DOCUMENT 'RESUME

ED 226 986 ,SE 040 722 .

TITLE Issues in Engineering Education. A Framework forAnalysis.,

INSTITUTION National Academy of Engineering, Washington, D.C.SPONS AGENCY National Acaemy_.of Sciences, Washington, D.C.;

National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.PUB DATE Apr 80CONTRACT NSF-PRA-80-15304NOTE 66p. .

TUB TYPE Reports Descriptive (141) -

E6RS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage..DESCRIPTORS *Educational Objectives; *Engineering Education;

Financial Support; Government School Relationship;Guidelines; Higher Education; *Industry; *LaboratoryEquipment; *Long Range Planning; *School BusinessRelationship; Social Environment; Surveys

IDENTIFIERS National Science Foundation

ABSTRACTThis report presents findings of the Task Force on .

Engineering Education which was formed under the auspices of theNational Academy of Engineering (NAE). Section I reviews the genesisof the NAE Task Force and its charge. Section II discusses the TaskForce's approach, which included a survey of engineeringprofessionals in academia, industry, and government, as well as ananalysis and synthesis of survey results (provided in an appendix).Section III comprises a brief statement on the general state of

engineering education in the United.States. Section IV is thesynthesis of major issues in engineering today. These issues focus onconcerns related to the objectives of engineering education;resources required to meet national needs;university/industry/government interaction; and the social context ofengineering. RecoMmendations related to these issues are alsoprovkded. Section V defines a framework recommended as the mostsuitible approach to addressing long-range issues. This includesestablishing a standing coUncil to monitor engineering education,advise the profession and government of progress and perceivedprograms, recommend studies/directions, and identifyopportunities/needs. In addition, the establishment of panels tostudy the four areas of concern previously listed is recommended.Short/long-term recommendations are also summarized in an executivesunmary. (JN)

***********************************************************************ReprodUctions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.***-********************************************************************

U.S DEPARTMENT OF Wucau ionNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced as

%NO

received from the person or oroanizabon

CaorroinatinMinor changes have been made to improve

reproduction quality

C\i

C:71

r

rambworfor nalysis

APRIL:1980

Points of view or opinions stated in this docu

ment do not n essanly represent official NIE

positron or polio

MEM11111111EIMOIN

IMNME111minim6111111111111151MM

ellifilii1101111111iVIEMENIEm' 4911

111p-- WHIMUrF m

NATIONAL ACADEMYOF ENGINEERING

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

A

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (Elm)."

i.

.".

.

/

r -

-

,.

,

i

6

This project was supported in part under...NSF COntract No. PRA 80-15304 between theNational Science Foundation and theNational Academy of Sciences. Additionalfunding was msade available by the NationalAcademy of Engineering.., Participation byliaison representatives from.NSF and theSloan Foundation iS appreciated. Theviews expressed in this report are thoseof the Task Force on Engineering Education.

o

ISSUES INENGINEERINGEDUCATION

A Frameworkfor Analysis

Task Force onEngineering Education

of theNational Academyof Engineering

Washington, D.C.April 1980

4

\\,

III I NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING 2101 CONSTITUTION AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON,DI. 20418

TASK FORCE ON ENGINEERING EDUCATION

Dr. Courtland D. Perkins.PresidentNational Academy of Engineering2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20418

BRUNO A. BOLET, Chairman312/492-5220

April 24, 1980

Dear Dr. Perkins:.

For more than .a year, a series of discussions on engineering edu- .

cation has reflected your interest in the subject as well as that of,a substantial number of members of the National Academy of Engineering(NAE). The Task Force which was founded during these discussions hasbeen active and enthusiastic in responding to the charge you gave us.The result of our deliberations is this report.

The general state of engineering education in our country is good. .

Undergraduate enrollments are up sharply, reflecting major changes inthe attitudes of segments of the nation's young people. There are,

however, issues which must be addressed if we are to maintain the vi-tality of U.S. engineering education.. Among these is a major shortagein graduate degrees earn..ed by U.S. students. This trend results inpresent and foreseeable major problems in filling university facultypositions, as well as senior positions in industry and government.Other matters which must be addressed include obsolete facilities andequipment, the need to improve preparation in secondary schools, publicperception of the role of the engineer and of engineering as a career,the content of the curricula and the time required to reach journeymansEatus, and the need for much closer interaction-between academia andindustry. These and many other topics were covered by the many, ex-cellent comments received in response to the Task Force's request forinput from engineering professionals.

As you know, President Carter has asked for a report on science

and engineering education. This led the Task Force to expedite its

'deliberations and issue this report. Nevertheless, we reel thu we

have beep able to discharge our responsibilities succesgfully.

You will note that we make recommendations for immediate action 'as well as propose a framework for addressing areas requiring long-term attention. Of course, the material which we have gathered on

ii

Letter to.Dr. Courtland D. PerkinsApril 24, 1980

, .4

,engineering educatign is available fox continued analysis by NAE, theNational Research.Counci).,,and other interested bodies. I recommendthat members of the Task Force be.considered for further involvement)in uch efforts.

The.other members of the Task Force"and I welcomed this opportu-hity to conlribute. We stand ready to discuss any aspect of our re-port and related matters with you and others in NAS/NAE/NRC but other-wise we considerthat this report concludes the task. you assigned to us.

Bruno A. BoleyChairmanNAE Task Force onEngineering Education

CONTENTS

4

Executive Summary 1

Recommendations for Immediate ActionRecommendations for Long-Range Action vi

I. Introduction 1

History of NAE Involvement 1

Charge to the Task Force 3

The Report 4

II. Task Force Approach 5

III. Overall View of Engineering Education 8

IV. Areas of Concern and Ilecommendatioris for Immediate Action 10

The Objectives of Engineering Edudation 10

Resources Required to Meet National Needs 12

University/Industry/Government.Interaction 17

The Social Context of Engineering 24

V. Recommendations for Long Range Action 26

A Standing Council on Engineering EducationEstablishment of Panels on Specific Areas of ConcernGeneral Recommendations

VI. Closing Statement

Aeferences and Notes

Appendix A - Members of the Task FOtheAppendix B Alphabetical List of Respondents ,

Appendix C - Analysis of the Responses to the SurveyAppendix D - Analysis of Sources of ResponsesAppendix E Bibliography of Articles and Reports Available.

or Cited by the Task ForceAppendix F - Organizations Concerned with

Engineering Education

iv

272828

30

31

333438

4950

54

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The National Academy of EngineeringANAEi Task FOrce onEngineering Education held two formal meetihgs. The firstwas in November 1979, the second in March 1980. This reportsummarizes the findings of the Task Force. Because ofPresident Carter's recent request for assessments of the_status of engineering education and education in thesciences, the report ha's been issued as quickly as possible.

Section I of the report, Introduction, reviews thegenesis of the NAE Task Force and its charge. Section IIdiscusses the approach taken by the Task Force whichincluded a survey of engineering professionals in academia,industry, and government, as well as an analysis and

.synthesis of the survey results, as presented in Appendix C.Section III comprises a brief statement on the general stateof engineering education in the United States. Section IV,Areas of Concern and Recommendations for Immediate Action,is the synthesis of the major issues in engineeringeducation today. Some recommendations for actions thatshould be taken immediately to ensure the continued healthof engineering education are incorporated. Section Vdefines a framework that the Task Force recommends as themost Ouitable approach to addressing the long-range issues.A brief closing statement is given in "Section VI. The .

short-term and long-term recommendations of the Task Forceare summarized below.

Recommendations for Immediate Action

Special post-baccalaureate student support programsshould be offered in engineering through theNational Science Foundation and other agencies..Such programs would assist in fulfilling academicand Industry needs by attracting'more engineeringstudents to advanced degree programs. It issuggested that such support be provided for a two-year term, thus allowing support during thestudent's thesis stage to come from researchcontracts and'grants. In order to make the programattractive in comparison to industry etployment, thestipend shquld be substantial.

A program is needed to update current engineeringteaching and research facilities and laboratoryequipment: While academic institutions and industrymust share responsibility,for addressing thisproblem, the federal government should takeimmediate steps to establish such a, program.Provisiäns for matching funds from other sourcepshould be included as appropriate, bpt a.sufficientbase must be provided to-ensurelprompt redress ofthe present critical conditions.

New ways of increasing industry and federal, state,and local slipport for engineering education shoultbe identified.

The federal government'should adopt policies andpractices through both its!executive and legislativebranches that enhance the close interaction betweenuniversities and industry. The following areexamples of specific actions which.could be taken in.support of this generic recommendation.

Through the National Science Bioundation ahdtechnology-based mission-noriented federalagencies, university/industry cooperativeresearch programs could be strengthened.

The companies that participate in the IRAD(Independent Research and Development) programof the Department of Defense (DOD) could beencouraged to include university participationin the projects they submit for IRAD approval.

Or^

The allowed rate of depreciation for taxpurposes on equipment could be increased.

Tax credits could be provided for companieswhich fund university research.

The formation, through partial federal funding,of separate institutes or centers designed tofoster the growth of particular fields oftechnology should be considered.

4

Recommendations for Long-Ralige Action

A Standing Council on Engineering Education shouldbe established to carry out the following functions:

1. Monitor engineering education;

vi 8

Advise the engineering profession, thegovernment, and, indeed, the nation of progressand perceived programs;Recommend studies and directions; andIdentify opportunites and needs.

A 'oint governance for tbe Council by the NationalA lilemy of' Engineering, the Assembly of Engineeringof he National Research Council, and the AmericanAs ciation of Engineering Societies.is proposed,wit provisions made for future expansion. The

1.Coun-il should function as a catalyst for action.As s ch, the involvement of the variouscons ituencies is esseritial.

Simultaneously, four Panels should be establishedoperating under the aegis of the Council. Eachshould be charged with responsibility for studyingone of four broad areas of concern as follows:

PaneltA-The Objectives of Engineering.Education;Panel B,Resources.Required for National Needs;Panel C-University/Industry/Government Interaction; andPanel D-The Social Context of Engineering..

Each Panel would'report to the Council which woulddecide whether thelthen current needs require thegontinvation of the activities of each Panel or,perhaps, the creation of neW or different Panels.Furthermore, in order to respond to the stronginterrelationships among the four Panels' areas ofcognizance, overlapping membership should bemandated. The overlapping members would be.specifically charged With conducting liaisonactivities and providing explicit channels for thecontinuous flow of information.

In addition, the Task Forcerecommends that:

The practice of seeking.grassroot opinions .should be widely adopted by'the Council and thePanels. This may bedone in a variety of ways,such as by solicitinTwritten,opinions (as wasdone by the Task Force) or by open hearings- orforums. The benefitsto be derived fromprocedures of this kirO are not limited to thegreater flow of ideas,they.generate but extendto the greater feeling-9f unity andparticipation they foSter among engineers aelarge.

The responses collected ,by the Task Forcerepresent a valuable resOurce and should be made

vii

)

,

r

available to the Council and to the fourproposed Panels.

_ A central clearinghouse'and repository for.

information on activities and Programs inengineering education should be established bythe Council at an early date, with provisionsfor maximizing availability of its facilitiesand their use by the profession at large.

- Sponsorship and financial support for theactivities of the proposed and future Papelsshould be sought from interested bodies,

,

including, as appropriate, private foundationsas well as federal agencies.

.

,

44

/

,

viii

f?,

11

:

1

I. INTRODUCTION

The education of engineers and the availability anddistribution of engineering manpower are topics of lOng-standing concern. There is no question that the quantityand quality of-engineering professionals is directly relatedto the productivity and economic health of the nation.Therefore, it is eminently sensible for engineers to developmechanisms for.conducting evaluations of tle health ofengineering education in the United States.

This report presents the findings of the Task Force onEngineering Education which was formed under the auspices ofthe National Academy of Engineering .(NAE). The'reportincludes a summary of the deliberations of the Task Force,as well as the findings of an informal survey of engineeringprofessionals.

History of NAE Involvement

The topic of engineering education has been addressed:bymany organizations, institutions, and societies over theyears. While it is not possible to review all of theseefforts in this report, the genesis of the NAE Task Force isdescribed in this section.

