Calls for a master’s as the “first professional degree” in engineering first appeared in a 1968 ASEE draft report, later softened in the final after huge protests. Movement toward a master’s as basic has historically been seen as associated with the post-WWII drive toward making the engineering degree more scientific, less practical/less “lab,” and emphasizing PhD training/more PhDs v. practitioners on faculty (the inclusion of more hard science in engineering actually began some decades earlier). The 1955 ASEE report (the “Grinter report"), had called for more integrated study to strengthen professional practice, more humanities, communications skills, etc. along lines called for today, but also strengthening graduate study: effectively, this last was adopted, the others largely ignored, and the curriculum became more scientific and emphasis was placed on PhD education. In many ways, current calls for graduate degrees as first degrees reflect this history and higher education’s tendency to “add” rather than restructure. However, there is also external pressure, particularly from IUGREEE, to shift the balance of technical specialists and “deep generalists” toward the latter, likely through a pre-professional/professional model. Most 5-yr and what has been called “3+2″ proposals have failed. This model arguably could be done within existing structures—i.e., a technical undergrad degree and a broader masters. Of course, true deep generalist ability develops through practice, and the undergrad degree could be redesigned to launch that.

Jane Robbins, PhD, at 7:30 am EDT on July 28, 2006

Mastering engineering

I agree wholeheartedly with Professor Winslow’s assessment:“The key element here is the personal and structural discipline necessary for the degree that other liberal arts and sociological degrees simply do not have at the undergraduate level. . . Let the engineer or technical professional choose on their own way if they wish to seek higher...and different...levels of societal contribution. Don’t attempt to force them into a mold that other uninformed outsiders think is better.”

Indeed, instead of diluting any accredited engineering program, which is the essential component of America’s technological strength, perhaps a preengineering program could be structured along the lines of paralegals or paramedics so that they could be trained to assist an engineer. But it would seem that any such proposed offerings would be more beneficial to students at the community college level. In fact, why not advocate a program of study designed to encourage problem solving. Along these lines of thinking, Professor Li’s notion of parameter analysis could prove useful.

Professor Li, in Technological Innovation in Education and Industry, argued that while content knowledge may become obsolete, comprehension of innovation developed entrepreneurship. He described a classroom methodology that enhanced understanding of innovation and promoted to entrepreneurship, called parameter analysis. Parameter analysis imitated the innovation process, i.e., a creative endeavor involving continual selection, analysis, evaluation, and synthesis. In order to promote problem solving, Li advocated multiple perspectives gained from multidisciplinary study and emphasized the importance of creativity in addition to content knowledge.

Advocates of conceptual models of a modern university insisted on the explicit recognition of the role of technology in science and industry and suggested the result of the separation of the two would be counterproductive for both. Besides methodological changes in how we teach, new fields of study have emerged as a result of space exploration, advance medical technology, and applications of computer science to other fields that have implications regarding what we teach. In fact, for decades, the White House Science Council has encouraged federal funding to enhance multidisciplinary activity within the universities; yet, university administrators are slow to act. (More findings are referenced in Validation of Higher Education Economic Development Survey (HEEDS) Instrument with State University and Land Grant Institutions. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 327 086).

Jim, retired senior faculty @ Ingram State Technical Co at Alabama Dept. of Postsecondary Education, at 11:46 am EDT on July 28, 2006

Poor Solution to the Problem

As an Electrical Engineering undergraduate, I agree that I have received a pretty narrow education. I would have liked to have more breadth in my studies.

However, I don’t believe that engineers should be forced into a liberal arts education. If a student wants to take more general education classes, then he/she is free to take them. There is nothing forcing engineers to graduate in four years. Engineering students are perfectly capable of taking an extra year of classes on their own. It should be a choice.

Jonathan Ward, senior Electrical Engineer undergrad at Case Western Reserve University, at 5:25 pm EDT on July 28, 2006

Many engineers who seek to enter the “wider” fields of business, government, etc. have appropriate academic paths. They get MBA’s or MPP’s, or hybrid business/engineering/public policy degrees like the Telecommunications MS. Sometimes they get law degrees and become patent lawyers. So, we’ve already got lots of possible paths to academic improvement.

This is just part of the ongoing effort to make engineering a purely academic endevour, pointing towards the PHD path, and moving away from the drudgery of (gasp) educating engineers to work in industry. If we want to actually improve undergrad engineering education, maybe we should make undustry co-ops mandatory?

