SPINE Management Summary
This benchmarking project of engineering education in the USA and Europe focuses for the first time on successful practices in university education. Ten leading
technical universities took part in this study: Carnegie Mellon University (CMU),
Ecole Centrale Paris (ECP), Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL),
Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich (ETHZ), Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech), Imperial College London (Imperial College), Kungl
Tekniska Högskolan Stockholm (KTH), Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT), Rheinisch - Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen (RWTH Aachen),
and Technische Universiteit Delft (TU Delft).
A main objective of the study was to identify successful practices, i.e. concepts,
methodologies and tools, in specific areas of engineering education which have
proved successful according to defined criteria. Successful practices were identified from the results of qualitative and quantitative questionnaires to the partner
universities and departments selected for this study, and from Internet questionnaires to professors, engineering graduates and managers on the quality of engineering education in the ten partner universities. Just as important as the questionnaires for identifying successful practices were on site visits to the partner universities with personal interviews.
All in all, 543 professors, 1372 engineers and 145 managers were questioned and
the project team interviewed 66 respondents, including Provosts, Deans and Department Heads at all 10 partner universities. Furthermore, 95 potentially valuable
practices (PVP) were identified (see appendix B), of which 31 successful practices
were verified and analyzed in detail.
It is important to bear in mind during analysis and interpretation of these results
that some of them are subject to a cultural effect: average ratings in the USA are
higher for some items than the European average. This difference is particularly
great with regard to explicit assessment of the own university.
Summarized below according to topic area, are the quantitative survey results,
together with some examples of successful practices identified. A full listing of successful practices is given in chapter 5.
1.1 University structure
The structure and organization of the partner universities vary widely. There are
differences with regard to patronage (private/public), entrance procedures (strict
selection versus wide choice) and tuition fees (high fees versus free study). There
are also differences between universities with regard to organization and management. The US university structure assigns wide decision-making competences and
responsibilities to the President, Provost, Dean and Heads of Departments, while
most European universities have a decentralized system ensuring professors a
high degree of independence.
Another difference between the 10 partner universities is their size. While, for example, the ECP has only about 1’500 students, Georgia Tech has more than
15’000. The number of professors and lecturers varies accordingly. With regard to
the number of students, an interesting demographic aspect is the proportion of
women, which while traditionally much lower in engineering than in other disciplines, differs considerably between universities. The proportion of women students at Imperial College in the areas surveyed is 18%, at MIT 27%, while at
RWTH Aachen and EPFL it is only 7% and 5% respectively.
Despite these quantitative differences and the additional cultural and social effects,
all the partner universities have one characteristic in common: they are among the
best engineering education institutions in their respective countries, or even the
best of all.
Successful practices:
Imperial College is making great efforts to motivate more women to study science
and engineering. Since the mid-eighties, IC has been running so-called WISE
(Women in Science and Engineering) courses, which are announced in all 4’700
schools in the UK and are a mixture of sessions with undergraduates, discussions
with students and staff members, laboratory work and socializing. As a result, the
percentage of female students increased between 1985 and 2001 from 16% to
30% (in all disciplines).
Some of the SPINE partner universities have introduced sophisticated quality
management systems in order to maintain or continuously improve their high training standards. TU Delft has an elaborate external and internal quality management
program which works by conducting intensive discussions. The Education Quality
Management Advisory Committee for Quality Evaluation (AKO), consisting of professors, students and external members, provides a memory and awareness function for TU Delft’s quality management system. A success factor at MIT comprises
so-called external Visiting Committees (VC), which make a decisive contribution to
quality assurance. These VCs, each with 18 members, exist for every academic
department and provide an independent assessment of the quality of activities
conducted by the departments which are visited on a regular basis, typically every
2 years. The ETHZ also has a well-defined internal and external evaluation system,
consisting of six modules: peer reviews, departmental self-evaluation, graduate
questionnaires, student questionnaires, annual reports, and administration quality
surveys.
1.2 Education / Internationality
Quality of education
Quality of professors/teaching staff and quality of infrastructure are regarded as the
most important criteria for the quality of education. Almost as important for engineers and managers is cooperation with industry, while professors regard the practice-related aspects of education (e.g. non-core competences) as less important.
More importance is attached in the US to specialization/depth of education than in
Europe, where internationality is regarded as more important.
In general, engineers rate the criteria for the quality of education at their own university rather lower than professors do. Average ratings by European engineers
are lower than those of their US colleagues.
The percentage of students spending at least one term at a foreign university is
lower among US universities (except Georgia Tech) than in Europe. The highest
exchange rates are at EPFL and ECP, where nearly 30% of students spend at
least one semester abroad.