In the early 1960s, two events occurred which 'Were

indicators of the national movement toward long-rangeplanning for engineering educationsThe National ScienceFoundation (NSF) founded a Commission on EngineeringEducation in 1963 to address,the problem of improvingundergraduate education ie:the sciences, mathematics, andengineering. In Decembet of the following year, theNational Academy of Engineering was founded, and the statusof engineering education became one of its earliestconcerns. These two efforts were integrated four yearslater when the NSF Commission on Engineering Education wasbrought into the National Academy of Sciences (NAS),National Academy of Engineering (im), National Research,Council (NRC) complex. As a result, the Commission onEducation of the National Academy Of Engineering waslaunched on January 1, 1969.

1-7,-7;.,7-- 7

The Commission' concerned itself with broad aspects oftechnologicaa education. Accordingly, one of its firstundertakings was a national Workshop on the need toll**introduce social, political, and economic considerationsinto engineering curricula.. It also worked to 'support...aprogram designed to help non-science.students in secondaryschools;better understand technological toncepts. Later,funding support frail the U.S. Department of Health,Education, and welfare enabled the Commission to prepare aplanning document outlining a systems approach todelineating the major policy issues ih educationaltechnology. A 1973 Symposium on Minorities in Engineering,held under the aegis of the Commission, resulted in thedevelopment of a program geared towardlincreasing minorityenrollments in enginering education 6by ten-fold within tenyears. This volunteer program is financed through privatefoundations and companies.

. 6, Sharp shifts in government priorities, which began inthe late 1960s, produced employment problems for thenation's scientific and technical community. In response toa growing need, NAE established an ad hoc Committee,onEngineering Manpower, Poli,cy to study srcific-aspect of the

\problem of under-utilization of engine rs and scientists.

;6tIn 1974, the Board on Engineering Manp w r and EducationalPolicy was formed. by NAE as the succe'S to the Commissionon Education. This Board was given a substantially expandedscope of activity. It was asked to help in defining a

, manpower policy which Wbuld result in more efficient, utilization of engineering resources and to study and advise

on national policies affecting tefthical education in,general, and engineering education in particular.

4. .

For various reasons, insufficient funding and overlybroad goals being notable among them, neither tfie Commissionon Engineering Education nor the Board lived up to theexpectations of the-NAE membership. It was felt thatnational needs required a more intense approachoi The lastsignificant product of the Board was the publication of theProceedings of a 1977 workshop on Modeling arid Simulation inEngineering Manpower Studies.

Since that time, the interest and concern of the NAEmembership about education &Id manpower have been expressedin articles and notes published in NAE's publication THEBRIDGE', as well as through the Founders' Award Lectures.The latter has included "A Few People From Many Lands -Alien Students of Engineering" by John R. Pierce, 1977, andDavid Packard's "Engineers and Public Affairs," 1979.

This repotewas generated in response to a proposal thatNAE assess projectifts about the educational background

3, likely to be required of engineers entering the industrial

2

13

world in the next 5, 10, 15, and 20 years. This forWardfocus has been a major factor in ,the deliberations of theTask Force and was a significant consideration addressed bYa number of those in the field who forwarded comments to thegroup.

bhaue to the Task Force

The scope of the Task Force was estaLlfshed at a meetingin April 1979. It ikas concluded that the NAE group wouldbeasked to identify key problems in dngineering education andto propose a framework for their solution. The NationalResearch Council, or other appropriate organizations, thenwould be able to undertake a search, within the proposedframework, for approaches to resolving the issues, as wellas make relevant recommendations. The two objectives of theTask 'Force were reiterated at its first meeting on November2, :1979.

With a broad mandate to identify key'problems inengineering education and propose a framework for theirsolution, the Task Force felt that initially three pertinentquestions would haire to,be addressed. Why conduct another

. study? Why conduct it now? Why should this task beundertaken by NAE? It was felt that developing answers tothese questions would provide Task Force members with acommon philosophical approach to the task at hand. Also,the many organizations and individualS concerned about andinvolved in engineering education would, properly, expectthese issues to be addressed.

Why another study? The very proliferation of studies isevidence of a continuing need for a fresh and different lookat this complex field. The charge to the Task Force was notto develop yet another set of proposed solutions to spedificproblems. Rather, it was to identify broad areasencompassing related issues and to propose a conceptualstructure, i.e., a framework to aid in developing solutions.

In other words, ft'd-Task Force was asked to develop.acomprehenbive approach for attacking the plethora of issuesaffecting engineering education.

,Why,conduct a study now? The present economid state ofdur nation is critical. We have been witnessing a decreasein national productivity, rampant inflation, and a worseningof the competitive stance of the United States vis-a-viS(foreign countries such as Japan and Germany. National well-being and, perhaps, survival mandate that all factorsaffecting the productivity and economic health of the United'States,receive intense scrutiny. Certainly, one of the mostimportant of these is the education of future engineers andthe utilization and c>stribution of engineering manpower.

3

Why should this task be undertaken by NAE? The highlevel of interest among the NAE membership in this topic, aswell as the distribution of its members in industry,academia, and government, renders NAE a natural forum inwhich to formulate a cohesive approach. However, neitherNAE nor the Task Force desired or intended to monopolize thefield. Rather than seeing itself as replicating any extantefforts to address the problems of engineering educatim,the Task Force endeavored to cooperate with and learn fromother interested and experienced organizations. Theconcerns and expertise represented by these organizationsfigured prominently in the formulation of this report.

Having prepared this report, the Task Force considersits job completed. It is'the holie of the members of theTask Force that the apalysisand the recommendations

\\..\a

provided herein will-prove useful to those groups that arecharged with the very great task of resolving the problemsnd issues that face us today and will face us in the years

to come.

The Report

The text section of this report provides an overview ofthe approach taken by the NAE Task Force on EngineeringEducation and an explanation of the events which led to asignificant curtailment of the time originally allotted forcompleting its work. Section III contains a brief statementabout the general state of U.S. engineering education.Section IV describes four broad areas of concern asidentified by the Task Force and provides recommendationsfor immediate action on certain issues deemed to be,o1critical concern. Section V outlines a framework for acooperative effort to address long-range problems. It isthe hope of the Task Force that such an effort would bothdraw together those organizations with the requiredexpertise and provide for a more systematic planning effort.A brief concluding statement comprises the last Section ofthe report.

4

II. TAK FORCE APPROAbH

From the beginning, the intent was to keep the TaskForce small, while still ensuring reasonable representationfrom the academic, industrial, and government segments of

the profession. In addition, an effort was made to includeome individuals who had pa ticipated in activities of them.any organizations concern d about engineering education.Representatives of 'the Na ional Science Foundation (NSF) andthe Sloan Foundation were asked to serve as Task Forcemembers; the American Society for Engineering Education(ASEE) provided a liaison person; and the staff oi theCommission on Human Resources of the National ResearchCouncil (NRC)swas invited to observe the proceedings.

During the formative stages of the NAE Task Force on'Engineering Educa ion, a number of important issues wereidentified. These were summarized by the Chairman in adocument prepared kor the November meeting of the group.Also, early conside tion was given to holding severalpublic forums or semi ars, perhaps one each on the East andWest Coasts and one in the central part of the nation. This

plan was postponed.and later abandoned in order to speeddeliberations,.although the Task Force commendS it tosubsequent groups as a useful approach.

During the course of the meeting on November 2, 1979,the Task Force developed a plan for soliciting and collatingthe views of selected representatives of academia,government, large and small companies in industry,professional societies and associations, consultantorganizations, and other bribad categories of individuals.Over 1800 letters from the Chairman requestingyinput weresent to individuals actively engaged in some facet of theengineering profession. Several non-engineers whoseperception of the profession would provide a usefulperspective were also included. In addition, each TaskForce member was asked to submit a list of five broad issuesin engineering education that he considered to be of majorimportance to the profession.

/ One specific topic which was raised.during the firstitleting concerned postdoctoral research associateShipprograms in government laboratories. The intent of such

5

1 6

associateships is to increase the attractiveness of researchopportunities for engineers and to enhance the effectivenessof tlie engineer when he or she assumes a bermanent position.

. Primary impetus for this program has.come from federallaboratories where there have been difficulites inattracting candidates. It was decided that it would be'worthwhile to address this issue separately. AccOrdingly, aspecial meeting of an appropriate group of individuals washeld on February f3, 1980. The specific recommendation§deieloped by the participants in th4t meeting, which are notpart of this report, are expected to strengthen theassociateship program administered by the Commission on

. Human Resources of the NRC.

Over a period of three months, Task Force members'comments were consolidated, and a summary of a cross-sectionof comments from approximately 400 individuals who respondedto the Chairman's letter was prepared. These documents wereavailable when the Task Force Met on March 3-4, 1980, and asummary analysis of the responses to the.survey is inAppendix C.' The material presented in the balance of thisreport identifies-the issues as defined by the Task Forceusing as a basis for its deliberations;

The-large volume of significant comments, reportS,papers, and other material resulting from thecanvass;

Results of various meetings, correspondence, andreports gleaned from the past several yearsof workpublished by a var..04y of organizations; and

The experience and perceptions of its members.

The original schedule of the Task Force called for a.report by mid-summer 1980. However, the completion date wasadvanced in keeping with a February 8, 1980, Memorandum fromPresident Carter to the Secretary of Education and theDirector of the National Science Foundation. PresidentCarter stated:

I am increasingly concerned whether our scienceand engineering education is adequate, both inquality and in number of graduates, for our long-term needs. Accordingly, I would like you to carryout a review of our science and engineeringeducation policies at the secondary and universitylevels to ensure that we are taking measures whichwill preserve our national strength. Please submita report to me, with your recommendations, by July1, 1980.fl

6

-1

The Task Force therefore felt it was imperative to move itstarget date-to April 1980; this had the effect of curtailingprojected interactions with other groups interested inengineering education. Nevertheless, the broad-based surveythat was conducted, as well as formal and informal meetingsand discussions, provided the information so criticallyneeded to formulate this assessment.

7

CA.

III. OVERALL VIEW OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION

often, an assessment of needs, issues, and problemsi9/.= given area obscures strengths and sheds light only upon;--knesses.. .The Task Force wishes to emphasize that, untilvery recently, engineering education in the United Stateshas enjoyed a period of growth and well-being. The currentengineering manpower in industry and government, as well asthe future generation of engineers currently receiving theireducation in U.S. universities and colleges, represent atremendous national resource upon which our citizens mayconfidently draw.

Engineering education has exhibited remarkableflexibility in responding to changing demands and conditions,

source*the strength of U.S. engineering education. Theduring last several years. Indeed, its flexibility ie a . .

Task Force felt, however, that by being continuallyresponsive to changing demands the academic establishmentmay have become over-stretched. Therefoie, it is necessaryto focus upon certain issues which have rapidAy reached a

'state requiring urgent attention. If engineering educationis to continue to go well during the next ten years or moresand if it is to be ready to respond to possible suddenurgent national demands, steps must be taken today to updateuniversity engineering facilities and equipme*, to makefaculty salaries more competitive, and to ensdre an adequatesupply of post-baccalaureate students.

While.a crisis in engineering education is not yet uponus, the very nature of the educational process requires'early preparedness and long-range planning. The lead-timerequired between perception of a need, implementation of a 1;t

change in engineering education policy, and graduation ofthe first group of students who have the benefit of that newpolicy may be as long as ten years. Given current economictrends and the perceived social needs, it is necessary toaddress immediately those problems that threaten,the healthof engineering education.

The responses received by the Task Force as a result ofits survey revealed an extensive spectrum of concerns amongindividuals interested in engineering education. Therespondents addressed detailed,curricular matters, as well

8 I 9

V

as istues that have wide-ranging national or professionalimpagt. The Task Force noted, however, that few if any of.

'the issued raised represented radical departures from thoseraised in the past. Indeed, many of the topics addressed-have been the subjects'of long-standing discussions; othershave been the subjects of past formal studies. Ihe need forimmediate attention in some areas of concern should nofdetract from the holistic view that engineering is a vitaland growing segment of the technological foundation of thenation both in universitiet and in.industry.

'The TasR Force felt that a summary analysis of thematerial received would be useful. Appendix C provides abrief overview of the issues mentioned by the respOndentsand proportional data indicating the frequency with 'whichspecific concerns were raised. The responses are valuable,but it should be noted that no attempt was made to constructa scientifically representative sample. Great caution musttherefore be used in interpreting survey findings forstatistical purposes.

