The Common University Data Ontario (CUDO) website has lots of accessible information about Ontario universities, and it’s been quite a while since I looked at it. Since there’s nothing more fun for engineers than compiling and looking at data, I’ll post some now and then. Today, let’s start by looking at female, full-time enrollment in some Ontario engineering programs, and how it has trended over the past few years.
Continue reading
When high school students are looking at applying to engineering in Canada they might run across something stating that the institution’s program is “accredited”. In fact, online there is a whole list of Accredited Engineering Programs in Canada that you can consult if the institution website is not clear about this. All engineering programs at Waterloo are accredited. But what does this mean, and why does it matter?
“Accredited” simply means that the program has been reviewed on a regular basis by the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB, part of Engineers Canada) and that it meets or exceeds certain minimum educational standards. A future post will go into more depth on these standards, since they’re a bit complicated. Suffice to say for now that the standards include what is taught, how it’s taught, who does the teaching, how good the facilities are, and various other aspects.
Why does it matter? Well, in Canada if you want to practise “engineering”, fulfill certain roles that have regulatory requirements, and refer to yourself professionally and in public as an “engineer”, you need to hold a license from the provincial body that regulates engineering (PEO in Ontario, for example). I hold a license in Ontario to practise chemical engineering and can use the title “P.Eng.” (professional engineer) in official business. In Ontario, you can look up to see if someone holds a valid engineering license using the PEO Directory.
To get the engineering license, you need to demonstrate that you have the required educational background (among other things). If you graduated from an accredited undergraduate engineering program, it is automatically a given that you have the background and that hurdle is cleared. If you didn’t graduate from an accredited program (for example, an engineering program from a foreign country), you’ll have to go through a long documentation process and possibly write a variety of technical exams to prove your background competency. These exam cost money to write and are not easy, so graduating from an accredited program saves a lot of time, money and effort.
The accreditation and licensing landscape is somewhat similar in the U.S., where ABET (Accredidation Board for Engineering and Technology) examines programs and each state has their own specific professional engineering (P.E.) requirements. There are also various differences, and a license in one state or province is not necessarily transferable to another state or province, so it’s a bit complicated and I’m no expert on that. The bottom line however is that graduating from an accredited program makes life much easier if you intend to be a legally-recognized engineer somewhere.
“In this way you must understand how laughable it is to say, ‘Tell me what to do!’ What advice could I possibly give? No, a far better request is, ‘Train my mind to adapt to any circumstance’….In this way, if circumstances take you off script…you won’t be desperate for a new prompting.”
Epictetus, Discourses
I ran across this quote from the early 2nd century Stoic philosopher Epictetus the other day (“The Daily Stoic” by Ryan Holiday). It reminded me that in engineering education we can’t possibly teach all the information and facts that one might need after graduation. In chemical engineering, for example, there are thousands of different chemicals, types of equipment, different processes for making so many different products. There are different methods for various pharmaceuticals, papers, metals, solvents, plastics, toothpaste, and the list goes on without end. There is a 27 volume Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology that covers many topics in chemical engineering, but even that has its limitations, even if some superhuman could actually learn everything in it. Forty-five years after starting a chemical engineering program in university and I’m still learning new things every week.
So no, we can’t teach everything an engineer might eventually need to know. We probably can’t even teach a small fraction of what people will eventually know or need to use. So we have to focus on training the engineer’s mind. How to approach problems, how to break them down into logical and manageable pieces. How to understand the science behind new situations. How to recognize the limitations of their skills and knowledge, and how they can address those knowledge gaps (it’s important to know what you don’t know!).
So when students of all sorts ask “why do we have to learn this, when are we ever going to use it?”, the answer may well be “possibly never”. But it’s part of the training of the mind, which definitely will get used eventually.
Everyone is familiar with the idea of a “budget”. It’s the amount you can afford to spend or allocate on certain things. Once it’s all spent, that’s about it unless you overspend and are prepared to face the consequences like debt or bankruptcy.
The Paris Climate Accord seeks to limit global average temperature rise to 2°C, or even better 1.5°C (it’s already risen about 1°C). One way of looking at it is to estimate (from the physics of climate) how much more carbon dioxide we can afford to emit into the atmosphere. That’s our “carbon budget”, and if we overspend this budget the laws of physics will make it impossible to keep the temperature rise below our desired target.
One research institute in Germany has created a nice carbon budget clock. It shows, based on the remaining budget and the rate of “spending” (i.e. emissions), how much time we have left until the temperature target becomes an impossibility. Here is a recent screen-shot of the countdown clock (click on the link for a live version).
