Georgia Institute of Technology. 171. 5.6.1. Interdisciplinary research centers. 171 ... âMasteryâ to provide engineers with a more holistic education. 189. 5.8.
Christian Bodmer Andrea Leu Lukas Mira Heinz Rütter
SPINE
Successful Practices in International Engineering Education
Final Report May 2002
Benchmarking Study
Partner Universities g g g g g g g g g g
Carnegie Mellon University Ecole Centrale Paris Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich Georgia Institute of Technology Imperial College London Kungl Tekniska Högskolan Stockholm Massachusetts Institute of Technology Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen Technische Universiteit Delft
Initial Partners g g
Engineers Shape our Future Rat der Eidgenössischen Technischen Hochschulen (ETH-Rat)
SPINE Successful Practices in International Engineering Education Christian Bodmer Andrea Leu Lukas Mira Heinz Rütter
CREDITS
Initial Partners
Engineers Shape our Future (INGCH), Zurich, Switzerland Rat der Eidgenössischen Technischen Hochschulen (ETH-Rat), Zurich, Switzerland SPINE Partner Universities
Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), Pittsburgh, USA Ecole Centrale Paris (ECP), Paris, France Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich (ETHZ), Zurich, Switzerland Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech), Atlanta, USA Imperial College (IC), London, UK Kungl Tekniska Högskolan Stockholm (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, USA Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen (RWTH Aachen), Aachen, Germany Technische Universiteit Delft (TU Delft), Delft, the Netherlands Authors
Dr. Christian Bodmer, Transfer Center for Technology Management, Universität St. Gallen Dr. Andrea Leu, Senarclens Leu + Partner - concert group, Zurich Dr. Heinz Rütter, Lukas Mira, Rütter + Partner - concert group, Rüschlikon Project collaborators: Adrian Berwert, Janine Blattner, Michael Landolt, Nicole Mauchle Members Assembly of Delegates Dr. Stephan Bieri (President, ETH-Rat) Prof. John Anderson (CMU), Prof. Daniel Grimm (ECP), Marina de Senarclens (INGCH), Prof. Dominique de Werra (EPFL), Prof. Walter Schaufelberger (ETHZ), Prof. Jean-Lou Chameau (Georgia Tech), Prof. Chris Hankin (IC), Prof. Anders Eriksson (KTH), Prof. Dick Yue (MIT), Prof. K. F. Wakker (TU Delft), Werner Weber (RWTH Aachen). Members Steering Committee Georges-André Grin (Chairman until June 2000, ETH-Rat), Prof. Konrad Osterwalder (Chairman since June 2000, ETHZ), Prof. John Anderson (CMU), Marina de Senarclens (INGCH), Anton Demarmels (INGCH), Prof. Martin Hasler (EPFL), Prof. Walter Schaufelberger (ETHZ), Prof. Jan van Katwijk (TU Delft) Project members of SPINE Partner Universities Dr. Herma G. Büttner (TU Delft), Dr. Ruediger Schmidt (RWTH Aachen), Prof. Bill Wakeham (IC) Project Team Dr. Christoph Grolimund (chair, ETH-Rat), Dr. Christian Bodmer, Dr. Andrea Leu, Dr. Heinz Rütter Official Consultant Heidrick & Struggles, Zürich Translation Melanie Fletcher, Peter Grimshaw © Initial partners: Engineers Shape our Future, Zurich and Rat der Eidgenössischen Technischen Hochschulen (ETH-Rat), Zurich
CONTENTS
Contents Preface
9
Daniel Grimm, Ecole Centrale Paris John L. Anderson, Carnegie Mellon University
9 11
Executive Summary
13
1.
15
Summary
1.1
University structure
15
1.2
Education / Internationality
16
1.3
Cooperation with universities / industry
18
1.4
Performance of engineers
19
1.5
Reputation of universities
20
2.
Project Description
21
2.1
Partners and project organization
21
2.2
Objectives
22
2.3
Benchmarking and successful practices
23
2.4
Methodology
23
3.
