SEFI Podcast Season 7 Episode 3 – Roger V. Gonzalez on Adapting Engineering Education

17 November 2025
News, Podcast European Engineering Educators

Engineering is a global profession, with various efforts focusing on the globalisation of engineering practice. However, there are many differences between engineering education systems in different contexts.

In this episode we discuss what we can learn by comparing engineering education across contexts with Professor Roger Gonzalez from The University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP), author of the monograph “Adapting Engineering Education to a Rapidly Changing World” which focuses on the differences between engineering education systems, particularly those associated with the UK and the USA.

Motivation behind the work

Roger explains that as the Inaugural Director, Inaugural Chair, and Professor in a new Bachelor of Science in Engineering Innovation and Leadership (E-LEAD) programme at UTEP, he wondered how academic models both encourage and constrain development of new programmes which push the boundaries of standard practice. He tells us that setting up E-LEAD involved consulting with numerous engineers to explore questions of how engineering education must adapt to our rapidly changing world, as well as learning about how USA based programmes aimed to change the paradigm of engineering education. At the same time, he noticed the way in which the philosophy of higher education varied across the globe and, starting with the premise that engineering education is at a crossroads and demanded reform, sought to learn how engineering programmes worldwide were responding to global challenges. He decided to explore ‘how educational systems influence the development of our educational models and paradigms’ by comparing the USA and UK. The choice of countries was based on their close relationship, and shared history, language, and commitment to academic excellence in higher education. In so doing, he hoped that his ‘broad brush’ analysis would help provide educators with a context for understanding their own practices and allow for critical reflection, fostering collaborative dialogue, and sharing of best practices and enhancement in each system. The aim here was thus not to declare one system ‘better’, but to investigate the strengths and challenges of each.

Focus and approach

Roger explains that his interest was born from 30 years of industry, humanitarian, and academic experience and focused on how the US and UK systems 1.) promote professional skills within undergraduate engineering education and 2.) broaden access and participation.

The work took a qualitative approach and involved conducting over 200 interviews and observations across nearly 30 academic universities in the UK (primarily in England) over a period of 9 months. It considered four components of engineering education including programmes, students, faculty, and external factors, to identify the main orientations in each system.

Roger explains that being a relative ‘outsider’ meant he could probe and ask questions more easily.

Entry Requirements

Roger tells us that there are major differences in entry requirements between the engineering education systems in the UK and USA. For example, in the UK entry into engineering programmes relies on A-level examinations, where students specialize intensely in three or four subjects for their intended university course, this meaning that they can typically complete degrees more quickly. Students not meeting A-level requirements can take a foundation year course to gain the necessary subject knowledge. Changing majors after university admission is difficult and costly, as module credits rarely transfer.

Historically standardised tests (e.g., ACT or SAT) have been used within the USA. However, today over 80% of colleges have test-optional or score-free policies. The US system emphasizes a broader education, with general education continuing through high school and into the first year or more of university. Students typically apply to a university rather than a specific department, and changing majors is far more common and easier. For underprepared students, options include community college or entering as an ‘undeclared’ major.

He summarises by saying the UK prioritises precise pre-admission direction, while the USA values flexibility and exploration, this impacting student pathways and ease of academic change. This has implications for widening participation and diversifying the engineering workplace, challenges which both contexts struggle with.

The wider historical and societal context

Roger proposes that the difference in specialisation is a result of the age of the UK compared to the USA, with engineering degree programmes originally being developed for what was needed at the time. He also explains the role of geography and relative geographical size in influencing the systems. For example, in the UK, Oxbridge is seen as highly influential on the rest of the sector. However, in the USA the number of institutions, as well as the distance between them, mean that institutions can develop a more independent identity and take on the American trait of independence.

Teaching content

Roger describes key differences between a student’s experience in the USA and UK.

