The future impacts of artificial intelligence (AI) on society and the labour force have been studied and reported extensively. In a recent book, AI Superpowers, Kai-Fu Lee, former president of Google China, wrote that 40 to 50 per cent of current jobs will be technically and economically viable with AI and automation over the next 15 years. Artificial intelligence refers to computer systems that collect, interpret and learn from external data to achieve specific goals and tasks. Unlike natural intelligence displayed by humans and animals, it is an artificial form of intelligence demonstrated by machines. This has raised questions about the ethics of AI decision-making and impacts of AI in the workplace. With computing power increasing rapidly in recent decades, the capabilities of AI have also risen dramatically. Vincent Müller, a philosopher at Eindhoven University of Technology, and Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at Oxford University, conducted a survey in 2016 about AI’s future potential. Respondents indicated a 50 per cent likelihood that the capabilities of AI will exceed human intelligence by 2040 to 2050. Other technology leaders have predicted this will occur much earlier. Since AI continually learns and improves, a new form of AI super-intelligence may emerge well beyond human intelligence. How are universities responding to this challenge? Do traditional subjects and competencies taught in university need to be re-examined in view of the coming disruption of AI in the job market? As the Dean of Engineering and Applied Science at Memorial University, I’m concerned about this disruption from the perspective of skills that students should be learning to successfully adapt to AI in the workplace. ‘Resilient competencies’ Recently I supervised a project conducted by two undergraduate research assistants, Joud Omary, a computer engineering student, and Deep Patel, an electrical engineering student, on the susceptibility of various graduate attributes to computerisation. They analysed the probabilities of various student competencies becoming automated in the next 10 to 20 years. The most automation-resistant skills were determined based on a Brookfield Institute report which examined the probabilities of automation of work tasks over a range of occupations associated with university degrees. Repetitive skills like pattern recognition, information retrieval, optimization and planning are most vulnerable to automation. On the other hand, social and cognitive skills such as creativity, problem-solving, drawing conclusions about emotional states and social interactions are least vulnerable. The most resilient competencies (those least likely to be displaced by AI) included critical thinking, teamwork, interpersonal skills, leadership and entrepreneurship. Yuval Harari, a historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, described the rise of AI as a “cascade of ever-bigger disruptions” in higher education rather than a single event that settles into a new equilibrium. The unknown paths taken by AI will make it increasingly difficult to know what to teach students. Economist Carl Frey, and engineer Michael Osborne, both at the University of Oxford, reported the susceptibility of a range of professions to computerisation including those associated with traditional university degrees, e.g., accountants, auditors, geoscientists. Interestingly, even for engineers who are significant developers of AI technologies, there is a susceptibility of various disciplines of engineering to computerisation. In such a context, “resilient competencies” are always relevant. Joseph Aoun, president of Northeastern University, and a linguist, argues in his book that what will matter most is experiential learning (co-op education), life-long learning and a curriculum focused on humanics (the study of human affairs). As AI technologies become more powerful and capable over a range of professions, it will become increasingly important for today’s students to be equipped with the right skills that add value beyond what AI can achieve. As AI displaces old jobs, it will also lead to new jobs. ‘Outcomes-based education’ Traditional learning outcomes in engineering programs have included a strong knowledge base, problem analysis, design and the use of engineering tools, among others. But engineers today have a growing diversity of demands in their professional lives. Non-technical skills are increasingly important to work effectively in a business environment. These include communication skills, project management, life-long learning and the interdisciplinary impact of engineering on society and the environment. At Memorial University’s Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, one way that we have responded to this changing environment is by mapping the learning outcomes throughout the curriculum to ensure that all graduates of our co-op programs have a desired set of graduate attributes. For example, a traditional fluid mechanics course measured only the technical skills of the subject matter. Today, the course tracks a range of other learning outcomes such as communication skills through written reports and presentations. More broadly across the curriculum, it is determined where and how each graduate attribute is taught and evaluated for each course. The evaluation of each attribute is recorded, for example through a tutorial, exam question, or assignment. Appropriate rubrics are established for each attribute. Afterwards courses are evaluated and continuously improved to see how students are gaining the desired graduate attributes. Engineering students are also required to take complementary studies courses in other disciplines, such as humanities, to raise their awareness of the role and impact of engineering on society and culture. Memorial’s Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences has strong links with the human literacy areas noted by Aoun. Across a range of disciplines – from philosophy to political science, sociology to geography – students work in teams, reflect on challenging ethical questions and engage in dialogue about important public concerns. Also, Memorial’s Faculty of Business Administration introduces students to AI and provides exposure to a range of key non-technical business skills. To successfully manage organizations in which work processes will be redefined by AI, graduates will more than ever need to know how to build strong relationships, work in teams and communicate effectively. A shift in higher education from what students are taught in the classroom to learning outcomes instead and graduate attributes will become increasingly important with the rise of AI. A shift to outcomes-based education will enable students to gain critical automation-resistant competencies to succeed and thrive

