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.
The Background The story of graduate education in engineering belongs largely to the post-World War II~era. Just before the war the number of engineering master's degrees per year in the United States was only about a thou- sand. Doctor's degrees averaged about a hundred per year.* By 1949 these numbers had quadrupled, and by the 1970s the number of mas- ter's degrees had increased 15-fold, and doctor's degrees, 30-fold. {See Table 1; Table 2 gives distribution by field for 1982-1983. ~ Several events have had major impacts on the evolution of graduate engineering education. Among them are the technological explosion of World War II, the publication of the Grinter Report in 1955, the publica- tion of the President's Science Advisory Committee {PSACJ report in 1962, the Goals Study of 1963-1968, and the retrenchment of 1969- 1971. Each of these is discussed belong. Technological Developments During World War II During World War II, the public was dazzled by a succession of tech- nological marvels. The world entered the war without such develop- ments, for example, as jet aircraft, effective radar, and atomic energy, and it emerged with them. The example of radar is of special interest. * Of the engineering baccalaureates awarded in 1940, the master's degrees were 12 percent and the doctor's degrees were 1.5 percent. 8
THE BACKGROUND TABLE 1 U.S. Engineering Degrees, 1950-1983 9 Bachelor's Degrees Master's Degrees Doctor's Degrees . Year Foreign Foreign Foreign Ending Nationals Total Nationals TotalNationalsTotal 1950 n/a 48,160 n/a 4,865n/a492 1951 n/a 37,887 n/a 5,134n/a58( 1952 n/a 27,155 n/a 4,132n/a586 1953 n/a 24,165 n/a 3,636n/a592 1954 n/a 22,236 n/a 4,078n/a590 1955 n/a 22,589 r~/a 4,379n/a599 1956 n/a 26,306 n/a 4,589n/a610 1957 n/a 31,221 r:/a 5,093n/a596 1958 n/a 35,332 n/a 5,669n/a647 1959 n/a 38,134 r~/a 6,615n/a714 1960 n/a 37,808 n/a 6,989n/a786 1961 n/a 35,860 n/a 7,977n/a943 1962 n/a 34,735 n/a 8,909n/a1,207 1963 n/a 33,458 n/a 9,460n/a1,378 1964 n/a 35,226 n/a 10,827n/a1,693 1965 n/a 36,691 n/a 12,246n/a2,124 1966 n/a 35,815 n/a 13,677n/a2,303 1967 n/a 36,186 r~/a 13,887n/a2,614 1968 nfa 38,002 n/a 15,152n/a2,933 1969 n/a 39,972 n/a 14,980n/a3,387 1970 n/a 42,966 n/a 15,548n/a3,620 1971 1,565 43,167 2,930 16,3837413,640 1972 1,944 44,190 2,973 17,3567733,774 1973 2,136 43,429 2,551 17,1527083,587 1974 2,436 41,407 3,099 15,8851,0143,362 1975 2,468 38,210 3,250 15,7738913,138 1976 2,799 37,970 3,628 16,5061,0602,977 1977 2,996 40,095 3,825 16,5519952,813 1978 3,084 46,091 3,579 15,7368742,573 1979 3,788 52,598 3,944 15,6249292,815 1980 4,895 58,742 4,402 16,9419822,751 1981 5,622 62,935 4,589 17,6431,0542,841 1982 5,410 66,990 5,216 18,2891,1672,887 1983 6,151 72,471 5,145 19,6731,1793,023 NOTE: n/a = not available. SOURCES: Data for 1950-1952 taken from Facilities and Opponunities for Graduate Study in Engineenng, Americ~n Society for Engineering Education, Washington, D.C., March 1968. Data for 1953-1976 supplied by Engineering Manpower Commis- sion, New York, N.Y. Data for 1977-1979 from Engineenng Manpower Bulletin #50, Engineers Joint Council, New York, N.Y., November 1979. Data for 1980-1983 from Engineering Manpower Commission.
