look to the future: mit alumni and their course 2 and 2-a

A Look to the Future: MIT Alumni and their Course 2 and 2-A

Educational Experience

byNeha Batra

B.S. EngineeringMassachusetts Institute of Technology, 2010

SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN ENGINEERING AS RECOMMENDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICALENGINEERING

AT THE

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYJUNE 2010 ARCHN

@2010 Neha Batra. All Rights Reserved.

The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduceand to distribute publicly paper and electronic

copies of this thesis document in whole or in partin any medium now known or hereafter created.

ES

OF TECHNOLOGY

JUN 3 0 2010

LIBRARIES

Signature of Author:

Certified by:

Department of Mechanical Engineering

A4 May 10, 2010

Anette E. Hosoi, PhD

a4cte Professor of Mechanical Engineering

John H. Lienhard VCollins Professor of Mechanical Engineering

Chairman, Undergraduate Thesis Committee

Accepted by:

A Look to the Future: MIT Alumni and their Course 2 and 2-AEducational Experience

by

Neha Batra

Submitted to the Department of Mechanical EngineeringOn May 10, 2010 in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science inEngineering as Recommended by the Department of Mechanical Engineering

AbstractData was gathered and analyzed through a survey of the Mechanical Engineering Course 2 and

Course 2-A Alumni to analyze the impact of their choice of major on their current career path and toinvestigate the career paths of mechanical engineering majors. Data was gathered on their jobs taken,confidence level compared to their peers, preparation and importance abilities, experiences, andreflections. Over 350 graduates completed the survey and several differences were found.

Course 2-A students had more transfers from other majors, engaged in a wider variety of careeroptions, and found their elective classes more useful. Course 2 students reported to have a greaterimportance for technical skills and a higher confidence level with respect to their peers in their profession.There was little difference in most abilities, and what was missing in their MIT experience.

Overall, Course 2 and 2-A reported being better prepared for technical subjects and less preparedfor communication-related subjects than was required in their job. Moreover, all respondents mentionedmissing the same courses in their curriculum that was needed for their job.

Finally, Course 2 and 2-A respondents held widely divergent impressions of the other's program.Empirical data suggests that each major possesses qualities to satisfy the specific course's individualneeds.

This resulted in the conclusion that the Mechanical Engineering Department was on the right pathby supporting the Course 2-A major and by recognizing and catering to two separate populations, onewith an interest in depth and one with an interest in breadth.

Thesis Supervisor: Anette E. Hosoi, PhDTitle: Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction Page 4

2.0 MIT Engineering Page 4

2.1 Interdisciplinary degrees and MIT's 2-A Program Page 5

3.0 Surveying MIT's Course 2 and 2-A Alumni Page 6

4.0 Results Page 7

4.1 Basic Information Page 7

4.2 Career Choices Page 8

4.3 Abilities and their Importance in the Current Career Page 10

4.4 Alumni Reflection Page 13

4.5 Demographic Information Page 14

5.0 Discussion Page 16

6.0 Conclusion Page 17

7.0 Acknowledgement and Personal Note Page 19

8.0 References Page 20

9.0 Appendix Page 21

List of Figures

Figure 1. Breakdown of Graduates by Graduation Year Page 5

Figure 2. Engineering Abilities Chart Page 11

Figure 3. Multidisciplinary Abilities Chart Page 11

Figure 4. Team and Career Planning Abilities Chart Page 12

Figure 5. Communication Abilities Chart Page 12

Figure 6. Subjects Missing from Curriculum Page 14

List of Tables

Table 1. Major Requirements for Course 2-ATable 2. Concentrations of 2-A Alumni Page 8Table 3. Career Choices Immediately After Graduating and Currently Page 9

Table 4. Abilities Section Page 10Table 5. Most and Least Important Skills Page 13

Table 6. Importance of Classes Page 13

Table 7. Preparedness and Confidence Page 15

1.0 IntroductionIn a recent National Academy of Engineering (NAE) report, NAE (and former MIT)

President Charles VEST (2008) noted that, "globalization is changing the way in whichengineering work is organized and in which companies acquire innovation." These changes mayrequire "a nimble new kind of engineer." IBM's CEO Sam Palmisano has pointed out, "[a]globally integrated company locates operations and functions anywhere in the world based onthe right cost, the right skills, and the right business environment." The professional environmentof engineering practice today is one in which engineers need strong professional abilities, such aswriting and teamwork, as well as the ability to address complex problems with no cleardisciplinary boundaries.

Worldwide, colleges and universities that offer engineering degrees have adopteddifferent strategies to address the changes in engineering practice. Some have chosen to enforcea firm technical foundation to give students a strong basis with which they can explore futurefields of interest. Other schools have chosen to enable a curriculum of flexibility to allowstudents to delve into a specific topic especially for students who have selected their career path.

In the NAE report, Engineering of 2020, the authors argue for the revamp of U.S.engineering education to support U.S. international competitiveness. In the year 2006, 129,000engineering students graduated in the USA with bachelors degrees1'2 . In the same year, 220,000students graduated with BS-equivalent degrees in engineering from India and 575,000 from

2China2. With so many engineering graduates from other nations, U.S. graduates are competingwith graduates from other countries that produce two to four times as many engineers as the US.

The NAE report, Engineer of 2020, also argues that U.S. engineers will require uniqueabilities to set them apart from graduates in other nations. This includes understanding theprinciples of leadership, applying skills to careers as they advance, possessing a framework forhigh ethical standards, and maintaining a strong sense of professionalism.