  First, it swallowed a car. A few hours later, two terraced buildings. At 9pm on January 20, a crater measuring 4 sq metres appeared in Walmer Street, Manchester. Another sinkhole shocked local Scottish walkers, swallowing a section of coastal path between Dysart and West Wemyss on February 4. And, in early March, a sinkhole in Cumbria opened up beneath a farmer riding a quad bike. He was rescued by firefighters and taken to hospital. These are only recent examples from the UK. The ground opening up and engulfing whatever lies in its path is a pretty common occurrence. Globally, for every 0.1℃ rise in temperature, the number of sinkholes increases by 1%-3%. A particularly big sinkhole opened in Naples at 6.30am on January 8. The 20-metre deep, 50-metre wide hole suddenly appeared in the car park of the Ospedale del Mare Hospital. It swallowed an oblong section of the car park, caused a power cut and forced the temporary closure of a facility for coronavirus patients. Sinkholes are particularly common in Naples. More than 190 have opened up in the city between 1915 and 2010, and there are about two to four major incidents per year. A recent study on the historic centre of Naples has identified nine historical churches in imminent risk and a further 57 in potential risk of catastrophic ground collapse. Aerial view of big chasm in carpark. Sinkholes are not a new or even a bizarre phenomenon. They occur naturally when minerals below the land surface gradually dissolve in rainwater to form cavities. The sudden appearance of a sinkhole occurs when water loosens the soils around and above cavities just enough for the ground above to fall in. But these scary phenomena are made a lot more common by humanity’s historical interference with the ground. The growth in intrusive construction, deep mining, poorly managed burial of construction and demolition wastes and, crucially, changes in climate that have brought about heavier rainfalls have all caused the recent abnormal rise in number of sinkholes. Most people don’t think much about the ground. Perhaps this isn’t surprising – there doesn’t seem much to consider. Our relationship with it is usually one-way and with a single objective: we aim to “improve” it or exploit it to provide whatever functional service we seek – turning it into a strong foundation for buildings, or using it as a source of minerals or water. But the ground is actually a complex and fine-tuned system, a combination of many components – rock, minerals, bacteria, plants – that work and live independently, but continuously interact with one another to create the solid surface and soil we live on and take for granted. Disrupting these natural components and their harmony allows natural hazards such as sinkholes to occur. The Naples sinkhole Let’s use the Naples sinkhole to explore how this actually happens in practice. The Ospedale del Mare Hospital sits on rock called “phonolitic tephrite”. The term tephrite comes from the Greek tephra, meaning ash. This is a porous and brittle rock with a distinct yellowish-grey colour. Roman builders first used this rock as building stone. Centuries of quarrying led to formation of a complex network of cavities beneath Naples, the like of which can be seen in the stone façade of Sarno Baths in Pompeii. The cavities underlie sandy ash and a top layer of urban soil mixed with wastes and construction rubble. The top soil is rich in calcium and naturally interacts with carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to produce very soluble carbonates. This top soil was battered in three days of storms in December 2020. It took five days for the flood water to seep into the ground through historical access shafts, washing away the soluble carbonates, loosening the cavity and triggering the sinkhole. Conventionally, natural ground is engineered into foundation soil for buildings and roads by compacting and grouting (injecting chemicals like cement into the ground). Natural pores in soil are either destroyed or filled with chemicals. For soil, less pores means better strength, but also means penetration of larger volumes of rainwater into the ground through fewer and narrower openings. This high intensity seepage can wash away soluble minerals, loosen the soil around buried cavities, and trigger sinkholes. So how do we stop this from happening? New groundwork Over the past two decades, researchers have been trying to establish new methods of engineering the ground that satisfies the demands of cities but does not disrupt the ground’s natural systems. For example, researchers at Strathclyde University have used fungi to form incredibly durable complex root-like networks of natural fibres in soil to hold it together. These are fibres that can even recover themselves in the face of damage. And, in Newcastle, researchers are genetically engineering bacteria to make soil an “adaptive living material”, so that it strengthens itself in respond to load. But the “products” of these techniques can clog the natural voids in soil. We are also yet to establish