Posts Tagged ‘part’

Math is the most important element of engineering. There’s no way we can build a machine without math help. Being an engineer means being someone who is good in math. With correct calculation, the machine can be operated in ideal situation. And then, what is happening when math is not the element of engineering ? It will be no engineering science. We would still using conventional ways in life which are less effective. We need math more than we know.

Internet has a problem solver for this. An online math help is the latest invention which is competent to nowadays technology. It’s a simple mechanism for us actually. Online math tutor will help us with methods those effective in engineering. Online math tutoring is as easy as communicating with other people in the internet and it has more advantages than we study math’s books by ourselves. We need all part of our body to learn math,including our mouth to talk in math.

There are lots of free online math help those worth to try some.  Free online math tutoring is way to find which online math help has the best method, and it’s a nice move, because it’s free. Now it’s your choice to start develop your engineering with good math.

Engineering colleges must be more effective and visible partners within the broader university community. This partnership should be enhanced for non-classroom activities as well as for formal research and education. Engineering colleges, their faculty and students have much to offer the broader campus community. For example, engineers can provide the real-world context to show non-engineering students the applications of the mathematical and scientific concepts they are learning. Engineering educators and their colleagues in science can also provide leadership in helping their campuses initiate computer networking and make effective use of the information super highway. Industry can help foster this cross-campus interaction by bringing multifaceted problems to the university that require the talents of several disciplines to solve. Industry representatives who sit on university advisory boards should also stress this approach in their recommendations to the institution.

Conversely, engineering education programs have much to gain from other disciplines. New insights can be provided, for example, by chemistry in developing environmentally friendly technologies, by political science in teaching the value of issues advocacy, by art in designing new consumer products, by business in aiding the understanding of international trade issues, and by law in treating intellectual property rights. Both engineering students and faculty would benefit from such interdisciplinary collaboration.

Engineers working with other colleagues across the university can also promote technological literacy for all students. Engineering colleges should accept responsibility for providing technical literacy programs to liberal arts students. Activities can include developing and teaching courses that provide laboratory or design experience for non-engineers, examine the history of science and technology, or discuss the interaction of technology and society.

At the same time, student participation in university-wide activities, such as student government, professional societies, athletics, and performing arts can help them develop the leadership and communications skills that are an important part of an engineering education.

Engineering deans should actively encourage their faculty members to participate in research, educational and leadership activities beyond the engineering college. Industrial advisory board members should stress cross-campus interaction in their recommendations to the college. Activities should include connections with such units as the schools of business, medicine, arts, sciences, and education.

Engineering deans and faculty should actively encourage students to participate in university-wide activities. These activities can include participation in student government, student professional societies, athletics, performing arts, debate, study abroad, and similar activities. The aim is to promote leadership and communications skills as well as a sense of the integration of engineering into the broader world.

Engineering deans should take responsibility for helping non-engineering majors on their campuses better understand the importance and relevance of technology in their lives, and seek to better equip those students to prosper in an increasingly technological world. Engineering schools may develop specific courses, seminars, guest lectureships, and cross-campus projects.

In whatever way an engineering college defines its mission, to be successful, it must ensure that its faculty reward system supports its goals. Faculty members often face the difficult task of trying to balance the several activities they need for professional advancement, such as research and undergraduate teaching, with a host of new activities their colleagues, students and the public expect them to accomplish. These can include curricula development, interdisciplinary collaboration, work with industry, development of continuing education programs, community outreach, and mentoring of other faculty members and students. As engineering colleges develop institutional missions, they have an opportunity to recraft their faculty reward system to better synchronize faculty rewards with their new, or re-affirmed, institutional expectations.

Changing the faculty reward system will not be an easy task. Faculty rewards are heavily driven by incentives created across the entire university and are part of a nationwide network. Nevertheless, it is important that rewards reflect the goals of the institution and it is important to begin the conversation now. As each institution establishes its vision and charts new directions, it should ensure that its faculty reward system supports the institutional goals.

Given the national importance of engineering education and the major changes taking place in higher education and society, it is no surprise that in recent years engineering education has stimulated a variety of thoughtful reports. For example, in the late 1980s ASEE published the major study, “Quality of Engineering Education,” and the ASEE Engineering Deans Council produced specific reports on the supply of engineering faculty and students.

