Grondin, R. O. (2012, June), Newberry and Farison Redux:  A Survey of General Engineering  Paper presented at 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, Texas. 10.18260/1-2--21733

\bibitem{asee_peer_21733}
  Grondin, R. O. (2012, June), \emph{Newberry and Farison Redux:  A Survey of General Engineering}
  Paper presented at 2012 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, San Antonio, Texas.
  10.18260/1-2--21733

Robert O. Grondin.  "Newberry and Farison Redux:  A Survey of General Engineering".  2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, Texas, 2012, June.  ASEE Conferences, 2012.  https://peer.asee.org/21733 Internet.  10 Mar, 2025

\bibitem{asee_peer_21733}
  Robert O. Grondin.
  "Newberry and Farison Redux:  A Survey of General Engineering".
  \emph{2012 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, San Antonio, Texas, 2012, June}.
  ASEE Conferences, 2012.
  https://peer.asee.org/21733 Internet.  10 Mar, 2025

@INPROCEEDINGS{asee_peer_21733
author = "Robert O. Grondin"
title = "Newberry and Farison Redux:  A Survey of General Engineering"
booktitle = "2012 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition"
year = "2012"
month = "June"
address = "San Antonio, Texas"
publisher = "ASEE Conferences"
note = {https://peer.asee.org/21733}
number = {10.18260/1-2--21733}
}

TY  - CPAPER
AB  -          Newberry and Farison Redux: A survey of general engineeringIn 2003 Newberry and Farison presented a survey of engineering programs that did not accreditunder any of the program specific categories (Newberry & Farison, 2003). They looked at thehistorical development of such programs, noting in passing that often the programs seem to beused as an n incubator for discipline specific programs. They subdivided general engineeringprograms into several broad categories: instrumental programs, flexible programs andphilosophical programs. Instrumental programs adopted a general engineering framework butinside this framework directed students onto one of several specific paths, paths which usuallywere modeled after the more common program specific paths; mechanical engineering, civilengineering etc. Flexible programs allowed students to individually blend engineeringcoursework in a highly multidisciplinary fashion. Most flexible programs turned out to bespecial purpose degrees based in the dean’s office, unassociated with a faculty with studentenrollments in the single digits. Philosophical programs operated on an assumption that a broadengineering undergraduate degree had sufficient value to justify the existence of the program.Approximately a decade has passed since Newberry and Farison conducted their survey. Anupdate will be presented using data compiled in 2011.Newberry, B., & Farison, J. (2003). A Look at the Past and Present of General Engineering andEngineering Science Programs. Journal of Engineering Education , 217-226.
AU  - Robert O. Grondin
CY  - San Antonio, Texas
DA  - 2012/06/10
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Newberry and Farison Redux:  A Survey of General Engineering
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/21733
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--21733
ER  -