A 2-Year Common Template For Mechanical Engineering And Mechanical Engineering Technology

AC 2009-1955: A TWO-YEAR COMMON TEMPLATE FOR MECHANICAL
ENGINEERING AND MECHANICAL ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY
Enrique Barbieri, University of Houston
ENRIQUE BARBIERI received his Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from The Ohio State
University in 1988. He was on the faculty of the Electrical Engineering Department (1988-96)
and a tenured Associate Professor and Chair of the Electrical Engineering & Computer Science
Department (1996-98) at Tulane University. In 2002 he joined the University of Houston as
Professor & Chair of the Department of Engineering Technology. His research interests are in
control systems and applications to electromechanical systems. He is a member of IEEE and
ASEE and Chairs the Executive Council of the Texas Manufacturing Assistance Center.
Raresh Pascali, University of Houston
Professor Raresh Pascali completed undergraduate studies at Brooklyn Poly in Aerospace
Engineering, and graduate studies in Aeronautics and Astronautics. He is the Program
Coordinator for the Mechanical Engineering Technology (MET) Program. Prior to joining UH in
Fall 2005, he was a faculty member at Texas A&M University in Galveston (TAMUG), in the
Texas Maritime Academy in the Marine Engineering Technology Department. His current focus
is in undergraduate engineering education with past support from NSF and TWC.
Miguel Ramos, University of Houston
MIGUEL RAMOS is the Director of Accreditation and Assessment Services for the College of
Technology at the University of Houston. His primary focus has been the practical application of
assessment and evaluation strategies to enhance educational quality in the college and university.
Prior to joining the University of Houston, Dr. Ramos worked as a researcher for the Southwest
Educational Development Laboratory, evaluating a systemic reform model designed to improve
student academic performance in low-income, high-minority districts. He also worked as
Evaluator for Boston Connects, a program designed to address non-academic barriers to success
in urban elementary schools via a web of coordinated health and social services. He earned a
Ph.D. in Educational Research, Measurement and Evaluation from Boston College in 2004.
William Fitzgibbon, University of Houston
WILLIAM FITZGIBBON, III earned his BA and PhD degrees from Vanderbilt University in
1968 and 1972 respectively. He is currently serving as Dean of the College of Technology of
University of Houston and holds professorial rank in both the Department of Mathematics and the
Department of Engineering Technology. He served as Chair of the Department of Mathematics,
co-Head of the Department of Computer Science and President of the University of Houston
Faculty Senate. He has held faculty positions at the University of California, San Diego and the
University of Bordeaux I and the University of Bordeaux II as well as a research position at
Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. He has well over 130 research articles plus numerous
articles, reviews, and reports and has lectured extensively in North America, Europe and Asia.
© American Society for Engineering Education, 2009

A 2-year Common Template for Mechanical Engineering and
Mechanical Engineering Technology
Abstract
A new educational paradigm was recently proposed by the authors that effectively places
Engineering and Engineering Technology programs within the Conceive, Design, Implement,
and Operate (CDIOTM
http://www.cdio.org/) professional engineering spectrum. The new model
advocates that a TAC/ABET accredited, 4-year B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering
Technology (MET) is a logical, viable, and in fact a key component in the student’s path to
entering the engineering profession and in earning Mechanical Engineering (ME) degrees. If the
model is adopted, it is envisioned that a new first professional engineering degree can be
constructed whereby: (1) All engineering-bound students would first complete 2 years of an
MET program; (2) With proper advising and mentoring, those students interested and skilled to
follow the more Conceive-Design side of engineering would transfer to a Department, College or
School of Engineering and complete an ME degree in 2, 3 or 4 additional years; if 4 years, then
the Department of Education definition of a first professional degree would be satisfied; and (3)
Those students interested and skilled to follow the more applied Implement-Operate side of
engineering would opt to complete the BS-MET degree in 2 additional years. Several benefits
include: (1) Enrollment increase in ME and in MET as a result of proper advising and mentoring
in the early stages of the student’s university experience; (2) Retention rate increase at the upper
level of both ME and MET; (3) Avoidance of duplication efforts and resource expenses for
staffing, equipping and maintaining laboratories needed in the first 2 years; and (4) ME
departments can better focus on advanced/graduate level education with better utilization of
professorial staff.
This article examines a 2-year common curriculum template for ME and MET programs based
on CDIO, and summarizes preliminary assessment results of the proposed educational model
collected from industry participants. The template assumes a full-time course of study in 4
semesters after which the student selects to either complete a BS in Engineering Technology in 2
additional years, or transfer to an ME degree plan which may be 2-, 3-, or 4-years long. Both
plans are assumed to be constructed so as to be ABET Accredited by the appropriate
Commission. An Electrical/Computer Engineering and Electrical/Computer ET 2-year
curriculum template is being presented in a separate article at this conference. A summary of
these works is also presented to the Engineering Technology Division as a separate article in this
conference. The templates are offered as a starting point to encourage further discussion.

