Disconnected Engineering Education

In 2003 Rosalind Williams who had been Dean of Students and Undergraduate Education at MIT published a short and controversial paper in the Chronicle of Higher Education with the title “Education for the profession formerly known as engineering”. Discussion about its argument was short-lived and, apart from one paper, it has been scarcely mentioned at either ASEE's annual conferences or at the Frontiers in Education Conferences even though it focused on a major issue of concern to all engineers, namely the identity of engineering, and as an unspoken consequence, the identity of engineering educators. Essentially Williams argued that engineering “has evolved into an open-ended profession of everything in a world where technology shades into science, art, management with no strong institutions to define an overarching mission”. Each new technology causes the development of a degree program in that area which develops its own language and identity thereby separating itself from other areas with whom it does not communicate. This separateness is reflected in the institutions that serve engineering education. ASEE is divided into divisions which never the twain shall meet. To establish something that is new, a division must be established. Similarly, FIE is based on sessions. In both cases moving between sessions or divisions is extremely difficult and individuals tend to remain in the silos constructed for them by the organizational structure. The purpose of this paper is first, to review Williams' thesis and show how it has impacted engineering education. Second, to review recent work on identity and the engineering profession, and third to make suggestions as to how engineering educators and organizations like FIE and university departments might respond to the challenge to engineering education implicit in William's thesis.