Visit Polytechnic University

INTRODUCTION

Polytechnic University is the second oldest private engineering school in the United States.   Located in Brooklyn, New York, it achieved an international reputation as “Brooklyn Poly.”   In recent years the changing character of technology, the growing globalization of the American economy and the deep influence of immigration on urban demographics together inspired an overall reform of the traditional undergraduate engineering curriculum.   The new curriculum was first rolled out in the fall semester of 2000 but in its brief history has already been revised and amended.   The most important changes put in place by the new curriculum are evident in the following areas of study:

1. Introductory Engineering design
2. Physical science
3. Mathematics
4. Computer science
5. Communications skills
6. Interdisciplinary exposure
7. Project design
8. Liberal Studies
9. International studies

The need and motivation for reform in each of these areas derived from the basic cultural shifts mentioned above, but the strategies and particular pedagogical tactics adopted reflected additional local circumstances as well.   These latter concerns explain the plurality of approaches which, although all driven by the forces of necessity, do pose questions concerning the overall consistency of the curriculum reform.   The issues behind each item on the list will be addressed briefly before a lengthier discussion of the final two.

INTRODUCITORY ENGINEERING DESIGN

It is no longer clear to most entering students what kind of work engineers do.   The typical entering student does not have an experiential background in amateur radio, automobile repair, carpentry, or even attempted repair of household utilities such as clocks, refrigerators, toilets and so on.   This has to do partly with the growth of the “disposable economy” and partly reflects the increased complexity of modern technology. But whatever the proximate cause it created the need for an introductory, hands-on general introduction to engineering.   The challenges implied by this need center on the lack of traditional preparation in the methods of mathematics and physics of first year students.   Indeed the course attempts to introduce paradigmatic engineering problems from a perspective of inadequacy.   The students, working in teams, are asked to solve problems with a very limited set of tools.   Ideally the student discovers the mathematical and law like character of effective solutions together with an appreciation of the elegance and robustness of true engineering solutions.   Although the toolkit is limited it does contain some extremely powerful tools to which the students are introduced.   “MatLab” is such a tool.   This software itself permits simulation of conditions and calculates optimum solutions to a variety of problems thus permitting students to achieve results superior to what they without this intervention are capable. The blessings are mixed.   On the one hand students are duly impressed with the solutions achieved and thereby acquire concrete appreciation for the systematic and mathematically advanced approach of the engineering arts.   But on the other hand a natural question is, crudely put, “If MatLab can do it, why should I?”   In other words such advanced pedagogical technology reinforces the belief that the primary job is to define inputs and then permit the “black box” to produce correct and useful outputs.   The assumption may be that the design of such black boxes is a highly specialized and infrequently undertaken task in which most engineers will have no significant part.   We may call this the specialization problem and it turns out to be one of the most vexing facing engineering education.   The Polytechnic approach to this will be elaborated below.

PHYSICAL SCIENCES

A disconnect between the physical sciences, primarily physics and chemistry, and engineering disciplines has emerged.   This disconnect partly reflects a theoretical, philosophical view of the role of the sciences but is mostly based on pure pragmatics.

There are few today who will endorse, at least without serious reservation, the Platonic view that engineering emerges from the foundations of scientific understanding, applying the eternal and universal laws in useful and practical ways.   Indeed the opposite is frequently seen to be the case, viz., scientific knowledge is the by-product of engineering technology.   Whether or not this is correct on the philosophical and theoretical level, pragmatically it certainly seems to be.   Examples of this reversed hierarchy abound. The very idea that all problems are soluble if only sufficient effort is made, a kind of “skunk works” attitude if you will, tends to leave the physical sciences to those allured by truth and beauty more than those attracted by the virtue of practical necessity.    The consequence is that physics and chemistry, always perceived as difficult and as covering topics more broadly than was deemed useful, are now often thought to be an anachronistic requirement.   At Polytechnic, as at most (American) institutions, the relationship between the physical sciences and their associated engineering disciplines is under perpetual review.   This ongoing process in the context of undergraduate engineering education is augmented by student perceptions about the limited utility of pure science.   At Polytechnic the new curriculum reduced the total amount of student time spent in coursework in pure science, compressing courses into shorter units, and making every effort to correlate the topics taught with the requirements of engineers.   An additional problem connected to the foundational physical science courses, especially physics, is the relatively low level of math competence of most students.

