. 4 A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ’_ ELECTRICAL ENGENEERING ALUMNI cencmnme THEIR UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM Thesis forthe Degree of PILD; * MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DONALD LEE SCHWEINGRUBER ’ ~ 1971’ tfHFQI? This is to certify that the thesis entitled A Comparative Study of Electrical Engineering Alumni Concerning Their Undergraduate Program presented by Donald Lee Schweing ruber has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. degree in Education Department of Administration and Higher Education (M22 zgrzmm ; 0-7639 ABSTRACT A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING ALUMNI CONCERNING THEIR UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM BY Donald L. Schweing ruber It is evident that engineering programs in institutions of higher education are in need of critical examination and evaluation. This need is demonstrated by reasons such as the enrollment in engineering programs remaining constant or decreasing as enroll- ments in other majors are increasing, the decrease in the number of job opportunities for engineers, and the negative attitudes which many people have about engineering and technology. As a part of this evaluation and examination process, and as a necessary preliminary step to understanding why these phenomena are occurring, it is important to become aware of the opinions which graduates of a pro- fes sional engineering program hold toward their undergraduate pro- gram. The primary purpose of this study was to learn the extent and nature of opinions which alumni hold toward their undergraduate pro- gram in engineering. The secondary purpose was to determine if Donald L. Schwe ingruber the re is a difference in opinions based on the variables of nature of occupation and number of years since graduation. The study was limited in scope to the 668 alumni who were graduated from Michigan State University from 1961 through 1968 with a B. S. degree in Electrical Engineering. Opinions of these alumni were solicited by means of a mailed questionnaire. Responses were tabulated and analyzed after an initial mailing and one follow-up mailing. Of the 668 alumni, 54. 3% participated in the study by returning a partially or completely answered questionnaire. The principal resource used in designing the survey instrument was the study conducted by the College of Engineering at Purdue Univer- sity (l). The survey instrument consisted of four parts: (1) In Part I, respondents provided demographic data concerning date of gradua -‘ tion and nature of occupation; (2) In Part 11, respondents rated the importance of including certain technical and nontechnical subjects in the undergraduate electrical engineering program, and they indi- cated the percentage of time which should be devoted to certain areas in the electrical engineering program and in the electrical engineering subject area; (3) In Part 111, respondents rated the importance of twelve goals of an engineering program, and they rated the influence of their undergraduate program in helping them to attain each goal; and (4) In Part IV, respondents cited the most beneficial and least Donald L. Schwe ingruber beneficial subject areas they eXperienced at Michigan State University and gave reasons for their choices. In achieving the objectives of the study, responses to the questionnaire were reported and analyzed by one or more of the following techniques: (1) tabulation of frequency distribution; (2) calculation of mean score; (3) rank-ordering of items; and (4) computing the value of the Chi Square test of significance. Chi Square values significant at the . 05 and .01 level were noted. Results In rating the importance of including certain technical and nontechnical subjects in the undergraduate program, over half of the respondents felt that four nontechnical subjects were "Very Important” or a "Must Requirement": English Composition, Speech, Business/Management, and Economics. Six technical subjects were rated by over half of the respondents as being "Very Mportant” or a "Must Requirement": One year of Physics, Computer Courses, Engineering Labs, Probability and Statistics, Math beyond Differen- tial Equations, and One year of Chemistry. Respondents felt that over one -fifth of the time in an under- graduate program in Electrical Engineering should be devoted to Electrical Engineering-Theory, with slightly less time devoted to Systems and Control Theory and Solid State. Donald L. Schweingruber The two goals of (1) Develop ability to think straight in the application of fundamental principles to new problems, and (2) Develop critical thinking (logic, inference, nature and limitations of knowledge) were rated by over half of the respondents as being "Very Important" goals in an engineering program. Over three-quarters of the respondents felt that their undergraduate program was of "Much Influence” or "Some Influence" in helping them attain these two goals and the goal of, ”Pro- vide background for further study in some professional, scientific, or scholarly field. " Four subject areas were rated by 30 or more alumni as being the "Most Beneficial" they had at Michigan State University: Math, Systems and Control, Electronics, and Computers. Two subject areas were cited by 30 or more alumni as being the "Least Beneficial": University College Courses and Electromagnetics. Respondents in nonengineering positions and respondents in engineering positions held similar opinions about all except five items in the survey instrument. Respondents who were graduated 1961-64 and respondents who were graduated 1965-68 held similar opinions about all except five items in the survey instrument. 1. W. K. LeBold, E. C. Thoma, J. W. Gillis, G. A. Hawkins, "A Study of the Purdue University Engineering Graduate, " Engineering Bulletin of Purdue University, vol. 44, no. 1, January 1960. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING ALUMNI CONCERNING THEIR UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM BY Donald Lee Schweingr uber A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOC TOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1971 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Although many people have helped me in completing this thesis, several deserve special recognition. Dr. Walter F. Johnson served as my major adviser; his encouragement and guidance are greatly appreciated. My principal mentor in "engineering appreciation" for the past two years has been Dr. John D. Ryder. I thank him for his contribution during the preliminary and final stages of the thesis. I am especially grateful to my parents and my wife, Nancy, who have given far more than they realize and have received far less thanks than they deserve. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I -- THE PROBLEM. . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . Statement of Problem. . . . . . Purpose of Study . . . . . . Scope of Study. . . . . . . . Overview of Report on Study . CHAPTER II -- REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . ....... IntroduCtion O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Studies of National Importance . . . . . Studies Conducted at the State Level . Studies Conducted by Universities . . Local Studies . . . . . . . . . Summary............ CHAPTER III -- DESIGN OF STUDY . . IntrOduCtion O O O O O O O O O O O O Population Studied . . . . . . . . Method of Surveying Population ReturnRate... .. .. . . Development of Survey Instrument . Part I - Descriptive Information Part II - Opinions About Subjects in an Electrical Engineering Undergraduate Program . . . . Part III - Goals of an Engineering Program . . . . . Part IV - Discussion Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . Methods Used for Analyzing Responses . . . . . . . . . . Summary iii Page \OdO‘O‘D-i 0- 11 ll 12 26 27 29 31 33 33 33 34 35 37 37 38 4O 41 41 45 Page CHAPTER IV -- ANALYSIS OF DATA ............. 47 Introduction.................... ..... 47 StatementofObjectives.................. 47 ReportandAnalysisofData................ 48 Part I - Descriptive Information . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Part II - Alumni Opinions About Subjects in an Electrical Engineering Undergraduate Program................... 49 Rating of Nontechnical Subjects . . . . . . . . . . 50 Rating of Technical Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Opinions About Percentage of Time Which Should be Devoted to Areas in an Engineering Undergraduate Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Opinions About Percentage of Time Which Should be Devoted to Areas in Electrical Engineering O O O O O O O O O O O O O OOOOOOO 6 2 Part III - Goals of an Undergraduate Engineering Program....... ..... 66 Rating of the Importance of Goals . . . . . . . . . 66 Opinions About the Influence of Undergraduate Program in Helping Attain Goals. . . . . . . . . 76 Part IV - Responses to Discussion Questions . . . . 84 Opinions About Most Beneficial Subject Area . . . 84 Opinions About Least Beneficial Subject Area. . . 84 AdditionalComments............ .. . . 84 Summary 87 CHAPTERV -- SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . 91 Introduction......................... 91 Summary 91 Problemand Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Population Participating in Study . . ......... 93 Design of the Survey Instrument ..... . . . . . . 93 Methods Used for Analyzing Data. . . . . . . . . . . 94 Results......................... 94 Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . ...... 98 Recommendations for Additional Research . . . . . . . . 101 BIBLIOGMPHYO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 103 APPENDIXA -- ALUMNI QUESTIONNAIRE. . . . . . . . . . 107 iv Page APPENDIX B -- LETTERS SENT TO ALUMNI. . . . . . . . . 115 APPENDIX C -- COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY ALUIVINI CONCERNING MOST BENEFICIAL SUBJECT AREA IN THEIR UNDERGRADUATE PRO- GRAM 117 APPENDIX D -- COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY ALUMNI CONCERNING LEAST BENEFICIAL SUBJECT AREA IN THEIR UNDER- GRADUATE PROGRAM. . . . . . . . . . . . 124 APPENDIX E -- ADDITIONAL COWENTS PROVIDED BY ALIIMNI O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O l 29 Table 3.1 4.4 4.6 4.7 LIST OF TABLES Page Number of Electrical Engineering B. S. Graduatesl96l-68................ 34 Number and Percentage of Alumni Participating in Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Description of Alumni Responding to Questionnaire.................. 49 Alumni Opinions About Nontechnical Subjects - Frequency Distribution for Total Respondents . 51 Alumni Opinions About Nontechnical Subjects - Comparison of Opinions for Alumni in Engi- neering Related Positions and Alumni in Nonengineering Related Positions. . . . . . . . 52 Alumni Opinions About Nontechnical Subjects - Comparison of Opinions for Alumni who were Graduated 1961-64 and Alumni who were Graduatedl965-68................ 54 Alumni Opinions About Technical Subjects - Frequency Distribution for Total Respondents . 55 Alumni Opinions About Technical Subjects Comparison of Opinions for Alumni in Engineering Related Positions and Alumni in Nonengineering Related Positions . . . . . . 57 Alumni Opinions About Technical Subjects Comparison of Opinions for Alumni who were Graduated 1961-64 and Alumni who were Graduated 1965-68. . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Table 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 Page Alumni Opinions About Percentage of Time Which Should be Devoted to Areas in an Engineering Undergraduate Program - Mean Percentage and Ranking of Areas for TotalRespondents................ 61 Alumni Opinions About Percentage of Time Which Should be Devoted to Areas in an Engineering Undergraduate Program - Comparison of Opinions for Alumni in Engineering Related Positions and Alumni in Nonengineering Related Positions . . . . . . 63 Alumni Opinions About Percentage of Time Which Should be Devoted to Areas in an Engineering Undergraduate Program - Comparison of Opinions for Alumni who were Graduated 1961-64 and Alumni who were Graduated 1965-68 . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Alumni Opinions About Percentage of Time Which Should be Devoted to Areas in Electrical Engineering - Mean Percentage and Ranking of Areas for Total Respondents . . 65 Alumni Opinions About Percentage of Time Which Should be Devoted to Areas in Electrical Engineering - Comparison of Opinions for Alumni in Engineering Related Positions and Alumni in Nonengineering RelatedPositions................ 67 Alumni Opinions About Percentage of Time Which Should be Devoted to Areas in Electrical Engineering — Comparison of Opinions for Alumni who were Graduated 1961-64 and Alumni who were Graduated 1965-68..................... 68 Alumni Opinions About Importance of Goals in an Engineering Program - Frequency Distribution for Total Respondents . . . . . . . 69 Tabl e 4.15 4. 16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4. 20 4. 21 Page Alumni Opinions About Importance of Goals in an Engineering Program - Com- parison of Opinions for Alumni in Engineer- ing Related Positions and Alumni in Nonengineering Related Positions. . . . . . . . 72 Alumni Opinions About Importance of Goals in an Engineering Program - Comparison of Opinions for Alumni who were Graduated 1961-64 and Alumni who were Graduated 1965-68..................... 74 Alumni Opinions About Influence of Program in Helping Attain Goal - Frequency Distri- bution for Total Respondents . . . . . . . . . . 77 Alumni Opinions About Influence of Program in Helping Attain Goal - Comparison of Opinions for Alumni in Engineering Related Positions and Alumni in Nonengineering RelatedPositions................ 79 Alumni Opinions About Influence of Program in Helping Attain Goal - Comparison of Opinions for Alumni who were Graduated 1961-64 and Alumni who were Graduated 1965-68..................... 82 Alumni Opinions About Most Beneficial SubjectArea............. ...... 85 Alumni Opinions About Least Beneficial Subject Area O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 86 viii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Intr od uction The following statements are part of an abstract of a seminar which was presented at Michigan State University in the College of Engineering: "An increasingly technological society requires an increasing proportion of technically competent members in order to ensure international survival and domestic well-being. Fewer and fewer bright young people accept our traditional engineering offerings, few engineering faculties adapt to the changing demands of societynour engineering schools threaten to become a wasteland. " (20) Although a number of engineers might disagree with the degree of pessimism evident in these statements, few would dis- pute the fact that professional engineering programs are in need of study and examination. The prosperity of engineering in the 1950's and 1960's appears to be on the wane; some educators feel that the engineering profession is in serious trouble (23). Those who are responsible for engineering programs are aware of the implications of these conceptions . Several facts demonstrate that engineering programs are not flourishing as they have in the past. First, the number of college seniors earning degrees in engineering programs in higher education has remained fairly constant as the number earning degrees in other majors has increased. In 1956 the number of B.S. degrees earned in engineering represented approximately 8. 5% of all B. S. degrees awarded. In 1966 engineering B.S. degrees represented about 6.8% of all B.S. degrees awarded, and it is projected that in 1976 the per- centage will be reduced to about 4. 9%. In short, about 35, 800 students earned B.S. degrees in engineering in 1956, and that number has remained relatively unchanged in the years following (16). At a few schools the enrollment in engineering programs has decreased dramatically in just a few years, while at other schools a decrease has occurred gradually over the last five or ten years (28). Closely related to the drop in enrollment is the fact that engineering programs tend to lose more students than are gained as students change from one major to another. Studies show that students leaving the engineering major are less likely to be replaced than are students leaving areas such as education, business, or social science (21:37). A third factor which is of concern to those involved with engineering programs is the decrease in the number of job oppor- tunities for undergraduates and graduates completing engineering programs. This is particularly true for those students who are earning advanced degrees. At the undergraduate level, however, there has been a decrease from 1969 to 1970 of approximately 1% in the hiring of engineers with B.S. degrees. Although this is not a large decrease, those industries which traditionally have employed a great number of engineers report a significant drop in the number of engineers employed in 1970 (6). To these three conditions could be added others such as the reduction of federal funding in support of engineering research and the fact that a number of engineers have been re leased from their positions, particularly those involved in the aerospace related in- dustries. There are other phenomena, however, which may be of more concern to those who are responsible for engineering programs. These consist of the general attitudes and opinions which people hold toward engineering. For many, engineering and technology are viewed as being the prime contributors to numerous problems existing in the world. Engineering and technology have been charged as being responsible for noise pollution, air pollution, water pollution, and pollution of human values. Lynn White Jr. (32: 375) says that many people feel that engineers are threatening human values and morality. Many people accuse engineers of being concerned about "objects" and not "people. " Justified or unjustified, these sentiments are cause for concern among those involved with the engineering pro- fes sion. One cannot dispute the fact that engineers have made major contributions to the world. The task of those in the engineering pro- fession, not unlike the task of those in many other fields of education, is now one of defining the direction in which the engineering profession must move to continue making positive contributions. It is reasonable to assume that formal programs in engineer- ing will, to a large extent, shape and determine the nature and orientation of the engineer of the future. It is at the training level where the goals and objectives of engineering are implemented. For this reason it is at this level where evaluation, examination, and perhaps a redefinition of direction are needed. Various elements of the engineering profession must be con- sidered in this evaluation and examination process. One could examine the needs of industry and determine if these needs are being met by formal programs of engineering. For example, recent statistics show that there has been a reduction in the employment of engineers by industries such as the aerospace industry, electrical and electronics industries, metal products and mining industries, and machinery and other manufacturing industries. On the other hand, construction and consulting firms, state and local governments, utili- ties, and the federal government report an increase in the employ- ment of engineers (6). Are programs in engineering satisfying the needs of these organizations which are employing engineering graduate s ? Another factor to consider in this evaluation and examination process could be the opinions of those who are directly responsible for instruction in engineering programs--the faculty. Certainly it is important to learn their feelings and opinions about the goals and objectives of engineering in general, the goals and objectives of an engineering program, and the goals and objectives of their courses. How does a faculty member view his course in terms of preparing students for a productive role in society? What kinds of programs does he envision as meeting the needs of society ? Learning the faculty responses to these questions would constitute one of the steps in establishing a base for a change in program orientation. In addition to involving faculty in this process, it would be advisable to include other segments of the engineering profession. Undergraduates presently enrolled in the program could offer an insight as to what they perceive to be the goals and Objectives of the program. Administrators of engineering programs could react to the goals and objectives of an engineering program from their unique perspective. One other segment of the engineering profession could pro- vide valuable input in the evaluation and examination process. This segment consists of those people who have completed a professional program in engineering. These people, although seldom asked, are in a position to dis cuss the relationship between their occupational positions and their undergraduate programs. What do they view as being significant courses in their undergraduate programs ? What do they view as being the goals of their undergraduate programs ? Do those alumni in nonengineering related positions have opinions of their undergraduate program which differ from opinions held by alumni in engineering related positions ? Do those alumni who graduated less recently have opinions of their undergraduate programs which differ from opinions held by alumni who graduated more recently ? Learning the answers to these and similar questions is a necessary step in the evaluation and examination of undergraduate engineering programs . Statement of Problem There is evidence to indicate that the goals and objectives of engineering programs in institutions of higher education need to be critically examined and evaluated. A redefinition of these goals and objectives may be necessary if engineers are going to continue performing positive functions in society. As a part of this process it is important to become aware of the opinions which graduates of a professional engineering program