|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 255
Technological Education
JOSEPH M. PETTIT
In industry and government nationally awl worldwide, decisions
in which technology is a big factor must be made every day. We will
make better dec~szor~s in the twenty-first century if more of our cit-
izens, managers, school board mergers, lawmakers—and their eco-
nomic advisers—have had an analytical, rigorous curriculum
preferably in the application of science to society, which typifies the
best of engineering educatiorl.
Among, the major themes developed in this volume on economics and
technology is He role of He key infrastructures, which include education. I
was asked originally to discuss engineering education; however, just as the
world of economics has more participants than economists, so does tech-
nology have more participants than engineers. Hence, this chapter discusses
technological education in a broader sense, although it focuses on the edll-
cation of engineers since Heirs is a leadership role. It also addresses the
subject of economics in the education of engineers and mentions the need
for technology in the education of economists.
Engineers and economists have a common interest in technological change,
though they see it from different vantage points. Both engineers and econ-
omists become involved in policymaking. There is surely need for improve-
ment in U.S. economic growth and competitiveness in world markets. Better
cooperation and mutual understanding between engineers and economists
could well lead to better policies. Dialogue between engineers and economists
can benefit both as they learn of each other's concerns, priorities, insights,
and methods.
255
OCR for page 256
OCR for page 258
OCR for page 259
OCR for page 260
OCR for page 261
OCR for page 262
Representative terms from entire chapter:
engineering graduates
256
JOSEPH M. PEITIT
TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES
Let us now turn to the questions of who provides our technology, especially
technological innovation, and how they are educated. First, the technology
team is like a modern surgical team, which consists not only of the surgeon
but also of other competent persons of many specialties and levels of edu-
cation. In technology, there is not just the engineer, although he or she is a
key person, like the surgeon. There are others on the team.-Unlike the
surgeon, Me engineer may have only a bachelor's degree, or a master's or
doctor's degree.
Engineenng education at the bachelor's level is regulated by a national
body, the Accrediting Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). Dur-
ing the course of ABET's regular 6-year inspection cycle, the visiting teams
look for quality and check curriculum content, which is specified as to
minimum content in venous subjects. An engineering curriculum, to be
classed as such, must have at least 2~/: years of mathematics, science, and
engineering subjects. Included must be at least ~/z year of mathematics beyond
trigonometry, 1 year of basic sciences (e.g., chemistry and physics), 1 year
of engineering sciences (e.g., fluid mechanics not normally a part of phys-
ics courses), and at least ~/2 year of "engineering design" (synthesis, as
opposed to scientific analysis).
These requirements are minimal, and most curricula contain more. To
prevent a curriculums becoming too exclusively technical and theoretical,
there are some other important requirements. There must be adequate lab-
oratory experience and competency in oral and written English, and there
must be provided "an understanding of the ethical, social, and economic
[emphasis added] considerations in engineering practice." Finally, there must
be at least ~/z year in the humanities and social sciences, not counting subjects
like ROTC or language-skills courses. Economics is especially mentioned
as an appropriate subject in the social sciences.
Engineenng is not science, although in modern times it is heavily science-
based. The difference is emphasized in the ABET requirement for engineering
design. It is this component of the curriculum that is most relevant here, and
I shall quote from the ABET cntena:
The ren',ire~m~ntc have heen ~.ct~hli~heA in r~
TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
-
257
engineers include two relevant points. First, engineers are expected to become
leaders in society and not merely backroom technical workers (some are, of
course, but from personal choice). Hence the requirements for humanities,
social sciences, communication skills, and an appreciation of the social and
economic context of their work. Engineers will also be supported by several
classes of technical staff, including craftsmen like machinists and electricians,
technicians with 2 years of postsecondary preparation, and persons in a
category new since World War II—engineering technologists who are grad-
uates of 4-year cumcula accredited by ABET. The engineering technology
curriculum is similar to engineering in many respects, but it features more
laboratory, hands-on experience, less theory, and more state-of-the-art prac-
tical knowledge. Such graduates can design today's equipment, but the en-
gineers are better prepared to design tomorrow 's.
