A Look to the Future: MIT Alumni and their Course 2 and 2-A
Educational Experience
by
Neha Batra
B.S. Engineering
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2010
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN ENGINEERING AS RECOMMENDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL
ENGINEERING
AT THE
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
ARCHN
JUNE 2010
ES
@2010 Neha Batra. All Rights Reserved.
OF TECHNOLOGY
The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce
and to distribute publicly paper and electronic
copies of this thesis document in whole or in part
in any medium now known or hereafter created.
JUN 3 0 2010
LIBRARIES
Signature of Author:
Department of Mechanical Engineering
A4
May 10, 2010
Certified by:
Anette E.Hosoi, PhD
a4cte Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Accepted by:
John H. Lienhard V
Collins Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Chairman, Undergraduate Thesis Committee
A Look to the Future: MIT Alumni and their Course 2 and 2-A
Educational Experience
by
Neha Batra
Submitted to the Department of Mechanical Engineering
On May 10, 2010 in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in
Engineering as Recommended by the Department of Mechanical Engineering
Abstract
Data was gathered and analyzed through a survey of the Mechanical Engineering Course 2 and
Course 2-A Alumni to analyze the impact of their choice of major on their current career path and to
investigate the career paths of mechanical engineering majors. Data was gathered on their jobs taken,
confidence level compared to their peers, preparation and importance abilities, experiences, and
reflections. Over 350 graduates completed the survey and several differences were found.
Course 2-A students had more transfers from other majors, engaged in a wider variety of career
options, and found their elective classes more useful. Course 2 students reported to have a greater
importance for technical skills and a higher confidence level with respect to their peers in their profession.
There was little difference in most abilities, and what was missing in their MIT experience.
Overall, Course 2 and 2-A reported being better prepared for technical subjects and less prepared
for communication-related subjects than was required in their job. Moreover, all respondents mentioned
missing the same courses in their curriculum that was needed for their job.
Finally, Course 2 and 2-A respondents held widely divergent impressions of the other's program.
Empirical data suggests that each major possesses qualities to satisfy the specific course's individual
needs.
This resulted in the conclusion that the Mechanical Engineering Department was on the right path
by supporting the Course 2-A major and by recognizing and catering to two separate populations, one
with an interest in depth and one with an interest in breadth.
Thesis Supervisor: Anette E.Hosoi, PhD
Title: Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Page 2
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 MIT Engineering
2.1 Interdisciplinary degrees and MIT's 2-A Program
3.0 Surveying MIT's Course 2 and 2-A Alumni
4.0 Results
4.1 Basic Information
4.2 Career Choices
4.3 Abilities and their Importance in the Current Career
4.4 Alumni Reflection
4.5 Demographic Information
5.0 Discussion
6.0 Conclusion
7.0 Acknowledgement and Personal Note
8.0 References
9.0 Appendix
Page 4
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 7
Page 8
Page 10
Page 13
Page 14
Page 16
Page 17
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
List of Figures
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
1. Breakdown of Graduates by Graduation Year
2. Engineering Abilities Chart
3. Multidisciplinary Abilities Chart
4. Team and Career Planning Abilities Chart
5. Communication Abilities Chart
6. Subjects Missing from Curriculum
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
5
11
11
12
12
14
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
8
9
10
13
13
15
List of Tables
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
1. Major Requirements for Course 2-A
2. Concentrations of 2-A Alumni
3. Career Choices Immediately After Graduating and Currently
4. Abilities Section
5. Most and Least Important Skills
6. Importance of Classes
7. Preparedness and Confidence
Page 3
1.0 Introduction
In a recent National Academy of Engineering (NAE) report, NAE (and former MIT)
President Charles VEST (2008) noted that, "globalization is changing the way in which
engineering work is organized and in which companies acquire innovation." These changes may
require "a nimble new kind of engineer." IBM's CEO Sam Palmisano has pointed out, "[a]
globally integrated company locates operations and functions anywhere in the world based on
the right cost, the right skills, and the right business environment." The professional environment
of engineering practice today is one in which engineers need strong professional abilities, such as
writing and teamwork, as well as the ability to address complex problems with no clear
disciplinary boundaries.
Worldwide, colleges and universities that offer engineering degrees have adopted
different strategies to address the changes in engineering practice. Some have chosen to enforce
a firm technical foundation to give students a strong basis with which they can explore future
fields of interest. Other schools have chosen to enable a curriculum of flexibility to allow
students to delve into a specific topic especially for students who have selected their career path.
In the NAE report, Engineering of 2020, the authors argue for the revamp of U.S.
engineering education to support U.S. international competitiveness. In the year 2006, 129,000
engineering students graduated in the USA with bachelors degrees1' 2 . In the same year, 220,000
students graduated with BS-equivalent degrees in engineering from India and 575,000 from
2
China2.
With so many engineering graduates from other nations, U.S. graduates are competing
with graduates from other countries that produce two to four times as many engineers as the US.
The NAE report, Engineer of 2020, also argues that U.S. engineers will require unique
abilities to set them apart from graduates in other nations. This includes understanding the
principles of leadership, applying skills to careers as they advance, possessing a framework for
high ethical standards, and maintaining a strong sense of professionalism.
2.0 MIT Engineering
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology is renowned for excellence in science,
engineering, technology, research, and the high standards of its academic programs. Maintaining
this position requires constant innovation not only in the organization of research, but also in its
educational degree programs to produce the ideal "engineer of 2020." MIT's President Susan
Hockfield once said, "In Mumbai, I was asked to address an audience of some hundreds of top
Indian CEOs. They wanted me to talk about one thing: What makes American higher education
so successful? What makes it such a force for innovation and social mobility? And what steps
could they take to give India's system of higher education the same nimbleness and creativity?