hold toward their Undergraduate engineering program. Purpose of Study The primary purpose of this study is to learn the opinions which alumni hold concerning their undergraduate program in engineer- ing. The secondary purpose is to learn if the variables of number of years since graduation and nature of occupation are related to the opinions which alumni have about their undergraduate program in engineering. The objectives which follow are a re statement of these purposes: Objective 1. To measure the nature and extent of the opinions which alumni hold toward their undergraduate program in engineering. Objective II. To determine if the variable of nature of occupation is related to opinions which alumni hold toward their undergraduate program in engineering. Objective III. To determine if the variable of number of years since graduation is related to opinions which alumni hold toward their undergraduate program in engineering. Insufficient evidence was found in the literature to suggest hypotheses pertinent to the problem. Therefore, the study is eXplora- tory and descriptive in nature and is not founded on the testing of hypotheses. In Chapter 111, two null hypotheses are stated to study the relationship between the variables of: (a) number of years since graduation and (b) nature of occupation and alumni opinions. These null hypotheses are used only for analyzing these relationships; they are not stated for purposes of prediction. Scope of Study The alumni designated for the study were graduated from the undergraduate program in electrical engineering in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Systems Science (until March 1, 1969, known as the Department of Electrical Engineering) at Michigan State University. All alumni who were graduated from 1961 through 1968 will be asked to participate in the study. These alumni and this program in electrical engineering were chosen for several reasons. First, this program in engineering is similar to programs in engineering offered at a number of universities. Its orientation is theoretical in nature with emphasis placed on principles as opposed to applications of engineering. As pointed out by William J. Thrane (31: 3) in a recent article, a typical program in engineering which offers a baccalaureate degree in engineering and is four or five years in length emphasizes about 20% in the skill area and about 80% in the theoretical area. In examining the electrical engineering program at Michigan State University, and equating teaching of skills to laboratory exercises and teaching of theory to lectures, 13% of the program is in the skill area and 87% is in the theoretical area (19: 152). This would seem to be consistent with Thrane's description. Because of the number of required courses, students have little opportunity to take elective courses outside of their major area. Again, this condition is common to other programs in engi- neering. A second reason for choosing the alumni of this program is that at least for the last fifteen or twenty years they have not been asked in a systematic manner to express their opinions about their academic program. Other than an occasional informal discussion with alumni, those responsible for the program are not aware of how most alumni view their eXperiences as undergraduates. The program has been undergoing Change with only limited feedback from those who have completed the program. A third reason for choosing a program in electrical engineer- ing is that electrical engineering may have great potential for graduating students with the educational background needed to attack some of the critical problems existing in the world. Problems such as the environ- mental crisis, perhaps not thought of as being directly related to electrical engineering, may require the use of electrical engineers for partial solutions. The stress on math and the sciences, and the importance of the systems approach in understanding certain aSpe cts of electrical engineering, are key components in the set of tools needed to attack this critical problem. As Ryder maintains in his article, "Electrical Engineering Knows Where It Is Going, " electrical engineers may be best equipped to solve these problems since graduates of electrical engineering programs are being prepared to be "electrical applied scientists as well as electrical engineers. " (25: 25) Overview of Report on Study In Chapter II, literature related to the problem will be reviewed. Particular emphasis will be placed on studies of engineering programs conducted at the national, state, and local levels. 10 The methodology and procedures used in this study will be reported in Chapter III. Emphasis will be placed on the population studied, the development of the survey instrument, and the method of analyzing the data. In Chapter IV the results of the study will be reported and analyzed. In the concluding chapter, Chapter V, the data will be sum- marized and discussed. If possible, conclusions will be drawn, implications suggested, and recommendations made for additional work and research in this area. CHAPTER 11 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction This chapter is devoted to a review of studies pertinent to the evaluation and examination of undergraduate programs in engi- neering and is divided into four parts. Fir st, studies of a national scope and importance are discussed. All of these studies have been sponsored by the American Society of Engineering Education (formerly known as the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education), the national professional organization for those who are involved with engineering education. Of particular importance to this study are those segments of the ASEE studies in which the undergraduate cur- riculum is investigated. The second part of the chapter consists of a report on several studies conducted at the state level, with selected segments chosen because of their relevance to the problem. Signif- icant studies conducted by colleges of engineering at other univer- sities are presented in the third part of the chapter. The fourth part is a dicus sion of studies of a local nature, i. e. , studies conducted by the College of Engineering at Michigan State University. 11 12 Throughout this chapter the intent is to report on general findings and recommendations of the various studies rather than to elaborate on answers to specific questions. In effect, this review illustrates the kinds of investigations which have been undertaken, with an emphasis on general findings and recommendations which will serve as a base for this study. Studies of National Irnportance In reviewing the history of engineering education since the beginning of the twentieth century, it is evident that few disciplines have undertaken as many efforts of self-analysis and self-examina- tion as has engineering. Through the years the national professional organization for engineering education (American Society for Engi- nee ring Education) has completed a number of major studies for the basic purpose of determining what is the appropriate program in engineering education to meet the needs of the present and the future. The national studies which are summarized in this chapter reflect the concerns which educators in engineering have had in this area. The first major attempt by the engineering profession to examine and evaluate programs in engineering education was directed by C. R. Mann, and the report on the findings of this investigation is ”The Report of the Joint Committee on Engineers" or the "Mann Report" (17). This report, released in 1918, is divided into three areas of emphasis. In Part I, the history of the engineering schools is traced, and conditions of engineering schools in the early 1900's 13 are reported. In Part II, problems in the specific areas of admis- sion, time schedule, content of courses, testing and grading, and shop work are discussed. In Part IH, some solutions to the problems in engineering programs are proposed. Of importance to this study are Mann's remarks concerning the curriculum. He suggested that the first two or three years should consist of what every engineer should master. In this time period, three phases of engineering should be covered: (1) the industrial phase in which the student must become familiar with problems of industry, (2) engineering laboratory work and (3) theoretical work with math and sciences. This third phase is emphasized to some degree in every major study which follows (17: 26). Another recommendation of the ”Mann Report" was that there should be concern about the humanistic side of the engineer. Mann stated that a program in engineering ”must introduce a con- sideration of the question of values and costs in engineering" (17: 31). He asserted that, "In the opinion of the engineering profession itself, the most important things for the engineer are character and good judgment and efficiency to do things and to understand men. These are fir st, and then comes his technical knowledge and his technique" (17:30). These remarks best highlight the significance of the "Mann Report. " Early in the twentieth century, educators in engineering were calling for a program which emphasized not only the technical skills of engineering, but also the humanistic aspects of engineering. ‘14 The second evaluation effort undertaken by the ASEE was probably the most extensive and comprehensive study of engineer- ing education in the twentieth century. This investigation was begun in 1922 and continued until 1929, with the final "Report of the Investi- gation of Engineering Education 1923-29" published in two volumes (33, 34). Generally referred to as the ”Wickenden Study, " this investi- gation covered all aspects of engineering education, including a view of what was being done in engineering programs, an appraisal of the existing situation, and information concerning admission, the alumni, and the attitudes of engineers and teachers. Much was written in the area of curriculum development, but recommendations seem to be centered around several themes. Wickenden expressed major concern about course content and the me chanics of the engineering program but said that"the most fruitful changes in curriculum and teaching processes are likely to be in the realm of the spirit and regime of work" (34: 1100). He was less concerned about subject matter taught and more concerned about devising a program which encourages and enables a student to con- tinue learning after he completes his formal education. The "Wickenden Report" did, however, speak to the question of the appropriate subjects and/or subject areas to be included in an undergraduate program. Three areas were considered to be essen- tial and indispensable to an undergraduate program: (1) the exact 15 sciences in both their pure and their technological aspects, (2) the foundations of economy, and (3) the English language. All other areas were considered to be secondary and incidental in comparison. Technical training was said to belong at the graduate level, whereas the undergraduate program should be devoted to general principles and subjects of a humanistic nature. In fact, it was recommended that a band of humanistic subjects extend throughout the curriculum (34:1067). One of the chief contributions of the ”Wickenden Report" regarding curriculum is summarized by these remarks: "The genius of engineering lies in a method rather than any group of specific techniques. This method . . . rests on a solid mm tery of those sciences which lead to predictable results and upon a broad under- standing of the principles of financial and social economy. To these must be added an adequate mastery of written and spoken English. " (34: 1067) The third study of major importance to educators in engineer- ing education was completed in 1940 and published as the "Report of Committee on Aims and Scope of Engineering" or the "Hammond Report" (9). This study was undertaken in response to a bill intro- duced in the New York Legislature in which it was recommended that credit be given for a fifth or sixth year in an engineering pro- gram for those applying for a professional license. The chief question which Hammond's committee dealt with was, "Should engi- neering programs be extended to five or six years?" (9). In seek- ing answers to this question, several recommendations regarding the curriculum were made. 16 The main thrust of the "Hammond Report" in curriculum development is that the scientific-ts chnological and humanistic- social sequences of engineering education must be stressed and inte- grated throughout the undergraduate program. Hammond stated that, "Engineering education rests on a foundation of science, of humanities, and of social relationships rather than in the practical techniques of particular occupations or industries" (9:561). For this reason, Hammond recommended that work of a highly technical level should be done at the graduate level beyond the first four years (9:561)- Throughout the "Hammond Report" there is a plea for a broadening of the base of engineering" to extend more deeply into the social sciences and humanities as well as the physical sciences" (9: 563). The following objectives of the scientific-technological and humanistic-social studies best summarize the significance of the "Hammond Report” of 1940: "The scientific-technological studies should be directed toward: 1. Mastery of the fundamental scientific principles and a command of basic knowledge underlying the branch of engineering which the student is pursuing. This implies: (a) grasp of the meaning of physical and mathe- matical laws, and knowledge of how they were evolved and of the limitations in their use; (b) knowledge of materials, machines, and structures. 17 Thorough understanding of the engineering method and elementary competence in its ap- plication. This requires: (a) comprehension of the interacting elements in situations which are to be analyzed; (b) ability to think straight in the application of fundamental principles to new problems; (c) reasonable skill in making approximations; and in choosing the type of approach in the light of the accuracy required and the time available for solution- -in sum, a foundation for engineering judgment; (d) resourcefulness and originality in devising means to an end; (e) understanding of the element of cost in engineering and the ability to deal with this factor just as competently as with technological factors. Ability to select the significant results of an engineering study and to present them clearly and concisely by verbal and graphic means. Stimulation of a continuing interest in further professional development. The humanistic-social studies should be directed toward: 1. Understanding of the evolution of the social organization within which we live and of the influence of science and engineering on its development. Ability to recognize and to make a critical analysis of a problem involving social and economic elements, to arrive at an intelli- gent opinion about it, and to read with dis- crimination and purpose toward these ends. 18 3. Ability to organize thoughts logically and to express them lucidly and convincingly in oral and written English. 4. Acquaintance with some of the great master- pieces of literature and an understanding of their setting in and influence upon civilization. 5. Development of moral, ethical, and social con- cepts essential to a satisfying personal philosophy, to a career consistent with the public welfare, and to a sound professional attitude. 6. Attainment of an interest and pleasure in these pursuits and thus of an inspiration to continued study. " (9: 563-4) In 1944, a second "Hammond Report, " the "Report of Com- mittee on Engineering After the War, " (10) was released. This second report was a follow-up of the 1940 "Hammond Report" following the influence of World War II. To a great extent, the 1944 "Hammond Report" was a reaffirmation of the earlier report, with the realization that due to the war effort there existed great need for technical training. After the war, however, Hammond recom- mended that the two objectives of engineering-~scientific -te chnological and humanistic-social--should again form the basis of a program in engineering (10: 589). A specific recommendation was that 20% of the undergraduate program must be devoted to the humanistic-social area, with courses extending through the four-year program rather than being taken in isolation or in parallel to the scientific-te chnological area. In this latter area, it was recommended that course content become broader l9 and more fundamental, with stress on the scientific method. As viewed by Hammond's committee, the primary purpose of an engi- neering program is the development of a method of approach. The goals of engineering as articulated by the "Hammond Report" of 1944 include: ". . . mastery of fundamental scientific principles, engineering modes of thought, basic knowledge in some major branch of engineering, elementary competence in the art of engineering application, some understanding of cost relations, skill in the use of English, insights into social relations and processes, and concepts essential to worthy personal and professional life. ” (10: 607) The next major ASEE study was released in 1955 as the "Report on Evaluation of Engineering Education" (8). This study, directed by L. E. Grinter and known as the "Grinter Report, " was undertaken in response to the charge to "recommend the pattern or patterns that engineering education should take in order to keep pace with the rapid development in science and technology, and to educate men who will be competent to serve the needs of and provide the leadership for the engineering profession over the next quarter- century" (8:26). In some respects Grinter reaffirms recommendations of pre- vious studies that there are two basic objectives of an engineering program- -the technical objective in which a student must master the fundamental scientific principles of a certain area of engineer- ing, and an objective in the social area. In support of these objectives, Grinter made some specific recommendations in terms of curriculum 20 development: "1. A strengthening of work in the basic sciences, including mathematics, chemistry, and physics. 2. The identication and inclusion of six engineer- ing sciences, taught with full use of the basic sciences, as a common core of engineering curricula, although not necessarily composed of common courses. 3. An integrated study of engineering analysis, design, and engineering systems for professional background, planned and carried out to stimulate creative and imaginative thinking, and making full use of the basic and engineering sciences. 4. The inclusion of elective subjects to develop the special talents of individual students, to serve the varied needs of society, and to pro- vide flexibility of opportunity for gifted stu- dents. 5. A continuing concentrated effort to strengthen and integrate work in the humanistic and social sciences into engineering programs. 