Expectations on and of our graduates

Eric Grimson, Dept. Head, EECS Duane Boning, Assoc. Dept. Head, EECS Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Based in part on CRA (Computing Research Association) presentation, summer 2008

1

Hypothesis: Expectations on our graduates are changing

What is our product?
Our students We do many other things: new knowledge, new methods, new ideas, new devices & artifacts but our multiplier is our students They are the fuel for the innovation engine

What are the characteristics of a good product?

A function of the market The market: where is the demand for our students?
2

Where are the jobs in general?

Dynamic growth in science & engineering
Engineering & IT growth far outstrips life science growth
Job Growth (Millions)
6.0 All S&T employees S&E 4.0 Life scientists Physical scientists 3.0 Engineers Mathematicians/ information technologists Social scientists Technicians

5.0

2.0

1.0

0.0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Source: BLS 3

Where are the jobs in general?

Future projections?
Engineering growth at rate of all occupations Computer related at almost 3x general growth rate Conclusion: Large growth projected into the future.*
10-year total growth (%)
Computer programmers Healthcare practitioner Postsecondary teachers

S&E managers Social scientists

* Projections prior to current recession

Source: BLS

Physical scientists Life scientists Engineers All S&E All occupations Computer/math scientists

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

Does industry value our graduates?

Comparative bachelors degree starting salary data (national) clearly indicates that they do

3 1 4 2
5

MIT 2008 Average UG & Masters Starting Salaries

Industry needs our students, but do our students need industry?

Where do our undergrads go?
NSF data too generic Sampling of MIT data
Substantial fraction of undergraduates take non-EECS jobs Other is primarily finance and consulting

Conclusion: Range of industrial positions is broader than traditional EE & CS industry of 20 years ago
Undergraduate careers
40 35 30 Percentage 25 20 15 10 5 0 Grad school Large firms Start ups Other

Service

Is this true for PhD graduates as well? Where do they go?

Kinds of industry jobs

Harder to find data

NRC data on MIT PhD grads for past 5 years Most students head to traditional industry sectors
List of major employers are what you would expect -- Google, Microsoft, IBM, Sun, Intel, Analog Devices, TI

100 90 80 70 Number 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

MIT 2008 Average PhD Starting Salaries

Academic vs. Industry Path for PhDs?

CRA Taulbee survey data for CE/CS PhD students Total output steady 94-99, slow decline to 02, then upturn, accelerating around 05
Note that by 07, industry hires outnumber academic hires at PhD schools 2:1
PhD Graduate Destination
1600 1400 1200 PhD Inst Non-PhD Inst Non C S Acad Industry Governm ent Self-Em pl Outside NA Other Total

Number of PhDs

1000 800 600 400 200 0 1994

1996

1998

2000 Year

2002

2004

2006

Source: CRA Taulbee, year of graduation

10

Who hires CE/CS PhD students (by numbers)?

If we separate post-docs from faculty positions, trend is more dramatic
Ratio of industry to tenure track faculty positions is then greater than 3:1 Note major growth in industry hires since 04

900 800 700 600

Conclusion: Industry is the major employer of PhD graduates as well as BS/MS graduates

PhD production

P hD Ins t fac ulty P os t Doc N on-P hD Ins t N on C S A c ad Indus try Government Self-Empl O uts ide NA O ther

Number

500 400 300 200 100 0 1996 1998 2000 2002 Year 2004 2006

Source: CRA Taulbee, year of graduation

11

Challenge: Preparing students for a diverse market & varied career paths
Multiple options/paths for students Graduate school Science & technology (PhD, Masters) Law, medical school Industry Large & small; consulting Academic options as well Key questions: Are we preparing students well for the market? Current needs Are we preparing students well for their whole career? Long term needs & skills

12

So what does industry need?

Transferable skills
Communications
oral and written

Analytic problem solving Ability to work in a team Leadership Use of abstraction and modularity Best practices
Documentation Testing

13

What do our graduates find they actually need?

Alumni survey from MIT
Classes of 1983, 1988, 1993, 1998, 2003 Surveyed in 2005 Rated importance of skills in their career since graduation Note where in depth knowledge and quantitative fall
Importance of skills in career
Quantitative skills Lead groups In depth knowledge Self confidence Write effectively Work on team C ommunicate oral Synthesize ideas Formulate new ideas New skills on own 1 2 3 4 5

Most Important 14

How much do we contribute to our students growth?

