Dartmouth Engineer

By Dean Joseph J. Helble

Project-based learning is much discussed among contemporary educators. Whether for K-12 or university engineering students, the general view is that the classroom experience can be enhanced by hands-on, open-ended project challenges. Mention “project-based learning” to any Thayer School graduate and you are likely to hear about their ENGS 21 project (“Introduction to Engineering”—a prosaic title that doesn’t come close to doing justice to the experience), or their B.E. capstone design experience. To our alumni, even those who never took a Dartmouth undergraduate course, these courses are known for lessons in creativity, design methodology, problem-solving, innovation, and entrepreneurship—the kind of project-based learning that has taken place at the Thayer School of Engineering since the 1960s.

But what many may not know is that the use of “project-based learning” has grown dramatically across the Thayer curriculum. Solid Mechanics (ENGS 33) has long asked students to build, test, and compress a bridge to the point of failure, a clear assessment of their design and predictive abilities. Digital Electronics (ENGS 31), which requires students to propose, design, build, and demonstrate a working digital system using modern field-programmable gate array technology, has seen the development of games, audio processors, and even simple computers. Thermodynamics (ENGS 25)? Students still build a working Stirling engine, as they have for decades. In Machine Engineering (ENGS 76), students design and team-build robots that pick up and deposit objects such as hockey pucks. This spring students in Structural Analysis (ENGS 71) designed and built a wheelchair-accessible treehouse for the local community, with teams of students developing and integrating the individual components of the project. For three years Computer-Aided Design (ENGS 146) has required students to design a twist car (modified this year to a “wiggle car” with non-circular wheels), requiring innovation that goes beyond the relevant patent literature and participation in a public relay race to demonstrate the quality (and speed) of their designs. Using a 1920s electric car as inspiration one year, Power Electronics and Electromechanical Energy Conversion (ENGS 125) had students add ultracapacitors to an electric-assist bicycle to improve the battery efficiency; another year, students designed and built an “electric bungee.” Through our growing research focus in Engineering in Medicine, our course Intermediate Biomedical Engineering (ENGS 57/169) had students work with Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center surgeons on technologies for operating rooms. Methods in Biotechnology (ENGS 162) challenged students to develop high-throughput screens for a broad range of applications, including purification of human IgG antibodies. And this isn’t close to a comprehensive list.

No wonder our students choose to spend their spare time doing projects: designing, building, and traveling with the Big Green Bus, developing a hybrid formula car for the now-international Formula Hybrid competition they founded, building and deploying a rover for scientific exploration in Arctic regions, designing and installing small-scale hydropower systems in rural Rwanda. There’s no better way to learn.

By Dean Joseph J. Helble

For more than 50 years, study abroad has been an important component of a Dartmouth education. Dartmouth routinely ranks first among Ivy League institutions in the percentage of students undertaking an international academic experience and has one of the highest levels of participation nationally. More than 60 percent of Dartmouth’s class of 2010 earned academic credit for a language or foreign study program, an impressive increase from the slightly more than 50 percent participation levels seen as recently as five years ago.

Perhaps even more impressive is the growing level of participation of engineering students in Dartmouth’s international study programs. In the class of 2008 35 percent of engineering A.B. recipients earned academic credit for study abroad. In the class of 2009 the level grew to 41 percent participation; in the class of 2010 it reached 52 percent, approaching the levels seen for Dartmouth as a whole.

In a world increasingly defined by global markets, capital flows, and collaborative scientific and design teams, providing engineering students with opportunities for a substantive international experience is a priority for Thayer School. Our students have always taken advantage of Dartmouth’s language and foreign study programs in arts and sciences, but in recent years we have looked for ways to provide our students with an international engineering educational experience. By studying engineering in an international setting, taught by faculty from that country, while sitting in the classroom and working in the laboratory with engineering students from that country, Thayer students are able to experience not just a different culture and language, but a different approach to technology development. This experience will serve them well when they find themselves part of an international project development team at an early stage of their careers.