Partner Universities
27
3.1
Carnegie Mellon University
27
3.2
Ecole Centrale Paris
30
3.3
Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
33
3.4
Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich
36
3.5
Georgia Institute of Technology
39
3.6
Imperial College
42
3.7
Kungl Tekniska Högskolan Stockholm
45
3.8
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
48
3.9
Rheinisch - Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen
51
3.10
Technische Universiteit Delft
54
4. 4.1
Surveys Professors, Engineers, Managers Introduction and methodology
57 57
4.1.1
Questionnaires and feedback
57
4.1.2
Evaluation
61
4.2
General findings
62
4.3
Education / Internationality
64
4.3.1
Quality of education
64
4.3.2
Job-related experience during studies
76
4.3.3
Teaching methods
77
4.3.4
Learning environment
80
4.4 4.4.1
Cooperation Cooperation with other universities
84 84
CONTENTS
4.4.2
Cooperation with industry
87
4.4.3
Benefits of cooperation
91
Performance of engineers
92
4.5 4.5.1
Engineering competences
4.5.2
General professional competences
4.6
Reputation
92 101 110
4.6.1
Important aspects for the reputation of universities
110
4.6.2
Reputation of universities
114
4.7 5. 5.1
Additional Results Successful Practices Introduction and methodology
118 123 123
5.1.1
Overview of topics
123
5.1.2
Methodology
125
5.2
Carnegie Mellon University
126
5.2.1
Introduction to engineering courses in parallel with ma-thematics and science
126
5.2.2
Broad undergraduate studies with high flexibility for students
128
5.2.3
Cross-disciplinary approach and team projects
131
5.3
Ecole Centrale Paris
135
5.3.1
Restructuring of final year: combination of professional and scientific approach
135
5.3.2
Implementation of long-term strategy for internationality
139
5.3.3
Strong links with industry in funding, teaching, and research
144
5.3.4
Integration of non-core competences and human sciences
150
5.4
Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
153
5.4.1
Internationalization in research and education
153
5.4.2
Focus on basic sciences in combination with strong links to industry
156
5.4.3
Integration of new, important topic areas in engineering curricula
159
5.5
Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich
161
5.5.1
Cosmopolitan and very international composition of faculty
161
5.5.2
Well defined internal and external evaluation system
163
5.5.3
Mechanical Engineering: strong focus on project orientation
168
5.6
Georgia Institute of Technology
171
5.6.1
Interdisciplinary research centers
171
5.6.2
Strong entrepreneurial program
174
5.6.3
Excellent distance learning / Distance education program
179
5.7
Imperial College London
184
5.7.1
Integration of project and teamwork into curriculum
184
5.7.2
WISE (Women in Science and Engineering) program to attract female students
187
5.7.3
“Mastery” to provide engineers with a more holistic education
189
5.8
Kungl Tekniska Högskolan Stockholm
192
5.8.1
Integration of lectures, exercises, and teaching of non-core competences
192
5.8.2
Creation of international master programs
194
5.8.3
High level of interdisciplinarity
198
CONTENTS
5.9
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
200
5.9.1
Successful quality assurance by external Visiting Committees (VC)
200
5.9.2
Innovative way of creating new units
203
5.9.3
Education: Broad, fundamental, yet practical
205
5.10
Rheinisch - Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen
208
5.10.1
High number of interdisciplinary activities and research areas
208
5.10.2
High involvement of students in research
212
5.10.3
Students with broad view and deep fundamental knowledge
215
5.11
Technische Universiteit Delft
220
5.11.1
International MSc Program
220
5.11.2
Elaborate external and internal quality management
224
5.11.3
Highly innovative program in Electrical Engineering
227
6.
