The Role of Specialization in the Chemical Engineering Curriculum

1749–7728/06/$30.00+0.00 # 2006 Institution of Chemical Engineers Trans IChemE, Part D, 2006 Education for Chemical Engineers, 1: 3 – 15

www.icheme.org/ece doi: 10.1205/ece05008

THE ROLE OF SPECIALIZATION IN THE CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM E. P. BYRNE
Department of Process and Chemical Engineering, University College, Cork, Ireland

T

he core chemical engineering degree has changed little over the past several decades globally either in terms of the core modules taught or in terms of the content of these modules. There have been significant developments however, with respect to the curriculum with the emergence of ‘non-core’ modules which together form part of some additional ‘specialization’, ‘option’ or even a combined degree. This paper surveys the chemical engineering curriculum landscape as it currently is constituted in a number of countries globally and finds that while there is incorporation of additional options on an almost universal basis, that the means by which such options are incorporated into the overall structure of the degree differs, usually on a country or region specific basis. There also appears to be no common global consensus at present on what, if any, is the ‘optimum’ structure or set of specialization options or what, if any, role these specialization have in determining the future shape of the degree and/or profession. It seems more likely that such specializations have evolved in a more or less ad hoc way in terms of structure where institutions in a given country tend to follow others that have led the way. Moreover specializations are generally specific to the country or region and the nature of the process industries locally. The second part of the paper looks at how specialisation has impacted on the Process and Chemical Engineering degree at the author’s institution both from a student and an industry/employers perspective. Keywords: specialization; options; curriculum; structure; pharmaceutical; Bologna.

INTRODUCTION

much so in fact that Douglas Ruthven could make the observation in 1996 after a well travelled academic career that ‘the programs in all of these countries [i.e., UK, Canada, USA, Australia and Singapore] are remarkably similar, the differences between countries being no greater than between different institutions in the same country, and the broad structure of the programs remains very much the same as it was in my own undergraduate days.’ However, in recent years, the composition and nature of the process industries that chemical engineers typically serve has evolved and with it the range of opportunities available to graduates. Companies who operate in some of the newer process industries may not be quite so interested in graduates with a sound grounding in the production of large scale commodity chemicals (as the traditional chemical engineering education typically provided), but may prefer graduates with some specialist education in their particular area. There is also an increasing demand among employers for graduates who possess not only technical competencies, but also a range of the so called ‘soft’ skills or ‘higher order’ skills; skills such as communication, presentation, teamworking, leadership, and so on, as well as perhaps some knowledge of business management, the humanities and law. At the other end of the chemical engineering education pipeline, it has also become increasingly

The development of chemical engineering towards the end of the 19th century and through to the beginning of the 20th was driven by the realization that the process industries, theretofore independently ‘characterised by flow charts and chemical processes’ (Freshwater, 1997) actually shared a lot in common with each other; namely a common set of ‘unit operations’. From the 1950s educators emphasized that these could in turn be underpinned by a common set of basic scientific transport phenomena; namely heat, mass and momentum transfer. Core modules in each of the above together with modules on the twin constraints that are safety and the environment, along with some 1960s inspired automatic process control and some process economics, along with capstone courses that involve the completion of design and research projects make up what has been the core chemical engineering curriculum for most of the past 40 years. This standard formula for the chemical engineering degree has proven to have a fairly global appeal. So
Correspondence to: Dr E. P. Byrne, Department of Process and Chemical Engineering, University College, Cork, Ireland. E-mail: [email protected]

3

4

BYRNE

difficult in many ‘mature’ countries (though not in some countries experiencing high levels of economic growth or in countries affected by the spin-off from such growth, e.g., China, Australia) to attract well motivated school leavers and/or those with high academic ability to study chemical engineering among the myriad of opportunities and career paths that now exist. Academic providers have, by and large, responded to these changes by complementing the core chemical engineering degree with a range of additional extras. However, there does not seem to be any co-ordinated action or global vision or goal for chemical engineering among education providers in doing this; some provide specializations in for example, the basic sciences, some provide environmental streams, some have industry specific options, and some add on elements (or indeed whole degrees) of other disciplines including business, law, medicine and the arts. It is the aim of this paper to pose the question, in the context of the ongoing development and evolution of the undergraduate chemical engineering degree (as academics grapple with redefining the core curriculum suitable for the 21st century—an altogether different and larger question), as to the benefits of adding a specialization option/ stream/minor/degree to the degree, and indeed whether specialization can be a valuable addition to or an unnecessary detraction from the core competencies and skills base of the degree. In addressing this question the paper sets out to: . review current literature and commentary on the topic; . examine the prevalence of specialization options in undergraduate chemical engineering degrees among a number of selected countries worldwide; . cite the BE in Process and Chemical Engineering at University College Cork as an example and examine how specialization (in the form of an undergraduate pharmaceutical engineering option) is viewed by: † undergraduate students; † industry personnel familiar with the students.

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING—AN EVOLVING PROFESSION: WHERE IS IT GOING? WHERE SHOULD IT BE GOING? The chemical engineering profession is certainly changing. If the education of chemical engineers is viewed as the process itself, then engineering educators could be viewed as process engineers: responsible for designing the process and improving efficiency while keeping an eye on the supply chain both pre- and post-process including inventory levels, stock and the marketplace. The school system is the supplier of school leavers to this process and the customers by and large, are the process industries and service providers to the process industries (engineering design/consultancy firms) who take the finished product (the graduates). To a lesser extent the marketplace also encompasses other (non-engineering) industries and sectors that also employ graduates as well as graduate schools. Educators must remain focused on the needs of the marketplace if the ‘chemical engineering’ brand is to remain both relevant and competitive, by producing a product relevant to the market place. Certainly the potential marketplace