10 ENGINEERING GRAD HATE ED UCATION AND RESEARCH TABLE 2 Engineering Degrees by Field and Level, 1982-1983 . . Degree Field of EngineeringBachelor'sMaster's Doctor's . . Aerospace 2, 207 496 97 Agricultural 704 146 51 Architectural 568 30 0 Biomedical 577 178 SO Ceramic - 294 SS 18 Chemical 7,499 1, 500 379 Civil 10,484 3,285 390 Computer 2,643 1,419 102a Electrical, electronic 18,590 4,645 628 Engineering science 1,298 408 170 Environmental 292 456 68 Engineering, general 1,923 669 76 Industrial, manufacturing 3,808 1,400 108 Marine, naval architecture 698 144 18 Mechanical 16,484 2,964 399 Mining and mineral 1,019 280 54 Materials and metallurgical 1,080 561 228 Nuclear 420 30 1 114 Petroleum 1,420 225 14 Systems, operations - 210 418 56 Other 247 93 3 Totals 72 471 19,673 3 023 , , "it should be noted that the number of graduates in "computer" fields is probably understated, for many computer science departments are not organizationally related to engineering schools and so may not be included in the reports as given by the Engineering Manpower Commission. The Summary Report 1982: Doctorate Recip~- ents From United States Universities (ref. 151 lists 220 Ph.D. degrees in "Computer Science," as a subheading under "Physical Sciences." Since the latter report is based upon self-reporting of doctor's degree recipients, the number of 220 computer science Ph.D.s can probably be taken as a more accurate indication of the total number of computer-oriented Ph.D.s per year than the 102 shown in this table, some of which may be "Computer Science" and some of which may be "Computer Engineering." The problems that stem from self-reporting by individuals and from diverse organiza- tional lines of reporting will cause the actual numbers to remain uncertain until definitions and organizational structures can be clarified. SOURCE: Paul Doigan, "Engineering Degrees Granted, 1983, " Engineenng Education, April 1984, pp. 640-645.
THE BACKGROUND 11 At the beginning of World War II, the basic "science" of radar had long been understood, and working models existed, although they did not work as well as was desirable. It might be supposed that the develop- ment of more effective radar would be a classic sort of engineering task, since the basic science had been known for decades. Yet, at the Massa- chusetts Institute of Technology's {MIT's) Radiation Laboratory, where the major development work on radar was done, most of the 1,000 top- level participants were not engineers, but scientists temporarily work- ing as engineers. ~ It had become apparent very early in the program that conventional engineering education programs of the day had not pre- pared most engineers to cope with the kinds of problems they faced with radar. For the most part, persons trained as physicists and mathe- maticians, usually at advanced-degree levels, did the job. Some observ- ers believe that it was the research orientation derived from their educational backgrounds, as much as the additional exposure to sci- ence and mathematics, that enabled them to discover answers to prob- lems no one had thought of before.2 Experiences such as this, coupled with a growing realization that the solution of a great number of postwar problems would depend increas- ingly on scientific knowledge, intensified the demand for inclusion of more science and mathematics in engineering curricula and stimulated a great expansion in graduate study and research. Before the establish- ment of the National Science Foundation in 1950, the expansion of both graduate study and research was spurred through initiatives of the armed services. These initiatives provided large-scale support for basic research in universities toward the end of and after World War II. This support for research laboratories E.g., the Research Laboratory of Elec- tronics at MIT66J also helped assure the availability of a pool of graduate engineers. Grinter Report, 1952-1955 The move toward including more science in engineering was for, ., al- ized by the publication in 1955 of the Report on EvaJuation of Engineer- ing Education, more familiarly known by the name of the chairman of the study committee as the "Grinter Report."3 This report recom- mended strengthening of work in the sciences, strengthening of gradu- ate programs, and development of superior engineering faculty members. The Grinter Report also recommended the following: inte- grated study of analysis, design, and engineering systems to enhance professional background; curricular flexibility; strengthening of humanities and social sciences in engineering programs; development
