Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
ISBN 3-9811322-1-1
(valid from 2007: ISBN 978-3-9811322-1-2)
Foreword
Engineers play a critical role in fueling the global economy. Industry needs highly educat-
ed, entrepreneurial engineers to ensure innovation and technological leadership. Industry
needs engineers who strive for the best in a high-performance, highly competitive global
market. Industry needs a new breed of engineer: technically broad, commercially savvy,
and globally adept.
As a leading international automotive supplier in the high-tech sector, Continental
is strongly committed to promoting the global advancement of engineering education
and the development of young engineers. This report, In Search of Global Engineering
Excellence: Educating the Next Generation of Engineers for the Global Workplace, re-
flects that commitment. It also reflects the commitment of an international team of schol-
ars from eight universities known for their engineering programs. During the course of a
year-long project, team members studied their nations’ historical, social, and economic
trends and the changing nature of engineering practice; they considered various global
educational practices and reviewed their own universities’ efforts to better prepare the
engineering workforce of the future. The result is this report — and a call to address four
challenges that are critical to enhancing the global capacity to educate the next genera-
tion of engineers.
We hope this report serves as a springboard for action. At Continental we plan to
broaden the international opportunities for our trainees and young professionals, and
expand our network of education and research partnerships with engineering programs
around the world. We invite the international community in academia, industry, govern-
ment, and engineering-affiliated organizations to join us. We hope you will carefully con-
sider this report, examine your own contributions to promote global engineering excel-
lence, and join us on the road to championship!
Hanover, Germany
November 2006
Table of Contents
Epilogue ........................................................................................................................55
Continental AG .............................................................................................................67
Appendix .......................................................................................................................77
1
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
• There is an urgent need for research on engineering in a global context. The phe-
nomenon of global engineering is still emerging. There is a need for a theoretical
foundation on learning behaviors and models as well as on organizational processes
and management methods focused on instilling global competence in engineers.
Only a genuine commitment and sustained collaboration among all stakeholders in engi-
neering education will ensure a substantially increasing number of well-qualified, globally
prepared engineers worldwide.
2
1. The Starting Line
Globalization is radically changing the way national economies around the world design,
produce, distribute, and consume goods and services. Engineers are in the midst of this
dynamic development. They need to know foreign cultures in designing products and
services for global markets. They need to work in teams on projects with people from
different nations and continents. They need to be internationally mobile, whether physi-
cally or virtually.
These requirements raise critical questions: Is tomorrow’s engineering workforce —
whether in Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, North or South America — being well prepared
to meet the demands of the global economy? What new skills are required to be a good
engineer as well as a global engineer? How do we instill these skills? Will globalization
increasingly lead to an employability and status gap between engineers who comfortably
maneuver in an international environment and engineers who do not?
In October 2005, Continental AG, a major global player in the automotive indus-
try, launched the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative to seek answers to these
and other questions. Continental invited an international team of scholars from eight
universities known for their engineering programs to participate in the project: ETH
Zürich (Switzerland), Georgia Institute of Technology (USA), Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (USA), Shanghai Jiao Tong University (China), Technische Universität
Darmstadt (Germany), Tsinghua University (China), Universidade de São Paulo (Brazil),
and the University of Tokyo (Japan).
Chaired by the Technische Universtität Darmstadt, the team focused on three areas
during the year-long study.
2) Preparing Global Engineers. The team then reviewed the various educational ap-
proaches used to prepare engineers for global practice, including an examination
of their own engineering programs and universities. They considered all levels, un-
dergraduate, graduate, and continuing education, as well as faculty and university
development.
3
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
This “Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative: Educating the Next
Generation of Engineers for the Global Workplace”, is the result.¹ It reaffirms other na-
tional reports and studies and synthesizes the findings by the participating universities to
offer a new global perspective on the future of the worldwide engineering workforce.
1
The standard version of this report, In Search of Global Engineering Excellence,, may be found at:
www.global-engineering-excellence.org.
4
2. The Global Engineer
A Common Goal in Different Settings
It is easy to speak of “engineering programs” and “universities” as if they were all alike.
But the tapestry of engineering programs within universities worldwide is as different
as the systems of higher education in which the universities are embedded. The eight
universities in this study represent six countries on four continents: Asia, Europe, North
America, and South America. Although many characteristics differentiate these universi-
ties from one another — history, language, culture, size, budgets — they share a common
goal: to provide their students with a world-class education.
Much of the team’s motivation to participate in the study was driven by the project’s
global diversity. The prospect of gaining new insights on a common challenge preparing
global engineers was alluring. What impact will globalization have on higher education?
How will China’s rapidly expanding economy affect the rest of the world? What is really
happening with the Bologna Declaration?²
Inter-institutional comparisons within countries are common and generally feasible;
such comparisons internationally are much more difficult. Although the participating uni-
versities share a common goal, they reside in very different educational settings. The
youngest university is 95 years old (Tsinghua); the oldest is 152 (ETH Zürich). The small-
est engineering program enrolls nearly 5,000 students (Tokyo³); the largest enrolls over
20,000 (SJTU). One university is private (MIT), and seven are public (yet with widely dif-
ferent degrees of autonomy). Two charge no tuition fees (TUD4, POLI/USP), and one has
five international locations (Georgia Tech). Some universities are in emerging economies
and others in well-developed ones. Further information about the participating universi-
ties may be found in the section on University Profiles. l More: Table 1
It became apparent early in the project that the team’s deliberations were rich in
national expertise, but they were also very challenging as members struggled for insights
at a global level. The team quickly learned that gaining insights into “global engineer-
ing” can only be obtained when global engineering is viewed and understood in national
contexts.
2
In 1999, 29 European ministers of education signed the Bologna Declaration to create a European university community. The
goal of the reforms set forth by the declaration is to increase European students’ competitiveness, mobility, and recognition. The
declaration calls for a system of comparable diplomas (a bachelor’s diploma at the undergraduate level and a master’s diploma
at the graduate level), a system to facilitate transfer credit (the European Credit Point Transfer System), and common procedures
and points of reference for the different national quality assurance systems.
3
Combined enrollment in the Faculty of Engineering (undergraduates) and the Graduate School of Engineering (graduates).
4
Tuition will soon be introduced in Germany.
5
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
The six countries represented in this project — Brazil, China, Germany, Japan,
Switzerland, and the United States — are among the major economies of the world. They
reflect much of the world’s diversity in economic development, human capital, natural
resources, forms of governance, and systems of education. This chapter examines the
national settings and trends among these six countries, with a particular focus on their
engineering workforce and engineering education enterprise. Understanding and appre-
ciating the commonalities and differences in current international approaches to prepar-
ing engineers is an important first step in the search for better strategies to prepare the
engineering workforce of the future.
Brazil
Brazil is largely an urban society, with 83 percent of the population living in cities. Well-
developed agricultural, mining, industry, and service sectors provide a diverse economic
base, making Brazil the 11th largest economy in the world [1]. During the last several de-
cades, Brazil has expanded its presence in world markets with key exports that include
aircraft, iron ore, electrical equipment, automobiles, soy beans, and footwear. Despite
having the largest economy among the South American countries, Brazil has one of the
highest economic inequality indices in the world [2]. Most of the wealth of the country is
concentrated in the highly industrialized south and southeastern regions, although the
poorer northern areas are beginning to attract new investment.
Brazil has been highly successful in areas such as industrial operations, mainte-
nance, and technical customer support, and the country’s aeronautical and petroleum
industries are strong and internationally competitive. Brazil is also active in the produc-
tion of electronic products such as televisions, cellular phones, and computers, but the
technological infrastructure is not yet sufficiently mature for Brazil to be internationally
competitive in these products. As a result, the country’s most successful exports are
often non-technical products.
Brazilian engineers are adept at technology transfer, quickly adapting to and using new
products and technology. Companies can often rapidly construct new assembly lines to
provide consumers with new products in a short period of time. However, creating an
engineering workforce able to quickly develop new products and technologies remains
a challenge. Brazil historically has focused more on importing technology rather than on
developing its own.
6
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
For nearly two centuries following the discovery of Brazil in 1500, the country’s primary
source of scientific and engineering personnel came from Portugal. In 1699 a course for
educating “technician” soldiers was established in Rio de Janeiro with the objective of
training men to build block houses. By the late 18th century, the Artillery, Block Housing,
and Drawing Royal Academy was established in Rio de Janeiro as the first engineering
school in the Americas and the third in the world; its objective was to train weapons of-
ficers and engineers. The academy became the Polytechnics School of Rio de Janeiro in
1874 and began instruction in civil engineering [4, 5]. The following year, the Mining School
of Ouro Preto was established as the cradle of mining engineering in the country [6].
5
The Informatics Law exempts 5 percent of the gross revenues of high-tech manufacturing companies (telecommunications,
computers, digital electronics, etc.) from certain taxes.
7
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
As Brazil entered the Republican age, the need to train capable professionals in oth-
er areas was recognized, including agriculture, mining, and industry — the fundamental
fields for the economic, technological, and social development of the country [7]. In re-
sponse, the Polytechnic School of São Paulo was established in 1893, bringing together
civil, industrial, and agricultural engineering, as well as a course in mechanical arts [8].
At the beginning of the 20 th century, Brazil’s transition from an agricultural society
to an industrial economy required new avenues for modernization to complement its
growing engineering education infrastructure. Although Brazil had strategic natural re-
sources, the country lacked the technology necessary to capitalize on those resources,
which in turn highlighted the need to better support scientific research. Consequently,
the National Research Council (CNPq) was created in 1951 to grant scholarships and
support research to train the Brazilian workforce and facilitate Brazil’s industrialization.
From the 1950s onward, more institutions were created to support and enhance scien-
tific and technological research [9]. Two institutions of particular importance were the
Foundation for Assistance of Research of the State of São Paulo (FAPESP), founded in
1962, and the Ministry of Science and Technology, created in 1985, the latter of which
serves as a center of strategic planning for science in Brazil. Both organizations continue
to enjoy significant national support. For example, since 1989 the São Paulo government
has contributed 1 percent of its revenues to the FAPESP [10].
Higher education in Brazil is public and tuition-free, private and tuition-based, or
philanthropic and tuition-based but often associated with a social organization or church.
With a few notable exceptions, public institutions are considered the best, followed by the
philanthropic and then private institutions. The best institutions in Brazil strive to prepare
their students for the global marketplace in two ways. First, scientific and technological
advances are continuously incorporated into the students’ educational experience as a
natural part of the curriculum renewal process. Second, and more significantly, Brazilian
students can gain international experiences in foreign countries and/or be exposed to
foreign students studying in Brazilian universities through dual degrees, “sandwich” pro-
grams, and similar study or work abroad programs. Demand for these programs is high
at all levels, from undergraduate to post-graduate.
The number of students graduating with five-year engineering degrees (including
architecture and computer sciences) remained fairly constant throughout the 1990s
and then almost doubled between 1999 and 2004 [11]. l More: Figure 7 This increase was
due primarily to the increase in private institutions — in 2003, 48 percent of engineer-
ing graduates were from private institutions [12], the result of enrollment limits in public
institutions. The number of women entering engineering has also increased. For example,
14 percent of the engineering students entering POLI/USP in 2004 were female, compared
with 2 percent in 1960 and 9 percent in 1980 [13, 14], which reflects a similar national trend.
l More: Figure 8
8
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
The vast majority of master’s and doctoral degrees are offered by public universities,
with a few offered by philanthropic institutions. During the last ten years, the number of
students earning master’s and doctoral degrees in all disciplines, including engineering,
has increased more than 150 percent, a result of increased competition in the job market
and the support of organizations such as CNPq and FAPESP (for the State of São Paulo).
l More: Table 3
Until recently, Brazilian industry did not require a large supply of highly skilled profes-
sionals. Thus most students enrolled in graduate programs pursued academic careers.
However, today more professionals are enrolling in master’s and doctoral degree pro-
grams. For example, a new type of master’s degree — the professional master’s — was
enacted by the government in October 1995. The program requires a combination of
academic preparation and practical experience and is designed to prepare graduates for
careers in industry rather than for careers in academia. The professional master’s degree
provides an avenue for young professionals to obtain an advanced degree that meets the
immediate needs of industry.
Continuing education courses are offered largely by the universities, although com-
panies occasionally offer their own educational programs. Most courses focus on the
practical aspects of engineering, such as professional skills, new tools or techniques,
and management methods. Although offered mostly during the evening hours, enroll-
ments remain strong as students seek to improve their capabilities and consequently
their professional career opportunities. Increasingly, students are looking for more ad-
vanced technical studies focused on new technologies and innovation.
China
China is largely an agrarian society, with nearly half of the working population in agri-
culture. Major crops include rice, wheat, potatoes, sorghum, peanuts, tea, millet, barley,
and cotton. Approximately 29 percent of the workforce is in services and 22 percent in
industry, which includes iron and steel, coal, petroleum, machine building, electronics,
armaments, transportation vehicles, toys, and footwear [16].
Since 1978, the Chinese government has been shifting from a centrally planned econ-
omy that was relatively closed to foreign trade and investment, to a more market oriented
economy with a larger private sector and significant foreign trade and investment. As a re-
sult, China’s economy has experienced accelerated growth in recent years. China is the
world’s third largest trading nation after the United States and Germany. Its gross domestic
product (GDP) has also increased rapidly, from 379 billion RMB (46.2 billion USD) in 1978 to
10.6 trillion RMB (1.3 trillion USD) in 2004 [17]. l More: Table 4
This rapid economic growth, however, has not been without challenges. For exam-
ple, 20 percent of China’s population of 1.3 billion people live below the poverty line.
9
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
Even if the GDP were to quadruple between 2000 and 2020, the GDP per capita would
still be only about 3,000 USD based on a projected population of 1.5 billion. In addition,
China’s rapid growth has resulted in significant problems with air pollution and soil ero-
sion. Further, the production efficiency of Chinese industries is markedly lower than in
other countries. A major concern is China’s energy consumption, which is three to ten
times less energy efficient than that of developed countries. Consequently, China faces
increasing pressure to develop sustainable energy sources that will protect the environ-
ment.
While more developed countries are moving rapidly to knowledge-based econo-
mies, China continues to struggle with basic industrialization processes. According to an
analysis by the Development Program of the United Nations, China’s GDP in purchasing
power parity ranks fourth in the world [18], but its level of competitiveness in science and
technology ranks about 26 th [19]. The basic goals of the 11th Five-Year Plan (2006–2010),
issued by the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party in March 2006, in-
clude reducing energy consumption and developing new energy sources, protecting the
environment, and improving information technology, finance, and equipment manufac-
turing. These efforts will reshape China’s industrial profile and increase the demand for
engineers.
The rapid growth of the Chinese economy in the last two decades has not yet translated to
similar growth in its educated workforce. In 2003, China had a working population of about
760 million, only 50 million of whom had higher education degrees or diplomas; the major-
ity of the population has less than nine years of education. Some estimates suggest China
has only two million engineers, fewer than two engineers per thousand Chinese [20].
Although China now has a large and productive science, technology, and engineering
community, more attention needs to be paid to working conditions and the professional
environment and to preparing more engineers for high-end R&D engineering. According
to a recent SJTU survey of more than a thousand Chinese engineers, 73 percent said
they believe they work longer hours with higher job pressures compared to other profes-
sions [21]. This situation is even more severe for engineers in information technology and
related industries, where 85 percent of the respondents said they work longer hours with
higher job pressures. On the other hand, more than 70 percent of those surveyed said they
were satisfied with their present social status, income, and opportunities for promotion.
Indeed, they were generally optimistic about most aspects of the engineering profession
envisioned in China in 2020. l More: Table 5 However, respondents expressed less optimism
about working hours and job pressures. Further, China is experiencing a shortage of
engineers prepared to work in R&D, partly because the investment in R&D in China is
10
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
far less than in other major countries [22]. To remain globally competitive, many Chinese
businesses will need to establish R&D departments and significantly increase their R&D
expenditures from the current level of less than 1 percent of total sales [23].
The continuing rise in influence of technology and rapid global advancement make it
necessary for China to continue to invest heavily in developing a skilled and highly edu-
cated technical workforce. Among the top five of 16 skills and abilities ranked as important
for future engineers by the SJTU survey were knowledge of their field (82 percent), prob-
lem-solving ability (77 percent), basic engineering skills (70 percent), engineering design
(70 percent), professional attitude (69 percent), and teamwork (68 percent). Cross-cultural
knowledge, environmental awareness and social responsibility, organizational and man-
agement skills, cost and market awareness, and abilities in international communication
and cooperation were ranked less important, but they were clearly identified as skills and
abilities needed for Chinese engineers to compete effectively in the 21st century.
l More: Table 6
Modern engineering education in China began in the late 19 th century with the pioneering
efforts of the Tian Jin Chinese-Western School (now Tian Jin University), established in
1895, and the Nan Yang Public School (now Shanghai Jiao Tong University), established
in 1896. Engineering education continued to be a major component of the Chinese higher
education system after the founding of the Republic of China in 1912.
