A P R I P R O U N D 1 O V E R V I E W
June 15, 2015THIS SECTION PROVIDES THE READER WITH THE RESULTS OF THE INITIAL REVIEW OF ALL APRIP TEAM REPORTS. ONE OF THE APRIP TEAM REPORTS FOLLOWS THIS SECTION.
The purpose of this report is to provide a high-level overview of Round 1 of the UMS Program Integration portion of the Academic Portfolio Review and Integration Process (APRIP). Nine discipline-based teams met from January-May, 2015 to discuss strategies to increase quality, access, and fiscal sustainability through inter-institutional collaboration. Teams represented business, criminal justice, education, engineering, history, languages, marine science, nursing, and recreation/tourism. Each provided a detailed report containing recommendations for further development.
On June 11, the Chief Academic Officers reviewed all nine team reports and determined which action items would be pursued at this time. They presented and discussed their recommendations with the APRIP Oversight Committee on June 12. They especially noted the following:
1. The team reports represent extraordinary levels of time, thought, and effort on the part of over 100 individuals. The teams were working under very difficult conditions, both in terms of time available and because so many of the factors required to implement One University were and remain undecided. CAOs and the Oversight Committee are deeply grateful to these academic pioneers for their good work. 2. The CAOs are recommending follow-up on many but not all of the team recommendations, based on a
variety of factors. They will return to the reports in the future as the system is able to lay more groundwork for additional action steps.
3. The CAOs will assign follow-up responsibility for recommended actions to individuals or groups that have the appropriate responsibility and authority to bring them to life – in most cases to administrators or official groups. Team input will continue to have value as needed, but they have fulfilled the responsibilities
requested of them.
ACTION ITEMS FOR INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION 1. Business
a. Support the development of a single MBA for UMaine and USM. Increase recruitment efforts and expand
pipelines into that MBA from business programs at the other five campuses. Develop opportunities for students in undergraduate majors other than business, as well, to move into this MBA.
b. Further develop a vision and plan for the business programs at the five smaller campuses. This plan should further integrate, with intentionality, these programs to support them with more efficient operations, while also encouraging campus differentiation where appropriate.
. Criminal Justice and Criminology
a. Establish a common community / professional advisory board.
c. Pursue ACJS certification / accreditation of the common associate’s degree. 3. Education
a. Re-institute System-wide Education Deans’ and Directors’ meetings to coordinate the work already being done across the System, and to explore, plan, and implement other collaborative efforts going forward.
b. Continue work on the common Master of Education in Instructional Technology currently in development between UMaine, USM, and UMF.
c. Continue work on the 3+2 program in Rehabilitation and Counselor Education currently in development between USM and UMF, and the suspension of UM’s Counselor Education program.
d. Collaboratively deliver secondary education methods courses for all secondary candidates across the System. e. Build pathways from all seven campuses into graduate work in Education.
f. Collaborate on course / program delivery across the seven campuses using the cohort model to the greatest extent possible, to achieve the greatest possible access and efficiency.
4. Engineering
a. Develop a uniform curriculum for students in their first two years of mechanical engineering and electrical
engineering. Courses will be primarily delivered on site, but will be fully transferable to facilitate student transfer between UM and USM.
b. Move a selection of upper-level courses toward more online pedagogy to facilitate sharing those courses between the two campuses.
c. Establish curricular committees in mechanical engineering and electrical engineering to meet each semester to ensure that first-two year curricula remain aligned and to ensure that the coordination is operating effectively and efficiently.
d. Develop curricula at the five smaller campuses to allow those students, after one or two years, to transfer into the engineering programs at UM and/or USM.
e. Develop uniform course numbering in the core areas—mathematics, physics, and chemistry—to facilitate transfer and ensure consistency.
5. History
a. Develop a stronger pathway from the various undergraduate programs into the graduate program at UMaine, and invite all UMS history faculty to apply for admission into UMaine’s graduate faculty.
b. Explore the possibility of merging the four current undergraduate programs into a single program that would be available on all seven campuses, in order to sustain and build the availability of history curriculum. Encourage differentiation in areas of expertise at various campuses, to further build the diversity of history education. 6. Languages
a. Continue the existing French and Spanish degree programs, with access at all seven campuses, initially with a focus on language acquisition.
b. Expand language acquisition opportunities in other languages such as Japanese, Chinese, and Arabic. For example, Chinese could be offered through USM’s Confucius Institute.
c. Continue the M.A. in Applied Teaching in French and Spanish.
d. Coordinate and integrate all UMS study abroad offices to expand and support study abroad on all seven campuses.
7. Marine Sciences
a. Develop joint, blended, team-taught, etc. courses in a variety of ways, such as distance courses with field-based components. Take advantage of short course opportunities, such as one day per week, summers, weekends, etc. that allow rich use of off-site facilities.
b. Articulate the curricula, particularly with learning outcomes at upper levels, to facilitate students moving from undergraduate into graduate programs.
c. Explore further opportunities to collaborate on use of facilities, both on campus and off site.
d. Develop a 4+1 Professional Science master’s degree, with dual 400/500 level courses as appropriate. e. Develop a common Web presence, particularly for purposes of marketing and student recruitment. 8. Nursing
a. Develop a plan for the full alignment of nursing curriculum within the UMS, including a detailed articulation of the challenges and a plan for addressing them.
b. Given the critical importance of expanding nursing programs to meet the current and future needs of Maine, consult with appropriate external group(s) to help us better understand the challenges and identify strategies for expanding our capacity, particularly in clinical placements. Also explore strategies currently being used at nursing programs in other rural states.
c. Develop a report on the current nursing education partnership between UMA and UMFK. Include an analysis of the challenges and successes experienced in this collaboration thus far, as well as suggestions for improvements. This report should be delivered to the UMS CAOs for their review by the end of the fall 2015 semester.
9. Recreation and Tourism
a. Strengthen communication across the campuses with the development of a central Web site, designed to serve students and faculty, but also to serve as a marketing and student recruitment tool.
b. Seek opportunities for semester-long “residencies,” to allow students at any campus to take full advantage of the differentiated areas of expertise and opportunity at other campuses.
c. Further expand the range of short courses available, taking advantage of the range of specializations already available on the various campuses. Consider a full range of possibilities—summers, weekends, January and May terms, semester breaks, etc.
d. Develop pathways to take further advantage of articulated 4+1 opportunities for student progression into graduate work.
e. Consider the development of hybrid team-taught courses, employing “point persons” in the field to work with the primary on site (or online) instructor.
Essential Next Steps
The APRIP Teams were engaged in high-level planning. All of the disciplines require additional work to bring the recommendations to reality, some more than others. The existing teams or successor designees must do some
additional planning, and most will need funding. Leaders and professional staff must do considerable work to enable the plans to become reality. This work will be costly and requires a capital budget. External funding would significantly advance the time frame for implementation.
