text:
Mobility 2050/Lightweight Electromobility

The Rise of Lightweight Electromobility
The need has arisen for more cost effective electric vehicles due to the scarcity of the battery minerals as well as environmental and ethical concerns. With the enormous risks that are associated with the rise of global warming, keeping this temperature rise under 2 degrees Celsius has risen to the forefront of the public mind. Finding more efficient ways for Electric Vehicles (EV’s), and more specifically Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV’s) to best utilize the resources available is vital for the future of 2050, as an e-bike may only have a 5 lbs battery compared to the 1,000 lbs battery in some EV’s. The vision for the future of electromobility will be a public and governmental switch toward lightweight electromobility in cities and a change in infrastructure and regulations to mitigate climate change.

The State of Electromobility
The US Department of Transportation describes electromobility as “any small, low-speed, electric-powered transportation device, including electric-assist bicycles, electric scooters…” and more. The benefits of current electromobility are that the upfront capital cost of the vehicles are less than other BEV’s while also providing a range to the user of 20 up to hundreds of miles. These ranges depend upon the specifics of the micro mobility vehicles but typically vary due to vehicle size, charging time, and other factors involved. Nonetheless these vehicles are able to transport their user across a city in the same way that a traditional car would be able to.

Feasibility of Expansion
The Netherlands has been at the forefront of the switch to lightweight mobility, as in 2019 bicycle’s made up 27% of all trips made in the country. They have been able to achieve this based on implementation of government incentives and subsidies, an investment of charging infrastructure, policy initiatives, an integration of public transport, and changing social values of the public. To achieve these goals the public must be able to accept the responsibility and the necessity for the growth of electromobility as an alternative form of transportation. The most popular explanation for why the Netherlands was able to accomplish this feat and America could never do something like this is, ‘well the Netherlands is smaller than the United States, with less people.’ To this we propose the facts of the situation and raise our own question: the population of the Netherlands is larger than all but 4 states in the US (and double the population of all but 12), so if a country the size of the Netherlands can accomplish this, why can’t a state like New Jersey? Blanket enforcement across the US most likely is not the solution to the evolution of micro mobility, but control on a state and local level would make this transition more manageable. This emphasis will come as the public responsibility shifts even more to keeping the global temperatures below that 2 degrees mark.

The Future of Electromobility
The future of electromobility is one that comes in many shapes and sizes, with varying technological advancements that will propel lightweight electric travel into mainstream use. Already these advancements can be seen as the design of these vehicles have been retrofitted to better fit the user’s needs. Lightweight and foldable E-bikes allow for more convenient storage and transportation for people of all demographics and the same can be said for personal and foldable E-scooters. Another future for lightweight mobility is using eco-friendly material in batteries and developing a solar charging system to power the vehicles. Additionally swappable battery systems for e scooters would provide convenient power boosts when traversing a city when stopping to charge is not an optimal solution. The future of travel can take on many of these new forms that are convenient for the consumer as well as beneficial to the environment.

Obstacles
Given that the future we wish to progress towards de-emphasizes personal motor vehicle transport in favor of small-scale personal electromobility, how can we construct a plan to make sufficient progress towards this goal by the year 2050? The Netherlands have become a modern day success story, and provided a foundation for the future we wish to see in 2050, but it's naive to assume that the template that allowed for the Netherlands to succeed in this right can be copy-pasted to cities all over the world. There are various barriers ranging from political, cultural, economic, and environmental that will slow the adoption of large scale electromobility. In the U.S. these manifest in the lagging of construction progress brought on by the two-party system, the vast difference in job requirements accompanying different locations, the innate ties motor vehicle based industries have to the national government, the large range of climates the country encloses, and many more. These obstacles are not insurmountable, but important to consider while visualizing the future.

Implementation
Taking these factors into account, the first steps towards our future will begin with public outcry. The U.S. has the most annual car crash deaths by far, and these numbers continue to increase as the years progress. As driving becomes less safe, the American people will call upon their government to change their transportation system. This will start with small scale city-level laws and projects, such as bike lane construction, public transportation spending, and even current policy in New York set to minimize vehicle idling by allowing citizens to record vehicles idling and recover part of the cost of the ticket. As such laws and projects sweep across the nation, the economic power of companies such as General Motors will lessen due to the population seeking alternative methods of transportation. This will diminish the amount of lobbying they can do, which will free up the government to take more direct action. At this point, city planners and public transportation exerts will be contracted by the government to inspect our current city layouts. They will work in tandem with lightweight EV companies such as Lyme and VEO to provide alternatives to driving in major cities. Because all major cities are different, these projects will have to be customized based on many factors. Ferries can be used in cities cut by rivers. Trollies can be used in cities with mild climates. Metro networks can be used in cities that are too large for slower means of transportation. Every city will be a unique engineering challenge, and the need for educated labor in this vein will ensure that the next generation of students will carry on this vision for decades to come. As the projects expand to smaller cities, cars will only be needed to move between cities, and the streets the children play in will once again be safe. This process can be significantly quickened by technological advances in lightweight electromobility, however, so it is important to monitor the current state of lightweight EV's as well as potential for innovation in the future.

Technological Advances: Present & Future
Significant advancements have been made in the realm of computing power, partly thanks to hardware company Nvidia. They have revolutionized the field with their high-power GPUs, accessible through CUDA (Compute Unified Device Architecture). CUDA has accelerated the development and execution of code, especially in machine learning. OpenAI has also contributed to this progress with the release of Triton, a GPU programming framework that similarly improves speed. This competition has spurred remarkable advancements in programming. For instance, the introduction of Triton has enabled faster PyTorch training by reducing the use of temporary memory. These developments marks a leap forward in the efficiency and capabilities of programming technologies.

In 2007, a GPU and an efficiently-written Breadth-First Search algorithm enabled the processing of about 10 million graph nodes in one second. In 2011, a Stanford team discovered that GPU-optimized codes could tackle up to 400 million edges in a second on a 32 million-node graph, marking a substantial leap forward. This progress owes much to Moore's Law, which predicts a doubling of transistors on a chip approximately every two years, thereby boosting computational power. This trend feeds into the expected increase in GPU parallelism—a consistent pattern over recent years. Consequently, we can anticipate future, more powerful GPUs to simultaneously handle more intricate tasks, dramatically accelerating overall processes. Moreover, advancements in transistor technology have curtailed leakage, thus improving both the quantity and quality of transistors.

These technological strides will revolutionize software by 2050. For instance, navigation companies, like Uber and VEO, will not only enable their apps to find paths quicker, but they will also enhance their fleet management. This will enable these companies to optimize vehicle deployment, improve route efficiency, and streamline operational logistics, ultimately leading to a more efficient and responsive service. Consequently, more people will be incentivized to ride share, use electric scooters, and ultimately, move away from using private vehicles.

