Many engineering colleges in the 1990s are busily revising the style and substance of engineering curricula to provide increased attention to design. The intent is to redress what many reformers see as an imbalance caused by too much emphasis on the analytical approaches of engineering science. In effect, current reforms are responding to changes made in American engineering colleges in the years immediately after World War II, when engineering curricula first fully embraced an analytical mode of engineering science. This paper examines how and why this earlier “re‐engineering” of engineering education came to pass. It begins by summarizing the state of engineering education in the late 19th century. Then the paper discusses the role of European‐born and educated engineers such as Stephen Timoshenko, Theodore von Kérmén, and Harald Westergaard, who after 1920 prepared the ground for the later transformation of engineering curricula. The paper next discusses the efforts of leaders such as Solomon Cady Hollister and Eric Walker to introduce changes after 1945, and concludes by noting how their initial visions of curricula based on engineering science were altered during implementation.

This paper provides an overview of the history of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) from its founding in 1893 to the present. The authors see two major continuities in the organization's hundred year history: the search for methods of improving classroom instruction and the pursuit of national recognition as the spokesman for engineering education. An organization concerned with classroom teaching draws its strength from the ranks of teaching faculty; an organization seeking national visibility must draw its leaders from administrators, especially deans. ASEE's history is viewed as an continuing effort to balance these two broad purposes within a single organization. I. INTRODUCTIONWhen, in 1893, engineering educators formed the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education (SPEE), forerunner of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), they created the first specialized professional society devoted solely to education. It was especially appropriate that engineering educators took this step, for SPEE's formation signalled acceptance of the college as the locus of professional training for engineers and an emerging consensus that engineering curricula should stress fundamental scientific and mathematical principles, not hands-on apprenticeships. SPEE was formed to turn these emerging points of agreement into reality, while also improving communications among engineering educators.Two primary continuities run through the subsequent history of SPEE/ASEE. The most basic has been a continuing commitment to the improvement of instruction at the classroom level. The other rivals it in importance. From its founding SPEE's leaders sought recognition from other professional societies and from governmental agencies as the spokesman for engineering education. The pursuit of national visibility, however, created some tension with the first purpose. An organization concerned with classroom teaching draws strength from ranks of teaching faculty; an organization seeking to speak for the field must draw its leaders from senior members, especially deans. Moreover, different organizational structures are needed to pursue these goals. SPEE/ASEE's history can be viewed as an ongoing effort to balance these two broad purposes within a single organization. II. 19TH CENTURY ORIGINSFor much of the 19th century, engineers were trained on the job, although various more formal mechanisms also were tried. The first academic program, which combined engineering with military instruction, was initiated at West Point in 1802 and systematized in 1817. In the 1830s Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute tried a different path, treating engineering as a graduate program by adding a year of professional study to a liberal arts degree. Other antebellum American colleges taught engineering outside the regular curriculum as a non-degree course or offered engineering within general bachelor of arts or, later, bachelor of science curricula. A few schools developed two-or three-year courses leading to specialized ba...

No abstract

No abstract

This essay is the first in a series authored by each Editor-in-Chief of Comparative Technology Transfer and Society to provide a sense of the scope and range of coverage the journal provides. It offers a historian's view of the development of the scholarship about technology transfer over the past half century, interweaving two primary threads. First, it identifies events and circumstances that have influenced and shaped real-world efforts to move technology in its many guises across boundaries— national, geographic, institutional, organizational, social, or otherwise. These historical situations have had a profound impact on the efforts of American policymakers and leaders in business, government, universities, and nongovernmental organizations who deal with technology transfer. These circumstances have produced significant changes of emphasis in the definition of technology transfer at different points in time. Scholars interested in technology transfer have taken their cues from the unfolding events of history, but they have also worked within a variety of disciplinary traditions. The second strand of this essay surveys a number of these disciplinary approaches to the study of technology transfer, with attention to a few principal problems and issues scholars have identified. By connecting historical events and trends within academic disciplines, this essay provides an overview of basic patterns within the scholarship related to technology transfer since 1950.