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 R1
E· ~
nglneerlng
Education and
Practice in the
United States
Foundations of Our
Techno-Econon~c Future
Committee on the Education and Utilization
of the Engineer
Commission on Engineering and
Technical Systems
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C. 1985
OCR for page R2
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS · 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW · Washington, DC 20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing
Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils
of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the
Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the project were
chosen for their special competences and with regard to appropriate balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to
procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the
National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute
of Medicine.
The National Research Council was established by the National Academy of Sci-
ences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the
Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. The
Council operates in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy
under the authority of its congressional charter of 1863, which establishes the Acad-
emy as a private, nonprofit, self-governing membership corporation. The Council has
become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and
the National Academy of Engineering in the conduct of their services to the govern-
ment, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. It is administered
jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of
Engineering and the Institute of Medicine were established in 1964 and 1970, respec-
tively, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences.
First Printing, April 1985
Second Printing, July 19 86
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 85-60423
International Standard Book Number 0-309-03539-2
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
Preface and
Acknowledgments
In the early 1980s the engineering profession was in ferment over its
future. Soaring undergraduate enrollments coupled with faculty short-
ages threatened the quality of engineering education. At the same time,
industry struggled to recruit adequate numbers of engineering gradu-
ates to meet the nation's growing needs. Clearly, these problems go
beyond the university and the board room in a society increasingly
dependent on high technology they command national attention.
Despite engineering's crucial role in modern economic life, public
debate on technology development and its impact on the national and
global economies have not often included examination of the engineer-
ing profession per se. Prompted by concern over the health of the U.S.
engineering endeavor, the National Science Foundation asked the
National Research Council in 1980 to conduct a study of the state and
the future of engineering education and practice in the United States.
The Committee on the Education and Utilization of the Engineer
consisted of 26 members and 9 panels with more than 50 additional
people drawn from business, industry, and education. These groups,
which included all facets of engineering as well as other disciplines
such as the social sciences and economics, met at regular intervals for
two years to develop the findings and recommendations contained in
this volume. One member of the committee was also the director of a
two-year study of faculty shortages begun in 1981 by the American
· . .
OCR for page R4
iv
PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Society for Engineering Education. {All study participants are listed in
Appendix A. ~
In this report and in several forthcoming companion reports {see
Appendix B), the committee attempts to present a comprehensive view
of how and how well the engineering community functions. This
view is directed toward a wide and diverse audience: national leader-
ship in both the public and private sectors, the nonengineering public,
and of course, the broad engineering community itself.
Although the findings and recommendations of this report are meant
to guide and inform this audience, it should be remembered that they
are generic and thus cannot cover every situation. For example, some
segments of society conclude that missed schedules, cost overruns, and
technical shortcomings in engineering projects indicate a deficiency in
engineering capability in this Coventry. Yet because not all projects suf-
fer from these difficulties, we surmise that the problem lies more in
management effectiveness than in engineering capability. Thus we
make no recommendations on what we perceive to be an individual-
ized, organizational problem.
By the same token, each committee member must admit to forming
conclusions based on insights from evidence that, if put to the test,
would not have produced a ringing consensus. Hardly anyone involved
in the give-and-take of the committee effort could escape learning new
things and forming new judgments that, in turn, have become an
important component of this report. For example, we are aware of
intense pressures to modify the undergraduate engineering curriculum
to include more subjects in the humanities, liberal arts, and social
sciences as well as more technical and business courses, all within the
confines of a sacrosanct four-year program. Arguments on all sides are
unimpeachable but they are also mutually exclusive, and moving in
favor of any one of them causes the root curriculum to suffer. The
arguments could be reconciled in a plan for a preengineering undergrad-
uate program followed by a professional school program, with the com-
bination requiring more time to earn the first professional degree.
However, because of objections to the extra costs of this approach and
the expected reluctance on the part of students to extend their college
program, the committee could not reach a consensus on this vexing
problem.
The architects of this study predicted that it would be difficult if not
impossible to complete a task of such scope in two years; the commit-
tee can now confirm this prediction. We hope to see our work become
the first step in a continuing effort that will yield judgments and recom-
mendations for which we could lay only the groundwork.
OCR for page R5
PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
v
Support for this work has been provided by the National Science
Foundation, the Department of the Air Force, the Department of the
Army, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Navy, and the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Additionally, assis-
tance has been provided through grants from the Eastman Kodak Com-
pany, Exxon Corporation, the General Electric Company, the IBM
Corporation, the Lockheed Corporation, the Monsanto Company, and
the Sloan Foundation. We thank all of these groups for their support and
encouragement.
The committee expresses its appreciation to all the participants in
the study pane! members, consultants, and staff-for their dedicated
efforts in carrying out the extensive undertakings required in its con-
duct. The efforts of D. D. Wyatt in the early stages should not be
overlooked. In particular, the committee and staff thank Courtiand S.