Engineering education experienced even greater development after the founding of
the People’s Republic of China in 1949, driven by the country’s urgent need to build
its industrial infrastructure. The number of engineering graduates increased from a few
thousand in 1949 to more than 80,000, or 43 percent of all majors, by 1965 [24]. l More:
Table 7 The number of engineering students as a percentage of all majors was about 35
percent throughout the 1980s and 1990s.
Since entering the new millennium, Chinese engineering education has again experi-
enced a period of rapid development [25]. l More: Table 8 Undergraduate admissions in 2005
reached about five million students, almost half of whom were admitted to bachelor’s
programs. And approximately one third of those were admitted to engineering programs.
Further, according to the national education development plan, the annual number of
undergraduate admissions will reach seven million in 2020, a 40 percent increase from
2005. More than 40 percent of those students will be admitted to bachelor’s programs (as
opposed to associate programs).
While China’s universities graduate quality engineering students who have been
lauded — both in China and overseas — for their solid foundation of knowledge and per-
sonal integrity, the current number of engineering students cannot effectively meet the
11
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
Germany
Germany is the second most populous country in Europe and has the largest economy
in Europe and the fifth largest economy in the world in terms of purchasing power [28].
Germany is the world’s largest exporter of goods, which contributes to the country’s high
standard of living (17th highest GDP at purchasing power parity per capita in the world
[29]). The majority of the country’s labor force of 43.3 million work in the service sector,
63.8 percent, with 33.4 percent employed in industry; Germany’s key services are dis-
12
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
Engineers enjoy considerable social standing in German society, respected for their cre-
ativity, innovation, and high degree of responsibility. A 2005 study by the Allensbach
Institute ranked engineers eighth among professions in terms of respect and social pres-
tige [33]. Annual salaries for engineers are conspicuously higher than average compared
with other professions that require a university degree, depending on the industry, posi-
tion, type of degree, etc. Salaries have recently started rising slightly for practicing engi-
neers [34] as well as for new engineering graduates [35].
Germany is a leading global competitor in scientific research and in the production
of innovative technological products. Engineers work in virtually every branch of German
industry and services, pioneering developments in nearly all facets of electronic and in-
formation technology, energy technology, microelectronics, micro- and nanotechnology,
and in interdisciplinary fields such as automation and medical technology.
The latest engineering study by the Association for Electrical, Electronic, and
Information Technologies (VDE) 6 shows that German businesses could fill only 80 percent
of their job offers for engineers [36]. As of 2004, Germany’s workforce included about one
million engineers, 360,000 of whom were self-employed or working as civil servants and
640,000 of whom were employed by companies [37]. The number of engineers working in
public and private enterprises has decreased by about 20,000 since 2001. This is partly
due to global competition and partly the result of the declining number of engineering
graduates over the last decade [38]. The cohort of 37,000 engineering graduates of 2004
is 25 percent less than the cohort in 1996. This trend is expected to reverse, however, as
a result of increased engineering enrollments during the past five years [39]. In fact, a re-
cent study by the German Kultusministerkonferenz7 forecasts rapid growth in engineering
6
The association was founded in Germany in 1893 and has evolved as one of the largest technical and scientific associations
in Europe. The VDE currently has more than 33,000 members, including a broad spectrum of engineers, scientists, technicians,
some 5,000 students, and 1,250 corporate and institutional members. The VDE is headquartered in Frankfurt am Main and is
represented in Berlin and Brussels or by 32 branch offices throughout the country.
13
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
graduates through 2015, reaching 49,000 per year [40]. At this level, engineering students
would represent 18.6 percent of total graduates from all disciplines, up from 17.8 percent
in 2004. l More: Figure 15
In response to the increasingly global characteristics of the marketplace, German
engineers are expected to be more mobile and flexible, to move to different work sites
both nationally and abroad, and to change job responsibilities as new needs arise. In
the past, engineers frequently worked within one company and perhaps even in one
department for decades. Today’s engineers may change companies two or three times
during their careers — and specific positions even more frequently. In Germany, 15,000
engineering jobs go unfilled every year [42] although 65,000 German engineers are unem-
ployed. This gap is due in part to the lack of mobility and flexibility by German engineers
to adjust to changing work environments or expectations. Thus, Germany must fill the
gap with engineers from foreign countries.
The activities of engineers have also changed, from developing new technical
skills, units, and equipment to advanced problem-solving requiring skills in project
planning, implementation, and integration of complex systems of hardware and soft-
ware. Engineering teams follow the so-called product lifecycle: idea generation, product
conception, product planning, product development and design, production planning,
manufacturing, marketing and distribution, maintenance, repair, and overhaul to recy-
cling and demolition. Consequently, engineers must complement their professional and
technical expertise with non-technical competences such as systematic problem solving,
communication, management, and leadership skills [43]. A typical profile of engineers
expected by industry covers four main areas [44]: l More: Figure 1
Interestingly, engineering education typically has not focused on areas such as deci-
7
German Kultusministerkonferenz is the abbreviated designation for the ongoing conference of the Ministers for Education of the
federal states of Germany, which was founded in 1948.
14
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
sion making, strategic thinking, negotiating skills, and willingness to take responsibility.
This deficit has been recognized, however, and steps are being taken to rectify it. New
interdisciplinary study programs like industrial engineering and business management
are improving the skills of engineers in these areas by combining engineering and man-
agement education. Students can also gain practical experience, foreign language skills,
and cross-cultural competence through compulsory internships as well as by studying
abroad. In 2005, roughly 19 percent of all engineering students enrolled in Germany spent
at least one semester abroad at a foreign university or in foreign internships [45].
Engineering education in Germany began in the first half of the 19 th century with the
founding of the first polytechnic schools and institutes, which were modeled like the
French École Polytechnique [46]. Three areas of instruction were offered: civil, mechani-
cal, and chemical engineering. In the late 1880s, industry demand to restructure and to
reorganize the engineering education system and the need for advanced education led
to the establishment of technical universities (Technische Hochschulen such as Aachen,
Berlin, Brunswick, Darmstadt, Dresden, Hanover, Karlsruhe, Munich and Stuttgart). The
20 th century brought technical advances in major industries such as machine building,
plant construction, and automotive engineering, which further influenced engineering
education in Germany. Today, German engineering education continuously integrates
new fields of technology, such as information and communication technologies, mecha-
tronics, and adaptronics. Emerging technologies, such as nanotechnology, alternative
energy technology, and life sciences, are also beginning to be integrated.
Germany is a federal republic with 16 states, which are responsible for education.
The Federal Framework Act for Higher Education (Hochschulrahmengesetz or HRG) and
the federally defined general examination regulations (Rahmenpruefungsordnung) fa-
cilitate consistent quality, content, and examination standards for higher education in
Germany, as well as mutual recognition of the programs of state study.
Engineering students in Germany obtain their degrees at one of three categories of uni-
versities. Research universities offer five-year programs culminating in the Diplomingenieur.
Students entering these universities have typically completed secondary school after 13
years of education culminating in a baccalaureate (Abitur) or equivalent qualifications,
e.g., foreign students. Programs at universities of applied science (Fachhochschule or FH)
typically involve three and a half to four years of study, and students obtain the qualifica-
tion of Diplomingenieur. Universities of cooperative education (Berufsakademie or BA)
offer three-year programs leading to the Diplomingenieur. Students applying to universi-
ties of cooperative education must have the same qualifications as universities of applied
science. l More: Figure 14
15
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
16
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
system of Diplom, Magister, and Staatsexamen degrees. The new degrees awarded in
engineering are Bachelor of Science, Master of Science, Bachelor of Engineering, or
Master of Engineering. Admission to a Dr.-Ing. degree program (the equivalent of a Ph.D.)
requires an excellent academic track record in the completion of the master’s degree and
the successful defense of a scientific dissertation promoting the introduction of new en-
gineering methods. Additionally, quality management systems (e.g., curricula and course
evaluation) are becoming mandatory and curricula must be accredited by one of six reg-
istered accreditation organizations.
Another challenge is reducing the time to graduate. While engineering education pro-
grams are designed to be completed in three to five years, depending on the category of
university, the actual time taken by students is often longer. This has been driven histori-
cally by Germany’s tuition-free education system and the single-cycle curriculum, the latter
of which requires less planning. Both issues are now being addressed. First, tuition (albeit
modest) has been introduced for students who exceed seven years of study, and tuition for
all years of study is being introduced. Second, the two-cycle system encourages students
to plan their curriculum more carefully since they can now complete a bachelor’s degree or
go on to pursue a master’s degree at the same or another university.
A final challenge is the recent decline in students enrolling in engineering programs.
After a long period of continuous growth, the number of freshmen entering engineering
programs (as well as other disciplines) began to decline in 2005 [51]. This decrease is
the result of a decline in the number of college-age persons in Germany and the low
percentage of precollege graduates who are equipped with the certificate of eligibility
for study at a university (35 percent in Germany compared to 56 percent for the OECD 9 ).
Yet another challenge is the low number of women enrolling in engineering disciplines.
The proportion of female engineering freshmen has remained stagnant at 20 percent for
years (1998, 16 percent; 2000, 22 percent; 2005, 20 percent), while the number of women
in other disciplines has steadily increased [52].
While the two-cycle approach poses some challenges in its implementation, it also
presents new opportunities for engineering students that will enhance their competitive-
ness both at home and abroad. German universities are developing international collabo-
rations to support “vertical” and “horizontal” mobility [53]. l More: Figure 3 Vertical mobility
refers to students who enter a master’s program at a foreign university after obtaining a
bachelor’s degree at a German university. Horizontal mobility refers to dual degree pro-
grams whereby part of a student’s study program is completed at a German university
and part at a foreign partner university. Horizontal mobility requires strong collaboration
and curriculum equivalence between the partner universities. Although horizontal mobility
programs are currently more popular among German students, the two-cycle system may
9
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is a group of 30 member countries that share a commit-
ment to democratic government and the market economy.
17
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
increase the popularity of dual degree programs. The new two-cycle system will also likely
inspire the development of even stronger second-cycle programs and dual/joint degree
programs. The success of these programs depends to a large extent on the global ac-
ceptance of degrees both within and among countries. Currently, about 17 percent of all
students enrolled in engineering programs in Germany come from abroad (compared to
11.5 percent for all disciplines) [54]. Germany is the third largest country in total numbers
of foreign students behind the United States and United Kingdom [55] and ranks first
in the number of foreign students relative to the number of university places [56]. The
primary reason for this steady growth in the number of foreign engineering students in
recent years (2000, 11.5 percent; 2003, 14 percent) is the excellent reputation of German
engineering education worldwide.
Japan
Japan has the second most “technologically powerful” economy in the world and the
third largest in terms of purchasing power parity [57]. Japan’s GDP was about 4,800
billion USD in 2005, compared with 12,400 billion USD for the United States and 2,900
billion USD for Germany. Few, if any, countries can top Japan in the production of high-
tech electronics products. As of 2005, seven of the top 20 computer chip manufacturers
in the world were located in Japan [58]. Japan is also the largest and most advanced
producer of motor vehicles, with six of the ten largest vehicle manufacturers based there
[59]. Japanese products are known for their design, reliability, and quality.
Nearly 68 percent of the Japanese work force of 66.4 million work in service indus-
tries such as banking, insurance, real estate, transportation, and telecommunications,
and 4.6 percent in agriculture, with major products including rice, sugar beet, fruit, veg-
etables, and dairy products.10 The remaining 27.8 percent work in industry, producing
electronics, motor vehicles, machine tools, ships, and chemicals. Japan is the world’s
fourth largest exporting country [60].
Three decades of unprecedented economic growth beginning in the 1960s helped
Japan achieve the 16 th highest GDP per capita in the world. The Japanese economy
slowed significantly in the 1990s, largely as a result of overinvestment in the 1980s [61],
but it began to show improvement in 2004. Fueled by an increase in domestic consump-
tion, Japan experienced an annual growth of 2.8 percent in 2005. Despite the expected
continued growth, Japan faces significant long-term issues: an aging population, and
thus a potentially shrinking workforce, an increase in public pension plan payments, and
huge government debt [62].
Japan, like other industrialized countries, must redefine its vision for the 21st century
as practices from the past are no longer appropriate to achieve a sustainable society.
10
Although Japan is self-sufficient in rice, it imports about 60 percent of its food.
18
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
19
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
resources, the Japanese have learned to make the most of their scarce resources and
live without unnecessary waste. And Japan’s core engineering knowledge in advanced
engineering and manufacturing companies has been kept internal to most companies as
a means of maintaining competitiveness.
Interestingly, these factors, which have played a critical role in Japan’s economic
success, now pose a challenge as the country looks to the future and tries to adapt to a
changing marketplace. Much of the knowledge and many of the cultural traditions — self-
motivation and awareness of resources, for example — that characterize the Japanese
workforce are not easily taught or transferred through formal study programs. A major
challenge for Japan then is how to maintain its traditional quality engineering practices
and philosophies while adapting to the needs presented of globalization. As the paradigm
for manufacturing shifts from resource intensive to knowledge intensive, it becomes in-
creasingly important to exploit existing knowledge around the world. This shift necessar-
ily requires a different type of workforce.
Leading Japanese industrialists observe that engineers in the future will need a
stronger foundation in engineering fundamentals, creativity, and synthesis, as they will
increasingly be faced with the need to acquire new knowledge to address new chal-
lenges [63]11. Industry will also require a greater focus on systems-oriented thinking to
address the increasing focus on multiple, interconnected products that perform a variety
of functions. As globalization brings together people from all regions of the world in both
a personal and business interaction, engineers must have greatly enhanced communica-
tion and teamwork skills. Finally, Japanese education, which historically has emphasized
academics, must emphasize more practice-based learning and practical training.
20
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
primary school to university, were established throughout the country. During the late
1860s, many foreign teachers and professors from Germany, Great Britain, France, and
other countries came to Japan as visiting or permanent professors and contributed sig-
nificantly to the foundations of Japanese engineering education.
In 1886, Japan’s first engineering school was established at the Imperial University
of Tokyo with the mission to help build the social infrastructure and military. The school’s
programs encompassed civil, mechanical, and electrical engineering as well as ship
building, architecture, applied chemistry, and mining. Aeronautics was added in 1920.
From its beginning, Japanese engineering education consisted of two separate sys-
tems: universities, which focused more on academics, and engineering high schools,
which focused more on practical skills. When World War II ended, Japan changed the uni-
versity system, modeling it largely after that in the United States, a model that integrated
both theory and practice into the curriculum. The new model gained considerable popu-
larity and helped raise the general level of education of the Japanese people. However,
its implementation within engineering has had mixed success. A small number of high-
level universities have tried to maintain their focus on academics but only with partial
success. Other universities, and the former engineering high schools, have tried to be-
come more academic, like the former traditional Japanese university system. But they
have not been particularly successful either. As a result, Japanese industry considers
engineering programs to be too academic and unable to educate or train students in the
practical aspects required by industry. Industry, therefore, often needs to provide on-the-
job training for its employees. However, as a result of the declining economy of the 1990s,
it has been difficult for industry to maintain such in-house training.
A 2003 survey on graduate-level education (particularly the Ph.D.) identified a num-
ber of key issues that pose a challenge for engineering education in Japan [64]. Due
to the rapid progress of technology, students now need a deeper knowledge of engi-
neering to pursue interesting and engaging engineering jobs, which has resulted in a
slight increase in students enrolling in engineering doctoral programs. Many students
with master’s degrees prefer to enter the job market after graduation rather than continue
their education. This is largely due to the lack of economic and intellectual incentives for
students to continue. As a result, the number of Japanese engineers who hold a Ph.D. is
low compared to the United States and will significantly influence Japan’s future indus-
trial developments for high-technology products. A particularly critical issue is that most
talented doctoral students do not consider an engineering degree to be prestigious, and
doctoral education and research programs do not necessarily reflect social and industry
needs. Dissertation topics are often dictated by traditional academic interests because
Ph.D. students and their advisors have insufficient exposure to industrial technology.
More intimate interactions are needed between universities and industry.
Another challenge includes both a diminishing pool of people to recruit into engi-
21
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
neering due to a low birth rate over the past few decades and the loss of engineering
know-how after the retirement of many experienced engineers. Japan needs to attract
more women into engineering, recruit more foreign engineers, and develop strategies to
address its traditional cross-generational knowledge transfer.
As a consequence of Japan’s focus to make engineering education more compre-
hensive and relevant, it has not kept pace with many other countries in globalizing its
engineering curriculum. The result is that the Japanese engineering education system is
under considerable stress because of the need to focus both internally and externally.
“Re-engineering” its educational programs to produce more globally prepared en-
gineers will not be easy. Language and Japan’s permanent employment system are sig-
nificant barriers of limitation. Fluency in Japanese is essential for studying at Japanese
universities, particularly in undergraduate programs. Similarly, since there is little practi-
cal necessity for Japanese students to learn foreign languages as part of their education,
they would have difficulty studying abroad. Further, the traditional employment expec-
tations in Japan, where students are hired upon their graduation and expected to stay
with the company until retirement, essentially precludes foreign graduates from gaining
access to Japanese jobs. The net result is that the transnational flow of engineering tal-
ent is stifled.