the effectiveness of these techniques in deeper grounds, particularly in urban soils, which are mixed with construction wastes. My research team studies ways to strengthen natural voids in urban soil, from surface to depths, in three engineered layers: a crust, topsoil and subsoil. We engineer natural bacteria in the crust to discharge a very sticky glue-like gel and bind soil grains together. Beneath, the topsoil is designed to be light, alive and breathable, rich in organic fibres that weave soil grains together. We engineer these organic fibres to allow them to stretch far more before they rupture during ground movements. The subsoil in urban areas is usually rich in construction wastes. We develop ways for these wastes to feed on the carbon dioxide in soil and transform into very strong fibres. Many engineers have come to see the way people treat the ground as unproductive, damaging and as backward as our treatment of endangered species, delicate ecosystems and the climate itself. We need to recruit the age-old natural engineering

The year is 1985. Portable CD players like the Sony Discman are the epitome of consumer technology: a battery-operated device that allows you to listen to music anywhere (provided you brought the CDs as well). A recent graduate from electronics and computer engineering programs understands how the portable CD player works. They cannot build it without the precision tools and materials, but they can certainly design it: they understand how audio is encoded onto a CD’s surface, the mechanics of reading those data and the signal processing hardware and software that transform them into sound. The year is 2019. The smartphone is the epitome of consumer technology. A marvel of complex hardware: integrated circuits that handle wireless communication, graphics processing, a microprocessor more powerful than those found in home computers in 1985. Layers upon layers of software, from a complex operating system to applications powered by virtual machines. A device an engineering graduate does not understand. The slower pace of engineering education Technology has surpassed technological education. There are so many concepts, techniques and tools that an engineering graduate should know, but there isn’t enough time. This is not a novel insight, but it is getting worse, and this gap between education and market demand has serious consequences. Students are less motivated, as they realize the gap between what they are learning and the technology they use will not be bridged over four years of undergraduate education. Employers are frustrated because they want graduates to have mastery over the latest programming language or design methodology. And yet, engineering curricula have changed little over the past 30 years. Oh yes, we’ve modernized our labs and we’re no longer teaching obsolete programming languages, but the bulk of the knowledge is the same. Teaching the basics Curricula remained more or less the same for good reason: we need to teach the basics. We could educate towards market requirements and teach only the latest programming languages or make students memorize the meaning of the latest buzzwords — but that would be a disservice. This would equip our graduates with the skills required for the next five years, but it would also prevent them from growing beyond that. We want to equip students with the knowledge and the skills to be life-long learners, which is the only way to survive in a technological profession. But how to balance these conflicting requirements: graduate readiness versus strong foundations? The answer is twofold. First, we need to change how students learn by fostering inclusion of students in research and mentoring towards continuing education. We’re doing this: whilst the content of engineering curricula have not changed much, pedagogical approaches certainly have. We’re moving towards an academic approach where student/faculty interactions are no longer limited to the classroom. For example, the Discovery Centre at Carleton University provides undergraduate students with opportunities to participate in research and engage with communities of other disciplines to address common real-world issues from the perspective of their program areas. More programs and initiatives aimed at offering diverse learning experiences are underway. Second, we must realize that undergraduate degrees alone are not enough to train tomorrow’s engineers. We are designing more and more master’s programs that will provide advanced training across several sub-fields, from Biomedical Engineering to Embedded Systems. Within these, education paths are less and less linear, allowing students to select more refined specializations. For example, the Department of Systems and Computer Engineering offers several graduate specializations within its master’s programs, to develop fine-grained expertise in students’ sub-field of choice. The programmes also ensure a strong foundational knowledge of the basics that can support them throughout their careers. Connecting curricula We are moving towards connected curricula, where the boundaries between teaching and learning, research, outreach and community engagement are starting to disappear. We believe this is the path to train 21st century engineers who will have to develop technology, not in isolation, but within a complex social fabric: think bitcoin or autonomous cars. But we need to deal with the societal aspects that are involved: the economic and personal strain on students who will have to take more advanced degrees, for more years, for longer hours. This will require joint efforts between universities and government. For the most part, engineering schools are still teaching the same things they were teaching 30 years ago. Now, students are learning them differently, and that makes all the difference. Technology is still surpassing technological education. But we are moving towards better pedagogy.  

