z 1 0,000 a: I in us G ILL 5,000 *Excludes U. of Puerto Rico ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE ~( 18,689) Women ~ / Black _' _~ (6,342) (6,71 5) ~ (4,983! (4,421 ) _ _~ _ _ ,~-e _' 4,760) *Hispanic __- _~~ la neon t4.UYb' Amer. Indian (412) (371) (376) 1972 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 YEAR FIGURE 8 Freshman enrollments: Women and minorities. SOURCE: Engineering Manpower Commission, AAES. Minority participation offers a similar picture in some respects. In the early 1970s, universities and colleges launched serious efforts to bring minorities into engineering; the efforts included scholarships and other types of financial aid, special academic programs, early recruit- ing, and the establishment of on-campus social support systems. These efforts were successful to a certain extent, as Figure 8 illus- trates. However, although the recruitment efforts continue, their effec- tiveness appears to have diminished. Except in the case of Asians, minority enrollments {i.e., of black, Hispanic, and American Indian students) had leveled off or begun to decline by 1982 {American Society for Engineering Education, 19831. Much of the concern for minority enrollments has focused on the black community, which represents some 12 percent of the general population {Census, 1984~. In 1982-1983, blacks accounted for only 4.4 percent of engineering students {EMC, 1983a). A variety of reasons
CURRENT STATUS OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 65 for this limited participation have been given. One factor that is often mentioned is the limited exposure of predominantly inner-city black high school students to the idea of engineering as a profession, and to black engineer role models See Report of the Pane! on Engineering Employment Characteristics). Poor preparation in mathematics and science, limited funds, and a lack of self-confidence are also barriers to enrollment in engineering in many cases. Attrition among black stu- dents is higher than for any other (lemographic group, partly because of inadequate educational preparation and partly because of the social and economic factors just described {Report of the Pane! on Undergraduate Education). Enrollment of Hispanics and American Indians in engineering has also remained low in comparison to their numbers in the overall popu- lation, perhaps for much the same reasons. As was just mentioned, the one exception to this low participation rate among minorities has been among Asian Americans. This group is represented in engineering schools at a disproportionately high level. While they make up only 1 percent of the general population {Census, 19841. they account for 3.9 percent of engineering students ~ 1982-1983 data; EMC, 1983a). The group as a whole performs extremely well in engineering studies and tends to continue into graduate education (4.6 percent at the master's level and 4.3 percent in doctoral programs in 1982} at a higher rate than do other demographic groups {Report of the Panel on Undergraduate Education) . A major factor in this performance is thought to be strong parental support for education in general and for scientific, mathematical, and technical pursuits in particular {Report of the Panel on Undergraduate Education). The committee believes that the participation of women and minori- ties in engineering should be matters of continuing concern to the engineering community. The question of target levels of participation sometimes arises. Given the range of factors some cultural, some social, some economic that are outside the control of educators, it is probably fruitless to set such goals. However, some of the remaining obstacles can be identified and attempts made to reduce them. In this sense there is still much to be done. For example, the quality of precollege preparation in science and mathematics has an important bearing on the participation of both women and minorities in engineering. For women, early exposure to physics appears to be particularly critical (Report of the Panel on Under- graduate Education). Poor preparation in these areas limits the appeal of engineering to these groups and increases attrition among those who do study engineering {especially among minority students). Educators _~ _ is ~ ~r
66 ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE should develop strategies to increase the size of the initial science/ mathematics pool of minorities and women. Efforts must be made to reduce attrition of minorities all along the educational pipeline. For example, precollege programs such as those operating in a few major cities must be expanded and funded to prepare and motivate minority students to pursue college study and careers in engineering. In addition, mechanisms should be sought for providing needed social and academic support to both women and minorities in engineering education. Efforts such as these, vigorously pursued, can help to remove some of the invisible barriers that prevent the nation from gaining full access to the potential engineering talent embodied in large segments of the population. By 1992, major demographic changes are very likely to cause a sub- st~ntial drop in the number of qualified students entering engineering colleges in 38 states. Half of all B.S. graduates now come from 45 schools that have 400 or more graduates each year. Fourteen of those schools are in states {New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) where the high school population will decline about 40 percent by 1992. Twenty-seven of the 45 schools are concentrated in the 13 frost- belt states, which will all experience an appreciable decline {roughly 22 percent) in high school population {Report of the Panel on Undergradu- ate Education). Some have suggested that the present high engineering enrollments {at 6 percent of all college students) represent a bubble, and that as the number of 18-year-olds declines, so will the number of engineering students. Data from 1983-1984 already show a decline of 6,000 in freshman engineering enrollments {EMC, 1984al. Certainly there will be regional effects of the differences in distribution of 18-year-olds. That is, schools will expand or shrink in size, some new ones will emerge, and others may close their doors, depending on changes in the size of the regional student pool. To avoid being caught by surprise, engineering schools should exam- ine the impact of prospective demographic changes in their area and should anticipate steps they will need to take to increase the flow of qualified students from their regional pool. Increasing the participation of women and minorities is one way to bolster enrollments. Other approaches will be specific to the circumstances of the individual insti- tution. Variability of Demand Although natural market forces ensure a reasonably close balance between supply and demand for engineering graduates in different