Introduction
There is no question that the knowledge explosion in science, technology, engineering &
mathematics (STEM) over the past decades has exceeded anyone’s foresight. Indeed in the last
40 years we have witnessed technological advances in virtually every imaginable field that defy
our belief and remind us of feats first seen in the 1960s science fiction movies. The Electrical
Engineering field has morphed with incredible advances made possible by the advent of the
transistor and subsequent Moore’s Law, the digital computer and Internet, wireless
communication, and applications to every other scientific and engineering field. It is tantalizing
to speculate what technological and scientific breakthroughs in Mechanical Engineering need to
happen in the next 50 years because of the energy, environmental, transportation, health, and
food requirements placed by a continuously increasing population. If history serves us well, it is
critically important that engineering education be one step ahead of the curve to prepare the next
generation of engineering professionals, researchers, and academicians.
The National Academy of Engineering has unveiled the 14 Grand Challenges that are awaiting
engineering solutions www.engineeringchallenges.org/ in energy, infrastructure & the
environment, health & medicine, security, and in technology and tools for research and for
instruction & learning. A common thread in the 14 Grand Challenges lies in ensuring that the
educational system equips engineers with the skills needed to tackle these grand technical
problems. At the recent March 2-3, 2009 NAE Summit in Durham, North Carolina, several of
these challenges were discussed, and the imperative of having strong math and scientific
foundations, a knowledge of business and entrepreneurship, an awareness of the global
environment, and soft-skills development in engineering education was made clear. However, in
the authors’ opinion, it has also become clear that out of the typical 4-year plan, the roughly 2 ½
years worth of engineering courses are not sufficient to do justice to both the theory and the
practice of engineering, let alone all the other skills required of the 21st
Century Engineer.
References1-20
discuss some of the major developments in the world order, in the engineering
field, and in the educational structure of engineering and engineering technology of the last
century leading to the present situation. Despite the obvious pressures to meet the demands of a
technologically advanced and industrialized nation, engineering education at virtually all US
institutions still follows a traditional model that dates back to the middle of the 20th Century
designed to emphasize theoretical content reflecting a postwar embrace of science by
engineering programs. A glaring exception is perhaps Olin College, which opened in fall 2002
to an inaugural freshman class www.olin.edu/about_olin/olin_history.asp after creating and
testing “an innovative curriculum that infused a rigorous engineering education with business
and entrepreneurship as well as the arts, humanities and social sciences. They developed a hands-
on, interdisciplinary approach that better reflects actual engineering practice.”
Many feel that the transition from engineering applications to fundamental engineering science
has been unfortunate and that experiential learning should form the backbone of engineering
education. As recent as January 2009, the article “Engineering Schools Prove Slow to Change”

by P. Basken in The Chronicle of Higher Education points to the latest report by the Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, which indicates the strong emphasis on theory vs.
practice in engineering education discourages many students and does not expose graduates to
sufficient real-world problems.
Solutions to this dilemma may not be simple as legislation in many states places additional
pressure on baccalaureate degree plans by questioning the need for anything above 120 semester
credit hours. In engineering and engineering technology, both professional accreditation and
STEM knowledge explosion justify additional credits hours beyond 120 in the degree plans. But,
how many more credit hours are need to cover the practical content of engineering? A fairly
recent account of the historical development of engineering, engineering technology, and
accreditation boards in the context of the importance of laboratory instruction is given in21
. The
current situation is that (i) there are fewer engineering-specific courses squeezed in the 4-year
plan; (ii) engineering courses are highly theoretical and emphasize scientific analysis and
mathematical modeling and (iii) there has been a subsequent reduction in hands-on, laboratory
oriented, experiential learning, and courses delving into engineering design (synthesis as
opposed to analysis) and engineering operations have been deemphasized and relegated to
perhaps one or two courses in the curriculum.
Another important topic of relevance to this article is the definition of a First Professional
Degree (FPD). The US Department of Education recognizes a FPD having a study cycle of at
least 2 years of pre-professional preparation, followed by a number of years of professional
preparation, for a total length of at least 6 years. For example, students pursuing degrees in Law,
Medicine, and Pharmacy undertake cycles of 4/3, 4/4, and 2/4, respectively. An important
distinction is also made in that, although the recognized titles are “doctor” or “master”, these are
first degrees and not graduate research degrees such as PhD or MS15
. B.S. in Engineering
degrees requiring 4 years total, with no pre-engineering preparation, are deemed to fall short of
the US DoE definition of FPD. Both the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) have supported a B.S. in
Engineering as an FPD, indicating also the importance of life-long learning and that many
engineers seek additional formal education.
Since graduate programs in engineering are very well established, it is natural that these have
been recommended as FPD14, 16, 18, 20
. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has
advocated for almost 10 years that the master's be the FPD for Civil Engineering practice17
. On
the contrary, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Board of Governors
released a statement in June 2008 that opposes the requirement of BS plus 30 credits beyond the
FPD for PE registration – a requirement that the National Council of Examiners for Engineers
and Surveyors (NCEES) supports. The American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AICHE) and
the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
join the opposition. One may ask why the idea of setting the MS in engineering as the FPD
hasn’t fully caught on and implemented. Possible reasons are (i) society in general seems to be
willing to accept a much higher cost for a solution to a medical, business, or legal crisis than an