6. An insistence upon the development of a high level of performance in the oral, written, and graphical communication of ideas. " (8: 25) It is felt by some educators in engineering that the chief contribution of the "Grinter Report" lies in the first three recom- mendations, i. e. , a realization of the importance of engineering sciences in the curriculum, the stress on more math, and a greater emphasis on the fundamentals of the sciences. Grinter recommended that the basic sciences should make up about one-quarter of the undergraduate program. Included in the basic sciences should be chemistry, covering inorganic, organic, and physical branches; physics, with an exposure to modern physics and an introduction to 21 nuclear or solid-state physics; and mathematics, with, at a minimum, competence in the theory and use of sinple, ordinary differential equations and their applications to the solutions of physical problems (3: 36). It was recommended that another one -quarter of the under- graduate curriculum should consist of engineering science courses. These were defined as involving ”largely the study of basic scientific principles as related to, and as related through, engineering problems and situations” (8:37). Grinter sub-divided the engineering sciences into six categories: (1) mechanics of solids; (2) fluid mechanics; (3) thermodynamics; (4) transfer and rate mechanics; (5) electrical theory; and (6) nature and properties of materials (8: 37). It was also recommended that one-fifth of the program should be devoted to courses in the humanities and social sciences. Courses in this area include history, economics, government, literature, sociology, philosophy, psychology, and fine arts. Particular emphasis should be in the written and oral use of English. Electives should comprise about one -tenth of the program, with the electives chosen contributing to the students' objectives (8: 39-41). In summary, the significance of the "Grinter Report"with respect to curriculum development is the stress on more mathematics, a greater emphasis on the fundamentals of the sciences, and less work in the technical areas. In addition, the "Grinter Report" was the first report of national scope to discuss the significance of the engineering 22 sciences in the undergraduate engineering program. The most recent study sponsored by the American Society for Engineering Education was released in 1968 as the "Goals of Engi- neering Education" or the "Goals Study" (7). This latest effort by educators in engineering at self-appraisal was not to suggest changes or make recommendations, but to "delineate significant trends in engineering education and to relate these trends to the future needs of practicing engineers" (7:375). As a result of these efforts, several important statements were made concerning curriculum development. The Goals Committee viewed the five-year program as being recognized as the basic professional degree in engineering. These five years consist of four years for a bachelor's degree and a fifth year for a master's degree. The committee felt that during the first four years the program should be broadened and liberalized, and a student should be able to deal with biological forces as well as physi- cal forces. Mathematics and physical sciences should continue to be an important part of the undergraduate program, but there must be a greater emphasis in the areas of life sciences, social sciences, and humanities (7: 373-88). Although a few of these recommenda- tions were new, a number of the findings of the "Goals Study" were endorsements of the "Grinter Report" of 1955. As a part of the effort in developing the "Goals Study, " a questionnaire was designed to survey engineers in industry and government. In addition, views were solicited from those in 23 industry and government concerning their needs for the present and the future. A total of 3, 246 engineers responded tothe question- naire. The results of this study are reported as a part of the "Goals Study" and as a separate report (13). Of the items on the questionnaire dealing with alumni, several are pertinent to the problem of this study. In indicating which courses should be recommended for the future, English composition, speech, and economics were the only subjects of the first twenty-nine recom- mended by the alumni which were not in engineering or the science area. The top ten were ranked as follows: (1) algebra, (2) physics, (3) English composition, (4) trigonometry, (5) calculus, (6) speech, (7) mechanics of solids, (8) chemistry (general), (9) analytical geometry, and (1) electrical circuits (13:249). Utilizing the data of the above study as one source of infor- mation from which to make recommendations, the Goals Committee cited the importance of several courses in the engineering curriculum: (1) Applied math should receive slightly more stress in the program; (2) Computer science should be a part of the program, and all students must be familiar with digital and analog computers; (3) Although physical sciences are seen as a vital part of the program, additional exposure may be needed in biology, geology, and astronomy; (4) Engi- neering sciences are becoming increasingly important, and students should be required to study some of the engineering science s; (5) At least one humanities or social science course should be offered per 24 semester; and (6) Communications, whether it be oral, graphical, written, or mathematical, should be integrated and stressed through- out the program (7: 379-437). Since the "Goals Study" was published relatively recently, it is difficult to discern any unique contributions in terms of the curricular aspects of engineering education. Perhaps it is best known for the re commendation concerning a five -year basic degree in engineering. However, the impact of this and other findings of the "Goals Study" has not been greatly noticeable in the several years since its publication. Two additional studies of a more limited scope are of signif- icance to the development of the engineering education curriculum. Both studies were initiated by the American Society for Engineering Education and sponsored by the Carnegie Corporation, and both dealt with general education or the liberal learning of the engineer. The first of these two studies was released in 1956 as the "Report of the Committee for the Humanistic-Social Research Project Entitled 'General Education in Engineering'"(l). Known as the "Burdell Report, " this study did not propose any innovations or significant changes in curriculum, but its chief contribution was the reaffirmation of the ”Hammond Reports" that students do benefit from being eXposed to the humanities and social sciences. In order to demonstrate that technical education is not jeopardized if humanistic and social sciences are an integral part of the program, examples of 25 such programs at about thirty schools were shown. The essence of the "Burdell Report" is that it is important and feasible to offer both the technical areas and the humanistic and social areas in a four-year undergraduate program (1). In 1968, twelve years after the "Burdell Report, " another Report of the American Society for Engineering Education Humanistic- Social Re search Project titled "Liberal Learning for the Engineers" was published (15). This study was in response to concern expressed in the "Goals Study" about the general or humanistic-social aspects of engineering. Thirty people in engineering and liberal arts were asked to study the present situation and suggest guidelines for im- proving it. The fact-finding phase of the study consisted of visits to twenty-seven schools and having 179 schools respond to que stion- naires concerning their program. On the basis of the se findings, several recommendations were made: "1. Humanities and social science should be treated not as a separate item but as an integral part of a liberal engineering education. 2. All parts of the program should give students an opportunity to explore and choose. 3. In the humanities and social sciences, courses should be designed with attention to the present and future needs and interests of students. 4. The increasing social involvement of engineer- ing demands increasing emphasis on the humani- ties and social sciences. Twenty percent of the total curriculum should be considered a minimum in these areas--exclusive of all strictly tool courses and of incidental emphasis in engineering courses. Z6 5. Work in humanities and social sciences should extend throughout undergraduate programs and into graduate level. 6. In accreditation--a qualified humanist or social scientist should be invited to join each accredit- ing team and be asked to study the humanistic- social part of the program. " (15: 318-29) Although these recommendations are not new to those who are familiar with earlier investigations of this nature, this report may express a greater urgency in responding to what the committee members felt was a critical situation in engineering education. Studies Conducted At The State Level The literature reveals little in the way of studies conducted by states or agencies of states regarding programs in engineering education. Three states have made efforts to look at the total engi- neering education picture in terms of distribution of programs within the states, types of programs being offered, and the costs of support- ing programs in engineering. However, it is not evident that any organization at the state level has initiated a study which deals pri- marily with the content and quality of the undergraduate curriculum. Two states, New York and California, asked a prominent educator in engineering, Frederick E. Terman, to investigate engineering programs in the two states in an attempt to determine the needs of each state in engineering education. The "New York Terman Report" (29) and the"California Terman Report" (30) are the results of these studies. 27 A few of Terman's recommendations are pertinent to the problem of this study. He suggested, as have many engineering educators, that the primary emphasis in engineering should be on the principles and fundamentals underlying engineering as opposed to applications and engineering practice. As in the "Goals Study, " he strongly recommended that there must be an increase in the amount of computer time available to engineering and science stu- dents. It was Terman's belief that this would improve the relevance of education experienced by students (29). Another state -initiated study similar to the Terman reports, but far less extensive, was conducted in Michigan by the Michigan Department of Education (5), As in the Terman reports, the purpose of this study was to determine the necessity for new programs and new schools of engineering in Michigan. The only pertinent state- ment relating to curriculum content is that a sound basic science education is a necessity for a professional engineer (5: 3). Studie s Conducted by Unive r sitie s There is not a great deal of evidence to indicate that many colleges of engineering have asked alumni to systematically evaluate their experiences as undergraduates in engineering. In most cases in which alumni have been asked to participate in a study, it has been in the nature of a follow-up study. An example of a comprehensive follow-up study is the work done at the University of Toledo 28 with the alumni of the College of Business Administration (18). Other studies have dealt with examining the relationship between success as students and success in later life. Investigations of this nature are well summarized by Donald P. Hoyt in an ACT Research Report (11). Two studies of significance, however, show how alumni can effectively be used to provide valuable input into the evaluation pro- cess. One of these studies, conducted by the College of Engineering at Purdue University, involved alumni who graduated from the College of Engineering during the time period 1911-1956 (14). A sample of these alumni was included in the study, and 3, 799 alumni responded to a questionnaire designed to: (l) obtain follow-up data on the alumni, (2) learn the attitudes of alumni about the goals of general education, and (3) learn the attitudes of alumni about the professional engineer- ing curriculum. In the section referring to the engineering curriculum, it was found that courses most likely rated as a must were (in no parti- cular order): speech, business/ industrial management, psychology, engineering economics, and shop. Courses least likely to be rated as a must were: English literature, foreign language, math beyond differential equations. In comparing nature of occupation with rating of courses, it was found that management and sales people emphasized speech, business/ industrial management, psychology, and engineer- ing sciences, while the alumni in the operations areas of engineering emphasized practical courses (14: 93, 119). 29 Another extensive study undertaken by a university in which engineering alumni participated is "A Comparative Study of University of California Engineering Graduates from Berkeley and Los Angeles" (2). This effort was part of a six-year study of engineering and engi- nee ring education conducted by the Department of Engineering at the University of California, Los Angeles, and supported by the Ford Foundation. Although the study is very comprehensive, only a few items dealing with specific courses are of significance to this study. Of the 953 alumni who responded to the questionnaire, at least 50% felt that the following courses were ”Very Important" or "Indispensable": (1) English composition, (2) speech, and (3) econom- ics. At least 75% of the respondents felt that these courses were "Ve ry Important" or "Indispensable": (l) trigonometry, (2) geometry, (3) physics, (4) mechanics of solids, (5) calculus, (6) differential equations, and (7) circuits and fields (2: 10-11). Many other questions and their responses are interesting, but they are of no particular importance to this study. Local Studies Although the College of Engineering at Michigan State Univer- sity has not attempted to involve alumni in a major evaluation of the engineering program, the Alumni Association of the College has played a role in program evaluation (24). On February 26-27, 1969, a group of businessmen who are alumni of the College participated in 30 a two-day evaluation session. After meeting with faculty and be- coming familiar with the program of offerings, the alumni concluded their visitation by completing a questionnaire. The general findings of the committee were that: (1) each program in engineering seems to be sound and well organized, (Z) the curricula is current, and (3) the organization of the College of Engineering is also contemporary to specialty fields. Perhaps the greatest concern about the program is the risk of over-empha- sizing theory to the detriment of applications. Several alumni were concerned about the College forgetting the demands and specific needs of business. Echoing numerous other studies and reports, the alumni reminded the College about the importance of the social and related humanistic subjects (24). Although the efforts and recom- mendations of the alumni were not profound, perhaps the chief importance of the evaluation is that alumni were asked to react to the undergraduate programs in engineering. One additional study in the College of Engineering is of some significance to this study. In the Department of Electrical Engi- neering and Systems Science, the department being examined in this study, seniors who were graduated in June 1970, were asked to respond to questions about their undergraduate experiences (26). Fifty- seven students completed and returned applications, In responding to questions concerning courses, it was found that most students felt that lab experiences were helpful in terms of grasping, 31 appreciating, and developing concepts and theories in electrical engineering and systems science. Also, most students felt that the program was theoretical in orientation as opposed to being practical and applied in content. Those courses which were supported by most students included sophomore physics lectures, humanities, calculus with vectors, and calculus with differential equations. Mixed opinions were expressed concerning American Thought and Language and Social Science (required courses for all students), Theory of Matrices, and freshman chemistry courses (25: 2-4). Summary It is significant that most of the material in this chapter deals with major studies conducted or sponsored by the American Society for Engineering Education. In reviewing the literature, most of the important studies have been undertaken at this level. In general, the conclusions and/or recommendations of these studies are quite similar. Beginning with and following the "Mann Report, " leading educators in engineering have suggested that there is more to an undergraduate program than technical training. To varying degrees, all have said that humanities and social sciences must be an integral part of an engineering program. It is evident that this is not a recent concern among those in the engineering profession. In addition to the general or liberal arts area, it has been recognized that the theoretical aspects of engineering and the science 32 base constitute an important part of the program. Although this has been agreed upon in principle, the differences in the recommendations are a result of differing views as to when and where these areas should be introduced in the engineering curriculum. Studies at the state level have been of little significance in terms of course content of an engineering program. Most states seem to be more concerned about program distribution across the state rather than curriculum development. Studies at other universities have tended to be of a follow-up nature, but a few universities have involved alumni in a significant evaluation effort. The two reported on in this chapter were a com- bination of follow-up and evaluation studies. Responses in the latter aspect of the studies indicate that alumni realize the importance of the liberal arts area as well as the technical area. Perhaps the chief importance of the few studies conducted by the College of Engineering at Michigan State University is that alumni have played a role in program evaluation. It can be hoped that this study will serve to stimulate more activity in this area. CHAPTER HI DESIGN OF STUDY Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to present the methods used to achieve the objectives of the study, i.e. , (l) to measure the nature and extent of the opinions which alumni hold toward their undergraduate program in engineering, (2) to determine if the variable of nature of occupation is related to opinions which alumni hold toward their under - graduate program in engineering, and (3) to determine if the variable of number ofyears since graduation is related to opinions which alumni hold toward their undergraduate program in engineering. Included in this chapter is a description of the population being studied, the method of surveying this population, the development of the survey instrument, and the procedures followed for analyzing the data. Population Studied All alumni who were graduated from Michigan State University from 1961 through 1968 with a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering 33 34 constituted the population included in the study. Table 3. 1 shows the number of students who were graduated each year. Table 3. 1 Number of Electrical Engineering B. S. Graduate 3 1961-68 Year Number 1961 108 196 2 90 1963 67 1964 71 1965 76 1966 94 1967 82 1968 80 ———————————————— 1r Total 668 Students who were graduated during this period were chosen for two basic reasons. First, during these years the electrical engi- neering program did not undergo major changes in curriculum develop- ment. Second, students who completed the program within the last ten years are able to recognize and remember subjects and subject areas of their program more easily than are students who were gradu- ated more than ten years ago. Method of Surveying Population The alumni involved in the study were surveyed by responding to a mailed questionnaire. This form of inquiry was used because 35 a questionnaire was easily adaptable to the objectives of the study, and the widespread distribution of the alumni precluded using such survey techniques as personal interviews or telephone interviews. Addresses for the alumni were obtained from the Alumni Office of Michigan State University. Each alumnus was sent: (1) a questionnaire (Appendix A), (2) a stamped return envelope, and (3) a cover letter (Appendix B) in which the purpose of the study was ex- plained. Alumni who did not respond to the first mailing received a second letter (Appendix B) four weeks after the first mailing, again requesting that the questionnaire be completed and returned. In- cluded with this second request was another questionnaire and stamped return envelope. Recipients of the second mailing who were not inter- ested in completing the questionnaire were asked to: (1) return the second letter with a brief explanation as to why they were not respond- ing and (2) indicate whether they were in an engineering related position or a nonengineering related position. This information was requested to learn more about the characteristics of the nonrespondents. Return Rate Kerlinger (12:39?) states that one of the defects of a mailed questionnaire survey is the lack of response. Return rates of less than forty to fifty percent are common in mailed questionnaire surveys. In this study, however, a return rate of fifty percent is not viewed as a serious defect. The population in question was not sampled; question- naires were sent to the total population. Inferences were not made 36 from those who responded to the nonrespondents, or for that matter, to any other group of engineering alumni. A response rate of fifty percent would yield a substantial number of responses, and therefore this response rate would be viewed as being acceptable and significant. Table 3. 2 shows the number of alumni who were sent que stion- naires, the number who responded, and the percentage of those who responded. As indicated in this table, 60.7 percent of those who, it is assumed, received the questionnaire, completed and returned a questionnaire after one or two mailings. Of the total population (668 alumni), 54. 3 percent completed and returned a que stionnaire after one or two mailings. Table 3 . 2 Number and Percentage of Alumni Participating in Survey No. % of % of No. . . No. . . Year Grad. Re ceivmg Responding Rec1p1ents Total Que st. Re sponding Re sponding 1961 108 93 56 60. 2 51.9 1962 90 73 48 65. 8 53.3 1963 67 60 36 60. 0 53.7 1964 71 66 36 54. 5 50.7 1965 76 69 34 49. 3 44. 7 1966 94 84 53 63. 1 56.4 1967 82 75 46 61.3 56.1 1968 80 4 78 54 69. 2 67. 5 Total 668 598 363 60. 7 54. 