The following is the first draft of the speech made for someone to deliver to a conclave of engineering professionals. I do not know whether this draft made the basis for the speech given; indeed I am not even aware whether the speech was given!
I am posting it here, in my space, for two reasons: one, as a record of what I thought about engineering education a few years ago; two, to attempt to reach a wider group comprising more than engineering professionals. Here it goes …
ENGINEERING EDUCATION – BEYOND THE DOMAINS
We are here to talk about reforming engineering education – not just talk, but go beyond to formulating an actionable plan and then being proactive in implementing the same. We need every one of the stake holders in on this enterprise, and if I may suggest, the professionals gathered here should be at the head of the movement.
Yes, I acknowledge that professionals and professional groups have already taken the lead role in this matter over the past half a decade – national conferences, workshop and other events. Now, what is needed is to push what has emerged so far into the policy-making realm and keep at it. Simultaneously, we, ALL ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS must continue to keep our thinking cap on.
It is easy, and of course, deeply valid to say that the curriculum must accommodate the demands from the industry. For what else is the nation producing engineers?
In the words of one of the greatest engineer-scientists, Theodore von Karman:
“Scientists discover the world that exists; engineers create the world that never was.”
Engineers’ existence is validated by their creations. No creations, no engineers!
But, it must be recognized that the educational system has its own compulsions and bureaucracy. A simple demand from the industry will not cut any ice with the academia. The demand has to have market mediation (job market, in this case). And, the market is offering huge opportunities. This is the right time to strike when the demand for engineering input is about to shoot through the roof.
The 12th plan is aiming at absorbing about Rs. 47,00,000 crores. As an aside, will it not be easier to say, about 1 trillion US dollars? Not only the amount, but also the mooted source of funds, with an increased participation of markets through private participation, must engage our attention most seriously.
Let me not delve too deeply into the issue of how ready Indian engineering is in absorbing this projected investment. Suffice it to be acknowledged, based on our experience with the 10th Plan and the ongoing 11th, that we are not – the unfinished businesses of the earlier Plans are not insignificant. They get carried over to the next Plan. It is a perpetual time shifting of targets and projects too. Why is this happening?
There may be many reasons, but one of them is the small pool of engineering human resources of necessary capabilities the nation enjoys, if that be the right word.
Let me say it in stark words: We do not have enough engineers and even the available are not necessarily capable enough to meet the requirements, the demands from the society getting ever wider and deeper.
If we acknowledge the above perception – do we have any choice? – let me drop another bomb. The 12th Plan investment target is nearly four times what was targeted for the 10th Plan. The projects are getting bigger, the dynamics of technology are being infused with more and more and different types of science, new concerns like cost consciousness, “Green” concerns, developmental conscience, are entering the core of the engineering realm, the time lines are bunching together [and I will have more to say on this shortly], the responsibilities of engineers have exploded. And, that was a short list.
So, in short, the industry is changing and therefore the education paradigm has to change. The lag is already too large. Changes in engineering education must have started at least a decade ago. So, why are we talking about it now?
If an outsider sees us, they will think we are “idea people”, averse to actions. Of course, we know we are not, but this we have to prove to the cynics as well as to ourselves.
I am going to sketch out a simplistic scenario – please bear with me – a dialogue amongst an academic, an educational administrator/entrepreneur and an industrialist. The industrialist demands, “Give me engineers whom I do not have to train, and who are ready to do my job.” The academic asks, “Is doing your job the only meaning of engineering education?” The response, “YES!”
After all, the industrialist echoes the words of von Karman!
The academic loses the argument in that one word answer.
Yet, the industrialist knows that he has scored only a pyrrhic victory – he will pay for it in due course unless he contributes to the process of development, in-house and outside, mainly through educational and research institutions. He now understands that he also has to look beyond his own pigeonhole. He has to take input from other proximate fields of scientific inquiry and engineering endeavor. The educational administrator/entrepreneur waits his turn.
To give an instance, in structural engineering, the supermodel FEM came from research in mathematics after the initial inroads into matrix analysis by aeronautical engineers. Let any structural designer say that he could now do his job without FEM. Not possible. It is not possible not because the other methods have been found to be deficient. Rather, within the currently obtained professional environment, FEM is needed to convince one’s fellow professionals.
This is one of the things that implicitly advocates multi-disciplinary perspectives, among fields of engineering and even across the border, science. Nanotechnology – it IS multidisciplinary; it cannot be any other way. Nanotechnologists have to be multi-skilled, even beyond their field of technical expertise. They have to convince policy makers, civil society that they mean no harm with the technologies they are developing and they would not do any intentional harm. Incidentally this is how Google promotes itself through its informal corporate motto, “Do no evil!”
What the above implies is that engineers have to be capable of reading the pulse of the society they are serving and have to develop a wider conception of what their services truly mean. This is the crux of being multi-skilled, of being society-friendly. Of course, issues like adding value to the products by their being eco-friendly, through innovations and project management etc., relentlessly bulk up the portfolio of a “capable engineer”.