for chemical engineers has recently been a rapidly changing space. For example, at the 7th World Congress of Chemical Engineering (2005) Denis Noble, professor of cardiovascular physiology at Oxford University advanced a cogent argument for chemical engineers to play a major role in putting their skills and body of knowledge to work in collaborative projects with scientists and medics in the development of step-change medical advances. At the same time the traditional marketplace for chemical engineering graduates is diminishing. In the relatively short period between 1995 and 2003 the percentage of new graduate chemical engineers taking up employment in two of the most traditional industries: the ‘chemical’ and the ‘pulp and paper’ industries in the USA fell from 31% to 28% and from 7% to 4%, respectively, while the proportion of those taking employment in ‘biotechnology and related industries’ quadrupled from just 3% to 13% (AIChE figures, Halford, 2004a). These data suggest two things are happening in the marketplace for chemical engineering graduates: there is a move away from traditional employment sources; and there are opportunities for chemical engineering employment in the rapidly expanding sphere of biotechnology, biopharmaceuticals and indeed biomedical engineering. Indeed up to one in three new drugs in the development pipeline are currently biopharmaceuticals as opposed to those produced by traditional chemical synthesis. Ten years ago, the percentage of biopharmaceuticals that made up drugs sales were languishing in the low single digits. Clearly an engineer working in a biopharmaceutical production environment would do well to be at least well briefed in the rudiments of protein structure and synthesis and molecular chemistry Alongside the advances in biotechnology and biopharmaceuticals, growth areas of interest for chemical engineers include molecular engineering, microelectronics, nanotechnology, materials chemistry, energy provision, process intensification and continuous processing. A snapshot of the role envisaged for chemical engineers and their colleagues in chemistry in developing products, processes and technologies across many of the aforementioned areas (environmental, materials, medicine and health, energy, information and communications technologies, security) is provided by the US National Research Council report ‘Beyond the molecular frontier: challenges for chemistry & chemical engineering’ (2003). Meanwhile, the structure and focus of industry has also evolved from a merely manufacturing outlook to one incorporating client solution orientated production and processing incorporating amongst other things supply chain management. So what implications does this have for the education of chemical engineers? A number of apparently conflicting suggestions are at large. In the wake of the growing importance of biotechnology and biologically related engineering in general an obvious suggestion is to get back to scientific basics and enhance courses with more biology based modules. At the 6th World Congress of Chemical Engineering in 2001, Lord May (Robert McCredie, 2003) suggested a move in this direction: ‘Today, I believe that a chemical engineering curriculum must include a basic grounding in what one could have been simply called “biochemistry”, but which today must be interpreted to extend from molecular biology to genomics all the way through to

Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 3– 15

ROLE OF SPECIALIZATION IN CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM physical, organic and inorganic chemistry.’ He elucidates: ‘The solution, insofar as one exists, is I believe to aim for broad and rigorous coverage of basic ideas and principles, complemented by a few, carefully selected, applications in depth.’ Agnew et al. (2003) suggest that we need to continually re-examine and refine the ‘core’ of chemical engineering education while seeing how the new sciences (particularly biology) can be meaningfully incorporated. The desire for change is global and has manifested itself in formation of projects such as ‘Frontiers in Chemical Engineering Education’ (2006), an MIT based body spearheaded by Robert Armstrong, chair of Chemical Engineering. The goal of this project is to provide the classical Chemical Engineering curriculum with its first major revamp in the USA in over 40 years through the time period 2005– 2015. It aims to do this by building consensus among stakeholders for a common path forward and it is likely that the group will recommend ‘molecular engineering on products & processes’ (Armstrong, 2005a) to take up a new position on the core curriculum. It is envisaged this will include increased emphasis on topics such as molecular engineering, biology, product design and systems analysis (Armstrong, 2005b). This project is likely to have both the influence and breadth to presently instigate significant change on the chemical engineering curriculum in the USA and indeed further afield. The necessity to recognise the changed landscape is echoed in Europe: Howard Chase, head of Chemical Engineering at the University of Cambridge admits that ‘departments need to keep up with trends in the industry, and recognise that most graduates will still be doing the work of a chemical engineer, but not in the traditional [chemical] industry setting’ (O’Neill, 2004). Richard Wakeman of Loughborough University concurs and stresses ‘the importance of flexibility in chemical engineering courses, giving the students choices of a range of subjects that embraces both traditional classes and topics related to new industry.’ (O’Neill, 2004). A difficulty arises as to how best incorporate new material on the curriculum while maintaining the integrity of the core. The journal Chemical Engineering Progress (CEP) published a special section entitled ‘An evolution in chemical engineering—the journey ahead’ in 2002 and invited a group which included academics from, Germany, Great Britain and the USA (Cussler et al., 2002) to put their heads together on this issue. The group agreed that ‘the skills required by chemical engineering, and their mindset, need to change’. They demonstrated how chemical engineers require additional skills sets in the world they inhabit as it shifts to the production of new, specialty products from the production of commodities. Mindful of this scenario the group proposed a revamped chemical engineering curriculum containing with some radical proposals, including: . courses on materials science, including polymers and biopolymers; . courses on biochemistry and cellular biology; . a business course on product development. Acknowledging that the introduction of this extra material would necessitate trimming elsewhere in the core curriculum if undergraduates are not to be overloaded, they prescribe a number of potentially controversial changes: a reduction in the teaching of thermodynamics, reducing or

5

eliminating the study of quantum mechanics, dropping the mandatory aspect of a capstone process design course, and reducing or removing courses on process control and optimization. Of course they acknowledge that this recipe would not (or indeed should not) be favoured among all course providers. To accommodate all tastes they suggest that ‘perhaps there should be new, separate paths within chemical engineering, a “speciality” and a “sustainability” option running parallel to a “commodity” option’. Undoubtedly there is a lot of concern over the amount of fundamental science that chemical engineers are being exposed to and need to be exposed to. Tirrell (2004) claims that ‘there is concern that students are not going to be fully functional unless they are given a good view of and exposure to an increasing science base’. He adds that ‘the current state of concern in chemical engineering over the role of bioengineering’ really masks a bigger question, that is the question of what is the purpose of the chemical engineer, or indeed an engineer in general? He then goes on to answer his own question, by suggesting in the words of William Wulf, president of the National Academy of Engineering, that the purpose of the chemical engineer is to ‘design under constraints’. If this is the case, Tirrell argues, ‘lack of knowledge of basic science is sometimes, but not usually, the most important constraint on an engineer in the workforce. More often, the otherseconomic, political, and social-dominate.’ He provides the example of the introduction of expensive biomedical equipment into healthcare—its introduction is hindered, not by any lack of the engineers’ scientific knowledge, but by other constraints such as regulatory constraints or insurers costs constraints. He argues that it is most important that the chemical engineer can understand it is these constraints rather than any technical ones that are prime in this instance. Moreover Tyrell cautions against too much splitting and suggests that ‘the trend of starting biomedical engineering departments does not imply a pervasive influence of biology across the engineering curriculum, but in some sectors it is a tendency to specialize narrowly at too early a stage’. Some argue that any change at all is neither necessary nor desirable as the core course already offers a suitable vehicle for the skills set required. In a letter to CEP John-Paul San Giovanni of Northeastern University (2002) puts it thus: ‘Courses such as transport phenomena and process control, are instructive in teaching students how to address seemingly complex situations and apply good engineering judgment to obtain results of engineering usefulness. In a sense they promote clear and critical engineering thinking. A key engineering skill-being able to “see the forest from the trees” . . . rather than less transport phenomena, process control, optimization, etc., we need more—but, with the emphasis on fundamental underlying concepts/methods and with examples selected from a broader base of technical and scientific fields’. Certainly the continued provision of an ‘old style traditional’ chemical engineering education recognises that there is undoubtedly a substantial demand for such engineers, despite the rush from educational institutions ‘to gallop into these new areas’ (Agnew et al., 2003). This is particularly so in countries where the commodities chemical industry remains strong.

Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 3– 15

6

BYRNE

However, even among employers who are happy with the technical competencies of our graduates they may expect graduates who have a strong soft skills set as well as some business acumen. Douglas Ruthven wrote in 1996: ‘Over the years I have enjoyed talking with many former students who have had experience in industry as graduate engineers. When asked how the curriculum should be modified to better serve the demands of an industrial career the response was never a request for additional emphasis on modelling and mathematical analysis! The most frequent suggestions were for additional coverage of economics and statistical methods and for introductory courses in accountancy and management. The responses from recruiters have been generally similar but with the additional stipulation the cooperative work experience should be a firm requirement for graduation.’ Ruthven extrapolates from the above observations and concludes that ‘the single program approach may no longer be appropriate. Perhaps we need to offer an alternative program with less emphasis on analysis and modelling and greater emphasis on semi-technical subjects such as economics and business, with possibly a more practical and less fundamentally based design project’. William Schowalter (2003), dean emeritus of the college of engineering at University of Illinois goes one further and claims that chemical engineering (and indeed engineering in general) to be the ‘liberating art of the 21st century’. He elucidates by pointing out that ‘as technology forms an ever deepening influence on the lives of everyone, it should be expected that an education in engineering must provide a foundation for future specialization in business, law or (as we are beginning to see) even the arts’. Some would argue that the broader chemical engineering education incorporating the humanities as adopted in the USA is the preferred model, and one which ought not be sidelined by increasing callings on the curriculum; ‘The net effect [of an increasing science base] is that major elements of a liberal education are being squeezed out— the same elements that are often tied to the higher-order skills that industrial colleagues say are needed . . . this is also true of the study of business, management, and economics, which might be a bit more palatable or acceptable as a logical extension or diversification of engineering education’ (Tirrell, 2004). The above review does not suggest much coherence within the profession as to where it sees its future. Instead a number of sometimes conflicting pathways are evident. A model to describe the chemical engineering curriculum is proposed in Figure 1. It consists of a chemical engineering ‘core’ supplemented by secondary options. While the core is generally universally agreed in terms of content it is not necessarily fixed (see the ‘Frontiers’ discussion above with respect to potential change). In addition to the core, the universal chemical engineering degree programme may include one or more (or none) of the supplementary options (e.g., biomolecular sciences can be combined with industry specific topics). The relative weight or importance of the supplementary options is not defined; it can range anywhere from including a relatively small amount via a single optional elective module or modules to a full blown double-degree, though it does suggest a degree of learning in that topic at a higher order than would be the case in a ‘standard’ chemical engineering degree. In this

Figure 1. Model of the universal chemical engineering degree.

context, it should be noted that while subjects such as chemistry, automatic control, environmental engineering and computers are fundamental to any ‘standard’ chemical engineering degree (and hence may be considered ‘core’ material), their presentation here as supplementary options imply that the degree of learning associated with them is to an advanced or deeper level than the norm encountered in a standard degree. This is in turn typically reflected in some way in the title of the degree. RECRUITMENT PATTERNS There has been a general fall off in interest in the chemical engineering degree over the past couple of decades. Graduate numbers peaked in 1985 in the USA at over 9000 per annum. Graduate numbers have fallen since to 6830 in 1997 and to just 5342 in 2003 while the American Society of Engineering Education reported that full time enrollment in chemical engineering fell from 28 006 in 1999 to 22 045 in 2002 (Halford, 2004a). This experience is replicated in other countries and is symptomatic of a general fall off in science and engineering in general, which in turn is a result of fewer students studying science at secondary level. For example, 43% of degrees in the UK in 1975 were awarded in science and engineering though this had fallen to 25% of all degrees by 1996 (McCreadie, 2003). On closer inspection of graduate figures, it appears that there may be another factor that has emerged in recent times that has accelerated the fall in interest in chemical engineering; namely other bioengineering disciplines. Ronald Rousseau, chair of the school of chemical and biomolecular engineering at Georgia Institute of Technology believes a ‘fundamental change’ is taking place ‘in science and technology that are attracting our students elsewhere’ (Halford, 2004a). There is a clear evidence of a drift from chemical to biomedical engineering in the USA as biomedical engineering enrollment increased from 5419 in 1999 to 8847 in 2002, from a very low base of 745 graduates in 1994. Interestingly biomedical engineering is a particularly popular option among females. This changing landscape seems to have resulted in a ‘threat

Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 3– 15

ROLE OF SPECIALIZATION IN CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM versus opportunity’ dynamic emerging which has precipitated in many instances departments moving (either in a real or perceived way) towards the biosciences (e.g., Department of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering, University of Melbourne; School of Chemical & Bioprocess Engineering, University College Dublin; Chemical & Biological Process Engineering, University of Wales, Swansea). This is reflected in the recent and largely global phenomenon of departmental titles changing from being called straight ‘chemical engineering’ to a softer (and invariably longer) tag which incorporates a ‘bio’ element in some form or other. It has been pointed out however that this change (of department title) is often not matched by any change in content of the material being taught on the programme(s) being offered (Cussler, 2005). A reason behind the drift to biomedical engineering is suggested by Donald Anthony, president of the US Council for Chemical Research who points out that chemical engineering and biomedical engineering schools are fishing from the same pool; ‘When students go to school for an engineering degree, there’s traditionally been a clear split between chemical engineers and other engineering disciplines. That split has always been based on whether a student likes chemistry or not’ (Halford, 2004a). The link between finding chemistry at secondary level interesting and subsequently choosing a career in chemical engineering is well founded. Table 1 clearly demonstrates this link as it reports the aggregate views of first year BE Process & Chemical Engineering students at University College Cork on math and science subjects they studied at school. Their views were ascertained via questionnaires administered over four consecutive years, 2001– 2005. Mathematics is a prerequisite to achieve a place on the course; hence all students would have studied it. However, there are two striking results of the survey; firstly, over 95% of respondents studied chemistry at school, and secondly, while students rated chemistry only marginally easier than most other subjects, they overwhelmingly found it the most interesting of the sciences. A global study of chemical engineering students in 15 universities in Canada, NZ, Australia, UK, Thailand, USA and Vietnam came to a similar conclusion (Shallcross, 2003). The two greatest influences on their decision to study chemical engineering was universally because they ‘liked chemistry at school’ and because the profession opened up opportunities in ‘a diverse range of industries’ (interestingly the next factor was because they ‘didn’t like other disciplines’!). Thus the key to attracting chemical engineering students would appear to be to tap into their liking of chemistry and to provide them with a degree which will excite them with