Nonetheless, Japan is making progress in reducing these barriers. Japanese ef-
forts are directed toward providing more skills-based education that combines hands-on
practice, coursework, and theses based on scientific understanding, exposure to indus-
trial practices through internships, and international experience.
Switzerland
Switzerland has one of the most stable economies in the world, characterized by low
unemployment, a highly skilled workforce, and low taxes [65]. Switzerland’s population
enjoys a high standard of living and a peaceful existence, given its long-standing commit-
ment to political and military neutrality. The country has liberal trade and investment poli-
cies, and Switzerland’s extensive banking and financial systems, as well as the sound-
ness of the Swiss franc, have made it one of the largest and most secure investment
havens in the world.
The pressures of globalization, the liberalization of trade, and growing use of informa-
tion and communication technologies slowed Switzerland’s growth in the 1990s. Several
sectors of the manufacturing and processing industry continued to thrive, profiting from in-
creased foreign demand. Pharmaceuticals, medical technology and precision instruments,
and watch-making, as well as certain sectors of the engineering, electrical and electronics
industries, successfully established themselves in the global market through a mixture of in-
novation, flexibility, and a focus on high-technology niches [66]. However, several of the tra-
22
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
ditional stalwarts of the economy — steel, paper, printing, and textiles — began to fade, and
Switzerland saw itself transforming into a global, heavily service-oriented knowledge-based
economy. Today, 69 percent of Switzerland’s 3.8 million workers are engaged in the service
sector, and knowledge-based services such as banking and insurance generate more than a
quarter of Switzerland’s total GDP [67][68]. l More: Table 9
Switzerland’s recent strong performance in the European Innovation Scorecard13,
which ranks Switzerland second in Europe [69], is attributed to its high business R&D
expenditure, a high degree of in-house innovation among small and medium enterprises,
a high rate of participation in lifelong learning, and a much higher than average perfor-
mance in intellectual property rights. l More: Figure 5
Trends that will have a significant impact on Switzerland’s economy in the future in-
clude the aging population, rising health consciousness, greater mobility, and the higher
priority given to leisure activities. The ability to anticipate these trends and the capacity
to quickly turn knowledge and research results into marketable products and services
will be key to Switzerland’s success as a global competitor.
Switzerland’s history of innovation and technological success dates back to its early days
of industrialization, from machines for its rising textile industry to ground-breaking civil
engineering achievements with tunnels and bridges. Decades of rising investments and
successes in science and technology-based industries fostered consistent growth and
prosperity during much of the 20 th century.
Despite the often outdated perception of engineers as too narrowly focused, public
interest in science and engineering is strong, as demonstrated by the high participation
in science exhibitions, events, and “open days” at university labs. More than half of the
working population is educated or active in science and engineering, with a steady in-
crease expected for the future [70]. l More: Figure 6 Nonetheless, the 13 percent increase in
the supply of science and engineering graduates over the last decade will be insufficient
to meet the continually increasing demand for highly skilled engineers in research, devel-
opment, and management. Even though enrollment in higher education is still rising, in
recent years the overall share of engineering graduates has started falling [71].
To a significant extent, Swiss industry has traditionally relied on an imported labor
force but the percentage of highly skilled foreign workers has increased even more in
recent years. In fact, the European Innovation Scoreboard identifies the below-average
output of science and engineering graduates as the most significant potential weakness
of Switzerland’s innovation capacity [72].
13
The European Innovation Scorecard is an annual analysis based on 26 indicators that measures innovative performance across
the European Union.
23
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
Thus, to sustain and expand the nation‘s innovation potential Swiss universities and
industry need to make engineering a more attractive profession and offer highly attractive
research and work environments to the best-qualified science and engineering graduates.
Additionally, anecdotal information indicates that engineering salaries in Switzerland are
not comparable to professions that require a similar level of education; thus, increasing
engineering salaries is important.
While engineers in Switzerland are respected for their analytical skills and problem-
solving skills, these skills are currently not sufficient to underpin the country’s global
competitiveness. Industry representatives point to the tremendous importance of social
and team competencies, as well as the ability to translate specialized expertise into non-
expert language and broader interdisciplinary horizons. The ability to work effectively as
part of multidisciplinary and international teams must be taught as early as possible and
in subject-specific ways. In addition, the globalization of the engineering profession de-
mands an improved intercultural sensitivity and linguistic versatility for engineering pro-
fessionals to navigate diverging approaches and views and negotiate solutions. With its
long tradition as a multicultural society and a high percentage of multilingual residents,
Switzerland is well positioned to face such challenges, but it must further strengthen
these attributes to effectively address global competition.
Industry representatives interviewed for this study further emphasized that industri-
alized countries with high labor costs, such as Switzerland, can compete globally only
if the innovative quality of their workforce, products, and services justifies such costs.
This means that engineers in Switzerland will have to excel in their ability to tackle open
questions and poorly defined problems, anticipate unexpected problems, and look for
innovative ways to find solutions. Such qualifications not only set a high standard for
educational institutions, but also challenge them to examine existing course content and
teaching methods to determine if they are sufficient to meet the growing demands.
The rise of Swiss engineering education accompanied the rapid growth of industriali-
zation in the early 19 th century and took its most prominent step with the founding of
a national “Polytechnicum” in 1855 in Zurich (renamed Federal Institute of Technology,
or ETH, in 1917). It remained the only national educational institution until the found-
ing of its French-speaking sister institution, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
(EPFL) 30 years ago. From the beginning, engineering education was associated with an
enlightened, more humanistic future, national prosperity, and international competitive-
ness. Two central tenets that were the cornerstones of early Swiss engineering education
remain essential factors for success to this day: first, readiness to make long-term invest-
ments into sustainable nationally accessible infrastructures (e.g., scientific equipment,
24
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
25
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
in Switzerland have to be more astute in adopting scientific innovation that has com-
mercial potential. For engineering education this means a stronger focus on fostering
entrepreneurial skills and integrating entrepreneurial awareness into engineering curri-
cula. Consequently, engineering programs must monitor and develop a more direct and
efficient transfer of scientific technological knowledge to and from industry. New orga-
nizational enterprises are emerging in Switzerland to facilitate common goal setting and
technology transfer between engineering programs and industry.
In their institutional development, universities are sometimes torn between compet-
ing goals — pursuing exciting frontiers of science on the one hand and responding to the
needs of industry on the other. Swiss engineering education must strike an appropriate
balance to ensure that its programs continue to build the future of Switzerland. Ensuring
that engineering education fosters creativity and the ability to tackle open, undefined
questions while simultaneously conveying much knowledge and as many functional skills
as possible will be a challenge. Further, Swiss engineering education needs to expand
opportunities for students to gain global experience. Switzerland has a unique advantage
in that most university students are fluent in at least two languages. A number of upper-
level university courses are also taught in English, which greatly enhances Switzerland’s
potential for transnational mobility among students.
United States
The United States has the largest and most technologically advanced economy in the world,
providing Americans with a high standard of living in terms of GDP per capita. Despite a
number of events that threatened to shake the economy in recent years — the terrorist at-
tack on September 11, 2001, Hurricane Katrina, American involvement in Iraq, and soaring oil
prices — economic growth has continued at a reasonable pace (3.5 percent in 2005) [73].
America is the world’s leading industrial power, with a highly diversified and techno-
logically proficient industrial base that includes petroleum, steel, electronics, motor vehicles,
aerospace, telecommunications, and consumer goods. U.S. businesses are at or near the
forefront in technological advances in computers and in medical, aerospace, and military
equipment [74], although many believe America’s competitive edge has begun to erode [75,
76, 77].
Rapid technological advancement has created a “two-tier” labor market that has further
widened the gap between the rich and the poor. Since 1975, the majority of income gains
have gone to the top 20 percent of individuals [78], and about 12 percent of the population
lives below the poverty line. Further, the United States is the largest emitter of carbon diox-
ide from burning fossil fuels, giving rise to numerous environmental issues. The aging Baby
Boomer14 population promises to increase the burden on the Social Security, healthcare,
and pension systems, and the influx of immigrants into the country is further straining educa-
26
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
America’s leadership throughout the world — both as a military and industrial power
— has been possible because of a highly skilled and trained engineering workforce. More
than 10 percent of America’s workforce of 149.3 million hold at least one degree in a sci-
ence and technology field [82]16.
Several major dynamics will significantly influence the future of the United States
from an engineering perspective. The speed of innovative breakthroughs, specifically
in the fields of biotechnology, nanotechnology, materials science and photonics, infor-
mation and communication technology, and logistics [83], will significantly increase the
demand for engineers, with software engineering becoming one of the fastest growing
occupations in the country in the next decade [84]. Computer- and mathematics-related
occupations are expected to increase by 30.7 percent in the next ten years, which trans-
lates into the creation of nearly a million jobs [85].
However, over the past years the United States has seen a decline in the number of
US-born engineers and has increasingly relied on foreign engineers to close the gap,
either international students graduating from American universities or foreign profession-
als who have emigrated to the United States [86]. Many fear that this heavy reliance on
foreign-born engineers will create a volatile labor market situation if they increasingly opt
to work in their developing home countries [87].
Other factors also play a role in the declining numbers of American engineers. For exam-
14
Baby Boomer refers to someone born during the period of increased birth rates following World War II.
15
The value chain characterizes the value-adding activities (primary activities such as production, sales and marketing, service,
and support activities such as management, human resources, R&D) of an organization. The goal is to maximize value creation
while minimizing cost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/value_chain).
16
According to the National Science Foundation, the number of people in the United States who are employed in science and
engineering fields ranges from four million to 15.7 million, depending on the definition used.
27
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
ple, although the overall labor share of women and minorities has continued to increase over
the past 20 years [88], they are still underrepresented in many engineering fields. Women
account for 46.8 percent of the labor force, but represent only 9 percent of the engineering
workforce. Currently, 57 percent of all bachelor’s degrees in the United States are awarded
to women; however, they obtain only 20 percent of bachelor’s degrees in engineering [89].
A similar trend can be seen with respect to minorities. By 2010, minorities are expected to
make up one-half of the US population [90], but they currently obtain only 10 percent of the
Ph.D.s in science and engineering [91]. A rapidly aging workforce in science and engineering
also has implications for America’s engineering future. Millions of engineers and scientists in
companies and universities are expected to retire in the next few years. While certain profes-
sions (e.g., police officers and pilots) have a mandatory retirement age, there is no federal
mandatory retirement age in the United States. Thus, it is not yet clear how many of these
skilled scientists and engineers will continue to work beyond the traditional retirement age.
Finally, U.S. companies have increasingly outsourced low-skill jobs and facilities and have
begun to move R&D activities elsewhere, such as China and India (although there is much
debate over how much this trend will affect high-skill jobs in the United States). A recent Duke
University study showed that the number of skilled Chinese and Indian engineers who are
able to engage in advanced R&D work and are willing to be geographically mobile is much
lower than often assumed [92].
The rapid pace and complexity of technological change will continually challenge engi-
neers to update their skills. Engineers need to become lifelong learners, and universities and
companies need to help them keep up to date with new technology [93], which will require
that many R&D facilities remain in the United States.
Industry also expects engineers to have different abilities than traditionally needed. The
vast amount of information available via the Internet means that engineers will have to memo-
rize less information than in the past. Instead, they will be increasingly asked to provide cre-
ative and thorough analyses on a myriad of problems [94]. Future engineers will be working
in real time with engineers separated by oceans and cultures, thus requiring an engineering
workforce trained to work collaboratively, especially as technology becomes more complex.
As the impact of technology becomes more controversial, engineers will need to be well
grounded in ethics and professionalism and have the leadership and communication skills
to help guide public policy and build public support for their technologies [95]. As complex
technology permeates the world, U.S. engineers will also need to be well-versed in other
languages, cultures, and the ethics of other countries [96]. In the future, engineers will need
to have a solid scientific and liberal education if they wish to be creative and efficient in an
increasingly global marketplace.
28
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
Engineering and engineering education have been intertwined with the growth and de-
velopment of the United States since its independence following the Revolutionary War.
The nation’s first engineering program, civil engineering, evolved from the establishment
of the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, which was established
in 1802 primarily to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign engineers and artiller-
ists in times of war [97]. The Rensselaer School, now known as Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute, was established in 1824 as the nation’s first technological institute [98].
The need for railway lines, bridges, harbors, and roads grew with the nation’s rapid
westward expansion, increasing the demand for engineers and engineering programs,
and engineering education quickly became an important resource for national, social,
and economic growth — a focus that remains to this day.
During the first half of the 19 th century, higher education was largely inaccessible to
many Americans, a situation that changed dramatically when the U.S. Congress passed
the Morrill Act17, often known as the Land Grant College Act, in 1862 [99]. As a conse-
quence of this act, the nation’s economy and geographic growth accelerated throughout
the last half of the 19 th century, fueled by such engineering efforts as the transcontinental
railroad, electric power, the telegraph and telephone, and steam and internal combustion
engines. These developments spawned the creation of a number of engineering societ-
ies, including the American Society of Civil Engineers in 1852 [100], the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers in 1880 [101], and the Society for the Promotion of Engineering
Education (the precursor to today’s American Society for Engineering Education) in 1893
[102]. Thus, by the end of the 19 th century, engineering and engineering education were
integral elements of the national economy, industry, and higher education system.
For most of the first half of the 20 th century, engineering and engineering education
emphasized more its practical arts than its scientific base. This changed abruptly when
the world observed the power of science and its applications during World War II. In
particular, the National Science Foundation (NSF), a federal agency to develop, promote,
and support scientific research and education in the United States, was established in
1950. Coupled with the development of several other programs within existing federal
agencies, these efforts largely transformed the American higher education system into
research-based institutions of higher learning, especially in science and engineering.
In 1955, the American Society of Engineering Education issued a landmark study, the
Report on Evaluation of Engineering Education [103], more commonly called the Grinter
Report after the chair of the committee that prepared the report, L.E. Grinter. The re-
port outlined specific objectives for both the technical and humanities areas of study
17
Under the Morrill Act each U.S. senator and representative was given 30,000 acres of land, which was to be sold and the pro-
ceeds used to provide support for colleges in each of the states. The colleges were intended to educate citizens in agriculture,
home economics, mechanical arts (essentially engineering), and other professions practical for the times.
29
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
necessary for future engineers and was the first time in the development of engineering
education that the curriculum was divided into four segments: humanities and social sci-
ences, mathematics and basic sciences, engineering science, and engineering specialty
subjects and electives. This division of the U.S. engineering curriculum is very much still
evident today.
In the 1990s, ABET, the national engineering accreditation organization, introduced
new accreditation criteria for U.S. engineering programs called Engineering Criteria 2000
(EC2000), which has been a driving force in further improving the quality of engineering
education [104]. Its adoption as the engineering criteria, with its outcomes-focused, evi-
denced-based cycle of observation, evaluation, and improvement, characterizes many
aspects of a scholarly approach to educational innovation, which is a major new trend in
U.S. engineering education.18
To meet the current and emerging needs of a global marketplace, engineering edu-
cation must continuously and consistently reassess its mission and the effectiveness of
the paths it follows to get there. In the United States, many studies, reports, conferences,
and workshops conducted over the last 50 years have served this function. Consequently,
the engineering curriculum has undergone numerous changes and improvements. More
recently, in response to the increasing inter- and multidisciplinary nature of engineering
activities, efforts began in the 1990s to emphasize a more integrated, cross-disciplin-
ary engineering education, including the transformation of many disciplines into broader
or integrated fields such as mechatronics and bioengineering. The ability to continually
adapt engineering education to emerging technological trends will be an ongoing chal-
lenge.
Presently, U.S. engineering education faces three major challenges. First, the United
States faces diminished interest by U.S. citizens to pursue engineering careers. The na-
tion needs to decrease its reliance on foreign engineers and increase the number of
U.S.-born engineers by (a) improving science and mathematics education at the precol-
lege level so that more students are academically prepared for the rigorous engineering
curriculum, (b) making engineering careers more attractive, especially to women and
underrepresented minorities, and (c) improving engineering salaries.
Second, the ongoing tension between support for research and education needs to
be resolved. While funding for engineering research has remained fairly consistent and
strong, support for engineering education and human resources development has been
more episodic. Additionally, the balance between theory and analysis and laboratory
and design in the engineering curriculum has been a never-ending discussion within the
engineering community.
Third, the engineering professoriate needs to recognize that how they teach is as
18
For example, ASEE launched a major initiative “Advancing the Scholarship of Engineering Education: A Year of Dialogue”
in June 2006. Among the goals is to heighten attention to more scholarly approaches to educational innovation and rigorous
education research.
30
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
important as what they teach. Although the literature is replete with research studies
on education methods in general, little has been directed toward engineering educa-
tion specifically. There is a strong and emerging trend in U.S. engineering education to
more fully embrace the continuous process of curriculum renewal based on education
research [105].
