Economic Context inside Acopian
Founded in 1970, the Engineering Studies program at Lafayette College has extended past its 50th anniversary at this point. Certainly the name of the program has changed, but the original intentions have remained unaltered. As noted in this report previously and further on, there is a need for an update to keep those intentions and create meaningful outcomes for the students who complete the curriculum. This part of the report will assess the resources that are allocated to the Engineering Studies Major. We compare the major to others at Lafayette, from within and outside of Acopian to get a grasp on how the interdisciplinary majors operate on college hill. Engineering Studies has a notably different curriculum than the other majors, specifically engineering majors at Lafayette, and it also has a different allocation of resources for the major. Given the three core courses that the major presents, many of the other courses that EGRS students take, will be across engineering departments. While EGRS students often use the resources officially allotted for other departments and are shared within engineering courses at Lafayette, claiming an EGRS identity is imperative for an update to the program. More emphasis is required for our major, and this can come in a diverse set of forms; this will be explored later in the report in the next section. Additionally, we will assess the outcomes of racial diversity in the workplace and beyond, and how it leaves an effect on the success and direct profit of an organization and the entire economy. With a reassessment of the resources available for EGRS, we will give a clearer understanding of why we need more backing and support for the major. Without more support, the major will be left without completely fulfilling the original goals of being “socio-technical engineers,” and it will fail to keep up with the times. An assessment of the effects of not being inclusive within Acopian and not being inclusive in our world as a whole will be explained further. Without an addition of resources to the Engineering Studies program, it will be difficult to make the major accomplish its ambitions, and we believe that the major will fall behind the general trend of socio technical engineering programs.
The major must be revamped to be allocated more resources in order to guarantee its success. This can come in several different ways: visiting professor, another dedicated professor to the major, or another course, or courses added to the curriculum. Before we assess alternatives, we must note how the major has progressed up until now. Dr. Rossmann spoke on how when she began her time at Lafayette fifteen years ago, the major was not well resourced at all. Rossmann mentioned that “There was no dedicated faculty and it started with all cross listed programs to please multiple stakeholders” (J.Rossmann, personal communication, October 25, 2020). She also mentioned, “It was possible to get the major very quickly, many students switched (from another engineering major) at the end of their curriculum.” Later on, with much improvement in the structure of the major and establishment of an identity, a three core Engineering Studies course was created. This includes Engineering and Public Policy, Engineering Economics and Management, and Engineering and Society (Capstone Course) (An Integrative Education in Engineering, 2019, pg. 8). This was set up in 2007, and the curriculum has stayed almost unchanged since then. With a change in how engineering, technology and the rest of society today in regards to social and environmental justice movements, a reassessment to the major is pertinent for its relevance in Acopian and for each student’s educational experience during their four years. Engineering Studies being an interdisciplinary major, there are many positives to this aspect, but also many challenges.
The interdisciplinarity of the major is a sought after aspect for the Engineering Studies students. The ability to take a core of courses as well as in many other different disciplines is an attractive trait for the program. Students often use different pathways to complete their degree. In 2012, the Engineering Studies program was under a review as the program’s stakeholders looked for an update. A mission statement of what the major looked for was “To provide a rigorous liberal arts curriculum built on an engineering foundation that prepares graduates to effectively address society’s increasingly complex, multi-disciplinary challenges. Graduates gain expertise in examining the place of engineering and technology in society, with interdisciplinary skills to lead public technology debates around policy, management, economic, and environmental issues” (An Integrative Education in Engineering and the Liberal Arts, 2019, p.7). With an interdisciplinarity in the description of the mission statement multiple times, a striking emphasis of the characteristic is put in place. On the contrary, the issues of interdisciplinary majors were explored through a discussion with Andrea Armstrong, a professor of Lafayette.