Final Remarks (Stephan Bieri, CEO ETH Board)
233
APPENDIX A: Data Collection (Facts and Figures)
235
APPENDIX B: Listing of Potentially Valuable Practices (PVP)
257
Table of figures Abbreviations Participating firms Partner universities
PREFACE
9
Preface Daniel Grimm, Ecole Centrale Paris
The project initiated by our Swiss partners to compare engineering education around the world is all the more praiseworthy as it is the first time that such an enterprise is undertaken. Generally, comparisons between higher education institutions are based on research performance, research being the main concern for faculty as it drives their academic career. The way information has been extensively collected by varied groups of persons, professors, alumni and companies, ensures a comprehensive view of our institutions. This is very valuable for us not only for the comparison aspect, but also to gain knowledge of our own image through a neutral structure. Moreover, this initiative occurs at the right time. Everywhere, there are discussions about all aspects of globalisation, and governments are trying to set rules aiming at lowering the obstacles to student exchanges. Education, together with its higher education dimension, is a long-term process, going from the age of 3 in kindergarten to the age of 24 or more, with variations from one country to the other. The duration of 21 years is clearly out of the time scale of any government! Thus, the construction of a higher education system is more the result of history and social behaviour in a given country, rather than the result of a governmental policy. This is the reason why there are such differences between educational organisations. The consequence is that each has qualities and weaknesses. So, when a harmonisation process is started across boarders, the problem is to avoid losing the qualities of each through a levelling to the mean or even the lower level. Of the institutions involved in SPINE, eight out of ten are engaged in double degree programmes. This practice of student exchanges is set to enable some graduates to get the best out of two different curricula. In addition, as neither of the degrees is obtained with a lowering of the requirements, the moving student stays a significant amount of time in the foreign country. At the age of twenty, a stay of two years in a foreign country leads to an in-depth acquisition of the local culture, language, way of thinking and system of reference. Our experience also shows that, having done this once, the double degree graduate will be aware of the very existence of cultural gaps, allowing him or her to adapt more easily in any new country. But to succeed, this double degree policy requires certain conditions in the organisation of engineering education. One of them is the progression of knowledge acquisition in the course of studies after secondary education. There are two approaches. One is to start from fundamental sciences before going on to applications, the second is more application oriented from the beginning, leading to an intermediate degree, which is a professional one, before entering a Master’s degree programme with an increase in the scientific and conceptual level. The first approach is the European one, as in Europe the engineering professions are attractive. This induces a population of students quite at ease with an abstract approach and able to learn theories with a conceptual teaching. As the sciences fundamentals are taught generally during the first two years, the studies last five years (on average) and there is no degree before the final degree. To fulfil the needs of industry for engineers with an “applied” profile, there is a second curriculum, starting straight after secondary education and different from the former from the very beginning. The second approach prevails in the United States where long engineering studies are less attractive than law or medical studies. Thus, the first degree is a professional one, adapted to the student audience. With the recent introduction of co-terminal Master programmes, in which the student receives a Bachelor’s and a Master’s degree simultaneously, some leading US universities are now basing their programmes on strong scientific disciplines taught at the very beginning of higher education just like the ones of European technical universities.
10
PREFACE
In Europe, an attempt at harmonisation has been initiated. Its catch phrase, “3-5-8”, means that a first degree would be awarded after a three-year programme of higher education. Then, after a two-year complementary programme, would come a second degree. The end of the system is the doctorate with a standard duration of three years of research full-time. If it were to become compulsory for the first degree to be a professional degree, it would entail a fundamental change for the European institutions. Industry would no longer find the conceptual engineers it needs to develop new fields and to manage complex trans-disciplinary projects as in aerospace for example. But if the first degree is just a milestone on the way to the present degree awarded by the European institutions involved in SPINE, then, our differences will remain a plus. The SPINE report has identified Successful Practices among the partner institutions, enabling each institution to adopt and adapt the most relevant practices fruitfully. The world is more and more reliant on technologies, but they are not readily accepted by the public at large: energy production induces greenhouse effect, Internet enables intrusions in our privacy, biotechnology is changing the essence of life itself, chemistry is linked with pollution. It is of the utmost importance that entrepreneurs be aware of the necessity to explain the benefit of their application. The engineer will have to be both a builder and an educator. Thanks to SPINE, decisive step has been taken.