9

2

IV.' AREAS OF CONCERN AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION,

The Task Force sought to organize the large number oftopics clamoring for its attention into a workable andlogical pattern. It was felt that the pattern should bebroad enough to cover the great Ya0ety of issues andsufficiently flexible to permit further studies ai differentlevels of intensity, timing, and detail. A two-stage

,process was designed to accomplish this goal. First, it wasnecessary to conduct an analysis of the responses receivedand available studies and reports. Then, a synthesis ofthis raw body of data was required in order to extract thegeneral areas of concern.'

Four broad areas of concern in engineering educationwere thus identified:

1. The Objectiyes of Engineering'Education;.

2. Resources Required to Meet National Needs; .

3. University/Industry/Government Interaction; and

4. The Social Context of Engineering.

Each of these' is desdribed below, and, where appropriate,specific recommendations for immediate action are given. A

framework for long-range consideration of these topicalareas appears in the next section of this report.

The Objectives of Engineering Education

The technical expertise, breadth, depth, and flexibilityamong engineering graduates have long been debated. Ingeneral, theresisa continuing need-to examine the idequacyof fit between engineering programs and the needs ofindustry, aceidemia, government, and the individual student.Since the range of needs is so diverse and since needs varyover time, attention to this area will always be required.

Of particular concern at present is declining U.S.industrial productivity. Thus, an assessment of the statusof university training for industrial innoyation and design

10

urgently required. In addition, there is evidence thatin reased emphasis on communication skills and on social,eccnomic, administrative, and legal/ethical issues is a highpr ority. As might be expedted, the chief difficultyap ears to be devising ways of achieving the optimum balance

each academic program. At the same time, it is well tono e that an engineering education is inCreasingly gainingacceptance as a.sound general education for individuals whomay later enter upon different career paths.

Engineers are called upon to play diverse roles. Thisplaces considerable burden on academia and is reflected inthe existing variety of engineering schools and their manydifferent types of academic programs. The Task Forceapplauds this variety but notes that efforts to clearlYdefine the differences among educational programs and todelineate the characteristics of holders of Bachelor cfEngineering degrees, Bachelor degrees in EngineeringTechnology, and the Associate degrees have not been entirelyfsuccessful, nor have they gained widespread acceptance.Further study must be given to establishing useful lines ofdemarcation among the variously trained :individuals and thefunctions which they should be expected.:to perform, bearingjrn mind that the needs and requirements vary greatly amongthe different engineering disciplines.. Engineering schoolsmust meet the dual demands of engineering research andengineering practice as levied by industry, academta, andthe government. It may be-that individual engineeringschools should limit their scope within thiS brofhd range ofrequirements.

These issues are closely allied to two other importantmatters, i.e., accreditation of engineering and technologyprograms, and registration and certification of professionalpersonnel. An in-depth study of present practices andfuture predicted needs is desirable. Generally, it ,is feltthat the present accreditation process is serving theprofession well in ensuring reliability of engineeringprograms, but little is known about the influence of theprocess on curricula, their quality and flexibility. Inaddition, comparatively little information exi ts on thereliance placed by industrial corporations on e gineeringprofessional registration, or on the use of pers ns withprimarily Science education to perform engineering tasks.Similarly, studies are desirable on the need to ensureupdating of engineering skills through various forms'ofcontinuing education, and through periodic-recertification.

Another fundamental concern is the general failure onthe part of:the public, policy makers, collectorb ofstatistics, and even academic administrators to distinguishadequately between engineering and the physical and naturalsciences. Too often, enrollment and graduate data are

lumped under the heading "science and engineering." Thispractice does a disservice to bOth. For example,envineering enrollments are still increasing whileenrollments rn science majors are not. Both trends areobscured in current government statistics. Failure of theengineering profession to articulate clearly both theobjectives of engineering education and its distinguishingcharacteristics will lead to continued obfuscation.

The Task Force believes that resolution of theseconcerns is necessary to ensure the effectiveness ofengineering education in this country. It also would helpto provide a greater measure of external recognition for theprofession and to increase understanding among engineersthem6elves. Panel A, proposed in Section V, would havegeneral purview of these matters.

Resources Required to Meet National Needs

American engineering education is financed by a varietyof sources including endowments, private gifts, income fromtuitioi and services, and federal, sttte, and local monies.While ultiple funding is advantageous in that it provides abroa of support, it does have certain drawbacks.Durin time-glof severe inflation, capital funds erode,tuition rates eat up scholarship endowments, and building .3

endowments are no longer sufficient. Moreover, short-rangefunding problems often absorb the attention ofadministrators to the detriment of the equally necessary,long-range financial planning. Finally, while alluniversity departments are seeking funding support, specialconditions influence the economic health of engineeringdepartments. Among these are the comparatively high cost ofengineering education and the rapid pace,of technology. Itis not surprising that the timely availability of sufficientresources is likely to remain of fundamental concern inengineering education.

The effects of the constant search for adequateresources are pervasive. The physical plants in which manrdepartments of engineering are housed are deteriorating.Outdated laboratories are common, some of which fall farbehind those in industry, government, or even foreignestablishments: Faculty salaries are not competitive withthose in industry, and it is difficult to attract Americangraduate students. As a result, engineering curricula areshowing signs of diminishing flexibility both in technicalsubjects and in the more general and/or societally orientedareas. The Task Force submits that the nation's engineeringedUcation complex has already begun to suffer from a lack of,properly planned, reliable, and timely funding. Indeed,

12

these problems are considered to be so serious that a moredetailed look at their extent and effects is warranted.

Facilities

An extensive study would have to be Made to docutent theMagnitude of the problem of obsolete physical plants. Forthe last three or four years, however, these facility

'problems have been mentioned frequently by engineeringeducators whenever they are asked to discuss the future ofengineering education. Some notion of the magnitude of theproblem is suggested below, but it should be emphasized thatthe estimates given may err on the convrvative side4

On the average, the physical facilities in which''engineering colleges are housed are now about 30 years old.The federal government has not provided universities withfunds for bricks and mortar since about the mid-1960s. Forwhatever reasons, the nation's universities have notprovided for either amortization of their investment inbuildings pr proper maintenance and repair. This problemextends across entire universities and is not confined toengineering colleges; however, unless something is doneabout repair and modernization, the state of our physicalplants will seriously damage the ability of the nation'sengineering colleges to meetfuture needs.

The problem has been exacerbated by inflation as well asby new government regulations, such as those of theOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) orthose referring to handicapped persons. It is, of course,recognized that there is a need for action in areas such asthese. NeVertheless, in a great many cases, universitieshave not been able to Omply in full. Many universitybuildings are built through private donations, and it is afact that philanthropists are not interested in donatingmoney simply to enable an institution to comply withgovernment regulations.

There are, of course, notable exceptions to the trend ofdeteriorating physical plants. ,Some of the more renowneduniversities have been able to build new facilities throughaggressive fund raising, unusual endowments, planning, orindustry support. However, most universities are facing acritical problem in this area.

The magnitude of the facilities pralem is largelyunknown. There is, however, almost universal agreement thatit is serious, and that engineering colleges will find itextremely difficult to mount programs in new areas oftechnological importance without substantial building

13

modernization, as well as additional funds for at least somenew facilities.

Laboratory Equipment

It is possible to be more specific about quantifying theneed for more modern laboratory equipment since some studieshave addressed this problem and some estimates have beengenerated.

Deficits in laboratory equipment affect both teachingand research. The need for instructional equipment may beeven more acute than the need for research equipment becauserequired research equipment usually can be obtained throughgrants and contracts, at least to a limited extent. Ineither case, however, the problem haS been exacerbated bythe acceleration of technological progress during the lasttwenty years, increases in the sophistication of thelaboratory eguipnent required, and inCreases in costs. Byin large, colkeges have been unable to cope with spirallingcosts. The result, particularly with respect to teaching,has been a growing gap between the equipment that studentsUse in their ihstructional laboratories and the kind ofequipment that they encounter in industry. Such gaps havealways existed, but there is now strong evidence that thegap is becoming so large that the ability of engineeringcolleges to train students adequately for the future isseriously threatened.

In many cases, industry has been quite generous, but themagnitude of the problem far exceeds the amount that can beexpected in the form of industry support. A new and commonpattern, especially in the computer area, is for industry tomake donations in the form of substantial discounts. Thisobviously helps but does not address the core of theproblem.

Another factor which is extremely difficult to quantifyis that new government accounting regulations make it.moredifficult for universities to acquire the equipment used ongovernment-funded research projects. For example, it wasonce possible to acquire used research equipment at 5 centson the dollar in some cases, but this is no longer possible.

Unless the trends change, engineering colleges will notbe able to provide 'adequate training in many of the new,most important technologies without substantial help. Forexample, integrated circuit electronics requires equipmentwhich is out of the reach of most engineering colleges, asdo the new design methods based on computer graphic's.Rese&rch in new areas in the energy field, as well as in

14

e-manufacturing technology, also require equipment that iscompletely beyond the means of most engineering colleges.

Several years ago, the Engineers' Council forProfessional Develbpment (ECPD) studied the teachingequipment problem and estimated that the new eqUipmentneeded by an engineering college costs $100-,000 per year perprogram plus $150 per student per year. Based on thisestimate, a national program with 50,000 degrees per year

,would cost approximately $200 million per year.1, Of course,costs now afe considerably higher, and engineering collegeshave nothing close to this amount of money at theirdisposal. The integrated backlog of the shortage that isbeing produced is now enormous and growing.

More recent studies demonstrate the severity of thedeficit. Ohio State University recently estimated the costof installing an adequate computer graphics system to teachmodern design at $3 million plus 15 percent per year.formaintenance.2 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute made asimilar analysis and obtained similar results..3 Thecomputer graphics problem is just one of many, but it is animportant indicator.

A study of the equipment needs of material sciencedepartments was recently commissioned by NSF. The evidenceshowed that there is a great deal of obsolete and antiquatedequipment and,that massive equipment grahts will be requiredif the material science departments are to provide thetrained persOnnel that the nation needs.4

In sum, immediate action is needed to update existinglaboratory equipment if universities are both to meet the

needs of industry and the requirements of research andteaching. Moreover, new methods must be found for ensuringthat the equipment available in universities and collegeskeeps pace with advances in the field.

Faculty and Graduate Studerits

There is considerable documentation of the difficultiescurrently being experienced by university engineeringdepartments in obtaining and retaining high-quality faculty.University salaries are simply too low. Although a fewfaculty member of the most well-known universities are ableto supplement their inomes through consulting contracts, -

the average university teacher must rely on his or her basicsalary.

Recruiting new engineering graduates on college campusesis currently at an all-time high. Opportunities.availableto new graduate's are such that fewer and fewer students are

)

15

44, 6

4

continuing their studies and obtaining advanced engineeringdegrees. The number of engineering doctoral degrees awardedby American universities declined from 3468 in 1973-74,to2782 in 1977-78, a'19.6 percent decline. Even more alarmingis the'steady decrease in the number and proportion ofdegrees earned by American students. During this sapeperiod, the' number of U.S. citizens receiving engineeringdoctaral degrees declined by 24 percent.sp In effect,,,theUnited States is exporting an increasing proportion ofkatstechnical training and education. Engineering colleges arein desperate need of these people as new faculty. A poll of34 engineering colleges in the Fall of 1978 revealed 314faculty vacancies.6 The number is much higher now.National attention must be directed toward this problem.

Holders of advanced degrees in engineering are in helvydemand by industry, government, and the universities. It isclear that all sectors must be assured of an adequate supplyof these people. The still insufficiently tapped resourcesof minorities and women must be increasingly utilized. Inaddition, engineering colleges should be-encouraged toimplement special undergraduate programs which will permitthe more talented students to get a head start on graduatestudies. These students should receive special counselingand have the opportunity to be involved in research programsduring the early stages of their university lives.