We talk about the graduating engineers being job-ready. The industry in its interactions with the academia with regard to what it needs must emphasize what it needs not now but four years later! The industry while rightfully demanding that academia fulfill its demands has to look ahead.
But, I can foresee a problem here. Now it is time for the educational administrator / entrepreneur to interject himself into the scenario. She asks, “Now, what is my risk factor? How do I know that the students I educate / train as per your plans will be put in your service, will be employable. Who is the risk manager here?”
If the industrialist has an answer at all, it is, “I am on to the path I am advocating for the entrants. I have seen the future and it is now.” He must have the daring to push the envelope. If he is content to tread the well-trodden path, sorry, the administrator has the upper hand in this exchange.
What the above translates into is this – the entrants into engineering must be trained with the future of the profession, not necessarily and definitely not exclusively of the industry, in sight.
That is, the graduates must be industry-ready but the industry must also prepare itself for the future. Links between industrial production, research and education must form a circle, running both ways.
Now, coming to the possible action plans – break the stone walls of disciplines/departments. The segmentations must correspond to fields of applications rather than exclusive knowledge, which in fact excludes knowledge from beyond the boundaries, no cross-fertilization.
The above re-orientation is bound to enhance the immediate employability of graduating engineers.
The process of changing curricula itself is an impediment to a dynamic engineering educational system. This has been recognized many times over, but for whatever reasons, the idea of bringing dynamism has become static. There is no traction at all. One of the reasons could be the issue of whose fiefdom a multi-disciplinary unit will be. It is not the first time this matter has engaged institutional reformers. What has been done earlier, not just in India, elsewhere too. We have to reach out for gathering experiences.
Multi-skilled is a tough issue. What we are talking about, beyond the skills in engineering, is how should engineers interact with society – from a position of power or authority, so to say, as a down-to-earth partner of society while being an integral part of it. Communication skills, adequately leavened by empathy, have to be developed. No, I am not talking about language classes. Rather I am advocating introduction to the humanities aspects of engineering, including history of engineering.
Immediately. The industrialist asks, “What do I get from humanities and engineering history?” The response: “You get cooperation from the society, less hindrance, smoother functioning, faster implementation, focus beyond monetary matters, economic returns … The list is literally endless.” This has to be said in a voice of authority.
This is the meaning of
Engineering Education – Beyond the Domains
Thank you.
I am posting it here, in my space, for two reasons: one, as a record of what I thought about engineering education a few years ago; two, to attempt to reach a wider group comprising more than engineering professionals. Here it goes …
ENGINEERING EDUCATION – BEYOND THE DOMAINS
We are here to talk about reforming engineering education – not just talk, but go beyond to formulating an actionable plan and then being proactive in implementing the same. We need every one of the stake holders in on this enterprise, and if I may suggest, the professionals gathered here should be at the head of the movement.
Yes, I acknowledge that professionals and professional groups have already taken the lead role in this matter over the past half a decade – national conferences, workshop and other events. Now, what is needed is to push what has emerged so far into the policy-making realm and keep at it. Simultaneously, we, ALL ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS must continue to keep our thinking cap on.
It is easy, and of course, deeply valid to say that the curriculum must accommodate the demands from the industry. For what else is the nation producing engineers?
In the words of one of the greatest engineer-scientists, Theodore von Karman:
“Scientists discover the world that exists; engineers create the world that never was.”
Engineers’ existence is validated by their creations. No creations, no engineers!
But, it must be recognized that the educational system has its own compulsions and bureaucracy. A simple demand from the industry will not cut any ice with the academia. The demand has to have market mediation (job market, in this case). And, the market is offering huge opportunities. This is the right time to strike when the demand for engineering input is about to shoot through the roof.
The 12th plan is aiming at absorbing about Rs. 47,00,000 crores. As an aside, will it not be easier to say, about 1 trillion US dollars? Not only the amount, but also the mooted source of funds, with an increased participation of markets through private participation, must engage our attention most seriously.
Let me not delve too deeply into the issue of how ready Indian engineering is in absorbing this projected investment. Suffice it to be acknowledged, based on our experience with the 10th Plan and the ongoing 11th, that we are not – the unfinished businesses of the earlier Plans are not insignificant. They get carried over to the next Plan. It is a perpetual time shifting of targets and projects too. Why is this happening?
There may be many reasons, but one of them is the small pool of engineering human resources of necessary capabilities the nation enjoys, if that be the right word.
Let me say it in stark words: We do not have enough engineers and even the available are not necessarily capable enough to meet the requirements, the demands from the society getting ever wider and deeper.
If we acknowledge the above perception – do we have any choice? – let me drop another bomb. The 12th Plan investment target is nearly four times what was targeted for the 10th Plan. The projects are getting bigger, the dynamics of technology are being infused with more and more and different types of science, new concerns like cost consciousness, “Green” concerns, developmental conscience, are entering the core of the engineering realm, the time lines are bunching together [and I will have more to say on this shortly], the responsibilities of engineers have exploded. And, that was a short list.
So, in short, the industry is changing and therefore the education paradigm has to change. The lag is already too large. Changes in engineering education must have started at least a decade ago. So, why are we talking about it now?
