Download PDF Summer Bridge on Advanced Biomanufacturing for Medicines June 16, 2025 Volume 55 Issue 2 This issue of The Bridge features cutting-edge perspectives on the rapid progress and innovation in advanced biomanufacturing for medicines. Revolutionizing National STEM Education to BUILD a Future-Ready Workforce Thursday, June 12, 2025 Author: Jerry Branson and Randy Roush A lifelong approach to engineering education can help restore the United States’ position as a global leader of technology. In the rapidly evolving landscape of engineering and technology, rethinking how science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) are taught over an individual’s lifetime is crucial. Significant resources have been dedicated in math and science education. The gains are hard to measure, but one thing is clear: engineering education has not received the same focus and requires urgent and innovative reforms (Kotecki 2025, NRC 2011, Sorby 2021). The multidisciplinary, team-oriented, tools-rich approach now ubiquitous in engineering has been overlooked in our educational institutions. The core methodology of the Better Utilization of Interdisciplinary Learning and Development (BUILD) program,1 which prepares current engineering students and recent graduates to immediately contribute as full-performance engineers, has demonstrated dramatic improvements in workforce effectiveness and overall productivity. This article presents a lifelong approach to engineering education, starting from early childhood and extending through retirement, offering a comprehensive vision for continuous improvement. The State of US Engineering Education Technical education, particularly in engineering colleges, is increasingly out of sync with the demands of the contemporary world. Modern engineering practice has embraced teamwork, necessitating a holistic approach across multidisciplinary teams to develop complex technology. A robust understanding of manufacturing is now a critical component of engineering culture. Technology has replaced manual calculation. Engineering is practiced with creativity and close communication within, across, and outside engineering circles. Despite these advancements, traditional engineering education has not kept pace, leading to significant gaps and inefficiencies in the workforce. This is well accepted and exemplified by the National Science Foundation’s Revolutionizing Engineering Departments (RED) solicitation (NSF 2024). Many countries have taken a lifelong approach to technical education, and it is increasingly hard to compete using our traditional four-year stovepipe effort. They prioritize continuous learning and skill development throughout one’s career. Germany, Japan, Finland, and Sweden are among those known for strong lifelong learning systems, often focusing on vocational training and industry partnerships (Thomson 2024). The European Union also actively promotes lifelong learning as a key element of its strategy. A former clear leader of technology, the United States has fallen behind much of the world (Alarcón 2023; Rivera and Fortenberry 2024). The introduction of a semi-universal, experiential, project-based engineering curriculum nationwide, one that spans an individual’s lifetime, would help reestablish the United States as a global leader of technology. Students need to learn how to work in the contemporary world, where engineers work on interdisciplinary teams. Most engineering colleges recognize this need and attempt to address it through their capstone projects. However, most capstone projects are focused on senior engineering students, and a student’s last semester is too late to cram enough experience for a meaningful education. New Job Requirements The nature of engineering jobs has shifted. Engineers now operate in a global market, addressing multifaceted problems that necessitate interdisciplinary collaboration. Modern engineers must comprehend intricate manufacturing processes. A systems perspective is required for nearly everything a contemporary engineer does. Without a deep understanding of manufacturing processes, engineers create specifications that are inefficient, costly, and ineffective. Engineers need to work cooperatively with non-engineers. User interface, and indeed user experience, has become vitally important, and industry must integrate this into its lifecycle process. Our educational frameworks must evolve to meet these new challenges, or we will soon be irrelevant. Historical Perspective My father’s mechanical engineering career from 1957–2017 further demonstrates how the engineering landscape has changed. This period produced engineers capable of working independently on specific aspects of projects. Education was straightforward, focusing on specialized skills. For example, he created the mechanical design for a tape recorder in the 1960s. The electrical design was created separately by an electrical engineer. This was effective for 1960s designs because keeping them separate allowed each one to operate independently. Contrast that with designs today. For example, in designing a modern cell phone the antenna designer must work very