In a May 2015 meeting, Team Leaders recommended that UMS support their recommendations as follows: 1. Build capacity for extensive distance-delivery and blended instruction, including
a. Significant increases in interactive video instructional sites that are absolutely reliable and faculty-friendly.
b. Significant increases in faculty professional and instructional development capacity (time, access to expertise and resources), ease of access, and expectations.
c. Common academic calendar system-wide
d. System-wide academic information system for course planning, advising, program marketing e. System-wide marketing
2. Establish capacities and systems for students to enroll simultaneously in multiple institutions – capacities that are seamless and impact-neutral for students, faculty, and institutions.
a. Students: Advising, registration, tuition rates, fees, billing, payment, reliable planning for transfer, financial aid, grade transfer, online comprehensive catalog and pathways, etc.
b. Faculty: Workload and P&T recognition
c. Institutions: Revenues and enrollment credit, non-competitive funding model
Additional Achievements, Round 1:
Emerging culture: help each other better serve students, whether on the giving or receiving end; inter-institutional respect for faculty expertise; expanded professional colleagueship
Transferability enhancements, certificate and associate programs
Increased awareness of benefits from greater comparability/standardization of general education
Extraordinary voluntary service to UMS despite heavy workloads, contrary administrative systems, fear, and sometimes-difficult interpersonal issues
REPORT OF UMS APRIP
ENGINEERING TEAM
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ... iii
LIST OF TABLES ... iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ... 1
INTRODUCTION ... 2
DEMAND FOR ENGINEERS IN MAINE ... 2
WORKING APPROACH OF ENGINEERING TEAM ... 4
DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT ENGINEERING PROGRAMS IN UMS ... 4
HISTORY OF COLLABORATIONS TO DATE ... 6
POSSIBLE ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION IN MAINE ... 7
RECOMMENDED COLLABORATION MODEL ... 7
Description of Penn State Model ... 7
Description of Recommended Model for Delivery of Engineering Programs within the UMS ... 9
Discipline Specific Curricular Communities ... 10
Entry Level Engineering Community ... 11
Proposed Reporting Structure ... 12
Effect of Proposed Model on Quality ... 12
Effect of Proposed Model on Access ... 13
Effect of Proposed Model on Financial Sustainability ... 13
RECOMMENDED COURSE DELIVERY METHODOLOGIES ...14
FINANCIAL MODEL FOR INVESTMENT IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION ...15
APPENDIX A - ROLE OF ENGINEERS IN MAINE’S ECONOMY ...16
APPENDIX B - NUMBER OF STUDENTS, NUMBER OF FACULTY, CREDIT HOUR PRODUCTION, NUMBER OF DEGREES AWARDED, AND RESEARCH FUNDING LEVEL BY ACADEMIC PROGRAM ...21
APPENDIX C - ADVANTAGES, DISADVANTAGES, AND IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES FOR POSSIBLE ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS ...27
APPENDIX D - ADVANTAGES, DISADVANTAGES, AND IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES OF COURSE DELIVERY MODELS ...32
APPENDIX E - SUMMARY OF EAC ACCREDITED DEGREES OFFERED WITHIN THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM. ...36
APPENDIX F - SUMMARY OF TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH DIRECTORS OF ENGINEERING AT PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY ...37
ii
APPENDIX G - UPPER LEVEL ENGINEERING COURSES OFFERED ONLINE IN
THE LAST THREE YEARS BY UMAINE. ...42
APPENDIX H - SAMPLE OF INTERCAMPUS TRANSFER PROGRAM OF STUDY ...43
APPENDIX I - COURSE DELIVERY METHODOLOGIES ...44
APPENDIX J - PROJECTED REVENUE MODEL ...46
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Growth of engineering employment in Maine compared to total employment. ... 3 Figure 2. Employment status of engineers who graduated in Maine in academic year 12-13. ... 4 Figure 3. Undergraduate enrollment (head count) in UMaine College of Engineering and
USM Department of Engineering with projection to 2019. ...5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of number of undergraduate engineering degrees offered, faculty, and
undergraduates within Pennsylvania State University System and UMS. ... 8 Table 2. Sample transfer interface for engineering programs within the UMS. ... 11
Page 1 of 51
REPORT OF UMS APRIP ENGINEERING TEAM
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYVirtually everything that is touched by the human hand is profoundly impacted by engineers. While engineers comprise just over 1% of Maine’s workforce they are responsible for over 5% of Maine’s GDP. Over the next decade, it is estimated that the gap between the engineers needed in our state and the supply of new graduates will exceed 1,200. Thus, it is imperative that the University of Maine System (UMS) supports robust engineering programs with increased capacity to educate the engineers who are essential to the growth of our society and economy.
Engineering degrees within the UMS system are offered by the College of Engineering at the University of Maine (UMaine) and the Department of Engineering at the University of Southern Maine (USM). At the bachelor’s level, UMaine offers seven engineering and four engineering technology degrees, while USM offers two complementary engineering degrees. In addition, UMaine offers eight engineering M.S. and five Ph.D. degrees. In Fall’14, UMaine had 1,339 engineering undergraduates, 484 engineering technology undergraduates, and 150 graduate students while USM had 226 engineering undergraduates. Undergraduate enrollment has grown 75% since 2001. In FY14, UMaine engineering received $9.5-million in research grants.
The vision for delivery of engineering programs within the UMS is for engineering bachelor degrees to be offered by UMaine and USM. After weighing the advantages, disadvantages, and implementation challenges of five organizational models, the engineering team recommends the Penn State model where the engineering programs at UMaine and USM maintain separate administrative structures but are coordinated through faculty-led curricular communities. Degree programs that are common between UMaine and USM would have the same curriculum for the first two years. This would allow students to easily transfer between UMaine and USM. In addition, an intercampus transfer model would allow students to start engineering at any campus in the UMS. Four course delivery models were examined. The team recommends a mix of traditional face-to-face instruction, especially for lower division courses, online sharing of selected upper division engineering electives, and a rigorous trail of blended delivery (i.e., face-to-face and online) of one or two lower division engineering courses. The proposed model would be facilitated if there was a uniform course numbering system and consistent course learning outcomes for foundational mathematics and science courses throughout the UMS. For this reason, the engineering team strongly recommends that mathematics, physics, and chemistry be included in the next round of APRIP. As consumers, it is critical that engineering faculty be included on these disciplinary APRIP teams.
The proposed model increases educational quality by allowing students at UMaine and USM to take advantage of a broader array of engineering electives. Developing selected courses for blended delivery has the potential to improve student learning. Access will be increased by allowing students to start engineering at any campus in the UMS and facilitating transfer between UMaine and USM. The engineering programs at UMaine and USM already have very high student:faculty ratios relative to their peers. As a result, there are limited opportunities for cost savings. However, there is a proven track record of engineering enrollment and resulting revenue growth. The UMaine and USM engineering programs are at or above capacity. Thus, investment is needed to allow further growth, which is critical to our state. For every $1 invested in engineering, an additional $1 is returned for investment elsewhere on campus.
