DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 067 048 HE 003 357

TITLE Ring of Iron. A Study of Engineering Education inOntario.

INSTITUTION Committee of Presidents of Universities of Ontario,Toronto.

PUB DATE Dec 70NOTE 170p.AVAILABLE FROM University of Toronto Bookstore, Toronto 181, Canada

($2.45)

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$6.58DESCRIPTORS * Educational Development; *Educational Planning;

* Engineering; Engineering Education; *HigherEducation; *International Education

ABSTRACTAt the present time, nine of the fourteen

provincially-assisted universities in Ontario, Canada offer programsleading to degrees in the field of engineering, and two others offer2-year curricula in the field. This document presents a study ofengineering education in Ontario, covering both the undergraduate andgraduate fields, and examining student flows, curricula, research,staff, facilities and costs with a perspective developed from ananalysis of the career patterns of engineering graduates. The presentreport of the study is designed to be a tentative master plan thatmight be used as a guide for rational growth of engineering educationduring the coming decade. It endeavors to provide for the highestquality, the best use of resources, an opportunity for innovation,and maximum freedom of choice for students in engineering. (HS)

A report to the

g Committee of Presidents of Universities of Ontario

Comite des Presidents d'Universite de I'Ontario

U.S. OEPARTMENT'OF HEALTH.EDUCATION & WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILYREPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

Ring of Iron

,4%

A Study of Engineering Education in Ontario

December 1970

A report to the

Committee of Presidents of Universities of Ontario

Comite des Presidents d'Universite de l'Ontario

Ring of Iron

A Study of Engineering Education in Ontario

Decembei 1970

MEMBERS OF THE STUDY GROUP

Philip A. Lapp, B.A.Sc., S.M., Sc.D., P.Eng. (Director)

John W. Hodgins, B.A.Sc., Ph.D., P.Eng.

Colin B. Mackay, Q.C., B.A., LL.B., D.C.L., D. es L., LL.D.

The opinions expressed in this report are thoseof the study group, and do not necessarily coin-cide with the views of the Committee of Presidentsof Universities of Ontario.

First printing 1970Second printing 1971

Printed by BAXTER PRESS LTD. GRAVEN HURST TORONTO

COMMITTEE OP

PRESIDENTS OF UNIVERSITIESOP ONTARIO

go.COMITY DES

PRESIDENTS D'UNIVERSIT1DE L'ONTARIO

230 FLOOR STREET WEST, TORONTO 181, ONTARIO

(416) 920-6805

STUDY OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION IN ONTARIO

Dr. D. C. Williams,Chairman,Committee of Presidents ofUniversities of Ontario,c/o University of Western Ortario,London, Ontario.

Dear Dr. Williams,

I hereby submit to you the report entitled"Ring of Iron", a Study of Engineering Education inOntario, November, 1970. It is my hope that thisdocument will make a contribution to the evolutionof an efficient "system" of engineering educationin this province during the present decade.

PAL:jbEnc:

Yours sincerely,

Philip A. Lapp,Director.

CONTENTS

Page

List of Tables and Figures

Preface .. iii

Chapter

1

2

3

4

Grandsons of Martha

The Threshold

The lindergrachaate Environment

Graduate Studies

6

8

IS

5 Research 18

Research as an Element of Education 20Relevance of University Engineering Research 21

Industrial Involvement in University Engineering Research 22I n ter-1.T n iversity Cooperation 24Engineering Research Expenditure 24Balance of Effort: Teaching, Research and Consulting 25

6 The Professors ... 28

7 The Profession 31

Engineering and Society 31

Entrance into the Profession 32' Requalification 34.,. Accreditation 35

8 Industry 38Introduction 38Industrial Environment 38Industrial Attitudes toward Engineering Graduates 40Outlook for Future Career Patterns in Industry 41

9 Manpower 44Characteristics of Engineering Manpower 44Requirements for Engineers 51

i,. Supply of Undergraduate Students 55Supply of Graduate Students 55

.)', Engineering Manpower Statistics 59.t.

10 The System 61. Introduction 61.;-,.;,..

:-....:,-,/3:.-..."

*,.::,..,

Cost Considerations in Engineering EducationQuality Considerations in Engineering Education

6164

Departments and Programs 65

Chapter Page

Ontario Engineering Enrolment Distribution 65Recommended Distribution of Undergraduate Enrolments

(Recommended Distribution of Graduate Enrolments 69Financial Implications 69

II Universities in the System 71

University of Toronto 72Queen's University 72University of Waterloo 73McNlaster University 74Carleton University 75University of Ottawa 75University of Western Ontario 76University of Windsor 77University of Guelph 77The NorthLaurentian University 791,a kehead University 80York, Trent and Brock Universities 81

Royal Military College of Canada 82

12 Retrospect and Prospect 84Academic Planning ............. . 85Manpower Planning .... . .... 85Cost Assessment and Control ...... . 85Program Appraisal and Accreditation 85

Recommendations 87

Appendices 91

A Student Opinions 93

B Engineering Enrolments and Degrees Awarded 95

C Some Comments on Television-Linked Classrooms 105

D Special Research Facilities 107

E Estimated Equipment Inventories: Faculties of Engineering 113

F Ontario Engineering Teachers 114

G Placement Experience 122

H Unit Costs 125

I Questionnaire to Ontario Faculties of Engineering 137

J Study Visits 146

LIST OF TABLESTable No. Page

1.1 Engineering Activity 3

5.1 Research Grants in Ontario Faculties of Engineering 24

5-2 Areas of Research Effort in Ontario Faculties of Engineering 26

5.3 Engineering Research in Ontario Universities 27

6.1 Faculty Members 28

6.2 Years of Professional Practice among Mem bers of Ontario Faculties of Engineering 29

6.3 Years of Teaching Experience in Ontario Faculties of Engineering 29

6.4 Percentage of Faculty Members Who Are Registered Professional Engineers 29

9.1 Distribution of Educational Background in Each Field of Employment 45

9-2 Distribution of Employment for Each Field of Study 46

9.3 Distribution of Engineering Employment. by Sector 46

9.4 Occupational Definitions from 1967 Survey Work Functions 49

9.5 HighlyQualified Manpower with Engineering as Principal Field of Employment1967 Occupational Category of Level of Education 50

9.6 Occupational Priority with Level of Education 50

9.7 Citizenships of Ontario Engineering Graduate Students 56

9-8 Age and Sex of Students Enrolled for the Master's and Doctorate in Engineering atOntario Universities, 1968.69 56

9.9 Canadian Graduate Enrolment from Bachelor Graduations for theOntario Engineering Schools 58

9.10 Recommended Engineering Graduate Enrolments, Provincially Assisted Universities,Ontario, 1968.1980 58

9.11 Sources of Data on Engineering Manpower 59

10-1 Undergraduate Enginering Enrolments by University, Ontario, 1969.70 ... 66

10.2 Undergraduate Engineering Programs Ontario 66

10.3 Recommended Freshman Intake, Ontario Engineering Schools, 1971-1980 68

10.4 Recommended Graduate Engineering Enrolment Distribution, 1973.74 69

11-1 Grade 13 Enrolments in High Schools within a 35Mile Radius of Laurentian andLakehead Universities 79

!Ilk .11111 T

L

r

LIST OF FIGURESFigure No. Page

5.1 Enginering Research in Ontario Universities 19

7.1 The Engineering Profession and Society 32

9.1 CrossSectional Survey of Engineering Occupations for Engineers with Bachelor's Degrees 47

9.2 CrossSectional Survey of Engineering Occupations for Engineers with ProfessionalCertification Bachelor's, Master's and Doctoral Degrees 48

9-3 Physics and ChemistryGrade 13 Department Examinations Percentage ofGrade 13 Students Achieving Pass 50% of Better 57a

9.4 Engineering Undergraduate Enrolments 57b

9.5 Engineering Graduate Enrolments 57c

10.1 Geographic Location of Ontario Engineering Schools 67

PREFACE

Ontario is a province of more than 7,500,000people with fourteen provincially-assisted univer-sities. Nine of these institutions grant degrees inengineering, while two of the others offer thefirst two years of engineering, and both haveindicated a desire to add the remaining two yearsin order to be able to award engineering degrees.The remaining three institutions do not provideany instruction in engineering. Prior to the tnie-1050s, there were only two engineering schoolsin the province, and the increase in the numberof schools has occurred over the past fifteen yearsat a pace that has precluded any system planning.As we move into the 1970s the need for rational-ization has become critical.

At the request of the Committee of Presidentsof Universities of Ontario (CPUO) , the Coin-

inittee of Ontario Deans of Engineering (CODE)developed a proposal to conduct a study of engi-neering education in Ontario. It was to coverboth the undergraduate and graduate fields, andexamine student flows, curricula, research, staff,facilities and costs with a perspective developedfrom an analysis of the career patterns of engi-neering graduates. The objective was to create amaster plan which might be used as a guide forrational growth of engineering education duringthis decade. Such a plan should endeavour toprovide for the highest attainable quality, thebest use of resources, an opportunity for innova-tion, and maximum freedom of choice forstudents. A twelfth engineering school, the RoyalMilitary College of Canada, although fundedentirely by the federal government, was includedin certain aspects of the study.

iii

Work comment cd in October of 1969. withthe appointment of a full-time dim for under theguidam e of a liaison committee representingCPUO and CODE Next, a study group wasformed. Two of the group arc engineers, onefrom indostry with an aerospace engineeringbackground (the director) , and the other withan academic and research backgromul in chem-ical engineering the former Dean of Engineer-ing at NI( Nlasier University. Between them. theycover a broad spec trom of engineering andscientific disc iplines. Lt order to «mtribute abalancing viewpoint from another profession, thethird member of the group is a non-engineer,%id' a backgmmul of university administration:the former president of the University of NewBrimsick.

Iu consultation with the enginceling schools.a questionnaire was developed, calling for thegeneration of data from each university. In addi-tion. a brief was received from the Association ofProfessional Engineers of Ontario. These slibmis-sions formed the basis tip or which many of therecommendations have been developed. Thestudy group travelled extensively 132 organiza-tions were visited in Canada, the United Statesand Europe. and informal hearings were held ateach Ontario university. when members of thestudy group spoke with students, facility and staff.More than three hundred students were involvedin these discussions. and a separate student Tics-tionnairc provided a variety of viewpoints fromseveral hundred more,

iv

The study group is indebted to those whocontributed so notch tittle and eliott to this studyThey arc too inimerons to mentionbut many of them will recognize passages in thisreport. We would ask them to treat this discoveryas conveying a message of thanks, Nevertheless,the study group accepts full responsibility for theway in which the information is presented andfor the specific recommendations. We wish toat knowledge the contribution of the stall atCPUO, who gave countless limns to the compila-tion and pro( essing of data, and our special thanks to the Committee of Presidents ofl'uisersiiies of Onto io Ior publishing the thrt.eauxiliary documents containing our sour«. mate-vial. Also, we wish to acknowledge our gratitudeto the studv group set retary. Mrs. Joan Barnes.who put in long and hard hours of work in thepreparation of the manuscript. Our thanks arealso due to Mrs. Barbara Brougham. who editedthe report and oversaw its produt non. and toMiss Valda Steet, who did the art work.

The director would like to convey his deepappreciation for the warm spirit and friendly.-app tirt that has developed within the studygroup. In spite of diverse backgrounds andpersonalities, its members reached accord onevery major issue -- there is no minority report.The sensitivity, sincerity and enthusiasm of Dr.Hudgins and the perception and Nlaritime witof Dr. Mackay made it a pleasure for the directorto work with these two gentlemen.

1

GRANDSONS OF MARTHA

"It is their care, in all the ages, to takethe buffet and cushion the shock.It is their care that the gear engagesit is their care that the switches lock...."

Rudyard Kipling,"The Sons of Martha"

This is to be a report about our most preciousresource: young people. In particular, it is areport about young people just catering a crucialphase in their lives, as they complete secondaryschool, make firm career decisions, and set theircourses for professional education. In the devel-opment of this study, we talked with many suchyoung people; we have argued, laughed, agonizedand agreed with them, we have listened to themand learned from them. We have discovered thatthe engineering student in Ontario is committed,

1/

cooperative and constructive. He does not wantto burn down the classroom, but is eager to assistin improving what goes on inside it. He is devel-oping a .ocial consciousness far more rapidlythan most of hi, teachers, and believes that engi-neering education should mirror this awakening.

For the chronology of this report, it seemedappropriate to begin with the day of graduationiron, secondary school in June of 1970. What avastly more peylexing day this was than thecorresponding day in 1950. Now, almost all of theenvironment is in the throes of rapid changesociety, technology and education itself; a work-able set of value judgments is not easy to devisein the 1970s. To us it seems important, at theoutset, to try to sketch some of the backgroundagainst which these value judgments are made,

1

and against which expectations and aspirationsarc developed. First, we need a student for whomwe can provide a fairly clear personality andaptitude description; we shall call him/her Jean(French- or Anglo-C:anadian) .

Jean is 18 years old and comes from an averageOntario family. He likes to work with his hands,and though not intensely materialistic, has apragmatic outlook on life. Possessed of a naturalaptitude for mathematics and science, he gradu-ated from high school with averages of over 70%in those subjects. He round little diflicutly indeciding between science engineer ing and arts-social sciences. There was the aptitude in mathe-matics and sciences everyone had underscoredthat as a necessary attribute. Then, there was thelack of any real interest in high sc.'iool Englishcourses, and a lack of ability in foreign languagestudies.

The decision between science and technologywas more difficult. In high school he knew moreabout science. oecause few teachers were. engi-neers and . there was little technology in thecurriculum, and many of those in guidancetended to describe engineering as it existed in the1940s. To remedy this situation, the Committeeof Ontario Deans of Engineering has commis-sioned the preparation Of a series of audio- visualpresentations for the use of Ontario high school5in 1971 too late for Jean. But our student'sdesire to see his ideas translated into somethingtangible and practicable is a strong- one, and sothe motivation to apply science to a practical endfinally swung his decision in the direction ofengineering.

One need not belabour the social implicationsof engineering in the final third of the twentiethcentury. It is awesome to contemplate its poten-tial for good and evil which has, within a singlegeneration, revolutionized transportation andcommunication while creating the threat ofinstant oblivion. Ontario society in the 1970sis showing all the stresses produced by toorapid economic expansion and too little socio-economic planning to much emulation andtoo 1 innovation. After a brilliant perfor-mance throughout the years of war, Ontario'stechnology is now strangely unadventurous, asrisk capital outweighs risk thinking, and industrytakes most of its cues from beyond our borders.Anyone adept at extrapolation surely wouldbe confounded by the present entrepreneurialtorpor.

This state of affairs affects the match betweenJean's aspiratirns and the realities of his engineer-

2

mg career. The youth of today is both idea1;,ticand sophisticated and 1111(15 it difficult to under-stand why such an ;diluent province fails to useits engineering resources in a more imaginativeway. Jean has a real sensitivity towards the socialimplications of engineering and expects hiseducation to relate technology to life style, pro-fessionalism to humanisni. He wonders whyCanadians responded so magnificently tc. theemergencies of ivar, but so sluggishly to the chal-lenges of peace; he is determined to improve thesituation.

Jean finds the prospect of engineering ex,itingand challenging, but btwi!ilering in the enor-mous variety of careers aNailable to the engineer-ing graduate. For one th:ng, there is ar, increasingbody of opinion that engineering represents asplendid background for a 'iberal education,since an understanding of technology is an under-standing of one of the riost important socialforces of this generation. Thus, many studentswho do not intend to practise engineering electit as a fundamental education for careers inteaching, medicine, law and business.

For those who intend tc practise the profession,two types of careers are admirably served by anengineering education:

(1) The first is, of course, a full career in "hardengineering", which concentrates on thetranslation of the principles of science intothe satisfaction of the needs of man bydevices, structures, vehicles or processes.

(2) There is a rapid increase in the number ofengineers who take positions in managementat all leveis. Indeed, statistics demonstratequite clearly that the majority of engineersfollow this path out of their early techno-logical employment.

Of course, the vagaries of opportunity, of socialinfluences, and of general temperamental devel-opment will shape Jean's decisions and thepattern of his career. Nevertheless, it may beworthwhile to summarize the activities in whichengineers do engage, so that he may cross-checkthis fist with the most probable source of employ-ment in each (Table 1-1) .

Such a list may be incomplete, but it under-scores the varied opportunities provided by anengineering education a fact chronically andemphasized in guidance advice, which too ofttaappears to be woefully ineffectual and outdated.As Jean proceeds in his course, he will begin toidentify his talents, and to match them up withopportunities for exploiting them.

What is the state of engineering in Ontario aswe move into the 1970s? There is a hesitation inthe growth of engineering enterprise, resultingfrom the present North American economicslump, together with the accompanying wide-spread inflation ail i high cost of risk capital.Many Ontario executives, already chronically

Table 1-1

ENGINEERING ACTIVITY

Govern-

X

X XX X

X X

Type of Engineering Activity Industry ment

1. Design X2. Systems Analysis and

Synthesis X3. Physical analysis X4. Project

Management:A) Technical

control(B) Cost Control(C) Time Con tro

5. BusinessManagement(technical

endeavour) X6. Industrial

Management: X(A) Productivity(B) Marketing(C) Labour(D) Resources

men, money,materials)

7. InformationManagement:(A) Data storage,

retrieval(B) Pattern

recognition8. Ma intenin.ce

engineering X9. Reliability

engineering X10. Value engineering X11. Test Engineering X12. Quality control X

(quality assurance)13. Operations research X14. Production

engineering X15. Specification

engineering X(components,materials, systems)

Self-employed(including

Univer- consul-sity tants)

X

1 Grandsons of Martha

16. Researchengineering X

17. Researchmanagement X

18. Project or processengineering X

19. Teaching X20. Administration X

(expediting,con tracts)

21. Technical sales X22. Technical Marketing X X

X X X

X X X

22 18 10 15

conservative, have ieireated to custodial roles,beset as they are by sharply rising labour costs;as a result, innovation is in the doldrums at atime when it is most urgently needed. And yet, inthe spring of 1970, there was a brisk market forengineering graduates at salary levels slightlybetter than in 1969.

Ontario is in the midst of a move towardsindustrial sophistication, and so it is reasonableto expect that the market for engineering gradu-ates certainly will be sustained and probably willimprove during the years of the present decade.

X X Not only is the outlook attractive quantitatively,but there has been a sharp improvement in the

X X quality of professional careers which will, ifanything, intensify when innovative activityagain picks up its pace.

The rate of developmen' for science-basedindustry poses one of the moss. difficult questionsrelating to this study. Most engineering deanswere far too optimistic in their views as to thespeed at which sophisticated engineering activitywould emerge in the sixtits, and this optimismhas been reflected in the nature of the engineer-ing programs in our universities. The accuracy ofthese predictions for the next ten years will havea strong bearing on the success of this report, themain purpose of which is to recommend an edu-cational mute by which our young people candevelop into ,,itizens who will be at ease with':heir environment, and equipped to contributeto the quality of life during the balance of thiscentury.

With the population density now reaching aX X point where people are posing a significant threat

to the environment, it is clear that over the nextdecade, an increasing number of engineers mustfind careers in the broad area of ecological stabili-

X X zation and reclamation. Increasingly, they will bedrawn into problems working with biologists,sociologists, economists and politicians. They will

X X X

X X

X

X

3

be confronted with socio-economic decisions asto the balance between economic gain and socialdepreciation, between capital expenditure andthe enhancement of life of the individual. Manyengineers will have to learn to function as mem-bers of interdisciplinary teams, and will requirea broader education in the life sciences and thesocial sciences in order that their technologicaldecisions will have the desired social impact.

As technology has become a major and fre-quently irreversible social force, the need hasdeveloped for a new kind of liberal educationone grounded in technology, rather than onebased on the arts as in the more leisurely andcontemplative days of Cardinal Newman. SirEric Ashby has said:

In order to adapt itself to an age of techno-logical specialization, the university must usespecialist studies as the vehicle for a liberaleducation. Indeed, what is needed is nothingless than a revision of the idea of 1 liberaleducation. The Oxford Dictionary definesliberal education as education fit for a gentle-man. That is still ar acceptable definition; itis the idea of the gentleman which haschanged. A century ago, when Britain awoketo the need for technological education, agentleman belonged to what was called theleisured class. The occupations of his leisuredid not require any knowledge of science ortechnology. Modern gentlemen do not belongto the leisured class. Many of them work some-thing like a seventy-hour week, and more andmore of them are finding that their businessrequires expert knowledge. Even members ofthe House of Lords are called upon to makedecisions about radio-active fall-out, over-heating during supersonic flight and the stron-tium content Of human bones. Senior civilservants have to deal with highly technicalpolicy... Even such a gentlemanly subject asthe state of the River Thames cannot beunderstbod without some knowledge of oxida-tion and reduction, detergents and the bio-chemistry of sewage.t

This statement, written in 1959, was propheticof the current situation in Ontario.

Unfortunately, faculties of humanities andsocial science have failed to include within aliberal education our most profound sociologicalforce. To a question asked on every campus inthis province, we uncovered only a single instancewhere a Dean of Arts had requested a course fromthe faculty of engineering! It seems clear that inthis decade a new type of liberal education mustdevelop, with engineering as its core, as suggestedby Ashby; it will have its genesis in our engineer-ing schools. Equally important, this will provide'Eric Ashby, Technology and the Academics (New York; MacmillanCo. Ltd., 1959), p. 81.

4

a favourable environment in which to developcourses in technology, designed specifically forstudents in the humanities and social sciences.

The history of technology is a brief one, andhas evolved in three distinct phases. As manbecame less of a nomad and more part of a com-munity, his earliest demand was for materialsfor clothing and housing to protect him from theelements, for tools to till the earth and to kill hisquarry. Much later he developed skill in the con-version of energy to provide light, to heat hisliving,,space, and to power his engines. Then veryrecently, in a mere two decades he has becomemuch more sophisticated about the managementof a third commodity: information.

The management of information has been atriumph of engineering accomplishment since1950 in the discrimination, collation, and cal-culation by computers, in the transmission ofmessages with great speed and over great dis-tances, and in the retrieval of relevant informa-tion from a burgeoning stockpile. Over thepresent decade we should see engineering schoolsspecializing in the discipline of informationsystems engineering, newest and possibly thegreatest accomplishment of technology, for itincludes such elements as computer technology,communications, systems analysis and networksynthesis.

The foregoing paragraphs have been writtenin an attempt to try to underline the trends thatmust be taken into account if Jean is to receivea reasonable basis of education for a life that willextend into the second millennium. We say "basis"because the winds of change are whistling roundhis ears, and his education must be a lifelongprocess, with frequent mid-course corrections, astechnology and social mores evolve.

This study was initiated in response to a recog-nition that the development of engineeringeducation must follow some charted course andnot merely meander. Today, the atmosphere oftechnological and social change is so vigorous thatpowers of prospection have limited horizons andretrospection becomes steadily less useful. There-fore, the current study should be the forerunnerof a continuing corrective mechanism, to beupdated at frequent intervals perhaps everyfive years. This brings into slurp focus the neces-sity of implementing changes as quickly aspossible. Inertia and lag are characteristic ofeducational change, and the need now is forincisiveness, as the second derivative of changethe rate at which change occurs is steadilyincreasing.

The elements of a plan for engineering educa-tion are numerous and complex. They comprisewhat a systems engineer calls a highly interactivesystem, and must include the mutual influencesof at least eight groups:

(I)(2)

(3)(4)

(5)(6)(7)(8)

Students,Teac hers,University,Engineering profession,Employees,Community,Economy,Society at large.

This list represents twenty-eight interfaceswhich make up the substance of this report. Atthis point, it would be futile to ask all the ques-

1 Grandsons of Martha

tions that had to be answered they are bettertreated in the chapters that follow. In an attemptto provide answers, the study group employed abroad spectrum of resources, and met withhundreds of students, educators, employers andpractising engineers. The number of data assem-bled is prodigious, and probably it is worthrepeating that this report is principally about thestudent, in spite of a mountain of statisticstending to blur that fact: the quality of Jean'seducation experience must be our primary con-cern. From the conversations we have had withengineering students, we are convinced that anycontribution that can be made to improvetheir educational experience will be abundantlyrepaid, because their development as profession-als will have such an impact on the society aboutthem.

5

2

THE THRESHOLD

The atmosphere of rapid change in the educa-tional patterns of Ontario has a particularlystrong influence upon its engineering facu!ties,because engineering education depends so heav-ily on prerequisite knowledge. One of thedifficulties that faced the study group was thedevelopment of admission criteria compatiblewith the credit system now evolving in the highschools. Other professions do not have this prob-lem to the same degree. Medicine and law arestudied as post-baccalaureate programs, whiledentistry and theology deal to a large extent withsubjects encountered for the first time at theuniversity level. Even undergraduate courses inhumanities and social sciences should be lessaffected by the new curricular developments.This leaves science and engineering as the twomost vulnerable divisions of university work.When one considers the extent of this vulnerabil-ity, and the direct influence of engineering gradu-ates on the environment and on the economy,6

one cannot help but be dismayed by the negli-gible amount of communication that existedbetween the Ontario Department of Educationand the Committee of Ontario Deans of Engi-neering. It is this lack of communication thatis the source of our dilemma.

The secondary schools of Ontario have begunto phase in a new educational pattern with morelocal responsibility for curricular content, and asystem of credit assignment that will permit abroader choice of paths to the secondary schoolHonour Graduation Diploma. It is predicted thatover the present decade the percentage of highschool graduates entering university will risefrom about 21% in 1970 to over 30% in 1980.At the same time, the proportion of high schoolstudents electing physics and chemistry has beendropping (Figure 9-3) , while registration in thelife sciences has been increasing. In all likelihoodthis trend will continue for a number of yearsbefore levelling off.

Since 85% of the undergraduate engineeringstudents come from the Ontario secondary schoolsystem, there will be only a very gradual increasein the number of potential engineering studentsif engineering schools continue to require physicsand chemistry at the senior level as criteria ofadmission. The results of a study on the probabledemand for engineers up to 1980 are presentedin Chapter 9 (page 55) . It is clear from thesefigures that if the supply of engineers is to meetthe demand over the next ten years, changeswill have to be made in the requirements foradmission.

The new, less-structured secondary school cur-riculum should produce graduates who are morebroadly educated, and who have achieved aclearer grasp of the kind of value judgments theywill be called upon to make in the future. Butthe very nature of such improvements thewider spectrum of choice presented puts aspecial emphasis upon the skill and judgment ofguidance counsellors; there is little evidence tosuggest that they are equal to the task. Indeed,there appears to be a general feeling amongsecondary school graduates that guidance pro-grams have been ineffectual even in the simplerdays of rigid academic programs. Therefore,there is room for considerable concern over thepossibility that students may be improperlydirected in secondary school, and so reach gradu-ation with an assembly of credits inappropriateto current engineering admission standards.

The faculties of engineering will face threechoices:

(I) Retain the present requirements of physics,chemistry and mathematics. This wouldresult in a rate of rise in the number ofgraduating engineers which is less than therise in demand. As the shortage of engineersbecomes more severe, probably some correc-tion will occur to restore the balance, but

/ 7

2 The Threshold

there could be a considerable lag before ittakes place.

(2) Adopt admission requirements in the direc-tion of fewer specified subjects, whilemaintaining an appropriate standard ofperformance. This would make it possiblefor more students to enrol in engineering.but most certainly will result in higher fail-ure rates in the freshman year. Again, acorrection should occur with developingexperience.

Make vigorous representations to the Minis-ter of.Education, with a view to illustratingthe impact of the new system on engineeringeducation.

The study group has come to the conclusionthat the best course to follow is to develop rela-tively unstructured admission criteria. Mathema-tics at a senior level must continue to be specified,since it is the unifying discipline of all engineer-ing. Therefore, we recommend that:

(2:1) beyond senior mathematics the secondary schoolHonour Graduation Diploma should be a sufficientrequirement, set at a level of performance decidedupon by the faculties of engineering, who must becomeincreasingly dependent on their own evaluation ofsecondary schools in their districts, and upon theanecdotal report of the principals.

Such a recommendation raises the spectre of theuniversity being forced to provide elementarychemistry and physics, when already there is toolittle time available in the curriculum. This is notthe intent, and it should soon become clear toengineering aspirants that without physics andchemistry their chances of success are in jeopardy.But it will permit entry to able students whohave received improper guidance, or who havechanged their career plans. It is encouraging thathigh school principals and guidance counsellorshave expressed to the study group an interest inreceiving feedback on the performance of theirgraduates.

(3)

3

THE UNDERGRADUATE ENVIRONMENT

"They push 1st year buggers like a herdof mooses."Response from a Waterloo student.

In Ontario there are eleven provincially-assisted faculties of engineering, and one, theRoyal Military College of Canada, that is fullysupported by the federal government. This latterinstitution has been included in some aspects ofour study and a recommendation will be madewith respect to it. However, the main focus ofattention will be on the other eleven, which fallinto three categories of size, based upon enrol-ment figures for 1969-70:University Undergraduate

EnrolmentGraduate

EnrolmentTotal

Enrolment

Waterlooa 2,349 456 2,805Toronto 2,199 625 2,824Queen's 1,360 168 1,528Carleton 538 115 653McMaster 504 184 688Western 442 79 521Windsor 401 87 488Ottawa 369 156 525Guelphb 157 23 180Lakeheadc 158 158Laurentiand 51 51---TOTAL 8,528 1,893 10,421

(a) Operates on cooperative scheme.(b) Offers program in agricultural engineering only.(c) Offers first and second year only in degree program; engineering

technology students also included.(d) Offers first and second year only in degree program.

8

Ie

In the fall of 1969, a draft questionnaire wasdrawn up to be answered by the Ontario engi-neering schools. This was subjected to a reviewby each dean of engineering in order to assessits appropriateness, and a revised version wassent to each faculty of engineering, for responseby April 15, 1970. From then until July 1, hear-ings were conducted by the study group withevery engineering faculty in the province.

To obtain information about engineeringeducational philosophy in Europe, the directorvisited institutions in Germany, France, Swedenand Great Britain. Other Canadian campusesvisited were the University of British Columbia,University of Alberta, University of Saskatche-wan, University of Manitoba, Brock, Trent andYork Universities, Ecole Polytechnique, Univer-sity of New Brimswick, Nova Scotia TechnicalCollege, and Memorial University of Newfound-land. In the United States we visited the Univer-sity of California at Los Angeles, Berkeley andIrvine, Stanford University, Harvey Mudd Col-lege, Dartmouth College, the State University ofNew York (Buffalo) , and M.I.T. Although theeffect of so many visits and shades of opinion issomewhat kaleidoscopic, the study group believesthe opinions which it has been able to developwere formed against an unusually broad back-ground of information.

On the basis of this study, it can be statedwith confidence that the engineering undergrad-

uate in Ontario is being afforded the opportu-nity to graduate as a good engineer. While thereare variations in the cost of different programs,and in the emphasis on graduate studies and onthe degree of industrial and professional involve-ment, at the same time, there is an encouragingsense of purpose and enthusiasm on the part ofboth faculty and students. Indeed, a matter of con-cern to the study group is the impression thatthe differences among these schools are not signi-ficant. A wider spectrum of educational philoso-phy and technique is evident within a radius ofseventy-five miles in the State of California thanthroughout the entire province of Ontario. Sucha sameness cannot be blamed on the presentsystem of financing, because these faculties cameinto being prior to the birth of the Basic IncomeUnit. Nevertheless, the interpretation of the sys-tem of formula financing adopted by severaluniversities has militated against innovativebreakthroughs in teaching or the developmentof new lines of endeavour.

Formula financing in Ontario has as its aimthe determination of income for each campus,not the establishment of guidelines for expendi-ture within the university. Some universitieshave adhered strictly to these terms of reference,but others have allowed the head-count to deter-mine the operating budgets of faculties or evenfor the smaller subdivisions. This type of "deci-sion by head-count" can represent an evasion ofresponsibility by those who should make strongdecisions about educational philosophy andpolicy, and can become a stultifying influence inplanning and development. It is ironic that thefeatures that make some schools stand out fromthe group almost invariably are financed other-wise than by the Department of UniversityAffairsusually by a division of the Governmentof Canada or a granting agency in the UnitedStates.

This report opened with the statement that itwas about students, and at this point it is appro-priate to turn back to our primary concern. Inthe course of our interviews, we talked to severalhundred potential engineers, and came to appre-ciate that they had this common characteristic:an eagerness to improve the system. The mostpersistently voiced complaint has been a disap-pointment with the first two years of theiruniversity experience; they find the course unim-aginative and lacking in opportunity for personalinnovation. This feeling is most intense in thoseschools which have a common first year withscience. The study group recommends that:(3:1) innovative opportunity in the form of designshould be brought into first-year engineering pro-

3 The Undergraduate Environment

grams, despite the elementary character of thedesign examples. The gain in motivation andmorale would amply repay the expenditure oftime.

We talked a good deal about the general edu-cation afforded by engineering studies. Theupsurge in students' concern for the quality oflife, and the intensity of their social commitmentappears to be more than a passing phase, andattention must be paid to the demand for moremeaningful education in the humanities andsocial sciences. General dissatisfaction was ex-pressed over the content and presentation ofsuch work, whether it was a part of the regularcourse offerings in the university or, as is seldomthe case, specifically designed for engineers. Itwill take bold new steps to solve this problem,for many compromise solutions have been triedand most have been found wanting. An editorialin The Engineer had this to say:

The problem of broadening engineering edu-cation, always buffeted between high idealsand too little time, is assuming a new senseof urgency. . There seems to be a begin-ning of communication between engineeringand social sciences, but there is still a com-plete disassociation between engineering andthe humanities. Interaction between engineersand social scientists will introduce real-lifecomplexities to engineering education; com-munication with humanists will widen overallresponsibilities.'

It would appear that the limitation of timecan be overcome since many students expresseda willingness to devote a further year to a mean-ingful program in the social sciences. Moreover,it seems inevitable that "liberal engineering"must have its genesis in an engineering schoolwith a program whose aims are akin to thoseexpressed by Gerald Walters:

... Science and art share a common obligationto keep our minds open and to keep themdeep, to keep our sense of beauty and ourability to make it, and our occasional abilityto see it in plans remote, strange and unfamil-iar. Not an easy task in a great open, windyworld a rugged time of it no doubt, butnow as complementing and no longer antag-onistic modes of experience.2

Dr. Allen B. Rosenstein of the School ofEngineering at U.C.L.A. has completed a com-prehensive study of engineering education3 and

'The Engineer, March-April 1970.

'Gerald Walters, "Unity of Knowledge and Experience", Technology andSociety, Vol. IV, No. 2 (1967) 44-6.

'A. B. Rosenstein, A Study of a Profession and Professional Education.(Los Angeles: University of California, 1969).

9

one of his conclusions is particularly relevant tothe Ontario scene. He found substantial redun-dancies in engineering curricula (e.g. he citesone school where Flooke's Law was treated insome detail six times) , Dr. Rosenstein asserts that,even allowing for deliberate repetition, a respec-table engineering curriculum of only threeacademic years in length could be designed if itis regarded as a project in systems analysis. Onthe basis of this model, an exciting program hasbeen developed at Harvey Mudd College ( Clare-mont College System, California) which is pre.cisely "liberal engineering". It is a four-yearprogram, fully accredited by the EngineeringCouncil for Professional Development. Thestudy group is convinced that such a programshould be introduced into the Ontario engineer-ing education system and recommends that oneschool make this its major focus of effort.

When one considers the great engineeringschools of Europe and the United States, one isstruck by the number of outstanding polytechnicinstitutes. This prompts the idea of a self-administered Ontario Institute of Technologywith its own Board of Governors and Senate. Itcould be either on an existing campus, or estab-lished quite separate and apart from any univer-sity. There is ample evidence that some facultiesof engineering believe the present campus envi-ronment to be stultifying, particularly where theengineers are recent arrivals. When studentswere asked whether or not they favoured sucha separate institute, the answer was almost uni-versally an emphatic "No!" The reason givenfor this response was the substantial educa-tional experience gained on a multi-disciplinarycampus in associating with other students. Manyinsisted that coffee shop discussions were asimportant as any of the formal course programsin developing a broad social consciousness.When a similar question was asked of senior non-engineering academic personnel, the responsewas much less clear-cut. The reply ranged all theway from the emphatic statement, "It would bea real tragedy", to a pallid, "I suppose we wouldmiss the engineers". This general lack of con-cern is by no means restricted to Ontario, for asSir Eric Ashby points out,

Higher technology is admirably taught, and itis the object of much distinguished re-search. But it has not been assimilated intothe ethos of the university. Universities haveadapted themselves considerably to the scien-tific revolution, but in adaptation to technol-ogy one of the consequences of that revolu-tionthey have not yet reached equilibrium.'

Only at Toronto does the engineering faculty4Ashby, Technology and the Academics, p. 88.

10

d()

appear to be fully assimilated into the univer-sity, as an equal member in a vigorous intellec-tual partnership. Such assimilation takes timethere the faculty of applied science has coexistedwith the other faculties for more than a century.

The study group was impressed with the valueplaced by the students on the educational expe-rience available in a multi-faculty universitycommunity. At the same time, it would be worth-while to try the experiment of a self-administeredInstitute of Technology. Not only does it offerpromise of more unfettered educational experi-mentation but also, as was pointed out in thesubmission of the University of Toronto, "Amajor substitution focus on a single strongtechnological university would provide a morestimulating challenge to the system than theevolutionary development of the status quo."Therefore, we shall recommend (page74 ) thatone faculty of engineering be reorganized as anindependent technical university, with its ownBoard of Governors and Senate.

The motives for studying engineering appearto range all the way from a desire for a generaleducation to an ambition to become a memberof a university faculty. There is no evidence ofwidespread interest in joining the world ofindustry, and this reflects the apparent unadven-turous posture of so much of Canadian industry

a picture that shows little sign of improving.Indeed, industrial experience during the under-graduate period often tends to quench ratherthan kindle enthusiasm. In a final-year group atthe University of Waterloo only 32% of theclass signified an intention to pursue careers inindustry.

Very few declared they had an interest inself-employment, either as entrepreneurs or asconsultants. In general, the student sees hisfuture in the role of an employee-engineer. Suchunadventurous student aspirations are disturb-ing, and bring into question the appropriatenessof the present educational spectrum either toexcite the imagination of the unawakened, or toprovide a proper curricular structure for thelarge number who will be pursuing predomi-nantly non-technological careers.

It is unrealistic to believe that the many anddiverse motivations of students can be satisfiedwith the one curricular assembly which has beenattempted in most Ontario engineering schools.For this reason, the study group recommendsthe development of diversity by the acceptanceof more definite roles in undergraduate educa-tion. In addition to the "liberal education" rolealready discussed, we feel that two schools should

specialize in the broad field of information sys-tems engineering, another in ecological engi-neering, and a fourth in agricultural engineering.These same foci of specialization should extendinto graduate education so that on each campusthere may develop, over the next ten years,distinct concentrations of excellence. Specificrecommendations in this regard ale given onpages 71-83

The students' response to a separate question-naire provides further food for thought. Theyregard as of equal importance in their educa-tional experience the ability to identify andformulate problems in quantitative terms, andthe development both of a "sense of' innova-tion" and of a "feel for the socio-technologicalrelationship". Some students believe that ourengineering schools should encourage studentexchange programs with Quebec, as a factor inthe maintenance of Canadian unity. A studentletter on this subject is reproduced in AppendixA.

Their recommendations for ways to improvethe curriculum include:

(1) earlier design experience;

(2) more freedom of choice of electivecourses;

(3) more sense of an integrated educationalplan;

(4) More "hard engineering" material thatis, more applied science, as opposed totheoretic-al concepts.

In general, satisfaction was reported with indi-vidual courses, but the majority felt they wereallowed too few glimpses of the overall planbehind their particular curricular programs. Thegeneral criticism was stated succinctly by onestudent who said, "It is attitude rather than con-tent, style rather than subject matter, and thesystem rather than the course, which are thecauses of student despair." Despairing or not,60% of the students responded that, armed withtheir present experience, they would enrol inengineering again, while 20% said they wouldchoose another discipline.

The number of women enrolling in engineer-ing is increasing slowly but still represents a verysmall minority. This is regrettable, because thenature of modern engineering is such that mostengineering occupations could provide womenwith promising careers. While female enrolmentis encouraged, it would appear that in manyinstances in the high schools girls have beencounselled against considering engineering as a

4s

3 The Undergraduate Environment

professional career. An interesting paper on thispoint by an undergraduate student is includedin Appendix A.

The study group spent a good deal of timemeeting with members of Ontario engineeringfaculties and this has resulted in a number ofopinions. One has been noted: a reasonableeducation experience is available in all of theschools, although often it is not well matched tothe aspirations of many students.

In the present context of Ontario secondaryschool preparation, and the short university aca-demic year, it seems clear that at least four yearsare required for the undergraduate course.No real pressure has been developing to extend itby a fifth year. Rosenstein's observation aboutcurricular redundancies should be taken seri-ously, to 'ensure that student and faculty time isbeing wisely invested, before any alteration in thelength of the programs is contemplated. Thestudy group has become convinced that the cur-rent practice of beginning technological educa-tion directly out of secondary school is a good one.The student desire for an early contact with engi-neering is intense, and constitutes a strong argu-ment against a preliminary general program.

Current curricula reflect the conviction of thedeans of engineering that Canada's industrialsophistication would develop more quickly thanit has. The engineering program has a highcontent of mathematics and science with a ratherlow proportion of time being devoted to technol-ogy and business administration apparently onthe premise that a significant fraction of engi-neering graduates would be making their careersin the innovative activities of research, develop-ment and design. The lack of any reliable predic-tors for technology, coupled with the current airof uncertainty in the economy and of policiesrelating to national resources, makes it difficult tomatch curricula to the future demand for skilledpersonnel. Educational lags cannot help but besubstantial. Usually it takes at least two years toimplement a new university course, up to fouryears before the student who completes thatcourse enters professional life, and another yearor two before his efforts are felt in the profession.Thus trends must be identified at least seven yearbefore any significant feedback can be realizedfrom the educational system. Since it seems ine-vitable that the Canadian economy must developthrough the application of "high technology", nostrong argument can be advanced for reverting tothe hardware-oriented curricula of the past.In any case, such needs are being met by theColleges of Applied Arts and Technology.

7

We do not wish to imply that laboratories arebecoming of less importance. Indeed, the labora-tory is still the place where the student meets thephysical world, and becomes acquainted with theinstruments and techniques of his profession.Laboratories should be used by the student togain information, judgment and design experi-ence, rather than the traditional use by instruc-tors to demonstrate known laws of science. Alaboratory should be exciting to the student,a place to kindle the flame of invention andingenuity. It is there that the student learns therudiments of modelling, simulation and testing.

We recommend that:

(3:2) each engineering school undertake a study ofits teaching laboratories, and establish ways in whichthe student will use them to obtain design experience.

It is surprising that universities have notdeveloped depreciation policies in respect tolaboratory equipment. This is the pattern forindustry, which begins to write off equipmenton the day of installation, in order to build upreserves for replacement, as well as for tax pur-poses. If a similar procedure is not adopted foruniversity laboratories, they will soon becomemuseums. Furthermore, as the equipment ages,present practice will have the undesirable side-effect of shifting curricula away from the labora-tory towards more class-intensive and software-oriented programs. Such a shift could reduce theversatility of the graduate. Therefore, we recom-mend that:

(3:3) universities establish a depreciation policywith respect to engineering laboratory equipment,so that before it becomes obsolete or worn out,adequate reserves are generated for replacement.

A good argument can be made in favour ofmore engineering/business management interac-tion at the undergraduate level. More than halfthe students enrolled in M.B.A. programs areengineers, and ten years after leaving university,more than half of Ontario engineering graduatesare in management career patterns. Further-more, increasing numbers of very senior posi-tions, both in industry and government, will befilled by engineering graduates. Such trends havenot been given sufficient weight in planningundergraduate curricula, and should be reap-praised with confidence as to their relevance tothe future. Indeed, the development and main-tenance of an integrated curricular plan is ofsuch importance that the study group makes thisrecommendation:

(3:4) Each faculty should have a standing committeeon curriculum, with substantial student representa-

12

tion, whose responsibility it is to ensure that there isan articulated sequence of courses in each stream.Such a committee should regard as its prime functionthe continuous .ionitoring and updating of the cur-ricular system.

There have been recurrent suggestions thatthe traditional departmental divisions of engi-neering education are outmoded, and someOntario faculties (e.g., Carleton) have replacedthem with names and structure conforming todivisions of study instead of professional classi-fications. The study group could find neitherstrong objection to such a development, nor anycompelling reason to recommend it. Since it isin the nature of an evolutionary change, begin-ning in the graduate school, such a decision willbe reached at a different time in each faculty,as a function of the character of its research andgraduate activity.

In view of the sluggish development ofuniversity/industry interaction, it is suggestedthat the following experiment be made by somefaculty of engineering located near a large indus-try. A satellite campus would be established onthe plant site, staffed by university faculty whoare half-time industrial employees. The studentbody would consist of third-year students who arealso half-time employees; they would completetheir third year in one complete calendar year,in this industrial-academic environment. Such anexperiment should serve to develop more vigor-ous liaison between campus and company, andwould provide considerable experience for fac-ulty and students, as members of an industrialtask force. This suggestion is an extrapolation ofthe cooperative plan for engineering educationfollowed by Waterloo. It is on a much smallerscale but with professorial involvement, and ishighly dependent on the nature of the industryin the community. It should not interfere withthe Waterloo program, which works well andprovides valuable experience to the student.

In this chapter an attempt has been made totake account of some of the considerationsbehind undergraduate curricular development.It is artificial to think of undergraduate educa-tion separate and apart from graduate studiesthey are, in a very real sense, an educationalcontinuum, particularly as interdisciplinaryinvolvement develops. Nonetheless, there aredifferences, not the least of which is the extent ofthe demand for the services of holders of agraduate degree as against that for those witha bachelor's degree. Because of these differences,the graduate educational environment will bediscussed separately in the next chapter.

N.

a.

4

GRADUATE STUDIES

In the first chapter of this report, we con-sidered the motivations and aspirations of atypical student, Jean, as he left secondary schoolto begin his first year of professional education.For purposes of continuity, we must assume thatJean is in that 25% of engineering graduatescapable of successful completion of a program ofgraduate studies. Despite such qualifications andthe opportunities available for advanced work,there is more than an even chance that Jean willelect to enter the practice of his profession assoon as he finishes his baccalaureate studies.Engineering differs from most other disciplinesin that about 70% of its students acquire indus-trial or consulting experience before returningfor graduate work. Typically, Jean will work athis profession for two or three years, duringwhich time he will develop a strong desire toextend his knowledge, and possibly to develophis expertise in the direction of a career inresearch or development. He will seek out the

professor whose special research activity corres-ponds most closely to his own interest', and thenapply to enrol in the appropriate graduate school.Thus, he will become a member of a groupwhich, because of those industrial years, has asomewhat higher average age than that of post-graduate students in other disciplines. Let usexamine the characteristics of Jean's newenvironment.

A hallmark of the sophistication of an intellec-tual discipline is the breadth of its generalities.The laws of physics, for example, are very perva-sive, while those of psychology are quite circum-scribed; physics is at a much more sophisticatedstage than are the social sciences. As these general-ities evolve, their broad applicability causesthe boundaries between disciplines to becomeincreasingly fuzzy, and sometimes to disappear.In a university, the erosion of disciplinary iden-tification is seen first in the research laboratory

13

or design office, whence it spreads into the lec-ture room, and ultimately to the undergraduateprogram.

Our engineering schools have a particularlyimportant role to play in the development ofinterdisciplinary research programs, not onlybecause engineering is a "bridge discipline'', Innalso because engineers have made it their busi-ness to understand the characteristics of complexinteracting systems. This makes the researchengineer uniquely valuable in interaction withthe life scientists (bio-medical electronics, healthcare delivery systems, physiological Mtn:me:Ha-tion) , the social sciences (socio-technologicalforecasting, mathematical modelling) and thephysical scientists (scale-up of processes, hard-ware development. simulation and optimiza-tion) . Thus the 1970s should see a vigorousthrust in interdisciplinary research and educa-tion an opportunity that innst be exploited tothe limit.

There is a good base on which to build thisinterdisciplinary activity, thanks to the dramaticdevelopment, over the past decade, of engineer-ing graduate work in Ontario. An indicator ofthis fact is the rise in enrolment of graduatestudents, from 295 in 1960 to 1,900 in 1966,1with a proportionate increase in the number ofresearch directors. The accompanying aggressiverecruitment of faculty brought into the univer-sities a large number of younger members edu-cated in science-intensive programs. Such indivi-duals represent a resource of engineering talentpredisposed to research projects of considerableinterdisciplinary scope, and at a time when therehas developed a very real awareness of the inter-dependence of disciplines.

Graduate studies in seven of the provincially-supported faculties of engineering have beendeveloped between 1960 and 1970. This decadehas been one of great advances in technology,particularly in the area of data assembly, infor-mation management and computation and con-trol by computer. There has Been a strongincentive to develop graduate studies, with theresult that by 1969 there were 1.279 candidatesfor the master's degree and 614 (344 with themaster's degree) for the Ph.D. degree enrolledin Ontario engineering schools. Such rapidgrowth has raised the question of the ability ofso many faculties to finance and sustain first-classgraduate programs over the full spectrum ofdisciplines. Because of this concern, in 1967 theOntario Council on Graduate Studies (OCGS)instituted an appraisal scheme for suggested new'See Appendix B. Table 1-3.

14

programs: within its terms of reference thescheme works well. The decisions Of OCGS havebeen based on the qualifications of fa( ulty and onthe adequacy of Iilwary and laboratory facilities toensure reasonably uniform standards of excel-lence. Graduate activity across the province hasgained considerable balance, with t entres ofexcellence in narticnlar areas noir beginning toappear. However, it is evident that employmentprospects are likely to be quite bleak for thehundred engineers who will graduate with thePh.D. degree in 1970: looking back, the questionarises as to whether career prospects should havebeen included in the list of criteria for prygraininitiation.

The strategy should be to build on strength,so that significant concentrations of effort canemerge over the next ten years. Examples ofsuch developments are the Institute for AerospaceStudies at the University of Toronto, the Cana-dian Institute for Guided Ground Transport atQueen's, the Institute for Materials Research atMcMaster, and the Management Science Pro-gram at 1Vaterloo. Now that examples of specialexcellence are appearing, opportunity for theirdevelopment must be engendered by deliberateavoidance of duplication of effort. The concept of"centre of excellence" should be in the sense offocus of interest, rather than of geographiclocation.

Consideration has been given to the problemof a balance between supply and demand: astudy of the need for engineers with the bache-lor's degree ha:: been completed and is reportedelsewhere (Chapter 9) . It shows that a normalbuildup of enrolments in the undergraduateprograms should parallel demand until 1980.There are many indications that the master'sdegree trill assume in( reasing significance in the1970s. This is the level of engineering educationrecommended as a first professional degree inthe Goals report of the American Society ofEngineering Education. Dean Maslach of Berke-ley maintains, "The rallying point for engineer-ing education in the next decade will be themaster's degree." The trend is to larger numbersof graduates entering "course-intensive" master'sdegree programs. and this is quite appropriateto the nature of the demand for engineeringservices. There seems to be no justification forcurtailing enrolment for work leading to themaster's degree.

Within the Canadian environment at thepresent time, it is difficult to rationalize doctoralprograms in engineering. Most of these programswere set up in the conviction that science-based

industry would experience vigorous developmentduring the 1960s. However, this strong thrustfailed to materialize, and now there is retrench-ment iii some of the subsidiary industries, witha reduction in the (madian compment of theirresearch and development effort. Today, in thelight of the apparently modest employment pros'pests in industry, the opinion is being voicedthat programs leading to the Ph.D. are tooextensive. For example, the Science Council ofCanada has pointed out that "the supply ofPh.D.'s is now big enough to fill the currently'low demand for Ph.D.'s in research and develop.went . . . this is Canada's first chance to reallystart putting Ph.D.'s into ke -' positions through-out the economy and not just in the R and1) h boratory . . . the universities in Canadaannually produce more Ph.D.'s in science andengineering than the total stock of Ph.D.'s inCanadian industry."2

The universities have been Canada's mostaggressive recruiters of Ph.D.'s over the pastdecade of vigorous growth in our engineeringschools. Now this growth rate will diminish,providing an opportunity both for consolidationof effort and for the development of excellence.Based on past statistics, the attrition rate ofacademic staff in Ontario engineering schoolswill be about 3.4% per year. Thus, over thepresent decade approximately 625 academicengineering positions should open up in Onta-rio, most of which will demand a Ph.D. degree.(See page 54). While it is to be hoped that all suchpositions will not he filled by newly-graduatedcandidates, this figure is quoted to show thatuniversity eliployment should continue to con-stitute a significant market for engineers withdoctorates. If current enrolment trends continue,it is anticipated that 1,400 Ph.D.'s in engineeringivould be awarded in Ontario over the sameperiod of time; so that the expected number ofacademic vacancies would amount to about 45%of the total number of Ph.D. degrees to beconferred.

The federal government, in its concern overthe slow development of Canada's secondaryindustry, has set up a series of incentive pro-grams (IRDIA, PAIT, IRAP, etc.) , to stimu-late expansion through innovation. In addition,fellowship programs have been initiated toencourage engineers to upgrade their qualifica-tions (PIER Fellowships) , and to persuadeindustry to employ engineers who hold doctor-ates (Industrial Post-doctorate Fellowships) .

These programs are exploratory in nature, andit is too early to evaluate their impact. TheiPeniirs, 5 (August 1970). P. It

Graduate Studies

Ph.D. engineer requires time to realize that thetechniques and strategics which he employed inhis graduate work have applicability far beyondthe research and development laboratory. Also,the industrial employer must come to realize thatthe Ph.D. can be an asset in a wide variety ofassignments, including operations research, mar-ket research and production engineering. At themoment, there is an over-supply of doctoralgraduates in engineering, and indeed the Ph.D.degree may close the door to many an engineerseeking employment, because industry assumesthat his field of interest is too narrow.