Lewis for his valuable contributions to the preparation of this report. As
chairman, I appreciate greatly the wisdom and cooperation of all con-
tributors, but most especially William H. Michael, Ir., and David C.
Hazen.
terrier A. Haddad
Chairman
.
OCR for page R6
OCR for page R7
Committee Members
JERRIERA. HADDAD, Chairman, {IBM, Ret. )
GEORGE S. ANSELL, Dean of Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute Now President, Colorado School of Mines)
JORDAN l. BARUCH, President, Jordan I. Baruch Associates
ERICH BLOCH, Vice-President, IBM Corporation {now Director,
National Science Foundation)
DENNIS CHAMOT, Associate Director, Department for Professional
Employees, AFL/CID
EDMUND T. CRANCH, President, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
DANIEL C. DRUCKER, Dean of Engineering, University of Illinois at
Urbana {now Graduate Research Professor of Engineering Sciences,
University of Florida at Gainesville)
FRED W. CARRY, Vice-President, Corporate Engineering and
Manufacturing, General Electric Company
JOHN W. CEILS, Director of AAES/ASEE Faculty Shortage Project
{ATTEST, Ret. ~
AARON ). GELLMAN, President, GelIman Research Associates, Inc.
HELEN GOULDNER, Dean, College of Arts and Science, Professor of
Sociology, University of Delaware
JOHN D. KEMPER, Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of California at Davis
EDWARD T. KIRKPATRICK, President, Wentworth Institute of
Technology
. .
V11
OCR for page R8
V111
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
ERNEST S. KUH, Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer
Science, University of California at Berkeley
W. EDWARD LEAR, Executive Director, American Society for
Engineering Education
LAWRENCE M. MEAD, JR., Senior Management Consultant {Senior
Vice-President, Ret. ~ Grumman Aerospace Corporation
M. EUGENE MERCHANT, Principal Scientist, Manufacturing Research,
Cincinnati Milacron, Inc. (now Director, Advanced Manufacturing
Research, Metcut Research Associates, Inc. ~
RICHARD i. REDPATH, Vice-President, Ralston Purina Company
FRANCIS E. REESE, Senior Vice-President, Monsanto {now retired)
ROBERT M. SAUNDERS, Professor, School of Engineering, University
of California at Irvine {Chairman, Board of Governors, AAES, 1983)
CHARLES E. SCHAFFNER, Executive Vice-President, Syska
Hennessy
JUDITH A. SCHWAN, Assistant Director, Research Labs, Eastman
Kodak Company
HAROLD T. SHAPIRO, President, University of Michigan
MORRIS A. STEINBERG, Vice-President, Science, Lockheed
Corporation
DONALD G. WEINERT, Executive Director, National Society of
Professional Engineers
SHEILA E. WIDNALL, Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Staff
WILLIAM H. MICHAEL, JR., Executive Director
VERNON H. MILES, Staff Officer
AMY JANIK, Administrative Assistant
COURTLAND S. LEWIS, Consultant
Government Liaison
LEWIS G. MAYFIELD, Head, Office of Interdisciplinary Research,
National Science Foundation
OCR for page R9
Contents
Executive Summary
Background
1. Introduction . . .
Context of the Study
The Committee's Approach .
Report Structure .
2. The Role of Engineering in America
Roots of the Profession
Maintaining American Strength and Influence
Improving the Quality of Life
Maintaining the Public Trust
References
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Where Does Eng~neer~ngStand~n America Today'
3. Defining the Engineering Community
· ~
The Changing Nature of Contemporary Engineering
Characterizing Engineering's Infrastructure
The Support Structure for Engineering
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
References
· ~
1X
.21
. 21
. 22
. 23
.25
. 25
. 27
. 27
. 28
. 28
.
.31
.31
. 34
. 44
. 49
. 50
OCR for page R10
CONTENTS
Current Status of Engineering Education
Critical Areas
Special Topics
Areas of Rapid Change
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
References
.51
. 53
. 68
. 73
. 79
5. Utilization of Engineering Resources . . . . . . . . . . 86
The Engineering Work Force: Characteristics and Trends . . 8 7
Quality of the Engineering Work Force . . . . . . . . . . 95
Issues of Supply and Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
The Importance of Adaptability . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
. 105
. 107
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
References
A Look at the Future
6.
Engineering's Future: Requirements for a
Changing Environment
The Year 2000: What Will the Engineering Environment
Be Like?
Means and Mechanisms for Adapting Successfully . . . . 117
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations . . . . . . 121
References 123
Appendix A: Subcommittee and Pane!
Membership and Consultants . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Appendix B: Inputs to the Committee Report
Index
. 130