Recommendations for Immediate Action

Special post=baccalaureate student support programsshould be offered in engineering through theNational Science Foundation and other agencies.Such programs would assist in fulfilling academicand industry needs by attracting more engineering,students to advanced degree programs. It issuggested that such support be provided for a two-year term, thus'allowing Support during thestudent'S thesis stage to come from researchcontracts and grants. In order to make ,the programattractive in comparison to industry,employment, thestipend should be substantial.

A program is needed to update Current engineeringteaching and research'facilities and-laboratoryequipment. While aca4mic institutions and industrymust.share responsibility for'addreSsing thisproblem, the federal government should tak4immediate steps to establish.such-a.program.,Provisians for Matching funds from other sourcesshould be included as appropriate, but a sufficientbase muse be provided to ensure prompt redress ofthe present gritical conditions.

16

I) NIOT.

New ways of increasing industry and federal, state,and local support for engineering education should

A be identified.

Panel B, proposed in Section V, would,maintaincontinuing review of resources in engineering educationrequired to meet national needs.

University/Industry/Government Interaction

Three major and growing problems in the nation's Aengineering colleges arising from the lack of adequateresources have been outlined; the inability of the academicsystem alone to cope with increasing costs has resulted indeficient physical plants, obsolete laboratory equipment,and deteriorating numbers and quality of graduate studentsand faculty. It is clear that increased cooperation amonguniversities, government, and industry is essential tosblving these problems.

Universities and industry are related to one another in

a most fundamental fashion; they are natural partners.Industry is vitally dependent on the student Output ofengineering schools, both at the graduate and undergraduatelevels. Industry also relies on university research as asource of technical progress complementary to that achievedin industrial laboratories. Industry produces the goods and .services that university-trained engineers conceive, design,

and manufacture.

Universities are well aware of the functions they

perform for industry. Nevertheless, they are careful not tolose sight of their other roles, namely the training offuture researchegs and academicians and the performance Ofbasic engineering research. Such research often takesdiiections not necessarily in concert 'with industry'scurrent perceptions. As a consequence, a noticeable ,

divergence of views may arise between people in industry and

in academia. On the one hand, we have accusations ofunresponsiveness on the part of engineering faculty to "realworld" needs; on the other, fears of loss of academicindependence and complaintg about the inadequacy ofindustry's support.of universities. While recognizing thevalidity of some of these concerns, it is necessary toemphasize the-crucial interdependence of the acadeMic and

industrial sectors. They are members of the same family,and internal differences must not be allowed to interferewith an effective relationship between them.

Nevertheless, strong traditional ties do exist betweenuniversities and industry and have formed a basic foundation

upon, which to build. Industry has participated in the

17

OEN"IN

educational program through undergcaduate cooperative work-study programs, summer employment of students,,grants offunds and equipient, industrial membership on universityadvisory committees, and some sponsorship of research anddevelopment projects. Universities have made part-time.graduate programs Available to industrial personnel vianight courses, on-site courses, closed-circuit TV, andvideotaped courses, as well as through the provision of

,short courses and special educational programs in newtechnical fields. University faculty consult for industry,as well as participate in personnel interchanges via summeremployment and faculty sabbaticals. Similarly, industrialengineers-obtain leaves of absence to spend time atuniversities, and industrially employed engineers oftenserve as part-time faculty members. Through less formalarrangements, industrial speakers are often invited touniversity seminars and colloquia, and faculty membersparticipate in industrial conferences, seminars, andworkshops. Finally, there are industrial associatesprograms at some universities, notably at the MassachusettsInstitute of Technology (MIT), Stanford, and the University.of California at Berkeley. These provide industry withsystematic reviews of research results in specific fields ofuniversity expertise.

Although both,universities and industry have profitedfrom these interactions, it is evident that there is greatpotential for increased benefits through strengtheningtraditional ties as well as establishing new ones. New tiesare needed because of a number_of new problems facing the"nation, such as increased demand for engineering talentdueto the shortage of energy, increased internationalcompetitiveness, and a slow-down,in the rate of industrialinnovation.

Fotential'Benefits

Strengthening university/industry ties would benefitboth high-technology fielals and the more traditional fields.'Some of the benefits which might accrue include:

Increased availability of medern facilities forinstructional purposes. As previodsly noted, inmany fields of technoYogy, Ithe capital investmentsmade by industry to carry out research, development,design, and manufacturing are orders of magnitudelarger than the resources available for the purchaseof equipment even in the strongest engineeringcolleges. Many of the important fields oftechnology are characterized by rapid changes inequipment and facilities as advances ininstrumentation and data-gathering are made.

Engineering colleges are faced with prohibitivecosts if they attempt to develop modern facilitiesin many branches of technology.

UEdating of both faculty members and industrialengineers. Through interchange of personnel forvarying periods of time, engineers in industry canlearn new analytical techniques; faculty members canbe exposed to the current state of the art; andstudents can have an opportunity to encounterinduserial priorities and viewpoints.

The undertaking of_joint research 'Rrojcts. Thecapabilities of the university and industrialpersonnel frequently complement each othere In manyfields, the university faculties include theforemost researchers in scientific and technicalfields, but few universities have the extensive,

z modern fAcilities that companies maintain.Combining academic researchers with industrialpersonnel and facilities could enable more rapidtechnological progress.

The sharing of potential candidates for graduatework in engineering and science. At present,, thereare great financ,tial inducements for the holders ofbaccalaureate degrees in engineering to undertakeindustrial careets'immediately upon graduation.Colleges of engineering are effectively beingstripped of full-time U.S. graduate students at thevery time that they are seeking to respond toincreased demands for educating more undergraduates.Industrial employees can participate in andcontribute to the health of the educational programsin the universities if appropriate time-sharingarrangements are made by their employers.

Am increased rate of technological Rrogress infields of lagging technology., Increased attentionand activity is,needed in technological fields wherethere has been relatively little chahge over a longperiod. Both the Universitycommunities andindustry could engage in cooperative efforts toexpose students to these fields. If capablegraduate and undergraduate students can beencouraged to enter them, substantial progress, willbe made.

Tbe development in university curricula of morecost:conscious_engineering. This topic is oftenneglected at the undergraduate level and is rarelypresented in graduate programs. Since the bulk ofuniversity research funds come from the federal

19

30'

government, university research tends to be directedmore toward federal priorities and less towardindustrial concerns, e.g., cost-consciousness inengineering design and manufacture. What is needed,of course, is not less federal research support but,more industrial support.

Recently, a number of new university-indubtryinteraction patterns have developed. In some cases,government funding has acted as a catalyst for these newarrangements. Others have resulted from private sectorinitiatives. Several of these may be cited as possiblemodels for the future.

At.some universities, multi-company support of researChprograms in fields of particulax importance have beendeveloped. For example, the Silicon Structures Project atthe California Institute of Technology is directed towardthe development of desi§n software for very large scaleintegrated (VLSI) circuits. The six or so participatingcompanies provide annual grants of $100,000 each. Also, anengineer from each company is detailed to Caltech for ayear. MIT's Center for Polymer Process Research wasinitially partially supported by NSF but has proved sovaluable to the industrial sponsors that it is nowcompletely supported by industrial funds.

A major advantage of arrangements of this type is thevery direct interplay between academic and industrialpersonnel. The academic concern for in-depth understandingand the industrial interest in identifying the problems ofgreatest relevance to future developments can be combined tomaximize the rate of progress.

In a number of instances, a direct tie between a singlecompany and a single university has been effective. TheHarvard Medical School-Monsanto tie has had much publicityas a joint effort to.foster developments in the biomedicalarea. The neW program developed between Purdue and ControlData Corporation (CDC) is another example. It s focusingon the development of,a university center for researdh in,amputerTaided design and manufaeture. In both o4thesecages, a multi-year commitment.has Veen made that willpermit the systematic development Of a field.

Carnegie-Mellon University (CMI1) has developed a closerelationship with the Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC).A program directed toward the use of small computers inarrays employs DEC facilities and CMU faculty and graduatestudent capabilities. In addition, some,of the DECexecutives hold adjunct faculty positions at CMU.

20 31

A different type of example is provided by theinnovative undergraduate program developed at WorcesterPolytechnic Institute in which many undergraduates undertakec°4----

an extensive research project with active industrialparticipation.

The final example is somewhat different. A pewelectronic technique, the use of switched capacitors, wasdeveloped by faculty members at the University of California

at Berkeley. After prototypes were developed at Berkeley,the Intel Corporation, working with the faculty, furtheredthe techniques and brought'the ideas to successfulcommercial realization.

Fostering'Increased Interaction

There are, then, a number of models for increasinguniversity/industry interaction that mutually benefit bothparties, although clarly not every model.is applicable toeach engineering college and industrial concern.Nevertheless, a fundamental conclusion of the NAE Task Forceis that great benefits can be realized through the fosteringof existing and new ties between universities and industry.While many of these ties are not dependent on government,the federal government is in a position to.enhance andencourage such interactions through its policies andpractices.

It also should be,stressed that neither the universities

I nor industry should wait for federal action before workingto find new means of strengthening their mutual involvement.Each could take a number of donstructive steps today. As

noted above, there are' modelis of successful, mutuallysponsored programs. The applicability of these models toother universities and companies should be explored. Thiswill require increased flexibility on both sides.Academicians need to become more willing to respond toindustry priorities and direction. Industry must addressthe issues of patents and proprietary rights in new,

innovative ways.

The ability of the universities to contribute to a,systematic,increase in productivity or to imdustrialinnovation probably can be enhanced by some experimentationalong this line, and tbis is worthy of 'an.investment in time

and funds. Some university and industry groups should seek

to integrate the technological and management,resources -

needed to attempt to grapple with this problem in specific

sectors. It is also possible that independent, not-for-profit research institutes could play an important role in

such an effort.

21

32

Recommendations for Immediate Action

The Task Force recommends that the federalgovernment adopt policies and practices through bothits executive and legislative branches that enhancethe close interaction between universities andindustry. The Task Force has ilentified a number ofspecific examples of actions that the' federalgovernment could take in support of this genericrecommendation:

Through the NSF and technologybased mission-oriented federal agencies, university-industry'cooperative research programs could bestrengthened.

NSF's Industry/University Cooperative (IUC)program is an example. ,,The U.S. Air Force's ICAM(Integrated Computer-Aided Manufacturing) program,the Department of Defense's (DoD) VHSIC (Very HighSpeed Integrated Circuits) program as well as many,others undertaken by DOD, the Depactment of Energy(DoE), the Department of Transpartation (DoT)., theDepartment,of Commerce (DoC), and the NationalAeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) could be'made more effective in fostering university/industryties if the companies bidding for such projects wereencouraged, or possibly required, to includeuniversity participants.

The companies that participate in the IRAD(Independent Research and Development) programof the Department of Defense could be encouragedto include university participation in theprojects they submit for IRAD approval.

, Since IRAD projects usually relate to theadvancement of current technology amd theexploration of future possibilities, it would:bemost desirable to encourage joint participation ofcompany and university 15ersonnel. It is recognizedthat there are frequently proprietary aspects tosuch projects, but there are a number,of examples ofsuccessful resolution of such issues begween -

compailies and universities. Flexibility by bothparticipants can make s,uch arrangements workable.,

- The allowed rate of depreciStion for taxpurposes on equipment could be increased.

Such a policy would encourage coMpanies toinvest in new equipment, thereby allowinguniversities to obtain equipment which is,closer to

22

4I

,

the current state-of-thel-art. The effects ofincreased depreciation on potential tax write-offsfor donations of equipment to universities would, ofcourse, have to be taken into account.

- Tax credits could'be provided for companieswhich fund university research.

Measures of this type would provide strongincentives for.industries to support universityresearch in fields important to their technologicalprogress. It is noted that such a bill has beenintroduced in Congress (H.R. 6632 and S. 2355).With the exception of the NSF, which has the broadmission of ensuiing the health of the nation'sscience and engineering enterprises, there'is littlefederal funding available n technological areaswhich do not match-the specific targets of a federalagency. As a result, some technolo4les ofimportance to the economy can be slighted inuniversity-based research, with a consequent lowoutput of young engineers with interest or ekRertisein these fields. The fact that the United States islagging in its rate Of technological advancement inseveral areas is likely to be caused, at least inpart, by this phenomenon. Some industriallyadvanced foreign nations have demonstrated theirability to identify these areas and corpete verysuccessfully. with U.S. companies both ininternational and in domestic markets. If U.S.companies could initiate and support researchprograms in universities through long-term funding,they could contribute to their long-termtechnological health and compensate for the short-term nature of most present industrial researchefforts. Programs of this sort would be of greAbenefit to colleges of engineering since they wouldconstitute a balance for the present dependence onfederal funding.