2.0 MIT EngineeringThe Massachusetts Institute of Technology is renowned for excellence in science,

engineering, technology, research, and the high standards of its academic programs. Maintainingthis position requires constant innovation not only in the organization of research, but also in itseducational degree programs to produce the ideal "engineer of 2020." MIT's President SusanHockfield once said, "In Mumbai, I was asked to address an audience of some hundreds of topIndian CEOs. They wanted me to talk about one thing: What makes American higher educationso successful? What makes it such a force for innovation and social mobility? And what stepscould they take to give India's system of higher education the same nimbleness and creativity?The answer is complicated, but it comes down roughly to three things: Competition, flexibilityand openness. 3"

One outcome of competition, flexibility, and openness in undergraduate degree programsis the current wide variety of degree programs available to students; today there are 35 options atMIT for majors. Even with so many majors at MIT, the topics chosen by students seem toincreasingly fall under industry-specific topics as opposed to topics specific to a major. Studentsexpress their interest not as, "I am interested in Mechanical Engineering," but rather "I likerobotics" or software, energy, biomedical devices, etc.

2.1 Interdisciplinary degrees and MIT's 2-A ProgramTo address the dual pressures to remain competitive in the industry, and satisfy students'

flexible interdisciplinary interests, MIT's academic structure has created new programs such asthe Biological Engineering major and the Energy minor. However, this strategy, some mightargue, will lead to too many programs. Constantly inventing new majors is not necessarily thesolution as there will always be interdisciplinary topics that may suit one student better.

Another option for MIT students has been the "flexible" engineering degree programs topermit students to join several areas of engineering in the study of interdisciplinary topics suchas energy or robotics. Such programs at MIT have provided students with the option to exploretwo or more engineering disciplines in both sufficient breadth and depth and receive a BS inengineering. Within many MIT engineering departments, an "A" option allows students to takefewer of the broader technical background classes in a particular engineering disciplinary coreand replace these with a second in- depth set of engineering subjects related to particularconcentration topics.

This thesis look at one of the oldest MIT flexible engineering degree programs, the 2-Aprogram of Mechanical Engineering, which was established as a separate course in 1934. Until2001, the degree program had few graduates since it was not an ABET accredited degree, butrather appeared as an "undesignated" BS degree on students' transcripts. The department facultychose to seek ABET accreditation in 2001 which elevated the status of 2-A to a full engineeringmajor at MIT and placing it on the same footing as a Course 2 engineering degree. Since 2001,Course 2-A's enrollment has seen a significant increase: in 2000, 24 students were enrolled inthe program while in 2009, 171 students were enrolled.

The Course 2-A program at MIT combines a rigorous mechanical engineeringbackground with a focused study on a particular topic. The required engineering backgroundclasses include the preliminary courses in: Mechanics and Materials, Dynamics and Control,Thermal-Fluids, Measurement and Instrumentation, Mechanical Engineering Tools, and, recentlyadded, the Product Engineering Process. Two second level subjects must also be chosen amongmany options which include: the part II of some of the preliminary courses, Design andManufacturing, Numerical Computation, and a Thesis. After this, 72 units (roughly equivalent to6 classes) must be taken that revolve around a certain focus as approved by the Course 2-Acoordinator and Mechanical Engineering Undergraduate Officer. A table of requirements can befound below.

Table 1. Major Requirements for Course 2-A. These requirements combined with 72 unitsof classes required within their 2-A track, of which 66 units must be of engineering topics.

First-level Requirements (You must take all of these): Second-level Requirements (choose 2 minimum):Subject Number Units Subject Number UnitsMechanics and Materials 1 2.001 12 Mechanics and Materials II 2.002 12Dynamics and Controls I 2.003J 12 Dynamics and Controls 11 2.004 12Thermal-Fluids Engineering 1 2.005 12 Thermal-Fluids Engineering II 2.006 12The Product Engineering Process 2.009 12 Design and Manufacturing I 2.007 12Differential Equations 18.03 12 Design and Manufacturing II 2.008 12Mechanical Engineering Tools 2.670 6 Numerical Computation for MEs 2.086 6Measurement and Instrumentation 2.671 12 Undergraduate Thesis 2.ThU 12

The Course 2-A program offers a wide variety of concentrations including: biomedicalengineering and pre-med, energy conversion engineering, mechanics, precision engineering,

sustainable development, control instrumentation and engineering, engineering management,nano-micro engineering, and product development. In addition, if a different focus is desired, acustom concentration can be designed to meet the needs of the student as long as it satisfies thenecessary major requirements and has an adequate amount of engineering content.

3.0 Surveying MIT's Course 2 and 2-A AlumniThe long history of Course 2 and Course 2-A coexisting provides us with an ideal case

study to answer some of the many questions that have been posed over time about breadth anddepth. It is no surprise that we know very little about the performance, reflections, skill set, anduse of engineering background of students who graduate from Course 2 and 2-A or comparableprograms as it is challenging to collect data from alumni, design questions that will provideuseful information, and analyze the data in a proper manner.

I am personally motivated to begin to find the answers to some of these questions andlook to the alumni of our Course 2 and 2-A Programs for statistics and information on theirexperiences. I am most interested in the jobs taken by our graduates, their confidence levelcompared to their peers, their performance in technical and non-technical subjects, and theirexperiences and reflections. The information discovered here can inform us about the impact ofthe Mechanical Engineering undergraduate experience. Moreover, it can provide information onwhat is especially useful and what is still needed in the curriculum to fully prepare currentstudents for the real world. While this thesis cannot sufficiently answer all questions posed, itcan create an open environment for discussion and speculation on these topics and allow futuredecisions made in the curriculum to be based on empirical evidence and research gathered fromthis thesis.

Since the alumni are the best source of information on the performance of graduates ofthe two mechanical engineering programs, I formulated a survey for this population under theguidance of Anette Hosoi, professor of Mechanical Engineering and 2-A faculty advisor andBarbara Masi, Director of Innovation and Assessment for MIT School of Engineering. Questionswere designed with four major sections:

1. Major and MIT Activities Section constructed to gather information about major choice(s)and activities within MIT.

2. Career Choices Section constructed to gather information on initial and current jobs, shortand long term future plans, and how these career decisions have leveraged their engineeringbackground.