While Engineering Studies is the interdisciplinary major that this report is revolving around, there are others at Lafayette. In conversation with Professor Andrea Armstrong, an Environmental Studies and Environmental Science Professor at Lafayette, there were some key points highlighted on the matter. She spoke on how there are several majors that fit a similar description: Environmental Studies and Sciences, Engineering Studies, Africana Studies, Women and Gender Studies, and more. She mentioned how “WGS (Women and Gender Studies) shows chronic issues at campus about not being able to fund the school but flaunt the school.” A large contributor to this is “the repetitive overuse of professors, but without the same energy” Armstrong stated (A. Armstrong, personal communication, October 25, 2020). While there are distinct positives of interdisciplinarity of these types of majors with allowing students to get a broad array of perspectives and knowledge for a variety of courses, the downsides are evident. The specific details of the implementation of an interdisciplinary cross listed course will be described later in the technical context of our report. The lack of resources given to majors like Engineering Studies creates a disparity between them and other majors, which can leave the opportunity for an addition to the curriculum to feel daunting.
The resources allocated to Engineering Studies are noticeably less than its neighboring majors. The major currently has two dedicated professors, and one shared, to its curriculum. When compared to the other engineering majors, Civil Engineering has ten, Mechanical Engineering has fifteen, Chemical Engineering has twelve, Computer Science has ten, and Electrical Computer Engineering has seven (Lafayette College, 2020). In comparison to the other majors in Acopian, the Engineering Studies program has required less dedicated faculty since there is only a three core course for the major. The other majors have many more requirements for their major specifically: Civil Engineering requires ten core courses just for its major as compared to Engineering Studies’ three (Lafayette College, 2020). Although there is much more demand in regards to course load when comparing Engineering Studies and the other Engineering majors within Acopian, a small addition to the engineering studies majors could round out the major very well. With an addition, this could be, an additional course, professor, cross listed course, or another method.
When it comes to adding an additional professor, we have come across many logistical factors that come into play. If a professor is dedicated just to the Engineering Studies department, that would be a remarkable increase in resources and a remarkable increase in payroll. With only two professors fully dedicated to the major, a third would allow for a complete restructuring and addition to the courses. Another course or cross listed courses are another prospective pathway to help curate a clear cut identity of Engineering Studies. This would not necessarily have an impact on funding for the major specifically if current engineering professors would be able to fit these courses into their own schedule, but it does have logistical implications in the amount of credits professors need to teach each semester. This will be explored more in the next section of the report.
Additionally, another comparable program, Environmental Science and Environmental Studies, is in a similar situation when in relation to adding resources to the already existing curriculum of the programs. Between both programs, there are twelve faculty members (Lafayette College, 2020). When speaking to Dr. Andrea Armstrong, the program is lacking professors to teach all of the courses. Over the last several years, courses have been taught by different professors across different departments. They have not consistently been able to offer the same courses (A.Armstrong, personal communication, October 25, 2020). This is also explained by Professor Rossmann as a difficulty for the EGRS Department to add courses. She mentioned how there are “Courses that all Lafayette students know exist, but the classes are too full” (J.Rossmann, personal communication, October 25, 2020). This results back to the point previously of how programs like Environmental Science and Studies and Engineering Studies lack funding that they desire to fulfill the original intentions of the major. There are only so many opportunities for cross listed courses and a limitation of credits for each professor. These stipulations will be explained in the next section of the report. As for adding a course overall that relates to social justice, environmental justice, or both, there would have to be some restructuring of sorts whether it would be a cross listed course, a new professor, or some other method.
The Hanson Center for Inclusive STEM, donated by Daniel and Heidi Hanson, aims to “Coordinate support for students and faculty in STEM with excluded identities, faculty development of inclusive pedagogies and curricula, and faculty research in inclusive education and STEM studies” (Lafayette College, 2020). With our goals of bringing environmental and racial justice into the engineering curriculum, the Hanson Center is the ideal place to present this report, and they may be able to provide the funding and push for an addition of courses within our suggestions, social and environmental justice, to the existing curriculum. The Hanson Center and its impact on the Engineering Studies major has a high bar for its potential effect. While an assessment of the resources and funding for Engineering Studies is necessary for increased success for the program, an analysis of the potential growth with the addition of courses like these is crucial.
The newly established Hanson Center for Inclusive STEM Education could help alleviate or fix the gap in resources provided by the Engineering Studies when it comes to thickening the layers of the cake for environmental justice and social/racial justice. The Hanson Center was initiated from a $5 million gift to fulfill its intentions (Lafayette Student News, 2019). With this being a capital fund to start a new wave of activism and courses within the Lafayette College community for inclusive STEM, it seems as this could jumpstart a long awaited change. With the donation from the Hanson couple being a private donation, it is distinct from other advancements on social and environmental justice in educational funding.