If an outsider sees us, they will think we are “idea people”, averse to actions. Of course, we know we are not, but this we have to prove to the cynics as well as to ourselves.
I am going to sketch out a simplistic scenario – please bear with me – a dialogue amongst an academic, an educational administrator/entrepreneur and an industrialist. The industrialist demands, “Give me engineers whom I do not have to train, and who are ready to do my job.” The academic asks, “Is doing your job the only meaning of engineering education?” The response, “YES!”
After all, the industrialist echoes the words of von Karman!
The academic loses the argument in that one word answer.
Yet, the industrialist knows that he has scored only a pyrrhic victory – he will pay for it in due course unless he contributes to the process of development, in-house and outside, mainly through educational and research institutions. He now understands that he also has to look beyond his own pigeonhole. He has to take input from other proximate fields of scientific inquiry and engineering endeavor. The educational administrator/entrepreneur waits his turn.
To give an instance, in structural engineering, the supermodel FEM came from research in mathematics after the initial inroads into matrix analysis by aeronautical engineers. Let any structural designer say that he could now do his job without FEM. Not possible. It is not possible not because the other methods have been found to be deficient. Rather, within the currently obtained professional environment, FEM is needed to convince one’s fellow professionals.
This is one of the things that implicitly advocates multi-disciplinary perspectives, among fields of engineering and even across the border, science. Nanotechnology – it IS multidisciplinary; it cannot be any other way. Nanotechnologists have to be multi-skilled, even beyond their field of technical expertise. They have to convince policy makers, civil society that they mean no harm with the technologies they are developing and they would not do any intentional harm. Incidentally this is how Google promotes itself through its informal corporate motto, “Do no evil!”
What the above implies is that engineers have to be capable of reading the pulse of the society they are serving and have to develop a wider conception of what their services truly mean. This is the crux of being multi-skilled, of being society-friendly. Of course, issues like adding value to the products by their being eco-friendly, through innovations and project management etc., relentlessly bulk up the portfolio of a “capable engineer”.
We talk about the graduating engineers being job-ready. The industry in its interactions with the academia with regard to what it needs must emphasize what it needs not now but four years later! The industry while rightfully demanding that academia fulfill its demands has to look ahead.
But, I can foresee a problem here. Now it is time for the educational administrator / entrepreneur to interject himself into the scenario. She asks, “Now, what is my risk factor? How do I know that the students I educate / train as per your plans will be put in your service, will be employable. Who is the risk manager here?”
If the industrialist has an answer at all, it is, “I am on to the path I am advocating for the entrants. I have seen the future and it is now.” He must have the daring to push the envelope. If he is content to tread the well-trodden path, sorry, the administrator has the upper hand in this exchange.
What the above translates into is this – the entrants into engineering must be trained with the future of the profession, not necessarily and definitely not exclusively of the industry, in sight.
That is, the graduates must be industry-ready but the industry must also prepare itself for the future. Links between industrial production, research and education must form a circle, running both ways.
Now, coming to the possible action plans – break the stone walls of disciplines/departments. The segmentations must correspond to fields of applications rather than exclusive knowledge, which in fact excludes knowledge from beyond the boundaries, no cross-fertilization.
The above re-orientation is bound to enhance the immediate employability of graduating engineers.
The process of changing curricula itself is an impediment to a dynamic engineering educational system. This has been recognized many times over, but for whatever reasons, the idea of bringing dynamism has become static. There is no traction at all. One of the reasons could be the issue of whose fiefdom a multi-disciplinary unit will be. It is not the first time this matter has engaged institutional reformers. What has been done earlier, not just in India, elsewhere too. We have to reach out for gathering experiences.
Multi-skilled is a tough issue. What we are talking about, beyond the skills in engineering, is how should engineers interact with society – from a position of power or authority, so to say, as a down-to-earth partner of society while being an integral part of it. Communication skills, adequately leavened by empathy, have to be developed. No, I am not talking about language classes. Rather I am advocating introduction to the humanities aspects of engineering, including history of engineering.
Immediately. The industrialist asks, “What do I get from humanities and engineering history?” The response: “You get cooperation from the society, less hindrance, smoother functioning, faster implementation, focus beyond monetary matters, economic returns … The list is literally endless.” This has to be said in a voice of authority.
This is the meaning of
Engineering Education – Beyond the Domains
Thank you.
4 comments:
A brilliant piece, Raghuram. There's much that I liked. For example, multi-disciplinary approach, obligation to society, creating...
I wonder how this speech went actually, in reality.
If it did at all, Matheikal ... I am clueless. Thanks for appreciating. I wrote the whole piece in a jiffy because I truly believe in what I have said. I want engineers to be humans first.
RE
I liked the passion in the speech Raghu, but wonder if a chief guest will have the courage of conviction to really say all that, particularly about the importance of developing a sense of history of engineering and what it takes beyond mere brick and mortar.BTW that's the cynical Aditi speaking. :). Here's a toast to you delivering this speech some day to a full house of young budding engineers listening with rapt attention. :)
Thank you so much for that wonderful show of support. I promise that if I ever get an opportunity, this will be the talk I will give.
RE
Post a Comment