Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 114

Final Report of the Global

Engineering Excellence Initiative.


Educating the Next Generation of Engineers for the Global Workplace
Final Report of the Global
Engineering Excellence Initiative.
Educating the Next Generation of Engineers for the Global Workplace

Published by Continental AG, Hanover/Germany


www.conti-online.com
Imprint
All rights reserved
Copyright © 2006 Continental AG, Hanover/Germany
www.conti-online.com
Edited by Tricia Grindel, Atlanta/USA
Layout by Change Communication GmbH, Frankfurt Main/Germany
Printed by Münstermann GmbH & Co. KG, Hanover/Germany

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!

Manfred Wennemer Thomas Sattelberger


Chairman of the Executive Board Member of the Executive Board
Continental AG Continental AG

Hanover, Germany
November 2006
Table of Contents

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................1

1. The Starting Line ........................................................................................................3

2. The Global Engineer ..................................................................................................5

3. Developing Global Competence .............................................................................33

4. The Road to Championship ..................................................................................... 51

Epilogue ........................................................................................................................55

University Profiles ........................................................................................................57

Continental AG .............................................................................................................67

Team Biographies ........................................................................................................69

Appendix .......................................................................................................................77

References .................................................................................................................. 101


Executive Summary
The world is rapidly transitioning from one of nationally differentiated organizations and
cultural identities to one increasingly characterized by transnational institutions and mul-
ticultural communities. Accelerated by dramatic technological advancements, this trans-
formation is having a profound effect on national and international systems of commerce,
education, and governance. This new world will require an even more sophisticated work-
force to address a growing list of complex and interdependent global challenges, such as
sustainability, security, and economic development. Engineers, whether working abroad
or at home, play a critical role in addressing these and other global challenges.
To respond to growing international concern about the capacity of worldwide en-
gineering programs to produce a well-prepared engineering workforce in the future,
Continental AG commissioned an international study involving eight universities known
for their engineering programs to evaluate global engineering, engineering education
needs and challenges, and to identify the critical factors necessary for educating to-
morrow’s engineering workforce. The eight universities are: Eidgenössische Technische
Hochschule Zürich, Switzerland (ETH Zürich); Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
(Georgia Tech); Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA (MIT); Shanghai Jiao Tong
University, China (SJTU); Technische Universität Darmstadt, Germany (TUD); Tsinghua
University, China (Tsinghua); Escola Politécnica da Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil
(POLI/USP); and the University of Tokyo, Japan (Tokyo).
Many of today‘s global challenges can only be addressed through engineers working
collaboratively 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. Institutions may offer a variety of programs designed to pre-
pare students for the global workplace, but 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 sup-
ply of globally prepared engineers. The ability to live and work in a global community
is — today — an important requirement for engineering graduates. They need to have
broad engineering skills and know-how, and to be flexible and mobile, and able to work
internationally.
Providing these competences will require the collaborative actions of industry, gov-
ernment, academia, and engineering-related agencies and organizations to address four
critical challenges.

1
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative

• Global competence needs to become a key qualification for engineering gradu-


ates. Global preparation must move beyond “add-on” programs; knowledge of the
fundamentals and dynamics of globalization as well as opportunities to become
immersed in study, work, or research abroad are key elements that should be inte-
grated into engineering programs.

• Transnational mobility for engineering students, researchers, and professionals


needs to become a priority. Barriers to studying, working, conducting research, and
attending international meetings need to be removed and incentives expanded.

• Global engineering excellence depends critically on a mutual commitment to part-


nerships, especially those that link engineering education to professional practice.
Industry must take the lead in developing opportunities for students to practice
engineering in a global context, whether through on-site employment, virtual in-
volvement in global engineering projects, or other experiential opportunities.

• 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.

1) Engineering in a Global Context. Team members first considered the historical,


social, and economic context of engineering in their countries, and the trends and
challenges with respect to their nation’s engineering workforce. They also studied
the skills and abilities industry expects from engineers — now and in the future
— and considered whether the emerging engineering workforce is well prepared.

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

3) Recommendations. Finally, based on their observations of the state of the global


engineering workforce and engineering education programs, they identified four
critical challenges to better prepare engineering graduates for global practice.

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

Global Engineering in National Contexts

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.

The Brazilian Engineering Workforce l More: Figure 9

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

Although Brazilian engineering programs are engaged in high-technology research


relevant to the economy, such as in microelectronics and informatics, the research en-
terprise does not yet have a major influence on national technological innovation and the
economy. This is attributable to several factors. First, applied research and technology
are conducted primarily by universities and their research centers rather than by industry.
Few companies in Brazil have the resources necessary to support their own research
and development facilities. Thus, they are more likely to import technology from for-
eign sources. Second, large multinational corporations typically dominate Brazil’s private
high-technology sector and frequently base their R&D facilities in other countries. This
trend is changing, however, with IBM, Nokia, Motorola, and Samsung having recently
constructed significant R&D facilities in Brazil. The Informatics Law5 and Brazil’s large
and sophisticated technical workforce played key roles in attracting these companies.
Third, the salary structure in engineering companies favors managerial rather than tech-
nical positions. In some cases, engineers can nearly double their salaries by moving into
management positions. l More: Table 2 In addition, the production and service sectors
typically require very specific skills and knowledge and pay lower salaries, whereas the
finance and consulting sectors, for example, require more general analytical skills and
offer higher salaries. Engineers are highly sought for these positions because of their
strong analytical backgrounds. Thus, many Brazilian engineers pursue non-engineering
careers.
If Brazil is to become an international competitor in high-technology industries it
must strengthen its commitment to technology innovation and development. More engi-
neers need to be involved in the development of new products and technologies. Industry
and education must do more to validate the engineering profession — increase its per-
ceived value in society and make engineering careers more attractive.

Brazilian Engineering Education

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 Chinese Engineering Workforce l More: Figure 13

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

Chinese Engineering Education l More: Figures 10 - 12

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

short-term demands of China’s social and economic development.


According to a recent survey of 122 academics at the Chinese Academy of Engineering
by Tsinghua, 89 percent of the respondents recommended strengthening engineering
education in a global context and 80 percent felt that engineering education faced some
significant challenges in meeting the needs of China’s social development [26]. The ma-
jority of the respondents indicated that current engineering programs do not provide stu-
dents with enough training in engineering practice (68 percent) or in creative thinking and
innovative design (69 percent). This is partly due to Chinese engineering faculties, which
often lack sufficient practical experience. It is also due to Chinese industry, which has
historically offered few internship and professional development opportunities. Few of the
respondents to the Tsinghua study felt that Chinese enterprises offered their engineers
enough opportunities to train overseas (21 percent), for advanced studies outside busi-
ness (27 percent), or financial support for advanced studies (25 percent). Interestingly,
though, the majority of respondents were confident about future opportunities in Chinese
companies, saying that they believe there will be more opportunities for training, ad-
vanced studies, and financial support in 2020. Finally, the respondents suggested further
broadening the international collaboration on the accreditation of engineering programs.
The accreditation of Chinese programs in architecture and civil engineering has already
been undertaken in collaboration with international accreditation organizations.
The impact of globalization on Chinese engineering education is reflected by a va-
riety of programs. By 2002, China had 712 joint education programs and institutes with
foreign countries, 36 percent of which were in business administration, 19 percent in for-
eign language and literature, 13 percent in electrical engineering and information technol-
ogy, and 10 percent in economics [27]. Chinese universities have also been introducing
new programs, curricula, courses, and teaching methods used by overseas universities.
For example, in top Chinese research universities, liberal arts and science courses have
been introduced to facilitate the education of elite engineers. At the undergraduate level,
research experience is also being emphasized. In addition, universities encourage pro-
grams and courses taught in English or other foreign languages and are trying to increase
international internships and summer school opportunities for their students.

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

tributive trade, transportation, and communications, as well as financial services [30].


Germany is one of the world’s largest and most technologically advanced producers of
iron, steel, coal, cement, chemicals, machinery, motor vehicles, and electronics [31].
Despite the affluence and technological power of Germany’s economy, it is one of the
slower growing economies in Europe, with an annual growth of only 0.9 percent in 2005
[32]. Several factors contribute to this slow growth, including the ongoing and costly
process of integrating and modernizing eastern Germany’s economy, higher social se-
curity expenditures than contributions, the aging population, and high unemployment.
However, corporate restructuring and growing capital markets are helping to address
these challenges.