Unfortunately, there is less than 9 years until we blow the 1.5°C budget. This doesn’t mean the global average temperature rise will suddenly jump to 1.5°C, but it means that it will eventually rise that high and there is essentially nothing that will stop it. Like with gravity, the laws of climate physics can’t be broken. However, if we can slow down the spending (emissions), we can stretch our budget out over a longer time. So far that hasn’t been happening, as seen below in the emissions graph from the past 20 years.
Engineers and others have the knowledge and ideas to reduce the carbon emissions rate. We just need the collective societal will and government leadership to do so. Hopefully well before the carbon budget is already spent, because it will take time. Here is a rough estimate of where the temperature is heading over the next couple of decades based on current rates.
It looks like we will reach 1.5°C around 2040, and 2°C around 2060, unless emission rates drop significantly and soon. That won’t stop the rise, only delay it somewhat. Achieving net-zero emissions is the only way to stop the rise. Unfortunately with the current leaders (and prospective leaders) in Canada and around the world the hope for emissions reductions seems dim. So, prepare for the continuing consequences.
Since the 1990’s I’ve been teaching an elective course on Air Pollution Control. We mainly focus on design of industrial systems, but I do include a small module on climate change science for background as to why certain things need emission control. Over the past decades, some of the reports and discussions in the media and politics have been confused or nonsensical, so I try to keep it straightforward and factual. I like to give the science a historical overview and context, to show where this all comes from. The following is a very brief version of that overview.
The French scientist Joseph Fourier (famous for his work in heat transfer and mathematics) is credited for identifying the so-called “greenhouse effect” in the 1820s. He didn’t know exactly what caused it, but recognized that the Earth’s surface is warmer than it theoretically should be, if there was no atmosphere trapping heat.
Some of the mechanisms behind the heat-trapping effects of the atmosphere were eventually identified, notably by the Irish physicist John Tyndall in the 1850s through his work on absorption spectroscopy. He experimentally measured the heat absorbing effects of water vapour, carbon dioxide and other atmospheric gases. These measurements and those by others provided the fundamental basis for the advances in radiative heat transfer used throughout science and industry to this day.
In retrospect, a big step forward in understanding and quantifying the physics of climate change came with work published in 1896 by the Swedish physicist/chemist Svante Arrhenius. The first page of this work is pictured below, and in this work he calculated how much the global temperature would rise if carbon dioxide concentrations rose.
First page of Arrhenius’ paper on the climate effects of changing carbon dioxide concentrations. “Carbonic acid” is an older or alternate name for carbon dioxide in the presence of water.
Arrhenius is well-known by anyone who has taken chemistry (Arrhenius equation in reaction kinetics), and he received a Nobel Prize for Chemistry. His work on climate change physics didn’t seem to receive much widespread attention at the time, since there was no particular concern that carbon dioxide concentrations were rising. However it’s regarded as the first significant attempt to analyze the physics of rising carbon dioxide concentrations and over the subsequent century many scientists have modified and improved upon his initial work. Arrhenius had to go through some rather complicated and laborious hand calculations, but in recent decades computers have made that work much easier and more precise.
So from this brief historical overview in my class (including some other work not mentioned here), we can see that climate change science has a solid basis in physics, dating back over 100 years. Denying the basic physics of climate change is like denying the Bernoulli principle while watching airplanes fly overhead, or stepping off a cliff and denying that gravity exists.
Next I usually show some data for carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, usually from the Mauna Loa observatory operated by NOAA in the U.S. An example is shown below that also includes my additions to illustrate the years when international agreements have been signed to combat climate change at Rio, Kyoto, and Paris. Unfortunately, the upward trend doesn’t seem to have been affected much, which is a bit depressing when considering our next generations.
Carbon dioxide measurement data since 1958.
In my class we then touch briefly on some of the current and future effects of climate change, such as sea level rise, extreme precipitation events and flooding, drought, and heat waves. I ask students to try out one of the simpler carbon footprint calculators so they can see how their lifestyle contributes to carbon dioxide emissions. They frequently comment on how surprising it is that air travel and meat consumption are significant factors in their total impact. These estimates can help people understand the context and future challenges.
