SLIDE 1 (blank)

Hello.

I'm pleased to be here today, to get a chance to discuss some 
pretty interesting and important ideas in engineering education.  

SLIDE 2 (title)

I'll try to present some perspective on how electrical and computer 
engineering education could change in the coming years.

Let's think about what the engineer of the future will be doing, 
and then use that information to design our educational programs.

And to do that let's be guided by our history, by looking at what 
engineers have been expected to do over the decades.  Let's start 
back when electrical engineering itself was just being defined.  
About a hundred years ago (116 years to be exact).

If I had to pick one event to symbolize the start of electrical 
engineering, it would be what might seem an unlikely choice.

The time is the year 1893, the place is Chicago, and the event 
is the World's Columbian Exposition, in honor of the arrival of 
Columbus in America four hundred years earlier.

SLIDE 3 (Images, Chicago fair)

The World's Columbian Exposition celebrated American civilization.  
It was enlightening.  It was entertaining.  It was exciting.

The most modern technology was there!  People got breathtaking 
views while riding up an enormous wheel that had been designed 
by a civil engineer from RPI named George Ferris.

But the big hit was not mechanical.  The fair was wired with 
electric power.  The grounds and buildings had electric lights.  
The exhibits in the Electricity Building showed everyone what to 
expect in the future.

Literally and figuratively, there was electricity in the air.  
This event pointed to the coming age of electricity.

SLIDE 4 (Images, electrical devices)

The five important electrical achievements of that day were 
all shown: telegraph, telephone, illumination, motors, and the 
power grid.

But note:  These advances were not made by electrical engineers.  
They were made by famous American inventors -- Morse, Davenport, 
Bell, and Edison, aided by scientists such as Henry.  There were 
no electrical engineers at that time.

No engineers?  Why not?  It's very simple.  

Professions are defined by their educational programs.  If you 
wonder what civil engineers do, look at how they are trained.  
What can you expect of a nurse?  Look at nursing degree programs.

In 1893 EE degree programs had only just started.

SLIDE 5 (No Electrical Engineers?)

The first was set up by Physics professor Charles Cross of MIT 
in 1882.  Others sprung up in the next ten years, and Electrical 
Engineering departments were formed at several universities.  One 
of the earliest of those was at the University of Wisconsin.

Then, as now, students could sniff out fields with a bright future.  
The MIT enrollment data shown on the right is typical -- almost 
immediately the new EE programs were immensely popular.

This, then, was the beginning of Electrical Engineering.  Call it 
Version 1.

SLIDE 6 (Since then)

Today I will identify four eras of electrical engineering, 
calling them Version 1, Version 2, Version 3, and Version 4.  
Each was initiated by some crisis.  After it started people 
recognized a new context, and new things that engineers could 
do.  As a result, degree programs had to be changed.  Each 
version, then, had its crisis, its context, its roles, and its 
degree programs.

We are now in Version 3, and should be planning for Version 4.

SLIDE 7 (Dugald Jackson)

The person who best articulated what was expected of these new 
engineers, and therefore what their degree programs should be 
like, was the young department head at Wisconsin, Dugald Jackson.

Jackson attended the Chicago Columbian Exposition, and while 
there was one of the founders of SPEE, the Society for the 
Promotion of Engineering Education (now known as ASEE).

Jackson, as perhaps you can tell from this later photograph, was 
a stern, no-nonsense type of person who did not suffer fools 
gladly.  But he did think clearly.  Some of his ideas had to do 
with how engineers should differ from other technical people.

SLIDE 8 (Jackson's Vision: EE 1 Roles)

Jackson knew and appreciated both scientists and technicians, 
but said engineers should be different.  Their unique role was 
to invent new techniques, when needed, using known science.  
The scientists would provide the science, and both technicians 
and engineers would exploit the technology.