The answer is complicated, but it comes down roughly to three things: Competition, flexibility
and openness. 3"
One outcome of competition, flexibility, and openness in undergraduate degree programs
is the current wide variety of degree programs available to students; today there are 35 options at
MIT for majors. Even with so many majors at MIT, the topics chosen by students seem to
increasingly fall under industry-specific topics as opposed to topics specific to a major. Students
express their interest not as, "I am interested in Mechanical Engineering," but rather "I like
robotics" or software, energy, biomedical devices, etc.
Page 4
2.1 Interdisciplinarydegrees and MIT's 2-A Program
To address the dual pressures to remain competitive in the industry, and satisfy students'
flexible interdisciplinary interests, MIT's academic structure has created new programs such as
the Biological Engineering major and the Energy minor. However, this strategy, some might
argue, will lead to too many programs. Constantly inventing new majors is not necessarily the
solution as there will always be interdisciplinary topics that may suit one student better.
Another option for MIT students has been the "flexible" engineering degree programs to
permit students to join several areas of engineering in the study of interdisciplinary topics such
as energy or robotics. Such programs at MIT have provided students with the option to explore
two or more engineering disciplines in both sufficient breadth and depth and receive a BS in
engineering. Within many MIT engineering departments, an "A" option allows students to take
fewer of the broader technical background classes in a particular engineering disciplinary core
and replace these with a second in- depth set of engineering subjects related to particular
concentration topics.
This thesis look at one of the oldest MIT flexible engineering degree programs, the 2-A
program of Mechanical Engineering, which was established as a separate course in 1934. Until
2001, the degree program had few graduates since it was not an ABET accredited degree, but
rather appeared as an "undesignated" BS degree on students' transcripts. The department faculty
chose to seek ABET accreditation in 2001 which elevated the status of 2-A to a full engineering
major at MIT and placing it on the same footing as a Course 2 engineering degree. Since 2001,
Course 2-A's enrollment has seen a significant increase: in 2000, 24 students were enrolled in
the program while in 2009, 171 students were enrolled.
The Course 2-A program at MIT combines a rigorous mechanical engineering
background with a focused study on a particular topic. The required engineering background
classes include the preliminary courses in: Mechanics and Materials, Dynamics and Control,
Thermal-Fluids, Measurement and Instrumentation, Mechanical Engineering Tools, and, recently
added, the Product Engineering Process. Two second level subjects must also be chosen among
many options which include: the part II of some of the preliminary courses, Design and
Manufacturing, Numerical Computation, and a Thesis. After this, 72 units (roughly equivalent to
6 classes) must be taken that revolve around a certain focus as approved by the Course 2-A
coordinator and Mechanical Engineering Undergraduate Officer. A table of requirements can be
found below.
Table 1. Major Requirements for Course 2-A. These requirements combined with 72 units
of classes required within their 2-A track, of which 66 units must be of engineering topics.
First-level Requirements (You must take all of these):
Subject
Mechanics and Materials 1
Dynamics and Controls I
Thermal-Fluids Engineering 1
The Product Engineering Process
Differential Equations
Mechanical Engineering Tools
Measurement and Instrumentation
Second-level Requirements (choose 2 minimum):
Subject
Number Units
12 Mechanics and Materials II
2.001
12 Dynamics and Controls 11
2.003J
12 Thermal-Fluids Engineering II
2.005
12 Design and Manufacturing I
2.009
12 Design and Manufacturing II
18.03
6 Numerical Computation for MEs
2.670
12 Undergraduate Thesis
2.671
Number Units
12
2.002
12
2.004
12
2.006
12
2.007
12
2.008
6
2.086
12
2.ThU
The Course 2-A program offers a wide variety of concentrations including: biomedical
engineering and pre-med, energy conversion engineering, mechanics, precision engineering,
Page 5
sustainable development, control instrumentation and engineering, engineering management,
nano-micro engineering, and product development. In addition, if a different focus is desired, a
custom concentration can be designed to meet the needs of the student as long as it satisfies the
necessary major requirements and has an adequate amount of engineering content.
3.0 Surveying MIT's Course 2 and 2-A Alumni
The long history of Course 2 and Course 2-A coexisting provides us with an ideal case
study to answer some of the many questions that have been posed over time about breadth and
depth. It is no surprise that we know very little about the performance, reflections, skill set, and
use of engineering background of students who graduate from Course 2 and 2-A or comparable
programs as it is challenging to collect data from alumni, design questions that will provide
useful information, and analyze the data in a proper manner.
I am personally motivated to begin to find the answers to some of these questions and
look to the alumni of our Course 2 and 2-A Programs for statistics and information on their
experiences. I am most interested in the jobs taken by our graduates, their confidence level
compared to their peers, their performance in technical and non-technical subjects, and their
experiences and reflections. The information discovered here can inform us about the impact of
the Mechanical Engineering undergraduate experience. Moreover, it can provide information on
what is especially useful and what is still needed in the curriculum to fully prepare current
students for the real world. While this thesis cannot sufficiently answer all questions posed, it
can create an open environment for discussion and speculation on these topics and allow future
decisions made in the curriculum to be based on empirical evidence and research gathered from
this thesis.
Since the alumni are the best source of information on the performance of graduates of
the two mechanical engineering programs, I formulated a survey for this population under the
guidance of Anette Hosoi, professor of Mechanical Engineering and 2-A faculty advisor and
Barbara Masi, Director of Innovation and Assessment for MIT School of Engineering. Questions
were designed with four major sections:
1. Major and MIT Activities Section constructed to gather information about major choice(s)
and activities within MIT.
2. Career Choices Section constructed to gather information on initial and current jobs, short
and long term future plans, and how these career decisions have leveraged their engineering
background.
3. Abilities Section constructed to ask about technical abilities, their importance in their
current career path, and how well MIT prepared them for these skills. Each question was
given on a scale of 1 to 7, 1 being unimportant or unprepared and 7 being very important or
prepared.
4. Reflection Section constructed to give survey respondents the opportunity to give
suggestions to improve the 2 or 2-A program and demographic questions. The demographic
questions were asked at the end so that the other questions would be answered without any
bias of being judged by sex or race.