7

the possibilities it may offer. As Agnew et al. (2003) put it; ‘the attractiveness [of the chemical engineering degree] is enhanced by an exciting and modern course of study, but also by the perception that interesting and rewarding careers will follow’. It is probably this feeling that has spurred education providers to provide the wide range of specialist and noncore options in the degree over the past number of years. Perhaps it is a factor in the recent turnaround in British UCAS applications to chemical engineering courses (up 10% year-on-year in 2004) (O’Neill, 2004), though the growth in the number of students entering UK chemical engineering courses is thought to be almost entirely due to an increase in the number of overseas students enrolling rather than any surge in home based students. SPECIALIZATION IN CHEMICAL ENGINEERING DEGREES INTERNATIONALLY The structure of chemical engineering undergraduate degree programmes in 66 institutions across nine education systems around the globe has been surveyed. The results of this survey are presented in Tables 2 –5. It is evident that inter-country differences are far more significant than intra-country differences and it seems that systems adopted by a small number of lead institutions in any one country are quickly replicated by others. Great Britain and Ireland The structure of chemical engineering degrees in Great Britain and Ireland is outlined in Table 2. Institutions in the UK usually offer three-year bachelors (BEng) degrees or four-year (MEng) degrees. Scotland is an exception: here BEng degrees are of 4 years’ duration and an MEng typically takes five. There are a large number and range of specialist options available to choose from including virtually all the secondary options identified in Figure 1. Management and environmental options are particularly popular. In many cases these options are offered exclusively as part of the MEng. The secondary options are usually denoted an ‘option’ though a popular degree title is ‘Chemical Engineering with [Option]’. Chemical Engineering degrees in the Republic of Ireland are currently of 4 years’ duration, offering a BE or a BEng. Options are not offered at present and choice within the degree is generally confined to taking some elective modules, though the degree at University College Cork (UCC) does offer ‘elective streams’. Students at University College Dublin (UCD) can enter either a Chemical Engineering degree programme or a Bioprocess

Table 1. Undergraduates impression of school science subjects (1st year BE Process & Chemical Engineering, UCC, 2001–2005). Interesting Subject Maths Applied maths Physics Chemistry Biology

Boring

Easy

Difficult

Did not take

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

— 68 24 5 68

43 12 38 67 16

38 9 23 15 4

11 7 7 6 6

5 2 3 1 2

— — 3 3 1

9 — 13 17 10

31 7 34 28 11

28 5 11 22 5

23 10 8 8 1

2 7 3 — —

Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 3– 15

8

BYRNE Table 2. Chemical Engineering degrees offered in Great Britain and Ireland.

Institution

Specializations/streams/options/ elective groupings

Degree options

University of Newcastle, Eng

BEng/MEng (Chemical & Process) MEng (Chemical & Process) (Europe)

University of Leeds, Eng

BEng/MEng (Chemical)

University of Manchester, Eng

BEng/MEng (Chemical)

University of Sheffield, Eng

BEng/MEng (Chemical)

University of Nottingham, Eng

BEng/MEng (Chemical)

University of Loughborough, Eng

BEng/MEng (Chemical)

University of Birmingham, Eng

BEng/MEng (Chemical)

Aston University, Eng

BEng/MEng (Chemical) MEng (Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry) BEng/MEng (Chemical) BEng/MEng (Chemical)

University of Cambridge, Eng University of Oxford, Eng University College London, Eng

South Bank University, Eng

BEng/MEng (Chemical) BEng/MEng (Biochemical) BEng/MEng (Chemical) BEng (Chemical & Process) BEng/MEng (Chemical)

University of Surrey, Eng

BEng/MEng (Chemical)

University of Bath, Eng

BEng (Chemical & Bioprocess) MEng (Biochemical with European Language) BEng/MEng (Chemical) BEng (Process Engineering with Computing) BE (Chemical) BE (Bioprocess) BEng (Chemical & Process) BE (Process & Chemical)

Imperial College London, Eng

Queen’s University, Belfast, Irl-N University College, Dublin, Irl-R Cork Inst of Technology, Irl-R University College, Cork, Irl-R University of Paisley, Sco

Herriot Watt University, Sco

BSc/BEng (Chemical) BA/BSc (Chemical Engineering & Chemistry) BEng/MEng (Chemical) BEng (Process Biotechnology) BEng/MEng (Chemical)

Univeisity of Edinbuigh, Sco

BEng/MEng (Chemical)

University of Wales Swansea, Wal

BEng/MEng (Chemical & Bioprocess)

University of Strathclyde, Sco

Engineering degree programme. Students on both programmes may take a number of non-core elective modules from across the university as part of their degree, potentially adding a ‘liberal’ touch to their degree. Scandinavia The Scandinavian countries of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden are represented in Table 3. A reasonable amount of specialization is offered, with

MEng options: Process Control, Bioprocess Engineering, Sustainable Engineering, Intensified Processing BEng/MEng options: Bioscience Engineering, Pharmaceutical Chemical Engineering MEng options: with Chemistry, Industrial Experience, Study in Europe, Biotechnology, Environmental Technology, Business Management MEng options: with Management Chemistry, a Modem Language, Computer Science, Environmental Biotechnology, Fuel Technology BEng/MEng option: with Environmental Engineering MEng option: with Modem Languages BEng option: with Environmental Protection MEng options: with Management Professional Development BEng/MEng option: with Business Management MEng options: International Study, Industrial Experience BEng options: Management Studies, Computer Simulation, Energy and Environment MEng options: with Study Abroad, Biochemical Engineering MEng options: with Chemical Engineering, Study Abroad, Biopiocess Management MEng options: with a Year Abroad, with Fine Chemicals Processing BEng/MEng options: Computing, Biosystems Engineering MEng options: with European Language, Biochemical Engineering BEng/MEng options: Food Engineering, Polymer Engineering

Elective streams: Food & Bioprocess, Pharmaceutical, Supply Chain Engineering & Management

MEng options: with Environmental Management, Energy Engineering, Pharmaceutical Chemistry, (Diploma in) Industrial Training, Brewing and Distilling Technology BEng/MEng options: with Management, Environmental Engineering MEng options: with European Studies BEng option: Chemical & Bioprocess (with a year in industry)

many options reflecting local industry concerns such as fuel/energy (Denmark, Norway), paper and pulp (Finland), process metallurgy (Finland) and pharmaceutical and fine chemistry (Sweden). Chemistry is also a popular option throughout. It is worth noting that in Scandinavia the options offered are primarily ‘hard’ options all directly related to chemical engineering, unlike those offered in many countries where the so called ‘soft’ options are offered in order to broaden the education of the student.

Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 3– 15

ROLE OF SPECIALIZATION IN CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM

9

Table 3. Chemical Engineering degrees offered in Scandinavia. Institution

Degree options

Technical University of Denmark, Den

Specializations/streams/options

Aalborg University, Den

Chemical Engineering Polymer Engineering & Science Petroleum Engineering Chemical, Biochemical and Environmental Engineering Chemical Engineering

University of Oulu, Fin

Process Engineering

Tampere Institute of Technology, Fin Abo Akademi University, Fin

Chemical Engineering Chemical Engineering

Helsinki University of Technology, Fin

Chemical Engineering

Lappeenranta University of Technology, Fin

Chemical Technology

Norwegian University of Science & Technology, Trondheim, Nor Lund University, Swe Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Swe

Chemical Engineering

Odense University College of Engineering, Den

Chalmers University of Technology, Swe Lulea˚ University of Technology, Swe

Chemical Engineering Chemical Engineering

Options: (General), Computational Chemistry/Chemical Engineering, Process and Environmental Biotechnology, Cellulose Materials, Chemistry, Pharmaceutical and Fine Chemicals Engineering, Environmental Protection Technology, Polymer Technology

Chemical Engineering Chemical Engineering with Engineering Physics Chemical Engineering

Australia and New Zealand Australia (Table 4) has embraced the concept of combined degrees with a passion. These degrees tend to couple BE chemical engineering degrees with degrees in business, science, law or the humanities. The duration of the combined degree depends on the coupling but typically takes 5 to 6 years. Single degrees and degrees with specialization (e.g., at University of Adelaide) take 4 years to complete. Agnew et al. (2003) reflect on the development of combined degrees in Australia by stating ‘whether these moves [towards double or combined degrees] are a demonstration of flexibility of the discipline, or the beginning of disintegration, only time will tell. They are however an obvious response to the opportunities offered by these new sciences, and are a consequence of the view that biological sciences, at any rate are now too large and complex to be simply added on to a conventional chemical engineering course’. Some institutions offer minors in certain chemical engineering related areas. The University of Queensland defines a minor as ‘an integrated set of five or six courses, usually a sub-set of that major’. New Zealand does not appear to offer specialization among its degrees which take four years to complete. Canada Canadian chemical engineering degrees are described in Table 5. Some institutions offer joint degrees, which can

Chemical Technology Oil & Gas Technology Industrial Biotechnology Production Technology and Process Development Automation and Information Technology Safety, Ergonomics and Industrial Maintenance Process Metallurgy Industrial Engineering Paper & Process Engineering Process System Engineering Process Chemistry Pulp and Paper Technology Options: (General), Bioprocess Engineering, Industrial Engineering, Technical Chemistry, Polymer Technology, Plant Design Chemical Engineering, Applied Chemistry, Pulp and Paper Technology Biotechnology, Chemistry, Chemical Process Technology, Materials Technology & Energy

Biochemical and Chemical Process Engineering Mineral Processing and Process Metallurgy

even incorporate an MBA or a medicine degree which can take up to 7 years to complete. However, most chemical engineering degrees in Canada do offer a degree of specialization in terms of options or ‘la concentration’ in the French speaking universities. While most basic chemical engineering degrees take 4 years, an extra year is typically added on to incorporate an option. The University of Saskatchewan defines an ‘option’ as ‘a prescribed set of courses that provides a concentration of specialized training in one particular field of study’. Environmental options are easily the most popular though fuel options (oil, gas, petroleum) and paper and pulp are common too. THE BOLOGNA PROCESS The Bologna process is a European wide attempt to harmonise education throughout Europe by 2010 (Bologna Declaration, 1999). The declaration calls for a two cycle system consisting of undergraduate and graduate studies. The undergraduate component should not be less than 3 years. The rationale behind the move is that a common system would make for comparable degrees and hence provide for enhanced student mobility. Over the past several years, the practical implementation of Bologna in individual countries (with heretofore differing educational systems) has exercised the minds of engineering educators and professional accrediting institutions alike. The degree of discussion and subsequent level of implementation has

Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 3– 15

10

BYRNE Table 4. Chemical Engineering degrees offered in Australia and New Zealand.

Institution University of Adelaide, Aus

Degree/Combined Degree Options BE Chemical Engineering

Specializations/streams/minors BE (Chemical) Streams: Energy and Environment Food, Wine and Biomolecular Product and Process Engineering

BE Chemical Engineering with Petroleum Engineering Combined degrees: BE/LLB Law BE/BA Arts BE/BSc Science BE/BSc Science (Biotechnology) BE/BEc Economics BE/BFin Finance BE/BMaSc Mathematical & Computer Sciences Curtin University of Technology, Aus

BE Chemical Engineering Combined degrees: BE/BSc Chemical/Applied Chemistry BE/BCom Chemical/Small Business Management BE/BCom Chemical/Human Resources Management BE/BCom Chemical/Finance BE/BCom Chemical/Business Administration BE/BCom Chemical/Accounting BE/BCom Chemical/Information Technology BE/BCom Chemical/Information Systems BE/BCom Chemical/e-Commerce BE/BSc Chemical/Extractive Metallurgy

University of Melbourne, Aus

BE (Chemical) BE (Chemical and Biomolecular) BE (Engineering Management (Chemical)) Combined degrees: BA/BE (Arts/Chemical) BE/BCom (Chemical/Commerce) LLB/BE (Law/Chemical) BE/BSc (Chemical/Science) BE (Chemical) Combined Degrees: BE-BSc (Chemical-Science) BE-BA (Chemical-Arts) BE-BCom (Chemical-Commerce) BE-LLB (Chemical-Law)

Monash University, Aus

University of New South Wales, Aus

BE (Chemical) Combined degrees: BE-MBiomedE (Chemical-Biomedical) BE-BSc (Chemical-Computer Science) BE-BScTech (Chemical-Technology) BE-BA (Chemical-Arts)

University of Newcastle, Aus

BE (Chemical) Combined degrees: BE/BA (Chemical/Arts) BE/BBus (Chemical/Business) BE/BMath (Chemical/Mathematics) BE/BSc (Chemical/Chemistry Major) BE (Chemical)

University of Queensland, Aus

Combined degrees: BE/BA Chemical/Arts BE/BBiotech Chemical/Biotechnology BE/BBusMan Chemical/Business Management BE/BCom Chemical/Commerce BE/BEcon Chemical/Economics BE/BInftech Chemical/Information Technology BE/BSc Chemical/Science Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Aus

BE (Chemical) Combined degrees: BE/BAppSc (Chemical/Applied Biology and Biotechnology) BE/BBus (Chemical/Business Administration)

University of Sydney, Aus University of Auckland, NZ University of Canterbury, NZ

BE (Chemical) Chemical & Materials Engineering Chemical Engineering

Biochemical Engineering stream

Double Major in ChE or Minor in: Chemical Metallurgy Materials Engineering Biomedical Engineering Biotechnology

Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 3– 15

ROLE OF SPECIALIZATION IN CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM

11

Table 5. Chemical Engineering degrees offered in Canada. Institution

Specializations/streams/options/elective groupings/ ‘la concentration’

Degree options

University of British Columbia

Chemical Engineering

Dalhousie University

Chemical Engineering

University of Alberta

Chemical Engineering

University of Calgary Ecole Polytechnique-University of Montreal

Chemical Engineering Chemical Engineering

Lakehead University Universite Laval McGill University

Chemical Engineering Chemical Engineering Chemical Engineering

McMaster University

Chemical Engineering Chemical Engineering & Management Chemical Engineering & Society Chemical Engineering & Bioengineering BASc Chemical Engineering Joint degrees: BASc-BSc ChE-Computing Technology BASc-BSc ChE Biochemistry Chemical Engineering