PREFACE
11
Preface John L. Anderson, Carnegie Mellon University
The challenge of engineering education is to simultaneously prepare students for their first job and their career 25 years later. As the proverb goes, it’s not where you start but where you finish. How does the academic enterprise tackle this challenge? First, by realizing it exists. Second, by defining educational goals and then examining the existing curriculum to see where changes are needed. And third, by comparing best practices found among different universities. It takes courage to define desired outcomes in education, and even more so to compare existing practices with desired goals. The engineering academic enterprise is one of the very few disciplines to muster this courage. SPINE – successful practices in international engineering education – is unique in that it injects cultural differences (USA versus Europe) into the mix. Engineering is a blend of technical, problem solving and leadership/communication skills and consequently questions arise when combining these factors. How much of each should be in the curriculum, how should each be taught, and what is the relative emphasis? Should each be taught separately or integrated? Thirty years ago technical skills dominated the teaching agenda, but today all three are acknowledged as important. However, even defining the most important technical skills in a particular sub-discipline, such as mechanical or chemical engineering, is an issue, and the role of science in engineering education is continually debated by educators. The question of diversity within our global engineering community – utilizing the talents of all our citizens – is a fundamental issue that must be addressed if we are to attract the best students into engineering. Certainly the culture of a country affects biases in these areas. This is why SPINE is such an intriguing study. Increasing participation of underrepresented groups in engineering is a generally accepted goal of US universities – is it also so highly valued in Europe? What is the trend in the balance of core (technical skills, problem solving) versus non-core (communication, business, ability to work in teams) education in Europe as compared to the USA? Practical (problem based) versus theoretical (science based)? These questions, and the opportunity to develop an international network of academic colleagues interested in improving engineering education, are the reasons that Carnegie Mellon decided to participate in SPINE. We have not been disappointed. This report provides important data and analysis that illustrate the similarities and differences between the cultures. Because technology and commerce are global, it is important to understand these differences and learn from each other. It is also important to maintain communication and continue such studies, perhaps in a more focused way now that the landscape has been defined. The SPINE project has been very fruitful to me and to Carnegie Mellon not only because of the data and final report, but also because of the international network of colleagues who share our interest in education. We look forward to continuing our relationship with this group and watching it evolve in substantive ways. We should never undervalue the importance of global collegiality. The goal is not to make common our cultures, rather it is to understand, respect and build upon their differences to improve the human state. We have made a step in this direction with SPINE.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
13
Executive Summary SPINE is a benchmarking study of engineering education focusing on successful practices in univer1 sity education in ten leading European and U.S. universities . The main objectives of the project are to evaluate the quality and relevance of engineering education and to identify successful practices, i.e. concepts, methodologies and tools in specific areas of engineering education which have proved successful according to defined criteria. Qualitative and quantitative surveys of the partner universities, of selected departments and professors, of engineering graduates and managers as well as site visits at all ten partner universities result in extensive data on the quality of engineering education combining the internal and external view. All in all, 543 professors, 1372 engineers and 145 managers filled in questionnaires; 66 respondents, including Provosts, Deans and Department Heads at the partner universities were interviewed. The surveys cover the following main topic areas: University Structure, Education, Internationality, Cooperation, Performance of Engineers and Reputation of Universities.
Successful practices From the results of the surveys and interviews 95 potentially valuable practices are identified. 30 of these are analyzed in detail and verified as successful practices. Successful practices aim to initiate a learning process among the participating universities. Successful practices focus on important topical aspects of engineering education such as interdisciplinarity, internationality, links with industry, integration of non-core competentences, evaluation, quality management, attracting female students, integration of new topic areas in engineering curricula etc. Each successful practice is described using a standard raster covering the following aspects: intent, objectives, description, methods, results, level of satisfaction, external view, investments, experience, boundary conditions and future plans.
Results of surveys By surveying various organizational and structural indicators on a uniform basis, a direct comparison of partner universities is possible. Some interesting differences were identified thereby:
The US university structure assigns wide decision-making competences and responsibilities to the President, Provost, Dean and Heads of Departments, while most European universities have a decentralized system ensuring professors a high degree of independence.
The percentage of female students varies widely, and is significantly higher at the American universities (>20%) than in Europe (5-19%).
