Click here to return

There appears to be a growing perception among some members of SNAME, various industry groups and some industry leaders that the North American educational system for naval architects and marine engineers is eroding and that recent graduates seem to lack some of the fundamental design skills needed to support the marine industry.

In attempting to deal with this issue APSC has come up with many questions. In light of this predicament, we have decided to present some of the more important questions in order to stimulate a public discussion of this important issue with the hope that it will help lead to an improvement in the education of naval architects and marine engineers and the general betterment of our profession and the industry. The article closes with specific recommendations for SNAME action.

What capabilities does industry expect from new NA & ME graduates? Obviously the answer to this question can vary widely from one segment of the industry to another, but there should be a common denominator in terms of fundamental knowledge and skills for both naval architects and marine engineers.

What are the educational goals of various institutions offering NA & ME degrees with regard to the knowledge and skills taught to students? Are these goals stated clearly enough so new graduates can select and be selected from institutions best suited to a particular industry segment? Graduates from one institution may have strong practical design capability while from another they may have strong theoretical analysis capability.

How do North American NA & ME institutions compare to those in Europe and Japan where the marine industry has been more successful, resourceful and innovative in recent years than in North America? Does the education of NA & ME’s have an impact on the success of the marine industry? Why are the students in North American NA & ME graduate programs mainly not from North America? Does the North American marine industry not need or value advanced degrees in NA & ME?

The numbers and capabilities of students entering NA & ME institutions has apparently decreased in recent years. Are engineering disciplines incorporating the words "computer" or "robotic" or "simulation" more attractive or better known to students and their parents? Why are NA & ME institutions unable to attract the best and brightest students? Have institutions and the industry failed to inform the public of the computer, robotic and simulation technologies which have become an integral part of most sectors of the marine industry? Is our own perception of the marine industry so negative that we cannot portray its many positive attributes? Institutions offering NA & ME degrees have historically attracted a significant portion of their student bodies from those interested in small boats and yachts. Are the NA & ME institutions still actively recruiting from this population? Do they provide the type of education suitable for this vibrant and often technically sophisticated segment of the marine industry? What are the goals of students entering NA & ME programs and how do they compare to the goals of the institution? Do institutions effectively communicate to students and their parents the advantages of a broad based education such as in NA & ME and its applicability to many fields of engineering?

As the North American marine industry has been in a general decline since the mid-1980’s, there has been an explosive increase in computer assets and programs available to marine industry engineers and NA & ME students. In an effort to make students familiar with the latest compute tools and to maintain basic four-year programs, some traditional subjects have been diluted or dropped. Has computer drawing virtually eliminated all manual engineering sketching and drafting? Has too much or too little emphasis been placed on these new tools in undergraduate programs? Do these new tools really represent an advance in NA & ME fundamental technology? Have some of the fundamental knowledge and skills needed by a large percentage of the marine industry on a daily basis been sacrificed? Is a four-year program for an undergraduate degree in NA & ME sufficient or should a five-year program be considered so traditional and necessary knowledge and skills are not sacrificed? Should all NA & ME education programs include formal internships?

The marine engineering design component of NA & ME education seems to be declining rapidly into the selection of off the shelf components. When ships were propelled by steam ME students were expected to understand and be able to design boilers, turbines, propellers and everything in between even though much of this machinery was either off the shelf or available semi-custom from suppliers. Do current ME courses provide an understanding of the design of marine diesel engines, CP propellers, marine gas turbines, reduction gears and other equipment? Do we need marine engineers capable of designing this type of equipment or should it be left to equipment manufacturers? Should NA & ME schools be adding more courses in marine equipment design or should they be dropping ME all together?

SNAME and ASNE jointly sponsor the James Lisnyk ship design competition for senior level undergraduate students. For the past three years North American schools have failed to place in the two top places. Their best showing was a third place in the 1996/7 competition. Is this due to a lack of interest on the part of the students or the institutions? Is this competition a fair barometer for the effectiveness of our education of NA & ME’s? Why are North American entries largely considered non-competitive by the mostly North American judges? It appears that final design programs at winning schools are structured so that student design projects benefit from the active interaction between instructors and industry and that students have more time to refine their designs and presentations before the July 1 Lisnyk submittal deadline. Does this represent a level playing field? Should North American NA & ME institutions follow a similar approach? Should there be a more active industry advisory role in student design projects? Is the lack of quality of North American student projects a reflection on our NA & ME institutions and their staffs of professional instructors? Should instruction in subjects like ship design be provided by experienced professional ship designers?

What will be the impact of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) implementation of a new approach to the accreditation of engineering programs, including naval architecture and marine engineering? The new approach emphasizes "outcomes" - what a graduate can do, rather than "process" - what courses the graduate has taken. As part of the outcomes approach, ABET requires significant involvement of various "constituencies" which includes the industry where graduates find employment. In other words, industry and other constituencies must be involved in setting and evaluating program objectives. Ultimately, accreditation of a program will depend on the achievement of those objectives. Each program must have an assessment process with documented results. Evidence must be given that the results are applied to the further development and improvement of the program. Evidence that may be used includes, but is not limited to: student portfolios, including design projects; nationally normalized subject content examinations; alumni surveys that document professional accomplishments and career development activities; placement data of graduates and; employer surveys. How soon will this process have an impact on NA & ME graduates? How will the all important employer surveys be conducted and how will their results be interpreted? Should the SNAME training of ABET evaluators place more emphasis on the philosophical and practical needs of the marine industry?

SNAME and its membership can play a very important role in improving our NA & ME educational system by participating in an active and ongoing discussions of these issues. In particular SNAME, as the primary NA & ME professional society, should be actively involved in employer surveys required by ABET.