|
| October 2009 | Subscribe |
PREMIER SPONSOR |
|
Our Sponsors:
|
In This Issue:
|
II. Congressional Hotline |
|||
CONGRESS MAY EASE OVERHEAD LIMIT FOR DOD RESEARCHIndirect costs? That's legislator-speak for administrative overhead in Pentagon-funded research. For the third year running, House Defense appropriators have limited overhead for basic research to 35 percent, well below what leading research universities used to command. The Senate version, however, doesn't contain this provision, so the issue will be thrashed out in a conference committee. A Senate staffer noted that the House has modified its position, but didn't say how.
SCIENCE OFFICE BUDGET SHOULD SEE BOOSTCongress has sent the Agriculture appropriation to the president, and Energy and Water should follow shortly, having cleared the Senate earlier this month. It increases spending for the Office of Science by 3.1 percent or $146.1 million.
IBM EXEC: ENGINEERS NEED BIZ SKILLS, TOORobin Willner, an IBM vice president, recently explained her firm's stress on "service science" to a Capitol Hill audience. Basically, IBM wants engineers who are "well-rounded," with business acumen as well as math and science skills. The company has been telling engineering schools: "You can't send us people who don't know how the world works." Willner was a member of the National Academy of Engineering-National Research Council study team that produced the recently issued report on K-12 engineering education. On K-12, she was less interested in the "pipeline" of future engineers than in grounding enough young people in math and science that they're in a position to choose engineering later. The pipeline, she said, has to be "the universe of kids going through K-12."
GOP’S SEN. COCHRAN: KING OF DEFENSE EARMARKSRepublicans are a minority in the Senate, but Mississippian Thad Cochran, ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, managed to secure 48 earmarks worth $216 million in the Defense spending bill now on the Senate floor, besting even Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), who got 35 earmarks worth $206.5 million. The watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense has put together a detailed spreadsheet showing campaign contributions emanating from companies and institutions that benefit. The Washington Post this week zeroed in on $10.8 million in grants Cochran steered to the University of South Mississippi for polymer research, noting that the senator's most recent reelection campaign had collected more than $10,000 in contributions from professors and staff members at the school. In total, the $636 billion bill has $2.65 billion in earmarks. The amounts designated for research show once again the distinction between research that the Pentagon wants Congress to fund and research undertaken by universities in states represented by a powerful appropriator.
U.S. R&D SPENDING FLATLINING, REPORT WARNSOverall, U.S. R&D as a proportion of GDP has stayed fairly flat at a little above 2.5 percent for the past decade, the American Association for the Advancement of Science makes clear in a new report. In contrast, Japan and South Korea each devotes about 3.5 percent to R&D. "In the private sector and in the public sector, our lunch is being eaten," Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) told a Capitol Hill briefing sponsored by AAAS this week. Holt's was a lonely voice on the House floor last summer pressing for more money for research in the Waxman-Markey energy and climate bill.
REWORKING OF PATENT LAW STALLED FOR NOW BY HEALTH CAREOne issue pushed to the back burner by healthcare legislation is patent overhaul, in which universities have a keen interest. Last spring, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent to the floor a measure viewed by some as bringing the most sweeping change to patent law since the 19th century. It would, among other things, adopt the "first to file" rule used in most other countries, rather than the current "first to invent" rule; alter the grace-period rule and allow patent applications by assignees. A key backer is the information-technology industry, which has been plagued by so-called "patent trolls" who collect damages for violation of patents they have no intention of turning into products.