The survey was carefully reviewed and evaluated to balance content and convenience for
those filling out the survey via SurveyMonkey.com. The research was also COUHES approved.
The survey was then e-mailed out twice to all Course 2 and 2-A Alumni acknowledging that the
survey was voluntary and responses confidential. A month was given to collect survey responses
and the data was evaluated after this point.
Page 6
4.0 Results
Over 500 responses were collected from the survey, of which, approximately 360 alumni
filled the survey to the end. The overall response rate was 45%. The data from this survey was
then compiled and examined on a question-by-question basis. Often, many of the open-ended
responses pertained to categories from the original choices of the survey or followed trends so
new categories could be formed. Accordingly, data was categorized, and analyzed again. Most
often, the mean or percentage was used to analyze results and draw conclusions.
4.1 Basic Information
Of those who completed the survey, approximately three times as many Course 2
graduates completed the survey and accounted for 73% of the responses; Course 2-A graduates
made up the remaining 27% of the responses.
Alumni from the classes 1999-2009 were sent the survey. Interestingly, as shown in the
graph below, while Course 2 had a fair distribution of respondents from the classes 1999-2009,
there were few Course 2-A respondents for class 1999-2004. The small number of 2-A
respondents reflects the fact that there were about 15-20 2-A graduates in these years. From 2005
on, the program enrollment began to grow, hence the larger number of 2-A respondents to the
survey. This can be attributed the accreditation of the 2-A program in 2002 after which
enrollment grew rapidly.
What year did you graduate?
70
60
D 50
0
m.40
S30
S20E.010199a eor 2000
02
02-A
4
0
41
8
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
32
7
37
4
25
4
34
9
32
23
28
29
35
20
50
15
45
17
Figure 1. Breakdown of Graduates by Graduation Year. A total of 499 graduates filled
out the survey. The information shows a fairly constant number of course 2 students whereas
the 2-A students increases in 2005 and stays fairly constant afterward.
Course 2-A respondents also reported the concentration they completed as part of their
flexible engineering degree. Approximately 1/3 of them completed a Biomedical concentration,
1/3 completed a Management concentration, and the remainder were mostly in the Robotics and
Energy concentrations. The Course 2-A concentrations by percent are shown in Table 2.
Page 7
Table 2. Concentrations of 2-A Alumni. Choices were regrouped after analyzing entries
under "other." 77% of 2-A respondents were biomed, management, energy, or robotics.
2-A Concentration
Count
Biomedical and Pre-Med
Management and Product Development
Energy, Environment, and Sustainable Development
Robotics
Arts
Computer Science
Urban Studies and Civil Engineering
Architecture
International Development
Policy
Mathematics
Brain and Cognitive Sciences
Aero/Astro Engineering
Physics
TOTAL
40
34
15
12
6
4
4
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
129
Percent
31.0%
26.4%
11.6%
9.3%
4.7%
3.1%
3.1%
3.1%
2.3%
1.6%
1.6%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
Alumni were also asked to report whether they had switched majors. Among all
respondents, there was a significant population that changed their major to Course 2. Among
these respondents, 15% switched into Course 2; mainly from Course 6, 2-A and 14.
In contrast, about four times as many Course 2-A respondents switched from another
major into 2-A; 61% of these alumni switched into the major mainly from Course 2, Course 6,
and Course 10. About 40% of the switches were from Course 2 to 2-A, a common switch.
Out of those who switched, only 35% of Course 2 graduates could use their previous
coursework for their new major as opposed to 80% of the Course 2-A graduates; over two times
as many students could use their coursework for 2-A when switching. This this may indicate a
preference of Course 2-A over Course 2 when switching majors owing to the convenience of
using prior coursework to count towards graduation, especially if the change is later in the
undergraduate career.
Alumni also reported some extracurricular activities they participated in. In general,
participation in UROP, UPOP, Studying Abroad, Design Activities, and Student Living
Group/Officer positions were consistent between both Course 2 and 2-A. Having internships and
participating in sports seemed to be skewed towards Course 2 and participating in the PSC was
skewed towards Course 2-A. Participation in activities like D-LAB and student publications was
heavily skewed towards Course 2-A with over two times the level of participation.
4.2 Career Choices
An extensive portion of the survey was dedicated to examining what graduates do after
graduation. This subject has many layers as alumni may have already changed careers several
times or may be in an intermediate step before reaching their ideal career. Thus, several
questions were posed to inquire about: initial career choices after graduation, current career
choices, relation of current career to engineering background, career vision in the next three
years, and long term career vision. Table 3 shows career choices and their popularity.
Page 8
Table 3. Career Choices Immediately After Graduating and Currently. 410 graduates
completed this question and data was regrouped after analyzing entries under "other." Job
paths with significant differences between Course 2 and 2-A are bolded.
What did you do immediately after graduating? What are you currently doing?
2
2-A
Total graduates reporting
MS Mechanical Engineering
Mechanical engineering jobs
Management consulting/ business/ finance
Other engineering jobs
PhD Mechanical Engineering
Academic-related jobs
Other non-engineering jobs (social science, policy, NGO,
education, marketing)
Military
MBA
J.D. (Law)
M.D. or Medical-Related
MS/PhD social science, architecture, policy
Unemployed
after
currently
after
currently
after
currently
323
301
32.8%
13.0%
32.2%
31.6%
116
109
16.4%
5.5%
27.6%
22.0%
after
currently
after
12.4%
15.3%
8.4%
17.2%
15.6%
6.9%
currently
after
currently
after
currently
7.3%
5.3%
5.6%
2.2%
2.7%
7.3%
4.3%
4.6%
8.6%
7.3%
after
currently
after
currently
after
currently
after
currently
after
currently
2.2%
3.3%
1.5%
2.0%
1.5%
5.0%
0.9%
2.7%
0.6%
3.0%
6.9%
5.5%
2.6%
0.9%
0.0%
2.8%
2.6%
3.7%
6.9%
12.8%
total
total
1.6%
2.3%
6.4%
2.8%
Just after graduation, about 32% of Course 2 students went to a mechanical engineering
related job and about 33% went to a master's program in Mechanical Engineering. Similarly,
28% of Course 2-A students went into a mechanical engineering related job but only 16% went
to a master's program in Mechanical Engineering. Course 2-A respondents' career paths were
more varied. For example, 9% were in an academic-related job after graduation and 7% in a
medical-related job.