To CURRENT STATUS OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 67 fields over time, occasional shortages and surpluses do develop. Cur- rently, for example, because of rapid developments in microelectronics and the growth of information products, there are shortages in the computer and electronics fields. At the same time, because of the recent recession and shifts in our industrial base, there is less demand for civil and chemical engineers. It is a mistake to overemphasize these current patterns of supply and demand. They are dynamic and change rapidly. However, their effect on the educational system is important. The perception of shortages and surpluses of engineers in certain fields {and the accompanying sense of excitement or disdain among students) has a dramatic impact on patterns of demand for particular courses of engineering study. Enrollments in electronic and computer engineering, for example, are saturated at most schools. The fact that the student response is usually out of proportion to the actual stimulus, combined with the fact that the response lags the stimulus by as much as four years, has the effect of wasting educational resources and engineering talent. Institutions can- not adapt to external conditions as rapidly as they develop; thus institu- tional stresses of this sort appear to have become a permanent feature of the contemporary educational environment. It should be noted that many engineering educators do not consider the current overenrolIments in electrical and computer engineering to be transitory. They believe that a structural change in engineering edu- cation is occurring based on technological revolutions in these fields that will keep demand high in the two disciplines indefinitely. Accordingly, some schools have considered] instituting policy changes that would restrict entry into these fields of study on the basis of perfor- mance at different points along the educational path. Some have decided to do so {for example, the Georgia Institute of Technology, the University of California at Berkeley and at Davis, and the Massachu- setts Institute of Technology). It remains to be seen whether such approaches will be workable and successful. If further expansion in these and other high-demand disciplines is required, one approach would be to utilize dual-degree programs, also known as three-two programs. These involve a three-year generalist program (liberal arts, social sciences, mathematics and sciences) fol- lowed by two years of intensive engineering study, culminating in a B.A./B.S. degree. Dual-degree relationships between liberal arts and engineering colleges have existed for at least two decades. They have enabled a few students, some from minority groups, to earn B.S. degrees in engineering. The capacity of the engineering educational system could be increased by creation of an explicit network of dual- degree programs, but such an approach would require a concomitant
68 ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PM CTICE expansion in the two upper-class years as well. Dual-degree programs could be particularly effective at increasing the numbers of women and minority graduates. These dual-degree programs, in addition to the now-existing standard five-year track to the master's degree, would offer students a richer choice of options for their engineering education. Continuing overenrollment in some disciplines exacerbates the fac- ulty shortage problem. One way to achieve a degree of flexibility in dealing with the shortage on a short-term basis is to utilize professional personnel who are not in tenure tracks. Such individuals would include government, military and corporate retirees, with or without a Ph.D., who are not seeking tenure and who would welcome a short-term contract for a second career. Special Topics Specialization vs. Breadth One possible way to ensure flexibility of response to fluctuating supply and demand and rapid technological change is to offer a broad engineering curriculum with many core engineering courses shared by students in all disciplines. This is not a new approach; various schools have found it effective over many years. Courses in the individual degree programs can be added or removed or modified in accordance with changes in the discipline and in professional objectives. The scope and content of these fundamental core courses will change with time as technology advances. However, today there are forces militating strongly against this approach. The' desire to provide specialized education at the undergra~l- uate level has led to increasing fragmentation of the undergraduate curricula across engineering specialties. On the one hand is the require- ment to prepare students with four-year degrees to be professional engi- neers; on the other hand is the need to provide a base for lifelong learning in specialties that may not yet exist. This increased speciaTiza- tion of engineering curricula, coupled with a decreased interest on the part of students in degrees in basic sciences and mathematics, will lead to future difficulties in our ability to respond quickly to new technolog- ical challenges. The committee concludes that the undergraduate curriculum should provide considerable breadth across the disciplines of engineer- ing and within each discipline. A broad engineering education leaves engineers better prepared to communicate with each other, to avoid technological obsolescence, and to learn new skills as technology a(lvances. Extensive, in-ilepth disciplinary specialization does not
CURRENT STATUS OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 69 belong in the undergraduate curriculum, and should be postponed to the graduate level. Neither is it possible in a four-year curriculum to treat all currently important technologies in a given engineering disci- pline. Providing breadth of nontechnical education in the arts, humanities, social studies, and management also offers many advantages. Among the most important of these is an improved facility for communication, both written and oral. In an era in which communicating information has become a major component of virtually all professional work, the possession of good communication skills is increasingly important for engineers. However, the committee recognizes that it is difficult to provide even the approximately 15 percent of the time presently allot- ted for nontechnical breadth in today's accredited four-year programs. It is a perennial problem, and one with little hope of solution within present-day curriculum structures. Nonstandard educational tracks can produce at least some engineers having stronger nontechnical edu- cational backgrounds. For example, with proper course selection, stu- dents who come into engineering in the context of a dual-degree program are better able to achieve this additional breadth. However, such programs cannot provide a complete answer. This topic is dis- cussed further under the heading " Curriculum Requirements " in chap- ter 6. Cooperative Education One traditional aspect of the university-industry interaction is coop- erative education, in which students hold part-time (cluring the school year) or full-time {alternating work and study) jobs in industry. Although cooperative education began over 75 years ago in the College of Engineering at the University of Cincinnati, only 2.5 percent {approximately 220,000) of the nation's 9,000,000 college students par- ticipate in co-op programs with 30,000 employers. Of the 404,000 engi- neering students nationwide, approximately 37,400 (or some 9 percent) participate in co-op programs. This national percentage is somewhat misreading, however, because many colleges do not offer the program at all. Where it is offered, student participation varies consid- erably from school to school. At some colleges, it is quite popular. For example, some 28 percent of the engineering students at Georgia Tech are co-op; at Northeastern University in Boston, the figure is around 80 percent. These programs have provided a motivational component and a means of partly self-financing a college education. In addition, they