Since 2001 Thayer students, primarily at the B.E. and master’s levels, have been able to study mechanical engineering at Helmut Schmidt University in Hamburg, Germany. In 2008 we added our first formal A.B. engineering exchange program, with Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok, Thailand. Through this exchange, a small group of “Chula” students comes to Hanover each fall to participate in our project-based, hands-on approach to engineering education. A group of Thayer A.B. students then travels to Bangkok each January to spend a semester studying engineering in the structured, lecture-centered format characteristic of engineering education in much of Asia [see “Travelers’ Tales”].

We are in the process of adding two new exchange programs for A.B. students. We have sought partner institutions that provide a high-quality engineering education in a region where technology-driven economic growth is of primary importance. In fall 2011 we will initiate our next exchange program in partnership with the Chinese University of Hong Kong. We are working on another such university partnership for 2012 as we look to further develop our strategic focus on Asia and provide a range of international academic opportunities for our students.

Interview by Elizabeth Kelsey

We asked Professor Daniel R. Lynch, an expert on physical and biological interactions in the coastal ocean and advanced computational methods for tracking water resources, for his perspective on the Deep Water Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

What goes through your mind as an engineer when you think about the oil spill?
I think about transport and fate of the oil and what goes on biochemically while it is being transported. It’s released somewhere and it’s reacting, but where does it go and what does it become?

Are simulation models of currents being used to predict where the oil is going?
Yes, the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) covers the ocean shelves with computer models and observations. Right now, those simulating the Gulf are mostly operating in universities and research labs in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, and up the Atlantic coast.

Does your research contribute to the oceanographic work that’s being done?
There are people like myself who aren’t on the Gulf Stream, but whose research improves the methods oceanographers use for observing, simulating, and making forecasts and predictions. This is a major NSF and NOAA research topic.

Have you noticed any discussion of these models in the news coverage?
It doesn’t show up in the newspapers very much, just the simple details. I think it would help people to see images from the Coastal Circulation Nowcast/Forecast System and the Naval Research Laboratory Nowcast/Forecast System.

What technology is available for following the currents and oil dispersion?
For the longest time there was an implied assumption in the press that all the oil would go to the surface. But as tar balls and deep plumes indicate, you can’t assume that all the oil floats. A lot of attention was paid to the satellite imagery because satellites are looking down all the time. Satellite imagery will only see the surface, so you have to infer what’s below. You can put out moorings and current meters at different depths to record data and observe dispersion. These data are telemetered to a land station, so you can compare that with the satellite imagery and have information for what’s underneath as well as what’s on the surface of the sea. There are also drifting instruments you can just throw into the water. They have GPS units on them and they drift around with the current and radio back their positions with super accuracy. We would like to see some drifters tossed in at different depths. And, of course, simulation models are used to fill in the gaps.

Why aren’t agencies using drifting instruments and current meters to track the spill?
It wouldn’t be hard to marshal a response. Although the current meters require planning, the drifters are easy to launch and track. But the ocean research community has limited manpower, and it cannot make up for a lack of operational capability. It is clear that we need to attract the best people into our resource agencies, and we need national-level preparedness for rapid, coordinated responses to emergencies. We are living in a dream world if we expect university researchers to mount emergency responses ad-hoc. Relying on that is tantamount to assuming there will be no problems or accidents — clearly wrong.

— Elizabeth Kelsey is a contributing editor at Dartmouth Engineer.

By Dean Joseph J. Helble

While private colleges and universities continue to address the effects of declining endowments experienced in 2008 and early 2009, it is worth pausing to celebrate a financial success achieved through the generosity of our alumni and friends in the midst of a challenging economy.

On December 31, 2009, the Thayer School of Engineering successfully concluded its largest-ever comprehensive campaign, raising $61 million to support graduate and undergraduate engineering education at Dartmouth. This effort, which launched publicly in November 2004, had set an ambitious $60-million goal that was four times higher than that of any prior campaign, reflecting substantial opportunity for growth in engineering at Dartmouth and the urgent need for new facilities. More than 2,000 alumni, friends, parents, faculty, staff, and organizations contributed to this successful effort.