engineering one probably because of the personal nature and cost of the crisis; and (ii) it is
widely recognized that the engineering employment industry would have to step up and
substantially raise starting salaries and benefits to compensate for the 50% increase in
educational requirements and time-to-graduation. Recent data showed a 30% increase in
engineering master’s degrees awarded between 1998-99 and 2004-05. However, enrollment
dropped by almost 10% between 2003 and 2005. Hence, a decline in degrees awarded is
expected for the next several years22
.
Medical and law degree plans have adapted and over the years have become more
“professional”, and require a “pre-degree” status to even be considered for admission. What has
stopped US Engineering Colleges & Schools from following suit and expanding their curricula?
Many reports focus on a debate of solutions that include (i) adding one year to the 4-year
standard; (ii) requiring Professional Engineering (PE) status; or (iii) defining a master or even
doctoral degree as the first professional Engineering degree. Opposing views include (i) such
solutions do not address the core issue of substandard experiential learning; (ii) many
engineering disciplines do not require PE status; and (iii) graduate courses are more theoretical
and do not necessarily increase hands-on and technology know-how. Nevertheless, BS/MS,
BS/ME, BS/MBA and other degree combinations have become almost standard offerings in
many Institutions in the US.
Finally, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management20
requires for all professional engineering
positions that either the curriculum be ABET accredited as a professional engineering
curriculum, and include differential and integral calculus in five of seven engineering science or
physics areas, or that the candidate have a combination of college-level education and practical
experience. The adequacy of such background must be demonstrated for example by
Professional registration, or by passing the FE exam, or by completing certain specific courses or
related curricula, and having at least 1 year of work experience under guidance or supervision.
The reason this is relevant to this discussion is that in these requirements there is no mention of
graduate studies, but rather, work or practical experience is the underlying requirement.
The goal of this article is to present a 2-year common curriculum template for ME and MET
programs that may begin to provide a long-term answer to several of the issues described above.
The template assumes a full-time course of study in 4 semesters after which the student selects to
either complete a BS in Engineering Technology in 2 additional years, or transfer to an ME
degree plan which may be 2-, 3-, or 4-years long. Both plans are assumed to be constructed so as
to be ABET Accredited by the appropriate Commission. We conclude with a summary of
preliminary survey results of the proposed educational model collected from industry
participants. A much more comprehensive survey is underway. An Electrical/Computer
Engineering and Electrical/Computer ET 2-year curriculum template is being presented in a
separate article at this conference via the IEEE Division; a summary article is also presented at
this conference via the ET Division. The templates are offered as a starting point to encourage
further discussion.

Conceive, Design, Implement and Operate (CDIO)
It is widely understood that Engineering (E) curricula tend to prepare its graduates to accept
responsibilities closer to “design” and even “conceive” functions. By necessity, engineering
students are required to undertake mathematics courses beyond calculus, science courses that are
based on differential and integral calculus, and core engineering courses that demonstrate the
utilization of math and science in system level design situations. By contrast, Engineering
Technology (ET) curricula prepare its graduates to accept responsibilities closer to the
“implement” and even “operate” functions, which require a different focus, different interest, and
indeed a different skill-set from abstractions and complex mathematical manipulations.
The E and ET curriculum philosophies can be easily placed within the Conceive, Design,
Implement, and Operate (CDIOTM
http://www.cdio.org/) professional engineering spectrum
depicted in Figure 1. To the authors’ knowledge, this is a new perspective.
Conceive Design Implement Operate
Conceptualization & Abstract Design
Set, Define, & Model System Goals, Function,
& Architecture
Engineering Practice
Operations Management
Engineering & Scientific Research
Multi-disciplinary and Multi-objective Design
Applied Research & Functional Engineering
Design/Optimize Operations & Training
System & Hierarchical Design
Utilization of Knowledge in Design
Design Under Constraints
Application Specific Analysis & Re-design
Implementation Design
System Lifecycle, Improvement, Evolution, &
Support
Research & Development of Future
Technologies
Design Process, Phases, & Approaches
Development Project Management
Ensure Reachable Goals
Application & Deployment of Current &
Emerging Technologies
Hardware Manufacturing – Software
Implementation
Hardware/Software Integration
Test, Verify, Validate, & Certify
Disposal & Life-End Issues
Figure 1 Conceive, Design, Implement, Operate Engineering Spectrum
Currently, a small percentage of E graduates continue on with further studies leading to MS and
PhD degrees to move into purely “conceive” positions. On the other hand, only a small
percentage of ET graduates start with job functions at the purely “operate” level. It is safe to
assert that the majority of E and ET graduates after a few years in the field gravitate toward the
middle section of the engineering spectrum where design, analysis, re-design, system integration,
performance analysis, and technology implementation meet. Moreover, these graduates become
indistinguishable from each other as they are both involved in “functional engineering” tasks.