In 1991, the National Academies’ National Research Council (NRC) created a Board on Engineering Education, which has conducted a wide-ranging study of the future of engineering education. The Board’s work has included a series of hearings throughout the country and has had a valuable influence on this project.

Those studying engineering education have proposed many ways to make engineering programs more relevant and cost-effective for all students, as well as more attractive to historically underrepresented groups. Their recommendations have created an environment for change and experimentation.

The Action Plan

The aim of this project is to evaluate recommendations of previous studies, combine them with the recommendations of the workshop conducted as part of the present study, and then develop key action items based on a series of policy statements. Because certain key changes in engineering education will be most effective if implemented with the aid of all sectors of the community, this project focuses on action items that require partnerships. Some of the action items are short-term, others longer-term; none is necessarily easy to accomplish. Over the next few years, this project will further refine the action items, assess the accomplishments of engineering colleges toward those goals, and establish a series of milestones for measuring future progress within the engineering education community.

In today’s world and in the future, engineering education programs must not only teach the fundamentals of engineering theory, experimentation and practice, but be RELEVANT, ATTRACTIVE and CONNECTED:

RELEVANT to the lives and careers of students, preparing them for a broad range of careers, as well as for lifelong learning involving both formal programs and hands-on experience;

ATTRACTIVE so that the excitement and intellectual content of engineering will attract highly talented students with a wider variety of backgrounds and career interests, particularly women, underrepresented minorities and the disabled, and will empower them to succeed; and

CONNECTED to the needs and issues of the broader community through integrated activities with other parts of the educational system, industry and government.

Engineering colleges’ ability to make their programs both relevant and attractive will depend, to a large extent, on how well they connect their programs to all community sectors, that is, on how well they build partnerships.

Focusing On Partnerships

While engineering deans are principally responsible for leading engineering education, they work in partnership with their faculties, presidents, senior university administrators, and often, with industry representatives. Such partnerships must also extend to elementary and secondary schools, the broader university, the local community, government and other engineering colleges, and build even closer ties to industry. These sectors make up the broad constituency of engineering education. Collaboration with these groups ensures the vitality and relevance of engineering programs, and enables the sharing of resources in a fiscally-constrained era. Ultimately, engineering colleges ,like their successful counterparts in industry ,must be part of a seamless system that links all of their constituents in education, industry, and the broad public community.

We live in a time of revolutionary change. Not only is the world relying increasingly on technology for economic growth and job development, but the nation is making the difficult transition of refocusing a significant amount of its technology investment from national security to international economic competitiveness. At the same time, we view technology as important in helping solve many difficult societal problems, from creating environmentally-sustainable development and improving communications, to devising more effective and cost-efficient health care systems. Communications developments alone are leading to profound redefinitions of such concepts as “community,” “library,” “corporation,” and even “university.”

Within this technological context, engineers play an ever more significant role. They develop new manufacturing processes and products; create and manage energy, transportation and communications systems; prevent new and redress old environmental problems; create pioneering health care devices; and, in general, make technology work. Through these activities, engineers create a huge potential for the private sector to develop national wealth. As noted by Richard Morrow, past chairman of the National Academy of Engineering, “the nation with the best engineering talent is in possession of the core ingredient of comparative economic and industrial advantage.”

And just as important as their specific technical skills, engineers receive valuable preparation for a host of other careers in such areas as finance, medicine, law and management. These professions require analytical, integrative and problem-solving abilities, all of which are part of an engineering education. Thus, engineering is an ideal undergraduate education for living and working in the technologically-dependent society of the twenty-first century.

Responding to Changing Needs

One of the strengths of engineering education in the United States is the broad spectrum of engineering colleges whose development has been unconstrained by a single, centrally-prescribed mission. The more than 300 colleges of engineering range from highly research-intensive institutions to those that focus largely on undergraduate education, with many variations in between. Even with the considerable differences in missions, undergraduate engineering education programs maintain universal core curriculum content and minimum standards through the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), a national partnership between academics and practicing engineers. Additionally, most engineering schools have forged close relationships with industry and benefit from annual assessments of their programs by external advisory boards that have strong industry participation.