Finally, I conclude that as soon-to-graduate new engineers they will be dealing with climate change directly or indirectly throughout their careers. Maybe helping with carbon emissions reductions, energy efficiency, electrification, alternative energy, process and materials redesigns. Or if nothing much is accomplished in carbon dioxide emission reduction, dealing with the effects such as infrastructure repair and replacement, and water supply issues. As a bit of personal advice, I usually recommend that they avoid purchasing property in coastal or low-lying areas, or anywhere within a 500 to 1,000 year flood plain.
Waterloo has a Geological Engineering program that seems to get overlooked by many prospective applicants for some reason. Maybe because it’s small, only about 25 to 30 available spaces. Or maybe people just don’t realize what it’s about. So I talked with the current director of the program, Prof. Stephen Evans, and he gave me some insights and nice photographs of geological engineering examples. I’ll summarize a few key ideas about the Geological Engineering program:
Below are some pictures Prof. Evans has taken of geological engineering examples. Several of these are from field trip locations our students have travelled to in past years.
The University of Waterloo recently approved the launch of a new program in Architectural Engineering for September 2018 (subject to approval by the Ontario Quality Council). We will be looking to take in about 85 students in the fall, and we’re rapidly gearing up space and teaching resources. The official announcement is here, and applications are now open! Here are a few key points about the program and admissions for this coming Fall. Continue reading
Prof. Larry Smith is well-known around Waterloo for three things: his engaging classes in Economics, his support for student entrepreneurs and start-ups, and his career advice for people. A while ago I came across his book in an airport in Bermuda and decided to give it a read. I found the book, “No Fears, No Excuses: What You Need to do to Have a Great Career“, to be quite good. It’s full of interesting anecdotes, insights and very practical advice based on his interactions with over 30,000 people. His experience resonates with my more limited experiences with students and careers. The book is easy to read, engaging, and I highly recommend it for anyone contemplating entering higher education or perhaps a career change. Or at least have a look at his TEDxUW talk video that hits some of the highlights. I’ll try to summarize a few of his key ideas here, especially the ones that relate to admissions. Continue reading
One of our messages this year is to encourage engineering applicants to do their “homework” before applying, because we have no general first year. This means carefully reflecting on your strengths and weaknesses, interests, aptitudes, career goals, etc. Then carefully examining our different programs, courses, typical career paths, co-op job examples, etc., and selecting the program which seems to be the right fit. Quite possibly, engineering is not the right fit and you should consider something else. In general, people who put some effort into this process will end up in the right program and do well. Why is this so important? Continue reading
One of the best features of Waterloo Engineering is that it is direct-entry. Right from the first day you are in your chosen discipline, all the courses can be tailored to your interests, and all your classmates will be with you in the same classes for the next few years. All of this makes for a nice social and educational environment.
One of the worst features of Waterloo Engineering is that it is direct-entry. If you selected a program which doesn’t really match your interests or aptitude, you are somewhat stuck. In theory you can switch to another engineering program, but in practice this is complicated and may require the loss of one year to re-start and catch up on certain key courses. If the program you want is over-subscribed and highly competitive, transfers into it may never happen (which is often the case for Software Engineering lately). Students in this situation will likely suffer a form of “buyer’s remorse”, that feeling of regret when you buy something expensive without really deeply considering all the aspects.
That’s why this time of the admission cycle is quite critical for prospective applicants, and they should be doing lots of investigation to inform themselves about different choices and options. From our side, we know that applicants are in potential trouble if we get one of the following types of responses when we ask them why they are interested in a certain engineering program:
None of those answers are “bad”, but if that’s the total extent of the reasons then there is an obvious lack of insight into the program, career opportunities, typical jobs and what they involve. The only way to get those insights is to spend a few hours to do some research and look at some websites and videos. Type something like “what do chemical engineers do” into Google and you’ll get loads of information to look at.
Meeting faculty & engineering students at events is another good opportunity to find out more, but you should do some research in advance so you can ask good questions and get better answers. The Ontario Universities Fair is runs from September 22-24 2017 and is one good opportunity, for those within travelling distance to Toronto. Waterloo has their Fall open house on November 4 2017. If you live far away from Waterloo, look for similar events at your local university or college. Engineering programs have a lot of similar features across North America or even around the world, so visiting any of them is a good starting point in exploring down your choices.
Some of our most impressive applicants are the ones who clearly know what the program is about, and have some initial ideas about careers and things they would like to try in co-op employment. Occasionally they have even looked at the upper year courses in the program and are looking forward to taking certain ones. That requires some effort and thought, but in the end they are much more likely to excel than someone who doesn’t put much thought into picking a program.
A Professor in Waterloo Engineering 