3 37 Development of Survey Instrument The questionnaire (Appendix A) sent to alumni was the product of: (1) a modification of items and sections of questionnairesused in similar studies, (2) recommendations from faculty and administrators in the College of Engineering, and (3) a review of the literature re- lated to the problem. The principal resource was the questionnaire used in the alumni study conducted by the College of Engineering at Purdue University (14). In the process of constructing the instrument, a preliminary questionnaire was sent to a sample of alumni who were graduated in 1960 and 1969. In addition, selected faculty in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Systems Science were asked to examine the questionnaire critically. After reviewing the responses of the alumni and meeting informally with individual faculty members, the preliminary questionnaire was changed to incorporate certain sug- gestions and to improve areas which were weak. The format of the questionnaire used in the study is presented below by describing the content, source, and rationale for each section. Part I - Descriptive Information. The purpose of Part I was to obtain demographic information concerning the: (1) date of graduation, and (2) nature of occupation. These variables were used in studying the relationships mentioned in Objectives 11 and III. In determining nature of occupation, alumni were asked to: (1) check the functional classi- fication which most adequately describes their present position, and 38 (2) describe the principal activities of their present position. The functional classifications were adapted from the classifications given in the Purdue Study and were supported by engineering faculty as being representative of the kinds of functions an engineer performs. Part II - Opinions About Subjects in an Electrical Engineering Undergraduate Prggram. The four questions in Part II are modified versions of questions which were included in the Purdue Study. In the Purdue Study alumni were asked to rate the importance of includ- ing certain nonte chnical subjects in the undergraduate engineering program. These subjects were rated on a four-point scale: (1) A Must Requirement, (2) Very Important, (3) Moderately Mportant, and (4)Little or No Importance. In this study, eleven subjects, arbitrarily designated as being nontechnical, were listed for the first question (Question 4) in Part 11. These subjects were chosen from the broad spectrum of nontechnical subjects which may be taken by undergraduates at Michi- gan State University. Provisions were made for listing additional subjects if the respondent so desired. Although several rating scales were considered, the rating scale used in the Purdue Study seemed to be most appropriate in asking alumni to rate the nontechnical subjects. This scale: (I) allowed for expressing a degree of agreement of disagreement, (2) was easy for respondents to use, and (3) made it possible to compare responses to this questionnaire with responses to the Purdue Study que stionnaire . -39 The second question (Question 5) in Part II was identical in format to the first question, with the exception that alumni were asked to rate the importance of including certain technical subjects in the undergraduate electrical engineering program. Fourteen sub- jects, arbitrarily classified as being technical, were listed. Provisions were made for listing and rating additional subjects if the respondent so desired. In the third question in Part 11 (Question 6), alumni were requested to indicate the percentage of time which should be devoted to certain areas in the undergraduate engineering curriculum with the sum of the percentages to approximate 100%. The listing of nine areas was adapted from the areas listed in the Purdue Study. In indi- cating the percentage of time which should be devoted to each area, alumni were to check one of the following choices: None, 2%, 3%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, and 30%. It was found in the pilot study that choices of over 30% were not needed. Provisions were made for respondents to list additional subjects if they so desired. The format of the fourth question (Question 7) in Part II was identical to the third question, except that alumni were asked to indicate the percentage of time which should be devoted to certain areas in electrical engineering. The ten areas listed were considered by faculty in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Systems Science as areas which form the basis of the electrical engineering program and areas which alumni would recognize and could rate. As in 40 previous questions, provisions were made for respondents to list additional courses if they so desired. Part III - Goals of an Engineering Program. In Part III, also a modification of sections in the Purdue Study, alumni were asked to respond to twelve goals of an engineering program by: (1) rating the importance of each goal in an engineering program, and (2) rating the influence of their undergraduate engineering program in helping them attain the goal in question. The goals listed in this section were developed from pre- vious studies, including the Purdue Study, the Pace Alumni Study (22), and the Hammond Study (9), and from recommendations of faculty in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Systems Science. The twelve goals used in the questionnaire were selected because they represented specific concerns of faculty and administrators in the electrical engineering program. Alumni were asked to rate the importance of each goal on a four-point scale of: (1) Very Important, (2) Some Importance, (3) Little Importance, and (4) No Importance. The influence of the undergraduate program in helping attain each goal was rated on a four-point scale of: (1) Much Influence, (2) Some Influence, (3) Little Influence, and (4) No Influence. In spite of the inherent weaknesses in rating scales of this nature, they were used because they: (I) allowed for expressing a degree of agreement or disagreement with the item, 41 (2) were easy for respondents to use, and (3) made it possible to com- pare responses to this questionnaire with responses to the questionnaire used in the Purdue Study. Part IV - Discussion Questions. Three questions were in- cluded in Part IV. First (Question 20), alumni were asked to state the "Most Beneficial" subject area they had at Michigan State Univer- sity and then give reasons for their choice. Second (Question 21), alumni were asked to state the "Least Beneficial" subject area they had at Michigan State University and then give reasons for their choice. The final question (Question 22) invited alumni to provide any addi- tional comments . Methods Used for AnalyzingyRe sponses Four basic techniques were used to report and analyze the responses in order to achieve the three objectives of the study. De- pending on the item and the objective, one or more of the following techniques was used: (1) a tabulation and report of the frequency distribution of responses for certain items, (2) a calculation of the mean score or arithmetical mean for certain items, (3) a rank- ordering of certain items on the basis of the mean score,and (4) a calculation of the value of the Chi Square test of significance in com- paring relationships between the nature of occupation and number of years since graduation and opinions of the undergraduate program. Responses to items in Parts I, II, and III were punched on data 42 processing cards and analyzed on the IBM 1800 computer in the College of Engineering. Each objective was achieved by the follow- ing techniques: Objective I - To measure the nature and extent of the opinions which alumni hold toward their undergraduate program in engineering. In Part 11, ratings of nontechnical and technical subjects were reported as frequency distributions expressed in percentages for the total respondents. This clearly demonstrated the importance of each subject as rated by the respondents and showed the range in opinions from "Very Important" to "Little or No Importance." Addi- tional subjects listed by respondents were reported if cited by five or more alumni. Responses to the percentage of time which should be devoted to areas in the undergraduate electrical engineering program and to areas in electrical engineering subject matters were reported as a mean percentage for each area. To show the order of importance of these areas as rated by respondents, the areas were rank-ordered on the basis of the mean percentage. Additional subjects listed by respon- dents were reported if listed by five or more alumni. In Part 111, responses to goals of an engineering program were reported as frequency distributions expressed in percentages. Again, this clearly demonstrated how the alumni rated the importance of each goal and the influence of the undergraduate program in help- ing them attain each goal. 43 Responses to the first two questions in Part IV were tabulated and reported as frequency distributions on the basis of the year the respondent was graduated. Those subjects which were cited by ten or more respondents were listed, and selected reasons for listing these courses were reported verbatim. Additional comments which seemed to be pertinent to the study were also reported verbatim. Objective II - To determine if the variable of nature of occupation is related to opinions which alumni hold toward their undergraduate program in engineering. In Part I, alumni were asked to: (1) check the functional classification which most adequately describes your present position, and (2) describe the principal activities of your present position. Alumni who checked the classifications of (d) Production/Operation- Engineering, (e) Maintenance-Engineering, (f) Design-Engineering, (g) Research-Engineering, (h) Sales and Application-Engineering, (i) Engineering Teaching, (j) Technical Management, and (1) Engineer- ing other than listed, were designated as being in an engineering related position. Alumni who checked the classification of (m) Non- engineering other than listed, were designated as being in a nonengi- neering related position. Those who checked (a) College Graduate Study, (b) On-the -job Training Program, and (c) Military Service, were categorized on the basis of the description of the principal activ- ities of their present position. Those in engineering related positions were designated Group A; those in nonengineering related positions were designated Group B. 44 In Part 11, ratings of nontechnical and technical subjects were reported as frequency distributions expressed in percentages for Group A and Group B. To compare the ratings for the two groups, the Chi Square test of significance was used. The use of this technique required that the relationships of the variables be stated in the form of a null hypothesis. If there is a relationship between responses of those in engineering related positions and those in nonengineering related positions, the following null hypothesis had to be rejected: Null Hypothesis I - No differences exist among alumni in engineer- ing related positions (Group A) and alumni in nonengineering related positions (Group B) regarding the opiniais which they hold toward an undergraduate program in engineering. Chi Square values were reported for all subjects, and those which were at the . 05 or . 01 level of significance were noted. Responses to the percentage of time which should be devoted to areas in the undergraduate electrical engineering program and to electrical engineering were reported for Group A and Group B as a mean percentage for each subject. Subjects were rank-ordered for each group on the basis of the mean percentage to determine if there was a difference in the rankings for the two groups. In Part 111, responses to goals of an engineering program were reported for Group A and Group B as frequency distributions expressed in percentages. Chi Square values were calculated in comparing the opinions of Group A and Group B for each goal, and those which were at the . 05 or . 01 level of significance were noted. 45 Responses in Part IV were not reported or analyzed on the basis of nature of occupation. Objective III - To determine if the variable of number of years since graduation is related to opinions which alumni hold toward their undergraduate program in engineering. In Part I, respondents were requested to indicate the date of their graduations. Those who were gradiated in 1961, 1962, 1963, or 1964, were designated Group C; those who were graduated in 1965, 1966, 1967, or 1968 were designated Group D. This grouping was done arbitrarily to provide two groups approximately equal in size, one which was graduated within the last six years, and one which was graduated seven or more years ago. Comparing the responses for Group C and Group D to que stion- naire items was done in a manner identical tothe technique used in achieving Objective 11, except that the following null hypothesis was te sted: Null Hypothesis II - No differences exist among alumni who graduated more recently (Group D) and almnni who graduated less recently (Group C) regarding the opinions which they hold toward an undergraduate program in engineering. Responses in Part IV were not analyzed on the basis of number of years since graduation. Summar A questionnaire was designed and sent to alumni of the under- graduate electrical engineering program of Michigan State University 46 who were graduated during the years 1961 to 1968 inclusive. This survey instrument consisted of four parts: (1) In Part I, respondents provided demographic data concerning date of graduation and nature of occupation; (2) In Part 11, respondents rated the importance of including certain technical and nontechnical subjects in the undergraduate electrical engineering program, and they indicated the percentage of time which should be devoted to certain areas in the electrical engi- neering program and in the electrical engineering subject area; (3) In Part 111, respondents rated the importance of twelve goals of an engineering program, and they rated the influence of their under- graduate program in helping them to attain each goal; and (4) In Part IV, respondents cited the "Most Beneficial" and "Least Bene- ficial" subject areas experienced at Michigan State University and gave reasons for their choices. In achieving the three objectives of the study, responses to the questionnaire items were reported and analyzed by one or more of the following techniques: (1) tabulation of frequency distribution, (2) calculation of mean score, (3) rank-ordering of items, and (4) com- puting the value of the Chi Square test of significance. Chi Square values significant at the . 05 and . 01 level were noted. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DA TA Introduction In this chapter, the responses to the survey instrument are reported and analyzed to achieve the objectives of the study. The format of the chapter consists of: (l) a restatement of the three objectives and the two null hypotheses which were used in achieving two of the objectives, and (2) a report and analysis of the data. The responses are reported and analyzed for each of the four parts of the questionnaire; in each part, the report on the data is preceded by a brief review of the questions which were asked. Statement of Objectives Olg'yective I -- To measure the nature and extent of the opinions which alumni hold toward their undergraduate program in engineering. Objective II -- To determine if the variable of nature of occupation is related to opinions which alumni hold toward their undergraduate program in engineering. Objective III -- To determine if the variable of number of years since graduation is related to opinions which alumni hold toward their undergraduate program in engineering. 47 48 In order to test the significance of the relationships dis- cussed in Objectives 11 and 111, two null hypotheses are stated: Null Hypothesis 1 - No differences exist among alumni in engineering related positions and alumni in non- engineering related positions regarding the opinions which they hold toward an undergraduate program in engineering. Null Hypothesis II - No difference exist among alumni who graduated more recently and alumni who graduated less recently regarding the opinions which they hold toward an undergraduate program in engineering. Report and Analysis of Data Part I - Descriptive Information. The intent of Part I was to collect demographic data concerning: (1) date of graduation, and (2) nature of occupation. As shown in Table 4.1, a total of 312 alumni, or 85. 9% of the re spondents, are working in engineering related positions. These respondents were designated as Grogp A in the study. The 51 alumni, or 14.1% of the respondents, who are working in nonengineering related positions were designated as Group B in the study. Table 4.1 also shows the number of respondents who were graduated during the years 1961-68. From 1961-64, 176 or 48. 5% of the respondents were graduated; these alumni were designated as Group C in the study. The remaining 187 or 51. 5% of the respondents who were graduated from 1965-68 were designated as Group D. Eighteen alumni returned the cover letter of the second mail- ing and indicated that they did not wish to complete the questionnaire 49 for reasons of disinterest, lack of time, or ill feeling about Michigan State. Two hundred eighty-seven alumni did not return a question- naire or a cover letter. Table 4. 1 Description of Alumni Responding to Questionnaire Year Re spondents Engineering Nonenginee ring Positions Positions 1961 56 51 5 1962 48 42 6 1963 36 33 3 1964 36 25 11 1965 34 31 3 1966 53 42 11 1967 46 41 5 1968 54 47 7 .- _______________ q. _________ .4 ____________ Total 363 312 51 )— —————————————————————————————————————— Group A - Alumni in Engineering Group C - 1961-64 Almnni Related Positions N = 176, % = 48. 5 N = 312, % = 85.9 Group B - Alumni in Nonengineer- Group D - 1965-68 Alumni ing Related Positions N = 187, % = 51. 5 N = 51, %= 14.1 Part II - Alumni Opinions About Subjects in an Electrical Engineering Undelgraduate Program. In this part of the question- naire, alumni were asked to: (1) rate the importance of including certain nontechnical subjects in the Electrical Engineering program, (2) rate the importance of including certain technical subjects in the Electrical Engineering program, (3) indicate the percentage of time 50 which should be devoted to certain subject areas in the Electrical Engineering program, and (4) indicate the percentage of time which should be devoted to certain areas in Electrical Engineering. Ratingof Nontechnical Subjects. Table 4. 2 shows the extent of the opinions about nontechnical subjects for all respondents. The re- sponses are reported as a frequency distribution expressed in per- centages. Four subjects were rated as being "Very Important" or a "Must Requirement" by more than 50% of the alumni: (1) English Composition, 69. 8%; (2) Business/ Management, 69. 2%; (3) Speech, 54. 3%; and (4) Economics, 51.6%. All other nontechnical subjects were rated by over half of the respondents as being "Moderately Important" or "Of Little or No Importance. " Foreign Language and Fine Arts received the least support for being included in an engi- neering program with ratings of 72. 3% and 57. 1% respectively in the "Little or No Importance" column. Two nontechnical subjects were listed by five or more of the alumni as subjects which should be included in the undergraduate program: Technical writing (10 responses) and Accounting (9 re- sponsesL The comparison of opinions about the importance of non- technical subjects as rated by: (1) respondents in engineering related positions, and (2) respondents in nonengineering related positions is 51 Table 4. 2 Alumni Opinions About Nontechnical Subjects -Frequency Distribution For Total Respondents Must Moder- Little . Require- Very ately or no Subject Number Imp. ment 7 Imp. Imp. 70 0 70 70 Speech 357 22.4 31.9 38.4 7.3 English Comp. 358 30. 4 39. 4 26. 3 3. 9 English Lit. 349 1. 4 7. 4 41. 0 50.1 Bus. /Management' 357 21.0 48.2 27. 7 3.1 Economics 359 12.3 39. 3 41. 5 7.0 Foreign Lang. 357 l. 1 2. 0 24. 6 72. 3 Sociology 358 2. 8 15.4 49. 4 32.4 Fine Arts 359 .6 6.4 35. 9 57.1 History 355 1.4 9.9 45. 9 42.8 Philosophy 360 3. 3 ll. 4 42. 8 42. 5 Psychology 360 6. 9 27. 2 48. 6 17. 2 shown in Table 4. 3. Responses for these two groups were found to be significantly different in rating the importance of two subjects-- Business / Management and Foreign Language. Null Hypothesis I was rejected at the . 05 level of significance for Business/Manage- ment and at the . 01 level of significance for Foreign Language. In rating the importance of Business/ Management, 34. 7% of the re- spondents in nonengineering related positions felt that it was a "Must Requirement; " 18. 8% of the respondents in engineering related positions felt that Business/ Management was a "Must Requirement. " Foreign Language was rated by 12. 2% of the respondents in non- engineering related positions as being "Very Important" or a "Must Requirement, " whereas only 1.6% of the respondents in engineering Table 4. 3 Alumni Opinions About Nontechnical Subjects-Comparison of opinions for Alumni in Engineering Related Positions and Alumni in Nonengineering Related Positions Must Mode r - Little . Require- Very t 1 Chi Subject Group No. Imp. a e y or no df Square me nt % Imp . Imp . Value % % 70 Speech A 309 22.0 33.7 37.9 6.5 3 4. 53 B 48 25.0 20.8 41.7 12.5 ' English A 310 29. 7 40. 6 25. 5 4. 2 2 1 57 Comp. B 48 35.4 31.3 31.3 2.1 ' English A 302 1.3 6.6 41.1 51.0 2 2 54 Lit. B 47 2.1 12.8 40.4 44.7 ' Bus./ A 308 18.8 49.7 28.9 2.6 2 6 44* Mgt. B 49 34.7 38.8 20.4 6. 1 ° Economics A 310 12.3 37.1 43.2 7.4 2 4 97 B 49 12. 2 53.1 30.6 4.1 ' Foreign A 308 . 3 l. 3 24. 4 74. 0 ** Lang. B 49 6.1 6.1 26.5 F611 2 ""52 Sociology A 309 2. 6 14. 6 49. 8 33. 0 2 1 58 B 49 4.1 20.4 46.9 28.6 ' Fine Arts A 310 .3 6.8 34.2 58.7 1 2 39 B 49 2.0 4.1 46.9 46.9 ’ History A 307 1.3 8.5 46.9 43.3 2 5 13 B 48 2.1 18.8 39.6 39.6 ° Philosophy A 311 2. 9 ll. 9 41 . 2 44.1 2 2 70 B 49 6.1 8.2 53.1 32.7 ' Psychology A 311 6 . 8 27. 3 48. 9 17. 0 2 08 B 49 8.2 26.5 46.9 18.4 ° Group A - Alumni in Engineering Related Positions Group B - Alumni in Nonengineering Related Positions * Significant at . 05 level ** Significant at . 01 level 53 related positions rated Foreign Language as being "Very Important" or a "Must Requirement. " Significant differences in ratings for the other nontechnical subjects we re not found. In Table 4.4, the ratings of nontechnical subjects are com- pared for: (1) respondents who were graduated 1961-64, and (2) respondents who were graduated 196 5-68. Significant differences in ratings were found only in Speech, where Null Hypothesis II was rejected at the . 01 level. Over 60% of the respondents who were graduated 1961-64 rated Speech as being "Very Important" or a "Must Requirement, " compared with a "Very Important" or a ”Must Requirement" rating by 45. 3% of the respondents who were graduated 1965-68. A significant relationship between number of years since graduation and opinions about the importance of including nontechnical subjects in the engineering program was not found for any of the other nonte chnical subje cts . Ratingygf Technical Subjects. In Table 4. 5, the extent of alumni opinions about technical subjects is shown. A frequency distribution expressed in percentages is given for all respondents. Six technical subjects were rated by over half of the respondents as being "Very Important" or a "Must Requirement": (1) One year of Physics (92.4%). (2) Computer Courses (88.6%), (3) Engineering Labs (73. 9%). (4) Probability and Statistics (69. 4%), (5) Math beyond Differential Equations (61.4%), and (6) One year of Chemistry (57.7%). Only Tab 54 1e 4.4 Alumni Opinions About Nontechnical Subjects-Comparison of Opinions for Alumni Who Were Graduated 1961-64 and Alumni Who Were Graduated 1965-68 Must Moder - Little . Require- Very atel Chi Subject Group Imp. y or no df Square ment 7 Imp. Imp. Value 9. ° 9. 9. Speech C 25.0 38.6 31.3 5.1 D 19. 9 25.4 45. 3 9,4 3 17" 76’” English C 29.1 43.4 23. 4 4. 0 3 2 66 Comp. D 31.7 35.5 29.0 3.8 ° English C 1.8 6.5 40.5 51.2 2 20 Lit. D 1.1 8.3 41.4 49.2 ° Bus./ C 20.6 49.7 28.6 1.1 2 33 Mgt. D 21.4 46.7 26.9 4.9 ° Economics C 12. 0 42. 3 38. 9 6. 9 3 l 38 D 12.5 36.4 44.0 7.1 ° Foreign C . 6 2. 3 25. 9 71. 3 2 30 Lang. D 1.6 1.6 23. 5 73. 2 ° Sociology C 3.4 14. 2 46.6 35.8 2 l 86 D 2.2 16.5 52.2 29.1 ' Fine Arts C .6 5.7 39.8 54.0 D .5 7.1 32.2 60.1 2 2'26 History C 2.3 9.8 48.6 39.3 2 1 71 D . 5 9. 9 43. 4 46. 2 ° Philosophy C 3. 4 13. 6 42. 0 40. 9 3 l 78 D 3. 3 9. 2 43. 5 44. 