The formation, through partial federal funding,of separate institutes or centers designed tofoster the growth of particular fields oftechnology should be considered.

Some,such institutes have been successful inWest Germany and other countries. The MaterialsProcessing Center:at MIT is an example of such anoperation. It involves several academicdepartments, includes industrial and governmental.personnel on extended residence, and develops bothresearch and instructional programs in materialsprocEssing. The success of such institutes in,

23

selected environm6nts points to the need for a studyto determine whether the experience gained to datecould be extended to new technological fields andgeographical areas.

It is undoubtedly true that other options are availableto Congress and the executive branch than those/Outlinedabove. The key issue is to,find methods of Tilitating thedevelopment of stronger traditional and non-t aditionaluniversity/industry ties. The Task Force urges that suchmethods be systematically identified and that Congressionalstaff members and federal agency program managers take'appropriate action.

In Section V, Panel C is proposed as the group to reviewand make recommendations on the subject of interaction amonggovernment, industry, and the universities and colleges.

The Social Context of Enqiheering

According to the public stereotype, the engineer isimmersed in technical complexities, oblivious to societal oreconomic concerns, and is unable.to communicate his or herideas. Certainly, no stereotype should be endorsed.However, it should be noted that, in spite of variousstUdies of the issue and the efforts of many universities,problems associated with the public's perception of theprofession remain. '

Twithe degree that the stereotype of the engineer as anind4vidual with narrow perspective is accepted by thepuI1ic, people with an innate ability to take a leadershiprole are repelled from engineering as a ,career. As aresult, the profession often fails to have an appropriateimpact on public policy.

Steps should be taken to,enable future engineers tq dealmore effectively with the pUblic. The exposure ofengineering students to'socially oriented subjects must beincreased, and this must be done in such a manner as toimpress upon the students the important role such subjectdplay for.enginOers. 'Courses-should ,be offered in ethics,law, economics, and the social and environmental impact oftephnology. Finally; and perhaps of most impqrtance,engineering students must undetstand the needtto learn toarticulate, to communicate, and to convince.

A. related and equally impoitant issue is tile attitude ofthe lay public toward technology itself. We are living in ahighly technological world which the lay public cannotadequately comprehend; technology is regarded with a mixtureof awe, mistrust, and hostility. As a result, the

24

electorate and its legislative representatives are makingcrucial decisions based on an insufficient understanding oftha impact oi their actions.

Engineering schools must engage in efforts aimed atacquainting non-engineers with the engineering approach toproblemé. This is distinct from providing theA.ay publicwith a rudimentary acquaintance with science. Rather, it

'refers specifically to an acquaintance, with engineering,with its problem-solving basis and capabilities, with theconcept bf engineering accuracy as opposed to that qfphilosophical certainty, and with a general understandinTothe role that engineering plays in everybnels lives. This'is a very difficult task. It involves not only theengineering profession but also a much wider, notnecessarily receptive, audience. Nevertheless, the effortmust be made. The pkeliminary steps that'should be takeninclude ácinvincing non-engineers of the importance of thesubject as well as develbping suitable courses, serpinars,'and other teaching vehicles.

Finally, it must be noted that the lack of anunderstanding of engineering onjthe part of the public atlarge is accompanied by a generally low assessment of theimpact of engineering as a profession. Although a favorabaeupward trend in the public's esteem of engineering,has been ,

noted in recent years, the public'as a whole does notrecognize that the practice of engineering vitally affectsits well-being, health, and daily experience. Furtherenhancement of the public's perception of the engineeringprofession cannot be achieved by emulating other professionssuch as medicine and law, however. Engineering has acharacter of its own, one whi4th encompasses a tremendousvariety of situations rangifig from industrial employment toindividual enlatrepreneurship, and its professional status ,

must be achieved and appreciated on its own uniquefoundation.

The'tasks of Panel D, proposed iii Section V, wolildencompass'all of these areas.

25

V. RECOMMENDATIONS 7OR LONG-RANGE ACTION

In the preceding section, four major areas of concern inengineering education were outlined, and some immediate

,steps needed to effect a rapid amelioration of currently,.critical issues were detailed. This section presents therecommendations of the Task Force for actions that should betaken to ensure the future well-being of engineeringeducation.

Before discussing the recommendations, three generalobservations should be made. First, the concerns expressedby the Task Force are not transitory. Rather, they can beexpected to remain as active issues in the profession formany yearsAo come. Second, although each of the four broadareas of concern identified represents a distinct set ofissues, they are interrelatedito a considerable extent. A

' good case could even'be made for one common study of thefour areas, although such a proposai would undoubtedly beimpractical. Third, as noted in Appendix F, a variety ofdifferent organizations has expressed and has a legitimateinterest in engineering education. To give an a`dmittedlyincomplete list, one might note the National Academy ofEngineering. (NAE), the Asembly of Engineering (AE) of theNational Research Council (NRC), the AMerican Association ofEngineering Societies (Ahas) and its constituency, theAccreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET),the.American Societysfor Engineering EducationAASEE), theNational Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) (andindeed every professional engineering society), the NationalScience Foundation (NSF), many private foundations, and soforth. One cannot expect any general,framework for ,

examining engineering education to be even moderatelysuccessful or accepted if it does not in some way takecognizance of this broad constituency.

The 'Task Force proposes establishment of a generalframework for fostering the continued health of engineeringeducation and it believes the proposal is responsive to thegeneral requirements outlined above. The recommndationsfor the framework are as follows:

26

A Standing Council on Engineering Education

A Standing Council on Engineering Education shouldbe established to carry out the following functions:

1. Monitor engineering education;2. Advise the engineering profession, the

_government, and, indeed, the nation of progressand perceived-programs;

3. Recommend studies and directions; and4. Identify opportunities and needs.

The Council would generally act in the capacity ofcoordinator, advisor, planner, and advocate; it would not

. perform as a manager or dictator. The Council should beestablished under the aegis of respected engineeringentities with broad cognizance of the affairs of theprofession. Three such entities immediately come to mind:the American Assocation of Engineering Societies, theNational Academy of Engineering, and the Assembly ofEngineering of-the National Research Council. Thistripartite arrangernt would allow the full participation ofthe many various societies that form the membership body ofAAES including, of course, the American Society forEngineering Education and its various councils.

The Task Force proposes that these three groups join insponsoring such'a Council and urges that a meeting amongrepresentatives of the three groups be held at an early dateto establish a suitable charter and modus operandi. At thattimes, the membershiP of the Council should be examined and.the nclusion of broadly based organizations such as ABETshou d be considered.

Perhaps the Council could comprise three componentgroups: a Standing Committee on Engineering Education inthe National Academy of Engineering; a Board of EngineeringEducation in the Assembly of Engineering of the NationalResearch Council; and a Standing Committee within theAmerican Association of Engineering societies. The groupscould meet as a joint Council, but each could preserve itsown rules for membership selection and, on occasion, meet onan independent basis as appropriate. The,Task,Force furtherproposes that the National Science FoundatiOn and privatefoundations be encouraged to provide the necessary financialsupport for this effort, with participation by professionalsocieties as appropriate.

The Councii should issue a yearly report on the state ofengineering educdtion as well as address specific issuesthrough ad hoc special reports.

27

Establishing Panels on S2ecific Areas of Concern

One of the important functions of the Standing Councilon Engineering Education would be the formation of Panels to-examine ,specific issues and to recommend solutions tospecific problems.

The Task Force proposes that, simultaneously withthe creation of-the Council, four subsidiary Panelsbe established. Each would be charged withresponsibility for studying one of the four broadareas outlined in Section IV. Thus, the Panelswould be designated:

Panel A-The Objectives of Engineering Education;Panel B-Resources Required for National Needs;Panel C-University/Industry/Government Interaction; andPanel D-The Social Cqntext of Engineering.

Each Panel would report to the Council which woulddecide whether the then current needs require thecontinuation of the activities of each Panel or, perhaps,the creation of new or different Panels. Furthermore, ,inorder to respond to the strong interrelationships among thefour. Panelsv.areas of cognizance, overlapping membershibshould be mandated. The overlapping members would bespecifically charged with conducting liaison activities andproviding explicit channels for the continuous flow ofinformation. Again, the Task Force proposes that theNatiOnal Science Foundation and private foundations beencouraged to provide the necessary financial support, withparticipation from professional societies at appropriate.

General Recommendations

The Task Force also recommends that:

The practice of seeking grassroot opinions bewidely adopted by the Council and the Panels.This'may be done in a variety of ways, such asby soliciting written opinions las was done bythe Task Force) or by.open hearings or forums.The benefits to be derived from procedures ofthis kind are not limited to the greater flow ofideas they generate but extend to the greaterfeeling of unity and participation they fosteramong engineers at large.

The responses collected by the Task Forcerepresent a valuable resource and should be made

28 3!)

,

1

,

i

available to the Council and to the fourproposed Panels.

- A central clearinghouse and repository forinformation on activities and programs in .

engineering education should be established bythe Council at an early date, with provisionsfor maximizing availability of its -facilitiesand their use by the profession at large. /1*

- Sponsorship and financial support for ttleactivities of the proposed and future Panelsshould be sought from interested bodies,including, as appropriate, private foundationsas well as federal agencies.

-

29

1

,

4

4

44

,

VI. CLOSING STAtEMENT

The issues approached by the Task Force are deep andpervasive, and the many earlier efforts devoted towardstheir solution must be gratefully 'acknowledged. The Task.Force was not asked to propose specific solutions, althoughsome of the immediate problems did prompt recommendationsfor imnediate action. RatheK, the Task Force was.asked toprOpose a framework to ensure the long-term health of

, engineering education. In spite of very narrow timeconstraints, the Task Force feels that it-succeeded inproposing the outlines of a structure that would proveeffective in guiding the future course of-engineeringeducation, while still maintaining phe vital,Americanqualities of freeaom of action and approabh Eon.rthe part ofthe several engineering constitutent groups. The-Task Forceventures, in fact, to hope that the implementation of itsrecommendations will help in drawing these diverse groupscloser together, create a more meaningful professionalidentification, and thus assist all in workin4 effectivelytoward the strong engineering establishment which the nationneeds and has the right to expect.

301

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1 ECPD ComMittee Report, 1977.

