In a world where intellectual capital more often equates with monetary wealth, engineers wield substantial influence. In a world where technology shapes the outcome of illness, travel, communication, farming and more, engineers exert far-reaching control. Therefore, engineering educators have an awesome responsibility providing the inventors and leaders for the 21st century.

          Leaders of top engineering colleges and universities include many of UT's graduates. What are their goals, their challenges, their reasons for optimism? Here, six of them detail the most compelling issues facing the education of the next generation of engineers.

          During the change of centuries, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) named the top 20 engineering feats of the 20th century. That list is available at www.nae.edu, along with great write-ups on each achievement. Besides obvious breakthroughs such as the airplane, radio, telephone, and computers, there are some only an engineer would guess.

          The NAE points out that widespread electrification of our cities, factories, farms, and homes forever changed our lives. Household appliances allow more people to work outside the home. Civil engineers gave us clean water, thereby virtually eliminating waterborne diseases that plagued our ancestors. Agricultural mechanization allows a single farmer to feed more than 100 of us, and refrigeration has brought all of us fresh food wherever we live.

          The message is clear-most of what we associate with modern life was created by engineers. Still, young people think of engineers as driving trains or sitting in cubicles doing boring work. As a result, bright and talented young people are turned off to engineering before they enter college. Unless we solve this communication problem, we will continue to educate about half the engineers needed in the United States.

          This is a serious problem for our nation. The College of Engineering at UT Austin has numerous outreach programs for kindergarten through 12th grade students, as do most engineering colleges. But we need your help. I challenge all of our UT alumni to tell young people about engineering, using your contacts through schools, churches, and civic organizations. Working together, engineers can solve this problem.

          Dean Streetman, a member of the National Academy of Engineering since 1987, this year was elected to membership in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, joining the ranks of America's foremost political and business leaders, poets, entertainers and scientists.

Dr. C. Roland Haden 
Ph.D.E.E. '65
Dean, Texas A&M University Dwight Look College of Engineering

          My greatest concern for engineering education is now essentially the same as it was in the middle of the '90s: there is a danger of dramatic declines in federal support of engineering research. To paraphrase my editorial (1) of 1995, "If proposed appropriations hold, almost every federal R&D budget will see dramatic cuts...In years passed, support was reasonably balanced between applied and basic...engineering schools typically do the bulk of R&D that is mid-term, between basic and applied...without this, a "disconnect" will result which could be fatal to our nation's economic health."

          Fortunately, the dramatic scope of the cuts was avoided in the 1990s, and in some areas, modest growth occurred. Even so, a recent National Research Council Report (2) shows that many areas suffered over the 1990s, with essential fields like mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, and chemical engineering down by over 35 percent in constant dollars. Essential physical sciences like chemistry, physics, and math were down by 15-25 percent. Support of the life sciences, on the other hand, grew dramatically.

          We now face a significant imbalance, between engineering and the physical sciences on the one hand and the life sciences on the other. Already the life sciences account for 46 percent of federal research and development funds, compared to 31 percent for engineering and the physical sciences combined! There are proposals to double the budget of National Institutes of Health in the five years from 2000 to 2004. This effort is already underway, and in lean budget times it will come at the expense of engineering and the physical sciences.

          We all desire good health and want the life sciences to prosper. In fact, engineering schools participate broadly in such research. This current imbalance, however, is fraught with danger to our nation and to its engineering schools, which have provided so much progress through federally funded research. From my 1995 editorial, "this is particularly damaging to high-tech industry...it was built largely by university research...it is sustained by the flow of outstanding engineering students, produced by the research universities."

          Can this funding imbalance be good for our nation? Can our economy grow if we have fewer engineers and physical scientists? I think NOT...not if we are to enjoy the economic health required to pay for the very imbalance by which it is threatened!

(1) C. Roland Haden, editorial, Houston Chronicle, October 20, 1995.
(2) "Trends in Federal Support of Research and Graduate Education," National Research Council, July, 2001.

Dr. David Daniel 
B.S.C.E., '72; Ph.D.C.E. '80
Dean, University of Illinois College of Engineering

          The most significant challenge facing engineering education today is broadening the appeal of engineering to women and underrepresented groups. Engineering is still a profession dominated by white males. If we do not change this fundamental characteristic of the profession, we risk trivializing the profession. What kind of profession is truly valuable (and valued) if it only embraces a minority of the population? How can engineers effectively tackle all of society's challenges if problems and potential solutions are cast only from one perspective? The reason why all engineers should encourage diversity is simple: diverse groups of engineers make better engineers.