3. Abilities Section constructed to ask about technical abilities, their importance in theircurrent career path, and how well MIT prepared them for these skills. Each question wasgiven on a scale of 1 to 7, 1 being unimportant or unprepared and 7 being very important orprepared.

4. Reflection Section constructed to give survey respondents the opportunity to givesuggestions to improve the 2 or 2-A program and demographic questions. The demographicquestions were asked at the end so that the other questions would be answered without anybias of being judged by sex or race.

The survey was carefully reviewed and evaluated to balance content and convenience forthose filling out the survey via SurveyMonkey.com. The research was also COUHES approved.The survey was then e-mailed out twice to all Course 2 and 2-A Alumni acknowledging that thesurvey was voluntary and responses confidential. A month was given to collect survey responsesand the data was evaluated after this point.

4.0 ResultsOver 500 responses were collected from the survey, of which, approximately 360 alumni

filled the survey to the end. The overall response rate was 45%. The data from this survey wasthen compiled and examined on a question-by-question basis. Often, many of the open-endedresponses pertained to categories from the original choices of the survey or followed trends sonew categories could be formed. Accordingly, data was categorized, and analyzed again. Mostoften, the mean or percentage was used to analyze results and draw conclusions.

4.1 Basic InformationOf those who completed the survey, approximately three times as many Course 2

graduates completed the survey and accounted for 73% of the responses; Course 2-A graduatesmade up the remaining 27% of the responses.

Alumni from the classes 1999-2009 were sent the survey. Interestingly, as shown in thegraph below, while Course 2 had a fair distribution of respondents from the classes 1999-2009,there were few Course 2-A respondents for class 1999-2004. The small number of 2-Arespondents reflects the fact that there were about 15-20 2-A graduates in these years. From 2005on, the program enrollment began to grow, hence the larger number of 2-A respondents to thesurvey. This can be attributed the accreditation of the 2-A program in 2002 after whichenrollment grew rapidly.

What year did you graduate?7060

D 500m. 40

S30S20-

E 10-.0

199a eor 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

02 4 41 32 37 25 34 32 28 35 50 45

02-A 0 8 7 4 4 9 23 29 20 15 17

Figure 1. Breakdown of Graduates by Graduation Year. A total of 499 graduates filledout the survey. The information shows a fairly constant number of course 2 students whereasthe 2-A students increases in 2005 and stays fairly constant afterward.

Course 2-A respondents also reported the concentration they completed as part of theirflexible engineering degree. Approximately 1/3 of them completed a Biomedical concentration,1/3 completed a Management concentration, and the remainder were mostly in the Robotics andEnergy concentrations. The Course 2-A concentrations by percent are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Concentrations of 2-A Alumni. Choices were regrouped after analyzing entriesunder "other." 77% of 2-A respondents were biomed, management, energy, or robotics.

2-A Concentration Count Percent

Biomedical and Pre-Med 40 31.0%

Management and Product Development 34 26.4%

Energy, Environment, and Sustainable Development 15 11.6%

Robotics 12 9.3%

Arts 6 4.7%

Computer Science 4 3.1%

Urban Studies and Civil Engineering 4 3.1%

Architecture 4 3.1%

International Development 3 2.3%

Policy 2 1.6%

Mathematics 2 1.6%

Brain and Cognitive Sciences 1 0.8%

Aero/Astro Engineering 1 0.8%

Physics 1 0.8%TOTAL 129

Alumni were also asked to report whether they had switched majors. Among allrespondents, there was a significant population that changed their major to Course 2. Amongthese respondents, 15% switched into Course 2; mainly from Course 6, 2-A and 14.

In contrast, about four times as many Course 2-A respondents switched from anothermajor into 2-A; 61% of these alumni switched into the major mainly from Course 2, Course 6,and Course 10. About 40% of the switches were from Course 2 to 2-A, a common switch.

Out of those who switched, only 35% of Course 2 graduates could use their previouscoursework for their new major as opposed to 80% of the Course 2-A graduates; over two timesas many students could use their coursework for 2-A when switching. This this may indicate apreference of Course 2-A over Course 2 when switching majors owing to the convenience ofusing prior coursework to count towards graduation, especially if the change is later in theundergraduate career.

Alumni also reported some extracurricular activities they participated in. In general,participation in UROP, UPOP, Studying Abroad, Design Activities, and Student LivingGroup/Officer positions were consistent between both Course 2 and 2-A. Having internships andparticipating in sports seemed to be skewed towards Course 2 and participating in the PSC wasskewed towards Course 2-A. Participation in activities like D-LAB and student publications washeavily skewed towards Course 2-A with over two times the level of participation.

4.2 Career ChoicesAn extensive portion of the survey was dedicated to examining what graduates do after

graduation. This subject has many layers as alumni may have already changed careers severaltimes or may be in an intermediate step before reaching their ideal career. Thus, severalquestions were posed to inquire about: initial career choices after graduation, current careerchoices, relation of current career to engineering background, career vision in the next threeyears, and long term career vision. Table 3 shows career choices and their popularity.

Table 3. Career Choices Immediately After Graduating and Currently. 410 graduatescompleted this question and data was regrouped after analyzing entries under "other." Jobpaths with significant differences between Course 2 and 2-A are bolded.