Alumni survey from MIT
Classes of 1983, 1988, 1993, 1998, 2003 Surveyed in 2005 Rated how well their education experience contributed to growth in skills Have worked on communication with new requirements Leadership and teamwork issues still need attention
Quantitative skills Lead groups In depth knowledge Self confidence Write effectively Work on team Communicate oral Synthesize ideas Formulate new ideas New skills on own 0 1 2 3 4 5 How well did you acquire

15

So what else does industry need?

Technical skills
Design (circuits, systems, software) Signal processing Database systems Systems analysis Manufacturing technology Interactive digital media Human-computer interfaces

Conclusion: There is a wide range of industrial needs and a wide range of technical skills -- too much to expect of any single student
16

Hypothesis: Not possible, or even preferable, to teach everything

Too much material to stuff into a four year curriculum
A lot is expected in knowledge and experience even in traditional areas Problem is exacerbated when you factor in need to include experience in related fields depending on area of application or interest
Computational biology Environment and energy issues Social networks Interactive media Finance

Conclusion: We need to consider new models of curricular content and delivery

17

Some possible options for handling explosion of knowledge

Move to a professional degree
MEng as first professional degree

Maintain current curricular structure

But change examples and scenarios for different student groups

Change curricular structure

Allow student choice Tradeoff of some areas with ancillary areas
18

Move to a professional degree

5 Year MEng program
Greater breadth and depth Capstone experience in large scale project Additional cost burden for students Not the right path for every student, so still need 4-year bachelors option

19

Preserve the current curriculum but change the examples

Keep the core sub-disciplines in curriculum
Create variations in each subarea specialized to student interest
Algorithms based on biological examples, or on information management, or Systems/control analysis focused on finance, or robotics, or Machine learning applied to biology, or to information management, or Distributed systems for environmental sensing, for information management, for

Difficult/costly to field multiple class variants

20

Move to new kinds of degrees

Acknowledge that not every student can or wants to know everything
Flexibility within degree options
Provide options across major areas Allow students some choice

New degree options

Create specific degrees for new and emerging areas
Bioelectrical engineering Computational science and engineering Information science

Enable any (nearly) combination of degrees: create easier path to joint/dual degrees
21

An example: MIT
2 introductory subjects Select 4 of 7 foundation subjects
3 specific for CS, 3 specific for EE, 4 of 7 for EECS

Select 3 header subjects, followed by 2 advanced senior level subjects

Depth structure enforced Choices largely based on idea of streams Communications, devices, circuits, bioelectrical, software engineering, security, information sciences, HCI, learning, systems, networks,

Exploring idea of new degrees

Computational biology Replace one of 3 streams in CS degree with a biology stream
22

An example: Georgia Tech CS

Threads (specific paths through curriculum)
Modeling & simulation Devices Theory Information Internetworks Intelligence Media People Platforms Master practitioner Entrepreneur Innovator Communicator Policy maker
23

Roles (fine tuning of threads based on desired goals of student)

Additional degree programs in Interactive Computing and in Computational Science and Engineering

What about the expectations of our students?

Current students have much broader interests than their predecessors
Societal impact Life science applications Games and other interactive media Social computing

They may not be interested in or need all of the traditional areas of EE and/or CS We need to adapt to these needs We may also benefit by an increased interest in the field and an increasingly diversified student body Suggestion: We should pay attention to changing interests and needs of our students

24

Adding elements to existing curricula to meet emerging needs

As industry changes, do the requirements on curriculum need to change to meet those needs?
Low power devices, low power computation Multi-core Cloud computing User interfaces for mobile device

One approach: keep adding more subjects to cover new areas and technologies

25

Challenges to academia
Balance teaching fundamentals with needs of specific fields Balance teaching foundations of field with changing interests of students Ensure that EE/ECE/CS is more than a service to related fields
Contribute to modes of thought of other fields -biology, medicine, social sciences, interactive media

26

Conclusions
Industry remains the primary career path for our graduates (Bachelors, Masters, and PhDs) Industry needs our students Industry is changing

Our students are changing too

We need to adapt to these changes
Must deal with an explosion of new technologies and areas Expanded set of skills are crucial

27