Regarding your recent article, 'Change' needed in engineering education, I believe the changes that [James] Plummer [Dean of Engineering at Stanford University]suggested are not the direction the engineering education should go in the U.S.

As a working engineer for over 20 years, I have seen the impact of the strengths and weaknesses of engineering education on the work that is done. I believe the rigor of engineering education should not be reduced in order to increase the number of engineers. The technical challenges of the future will require highly skilled engineers, and our educational system needs to train and develop people who can deliver.

I suggest the following changes:

1. Improve elementary and secondary school education to provide the background students will need to succeed in engineering school. This should include offering classes that begin to develop engineering skills at a early point. It should also include various levels of classes to allow students who show exceptional aptitude to get the training to help them achieve their full potential.

2. Having a wide breadth of education is important, and I believe most engineering programs already require this. However, great improvements may be made by improving the quality and relevance of these courses. Focusing on the key areas where one would need to be educated to understand and make good decisions (history, philosophy, economics) and be well-rounded (art, literature, music) would better train future engineers.

3. Engineering, being a very practical field, requires experience and exposure to the "real world" to be fully capable and successful. Integrating work experiences with education is key to training good engineers who can both "hit the ground running" when they start to work and appreciate and get the most out of their education while they are still in school.

4. If more engineers will be needed, and there is concern that the required numbers will not be able to make it through the current curriculum, it may be best to develop and offer a parallel curriculum that would be less intense. This would obviously not match the training the engineers who complete the standard curriculum would get, but it may allow those who could not complete the regular curriculum to enter the engineering field.

5. Part of the engineering curriculum should be adjusted to better prepare students for what they will encounter in their work. Statistics, problem solving, safety and basic business acumen are areas in which every engineer should be knowledgeable.

6. Public relations is important, and helping to teach people about the value of engineering, the roles that engineers play in our world and the opportunities that exist for engineers may help many to be inspired to become engineers. While it is clear that the current state of engineering education could use some adjustments, we need to be careful that we do it in a way that actually improves it. Taking measures that sound good on paper but nearly compromise the educational standards may just be taking the easy way out.

We need to drive to be better, and find ways to help others meet higher standards. It sounds tough, but tough problems are where engineers shine. Let's make sure we do so in our education and training as well.

Ed Yannul
Engineer