the interface - ewh.ieee.org · the times they are a’changing david kerns olin college of...

THE INTERFACE

November 2004 • Number 3THE JOINT NEWSLETTER OF THE IEEE EDUCATION SOCIETY AND THE ASEE ELECTRICAL AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING DIVISION

http://www.ehw.ieee.org/soc/es/

From the President of the IEEE Education Society

The words of Bob Dylan, “the times they are a’changing”,seem particularly relevant now. Why? I’m now sitting in myhotel room in Beijing, China, just after a session at the 3rdASEE International Colloquium on Engineering Education.Educators from all over the world are here discussing, debat-ing and deliberating a range of topics on reform in engineer-ing education.

Much of the discussion on these topics follows, refines andfurther develops important, but familiar issues such as those atrecent Frontiers in Education (FIE) Conferences and ASEEAnnual Meetings. What appears significantly different is theexpanding cast of players and their clear commitment toexcellence and reform in engineering education. While someindividuals from outside (and inside) the USA have beenactive leaders for such reform, (many friends and colleaguesfor years), the commitment of numerous and diverse govern-ments and large foreign institutions to the major restructuringof their engineering education is relatively new. As I am nowin China, first consider with me China as an example.

China graduates more engineers than any other country inthe world. China currently has 3.7 million engineering stu-dents and now graduates almost 700,000 engineers per year,up over 100% in the last three years. This is about 10 timesthe number of engineering graduates the USA produces; theUSA is fourth in engineering graduate production, also behindIndia and Japan. The prestigious Tsinghua University in Bei-jing, similar to other top schools in China has approximately athird of its students majoring in engineering. In Chinese cul-ture, engineers are highly respected, and many top leaders ingovernment and industry have engineering backgrounds.

It’s no secret that China has emphasized manufacturing

within all engineering disciplines and has emerged in recentyears as a world leader in the manufacture of almost everyproduct, from simple consumer products to complex mechani-cal and electronic systems. Many products marketed underbrands familiar in the USA are actually made in China.

No matter what you may think about “outsourcing” ofengineering jobs from the USA, it’s clear that many engineer-ing jobs related to the production of products are now beingperformed in China, and in other countries, where the cost ofproduction is dramatically lower. I’ve heard some say thatcountries now becoming world leaders in product productionstill rely on the USA and other western countries for creativedesign of products. Is there any reason to believe that if this istrue, that it will last forever?

I found it most interesting that the papers presented by Chi-nese authors and discussions I had with Chinese facultyshowed a strong interest in the same issues of engineering cur-riculum reform that we are discussing and implementing inthe USA and in other western countries. The Chinese presen-tations suggest that they are well on the way to reforming theold Soviet style education, and have begun introducing earlyin their curriculum project-based courses with specific instruc-tion in teaming, in creativity, innovation and design. Intelrecently announced it is moving almost 1000 integrated circuitdesign jobs to China.

There are certainly other examples. India, which graduatesover a quarter of a million engineers a year, conducts coursesto teach English speaking students how to speak “AmericanEnglish” and call centers and customer service operations formany high-technology companies are moving there. Softwareengineering is now routinely performed by engineers in India,

THE TIMES THEY ARE A’CHANGINGDavid KernsOlin College of [email protected]

a trend that has been growing dramatically in recent years.There has been active work in Europe and elsewhere to

construct common engineering degree structures that wouldallow engineering students and graduates to move more freelyaround the globe. The Bologna convention, the Washingtonaccord, and expanding interest in ABET’s “substantial equiva-lency” status support these developments.

So, what’s my point?Engineering is truly global, and that fact has implications

in engineering curriculum design that cannot be ignored. Idon’t write to give answers to the issues posed here, but to puta point to the questions. And it’s not about the USA losingjobs and others gaining; jobs from China may move to India(or vice-versa), if the job can be performed there with betterquality at lower cost.

As each of us considers, in our own countries, how we canreform our curricula we should consider carefully what it isthat we can provide our graduates that give them knowledgeand skills that can compete in the world market of engineering.

I think we may go a long way in this, just by making ourstudents aware of this world dynamic. If students know theywill be competing and teaming with engineers from othercountries and other cultures, they will automatically becomemore interested in learning other languages, studying andappreciating other cultures and understanding the way peo-

ples from other cultures think, work, and live.This cross-cultural interaction will certainly help in invig-

orating our profession with new energy and ideas, andstrengthen the mutual understanding between citizens of dif-ferent countries. I suggest that curricula should be designed tomake it possible for engineering students to spend a semesterstudying abroad (at the junior or senior year). This is commonin the liberal arts, and almost impossible for most engineeringstudents. Consider strengthening exchange programs, so thatvisiting faculty and students from other cultures are richlyrepresented in our programs. Engineering advising shouldinclude clear articulation of the benefits of foreign languagesand of courses outside of technical areas that promote under-standing of other cultures.

Although this has now reached the level of a cliché, we dolive in a global society. Engineering education of the 21stcentury must sustain our students in a world that’s a’chang-ing. The old way just won’t meet the needs of the next gener-ations of students.

Engineers of the future must be citizens of the world, andour new engineering curricula must support them in this newworld.

David [email protected]

THE INTERFACE 2 January 2004

THE INTERFACE is published three times each year by The Institute of Electrical andElectronics Engineers, Inc., 445 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, NJ 08855.The deadlines are August 30 for the November issue, January 31 for the April issue,and May 31 for the August issue.Editor:

William SayleElectrical and Computer EngineeringGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlanta, GA 30332-0250 USA+1.404.894.4740 (voice)+1.404.894.3047 (fax)[email protected]

©2004 IEEE. Permission to copy without fee all or part of any material without acopyright notice is granted provided that the copies are not made or distributed fordirect commercial advantage, and the title of the publication and its date appear oneach copy. To copy material with a copyright notice requires specific permission.Please direct all inquiries or requests to IEEE Copyrights Manager.

Printed in USA.