Most visibly, support raised in this campaign completely funded the construction and operation of the MacLean Engineering Sciences Center, dedicated in 2006 and adding over 60,000 square feet in integrated project laboratory, studio classroom, research laboratory, and office space to the School. It also provided funds to permit growth in the faculty, through addition of four endowed professorships that strengthen Thayer School’s focus on engineering in medicine and innovation and entrepreneurship; additional funding for student scholarships and fellowships; support to encourage entrepreneurial projects among students and faculty, international exchange and internship opportunities, and distinguished speaker programs; and funds for the establishment of the Ph.D. Innovation Program — the nation’s first doctoral-level engineering Innovation Program.

This campaign concludes at a critical time, with the School poised for growth due to a surge in interest in engineering. Since the fall 2004 public launch of the campaign, B.E. dual-degree enrollments and Ph.D. enrollments have grown by more than 65 percent, and M.E.M. enrollments have grown by more than 80 percent. While A.B. and overall B.E. degree numbers remained fairly constant, that will soon change, given significantly increased enrollments in our junior and senior classes. With the impressive new facilities and initiatives made possible by campaign donors, we are well prepared to provide the increased numbers of students with Thayer’s close student-faculty contacts and interdisciplinary education. To all who share in this success, we extend our congratulations and thanks.

By Dean Joseph J. Helble

The decision of the Thayer School faculty three years ago to develop “Engineering in Medicine” as an area of strategic growth has led to a broad expansion of medical-related activity. Thayer professors have launched new collaborative research programs with Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center and have created courses on a wide range of medical topics, including cellular and molecular biomechanics, protein engineering, and imaging. Half of Thayer School’s 47 faculty members — the highest total in our 142-year history — conduct research and/or teach in the Engineering in Medicine area, including 10 tenure- or research-track assistant professors hired since 2006. This targeted faculty growth comes at just the right time, as we are experiencing significant enrollment increases in all of our programs.

Our Engineering in Medicine focus includes tremendous opportunities for our students in the classroom and the lab. Thayer has developed two new programs with Dartmouth Medical School (DMS). One is a five-year M.D./M.S. program to provide medical students with quantitative engineering skills they can carry forward into their careers as clinical practitioners; it complements our research-focused M.D./Ph.D. program that trains medical research scientists. The second is a new undergraduate major in biomedical engineering sciences that provides an opportunity for top students to seek early admission to DMS, enabling them to spend their senior or Bachelor of Engineering year focusing on research rather than on medical school applications. While our alumni records indicate that at least 3 percent of our graduates go on to earn an M.D. — a large percentage for an engineering school — we anticipate that these new programs will lead many more engineering students to careers in medicine, perhaps even surpassing the record set by the class of 1978, in which nearly 15 percent of our A.B. engineering graduates went on to earn the M.D.

Whether or not students pursue the M.D., our Engineering in Medicine focus is preparing them to develop the next generation of medical advances. With the current national focus on health-care reform and increasing interest in quantitative, evidence-based medicine, Thayer students are in an ideal position to help turn difficult problems into much-needed solutions.

By Dean Joseph J. Helble

The current financial crisis affecting all sectors of the economy is also having an impact on higher education. Falling endowment values, a challenging federal research climate, and a strong commitment to meeting increasing student financial need have placed unprecedented pressure on college finances. Dartmouth College is not immune from these challenges, and is taking steps to reduce expenses while preserving student financial aid and faculty resources. Our commitment is to ensure that the outstanding academic experience of our students will not be compromised.