One example of the last assertion is given in23
. The authors provide survey evidence from
participants representing a broad range of industries, and find there are no significant differences
in the roles and responsibilities between manufacturing engineers and manufacturing
technologists, and that there are no significant differences in the technologies utilized on the job.
In fact, although 34.5% of the participants reported an E-based education, 64% reported
engineering as their job function. Participants also identified the top 6 most important areas
where engineers and technologists would be regularly involved. Five of these areas were found
to be shared by these professionals. They are all involved in “functional engineering” tasks.
An example of the de-emphasis of laboratory instruction, the increase in lecture hours, and
decrease in total hours required to obtain an engineering degree is given in24
. The author
describes a 60-year period in the evolution of undergraduate and graduate aeronautics and
aerospace degree programs at the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn. Of much relevance to this
article is Figure 2 below (original Figure 5 in reference24
, reproduced here with written
permission from the author), as it illustrates a trend that, although clearly particular to
Aeronautics & Aerospace Engineering programs at one Institution, the trend probably can be
assumed to be valid for other engineering fields across the US.
Figure 2 “Polytechnic aero program requirements in laboratory and lecture hours for combined
junior and senior years as a function of academic year” (original Figure 5 in reference24
,
reproduced here with written permission from the author).
Engineering Technology (ET)
According to the Engineering Technology Division of the American Society for Engineering
Education (ASEE), Engineering Technology is defined as follows:

Engineering Technology (ET) is the profession in which knowledge of the applied mathematical
and natural sciences gained by higher education, experience, and practice is devoted to the
application of engineering principles and the implementation of technological advances for the
benefit of humanity. Engineering Technology education for the professional focuses primarily on
analyzing, applying, implementing and improving existing and emerging technologies and is
aimed at preparing graduates for the practice of engineering that is close to the product
improvement, manufacturing, and engineering operational functions.
By definition then, ET degree plans are designed to have experiential learning as the educational
backbone. The reduction in mathematical and scientific depth is compensated by a richness of
laboratory courses that are almost in one-to-one proportion to lecture courses. Furthermore,
lecture courses tend to emphasize the application of techniques in solving engineering problems.
Table 2 below shows the approximate core lecture/lab breakdown at the University of Houston,
College of Technology’s Department of Engineering Technology illustrating one example of the
extent of experiential learning that is typically embedded in ET programs.
Table 1 Approximate Breakdown of ET Core Lecture/Lab Courses at UH TAC/ABET
accredited B.S. degrees in Mechanical ET (MET). (53 Semester Credit Hours)
Lecture Lab Capstone
MET 11 courses (52%) 8 courses (38%) 2 courses (10%)
Many of today’s educators in engineering technology feel that in addition to articulating
engineering accreditation standards, the Grinter Report9, 10
and the deliberations that followed
had a major impact on the emergence of baccalaureate engineering technology programs. In its
preliminary form the report proposed a bifurcated engineering curriculum with a professional-
scientific and professional-general tracks. Although discussion of this bifurcation was omitted
from the final report, a later article by Grinter is unequivocal about the intent to propose both
research/scientific and more programmatic tracks in engineering disciplines10
.
The quality of ET programs can be measured using a variety of metrics on faculty, facilities,
staff, student, and other programmatic support. Professional accreditation certainly confirms the
achievement of a standard according to these metrics. In post-2000, the ABET criteria further
allow the definition of program focus and direction that align with the Institution’s. In
preparation for the 2007-08 re-affirmation of SACS accreditation, the University of Houston
embraced a Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) centered on undergraduate research experiences.
Quite fitting to this QEP, the ET programs at the University of Houston accredited by the TAC
of ABET have for years placed a strong emphasis and financial support on their senior year
capstone courses. The reasoning is that program quality has been successfully demonstrated by
student accomplishments and that the capstone courses provide a fertile setting for students to be
creative and for collection of program assessment materials. Recent and highly meritorious ET
faculty, staff, and student achievements at the University of Houston placed the department 8th
in
the number of BS degrees awarded in 2005-06 from a list of 50 schools, and 9th
in 2006-07; and

17th
out of 47 departments and centers at UH in FY07 external funding with over $1M in annual
research expenditures for 3 consecutive years.
Accreditation concerns, pressure from industry advisory boards and prospective employers, and
feedback from students continue to put pressure on Engineering and Engineering Technology
departments alike to invest in revamping their programs’ laboratory experiences. The critical
importance of laboratories in engineering instruction has been reaffirmed over the years by the
ASEE in several reports21
, and references11, 12, 13
therein. The main challenges to establishing or
increasing and then maintaining experiential learning are not trivial and include (i) availability of
slots in the curricula to add additional laboratory courses; (ii) availability of funding for lab
equipment and maintenance; (iii) space constraints as most lab space may have been converted to
graduate research space; and (iv) availability of dedicated faculty for instruction and for
preparation of labs that are modern, project-based, inquisitive, and synchronized with the
lectures.
This article builds on a recently proposed educational model1
based on the CDIOTM
framework.
The new paradigm is based upon the utilization of TAC of ABET Accredited programs in
Engineering Technology available in over 100 US Universities. Two main options emerge:
Option 1: Two-Year Pre-Engineering Requirement
When properly designed and executed, the first two years of an accredited, 4-year B.S. in MET
degree can serve as the pre-engineering requirement for engineering-bound students. We submit
then that a template for a 2-year, University-level, pre-engineering program is already in place in
at least 100 US Universities. If executed, it is envisioned that a new first professional
engineering degree can be defined whereby:
1. All engineering-bound students would first complete 2 years of a TAC/ABET 4-year MET
program.
2. With proper advising and mentoring, those students interested and skilled to follow the more
abstract (Conceive-Design) side of engineering would transfer to a Department, College or
School of Engineering and complete a Mechanical Engineering degree (BS, MS, Doctoral) in
2 or 3 or 4 additional years. If 4 years, then the Department of Education definition of a first
professional degree would be satisfied.
3. On the other hand, those students interested and skilled to follow the more applied
(Implement-Operate) side of engineering would opt to complete a BS-ET degree in 2
additional years.
Several benefits can be listed:
1. Total enrollment in E and in ET would increase as a result of proper advising and mentoring
in the early stages of the student’s university experience affecting freshman and sophomore
retention.