November 2004TABLE OF CONTENTSFrom the President of the IEEE Education Societyt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Raising Public Awareness . . . . . . . . . . .3

The Engineering Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

A New Vision For ECE Education . . . . .6

Jerry Yeargan – 2004 IEEE HardenPratt Award . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Towards an European Global Higher Education Area: Its Effects in Spain . . . .7

Vocational School Transformation MayForce Engineering College Changes . . .9

Book Review: Technical Therapy forAnalog Circuit Designers . . . . . . . . . . .10

Charting Course for a Future in Pre-College Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Call For Papers: FIE 2005 . . . . . . . . . .13

From your Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

In 2003, the IEEE Educational Activities Board (EAB) cre-ated a new standing committee – the Public Awareness Com-mittee (PAC). For the first time ever, a major board of IEEEtook on the responsibility of addressing an issue that has beenplaguing the engineering profession in many places around theworld and for many years—understanding and appreciatingwhat engineers do. This responsibility is explicitly identifiedin the IEEE Constitution, which states that the IEEE “shallendeavor to promote understanding of the influence of suchtechnology on the public welfare”. While the IEEE-USA hasworked with the American Association of Engineering Soci-eties (AAES) at the national level, there has never before beena coordinated effort to globally address the issue.

Within the U. S., the National Academy of Engineering(NAE) took on this issue in 2001 by conducting an extensivesurvey of engineering societies, industry, universities, founda-tions, government agencies, museums, media and nationallaboratories. The survey revealed that many, if not all, ofthese entities are concerned about the image of engineeringand engineers and had established some level of outreach toaddress their concerns. Many of these outreach programs areaimed at the pre-college education community. Indeed, theEAB has a Pre-College Education Coordinating Committee(PECC) that has been working diligently to enhance the levelof technological literacy of pre-college students and teachersworldwide since 1999. However, awareness is not only a pre-college issue. It is a multi-faceted and global issue.

The entire engineering community should be concernedthat the public does not understand the contributions thatengineers make to the world economy and to everyone’s qual-ity of life; that government leaders in most countries don’tunderstand technology and engineering any more than theaverage citizen, yet they are making decisions every day thatimpact public welfare and safety; and that the lack of publicunderstanding and appreciation are undermining the attrac-tiveness of the engineering profession for many young peo-ple. In short, and as William A. Wulf, U. S. NAE Presidentstates, “We have a society profoundly dependent upon tech-nology, profoundly dependent on engineers who producetechnology and profoundly ignorant of technology.”

Industry should also be concerned, especially with thequality, quantity and diversity of the engineering pipeline.Industry has a great deal at stake when it comes to promotingengineering as a respected and rewarding profession world-wide. Many of the most powerful, international companiesdepend on engineers, not only for product design, develop-ment and production, but also for basic operational and infra-structure support. Without quality engineers manning

network systems, factory floors and information technologyteams, these monoliths would crumble in no time. Theyshould be very interested in partnering with associations, uni-versities and pre-college educators to inform the public onwhat engineers do and how their critical discoveries and inno-vations are contributing to the advancement of society.

Some say that engineering has suffered from an “imageproblem” because of its identification with the 19th centuryindustrial revolution that led people to link engineering withengines as in “locomotive engineers.” In the 20th century,engineers were considered “geeks”, thus promoting the imageof being very intelligent but divorced from reality and notworldly. All too often the work engineers do is confused withscience, a matter not easily clarified given the overlap of sci-entific breakthroughs and engineering innovations. In fact itis a cliché that scientists are credited with technological suc-cesses and engineers are blamed for their failures. Look at theHubble Telescope incident. From the very outset,astronomers and scientists were credited with its successfuldeployment, and engineers were blamed for miscalculationsin the design of its mirrors.

In 1998, AAES commissioned a survey on public aware-ness of engineering to be conducted by Harris Interactive,Inc. This poll was repeated in both 2000 and 2002. Theresults indicated that engineering generally ranks below pro-fessions like law, police work, and the ministry. Moreover,the Harris polls suggest that while the general public is con-fused, if not ignorant, about the contributions of engineersversus those of scientists, they nevertheless consider engi-neers to be less prestigious than scientists.

The EAB PAC is focusing on gaining a fuller understand-ing of the issue and identifying how they can address theseimage and perception problems at a global level. Accordingto Joel Snyder, past president of IEEE and current PAC chair,the overall goal of PAC is “to enhance the perceived status ofengineers and the engineering profession globally and to edu-cate the general public about how technology influences ourdaily lives and the role that engineers play in creating thattechnology.”

To start with, PAC is proposing a global survey of IEEEmembers, similar to the U. S. polls conducted by Harris Inter-active, Inc., to answer a number of critical questions. While itis understood that many cultures highly value engineers whileothers, like the U.S., are less appreciative, it is not clear towhat extent this is true and, most importantly, what are thecultural influences that determine this difference? Do peoplein India truly understand more about what engineers do thanpeople in the England? Why is it that in Turkey as many stu-

RAISING PUBLIC AWARENESSJames M. TienVice-President, IEEE Educational Activities

November 2004 3 T HE INTERFACE

From the IEEE Vice-President, Educational Activities

dents want to become engineers as doctors or lawyers? Whyis the ratio of engineers to lawyers much higher in countrieslike China and Japan than in the U. S.? More importantly,what can be done to raise the public’s awareness and appreci-ation for engineers and engineering

PAC will also try to understand some widely-held percep-tions. For example, it is generally accepted that in China engi-neering is a highly respected profession. Yet, in an article inthe NAE publication, The Bridge, Zhu Guangya the presi-dent of the Chinese Academy of Engineering from 1994-1998, states that “the important role of the engineer in societyis yet to be adequately recognized. If this situation doesn’timprove, we will have difficulty encouraging promising peo-ple to consider engineering as a career.”

More recently, in a press release on 17 September, 2003,IEE (Institute of Electrical Engineers) President, ProfessorMike Sterling wrote that “in many developing countries, thepopularity of engineering as a career is under pressure andemployers in some fields are reporting serious difficulties inrecruiting appropriately qualified staff. In the Asia Pacificregion, however, expansion is still strong and growing evenstronger.” What are the factors that make engineering a valuedprofession in China? Is it just economic drivers and thegrowth of capitalism, or is there something deep in the Chi-nese culture that was tapped into?

We know that in many countries settled by the BritishEmpire, engineers evolved from technician status and yettheir image did not improve. In western European countries

such as Italy, Germany, and France, engineers were held inhigh esteem and endowed with titles preceding their namesmuch like we address doctors. But as the 21st centuryunfolds, this seems to be changing. At an IEEE Region 8committee meeting in late 2003, the agenda called for Region8 to focus on “Improving the Engineering Professional Imageto the Public.” Meeting chair, Dr. Kurt Richter, professoremeritus, Technical University of Graz, Austria warns thatIEEE volunteers from Europe “report that fewer and fewerhigh quality students are entering engineering programs.They, like their American counterparts, are seeking MBAs orMD degrees.”