At the Thayer School, we are in a fortunate position relative to most academic institutions. Our research program has remained strong despite the increasingly competitive federal funding climate. For the first six months of the current fiscal year (through December 31, 2008), research grant awards to our faculty increased 26 percent over the same period one year ago. Funding continues to come from a broad range of sources, with 30 percent from the National Institutes of Health, 25 percent from non-federal sources, and nearly 30 percent from the National Science Foundation and Department of Defense combined, providing a buffer against budgetary challenges in any one particular area. Student interest in engineering also remains strong, with record enrollments noted in the Master of Engineering Management and Ph.D. programs this year, and enrollment in entry-level core engineering classes up significantly over the past several years. Although the value of Thayer’s endowment has declined along with the stock market, the outstanding level of research funding, strong student interest in engineering, and continued careful management of discretionary expenditures place Thayer in a strong position to build for the future.

Over the course of the next academic year, while remaining flexible in our responses to this volatile economic environment, Thayer School will continue to build in strategic areas. We will conduct searches for new faculty in our energy and engineering-in-medicine focus areas, build our academic programs in these areas, continue to expand our unique Ph.D. Innovation Program [also, see Leading Edge] and continue to explore new educational opportunities for our students. These are certainly challenging times for the academic community, but Thayer is well positioned, and we look forward to continuing to grow and strengthen our academic enterprise.

By Dean Joseph J. Helble

In late winter 2007, the Thayer School of Engineering identified “Energy” as an area for strategic growth of faculty, research, and educational programs. At the time of this decision, oil was trading at approximately $50 per barrel, and concerns about price were constantly in the news. With oil now trading at nearly $130 per barrel, economic concerns are even greater. When coupled with concerns over energy security, climate, and the environment broadly, there is new urgency to the need to develop a more sustainable energy future.

Heightened attention and a longer term view are welcome. A review of changes in the U.S. supply portfolio is a sobering illustration of how little our supply base has changed despite fluctuations in price and an “energy crisis” through part of the 1970s. In 1958, the U.S. obtained 45 percent of its energy from petroleum, 23 percent from coal, and 7 percent from renewable sources. Nearly 50 years later, and after living through the inflationary price shocks of the oil crisis of the 1970s, our energy portfolio (in 2006) remains virtually unchanged: 40 percent provided by petroleum, 23 percent by coal, and 7 percent by renewable sources.

Thayer’s selection of energy for focused program growth is an indication of our commitment to preparing students to tackle this critical and interdisciplinary challenge. Over the next year, we will begin expanding our faculty in this area, the first step in building upon our strong research base in biofuels, power electronics, and the environment. We will add a new interdisciplinary course for advanced undergraduates and graduate students in energy supply technology — the second piece of an envisioned three-course sequence in energy supply, energy utilization, and energy systems. We will display our energy consumption on monitors in the MacLean Atrium to induce people to reduce consumption. Thayer’s Formula Hybrid International Competition continues to grow, and our student ethanol and hybrid formula racing teams enthusiastically try out new ideas for improving fuel efficiency.

As Thayer moves forward with our work on energy, we are dedicated to preparing the next generation of engineers to lead the world toward sustainable energy solutions.

Visit our Flickr page for photos on Energy Technologies and Sustainability at Thayer School.

By Dean Joseph J. Helble

As the political season heats up, it is clearer than ever that engineering and public policy — engineering and politics — shouldn’t be viewed as separate worlds. Engineering is critical not just for creating technical solutions, but for informing public debate and shaping public policy.

Right now, however, technical talent on Capitol Hill is sparse. Only 4% of Senators and 7% of the members of the House of Representatives have college degrees in science or engineering. Congress regularly debates bills on highly complex, technology-related issues — including energy policy, fuel economy standards, climate change, asbestos use, cybercrime, food safety, spyware, underground mines, and embryonic stem cell research — but few legislators bring technical expertise to their deliberations.

Why does this happen? Unfortunately, students who are drawn to technology often have little interest in politics. And for those who do, their training, which at most institutions remains narrowly focused on solving technical problems, does not show them that engineering or science can be relevant to public policy.