Both Course 2 and 2-A alumni reported changing career paths since their initial postgraduation choices. For example, the Course 2 graduates reported a lower percentage in Masters
in engineering programs at 13%. Currently, fewer Course 2-A graduates reported being in a
mechanical engineering master's program at 5.5%, but had about the same percentage of people
in management, consulting, and mechanical engineering related jobs at 15.6%. The rest of the
alumni are currently in industry-specific areas, such as medical areas with 12.8% and academic
areas with 7.3%.
These trends and career choices persisted through to their short term goals for the next
three years in a free response question. More Course 2 graduates were content with their current
Page 9
mechanical engineering jobs as indicated by quotes such as "continue developing my
professional career" or "just climbing the ladder." Many Course 2 graduates simply talked about
continuing in school whereas many Course 2-A graduates said "probably not grad school- if so,
MBA". Yet, there were still many people who were "still unsure of my career plans after
graduation."
The long term career aspirations were similar with many graduates in both Course 2 and
2-A mentioning that they wanted to "start my own company" or becoming the "CEO of a major
corporation." Course 2 students often mentioned continuing in design whereas Course 2-A had
more allusions to the medical profession and other industry specific areas. Others (several
actually) mentioned becoming a "beach bum" - clearly aspirations and a sense of humor persist.
4.3 Abilities and their Importance in the Current Career
An entire section of questions was dedicated to analyzing the importance of certain skills
to alumni's current career choices and how well MIT prepared them in these skills. Alumni were
asked about importance and preparation for a range of skills, including engineering, professional,
and multi-disciplinary skills. These questions were given on a 7 point Likert Scale and the mean
was taken for comparison. Table 4 below shows the means with significant findings bolded.
Table 4. Abilities Section. The following table shows the means for the topics surveyed. The
first number is the average Course 2 response, the second 2-A. If the skills differed between
Course 2 and 2-A by >0.4 points, this result is bolded and the dominant major is indicated in
parentheses. The last column indicates a significant difference between MIT preparation and
importance Course 2 and 2-A collectively with a >1 point discrepancy bolded.
Ability to:
Importance
Preparation
Apply math
Apply engineering principles
Model, measure, and analyze
Grasp limits of technology
Apply underlying principles in complex problems
Design procedures and build close to specifications
Apply economics
Critically evaluate balance of
technical/economic/cultural factors
Use perspectives from several disciplines in analyzing
problems
Work on multi-disciplinary team
Lead a team
Make sure a team sets ground rules for working
together
Create precise project plan
Proactively plan one's career
Address Ethics
Write effectively
Write clear concise summaries of projects
Make persuasive presentation or oral report
Defend point of view in a debate
4.71 vs. 4.26 (2)
5.32 vs. 4.48 (2)
5.30 vs. 4.55 (2)
5.40 vs. 4.88 (2)
5.67 vs. 5.14 (2)
4.67 vs. 3.82 (2)
3.99 vs. 3.64
4.75 vs. 4.82
5.69 vs. 5.63
6.04 vs. 5.81
5.87 vs. 5.37 (2)
5.43 vs. 5.23
5.90 vs. 5.72
5.52 vs. 5.26
3.50 vs. 3.44
4.26 vs. 4.48
Importance (I) vs.
Preparation (P)
4.59 vs. 5.67 (P)
5.09 vs. 5.98
5.09 vs. 5.74
5.26 vs. 5.38
5.52 vs. 5.85 (P)
4.44 vs. 5.45 (P)
3.89 vs. 3.48
4.77 vs. 4.32
5.23 vs. 5.12
4.53 vs. 4.99 (2-A)
5.20 vs. 4.66
6.22 vs. 5.89
5.84 vs. 5.65
5.24 vs. 4.80 (2)
5.51 vs. 5.44
5.09 vs. 4.96
4.45 vs. 4.37
6.13 vs. 5.49
5.79 vs. 5.05
5.12 vs. 4.43
5.40 vs. 4.72
5.45 vs. 5.44
4.97 vs. 5.02
5.74 vs. 5.71
5.63 vs. 5.55
5.94 vs. 5.67
5.11 vs. 5.17
Page 10
4.72
3.74
4.02
4.68
4.97
4.76
3.79
vs. 4.70
vs. 3.78
vs. 3.94
vs. 4.61
vs. 4.81
vs. 4.53
vs. 3.89
5.40 vs. 4.72
5.45 vs. 3.75 (I)
4.99 vs. 3.99 (l)
5.73 vs. 4.66 ()
5.60 vs. 4.93
5.87 vs. 4.69 (1)
5.13 vs. 3.82 (I)
This data was analyzed for significant differences in importance and preparation for
Course 2 vs. Course 2-A. Differences were considered significant if importance or preparation
differed by at least 0.4 points and differences in overall importance vs. preparation by a least 1
point. Approximately 350 graduates filled out these sections with around 250 Course 2 alumni
and 100 Course 2-A respondents.
Given this criterion, many technical skills were reported as more important to Course 2
students than Course 2-A students yet both reported being equally prepared by MIT. These skills
are: math, engineering principles, technical limits, underlying principles, and designing to
specifications. The only skill reported by Course 2 to be more important and better prepared for
was the ability to model, measure, and analyze. Moreover, alumni reported to be over prepared
for skills in: math, underlying principles, and designing to specification, shown in the Figure 2.