The German Engineering Workforce l More: Figure 16

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

• technical and methodical competence (technical knowledge and know-how in nat-


ural sciences, engineering sciences, engineering expertise, and the ability to apply
modern information and communication technologies);
• personal competence (flexibility, profound general education background, willing-
ness to perform, willingness to engage in lifelong learning, mobility, credibility, and
willingness to take responsibility);
• management competence (managerial qualification, assertive skills, decision-mak-
ing ability, ability to analyze and to evaluate, strategic thinking, and negotiating
skills);
• social competence (persistence, intuition, intercultural skills, ability to communicate,
ability to negotiate compromises and trade-offs, and ability to work in teams).

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].

German Engineering Education

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

German engineering education has been traditionally characterized by both theory


and practice. Research universities and universities of applied science require at least
six months’ of industrial practice or internship, while engineering students at universities
of cooperative education follow a dual track: half of their education is gained at the uni-
versity, half at an appropriate industrial enterprise. All German universities have a history
of collaboration with industry in both research and education, and engineering has his-
torically been strongly tied to mathematics, physics, and material science. However, the
increasing influence of information and communication technology has emphasized the
importance of applied computer sciences and these topics have been integrated into the
engineering curricula during the last few decades [47]. Today, German engineering edu-
cation faces four challenges: preparing students for the global workplace, implementing
the reforms of the Bologna Declaration, reducing graduation times, and increasing engi-
neering enrollment.
German engineering education has been under pressure from industry, engineering
associations8, and the federal government to better prepare students for the global work-
place. Of particular importance was the 1998 amendment of the Federal Framework Act
for Higher Education. This amendment permitted German institutions of higher education
to introduce the more internationally recognized degrees of bachelor’s and master’s [48],
the “two-cycle” system that was also adopted as part of the Bologna reforms the follow-
ing year year. l More: Figure 2 German industry and engineering professional associations
responded with declarations supporting this concept. Previously, German engineering stu-
dents graduated with the diplom, a degree obtained in a “single-cycle” program. The “two-
cycle” curriculum of the bachelor’s and master’s, however, has important advantages. The
bachelor’s program culminates in a bachelor’s thesis and qualifies the graduate to begin
a career. Research universities consider the bachelor’s degree important to support their
graduates’ mobility and flexibility, but they recommend the master’s degree for engineer-
ing. The bachelor’s and master’s degrees also increase the international comparability of
degrees, thereby promoting the internationalization of engineering education. Currently,
51.3 percent of German engineering programs are organized as bachelor’s and master’s
programs [49], and approximately 30 percent of these programs are accredited. By 2010,
all German engineering programs will be two-cycle programs.
The Bologna reforms reflect the growing recognition by the common European mar-
ket of higher education as an indispensable component for giving its citizens the skills
needed to face the challenges of the new millennium [50]. Since the reforms were in-
troduced, research universities and universities of applied science have invested major
recources in introducing bachelor’s and master’s programs, which replace the current
8
Principal among them is the Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI), or the Association of German Engineers, a financially indepen-
dent and politically unaffiliated non-profit organization of 126,000 engineers and natural scientists. Founded in 1856, the VDI
is the largest engineering association in Western Europe. As the leading institution for training and technology transfer among
experts, VDI is an important partner in matters of technology policy and issues affecting the professional or public lives of en-
gineers.

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

Historically, industrially advanced countries operated as if human and natural resourc-


es were unlimited. Today resources are quickly being exhausted, especially by newly
developing and soon-to-be developed countries. Japan must therefore become more
resource efficient, in particular by saving energy and reducing waste. Furthermore, the
mass production of uniform products is increasingly less responsive to the diversity of
global markets; quick, flexible, resource-efficient production is key. Consequently, engi-
neering activities must become more knowledge intensive rather than resource intensive.
Japanese industry and academia are working together to strengthen their engineering
activities in an environmentally conscious way. Japan is now one of the more advanced
countries in making strides toward a more sustainable society.

The Japanese Engineering Workforce l More: Figure 19

To be successful in the global marketplace, organizations must be open and dynamic,


and employ engineers capable of operating on a global scale. Japan’s economy relies
heavily on manufacturing, and its production system depends on the quality of its work-
ers. Japan’s challenge for the future is to maintain its tradition of quality engineering while
adapting to global trends.
Over the past few decades, particularly after the rise of Japan’s economy in the
1990s, the engineering profession lost some of its popularity. This resulted in a significant
decline in applicants to engineering schools. However, Japanese society in general, and
the Japanese government and industry in particular, recognize that science and tech-
nology are the basis for Japan’s future prosperity and peace and have made efforts to
enhance public support. For example, the Japanese government recently adopted a five-
year science and technology development strategy to create markets based on innova-
tive technology and new product concepts. This strategy identifies four areas for invest-
ment by government and industry: information technology, nano- and microtechnology,
biotechnology, and environmental technology. Consequently, the Ministry of Economy,
Trade, and Industry now selects several new products as candidates for future develop-
ment. “Seed-driven” products include robots for the home and society, fuel cells, digital
appliances, and “need–driven” products such as environment-conscious and/or energy-
conscious products, social welfare, and business support. These efforts both challenge
and give rise to new opportunities for Japanese engineers and hopefully will enhance the
engineering profession.
Japan’s engineering workforce is often characterized by several attributes. Japanese
engineers and technicians are highly self-motivated, using their innovation to achieve
specified goals with little direction. They also work within an intimate atmosphere of
collaboration toward common goals, helping one another solve problems and adapt to
new situations. Because of Japan’s island geography and inherent shortage of natural

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.

Japanese Engineering Education l More: Figure 17/18

Japan has a long history of engineering excellence in producing sophisticated artistic


objects, such as swords, ceramics, etc. Those skills were experience-based and passed
on to others through apprenticeships. Japan’s unique culture, society, and language re-
mained largely isolated until the mid-19 th century. Until then, Japanese engineers often
imported scientific and engineering knowledge from China and Korea, adapting it to the
Japanese culture and mindset.
After the Kanagawa Treaty12 opened Japan to foreign trade, skilled workers quickly
learned advanced Western science and engineering techniques and reformulated their
skills and technology into modern engineering. The government also worked to redesign
engineering education following the Western model. Uniform educational systems, from
11
This report summarizes the results of a survey of engineering professors at major universities and engineers and managers
from major companies (and subsequent panel discussions) by the Committee of Deans of Faculty of Engineering from eight
Japanese universities.
12
The Kanagawa Treaty, signed in 1854 by the United States and Japan, opened Japanese ports to US trade, virtually ending
Japan’s 200 years of isolation.

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.

The Swiss Engineering Workforce

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.

Swiss Engineering Education

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

buildings, super-computing facilities), and second, pursuit of a poly-technical approach


to make knowledge more relevant for industrial production. This latter idea has regained
vitality in recent decades in various forms of interdisciplinary structures, institutes, and
programs.
An essential feature of Swiss engineering education is its high degree of internal
specialization, especially through the “dual sector.” The two federal institutes of tech-
nology (ETH and EPFL) provide in-depth scientific training for engineers who primarily
pursue careers in R&D and management. These engineers are sought for their depth of
knowledge and understanding of scientific and engineering fundamentals, which enable
them to tackle complex issues, anticipate problems, and seek new solutions. On the
other hand, universities of applied sciences (Fachhochschulen or FH) provide engineers
with more practical skills. FH graduates work with complex engineering infrastructures
and production processes. A high-level apprenticeship system, which includes technical
specializations, provides an additional set of skilled workers.
Although Swiss engineering education has a number of successful traditions, it has
faced several challenges in recent years. First, Switzerland, like other European coun-
tries, has had to adapt to the Bologna reforms. A key component of the Bologna re-
forms is the two-cycle degree program, a bachelor’s and master’s, in contrast to the
former integrated single-cycle degree, which usually took five to six years to complete. In
Switzerland, the initial skepticism of universities and professional engineers toward this
new program quickly transformed to practical optimism. While five years of education is
still the expectation for engineers, the bachelor’s diploma after three to four years opens
new opportunities for international mobility and disciplinary reorientation. Moreover, the
new master’s program presents an opportunity to redefine existing curricula to include
new interdisciplinary directions of study and research options. This curricular overhaul
offers students enhanced flexibility by expanding study options and introducing multiple
study tracks that provide a wider range of study choices after completion of the bache-
lor’s degree. l More: Figure 20/21
Second, Swiss engineering education has needed to respond to the intrinsic chang-
es in engineering research. For example it has had to recognize the importance of infor-
mation and communication technologies and simulation as necessary complements to
experimental practice. Furthermore, the growing importance of life sciences, biomedi-
cine, and biotechnology has inspired the development of new engineering courses and a
shifting emphasis in research.
For Swiss engineering, globalization means that production can remain competi-
tive only in sectors with low labor intensity or a high degree of automation, or in areas
where Switzerland has a rich and complex innovative edge that cannot easily be trans-
ferred. Moreover, Swiss industry has to respond even more quickly and directly than in
the past to scientific and technological innovation from academia. Engineers working

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

tion and healthcare resources.