What is causing this shift? What role can PAC – in partner-ship with other professional and educational organizationsand engineering-oriented corporations – play in this and inother global reports about the image of engineering and theawareness of what engineers do? Now that we have a com-mittee in place to speak to these issues, we have an opportuni-ty to study the situation, develop an action plan and finally tolook for strategic alliances among all the stakeholders. PACplans to work with industry and potentially other engineeringsocieties that are interested in raising the level of awarenessand esteem. A global “engineering-aware public” will suc-ceed in encouraging, supporting and rewarding the brightyoung people who seek careers in engineering.

James M. [email protected]

THE INTERFACE 4 November 2004

THE ENGINEERING TEAM(Adopted by the Engineering Liaison Committee,March 24, 1995, State of California)

Dr. Lyle B. McCurdyPast Chair Engineering Liasion Council andProfessor Emeritus, Electronics and Computer Engineering Technology,Cal Poly Pomona, Pomona, CA 91768

In today’s modern industry, a number of players are involvedin developing new products, forming what is commonlyknown as the “engineering team.” These team players areengineering scientists, engineers, engineering technolo-gists, engineering technicians, and vocational technicians.

Since engineering technologists and engineering techni-cians are relatively new on the team, some discussion regard-ing the field of “engineering technology” is needed.

Engineering technology (ET) education emphasizes prob-lem solving, laboratories, and technical skills; it prepares indi-viduals for application-oriented careers in industry, typicallyin manufacturing, field-service, marketing, technical sales, oras technical members of the engineering team.

According to a national accrediting agency (TAC/ABET),graduates of baccalaureate-level engineering technology(BET) programs are called “engineering technologists,” andgraduates of associate degree (AS) programs in engineering

technology are called “engineering technicians.”The upper-division coursework of BET programs is designed

to provide additional analytical and problem solving beyondthose learned at the two-year level. Most BET programs areaccredited by TAC/ABET, and are designed to accept appropri-ate coursework in math, science, and a technical specializationcompleted at approved associate-degree programs. With carefulplanning students may transfer with maximum efficiency.

The definitions described herein are intended to conformwith ABET criteria for engineering and engineering technology.

DEFINITIONS

Engineering scientists • are the most theoretical of the team members. • They typically seek ways to apply new discoveries to

From the IEEE Committee on Technology Accreditation Activities

advance technology for mankind.• Most engineering scientists have an earned doctorate in

engineering.

Engineers • use the knowledge of mathematics and natural sciences

gained by study, experience, and practice, applied withjudgment, to develop ways to economically utilize thematerials and forces of nature for the benefit of mankind.

• Engineering involves a wide spectrum of activities extendingfrom the conception, design, development and formulationof new systems and products through the implementation,production and operation of engineering systems.

• Engineers often work closely with engineering scientistsin developing new technology via research projects.

• A minimum of four years of study is required to becomean engineer. Mathematics and science are emphasized.

• Most baccalaureate-level engineering programs areaccreditated by EAC/ABET.

Engineering technologists• are graduates of bachelor-level programs in engineering

technology. • They apply engineering and scientific knowledge combined

with technical skills to support engineering activities. • Their areas of interest and education are typically applica-

tion oriented, while being somewhat less theoretical andmathematically oriented than their engineering counterparts.

• They typically concentrate their activities on applieddesign, using current engineering practice.

• Technologists play key roles on the engineering team; theyare typically involved in product development, manufac-turing, product assurance, sales, and program mangement.

• TAC/ABET specifies that faculty who teach in these pro-grams have a minimum of a master’s degree in engineer-ing or engineering technology or equivalent, or a PElicense and a master’s degree.*

Engineering technicians • work with equipment, primarily assembling and testing

component parts of devices or systems that have beendesigned by others; usually under direct supervision of anengineer or engineering technologist.

• Their preferences are given to assembly, repair, or to mak-ing improvements to technical equipment by learning itscharacteristics, rather than by studying the scientific orengineering basis for its original design.

• They may carry out standard calculations, serve as techni-cal sales people, make estimates of cost, assist in prepar-ing service manuals, or perform design-drafting activities.As a group, they are important problem solving individu-als whose interests are directed more to the practical thanto the theoretical aspect of a project.

• They are frequently employed in laboratories and/or man-ufacturing facilities where they may set up experiments,accumulate scientific or engineering data, and/or service

or repair engineering or production equipment. • Two years of college-level work leading to an associate

degree, typically taken at community colleges or certaintechnical institutes, is required to become an engineeringtechnician.

• TAC/ABET specifies that faculty who teach in these pro-grams have a minimum of a master’s degree in engineeringor engineering technology or equivalent, or a PE license.*

Vocational Technicians • Programs of study are also available for individuals who

wish to obtain skill-training in a field of specialization withless emphasis on scientific or mathematical principles.

• An individual completing such a program is typicallycalled a “vocational” technician, e.g., air-conditioningtechnician, draftsman, surveyor aide, etc.

• Faculty who teach these programs are usually craftsmen orspecialists in their field, and/or graduates of professionaleducation programs.

• Graduates of vocational technician training programs maybe accepted into a two-year or four-year degree programafter considerable math, science, and other requirementsare satisfied.

*Note: Technical support skill courses, such as drafting,machine shop or electronic assembly, may be taught by facul-ty having at least a bachelor’s degree in an appropriate sci-ence or engineering-related field. They are expected to beartisans or masters of their crafts.

[BET Subcommittee of the ELC, March 23, 1995]

LYLE MCCURDYDr. McCurdy earned his BS and MS degrees in EngineeringTechnology (Electronics emphasis) from Arizona State Univer-sity in 1971 and 1973 respectively, and earned his Ph.D. inTechnical Education from Texas A&M University in 1986. Hehas recently retired from full-time teaching in Electronics andComputer Engineering Technology at Cal Poly Pomona withover thirty years in the teaching field. and is active in numerousIEEE functions. He is past chair of the IEEE Foothill Section,and currently serving as treasurer of the IEEE Los AngelesCouncil. He is also a board member of the IEEE Committee onTechnology Accreditation Activities (CTAA) committee wherehe serves as chair of the Criteria Subcommittee. The IEEECTAA committee is responsible for recommending the pro-gram criteria (to TAC/ABET) and evaluating, selecting andassigning program evaluators for the following programs:

CET = Computer Engineering TechnologyEET = Electrical-Electronic Engineering TechnologyEMT = Electro-Mechanical Engineering TechnologyIET = Information Engineering TechnologyLET = Laser-optics Engineering TechnologyTET = Telecommunications Engineering Technology

Lyle B. McCurdy, [email protected]


IEEE, through CEAA, has been invited to contribute a visionstatement for electrical and computer engineering education,as an example of such statements for all of engineering. Thisinvitation came from Jim Bernard, a member of the ABETEngineering Accreditation Commission and a member of theAdvisory Committee to the NSF Engineering Directorate. Jimplans to take these examples to the next Advisory Committeemeeting in November.