University of Ottawa

University of New Brunswick Queen’s University

Options: Process Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Biological Engineering (Elective courses lead to) areas of emphasis: Environment, Computers and Process Control, Oil & Gas, Biotechnology, Research and Development, Materials Advanced Materials and Polymers, Biotechnology and Biomatexials, Environmental Engineering, Petroleum and Natural Resources or with Minor in: Petroleum Engineering La concentration: Environmental, Biopharmaceutical, Plastics

Chemical Process Engineering Biochemical Engineering Chemical Engineering

Royal Military College of Canada Ryexson University University of Saskatchewan

Chemical Engineering Chemical Engineering

Universite de Sherbrooke University of Toronto

Chemical Engineering Chemical Engineering BASc/MBA

University of Waterloo University of Western Ontario

Chemical Engineering BESc Chemical Engineering Joint Degrees: BESc/HBA -Chem. Eng. with Business BESc/BSc Chem. Eng. with Computer Science BESc/LLB Chem. Eng. with Law BESc/MD Biochem. & Env. Eng. with Medicine BESc/BSc Biochem. & Env. Eng. with Computer Science BESc/BSc Biochem. & Env. Eng. with Environmental Science BESc/BSc Biochem. & Env. Eng. with Medical Biophysics BESc/BSc Biochem. & Env. Eng. with Biology

varied from country to country. In Ireland a discussion was driven by Engineers Ireland (formerly the Institution of Engineers of Ireland) among engineering educators. Various models were considered including a (3 þ 1) 4 year model (i.e., status quo with the award of an MEng after 4 years as opposed to the current BE/BEng) or 5 year models (3 þ 2 or 4 þ 1). In the end, the institution recommended a five year integrated programme leading to the award of masters since it ‘would put us firmly on a par with

(15 electives) La concentration: Biochemical & Environmental, Plastics MEng ‘area of concentration’: Polymers, Environmental, Pulp and Paper General Degree or with Minor in: Arts, Biotechnology, Chemistry, Computer Science, Economics, Environmental Engineering, Environmental Studies, Materials, Engineering Management Mathematics, Technological Entrepreneurship, Software Engineering Specialisation streams: Process Systems Engineering, Polymer Materials & Manufacturing Options: (General), Engineering Management and Entrepreneurship, Environmental Engineering Options: (General), Nuclear and Power Plant Engineering, Environmental, Pulp and Paper, Instrumentation and Control, Research Streams: Environmental, Biochemical/Biomedical ‘strong Materials Engineering component [as well as] Nuclear and Environmental Engineering’ Options: (General), Biochemical & Environmental, Biotechnology Le Ge´nie Chimique, Le Ge´nie Biotechnologique Options: Chemical Engineering, Environmental Engineering Chemical Engineering Options: (General), Biochemical and Environmental Engineering

our European partners’ (Institution of Engineers of Ireland, 2003). This programme would ‘be “conceptual” or “scientific” in ethos, in the tradition of the French and Italian schools’ and the undergraduate three year bachelors degree would be deemed a ‘mobility hub’ to allow transfer between programmes throughout Europe. The bachelors degree, while not in itself being sufficient to achieve chartered (CEng) status, should ensure employability not on the basis of ‘vocational’ engineering skills but on the basis of

Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 3– 15

12

BYRNE

having developed analytical, reasoning and soft skills. Significantly, the institution also called for funding to be made for the full 5 years of such programmes. The education system in Ireland currently allows for the full payment of fees for EU students studying an undergraduate course. At present this means that fees for the 4 year BE/BEng (which attains chartered status) are paid by government. Government has not indicated to date however that it would pay for the final two years in a 5 year masters level programme, thus adding a significant practical disincentive to change. This situation contrasts with the system in Australia where for instance the federal government is prepared to recognize the extra study time required to complete combined degrees (often of 6 years duration) for HECS (higher education contribution scheme) funding. It is not yet clear how chemical engineering education in Ireland will restructure to take account of this new era or precisely when this will happen. Certainly it is likely to have an impact on the order in which material is taught on the curriculum. It also offers a potential opportunity to review and update the core curriculum in the context of the broader developments outlined previously and to incorporate a greater degree of specialization options. The first foray into the Bologna era in Ireland has involved UCD instigating a 3 year BSc in Engineering Science as part of a 5 year integrated masters programme. Two such programmes offer a total of 10 masters level (ME) specialization options incorporating a 3 year BSc (Hons) during which students ‘can begin to specialise gradually’ (Anonymous, 2006). Chemical Engineering is not available by this route though Biomedical Engineering is, for example. The effects of the Bologna process are being felt outside Europe’s domain also with other systems evaluating how they compare with the Bologna model. Indeed some institutions for example, in Australia are currently considering how their professional programmes can adopt a Bologna compatible model.

ONE SPECIALIZATION OPTION: PHARMACEUTICAL ENGINEERING Pharmaceutical engineering is a relatively new concept. Pharmaceutical engineers work as process engineers in the pharmaceutical industry just as in any other process industry, but their specialization allows them to appreciate (work in and/or design) fields particular to the pharmaceutical industry such as containment, validation, aseptic processing and particle technology. According to Halford (2004b) ‘the term “pharmaceutical engineering” has a certain appeal, promising lucrative and fulfilling work within the pharmaceutical industry’. Pharmaceutical engineering providers include Rutgers University’s (the first of its kind, initiated in 1994) which has an eight module pharmaceutical engineering ‘track’ within its chemical engineering degree and the University of Michigan, which awards a BSE in Chemical Engineering/ MEng in Pharmaceutical Engineering program. The University of Manchester has offered a postgraduate distance learning masters in pharmaceutical engineering since 1995 and there are pharmaceutical engineering options/ specializations at Herriot Watt Edinburgh (1998), University of Leeds, University College Cork (2001), Ecole

Polytechnique-University of Montreal, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Sweden and New Jersey Institute of Technology, Stevens Institute of Technology, New Jersey. THE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK EXPERIENCE The BE degree in Process & Chemical Engineering at University College, Cork (UCC) was set up in 2001. The degree is offered by the department of Process & Chemical Engineering which was founded in 1927 and had offered service courses within the University from that time. The degree was set up after broad consultation with academics internationally and industry locally. It was developed in accordance with the accreditation guidelines of both the Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE) and Engineers of Ireland. The 4 year degree consists of a chemical engineering core (90% of modules) with the remainder consisting of a group of elective streams of choice of the student. Elective streams are chosen in third year and consist of up to five 5-credit modules (from an overall degree total of 240 credits) comprising either: Food & Bioprocessing, Pharmaceutical or Supply Chain Engineering & Management. The pharmaceutical elective stream was developed on the basis of local industry support and due to the relative importance of the pharmaceutical industry to the Irish economy (comprising some 40% the value of all exports in the Republic) and due to the high concentration of the industry in the Cork region. The stream includes modules from the BSc (Chemistry of Pharmaceutical Compounds) at UCC as well as modules on the industrial manufacture and processing of pharmaceuticals and on biopharmaceutical engineering (Table 6). The pharmaceutical elective stream is consistently the most popular of the three on offer among students. The course also incorporates a 6-month work placement between third and final year and incorporates withcredit modules on higher order skills such as management and technical communication. The first graduates from the degree emerged in 2005 which has since its inception been successful in attracting an excellent calibre of student. This is demonstrated in Figure 2 which shows comparative minimum entry points in recent years to chemical engineering programmes in the Republic of Ireland (CAO, 2005). Students are awarded places on the course through the Central Applications Office (CAO) system which awards places to all students entering university via the Irish education system on the basis of their Irish leaving certificate exam points score. Students are awarded points on their six best subjects with 100 points being the maximum awarded (for 90% or greater) per subject. Figure 2 also shows the percentile of the total student population sitting the Irish leaving certificate for each respective year that achieve 400, 450 and 500 leaving certificate points, respectively (read from the right hand y-axis). The relative popularity of the degree may in part be explained perhaps by the currently unique (in an Irish context) opportunity for specialization in the degree. TO SPECIALIZE OR NOT TO SPECIALIZE? THE STUDENTS VIEW While on their work placement during July 2004, students on the pharmaceutical elective stream of the UCC

Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 3– 15

ROLE OF SPECIALIZATION IN CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM

13

Table 6. Modules on the BE in Process & Chemical Engineering (Pharmaceutical) at UCC. BE (Process & Chemical) module descriptions as listed the UCC Book of Modules, 2006/2007 (each module worth five European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) credits unless stated) Year I Mechanics (10 credits) Engineering Computation Chemistry for Engineers Organic Chemistry for Process Engineers Calculus and Linear Algebra for Engineers (10 credits) Introduction to Food and Industrial Microbiology Computer-Aided Process Engineering Introduction to Process & Chemical Engineering Physics for Engineers (10 credits)

Year II Engineering Mechanics with Transform Methods Mathematical Modelling in Engineering Numerical Methods and Programming Fluids Fundamentals of Organic Chemistry Aromatics, Carbonyls and Alkenes Thermodynamics Stress Analysis of Process Equipment Heat Transfer Technical Communication Skills Applied Probability & Statistics Introduction to Biochemical Engineering

Year III Applied Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics Unit Operations and Particle Technology Mass Transfer and Separation Processes Plant Design and Project Management Engineering Materials and Process Machinery Dynamics Chemical Kinetics and Reactor Design Process Dynamics and Control

Year IV Process Design and Feasibility Analysis Process Automation and Optimisation Process Validation and Quality Safety and Environmental Protection II Research Project (10 credits) Design Project (10 credits) Management and Organisation in Chemical and Bio-Products Enterprises

Safety and Environmental Protection I Work Placement (10 credits) Electives-Pharmaceutical Stream Introductory Pharmaceutical Chemistry Pharmaceutical Engineering

BE in Process & Chemical Engineering were surveyed to ascertain their views on the specialization component within their degree. Of the 27 students whose views were sought, 17 (63% responded). Tables 7 and 8 provide an outline of the industry sectors and the type of work activities they were involved in respectively while on placement. The aggregate response of students to the following question is outlined in Table 9: ‘How do you think that the specialization option within your degree compares with a general non-specialised process/chemical engineering degree? Tick the closest under each of the following headings: (a) Overall employment prospects; (b) Helps achieve career goals; (c) Keeps career options open; (d) Provides a

Electives-Pharmaceutical Stream Mechanical Design of Process Equipment Separations and Bioreactor Engineering Biopharmaceutical Engineering

better motivation to do the course; (e) Overall verdict on usefulness of specialization within degree.’ Students were then asked the following question: ‘On a scale of 5 to 1 (5 ¼ best; 1 ¼ worst) indicate your opinion on the usefulness of specialization within a chemical/process engineering degree?’ The response to this question averaged 4.17 from 15 respondents. Clearly the students seem very comfortable with the idea of specialization. They feel that it provides them with a degree which is appreciably more desirable on a number of levels. The overall verdict and high score out of five appears to reinforce this opinion. It is interesting to note that only a small minority of students felt that specialization would have an adverse effect on keeping their career options open [Table 9, question (c)]. Presumably they feel a strong chemical engineering basis will equip them to apply their skills to a broad range of areas, regardless of any additional options or specialization. INDUSTRY OPINION

Figure 2. Minimum entry level Irish leaving certificate points for chemical engineering courses in Republic of Ireland (left) with national student percentiles for comparison (right) (Source: CAO, 2005).

Placement students’ industrial supervisors were also mailed during July 2004 to ascertain their views on specialization through a chemical engineering degree. Of those canvassed 20 responded, which represents a response rate of 74%. Five of the 20 declared themselves to be chemical engineers while the others included chemists/industrial chemists (five), mechanical/manufacturing engineers (three), electrical/electronic engineers (two), food/dairy scientists (two), a marine engineer, an industrial engineer and an IT graduate. They were initially asked a series of

Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 3– 15

14

BYRNE Table 7. Industry sectors of placement students. Primary Pharmaceutical Production Secondary Pharmaceutical Production Biopharmaceuticals Bulk Chemicals/Detergents Food & Drink Electronics/Computers Project Design & Consultancy

4 1 3 1 2 1 5

Table 8. Work activities of placement students. Validation P&ID (Drawing/Compiling) Production New Process Dev. Maintenance Project Management R&D Equipment Design Drawing Scheduling Control/Automation Health & Safety Environmental Quality

10 9 8 7 6 6 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1

Table 9. Student specialization survey responses.

A lot better Slightly better Neither Slightly poorer A lot poorer

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

6 10 1 — —

3 10 4 — —

6 3 6 2 —

5 9 3 — —

9 7 1 — —

questions as shown in Table 10. The responses in parentheses are those provided by the chemical engineers. There appears to generally a very positive response towards specialization. To ascertain an overall view, supervisors were then asked the following: ‘On a scale of 5 to 1 (5 ¼ best; 1 ¼ worst) indicate your opinion on the usefulness of specialization within a chemical/process engineering degree?’ This evoked an average response of 3.42 (3.0 for the chemical engineers), which while not perhaps a ringing endorsement of specialization, neither could it be construed in any way as a negative response. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Chemical engineering degrees incorporating specialization options of one form or another are very prevalent.