The demand for engineers at home is mixed. For example, repairing America’s crum-
bling public infrastructure (e.g., roads, energy, hazardous waste, aviation, transit, and
potable water), strengthening its national security, and working toward energy indepen-
dence demand significant investments of human, financial, and technological resources,
which will further expand opportunities for the American engineering profession [79].
However, the increasing modularization of the design and manufacturing process will
change vertically integrated value chains15 and lead to a fragmentation of both R&D and
production in which different segments of the manufacturing or production cycle may be
produced in geographically dispersed regions [80]. This, combined with the increasing
outsourcing of high-end production and R&D facilities outside the United States (mostly
to China, India, the United Kingdom, and Germany), will likely hurt the labor market for
American engineers [81].

The American Engineering Workforce l More: Figure 24

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

American Engineering Education l More: Figures 22/23

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].

Global Engineering and Global Engineers

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

Current Programs and Practices

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.

Foreign Language Education

Whether one is addressing undergraduate or graduate education, language proficiency


is a critical issue. The ability to take full advantage of international opportunities depends
on students and faculty members being able to converse in the host country. Thus, most
universities emphasize language instruction, partly to ensure that students are able to
converse at a foreign location and partly to help prepare students for some of the cus-
toms and culture of the host country. 23 All of the participating universities offer language
studies in a wide variety of languages from beginning to advanced levels.
Increasingly, especially in science and engineering, English is becoming a common
language for cross-cultural communication. English as a second language is part of the

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

internationalization efforts at SJTU, Tsinghua, and the University of Tokyo, whereas it is a


prerequisite for students attending ETH Zürich, TUD, and POLI/USP. Indeed, many non-
English speaking countries begin English instruction well before students enter college.
Nonetheless, most universities also provide additional opportunities to gain the need-
ed fluency. Tsinghua holds a Summer English Camp for its freshmen, ETH Zürich and
TUD offer special courses focused on technical English in science and engineering, and
Georgia Tech’s English Language Institute provides English instruction to nearly 1,000
international students annually. Many of the courses offered in non-English speaking
countries are now being conducted in English, such as at TUD and ETH Zürich, or the bi-
lingual courses at SJTU. Such offerings greatly increase mobility for students who speak
English and wish to study in a non-English speaking country, but they also increase the
international competition for graduate students for English-speaking universities (notably
the U.S.).
However, the dominance of English in global communication in engineering, science,
and business does not lessen the need for native English speakers to learn other lan-
guages. Linguistic ability is a crucial element of cross-cultural competence. The inclusion
of language courses will significantly further engineering students’ understanding of the
economic, political, and cultural dynamics of globalization. Such coursework requires
close collaboration by the faculties of engineering, humanities, and social sciences.

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

Internationalizing the faculty occurs fundamentally in two forms, recruiting international


faculty members or encouraging local faculty members to obtain foreign degrees, par-
ticipate in international education and research, or both. MIT, Georgia Tech, and ETH
Zürich recruit faculty members worldwide, with approximately 30, 41, and 60 percent of
their faculties, respectively, being of foreign origin, while SJTU, Tsinghua, and Tokyo en-
courage their faculties to obtain foreign degrees and participate in international research.
At SJTU, less than 10 percent of the faculty members currently hold foreign degrees;
however, the university plans to recruit one half of its new faculty members with foreign
degrees in the next five years.
Faculty leaves and sabbaticals are the most common means of introducing faculty
members to international perspectives in education and research. For example, Tsinghua
formed an International Academic Exchange Committee and the International Cooperation
and Exchange Office to foster international faculty members and student exchange. ETH
Zürich’s faculty development efforts are described more fully on page 48.
Regardless of the approach, professional mobility is often a challenge because of
government-imposed barriers, such as restrictive visa practices and non-transportable
pension funds, that often impede employment in or visits to foreign countries [128].

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

or community-based practice. POLI/USP has a professional master’s program aimed at


the automotive industry in which students complete a thesis project involving a problem
from their company. ETH Zürich is co-initiator of UNITECH International, a joint program
of eight European universities and 20 multi-national companies offering a combination
of study abroad and management internships. At TUD, all professors are expected to
have at least five years of industrial experience at the managerial level, and many have
obtained that experience abroad.

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

Georgia Tech’s International Plan

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

POLI/USP’s Dual Degree Program

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

Tsinghua’s Dual Degree Programs

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

SJTU-University of Michigan Collaboration

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

TU Darmstadt’s Doctoral Program

Graduates holding a Dr.-Ing. degree are very much in demand. (Doktor-Ingenieur is


the German doctoral title in engineering and equivalent to a Ph.D.) The Dr.-Ing. degree
is mandatory for applying to most academic positions, and industry considers the
degree as a particularly high scientific qualification.
Doctoral education at TUD is strongly research driven. Admission to the Dr.-Ing.
program typically requires excellent academic performance in the master’s degree.
Candidates spend three to five years in research and are expected to undertake cut-
ting-edge research in their field of scientific interest. Doctoral education is not imple-
mented through programs but is organized as research projects requiring candidates
to act independently in developing their dissertation. The dissertation is evaluated by
a committee and is defended in an oral examination. TUD has developed a compre-
hensive strategy for supporting Dr.-Ing. candidates. This strategy includes:

• individual and tailored support of researchers through intensive networks of in-


teraction such as international research alliances and workshops, many funded
by the European Commission Networks of Excellence;
• TOPIC (TUD Overall Platform for the Integration of Competences), a research-
oriented and university-wide platform that encourages interdisciplinary research
across the institution and seeks to encourage and support Dr.-Ing. candidates in
their attempts to interface and integrate research activities;
• administrative and managerial support for doctoral candidates, including special
attention to candidates from abroad who may need visas and work permits.

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

ETH Zürich’s International Recruitment of Faculty Members

Recruiting faculty members globally is a cornerstone of internationalization at ETH Zürich.


ETH seeks to offer optimal research conditions in terms of funding and scientific infra-
structure. In addition to the annual operating funds, ETH faculty members can apply
for competitive internal grants as seed funding for high-risk research projects, research
cooperation platforms, innovative teaching, or innovative IT infrastructure. Hiring faculty
members is the most costly and important investment decision of a university. ETH tries
to minimize the risk by applying rigorous quality standards to the entire hiring procedure.
Many instruments are used to spot promising candidates and potential new research
areas early. International conferences, research forums, and invited talks provide insight
into the research, vision, personality, and readiness to seek new frontiers of potential can-
didates. In their medium-term planning, ETH departments present their strategy regarding
new research fields. Once the Executive Board has approved the strategy, the depart-
ment provides a profile for the planned research and teaching area of a specific position
one to two years before the desired hiring date. This includes a financial plan with start-up
funds and a number of regular positions linked to the professorship.
The president forms a search committee on proposal by the department and ap-
points a senior professor from another department as chair. The committee members are
drawn from the department and other ETH departments, as well as representatives from
other universities (and occasionally from industry or government offices) from Switzerland
and abroad. All faculty positions are advertised internationally. Outstanding researchers
are also approached individually; more than half of the new professors appointed to ten-
ured positions did not apply for those positions but were approached by ETH during the
search process.
Based on the committee’s ranked list of the top three candidates, the president
makes the final decision. If not fully convinced of the quality and international stature
of the top candidates, the president either invites candidates for an interview to form an
opinion before deciding or asks the committee to continue the search. He or she can even
decide to start the entire search from the beginning.
The president enters the negotiations once a candidate is chosen. A relocation and
dual career service provides orientation on personal and professional options for the part-
ner and family. The entire process lasts between six and 12 months. In the past eight years
54 percent of professors were recruited outside Switzerland: 34 percent from Europe and
20 percent from North America.
With the internationalization of the faculty body, English has become the working lan-
guage in most research units. This has led to a new need for services provided in English
— a challenge to the nationally recruited administrative staff.