An estimate of the point in time when supplyand demand will coincide can only be made onthe basis of a comprehensive manpower study.It involves consideration of the career patternsof engineering graduates at all levels as well asthe recruitment patterns of all potential employ-ers. Accordingly, the study of engineering man-power is dealt with in detail in Chapter 9. Itforms the basis for our belief that the currenttrend of enrolment in doctoral programs willresult in more graduates than can be absorbedinto the economy. This forces us to de.,1 withthe frequently-debated question, "Has a univer-sity any responsibility for the future careers ofits graduates?" A satisfactory resolution of thisquestion is difficult, and :t must be consideredin company with a second question, "At a Onewhen educational costs are becoming prohibi-tive. should we continue programs which cannotbe justified economically?" The two questionstaken together are more easily answered thaneither alone. Therefore, the study group willmake the recommendation that immediate stepsbe taken to reduce the enrolment of Ph.D. candi-dates in Ontario to a total of 450, with a view ofgraduating no more than 125 Ph.D. engineerseach year. Although this n umber represents a dras-tic curtailment, it is consistent with employmentforecasts, which should be reviewed periodically.

While enrolment in programs leading to amaster's degree should be allowed to increasenaturally, it will be recommended that they notexceed 1,850 by 1980. In this study it becameapparent that such graduates are being employedbecause of their extra knowledge and maturityrather than for the research experience gainedin graduate school. This justifies considerableexperimentation with the character of the edu-cational experience offered as qualification forthe master's degree, particularly as service indus-tries expand and proliferate. (See Chapter 9.)

A levelling-off in total graduate enrohnent inthe schools of engineering should not be a cause

15

of concern, since it will present a much-neededopportunity for consolidation after the vigorousexpansion of the past few years. There has beena general and yet incorrect assumption thatengineering research must involve graduate stu-dents. This has led to the situation where mostengineering faculty members, even the relat'.'elyinexperienced yourgcr ones, function as researchmanagers rather than as active participants. Adecrease in the number of doctoral candidatescould have several desirable effects:

(I)

(2)

(3)

There will be an opportunity to redress thepresent imbalance between undergraduateand graduate effort. Existing undergradu-ate programs would benefit from moreexperimentation and more intense effortto engage the imagination of the undergra-duate engineer at-the very beginning of hisuniversity experience.

More faculty will be able to undertakeprojects in the neglected areas of engineer-ing synthesis, such as device and processdesign, systems engineering and productionengineering.

There can be more direct involvement offaculty with Canadian industry, either asindependent consultants or through on-campus research institutes. Many engineer-ing faculty, now performing perfunctory re-search, can make a greater contribution inshorter-term technological projects.

(4) There would be a general upgrading in thequality of research in the graduate schools,and stronger research teams grouped aroundthe most sk;,Iful directors. On this point Dr.0. M. Solandt, Chairman of the ScienceCouncil of Canada, has made this comment:I do think there should be fewer anti betterpeople doing research. A good universityteacher does not nzed to do research himself,but he certainly must live and work in anenvironment where there is close contact withresearch. 1 am quite certain hat in Cal.tclawe are spreading our resources too thin!y.1neeffective value of a research grant has risenvery little in the last ten years and is a sit:allfraction of a similar grant in the United States.If we cannot get more money for basic research,I am sure that our present expenditure inCanada would make a greater contribution toworld science if it were spent by fewer people .3

One of the consequences of a smaller numberof doctoral candidates will be an annual reduc-tion in total costs of more Ilan two milliondollars. It is important that some of this savingbe redirected into undergraduate programs inorder that the other recommendations of this,Chemistry in Canada, Summer 1970, p. 20.

16

report may be effectively implemented. Theassumption of special roles by engineeringschools will need financial support to offset pos-sible temporary shifts in enrolment patterns.Such financial adjustments will have to be made ifthe desired improvements in the system of engi-neering education are to become a reality.

It is regrettable that part-time graduate studieshave met with such indifferent success. Therecord of attempts is distressingly similar: toomany classes cancelled because of a lack of ade-quate enrolment, despite schedules arrangedfor the convenience of industrially-employedengineers. Sou-tel.:ha better success was achievedwhen lectures were offered at an industrial site(e.g., Waterloo at Sarnia) . These experiences

are consistent with those of engineering schoolsin the United States. There, in an attempt toimprove the situation several schools have devel-oped part-time programs based on a closed-circuit television talk-back system, in locationswhere large science-based industries operate.The industrial part-time gradual- students par-ticipate in regular lectures but in their ownlecture rooms on the plant site, by means ofcable contact with the university lecture room.Thus, these students take the same lectures andwrite the same examinations as the f,:il-timestudents. At Stanford University, whcre such asystem has been in use for three years, wc foundgeneral enthusiasm for the scheme. Records showthe academic performance of industrial groupsto be almost identical with that of students oncampus.

Such systems are expensive, as indicated inAppendix C. However, they are particularlyattractive where the engineering schriol is sur-rounded by "high technology" industry. InOntar' ), the Ottawa legion would be an idealarea for such an experiment, with its two engi-neering schools less than Lour miles apart. Tenmiles tc the west, at Shirley Bay, is Bell.NorthernResearch, the largest industrial laboratory inCanada, and the Federal Communications Re-search Centre, In addition, there are the excel-lent laboratories of the National ResearchCouncil, the Defence Research Board, the De-partment of Agriculture, and the Department ofEnergy, Mines and Resources. The study grouprecommends that:

(4:1) a talk-back television network in Ottawa bethoroughly explored.

If it proves to be impracticable there, probablyit will not be feasible elsewhere in the province.

A general impression was gained that thesharing of research facilities is not yet well devel-

oped, even though the idea is attractive itbrings staff and students together while at thesame time offering the possibility of consider-able economies. Much could be gained by mak-ing joint applications for negotiated develop-ment grants to acquire major equipment items.As evidence that such schemes do work, thereis the 220 MHz nuclear magnetic resonancespectrometer, administered jointly by McMasterand Toronto and operated at Sheridan. Park bythe Ontario Research Foundation under con-tract with the National Research Council.

Recently, there have been expressions of con-cern over the restriction on public disclosure ofthe results of certain graduate research in orderto protect the proprietary information of a spon-sor. Such cases are rare and, of course, completelyantithetical to the idea of graduate education.The student, at any stage of his research, mustbe free to discuss results with his colleagues,either in the seminar room, or in an appropriatejournal. No other practice should be contem-

4 Graduate Studies

plated, and when classified work is undertakenit must not form part of the academic require-ment of a graduate student. The graduate thesisshould become a public document.

It is important that this study on graduateengineering education does not stand alone.Some of the concern expressed in this report willbe applicable to graduate work in the sciences,the humanities, and the social sciences. Indeedwe recommend that:

(4:2) a report be prepared for Ontario similar to thatprepared by Allen M. Cartter,4 dealing with graduateeducation in the United States.

Such a document, updated at regular intervals,would provide a comparative appraisal of theaims and quality of graduate education in theOntario universities.

Allan M. Cartter, Vice-President, American Council on Education.An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education, a study for Commis-sion on Plans and Objectives for Higher Education, American Councilon Education. (Washington, D.C., 1966).

a '2 17

5

RESEARCH

The pace of engineering research in Ontariobegan to accelerate in 1958, for two principalreasons:

(I) Seven additional engineering schools weretaking shape, in anticipation of a rapidincrease in undergraduate enrolment (Carle-ton, Guelph, McMaster, Ottawa, Waterloo,Western and Windsor) . This expansion inengineering education necessitated a vigor-ous recruitment of faculty, which meantthat in little more than a decade thenumber of university research directorsincreased eightfold.

(2) Most engineering deans were convincedthere would be a rapid evolution of "hightechnology" industry in the 1960s anassumption based on national needs and thedevelopments in other countries. The resultof such a swing into secondary and tertiaryindustry would be prospects of employment

18

for large numbers of research and develop-personnel, many of whom would be edu-cated in research-based programs.

An attempt has been made to provide a visualimpression of the extent and intensity of engi-neering research in Ontario (Fig. 5-1) . In thisillustration, the fields of research endeavourhave been listed under 45 headings, consistentwith the classifications used by the Science Secre-tariat. The number of professors identifying agiven category as their major research interesthas been used as an indication of intensity ofeffort in a given field. We recognize that this isan imperfect criterion, because it contains novalue judgment as to the quality of work beingdone by a given man or at a given institution.Thus no more should be read into Figure 5-1than is intended a measure of the amount ofwork under way. The shortest bars representthree or fewer principal investigators, the

Figure 5.1- ENGINEERING RESEARCH IN ONTARIOUNIVERSITIES

o.S

OP9.Olik

CP

0**$1

POP

.0{PP

."d coo opdiSi4:19' 41.

,.. 3%tr- ik

1. ACOUSTICS

2. AERODYNAMICS

3. ANTENNAS

4. APPLIED PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY (MISC.)

5.510-ENGINEERING

6. 1110- MEDICAL ENGINEERING

7. CERAMICS

9. CHEMICAL KINETICS AND REACTOR DESIGN

9. CIRCUIT THEORY

10. COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY

11. COMPUTER HARDWARE

12. CONTROL SYSTEMS

13. CORROSION AND ELECTROCHEMISTRY

14. DESIGN AND PRODUCTION

1L DYNAMICS AND STABILITY

11 ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING

17. ELECTROSTATICS

11 ENERGY CONVERSION

19. ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT

20. EXTRACTIVE METALLURGY

21. FLUID DYNAMICS

22. GEOTECHNICAL

23. HEAT AND MASS TRANSFER

24. HYDROLOGY

25. INFORMATION SYSTEMS

26. MATERIALS HANDLING

27. MATERIALS RESEARCH (GENERAL)

21 MICROWAVES

29. MINING AND MINERAL PROCESSING

30. NUCLEAR ENGINEERING

31. OCEAN ENGINEERING

32. OPERATIONS RESEARCH

33. OPTICS

34. PHYSICAL METALLURGY

35. PLASMA TECHNOLOGY

31 PV.YMER TECHNOLOGY

37. POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION

31 PROCESS DESIGN AND SIMULATION

39. SOLID BODY AND CONTINUUM MECHANICS

40. SOLID STATE

41. STRUCTURAL DESIGN

42. SURVEYING AND MAPPING

43. SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

W. THERMODYNAMICS

45. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS II

IIl

.

I

0II

111

I

.

I

.1

.II

I

II

I

.

I

f

)111 illIIIIII I

U

II

Mr

II

Ill

I

1

II

.I

111

Ili

II

III.I.il

II

II

I

I

hi PRIMARY INTEREST OF 1.3 PROFESSORS

PRIMARY INTEREST OF 44 PROFESSORSPRIMARY INTEREST OF MORE THAN 9 PROFESSORS

medium-size bar& denote groups of three to eightprofessors, and the largest bars, groups of morethan eight. Thus, the density of the horizontallines gives an impression of the extent of acti-vity in a given area of research, while the densityof the vertical columns gives an idea of theactivity in a given institution. A more detaileddescription of engineering research programsis to be found later in this chapter in Tables5-1, 5-2 and 5-3 and in Appendix D.

These summaries show the research programin Ontario as broad in scope, significant in totaleffort, and representative of large investmentboth in facilities and in operating expenses. Forthese reasons an attemrt will be made to answerthe following questions:

(1) Is the research component of graduate edu-cation providing suitable training for thegraduate student?

(2) To what extent should engineering researchin the universities be mission-oriented"?Is the nature of the research being executedappropriate to the needs of our society andour economy?

How might better university/industry co-oper ation be achieved?

(4) Is full advantage being taken of the oppor-tunities for inter-university cooperation?

Is the annual expenditure on engineeringresearch in universities appropriate in thelight of other needs?

(6) Is a reasonable and proper balance beingstruck among the three areas of teaching,research and consulting?

(3)

(5)

RESEARCH AS AN ELEMENT OFEDUCATION

Research in the engineering schools of Ontariois carried out by five classes of investigators:senior undergraduates, candidates for the master'sand the Ph.D. degrees, post-doctoral fellows andprofessors. The involvement of undergraduateshas been included here because of its importancein arousing the enthusiasm of the student, ratherthan for any contribution that might be made toadvance technology.

Some of the most imaginative educationalexperiments have developed around the involve-ment of senior students as members of a teaminvestigating industrial problems. Such problemsmay take the form of process simulation, optimi-zation, design or operations research, and usuallythey are attacked by a student team, strongly20

supported by a group of professors and indus-trial engineers. It is in this area that the mostsignificant irhistry/university cooperation hasoccurred. The enthusiasm of students for theseprojects can best be demonstrated by their heavycommitments of time and by the uniformlyfavourable response recorded at the end of eachproject. They represent a substantial commit-ment on the part of faculty, which seems fullyrepaid by the results. It is clear that this kind ofearly research experience should not only be con-tinued but be emulated in those schools that donot have such schemes.

Most faculties of engineering have two typesof program leading to a master's degree:research-intensive and course-intensive. The firsthas the traditional proportions of courses (21/2 to31/2) to research experience (about 9-10 monthsof directed research) , while the second has aheavier requirement of graduate courses (31/2to 5) with less time spent on research (a maxi-mum of 6 months) . The average period neededto complete the requirements for the degree isabout 17 months. In general, students intendingto proceed to the Ph.D. elect the former of theseprograms while those intending to finish with amaster's degree choose the latter.

In Canada, standards for the master's degreehave been kept high and it is well regarded by in-dustrial employers. The reason for this esteem isthat the graduate has had an extra year of coursework, rather than on the anticipated value of anintroduction to research strategies and tech-niques. For this reason, the proportions ofstudents electing the course - intensive programshould increase, especially if admission to Ph.D.programs is curtailed. Research performed bycandidates for a master's degree in engineeringgenerally seems to be of more significance in itscontext than similar effort in the pure sciences,if the proportion that reaches publication is areliable indicator. Probably a reason for' this isthat so much of speculative engineering researchis at the level of master's work where risk of fail-ure will not have the disastrous impact on thestudent that can be the consequence of a fruit-less Ph.D. research project. It is ironic thatbecause of this concern for the student, thereal ground-breaking is done by the least experi-enced, while the more senior students tend toaddress themselves to problems whose outcomesare relatively predictable. The criteria of assess-ment for engineering research theses to a largeextent have been inherited from physics andchemistry, and no doubt it is time to study thesecriteria in the light of modern engineering. ThePh.D. degree traditionally involves a thesis of an

analytical nature, while much of modern engi-neering innovation is in the area of synthesis,and this really is not research in the acceptedsense of that term. Very few schools have pro-grams of any kind in which a graduate degree isawarded for original design, as opposed to origi-nal research. It is for these reasons that the studygroup recommends that:(5:1) The criteria of acceptability of graduate degreesin engineering should be recast in order that a thesisbased on design or systems synthesis may be suitablyassessed. This could involve the establishment of anew degree at the doctorate level.

There is little sign that the research compo-nent of graduate education is inadequate, andmany instances have been observed where thetraining is of a superior nature. As proof, onecan cite the generally high calibre of the Cana-dian engineering research journals, the readyacceptance of engineering research papers forpublication in foreign journals and the distinc-tion being achieved by Ontario graduates indomestic and foreign professional employment.A widespread concern has been voiced over thegeneral lack of industrial or "beyond the clois-ter" experience of the teaching faculty, a defi-ciency that is said to affect the quality of bothundergraduate and graduate programs. Themain impact of such a deficiency on researchactivity appears to be on the relevancy ofresearch projects, rather than on the quality oftheir direction or of the total educational experi-ence. A study of the careers of members of engi-neering faculties shows a larger proportion ofteachers with substantial professional backgroundoutside the university than seems generally to beappreciated. Nonetheless, as a result of vigorousrecruitment in the 1958-68 period, there still aremany young professors who come directly fromgraduate school. This pattern has provided justi-fication for the contention that too often a profes-sor's research is no more than an extrapolation ofthesis material that has originated in the mind ofhis research director. In addition, the candidatefor the master's degree, or the doctorate, oftenis exposed to so narrow an educational experiencethat he graduates without a proper awareness ofthe scope of his field of activity and soons findshimself to be less versatile than is desirable andnecessary. However, this decade can provide timefor consolidation when university/industry co-operation almost certainly will intensify andimprove, giving members of engineering facultiesan opportunity to acquire professional experiencebeyond the confines of the campus. Our concernis not so much that good research strategy andtechnique is not being taught but rather that thechoice of problem should be topical.

5 Research

RELEVANCE OF UNIVERSITYENGINEERING RESEARCH

There has been a tendency over the past twodecades for the topics of engineering doctoraltheses to bear a stronger resemblance to physicsthan to engineering. This pattern is not pecu-liar to Ontario, or even to Canada, and onereason for it is the short space of time in whichuniversities have been engaged in engineeringresearch, as compared to developments in thepure sciences.

World War II provided dramatic examples ofthe power of basic science. After it was over,engineering educators began to enrich their cur-ricula with more science and mathematics,hoping to turn out graduates more capable ofbridging the gap between discovery and itspractical application. In the university researchlaboratories of Canada, the majority of projectshave been financed by grants from the NationalResearch Council, whose committees were accus-tomed to allocating support to individuals forprojects in the areas of pure science and who gavethe appearance of having little knowledge ofengineering research, or of the rapidly-growingresource of engineering academic personnel. Itwas learned that the more closely an engineeringproposal resembled one in pure chemistry orphysics, the greater was the chance of receivingadequate funds. This pattern has been changed,due in large part to the vigorous and vociferousactivity of the National Committee of Deans ofEngineering and Applied Science. But the mem-ory lingers on, and in our graduate researchlaboratories there continues to be a dispropor-tionately large amount of analysis, compared tothe rather modest activity in synthesis the realessence of engineering.

Three influences are at work that shouldredress this imbalance. The first is the positiontaken by the Science Council of Canada, incoming out strongly on the side of "mission-oriented" research research with a foreseeableimpact on problems of special relevance to Can-ada. The second is the adoption by the NationalResearch Council of a more pragmatic role,which now takes into account the large taskforce of engineering research directors and gra-duate students. Finally, there is the industry/university interaction, which is exhibiting slowbut reassuring growth as mutual confidencedevelops. It is becoming more widely appre-ciated that there cannot be a single researchpolicy for science and engineering. Scientificresearch should have as its aim the contribu-tion to knowledge, while the motivation for

21

engineering research must be the applicationof known principles to the improvement ofthe quality of life. Traditionally, support forresearch has been based on confidence in theindividual investigator, and this is appropriatefor scientific xesearch. Engineering researchdemands project support; now, this is availableas negotiated development grants.

In several areas of engineering research thereare manifestations of an increase in activityundertaken in response to social needs. At theUniversity of Western Ontario a good beginninghas been made in the interdisciplinary area ofbio-engineering, in structural aerodynamics andin electrostatics. Waterloo has a vigorous effortunder way in management science and transpor-tation, while Guelph is quite properly continu-ing to emphasize agricultural engineering. Atthe University of Toronto, the Institute forAerospace Studies has earned for itself a fineinternational reputation, the industrial engi-neering department is widely known for itsinvolvement in operations research, and realdistinction is being achieved in bio-medical elec-tronics. McMaster has a growing reputation inthe area of industrial simulation and optimiza-tion, its Institute for Materials Research is wellestablished, and there is a new graduate programin production engineering. At Queen's, the pro-gram in mineral engineering continues to grow,while a new Institute of Guided Ground Trans-port has found substantial financial backing. Itis encouraging to note that this list has no dis-turbing redundancies with such a distributionof interest the prospect is good for building onstrength. It is a trend that should be followed,in order that a pattern may be developed thatavoids any duplication of effort.

At this point it is appropriate to try andidentify areas of endeavour that appear to bereceiving too little attention when one considersthe social needs of this decade. Certainly, a grow-ing proportion of engineers should devote theircareers to the reclamation and proper mainte-nance of our environment. Now that most engi-neering schools are developing programs in someaspect of ecological engineering, a consciousattempt should be made to coordinate effortsand thus ensure that they are complementary.

One area in which engineers have achieveddistinction is the development of techniques ofanalysis and simulation of complex, interacting,articulated systems. Originally, these systemswere physical in nature processes, circuits andvehicles. As techniques improved, studies wereundertaken of the collation and analysis ofinformation, computation and decision-making;

22

and the interface between technological andsocial systems was crossed.

At the present time there is considerable scopefor engineering research in areas which are parti-cularly susceptible to the techniques of systemsanalysis and synthesis, such as:

(I)(2)

(3)

Urban planning and engineering.

Building systems engineering, involvingconstruction strategies, air handling, mate-rials and personnel logistics.

Design of airports and the ground transpor-tation systems for the air industry. Canada'sfederal transportation mandate offers afavourable environment for this expertiseto become an international commodity.

(4) Studies in the health care delivery systemsof Ontario.

While it may not be feasible to cover all pos-sible research areas, there are several otherswhich appear to offer a particular opportunityat this time. For example:

(I) Instrumentation (including avionics) couldbe an important area of specialization inOntario.)

(2) Illumination and acoustics. These areneglected areas: there is virtually no illumi-nation research under way, and the prob-lems created by acoustic pollution requireimmediate study.

Cost and value engineering (includingmaintainability, reliability, quality con-trol) . Many industries requit this type ofexpertise more urgently than technologicalhelp.

The study group has concluded that while adisproportionate amount of analytical researchcontinues to be carried on in the Ontario engi-neering schools, an orientation towards socialneed is under way. As yet, there is no seriousoverlap of effort, but care must be exercised toprevent this from occurring. To date, directindustrial interaction with the engineeringresearch programs has been rather minor inscope, but it does show signs of increasing.

(3)

INDUSTRIAL INVOLVEMENT INUNIVERSITY ENGINEERING RESEARCH

The academic community is far from unani-mous in the belief that their work should involvea direct outreach into society. Many still hold'J. J. Green, Aeronautics: Highway to the Future, Special Study No. 12,Science Council of Canada, 1970, p. 90.

firmly to the tenet that the university's 1 ale is toeducate and to add to the world's store ( f knowl-edge, leaving the area of action to governments.The proponents of this viewpoint contend thatsuch an aloof position is essential to the main-tenance of the academic integrity of the institu-tion. Those in the opposite camp point out thatwithin our universities there is a large anddiverse pool of knowledge and expertise accu-mulated at public expense, and that such insti-tutions represent a unique resource for theassessment of social needs and the developmentof techniques to satisfy them. Most engineeringfaculty members appear to share the view thatthere is an obligation to use these resources fordirect involvement in the larger community.Weisskopf and Smith have taken this stand:

In the past, the universities have educated.The governments have acted. This completedivision is no longer appropriate. Civilizationhas become so complex and its problems soenormous that the universities must be will-ing to a considerable extent to take on mis-sions. There is simply not time to give outbasic research data and hope that it will beintelligently applied. The university mustassume a portion of the leadership in direct-ing itself to specific problems.2

Since engineering must be the bridge betweenscience and society, it is appropriate to lookfor university/industry interaction through themedium of the engineering school.3 In Canada,despite a prodigious outpouring of rhetoric onthe virtues of such an alliance, the results havebeen modest in the extreme. Today, university/government interaction is flourishing, as are theincentive programs provided by government tostimulate industrial innovation. It is the thirdside of the triangle that remains to be drawnwith a firm hand. Even mature organizationssuch as the Institute for Aerospace Studies deriveonly token support from industry.4

It is inappropriate here to make a detailedappraisal of the failure to achieve vigorouscooperation in research between engineeringfaculties and industry. One of its symptoms has2Victor Weisskopf and Gregory Smith, Public Policy, Public Opinion,and the University, reported in the Review Panel of the Special Labora-tories of the Massachusetts institute of Technology.

213r. Fred Terman underlined this opinion in his report EngineeringEducation in New York, published in 1969: "Experience at KUL.Stanford, Cal. Tech., and elsewhere shows that the largest part of thecoupling that exists between. a university and its surrounding industrialenvironment normally comes through the engineering rather than thescience departments. This is not to imply that science departments makeno contribution, or that science isn't important to technology-orientedindustry. Rather, it simply recognizes the fact that it is ordinarily theengineer who transforms a raw idea of science or technology into aproduct that is useful, practical and reliable. The engineer is thus theperson most frequently at the point of contact between education andindustry."

'Green, Aeronautics: Highway to the Future.

5 Research

been the frequent deterioration of cooperativeactivity into a patron/mendicant relationship,with the university invariably cast in the role ofmendicant. Recently, however, several schoolshave discovered they can achieve successful liai-son through the medium of contracted research:a system that works well because the groundrules are easily understood. Three universities

McMaster, Waterloo, and Windsor haveestablished Industrial Research Institutes tocarry out industrial research contracts, whileother faculties of engineering have developedresearch companies, such as Chemical Engineer-ing Research Consultants at the University ofToronto. The Industrial Research Institutesreceived seed money from the federal govern-ment, as well as financial support from univer-sity budgets. Other universities have applied forfederal support to develop similar institutes.

This activity brings with it such special prob-lems as the following:

(I) Local resistance on campus. There will bethose within the campus who express a realconcern over the fear that contract researchdistracts professors from their primaryduties and may depreciate the quality ofengineering research programs.

(2) The necessity of developing faculty confi-dence. It takes time for faculty members todecide on the admissibility of working with-in the institute rather than as a privateconsultant. Conversely, as the scope of acti-vity develops, the Institute needs time toidentify those faculty members who, asconsultants, will be skilful, reliable andpunctual.

Resistance by the university community onthe ground that restrictions relating to pub-lication cannot be tolerated. A rule for suchinstitutes must be that graduate studentsare not employed on projects of a propri-etary nature, if the work is to form part ofthe requirement for their degree.

(4) Resistance by the Ontario Research Foun-dation on the grounds of direct competi-tion. The validity of this concern dependson whether or not the university does havea role of service beyond those of teachingand research.

Concern by private consultants based on thefear of subsidized competition. Care shouldbe exercised to undertake projects of aspecial character for which the universityhas a special competence.

(3)

(5)

23

(6) General concern about the propriety ofprofessors acting as consultants. This isrelevant to the general policy relating toconsulting by university faculty, and is dis-cussed in the final section of this chapter.

Despite these concerns, industrial researchcontracts worth more than $3 million were nego-tiated and executed in the Ontario engineeringschools over the period 1967-1970. This repre-sents a sharp increase in such activity, and indi-cates that the contracted research project may bea vehicle for successful cooperation. Now thatthis scheme is proving to be effective, it isreasonable to anticipate that university outreachwill grow in volume and in scope. The impor-tance of such activity is brought to the fore inperiods of financial stringency such as the onebeing experienced at the present time, when thesize of industrial research and development staffsare held to existing levels.

INTER-UNIVERSITY COOPERATION

A good deal of informal cooperation amonguniversities has taken place in the sharing ofexpensive research facilities. Arrangements suchas the one developed by Toronto and McMasterfor the operation of a high-frequency nuclearmagnetic resonance spectrometer have workedadmirably and should be emulated where otherneighbouring schools have coincident require-ments.

There seems to be less cooperation in thedevelopment of research programs where eachparticipating campus could fufil a specific role.One such joint effort is the recent proposal fora negotiated development grant for communica-tions research to be undertaken at Carleton andQueen's although one wonders at the exclu-sion of the University of Ottawa.

In considering the opportunities for coopera-tion in research activity, the study group wasstruck by the unique situation that exists in theOttawa area where two engineering faculties areseparated by a distance of less than four miles,each below "critical size", yet each with its parti-cular character. Surrounding them is the mostconcentrated research effort in the country theNational Research Council, Department ofEnergy, Mines and Resources, Defence ResearchBoard, Department of Agriculture and Bell-Northern Research. In Chapter 4 we have sug-gested that it is a natural locale for a talk-backtelevision system as an experiment in part-timegraduate studies. Furthermore, we shall recom-mend that the combined educational role of these

24

two schools should be that of Information SystemsEngineering which could include such a broadspectrum of activity as instrumentation and con-trol, microwave systems, remote sensing, corn-niunication, optical engineering, avionics andantenna systems. It is a natural extrapolation torecommend that the research role of these neigh-bouring faculties should be a joint one, since itprovides a unique opportunity to exploit the,coalescence of skills and faculties.

ENGINEERING RESEARCHEXPENDITURE

It is difficult to form a reasoned viewpoint onwhether or not research expenditure is appro-priate to the needs of the economy, and whetherpresent financial commitment to research isjustifiable when considered as a proportion ofthe total expenditure on engineering education.It has come to be recognized that comparisonswith other countries are not very informative,and that the gross national product is a poorindicator of the goals for an industrial nation.Probably one is not even justified in attemptingto draw conclusions from the expenditures inthe different areas of engineering research, sincesome forms of such endeavour are much moreexpensive than others. Today, more money isavailable for engineering research than at anytime in the past. Indeed, sufficient funding isavailable to look after all of the really worth-while engineering research in the universities ofthe province, although its distribution may besomewhat uneven.

Table 5-1 represents the total research grantsmade by all agencies for the support of projectsand the salaries of some of the research person-nel (graduate students, post-doctoral fellows,and technicians) .

Table 5-1

RESEARCH GRANTS IN ONTARIO FACULTIES OFENGINEERING

Total Grants ($000)University 1968-69 1969-70 Two-year-Total

Carleton 194 229 423Guelph 210 210 420McMaster 774 1,153 1,927Ottawa 209 261 470Queen's 765 615 1,380Toronto 2,150 2,541 4,691Waterloo 1,333 1,782 3,115Western 517 391 908Windsor 294 391 685-- ---

6,446 7,573 14,019

The figures given above do not represent thefull cost of research programs, for most univer-sities make substantial budget allocations forspecial research projects and for the mainte-nance of graduate student stipends. Income fromthe Province of Ontario, based upon the formulafor graduate student enrolment in engineering,was $10,166,000 for 1968-69 and approximately$11,500,000 in 1969-70. Thus, a rough estimateof the cost of graduate studies and research inengineering in the last two complete academicyears was $16.6 million and $19.1 millionrespectively.

The most important activity in our graduateschools should be the extension of the skills ofstudents assuming, of course, that they willhave the opportunity to practise these skills.Over the past five years, substantial numbers ofmaster's degrees have been awarded, while thenumber of doctorates doubled between 1965 and1969. (Appendix B, Tables B-8, B-9) . At thepresent time, a large number of Ph.D. candidatesare enrolled, which means a rising number ofPh.D. graduates through 1973. It is because ofthe prospect of a considerable over-supply inmatching Ph.D. graduates with appropriateemployment opportunities that we have recom-mended a curtailment in programs at the doc-toral level.

An indication of the yields from researchprograms is given in Tables 5-2 and 5-3, whichsummarize these efforts on the basis of bothfaculty and research subject. The average rate ofpublication per professor is a little over onereviewed paper a year, although it does varywidely from institution to institution, from asingle publication every two years totwo papersa year. It would be hazardous to draw any con-clusions from this difference, except to suspectthat the lowest figure reflects an underdevelopedresearch program, while the highest figure mayindicate that the undergraduate program isreceiving insufficient attention.

Though filing of patents is not a primary aimfor a faculty of engineering, it does give someindication of the relevance of research to indus-try. Over the past two years the number ofpatents granted has shown an increase, possiblyas the result of a swing towards mission-orientedresearch. The present total for all schools inOntario is about 50 patents a year. Our data donot include an estimate of the income derivedfrom them.

Probably, it is impossible to decide whetheror not the present intensity of research is appro-priate to the Ontario university scene such

5 Research

a cost/benefit analysis is too sophisticated forthis study. Indeed, it is unlikely that such anevaluation could be applied with any confidence.However, our recommended curtailment ofPh.D. programs should not be interpreted as asuggestion that university research effort is tooextensive; it is based solely on the supply ofstudents and the demand for their services fol-lowing graduation. The present scale of researcheffort appears to be appropriate, particularly inview of industrial retrenchment. This levelshould be maintained by the natural growth ofenrolment in master's programs, and by makinggreater use of technicians and post-doctoral fel-lows. Therefore, some of the savings realizedfrom curtailment of doctoral studies must bemade available for these other purposes.

BALANCE OF EFFORT: TEACHING,RESEARCH AND CONSULTING

The essence of engineering is the integrationof the principles of science into the solutionof practical problems confronting our society.Members of such faculties have a particularobligation to keep abreast of the changing sceneand of techniques being developed by industry,in addition to their traditional responsibilitiesfor teaching and research. This can be accom-plished by sabbaticals in industry, by setting upa satellite campus on an industrial site and byproviding professional consultation. To date,industrial sabbaticals have been relatively rare,although the reports on them are enthusiastic.In order to stimulate this kind of interchange,the National Research Council is giving con-sideration to implementing Senior IndustrialFellowships tenable in industry, where theholder need not restrict his work to research anddevelopment activity. The intent is to extenduniversity/industry interaction beyond the lab-oratory or pilot plant.

Since the experiment of a satellite campus hasyet to be tried in Ontario, consulting activity isstill the most important vehicle for university/industry interaction. All universities should havedefinite regulations on consulting by facultymembers, and most campuses in Ontario alreadydo. In the absence of a clearly stated policy, theacademic program can become relegated to aposition of secondary importance.

There are three long-standing criticisms ofthe practice of consulting by university facultymembers. The first has been noted above; thesecond is the realization that an individual mayderive extra income by diverting some of hiseffort away from the specific tasks for which he

25

was engaged. Third is the concern that a profes-sor may be providing unfair competition for theprivate consultant who must sustain the full cost0: overhead in carrying on his practice. Whilesuch criticisms are valid, nevertheless there aresignificant advantages to be gained for a uni-versity from encouraging faculty consulting. Anintimate knowledge of current industrial prac-tice adds to the teacher's sense of topicality.There are many examples (although rare inCanada) of entire industries which have beenestablished and are flourishing as a result ofindustry/professor interaction. At the presentstage of Canada's technological development,with the preponderance of "high technologists"working in the universities, such institutionsprovide industry with a skill resource that wouldotherwise not be attainable. For these reasons,we believe the engineering faculties of Ontarioshould encourage faculty consulting, within theterms of an acceptable policy. Usually this speci-fies that 40 to 50 days should be the maximumtime devoted to consulting in any one year. Thestudy group favours the lower figure.

The evolution of the schools of engineeringhas taken place during a-period of vigorous aca-

demic expansion and technological change. Thishas resulted in heavy emphasis on the researchskills of university teachers, so that by 1970 thetotal research effort is substantial, quite appro-priate in size to the extent and nature of thesystem. However, although there is room for con-cern that too much of this research still lacks rele-vance to national needs, present funding is suffi-cient to finance all of the worthwhile work nowunder way. As research programs mature, centresof excellence have begun to appear, each withspecial reference to certain facets of Cana-dian needs, and industrial involvement is devel-oping, albeit ,still too slowly. As can be seenfrom Appendix E, the assembly of capital facili-ties and equipment has been substantial, so thereis an adequate base from which to proceed intothe 1970s.

This build-up of research capability has beenaccomplished in part at the expense of the under-graduate program. Now that it has achievedcritical size, attention should be directed towardexperiments in educational technology and inno-vation in undergraduate education. Research canassume its appropriate significance as an integralpart of the system.

Table 5-2

AREAS OF RESEARCH EFFORT IN ONTARIO FACULTIES OF ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITYNo. of Faculty

(1969-70)

Graduate Students(1969-70)Full-time

Equivalent

Master'sDegrees1967-691968-69

Ph.D. Degrees

1967-681968-69

ResearchSupport1969-70($000)

Publications

1967-681968-69

Patents

1967-681968-69

1. Carleton 35 115 27 6 229 35 3

2. Guelph 30 23 28 1 210 30 2

3. McMaster 61 184 75 16 1,153 260 6

4. Ottawa 39 156 34 9 261 103 3

5. Queen's 92 168 58 11 615 124 6

6. Toronto 200 625 294 57 2,541 595 58

7. Waterloo 164 456 202 42 1,784 473 3

8. Western 39 79 45 1 391 72 12

9. Windsor 48 87 49 3 389 65 3

TOTALS 708 1,893 812 146 7,573 1,757 96

26

5 - Research

Table 5.3

ENGINEERING RESEARCH IN ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES

CATEGORY

(1969.70)No. of Grad.

Students

Master'sDegrees1967.681968.69

Ph.D. Degrees Research1967.68 Support

1969-701968.69 ($000)

Publications

1967.68196K-69

Patents

1967.681968.69

1. Acoustics 4 6 0 5 1 02. Aerodynamics 124 51 11 879 82 43. Antennas 11 3 1 27 5 04. Applied Physical Chemistry (misc.) 35 10 9 204 46 95. Bio-engineering 27.5 21 2 88 39 1

6. Biomedical Engineering 29 11 3 120 28 27. Ceramics 7 0 0 30 19 08. Chemical Kinetics and Reactor Design 46 12 4 159 60 39. Circuit Theory 0 1 0 5 5 0

10. Communications Technology 58.5 30 3 203 55 511. Computer Hardware 61 24 3 123 19 212. Control Systems 99 53 3 206 78 013. Corrosion, Electrochemistry 3 1 0 3 I 014. Design and Production 33 II 1 92 24 1

15. Dynamics and Stability 19 6 1 58 18 016. Ecological Engineering 72 42 I 450 54 617. Electrostatics 11 7 1 85 8 718. Energy Conversion 15 5 1 57 9 019. Engineering Management20. Extractive Metallurgy 62 23 6 461 106 521. Fluid Dynamics 78 36 15 407 87 522. Geotechnical 58 34 6 242 56 1023. Heat and Mass Transfer 82 30 8 279 89 1

24. Hydrology 50 21 1 110 32 025. Information Systems 4.3 . 2 0 4 0 026. Materials Handling 39 14 3 181 46 227. Material Research (general) 35.2 17 3 175 61 328. Microwaves29. Mining and Mineral Processing 21.5 11 0 50 18 030. Nuclear Engineering 10 0 0 35 16 031. Ocean Engineering 16 5 3 100 16 1

32. Operations Research 34.5 15 4 69 22 033. Optics 3 0 0 42 2 A 034. Physical Metallurgy 58.5 30 5 528 148 635. Plasma Technology 19 8 5 139 32 236. Polymer Technology 38 14 1 225 92 937. Power Transmission and Distribution 66.2 27 7 195 65 638. Process Design and Simulation 24 10 4 120 61 039. Solid Body and Continuum Mechanics 158 45.1 3 284 47 040. Solid State 64 24 2 226 52 341. Str,ess Analysis and Structural Design 172 91 17 462 95 042. Surveying and Mapping 8 5 0 65 6 1

43. Systems Analysis and Design 42 26 9 81.5 22 1

44. Thermodynamics 49.5 12 4 210 39 045. Transportation Systems 45.3 17 2 156 21 0

Totalsa 1,893 811 152 7,640.5 1,822 95

a There are discrepancies between Tables 5-2 and 5-3, presumably because of overlapping fields of research interest.

3727

6

THE PROFESSORS

In 1969-70, the 721 faculty members of engi-neering schools in the provincially-assisted universities were distributed as follows:

Table 6-1

FACULTY MEMBERS

University Number

Carleton 35Guelph 30Lakehead 9Laurentian 4McMaster 61Ottawa 39Queen's 92Toronto 200Waterloo 164Western 39Windsor 48Exclusive of part-time faculty.

28

Since it is impossible to compose a verbal com-posite picture of this group, the relevant infor-mation on our professors of engineering ispresented in histogram form in Appendix F. Itshows that 519 (72%) of these university teach-ers hold Ph.D. degrees, 144 (20%) hold master'sdegrees, and 58 (8%) hold only bachelor'sdegrees. McMaster has the highest proportion offaculty with doctoral degrees (92%) andGuelph the lowest at 25% . An examination of thedisciplines shows that metallurgy and materialssciences have the highest proportions of facultyholding Ph.D.'s.

Even though nine scho. Is are relatively new,the age distribution of the group is broader thanmight be expected. The median is 38 years, withmetallurgical engineering having the highestaverage of 41 years, and civil engineering thelowest, 33 years.

The country of birth fur the engineeringfaculty is as follows:

Canada 48%United States 4United Kingdom 1(iOther

The two !mullein schools. Laurentian and1,al.( head. lime the highest proportion ()I Can.adian.born faculty. with 71% and respec-tively, while Ottawa has the lowest. %vial 28%

An indication of the development of Canadianengineering education is given by the propor-tions of the origins of faculty degrees:

I In iversity of Tomlin)Other Canadian shiesUnited StatesUnited KingdomOther

21%222623s

A possible reason for the sameness of th( Ontarioengineering schools is that the rniversity ofToronto has educated such a large percentageof the province's engineering professors. Guelphhas the highest proportion of Canadian-educatedprofessors (56%) , %%nk' Western has the lowest(33%) . The highest proportion of Canadian

advanced degrees is in chemical engineering(43(,"( ) , and the lowest in civil engineering(35%) .

.%s mentioned earlier in this report (pages 21and 23) there have been frequent expressionsof cow-cm over the bas kground of jnofessionalexperience beyond the university. This is givenfor the pro% ince as a whole in Table 6.2.

Tabl 62oi PR( 1' I ssIONAL PRM: 11(11' A MOM'.

MEMBERS 01' ON TAM° l'ACULTIES\ KING

Years r; of Total Faculty Population

0 151 82 123 84 95 6.

6.10 1811.15 1316.20 5

Over 20 6

42%

',idiom, or other. not including academic or leaching cpmen.:e

The extremes in this compilation are repre-sented by the University of Toronto, where45.5% of the faculty have more than five years'

6 7'he Professors

industrial experience, and NIMaster, where thecorresponding figure is 32.8%.

It is most important that considerable teach-ing expertise :yetimulate within the system. Theaverage figures for Ontario at the present timeare shown ilt 'rabic 6-3.

Table 6.3

Yt.sits or TI.M.IIING EXPFRIENcE IN ON I AluoEACIII.TIEs 01; ENGINEERING

c.u

0

2

345

6-1011-1516-20

Over 20

ri of Total Faculty Population

1

7

811

97

271668

43%

57%

It can be seen that the range of teachingexperience is wide at McMaster (15.5% havemore than five years. while for Carleton the cor-responding figure is only 31.5%, with the pro-vincial median being 7 years.

Facility mobility appears to be fairly high.61% of the professors having been members oftheir present faculty fur less than five years. AtToronto 50% of the faculty have more than fiveYears' service there. while at Carleton 83%have been there fewer than five years.

As has been noted elsewhere in this report,the educational process is closely linked with theprofessional aspects of engineering. Mitch of theindividual's professional indoctrination begins inuniversity, and therefore it is of interest to seethe extent to which faculty members are regis-tered professional engineers. The figures show awide variation from discipline to disciplineand from university to university as revealed inTable 6.

Table 6.4

PERCENTAGE OF EAcI.I.TY W110 AREREGISTERED PROEESsIONAL ENGINEERS

DisciplinePrinincialAverage

Chemical 45 Toronto: 85 Western: 14

Civil 85 Windsor: 100 Ottawa: 75Electrical 56 Western: 83 Waterloo: 38Mechanical 60 Toronto: 78 Waterloo: 43Metallurgical 47 Windsor: 80 McMaster. 20Industrial 27 Toronto: 42 Windsor: 0

29

If registration as a professional engineer canbe tan as an indication of professionalism,then Toronto has the highest iIvolvement with73% of its faculty on the roll. At the other endis Water)°, with only 46% registered. The pro-,ncial average is 59%. It dc es seem strange thatindustrial engineering is the one having the leastprofessional involvement. The important uspectsof professionalism an acknowledgement of acode of professional ethics, the background ofCanadi: technological history and of Canadiantechnc...gical environment are not beingtreated in a serious fashion at most of theOntario engineering schools. Few engineeringcalendars show the designation P.Eng. in listingmembers of faculty. While it all but impossibleto teach professional attitudes otherwise thanby example, the surprisingly low proportion offaculty so registered does not present the bestkind of professional image to the student.

With the exception (if Carleton, there are fewadjunct appointments of private consultants orof engineers from industry, although the reportsare enthusiastic where it has been tried. Thestudy group believes this practice should be ex-tended and we adopt as our own the recom-

30

mendation in a joint university/industry studycinnpleted recently in England:

(6:1) "We feel that both universities and industriesshould recognize this activity as part of the careerstructure of their senior staff, and joint appointmentsshould" be increased as far as possible. We wouldhope that in time there would be at least one jointappointment in each department, certainly in thoserelevant to industry."'

Now that an opportunity fol consolidation isin prospect, it does seem appropriate that moreattentioa be devoted to the development ofteaching excellence on the part of members offaculty. If we are to enhance the educationalexperience of the undergraduate, more timelutist be devoted not to producing yet anotherisolated coin-sc.?. but to a continuing programof relevant curricular design and pedagogicaldevelopment.'IndnAtry, Selene(' and the Universities. Confederation of British Indus-

try. London, July 1970.,"Some day soon. one of the Canadian universities will set up a courseon the care and teeing of camels. And will the people who graduatein it 1,u to the East? Don't be silly; they'll just go to otherCanathm un4e,.ities and set un courses there on the care and feedingof camels. Graduates from these courses will g.1 to teach the subjectin high . chools and community college,:. Eventua:ly Canada will have10.000 ac.redited camelologists. none of whom has ever seen a camel."Richard J. Needham in the Toronto Globe and Mad...lovernber 17.1970.

7

THE PROFESSION

The fundamental purpose of an engineeringeducation is to prepare young people for entryinto the profession. The relationship betweenthe profession and educational institutionsshould be very close. Consequently, we havestudied certain elements of the practice of engi-neering in order to develop recommendationsrelated to universities concerning entrance intofLhe profession, requalification and the accredi-tation of engineering programs.

ENGINEERING AND SOCIETYA definition of engineering was set down for

the first time in 1828 by the Institution of CivilEngineers in Great Britain. It was described as"the art of directing the great sources of powerin nature for the use and convenience of man."'More recent definitions have replaced the phrase"use and convenience of man" with such wordsas "benefit of man", where the word "benefit"'Charter of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 1828.

implies not only use and ccuvenience, but alsosocial resr, onsibil ity.

As we move into the 1970s, the profession ofengineering finds itself in a vulnerable positionbrought on by the wave of social concern ofyoung people, together with the acceleratingerosion of our physical environment caused by adisregard for the consequences of technology.Today, engineering has an unappealing imagefor many young people as they turn from thephysical to the social sciences or the humanitiesin a search for answers to questions about timelessvalues and the quality of life.

Engineering is regarded by many as a profes-sion without a social conscience, but surely thisis a paradox, since a profession cannot be worthyof the name if it has no social conscience. Theinteraction between engineering and society canbe illustrated by a functional diagram (Fig. 7-1) .

31

EMPLOYEROR CLIENT

RESPONSIBILITY ---PP

PUBLIC OPINION

ENGINEERINGPROFESSION

0]ENGINEERING WORKS

ACCOUNTABILITY REGULATION

POLITICIAN LAW

SOCIETY

PHYSICALENVIRONMENT

MEASUREMENT

Figure 7-1 THE ENGINEERING PROFESSION AND SOCIETY

The engineering profession is responsible toemployers and clients for the creation, manage-ment or control of products and processes thatinfluence and alter our physical environment.The result of its activity will be detected, mea-sured and evaluated by society in the form ofpublic opinion. It is in this way that societyholds the profession, the politician and theemployer or client accountable for the effects oftheir actions, good or bad, on the physicalenvironment.

Engineering involves specialized knowledgeand techniques, and because such activity affectsthe physical environment, the profession is regu-lated by law to protect the public against incom-petence and fraud. In Ontario, as in the otherprovinces of Canada, licensing and regulatingpowers have been provided through an Act ofthe Legislature, to permit the profession to exer-cise its powers, and to provide remedies againstincompetent or dishonest practitioners.2 Whileno such Act is capable of regulating all engineer-ing works, the public does hold the engineeraccountable for socially undesirable action, andso it behooves the profession to minimize such

2"The granting of self-government is a delegation of legislative a4judicial functions and can only be Ratified as a safeguard to the publicinterest. The power is not conferred to give or reinforce a professional oroccupational status." Royal Commission Inquiry into Civil Rights.(Toronto: Queen's Printer, 1968). Report No. 1., Vol. 3., p. 1162.

32

action. Its public esteem, prestige and useful-ness will vary according to how well its mem-bers perform in this closed loop system. It is forsuch reasons that engineering is being heldaccountable for the despoiling of our physicalenvironment. Of course, every profession is simi-larly accountable for its own related environ-ment medicine for the environment of healthcare and law for the civil environment.

For the purposes of this study, the definitionof engineering that will form the basis for manyof the final recommendations is the following:

"Engineering is a profession, responsible andaccountable for man's physical environment,its management and control."

Such responsibility and accountability must beshared with others, and therefore the definitionis equivocal and meant only to serve the pur-poses of this study.

ENTRANCE INTO THE PROFESSIONFor many years, the demand for engineers in

Ontario has outstripped the local supply, andapproximately one-third of the members of theprofession have received their education in othercountries.

Many of these members graduated from insti-tutions or programs that are not recognized in

Ontario. Others, from Canada and abroad, whilenot possessing engineering degrees, have soughtprofessional status on the basis of their experi-ence and academic background acquired throughself-study. A syllabus of entram e examinationswas established for such individuals, which isdeemed to be equivalent to the baccalaureatestandard from an accredited uniTrsity program.Each candidate is assessed, and a candidate'sacademic record may permit certain entranceexaminations to be waived. Such a system per-mits persons unable to enter or complete univer-sity to be assessed objectively. It has provided apractical and just alternative for those whowould be shut out on grounds other than failureto attain proper standards of competence.

In recent years, the files of the Association ofProfessional Engineers of Ontario (APEO) havecontained approximately 4,000 such applicantsat any given time. Each year, about 25% dropout, to be replaced by an approximately equalnumber. This examination procedure is oper-ated annually by the APEO at many centresthroughout Ontario. in other provinces and evenoutside Canada. In 1970, a total of 732 candi-dates wrote 1,746 papers. Only 3% actuallysatisfy the requirements for entering the profes-sion, and in the main these are candidates pos-sessing degrees from non-accredited institutions.

The extremely low number of successful candi-dates from the relatively large pool of applicantsappears to confirm. the conviction of academicsthat a university setting provides a better way tomaster a body of knowledge. Onc must concludethat a much higher success rate would resultfrom the completion of a formal course of study.

Today, with universities spread throughoutOntario, it should be possible to offer under-graduate courses at times convenient for thoseemployed full-time during normal workinghours.3 In the past, attempts to provide suchclasses have net with scant success because of alack of numbers. The use of the new media,such as television, would ease the programmingproblem by making it possible for such classesto be held off-campus. Furthermore, a proposednew program for requalification should increasethe size of classes in the more specializedsubjects.

Initially, the syllabus must be equated tospecific undergraduate programs, and the suc-cessful completion of such courses recognized ascredit towards entry into the profession. Univer-sity admission standards, which are in effect a'In 1970-71. the University of Toronto is offering pan-time classes in itsSchool of Extension for credit toward completion of the first year ofengineering.

The Profession

preliminary screening, should lower the presentattrition rate.

While this procedure is being developed, itwill be necessary to continue with the APEOentrance examinations, but the numbers of can-didates should decline as more and wore indivi-duals turn to part-time studies provided by theuniversities. When the number of such coursesavailable amounts to a complete engineeringprogram, then universities can offer a bachelor'sdegree to all candidates who successfully com-plete the syllabus. tinder these circumstances, itwould be practical for the profession to insist onan engineering bachelor's degree from a recog-nized university. together with the requisiteexperience as a graduate engineer-in-trainingas the minimum standard for professionalregistration.

It is recommended that:

(7:1) the universities introduce part-time undergradu-ate studies as an acceptable alternative path to arecognized bachelor's degree in engineering, and thatwhen this scheme is fully operative, the presentAPEO examination system be terminated.

Thus, any candidate will continue to have aroute into the profession that could be followedwithout excessive financial hardship. An APEOexamination might still be required for specialcases in locations outside Ontario.

In any such plan, appropriate recognitionshould -be granted to the specialized three-yearcurriculum leading to a diploma in technology,offered by the CAATs. Elsewhere in this report(page 81) , a case has been made for a two-yearfull-time post-diploma degree course in engineer-ing. This would be made possible by altering thesequence of material to create a curriculumstructured especially for CAAT diploma gradu-ates. Similarly, university admission require-ments for such students seeking entry into theprofession through part-time studies shouldrecognize certain material already covered in theCAAT diploma program. At the present timethis is not done, and the diploma graduateusually enters at the level of the second year.

The above plan would place the universities ina monopolistic position in determining whetheror not a candidate has the academic qualifica-tions to enter the profession. However, the suc-cessful achievement of academic qualificationshould not be the only requirement for admis-sion into the profession. It is suggested that theapplicant should acquire the equivalent of twoyears of acceptable engineering experience asa graduate engineer-in-training, during which

33

period he would be exposed to an environmentthat encourages the development of professionalconscience, responsibility, maturity and judg-ment. If the profession is to discharge its respon-sibility, then it must be satisfied that theapplicant will enter professional practice havingdne regard for the public interest. Each gradu-ate engineer-in-training should prepare a short,structured dissertation on his experience, which,if satisfactory, would entitle him to sit for afinal examination in professional practice to beset and administered by the profession. In thisway, universities would not be the sole arbiter,and the profession would be satisfied that all itsmembers have developed an awareness of theirresponsibilities and obligations as practisingengineers.

The recommended alterations in entrancerequirements (page 7) will require the schedu-ling of "make-up classes" in the first veaL If thisis coupled with the recommendation in regardto part-time degree studies, a convincing casecan be made for offering engineering classesduring the summer months a time when manyhigh school teachers are in university. Hence, itprovides an ideal opportunity to involve them intechnology-related subjects. Concern has beenexpressed over the fact that engineering has notbeen getting its story across to the high schools.It would be necessary to create special classes intechnology for such teachers, but the resultinglong-term benefits to the profession and societyare indisputable.