As globalization has become an ever-increasing element of world economies, secu-
rity, and environment, U.S. engineering education needs to keep pace. Clearly, engineers
for the 21st century require a broader multidisciplinary base of knowledge, especially in
fields such as global socioeconomic and political systems, international commerce and
world markets, environmental systems, and research and technological innovation [106,
107]. They also need more refined and diverse interpersonal skills, particularly in glob-
al collaborations [108, 109, 110, 111]. Creativity is fundamental to long-term economic
health, and it is fostered by cultural and ethnic diversity [112]. In effect, diverse groups
are more innovative and effective. Finally, engineers for the new millennium will require
the ability to live and work comfortably in a transnational engineering environment. Many
engineers will find themselves working and living in foreign environments during much of
their career. This places an increased emphasis on language versatility and communica-
tion skills [113].
It follows, therefore, that engineering curricula must instill this global mindset. At
least three elements are believed to be needed to produce globally competent students:
coursework in international studies, second language proficiency, and international expe-
rience [114, 115]. Incorporating such preparation into engineering curricula, however, has
proven to be a major challenge because of the highly sequenced and content-demanding
nature of the curriculum. Consequently, international preparation is often addressed by
“add-ons” such as minors and certificates, or it is relegated to short summer experi-
ences abroad. Nonetheless, some engineering programs are finding ways to incorporate
language preparation, coursework in global studies, and transnational design into the
engineering curriculum in more integrated and immersive approaches [116, 117, 118].
Attempting to describe the global situation for engineers and engineering education
based on these six national perspectives is a bit like the proverbial blind man attempt-
ing to describe an elephant by feeling different parts of the beast. The global situation
has a very different feel depending on where one stands. Brazil enjoys the advantage of
engineers who are nimble at technology transfer, but it needs more engineers capable
of technology development. It needs a more technologically advanced infrastructure,
and engineers need greater social standing and compensation. China’s population offers
tremendous long-term engineering human resource potential, but the country’s short-
31
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
term industrialization needs and environmental concerns demand attention. And while
current Chinese engineering graduates could benefit from more innovation and creativity,
their strong work ethic and academic skills are highly valued around the world. German
engineers enjoy high social standing and are known for their innovation, precision, and
quality of work. Still, their lack of mobility and flexibility challenges Germany’s ability to
maintain an adequate engineering workforce. And while the Bologna Declaration has
increased European student mobility, it continues to consume scarce resources at a
time of increased international educational competition. Japan’s island geography has
produced the world’s most resource-efficient, environmentally-conscious, and flexible
engineering workforce, but its customs have also produced “islands” in its industrial
community. A strong commitment to one’s company fosters a high degree of teamwork
and leverages seasoned engineering know-how, but it also diminishes industrial and ed-
ucational mobility, critical factors for success in the global economy. Switzerland is, to a
great extent, international in and of itself, and benefits from a long history of multicultural
assimilation and international cooperation. While Swiss engineers are known for their
strength in science and analytical and problem-solving skills, there is a need to infuse
more entrepreneurship and innovation in Swiss engineering education. The United States
enjoys a robust and technologically advanced economy, but it is increasingly dependent
on foreign-born engineering talent. When this is coupled with the growing outsourcing of
industrial R&D, American engineering faces a challenging situation.
Despite their diverse histories, cultures, economies, and engineering infrastructures,
it is apparent that all six countries recognize the need for a dramatically different kind
of engineer and, remarkably, they agree substantially on their desired traits. The highly-
analytical, technically-focused engineering “nerd” is a person of the past. They seek
engineers who are technically adept, culturally aware, and broadly knowledgeable; engi-
neers who exhibit an entrepreneurial spirit and who are innovative and lifelong learners;
engineers who understand world markets, who know how to translate technological in-
novation into commercially-viable products and services; and engineers who are profes-
sionally nimble, flexible, and mobile. What they seek is a global engineer.
Given a remarkably consistent set of skills and abilities expected of global engineers,
how do universities, industry, government, and engineering-related agencies best instill
these competencies in the next generation of engineers?
32
3. Developing Global Competence
Technically adept, culturally aware, and broadly knowledgeable, as well as innovative,
entrepreneurial, flexible, and mobile — are we seeking global engineers or “super engi-
neers”? Engineering is already a demanding program of study with its tightly sequenced,
highly technical, and lengthy curriculum. And now we expect even more from engineering
graduates? Instilling skills required for global competence will be challenging, but several
promising trends have already laid the groundwork.
First, powerful and portable communication and collaboration technologies are
transforming the educational environment [119]. They are eliminating much of the “mem-
ory” work in education and are providing more time for analysis, synthesis, and cre-
ativity. Highly realistic and often low-cost simulations and computer-based models al-
low students to visualize phenomena, develop rapid prototypes, and explore material in
ways that are not possible in traditional classroom and laboratory settings. Indeed, they
are transforming physical spaces themselves, from immobile lecterns and chairs bolted
to the floor to moveable and modular furnishings with Web-based infrastructures (e.g.,
wireless) that foster greater collaboration and discussion. Information technologies are
extending the reach of on-campus students beyond the classroom walls and are simul-
taneously allowing remote professionals to reach onto the college campus. These and
other technologies make better use of the students’ and faculties’ limited time and allow
greater depth and breadth of understanding than was possible before. Advanced com-
munication and collaboration technologies will greatly aid in the preparation of the global
engineer.
Second, many institutions are recognizing the pedagogical value of learning experi-
ences beyond the formal curriculum [120]. Cooperative education, internships, research
experience, service learning, study abroad, and similar experiential programs provide
students with opportunities to better connect the theory and practice of their fields, and
to develop their “soft skills,” sometimes called “professional skills,” such as teamwork
and communications.19 These out-of-classroom programs expand learning opportunities
for students, deepen theoretical understanding through a breadth of experiences, and
help build connections across the various subjects within a curriculum through real-life
problems and challenges. Leveraging and integrating learning experiences beyond the
formal coursework provide important opportunities to develop global engineering skills.
Third, and perhaps most significant, is the trend toward competence-based educa-
tion, where student performance — not “seat time” — becomes the focal point of the
educational experience [121]. Many institutions worldwide are developing competence-
based institutional goals and corresponding curricula. Often driven by feedback from
19
All of the universities in the study have formal programs promoting these types of experiential learning opportunities and report
considerable increases in student participation.
33
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
employers and alumni, among other factors, competence-based curricula help sharpen
an institution’s educational focus, encourage interactions with its stakeholders (e.g., stu-
dents, alumni, industry, governing boards 20 ), and promote a more synergistic approach
to education. The result can be a more efficient and effective educational experience that
better utilizes university resources and produces more capable graduates.
Project-based learning (PBL) is an example of a curriculum largely oriented toward
competence-based learning. 21 Students gain a deeper appreciation of theory when it is
grounded in practice, and the practical environment gives rise to opportunities to im-
prove professional skills. Thus, disciplinary skills and professional skills are gained con-
currently. Further, diverse student backgrounds complement, reinforce, and elevate the
level of learning. Advances in communication technologies have dramatically reduced
the need for physical face-to-face collaboration; thus many PBL efforts now involve in-
ternational partners.
Competence-based education bodes well for engineering programs and instilling
global competencies such as international teamwork. However, competence-based
learning is still emerging, with many pilot experiences but little broad-based, consoli-
dated practice [122].
These and other trends will aid engineering programs to prepare engineers for global
practice, but the task will not be easy. Engineering programs must work within broader
institutional missions and goals; within provincial and national systems for elementary,
secondary, and higher education; and for some, within accreditation systems, as well
as within their national and regional customs and cultures. Some engineering programs
represent the academic core of their universities, whereas others are only one among
many fields of study. Some systems of higher education view the four-year baccalaureate
as the terminal degree to successfully practice engineering, while others view five-year or
two-cycle programs as the entry-level program for professional practice. Some societies
view higher education as an optional opportunity to prepare for higher levels of personal
or professional attainment, and others view it as a national imperative for the preparation
of its citizens and a greater social good. Within these constraints and other consider-
ations, engineering programs must design educational experiences that capitalize on
their institution’s unique strengths, that leverage their system of higher education, and
that are responsive to their regional or national cultural norms. It should not be surpris-
ing, therefore, that engineering programs worldwide have responded to globalization in a
wide variety of ways, ranging from highly-targeted programs to broad-based institutional
initiatives.
20
All of the participating engineering programs regularly survey alumni, industry, and/or students. Many also have advisory
boards that provide valuable feedback.
21
Project-based learning, sometimes called problem-based learning, employs real-life projects, problems, or cases to facilitate
concurrent learning of theory and practice. It shifts the learning experience from passive absorption of an instructor’s lecture, in
which theory may be presented without much relation to its use in practice, to an active experience in which students and faculty
members become collaborators in the learning process, and theory is developed in the context of practice.
34
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
Throughout this study, team members considered the globalization programs and prac-
tices with which they were familiar and examined the ones at their universities in the areas
of undergraduate education, graduate education, foreign language education, continu-
ing education, faculty development, and university development. While the programs
and practices considered are not necessarily exhaustive, they are among the most com-
mon employed by universities worldwide. Interestingly, the team observed four common
conditions among them that impede the worldwide capacity to better prepare global
engineers.
Undergraduate Education
Providing international experiences is often the primary approach for undergraduate stu-
dents. The undergraduate student body at most institutions worldwide is largely com-
posed of students of national origin. This is driven by several factors: college entrance
expectations or requirements that are often tied intimately to the national system of
precollege education or examinations, the low cost of tuition (many institutions are tu-
ition-free or have modest tuition fees for nationals), the difficulties of obtaining visas or
other government restrictions to study elsewhere, and the comfort of living in one’s home
country during the remaining years of maturation into young adulthood. While there are
many adventurous students who do pursue degrees abroad, they are generally the ex-
ception rather than the rule. This is also true of students at the universities participating
in the study.
Consequently, most institutions focus their energies on programs that increase their
students’ mobility to spend time abroad during their undergraduate career. The most
common programs involve study, internships, or research experiences abroad. Most are
also of short duration (e.g., summer, semester) but occasionally may be longer (e.g., a
year or multiple stays). They may be institutionally-focused programs involving exchange
agreements with partner universities or faculty-led programs to other universities, or they
may be student-focused programs supported by government, quasi-governmental, or
non-profit organizations and agencies. All of the participating universities have numerous
exchange agreements with other universities around the world, offer faculty-led programs,
and have government or other sponsored programs supporting student mobility. MIT
has the Cambridge-MIT Exchange program. TUD is a member of the German Academic
Exchange Service (DAAD), which facilities student exchanges, and also participates in a
number of programs sponsored by the European Union. SJTU has a cooperative arrange-
ment with the University of Michigan through the SJTU-UM Joint Institute. Georgia Tech
has the International Plan, and POLI/USP offers a dual degree program. The Georgia
35
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
Tech and POLI/USP programs are described in more detail on pages 43 and 44.
Unfortunately, the number of students participating in these programs remains rela-
tively small [123]. Several factors contribute to low participation rates: the difficulty of
finding compatible coursework that fits within a student’s plan of study, especially in
the highly-sequenced and crowded engineering curriculum, language barriers, the need
for significant advance planning, systemic curricular differences between domestic and
foreign institutions (e.g., single-cycle vs. two-cycle), and concerns about the quality of
the educational experience at another institution that is often less well known to students
(and their parents).
Graduate Education
Internationalizing the educational experience for graduate students relies largely on stu-
dents enrolling in foreign institutions for a research project or to pursue a master’s or
doctoral degree, either as a stand-alone degree or as part of a dual, double, or joint
degree program, i.e., vertical mobility. Vertical mobility is generally more pronounced at
the doctoral level. Among most of the participating universities, international doctoral
students represent about one-fourth to one-half of the student population. Most of the
participating universities offer joint, dual, or double degree programs. 22 For instance,
Tsinghua has dual degree master’s programs in industrial engineering and automotive
engineering with RWTH Aachen University (see page 45). STJU has a dual degree pro-
gram in mechanical engineering with the University of Michigan and another in electrical
engineering with Georgia Tech. (SJTU’s collaboration with the University of Michigan is
described more fully on page 46.) TUD has both joint and double degrees in mechanical
engineering with Virginia Tech. ETH Zürich just launched a joint master’s degree with TU
Delft and RWTH Aachen University, and Tokyo has begun working on a master’s stu-
dent exchange program with TU Berlin, TU Delft, Catholic University of Leuven, and TU
Denmark, with the prospect of developing joint or double degree programs in the future.
Many universities are also revisiting the mission of their doctoral programs, from one
aimed largely at students interested in academic careers to one that also includes a wider
range of research careers in global industry [124]. The focus of doctoral education his-
torically has been research excellence and professional skills as they relate to academic
careers (e.g., research project management, presentation skills, and writing skills for
grants and papers). In 2002 in Japan, for example, 89 percent of the doctoral graduates
entered academia and 11 percent entered industry [125]. Japanese universities are now
actively working to better connect doctoral education with industrial practice. Indeed,
many institutions are now working internationally to foster the innovation potential of their
22
Specifically, TUD, 24 percent, POLI/USP, 25 percent, Tokyo, 35 percent, MIT, 40 percent, ETH Zürich, 52 percent, and Georgia
Tech, 55 percent; however, for SJTU and Tsinghua the international doctoral student enrollment remains much less (under 2
percent).
36
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
doctoral students and enhance their institution’s capabilities for commercialization (e.g.,
venture technology laboratories, incubators for spin-offs) [126]. Institutions are push-
ing for increased attention to the entrepreneurial dimension of research and knowledge
transfer into the economy and society as part of graduate education. Tokyo, for example,
is revamping its master’s and doctoral programs to make more clear their distinct edu-
cational objectives, connection and relevance to industry, and value to industrial, gov-
ernment, or academic careers. On the other hand, some institutions have long-standing
traditions in more broad-based graduate programs, such as TUD’s research-based and
practice-oriented doctoral education program as described more fully on page 47.
Increasing the enrollment of foreign students in graduate programs has generally
not received much attention from regional or national governments and agencies until
recently. This is because they have tended to focus on issues of student access and suc-
cess in undergraduate programs (i.e., issues of concern to their constituents). However,
in an environment of increased economic competition caused by globalization, graduate
student mobility and the students’ subsequent employment have gained more of their at-
tention. Consequently, regional and national policies affecting student and professional
mobility are gaining popularity [127]. Nonetheless, most research-intensive universities
already enjoy the benefits of having significant enrollments of foreign graduate students
and post-docs in their programs.
Another challenge to student mobility is the compatibility and recognition globally
among degree programs. The two-cycle programs now being created by the Bologna
reforms are a major step to address this problem in Europe. The two-cycle programs will
not only facilitate the transnational mobility of European students elsewhere into similar
degree structures, but they will also help students worldwide gain increased access to
European institutions.
23
Most language courses contain material related to the cultural context of the language and the country or countries in which
it is used, e.g., history, customs, social norms.
37
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
Continuing Education
Given the increasingly short life span of technical knowledge, the need of industry to ab-
sorb the latest scientific and technological advances, and the growing interest and con-
cern of society to be informed about the implications of new scientific discoveries, most
universities recognize the importance of continuing education. For the most part, the
paradigm of offering continuing education principally on-site is falling by the wayside, as
modern electronic communication makes it possible and attractive — indeed, imperative
— to easily reach students at their work sites or homes. All of the participating universi-
ties have substantial continuing education programs, many of which are based largely
on electronic delivery. MIT has its OpenCourseWare Initiative, a large-scale, Web-based
electronic publishing initiative, which provides free access to MIT’s course materials.
POLI/USP offers a Continuous Education Program, and Tokyo utilizes its Manufacturing
Management Research Center to facilitate educational outreach to local engineering
communities. TUD offers a “Dual Mode” approach, which features electronic technolo-
gies that complement its traditional teaching structures, and Georgia Tech has created
a 3,000-square-meter Global Learning Center as a means to reach a global audience. In
China, SJTU enrolls more than 4,000 students in its Master of Engineering Professional
program, and Tsinghua provides extensive educational offerings through its Continuing
38
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
Education School, UNESCO Teaching Staff in Continuing Engineering Education, and the
Engineering Management Certification International Training Program.
Faculty Development
University Development
Finally, many universities are now moving beyond simply expanding their current ef-
forts by formulating an overall institutional or organizational framework for globalization.
Internationalizing the university — and engineering education — is a resource-intensive
endeavor that demands imaginative approaches to curricular structuring, teaching meth-
ods, international partnerships, and administrative support. Broader efforts recognize
that a university’s response to globalization should be more than the sum of its activities,
which are commonly subsumed under the heading “internationalization.” A sharpened
awareness of global competition should result in a growing number of concerted actions
to make one’s institution as attractive and visible as possible to globally mobile talent,
partners, and resources. Thus, international efforts and processes are increasingly em-
bedded in wider institutional developments ranging from new structures for interdisci-
plinary education and research to the formation of centers of excellence to the establish-
ment of an institutional presence in other parts of the globe.