Engineering Abilities
6
5
3 2-A
2
0
Figure 2. Engineering Abilities Chart.
Few differences were also found in multidisciplinary abilities with one exception; Course
2-A students reported being better prepared to use perspectives from several disciplines for
analysis, as shown in Figure 3 below.
Multi Disciplinary Abilities
6
5
MC4
3
2
1
- 2
-N 2-A
el
0
0
10
0z
Figure 3. Multidisciplinary Abilities Chart.
Page 11
e
Course 2 and 2-A students did not differ in opinion about most team and career planning
abilities. Course 2 students reported establishing ground rules in their career as important but
there was no difference in MIT preparation. One interesting difference is note is that the alumni
reported being significantly underprepared by MIT for the ability to plan one's career as
compared to its importance with a mean difference of 1.7 points as shown in the figure below.
7
6
Team and Career Planning Abilities
5
2
0
Figure 4. Team and Career Planning Abilities Chart.
Regarding communication abilities, there were no significant differences between Course
2 and 2-A. However, almost all of these abilities had lower ratings in preparedness as compared
to importance including: writing effectively, presenting, defending a point of view, and
addressing ethics. Figure 5, below, summarizes this.
Communication Abilities
7
6
5
@3
a 2-A
2
Figure 5. Communication Abilities Chart.
Page 12
Finally, skills results were examined to find the most and least important areas for one's
career. The significantly important areas were those that received higher than a 5.5 average on a
scale of 7. These skills are included in the table below with the most important being the ability
to work on a multi-disciplinary team (averaging 6.13). Conversely, skills that were the least
important were noted when there was lower than a 5.0 average. These skills are also included in
the table below with the least important being the ability to apply economics (averaging 3.89).
Table 5. Most and Least Important Skills. The following table shows the most important
skills that averaged higher than a 5.5/7 in importance and the least important skills that
averaged a 5.0/7 or less. This was averaged over approximately 350 respondents.
Most Important Skills
Work on a multi-disciplinary team
Lead a team
Make oral presentations
Write concise report summaries
Write effectively
Apply technical concepts in complex problems
Least Important Skills
Apply economics
Design procedures
Build closely to specifications
Apply math
Critically evaluate and balance technical, economics, and cultural factors
4.4 Alumni Reflection
Alumni were asked to reflect on their engineering classes and the influence of these
classes. According to the data, concentration classes were significantly more useful for 2-A
students with a 13% difference in ratings compared to Course 2. Class choice significantly
affected Course 2-A students more than Course 2 students with a 23% difference in ratings. The
rest of the categories such as usefulness of core classes and preparation did not vary significantly
between Course 2 and Course 2-A.
Table 6. Importance of Classes. Alumni were asked to rate on a scale of 1to 5 whether they
strongly agreed, agreed, were neutral, disagreed, or strongly disagreed to these questions
about classes, their usefulness, preparation, and their effect on career path.
Course 2
Course 2-A
Your core engineering classes were useful
8%
6%
Strongly disagree/ disagree
78%
86%
Strongly agree/ agree
Your elective/concentration classes were useful
3%
8%
Strongly disagree/ disagree
87%
74%
Strongly agree/ agree
Your major adequately prepared you
9%
6%
Strongly disagree/ disagree
74%
82%
Strongly agree/ agree
Your choice of classes strongly affected your career path
21%
28%
Strongly disagree/ disagree
64%
41%
Strongly agree/ agree
Page 13
Alumni were then asked about their general preparedness for their careers compared to
peers, areas lacking for current career demands, whether they would retrospectively make their
degree major choice again, and how to improve their Course 2 or 2-A degree major in general.
The general preparedness question asked respondents to analyze how prepared they were
with respect to: their peers in their Course 2 or 2-A major, their peers in the opposite Mechanical
Engineering major, their peers in other majors in the MIT graduating class, and their peers in
their career. It was noteworthy that while Course 2 and 2-A students replied somewhat similarly
for all of their MIT peers in and out of their major, there was a significant difference where
Course 2-A students rated that they were less prepared than their peers in their career, shown in
the table below. 13% of Course 2-A alums said they were unprepared or very unprepared
compared to their current professional peers as opposed to the 7% of Course 2 alums. This could
be due to a variety of factors which are discussed in the discussion section.
Table 7. Preparedness and Confidence. Alumni were asked to rate on a scale of 1to 5
whether they were very unprepared, unprepared, somewhat unprepared, prepared, or very
prepared cor pared to different groups of peers. 345 alums completed this survey question.
How prepared are you for your current endeavors:
Course 2
Course 2-A
Compared to your peers in your 2 or 2-A class:
Very unprepared/unprepared
7%
Somewhat unprepared
19%
Very prepared/prepared
68%
Compared to MechE grads you know professionally:
Very unprepared/unprepared
6%
Somewhat unprepared
16%
Very prepared/prepared
71%
Compared to your current professional peers:
Very unprepared/unprepared
7%
Somewhat unprepared
14%
Very prepared/prepared
76%
3%
23%
67%
6%
25%
62%
13%
16%
66%
Another question was given in an open-ended format to ask alumni what topics were
missing from the Course 2 or 2-A curriculum that were needed in their career after graduation.
Interestingly, all responses fell into a set number of categories between math-related (primarily
statistics), programming, career-specific, communication/management-related, electronics,
applying the mechanical engineering background, and finance/economics-related.
Out of these, almost three times as many Course 2 alums needed an electronics course
and almost two times as many mentioned getting a better background in applying the
fundamental concepts. Approximately 23% of Course 2 graduates stated there was nothing
missing as opposed to 34% of Course 2-A graduates which is plausible as Course 2-A allows
students to take classes in these auxiliary subjects within the curriculum. Results are detailed in
Figure 6.
Page 14
Missing Subjects in Curriculum
'
40
35 30 25
20
Course 2 (215)
Course 2-A (92)
Total (307)
10
0
Figure 6. Subjects Missing from Curriculum. This shows the different subjects found
missing after entering the real world. Those categorized under "application" mentioned
needing classes that better summarized their MIT education and applied it to the real world.