Second, engineers are riot illiterate in economic factors, in the role of the
marketplace, in the trade-offs between price and performance. Nor are they
ignorant of the social context of their work, wherein choice between alter-
native designs may be a political rather than a technical decision.
Engineering work cannot usually be accomplished by individuals. For the
most part, an engineer is the leader of a team. Success on small projects
leads to responsibility for ever larger activities and a larger management role.
Many engineers migrate gradually into general management. They begin to
need more management education. If they remain in more technical roles,
they gradually need additional education in science and technology i as new
developments in their fields make their earlier learning obsolescent. (For
example, I was first educated in vacuum-tube electronics and later had to
educate myself in solid-state electronics, such as transistors and integrated
circuits.) Thus it must be recognized that continuing education has become
an important need as the pace of technological innovation has increased.
Much Is written about continuing education for engineers and much of
this kind of education is available but not enough is being utilized. A
survey of 3,000 engineers in industry taken in Me 1960s revealed that only
one-quarter of them were taking continuing education courses, and only one-
half had ever done so. ~
A brighter picture is to be found in the popularity of graduate, degree-
credit courses taken by young engineers at their employment sites. Electronic
delivery modes such as microwave transmission in local zones and videotapes
delivered by vehicle to more distant sites, overcome distance. Course trans-
m~ssion by satellites at reasonable cost can be anticipated soon.
A brief mention of numbers may be in order. The latest national data,
which are for 1983, show that 72,741 bachelor's degrees were awarded by
*R. Perrucci, W. LeBold, W. E. Howland, The engineer in industry and government, Engineering
Education, March 1966:237-259.
258
JOSEPH M. PETIT
271 institutions.* Of those institutions, 256 have one or more ABET-
accredited curricula. At the graduate level, 19,909 master's or graduate
professional degrees and 3,023 doctor's degrees were awarded.
Such numbers are not meaningful unless compared with something. Are
they large or small compared with figures for other nations? Are they in-
creasing or decreasing? On the latter point, they have been increasing. The
nearly 73,000 cited above is the largest bachelor' s-degree output ever. But
it will decline. The number of engineering freshmen follows the population
trend for 18-year-olds, both of which peaked about 1980 and are now de-
clmmg.
But engineering enrollment is also influenced by a "popularity cycle."
Certain fields of engineering are especially popular with students these days,
notably electronics and computers. A current force in the popularity cycle
is the much-publicized shortage of engineers for our fast-growing micro-
electron~cs and computer industry.
I believe that the popularity of engineering is too much influenced by
journalists, who tend to treat the output of engineering graduates as a mar-
ketplace commodity, to be measured against the number and apparent trends
in jobs specifically labeled for engineers. The situation is really quite elastic,
and there is probably no definition of shortage or surplus. Even if Here are
not enough graduates to fill the desired hiring tables, industry does not shut
down. If there are more graduates than there are narrowly specified job
openings, then we have or should have—a healthy supply of well-educated
young people for industry and government. This is much like the situation
for graduates who majored in English, political science, or even economics.
Indeed one could argue that in this highly technological age, with so many
corporate and political decisions having major technical dimensions, our
nation should have more of its decision makers educated in the discipline of
. .
engmeenng.
Coming back to the numbers, it might seem that 73,000 is a large number
of bachelor graduates. Yet the United States ranks behind Japan and West
Germany in per capita engineers in the population; indeed Japan graduates
twice as many engineers per capita as we do—and far fewer lawyers!
TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION IN JAPAN
Japan is the formidable competitor of the United States in technological
innovation, economic grown, and success win manufactured products in
He world marketplace
The recent success of Japan in world markets for high technology products
has been a matter of study and concern in the United States; since the era
*Engineenng degrees granted, 1983, Engineering Education 74 (Apnl 1984):64~645.
TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
259
following World War it, Japan has become the leader in world markets in
autos and electronics. Why? Is Japanese engineering education different from
ours? Is it newer and better? My study and visits lead me to believe that it
is not. The curriculum is traditional. However, entrance to Japanese uni-
versities is highly competitive and requires rigorous preparation for national
exams. But an important difference from U S. engineering occurs after grad-
uation and first employment. At that time there begins a whole new phase
of education in industry utilized to a far greater extent than in U.S. industry.
Young Japanese engineers are rotated—over a period of years through
many departments, working closely with all classes of workers. It is not just
an orientation tour.
They are also assigned to focal instruction in He special processes and
techniques of their employer, in addition to taking further courses outside.
The employer can afford to make a large invesunent in developing engineers
because of the long-term employment practice in the leading Japanese com-
pan~es. The employee is assured of a continuing job and he or she, in turn,
does not leave to join a competitor.
There are other important factors in the success of the Japanese, including
weir highly discipline<] study and utilization of technology available from
He United States. They use it better than we ourselves have.
The matter of discipline is worth a few more words. It seems to me
that the higher the level of technology in a society the higher the degree
of discipline required. This discipline must be a characteristic of all per-
sons, not merely of the scientist who finds new knowledge or of the
engineer who incorporates that knowledge into the design of a new device
or system. It must also include managers and workers who manufacture
the device or system, and those who install and maintain it. And, finally,
there must be discipline on the part of those who must put this technology
to use. Technology cannot be purchased and expected to function well for
each new owner. Discipline related to technology is strongly related to
cultural factors, which are slow to change and with respect to which certain
societies seem to have a time advantage. Japan seems to be doing especially
well.
Of course there are over aspects of Japanese competition win He United
States that do not derive from engineering education, nor can Hey be over-
come Trough engineering education alone. For instance, in Japan Here has
been much better cooperation among labor, industry, and government, evi-
dently built on a national consensus to succeed in He international market-
place. We have no such consensus; instead Here seems to be a long-standing
distrust between labor and management, between government and business.
This can be seen in our antitrust legislation, which was derived, understand-
ably, from conditions during the nineteens century, but such restrictions are
now a serious handicap.
260
JOSEPH M. PkTTIT
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Returning now to the U.S. situation in engineering education, we are in
a period of tension due to the current imbalance in U.S. engineering, man-
power. Industry has far more vacant positions designated for engineers than
there are graduates emerging from our universities. Those of us in the uni-
versities also have a serious imbalance, namely, a large, recent wave of
undergraduates wanting to study engineering and a serious shortage of avail-
able faculty. Starting salary rates for new engineering faculty have had to
be increased sharply, causing us to divert money from laboratory equipment
and other needs, with the result that we have a serious deficiency in necessary
instructional facilities. At the same time, we should seriously question how
much we should expand our engineering colleges, even if we could have the
necessary resources. What are the real future needs for engineering graduates
in our increasingly high-tech society?
Let us look more closely at our future needs in the educational sector.
Engineers and managers are now producing most of our products in estab-
lished industries. But, in addition, there are newer, high-tech industries.
These are the toolmakers of our day those who provide the means of making
high-tech products. Creating, designing, and fabricating the high-tech tools
calls for a different-mix of engineers and other employees than there would
be in general industry. It is not just that more skilled technicians are needed,
but more Ph.D.s. There must be more engineers with advanced levels of
education and capability, and these must come from our university-level
engineering institutions. They must also have participated in research. Not
that they will pursue careers in research as such, but they should learn to
confront a new field in which not everything is known and to proceed sys-
tematically and effectively to accumulate the necessary knowledge. This
experience can be provided in a university while the graduate student is
taking additional course work, perhaps in mathematics and physics, as well
as in engineering itself. We need to attract the very best graduate students,
and industry must help them complete their advanced studies. At the present
time, too many of our best students are leaving at the bachelor's level to
take high-paying jobs in industry.
Then, of course, there is an increasing need for engineers in our basic
industries. such as the electric utility industry, as well as in agriculture,
transportation, and so on. To this should be added the growing service sector,
particularly areas like office automation. Here the objective is clear. We
need an ample supply of well-prepared engineering students. Unfortunately,
the supply is greatly influenced by the positive or negative impressions gained
by young people and Heir parents from the newspapers as to the apparent
future need of society for engineers.