|
III. Teaching Toolbox |
|
10 Ways to SaveEngineering Educators Suggest Inventive Cost Cuts. By Thomas K. Grose The ongoing recession means that many American universities are having to make do with less. State and private institutions alike are dealing with tight budgets through the usual means: raising tuition, cutting staff, freezing vacant positions. And few colleges of engineering have avoided the pain. Virginia Tech’s College of Engineering, for instance, trimmed its budget 3.5 percent in the middle of the last academic year, and is chopping another 5 percent this year. Ouch! Moreover, budget-cutting is no easy chore for engineering deans, since most spend anywhere from 85 to 95 percent of their budget on salaries. That doesn’t leave many areas to look for fat. But engineering academics are world-class problem-solvers. We asked a few to come up with smart, innovative ways to cut budgets without harming educational quality, and to suggest new revenue streams. Here are their ideas: 1. THINK BIG Many schools are, of course, forced to increase class sizes, and this is usually considered a bad thing. But Harvey Palmer, engineering dean at the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT), says that if done right, greatly increasing class sizes can not only save money, but improve quality. Only a handful of professors actually have the talent to make first-year core classes entertaining as well as informative, he says. That means an awful lot of these classes are being taught by professors who certainly know the material but don’t have the ability, or enthusiasm, to present it in a compelling fashion. These professors should instead be teaching older students who have already mastered the basics. Then one gifted, entertaining teacher could deliver introductory lectures in a large hall before 200 students. 2. THINK BARE NECESSITIES Larry Silverberg, a professor of mechanical engineering at North Carolina State University, puts his idea into context by quoting a Rolling Stones song: “You can’t always get what you want, but you get what you need.” Basically, Silverberg argues, students and faculty pay nothing for a wide variety of premium services, such as medical attention, tutoring, and patent-copyright help, as well as development of faculty members’ websites and PowerPoint presentations. His solution is to make users pay for them, perhaps turning them over to private companies to run. Making secondary services fee-based will determine which ones students and professors find truly helpful, Silverberg says. Joseph Beaman, head of the mechanical engineering department at the University of Texas, Austin, says that schools could cut back on classroom software, some of which – he cites Pro/ENGINEER as an example – is too specialized for students’ basic needs. 3. LEARN TO SHARE When it comes to filling faculty vacancies, O. Hayden Griffin, head of the department of engineering education at Virginia Tech, says a half-a-loaf approach can save money and pay benefits. In other words: joint appointments with other departments. Joint appointments are fairly rare at Virginia Tech, he says, but his department already has two with the department of mechanical engineering, “and they’re working out quite well.” Departments don’t get the full-time use of those faculty, but often the alternative is not having the funds to fill the vacancy at all. “Also,” Griffin adds, “we find we get some really interesting people who have strong interdisciplinary interests.” 4. FOLLOW THE MONEY Target federal research agencies that are still flush with cash. Biomedical engineering departments can, for example, look to the National Institutes of Health, which has enjoyed large increases. “Master’s and Ph.D. programs should be submitting training grants that can then support the costs of students,” says Raimond L. Winslow, director of the biomedical engineering Ph.D. program at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. 5. FOR RENT: STUDENT BRAINPOWER “Schools should try to expand corporate partnerships,” Winslow says. For instance, there are cost-sharing grad school programs that let students train with industrial scientists, while they’re co-mentored by academic researchers. Mark Shannon, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, says that companies with tight research-and-development budgets are often willing to pay to have some of their research problems turned into assignments for design courses. Students get real-world experiences, strapped companies much-needed R&D help, and schools a bit of extra income. 6. DEFLATING STARTUP PACKAGES When Beaman joined the UT Austin faculty in 1979, his signing bonus was zilch. Start-up packages for new faculty were uncommon back then. But they’re popular now – and ballooning, especially for experimentalists, he says. Packages of around $800,000 are not unheard of, and Beaman suggests they should be reined in: “It’s almost out of control.” 7. GOODBYE, MR. CHIPS Mandatory retirement is taboo, but North Carolina State’s Silverberg suggests offering senior profs an incentive to hang up their lab coats: a retirement bonus. Let’s say a senior faculty member earns $130,000 a year, and he or she accepts a $100,000 retirement bonus. The school then hires an assistant professor at $60,000 a year. Over three years, that’s a salary savings of $210,000. Minus the bonus, the school’s ahead by $110,000. It loses an experienced professor but gains a new academic who will bring fresh teaching ideas and, perhaps, an ability to draw research grants. 8. ASSESS, ASSESS, ASSESS Corporations are usually pretty good at conducting ongoing assessments of programs, RIT’s Dean Palmer says. Universities, not so much. The best time to start a continuing reassessment process is when good times return, not after a financial crisis hits, Palmer says. Put a cost-benefit analysis process in place at a time when no one feels at risk, so that when the next downturn occurs, it will be clear that any resulting program cuts weren’t done in an unfair, ad hoc manner. 9. CUT INTO OVERHEAD, NOT STAFF At Virginia Tech, Griffin’s department was facing a deficit in its faculty salary budget that amounted to a half position. But VT allows department heads to cover those deficits from their overhead budgets, a process that Griffin thinks is fair and flexible. So, what had to go after the overhead budget was whacked? A goodly amount of travel, some grad student salaries, a bit of money for undergraduate research . . . oh, and folks were asked to think twice before photocopying. 10. TAKE THE HEAT — THEN USE IT Last year, Illinois’s energy budget was in the red to the tune of $117 million. Meanwhile, Shannon says, the school -- like all other research institutions -- spends millions of dollars to operate lab hoods. Each hood probably uses more energy than a single-family home, and an awful lot of heated air that might otherwise be put to use is vented into the atmosphere. If that hot air could be captured and used, the savings would huge, he reckons. Retrofitting lab hoods with heat exchangers in existing buildings would be very expensive. But, Shannon says, it could save millions once costs are recouped. “And that would pay a lot of salaries.”