70 ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE give the student experience in observing the practice of engineering, an aspect that has been given less emphasis in contemporary engineering curricula. Thus they have an important orientational value, helping to enrich and focus the classroom learning experience. Despite their usefulness, however, these programs entail additional administrative costs to schools, and have suffered from fluctuations in the economy and inconsistent support by industry. In addition, some educators express concern that co-op students have too little opportu- nity to socialize with other students and to participate in campus activ- ities and are thus shortchanged in some very important nontechnical aspects of the educational experience. In reality, there is no reduction in on-campus time for co-op students; attendance during the summer is substituted for one of the other school terms. There is perhaps some disadvantage in this nonstandard enrollment pattern, but there is also a trade-off to be found in the closer student-faculty interaction that is possible in the overall co-op program. Despite these concerns, the committee believes that in an educa- tional environment characterized by constraints of various kinds, co- op education has a more important role to play than ever before. For example, the amount of project experience acquired by engineering students during their education has declined as the student/faculty ratio has risen. Thus, teamwork skills have suffered. Likewise, the hands-on experience base has suffered because of the shortage of labora- tory equipment and instrumentation. These educational shortcomings mean that graduates are not imme- diately valuable or productive when they enter industry; they require six months to a year of orientational training. The committee finds that some form of work experience during the period of schooling- whether acquired through co-op education, summer jobs, or some other form is important as a means of offsetting these shortcomings. To increase their effectiveness and enhance their role, co-op ecluca- tion and other such "interning" programs need to be strengthened. A considerably stronger commitment from industry and education is required to eliminate the boom or bust cyclical nature of support that tends to characterize these programs. Accordingly, the committee strongly recommencis that the National Academy of Engineering and the professional societies take the initiative in bringing together repre- sentatives of industry, academe, and government to develop better work-study programs. Means should be found to eliminate the cyclical nature of support for these programs and to make it feasible for a much larger fraction of the engineering student cohort to participate.
CURRENT STATUS OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION Cont~nuingEducation andProfessiona1Development 71 Considering the explosive growth in scientific and engineering knowledge since mid-century alone, it is worth noting that the average duration of engineering study has not increased substantially in that time. Even including those who receive the Ph.D., in a 30-year career after high school only 4 to ~ years consists of formal college education. During the remaining 22 to 26 years, education is obtained through a generally haphazard process of on-the-job learning, company training programs, seminars, conferences, and professional reading. It is esti- mated that only about 5 percent of this continuing education consists of formal classes or training programs {Report of the Panel on Continu- ing Education). Yet continuing education in all its forms is effectively the only line of defense for engineers against technological obsoles- cence brought about by changing technology. Continuing education has not always enjoyed great popularity among companies or their employees. Chief executive officers and engineers alike have not generally understood its value. However, by 1977 over half of all practicing engineers were participating in some type of training activity each year. The two reasons given most often for this involvement are to prepare for increased responsibility or promo- tion and to acquire the ability to perform one's present job more effec- tively {Report of the Panel on Continuing Education).Obtaining credit toward an advanced degree is not the primary reason. The underlying reasons for this growing emphasis on continuing education and professional development include the rapidity of techno- Togical change in every field of engineering, the introduction of com- puters {with their widespread impact on every disciplined, the increasingly interdisciplinary nature of engineering work, and increased world competition in engineering requiring greater engineer- ing performance. None of these underlying causes will disappear in the future. If our goal as a nation is to maintain a strong engineering work force, continuing education will have to play a vital role. Engineers can be productive over a longer period Thus expanding the engineering work force) if they have access to effective continuing education. To meet the demand for continuing educational opportunities, new instructional sources have sprung up. A major provider is industry itself, which offers short courses and ongoing training programs in subject areas of interest to the individual company. The American Soci- ety for Training and Development {ASTD) estimates that in 1983 industry spent about $30 billion for all training and education
72 ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PM CTICE although only a fraction of this amount was directed at engineering/ technical employees. Government also provides extensive education and training to its employees, at an estimated cost of $10 billion per year {Report of the Pane! on Engineering Employment Characteristics). Professional and technical societies offer a broad selection of continu- ing education courses as part of their membership services. In addition, private vendors offering seminars and short courses on a broad range of engineering topics are now proliferating. The greatest demand is for highly targeted short courses that focus on new and developing tech- nologies. By and large, universities as institutions have not participated exten- sively in this activity, and when they do, it is not given much emphasis. Individual faculty members have been very active in providing courses through professional societies, as consultants, and as entrepreneurs. But to universities, continuing education means course work not intended for credit toward a degrees and the primary emphasis of uni- versities is on undergraduate and graduate education. The provision of noncredit instruction is usually viewed as a public service. However, some schools are finding that involvement in continuing education can be rewarding. Not only is it a source of income {however marginally}, but it also increases the university's contacts with indus- try and its overall visibility. Perhaps the greatest potential for future expansion of continuing education is in the use of new educational technologies. A dedicated satellite link, for example, offers the oppor- tunity for an interactive network of courses available at an engineer's home or place of work.3 Self-paced and computer-aided instruction using microprocessors could become an efficient means of acquiring training. Such approaches lend themselves to the personalized and customized quality of continuing educational needs. Some engineers can maintain their competence without structured education and training beyond college. However, most engineers will need continuing education throughout their careers if they are to remain competitive in the job market. Likewise, companies need their engineers to maintain competence if they are themselves to remain competitive in their markets. Continuing education is a unique field of engineering education that requires clear objectives and an increased understanding of its value if those needs are to be met. 3 The National Technical University, now beginning operation, is an example of such anetworklBaldwin, 1984a; 1984b).