SLIDE 9 (JacksonŐs Context Assumptions)

In thinking about Jackson's vision, I realized that he made 
some critical assumptions, valid at the time, about electrical 
engineering.  First, since the profession was new, he had to 
take science as it was, and serve society as it was.  He didn't 
dare try to change either.  Engineers, in other words, should 
not be leaders of society, though they could and should be 
technical leaders.  Second, he assumed that both society and 
science would be essentially the same at the end of a graduate's 
career as at the beginning.  That is, they would change only 
slowly over a 40-year period, and therefore could be considered 
as constants, not variables.  And the society he had in mind was 
that of America.

Jackson's curriculum ideas are a joy to read today.  The very 
first item in his list was training in speaking and writing.  
He railed against things that he considered a waste of time, 
such as the beauties of nature, science without engineering 
relevance, and contemporary but short-lived techniques.

His was practical education, make no mistake.  But not one 
focused on immediate employment.  He prepared his students 
for a full 40-year career as a practicing engineer.

SLIDE 10 (EE 1 Program)

Jackson only needed one degree program, the B.S.  It was not 
liberal arts.  It was vocational.  Wisconsin was a strong 
general university and if he had wanted, Jackson could have 
designed an engineering program as a form of, or one that 
followed, a liberal arts program.  But he didn't.  Then he 
left Wisconsin in 1907 and came to MIT, which was not, then 
or now, a general university.  This move confirmed his 
position that engineering education should be vocational.

Jackson's educational model worked well, producing graduates 
with potential for technical leadership, until his assumptions 
were no longer true.  That happened during World War II.

SLIDE 11 (1940 - The Science Crisis)

The War effort exposed a weakness in Jackson's assumptions.  
Radar and the atomic bomb required new technology, and Jackson 
would have expected engineers to be the technical leaders.  
However, they also required new science.  The science that 
engineers learned in college was not enough, or was not right.  
Science was no longer constant over a 40-year period.  And it 
was easier for scientists to start thinking like engineers, 
than the other way around.

Jackson had educated engineers to be technical leaders.  
The fact that this did not happen constituted a crisis in 
engineering education.

SLIDE 12 (Images, Brown)

Many people noticed this problem, some did something about it, 
and one of the most effective was Gordon Brown.  After the war 
he found himself on the MIT faculty, in a position to shake 
things up.

SLIDE 13 (Changed Context - 1950)

The changed context can be summarized in this over-simplified 
slide.  What is new is shown in yellow; what is unchanged is 
less prominent, in light blue.  Note that half of Jackson's 
assumptions were still valid, those dealing with society.  But 
half were not.

Of course Brown was not the only person to notice this.  He 
and other like-minded educators concluded that engineering 
would require new sciences in the future, and engineers 
should be the ones to maintain them.  Not all engineers, 
but those who could be trained to do scientific research.

SLIDE 14 (Brown's Vision: EE 2 Roles)

So a new role was added for engineers (shown in yellow).  
The term "engineering science" meant those advances in science 
motivated by engineering needs.  Some engineers would create 
the new sciences, and make them available for other, practicing 
engineers who would keep learning after graduation.

SLIDE 15 (EE 2 Programs)

America's educational programs were redesigned to meet the need.  
Doctoral programs were started or expanded.  Undergraduate education 
continued but incorporated more science and even research to show 
students how to pick things up on their own after graduation.

This model, Version 2, prevailed for many years.  Lots of new 
technologies found their way into the curriculum.  There were two 
different degree programs, one leading to a career of practice, and 
the other for teaching and research.

This was truly a golden age for electrical engineering.  We were 
in charge of our own technical destiny.  This is the era in which 
most of us in this room started our careers.

SLIDE 16 (1990 - The Scope Crisis)

But nothing good lasts forever.  Electrical engineering by 
tradition never lets new fields get away, so the body of knowledge 
that practicing engineering needed kept growing and growing.  
Things were changing faster and faster.  Industry wanted engineers 
who knew the latest stuff, and industrial experience was not 
enough because it was the universities who had the new knowledge.