48
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative

MIT International Science and Technology Initiative (MISTI)

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:

• providing intensive professional internships for MIT students in companies, re-


search laboratories, and universities around the world;
• offering support of MIT faculty members for cross-border research collabora-
tions;
• facilitating research opportunities for international students and post-doctoral
visitors at MIT;
• providing MIT students with study abroad opportunities at selected universities
abroad; and
• organizing meetings, conferences, and training workshops with companies,
governmental agencies, and non-governmental organizations.

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

University of Tokyo’s Internationalization Promotion Plan, 2005-2008

Internationalization is an essential element for the future development of the University


of Tokyo. It is furthering its internationalization, conscious of its role as a Japanese
university and a member of the Asian community [132].
The incorporation of the Japanese national universities has influenced the pro-
motion of internationalization at the University of Tokyo. Although individual faculty
members and departments at the University of Tokyo were already promoting interna-
tionalization, incorporation has made it possible for the university as a whole to make
an international contribution to global research and education.
Based on the need to address intense international competition and to systemat-
ically advance the internationalization of the university, the University of Tokyo has
identified four areas for global focus in its 2005-2008 Internationalization Promotion
Plan: (1) providing an internationally high standard of education; (2) enhancing re-
search activities by strengthening international research networks; (3) promoting co-
operation with international society; and (4) improving the infrastructure to promote
“internal internationalization.”
These areas are intended to promote internationalization in education, research,
and cooperation with society. For example, in providing an internationally high stan-
dard of education, the university seeks to:

• 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.

By realizing these goals, the university seeks to create an educational environment


that is attractive for all people and to recruit excellent students from around the world.
In doing so, the university will provide a more attractive educational environment and
produce graduates who can play an active role in international society.

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 competence needs to become a key qualification of engineering graduates.

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

• Transnational mobility for engineering students, researchers, and professionals needs


to become a priority.

Barriers to studying, working, and conducting research internationally need to be re-


moved and incentives expanded.
Universities and engineering programs need to develop more flexible approaches
to their educational programs. Rigid, highly-sequenced programs stifle student op-
portunities to study, work, or do research abroad. Schools need to consider alterna-
tive program structures that allow the flexibility to combine knowledge acquisition with
the training of transferable competencies (e.g., opportunities offered by the Bologna
reforms). Developing strong inter-institutional international partnerships involving stu-
dent exchanges; dual, double, and joint degrees; and transfer credits are proven means
to enhance student participation. Universities should also encourage and provide more
support for international faculty leaves and sabbaticals.
Government-imposed barriers, such as restrictive visa policies and work permits,
especially for students, need to be relaxed. Funding agencies should provide more
support for programs that enhance international study, work, and research programs.
Accreditation agencies and licensing boards need to continue to work toward the mutual
recognition of accredited degrees and licensure.
Industry can support faculty member and student mobility by providing greater finan-
cial support, employment opportunities, and of course research projects. Industry leaves
and sabbaticals would both promote awareness of the global practice of engineering and
provide invaluable international exposure. Industry can also work to address restrictive
government barriers for both students and faculty members.

• Global engineering excellence is critically dependent on a mutual commitment to


partnerships, especially those that link engineering education to professional prac-
tice.

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

versity-industry needs and perspectives on global engineering. Industry and universities


need to work more closely to provide innovative programs in continuing education that
address engineering practice in a global context.
Professional engineering organizations should collaborate more across borders; they
should work to strengthen the dialogue between professional practice and academia;
they should help define and monitor global engineering qualifications.

• There is an urgent need for research on engineering in a global context.

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.

— The Project Team —

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

Established in 1855 as a polytechnic school, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich


– Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich (ETH Zürich) today is one of two national
engineering and science universities in Switzerland. In its mission statement, ETH Zürich
embraces the following principles: advancing and supporting high-quality education and
research at the highest international level; promoting networked and system-oriented think-
ing and acting; maintaining intellectual and cultural diversity as well as academic freedom
for education and research.
ETH Zürich’s 360 professors, working in 15 departments, form the backbone of educa-
tion and research. In total, almost 8,000 persons, 30 percent of whom are women, work
in research, education, and the administration. ETH is home to 12,700 students, including
3,000 post-graduate (doctoral and continuing education degree) students. l More: Table 13
In the wake of the Bologna Declaration, ETH Zürich is in the process of introducing a
two-tiered degree structure (bachelor/master), the master’s being the professionally qualify-
ing degree. Doctoral study is research-based with a minimal component of formal course-
work. Professional education is offered for credit (Master of Advanced Studies) and in the
form of non-credit continuing education courses. Every year some 1,200 students graduate
with a master’s degree and 500 students complete their doctorate. The share of international
students ranges from 12 percent in the bachelor’s programs to 55 percent in the doctoral
programs. With 90 nationalities at ETH Zürich, a global perspective always guides the aca-
demic experience. l More: Table 14
Education and research are focused on the following areas: construction and geomatics
(architecture; civil, environmental and geomatics engineering), engineering sciences (me-
chanical and process engineering; information technology and electrical engineering; com-
puter science; materials science), natural sciences and mathematics (mathematics; physics;
chemistry and applied biosciences; biology), system-oriented sciences (earth sciences; en-

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).

Georgia Institute of Technology

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.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

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

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

involved in international exchange and cooperation. It has established cooperative rela-


tions with more than 100 universities abroad and has some of the best dual degree pro-
grams with its international partners, including dual degree engineering programs with
the University of Michigan. In addition, SJTU has set up joint laboratories with dozens of
large international companies such as GM, Bell, and Ford.
With its long-term goal of becoming a world-class university, SJTU is making special ef-
forts to improve the quality of faculty, research, and education. Internationalization has become
one of its major strategies for the next five years. It is also emphasizing contributions to the
development of the economy and society, particularly on collaborations with industries and
technology transfer.

Technische Universität Darmstadt

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.

Reiner Anderl is vice president of the Technische Universität Darmstadt. He earned


his diploma in mechanical engineering in 1979 and his Dr.-Ing. degree in mechanical
engineering in 1984, both at the Universität Karlsruhe. From 1984 to 1985 he served as
technical manager of a medium-sized company. Dr. Anderl received his academic ha-
bilitation in 1991 and the venia legendi in 1992, and accepted the call for the professor-
ship for computer integrated design (Fachgebiet Datenverarbeitung in der Konstruktion,
DiK) at the faculty of mechanical engineering at the Technische Universität Darmstadt
in 1993. He was Dekan (dean) of the Mechanical Engineering Department from 1999
until 2001 when the bachelor’s and master’s programs were implemented. Dr. Anderl is
a member of the Zentrale Evaluierungs- und Akkreditierungsagentur (ZEvA), a national
accreditation agency, the PACE manager of Technische Universität Darmstadt (Partners
for the Advancement of Collaborative Engineering Education), and an adjunct professor
at Virginia Tech. Dr. Anderl has authored and co-authored more than 180 publications,
including two monographs and eight co-authored books.

Klaus-Jürgen Bathe is professor of mechanical engineering at MIT. Dr. Bathe received


his Ph.D. in civil engineering from the University of California at Berkeley and has been a
faculty member at MIT since 1975. He teaches in the areas of applied mechanics, finite
element methods for structures and fluids, dynamics, and continuum mechanics. His re-
search focuses on the nonlinear analysis of structures and solids, heat transfer, and fluids
using modern computational techniques. Dr. Bathe has been the principal developer of
the SAP IV and NONSAP finite element computer programs, and has been directing the
development of the ADINA System for finite element displacement/stress, heat transfer,
and fluid flow analyses. He is the author of several textbooks and numerous articles on
finite element analysis. Dr. Bathe is on the editorial boards of various international jour-
nals and is the co-editor of the Journal Computers and Structures. He holds five honorary
doctoral degrees from technical universities around the world.

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

the technical committee of the Inverse Manufacturing Forum, MSTC. He is a member of


SCJ (Science Council of Japan).

Paulo Carlos Kaminski is an associate professor in the Department of Mechanical


Engineering from Escola Politécnica da Universidade de São Paulo. He is also vice
president of the Culture and Extension Commission and academic coordinator of the
Continuing Education Program from the Escola Politécnica da Universidade de São
Paulo, and vice president of the Humboldt Club Brazil. Dr. Kaminski earned a degree
in naval engineering (1986) and a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (1992) from Escola
Politécnica da Universidade de São Paulo. He also has a degree in business administra-
tion (1990) from Universidade de São Paulo. He was a post-doctoral researcher at the
Technical University of Darmstadt with an Alexander von Humboldt fellowship in 1993-94.
Dr. Kaminski’s current research focuses on design methodology, product development,
and innovation management. He has published over 70 articles and has been honored
with six awards for his work.

