As part of the Strategic Planning Process all faculty and students have been invited to discuss and share their views on the future of teaching and learning at Tech during the "Days of Engagement" on January 20-21. For the Days of Engagement Blog, post a comment here that responds to the following question in light of the given scenario. Your comment should consist of a well-developed paragraph of at least five sentences. Before posting your comment, please read and consider any comments that may already have been posted by your peers.
The Question:
Given the following scenario, how should Georgia Tech educate students in 2035? Think about both the opportunities and challenges for Tech under this scenario.
The Scenario: ROI Tech
US society is reevaluating its commitment to higher education as an
economic engine, and there is growing evidence that education can cost more than it is worth in lifelong earnings. Some sectors of society regard science and technology not as fundamental knowledge essential to the growth of social well-being but as interest groups. Social
commentators often oppose science and religion or technology and morality when discussing issues such as healthcare decisions. The educated elite in the US tends to have liberal arts or business backgrounds, and there is a pressured middle-class largely consisting of high-school graduates with apprenticeships in crafts and technical fields. The social consensus is that science, technology and education are best left to the Chinese and Indian populations, who have steadily overtaken the US in technological innovation, and fewer US students therefore pursue the more expensive technology degrees. Those who do compete aggressively for the few jobs as technocrats, and only those
with demonstrable problem-solving and project-based skills succeed. The remaining US-based Nobel Laureates are secure in their research
labs in US universities but are increasingly head-hunted overseas. Few US students want to move into research, and most faculty are full-time instructors.
The decreasing importance of education in the technnical field is a critical problem. In order to maintain a healthy balance of engineers across the world in twenty five years, technical universities such as Georgia Tech must advance the difficulty and enhance the level of its courses to ensure that its students graduate with the exceptional skills they need to compete and cooperate with the elite of other prestiged nations. Along with strengthening its academic courses, Georgia Tech must also push its students out even more to work for renowned corporations and solve real life problems to gain actual field experience, so that by the time students graduate, they are fully accustomed to the workplace. As a result of these changes, students at Georgia Tech will have to overcome many new challenges to reach a brand new set of opportunities laid out before them. The curriculum will be more difficult and students will have to strive harder to elevate themselves to and even beyond the level of their foreign competitors. However, once they have acheived this, a world of limitless opportunities will open to them, and they will become champions of the technological world.
ReplyDeleteI do acknowledge the fact that numbers are dwindling significantly in the scientific and technological fields whilst those in the fields of liberal arts and business are rising exponentially in the United States. However, it begs the question, how long can this go on before people once again realize the importance of a balance of the two, that there was, is and will eventually again be a need for expertise in the fields of science and technology. The world cannot be run by merely businessmen and diplomats. Who will care for them when they are sick, build their hospitals and pave their roads, develop the necessary technology to assist them in making their jobs easier and so many other things? In short, the world needs science-oriented individuals, whether society realizes it or not. Now one may argue that we can leave this up to the Chinese and Indian populations since they seem to be thriving in these departments, but there is no substitute for home-grown talent.
ReplyDeleteAs for how I think Georgia Tech should address this growing situation in terms of educating its students in the future, I agree with what Jeremy said about enhancing the difficulty of the courses because this will indeed push students to think more acutely in dealing the problems they will face in the workplace, as well as his point about gaining hands-on experience through work to acclimatize themselves to the workplace. I think this combination of work and critical thinking is absolutely vital, however, what I would like to add is that Georgia Tech should place more emphasis on students’ INTEREST in the science fields. For example, since research is clearly suffering in the US, establish programs within the classrooms to fuel students’ interest in the fields and give them a taste, so to speak, of what research entails, instead of merely having someone in the field of research stand up and speak to an entire classroom. Also, place more emphasis on co-op, internships and work abroad programs. I know some students have a difficulty with these programs because this would mean that they may have to graduate later than expected for example, but if the university could find some way to assist the students in working out their jobs and their degrees, this would encourage students to apply for these programs.