At Dartmouth we are trying to change that. Thayer School and the Public Policy Program at the Rockefeller Center have developed a new modified major: Engineering and Public Policy. Students will study the core of the engineering curriculum as well as the core policymaking curriculum. It is a program for the aspiring public servant who realizes it will be useful to understand technology — and for the engineer who realizes that public policy affects which technologies are funded and chosen for development and adoption.

Energy technology is a case in point.

Speakers at our recent Dartmouth Energy Symposium outlined an array of alternative energy technologies to reduce our national dependence on oil — including solar thermal technology, fuel cells, systems to capture waste heat, cellulosic ethanol processes, compressed air energy storage, and development of improved building materials. Scientists, investors, and venture capitalists alike noted the nation’s need for government funding of early-stage research and development of promising technologies, and therein lies much of the challenge. As one speaker pointed out, politicians are more comfortable supporting the general idea of energy independence than assessing the specifics of how to get there.

This is why engineers need to be involved. We need to equip our students with the technological and public policy skills to make substantive contributions to this discussion. All of us with technical backgrounds should do our part to shape the decisions we entrust to Congress. Our collective future depends on it.

By Dean Joseph Helble

Educators generally believe that the space race set in motion by the Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite in 1957 and President Kennedy’s 1961 call to land a man on the Moon triggered a surge of interest in technology this country has not seen since. But the data do not support this claim.

According to the Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics, 38,000 students received degrees in engineering or engineering technology in 1960. This number can be considered a pre-Sputnik baseline, since these students had likely already selected their college major by the time the space race began. In 1970 the nation’s graduates — who would have been 7 or 8 when Sputnik was launched and 11 or 12 when President Kennedy declared his goal — included approximately 45,000 engineers. By 1975, there were 47,000. These numbers indicate some growth in engineering enrollments in the 1960s and early 1970s, but hardly the peak that has become commonly accepted lore. Examined on a per capita basis, the lack of significant growth is even more striking: 209 engineering degrees per million U.S. citizens in 1960, 217 in 1970, and 218 in 1975.

Engineering enrollments did spike in this country, but not until a decade after the influence of Sputnik should have faded. In 1980, a time of energy shortages and environmental concerns, the U.S. graduated 303 engineers per million citizens. In 1985, the number was up to 403. It is therefore reasonable to ask whether it was Sputnik that inspired a surge in engineering interest, or rather the desire to address global issues such as energy, the environment, or health care through biotechnology. The numbers suggest the latter.

So where are we now? A two-decade decline in the per capita production of engineers has leveled out — but not reversed — in the past few years. In 2004, the nation produced 266 engineers or engineering technologists per million citizens, 30% fewer than in the mid-1980s. During that period the number of degrees in parks, recreation, and leisure studies per capita increased by nearly 300%. The country now graduates a third as many “leisure” majors as engineers. If we believe that technological advances drive our economic and social well-being and that many of our problems require engineering solutions, this is an alarming trend. We need to find a way to convey the relevance of engineering to prospective students — and the enrollment data of the past 40 years tell us how.

Thayer School is facing this challenge by building graduate research focuses, scholarly work, and innovation in a few key areas of broad service to society. One such area, the intersection between Engineering and Medicine, is the target of current and planned faculty hiring, new programs we are building with Dartmouth Medical School, and growing sponsored research activity. Our students, too, are devising new ways of aiding the world — from the innovative Formula Hybrid competition planned for May 2007, to the Big Green Bus, currently in the planning stages for next summer’s journey, to “Humanitarian Engineering Leadership Projects Worldwide,” a new Thayer School group dedicated to using their engineering skills to help solve basic infrastructure problems in the developing world.

This approach is not another race to the moon. But from the enthusiasm of the students involved in these efforts, I’m convinced it is what is needed to make engineering an attractive option once more.

For photos of Thayer’s efforts in research, innovation, and leadership projects, visit our Flickr photostream.