2. Retention rates at the upper level of both E and ET would also increase.
3. Avoid duplication of efforts and resource expenses for equipping and maintaining
laboratories needed in the first 2 years.
4. Engineering departments can better focus on advanced/graduate level education with better
utilization of professorial staff.
Option 2: Pre-Engineering Degree Requirement
It is also conceivable that Engineering Colleges would consider becoming in the future
professional schools much like medical and law schools requiring a 4-year baccalaureate pre-
degree for admission. As in the pre-med option, the pre-engineering degree could be in any field
but would include certain requirements of mathematics, sciences, engineering, and technology.
A B.S. in MET would surely be a most fitting pre-engineering degree. An apparent benefit of
either option discussed above is that Colleges and Schools of Engineering would be able to
devote more of their resources to graduate engineering programs leaving freshman and
sophomore level engineering classes to ET programs.
A 2-year Template for ME and MET Programs
The Mechanical Engineering discipline serves a very diverse occupational spectrum. ME and
MET programs have various emphases in their curriculum in order to properly serve their
constituencies - Solid Mechanics/Design, Thermal/Fluids, Controls/Mechatronics and
Materials/Manufacturing are the most common. In devising a common freshman and sophomore
years, the diversity of the concentrations creates a challenge. In the past, attempts have been
made to standardize the freshman year25
. This and many other implementations were aimed at
remedying the high attrition rate for the students enrolled in engineering as well as giving the
entering students a broad enough initial knowledge that would allow them to switch majors
within the engineering field. We believe that the scope of these solutions is too wide. Instead, we
propose to limit the scope by serving one discipline ME/MET. For example, Rochester Institute
of Technology has proposed an undeclared ME/MET program for a group of students during
their first year that would lead to the ME or MET programs in the second year without loss of
credits. During the course of writing this article, we became aware of Oregon Institute of
Technology’s approach to locate Mechanical Engineering and Mechanical Engineering
Technology programs in the same department while sharing a common first 2 years26
.
When students are asked why they chose to pursue engineering, and in particular mechanical
engineering, invariable they indicate an interest in “designing things, taking them apart and
putting them back together”. However, the typical freshman/sophomore years do not meet those
aspirations, leading to disappointment, lack of participation in courses and eventual withdrawal
from the engineering field. We believe that a series of courses applicable to the four
concentrations mentioned above, that would address the students desires while efficiently
delivering the basic knowledge required of an engineering professional, would help achieve the
set goals. We advocate the principle used to teach lectures: “First tell them what you are going
to tell them; then tell them; and finally tell them what you told them”, to encompass entire
programs. The students become familiarized with the field they will be working in, while

acquiring much needed skills at the freshmen year; they will study various subjects in depth in
the following years, and all the knowledge would be summarized and brought together in the
senior year, during a capstone experience. The essence of engineering is to design and build
systems. Voland, in his book “Engineering by Design” describes engineering as “An innovative
and methodical application of scientific knowledge and technology to produce a device, system
or process, which is intended to satisfy human need(s)”. If one subscribes to the above
definition, then every engineer has to be somewhat knowledgeable of manufacturing methods, of
drafting (drawing) standards and programming techniques. We are proposing that these topics be
covered in freshmen/sophomore level courses.
Manufacturing Methods Course
Manufacturing in the US has been continuously shrinking in the past decades, reaching historical
lows (www.infowars.com/us-manufacturing-at-lowest-level-since-1948/). One reason for the
decline can be attributed to the lack of awareness of graduating engineers of the challenges
presented in manufacturing a particular product. The lack of manufacturing/materials courses in
the higher education curricula is in stark contrast with entering students’ desire to “put things
together and take them apart”. Our template includes a Materials and Processes (MAT & PROC)
course. The goals of a freshmen course in Materials and Processes would not be to produce
certified machinists (although that may fit well in some programs), but it would rather teach
students how to calculate feed rates based on various tools and materials used for various
machines (traditional and high speed) using scientific methods; how to select materials for
various applications and using a tensile test; and even techniques used in reverse engineering
products to analyze the designer’s choices. A properly designed course, with an applied
experience in a lab setting, should instill in the students’ minds, the need to study subsequent
areas in the upper-division courses such as heat transfer needed for faster operations of
machines, controls to apply a time varying load in the tensile testing machine, operation of CNC
machines, and CAD for manufacturing.
Engineering Graphics Course
Another element sought by entering freshmen is the usage of high-end technology. This is
understandable in today’s world of 24 hour connectivity, with IM and podcasting. A topic such
as Engineering Graphics lends itself very well to addressing the thirst for leading edge computer
applications. Today’s MCAD (Mechanical Computer Aided Design) solid modeler can be used
not only to generate designs and working drawings using established standards, but also can
perform analysis, create animations and can export files used to generate rapid prototyped parts
in a matter of hours. Giving a freshmen student the ability to design a part, find its weight from
the CAD model, observe its deformed shape under given loads, and finally hold a rapid
prototyped part in his/her hands in a matter of hours. This is an experience not easily forgotten!
Numerical Methods Course
Programming courses for mechanical engineers have evolved dramatically over the years,
mimicking the advancing technologies. From Fortran to C or C++ in terms of structured
programming, to data flow programming in software such as LabView. In LabView, students