Successful practices:
The importance of internationality in Europe is also reflected in successful practices: in the eighties ECP implemented a long-term strategy for internationality and
was one of the founders of the TIME network, a double degree program currently
utilized by 34% of ECP students. In recent years EPFL has also undertaken successful efforts on internationalization in research and education, and created a
centre for continuing education, international relations and cooperation (CFRC). In
addition to the CFRC, EPFL has “mobility delegates” and professors responsible
for the individual relationships with foreign universities. ETHZ has a very cosmopolitan and international faculty composition, and offers compensation packages (containing financial and non-financial elements) which are among the most attractive
worldwide. Another example is KTH with its international master programs in English in order to increase the number of international and Swedish students. International master programs are also offered at TU Delft. With the new programs in English, TU Delft was able to increase the number of foreign Ph.D. students, to extend
its international alumni network and to establish new collaborations with partner
universities, e.g. in the US.
Teaching methods
The most highly rated teaching methods are diploma/final projects. All teaching
methods are assessed lower by engineers than by professors, in particular with
regard to lectures and computer-based training. Own universities in the US are
rated higher than in Europe. This effect is more pronounced among engineers than
among professors.
Successful practices:
Notable here is the Distance Learning / Distance Education program developed by
Georgia Tech, a university which has accumulated long-term experience in this
area. Important in this connection is the integration of newer technologies such as
satellite, teleconferencing, and the Internet. The focus on excellent services for the
distance learner is as imperative as the close cooperation of the Center for Distance Learning and the academic units.
At KTH, communication aspects, project work and management skills, which are
usually taught in courses, are integrated into the more traditional studies at an early stage. For example, education in mathematics has been changed. The math
courses are coordinated with an appropriate engineering course in order to increase the motivation of the students.
Learning environment
The professional competence of teaching staff was rated highest. Support and
counselling for students and pedagogical and didactic skills of teaching staff were
rated lowest. These aspects were considered by engineers as inadequate (<4, on
a scale from 1 - 6; 1=lowest, 6=highest). Infrastructure (tools, student facilities,
practical training facilities) was rated on average as fair to good (4.5 – 5). Ratings
by engineers are generally lower than those by professors.
1.3 Cooperation with universities / industry
Most professors reported cooperation sporadically or regularly with other universities over the last two years. The most frequent form of cooperation is joint R&D
projects, and less frequently exchange of lecturers/teachers. The future importance
of cooperation with other universities was estimated as same to increasing. There
are, however, wide differences between universities. 50 - 80% of professors reported cooperating "regularly" with other universities over the last two years in the
form of R&D projects., the highest percentage being among professors at Imperial
College (79%), and the lowest among professors at ECP and CMU (52% each).
In the professors' view, likewise cooperation with industry is most frequently in the
form of R&D projects and less frequently as lectures/teachers from industry. Here
again, there are wide differences between the partner universities. Nearly 90% of
ECP professors cooperated regularly with industry over the last two years in the
form of lecturers/teachers from industry. Likewise, at the ETHZ and RWTH Aachen, more than 50% of professors indicated "regularly". These percentages at
MIT, CMU, EPFL and Imperial College are below 30%. The managers questioned
indicated cooperation in student and diploma/thesis projects as the most frequent
cooperation form.
In the view of professors and managers, the various forms of cooperation are generally beneficial to them. Professors rate cooperation with industry slightly higher
than cooperation with other universities. Managers see the greatest benefit of cooperation with universities as contact with potential employees.
The number of professors with experience in industry varies between 30% and
67%, with lower percentages at the US universities on average. However, two
thirds of professors at TU Delft and KTH have no industrial experience at all.
Successful practices:
ECP has strong links with industry in funding, teaching and research. Teaching
partnerships with industry, part-time professors from industry and the creation of a
club of multinational companies for international student exchanges are only some
of the aspects of the successful university-industry cooperation.
EPFL offers courses focusing on the basic sciences, but with strong links to industry. In the first year, students are trained to understand the basics of science and
engineering in depth. But every student is required to write a practice-oriented diploma thesis – in a lab at EPFL or in industry (20 – 25% of the students).
A special kind of cooperation with industry exists at Georgia Tech, where in the
early eighties the Advanced Technology Development Center (ATDC) was founded
in cooperation with the State of Georgia. The goal was to create an environment to
promote technological entrepreneurship, to build support groups which help the
development of technology companies and to strengthen the infrastructure necessary to support technology development. The ATDC helps to build or complete the
business plan, understand the markets, and gives technical support to further develop a product.