          The medical and legal professions have enjoyed much greater success in reaching out to women and minorities than has the engineering profession. But doctors and lawyers have had the benefit of prime-time television shows that make it abundantly clear to the youngest of children that these professions welcome women and people of color. Where do young people get their images of the engineering profession? Movies like "Apollo 13" may be riveting in their drama, but they depict sameness in engineers. We will not get any help from the media. Thus, the burden for effecting change is ours. Let us professionals and educators work together to tell our story to young boys and girls, and to people of all colors, and show how the art and science of engineering can be used to elevate the human experience.

          Dr. Daniel was elected to membership in the National Academy of Engineering last year.

Dr. Carl E. Locke, Jr. 
B.S.Ch.E., Ph.D.Ch.E. '72
Dean, School of Engineering, University of Kansas

          Engineering education in the United States is arguably the best in the world. One of the strong factors in that success is the accreditation standards set by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). Presently ABET has changed criteria and processes in a system called EC-2000. In the new system, each program sets goals and objectives for curriculum and courses, and then an ABET accreditation team determines if the program is meeting those goals and objectives. The standard practices of continuous improvement are to be used for courses and curricula using inputs from various constituencies (students, faculty, industry, etc.). In addition, the new system places stronger emphasis on professional skills (often called soft skills) like teamwork, communication, ethics, lifelong learning, etc.

          These new criteria and processes, in my opinion, are good. They will result in some different, innovative programs, and will force engineering educators to continually improve what we do. It is important that we provide our students with more than technical background, and EC-2000 will force us to do that.

          It has been taken for granted that these new criteria will not diminish the technical competency of graduates. However, if we are not careful in how we apply the new criteria and the process for accreditation, we may encounter unforeseen consequences. It is imperative that industry representatives remain in close contact with engineering institutions and contribute their expert advice.

          We need to be sure we keep U.S. engineering education the best in the world and carefully monitor the long-term results of the new accreditation criteria and process.

Dr. Bill Carroll
B.S.E.E. '64; M.S.E.E. '66; Ph.D.E.E. '69 
Dean, UT Arlington College of Engineering

          Engineering education has changed in many ways since my undergraduate days at UT. Saturday classes, 145-hour curricula, and the slide rule are relics of the past, having fallen victim to budget pressures, lifestyle changes, and technological advances. Today's curricula, while maintaining a strong engineering design component built on solid technical fundamentals, also include communication skills, team activities, and other non-technical issues. Thus, we believe, we are producing more rounded engineers who can better adapt to and improve their professional and personal environments.

          One of the challenges faced by engineering educators is attracting the best and brightest young men and women to careers in engineering. To meet industry needs, we must reach out to individuals of diverse backgrounds and cultures, excite them about the profession, challenge them technically, and instill in them an understanding of the impact of engineering on today's world. This nurturing must begin in our nation's junior and senior high schools and continue throughout the students' years under our guidance and instruction.

          Another challenge is finding the engineering educators of the future. Fewer and fewer of our baccalaureate graduates are continuing for the Ph.D., and fewer of the ones who do, choose academe as a career. We must reverse these trends and attract more engineers from industry if engineering colleges are to have the necessary faculty resources available to give students a quality education such as I received at UT.

          As educators provide an increased awareness of the issues to leaders of industry and government, I'm optimistic that we, as a profession, can meet these challenges. I'm also encouraged by the dedication and resourcefulness I continue to see in engineering students and faculty members. Engineering is still one of the most demanding and rewarding majors that a student may choose.

Dr. William Walker
B.S.A.S.E. '60; M.S.A.S.E. '61 
President, Auburn University

          I believe public institutions must re-think our philosophy of public versus private funding. As president of Auburn University, I believe Auburn must join other bold institutions in becoming privately-funded public universities.

          Auburn's College of Engineering took on a new luster in February of this year when a true visionary, Sam Ginn, made a decision to give back to his alma mater.

          Sam made a generous $25 million gift to the Auburn College of Engineering and promised to head up a campaign to raise another $150 million for the College. I met Sam in my second year as dean of engineering at Auburn, and I immediately recognized why he has achieved such success in wireless communications. He is the type of person people love to have as a boss. Our grateful board of trustees has named the Auburn University College of Engineering, the Samuel L. Ginn College of Engineering.

          I believe Sam's generosity exemplifies a new era of funding for Auburn University. Other universities have moved in the same direction. With public support of higher education waning, we must take control of our own financial destiny.