What did you do immediately after graduating? What are you currently doing?2 2-A

Total graduates reporting after 323 116currently 301 109

MS Mechanical Engineering after 32.8% 16.4%currently 13.0% 5.5%

Mechanical engineering jobs after 32.2% 27.6%currently 31.6% 22.0%

Management consulting/ business/ finance after 12.4% 17.2%currently 15.3% 15.6%

Other engineering jobs after 8.4% 6.9%currently 7.3% 7.3%

PhD Mechanical Engineering after 5.3% 4.3%currently 5.6% 4.6%

Academic-related jobs after 2.2% 8.6%currently 2.7% 7.3%

Other non-engineering jobs (social science, policy, NGO,education, marketing) after 2.2% 6.9%

currently 3.3% 5.5%Military after 1.5% 2.6%

currently 2.0% 0.9%MBA after 1.5% 0.0%

currently 5.0% 2.8%J.D. (Law) after 0.9% 2.6%

currently 2.7% 3.7%M.D. or Medical-Related after 0.6% 6.9%

currently 3.0% 12.8%

MS/PhD social science, architecture, policy total 1.6% 6.4%

Unemployed total 2.3% 2.8%

Just after graduation, about 32% of Course 2 students went to a mechanical engineeringrelated job and about 33% went to a master's program in Mechanical Engineering. Similarly,28% of Course 2-A students went into a mechanical engineering related job but only 16% wentto a master's program in Mechanical Engineering. Course 2-A respondents' career paths weremore varied. For example, 9% were in an academic-related job after graduation and 7% in amedical-related job.

Both Course 2 and 2-A alumni reported changing career paths since their initial post-graduation choices. For example, the Course 2 graduates reported a lower percentage in Mastersin engineering programs at 13%. Currently, fewer Course 2-A graduates reported being in amechanical engineering master's program at 5.5%, but had about the same percentage of peoplein management, consulting, and mechanical engineering related jobs at 15.6%. The rest of thealumni are currently in industry-specific areas, such as medical areas with 12.8% and academicareas with 7.3%.

These trends and career choices persisted through to their short term goals for the nextthree years in a free response question. More Course 2 graduates were content with their current

mechanical engineering jobs as indicated by quotes such as "continue developing myprofessional career" or "just climbing the ladder." Many Course 2 graduates simply talked aboutcontinuing in school whereas many Course 2-A graduates said "probably not grad school- if so,MBA". Yet, there were still many people who were "still unsure of my career plans aftergraduation."

The long term career aspirations were similar with many graduates in both Course 2 and2-A mentioning that they wanted to "start my own company" or becoming the "CEO of a majorcorporation." Course 2 students often mentioned continuing in design whereas Course 2-A hadmore allusions to the medical profession and other industry specific areas. Others (severalactually) mentioned becoming a "beach bum" - clearly aspirations and a sense of humor persist.

4.3 Abilities and their Importance in the Current CareerAn entire section of questions was dedicated to analyzing the importance of certain skills

to alumni's current career choices and how well MIT prepared them in these skills. Alumni wereasked about importance and preparation for a range of skills, including engineering, professional,and multi-disciplinary skills. These questions were given on a 7 point Likert Scale and the meanwas taken for comparison. Table 4 below shows the means with significant findings bolded.

Table 4. Abilities Section. The following table shows the means for the topics surveyed. Thefirst number is the average Course 2 response, the second 2-A. If the skills differed betweenCourse 2 and 2-A by >0.4 points, this result is bolded and the dominant major is indicated inparentheses. The last column indicates a significant difference between MIT preparation andimportance Course 2 and 2-A collectively with a >1 point discrepancy bolded.

Ability to: Importance Preparation Importance (I) vs.Preparation (P)

Apply math 4.71 vs. 4.26 (2) 5.69 vs. 5.63 4.59 vs. 5.67 (P)Apply engineering principles 5.32 vs. 4.48 (2) 6.04 vs. 5.81 5.09 vs. 5.98Model, measure, and analyze 5.30 vs. 4.55 (2) 5.87 vs. 5.37 (2) 5.09 vs. 5.74Grasp limits of technology 5.40 vs. 4.88 (2) 5.43 vs. 5.23 5.26 vs. 5.38Apply underlying principles in complex problems 5.67 vs. 5.14 (2) 5.90 vs. 5.72 5.52 vs. 5.85 (P)Design procedures and build close to specifications 4.67 vs. 3.82 (2) 5.52 vs. 5.26 4.44 vs. 5.45 (P)Apply economics 3.99 vs. 3.64 3.50 vs. 3.44 3.89 vs. 3.48Critically evaluate balance of 4.75 vs. 4.82 4.26 vs. 4.48 4.77 vs. 4.32technical/economic/cultural factorsUse perspectives from several disciplines in analyzing 5.23 vs. 5.12 4.53 vs. 4.99 (2-A) 5.20 vs. 4.66problemsWork on multi-disciplinary team 6.22 vs. 5.89 5.51 vs. 5.44 6.13 vs. 5.49Lead a team 5.84 vs. 5.65 5.09 vs. 4.96 5.79 vs. 5.05Make sure a team sets ground rules for working 5.24 vs. 4.80 (2) 4.45 vs. 4.37 5.12 vs. 4.43togetherCreate precise project plan 5.40 vs. 4.72 4.72 vs. 4.70 5.40 vs. 4.72Proactively plan one's career 5.45 vs. 5.44 3.74 vs. 3.78 5.45 vs. 3.75 (I)Address Ethics 4.97 vs. 5.02 4.02 vs. 3.94 4.99 vs. 3.99 (l)Write effectively 5.74 vs. 5.71 4.68 vs. 4.61 5.73 vs. 4.66 ()Write clear concise summaries of projects 5.63 vs. 5.55 4.97 vs. 4.81 5.60 vs. 4.93Make persuasive presentation or oral report 5.94 vs. 5.67 4.76 vs. 4.53 5.87 vs. 4.69 (1)Defend point of view in a debate 5.11 vs. 5.17 3.79 vs. 3.89 5.13 vs. 3.82 (I)

This data was analyzed for significant differences in importance and preparation forCourse 2 vs. Course 2-A. Differences were considered significant if importance or preparationdiffered by at least 0.4 points and differences in overall importance vs. preparation by a least 1point. Approximately 350 graduates filled out these sections with around 250 Course 2 alumniand 100 Course 2-A respondents.