Page 2 of 51 INTRODUCTION
Engineers play a role in society that is disproportionally large relative to their numbers. Virtually everything that is touched by the human hand is profoundly impacted by engineers. This is obvious for things like cars and cells phones. But it is less obvious for basic necessities like the food that we eat. Think of the technology needed to produce the fertilizer, harvest the food, and transport the food from farm to market. Think even of beautiful sculptures – the steel chisel gripped by the hand of the sculptor is made possible by engineers.
Engineers play a critical role in Maine’s economy. Engineers comprise just over 1% of Maine’s workforce, yet they are responsible for over 5% of Maine’s GDP. This is an impact of over $560,000 per engineer. In 2013, engineers employed in Maine paid an estimated $29-million in state taxes. By 2023, this is projected to grow to $43-$29-million.
In Maine, responsibility for educating engineers is shouldered by three public institutions: University of Maine (UMaine), University of Southern Maine (USM), and Maine Maritime Academy (MMA). Maine is the only state in the northeast with no private institutions offering engineering degrees. For this reason, it is imperative that public institutions in Maine have strong engineering programs with the capacity to educate the engineers who are essential to the growth of our society and economy.
This report was prepared by the engineering team of the Academic Program Review and Integration Process (APRIP) as directed by the charge provided at the APRIP Sub-Team Orientation held on January 24, 2015. The key aspects of the charge are to “enhance and expand access” while “achieving necessary fiscal efficiencies”. The scope of the engineering team was limited to the engineering programs at UMaine and USM, as well as the possibility that the other campuses within the University of Maine System (UMS) could be viable starting points for students desiring engineering degrees. The scope does not include the engineering technology programs at UMaine or the technology programs at USM.
This report details the demand for engineers in our state, reviews the current engineering programs at UMaine and USM, examines several models for delivery of engineering education in Maine, and recommends a model that is best suited to current conditions. Finally, the report provides a financial model for growth of engineering education in our state. While the focus of this report is on undergraduate education, it should be noted that engineering graduate education and research, which are primarily conducted by UMaine, are vital to the innovation needed for the future of our state.
DEMAND FOR ENGINEERS IN MAINE
The number of engineers1 employed in Maine has grown from 5,740 in 2004 to 6,600 in 2013, an increase of 860 (15% growth). This is an annual growth rate of about 95 engineering positions. Conversely, during the same period employment for all occupations in Maine decreased by 2% as shown in Figure 1. Nationwide, there was 10.5% growth in engineering
1
Engineers includes: all engineering occupations, engineering managers, and construction managers; does not include architects, landscape architects, or engineering technicians.
Page 3 of 51 employment from 2004 to 2013. Thus,
engineering employment grew faster in Maine than the nation as a whole2.
Nationwide, the U.S. will need to add an estimated 250,000 engineering positions over the next decade3. This is a growth of 11%. Assuming that this trend applies in Maine, our state will need to add 750 engineering positions by 2023.
In addition, replacements will be needed for engineers who retire or otherwise leave the engineering workforce. An estimated 27% of Maine’s workers in the “Professional, Technical and Scientific” category, which includes
engineers, are age 55 or older4. By 2023, over 1,750 engineers will be needed to replace retirees. Additional engineers will be needed to replace those who leave the profession. Thus, Maine will likely need more than 2,500 new and replacement engineers from 2013 through 2023.
In 2014 there were 1,272 job postings for engineers in Maine5. These positions range from entry level engineers to senior engineering managers. The number of job posting greatly exceeds the roughly 300 engineering bachelor’s degrees that are produced in Maine each year. When this imbalance in Maine is combined with the nationwide demand for engineers, it is no surprise that that the placement rate for Maine engineering graduates is near 100%.
An analysis of the graduates who earned an engineering bachelor’s degree in academic year 12-13 shows a dramatic of underproduction of engineers in Maine. In this academic year, a total of 317 bachelor’s degrees in engineering and engineering technology were granted in Maine by the accredited programs at UMaine, USM, and MMA. The estimated fate of these graduates is shown in Figure 2. There is a major gap between the estimated 129 graduates from UMaine, USM, and MMA who entered the engineering profession in our state and the roughly 250 new and replacement engineers that are needed each year. The cumulative 10-year gap is expected to exceed 1200. Some of this gap can be satisfied by attracting engineers educated outside of Maine to our state. However, given the nationwide demand for engineers, this cannot be the only strategy. It is essential that the state grow its capacity to educate engineers right here in Maine. Further details of this analysis are given in Appendix A.
2
Employment data from U.S. Department of Labor State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates
3
Lampinen, J., & McAward, T. (2014), Spotlight on Engineering: Promising Futures for New Engineers, Kelly Engineering Resources
(http://www.kellyservices.us/uploadedFiles/United_States_-_Kelly_Services/New_Smart_Content/Candidate_Resource_Center/Managing_Your_Career/Eng_Promising_Future s.pdf)
4
Based on data extracted from http://ledextract.ces.census.gov/ for the second quarter of 2014; the category “Professional, Technical and Scientific” includes engineers, scientists, and related technical professionals; data for engineers alone is not available.
5
Source: Labor/Insight Jobs (Burning Glass Technologies)
Figure 1. Growth of engineering employment in Maine compared to total employment.
Page 4 of 51
Figure 2. Employment status of engineers who graduated in Maine in academic year 12-13. WORKING APPROACH OF ENGINEERING TEAM
The engineering team conducted most of its work through three face-to-face meetings. The primary purpose of the first meeting was to establish ground rules for operation of the engineering team, an overall vision for engineering education in Maine, identify possible alternative models for organizing engineering higher education, and examine possible delivery methodologies. The purpose of the second meeting was to complete the discussion of possible organizational models and delivery methodologies, and then to select an organizational model and delivery methodology that best fit conditions in Maine. After this meeting team members worked individually and in small groups to develop a draft report. At the third meeting the team edited the first draft of the final report and resolved any remaining issues. Final editing was done via email.
The members of the engineering team who participated in one or more of the meetings were: Michael Boyle, Blake Burke, Calen Colby, Lester French, James Graves, Justin Hafford, Donald Hummels, Dana Humphrey, Corey Letourneau, Carlos Lück, James Smith, and Clayton Wheeler. Jason Johnson reviewed portions of the report. Mikel Leighton from the UMS was the note taker at the first meeting. Tina Baughman from the UMS was the note taker at the second and third meetings. Their assistance was greatly appreciated.
DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT ENGINEERING PROGRAMS IN UMS
Engineering degrees within the UMS system are offered by the College of Engineering at UMaine (located in Orono), and the Department of Engineering at USM (located in Gorham). Appendix B provides tabular data detailing the number of students, number of faculty, credit hour production, number of degrees awarded, and research funding level for the various engineering programs. Over the last 15 years, there has been a 75% growth in the combined enrollment at UMaine and USM as shown in Figure 3. Moreover, enrollment has been growing faster than in the U.S. as a whole. Since the number of faculty has remained essentially constant, the student:faculty ratio has grown from 15:1 in 2001 to 28:1 in 2014. For comparison, the average student:faculty ratio of the engineering programs at the other New England land grant universities is 16:1.
