Search The Site
 
More options | Back issues
Home
News
Opinion & Forums
Careers
Multimedia
Chronicle/Gallup
Leadership Forum
Technology Forum
Resource Center
Campus Viewpoints
Services
The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle Review
A weekly special section
Brainstorm: Lives of the Mind Dan Greenberg

'Rebranding' Engineering


“Say, shouldn’t there be some numbers on this blueprint?”


Pity the engineers. Kids regard engineering as nerdy and boring, dependent on inscrutable math. On top of that engineers suffer from low self-esteem. And all this despite great efforts and massive expenditures to decorate the image of engineering and draw youngsters to the profession. What to do?

Do what’s been done by other institutions and organizations concerned about public regard. Bring in the image meisters of public relations and marketing. Let these experts plumb the minds of the public, including young children, via focus groups and surveys. And “rebrand,” as others have done. The dairy industry boosted sales with “Got milk?” Pork has prospered as “The Other White Meat,” and commonplace cotton is “The fabric of our lives.” Don’t forget that orange juice “isn’t just for breakfast anymore.”

Traditionalists might consider it demeaning for a noble profession to embrace the tactics of commercialism in muddle-minded pursuit of higher public regard. Cool down. The rebranding of engineering is a project of America’s high temple of engineering, the prestigious, self-selecting National Academy of Engineering (NAE), which comprises, it says, America’s finest engineers, drawn from academe, industry, business, and government. From the nation’s hundreds of thousands of engineers of one sort or another, only 1,965 are currently active members of the NAE. It’s easier to get into Harvard.

Adding to the luster of this venture, the rebranding mission was financed by a bastion of strict peer review, the National Science Foundation. Though NSF is hard-pressed to finance sensible proposals, it is usually a soft touch for schemes to draw youth into science and technology. NSF came through with $379,615 to finance an 18-month study of image polishing by NAE’s Committee on Public Understanding of Engineering Messages.

Modestly acknowledging its own insufficiency in this age of specialization, the 10-member NAE committee turned to the pros, issuing a request for proposals that culminated in the engagement of a “communications group,” Bemporad Baranowsky Marketing Group; a “market research company, “Global Strategy Group,” and a “market-research firm,” Harris Interactive, “to test the message.”
Their findings, treated with grave respect, are embodied in the Committee’s report,
“Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering.”

A descent into intellectual malfeasance comes early in the report, triggered by the unfortunate, unyielding presence of mathematics and science at the core of engineering education and practice. No problem for the image meisters, who sold an artful solution to the NAE committee.

“One of the most significant findings of this project,” the NAE reported, “is the strong association in the mind of the public between competency in mathematics and science and the ability to become an engineer.” Adults and teenagers “appear to consider this a negative, a barrier to engineering studies,” the committee noted, adding that the “weakest” of various test messages portrayed scientists as “connecting science to the real world.” Treasuring salesmanship over reality, the committee endorsed a solution:

We conclude, therefore, that continuing to emphasize math and science in marketing or rebranding engineering is unnecessary and may damage rather than increase the appeal of engineering. … When promoting engineering, our appeal should tap into the hopes and dreams of prospective students and the public. This approach would also have the virtue of placing math and science, correctly, as just two of a number of skills and dispositions, such as collaboration, communication, and teamwork, necessary to a successful engineer.

Elsewhere, the report warns that “if we continue to overly advertise math and science in marketing or rebranding engineering, we are likely to alienate or scare off youngsters, rather than attract them to engineering.” Then comes a concession to reality: “Of course, mathematics and science will continue to be necessary skills for engineers.”

From the rebranding process, four taut messages emerged, with No. One in popularity proclaiming “Engineers make a world of difference.” Next came “Engineers are creative problem solvers,” followed by “Engineers help shape the future,” and “Engineering is essential to our health, happiness, and safety.”
For $379.615, what do you expect?

Expressing admiration for its consultants and their crafts (“Market research is as much an art as a science”), the NAE committee noted that the hired firms have proposed a “conservative” rebranding campaign of $12-million to $25-million per year for two or three years. Cheap, considering that “Got Milk?” cost $20-million a year, and by some accounts, the various sectors of engineering — industry, academe, government, and others — spend $400 million a year on imagery, or so it’s claimed.

For the benefit of engineering and recruitment of students, better put that money into science and math instruction and scholarships for engineering students. The NAE Committee on Public Understanding of Engineering Messages should be dissolved immediately.

Temptations to shred the report and banish it from the Internet should be resisted. To fight folly, we must be acquainted with it.

(Image from Photobucket.com)

Posted at 03:20:18 PM on July 1, 2008 | All postings by Dan Greenberg

Comments

  1. Ok so now you have people in the field who dont like math.
    What the hell good is that?
    Engineering is math. If you don’t like it, you don’t want to do it!!!