Enhanced computational capabilities will also improve the quality of simulations in various fields. For instance, automotive manufacturers can run extensive simulations, incorporating artificial intelligence in their designs. This will enable them to pay greater attention to aspects like safety, aerodynamics, and overall vehicle performance, boosting the adoption and use of lightweight electric vehicles. Material scientists will benefit as well. Improved technology will accelerate advanced simulations and exploratory methods. Using GPUs, researchers can efficiently model complex processes, like the transformation of Li4Ti5O12 into Li7Ti5O12, leading to more discoveries and improvements in materials, namely batteries. These discoveries will raise the quality of lightweight electric vehicles, which will be crucial to realizing our vision.

Future Work
Future research could explore the methods used to shift public attitudes towards lightweight electric vehicles by 2050. The United States has an entrenched car culture, as seen by the sprawling suburbs and extensive freeways. While government policies can guide a transition towards more sustainable forms of transport, fostering an authentic public preference for these vehicles is key to ensuring a smooth shift.

The city of Liverpool's transformation offers a valuable case study in changing societal attitudes. Once grappling with racism, highlighted by the 1981 Toxteth riots, the city has seen a massive shift for the better. The arrival of Mohamed Salah—a Muslim player for Liverpool FC, one of the club’s best ever players—played a key role. His presence correlated with a 16% drop in hate crimes, compared to had he not signed for the club, and fewer Islamophobic posts among fans. This shift in Liverpool demonstrates the potential for deeply ingrained behaviors/attitudes, such as the United States’s car culture, to undergo positive transformation.


text:
Engineering Education in 2050/Tools, Not Just Solutions

Introduction:

In 2014, Lockheed Martin claimed that they will create a fusion reactor that will have “no emissions, safe operations, and proliferation free” so that in 20 years, “we will have clean power for the world.” In 2016, Boeing redesigned their Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) system to account for stall characteristics for FAA certification. In 2023, Forbes reported that “AI computers make zero errors if programmed correctly,” such that they reduce human error. Of course, all of these claims led to failure of varying severity as: The Boeing 737 Maxes crashed due to the control of the MCAS system, AIs spread misinformation and are all error prone, and commercial fusion energy has yet to be demonstrated but still causes some to believe that innovation alone will solve the energy crisis. Lockheed Martin’s claims are especially false since not only did they fail to “have a prototype” that functioned in “five years” as they hoped, it was unlikely that their design “the size of a shipping container” was even theoretically viable. Also, even if fusion technology did become viable, it is unlikely to replace other sources so completely anytime soon. All of these failures have something in common. They result from useful tools being sold as complete solutions to a problem. In many cases these claims are made by engineers who are responsible for developing these tools. For example, the Boeing redesign was signed off by Boeing’s Chief Project Engineer and Lockheed Martin’s claims were made by the Doctor of Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering who led the project. It is clear then that there is a grave need to better educate engineers about the distinction between tools and solutions. When engineers have the skills to refute these false claims and the personal integrity to speak the truth even when it goes against business interests, new technologies like these can be important parts of true solutions.

The field of Engineering is suffused with the false assumption that the job of an engineer is to "produce solutions". This can be seen starkly in the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology's (ABET's) certification requirements. In order to stay accredited, engineering programs must demonstrate each year that their students demonstrate "an ability to apply engineering design to produce solutions". When the belief that engineers produce solutions is promoted, the role of the user in engineering is underrepresented. If an engineer has "solved" a problem, it is implied that the user is not responsible for solving the problem. In contrast, tools must be used to solve a problem and a user must be considered explicitly. The consequences of missing this distinction can be seen in the overrepresentation of electric cars as a solution to climate change in the mobility sector or in the marketing of AI as a replacement for lawyers, artists, and programmers. In order to truly solve problems like the decarbonization of mobility, engineers will need to be educated differently by 2050 to draw attention to the distinction between tools and solutions. Already, changes are being made to ABET certification requirements in order to promote this transition. For example, the Civil Engineering accreditation requirements for the 2024-2025 accreditation cycle make no mention of producing solutions and instead emphasize ethical and sustainable design. Though some branches of engineering, such as computer science, still require engineers to "produce solutions", we anticipate that this will have changed by 2050.

Collaboration Between Majors:

Historically, engineering has been an interdisciplinary career, with most engineers having other careers. Leonardo da Vinci was an architect and an artist. Benjamin Franklin was a politician, postmaster, and writer. However, engineering education has overly focused on specialization. This has led to a major problem in the professional world, with engineers encountering problems and attempting to create solutions that fail to help the people they are supposed to. There has been progress in moving away from this ideology, but there must be significantly more to enforce the "Tools, not Solutions" mindset that is essential to engineering.

Engineering is a highly interdisciplinary field, with most engineers having many transferable skills. Despite this, working with others is something that engineers struggle with. This can, in part, be attributed to engineering education prioritizing solutions over tools. Solutions do not exist in real life, but tools do. Making good tools requires collaboration between the engineers designing the tool and the people who need the tool. This is not something that is seriously covered in modern engineering education. An improvement to the engineering curriculum would be requiring engineering students to work with other majors over the course of their undergraduate career. Whether they enter the workforce or pursue further education afterwards, they will have to work with non-engineers on the regular. Therefore, they should spend their first year determining what they want to do and which kinds of people they will be working with. Biomedical engineers might work with pre-med students, computer engineers might work with business majors, etc. This will be a largely open selection. Engineers should have the freedom to decide what their career path will entail and find the right people to work with. Once they have found someone to work with, they should start discussing what their goals are and what project they will work together to create. Unlike other projects, which usually take a semester, this project will take until graduation to be completed. By working with someone outside of engineering, engineering students will be forced to consider the needs and wants of a partner and construct a tool, not a solution. At the end of their fourth year, the partnership will present their project, explaining what they learned from it and how they can apply it. Working for such a long time on a project would give both partners an experience of what their future jobs will be like. Beyond the obvious benefit of creating more skilled and wise engineers, this will also give the engineers a major interdisciplinary project on their resume, showcasing to employers that they are well prepared for the challenges of a career. The non-engineering student also stands to benefit. Communication is a two-way road. By working with an engineer, the student will gain experience that will help them work with engineers in their career. The world will be even more interdisciplinary in 2050. It is important that different professionals are capable of working with each other to create their visions, while also recognizing the fundamental difference between tools and solutions. .

Emphasis in Projects:

In today's engineering programs, projects are seen primarily as tools to educate engineers in solving problems that they may encounter outside of education. These projects place a great emphasis on the technical aspects of this problem solving, but often neglect to emphasize the social aspects of problem solving. By 2050, engineering programs will place a greater emphasis on the development cycle in projects. Doing so, they will emphasize that responsible development begins with diagnosing a problem that can be solved with the help of engineering. Then, students will work to create a tool that can be used to solve that problem. Afterwards, students will discuss the uses and limitations of the tool including an emphasis that the tool is useless without a user. By integrating this distinction into project based learning, engineers in the future will have concrete examples of the importance of considering the user in design.

