Posts Tagged ‘Science’

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.

Given the changing direction and magnitude of support for research sponsored by the federal government and industry, coupled with the increased competition from federal laboratories and international groups, engineering colleges must look for new opportunities to establish collaborative research alliances. Some alliances may be local or regional; others will be “virtual,” that is, national or international alliances established through the emerging global information superhighway.

Regional consortia of engineering colleges, for example, may share research facilities, teaching laboratories and faculty. Faculty tenure might even reside with a consortium and not with the individual institutions. Other types of consortia could combine the resources of universities and industry, universities and federal facilities – such as national laboratories – or a combination of all three. The aim is not to create new bureaucracies and expense, but to facilitate high-quality research and teaching that is both effective and efficient.

The National Science Foundation has taken the lead in funding experiments in research and education resource-sharing, and in creation of virtual research and education teams. Such experiments also should be encouraged through the Engineering Research Center (ERC) and Science and Technology Center (STC) programs. Lessons learned by the NSF Engineering Education Coalitions in creating “virtual” research and education teams should be applied to these experiments.

To ensure high-quality research and education, federal funding for science and technology must be distributed through open competition, based on peer review. To enhance technology transfer and industry-university research partnerships, universities, corporations and federal agencies should ensure they have flexible and negotiable policies governing intellectual property rights.

Federal agencies that fund research and education should explore ways of encouraging educational institutions, research organizations, federal laboratories, and industry to share resources. They should provide special consideration for funding projects that are developed by consortia of institutions.

Federal funding for science and technology should be allocated in open competition, based on peer review.

To enhance technology transfer and industry-university research partnerships, universities, industries, and federal agencies should develop flexible and negotiable policies governing intellectual property rights.

Engineering education today is adapting to the changing context of engineering practice, but more can be done to speed and improve the process. A crucial means of accomplishing needed change is through partnerships with industry, government, and the broader educational communities. The policy statements and action items developed in this project are intended to help ensure that engineering education will be RELEVANT, ATTRACTIVE and CONNECTED well into the next century.

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.

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.

Many students consider engineering careers because they’re good at math and science and receive encouragement to enter the field from their parents, teachers, and guidance counselors. “I think that’s a reasonable thing to do,” said Professor Gary S. May, ECE department chair at Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech). “It doesn’t mean that it’s the only career that’s available to you, or you’d be a perfect engineer because of that. But I think it’s a reasonable thing to tell students that engineering is an option for you because you have this aptitude.”

An aptitude for math and science is certainly a requirement for an engineering career, but is it enough? Not according to Professor Richard Vaz of Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI). Vaz, who is associate dean of the Interdisciplinary and Global Studies Division at WPI, said that the best engineers also have a passion for solving problems.

UCSB Professor Steve Long also cited “the willingness to do critical thinking” that makes good engineers. He argued that engineers are naturally curious and they want to know about something that’s not necessarily in a textbook.

Not everyone, though, has a clear reason for studying engineering. “When I ask students why they want to study engineering, very rarely can they articulate a reason,” said Vaz. “If they can, it usually doesn’t line up well with what engineers really do, which is solve problems and make the world a better place.” Some people, we learned, go into engineering because of the prospect of earning a decent living with just a bachelor’s degree. “That [belief] won’t get you very far,” added Long. He also cited “pushy parents” as another wrong reason that some young people study engineering.

While some people study engineering who might have been better at something else, many people who could make good engineers miss the opportunity because they don’t know what engineers do. “We don’t see enough of the brightest people coming into engineering because early in their educational paths, they get advice that essentially blocks their way,” said Moshe Kam, professor of ECE at Drexel University and VP of the IEEE Educational Activities Board (EAB). “There is a feeling that we won’t have enough people, we won’t have the right people, and because of that, we won’t have enough innovation,” he added.

Kam based his conclusions on meetings with representatives from 53 companies that hire electrical engineers. He also found that high school guidance counselors may unconsciously steer women with the ability and prerequisites for studying engineering into other fields because, “It’s not something that women do, and that’s a myth that we need to shatter.”

Georgia Tech’s May noted that some of the issues that divert women away from engineering also apply to minorities. “We have to show that engineers are normal people with normal lives with the same sorts of concerns as everyone,” he said. “This also affects our ability to recruit minority students. I say that from experience.”

Math majors don’t always get much respect on college campuses, but fat post-grad wallets should be enough to give them a boost.

The top 15 highest-earning college degrees all have one thing in common — math skills. That’s according to a recent survey from the National Association of Colleges and Employers, which tracks college graduates’ job offers.

“Math is at the crux of who gets paid,” said Ed Koc, director of research at NACE. “If you have those skills, you are an extremely valuable asset. We don’t generate enough people like that in this country.”

This year Rochester Institute of Technology hosted recruiters from defense-industry firms like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, as well as other big companies like Microsoft and Johnson & Johnson.

“The tech fields are what’s driving salaries and offers, and the top students are faring quite well,” said Emanuel Contomanolis, who runs RIT’s career center.

Specifically, engineering diplomas account for 12 of the 15 the top-paying majors. NACE collects its data by surveying 200 college career centers.

Energy is the key. Petroleum engineering was by far highest-paying degree, with an average starting offer of $83,121, thanks to that resource’s growing scarcity. Graduates with these degrees generally find work locating oil and gas reservoirs, or in developing ways to bring those resources to the Earth’s surface.

(more…)

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.