0 ' Psychology C 6. 8 26. 1 45. 5 21. 6 3 4 68 D 7.1 28.3 51.6 13.0 ' Group C - Alumni Who Were Graduated 1961-64 Group D - Alumni Who Were Graduated 1965-68 **Significant at .01 level 55 Table 4. 5 Alumni Opinions About Technical Subjects- Frequency Distribution for Total Respondents Must Mode r - Little Require- Very ately or no b' Su ject Number ment 1?“ Imp. Imp. "lo 0 % % Prob. and Stat. 359 35. 7 33. 7 26. 2 4.5 Math Beyond D.E. 355 29. 0 32. 4 32. 4 6. 2 Engineering Labs 353 43. 9 30. 0 22. 4 3. 7 One Year of Chem. 357 30. 0 27. 7 32. 8 9.5 Chem' B°V°nd one 355 1. 7 8. 7 33.8 55.8 Year One Year of Physics 355 55. 5 36. 9 7. 0 . 6 Phya‘“ 38”“ 359 12.0 29. 0 40.9 18.1 One Year Biological Sc. 356 l. 7 15. 2 54. 2 28. 9 Computer Courses 357 58. 3 30. 3 9. 8 1. 7 Mechanics of Solids 353 14. 2 31. 2 42. 5 12. 2 Fluid Mechanics 355 7. 9 25. 1 44. 5 22.5 Thermodynamics 356 10.1 28. 4 42. 7 18. 8 Prop. of Materials 352 14. 8 33. 5 39. 8 11.9 Heat and/ or Mass and/ or Momentum 345 11. 3 30. 4 42. 9 15. 4 Transfer 56 two subjects were rated by over a quarter of the respondents as being of "Little or No Irnportance": (1) Chemistry beyond one year (55. 8%) and (2) Biological Science (28. 9%). Although respondents had the opportunity to list additional technical subjects, no one subject was cited by five or more alumni. The comparison of alumni ratings of technical subjects for: (l) respondents in engineering related positions, and (2) respondents in nonengineering related positions is shown in Table 4.6. The only significant difference in opinions for these two groups was found in the rating of Engineering Laboratories. Null Hypothesis 1 was rejected at the . 05 level of significance. Of the respondents in nonengineering related positions, 52. 2% rated Engineering Laboratories as being a "Must Requirement" compared with a "Must Requirement" rating by 42. 7% of those in engineering related positions. It must be noted, however, that by combining the "Must Requirement" and "Very Important" ratings, 74% of those in engineering related positions and 73. 9% of those in nonengineering related positions felt that Engi- neering Laboratories is an important subject in an engineering pro- gram. The comparison of opinions about technical subjects for: (1) respondents who were graduated 1961-64, and (2) respondents who were graduated 1965-68 is given in Table 4. 7. No significant relationship was found between number of years since graduation and opinions about any technical subject. 57 Table 4. 6 Alumni Opinions About Technical Subjects- Comparision of Opinions for Alumni in Engineering Related Positions and Alumni in Nonengineering Related Positions I Must Very Moder- Little! Chi . Require- ately or no' Square Subject Group No. ment 131p. Imp. Mp. df Value ‘70 o ‘70 ‘70 Prob. and Stat. A 312 33. 7 33. 7 28. S 4.2 ’ 2 5 95 B 47 48. 9 34. 0 10.6 6.4 ' Math Beyond D.E. A 309 28.2 32.0 33.7 6.0 3 2 1 61 B 46 34.8 34.8 23.9 6.5 ' Engineering Labs A 307 42.7 31.3 23.5 2.6 3 10 66* B 46 52.2 21.7 15.2 10.9 ’ One Year of Chem. A 310 29. 0 29.4 32.6 9.0 :3 3 56 B 47 36.2 17. 0 34.0 12.8‘ ' Chem. Beyond One A 309 1. 3 9.1 34. 0 55. 7 2 04 Year B 46 4. 3 6. 5 32. 6 56. 5 ' One Year of Physical A 309 54. 7 36. 9 7-8 :6 z z 33 B 46 60.9 37.0 2.2 0.0 ' Physics Beyond A 312 ll. 2 26. 9 42. 3 19.6 ‘ 2 7 77 One Year B 47 17. 0 42.6 31.9 8.5 ° Biological Sc. A 309 1. 3 14. 6 53.1 31.1 2 5 63 B 47 4.3 19.1 61.7 14.9 3 ' Computer Courses A 311 57. 2 29. 9 10-9 1:9 12 4 52 B 46 65. 2 32.6 2. 2 0.0 7 ' Mechanics of Solids A 310 14. 5 29. 7 43. 5 12.3 7 3 z 70 B 43 11.6 41.9 34.9 11.65 ' Fluid Mechanics A 312 8. 0 23. 7 45. 5 22.8 i2 1 82 B 43 7. 0 34. 9 37. 2 20.9 ' Thermodynamics A 312 9. 9 28. 5 42. 0 l9: 6 | 3 1 11 B 44 11.4 27. 3 47.7 13.6 E ' 58 Table 4.6 Cont'd. Must Moder- Little Chi Require- Very ately or no Square b' . . Su ject Group No ment Imp Imp. Imp df Value % % % Property of A 309 15. 9 32.4 39. 5 12. 3 1 01 Materials B 43 7.0 41.9 41. 9 9.3 ' Heat and/or A 302 12. 3 29.8 41. 7 16. 2 1 10 Mass and/or 13 43 4 7 34.9 51.2 9.3 ' Momentum Transfer Group A - Alumni in Engineering * Significant at . 05 level Related Positions Group B - Alumni in Nonengineering Related Positions 59 Table 4 . 7 Alumni Opinions About Technical Subjects- Comparison of Opinions for Alumni Who Were Graduated 1961-64 and Alumni Who Were Graduated 1965-68 Must Moder- Little Chi Require- Very ately or no Square S b' t u Jéc Group No. ment I?!” Imp. Imp. df Value % ° 7. 7o Prob. and Stat. C 174 37.9 36.8 20.7 4.6 5 35 D 185 33.5 30.8 31.4 4.3 ° Math Beyond D.E. C 171 29.8 31.0 32.7 6.4 .32 D 184 28.3 33.7 32.1 6.0 Engineering Labs C 171 36. 3 36. 3 24.0 3. 5 11 D 182 51.1 24.2 20.9 3.8 9' One Year of Chm. C 173 I 31. 2 27. 2 32.4 9. 2 25 D 184 28.8 28.3 33.2 9.8 ' Chem. Beyond One C 171 .6 10.5 31.0 57.9 1 19 Year D 184 2.7 7.1 36.4 53.8 ' One Year of Physics C 170 54.7 34.7 10.0 .6 4 28 D 185 56.2 38.9 4.3 .5 ' Physics Beyond C 174 13.8 31.0 37.4 17.8 2 50 One Year D 185 10. 3 27.0 44.3 18.4 ’ Biological Sc. C 171 1.2 15.2 55.0 28.7 09 D 185 2.2 15.1 53.5 29.2 ’ Computer Courses C 173 58.4 26.6 12.7 2.3 5 16 D 184 58.2 33.7 7.1 1.1 ' Mechanics of Solids C 171 14.6 30.4 43.9 11.1 57 D 182 13.7 31.9 41.2 13.2 ' Fluid Mechanics C 172 7.6 26. 2 48. 3 18.0 4 27 D 183 8.2 24.0 41.0 26.8 ' Thermodynamics C 172 10. 5 28. 5 44. 8 l6. 3 1 52 D 184 9.8 28.3 40.8 21.2 ' Table 4. 7 Cont'd. 60 _: Momentum Transfer Must Moder- Little . ' Re uire very tel Ch‘ Subject Group No. q Imp. a Y or no df Square ment Imp, Imp. '70 Value % % % Property of C 169 14.2 32.0 42.6 11.2 3 1 10 Materials D 183 15.3 35.0 37.2 12.6 ° Heat and/or C 167 11.4 29.9 46.1 12.6 3 2 44 Mass and/or D 178 11.2 30.9 39.9 18.0 ' Group C - Alumni Who Were Graduated 1961-64 Group D - Alumni Who Were Graduated 1965-68 61 Opinions About Percentage of Time Which Should be Devoted to Areas in an Engineering Undergaduate Program. A report on the alumni opinions about the percentage of time which should be devoted to cer- tain areas in an engineering undergraduate program is given in Table 4. 8. Responses are given as a mean percentage for all respondents and then rank-ordered on the basis of the mean percentage. Three subject areas are clearly viewed by the respondents as being an im- portant part of the program. Respondents felt that: (1) over one- fifth (21. 3%) of the program should be devoted to EE-Theory, (2) 18.4% of the program should be devoted to EE-Applications,and (3) 17.1% should be devoted to Mathematics. The subject area which respondents felt should have the least amount of time devoted to it is Biological Science, with a mean percentage rating of 3. 0%. In addition to the subject areas listed, 19 alumni felt that time should be devoted to nonte chnical electives, and 8 alumni felt that time should be devoted to English and/or Speech. Table 4. 8 Alumni Opinions About Percentage of Time Which Should be - Devoted to Areas in an Engineering Undergraduate Program-- Mean Percentage and Ranking of Areas for Total Respondents Subject Area Main Rank Humanities and Social Science 6. 9 7 Mathematics 17. l 3 Physics and Chemistry 10. 3 5 EE - Theory 21. 3 1 EE - Applications 18.4 2 Biological Sc. 3. 0 9 Computers 10. 5 4 Business 5. 8 8 L Technical Electives 7. l 6 J 62 Table 4. 9 compares opinions about the percentage of time which should be devoted to subject areas in an engineering under- graduate program for: (l) respondents in engineering related positions and (2) respondents in nonengineering related positions. In a similar manner, Table 4.10 compares opinions for: (1) respondents who were graduated 1961-64 and (Z) respondents who were graduated 1965-68. In both tables, the rank-ordering of subject areas on the basis of mean percentage is very similar. In all cases, EE-Theory was ranked first, followed by EE-Applications and Mathematics. Biological Science was ranked last by all subgroups. Opinions About Percentage of Time Which Should be Devoted to Areas in Electrical Engineering. A report on alumni opinions about the percentage of time which should be devoted to certain areas in electrical engineering is given in Table 4.11. Ratings are given as mean percentages, and the subject areas are ranked on the basis of the mean percentages. Three subject areas were rated by alumni as areas to which 10% or more of time should be devoted: (1)Electronic Circuits (13. 7%), (2) Systems and Control Theory (12. 2%), and (3) Solid State (11.4%). Respondents felt that the least amount of time should be devoted to Electromagnetics Applications (7. 3%) and Com- munication Systems Applications (7. 2%); at least 9% of the time should be devoted to each of the other subject areas. 63 Table 4. 9 Alumni Opinions About Percentage of Time Which Should Be Devoted to Areas in an Engineering Undergraduate Program-- Comparison of Opinions for Alumni in Engineering Related Positions and Alumni in Nonengineering Related Positions Mean Percentage Rank Subject Area Group A Group B Group A Group B Humanitie s and 6 . 7 7. 9 7 6 Social Science Mathematics 17.1 17.6 3 3 132:3;ch 10. 4 9. 5 5 5 EE - Theory 21. 4 20.6 1 1 EE - Applications 18. 4 l8. 1 2 2 Biological Sc. 3. 0 2. 8 9 9 Computers 10. 5 10. 2 4 4 Business 5.8 5.9 8 8 Technical Electives 7. 2 6. 5 6 7 Group A - Alumni in Engineering Related Positions Group B - Alumni in Nonengineering Related Positions 64 Table 4.10 Alumni Opinions About Percentage of Time Which Should Be Devoted to Areas in an Engineering Undergraduate Program-- Comparison of Opinions for Alumni Who Were Graduated 1961-64 and Alumni Who Were Graduated 1965-68 Mean Percentage Rank Subject Area Group C Group D Group C Group D Sffilngifiniid 7'1 6-7 6 7 Mathematics 17.4 16.9 3 3 Exists” 10. 1 10. s 5 4 EE - Theory 20. 9 21. 7 l 1 EE - Applications 18. 1 18. 7 2 2 Biological Sc. 3. 2 2. 9 9 9 Computers 10. 5 10.4 4 5 Business 6.0 5.5 8 8 Technical Electives 6. 8 7. 4 7 6 Group C - Alumni Who Were Graduated 1961-64 Group D - Alumni Who Were Graduated 1965-68 65 Table 4. 11 Alumni Opinions About Percentage of Time Which Should Be Devoted to Areas in Electrical Engineering-- Mean Percentage and Ranking of Areas for Total Respondents Subject Area Mam Rank Systems and Control Theory 12. 2 2 Systems and Control Applications 9. 9 4 Computers Theory 9. 2 8 Computers Applications 9. 7 5 Solid State 11. 4 3 Electronics Circuits l3. 7 1 Communication Systems Theory 9. 3 7 Communication Systems Applications 7. 2 10 Electromagnetics Theory 9. 5 6 Electromagnetics Applications 7. 3 9 66 The subject area of Power was the only additional area cited by 5 or more. alumni as an important subject in the electrical engi- neering program. Thirteen alumni felt that time in the program should be devoted to Power. Tables 4. 12 and 4. 13 show the relationship between: (1) nature of occupation and (2) number of years since graduation and opinions about the percentage of time which should be devoted to subject areas in electrical engineering. In all groups, three subject areas had identical rankings--Electronics was first, Systems and Control Theory was second, and Solid State was third. Communication Systems Appli- cations and Electromagnetics Applications were ranked either ninth or tenth by each group. Part III - Goals of an Undergraduate Engineerigg Program. In Part III, alumni were asked to respond in two ways to twelve goals of an engineering program: (1) To rate the importance of each goal in an engineering program. and (2) To rate the influence of their under- graduate program in helping them attain each goal. Ratiflg of the Importance of Goals. The rating of the importance of each goal in an engineering program is reported in Table 4.14. Fre- quency distribution of responses expressed in percentages is given for all respondents. Two goals were rated by over half of the respondents as "Very Important": (1) Develop ability to think straight in the application of 67 Table 4. 12 Alumni Opinions About Percentage of Time Which Should Be Devoted to Areas in Electrical Engineering-- Comparison of Opinions for Alumni in Engineering Related Positions and Alumni in Nonengineering Related Positions Mean Percentage Rank Subject Area Group A Group B Group A Group B Systems and Control Theory 12' 2 12‘ Z 2 2 Systems and Control Applications 9' 8 10° 5 4 4 Computers Theory 9. 3 8. 5 8 7 Computers Applications 9' 7 9° 8 5 6 Solid State 11. 3 ll. 8 3 3 Electronics Circuits l3. 8 l3. 0 1 1 Communication Systems Theory 9' 5 8° 4 6' 5 8 Communication Systems Applications 7' Z 7' 2 10 9 Electromagnetics 9. 5 10. 0 6. 5 5 Theory Electromagnetics Applications 7' 3 6 ° 7 9 10 Group A - Alumni in Engineering Related Positions Group B - Alumni in Nonengineering Related Positions 68 Table 4.13 Alumni Opinions About Percentage of Time Which Should Be Devoted to Areas in Electrical Engineering-- Comparison of Opinions for Alumni Who Were Graduated 1961-64 and Alumni Who Were Graduated 1965-68 Mean Percentage Rank Subject Area Group C Group D Group C Group D Systems and 2. 4 2. 2 2 Control Theory 1 l 1 Systems and Control Applications 10' 2 9° 6 4' 5 5 Computers Theory 9.1 9. 2 8 8 Computers 10. 2 9. 3 4. 5 7 - Applications Solid State 11.1 11. 7 3 3 Electronics Circuits 12. 9 l4. 4 l 1 Communication Systems Theory 9' 3 9' 4 6' S 6 Communication Systems Applications 7' 6 6' 9 9 10 Electromagnetics 9. 3 9. 7 6. S 4 Theory Electromagnetics 7. 0 7. 5 10 9 Applications J Group C - Alumni Who Were Graduated 1961-64 Group D - Alumni Who Were Graduated 1965-68 69 Table 4. 14 Alumni Opinions About Importance of Goals in an Engineering Program-- Frequency Distribution for Total Respondents Goal Numbe r Ve r y Imp. % Some Imp . % Little Imp. % No Imp . % . Provide vocational train- . Provide bases for im- . Develop ability to think . Develop an understanding of the influence of engineer.» . Understanding and appre- ing skills and techniques directly applicable to a job. Provide background for further study in some pro- fessional. scientific. or scholarly field. proved social and economic status. Develop ability to speak clearly. correctly, and effectively. Provide for social devel- opment. eXpe rience. and skill in relating to other people. straight in the application of fundamental principles to new problems. ing on development of the social organization in which we live. Learning about materials, machines, and structures. ciating science and technology. 355 355 352 356 355 357 354 353 355 42.0 48.2 17.3 25.7 15.9 25.1 40. 3 43. 7 46.3 43.5 43.7 10.6 44. 9 51.8 50. 7 15.5 7.9 27.8 12.1 17.7 23.2 28.9 21.7 2.2 8.5 2.2 4.5 6.2 3.4 2.5 Table 4.14 Cont'd. 70 Very Some Little No Goal Number Imp. Imp. Imp. Imp. 70 70 70 70 10. Provide background for 354 18. 9 48. 3 25.4 7.3 work with ecological problems. 11 . Develop critical think- 356 67.1 26. 7 5.1 1. 1 ing (logic, inference, nature and limitations of knowledge). 12. Developing an aware- 355 14.1 41. 7 34.4 9.9 ness of different philo- sophies, culture 3. and ways of life. 71 fundamental principles to new problems (88. 2%), and (2) Develop critical thinking (logic, inference, nature and limitations of knowledge) (67.1%). All goals were rated by over half of the respondents as being ”Very Important" or of "Some Importance. " However, over 30% of the respondents felt that the following goals were of "Little Importance" or "No Importance": (1) Provide bases for improved social and economic status (36. 3%), (2) Learning about materials, machines and structures (32. 3%), (3) Provide background for work with ecological problems (32. 7%), and (4) Developing an awareness of different philosphies, cultures, and ways of life (44. 3%). The comparison of opinions about the importance of the goals for: (1) respondents in engineering related positions, and (2) respondents in nonengineering related positions is given in Table 4. 15. No significant relationship was found between nature of occupation and alumni opinions about the importance of any of the goals given in the survey instrument. Table 4.16 shows the comparison of opinions about the importance of the goals for: (1) respondents who were graduated 1961-64 and (2) respondents who were graduated 1965-68. No significant relation- ship was found between number of years since graduation and alumni opinions about the importance of any of the goals given in the survey instrument. 72 o.o o.o m8 Nam. NN; N m. o.“ 9: 4.5 . N 0.3 ”.3 5.3 E a N 3. Na: oi. ¢.Nm Q... N O... or: 5.5. mgm SN 5.: o.Nv TN... . 2.: n.3, 0.3 2.: mm N m "N «.oN N5. N.N_ . o5 Na 98 5.3. co 2 N m. N.k k.N¢ N.a¢ . NJ 92 mi” 83. No a N o.N 92 2.3 n.2, 11...! .1. .1. .. osmium up .95 dean .QEH Aug Eu oz 333 ofiom 58> ww mom whv hon aw mom mv hon wv hon was won .338: Z 41:: «no «:m 41:: 4:03 «an @3050 . quHn—oua Bus 0» ~330qu doucocuovcsw mo cofldoflmmm on“. 3 Emflmuun and: 8 323a 3:500 .0302“ .350 o» mcflflou 3 23¢ was 6352093 .308 uaoagov Homoon .3“ 03265 .3953 036 was $303.30 .3533 xsomu 0» 333m @0323— 3.593 ogocooo can HomoOn @9522“: ham 3qu ovgoum . 20$. bungee—om .No .ommflcofiou 4.303 630.5 cacao 3 35: non» 1.5m .NoH vcsoumxoon ovgoum .non m 3 Spoofing.» >300qu messages» can adv—n mg 13.93 Hdsoflouocr ongoum |Iv I ill I :30 unofiwuom vouflom wnwuoofiwcosoz 3 «gnaw was neon—wool vauflom mawuoocwmuw 3 383< 93 3.5138 mo scuwudeoUnEMuwoum mawuooflmaw no 3 mg .v 3an Snow mo 393.89»: 05 «son< 38330 3834 73 «now—«mom vuuflom mawuoofiwamcoz 5 3893‘ .. m @9020 233.30% 03.30% mamuounwmam 3 389.34 .. < @5020 .33 m0 933 can 60.3» 2. N N.N NNN N.N¢ v.2 Nv m -30 .3383sz 323$. «.2 N .NN o . 3 93 SN 4 No $8295 .3 33332... .NN 4 03.3305” mo 233.3%: NNJ N o .o o .o N .NN N .3 Nv m E; 238 .8883 .oNNou N .N N .N NNN N .S NoN 4 Nfixfifi N832”. 3:53 a: N 3. N _.N N . N N .NN N .NN Nv m NENEEN 339:8» £3 N .N N .NN o .8 N .2 SN 4 x83 8N Nfioumxofi 03>on .3 N. N .NN N .2 N .NN “.NN NN m $3853 28 8.83m N333 N N .N N .NN N .NN N .NN SN 4 -29? can N33323:: .N NN . N 1N N .NN N .NN N .NN Nw m .3863: can £8238 N.N N .NN is «A: NON 4 £3238: 33¢ €3.33 .N .g3 03 £033 5 cofimumnmwuo Hagen as» no unvaaofiflruv no 2 .N N N.N N.NN TNN N .NN NN m NESNENS No 8333 2: N .N N .NN N .NN. 1NN SN 4 No $633523 an @2235 .N “ 09AM.) ok. ok. ok ok. 235m 3. dz: .mg .95 .QEH .3352 macho :30 20 oz 3th Snow is, .v.adoU mg 3v 33MB 74 Is. .uEufi—Opm Bad 3 noamwugum 3308253 mo Nm ._ N m . H 4 N .o ".NN N2 9 333:8.” 2: 3 3395.. ed o. 12 «.NN v: u in: 3 35% @333 .N .uamoom .350 cu mnflfluu am we 4 m o .m 0;: m .mw 5 .mm 8” Q 33¢ can 60.32093 .308 NJ. N .2 9N“. N .NN N: u -ngov 38.. .5 «3.65 .N £32,300me 3 .v N N .N N .3 53. N .NN N2 a can $3328 .3330 N.N N5 N.3. 5.2. N: 0 x89. 3 35% @2025 .N NN .N N N .N o .NN N .3. o .2 z: a .353» 3:283 can 38.. N.N «EN 0 .NN o .2 N: u Egan; .8“ :33 03>on .N .23“ 3.3.3:: .No .owfiunofiun Juno: NN .N N o.o N N NNN .NN... z: a -333 8:8 E .33. .34. N. A; N .NN N .NN NS 0 3:3 SN 252303 8?on .N .nom. a 3 «3.3.2.5.» >300qu om .N N N .N N .3 N .3. N .NN N2 0 3:93:03 was was: N3 N .N o g: o .NN N .3. N: u -38.: 33383 ossopm ._ 83> N. g. a. N. up 35m 3 . QEH . an; . mag . QEH .N 038.92 macho 130 30 oz 333 Show .3; wonmooa voum5v~u0 who? on? «9954 van «Volga woumsvmunv who? 0&3 “5554 new 33330 mo camwumanUuEmhwokm mcwuuocwmcm an 3 A: .w 33MB «Hmou mo 0053.835 05 3094. 333me .3834 75 3:32 3.33 - n 320 3652 3.32 .. o 96.6 .32 no 933 was 60.3» N . m .o m .3 _ .2. N .NN z: a -30 .3an333 «533.. o N.» m .«m N .8. m .2 v: o No «3533» 5 $3233 .NN .Aowvodfiofl mo anew—«$8.3 NN. c4 m.m mNN «.3 Na“ a can 283 .8583 Ema: N . .2. o .mN o .3 v: 0 329.3» Route 9:35 .2 86 «J N .NN N .3 N. .2 SN a $80303 183380 £3 N .2 ATNN N i. N .NN v: u .263 you 3:8»on «3.65 .2 E. 3 at: N .N... N .wN NE a $33303 98 353a mauflu ea c .NN «.3 «.mN m: u -23» 25 335:3ch .a MN.N mam o .NN N .3 a .3 S_ Q $3333.. van .a 3338 o.N nfimN N .Nm 0 .2 N: 0 33338 33a 33.33 .N . 03H 03 £0.33 3 noflduwnmmuo HMUOn 05 mo 308902506 no N .m 3. N .NN m .5. N.NN :: n 3233?”. No 853MB." 2: N .w o .NN N .N... N .NN m: o No 36:323.? an @2269 .N 33> g. a.» g. e. 935$ .95 .95 .QEH .QEH nongz macho 300 Bu 02 333 «Sam 28,. .9300 on J. OBMH. 76 Opinions About the Influence of Undggraduate Program in Helping Attain Goals. Table 4.17 shows the nature of the opinions of the alumni concerning the influence of their undergraduate program in helping them attain the goals stated in the questionnaire. Ratings are given as a fre- quency distribution expressed in percentages for all respondents. Over half of the respondents felt that their program was of "Some Influence" or "Much Influence" in helping them attain the following goals: (1) Pro- vide background for further study in some professional, scientific, or scholarly field (83. 8%), (2) Provide bases for improved social and economic status (68. 5%), (3) Develop ability to think straight in the application of fundamental principles to new problems (88.4%), (4) Understanding and appreciating science and technology (65. 2%), and (5) Develop critical thinking (logic, inference, nature and limita- tions of knowledge) (76%). The program was rated by over 30% of the alumni as being of "No Influence" in helping them attain three goals: (1) Develop ability to speak clearly, correctly, and effectively (31.1%), (2) Develop an understanding of the influence of engineering on development of the social organization in which we live (32. 1%), and (3) Provide back- ground for work with ecological problems (59%). A comparison of opinions for: (l) respondents in engineering related positions and (Z) respondents in nonengineering related positions concerning the influence of their undergraduate program in engineering in helping them attain each goal is given in Table 4. 18. Significant Table 4. l 7 77 Alumni Opinions About Influence of Program in Helping Attain Goal - Frequency Distribution for Total Respondents Goal Number Much Inf . % Some Inf . % Little Inf . % No Inf. % Provide vocational train- ing skills and techniques directly applicable to a job. Provide background for further study in some pro- fessional, scientific, or scholarly field. Provide bases for improved? social and economic status. Develop ability to speak clearly, correctly, and effectively. Provide for social devel- opment, experience, and skill in relating to other people. Develop ability to think straight in the application of fundamental principles to new problems. Develop an understanding of the influence of engineer-J ing on development of the social organization in which we live. Learning about materials, machines, and structures Understanding and appre- ciating science and technology. 