Implementing a four-year project-based curriculum will cause some issues with students who are not sure of what major they want to do or those that change their majors. Therefore, instead of four years, a three-year project might be better. Engineering students at the University of Virginia declare their major in their first year. Other schools may have a different timeline and so may need a two-year project. Regardless of the length, the project would still encompass several years and provide a solid preparation for students. Since it would only start after major declaration, students would still have time to explore their major options. Additionally, students could also use the time before major declaration to find potential partners and come up with a project idea. They would then spend the rest of their time in college working on the project, taking in input from users, and showing their progress to an advisor. Finally, a report on the project, what challenges were faced, what problems it can be used on, and lessons learned can serve as the student's capstone.

Ethics:

A contributing factor to the misrepresentation of tools as solutions is the constant push by companies to develop systems that remove the user because “solutions” sell better than tools. A solution is something that works independently, while a tool requires a user to make decisions and interact with it. The danger of misrepresenting a tool as a solution can be demonstrated by the following. Say a person has high blood pressure, and their doctor prescribes them a blood pressure medication. If the doctor tells the patient the pill is a solution, then the patient will continue to make decisions that are not good for their health and assume that the pill will control their problem, whereas if the doctor tells the patient the pill is a tool, then the patient takes the pill as part of system to control their high blood pressure; a system that includes other tools like exercise and diet changes. Problems are not solved when people, whether they be designers or users, are removed from a system. To prevent the misrepresentation of tools as solutions, we must develop systems that keep the designers and users responsible and not pass technology off as standalone solutions. One way we envision doing this is increasing the teaching of ethics during engineer’s schooling. Ethics are defined by Oxford Dictionary as “moral principles that govern a person’s behavior”, and engineering education that teaches students ethics can provide them the background and skills necessary to make the strong ethical decision to keep users as a crucial part of the system.

More and more in society we see an increase in disdain for companies who push for unsound decisions because of monetary influence. A PwC survey found that only 30% of consumers trust companies (Segal 2022). This shift in societal thought will push companies to search for ways to gain public favor as a company that people can trust. Large corporations already donate money to college degree programs, for example the UVA mechanical/aerospace engineering 3D printing lab that is sponsored by Rolls Royce, so they will shift this action slightly and start to put money towards ethics programs in engineering in search of good publicity, which in turn will encourage schools to develop their own ethics programs in hopes of receiving these funds.

Another reason we foresee a shift in engineering education to have a more central focus on ethics is because of the increasingly negative view of capitalism combined with the increase in small businesses being started in the tech industry. It is a well known phenomenon that younger generations tend to have more liberal views that become more moderate as they age, but some claim that this trend is ending, starting with gen z. This is the first time in history where a younger generation is worse off economically than their parents generation, leading to a general distrust and want for reform in the current capitalistic economic system. Additionally, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration, small business applications are at an all time high. These two facts will converge in 2050 and lead to a market that is flooded with businesses run by people who care about their impact on employees, the environment, and the public, all of which are important areas to be considered when making ethical decisions. This market shift caused by younger, more liberal generations joining the ranks of business owners will contribute even more to the corporate sponsorship of ethics programs in academia, and will cause a snowball effect where the growth of ethical viewpoints in business will cause more ethics to be taught in higher education, which in turn will result in more ethical decision making by employees in the field. We believe this increase in ethics will include a heavy focus on not misrepresenting tools as solutions, because many of the current problems for employees and the environment stem from people being removed from the system. For example, material waste is at an all time high, and yet most citizens do not know how to properly dispose of different products because they falsely believe that generic recycling processes will solve these environmental problems. Young visionary business owners fed up with current systems will enter the workforce and begin slowly changing the tide towards a world where people are helped solving their problems, not where their problems are "solved" for them, and this reform will include the increase in the teaching of ethics in engineering higher education.

Specifically, we envision an engineering curriculum where ethics teachings are ingrained into classes across a curriculum in ways like requiring lab reports to feature a section explaining how a tested technology may or may not be the best tool for different scenarios, or discussions of past engineering project tragedies and successes involved in most lectures. Engineering education is slowly headed down this path on its own. At UVA the Science, Technology, and Society classes are a requirement for graduation and include various discussions of an engineer's responsibility to the public and their design. The class Advanced Software Development also includes a lecture on the Software Engineering Code of Ethics. This trend in higher education combined with societal pressures causing companies to put their money towards ethics teaching programs will result in an engineering curriculum in which ethics are a core component. An ethical engineer will know their responsibility to be a part of a system that uses their technology as a tool, as opposed to an outsider of a system that treats their technology as a solution.

References:

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Engineering Education in 2050/CS for Sustainability

In a rapidly advancing era of technology and innovation, three critical areas demand our attention and action for a sustainable future: sustainable hardware design and production, recycling and reuse of electronic materials, and ethical sourcing of materials. We predict that by 2050, a comprehensive transformation of Computer Science education will create a societal shift that will ensure that future generations of technology professionals are committed to sustainability and ethical practices surrounding not only areas relating to CS but all practices associated with general technological design and innovation.

Sustainable Hardware Design and Production

The current trends surrounding sustainable hardware design and production are leading society down a dangerous road. The disastrous environmental impacts that come with surging technology consumption can be attributed to the fact that current hardware design and production practices are not focused on optimal sustainability. Every year, approximately 40 million metric tons of electronic waste consisting of discarded televisions, phones, computers, and other electronic hardware are produced globally. This electronic waste makes up 70% of the toxic heavy metals in these landfills. As companies and manufacturers are not actively working to make these technological devices sustainable in every sense of the word, the harm inflicted upon the environment will only get worse.

This is why a next-generation sustainable solution must be proposed that has technology companies focused on longevity, energy efficiency, and responsible materials associated with each newly designed and constructed piece of hardware. The society of 2050 will be one where industry professionals apply their knowledge on how to effectively foster sustainable hardware design and production practices in the workplace after having learned every part of this process in school. This will be able to become a reality once CS curriculum shifts are incorporated into every level of the education system. This shift must be based on centering CS education around teaching about longevity, energy efficiency, and responsible material use, concerning the design and production of hardware. A curriculum rooted in practical projects with real-world applications paired with industry collaboration will make the classroom of 2050 one that actively works to better society through thoughtful innovation. This classroom of 2050 will bring about a new era of the technology industry in the form of encouraging smart consumer demand on a global scale. This means that the next generation of technology consumers will be educated and informed on how to help save our planet from further environmental disasters, encouraging them to only demand sustainable technology from companies and manufacturers. This demand will inevitably force these technology producers to reinvent their hardware design and production practices. Once this shift takes form in the United States, it will take shape globally until society actively works to continuously save itself from an unsustainable technology future.

Recycling and Reuse of Electronic Components

In the current era where advancements in technology are rapidly outpacing electronic lifespans, the recycling and reuse of electronic components emerge as a pivotal strategy to promote sustainability and mitigate environmental impact. A study done by the World Economic Forum showed that in 2019 alone, humans produced for than 59.1 million tons of electronic waste, which was an increase of 21 percent more than in 2014. The staggering increase in electronic waste highlights a critical challenge: the need to more effectively repurpose and manage electronic waste. Not only does the accumulation of e-waste pose significant threats to the environment and public health, but also a loss of valuable resources. The under-recycling of lithium-ion batters, a key component in many new technologies including electronic vehicles and phones, is particularly alarming, with only 5% being recycled annually. Meanwhile, the reuse of electronic waste offers a trove of resources including glass, plastics, and metal wiring that could be used in the manufacturing of new electronics.