Given this criterion, many technical skills were reported as more important to Course 2students than Course 2-A students yet both reported being equally prepared by MIT. These skillsare: math, engineering principles, technical limits, underlying principles, and designing tospecifications. The only skill reported by Course 2 to be more important and better prepared forwas the ability to model, measure, and analyze. Moreover, alumni reported to be over preparedfor skills in: math, underlying principles, and designing to specification, shown in the Figure 2.

Engineering Abilities65

3 2-A2

0

Figure 2. Engineering Abilities Chart.

Few differences were also found in multidisciplinary abilities with one exception; Course2-A students reported being better prepared to use perspectives from several disciplines foranalysis, as shown in Figure 3 below.

Multi Disciplinary Abilities

65

MC 4321

- 2

-N 2-A

el e

0 0 100z

Figure 3. Multidisciplinary Abilities Chart.

Course 2 and 2-A students did not differ in opinion about most team and career planningabilities. Course 2 students reported establishing ground rules in their career as important butthere was no difference in MIT preparation. One interesting difference is note is that the alumnireported being significantly underprepared by MIT for the ability to plan one's career ascompared to its importance with a mean difference of 1.7 points as shown in the figure below.

Team and Career Planning Abilities765

2

0

Figure 4. Team and Career Planning Abilities Chart.

Regarding communication abilities, there were no significant differences between Course2 and 2-A. However, almost all of these abilities had lower ratings in preparedness as comparedto importance including: writing effectively, presenting, defending a point of view, andaddressing ethics. Figure 5, below, summarizes this.

Figure 5. Communication Abilities Chart.

Communication Abilities7

6

5

@3

2a 2-A

Finally, skills results were examined to find the most and least important areas for one'scareer. The significantly important areas were those that received higher than a 5.5 average on ascale of 7. These skills are included in the table below with the most important being the abilityto work on a multi-disciplinary team (averaging 6.13). Conversely, skills that were the leastimportant were noted when there was lower than a 5.0 average. These skills are also included inthe table below with the least important being the ability to apply economics (averaging 3.89).

Table 5. Most and Least Important Skills. The following table shows the most importantskills that averaged higher than a 5.5/7 in importance and the least important skills thataveraged a 5.0/7 or less. This was averaged over approximately 350 respondents.

Most Important SkillsWork on a multi-disciplinary teamLead a teamMake oral presentationsWrite concise report summariesWrite effectivelyApply technical concepts in complex problems

Least Important SkillsApply economicsDesign proceduresBuild closely to specificationsApply mathCritically evaluate and balance technical, economics, and cultural factors

4.4 Alumni ReflectionAlumni were asked to reflect on their engineering classes and the influence of these

classes. According to the data, concentration classes were significantly more useful for 2-Astudents with a 13% difference in ratings compared to Course 2. Class choice significantlyaffected Course 2-A students more than Course 2 students with a 23% difference in ratings. Therest of the categories such as usefulness of core classes and preparation did not vary significantlybetween Course 2 and Course 2-A.

Table 6. Importance of Classes. Alumni were asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 5 whether theystrongly agreed, agreed, were neutral, disagreed, or strongly disagreed to these questionsabout classes, their usefulness, preparation, and their effect on career path.

Course 2 Course 2-AYour core engineering classes were usefulStrongly disagree/ disagree 6% 8%Strongly agree/ agree 86% 78%Your elective/concentration classes were usefulStrongly disagree/ disagree 8% 3%Strongly agree/ agree 74% 87%Your major adequately prepared youStrongly disagree/ disagree 6% 9%Strongly agree/ agree 82% 74%Your choice of classes strongly affected your career pathStrongly disagree/ disagree 28% 21%Strongly agree/ agree 41% 64%

Alumni were then asked about their general preparedness for their careers compared topeers, areas lacking for current career demands, whether they would retrospectively make theirdegree major choice again, and how to improve their Course 2 or 2-A degree major in general.

The general preparedness question asked respondents to analyze how prepared they werewith respect to: their peers in their Course 2 or 2-A major, their peers in the opposite MechanicalEngineering major, their peers in other majors in the MIT graduating class, and their peers intheir career. It was noteworthy that while Course 2 and 2-A students replied somewhat similarlyfor all of their MIT peers in and out of their major, there was a significant difference whereCourse 2-A students rated that they were less prepared than their peers in their career, shown inthe table below. 13% of Course 2-A alums said they were unprepared or very unpreparedcompared to their current professional peers as opposed to the 7% of Course 2 alums. This couldbe due to a variety of factors which are discussed in the discussion section.

Table 7. Preparedness and Confidence. Alumni were asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 5whether they were very unprepared, unprepared, somewhat unprepared, prepared, or veryprepared cor pared to different groups of peers. 345 alums completed this survey question.

How prepared are you for your current endeavors:Course 2 Course 2-A

Compared to your peers in your 2 or 2-A class:Very unprepared/unprepared 7% 3%Somewhat unprepared 19% 23%Very prepared/prepared 68% 67%Compared to MechE grads you know professionally:Very unprepared/unprepared 6% 6%Somewhat unprepared 16% 25%Very prepared/prepared 71% 62%Compared to your current professional peers:Very unprepared/unprepared 7% 13%Somewhat unprepared 14% 16%Very prepared/prepared 76% 66%

Another question was given in an open-ended format to ask alumni what topics weremissing from the Course 2 or 2-A curriculum that were needed in their career after graduation.Interestingly, all responses fell into a set number of categories between math-related (primarilystatistics), programming, career-specific, communication/management-related, electronics,applying the mechanical engineering background, and finance/economics-related.

Out of these, almost three times as many Course 2 alums needed an electronics courseand almost two times as many mentioned getting a better background in applying thefundamental concepts. Approximately 23% of Course 2 graduates stated there was nothingmissing as opposed to 34% of Course 2-A graduates which is plausible as Course 2-A allowsstudents to take classes in these auxiliary subjects within the curriculum. Results are detailed inFigure 6.