1.4 Performance of engineers
Engineering competences
General, widely applicable skills (problem-solving skills, analysis/ methodological
skills) are regarded as more important than specific engineering know-how (R&D
know-how, specialized engineering proficiency). Specialized engineering proficiency is, however, rated more highly in the US than in Europe.
Practical engineering experience is regarded by professors as the least important
competence. Engineers and managers, however, regard practical experience as
more important. Widely applicable problem-solving skills and analysis / methodological skills are rated the highest of all competences at the own university.
There are also general differences in rating levels between universities. Professors
at KTH, for example, rated their university's engineering competences at 3.8 to 4.6
(scale 1 – 6; 1=lowest, 6=highest), while MIT professors returned ratings of 4.5 to
5.5. US ratings are generally higher than in Europe, but there are also differences
in rating levels between European universities
The differences among engineers were more pronounced, with an average rating
of engineering competences at RWTH Aachen and KTH of 4.3, compared with
about 5 at US universities. Ratings among the US universities are particularly high
at MIT and CMU.
Successful practices:
A particularly interesting successful practice has been established at MIT. Engineering education here is broad, fundamental, yet practical, and influenced by the
curriculum, an extensive cooperative program with industry and an industrial connection program to improve MIT’s links with industry. At CMU, an introduction to
engineering courses is offered in the first year in parallel with mathematics and
engineering, in order to give students experience with actual physical systems as
soon as possible in their curriculum.
At RWTH Aachen, students are integrated particularly frequently in research. Virtually every student who has passed the pre-diploma examinations works as an
auxiliary research assistant. Students perform partial activities for scientific projects
and are given small, limited blocks to handle on their own. The selection and continued employment of students as auxiliary research assistants is the most important route for recruiting Ph.D. students.
General professional competences
Universal, widely applicable competences such as communication skills, English
language skills and teamwork abilities are regarded as the most important general
professional competences for engineering graduates. Specialized skills in other
areas such as law, marketing and finance are not regarded as important in engineering education.
Presentation skills / leadership skills are regarded as more important by professors
at US universities than by their European colleagues. Among engineers, the only
difference between the USA and Europe concerns other language skills, to which
US engineers assign an importance rating of only 3 on a scale of 1 to 6.
European professors rate the implementation of general professional competences
at their own university higher than engineers. The widest differences are in competences such as leadership skills, social skills and presentation skills.
The importance of general professional competences is rated >4 (on a scale of 1 to
6) on average, but the implementation of these competences at the own university
is rated lower on average (<4). The biggest difference between importance and
assessment is with communication skills, leadership skills and social skills.
With regard to leadership skills the greatest difference are between the AngloSaxon and other universities. Engineers and Professors at MIT, CMU, Georgia
Tech and Imperial College rate their leadership skills between 4 and 5 on a scale
of 1 to 6, while ratings at the other European universities are below 4. One exception here is ECP, with above-average ratings for Europe.
With regard to social skills, there is a difference between the views of professors
(ratings >5) and engineers (<5). The highest ratings among professors are at ECP,
KTH, Imperial College and TU Delft.
Successful practices:
Imperial College integrates project work and teamwork extremely well. Integrated
laboratories where computing is purposely set up as an engineering and not as a
scientific discipline, groupwork starting in the 1st year and continuing throughout the
2nd year, and interaction between laboratories and groupwork are some of the
components of this successful practice. CMU has established interdisciplinary and
team projects in order to ensure that courses offer a realistic design experience by
associating every project with an actual industrial client. Another objective of
CMU’s education concept is to motivate students to document their results.
1.5 Reputation of universities
Quality of research, quality of programs and success of graduates are regarded as
the most important aspects contributing to the reputation of a technical university.
Ranking by the media and continuing education programs are regarded as less
important.
In the view of engineers and managers, contacts/collaboration with industry are
among the most important image forming factors for a university. Professors regard
this aspect as less important.
Merits, awards (e.g. Nobel prize) and publications by professors are much more
important in the view of professors than of engineers.
Performance-related criteria such as merits/awards for professors, ranking by the
media, publications by professors and success of graduates are regarded as more
important in the USA than in Europe.
The reputations of partner universities are rated with average values between 4.2
and 4.9 on a scale of 1 to 6. Exceptions are ETHZ and MIT, where ratings are
higher than 5.
Professors and engineers rate their own universities above-average in each case.
This particularly applies to engineers in the United States. European professors
and engineers (such as at KTH and RWTH Aachen) rate their own universities
rather modestly by comparison.