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.

Marcio Lobo Netto is an assistant professor in the Department of Electronic Systems


Engineering of Escola Politécnica da Universidade de São Paulo (POLI/USP). His cur-
rent interests include cognitive computing, artificial life, virtual reality, parallel render-
ing, and distributed graphical applications based on multi-agent systems. He earned
his engineering and master’s degrees in electronic engineering at Escola Politécnica da
Universidade de São Paulo in 1985 and 1990, respectively, and his doctoral degree at the
Technische Universität Darmstadt in 1997. From 1991 to 1996, Dr. Netto was a researcher
at the Fraunhofer Institute for Computer Graphics in Darmstadt. He is a member of the
International Cooperation Commission of POLI/USP and coordinator of the Cognitive
Science Research Group from USP. Dr. Netto is a senior member of IEEE and a member of
ACM-SIGGRAPH, EUROGRAPHICS, and the Brazilian Computing Society and Cognitive
Science Society, as well as a member of the Technical Advisory Board of the international
journals Computers and Graphics and International Journal of Image and Graphics.

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.

Bernhard Plattner is a professor of computer engineering at ETH Zürich, where he leads


the Communication Systems Research Group. From 1996 to 1998, Dr. Plattner served as
the head of faculty of electrical engineering at ETH Zürich. His research currently focuses
on applications of communication systems and higher layer protocols, and on new net-
work architectures. He is also interested in new approaches for dynamic service creation
and management, as well as practical aspects of information security. Dr. Plattner is co-
founder of the Zürich Information Security Center and director of the ETH World program.
In 1986, Dr. Plattner was instrumental in setting up the SWITCH foundation, which pio-
neered the establishment of Internet services for the Swiss universities. He became the
first executive director of SWITCH and served on the board as a vice president until 1996.
He also served as a vice president of TERENA, the European association of research and
education networks.

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

Metal Design with Higher Order Bifurcations – Development, Production, Evaluation


(CRC 666), he focuses on information modeling and R&D management.

Michael Thel is working as a research assistant at the Department of Computer


Integrated Design (DiK) at the Technische Universität Darmstadt. He studied mechanical
engineering and business administration with specialization in production data technol-
ogy at the Technische Universität Darmstadt from 1995 to 2001. Following the completion
of his joint master degree, Mr. Thel worked as a consultant and systems analyst in the
areas of process integration as well as data exchange and data quality until the end of
2004. During this time he was responsible for different projects for DaimlerChrysler and
Volkswagen. The focus of his research activities is the development of methodologies
and concepts for integrating knowledge management in the design phase. The main
topics are the handling and administration of explicit knowledge, knowledge-based engi-
neering, and the availability of knowledge along the process chain.

Arndt Ufer is a scientific assistant at the faculty of mechanical engineering at the


Technische Universität Darmstadt. He studied mechanical engineering at the Technische
Universität Darmstadt from 1996 to 2003. In spring 2003 Mr. Ufer joined the Department of
Computer Integrated Design (DiK) as a team member of the 3D-CAD-Training Group. He
worked at the department’s training center Informationsverarbeitung im Maschinenbau
(IiM), training students on the use of 3D-CAD and PDM software. In 2004 he managed the
transition of the Technische Universität Darmstadt’s 3D-CAD-Training to a new software
environment for future classes. Mr. Ufer currently works on projects in the fields of col-
laborative engineering (CE) and collaborative product visualization (CPV).

Sunyu Wang is director of the Institute of Education at Tsinghua University. Professor


Wang earned his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in electrical engineering from Tsinghua
University in 1982 and 1986, respectively. His research includes engineering education,
higher education economics and administration, management of higher institutions,
and human resource development. In recent years, Professor Wang has led a number
of research projects sponsored by the Chinese Academy of Engineering regarding en-
gineering education and the development of engineers, such as “A Comparative Study
on the Accreditation of Engineering Programs and Engineers,” “The Development of
Chinese Engineers in the Early Twenty-First Century: Significance and Methods,” and “A
Comparative Study of the Engineering Education in China, Japan, and Korea.”

Bernd Widdig is associate director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology


International Science and Technology Initiative (MISTI). In this position he is involved in
the coordination and expansion of MISTI’s eight country programs around the world and

74
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative

in the overall strategic planning of MIT’s efforts in international education. In addition, he


is director of the MIT-Germany Program, which he founded in 1996. He received his Ph.D.
in German studies from Stanford University in 1988. He joined MIT in 1989 and continues
to teach German culture, literature, and film as well as cross-cultural communication.

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.

Matthias Wunsch is a post-doctoral researcher in the Department of Precision Machinery


Engineering of the University of Tokyo. He was previously on the research staff at the
Institute for Applied Computer Science in Mechanical Engineering (RPK) at the University
of Karlsruhe from 1998 to 2004 and a lecturer of computer architectures and operating
systems. He earned his Dr.-Ing. in 2004 from the University of Karlsruhe. He has been in-
volved in national and international research projects, and today his primary research ar-
eas are mass customization design, computer aided design process, knowledge-based
design systems, and artificial intelligence. His research interests include virtual engineer-
ing and manufacturing, and the application of engineering IT systems.

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.

Shou Wen Yu studied in the Department of Structural Engineering at Tongji University,


Shanghai, from 1955 to 1958 and completed his post-graduate study in engineer-
ing mechanics at Tsinghua University in 1960, where he joined the faculty and is now
a professor of solid mechanics. He has also served as vice president and dean of the
Graduate School of Tsinghua University (1992-1999). He was a visiting research fellow
at Technische Hochschule Darmstadt under an Alexander von Humboldt fellowship from

75
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative

1985 to 1987. Professor Yu is a member of the Engineering Education Committee of the


Chinese Academy of Engineering. His recent professional involvements include vice
president of the Chinese Society of Research on Higher Engineering Education, vice
president and member of Executive Committee of the International Congress of Fracture
(ICF), fellow of ICF, and editor-in-chief of “Acta Mechanica Solida Sinica.” Professor Yu
has co-authored five books and published roughly 400 papers in the field of solid me-
chanics, fracture mechanics, and higher engineering education.

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.

current trend current trend current


current trend
trend current
currenttrend
trend
current
current
trend
trend
current
current
trend
trend
current
current
trend
trend
current
current
trendtrend
current
current
trend trend
International Student
(Valued with statistical data)
body
Total student body [number] [++, +, =, -, --, n/a] 38.000 = 12705
12705 =+
=+ 4812
4812 = = 25173
25173= = 17044
17044 1260012600
+ +1692616926
= =

Number of Undergraduates [number] [++, +, =, -, --, n/a] 18.700 = 5244


5244 == 1997
1997 + + 13709
13709= = 11841
11841 4600 4600
= =8375 8375
= =

Number of Graduates (MA und Ph.D.) [number] [++, +, =, -, --, n/a] 12.800 = 7461
7461 ++ 2815
2815 + + 11464
11464+ + 52035203 4000 4000
+ +8508 8508
= =

International Undergraduates [percentage] [++, +, =, -, --, n/a] 5% ++ 10%


10% =+
=+ 3,6%
3,6% = = 8.5%
8.5% = = 5,0%
5,0%= = 5% 5% + + < 2%< 2%
+ +18% 18%
=+ =+

International Master graduates [percentage] [++, +, =, -, --, n/a] 1% + 16%


16% ++
++ 11,4%
11,4% + + 35%
35% + + 3,0%
3,0%+ + 29%29%+ + 20% 20%
+ +17% 17%
=+ =+

International Ph.D. graduates [percentage] [++, +, =, -, --, n/a] <1% + 52%


52% ++ 34,8%
34,8% + + 45%
45% + + 1,7%
1,7%+ + 55%55%= = 25% 25%
+ +24% 24%
=+ =+

Continuing education students [percentage] [++, +, =, -, --, n/a] <1% = 30%


30% == 0%
0% - - 0%0% = = 2,3%
2,3%+ + < 1%
< 1%= = <1% <1%
= =16% 16%
=+ =+
International Faculty
(Valued with statistical data)
body
Total Faculty body [number] [++, +, =, -, --, n/a] 2800 = 349
349 =+
=+ 293
293 = = 2902
2902 = = 837 837 480 480= =314 314=− =−

Proportion of international faculty [percentage] [++, +, =, -, --, n/a] <1% + 60%


60% ++ 11 - - 30%
30% + + 1,1%
1,1%+ + 29%29%+ + 2% 2%= =10% 10%
+ +

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

Activities at universities (Reference are other comparable universities in the regions)