To address the critical gap in electronic component recycling and reuse, a fundamental shift in computer science and engineering curricula is essential. Future computer science engineers have to be equipped with the knowledge and deeper understanding of circular economy, business collaboration, and waste ethics. Not only will students know how to design and build electronics, but to also think about the sustainability of the product. Integrating a deep understanding of circular economy strategies into the computer science and engineering curricula will not only promote recycling habits but also a completely different view of the electronic product lifecycle. This would not only create a shift of mindset towards product design, but the environmental footprint of their products. In terms of business collaboration, collaborative interdisciplinary projects in engineering, business, and environmental science would provide hands-on experience for students to tackle problems that they would face in their careers. This could also include learning about large corporation collaboration to promote electronic recyclability and reuse. Lastly, a strong emphasis on ethics is vital for computer science and engineering students. Although there is ethics classes are already implemented for students in most universities, a broader landscape of ethics classes that fit with computer science-specific majors(and other engineering students) would provide a more catered and impactful fit.

To effectively implement the necessary changes in computer science engineering curricula needed for a sustainable future in 2050, a multi-faceted approach is essential. The collaboration between academic institutions, governmental bodies, and tech industry leaders will be vital for the success of computer science for sustainability. This could be incentivized by policies and funding provided by national or global governments, encouraging universities and schools to make critical changes. Fostering relationships with big tech corporations and universities to provide hands-on projects would provide experience with electronic component recyclability challenges and solutions to change in the future. Addressing the escalating issue of electronic waste and the ineffective recycling methods of critical components like lithium-ion batteries and materials require substantial effort from universities, businesses, and governments. With these efforts, by 2050, we can visualize a world where tech businesses are more committed to product lifespan and universities are bringing forth bright computer science engineers who are passionate about an environmentally conscious future.

Ethical Sourcing of Materials

As our world becomes increasingly reliant on technology, the demand for materials like rare earth elements (REEs) is expected to soar, with projections indicating a 400-600% increase over the next few decades. Over 90% of these essential elements currently come from just four countries, raising concerns about environmental and social impacts associated with their extraction. In this context, the role of Computer Science (CS) education becomes pivotal in advocating for and implementing ethical sourcing practices. Ethical sourcing in the tech industry is not just about procurement; it's a comprehensive approach that encompasses environmental stewardship and social responsibility. By sourcing minerals responsibly, we can significantly reduce environmental damage, such as pollution and loss of biodiversity. More importantly, it addresses critical social concerns by reducing human rights abuses and improving working conditions in mining communities.

To embed these values in future technology professionals, CS curricula must evolve. Courses should include modules focusing on the environmental and social impacts of mineral extraction. This integration will ensure that students are not only adept at technical skills but are also conscious of the broader implications of their work in technology. An interdisciplinary approach is essential in this educational transformation. Collaborating with departments like environmental science provides students with a broader perspective on the lifecycle of technology products, from mineral extraction to end-user application. Such collaborations can foster innovative solutions, like biomining, electrokinetic extraction, and agromining, which offer sustainable alternatives to traditional mining methods. Furthermore, the possibility of asteroid mining presents a futuristic yet potentially pivotal area for research and exploration within the curriculum. In the 2050 CS classroom, real-world case studies will be a cornerstone of learning, utilizing advanced technology to bring practical scenarios to life. Virtual reality (VR) simulations will enable students to immerse themselves in the environments of mining operations, witnessing first-hand the environmental and social impacts of mineral extraction. Through interactive modules, they will navigate complex global supply chains, encountering and resolving ethical dilemmas that mirror those in the professional world. This hands-on approach, blending VR with data-driven case studies, ensures that students not only understand theoretical concepts but also develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills essential for ethical decision-making in their future careers. By 2050, partnerships between educational institutions and tech companies will be deeply integrated into the CS curriculum. Collaborative projects facilitated through digital platforms will allow students to work directly with industry professionals on current challenges in ethical sourcing. These projects might involve developing algorithms for more sustainable supply chain management or designing software solutions for tracking the ethical sourcing of materials. These partnerships will not only provide invaluable practical experience but also open pathways for internships and job opportunities, equipping students with a blend of academic knowledge and industry experience.

The ultimate goal of integrating ethical sourcing into CS education is to nurture a generation that drives innovations prioritizing sustainability. By 2050, we envision a tech industry where ethical sourcing is the norm, influenced by professionals educated on its importance. Educating students in this manner equips them to not only excel in their careers but also to contribute meaningfully to a sustainable and equitable technological landscape.

Summary


text:
Engineering Education in 2050/Keeping Humans in Responsible Charge of AI

Introduction
The rapid emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) in the 21st century presents significant ethical challenges, particularly in its development and societal impact. This chapter, drawing from AI experts Geoffrey Hinton and Timnit Gebru, highlights these issues, including existential risk, encoded biases, and labor exploitation in AI development. It advocates for a reformed engineering curriculum focused on equipping future engineers with the necessary skills and ethics to address these challenges in 2050, ensuring AI advancements align with inclusivity and social responsibility.

Future Risk of AI
Hinton's Projections and Concerns for AI's Future

Geoffrey Hinton, often referred to as "The Godfather of AI," has voiced concerns about the trajectory of AI development. He recently stated in 2023 that AI could surpass human performance within as little as five years, revising his earlier prediction of twenty to thirty years. His warnings reflect that AI systems must be aligned with human values, and designed as tools to augment humanity rather than replace them. Despite this, Hinton does not advocate for a halt in AI research, arguing that global research efforts will continue regardless. His concerns encompass the spread of misinformation, along with the potential automation of jobs, such as assistants and paralegals, and the wider societal effects of job displacement.

Gebru's Critique of AI Ethics

Timnit Gebru, a former co-lead on Google’s AI ethics team, brings a different but equally critical perspective. Her dismissal from Google following her criticism of large language models (LLMs) underscores the tension between profit and safety in AI development. Gebru highlighted how these models, driven by profit motives, often fail to address inherent biases. Biased data trains biased AI, and the reflection of human biases in AI underscores the need for the 2050 engineering curriculum to focus on comprehensive ethical training, critical thinking, and bias mitigation strategies.

Labor Exploitation of AI Workers

The exploitation of labor in AI development highlights unforeseen challenges from AI's rapid growth. In the Philippines, Remowork has faced criticism for exploiting workers tasked with classifying images for AI datasets, often in poor conditions with low pay, delayed wages, and revocations. Similarly, Sama in Kenya has drawn workers into discerning explicit graphic content to train models like ChatGPT in flagging inappropriate material. These workers, some paid as low as $1 an hour, endure mental health impacts from the distressing content. Such exploitation underlines the ethical issues in building advanced technologies on the labor of disadvantaged individuals, reinforcing a cycle of inequality.