REQUALIFICATION

Since accountability is the hallmark of anyprofession, surely there is reason for insistingthat its members maintain and enhance theirability to account to society for their actions.The dynamism of tomorrow's technology willsoon render today's techniques obsolete. Thehalf-life of the content of the present engineeringcurriculum is no more than five years,4 and sothere is a compelling need for the continuingeducation of the engineer, together with arequalification process. In this way assurance canbe given to those served by the profession that itintends to fulfil its obligation to society.s

'Allen B. Rosenstein, A Study of a Profession and Professional Educa-tion, U.C.L.A.., School of Engineering and Applied Science. EDP 7-68.December 1968, Part II, o. 11-11, Appendix A. (The half-life of acurriculum is that period .31 time during which one-half of the initialcontent of the program will change.)

slivort of the Committee on the Healing Arts (Toronto: Queen'sPrinter, 1970). Recommendations 11 and 12, Vol. II, p. 81 a programfor ensuing continuing competence where, perhaps every five years,every physician in Ontario would be required to submit a certificatestating he has maintained a satisfactory level of competence; and arecommendation that Ontario faculties of medicine develop such aprogram.

34

For engineering, as for the other professions,this requalification process should come asrapidly as possible. The profession's membershipis large, with deeply rooted patterns and tradi-tions. Thus we arrive at a major interfacebetween profession and university in that thelatter should play a significant role in any planof requalification.

One could insist that all members, without anyexceptions, must requalify at periodic intervals.However, it would be more practical to estab-lish specialist categories within the profession forwhich requalification is required, and then grad-ually introduce limitations of practice withinthese categories. Members in the consultingsector should be the first to change because oftheir direct involvement with public works.Others would take a longer time and it may bethat a whole new generation would join the pro-fession before universal requalification becameaccepted as the normal pattern.

Traditionally, the success of an engineer hr,sdepended on his knowledge of the physicalsciences, mathematics and technology. With thisbackground, and with experience, he can begiven responsibility for engineering works. How-ever, we have maintained that the professioncarries with it the requirement of accountability:to be aware of the social consequences of engi-neering works. For this, one must develop sensi-tivity towards social, psychological and politicalforces, and even aesthetics. The subjects dealingwith such forces have formed the basis of the uni-versity arts curriculum, but here we are interestedin them only insofar as they pertain to the pro-fessions. Dr. Allen Rosenstein calls this aspect ofthese subjects the "applied humanities".6 Forthe engineer of tomorrow. these will be as impor-tant and as necessary as his technical specialty. Alack of competence in either area will result infailure as a professional man or woman.

We will show (page 49) that the majority ofengineers move into occupations that are asso-ciated with either the control or managementof the physical environment, but accountabilityis common to both. Competence should bedemonstrated along these lines, and this couldform the basis for a structured requalificationprogram. Control relates to occupations involv-ing research, development, design or operation(i.e. technology and science) ; management

implies competence in areas such as economics,accounting, finance, marketing, production, andthe behavioural sciences. We recommend that:'Rosenstein, Study of a Profession. H-11. See also W. H. Davenport andJ. P. Frankel. The Applied Humanities, U.C.L.A. Department ofEngineering, EDP 3-68, May 1968.

(7:2) periodic requalfficafion (perhaps every fiveyears) be initiated so as to require successful com-pletion of a course of study in either control ormanagement, or a combination of these two, togetherwith a structured program in applied humanities.

The details are a matter for the profession toestablish in close coordination with the educa-tional community principally the universities,but also the CAATs and the professional soci-eties and associations.

The graduate material of but a few years agonow is being taught in undergraduate classes.This downward drift of new knowledge hasalways existed, but in recent years it has movedinto the secondary and even primary schools.Therefore, the demands on the universities inresponse to a program of requalification will befelt at both the graduate and the undergraduatelevels. Again, this raises the matter of part-time studies, class programming and televisioninstruction. Part-time graduate studies in engi-neering are presently available in several univer-sities, but the opportunity to do part-time workat the undergraduate level is virtually non-existent. Furthermore, the scheduling of classesto meet the needs of the practising engineer andaspiring entrants into the profession shouldcreate pressures to develop instruction by televi-sion at a more rapid rate, and could lead ulti-mately to the widespread use of electronic videorecording. These matters should be the sub-ject of a detailed study conducted jointly bythe practising profession and the engineeringschools.

The requalification of the engineering teach-er poses a different problem. The requirementis not so much the need to acquire new knowl-edge in his chosen field, which is part of hisregular academic duties, but rather the main-tenance of a continuing awareness of the realworld of engineering outside the university.Consulting and industrial sabbatical periodscan be effective in achieving this aim, but afurther opportunity exists. When a requalifica-tion program is under way, many of the classescould be in the form of open seminars so thatthere may be an exchange between senior engi-neers and the academic staff. In this way bothgroups benefit, and the teacher can gain a broad-er perspective on contemporary engineeringpractice.

Today practising engineers, particularly theemployee sector, find themselves in a dynam-ic environment where occupational mobilitybecomes the only alternative to obsolescence andunemployment. Continuing education, rein-

7 The Profession

forced by the requalification program, couldremove the present barrier to mobility. Eco-nomic benefits, although not readily measurable,should be substantial, because this form of con-tinuing education would have the effect of moreclosely matching manpower resources and man-power needs.

ACCREDITATION

In Ontario, as elsewhere in Canada, mostyoung people enter the profession after the suc-cessful completion of a recognized engineeringprogram in a university, followed by a specifiedperiod of time spent as a graduate engineer -in-training. Accreditation is the procedure wherebyan engineering program, faculty and facilities arerecognized by the profession. It was first intro-duced on a national scale in the United Statesin the early 1930s by the Engineering Councilfor Professional Development (ECPD) . Theimpetus for accreditation at that time arose froma rapid proliferation of engineering schools withvarying standards. It has gained steadily in pres-tige, so that today few institutions ignore it. TheECPD, which is not .a licensing body, publishesa list of accredited curricula leading to firstdegrees as guidance for young people planningan engineering education in the United States.

In Canada, accreditation has only been con-ducted by the licensing bodies. While accredita-tion in the United States is for a stated period oftime, in Canada, until very recently, accredita-tion has not been limited in this manner.

Accreditation in both countries involves sev-eral criteria, which entail aspects of both qualityand character. These are:

(1) curriculum content and its relevance to engi-neering practice,

(2) teaching staff and teaching loads,

(3) physical facilities, including library,

(4) administrative practices and arrangements.

The Canadian Council of Professional Engi-neers, a national agency coordinating the elevenprovincial and territorial constituent organiza-tions, formed the Canadian Accreditation Board(CAB) in 1965. One of its stated objects is to"make a complete re-assessment of all accreditedcurricula at regular intervals to be establishedby the Board, but not exceeding five years". Thisin in sharp contrast to the traditional practices ofthe constituent organizations by which accredi-tation, once granted, was never repeated.

The Ontario Accreditation Committee of35

APEO carries the responsibility for accreditingengineering programs to be recognized by APEOfor registration purposes. This committee maybe replaced by CAB, leaving a single nationalbody to deal with accreditation.

There are four issues relating to accreditation,as they apply to engineering education and therecommendations of this report:

(1) accreditation of new programs being intro-duced in various universities,

(2) periodic accreditation of existing programs,

(3) accreditation of classes in continuing educa-tion programs designed to lead to registration.

(4) accreditation of classes and programsdesigned for requalification.

1.Accreditation of New Programs

Both the Ontario Department of UniversityAffairs and the Committee of Presidents of Uni-versities of Ontario (CPUO) are concernedabout the proliferation of new programs. TheOntario Council of Graduate Studies (OCGS) ,

an affilfate committee of CPUO, has developedan appraisal scheme for assessing the quality ofnew graduate programs proposed by Ontariouniversities. Similarly, appraisals are needed atthe undergraduate level, not only to ensurequality, but also to control program prolifera-tion and it is hoped to effect more of amatch with the need for new curricula to meetchanging manpower requirements. The mostappropriate group to conduct such evaluationswould be the Committee of Ontario Deans ofEngineering (CODE) . If CODE were to per-form this function, and if CAB were representedon the appraisal team, then its accreditationrequirements on new programs could besatisfied.

Therefore, it is recommended that:

(7:3) CODE undertake the appraisal of proposed newundergraduate programs, using essentially the sameprocedures employed by OCGS in regard to newgraduate programs. Also, CODE should evaluate theneed for each new program with respect to academic,cost and manpower considerations. In regard to suchappraisal, CAB should participate so as to avoidunnecessary duplication and permit simultaneousaccreditation.

2. Periodic Accreditation of Existing Programs

The universities maintain that the presentaccreditation system is not meaningful because36

it applies only to the setting up of a new pro-gram. Furthermore, programs in existence whenaccreditation was introduced in Ontario havenot been accredited. Now, because of changesthat have occurred, both in relation to curricu-lum and to the resources available for such pro-grams, the profession should question the con-tinuing validity of any accreditation. CAB isfaced with the task of reassessing current curri-cula, since original accreditation is to expire inNovember of this year. It is to be undertakenonly at the request or with the consent of boththe provincial association and the educationalinstitution concerned.

The question naturally arises: why should theuniversities respond to such requests? Theanswer is easy: if engineering, as a self-regulatingprofession, is responsible and accountable forman's physical environment, and if an engineer-ing education is to prepare young people to enterthe profession, then there should be an obliga-tion on the part of educators to provide continu-ing assurance that their programs measure up tothe needs of the profession. Moreover, in thepast, accreditation has had a salutary effect onthe enrolment patterns of several of the newengineering schools. Therefore, it is in the bestinterests of the universities to cooperate in mat-ters related to accreditation, particularly as thestudents will want some assurance that theprograms they enter will be recognized by theprofession.

CPUO is beginning to develop data bankswhich could contain the quantitative informa-tion needed for re-accreditation. For engineer.ing, the logical focus for this activity is CODE.It is in a position to coordinate the generationof data in response to its own needs, consistentwith the form compiled by CPUO. As the stockof data expands, the task of re-accreditationshould become easier, and in the long run theteams visiting a university will only be requiredto make qualitative assessments. The problemposed by data bank privacy may arise, but thisis a matter that can be settled between CODE,CPUO and CAB. Therefore, it is recommendedthat:

(7:4) CAB re-accreditation, requested and/orapproved by APEO, be coordinated through CODE,which ultimately should be in a position to providethe required quantitative data.

3. Accreditation of Classes in ContinuingEducation

We have recommended that classes in the part-time program of a university should relate

directly to the syllabus of entrance examinationsinto the profession. This implies that the pro-fession will have to address itself to the problemof accepting specific classes as credit towardsregistration. When such a plan is in operation,CAB and the provincial accreditation commit-tees could be faced with a flood of detail onclasses offered by each university. As an alterna-tive, it would appear reasonable to follow thepattern proposed for new programs, and subjecteach one to a modified appraisal procedure. Thiscould be facilitated by the use of data hank andcomputer techniques, which would appear to bethe only tractable way of coping with such alarge amount of detail. Information on classes incontinuing education programs could he coor-dinated and provided to the accrediting bodiesby CODE.

4. Accreditation of Requalificalion Classes andPrograms

A similar argument applies for requalificationclasses. The accrediting bodies will Face theproblem; and again one solution would be thecomputer and data bank approach, with CODEcoordinating the provision of necessary data tothe accrediting bodies. A further element is theaccreditation of classes and programs offered bythe CAATs and the professional societies andassociations; but this is a matter that lies beyondthe scope of this study.

We have urged that there should be closerbonds between the educators and the profession.

7 The Profession

It was distressing to discover that only 59% ofthe teachers of engineering in Ontario are mem-bers of APEO (see page 30) If closer bonds areto develop, then this membership must approach100% in order to be meaningful. We wouldrecommend that:

(7:5) all engineers engaged in teaching in Ontario beregistered members of the profession.

Education should be a continuing process. Toexpect that the effort put into the acquiring ofa degree will carry a person throughout his lifeis to ask that time stand still from the day hegraduates. And yet this is what happens in thelives of too many practising engineers. Because60% of them move into managerial occupations(see page 49) , it could be argued that continu-ing education in technical fields is not of firstimportance. But as managers, engineers areinvolved in decision-making the basic ingre-dient of design and so continuing educationprograms tailored for such engineers would takeon special meaning in any requalificationprogram. Ultimately, this could have a signi-ficant impact on the performance of Canadianindustry.

This practice, if applied universally, wouldremove the permanency of the degree which isbeginning to lose significance and meaning in aworld of rapid change. Periodic requalificationwill make engineering careers more demanding,but the ultimate effect will be to improve thecalibre of the professional engineer and enhancehis stature in the technological society of today.

37

8

INDUSTRY

INTRODUCTIONAt the beginning of Chapter 4, we suggested

that there is a better than even chance that Jeanwill elect to enter the practice of his professionas soon as he receives his bachelor's degree.Whether or not he returns to pursue graduatestudies at some time in the future, Jean prob-ably will take a job in the industrial sector, inwhich 80% of all engineers in Canada work.'For this reason, we wish to examine the newenvironment facing Jean upon leaving univer-sity. This entails an analysis of the industrialattitude toward engineering graduates, and suchconsiderations provide a background for specu-lation on future career patterns in engineering,and their implications with respect to the presentengineering curricula.

THE INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTDuring his years as a student, Jean was judged

'See Table 9-3.

38

on the basis of a value system that placed a highpriority on academic ability. His survival in theeducational milieu depended on his ability toprepare acceptable reports and to pass examina-tions and tests in order to demonstrate that hehas mastered a certain body of knowledge. Nowin industry, he 101 face a different value system,where he is expected to show qualities ofmotivation and leadership and where produc-tivity is measured in terms of performance inachieving the goals and objectives identifiedwith his role in the organization. This can bean unsettling experience for many young people,especially if they have not been exposed to suchan environment gradually through either sum-mer employment or experience in a cooperativeprogram.

Since Jean is a typical young engineeringgraduate, his first job will be technical in nature

research, design, development or operations.

As he progresses in his career, he will discoverthat his education has prepared him not onlyfor work of technical nature but also formanagement where decision-making will befundamental. But this is the essence of designan iterative decision-making process. The tech-nique of design develops characteristics that arecommon to the processes of management. IfJean displays qualities of leadership, a criticaldecision awaits him: whether to remain in tech-nical work or to move into supervision andmanagement. Usually, this occurs for most youngengineers about seven years after graduation, bywhich time Jean will have taken on familyresponsibilities. He may be torn between a desireto pursue technical interests and so develop atechnical reputation, or to move into manage-ment where there is more certainty of increasedremuneration and greater security, together withthe prestige associated with such an occupation.Most engineers choose the latter alternative.2

Also, during those seven years, technology willhave moved so swiftly that if Jean failed to availhimself of opportunities for continuing educa-tion, obsolescence will have set in. Thus, themanagement alternative looks more attractive,particularly when younger engineers are movinginto the profession and posing a serious threat tothe position of the more senior practitioners andtheir aging technology. (The introduction of aprogram of requalification, as suggested in Chap-ter 7, could change this picture.)

What will Jean's decision be: to continue withhis technical activity and gain an internationalreputation as a respected engineer, or to advanceinto the ranks of management or private entre-preneurship? We leave him at this point, for bythis time Jean is well on the road to success, andwith an education that should make it possibleto find it on either road.

A part of this study involved interviewing six-teen corporate employers of engineers and tech-nologists across Canada. This undertaking was apart of the manpower study to be described inChapter 9, which gives an insight into thepresent industrial environment as it relates tothe engineer. Most corporations tend to thinkof their engineers as potential managers, andseveral companies, principally in the primaryindustries, seek out engineers as their primarysource of management material. It is now becom-ing common for companies to provide a parallelpath so that an engineer can find an equalopportunity in either a technical or managementoccupation. Such a dual route, common in the,See Figures 9-1 and 9.2.

8 Industry

high-technology industries, tends to avoid thedilemma faced by many engineers when theyreach the crossroads described above. However,engineers who exhibit strong qualities of leader-ship and who are highly motivated invariablyend up in management.

In engineering education, there is a tradi-tional idea that engineers are "problem-solvers".For industry, it would be more correct to saythat engineers "face situations". The role of anengineer requires him to face situations in whichhe takes account of psychological, sociological,aesthetic and political factors as well as scientificand technological matters. In weighing all ofthem together, he formulates problems that aresoluble and tractable. Today, it is the computerand supporting staff that effect solutions to prob-lems. Thus, the modern engineer requires morethan traditional skills, and for success in thefuture he must have a basic knowledge andunderstanding of the applied humanities.

There is yet another traditional idea thatrelates to the industrial environment: that engi-neers there are "employees" who obey ordersgiven by employers to whom they should tugtheir forelock each morning. According to thisview, an employee engineer should not aspireto the high ideals of his profession, but instead,must do as he is told. However, the industrialpicture is changing. In the past, power waspassed downward as those at the top gave ordersand those below either carried them out orrelayed them further down the line. For thefuture, decisions in a business enterprise will bethe product not of an individual but of a groupof individuals. The complexities of modern tech-nology, marketing, planning and organizationhave forced the creation of a mosaic of com-mittees which embrace all those who bringspecialized knowledge, talent and experienceto group decision-making. Galbraith calls thisorganization the technostructure. He maintainsthat ". . . nearly all powers initiation, charac-ter of development, rejection or acceptanceare exercised deep in the company. It is not themanagers who decide. Effective power of deci-sion is lodged deeply in the technical, planningand other specialized staff."3 Today, engineerspermeate the technostructure of any technologic-ally-based industry in Canada and exercisea profound influence on corporate decision-making. Thus, professional responsibility in thecontext of Chapter 7 applies equally to theemployee engineer and to those who are eithermanagers or self-employed.'John Kenneth Galbraith, The New Industrial State (New York:Houghton Mifflin C., 1967), p. 69.

39

The role of the engineer in industry is chang-ing as he becomes far more productive than hispredecessor. It is the computer that has madepossible this expansion of his productive capac-ity, while supporting personnel have relievedhim of many routine jobs, thus enabling him towork at a higher technical level. In interviewswith engineering employers, it became evidentthat not all industries are learning how to usediploma technologists to the best advantage. Inthe sixteen firms surveyed, there were 43 tech-nologists for every 100 engineers; whereas in theUnited States in 1968 the corresponding figurewas 55.4 In Canada these figures do vary fromindustry to industry; the engineer-technologistteam is beginning to emerge as an efficient andproductive unit. As more technologists becomeavailable and their values are recognized by anincreasing number of industries, the produc-tivity of the engineer and his advancement inthe firm will be accelerated.

Companies with a heavy involvement in indus-trial research make little or no distinctionbetween engineers and scientists. In such occu-pations the man's technical ability is of greaterimportance than his educational background.Most of these employers tend to pay little atten-tion to professional registration. The proportionof engineers in Canada working in research isless than 6% (see Table 9-5) .

Industry expects its engineers to be versatile.The educational experience up to the bacca-laureate level has made some provision for thisexpectation, but graduate studies tend to createspecialists whose versatility becomes oversha-dowed by strong personal interests and prefer-ences. The increased professional competenceacquired at the master's level usually outweighsany tendency toward specialization, but the situ-ation can be quite different at the doctoratelevel. When a Ph.D. engineer enters a large firmhe continues to work in a familiar environment,since research laboratories in such firms bear astriking similarity to those in universities. Thenew Ph.D. in a small firm usually experiences asevere shock when its more limited resourcesmake it necessary for him to perform a muchbroader range of tasks. Often he must alter hispriority of values in order to survive in this newmilieu. For this reason, few doctorate engineersare to be found in small Canadian companies.

This qualitative description of some aspects ofthe engineer's industrial environment sets thestage for an examination of how industry viewsthe engineering educational process.4Engineering Manpower Commission of Engineers' Joint Council,Demand for Engineers and Technicians 1968.

40

5D

INDUSTRIAL ATTITUDES TOWARDENGINEERING GRADUATES

In a practical sense, universities perform twonecessary functions for industry sorting andtraining. The sorting process determines who isto enter engineering school and who continue orto graduation, undertake graduate studies andreceive advanced degrees. It involves both objec-tive and subjective judgments on the part offaculty members. Most undergraduate educationand virtual!) all graduate work is occupationaltraining. The attitude of employers to universitygraduates has been aptly summarized by Kershawand Mood as follows:5

A prime attraction of the bachelor's degree toemployers is the evidence it affords that theholder normally disciplines himself to carryout tasks somewhat conscientiously and ontime no matter how irrelevant they may seemto be. 'That's why U.S. Steel does no mindhiring someone who majored in Finnish folk-lore.

Industry relies on the university to performthese functions, and accepts the possession of anengineering degree as evidence that such sortingand training has been accomplished. But engi-neering is a multi-portal profession, and an indi-vidual may enter it without possessing anydegree. This egalitarian attitude is not univer-sally accepted and many industrialists insist upona degree as the proper ticket into management.Thus the non-degree engineer may find there isan upper limit to his advancement in the firm. Asnew avenues of post-secondary education devel-op, these barriers should disappear and com-panies will be forced to conduct the sortingfunction more thoroughly themselves.

Our survey of the sixteen Canadian companiesdisclosed with the exception of research-oriented companies an indifferent attitudetowards a master's degree in engineering. Alsothere appeared to be a lessening of interest inengineers with a master's degree in businessadministration. In the words of one executive,"The M.B.A. expects to start too high, and is intoo big a hurry to become vice-president."However, companies engaged in consulting andconstruction expressed a continuing high regardfor the engineer-M.B.A., and most companiesbelieve it to be of particular value if precededby some years of industrial experience. Canada'seconomic environment has not been conduciveto growth in industrial research, and this isreflected in the low hiring rates of Ph.D.'s'Joseph A. Kershaw and Alex M. Mood. "Resource Allocation inHigher Education", American Economic Review, May 1970, p. 341.(Sorting and training were two of Mx major outputs of higher educationsuggested by the Public Policy Research Organization, University ofCalifornia, Irvine.)

employed mainly to replace losses due to attri-tion. Canadian industry is not inclined to usePh.D.'s in occupations outside the area of re-search and development.

Industry appears to be reasonably satisfied withthe present generation of engineering graduates.The advent of major computer installations inthe 1960s placed new stresses on engineeringcurricula. A need arose for increased emphasison statistics, probability, numerical methods andcomputer programming. Today, the omnipresentcomputer contributes to an emphasis on analy-tical approaches to engineering problems at theexpense of synthesis and experimental proce-dures. While the analytical approach is attractivebecause of savings in terms of time and money,many problems remain which lend themselves toexperimentation.

At a conference in June of 1970,6 engineeringmanagers expressed the view that creative talentwas being smothered by this overemphasis onanalytical techniques. They feel that the major-ity of new engineers have too little backgroundpreparation in report writing, oral presentationof completed projects and selling new ideas tothe organization, and inadequate understandingof other functions such as law, finance, account-ing and personnel. One executive was of theopinion that engineering faculties tend to equatethe attractiveness of career opportunities withthe amount of research and development beingconducted by a company. He believes that secon-dary industry needs engineers for operations aswell as for research and development, and said:"Many graduates of engineering courses shyaway from the marketplace and the factory.They appear to look inward as though hoping tofind a solitary role conducting original researchor preparing original designs, without interestfor human service, marketability, cost or meansof distribution. Others veer off into other pur-suits such as teaching and government service."

There is still a gao in understanding betweenengineering educators and the practitioners ofengineering. Most university teachers, with theirorientation toward research and development,are well adjusted to the present curricula. Bettercompatibility between educator and industrydemands better communication; a step in thisdirection was recommended in Chapter 6 (Re-commendation 6:1) .

Today's graduates are more sophisticated,more articulate and possibly more intellectuallymature than were their predecessors.7 As corn-, symposium on "The Future of Engineering Education Ontario",sponsored by the Ontario Engineering Advisory Council in Toronto,June 25 and 26. 1970.

8 Indust ry

puters and supporting personnel are used moreefficiently, increasing numbers of new graduateswill be called upon to assume supervisory roles.This will create new problems for the graduateuntil he gains more practical experience, and inthe process learns how to direct the efforts ofpeople and so achieve a higher output from bothtechnologists and technician. It would appearthat employers in industry will expect to finethese qualities in future engineering graduates,and this will present new and formidable dial-lenges to the engineering educator.

OUTLOOK FOR FUTURE CAREERPATTERNS IN INDUSTRY

For the past decade, engineers and scientistsin industry, government and the universitieshave been advocating and urging the growth ofCanadian secondary industry. The federal gov-ernment has woven a complex fabric of incentiveprograms directed toward such an expansion.These were devised principally for research anddevelopment, but now are being aimed at theentire innovative process, including marketingand tooling for production. It has been recog-nized that innovation is the key to export mar-kets, and thus there is a strong justification fcthis approach in order to develop and expandthe Canadian economy. Over a decade ago, whenthe new Ontario engineering schools were juststarting up, engineering educators viewed one oftheir roles as giving support to this cause. Theyinterpreted research and c1P%.elopment as equi-valent to innovation, and so believed secondaryindustry needed engineers with this kind oftraining. Although research and developmentare critical elements of innovation, all of the pi,-cesses necessary to bring a new concept to marketare involved invention, design and produc-tion engineering, tooling, marketing and distri-bution. On the average, research and develop-ment amounts to about 5-10% of the total cost ofinnovation.7a

The hopes and aspirations of engineering edu-cators for an expansion of industrial researchand development failed to materialize. Althoughdata are not readily available, in all probabilitythe percentage of engineers entering industrialresearch and development is no greater than itwas a decade ago. While volume of productionby secondary industry may be increasing, profitmargins are very low, particularly in the elec-tronics and aerospace sectors where engineeringis a major component, and in the chemical'Today's Engineering Graduates and Industry Match or Mismatch?Engineering Manpower Bulletin Number 16, June 1970.7a Robert A. Charpie, Technological Innovation: Its Environment and

Management, U.S. Department of Commerce, January 1967.

41

industry, where "scale-up" factor is so important.The present business slowdown and changingpatterns of governmental expenditure make theimmediate future less certain than ever.

Canada appears to be going through a

transition from an industrial to a post-industrialsociety a society based on the culture of scienceand technology. The Harvard ociologist DanielBell has suggested that such a society has thesefive characteristics:

(I)

(2)

(3)(4)

(5)

the creation of a service economy with themajority of the labour force producing serv-ices rather than goods,pre-eminence of the professional and tech-nical class,centrality of theoretical knowledge,commitment to growth and innovation,the creation of new technologies associatedwith retrieval, processing and storage ofinformation, and systems engineeringwhat Peter Drucker calls the "knowledgeindustries".

In Canada, John Porter has written about theimpact of post-industrialism. He suggests that"because knowledge is central to the post-industrial society, the dominant figures who areemerging are the scientists, the engineers, themathematicians, the economists, all at home withthe new computer technology. These stand incontrast to the dominant men of the industrialperiod, the entrepreneur, the businessman andthe industrial executive."9

Much has been written and more has beensaid about foreign ownership of Canadian indus-try the "branch plant" economy. Althoughthere are some outstanding exceptions, most ofthese subsidiaries do little in the nature ofresearch, development or design, but ratherdevote their efforts to manufacturing, sales andmarketing operations. A further rationalizationin the multi-national corporations could reducethe amount of manufacturing being carried onby them in Canada because of more favourablelabour markets abroad. Over 60% of Canada'slabour force is in some form of service activity,9and this will be the sector of greatest growth.Thus, Canada could be moving very rapial7 intoa post-industrial era where the knowledge indus-tries will be dominant.

We have been told that Canada needs a thriv-ing and growing secondary industry, exporting

'John Porter, "Post-Industrialkm. Post-Nationalism and Post-SecondaryEducation". National Seminar on the Costs of Post-Secondary Educa-tion, The National Institute of Public Administration of Canada,Queen's University, May 1970.'Economic Council of Canada, SerenthAnnual Review, p. IS.

42

products abroad and employing an expandinglabour force at home. However, we rind that thistype of industry has not grown as rapidly asexpected and that the expanding labour force isbeing employed more and more in the servicesector. It is as if the "industrial age" has passedus by. What then are the future career patternsfor our engineers, and how should engineeringschools he structured?

Some educators have said ive must educateyoung people for the nation's needs of at leastten years ahead. They think Canada will requireengineers in research and development, but nowwe are faced with a potential surplus of Ph.D.'sunless there is a slowing down of their flow intothe economy.") The industrialists believe theyknow ihat they want in an engineer, and thenumbers required; secondary industries, for themost part, however, are unable to plan more thana year or two in advance because of rapid fluc-tuations in markets and business cycles. Theirpredictions of future requirements have alwaysbeen too low.

A central role for government is becomingclear. One of the characteristics of the post-industrial era is a continuing commitment togrowth and innovation. This gives rise to a needfor planning and forecasting, and adapting totechnological change. Such planning is in itsinfancy, with the techniques of forecasting stillrelatively unsophisticated. The federal govern-mer t is committed to the establishment ofsat onal goals, and these will determine futurescience, economic and social policies. Manpowerrequirements to meet these goals can providea basis for educational policy. Such an approachmay be theoretically sound but, no matter howwell we define our plan, in practice there alwaysmust be a fair measure of "scat of the pants"decision-making. Nevertheless, a clear statementof national goals could be a valuable guide toeducators.

In the present situation, it would appear bestfor engineering schools to follow a middlecourse. Until national goals are formulated andarticulated, or until future trends become lessobscure, young people should be educated sothat they achieve a mvure of versatility, andthus can move with equal ease into either thesecondary or service sectors of industry. It is forthis reason that we do not recommend any majoralterations in the thrust of undergraduatestudies. If there are sudden chinges in govern-%Dr. Frank Kelly, Science Adviser for the Science Council of Canada.is reported to have said that while Canadian universities will be grantingabout 1,200 'h.D.'s this year only 500 to WO will Mod employment"and that is being very optimistic'. Toronto Globe end Mad, NovemberIS, 1970.

mer t policy that generate requirements for newskills, they can be looked after by the graduateschools. New programs of the course-intensivemaster's variety can be developed quickly inresponse to change.

The outlook for future career patterns inindustry is bright. In spite of uncertainties overthe future direction of secondary industry, theengineer must play a central role in our post-

8 hidustty

industrial society. There are those who view itscoming with apprehension because of imaginedde-humanizing qualities. However, if its capac-ities are properly used, then its potential isenormous in the battle to improve the qualityof life. The engineer must be prepared for hispivotal role and responsibility in a new age, andIt is for this reason that we place great stress onthe applied humanities.

5543

9

MANPOWER

We have traced the career pattern of a typicalyoung engineering student from secondaryschool, through undergraduate and into graduatestudies, and have made predictions about whathe might find in each of these phases of hiseducational experience. We have examined thecharacteristics of members of faculty and therelationship between our engineering schoolsand the profession. Also, we have attempted todescribe the industrial scene that will confrontour young engineer when he leaves university.Before we proceed to a final survey of the over-all system of engineering schools in Ontario,there is a need to understand the way engineersdiffuse into the labour force in order to estimatethe requirements for engineers from theseschools. Once this information is available, thenpolicies can be established for total enrolmentsat all degree levels, insofar as these matters arerelated to the utilization of engineers.

The first step is to look at the existing stocks of

44

51

engineers in Canada their field of employmentand where they work, how their occupationsshift with the passage of time after graduation,and future employment patterns within the pro-fessioa. Next, one must attempt to estimate thenumber of engineers required from the Ontarioschools. at each degree level, in order to meetthe a nticipated demands of the economy andpotential needs of the province and the nation.An enrolment projection of the supply of under-graduate engineering students for the decade1970-80 can provide a basis for recommendingpolicies covering the total engineering educa-tional system in Ontario. Finally, a source reviewof engineering manpower statistics leads to arecommendation for a central dates facility tomeet a variety of regional and national needs.

CHARACTERISTICS OF ENGINEERINGMANPOWER

Surprisingly little is known about our engi-

'leering manpower resources even though theyare of growing importance to Canada. There isa dearth of data concerning the number of engi-neers, where they came from, and to what levelor in what specialties they are educated. We can-not state with any certainty the fields in whichthey are employed, what functions they perform,how much they earn, or how they are distri-buted geographically across Canada or through-out industry. This kind of information is essen-tial if there is to be effective educational plan-ning. Such manpower statistics will make itpossible for both industry and government toplan and to use the nation's human resourcesmore efficiently.

A significant start has been made in develop-ing detailed statistics. In 1967, the Departmentof Manpower and Immigration undertook a sur-vey of scientists and engineers,' the first compre-hensive effort to investigate this sector of thelabour force (hereafter referred to as the 1967Survey) . It provided data in considerable detailon career profiles, including places of birth,educational attainments in various fields ofstudy, types of employment and scientific expe-rience. These profiles were cross-classified byfields of specialization, industries and regions ofemployment, salaries earned, and work func-tions. The survey population was estimated tobe 77,000, of ivhich 38,000 possessed engineeringqualifications. Since the Cam .Han Council ofProfessional Engineers gives a irmre for 1967 of

G. Atkinson. K. J. Barnes and Ellen Richardson, Canada's HighlyQualified Manpower Res+;arces, Research Branch, Programme Develop-ment Service, Department of Manpower and Immigration, 1970.

9 - Manpower

approximately (10,000 as the number of personsresiding in Canada who could be so categorized,the 1967 Survey represented about 63% of thetota I.

Employment and Field of StudyFrom the pool of scientists and engineers sur-

veyed in 1967, it was possible to compare thefield of employment with the field of study.These comparisons are shown in Tables 9-1 and9-2. Approximately 80% of the engineeringgraduates claimed engineering to be their prin-cipal field of employment, whereas 91% of thegroup employed in this field were graduate engi-neers. A greater percentage of engineering grad-uates have remained with their profession thanhave graduates in the sciences, with the exceptionof architecture. Again with the exception of archi-tecture, engineering employs more of its gradu-ates than do the sciences.

These tables represent the total stock of engi-neers in 1967; they do not reveal recent flowsinto this pooh These flows could have alteredsubstantially in recent years. Nevertheless, ateach degree level, it is evident that traditionallythis work has prepared young people for a careerin engineering, since only one graduate in five(20%) has shifted at a later date into some

other activity.

SectoPof EmploymentWhen estimating future patterns of growth

and manpower requirements, it is important toknow where engineers are employed, and thisis shown in Table 9-3.

Table 9-1

DISTRIBUTION OF EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND IN EACH FIELD OF EMPLOYMENT

FIELD OFEMPLOYMENT

Archi-tecture

Engineer-ing

PhysicalSciences

FIELD OF STUDY

Life SocialSciences Sciences

Other Total No. inSample

Architecture 94.4 1.4 0.1 1.2 0.1 0.8 100 2,198Engineering 0.2 90.8 4.6 0.6 0.7 1.0 100 33,386Physical Sciences 0.0 17.3 68.9 6.6 0.5 2.6 100 9,26,Life Sciences 0.1 10.0 2.9 82.2 0.4 1.0 100 7,780Social Sciences 0.2 24.7 8.5 11.7 44.9 5.3 100 6,159

Other 1.7 23.7 28.7 18.8 4.7 17.0 100 6,051

*Total includes those who did not state their field of study.

Source: 1967 Survey of Scientists and Engineers, Department of Manpower and Immigration.

45

5 3-

Vr

Table 9.2

DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYMENT FOR EACH FIELD OF STUDY

FIELDOF STUDY

Archi-tecture

Engineer-ing

PhysicalSciences

FIELD OF EMPLOYMENT

Life Social OtherSciences Sciences

Total No. inSample

Architecture 87.2 2.1 0.1 0.6 4.4 100 2,382

Engineering

Total 0.1 80.4 4.2 2.1 4.1 3.8 100 17,842

Bachelor'st 0.1 79.7 3.9 2.4 4.4 3.8 100 32,417

Master'st 0.3 82.3 5.9 0.6 1.9 5.2 100 3,082

Ph.D.t 0.0 78.0 11.2 1.7 1.5 4.6 100 565

Physical Sciences 0.0 14.1 58.0 2.0 4.7 15.8 100 11,008

Life Sciences 0.3 1.6 6.3 65.7 7.5 11.7 100 9,747

Social Sciences 0.1 6.4 1.4 0.8 16.9 7.9 100 3,589

Other 0.8 15.1 10.4 5.7 14.1 44.8 100 2,289

Total includes those who did not state their field of employment.Megree breakdown done especially for CPUO.Source: 1967 Survey of Scientists and Engineers, Department of Manpower and Immigration.

Selected sectors for industry also are includedin Table 9-3. The primary sector includes agri-culture, forestry, fisheries, oil wells and mines-the resource industries. Under secondary wouldfall manufacturing and construction, whichemploy the largest number of engineers. Ter-tiary industry includes transportation, commu-nications, utilities, trade and other service indus-tries - the fastest-growing sector of our economy.

Table 9-3DISTRIBUTION OF ENGINEERING EMPLOYMENT

BY SECTOR

Sector

I. IndustryPercent

(a) Primary 7.0(b) Secondary 44.0(c) Tertiary 28.7

79.72. Education

(a) University 2.4(b) Other 1.0

3.43. Government

(a) Federal 5.2(b) Other 10.4

15.64. Not specified 1.3

TOTAL 100.0Source: 1967 Survey of Scientists and Engineers, Departmentpower and Immigration.

46

of Man-

If education and government are combinedwith the tertiary industry sector to cover all serv-ice activity, the ratio of engineering employmentin the resource, secondary and service sectors isapproximately 1:4:5, compared with a 1967 totallabour force mixture of 1:3:6.2 This sectoraldisparity between engineering and total labourforce employment would suggest that a short-termadjustment could be taking place. The disparitywould become less if recent graduates pursuecareers more in the service sector than in thesecondary sector. Such a trend could be accentu-ated by the depressed economic climate that isadversely affecting the expansion of secondaryindustry at the present time. The rapid growthof the service sector will alter future employ-ment patterns of engineers.

OccupationAs a result of the 1967 Survey, it is possible

to examine quantitatively, as a function of time,the occupational shifts of engineers fromgraduation until their retirement. This cross-sectional analysis measured the 1967 populationin each occupational category as a function ofyears since graduation. The results are shown inFigures 9-1 and 9-2. Figure 9-1 refers to engi-neers with a bachelor's degree, while Figur,. 9-2includes all engineers: those with bachelor's,'Economic Council, Seventh Annual Review, Appendix Table A-2, p. 94.

Floury 9-1 CROSS-SECTIONAL SURVEY OF ENGINEERINGOCCUPATIONS FOR ENGINEERS WITH BACHELOR'S DEGREE

SASE YEAR 1N7

NM) I

TOTAL

) 1712)

ENGINEERSNUMBER OF ENGINEERS

Mil)

IN SURVEY

(214)

I

(223) (127)

MANAGEMENT

"a

'---#143...04

'46:Up.%--..,,

\X tt......1, I RESEARCH, DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT 4.,,,,

...": ..:

OPERATIONSS.

..-AI%

--..'''..0 t

oeN.0.B / t

%,

1

Ietos,,,I ,..,.- %a.* 1

........

TEACHING CONSULTING

./ .s.,

*

......`'.""" ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, . , . 0 0 . 0 I 2 . I . , I . g0** .* . ..........

,,, " ,,,,,

0 S 10 15 20 25YEARS FROM BACHELOR GRADUATION

Source: 1967 Survey of Scientists and Engineers, Department of Manpowerand Immigration.

30 35

47

L

70

48

10

Figure 9-2 CROSS-SECTIONAL SURVEY OF ENGINEERINGOCCUPATIONS FOR ENGINEERS WITH PROFESSIONAL

CERTIFICATION, BACHELOR'S, MASTER'S ANDDOCTORAL DEGREES

BASE YEAR -1N?

(590) (739)

TOTAL NUMBER OF ENGINEERS IN SURVEY

(924) (546) (395)

YOUNG'S "PREDOMINANTLY TECHNICAL" CURVE

(2 7) (159)

**qkie..ns

4% %41VF.0

51

14.

YOUNG'S "PREDOMINANTLY ADMINISTRATIVE" CURVE

4,,,,, RESEARCH, DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT

*.%%%#0 *44.../ %os

%/OPERATIONS

TEACHING

CONSULTING

......

***8

0 5

..............,,,,, ..........

10 15 20 25

YEARS FROM BACHELOR GRADUATION OR CERTIFICATION

56/

30

........... ........... ,4 .......................

35 0

Source: 1967 Survey of Scientists and Engineers, Department of Manpowerand immigration.

master's, and Ph.D. degrees, and those registeredwithout a recognized degree. The population ofthe last three was insufficient to draw separatecurves. Twenty-one work functions were usedto define occupations (grouped into five cate-gories for the purpose of this study) ; these aresummarized in Table 9-4.

Table 9-4

SUMMARY OF WORK FUNCTIONS USED IN

CROSS-SECTIONAL ANALYSIS

Occupation

Management

Research

Design andDevelopment

Operations

Teaching

Consulting

1967 Survey Work Function

Administration, Management,Supervision.

Management of Research andDevelopment, Research.

Development, Production orTechnical.

Col .,truction, Installation,Erection, Field Exploration,Production, Operations, Mainte-nance, Testing, Inspection,Quality Control, ComputerService, Statistical Processing,Statistical Analysis and Forecast-ing, Personnel Training andDevelopment, Extension Work inAgriculture, Publicity, Sales,Service, Marketing, Purchasing,keports, Technical Writing,Editing.

Teaching, Extension work.

Clinical practice, Consel ling,Practical case work, Industrial orManagement consulting.

Figure 9-1 shows that over 80% of engineersholding a bachelor's degree were in technicalwork (research, design and development, oroperations) in the year after graduation. Thispercentage falls off rapidly in the first fifteenyears, then less rapidly until it reaches 32% attwenty-two years after graduation. Research,design and development maintained nearly iden-tical percentages with operations throughout thisperiod. The percentage of engineers employedin management increases rapidly to a maximumof 65% at thirty years after graduation, and thena decline sets in. Reasons for this drop could be

9 Manpower

shifts into consulting and teaching, retirementsand withdrawals from the profession. The per-centage of engineers engaged in consulting andteaching remains relatively constant at approxi-mately 11 /2% each, until forty years followinggraduation.

Figure 9-2 includes the results of a survey ofthe 2,583 University of Toronto engineeringalumni, conducted in 1944 by the late DeanC. R. Young.3 Only technological and admi-nistrative categories are shown. The occupationalmobility trends have not changed substantiallyover the twenty-three-year period, but now engi-neers move more rapidly into management.

The rapid flow of engineers into managerialoccupations reveals the high value employersplace on engineering education rs a preparationfor such work. Since the majority of engineersmove into leadership roles, this underlines theneed for communication and business skills. Engl.neers who remain in predominantly technicalwork are in either research, design and develop-ment, or :11 the operations field, in approximatelyequal numbers. The study group agrees with thepoint of view that maintains that such engineersrequire similar curricula. The basic knowledgeand techniques used by the engineer in research,design and development are required by theoperations engineer. Although work functionsdiffer, the informational and organizational envi-ronments are similar.

Table 9-5 was developed from the 1967 Sur-vey, using the occupations defined in Table 94.For each level of educational attainment, thistable shows the occupational categories of highlyqualified manpower who gave their field ofprincipal employment as some branch of engi-neering. (About 91% of such people wereengineers.) The percentage of those in researchand teaching increases significantly with a rise inthe level of education, while the percentage ofthose in management decreases. In design anddevelopment and in consulting, there are higherpercentages of those with master's degrees thanof those with other levels of education. For thosewith bachelor's degrees, the percentage in opera-tions dominates other levels of education.

sC. R. Young, "Types of Employment among Engineering Graduates ofToronto", publication emanating from the Office of the Dean, Facultyof Applied Science and Engineering, University of Toronto, 1944.

49

Table 9-5

HIGHLY QUALIFIED MANPOWER WITH ENGINEERING ASPRINCIPAL FIELD OF EMPLOYMENT - 1967

OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY BY LEVEL OF EDUCATION

OccupationalCategory

Registeredwithout

RecognizedDegree

Bachelor'sDegree

Master'sDegree

DoctoralDegree

Management 55.8 44.8 34.9 20.0

Research 3.4 4.3 12.0 35.7

Design andDevelopment 15.0 17.3 22.6 7.8

Operations 17.9 23.0 13.1 2.1

Teaching 0.4 0.9 8.1 26.3

Consulting 1.6 2.5 4.4 2.5

Other, or NotSpecified 5.9 7.2 4.9 5.6

Number inSample 1,665 27,830 3,194 643(Approx. 91%EngineeringGraduates)

Source: 1967 Survey of Scientists and Engineers, Department of Manpower and Immigration.

Table 9-5 sets out the primary associations ofeach level of educational attainment, from whichan order of occupational priority has been tabu-lated (Table 9-6) . This table has curricularimplications and makes a good case for thecourse-work master's program, since it is at thislevel where management, design and develop-ment have a higher priority than research. Prior-ities for the other educational levels do not con-tain any surprises.

It is necessary to keep two points in mindwhen considering these data. First, the figures inTable 9-5 represent what existed in 1967, andnot necessarily what is needed to shape our econ-omy and society in the future. It may be that thepriorities listed in Table 9-6 should be alteredso as to mould the structure of the professioninto. a form different from what it is at thepresent time. However, befcn z new priorities canbe established with any confidence, reliable dataof the type presented in Figures 9-1 and 9-2, andof the form developed in the 1967 Survey, areneeded on a regular basis. Second, the existingdata have been gathered at only one point intime. The composition of the manpower poolat any particular time should not be used as anindicator for flows into the pool. Reliable infor-mation on flows and their trends can be obtainedonly through regular sampling and detailedhistories.

50

Table 9-6OCCUPATIONAL PRIORITY WITH LEVEL

OF EDUCATION

Level of Education Priority

Registered without 1

recognized degree 2

Bachelor's degree

Master's degree

Doctoral degree

3

Occupation

ManagementOperationsDesign andDevelopment

1 Management2 Operations3 Design and

Development

1 Management2 Design and

Development3 Operations and

Research

1 Research2 Teaching3 Management

Occupational mobility studies of the type justdescribed are cross-sectional in nature: that is,they take a "snapshot" of the occupations ofeach person at one point in time, and createaverage career profiles, as set out in Figure 9-1.A more meaningful picture can be developedfrom a longitudinal, or cohort, study, in which

a historical profile is traced for every individual,showing career transitions from graduation.Individuals are grouped, by year of graduation,into cohorts so that flow compositions into themanpower pool can be built on a historical base.In this way specific trends can be identified andfuture projections made with greater confidence.This is a tedious and costly process, but theresults would he most useful in curriculumplanning for degree programs, and would assistin determining the demand for continuing edu-cation. A study of this kind is being undertakenby the University of Toronto, whose 15,000engineering alumni represent the largest suchgroup in Canada.

In the above paragraphs and tables, we havedescribed only those chzracteristics of engineer-ing manpower that are needed in order to esti-mate gross requirements employment by fieldsand sector, and occupational mobility. The 1967Survey also provided data on student flows, theindividual branches of engineering and otherdetails including origin, sex distribution, geo-graphical mobility and earnings. Unfortunate-ly, in some of the statistics, scientists werecombined with engineers a difficulty experi-enced with much of the Canadian data assembledin the past.

REQUIREMENTS FOR ENGINEERSIt is necessary to distinguish between two sepa-

rate concepts when assessing manpower require-ments. One is need: the necessary mixture andflow of manpower required to meet objectivesand goals; the other is demand: the aggregateof individual employment opportunities avail-able within the economy. Ideally, need shouldequal demand, but needs cannot be readilyidentified because of their subjective nature andthe complexities and structure of Canadian soci-ety. In countries with "planned" economies,attempts have been made to define needs on anational scale.4 In both Canada and the UnitedStates some educators have even used need as thebasis for justifying increased numbers of Ph.D.students. Whether correct or not, currentemployment opportunities for certain types ofPh.D.'s reveal a wide disparity between need anddemand. At the micro-economic level, there is agrowing awareness of the desirability of definingmanpower needs, and many companies arebeginning to specify their demands for man-power of all types in terms of need. In short,manpower planning is gaining equal status withcapital and material resource planning.Several communist countries have defined their manpower needs andplanned accordingly with abysmal results; whereas Sweden, for example,has achieved moderate success in its national manpower planning.

9 Manpower

It can be helpful to adopt the economist'sapproach to the problem: supply and demandmust be equal, and the way in which they areequalized is by effecting adjustments to bothsides of the equation. Supply is increased byattracting people from other fields by highersalaries and benefits, by retraining and upgrad-ing employees, by working overtime, or delayingretirement. Demand is reduced by such meansas re-defining jobs to require less skill, by shift-ing priorities of projects, and by automation.In effect, employers "make do" with existingpersonnel.

We have adopted the demand approach inprojecting the future requirements for engi-neers. A separate study was undertaken to esti-mate the number of baccalaureate engineersrequired from the Ontario schools to meetdemands over the period 1970-80. This study,embodied in a separate reports as a source docu-ment, is divided into two parts. The SubstitutionStudy deals with the impact of the rapid expan-sion of diploma technologists and the possibilityof employers substituting them for engineers.The Demand Study projects the demand forengineers over the present decade.

The Substitution StudyThis study analyzed the results of interviews

with sixteen organizations employing engineers.They included fourteen privately owned firmsand two semi-autonomous government-relatedcompanies. They varied in size from three withunder 750 employees to six with over 20,000.Head Offices were in three provinces, but all six-teen carry on operations in every province. Indus-tries represented were pulp and paper, chemical,petroleum, steel, aerospace, electronics, electricalequipment, mining, motor vehicles, construc-tion, transportation, utilities and consultingengineering. These sixteen organizations haveover 250,000 employees including 7,500 engi-neers, 1,500 physical scientists, and 3,500 tech-nologists and technicians. Only three firms hadfewer than 200 engineers. It is estimated that one-tenth of all engineers in Canada were coveredin this study.

It was discovered that technologists are notregarded as career substitutes for engineers, andthat there are distinct barriers to the upwardmobility of technologists. Substitution does takeplace in work functions, where there is a func-tional reorganization of the engineer's activity.

L. Skolnik and W. F. McMullen, An Analysis of Protections of theDemand for Engineers in Canada and Ontario and an Inquiry intoSubstitution between Engineers and Technologists, CPUO Report No.70-2. (We are indebted to the Ontario Department of Education and theCanadian Department of Manpower and Immigration, who jointlysupported this study.)

51

When it becomes routine, often geared to acomputer, this work is usually passed on to atechnologist. The principal reasons for substi-tution appear to be changes in technology, ratherthan inefficiencies in manpower deployment orchanges in relative wages and availability oftechnologists and engineers. Again, while engi-neers are required when a technology is firstintroduced, once it matures the engineers tendto he released in order to exploit new fields,while technologists move in to replace them.

The relative supplies of engineers and tech-nologists appeared to have little influence onmanpower demands, but the absolute suppliesof both engineers and technologists were ofimportance. When the number of engineersdecreased substantially (e.g. mining, metallurgyand geology) , technologists were substituted tomeet the demand. The number of availabletechnologists influences the speed of adjustmentto changes in technology. A more rapid responsewas possible when trained technologists werereadily available as an alternative to in-planttraining.

The conclusion of the study is that the increas-ing numbers of diploma technologists now grad-uating from the Colleges of Applied Arts andTechnology will not have a significant effect onthe demand for engineers. Indeed, the availabil-ity of technologists should permit engineers touse their skills more efficiently.

The Demand StudyThis study focused on three major indepen-

dent attempts to forecast the future demand forengineers.6 All of these studies relied upon cen-sus data, the most recent being for the year 1961.They were compared by applying the basicmethod of each to the twenty-year period 1961-81, in order to arrive at a projected growth forthe stock of engineers. Then, the growth ratesso derived were compared with the growth rateof the gross national product (GNP) .

Between the last two census years, 1951 and1961, the stock of engineers in Canada grew ata rate of 3.5% a year compared to a yearlyincrease in GNP of 3.6%, or even higher if oneadjusts for the cyclical differences between thetwo census years. For the period 1961-81, GNPis expected to grow at an average rate of no morethan 4% a year. Two of the projections were414. Ahamad, A Projection 01 Manpower Requirements by Occupationin 1975. Canada and its Regions (Ottawa: Department of Manpowerand Immigration, 1970); N. Meltz and G. P. Pen& Canada's ManpowerRequirements In 1970 (Ottawa: Department of Manpower and Immi-gration. 1968); C. Watson and 1. Butorac, Qualified Manpower inOntario 1961-86, Vol. 1: Determination and Projection of Basic Stocks.(Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1968).

52

below this percentage, while the other was sub-stantially higher. Each projection used differentattrition rates in attempting to develop therequired in-flow of engineers.

In a fourth projection, it was assumed that thestock of engineers would expand at the same rateas the GNP (4.0% a year) , while attrition con-tinues at the highest rate used in the threestudies (Ahamad's) . This produced a requiredaverage annual in-flow of 3,400 engineers forthe Canadian economy over the period 1961-81.Adjusting for net immigration and the numberof degrees awarded in Canada from 1961 to 1968,the final projection for the thirteen-year period1968-81 was 3,300 engineers a year.

Historically, about 35% of Canadian engi-neering degrees have been awarded in Ontario,whereas nearly 50% of them are employed inthat province. To remain on the safe side, it hasbeen assumed that 35-50% of the national in-flow will come from Ontario. The percentagemust take into account net immigration, andthose graduates who do not enter engineeringemployment after graduation. There is a ten-dency to overestimate net immigration figuresbecause the data cover immigrants who record"engineering" as their hoped-for occupation,and emigration figures normally are quoted onlyfor the United States. (Although about 20%of baccalaureate engineers currently proceed tograduate studies in Ontario, ultimately they doenter the labour force mainly in engineering.)Insufficient data are available on the number ofengineering graduates who take up engineeringoccupations after graduation, but it is knownthat increasing numbers return to study medi-cine, law and business administration. There isno reason to believe that such factors offset oneanother. Skolnik concluded that the demandfor Ontario engineering graduates will be about1,500 graduates a year during the period 1968-81, and suggests an tipper limit of 2,500 a year,derived from the Ahamad study.