While U.S. engineering education has served the nation well, there is broad recognition that it must change to meet new challenges. This is fully in keeping with its history of changing to be consistent with national needs. Today, engineering colleges must not only provide their graduates with intellectual development and superb technical capabilities, but following industry’s lead, those colleges must educate their students to work as part of teams, communicate well, and understand the economic, social, environmental and international context of their professional activities. These changes are vital to the nation’s industrial strength and to the ability of engineers to serve as technology and policy decision makers.

Most important, engineering education programs must attract an ethnic and social diversity of students that better reflects the diversity of the U.S. and takes full advantage of the nation’s talents. Not only does the engineering profession require a spectrum of skills and backgrounds, but it should preserve its historical role as a profession of upward mobility.

In response to these needs, engineering colleges throughout the country are experimenting with new approaches to curricula, rethinking traditional teaching modes, and developing innovative ways to recruit and retain students from underrepresented groups. The largest and potentially most revolutionary effort is led by the consortia of colleges funded by the National Science Foundation’s Engineering Education Coalitions program. These national engineering college consortia each include a variety of schools ranging from predominantly undergraduate institutions to the most research intensive. The consortia are working to redesign curricula and improve teaching methodologies, each offering a different perspective and strategy.

While it is too early to gauge the success of the coalitions, they exemplify the engineering education community’s leadership and willingness to adjust to change. We applaud and encourage these efforts, but also stress the importance of including partnerships with industry and government in reformulating engineering education.

Indeed, a degree in electrical engineering can open many doors, in part because electrical engineering is so broad. Electrical engineers have taken on many tasks that you might expect people with other technical degrees to do. Semiconductor processing, for example, is highly populated by electrical engineers, but its basis is in physics and chemistry. Other areas include optics (as applied to communications), aerospace engineering, and even life sciences. “A lot of people don’t realize that a lot of biomedical devices are actually electrical devices,” noted Georgia Tech’s May.

Engineering jobs also cut across technical disciplines. More and more, mechanical, chemical, and biomedical engineers use electronics to measure a product’s performance. “Who says you’re not going to do test and measurement on a chemical process for drug manufacturing?” asked Looft. “That’s a huge area. And you better know a little bit about chemical processing when you go into that job.”

Some people with engineering degrees move out of engineering jobs but stay in their respective industries by moving into sales, marketing, and management (a few even become editors covering the industries from which they came). Others move into fields such as law and medicine. Law firms, looking for patent lawyers with technical backgrounds, may hire engineers or engineering graduates and pay for law school.

Those who choose to enter the engineering work force may find that they need skills beyond math, science, engineering basics, and problem solving. We asked the participants what additional skills employers now look for in engineering graduates. While we received some differing answers, everyone agreed that communications skills sit atop the list.

No longer is it enough to design circuits and get test results. You must communicate those results through written reports and presentations. Georgia Tech’s Williams noted that the university has integrated writing of technical documents into several courses, which UCSB’s Long echoed. WPI has even created an interdisciplinary major or double major in technical writing.

While schools have responded to employers looking for better communications skills, some in academia remain skeptical. One such person is Professor John Orr of WPI. “The standard example is if you hear an after dinner speech from the VP of company xyz, [he or she] will describe that employers need graduates with good communications skills, good teamwork skills, and some global experience. But when hiring managers come to campus, they look for skills such as experience with the latest Cadence software release. They’re looking for engineers who can be productive from day one.”

Regardless of whether communication courses are included, it’s becoming virtually impossible for schools to provide all of the required engineering skills at the undergraduate level. In fact, some people have begun to question if you should be able to enter the engineering work force with just a bachelor’s degree. Employers are looking more and more for graduates with master’s degrees, and the number of master’s degrees relative to bachelor’s degrees has risen in the past 30 years (Figure 1). (continued)

At the same time, the number of PhDs has remained relatively flat. During the last business downturn, companies may have scaled back their research budgets, relying on universities to do the work. “There’s a lot less research going on in industry than there used to be,” said UCSB’s Long. “Most companies have decimated their research labs.” Long argued that companies are looking for fewer PhDs than they did 10 or 15 years ago because they don’t have the facilities and don’t want to pay the higher salaries.