2 Society of Manufacturing Engineers, Educational Forum,1980, Cleveland.

3 Chronicle of Higher Education, January 14, 1980.

4 K.L. DeVries, University of Utah, letter to Ben Wilcox,NSF, October 11, 1979.

Engineering Education, March 1914 and March 1978.-

6 Informal survey by Henry Bourne while Division Director,Engineering, NSF.

31

'12

4

J4

APPENDICES

32

Appendix A

NAE Task Force on Engineering Education

Bruno A. Holey, Chairman, Northwestern UniversityJordan J. Baruch, U.S. Department of 'Commerce

, Paul F. Chenea, General Motors CorporationRalph E. Fadum, North Carolina-State UnviersityMartin Goland, Southwest Research InstituteJerrier A. Haddad, IBM CorporationJohn C. Hancock, Purdue UniversityKent F..Hansen, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyArthur E. Humphrey, University bf PennsylvaniaWilliam M. Kays, Stanford UnivesityJames D. Koernery Alfred P. Sloan FoundationMilton Levenson, Electric power Research Institute '

Harold Liebowitz, The George Washington UniversityJoseph M. Pettit, Georgia Institute of TechnologyAllen E. Puckett, Hughes Aircraft CompanyJack T. Sanderson, National Science FoundationH. Guyford Stever, National Research CouncilJohn B. Wachtman, Jr., National Bireau of StandardsF. Karl Willenbrock, Southern Methodist University

Staff:Randolph W. King, Executive Officer, NAELinda L. Jenstrom, Consultant

33

Appendix B

Alphabetical List of Respondents

H. Norman AbramsonJ.D. AchenbachWilliam C. AckermannJoe B. AlfordLew Allen, Jr.Paul F. AllmendingerBetsy Ancker-JohnsonArthur G. AndersonArthur R. AndersonA.W. AndrewsGeorge S. AnsellWallace Arthur

*Holt AshleyPeter L. AuerT.L. Austin, Jr.Thmnas G. AyersW.O. BakerLionel V. BaldwinRichard E. BalzhiserRobert B. BanksEuval S. BarreketteT.H. BartbnR.F. BauerZdenek P. BazantWilliam D. BecherS.D. Bechtel, Jr.Lynn S. BeadleDavid L. BeldenC. Gordon BellMilo C. BellTed BelytschkoDaniel BergLouis BergerR. Byron BirdG. Lansing illackshaw

John A. BlumeDavid K. BlytheMichel BoudartR.E. BoughnerH.E. Bovay, Jr.Ralph L. BoyersW.S. BoylePhilip L. BrachA. Philip Bray

P. L. Thibaut BrianCharles M. BrinckerhoffH.F. BrinsonR.F. BrodskyFrederick P. Brooks, Jr.J. Fred Bucy

-34-

George BugliarelloP.Z. BulkeleyFred J. BurgessG. Edwin BurksElmer N. BurnsMax. W. CarbonWallace L. ChadwickWayne H. ChenBlake E. CherringtonHarry E. ChesebroughPrem S. ChopraF.A. ClevelandDayton H. ClewellRobert L. CloudDonald W. CollierRobert C. CollinsRobert A. ComparinW. Dale Compton

Charles.ConcordiaWilliam H. CorcoranHarvey G. CragonRalph E. CrossAldo CrugnolaRichard G. CunninghamDonald A. DahlstromJohn D. DaighJames W. DallyRobert L. DavisSteve DavisR.F. DeckerRichard D. DeLauerA.J. DeMariaWilliam H. Dempsey --

Daniel DeSimoneC.A. DesoerG. Melese d'HospitalRaymond L. DickemanJ.R. DietrichRichard C. Di PrimaCoreman duPont DonaldsonD.C. DruckerOctave J. Du TempleRoger EichhornNorman G. EinspruchJ.G. EisleyThomas J. EllerD.P. ElliottCharles Elmendorf, IIIEdward EpremianJohn R. Eshman

Appendix B

B.O. EvansT.E. EverhartJohn W. FanningJose Femenia

-Morris E. FineMorton S. FineDaniel J. FinkRobert FinnellGordon L. FiskeF.C. FitchenMerton C. FlemingsThomas F. FlynnRobert D. ForgerJ. Charles_FormanJ. Earl FrazierFerdinand FreudensteinL.B. FreundE. Montford FucikR.A. FuhrmanAlbert P. GagnebinT.V. GalambosRichard H. GallagherWelko E. GasichJoseph G. Gavin, Jr.R.L. GeerIvan A.'GettingJ.E. GibsonJoseph GilbertL.O. GilletteE.J. Glenner

. J.F. GloudemanDonald D. Glower

William T. GoldenJ.H. GoldieNorman GoldsteinEugene I. GordonD.A. GreenbergEric T.B. GrossW.A. Gross ,

Andrew S. GroveDonald F. HackettC.R. Haden

Michel T. HalboutyClarence E. HallW.J. HallW.T..HamiltonVincent S. Haneman, Jr.Thomas J. HanrattyArthur G. HansenRichard D. Harza

- 35 -

Hermann A. HausArthur HauspurgDonald R. HaworttThomas J. Hayes, IIIIra G. HAdrickL.W. HedrickEdward H. HeinemannRobert F. HeltmanWalter R. Hibbard, Jr.D.C. HoggWilliam E. Hord4ohn A. Horner, Jr.Charles L. HoslerColin M. Sudson

N.E. HustonEdward I. IsiborJ. Donovan JacobsRobert J. JahnG.W. JeffsRussell F. JerdJames R. JohnsonR.R. JohnsonWilfred E. JohnsonRussel.C. JonesThomas F. JonesVernon T. JonesA.G. JordanEdward C. JordanEneas D. KaneGloria KaplanZ.A. KaprielianDonald L. KatzDavid KaufmanJohn D. KemperJack L. KerrebrockRobert D. KerstenClyde E. KeslerRobert W. KeyesFazlur R. KhanJ.R. KielyW.R. KimelAugustus B. KinzelJ.D. KirkpatrickJames_G. KnudsenH. KolskyM.S. KraemerMelvin KranzbergErhard KremplErnest S. KuhLeslie E. Lahti

16

Appendix B

James M. LallasUno Lamm.

Rolf LandauerFred LandisJ.P. LaSallePatricio A.A. LauraW.G. LawrenceHarry LawroskiR.F. LawsonW. Edward LearJerome LedererSammie F. LeeThomas H. LeeWilliam S. LeeH. LeipholzJames A. LenarzJames H. Leonard

Deming LewisJesse R. LienHanz W. LiepmannEdwin N. LightfootPeter LikinsT.H. LinT.Y. LinFrederick F. LingL.F. LischerJohn A. LoganCar1.7. LongJames A. LukerJ. MalusRobert W. MannE.F. MarckiniJoseph J. MartinPaul C. MartinEdward A. MasonJames D. MathenyM. V. MathewsH. A. MauchBarry R. Maxwell!'

Richard S. MayerRobert G. MendeM. Eugene MerchantRichard A. Meseiiie

Sidney MetzgerDwight F. Metzler

R.E. MeyerR.G. Meyerand, Jr.J.R. MiddletonN.P. MilanoCordon H. Millar

- 36 -

Garner W. Miller, Jr.G. Alex Mills

R.D. MindlinJames K. Mitchell

Joe H. MizeL.K. MonteithGordon E. MooreI. MorgulisRichard M. Morrow

P. MurrayRobert D. MusgjerdEdward J. MyersPhillip S. MyersKenneth A. McCollomW. S. McConnorLeon J. McGeadyKenneth G. McKay

Brockway McMillanGeorge W. McNellyHoward K. NasonConnie NeumanAlfred H. NissanJ. Tinsley OdenDaniel A. OkunBruce S. OldJames Y. OldshueE.T. OnatE.F. D'NeillR.R. O'NeillThomas 0. PaineRobert U. PalliaerNorman,F. ParkerRobert L. PasekJames R. PattersonLarry PayneW.H. PayneAlan J. PerlisNicholas Perrone

Aris PhillipsTheodore H.H. PianJohn R. PierceWilliam J. PietenpolJay D. PinsonKarl S. Pister

T.J. PlanjeD.H. PlettaFred H. PoettthannRichard C. PotterJ.H. PrausnitzMartin Prochnik

7

Appendix B

George ProtosAllen E. PuckettJacob Rabinow

° D.V. RagoneNorman C. RasmussenRoy W. ReachEberhardt RechtinJohn S. ReedR. Luther ReisbigCharles E. RemingtonDavid R. Reyes-GuerraP.C. RichmondR.S. RivlinT.B. RobinsonJ.S. RobottomKenneth A. RoeE.M. RoschkeRustum Roy ,

Alfred H. Si.mbornEli SandlerCarl H. SavitV.L. SchadCharles E. SchaffnerBerne A. SchepmanRoland W. SchmittW.R. SchowalterManfred R. SchroederR. Schuhmann, Jr.L. E. ScrivenRobert C. Seamans, Jr.Harvey ShebestaWilliam ShewanWilliam E. ShouppFrederick A. SmithJack SmithJoe Mauk SmithL..Douglas SmootLouis D. SmullinJohn C. SnowdonR.D. SnyderR.C. SpearsW.E. SplinterRoger W. StaehleChauncey StarrGeorge H. StarrL.E. SteeleDale F. SteinArthur C. Stern

- 37

J.D. StevensonRobert E. StewartStanley K. Stynes

Timothy C. SullivanJerome J. SuranRichard H. Tatlow, IIIMilton A. TatterR. Willimn TaylorWilliam J. TaylorKenneth E. TempelmeyerCarl H. ThomasMichael E. ThomasNathaniel Thomas /

Hugh A. ThompsonK.D. TimmerhausJohn F. Tome',

Agyron TribusRoy H. TurleyG.K. TurnbullWilliam T. Turner, Jr.Arthur Uhlir, Jr.Edward W. UngarRobert G. ValpeyAndrew J. ViterbiGeorge K. WadlinAubrey J. WagnerCharles J. WaidelichEric A. WalkerLeland J. WalkerL.M. WedepohlR.W. WeeksJohn A. WeeseSheldon WeinigLeonard WeissR.W. WelchEdward Wenk, Jr.James G- WenzelJ.E. Werner

K.T. WhitbyH.S. WilsonF.H. WintersRichard E. WoodringThomas J. WoodsFred YoungJames F. YoungLyle E. YoungWilliam E. ZimmieZenons Zudans

Appendix C

Analysis of the Responses to the Survey

In January 1980, over-1800 letters were sent by the TaskForce Chairman to individuals actively in or concerned aboutengineering education. The responses to the Task Force'ssurvey provided significant background for itsdeliberations. A quantitative content analysis wasconducted using the 315 responses received prior to theMarch deadline. The results of the canvass are presented inthis section. The content of the letters received issummarized on an issues basis in an aggregated form; theanalysis is followed by a table showing the proportion ofrespondents who mentioned eacht issue. Following the Marchdeadline, an additional 81 responses were received, and an'analysis of the affilitation of all respondents is presentedin Appendix D.

The total number of initial respondents (315) wascategorized into three major sectors; academia, government,and industry. Academicians, including some in universityadministration, and industry respondents were about equal innumber (153 and 145 respectively) . ..,Thereswere 17respondents affiliated with governm4ht, all-.but 5 at thefederal level and the remaihder at the state level.

Cauticimustjpe exercised in interpreting theinformation proviaed below. No effort was made to establisha scientifically representative sample of respondents.Moreover, the frequency and petc-antage data-prdsented-here-does not include the 81 respondents whose replies werereceived after the deadline. Thus,'a high frequency ofresponses on a particular issue may not necessarily berelated to the importance of that-issue,. nor should a lowfrequency of responses be taken as indicative of therelative lack of importance of an issue. Finally, the viewsexpres'sed here are those of the respondents and notnecessarily those of the members of the Task Force.

38

j

Enginerinq Education

Thd topics discussed under this heading have beendivided\as follows: Pre-college Preparation; UndergraduateEducation; and Post-baccalaureate Education.

Pre-college Preparation

Content analysis indicates that the pre-collegeenvironment was addressed fifty times by survey respondents.Two major categories of issues were mentioned: inadequatepreparation in mathematics and science; and counseling incareer decision making for high school students. Amongthose who mentioned the first item as an issue, theoverwhelming majority are affiliated with universities andindustries. They were unanimous in deploring the level ofstudent achievement in mathematics and the sciences. Some,especially those in academia, noted that the current trendis toward declining skills in these areas.

Although there was no uniform pattern of discussionamong respondents who addressed the issue of secondatyschool career counseling, most were critical of the processfor a number of reasons. Counselors are not advising themost alopropriate.students to pursue an engineering educationbecause counselors are not sufficiently knowledgeable aboutmatheMatics, the sciences, and engineering. Otherrespondents attributed the cyclical nature of engineeringenrollments to the lack of coordination among the nation'ssecondary school counselors and to their lack of adequateinformation about variations in manpower demand.

Undergraduate Education

Eight issues in undergraduate engineering education wereidentified. They will be discussed in the following order:Quality of IdueationvEngineering versus ltgineeringTechnology; Engineering Curricula; Communication Skills;Non-technical Curriculum Content; Cooperative Programs;'Recruitment of Minorities and Women; and Use of Computers.

,

A., Quality-of Education: This issue was mentioned by17 respondents, 6 affiliated with universities and 11 withindustry. In general; respondents felt that theuniversities are doing a good job in training baccalaureate

. engineers. Graduates were considered to, be well-able toembark upon the practice of engineering. However, somerespondents, primarily some affiliated with industry,perceived an overemphasis on research at the expense oftechnical problem-solving skills. They felt that graduates

()39

must receive extensive on-the-job training in order to bevaluable to the private sector.