CURRENT STATUS OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION Educational Technology 73 Applications of modern technology to education are often cited as promising ways for faculty to deliver more and better education to more students in less time. Undoubtedly, technologies such as the computer and satellite transmission have great potential much of it still untapped despite exhortations over the years to schools and the government to provide for their greater use. However, there are three unsolved problems with this approach: the large initial capital cost, the reduction of student/faculty interaction with its concomitant cost in educational quality, and the fact that considerable faculty time is required for development {Report of the Panel on Undergraduate Educa- tion). Personal contact with a capable and experienced professor is an irreplaceable part of the educational experience. It is from such contact that students acquire a personal style of attacking engineering prob- lems. That mentoring function is one that cannot easily be provided using new educational technologies. However, there are many types of courses and many uses for which educational technology, properly implemented, offers great potential. The committee encourages engineering schools to create programs for development of educational technology by faculty, using shared insti- tutional, industry, and government funding, and to implement these tools as fully as possible within their academic programs. Student Preparedness Areas of Rapid Change One area of striking change in recent years has been the academic quality and ability of entering freshman engineering students. In sharp contrast to the late 1960s and early 1970s, when student interest in engineering was at its lowest point in decades, demand for engineering as a major is now extremely high. The result is that competition for places has been strong for several years, and engineering students nationwide are among the most able in their age cohort. This fact is illustrated by data for 1982, when, for the first time, average combined SAT scores of entering engineering students surpassed those of all non- science/mathematics majors {National Science Board, 19831. Professors and employers alike refer to the dramatically higher com- munication and social skills of engineering students and recent gradu- ates as compared to past stereotypes of the engineer. This trend may relate to a long-term shift in student socioeconomic levels overall. In the view of engineering deans and professors on the committee, today's
74 ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE engineering student {i.e., since the mid-1970s) tends increasingly to come from a middle-class, professional family background rather than the noncollege background that characterized many young engineers in the period after World War II. The predominance of such young people in engineering schools is now very strong. On balance, they have a richer educational and cultural background and are more confi- dent, more assertive than engineering students of years past. Another aspect of student quality relates to graduate students. Given the financial and other attractions that a career in industry offers to high-quaTity B.S. grads, one might expect to see a downward trend in academic quality among graduate-school applicants. However, that does not appear to be the case, because GRE scores of graduate appli- cants have remained relatively stable {Report of the Pane! on Graduate Education and Research). With regard to doctoral students, some academic administrators have reported that the academic quality {based on undergraduate class ranking) has fallen in recent years. However, there is some evidence that the trend is now reversing. Such trends are hard to verify, because it is difficult to obtain data on the problem from institutions, andbecause GRE scores are available only in the aggregate rather than on the basis of doctoral candidate vs. master's candidate (Report of the Pane} on Graduate Education and Research) . Despite the high ability of current engineering students, the commit- tee is concerned that the erosion in precollege mathematics and science education, widely reported in recent years, threatens the base of the qualified engineering manpower pool {National Commission on Excel- lence in Education, 1983; National Science Board, 1984~. This relates to an overall concern for the declining quality of secondary education, including written and oral communication skills. The engineering community must join in efforts to improve this situation. E n g i n e e r i n g T e c h n 0 ~ 0 g y P r 0 g r a m s The period between about 1950 and 1980 saw a transformation of what were formerly called technical institutes or vocational schools into schools and colleges offering associate and bachelor's degree pro- grams in engineering technology {Report of the Panel on Technology Education) . The distinction revolves around the extent of formal math- ematical and scientific training accorded to students in the newer pro- grams, and the degree of technical sophistication and specialization required of graduates. Engineering technology curricula are in many