Georgia Tech has established a presence in Ireland, France, and Singapore and is
39
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
expanding its presence to China and India. A university-wide strategy known as Global
Tech will manage these and other efforts. ETH Zürich has established the IDEA League
to focus on strategic policy issues with four peer European universities: Imperial College
London, ParisTech, RWTH Aachen University, and TU Delft. SJTU has begun to develop
strategic plans focused on internationalizing education and research, including requir-
ing internationalization plans in its departments and schools. Tsinghua has formed the
International Cooperation and Exchange Leading Group, led by a university vice pres-
ident and key personnel in charge of academic, research, and administrative depart-
ments, to formulate and implement international strategies. Examples for MIT include
the Singapore-MIT Alliance (SMA), an education and research collaboration, and the MIT
Science and Technology Initiative (MISTI), which involves a broad set of efforts ranging
from professional internships to international research collaborations to study abroad,
and support for meetings, conferences, and workshops. (MISTI is described more fully
on page 49.) TUD’s governing board has declared internationalization as a strategic uni-
versity objective, and Tokyo has developed a long-range internationalization plan, as
described on page 50.
Opportunities to engage in international activities broadly across the university are
another institutional strategy. For example, the need for practical preparation has led to
the development of experience-based programs at all levels — undergraduate, graduate,
and continuing education. These programs often result from the need for engineering
programs to provide students with more real-world hands-on educational experience and
for faculty members to update their skills and maintain their connections to current in-
dustrial challenges. For students, this experience may be in the form of international stu-
dent competitions, design projects, research experiences, or internships. For example,
SJTU students participate in the Association for Computing Machinery’s International
Computer Programming Contest, which they have won twice, and Tsinghua students
have won the International Robot Football Contest. TUD students compete in Formula
Student and Georgia Tech students in GT Motor Sports as part of national and inter-
national racing teams. Of course, there are many opportunities for in-class/on-campus
competitions. All of the participating universities have some form of organized research
programs for undergraduates. (Graduate students are expected, and most often required,
e.g., Ph.D. students, to participate in research.) SJTU has its Participation in Research
Program, Tsinghua its Student Research Training Project, Georgia Tech and MIT their
Undergraduate Research Opportunities Programs, and Tokyo has included increased re-
search participation as an important goal in its International Promotion Plan, 2005–2008.
Much of the research, especially for engineering programs, is industrially sponsored.
Internships can range from summer experiences to cooperative education programs,
and involve industrial research theses or management internships as part of the degree
requirements. Tsinghua’s five week summer semester is intended largely for internships
40
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
Four Conditions
Clearly there is much being done to better prepare engineering students for global ca-
reers. However, there appear to be four conditions common to many of these programs
and practices that impede the worldwide capacity to better prepare global engineers.
First, preparation for global practice is generally not viewed as central to the edu-
cation of an engineer. Many programs are often isolated elements or add-ons to the
engineering curriculum. Indeed, this often appears to be the case with international edu-
cation generally, regardless of the discipline. Increasing the supply of well prepared engi-
neers for global practice first requires that engineering programs — and their universities
— fully embrace and integrate international studies and experiences within their degree
programs. The international preparation of engineering students is not just a matter of
cultural awareness; it is a matter of professional competence in a global context.
Second, international mobility remains a challenge. This is a multi-faceted problem
involving visas, costs, cultural barriers, language, curriculum structures, and other fac-
tors that make international collaborations challenging at best and nearly intractable at
worst. Governments, industry, and universities must recognize that they each have a
stake in the matter. The opportunity to live, work, or study in a foreign culture is critical to
the development of global engineers.
Third, globalization and collaboration go hand-in-hand. Virtually all of the programs
offered at most universities require partnerships with other universities, industry, and
government agencies. It is difficult to conceive how one would succeed in preparing
global engineers without international partners. Unfortunately, the need to collaborate
has bred many partnerships that are more form than substance. The result is often iso-
lated efforts with little broad impact. Increasing the supply of global engineers will require
more meaningful and substantial partnerships committed to long-term results.
Fourth, there is a significant lack of knowledge about proven theories and effective
practices for instilling global competence. Most programs are thoughtfully designed and
carefully implemented, but they are seldom rigorously and scientifically evaluated for
their educational impact. Does learning a second language really matter? How long and
what kinds of international experiences are best? Should international coursework be re-
41
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
quired? What subjects are needed and when should they be taken? Increasing the knowl-
edge base of proven theories and effective practices for instilling global competence in
engineering graduates, indeed all graduates, needs to be a major priority.
Preparing the next generation of global engineers is not solely the domain and re-
sponsibility of universities and their engineering programs. It requires the collaborative
involvement of all the stakeholders: government, industry, engineering-affiliated agen-
cies, and others.
42
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
The International Plan is Georgia Tech’s “signature program” to instill global compe-
tence in undergraduates from any discipline, including engineering [129]. A hallmark of
the program is that it is integrated into the student’s disciplinary studies and oriented
toward the global practice of their discipline. Participants completing the program re-
ceive a designation on their diploma and transcript signifying their global competence
(e.g., Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering: International Plan).
To earn the designation, students must satisfy three requirements in addition to
those for their degrees: complete four courses (three in international studies, namely,
international relations, global economics, and a course with an emphasis on a country
or region, plus a culminating course in the discipline that brings to closure knowledge
of the discipline and their international experience); demonstrate second language
proficiency as determined by an individually administered standardized test; and have
international experience involving two terms (a minimum of 26 weeks) living among,
and immersed within, a foreign academic, research, or work community (the terms
may consist of any combination of academic study, internship, or research).
Each discipline tailors the program to meet the specific needs of that discipline.
Fundamentally, graduates are expected to be knowledgeable about how the world
works, have significant language proficiency, and be comfortable living and practicing
their discipline globally.
The program was launched in the fall of 2005 with a 3 million USD commitment
from the president of Georgia Tech. The goal is to enroll 300 students per year by
2010. The International Plan is part of Georgia Tech’s strategic plan to have 50 percent
of its baccalaureate students graduate with international experience. With the 900
students currently involved annually in other international programs, Georgia Tech will
achieve its goal by 2010.
More importantly, Georgia Tech concurrently launched a major longitudinal re-
search program to study global competence. With one-half of its undergraduate
population receiving some international preparation, ranging from a few weeks to the
four-year International Plan, and the other half receiving little or no preparation,
Georgia Tech has an excellent opportunity to study the impact of these international
programs on preparing students for global practice. Baseline data is presently being
gathered from the Intercultural Development Inventory [130][131] completed by each
freshmen class, and work products and surveys of their experiences will be gathered
over time. A scientific analysis of these materials will hopefully reveal what students
actually learn and are able to do, as well as which program elements work best for
instilling global competence.
43
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
In recent years POLI/USP has worked to improve its international relationships, mainly
through student exchange programs with other universities. Although the university’s
faculties historically have been involved with international institutions, such as col-
laborating in research and post-graduate programs, recent actions focus on expand-
ing opportunities for undergraduate students.
POLI/USP began efforts to increase its international undergraduate programs in
2000. The university currently has agreements with about 30 universities, and the
number of students participating has doubled almost every year (20, 40, 80, and 140
students, from 2002 to 2005, respectively). These numbers include students in one-
year exchange programs as well as in two-year dual degree programs. Currently,
the main programs are with European universities, primarily those located in France,
Germany, and Italy. In 2005, approximately 20 percent of POLI/USP‘s fourth-year stu-
dents participated. By comparison, the number of foreign incoming students admit-
ted to POLI/USP (through these exchange programs) was four times less than the
outgoing Brazilian students. However, the number of incoming students is expected
to grow.
As a consequence of these opportunities, there has been an improvement in the
global competence of POLI/USP students who have become more involved with their
studies, as can be observed in the improvement of their grades.
POLI/USP provides language instruction for students interested in studying
abroad. French and German are the primary languages since students are normally
proficient in English upon admittance to the university. Students are expected to have
foreign language proficiency to at least the intermediate level.
44
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
In the late 1990s, Tsinghua, RWTH Aachen University, and VDI (the Association of
German Engineers) began to develop a joint educational program to train qualified en-
gineers in the automotive area for German companies with joint ventures in China. At
the same time, the Ministries of Education in China and Germany signed an agreement
to further the collaboration between their two countries by authorizing and supporting
a project to develop dual master’s programs for highly-qualified engineers. Tsinghua
and RWTH were chosen for the project.
In 2001, Tsinghua and RWTH Aachen University began dual master’s programs in
automotive engineering and production engineering. Participating students complete
their first semester at their home institution, the next two semesters at their partner
institution, and the final two semesters back at their home institution. The 24 courses
required for the two disciplines (automotive engineering and production engineering)
are taught in English. Students earn course credits toward both degrees regardless of
where the credit is earned — at Aachen or Tsinghua — provided the course appears
on an approved curriculum list and is taught with the teaching materials as provided in
the agreement. Both universities issue their degrees when the students have met all
the requirements at both institutions.
Approximately 145 Tsinghua students have studied at Aachen in the last five
years and about 45 Aachen students have studied at Tsinghua. Fifty Tsinghua stu-
dents and about 20 Aachen students have obtained their degrees. These students
were welcomed by global companies and are employed by Siemens, DaimlerChrysler,
Schneider Electric, Intel, Freudenberg, and others.
The program has also involved faculty exchanges. About 20 Tsinghua faculty
members have taught at Aachen, and seven Aachen faculty members have taught at
Tsinghua. The faculties have also developed several joint research projects funded by
both universities.
Both universities have lauded the international experience. The program has
been renewed by both governments for another four years. Encouraged by the suc-
cess of this program, six additional universities from both countries will soon join the
program.
45
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
The dual degree program in mechanical engineering established between SJTU and
the University of Michigan (UM) in 2000 was the first between a Chinese university and
a world-class university. The collaboration quickly benefited both universities.
The project aimed at building the SJTU School of Mechanical Engineering into
a world-class school. The main elements are the “4+2+3” (four-year undergraduate,
two-year master’s, and three-year doctoral program) model of fostering innovative
elite graduates, building an internationalized faculty, and conducting international col-
laborative research.
The credit hours earned are accepted by both SJTU and UM. Excellent bachelor’s
degree students in the project are selected to study at UM for one year and earn
degrees from both universities. In 2005, the joint project enrolled more than 500 un-
dergraduate students and 200 graduate students from SJTU. About 100 of these stu-
dents were selected to study at UM, which has conferred about 50 degrees to SJTU
students. Over 20 young SJTU faculty members have studied at UM and have been
involved in collaborative research. More than 20 UM professors have taught courses
at SJTU and seven UM professors were named guest professors of SJTU.
To further the collaboration between SJTU and UM, a new agreement was signed
in 2005 to establish the SJTU-UM Joint Institute, which is collaboratively managed by
a board with an equal number of members from UM and SJTU. The dean of the Joint
Institute is a UM professor and its executive deputy dean is an SJTU professor. In
fall 2006, the Joint Institute admitted 100 students majoring in mechanical engineer-
ing and 100 students majoring in electrical and electronic engineering. By 2010, the
Joint Institute plans to have an enrollment of about 1,600 undergraduate students, 500
master’s students, and 400 doctoral students. About 50 percent of the core courses
will be taught by UM professors. All students in the program will have the opportunity
to study at UM. The collaboration will extend to other engineering fields in the future.
The Joint Institute’s faculty will include 50 full-time internationalized faculty members
in 2010, 25 part-time faculty members from SJTU and 25 part-time from UM.
46
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
At TUD, “internal” Dr.-Ing. candidates typically hold research positions for which they
are employed or supported by scholarships. “External” Dr.-Ing. candidates typically
hold research positions in industry or a public research organization, such as the Max-
Planck Gesellschaft, Fraunhofer Gesellschaft, which can provide research facilities en-
abling the preparation of a dissertation. This structure enables TUD to accept Dr.-Ing.
candidates from abroad and enables Dr.-Ing. candidates to collaborate with other
universities or complete the Dr.-Ing. degree or Ph.D. degree at any other appropriate
university abroad.
47
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
48
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
The MIT Science and Technology Initiative (MISTI) is the largest program for inter-
national education at MIT. Since 1994, MISTI has been providing MIT students and
faculty members with the skills and opportunities to create new knowledge by:
Over the last ten years, MISTI has placed more than 2,000 MIT students as interns in
labs and offices from Beijing to Berlin. Currently, about 200 students from all fields of
study participate in MISTI, about 65 percent from the School of Engineering. About
70 percent of all participants are undergraduates.
Before their departure, interns are trained in the language and culture of the host
country. In addition, many students integrate their international experience into a clus-
ter of six courses from the humanities, arts, and social sciences curriculum, which
leads to the Minor in Applied International Studies.
MISTI operates through country programs in China, France, Germany, India, Italy,
Japan, Mexico, Singapore, and Spain. All programs have a program coordinator and
a faculty director. One of MISTI’s strengths is the extensive and strong cooperation
with more than 100 companies around the world. As sponsors, many of them provide
substantial funding for the different country programs.
While all country programs offer internships in the corporate sector, they also tai-
lor their activities to the specific environment of the host country and the needs of the
students. For example, MISTI offers many service learning opportunities in China and
India. In France and Germany, the program builds on the strong public research center
infrastructure of those countries and places many students into research internships.
49
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
• provide people who study at the University of Tokyo with a supportive environ-
ment in which to expand their knowledge and exchange opinions regardless
of nationality, ethnic group, and language, thereby advancing constructive and
creative education and research activities; and
• address the needs of students who study abroad by providing barrier-free edu-
cation, accepting the exchange of credits and educational curricula, and wel-
coming international students.
50
4. The Road to Championship
The world is rapidly transitioning from one of nationally differentiated organizations and
cultural identities to one increasingly characterized by transnational institutions and
multicultural communities. Accelerated by dramatic technological advancements, this
transformation is having a profound effect on national and international systems of gov-
ernance, education, and commerce. This “new” world will require an even more sophis-
ticated workforce to address a growing list of complex and interdependent global chal-
lenges, such as sustainability, security, and economic development. Engineers, whether
working abroad or at home, play a critical role.
Many challenges today can only be addressed through engineers working collabora-
tively in international networks; yet the complex phenomenon of globalization and its
impact on engineering practice are often not well understood nor well integrated into
engineering programs. Indeed, engineering graduates are increasingly moving into non-
traditional fields such as medicine, finance, law, and public policy. Thus, the impact of
globalization on engineering education is twofold: there is a need for engineers who are
better prepared to practice engineering on a global scale, as well as engineers who can
impart their skills in non-traditional ways to aid in the solution of multi-faceted, global
challenges.
Regardless of their intended professional career, engineering students need to have
much broader knowledge of the global community and more substantive international
experience. The ability to live and work in a global community is an important require-
ment for engineering graduates — today. They need to have their traditional engineering
skills and know-how, but they must also be flexible and mobile and able to work on in-
ternational teams. While universities offer a variety of programs designed to prepare stu-
dents for the global workplace, there is insufficient research to document whether these
programs actually do prepare students to practice on a global scale. This, coupled with
an insufficient number of students presently involved in such programs, clearly indicates
that engineering education worldwide is not providing an adequate supply of globally
prepared engineers.
Many engineering programs and universities acknowledge the problem and are
working to address it. They are often joined in partnership with forward-thinking com-
panies, governments, engineering-affiliated agencies, accreditation bodies, and others.
Increasing the supply of global engineers will require the collaborative actions of industry,
government, academia, and engineering-related agencies and organizations to address
four critical challenges.
51
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
Global preparation must move beyond “add-on” programs; knowledge of the fundamentals
and dynamics of globalization as well as opportunities to be immersed in study, work, or re-
search abroad are key elements that should be integrated into engineering programs.
Universities should make international preparation a priority in their institution’s strategic
plans and actively pursue it. They need to invest in infrastructures that enable international
communication and collaborations that lead to strategic global networks, centers of excel-
lence, and industry-government-university partnerships. Universities need to recognize the
positive correlation between the degree of international academic and research collabora-
tion and the quality of the institution and its goals to provide a world-class education. So
far, research universities have been stronger in their international research collaborations
than in their international educational partnerships. With new and urgent demands on en-
gineers, exposure to both cutting-edge international research and educational innovation is
vital. International research and education should finally come together, and research uni-
versities are uniquely positioned to exploit this international potential. All graduates, not just
the engineers, would be better qualified for a variety of positions in academia, industry, and
government.
Engineering programs need to integrate preparation for global practice into their pro-
grams of study. This will require more flexibility in engineering programs, increased consider-
ation of the role of foreign languages, leveraging the power of information and communication
technologies, greater acceptance of transfer credits, providing more immersive international
experiences, attention to opportunities for teamwork and global design and projects, and
rigorous assessment of the learning experiences of their graduates.
Industries should also play a greater supportive role. They should use their influence and
capacities on university advisory boards to promote global preparation. More opportunities
for students to be involved in global teams, projects, and designs are needed from industry,
either through on-campus experiences, such as research and educational projects or case
studies, or off-campus internships.
Finally, government agencies, engineering-related organizations, and accreditation bod-
ies can play an important catalytic role in promoting the international preparation of students.
Through their policies, programs, and funding, they can provide the incentives and sup-
port needed to encourage the global preparation of students. It is particularly important that
they support not only program development, but also research in program assessment. Only
through rigorous evaluation can engineering programs identify and propagate effective prac-
tices and create a body of knowledge on which to base further educational improvements.
52
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
Industry must take the lead in developing opportunities for students to practice engi-
neering in a global context, whether through on-site employment, virtual involvement
in engineering projects, design of case studies for problem-based curricula, or other
experiential opportunities. Besides providing much needed practical experience, these
opportunities also demonstrate very tangibly the critical importance of global prepara-
tion to students.