They are popular among education providers as they help entice students, who are perhaps attracted by the additional variety provided, to enroll on the degrees. They are also popular among industry particularly where the specialization is seen as central to the work involved. Such degrees do not involve a reduction in the core chemical engineering competencies; instead there is an increased degree duration and perhaps award (e.g., MEng from BEng). To this end they undoubtedly add value to the chemical engineering educational experience, while helping to propel the student/graduate further along their chosen career path, should they so choose. The profile of the company that the ‘typical’ chemical engineer works for is changing however; sectors such as biotechnology are experiencing rapid growth compared with more traditional sectors such as heavy chemicals. This can be both an opportunity and a threat in the marketplace for prospective students; on the one hand students who enjoy chemistry are attracted to chemical engineering because of its close relationship with chemistry; on the other potential students may be drawn away to other emerging disciplines aligned to these new industry sectors, disciplines which they may regard as having more excitement. There is a realization among chemical engineering education providers that in order to remain competitive in the quest for students and in order to supply graduates to a changing market that offering the traditional chemical engineering degree alone is no longer sufficient. The vast majority of chemical engineering education providers have already recognized this and have modified degree programmes accordingly to include a wide range of specialization options and even joint and combined degrees. However, these changes have not been driven by any common global chemical engineering vision; rather degree structures have been changing albeit in a similar general direction, on an institution-by-institution and on a country-by-country basis. Similarly, while a large number of secondary options have been proposed, there has been no coordinated move to a common set of options; some provide business type options, others environmental, others humanities, others industry specific options, and quite a few provide a number of the above. While there is a lot of debate about how the biological sciences should be more central to the education of chemical engineers, it is not clear how this should be or might be achieved. Would ‘bioengineering type’ secondary options be developed in addition to or instead of the current plethora of options or would the desired modules be integrated into the core curriculum? If the latter course is chosen, how will this impact on current core subjects? Will some core subjects be curtailed or even dropped, or will course timeframes be simply extended?

Table 10. Industry view on specialization in the Chemical Engineering degree.

Were you aware that the BE in Process & Chemical Engineering at UCC incorporates a specialization option? In your opinion, do you think a specialization option is a good idea for graduate Process/Chemical Engineers who might potentially work with your company? In your opinion, do you think a specialization option is a good idea for graduate Process/Chemical Engineers in general?

Yes

No

Don’t know

9(3) 13(2)

11(2) 5(3)

— 2(0)

16(2)

4(3)

—

Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 3– 15

ROLE OF SPECIALIZATION IN CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM Perhaps in light of how secondary options evolved among degrees to date, it may be that no global and coordinated answer to these questions will be forthcoming. The more likely outcome is that while all players will recognise the challenges and opportunities, each will come to their own conclusion as to how best to deal with it. It would appear that institutions are heavily influenced by compatriot institutions, where competition for undergraduates is keenest. It is probable that quite a few institutions may decide the best option is to offer ‘chemical and biomolecular engineering’ type degrees or may even see fit to traverse into the biomedical engineering field, and offer options there, in addition to the options they currently offer. Local factors are important in determining the best course structure, specializations or options as local needs and requirements differ. Developing nations and countries which source students from such countries and regions will continue to have a strong and sustained requirement for the core chemical engineering degree with the traditional emphasis on bulk chemical processes. There is thus no ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution for designing the ‘optimum’ chemical engineering degree. However, the core, which has been built up over the past century, will remain largely unchanged. In conclusion, specialization streams/options/minors are a very well established and well accepted feature of the chemical engineering degree globally and will remain so. The nature and depth of such specializations varies enormously and this is set to evolve further in future years. These secondary options comprise a significant addition to the core chemical engineering degree and allow for a welcome interface with other non-core disciplines—the experience at UCC in developing a BE with a pharmaceutical elective stream has been positive on many fronts: in attracting potential students, among existing students and from industry personnel. REFERENCES Agnew, J.B., Clift, R., Darton, R.C., Guy, K.W.A. and Lefroy, G., 2003, Commentary on the visions, in Darton, R.C., Prince, R.G.H. and Wood, D.G. (eds). Chemical Engineering: Visions of the World (Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands). Anonymous, 2006, UCD launches suite of ‘3 þ 2’ engineering degree programmes, The Engineers Journal, 60(1): 51 –52. Armstrong, R., 2005a, New directions and opportunities—creating the future (introduction), Workshop on Industrial Vision and Needs, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 8 –10 June 2005, from http://mit.edu/che-curriculum/ 2005/atlanta/ (accessed 31 January 2006).

15

Armstrong, R., 2005b, New directions and opportunities—creating the future (summary), Educational workshop, AIChE Annual Meeting, Cincinnati, USA, 30 October 2005, from http://mit.edu/che-curriculum/ 2005/cincinnati/ (accessed 31 January 2006). Bologna Declaration, 1999, http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/ policies/educ/bologna/bologna.pdf (accessed 14 January 2006). Cussler, E.L., Savage, D.W., Middelberg, A.P.J. and Kind, M., 2002, Refocussing chemical engineering, Chem Eng Prog, 98(1): 26S–31S. Cussler, E.L., 2005, Chemical product development, 7th World Congress of Chemical Engineering, Glasgow, Scotland, 12 July 2005. Central Applications Office (CAO), http://www.cao.ie/ (accessed 20 November 2005). Freshwater, D., 1997, People, Pipes and Processes (Institution of Chemical Engineers, Rugby, UK). Frontiers in Chemical Engineering Education, http://mit.edu/ che-curriculum/ (accessed 21 January 2006). Halford, B., 2004a, Chemical engineering education in flux, Chem Eng News, 82(10): 34–36. Halford, B., 2004b, The new kind of engineer, Prism (online), March 2004, http://www.prism-magazine.org/mar04/engineerx.cfm (accessed 20 November 2005). Institution of Engineers of Ireland, 2003, A new structure for engineering education in Ireland—Implementation of the Bologna declaration, Engineers Ireland, Dublin, Ireland, http://www.iei.ie/Publications/ Papers.pasp (accessed 14 January 2006). McCredie, R., 2003, Opening address: chemical engineering and tomorrow’s world, in Darton, R.C., Prince, R.G.H. and Wood, D.G. (eds). Chemical Engineering: Visions of the World (Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands). National Research Council, 2003, Beyond the molecular frontier: challenges for chemistry & chemical engineering, Committee on Challenges for the Chemical Sciences in the 21st Century (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA). Noble, D., 2005, Computational modelling of biological systems—the heart of the process, 7th World Congress of Chemical Engineering, Glasgow, Scotland, 12 July 2005. O’Neill, C., 2004, The chemical engineering renaissance, Chem Eng (London), 760: 19. Ruthven, D.M., 1996, Chemical engineering education: a personal view, Chem Eng Sci, 51(18): iii –iv. San Giovanni, J.P., 2002, The future of chemical engineering education, Chem Eng Prog, 98(1): 11. Schowalter, W.R., 2003, The equations (of change) don’t change but the profession of engineering does, Chem Eng Ed, 37(4): 242–247. Shallcross, D.C., 2003, Factors influencing the selection of chemical engineering as a career, Chem Eng Ed, 37(4): 268 –281. Tirrell, M.V., 2004, Does the U.S. style of chemical engineering education serve the nation well?, in Burland, D.M., Doyle, M.P., Rogers, M.E. and Masciangioli, T.M. (eds). Preparing Chemists and Chemical Engineers for a Globally Oriented Workforce: A Workshop Report to the Chemical Sciences Roundtable (Chemical Sciences Roundtable, National Research Council, USA).

The manuscript was received 30 November 2005 and accepted for publication after revision 16 February 2006.

Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineers, 2006, 1: 3– 15