129
24
5
131
28
In Maine employed as engineers In Maine employed in fields related to engineering In Maine employed in fields unrelated to engineering Employed outside of Maine Graduate schoolPage 5 of 51
Figure 3. Undergraduate enrollment (head count) in UMaine College of Engineering and USM Department of Engineering with projection to 2019.
At UMaine, the College of Engineering (COE) is comprised of five academic units: Chemical and Biological Engineering, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, and the School of Engineering Technology. In addition, the engineering physics program is jointly administered by the COE and College of Liberal Arts and Science. These units offer seven B.S. degrees in engineering, four B.S. degrees in Engineering Technology, seven Master of Science degrees, one Professional Science Masters degree with six tracks, and four Ph.D.’s. In addition, a Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering is offered through the Graduate School of Biomedical Science and Engineering. All UMaine undergraduate degree programs are accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). The COE has 66.4 FTE faculty inclusive of lecturers and tenure/tenure track, 1,836 undergraduates (a growth of 68% since Fall 2001), and 155 graduate students. In FY14, the COE received $9.5-million in research grants and corporate contracts. In April 2014, the COE was selected as one of seven UMaine “Signature Areas” based upon its strength in research and education and world-class reputation. Through its leadership and cross-campus collaboration, the COE plays a uniquely integral role in six of the seven signature areas, and four of six “emerging areas”.
At USM, the Department of Engineering is a unit of the College of Science, Technology, and Health. The department offers B.S. degrees in electrical engineering and in mechanical engineering. The Electrical Engineering Program has been accredited by ABET since 1990. The much newer Mechanical Engineering Program, which began in 2007, will undergo its first accreditation review in Fall 2015. The department has seven FTE faculty inclusive of lecturers and tenure/tenure track, and 226 active students (a growth of 169% since Fall 2001). In FY15,
Page 6 of 51
the Department of Engineering conferred 36 baccalaureate degrees (22 in EE and 14 in ME). The student population encompasses a mix of traditional and non-traditional, place-bound students. Both the electrical engineering and the mechanical engineering programs at USM were established at the urging of and with considerable support from southern Maine industry. The mechanical engineering program emphasizes electromechanical systems that leverage synergy with the electrical engineering program. The Department’s mission statement states that “[w]e are a technical resource to the community”. This is fully consonant with USM’s focus as a metropolitan university. Of the engineering programs, the B.S. degrees in Electrical Engineering and in Mechanical Engineering are offered at both UMaine and USM.
Although, not within the scope of this report, MMA offers a Bachelor of Marine Systems Engineering. This degree is accredited under the naval architecture and marine engineering standard of ABET. In AY 12/13, 13 degrees were granted in this major.
HISTORY OF COLLABORATIONS TO DATE
The engineering programs at UMaine and USM have a history of collaborations. UMaine assisted USM in starting their degree program in mechanical engineering by offering four foundational mechanical engineering courses online. As USM hired mechanical engineering faculty, they began teaching these courses on their own. The final offering under this collaboration was in 2011. UMaine’s Dr. Michael Boyle has served on the USM Engineering Program External Advisory Board. UMaine Associate Dean Mohamad Musavi assisted USM with a review of their mechanical engineering program prior to its upcoming ABET accreditation visit. There is a history of student mobility between UMaine and USM. Over the years, a number of engineering students started at USM and completed their degrees at UMaine, while others started at UMaine and completed their degrees at USM.
UMaine and USM are founding members of the Maine Engineering Promotional Council (MEPC). This is a collaboration between companies in Maine with a demand for engineers and the institutions of higher education in Maine that produce those engineers. The feature event is the annual Engineering Expo that targets middle and high school students to expose them to the possibilities of careers in engineering. The location of the Expo alternates between UMaine and USM. Well over 1,500 people attend the Expo each year. This year marked the 13th anniversary of the Expo. UMaine and USM faculty, staff, and most importantly students, are key to making the Expo a success. Victoria Wingo, Communications Specialist from the UMaine COE, currently serves as the Executive Director of MEPC.
USM’s Drs. Guvench and Lück taught two UMaine graduate courses to engineers at National Semiconductor (now Texas Instruments). UMaine and USM engineering faculty collaborate on funded research projects. Examples include USM’s Dr. Jankowski working with UMaine’s Dr. Abedi on a NASA funded project and USM’s Dr. Guvench working with UMaine’s Drs. Neivandt and Gardner on a project for the U.S. Army.
Page 7 of 51
POSSIBLE ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION IN MAINE
The engineering team discussed five possible collaboration models listed below. Status quo – separate engineering programs at UMaine and USM making decisions
completely independent of each other
Penn State Model – programs maintain separate administrative structure, but coordinate at the degree program level; includes an extensive intercampus transfer model (which was discussed separately)
Intercampus transfer model – students start at campus X then transfer to campus Y to complete their degree; variations could include starting at campus X, transferring to campus Y for one or more years, then returning to campus X or to a third campus to complete their degree
Merge engineering programs – merge engineering programs at UMaine and USM
resulting in one engineering department for each major discipline with faculty located on two campuses
Unique branding – offer degree programs at UMaine and USM that are unique and don’t overlap; a variation is offering engineering degree programs at one campus and
engineering technology degree programs at another campus
The advantages, disadvantages, and implementation challenges for each model were identified. Advantages were defined as benefits that are inherent or could be achieved with a properly implemented model. Disadvantages were defined as drawbacks inherent to the model and would be very difficult to overcome. Challenges are issues that would need to be addressed to effectively implement the model. These are summarized in Appendix C. In addition, three alternative course delivery models were discussed: online delivery of undergraduate courses; online delivery of upper level undergraduate and graduate courses; and blended courses (a mix of online and live instruction). The advantages, disadvantages, and implementation challenges of each are summarized in Appendix D.
After weighing the advantages, disadvantages, and implementation challenges of each model, the engineering team recommends a combination of the Penn State model, intercampus transfer model, and online delivery of selected upper level undergraduate and graduate courses. In addition, the team recommends that a trial be conducted of blended delivery of lower-level engineering courses. The team’s recommendations are discussed in detail in the next section.
RECOMMENDED COLLABORATION MODEL Description of Penn State Model
Many aspects of the recommended collaboration model are based on the organization of engineering degree programs within the Pennsylvania State University System (Penn State). For this reason, a description of the engineering team’s understanding of this model is warranted. Within this system, ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) accredited degrees are distributed as follows: seventeen offered at University Park, four at Behrend (Erie), four at
Page 8 of 51
Harrisburg, and one at Wilkes-Barre. Four degree programs are offered at multiple campuses. Three select degrees are only offered at branch campuses. A summary of all EAC accredited degrees offered within Penn State is given in Appendix E.
Each Penn State campus that offers engineering degrees has sufficient full-time faculty to offer the degree, independent of other campuses. As a result, students take very few online engineering courses from a campus other than their home campus. The number of faculty, degrees offered and students, as well as, student:faculty ratio are summarized in Table 1. There is a clear difference in scale and adequacy of staffing between Penn State and the engineering programs within the UMS. For example, there is a critical mass of faculty to offer full engineering degrees at the branch campuses. At Behrend, there is an average of eight faculty for each degree offered, while there are an average of five faculty for each degree offered at Harrisburg and Wilkes-Barre. At University Park, there is an average of 33 faculty members per degree offered. The undergraduate student:faculty ratio at University Park is comparable to the 16:1 average for the research intensive engineering programs at the New England land grants not including UMaine which is much higher at 26:1. The student:faculty ratio at USM is comparable to that of Behrend. The student:faculty ratio at Harrisburg is low and may be due to the engineering programs at this institution being relatively new, dating from the mid-2000’s. These institutions focus primarily on undergraduate education.
Table 1. Summary of number of undergraduate engineering degrees offered, faculty, and undergraduates within Pennsylvania State University System and UMS.
Campus
Number of Degrees Offered
FTE Faculty Headcount Undergraduates Undergraduate Student:Faculty Ratio University Park 17 561 10,201 18:1 Behrend (Erie) 4 32 1087 34:1 Harrisburg 4 21 215 10:1
Wilkes-Barre 1 5 N/A N/A
UMaine 7 51 1339 26:1
USM 2 7 226 32:1
Data sources: FTE Faculty and number of undergraduates at University Park, Behrend, and Harrisburg from Profiles
of Engineering and Engineering Technology Colleges, American Society for Engineering Education, 2013 Edition;
FTE Faculty at Wilkes-Barre from institution’s website; UMaine and USM data from Appendix B.
The key mechanism that unifies the engineering programs at the campuses within the Penn State system are “curricular communities” for each degree program that is offered at multiple campuses. Membership is comprised of faculty from each campus that offers the degree. Each curricular community is responsible for ensuring that the first two years of the curriculum is the same, no matter which campus a student is attending. Moreover, the curricular community ensures that all required engineering courses offered in the first two years have the same learning outcomes. Each curricular community meets once or twice per year. The most important advantage of this organizational model is that a student can seamlessly transfer from one campus to another during the first two years of study. At the Behrend campus,
Page 9 of 51
approximately 80% of the students complete their engineering degree on that campus while 20% transfer to another campus to complete their degree. A disadvantage of this model is that the process to change curriculum or learning outcomes is a slow negotiation.
Another feature of the Penn State model is that students may start fifteen of the engineering degrees offered within the system at any of the 19 system campuses. Students can complete between two and four semesters at their starting campus before needing to transfer. Their transfer matrix is given at: http://www.engr.psu.edu/AcademicPlans/default.aspx. The high level of functionality of this system is possible due to: uniform course numbering throughout the system; system-wide curricular communities for supporting disciplines such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology; and offering foundational first-year and sophomore-level engineering courses at multiple campuses. For example, the course Statics, a foundational course in engineering mechanics required for multiple engineering degrees, will be offered live on all 19 campuses in Fall 2015. Another course, Introduction to Engineering
Design, which Penn State requires for all engineering majors, was offered live at 18 of 19
campuses in Spring 2015 and will be offered on 17 of 19 campuses in Fall 2015. Pennsylvania has clearly made a significant investment in allowing students to begin engineering at any campus. Students who move from one campus to another are treated as transfer students. They must meet the admissions criteria of the program they wish to enter at the receiving campus.
The engineering college at University Park is headed by a dean, while the engineering schools at Behrend and Harrisburg are each headed by a Director of Engineering. The latter, for all intent and purpose, function as deans. The Director of Engineering at Behrend and Harrisburg report to a Senior Associate Dean, who reports to the head of their campus, whose title is Chancellor. The Chancellor reports to the Vice President Commonwealth Campuses who reports to the Executive Vice President and Provost at University Park, then the President of Penn State. For selected issues, the Directors of Engineering work directly with the Vice President Commonwealth Campuses, bypassing their local leadership structure. Based on interviews with the Director of Engineering at Behrend and Harrisburg, they have limited direct interaction with the Dean of Engineering at University Park. The Director of Engineering at Behrend reported that each campus has a high level of independence on budget matters. Transcripts of interviews with the Director of Engineering at the Behrend and Harrisburg campuses are included as Appendix F.
Description of Recommended Model for Delivery of Engineering Programs within the UMS
The vision for delivery of engineering programs within the UMS is for engineering bachelor degrees to be offered by UMaine and USM. The programs would be coordinated by curricular communities for each degree program that they have in common. In addition, students would be able to start at any campus within the UMS and transfer after two to four semesters to either UMaine or USM to complete their degree. This would be coordinated by another curricular committee. A description of the model is given in the following.
Page 10 of 51
Discipline Specific Curricular Communities
A cornerstone of the proposed model is the formation of discipline specific curricular communities for each degree program that is common between UMaine and USM. With current degree offerings, curricular communities would be formed for electrical engineering and mechanical engineering. Each curricular community would have multiple responsibilities. The most important of which will be developing a common curriculum for the first two years of the degree program. In addition, each curricular community would develop common learning outcomes for all required engineering courses within the first two years of the curriculum. It is presumed that these goals can be achieved, since this is identical to what is done in the Penn State system. However, if the model cannot be fully achieved within the UMS for highly compelling reasons, this must be clearly justified to the responsible deans and provosts at UMaine and USM.
Curricular communities would have responsibilities for identifying opportunities for delivery of selected upper level engineering electives to be delivered online. The engineering team believes that some upper level engineering courses, when delivered with appropriate pedagogical methods, can be delivered online with high quality. Students from either UMaine or USM could take these courses to satisfy engineering electives. This effort would build on the 27 upper-level engineering courses that have been offered online by UMaine within the last three years (Appendix G). It is expected that the curricular communities will identify a suite of courses to be offered online that would be beneficial to students at both UMaine and USM. The end result will be that students will have a broader array of engineering electives to choose from.
The engineering team feels that delivery of most lower-level foundational engineering courses is best done live in a traditional classroom environment. Given high student numbers, this is a cost effective delivery model. However, the team recommends that curricular communities identify one or two courses to use as a trial for blended delivery. These would be a mix of online and live instruction. For example, some of the course content could be delivered using pre-recorded modules. The modules could be coupled with real-time assignments that students complete to assess their knowledge. Then, most of the class time could be used for students working in groups to solve challenging homework problems, supplemented by faculty members discussing the shortcomings in student learning as they become evident. Significant effort is needed to develop a high quality blended course. This would require up-front investment in faculty time, learning design staff, and facilities. The learning outcomes of students in blended courses should be rigorously assessed. This should be used as feedback to improve the blended courses. The curricular communities will need to assess the overall success of the effort from a student learning perspective, as well as, the amount of faculty time required for these types of courses relative to traditional courses. If the trials are successful, the curricular community could recommend additional courses for development as blended courses.