A review of committee agendas and presentations (athttp://www.eng.nsf.gov/engadvise/index.htm) shows that thecommittee understands the importance of engineering educa-tion as well as of disciplinary research, and further that thecommittee views engineering education as currently being ina critical transition period. Susan Conry, member of CEAAand of the ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission(EAC), is chairing the group responding to this request andthe first draft of her subcommittee’s work appears here:

Electrical and Computer EngineeringEducation in the 21st Century

A Vision of the Future of ECE Education

“21st century engineers will need to be astutemakers, trusted innovators, agents of change,master integrators, enterprise enablers, tech-nology stewards, and knowledge handlers.”[Bordogna, IEEE Spectrum, vol. 38, p. 17, Jan.2001]

Education in electrical and computer engineeringin the 21st century will foster the development ofengineers who are prepared to fill the multipleroles society demands of them. The educationalexperiences of each student will be firmlygrounded in the fundamental principles of ourdisciplines. These educational experiences willrequire students to develop problem-solvingskills that make use of innovative thinking strate-gies and an awareness of the social and ethicalimplications of engineering solutions as well astheir professional responsibilities. Application ofthese skills to the solution of realistic problemsin a timely manner will be a hallmark of electri-cal and computer engineering education. Thus

electrical and computer engineering education inthe 21st century will embrace pedagogy and prin-ciples that educate engineers who are comfort-able with changing technology and have theability to deploy new tools and technology inappropriate ways through a lifetime of profes-sional activity.

We invite your comments and suggestions. Please emailSusan at [email protected]. In my experience, meaningfulvision statements are quite challenging to write, and Susanhas created an excellent draft. What makes a vision statementuseful and meaningful? In thinking about this I did a smallamount of web-based literature review, and came across awealth of information, some of which appeared to be valid,and some of which simply demonstrated the pitfalls of believ-ing what you read on the web. A useful vision statementshould be brief, inspiring to those charged with achieving it,sufficiently specific that it can be translated into goals andactions, and potentially achievable. Classic examples are Dr.Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech and presidentKennedy’s statement that “By the end of the decade, we willland a man on the moon.”

Implicitly, the old vision of ECE education was “to preparestudents to be good engineering employees or good graduatestudents.” Not very inspiring, I think we all will agree. Susanhas made a great start on a new vision for ECE education. Now,can we add to the value of the statement without adding to thelength? Remember that a vision statement does not have todefine every aspect of the endeavor; rather it should paint a pic-ture of what we all would be intensely proud of achieving.

Following is ABET’s vision statement: “ABET will pro-vide world leadership in assuring quality and in stimulatinginnovation in applied science, computing, engineering, andtechnology education.” CEAA takes its role in this processseriously, and we want to hear from our constituents in ECEeducation regarding the following question: Are the ABETcriteria and the overall accreditation process helping yourprogram achieve its vision and goals? If so, please providesome examples of successes. And if not, please tell us whynot. We certainly hope that most of the answers are positive,but in either case, we do need to hear from our constituents!

Email me at [email protected].

John A. Orr


A New Vision for ECE EducationJohn OrrChair, IEEE Committee on Engineering Accreditation [email protected]

From the Chair of the IEEE Committee on EngineeringAccreditation Activities

“For outstanding contributions to the Engineering Accredita-tion Activities of IEEE.”

Dr. Jerry R. Yeargan, widely known as a skillful andcharismatic diplomat who excels at the art of creative com-promise, has been recognized for his outstanding service toIEEE and ABET with the 2004 Haraden Pratt Award.

Jerry played a seminal role in the merger of ABET andthe Computer Science Accreditation Board (CSAB),enabling unprecedented synergy in the accreditation of com-puter science, computer engineering and software engineer-ing programs.

An IEEE Fellow, Jerry has served as IEEE representativedirector on the ABET Board of Directors and as ABET Presi-dent. He has served on the IEEE Board of Directors as vicepresident of Educational Activities, and as president of theIEEE Education Society. He is a fellow of the American Soci-

ety for Engineering Education and is a for-mer chair of the ASEE Electrical Engineer-ing Division. He has received many otherhonors, including the IEEE EducationalActivities Board Meritorious ServiceAward, the IEEE Education Society Achievement Award, theArkansas Academy of Electrical Engineers Award, the Hal-liburton Outstanding Faculty Award and the University ofArkansas College of Engineering Outstanding Service to Stu-dents Award.

In addition to his extensive ABET, ASEE, and IEEE serv-ice activities, Jerry is a Distinguished Professor and the TexasInstruments Chair of Mixed-Signal and Linear Microelec-tronics in Electrical Engineering at the University ofArkansas at Fayetteville, where he has taught since 1967.

Congratulations Jerry on a well-deserved major award!


Jerry Yeargan — 2004 IEEE Haraden Pratt Award

TOWARDS AN EUROPEAN GLOBAL HIGHER EDUCATION AREA:ITS EFFECTS IN SPAIN by the Board of the Spanish Chapter of the IEEE Education Society (Edmundo Tovar, Francisco Arcega, Francisco Jurado,Martin Llamas, Francisco Mur, Jose Angel Sanchez, and Manuel Castro)

A. Convergence at Higher Education:Bologna InitiativeAfter a successful economical union in the last decades, thenext strategic challenge for the European Union (EU) has beenEducation. Since 1998, with a political decision made byEuropean Education ministers at Bologna, a common policywas established in the field of Higher Education with the aimto have created and developed around 2010 a unique “Euro-pean Higher Education Area” (EHEA). The Bologna Declara-tion focused on the promotion of several evolution lines thatthe national systems should try to reach in ten years. The min-isters affirmed their intention to [1]:• Adopt an easily readable and comparable system degree,

through the implementation of the Diploma Supplement.• Adopt a system essentially based on two homogeneous

main cycles: undergraduate and graduate.• Establish a widely used credit system adoption, such as the

European Credit Transfer System (ECTS).• Promote mobility by overcoming obstacles to the effective

free movement of people.• Promote European co-operation in quality assurance.• Promote of the necessary European dimension.