This forecast extrapolated from past trends.Thus, it did not take into account major struc-tural changes in society that create discontinuitybetween present and future. For example, theSubstitution Study concluded that the mix oftechnologists and engineers depended mainly ontechnological change rather than on relativesupplies of people and the wages paid to them.For this reason, it was felt that the demand fore-cast for engineers should not be affected by therapid increase in the number of diploma tech-nologists entering the labour force. However, inthe present era of technological change, it ishazardous to show a smooth projection of past

trends in variables greatly' influenced by tech-nology. 'rile Canadian economy has been reason-ably flexible and to date has managed to adjustto wide variations in the number of graduates inally particular field.

In the above forecasts, no attempt was made todivide engineering into its different branches.Over a long span of time, shifts in demand frombranch to branch can be extreme. For example,up to 1961, civil engineering had the largestpopulation, and engineering projections based onthe census data continued to show the domi-nance of civil engineers. But the 1960s werehighlighted by an explosive expansion of elec-tronics, and the 1967 Survey reveals electricalengineering as occupying 19% of the total, com-pared to only 16% for civil engineering. A moredetailed study of recent flows into employmentby branch is required in order to producemeaningful predictions, and even then techno-logical change and public preferences may con-tinue to upset predictions.

Appendix G summarizes the recent experi-ence of the universities in placing engineeringgraduates. The demand for bachelor graduatescontinues to be brisk even though very recenttrends reflect the present slump in the economy.We expect this condition will be of short dura-tion, and have assumed a recovery in growthearly in the 1970s.

A reasonable substitute for recent flows intoemployment is the output oi hachelor's degrees,divided into the different disciplines (shown inAppendix B) . These flows do not account forcurrent fluctuations in demand (such as thepresent shortage of mining, metallurgical andgeological engineers) , but they do give an indi-cation of broad trends over a five- to ten-yearperiod. It will be difficult to predict demand bybranch with any degree of certainty until aregular survey is conducted on an annual basis.Shortages in some branches can be filled bygraduates from another branch. This type ofhorizontal substitution occurs when a graduatein civil engineering is employed as a miningengineer, but a vertical substitution also takesplace where vacancies in mining engineering arefilled by mining technologists. In these ways,the economy adjusts itself to equalize supply anddemand.

Bachelor's and Master's Graduates

The demand for individuals holding advanceddegrees has not been estimated quantitatively forthis study. Surveys conducted in the UnitedStates7 reveal that, except for those companies

9 Man power

engaged in research and development. employersdo not encourage their engineers to pursueadvanced degrees. The impetus behind the burgeoning growth of graduate schools has beenthe aspirations of faculty to develop depart-ments, and of students for higher levels oflearning and professional competence.

Table 9-6 shows that in Canada there aresimilar employment patterns for bachelor's andmaster's degree engineers, but marked differ-ences between them and the holders of doctoraldegrees. Therefore, we have grouped together thedemand for master's and bachelor's degrees, andhave treated separately those with doctoraldegrees.

As suggested in Chapter 4 (page 14) , a mas-ter's degree will develop increasing significanceas the service industries become a focal area ofgrowth and sophistication. With Canada's moveinto the post-industrial era, there should be anincreasing flow of engineers into the servicesector, and this implies a demand for specialtyskills to satisfy the wide variety of tasks exe-cuted by these "knowledge" industries.

In the future, more Canadian employers willbe forced to insist on a master's degree forcertain specialized skills. Table 9-5 shows that23% of the master's degree engineers wereemployed in design and development in 1967.The contribution of the specialist master'sdegree engineer to intensive innovation in Can-ada's secondary industry, where design anddevelopment constitute the major allocation ofresources, cannot be ignored in any assessmentof demand. Nevertheless, to date there has beenno clear articulation on the part of employersin these industries.

Since a quantitative measure of demand is notpossible, we have been forced to make the abovequalitative and subjective judgments of need.The demand for master's degree engineers isincluded in the annual figure of 1,500 engineer-ing graduates, but on the basis of the anticipatedneeds of our economy, universities should beresponsive to those who wish to pursue work tothe level of a master's degree.

Doctoral GraduatesIn estimating demand for the doctorate in

engineering, one must bear in mind both thehigh cost of such programs and the recent con-cern of many such graduates over the lack ofemployment opportunities. Table 9-5 shows that

'Goals of Engineering Education, ASEE Final Report, 1968, p. 35 andFigure D-I6.

53 3

engineers iith doctoral degrees move principallyinto teaching a id research careers, and AppendixG reveals trends in the placement of Ph.D.'s.

The demand for teachers was estimated on theassumption that the universities trill maintainpresent student /stall ratios while drawing addi-tional faculty almost exclusively from the poolof Ontario Ph.D.'s. While both assumptions areassailable. the result will give a maximum num-ber. The calculation used a student/staff ratioof 13:1, which was the average for Ontario uni-versities over the past ten years, and it wasbased oil an annual attrition rate of 3.4%. Thefigure is close to 10% for the individual univer-sity, but only 3.4% are lost from the provincialsystem as a whole. Undergraduate enrolmentprojections, covered later in this chapter, esti-mate a growth from 8,500 undergraduates in1969-70 to 13,000 in 1980-81. Using these figures,the average demand for additional faculty will beabout 62 a year throughout the decade. Thisfigure is an upper limit because of the recom-mendation in Chapter (1 that, where possible,vacancies should be filled by members of thepractising profession, not all of whom will pos-sess a doctoral degree. On the other hand, it isto be hoped that teaching posts in both theColleges of Applied Arts and Technology andin the high schools will attract more engineers.Therefore the demand for teachers educatedas engineers in Ontario universities was assumedto be 60 Ph.D.'s a year over the next decade.

No attempt ias made to assess the demand forpost-doctoral fellows. Usually such appointmentsare for one or two years, and thus are a kind ofholding operation before the individual takes onpermanent employment. The load on demand,averaged over a ten-year period, would benegligible.

The demand for research is more difficult todetermine because of the present state of theCanadian economy. In industry, the growth ratefor total expenditures on intramural researchand development has decreased significantlysince 1964. DBS figuress reveal the followinggrowth rates: 1964, 26%; 1965, 27%; 1966,10%; 1967, 7% and 1968," 3%. These figures,adjusted for a 6% "inflation-sophistication" fac-tor9 show a sharp decline in industrial researchand development activity. Prospects for a rever-sal of this trend in the near future do not appearat this time. The present austerity program ofthe Canadian government, coupled with its

DBS Dally, 23 April 1969.r'nr a full discussion and derivation of this factor, see R. W. Jack-

so n. W. Henderson and B. Leung, Background Studies in SciencePolicy: Projections of R and D Manpower and Expenditure, SpecialStu,'v 'o. 6, Science Council of Canada, 1969, Section 2.

54

desire to shift more research into the industrialsector, means that opportunities of employmentat the federal level for engineering doctorates areequally low. Over the present decade researchactivities probably will remain relatively static,and therefore the demand for research engineerswill consist almost entirely of the need forreplenishment to make up for yearly attrition.The existing stock of engineers engaged in suchactivities in industry and in government isapproximately 2,000 (1,000 in each sector) andconsists of 3% with professional certification,64% with bachelor's degrees, 21% with master'sdegrees and 12% with doctoral degrees."' In spiteof this present mix, we have assumed that existingstocks will he replaced with a much higher pro-portion of Ph.D.'s and that this replacement willconsist of 60% doctoral graduates. By 1980 a 5%attrition would create a demand for approxi-mately 60 a year for Canada, and we haveassumed that about one-half of this number willbe drawn from Ontario.

A small proportion of doctorate engineersmove into occupations other than teaching andresearch (Table 9-5) . In recent years, such occu-pations probably have been associated with theservice sector, but figures are not available tosubstantiate this statement. We have assumedthat 10% of the total demand for engineers witha doctorate will result from employment oppor-tunities outside teaching and research. Table9-5 shows that 20% of them are in management.Since they normally do not move into thesepositions immediately upon graduation, we havecombined any demand for this occupation in the10% figure suggested above.

From the foregoing, it appears that the Cana-dian demand for engineering doctorates from theOntario universities over the present decade willbe about 100 a year. This figure appears reason-able in the light of current economic circum-stances, but it must be reviewed regularly atleast every five years because of rapid changesin technology and public opinion that will offsetthe economic and political climate over the bal-ance of this century.

A survey has been made of the anticipatedcountry of employment for the Ontario engi-neering graduate students enrolled in 1968-69)1About 55% planned to work in Canada, 15% ina foreign country, and 30% had no idea. A stir-vey12 of the present employment of the holders

"1967 Survey of Scientists and Engineers."Summary produced by the Program Planning and Analysis GroupManpower Section, National Research Council, July 1970,

"Survey conducted by the Ontario Council on Graduate Studies in1969.

of the 231 Ontario doctorates in engineeringawarded between 1964 and 1969 reveals that ofthe 197 Ph.D.'s whose locations are known, 54%were employed in Ontario, 28% in the rest ofCanada, 14% in their home country and 4% insome other country. It is unlikely that emigra-tion to the United States will continue at recentlevels because of the present scarcity of employ-ment opportunities for engineers there. However,the U.S. Engineering Manpower Commissionestimates that by 1972t3 demand will again over-take supply. It would appear that about 20% ofthe Ontario Ph.D. graduates will leave Canadafor employment elsewhere, and allowing for suchemigration, the total output of Ph.D.'s ought tobe 125 a year.

In summary, the anticipated demand for engi-neers from Ontario universities, averaged overthe decade 1970-80, is as follows:

Bachelor's degree 1,500-2,500 a yearMaster's degree Included in the figures for

bachelor's degree; thenumber will depend onthe intentions ofstudents.

Ph.D. degree 125 a year.SUPPLY OF UNDERGRADUATESTUDENTS

The term "supply" is used here to desig-nate the supply of engineers into the economyfrom the Ontario engineering schools, whichdepends to a large extent upon the student popu-lation stream into the freshman year. Enrolmentprojections are of such importance to this studythat they were treated in some depth andembodied in a separate report as a source docu-ment. Since 87% of Ontario undergraduatesare from that province" it appeared reasonableto use Ontario statistics and high school data, Ananalysis of the entrance requirements for itsengineering schools shows that, for 1969-70,grade 13 students must have successfully com-pleted mathematics A and B, physics and chemis-try. Other required subjects vary, but a mini-mum standing (usually 60%) is necessary insome or all of them, together with an adequateover-all standing in grade 13.

Since 1955, there has been a declining interestin both physics and chemistry (Fig. 9-3) . Eventhough high school enrolments continue to climband a greater proportion of high school gradu-',Engineering Manpower Bulletin, Number 17, September 1970."Philip A. Lapp, Undergraduate Engineering Enrolment Protections for

Ontario, 1970-1980, CPUO Report No. 70.1.'Z. E. Zsigmond and C. 3, Wenaas, Enrolment in Educational Institu-

tions by Province, 1951-52 to 198041, Stan Study No. 25, EconomicCouncil of Canada, January 1970.

9 Manpower

ates attend university throughout the 1970s, adeclining interest in physics and chemistry willoffset these upward trends. Total engineeringenrolments should level off near the 1970 figure,in a band between 8,000 and 8,300 students.This would occur if the Ontario high school cur-riculum and engineering entrance requirementscontinue :n their present form. However, Onta-rio high schools are changing, and it is expectedthat sonic form of a credit system will be intro-duced whereby students can proceed at theirown pace toward graduation. Under such cir-cumstances, universities will be forced to re-define their entrance requirements as recom-mended in Chapter 2 (Recommendation 2:1) ,and these could vary between different regions ofthe province.

A constant total enrolment of 8,000-8,300students would result in a steady-state bachelordegree output of approximately 1,400 a year or100 below the minimum set by demand. Thefinal enrolment projection was undertaken onthe assumption that neither physics nor chemis-try would be mandatory for engineering, as it isat the present time for most schools, but thatgrade point averages would be maintained at thesame academic level. In this way, engineeringand science faculties would draw from the samepool of high school graduates. Using this projec-tion (Fig. 9-4) , freshman enrolments wouldbuild up to 4,000 students and total enrolmentsto a level of 13,000 students by the year 1980-81.(Figure 9-4 includes the universities' projections

for total enrolments. The lower branches of thecurves are the estimates when entrance require-ments for engineering remain unchanged.) Thisfinal projection yields an average of about 1,750bachelor's degrees a year over the period 1968-81, and falls within the range of demand sum-marized above.

SUPPLY OF GRADUATE STUDENTS

The pool of these students in Ontario is madeup of Canadians who move directly into gradu-ate studies after their baccalaureate degree,students who have one or more years of practicalexperience and students who are landed immi-grants or foreign nationals. Unfortunately, it wasnot possible to obtain a complete cross-section ofthis mixture, but Table 9.7 does show the citi-zenship of Ontario engineering graduate stu-dents for the years 1968-69 and 1969-70. In thelatter year, approximately one-half were Cana-dians, one-quarter landed immigrants and one-quarter foreign nationals. In the previous yearthe foreign student component had been one-third, and the difference was taken up by

55

increased numbers of landed immigrants. (Prob-ably this was caused by a change in the NationalResearch Council policy: graduate fellowshipsarc now being aw.irded only to Canadian citizensand landed immigrants.)

Table 9-8 shows the age and sex of Ontarioengineering graduate students for the academicyear 1968-69, and since 72% were 26 years ofage or older, usually they have had one or moreyears of practical experience before embarkingon graduate studies. It would appear thatthe majority of those entering engineeringmake their initial plans only as far as the bache-lor's degree. After obtaining employment andlearning more about the profession, with itsopportunities and challenges for those with moreeducation, they raise their sights to the master's

or doctoral degree level. Table 9.7 reveals that22% in 1968-69, and 24% in 1969-70, were part.time students who, for the most part, pursuedan advanced degree while working in industryor government.

It is possible -o make a rough estimate of themix in the supply of graduate students: of thetotal stock in 1969.70, approximately 30% moveddirectly into graduate studies while 70% had hadsome professional experience. About one-third ofthe latter group were employed as engineers whilepursuing graduate studies on a part-time basis.One-quarter of the graduate students were for-eign nationals, and less than 6% of these werepart-time students (from Table 9.7) . The percen-tage of foreign nationals with experience prior tograduate study is not known.

Table 9.7CITIZENSHIP OF ONTARIO ENGINEERING GRAM rA FE S WISEST%

1969 and 1970LANDED FOREIGN

IMML Sill.CANADIAN GRANT U.S.A. U . EUROPE ASIA AFRICA 0111LR 1OTAI 70TA1.

Year Ending 69 70 69 70 69 70 69 70 69Doctoral 236 230 101 169 9 8 3 6 10Full-Time % 46,0 42.6 19.7 31.3 1.8 1.5 0,6 1.1 1.9Doctoral 59 72 13 21 1 1 1 1

Part-Time % 72.8 72.7 16.0 21.2 1.2 1.0 1.2 - 1.2

Master's 405 372 191 218 8 4 27 20 30FullTime % 40.8 40.6 19.2 23.8 0.8 0.4 2.7 2.2 3.0Master's 247 252 60 97 1 2 5 1 1

PartTime % 70.0 67.9 17 0 26.1 0.3 0.5 1.4 0.3 0.3Total 947 926 3115 505 19 IS 36 27 42Total ^;, 48.8 48.1 18.8 26.2 1.0 0.8 1.9 1.4 2.2

AGE

GROUP

Under 2323 - 2526 - 2829 - 31Over 31

TOTAL

Source: CPUO Research Dielkm.

70 69 70 69 70 69 70 69 70 69 7013 122 88 15 19 17 7 176 141 513 540

2.4 23.8 16.3 2.9 3.5 3.3 1.3 14.3 26.1 100 100- 6 3 - 1 9 6 81 99- 7.4 3.0 - 1.0 - 1.0 11.0 11.0 100 100

27 255 206 39 35 39 35 397 327 993 9172.9 25.7 22.5 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.8 39.9 35.7 100 100- 34 18 - 5 1 46 22 353 371

- 9.6 4.9 - - 1.4 0.3 13.0 6.0 100 100

40 417 315 53 55 61 44 628 496 1,940 1,9272.1 21.5 163 2.7 2.9 3,1 2.3 32.4 25.7 100 100

Table 9-8AGE AND SEX OF STUDENTS ENROLLEDFOR THE MASTER'S AND DOCTORATE

IN ENGINEERING AT ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES1968.69

ENROLLED FOR MASTER'S ENROLLED FOR DOCTORATE TOTAL ENROLMENTMALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL MALE FEMALE TOTAL

(t/)38 0 38 4 0 4 42 0 42 (2)

408 9 417 86 0 86 494 9 503 (26)382 5 387 212 0 212 594 5 599 (32)194 2 196 159 0 159 353 2 355 (19)240 I 241 152 1 153 392 2 394 (21)

1,262 17 1,279 613 1 614 1,875 18 1,893 (100)

Source: PTOSTIMIN Phussaltil led AnstlYsla Oros* - Maspower Section, National Research Council of Casada. July 1970.NOTE: Totals in this table diner slightly from those in Table 9-7, owing to differences in &Ashton of Wale gradual* programs by NRC and

CPUO.

56

GG

Figure 11-3

PH

YS

ICS

AN

D C

HE

MIS

TR

Y G

RA

DE

13 DE

PA

RT

ME

NT

AL E

XA

MIN

AT

ION

SP

ER

CE

NT

AG

E O

F G

RA

DE

13 ST

UD

EN

TS

AC

HIE

VIN

G P

AS

S S

OX

OR

SE

TT

ER

..."

It

8

...,

$

ti'

...A

1118

sbe.

,,,A114.?

t,II 040111S

TW

IS

.'

%

4_ I

...

PIM=

IP%

."*.

INS

OO

TA

ED

IXT

WO

UM

ON

S\

r5

...

1..

'....

70toso

AQ$

Ae.

Y i:

:1 I 1 ittli!;;!;;;;;:::

AC

.AD

VISC

YE

AR

csIts3-1

76S432

Figure 9-4 E

NG

INE

ER

ING

UN

DE

RG

RA

DU

AT

E E

NR

OLM

EN

TS

FIN

AL

PR

OJE

CT

ION

,S

. S

No

e.../

UN

IVE

RS

ITIE

SP

RO

JEC

TIO

N

saf"t+ 1.

.P

RO

JEC

TIO

N W

ITH

UN

CH

AN

GE

D E

NT

RA

NC

ER

EQ

UIR

EM

EN

TS

(US

ING

PH

YS

ICS

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E)

AC

TU

AL÷

PR

OJE

CT

ED

(a) TO

TA

LE

NR

OLM

EN

TF

INA

LP

RO

JEC

TIO

N

tm.....1.s.

PR

OJE

CT

ON

WIT

H U

NC

HA

NG

ED

EN

TR

AN

CE

RE

QU

IRE

ME

NT

S (U

SIN

G P

HY

SIC

S P

ER

FO

RM

AN

CE

)

(b) FIR

ST

-YE

AR

EN

RO

LME

NT

X3A

.a

;A

CA

DE

MIC

YE

AR

3O

-W

.es

en4

r8

4

1900

14000OO

1203

=1000

Figure 9-5

EN

GIN

EE

RIN

G G

RA

DU

AT

E E

NR

OLM

EN

TS

ON

TA

RIO

\ ES

TIM

AT

E

.00000y

TO

TA

L FT

E G

RA

DU

AT

E E

NR

OLM

EN

TS

BA

CH

ELO

R G

RA

DU

AT

ION

S (P

RE

VIO

US

YE

AR

)

AC

TU

AL --P

RO

JEC

TE

D

RE

CO

MM

EN

DE

D G

RA

DU

AT

E E

NR

OLM

EN

TS

0

1960416142

62434344

644565-66

66-6767-0

6134569-70

70-7171 72

72 7373-74

74-7575-76

76-7777 79

78-797940

90-41

AC

AD

EM

IC Y

EA

R

Student intentions should play a major role indetermining the supply of graduate students. Arough measure of such intentions can be devel-oped from an analysis of student flows into gradu-ate studies. Table 9-7 reveals that, in recent years,48% of the Ontario engineering graduate stu-dents have been Canadian citizens. Table 9-9shows that, in any year, the ratio of this Canadiancomponent to bachelor graduations from Ontarioof the previous year rose during the early 1960s,levelling off in 1967, to remain relatively constantat approximately 80%. This last figure representsthe intentions of Canadian students, at the pres-ent time, to pursue graduate studies in theOntario engineering schools and is based onbachelor graduations - the principal "feed"mechanism for these schools.

Table 9-9

CANADIAN GRADUATE ENROLMENT FROMBACHELOR GRADUATIONS FOR THE ONTARIO

ENGINEERING SCHOOLS

(A)Canadian (B)

F.T.E. Graduate Graduate Ontario Bachelor'sAcademic Enrolment - Enrolment - Degrees Awarded A/B

year Ontario Ontario Previous Year Percent

1961-62 348 167 705 23.71962-63 416 200 707 28.31963-64 558 268 705 38.01964-65 728 349 682 51.21965-66 851 408 708 57.61966-67 1,158 556 810 68.61967-68 1,482 711 869 81.81968-69 1,764 847 991 85.51969-70 1,893 909 1,142 79.6

*Assumed to be equal to 48% of total F.T.E. graduate enrolment, afigure that has only been confirmed for 1968-69 and 1969-70.

Over the past decade there has been a rapidgrowth in enrolment at the graduate level andthis has meant an upward surge in expenditures.The cost study, summarized in Appendix H, hasrevealed that, in many instances, tile diversion offaculty time from undergraduate to graduatestudents became excessive, particularly whenthere was a high ratio of graduate to undergradu-ate students. For these and other reasons broughtout in this report, it is felt that the "nu. fibersgame" in graduate studies should be curbed, andfor the future graduate enrolments should berelated more directly to the growth of under-graduate enrolments.

At tile present time, the intentions of Canadianengineering students to pursue graduate studiesin Ontario can be accommodated while limitingsuch enrolments to about 80% of those receivingbachelor's degrees. A 10% minimum foreign58

student enrolment has been recommended for theprovince's graduate schools.l6 The study groupagrees with this recommendation, and is allowingan additional 10% to permit some growth in theparticipation rate and for landed immigrants.Therefore, graduate student enrolments shouldbe maintained at a level equal to the number ofthose receiving bachelor's degrees in the previousacademic year.

Figure 9-5 and Table 9-10 summarize therecommended graduate enrolments for the period1968-80, together with the forecast of bachelor'sdegrees derived from undergraduate enrolmentprojections." We reconun..:nd that:

(9:1) over the next two years the estimated graduateenrolment of 2,000 for 1970-71 be reduced by 17%,after which graduate enrolment should be equated tothe previous year's bachelor graduations.

Table 9-10

RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING GRADUATEENROLMENTS, PROVINCIALLY-ASSISTED

UNIVERSITIES, ONTARIO, 1968-1980

AcademicYear

Engineering Bachelor'sDegrees (previous year)

Recommended GraduateF.T.E. Enrolm nt

1968-69 991 1,7641969-70 1,170 1,8931970-71 1,416 2,000 (estimate)1971-72 1,540 1,8001972-73 1,664 1,6641973-74 1,558 1,5581974-75 1,639 :,6391975-76 1,717 1,7171976-77 1,848 1,8481977-78 2,020 2,0201978-79 2,163 2,1631979-80 2,253 2,2531980-81 2,315 2,315

Ontario engineering schools would not bealone in curtailing graduate enrolments. At Har-vard University, it has been recommended thatthe Graduate School of Arts and Science reduceits enrolment by approximately 20%, to beeffected over a five-year period. In the words ofthe President's Report for 1968-69:

The committee felt that the number of gr idu-ate students has become Loo large for thefaculty adequately io instruct, that the needfor large numbers to provide college and uni-versity teachers has become less pressing, andthat the quality of our whole effort in thisarea could be improved by such reduction....

"Ontario Council on Graduate Studies, Report o/ tht Committee onStudent Financial Support, August 1970.

"Lapp, Undergraduate Engineering Enrolment Projections, CPUO Re-port No. 70-1,

The demand for engineering doctorates fromthe Ontario schools will be about 125 a year. Ittakes a full-time doctoral student approximatelythree and a half to four years to complete hisstudies, and therefore at any one time the totalnumber of doctoral students should be in theorder of 450 students. The full-time master'sstudent takes about a year and a half to completehis studies, so that the average number of full -time master's students will be about 1,400. FromTable 9-10, the average annual graduate enrol-ment over the next ten years will be 1,900 F.T.E.students. The nuinbcr of master's degree engi-neers entering the labour force should be about950 a year. (In 1969, there were 441 engineeringmaster's degrees awarded in Ontario.)

Over the ten-year period, the number of mas-ter's degrees awarded will not be affected by amixture of full and part-time students. The samenumber of students will be awarded degrees irre-spective of the mix, but with more part-timestudents a greater number can be accommodatedat any one time. It was shown that 24% of allgraduate students were enrolled part-time in1969-70, and this percentage has, been increas-ing. Since over 70% of engineering gradu-ate students have had professional experiencebefore returning to school, we expect greaternumbers to avail themselves of part-time graduatestudies when classes are programme,: at moreconvenient hours and wider use is mad- of tele-vision teaching. We would encourage such apolicy, particularly at universities located neartl. 2 larger urban centres where there are sufficientnumbers of practising engineers.

Part-time students usually pursue studies relat-ing either directly to their employment, or to jobavailability as seen by the engineer with experi-ence in the marketplace. Therefore, his field ofstudy and class preferences should be an indicatorof current market. demands for engineers in in-dustries close to universities. It can provide engi-neering schools with a built-in mechanism forrelating instruction directly to the needs of thepractising engineer.

ENGINEERING MANPOWER STATISTICS

Table 9-11 is a partial lint of the Canadiansources of data used in this study.

Table 9-11

SOURCES OF DATA ON ENGINEERING Mi.NPOV ER

Government of CanadaDepartment of Manpower and ImmigrationDominion Bureau of Statistics

9 Manpower

Department of Industry, Trade and CommerceNational Research CouncilDefence Research BoardScience Council of CanadaEconomic Council of Canada

Government of OntarioDepartment of university AffairsDepartment of Education.Department of Trade and Development

The ProfessionCanadian Council of Professional EngineersAssociation of Professional Engineers of

OntarioEngineering Instiuite of CanadaOther professional Institutes and Societies

In addition, both universities and industryprovided the study group with a wealth ofinformation.

The most significant compilation of usefuldata on the characteristics of engineers is con-tained in the Department of Manpower andImmigration's 1967 Survey. Planners in educa-tion, industry, government and the professionneed data of this kind on a regular and reliablebasis in order that they may formulate plans andpolicies to assist in meeting their objectives. Suchsurveys should be conducted regularly in orderto develop a pattern and to discern trends. It isimportant to have a knowledge of existing stocksbut, in such planning, the recent flows intoexisting stocks are of more significance. Flowmeasurements require regular and periodiccomparisons.

The demand figures developed in this chapterare based on the existing pool of engineers andgrowth rates assumed for the next ten years. Bothof these factors could change significantly owingto events that cannot be foreseen at this time.For example, there could be a major shift inemphasis towards the "survival" industry thatsector related to pollution control and abate-ment, or an even more intense growth than wehave anticipated in the service sector. New andmore refined demand projections require anassessment of technological change and publicopinion, as we'l as an evaluation of the economicand political climate prevailing at the time. Suchprojections are of critical importance in educa-tional and manpower planning, and should beconducted at regular intervals, perhaps everytwo or three years.

Since the Canadian Council of ProfessionalEngineers represents the profession at thenational level, it is the logical body to coordinateperiodic surveys and disseminate the processeddata to the profession. The United States Engi-

59

neering Manpower Commission of the Engi-neers' Joint Council performs such a task forthe profession in the United States. It is fundedby the sale of reports and publications, contribu-tions from industry, and government contracts.A similar organization is needed :n Canada.

60

Therefore, it is recommended that:(9:2) the Canadian Council of Professional Engineersexplore ways and means of establishing a permanentCanadian Engineering Manpower Commission inorder to provide national and regional data on engi-neering manpower in Canada.

10

THE SYSTEM

INTRODUCTIONIn Chapter 9 it was shown that the province's

engineering schools can meet the need for engi-neers if there is a restructuring of existingentrance requirements. Once this occurs, thenumber of undergraduates should show a steadyincrease and by the end of the present decadewill be up by more than 50%. We turn nowto three questions that prompted this study.

1. Are there too many engineering schools inOntario?

2. Can adequate provision be made for theanticipated numbers up to 1980?

3. What should be the enrolment pattern andstudent distribution among these schools?

The two major criteria in the light of whichthese questions must be considered are academicquality and instructional cost. These will be

develcned in order to establish a basis for deter-mining the size of each school in the system. IfOntario is to achieve a rational pattern of engi-neering education, it will be necessary to estab-lish enrolment quotas at the bachelor's, master'sand Ph.D. levels. Individual institutions cannotcontinue to act independently in such matters

each must operate as a component of thr sys-tem. Such an enrolment plan, although based onconsiderations of both cost aid quality, willpermit the assignment of specific roles toeach university areas of activity that areconsistent with regional, provincial and nationalrequirements.

COST CONSIDERATIONS INENGINEERING EDUCATION

We anticipate that an increasing percentageof young people in the 18-22 age group will con-tinue to enroll in some kind of institutiondevoted to post-secondary education throughout

61

the present decade, with a significant proportionof such students continuing their studies to thelevel of a master's or doctoral degree. In addi-tion, aspirations of the academic community arehigh and will account for steady pressure toimprove standards of quality, facilities, teachingloads, and salaries.

This has been responsible for a substantialdrain on the provincial budget. However, thetime is fast approaching when the demands ofhigher education for increasing financial supportwill outstrip the supply of available revenues.Taxpayers have begun to question the expendi-ture of our educational dollars, and to suggestthat too little attention has been paid to suchmatters as efficiency and productivity.'

The magnitude of educational expenditure inCanada underscores the urgency for efficientmanagement and control. These are formal dis-ciplines that are elements in the execution ofany plan. Successful planning is both qualitativeand quantitative, and the advent of the moderncomputer has created a wave of enthusiasm fornumerical analysis as a tool in the quantitativeaspects.

Quantitative methods can be used effectivelyin educational planning only when the factorsinvolved can be measured. The concept of cost/benefit applied to an investment is intellectuallysatisfying but we have grave doubts that it canappropriately be applied to educational planning.While costs can be measured with reasonableprecision, benefits cannot nor can all benefitsbe measured in the same dimensions. Yet cost/benefit ratios, rates of return and present valueshave such an authoritative and satisfying ring tothem they are so facile, and a simple numberis so easy to remember. This is where a realdanger lies. The assumptions and hypothesesunderlying such simple results are often forgot-ten, so that biases are developed and decisionsmade without appreciation of the ramifications.

For educational planning purposes, benefitshave been measured in terms of lifetime earn-ings, discounted to some base year by assumingvarious inflation rates. Such benefits have ameaning for the individual only if he fails totake into account the intellectual and culturalbenefits derived from his education. Career deci-sions made solely on the basis of differentialearnings comparisons would drive all students

'The Economic Council's Seventh Annual Review state.: the following:"Until recent years, efficiency was largely a matter of feel and flair onthe part of some dedicated educational administrators. But in the lightof current and expected developments, it is important that more wide-spread, systematic and intensive efforts be aimed at increasing theeffectiveness of these expenditures."

62

into medicine or dentistry. For society, thereturn based on lifetime earnings does not takeinto account the contribution of education tofuture economic growth, cultural developmentor the quality of life. Furthermore, the measure-ment of lifetime earnings must be based on sur-vey data from cohorts that represent the fullspectrum of careers resulting from any educa-tional program. In Canada, with few exceptions,such data are not yet avaiilble

The study group debated at length the use ofcost/benefit techniques in the planning aspectsof this study, and rejected them On the abovegrounds. Aside from the lack of complete cohortsalary data, we were unable to find any way ofquantifying the other less tangible benefits interms of dollars. We hate resorted to quantita-tive methods in many other areas in an attemptto achieve a balance with qualitative argumentand the occasional arbitrary judgment.

In contrast to industry, where rising costs havebeen met by the adoption of automation andimproved technology, education continues to beconducted in much the same fashion as itwas a half-century ago. The increasi,.g supportaccorded to universities over the past decade hasmade it possible for these institutions to add newcurricula and new courses faster than the growthin enrolments could justify, and this has placeda limiting factor on their ability to concentrateeffort in those areas where they might developexcellence.

It should be possible to achieve greater effec-tiveness in the deployment of resources by theuse of business methods, and a clear statement ofrealistic objectives could establish the basis forformulating the necessary guidelines. A systemsanalysis can reveal methods whereby universitiescould substantially Unprove their returns interms of acaden :c distinction, and increase theiroutput of trained engineers without any reduc-tion of either quality or standards, and withoutadding to the load being carried by individualfaculty members. In future, administrators,deans and department heads will have to relymore upon quantitative mthods of assessingperformance in order to account to governmentand to the public at large for the effectiveexpenditure of funds in meeting their specificobjectives.

While cost accounting in universities has notachieved any real degree of sophistication, effortsare being made to develop more refined tech-niques in order to measure and compare theexpenditure per student in different programs,both within a university and between univer-

sities. Difficulties arise in attempting to allocatecosts between undergraduate and graduate pro-grams, lecture and laboratory work, large andsmall classes, teaching and research supervision,and between different departments and faculties.In evaluating any system of engineering schools,such comparisons must be bawd on a commonmethod which takes into account as many factorsas possible.

An attempt was made t) compute unit costs(the cost per student) for the Ontario engineering schools, and this is summisized in Appendix1-1.2 The cost study develops policy variables thatcould be used to advantage in the operation of adepartment or faculty. The most important vari-able is the average class size defined as theratio of the average number of students in anysection to the number of faculty teaching in thatsection. Figure 11-1 shows how unit costs de-crease with an increase in the size of the averageclass. Other policy variables were of less signifi-cance, but have been incorporated in the calcu-lation of unit costs.

The cost study focused on the question of eco-nomic viability, and revealed that between 600and 1,300 undergraduate students is the optimalenrolment range where unit costs are minimal.Such numbers apply to the existing structurewhere most schools offer four or more separateprograms. If economic viability is to be achievedin schools where undergraduate enrolments areless than 600, then fewer programs must beoffered, or the curricula so structured that a rela-tively large proportion of classes is common toall or most programs.

The average class size of engineering schools inOntario in 1969-70 was found to be 55 for the firstyear, 34 in the second, 20 in the third and fourthyears, and 32 over-all (Table H-3) . As can beseen in Figure H-I, the average unit cost forundergraduates was higher by about 25% thanthe unit cost corresponding to the suggested mini-mum band. A 25% cost reduction could beachieved if the aver -all average class size wereincreased by 25%, because of the hyberbolicrelationship between unit cost and average classsize (Figure H-1) . Most first- and second-yearclasses are sufficiently lait,,! already, so that muchof this increase should be taken up in the thirdand fourth years. A 25% cost reduction could beachieved by increasing the average class size forthese years to 35-40 students. The number of

delsJs, inclisdina an example, are covered in the sourcedocument by Ivor W. Thompson and Philip A. Lapp. A Method JosDerelopimg 1.1mh Costs hi Educational Program's, CPUO Report No.70-3, December 1970.

10 The System

students per instructor will be smaller in mostlaboratory and tutorial classes than in lectures,so that the total number cr students in a programwill have to be larger than the average class size.The extent will vary, and we have chosen a figureof approximately 20% to cover the range of pro-grants typical of engineering. This would yielda size criterion of a minimum of 40-50 engineer-ing students graduating per year in each pro-gram.3 Using current attrition rates, the totalenrolment in all four years would have to be200-275 students per program.

The first year usually is common to all pro-grams, with one school (Western) having acommon first and seccid year, and another(Carleton) has rig a common first three years.

Guelph has devt!oped what is essentially a one- -core program with elective courses throughout allyears. If there is a common curriculum for theearlier years, class sizes can be maintained atreasonable levels. However, if the smaller schoolsproliferate programs, excessively large classeswould be required in the years common to allprograms for them to balance the small classes inthe latter years, and so maintain a minimumaverage class size.

There is an upper enrolment limit beyondirhich unit costs will again increase, as Fhown inFigure H-2. In schools where total undergraduateenrolments exceed 1,300 students, sectioningpolicy in the earlier years is the principal factoraffecting unit costs. As a school increases in size,first- and second-year classes expand until section-ing becomes necessary, causing a sudden rise inthe unit cost. Schools in the minimum band (Fig.H-2) are passing through this kind of transitionwhere the lower-cost schools have the largestfreshman classes. Thus, in successive years, classsizes for the freshman year can suddenly be re-duced by as much as a factor of two. If classes aremaintained close to the maximum size consistentwith proper instruction, the unit cost curve wouldnot show the well-defined minimum evident inFigure H-2. As total enrolments increase beyond2,000 students, there appears to be a tendency tosection into even smaller classes, perhaps to com-pensate for the feeling of anonymity some stu-dents experience in the larger universities. Invery schools, a complex administrative infra-strtcture develops which tends to grow out ofproportion to the amount of instruction, thusaffecting costs adversely.

An examination of graduate programs showsthat 55% of costs arise from research supervision,'The same conclusion was reached by Dr. F. E. Terman in EmemetrimgEducatlom im New York, The State Educational Department, theUniversity of the State of New York, Albany, New York, March 1969.

63

when assisted research4 is included, or 91% if itis excluded (Appendix H) . For the province asa whole, it would appear that over a twelve-monthperiod the average graduate student requiresabout 150 hours of a faculty member's time forsuch supervision. The cost of instruction, repre-sentng less than 10% of the total if assistedresearch is excluded, obviously depends on thesize of graduate classes, but this influence is smallwhen compared to the cost of graduate supervi-sion. Consequently, in contrast to undergraduatework, the unit cost of graduate programs does notvary significantly with graduate enrolment. Thisapplies to the average graduate program. It wouldappear that in universities where course-intensivemaster's degree programs prevail, less time isspent on graduate supervision, and hence thecost in such cases will depend more upon classsize averages.

QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS INENGINEERING EDUCATION

While each of the factors affecting unit costsmay bear a relationship to quality, they are nota direct measure of it, and hence it does notfollow trAt higher costs mean better quality. Forexample while very small class sizes result inhigh unit costs, they do not necessarily ensurehigh edtcational quality. When classes becomesmall, totit costs will rise unless each facultymember carries large- work load in order tomaint:in a productivity comparable to that ofhis counterpart in a school with larger classes.In prac:ice, unit costs vary over a wider rangethan & instructional loads, but in the smallerschools Mere is a tendency to strive for lowerunit costs by stretching these loads. Such anapproach leaves faculty members less time toprepare lectures and probably dampens incen-tive to get on with research or to get involvedin professional activities. Furthermore, in a smallfaculty, each member is expected to teach anassortment of subjects, and undoubtedly this willinclude some in which he is not fully qualified.

When enrolments do expand to the pointwhere sectioning becomes practical, quality is notnecssarily best served by dividing up the largeclasses. It is preferable for the outstandingteacher to be given a large class rather than forcesome students in a smaller section to sufferunder an inferior instructor. As a general prin-ciple, the maximum number of students shouldbe exposed to leading members of the faculty

ikssisted research is money received by a department to support gradu-ate student research over and above the amount received from operatingformula income to the university. The sources vary, but most of suchfunds are provided by the National Research Council.

64

and this cannot be accomplished if they teachonly small classes.

We do not suggest that larger classes arealways to be preferred, and there arc some sub-jects that can only be taught in small groups: abalance is necessary, but smaller classes do notlead automatically to higher quality. The realstature of a program depends more upon thecalibre of the faculty than upon the size of theclasses. If outstanding teachers take on the largerclasses it permit lighter teaching loads to beassigned to these teachers, and without any lossin productivity.

In the larger schools it is possible to offerinstruction in a ivider variety of topics, and thestudent has a better opportunity to explore indi-vidual interests. This cannot be done in thesmaller schools, because of the necessity to createcommon curricula and to restrict the number ofelectives. While this may appear to make it lessattractive to the student from the standpoint ofdiversity, it should not create any disadvantageinsofar as the quality of instruction is concerned.

The cost study reveals that in schools with arelatively high ratio of graduate to undergradu-ate students, there appears to be a tendency todivert resources into the giaduate school. Whenrelative enrolments increase at the graduateschool level, a greater proportion of each facultymember's time will be devoted to graduatesupervision. Less time is available for under-graduate instruction, and some schools tend toincrease class sizes at the first- and second-yearlevels rather than provide more teachers. Thepresence of a graduate school should enhance thequality of the undergraduate work, by inter-action among faculty, graduate students andundergraduates. However, it is essential that thecommitment to the graduate sector does notbecome disproportionately large.

We have concluded that unit costs are not areal measure of quality. Higher undergraduatecosts can result from either too small a schoolor an enhancement in the quality of program.A constant effort is required to ensure that thegood teachers are in contact with the greatestnumber of students at a minimum of cost.

A final aspect in regard to quality and sizeis academic viability. In any discipline there isa minimum number of faculty below whichinstructional and research synergisms fail todevelop. The size of this "critical mass" maydiffer among groups, but for each discipline aminimum figure of 10-15 faculty membersappears to be realistic. Academic viability lies

close to the heart of instructional quality, forwithout it an engineering school cannot attractthe kind of people to give it real distinction. Ifthe present undergraduate student/staff ratio inthe Ontario engineering schools (15:1) is appro-priate, enrolment of 150-225 students for eachprogram would be required for academic viabil-ity figures only slightly below the minimumset by cost considerations.

DEPARTMENTS AND PROGRAMS

In both Canada and the United States, engi-neering schools have debated the wisdom oforganizing faculties according to discipline asopposed to program. Ontario universities appearto be of the opinion that the classical subdivi-sions or disciplines of engineering are no longerexclusive, even though they may continue to berelevant. New programs are being developed,but to date only a few, such as industrial engi-neering, have achieved sufficient stature to belooked upon as new disciplines. Most discussionsof engineering organization lead to the conceptof a matrix, with the columns representing indi-vidual disciplines, and the rows the individualprograms. A student in any program will drawfrom all or most of the disciplines, but thefaculty is organized along disciplinary lines intoseparate departments. The study group can seeno strong reason to suggest changes in this struc-ture.' The academic viability criterion suggeststhat any discipline or department group shouldcontain at least ten faculty members. Students ina program associated with this discipline wouldreceive most of their instruction from thatdepartment, particularly in the third and fourthyears.

New interdisciplinary undergraduate programscan be established within the above framework,where each department provides the requiredservice instruction.6 Such programs are to beencouraged but should not constitute a depart-ment until classes are sufficiently large and aca-demic viability has been achieved. Normally,such new departments should be formed from anucleus of staff drawn from existing departments(A sufficient size that they do not suffer as a resultet the separation. This would be a gradual pro-cess, where a group is formed from one or moredepartments and then works together in the newdiscipline for a number of years before separat-ing out to create a new department.

'Behavioural simulation studies conducted at M.I.T. showed that whena school is reorganized into widely disparate forms, it ultimatelybecomes re-aligned into forms where the classical disciplines arevisibly distinguishable.

For ezamPle. Engineering Science at the University of Toronto.

10 The System

At first the class size in a new program willhe relatively small. If the school is large, theimpact on the average class size will be negli-gible, but otherwise it can be quite significant.The specialty need not involve the introductionof new classes, if it makes use of classes offered inother faculties (e.g. engineering and manage-ment, where stuc.ents could enrol in existingclasses in tile Faculty of Business Administra-tion) . New programs introduced in this way donot seriously affect unit costs, and ultimately mayincrease average class sizes if such programsattract more students into the engineeringschool.

Frc,in the fore,going, it is possible to formulateconclusions about the best size for the Ontarioengineering schools. Programs become economic-ally and academically viable when enrolni,litsreach a level of about 200-275 students. A depart-ment should contain at least ten faculty members.New programs Sdr,i;;A be introduced only whenthe average class size can be properly sustained.For Ontario schools with three or more programs,the minimum undergraduate enrolment shouldbe 690-1,300 students. Enrohnents of over 2,000undergraduate students should be discouragedsince it is probable that in an attempt to overcomedehumanizing tendencies unit costs will rise. Wehave said that the number of graduate studentsin the system should be equal to the number ofbachelor graduations of the previous year. Whilesuch a relationship is meant to be applied toOntario as a whole, we are suggesting it as a guide-line for each institution, to ensure a reasonablebalance between undergraduate and graduatestudies. On the basis of the present attrition rates,the number of graduate students would amountto approximately 18-19% of the total under-graduate enrolment in the previous year, a figurethat will vary from year to year and betweeninstitutions.

ONTARIO ENGINEERING ENROLMENTDISTRIBUTION

Total undergraduate enrolments are expectedto grow from 8,500 in 1969-70 to 13,000 in 1980-81, and freshman int.,ke should increase from2,700 to 4,000 students over the same period(Fig. 9-4) .

Table 10.1 shows the enrolment distributionfor 1969-70, and the number of programs offeredin that year in each school, together with the mini-mum size associated with these programs. Theminimum size used for each program was 200students; this figure is at the lower end of thesuggested range, although it may be high for

65

Table 10-1UNDERGRADUATE ENGINEERING ENROLMENTS

BY UNIVERSITY, ONTARIO 1969.70

University

Carleton

F.T.E.Under-

graduateEnrolment

1969-70

Numberof

Under-graduatePrograms

MinimumViable

She

600a

EnrolmentDeficiency

62Guelph I 57 1 200 43takehead 47 b

Laurentian 37McMaster 528 6 1,200 672Ottawa 368 4 800 432Queen'sd 1,160 6 1,200 40T, iron to 2,199 8 1,600IVaterlooa 2,349 800IVestern 441 1,000( 559W ndsor 402 1,400 998

8,226 2,806

a First three years are commo (viable sire could be smaller).b First year only.c First and second yeai only.d Engineering chemistry, engineering and mathematics and engineer-

ing physics not included in total.e Cooperative program.f First two years are common (viable ,ire could be smaller).

schools with a common curriculum beyond thefirst year. In considering enrolment deficiencies,it can be seen that out of the eleven schools inthe system, only two arc above the ininimursize (Toronto and Waterloo) , three are close to

PROGRAM

the minimmn (Carleton, Queen's and Guelph) ,

while the rest are well below a minimum sizein relation to the number of programs beingoffered at the present time. On this basis itcould be concluded that Ontario has more engi-neering programs than can be justified by anycriterion other than a need for geographic distri-bution. Yet, in spite of this situation, new pro-grams continue to be introduced, the need forwhich is highly questionable.

An almost identical situation existed in theState of California when a similar study wasundertaken in 1968 by Professor Frederick E.Terman7 of Stanford University. hi his words:

Stich proliferation of turricula is a universalacademic diseme, and the situation that existsin California is typical even if indefensible.Malty California institutions would havestronger engineering programs if they gave upsome of the fields of engineering ut whichtheir enrolments are now very small and likelyto remain so, and utili/ed the resources thusreleased to strengthen other areas of engineer-ing. The Coordinating Council should givepositive encouragement for such action, even

.to considering the possibility of exerting sub-stantial pressure for the elimination at indivi-dual institutions of existing curricula that havebeen given a lair trial and have failed todevelop enough following to justify theirexistence.

T. E. Terman, A Study of Ent:Merin: Education (n California,Coorc:aating Council for Higher Education, State of California.March 1968, p. 58.

Table 10-2

UNDERGRADUATE ENGINEERING PROGRAMS ONTARIO

LAKE-CARLETON GUELPH HEAD

LAUR-ENTIANMcMASTER OTTAWAQUEEN'S TORONTO WATERLOO WESTERNWINDSOR

Chemical X XCivil X Xa X XElectrical X Xa XMechanical X Xa XMetallurgyand XMaterialsIndustrialGeology XdiningEngineeringPhysics or XScienceAgriculture XEngineeringandManagement XaSystemsDesign

a Offered for the first time in 1970.71. b Including Chemistry ( Engineering).

66

Xb x

X X

X

Xa X

X X XX X XX X XX X X

X X

Xc Including Mathematics and Engineering.

LAKCHEAO.

OA* Inch 140 re

Figure 10.1 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION OF ONTARIOENGINEERING SCHJO S

.r

ONTARIO

LAURENTIAN

w+

CARLETONOTTAWA

OUEEN'S

67

Such a viewpoint can be said to apply to Ontarioin the year 1970.

The specific programs offered in Ontario areshown in Table 10.2. It is apparent that coverageof subject material is adequate, and possibly morethan adequate in the classical fields Of chemicalcivil, electrical and mechanical engineering. itcomplete listing of degrees awarded in Ontarioby institution and by discipline for the years 1961-1069 is presented in Appendix B.

The geographic distribution of the Ontarioengineering schools is illustrated in Figure 10-1,ahich shows that the more populous regions ofthe province are well served. In the heavily indus-trialized area along the northwest shore of I.akeOntario there are in) fewer than five schools with-in a 100-mile span, while Ottawa has two suchschools. All but one of these schools arc within a220 -mile radius of Toronto a four-hour driveon good highways.

RECOMMENDED DISTRIBUTION OFUrDERGRADUATE ENROLMENTS

An examination of Table 10 -I reveals fiveschools tt here numbers are too low, and even withan anticip..tcd build-up of enrohnents (Fig. 9-4) ,there will not be enough soidents in Ontario toovercome c these deficiencies, It least until after1975. Furthermore, the distribution of enrol-ments will continue to be unbalanced unlesssteps arc taken to limit the intake at certainschools, since it appears that students are beingattracted to the well-established faculties, or toschools in the large urban centres. Unless thesmaller schools develop to a viable size, the costof engineering education in the province will con-tinue to be higher than it needs to be and thequality will vary.

If the upper limit of enrolment, based on costand academic viability, for any school is to be2,000 undergraduates, and if by 1980 about13,000 of them are ii. the system, then only sevenschools would be required. But there are specialregional needs, and experience has shown that ittakes ten or more years to build a strong engineer-ing school. Therefore, throughout the 1970s thoseschools below critical size should he preparingthemselves for continuing growth into the 1980swhile the others either reduce numbers or hold topresent figures. There are good reasons for retain-ing more schools than a minimum of seven, andthe smaller schools must strive to attain minimumviable enrolments as rapidly as possible. Theyshould limit the number of their programs anddevelop strength around one or two specialties.

68

L..

For these reasons, we shall rat mimend a reduc-tkm in freshman intake at Tonmto and Waterlooand the establishment of an upper limit on fresh-man enrolments at the other schools, with theexception of Lakehead and Laurentian, for whichnew roles are recommended (see page 80) . In thisway, freshman intake will be redistributed withinthe system. and each school can grow to a viablesize in the shortest possible time. Table 10-3 sum-marizes the recommended upper limits for fresh-man intake at each school: if undergraduateenroment projections arc correct, then by insti-tuting flue recommendations in 1971-72. theselimitations should be reached in all schools by1980. There is no justification for another engi-neering school in the province until after 1980,and then only if it can be dm-minced as a part ofthe total system.

Table 10-3

RECOMMENDED FRESIMAN INTAKEONTARIO ENGINEERING SC11001.S 1971-1980

University

ApproximateFreshman

Intake1970-71

Recommended

MaximumFreshman

Intake1971.190(1

AptwoilinateSseady

Slate Size aMaximum

Intake b

Carleton 220 400 1,250Guelph 47 150 500Lakehead 48 0 300-f-cLaurentian 46 0 Od

McMaster 235 500 1,600Ottawa 100 4 )0 1,250Queen's 373 r,10 1.600Toronto 669 ,i00 2,000Waterloo 671 650 2,200Western 155 400 1,250Windsor 120 400 1,250

wwwTotals 2,684 4.000

a As of mid-September 1970.b Assuming attrition rates do not change appreciably from those at

present.Recommended new two-year degree program for diploma technolosYgraduates.

d Recommended that engineering studies he phased out by 1972.

Past enrolments fo each school and recom-mended structures for the future arc shown ingraphical form in Appendix B. This pattern isbased upon criteria that stem from academic con-siderations and operating revenue, and not on thecapacity of the physical plant. Already. certainschools are limiting enrolments because of a lackof facilities (e.g. Queen's, Toronto and Water-loo) . The :,ctual pattern of future growth willdepend upon the available capacity of eachschool. At the present time there are some withsurplus space which should be filled before any

facilities arc extended. For this reason it will bereumninended that, until the student populationin the sr,tein builds up, Toronto and Waterloorestric t freshman intake to 600 and 650 studentsrespectively, while Queen's holds at about 400students.

No attempt has been made to undertake aquantitative assessment of the facilities requiredby the Ontario engineering schools; Bieir presentholdings arc summarized in Appendix E. Adetailed study is being conducted by the Com-mittee of Presidents of Universities of Ontarioand the Ontario Department of University Affairson a capital formula covering all faculties. It willestablish capital requirements for each type ofstudent in the system and : mechanism for thefunding of universities on an equitable basis. Itis to be hoped that such a formula will make itpossible to evaluate the requirements of eachengineering school, and to plan its expansionand refurbishment in b.).. with the enrolmentgrowth patterns sugges'ed in this report.

RECOMMENDED DISTRIBUTION OFCRADTIATF ENROLMENTS

'Table 10.4 shows the present enrolment distri-hution of the 1,893 .E. graduate students in1969.70. On the basis of the projet tion in Figure9.5, it 1133 been recommended that the total num-ber be reduced to 1,600 by the year 1973-74. Wehave suggested that grafluate enrolments in eachinstitution follow essentially the same pattern asrecommended for the province, and thereforethe future distribution of graduate studentswould stem from the number of bachelor'sdegrees awarded.

Appendix It contains a tabulation of bachelor'sdegrees and graduate enrolments for the past tenyears, by institution and by discipline. FiguresB-2 to 1t -12 were constructed from these data andinclude total undergraduate and freshman enrol-ments at each engineering school. The numberof bachelor's degrees to the year 1974.75 was esti-mated from the freshman intake using the recentattrition patterns of each school. Thes estimatesare based on the assumption that future how ratesof diploma technology graduates into s:cond year'will not significantly alter attrition patterns, atleast for the next two years. Table 10-4 lists theestimated lumber of bachelor degrees to beawarded at earl institution in 1973, derived firmFigures 11-2 to B-12.