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 + +

Joint schools / institutes [number] [++, +, =, -, --, n/a] 1 + 00 == n/a


n/a n/an/a = = n/a n/a8 8 + + n/a n/a n/a n/a
0 0

Campus abroad [number] [++, +, =, -, --, n/a] 1 = 00 == n/a


n/a n/an/a n/an/a n/a n/a69 69 + + n/a n/a n/a n/a
1 1 - -

Strategic inter-institutional alliances [yes / no] [++, +, =, -, --, n/a] Yes = 33 ++ yes
yes + + = = YesYes + + yes yes + + yes yes++ ++
4 4 = =

International curricula programs [number] [++, +, =, -, --, n/a] 0 = 90%


90% ++ n/a
n/a n/an/a + + 4 4 + + 70 70 + + n/a n/a + +2 2 = =
10%/
10%/
Classes held in English [number] [++, +, =, -, --, n/a] 136 + ++
++ 112
112 + + n/an/a ++ ++ [103][103]+ + n/a n/a n/a n/a
15% 15%
= =
70%
70%
International career development activities (e.g. career fairs) [yes / no] [++, +, =, -, --, n/a] No n/a yes
yes ++ no
no n/an/a + + YesYes + + yes yes + + yes yes++ ++
yes yes+ +

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

Item Time Period of Data


Data Source Item Reporting on Raw Data as Provided by Source Definition used by GT
# Reported
Data Reported

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%

International proportion of Master


Institute Research & Planning 2 [2262 total Masters] 656 = 29% Non-US citizens, in resident, permanent, or alien status (special query). AY2004-2005
students

International proportion of Ph.D.


Institute Research & Planning 3 [2941 Ph.D.] 1618 = 55% Non-US citizens, in resident, permanent, or alien status (special query). AY2004-2005
students

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.

Proportion of faculty with interna-


IRP, FCDS 6 [810 FT; 27 PT faculty] 251 = 30% All faculty (regardless of citizenship status) with a foreign degree at any level, not just the terminal degree AY2004-2005
tional degrees

Number of international visiting


IRP, FCDS 7 # Visiting Scholars at GT = 51 Have a finished degree, i.e., postdocs, visting professors, or researchers. AY2004-2005
scholars

Estimate based on status and travel of faculty, i.e., on


Extended international experience Faculty with teaching and/or professional experience in non-US environment, and the 6 months is not necessarily
IRP, FCDS 8 leave or travel in foreign country as shown in faculty AY2004-2005
(at least 6 month) of faculty contiguous. Number does include international experience for faculty career period.
database

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

Outgoing exchange / visiting stu-


OIP (Henry) 11 76 GT students Students going abroad as part of exchange programs. AY 2004-2005
dents (of total student body)

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)

Summer school (program) organized


OIP (Henry) 14 691 students GT-sponsored programs with credit awarded. AY 2004-2005
by the university

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

Institute Communications and As of June 7,


17 Strategic inter-institutional alliances France; Beijing; Singapore; Ireland Formal agreement exists. As of June 7, 2006
Public Affairs (ICPA) 2006

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.

(7 languages, 103 courses); Languages Business


School of Modern Languages Classes held in English (non-English and Technology (6 countries); International Affairs &
19 Number of courses conducted in language other than English by GT faculty for GT credit. AY 2004-2005
(ML) (McKnight) for US) Modern Languages; Global Economics and Modern
Languages

DOPP: Advising 1-on-1; Wkshops


Number of one-time and on-going activities conducted by GT offices. Does not include those conducted by col-
DOPP (Gulick); International career development Career Services: International Employment Site As of June 7,
20 leges or units, a number we don’t capture. For employment outside GT offcies, students must self-report; therefore As of June 7, 2006
Career Services (Mobley) activities (e.g. career fairs) (Going Global); 2006
those numbers are not reflected here.
AIESEC, student organization

Strategic planning of internation- As of June 7,


OIP [Henry] 21 MOU, 76; Exchange agreements, 46; Research, 4 Formal agreements with international institutions. As of June 7, 2006
alization 2006

80 81
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative

Table 2. Salary evolution in Brazil.


Back
l

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

Source: “Caderno de Empregos,” Jornal o Estado de São Paulo, 5 de março de 2006.

Table 3. Education in Brazil – Students earning degrees in engineering (including


architecture and computer sciences) vs. all disciplines, 1996 to 2004.
Back
l

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004


Programs Programs graduation

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

GDP GDP Per Capita GDP Per Capita R&D Expenditure


Year
(Billion RMB) (RBM) (USD by exchange rate) (Billion RMB)

1978 362 379 47

1982 529 525 66

1987 1196 1104 138

1992 2666 2287 286 19

1997 7446 6054 757 40

2002 10517 8214 1027 81

2004 13687 10561 1320 116

Source: Bureau of Statistics of China, China Statistics Book, Beijing: China Statistics Press, 1979, 1983, 1988,
1993, 1998, 2003, 2005.

Table 5. The change in the percentage of questionnaire respondents answering posi-


tively on questions of working engineers between 2006 and 2020.
Back
l

Question 2006 2020 Change

Income of engineers as compared with other professions 26.4% 51.6% 25.2%

Social status of engineers as compared with other profes-


30.9% 48.5% 17.6%
sions

Demand for engineer qualification system 46.0% 62.2% 16.1%

Opportunity of promotion of engineers as compared with


24.3% 35.7% 11.4%
other professions
Career development of engineers as compared with other
41.3% 51.1% 9.8%
professions
Job opportunities of engineers as compared with other
58.3% 66.8% 8.6%
professions
Probability of branch changes of engineers as compared
23.4% 30.4% 6.9%
with other professions
Possibility of developing new engineering fields as com-
57.2% 63.7% 6.5%
pared with other professions
Job pressure of engineers as compared with other profes-
73.5% 70.8% -2.7%
sions
Frequency of job switch of engineers as compared with
48.1% 44.0% -4.1%
other professions
Tendency of job switch of engineers as compared with
51.4% 45.9% -5.5%
other professions
Working time of engineers as compared with other profes-
73.1% 66.8% -6.3%
sions

83
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative

Table 6. The change in the percentage of questionnaire respondents answering posi-


tively on questions of engineer qualification between 2006 and 2020.
Back
l

Question 2006 2020 Change


Requirement of ability in international communication and
47.0% 77.1% 30.1%
cooperation
Requirement of cost and market awareness 39.5% 68.0% 28.5%
Requirement of environmental awareness and social
38.1% 66.6% 28.5%
responsibility
Requirement of cross-cultural knowledge 26.2% 54.3% 28.2%
Requirement of organizational and management skills 38.3% 62.7% 24.5%
Requirement of communication skills 54.8% 77.1% 22.3%
Requirement of ability in acquiring and applying information using
58.6% 79.7% 21.1%
modern technologies
Requirement of honesty and faith 60.1% 80.5% 20.4%
Requirement of non-engineering knowledge 55.5% 75.5% 20.0%
Requirement of foreign language skills 58.5% 77.4% 19.0%
Requirement of loyalty to enterprises 49.9% 67.4% 17.5%
Requirement of ability in team-working 68.1% 83.8% 15.7%
Requirement of working altitude 68.6% 82.7% 14.1%
Requirement of mathematics and physical sciences 55.2% 68.6% 13.5%
Requirement of engineering design ability 69.6% 81.4% 11.8%
Requirement of problem-solving ability 77.3% 86.0% 8.7%
Requirement of basic engineering skills 69.7% 77.9% 8.1%
Requirement of knowledge in respective fields 82.0% 84.2% 2.2%

Table 7. Number of total graduates and engineering graduates in China between 1949
and 1999.
Back
l

Total Graduates Engineering Graduates Percentage of


Year
(Thousands) (Thousands) Engineering Graduates
1949 21 5 22.3%
1952 32 10 31.9%
1957 56 17 30.5%
1965 185 80 43.3%
1979 85 21 25.1%
1984 498 168 33.9%
1989 625 213 34.1%
1994 637 228 35.9%
1999 847 326 38.5%

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 8. Number of engineering graduates at different levels and their percentages


among all graduates of the same level in China between 2000 and 2004.
Back
l

Total Associate’s Bachelor Master’s Doctoral

Year Number Number Number Number Number


Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage
(thou- (thou- (thou- (thou- (thou-
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
sand) sand) sand) sand) sand)

2000 380 37.5 142 31.1 213 43.0 20 41.6 5 41.9


2001 375 33.9 130 27.6 220 38.7 20 36.3 5 42.2
2002 490 33.0 208 30.5 252 38.4 25 37.8 5 34.2
2003 686 34.5 293 30.9 352 37.8 35 37.7 6 35.0
2004 868 34.2 370 30.9 442 37.0 48 37.7 8 34.4

Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China, Statistical Yearbook 2000-2005.

