June 18, 2006
June 18, 2006
June 21, 2006
11.635.1 - 11.635.6
Faculty Reward System Reform: Beginning Phase II – Revisiting the Need for University Change to Advance Professional Graduate Education for Engineering Practice and Technology Leadership
This is the first of two papers prepared for a special invited panel session of the National Collaborative Task Force on Engineering Graduate Education Reform that is focusing one of its primary tasks on faculty reward system reform. Founded in 2000, the National Collaborative Task Force is an initiative of the ASEE-Graduate Studies Division, Corporate Members Council, and College Industry Partnership Division. The National Collaborative is comprised of leaders from industry, academia, and government all coming together to advance professional engineering graduate education for the advancement of engineering practice in the national interest to enhance U.S. competitiveness.
This paper provides an overview of the panel’s continued focus.1,2,3 It revisits the broad urgency for reform of faculty reward systems for professionally oriented, core faculty at the nation’s colleges of engineering and technology in order to advance professional engineering education for the practice of engineering and technology leadership in the national interest.
2. The Urgency of Professional Engineering Education Reform
As William Wulf, president of the National Academy of Engineering, pointed out in his main plenary address to the American Society for Engineering Education annual conference in 2002, there is urgency for engineering education reform to promote the nation’s technological welfare.4
As Wulf noted; this should be a watershed change to include curricula reform, process reform, and faculty reward reform. Whereas existing faculty reward systems are excellent for research- oriented faculty, they are insufficient for professionally oriented, core faculty at the nation’s schools of engineering and technology. As Wulf pointes out:
“In engineering education I think we have an additional problem, and that’s the one I want to emphasize. Recall, my definition of engineering is “design under constraint”. I believe that it’s a synthetic, highly creative activity.
Can you think of any other creative field on campus where the faculty are not expected to practice/perform? Art, music, drama? Even if you won’t buy that engineering is creative in the same way as art or music – performance oriented professions such as medicine and law expect their faculty to practice that profession. Can you imagine a medical school where the faculty was prohibited from practicing medicine?
Yet, not so in engineering.
Depew, D., & Latif, N., & Bertoline, G., & Keating, D., & Stanford, T., & Tricamo, S., & Dunlap, D., & McHenry, A., & Palmer, H., & DeLoatch, E., & Bennett, R., & Noori, M., & Snellenberger, J., & Truesdale, S. (2006, June), Faculty Reward System Reform: Beginning Phase Ii Revisiting The Need For University Change To Advance Professional Graduate Education For Engineering Practice And Technology Leadership Paper presented at 2006 Annual Conference & Exposition, Chicago, Illinois. 10.18260/1-2--222
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2006 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015