AI Biases and Ethical Considerations
By 2050, it is predicted that AI will be more commonly integrated into everyday life and more powerful, however, with this there is the potential for algorithm decisions to be more biased as they present higher amounts of information to users accumulated over the years. A consideration to focus on by this year is the possibility that algorithms are reinforcing biases rather than helping them.

What is AI Bias?

Biases can emerge from the data that is used for training, the algorithms themselves, or the design decisions made during development. Important case studies of AI bias include the 1988 British medical school discrimination where a computer program was biased against women and applicants with non-European names when reviewing applications. In 2018, a similar occurrence happened when Amazon’s computer models were biased against women as most resumes came from men with data input. Another example is the ProPublica news site finding that the criminal justice algorithm said African American defendants were “high risk” at twice the rate as white defendants. It is clear that AI bias can lead to misinformation and unequal opportunities to users and the public, so is there a way to completely stop it with the help of engineers and their professional responsibility?

A New Curriculum

Behind AI development are the professionals working to create such algorithms. To keep AI in check, the task of completely eradicating bias is an unrealistic approach, rather, it is proposed that engineers will need to be trained at some point in the future to recognize such biases in data. Engineers need to understand their professional responsibility in ensuring AI technologies align with ethical standards and societal values. To achieve this mindset, we predict that AI bias recognition will be addressed and integrated into course curriculums. Following principles by Geoffrey Hinton, there will be a creation of courses or electives that help engineering students navigate complex ethical dilemmas that will most likely occur in AI development. Main topics to address include user control and privacy, and transparency of AI systems in a diverse environment. Engineers will learn about user consideration when designing AI which allows users to have control of the system, rather than the system controlling the user. Respecting user privacy is also important as personal information must be handled responsibly with low possibilities of data breaches, as well as compliance with set privacy regulations. Lastly, ensuring that AI systems are transparent and explainable helps build trust and allows users to understand how decisions are made. For example, this may be seen with the system displaying warning signs of information that may be at higher risk of having biases, and keeping the user aware of how they can better use AI in their life while keeping in mind the information and perspectives presented have their flaws. To address these topics, in particular, hands-on exercises such as finding innovative solutions to help reduce bias in AI will prepare students to make responsible decisions when faced with real-world scenarios. This can be done with learning how to potentially filter data sources that are at high risk for being biased. In addition, seminars with guest speakers will be more available for students to attend on their own time. Speakers may be professors in the area or from around the world, as engineers discuss global AI standards at the time.

Opportunities and Challenges

As AI infiltrates more into our daily lives, it has the potential to reinforce biases from human thinking and behavior because of the data used. It is unrealistic, however, to find a way to completely eliminate bias, therefore, addressing a change in mindset and encouraging engineers to be more adaptive via integration of multidisciplinary courses and electives are predicted to be available in the future. It is important that humans, the creators of AI systems, heed Hinton’s warning by being aware and reflective of AI biases and ethical standards as it is crucial for creating a future with AI technologies that contribute positively to society, and so that humans do not blindly rely on the incorporation of these powerful, yet flawed systems.

AI Law in Engineering Schools
As previously mentioned, our vision sees engineering education taking the necessary steps to teach CS students how AI should align with inclusivity and social responsibility. Another method to reach this end would be to include Pre-Law for undergraduate engineering students.

Current AI Law

Presently, laws around AI are in the intermediate stages and have yet to take full effect. By the year 2050, with AI being more present in everyday life, we suspect there will be many AI laws. Already, 15 states in the U.S. have enacted legislation around AI. They all have different aspects to them. Some state legislatures focus on collecting data and establishing policies, while others further clarify that AI does not legally qualify as a person. Although the current legislature is scarce and disjointed, in 2022, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy released the Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, which is an indication that in the few upcoming years, nationwide policies on AI will be formed.

AI Litigation

With any policy or law made, eventually, citizens will break them. We predict that in regards to AI, this will stay consistent, creating a new field of AI litigation. For example, there could be cases that involve harmful bias done by AI, plagiarism of AI software, liability disputes if someone were to follow AI instructions, and more. CS students would be the perfect candidates for the role of AI lawyers as they could understand the background of the software that is relevant in an AI law case and would be able to give context to a jury or judge. This is similar to how patent law, which focuses on litigating patent cases and writing patent applications, currently requires patent lawyers to have at least one technical degree. This is because people with technical backgrounds better understand technical terminology and models, allowing them to grasp the interworkings of an invention that a patent law case is centered around. With AI law, the same would apply. Introducing Pre-Law topics to undergraduate engineering CS students would allow more students to be introduced to the new career path we predict. There could be classes in engineering schools that start with the intersection between law and engineering and higher level courses teaching students law basics to prepare them to potentially go to law school and take subsequent exams. Our prediction is that there would be an AI Law Bar similar to the Patent Bar. With AI lawyers, the future of AI could be tried legally to keep creators responsible.

AI Certifications

Also, it would be important for CS students to learn about future regulations and their purposes. In our idea of 2050, it would be required for those who create AI software professionally to have a certification to create AI within a specific jurisdiction. This model would combine the current Software Code of Ethics, which does not currently include AI ethics codes, and the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam that Civil Engineers must take as a step to be considered a professional engineer. These certifications would ensure that professionals who create AI systems can be held accountable for being aware of AI regulations as they have received a certification that will have tested them on AI regulations as well as technical skills. A present challenge to this idea is determining what jurisdiction a person should become certified to create AI professionally since one AI software could be used outside of the state or even the country where it was created. Also, people must pay to take the FE exam, so we can assume a similar test would also require payment. This could create barriers to who will receive the certification.

Conclusion
These issues lead to the prediction of a significant shift in the engineering education by 2050. This new approach will prioritize ethical grounding, bias prevention, human-centric AI design, interdisciplinary collaboration, and continual learning. By equipping future engineers with the skills and ethical frameworks to navigate these challenges, the vision for 2050 will be one where AI is a force for positive change and developed in a manner that respects both human dignity and moral responsibility.


text:
Engineering Education in 2050/High-Sōsh Techniques

Introduction to High-Sōsh
Sōsh: environmental or societal impact (high = good impact, low = bad impact).

The techniques employed by engineers can be placed on a spectrum from high-sōsh to high-tech, depending on the amount of technological resources required. High-tech generally has been the preferred side of the spectrum, as it represents the cutting edge of modern advancements. Everybody wants to contribute to the latest and greatest, so an enormous amount of effort goes towards these advancements. However, this often leads to high-tech tools being prescribed to problems where a high-sōsh tool would've been more than sufficient, as people are looking to apply these new advancements. This raises concerns, as high-tech tools, by definition, require more resources than their high-sōsh counterparts. So, an engineer should carefully gauge whether this tradeoff of more resources is warranted, but little attention is given to this in our current engineering education. Some would argue that engineers should only consider technological forces in design, that social forces are best left to business leaders and executives. However, social forces are absolutely as important as technological forces to engineers, as these forces are acting on designed tools everyday. For example, psychological reactance is a subconscious behavior that causes users to defy a tools intended use as an automatic response, without having any prior biases against it. Immediately, it's apparent how just one behavior can spell disaster for engineers. High-sōsh engineering is about considering all types of behaviors when improving a tool.