Universities should initiate more collaborative activities with industry, such as re-
search, educational projects, and transnational internship programs. They should include
significant industry representation on advisory boards and invite industry engineers,
managers, and researchers to campus regularly to promote mutual understanding of uni-
53
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
The phenomenon of global engineering is still emerging. There is a need for a theoretical
foundation on learning behaviors and models as well as on organizational processes and
methods focused on instilling global competence in engineers. Universities need to move
beyond simply creating and operating international programs; they need to rigorously
and continuously evaluate the educational impact of their programs.
Government agencies need to create programs that support research on global engi-
neering processes, methods, and tools as well as on understanding learning behaviors.
Industry participation in the assessment and evaluation of international experiences
is vital. Without the real-life assessment of the skills, capabilities, and abilities of engi-
neering graduates, achievement of program objectives will remain unknown.
Only a genuine commitment and sustained collaboration to address these four critical
challenges by all the stakeholders in engineering education will ensure a substantially
increasing number of well-qualified, globally prepared engineers worldwide.
54
Epilogue
We wish to express our sincere appreciation to the leadership of Continental AG for their
initiative to propose and support this study. We applaud their commitment to global engi-
neering excellence and their enthusiastic support of the team throughout the project.
We hope this report sheds new light on the critical importance of the global prepara-
tion of the next generation of engineers. It was not surprising that during our study we
easily identified and agreed on some challenges and opportunities that involve cross-
ing our national borders, e.g., student and faculty member mobility, study abroad and
international internships, and global design experiences. It was also not surprising that
we gained more in-depth insights into the challenges and opportunities within our col-
leagues’ countries, e.g., the Bologna reforms in Europe, compensation and professional
stature of engineers in South America, and the demands of a rapidly expanding Asian
economy. It was surprising, however, to discover how quickly we came to agree on the
four critical challenges despite the diversity of our institutions, our systems of educa-
tion, and our national cultures and engineering infrastructures. It would have been ideal
to have had a few additional institutions participating in the study, given the diversity of
nations and cultures around the world; nonetheless, we believe our principal observa-
tions and recommendations are broadly applicable. We would welcome the partnership
of other institutions as we move forward to prepare the next generation of engineers for
the global workplace.
Addressing the challenges will not be easy, but they provide well-focused targets of
opportunity in which industry, academia, government, and engineering-affiliated organi-
zations can work collaboratively to significantly enhance the quality of worldwide engi-
neering education. As with other global challenges, only through the collaborative efforts
of all of us will we achieve global engineering excellence.
55
University Profiles
Escola Politécnica da Universidade de São Paulo
Since its founding in 1893, Escola Politécnica da Universidade de São Paulo, or more
commonly known as POLI, has been among the top engineering schools nationally in
terms of R&D and teaching, providing undergraduate, graduate, and extension courses.
Throughout POLI/USP’s history, the contributions of students and faculty members have
helped transform São Paulo into the industrial core of Latin America, as well as making its
capital an important focal point for the economy of the Southern Hemisphere. POLI/USP
has a strong reputation in industry as well as in almost all areas of economic activity in
São Paulo. Many of POLI/USP’s graduates are corporate leaders.
Escola Politécnica is part of the Universidade de São Paulo, a public university, and
therefore it does not charge tuition fees. It is funded primarily by the São Paulo state
government. Admission to POLI/USP’s undergraduate programs is through an examina-
tion process called vestibular, which selects 750 students among all applicants. There
are generally ten times more applicants than spaces available. Admission to the graduate
programs is conducted independently by each department.
POLI/USP is located in the city of São Paulo, the capital of the São Paulo state, and
it is one of the main cities in Brazil, with approximately ten million inhabitants. POLI/USP
occupies part of the Cidade Universitária, a 10-square-kilometer university campus, pop-
ulated daily by around 100,000 students, faculty members, technical and administrative
support staff, and visitors. POLI/USP’s nine buildings, which house classrooms, special-
ized libraries, academic and research laboratories, and administrative offices, are spread
over 140,000 square meters and occupy about 7 percent of the total campus area.
POLI/USP has approximately 480 professors (including full, associate, and assis-
tant professors), 4,600 undergraduate students, 4,000 graduate students, and another
4,000 students taking specialization courses through continuing education programs.
The school is organized into 15 departments offering four main areas of study: civil (civil
construction, hydraulic and sanitation, transport, and structures and geodesic), mechan-
ical (mechatronics and mechanical systems, mechanical, industrial, and naval), electrical
(electronic systems, computer and digital systems, telecommunication and control, and
energy and automation), and chemical (chemical, mines and petroleum, and metallurgi-
cal and materials).
Undergraduate students can complete their studies in accordance with one of ten
regular or two cooperative education programs distributed in 18 specialties. l More: Table 10
shows the number of students who completed undergraduate programs between 1995
and 2004.) Graduate studies are organized into 30 areas covering master’s and doctoral
programs. l More: Tables 11/12
57
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
POLI/USP has connections with many universities around the world, but particu-
larly with the United States and Europe. Recently, POLI/USP joined the Top Engineering
Management in Europe (TIME), a group of top European universities, as one of the few
universities outside Europe belonging to this team. Currently, POLI/USP has 31 interna-
tional academic agreements with 27 countries, including double degrees, and 323 agree-
ments and contracts with industry and services.
Although the number of foreign students at the undergraduate level is low (less than
1 percent), the number of foreign graduate students is much higher (about 20 percent)
since many South American students apply to POLI/USP. POLI/USP is a major producer
of leaders in the technical sector, as well as in companies, public positions, and impor-
tant governing posts, be it regionally or nationwide.
ETH Zürich
58
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
vironmental sciences; agricultural and food sciences), and management and social sciences
(management, technology, and economics; humanities, social and political sciences).
The institution has two main locations: downtown Zurich and the “Science City”
campus Hönggerberg just outside the city. ETH prides itself in providing an excellent in-
frastructure for researchers and students, from modern laboratories and extensive library
resources to a state-of-the-art computing infrastructure.
There is a close link between research and the educational programs, with curricula
being regularly updated based on the latest scientific knowledge. A permanent dialogue
with business, industry, and society helps to guarantee that the degree programs offer
students both profound specialist education and the broad general skills they need in
professional life.
Since its inception, ETH Zürich has had a decidedly international outlook, pursu-
ing excellence through an international hiring policy. Sixty percent of professors come
from abroad, making the institution faculty body one of the most international worldwide.
Twenty-one Nobel laureates have been associated with ETH Zürich over the years, ranging
from Wilhelm Konrad Röntgen (1901) and Albert Einstein (1921) to Kurt Wüthrich (2002).
In addition to the many individual research connections to the world’s leading uni-
versities, l More: Figure 4 ETH Zürich is a member of two international strategic alliances:
the IDEA League (with Imperial College, London, TU Delft, RWTH Aachen University, and
ParisTech) and the International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU) (with Australian
National University, University of California, Berkeley, University of Cambridge, University
of Copenhagen, University of Oxford, National University of Singapore, Peking University,
University of Tokyo, and Yale University).
The Georgia School of Technology was founded on October 13, 1885, at the beginning
of the transformation of the southern United States from an agrarian to an industrial
economy. During its first half-century, the school evolved from a focused trade school to
a regionally recognized technological university. In 1948, the school changed its name
to the Georgia Institute of Technology (or more commonly, Georgia Tech) to reflect its
growing focus on advanced scientific and technological innovations. Its reputation as
a research-extensive institution began in the early 1970s. Today, Georgia Tech’s annual
expenditures of over 900 million USD includes 410 million USD in research and develop-
ment in science and engineering. Georgia Tech’s mission is to define the technological
research university of the 21st century.
The Institute is divided into six colleges: architecture, computing, engineering, man-
agement, sciences, and the Ivan Allen College (liberal arts), with signficant facilities and
programs located in Savannah, Georgia; Beijing and Shanghai, China; Metz and Paris,
59
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
France; Athlone, Ireland; and Singapore. Another site is now under consideration for
India. One-half of the faculty members and two-thirds of the students are in the College
of Engineering. The Institute also has numerous interdiciplinary and multidisciplinary
centers and laboratories, including the Georgia Tech Research Institute.
The student body is composed of 11,841 undergraduates, 2,353 master’s students,
and 2,941 doctoral students. Undergraduates account for 69.9 percent of the student
body and graduate students 30.1 percent. Students are drawn from 128 countries, involv-
ing 147 undergraduates and 2,003 graduates. Thus, Georgia Tech’s international compo-
sition is reflective of most US research universities, significant international participation
in graduate programs and much less in undergraduate programs; however, it is unchar-
acteristically high in its out-of-state undergraduate population (nearly 40 percent). The
top five foreign countries represented at Georgia Tech are India, 700 students; China,
471; South Korea, 386; Turkey, 148; and France, 142.
Georgia Tech is first nationally in the number of degrees awarded annually in engi-
neering and first nationally in the number of engineering degrees awarded annually to
both African Americans and women. It also has the nation’s largest voluntary cooperative
education program, which involves 700 employers and about 3,000 students. Presently,
approximately one-third of Georgia Tech’s undergraduate students, about 900 per year,
graduate with an international experience; the Institute’s goal is to reach 50 percent by
2010.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) was founded in 1861. MIT is indepen-
dent, coeducational, and privately endowed. Its five schools and one college — the School
of Architecture and Planning, the School of Engineering, the School of Humanities, Arts,
and Social Sciences, the Sloan School of Management, the School of Science,and the
Whitaker College of Health Sciences and Technology — encompass 34 academic de-
partments, divisions, and degree-granting programs, as well as numerous interdisciplin-
ary centers, laboratories, and programs whose work cuts across traditional departmental
boundaries.
MIT employs about 10,000 individuals on campus, including 992 professors of all
ranks, 181 of whom are women. Sixty-one present and former members of the MIT com-
munity have won the Nobel Prize, including seven current faculty members.
During the academic year 2005–2006, 4,066 undergraduate students were enrolled
at MIT. Admission to undergraduate studies at MIT is based on academic potential, gen-
eral personal qualifications, and outstanding interests, activities, and achievements. In
2005, 10,440 candidates submitted final applications for the freshman class, and 1,494
(14 percent) were offered admission.
60
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
During the same period, 6,140 graduate students were enrolled at MIT. Applicants
for graduate degree programs are evaluated for previous performance and professional
promise by the department in which they wish to register. In 2005, 15,007 candidates ap-
plied for graduate study. Of the 3,325 candidates who received offers of admission, 2,011,
or 61 percent, registered in advanced degree programs at MIT.
Women have attended MIT since 1871. In fall 2005, 1,765 women were enrolled as
undergraduates (43 percent) and 1,785 as graduate students (29 percent). There are
2,792 international students registered at MIT — 362 undergraduates and 2,430 graduate
students. International students comprise 27 percent of the total student body (9 percent
of undergraduates, 40 percent of graduates). In addition, about 1,700 international schol-
ars from more than 80 different countries visit MIT every year.
During 2005–2006 MIT had operating expenditures of about 2,035 million USD.
Among the different revenue sources, MIT received 559 million USD from research rev-
enues on campus, 611 million USD for research at its affiliated Lincoln Laboratory, 293
million USD as investment return on operating funds, and 196 million USD from tuition
payments.
Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU) was founded in 1896 and is the second oldest
university in China. It has 2,800 faculty members, including 700 full professors and
1,000 associate professors. The faculty includes 32 members of the Chinese Academy
of Sciences and the Chinese Academy of Engineering. SJTU’s total enrollment is 38,000
students, including about 18,700 bachelor’s students, 8,300 master’s students, 4,500
doctoral students, and 6,500 professional students. Currently about 2,000 foreign stu-
dents are studying at the university, including 1,000 in undergraduate degree programs
and 150 in graduate degree programs.
SJTU is one of the first seven universities in China to receive special financial sup-
port from the Chinese government. SJTU is strong in engineering, medicine, and busi-
ness, and many of the academic programs are ranked in the top three nationally by major
ranking organizations in China. Its engineering programs cover almost all of the major
engineering fields.
SJTU makes significant contributions to science and technology. Its R&D funding,
which comes from various sources, was more than 1.2 billion RMB (about 120 million
Euros) in 2005, the third highest among Chinese universities. SJTU contributes to the
development of the national and local economy through technology transfer and consult-
ing. It is engaged in hundreds of collaborative research projects with major industries and
files several hundred patents every year.
Located in one of the major international metropolitan areas, SJTU has been actively
61
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
On October 10, 1877, Ludwig IV, Grand Duke of Hesse, renamed the Polytechnic School of
Darmstadt as the Technische Hochschule Darmstadt and thereby raised its status from edu-
cational institution to that of a university. In 1899 the Technische Hochschule Darmstadt (TH
Darmstadt) was granted the right to award doctorates. With the objective of sharpening public
awareness of the university´s status at home and abroad, the TH Darmstadt was renamed
Technische Universität Darmstadt (TUD) on October 1, 1997.
Today, TUD is a leading European research university with a primary emphasis on en-
gineering sciences. Located in the “City of Science,” TUD contributes to strengthening the
economical profile of the southern Rhein-Main area (about 10 kilometers south of Frankfurt
International Airport). There are 16,926 students studying at the TUD: 8,375 undergraduate
students, 7,658 graduate students, and 850 doctoral students. The proportion of international
students is 18 percent undergraduates, 17 percent graduate, and 24 percent doctoral students.
The university faculty consists of 314 professors and an additional 800 scientists who are in-
volved in undergraduate, graduate, and Ph.D. programs. Ten percent of the faculty members are
of foreign nationalities and 30 percent of the faculty members have an international degree.
TUD’s programs are approximately 15 percent social sciences, 35 percent natural sci-
ences, and 50 percent engineering sciences. Hence, multidisciplinary education and research
has a long tradition at the Technische Universität Darmstadt. A key strategy of the TUD is to of-
fer research-oriented education integrating students in research projects going beyond mod-
ern-day practice. The study programs have been reorganized into bachelor’s and master’s
degrees.
TUD is more autonomous and independent than any other German public university. On
January 1, 2005, TU Darmstadt was provided with broad autonomy under state law, justify-
ing this enormous vote of confidence through its excellent reputation, economic handling of
global budgets, and quality evaluation within the scope of international partner networks. The
TUD is the first autonomous university in Germany. It participates in various European and
62
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
worldwide cooperative education and research programs, such as TU9, CLUSTER, CESAER,
T.I.M.E or PACE.24
Tsinghua University
Tsinghua University was established in 1911, and was originally called Tsinghua Xuetang,
a preparatory school for students who would be sent by the government to study in uni-
versities in the United States. The university section was instituted in 1925 when the
first undergraduate students were enrolled. The name “National Tsinghua University”
was adopted in 1928, and in 1929 the Research Institute was created.
Tsinghua is a public, comprehensive, and coeducational university that consists of
54 departments distributed across 13 schools, including the schools of architecture,
civil engineering, mechanical engineering, sciences, aerospace, information science
and technology, humanities and social sciences, economics and management, law,
arts and design, public policy and management, journalism and communication, as well
as a newly-established medical school. Although it encompasses many disciplines, the
university possesses great strengths, especially in engineering-related programs.
Tsinghua University has over 100,000 graduates, many of whom are outstand-
ing scholars, leading statesmen, and eminent entrepreneurs. The university currently
has 7,777 faculty and staff, with 1,304 full professors and 1,829 associate professors,
including 35 members of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and 31 members of the
Chinese Academy of Engineering. There are 32,152 students studying at Tsinghua, in-
cluding 13,709 undergraduate students, 13,446 graduate students, and 4,997 doctoral
students. There are also 1,761 international students. Tsinghua is a leading university in
science and technology in China. In 2005, its R&D funding came from various sources
and amounted to more than 1.4 billion RMB (about 140 million Euros).
Tsinghua University has been actively involved in overseas exchange and coopera-
tion. In 2005, Tsinghua hosted 23,000 overseas visitors, among them a number of leading
international scientists, including nine Nobel laureates, 199 presidents and vice presi-
dents from overseas universities, and 123 Board Chairmen, CEOs, or Deputy CEOs of
international companies, such as Motorola, Google, and Toyota. The university has made
excellent progress in collaborating with prestigious universities through reciprocal visits,
scientific research and development, and joint education programs.
With strong support from the nation and in the face of unprecedented opportunities,
24
TU9 is a consortium of nine old, established German institutes of technology with a world-renowned reputation in innovative
research activities and high-quality engineering curricula. Internationalism in education and science is one of the criteria of TU9
members (http://www.tu9.de). CLUSTER is Cooperative Link between Universities of Science and Technology for Education and
Research (http://www.cluster.tu-darmstadt.de/welcome/), and CESAER is the Cooperative Link between Universities of Science
and Technology for Education and Research (http://www.cluster.tu-darmstadt.de/welcome/). TIME is the Top Industrial Managers
for Europe (https://www.time-association.org/), and PACE is the Partners for the Advancement of Collaborative Engineering
Education (http://www.pacepartners.org/).