The US is one of, if not the main global powerhouse, and so they should strive to maintain a balance of expertise. The scientific fields are extremely important and so I think stimulating interest in students in these fields, in addition to increasing the difficulty level of courses at the university, is essential in improving the current situation. After all, they say if you love what you do, you will never work a day in your life.
With the drastic changes of academic emphasis on liberal arts and business oriented job opportunities, technical schools all over the US will begin to see a major decline in graduate research and science based careers. This will only damper our efforts to rise above other technologically advanced nations, such as China and India, and needs to be addressed. Even today, the Chinese have made much effort to infiltrate our network through various Internet search engines, such as Google, and you're telling me society needs to make cut-backs on technical fields and science based education. How can we be a well-rounded nation without a balanced effort of educational backgrounds? It makes little sense not to provide a strong base of science and technological careers with the entire nation depending greatly on these two fields. Almost all political decisions and involvements have included technological means in the mix, and the government is greatly aware of it.
ReplyDeleteThese reforms are an effort to make budget costs smaller to help decrease national debt, so they’re taking a hit at educational spending because it’s the easy way out. It sounds like the government is making excuses to validate their efforts, and if these new changes are implemented to the education front, we could easily see a huge deficit in medical care and necessary research involvements needed to keep this country going. In order to counteract these efforts, technical schools must focus much of their effort in persuading students that science and technology is a valuable resource. Making classes more interactive with real world applications could allow students to become more interested in pursuing technical fields. It also needs to start early in the secondary schools to jump start students interest, and teachers need to challenge their students to better prepare them for future schooling. Institutions as a whole could help out by providing safer locations for foreign research opportunities to bring students to an ease. All these changes will be very difficult on the entire nation in the many years to come, but they are necessary ones to overcome other countries efforts to infiltrate our system and security.
I think this scenario perhaps invites us to reconsider the opposition between the "liberal arts" and "technology and science" in education. I read this invitation particularly in the following passages:
ReplyDelete"Some sectors of society regard science and technology not as fundamental knowledge essential to the growth of social well-being but as interest groups. Social commentators often oppose science and religion or technology and morality when discussing issues such as healthcare decisions."
and
"The social consensus is that science, technology and education are best left to the Chinese and Indian populations, who have steadily overtaken the US in technological innovation, and fewer US students therefore pursue the more expensive technology degrees. Those who do compete aggressively for the few jobs as technocrats, and only those with demonstrable problem-solving and project-based skills succeed."
With regard to the first passage, I think it's important to remember that, in the workplace, technological and scientific problems almost always involve moral, ethical and political issues as well as "pure" engineering and science. For example, the question "can we build an atomic bomb?" was almost certainly followed immediately by the question "should we build an atomic bomb?" The fact that, in the future we've been given to work with here, science/technology and ethics/morality are thought of as separate and unrelated suggests (at least to me) a failure in both science and technology and liberal arts education in that future. Similarly, the second passage suggests that science and technology jobs in the future require the sort of flexible, transferrable critical thinking skills that are typically thought to be the end-result of a liberal arts education, as well as the specialized technical knowledge that one typically acquires as a science/engineering major. Given that scenario, I think it might be more productive to consider how science and the liberal arts models might be integrated, rather than opposed in education.
In general, the United States lack of initiative in the technological community is a concern. If the US can not keep up technologically, then we may eventually cease to be a world power. To counter this technological complacency, expressed in the scenario, Tech should educate students in a manner that is not only challenging, but exciting. Normal lectures should be replaced with hands on interactive environments, such as field work or interactive labs. This idea would open up better opportunities for high school students to become college graduates with high level degrees because the college learning experience will resemble that of the technical schools most students tend towards. This new environment will not only attract more students into technological studies but also reinvigorate the field within the United States as the experience of learning becomes rewarding and hands on, avoiding many of the "boring" lecture halls of the present. Boyah!