348 352 352 354 352 353 352 348 350 17.2 42. 0 29. 0 5.4 4.8 39.1 2.0 16.3 39. 1 41.8 39. 5 18.4 23. 9 49. 3 16. 5 39. 9 48. 9 35.3 12.8 23.9 45.2 49.7 9.6 49.4 43.1 28.6 8.3 3.4 7.7 31.2 21.6 2.0 32.1 10.6 78 Table 4. l7 Cont'd. Much Some Little No Goal Inf. Inf. Inf. Inf. '70 '70 ‘70 :L L = 10. Provide background for . 8 8. 5 31 . 6 59. 0 work with ecological problems. 11. Develop critical think- 31.4 44. 6 l9. 2 4.8 ing (logic, inference, nature and limitations of knowledge). 12. Developing an aware- 353 6. 5 29. 5 36. 0 28. 0 ness of different philosOphies, cultures, and ways of life. 79 . 3:030 .5 Ban 0». Nuaawuawua afluofiavgu mo 1.. N N .N N .2 N .NN N .NN 3. m 83822.. on. 2 332: o .N v .N N .NN. 2.2. N2 < .35 3 3:3» 8:53 .N .onooa .350 o» msflauou 3 Z. N tNN N .N... N .NN o .N Nu. m :3. Na... .8828... .238 N ._N N .2. N .NN N .m mo... 4 -8238 38. .SN 3?on .m 63933030 NN.N N «.2. «.2. o .2 H .N N... m New $53.28 5.330 N.NN N .N... 22 N .m Nom 4 .38. 3 Name. 8325 .2. mafia N .2. .1: “.NN N .3 N .NN 2. m 3888.. can 302. N963 N N ”N w .NN N .2. N .NN No... 4 -82 .SN :23 03>on .N .303 bands—on .No .333 30 u Juno: n 30 an no .N N Nuw @ A: 9 .cm v 5m 3‘ m oEOn ca .353 pudenda N.N 2 .2 m .2. N .NN. Nom .4. SN 393303 «3.65 .N .non a 3 cannofimmn 330qu 2 .m N2 N .3. N .NN N .N 3. m 33383 N3 52. N3 N N .N w .3 N .NN m .2 No... 4 -32. 228339, 8?on .2 flue—Mk? o§ om. o\o om. 28% 2. .3 .NS .NS .3 Non—852 .395 280 30 oz 235 Show Nun: uaoflwnom won—30m unapoonwmawuaoz a“ 38.34 and anon—Moon neufiom wnwuoonmwnm— 5 «5:34 new 33:30 mo acnwudmfiou .. .300 333... 9336mm .5 Edumounm mo 023.92 3034 23.3.30 “€34 w H :v canon. 80 .2252 222 . um 332N2nm2m - i. Naoflwuom 602.30% wnmuoucwmcuaoz 22“ 32222224 I m 95.20 adamumnom “23.30% mcauovfimnm cm M52332. .. < 9.2020 .03." no 933 can £2330 2. . N2 N.NN N. .NN N .2N 2 .N N3 N2 3222222222222 23322. No .2. N N .NN N .NN N .NN N .N 8N 4 2.3855 5 3222335 .N2 403.3305— mo nuofldugfl can NN .N N N .2 2 .2 N .3 N .2N N2. N2 983: .8833. .332. N .N N .N2 22 .3 N .NN SN 4 32.252: 23323 322:5 .2 2 3.2 N .N 2 N .NN N .2N 2 .N o .22 N2. N2 2.82222N 282328» 2:23 «.NN N .NN 2. .N o .2 SN 4 v2.83 .28 2.583on «2.2.»on .2 mm .2 N .N N .2N 2. .3 2 .N2 N2. N2 3282203 2.3 8523 32320 N N .N 2 .NN N .2. N .N2 NNN 4 -2223 2.28 32253232222 .N NN .2 N N .32 N .NN 2. .3 2. .N N2. N2 698822.23 2.23 682.238 o.2 N .3 N .NN N .N SN 4 623.238: 2263 32:33 .N 65.2 03 £333 22M :03 amnNammuo H32; 0:» mo «cog 232256 no 9222003920 NN .N N 2. .3 N .3 22 o .o N2. N2 No 3228232 222 No NE N .NN N .3 2. .N2 N .N N2 4 $32,232:. 5 329622 .N 05Hfl> c§ Ag 2g 05 38% N2. .32 2:2 4:2 2.2 3.282272 2226.20 230 226 oz 332.2 38m 22322 63280 N 2 .2. .1223.2. 81 differences at the . 01 level were found in comparing the ratings of two goals: (1) Provide background for work with ecological problems, and (2) Developing an awareness of different philosophies, cultures, and ways of life. In both cases, alumni in engineering related positions felt that their undergraduate program in engineering was more influential in helping them attain these goals than did almnni in nonengineering positions. Table 4.19 shows the comparison of opinions for: (1) re spon- dents who were graduated 1961-64 and (2) respondents who were graduated 1965-68 concerning the influence of their program in help- ing them attain the goals. Significant differences at the . 05 level were found in comparing the rating of four goals: (1) Provide back- ground for further study in some professional, scientific, or scholarly field, (2) Understanding and appreciating science and technology, (3) Provide background for work with ecological problems, and (4) Developing an awareness of different philosophies, cultures and ways of life. In all four cases, alumni who were graduated 1965-.68 felt that their undergraduate program was more influential in helping them attain each goal than did alumni who were graduated 1961-64. 82 68030.5 Bun 3 noflmmonmnm 3.38353 no N o .a N N .H o. N .Nm N .2 2: a consensus 2: 5 332: a .N v .2 N .3 m .3. .N2 0 was: 3 35% @2269 .o .onoum .350 o» mafiauou 3 mN .N m p .2 m .3 o .NN Tm N: a as: can 6838?”. .808 AYNN 13 N. .8 as. «S o -8326 38. .SN «3.6.5 .m 53:33» mo 4. N o .3 N .N« o .2 a .m 2: a van $308.80 .3539 o .5 N .3. N .2 o .o v: 0 x89. 8 323a @3960 .w ma .0 N o .m N .NN N .2 o .NN 2: a £33» usages» can 38. m .2 N .2 N .3 1S NS 0 3338a you :23 332m .N .303 3.33:2. .3 6.33300 Announcemoum *mm .o N N .N o .a N .3. a .3. N: o 088 3 :5: 35.5. 3. N. .2 a .3 N .3 v2 0 8N 3:8».qu «33E .N .nofi m on 0.3.3393 3900.5“. NN .n. N o .m N .mm N .3 o .fl 3; a 2254.853 c5 52. NE a .N m .3 o .3 o .8 NS 0 -32» 38:82. ”.35on ._ 03.3,. as o» a». Q: osmium up . mg .wnH #5 dam .N 03852 9.6 no 300 Eu oz 333 «Sow €32 woamco~ vauodvduu on»? 0&3 “55:4 and #oumoom vuuodvouu one? on? .3534 saw 233me no cofiummfiou .. 300 333w wnwmaom 3 Eoumounw. mo mung—Gun 32:. 38330 3834 o H JV 0.3.»? 83 .253 mo . NNN Nnmogawwm u N. N553. NNNNNN .. a .380 N55? NNNNNN .. u 96.6 .32 m0 933 and £0.25 NNN .N o .NN N .NN N .NN N .N NNN a .N3 .3383sz Bahama. N .NN N .NN N .NN N .N NNN o No 22833 5.. NaNNNoNoSNN .NN .3wv339i mo udOfldfiEfl can NN .N N .N N .NN o .NN N .NN NNN n 338 .8533 .33: N.NN N .N N .NN N .NN N .NN NNN u 533» N858 N29sz .NN .. £80395 *No .N N .NN N .NN o .2 N .N NNN NN NaoNNoNouu NNNNB ”N83 N .NN N .NN N .N N. NNN 0 SN 353933 3?on .NN Swadonnug *NN .NN N .N N .NN N .NN N .NN NNN a N.NN 9532 N330 N .N N .NN N .NN N .NN NNN u -923» N.NNN NnNNnaNZoNENN .N NNN N .S N .NN N.NN N .N NNN Q .3363: N.NN.W 68338 N .NN o .NN N .NN N .N NNN u .NNNNNSNE Sons 9:534 .N £53 03 £033 NNN flotsamadmuo Nuance on“. mo unofimoHo>ov no m3 NN .N N .NN N .NN N .NN N .N NNN a $83?» No 8533 2: No N .NN N .NN N .NN N .N NNN u NNNNENNNNNES an aoNo>onN .N 05fid> °§ °§ O§ 05 0.33% . m5 . m5 . v.5 .NN: nun—8.92 macho 130 30 oz «:3 oEom nus: 6:80 NN .N NBS. 84 Part IV - Responses to Discussion Questions. In this part of the questionnaire, alumni we re asked to indicate the 'Most Bene- ficial" and "Least Beneficial" subject areas which they had at Michigan State University and then give reasons for their choices. The final question allowed alumni to provide additional comments . Alumni OJinions About Most Beneficial Subject Area. Alumni responses concerning the "Most Beneficial" subject area they had at Michigan State are reported in Table 4. 20. Subject areas reported are those which were cited by 10 or more alumni. Four subject areas were cited by 30 or more alumni: (1) Math (85 responses), (2) Systems and Control (56 responses), (3) Electronics (50 responses), and (4) Computers (30 responses). Selected reasons for listing subject areas as being "Most Beneficial" are given in Appendix C. Alumni Opinions About Least Beneficial SubJ'Lect Area. Responses of alumni in indicating the "Least Beneficial" subject area they had at Michigan State are shown in Table 4. 21. Subject areas cited by ten or more alumni are listed. Two subject areas were listed by more than 30 alumni: (1) University College Courses (90 responses), and (Z) Electromagnetics (54 responses). Selected reasons for listing subject areas as being "Least Beneficial" are given in Appendix D. Additional Comments. Among the many comments made by alumni, the comments given in Appendix E seemed to be most pertinent to this study. 85 r: m“ z ”N on on em mm Ryan. 1 III! lllll . llllllll J llllJ llllllll l llllll L llllll Illlllll w v u m o v N. 2 mos u w m m o N o“ m peg N N a .. o a 3 o be: .. H m m Z m m NZ mo: Z n N Z Z N. v m a .32 u _ Z n N m 0H w No: m .. m m m w o m No2 w m N m m 3 m w“ 3: Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z a.“ «HMO QWWHHWWMMB n owfiwhwcsm «393m n nousanU «030.5005! 3“”an 5.32 m 330 . cadmium Homoom nEOunkm aoa< 3039M Howufloaom :02 300.4 33330 «agga 0N . my 3an 86 o H H H NH NH N H #m cm. H309 uuuuuuu runuuntuuuunlnnuununa:uuuuuu4unununsuuuuun4unuun w. N .. m H H wH wooH N N .. m w m mH new H N H N u n o H o H coo H H H H H u m 0H moaH .. H N H H o m vcoH H a N N H m m mooH u w m H H a HH NoaH u n N H H. o m H HooH, Z Z Z Z Z Z Z nuisance: HOMMU nngmgv 234 @930 .30 OH“ uoHuoame “MMMMMV nunHU nEOuu>m uOEnofiH. wuHuooanamH -930on suHuuanD o0u< «confinm HmHononom unwed 3034 333.30 3853‘ HN .w oHan 87 Summary The exploratory nature of this study resulted in the gather- ing of considerable data related to alumni opinions about their undergraduate program. Although most of this information should be of use to those responsible for programs in engineering, certain of the responses may be of greatest significance. The demographic data revealed that of the 363 alumni who participated in the study, 312 are employed in engineering related positions as compared with 51 employed in nonenginee ring related positions. One hundred seventy-six of the respondents were graduated 1961-64, and 187 were graduated 1965-68. In rating the importance of including nontechnical subjects in the engineering program, four subjects were rated by more than half of the respondents as being "Very Important" or a "Must Require- ment": English Composition, Business/Management, Speech, and Economics. Foreign Language and Fine Arts were rated by over half of the respondents as being of "Little or No Importance. " Six technical subjects were rated by over half of the respondents as being "Very Important" or a "Must Requirement": One year of Physics, Computer Courses, Engineering Labs, Probability and Statistics, Math beyond Differential Equations, and one year of Chemistry. Chemistry beyond one year and Biological Science were rated by over a quarter of the respondents as being of "Little or No Importance . " 88 Respondents felt that over one-fifth (21. 3%) of the program should be devoted to EE-Theory, with 18. 4% devoted to EE -Appli- cations, and 17.1% devoted to Mathematics. In the electrical engi- neering subject matter, alumni felt that 13. 7% of the program should be devoted to Electronics Circuits, 12. 2% to Systems and Control Theory, and 11. 4% to Solid State. Less than 10% of the program should be devoted to each of the other areas. Although all of the twelve goals of a program in engineering were rated by more than half of the respondents as being "Very Important" or of "Some Importance, " two goals were rated by over half as being "Very Important": 1. Develop ability to think straight in the application of fundamental principles to new problems. 2. Develop critical thinking (logic, inference, nature and limitations of knowledge). Over three -quarters of the respondents felt that their under- graduate program was of "Much Influence" or "Some Influence" in helping them attain three goals: 1. Provide background for further study in some pro- fessional, scientific, or scholarly field. 2. Develop ability to think straight in the application of fundamental principles to new problems. 3. Develop critical thinking (logic, inference, nature and limitations of knowledge). Over 30% of the respondents felt that their program was of "No Influence" in helping them attain three goals: ' 89 1. Develop ability to speak clearly, correctly, and effectively. 2. Develop an understanding of the influence of engineer- ing on development of the social organization in which we live. 3. Provide background for work with ecological problems. Four subject areas were cited by 30 or more alumni as being the "Most Beneficial" areas they had at Michigan State Univer- sity: Math (85), Systems and Control (56), Electronics (50), and Computers (30). Two were cited by 30 or more alumni as being "Least Beneficial”: University College Courses (90) and Electro- magnetics (54). In general, respondents in nonengineering positions and respondents in engineering positions held similar opinions about most of the items in the survey instrument. Null Hypothesis 1, which stated that there is no relationship between nature of occupation and alumni Opinions, was rejected only in five cases: (1) Nonengineers rated Business/Management as being more important than did engineers - . 05 level of signif- icance. (Z) Nonengineers rated Foreign Language as being more important than did engineers - . 01 level of significance. (3) Nonengineers rated Engineering Labs as being more important than did engineers - . 05 level of significance. (4) Engineers felt that their program was of greater in- fluence, than did the nonengineer s, in helping them to attain the goal of "Providing background for work with ecological problems. " - . 01 level of significance. (5) 9O Engineers felt that their program was of greater influence, than did the nonengineers, in helping to attain the goal of "Developing an awareness of different philosophies, cultures, and ways of life. " - . 01 level of significance. Null Hypothesis II, which stated that there is no relation- ship between alumni opinions and number of years since graduation, was rejected in five cases: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Alumni who were graduated 1961-64 rated Speech as being more important than did 1965-68 alumni - . 01 level of significance . Alumni who were graduated 1965-68 felt that their program was of greater influence, than did 1961-64 alumni, in "Providing background for further study in some professional, scientific, or scholarly field - . 05 level of significance. Alumni who were graduated 1965-68 felt that their program was of greater influence, than did 1961-64 alumni, in "Understanding and appreciating science and technology" - . 05 level of significance. Alumni who were graduated 1965-68 felt that their program was of greater influence, than did 1961-64 alumni, in "Providing background for work with eco- logical problems" - . 05 level of significance. Alumni who were graduated 1965-68 felt that their program was of greater influence, than did 1961-64 alumni, in "Developing an awareness of different philosophies, cultures, and ways of life" - . 05 level of significance . CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Introduction The study is summarized by a review of the nature of the problem, the objectives of the study, the description of the population participating in the study, and the procedures followed in the survey of that population. The design of the survey instrument is discussed, followed by a summary of the results. Finally, conclusions are drawn and suggestions are made for additional research which relates to the problem. Sununary Problem and Objectives. It is evident that engineering pro- grams in institutions of higher education are in need of critical exami- nation and evaluation. This need is demonstrated by reasons such as the enrollment in engineering programs remaining constant or decreas- ing as enrollments in other majors are increasing, the loss of many students who transfer from engineering and are not replaced by students transferring from other majors, the decrease in the number of job opportunities for engineers, and the negative attitudes which many 91 92 people have about engineering and technology. As a part of this evalua- tion and examination process, and as a necessary preliminary step to understanding why these phenomena are occurring, it is important to become aware of the opinions which graduates of a professional engi- neering program hold toward their undergraduate engineering program. The primary purpose of this study was to learn the nature of alumni opinions about their undergraduate program in engineering. The secondary purpose was to determine if there is a difference in Opinions based on the variables of nature of occupation and number of years since graduation. Three objectives served as a basis for this study: Objective I - To measure the nature and extent of the opinions which alumni hold toward their undergraduate program in engineering. Objective II - To determine if the variable of nature of occupation is related to opinions which alumni hold toward their undergraduate program in engineering. Objective III - To determine if the variable of number of years since graduation is related to opinions which alumni hold toward their under- graduate program in engineering. In achieving Objectives II and III, two null hypotheses were stated for analysis purposes only: Null Hypothesis I - No differences exist among alumni in engineering related positions and alumni in nonengineering related positions regard- ing the opinions which they hold toward an undergraduate program in engineering. Null Hypothesis II - No differences exist among alumni who graduated more recently and alumni who graduated less recently regarding the opinions which they hold toward an undergraduate program in engi- neering. 93 POpulation Partigating in Study. The study was limited in scope to the 668 alumni who were graduated from Michigan State University from 1961 through 1968 with a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering. Opinions of the alumni were solicited by means of a mailed questionnaire. Responses were tabulated and analyzed after an initial mailing and one follow-up mailing. Of the 598 alumni m assumed to have received the questionnaire, 363 or 60.7% returned a partially or completely answered questionnaire. Of the total 668 alumni, 54. 3% participated in the study by returning a partially or i completely answered questionnaire . De siggof the Survey Instrument. Resources used in de sign- ing the survey instrument consisted of: (l) the Purdue University Study (14), (2) the Pace Alumni Study (22), (3) faculty and admini- strators in the College of Engineering at Michigan State University, and (4) other studies pertinent to the problem. The principal resource was the questionnaire used in the Purdue University Study. The survey instrument consisted of four parts: (1) In Part I, respondents provided demographic data concerning date of graduation and nature of occupation; (Z) In Part 11, respondents rated the impor- tance of certain technical and nontechnical subjects in the undergraduate electrical engineering program, and they indicated the percentage of time which should be devoted to certain areas in the electrical engineering program and in the electrical engineering subject area; (3) In Part 94 III, respondents rated the importance of twelve goals of an engineer- ing program, and they rated the influence of their undergraduate program in helping them to attain each goal; and (4) In Part IV, respondents cited the ”Most Beneficial" and "Least Beneficial" courses they had at Michigan State University and gave reasons for their choices. Methods Used for Analyzing Data. In achieving the three objectives of the study, responses to the questionnaire were reported and analyzed by one or more of the following techniques: (I) tabula- tion of frequency distribution, (2) calculation of mean score, (3) rank- ordering of items, and (4) computing the value of the Chi Square test of significance. Chi Square values significant at the . 05 and . 01 level were noted. Most of the results were presented in table form to make them relatively easy to comprehend and interpret. Results. The following results may be of greatest importance to those who are responsible for undergraduate programs in engineer- ing: 1. Of the 363 who responded to the questionnaire, 312 or 85. 9% are employed in engineering related positions. For purposes of the study, those who are working in production/ Operation engi- neering, maintenance-engineering, design-engineering, research- engineering, sales and applications;engineering, engineering teaching, and technical management were considered to be in an engineering related position. Only 51 or 14. 1% of the respondents are employed 95 in nonengineering related positions. 2. In rating the importance of including certain nontechnical subjects in the undergraduate program, over half of the respondents felt that four subjects were"Very Important" or a "Must Requirement": English Composition, Speech, Business/ Management, and Economics. All other nontechnical courses listed in the questionnaire were rated by over half of the respondents as being of "Little or No Importance. " 3. In rating the importance of including certain technical subjects in the undergraduate program, six courses were rated by overhalf of the respondents as being "Very Important" or a "Must Requirement": One year of Physics, Computer Courses, Engineering Labs, Probability and Statistics, Math beyond Differential Equations, and One year of Chemistry. 4. Respondents felt that the greatest percentage of time in an undergraduate program in electrical engineering should be devoted to Electrical Engineering-lTheory (21 . 3%). Electrical Engineering- Applications and Mathematics were ranked second and third with mean percentages of 18.4% and 17. 1% respectively. Respondents felt that the least amount of time should be devoted to Biological Sciences (3%). 5. Respondents felt that the greatest percentage of time in electrical engineering should be devoted to Electronic Circuits (13.7%). Systems and Control Theory and Solid State were ranked second and third, with mean percentages of 12. 2% and 11. 4% respectively. Respondents felt that the least amount of time should be devoted to Communication Systems Applications (7. 2%). 6. 96 Two of the twelve goals listed in the questionnaire were rated by over half of the respondents as being "Very Important" goals in an engineering program: a. be 7. Develop ability to think straight in the application of fundamental principles to new problems. Deve10p critical thinking (logic, inference, nature and limitations of knowledge). Over three-quarters of the respondents felt that their undergraduate program was of "Much Influence" or "Some Influence" in helping them attain three goals: a. be 8. Provide background for further study in some pro- fessional, scientific, or scholarly field. Develop ability to think straight in the application of fundamental principles to new problems. Develop critical thinking (logic, inference, nature and limitations of knowledge). Over 30% of the respondents felt that their program was of "No Influence" in helping them attain three goals: a. b. C. 9. Develop ability to speak clearly, correctly, and effe ctively . Develop an understanding of the influence of engineering on development of the social organization in which we live. Provide background for work with ecological problems. Four subject areas were cited by 30 or more alumni as being the "Most Beneficial" they had at Michigan State University: Math (85), Systems and Control (56), Electronics (50), and Computers (30). 10. 97 Two subject areas were cited by 30 or more alumni as being the "Least Beneficial" they had at Michigan State University: University College Courses (90) and Electromagnetics (54). ll. Null Hypothesis 1, which stated that there is no rela- tionship between nature of occupation and alumni opinions, was rejected in five cases: a. 12. Nonengineers rated Business/Management as being more important than did engineers - . 05 level of significance . Nonengineers rated Foreign Language as being more important than did engineers - . 01 level of significance. Nonengineers rated Engineering Labs as being more important than did engineers -. . 05 level of significance. Engineers felt that their program was of greater influence, than did the nonengineers, in helping them to attain the goal of "Developing an awareness of different philosophies, cultures, and ways of life. " - . 01 level of significance. Null Hypothesis II, which stated that there is no relationship between number of years since graduation and alumni opinions, was rejected in five cases: 3.. Alumni who were graduated 1961-64 rated Speech as being more important than did 1965-68 alumni - . 01 level of significance. Alumni who were graduated 1965-68 felt that their program was of greater influence, than did 1961-64 alumni, in "Providing background for further study in some professional, scientific, or scholarly field" - . 05 level of significance. 98 c. Alumni who were graduated 1965-68 felt that their pro- gram was of greater influence, than did 1961-64' alumni, in "Understanding and appreciating science and technology" - . 05 level of significance. d. Alumni who were graduated 1965-68 felt that their program was of greater influence, than did 1961-64 alumni, in "Providing background for work with ecological problems" - . 05 level of significance . e. Alumni who were graduated 1965-68 felt that their program was of greater influence, than did 1961-64 alumni, in "Developing an awareness of different philosophies, cultures, and ways of life" - . 05 level of significance. Conclusions and Re commendations It is common practice to interpret results of a study in a manner to confirm or support beliefs held prior to learning the results. There is no reason to believe that the results of this study will be interpreted any differently. There are several patterns of responses, however, which should leave little to the reader's interpretation and imagination. It is these response patterns which may be of significance to those who are involved with the education of engineers. It is clearly demonstrated that alumni who participated in this study feel that subjects which stress communication skills should be included in the undergraduate engineering program. Over half of the respondents rated English Composition and Speech as being "Very Important" or a "Must Requirement" in the engineering program. In addition, over 80% of the respondents rated the goal of "Develop ability to speak clearly, correctly, and effectively" as being "Very Important" or of "Some Importance" in an engineering program. These findings 99 are similar to findings in the Purdue Study (14) and support Wickenden's statement that "an adequate mastery of written and spoken English is essential to an undergraduate program in engineering. " (34: 1067) One approach to meeting this need is to encourage engineer- ing students to enroll in subjects which are devoted to learning how to communicate. These subjects could be chosen as electives in the undergraduate program. Another approach is to include exercises in communication, both verbal and written, in the electrical engineer- ing courses. Report writing and oral presentations could be an integral part of the program. This latter approach may be difficult to implement, but it may have more merit than that of taking courses as separate units which are not related to a student's major area of interest. Another need expressed by alumni is the importance of including business subjects in the undergraduate engineering program. Over half of the respondents felt that management and economics are subject areas which should be a part of the program. On the basis of this response pattern, if appropriate business courses are available to engineering students, they should be designated as possible elective choices. Responses of the alumni also provide sufficient evidence to suggest that a critical review of the purpose and content of the courses offered by the University College is in order. Ninety alumni cited one or more courses in the University College as being the "Least Bene- ficial" subject area they had as undergraduates. Alumni felt that 100 courses in the humanities-social studies area should be included in the program, but there is considerable doubt raised concerning the quality of the University College courses which are taught in this area. Many respondents would agree with Hammond's recommenda- tion that engineering must "extend more deeply into the social sciences and humanities as well as the physical sciences" (9: 563). The question a which remains is whether the University College courses are adequately meeting this need. .1 to- .‘A Aux: The most significant finding in the study may be the emphasis L—J which alumni place on the importance of including cour ses in the pro- gram which enable students to think logically and critically. Respondents felt that the greatest percentage of time in the program should be devoted to mathematics and electrical engineering theory, both of which require thinking and conceptualizing in logical terms. Mathematics was rated by 85 alumni as being the "Most Beneficial" subject area they had at Michigan State. In addition, the two goals of: (1) Develop ability to think straight in the application of fundamental principles to new problems, and (2) Develop critical thinking (logic, inference, nature and limitations of knowledge), were rated by over 75% of the respondents as being "Very Important" goals of an engineering program. Both goals suggest a method of solving problems in a logical manner. Wickenden said that "The genius of engineering lies in a method rather than any one group of specific techniques" (33: 1967). From the data provided by alumni and from recommendations of leading educators 101 in engineering, a quality engineering program might be defined as one which effectively teaches a student how to attack and solve problems. Therefore, subjects or subject areas which stress fundamentals and logical and critical thinking constitute the heart of the undergraduate engineering program. Recommendations for Additional Research 1. This study dealt with alumni who have successfully com- pleted an undergraduate program in electrical engineering. These alumni do not represent all of those who were in the electrical engineer- ing program from 1961 through 1968. To obtain a more meaningful evaluation of the program, all students who were in the program during these years should be involved in a comparable study. This study would include those who transferred to other majors, those who left Michigan State, and those who completed the program. How do those who trans- ferred to other majors view their electrical engineering program? What do the "drop-outs" rate as being important courses in the program? Answers to these questions must be learned by engineering educators. 2. As suggested in Chapter I, an evaluation of an engineer- ing program should include a survey of opinions of alumni, faculty, current students, and those in industry. If change is to occur in the program, it is important to be aware of conflicting opinions and recom- mendations of these groups. As in the Purdue Study (14), it would be useful to learn how students, faculty, and those in industry might respond to a questionnaire similar to the one used in this study. 102 3. Numerous researchers have attempted to study the relationship between a person's success in life and variables asso- ciated with his undergraduate program. The obvious difficulty in this research effort is defining "success. " Assuming that "success" could be defined, there would be considerable merit to studying the relation- ship between "success" and opinions about the undergraduate engineer- ing program. 4. Useful data would be obtained by replicating this study in another five or ten years with the same population responding to the questionnaire. As conditions change in the world, alumni may have different views about their undergraduate program. If the program is designed to provide fundamentals for a lifetime, alumni should be involved in an evaluation effort during their entire lifetime. BIBLIOGRAPHY Case, H. W., LeBold, W. K., Diemer, W. D., "A Comparative BIBLIOGRAPHY Burdell, E. S. , "General Education in Engineering, " Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 46, no. 8, April 1956, “1 pp. 619-750. Study of University of California Engineering Graduates From Berkeley and Los Angeles, " Department of Engineer- ing, University of California, Los Angeles, EDP Report No. 4-67, September 1967. Downie, N. M., Heath, R. W., Basic Statistical Methods, New York: Harper and Row, 1959. Edwards, A. L., Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences, New York: Rinehart and Company, Inc., 1956. "Engineering Education in Michigan - A Provisional Report, " Michigan Department of Education, Bureau of Higher Education, May 1970. "Engineering Manpower Commission Report on Supply, Demand, and Utilization of Scientists and Engineers, " Engineering Manpower Commission of Engineers Joint Council, April 1970. "Final Report: Goals of Engineering Education, " Journal of EngineerinLEducation, vol. 58, no. 5, January 1968, pp. 373-446. Grinter, L. E. , "Report on Evaluation of Engineering Education (1952-55)," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 46, no. 1, September 1955, pp. 25-63. Hammond, H. P., "Report of Committee on Aims and Scope of Engineering, " Journal of EggineeriniEducation, vol. 30, no. 7, March 1940, pp. 555-566. 103 10. 11. 12. l3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 104 Hammond, H. P., "Report of Committee on Engineering Edu- cation After the War, " Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 34, no. 9, May 1944, pp. 589-614. Hoyt, D. R. , "The Relationship Between College Grades and Adult Achievement - A Review of the Literature, " ACT Research Reports, September 1965, no. 5. Kerlinger, F. N., Foundations of Behavioral Research, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1967. LeBold, W. K., Perrucci, R., Howland, W. E., "The Engineer in Industry and Government, " Journal of EngineerinLEducation, vol. 56, no. 7, March 1966, pp. 237-273. LeBold, W. K., Thoma, E. C., Gillis, J. W. Hawkins, G. A., "A Study of the Purdue University Engineering Graduate," Engineering Bulletin of Purdue University, vol. 44, no. 1, January 1960. "Liberal Learning for the Engineer, " Journal of En 'neerin Education, vol. 59, no. 3, November 1968, pp. 303-342. "Making Tomorrow Happen, The Education and the Role of the New Generation of Engineers, " Engineers' Public Information Council in cooperation with the Public Relations Committee, American Society for Engineering Education, 1970. Mann, C. R. , "Report of the Joint Committee on Engineering Education, " Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 9, no. 1, September 1918, pp. 16-32. Mason, R. D., "The College of Business Administration Alumni Study, " The University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, 1964. Michigan State University Catalog - 1970, Michigan State Univer- sity Publication, vol. 64, no. 6. Montgomery, D. J., Abstract for a seminar, "Engineering Education and Academic Appalachia ?, " Department of Metallurgy. Mechanics, and Materials Science, Michigan State University, November 1968. Newcomb, T. M., Feldman, K. A., The Impact of College On Students, San Francisco: Jossey - Bass Inc., 1969. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 105 Pace, C. R. , "An Inquiry on the Activities, Opinions and Experiences of College Graduates, " Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1969. PR for Engineers, American Society for Engineering Education, no. 29, Winter, 1971. ”Report From the Visitation Committee, " College of Engineering Alumni Association, Michigan State University, May 1969. Ryder, J. D., "Electrical Engineering Knows Where It Is Going, " IEEE Transactions on Education, vol. E-8, no. 2 and 3, June-September 1965, pp. 25-29. Schweingruber, D. L. , "Report on Senior Evaluation - Spring 1970, " Department of Electrical Engineering and Systems Science, Michigan State University, 1970. Shingleton, J ., "Employment Outlook for 1971 College Graduates, " Placement Bureau Bulletin, Michigan State University, January 6, 1971. "Students Enrolled in Credit Programs, College of Engineering, " Office of the Registrar, Michigan State University, Fall 1970. Terman, F. E. , "Engineering Education in New York, " State Education Department, The University of the State of New York, 1969. Terman, F. E. , "A Study of Engineering Education in California, " Sacramento, Coordination Council for Higher Education, 1968. Thrane, W. J. , "A Piece of the Pie, " IEEE Student Journal, vol. 8, no. 2, March 1970, p. 3. White, Lynn Jr. , "Engineers and the Making of a New Humanism, " Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 57, no. 5, January 1967, pp. 375-376. Wickenden, W. E. , "Report of the Investigation of Engineering Education, 1923-29, " Pittsburgh, Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education, vol. 1, 1930. 106 34. Wickenden, W. E. , "Report of the Investigation of Engineering Education, 1923-29, " Pittsburgh, Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education, vol. 2, 1934. APPENDICES APPENDIX A ALUMNI QUESTIONNAIRE Date of graduation from MSU ALUMNI QUESTIONNAIRE Department of Electrical Engineering and Systems Science Michigan State University PART I Descriptive Information (1-3) Mnth Year What functional classification most adequately describes your present employment? (Circle only one) be College Graduate Study On-the - job Training Pro- gram Military Service Production/ Operation- Engineering Maintenance -E ngine e r ing De sign-Engineering Re search-Engineering h. i. Sales and Application- Engineering Engineering Teaching Technical Management Nontechnical Management Engineering other than listed Nonengineering other than listed Description of principal activities of your present position: 107 108 PART II Your Opinions About Courses In An Electrical Engineering Undergraduate Program 4. The subjects listed below are in the nontechnical area of instruc- tion. Mark for each subject your opinion about the importance of including it in the Electrical Engineering curriculum. Little A Must Very Moderately or no Subject Requirement Important Important Immrtance Speech English Composition English Literature Business/Management Economics Foreign Language Sociology Fine Arts History Philosophy Psychology Othe r Other (5-15) 109 5. The subjects listed below are in the technical area of instruction. Mark for each subject your opinion about the immrtance of in- cluding it in the undergraduate Electrical Engineering curriculum. ‘ Little A Must Very Moderately or no Subject Requirement Important Important Importance Probability and Statistics Math beyond diff. equations Engineering laboratories One year of chemistry Che mistry be yond one year One year of physics Physics beyond one year Biological Sciences Computer courses Engineering Sciences: Mechanics of solids Fluid mechanics Thermodynamics Properties of materials Heat and/ or mass and / or momentum transfer Othe r Other (16-29) 110 6. What percentage of time do you recommend be devoted to each area in the undergraduate Electrical Engineering curriculum ? (Total should approximate 100%. ) Area Humanities and Social Science Mathematics Physics and Chemi stry EE - Theory EE - Applications Biological Sciences Computers Business Te chnical Ele ctive s Othe r None 2°70 3°70 570 1070 1570 2070 2570 3070 (30-38) 111 7. What percentage of time do you recommend be devoted to each area in Electrical Engineering ? (Total should approximate 100%.) Area None 2% 3% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Systems and Control Theory Systems and Control Applications Computers Theory Compute r 8 Applications Solid State Electronics Circuits Communication Systems Theory Communication Sys- tems Applications Electromagnetics Theory Electromagnetic 3 Applications Othe r Othe r (39-48) 112 PART III The following items refer to goals of an undergraduate engineering program. Respond to these items in two ways. First, how important do you consider each goal to be in an engineering program ? Second, how influential has your undergraduate program in engineeripg been in helping you to attain this goal 7 Influence of Program in Helping You Attain Goal Impo rtance of Goal 10. ll. 12. l3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Very Important Some Importance Little Importance No Importance Provide vocational training skills and techniques directly applicable to a job. Provide a background for further study in some professional, scientific, or scholarly field. Provide bases for improved social and economic status. Develop ability to speak clearly, correctly, and effectively. Provide for social development, experience, and skill in relating to other people. Develop ability to think straight in the application of fundamental principles to new problems. Develop an understanding of the influence of engineering on development of the social organization in which we live. Learning about materials, machines, and structures. Understanding and appreciating science and technology. Provide background for work with ecological problems. Develop critical thinking (logic, inference, nature and limitations of knowledge. ) Developing an awareness of different philosophies, cultures, and ways of life. I Much influence I Some Influence ‘ ' Little Influence I No lnfl uence 113 PA RT IV Please respond to the following questions: 20. What was the most beneficial subject area you had at MSU? Why ? 21 . What was the least beneficial subject area you had at MSU? Why ? 22. Any additional comments: 114 (Optional) 23 . Name Last First Middle (Optional) 24. Home Address City State Zip Code We appreciate your time and interest in completing this questionnaire. If you would like a copy of this study upon completion, indicate below. I would like to receive a copy of this report. Yes No APPENDIX B LETTERS SENT TO ALUMNI 115 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ammo-wane»: 48823 COLLEGII Ol' liNGINI'II-ZRING DEPARTMENT OI’ ELECTRICAL HNGINliliRING AND SYSTEMS SCIIiNCli - ENGINEERING BUILDING January 11, 1971 Dear Alumnus: The Department of Electrical Engineering and Systems Science would like to benefit from your experiences since your graduation from Michigan State. We are continually examining and evaluating the under- graduate program in an effort to provide the best possible education for our students. A critical part of this evaluation process is learning how our alumni feel about their experiences as undergraduates in the Electri- cal Engineering program. This is where we need your help! As a part of my doctoral program and my work in the department, I am asking alumni of the department to respond to some key concerns of those responsible for the undergraduate program. The enclosed questionnaire has been designed to accomplish this objective. Would you please take a few minutes and respond to the items on the questionnaire ? It is not necessary to include your name with your responses if this is your wish. The questionnaire has been coded for follow-up purposes only; you can be assured that your answers will be held in strict confidence. Your participation in this study is appreciated by me and the department. In return for your help, please let us know if we can be of any assistance to you in any way. As indicated on the questionnaire, we will be happy to send you a report on this study upon completion. Since rely, Donald L. Schweingruber Assistant to the Dean Department of Electrical Engineering and Systems Science DLS: pdw Encl. 116 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ans-r LANSING - mane»: 48825 COILEGE OF ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING AND SYSTEMS SCIENCE - ENGINEERING BUILDING February 8, 1971 Dear Alumnus: Several weeks ago you were given the opportunity to complete a que stion- naire concerning your undergraduate program in electrical engineering. As of this date I have not received a response from you. In case you have forgotten, I have enclosed another questionnaire for you to answer and return. I strongly urge you to complete the questionnaire. It is important to me and to the Department to learn your feelings about your undergraduate pro- gram. Only by hearing from a significant number of alumni will the Depart- ment benefit from this evaluation effort. If for some reason you are not planning to respond by completing the question- naire, plea se check the appropriate blanks on the bottom of this letter and return this letter in the enclosed stamped envelope. My primary interest is having you return a completed questionnaire; if this is not possible, my secondary interest is learning your reasons for not completing the que stion- naire. Thank you for taking the time and effort needed to answer this request. Your opinions and the opinions of other alumni should have a major impact on the electrical engineering program. Sincerely, Donald L. Schweingruber, Assistant to the Dean Department of Electrical Engineering and Systems Science Please check if not completipg questionnaire I do not wish to complete the questionnaire Reason: Occupation: Engineering related Nonengineering related APPENDIX C COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY ALUMNI CONCERNING MOST BENEFICIAL SUBJECT AREA IN THEIR UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM (NOTE: Reproduced verbatim in this appendix are selected comments received in the space reserved for that purpose on the questionnaire. They are grouped in chronological order with the respondent's year of graduation noted in parentheses.) APPENDIX C COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY ALUMNI CONCERNING MOST BENEFICIAL SUBJECT AREA IN THEIR UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM Mathematics (listed by 85 alumni) It trained me in logical thinking, and taught me a universal language in any engineering or scientific discipline. ('61) All principles of engineering are described or related to a fundamental of math. ('61) The work I'm involved in required specific knowledge which I did not get at MSU but my general math and physics knowledge obtained at MSU enabled me to get by. ('61) I believe it, more than any others, helps to develop a logical mind and thinking logically is most useful in any of the diverse fields an EE may end up in. ('61) Formed a firm theoretical foundation upon which I continue to build. Without such a foundation specific knowledge in a particular area is worthless. ('62) It provided the basis for graduate study in EE, and is the foundation for almost all undergraduate, graduate studies, and new application in any technical field. ('63) 117 118 Provides almost the entire spectrum of essential knowledge needed to functionally apply engineering theory. ('64) Because it is a "Systematic Thinking" teacher. It allows your brain to go into high gear. ('64) Helped develop discipline and methods to logically attack new problems. ('65) It provided the tools and means for understanding all the re st of the technical subjects. ('65) The role of an engineer in industry today is that of a problem solver. Without the "scientific method" type approach and a mathe- matical background the problem solver role would be impossible to play. ('66) It is the one area of learning most used after graduation and disciplines the mind in the important area of problem solving. ('66) The techniques can be applied to all areas of science. Mathe- matics is also widely utilized in nonscientific fields. It is an especially important tool for any engineering or science major. ('68) Basic to all engineering problem solving. Stress should be placed, however, on practical and applied mathematics as opposed to courses taught on too high a mathematical theory level. ('68) Systems and Control (listed by 56 alumni) Broadest degree of application to engineering, no matter the particular speciality. ('61) Provided fundamental basis of under standing the interrelation- ships of all elements to problems, situations, both technical, operations, and humanistic. ('61) 119 Only because it gives one a wide background in engineering and its applications. ('63) The approach was very general and applicable to many types of problems in outwardly unrelated fields. The subject area and approach helped me considerably in my graduate career. ('63) The material presented taught me to see the common charac- teristics in diverse physical entities, i. e. , (electrical, mechanical, hydraulics. ) The courses clearly demonstrated the way to analyze the interaction of these diverse elements in a system. Most of my work has involved the use of "the patterns of thinking" developed in these courses. ('64) These courses provide the background and knowledge to face any problem with a logical mind. They provide problem solving abilities with an overall view of the system to be controlled. ('67) I felt they developed my thinking process and problem solving ability much more tha any area I was exposed to. ('68) I was able to follow lectures and am now applying this know- ledge on the job. ('68) Electronics (listed by 50 alumni) This is the particular field in which I'm working. ('61) This was the most applicable to my employment and covered some of the mate rial with which people expect an electrical engineer to be familiar. . ('63) 120 It was the area that I could apply to my work in an electrical utility. ('66) It has provided a basis for understanding present and future technology in the electronics field. Although not the most interesting area of study, it has proven to be the most useful. ('68) Computers (listed by 30 alumni) Most direct applications of any course no matter what job I've had. ('61) When one goes into industry the employer wants to know how you can help him not how much you know. ('62) It helped me to decide on a career in data processing, which I believe to be a much broader and more interesting career than electrical engineering. ('64) My work has been in this area for the most part and the computer courses have contributed the most. ('66) Has allowed me to tackle my job with fair degree of expertise. ('67) Very important tool which is needed today and in the future. ('68) 121 This is the only specific area where I have been able to apply what was taught in the classroom directly in industry. All of the other areas of study, especially in engineering, provided mental training and discipline. Which is really the most important thing I "learned" as an undergraduate. ('68) Physics (listed by 21 alumni) These we re fundamental courses which provided insight into various fields of engineering and provided a basis for understanding a broad range of real problems encountered in my career. ('61) An understanding of fundamental principles, and their appli- cations as well as limitations, has allowed much more flexibility in technical endeavors. ('62) It has had the most wide spread application both on and off my job. ('65) Because the principles learned in Physics are more easily and directly applied to the problems arising in my job and life. Other subjects provided too much detail in too limited a scope. ( '67) Has provided a broad base for under standing new and pre- viously unstudied topics. ('68) Social Science and Humanities (listed by 17 alumni) I was forced to take courses, which I may not have selected myself, that have been extremely valuable to me in relating to the world beyond the small "Engineering World. " ('6 2) Develop some appreciation of cultures, philosophy, art and music. ('63) 122 The exposure to the courses offered in these areas has helped me. to be a more well rounded individual and it has also helped me to live and get along with other people. ('64) This was most beneficial from a personal growth standpoint. The control system courses were most beneficial financially. ('67) Electromaflietics (listed by 15 alumni) Brought together the many relationships applicable to other fields of science. ('61) Most directly related to the work I'm in. Equal emphasis on this and circuits in undergrad study would give best basic preparation to 75-90% of students for work they will find themselves in. ('6 5) The course most directly related to my current position as an antenna designer. ('67) Basics were stressed that apply to many fields. Also, the application of transmission principles to logic problems becomes more and more important. ('68) I have been involved directly in plasma physics research. Development of laser system requires basic E-M background. ('68) Electrical Engineerirg in General (listed by 14 alumni) Conveyed a useful body of knowledge directly applicable to the work I like. ('61) The courses I took in electrical engineering prepared me quite adequately for the position I now hold. ('68) 123 It gave confidence in my own ability. It goes without saying it has helped me, I earn my bread by it. By being an engineer though I have the attitude that, if something doesn't work I can fix it because some other engineer put it together. APPENDIX D COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY ALUMNI CONCERNING LEAST BENEFICIAL SUBJECT AREA IN THEIR UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM (NOTE: Reproduced verbatim in this appendix are selected comments received in the space reserved for that purpose on the questionnaire. They are grouped in chronological order with the respondent's year of graduation noted in parentheses.) APPENDIX D COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY ALUMNI CONCERNING LEAST BENEFICIAL SUBJECT AREA IN THEIR UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM University Collegp Courses (listed by 90 alumni) Even though I enjoyed the courses, they have had little impact on my jobs. ('61) Level of instruction about junior high school, textbook consisted of verbose articles without significance. ('62) The level of instruction was much below the engineering department and the general engineering students. ('6 2) Incompetent instructors, subject matter not applicable to vocation, impossible for instructors to motivate me about the subject. This subject is very important but MSU could not teach it to me. ('63) Although they were informational and interesting I think these should be left as electives in a technically oriented program. ('64) 124 125 I was never able to use or understand the importance of any- thing taught me in those subjects. ('64) They were poorly organized and even more poorly presented. This necessary nontechnical education was in fact not really pro- vided. ('65) These subjects leave the student with an often times unclear picture of what is taking place in society. These areas need improve- ment if the average engineering student is to appreciate them. ('66) The ratio of study time required to useful information gained was poor. ('67) Dry, cursory approach to subject; no subject was covered in sufficient depth to be useful. ('68) Electromagnetics (listed by 54 alumni) Very theoretical - great for the students going on to graduate school because they have to absorb even more theory. ('61) In my field, I never got close to any work in EM fields. Could not even find any application for the Theory. ('61) Requires greater depth to communicate with engineers work- ing in this area; average engineer does not need or use the little knowledge he has in this field. ('62) One good course on basic electromagnetics is sufficient on the undergraduate level. ('63) It was a subject which I did not understand and never have been asked to use (fortunately). ('64) 126 Theory was not adequately related to the engineering problems of today. ('65) Electronics (listed by 12 alumni) Have never applied it, have never been able to relate its use to any field. ('61) Was not up-to-date with the real world in that it was teach- ing obsolete material. ('62) I could never develop an understanding or appreciation and since have never used any concepts that I was taught. ('64) The way it was taught, with Mickey Mouse labs, I learned nothing. ('67) I feel that the program at MSU was extremely deficient in providing basic working knowledge of electronic hardware, and in an understanding of circuit design. ('68) EngineerigLabs (listed by 12 alumni) Equipment was generally not good. Instructors seldom under- stood equipment or emeriments, and accordingly couldn't teach student anything. ('61) The time required to meet the objectives of the labs was excessive in relation to the knowledge gained. ('63) 127 The labs ran 2-3 weeks ahead of the classroom material. This required much more work in preparation for the labs and writing of final reports than the amount and quality of practical application was worth. ('6 5) They were not organized to teach anything, least of all critical thinking. A disproportionate amount of time was spent on make work. ('67) I do relatively little lab work and acquired lab technique through Chem labs and Physiology labs. ('68) Thermodynamics (listed by 12 alumni) Little or no use to most EE's. ('62) Could never see any application possibilities in my work. ('64) Systems and Control (listed by 11 alumni) It turned out to be a lot of theory not applicable in industry. ('6 2) This program tried to do everything, and did nothing. Little was learned of circuits, networks, resonance, control or any other goal of this systems course. Also, a poor book was used. ('67) Even though I consider this subject to be most important, I just never never seemed to get something out of this course, mainly because of the way they were taught. I took those courses four yea rs ago and today there is very little I could say about what we covered there. ('67) 128 Too theoretical, not "down to earth. " Not enough practical application cited. ('68) Mechanics (listed by 10 alumni) Had no bearing on subsequent studies. ('67) APPENDIX E ADDITIONAL COMMENTS PROVIDED BY ALUMNI (NOTE: Reproduced verbatim in this appendix are selected comments received in the space reserved for that purpose on the questionnaire. They are listed in chronological order with the respondent's year of graduation noted in parentheses. ) APPENDIX E ADDITIONAL COMMENTS PROVIDED BY ALUMNI There are a few of us who do not end up building computers or solid state electronic gadgets who could have benefitted from more exposure to the power field while in college. ('61) I am proud to be a graduate of the MSU school of electrical engineering. Much of my success to date has been influenced by my years at MSU. As I have indicated, however, the curriculum is really designed for the student going on to graduate school. Consideration should be given to graduate school and non- graduate school electives in the last one and a half years of the under- graduate curriculum. I think most students know by the middle of their third year whether they will be going on for more study or will be going to work. For those going on to work it would be nice to be conversant with designing an LP strip for example. A great deal more emphasis is required in circuit design--not just a single cir- cuit, but a system of circuits. ('61) Only to add additional emphasis to the need for eXpanded communications capability in all technical individuals. Your ideas are no better than your ability to communicate them. ('62) MSU is a very responsive school. I say this with some authority because I have attended or taught at some 15 colleges since graduation. I would like to see them develop an interdisciplinary program in CYBERNETICS . ('62) 129 130 I stress the application of theory because I feel it serves two purposes: (1) It places the theory in context and increases its retention for use in the future, and (2) It gives experience in formulating problems. I feel that the undergraduate course should be divided approxi- mately evenly between technical courses and courses in humanities, social sciences and literature. However, this second group of courses should be taught in relation to the technical world we live in and not the irrelevent world that existed when the present form of education evolved. If research is one's objective or if further technical know- ledge is required then a graduate degree can be pursued. Most engineers graduating today are over educated in their field and under educated in how to solve problems. ('63) I have always felt that the general scientific engineer back- ground exposure at MSU left me in a good position to compete in many fields on par with other engineers from well known colleges. ('63) The aim of engineering education should be to provide an engineer both with the theory and the means to solve the problems in many diverse fields. It has been my experience while working as an engineer, that the most important attribute an engineer can offer to his employer - is the logical mind. One who is purely theoretical or purely practical is in the long run of very little use to industry. It is that fine mixture of these two, that gives rise to true genius. ('63) There should be more classes in public speaking and related areas such as: 1. Organization of meetings 2. How to conduct technical audits 3. Technical debates Also I believe the educational system does not permit people to create. It more or less teaches people how to "fit in. " This should be changed by a creativity class outside the classroom where people collectively or individually create something different. ('63) There is too much emphasis placed on the academic training of engineering teachers and not enough on practical experience. While industry is in need of technical people who are willing and able to solve practical problems, most engineering schools have been turning out graduates who do not know what is expected of them but who are taught by their instructors to glorify the virtues of "R&D." 131 There is too much inbreeding in engineering education when educators alone are allowed to train engineering educators, who in turn train more engineering educators, etc. This will sooner or later lead to irrelevancy in engineering education. ('64) My engineering training helped me to develop an analytical mind which is a great asset now. I thoroughly enjoyed "being educated" at MSU, but in retrospect wish that there was a closer relationship - like that found at smaller colleges - between students and instructors. ('64) I feel the education I got at MSU was as good as I could have received almost anywhere. My major failing upon graduation was an almost complete lack of confident in myself which MSU, if any- thing made worse. It was too easy to hide and become lost at MSU. I overcame this problem by being forced to produce and wonder why I wasn't forced to do more as an individual, rather than as part of a class, in my MSU class work. ('64) My employment requires both engineering and business abilities. I have obtained my MBA which I feel is an excellent com- bination for advancement into upper management. My technical degree allows me to enter many fields while my MBA moves me up the super- visory ladder. I strongly recommend this combination. Also, the .sales field is very rewarding financially. ('64) I think any electrical engineering program should at least offer electives in the area of power engineering such as production and transmission. ('64) The engineering program tends to develop engineers for the first step of an engineering career, that of being an engineer, however for future development and advancement the engineers must move into management levels where he will be in a position to direct and administrate future technical programs. The managerial position requires skills and techniques that were not included in the engineer- ing program of 1965. ('65) 132 I believe (as do many of my business contacts) that the M. S. U. engineering education is, and continues to be, one of the fine st. As a specific suggestion, I believe senior EE's, as well as graduate students, be urged to attend a weekly colloquiem with 50% of the speakers' topics not related to the defense dept. or pure academic interest. ('66) The engineering theory that was taught was good but more emphasis should have been applied to application theory. Also course material should have applied to presenting ideas. More emphasis should have also been applied to business and management theory. ('66) I feel that my engineering education at MSU has very much broadened my perspective of theoretical endeavors. This theoretical background has helped me greatly in learning new material. But my education has not prepared me entirely to face the realities of an engineering profession such as it is. An education which is not grounded on these realities is of limited value. A person is not permitted to go from theory to practice as easily as I'm sure it is assumed at MSU. ('66) A course in the first of the second year discussing the role of science, and technology in the society is very much recommended. ('67) The curriculum at the time of my graduation tended to prepare me better in a theoretical than practial way. Had I continued to study Engineering I'm sure the theory would have been helpful, however, to date I have used so little of the theory and have had to learn so much of the practical that I sometimes wonder if I learned anything at MSU. Presently, I would favor a more practical curriculum. ('67) To be truthful, I feel my education did not prepare me adequately for a career in engineering. I feel a great deal more time should be spent in engineering applications and electronic circuitry and much less time be spent in theory. Higher level math courses are become in- creasingly important and a knowledge of computers and programming is a definite must. More time should be allocated in the freshman year for engineering related electives. ('68) 133 If MSU had sent me out with a thorough knowledge of system theory, transistor theory and application, circuit analysis, and a little more digital knowledge, I could have solved 99% of my on-the- job problems with ease. I feel I was given too much of a variety when a better knowledge of the basics mentioned above would give a beginning engineer much more self -confidence and he could pick up the special interest areas on the job as needed. ('68) I feel the training I received at MSU was comprehensive and pertinent. When interfacing with other engineers, I find that the training I received in various academic areas was comparable or better than many other engineering schools. ('68) I would like to have had a course which discussed general approaches to problems, engineering problems, or related problems. General methods of attack could be stressed, special consideration given to error analysis and accuracy. Approaches taken by previous investigators could be considered. Some fundamental concepts could be stressed so that a student would have a good idea of what things to look out for in solving a problem. Note - by problem, I mean from simple engineering problems to research problems. I found laboratories simply drudgery! They provided little useable information, but much busy work. If labs are to be effective, there must be theory provided before hand. It would be best to pro- vide the theory right before the lab. ('68) I found upon entering graduate school that I had indeed received a very good undergraduate education in engineering from MSU. I base this conclusion by seeing the deficiencies others had in their engineer- ing backgrounds in which I did not. In fact, I found that I had covered much more material in my undergraduate program than most had. ('68)