The category "business skills" included writing, general business knowledge, and presenting
better. "Finance" included those who specifically asked for more about economics and
"programming" encompasses specific languages and modeling software. "Math" was
primarily statistics but also included linear algebra and more in depth differential equations.
Alumni were also asked if they had the chance to repeat their four years at MIT, would
they have stayed their specific Course 2 or 2-A major, changed to the other Course 2 or 2-A
major, or changed majors altogether. About 14% of Course 2 students would have switched to 2A while half that amount, 7%, of Course 2-A students said they would switch to Course 2.
Approximately the same amount said they'd keep their major or switch majors entirely and about
6% of Course 2-A students said they would switch their concentration.
Finally, the alumni were asked for recommendations to improve the Mechanical
Engineering program. Many recommendations were fairly consistent between Course 2 and 2-A
students such as requiring a statistics, programming, and electronics course and more content on
leadership, entrepreneurship, marketing, finance - which lines up with the responses about
courses missing in the curriculum. Other general repeated comments mentioned the need for
better advising, not knowing enough about the 2-A program, the desire for more project-oriented
classes, a co-op option, and information on the FE and PE exams and licenses.
4.5 Demographic Information
At the end of the survey, demographic information was requested. While results did not
vary across race, the gender gap between males and females was smaller in Course 2-A with
53% male and 47% female compared to Course 2's 59% male populated and 41% female
population. The results from the survey were reexamined by analyzing responses by race and
gender. There were no significant differences based on this breakdown. According to Professor
Lienhard, this is consistent with findings from past years from other Course 2 and 2-A surveys.
Page 15
5.0 Discussion
After assessing the extensive amount of data, there seem to be some stark differences
between Course 2 and Course 2-A alumni with respect to importance of classes completed as
undergraduates for current careers, career paths, ability importance in current careers, and
feelings about MIT after graduation. This is understandable as one of the main differences
between the programs is the difference in depth and breadth of the Course 2 and 2-A curricula.
The different course options seem to cater to the two different populations well. In fact, Course
2-A's requirement for 6 classes within their concentration was a recent change to further increase
the depth of the program.
To assess the alumni's educational experience at MIT, data was gathered on switching
into 2 or 2-A and the activities they engaged in when at MIT. When people switched into
mechanical engineering, an overwhelming number of people, almost four times as many,
switched into 2-A; in addition, two times as many students could use their coursework to their
major. Thus, the flexibility within Course 2-A seems to be an attractive feature for students who
want to get a better mechanical engineering experience without their previous major's
coursework going to waste. Since over half of Course 2-A's alumni population that filled this
survey out switched majors, findings must be evaluated in the context of this information. Many
of the answers with respect to career path and MIT experience are likely to be influenced by this
experience. This is further strengthened by the fact that Course 2-A students seemed to have a
larger participation in activities that are applicable to multiple majors such as DLAB, the PSC,
and the Tech.
Career choices are also quite different between Course 2 and 2-A. Most Course 2
students go on to a master's or PhD in Mechanical Engineering just after graduation while more
2-A students go into industry-specific areas such as the medical or academic field. This finding
suggests that students who go into Course 2 follow a traditional engineering career path: going to
graduate school and then pursuing their PhD or entering a mechanical-engineering related job.
This data also suggests that students who know what they want to do right after graduation are
more inclined to enter Course 2-A; therefore going to engineering graduate school would only
delay embarking on that career path. A rather large percentage of Course 2-A graduates entered
the medical field which has its own typical paths including biomedical research, medical school
public health or management consulting to bio/pharmaceutical firms. Combining this
information with the information that classes were taken that join mechanical engineering with
other disciplines, it appears that students who have a fairly good idea of what they want to do
after graduation join Course 2-A. This clarity of choice carries through when they are making
career choices.
The abilities section of the survey further supports the different career paths finding for
Course 2 versus Course 2-A graduates. While few averages differed much between Course 2
and 2-A alumni in preparation, many differed in importance for current careers. The subjects that
differed in importance were almost all related to technical abilities. This makes sense as almost
25% of the Course 2 alumni are currently in engineering grad school or pursuing their PhD and
would directly use these concepts as opposed to Course 2-A's 13% in master's and PhD
programs.
Most interestingly, Course 2-A graduates reported being better prepared to use
perspectives from several disciplines for analysis. This ties in well with the finding that 34% of
2-A respondents did not find anything missing in their curriculum and only 5% of 2-A
Page 16
respondents found application-related courses missing in their coursework. This validates that a
multidisciplinary education is indeed found by undergoing the Course 2-A major.
Both Course 2 and 2-A alumni reported the high importance for professional skills
including writing, and oral presentation, and the substantially lower level of preparation in these
skills. Moreover, it is notable how the subjects that alumni were over-prepared were technical
skills and the topics that they needed more than they were given for were "soft skills" such as
ethics and communication skills. This suggests the need to better incorporate, value, and
emphasize these skills in classes.
It is no surprise that Course 2 and 2-A alumni seem to reflect back on their education
differently. For example, alumni rated themselves similarly with respect to their peers except
when alumni rated themselves with respect to other peers in their job where Course 2-A students
rated themselves lower than Course 2 students did. This could perhaps reinforce the fact that
Course 2-A students choose a variety of career fields that may or may not be related to their
mechanical engineering background and thus, may have a slight initial disadvantage when
entering their new field. Many alumni noted at the end of the survey that, although they were less
prepared with respect to their peers, this was not the fault of their major as their career choices
were simply too far from their background to be able to compete on the same terms.
They also seemed to reflect back on the subjects lacking in their curriculum similarly.
