Alternative models of assessment for 21st century engineering doctoral students

Many have approached doctoral education as a "sink or swim" exercise. This random approach of pursing a Ph.D. is no longer sufficient. The strongest, most determined doctoral students survive, but at what cost? Doctoral training should not be left to chance. Given the purpose of a Ph.D. and the leadership opportunities given to Ph.D.s in academia, industry, government, and non-profit sectors, one would expect training of doctoral students to be more consistent across disciplines, departments and institutions within the United States. Although programs such as “Preparing Future Faculty” and “Re-envisioning the Ph.D.” provide resources for students considering or pursuing Ph.D.s., students who actively seek such resources are the most likely to benefit from the guidance offered. Anecdotal and empirical findings confirm that the experiences of doctoral students differ greatly. Upon graduation, there is variability in the skills demonstrated by new Ph.D.s. Students who report having positive experiences typically have received either formal or informal training during their Ph.D. experiences. Several questions remain, however. Whose responsibility is it to train Ph.D. recipients in areas in which they are weak? Does this responsibility rest on the major professor, the dissertation committee, the department, or the institution? This paper presents an overview of the global preparation of engineers and implications for doctoral engineering education; a summary of the measures that might be used by departments and institutions to level the playing field for all those pursuing doctoral degrees; and a model of assessment to measure students' engagement with teaching, industry, and professional skills.