    — m · Jul 2, 12:25 AM · #

  2. Brilliant. Ask any engineer when the last time she had to perform a Fourier analysis with her trusty calculator for a job-related project and the answer you will get is ‘NEVER’.
    Sure math, physics, and science are essential to engineering, but not more so than problem solving and teamwork.
    The other problem that engineering (like IT) needs to overcome is the preponderance of Asperger’s Syndrome-driven people within the field.

    Your results may vary.

    — Don · Jul 2, 07:13 AM · #

  3. In the history of engineering education, there has always been a debate over which was more important, theory (math and science) or practice. As a technical writing teacher at a university that has managed to achieve diversity, I agree with the report: the highlighting of math and science deters multicultural students who have other, equally important skills.

    — Carol Siri Johnson · Jul 2, 07:37 AM · #

  4. Be careful not to make the (seemingly common) assumption that the “multicultural students” do not like either math or science. This is essentializing them. If they are taught well, they probably enjoy science and math as much as any well taught young people do. We in the education field and parents need to do a better job of helping all children retain their curiosity about life and the way things work. Science and math can be great fun and do not necessarily have to be a crushing bore or scary. The point is to teach it creatively and actively and often.

    — Ed Eckel · Jul 2, 08:02 AM · #

  5. I think Greenberg missed the point of what the NAE was/is trying to do.

    As a field/profession, engineering has been suffering from an identity crisis (and declining enrollments). Ironically, at the same time the products of engineering dominate our economy and life (as well as the global marketplace of ideas).

    We are graduating future leaders who have little if no exposure to a field that literally had remade our entire world. (Ask yourself if you would prefer future political leaders to make decisions about topics that they have no understanding of —- and decisions on global warming or stem cell research or energy —- ones that will set the course of the country) .

    We need to find more ways to expose all students to some of the basic tenets of engineering (in the same way we want to expose them to other cultures, languages, and so on). To do so, we need to get them in the door.

    That means finding a way to broaden its appeal, creating more entry points into courses, etc. —- whether or not students choose to major in the applied sciences or become professional engineers.

    The goal is not to weaken the field or somehow remove math/science, but to cast it more as a liberal art. You cannot ask students to “tune in” if they have already “tuned out” before they walk onto campus.

    Finally … the idea that academic fields or national organizations should disdain marketing techniques, is simply outmoded. It is the world we (and students) live in.

    Think about the number of times you have heard a scientist or engineer say, “I went into the field because I watched this one Star Trek episode …”. Live long and prosper indeed.

    — Michael Patrick Rutter · Jul 2, 09:49 AM · #

  6. I agree with MPR. The trouble with stressing “competency in math” is that it’s widely understood as “innate competency” — either you’re really good at math or you can’t do it. A more results oriented “sales pitch” for engineering should encourage kids who are interested in problem solving to develop their math skills; this will be more productive than trying to lure all the math stars into the field.

    — Mr Punch · Jul 2, 10:40 AM · #

  7. The most important aspect of learning math is to be able to understand what is written in the textbooks. Students today skip this aspect altogether and when confronted with a homework exercise scan the text for similar examples.

    — Stan · Jul 2, 12:17 PM · #

  8. MPR and Mr Punch are correct. Add to that: What the general public views as science and math skills are not the same as the actual science and math skills needed by engineers. The way math and science are taught in public schools in the U.S. are more like endurance tests designed to discourage the highest proportion of students. Post high school education in science and math would be enjoyed and mastered by a large segment of the population if they weren’t prejudiced by their earlier experience.

    — R. A. Patterson · Jul 2, 01:12 PM · #

  9. On the one hand engineers primarily do design, which is the art of juggling dozens of constraints in complex trade-off relations to each others. On the other hand engineers are so inarticulate and asocial that they underperform on teams in all modern organizations. Math turns people into tools of smarter broader, less math-y other people. Perhaps the root cause is the utter centuries long stupidity of mathematicians, their male pride in opaque symbolic languages. Perhaps if they communicated instead of lording eliteness by hiding behind symbol strings, engineers would learn to talk!!! Blame the mathematicians!!!! The Solution? Ask Lilian Lieber.

    — Richard Tabor Greene · Jul 3, 07:26 AM · #

  10. MPR, Mr. Punch, and RAP have nailed the problem. Now what’s the solution?

    When I was in high school, I hated History. I was interested in international relations though, so in college I was required to take — ugh — History courses. I dreaded it. Then I had college-level History… and I nearly ended up majoring in it!

    The point: College math (and apparently Professional math) aren’t anything like what we are teaching in High School. What a shame!

    And for a country with our history of “anyone can become whatever they want” to think that we have bought into the nonsense that math skills are innate and all-or-none is another real shame. (I teach an intro-level statistics class, and students are regularly surprised that they can do it.)