ReplyDeleteWhat we are doing here now is perfectly fitting for the future. There are hundreds of research opportunities, endless co-op programs, and a very healthy study abroad option for internationally-minded students. This institute has an increasingly prestigious reputation as a progressive research facility with most of the professors in engineering courses presiding as heads of their own research labs. As a chemical engineer, I know that over 40 faculty in that department alone conduct research right here on campus. As for the trends of decreasing interest in technology, I would argue that that is far less alarming than the general trend of overall apathy, a problem which in this country is augmented by the current recession and level of unemployment. Here at Tech, however, the incoming freshman class is larger than the sophomore class on a yearly basis, and every year we are told that more is expected of them. This points not to a state of stagnation as my colleagues have claimed, but a healthy level of growth and prosperity. Universities cannot alter the mindset of a country, but they can spread the appeal of their constituent degrees. I believe that Georgia Tech is doing just that, by way of all the aforementioned co-op, research, and study abroad programs. Changing the curriculum will not change overall trends in this country’s mindset, and for all the challenges those trends pose to this institute, watering down the science-oriented degrees offered here with more liberal arts should be a last resort plan.
ReplyDeleteGeorgia Tech is one of the top engineering schools in the country, and this scenario could be an opportunity for the Institute to rise in its rankings. Even though Georgia Tech is an excellent research institution, it would have to have a more rigorous program to survive. The article describes how "only those with demonstrable problem-solving and project-based skills succeed." Though I think Tech is extremely challenging, it would probably have to become more competitive. This could be accomplished by adding even more research or requiring students to do at least one semester of undergraduate research or work (co-op or internship). Part of the challenge would be to get students interested in the research or work. Requiring each person to see what science is really about could help people understand it and appreciate it. Engineering can be considered an art, and its decisions are completely up to the engineer. Just like a director decides what to censor and what to show, an engineer decides what to make/ design and what is too dangerous/ immoral to create. But really who is to decide either of these? Will something not always offend someone? Are we to let China and India decide what we are to produce/make just because we do not think other US citizens should decide our fate? Are we to allow other nations to govern our safety and freedom? (I seem to remember learning about a war that gave us our freedom of outside nations...)
ReplyDeleteIn regards to business and liberal arts becoming more popular, Georgia Tech could expand its School of Management to include a business degree (major and minor). If students could get at least a minor in business, it might be easier for graduates to get jobs in the workforce.
I think you've all made some very insightful comments, and I appreciate your thoughtfulness in responding. Just to continue in my role as something of a devil's advocate, why is it that, in the scenario the Days of Engagement team has asked us to consider, science/technology and ethics/morality are seen as separate and distinct interests, and is that a problem? Why is it that today, as Christopher has observed, the idea of integrating science and the humanities is often seen as resulting in "watering down" one or the other? As all of you have observed, expertise in the sciences is clearly essential to our future success as a nation and as a society. The scenario is asking us to consider, I think, how we may define or redefine "expertise" in the future. Jeremy, Colin, Reesha, and Thomas have all offered some very good suggestions about how scientific and technical expertise might be developed, but what is it that needs to be developed, exactly?
ReplyDeleteTo return to and extend my earlier hypothetical regarding the atom bomb, World War II was won with science and technology, true, but it was also won with diplomacy, through the efforts of men like Roosevelt and Churchill. It was also to some extent precipitated and propounded by scientists and engineers who put science into the service of questionable and dangerous ideologies. Or another more timely example, Martin Luther King, Jr. wasn't a scientist, but he had a profound and positive impact on society, opening doors for men and women who otherwise would not have had an opportunity to contribute their skills and understanding. Also, keep in mind that the scientists of an earlier era, Sir Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Marie Curie, Louis Pasteur, worked in an environment where the liberal arts model of education was dominant. To bring the problem closer to home, how should "social" problems, such as sustainability and alleviating poverty, influence decisions about what technology gets developed? As Lindsey has observed, what is the cost of leaving such "moral" decisions up to others?
The Days of Engagement team has given us this scenario in order to get us thinking about just how much things can change in 25 years, and I think we need to consider whether the oppositions of today will still be appropriate in that future. And how those oppositions may have influenced or contributed to making that future. What do we gain and what do we lose when we are making choices about how we educate the future leaders of our society? What do we really mean when we're talking about "liberal arts" v. "science and technology"?