Course 2 alumni reported missing subjects related directly to their current job; it is possible that
fewer Course 2-A students reported this because they had taken these courses for their
concentration subjects. Recommendations for improvement were also reported very similarly. To
highlight some options that the Mechanical Engineering Faculty could consider further
integrating in the curriculum, alumni noted the lack of material in applying past subjects,
business skills, finance know-how, programming, electronics, and mathematics - especially
statistics.
Finally, having scrutinized all of the results, it is important to recognize that these results
are not necessarily representative of all of the Mechanical Engineering alumni. For example,
there is self-report bias, a natural tendency for respondents to report their own achievements and
abilities as higher than their peers. Moreover, it is also possible that those who are inclined to
respond to such a survey may be a select population with common characteristics. Fortunately, a
sizeable population size of at least 350 graduates for each question was surveyed so with such a
large sampling size, the bias is potentially less pronounced. Additionally, a lot of the analysis
was comparing two populations proportional to the number of people that responded in the
category. Thus, the self-reporting bias is mitigated as it is contained in both populations.
6.0 Conclusion
It is especially noteworthy to compare Course 2 and 2-A alumni's impressions of the
others' program. Although there was no question with a free response related to a direct
comparison, alumni commented on it nevertheless through various free responses throughout the
survey. Course 2 graduates mentioned how "2-A seems a bit flaky as a major" whereas Course
2-A students commented on how "2 is too rigid and too many students major in 2 only to never
use it." These are fairly bold statements from each side and they underscore the difference in
sentiments between the two majors. There is certainly a difference not only in the career choices
made by each group, but also in their opinions of the other program.
In addition to this study's concrete objectives of finding out about Course 2 and 2-A
graduates' careers and abilities, it also sought data-supported findings to address this specific
Page 17
issue of what happens to graduates of the "flaky program" versus the "too rigid program".
Apparently, both groups' career paths and ability confidence are strong, but different. Course 2A students do not always "cop out" of their requirements, but are simply more certain of what
they want to do and want to take relevant classes. A good example would be the sizable number
of students who pursued the medical field and certainly have additional subjects required in order
to apply to medical school. Moreover, more than half of the Course 2-A alums switched from a
different major and thus, may not have had as much time to take all of the Course 2 subjects,
especially of this change was after taking 5 or 6 subjects in another major.
This aside, in general, students felt a very similar amount of confidence in their overall
abilities and specific abilities. Perhaps these comparative claims from both sides were made out
of one's own desires and interests. For example, a Course 2-A student would want flexibility and
would accordingly see Course 2 as too rigid. In the end, the majority of students seemed to have
matriculated into the option most suited for them as they expressed general happiness with their
experience and similar percentages from both majors said they would make the same decision
given the option. It would be nice if Course 2 and Course 2-A students and graduates reconciled
their differences of opinion between the two majors as comparing them on a specific rubric is not
going to give useful results. Had it been so easy to compare these majors, this thesis would have
been significantly less complex.
This thesis examined the alumni population on many different topics but this is only the
tip of the iceberg. The survey data gathered for this study can certainly be further examined to
answer many more questions such as how well a person sticks to their career path given a certain
concentration and how a person's recommendations about their major correlated with their
performance, activities, and career choices. Specific concentrations like biome/premed and
management can also be isolated and examined as they certainly have had a significant impact
on the Course 2-A results. Did the students who ended up in medical school use their subjects in
the same way as Course 2 students did? Did alumni with a management concentration pursue
unrelated engineering jobs? The analysis has no bounds.
Moreover, this subject can be further researched by asking new questions to dig into the
intricacies between Course 2 and 2-A. This study focused on objective questions and thus,
questions like "Why did you choose your major?" or "Why did you change majors" or "Could
you describe your entire career path?" were never asked. These open ended questions would give
a much better idea about the appeal and afterlife of MIT's Department of Mechanical
Engineering graduates.
In conjunction with this thesis, other research has been done in the area to analyze the
curriculum and its effect on students. Shanette Go '10 researched the Course 2 and Course 2-A
experience as well but about the opinions and prospects of current students at MIT in her thesis,
"Re-engineering Engineering: How Course 2-A is Paving the Way for Interdisciplinary
Engineering at MIT". Kristen Wolfe '04 has also performed related research on the careers of
alumni in her thesis, "Understanding the careers of the alumni of the MIT Mechanical
Engineering department."
Overall, this thesis examined the alumni with respect to classes, careers, abilities, and
overall experience. Differences were found among the number of transfers from other majors,
range of career options, and sentiments about having core vs. elective classes. There was very
little difference in confidence, abilities, and what was missing in their MIT experience.
Discoveries were made about the most used abilities and topics, and how to best cater to these
two different populations. Most importantly, it was discovered that, above all of the minor
Page 18
details, the Mechanical Engineering Department is on the right path by allowing and supporting
the Course 2-A major. They have successfully recognized two different populations within
Mechanical Engineering and have catered to them individually. Course 2 students report to be
more interested in a general background as it fits in with their future plans and Course 2-A
students report to be more interested in a specific topic and express an interest to delve into it
more deeply.
7.0 Acknowledgement and Personal Note
This thesis would not have been possible without the incredible support of Professor
Anette Hosoi, my thesis advisor, and Barbara Masi, the Director of Innovation and Assessment
for MIT School of Engineering. They walked me through the entire process from COUHES to
analysis and were as interested in the results as I was. Their support and encouragement has been
invaluable. Additionally, over 500 Alumni spent the time to go through the survey and by the
end, at least 350 filled out each question. The survey was approximately 15 minutes long so, in
addition to the countless hours I spent on this thesis with my advisors, the alumni also put in at
least 95 hours or almost 4 days worth of time.
I would also like to thank my parents for their incredible consistent and endless support
and Shanette Go for taking an interest in our MIT population with me and completing our theses
together on these complementary topics.