can readily program from simple mathematical and sorting operations, to advanced controllers in
a graphical environment, easily customizable without the tremendous overhead of older
languages.
In our survey of programs from information available online, the total hours required for a BS
degree varied from as high as 137 to as low as 126. The current ABET criteria specifies a
minimum of 124 semester hours for ET programs, with no specifics for E programs. Some
Institutions defer the Humanities and Social Science electives to the senior year in order to
introduce as many technical courses as possible during the first two years. If one assumes a
somewhat uniform distribution of the semester credit hours over an undergraduate career
spanning 8 semesters, the number of credits per semester will range between 15 and 18 hours.
The proposed two-year template ranges between 65-68 credit hours and is given in Table 2.
Table 2. A 2-year Template for ME and MET Programs.
Format: Course (a, b) where a=number of lecture hours; b=number of lab hours
Term 1 Term 2 Term 3 Term 4
MATH I (4, 0) MATH II (4, 0) MATH III (4, 0) THERMODYN I (3, 0)
ENGL I (3, 0) ENGL II (3, 0) HUM-SS I (3, 0) HUM-SS II (3, 0)
CHEM (3, 3) PHYS I (3, 3) PHYS II (3, 3) STRENGTH MAT (3, 3)
ENG GRAPH (2, 3) NUM METH (2, 3) STATICS (3, 0) DYNAMICS (2, 3)
E & ET I MAT & PROC (2, 3) E & ET II E & ET III
16-17 HRS 17 HRS 16-17 HRS 16-17 HRS
Clearly, no template can accommodate the variety of plans. The focus was therefore placed on
the technical requirements of typical first 2 years such as mathematics, physics, and mechanical
engineering background courses. In essence, the common two years would necessarily increase
the math/science requirements for ET majors, and increase the lab exposure and applications
requirements for E majors:
¬ MATH I, II correspond to CALCULUS I, II, respectively. MATH III may be used for
CALC III, or some schools might want to use it for a more applied Engineering Math.
¬ ENGL I and II, and HUM-SS I and II, are typical composition courses and humanities or
social science electives, respectively.
¬ Physics I and II are calculus-based.
¬ The courses E & ET I-II could be designed to keep the students engaged throughout the
curriculum. These would play a significant role in reinforcing the CDIO philosophy, in
advising/retention and career planning, in clarifying the differences in the academics of E
and ET programs, and in helping the students identify their strengths and interests; the
sequence gives opportunities to cover topics in innovation, creativity & design, IP, the
globalization of knowledge, engineering ethics, and economics all in the context of real
case-based scenarios. These are left unspecified to also allow flexibility for individual
programs to put emphasis in more manufacturing courses or to introduce a first course in
design if so desired.
¬ E & ET III in Term 4 would enable the students to begin a transition to either an MET or
ME degree plan.

¬ We advocate including a lab component in the Strength of Materials course to provide
practical equivalents to lecture concepts such as yield point identification.
¬ Statics, Dynamics and Thermodynamics are standard engineering courses.
¬ We believe that MET programs can be completed in 4 additional terms reaching the
minimum of 124 hours as required by TAC/ABET. ME departments would have to
discuss/decide/design remaining 2, 3, or 4-year plans and associated degree distinctions
(BS, MS, ME, Doctoral).
It may be argued that lower math requirements are a key differentiator between ME and MET
programs and that higher math & science requirements for all may attract a larger number of
students to ME. As discussed earlier, we believe the overall impact on retention for both
programs would be positive due to proper advising and mentoring during the first two years. A
good number of our ET students are transfers from E during their junior year! The intent here is
to enable students to make an informed career decision much earlier and based on skills and
interest which will benefit not just the student but the entire engineering profession.
Preliminary Assessment Results
In fall 2008, we administered a brief preliminary survey to industry professionals regarding the
topic of a 2 year common curriculum for E and ET programs. A total of 12 people completed the
survey, ten of which had a degree in an engineering or engineering technology discipline. Ten of
the respondents also had 11 or more years of industry experience. A summary of results is
presented in Figure 3.
3
1
2
4
3
6
3
1
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
The CDIO spectrum of the
engineering profession.
The current 4-year BS
degree structure in
engineering disciplines.
Excellent Adequate Needs Improvement Not Sure
Figure 3. Industry Perception of Current Engineering Degree Structure
Six of the respondents felt the current standard 4-year B.S. degree structure in engineering
disciplines needs improvement. Only one person thought that the current structure was
“excellent.” However, there was no consensus on whether the CDIO spectrum of the engineering
profession was a viable alternative.
Figure 4 shows the results from a second set of questions that asked industry professionals to
reflect on the placement of engineering and engineering Technology graduates. A majority of
respondents indicated that they understood the differences between engineering and engineering
technology students. Most respondents also suggested that they take an active role in placing