closely with the rest of the team. In times past, the antenna could be “ideal” with its proper electrical length in air. In a modern cell phone, the antenna must be physically short and electrically long with pesky conductors, circuitry, and humans within its near field. Intentionally or not, engineering is still being taught in silos that no longer match contemporary systems. In 2010 when Apple released the iPhone 4, calls dropped when users gripped the phone in a way that a conductor crossed an antenna feed point. This had major financial consequences, and, more importantly, resulted in a significant hit to the company’s reputation. A major phone manufacturer learned the harsh lesson that the antenna designer better be working closely with the ergonomics engineer! (Brochet and Palepu 2013). Intentionally or not, engineering is still being taught in silos that no longer match contemporary systems. Features of the BUILD Program In order to be useful in engineering, one has to be able to apply their knowledge. The fundamental goal of engineering is to solve real-world problems through the application of science and math. You must learn the material, remember it, and apply it. This philosophy is at the heart of the BUILD program. This program is built around four flagship BUILD courses, each with a comprehensive project. The projects are not only integrated with each other, but, as we will describe, can be threaded through an entire engineering curriculum. The heart of the program is a traditional four-year university program, but we propose that it can, and should, be woven throughout early childhood learning, K-12 STEM, and post-retirement life. Detailed descriptions of the courses and the K-12 Discovery Program proposal are beyond the scope of this article but can be found on the BUILD website.2 Below, we outline features of the BUILD program that, we suggest, would improve US engineering education if implemented on a larger scale. You Must Learn How to Apply It Yourself! The universal lack of command over the most basic of electrical tools by our students from over 60 university engineering programs is striking. Let’s look at oscilloscope use as an example. The typical conversation with a recently graduated student goes something like this: STUDENT: Thanks for another great class. It’s rewarding to get my circuit working. I was up late trying to get it to work but just didn’t know where to start. My DMM didn’t help. Using the oscilloscope cleared everything up. Hey, I was wondering if you had time to give me a quick lesson on how to use an oscilloscope. That would be invaluable! MENTOR: Sure. So I know where to start, have you used an oscilloscope before? STUDENT: Yes of course. We used them in many labs, but I never really understood them. We had step-by-step instructions telling us what buttons to press. I got an A on all the labs, but I never understood how to figure out what all those steps should be. I have no idea what the knobs do or where to set them. Frankly, I’m scared to even try. This is a universal conversation. They almost always wait until the classroom is empty and approach us with a visible amount of shame, thinking they are the only student without this understanding. But nearly every student comes to us asking for assistance in learning how to use an oscilloscope because they do not have the fundamental knowledge of how the machine works or the practical knowledge to use it. This is an endemic problem and needs to be addressed at the fundamental level. We avoid step-by-step instructions in our programs. We, instead, wait until a student is struggling with a time-varying signal and then facilitate a class discussion on how to use an oscilloscope, leveraging the particular moment when a student has a strong interest and incentive in figuring something out. This, combined with the Rule of Three described below, has been particularly effective at giving students a life skill as compared to what they get when fulfilling the goal of turning in a graded lab report. Rule of Three When you see a subject only once, you barely learn it and may not remember the subject later when you need it. Our experience is that knowledge does not usually stick after one exposure. We have found that three types of exposure to a subject work well. Specifically, we offer students a carefully planned pre-class interest exposure, a class academic exposure, and a post-class experiential exposure. As an example, below is a three-step process for differential equations. Pre-Class Interest Exposure The freshmen build a stepper-motor-based 3D printer. They assess the performance of the printer, measuring runout and noting what happens if you try to run the machine too fast. We then hold a design review discussing what is causing these limits. Why is there a runout error? Can we redesign to improve runout? What limits the speed of the machine? The freshmen attend the junior design review where they see the machine the juniors are building. It is more accurate and runs a lot faster! The open-loop stepper system was replaced by a closed-loop proportional integral derivative (PID) servo-controller. It is