In recent years, industry has become more involved with academia. That’s good for the most part, as long as industry lets the teachers teach. Often, companies sponsor student projects or contribute to the funding of research labs. Students benefit from having worked on real-world projects and by making industry contacts, which can lead to employment upon graduation. Employers benefit because they can hire graduates with practical experience.

Overall, industry involvement in projects is welcome, because the companies provide equipment, materials, and sometimes funds for student projects. “If they’re paying for a project, then they should have the say over the project,” said WPI’s Looft. “But it can get too involved. I have companies that want to tell us what we’re going to do, educationally.”

Drexel’s Kam doesn’t agree. “I’m sure that there are horror stories here and there of companies who donated the equipment and wanted to control the curriculum,” he said. “But I wouldn’t call it a trend nor would I say this is widespread.” Georgia Tech’s May agreed that a few companies want too much involvement, but he doesn’t think it’s excessive. Companies are, after all, stakeholders in the graduates that these universities produce.

Looft said that companies go over the line when they say “you didn’t get it done” meaning that a student project didn’t produce a marketable product. When that occurs, he reminds companies that a student project is an educational endeavor that may not produce a working product.

Kam takes a different approach. He argued that companies need to get more involved in the educational process. “Industry is absent from the accreditation process,” he said. He wants to see greater participation from industry so universities can produce the engineers best qualified to keep companies competitive.

Whether you think the world has too many or too few electrical engineers, you’ll probably agree that engineers make an impact on people’s lives every day. Engineering has proven to be a satisfying career for many. Your work makes a difference in the world. Now, go out and tell someone how engineers contribute to society.

One of the first distinctions that must be made is between science and engineering. It is not a simple distinction because the two are so interdependent and intertwined, but whatever difference there is needs to be considered.

Science is the study of “natural” phenomena. It is the collection of theories, models, laws, and facts about the physical world and the methods used to create this collection. Physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc. try to understand, describe, and explain the physical world that would exist even if there were no humans. It is creative in building theories, models, and explanations, but not in creating the phenomena that it studies. Science has its own philosophy with an epistemology, esthetics, and logic. It has its own technology in order to carry out its investigations, build its tools, and pursue its goals. Science has its organizations, culture, and methods of inquiry. It has its “scientific method” which has served as a model (for better or for worse) in many other disciplines.

Science is old. It was part of the original makeup of a university or college in the form of natural philosophy. It came out of antiquity, developed in the middle ages, blossomed in the renaissance, was the tool of the enlightenment, and came into its present maturity in modernity. Indeed, the history of science is, in some ways, a history of intellectual development. This is certainly only true in conjunction with many other strains of philosophical, economical, theological, and technological development, but science is a central player in that story. Science is often paired with the arts (and Humanities and Social Sciences) in the “College of Arts and Science” of a traditional university.

Engineering is the creation, maintenance, and development of things that have not existed in the natural world and that satisfy some human desire or need. A television set does not grow on a tree. It is the creation of human ingenuity that first fulfilled a fantasy of a human need and then went on to change the very society that created it. I use the term “things” because one should include computer programs, organizational paradigms, and mathematical algorithms in addition to cars, radios, plastics, and bridges.

Science is the study of what is and engineering is the creation of can be. Only recently has engineering developed the set of characteristics that make it a legitimate academic discipline. Earlier, engineering often was viewed only as the application of natural science. Now, engineering has developed its own engineering science for the study of human made things to supplement natural science which was developed to study natural phenomena. Parts of computer science are wonderful examples of that. Engineering has its own philosophy and methodology and its own economics. It even has its own National Academy.

We differentiate science and engineering, not because their difference is great, but because, in many ways, it is small. Science could not progress without technology, and engineering certainly could not flourish without science and mathematics.

A more illuminating comparison might be between the humanities and engineering. One might find more similarity in style (not content) between English literature and engineering than between science and engineering. Both literature and engineering are the study of human created artifacts. Both teach creation in the form of creative writing and engineering design. Both teach analysis in the form of literary criticism and engineering analysis. Both are intimately connected with the needs and desires of individuals and society. A similar analogy could be made between art and engineering looking at studio art, art criticism, and art history.