 If a private company with around 5,000 employees moved its headquarters overseas a few years ago, it might not have attracted much attention beyond concerns for the local economic impact. But these are no ordinary times. The announcement that Dyson is switching its HQ from the English county of Wiltshire to Singapore has provoked a huge reaction. The company was keen to downplay any possible link between the move and Brexit (of which Sir James Dyson is a vocal supporter). Nevertheless, the news has attracted many critics, many of them not typically engrossed with long term corporate strategy. There are valid reasons to accept Dyson’s statement at face value when understanding why the HQ move makes business sense. While Dyson still experiences a stable level of growth in its established European and American markets, this is dwarfed by a vast sales increase in Asia. To capitalise on this growing market, the company has already established Singapore as a production base for its electric cars, along with its assembly work taking place in Malaysia and the Philippines. Singapore has also recently agreed a bilateral free trade pact with China, allowing Dyson to enjoy a level of market access that would not be available in the UK or the EU. Dyson was also quick to allay fears regarding its employees in the UK. As production has largely moved overseas in the last decade, nearly all of its workforce in the UK are employed as scientists or engineers (where the majority of their products are designed and developed). And as the company continues to expand its research activities and significantly invest in graduate careers and academic research, there are no clear signs that the move will affect its economic activity in the UK for the foreseeable future. While this all gives Dyson a defence for a strategic move, it is also easy to understand why this announcement has attracted criticism. First, the timing is notable, in a week when several other companies drew attention for their strategic decisions. These include Sony (which is moving its European headquarters to the Netherlands), P&O (re-flagging its UK registered English Channel fleet to Cyprus) and Pets at Home (announcing a possible stockpiling of its inventories). What’s different about these announcements is their explicit link to issues concerning Brexit. This pragmatism was also evident in the CEO of Airbus hinting at relocating the company’s operations. (He was also very blunt about the damage that a no-deal Brexit could potentially cause.) Business abhors a vacuum While it may be perfectly true that Dyson’s relocation has little to do with Brexit, announcing it when many other businesses are publicly expressing opinions on Brexit (that on the surface appear quite opposed to Sir James’s personal views) means it is inevitable that it will be discussed in the context of the surrounding news. Another factor gives critics of Brexit further ammunition against Dyson. The move to Singapore appears to highlight the perceived disconnect between Brexit’s most affluent supporters and concerns over average living standards in the immediate aftermath of any Brexit. For well-known figures such as Dyson, any public support of Brexit can risk accusations of being out of touch with ordinary citizens (ironically, a similar charge to that often levelled at visible Remain campaigners). Some polling has shown that the majority of those supporting Brexit fall into the older demographic, generally citing ideological reasons rather than economic ones. The particular danger that business figures such as Dyson face when championing Brexit as an ideology, is that their economic situation will come under scrutiny. This in turn may strengthen perceptions that any economic changes to the country will not personally affect them or their quality of life. As a result, any comments they give on the state of the economy, such as Sir James’s “hope (that the UK economy) will bounce back” in February 2018, can come across as quite glib. That said, criticism on social media probably means very little to Dyson as a company, which continues to enjoy unrivalled success in the UK and overseas. But this episode shows that business figures (particularly those expressing strong views on Brexit) need to be aware of how much more examination their comments and decisions will attract.

