New Engineering Education Transformation (NEET)

The New Engineering Education Transformation (NEET) is an undertaking of the School of Engineering of MIT. The aim is to rethink engineering education – what students learn and how students learn – in a fundamental way across the school.

The key paragraph of the Charter for NEET from the Dean of Engineering is:
The program will build on the established principles of MIT, and address a need for a focus on new machines and systems, (e.g. internet of things, bio-devices, infrastructure and the environment) via:
(*) A balanced approach to analysis and synthesis - the design and engineering of these new machines and systems, and innovation based on these systems.
(*) A foundation in modern engineering pedagogical approaches (e.g. digital learning, problem-based learning, engagement of students in managing their own learning, and the integration of leadership, service, and professional experiences including entrepreneurship).

The key idea in this charge is an orientation towards new machines and systems. We use the term “machines” generally to describe all of the things that engineers build, including infrastructural, informational, mechanical and biological constructs. What are the new machines? Simply put, these are the things that our graduating students will build in the middle of their careers, 20 to 30 years from now. We can postulate that these might include:
(*) The internet of things
(*) Autonomous vehicles and systems
(*) Increasingly more intelligent versions of existing devices
(*) Smart cities and urban infrastructure
(*) Sustainable energy systems
(*) Medical and biological devices
(*) Large data analysis systems

If we use this as a straw list, we can infer a trajectory towards the future that calls for our students to be able to work on machines that:
(*) Integrate mechanical, informational, biological and energetic components
(*) Themselves are complex
(*) Are highly networked and part of larger systems of systems
(*) Have higher levels of autonomy and independence of action
(*) Support a sustainable environment

Why are we currently not orienting our education towards these machines? Of course there is inertia in universities to continue the patterns of the past. The organization of schools of engineering, particularly in the US, is around the old machines (mechanical, electrical, chemical, etc.). This fossilization is strongly reinforced by the accreditation process, which prescribes what a certain type of engineer should study. The accreditation process reflects the established professional organizations (ASME, IEEE, etc.). To a certain extent the old machine categories are also enforced by the hiring practices of companies, which use the labels to refer to certain historical sets of skills and knowledge.

However the Mission of MIT is “to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.” [Emphasis added] If we are true to our mission, we must look forward in our educational design.

What would an education in new machines look like? It would clearly have a combination of disciplinary talents that cut across existing degree program. Because of the accelerating rate of technical and scientific development, it would probably have more emphasis on learning ways of thinking (design and build, critical, creative, discovery, computational, etc.) and less emphasis on knowledge acquisition. Today’s students can find knowledge on line, and teach themselves content. At the university, they need to learn how to think.

Another goal of NEET is to balance the preparation of makers and discoverers. Makers are those who will leave MIT and have a career as innovator – those who actually conceive, design, implement and operate systems and products that deliver value. Discoverers are those who will perform research and make inventions. Engineering science is certainly the foundation of both career streams, but we must teach in such as way that engineering science forms not only the context for further research, but also the foundation of practice.

Finally, while examining the education so deeply, we should consider building our education more around the way students learn. We should increase the use of the approaches proven to work, including more active engagement of students in the classroom, more project base learning, and creative uses of digital learning and professional experience.