This distribution provides a refereire for es-tablishing graduate enrolment quotas Jr the year1973.74, also shown in Table 10.4. Queen's Uni-

/

10 The System

versity anticipates a graduate enrolment of 180students in that year, a figure that is below thecriterion derived in Chapter 9, but consistentwith its present five-year plan. Numbers some-what larger than those suggested by the guidelineare recommended for Toronto and McMaster,

Table 10.4

REcost M ENDED GRADUATE ENGINEERINGENROLMENT DisTititurrioN 1973574

Institution

Estimated RecommendedF.T.E. Bachelor's F.T.E. Recommended

(iraduate Degrees GraduateEnrolment Awarded Enrolment a

1969.70 1973 1973.74

Phi) Enrol-ment

1973-74

Carletonrttawa

115156

11590

11590

60b

McMaster 184 120 150 45Guelph 23 30 30 0Queen's 168 250 180 55Toronto 625 440 480 165Waterloo 456 385 385 125Western 79 90 90 0Windsor 87 80 80 0

Totals 1,893 1,600 1,600 450

a Both master's and Ph.D. students.b Joint program (to be recommended in Chapter 11).

particularly in view of their location in largeurban areas of continuing growth, and thestrength of their graduate programs (see Table5-1)

The study group is concerned over the rapidgrowth of Ph D. studies in Ontario. Of the 1,893graduate students in 1969-70, more than 600 weredoctoral candidates. We have recommended thatthe total number of such rtudents in the systemnot exceed 450 a year until this figure is updatedat he next review. The recommended distribu-tion of these doctoral candidates is listed in thelast column of Table 10-4, and is discussed fur-ther in Chapter 11.

The recommended enrolment growth of thegraduate schools tip to 1980-81 is shown in Figure9.5. If the number of doctoral candidates remainsconstant at 450. the enrolment in master's pro-grams will grow from 1,150 F.T.E. students in1973-74 to 1,150 in 1980-81, when about onegraduate stue,:nt in five would be a doctoral can-didatc. Over the present decade, the pattern ofgrowth will be determined in large part by theflow of freshmen into each engineering school.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONSOne of the defects in formula financing is that

it makes provision for financial support by sanc-

69

tifying current trends without questioningwhether they arc desirable in the light of socialneeds. This has induced the universities toindulge in an almost immoral "numbers game",resulting in distortions which are now becomingapparent. For this reason, it is necessary to con-sider the financial impact of some of the recon:mendations in this report, if formula financingis to be continued in its present form.

A reasonable annual expenditure for the edu-cation of a doctoral candidate is about $17,500($10,000 from formula income, $7,500 of asso-

ciated costs) . The suggested reduction in enrol-ment of doctoral candidates will result in a savingof about two million dollars, some of whichshould be made available to assist in impler:.ent-ing other recommendations in this report. How-ever, as the system now stands, the loss of formulaincome from operating budgets of the univer-sities will represent hardship, rather than oppor-tunity, as the engineering schools adjust to theirnewly defined roles. For this reason, the operating

70

formula will have to be restructured if the recom-mendations of this report are to be implemented.

Alteration of the formula will have to be suchthat there can be a smooth transition from theexisting structure to the developing new system.Difficulties are bound to be encountered,K sincethe present formula is retrospective in character,while our recommendations are prospective.Until there is some indication of dip actual tim-ing of the implementation of these recommenda-tions, there is little purpose in suggesting newand less simplistic formulae. Certainly they willinvolve increasing the weight of the basic incomeunit accorded to the engineering undergraduate,with a probable decrease in that allocated fordoctoral studies. We strongly recommend that:(ti0:1) it is essential that changes in the formula beconsidered concomitantly with the development of thesystem."A problem emerges, however, if these weights are unintenionally outof line with actual unit costs, or if there Is a substantial differencebetween average and incremental costs. In such a situation, the univer-sities may tend to stress those programs which are overweighted inorder to get extra money." Economic Council, Seventh Annual Review,p. 69.

11

UNIVERSITIES IN THE SYSTEM

We have recommended an enrolment distribu-tion for the system that we believe to be consistentwith cost and quality considerations, and also apattern of growth to ensure that individualschools attain viable size in the shortest itossibletime. This has established an external configura-tion which permits a moredetailed assessment ofthe internal structure of each school in order tomeet the over-all educational objectives of thesystem.

We have said that there appears to be no com-pelling reason to alter the traditional branchesof engineering which have been developed overthe past century. They should continue to beoffered to engineering students, particularly atthe long-established schools and those in largeurban centres where enrolment pressures will bemost severe. Therefore, we will recommend thata full spectrum of engineering programs continueto be offered at four universities. In addition, cer-

min areas that may have been somewhatneglected in the past _tow demand attention andshould represent focal al tns of importance in theimmediate future. The location of two engineer-ing schools in the nation's capital, close to govern-mental research facilities, constitutes a specialopportunity. We shall recommend that they beassigned a cooperative common role specializingin ink_ Lion systems engineering, and with ajoint doctoral program making use of federallaboratories. Three others should specialize inenvironmental engineering, liberal engineeringand agricultural engineering. In the north, thereshould be a new two-year program designed forgraduates with a diploma in technology, to pro-vide for regional and provincial needs. Engineer-ing should be discontinued at one university.

In this chapter, these and other recommenda-tions relating to the system will be developed.

71

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

The Faculty of Applied Science and Engineer-ing at Toronto is the oldest-established programof engineering education in Ontario. The basisfor a "School of Practical Science" at Toronto waslaid down in an act of the provincial governmentin 1873. Although original!), conceived of as aseparate institution, in 1906 the "School" for-mally became the university's Faculty of AppliedScience and Engineering. Today, it has more than15,000 living graduates, who represent nearlyone-sixth of Canada's professional engineeringcommunity. The present enrolment of 2,824ranks it as one of the largest schools on the conti-nent, and all Canadians can take pride in itsachievements and 1:4 international reputation.

The study group was impressed by the closeassociation between engineering and the otherfaculties at the University of Toronto. In ourvisits to the universities, no other engineeringschool appeared to have more satisfactory inter-7ctions with other faculties in bo.i: research andteaching.

Today, this engineering school is in a positionto engage in innovation as applied to teachingtechniques and ways to extend the outreach of itsfaculty not only to other universities, but alsoto the community, industry and society. It hasbeen devoting a good deal of attention to theceacing of first-year students, and to the use ofmole senior and cxperienc!d members of theengineeri% faculty in teaching first- and second-year mathematics and science. Proposed changesin cm ricula pattern.; to be introduced uy 1971-72may well establish usetul guidelines for some ofthe other schools. In re-earch, cooperative proj-ects such as the radio astronomy program withQueen's University and the transportation pro-gram with York University are commendable andshould be encouraged The team approach to con-sulting work on the part of the Toronto facultyhas had an impact on the growth of secondaryindustry in Canada, and the current developmentof entrepreneurial interest among its iacultycould stimulate further "growth" industry inOntario.

There appears to be a maximum size withinwhich human and physical resources can be dis-tributed efficiently and our study has shown thisto be approximately 2,000 undergraduate stu-dents, which corresponds to an annual freshmanintake of 600 students. (Tornito's present limiton freshman enrolment is somewhat higher thanthis 669 early fall registrations in 1970 (Fig.B-9) . The recommendation for graduate enrol-

72

meet is 480 students, ts.hii h includes Ili5 doctoralcandidates; such levels should enable the facultyto ma in to in excel knee.

In summary, it is recommended that:

(11:1) the University of Toronto continue to offer afull spectrum of engineering program , but that, start-ing in 1971, it limit freshman intake to 600 studentsa year, and reduce graduate enrolment to 480 stu-dents, including no more than 165 doctoral candidatesby the 1973-74 academic year.

QUEEN'S UNIVERSITYThis Faculty of Applied Science is the third-

oldest engineering school in the province.Undergraduate enrolment has been growingsteadily and in 1969-70 there were 1,360 stu-dents (Fig. 11-8) . Queen's has been limiting itsfreshman intake over the past four years toapproximately 370 students, so that total enrol-ments should level off at about I,40C early inthe 1970s.

Founded in 1841, Queen's is an old and well-established institution. It has an illustrious his-tory of scholarship and service, with the threadsof Scottish pragmatism and conservatism woveninto the very fabric of the university. Thesehave provided the necessary strength to over-come difficult periods in the past, and to impart

its make-up a veputation and stability sharedby few other universities. The Queen's AlmaMater Society, one of the strongest in Canada,h is a membership list that reads like a "Who's

of the builders of our nation.

These threads of conservatism are apparentin the development pattern el'. the Faculty ofApplied Science, particularly at the graduatelevel. Over the past five years, undergraduateenrolment has run parallel to that of the prov-ince, but the number of graduate students hasrisen more slowly. Today, its graduate schoolenrolment is 12.3% o. its undergraduate total,compared to 22.2% for the province as a whole.

While we believe the growth in engine -..inggraduate studies should be curbed and haverecommended that other schools reduce graduateenrolments, we believe graduate student num-bers at Queen's should increase slightly in orderto achieve its planned target of 180 by .973-74,with nu more than 55 doctoral candidates.Queen's should continue to offer the full spec-trum of undergraduate programs, and at thes'me time its graduate school should strive todevelop greater strength and stature.

The recent formation of the Canadian Insti-tute of Guided Ground Transport is an imagi-

native concept, and an excellent example ofcooperation heti% een university, industry andgovernment. The location of this university,away from the major urban centres, requiressuch special efforts to extend its outreach intoCanadian industrial and academic life.

First- and second-year students complainedthat fundamental courses were taught not byengh eery, but principally by members of scienceand mathematics departments, and further thatsuch classes were too large. We suggest thatgreater attention be focused on these earlieryears. The freshman intake is now limited to370-100 students. This pattern should continuefor the next five years in order to permit otherwhools in the system to develop, and to providetime for Queen's to answer these criticisms.Between 1975 and 1980, the freshman intakeshould be allowed to increase to 500, a figureconsistent with the role of Queen's as one of theprovince's four major schools offering a broadrange of engineering disciplines.

Its mining engineerin; program is the onlyfull course in this field being offered in Ontario.The present shortage of such engineers suggeststhat this department should be given specialattention. There is need for a new mining build-ing, and we would urge .;rat in the developmentof this important activity, there oe additional()operation with the Ontario mining commu-

nity. In particular, we recommend that:

(11:2) a three-way cooperative program between theuniversity, Cambrian College in Sudbury. and themining industry in that area be thoroughly explored.Such a program could combine work experiencewith specialized classes in mining technologyand thus provide aspiring mining engineers witha combined educational experience in a regionof the province where they may be employed.(See page 80) .

limitary, we recommend that:

(1A:3) Queen's University continue to offer a fullspectrum of engineering programs while maintainingan annual frohman intake no greater than 400 stu-dents until after 1975, and then increasing this figureto 500 students a year. Furi'aer, we recommend thatengineering graduate enrolments increase slightly lo180 students by 1973.74, which would inclule nomore than 55 doctoral candidates.

UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO

In July 1957, the Faculty of Engineeringintroduced Canada's first cooperative program.It has become the largest undergraduate engi-neering school in the nation, with an enrolment

11 Universities In The System

of 2,349 students. 'Today, it ranks among the fivelargest cooperative engineering schools in NorthAmerica, and this rapid growth attests to itspopularity.

Undergraduates spend alternate terms in theuniversity and in industry, and over a five-yearperiod devote eight terms to study and six termsto industrial employment. Such a program,unique in Ontario, has proved to be a refreshingdeparture from the conventional pattern thatprevails among the other schools in the province.Both industry and the academic community haveenthusiastically endorsed the precepts underly-ing the cooperative system of engineering. edu-cation. This requires extensive contacts withindustry and other employers of engineers, andis carried out by the Department of Co-ordina-tion and Placement, which has developed a net-work of employers within Ontario and through-out Canada. New cooperative programs are beingintroduced in other provinces, which may cutinto the employment market for Ontario uni-versity students. In times such as at present, withsome scarcity of employment opportunities, themarket for cooperative students will becomesaturated. For these reasons, we recommend that:

(11:4) Waterloo continue to be the only engineeringschool 0ering a cooperative program in Ontariothroughout the 1970s, and that its engineering belimited to this type of program.

Since 1960, Waterloo Las experienced thehighest growth rate in the ,,istem, with an in-crease of more than 200 students a year (Fig.B-10) . At the present time, freshman intake isbeing limite4 to an average of 672 students(Table B-2) , so that future growth will be

restricted. We have suggested that an engineer-ing school can become too large, and that enrol-ments of more than 2,000 students should bediscouraged. This view was shared by a Com-mittee of The Engineering Faculty Council atWaterloo, who r..porte:1 in 1963:

There wou1:1 br little irther advantage interms of stale and ellicLucy III any enrolment'larger than 2,000. The 'nly possible advan-tage would be the abuity to "cover" morespecialized discipl;v:_s with the correspondinggrowth in faculty numbers. But this wouldonly be achieved at the expense of increasinganonymity amongst students and members ofthe faculty.

It goes on to say that efforts should be directedtowards improving quality among the under-graduates, and that, "while other engineeringschools i-. Ontario operate with enrolments wellbelow capacity, such action at Waterloo wouldcause no distress or suggestion of disservice tothe public that supports the university."

I

73

Waterloo has been offer:ng four undergradu-ate engineering programs chemical, civil, elec-trical and mechanical and now offers a newprogram in systems design. It is interesting tonote that its objectives have been met by pro-viding only the four basic branches of engineer-ing ly'ithout in ibiting growth.

The expansi,,n has been equally spectacular atthe graduate level. Starting with eight studentsin 1060-61, enrolment has risen steadily to 456F.T.E. students in 1969-70, It is understood thatthe school intends to restrain further growth, soas to consolidate this effort at a level comparableto what was recommended in Chapter 10.

For these reasons, we recommend that:

(11:5) Waterloo continue to offer a full spectrum ofundergraduate engineering programs, but restrict itsfreshman intake to 650 students. Also we recommendthat by 1973-74 total graduate enrolments be reducedto 385 students with no more than 125' in doctoralprograms.

Engineering at Waterloo is entering a periodof r:lative stability when increasing attentionshould be focused on excellevce in teaching andresearch. As a young school, it has little in thenattre of institutional traditions that might fet-ter its ability to experiment and to innovate inteaching methods and research directed towardsolutions to regional and national problems.

Chapter :1 (page 10) we advocated that oneengineering school in Ontario become a tech-nical university, with its own Senate and Boardof Governors. At Waterloo, the Faculty of Engi-neering has an opportunity to undertake such anexperiment. In its formative years, as a young,large and viable faculty, it experienced little dif-ficulty in developing and sustaining policies con-sistent with its goals and objectives. Now it hasarrived at a consolidation phase, and the contin-uing growth of the university around it will tendto have a stultifying influence at a time whenadministrative flexibility may be crucial to itsleadership and pursuit of excellence. Moreover,in its submission Waterloo suggested that a goodcase can be made for the setting up of a separatetechnical university "ia view of the particularstructure and attitudes in Canadian universitiestoday".

Of course, undergraduate engineering pro-gr,,ts must depend on other faculties for serv-ice instruction; furthermore, interdisciplinarystudies and research should be a characteristicof any modern university. Engineering studentshave emphm:zed the benefits to be gained fromassociatinv with students in other disciplines.

74

Consequently, there is need for c lose affiliationbetween the autonomous engineering school andthe university in this proposed arrangement. Thiscould he accomplished by cross-appointments inthose disciplines normally associated with otherfaculties, and by the purchase of service teach-ing where cross-appointments are not practical.

We recommend that:

(11:6) the Faculty of Engineering at Waterton under-take negotiations to enalile it to be reorganized intoa technical university, with a separate Board ofGovernors and Senate, but in affiliation with theUniversity of Waterloo.

McM ASTER UNIVERSITY

The Faculty of Engineeling was established in1957 on a firm base provided by the strong depart-ments of physics and chemistry; it is an element inthe Division of Science and Engineering. Under-graduate enrohnents have grown steadily at anaverage rate of 42 students a year. and therewere 504 undergraduates in 1969-70 (Fig. B-6) .Although located in a major urban centre, it isstraddled by the two largest engineering schoolsin the country Toronto to the east, and Water-loo to the west. Further to the east is Queen's,and further to the west is Western, and all havehad an adverse effect on the growth of McMaster'sundergraduate enrolments. We have recom-mend^d a curtailment in the freshman intake atthree of these schools (Queen's, Toronto andWaterloo) , n rich should channel more freshmeninto McMaster. Since Hamilton is a rapidlyexpanding industrial region, the commuting stu-dent population should experience a substantialgrowth.

McMaster offers six undergraduate programs,with two of them (metallurgy and engineeringphysics) in cooperation with departments in theFaculty of Science. A seventh, engineering andmanagement, is being operated jointly witit theSchool of B:isiness. Such combined programstend to enlarge class sizes and render them moreeconomically viable.

We have recommended that Queen's, Torontoand Waterloo continue to offer a full spectrumof undergraduate programs. These schools shouldaccount for a rital of 5,800 students, which is only44% of the anticipated Ontario widergraduateenrolment for 1980. We believe a strong argu-ment can be made for adding McMaster to thisgroup.

The growth in McMaster's engineering gradu-ate enrolment has been rapid: from eight gradu-ate students in 1960-61 to 184 in 1969-70. Today,

it is the third-largest such graduate school in theprovince, 1%.itli a size representing :16.5% of un-dergraduate enrolments considerably morethan the provincial average. The vitality. of itsactivity is well demonstrated in Tables 5-1 and5-2.

In summary, we recommend that:

(11:7) McMaster continue to offer a full spectrum ofengineering programs, while increasing its treshmanintake to 500 students a year, but that by 1973.74 thenumber of its graduate students be limited to 150,including 45 doctoral candidates.

cARLEToN UNIVERSITYThe undergraduate program at Carleton. now

in its tenth -ar, made up of three years ofstudy in a common-core curriculinn followed bya single year of specialization in civil. electricalor mechanical engineering. This arra rztluent isunique in Canada. While rigid in structure, itdoes make possible certain economies. The greatmajority. of Carleton students whom we inter-viewed expressed satisfaction with their curricu-lum, and some viewed with concern the recentintroduction in the second and ti :rd year of anengineering or science elective which could repre-sent a deviation front the pattern. The presentprogram is sound, successful and distinctive, anda Ithou,i,Elt course content and seqttence do requirea continual evolution. ;,ty dismantling of its basicstructure would be a oss to the Ontario system.

The popularity of Carleton's present engineer-ing program is reflected in the pattern of its enrol-ment (Fig. 11-2) . Although the City of Ottawashares two engineering schools Carleton andOttawa the two schools (how from constitu-encies that overlap only slightly. The students atCarleton are Foglish-speaking, ulti le the studentsat Ottawa are predominantly bilingual. For thisreason. the alternative to Carleton tends to LeQueen's, not the ITniversity of Ottawa. Queen'shas maintained its freshman enrolment at a fixedlevel since 19t15, and we have recommended thatit continue this pattern. Carleton's freshmanintake is rising slowly. and should continue torise throughout the 1970s. Ultimately, an increasein undergraduate enrolments at Carleton will belimited by population growth in the Ottawa re-gion. It is difficult to predict what this will be, butwe have recommended that Carleton limit itsfreshman intake to 400 students a year (Table10-4) , a figure that could be reached in the pres-ent decade. Graduate enrolments at Carletonhave grown more slowly but have already reachedthe level recommended for 1973-74 in Chapter 10,(Table 10-4) .

11 Universities In The .tiptem

It is unnecessary for each Ontario school tooffer a full range of engineering programs as longas there is a sufficient variety of programs n.ithinthe system. This has been ensured by our reccnn-mendation that Toronto, Queen's, Waterloo andNI laster continue to cover the full spectrum,maintaining faculty and departments in a broadrange of disciplines. This will leave each of theremaining schools in a position where they canspec ialim and concentrate resources in one or twomajor areas selc( ted o, the basis of regionaland national needs that are not being adequatelyset.' NI at the present time. In this way, resourcesis it l not be spread over such a wide range ofactivities that effort would be unduly diluted.

In Chapter 5 (page 24) we suggested thatresearch in the field of information systems engi-neering will be of paramount importance in fu-ture, and that such a role should be assignedjointly to Caleton and Ottawa th.iversities. Theproximity of government laboratories and indus-trial facilities serves as an added incentive togenerate meaningful interaction between Clem:institutions and the universities. Initially, v. orkin this field should be conce,itrated at the gradu-ate level. with a joint docilra1 program shared bythe two universities, before becoming infusedinto undergraduate studies. At Carleton thiscould occur rap;dly and efficiently because of thethree-year count. on-core curriculum. Coopera-tion with outer agencies would be a matterfor n.gotiation Ivhere the two universities acttogefier.

:military, we reminmend that:

(11:8) Carleton. retain its present undergraduate pro-gram structure, limit its freshman intake when itreas:hes a figure of 400 students a year and maintaingraduate enrolment at 115 stue _its, including 60doctoral candidates to be shared equaily with Ottawa.Further, we recommend that graduate student itidfaculty research b: directed towards the field of infor-mation systems engineering, and that Carleton explorejointly with Ottawa ways to collaborate with localgovernmental and industrial laboratories, for example,lz of a talk-back television network (Chapter

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA

,_ngineering at the University of Ottawa can betraced back to 1873, but the modern phase in thisdevelopment began in 1946 With the offering ofthe first two years of a degree program. This wasextended to the full four years, and in 1956, engi-neering degrees were awarded for the first time.Today the engineering school forms part of theFaculty of Science and Engineering.

75

Students divide into three nearly equal groupsaccording to mother tongue: French, English nranother language. The cosmopolitan In ix tto e ofboth students and staff is a distinctive feature ofthe university. ITndergraduates arc required to beproficient in both French and English.

Four undergraduate programs are beingoffered in chemical, ( ivil, electrical and mech-anical engineering. Enrolments arc shown inTable B-I and Figure B-7. In Chapter 10, we sug-gested that a school is neither economically noracademically viable until there are at least 200soulents in a program. In 1969-70, Ottawa's totalundergraduate enrolment was 369 as comparedto a minimum viable number of 800 students.Even if university projections are correct, thisminimum size could not be attained until 127)-76; but a decrease in the 1970-71 freshinanintake Ore the previous year does not augurwell for these projections.

It would appear that a case can be made foreither reducing the number of programs offered,eli-uinating engineering altogether, or creatinga common-core curriculum similar to the patterndeveloped at Carleton. The last choice is themost attractive because it presents a prospect forincreased cooperation between these two schools,especially if they share a television network. Thetwo schools have already begun to work togetherin civil engineering at the undergraduate level,and graduate .,tudents in each school receivecredit for classes taken at the other. Howes cc, itwas stated that a major impediment to furthercooperation is the difference in the structure oundergraduate programs.

Ottawa graduate enrolments have shore thandoubled in the past two years, and have grownto a size disproportionate to that of the under-graduate school, but the arguments used inChapter 10 led us to recommend a major reduc-tion from 156 students in 1969-70 to 90 studentsby 1973-74. A joint Ph.D. program with Carle-ten in the field of information systems engineer-ing was recommended, and we envisage thisas the field of specialization in the Gttawaundergraduate .program as recomm,:ndedCarleton.

In summary, we recommend that:

(11:9) Ottawa create a common-core undergradu-ate curriculum in a pattern similar to that atCarleton; graduate enrolments be.redoced. to 90 stu-dents by 1973-74, including 60 doctorai candidatesto be shared equally with Carleton, and graduatestudent and faculty research be directed towards thefield of information systems engineering in a joint

76

(";

program with Carleton. Further, we recommendthat Ottawa explore arrangements with Carletonfor the installation of a talk -back television networkthat mid include government and industrial labo-ratories in the area, and would serve both under-graduate and graduate programs.

We recognize the difficulties inherent in theserecommendations but are attempting to estab-lish the equivalent of a single, strong engineer-ing school in the City of Ottawa in effect, oneunlit with two branches representing the 1);v:iclinguistic and cifitural di.!*( rences between thetwo institutions.

UNIVERATY OF WESTERN ONTARIO

Western establi: lied a Department of Engi-neering cience in 1954, and its first degreeswere award.d fol years later. Undergraduateenrolments reached a figure of 442 students in1969-70 (r. B-I I) . Nlany of its students aredrawn from soutin.'eswin Ontario, tvhich has arelatively s able population. However, quotason intake .ecommended for the larger schoolsshould increase the student flow from otherparts of the proving

It has a common-Lore engineering curl it Winnin the first two years, 1% ith three optional streamsin addition to tae core studies in tk. secondyear, leading into five different progratris for thetwo final yea's. At the present level of enrol-ment, there appears to he little justification forso many programs. Engineering experievc a

drop in freshman intake for 1970-71 anti thissuggests that an estima.e of 640 undergraduateengineering students by 1974-75 may be optimis-tic. Even at this level, only three programs wouldbe viable according to the arguments (level( pedin Chapter 10.

Gradual. studies were begun in 1962, and by1969-70 there were 79 F.T.E. students. We haverecommended that this enrolment should notexceed 90 by 1973-74 (Table 10-4) . Western hasgained distinction with its work in industrialaerodynamics, electrostatics and bioengineer-ing, sshilt its course-work M.Eng. program inenvironmental engineering is generating wide-spread interest.

Following the same pattern as proposed forCarleton and Ottawa, Western has a specific areafor specialization. Envirmmental engineering isbecoming a subject of increasing interest, andWestern is in a position to concentrate in such afield. This is an exciting prospect, because of itssocial relevance and because of the strong desireof capable young people to play a prominent

role in the solution of problems relating toour ecology. At Western, graduate student andlac"' Ity research (-mild he adapted without difficul-ty and there is a strong case for the introduction ofan undergraduate program in environmentalengineering. This could be accomplished bydeveloping existing options into one major pro-gram tvith a commoicore structure. The presentdoctoral program should be abandoned, and nonew programs developed before the end of thisdecade, and then only after a demand for doctor-ates in this fiel has been clearly ktemonstrated.

For the above reasons, the recommend that:

(11:10) Wester;- concentrate its graduate student andfaculty research in the field of environmental engineering, and that a !iew common-core undergraduateprogram he introduced in this field in place of theexisting options. Further, we recommend that gradu-ate enrolments at the master's level should not exceed90 students by 14)73-74, and that no further studentsbe admitted to existing doctors,! programs.

Western's Engineering Science Devil-mentwas esta:dished at a time ivlim there was a majorshift in engineering edncation towards greaterscience content. In Canada, this is no longer awajor issue, as universities at! Anpt to focns on-ngineering as a distinctive profession involvinga bcdy of knowledge in which science is but oneof many critical components. For this reason, wewoui:l suggest that the faculty consider deletingthe wor:l "science" and becoming the Faculty ofEngineering.

ITNIVE. SITY OF WINDSORLocated in the southwestern corner of the

province. Windsor draws the bulk of its studentsfrom a region where the population has re-;mined relatively stable. Since 1967, there hasbeen a slight annuml decline in freshman intake(Fig. B-12) and total undergraduate enrolment!.as havered around 400 students. Growth can beexpected here for the same reasons as suggestedwith respect to Western, and so will depend onnew student flow patterns in the province as awhole.

Windsor now offers seven undergraduate engi-neering programs, each with a separate cuiricu-him after the firs! year. In Chapter 10 wedeveloped riteria that suggest that 1,400 stu-dents is the minimum viable size for thisnumber of programs. It is unlikely that suchenrolment can be achieved during the presentdecade, and therefore the arguments developedfor Western apply equally to Windsor: thepresent number of undergraduate programsshould be curtailed.

// Univet.sities In The Sysit 4n

In Chapter :1 (page 10) we suggested the needfor a liberal education program 'milt around astrong core of engineering. In order to preservethe engineering ethos of such a program, the basicdesign disciplines must be stressed. This couldbe accomplished 1.,y structuring options in themajor disciplines during the latter years, buttheir nninber should be consistent ivith viableclass sizes determined by total nildc,graduateenrolments. Liberal engineering Is° men-ing in the area of graduate st uses, an. t twillaccelerate the development of interdiscip..narywork. Graduate enrolments %reit. cove:vd inTable 10-1.

In siminiary,ive recommend that:

(11:11) Windsor .stablish a new undergraduate pro-gram developed around a liberal engineering core,and with an emphasis on design; and that such nprogram replace those now in existen.v. The num-ber of design options should be consistent with viableclass sizes. Further, we recommend that graduatestudies be concentrated on liberal engineering andthat enrolments be reduced to 80 by 1973-74, withno further work at the Ph.D. level during the presentdecade.

UNIVERSITY OF GUELF Hnstablished in 1964, the University of Guelph

includes the Federated Colleges of the OntarioDepartment of Agriculture, one of which wasthe former Ontario Agricultural College. It hadformed a Department of Agricultural Engineer-ing in 1946, ivhih provided are engineeringoption. Snbsequen ly, arrangements were madewith the University of Toronto whereby suchstudents conk: register for the filial year of me-chanical engineering or ivil engineering. In1964-65. the Senate of the University of Guelphapproved an academic program leading to theB.Sc. (Eng.) degree, in which students concen-trate in the final year on one of three engineer-ing majors: mechanical and power, structural, orwater resources.

Further changes were effected in 1969 whena new program was introduced based upon acore concept for engineering with two elective,components one in the humanities and socialsciences and the other in the life and earthsciences. Each elective represents 13% of the totalcurriculum, and they :ire interwoven intoallyears of the program. Such a feature, while nor-mal for humanities and social science subjects, isa departure frum the usual arrangement of struc-turing each option into one of the standard engi-neering disciplines during the latter years of aprogram. A common engineering component(74% with its core of mathematics, physical

77

sciences, engineering sciences and design) is com-bined with ;1 wide range of options to permiteach student to establish a plograin gea«1 to hisown interests, under the guidance of a facility,member. The majority of ( lasses in sitc.11 options%yin be tanglit by departments outside the Schoolof Agricultural Engineering,

Stich an arrangement should appeal to stu-dents who have a strong desire for greater free-dom to create their own prog,Tani. The basicengin, (Ting core concept is sound for a schoolthe size of t :1,elpli. It l'as reduced liv 3°-:. thetotal number ()I classes offered in engine,!rior....and thereby increased the average class s is

the school. Ohio. optional :lasses may beaugmented by non-engineering students Thisprogram should be c and academic-all viable provicied total enrolment excee,i, 9V0students (as suggested in Chapter 10) .

NVe have a reservation about the electiv,nature of the humanities and social wencescomponent. In Charter 7 (page 35 ) we stiggest, , that curricula in the "applied humani-ties.' should be stun, titled and '..orni part of an

"ruing core. in view of the ' :erect relevanceof suct, subjects to the fottuda ions of the roo-lession. This could still ',I1()v for some el .ctiveclasses, but they should be ipplementaN orequired group of classes in the applied litho:mi-nes. Such an argument can be applied to several5( pools in the system. lint it is particularly appro-priate for Guelph because of the natio e of itsnew curric tiltini.

The enrolment pattern Of Guelph is shown inFigure 11-3. and its recommended graduate enrol-ments are given in Table 10-1.

In summary. we recommend that:

(11:12) Guelph pursue its new engineering core pro-gram, with options in the life and earth sciences,but with the applied humanities added to the core.Further, we recommend that graduate enrolments notexceed 30 students by 1973-74, and no further workat the Ph.D. level be undertaken during the presentdecade.

THE NORTH

In addition to the nine universities alreadydiscussed in this chapter, there are two in thenorth Laurentian and Lakehead offeringthe first two years of a degree program in engi-neering. Their students must transfer to one ofthe nine schools in order to complete therequirements for a degree.

The region of Ontario north of Lake Nipis-

78

sing has a sparse population but an abundanceof natural resonces, The pulp and paper Indus-try is concentrated in the area of Thunder Bay.which is the site of Lakehead Min-ing takes place throughout the region butt itscentre is Stullinry. the heart of the nickel andcopper belt and the loc anon of LanrentianUniversity,

Therefor:, it is not surprising that the major-ity of engineers are employed in managementand operations. Local chapters (vlitincler Bayand Sucloury) of the .1 1)1..) e providedstatistics on their constittiencymd the followingdistrilintiot is given for the 1,200 engineers inthe regior.:

Civil 33%

---- 22; .2"r1 crif)r:

Yining

Chemical()tiler

A survey condo led 1)% these APE() chaptersreveals that approximately 900 new enginvercwill be reqiiired chitin the next ten years,asstnning then will be major development of:,titral rest mrces. It suggests that the distribu-tion of the disciplines will continue to be thes;clue as at the present time. If t' is reqiiirein,ti; spread uniformly over the decade, deem iLcApproximate requirements for engineers will beas follows:

MetallurgyCheinit alOther

30 a year22 a yearIlayear10 a year1 7 a year

It has proved diflicidt to attract engineers Imothe north. In the Stullmr) region, nearly 70e.;are from outside Canada. and there is a high turn-over. In the pulp -ane-paper-oriented ThimthrRay dist] than 75% of the engineershave family roris there, and fewer than 10%come from abroad. There appears to be a on-tinuing shortage of engineers in both areas, andthis was the basis of the argument in favourof establishing engineering schools at Lanrentianand Lakehead universities.

At Laurentian, 86% of the engineering stu-dents are from the region, while at Lakehead60% come from the immediate district, 20%from the rest of the northern area and 20% fromelsewhere. Thus, it can be seen that both engi-neering schools are essentially local in nature.

Students who elect to leave home to attendnniversity are more likely to be attracted to thelarger urban centres in the province. This has

been established by the study group in tracingthe origins of students in sod) intiversities asToronto and McMaster, and confirmed by theOntario Institute for Studies in F.thication in itsstitches of student flows. ()11 this basis, it is mean-ingful to examine grade I student flows fromthe high schools within commuting range ofthese two 11011Ilerll universities, because it is 11.0111these SI 'tools that they would draw more thanhalf 14 their engineering students.

Table 1 t-1

(:ttniu: 13 ENROL:111'N is IN I !ICH SCHOOLS NVITHINRADII1S OF I .A1MENTIAN ANL) LAKFIlEAD

UNIVERSITIF.S

Laurentian1.akehead

1970 !yap Engineeringe,t) t csii. Freshmen a

I gaS nu m, t Mal di 1970 1960

79.1 965 2.000 68 140698 85(1 1,800 60 126

3 Assuming 7'; of grade 11 enrolments enter engineering, a I 1 re that1% high for the 1970. (ntario average opteted to he WI 1.

Iii Table I I-I it is assumed that the cominnting radius for ea' li university is 35 miles, andalso that a slightly higher percentage of high01,4)1 students than the Ontario 'wen r.e willen. ;. engineering. Many of these Feslunen, notwishing, to commut.e, will elect to go elsewhere'o university. We have assumed that 50% leavttut area. and the remainder will comprisehalf the total windier of freshmen in the north.The validity of this assnmption rests on theanticipated continuing desire for students toleave home to study in the larger urban centres.and on the present enrolment patterns at thesetwo ur versifies. Thus, the number of engineer-ing freshmen show'. in Table 1 I.1 is a roughapproximation of the first-year enrolment ineach school for the years 1970 and 1980. Inactual fact, early first-year registration in Sep-tember of 1970 was 40 at Lanrentian and 48 atLakehead. so that estimates for 1970 were highby 70% and 25% respectively.

These ...gineering schools have been in exist-ence for more than a decade, and yet the numbersof freshmen in degree programs have remainedin the 15-62 band for Lakehead (Fig. 13-4) and0-44 for Laurentian (Fig. B-5). Unquestionably,the necessity to transfer after two years toanother university has been a deterrent to first-year enroltnents. Such two-year "semi-programs"satisfy neither students nor staff, and canonly be justified as an interim measure duringthe emergence of a new faculty. Now it is timefor programs at both schools to be eitherextended or terminated. If they were extended

yr

11 Urliver.tilie,c In The .tivilem

to four years, Table I I-1 suggests that neitherschool could reach a viable si/e midi the late1970s for even one program in a single discipline(freshman intake of 90.100 students) , 111 themeantime, students and staff would continue tosuffer from insufficient enrolment as otherengineering schools attract the top stiidentsfrom the region. The temptation would bestrong to adopt lower standards of entrance, andit is 11;11*(1 to ;11'0111 the (1110116111 that it 1V0111(1

Ile advisable these programs,

LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITYThere is a continuing shortage of mining engi.

flyers in the Sudbury district, and industry hasbeen forced to search for them in other prov-inces and outside 'mach. Queen's l'i,iversityoffers the only miniog engineering program inOntario, in which it has been awarding fewerthan 10 bachelor's degrees a year. Since the can-ent demand for the north alone is approxi-

mately 22 a year, there is now more studentinterest in this held, and the new milling ',milding at Queen's w:11 enhance tue development of011. If Ontario's primary industries. In 1970,paduates with bachelor degrees in mining werebeing' offered did high:st starting sah.ries of allbrandies of enguieel nig in Ontario: S692 amonth. compared to the over-all average for engi-neering of S656 a month

Next to mining, there is a growl demand intl e Siullmry region for meta. iirgical engiueeis.Over the past decade the number of ew bacca-laureates in this field from the antatio schoolshas averaged 25 a year and the need in the northis expected to be abort 11 in (ell year of thepresent decade. Such engineers are used in manyother industries, and it is possible that we w'''experience a continuing shortage until the pro-gram at McMaster expands. Most metallurgicaland materials engineers in Ontario now comefrom Queen's or Toronto. Programs requiredfor the north in other fields (principally civiland chemical engineering) ;ire in abundance.

The existing Ontario schools should be ableto provide engi ,!ers of tit,: ;.equired disciplinesto satisfy the special needs of the Sudburyregion. Furthermore, even if Laurentian couldfully satisfy the regional demand for engineers,local industries have indicated that they do notwish to restrict recruiting to a single university,and so will continue to draw upon traditionalsources of supply for new engineering graduates.

Laurentian has only four faculty members in'Department of Manpower and Immigration, Requirements and AverageStarting Salaries, University Graduates, 1970

79

engineering, and limited facilities. The univer-sity maintains that there is insufficient space toaccommodate the proposed expansion to a four-year program, and therefore it would be forcedto adopt some form of a trimester cooperativeprogram with industry. To date, such planshas e not been developed.

For all these reasons, it is te«munendedthat:

(11:13) the existing engineering programs at Lauren-tian University be terminated, and ro freshmen be:admitted for 1971-72.

All students presently enrolled should he giventhe opportunity to complete their course ofstudy, which means work in engineering shouldnot cease until June 1972. This should providesufficient time for the university to omanize themost effective way in which to re-deploy valuableresources, and to work out plans with membersof staff for alternative careers. In the event thatthe university decides to discontinue engineer-ing in 1971, provision must he made to subsidizethe education of those stu lents affected in orderthat they may complete their second year atanother instituLion.

hi our discussions with local industries, it wasapparent that they :re anxious to assist thc uni-ve.iity. Imernational Nickel provi'led most gen-erous fi mcial support towards the constructionof Imiluings at tam, ntian, and indicated aninterest in c-ntintling assistance in those areas ofdirect relevance to t'le comparr, . We would sug-gest that any act] support should be directedtowards the development of geology and otherrelatectearth sciences, including geophysics.

Cambrian .ollege, the College of A-pliedArts and Te neology in Sudbury, offers three-year dip' .ala courses in chemical, civil, elec-trical, geological, metallurgical and mining tech-nology. These were designed to satisfy the needsof local industry, but have assumed increasingimportance because of the present shortage ofmining and metallurgical engineers which hasresulted in technologists being hired to under-take tasks normally performed by graduate engi-neers. We believe there is much to be gained inthree-way cooperation between Cambrian Col-lege, the Department of Mining Engineering atQueen's University, and the mining industry inthe Sudbury district. Mining technology classescould be developed at Cambrian which wouldenable Queen's students to gain practical expe-rience in the local industry. In this way, studentswould be exposed to the industry early in theircareers, and industry would be given an oppor-

80

tunity to attract these students prior to gradu-atiim. The details of any such cooperative planwould require considerah'e negotiation. and wewould hope that local industry might take theinitiative in selling up such an arrangement.

-LAKEIIF.AD UNIVERSITY

There will be a continuing demand for engi-neers in the pulp and paper industry of theThunder Bay district and a requiremeht to meetthe needs of a small but growing number ofmanufacturing plants. The city of Thunder Bayis situated at the edge of the boreal forest regionof Canada within the mid-Canada corridor. It islikely to be a major growth centre in any pro.grain to develop Canada's north. Figure 10.1shows that Thunder Bay is isolated from themore heavily populated areas of the province.Its inhabitants still retain a frontier outlook --a "spirit of the north" which is infectious, andmany who come intending to stay for but a shorttime arc t.,ught up in its atmosphere and settlethere permanently.

There is a pressing need for more people andespecially for engineers. It is unlikely that noi th-ern development will be a major focus for theexpenditure of public money in the near futurebecause ..f the higher priority being accord.d tourban problems. Nevertheless, vovernmentalprojects relating to the region should increase initensity towards the tat, r half Jr the 1970s,

when the demand for engineers could becomeeven more acute than it is at the present time.

Tii.:re are valid reasons for developing a pro-gair at I 'kehead University which ill attractpotential engineers into the region at th_ :mge intheir lives when they are about to make careerdecisions and other long-term commitments. Thewesent two-year program fails in this respectbecause it sends them away two years beforegraduation. On the other hand, a regalia, four-year program would not be viable until late inthe 1970s or early in the 1980s. Lakehead alsooffers three-year programs leading to diplomasin technology and the first year of architecturaltechnology. It is the only such school in theprovince where degree and diploma studeni.:, iretaught in the same institution. The viability ofany four-year degree program, which dependsprincipally on the number of bachelor gradua-tions in each discipline, would not be alteredappreciably by the presence of such programs intechnology.

The recent expansion of the CAATs hasmeant a growing number of diploma technologygraduates in Ontario. It has been estimated that

about 15% of these graduates have both thedesire and the ability to pursue further studiestowards a bachelor's degree in engineering. Someof them are being admitted to established degreeprograms, usually at the second-year level. Asignificant number have proceeded into the thirdyear of engineering degree programs in theUnited States, and many remain there perma-nently. following graduation.

The Ontario engineering schools have notstructured any programs specifically for thesediploma technology graduates. Usually such stu-dents arc behind in basic mathematics andscience, but ahead in technology-related subjects.The study group is convinced that with a

reorganization in the presentation of subjectmaterial, a diploma technology graduate couldachieve the necessary academic qualifications fora bachelor's degree in engineering after a fin thertwo years of ft. kinie study. By this route, efiti-cation to the baccalaureate degree in engineer-ing normally would take five years from grade12, the same number of years as for graduates ofuniversity programs. Such programs would differfrom the present third ar.d fourth year in thatthey must stress basic mathematics and .sci-ence. A student with a technology backgroundapproaches these subjects in a different light,because usually he has a keener appreciation ofthe application of this isic material to the realworld.

Ryerson Polytechniral Institute has an-tic anced its intention to provide a degree pro-gram for diploma technology graduates. Whiledetail- have not been revealed at the time ofwritinm, we believe such a program would appealto technologistF employed in the heavily indus-trialized section of the province who look for theopportunity to work on a nart-time basis towardsan accredited degree.

It has been stated by . apse in charge of thtCAATs that they ha.- e no intention ,f estab-lishing degree program:, that their programs areterminal in nature and should not be consideredas a preparation for university work. Therefore,such programs -ts hose proposed for Lakeheadand planned by Ryerson should develop withoutcempetit,on. Many diploma technology studentswill not elect to return to school immediatelyafter graduation, and for this reason, it is diffi-cult to estimate potential enrolments. The thirdyear of technology enrolments in the CAATshas grown from 570 in 1967-68 to 774 in 1969-70,2 and this pattern should continue throughout'MILS. Table: (unpublished material) completed and revised by H.Braithwaite o. the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education in August1970.

Universities In The System

the 1970s. At Ryerson the third year of tech-nology also has developed rapidly, increasingfrom 464 in 1967-68 to 7:;9 in 1969.70, but thisgrowth is levelling off. Enrolments at Lakeheadfor tins re program have been estimated con-servatively at 300 students by the late 1970s,provided it is established and under way withinthe next two years. It would make possible theoffering of bachelor's degrees in three discip-lines: chemical (pulp and paper) , civil, andmechanical or electrical engineering. The uni-versity has ample facilities for such a program.

A separate study' is being conducted on rela-tionships between Lakehead Iiniversity and Con-federation College, the CART in Thunder Bay.While its recommendations are not known atthis time, we believe there i- merit in combin-ing diploma and degree students in at least oneinstLution in Ontario. This could improve thelongterm relationships between technologistsand engineers, particularly when there is anincreasing need for an understanwing of theirrelative roles and functions in a technologicalsociety.

In summary, we recommend that

(11:14) the pees -at enghseerieL proving at Lake-head University be terminated by admiiti-g h., train-men after 19-0.71. Bev,r,inaing in 1971 or 1972,Lakebead should etAblish a two-year full-time engi-neering degree otram specifics:11v designed toaccommodh a diploma technology gruel sates. Thedisciplines baered should be related .o the needs ofthe district. In addition it should continue to offerexisdag diploma courses techeste3gy.

YORK, TRENT AND BROCKUN'VERSITIES

We have recommended that engineering bemitinued at ten of the provincially-assisted uni-va!sities and have attempted to show that theycan adequa.ely cover the anticipated needs ofOntario over the present decade By 1980, it ishoped that each of these schools v ill be econom-ically and academically viable. 111oreover, sincethey are spread geographically across the prov-ince, all major regions will be served by them.We have recommended changes in the engineer-ing curricula of some of these schools in orderthat proper coverage may be provided for thosemajor technological areas which we foresee asbeing of importance to the future of the prov-ince. Therefore w- recommend that:

(11:15) so farther engineering schools be establishedprior to 1950.

'Commission on PostSecondary Education in Ontario.

81

York University, located in Toronto, has aFaculty of Science which is developing severalimaginative new 'oncepts. Among them is a

liberal wience program with sonic of the charac-teristics of the liberal engineering programrecommended for Windsor. Another is the Divi-sion of Natural Science tvhich has programs inscience structured for non-science students. Atthe present time. York is reviewing the area ofapplied science which is seen as filling a gapbetween the traditional engineering schools andthe fa( tildes of pure science.

In industrial research and development, nodeal distinction is made between the appliedscientist and the engineer, and often they :,er-form identical roles. However. their educationis fundamentally different. Design is the centraltheme or ethos of an engineering education, withthe basic component being decision-making.Although science is an essential ingredient, it isrot ar end in itself. Engineering curricula arcrelatively more structured to satisfy the basicrequirements of the profession. the appliedscientist require, a relatively unstructured cur-rici.lum so that he may pursue his scientificinterests without severe co;-straints. This is thebasic different:: the Lngineer;ng school seeks toserve both the individual and the profelsion,while a school oc applied science is designed toserve the indivie-al.

York can achr.fic a high reputation in applierwience since it has the necessary staff and facil-ities. However, there is no justification forascots engineering school in Ontario, andtherefore we recommend most strongly that;

(11:16) York devote its ambitions, energies andresources not to engineering but to applied science.

Trent University, located in the City of Peter-borough in central Ontario, was established in1963. It has been stated that the University hasno intention of entering the field of engineeringand we would endorse this stand in recommend-ing that:

(11:17) no school of engineering be established atTrent during the present decade.

Brock University, located in the city of St.Catharines in the Niagara peninsula, was estab-lished in 1964. Although it has indicated apossible desire to embark upon work in engi-neering, it has no plans to do so at the presenttime. As with York and Trent, we would recom-mend that:

(11:1$) no studies in engineering be undertaken atBrock during the present decade.

82

In Ottawa, we recommended that a closed -cir-cuit television talk-back system be installed be-tween Carleton and Ottawa universities, whichshould involve local governmental and industriallaboratories. We would be remiss if we did noturge a similar arrangement in MetropolitanToronto. between York and Toronto nniversitiestogether with major industries in the surround-ing area including the Sheridan Park ResearchCentre. The extension of such a system r%estwardto include McMaster University would be a logi-cal next step l'Itimately, the network could helinked with the television system now beingdeveloped for engineering education in the Stateof New York, where there is an indication ofinterest in Canadian participation.

ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGEOF CANADA

There is one other engineering school in theprovince which has been considered. though itis national in scope, with its total financial sup-port provided by the federal government. TheRoyal Military College of Canada (RMC) wasfounded at Kingston in 1876, and Royal Roadsnear Victoria, British Columbia, was establishedin 1942 as a training school for naval officers.Following World War 11, both colleges wereconstituted as the Canadian Services Colleges toprovide a joint educational and training pro-gram for the Canadian Armed Forces. A thirdcollege, College .4ditaire Royal, was opened atSaint-Jean, Quebec, in 1952 in order to punideF I- the bilftigualism required in the armedlorces. The Canadian Services Colleges becameknown as the Canadian Military College., onpromulgation of the Canadian Forces Reor, in-szation Act in 1968.

T' program for both RMC and Royal Rodsis of Ai: years' duration, with the first two yearsbeing provided at both colleges, and the thirdand fourth years at RMC only. For officer cadetsentering College Militaire Royal, the program isof five years' duration, with the final two yearsat RMC.

The RoopOil Military College is an affiliatemember CPUO even though it is not beingfunded by the Ontario government. It wished tobe included in this study, and so completed thequestionnaire and was visited by members ofthe study group. The composition of its studentbody makes it a national college. Each graduateis required to devote a minimum of four yearsto military service following graduation, andapproximately 60% elect to remain beyond thatperiod. However, while RMC graduates do not

enter dire(tiy into the civilian labour force,ultimately many do join Inc profession inOntario and we have dew ted our attention tosome curricular aspects of their pro-ram. Aftercareful consideration, it wis dec;-led not toinclude 101C in mov. of the siatk,is since thedata were being compiled to assist i,t plinningan litter a, five system of provin( jail, -assistedrug inceriie4 schools.

Some distinguishing features of the RMC pro-gram arr as follows

(I) The stor!cm, staff ratio is very low (4.71)

(2) The officer cadet experience is unique andinvolves a higher workoad than is found inthe other universities;

(3) 'I-here is a commendable content of human-ities and social sciences (25%) ;

(1) Officer cadets receive an allowance, and sothe? c is less minonlic strain;

Athletics and physical mining are compul-sory (15%) ;

The college is not coeducational;&New

cadets have been carefully screenedand the attrition rate is low;

Graduates must undertake four cars ofmilitary service;

All students reside on campus.

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

In its visits to engineering schools in theUnited States, the study group was impressedwith the programs of two schools of similar char-acter the Thayer School of Engineering ofDartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire,

11 Univers'', i"c In The System

and I-Lamy Mudd College at r.l.wmiont, Cali-fornia. These ate liberal engiocei ing schoolswhich c,aphasize the applied Minim ities, whileat the same time laying great stress on &sign,using a team approach to real industrial situLions. The favourable student/staff ratio at RMCsuggests it could develop a similar program. usingdesign problems related to the Canadian ArmedForces. RAW is in an excellent position to pio-neer in the .urea of liberal engineering, because ofthe disciplined nature of the t ollege, its strengthin the humanities and social sciences and thegenerous funding it receives from the federalgovernment.

Too few students are seeking admission to thet °liege even though it has obvious financialadvantages and a balanced athletic and academicprogram. Therefore, we would hope that a newcurriculum, based on the liberal engineering con-cept, would appeal to young men throughoutCanada, and so help in overcoming an apr,.-entreluctance at the present time to embark on amilitary career.

Therefore, we recommend that:

(11:19) the Royal Military College develop a liberalengineering program, based on the successful modelnow in operation at Dartmouth and Harvey It 'udd.

To ,om up: we :lave recommended that amongthe fo,Irte,i provincially-assisted universities inOntario, tea sc000ls carry on it r'; in eg.gineer-ing. This !loather will he adeqi to col er I t ththe needs of the province and its contributior tonational requirements during Liss, decade. Nofurther expansion will be necessary until a' leastthat period of time has elapsed

83

12

RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT

It is on the eve of publication that an authoris most acutely aware of the limitations andimperfections of his work. Once the commitmentto print is irrevocable, the agonies of hindsighttend to fade. In this report on engineering educa-tion, the study group clearly recognizes the com-promises that have had to be made. Our recom-rt. mdations fall short of being Utopian becausewe have been dealing with a system or rathera non system on which have been invested veryconsiderable amounts of time, effort and money,occasionally influenced by political expediency.A compromise with time har had to be made,because modern engineering is being buffeted bythe onrush of change in technology and in therole of the engineer in society. An imperfectreport now is more useful than a polished retro-spective document several years hence. Inherentlags in the educational process impart a sense ofurgency, and so we go to press with the realizationthat more could have been said, more fluently,but later.

84

A considerable debt is owed to all those peoplewho have contributed to the study in particularthe faculty and students who provided data onwhich this report is based. If our effort is judgedto be worthwhile, it is hoped that similar studiesof other disciplines will be undertaken. Engineer-ing has been a good place to begin, because it isinherently "mission-oriented", and one can devel-op logistics relating the needs of a modem societyto the number of practising engineers within it.Such an approach is more difficult with non-professional education, but there are a number ofsigns indicating that the lack of appropriatenessof the educational experience is troubling manystudents and some teachers in the humanities andthe social sciences. It is probable that the need fora similar study in other areas is just as acute asfor a report in the field of engineering.

The prospect of continuing rapid change dic-tates the need that this report be but the fore-runner of a series of periodic updating studies

which should be carried out at regular intervals.There is a temptation to suggest that such a taskbe the responsibility of the Committee of OntarioDeans of Engineering, but already it is a heavily-loaded affiliate committee of CPUO. It seemsmore reasonable to suggest the collection and col-lation of data be carried out by the CPUOResearch Division. However, it should be theresponsibility of the Committee of Ontario Deansof Engineering to ensure that the form of suchdata is uniform throughout all of the faculties ofengineering, and moreover that it is compatiblewith the collection and retrieval system adoptedby CPUO. Data should be collected on a continu-ing basis to meet four principal objectives:

(I)

(2)

(3)

academic planning;

manpower planning;

cost assessment and control;

(4) program appraisal and accreditation.

