It's A Material World An Engineering Experience For Non Engineers

Our society becomes more technically complex each day. Key problems faced by society are rarely characterized as problems of science and technology; they are grouped as social, economic or political problems. However, it is clear that social, economic and political issues intersect, and that technological advance and innovation is at the heart of each intersection -sometimes causing the problems, but more often presenting solutions that elevate the human condition. The thesis of this presentation is that it is incumbent upon the university to ensure that each of its graduates has an understanding of technical issues which will allow them to participate fully in society and meaningfully in the dialogues which will lead to governmental policy decisions in the future. At Cal Poly we have developed a schema to address this need, built primarily around materials engineering topics. The proposed structure is true to the character of the institution and presents non-engineers with a real exposure to technology. Assessment results are presented and discussed. Introduction Cal Poly is currently reevaluating its curricula, indeed its very role as a polytechnic university. Part of that reevaluation is a discussion of educational expectations and desired outcomes for non-technical majors. Should liberal arts majors be aware of the strong effect of technology on our culture? Should music majors appreciate the links between their discipline and computers? At first glance, it seems that the answer is a resounding yes. The University Strategic Plan calls for all Cal Poly graduates “ o have acquired knowledge regarding technology, its importance to society and its impacts on natural systems ”. Our Visionary Pragmatism Task Force asks Cal Poly faculty to integrate technological and humanistic areas of study: “ Graduates of Cal Poly will possess a uniquely balanced and integrated knowledge and understanding of technology, mathematics, sciences, humanities and the social sciences .” The Technological Society Our society is technologically driven and technology centered. Thus, an understanding of technology, a technological literacy, is a critical prerequisite for full participation as a citizen in the Twenty-first Century world. Indeed, the key public challenges are rarely characterized by government as questions of technology, they are assumed to be socio-economic-political problems. However, key issues often intersect, and technology lies at the center of the intersections, sometimes causing the problems, but more typically offering possibilities for their solution. In its connection to human affairs, technology now defines our culture in much the same way religion or philosophy has in times past. It profoundly changes lifestyles, and can reinforce or collide with our most strongly held values. It modulates the most celebrated passages of our human existence with artificial interventions during birth and on the deathbed. Unseen and often unnoticed, technology dictates our future. Computers, embedded in commercial jets, traffic control systems, cars, lawnmowers, watches, washing machines and toasters, do much of society’s rote thinking. These devices and others like them redefine our lives and often produce a cautious and complicated optimism about the future. The CSU System The educational imperative of the California State University (CSU) System has its roots in the period between the great world wars and in the GI Bills after the Second World War. With unmatched egalitarian educational fervor, the American public supported the aims of this educationally progressive era. Education was driven by an effort to P ge 382.1 2 educate all youth, not just the academically elite, for complete living. Driven by depression era sensitivities, the educational community was urged to serve four goals, self-realization, human relations, economic efficiency and civic responsibility. In the period after W.W.II, these broad educational aims were embellished further in the face of repeated Soviet technical successes and the implied American educational deficiencies. New emphasis was placed on science and engineering science. Pressures on the Curriculum Nationwide, there are tremendous pressures on university curricula. Pressure arises from increased student demand, variegated student preparation, the blending and blurring of social and educational agendas, and diminished resources. In response to these challenges curricula must be examined as a whole, not in a piecemeal fashion. Changes in one portion of the curricula have implications for all others. Curricular renovation cannot be approached in a serial fashion, but rather in a parallel, integrated effort. One must examine curricula to determine what is lacking, and where there is excess. We must guard against professors who, regardless of discipline, fall prey to the first Aristotelian fallacy, that more (particularly more exposure to their subject areas) is better. A companion fallacy is that all learning must occur in a classroom at the university. Current Curricular Structure and Definitions GEB requirements in the CSU System are so designed that, taken with the major depth program and elective units presented by the candidate for the bachelors degree, they will assure that graduates of the System have made noteworthy progress toward becoming “truly educated” persons. Curriculum can be divided into three components: liberal arts, science & mathematics, and engineering. In a general fashion, curricula can also be parsed into major courses, support courses, general education and breadth courses, and “free” electives. The confusion and consternation around general education and breadth centers on a single truth: university professors have been singularly unable to define what an educated person should know. General education and breadth courses are typically defined as that mix of courses which students must take, outside their major, to give a broad foundation in liberal arts and sciences this is not what GEB has come to mean in the CSU System. Interestingly, when faculty nationwide bemoan the diminished emphasis on GEB, they typically allude to science and mathematics requirements not liberal arts requirements. This is not the case in the CSU or at Cal Poly. As structured, GEB at Cal Poly is anachronistic. It currently reflects a medieval/classical focus on English, history and philosophy that addresses only a portion of what the truly educated college graduate should know. It does not meaningfully address additions to the central body of human knowledge produced during the scientific revolution, and is absolutely mute with respect to technology. The GEB structure defines technical literacy in terms of an ability to use computer programs for word processing and allows requirements for scientific competency to be satisfied by lower division, high school-level courses. In fact, students can be excused from the mathematics requirements of GEB if testing shows that they have a “math-phobia”. It is also useful to examine the unit requirements for the various disciplines at Cal Poly. Figures 1 and 2 show the units required for graduation as a function of discipline at Cal Poly. Clearly, the engineering disciplines require the greatest unit totals. However, the engineering disciplines, agricultural disciplines and business require the lowest number of units in their own colleges, and fewer units in their own departments than most liberal arts majors. A much greater proportion of the curricula is “free elective” in the liberal arts majors. It is instructive to examine the actual courses taken by typical graduates to assess where these elective courses are taken. Figure 3, a through d, shows the percentage of the curricula devoted to its various components. Figure 3a and 3b show the portions of the curricula for a typical materials engineering graduate and an idealized graduate from the English department, respectively. Figure 3c and d demonstrate that the actual distribution of courses taken by liberal arts students reflects a more severe parochiality than the idealized distribution. The vast majority of free elective units are taken in the liberal arts student’s own department and college. In fact, in each of the cases shown in Figure 3, English students took almost 90% of their units in one college. Engineering students take less than 50% of their unit load in engineering, 22% in math and science and 28% in liberal arts, a truly broad and general education. P ge 382.2 3 0 50 100 150 200 250