The partner universities vary considerably in size. The number of students at partner universities (selected departments) range from about 1300 to 7800. Survey results among professors, managers and engineers are particularly interesting with regard to the following aspects:
Professors generally assess the quality of education at their own university higher than engineers do.
1
The SPINE partner universities were: Carnegie Mellon University, Ecole Centrale Paris, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Eigenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich, Georgia Institute of Technology, Imperial College London, Kungl Tekniska Högskolan Stockholm, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen, and Technische Universiteit Delft.
14
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Responses from US university professors and engineers are relatively consistent while the views of European professors and engineers differ widely. Results for Imperial College are often closer to those for US than for European universities.
Assessment levels in the USA and Europe differ considerably in part. Assessments of the own university by American engineers are always significantly higher than those of European engineers. This cultural effect is also apparent to some extent among the professors.
Quality of professors/teaching staff and quality of infrastructure are regarded as the most important criteria of the quality of education. Almost as important for engineers and managers are relevance of education to practices in industry and cooperation with industry, while professors regard the practice-related aspects of education as less important.
More importance is attached in the USA to specialization/depth of education than in Europe, where internationality is regarded as more important.
Professors, engineers and managers regard widely applicable skills (problem-solving skills, analysis/ methodological skills) more important than specific engineering know-how (R&D know-how, specialized engineering proficiency).
Quality of research, quality of programs and success of graduates are considered the most important aspects contributing to the reputation of a technical university. Engineers and managers believe that contacts/collaboration with industry are the most important image forming factors, whereas professors hold merits, awards (e.g. Nobel prize) to be more important. All agree, however, that ranking by the media and continuing education programs are less important.
SUMMARY
1. Summary This benchmarking project of engineering education in the USA and Europe focuses for the first time on successful practices in university education. Ten leading technical universities took part in this study: Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), Ecole Centrale Paris (ECP), Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich (ETHZ), Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech), Imperial College London (Imperial College), Kungl Tekniska Högskolan Stockholm (KTH), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Rheinisch - Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen (RWTH Aachen), and Technische Universiteit Delft (TU Delft). A main objective of the study was to identify successful practices, i.e. concepts, methodologies and tools, in specific areas of engineering education which have proved successful according to defined criteria. Successful practices were identified from the results of qualitative and quantitative questionnaires to the partner universities and departments selected for this study, and from Internet questionnaires to professors, engineering graduates and managers on the quality of engineering education in the ten partner universities. Just as important as the questionnaires for identifying successful practices were on site visits to the partner universities with personal interviews. All in all, 543 professors, 1372 engineers and 145 managers were questioned and the project team interviewed 66 respondents, including Provosts, Deans and Department Heads at all 10 partner universities. Furthermore, 95 potentially valuable practices (PVP) were identified (see appendix B), of which 31 successful practices were verified and analyzed in detail. It is important to bear in mind during analysis and interpretation of these results that some of them are subject to a cultural effect: average ratings in the USA are higher for some items than the European average. This difference is particularly great with regard to explicit assessment of the own university. Summarized below according to topic area, are the quantitative survey results, together with some examples of successful practices identified. A full listing of successful practices is given in chapter 5.
