From students to engineers: THE TRANSITION PROBLEM

Today's graduates are much like we were when we graduated, long on academics and short on experience. Just like us they have spent four or more years after high school focused on classes, labs and exams that were intended to provide the basics. Given the limitations of time and the multitude of "necessary" subjects, they worked on constrained problems that had "right" answers. They, like us, learned how to get those "right" answers frequently enough to graduate. And for them, as it was for us, the work-a-day world turned out to be very different from school. For the most part, then, engineering professors have developed their careers around research rather than practice. Their efforts have developed an improved understanding of the materials and systems used in the design world, as well as new analysis techniques that were founded on that understanding. Because of the depth of study that was necessary, the breadth of understanding narrowed. Undergraduate classes that grew out of the professors' work have tended to focus on how to use the new tools. Some people off-campus began to refer to these classes as "sizing" classes. The criticism seemed to be that the breadth of the application was lost as the technical sophistication of finding the "answer" increased. The concern about the loss of design skills went beyond the debates between academics and employers. Governments and professional associations were lobbied to do something about the situation. In response, in 2001, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) launched two unique programs called Chairs in Design Engineering and Chairs in Environmental Design Engineering. The NSERC website notes that: "The Chairs in Design Engineering program aims to improve the level and quality of design engineering activity within Canadian universities." There is a similar statement, with the addition of "Environmental" ahead of "Design" for the Environmental Design Engineering Chairs.