To illustrate this spectrum a little bit better, here are some examples:

 * An engineer who's trying to regulate indoor temperatures:
 * (High-Tech) Upgrade to a stronger, more advanced HVAC system.
 * (High-Sōsh) For a large building, install revolving doors so that less air is released from the indoor environment.
 * (High-Sōsh) For a smaller building, use transoms to create a natural breeze during the summer.
 * An engineer who's trying to slow down drivers:
 * (High-Tech) Install speed monitors and automatic ticketing systems.
 * (High-Sōsh) Design roads such that they only support the desired type of driving (narrow, curvy roads for urban areas).
 * (High-Sōsh) Paint a zebra crosswalk, as done in Iceland, to slow drivers with an optical illusion.

Our Vision
Our vision is that, in 2050, the mindset of people will have shifted to be more sustainable, leading to more thought towards the tradeoffs between high-tech and high-sōsh designs. Over-engineering will be considered distasteful, as simpler designs that require less resources will gain recognition. The cutting edge will represent innovations where high-tech and high-sōsh techniques are balanced to get the best results for humans as a whole, rather than representing innovations that contain the most advanced technology. People will be more interested in finding sustainable ways to address problems that would traditionally use high-tech means.

This mindset shift will necessitate engineers to diagnose problems based on the context of the entire system, rather than the few components that they have expertise on. They will no longer have a very specific set of tools that biases the way they solve problems, instead having a broader set of tools that allows them to view problems from more nuanced, diverse perspectives. This will lead to engineering programs becoming multidisciplinary. More specifically, we believe that the majority of engineering curricula will fall under one broad 'full-spectrum engineering' major, where students have access to courses across all applied sciences. This will allow them to gain the knowledge to assess situations from a much wider perspective, while also being able to specialize where they see necessary. They'll start their education with the same foundation of math and sciences that engineers currently do, but will follow it up with advanced courses from many different areas of interest, rather than one specific discipline.

Feasibility and Credibility
We believe that the overall shift in mindset will be fueled by the outcomes of climate change. One study found that, without significant policy change, we'll see 2°C of global warming by the 2040s. This amount of warming is predicted to increase the Fire Weather Index (FWI) by up to ten points in much of North America, South America, Europe, and the Middle East, which translates to more than a quarter of the world experiencing an extra month of severe heat stress every year. As these consequences become apparent to more and more people, mindsets will adjust to account for the urgency of the situation. This wouldn't be new, either, as we've seen it before with the Montreal Protocol, which was a global agreement to phase out the chemicals that were depleting the Ozone layer. It's been successful in eliminating around 99% of such chemicals, putting the Ozone layer on a recovery track. There's no reason to think we can't seek this type of global collaboration again, and it's easy to see how that could drastically change mindsets as people come together to address the problems we're all experiencing.

As for the shift in engineering education, there are many signs in industry today that point to that fact that current engineering degrees do not serve graduates well enough. One sign is that the current separation of majors creates a culture of narrowed perspectives which can be very dangerous for engineering design. The notorious Boeing 747 Max incident is a prime example of what happens when technical knowledge is limited and not shared across disciplines. The culture at Boeing resulted in teams constantly shifting blame because an issue was outside of their area of expertise, which may have been avoided if the engineers had a wider understanding of the new designs of the aircraft (especially with the faulty component, the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System). Another sign is that engineers are constantly working outside of their major, which brings into question why these multidisciplinary skills are not emphasized in education if it is expected of every new hire? A current trend is the rise in Mechatronics degrees, a degree focused on combining Mechanical, Electrical, and Software Engineering, has grown by 15.6% since 2021. This trend rose out of an industry need for engineers who can understand a system from end to end, rather than one particular component. All these signs point to traditional degrees not preparing graduates for the problems that the industry is focused.

A 2050 with no more engineering majors sounds very bold, but what might surprise people is that glimpses of this future are happening right now. Olin University, a private school in Massachusetts, is ranked #2 in the US for undergraduate engineering programs without a doctorate. This program only offers 3 majors: Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, and Engineering. Every student declares one of these majors and also picks up a concentration. Concentrations are composed of classes of a specific area of interest, for example: robotics engineering, network security, or sustainable engineering. Graduates come out with the foundational engineering knowledge in physics, chemistry, and math, and specialized skills in a concentration of their choosing. At the University of Virginia, the McIntire Commerce school is a highly ranked business program which aims to produce the worlds leading corporate executives. A student at McIntire pursues a general liberal arts education with a concentration within a field of their choosing. McIntire credits their ranking to this model of interdisciplinary education, and states that Commerce School graduates need to be able to handle problems of the future in whatever field they originate from. This goal should also apply to engineering education, where engineers should not only understand complex tools, but also understand how users should remain at the center of these designs. One counter argument is that, while commerce can afford to have a broader range of education, an engineering education requires that students learn specialized skills within narrow fields such as: Fluid Dynamics, Machine Learning, and Bioengineering. However, a concentrations model for engineering does not need to be overly broad. These concentrations can focus on specific fields where students can still pickup specialized skills, just with the option of doing so across multiple areas of interest. A curriculum could combine major specific classes into more relevant courses. For example, instead of taking Ordinary Differential Equations in the Math department and Fluid Dynamics in the Mechanical engineering department imagine "Intro to Fluid Dynamics" a class where relevant differential equations is taught within the context of fluid dynamics. This could make course space by saving on credit hours, provide better education because students can connect concepts easier, and make lab applications more relevant to industry practices.

Accreditation will change by 2050 to reflect these new priorities. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) in their 2022-2023 "Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs" "specify subject areas appropriate to engineering but do not prescribe specific courses". Already, accreditation is making space for revamped technical courses that better reflect industry. To incorporate interdisciplinary studies, ABET should require concentrations within their specific subject areas. Understandably, this is a big change for all at once but ABET will be eager to adopt due to the desirability explained above. Some bridge programs could include a new accreditation standard that highlights interdisciplinary studies the same way a college is recognized as a research university. At UVA, concentrations in engineering have already mended well with ABET standards. System engineers can pick up concentrations in Human and Technology Interaction, Information and Intelligent Automation, and Operations Research and Analytics. What about students who do not know exactly what they want to do? The open curriculum mentioned above gives them freedom to not be confined within a major.

Rigorous evaluation for a student who knows exactly what they want to do vs. a student who takes some time can be solved by revamping the capstone project. Capstones are the closest thing to a job environment, where students will inevitably work outside of their coursework. However, one missing component of capstones is the client. In 2050, capstones will adapt a real project timeline with clients and team members of different technical backgrounds. This opens the project to bring in students from different concentrations where they learn to explain unfamiliar concepts to peers (like in the real world) and each has valuable skills. For example, a 2050 capstone might be designing a new smart parking lot where engineers take on tasks related to marketing, advertising, coding, client relations all in one project while working with non-technical background peers.

Conclusion
In 2050, full-spectrum engineers will lead the charge of saving our environment and bringing people together for societal interests. They'll have the tools to address problems with humans in mind, where the design process puts the user first. This will give us systems that are used as intended, in contrast to current designs such as Tesla's Autosteer, where people circumvent safety restrictions by simply jamming an orange into the steering wheel. Instead of seeking to develop the latest and greatest technologies, engineers will seek to find higher-sōsh ways to address existing problems. They'll have a broader range of tools, allowing them to analyze systems as a whole rather than only the individual components they're familiar with. Industries are already seeking engineers with multidisciplinary skillsets, and this will only continue with mindsets shifting to prefer high-sōsh techniques. As this happens, the social impacts will be increasingly noticed, creating a positive feedback loop. Engineers seeking better outcomes for humans will lead humans to understand the better outcomes we're capable of achieving. Curriculum changes are already happening today to educate engineers. By 2050, curriculum will fully support new learning objectives with detailed and proven concentrations. Lastly, students will prove their education in a revolutionized capstone project where they will learn professional practices.


text:
Engineering Education in 2050/Learning Engineering by Engineering

Engineering is the application of sciences and mathematics to solve real world problems. Currently, the amount of hands-on and application based learning in engineering education is lacking. Students do not gain enough experience and skills in school to support them for their future careers. Instead, they are typically taught to receive the knowledge in a classroom setting, without being given the opportunity to apply the learned content in a meaningful way. Thus, we think that by 2050, engineering education will change to incorporate learning engineering by engineering as a way to better prepare aspiring engineers.

High School
At the high school level, all classes generally have some sort of final exam, whether it is a state level standardized test or AP/IB exams. A high score implies that the student mastered the content and can move onto more advanced classes. However, it is difficult to measure a student’s proficiency in a subject merely based on a few sheets of paper. This structure also restricts the students to only what is in the curriculum, preventing them from fully exploring the different areas in engineering.

By 2050, there would be a major restructuring in the high school engineering classes such that every class would have a lecture and a lab portion. The lectures would still be the traditional styled class like now. But, the labs would be where students can experiment with and explore the knowledge they learned. They would choose a topic of interest, which does not have to be a topic in the curriculum, and independently develop a project around it. The timespan of these projects are determined by the student. So, to allow this, students are required to take both the lab and the lecture components their first time, but afterwards, the student can choose to take the lab multiple times throughout their four years in high school. The teacher’s role in the labs is to act as an advisor, providing occasional feedback when the student needs it, and to create a professional setting, teaching the students the best practices in industry as they carry out their projects. In the end, the student will have at least one project, which will come together to form the student’s portfolio for the class. The portfolio will replace the final exams mentioned before, so it will be evaluated to score the student on their competency in the subject. The new structure allows students to gain personalized experience in engineering subjects and determine if their interests lie within the subject. This is beneficial as students have a clearer idea of their career goals and help them decide which path to take after high school graduation.

Currently, we see the portfolio idea partially implemented. For example, AP Computer Science Principles has a final exam along with a digital portfolio. Students are required to complete worksheets throughout the semester / year as well as develop an app. In IB, the student’s score in the class is based on the internal and external assessment. For the internal assessment, students are required to research a topic or complete a project depending on the class and write a report. The external assessment is like a final exam. In 2050, the portfolio would become the only component in assessing the student’s proficiency in all engineering classes, giving students the opportunity to apply the knowledge learned in the lectures to the real world.

University
In 2016, UVA opened a new laboratory called the National Instruments Engineering Discovery Lab, a $1.4 million laboratory located in the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department. Craig Benson, the UVA Engineering Dean at the time, states “young people do not become engineers by sitting in lectures.” This lab is designed for hands-on experiences and gives students a chance to solve real-life, technical problems. An example course that takes place in this laboratory in 2023 is Control Laboratory. Students learn about design, analysis, construction, and testing of electrical and electromechanical circuits and devices, such as Roomba vacuums and auto scrabble players. The skills students learn from courses like these can be used in the workforce or graduate school. Furthermore, the lab was donated very generously by National Instruments, indicating the companies' desire for students educated by learning by doing.

In addition to the National Instruments Laboratory, UVA also has Lacy Hall, a space dedicated to putting theory into practice. Currently, the UVA engineering curriculum has all first year engineering students take Intro to Engineering. This class included 3 major hands-on projects: controlling Sphero robots to escape a maze, using CAD software to design and 3D print a ring, and designing sound holes with software to make a violin out of a cigar box. These projects helped the students have fun while learning engineering in a memorable way. By 2050, UVA will have more of these hands-on spaces dedicated to learning by doing. This process of learning engineering by engineering leaves a stronger impression on students compared to memorizing content through lectures or a textbook. Currently, some of these hands-on labs have restrictions by majors, so our hope is that any engineering student who wants to benefit and learn from these labs will be able to by 2050.

By 2050, we anticipate that the types of hand-on projects offered by some clubs will be implemented into the classroom. At UVA, these clubs include Hoo Hacks, Computer and Network Security Club, Immersive at UVA, and Virginia motorsports. Allowing students to work on projects that get them to think creatively and learn through actions will be more of an active learning style in 2050 than it is now. It will not replace lecture style learning; rather, it will be a tool to use alongside the current system. Participation in hands-on clubs could be counted for credit if the students are involved in projects that incorporate learning engineering by practicing engineering. This is similar to how for some arts classes, students can earn credit by being involved in a play or something along those lines. Also, the psychology department currently requires 6 hours of study participation. The engineering school could do something similar by requiring a couple of hours of hands-on learning such as a hackathon.

As more technology is being developed and introduced to the world, it could be integrated into the curriculum to learn about them. For example, the hands-on labs could look at virtual reality and artificial intelligence. These types of technologies are rapidly developing and will be in our future, so it is important we study them. This would help to foster immersive and interactive environments. The University should supply their faculty with proper training and development to teach more hands-on and learning by engineering.

Oftentimes, the workplace is a hands-on environment, so learning engineering by engineering gives students real-world applications. Also, using tools and equipment is a common practice in engineering which helps students develop necessary skills for the workforce. STS, or Science, Technology, and Society, is one of the main ways engineering students can take classes with other engineering majors. Once we graduate and join the workplace, we work with all different types of majors. University would be a good place to practice and have interdisciplinary collaboration. There could be courses that have students learn engineering by engineering and practice it with students from other majors.

Currently, we participate in a year-long project our final year at UVA called capstone. These projects are a great example of learning engineering by engineering. We believe doing this type of project more than just one year could be a great way to really practice engineering. There could be courses as early as first year where students can get in groups and work on a big project together. This project could also be a place where engineering students work with other majors to practice that interdisciplinary collaboration.