This is just my two cents, the thoughts that have been generated by your own.
In regards to the scenario, I think Georgia Tech should spread awareness to its students on the importance of scientific academia to the future. What many people fail to realize is how much science and technology are a driving force in the world today. Discovery in this field is vital to the success of the human race. It is through scientific research and the development of technological devices that we will better our lives. The recent surge of interest in the biomedical field stems from a need to prolong human life, so diseases like cancer can be cured and will no longer take as many lives annually. However, the growth of this field and other scientific fields will not be possible if the majority of students are not pursuing science studies in college. Imagine the changes that could come occur from a connection between science and other practices. Possibly, science is the basis of everything, and by living as scientists, many problems facing mankind will be solved.
ReplyDeleteI think that in order for Georgia Tech to increase interest in the scientific field is to require students to take part in some research position. I believe that many students are unaware of how research works. Not only will mandatory research spread awareness of its importance, but also students, upon realization of what research is like, may take interest in it. Also, Tech should increase the difficulty of courses and laboratories involved. More hands on activities in lab sections will provide students with an understanding of how scientific study works as well as the methods needed to go about it. Even students pursuing majors such as management and architecture should be required take more scientific courses. This will make students well rounded, and possibly trigger a connection between scientific study and other majors. These changes will be difficult to make because of the lack of interest in scientific study; however, in the years after their implementation, I think it will be easier to convince students of the importance of enhanced scientific study. If a connection to science can be found amongst other studies, the world in 2035 may be a much better place than anticipated.
The scenario that we face is a national problem that should not be overlooked. The United States is beginning to disregard the importance of science and technology in higher education. This trend originates from the idea that technical degrees do not produce the socially elite graduates our country desires. And so, the youth of this country are being pressured to attend liberal arts and business schools. It is critical for our nation to revive our emphasis in the technical fields. Without a steady output of graduates with technical degrees we cannot solve other problems our nation faces such as climate change and health care reform. If we continue to allow other nations to overtake us technically we can also no longer continue to view ourselves as an economic world power.
ReplyDeleteGeorgia Tech must make a number of changes in order to solve this problem. We have to improve our standing with the general populous in order to sustain our value. Fifteen years from now, Georgia Tech graduates should not only be known for their technical abilities but also for their social and problem solving skills in the workplace. This can be achieved by improving our non engineering colleges and also by increasing the number of social science and humanities electives in the college of engineering. Tech can also place more emphasis on study and work abroad programs in order to produce graduates with elite social skills and world views. If Tech can help improve the reputation of technical schools in the United States, science and technology in the United States will be bolstered and the social desires of the population will be satisfied.
For the following scenario, I think Georgia Tech is already preparing its curriculum and students for the years ahead. To overcome the prospect of being run over by rising level of technical standards by the international community Georgia Tech has designed programs and continually encourages its students to take part in such programs. Like many of the previous comments said, I believe that programs such as co-op, internships, and research should no longer be encouraged but required. These programs provide work experience, enhance communication skill, and altogether "eliminate" competition when job hunting. However, to raise the awareness of the importance of the scientific and technological community, Georgia Tech should expand its curriculum for all its graduates; every graduate should have a broad spectrum of classes under their belt. This change would create better awareness of the technological and scientific community for liberal arts and business graduates, while awarding the technological graduates a better understanding of the liberal arts community.
ReplyDeleteAs for the debatable ethnical issues that coincide with the developments in science and technology, I think that the same idea of expanding the curriculum will also improve this problem's standing. Taking a variety of international affairs classes and foreign languages are a few ways of examining different cultures backgrounds. If the United States has a greater understanding of the ethnical standpoints of many nations, it is easier to determine how to create newer technology in an ethnical manner.
In this scenario of 2035, science and technology is becoming a thing that is taken for granted. Appropriate evidence of this is the fact that the article regarded science not as fundamental knowledge but as an interest group. The popular view is that the educated elite has business degrees and liberal art degrees, which further shows that people have become complacent with technology. Technology is an essential tool to growth, to better our society, and creating a better world. Liberal Art degrees do in fact teach a wide range of subjects but what it does not do is create something new and exciting, you can open a business, or paint a picture, but building city's, designing new ways to travel, etc.is all technological gains. Outsourcing these jobs takes power away from the United States Economy, and makes the United States dependent on foreign countries.