This was the beginning of the also-called Bologna Process.Two years later, 33 European ministers met in Prague (2001)to set directions and priorities for the following years [1], toreaffirm their commitment to the previous objectives and toemphasize as important elements of the EHAE the lifelonglearning, the involvement of students and enhancing theattractiveness of this area to other parts of the world. When

ministers met again in Berlin (2003) they defined three inter-mediate priorities for the next two years: quality assurance,the two-cycle degree system and recognition of degrees andperiods of studies. Ministers also considered it necessary to gobeyond the present focus on two main cycles to include thedoctoral level as the third cycle and to promote closer linksbetween the EHEA and the European Research Area. The nextmilestone in this process will be in 2005.

B. Difficulties of implementation All these convergence objectives collect the idea of “A Europeof Knowledge” expressed through the building of an EHEA.Dangers of non-convergence can appear under several forms,such as difficulty in mobility and the non-possibility of accessto specific professional positions even with the required quali-fications. All actors involved in higher education are begin-ning to interpret the Bologna process. For this reason acommon policy, as in the principles established at Bologna,can avoid dangers that could come from the previous process.However, in practice the implementation of these principleswill be addressed to conflictive situations or to more cases ofnon-acceptability [2].

Some of the goals seem to be contradictory since the Decla-ration aims to improve the convergence and harmonization ofeducational systems [3], and acknowledges, at the same time,divergent cultures and languages of member countries. Thisambivalence can explain why there are many open issues relat-ed to the Bologna process. These changes can lead to a conflictwith a politically imposed ideology, so important that we should

assure the acceptability conditions. In brief, we can summarizethe basic parameters of survival for the traditional universities,as the following [4]: intellectual integrity, openness of access tohigher education for all and disadvantaged groups, greaterresponsiveness to demands for more relevant courses andgreater involvement of universities with the communities thatsurround them, continuity of employment and physical safety.Any event, by exceeding these parameters, would end in disas-trous conflict, at least in a classical model of university.

To these basic parameters, we should add the effects pro-duced by globalization, a consequence of the revolution inInformation Technology, which can explain the new forms,explained previously, of Higher Education systems.

Another risk associated to the convergence is the reasonwhy it is introduced. “Convergent change is planned by gov-ernments not simply because they feel an obligation to com-ply with the Bologna Declaration, but because there is acompelling need for them to move in that direction in theirown interest...” What would be the price of not taking actionnow? For governments, if countries do not converge theirreform, efforts could produce a division in Europe with nega-tive consequences for non-convergent systems.

C. Implications in the Technical EducationSuperior in SpainFrom Bologna, one should expect a series of national reforms,possibly taking inspiration from other countries with their sys-tems in line with this convergence process. Spain is one exampleof national reforms along the year 2003 with a giddy avalancheof legislative norms and their correspondent drafts. They are ori-ented for a two-tier structure (bachelors-master), implantation ofECTS and Diploma Supplement, and all are combined withindependent accreditation. Specific actions toward the imple-mentation of Bologna’ principles in each state have been contro-versial. Opinions from the directors of technical schools in Spainshow a clear divorce with the opinions of politicians. The mainargument is that Spanish engineers are not worse-trained thanother European or American engineers. A declaration of theEngineering Board manifests more risks as how to proceed withthe transition of current engineers to the new common Europeanmodel, including the attribution of professional competencies.

D. Role of different actors in SpainThe implementation problems in Spain of the Bologna process,as in the rest of the European countries are very hard and con-flictive, so all the support provided is very important. We havechosen to describe two of them: the roles of the national agencyfor quality and the professional associations for education.

1. The Spanish National Agency for Quality Assessmentand Accreditation (ANECA)

The control mechanisms in the implementation of theBologna process in Spain are in the charge of the ANECA.The Spanish National Agency for Quality Assurance andAccreditation (ANECA) is a State foundation created by the

Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports in implementationof article 32 of the Universities Law (Organic Law 6/2001, 21December). As stated in article 31.3 of the Universities Lawand in the Foundation Statutes, its purpose is to help to assessand publicize Higher Education performance and to reinforcetransparency and comparability in the Spanish system.

For the first year of its operational existence ANECA hasdefined its structure, functions, competences and activities andhas drawn up a Service Charter [7], which defines the charac-teristics and general terms of each of its programmes and setsforth the principles that guide it in implementing its activitiesand exercising its powers. Its actions are channelled throughfive general programs, Institutional Assessment Programme,Certification Program, Accreditation Program, Teaching StaffAssessment Program, and a specific European ConvergenceProgram, intended to promote and facilitate the convergence ofofficial university courses of study towards the European High-er Education Space [8]. To this end, it fosters the disseminationand awareness of the contents of the Bologna Declaration, thepilot experiments in the design and introduction of degreesstructured in the manner defined at Bologna, and giving sup-port for coordinated inter-university projects for establishmentof the European Credit System. These objectives are pursuedby means of institutional assessment reports, preliminary tocertification and accreditation processes, and by initiatives tofoster quality in university activities.

2. The Spanish Chapter of the IEEE Education Society Authors of this paper constitute its Board. We think that theSpanish Chapter of the Education Society, created this year,has a very important mission because of the new educationsystem based on the Bologna declaration helping teachers inthese changes [8]. Our Chapter must help the staff with theeducational material and with the abilities for developing thenew educational system.

This idea can be achieved by having a good web directoryof educational materials and with a good intercommunicationof docent staff. It is fundamental to share ideas and resources.Not every person must do every thing, every design of labpractice or activity in the classroom.

Apart from a Dissemination Committee, the Spanish chapterof the IEEE-EdSoc is organized through two more Commit-tees, Technical and Activities. Its objectives support the differ-ent actors involved in the Bologna process, as for example,identifying the existing procedures of accreditation in educa-tion within the areas of engineering for its correct implementa-tion or sponsoring forums for educators to evaluate educationalprograms and approaches. As well, it is clear that our problemis similar to other European countries, so we need to share oursolutions with other chapters of the IEEE Region 8.