Most scientists (but not all) feel there is some unique objective truth behind the physical phenomena they are studying. Their goal is to find it and describe and explain it, and this truth is unique although the approaches and approximations to it are certainly not. In literature and engineering, the designed entity is not unique to the situation, but it is a creation of the particular writer or designer and perhaps unique to the creator.

The distinctions of this section are not as clean or clear as have been presented here. The boundary between science and engineering can be and often is murky. Many items of study in science are influenced if not literally created by people. This is obviously true in biology and the life sciences but also true in physics where certain elements in the periodic table do not exist in nature. Perhaps, therefore, the areas of pure science are very limited. On the other hand, since people are members of our natural system, an argument can be made that their products are as natural as anything else and, therefore, the areas of pure scientific study are very broad. Clearly engineering is constrained in what it can create by the laws of science as everything is. Nevertheless, there is a difference in spirit in the two disciplines worth trying to delineate.

What is engineering? What is an engineer?? Although it is a very old activity or trade, engineering is a relatively young academic discipline or profession. Only in recent years has it reached a stage of maturity where some of its defining details and differentiating characteristics can be articulated. Engineering is the endeavor that creates, maintains, develops, and applies technology for societies’ needs and desires. Its origins go back to the very beginning of human civilization where tools were first created and developed. Indeed, a good case can be made for the defining of humans as those animals that create, develop, and understand the significance of technology.

Over time, the part of technology that acts as an extension of human capabilities became the purview of engineering. One can view bicycles, cars, and trains as extensions of walking and running. Airplanes are an extension and application of a bird’s ability to fly transferred to humans. The telegraph, telephone, radio, television, and the internet are extensions of talking, hearing, and seeing. The microscope, telescope, and medical x-ray are also extensions of human sight and vision. Writing, books, libraries and computer data-bases are extensions of human memory and the computer itself is an extension of the human’s brain in doing arithmetic and carrying out logical arguments and procedures. Indeed, looking around your environment in almost any setting, will illustrate just how pervasive technology is. In almost any home or office, there is very little that is truly “natural”; i.e., little that is not created or manipulated by technology. The food that you eat, the utensils that you eat with, the table that you eat off of, the house that you are in, the clothes that you wear, the book that you read, the television that you watch, the telephone that you communicate with, the car that you travel in — these are all technologies created by human cleverness to satisfy human needs. This process of creation is engineering and those who do the creating are practicing engineering, whether they call themselves engineers or not.

Not only is much of the inanimate world created by engineering, part of the living world is also. Almost all crops and agriculturally produced food stuff are “engineered” through selective breeding. The same is true of domestic animals such as pets and animals raised for food or sport. Certainly the dogs, cats, and cattle have not “naturally” evolved to their current state. They have been “created” or “designed” to satisfy human desires or needs. The slow and less exact methods of controlled breeding are being replaced by genetic engineering, tissue engineering, and applications of nanotechnology. We humans have the cleverness to do that. It is the development of the tools, theories, and methods and the understanding of the appropriate sciences and mathematics for that process that is engineering. It is a central part of the history of humanity.

Not only has engineering made our lives easier and longer, it has sometimes made them more terrible and shorter through improving our ability to kill and harm when we wage war. Indeed, military and defense needs have been a historic driver of technological advancement. One of the earliest categorizations of engineering was into military and civilian (or civil) engineering.

Because technology enables and causes change, it and its creators, the engineers, are viewed with mixed feelings. This is especially true in modern (perhaps post-modern) times when the negative side effects (“unintended consequences”) of technology must be addressed.

This note is an attempt to address the question of what engineering is and then that of what an engineer is. It is intended for the general public to better understand just what this thing that has such a profound effect on our individual and collective lives is. The note is intended for the student who is considering becoming an engineer and, therefore, it is for parents and high school and college counselors as well. It is for the university engineering student and professor and for the university administrator. It is for the state and federal governments who fund engineering education and research and the investor who invests in technology. It is for the husband, wife, parent, or child who wants to better understand their spouse, child, or parent. It is for everyone who accepts the argument that a human is a technological animal and that technology has a pervasive effect on our lives.

An important part of this note is the list of references. This collection of short essays is intended to open many topics and ideas, not develop them. A rather long list of references is given to allow the reader to pursue any of the many ideas further.