|
|
What is the Future Direction for Undergraduate Education in Materials Departments? Alan W. Cramb In “The Coming of Materials Science”, R. W. Cahn of the University of Cambridge, restated his belief that microstructure is the single defining theme of Materials Science and Engineering and that it distinguishes MSE from other disciplines(1): “I still hold that this feature is central to our subject – applied to the inanimate and artificial to us and to animate nature by biologists-and that the concept of microstructure is the single defining theme of MSE” The “Materials Paradigm” that is clearly stated in all introductory texts, suggests that there are 4 cornerstones of our discipline that are intimately related: (1) Synthesis/Processing; (2) Structure/ Composition; (3) Properties and (4) Performance. A pyramid is often drawn with these four descriptors and recently, in the center of the pyramid, the term “theory” is sometimes placed to highlight another level of linkage. In 1999, Merton Flemings noted that(2): “Our survival as a discipline and as independent academic departments within the university system depends on how well we succeed in articulating this paradigm and employing it to contribute to society” His cautionary statement is perhaps more true today that it was in 1999. Faculty that were trained in Materials Science Departments now populate many engineering departments (other than Materials) and Materials Research has become a unifying interdisciplinary theme in many engineering colleges. However, enrollment in and the visibility of MSE is low in comparison to other engineering departments. It appears that although we understand the paradigm that distinguishes MSE from other disciplines, we have indeed failed to make others appreciate the importance of our discipline as an independent entity. At the same time that Materials Research has become a major issue in engineering in general, faculty in Materials Departments have broadened their interests. The current trend to add biomaterials and nanomaterials into an MSE domain that was already well populated with descriptors such as functional, structural, computational and environmental, has lead to some significant issues related to the curriculum design, at both the undergraduate and graduate level. At the same time, pressure from ABET to ensure a professional and design component to an engineering education has radically changed the nature of educational objectives in many Materials departments. Thus Materials education, at the undergraduate level, has already undergone significant change over the last five years with the advent of Abet 2000. The Materials curriculum is also changing as departments react to external influences. The recent growth of biomaterials, for example, has lead to many departments adding biology as a science requirement and courses focused on the various types of biomaterials, for example. In addition, the obvious allure of nanotechnology and its recent publicity has lead to courses related to nanomaterials and nanotechnology as part of undergraduate curricula. Thus the curriculum offerings can become quite broad with significant additional prerequisites. Our challenge will be to allow the domain that describes Materials Engineering to broaden to include new areas of interest without a loss of identity. Our paradigm, although well stated, does not appear to resonate with the undergraduate, as it is perhaps too general. Our educational future will be dependent on our ability to attract the brightest and the best students, in an increasingly competitive environment where Materials courses and research are conducted in other departments in engineering and science. Thus our discipline must be current with a focus on new materials and future technologies in order to be competitive. Our challenge will be to continue to articulate a clear message that differentiates MSE from chemistry and the other engineering disciplines, If we are unsuccessful, Prof. Flemings’ caution, may become reality. If we are successful, we could see significant growth in our discipline. 1. R.W. Cahn, “The Coming of Materials Science”, Pergamon, 2001
Please send comments to the the MRS Academic Affairs Committee |
|
|
|
