There is strong interest in broadening engineering education, bringing in more liberal arts content as well as additional subjects such as economics, business and law, with which engineers now have to be familiar. There are also cogent arguments for balancing against what is now the almost exclusively quantitative nature of the curriculum, adding more elements that relate to the actual practice of engineering, and structuring engineering education so as to provide multiple and later entry points, which should enable more informed career choices and make engineering attractive to a more diverse range of the population. Many have also sought a change in the level of the professional engineering degree from the bachelor‟s to the graduate level, which would logically, and probably also necessarily, accompany these changes. However, progress towards such changes in the United States has been marginal, in large part because incentives on the micro- and meso-scales do not match those on the macro-scale. On the other hand, there is much more substantial change in other countries, driven in part by the Bologna process. For the United States to be the last to change would be counter to the goal of retaining higher-functioning engineering jobs in the U. S. What needs to happen in order for the U. S. to change is evaluated.

C. Judson King
Publication date: 
October 1, 2011
Publication type: 
Research and Occasional Papers Series (ROPS)
RESTRUCTURING ENGINEERING EDUCATION:Why, How and When? by C. Judson King. CSHE.12.11 (October 2011)