both types of students in industry positions. The survey participants were split regarding the
utility of formal post-graduate studies for engineering graduates in industry. On the other hand,
the majority of survey participants did not believe formal post-graduate studies were needed for
engineering technology students to better function in industry.
1
3
8
3
4
3
6
4
2
3
1
5
5
2
2
1
1
1
2
3
4
1 2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
It is safe to assert that the majority of E and ET graduates
after a few ears in the field gravitate toward the middle
section of the [CDIO] spectrum where design, analysis,
re-design, system integration and technology
I am able to take an active role in the placement of
ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY graduates in industry
positions.
In my experience, formal post-baccalaureate studies are
required for ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY graduates to
better function in industry.
I am able to take an active role in the placement of
ENGINEERING graduates in industry positions.
In my experience, formal post-baccalaureate studies are
required for ENGINEERING graduates to better function
in industry.
I understand the differences between Engineering and
Engineering Technology Graduates
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Not Applicable
Figure 4. Examining Differences between E and ET Students in Industry
While the survey was a useful exercise to gain some industry perspective on the issue of a
common curriculum, the small number of participants limits the usefulness of the responses. The
next step is to implement a more rigorous survey methodology to collect data from faculty
around this topic. Toward this goal, we are working with the Director of Assessments and
Accreditation Services (DAAS) for the College of Technology to construct a survey and
sampling frame that will provide faculty insights regarding the common curriculum concept
presented here.
The initial population for the survey has been defined as those schools that are included as part
of the ASEE Engineering and Engineering Technology College Profiles for 1998-2008. Since the
survey relates specifically to the curricular structure of engineering technology relative to
engineering, a subpopulation of schools that offer Engineering Technology was identified as the
focus for the survey sample. From this subgroup, 26 universities and colleges were randomly
selected to participate in the survey. Within each school, we have identified faculty who teach
under the broad heading of Engineering Technology or who are listed as instructors in
Mechanical, Computer, or Electrical Engineering Technology. The resulting faculty sample

currently exceeds 300 people. Implementation of the survey will be carried out electronically
with results and analysis complied by the DAAS for the college.
Conclusions
Engineering (E) and Engineering Technology (ET) programs can be placed along the Conceive,
Design, Implement, & Operate (CDIO) framework. In order to offer both the theory and the
practice of engineering, hence impacting student recruiting and retention in engineering fields,
the article presents a 2-year common template for students majoring in Mechanical Engineering
or in Mechanical Engineering Technology. We find that E and ET programs need to reach a
compromise where the first two years include more depth of mathematics and science for ET
programs, and more experiential learning opportunities for E programs via laboratories.
Seminar-style courses are included to encourage advising, to assist students in identifying their
strengths and therefore make the right career path decision, and to introduce special topics to
reinforce the CDIO philosophy. The 4th semester includes an elective to allow students to begin
their transition to an E or an ET degree plan. ET majors can complete their B.S. in 2 additional
years. Engineering departments can design 2, 3 or 4 additional years of study and corresponding
B.S., M.S., and Doctoral degree distinctions; if 4 years, then the Department of Education
definition of First Professional Degree would be satisfied. Potential follow up discussion items
include:
o What are the academic requirements of a pre-engineering degree?
o Standardization of breadth and depth of fundamental engineering courses such as
electric circuits and statics/dynamics.
o Pros and cons of 2-, 3-, or 4-year models for the BS-E degree and accreditation
concerns.
o Maintenance and staffing of laboratories.
o Joint Capstone experiences and Undergraduate Research in E and in ET.
o Graduate programs and opportunities in E and in ET.
o Faculty credentials, joint appointments, retention, and Promotion and Tenure.
o Options for Universities that do not have ET programs.
o Challenges and opportunities for Community Colleges.
o How to maximize the involvement of Industry and Professional Organization leaders.
A website is being maintained that posts articles and comments in an effort to stimulate broad
participation from the community. The reader is encouraged to visit the site and participate:
http://www.tech.uh.edu/faculty/barbieri/E%20and%20ET%20Project.htm
References
[1] E. Barbieri and W. Fitzgibbon, “Transformational Paradigm for Engineering and Engineering Technology
Education”, Proceedings of the 2008 IAJC-NAIT-IJME International Conference, Nashville, TN, Nov.
2008. Also visit http://www.tech.uh.edu/faculty/barbieri/E%20and%20ET%20Project.htm
[2] Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st
Century, “Rising Above the Gathering Storm:
Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future”, National Academy Press,
Washington, DC. 2007.