Finally, over 200 alumni responded at the end of the survey with their e-mail to receive
the results of this survey. Clearly, there is an incredible amount of interest in this subject and I
am excited to have the opportunity to share these results with so many invested people. The
research was long and I read over 3000 long responses for specific questions but it was worth it
and I am glad I had the opportunity to ask and answer these questions that have never been
answered to this detail before. I hope the Mechanical Engineering Faculty will find these results
helpful and encouraging and other majors can look to this as an indication that even within one
major there are different populations that need to be catered to separately and doing so can
produce excellent drive graduates.
Page 19
8.0 References
1 National Academy of Engineering. "The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century.
Phase II Report." Washington, D.C., National Academies Press, 2005.
2Gereffi,
Wadhwa, Rissing, and Ong. "Getting the Numbers Right: International Engineering
Education
in the United States, China, and India." Journal of Engineering Education, 2008.
3 Hockfield,
Susan. "Making the Case for American Higher Education." MIT, President Speeches and
Essays: http://web.mit.edu/hockfield/speeches/2008-naicu.html, 2008.
Page 20
9.0 Appendix
Questions Asked In Survey
Page 1: Basic Information
1. Did you graduate as Course 2 or Course 2-A?
Options: 2, 2-A
2. If you majored in 2-A, what was your 2-A concentration?
Options: Biomedical/Pre-Med,Control, Instrumentand Robotics, Energy, Engineering
Management,InternationalDevelopment, Mechanics,Nano/Micro engineering, Precision
Engineering,Product Development, Sustainable Development,Other
3. What year did you graduate?
Options: 1999 or earlier,2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009
Page 2. Switching Majors, Career Path, MIT Activities
1. Did you switch majors during college? If so, from what? Check all that apply.
Options: I did not switch majors, 1 - Civil & EnvironmentalEngineering,2 - Mechanical
Engineering,2A- Mechanical Engineering- Course 2A, 3 - MaterialScience & Engineering,
5 - Chemistry, 6 - ElectricalEngineering & Computer Science, 7 - Biology, 8 - Physics, 9 Brain & Cognitive Science, 10 - Chemical Engineering, 15 - Management, 16 - Aeronautics
& Astronautics, 18 - Mathematics, 20 - Biological Engineering,22 - Nuclear Engineering,
Other (pleasespecify)
2. If you switched majors, were you able to use subjects from your old major toward
completing requirements of your new major?
Options: Yes, No, I didn't switch majors
3. What did you do immediately after graduating? What are you currently doing? Choose all
that apply.
Options (justafter graduatingand currently): Masters Degree in EngineeringProgram,
DoctoralDegree in EngineeringProgram,Masters Degree in Business Program,Law
Degree Program,Medical Degree Program,MechanicalEngineeringRelated Job,
EngineeringRelated Job (unrelatedto MechE), Management/Consulting/FinanceRelated
Job, Academic Related Job, Other
4. On a scale of 1 to 5, how well prepared were you for your current endeavors relative to your
peers in your 2 or 2-A program, your peers in mechanical engineering overall, all MIT
students in your graduating class, and your peers in your career path?
Options(2 or 2-A program,MechanicalEngineering Graduates,MIT GraduatingClass, Your
CurrentProfessionalPeers [regardlessof major]): very unprepared,somewhat prepared,
very prepared,N/A
5. In graduate school or in a professional position, did you find any area(s) where your skill/
knowledge were lacking compared to peers? If so, what area(s)? Did you need to take
additional classes to address this?
Page 21
6. Please describe your current job and its relationship to your engineering background. How
are you able to use this background in your current position?
7. What are your career plans in the next 3 years? If you plan on attending graduate school in
future, please specify what area and degree. If you're in grad school now, what do you plan to
do after graduation?
8. Please tell us about your long term career vision.
9. Please check whether you participated in any of the following activities while at MIT.
Options: UPOP, D-Lab, Public Service Center activities, Study Abroad, Internship off campus
(other than UPOP), ROTC, Design club (Solarcar,etc.), Student/ living group government
officer, Varsity sports team, Student publication(Tech, etc.), Other (please specify)
Page 3. Your Abilities
For the next few questions, please rate your abilities:
1- How importantis this abilityfor your careersofar?
2- How well did your MIT engineeringeducation prepareyou in this ability?
Options: Scale of ] to 7, 1 is not important/preparedand 7 is extremely important/prepared.
1. Apply math in complex problem solving
2. Apply engineering concepts in complex problem solving
3. Model, measure, analyze using engineering or technical principles
4. Apply economics in complex problem solving
5. Recognize underlying technical concepts in a complex problem
6. Use systematic design procedures and build something close to my specifications
7. Quickly grasp the limits of a technology well enough to use it
8. Critically evaluate and balance technical, economic, and cultural factors in making project
9. Concretely use perspectives from several disciplines (eg. management/engineering/economics
etc.) in analyzing problems
10. Address ethics issues in a professional situation
11. Write effectively
12. Write a clear, concise report summarizing a project
13. Make a persuasive presentation or oral report that fits audience interests
14. Defend a point of view in an oral debate
15. Function effectively as a member of a multi-disciplinary team
16. Lead a team in completing a project
17. Make sure a team sets ground rules for how they will work together
18. Make a precise project plan that maps out task order for a major project
19. Proactively plan for your career
20. Please choose whether you agree or disagree with each statement: Your core engineering
classes were useful, Your elective/concentration classes were useful, Your major adequately
prepared you, Your choice of classes strongly affected your career path
Page 22
Options: Scale of ] to 7, 1 is strongly disagree,7 is strongly agree
21. With the knowledge you have now, if you had the choice, you would
Options: Switch from 2 to 2-A, Switch from 2-A to 2, Switch concentrationswithin 2-A, Choose a
major in a different department
22. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions for improvement of the 2 or 2-A
program?
Page 4. Demographic Information
1. Gender (Male or Female)
2. Ethnic Background (White, African American, Latino/Latina, Asian/Pacific -Islander, Other)
3. Are there any questions, comments, or concerns regarding this survey or the research topic I
am working on?
4. Are you interested in the results of this research? If so, please provide your e-mail:
Page 23