MATHEMATICS

In the seventeenth century Galileo taught natural science that the book of nature was unreadable unless one knew the language in which it was written – mathematics.   It has been understood ever since that science, with the possible exception of biology, was deeply mathematical and that no one could hope to pursue science in a serious way without a reasonably high level competence in mathematics.   No one doubted that mathematics through calculus was a necessary and appropriate prerequisite to science study.   In the teaching of mathematics a commonplace distinction was made between the skills associated with accurate calculation and the more heady business of comprehension.   A student might, on this theory, grasp the principles and analytical strategies of mathematics, i.e., comprehend mathematical issues, and at the same time be abysmal at the art of calculation.   Often the failure to calculate accurately was attributed to carelessness, test nervousness or some other distraction.   In a sense it was felt unfair to penalize students whose calculative skills were wanting but whose comprehension level was acceptably high. Indeed such students were thought able to read the book of nature with understanding although they would undoubtedly require help measuring and counting the details.    Different pedagogies were tried to address such disparate results but the decisive moment came when powerful electronic calculators became affordable.   Now, it was argued, mathematics teachers can concentrate on teaching the principles, even accelerate that, and the calculative tasks can be carried out mechanically as they should be.   If you can set the problem up correctly and punch it into a calculator you have done the important work and who cares if you can do long division or not.   The short history of inexpensive electronic calculators and computer software has revolutionized how students learn mathematics.   Students now talk and think fairly high order mathematics but are typically at a complete loss if asked to solve even an elementary problem without calculating machinery.   At Polytechnic and elsewhere extensive diagnostic testing has revealed that many entering students, despite above average SAT scores and even despite the successful completion of a calculus course in high school, have serious deficits in elementary mathematics including arithmetic.   Such students think they think the strategies of the calculus but are often unable to set up problems correctly and, even more importantly, do not recognize when their calculators produce absurdly inappropriate answers.   Such students can talk about the book of nature but not read it.   Clearly the change in the general preparation of readiness for engineering study that students arrive with, the revaluation of the perceived importance of basic science studies for engineers both make large demands on curricular requirements and call loudly for reform.   But the shift in math preparedness creates a more difficult and contentious set of problems as expressed in the following questions:

1. What type and how much math remediation is required?
2. In an already crowded curriculum where can additional math fit?
3. To what extent is mathematical thinking of practical importance for engineers?
4. Do all engineers require the same preparation in mathematics?
5. Since most engineering math is calculative, can’t this be taken over by computers?

In the tradition of Galileo mathematics was seen as the language necessary for the performance of scientific work.   If the mathematics program is to be evaluated solely on the basis of its utilitarian benefit for engineering practice the chances are that far less mathematics will be taught and the teaching of essential mathematical skills will be assimilated to engineering courses where they will be taught in the context of particular types of problems and software programs to handle the calculative burden.   On the other hand if mathematics is understood as a way grasping the nature of reality, the primary assumption behind Galileo’s remark, then we dare not reduce the teaching of mathematics to a set of techniques for solving engineering (or any other kind, actuarial for example) problems.  

The three areas of curriculum reform thus far mentioned point to three different types of problem.   The first has to do with a shifting and diminished experience base in proto-engineering activities.   The second reflects a change in how science itself is understood and the philosophical connection between thought and action.   With mathematics we have a profound educational question; for what are we trying primarily to educate?   At some point not so long ago it was probably clear that engineering was an art based on skill sets effective in solving certain types of problems, problems for which a design and process was generally the resolution. As technology has advanced the engineering arts have likewise expanded.   Engineering now includes the fundamental investigation into the nature of things and no longer simply cultivates its own turf but participates in extraordinarily interdisciplinary and open-ended projects.   If to educate engineers now means to prepare individuals for this type of work it is hard to imagine the wisdom of a reduced and highly utilitarian mathematics curriculum.   Yet the remediation problem is real and until it is effectively solved the pressure will be for exactly this type of curriculum.