References1. The Bologna Process-Towards the European Higher Edu-

cation Area, http://www.bologna –bergen2005.no/EN/2. E. Tovar, J. Cardeñosa, “Convergence in Higher Educa-


tion: Effects and risks”, International Conference on theConvergence of Knowledge, Culture, Language and Infor-mation Technologies”, Alexandria, Egypt, December2003.

3. K. Yrjänkeikki, M. Takala “Engineering Education FacingNew Challenges in the Learning Society: Case Finland”,ASEE 21st Century Engineer, November 2001.

4. W. Bostock, “To the limits of acceptability: political con-trol of higher education”, in The subversion of AustralianUniversities, ed. Biggs and Davis, 2002.

5. M. O’ Mahony, “Universities and the Bologna Process”,report of the European Union, 2001.

6. F. Buchberger, I. Buchberger “Dilemmas of Higher Educa-

tion Study reform in the Framework of the BolognaProcess”, European Commission project TUNING, 2003.

7. ANECA, http://www.aneca.es/8. Spanish Chapter IEEE-ES, http://www.ieec.uned.es/

index_IEEE.htm

Spanish Chapter of the IEEE Education Society Board

Edmundo Tovar – [email protected]

Manuel Castro – [email protected]


Vocational School Transformation May Force EngineeringCollege Changes

Trond Clausen, SMFørsteamanuensis/Associate ProfessorHøgskolen i Telemark/Telemark University CollegePorsgrunn, Norway;

Chair, IEEE ES Chapter for the Joint Norway/Denmark/Finland/Sweden SectionsVice Chair, ES Chapters & Regional Activities Committee

In 1979 the first modern plan for 3 years’ vocational schooltraining of craftsmen was put into operation in Norway. As aresult of the North Sea oil and gas activities, the training of“process operators” was the first program to be effectuated.

Contradictory to other vocational school programs, theform and content of this training scheme resembled that oftechnical education. The theoretical content, including mathe-matics, science and languages was presented as if the group ofstudents were an engineering class. The students spent muchtime in laboratories and in the writing of reports.

In the 1980’s and 1990’s a series of training programs ofsimilar form were launched, notably for electricians, number-ing about 11 closely-related trades within high and low volt-ages, automation and electronic trades.

Recruitment of pedagogically trained teachers mainly atthe Bachelor and Master levels was the obvious prerequisitefor this transformation. Engineers, some holding trade certifi-cates were teaching technical courses and supervising labora-tory work. Similarly, university-educated teachers wereresponsible for teaching science and language courses.

Partly due to the efforts of industry’s confederations, talent-ed and ambitious young people found the new vocationalschool attractive. As a result, the admission became highlycompetitive. Only those with the best Junior High Schoolgrades were admitted.

The first year of training took place at school, with teachersworking in their traditional role. The second year the studentshad theory at school and practical training in industry, super-

vised by their teachers. The teacher role changed to becomean organizer of learning with the full responsibility of studentprofessional development. In the third year, the cooperatingindustry businesses took over all learning responsibility exceptgrading reports etc., and the formal accreditation. Simultane-ously, the teacher role changed once more: now into a respon-sible leader of learning processes. The teacher made contacts,discussed learning objectives with industry partners, and wasresponsible for student and program evaluation, etc.

It is important to underline, that from 1994 this scheme wasimposed on all public schools by law. This law also reconfirmedthe principle of equivalency between theoretical and practicalsecondary education – all offering three-year programs.

These changes have been carried through almost unnoticedby most engineering colleges, which in the meantime experi-enced student draught and a very low retention rate. However,one engineering school did notice the vocational school devel-opment and, in 1995, prepared a pilot project on direct admis-sion from the new vocational school’s electrically-relateddepartments. In partnership with industry confederationspoliticians, the Ministry, schools, and professors had to beconvinced that this plan should be given a chance. Thus, afterseven years of work the first “vocational students” wereadmitted to a pilot class, following a moderately modifiedplan of study, fall semester, 2002. The pilot program will lastthrough five years. The outcome of the program is expected tobe engineers with at least identical theoretical level as forpresent engineering education programs – plus practical

hands-on literacy. If proved successful, the vocational schoolmay become the normal source of engineering educationrecruitment in Norway.

An educational research program was designed to assurethe quality. Thus, a number of tests have been given the “voca-tional” group, and compared to relevant reference groups. Onetest was given unannounced a couple of weeks after schoolstart, others mid-year and combined with final exams. Greatcare was taken to assure identical tests when possible. Equiva-lent tests were given in cases where “identity” was consideredmeaningless. Such tests have been and will be carried out foreach pilot class during the five testing years.

The results, which have been presented at four internation-al conferences on engineering education, reveal that:

In all tests, the “vocational” students have obtained betterresults than “ordinary” students, recruited from senior high

school’s science departments or equivalent. In a number of technical tests like, for instance, Electrical

Engineering Fundamentals and Digital Systems, they havesignifically outperformed their reference groups. This is ofparticular interest to the college, since the reference groups inthese tests were its own sophomores, having studied thesecourses in their recently-completed freshman year.

Finally, take into consideration that each one of these“vocational” students has at least one trade certificate relevantto electrical engineering in addition to months of practice.Then, it may feel rightful to ask if vocational school transfor-mation may force engineering college changes

Trond Clausenhttp://www-pors.hit.no/~trondc/tc

[email protected]


Book Review: Technical Therapy for Analog Circuit Designers

Donald M. PeterDepartment of Electrical EngineeringSeattle Pacific UniversitySeattle, WA [email protected]

I had been teaching undergraduate electronics for a few years,after a decade in industry, when I heard a compelling paper atthe 1991 FIE Conference at Purdue University. The speaker wasR. David Middlebrook, award-winning Caltech Professor andinternationally known authority on power electronics.

What struck me about Dr. Middlebrook’s presentation was itsprofound practicality for the pivotal area of electronic circuitdesign. More specifically, he was presenting a new way of think-ing, a new paradigm if you will, of how to do analysis of real-world circuits to maximize its usefulness while minimizing itscomplexity. This was done by largely bypassing the complexityaltogether, while yielding a result more useful for design.