One organization that has pushed for change, at least monetarily, is the NSF, the National Science Foundation. Their mission statement is as follows: “To promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; and to secure the national defense; and for other purposes.” That quote being from 1950, they have consequently updated their vision: “NSF envisions a nation that capitalizes on new concepts in science and engineering and provides global leadership in advancing research and education” (NSF, 2014). The NSF gives out grants and funding for many different applications all in the realm of engineering and science. As mentioned in Engineering Justice, “There are NSF programs that fund research and educational development such as the Revolutionizing Engineering Departments; the University of San Diego received a $2 million grant to integrate social justice and humanitarian engineering across the multiple programs in its school of engineering” (2018, p. 247). While the NSF has an annual budget of $8.28 billion in 2020 (NSF, 2020), relatively miniscule amounts of investment have been opportunities to make crucial changes in our engineering education to become more ethically aware in regards to justice. Additionally, this being a government agency which is federally funded, there is a major difference between a donation from the NSF and a donation given by the Hansons. Nevertheless, they both mark advancements in the field of technology education.
From seeing the millions of dollars invested in the University of San Diego, the $5 million dollar donation appears to be the funding that could push Lafayette ahead of the curve in socio technological education and adding social justice and environmental justice to its repertoire. If the funds are allocated proficiently, Lafayette can become a leader in socio technical education.
Economic Context Outside Lafayette
Outside of Acopian and outside of Lafayette, there is a gap in success for companies that do not have racial equality factored into their business. With more diversity and inclusion within a company, more opportunities for success and larger profits will be available and up for grabs. As mentioned in an article by Saijel Kishan in Bloomberg, “Closing racial gaps would have generated an additional $16 trillion in economic output since 2000, her research showed” (2020). The article also mentions, “Peterson showed how disparities along racial fault lines in housing, education, policing, and voting all feed into one another to restrict the access of Black Americans and other minorities to employment, higher incomes, and the ability to build wealth.” The lack of change in racial justice allows for companies and the economy at large to not benefit as much as they could. With more perspectives and minds being involved in the economy, more solutions, and in result, more profit and success will result in the end.
With many important industries lacking diversity, there is a failure to fulfill the potential of a business. Without taking into consideration the perspective of everyone from a diverse set of backgrounds, profits will be lost. In Figure 3 below, from Citi Group’s analysis of racial inequality in economics, it shows the gap between white and Black people. The report states, “Racial and gender wage gaps remain wide in the U.S., signaling lost opportunity for income, consumption, investment, and real GDP growth” (Citi GPS, 2020, p.37). With this lost opportunity, not only are the citizens of these minority communities not reaching their potential, the entire economy is being held back. The article also mentions, “The wage gaps between minorities and white males, if closed 20 years ago might have generated $12 trillion in additional income, and indeed for Black workers an additional $2.7 trillion” (2020, p.38). Without companies and industries as a whole not including Black people into their businesses whether it is employment or based on salaries, it results in a lack of progression socially and a lack of success financially. This is something that needs to be introduced into our education as engineering and technology can be lacking in success without a diverse workforce and diversity of input into a new advancement.
STEM fields are cursed by a lack of diversity. As mentioned in the Lafayette Student News article, “despite making up about 50% of the labor market, only 28% of women are in STEM fields while men make up about 72% of the sector, according to the National Girls Collaborative Project” (2019). With this distinct difference in who is doing the engineering, and it certainly results in a lack of focus on women when in search of solutions. The same article also mentions, “although over a third of Black, Latino, and Native American students enter college with an interest in studying STEM, only 16% go on to obtain bachelor’s degrees in these fields.” These are all statistics that point to the need to fill a void in our system that restricts what seems to be all but the white male from being in the engineering and technology realm. Only time will tell to see if the investment in the Hanson Center will prove to be adequate in attaining a more inclusive curriculum in Lafayette College Engineering.
Next page: Curricular Context