The final duty of the discipline specific curricular communities is to be a forum for discussion of filling faculty vacancies. Specifically, the discussion would focus on what specific expertise is most needed to provide the breadth needed to offer their discipline in Maine. When appropriate, the curricular communities will recommend that faculty from UMaine and USM
Page 11 of 51
both serve on search committees. In this capacity, the curricular committee would be advisory to their respective department chairs and deans.
Entry Level Engineering Community
The entry level engineering community would be responsible for developing and maintaining the entry level curriculum that would allow a student to start their engineering degree at any campus in the system then transfer to either UMaine or USM after two to four semesters to complete their degree. Membership of the community would be comprised of faculty from all seven campuses. The recommended makeup of the committee is: three UMaine engineering faculty, two USM engineering faculty, one mathematics faculty member from UMaine or USM, one science faculty member from UMaine or USM, and one faculty member from each of the remaining five UMS institutions.
The workproduct of this community would be modeled after the transfer interface developed by Penn State. A sample of the transfer interface for the UMS is shown in Table 2. Each cell in the transfer interface would link to a program of study specific to the starting campus and degree program. Students would need to transfer after two to four semesters at the starting institution, with the number of semesters governed by the range of foundational courses offered by the starting institution and the requirements of the engineering degree program. A sample program of study is shown in Appendix H.
Table 2. Sample transfer interface for engineering programs within the UMS.
Campus
UMaine BIO1 CEN1 CHE1 CIE1 ELE1,2 EPS1 MEE1,2
USM BIO1 CEN1 CHE1 CIE1 ELE1,2 EPS1 MEE1,2
UMA BIO1 CEN1 CHE1 CIE1 ELE1,2 EPS1 MEE1,2
UMF BIO1 CEN1 CHE1 CIE1 ELE1,2 EPS1 MEE1,2
UMFK BIO1 CEN1 CHE1 CIE1 ELE1,2 EPS1 MEE1,2
UMM BIO1 CEN1 CHE1 CIE1 ELE1,2 EPS1 MEE1,2
UMPI BIO1 CEN1 CHE1 CIE1 ELE1,2 EPS1 MEE1,2
BIO = bioengineering; CEN = computer engineering; CHE = chemical engineering; CIE = civil engineering; ELE = electrical engineering; EPS = engineering physics; MEE = mechanical engineering
1
program completed at UMaine; 2program completed at USM
Development of each program of study would be simplified if there was a uniform course numbering system and uniform course learning outcomes for foundational mathematics and science courses throughout the UMS. For this reason, the engineering team strongly recommends that mathematics, physics, and chemistry be included in the next round of APRIP. It is critical that engineering faculty be included on these disciplinary APRIP teams.
The entry level engineering community would be responsible for developing admissions guidelines for students who want to begin their engineering studies at UMS campuses other than UMaine or USM. To be eligible for transfer, students would need to meet the admissions criteria
Page 12 of 51
for the receiving institution and the specific engineering degree program. It is expected that the latter will focus on minimum grades in foundational mathematics and science courses. The community will also explore the option of co-admission to the appropriate engineering or pre-engineering program at UMaine or USM. The entry level pre-engineering community would develop advising guidelines for students beginning their engineering studies at a UMS campus other than UMaine and USM. This would need to include both curricular and engineering career guidance.
Proposed Reporting Structure
The reporting structure would be modeled after that used for engineering within the Penn State system. Thus, the head of the engineering programs at UMaine and USM would report up through their normal campus hierarchy. The curricular communities would be convened by the Dean of Engineering at UMaine working in consultation with the Dean of Science, Technology, and Health at USM. The Dean of Engineering at UMaine would have primary responsibility for monitoring the work of the curricular groups and reporting progress to the UMaine Provost and USM Dean of Science, Technology, and Health.
Effect of Proposed Model on Quality
The proposed model will increase educational quality by allowing students at UMaine and USM to take advantage of upper level engineering electives that are already offered online and by converting selected additional courses to online delivery. This would provide students a greater variety of choices for electives thereby allowing them to better customize their education to their interests and to meet the needs of the engineering workplace. Access to a broader diversity of topics will enhance the students’ overall quality of education.
Online delivery expands the opportunities for engineering practitioners to be instructors for specialized courses, further expanding the breadth of opportunities for students. An example that has already been implemented is having Dr. David Rubenstein, President of Maine Aerospace Consulting, teach four aerospace engineering courses from his office in Falmouth, Maine. This effort started in 2009. To date, 182 UMaine engineering students and 6 practicing engineers have taken Dr. Reubenstein’s courses.
Developing selected courses for blended delivery has the potential to improve student learning in challenging engineering courses. In the blended delivery model, much of the knowledge transfer and learning assessment is done asynchronously through online modules. Online learning assessment tools provide students with immediate feedback. The online modules free up class time to be used for problem solving sessions, where students work on homework problems and in small groups, all under the guidance of the class instructor. Appropriate student advising is important for blended delivery courses. This overall approach caters to a range of student learning styles. Studies have shown that blended courses foster increased student interaction with the course material, leading to better long-term retention of the
Page 13 of 51
material. Through this process, students gain increased skills in self-directed learning6, which is foundational to the life-long learning that is essential to engineers in our rapidly changing technological world and is a learning outcome required for ABET accreditation of engineering programs.
Effect of Proposed Model on Access
The proposed model will retain the access of current student populations to the existing engineering programs at UMaine and USM. Moreover, it will increase access by allowing students to begin any of the seven UMaine and two USM engineering bachelor degree programs at any of the campuses within the UMS. Students who achieve minimum grades in critical path foundational courses in mathematics, science, and engineering would be able to transfer to UMaine or USM to complete their degree. Provided they follow the published program of study, students will be able to complete their degree in four years. For engineering degrees that are offered both by UMaine and USM, having a curriculum that is common for the first two years will allow students to seamlessly transfer between the two institutions during the first half of their education.
Effect of Proposed Model on Financial Sustainability
The engineering programs at UMaine and USM already have very high student:faculty ratios relative to their peers. As a result there are limited opportunities for cost savings. However, the proposed model has the potential to make some contributions to financial sustainability as described below.
Allowing students to start engineering degrees at any of the seven campuses in the UMS, may increase utilization of available capacity in foundational mathematics and science courses at some campuses. In addition, increased access may result in an increase in students entering the UMS to pursue degrees in engineering. If this occurs, there would be increased tuition revenue. However, it is cautioned that investment in engineering faculty at UMaine and USM is needed to provide the instructional capacity needed to accommodate these students once they transfer.
Online delivery of selected engineering electives has the potential to modestly increase student credit hour generation for only a small increase in instructional costs. This would be achieved by UMaine or USM engineering students taking courses offered online by the other institution. Online delivery can also expand access to the pool of engineering practitioners who could be adjunct instructors for specialized courses. While there would be costs to train adjunct instructors in use of online instruction, the salary per course would be less than for a full-time faculty member. After making the initial and ongoing financial investment to develop and maintain blended courses, there may be some small economies in use of faculty time to deliver the courses.