Table 9. Industry characteristics and their share of overall employment and overall
gross value added25.
Back
l

Industry characteristics Employees¹ Share of total GVA² Share of total


Technology/knowledge
High-tech industry 288,725 9% 39 10%
Knowledge-based services 597,195 18% 109 27%
Use of resources
Labor-intensive industries 1,825,249 56% 238 60%
Capital-intensive industries 1,459,316 44% 158 40%
Tie to specific location
Location-tied industries 2,848,796 87% 344 87%
Non location-tied industries 435,769 13% 51 13%
Intensity of value creation
Intense value added industries 404,179 12% 87 22%
Intense value added public sectors 57,440 2% 20 5%
Export orientation
Domestically focused industries (excel. govern.) 1,300,688 40% 138 35%
Export oriented industries (excel. govern.) 1,412,463 43% 178 45%
Government sector 572,975 17% 76 19%
Overall Swiss total 3,284,565 100% 395³ 100%

¹ Full-time equivalents according to 2001 business consus


² Nominal GVA 2001 (CHF bn); CS Economic Research estimates
³ GDP before correction, excl. private household services
Source: SFSO; CS Economic Research

25
Credit Suisse (2005), op. cit. p. 14.

85
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative

Table 10. Education in POLI/USP – Students earning undergraduate degrees in engi-


neering, 1995 to 2004.
Back
l

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

Civil 92 112 144 119 146 142 128 102 81 90

Chemical 88 90 122 95 78 67 53 82 83 94

Table 11. Education in POLI/USP – Students earning master’s degrees in engineering,


1996 to 2004.
Back
l

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

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

Table 12. Education in POLI/USP – Students earning doctoral degrees in engineering,


1996 to 2004.
Back
l

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

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

Table 13. Staff members per category at ETH Zurich (2005).


Back
l

Staff category FTE

Professors 349

Scientific staff 3589

Technical & administrative staff 2071

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

Category Total % foreign nationals

Bachelor students 5230 11.7%

Diploma students 3928 14.5%

Master students 514 16.1%

MAS/MBA students 359 35.1%

Doctoral Students 2674 54.6%

Professors 349 60.0%

Scientific staff 3588 56.4%

Administrative and technical staff 1116 17.2%

87
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative

Figure 1. Qualification profile of engineers structured in four main areas [44].


Back
l

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

Vertical Mobility Horizontal Mobility

MSc MSc MSc

Univ. B

BSc BSc BSc

Univ. A

Univ. A Univ. B

Figure 4. Geographic distribution of the international research contacts of the profes-


sors of ETH Zürich: the partners institutions in terms of number of prioritised research
collaborations. Back
l

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

Figure 5. Swiss comparative innovation performance, relative to EU average.


Back
l

Source: European Scoreboard 2005:


http://trendchart.cordis.lu/scoreboards/scoreboard2005/pdf/Annex_F_CH.pdf

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

Y axis: Working population


dark green = trained and working in science and technology
light green = not trained in science and technology but working in science and technology
black = trained but not working in science and technology
red = not trained and not working in science and technology
Source: Federal Agency for Statistics (Bundesamt für Statistik), http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/the-
men/bildung_und_wissenschaft/indicateurs/st/ind2.indicator.20101.html?open=1#1

91
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative

Figure 7. Back
l

Figure 8. Back
l

Situation on Engineering Graduation Market (Brazil)

800,000

700,000 626,617
600,000

500,000

400,000 324,734
300,000

200,000

100,000 29,176 47,161


0
Total of students Total of engineering
graduating in year students graduating in
2000 / 2004 year 2000 / 2004

92
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative

Figure 9. Back
l

Local Engineering Workforce 2004 (Brazil)

200,000,000 182,060,108

150,000,000 Economically Active Population

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

Figure 10. Back


l

93
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative

Figure 11. Back


l

Year No. Total of students Total of engineering Total of students


graduating students graduating with a
minimum requirement for
transfer between inter-
national workplaces**
2000 1,008,534 378,669 237,283
2001 1,104,132 373,970 244,436
2002 1,418,150 468,519 260,701
2003 1,988,583 685,443 392,874
2004 2,541,929 868,222 498,537

* 3-year college Graduates + Engineering Bachelor + Engineering Master + Engineering PH.D


** Engineering Bachelor + Engineering Master + Engineering PH.D

Figure 12. Back


l

Egineering Graduation Market (China)


graduation/thousand
number of

94
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative

Figure 13. Back


l

Local Engineering Workforce 2005 (China)

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

Figure 14. Back


l

95
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative

Figure 15. Back


l

Situation on Engineering Graduation Market (Germany)

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

Figure 16. Back


l

Local Engineering Workforce 2004 (Germany)

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

Figure 17. Back


l

Figure 18. Back


l

97
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative

Figure 19. Back


l

Local Engineering Workforce* (Japan)

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

* Source: Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications


** Estimation

Figure 20. Back


l

98
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative

Figure 21. Back


l

Situation on Engineering Graduation Market (Switzerland)

15,000 13,928
12,320
12,000

9,000

6,000

3,000 1,522 1,389

0
Total of students Total of engineering
graduating in year students graduating in
2000 / 2004 year 2000 / 2004

Figure 22. Back


l

99
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative

Figure 23. Back


l

Situation on Engineering Graduation Market (United States)

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)

Figure 24. Back


l

Local Engineering Workforce 2005 (United States)


293,655,404
300,000,000
Economically Active Population
200,000,000 150,811,000

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

Source: "Employed Persons by occupation, sex, and age." U.S. Department of


Labor - Bureau of Labor Statistics. 18 May 2006. http://stats.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat9.pdf.

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

[17] Bureau of Statistics of China, China Statistics Book, Beijing:


China Statistics Press, 1979, 1983, 1988, 1993, 1998, 2003, 2005.
[18] CIA, The World Factbook,
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html,
accessed July 2006.
[19] IMD International Business School, IMD world competitiveness yearbook (Chinese
version). Beijing: China Finance & Economics Press, June 2002, pp. 37,117.
[20] ibid.
[21] Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative, op. cit.
[22] Bureau of Statistics of China, op. cit.
[23] Guan Hua Xu, “Main Problems about Indigenous Innovation[J],” China Soft
Science, Vol. 4, 2006, pp.1-3.
[24] Ministry of Education, Yearbook of Chinese Education (1949-1981), Achievement
of Education In China-Statistics 1980-1985, Educational Statistics Yearbook of
China 1989-2000, Beijing: People’s Education Press.
[25] National Bureau of Statistics of China, Statistical Yearbook 2000-2005, Beijing:
China Statistics Press.
[26] Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative, op. cit.
[27] Department of International Cooperation and Exchanges, Ministry of Education,
“Relevant Policy on Chinese-Foreign Cooperative Education,” (PowerPoint
Presentation), November 2003.
[28] CIA, World Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/
gm.html, accessed July 2006.
[29] Federal Statistical Office Germany, http://www.destatis.de/basis/e/erwerb/
erwerbtab1.htm, accessed July 31, 2006.
[30] International Monetary Fund, http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/
weo/2006/01/data/index.htm, accessed July 31, 2006.
[31] CIA, World Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/
gm.html, accessed July 2006.
[32] ibid.
[33] Institut fuer Demoskopie Allensbach, Allensbacher Berichte 2005, Nr. 12,
Allensbacher Berufsprestige-Skala, 2005.
[34] VDI Nachrichten & Ingenieurkarriere.de, Ingenieurgehälter 2004 & 2005,
http://www.ingenieurkarriere.de/library/pdf/gehaltsstudie_2004.pdf,
http://www.ingenieurkarriere.de/library/pdf/gehaltsstudie_2005.pdf,
accessed July 31, 2006.
[35] Spiegel Online, Berufseinsteigergehälter,
http://www.spiegel.de/unispiegel/jobundberuf/0,1518,426150,00.html, ac-
cessed July 2006.