  With no sign of our appetite for air travel diminishing, we need to create quieter aircraft that are easier to live with. In fact, while those living near airports may beg to differ, data included in the Airports Commission report into a new runway for London shows a very significant reduction in aircraft noise over several decades. The noisiness of an individual aircraft at departure and approach is described by its Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNL). This is measured when the aircraft enters service, and is used to track noise improvements between successive generations of aircraft. As this Airports Commission report chart shows, EPNL has fallen since modern turbojet and turbofan engines were first introduced – roughly a halving of radiated acoustic energy per decade. This is a remarkable technical achievement – a 95% reduction in the sound power generated by aircraft jet engines since their introduction. However, over the same period there has been an explosion in air travel and the number of flights and passengers has risen exponentially. The issue then is not whether aircraft are getting quieter, but whether they are doing so sufficiently quickly to compensate for the fact that there’s so many more of them. The answer also depends upon how quickly older, noisier aircraft are retired from service. In the UK, the net effect has been positive – aircraft are becoming quieter at a rate that outweighs the increase in traffic and the Airports Commission expects this trend to continue. When air is too loud Aircraft noise is generated by turbulent flows of air over and around surfaces. This includes air going into and out of the engine, and air flowing around the airframe – fuselage, wings and other aerodynamic surfaces such as flaps, slats and landing gear. What has brought about the continuing reductions in aircraft noise since the 1970s? The largest factor driving down aircraft noise has been a move towards higher and higher “bypass ratios” – originally sought after for greater engine efficiency, but which fortunately generate lower noise too. The bypass ratio is the proportion of the air which enters the engine inlet but bypasses the turbojet and exits at low speed, in comparison to the hot, high-speed jet coming from the engine core. This ratio has risen – all the air entering turbojet engines of the earliest airliners passed through the engine. In the turbofan designs of the 1960s and early 1970s this fell to around a third, while the engines powering large modern aircraft today such as the Airbus A380, Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 draw only a tenth of the air into the engine core. These engines have larger, more slowly-rotating fans with fewer blades – all features that reduce the aircraft’s noise profile. Quieter engines This process still has some way to run. Turbofan engines in smaller aircraft have lower bypass ratios than those in larger, wide-bodied aircraft, but development of new engines is underway for the venerable Airbus A320 and Boeing 737 families, and newer jets such as the Bombardier CSeries and the Mitsubishi MRJ. Such narrow-bodied jets constitute 70% of the commercial fleet, so this will have a profound impact on noise levels as they replace older jets. Better engines for larger aircraft are coming too, based on the same turbofan technology. Using a gearbox to uncouple the fan and the low pressure turbine will improve performance and reduce noise. A market leader here is the Pratt and Whitney PW1000G geared turbofan developed over the last decade and due to enter service, is anticipated to lead to larger, quieter and more fuel-efficient engines with bypass ratios approaching 15:1. Other techniques to quieten engines include acoustic liners on the inner walls of the intake and bypass ducts which absorb acoustic energy, and improved aerodynamic fan design and outlet vanes. Both of these have been made possible by the power of modern computers to accurately simulate airflow dynamics – there is scope for further advances in this area. Quieter airframes Reducing airframe noise is more challenging. The use of flaps and slats and deploying of landing gear at approach are necessary to slow the aircraft while maintaining lift, but they all create additional noise. It’s hard to have one without the other. Perhaps the most effective means to ensure both will come from new, improved aerodynamic aircraft designs that can provide better low-speed performance without sacrificing fuel efficiency at cruise. In the longer term, after 2050, completely new aircraft geometries that use blended wing designs, and even morphing geometry – aircraft that change shape – will potentially lead to major reductions in airframe noise, greater efficiency and improved environmental impact. All just as well, as by then there’ll be many more people still wishing to fly.