shown to them by example that if they only knew differential equations, their machine could run significantly faster. They are shown an introductory analysis and application of differential equations. After seeing this example, one might even look forward to taking differential equations. Class Academic Exposure A few semesters later they find themselves in their differential equations class. From their freshman design review, they know why they’re there. They’ve thought a little about differential equations for a few months. They see the application of those equations. They are willing to work hard during this second exposure and learn them well. Post-Class Experiential Exposure When they are juniors, they make a pick-and-place machine using what they learned in differential equations and controls courses. They are excited to employ those pesky differential equations. This is their third type of learning, and they own the information for life. One very good way to become a deep expert in a subject is to teach it, and the BUILD program takes this to heart. As a follow-up to our three stages of learning, we implement a teach-back approach that has proven very effective in our programs. Sophomores teach freshmen and juniors teach sophomores. This is done in a variety of places throughout the program but is best exemplified by active attendance in each other’s design reviews. We strive to hit every subject in the engineering curriculum with this golden Rule of Three. This is how the BUILD classes and projects were designed. Every major concept in the curriculum is mapped twice into the projects—once as pre-class interest exposure and once as a post-class experiential exposure. The goal is to enhance every single class in the curriculum without changing the classes themselves. Figure 1 shows the mapping for differential equations. As freshmen, the students attend sophomore and junior design reviews, seeing the product of the differential equation tool. The black arrow shows them how much faster and smoother the junior pick-and-place machine runs than their machine. They see how PID control works and understand that if they knew differential equations, they could do this. As sophomores (brown arrow), they take differential equations and do a deep, motivated dive into the subject. As juniors, they design, build, test, and perfect their pick-and-place machines and use differential equations (bidirectional red arrow). As seniors they use and teach them (orange). In this way, the four flagship courses enhance every single class without changing the classes themselves. Our Rule of Three teaching style nearly mirrors that practiced in the medical field. The traditional method of teaching surgery is known as “see one, do one, teach one” (SODOTO). Developed in the 1800s, SODOTO is still an active, developing field (Kotsis and Chung 2023). Obviously, not all information gets all three exposures within the university program. It is not possible, for example, to give them a pre-class exposure for things they learn their first semester, and it is not possible to give them a post-class experiential exposure for what they are learning their last semester. We do, however, include these in the BUILD Foundation K-12 and postgraduate mentor programs. This lifelong approach effectively teaches a person how to learn, how to think critically, and how to appreciate learning, preparing them to venture into the unknown and apply their education. Much of the Hard Work Is Already Done Most of the pieces we need to improve engineering education are already developed, tested, and partially implemented. What’s missing is putting them together in a coherent, intentional program on a national level, a program that extends from early childhood through post-retirement contribution. Preschool STEAM Education Preschool often adds art to the collection. Science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics (STEAM) education is an exciting, growing field. Parents are starting technical education in the crib. There are an incredible number of books aimed at infants. Two excellent examples are Ruth Spiro’s Thermodynamics! and Chris Ferrie’s Optical Physics for Babies. These books do a great job of stimulating early interest and getting kids to ask questions at a very early age. Samuel Branson created a series of books for infants and toddlers with accompanying explanation books for the parents. These explanation books are overtly aimed at parents so they can answer their children’s questions. The idea is that particularly interested children would later read the explanation book cover to cover on their own. These are future Nobel laureates. K-12 STEM Education K-12 programs have been developed that make huge strides in addressing early education. The program at Belvedere Elementary School in Falls Church, Virginia, is an excellent example. Programs such as First Robotics have gotten people interested in playing with technology in a hands-on environment. Federal programs from the intelligence and military special operations communities have tackled this problem at a postgraduate level, and these programs have been piloted