Missing Subjects in Curriculum4035 - Course 2 (215)

30 - Course 2-A (92)' 25

20 Total (307)

10

0

Figure 6. Subjects Missing from Curriculum. This shows the different subjects foundmissing after entering the real world. Those categorized under "application" mentionedneeding classes that better summarized their MIT education and applied it to the real world.The category "business skills" included writing, general business knowledge, and presentingbetter. "Finance" included those who specifically asked for more about economics and"programming" encompasses specific languages and modeling software. "Math" wasprimarily statistics but also included linear algebra and more in depth differential equations.

Alumni were also asked if they had the chance to repeat their four years at MIT, wouldthey have stayed their specific Course 2 or 2-A major, changed to the other Course 2 or 2-Amajor, or changed majors altogether. About 14% of Course 2 students would have switched to 2-A while half that amount, 7%, of Course 2-A students said they would switch to Course 2.Approximately the same amount said they'd keep their major or switch majors entirely and about6% of Course 2-A students said they would switch their concentration.

Finally, the alumni were asked for recommendations to improve the MechanicalEngineering program. Many recommendations were fairly consistent between Course 2 and 2-Astudents such as requiring a statistics, programming, and electronics course and more content onleadership, entrepreneurship, marketing, finance - which lines up with the responses aboutcourses missing in the curriculum. Other general repeated comments mentioned the need forbetter advising, not knowing enough about the 2-A program, the desire for more project-orientedclasses, a co-op option, and information on the FE and PE exams and licenses.

4.5 Demographic InformationAt the end of the survey, demographic information was requested. While results did not

vary across race, the gender gap between males and females was smaller in Course 2-A with53% male and 47% female compared to Course 2's 59% male populated and 41% femalepopulation. The results from the survey were reexamined by analyzing responses by race andgender. There were no significant differences based on this breakdown. According to ProfessorLienhard, this is consistent with findings from past years from other Course 2 and 2-A surveys.

5.0 DiscussionAfter assessing the extensive amount of data, there seem to be some stark differences

between Course 2 and Course 2-A alumni with respect to importance of classes completed asundergraduates for current careers, career paths, ability importance in current careers, andfeelings about MIT after graduation. This is understandable as one of the main differencesbetween the programs is the difference in depth and breadth of the Course 2 and 2-A curricula.The different course options seem to cater to the two different populations well. In fact, Course2-A's requirement for 6 classes within their concentration was a recent change to further increasethe depth of the program.

To assess the alumni's educational experience at MIT, data was gathered on switchinginto 2 or 2-A and the activities they engaged in when at MIT. When people switched intomechanical engineering, an overwhelming number of people, almost four times as many,switched into 2-A; in addition, two times as many students could use their coursework to theirmajor. Thus, the flexibility within Course 2-A seems to be an attractive feature for students whowant to get a better mechanical engineering experience without their previous major'scoursework going to waste. Since over half of Course 2-A's alumni population that filled thissurvey out switched majors, findings must be evaluated in the context of this information. Manyof the answers with respect to career path and MIT experience are likely to be influenced by thisexperience. This is further strengthened by the fact that Course 2-A students seemed to have alarger participation in activities that are applicable to multiple majors such as DLAB, the PSC,and the Tech.

Career choices are also quite different between Course 2 and 2-A. Most Course 2students go on to a master's or PhD in Mechanical Engineering just after graduation while more2-A students go into industry-specific areas such as the medical or academic field. This findingsuggests that students who go into Course 2 follow a traditional engineering career path: going tograduate school and then pursuing their PhD or entering a mechanical-engineering related job.This data also suggests that students who know what they want to do right after graduation aremore inclined to enter Course 2-A; therefore going to engineering graduate school would onlydelay embarking on that career path. A rather large percentage of Course 2-A graduates enteredthe medical field which has its own typical paths including biomedical research, medical schoolpublic health or management consulting to bio/pharmaceutical firms. Combining thisinformation with the information that classes were taken that join mechanical engineering withother disciplines, it appears that students who have a fairly good idea of what they want to doafter graduation join Course 2-A. This clarity of choice carries through when they are makingcareer choices.

The abilities section of the survey further supports the different career paths finding forCourse 2 versus Course 2-A graduates. While few averages differed much between Course 2and 2-A alumni in preparation, many differed in importance for current careers. The subjects thatdiffered in importance were almost all related to technical abilities. This makes sense as almost25% of the Course 2 alumni are currently in engineering grad school or pursuing their PhD andwould directly use these concepts as opposed to Course 2-A's 13% in master's and PhDprograms.

Most interestingly, Course 2-A graduates reported being better prepared to useperspectives from several disciplines for analysis. This ties in well with the finding that 34% of2-A respondents did not find anything missing in their curriculum and only 5% of 2-A

respondents found application-related courses missing in their coursework. This validates that amultidisciplinary education is indeed found by undergoing the Course 2-A major.

Both Course 2 and 2-A alumni reported the high importance for professional skillsincluding writing, and oral presentation, and the substantially lower level of preparation in theseskills. Moreover, it is notable how the subjects that alumni were over-prepared were technicalskills and the topics that they needed more than they were given for were "soft skills" such asethics and communication skills. This suggests the need to better incorporate, value, andemphasize these skills in classes.

It is no surprise that Course 2 and 2-A alumni seem to reflect back on their educationdifferently. For example, alumni rated themselves similarly with respect to their peers exceptwhen alumni rated themselves with respect to other peers in their job where Course 2-A studentsrated themselves lower than Course 2 students did. This could perhaps reinforce the fact thatCourse 2-A students choose a variety of career fields that may or may not be related to theirmechanical engineering background and thus, may have a slight initial disadvantage whenentering their new field. Many alumni noted at the end of the survey that, although they were lessprepared with respect to their peers, this was not the fault of their major as their career choiceswere simply too far from their background to be able to compete on the same terms.

