Global Cologuium on Engineering Education

You may or may not have noticed that I missed class last week.  I was in Singapore, attending the ASEE sponsored Global Coloquium on Engineering Education.  (I had this wonderful opportunity because I was presenting a poster.)  I thought I'd post some of my reflections and recollections of the conference as they relate to the questions we are considering in class right now, namely "what is engineering?" and "what is engineering education?"  You might guess that this conference directly addressed some of these topics, and you'd be right.  But not from a philosophically rooted arguement.  It was more from a "this is what I believe" perspective.  And that's really what made the following comments quite interesting.

Ibrahim Yaacob, the Minister of the Environment and Water Resources, Singapore, said, "Engineering doesn't exist for its own sake, but for the sake of society."

Richard Miller, president of Olin College, talked about the need for a liberal education for engineers.  Justifying this need, he said, was the need to have engineers who:

1. Minimize unintended consequences of engineered solutions
2. Are system architects of complex systems comprised of technology, economics, politics, social and religious considerations
3. Conceive, create, and manage technology.

Dr. Miller also said that the typical engineering and science curriculum focused primarily on the concepts embedded in Feasibility.  He said the typical business and economics curriculum focused primarily on the concepts embedded in Viabilily.  And he said the typical psychology, arts, and humanities curriculum focused on the concepts embedded in Desireability.  He then suggested that true innovation is at the center of all three of those domains (Feasibility, Viability, Desireability).  He said that an engineer is one who envisions what has never been and does whatever it takes to bring it to reality.

Al Soyster, from the National Science Foundation, and a former dean of engineering, asked the question:  Should engineering education be for professional preparation or an academic discipline.

Xavier Fouger, of Dassault Systems (the makers of Catia software) said of a particular artifact, "it was engineered; it was deliberate."  I can only infer from his statement that he believes that engineering implies a deliberateness, an intentionality.

Chandrakant Patel, an HP Senior Fellow at HP Labs suggested that the engineering curriculum should include the broadest definition of economic, social and environmental spheres, which he called the "triple bottom line."  He said that engineers need to operate at the intersection of these three spheres.

Paul Gilbert, CEO of Quanser Consulting was the last speaker.  He had a very interesting quote with regard to the need for experiential learning in engineering education.  He said, "You can't have a platonic relationship with engineering."  He said that basic engineering skills (which he did not define) are a commodity, and as such, can be outsourced.  He said that solutions to today's problems will require pervasive technology, are tightlly coupled, complex issues which require systems level thinking, and will require an environmental focus.  He suggested that engineering education should include education on the following:

• world events
• policy developments
• legislation
• culture and communication
• world economic trends
• commercial realities
• complex systems
• practical experiences

You can see that some of the quotes/ideas that I have chosen to highlight are connected to each other and to some of the ideas we've been discussing in class.  Most of them talked about the economic realities that need to be considered.  Many discussed complexity, and how engineering must now be interwoven with society and societal needs.