in a University of Louisville undergraduate program, culminating in the creation of an undergraduate BUILD program that aims to revolutionize engineering education nationally. Matching national talent from retirees with young, budding engineers building high-tech Halloween in Northern Virginia allows for a meaningful post-retirement contribution (Fenston 2010). University of Louisville Pilot Program The BUILD program courses piloted at the University of Louisville demonstrated that these skills could be taught at the undergraduate level and showed significant improvements in student engagement and practical skills. The program operated within existing accreditation standards, making it feasible for broader implementation. We have received overwhelmingly positive endorsements from the university, the students, and their employers.3 In the university environment, cost is a major factor, and it is a lot cheaper to teach a book than to run a lab-based experiential course. Further, adjusting curriculum and graduation requirements increases the difficulty of getting traction for any program. Program funding is beyond the scope of this article; details of how the BUILD program plans to fund and sustain the program can be found on the website.4 Military Special Operations Trades Training Program In 2004, there was a strong push to develop a military special operations workforce capable of performing sophisticated technical functions. The challenge was to take a group of motivated and intellectually capable soldiers, sailors, and airmen with little technical background and develop skills to accomplish multidisciplinary missions, including code writing, mechanical design, chemistry, electronics, and more. To fully develop these skills to be deployed in “no fail” missions, a different teaching methodology was implemented. The training needed to be heavily hands-on, and the idea of enticing students to want to learn the deeper underlying principles had to be woven into instructional methods. For example, to improve a system built during the classes, they needed more mathematical tools and a sound understanding of components and concepts. But seeing that the system was inadequate and then learning to improve the system provided incentive to learn these theoretical aspects. It’s amazing how hard one will work to understand a Smith chart when it enables you to make a link and rescue a hostage, for example. This style of training natively implements the BUILD methodology, and it has produced a number of talented experts who decided to attend engineering school either during their service or after leaving the military. The knowledge, skills, and insights gained set them up for extraordinary success in engineering school and engineering careers. The Creation of a Valuable Mentor Cadre: The Intel Community CORE Training Program Over the last decade, the Intel Community’s (IC) CORE training program taught interdisciplinary, hands-on, team-oriented engineering skills to students who had recently graduated from over 60 universities to prepare them for intense fieldwork. The focus was the development of world-class engineering teams agile at hands-on skills, design for quick reaction manufacture and application, and interdisciplinary teamwork across medium-sized teams. One of the most valuable components of this program has been the mentor program. Experienced practitioners, some mid-career and some retired, teach alongside the professors. This cadre of mentors teaches the practical aspects of what the professors are teaching. After teaching their subjects a few times, the mentors are the most deeply knowledgeable and talented experts we have met. Not only are they incredible resources for our young engineers, but they also become incredibly capable and are highly coveted on engineering teams. Many choosing to stay with the program after retirement continue to have a sense of contribution, which is both rewarding and incredibly valuable. We found this so valuable that we created our BUILD program around this philosophy. Engineering Ethics Ethics in technology is an increasingly important aspect of engineering. Technology plays an increasingly important and impactful role in our lives. The engineering concepts of prototyping, efficiency, reliability, standards, optimization, and feedback are put to use in fields as diverse as transportation, retail, health care, and entertainment (Madhavan 2015). The use of technology has impacted our lives for a long time, and recent advances in artificial intelligence are going to accelerate this further. Because of this, ethics in engineering is also going to be increasingly important and impactful. The BUILD program addresses engineering ethics and the social context of technology by threading human-centered thinking throughout technical education. Rather than treating ethics as a separate subject, BUILD integrates it throughout project-based learning, where students encounter real-world dilemmas in teamwork, sustainability, safety, and ethical issues. What can engineers build for the future through leadership roles in industry, government, and academia in addition to technical