[3] B.T. Wright, “Knowledge Management”, Presentation at the Industry/University/ Government Roundtable
on Enhancing Engineering Education, Iowa State University, Ames, May 1999.
[4] P.C. Wankat, R. M. Felder, K.A. Smith, and F.S. Oreovicz, “The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in
Engineering”, Chapter 11, Disciplinary Styles in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Exploring the
Common Ground, AAHE/Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Washington. DC, 2002.
[5] B.V. Koen, “Definition of the Engineering Method”, American Society for Engineering Education,
Washington, 1985
[6] B.E. Seeley, “Patterns in the History of Engineering Education Reform: A Brief Essay” Educating The
Engineer of 2020, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2005, 114-130.
[7] “The Future of European Universities” www.europaeum.org/content/view/58/65/
[8] G. William Troxler, “Introduction”, Engineering Technology: An ASEE History (M.T, O’Hair general
editor), Glencoe/McGraw Hill, Westerville, Ohio, 1995, 1-7
[9] L.E. Grinter et al, “Report on the Evaluation of Engineering Education”, Journal of Engineering Education,
1955 (September), 25-60
[10] L.E. Grinter, Engineering and Engineering Technology Education, Journal of Engineering Technology,
1984 (March), 6-8. Also presented at the University of Houston, College of Technology.
[11] “Characteristics of Excellence in Engineering Technology Education”, Final Report ASEE 1962,
www.engtech.org/AdditonalLinksFiles/TheCharacteristicsofExcellence.pdf
[12] E.F. Crawley, J. Malmqvist, S. Ostlund, and D. Brodeur, “Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO
Approach”, Springer, Berlin 2007.
[13] CDIO Site http://www.cdio.org/
[14] P. Dorato, “The First Professional Degree: Master of Engineering?”, in “Advances in Statistical Control,
Algebraic System Theory and Dynamic Systems Characteristics”, edited by C-H. Won, C. B. Schrader, and
A. N. Michel, Published by Birkhauser 2008, pp.313-318.
[15] Department of Education: Characteristics of First Professional Studies. Online at
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/us/edlite-structure-us.html
[16] B. Friedland and P. Dorato, “A Case for the Doctor of Engineering as a First Professional Degree", 1987
ASEE Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 77, pp. 707-713.
[17] Jeffrey S. Russell, Brewer Stouffer and Stuart G. Walesh, “The First Professional Degree: A Historic
Opportunity”, ASCE J. Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Volume 126, Issue 2,
pp. 54-63 (April 2000)
[18] The IEEE Institute’s Poll: “What Should Be the First Professional Degree in
Engineering?”www.moshekam.org/commentary/files/WhatShouldBetheFirstProfessional
DegreeinEngineering.pdf
[19] U.S. Office of Personnel Management: Professional Engineering Positions Requirements. Online
www.opm.gov/qualifications/SEC-IV/B/GS0800/0800.htm
[20] L. J. Wolf, “Graduate Education in Engineering Technology: What are the Real Issues,” 1982 ASEE
Journal of Engineering Education, vol.72, p.809.
[21] L. D. Feisel and A. J. Rosa, “The Role of the Laboratory in Undergraduate Engineering Education”, ASEE
Journal of Engineering Education, January 2005, Vol. 94, No. 1, pp.121-130.
[22] Databytes Column, “Many Master’s”, ASEE Prism, January 2007, pp.22-23
[23] R. R. Smith, M. P. Jones, and R. N. Callahan, “Manufacturing Engineer - Manufacturing Technologist:
Exploring the Similarities and Differences”, in the Technology Interface Journal, Vol.9, No.1, online at
http://technologyinterface.nmsu.edu/Fall08/
[24] P. M. Sforza, “A History of Aerospace Engineering at the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn”, in the
Proceedings of the 47 AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including The New Horizons Forum and
Aerospace Exposition, January 5-8, 2009, Orlando FL.
th
[25] J. Parker, et al., “Curriculum Integration in the Freshman Year at The University of Alabama – Foundation
Coalition Program”, online at the Foundation Coalition (http://www.foundationcoalition.org/),
http://www.foundationcoalition.org/publications/journalpapers/fie95/4d22.pdf
[26] T. Brower, “Can Engineering and Engineering Technology Programs Reside within the Same
Department?”, in the Proceedings of the 2006 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June 18-21,
Chicago, IL. (Paper online at www.asee.org)

A 2-Year Common Template For Mechanical Engineering And Mechanical Engineering Technology

More Related Content

Similar to A 2-Year Common Template For Mechanical Engineering And Mechanical Engineering Technology (20)

More from Jeff Brooks (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

A 2-Year Common Template For Mechanical Engineering And Mechanical Engineering Technology