12 ENGINEERING GRADUATE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH of skills in speaking, writing, and graphic communication; and encour- agement of experimental engineering. In terms of overall effect, how- ever, the Grinter Report led to more science in engineering, stimulated the growth of graduate programs, and accelerated the trend toward more Ph.D.s on engineering faculties. The major growth trend in engi- neering graduate programs originated at about the tone of the publica- tion of this report. PSAC Report, 1962 In 1962 the President's Science Advisory Committee published a report entitled Meeting ManpowerNeedsin Science and Technology.4 The "PSAC Report" declared that the acceleration of graduate training in engineering, mathematics, and physical sciences, especially at the doctoral level, was a matter of urgent national priority requiring imme- diate action, without which severe shortages of engineers and scien- tists would occur. Engineering was identified as an especially crucial area. The federal government was to provide the funds needed, through increased research expenditures, provisioI1 of training grants, and fos- tering of new centers of scientific excellence. The Coventry was, of course, reacting to shocks to its prestige caused by the success of Sput- nik, and was also riding the crest of the greatest economic boom in its history, and these eveIlts simultaneously provided both the motive and the means for a major expansion in engineering graduate programs. Engineering education responded immediately, and the numbers of graduate students rose to unprecedented heights. tiust eight years later, the magnificent declarations of the PSAC Report were negated by a new conventional wisdom-that Ph.D.s were a drug on the market. J Goals Study, 1963-1968 Close on the heels of the PSAC Report, the American Society for Engineering Education [ASEEJ initiated the study, Goals of Engineenng Education.s The "Goals Study" is probably the most ambitious, authoritative, and comprehensive study of engineering education ever undertaken. However, it suffered the misfortune of having been com- piled during the very crest of the growth wave stimulated by the PSAC Report. As a result, it followed the prevailing philosophy of the time, used the latest data available t1966l, and projected that the growth trends in engineering education would continue; it did so almost pre- cisely at the time that the growth was in fact on the verge of being reversed. ,.
THE BACKGROUND 100,000 10,000 1,000 100 13 , , 1 1978 A Bachelor's Degrees __ O `_~ ~^ 50,000 ~ 0 32,000 /\ ~^ _ ~ Long-term Growth Curve '' at 5% per Year '' Master's Degrees - 8~000 '- - 11% ~ /~' 12% , .' ~ Doctor's If/ Degrees o 6%~>,, - - 40c A/ Engineer - 7 Degrees . ~! 1950 55 60 65 70 75 80 FIGURE 1 Engineering degrees in the United States, with projections. {Note: Tri- angles represent Office of Education projections; circles and accompanying numbers represent Goals Study predictions for 1978.) SOURCE: ASEE Goals Study (ref. 5). The Goals Study staff observed that the number of master's degrees had been growing at a steady rate of 11 percent since 1950 and that doctor's degrees had been growing at the rate of 12 percent {Figure 1~. These growth rates were extrapolated, with projections of 32,000 mas- ter's degrees and 8,000 doctor's degrees by 1978. In making these pro- jections, the Goals staff was joined by the U.S. Office of Education which projected similar numbers. As it actually happened, however, the production of master's degrees slacked off after 1967 and went into a decline in 1973 {Figure 2~. Subsequently, the growth rate has increased modestly, in concert with the enormous increase in under- graduate enrollment. Doctor's degrees peaked at 3, 774 in 1972, and had recovered only to about 3,000 by 1983 {Figure 3~. Projections for bache- lor's degrees in the Goals Study were more modest than for graduate degrees, and are given here for completeness {Figures 1 and 4~. The Goals Study endorsed and reinforced the recommendations of
14 ENGINEERING GRADUATE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 I've ldlaster's Enrollment \ ( Full - time Students ) \ A, / i,,' ,; f'~ ~ Master's Degrees 1955 1950 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 FIGURE 2 Engineering master's enrollment and degrees, U.S. totals, all schools. SOURCE: Data from Engineering Manpower Commission. 30,000 20,000 10,000 Doctor's Enrollment ( Full - time Students ) | Doctor's 7 Degrees / Is ' NSF (1971 ) ~ I I 1 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 FIGURE 3 Engineering doctor's enrollment and degrees, U.S. totals, all schools. SOURCE: Data from Engineering Manpower Commission.