There is a special problem at the present time in the United States. First-
year students in engineering curricula are not well prepared when Hey come
TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
261
to us. Precollege education in mathematics, science, and even English, is so
inadequate that many students must spend time doing remedial work, and a
large amount of university-level resources must be diverted to this work.
I-he problem has been given much recent attention as a national crisis, but
apparently it will be left to state and local corrective action. Yet it seems
doubtful that we can adequately meet our problems of international com-
petitior~ in trade or defense if we leave it to the priorities of every local
school district.
Furthe~ore, in the United States the present culture of schools, teachers,
and school boards in the precollege educational system is not well suited to
facing the economic marketplace and paying what is necessary to get good
teachers in mathematics and science. The situation has become more com-
plicated because outstanding young women who in previous years would
automatically have gone into teaching are now able to pursue attractive
professional careers in engineering or management.
Again, there is the question of the number of ~ngineenng graduates that
we really need. One measure, of course, is the number of engineenug jobs
to be filled in industry. Even this is not well defined and is hard to predict
very far into the future. As mentioned before, U.S. industry and our total
society utilize fewer engineering graduates than does Japan, where there are
twice as many engineering graduates per capita, and where the percentage
of bachelor's graduates majoring in engineering is several times higher than
in the United States.
There is currently a force in the United States opposing any change, a
small but strident group in the engineering profession who say that we should
not increase the number of engineering graduates, that an increase in supply
would merely drive salaries down. This group would rather have us reduce
the number of graduates and restrict the immigration of foreign engineering
graduates. I think this would not serve our nation well. In fact, I would urge
a much greater increase in the number of students studying engineering,
regardless of whether or not they later serve in strictly engineering positions.
This brings us to a consideration of our high-tech society of the future.
There is a large society of users of technology, as well as the smaller group
of decision makers, who should steer us along a course where technology
could be a positive factor in the quality of life and in world stability. Not
enough of these decision makers in government and industry have had en-
gineering or scientific education. I would urge that we need many more
engineering graduates, and in many kinds of positions in society, not merely
in jobs labeled "engineering." I would urge a broader view of engineering
education. The engineering curriculum is not narrow and only technical,
though the content of humanities and social sciences might well be increased
even at the expense of providing less of a ready-made engineering specialist
at the bachelor's level.
There is the important group of innovators, or the creators of our future
262
JOSEPH M. PE-lTIT
technology. These include the engineenug specialists in high-tech industry.
For them, furler advanced study is necessary. We must encourage more of
our brightest engineers to go beyond the bachelor's degree, to acquire or
sharpen the tools necessary for high-level innovation. Many of them can do
this while employed in industry, taking advantage of local universities or
video delivery systems. Corporate policy must do better to encourage this
activity by young engineers.
I would urge again that we not measure the number of engineers needed
for the future by a precise counting of the number of jobs labeled "eng~-
neenng." This is not done in over fields. Many students take undergraduate
majors in subjects like economics or chemistry but do not become career
specialists in those fields. Yet somehow we seem to have come to advise
young people to go or not to go into engineering based only on predictions
of the number of engineering jobs.
I think we need many more people in our society who have had an ana-
lytical, rigorous cumculum preferably in We application of science to so-
ciety, which typifies the best of engineering education.
In conclusion, I would say that we face a future with more pervasive,
more complex technology, with tools quite beyond the capacity of the user
to comprehend in detail, let alone to make for himself. Yet, decisions must
be made every day in industry and government, nationally and worldwide,
In which technology is a big factor. We will make better decisions in the
nventy-f~rst century if more of our citizens, managers, school board members,
lawmakers and their economic advisers- have a sound understanding of
a technological society and have experienced We rigorous analytical thought
processes that it demands.
Only in this way can we hope to achieve what Alfred Now Whitehead
described as "~e art of progress," namely, "to preserve order amid change
and to preserve change amid order."