1.1 University structure The structure and organization of the partner universities vary widely. There are differences with regard to patronage (private/public), entrance procedures (strict selection versus wide choice) and tuition fees (high fees versus free study). There are also differences between universities with regard to organization and management. The US university structure assigns wide decision-making competences and responsibilities to the President, Provost, Dean and Heads of Departments, while most European universities have a decentralized system ensuring professors a high degree of independence. Another difference between the 10 partner universities is their size. While, for example, the ECP has only about 1’500 students, Georgia Tech has more than 15’000. The number of professors and lecturers varies accordingly. With regard to
15
16
SUMMARY
the number of students, an interesting demographic aspect is the proportion of women, which while traditionally much lower in engineering than in other disciplines, differs considerably between universities. The proportion of women students at Imperial College in the areas surveyed is 18%, at MIT 27%, while at RWTH Aachen and EPFL it is only 7% and 5% respectively. Despite these quantitative differences and the additional cultural and social effects, all the partner universities have one characteristic in common: they are among the best engineering education institutions in their respective countries, or even the best of all. Successful practices: Imperial College is making great efforts to motivate more women to study science and engineering. Since the mid-eighties, IC has been running so-called WISE (Women in Science and Engineering) courses, which are announced in all 4’700 schools in the UK and are a mixture of sessions with undergraduates, discussions with students and staff members, laboratory work and socializing. As a result, the percentage of female students increased between 1985 and 2001 from 16% to 30% (in all disciplines). Some of the SPINE partner universities have introduced sophisticated quality management systems in order to maintain or continuously improve their high training standards. TU Delft has an elaborate external and internal quality management program which works by conducting intensive discussions. The Education Quality Management Advisory Committee for Quality Evaluation (AKO), consisting of professors, students and external members, provides a memory and awareness function for TU Delft’s quality management system. A success factor at MIT comprises so-called external Visiting Committees (VC), which make a decisive contribution to quality assurance. These VCs, each with 18 members, exist for every academic department and provide an independent assessment of the quality of activities conducted by the departments which are visited on a regular basis, typically every 2 years. The ETHZ also has a well-defined internal and external evaluation system, consisting of six modules: peer reviews, departmental selfevaluation, graduate questionnaires, student questionnaires, annual reports, and administration quality surveys.
1.2 Education / Internationality Quality of education Quality of professors/teaching staff and quality of infrastructure are regarded as the most important criteria for the quality of education. Almost as important for engineers and managers is cooperation with industry, while professors regard the practice-related aspects of education (e.g. non-core competences) as less important. More importance is attached in the US to specialization/depth of education than in Europe, where internationality is regarded as more important. In general, engineers rate the criteria for the quality of education at their own university rather lower than professors do. Average ratings by European engineers are lower than those of their US colleagues.
SUMMARY
The percentage of students spending at least one term at a foreign university is lower among US universities (except Georgia Tech) than in Europe. The highest exchange rates are at EPFL and ECP, where nearly 30% of students spend at least one semester abroad.
Successful practices: The importance of internationality in Europe is also reflected in successful practices: in the eighties ECP implemented a long-term strategy for internationality and was one of the founders of the TIME network, a double degree program currently utilized by 34% of ECP students. In recent years EPFL has also undertaken successful efforts on internationalization in research and education, and created a centre for continuing education, international relations and cooperation (CFRC). In addition to the CFRC, EPFL has “mobility delegates” and professors responsible for the individual relationships with foreign universities. ETHZ has a very cosmopolitan and international faculty composition, and offers compensation packages (containing financial and non-financial elements) which are among the most attractive worldwide. Another example is KTH with its international master programs in English in order to increase the number of international and Swedish students. International master programs are also offered at TU Delft. With the new programs in English, TU Delft was able to increase the number of foreign Ph.D. students, to extend its international alumni network and to establish new collaborations with partner universities, e.g. in the US. Teaching methods The most highly rated teaching methods are diploma/final projects. All teaching methods are assessed lower by engineers than by professors, in particular with regard to lectures and computer-based training. Own universities in the US are rated higher than in Europe. This effect is more pronounced among engineers than among professors. Successful practices: Notable here is the Distance Learning / Distance Education program developed by Georgia Tech, a university which has accumulated long-term experience in this area. Important in this connection is the integration of newer technologies such as satellite, teleconferencing, and the Internet. The focus on excellent services for the distance learner is as imperative as the close cooperation of the Center for Distance Learning and the academic units. At KTH, communication aspects, project work and management skills, which are usually taught in courses, are integrated into the more traditional studies at an early stage. For example, education in mathematics has been changed. The math courses are coordinated with an appropriate engineering course in order to increase the motivation of the students. Learning environment The professional competence of teaching staff was rated highest. Support and counselling for students and pedagogical and didactic skills of teaching staff were rated lowest. These aspects were considered by engineers as inadequate (4 (on a scale of 1 to 6) on average, but the implementation of these competences at the own university is rated lower on average (5) and engineers (4 on average, but the implementation of these competences at the own university is rated lower on average (5) and engineers (