102
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative

[36] VDE-Ingenieurstudie 2005, Verband der Elektrotechnik, Elektronik,


Informationstechnik e. V., Frankfurt am Main, 2005, http://www.vde.com/
NR/rdonlyres/D309AF7E-BAA3-4497-936F-665DBD3C6469/10881/
VDEIngenieurstudie07.pdf, accessed July 31, 2006.
[37] VDI-Ingenieurstudie Deutschland 2005, VDI Wissensforum IWB GmbH 11/2005,
http://www.vdi.de/imperia/md/content/presse/Studie_Wissensforum.pdf,
accessed July 31, 2006.
[38] Statistische Veröffentlichungen der Kultusministerkonferenz, Dokumentation Nr.
168, Juni 2003, Fächerspezifische Prognose der Hochschulabsolventen bis 2015,
http://www.kmk.org/statist/fachspezprog_text.pdf, accessed July 31, 2006.
[39] Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF),
Forschung und Innovation in Deutschland 2006,
http://www.bmbf.de/pub/forschung_und_innovation_in_deutschland_2006.pdf,
accessed July 2006.
[40] Statistische Veröffentlichungen der Kultusministerkonferenz, Dokumentation Nr.
168, Juni 2003, Fächerspezifische Prognose der Hochschulabsolventen bis 2015,
http://www.kmk.org/statist/fachspezprog_text.pdf, accessed July 31, 2006.
[41] Statistische Veröffentlichungen der Kultusministerkonferenz, op. cit.
[42] VDI-Sachen machen 2006, Presentation by Dr. Fuchs, Tag der Technik, May 18,
2006, http://www.sachen-machen.org/uploads/media/Pr_sentation_Fuchs.pdf,
accessed July 31, 2006.
[43] VDE-Ingenierustudie 2005, op. cit.
[44] Wirtschaftswoche, 24.11.2005, Ingenieure — der Beruf der Zukunft.
[45] ibid.
[46] Klaus Mauersberger, Die Entwicklung der technischen Hochschulen und ihrer
Ausbildungskonzeption im 19. Jhd., in Dresdner Beiträge zur Geschichte der
Technikwissenschaften, Heft 17, ISSN 0232-5349.
[47] Günter Spur, Vom Faustkeil zum digitalen Produkt, Carl Hanser Verlag, 2004.
[48] National Institute of Informatics, Henri Angelino, Engineering Education and
Professional Development in Germany, France, and United Kingdom-Examples for
Establishing Continuing Professional Development of Engineers in Japan, NII Journal,
No. 6, 2003.
[49] Hochschulrektorenkonferenz, Statistiken zur Hochschulpolitik 2006, Statistische
Daten zur Einführung, Von Bachelor-und Masterstudiengängen,
http://www.hrk.de/de/download/dateien/StatistikBAMAHRKWiSo2005_06.pdf,
accessed July 31, 2006.
[50] The Bologna Declaration of June 19, 1999,
http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/pdf/bologna_declaration.pdf, accessed
July 2006.

103
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative

[51] Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), op cit.


[52] Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), Fachserie 11 Reihe 4.1,
Bildung und Kultur, Studierende an Hochschulen, Wintersemester 2005/2006.
[53] Federal Statistical Office Germany, Education, Science and Culture,
http://www.destatis.de/themen/e/thm_bildung.htm, Fachserie 11 / Reihe 4.2,
Prüfungen an Hochschulen, several volumes accessed July 31, 2006.
[54] Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Education at a
Glance 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005.
[55] Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), op. cit.
[56] Federal Statistical Office Germany, Education, Science and Culture op. cit.
[57] CIA, World Fact Book, https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/
ja.html, accessed July 2006.
[58] Wikipedia Foundation, http://en-wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Japan,
accessed July 2006.
[59] CIA, World Fact Book, https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/
ja.html, accessed July 2006.
[60] Wikipedia Foundation, http://en-wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Japan, accessed
July 2006.
[61] CIA, World Fact Book, https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/
ja.html, accessed July 2006.
[62] ibid.
[63] Annual Report of the Reinforcement Committee for Engineering Education
Program Standards, Committee of Deans of Faculty of Engineering (from
Hokkaido University, Tohoku University, University of Tokyo, Tokyo Institute of
Technology, Nagoya University, Kyoto University, Osaka University and Kyushu
University), 2004 (in Japanese only).
[64] ibid.
[65] CIA World Fact Book, https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/
sz.html#Econ, accessed July 2006.
[66] Credit Suisse: Economic Briefing. Switzerland in flux – Swiss industries as the build-
ing blocks for growth, Zurich: Credit Suisse, Economic Research No. 41, 2005.
[67] Credit Suisse, op. cit., p. 14.
[68] CIA World Fact Book, https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/
sz.html#Econ, accessed July 2006.
[69] Trend Chart Innovation Policy in Europe: European Innovation Scoreboard 2005,
Comparative Analysis of Innovation Performance, 2006, pp. 3, 10, 41,
http://trendchart.cordis.lu/scoreboards/scoreboard2005/index.cfm. This
report and its annexes, accompanying thematic papers and the indicators data-
bases are available at http://www.trendchart.org, accessed July 2006.

104
Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative

[70] Federal Agency for Statistics (Bundesamt für Statistik),


http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/bildung_und_wissen schaft/
indicateurs/st/ind2.indicator.20101.html?open=1#1, accessed July 2006.
[71] Anja Umbach-Daniel, Sabine Schneiter, Ingenieur-Nachwuchs Schweiz 2005,
Entwicklung des Ingenieurangebots an Universitäten, Hochschulen und
Fachhochschulen. Study commissioned by “Engineers Shape our Future IngCH”,
Zurich 2006.
[72] European Innovation Scoreboard 2005, p. 34.
[73] CIA World Fact Book, https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/
us.html#Econ, accessed July 2006.
[74] CIA World Fact Book, https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/
us.html#Econ, accessed July 2006.
[75] Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, Rising above the
Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Future,
National Academic Press, 2005.
[76] National Academy of Engineering, The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in
the New Century, 2004.
[77] Thomas L. Friedman, The World Is Flat, Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2005.
[78] CIA World Fact Book, https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/
us.html#Econ, accessed July 2006.
[79] National Academy of Engineering, op. cit., pp. 18-23.
[80] Suzanne Berger, How Can We Compete? What Companies Around the World Are
Doing to Make it in Today/s Global Economy, New York: Doubleday, 2006.
[81] Richard B. Freeman, “Does Globalization of the Scientific/Engineering Workforce
Threaten US Economic Leadership?” NBER Working Paper Series 11457, 2005,
pp. 8-10, http://www.nber.org/papers/w11457, accessed July 2006.
[82] National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Indicator 2006,
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c3/c3h.htm, accessed August 6, 2006.
[83] National Academy of Engineering, op. cit., pp. 10-16.
[84] Edward Gordon, The 2010 Meltdown, Praeger Publishers, 2005, p. 27.
[85] ibid.
[86] Freeman, op. cit., pp. 5-7.
[87] Freeman, op. cit., p. 19.
[88] Department of Labor, News, Washington: GPO, 7 Dec. 2005.
[89] Chronicle of Higher Education, Almanac Issue, 2006-2007, p. 22.
[90] National Academy of Engineering, op. cit., p. 28.
[91] Freeman, op. cit., p. 17.

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

Program Standards, Committee of Deans of Faculty of Engineering, 2004 (in


Japanese only).
[126] Entrepreneurship in Engineering Education: Engineering Subject Center,
http://ww.engsc.ac.uk/er/entrepreneurship/index.asp, accessed July 2006.
[127] Social Union Framework Agreement, Government of Canada, Report to the
Ministerial Council on Social Policy Renewal, March 2001,
http://socialunion.gc.ca/sufa-mob_e.htm, accessed July 2006.
[128] US Visa Restrictions a Challenge for Educational Institutions, Graduate
Management Admission Council, http://www.gmac.com/gmac/NewsCenter/
NewsCommentary/CSISVisaForum.htm, accessed July 2006.
[129] International Plan, Office of International Education, Georgia Institute of Technology,
http://www.oie.gatech.edu/internationalplan/, accessed July 2006.
[130] Jack R. Lohmann, Howard A. Rollins, Jr., and J. Joseph Hoey, “Defining,
Developing, and Assessing Global Competence in Engineers,” European Journal
for Engineering Education, Vol. 31, No. 1, March 2006, pp. 119-131.
[131] Intercultural Development Inventory, http://www.intercultural.org/idi/idi.html,
accessed July 2006.
[132] Excerpt from “The University of Tokyo Internationalization Promotion Plan 2005-
2008,” Division for International Relations, The University of Tokyo,
http://dir.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en/index.html, accessed July 2006.

108
www.global-engineering-excellence.org

ISBN 978-3-9811322-1-2

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi