Skip to Navigation
University of Pittsburgh
Print This Page Print this pages

March 30, 1995

Provost denies UPJ request to convert its engineering program

One of the goals set by Pitt's Johnstown campus in the University's "Toward the 21st Century" academic master plan was to convert the campus's engineering technology department to an engineering department.

Provost James Maher, however, recently put the brakes on that plan when he ruled that Pitt does not possess the resources to support two quality engineering programs.

While disappointed by the provost's decision, UPJ President Albert Etheridge said he understands the reasoning behind it. He added that UPJ will continue to study its options, such as offering satellite classes in engineering from the Pittsburgh campus.

"You're always disappointed when the decision is negative," Etheridge said. "But I understand the provost's position and I respect his position. And I think, depending upon what happens with the economy and what happens with the system's status and outlook, in a few years in terms of resources perhaps we can revisit this." UPJ administrators had proposed the change from engineering technology to engineering in the belief that it would help recruit more engineering students to the Cambria County campus and make graduates of its engineering program more appealing in the marketplace.

Engineering technology students currently can be licensed as engineers in 44 states, including Pennsylvania, but they must work three to four years as engineering technologists before being licensed as engineers, according to Etheridge.

"We felt, and we still feel, that engineering would be much more attractive for us than engineering technology in terms of recruiting students because students are more interested in engineering than engineering technology," Etheridge said.

Cost became an issue in the change because UPJ currently has only two faculty members in its engineering technology department who hold Ph.D. degrees. Although he did not have any specific numbers, Etheridge said that to gain accreditation in engineering and sustain that accreditation would require hiring more engineering faculty with Ph.D. degrees.

In addition, Etheridge said, the campus probably would have had to purchase additional equipment.

"An argument can be made whether or not the equipment is more expensive for engineering than engineering technology, but nevertheless, there is more involved in it than just a name change," Etheridge noted.

The idea of converting UPJ's engineering technology department to an engineering department arose about a year and a half ago after a consultant studied the department and concluded that UPJ essentially is operating an engineering program.

The difference between engineering technology and engineering is one of applied science versus theoretical science. Engineering technology takes a very specific and highly applied approach to the field of engineering. Engineering, on the other hand, is more involved with theory. Students in engineering take more mathematics and physics courses than students in engineering technology.

"He [the consultant] said all we had to do was change one course and modify a couple of others," Etheridge said. "On the surface that's what was touted." Changing engineering technology to engineering had gained a lot of attention on campus from both students and faculty who favored the action. Many people at UPJ were disappointed by Maher's decision.

Etheridge, though, preferred to be more positive. He said UPJ would search for alternatives to the change. He pointed out that the campus already has one of the best engineering technology programs in the nation.

"We're doing fine," he said.

–Mike Sajna


Leave a Reply