ACADEMIC PLANNING

The forecasting of enrolments is critical to suc-cessful planning of the use of capital resources, aswell as to the establishment of sound policies forthe future. Enrolment forecasting involves thedevelopment of student flow patterns from secon-dary school into the universities, and within eachuniversity among its several programs and many(lasses. Viewed in retrospect, the questionnaireused in this study (shown in Appendix I) con-tained a number of deficiencies. For example,Table 5 should have requested more detail on theorigin of students, in particular the location ofthe high school of graduation for Ontario stu-dents and the distribution of university prefer-ences in their application for admission. Thecollection of such data, on a yearly basis, shouldenhance the ability of each school to forecast itsfuture flow patterns. CPUO has proposed theformation of a data bank' that would includemost of the required information.

It is recommended that:

(12:1) CODE coordinate the collection of informa-tion, as a pilot project, for a data bank to be estab-lished by CPUO.

The information that has been gathered for thisstudy would be a starting point, and each yearfurther refinement: could be introduced intosuch an on-going program. Other faculties wouldcome "on stream" in future years as they areready to participate in it.'CPUO Research Division, Proposal lor a Central Data Bank onStudents and Resources of Ontario Universities, November 1969,

12 Retrospect And Prospect

MANPOWER PLANNING

We have advocated that educational planningin the engineering schools be related to therequirement for engineers in the economy, asdefined both by short-term demand and long-term need. The flows of engineers into the labourmarket are only partially understood, and yeta knowledge of these ilows is essential if one is toattempt any meaningful prediction of shortagesor future career patterns. It is surprising that sofew universities in Ontario maintain alumnirecords that trace the career histories of theirgraduates. Aside from any manpower considera-tions, such records would be most valuable formany other purposes, including the planning offuture academic programs.

We recommend that:

(12:2) each school develop a technique for tracing thecareer histories of its graduates, and maintain recordsfor its own use and for use in manpower studies.

COST ASSESSMENT AND CONTROL

The cost study (Appendix H) suggests thereare a number of policy variables that can be usedto assess and control the unit costs of each pro-gram. In the future, such considerations willassume increasing importance. The cost studyconducted by CPUO and the study group coveredonly the one year, 1969-70. Such costs assumegreater meaning when collected and averagedover several years, so that trends can be seen andindividual anomalies in any one year are notoveremphasized. The proposed data bank willcontain only some of the information requiredto compute unit costs, and therefore cost assess-ment and control would be a private matter foreach university. The annual class-size surveybeing conducted by CPUO will give some indica-tion of over-all costs, but not individual programcosts.

We recommend that:

(12:3) each engineering school undertake its ownannual unit cost study, in order that trends may bedetected and policies established for the continuousassessment and control of costs.

PROGRAM APPRAISAL ANDACCREDITATION

in Chapter 7, we recommended that CODEplay a central role in the appraisal of new pro-grams and the accreditation processes being con-ducted by the profession. The proposed CPUOdata bank will contain information on staff andfacilities that should be of considerable assistance

85

in such procedures by decreasing the administra-tive load on individual faculties and departments.There may be information required that is not atpresent planned for the data bank (e.g. libraryfacilities) . Therefore, it is recommended that:

(12:4) CODE assess the information to be collectedfor the CPUO data bank, and recommend to CPUOwhat additional data should be assembled to facilitateprogram assessments and accreditations.

It is our hope that the Committee of Presidentsof the Universities of Ontario will regard thisreport as a working document for the evolution ofa system of engineering education. Virtually anyof these recommendations can stand alone and

86

are suitable for individual implementation, butthe title of Chapter 10 is not accidental.

We began this report with an examination ofthe expectations of a young man or woman aspir-ing to an engineering career. The most eloquentelucidation of student concern was quoted inChapter 3: "It is attitude rather than content,style rather than subject matter, and the systemrather than the course, that are the causes ofstudent despair." The bulk of this study has beendevoted to an examination of attitude, style, andthe need for a system. We sincerely hope it willassist Jean and his/her colleagues to become goodprofessional engineers, who will play significantroles in their complex, evolving society.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The study group recommends that:

(2:1) beyond senior mathematics the secondaryschool Honour Graduation Diploma should be asufficient requirement, set at a level of perform-ance decided upon by the faculties of engincering,who must become increasingly dependent ontheir own evaluation of secondary schools in theirdistricts, and upon the anecdotal reports of theprincipals.

(3:1)innovative opportunity in the form of designshould be brought into first-year engineering pro-grams, despite the elementary character of thedesign examples. The gain in motivation andmorale would amply repay the expenditure oftime.

(3:2) each engineering school undertake a studyof its teaching laboratories, and establish ways inwhich the students will use them to obtain designexperience.

(3:3) universities establish a depreciation policywith respect to engineering laboratory equip-ment, so that before it becomes obsolete or wornout, adequate reserves are generated for replace-ment.

(3:4) Each faculty should have a standing com-mittee on curriculum, with substantial studentrepresentation, whose responsibility it is to en-sure that there is an articulated sequence ofcourses in each stream. Such a committee shouldregard as its prime function the continuous moni-toring and updating of the curricular system.

(4:1) a talk-back television rework in Ottawabe thoroughly explored.

(4:2) a report be prepared for Ontario similar tothat prepared by Allen M. Cartter, dealing withgraduate education in the United States.

(5:1) The criteria of acceptability of graduate de-grees in engineering should be recast in order

87

that a thesis based on design or systems synthesismay be suitably assessed. This could involve theestablishment of a new degree at the doctoratelevel.

(6:1) "We feel that both universities and indus-tries should recognize this activity as part of thecareer structure of their senior staff, and jointappointments should be increased as far as pos-sible. We would hope that in time there wouldbe at least one joint appointment in each depart-ment, certainly in those relevant to industry."

(7:1) the universities introduce part-time under-graduate studies as an acceptable alternative pathto a recognized bachelor's degree in engineering,and that when this scheme is fully operative, thepresent APEO examination system be terminated.

(7:2) periodic requalification (perhaps every fiveyears) be initiated so as to require successful com-pletion of a course of study in either control ormanagement, or a combination of these two,together with a structured program in appliedhumanities.

(7:3) CODE undertake the appraisal of proposednew undergraduate programs, using essentiallythe same procedures employed by OCGS in re-gard to new graduate programs. Also, CODEshould evaluate the need for each new programwith respect to academic, cost and manpowerconsiderations. In regard to such appraisal, CABshould participate so as to avoid unnecessary du-plication and permit simultaneous accreditation.

(7:4) CAB re-accreditation, requested and/orapproved by APEO, be coordinated throughCODE, which ultimately should be in a positionto provide the required quantitative data.

(7:5) all engineers engaged in teaching in Ontariobe registered members of the profession.

(9:1) over the next two years the estimated gradu-ate enrolment of 2,000 for 1970-71 be reduced by17%, after which graduate enrolment should beequated to the previous year's bachelor gradu-ations.

(9:2) the Canadian Council of Professional Engi-neers explore ways and means of establishing apermanent Canadian Engineering ManpowerCommission in order to provide national and re-gional data on engineering manpower in Canada.

(10:1) it is essential that changes in the formulabe considered concomitantly with the develop-ment of the system.

(11:1) the University of Toronto continue tooffer a full spectrum of engineering programs but

88

that, starting in 1971, it limit freshman intake to600 students a year, and reduce graduate enrol-ment to .180 students, including no more than 165doctoral candidates by the 1973-74 academic year.

(11:2) a three-way cooperative program betweenthe university, Cambrian College in Sudbury,and the mining industry in that area be thor-oughly explored.

(11:3) Queen's University continue to offer a fullspectrum of engineering programs while main-taining an annual freshman intake no greaterthan 400 students until after 1975, and thenincreasing this figure to 500 students a year. Fur-ther, we recommend that engineering graduateenrolments increase slightly to 180 students by1973-74, which would include no more than 55doctoral candidates.

(11:4) Waterloo continue to be the only engineer-ing school offering a cooperative program inOntario throughout the 1970s, and that its engi-neering be limited to this type of program.

(11:5) Waterloo continue to offer a full spectrumof undergraduate engineering programs, but re-strict its freshman intake to 6:i0 students. Also werecommend that by 1973-74 total graduate enrol-ments be reduced to 385 students with no morethan 125 in doctoral programs.

(11:6) the Faculty of Engineering at Waterlooundertake negotiations to enable it to be reor-ganized into a technical university, with a sepa-rate Board of Governors and Senate, but inaffiliation with the University of Waterloo.

(11:7) McMaster continue to offer a full spectrumof engineering programs, while increasing itsfreshman intake to 500 students a year, but thatby 1973-74 the number of its graduate students belimited to 150, including 45 doctoral candidates.

(11:8.) Carleton retain its present undergraduateprogram structure, limit its freshman intakewhen it reaches a figure of 400 students a year andmaintain graduate enrolment at 115 students,including 60 doctoral candidates to be sharedequally with Ottawa. Further, we recommendthat graduate student and faculty research bedirected towards the field of information systemsengineering, and that Carleton explore jointlywith Ottawa ways to collaborate with local gov-ernmental and industrial laboratories, for exam-ple, by means of a talk-back television network.

(11:9) Ottawa create a common-core undergradu-ate curriculum in a pattern similar to that atCarleton; graduate enrolments be reduced to 90students by 1973-74, including 60 doctoral candi-dates to be shared equally with Carleton, and

graduate student and faculty research be directedtowards the field of information systems engineer-ing in a joint program with Carleton. Further, werecommend that Ottawa explore arrangementswith Carleton for the installation of a talk-barktelevision network that would include govern-ment and industrial laboratories in the arca, andAvould serve both undergraduate and graduateprograms.

(1 I :10) Western concentrate its graduate studentand faculty research in the field of environmentalengineering, and that a new common-core under-graduate program be introduced in this field inplace of the existing options. Further, we recom-mend that graduate enrolments at the master'slevel should not exceed 90 students by 1973-74,and that no further students be admitted to exist-ing doctoral programs.

(11:11) Windsor establish a new undergraduateprogram developed around a liberal engineeringcore, and with an emphasis on design; and thatsuch a program replace those now in existence.The number of design options should be consist-ent with viable class sizes. Further, we recommendthat graduate studies be concentrated on liberalengineering, and that enrolments be reduced to80 by 1973-74, with no further work at the Ph.D.level during the present decade.

(11:12) Guelph pursue its new engineering coreprogram, with options in the life and earthsciences, but with the applied humanities addedto the core. Further, we recommend that graduateenrolments not exceed 30 students by 1973-74,and no further work at the Ph.D. level be under-taken during the present decade.

(11:13) the existing engineering program at Lau-rentian University be terminated, and no fresh-men be admitted for 1971-72.

(11:14) the present engineering program at Lake-head University be terminated by admitting no

lo

Rerun! rnenda t ions

freshmen after 1970-71. Beginning in 1971 or1972, Lakehead should establish a two-year in II-time engineering degree program specificallydesigned to accommodate diploma technologygraduates. The disciplines offered should berelated to the needs of the district. In addition, itshould continue to offer existing diploma coursesin technology.

(11:15) no further engineering schools he estab-lished prior to 1980.

(I 1:1(i) York devote its ambitions, energies andresources not to engineering but to appliedscience.

(11:17) no school of engineering be established atTrent during the present decade.

( II:18) no studies in engineering be undertakenat Brock during the present decade.

(11:19) the Royal Military College develop aliberal engineering program, based on the suc-cessful model now in operation at Dartmonthand Harvey Mudd.

(12:1) CODE coordinate the collection of infor-mation, as a pilot project, for a data bank to beestablished by CPUO.

(12:2) each school develop a technique for tracingthe career histories of its graduates, and maintainrecords for its own use and for use in manpowerstudies.

(12:3) each engineering school undertake its ownannual unit cost study, in order that trends maybe detected and policies established for the con-tinuous assessment and control of costs.

(12:4) CODE assess the information to be col-lected for the CPUO data bank, and recommendto CPUO what additional data should be assem-bled to facilitate program assessments and ac-creditations.

89

APPENDICES

A STUDENT OPINIONS

B ENGINEERING ENROLNIENTS AND DEGREES AWARDED

C SOME COMMENTS ON TELEVISION-LINKED CLASSROOMS

D SPECIAL RESEARCH FACILITIES

E ESTIMATED EQUIPMENT INVENTORIES: FACULTIES OF ENGINEERING

F ONTARIO ENGINEERING TEACHERS

G PLACEMENT EXPERIENCE

H UNIT COSTS

I QUESTIONNAIRE TO ONTARIO FACULTIES OF ENGINEERING

J STUDY VISITS

/)

The University of Western Ontario, London 72, Canada

Faculty of Engineering Science

Dean R. M. DillonFaculty of Engineering ScienceThe University of Western OntarioLondon 72, Canada

Dear Dean Dillon:

October 20, 1970

Re: The visit of the Committee of Presidents of Universitiesof Ontario Study on Engineering Education, April 28, 1970.

You may recall an opinion which I expressed, during the visit of the Committeeof Presidents, which was based on my experience of the"Laval Exchange". I

understand that you were instrumental in developing this program and I think itwas a milestone in the development of Engineering Education.

At the meeting of April 28, I pointed out what I thought were some of thebenefits:

- contact with French-Canadian engineering students (and vice-versa)even for those not participating directly.

- an opportunity for participants to get a conversational and technicalknowledge of our other language.

- an opportunity to appreciate our entire Canadian culture.

To me, the fostering of the "Laval Exchange" is the most im,)ortant problemin the development of engineering education in Canada.

I feel the interchange of engineering students between French and Englishspeaking school's should be extended from British Columbia to Newfoundlandand should be supported by tax dollars. Moreover, I feel such an undertakingcan be extremely successful if undertaken with the attitude of accepting two

Canadian cultures. Finally, I believe that the greatest benefits will be thefavourable experiences of bicultural engineers filtering down through allwalks of life in Canada.

When I expressed these ideas to the committee on April 28, there was nota large group of students present but, I recall, all those who were present,both from Laval and Western, approved in general.

Although these suggestions need much more thought and discussion, I hope youwill consider them as serious and realistic proposals for the developmentof engineering education.

MH/re

Sincerely yours,

Michael HoganPh.D. Candidate

APPENDIX ASTUDENT OPINIONS

The following paragraphs are excerpts from apaper entitled "Women in Science and Engi-neering The Lost Resource" written in March1970 by Miss A. Majorins, a second-year studentin chemical engineering at McMaster University.

In this age of rapidly advancing and changingtechnology, where there is a shortage of man-power in the scientific fields, we find that femaleenrolment and female employment in scientificand technological fields remains very low. Thereis a reluctance to admit that there is a terriblewaste of potential talent in the lack of women inscience.

Most often girls who are technically mindedand whose interests lie in mathematics and scienceare steered towards other fields which are not asdemanding, but are more suited to the woman.It may be noted that almost as many girls showbasic mathematical and technical aptitudes as dotheir male counterparts. The term technical apti-tude, is not to be confused with the term mech-anical. Women are naturally less mechanicallyminded, this being brought about by our environ-ment; the rules being that little girls play withdolls and little boys play with trucks and build-ing blocks. Technical aptitude is not the same. Itinvolves mathematical and analytical ability, aswell as an interest in chemistry and the naturalsciences. Here the gap closes. A test in an Ameri-can high school showed that 6.3% of the boys and4.2% of the girls had aptitude for engineering.'This implies that women could make up 40%of all engineers quite a bit more than the mere1% of today and more than enough to solve theengineering shortage in the next decade.

Early conditioning by both parents and teach-ers, those from whom she needs special under-standing and encouragement, contributes to thislow enrolment, as does the lack of information onopportunities in engineering and some sciences.

A woman entering the scientific professionsundoubtedly encounters obstacles and barriersalong the way. The traditional role of a womanin society is one major factor. Society has differen-tiated between what is to be considered a woman'swork and what is a man's. This may lead to a falseconclusion; that science is not for the woman.Society has also imposed certain character andbehaviour patterns for both girls and boys.

Topper and Herbert, "What You Should Know about Women Engi-neers", Chemical Engineering, September II, 1967, p.

The possibility of entering a scientific profes-sion does not enter a girl's mind ntil she is in thefinal years of high school. The conditioningshould come earlier, say in the first years of highschool or final years of junior high.

A girl, if she pursues a career in science orengineering, is said to be "different". Womenstudents whose thoughts are science-orientedwould feel more comfortable if a greater numberof woolen entered their student ranks, and thatthey did not feel, as often is the case, that theyare thought of as "social oddities" because oftheir career choices. As a result they run the riskof restricted opportunities for comfortable socialrelationships with other men and women.2 Awoman engineer, doctor or scientist would like tofeel responsible for her individual performance asan engineer, doctor or scientist, not as a femaleengineer, doctor or scientist.

A professional woman should he competent inher profession. Her commitments, entering ascientific career, are the same as those of a man.In technical, scientific, or administrative matters,sex differences should not be introduced. Eachproblem will require the same ability and objec-tiveness in its solution. There is no set way ofapproaching a problem. Engineering involvessocial problems which need both feminine andmasculine solutions.

*

To add to the Canadian statistics, data from aDeportment of Manpower and Immigration Sur-vey of Professional Manpower conducted in 1967showed that there was a total of 33,344 peopleemployed and residing in Canada, who statedtheir main field of employment was engineering.Membership in Engineering Associations in Can-ada is approximately 60,000 today. Of the totalstated above, 35 were indicated as female. Thedistribution among various disciplines were asfollows: Aeronautical, 1; Chemical, 6; Civil, 12;Electronics, 6; Geological, 2; Industrial, 3; Me-chanical, 2; Metallurgical, 2; Surveying, I.

Women now make up a smaller percentage ofthe total number of professional and semi-profes-sional workers than before. This is due mainly tothe fact that the number of male workers hasincreased very rapidly. The number of women inprofessional and semi-professional jobs has notrisen proportionally with the total number.

swomen and the Scientific Professions, M.I.T. Symposium on AmericanWomen in Science and Engineering, edited by J. A. Mattfield and C. G.Van Aken (Cambridge, Massachusetts: the M.I.T. Press, 1965), p. 52.

93

1 ler mobility in job local ion will be limited bycommitments to her husband, if she is married.Even if mobility is possible, her commitments toherself as well as to her husband will make herexamine c lowly the effects of bier' career decisionson their happiness. A husband should show thesame consideratioqs for his wife's thonghtsAgirl wanting to oursue a career in science willlime to lac e the fact that it will require unique«mccntration. There will be a demand for a moredominant place in the life than %cork in a lessdynamic. fieid,

Professional women are likely to marry menwithin their own or closely related fields. Womenare from three to four tunes more likely to besingle.3 Although educational attainment bearsno relationship to the Marital status of men, it canbe shown that the number of married womendecreases with each degree beyond the bachelor's.

111

'Ibid., p .72.'Ibid., p. 7).

94

/6)

Some women have found the answer in workthat can be done at home the analysis of tec hni-cal literature, translation of le( linic al writings orfree-lance writing. Others have taken pal t-timejobs as laboratory demonstrators. research assis-tants, lecturers, technicians or supply teachers,

Many men feel instinctively that engineeringis a male field and that it defemin lies a woman.There is little justification for this, for no longerran the engineering profession be identified as amasculine one. No longer is the image of an engi-neer one of a bridge- or dam-builder wearing thenotorious hard hat. Today more and moreengineers spend their time in offices and air-conditioned laboratories. analyzing problems anddoing product research and development. Theyanalyze human needs and desig i appropriateproducts and processes. Women have differentviews on human needs than do men. Thereforeboth can contribute significantly to the engineer-ing profession.

APPENDIX B

ENGINEERING ENROLMENTS ANDDEGREES AWARDED

PROVINCIALLY-ASSISTED UNIVERSITIESIN ONTARIO

TABLE B-1 Total Undergraduate Enrolmentsby Institution

TABLE B-2 Freshman Enrolments byInstitution

TABLE B-3 Graduate Enrolments byInstitution

TABLE 11-4 Graduate Enrolments by Discipline

TABLE B-5 Bachelor Degrees by Institution

TABLE B -6 Bachelor Degrees by Discipline

TABLE 11-7 Master's Degrees by Institution

TABLE 11.8 Master's Degrees by Discipline

TABLE 13-9 Doctoral Degrees by Institution

TABLE 11-10 Doctoral Degrees by Discipline

FIGURE 11-1 Total Bachelor, Master's and Doc-toral Degrees - Ontario

FIGURES B-2to B-13 Enrolment structure for each engi-

neering school

Table 11-1

TOTAL UNDERGRADUATE ENGINEERING ENROLMENTS BY INSTITUTION: 1960.1969

PROVINCI ALIN-ASSISTED UNIVERSITIES - ONTARIO

UNIVERSITY 196041 196142 1962.63 196344 196445 196546 196667 196748 1961,49

Carleton 129 164 175 200 254 302 416 475 517

Guelph 49 36 31 26 36 113 126 142 145

Lakeheada 86 90 81 95 110 137 147 132 146

Laurentian 15 10 3 - 9 32 44 40 44

McMaster 131 140 212 248 276 294 419 435 502

Ottawa 123 126 130 118 174 181 205 256 337

Queen'sb 749 793 794 786 824 962 1,050 1,134 1,236

Toronto 1,657 1,409 1,300 1,406 1,540 1,599 1,827 2,072 2,226

Waterloos 438 641 789 1,076 1,242 1,542 1,594 1,907 2,101

Western 182 228 223 244 257 279 293 285 356

Windsor 152 186 198 208 214 244 285 346 393

Totals 3,711 3,823 3,936 4,407 4,936 5,685 6,406 7,224 8,003

a Including engineering degree and technology programs but excluding architectural technology,b Including geological sciences, chemistry (ensbseritsg), mathematics and engineering, and physics( engineering)).c Exduling pre4nginisering and filth year (196041 to 196)44).

/6-, (4

1969.70

538

157

158

51

504

369

1,360

2,199

2,349

442

401

8,528

95

Table 13.2FRF.SIIMAN ENGINEERING ENROLMENTS BY INSTITUTION: 1960.1969

PROVINCIALLY-Assisnn UNIVERSITIES ONTARIO

UNIVERSITY 19604,1 19614,2 1962-63 1963-64 1964.63 1965.66 1966 n7 196749 1969.69 1969.70

Carleton 40 66 77 87 109 125 206 189 187 201Guelph :35 42 49 47 61I ,akellead4 80 86 78 95 108 134 128 115 140 109Laurentian 15 10 3 9 32 44 26 34 26McMaster 72 75 83 .1,3 107 116 217 17l 185 192Ottawa 53 40 57 42 80 78 86 105 123 127Queen's 238 248 254 232 240 360 362 374 356 372Toronto 403 378 420 509 529 481 652 765 766 605IVatetloob 182 220 370 509 539 688 628 689 GA 693Western 93 100 77 89 95 110 124 116 162 177Windsor 52 72 65 72 67 86 104 146 145 119

Totals 1,228 1,295 1,484 1,718 1,883 2,245 2,593 2,752 2,739 2,682a Including( enginierIng degree and technolop 17(04(ams.h Lachalina pre engineering (19(041 to 1963-64/,

Table 13.3ENGINEERING F.T.E. GRADUATE ENROLMENTS BY INSTITUTION: 1960.1969

PROVINL;IALLX-ASSISTED t NIVERSITIES ONTARIOUNIVIRSr Y 196041 196142 196243 106344 196445 1965-66 1966-67 196748 1969.69 1969-70

Carleton 2 17 16 16 64 92 113 115Guelph 12 11 11 11 17 23 27 22 22 23McMaster 8 18 2G 61 88 95 118 152 191 184Ottawa 14 26 34 52 45 46 58 66 115 156queen's 47 63 74 84 84 73 104 125 140 168

oron to 206 213 229 250 313 347 420 553 587 625Waterloo 8 11 30 54 116 190 277 343 433 456Western 4 13 17 17 30 51 75 79vindsor 6 6 16 27 44 59 79 89 87

Totals 295 348 416 558 728 851 1,157 1,483 1,765 1,893

Table 13-4ENGINEERING F.T.E. GRADUATE ENROLMENTS BY DISCIPLINE: 1960-1969

PROVINCIALLY - ASSISTED I TNIVERSITIES ONTARIODISCIPLINE 196041 196142 396243 396344 1964-63 1963-66 196647 1967-69 196849 1969-70

Aerospace 26 34 42 46 50 52 49 59 74 83Agriculture 12 11 11 11 17 23 27 22 22 23Chemical 45 53 59 107 135 167 199 256 327 335Civil 66 70 81 99 144 176 246 322 375 411Design 7 14 17 20 23Electrical 60 87 114 147 167 195 295 367 414 463Environmental -- 8 21 15Geology 16 17 24 23 20 10 13 16 18 27Industrial 16 26 30 33 45 39 43Management Science 2 9 25 36 33Nlechanical 46 44 48 60 97 114 178 236 289 314Metallurgy

and Materials22 25 32 45 68 70 84 96 113 104

Mining 2 7 5 4 4 5 10 14 17 1.9

Totals 295 348 416 558 728 851 1,157 1,483 1,765 1,893

96

Appendix B

Table B-5ENGINEERING BACHELOR'S DEGREES BY INSTITUTION: 1961-1969

ONTARIO

UNIVERSITY 1960-61 1961-62 1962.63 1963-64 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968.69

AVERAGEBACHELOR'S

DEGREESMR YEAR

Carleton 18 24 30 24 29 49 50 58 68 39Guelph 21 17 16 11 14 18 22 28 26 19McMaster 25 28 27 32 17 47 52 49 58 41Ottawa 13 20 21 16 31 23 34 65 26Qut:en's 203 180 142 120 161 149 153 166 238 1681'nronto 426 387 331 306 257 301 345 342 339 340Vi a terloo 52 98 101 115 147 140 213 268 126Western 20 21 26 39 42 50 47 47 47 38Windsor 31 39 41 36 37 54 61 33

Totals 726 724 721 693 722 828 869 991 1,170

RMC 26 63 64 82 90 76 75 9!' 69 71

Table B-6ENGINEERING BACHELOR'S DEGREES BY DISCIPLINEPROVINCIALLY- ASSISTED UNIVERSITIES ONTARIO

DISCIPLINE 1960-61 1961-62 1962-63 1963-64 1%1-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69

AVERAGEBACHELOR'S

DEGREESPER YEAR

Chemicala 119 107 91 104 123 128 147 193 236 139Civil 135 137 130 120 145 168 139 190 203 152Electrical 139 136 166 178 165 191 220 239 259 188Mechanical 128 153 147 138 132 173 182 204 284 171Engineering

Scienceb 99 103 102 88 89 64 66 60 57 81Mining and

Geology 35 24. 24 13 12 17 16 15 26 20Metallurgy

anti Materials 22 14 23 20 26 31 34 24 33 25Industrial 28 33 22 21 16 38 43 38 46 32Agriculture 21 17 16 11 14 18 22 28 26 25

Totals 726 724 721 693 722 828 869 991 1,170a Including engineering chemistry.b Including engineer:mg physics, and mathematics and engineering.

Table B-7ENGINEERING MASTER'S DEGREES BY INSTITUTIONPROVINCIALLY-ASSISTED UNIVERSITIES ONTARIO

UNIVERSITY 1960-61 1961-62 1962-63 1963.64 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69

Carleton 1 1 16 15 22 15 5Guelph 3 3 5 8 5 5 16 16 12McMaster 3 5 8 15 23 33 32 43Ottawa 3 1 9 6 10 11 11 15 19Quee 2r 36 37 33 31 47 23 28 30Toronto 60 88 51 72 90 99 98 125 169Waterloo 4 1 10 19 24 44 79 N 103Western 2 2 13 8 14 31Windsor 5 5 16 18 22 20 29

Totals 95 132 123 154 209 275 312 364 441

97

S".

Table B-8

ENGINEERING MASTER'S DEGREES BY DISCIPLINE

PROVINCIALLY-ASSISTED UY1VERSITIES - ONTARIO

DISCIPLINE 1960 61 1961-62 1962-63 1963-64 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69

Chemical 15 16 20 24 31 41 42 71 75

Civil 25 34 32 13 53 64 85 75 111

Electrical 21 16 29 3(1 52 65 71 101 101

Mechanical 13 19 15 19 32 51 45 46 65

Metallurgy 3 13 11 8 6 23 23 15 28

Mining andGeology 6 16 7 5.7 5 8 8 6 5

Agriculture 3 3 5 8 5 5 16 16 12

Industrial 5 6 7 9 9 10

Environmental 8 18

Aerospace 9 15 4 12 19 11 13 17 16

Totals 95 132 123 154 209 275 312 364 441

Table B-9

ENGINEERING DOCTORAL DEGREES BY INSTITUTION

PROVINCIALLY-ASSISTED UNIVERSITIES - ONTARIO

UNIVERSITY 1960-61 1961-62 1962-63 1963-64 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69

Carleton 1 1 3 3

Guelph 1

McMaster 2 4 10 6

Ottawa 1 2 3 1 6 4 5

Queen's 1 4 1 4 2 7 5 2 9Toronto 14 14 12 13 20 23 46 26 31

Waterloo 2 1 2 5 15 14 28Western 1

Windsor 1 -1 1 3

Totals 16 18 15 20 28 39 78 60 87

Table B-10

ENGINEERING DOCTORAL DEGREES BY DISCIPLINE

PROVINCIALLY - ASSISTED UNIVEW ITIES - ONTARIO

DISCIPLINE 1960-61 1961-62 1962-63 1963-64 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69

Chemical 6 4 4 3 4 11 13 11 21

Civil 3 3 2 3 2 9 15 12 16

Electrical 2 15 6 7 7 13 21

Mechanical 4 4 1 2 2 14 9 15

Metallurgy 3 1 2 2 8 3 10 11 5

Mining andGeology 1 2 2 1 1 4

Agriculture 1

Industrial 2 2 2 2Aerospace 1 4 2 4 5 4 13 2 6

Totals 16 18 15 20 28 39 78 60 87

98

3000

20:0

1030

IMO

000

703

630

500

400

300

O

0 200

100

10

SO

70

60

SO

40

30

zo

10

Figure 131 ENGINEERING DEGREES ONTARIOPROVINCIALLYASSISTED UNIVERSITIES

BACHELOR'S DEGREES

MASTER'S DEGREES

DOCTORAL DEGREES

11112 11113 NMI INS 110 1407 111111 11011 1170 1071

YEAR Of GRADUATION

99

E.O.liJco2mz

100

KO

SCO

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

150

140

120

100

SO

60

Figure

TOTAL

B-2

1I!

UNDERGRADUATE

...

I

CARLETONI

..041,ir-

UNIVERSITY

FRESHMEN

or

..... 0

1

.....BACHELOR'S

1

TOTAL

1

GRADUATE

sosss

1

ENGINEERING

$$$$$4

(ESTIMATED)

DEGREES

1

UNIVER

I

MY

RECOMMENDED

PROJECTION

MAXIMUM

..... 1

IPREVIOUS

......

FRESHMAN

YEAR

IINTAKE

Figure B-3 UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH ENGINEERINGI

UN VERSITY PROJECTION

IRECOMMENDED MAXIMUM

150FRESHMAN

IINTAKE

TOTAL UNDERGRADUATE

FRESHMEN

`'..,,(ESTIMATED).6

.6.5611........

..............

00.

0° BACHELOR'S DEGREESPREVIOUS YEAR1.0. 0 TO GRADUATE

I 1

20

0

3 1 I 1 i.ACADEMIC YEAR

/1 l

c r; 1

k0 e 1

10

10

10

1111111111 illFigure B-4 LAKEHEAD UNIVERSITY ENGINEERING

TOTAL UNDERGRADUATE

FRESHMEN

Figure B-5 LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY ENGINEERING

TOTAL UNDER GRADUATE

FRESHMEN

ACADEMIC YEAR

100b

1006

900

BOO

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0N

00

SOO

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

100c

Figure

.....

1

TOTAL

Il

1

641

UNDERGRADUATE

... ...

McMASTER

............

I

..

I

UNIVERSITY

410%

TOTALGRADUATE

......

I

,FRESHMEN

o

I

.....

I

,%

I

ENGINEERING

BACHELOR'S DEGREESPREVIOUS

1 I

RECOMMENDED

UNIVERSITYPROJECTION

MAXIMUM

I

(ESTIMATED)

FRESHMAN INTAKE

YEAR

Fi

....._

...-

_

ure

TOTAL

lollti

B-7

UNDERGRADUATE

WO............

UNIVERSITY

FRESHMEN

ma m/00.

TOTAL

OF

GRADUATE

OTTAWA

........ ......... .....

BACHELOR'S

ENGINEERING

.....

I

.. ........

I

400

....

I

IDEGREESPREVIOUS

RECOMMENDED

UNPROJECTION

VERSITY

MAXIMUM

(ESTIMATED)

FRESHMAN INTAKE

YEARI

Ise 0ACADEMIC YEAR

0 0

1

1

1

1

Figure.._

,

,,.

I

TOTAL

ow

8-8

..

UNDERGRADUATE

.............................

QUEEN'S

.........

FRESHMEN

1

BACHELOR'SPREVIOUS

.

1

UNIVERSITY

...

1

YEAR

4.0".

TOTAL

1

DEGREES

GRADUATE

1

,,,,,,,,,,,,,

1

ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITY

I i

PROJECTION

RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM1

(ESTIMATED)

FRESHMAN INTAKE

Figure

Imo

8-9

TOTAL

...........

UNIVERSITY

UNDERGRADUATE

FRESHMEN

r .....or°...........

OF

Ors.

BACHELOR'S

1

TORONTO

4:TOTAL

1

I

ow

..... Ili

1

GRADUATE

..tDEGREMPREVIOUS

1

UNIVERSITY

.... .1,..,

1

ENGINEERING

1

...........

1

PROJECTION

600

YEAR

1

RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM

!FRESHMAN

(ESTIMATED)

INTAKE

6IX

200

2900

2400

2000

1600

1200

SOO

400

0

0ACADEMIC YEAR

l/0 A

102

Figure1 1

R-10

TOTAL

1

Is::

1

UNIVERSITY

UNDERGRADUATE

TOTAL

1

GRADUATE

,5

1

.... .......

1

OF

FRESHMEN

0000

..........

11WATERLOO

'

BACHELOR'S

1

.....................

DEGREESPREVIOUS

1

ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITY

1 1

RECOMMENDED

1

PROJECTION

MAXIMUM

I (ESTIMATED)

(FRESHMAN

I

YEAR

INTAKE

Figure

...........

B-11

TOTAL

...

UNDERGRADUATE

.....................

UNIVERSITY

TOTAL

ENGINEERING

FRESHMEN

GRADUATE......0

....v

OF

.............

WESTERN

i ...............

I

BACHELOR'S1

ONTARIO

00

1

UNIVERSITY

.......

1

400

.."4.

DEGREE/IPR1

PROJECTION

RECOMMENDED...1-1.4...-4-6,

(ESTIMATED)

1

FRESHMANi

I

1

EVIOUS1

MAXIMUM

INTAKE

YEAR1

2400

1000

1

400

700

MBU

500

400

300

200

100

0

ACADEMIC YEAR

r$

0

300

100

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

8,000

4,000

2000

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Figure B-12 UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR ENGINEERING

TOTAL UNDERGRADUATE

FRESHMEN

Si..o

..............

UNIVERSITY PROJECT ION

,TOTAL GRADUATE

............... (ESTIMATED).......

BACHELOR'S S YEAR

I I I I IFigure B -13 TOTALS FOR PROVINCIALLY-ASSISTED

RECOMMENDEDMAXIMUM

FRESHMAN INTAKE

ww

TOTAL UNDERGRADUATESTUDY PROJECTION

FRESHMEN

10

TOTALGRADUATE

yaw !MI ........... 1.111.

..................BACHELOR'S DEGREESPREVIOUS YEARI I I 1 I

ACADEMIC YEAR

gg

...... ......

A

APPENDIX C

SOME COMMENTS ON TELEVISION-

1,IN KED CLASSROOMS

The continuing education of employed engi-neers is part of the concern of all engineeringeducators. In the past, this need has been met bylate afternoon or evening courses presented oncampuses in the metropolitan universities andattended by full-time and part-time students.Such a practice has inherent disadvantages thedisruption of daytime lecture schedules for full-time students and the commuting and parkingproblems facing part-time students. Attendanceby employed engineers at regularly-scheduleddaytime lectures is difficult for the off-campusstudents, involving travel time and the generaldisruption of their working day. The presenta-tion of a broad graduate program at severalwidely dispersed sites presents even greater diffi-culties. The University of Florida exemplifiesthis latter situation. While the main campus isat Gainesville, there was a need to provide pro-grams at three distant and smaller satellite cam-puses in centres of concentrated technologicalactivity Daytona Beach, Orlando and CapeKennedy. The solution, developed by ThomasL. Martin, the then Dean of Engineering, was atelevision network linking the four campuseswith a one-way video and two-way audio system.The system is named Genesys (University ofFlorida Graduate ENgineering Educational SYS-tem) and a full description may be found in Nos.1, 2 and 3 of the bibliography at the end of thisappendix.

A general description of Genesys is provided inthe report of a conference of the American Soci-ety of Engineering Education (No. 4 of the bibli-ography) . It provides cost data, although theauthors point out that these are actual costs whichcertainly would be lower for future installationsin the light of experience with the system. Theycover the expenses involved in building andequipping studio-classrooms (7,500 sq. ft. atDaytona, 7,500 sq. ft. at Orlando, 23,000 sq. ft.at Port Canaveral) . Land values are included inthe cost (a total of 60 acres at $2,500 per acre) . Itis emphasized that the amortization and the main-tenance of physical plant account for more thantwo-thirds of the fixed portion of the annual costof running the system. The balance, $110,000annually, is TV line rental from Southern BellTelephone and Telegraph Company. The fixedcosts for Genesys at Florida are shown in TableC-1.

Table C-1ANNUAL FIXED COSTS FOR GENESYS SYSTEMa

TV and phone line rental $110,000Maintenance of physical plan tb $110,000Amortization of physical plantb $100,000

TOTAL $320,000

Per course (based on 196 coursesa year) $ 1,640

a The system operates on a triangular network, with cable lengths of 80,50 and 50 miles per side.

b Includes buildings, land, furnishings and all TV equipment and support-ing facilities.

Variable costs include the salaries and support-ing costs of ten resident professors, eight adjunctprofessors and a proportion of the salaries of pro-fessors involved in the program on a part-timebasis. Also included are technical and clericalcosts, based upon the presentation of 196"courses" per year. Many of the "courses" arevery short indeed the unit course involves anaverage of only 45 student hours.

Table C-2VARIABLE COSTS OF GENESYS SYSTEM

Courses

10 GENESYS residentCost (per year)

professors $180,000 768 GENESYS adjunct

professors 32,000 32Main campus professors

(part-time) 110,000 88

TOTAL $392,000 196

Variable cost per course $2,000

Table C-3 shows the summary of the totalcosts of the Florida System. Average course pop-ulation is assumed to be 15 students, with 3student hours per course unit.

Table C-3TOTAL COST OF THE GENESYS SYSTEM

Per StudentType of Cost Annual Per "Course" HourFixed Cost $320,000 $1,640 $37Variable Cost $392,000 $2,000 $44

$712,000 $3,640 $81

It is recognized that these figures representone particular situation and are provided here

105

to give a gross estimate of the costs attributed tothe use of a one-way video, twoway audiosystem.

A commercial enterprise has developed out ofthis Florida experience: GENESYS Systems,Incorporated, 1479 Plymouth Street, MountainView, California 94040. Over the past threeyears, this company has contracted with Stan-ford University, University of Southern Califor-nia, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, UnionCollege, University of Illinois, Unive-sity ofPennsylvania, Drexel University and Universityof Minnesota. The only system observed bymembers of the study group was that at StanfordUniversity, where it was used with satellite lec-ture rooms in aerospace industries in the vici-nity. A description can be found in No. 6 of thebibliography.

Two-way video is regarded as being prohibi-tively expensive, but the pedagogical importanceof the talk-back feature seems to be well estab-lished. The largest single item of operating costis the leasing of dedicated cable on which the talkback feature adds about 15% to the rentalcharge.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. "The GENESYS TV Network", FloridaEngineering News, University of Florida,Gainesville, Fla., Vol. VII, No. 3 (July 1965) .

2. John Nattress, "GENESYS Florida's An-swer to the Problem of Continuing Education

106

for Engineers in Industry", Journal of Engi-neering Education, Vol. LVI, No. 2 (October1965) , pp. 47-59.

3. Paul D. Arthur, "Graduate Teaching by TV:The GENESYS Network of the University ofFlorida", Fourth Space Congress, CocoaBeach, April 1967.

4. Paul D. Arthur and R. S. Leavenworth,"Project GENESYS Short Courses", presentedby Paul D. Arthur at the Second AnnualMeeting of the Continuing EngineeringStudies Division of the American Society forEngineering Education, New Orleans, La.,November 1967.

5. M. E. Forman, "Graduate Engineering Edu-cation via Television", presented at the Inter-national Convention of the Institute ofElectrical and Electronic Engineers, NewYork, March 1968.

6. "University Instructional TV NetworksWhat They Mean to Industry", WesconTechnical Papers, Session 10. A collection ofpapers presented at the Western ElectronicShow and Convention, August 1969.Reprints available: Region 6 (Los Angelesand San Francisco Section) of the Instituteof Electrical and Electronic Engineers.

7. A. J. Morris and D. J. Grace, "ConceptualDesign of a Television System for Continu-ing Education", IEEE Transactions on Edu-cation, Vol. E-11, No. 3 (September 1968),pp. 165-70.

rz"

APPENDIX D

SPECIAL RESEARCH FACIM IES

It seems worthwhile to list special majorresearch facilities which have been installed inthe engineering schools. A complete inventorywould be a formidable and probably not veryuseful task, but a list of "special" facilities doesinvolve subjective decisions. However, this riskis accepted. The result is the following list.

Carleton University

1. Closed-circuit low-turbulence wind tunnelworking section 20 inches by 30 inches, speedsup to 300 ft. per second.

2. Solid state device fabrication laboratoryclass 100 laminar flow clean room with diffu-sion furnaces, vacuum deposition equipmentand facilities for characterization and testing.

3. Electron beam systems: a 1.8 kilowatt, 130kilovolt system and a 48 kilowatt, 70 kilovoltsystem. Included are a 7 cubic metre vacuumfaculty, x and y beam scanning capability andin-vacuum tooling.

University of Guelph

1. Elora Research Station a major facility madeavailable by the Ontario Department of Agri-culture and Food, for agricultural engineeringresearch.

Afeillaster University

1. Nuclear Reactor: A swimming pool nuclearreactor, powered by enriched uranium fuel,with 5 megawatt power capacity. 6 neutronbeam-port tubes, hot cell with 5000-curiegamma source, and a high-intensity gammaroom. Peak flux is 3x 1013 neutrons/cm2 (sec).

2. Model FN Tandem van der Graaff Accelera-tor: Maximum terminal energy 8 Megavolts,capable of accelerating light and heavy posi-tive ions. 7 different beam port facilities.

3. Applied Dynamics I.aboratory: Major struc-tural testing facility for testing of structures upto 35 feet high. Large assortment of constant

and pulsed loading equipment.

4. Materials Research Institute: Fully equippedlaboratories for research on solid materials.Includes helium liquefier, activation analysislaboratory, two electron microscopes and two-channel electron probe microanalyzer.

5. 220 MHz Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spec-trometer: shared with University of Toronto.Located at Ontario Research Foundation,Sheridan Park.

Queen's University

1. Coastal engineering laboratory: a 20,000square foot laboratory, housing wave tanks,sedimentation flumes, water tunnels and amodel harbour basin.

2. Cold Room: 1,000 square feet for testing pur-poses. Will maintain temperatures of 20°F.

3. Mineral Engineering Laboratories: Full rangeof equipment for mineral processing.

University of Toronto

1. Structures Testing Laboratory: Full comple-ment of high capacity test equipment forthe static and dynamic testing of structures.Includes high pressure triaxial testing appara-tus (1500 psi) . 1200 Kip testing machine anda range of cyclic loading equipment.

2. Computer Research Facility: A separate com-puter system, concentrating on real time,hybrid and special computing equipment.Includes IBM 360 Model 4, Applied DynamicsAD/4 analogue, IBM 2250 video display, Cal-comp plotter and two remote analogue anddigital terminals for interfacing with the IBM360/44.

3. Corona Research Laboratory: AC and DCtest facilities up to 300 and 260 kilovoltsrespectively for the study of corona dischargephenomena. Instrumentation available forpulse waveform display, measurement of radionoise and of corona losses.

4. Radio Telescope: a 60-foot radio telescopelocated at the NRC National Radio Astron-omy Laboratory in Algonquin Park.

5. Human Factors Laboratory: Equipped tostudy the information processing capability ofhuman sensory and perceptual systems.

6. Towing Channel: 200 ft. x 5 ft. x 5 ft., withprecision carriage and dynamometer.

7. Biomedical Electronics Laboratories: A groupof five laboratories for studies in the applica-tion of electronics to medicinal problems.

8. Institute for Aerospace Studies: An elaboratefacility at Downsview for aerospace research.

I/9107

Equipment includes low-density plasma tun.nels, hypervelocity launcher, magneto gasdynamic power generator, anechoic chamber,a space simulator, high-power, tunable pulsedlasers, and a flight simulator.

University of WaterlooI. Environmental Health Laboratory: equip.

ment includes Warburg respirometer, refrig-crated centrifuge, and controlled environmentrooms.

2. Power Engineering Research Laboratory:equipped with an analogue simulator forstudying high voltage D.C. transmission prob.lems, high voltage A.C. and D.C. test equip-ment for voltages to 500 kilovolts.

3. Manufacturing Sciences Laboratory:equipped with horizontal milting machine,Havlik plastic injection machine, Blohmgrinder, NIDE production lathe.

4. Experimental Chimneys and Atmosphere Dif-fusion Range.

DATEUNIVERSITY INST'TUTE STARTED

Carleton Electronics Planningand Coln- Stagemunications

Transpotta Planningtion StageInstitute

Guelph Centre forResourcesDevelop-ment

Interdisci-plinaryCommitteeonHydrology

FoodResearchInstitute

108

PlanningStage

5. Combustion Laboratory: includes 3 test cells,6 atmospheric test bays and open tire test area.

University of Western OntarioI. Rotunda ry Layer Wind 'Entine' Laboratory:

Open return wind tunnel with a working sec-tion 100 ft. x 8 ft. x (51/2 to 71/2 ft.) high. Fanis 40 I LP. (8 ft. diameter) , variable pitch.Maximum air speed: 60 ft. per second.

2. Thernmphysical Laboratory: special capal,il-ity of extremely pre( ise measurement of en-thalpy differed( es, aqd other themophysicalproperties.

3. Electrostatics Laboratory: equipped to studyelectrification in high vacuum, charging ofaerosols, electrostatic precipitation and benefi-ciation of minerals by electrostatics.

4. Biochemical Process Laboratory: four fermen-tation reactors (largest 100 litres) , with ancil-lary equipment for control and recording ofpH, gas and energy transfer, temperature andmixing intensity.

RESEARCH INSTITUTES

SIZE AND RESOURCES

A proposed institute concernedwith the related areas of elec-tronics and communicr.tions. Ajoint endeavour with Queen'sUniversity, industry, andgovernment.

A proposed institute, originatingin the Faculty of Engireering. Asit develops it will become inter-disciplinary; will relate to thefederal transportation agencies.

Involves Departments of Geog-raphy, Economics, AgriculturalEconomics, Soil Science andZoology, and Schools of I .and-scape Architecture andEngineering.

Involves School of LandscapeArchitecture, Agricultural Engi-neering and Soil Science.

To involve Department of Agri-cultural Engineering, FoodScience, Microbiology, Horticul-tural Science, Agricultural Eco-nomics, Nutrition, AnimalScience.

MODE OF OPERATION

N/A

N/A

Interdisciplinary researchgroup, using individualgrants as financial source.

Interdisciplinary Institute,funded by Department ofIndustry, Trade andCommerce.

UNIV1 RSII VDATE

INSII1U1 STARTED

McMaster InstituteforMaterialsResearch

Centre forAppliedResearchandEnginei ringDesign(CARED)

Appendix

Sal. AND RESOURCIIS NODE OF OPLRATION

1967 Involves 40 faculty members (10front Engine cring) , part-time;115 gradua.c students (10 frontengineering) ; 30 post-doctoratefellows (7 from engineering)25,000 sq. ft. of laboratory a idoffice spaco. Equipment includeshelium liquefier, electron probemicroanalyzer, metallographicequipment, crystal growthequipment.

1967 Operated on federal and univer-sity support: $50,000 per yearfrom Department of Industry,Trade and Commerce, and$25.000 per year from McMasterUniversity.Interdisciplinary contractresearch institute, 10 full-timestaff (2 engineers) ; 24 engi-neers as project consultants. 1970income about $275,000. Has ownoffice staff and facilities; labora-tory facilities leased fromUniversity.

Applied 1968 An interdisciplinary dynamic.'Dynamics laboratory, financed on (,4pital1.aboratory development program, as L.,-h-

ing and research facility. Full-time manager (professional engi-neer) , 4 technicians, 25 graduatestudents, 3 post-doctorate fellows,9 faculty members (part-time) .

Structural test bay, universaltesting machines MTS dynamicloading unit (20,000 poundsforce) .

CanadianInstitutefor Meta,working

1970 Funded by a $600,000 grant (5years) from Depai tment ofIndustry, Trade and Commerce.Ultimate full-time staff about 10(3 graduate engineers) . Will

operate on an inventory of leasedmachine tools (value about$250,000) , with full access toMcMaster shops, and reciprocalagreement with Mohawk College.

Financed by N RC-negotiated developmentgrant ($500,000) . Operatedas an institute with adirector who is a facultymember.

Operated as an IndustrialResearch Institute. Incorpo-rated in 1970 as university -owned and -operated com-pany. Executes projects oncontract for industry andgovernment; faculty mem-bers as consultants.

Operated as interdiscipli-nary facility, through Users'Cmninittee. Operatingfinances through researchgrants and CARED income.

Self-contained entity, oper-ated through CARED.Advisory board developspolicy, executed by managerand staff. Aims: (I) nationalinformation centre onmetal-working; (2) presen-tation of courses to operatorsand management; (3)development of metal-working productionmethods and cuttingtechniques.

109

DATEUNIVERSITY INSTITUTE STARTED

Ottawa Institute for PlanningNorthern StageDevelop-ment

Water PlanningResources StageCentre

Centre for PlanningStudy on StageCommuni-cations andComputers

Queen's Centre forMetals andMineralTechnology

CanadianInstitute ofGuidedGroundTransport

SIZE AND RESOURCES MODE OF OPERATION

N/A

N/A

N/A

1968 Research expenditures of$300,000 per year financed bygrants from Cominco, AECL,Esso Research and Engineering,International Nickel of Canada,NRC, DRB. 11 faculty members,25 graduate students, 5 post-doctorate fellows, 10 technicalassistants. Laboratory and officefacilities in departments of Metal-lurgical Engineering, Physics,and Chemical Engineering.

1970 Financed by grant of $100,000per year from each of Ca' radianNational Railways, CanadianPacific Railway and CanadianTransport Commission, ithadditional support in kind fromQaetn's University. Researchwill be performed by universityfacuity at Queen's or elsewhere,on the basis of submitted propo-sals. Proposed future space alloca-tion of 10,000-20,000 square feet;at present use existing laboratoryfacilities. Has own administrativepersonnel.

Institute Planningfor Studies Stagein Commu-nications

110

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Interdisciplinary researchgroup, funded by federalgovernment and industry.Primary aim better inte-gration of industry and uni-versity interests andactivities.

Director appointed by Prin-cipal of Queen's, may be amember of faculty. Cur-rently rill by acting direc-tors: H. G. Conn untilOctober 1970, CliffordCurtis after October 1970.

N/A

DATEUNIVERSITY INSTITUTE STARTED

Toronto InstituteforAerospaceStudies

Institute ofBiomedicalElectronics

Waterloo IndustrialResearchInstitute

WesternOntario

Centre forRadioSciences

Centre forAirPollutionStudies

Appendix D

SIZE AND RESOURCES MODE OF OPERATION

1949 Started by a DRB grant in 1949,is now supported by 13 fundingagencies in Canada and the U.S.A.to the extent of $666,000 annually.Staffed by 15 full-time professors,with a total of 83 graduate stu-dents in 1969. New Building on18-acre site provided by U. of T.,constructed in 1959 (DRBfinanced) . Extensions to buildingin 1961-63 with funds of U. of T.and Ford Foundation. Largesupersonic wind tunnel, shocktubes, rocket research laboratory,low-speed wind tunnel, anechoicchamber, hypervelocity labora-tory, structural mechanicslaboratory. Operating budget,1969-70, $458,000.

1962 A full-time staff, 8 supportingstaff, 20 part-time staff, 30students (graduate and under-graduate). 10,000 sq. ft. of labora-tories and offices.

1967 Operated on $48,000 per yearfrom Department of Industry,Trade and Commerce, and serv-ices and facilities supplied by theuniversity. Interdisciplinary con-tract research institute, 5 full-time staff (2 professionals, 3secretaries) ; 1970 income aboutS300,000.

1968 12 members (2 engineers) , 14associate members (1 engineer) .

Has one permanent building atthe Delaware Radio Observatory.

PlanningStage

N/A

13 3

A separate graduate divisionof the Faculty of Engineer-ing, with a director who is amember of faculty. Respon-sible for entire research pro-gram and undergraduateteaching in the aerospacesciences.

Operates research programcommon to medicine andengineering. Provides edu-cation in physical sciencesfor medical personnel, andin life sciences for engineers.

Operated as an IndustrialResearch Institute. Labora-tory facilities paid for byoverhead charges and directassessment on contract.Faculty members as consul-tants and principal investi-gators.

Interdisciplinary researchgroup to execute research inradio science. Projects areindividually supported andare related to the nationalspace program.