This issue has ramifications beyond the narrow concernof educational quality, for it reflect& differences inphilosophical views of engineering education. It raises thequestion: Education for what? Respondents were nearlyequally divided between those advocating education forcontinuou8 learning and adaptability to future technologiesand those advocating career-oriented training to meetcurrent industrial demands.

B. Enginee4ng Versus Engineering Technology: -Therespondents observed that there is considerable confusionover the various engineering degree offerings at theundergraduate level. Twenty-six respondents suggested thatan effort be made to clarify the nomenclature for andeducational components of the BSE (Bachelor of Science inEngineering), the BSET (Bachelor of Science in EngineeringTechnology), and the two-year program leading to anAssociate degree as an Engineering Technician. They alsofelt that tl4e career opportunities afforded recipients ofthese degree should be clatrified.

This issu also relates to the philosophical dialoguementioned above. Several respondents suggested that theBSET degree might, in certain cases, best serve to trainstudents to meet the immediate needs of indusbry, whileholders of BSE degrees might be better utilized in research,academic pursuits, and in companies occupying the,forefrontof new technological development.

C. Engineering Curricula: This issue was mentioned by116 respondents. Forty-nine are affiliated withuniversities, 7 with government, and 60 with industry. Mostof the controversies about curricula center on the contentof BSE programs. A number of respondents from industry andacademia suggested an increased emphasis on the engineeringsciences. They noted-that the-,essential training-of an-engineer should enable'him to be a problem-solver invirtually any area of engineering whether it be planning,design, or implementation. They stressed that theavailability of technicians and computer software makes itpossible for the engineer to use hi time conceptualizingand reviewing and interpreting results.

Others disagreed. They stated that recent graduates areunable to apply their knowledge to development and design.They are unable to build a new product which will fill aneed and work reliably. 'The trend toward a moretheoretical, research-oriented curricula evident during thelast twenty years is seen by some as detrimental toindustry. As a consequence, some industries are beginning

40

to demand more graduates for engineering techno,ogy programsand/or BSE graduates with specialized training.

Many felt that technological innovation in i dustry isout-pacing academia in many areas. If universiti s nolanger lead the field in engineering and technolo y, theirteaching tends to become less and less current. Manyrespondents felt that if universities are to rega4i theirposition in the forefront of innovative research, hey mustbe given the resources needed to support improveme ts infacilities and equipment, as well as higher facultysalaries.

A related concern was the failure of engineeringprograms to include sufficient course work related timproving productivity. While most industrial engin eringcurriculum focuses on improving productivity, otherengineering disciplines often avoid this important iSsue tothe detriment of their graduates and the nation. ManYrespondents suggested establishing a much higher priority oncourses covering Management skills, decision-makingcriteria, and?aost-benefit considerations to enablegraduates to-understand the economic parameters ofengineering decisions. Others pointed out that engineersalso must be prepared to cope with the rules controllingdesign work in industry. They noted that, today, federal,state, and professional regulations have an increasingimpact on engineering practice.

D. Communication Skills: Twenty-six respondents, thevast majority from industry, stated that graduates aredeficient in vital communication skills and urged thatuniversities place much more emphasis on these areas. Tteability of the engineering to communicate well verbally andin writing was seen-as essential to effective performance inindustry. In addition, the need for engineers to increasetheir participation in the formation of public policy wasnoted. 'The public is no longer unquestioningly receptive toengineering developments. Therefore, the engineer now mustasslime an additional role as an advocate of technology andas an educator of the public and its representatives.

E. Non-Technical Curriculum Content: In addition toimproving communication skills, many felt that engineeringgraduates must learn to participate in the,entire range ofcomplex societal processes related to development of newtechnolog4.es. As advocate and educator, the engineer muStbe able to interact successfully with the entire spectrum ofimportant societal actors. A large number otrespondents(87) recommended that engineering education emphasize courser.requirements in such areas as ethics, the social science.s)history, the arts 'and humanitiesj, and business management.

41

t--

They felt that the engineer must be capable of understandinga variety of social viewpoints in order to be successful.

F. Coo2erative Programs: Cooperative programs provide .

employment experience ill industry, usually for one term eachacademic year for students at upperclass levels. The tenrespondents who mentioned this issue strongly supported theconcept and suggested that this university/industrypartnership in education become more widespread. Somesuggested that tico-op" become a required part of engineeringcurricula'.

G. Recruitment_of_Minorities and _______ The number ofwomen adopting engineering as a profession has increaseddramatically in recent years. At present, the proportion ofwomen in engineering programs is approaching the 20 percentmark. However, the-engineering profession has a paucity ofminorities in its ranks. In order for the profession tomeet its overall purpose of improving the general welfare,it must better reflect the society it serves. Sixteenaddressed this issue and recommended more active recruitmentof minority and female students.

H:___Use_of_Computers: The emphasis on computers inuhdergraduate engineering education had its supporters anddetractors among the 46 respondents who mentioned the issue.A number of respondents felt that too much empasis is placedon computer mbdeling,and analysis and too,little is placedupon laboratory research. An opposite point of view wasexpressed by those who felt that micro-processors are theinevitable wave of the future and that their potential hasbarely been tapped. They felt that engineering programsshould emphasize computer work, but not necessarily equallyfor all students or at the expense of other importantelements of the curriculum.

ve,

Post-baccalaureate Education

A total of 83 respondents addressed one or more aspectsof graduate education. Three categories of issues werementioned: Quality of Graduate Education; Retention ofGraduate Students; and Foreign Student Enrollments.

...

A. _Qualit/ of Graduate Education: Twelve respondents,representing industry and academia equally, commented on thequality of graduate education issues.

Two major issues were discussed related to .4hecurriculum content of advanced degree programs. First, manygraduate programs art thought to be too research-oriented.

3/17

As a esult, there is a dearth of professionals withadvan ed degress who are suitably prepared to take on the

42

complex.development and management problems of industry.Several respondents indicated that graduate programs in

engineeringft should be encouraged. They maintainedthat industry will gladly hire those with appropriateadvanced degrees.

The second issue relates td the perceived 'utility of thein-depth study required for preparation of a graduatethesis. Some maintained that such an experience teaches thegraduate student how to delve to the bottom Of a particulartopic and contribute to the knowledge base. These skillscan then be applied to almost any problem that is within theindividual's specialty. Others.maintained that the topicschosen for theses are too often highly esoteric. As aresult, the holder of an advanced degree often knows a greatdeal about an essentially unimportant topic.

B. Retention of GraduateStudents: Fiftyprofessionals, the majority Afiliated with universities,felt that the issue of low graduate enrollments by U.S.engineering students is of significance and has negativeImplications for the future of engineering education andresearch. Currently, the most attractive post4baccalaureateoption is employment in industry. It is believed that themajority of graduates choose this route because the jobmarket demand has driven entry-level salaries up to $25,000.Faced with such an opportunity, the recent graduate putsaside thoughts of acquiring further education immediatelyand anticipates returning to the university at some pointlater in his ot her career. If American students are notattracted in sufficient numbers to advanced degree programs,then the current shortage of American engineering facultymembers will be exacerbated.

C. Foreign Student Enrollments: Twenty-cae respondents)felt that the issue of foreign nationals enrolled in

- graduate education programs is of importance. Their numberis cprrently substantial and is growing. The graduateeducation of foreign nationals absorbe a subetantial part ofthe capacity of current advanced degrees prograims. Therewas some con-cern that language barriers, for example, mayforce reduction In graduate education standards, Inaddition, many foreign nationals are recruited to fillfaculty vacancies. Some felt that the effects of culturaldifferences on the education process should be studiedfurther.

Continuing Education

.Cpntinuing education in engineering refers to the fullyemployed professional seeking to update obsolete skills orto develop new skills by enrolling in one or more coures,

43'

1.

workshops, or seminars. The courses may be part of aregular'curriculum, or of a specialized program held for thepurpose of professional updating. Th4need for suchprograms wag, mentioned by 29 survey r pondents, themajority from industry. Many felt that such programs areparticularly important today since rapid technicalobsolescence occurs among engineering personnel. Severalmentioned that engineering faculty also rapidly becomeobsolete, given the rate of technological innovation.

Institutional Su22ort

As might be expected, the issues related toinstitutional support were mentioned chiefly byacademdcians. Thirty-eight individuals made generalcomments about the need for more financial support foreducational institutions. In addition, comments were oftenmade in relation to four specific areas: LaboratoryEquipment; Junior-Faculty; Senior Faculty; and ttudentSupport.

Laboratory Equipment

Obsolescence of laboratory equipment was of greatconcern to academic respondents; 27 mentioned this issue.It is generally recognized that deficits in this area willplague universities well into,the next decade. The problemis complicated by a number of factors, not the least 9fwAlch is the rising eost of necessary new equipment. Theincreasing levels of sophistication alone have made the costof somelaboratqry and-computing equipment prohibitive formost universities. Inflation only makes matters worse, andthe need for new equipment permeates the whole iange ofengineering education, including those areas.characterizedby lower levels of technology. Equipment presentlyavailable in most schools of engineering,-no longer, matchesthat in industry. Many felt that there is no praetical wayfor engineering schools to maintain modern equipment withouta massive infusion of funds, probably from the federalgovernment. If this.situation is not remedied, academiawill increasingly,turn out tudents who are ill=equipped tomove into industrial enterprises and make positiveeontributions without extensive on-the-job training. Anumber of leaders in the field placed this issue near thetop of. their lists of most pressing problems.

Several iespondents'also mentioned obsolescence ofengineering education physical plants as a problem. Aging,deteriorating buildings do not have the capabilities andflexibility that quality'education requires.

or

44

Junior Faculty

As was mentioned in the section on post-baccalaureateeducation, young American engineering baccalaureates areattracted to industry because of lucrative entry-levelsalaries and challenging job assignments. Tley are notchoosing to pursue graduate engineering degrees that maylead to academic careers because university pay scales arenot" competitive. Further, industrial salaries have luredmany junior faculty members away from academia and itappears this trend will continue. Forty-three respondentsviewed this situation with alarm. University affiliatedrespondents especially were intimately aware of thedifficulty of recruiting highly qualified faculty, andseveral,cited indtances of9vacancies remaining unfilled.

Senior Faculty

Today, all university disciplines are seeking increasedfunding support. However, engineering departments havespecial problems. Nineteen addressed this issue. Thecyclical nature of undergraduate student enrollments isoften ignored by college administrations, and engineeringdepartments receive a standardized "fair share" of eachyear's annual budget. Even if student enrollments werestable, this would present difficulties because anengineering education entail's significantly greaterlaboratory and equipment costs than most other undergraduatefields. In'addition, engineering education requiresindividualized instructiop in design, problem-solving, andso forth. To be sure, faculty salaries account for themajor portion of departmental'budgets, and universitysalaries are not keeping pace with inflation. This impogs.sa hardship on many senior faculty membe s, particularlythose in engineering. , The discrepancy etween industry anduniversity salaries'is simply too grea .

A number of respondents suggested alternative approachesto the problem of dwindling university financial support.Many suggested stronger industry support of faculty andstudenVirs. For example, industry could be asked for long-term aimmitments to provide periodic employment of'facultyduring summers or sabbaticals. Such employmentopportunities would satisfy a number of needs. Facultywould be assured of continuing opportunties and supplementalincomes. Industry would benefit from the input ofexperienced professors of varying backgrounds who couldProvide significant assistance with short-term projects, aswell as from the assurance that young graduates would havereceived som training from faculty with.practicalexperience.

45

6

)11i number of respondents addressed.the issue of federalgrant support for university research. Many consideredfederal support essential if schools of engineering are tosurvive. Others were concerned about preserving latitude inuniversity education and research and were wary of unduefederal influence.

Student Support

The issue of student support was addressed in fourletters. They felt that financial support for students atboth the undergraduate and graduate levels has declined inrecent years as a result of changing federal priorities.Suggestions for sources of student support includedcooperative programs, industry and community support, andincreased federal government support through loans andreseaich grants.

University/Industry/Government Interaction

Several respondents expressed their observation thatrelationships among unversities, industry, and governmentare, at times, erratic or even adversarial. Twenty-ninecommented on this issue and urged that closer ties bedeveloped for the welfare of the nation and theinstitutions.

Societal Needs

The issiles under this heading are: Supply and DemandForecasting; Accreditation and Certification; New SocietalConcerns; 'and The Prestige of Engineers in'Society.