ReplyDeleteGeorgia Tech faces these challenges in the mind of their students, to have them go after something which everyone is opposed to. It is difficult to attract brilliant minds to a field, when they know they must face outsourcing, and a competitive job market. Therefore Georgia Tech must continue to develop an incredible research program in order to keep the technological significance of Georgia Tech alive Also as mentioned above in many comments Georgia Tech will have to keep focusing there technology classes on creating students with incredible problem-solving and project-based skills. This will keep Georgia Tech "on the map" in a sense. So that students despite popular opinion can find a discipline in technology, and succeed in the field after graduation.
Ignoring the fact that our military, one of the largest buyers of advanced technology, which requires the technology to be made inside of the United States, if this scenario ever happened then America would very rapidly lose it's international influence and then it's standard of living. Georgia Tech needs to recreate their programs in a way such that graduates of Tech have a deep understanding of how to use their technological field in context to a more liberal arts like field. In this way Tech graduates will be able to communicate the usefulness of their skill set to the greater part of society. This will not only benefit them in completing their job, but will also increase the public interest in technological research and inspire other who may have been interested, but were afraid that they would not be able to find a job to be insured that their is a way to pursue their technological passion, but apply it to the current work field.
ReplyDeleteThe article assumes a zero-sum nature of technological development, and implies that improvements in the educational institutions of newly developed countries will lead to a decrease in the American standard of living. There is little logic in this argument when it is viewed in the context of today's globalized world, and especially in that of 2035.
ReplyDeleteThe leaps in Asian scientific expertise were brought on by the rapid growth of economies shortly after the Second World War. This process involved either involved the liberalization or nationalization of educational practices, and arose from the need for regional technological know-how. China and India did not take knowledge away from the western world, but added to it when they had the resources and could.
The implication that this trend carries for GA Tech are is it will no longer be enough for it to be one of the best technical universities in the nation, but that it will have to compete on a global scale.
Nobody knows what technology will be like in 2035. If technology keeps advancing the way it has been over the past 10 years then I cannot even imagine the new revolutionary ideas then will come to be. As technology advances the minds of the creators must be more and more advanced. Although much of this technology is overseas, Tech still has a diverse and international population of students. Students are leaving China and India and coming to the U.S. to learn here at Tech. These students bring many opportunites to Tech with their education and ideas. A major challenge is when these students graduate from Tech and go right back to their home countries. The U.S. gains nothing with them leaving. Ideally if these students stayed in the U.S. the technology could compete with countries overseas. So how should Georgia Tech educate their students in 2035? They should educate them the same way they do now but with more technological advances.
ReplyDeleteIn twenty five years, what can we expect? Technology has changed so much in the past twenty five years, we know it will change significantly over the next quarter of a century. But will there be a real use for it? Of course. General public consensus states that technology and science should be left overseas, but what it fails to recognize is that without the degrees and opportunities Tech offers, the liberal arts majors mean nothing. Scientific and technological may not be the most exciting degrees for some, but they are completely necessary. We can't ship all jobs overseas. Some aspects of engineering, such as computer and electrical engineering, are able to be sent overseas due to cheap labor and therefore add fuel to the public fire that believes engineering should just be left to those in China and India. But where we go wrong, is when we need tangible scientific careers. Civil engineers, doctors, and architects are necessary. We have to focus on supporting these careers, and at the same time building up the ones being shipped overseas. Georgia Tech can accomplish this through supporting co-op and internship opportunities. These are so necessary to gain on the job experience and to get a step ahead of the competition in the workforce.
ReplyDeleteIf we focus all of our efforts into supporting liberal arts degrees, then what happens when the world turns its attention to that as well? Will the general public then begin to see the importance of having a balanced work force? What if tomorrow China and India decided to quit focusing on scientific and technological careers and instead, encouraged students to become managers and businessmen? These jobs are significantly easier to ship overseas with today's technology. The sharp decrease in the need for these careers in the US would throw a kink into the public's idea of how career distribution should be.