DG, at 5:00 am EDT on July 31, 2006

Professional Science Master’s degrees

We would like to call your attention to the Professional Science Masters (PSM) degree, a relatively new degree that could serve as the model for what C. Judson King is promoting for the field of engineering.

The Professional Science Masters, introduced in 1997, is a two-year graduate degree for science, mathematics, and engineering bachelor’s degree graduates. PSM programs include advanced courses in science and/or math, plus courses in business/finance and other professional skills, such as written and oral communication, team building, intellectual property and entrepreneurship. Most of the degree programs include an internship in the employment sector which that particular PSM targets and are designed with the advice and assistance of local business/industry employers.

There are currently more than 100 such programs at over 50 institutions which have produced more than 1,200 graduates. In academic year 2004-05 alone, there were more than 1,300 enrollees and 530 graduates. Compare this with the MBA: the first MBA was awarded at Dartmouth in 1902; it took decades before 45 universities were graduating MBAs; and even by 1950 (nearly 50 years later), there were only 4,500 MBAs awarded.

While the majority of PSM graduates work in industry, some state and federal government agencies have found these graduates ideally suited for their particular needs. Bioscience PSM graduates are finding employment in large, established companies like Ely Lilly and Johnson & Johnson or smaller start-up companies, while graduates with a particular interest in intellectual property and tech transfer are finding employment at the U.S. Patent Office, and financial mathematics graduates are employed by banks, brokerage houses, and in the insurance industry. But wherever they find employment, PSM graduates are able to analyze both the science and business side of an opportunity, are able to work in teams, and are able to communicate effectively with the different functions within an organization.

In 2006, the Council of Graduate Schools assumed primary responsibility for growing and promoting the Professional Science Masters with the goal of making it a regular feature of graduate education. The PSM with its combination of advanced study combined with professional and interdisciplinary training can serve as a model for professional stand-alone master’s degrees across the curriculum including engineering. Just as the MBA was the innovative degree of the 20th century, the PSM can be the innovative degree of the 21st century.

Eleanor L. Babco, Senior Consultant and Co-Director of the PSM Initiative,

and

Carol B. Lynch, Senior Scholar in Residence and Director of the PSM Initiative

Council of Graduate Schools

Eleanor L. Babco, Senior Consultant and Co-Director of the PSM Initiative at Council of Graduate Schools, at 4:00 pm EDT on August 4, 2006

Mastering Engineering

I do not agree with the purported benefits described in the Mastering Engineering article. In my undergraduate engineering program, many couses were required outside of engineering, including literature, psychology, economics, and others.

I think that the larger problem with the educational system is the complete lack of technical coursework in liberal arts and business programs. Graduates without technical knowledge will face an increasingly difficult job market.

All engineers, and all college graduates, should strive to continue their education throughout their lifetime. Those that want to gain a more thorough knowledge of a technical field may select a masters program in engineering. Others may broaden their knowlege via advanced coursework in business, law, medicine, etc. I think this should remain the choice of the individual, and in cases such as mine, the engineer will have an employer that will pay for this additional education.

Michael Dausch, PE, MBA, Director, Design & Construction at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, at 11:30 am EDT on August 7, 2006

Mastering Engineering

Point 1: Mr. King starts his article with a false assumption. Engineers are NOT supposed to be ready to right out of college. There is a four year training period before an engineer can sit for the Professional Engineer’s exam. Just like doctors and laywers. Unfortunalty the corporations refuse to spend what it takes to train an engineer. The corporation would rather steal and engineer from a compeditor. Thus we have no engineers with 10 to 15 years of experience today. The problem started in 1988 when the corporations started dismantelling their libraries and training programs. There was an excess of engineers at the time. Now there are fewer. Why are there fewer engineers when the Universities have been graduating just as many engineers? No corporate hiring, low pay, no promotions, no training programs, no authority over projects. It has been a one sided employment market for a long time. It is time for a raise. It is time for the corporations to institute hiring incentives, training programs, bonuses and programs that keep the engineers in house.

Point 2: If today’s graduates are not ready to step into entry level possitions with a legitamate corporation, the university should loose its accreditation. Blaming the student will not due. More of the same failed policy wont due. Fixing the problem withing the University is the only solution. The sooner the professor realized that he/she is part of the prolem, the sooner we can start working toward a solution. Get rid of the liberal indoctronation courses, straighten out class scheduling, weed out bad proffesors and try teaching instead of beating the student over the head with the subject matter. Oh, and you might try recruiting your traditional student base instead of putting 100% of your recruiting efforts into woman and minority candidates.

David, Structural Engineer, at 8:25 am EDT on August 9, 2006