jobs (NAE 2004)? Redefining engineering education to include comprehensive STEM principles from preschool through post-retirement is essential for producing the engineers of tomorrow. From their first year, students are immersed in projects that challenge them to consider the societal impact of the technologies they design. Whether working on automated manufacturing systems, networked sensors, or robotic machines, students explore questions like: Who benefits? Who might be harmed? What biases or risks are embedded in this system? How will we possibly deal with information credibility? The interdisciplinary nature of BUILD—bringing together engineers, educators, business strategists, and psychologists—creates a natural space to explore questions of responsibility, equity, communication, and social value. This mirrors the National Academy of Engineering’s call for “engineers with more than technical ability,” emphasizing global awareness, ethical reasoning, and public engagement. By incorporating reflective design reviews, discussions with mentors, and exposure to long-term impacts, BUILD makes ethics and human factors a natural part of the engineering mindset—not an afterthought. Conclusion Redefining engineering education to include comprehensive STEM principles from preschool through post-retirement is essential for producing the engineers of tomorrow. This approach ensures that future engineers are not only technically proficient but also creative, collaborative, and culturally competent. By fostering continuous improvement and embracing interdisciplinary learning, we can equip engineers to meet the complex challenges of the 21st century and beyond. We need a revolutionary approach to technical education to address inefficiencies. This needs to include early childhood technical education, hands-on learning with manufacturing in mind, and interdisciplinary team-oriented learning at the undergraduate level. By expanding this initiative into a national learning program, we can create a robust and responsive technical workforce that is capable of maintaining the United States’ leadership in technology and innovation. This is the mission of the BUILD Foundation. Now is the time to act, leveraging existing resources and partnerships to build a brighter future for engineering education. References Alarcón IV. 2023. How to build engineers for life. Issues in Science and Technology 40(1):25–7. Archibald FS. 1993. Why a 120-credit engineering degree is now possible. Proceedings of IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference - FIE ‘93, June 6–9, Washington, DC. Brochet F, Palepu KG. 2013. Apple Inc. and the iPhone 4 Antenna Issue (Harvard Business School Teaching Note No. 114-018). Harvard Business School. Fenston J. 2010. High-tech ghouls haunt stores, homes. NPR All Things Considered, Oct 25. Feynman RP. 1985. Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!: Adventures of a Curious Character, Leighton R, ed. W.W. Norton. Iowa PBS. (n.d.). Before the Formal Education System. Iowa Pathways, accessed April 17, 2025. Online at: https://www.iowapbs.org/iowapathways/mypath/2741/formal- education-system. Klingbeil N, Mercer R, Rattan KS, Raymer ML, Reynolds DB. 2004. Rethinking engineering mathematics education: A model for increased retention, motivation, and success in engineering. ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, Salt Lake City, Utah, June. Kotecki K. 2025. MAPS recognized for boosting student achievement. Manistee News, May 7. Kotsis SV, Chung KC. 2023. Application of the “see one, do one, teach one” concept in surgical training. Plast Reconstr Surg. 131(5):1194–1201. Madhavan G. 2015. Applied Minds: How Engineers Think. W.W. Norton & Company. NAE (National Academy of Engineering). 2004. The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century. The National Academies Press. NRC [National Research Council]. 2011. Successful K-12 STEM Education: Identifying Effective Approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. The National Academies Press. NSF [National Science Foundation]. 2024. NSF 24-564: IUSE/Professional Formation of Engineers: Revolutionizing Engineering Departments (IUSE/PFE: RED). Online at: https://www.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/iusepfe-red- iuseprofessional-formation-engineers-revolutionizing. Rivera J, Fortenberry N. 2024. Rethinking engineering education. Issues in Science and Technology 40(2). Sorby S, Fortenberry NL, Bertoline G. 2021. Stuck in 1955, engineering education needs a revolution. Issues in Science and Technology, Sept 13. Spielman A. 2024. Former Ofsted chief: Why children need to learn to make and mend. The Times, June 16. Thomson P. 2024. Global approaches to lifelong learning, Wonkhe, Feb 27. 1Details of the BUILD program can be found at www.build4edu.com. 2See https://www.build4edu.com/build-courses and https://www.build4edu.com/build-k-12. 3See https://www.build4edu.com, BUILD Endorsements menu tab. 4See https://www.build4edu.com/funding. About the Author:Jerry Branson is an engineering educator. Randy Roush is an intelligence community and special operations consultant.