Throughout the 20th century the United States played a central role in the advancement of science and technology and in meeting the needs of the global marketplace for goods and services. In fact, its role could be viewed as dominant, particularly in the post WWII years. With such sustained success, it's easy to become complacent. But, we all read and listen to the news. Change is in the air, and a perfect storm of disruptive conditions may be brewing.

Let's begin with globalization. To ardent practitioners it means an international presence that leverages workers worldwide in meeting the needs and wants of the marketplace. To others it means out-sourcing, off-shoring, loss of job security, and concern for the future of their children and the nation. It is readily justified in business terms but fraught with unintended, if not unknown, consequences.

Then there's the sharply ascendant trajectory of other nations, particularly in Asia. These nations have learned much from the 20th century success of the U.S. and are determined to transition from suppliers of low-wage labor to high technology. If you have any doubts, consider the phenomenal success of South Korea and Singapore, comparatively small nations, and then scale the results to estimate the potential impact of India and China. Not surprisingly, these nations have aggressively invested in science and technology education, with China now graduating five times the number of engineers produced in the U.S. In the words of Thomas Friedman, the global playing field is being leveled.

That brings us to education, about which much has also been written. We hear of low academic standards for students in K-12, with a homework norm of less than three hours per week sufficient to achieve grades of B or better. We hear of declining interest in addressing the rigors of mathematics and science and the lagging performance of U.S. students vis-à-vis other nations. We are then left to wonder about the fate of the pipeline of engineers and scientists needed to sustain a vibrant economy. But flow through the pipeline is being reduced by more than a decline in domestic sources of talent. It's also being affected by a decrease in the number of international students opting to study in the U.S. Throughout the second half of the 20th century, many of these students remained in the U.S., contributing greatly to innovation and attendant wealth creation.

So, how should those of us in engineering education respond to these trends? We are told by our friends from industry that our graduates must be deep technically, but they must also be able to address business issues and to work globally across cultural differences. They must be creative, collaborative, and innovative, with a can-do approach to problems. And, they must have good relational skills. That's a lot to ask. However, I happen to agree with the importance of those attributes and the need to strive for their realization.

At Notre Dame, as at many other institutions, our curriculum is being tailored to achieve the foregoing objectives. Our students are well grounded technically and have a good appreciation for the broader dimensions of technology, including an international perspective. Seventy-five percent of this year's graduating seniors leave us with a good understanding of corporate financials (balance sheets and income statements), as well as basic principles of project and supply chain management. More then 40 percent of them have had an in-depth international study experience. They are also extremely bright young men and women with a good work ethic. But while I'm confident they will do well, I still harbor some concerns for their future.

With my concerns and with all of the mixed messages coming from the media and the futurists of the world, what do I tell prospective students and their parents when asked about the future of engineering and why one with an aptitude for math and science, as well as an innate desire to solve problems, should become an engineer? It's a question that I've pondered a great deal but one that I am now prepared to answer with confidence. Yes, the future is uncertain. But, I firmly believe that engineers who are deeply and broadly educated will be among the best equipped to cope with this uncertainty. This view may well be shared by Edward O. Wilson, a Pulitzer Prize winning biologist and author of The Future of Life. He states that, "The world will henceforth be run by synthesizers, people able to put together the right information at the right time, think critically about it, and make important choices wisely."

That's what engineers do, and that's the essence of a good engineering education.

Frank P. Incropera
Matthew H. McCloskey Dean of Engineering
H.C. and E.A. Brosey Professor of Mechanical Engineering