CURRENT STATUS OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 75 ways similar to those found in engineering programs; the primary dif- ference lies in a greater emphasis on applied practice and procedures in the former and a greater emphasis on fundamentals and theory in the latter. There are areas of overlap in the work of engineers and technologists. Again, the primary distinction is one of a fundamental and theoretical focus versus an operational focus; engineers are usually involved in research, development, advanced design, and integrated design and manufacture, while technologists' work emphasizes known applica- tions in design, manufacture, test, inspection, and quality control. The availability of well-trained engineering technologists is providing industry, at least in some sectors, with a greater flexibility in staffing. The outlook is for a greater output of technologists with more and more specialized skills to meet specific industry needs. Because of their training and the relatively close contact between schools of technology and their industry sponsors and clients, technologists tend to be of immediate utility to companies, thus reducing the training overhead burden. Because of growing industry demand for these personnel, the num- ber of institutions offering technology degrees has proliferated nation- wide, from about 68 in 1951 to the current total of 154 accredited institutions offering two- and four-year degree programs (Report of the Panel on Technology Education). Many are community colleges offer- ing a two-year transfer program leading to a bachelor of engineering technology degree at a four-year college. A large number of universities and colleges offer the four-year program. The popularity {and useful- ness) of these programs is indicated by the fact that, between 1971 and 1983, the number of bachelor of engineering technology degrees awarded increased 79 percent {to 9,200) {Engineering Manpower Com mission, 1984c). Enrollments do show a wide variability from year to year, however {EMC, 1983b). There is also great variability among engineering technology programs in terms of entry requirements, stan- dards of achievement, curricula content, semester-hour requirements, and overall quality. More standardization in these programs could be achieved through interinstitutional cooperation. A degree of friction has developed between engineering faculties and engineering technology faculties in universities offering both pro- grams. The difficulty arises from the blurring of distinctions between the programs and from the competition for funds, laboratory equip- ment, and in some cases jobs for their graduates. Ultimately, the demand in the marketplace will determine the amount of emphasis that engineering technology education should receive.
76 Computer Science ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE Computer science is a rapidly emerging discipline, crucial to engi- neering. There is currently a great deal of variability in where computer science falls in the academic scheme of things, with computer science programs occupying a wide range of departments across different uni- versities. Sometimes it is a part of engineering, sometimes in the math- ematics department, and sometimes independent. Two professional groups, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and the Association for Computing Machinery, have recently joined in creating a special commission to consider the issue of accreditation for computer science programs.4 Success in this effort should help to define more clearly the place of computer science as a professional discipline within university curriculums. What is clear in any event is that contemporary engineering work in nearly every field requires some theoretical understanding of com- puters and programming. It is widely accepted that the use of com- puters must eventually pervade all fields of engineering education. University-In d us try In terse lions Under the pressure of foreign competition in engineering-intensive industries, the federal government has recently begun to encourage closer interactions between industry and universities {National Sci- ence Foundation, 1982b). In addition to direct support of joint research, various other steps that the government is taking will further improve the climate for university-industry interaction. For example, the administration has approved the concept of a closer collaboration between federal research laboratories and their university and industry counterparts {Office of Science and Technology Policy, 1983~. In addi- tion, the movement toward establishing up to 25 engineering research centers at engineering schools is encouraging National Academy of Engineering, 1984~. State programs have also come to be very important in this regard. There are currently a number of fine examples, with North Carolina's Research Triangle Park being perhaps the best known. Others, at the University of Arizona, at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York State, and elsewhere, are becoming increasingly active. Such programs generate enthusiastic support in state legislatures and in localities 4 The Computer Science Accreditation Commission, or CSAC.