Has the objective of coordi-nating teachingand researchrelative to control of airpollution and establishmentof air quality criteria, andof offering courses to indus-try and government.

111

DATEUNIVERSITY INSTITUTE STARTED

PlanningStage

WesternOntarioCont.

InstituteforIndustrialCooperation

Centre for Planningstudies in StageTechnology,Innovationand HumanAffairs

Windsor IndustrialResearchInstitute

112

SIZE AND RESOURCES MODE OP OPERATION

N/A

N/A

1967 Supported by an annual grantfrom Department of Industry,Trade and Commerce, of $35,000.22 faculty members involved inindustrial projects as consultants;projects also involve graduatestudents and technical staff.Laboratory services leased fromUniversity. Salaried manager,administrative assistant and officepersonnel.

A proposed IndustrialResearch Institute with sup-port from the Departmentof Industry, Trade andCommerce, to performindustrial research oncon tract.

Would sponsor educationaland research programs onCanadian science policygoals and priorities.

Incorporated in 1967 aslimited liability companyowned by the University.Board of Directors: univer-sity, industry, governmentrepresented. President:Dean of Applied Science.

,APPENDIX E

ESTIMATED EQUIPMENT INVENTORIESa FACULTIES OF ENGINEERING

Value of Equipment (thousands of dollars)

University Teaching Function Both Teaching and Research Research Only Total

Carleton 256 665 126 1,047Guelph 142 190 142 474Lakehead 650 25 675McMaster 724 1,264 767 2,755Ottawa 660 280 500 1,440Queen's 975 1,340 2,089 4,404Toronto 3,156 2,332 5,738 11,226Waterloo 1,031 2,346 733 4,110Western 960 640 640 2,240Windsor 847 401 635 1,883

8,751 10,108 11,395 30,254a Equipment only does not include buildings or furnishings.

113

60

60

mi

0

60

60

20

0

90

60

20

0

114

Figure F-1 DEGREES HELD BY ONTARIO ENGINEERINGTEACHERS BY UNIVERSITY 1969-70

/

CARLETON(35)

CJELPH(30)

LAKEHEAD(9)

LAURENTIAN(4)

MGM

IMMIMINIMMIMINSIMMINNMIMMIIMMIIMMIMIN

MGM MilMilMilMINA

MGMMGM MINMGM NMMGM IMMI MilMGMMGM

NMIMMIIMMI

110111110111

MGM MINIIMGMMGM

NMIMMIIMMI

MGMGMMGM

MGM=II MINIINMIMMI

ISMNM MillIWO

MINA

McMASTER(61)

11=11

OTTAWA(39)

QUEEN'S(92)

TORONTO(200)

MGMMGMMGM MGM

NMMGM MGMMGM

11=11 11=11 MGM

r

WATERLOO(164)

WESTERN(39)

WINDSOR(49)

TOTAL ONTARIO(721)

AMINEr=momma

IMMIGSMMISNMsum

Imo sumsumsum NEN

2Ww

uic2I W

g

ci

DEGREE

icc

g

Figure F-2 = DEGREES HELD BY ONTARIO ENGINEERINGTEACHERS BY DISCIPLINE 1969-70

CHEMICAL ENG. CIVIL ENG. ELECTRICAL ENG. MECHANICAL ENO. METALLURGY AND(116) (140) (147) (140) MATERIALS SCIENCE

(41)

wooMRME

IIMM ME MRMEI ME MRMEI ME

30

a 20CCUJa.

10

0

30

10

a

DEGREE

aa

Figure F-4 AGE DISTRIBUTION OF ONTARIO ENGINEERINGTEACHERS BY DISCIPLINE 1969-70

CHEMICAL

::::::::::::::::::::::::::'::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

(116)

.

.

ENG.

M

:::::.:':::.i::::::1

:+:::::::

.

:::::::::4'::::::16:::::::............._

CIVIL(140)

ENG.

...AK:

ELECTRICAL

-._

(147)

M

.:::::.v.v..ye.%

.a

_ _ _

ENG.

%

--- -

e

..- ---

.a.4 ....

Tre:.

._

MECHANICAL

::::

(140)

....

4:::::::::+ "

ENG.

::::::::::::::%

%.*%::;::::::.

METALLURGYMATERIALS

:

::::

:-:"....

ANDSCIENCE

(41)

INDUSTRIALENG.

(27) 41::.

::11:.2.::.

Np:

.:1:i:

% ....::::'%W.

. ..:01:x.:_

:.0 e

%

.0.0 00.

0...ireip.w

....:

::.:

::.... .

.... . ' '4

. . . .

AGE

W

0 111 :ass Wus

0

St

M MEDIAN

115

FP2

4CC

1.4c:i...481

.... :qqv

.. . r

il. y!: .**

0

1-

. .

1010.0.114!". MIMI....::.x.x.x.x.x.:.

":52X-X-M

.

Vcc

1.14:144:::=Wligi:Aimttlf ttfpppm iiiso::::X..X.:X.X..:X.Nve:v.v.x.:.0:::.::xe.:.:.x..::::::::::..

.

.2 ':':'.::"A'X'..M::-X-Fe:'.'"eW.%%X.X:X4-:-:X... %Weeeee.

:0:

i aje .11=4:ggo I" "ILI al

M0

*: .:*

;:In '....020 v

2

:',

Wilii4.661.411445.4-.e.-x-:-.e.e.e..::-.wee:erne:erne::

iii

a Xtitil.#0.1W.Iiliki.P..,:::-*X-F.4.-::::-

..ee:500055::

2 5.f..7.7.757.7.7.7M7"e***Ma.*14tilili$0100.4.........................

"e.W:'. %:-X

G.I riILI Inm

- .-. %

. .44!

44 g

% iiIXIIJ

u) ....w3 ......Mitttettifttil

:":5::::::::::::5555:M

..% . .% ... .

t-02

".:

nts:IMMIPIkkiggfoXgg:

-.......%%%. . ....

z0

'ccw

24

2

Zi

cs

.

.:

,-w1-4 .-

....1 Inccao .

-..:-X-X-X4e-W:-X-:::kkWitIVIAAWIW:hAkkhk.$1

"e::::::

2' "oftliqikkkkigt,MBP.IIPPM"........":'M:55:::::::::n55M5::::: ,.....

::::!:7;!:-:._.:!::::::::-. ...._. .. e-

me ee

0

IN30113d

0 0 0

1N301:13d

0 0 0C)

1N33U3d

0 0

H3A0 V OS

60-St

fre?-00

6E-SE

11-0E

6Z-SZ

113A0

6P-SP

6E-SE

11-0E

6Z-SZ

za2

2

H3A0 V OS

60-St

"St6E-SE

0E-OE

6Z-SZ

k13/10 'OS

60-St

trly-Ot

65.15

0E-OE

6Z-SZ

Figure F-5 BIRTHPLACE OF ONTARIO ENGINEERINGTEACHERS BY UNIVERSITY 1969-70

TOTAL ONTARIO(721)

4 vi 15 g cc <44 114

CC aC ..:9 bi CCC4 bi C (C

0 0 0 11.1 0 iii 0 W 0 iii 0 0 li Iii< 6 6 x fa 6 x 4 6 6 x fa 6 > z

z= z < 0 z

z 0 z 0< 0 z 0g

0 < 00 0 C) 0 (.)

COUNTRY OF BIRTH

117

Figure F-6 BIRTHPLACE OF ONTARIO ENGINEERINGTEACHERS BY DISCIPLINE 1969-70

METALLURGY ANDMATERIALS

SCIENCE(41)

30

20

10

0

118

(01

4

c.)

6 4zc.)

cr;6

usci

Dz4c.)

COUNTRY OF BIRTH

6ccWio

444c.)

cr;6 6 4

zc.)

Figure F -8 UNIVERSITY OF LAST DEGREE OF ONTARIOENGINEERING TEACHERS BY DISCIPLINE 1969-70

CHEMICAL ENG.(116)

CIVIL ENG.(140)

ELECTRICAL ENG.(147)

MECHANICAL

AN

ENG.(140)

METALLURYMATERIALS

A ,\

ANDSCIENCE

(41) .:::::

OR...v.v..::**:

.::::::...........

::+:4:

.............

:::::,...:::::::::.:::::.::........

;::i:!:i:...::*:wee.

.: :* .. : .: .:. $* : .: .: :

..........::-.:::::::::::::..........::::::::::'.4.:::...:::::::::

:i:::

:.X.V.

:::::::

/

NNo...:.A k 4 k

...::t:P

YM:.*,,,M

M.::.v::F'4.74+.

..-.-.v.v.'.

X.:v..::::::..X.:.::::.:::,::::::::

:

.....

.........

%:::'..................we.'..................%v....::.....::...-00........................

R0

W

O

O

0OI-

50

O

00

0

OUNIVERSITY OF LAST DEGREE

O0

I e)

cc

O O0

CA

O

CA

IN331:13d

0 0 XIN3310d

0 0 X

1N33tBd

0 0

NVO H31110

OINON01

Irn

0'NVO 1131110 0

OIN01101

O .1

Q

s n zNVO 101110

OINOk10.1

1:1311.1.0

vnNVO

01NON0.1

120

Figure F9, Part 1 EXPERIENCE OF ONTARIO ENGINEERINGTEACHERS BY UNIVERSITY 1969-70

, ,..

CARLETON(35)

..

.::::,...:..

r, /r

7,, es.5%4 4...................... %

/112.S%. . ii:/.0.0%/ A

53.4%4.r,

GUELPH

. X

50.0%/ ....

...

...,.43.3%

..

X

X

i

.......

....Yee%

LAKEHEAD(01

.......

.:

a.%..::.

a.

.

7:V

/ 4. .

A/

1.'....:

.1::

.11.11

...: :,

_

J_

,,J

A

,,,,JJJI

1II

I

no%

LAURENTIAN(4)

75,16

#20 .::::::

. . .

::.:

::.:75,16

A

:::.

:::.:::.:

.:.:.:.:::::::

20

UI

a 10

0

10

30

UI

a 20

a.

10

0

70

50

50

10

30

20

10

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 R

YEARS OF PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

0 1 2 3 4 5 12 R

YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE

0 1 2 3 S R R

YEARS AT PRESENT UNIVERSITY

NOTE: FIGURES IN SHADED PORTIONON LEFT REPRESENT PERCENTAGEIN 0.5 YEAR RANGE M MEDIAN

20

W10

0

30

8 20

Wa

10

0

20

10

0

20

W10

0

30

8u 20

W

10

0

Figure F-9, Part 2 EXPERIENCE OF ONTARIO ENGINEERINGTEACHERS BY UNIVERSITY 1969-70

X y,7

/97.2% .r

McMASTER(51)

. .........

.

34.5%bzit ,

:::

7.'7 X

hilliii 0

nIrrnrrrr,

*0,/,,,e,

7/ 45.2% / 4

OTTAWA(39)

ri 317

%

M

X

if / .... -. :' F72

/QUEEN'S

(92)

:i:i::w:'::.:47.9%

/ .:::::::::

Innv:

.:::::::.,

/99.3%

::::: :::::57.5% 14.

r7

TORONTO

..... .

, ....%

.

7

.....:.:.:.:.:

. :.

r/2.2% 43.5%

:.:

..

....

57.0x

O 1 2 3 4 g oth.

YEARS OF PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE0

1 2 3 4 5o o

YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE YEARS AT PRESENT UNIVERSITY

1 2 3 4 6$

NOTE: FIGURES IN SHADED PORTIONON LEFT REPRESENT PERCENTAGEIN 0 YEAR RANGE PA MEDIAN

121a

x(n0

320

6-10

11-15

616-20

6-10

11-15

16.20

OVER 20

12 1 b

3

371

caI I

I niin 31

c zz

m

00

0.4 z

rn

A

A

iii

i

APPENDPii

PLACEMENT EXPERIENCE

One of the better yardsticks for measuring thedemand for engineers is the intensity of recruit-ment activity at the universities. There is a place-inent service each campus which is respons;blefor organ' student interviews with potentialemployers, and so the following was asked in thequestionnaire sent to the Ontario faculties ofengineering (Appendix I, question 6c):

"Please provide any recent reports or statis-tics on student placement services for engi-neers in your university. Include anyremarks you would care to make concerningthe placement of graduate students, particu-lary Ph.D.'s."

Unfortunately, the request was not sufficientlyspecific and this resulted in a variety of responses.Consequently, it has not been possible to com-press the data into tabular form. However, theanswers did provile some interesting informationand we have reproduced comments taken fromthe submission of ea,-h university.

CARLETON UNIVERSITY

It provided information covering the years1966-67 and 1967-68 which lists the number ofinterviews arranged for engineering students, theB.Eng. groduates, and their place of employmenton graduation. These data can be summarizedas follows:

For 1966-67, 39 companies held 201 interviewswith 37 baccalaureate graduates, 30 of whomaccepted offers of employment. In 1967-63, 40companies held 291 interviews with 43 students,27 of whom were employed following graduation.

UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH

No statistical data are available on the place-ment services provided for itF engineers. Thesmall number of graduate students have posedno problems, with the exception of those fromAsia. There has been In indication that moregraduate students with a professional orientationcould be placed in the processing and serviceindustries associated with agri.. ture.

Mc; TASTER UNIVERSITY

The Canada Manpower Centre, in conjunctionwith the University, makes available a StudentPlacement Office on campus. Graduating engi-neering students have not encountered problems

122

in gaining suitable employment before the dateof their graduation. However, some foreignstudents encounter placement difficulties andmay remain unemployed for several months aftergraduation.

A survey of their Ph.D. graduates :thows themto be employed as follows:.

University teaching in CanadaUniversity teaching in U.S.A. 2

Employed by industry in Canada 8Employed by industry in U.S.A. 10

Government service in Canada 2Government service in rakistanPost-doctoral Fellowship in Great Britain 1

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA

Undergraduate students arrange interviewswith prospective employers through the StudentPlacement Service. Graduate students may availthemselves of these facilities but some seek em-ployment independently. Ph.D. students herehave encountered difficulties recently in securingpositions to their particular liking and interest.

QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY

As far as undergraduate employment is con-cerned at least 90% of the Applied Sciencestudents registered in September 1969 had beenable to secure employment during the previoussummer.

Table G-1UNDERGRADUATE EMPLOYMENT QUEEN'S

Year% of summeremployment

% of jobs held relevant totheir Applied Science courses

1 87.1 54.52 91.2 63.63 91.0 74.94 90.9 89.2

We are not aware of any serious difficulty in plac-ing engineering Ph.D. graduates. In recent years,with few exceptions, the demand for graduateengineers has exceeded the supply, although thisyear there has seen a drop in the number of offersper student.

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

In the early months of the 1968-69 academicyear, some concern was expressed by placementofficers and recruiters over the lessening in de-mand for university graduates that appeared to

face the class of 1969. There were expressions ofgloom in regard to Canada's economic situation,interest rates on expansion capital were high,and a general mood of belt-tightening prevailedin both the public and private sectors. A goodnumber of government and industrial recruiterswere actively considering a temporary halt tocampus recruiting. Employers who did arrangevisits scaled down their estimates of requirementsfor graduates. All these factors seemed to pertainto the situation in the labour market at the endof 1968. A large number of community college,r2;raduates would he available, and moreover manyemployers began to embark on serious efforts toachieve better utilization of present so ff beforetaking on any additional personnel. Undoubt-edly, this policy has had some short-term adverseeffects on the demand for university graduates,but in the long run it should enhance their posi-tion within the organization and also ensure thatjobs offered to them will be more fully compat-ible with their abilities and education.

Early in 1969, there was a renewed demand forgraduates, particularly at the bachelor's level.Employers who had been on campus againapproached the Placement Centre to advertiseadditional vacancies, while those who had doneno recruiting now indicated a wish to do so. Thenet result was a deluge of vacancies in a widerange of disciplines. In February, March andApril, a significant number of graduates foundsuitable starting positions, either by individualreferral from the Placement Centre or throughsupplementary on- campus interviews.

The Toronto Placement Centre has a full-timemember of staff concerned with engineering stu-dents, and has encountered no difficulty in plac-ing undergraduates, either upon graduation orduring the summer. The general trend indemand for 1969 graduates in engineering andscience courses was down by about 3.5%. Therewas an increase in demand for graduates inmechanical and electrical engineering and forstudents with a diploma in computer science. Thepulp and paper industry has fewer opportunitiesfor new graduates in chemical engineering, whilethere continues to be a shortage of geological andmetallurgical graduates.

Salaries reflected the moderating demand. Inthose programs with large numbers of graduates,only electrical engineers received more than a 2to 3% increase in starting rates while the averageincrease was 21/4%. Initial salaries for engineersentering the field of chartered accountancy were$50 to $75 lower than those for graduates accept-ing course-related employment.

Appendix G

An interesting phenomenon which seemed tobe more prevalent than ever befon was the num-ber of engineering graduates who indicated thatthey did not intend to pursue technical careers.While most of them are prepared to serve anapprenticeship in industry as junior engineers,their aim is to move into the ranks of manage-ment as quickly as possible, not only to reap thefinancial rewards of such positions but also toescape from being "trapped" in an engineeringjob.

With respect to placing postgraduate students,the departments are playing an increasinglyimportant role as a consequence of their inter-action with industry and government. Thedevelopment of consulting teams, of broad inter-disciplinary programs of research and of a strongvein of entrepreneurial interest among facultymembers is strengthening the prospects for thisimportant service.

Nevertheless, the placement of Ph.D. graduatesis expected to become increasingly difficult.Flexibility of outlook will be an important char-acteristic for the future doctoral candidate.

A study on the destination of Ph.D.'s preparedby the Toronto School of Graduate Studies inDecember 1969 shows that 29 out of the 31 per-sons to be awarded an engineering Ph.D. in 1068-60 were placed at the time of reporting.

Canadian industry 8

Industry abroad 4Ontario colleges and universities 9Other Canadian universities 3

Universities abroadCanadian government service 2Post-doctoral fellows in

Canada and abroad 2

29

The holders of master's and doctoral degreesappear to be facing increasing difficulty in findingsuitable employment. More and more of thesehighly qualified people are being forced either toemigrate to the United States or to accept posi-tions that do not fully utilize their abilities andtraining. There is a slackening in demand forresearch-minded Ph.D.'s for both governmentand industry as well as for university teachingappointments. At a time of 'tightening govern-mental, industrial and educational budgets,opportunities for senior students are the onesmost seriously affected.

UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO

The question in regard to placement was not

123

/ 7

answered directly in the Waterloo submission,but data were provided on the destination of engi-neering graduates for the years 1962 to 1968.There were 867 graduates at the bachelor's levelduring this period, of whom 62.2% went withcompanies in the cooperative program, 10.4% toother companies, 80.8% on to graduate studiesand 6.6% to other dt itinations. Less than 1%entered industrial employment in the UnitedStates. Of the 630 bachelor graduates proceedingto industry, 85.7% were employed by companiesin the cooperative program, and 58% returned totheir last employer.

39 Ph.D.'s graduated between 1962 and 1968,of whom 21 took positions in a Canadian univer-sity, 4 with the federal government, and 3 inCanadian industry. Of the remaining 11, 2entered industry in the United States, 7 tookemployment in another country and the destina-tion of two is not known.

UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO

The University Placement Office reports thefollowing students registered for job placementin the years 1967-68 and 1968-69:

Table G-2

PLACEMENT REGISTRATIONS WESTERN

Year Summer Bachelor's Master's Ph.D.

1968 65 43 7 01969 100 58 29 1

124

Between 1968 and 1969 the total number of com-panies recruiting on campus for science andengineering students dropped from 109 to 101.However, there was no noticeable decrease inthe availability of jobs for engineering students.

UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR

The only relevant data available concerningthe engineering graduates are the following:

Year No. of graduatesNo. placed through

Placement Office

1697 33 211968 46 271969 58 34

The balance of graduates either obtained em-ployment on their own initiative or went on tograduate work. A lack of statistics is due to thefact that reporting is voluntary both from thegraduate and the hiring company.

In the past three years all bachelor's graduateshave been placed, but now there appears to besome difficulty in finding suitable employment,and graduates at the master's and Ph.D. levelshave t ,-)erienced considerable difficulty in secur-ing jobs in industry. The bulk of the post-gradu-ates find employment either in government or inuniversities on post-doctoral research and teach-ing assignments. There is more of a market fordoctoral graduates with several years in industry,but there is considerable difficulty in arrangingthis experience.

APPENDIX H

UNIT COSTS'

METHOD

The object of this part of the study was to estab-lish the unit cost (annual cost per student) foreach engineering student in the system, for theyear 1969-70. Throughout this study the term"cost" has been used rather indiscriminately. Ina corporate environment, the cost is what the pur-chaser pays, and it covers all outlays includingprofit. A more precise term in the universitycontext would be "expenditure" the amountfrom income spent by each university on engi-neering students. The word "cost" is adequate asperceived internally by each university, butviewed externally. costs should be considered asexpenditures. The study covers all ordinary oper-ating costs including engineering department andfaculty budgets, and all university "overhead"accounts including library, administration andplant maintenance.

The basis for distributing costs was staff-contacthours. Unit costs were developed as the productof two factors: cost per staff-contact horn and staff-contact hours per student.

DEFINITIONS

Throughout the study the following defini-tions were used as guidelines:

Term For programming purposes, aconvenient division of the academic year, usuallythirteen weeks in Ontario.

Class One subject given under asingle title for a single term (lecture and/orlaboratory and/or tutorial).

Section The sub-division of a classfor teaching convenience.

Program A compilation of classesand/or research and/or field work leading to aspecific degree.

Staff-contact Hour The time spent by a teacherinstructing a class. Thus, a class of 100 studentsreceiving instruction for two hours per weekgenerates 2 staff-contact hours and 200 student-hours per week.

'A more detailed description of the cost study is given ,n Ivor W. Thomp-son and Philip A. Lapp, A Method for Developing lir.4 Costs In Educa-

tion Programs, CPUO Report 70-3.

Engineering FacultyAdministrative Unit (referred to hereafter asEngineering) A group of resources (facultyand staff, equipment and supplies) fall ing withinan engineering faculty budget, under the admin-istrative control of a dean or director, oftendivided into departments or discipline groups.

SOURCES OF DATA

Data ivere extracted from the submission pro-vided by each university (Tables I, 2, 3 and 4,and responses to question 5) . Budgetary informa-tion was provided in separate submissions by thedeans of engineering and the university businessofficers.

STAFF-CONTACT HOURS PER STUDENT

All service teaching performed outside Engi-neering for programs within the faculty or schoolwere grouped into a single classification. Allteaching services provided by Engineering butnot related to enginering programs (i.e. serviceteaching to students from other programs or non-degree students) also were considered as a sepa-rate classification. Wherever possible, withinEngineering, distinctions were maintained be-tween departments and years in a program.

The staff-contact hours for the lecture, labora-tory and tutorial components of each class werecomputed by multiplying the annual staff-contacthours per section by the number of sectionsrequired for each component. Then they wereprorated among students in each year of eachprogram. If several departments taught differentsections of the same class, the relevant staff-contacthours were assigned to each department.

The result was a "staff-contact hour matrix" foreach university. Each vertical column corres-ponded to a department, and listed staff-contacthours for each program within Engineering, andall programs for students from other faculties.The horizontal rows contained, by year in pro-gram, the number of staff-contact hours providedby each department, or the group of outside facul-ties. Two matrices were prepared for each univer-sity: one for undergraduate engineering pro-grams and one for class instruction in graduateprograms. No distinction was made between dif-ferent levels in the graduate sector. Thereforemaster's and doctoral candidates were considered

125

under the single term "graduates". Graduatethesis supervision time was treated separately.

COST PER STAFF-CONTAGT 1101'R

The first step in deriving this factor wasto divide each department or faculty budgetbetween formal instruction, represented by staff-contact hours, and informal instruction, repre-sented by graduate supervision. Traditionally,such allocations had been made from surveys ofthe distribution of each faculty member's time.This proved to be unsatisfactory, and so in lieu ofsuch an approach, a technique was adapted fromthe Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Prin-cipals in the United Kingdom.

Under this modified scheme, an implicit rela-tionship was assumed between the cost of onestaff-contact hour and the supervision of one grad-uate student (excluding formal classroom instruc-tion) . For the purposes of thesis supervision andresearch, each graduate student was identifiedwith a particular department.2 It was assumedthat each graduate student required a fixed num-ber (K) of hours of annual supervision excludingformal instruction. Thus, the total teaching loadof any one department could be expressed as thesum of its total annual staff-contact hours, plusthe product of the K factor and the number ofgraduate students supervised in that department.This sum is referred to as the number of "teach-ing equivalents".

To find the value of K for Ontario engineeringschools, a linear regression was established be-tween teaching equivalents and the teachingsalary component of the budget for each of thethirty-seven departments involved in the study.These components were established by analyzingthe response to question 5b3 on the approximatetime distribution of faculty members. It was con-cluded that an average of 70% of a faculty mem-ber's time is devoted to teaching and supervision,with the balance being spent on administrativeduties (15%) , consulting (10%) and profes-sional and public service (5%) . Therefore, 70%of academic salaries was used in the K-valuedetermination.

The best linear regression for the thirty-sevenpoints yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.98,and a final value of K equal to 150 staff hours pergraduate student. (This corresponds to a weeklyaverage of 3 hours per student, for a 50-weekyear.) This value of K was used to divideeach department's total budget between formal,Undergraduate programs are not associated with one particular depart-ment, because of cross-departmental teaching.

,See Appendix I.

126

instruction and graduate supervision in the sameproportion as its contribution to the total depart-mental teaching equivalent. The cost per staff-contact hour was set equal to the portion of thetotal departmental budget devoted to formalinstruction (including the department's share offaculty office costs prorated among all depart-ments within Engineering) divided by the totalstaff-contact hours taught by the department toall students.

Also, it vas necessary to develop the cost perstaff-contact hour for classes taught by otherfaculties. This cost was assumed to be equal tothe over-all cost per staff-contact hour for Engi-neering (the total instruction cost of all depart-ments within Engineering, divided by the totalnumber of staff-contact hours taught by thesedepartments) multiplied by the quotient ob-tained by dividing the student/staff ratiofor Engineering by this ratio for the wholeuniversity.

The above procedure yields a tabulation ofinstruction cost per staff-contact hour for eachdepartment within Engineering, and for outsidefaculties, in each of the universities.

CosTs STI !DENT

The two factors developed above must becombined to yield unit costs (excluding univer-sity overhead) . For undergraduate programsevery element of the staff-contact hour matrixwas multiplied by the appropriate departmentalinstruction cost per staff-contact hour. The unitcosts were computed by adding the costs alongeach horizontal row, and dividing the result bythe corresponding number of F.T.E. (full-timeequivalent) students in each program and year.

The same procedure was followed for graduateprograms to generate 'the instruction portion ofunit costs, to which must be added the graduatesupervision costs that portion of the totaldepartmental budget devoted to graduate super-vision divided by the corresponding number ofF.T.E. graduate students. This sum yields unitcost for each graduate program in each univer-sity (excluding research grants) .

A compilation of research grants for 1969-70(designated assisted research) was provided on adepartmental basis. They were divided by theappropriate number of graduate students andadded to the above cost per graduate student toyield a unit cost including assisted research. (ForEngineering, this money is derived principallyfrom the National Research Council.)

Finally, it was necessary to apply university

overhead to arrive at total unit costs. The per-centages to be applied as overhead to the aca-demic and research cost figures developed abovewere derived from the UA-4 forms submitted byeach university to the Department of UniversityAffairs.

SOURCES OF ERROR

This method of computing unit costs involvedcertain assumptions whose validity is open toquestion. The most important assumption is theone used in prorating the departmental budgetbetween instruction and graduate supervision:that each graduate student absorbs a fixed num-ber of staff hours for annual graduate super-vision. The validity of this assumption wastested by the dispersion of the final K-valueregression for the thirty-seven departments inOntario. The correlation coefficient was 0.98,and over 80% of the points fell within an 18%band about the regression line. Anomalies willoccur in some departments because of the mix-ture of thesis and course-work master's degreestudents, and variations in thesis supervisionpractice.

A second assumption used in the K-valuedetermination was the portion of academicsalaries devoted to either instruction or graduatesupervision, assumed to be 70%. The portionwill vary among departments, and this figure waschosen on the basis of the submissions without adetailed time distribution study of universitystaff in all the universities.

These two assumptions result in a calculatedpercentage split of the departmental budgetbetween instruction and graduate supervision,which was compared with the estimated valueprovided by some universities. In general, thecalculated percentage devoted to graduate super-vision was slightly higher than university esti-mates, the average difference being 8%.

A third assumption was the use of student/staff ratios to compute the contact hour costsfor departments outside Engineering. Therewould appear to be few alternatives until asimilar cost study is conducted for all otherfaculties. On the one hand, student/staff ratiosare often used for cost comparisons and werereadily available, but on the other hand theyreflect relative costs only when policies in regardto teaching are the same throughout the entiretin iversity.

A fourth assumption was the uniform divisionof assisted research money among all graduatestudents within a department. There are specific

Appendix H

instances where its validity may be questioned,but no reasonable alternative was apparent fromavailable data.

The final assumption was the method used todistribute university overhead. This was addedto costs derived from departmental budget datato arrive at final unit costs. It included costs oflibrary, student services, scholarships, bursaries,administration, plant maintenance, general ex-penditures and net deficit on ancillary enter-prises, all expressed as a percentage of the unitcost derived from academic costs and researchgrants. Furthermore, other errors of omissioncould have affected this final calculation, sincesome of the overhead items in the UA-4 formsoften are credited to the departmental budget.Soul:: universities did provide data on these addi-tional costs, and these were removed from thedepartmental budget.

The above assumptions create possible errorsin the costs per contact hour. Also errors willenter into compilation of the staff-contact hoursper student, because the tabulations fromTables 1 and 2 of the submissions could con-tain errors and omit complete classes. If classesgiven by staff in Engineering were omitted,then only the distribution of costs among pro-grams would be altered, and not the total costsfor each university. For example, undergraduatethesis contact hours were not reported by alluniversities. Therefore it was decided to omitthese hours from the undergraduate contacthour matrix, so that undergraduate thesis costswere distributed evenly over all teaching equi-valents in Engineering, and hence relativefourth-year costs may have been slightly reduced.

Classes given by staff outside Engineering andomitted from the tabulation could not beincluded in the total, and therefore were lost.In some cases, the classes taught to graduatestudents by staff from other faculties wereomitted, so that these final unit cost figures arelow.

POLICY VARIABLES

A principal purpose of the cost study was toidentify specific quantities that could be mea-sured and then used to advantage in establishingadministrative practices and policies. Thesequantities, or policy variables, can be derivedfrom the unit cost computation as describedabove.

There are eight policy variables, and each canbe controlled within a limited range. Thesevariables combine in a direct way to yield unit

127

cost, so that it is theoretically possible to blendthem in an optimum fashion, consistent withfixed standards of quality, so as to minimize unitcost.

In the development of total unitcontribution of each department toinstruction cost of any program can beas the product of two factors:

staff-contact hoursdevoted to the program

by the departmentnumber orstudents in

the program

departmental instruction departmental instructioncost per student = cost per staff-contact hour x

The cost per student for any year of a programis the sum of all such costs incurred by eachdepartment that is teaching classes in the pro-gram. The first factor on the right-hand side ofthe above expression is a departmental cost, andcan be averaged for all departments within thefaculty by weighting the cost of each in accor-dance with its total staff-contact hour teachingload to yield an Engineering faculty cost. Theother factor is a program variable, and can beadded for all departments within the faculty andall programs in any year to yield a total for allsuch classes taught within Engineering. Theproduct of these two factors is the Engineeringportion of unit cost for all classes in a given year.For classes taught in any year of a program by

total departmentalteaching equivalents

K x

costs, thethe total

expressed

other faculties, their instruction costs are multi-plied by the appropriate staff-contact hours perstudent, and the unit costs so derived must beadded to those computed for Engineering.

INSTRUCTION COST PER STAFF-CONTACT HOUR

The departmental instruction cost per staff-contact hour is equal to the portion of thedepartmental budget devoted to formal instruc-tion divided by the total number of instructionalcontact hours taught by the department. Theformal instruction portion was obtained fromthe K-factor analysis, where it was assumed thatthe departmental budget was divided betweenformal instruction and graduate supervision.

total departmental number of graduate studentscontact hours + K x assigned to the department

total departmentalstaff-contact hourstotal departmental

teaching equivalents

number of graduate studentsassigned to the department

total departmentalteaching equivalents

departmentalinstruction

factor

graduate studentfactor

Note that:

departmental uraduate student;-,

instruction + factorfactor

Then:

departmental instructioncost per staff-contact

hour

128

1.0

departmentaldepartmental budget x instruction factor

total departmental staff-contact hours

departmental budgetper F.T.E. staff member

total departmental staff-contacthours per F.T.E. staff member

departmentalinstruction

factor

Three policy variables now emerge:

1. Departmental budget per F.T.E. staff mem-ber departmental salary load. (This ter-minology is used because the major pro-portion of departmental budgets is salary.)

faculty instructioncost per staff-contact hour

where: faculty salary load

faculty instruction work load

facultyinstruction

factor

STAFF-CONTACT HOURS PER STUDENT

Two additional policy variables now areintroduced:

4. Faculty student load = yearly hours de-voted by students in any program to classestaught within the faculty.

.5. Faculty average class size measured as theratio of the number of students in any sec-tion to the number of staff teaching the

faculty average class size

so that

Appendix H

2. Total departmental contact hours perF.T.E. staff member =-- departmentalinstruction work load.

3. The departmental instruction factor.These variables can be averaged for all depart-ments within the faculty to yield:

faculty salary loadfaculty instruction

work load

facultyX instruction

factor

faculty budget per F.T.E. staff member

=_ total faculty staff-contact hoursper F.T.E. staff member

total facultystaff-contact hours

total facultyteaching equivalents

section, but averaged over all classes givenwithin the faculty. For example, in a lec-ture section of 100 students, the class sizewould be 100; whereas in a iaboratory sec-tion of 100 students with ten instructors,the average class size would be ten. (Theaverage class size can be regarded as theaverage student/staff ratio in all classestaught in the faculty for any year of aprogram.)

For faculty classes in any program:

average yearly classhours per student X

faculty staff-contact hours

facultystaff-contact hours

per student

This expression applies only to classes taughtwithin the faculty, but an identical equation canbe derived for classes taught by other facultieswhere the student load and average class sizethen would apply to the latter classes.

number ofstudents

facultystudent load

faculty averageclass size

COST PER STUDENT

Within the faculty, the unit cost of a programis:

faculty cost faculty instructionper student = cost per staff-contact hour

facultyx staff-contact

hours per student

129

Since the unit costs of other faculties were a mul-tiple of these costs for Engineering ( using rela-tive student/staff ratios) , when the staff-contact

average cost per student 0C

where:

student load =

faculty salaryload

hours per student for all faculties are added to-gether, the total cost per student is roughly pro-portional4 to this expression. Thus

facultyx instruction x student load

factorfaculty instruction

yearly hours devoted by stu-dents to classes taught by allfaculties averaged over all en-gineering programs in anyone year.

average class size = the ratio of the number ofstudents in any section tothe number of staff teach-ing the section, for classestaught by all faculties aver-aged over all engineeringprograms in any one year.

The expression employs five policy variables, andcan he used as a management tool to control thecosts of undergraduate programs. The definitionsfor student load and average class size can berestricted to specific programs, or expanded tocover all years in all programs. Also, salary load,instruction work load and the instruction factorran he examined at the departmental level.

For graduate programs, three components ofunit cost were computed: instruction, graduatesupervision and assisted research. The factorsaffecting instruction costs are similar to those forundergraduate programs, except that it is not pos-sible to define a student load since both master'sand doctoral programs were combined, andcourse work for these programs normally is notstructured. Instruction contact hours per studentvary directly with the number of instructionhours taken by each student, and inversely withthe class size. Whereas class size can he measuredreadily, it would take an immense amount ofeffort to establish the instructional hours takenby each student, because it would be necessaryto identify the classes taken by each graduatestudent. For this reason, no attempt was made toanalyze graduate student instruction costs. Fur-thermore, the instruction costs for graduate stu-dents were only a small proportion of their totalcosts (5.5% average in Ontario) .

Graduate supervision costs vary directly withthe graduate student factor defined above, and130

x average classwork load size

on the average, represent 55% of total graduatestudent costs in Ontario. The balance consists ofassisted research and university overhead.

In all programs, the final result was obtainedby adding university overhead costs, expressedas a percentage of costs derived from faculty anddepartmental operating budgets, and assistedresearch. This is called the "university overheadfactor", and constitutes another policy variable.

Table H-1 is a summary of the policy varf-ables affecting unit costs for both undergraduateand graduate students. The total unit cost forundergraduates, where programs were aggre-gated by year in each university, varies over arange of :7:1. Only the average class size has avariation in this same range; all of the otherpolicy variables span a range of lesser magni-tude. For this reason, a regression was attemptedin order to relate undergraduate total unit costand average class size. This is shown in FigureH-1, where, as expected, the least-squares fit isa hyperbola. The correlation coefficient of thelinear transform was 0.89, and a total of thirty-nine points were used, corresponding to eachundergraduate year taught during 1969-70 inthe eleven universities. A multip1,- regression torelate all of the policy variables to total unitcost was not attempted.

The second most significant policy variablewas the faculty instruction factor, which variedover a range of 4:1. This factor defines the rela-tive emphasis placed on instruction as opposedto graduate supervision, and becomes mostimportant when comparing the relative costs ofgraduate and undergraduate studies in anyuniversity.

Next were the faculty salary load and facultyinstruction work load variables, each spanninga range of about 3:1. Both of these variablesdepend on the number of F.T.E. staff withinEngineering, and errors could have been intro-duced in the way they were reported by eachuniversity and counted for the purposes of thisstudy. Fortunately, this counting does not affect*The exact relationship is developed in CPUO Report 70-3.

unit cost calculations, since the number ofF.T.E. staff cancel in the division of these twofactors. The remaining policy variables, univer-sity overhead factor and student load, swingover a range of about 2:1, and so were the leastinfluential.

It should be noted that student load andinstruction work load are not entirely indepen-dent. For example, if the academic year wasextended by an extra week, both policy variableswould increase in equal proportion. On theother hand, should extra classes be added to thestudent load, then the instruction work loadmay or may not increase; the extra staff loadcould be accommodated either by adding morestaff or by increasing the work load of the exist-ing staff.

The dominant impact on graduate studentcosts, excluding assisted research, was the gradu-ate student factor. This resulted from the K-factor analysis which concluded that each gradu-ate student used 150 staff hours per yearan aver-age for all the engineering schools in Ontario.Where there is a relatively large number ofcourse-work master's students, compared to thesismaster's and doctoral students, unit costs wouldbe disproportionately high. The reverse maybe true where graduate thesis students pre-dominate.

Assisted research accounts for about 40% ofthe total unit costs for graduate students andincludes income from many sources. This addi-tional cost would apply only to thesis students.It is an external policy variable, principallyunder the control of the National ResearchCouncil, which provides the major source offunds in response to proposals for researchgrants from the universities.

Policy variables can be used as a tool to con-trol unit costs. Such control may be exercised atany or all of the three levels university, facultyand department.

(1) Salary load Since the major portion of adepartmental budget is salaries, this quan-tity reflects the mixture of senior and juniorstaff in the department. Generally, it in-creases with the age of the school as morestaff achieve the rank of associate or fullprofessor. However, within limits, a degreeof control can be applied that is consistentwith good instruction. For example, the useof part-time teaching staff from the profes-sion should influence the factor in a down-ward direction.

(2) Instruction work load It is recognized

Appendix H

that there is only limited control of thisvariable because of tradition and normaluniversity practices. The use of junior andpart-time teaching staff, again as consistentwith good instruction, tends to increase thisvariable, and thus to lower unit costs.

(3) Instruction factor This factor, with itscomplement, the graduate student factor,establishes the relative emphasis betweenundergraduate and graduate studies. A lowinstruction factor shifts the expenditure tothe graduate school, and requires a valuejudgment to make such a split. The instruc-tion factor decreases as the number of grad-uate students increases, and the result isthat fewer hours can be devoted to instruc-tion for a fixed total staff work load. Thiscreates a need to reduce the number of sec-tions, and so the final result is larger classsizes usually in the first and possibly thesecond year. Again, the policy variablesreveal some interdependency.

(4) Student load This quantity exhibits theleast amount of variation. Each engineeringprogram would tend to involve students incomparable class instruction times, becauseof traditions and accreditation require-ments. Some of the variation may heaccounted for by differences in the numberof weeks in the academic year among theuniversities. Any adjustment of this variablemust result from a value judgment relatedto the number of hours a student shouldspend in class as opposed to other activities.

Average class size This is the most impor-tant policy variable and is influenced bytwo major factors: sectioning policy in thefirst and second years, and class prolifera-tion in the third and fourth years, result-ing from program expansion and theincreasing number of elective classes. Inboth instances, a value judgment is neces-sary to establish reasonable upper and lowerlimits. The use of the average class sizeconcept provides a quantitative basis forassessing the impact of basic sectioning andelective policies on unit costs.

University overhead factorIt was assumedthat this factor is beyond the direct controlof the engineering staff.

Graduate student factor This is the com-plement of the instruction factor, and hasbeen covered under (3) above.

Assisted research load In general, assisted

131

(6)

(7)

(8)

research makes graduate programs possible.Therefore, this factor is of crucia; impor-tance not for its effect on unit costs, but forits influence on engineering graduate studies.This matter is dealt with in some depth inChapters 4 and 5 of this report.

The above policy variables give some insightinto the influence of policies and practices on

costs. What they do not give is an indica-tion of quality. It is always possible to minimizeunit costs, and the art of good management is todo so without adversely affecting quality. Thus,the elasticity of quality with each of these policyvariables becomes a value judgment for each

iversity.

COST AND SIZE

Table H-2 is a summary of average total unitcosts by discipline and year, weighted by theappropriate number of students. For this reason,these averages represent true costs as opposed tothe averages in Table H-1, Miele each univer-sity was given equal weight for the purpose ofdeveloping the policy variables.

In general, in any program unit, costs in-creased with the year, principally because of thedecrease in average class size in the later years,as illustrated in Table H-3. This reduction inclass size is caused by decreasing enrolments dueto attrition and the proliferation of optionalclasses in many programs, particularly in thethird and fourth year.

Table 11-3Undergraduate

YearAverage Class Size

(Ontario)

54.5

Number ofStudents in Sample

2,6212 34.3 2,4503 21.3 1,7094 19.9 1,446

All 32.0 8,226

One important product of the cost study was

132

the effect of engineering school size on unit costs.Figure H-2 is a cost-size comparison, and showshow the unit cost varied with the number ofstudents in undergraduate programs (elevenuniversities) It is difficult to draw firm conclu-sions with such a small number of points, buta trend appears to emerge: the curve exhibits aminimum band between 600 and 1,300 under-graduate students. Below this band, classes aresmall because they are student-limited. Withinthe band, classes reach a critical size, where sec-tioning becomes necessary. Beyond the band,sectioning policy is the main determinant, andas the school becomes very large, there appearsto be a tendency to section into smaller classes.In the larger schools, more elective classes areoffered in the third and fourth year and thistends to keep average class size down eventhough total student numbers are relativelylarge.

From Table H-2, it is possible to estimate veryroughly the expenditure required for an engi-neering degree. A crude attrition model isassumed as follows: 75% second-year survivalfrom first year, 85% third-year survival fromsecond year, 90% fourth-year survival fromthird year and 95% degree survival from fourthyear. A conditional probability calculation wascarried out using this model for the class of1970. In round numbers, the expenditure to pro-duce a graduate engineer in 1970 was about$8,000. provided the structure developed in thecost study did not alter appreciably over theprevious three years.

If attrition and discount are neglected forgraduate students, the additional expenditurefor a master's degree achieved in one year afterthe bachelor's degree was $8,190 (a total ofabout $16,000) . For a Ph.D. achieved in fouryears after the bachelor's degree, there was anadditional expenditure of $33,000 (a total of$41,000), excluding assisted research, or an addi-tional expenditure of $54,000 (a total of$62,000) , including assisted research.

Figure 11-1 AVERAGE CLASS SIZE COST REGRESSIONONTARIO ENGINEERING UNDERGRADUATE CLASSES 1969-70

111 UNIVERSITIES, 0Y YEAR: TOTAL OF 66)

1000

WOO

/000

1000

5000

1000

ED

100

700

1.1

--

....1

k _k_

--,

,,,

., -.

,

,

1\

100

100

. ..

_ Al

0 10 20 30 10 10 p 70

AVERAGE CLASS SIZE

CORRELATION COEFFICIENTOF THE LINEAR TRANSFORM. =

00 Iso 110 130 130 110

LEAST SQUARES FM ALMTOTAL COST PER STUDENT = 114.7 +

AVERAGE CLASS SIZE

133

.w

18

1

2400tu00

atu 2200 ..-,o.

004 2000._I-01.

Figure H-2 COST SIZE COMPARISONONTARIO ENGINEERING SCHOOLS 1969-70

Y.-

$2,710- ONTARIO AVERAGE-10.315 UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE STUDENTS (EXCLUDING ASSISTED RESEARCH)

1800

1800

1400

1200

1000

134

M1 MI M

,-.

MI81,450- ONTARIO AVERAGE - 8.2211 UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS

4 .6.

MINIMUM BAND

UNDERGRADUATE COSTS

GOO 100 1010 1200 1400 IWO 1800 2000 2200 1480 WANUMBER OF UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS

Appendix IITable 1-1.1

POLICY %/A It 'AISLES - N I VERS1TV A V ERAG ES

1969-70

No. Policy VariableAffects

Unit Colts Unit,Averaged

Over Year°Mar ioAverage Maximum Minimum

Maximumlkiinimum

I. Faculty I)irectly per 11 All 25,845 39,040 15,000 2.6Salary Logo) F.'F.F. staff Universities

2. FacilityInstrui lion

Inversely (;(cotta( t I lotusper F.T.F stall

11 All'niversities

293. :U1 495.89 157.71 3.1

11'ork Load

3. 1'u idly Directly '171 All 39 59 15 3.9Instrui don Dept mien tsFa( tor

4. Student !mad 1)itect(y Student flours 11 Univ.2 1 734 819 637 1.3per Year 10 I Tniv. 11 652 736 514 1.4

9 Univ. III 673 7(19 583 1 39 Univ. IV (191 801 574 1.4

11 Univ. All 689 819 514 1.65. Average Inversely No. of Students I I Univ. 51 116.4 25.9 4.5

CLISS Sue per Instructor I I Univ. II 32.8 (13.8 7.5 8.5in Class 9 I Tniv. III 21.3 3(1.5 12.9 2.8

0 Univ. IV 19.9 31.8 10 3.2I I I Tniv. All 32.3 116.4 7.5 L5.5

6. University I)iret tly I I I 'niv. All 30 38 21 1.8()verbead Factor

Total Unit $ per 11 Univ. 1,110 1,960 360 5.4Cost I titter- Student 10 Univ. II 1,670 6,080 700 8.7gradtta te 9 I Tniv. III 2,140 3,360 1,170 2.9

9 Univ. IV 2,450 4,020 1,080 :3.7II Univ. All 1,820 6,080 360 16.9

7. Graduate 1)ire( tly 37 All 70 79 62 1.3Student DepartmentsFactor

Total Unit Instruction $ per 37 All 1,090 2,410 90 26.8Graduate Graduate St it lent Departments All 9,460 14,860 3,860 3.8ExcludingAssisted

Super-vision

Research Total All 10,550 17,000 4,370 3.98. Ai;ited Directly $ per 35 All (1,350 20,420 1,600 12.8

Research Student DepartmentsTotal Unit $ per 35 All 16,900 35,290 8,100 4.4Cost- Student DepartmentsGraduateIncludim;AssistedResearch

'37 departments had graduate students in 196940..0t II ur iveffilleb one offered years 1 and 11 only, and one offered /tat I only.

135

Table H-2UNIT COSTS BY DISCIPLINE, YEAR AND NUMBER OF STUDENTS

1969-70

Program YearNo of F.T.E.

StudentsOntarioAverage Maximum Minimum

MaximumMinimum

Chemical I 444 $ 920 $ 1,740 5 360 4.8Engineering II 383 1,200 5,490 510 10.0

III 228 2,800 4,660 990 4.7IV 237 2,100 8,840 1,230 7.2All 1,292 1,550 8,840 360 24.6

Graduate - excluding All 9,190 14,730 5,760 2.6assisted research 320- including assistedresearch

All 15,740 20,800 11,440 1.8

Civil I 495 1,090 1,740 360 4.8Engineering II 505 1,500 5,980 980 6.1

III 339 1,450 2,780 750 3.7IV 243 2,040 6,310 840 7.5All 1,382 1,440 6,310 360 17.5

Graduate - excludingassisted research All 376 8,850 14,350 6,680 2.1

- includingassisted research All 14,110 ':3,120 9,820 2.4

Electrical I 540 1,060 1,430 360 4.0Engineering II 560 1,010 1,500 700 2.1

HI 392 1,380 4,029 1,200 3.4IV 317 1,660 4,150 890 4.7

All 1,809 1,220 4,150 360 11.5

Graduate - excludingassisted research All 8,150 13,700 4,370 3.1

- including 413assisted research All 12,180 19,510 8,800 2.2

Mechanical I 529 1,050 1,430 360 4.0Engineering II 549 1,250 1,700 530 3.2

III 366 2,010 3,320 940 3.5IV 322 1,800 6,020 1,000 6.0All 1,766 1,450 6,020 360 16.7

Graduate - excludingassiited research All 9,410 15,270 6,400 2.4

- including 273assisted research All 14,190 15,780 9,910 1.6

Metallurgical and I 61 930 1,430 360 4.0Materials II 61 1,520 2,560 880 2.9Engineering III 33 3,940 6,120 210 29.1

IV 38 6,850 14,460 4,470 3.2All 193 2,800 14,460 210 68.9

Graduate - excludingassisted research All 10,450 17,000 7,190 2.4

- including 100assisted research All 21,780 35,290 15,180 2.3

All Engineering I 2,621 1,030 1,960 360 5.4Programs II 2,450 1,270 18,760 530 35.4

III 1,709 1,850 6,120 210 29.1IV 1,446 2,040 14,460 840 17.2All 8,226 1,450 18,760 210 89.3

Graduate - excludingassisted research All 8,190 17,000 4,370 3.9

- including 2,089assisted research All 10,315 13,460 35,290 8,100 4.4

136 ),

/ 3

APPENDIX IQUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO ONTARIO

FACULTIES OF ENGINEERINGPART A FACTUAL DATA

1. GENERAL.

Please state as concisely as possible your majorgoals and objectives in engineering education atyour university.

In addition, it would be helpful to includeyour response to the CIJA request of October1968 calling for goals and requirements to 1975which was sent to all Ontario universities.

2. CURRICULUM DATA

For the purpose of this question, the follow-ing definitions arc arbitrarily stated:

Class a subject given under a single title fora single term. (Lectures and/or laboratoryand tutorial) . Classes may be divided intoSections for teaching convenience.

Course or Undergraduate Program a com-pilation of classes leading to the bachelor'sdegree.

Graduate Program a body of work, includ-ing classes leading to a postgraduate degree.Option a prescribed group of classes within

an undergraduate program.

a) Undergraduate

i) Classes available and class sizes: this ques-tion is intended to confirm data available fromthe Calendar, together with quantitative dataneeded for size considerations. Figure 1 is ageneralized layout for undergraduate courses.Please create such a diagram for your faculty,showing years and appropriate blocks corres-ponding to the required and elective classes foreach undergraduate year. Each block should benumbered or coded for use in filling out TableI.

ii) Table I is intended to be a comprehensivelisting of undergraduate classes in which engi-neering students are enrolled in your university.It will reyeal data on class sizes, teaching load,cross - faculty loading and enrolment trends. Itis designed in such a way that it should be uni-versal, and the data should be in a form that isimmediately useful to this study.

Explanatory notes are appended to the Table,and an example is presented for a rather com-plex case to bring out most of the detail in aform that is expected.

iii) Please list those engineering undergradu-ate elective classes offered in your Calendar forwhich there is zero enrolment for the 1969-70academic year.

iv) Undergraduate Curriculum Committeea) Please describe the organizatioal struc-

ture of this committee, its membership, and itsterms of reference.

b) What are the processes whereby changesare ultimately introduced into your curriculum?

c) What resources does this committee haveat its disposal?

d) Have you developed a "product descrip-tion" or specification for your curriculum? If so,please include in your response.

e) Have you developed formal criteria forevaluating proposed curriculum changes? If so,please include in your response.

f) Please describe recent activities of thiscommittee and any planned future changes or de-velopments in your undergraduate curriculum.

v) What influences have there been on yourcurriculum of any recent changes in attitude ofother departments providing only service toengineering students?

vi) How has the local community influencedyour engineering curriculum?

vii) Have the CAATS had any influence inyour recent curriculum planning? If so, pleasestate.

viii) Are you contemplating or currcntlyinvolved with any inter-university class or courseactivity? If so, please state.

ix) Do you offer part-time studies, leadingto a bachelor's degree? If so, please state &tailsand number of such students in the 1969-70academic year.

b) Graduatei) Please list graduate programs and degree

offerings in engineering, including OCGS apprai-sal status. Include any new graduate programsbeing planned, or in development, that would besubject to appraisal.

ii) Please construct Table 2, Graduate Classes1969-70, using the same format as Table I but

137

omitting Column 1. Include in this table allclasses given by staff of the Engineering Facultyadministrative unit, and those classes taken bystudents enrolled for a graduate degree in engi-neering outside of the Engineering Faculty admi-nistrative unit.