By Dean Joseph J. Helble

This past year several major reports have argued that the development of engineering talent is critical to the continued competitiveness of our economy. From “Innovate America,” published by the Council on Competitiveness, to “Rising Above the Gathering Storm,” recently released by the National Academies, the message has been loud, clear, and consistent: We are a nation whose progress is driven by technology. To remain competitive, we need to support innovation. Supporting innovation means producing a technology-skilled workforce. And that means producing engineers.

This theme has echoed broadly, from op-ed columns in major newspapers to the halls of Capitol Hill. China graduates 600,000 engineers, we are told, while the U.S. only graduates 70,000. Even if one disputes these numbers — and many have — we know as engineers that the slope of the curve is also important, and investment in engineering in Chinese universities appears to be growing. Bills have been introduced in the U.S. Senate to encourage innovation — bills that include providing more funding for technology R&D and more scholarship aid for engineering students. In his recent State of the Union address, President Bush sounded many of the same arguments as he advanced the American Competitiveness Initiative and backed it up with funding. His proposed budget, currently working its way through Congress, calls for a 7.8 percent increase in funding for the National Science Foundation, the major source for research funding in engineering and the physical sciences, as well as increases in basic physical science funding for the Department of Energy and intramural funding for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the Department of Commerce. The drumbeat is steady: Globalization means new competition. We must train more engineers to keep ahead. And we must provide scholarships to entice students to study engineering.

Increased investment is welcome and needed. It provides critical funding for universities, national labs, and industry alike to push the frontiers in areas such as the interface between engineering and medicine — a new research and educational thrust at Thayer — and in nanomedicine, biotechnology, communication, and renewable energy. Investment is critical for refining and expanding our knowledge in core areas such as combustion, fluid mechanics, and environmental transport, all of which bodes well for the engineering enterprise.

But I think this misses the point when it comes to student recruitment.

Arguing about U.S. economic competitiveness is hardly the way to entice more students into science and engineering. Do we really think that students are not studying engineering because there isn’t a scholarship incentive to do so, or because they somehow didn’t know that it was important for national competitiveness? And if we are truly concerned about broadening diversity in engineering, do we really believe that young girls, recent immigrants, or members of minority groups will be inspired because it is “in the national economic interest?” If we as a profession seek to increase our numbers and our diversity, we need to inspire young people, to show them that engineering can help them make a difference in people’s lives. And we need to give them a college engineering education that embraces this ideal.

Colleges and universities need to take a hard look at their programs and ask whether they provide the opportunity for students to explore things creatively, to understand innovation, and to see the connection of their work to people’s daily lives. Most American engineering programs are structured into rigid departments — departments that were organized around the industrial problems of the day, 50 or more years ago. I have been paging through some engineering college catalogues dating back to the 1950s, and I find that in many universities, in many programs, little has changed. Most offer basic science and math, perhaps a survey course that “exposes” students to the different branches of engineering in a lecture or two, then asks them to choose a departmental major, often freshman year, so they can take introductory courses that have changed little over the past five decades. Finally, as seniors — if they make it that far without dropping out — students take electives that remind them why they chose engineering in the first place. And then, and only then, they might work on an applied project in a team environment and experience the joy of tackling an open-ended, challenging intellectual problem.

We know that much of this is different at Thayer. From ENGS 21 to the absence of departments, from students patenting their ideas to using their technical education to solve basic water supply problems in the developing world, Thayer students experience the promise of engineering to create a better world. A few other schools take a similar approach, but change at universities is slow. I have heard colleagues elsewhere argue, for example, that electrical engineering students don’t need chemistry or biology — or other engineering, for that matter — because those subjects won’t help them in their careers. I couldn’t disagree more. At the undergraduate level, students need the breadth of exposure to different fields. After all, how many of them will spend an entire career designing circuits or sensors without needing to know about the biological, or mechanical, or chemical system at the interface?

At Thayer, we view it as our responsibility to constantly examine our programs and ask how we might do things better. For example, we are exploring ways to provide students with a hands-on “innovation” experience outside the walls of Thayer. With every new initiative and every programmatic refinement, Thayer works to ensure that inspiration remains at the heart of engineering education.