CURRENT STATUS OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 77 because of the prestige, revenues, and jobs associated with them. They are also beneficial to engineering education at the participating schools in that they attract and stimulate highly qualified faculty ~n(3 students, as well as industry funds and support. Industry increasingly realizes that it has a crucial stake in the contin- ued health of the engineering educational process, and in the quality of the educational product. Collaboration takes many forms. In some cases it is in the form of financial support through research grants to faculty and fellowships to graduate students, or through gifts of needed laboratory equipment. A growing trend is for the establishment of joint research endeavors between a university and a nearby company, either in the university research center or on-site in the company's laborato- ries {National Science Board, 1982~. The federal RED tax credit has been invaluable in helping to stimulate all these forms of industry support of research in engineering schools. The use of adjunct faculty from industry to augment engineering faculties is a traditional concept, although its value is generally limited to instruction alone, and does not extend to full participation in other campus responsibilities. Similar, but with its own difficulties, is the concept of shared professorships, in which a faculty member and a practicing research engineer exchange places for an academic period. Faculty consulting to industry is also valuable in that it enhances uni- versity-industry contacts. Along with shared professorships, consult- ing offers the benefit of keeping faculty current with modern practice and the applications of research in the field. Consulting is therefore an important vehicle for feedback of ideas from industry into the ciass- room while providing industry with ideas based on academic research. There are a number of actual and potential problems associated with university-industry interactions that must be satisfactorily addressed as those interactions become closer and more routine. One problem is based on the commercial nature of industrially sponsored research. Conflicts between the profit-making purposes of industry and the edu- cational purposes of universities have to be resolved if productive col- laboration is to occur. As a general rule, the closer a university comes to the activity of product development, the less likely it is that the purposes of the uni- versity will be well served. Such activities are highly specialized, whereas the educational process should strive for generalizable knowI- edge. Secrecy constraints, often important to industry, are also in con- flict with the generalizability of learning. The ownership of intellectual property- usually meaning patents and copyrights is another vexing problem for universities involved in
78 ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PM CTICE industry research, especially in publicly supported universities. Simi- larly, consulting by faculty sometimes draws allegations of conflict of interest and inattention to the faculty member's teaching responsibili- ties. These issues are often heavily loaded with value judgments and political philosophies, yet they must be resolved if satisfactory univer- sity-industry relationships are to be developed. {See the report of the Panel on Graduate Education and Research for a more extensive discus- sion of these issues. ~ This litany of concerns and issues regarding university-industry rela- tions should not be too intimidating. In reality, there have been many instances of satisfactory relationships being worked out which main- tain the integrity of the university's role while satisfying the require- ments of the industrial organization. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations 1. A broad engineering education leaves engineers better prepared to communicate with each other, to avoid technological obsolescence, and to learn new skills as technology advances. The undergraduate curriculum should provide considerable breadth across the engineering disciplines and within each ~scipZine. Extensive, in-depth disciplinary specialization should be postponed to the graduate [eve]. 2. Because few women chose to study engineering in the past, the profession lost access to substantial human resources. However, dur- ing the last decade the number of women studying and practicing engi- neering has increased dramatically, from 1 percent of engineering enrollment in 1970 to 15 percent in 1984. To achieve the fuZ] potential that this human resource offers, colleges of engineering and! engineering technology, school systems, government, industry, and the engineeringprofession must continue to work to increase the number of qualified women who study for a career inengineenDg.Themostimportantmeansare:greatereffortrasrecom- mended by other study groups) to increase the study of math and sci- ence by female secondary-schoo7 students and further action by colleges of engineering to increase female enrollment. 3. Blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians are greatly underrepre- sented in the pool of engineering school applicants (both graduate and undergraduate) and in the engineering workplace. This underrepresen- tation has social, economic, and educational origins. Despite recent
CURRENT STATUS OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 81 extent of the shortage range from 1,567 to about 6,700. {1,567 is the number of unfilled positions reported in a survey of engineering deans in 1983, and 6,700 is the number necessary to restore the student/ faculty ratio to that which existed in 1975-1976 often considered an optimal ratio. ~ The lack of sufficient high-quaTity faculty is the most important factor currently limiting attempts to increase the quality, scope, and number of engineering programs. Increasing the supply of highly qualified' U S residents Toddling the Ph D would help to alleviate the pro blew (Restoration of the 1975-1976 student/facu~tyratio, however, worst require even further funding of graduate programs J Universities, for theirpart, must make engineering faculty careers more attractive than at present in order to fill vacant faculty positions Salaries need further improvement, ade- quate facilities are necessary, and current teaching overloads should be reduced 9. Educational technology {computers, TV, satellite transmission, etc. ~ holds promise for improving the delivery of engineering education at all levels. However, the full implementation of educational technol- ogy has been inhibited by high costs and by the time required for faculty to integrate its use into the substance and process of the learning experi ence. Computers, and computer-aided instruction in particular, should be recognized as powerful educational systems tools These tools should be applied as rapidly and as fully as practicable in a]] academic progran~sin such a way as to enhance the qua~ityofengineer- ing education Engineering schools should be encouraged to create pro- grams for development of educational technology by faculty, with sharedinstitutiona], industry, andgovernmentfunding 10. Engineers can be productive in engineering work over a longer period Thus increasing the size and effectiveness of the engineering work force) if they have access to effective continuing education. Needs of engineers for lifelong maintenance of competence through continuing education are met by a variety of means, including employ- ers, professional/technical societies, academic institutions, private vendors, on-the-job learning, and the individual initiative of the engi- neer. However, the lack of company reimbursement and release time is a strong demotivator for pursuing continuing education. The variousproviders of continuingeducation shou]dkeep these educational sources available to the practicing engineer and should expand theiroffenngs Industrymanagers should recognize the value of