SLIDE 17 (Changed Context - 1990)

So the context changed.  Again changed items are shown in yellow.  
Engineers, including those in practice, were surrounded by new 
sciences and technologies.  And they were expected to know them.

SLIDE 18 (EECS 3 Roles)

Otherwise the roles of engineers were no different.  They 
were still practice and research.

This may sound like a small change but it was serious for us.

Our graduates needed greater breadth.  And technical depth.  
We had to retain the things that supported a 40-year career.  
Our curricula were already stuffed full.  Something had to give.  

But then a strange thing happened.  In essence, our students 
took control of the evolution of engineering education.  They 
found that to be practicing engineers they needed education 
beyond the B.S.  Their employers agreed.  Master's degree 
programs became popular, and industry paid the bill.  

This happened without much effort from us educators.  But make 
no mistake, the crisis was real, and the remedy had a 
substantial effect on engineering education.

Different universities reacted in different ways.  Some started 
paying more attention to their Master's degrees, and stopped 
thinking of them as consolation prizes for failing doctoral 
students.  Some beefed up their on-line or TV courses, aiming 
these at working engineers.  My own department declared the 
Master's degree our flagship program, needed for practice, and 
put in a streamlined five-year program.  The result of all this 
is that the Master's degree is now the terminal degree of choice, 
needed by practicing engineers.

Recently some people have been asking whether the First Professional 
Degree should be a Bachelor's or Master's.  For example, this was 
brought up in The Institute, an IEEE publication, last September.

SLIDE 19 (IEEE image)

It seems to me a little bizarre to be debating that point.  The 
question has already been answered.  Now it is only a matter 
of the educational establishment catching up to reality.

SLIDE 20 (EECS 3 Programs)

The result was a realignment of the degrees and their objectives.  
There are now three kinds of electrical engineers.  Those who want 
careers as practicing engineers eventually need a Master's.  Those 
seeking careers in teaching or research get a doctorate, as before.  
The third kind of engineer is one with foundational pre-engineering 
education but not enough for practice.  They are qualified for 
entry level industrial positions, and also to continue toward other 
types of careers, for example medicine, law, management, or public 
service.  You may not want to call them engineers, but after all 
they are our graduates; we are educating them.

Not all universities support all three levels today, just as many 
do not have doctoral programs.  However, many do.

But before the engineering community has even had a chance to 
adjust to the new reality of EECS 3, another crisis is upon us.

SLIDE 21 (Today - Society's Crisis)

The current crisis affects more than just the engineering community.  
Until now the context for educating electrical engineers that I 
have been showing you has always been that society changes 
slowly (compared to 40 years).  Today it is clear that society 
and its institutions are changing much more rapidly.  Why?

Electrical engineering products and processes are found everywhere 
in America and in the world.  The most obvious examples are 
computers, cell phones, the Internet, and embedded electronics in 
all sorts of products.  If any major part of any society changes 
rapidly, then that society must itself change rapidly.  This is 
what is happening both in America and worldwide.

Note that societies are not as nimble as we engineers.  We can 
adapt to changes more easily than either the public or the other 
major institutions of society.  The leaders of society are having 
trouble in this new context because most have no technical 
training and cannot anticipate the effects of new technology.  
This is true in America and many other countries, though there may 
be some exceptions such as Germany and China.

The question for us:  Is there anything we can do to help?  
Funny you should ask.

SLIDE 22 (Leaders in American Society)

Traditionally the leaders of American and worldwide society 
have been graduates of general education, Liberal Arts, rather 
than vocational programs.  There are good reasons for this.  
Liberal Arts is really preparation for citizenship, rather than 
preparation for a career.  The best of those with a general 
education can be outstanding citizens and go on to leadership 
positions in society.  For them, knowing a little about a lot 
of things is much better than knowing a lot about a few things.  
Even the very best of those with vocational training cannot 
compete to provide national leadership.