COMPUTER SCIENCE

An obvious point present in each of the above discussions is the impact of computing technology.   Every type of educational institution these days, theological seminaries no less than engineering schools, has found their programs transformed by the powerful resources embodied in computers and especially networked computers.   The term computer literacy is understood to mean a facility to use computers to increase your power and effectiveness at whatever you do be it sports medicine, animated cartooning, comparing the texts of Christian and Jewish Gnostics and of-course, engineering.   Engineers, scientists, all of us, need to be computer literate.   That means we need to be able to use computers effectively in our professions, which in most cases means being able to use sophisticated software packages.   The question this raises is how well and to what end does one need to understand the elements of computer science (which for the most part means computer programming)?   In fact in most branches of engineering the requirement of computer literacy is no different than for the historian of ancient Greece.   Of course research may always be benefited by the design of a new investigative tool (or information storage/retrieval tool, etc.), which is frequently a new computer program.   The practical question for professionals is whether or not to be your own computer programmer and is similar to the question of whether you should be your own librarian. The educational question is somewhat different.   It is hard to exaggerate the impact of computer technology upon everyday life.   Our lives and our actions are both circumscribed and enabled by computers and many of the important choices we make rely upon computer functionality.   Is it not reasonable that we should understand this ubiquitous presence?   Is it any less important than to understand how our government works, human psychology, the causes of the Peloponnesian wars or the issues regarding global warming?   Both computer science and computer literacy are mandates for education in our time.   Although no one would doubt that computers have made possible scientific and engineering advances otherwise unimaginable, it is not clear that computers have really improved the quality of science, technology and engineering education.  

COMMUNICATIONS SKILLS

In a media hyped, multi-cultural environment we are constantly being presented with words and images, directly through all of our senses and indirectly mediated by electronic networks, without context, reference or persistence.   We see something such as the planes crashing into the World Trade Center on television and are astonished that it “feels different” than similar scenes from Hollywood movies.   We find the information contained in books, journals, even daily newspapers, outdated and we go to the Web for what is current.   Explanations that rest on deductive logic or narrative make us impatient as we hyper-link to the bottom line.   Our communications with friends take the form of instant messaging, or if we are very deliberative, email.   Decisions are taken with little reflection and little community discourse.   The community of communications has changed radically.   It is naïve to believe that “effective communications skills” can be conveyed mimetically and that renewed vigor in the instruction of grammar, spelling, public speaking and the traditional rhetorical arts will be sufficient to guarantee our students the ability to communicate important ideas and concepts clearly and unambiguously.   Indeed the opposite will sometimes embarrass us by being the case when the most effective communicator does so by means that diverge entirely from the rules.   How should communication skills be taught?   Is uniformity desirable?   Are some cultural values needlessly being subordinated to a proclaimed standard of correct language usage?   These questions go to the heart of the educational enterprise and admit no easy answers.   Perversities abound.   It is now the case that in South India university graduates, well-trained engineers, unable to find regular engineering jobs have taken positions as service technicians providing technical support over the phone to owners of computers, printers and fax machines.   Most of the inquiries originate in the United States and the companies for which these Indian engineers work are based in Texas.   Hence the requirement was imposed that in order to insure effective communication the technicians should learn to speak with a proper Texas drawl!   This might help to satisfy customers, although it’s doubtful, but is this kind of imitative style an example of good communication skills?    In an era when advertising, marketing, image building and branding set the criteria for effective communication rather than the poetics of Aristotle or the cadences of Roman rhetoric it is no wonder that traditional instruction in the techniques of expository writing is neither absorbed nor mastered.   The problem is this: many engineering students cannot read the complex sustained texts of their disciplines with adequate comprehension or write straightforward prose well enough to handle the distinctions essential to contemporary technology.   To put it another way, what is called effective communication often valorizes stylistic tropes (the executive summary, the Power Point presentation) that do not encourage sustained analytical critique or imaginative synthesis.   The popular ideals of effective communication promote reductionist thinking, sloganeering and, in all likelihood, serious misunderstanding.