|
IV. JEE SELECT |
THE PERSUASION GAPEngineering educators may be missing the chance to influence graduates' career choices. By Gary Lichtenstein and Sheri D. Sheppard Do students who complete engineering majors pursue engineering-related careers? Not necessarily. Wrestling with career choices, graduates often reach impulsive and transitory decisions. Institutions and family wield important influence, and students can be disproportionately swayed by single experiences, be they internships, interactions with faculty, or advice from mentors. Yet seldom, it seems, do they get career guidance from engineering educators. Our study followed nearly 80 engineering students from two institutions — a private, comprehensive university and a state-funded technical institution — from their first year through the senior year. In senior-year surveys, fewer than half — 42 percent — were "definitely" planning to puruse a job in engineering. And subsequent interviews of 28 of the seniors revealed that only 21 percent intended to pursue engineering-related jobs, 25 percent were not going to, and 54 percent were unsure. Here are three examples: Leslie was one of many who struggled with whether to pursue engineering after graduation. An aspiring missionary, she originally chose engineering as a major after being impressed by an organization that enlisted engineers work on an orphanage in Guatemala. But after her first internship, in a governmental entity, she asserted, "If that's what engineering work is all about, I'm not interested." By April of her senior year, she had decided instead to teach mathematics in public school. Then, six weeks later, Leslie announced that upon returning from a summer trip, she would seek an engineering job, after all — but only as a way to support herself until she started a teaching program. She explained: "Engineering pays better than Starbucks." Kevin planned to become an electrical engineer until the middle of his junior year. Then he got an internship in finance, which he thought would give him added career flexibility. In his senior year, Kevin received job offers from engineering firms and from firms in banking and finance. While he valued the engineering background he had acquired, he took a job in finance because he believed the position would broaden his skill set and provide more career options than engineering. Max was one of a very few in the study who never wavered in his career choice. He graduated with a job in the petrochemical industry. Like many who took engineering jobs, he considered financial security "a pretty big motivator." He said, "I want to be able to do whatever I want when I get old." He added, "I know people say money can't buy happiness — give me a million dollars and watch the grin on my face." By a large margin, students at the public technical school were more likely to commit themselves to an engineering career. This finding appears to reflect the fact that their school offered few alternatives to engineering and few options for non-technical coursework. At the comprehensive university, by contrast, students had an opportunity to explore the sciences, art, and the humanities. The results of our study ought to hearten engineering educators in one respect: Participants we interviewed valued the problem solving skills they acquired in their major and saw themselves as qualified to enter a broad range of fields. Only rarely did we hear students describe specific, deliberate assistance in their career decision-making by the engineering department. Their postgraduate plans often were made without the influence or even the knowledge of engineering faculty. Our study showed that students' decision-making is malleable and careers can be marketed to them. Faculty could also collaborate with career centers and help structure internship experiences that meet a range of student interests. Building such guidance into existing programs could ensure that qualified, talented graduates of engineering programs don't abandon the profession. Gary Lichtenstein is consulting professor and Sheri D. Sheppard is professor of mechanical engineering in the School of Engineering at Stanford University. This article was excerpted from "An Engineering Major Does Not (Necessarily) An Engineer Make" in the July 2009 Journal of Engineering Education. It was co-authored by Heidi G. Loshbaugh at the University of Colorado, Boulder; Helen L. Chen, Kristyn Jackson, and Sheri D. Sheppard, at Stanford; and Britany Claar at the Colorado School of Mines.
|
V. JOBS, JOBS, JOBS |
Job-hunting? Here are a few current openings:1. Mechanical Engineering -- 10 opportunities 2. Electrical Engineering -- 2 opportunities 3. Architectural Engineering -- 1 opportunity 4. Chemical Engineering -- 1 opportunity Visit here for details:
|
VI. COMING ATTRACTIONS |
A SNEAK PEEK AT PRISM’S UPCOMING NOVEMBER ISSUE1. November’s cover story is a profile of G. Wayne Clough, the engineer and former Georgia Tech president now at the helm of the Smithsonian. Brought in following the turbulent regime of banker Lawrence Small, Clough is intent on reviving the institution’s contribution to science while making both its research and its collections relevant and accessible to modern audiences. For instance, he’s going all out to reach a global audience by putting the Smithsonian’s treasures online. 2. The second feature looks at what engineering schools are doing to protect America’s shorelines from the rising sea levels expected to accompany global warming. So far, the results are surprisingly limited, given mounting evidence of the threat. But engineers have worked on quite elaborate schemes to protect New York City and the Texas coasts. 3. “Those Who Can, Teach” describes a growing trend among engineering schools to take advantage of teaching and learning centers that use trained education professionals to improve teaching. The results: greater student enthusiasm and improved recognition among faculty of the importance of teaching. 4. November’s Teaching Toolbox describes why the intense efforts and multidisciplinary teamwork required to build an emissions-free dwelling and compete in the Department of Energy’s Solar Decathlon is an unique educational experience for the “decathletes.”
|
VII. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS |
ASEE Member Survey
|
To unsubscribe from this newsletter, please reply to connections@asee.org with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line - please include the email address that you would like removed from the mailing list. This Newsletter was sent to you by: American Society for Engineering Education Managing Editor: Tom Grose |