Professor Ming Leu is working on a process that
substitutes plastic models for ones made of ice. He calls it Rapid Freeze Prototyping, and it will make the process even faster, cleaner, and less costly.
Rapid prototyping, also called desktop manufacturing, enables a computer-run machine to build a model directly from three-dimensional computer drawings, either to exact size or to scale. These
models are made of layer upon layer of polymer resin, and they give manufacturers a better idea of how a part or product will look and work without having to build expensive prototypes. While rapid
prototyping has been an innovation that's cut manufacturing costs, it still not an inexpensive thing to do. Moreover, it's not clean: most systems emit unhealthy dust and smoke. "I began looking for a more
environmentally-friendly process," recalls Leu, a professor of integrated product manufacturing in UMR's department of mechanical and aerospace engineering and engineering mechanics. "And I thought, 'Why
not water, which is abundant and cheap?'" Unlike most systems, Leu's icy version--which works in a sub-zero environment about the size of a
household freezer--uses nozzles to drip or stream water, building first the outside shell, then filling it with water. Food coloring can be used to color different parts.Leu is now hoping for a federal grant to
continue his project. With an infusion of cash, he says, his cool idea for the next generation of rapid prototyping could be ready for commercialization within two to three years--if there are no slip-ups.
Industry cheered and instantly embraced rapid prototyping--a method of quickly and relatively cheaply making models of parts or products--when the process became available in the 1980s. But now the iceman of the
University of Missouri at Rolla cometh, with a radical new version of rapid prototyping that should send chills of anticipation down the spines of manufacturers.
The American Federation of Teachers argues that degrees that do not contain at least a component of face-to-face interaction between teacher and pupil are second-rate. The group proposes a set of quality
standards for university-level distance education programs, and key among its recommendations is a requirement that full undergraduate degrees include some classroom time.
AFT President Sandra Feldman says that "it is critical that we hold these programs to a high standard of academic rigor and ensure interaction between faculty and students, and students and other
students. . . . If we fail to do this, these degrees and the people who earn them will not be accepted in the workplace and elsewhere."
But Edward Guiliano, president of the New York Institute of Technology, which does award degrees that require no classroom time, says the AFT is fighting against an unstoppable trend. All schools, he
notes, are seeing an increase in older students who are returning to academia because their careers require continuing education. And because these students are also often holding down full-time jobs,
schools must be prepared to allow them to access courses when it's convenient for them.Guiliano admits that surveys show that students who have some contact with their teachers have higher levels
of satisfaction. But what defines interaction? "Does video conferencing count as face-to-face interaction?" he asks. And even if satisfaction is lower, that doesn't mean that a course isn't good, he
claims. Guiliano says an online degree offered by NYIT is not inferior to one it awarded by traditional
means. "The caliber of the degree is the same, it is the distribution that's different."Still, Guilano cautions, not all courses and degrees being offered online are worthwhile. Students seeking a
top-notch degree, even from a distance, should stick to those offered from schools of proven quality.
As teaching migrates from real classrooms to virtual ones, how important is it for teachers and students to interact on a personal level? Is a degree awarded to a student who has never set foot in a classroom worth less
than one earned by more traditional methods? These are questions that may have to be answered quickly as Internet-based distance education continues to boom. Between 1995 and 1998, the number of higher education
institutions offering Net-based courses rose from 22 percent to 60 percent. And more and more schools are awarding both undergraduate and post-graduate degrees that can be obtained entirely online.
Each year, the federal government spends about $15 billion on scientific research at U.S. universities. Three quarters of that money is for direct costs of the projects, but a quarter of it covers
indirect costs, including building maintenance, heating and cooling, and salaries of administrative staff. Some of these funds are meant to be reimbursed. Nonetheless,
the report by the California think tank, RAND, for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, says that despite Congressional grousing, universities have collected only 70
percent to 90 percent of the reimbursement funds they're due. That means that each year, research schools pay between $700 million to $1.5 billion to cover costs that should be borne by the government.
Congress began thinking of ways to rein in these expenses 10 years ago, when news stories claimed some schools were overcharging for indirect costs.
In forwarding the report to Congress, OSTP Director Neal Lane wrote that suggested policy changes aimed at further reducing these costs are counterproductive. If implemented, he claimed, "the resulting
shift of costs to universities would be detrimental to research enterprise," forcing schools to either cut back on research or pass the costs on to students in the form of higher tuition. "The federal government
should not introduce new obstacles to the recovery of valid facilities costs that might discourage university leadership from making needed investments in research facilities," Lane wrote.
In other words, squeezing universities over minor expenses could save the government a few bucks. It could also discourage future breakthroughs that might be worth billions.
The benefits of federal investment in university-centered research and development are certainly manifest. America's economy has flourished over the last decade in large part because of
technology-driven productivity gains. Yet, a recent report finds, Congress could seriously jeopardize future research--and its potential payoffs--by nickel-and-diming the country's research schools for indirect costs.
By Witold Rybczynski, Scribner, New York; 2000, 173 pp., $22.
When noted architecture writer Witold Rybczynski was asked to identify the best tool of the millennium, he considered the saw, the plane, the chisel, and had almost decided on the carpenter's brace when his wife
suggested the screwdriver. One Good Turn is the story of mechanical genius involving two commonplace objects that hardly anyone even thinks
about. It is the screw that really intrigues Rybczynski. Without it, he writes, there would be no telescope, no microscope--in short no enlightenment science.
One Good Turn: A Natural History of the Screwdriver and the Screw.
The more things change, the more . . . well, the more likely some people will applaud and some will hiss. And that's been the case with
new changes made to the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, the main "taxonomy" of American colleges and universities.
The listing is a primary tool for researchers of higher education (and also the foundation for U.S. News & World Report's annual school rankings). The overhaul meant that roughly 640 schools were reclassified,
mostly those institutions awarding doctoral degrees. And while some schools are pleased with their new classifications, others feel their categorizations don't fairly capture their full identity. Jacki Calvert, a Carnegie
spokesperson, says the classification's architects know the new approach isn't perfect. Between a preliminary version published in early summer and the final version published in October, some schools were allowed to
alter their listings, she said. The update was needed because the classification hadn't changed in six years and was woefully out of date. The foundation wanted to address two points with this new version: put more emphasis
on schools' teaching and the numbers and types of degrees they award, and focus less on how much research they perform or federal research funds they receive. For instance, the old classification divided research and
doctoral institutions into four categories, heavily influenced by the amount of federal support they received. The new version has two classifications: doctoral extensive (schools that award at least 50 Ph.D.'s a year in more
than 15 disciplines); and doctoral intensive (schools that confer many fewer doctorates in only two or three disciplines). Calvert stresses that this is an "interim" classification and that a planned 2005 version will
have greater scope. That listing will place schools into several categories and include an interactive facility that will enable users to generate their own customized classifications. Still, for institutions that feel
aggrieved by the new classification, five years may seem like a long wait. Again, the foundation is sympathetic but doubts that annual updates are likely because it "lacks the staff and resources" to accomplish such
a feat.