63
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
Tsinghua University is poised to become a world-class university in the 21st century. With
the inspiring motto "Self-discipline and Social Commitment," Tsinghua is dedicated to
the well being of Chinese society.
University of Tokyo
The University of Tokyo was established in 1877 as the first national university in Japan.
In 2004, all national universities, including the University of Tokyo, transformed into
National University Corporations.
The University of Tokyo offers courses in essentially all academic disciplines at both
the undergraduate and graduate levels. The university has a faculty of approximately
2,800 professors, associate professors, and lecturers, and a total student body of about
29,000. As of 2004, there were 2,200 international students and about 2,300 foreign re-
searchers visiting the university annually for both short and extended visits.
The university is known for its excellence. Many of its graduates are leaders in gov-
ernment, business, and academia. University programs are organized into the College of
Arts and Sciences, nine faculties, and 15 graduate schools. Four new graduate schools
have been established in the past decade: frontier sciences, interdisciplinary information
studies, information science and technology, and public policy.
The University of Tokyo is composed of three campuses: Hongo, Komaba, and
Kashiwa. Most of the faculties, graduate schools, and research institutes of the university
are located on the Hongo campus. Parts of the 17th century landscaping of the original
estate have been preserved to provide greenery and open space, much needed in an
otherwise crowded campus.
The School of Engineering was founded in 1886. Through several reorganizations,
its educational function now consists of the Graduate School of Engineering for grad-
uate education and the Faculty of Engineering for undergraduate education. The re-
search organization of the School of Engineering coincides with the Graduate School of
Engineering. There are 2,000 undergraduates, 1,760 master students, and 1,070 doctoral
students. There are 315 professors, associate professors, and lecturers and 254 research
associates. The faculties continuously strive to “... educate people to have a wide and
international perspective and to be capable of supporting the future of science and tech-
nology.”
The School of Engineering consists of the following departments: civil engineering,
architecture, urban engineering, mechanical engineering, engineering synthesis, precision
engineering, environmental and ocean engineering, aeronautics and astronautics, electri-
cal engineering, electronics engineering, applied physics, quantum engineering and system
sciences, geosystem engineering, materials engineering, applied chemistry, chemical sys-
tem engineering, chemistry and biotechnology, and advanced interdisciplinary studies. The
64
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
structure of the departments is constantly reviewed, and, while keeping the core discipline of
engineering, it is flexibly reorganized to adapt to future engineering innovations. New depart-
ments, such as technology management and bioengineering, have been set up in collabora-
tion with existing departments to integrate the existing disciplines into emerging subjects.
For the School of Engineering, a long-standing issue is how to maintain a healthy
balance between basic education and social-industrial collaboration. The school con-
tinuously strives to maintain its strong engineering tradition within Japanese industry and
society.
65
Continental AG
With its extensive know-how in tire and brake technology, vehicle dynamics control, and
electronic and sensor systems as well as telematics, the Continental Corporation stands
as one of the world’s leading suppliers to the automotive industry. Our goal at Continental
is to make individual mobility safer and more comfortable. Over 85,000 employees at
more than 100 manufacturing facilities, research centers, and test tracks in 28 countries
around the globe are at work to serve our clients.
Our activities focus on innovations for greater safety, eco-friendly mobility, and driv-
ing comfort. Our R&D centers and manufacturing plants are located close to customer fa-
cilities. We are always where it matters most — in every corner of the globe. Our business
units are among the most competitive in the industry. We are, for example, the world’s
number one supplier of foundation brakes and number two supplier of electronic brake
systems. In the tire sector we rank fourth worldwide and are the European market leader
for winter tires and original equipment passenger and light commercial vehicle tires. Our
ContiTech division is the world’s no. 1 specialist for rubber and plastics technology in the
non-tire rubber sector.
The Continental Corporation creates new opportunities for customers, suppliers,
employees, and shareholders alike. Our overriding aim is sustained growth based on the
ongoing enhancement of value. We shall, moreover, continue to rigorously adhere to this
approach, gearing it constantly to the goal in hand. The pivotal focus of all our activities
is thus to provide outstanding, reliable, world-class quality products tailored to current
and future needs.
Currently, about 7,000 top engineers develop high-tech products for one of the most
competitive businesses in industry worldwide. To maintain our leadership position in the
international market, we need well-educated young people. To this end Continental plays
a proactive role in improving educational standards for highly qualified students at the
world’s best universities.
Continental invites gifted young professionals to enter into the “Conti spirit” and
begin a unique career experience of their very own. Motivated newcomers have every
opportunity to play a valuable part in an innovative environment. From day one they are
given the chance to develop and realize ideas and benefit from close cooperation with
co-workers and customers on a truly global level.
67
Team Biographies
Many individuals contributed to the success of this project and the development of this
report. Their biographies follow. The team leaders for the respective universities were Drs.
Reiner Anderl, Technische Universität Darmstadt; Ke Gong, Tsinghua University; Nian Cai
Liu, Shanghai Jiao Tong University; Paulo Kaminski and Marcio Netto, Universidade de
São Paulo; Fumihiko Kimura, University of Tokyo; Jack R. Lohmann, Georgia Institute of
Technology; Bernhard Plattner, ETH Zürich, and Bernd Widdig, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology. The editor of this report was Ms. Tricia Grindel.
69
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
Jing Fu earned her bachelor’s degree in English language and literature at Tsinghua
University in 2004. She is currently a master’s candidate studying at the Institute of
Education at Tsinghua University. Her research focuses on higher engineering education
and the accreditation of engineering programs.
Ke Gong obtained his bachelor’s degree from Beijing Institute of Technology and his doc-
torate from the Technical University of Graz. He began his professorial career at Tsinghua
University in 1987 and rose to the rank of full professor in 1994. He has served as deputy
director (1993) and director (1998) of the Chinese National Laboratory on Microwave and
Digital Communications, chairman of the Department of Electronic Engineering (1997),
dean of the School of Information (2004), director of Tsinghua National Laboratory on
Information Science and Technology (2005), and vice president of Tsinghua University
(1999). In recent years, Dr. Gong has worked on rural communication, personal and
mobile communication, satellite communication, and digital TV transmission technolo-
gies, with an emphasis on RF, antenna, and wave propagations. He currently serves as
vice president of the Chinese Institution of Electronics, vice president of the Chinese
Institution of Communication, and vice president of the China Institute of Measurement
and Instrumentation.
Tricia Grindel earned her bachelor’s degree and master’s degree in journalism and com-
munications from Point Park University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. She has been an
adjunct instructor in the Department of Communication at Kennesaw State University
in Georgia since January 2002 and is also a freelance communications consultant. She
has held a number of positions in non-profit organizations, including manager of hospital
development at LifeLink of Georgia, director of Education and Communications at AID
Atlanta, and director of Publications at Georgia Tech. Tricia has published numerous
newspaper and magazine articles and is listed in Who’s Who Among Emerging Leaders,
Who’s Who Among Young Professionals, Who’s Who in the South and Southwest, and
Who’s Who of Women Executives.
Fumihiko Kimura earned a Dr. Eng. Sci. in aeronautics from the University of Tokyo
in 1974. He is a professor in the Department of Precision Machinery Engineering of the
University of Tokyo. Dr. Kimura created his first solid modeling system, GEOMAP, during
his doctoral work in 1974, and he is a pioneer in the field of solid modeling and CAD/CAM
research. Today his primary research area is digital engineering and inverse manufactur-
ing (environmentally benign manufacturing). He is involved in the product model data
exchange standardization activities of ISO/TC184/SC4 and is a national representative
of ISO/TC184 and IFIP TC5, a member of IFIP WG5.2 and 5.3, and an active member of
CIRP. He is a chairman of the evaluation committee of the IMS Program under METI and
70
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
Manli Li earned her bachelor’s and master’s degrees in educational administration and
management from Shannxi Normal University (Xi’an) and her Ph.D. in comparative edu-
cation and Chinese higher education from Peking University. Dr. Li joined the Institute of
Education at Tsinghua University in 1998, where she is currently an associate professor.
Her research interests include liberal education of Chinese higher education, human re-
source education, and engineering education. She has published two books and more
than twenty articles. Dr. Li was a visiting scholar at the University of Illinois (Urbana-
Champaign) in 2002-2003. She was an external program evaluator for the United Board of
Asian Christian Higher Education (New York, USA) in 2004 and a research fellow at RWTH
Aachen University sponsored by DAAD in 2005.
Nian Cai Liu is director of the Institute of Higher Education of Shanghai Jiao Tong University
(SJTU) and director of the Center for World-Class Universities. He completed his undergradu-
ate studies in chemistry at Lanzhou University of China, and earned his master’s and doctoral
degrees in polymer science and engineering from Queen’s University at Kingston, Canada.
Dr. Liu joined the faculty of SJTU as an associate professor in the School of Chemistry and
Chemical Engineering in 1993 and was promoted to full professor and vice dean of the
school in 1997. He moved into the field of higher education research in 1999, where his inter-
ests include world-class universities, research universities, quantitative science policy, and
strategic planning of universities. During the past five years, he has published more than 20
articles, edited two books in Chinese and English, and completed more than a dozen consul-
tation reports for the Ministry of Education of China. An online publication by his group, The
Academic Ranking of World Universities, has attracted worldwide attention.
71
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
Shao Xue Liu is deputy director of the Center for World-Class Universities at Shanghai
Jiao Tong University (SJTU). She completed her undergraduate studies in education at
Shandong Normal University and her master’s degree in Chinese education history from
East China Normal University of China. After teaching for a year at Shandong Normal
University, she earned her doctoral degree in Chinese education history at Xiamen
University. Dr. Liu joined the Institute of Higher Education of SJTU in 1998. Her research
interests include the history of Chinese higher education, undergraduate education,
teaching and learning, and engineering education. Dr. Liu has published more than 20
articles.
Jack R. Lohmann is vice provost for Institutional Development and professor of indus-
trial and systems engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology. His responsibilities
include the institutional development, review, and accreditation of Georgia Tech’s aca-
demic programs. He earned his Ph.D. at Stanford University. Dr. Lohmann has also held
appointments at the National Science Foundation, University of Michigan, University of
Southern California, and École Centrale Paris. His technical research interests are in the
field of economic decision analysis, and his current educational research interests focus
on the globalization of higher education. Sponsors of his work include AT&T, GM, Hewlett-
Packard, IBM, Microsoft Research, Motorola, National Science Foundation, Procter &
Gamble, Sloan Foundation, and the United Engineering Foundation. He is editor of the
Journal of Engineering Education published by the American Society for Engineering
Education, and he currently serves on the society’s International Advisory Committee. Dr.
Lohmann is a fellow of the Institute of Industrial Engineers, the American Society for
Engineering Education, and the European Society for Engineering Education.
72
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
Susan E. Paraska is the assistant to the vice provost for Institutional Development at the
Georgia Institute of Technology. Her responsibilities include developing and overseeing
the processes for new academic programs, academic program reviews, and related ac-
creditation areas. Ms. Paraska has a Bachelor of Arts in journalism and a Master of Public
Administration; she is also a certified project management professional. She is a retired
military officer with experience in airlift management and acquisition logistics.
Sybille Reichert earned her Ph.D. from Yale University in 1994. Since then she has
been working as a consultant in higher education policy, focusing on issues of strategic
development, internationalization, and structural reforms of universities in Europe. All of
her projects or studies, which were commissioned by individual universities, ministries
of education, the European Commission, the European University Association, and the
Centre for Higher Education Research (Kassel, Germany), had an international com-
parative dimension, relating institutional development to larger systemic trends in higher
education. From 2002 to 2004, Dr. Reichert worked for the Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology (ETH Zürich), where she was responsible for strategic planning in the Office
of the Vice President, Planning and Logistics. Since 2005, she has been running her
own consulting firm in higher education policy and strategy development, combining an
institutional and an international development perspective in policy and strategy advice
to universities and other organizations that represent the interests of higher education
institutions.
Thomas Rollmann received his diploma in industrial engineering and business man-
agement from Technische Universität Darmstadt in 2005. He joined the Department of
Computer Integrated Design (DiK) in August 2005 as a research assistant while complet-
ing his doctorate. As a team member of the Collaborative Research Center Integral Sheet
73
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
74
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
Yan Wu joined the Institute of Higher Education of SJTU in 2005, where her research
interests include institutional research and engineering education. She completed her
undergraduate studies in philosophy at East China Normal University and obtained her
master’s degree in philosophy from East China Normal University.
Jie Yang is deputy director of the Institute of Higher Education at Shanghai Jiao Tong
University (SJTU). He completed his undergraduate studies in education at Nihon
University of Japan and then obtained his master’s degree in comparative education
from Nihon University of Japan and his doctoral degree in comparative education from
East China Normal University. Dr. Yang joined the Institute of Higher Education of SJTU
in 2000. His research interests include graduate education and curriculum. He has pub-
lished more than a dozen articles.
Lin Yang joined the Institute of Higher Education of SJTU in 2005, where his research
interests include quantitative science policy and world-class universities. He completed
his undergraduate studies in environmental science and engineering at Shanghai Jiao
Tong University.
75
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
Wen Xue Zhang earned her bachelor’s and master’s degrees in mechanical engineer-
ing at Tsinghua University. She is currently a Ph.D. candidate in education economics
and management in the Institute of Education at Tsinghua University. Ms. Zhang worked
as an instructor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Tsinghua from 1993 to
1996 before moving to the Academic Affairs Office, where she is currently vice director
of Academic Affairs. Her research interests include undergraduate education, education
management, and engineering education. She has published more than 20 papers in the
field of higher education.
Jinsong Zhao obtained a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering and also in jour-
nalism from Tsinghua University in 1997 and 1998, respectively. From 1998 to 2001, he
studied at the School of Public Policy and Management (SPPM) at Tsinghua University
and obtained a master’s degree in public administration. He is currently pursuing a doc-
torate at the school. Since 2001, he has served as the assistant to Vice President Gong Ke
at Tsinghua University. Mr. Zhao was also responsible for the management of Tsinghua’s
research institutes in the Office of Science and Technology Administration from 2001 to
2004, during which time he assumed responsibility for the information and administration
affairs of the Office of International Affairs. His research interest is in China’s science and
technology policy-making process.
76
Appendix
77
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative. Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative.
Back
l
Table 1. Aspects of
University SJTU ETH
ETH UTUT MITMIT THU
THU GT GT USP USP TUD TUD
Internationalization.
Number of Graduates (MA und Ph.D.) [number] [++, +, =, -, --, n/a] 12.800 = 7461
7461 ++ 2815
2815 + + 11464
11464+ + 52035203 4000 4000
+ +8508 8508
= =
Proportion of faculty with international degrees [percentage] [++, +, =, -, --, n/a] 9% ++ 70%
70% =+
=+ 3%
3% - - 30%
30% + + 15,4%
15,4%
+ + 30%30%+ + 60% 60%
+ +30% 30%
+ +
Number of international visiting scholar [percentage] [++, +, =, -, --, n/a] <1% + 650
650 == 68
68/ /90
90 + + 40%
40% = = 22,4%
22,4%
+ + 41%41%= = 2% 2%+ +30% 30%
Extended International experience (at least 6 month)
[percentage] [++, +, =, -, --, n/a] 80% + 99%
99% oo 95%
95% - - 65%
65% = = >80%
>80%+ + 50%50%+ + 90% 90%
= =95% 95%
of faculty
Very
International internships [percentage] [++, +, =, -, --, n/a] <1% + 5%
5% =+
=+ Very few
+ + + + + + < 1%
< 1%+ + 30% 30%
= =5% 5%= =
few
Incoming exchange / visiting students (of total student 100
100( (
[percentage] [++, +, =, -, --, n/a] 2% + 4%
4% =+
=+ ++ ++ = = + + 15%15%+ + 10% 10%
+ +1,40%
1,40%
+ +
body) 3,5%)
3,5%)
Outgoing exchange / visiting students (of total student 118
118
[percentage] [++, +, =, -, --, n/a] 2% + 15%
15% =+
=+ + + = = 4,8%
4,8%++ ++ <1%<1%+ + 25% 25%
++ ++
2% 2%+ +
body) (4,2%)
(4,2%)
Joint projects and modules with international partners
[number] [++, +, =, -, --, n/a] 34 ++ ??
?? ++ n/a
n/a n/an/a = = n/a n/a123 123 + + 100 100+ +
(e.g. universities and industry)
Dual degrees programs / Joint degrees programs [number] [++, +, =, -, --, n/a] 6 ++ 22 ++ n/a
n/a n/an/a n/an/a 3 3 + + 5 5 + + 15 15 + +11% 11%
++ ++
Summer school organized by the university [number] [++, +, =, -, --, n/a] 10 + n/a
n/a ++ n/a
n/a n/an/a = = 18 18 + + 672 672 + + n/a n/a n/a n/a
3 3 + +
Strategic inter-institutional alliances [yes / no] [++, +, =, -, --, n/a] Yes = 33 ++ yes
yes + + = = YesYes + + yes yes + + yes yes++ ++
4 4 = =
Strategic planning of internationalization [yes / no] [++, +, =, -, --, n/a] Yes ++ yes
yes ++
++ yes
yes ++ ++ = = YesYes + + yes yes + + yes yes++ ++
yes yes++ ++
78 79
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative. Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative.