THE BACKGROUND 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 15 F Freshman Enroilment~` i)` J B.S. Degrees ~ \ I GOaIS S\UNY (1966) 0 r I I I I I ~ ~ ~ 1945 1 950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 FIGURE 4 Engineering freshman enrollment and B.S. degrees, U.S. totals, all schools. SOURCE: Data from Engineering Manpower Commission. the Grinter Report and added something new: that the master's degree should be more generally accepted as the basic degree in engineering. When this concept was first advanced, it was perceived as a proposal to replace the bachelor's degree with the master's degree, and was met by a storm of protest from both educators and employers. In response, the Goals Committee, in its final report, recommended that the impor- t~nce of the bachelor's degree should be retained, but continued to insist that the importance of the master's degree should increase. In the years since publication of the Goals Report, the bachelor's degree has in deed maintained its importance, and it still represents the entry level for many kinds of professional engineering tasks. But the master's degree has also attained enhanced status as a degree of importance in engineering. Retrenchment, 1969-1971 Several things happened simultaneously during the time identified here as the "retrenchment" period. First, large aerospace cutbacks occurred, creating unemployment problems for some segments of the engineering profession. Thousands of engineers and scientists, includ
16 ENGINEERING GRADUATE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH lug many Ph.D.s, lost their jobs. Many of them remained Reemployed for long periods of time.6 7 Newspapers ran articles about unemployed engineers and scientists working as welders, rug salesmen, TV repair- men, bartenders, handymen, and operators of hot dog stands.6 ~ 9 Sec- ond, newly graduated Ph.D.s in physics, chemistry, and mathematics began having difficulty getting jobs of their choice Also, there were more new elementary and secondary school teachers than were needed, and many could not find jobs.9 Third, the 1970 census showed that the number of young people in the college-age group was going to peak in the early 1980s and would decline thereafter, casting a pall on the prospects of those who were looking forward to university teaching careers. Fourth, the U.S. economy entered a period of economic reces- sion, with the result that employers cut back on expenditures and postponed hiring new people. All of these events received a high level of media exposure, which produced an exaggerated and misreading pic- ture of the employment picture for engineers.~0 ii ~2 The cumulative effects of these events on engineering education were drastic. Under- graduate enrollments plummeted {see Figure 4 for 1970-1973 period, but then recovered as it became apparent that the adverse publicity had been substantially misleading. Other developments of the period were the termination of science development programs by the National Science Foundation jNSF), vir- tual cessation of training grants, and the emergence of an increasingly restrictive climate toward the funding of university research. The NSF published a report in 1969~3 stating that an oversupply of science and engineering doctorates by 1980 appeared unlikely; two years later NSF produced another reporti4 reversing its earlier opinion, this time pro- jecting that Ph.D. production by 1980 would result in an oversupply of 40 percent for engineers. The 1971 NSF projection is shown in Figure 3, along with the 1966 Goals Study projection. Both sets of projections far overshot the mark. By 1980 not only had the oversupply of Ph.D. engineers projected by NSF failed to materialize, but a shortage had developed, at least from the viewpoint of academic institutions. Many engineering schools found it impossible to fully staff their faculties in the face of rapidly rising enrollments and the prevalent faculty environment. Now the nation must address the question: What is the appropriate relationship of engineering graduate study and research to the educational enter- prise as a whole, and to the needs of industry, education, and govem- ment? Vital related questions are: How many engineering Ph.D.s should be produced each year? and Should programs be adopted that have the objective of increasing Ph.D. production?