To me that was a big deal. My experience as student, engi-neer, and professor had convinced me that something wasmissing in how we taught analysis. Despite the many thingswe did right, I felt that students were not developing an ade-quate degree of intuitive and practical analytical skills. Afterhis talk I responded by remarking that I considered the contentto be highly significant, something I wished I had gotten inschool myself. This has been the response of hundreds ofpracticing engineers and students who have taken Dr. Middle-brook’s Structured Analog Design course over many years.Based on a set of practical circuit theorems he has developed,plus his concepts of Design-Oriented Analysis and Low-Entropy expressions, he has succeeded in bridging the gapbetween academia and the ‘real world’ of design. Too often,says Middlebrook, recent graduates ‘fall off a cliff’ when theystart their first job and realize that the analysis techniques they

learned don’t seem adequate. Middlebrook’s proven methodshave empowered graduates to start their careers betterequipped to tackle real design problems and has enabled expe-rienced engineers to boost their productivity.

With the intent of reaching a larger educational audience,Dr. Middlebrook has produced the DVD Technical Therapyfor Analog Circuit Designers.* It contains 19 hours of videoand hundreds of pdf illustrations of a recent live presentationof his course. The DVD’s ancillary 64 page Owner’s Manualcontains summary commentaries and movie sound trackquotes that identify each section, each indexed to the movietimeline. This media form provides the advantage of directexposure to Middlebrook’s engaging style and persuasivelogic. First, he gives the motivation and background for why abetter approach is needed. In an often humorous and anecdotalstyle, Middlebrook describes the dilemma facing the freshgraduate and how his approach provides ‘therapy’ for theangst they experience on their first job. Subsequent chaptersillustrate detailed practical solutions via such tools as ‘UsingNormal and Inverted Poles and Zeros’, ‘Improved Formulasfor Quadratic Roots’, ‘The Input/Output Theorem’, ‘The ExtraElement Theorem’, and ‘The Feedback Theorem’. Viewersshould give themselves adequate time to absorb this worth-while, paradigm-shifting message. Microsoft Power Pointconversion of his scanned hand-written illustrations wouldhave helped.

This is the distillation of decades of thoughtful develop-ment by a top educator. He contends that the only analysis

worth doing is what is useful for design. His message isauthenticated by numerous detailed practical examples. Ihave used his methods with success in my classes. Weneed to improve the job of equipping students and our-selves with techniques that empower the design process.R. David Middlebrook has done just that. Educators andstudents qualify for the greatly reduced price of $100 (see

http://www.ardem.com).[R. David Middlebrook is Professor Emeritus of Electrical

Engineering at California Institute of Technology.]*R. David Middlebrook, Technical Therapy for Analog

Circuit Designers on Data DVD ROM featuring Design-Ori-ented Analysis - How to get more results for less work,Ardem Associates, 2004.


CHARTING A COURSE FOR A FUTURE IN PRE-COLLEGE PREPARATION

(A New Paradigm for the S&T Workplace)George [email protected]

A modern Swiss scholar, Hans Kung, has sketched Westernhumanity’s advances over the past 50 millennia, in terms ofabout 800 “units of human lifetime years”, 62 years each. Towit, 650 such units (c: 40,000 yrs.) were those of oral conver-sation and tribal language evolution. Then there were 70 unitswhere hand-written communications between generationswere first exploited by Greeks, Hebrews (Bible), mid-Eastern,etc. civilizations. Next Kung defines 6 units of printing begin-ning with wide use of paper and the printing press. Then therewere 4 units of “measurement and precision” developmentduring a Scholastic-Enlightenment Era. We then experienced 2units where engines, electric motors and spin-offs prevailedfrom Edison, Steinmetz and peers, causing revolutionarylabor-saving advances in home and factory (Note that“women’s lib” was sparked in this time span.). Next a singleunit, where a majority of nations was involved with industry.

Now we are in the “post-industrial era” according to thisTubingen sage; life in our beloved America and indeed in theworld is accelerating. Evidence of this is painfully obvious inthe “outsourcing” problem for many in our U.S. skilled laborpool; not only are menial and technical jobs being shifted toIndia, Hong Kong, the Phillipines and Caribbean, Eire, etc.,but also to South America, Africa and Asia where often a lan-guage barrier exists. It no longer is necessary to speak Englishfor U.S. computer-link jobs in far-away places. My thesisadvisor, MIT’s Dave C. White, dedicated a decade of his lifeto 1950s India, teaching EE to north Indian students; that jobhas been taken over by natives. His former students are nowteaching Hindus to respond to programming specs for soft-ware produced overnight via world satellite links…at 20% ofU.S. labor costs. Our Dr.Rustgi, from a Delhi family, com-ments to me while freezing off my skin sins: “….no way toblock the outsourcing wave….it’s inevitable….” The pertinentIEEE/ASEE question arises as to where American educationshould proceed to retain former world potency and to respondto a new and complex world job model….a new paradigm forschooling to mesh with future job markets.

A recent IEEE national convocation featured a speakerfrom a West Coast CalPERS group; from her labor back-

ground she posited a realistic workingframework for “techies” in century twenty-one. She anticipated a working life spanningages 25-75, recognizing extended lifetimes;average duration for each job in a dynamic(highly multi-disciplinary) workplace wouldnow be 5-10 years for a new specializedskill. Each job would be cotemporaneouswith its own accompanying training periodfor new enhanced skills matched to a more skilled, follow-onjob, which might (or not) be related to a current position. Forexample a job position using statistics applied to earth science,such as plate movement, tidal cycles, etc. could be easilytransposed to a position in life sciences, for example tracingmedical vectors for disease propagation. A total of 5-10employers might be served over a lifetime career withretirement around mid-70th years (in contrast to the milieudecades earlier, due to advances in medical science.). Withan average “half-life” for a specific college professionalcourse shrinking below 6-8 years, it is predictable: that crit-ical university courses would migrate to third-world coun-tries, training native specialists overseas; similar to theeleemosynary experience of my 1950s thesis advisor.

An example of this job-mobility was often common fordefense workers of the Cold War era; many EEs of that timeframe might have started in sonar, radar or communications.As DOD contract patterns mutated it was realistic to acquirejobs in related areas with a minimum of additional skills; forexample to move from radar to sonar the principal differenceis found in the propagation environment. Different statisticaltechniques are endemic but the basics are found in echo analy-ses. More complex approaches are present for Doppler andDoppler-dot interpretation, viz. 3-D Fourier-Fresnel imagery.Comparable imagery techniques are applicable with modifica-tion for medical processes such as tomography, MRIs, EEGs,EKGs, X-ray imaging, and others in the life sciences. Voiceinterpretation has wide applicability for word recognition,security screening, language translation, print-to-speech trans-lation and inverse, etc. Tectonic plate shifting, tidal and sea-

sonal ocean movements, weather phenomena, astronomicaldata, comprise a statistical data set from the natural sciences.A common utility extant in all three S&T areas is thesequence of data vector arrays, preprocessing and filtering,cross-correlation and sorting out of noise and interference forinformation recovery through post-processing. Introductoryskills in these mathematical sequences have widespread appli-cability to the S&T workplace whereas others such as those inBessel Functions, String Theory, Infinite Series, etc., are fair-ly limited, with limited stand-alone utility. In setting up ourexperimental seminar sequence we gravitated towards thesepertinent multipurpose utility routines.