6
“Hybrid Learning Benefits” http://www.bothell.washington.edu/learningtech/hybrid-and-online-learning/hybrid-learning/about-hybrid-learning/benefits
Page 14 of 51
The demand for students wanting to study engineering in Maine is rising (see Figure 1). This has significant potential to increase tuition revenue. However, this would require concomitant investments in capacity. A financial model to accomplish this is discussed in the final section.
RECOMMENDED COURSE DELIVERY METHODOLOGIES
It is recommended that most course content, especially foundational mathematics, science and engineering courses be delivered with traditional face-to-face classes. Selected upper level engineering electives will be delivered online so that students at both UMaine and USM can have access to a broader range of courses. One or two trials will be conducted of blended delivery of lower level engineering courses. The advantages, disadvantages, and implementation challenges are presented in Appendix D. The team agreed that the quality of teaching and learning is critical. New investments/incentives are required to support faculty and learning design in developing “best practice” course methodologies. At least initially, flexibility to explore various processes and methodologies will be required. The process will be incremental, evolving and adapting over time. Additional discussion of characteristics of several delivery methodologies is given in Appendix I.
INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVES OF ALL RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS
The demand for engineers in the state of Maine can be satisfied by a combination of: (1) increasing the capacity of foundational courses in mathematics, chemistry, and physics as well as selected introduction to engineering courses across the UMS; (2) increasing access to the engineering programs at UMaine and USM; and (3) increasing the capacity of the engineering programs at UMaine and USM. The five universities in the UMS that do not offer engineering degrees can be partners with UMaine and USM by providing capacity for the foundational courses in mathematics, chemistry, and physics and providing entry points into engineering programs at UMaine and USM.
At many of the universities in the UMS there is capacity in the foundational courses in mathematics, chemistry, and physics. Providing these foundational courses at a greater number of locations in the UMS will improve access for students who are not initially prepared, financially or academically, to make the move to UMaine or USM. Additionally, using a variety of distance education modalities, students enrolled at UMaine and USM, will gain access to classes that may better fit their schedules. Another advantage to providing the foundational courses at the other universities is spreading exposure to the engineering programs across the UMS. Natural synergies with some degree programs, such as Computer Information Systems or Architecture, may be used as a springboard to engineering degrees. There are some challenges to providing the foundational courses at the other UMS universities. (1) The learning outcomes of the foundational courses must be aligned so that they meet the requirements of the engineering programs at UMaine and USM. This challenge will be addressed by discipline specific curricular communities and entry level engineering community. (2) Guidelines for advising engineering students must be developed at the five campuses that do not offer engineering. This
Page 15 of 51
challenge can be met by having clearly defined pathways toward completion of engineering degrees as described previously. (3) The challenge of faculty governance and institutional control must also be addressed in a manner that is sensitive to the concerns of the five universities. (4) An Introduction to Engineering Design course should be offered at each of the seven UMS campuses. This course should be developed by the entry level engineering community and discipline specific curricular communities. Additionally, the course should be designed so that it meets general education requirements.
FINANCIAL MODEL FOR INVESTMENT IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION
The growth in undergraduate engineering enrollment at UMaine and USM has had a substantial financial benefit for the UMS. If the UMS is to continue to reap these benefits it is essential that investments be made in engineering faculty, staff, teaching assistants, and facilities. Without this investment further growth in undergraduate numbers is not possible. A financial model to stabilize the current engineering programs and allow for future growth is described below.
The financial model is based on the engineering undergraduate enrollment growth that has already occurred along with the possibility of future growth combined with the trend of increasing numbers of non-resident students. This model includes all tuition revenue generated by engineering students. Revenue and expense models are presented.
The revenue model makes predictions through FY20. It is based on the following key assumptions:
Growth trends for total and non-resident undergraduates will continue (see Figure 3). Tuition for resident, NEBHE, and Canadian undergraduates will remain unchanged. Tuition for non-resident and international students will increase by 3% per year. Tuition revenue is discounted for financial aid whose source is E&G
Using FY13 as a baseline, this shows that net tuition revenue generated by engineering undergraduates will increase by $10-million by FY20 at UMaine and by $0.7-million at USM. The revenue model is shown in Appendix J.
For enrollment growth to continue, strategic investments must be made in engineering at UMaine and USM. The investment model is based on the following key assumptions:
Faculty, staff, and teaching assistant salaries increase by 3% per year. Graduate student tuition and health insurance increase by 3% per year. Sufficient faculty are added to reduce the student/faculty ratio from a peak
of 28:1 to 25:1 at UMaine and 34:1 to 33:1 at USM by FY20 while allowing student numbers to continue to increase.
The investment model is shown in Appendix K. This shows that by FY20, for every dollar invested in engineering at UMaine an additional $1.65 will be available for investment elsewhere on campus. Likewise, at USM, an additional $1 will be available. It is essential that some of the added revenue be invested in departments that support engineering.
Return on investment in engineering exceeds 2:1
Page 16 of 51 APPENDIX A
Page 17 of 51
Engineers in Maine’s Economy
Prepared by Dana N. Humphrey, Ph.D., P.E.
Dean of Engineering
University of Maine
V1 (02/25/2015)---- NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION --- Introduction
Engineers play a vital, but sometimes overlooked, role in Maine’s economy. This critical role is quantified in the following sections. Furthermore, it is shown that Maine is under
producing the number of engineers needed for our state. Investing in engineering education is critical to overcoming this shortfall. The long-term return on investment for the State of Maine will be significant.
Engineering Employment Growth in Maine
The number of engineers7 employed in Maine has grown from 5,740 in 2004 to 6,600 in 2013, an increase of 860 (15.0% growth). This is an annual growth rate of about 95 engineering positions. Conversely, during the same
period employment for all occupations in Maine decreased by 2%. Nationwide, there was 10.5% growth in engineering employment from 2004 to 2013. Thus, engineering employment grew faster in Maine than the nation as a whole8.
Nationwide, the U.S. will need to add an estimated 250,000 engineering positions over the next decade9. This is a growth of 11%. Assuming that this trend applies in Maine, our state will need to add roughly 750 engineering positions by 2023.
In addition, replacements will be needed for engineers who retire or 7
Engineers includes: all engineering occupations, engineering managers, and construction managers; does not include architects, landscape architects, or engineering technicians.
8
Employment data from U.S. Department of Labor State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates
9
Lampinen, J., & McAward, T. (2014), Spotlight on Engineering: Promising Futures for New Engineers, Kelly Engineering Resources
(http://www.kellyservices.us/uploadedFiles/United_States_-_Kelly_Services/New_Smart_Content/Candidate_Resource_Center/Managing_Your_Career/Eng_Promising_Future s.pdf)
Engineering Employment in Maine Compared to Total Employment
Page 18 of 51
otherwise leave the engineering workforce. Nationwide, more than half of the engineering workforce is age 45 or older compared to 40% for overall labor force10. The age distribution is similar for Maine. Moreover, 27% of Maine’s workers in the “Professional, Technical and Scientific” category, which includes engineers, are age 55 or older11. Based on a straight line projection of past trends, the Maine Department of Labor estimates that 1,250 replacement engineers will be needed in our state by 202312. However, if all the engineers currently age 55 or older retire by 2023, over 1,750 engineers will be needed just to replace retirees. Additional engineers will be needed to replace those who leave the profession. Thus, Maine will likely need more than 2,500 new and replacement engineers from 2013 through 2023.