  _This article is a part of The Conversation’s series on unique courses. For other articles in this series, read here and here. _ Today’s college students may benefit from an exciting array of subjects to study. But they seem to miss the most important education of all: how to relate their specialization to others in an increasingly interconnected world. The National Academy of Engineering has categorically stated that today’s engineers need to be more than individuals who simply “like math and science.” They must be “creative problem-solvers” who help “shape our future” by improving our “health, happiness, and safety.” And in 2001, the engineering accreditation body ABET added a new criterion so as to ensure that students get “the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context.” The point is that the connections between humanities and science have been lost in today’s separation of disciplines. Indeed, a recent report by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences discovered that humanities and STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) training majors largely dwell in different silos. So, where and how did we lose our way? And how can educators and institutions change things? Separation of disciplines The founders of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) were well aware of the critical nature of this interdependence. When the NEH and the National Science Foundation (NSF) were established in the 1950s and ‘60s, the NEH founders wrote: If the interdependence of science and the humanities were more generally understood, men would be more likely to become masters of their technology and not its unthinking servants. These founders, hailing from leading universities as well as the US Atomic Energy Commission, IBM Corp and New York Life Insurance, knew that connecting the humanities and sciences helps us make informed judgments about our control of nature, ourselves and our destiny. But, since the 1980s, political rhetoric has emphasized the need for less humanities and more STEM education. STEM is painted as a more profitable investment, in terms of job creation and research dollars generated. A notable example is the Obama administration’s “Race to the Top” initiative, which both isolates and prioritizes the STEM disciplines from the humanities, arts and social sciences. This rhetoric is also evident in the creation of separate political education organizations such as the bipartisan STEM Education Caucus founded several years ago by congressional representatives to strengthen STEM education from kindergarten to the workforce. This separation of disciplines actually hurts education, and it also hurts our ability to innovate and solve big problems. Connecting STEM with humanities doesn’t just provide the well-rounded education today’s employers want. As the American Academy of Arts and Science’s 2013 “The Heart of the Matter” report observes, connecting these fields is necessary to solve the world’s biggest problems such as “the provision of clean air and water, food, health, energy, universal education, human rights, and the assurance of physical safety.” So, separating and prioritizing STEM from humanities ignores the fact that we live in a complex social and cultural world. And many different disciplines must combine to address this world’s needs and challenges. Bringing the disciplines together To address this gap, four years ago the faculty from materials engineering and liberal arts at the University of Florida began working with the Materials Research Society. We wanted to put together a new course on “materials.” Why did we choose materials? Because everything is made of them, every discipline studies them and they are tangible (quite literally) to the average freshman. After all, grade school students still learn about the Stone, Bronze, and Iron ages. The Industrial and Information revolutions revolved around new uses for steel, aluminum and silicon. The human past has been shaped by harnessing and consuming materials and energy. Materials will be important for our collective future as well. So, we thought, this is the future for which we should be preparing students. And thus our course, The Impact of Materials on Society (IMOS), was born. Taught by a team of nine faculty from engineering, humanities and social sciences, the course explores the close connection between the “stuff” in our lives and our experiences as social beings. Students discuss how materials benefit global trade and communication but also risk resource exploitation and political conflict. For example, we depend upon rare earths for our cellphones, iPads and wind farms, but accessing these rare earths from limited sources is not sustainable. So, some of the questions that the course raises are: what materials do we depend upon in our daily lives? Does this dependence have social consequences? What social relationships form around the production and use of these materials? And how do our current uses of materials affect our ability to discover new uses for them? Students also discuss the ethical and social aspects of using certain materials. college.library, CC BY Students are also asked to consider how our values shape our willingness to adopt new technologies. For example, Earl Tupper may have invented Tupperware, but it was Brownie Wise and her home parties with other women who first made his polymer famous! Each week covers a different material (eg, clay, glass, gold, plastic), its scientific properties, demonstrations, and its past and present impacts. Working together in multidisciplinary groups, students then contemplate the development of future materials. These include flexible electronic materials that can be used to create wearable sensors that can transmit important information, such as body hydration levels during athletic training. New polymer (plastic) materials  made from renewable sources instead of petroleum may have fewer health risks and are more sustainable than today’s plastic cups and bottles. At the same time, they discuss the ethical and social considerations that might affect the successful production and adoption of these new materials in different contexts. Gap in education The course is different from other freshman-oriented courses. It is not a “history course for engineers.” And it is not an “engineering course for humanists.” It is an interdisciplinary