82 ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE continuing education in improving the effectiveness and adaptability of their engineering employees Those companies that do not offer their engineering employees financial and worktime relief should strongly be encouraged to do so 11. Industry's interest in engineering schools has traditionally focused on their product the graduate. However, research in engineer- ing in universities has become increasingly important to industry as well. In a climate of financial constraint and rising international com- petitiveness, industry has a vested interest in helping engineering schools to maintain high levels of educational and research quality. Closer ties should be fostered between university and industry Creative and innovative ideas along the fines of the Semiconductor Research Corporation and the NSF's Engineering Research Centers are invaluable In addition, current programs of industry-sponsored research, advisory councils, shared faculty, industry financial support for equipment and! facilities, and' joint industry-universityprovision of continuing education should all be encouraged Continuation of the R&D tax crept is essential for maintaining aR forms of industry sup- port for research in engineering schools 12. Laboratory equipment in engineering education has deteriorated over a Tong period of time. Plant and other facilities have also aged greatly. Governmental and industrial equipment support programs have been sporadic, so that a serious mismatch exists between the need for equipment and the level of support. A national program of government-industry-co]]ege matching grants is required to address this problem Industry, academe, and the professional societies need to join forces in promoting legislation wherenecessarytofaciiitategifts of Jaboratoryequipment to colleges of engineering In the special case of bricks and mortar, the federal govern- ment and industry should be prepared to match those funds raised by s t a t e g o v e r n m e n t s o r f r o m p h i ~ a n t h r o p i c s o u r c e s f o r t h i s p u r p o s e 13. There is great variability among engineering technology pro- grams in terms of entry requirements, standards of achievement, cur- ricula content, semester hours required, and overall quality. How- ever,this diversity serves a useful purpose, given the diversity of indus- trial needs in different regions. Technical and technoJogyinstitutions should cooperate in elimi- eating variability that has no relevance to market needs and is strictly arbitraryin nature
CURRENT STATUS OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 79 increases in minority enrollments, the potential representation of these populations remains unmet, and once admitted, their attrition is disproportionately larger than that of traditional engineering students. Broader efforts by schools, companies, and engineering societies are required to bring more minorities into engineering For example, pre-coRege programs such as those operating in a few major cities and regions must be expanded and funded so as to betterprepare and moti- vateminoritystudents to pursue college studyand careersin engineer- ing Retention programs similar to those now supported by many colleges and organizations must also be expanded 4. Engineering co-op programs have traditionally filled a valuable role in engineering education. They provide a motivational component and a means of helping to self-finance a college education. In addition, they give the student experience in the practice of engineering, an aspect that has been given less emphasis in contemporary engineering curricula. Thus they have an important orientational value, helping to enrich and focus the classroom learning experience. Despite their use- fuiness, however, these and other such work-study programs {includ- ing summer employment) have traditionally suffered from fluctuations in the economy and generally inconsistent support by industry. To increase their effectiveness and enhance their role, co-op and other work-study programs need to be strengthened A considerably stronger commitmen t from industry and educa lion is required to e~imi- nate the boom or bust cyclical nature of support that tends to character- ize these programs The committee strongly recommends that the National Academy of Engineering and the professional societies take the initiative in bringing togetherrepresentatives of industry, academe, antigovernment to develop betterwork-studyprograms Means should be found to eliminate the pro blew of cyclical support and to make it feasible for a much larger fraction of the engineering student cohort to participate 5. By 1992, major demographic changes will cause a substantial drop in the number of qualified students entering engineering colleges in 38 states. Half of all B.S. graduates now come from 45 schools that have 400 or more graduates each year. Fourteen of those schools are in states {New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) where the high school population will decline about 40 percent by 1992. Twenty-seven of the 45 schools are concentrated in the 13 frost-belt states, which will all experience an appreciable decline in high school population.
80 ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PM CTICE Engineering schools should examine the impact of prospective demographic changes in their area, in order to anticipate steps they wiR need to take to increase the flow of qualified students from their regional pool. Increasing the participation of qualified women and minorities is one means of bolstering enrollments. Other programs specific to the circumstances of the in~vidua] institution wiR also need to be devised. 6. Serious erosion of content and standards in virtually every area of study has occurred in secondary school systems over the last two decades. Critical shortages of science and mathematics teachers exist in almost every state. And half of the newly employed science and mathematics teachers are not qualified to teach these subjects. This erosion in mathematics and science, as well as in reading and writing, now threatens the base of the qualified engineering personnel pool. To improve the qualifications of students intending to study engineering, the schools together with engineering education and professional societies must actively encourage government and industry to join them in improving mathematics, science, technology, and communications content in secondary school curricula. The com- mittee supports the recommendationsput forth in recent studies by the National Commission on Excellence in Education and by the National Science Board7s Commission on Pre-CoRege Education in Mathemat- ics, Science, and Technology. 7. The presence of a sufficient number of Ph.D. holders in the engi- neering work force will continue to be important, from the standpoint of both engineering research and teaching. Engineering Ph. D . s awarded are expected to increase to an estimated 4,000 per year by 1988. How- ever, this increase will not be sufficient to meet requirements for addi- tional faculty in the face of anticipated increases in industry demand and an insufficient proportion of U.S. residents in the Ph.D. student pool. A major increase in fellowship support and' concomitant engi- neering college research support are needed to attract more of the very brightest U.S. citizens into graduate programs in engineering. To attract top students into graduate work, doctoral fellowships should carry stipends equal to at least half the starting salary of a new B.S. graduate. 8. The current and persistent shortage of faculty of sufficiently high quality is a serious problem for engineering education. Estimates of the