Contribution of Engineers to Maine’s Economy
In 2013, the median salary for engineers in Maine was $82,032. The total wages earned by engineers was $541-million13, a 44% increase since 2004. The estimated total state taxes paid by engineers was $29-million in 201314. If engineering employment in Maine grows as
discussed previously, the total wages earned by engineers is expected to be $801-million producing tax revenue of $43-million by year 2023 (accounting for past trends for wage inflation).
Direct Wages and Taxes for Maine Engineers
10
Ibid.
11
Based on data extracted from http://ledextract.ces.census.gov/ for the second quarter of 2014; the category “Professional, Technical and Scientific” includes engineers, scientists, and related technical professionals; data for engineers alone is not available.
12
In a personal communication John Dorrer, former director of the Maine Department of Labor’s Center for
Workforce Research and Information stated that: “occupational projections from the Department of Labor tend to be conservative and have often underestimated growth particularly in professional technical fields (projections are straight line updates of historical trends without much emphasis on structural and technological changes that impact demand)”
13
Wage data from U.S. Department of Labor State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates
14
Based on total state tax rate (income plus sales) of 5.36% for the income decile $74,758-$108,724 as given in “Maine Tax Incidence Study” by Michael J. Allen, Economic Research Division, Maine Revenue Service, Presented to Joint Standing Committee on Taxation, August 15, 2011.
2003 2013 2023
(projection)
# engineers employed 5,700 6,600 7,350
Average salary $62,343 $82,032 $109,000
Total wages earned $355-M $541-M $801-M
Page 19 of 51
The contribution of engineers to Maine’s economy goes far beyond their direct wages. A study by UMaine’s Prof. Todd Gabe estimated that sales revenue attributable directly to
engineers in 2011 was $2.25-billion. The multiplier effect that result from engineers in terms of purchases of supplies and employment of non-engineering workers adds another $1.45-billion. Thus, the total economic impact of engineers in Maine totals $3.70-billion. This is an economic impact of over $560,000 per engineer and totals 5.4% of Maine’s GDP. Given that engineers comprise just 1.1% of Maine’s workforce, this demonstrates the out-sized influence of engineers on Maine’s economy. If the number of engineers employed in Maine grows as discussed above, they would be expected to add over $400-million to Maine’s GDP by 2023. The state tax revenue generated by engineering activities in 2011 is estimated to be $160-million. By 2023, this is expected to grow to $180-million. This is based on state tax revenue being 5.8% of Maine’s GDP.15
Demand Versus Production of Engineers in Maine In 2014 there were 1,272 job
postings for engineers in Maine16. These positions range from entry level engineers to senior engineering managers. The number of job posting greatly exceeds the roughly 300 engineering bachelor’s degrees that are produced in Maine each year. When this imbalance in Maine is combined with the nationwide demand for engineers, it is no surprise that that the placement rate for UMaine engineering graduates
exceeds 99%. Even during the recent recession, the placement rate never dropped below 95%. An analysis of the graduates who earned an engineering bachelor’s degree in academic year 12-13 shows a dramatic of underproduction of engineers in Maine. In this academic year, a total of 317 bachelor’s degrees in engineering and engineering technology were granted in Maine by the accredited programs at the University of Maine, University of Southern Maine (USM), and Maine Maritime Academy (MMA). Of these 298 (94%) were granted by UMaine, 8 were granted by MMA, and 11 were granted by USM. Due to the overwhelming predominance of UMaine graduates, the fate of these graduates can give a good picture of the whole. Based on the most recent Life After UMaine Survey, 91% of engineering graduates reported that they were employed full-time and 8.9% reported that they were full-time graduate students, yielding a total placement rate of greater than 99%. This in and of itself is a strong indicator of the demand for engineers.
15
In 2009, taxes collected by the state were $2.91-B and the state’s GDP was $50.0-B; thus, total state taxes were 5.8%. References: “Maine Tax Incidence Study” and Avery, J.E., et al (2011), “Gross Domestic Product by State,” Survey of Current Business, July, pp. 142-169.
16
Source: Labor/Insight Jobs (Burning Glass Technologies)
Page 20 of 51
Further scrutiny is needed to quantify the number of graduates available for engineering jobs in Maine. This must consider the percent of graduates who take positions in Maine and the percent who take positions outside of the engineering profession. The latter is important because an engineering degree provides the foundation for careers in a wide range of non-engineering fields including information technology, business, public administration, education, law, and medicine. The most recent Life After UMaine Survey showed that 54.6% of engineering graduates who reported being employed full time took their first job in Maine.17 Of the students who were employed full-time, 82% reported that they were employed within their field of study while 15% reported that they were employed in related fields. Finally, 3% reported that they were employed full-time in a field unrelated to engineering. Applying these percentages to the number of engineering graduates yields an estimated 129 graduates who took positions in Maine as engineers18, 24 took positions in Maine in fields related to engineering19, and 5 took positions in Maine in fields unrelated to engineering20. In addition, an estimated 131 graduates accepted employment outside of Maine either as engineers or non-engineers, and 28 continued on to graduate school.
Employment Status Number
In Maine employed as engineers 129
In Maine employed in fields related to engineering 24 In Maine employed in fields unrelated to engineering 5
TOTAL IN MAINE 158
Employed outside of Maine 131
Graduate school 28
TOTAL GRADUATES IN ACADEMIC YEAR 12-13 317
There is a major gap between the 129 graduates from UMaine, USM, and MMA who entered the engineering profession in our state and the roughly 250 new and replacement engineers that are needed each year for the next decade. Some of this gap can be satisfied by attracting engineers educated outside of Maine to our state. However, given the nationwide demand for engineers, this cannot be the only strategy. It is essential that the state grow its capacity to educate engineers right here in Maine.
17
The survey further showed that 65% of graduates who were Maine residents took their first job in Maine, while 11% of non-Maine residents took their first job in Maine.
18
317 total graduates x 91% employed full-time x 54.6% employed in Maine x 82% employed in engineering
19
317 total graduates x 91% employed full-time x 54.6% employed in Maine x 15% employed in related fields
20
317 total graduates x 91% employed full-time x 54.6% employed in Maine x 3% employed infields not related to engineering
Page 21 of 51 APPENDIX B
NUMBER OF STUDENTS, NUMBER OF FACULTY, CREDIT HOUR PRODUCTION, NUMBER OF DEGREES AWARDED, AND RESEARCH FUNDING LEVEL BY
Page 22 of 51
Page 23 of 51
Page 24 of 51
Page 27 of 51 APPENDIX C
ADVANTAGES, DISADVANTAGES, AND IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES FOR POSSIBLE ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS
