We are in 2020. Technology rules the world. Therefore, the one who owns and controls the information is the king. Globalization has made labor cheaper and more abundant. However, the critical assets are innovative thinkers. They are the lifeblood of society. Since most engineers come from China and India, American companies lose their innovative edge in the market. Many historians point to 2008, when US engineering schools did nothing to ward off the international threat. Some expected things to change. However, the future remains uncertain for engineering in the United States.
The situation
As America marches with a different drummer, he discovers that there is imminent danger ahead. While globalization has become a menacing threat for some companies, the biggest challenge for traditional academic institutions is producing engineers who are smart, creative, and internationally knowledgeable to handle the challenges of the 21st century. Given this premise, this article examines the current state of engineering schools in the United States and explores how institutional leaders can infuse creativity into their organizations, thereby producing innovative engineering students. How can traditional engineering schools cultivate creativity in their students? According to a survey by Peter D. Hart Research Associates, 63% of American business leaders said that college graduates are unprepared for the global environment. The lack of creativity of today’s engineers becomes critical as more companies seek technical workers for the workforce of the future.
College challenges
The academy must overcome several potential barriers to transforming engineering schools into centers of innovation. Currently, there are 346 universities approved by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), the national organization that sets the standards for engineering schools. Although there are over 270 universities offering mechanical engineering, there are a variety of other engineering schools available to students, such as software engineering. Fewer and fewer students are earning degrees in engineering and science. Several key factors illuminate the slowdown in US competitiveness around the world, which are (1) several key agencies for US scientific research and development. Facing a retirement crisis in the near future, (2) ) less than 6% of high school seniors are pursuing engineering degrees, 36% less than in a decade, (3) the number of China’s university degrees in hard science was 56% compared to 17 % of the United States in 2000, and (4) in the next few years, China is likely to produce six times the number of engineers in the future as the United States. In 2004, the United States graduated approximately 70,000 undergraduate engineers, while other countries such as China (600,000) and India (350,000) are graduating more engineers. In 1989, the National Science Foundation warned of a shortage of both doctorates and bachelor’s degrees in natural sciences and engineering. This situation is creating a national crisis for companies that seek innovation and creativity from the best in the country. This trend is alarming.
Transformation of innovation
To confront the fierce realities of globalization, engineering schools must rethink their approach to education by focusing on strategy, structure, and culture during these uncertain times. First, these schools need to change their strategy. Many engineering schools are too rigid in their design and lose focus. However, the consequences of overemphasizing the structure can be dangerous. Michael Michalko, author of Thinkertoys, argues that creativity is not an accident. Therefore, institutional leaders, such as deans of engineering, must be willing to build organizations that support creativity. Second, engineering schools must be structured to support an international component of learning. By adding a study abroad program, engineering schools can immerse their students in culture and allow them to work in multicultural teams. By taking these actions, universities provide students with additional cultural competence that is a key attribute in an increasingly global climate. Third, there is also a need for a more pervasive form of liberal arts education for engineering students to generate creativity.
According to many business executives, the 21st century needs students who possess good communication skills, critical thinking, applied knowledge, intellectual depth, ethics, and cultural understanding. Engineering students often lose sight of creativity and focus solely on the technical aspects of engineering. Therefore, it is practically impossible to obtain broader educational experiences in areas such as business or political science. Finally, the cultural climate of most engineering schools must change if they are to survive. The current climate for most engineering students is a sterile school environment in which students must fend for themselves. Faculty members are deemed unavailable or unavailable to assist with academic or personal career planning.
Rather, students want good teaching, counseling, assessment practices, and good curriculum design from teachers in order to compete. Therefore, engineering schools must foster care and concern for students if they want to develop creativity in their schools.
A step forward
21st century leaders in engineering departments must address the needs of students to get creative if they hope to seize future opportunities in hypercompetitive environments. Some people wonder if these schools can change. According to the Harris Poll sponsored by the American Association of Engineering Societies and IEEE-USA, only 2% of the general public associates engineering with creativity. Therefore, an environment where innovation flourishes has to be at the top of organizational leaders’ to-do lists. Deans of engineering schools, faculty members, and other institutional leaders may have an impact on building this type of organization in the future. The reality is of great concern to US companies competing globally.
As this article demonstrates, today’s academic institutions must change if they are to survive the era of intense global competition. Leaders must carefully consider short-term and long-term innovative thinking. US engineering schools can help US companies compete by restructuring their organizations based on strategy, structure, and culture. Innovation is the lynchpin of this success. Can engineering schools be transformed into creative institutions? Only time will tell if they really succeed.