Georgia Tech should focus on encouraging engineering and scientific degrees in the next twenty five years. Classes should be exciting and intriguing so as to attract potential students. Our economy cannot thrive with just one type of degree. We need a balance of scientific and liberal arts professionals. It is the only way we can hope to compete on the global scale.
Georgia Tech is preparing very well for the consensus of the declining science and technology education in America. Tech is already one of the leading universities of science and technology and will continue to attract these students which have "problem-solving and project-based skills" through their project of stapling a Green-Card to diplomas. As far as the scare of the United States losing the World Power Status, most of the education of technological business leaders come from American universities. With the Stapling a Green-Card to diploma's will keep those astute students from other countries in America. To push for more American students to pursue technological educations, the United States must have another national competition as it did during the Cold War to get a man on the moon. Another goal must be set, and a friendly competition established.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Days of Engagement team has asked us to consider, science/technology and religion/morality are seen as separate and distinct interests is not really surprising- the fact is that science and religion have often not gotten along with each other. Since the time of Leonardo Da Vinci and even before with the case of Galileo, Science has been at loggerheads with Religion as it hopes to explain and discover the marvels that were earlier attributed to the brilliance of God. Even today we see this dispute in arguments such as cloning and artificial life and Darwin’s Evolution theory. However, a world in which neither is given importance could be very dangerous if morality and ethics are given less importance- such as the scenario alluded to in the Atom bomb example.
ReplyDeleteFurther it’s a fact that Technology is power and not having home-grown technological talent could pose to be a major problem. It would be absolutely essential for the United States to continue to encourage and excel in the production and research of cutting edge technology. However that being said- I do believe that the Georgia Tech School of Management needs to be developed so as to give the future engineers from tech a well rounded education and prepare them for the real world. Further stapling a Green-Card to international students will check the brain-drain and help America maintain its position as a superpower in the world. Classes should be exciting and intriguing so as to attract potential students and develop well rounded engineers. We need a balance of scientific and liberal arts professionals for the economy to thrive.
If the advancements in technology continue at the rate that they have been in the past 10 years, there is no telling what 25 years into the future will be like. But the need for technological based degrees is going to increase over the next 25 years and this is something that the US needs to prepare for. We need schools here such as Georgia Tech that pull in students from other countries that are considered to be the technological powerhouses. If we can keep these students after they go to school here, the US would be in a position to stay a world power and become one of the leading technological countries in the world once again. But Matias also brings up a good point above. The US needs another goal like the race to the moon. This would motivate students to start pursuing more science and technology based degrees because of the publicity it was receiving. Without this, I don't believe that students will have the initiative to pursue the more difficult science based degrees.
ReplyDeleteThis scenario presents a significant separation between the science and technology fields, and the business and liberal arts fields. It states that most of the U.S. upper class citizens have the latter background, and that very few Americans pursue and succeed in technological work. I believe that an appropriate balance between the two fields could be what Georgia Tech provides for future students (and even provides now). Yes, most of the time you need “people” skills to succeed. However engineering, science and technology provide people with all their material goods, and improve the planet by increasing safety and energy-efficiency. Why is it that you can either learn how to be business savvy, or learn how to design a bridge? The two should work hand in hand, especially since the purpose of research and engineering is to improve society. Blending a little bit of business and liberal arts with science and technology could possibly improve innovation; in adding more of a business-related and “social” aspect (while not detracting from the original field), designers and researchers could get a better understanding of what society needs and wants. After all, society is whom they are working for.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest issue that American engineers have is the emphasis on the application of their degrees rather than the creative thinking aspect. In order to improve upon creative thinking, Georgia Tech needs to focus more on teaching techniques that reinforce creative thinking and innovation. Despite all of the social consensus that the educated elite are in business and liberal arts degrees, the US social structure would fall apart without the engineers that support this nation.
ReplyDelete