INTERDISCIPLINARY EXPOSURE

Contemporary technology is unbound.   Chemical, mechanical and electrical engineers may all be engaged on one project and in no case representing their discipline in an orthodox manner. Interdisciplinary work is not merely a division of labor but is a collaboration where boundaries are not only crossed but are lost altogether.   In the case of engineering it means the existing templates no longer fit the world and that the ingenuity needed to design replacements comes from many quarters.   Interdisciplinary work cannot rely on existing methods, standard practices or existing tools.   Given the uncharted terrain interdisciplinary work is not the territory of the many.   Yet technology always seeks new frontiers and one element of engineering education must be to prepare explorers and to show the value of exploring to those who cannot.   An exposure to interdisciplinary work that compels the student to leave the security of the tried and true methods of a given discipline and to venture to where maps are not yet completely accurate is an invaluable part of a technological education.

PROJECT DESIGN

The goal is similar to a musician’s performance.   Exploration, practice, technical development and underlying knowledge are all put to the test in full view of the jury. A good idea alone is insufficient to merit praise as is impeccable craftsmanship or thorough understanding of the relevant principles.   All must be brought together and the result must work.   Again as with a musical performance replication of what has come before does not satisfy.   The design project culminates the endeavor begun as a first year student being introduced to the ways and means of engineering design.  

                            *      *      *      *      *

These seven topics, plus the extensive coursework in a particular field of engineering, constitute a rigorous and progressive curriculum to train highly qualified engineers. Obviously on this account the stronger the mathematics curriculum the more prepared the engineer will be to assimilate technological advances and participate in original work. But this curriculum is not sufficient to educate an engineer nor is it adequate to foster the critical sensibilities of one who understands what technologies are needed and why. For an engineer to be, as is now imperative, a citizen of the world, complimentary exposure to and participation in a set of strongly humanistic courses, seminars and experiences is required.   It is not enough, indeed it is worse than doing nothing at all, to offer a dilettante’s table of delicacies from the humanities as an engineering student’s banquet.   What is needed is a coherent and systematic exposition of globally influential and historically significant traditions, ideologies and worldviews.   This is a more than daunting task for numerous reasons.   The most obvious is how can one fit such work into a curriculum with minimum elasticity and flexibility.   If the primary objective is to train competent engineers then the list of prescribed courses, by ABET and others, cannot be significantly altered or reduced.   The Polytechnic curriculum is generous by the standards of engineering schools (24 “HuSS” credits, including communications courses, out of a total of 128 required credits), but the amount is truly paltry given the challenge and need to educate citizens of the world.   One must acknowledge that in the American system graduates of engineering schools will always be less well educated than is desirable given their importance to society.   The first problem helps to create the second.   Given the severe limitations of how much can be presented the question of how much soon leads to dispute over what should be included.

The resolution of the dispute requires a relative valuing of humanities and social science disciplines.   Of course each discipline has its partisans and matters of rank and tenure infect the discussion.   Even given agreement on the grand purpose it is still impossible to say whether literature, history or philosophy better serves.   Humanists and social scientists rarely see eye-to-eye, their differences running very deep.   These conflicts are not recognized outside of the Humanities and Social Sciences Department where the expectations for the program are reduced to “producing” students who are “well rounded” and competent speakers and writers.   It is a classic example of an under laborer serving the interests of the master class.   Given such adversities what approach is possible?