Back
l
Institute Research & Planning International proportion of Under- 17044 total GT students
1 Non-US citizens, in resident, permanent, or alien status (special query). AY2004-2005
(IRP) graduate students [11841 total UG] 592 = 5%
Distance Learning and Profes- Non-US citizens, in resident, permanent, or alien status.
International proportion of continu-
sional Education (DLPE); The 4 420, Language Institute; DLPE, pending. Note: Current database for DLPE registrants does not capture international status at this time. This will be AY2004-2005
ing education students
Language Institute resolved with integration into main student database within next academic year.
IRP & Faculty Career Develop- [810 FT; 27 PT faculty] All faculty who are non-US citizens, in resident, permanent, or alien status.
5 Proportion of international faculty AY2004-2005
ment Services (FCDS) 242.7 = 29% This number does not account for career international experience of faculty.
Students currently enrolled in the Work Abroad Program which includes co-op, internship, graduate, and under-
Division of Professional Practice graduate work experiences – the qualifier being international. The program is administered by the GT International
9 International internships 13 undergraduate and 17 graduate students AY 2005-2006
(DOPP) (Gulick) Practicum Coordinator. The number does not account for student-initiated employment that is not part of GT’s
formal program, a number which is not currently captured.
Office of International Programs Incoming exchange / visiting stu- total of 2595 exchange students (F and J visas);
10 Percent of enrolled GT students in non-US citizenship status. AY 2004-2005
(OIP) (Schulte) dents (of total student body) 177 of the 2595 are J visas, meaning visiting status
Georgia Tech Research Cor- Joint projects and modules with 123 projects; 29 countries [OSP];
Sponsored projects with international entity and Institute partnerships.
poration; Office of Sponsored 12 international partners (e.g. universi- GT Lorraine/Centre National de la Recherche Scienti- FY 2001-2006
Includes instructional and research.
Programs (OSP) ties and industry) fique (CNRS); GT Research Institute/Ireland
Dual degrees programs / Joint 5: MSL&S (NUS); BS/MS ECE/ME; MSECE; MSME;
Registrar’s Office 13 Number of GT degrees, not number of international partners.
degrees programs, international MSCS (GTL)
Vice Provost Institutional Devel- GT Lorraine (7) ; The Logistics Institute-Asia Pacific As of June 7,
15 Joint schools / institutes Formal agreement exists As of June 7, 2006
opment (VPID) (NUS); PKU 2006
46 Semester prg in 22 countries Academic programs located in non-US locations; faculty-led; both credit and non-credit courses. Note that not all
OIP (Henry) 16 Campus abroad (programs) AY 2004-2005
23 Summer prg in 22 countries students report on non-GT program participation.
36 non-GT programs
55 intl academic projects [OIP] Number of academic projects and programs offered for GT credit. This number does not include academic projects
15 IP UG degree programs [OIP] conducted within
Registrar; OIP 18 International curricula programs AY 2004-2005
Senior Capstone Projects and Other College-specific colleges associated with degree program, such as senior capstone projects and industry-specific projects with
Projects: not reported international institutions and partners. Ex: Architecture Design Projects (Dubai), Engineering projects.
80 81
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
Annual Income
Position R$ US$
Junior Product Development Engineer 40.826 18.753
Full Product Development Engineer 58.972 27.089
Senior Product Development Engineer 75.798 34.818
Product Development Manager 141.356 64.932
Engineering Manager 145.370 66.775
Commercial Manager 152.090 69.862
Controller Manager 153.196 70.370
Financial Manager 157.729 72.453
Logistics Manager 158.116 72.630
Industrial Manager 161.663 74.259
Human Resources Manager 166.596 76.525
Marketing Manager 170.702 78.412
Engineering 22,172 22,106 23,217 25,430 29,176 31,539 37,759 41,128 47,161
Under
All Courses 254,401 260,224 274,384 300,761 324,734 395,988 466,260 528,223 626,617
Engineering 1,951 2,288 2,582 3,042 3,385 3,493 4,130 4,638 4,903
Master
All Courses 10,499 11,922 12,681 15,324 18,132 19,630 23,359 25,996 25,651
Engineering 454 537 601 770 814 866 953 1,159 1,395
PhD
All Courses 2,985 3,620 3,949 4,853 5,335 6,042 6,893 8,094 8,855
Sources: “Censo da Educação Superior,“ Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais Anísio Teixeira,
www.inep.gov.br/superior/censosuperior/sinopse/default.
„Estatísticas da Pós - Graduação,“ Coordenadoria de
Aperfeiçamento de Pessoal de Ensino Superior CAPES,
www.ged.capes.gov.br/AgDw/silverstream/pages/frPesquisaColeta.html
82
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
Table 4. The GDP and GDP per capita of China between 1978 and 2004.
Back
l
Source: Bureau of Statistics of China, China Statistics Book, Beijing: China Statistics Press, 1979, 1983, 1988,
1993, 1998, 2003, 2005.
83
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
Table 7. Number of total graduates and engineering graduates in China between 1949
and 1999.
Back
l
Source table 7: Ministry of Education: Yearbook of Chinese Education (1949-1981), Achievement of Education
In China-Statistics 1980-1985, People’s Education Press, Educational Statistics Yearbook of China 1989- 2000,
People’s Education Press.
84
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
Table 9. Industry characteristics and their share of overall employment and overall
gross value added25.
Back
l
25
Credit Suisse (2005), op. cit. p. 14.
85
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Engineering 577 574 632 594 577 563 526 584 620 601
Mechanical 220 227 199 226 205 195 185 207 241 230
Electrical 177 145 167 154 148 159 160 193 215 187
Chemical 88 90 122 95 78 67 53 82 83 94
Masters in Engineering 123 167 201 198 198 252 306 303 275
Electrical 50 54 78 60 61 83 84 87 98
Mechanical 24 41 44 43 49 46 86 85 52
Civil 28 46 44 53 51 83 85 69 68
Chemical 21 26 35 42 37 40 51 62 57
PhD in Engineering 74 104 123 122 111 118 116 128 135
Electrical 23 43 45 43 32 24 33 37 31
Mechanical 10 19 22 33 28 29 30 31 54
Civil 28 25 31 32 27 30 33 28 26
Chemical 13 17 25 14 24 35 20 32 24
86
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
Professors 349
Trainees 149
Total 6158
The total number of employees on 31 December 2005 was 8340 persons (including train-
ees), corresponding to 6,158 full-time equivalents (FTE).
Table 14. Percentage of foreign nationals of the different categories of ETH members
(Winter Semester 2005/06)
Back
l
87
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
Figure 2. Different graduation levels in Germany regarding the two-cycle program de-
fined by the Bologna process. Back
l
Dr.
3rd cycle
graduate
Master schools
2rd cycle
Bachlor
undergraduate
1rd cycle programs
88
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
Figure 3. Horizontal and vertical mobility of students due to mutual recognition by re-
specting universities. Back
l
Univ. B
Univ. A
Univ. A Univ. B
Figure 4 shows the distribution of the universities with which ETH professors entertain
the most frequent and prioritised research collaboration contacts according to a survey
undertaken by the Prorectorate International Relations in 2003 and 2005.
89
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
90
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
Figure 6. Human resources for science and technology in Switzerland: Indexed develop-
ment 1993-2004.
Back
l
91
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
Figure 7. Back
l
Figure 8. Back
l
800,000
700,000 626,617
600,000
500,000
400,000 324,734
300,000
200,000
92
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
Figure 9. Back
l
200,000,000 182,060,108
92,860,128
100,000,000
50,000,000
6,013,333
1,000,000
450,817
500,000
100,000
47,161
50,000
0
Population Economically Degrees Engineering Graduates
Active from higher Degrees
Population Education
93
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
94
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
1,500,000,000 1,307,560,000
Economically Active Population
1,000,000,000
758,250,000
500,000,000
100,000,000
59,933,400
50,000,000
2003
17,980,020
10,000,000
2003
3,070,000
0
Population Economically Degrees Engineering Graduates
Active from higher Degrees
Population Education
95
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
250,000
219,746
204,398
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
14,820 15,417
0
Total of students Total of engineering
graduating in year students graduating in
2000 / 2004 year 2000 / 2004
100,000,000
82,500,800
Economically Active Population
50,000,000
38,782,000
5,712,000
1,000,000
640,371
500,000
219,746
0
Population Economically Degrees Engineering Graduates
Active from higher Degrees
Population Education
96
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
97
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
150,000,000
127,685,000 Economically Active Population
100,000,000 2006/1
66,500,000
50,000,000 2005
17,383,000
2,174,000
1,000,000 2004**
2004 635,134
500,000 2004
0
Population Economically Degrees Engineering Graduates
Active from higher Degrees
Population Education
98
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
15,000 13,928
12,320
12,000
9,000
6,000
0
Total of students Total of engineering
graduating in year students graduating in
2000 / 2004 year 2000 / 2004
99
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
2,000,000 1,898,876
1,706,114
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
93,173 90,691
0
Total of students Total of engineering
graduating in year students graduating in
2000 / 2004 year 2000 / 2004
Source: The Almanac of Higher Education, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2000 - 2005)
100,000,000
41,959,000
50,000,000
10,000,000
2,793,000
1,987,982
1,000,000
500,000
50,000
0
Population Economically Degrees Engineering Graduates
Active from higher Degrees
Population Education
100
References
[1] Wikipedia Foundation, http://en-wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Brazil,
accessed July 2006.
[2] CIA World Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/
br.html#Econ, accessed July 2006.
[3] “Caderno de Empregos,” Jornal o Estado de São Paulo, 5 de março de 2006.
[4] “Histórico de IME,” Instituto Militar de Engenharia,
www.ime.eb.br/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=64,
accessed July 2006.
[5] “História,” Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Escola Politécnica,
www.poli.ufri.br/bin/index_home.php?op1=SHOWPOLITECNICA&op2=1,
accessed July 2006.
[6] “História,” Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, www.em.ufop.br/em/
apresentacao.php, accessed July 2006.
[7] Milton Vargas, “Visão Global da Engenharia no Brasil desde o seu Descobrimento,”
500 Anos de Engenharia no Brasil, Sao Paulo: EDUSP, 2005, pp. 11-25.
[8] José Augusto Martins, “Escola Politécnica; o ensino da engenharia,” Os
Engenheiros Politécnicos e sua Escola, São Paulo: AAAEP, 1995, pp. 10-11.
[9] “Conheca o CNPq – memórias do CNPq,” Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento
Científico e Tecnólogico, www.cnpq.br/sobrecnpq/historia.htm, accessed July
2006.
[10] “Quatro décadas de pesquisas,” Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de São
Paulo, www.fapesp.br/materia.php?data[id_materia]=1, accessed July 2006.
[11] Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative, a report published by
Continental AG, www.global-engineering-excellence.org, 2006.
[12] “Censo da Educação Superior,” Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas
Educacionais Anísio Teixeira,
www.inep.gov.br/superior/censosuperior/sinopse/default.asp, accessed 2006.
[13] “Estatítsticas,” Fundação para o Vestibular (FUVEST), www.fuvest.br, accessed
2006.
[14] Idone Bringhenti, Perfil do Ex-Aluno da Escola Politécnica da POLI/USP, POLI/
USP, 1995.
[15] Marecelo Negri, “O retorno da educação no Mercado de trabalho,” Centro de
Políticas Sociais – FGV – SP, www4.fgv.br/cps/simulador/quali2/index.htm,
accessed July 2006.
[16] CIA, The World Factbook,
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html#Econ,
accessed July 2006.
101
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
102
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
103
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
104
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
105
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
[92] Gary Gereffi and Vivek Wadhwa, “Duke Outsourcing Study: Empirical Comparison
of Engineering Graduates in the United States, China, and India,”
http://memp.pratt.duke.edu/downloads/duke_outsourcing_2005_appendix.pdf,
accessed July 2006.
[93] National Academy of Engineering, op. cit., pp. 54-55.
[94] National Academy of Engineering, op. cit., pp. 35-36.
[95] National Academy of Engineering, op. cit., pp. 53-57.
[96] National Academy of Engineering, op. cit., p. 33.
[97] “A Brief History of the Academy,” USMA Bicentennial Celebration,
www.usma.edu/bicentennial/history, accessed July 2006.
[98] Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, “Rensselaer’s History,”
www.rpi.edu/about/history.html, accessed July 2006.
[99] “The Morrill Act of 1862,” www.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/morrill.html,
accessed July 2006.
[100] American Society of Civil Engineering, “History and Heritage of Civil Engineering,”
Resource Guide, www.asce.org/g/history/, accessed July 2006.
[101] American Society of Mechanical Engineers, “ASME History,”
www.asme.org/communities/history/asmehistory, accessed July 2006.
[102] Proceedings of Section E, World’s Engineering Congress, Columbia, Missouri:
R.W. Stephens, 1893.
[103] “Report on Evaluation of Engineering Education,” Journal of Engineering
Education, January 1994, pp. 74-94.
[104] Vision For Change, A Summary Report of the ABET/NSF/Industry Workshops,
Baltimore: ABET, Inc., 95-VIS, 1995.
[105] Jack R. Lohmann, “Building a Community of Scholars: The Role of the Journal of
Engineering Education as a Research Journal,” Journal of Engineering Education,
94, No. 1, January 2005, pp. 1-6.
[106] Joseph Bordogna, “Making Connections: The Role of Engineers and Engineering
Education,” Bridge, Vol. 27, No. 1, 1997, pp. 11–16.
[107] Dan McGraw, “A Different Direction,” PRISM, Vol. 9, No. 5, 2000b, pp. 22–24.
[108] Arvid Andersen, “Preparing Engineering Students to Work in a Global Environment
to Co-operate, to Communicate and to Compete,” European Journal of
Engineering Education, Vol. 29, No. 4, 2005, pp. 549-558.
[109] Keith Sheppard, Peter Dominick, and Zvi Aronson, “Preparing Engineering Students
for the New Business Paradigm of International Teamwork and Global Orientation,”
International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 20, No. 3, 2004, pp. 475–483.
[110] J.C. Swearengen, Spencer Barnes, Steven Coe, Carsten Reinhardt, and B.
Subramanian, “Globalization and the Undergraduate Manufacturing Engineering
Curriculum,” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 91, No. 2, 2003, pp. 255 – 261.
106
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
[111] Larry J. Shuman, Mary Besterfield-Sacre, and Jack McGourty, “The ABET
‘Professional Skills’ — Can They Be Taught? Can they Be Assessed?,” Journal of
Engineering Education, Vol. 94, No. 1, 2005, pp. 41 – 55.
[112] Dan McGraw, “Putting it into Perspective,” PRISM, Vol. 13, No. 5, 2004, pp. 24–29.
[113] Benjamin Rifkin Malone, Donna Christian, and Dora E. Johnson, Attaining High
Levels of Proficiency: Challenges for Language Education in the United States,
Proceedings Conference on Global Challenges and US Higher Education, 2003.
[114] F. Hayward, Preliminary Status Report 2000-Internationalization of Higher
Education. (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education). Available online at:
www.acenet.edu/bookstore/, accessed July 2006.
[115] William D. Hunter, “Got Global Competency?” International Educator, Spring 2004.
Available online at: www.nafsa.org/content/ProfessionalandEducationalReso
urses/Publications/IE//hunter.pdf, accessed July 2006.
[116] International Engineering Program, University of Rhode Island, www.uri.edu/iep/,
accessed July 2006.
[117] Purdue University, Mechanical Engineering,
http://tools.ecn.purdue.edu/ME/International/, accessed July 2006.
[118] Georgia Institute of Technology, International Plan,
www.oie.gatech.edu/internationalplan/, accessed July 2006.
[119] M.L. Corradini and J.R. Lohmann, eds., “e-Technologies in Engineering
Education: Learning Outcomes Providing Future Possibilities,” Proceedings,
United Engineering Foundation Conference (of same title), August 2002, Davos,
Switzerland, 228 pages. Also, published in the Engineering Conferences
International Symposium Series, Vol. 1, Berkeley Press.
[120] International Consortium for Experiential Learning, http://www.icel.umb.edu/,
accessed July 2006.
[121] Measuring What Matters: Competency-Based Learning Models in Higher
Education: New Directions for Institutional Research, Richard Voorhees, ed.,
Jossey-Bass, 2001.
[122] Engineering Change: A Study of the Impact of EC2000, ABET, Inc.,
http://www.abet.org/Linked%20Documents-UPDATE/White%20Papers/
Engineering%20Change.pdf, accessed July 2006.
[123] Open Doors Statistical Summary: US Study Abroad 2003 Data Tables-
Participation by All Institutions, New York, New York: Institute of International
Education, http://www.iie.org, accessed July 2006.
[124] Assessing Research-Doctorate Programs: A Methodology Study,
Jeremiah P. Ostriker and Charlotte V. Kuh, eds., Washington, D.C.: National
Research Council, 2003.
[125] Annual Report of the Reinforcement Committee for Engineering Education
107
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative
108
www.global-engineering-excellence.org
ISBN 978-3-9811322-1-2