C URRENT S TAT US OF ENGINEERING ED UCATION 83 14. Beginning in the 1950s the federal government developed a sys- tem of massive support for research and graduate education in science and engineering. This support led to a rapid growth of research institu- tions. At the undergraduate level, there has been no set of national policies or programs which recognizes the important role of undergrad- uate engineering education in contributing to the imperatives of a tech- nology-based world economy. Because government and industry focus on research and graduate education, a two-tiered, or bifurcated, system of engineering colleges has been created. This two-tiered system has a strong influence on the character of engineering education. Govern- ment, industry, and academe will continue to depend on graduates of the primarily undergraduate-oriented colleges for at least half of their engineering work force. Yet, because both government and industry focus their funding on graduate study and research, these colleges are forced to depend on other, appreciatively smaller sources of funding. The federal government and industry should recognize and sup- port innovative programs in '~nclergra~luate engineering education in the second-tierinstitutions. First, to ensure that the program qua~ityof primarily undergraduate-oriented engineering colleges continues to meet the needs of a technology-based economy, these colleges must have access to new and ad~tiona] sources of income. In auction, ways must be found to provide for more equitable distribution of the many benefits that accrue to first- tier schools. For example, faculty members and students at second-tier institutions wiR need to be involved with research facilities an d program s of major centers of research. 15. Over many decades, the engineering educational system has adapted itself to relatively large fluctuations in enrollment. The elas- ticity of the system has been stretched to the point where it is now saturated in many disciplines. If further significant expansion is required, one way to achieve it would be to utilize dual-degree pro- grams and transfer programs with community colleges. For at least two decades, a number of dual-degree relationships have existed between liberal arts and engineering colleges. These programs have enabled a modest number of students some from minority groups to earn B. S. degrees in engineering. The capacity of the engineering educational system could be expanded by creating an explicit network of dual- degree programs, but such a program would require a concomitant expansion of the two upper-class years of engineering education. The National Science Foundation should examine experience to date with dual-degree and other alternative engineering programs and should then take the initiative (if indicatefdJ in establishing a pilot
84 ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE group of colleges and engineering schools to demonstrate effective structures for such programs. This pilot program could be funded by a combination offoundations, industry, antigovernment agencies. Expe- r~ence gained from the program could then be appBed to a wider group of institutions. In addition, the experience gained would be relevant to the often-debated mode] of preprofessiona] followed by professional engineering education. Itwou]da~so tee highly relevant to the examina- tion of options for restructuring the curriculum to meet competing educational demands. (see chapter 6, recommendation 7J. 16. The shortage of faculty is likely to remain a serious problem. Although the issue of Ph.D. versus M.S. degree as a criterion has not been resolved, the Ph.D. has been a virtual requirement for tenure- track positions. To avoid this constraint, especially in times of faculty shortage, colleges of engineering can utilize professional personnel who are not in tenure-track positions. Engineering faculty members and administrators should iden- tifyand utilize as facu~tyin~vidua~s such as government, military, and corporate retirees, with or without a Ph. D., who are not seeking tenure and who would welcome a short-term contract for a second career. References American Society for Engineering Education. 1984a. Policy statement endorsed by the Executive Committee of the Engineering Deans' Council. American Society for Engineering Education.1984b. Survey of engineering colleges. Baldwin, L. V.1984a. An electronic university, IEEE Spectrum November), p.99. Baldwin, L. V.1984b. Instructional television, IEEE Spectrum (November), p.101. Engineering Manpower Commission. 1983a. Engineering and technology enrollments, Fall 1982. Pt. I: Engineering. Washington, D.C.: AAES. Engineering Manpower Commission. 1983b. Engineering and technology enrollments, Fall 1982. Pt. II: Technology. Washington, D.C.: AAES. Engineering Manpower Commission.1983c. Salaries of engineers in education. Engineering Manpower Commission.1983d. Salaries of engineers in industry. Engineering Manpower Commission. 1984a. Engineering Manpower Bulletin, No. 73, July. Engineering Manpower Commission. 1984b. Engineering and technology degrees- 1983. Pt. II: By minorities. Washington, D.C.: AAES. Engineering Manpower Commission. 1984c. Engineering and technology degrees- 1983. Pt. I: By school. Washington, D.C.: AAES. Lear, W. E.1983. The state of engineering education. Journal of Metals February), pp.48- 51. National Academy of Engineering. 1984. Guidelines for engineering research centers. Washington, D.C.: NAB. National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. 1982. Report on the Quality of Engineering Education. Report of the Committee on the Quality of Engineer- ing Education, of the Commission on Education for the Engineering Professions.
C URRENT S TAT US OF ENGINEERING ED UCATION 85 National Commission on Excellence in Education. 1983. A Nation at Risk. A report to the nation and the Secretary of Education. National Science Board. 1982. University-Industry Research Relationships: Myths, Real- ities, and Potentials. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation. National Science Board. 1983. Science Indicators: 1982. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation. National Science Board. 1984. Educating Americans for the 21st century: A report to the American people and the National Science Board. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation. National Society of Professional Engineers. 1982. Engineering Education Problems: A Guide to Action for NSPE State Societies. Washington, D.C.: NSPE. Report of the Panel on Continuing Education, in preparation. Report of the Panel on Engineering Employment Characteristics, in preparation. Report of the Panel on Graduate Education and Research, in preparation.