They also seemed to reflect back on the subjects lacking in their curriculum similarly.Course 2 alumni reported missing subjects related directly to their current job; it is possible thatfewer Course 2-A students reported this because they had taken these courses for theirconcentration subjects. Recommendations for improvement were also reported very similarly. Tohighlight some options that the Mechanical Engineering Faculty could consider furtherintegrating in the curriculum, alumni noted the lack of material in applying past subjects,business skills, finance know-how, programming, electronics, and mathematics - especiallystatistics.

Finally, having scrutinized all of the results, it is important to recognize that these resultsare not necessarily representative of all of the Mechanical Engineering alumni. For example,there is self-report bias, a natural tendency for respondents to report their own achievements andabilities as higher than their peers. Moreover, it is also possible that those who are inclined torespond to such a survey may be a select population with common characteristics. Fortunately, asizeable population size of at least 350 graduates for each question was surveyed so with such alarge sampling size, the bias is potentially less pronounced. Additionally, a lot of the analysiswas comparing two populations proportional to the number of people that responded in thecategory. Thus, the self-reporting bias is mitigated as it is contained in both populations.

6.0 ConclusionIt is especially noteworthy to compare Course 2 and 2-A alumni's impressions of the

others' program. Although there was no question with a free response related to a directcomparison, alumni commented on it nevertheless through various free responses throughout thesurvey. Course 2 graduates mentioned how "2-A seems a bit flaky as a major" whereas Course2-A students commented on how "2 is too rigid and too many students major in 2 only to neveruse it." These are fairly bold statements from each side and they underscore the difference insentiments between the two majors. There is certainly a difference not only in the career choicesmade by each group, but also in their opinions of the other program.

In addition to this study's concrete objectives of finding out about Course 2 and 2-Agraduates' careers and abilities, it also sought data-supported findings to address this specific

issue of what happens to graduates of the "flaky program" versus the "too rigid program".Apparently, both groups' career paths and ability confidence are strong, but different. Course 2-A students do not always "cop out" of their requirements, but are simply more certain of whatthey want to do and want to take relevant classes. A good example would be the sizable numberof students who pursued the medical field and certainly have additional subjects required in orderto apply to medical school. Moreover, more than half of the Course 2-A alums switched from adifferent major and thus, may not have had as much time to take all of the Course 2 subjects,especially of this change was after taking 5 or 6 subjects in another major.

This aside, in general, students felt a very similar amount of confidence in their overallabilities and specific abilities. Perhaps these comparative claims from both sides were made outof one's own desires and interests. For example, a Course 2-A student would want flexibility andwould accordingly see Course 2 as too rigid. In the end, the majority of students seemed to havematriculated into the option most suited for them as they expressed general happiness with theirexperience and similar percentages from both majors said they would make the same decisiongiven the option. It would be nice if Course 2 and Course 2-A students and graduates reconciledtheir differences of opinion between the two majors as comparing them on a specific rubric is notgoing to give useful results. Had it been so easy to compare these majors, this thesis would havebeen significantly less complex.

This thesis examined the alumni population on many different topics but this is only thetip of the iceberg. The survey data gathered for this study can certainly be further examined toanswer many more questions such as how well a person sticks to their career path given a certainconcentration and how a person's recommendations about their major correlated with theirperformance, activities, and career choices. Specific concentrations like biome/premed andmanagement can also be isolated and examined as they certainly have had a significant impacton the Course 2-A results. Did the students who ended up in medical school use their subjects inthe same way as Course 2 students did? Did alumni with a management concentration pursueunrelated engineering jobs? The analysis has no bounds.

Moreover, this subject can be further researched by asking new questions to dig into theintricacies between Course 2 and 2-A. This study focused on objective questions and thus,questions like "Why did you choose your major?" or "Why did you change majors" or "Couldyou describe your entire career path?" were never asked. These open ended questions would givea much better idea about the appeal and afterlife of MIT's Department of MechanicalEngineering graduates.

In conjunction with this thesis, other research has been done in the area to analyze thecurriculum and its effect on students. Shanette Go '10 researched the Course 2 and Course 2-Aexperience as well but about the opinions and prospects of current students at MIT in her thesis,"Re-engineering Engineering: How Course 2-A is Paving the Way for InterdisciplinaryEngineering at MIT". Kristen Wolfe '04 has also performed related research on the careers ofalumni in her thesis, "Understanding the careers of the alumni of the MIT MechanicalEngineering department."

Overall, this thesis examined the alumni with respect to classes, careers, abilities, andoverall experience. Differences were found among the number of transfers from other majors,range of career options, and sentiments about having core vs. elective classes. There was verylittle difference in confidence, abilities, and what was missing in their MIT experience.Discoveries were made about the most used abilities and topics, and how to best cater to thesetwo different populations. Most importantly, it was discovered that, above all of the minor

details, the Mechanical Engineering Department is on the right path by allowing and supportingthe Course 2-A major. They have successfully recognized two different populations withinMechanical Engineering and have catered to them individually. Course 2 students report to bemore interested in a general background as it fits in with their future plans and Course 2-Astudents report to be more interested in a specific topic and express an interest to delve into itmore deeply.

7.0 Acknowledgement and Personal NoteThis thesis would not have been possible without the incredible support of Professor

Anette Hosoi, my thesis advisor, and Barbara Masi, the Director of Innovation and Assessmentfor MIT School of Engineering. They walked me through the entire process from COUHES toanalysis and were as interested in the results as I was. Their support and encouragement has beeninvaluable. Additionally, over 500 Alumni spent the time to go through the survey and by theend, at least 350 filled out each question. The survey was approximately 15 minutes long so, inaddition to the countless hours I spent on this thesis with my advisors, the alumni also put in atleast 95 hours or almost 4 days worth of time.

I would also like to thank my parents for their incredible consistent and endless supportand Shanette Go for taking an interest in our MIT population with me and completing our thesestogether on these complementary topics.