For graduate theses, list degrees separately (i.e.M.A.Sc., M.Eng., Ph.D., etc.) and use the Tuto-rial heading in Columns (7) , (8) and (9) . It isrecognized that the contact and staff hours, inCohnuns (8) and (9) respectively will be esti-mated averages only; an indication of the spreadin these columns should be included under Re-marks, Column (11) .

iii) Please list those graduate elective classesgiven by the staff of the Engineering Facultyadministrative unit, offered in your Calendarfor which there is zero enrolment for the 1969-70academic year.

iv) In addition to the faculty loading relatedto formal classes and theses shown in Table 2,most graduate students consume further informalcontact time of the engineering faculty. Pleaseestimate this additional time ipterms of hours peracademic year (1969-70) per graduate student foreach engineering graduate degree offered.

v) Please describe any inter- and intra-facultyand inter-university graduate programs in exis-tence or planned, whether subject to OCGSappraisal or not.

vi) Please state the residency requirementsin each of your engineering graduate programs.Include in your response any off-campus orcooperative programs.

vii) Please describe the formal and informalrelationships that exist between the Faculty

of Engineering and the Faculty of GraduateStudies. Where and how do they intersect ad-ministratively, and how is the control of specificclasses and programs effected? In graduate pro-grams, how do Department Heads relate to:

a) The Dean of Engineering?

b) The Dean of Graduate Studies?

vii) Do you offer an engineering Master'sdegree program which does not require a thesisor design project? If so, what percentage ofstudents elect such a program in recent years?Are these primarily part-time students?

3. ENROLMENT DATA

a) Please list undergraduate and graduate enrol-ment figures by program on an academicyear-by-year basis, for the past ten years.For each year the enrolment figures shouldapply at the December 1st date. Please usethe format of Table 3. List special and inter-disciplinary degrees separately in the firstcolumn, where practical.

b) Please display your enrolment projectionsboth undergraduate and graduate, in theform normally presented, and describe themethod used. How accurate have these pro-jections been in the past? Could you indicatethis accuracy by comparing your past pro-jections with the data in Table 3? What willbe the influence of the CAATs?

c) With respect to your enrolment for the 1969-70 academic year specify the number ofadditional students you could accommodatein each undergraduate year and all graduateyears without adding either more staff, spaceor equipment.

Table 1UNDERGRADUATE CLASSES 1969-70

Given toBlock Given by StudentsCodes Class Class Staff of No. of of the

(R or E) No. Title the Dept. of Sections Dept. of

Number Totalof students annual con- Total annualfrom each tact hours staff hours

Department per student per sectionLect. Lab. Tut. Lect, Lab. Tut. Lect. Lab. Tut.

Trends in totalNo. of stuuentsin recent years

Rising Stable Deer. Remarks

(1) (2) (3) (4) (73 (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)

3 - R 101 Org. Chem. 2 Chem. 38 38 3 30 90 60 30 360 60 t« Physics students7 - E Chem. Eng. Eng. 15 15 entering this

Chein. 3 3 class first timePhysics 10 10 this year as anMater. elective.Eng.

Notes on example: Organic Chemistry 101 Is required in Chemical Engineering, but is an elective in Materials Engineering shown as Blocks 3 and 7 (forexample) ,n your diagram. Students from the Departments of Chemistry and Physics are also enrolled in this tours.: which is givenin two sections. The Physics students are also given a tutorial. On the assumption that the class is given for 30 weeks, each studentreceives one hour lecture and three hours laboratory, with Physics students receiving an extra two hours tutorial per week. There isone lecturer and one member of staff giving the tutorial, but four staff members supervise the laboratory.

138

UNIVERSITY ENTRANCE

TIME (YEARS)

BACHELOR GRADUATION

ENGINEERING COMMON

E.. ELECTIVE CLASSES

11 REQUIRED CLASSES

ELECTIVE COURSES

ELECTIVE OPTIONS

Figure 1-1 UNDERGRADUATE COURSE LAYOUT FORENGINEERING STUDENTS

I

NOTES ON TABLE 1

(1) In your undergraduate curriculum dia-gram (Fig. 1) you have designated a codefor each block. Please enter the applicableBlock Codes for each class, and indicatewhether or not it is a required or electiveclass (R or E) .

(2) Enter the Class Number you normally usein your Calendar.

Enter the Class Title you normally use inyour Calendar.

(4) Include all Departments within the Engi-neering Faculty administrative unit to-gether with classes of other Departmentsoutside of the Engineering Faculty admin-istrative unit in which engineering studentsare enrolled for the 1969-70 academicyear. Classes should also be included thatare given by members of the EngineeringFaculty administrative unit where enrol-ment is entirely composed of non-engi-neering students.

Number of Sections is the number of sub-divisions of the class irrespective of theDepartment of origin of the students.This column covers the Departmentwherein the students are normally reps-tc.red. For students not registered in aspecific Department (such as first yearstudents in most universities) state whichfaculty only.

The number of students from each Depart-ment (or Faculty) should be shown oppo-site the relevant unit in column (6) ,under lecture, laboratory or tutorialwhichever the case may be.

This can be obtained by multiplying thenumber of hours per week for each stu-dent by the total number of weeks thatthe class is given for the academic year1969-70.

This can be obtained by multiplying thetotal annual contact hours per student(Column (8)) by the number of staffutilized per section from the Departmentindicated in Column (4) .

(10) These columns are intended to give anindication of enrolment trends and any

(11) unusual features related to 1969-70 enrol-ments in each class. Also in Column (11) ,state any unusual expense items that maybe associated with this class if they aresignificant. In multiple-section classes, also

(3)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

140

indicate when any section contains lessflan 10 students in Column (11) togetherwith any other remarks related to section-ing policy.

Table 3ENGINEERING ENROLMENTS

1960-61PROGRAM F.T. TOT. F.T.E

CIVILENGINEERINGUndergraduate Yr. 1

234

Graduate Yr. 1

234

Beyond 4

Total Bachelor'sB.A.Sc.

Degrees Awarded

Total Master'sM.A.Sc.

Degrees AwardedM.Eng.

Total DoctoralDegrees Awarded

Ph.D.

CHEMICALENGINEERING

etc.

F.T. Full-time studentsTOT. Total full-time plus part-time studentsF.T.E. Full-time equivalent students

d) What are your admission requirements,quota and other regulatory mechanisms forentrance into engineering from:

i) Secondary schools (by province andcountry) ,

ii) CAATs and CEGEPs,iii) Other universities ( undergraduate and

graduate studies) ?

e) Please describe your guidance counsellingactivities with 'the high schools, CAATs andCEGEPs. How do these activities relate to

/ 4,

guidance procedures of other faculties, andhow are they funded?

f) How many new CAAT and CEGEP gradu-ates are enrolled this year (1969-70) ?

4. RESEARCH AND SPECIAL. GRADUATEPROGRAMS

a) Describe the operation of any disciplinary orinterdisciplinary research institutes in whichmembers of the Engineering Faculty parti-cipate. Please indicate history, size andresources. Also include any such institutesnow in the planning stage.

b) Describe any research or special graduatestudy programs with:i) Other universities,ii) Government departments (both federal

and provincial) ,

iii) Industry,c) What is the influence of the local community

on research programs? More specifically, de-fine the kinds of interaction between yourfaculty and industry ( )r government) interms of:i) Exchange of staff.ii) Provision of consulting services,iii) Entrepreneurial involvement,iv) Other.

d) Define the areas of research in each depart-ment (and interdepartmental) that representyour major foci of effort. For each focus givethe following data:i) The number and names of professorial

staff actively woi king together in thefocal area (no staff member should beassigned to more than one focal area) .

ii) The F.T.E. number of graduate stu-dents. post-doctoral fellows and techni-cians associated with the focal area in1969-70.

iii) The number of graduate degrees by cate-gory (master's, doctorates, etc.) grantedin the focal area in 1967-68 and in 1968-69.

iv) The number of refereed publications bythe group for the focal area in 1967-68 and 1969-70. Give typical recentexamples.

v) The total research support in dollars perannum for the focal area (exclusive ofuniversity sources) for 1967-68, 1968-69and 1969-70.

vi) The number of patent applications foreach focal area in 1967-68, 1968-69 and1969-70.

vii) The intensity of involvement of the staff

Appendix I

group with industry and government inthe focal area (reference (c) above) . Tocalibrate this, assume each staff memberhas available one-half day a week out offive days to engage in outside activities.What fraction of this time resource ofthe group is so committed?

e) Define the extent of the research activity ofyour faculty which rests on the activity ofindividuals not included above.

f) To what extent are engineering research pro-grams in your faculty part of larger regionalor national projects?

5. TEACHING AND RESEARCH STAFFDATA

a) Please complete Table 4 for all members ofstaff included in the Engineering Facultyadministrative unit.

b) Please provide the results of any surveys con-ducted on the time distribution of facultymembers.

c) What amount of time do you feel is appro-priate for the time of staff involved in serviceoutside of university business under theheadings:i) Professional?

ii) Conununity?

What amount of time is currently committedby your staff in these areas?

d) What are your policies concerning theconsulting activities of staff and facultyconsulting groups? Describe your enforce-ment techniques.

e) What are your sabbatical policies?

f) Please list details about staff who also holdoutside positions of responsibility in indus-try and government.

For the past ten years, list for each year thefollowing ratios for the Engineering Facultyadministrative unit: (show both numerator,denominator and ratio in your response) .i) Total undergraduate teaching staff/total

number of bachelor's degrees awarded.ii) Total undergraduate teaching staff/total

undergraduate enrolment as of Decem-ber 1.

iii) Total graduate teaching staff/total num-ber of master's degrees awarded.

iv) Total graduate teaching staff/total num-ber of doctoral degrees awarded.

g)

ass141

Dept.

(1)

Number of Years Last DegreeM Name

Name of Field of Profess. Present of YearStaff Member F.T.E. Title Specialization Practice Teaching P.D.F. Univ. DcgreeObtained Univ.

(2) (3) (4)

Notes on Table 4

(5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (1.0) (11) (12)

Table 4TEACHING AND RESEARCH STAFE DATA 1969-70

Yearof

Birth

(13)

Birth-place

(14)

YearObtainedLanded

ImmigrantStatus P. Eng.

(15) (16)

The department to which staff member is attached at yodel. university 1969-70.Surname, first name and initial of staff member.Full-time equivalent of staff member use your own definition for this (e.g. for half-time mem-ber, enter 0.50; for full -time member, enter 1.00) .

Title refers to Dean, Vice Dean, Professor, Assoc. Professor, Asst. Professor, Adjunct Professor,Visiting Professor, Lecturer, Sessional Lecturer, Instructor, or other (please specify) .

Field of Specialization refers to specialty within his branch of engineering (e.g. "control sys-tems" within Elect. Eng.) .

Number of Years of Professional Practice (industry or other) , not including academic or teachingexperience.Number of Years of Academic Teaching, not including graduate study years unless these includetime as an instructor or lecturer where he was responsible for one or more classes.Numnber of Years as a post-doctoral fellow where applicable.Numnber of Years on staff of present university (irrespective of rank or title) .

Name of highest degree obtained.The year in which this degree was obtained.The university at which this degree was obtained if outside of Canada, include country.

, (14) are self-explanatory.Where applicable, the year that the staff member obtained his landed immigrant status in Canada.State whether or not the staff member is a P.Eng. (yes or no) .

h) What are your patent policies with respect toinventions of university staff and students?

i) What are your policies in respect to the use ofuniversity laboratories by staff for consultingpurposes?

6. STUDENTS DATA

a) Please complete Table 5 for the five years shown,or for as many years as records are available.(The last row in this Table is intended to give

an indication of the number of students whoseparents or guardians are taxpayers in Ontario) .

b) For the 1969-70 academic year students who arelanded immigrants, as shown in Table 5, howmany became landed immigrants after first regis-tration with the university. Show this as thenumber of such students in each undergraduateyear, and all years for graduate students.

c) Please provide any recent reports or statistics onstudent placement services for engineers in youruniversity. Include any remarks you would careto make concerning the placement of graduatestudents, particularly Ph.D.'s.

142

d) What techniques do you apply to trace the careerhistories of your graduates? Please be specific,and include any summary reports in yourresponse.

e) How do you guide students selecting their elec-tive courses, options and classes? What form ofcareer counselling do you provide?

f) Describe the student engineering societies onyour campus; provide a list of such societies andtheir major activities.

g) Please indicate the percentage of your full-timeengineering graduate students who receive sup-port during the 1969-70 academic year as follows:

Federal governmentProvincial government(direct) :

University:Other agency:No support:

io

100.0%

Table 5STUDENTS DATA

1965-66

Undergrad

1 2 3 4 Tot.

MaleSex

Female

CanadianCitizenship U.S.

CommonwealthOther

Landed Immigrants

Ont.Secondary Que.School B.C.Education Prairies

MaritimesU.S.

CommonwealthOther

Number Eligible forOntario Student Loan

AllYrs.

7. CONTINUING EDUCATION

a) Do you offer classes in continuing engineeringeducation; if so, what are your basic policies,goals and objectives? Are these classes offeredthrough the Extension Department; if so,what are the formal and informal relation-ships between that Department and the Fac-ulty of Engineering?

b) Please list your class, course and pro-gram offerings (including certificates anddiplomas) .

c) Enrollment statistics: Provide these in a formmost convenient for your university, for thecurrent year only but indicate any trends thatare significant.

d) How do you allocate resources to continuingengineering education? Give an indication ofcosts and sources of funds, and the percentageof these costs covered by the normal facultyoperating budget.

e) How do you cooperate with industry, govern-ment and the professional societies in continu-ing engineering education?

f) What methods of programming do you use(early morning, evening, weekends, etc.) ?

What methods of class presentation do youg)

/5?

Appendix I

use (CCTV, CATV, talk-back TV, audio-visual, etc.)

8. FACILITIES AND COSTS

a) Provide a brief description of major researchfacilities used by engineering students andstaff ("Major facilities" is i*ended to meanthose facilities which you consider majorno specific dollar value is intended) .

b) What facilities do you currently share withother universities?

c) Please provide equipment replacement costs(Inventory as of January 1, 1970) under thefollowing headings:i) Teaching,ii) Research,iii) Both teaching and research.

(Note: A separate cost study is being conducted,so that further cost data are not being collectedhere.)

PART B OPINIONThe following questions are an open list calling

for expressions of opinion in certain key areas ofthe Engineering Study. They are intended only asa guide to manoeuvre the briefs from each Uni-versity towards common problems. They arebased primarily on the original CODE document,dated November 1, 1968.

143

Please indicate whose opinion is beingpresented.

c)

d)

e)

f)

g)

h)

What is your definition of engineering?What responsibility should the engineer-ing schools assume for continuing educa-tion?

Do you have any facts or opinions on thejob-creating ability of engineers in theeconomy? How can this be measuredquantitatively?

In your opinion, is there a meaningful wayto predict manapower demands for engi-neers? How would you go about it? Howmany years ahead is practical?

How should proper allowance be made forbusiness, applied arts and humanities inengineering curricula? Indicate your opin-ion as to their relative degree of impor-tance in respect to engineering, scienceand technical subjects.

Is the entrepreneur a product of an educa-tional experience, or are other factors ofgreater significance?

What role should women play in theprofession?

What is your feeling about the relativeimportance and relevance of course-work"professional" master's and doctoralprograms vs. research-oriented graduatework?

i) What is your reaction to the heavy empha-sis now growing in the U.S. on computer-aided design? Should this be stressed morein Canadian schools what are the prosand cons?Aside from the effects on enrolment,CAAT graduates will likely alter thefuture role of the engineer. Would youestimate how these relative roles willrationalize, and the impact this may haveon future engineering curricula?

k) It has been suggested that the output of auniversity is far more sensitive to theinput than to the curriculum. If this is so,then screening techniques on entrants touniversity becomes a strong measure ofoutput quality, and possibly more im-portant than curriculum considerations.Would you comment on this statement?

2. ENGINEERING IN THEUNIVERSITY

a) Should engineering schools be part of a

j)

144

university, or are there good reasons toestablish separate polytechnical institutes?

b) Should engineering be altered to be closerto a liberal education in undergraduateyears?

c) Should engineering subjects be offered toliberal arts students?

d) In your opinion, is there a meaningfulway to predict manpower demands forengineers? How would you go about it?How many years ahead is practical?

e) Is there a case for using seasoned engineersas laboratory assistants and demonstratorsinstead of graduate students so that stu-dents have a greater opportunity to "brushwith the real world"?

S. DEVELOPMENT OF ENGINEERINGEDUCATION SYSTEM IN ONTARIO

a) Do you believe the present APEO accredi-tation system is meaningful?

b) Could you suggest possible alternativemeans of accreditation which would en-sure adequacy from a professional view-point, and yet provide sufficient scope forindividuality, diversity and local com-munity needs?

c) What are your views on the coopera-tive system and its applicability to youruniversity?

d) Are there too many engineering schoolsin Ontario?

e) What is the probable trend of engineeringenrolments and will the population ofOntario schools remain fairly level?

f) In your opinion what is the minimum sizefor an engineering school to be viable?What are your criteria for setting thisminimum size?

Do you believe it is practical to collabo-rate and rationalize engineering educationamong the universities in Ontario?

h) How do you feel about sharing facilities,staff and other resources with other uni-versities is this really practical?

i) Is there merit in collaborating with theCAATs in joint university/college pro-grams (e.g. air pollution studies nowbeing developed by Western and Fan-shawe) ?

g)

j) Do you believe that the classical subdivi-sions of engineering are now relevant?What alternatives would you propose?

k) Do you believe there is a case for a com-mon undergraduate curriculum leading toa general bachelor's degree in Engineer-ing, with specialization during the gradu-ate years? (As per ASEE EngineeringGoals Report current recommenda-tions.)

1) What influence do you expect from thegrowth of the CAATs on your enrolments

/5 ci

Appendix I

and student flow patterns? Ruminate onyour answer to question 3 (b) in Part A.

m) Are we close to 5-year programs, particu-larly if grade 13 is phased out?

n) If you were given the position of design-ing a completely new Ontario engineer-ing school, with the only constraint thatyou accept students at the present grade 13graduation level, what would you do?

o) What do you regard as your most vexingproblem?

145

APPENDIX J

STUDY VISITSThroughout the course of this study, visits

I :12 in all were made to a wide variety of organ-izations in Canada, the United States and abroad.We are indebted to many people who contributedtime and provided hospitality in the course of ourtravels. For many of these institutions (for ex-ample, the Ontario universities), several visitsand discussions were necessary. The following isa list of institutions that were visited, or whosepersonnel were interviewed in connection withthe study.

UniversitiesOntario Brock ITniversity

Carleton UniversityUniversity of GuelphLakehead UniversityLaurentian UniversityMcMaster UniversityUniversity of OttawaQueen's University at KingstonUniversity of TorontoTrent UniversityUniversity of WaterlooI Tniversity of Western OntarioI niversity of WindsorYork ITniversityRoyal Military College of Canada

Other Provinces University of BritishColumbia

University of AlbertaIiniversityof SaskatchewanUniversity of ManitobaEcole PolytechniqueUniversity of New BrunswickNova Scotia Technical

CollegeMemorial University of

NewfoundlandUnited States Dartmouth College

Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology

University of BuffaloStanford ITniversityUniversity of California at

BerkeleyUniversity of California at

IrvineUniversity of California at

Los AngelesHarvey Mudd College

0/b, Canadian Educational Instil ii lionsRyerson Polytechnical Institute

146

Seneca College of Applied Arts andTechnology

Mohawk College of Applied Arts andTechnology

Thorn lea Secondary School, Thornhill

University OrganizationsCommittee of Ontario Deans of EngineeringOntario Council on.(;raduate StudiesNumerous other committees of the Committee

of Presidents of Universities of OntarioInstitute for Quantitative Analysis in Social

and Economic PlanningOntario Institute for Studies in EducationAssociation of Universities and Colleges of

CanadaCommittee of Presidents of the Colleges of

Applied Arts and Technology

GovernmentFederal Office of the Privy Council

Science SecretariatScience CouncilSenate Committee on Science PolicyEconomic Council of CanadaDominion Bureau of StatisticsNational Research CouncilDefence Research Board (including

establishments in Ottawa andValcartier

Department of CommunicationsDepartment of Manpower and

ImmigrationDepartment of Energy, Mines and

ResourcesDepartment of External AffairsDepartment of Industry, Trade and

CommerceDepartment of TransportDepartment of Regional

DevelopmentCanadian International

Development Agency

Provincial Department of University AffairsCommittee on ITniversity AffairsCommission on Post-Secondary

EducationDepartment of EducationColleges

of Applied Arts and Technologyand Curriculum Section

Department of Trade andDevelopment

Industry H. G. Acres Limited.Canadian General Electric Company

Ltd.

Canadian National RailwaysDu Pont of Canada Limited,The Foundation Company of Canada

Limited.Garrett Manufacturing Limited.General Motors of Canada Ltd.The ilydro- Electric Power

Commission of Ontario.Imperial Oil Limited.International Nickel Company of

Canada, Limited.Kates, Peat, Marwick & Co.NIacNIillan Blocdcl Limited.Noranda Mines Limited, Research

Centre.Northern Electric Company Ltd.RCA Limited.Sinclair Radio Laboratories Ltd.Spar Aerospace Products I .td.Steel Company of Canada Limited.Systems Research Group.Canadian Chemical Producers

Association.Canadian Pulp and Paper

Association.Electronic Industries Association of

Canada.Lakehead Industrial Advisory

Committee.Laurentian Industrial Advisory

Committee.

Professional AssociationsCanada Association of Professional

Engineers of Ontario (includingchapters in Thunder Bay andSudbury) .

Canadian Aeronautics and SpaceInstitute.

Canadian Council of ProfessionalEngineers.

Canadian Institute of Mining andMetallurgy.

Canadian Organization for JointResearch.

Canadian Society of ElectricalEngineers.

Canadian Society of MechnicalEngineers.

Chemical Institute of Canada.Engineering Institute of Canada.Ontario Association of Certified

Engineering Technicians andTechnologists.

Ontario Engineering AdvisoryCommittee.

United States American Society forEngineering Education

Appendix J

Engineering Conacil forProfessional Development

Engineers Joint CouncilEngineering ManpowerCommission

National Academy ofEngineering

Other Organ izat ions and IndividualsTechnical Service CouncilIranian Ministry of EducationU.S. Department of Commerce Science and

TechnologySir Eric Ashby Cambridge UniversityDr. Allen Rosenstein University of

California at Los Angeles

ENGINEERING EDUCATION IN EUROPE

The director of the study group visited Ger-any, France, Sweden and Great Britain in order

to gain some perspective on the pattern of engi-neering education overseas, and on whether ornot experience in Europe might be related toOntario. The structures in European techno-logical education are changing rapidly, and con-sequently the situation in these countries willsoon be different from what 1 as observed duringthis tour in March 1970.

There is a complex web of pathways betweentheir various schools and programs and these havemostly been omitted. Each system has its ownhistoric roots, and each institution has its ownflavour. We have attempted to compare techno-logical and engineering educational systems inthese countries with that of Ontario (Fig.J-1). The diagram has been greatly simplifiedand illustrates only the main routes to a degreeor diploma, The top bar represents the mainstream leading either to a diploma in technologyor its equivalent; the bottom bar is the normaldirect route to a degree in engineering. Thevarious alternative paths or cross-flows betweenthe technological and engineering streams arenot shown.

FEDERAI REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

Education in 1Vest Germany is the responsibil-ity of the provinces ((ander) of which there areeleven (including the city-states of Berlin, Bre-men and Hamburg) . A new Ministry of Educa-tion and Science has been given the power toestablish national editca tiona I and research guide-lines, even though each land still operates inde-pendently. This development should mean newpatterns for German education, but it is too earlyto speculate on these changes.

147

All educational paths in %Vest Germany startwith four years at the Volksschule, commencingat the age of six. Students entering an Ingenieur-mimic (I.S.) usually attend Rea 'mimic for sixyears, and then devote two years to practical train-ing in an industrial firm (Praktikum) . Normally,admission to a course of study at a Technischefloc hschule (T.I I.) follows after nine years atGymnasium, and a further half year of trainingin industry (( ;rundpraktikum)

The program at the Ingenieurschule is of threeyears' duration leading to the title Ingenieur(( ;rading.). Instruction has a practical slant, inorder to fit students for professional work directlyassociated with operations and construction. TheTechnische 1 lochschtile is the university of thetechnical sciences. The ciirriculum is 8.9 termsin length and leads to the Diplom-Ingenieur(Dipling.). However, in practice, it takes moststudents 10.12 terms, owing to numerous exer-cises and the extent of laboratory work. Advancedstudy involves special courses of lectures follow-ing the Dipiing. plus a thesis wi. ich leads to theacademic degree of Doktor-Ingcnieur.

lhe following establishments were visited:Vercin Dcutscher Ingenieure (VDI) the Asso-

ciation of German Engineers and host for thevisit to Germany;

Staatliche Ingenicurschule fiir Maschincnwesenin Krefeld;

Staatliche Ingenieurschule fur Maschinenwesenin Diisseldorf;

August Thyssen-Hiitte A.C. in Duisburg-Ham-born and their training school for I.S. and T.11.students in Diisseldorl:

Technische Hochschule i t Aachen.

'Elie West Germans have developed a very closerelationship between industry and their technicaleducation system. Each I.S. has been establishedto serve a specific local industry, and 140 of themare located principally in industrial centresspread throughout the eleven provinces and city-states. 'These schools are dedicated to the trainingof engineers for operations, as opposed to researchand development. Their curriculum lays stress ontechnological subjects, with a strong emphasis onbasic mathematics and science. Approximatelytwo hours a week is devoted to humanities andsocial sciences (8%), but both the students andindustry have been pressing for more concentra-tion in these areas. Training courses in industryare heavily strnctured. stressing artisan skills andoperations procedures. At Thyssen, certain pro-duction and factory components are channelledthrough the training school.

There are nine TA's and two universities

118

(Regensburg and Bochum) offering programsleading to the Dipl.Ing. Since these pi ogramsstress research and development, there is a heavyemphasis on mathematics and science and vet ylittle humanities or soy science content in thecurriculum. Eitel, major engineering disciplineis centred on a senior professor, cilten in theform of an institute. Student/staff ratios are high(typically 30-10:1), and professors must have hadindustrial experience before their academicappointment. At Aachen, with a faculty of ap-proximately 300, there are 1(15 c hairs in engineer-ing, while students number 11,000 of which770 are doctoral candidates. Thus, there aid' moreengineering students at Aachen than in all ofOntario's engineering schools. Contacts withindustry arc very close, being facilitated by regu-lar symposia conducted through the industrialand professional associations, and by the appoint-ment to honorary pi ifessorships of engineers inindustry who devote one or two days a week toteaching. Some doctoral theses are conducted inindustry. In a typical institute, the source of fund-ing is divided equally among the 'Ministry of Edu-cation (Lander) , the federal ministries in Bonn,the research association Deutsche I:mm.111111gs-gemeinschaft and industry.

The Association of German Engineers (VD!)was founded in 185(1 and since that time has beena potent force in engineering affairs. Presentmembership is (10,000, and it admits not onlygraduates from the I.S.'s and the T.II.'s, but alsoaffords membership to those who have gainedengineering status by meeting certain experienceand academic qualifications. Today there are330,000 engineers in West Germany, consisting ofapproximately 75% Grad.Ing.'s and 25% Dipl.Ing.'s. Recent flows into the engineering pool areof similar proportions: 20,000 Grad.Ing.'s and7,000 Dipl.Ing.'s annually.

The VDI is attempting to develop equal sta-tus between the Grading. and the Dipl.Ing., eventhough the two spend different lengths of time inschool. The VD; claims their function in the eco-nomy is a better basis for comparison, and thatmany Grad,Ing.'s hold senior positions. In thewords of Dr. 1 . W. Lehmann of the German Asso-ciation of Technological Societies (DeutsclierVerband Technisch-Wissenschaftlicher Vereine)"the Dipling. ensures that the wheels of tomor-row turn, whereas the Grad.Ing. ensures that thewheels of today turn." lhis has been a matter ofsome concern in the Euroix.an Common Market(ECM) where there is an attempt to permit engi-neers qualified in one country to practise in an-other. In February 1970, the F.CM stipulated thatthis freedom of movement and practice for uni-

versity graduates (i.e. the T.1 I.'s) be extended toGrading.'s and similar categoties in the othermenthe' «mimics.

It is hazardous to draw «miparisons betweenthe graduates of two educational systems lull, ina general way, the Grading. falls between a di-plema technologist and a baccalam vac engineerin Ontario, while a Dipliu g. is reughly compar-able to an Ontario engineer with a master's de-wee. Thus. the I.S.'s arc the equivalent of ourCAATs and the T.II.'s of our degree-grantingengineering m hoots.

A lei ent development in Germany is the pro-posal to integrate the present l..S.'s into oneuniversity comprising all possible disciplines((;esamthochm !mien), in order to give themuniversity charac ter. In the words of Dr. F.Meyei , Chairman of the VD!, "the creation of aunified prolessiiina I grade whether that of aDiplom Ingenieur or that of a differently namedone is justified, without regard to the natureand duration of the edncational route followed."For both types of engineers ,the VDI is adocat-ing a three-year common core program in funda-Menials C011 :PII With practical experience andtechnical training, to be followed by required and(lei live studies in specific disciplines based on thestudents' aptitudes and abilities. Whether or notsue It proposals are au( eptable, the barriers whichbase been created by the nature and duration ofeducation are being slowly dismantled as new(Tit( via are developed for professional recogni-tion in the Federal Republic Of Germany, themost industrialized nation in Europe.

FR A N(

In Fiance, the ic-.pnsibility for public educa-tion lies with the Ministry of National Education,although a number of other ministries, such asagriculture, industry, and defence, exercise edu-cational power and functions. Students proceed-ing to higher education take their baccalaureatexamination after attending a lycee (clssique ormoderne). This allows them to enter two yearsof preparation classes (classes preparatoires auxgranites holes) during which discipline is severeand competition keen for entrance into a grande&Me.

The grandes ecoles are the engineering schoolsof France. Some of them date back to the eigh-teenth century and were founded by groups ofspecific industries which felt the need for trainedengineers. One of the earliest was the Ecoles desMines founded in 1783. New schools were createdas iirlustry progressed, and engineering ednca-tion i a France always has been closely coupled toIndus ry even though today they are under aMinistry of National Education.

Appendix J

'1.1w program at a granite ecole is of three years'dnation and leads to a DiplOme d'Ingenicur (theschool is always designated after this title) Theyare often referred to as two-plus-three schoolstwo years' preparation (in a lycee) , and threeyears at the school. 'Hie celebrated Ecole Poly-

Imique, established during the French resolu-tion to form the main cadre of engineers, is a two-plustwo school. It is an elitist school from whichmost graduates enter the French civil service.Some move on to a grande ecole to become engi-neers, entering at the second year. Master's degreestudents in science also may enter at the secondyear. Attrition rates at the grandes &ides arc verylow because of the demanding entrance require-ments. Advanced studies toward a doctorate canbe pursued either at a university or at certaingranites &ohs.

At the present time, there are 139 grandesemits in France, with a total intake of approxi-mately 8,500 a year, and the number is growingat the rate of 3 to 4% each year. Graduate engi-neers practising in France number 130,000, andan additional 60,0(10 hold engineering jobs byacquiring professional status through what theFrench call "social promotion" they are exam-ined and granted a Diplome par l'Etat (D.P.E.) .Ministry officials claim that nearly 10% of allscience baccalaureate enter engineering. Where-as ten years ago there was a shortage of engineers,today a sufficient number are being turned out tosatisfy demand as measured by starting salaryincreases and advertisemen) :. There are said tobe fewer than 500 unemployed engineers inFrance, and this is consistent with the numberwho would be changing jobs at any particulartime.

Technologists are designated by the title Di-plinne Technicien Superienr, awarded after atwo-year program at a lye& technique followingthe baccalaureat, or a four-year program at a lyceetechnique. In 1965, the Institutes Universite deTechnologic (I.U.T.) were created to train moretechnologists and to serve the tertiary sector withspecialists. Physically located in the universities,they also provide part-time studies leading toa DiplAme &Etudes Superieure Technique(D.E.S.T.) to serve those seeking social promo-tion. The 1.17.T.'s graduate 5,000 engineeringtechnologists annually to supplement the 12,000coining from the lycees techniques. The ministryclaims the annual requirement for engineeringtechnologists is 40,000 (i.e. 4 technologists peaengineer flowing into the labour force) .

The following establishments were visited:Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development:

149

La Federation des Associations et Societes Fran-caises d'Ingenieurs DiplOnies;

Ecole Centrale des Arts et Manufacture, Chate-nay..Jalabry;

Ministry of National Education;Eco le Nationale Superieure Industries Agricoles

et Alimentaires, Massy-Palaiseau, Le NoyezLambert;bert

Ecole des MinesFontainebleau.

In the grande ecoles, the usual curriculum isorganized in the following manner:

50% science and technology,15% laboratory,20% humanities and economics,15% industrial experience (stage) .

Industrial experience varies from school toschool, but in most of them it is gained duringthe months of February and March. Over a three-year period, most students receive five months ofindustrial training: the first year as an ordinaryworker, the second as a supervisor and the thirdas an engineering assistant. Each school requiresa short thesis which must be related to a specificindustrial problem. in the words of the directorof one school, "the basic theme in the curriculumis a mixture of practice and theory so as to mobil-ize their knowledge, and use what they havelearned."

The student/staff ratio of a typical grandeecole is low 6:1. The staff consists of full-timecivil service professors, assistants and demonstra-tors, and part-time industrial professors. A typicalteaching load amounts to 120 hours a year. Manycivil service professors increase their income byindustrial consulting.

Nlost schools have a Conseil de Perfectionmentmade up of members from industry, the univer-sity staff and the appropriate ministries. Thisgroup usually meets annually to review curriculaand other educational matters, and to ensure thatteaching programs are related to the needs of theindustries served by the school.

Three types of doctorate degrees are awarded.The DoctJrat d'Etat is a prerequisite to teachingin a French university. Many years of preparationand the contribution of two significant theses arerequir.^d for this degree. The Doctorat ding&nieur usually requires a mininnun of two yearsafter the diploma and a thesis. A third degreeknown as the doctorate of the third cycle involvesa shorter dissertation and can be earned in oneyear after the diploma.

In 19(16, France passed an act taxing industriesin proportion to their employment of highly qua-lified manpower in order to help cover the costsassociated 1% ith continuing and adult education,refresher courses and re-training. Each company

150

so taxed is granted relief on the basis of its owncontributions to these areas. Again, while it isdangerous to draw comparisons, the DiplomaTechnicien Superieuriwould appear to be equiv-alent to a diploma technologist in Ontario, withthe I.U.T. being an institution similar to aCAAT. There are wide variations in the Diplomed'Ingenieur from school to school, but it would beroughly equivalent to an NI.Eng. degree inOntario.

The democratization of higher education inFrance has resulted in over 600,000 studentsattending university. Of the 139 grandes ecoles,48 have been established since the end of WorldWar II. The growth of professional faculties hasbeen very rapid and now they appear to be introuble since there are insufficient jobs for theirgraduates. There is concern that France is over-producing engineers with its present annual flowof 8,500 into the labour force estimated to betwice what is necessary to maintain the presentpool of 130,000 graduate engineers at a constantsize. On the other hand, the flow of technologistsis thought to be only about one-half what itshould be to meet current needs, and in some sec-tors of industry initial salaries for technologistsarc higher than for engineers the average start-ing salary for an engineer is 1,700 francs a month,while a technologist to begin with will receivefrom 1,300 to 2,000 francs. This apparent imbal-ance in the production of engineers and technol-ogists probably will require adjustment, and it isexpected that changes in the present pattern willoccur in the near future.

SWEDEN

Sweden is a country of 8,000,000 peopleonlyslightly larger in population than Ontario. Stand-ards of living are comparable, and so it shouldbe of interest to compare respective educationand manpower statistics. In this connection, itmust be borne in mind that Ontario importsengineers to meet its needs, while Sweden hasbeen more or less self-sufficient.

The Swedish educational system is state-con-trolled, with compulsory education in the grund-skola extending for nine years up to age 16. Theupper-level secondary school (gymnasium) giveseach student access to higher education. It isdivided into five streams: liberal arts, social sci-ences, economics, natural sciences and technol-ogy. Each stream takes three years excepttechnology, which has an extra year and leads toa technology degree. Students preparing for engi-neering by way of the natural science and tech-nology streams must take advanced courses inmathematics, physics and chemistry. Each student

must develop a working knowledge of at leastthree foreign languages, with English being com-pulsory. At the secondary level, 50% of a stu-dent's time will be spent in humanities -lid socialscience subjects. (There are no so-called liberallearning subjects in the Swedish engineeringschools.)

Post-secondary education consists of traditionaluniversity-level institutions: five universities, twoinstitutes of technology, two independent schoolsof commerce and one independent school ofmedicine and dentistry. With the exception of theschool of commerce, all are financed by the gov-ernment. The central authority is the Office ofChancellor the Swedish Universities. It isresponsible to the Ministry of Education for theover-all plann ing and development of the nation'suniversity :,ystem, as well is the educational con-tent of the different courses of study so as to guar-antee that universities provide education of anequal standard. In 19(39-70 approximately 120,-000 students were attending these institutions.

There are four engineering schools in Swedenthat offer both undergraduate and graduateprograms:The Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm,The Chalmers Institute of Technology in

Gothenburg,The Faculty of Technology at the University of

Lund, andThe School of Engineering at the .Linkoping

InAitute of Higher Education.In addition, there is a school of engineering atthe University of Uppsala and engineeringeducation at this university's branch in Orebro.Recently, it was proposed that some form of engi-neering education be provided in northern Swe-den, possibly connected with the University ofUinea.

An engineering degree is awarded after thesuccessful completion of a four-year program ofstudy at one of the above schools. The degrees arecivil ingenjor, !:ergsingenjor (mining and metal-lurgy only) and orkitekt. Up until 1969, tlerewere two higher degrees: the teknisk licentiatxa-men, earned after a further five or six semesters ofstudy, and a doctoral degree in technology. Now,there is to be only one doctoral degree, earnedafter a four-year period of study and exclusivelyresearch-oriented.

The institutions visited were as follows:Svenska Teknologforeningen the Swedish Asso-

ciation of Engineers and Architects;The Royal Institute of Technology in Stock-

holm;The Swedish Society of College Engineers

nasium Engineers);(Gym-

Appendix J

The Office of the Chancellor of Swedish Univer-sities.There were 9,326 undergraduate engineering

students and 700 doctoral candidates in Swedenin 19691 (compared to 8,500 and 660 respectivelyin Ontario) , with a freshman intake of 2,687 stu-dents. In 1968, 1.343 first degrees wcre awarded.At the present t 'me, approximately 20,000 engi-neers are practi,Ang in Sweden, and this numberis expected to almost double over the 'resentdecade. These figures are comparable to those forOntario.

The number of student places at each institu-tion, and for each program, is established bygovernment The number of places available fornew entrants in 1970 is shown in Table J-1. En-rolments in engineering experienced a sEghtdecline in 1967-68, but were up again in 1969,when there were almost twice as many appli-cants as there were places (four times as many intechnical physics and architecture) . Admission ishandled centrally, and the individual institute orschool has no control over the admission of itsparticular students. An average of the secondaryschool record is used as the basi:, for entrance,with no extra weight being given to either Iliadic-majcs or the natural sciences. This selection pro-cess is completely computerized.

Table J -1

FRESHMAN PLACES FOR SWEDISH ENGINEER'NGSCHOOLS 197C71

Technical Physics 270Technical Physics (fourth-year entry) 30Technical Physics and Electrical

Engineering 170Mechanical Er-;ineering 617Aeronautics 45Electrical Engineering 495Civil Engineering 490Chemical Engineering 288Chemical Engineering (third-year entry) 42Mining 30Metallurgy 80Architecture k.:10

Surveying 70Engineering Economy and

Industrial Organization 110Teacher training (Electrical

Engineering) 80Teacher training (Mechanical

Engineering) 60

TOTAL 3,087

'Hans Larsson, Development 01 Universities ol Technology in Sweden,Office of the Chancellor of Swedish Universities, January 1970.

151

Student/staff ratios are in order of 10-12:1.Professorial staff devote approximately 116 hoursa year to lecturing. At one time the relationshipwith industry was very important, but today it isless so, since more professors come from theacademic environment and new faculties of tech-nology are developing within the universities.There are few dual posts where professors holdindustrial appointments. Each professor super-vises an averap.e of 4.3 doctoral candidates, so that"productivity- is approximately one doctor perprofessor per year. Now there is concern that theymay be overproducing doctorates in view of thenumber of available research positions anothersituation comparable to Ontario.

At the Royal Institute, there are 80 separateinstitmes developed along lines similar to thoseobserved in Germany. They are linked togetherby the academic curriculum, but separated forpurposes of research and research grants. It isnot unusual for staff within an institute or depart-ment to form a company within the confines ofthe university to undertake consulting, researchand development. One such operation presentlyis exploiting a new product developed in univer-sity la borator:es.

Technology education in Sweden, conductedprincipally in the technical gymnasia, is a four-year program leading to the Gymnasium Engi-neer. There are no examinations, but each stu-dent does receive a grade so that he may enter anengineering school if he wants to. Although 6,000gymnasium engineers entered the labour force in1968, the numbers have been increasing rapidlysince then. Now, there are five gymnasium engi-neers entering the labour force for every graduatefrom an engineering school. As in Germany, thenumber of gymnasium engineers in senior posi-tions is surprising. A survey conducted in 1967indicates that over 10% of the gymnasium engi-neers held leading positions in industry, as com-pared to 43% for the engineering graduatescovered by that study.

A Swedish educational commission, known as1168, was appointed in 1968 with the taskdeveloping an over-all plan for post-secondaryeducation. The report is to be issued in 1970,and its preliminary analysis leads to the idea thata period of work should follow immediately uponthe conclusion of secondary 'school. The wholestructure of post-secondary education would bebased on the principle of recurrent education.1168 is expected to recommend that entrancerequirements for engineering schools be relaxedconsiderably, only those requirements deemedabsolutely necessary being retained. In the future,

152

the concept of engineering education as a sepa-rate entity may disappear, to be replaced by anintegrated university system having no formalboundaries between the different departments orfaculties. Swedish industrialists have not reactedfavourably to such a proposal, but many do claimthat the exact content of education, especiallyin advanced technological subjects, is of littleaccount in an age of rapid technological change.They are not in favour of lengthening the processbeyond four years, preferring to acquire theirengineers early and then devote time to in-planttraining. Thus the academic community is facedwith the problem of retaining a four-year pro-gram possessing a high degree of "age-resistance"to quote the term used by U68.

One way of attempting a solution to the prob-lem of age-resistance is to increase steadily thenumber of basic subjects such as mathematics,physics and fundamental engineering in the pro-gram. Mathematics does give methodical trainingand is age-resistant, but such an approach hasbeen attacked on the grounds that the future engi-neer will use it less and less in his career, and theage-resistance is of the wrong kind. Such subjec sas basic physics are too well structured, train theengineer in wrong methods and become poten-tially dangerous when he encounters highlyunstructured situations in the real world of engi-neering. A proposed alternative is to insist thatafter the student receives methodical training indepth in one area of engineering, Iv: should takepart in all aspects of real engineering problemsand so assist in their solution, while obtainingthe beneficial experience of working as a memberof a team within a complex organization.

The conclusions of 1168 have not been an-nounced, but its major aim world appear to bethe restructuring of post-secondary studies as alife-long educational process. This would resultin Swedish education shifting from an approachwhere the teacher provides the student with someskills and knowledge, to a plan whereby the goalis to give the student an intelligent and efficientway of teaching himself.

GREAT BRITAINMuch has been written about the present tech-

nical and engineering educational systems inGreat Britain, and what follows is only a roughoutline of some salient features. Secondary educa-tion begins at age 11 in a public, secondary mod-ern, grammar or technical school. Students sit forexaminations after five years and receive a Gen-eral Certificate of Education at the Ordinary level(G.C.E - 0 level) . Two years of further studynormally are required for examinations at the

Advanced level (G.C.E. - A level) . For entranceinto a degree program, the student must pass atleast two A-level examinations in addition tothree or more at the 0 level, or have acquiredan appropriate Ordinary National Certificate orDiploma "at a good standard".

In 1963, the report of the Robbins Commissionon Higher Education recommended a thoroughreorgan:zation of British higher education. Formany years, colleges of technology and commercehad been providing courses at the degree levelwhich led to a Diploma in Technology, a LondonUniversity external degree, or a college diploma.Following the Robbins Report, the Council forNational Academic Awards (CNAA) was set upas an independent institution to grant awards tostudents who successfully complete approvedcourses in colleges of led mology and commerce,and other non-university institutes which did nothave degree - granting powers.

In 1966 there were about fifty colleges in Eng-land and Wales with students on programs lead-ing to degrees in scientific and/or technologicalst.. )jects, three-quarters of them preparing stu-dents for the B.Sc. degree of the CNAA, and overhalf of them offering courses leading to anexternal degree front the University of London.A White Paper in that year (A Plan for Poi)technics and Other Colleges) recommended theestablishment of thirty major institutions ofhigher education from the large number of tech-nical oit;ges, colleges o: commerce and collegesof art. One of their principal functions is the fur-ther development of courses in scientific and/ortechnological subjects at the degree level. Thesepolytechnics have moved into the university sys-tem and are being funded by government on theadvice of the University Grants Committee. Atthe present time, there are nearly 2,000 studentsat each polytechnic, a number expected to doubleby 1976 and to treble in the early 1980s, to reacha total of 200,000 students.

Both the universities and the polytechnics offerthree-year programs leading to a bachelor's de-gree in engineering. (Scotland is an exception,with its bachelor degree programs being the tradi-tional four years.) Also, there are the "sandwich"courses a "thin" sandivic't in which, over fouryears, students spend alternate periods of sixmonths in industry and in school, and a "thick"sandwich involving periods of a year in industrybefore and after three years at university.

The training of technologists usually starts atthe ag,, of 15 in a local or area college while theindiviuual is working part-time. At the end of oneyear, the student can transfer to a City and Guilds

(Zo

Appendix J

of the !minion Institute technician course, whichrequires a further four to six years; or at the endof the second year he can take an examinationleading to a program for the National Certificate.There, he is joined by students with G.C.E.-0level standings in at least four subjects, includingmathematics and science, and together, they triIIbegin a part-time program terminating with theOrdinary National Certificate (0.1.C.) aftertwo years, or the Higher National Certificate(H.N.C.) after four years. The H.N.C. is approx-imately equivalent to the technology diploma inOntario.

The National Certificate system has been inoperation in the United Kingdom for more thanforty years and has attracted large numbers ofstudents. Its principal drawback has been the timefactor a minimum of six years and often longer.Consequently, new programs are being developedto shorten the time involved the Ordinary andHigher National Diploma which usually are sand-wich courses at a local or area college with ahigher entrance standard.

The following organizations were visited inGreat Britain:Ministry of Technology,Institution of Electrical Engineers,University of London, King's College,Department of Education and Science.City University,I in iversity of Sussex, Brighton

Institute of Manpower Studies.

Prior to 1967, City University was a college ofadvanced technology, but it became a technicaluniversity in that year. It operates on the thinsandwich system admitting students in Septemberand February. The program is of four years' dura-tion. There are 2,300 undergraduate and 200graduate students, with a student/staff ratio ofapproximately IP: I. Work in the humanities andsocial sciences makes tip about 10% of thecurriculum.

British engineers are organized professionallyin separate institutions, each concerned with aparticular engineering specialty. A federal bodywas formed in 1962 which led to the establish-ment of the Council of Engineering Institutions.Its Charter provides for the designation of Char-tered Engineer, and the initials C. Eng. may beused by fully qualified members of the fourteenconstituent institutions. University and CNAAdegrees in engineering normally are accepted assatisfying the academic standards for entry intothe profession, but practical training and expe-rience in a post of responsibility are furtherrequirements. Many colleges offer courses for

153

non-degree students which lead to the examina-tions of a professional institution, and holders ofNational Certificates are no longer exempt fromthese examinations.

There are approximately 200,000 engineersand technologists in the 'United Kingdom, com-prising graduates and graduate equivalents(those u.ho have satisfied the examination re-

quirements of the professional institutions). Uni-versitKdegrees awarded in engineering and tech-nology are now in the order of 8,000 a year, andthe number is rising rapidly, being supplementedby the CNAA degrees which should attain a rateof 2,000 a year in the early 1970s. A flow of tech-nicians into the labour force has been maintainedin the order of five O.N.C. /O.N.D. and Certifi-cate Techniians to every graduate, but the stockof technical supporting staff (approximately700,000) is low in proportion to the stock ofgraduates and graduate equivalents. In thewords of Lord Jackson: "... our annual output ofqualified technical supporting staff . . . is inade-quate...."2

154

The Industrial Training Act of 1964 madeprovision for the establishment of industrialtraining boards, whose responsibility it is to seethat amount and quality of training are adequateto meet needs at all levels of employment.They impose a levy on employers and have thepower to pay grants to those who provide orsecure training to meet the requirements of theBoard, A firm that fails to provide for trainingnmst pay a levy but rt.ceives no grant from itsBoard. A firm which does more than its fair shark.of training may receive more hack in grants thanit pays in levies, For example, the EngineeringBoard imposes a 2.5% -on-payroll levy whichraised £75 million in the first year. Originally,this Act was intended to cover non-degree train-ing at the technical support level, but now it ismoving into degree-level training. It is too earlyto predict its effect on the universities, but it mayhave an impact on the future of the sandwich-typeprograms.

2Lord Jackson of Burnley. Manpower for Engineering and Technology,First Annual Willis Jackson Lecture. British Associxion for Commercialand Industrial Education.

0LEVEL

ONC HNCNAOND.H D

LEVEL

PART -TIME SANTWICH

GREAT BRITAIN PRIMARY SCHOOL

I I BACHELOR

I LOCAL OR AREA COLLEGE I I

FULL DOCTORSANDWICH

SECONDARY I PARTTIME OR SANDWICH ' TIME

SCHOOLI

I

UNIVERSITIES 'ANDI ADVANCED

POLYTECHNICS

FULLTIME A JANDWICH I STUDYJ I

GYMNASIUM INGENJOR

4i0SWEDEN

en

wiGRUNDSKOLA

TEKNISKTGYMNASIUM

GYMNASIUM

CIVILINGENJOR

DOCTOR

1

TEKNISK I

HOGSKGLA 1

ADVANCEDSTUDY

SS

BACCALAURE AT DIPLOMETECHNICIENSUPERIEURSUPERIEUR

..1

til W

FRANCE o-, zccu wiLs .11

a

ECOLE PRIMAIRE

1

I LYCEE

LYCEETECHNIQUE

OR T.I. U.T.

DIPLOME DOCTORO'INGENIEUR

II

LYCEE 1 CLASSIOUEI MODERNSI

I

1 ,4-tF?AsRA_

I TOZEI DAEUSII1 ECOLES

GRANDE I ADVANCEDECOLE 1 STUDY

GRADUIERTERINGENIEUR

GERMANY cc

oz

VOLKSSCHULE

REALSCHULE PRAKTIKUMINGENIEUR

SCHULE

DIPLOMINGENIEUR

DOCTOR

I1

GYMNASIUMTECHNISCHE < ADVANCEDHOCHSCHULE . STUDY,

IGRUND

PRAKTIKUM

OWLTECH

ONTARIO 0ccuscsz

PUBLIC SCHOOL

CART ORPOLYTECHNIC

I INSTITUTE

BACHELOR DOCTOR

1 MASTER I

HIGH SCHOOLs

UNIVERSITY I GRADUATEI STUDIES

It

AGE

I1

4 511 I 1 1 1 I

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 131 1 1 1

14 15 16 17 18 191 1 1 1 1 1 I

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Figure J-1 SIMPLIFIED TECHNOLOGIST AND ENGINEERINGEDUCATION SYSTEMS SELECTED COUNTRIES 1970

Ro155

PUBLISHED REPORTS OFTHE COMMITTEE OF PRESIDENTS OF

UNIVERSITIES OF ONTARIO(Except Student Participation in University Government, which is out ofprint, and the Inter-University Transit System Anniversary Report, whichis obtainable through the Libraries' Transit System Office, York Univer-sity, reports are available from the University of Toronto Bookroom)

Post-Secondary Education in Ontario, /962 -701962. $1.00

The Structure of Post-Secondary Education in Ontario1963. $1.50

The City College. 1965. $1.00University Television. 1965, $1,00

The Health Sciences in Ontario Universities: Recent Experienceand Prospects for the Next Decade. 1966. $1.00

From the Sixties to the Seventies: An Appraisal of HigherEducation in Ontario. 1966. $2.00

System Emerging: First Annual Review (1966-67 )of the Committeeof Presidents of Un. versities of Ontario. 1967. $1.00

Student Participation in University Government: A study paperprepared for the Committee of Presidents by its Subcommittee on

Research and Planning. 1968. (Out of print )Collective Autonomy: Second Annual Review, 1967-68. 1968. $1.00

Ontario Council of University Librarians: Inter-UniversityTransit System Anniversary Report, 1967-68. 1968. $1.00

Campus and Forum: Third Annual Review, 1968-69. 1969. $1.00Variations on a Theme: Fourth Annual Review, 1969-70. 1970. $1.00

Ring of Iron. 1970. $2.00Ontario Council on Graduate Studies: The First Three Years of

Appraisal of Graduate Programmes. 1970. 500

PUBLISHED RESEARCH STUDIES BY THE COMMITTEE OFPRESIDENTS OF UNIVERSITIES OF ONTARIO

RELATED TO THE STUDY OF ENGINEERING EDJCATIONIN ONTARIO

( Available from the Secretariat of the Committee ofPresidents, 230 Bloor Street West, Toronto 181)

CPUO Report No. 70 -I

CPUO Report No. 70-2

CPUO Report No. 70-3

"Undergraduate Engineering Enrolment Pro-jections for Ontario, 1970-198G," Philip A.Lapp. October, 1970."An Analysis of Projections of the Demand forEngineers in Canada and Ontario and AnInq dry into Substitution Between Engineersand Technologists," M. L. Skolnik and W. F.McMullen. November, 1970."A Method for Developing Unit Costs in Edu-cational Programs," Ivor Wm. Thompson andPhilip A. Lapp. December, 1970.

/7C