Supply and Demand Forecasting

Fifteen experts commented on the need for accurateforecasting of both the fUture demand for engineers and theprojected supply. Given accurate demand models, respondentsfelt that output from engineering schools at all degreelevels could be adjusted.

Accreditation and Certification

Educational programs are accredited by professionalorganizations vested with recognized authority.Professional bodies'also certify or register professionalpersonnel; usually, periodic renewal of such certificationsis required. States may license professionals whose

46

activities bear a relationship to public health, safety, orwelfare, and such professional licenses are often issued forlife. Most of the 20 respondents who commented on theseissdes focused on the process of accrediting academicprograms. By and large, they felt tbat the process isworking well in maintaining high standards of quality, whileat the sane time permitting the program diversity that manybelieve is required. Some respondents recommended that theaccreditation process be studied to ascertain the nature ofthe influence that accreditation plays upon programmaticaspects of engineering education. In addition, a few notedthat further examination of the professional certificationprocess is needed. This might shed light on the degree ofimportance placed on it by industry.

New Societal Concerns

There-were several (18) comments concelning specificareas in which the engineering profession must increase itsfdture efforts. These included energy, food, pollution,r scturce managemnt, improvement in American industrialoductivity, and regaining the competitive edge in

technological innovation and development vis-a-vis suchnations as Japan and Germany. These issues emerged in the1970s and are expected to remain pervasive societal concerns -throughout the 1980s.

The Prestige of Engineers in Society

The image of the engineer in society was Eentioned by 37of the respondents. The profession, in general, has been'subject to mistrust and skepticism as a result of suchevents as structural failures in bridges, design oroperating failures in the fail-safe components of nuclearpower generating plants (e.g., Three Mile Island) or ofaircraft (e.g., the DC-10), and what appears to be anindifference to environmental degradation by industrialprocesses.

The respondents felt that engineers will not only berequired to address the technical side of future problemsbut also they will be required to become spokesmen. Theywill have to put issues and choices on the public agenda,make recommendations, and become advocates for theirpositions.

A Proportional Analysis of the Responses

Percentages were calculated for the initial 315respondents ftom academia, industry, and government who

47

addressed each issue. They are given below. As previouslynoted, caution is suggested in using these data.

Percent of RespondentsAcad. Govt. Industry(N=153) (N=17) (N=145)

1. Engineering Education Issues1.1. Pre-college Preparation

1.1.1. Preparation in Science and 5 6 4

Mathematics1.1.2. Counseling 13 12 10

1.2. Undergraduate Engineering Education1.2.1. Quality of Education 4 0 8

1.2.2. Engineering versus Engineering 8 6 ,9

Technology1.2.3. Engineering Curricula .32 41 41

1.2.4. Communication Skills 1 18 15- 1.2.5. Non-technical Curriculum Content 18 29 37

1.2.6. Cooperative Programs 1 6 '6 .

1.2.7. Recruitment of Minorities 6

and Women0 5

1.2.8. Use of Computers 14 24 15

1.3. Post-baccalaureate Education1.3.1. Quality of Graduate Education 4 0 4

1.3.2. Retention of Graduate Students 75 12 . 7

1.3.3. Foreign Student Enrollments 8 12 5

1.4. Continuing Education 8 12 10

2. Institutional Support 4/

2.1. General Support 19 6 6

2.2. Laboratory Equipment 14 0 3

2.3. Junior Faculty 24 . 0 4

2.4. Senior Faculty . 11 ,0 1

2.5. Student Support . 1 0 1

3. University/Industry/Government Interaction 10 6 9

4. Societar Needs .

4.1. Supply and Demand Forecastings 5 12 3

4.2. Accreditation and Certification 7 6 6

4.3. New Societal Concerns. .

4.3.1. Energy 8 12 7,4.3.2. Food 1' 0 1

4.3.3. Other . 3 6 4.

4.4. The Prestige of Engineers in Society 5 12 6

48

',3L)

Appendix D

Analysis of Sources of Responses

In all, responses were received from 396 individuals,not counting written contributions by Task Force members.(Eighty-one responses were received after the March deadlineand were not included in the analysis presented in AppendixC;) In some cases, a person sent more than one letter; thesewere counted as one response. In seven instances, however,individuals responded both from a personal viewpoint and asan official of an organization; tfiese were counted as tworesponses. Hence, a total'of 403 responses is tabulatedbelow.

Analysis

Affiliation Number Percent

Engineering Educator 186 46.1

Professional Society orsimilar organization 31

'Industry 108

Other 78

TOTAL 403

The breakdown of Other is:

Researcher

Consultant

Retired

GovernmentFederal-State &

8

39

5

21

16

7.726.8

_19.4

100.0

Miscellaneous _5TOTAL 78

Of the 403 responses, 158 (approximately 39 percent) of:therespondents were from members of the National Academy ofEngineering.

49

Gij

Appendix E

Bibliography

Responses to the diairman's letters brought forthcitations of a number of recent and forthcoming significantpapers and reports pertaining to engineering education.Members of the Task Force are involved in several, relatedactivities of other organizations or groups and were able toprovide further important references.

The following bibliography does not purport to becomprehensive. Rather, it attempts to indicate the scope ofreferences that are available now or will be availableshortly and to suggest the breadth of organizations givingattention to the subject. In several instances, a singlepaper may be noted from a program which included severalothers papers concerning engineering education. In thesecases, it is suggested that full proceedings be obtained ormore details sought from the parent organization.

Engineering and g,Engineerin Technology Education - AReassessment. Report of the ad hoc ASEE Committee forReview of Engineering and Engineering Technology Studies(The REETS Committee), Engineering Education, May. 1977:

U.S.Congress, House, Subcommittee,on Science, Research, andTechnology of the House Committee on Science andTechnology, Government and Innovationl University-Industry Relations, Hearings, July 31 dnd August 1-2,1979, Government Printing Office 53 - 868 0, 1979.

Meeting Manpower Needs in Science and Technology,President's Science Advisory Committee, December 12,1962.

Submission of the Committ4e of the Engineering Professors'Conference to the Committee of Inquiry into theEngineering Pkofession [The Finniston Committee], May,1978." This is a paper.from the executive committee ofthe Engineering Professors' Conference, established in1974 as a formal organization of university engineeringprofessors in _the United KingdoM from all branches of

50

the subject. The paper was approved unanimously at the1978 Assembly of the university professors.

Challenge for the Future - Professional Schools ofEngineering. Prepared by the Professional Schools TaskForce of the National Society of Professional Engineers,1976.

George Bugliarello, Engineering Education for the 21stCenturyz to Respond to the Needs of Space SystemsEnqineeringz from The Future United States SpaceProgramz Volume 38z Advances in the stronauticalSciencesz 1979. Published by the American AstronauticalSociety, Publications Office, P.O. Box 28130, San Diego,California 92128.

Science Education for the 1980s. A Statement to theNational-Science Board from the Advisory Committee for'Science Education, January 17, 1980.

George Bugliarello, Industry and the University. Paperpresented at the first Midland Conference on Advances inChemical Science and Technology. Spcnsored by the DowChemical Company, October 16-17, 1979.

Supply and Demand of Scientists and Engineers in Energy_=Related Areag, Energy and Environment Committee,National Associations of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, Published by the Office ofCommunications Service, National Association of StateUniversities and Land-Grant Colleges, November, 1979.

Institute on Energy and Engineering Education, 1980.Sponsored by the Department of Energy in conjunctionwith the 'American Consulting Engineers Council Researchand Management Foundation; conference held at Texas A&MUniversity, January'3-7, 1980.

Battelle Columbus LabOratories, The Manufacturing EngineerPastz Presentz and Future. Final report to Society ofManufacturing Engineers, Spring, 1976.

Thomas F. Jones, ilisher Education Agenda for the 80,s.Paper presented at the College-Industry EducationConference, Tucson, Arizona, January 30, 1980.

G.H. Millar, Engineering Education Needs as Seen forAgricultural and Construction Equipment. Paper to bepresented at the ASME Conference in San Francisco,August, 1980.

James F. Young and L. C. Harriott, The Changing Life ofEngineers. Background paper prepared for discussion at

51

the ASME Convocation on Strategies and Structures forCentury TWO, August 25-27, 1978.

A task force of IEEE composed_of several representativesfrom industry developed a model curriculum forelectrical engineering which might be used as areference for further discussions between industry andacademia. For more details, consult Mr. John Wilhelm,Staff Director of Educational Activities, IEEE, NewYork.

William R. KimeL, The Feasibility of Professional Schools ofEngineering in Missouri. Paper presented at the 86thAnnual Conference, American Society for EngineeringEducation, University of British Columbia, June 19-22,1978.

Reports and papers are understood to be in preparationand activities currently scheduled are as follows:

The Industrial Research Institute Research Corporation hascompleted a study of needs for continuing education in aproject with Dr. George Schellingdr of Polytechnic Instituteof New York under sponsorship of the National-ScienceFoundation. This report is scheduled to be available May,1980.

The Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House ofRepresentatives, asked AAAS to assist-the Committee inidentifying major future science and technology issues,assigning them priority, and determining which lendthemselves to - or need - legislative treatment." TheCommittee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy(COSEPP) of AAAS is coordinating the AAAS response whichwill be submitted to the Chairman, House Committee onScience and Technology, within the next few months.

ASME has scheduled a Workshop on Engineering Education,August 18-19,,1980, San Francisco, as part of ASME's CenturyII - Emerging Technology Conference..

A Design Enginering Education Conference is scheduled for.August, 1980, in ,San Francisco, sponsored by ASME/SAE.

A study by the Office of Personnel Management on standards'f?,t hiring engineers for the federal government will be'available summer 1980.

52 -

Nab

A survey was conducted by the Louisiana Engineering Societyon relevancy of engineering education. Responses arecurrently being analyzed.

A major mission statement is reported to be in preparationto the President, University of Britist Columbia, and to theProvincial Government of British Columbia with respect toengineering education.

The Academic Affairs Committee of AIAA is canvassing 56Aerospace Engineering Departments at American colleges anduniversities to determine the ratio of foreign nationals inaerospace graduate programs. It is believed that theproportion is 70 percent or higher.

53

,

Appendix F

Organizations Concerned with Engineering Education

The Task Force members were keenly aware of the largenumber of associations and societies with a strong andcontinuing involvement in matters pertaining directly toengineering education. Many of the members are now or havebeen participants in the activities of such organizationsand remain closely tuned to their programs and objectives.

. Viewpoints among the professional and technical groupsvary as to the directions and needs of.engineeringeducation. One respondent offered the comment:

"Some of these speak to engineering education,while others foster discussion among engineeringeducators. Unlike'other fields of endeavor, such

-=t as pharmacy, architecture, or dentistry/ there doesnot appear to be an institution that Tgeaks foiengineei-ing education with a clear voice. I wouldsuggest that an examination of this question wouldbe worthwhile."

This is a thought-proVoking statement; nonetheless, there iscomplete agreement on the need for strong engineeringeducation programs in our country, as well as a generalconsensus on their current state ,and the issues involved inmaintaining their vitality.

The following organizations were cited several times asbeing particularly important in general matters pertainingto engineering education;

American Society for Engineering Education

American Association of Engineering Societies

Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology

National Society of Professional Engineers

Specific interests of discipline-oriented professionaland technical societies, and the importance Of their

54 ,

education related activities, were highlighted by a societypresident who commented:

"This discussion points out the fact that 90% ofthe accredited programs in engineering come underthe disciplines of 9 major engineering'societies,i.e.,' the 5 founder societies: AIChE, AIME, ASCE,ASME, and IEEE, and the additional societies, AIAA,ASAE, AIIE, and ANS. Likewise, these 9 societiesaccount for 90% of the Bachelors Degrees inengineering. The disciplines of the 5 founder =societies account for 79% of the 4=year degrees in

0 technology and account for 70% of the,2-yeardegrees in technology."

ResPonses were received from officers arid staff ofseveral of the above mentioned societies as well as frommany other important, similar organizations. In addition totheir useful comments and recommendatiohs, these letterscited other significant work underway and enclosed recentlypublished'/or drafted) papers. A number of these areincluded in Appendix E.

55