    What to do?

    — Ray · Jul 3, 07:59 AM · #

  11. The dirty little secret? Funds for “science and math instruction and scholarships for engineering students” aren’t as scarce as you might think. I certainly would encourage more support in this area, but all the scholarships in the world won’t do any good if there are no students interested in applying for them.

    Given good instruction, there is no reason why students of average academic history can’t learn the necessary math and science to succeed as engineers. In fact, one of the ways we measure success in our math and science teacher preparation programs is when our graduates DISAGREE with the statement that “math / science requires special innate abilities that only some students posess.” Improved math & science instruction that reflects the investigative and creative nature of the fields is indeed part of the solution, but so is having a deeper understanding of the obstacles that prevent youth from considering these careers.

    This is a time when engineers and scientists are needed more than ever if we are to find the technological solutions to the energy problems we face. I do not doubt that the ingenuity it there, waiting to be tapped. My fear is that it is sequstered in the minds of the MBA and law students.

    — Amy J · Jul 3, 08:08 AM · #

  12. I agree with Patterson #8 and Michael Rutter #5 concerning our approaches to math and science education. I hated science in school until I had a great science teacher in high school who actually believed students should be doing hands-on learning experiences at least once a week. He also brought real scientists and engineers into the classroom to discuss their work. We even toured the local wastewater facility. Doing actual laboratories, meeting scientists, and seeing science and engineering in the real world totally changed my mind about science and now I teach chemistry at a community college. I am constantly amazed at how little laboratory experience students come to college with. Their exposure to math and science is limited to book learning. How boring! Engineering suffers from the same problem. How many students actually build a soap box derby racer or radio from scratch? My students don’t even know how to cook!

    We need to make sure all junior high and high school students get to experience good quality science and engineering laboratories. This requires that teachers have adequate laboratory learning experiences themselves, that they have the materials and laboratory space available to teach interesting labs, that they be provided with adequate time to provide laboratory experiences for their students, and they be provided with small enough classes to keep the laboratory experiences safe.

    — Robyn · Jul 3, 11:11 AM · #

  13. Amy J and others before have it I think. This is a multi-prong problem. Engineering IS suffering from an image problem. Furthermore, math and science instruction IS boring and unrewarding at pre-college levels (and even at college sometimes). Math and science instruction is essential, as with any basic instruction to prepare students to enter a profession, to laying the foundation from which we as engineering faculty can build. We are just now starting to really look at what our students are learning. We have much more work to do. However, if the raw material we are admitting to our colleges requires significant remediation and is getting worse, all of us are wasting resources. K-12 programs receive crazy amounts of funding for innovative (and not so innovative) programs. Accountability is severely lacking in a tarnished and overly-politicized system. Engineering schools are inheriting the product of that and, in 4-5 short years, are under pressure to make a major transformation that results in sharp engineers.

    Yes, marketing is important as it is everywhere for just about everything. Quality of instruction is also important (how more or less is for others to debate). Why can’t we ‘gun’ for both? The idea that politicians (who are mostly lawyers it seems) are making decisions that affect what we research, how we research it, and what research gets funded is so frightening to me. If you don’t know the technology and the fundamental science (ahem, ethanol production from corn) then you are bound to make some stupid decisions. We, as a society, have gotten lucky for a long time, but that luck is running out. It’s time we start attracting and graduating some sharp minds to tackle these problems…because they are only getting more difficult.

    Now, making a strategy to do all of that is the new challenge and shouldn’t be left to a bunch of lawyers, MBAs, or maybe even over-elite, self-selecting engineers (who may be far removed from what the rest of us deal with on a daily basis). Spending money for the sake of spending money or on ‘knee jerk’ reactions is not smart. We need some knowledgable and practical people to create a plan for getting this job done; and quickly.

    — CR · Jul 3, 11:40 AM · #

  14. As a lifelong engineer, industrial manager, and engineering educator, I agree with the author of the article and disagree with many of the posters. Marketing has no business in engineering education or in most of education. Marketing generally plays toward emotion rather than fact or logic, and it is often dishonest. To try to hide the necessity of sound understanding of science and math principles is simply wrong. Perhaps the problem isn’t just in trying to recruit lazy high school students—it’s a failure of the K-12 system in creating an interest in and knowledge of science and math. Look at the rest of the world—they can do it. Why can’t we?

    — Bob · Jul 23, 12:49 PM · #

Commenting is closed for this article.
Copyright © 2008 by The Chronicle of Higher Education | Contact us
User agreement | Privacy policy | About The Chronicle | Site map | Help
Subscribe | Advertise with us | Press inquiries | RSS | Today's most e-mailed
Home | Chronicle Careers | The Chronicle Review