LIBERAL STUDIES

At Polytechnic the twenty-four required Humanities and Social Science credits are distributed as follows: Two courses (eight credits) teach careful reading and college writing through an introduction to literature.   One course (four credits) surveys contemporary world history and includes a major research paper.   Three courses are electives from a menu of typical disciplinary courses; two of them must be Level I electives and the third a Level II elective that follows from one of the Level I choices. Given this structure it is clear that the three required courses must accomplish a myriad of goals, truly introducing (i.e., leading into) students to major issues noted above.   Because of the unevenness of student preparation and receptiveness, the parochial interests of faculty, the crush of other requirements plus the innately difficult nature of the task, it must be admitted that success is quite limited.   On top of these difficulties, the pressure is to do something entirely different.   Accrediting agencies, again ABET is in the forefront, have become enamored of that form of assessment that requires quantified measurements of outcomes.   It is hard to see how this is helpful.   If our goal is for every student to become a wiser, more socially perceptive, compassionate, historically informed and politically aware and generally more reflective person than he or she might have otherwise been, what index is the appropriate measure?   The expectation is somewhat insidious.  

One programmatic strategy is being tried.   In every course where it is possible, which in fact means in most courses, certain themes or approaches typically absent from standard humanities courses, are prominent.   These themes and approaches include technology, international, global and multi-cultural perspectives, the influence of economic systems upon human choice and the social and political consequences that follow, and the place and basis of values in all human activity.   Students are impressed with the plurality of options and uncertainty of choice that characterizes the discussion and additionally are surprised that discussion of such issues emerges in their humanities courses.   Often students claim to begin really thinking only as a result of such discussion.   The value of humanities courses is to establish critical habits of mind that transcend particular circumstances.

INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

American engineering students, including those from immigrant families, tend to be non-political. Moreover, since they do not study language or literature to any great extent, they also have a rather limited understanding of cultural differences.   Even when they see fellow students who clearly represent cultural traditions different from their own, the tendency is to think of these traditions merely as other and as not important within the horizons of their society.   Engineering students bridge cultural differences easily in their math study groups, for example, because in this context they believe cultural differences make no difference. As a general rule if engineering students are going to develop the kind of cultural understanding necessary to be effective professionals in an increasingly international and global workplace they will need to be taught.   American students need to be taught that many of the aspirational goals and values they take for granted and presume to be the normative and appropriate reward for their efforts studying engineering are not in fact always so regarded.   They need to understand, for example, that engineering curricula around the world do not all assert the same set of values.  

Polytechnic students spent a full semester traveling together throughout East Asia, studying the region under the tutelage of regular Polytechnic faculty.   In nearly all locations time was spent on university campuses interacting with students and faculty.

Many of the students were ethnic Chinese and spoke the language fluently.   Nonetheless they were received as Americans, representing values, policies, economic circumstances and traditions about which, prior to the semester abroad, had thought little about.   Visits to Hiroshima, Mai Lai, the DMZ in Korea, the Killing Fields and other locations did more to raise political consciousness and promote existential self-examination than could have happened in any other way.   When every day our students had to answer the questions of their peers, however gently put, about their privilege and opportunity, the mere pursuit of a high paying entry level position upon graduation fell into broader perspective.   All of the students who participated in the program proclaim that it was life changing.   How this exactly will come to fruition is yet to be seen, although it is doubtful that it will be measurable as an assessment outcome.

CONCLUSION

All contemporary societies are deeply influenced by technology and the forces of globalization.   The preparation of engineers and other technologists must inculcate understanding of these forces if they are to continue to be managed for human benefit.   The traditional engineering curriculum, because of deficits in mathematics, science and intuitive understanding of “how things work” typically presented by incoming students, faces additional pressure to provide basic or remedial instruction in those areas.   Thus, given the already very crowded character of the engineering curriculum, there is simply no room to add more instruction in those subjects that could promote better understanding of the conceptual and philosophical impact of technology and globalization.   The solutions possible are to integrate liberal studies more tightly into engineering education, to teach mathematics in a way that conceptually connects the comprehension of principles with calculative results, involve students in projects of interdisciplinary research, and create experiences where intense international and cross-cultural discussion and negotiation of values occur.   Engineering curricula should not be measured exclusively by measurable outcomes, especially those determined by industry.