The point is clear that high school exposure, prior to begin-ning college years, in these common routines can serve ourneophyte technologists well, reducing early college dropoutrates. (A consistent secondary school problem of “senioritis”may be ameliorated by introduction of this challenge for 11-12th graders.) Our HS seminar in Northern Virginia, anenhancement effort, was tailored to introduce basic techniques.We appreciated that each of the five math topics in oursequence ( complex matrices, transforms, probability and sta-tistics) could be expanded dramatically in coming college cur-ricula. An added plus for selected high schoolers in thisseminar is its location on an experience summary resume forcollege admission and student summer employment. Studentcollege transition would be mitigated and rationalized for ourtrained students by demonstration of math competence.

There has been recent activity by local universities in Vir-ginia, in becoming involved in outreach to high schoolsthrough prep/enhancement courses. This could be a mostsalutary move for S&T education across the U.S. in adaptingto this new paradigm for college work. Such preparatorycourses, with appropriate design, could readily be creditedtowards majors in technical degrees. From a university facultybase (We used local guest lecturers.) covering science andengineering, the utility of mathematics could be readilydemonstrated for local HS pupils, through relevant applica-tions in specific data samples. A symbiotic partnership withASEE, IEEE, ASME, and other professional groups could bemost advantageous for participating colleges, similar to thatwhich occurred in the late 1950s introduction of calculus toHS curricula under the Eisenhower Project. A marriage of

college faculty members with diverse professional societiescould be readily exploited in such pre-college work. Our les-sons from a decade of teaching in S&T IN THE WORK-PLACE classrooms could surely prove to be most apt.

REPORT ON SERIES OF OPED PIECES INIEEE/ASEE PUBLICATION The InterfaceThe above report is the last in a series that has been runningin The Interface since 2001, recounting our Northern VirginiaSection’s effort to introduce post-calculus math into second-ary education.

We carried out a year-long study in 1988 of means to intro-duce extended math course material for High School juniorsand seniors preparing for S&T colleges. Senior advice thenwas to make sure that we addressed those students aiming forthe full range of technology, not limited solely to future Elec-trical Engineering majors. Sound advice for our course, S&TIN THE WORKPLACE..

We prepared a full semester course to be taught 2 hoursper week and presented our plans to several local HS teach-ers’ meetings for commentary and modifications. Several ini-tial runnings in regular County secondary schools provedunsatisfactory; former Asst. Principal Don Weinheimer, ofThomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology(TJHSST), recommended we approach Principal Geof Joneswith the 15 weeks seminar. We ran the series: ComplexMatrices, Fourier Transforms, Laplace Transforms, Probabil-ity and Statistics. The seminar was taught by volunteer IEEEmembers from the local workplace, initially 40 in all. Thesevolunteers each produced a class paper, of 20-30 pages, fortheir sessions. The school, through its guidance department,provided reproduction and other related services for theWednesday 2-hour sessions. The decade of the 1990s wasused to refine the course over seven semesters of the experi-mental course. We published numerous reports forIEEE/ASEE and for the Virginia Teachers Associations dur-ing the 1990s and following. This series began in 2001. Wehope that our experience will prove useful for the comingworkplace.

George [email protected]



A comment from one of the “non-renew-ing members of the IEEE Education Soci-ety” in a recent IEEE survey ofnon-renewing members: The newsletter isentirely focused, it appeared to me, on UShigher education. It has little relevance tothose overseas”.

While this comment was the only oneof its nature in a survey of several hundred “non-renewingmembers” of the IEEE Education Society, it got my attention.While the focus of The Interface is heavily on US higher edu-cation, it is not because of deliberate discrimination againsthigher education in other parts of the world. If you have readthis far in this November issue of The Interface, you undoubt-edly have seen several contributions from non-USA authors. Infact, over the years, Trond Clausen, of Norway, has been a reg-ular contributor of articles describing projects and activities inScandinavia. Manuel Castro, of Spain, is a member of theChapters Committee of the IEEE Education Society. And aperusal of the roster of the AdCom reveals two non-USA at-large members and several committee members from outsidethe USA. As a transnational society, IEEE tries to include in itsleadership members from all around the world, but in practicalterms this is a real challenge because of the expense of travel tothe various administrative committee meetings. I welcome arti-cles from all of our members. Electronic submission has madeit much more practical than in the past for everyone to have

access to The Interface.Continuing the theme of the above paragraph, I have been

heavily involved in my role as Director of Undergraduate Studiesat Georgia Tech Lorraine here in Metz, France, in setting up anundergraduate third- and fourth-year engineering program in con-cert with our French partner schools. We have operated a verysuccessful graduate program for the past 14 years and a very suc-cessful Summer Undergraduate Program for the past seven years.Our newest challenge is make it possible for Atlanta- and Savan-nah-based Georgia Tech students to spend the third and/or fourthacademic year(s) here in France taking all the courses they needto stay on track for graduation. Since we currently do not havetraditional (translation: non-computer) instructional laboratoriesin our Georgia Tech Lorraine facility, we are working with ournearby French partner schools SUPELEC (electrical engineering)and ENSAM (mechanical engineering) to use their laboratoriesfor instruction in addition to using their regular courses as coursesfor our students. When our students take their regular EE or MEcourses (in French) that have laboratories, each of ourAtlanta/Savannah-based students would be paired with a SUP-ELEC/ENSAM French student. We are calling this new under-graduate program the “International Plan”.

In keeping with Rob Reilly’s comments on the use of theword “international”, this plan features education both in theUSA and in another country, where English is not the nativelanguage. It’s an exciting new program and one to which weare all looking forward to implementing.

From your Editor

Bill [email protected]

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.445 Hoes Lane • Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331, USA Non-Profit Org.

U.S. PostagePaid

Easton, PAPermit No. 7

the interface - ewh.ieee.org · the times they are a’changing david kerns olin college of...

Documents