Finally, over 200 alumni responded at the end of the survey with their e-mail to receivethe results of this survey. Clearly, there is an incredible amount of interest in this subject and Iam excited to have the opportunity to share these results with so many invested people. Theresearch was long and I read over 3000 long responses for specific questions but it was worth itand I am glad I had the opportunity to ask and answer these questions that have never beenanswered to this detail before. I hope the Mechanical Engineering Faculty will find these resultshelpful and encouraging and other majors can look to this as an indication that even within onemajor there are different populations that need to be catered to separately and doing so canproduce excellent drive graduates.

8.0 References

1 National Academy of Engineering. "The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century.Phase II Report." Washington, D.C., National Academies Press, 2005.

2 Gereffi, Wadhwa, Rissing, and Ong. "Getting the Numbers Right: International Engineering Educationin the United States, China, and India." Journal of Engineering Education, 2008.

3 Hockfield, Susan. "Making the Case for American Higher Education." MIT, President Speeches andEssays: http://web.mit.edu/hockfield/speeches/2008-naicu.html, 2008.

9.0 AppendixQuestions Asked In Survey

Page 1: Basic Information1. Did you graduate as Course 2 or Course 2-A?

Options: 2, 2-A2. If you majored in 2-A, what was your 2-A concentration?

Options: Biomedical/Pre-Med, Control, Instrument and Robotics, Energy, Engineering

Management, International Development, Mechanics, Nano/Micro engineering, Precision

Engineering, Product Development, Sustainable Development, Other

3. What year did you graduate?

Options: 1999 or earlier, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009

Page 2. Switching Majors, Career Path, MIT Activities1. Did you switch majors during college? If so, from what? Check all that apply.

Options: I did not switch majors, 1 - Civil & Environmental Engineering, 2 - Mechanical

Engineering, 2A- Mechanical Engineering- Course 2A, 3 - Material Science & Engineering,

5 - Chemistry, 6 - Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, 7 - Biology, 8 - Physics, 9 -

Brain & Cognitive Science, 10 - Chemical Engineering, 15 - Management, 16 - Aeronautics

& Astronautics, 18 - Mathematics, 20 - Biological Engineering, 22 - Nuclear Engineering,

Other (please specify)

2. If you switched majors, were you able to use subjects from your old major toward

completing requirements of your new major?

Options: Yes, No, I didn't switch majors

3. What did you do immediately after graduating? What are you currently doing? Choose all

that apply.

Options (just after graduating and currently): Masters Degree in Engineering Program,

Doctoral Degree in Engineering Program, Masters Degree in Business Program, Law

Degree Program, Medical Degree Program, Mechanical Engineering Related Job,

Engineering Related Job (unrelated to MechE), Management/Consulting/Finance Related

Job, Academic Related Job, Other

4. On a scale of 1 to 5, how well prepared were you for your current endeavors relative to your

peers in your 2 or 2-A program, your peers in mechanical engineering overall, all MIT

students in your graduating class, and your peers in your career path?

Options(2 or 2-A program, Mechanical Engineering Graduates, MIT Graduating Class, Your

Current Professional Peers [regardless of major]): very unprepared, somewhat prepared,

very prepared, N/A5. In graduate school or in a professional position, did you find any area(s) where your skill/

knowledge were lacking compared to peers? If so, what area(s)? Did you need to take

additional classes to address this?

6. Please describe your current job and its relationship to your engineering background. Howare you able to use this background in your current position?

7. What are your career plans in the next 3 years? If you plan on attending graduate school infuture, please specify what area and degree. If you're in grad school now, what do you plan todo after graduation?

8. Please tell us about your long term career vision.9. Please check whether you participated in any of the following activities while at MIT.Options: UPOP, D-Lab, Public Service Center activities, Study Abroad, Internship off campus

(other than UPOP), ROTC, Design club (Solar car, etc.), Student/ living group governmentofficer, Varsity sports team, Student publication (Tech, etc.), Other (please specify)

Page 3. Your AbilitiesFor the next few questions, please rate your abilities:1- How important is this ability for your career so far?2- How well did your MIT engineering education prepare you in this ability?Options: Scale of ] to 7, 1 is not important/prepared and 7 is extremely important/prepared.1. Apply math in complex problem solving2. Apply engineering concepts in complex problem solving3. Model, measure, analyze using engineering or technical principles4. Apply economics in complex problem solving5. Recognize underlying technical concepts in a complex problem6. Use systematic design procedures and build something close to my specifications7. Quickly grasp the limits of a technology well enough to use it8. Critically evaluate and balance technical, economic, and cultural factors in making project9. Concretely use perspectives from several disciplines (eg. management/engineering/economicsetc.) in analyzing problems10. Address ethics issues in a professional situation11. Write effectively12. Write a clear, concise report summarizing a project13. Make a persuasive presentation or oral report that fits audience interests14. Defend a point of view in an oral debate15. Function effectively as a member of a multi-disciplinary team16. Lead a team in completing a project17. Make sure a team sets ground rules for how they will work together18. Make a precise project plan that maps out task order for a major project19. Proactively plan for your career

20. Please choose whether you agree or disagree with each statement: Your core engineeringclasses were useful, Your elective/concentration classes were useful, Your major adequatelyprepared you, Your choice of classes strongly affected your career path

Options: Scale of ] to 7, 1 is strongly disagree, 7 is strongly agree

21. With the knowledge you have now, if you had the choice, you would

Options: Switch from 2 to 2-A, Switch from 2-A to 2, Switch concentrations within 2-A, Choose a

major in a different department

22. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions for improvement of the 2 or 2-A

program?

Page 4. Demographic Information1. Gender (Male or Female)2. Ethnic Background (White, African American, Latino/Latina, Asian/Pacific -Islander, Other)

3. Are there any questions, comments, or concerns regarding this survey or the research topic I

am working on?4. Are you interested in the results of this research? If so, please provide your e-mail:

look to the future: mit alumni and their course 2 and 2-a

Documents