In the UK, students enter highly focused and specialised curricula from the start. Bachelor’s degrees are typically three years and master’s degrees one year, with integrated MEng programmes combining both into four years, often a prerequisite for becoming a “chartered engineer”. Due to this early specialisation, changing majors is generally difficult and costly, as module credits rarely transfer. Part-time study is uncommon. The US system offers a broader and more flexible educational experience. Bachelor’s degrees in engineering typically take four years or longer. The first 1–1.5 years typically include general education courses, which account for approximately one-third of the degree requirements. Changing majors is far more common and easier; approximately one-third of undergraduates change their major at least once. Students typically apply to the university rather than a specific department. Part-time study is more common, with over 38% of undergraduates attending part-time.
In the UK, teaching largely relies on formal lectures to large groups. Formalised industry involvement is common, particularly through paid ‘sandwich year’ placements. Student support is robust, with powerful, independent Students’ Unions advocating for student rights and having a voice in university governance. Climate change and sustainability are thoroughly integrated as design criteria in the curriculum.
In the USA the teaching methods can be more varied, including collaborative learning, technology-based learning, and flipped classrooms, with greater emphasis on class participation and teamwork. Faculty generally have greater academic freedom in course design and teaching. Internship opportunities exist but are less formalised than in the UK, being student-driven and shorter, with around 40% being unpaid. Students’ Unions are almost non-existent. The integration of climate change education lags behind the UK.

Assessment

In the UK, assessment is predominantly summative, often with 70-100% of a module’s grade being determined by a single final exam. This implies a strong emphasis on the mastery of a specific body of knowledge, with limited opportunities for ongoing feedback or varied demonstration of understanding. In the US, assessment is largely formative, incorporating multiple components such as assignments, papers, projects, and class participation, which collectively make up about 50-70% of a student’s final grade, with the final exam typically weighing 20-30%. This approach implies a focus on continuous engagement, skill development, and diverse learning experiences.

Quality and Accreditation

In the UK, quality assurance is highly structured and prescriptive, leading to more constrained academic freedom. External examiners, government oversight, accreditation policies, and consumer protection laws tightly control how academics develop module content, deliver it, and assess student work. Module specifications are detailed, and any deviations are considered violations of consumer protection laws, limiting individual faculty discretion and making changes a lengthy committee process. This rigorous regulation ensures standardisation and quality across institutions but restricts academic flexibility.

In the USA, there is greater academic freedom and less prescriptive oversight. Faculty generally develop and teach courses based on brief catalogue descriptions, enjoying freedom to design course content and determine grading formulas as they see fit within their department. While US engineering programmes are accredited by ABET, its criteria are less prescriptive, focusing on programme outcomes and continuous improvement rather than dictating specific content or assessment methods. This approach tends to foster greater creativity and innovation for both faculty and students, with most US faculty believing that the benefits of this academic freedom outweigh the inherent risks, as it allows for individualisation and protects faculty from repercussions for independent expression.

What can we learn?

Together, the work points to universal challenges and areas for future work applicable globally. All systems grapple with the critical need to broaden access and participation, bridge the perceived gap between industry demands for professional skills (like leadership, communication, and teamwork) and the preparedness of graduates, emphasising that technical expertise alone is insufficient for modern engineers. Roger highlights several areas in which he believes the USA can learn from the UK’s:

structured quality assurance, which ensures greater consistency and standardisation across programmes.
focused curriculum design, allowing for faster completion of bachelor’s and master’s degrees, and its pioneering integrated master’s programmes could offer the US models for more efficient and specialised educational pathways.
formalised industry-university partnerships, exemplified by its ‘sandwich year’ programmes, provide valuable professional development and industry experience for students, a practice the US could adopt to enhance career readiness.
strong influence and consumer protection mechanisms of UK students’ unions offer a model for increased institutional accountability and student voice.
proactive and integrated approach to sustainability and climate change education as a core design criterion in engineering projects could guide the US in embedding environmental responsibility more systematically into its curricula.

The advent of AI and the future of engineering education

Roger believes one of the biggest challenges facing engineering education to be the integration of AI and poses questions about how we can assess its input or leverage greater learning, as well as grapple with issues of widening inequality.

Roger also proposes arguments for the need for university in an age when AI, saying that it provides validation and certification of a student’s knowledge, structure and process, opportunities for mentorship and community.