People drawn to general education are often those who do not 
have aptitude for science and engineering.  Since specialists 
usually make more money than generalists, kids who love math 
and science in high school get steered toward specialized, 
technical education rather than Liberal Arts.  That's good for 
them but not necessarily good for society.

SLIDE 23 (Today's Context)

So here is the context for engineering education today.  Society 
is no longer constant, but is changing rapidly.  And its changes 
are not taking advantage of the technical talent available.  In 
some cases well meaning leaders institute changes that are not 
effective because they don't understand the technology well enough.  
This gives our graduates an opportunity.

SLIDE 24 (EECS 4 Roles)

Here is my thinking of what the engineer in the future should do.  
All of our graduates, whatever careers they follow, will need to 
adapt to changes in society.  But in addition we should educate at 
least some of our students so they can help society cope with the 
onslaught of technology.

To do that, they need a liberal arts, not vocational, education.  
Here is some speculation about how that can be done.

SLIDE 25 (Possible EECS 4)

This slide shows one additional degree program.  What it does not 
show, equally important, is how the other programs should be 
adapted to allow the graduates to view their societal context as 
variable rather than constant.

This is a long list of degrees.  It is probably not possible 
for any department to offer all without help.  There are many 
ways to implement a B.A. program and it is not clear which if 
any will actually be effective.  But it seems to be a job worth 
doing because it would allow technological knowledge to inform 
public decisions.

SLIDE 26 (Possible Program Models)

We could spend an hour talking about the relative advantages 
and disadvantages of these (and other) degree proram models.

No. 1 has been historically the most common model for American
engineering programs.  But remember that it is no longer 
adequate for a career.  How should it be altered to serve its 
new purpose, and what is that purpose.  Remember that many, 
perhaps most students with a B.S.E.E. degree do not practice 
engineering for 40 years any more.  Careers are more flexible.  

No. 2 was tried some years ago and did not succeed, perhaps 
because it cost more and the student did not get a second 
degree, or perhaps because it was before its time.

No. 3 is the most common model in use today, even if not 
always acknowledged.

No. 4 has inherent advantages over No. 3 for students who want 
to pursue their Master's at the same university.

The next four are ways of equipping students for the new role 
of society leadership.  I am personally fond of No. 5 
(3 years at a Liberal Arts institution, followed by 2 at a 
technical university, with both Bachelor's degrees awarded 
after 5 years).  I started my own higher education with that 
as a goal, though I eventually converted to No. 6.

No. 7 is interesting.  That is the model currently used for 
education in medicine and law.  Doctors and lawyers often play 
leadership roles in society.  Their B.A. degree gives them 
a general education and they add on a specialty.  Could a 
similar thing work for engineers?  Why not?

There are several ways of doing No. 8.  One involves offering 
engineering as a major in a B.A. program.  Another involves 
introducing more science and engineering for all majors.  
They all involve partnerships with people who can teach the 
Liberal Arts part.  These partners could be at the same 
institution or elsewhere.

Let me suggest that you use this list to help organize your 
thoughts.  Which of these degree programs or sequences do you 
support now?  Which could you offer by yourself?  Which could 
you offer with help from others, and who might help you?  In 
other words, think about what you regard as your mission, your 
market niche.

If you are interested in any of No. 5 through No. 8, you 
have to think about what should be the features of a B.A. 
program in today's global environment.  Remember that the 
purpose of a Liberal Arts program is to prepare people for 
citizenship.  How much science and technology do they need?

SLIDE 27 (Summary, Roles of Engineers)

This chart wraps up my message.  Over the years society has 
expected more and more from our graduates.  Are we going to 
be able to educate at least some of them for each of these 
roles?  What part of this endeavor do you want your 
department to play?

Thank you for your attention.

SLIDE 28 (Engineering Education Models)

SLIDE 29 (blank)