March 7, 2007
Leadership in a Technological World
H. V. Poor
Dean of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Princeton University
Minutes of the 22nd Meeting of the 65th Year
Some 92 members negotiated a snowfall to attend the last meeting of the winter term of the 65th year, convened by President Joe Giordmaine at 10.15 AM. Lucid minutes of last week’s talk were read by Jim Ferry. Bill Walker introduced his guest Peter Wise, John Frederick introduced his visitor Stephen Payne and Ruth Miller her visitor Margaret Whitehead.
John Schmidt, on behalf of the Membership Committee, introduced Harold Erdman, William Barger and Samuel Lenox as new members, the latter two being present; he also congratulated and presented credentials to Arnold Smolens who attained emeritus status.
The President then introduced the speaker, Dean H. Vincent Poor of the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Princeton, whose address was entitled “Leadership in a Technological World.” Having a Ph.D. from Princeton, he is also the Michael Henry Strater Professor of Electrical Engineering (of interest to your minute-taker as Strater was a schoolmate and Princeton roommate of his). Formerly on the faculty of the University of Illinois, Dr Poor also was a visiting lecturer at other places including Imperial College, Stanford and Harvard. He is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering and a fellow of several other institutions.
Recalling his talk a few years ago on the wireless revolution, Dr Poor also said how much he appreciated being an Old Guard honorary member. Concentrating on Princeton as a leader in education and the development of new technology, he distinguished between science and engineering by saying that the former is about understanding nature while the latter is about “doing,” i.e. developing and applying technology for society.
Using “power point”, he indicated a number of questions which guide the School – how to respond to global need for leaders who understand technology. His answer emphasized reaching out to all students, not just engineers, particularly in their awareness of what he called “trade offs,” a subject he returned to at the end of his talk. Another question is how to improve world health, a matter which is not just medical but, in that it involves technology on which 20 percent of his faculty are working, engages engineers. He listed nine diseases in the treatment of which engineering is involved. The approach is inevitably inter-disciplinary, a characteristic which extends to the Grand Challenges Initiative, a joint venture between engineering, the Princeton Environmental Institute and the Woodrow Wilson School.
He referred to the Center for Innovation in Engineering Education of which he was head at one time. The Center works to reform the first year of engineering training, coordinating formerly separate disciplines, implementing an external internship plan and it seeks to develop latent leadership skills by exposing students to lectures by proven leaders. They also reckon to make full use of stuidents’ interest in developing areas of the world like Africa, taking account of the complicated results of globalization. Another matter is environmental concerns in energy production – one of the Center’s lecturers is a company chief executive who is keen on countering global warming.. Another question is how engineering can help people make decisions about investment and business in the face of risk and uncertainty, a matter being addressed by the Department of Operations Research and Financial Engineering. There is also the Center for Technology Policy, a joint effort with the Woodrow Wilson School.
Finally, he raised the question of how an engineering school responds to economic, political and economic needs. They also pay attention to what students are interested in, such as entrepreneurship, service abroad, ethics and teaching children.
In essence, a number of descriptive disciplines have become quantitative – bio-medical study spawned biological engineering and physics spawned electrical engineering just as chemistry gave birth to chemical engineering. Much of this is medically related.
Focusing on Princeton, he recognized the enthusiastic backing of the University President, Shirley Tilghman, important since 20 percent of students are in engineering. A map underlined the projected growth in the School of about 25 percent and the demand for new and very expensive buildings. That elicited questions from furrowed brows at the end of the talk. Concern for the human quality of the developing area seemed to be dealt with mainly by pointing out the new buildings were to be built on parking lots, and by a somewhat tautologous reference to “trade offs” between greenery and accessibility. The need for bigger spaces to study smaller things was not entirely reassuring in this regard.
The meeting adjourned at 11:30 AM.
Respectfully submitted,
John Frederick
John Schmidt, on behalf of the Membership Committee, introduced Harold Erdman, William Barger and Samuel Lenox as new members, the latter two being present; he also congratulated and presented credentials to Arnold Smolens who attained emeritus status.
The President then introduced the speaker, Dean H. Vincent Poor of the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Princeton, whose address was entitled “Leadership in a Technological World.” Having a Ph.D. from Princeton, he is also the Michael Henry Strater Professor of Electrical Engineering (of interest to your minute-taker as Strater was a schoolmate and Princeton roommate of his). Formerly on the faculty of the University of Illinois, Dr Poor also was a visiting lecturer at other places including Imperial College, Stanford and Harvard. He is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering and a fellow of several other institutions.
Recalling his talk a few years ago on the wireless revolution, Dr Poor also said how much he appreciated being an Old Guard honorary member. Concentrating on Princeton as a leader in education and the development of new technology, he distinguished between science and engineering by saying that the former is about understanding nature while the latter is about “doing,” i.e. developing and applying technology for society.
Using “power point”, he indicated a number of questions which guide the School – how to respond to global need for leaders who understand technology. His answer emphasized reaching out to all students, not just engineers, particularly in their awareness of what he called “trade offs,” a subject he returned to at the end of his talk. Another question is how to improve world health, a matter which is not just medical but, in that it involves technology on which 20 percent of his faculty are working, engages engineers. He listed nine diseases in the treatment of which engineering is involved. The approach is inevitably inter-disciplinary, a characteristic which extends to the Grand Challenges Initiative, a joint venture between engineering, the Princeton Environmental Institute and the Woodrow Wilson School.
He referred to the Center for Innovation in Engineering Education of which he was head at one time. The Center works to reform the first year of engineering training, coordinating formerly separate disciplines, implementing an external internship plan and it seeks to develop latent leadership skills by exposing students to lectures by proven leaders. They also reckon to make full use of stuidents’ interest in developing areas of the world like Africa, taking account of the complicated results of globalization. Another matter is environmental concerns in energy production – one of the Center’s lecturers is a company chief executive who is keen on countering global warming.. Another question is how engineering can help people make decisions about investment and business in the face of risk and uncertainty, a matter being addressed by the Department of Operations Research and Financial Engineering. There is also the Center for Technology Policy, a joint effort with the Woodrow Wilson School.
Finally, he raised the question of how an engineering school responds to economic, political and economic needs. They also pay attention to what students are interested in, such as entrepreneurship, service abroad, ethics and teaching children.
In essence, a number of descriptive disciplines have become quantitative – bio-medical study spawned biological engineering and physics spawned electrical engineering just as chemistry gave birth to chemical engineering. Much of this is medically related.
Focusing on Princeton, he recognized the enthusiastic backing of the University President, Shirley Tilghman, important since 20 percent of students are in engineering. A map underlined the projected growth in the School of about 25 percent and the demand for new and very expensive buildings. That elicited questions from furrowed brows at the end of the talk. Concern for the human quality of the developing area seemed to be dealt with mainly by pointing out the new buildings were to be built on parking lots, and by a somewhat tautologous reference to “trade offs” between greenery and accessibility. The need for bigger spaces to study smaller things was not entirely reassuring in this regard.
The meeting adjourned at 11:30 AM.
Respectfully submitted,
John Frederick