Learning engineering by engineering also presents students with scenarios that they cannot encounter by reading textbooks or writing down notes during a lecture. Learning by engineering fosters an environment where critical thinking and problem solving skills are put to practice. These are essential skills for engineers. By learning engineering through practical experiences, professors can also teach their students about ethical dilemmas by actually facing them. Students can learn to navigate these complex issues by working with their team and the environment around them. There are multiple benefits of learning engineering through engineering including deepening students’ understanding of engineering principles and practicing real challenges that will only help them in the future.

Learning engineering by engineering will be a valuable learning tool for university students in 2050. It helps students to gain direct experience while enhancing their knowledge, skillset, and values. With this tool, students have the opportunity to completely immerse themselves in a learning environment. These ideas are feasible as we already have some of these labs open. They are also desirable because companies pay millions of dollars to UVA to fund the labs to get students to learn this way.

Transition from University
In 2023, higher education aims to create employable graduates, acknowledging high unemployment rates for those without degrees. However, the current 4-year engineering curriculum is rigid and linear, limiting exploration and delaying practical skill application until upper-level electives [Figure 1]. Also, many universities lack mandatory real-world experiences, such as internships or research, in their curriculum. By 2050, colleges aim to enhance flexibility in the engineering curriculum [Figure 2], embedding real-world experiences throughout instead of confining them to summers. This approach will intertwine classroom concepts with practical applications. The goal in 2050 is to equip engineers with niche expertise while maintaining a broad conceptual understanding of their primary field, aligning their skills with market demands.

Colleges need stronger company ties and foster collaborative training programs to reach this goal. Participating companies will provide dedicated mentors who serve as educators. This symbiosis ensures that students connect classroom concepts with real-world applications. Training and onboarding students during the semester allows them to move into a full-time experience seamlessly. Not all students need to remain with the training company; it's meant to provide initial experience for their first job. Like co-op structures, students will be paid and given official responsibilities during these experiences.

This evolution requires university transparency about industry connections, enabling students to align their choices with career goals. Companies must recognize the value of investing in education by incorporating working educators into their workforce, simultaneously fulfilling regular job functions. They should also strive to balance internships that contribute to company goals while offering valuable learning experiences for students. Post-graduation institutions must embrace flexibility, accommodating virtual engagement options and adjusting workloads and locations to meet students' diverse commitments.

Central to this transformation is the restructuring of the outdated curriculum to teach fundamental concepts and how to apply them to sub-fields. This ensures that students remain connected to the real world, seamlessly transitioning from student to engineer. Reworking the 2024 capstone or technical thesis criteria for graduation could realize this goal. The one-year-long project would be expanded to 3 years. For example in 6 semesters, a team of chemical engineering students may work with a company to scale up a process from lab scale to pilot plant scale. Each semester they would add a section to their report that applies what they learned, for example upon learning thermodynamics, adding that aspect into their design. Then over the summer, the students could work on a process similar to the one they are designing to get hands-on experience to bring back to the project. Ideally, these projects would serve the local or university communities.

In summary, the vision for 2050 involves a more dynamic and flexible engineering education model, promoting continuous real-world engagement throughout students' studies. Collaboration between universities and companies, increased transparency, and a reimagined curriculum will play pivotal roles in achieving this goal, creating a more responsive and industry-ready generation of engineers.


text:
The University of 2050/Campus Mobility and Community Connections

The future of mobility on campus will be dictated by the concerns of sustainability, accessibility, and other quality-of-life among the students, faculties, and surrounding communities of the University. Broader changes in means of movement and infrastructure will most likely find their beginnings on college campuses, and the export of mobility-conscious students is another long-term effect on society's mobility narrative.

New Infrastructure of 2050
The University of 2050 will see changes in mobility governed by college infrastructure that are part of a new movement in infrastructure planning. As Universities offer a young, highly mobile and receptive population, these campuses offer venues for innovation. Students, faculty and staff, and community members will need to be able to navigate physical campuses as part of any future university. The layout of these campuses, including their buildings, arteries of transportation, and amenity areas will see design changes that offer improved accessibility as part of a grander vision for the future of 2050.

Improved Walkability
Walkability improvements are one of the areas seeing the greatest progress with respect to changes in college infrastructure. Students at the University of Washington capture a growing sentiment among college students who find relief in walkable communities, with friends, services and common spaces all within a short distance. Commercial ventures already help students find and get to places of community within walking distance. Students at the University of Kentucky in Lexington utilize signs posted by the startup Walk [Your City] to locate restaurants, shops, or other entertainment venues. Students don’t simply forsake these changes as they exit colleges, either. Students are more culturally inclined to favor “New Urbanism” design techniques in city planning. The positive experiences of the safe and robust pedestrian infrastructure that their campus affords them offers them a glimpse into the improvements that walkable community spaces have. These improvements and others are desired on account of student concerns for accessible campus amenities, a healthier lifestyle, and the desire to reduce climate change contributions. Factors like these readily point to a University of 2050 with walkability as the cornerstone of new designs for campus mobility.

Campus Design Changes
The Universities of 2050 will see more at stake than changes to the path layout and walkability of their spaces. Communities now demand that all facets of campus life are brought in line with new expectations of mobility. Virginia Tech has already shifted construction and renovation policies to focus on improving accessible mobility, rather than simple campus expansion, even as the university’s student and staff body continues to expand. Virginia Tech is coupling these new changes with the addition of a new information system, such as a new campus map system that is interactive and displays real-time transportation data. This new wave of thought reaching campus administrators and governing bodies has gone further than the buildings. Michigan State University’s new Campus Ecosystem planning initiative partitions the school’s sprawling campus into different transportation zones, offering accessible and relevant travel options based on the present location and destination of users. Private ventures, such as the design firm HDR, have begun to incorporate this new way of thinking about college mobility demands into their business model, offering new workspace and common area designs based on new mobility and accessibility principles. While campus design changes present a much longer-haul modernization with respect to the University of 2050's mobility status, these changes seem likelier to be effected by 2050 based on the confluence of student, community, administration and economic demand already present. Student and community desire for such a change is readily apparent based on the local support for the campus redesign efforts at Michigan State, and with a new market incentive as HDR shows, there is a new market incentive for improved infrastructure.

Legacy of Old Infrastructure
As new university community member demands focus on new forms of mobility and accessibility around campus, old modes of transportation and the infrastructure that sustains them are rapidly becoming sources of discontent. Students at the University of California, Los Angeles are voicing their demands for more sustainable transportation, citing the reduction in both chemical and noise pollution, the facilitation of community health, and the benefits of rendering roads obsolete. Personally owned vehicles are even being brushed aside on financial and administrative grounds. The PATH to College Act offers subsidies for those schools whose student bodies use public transportation options at higher rates. While older mobility methods will persist, and the commuter campus remains the predominant arrangement, the role of these old methods of getting around will be greatly diminished as communities of the University of 2050 demand a new type of campus simply incapable of sustaining their usefulness. Although community volition points toward removing much of the old infrastructure that defines the campus of today, the University of 2050 will still retain some of the features of commuter infrastructure, based on the desires of many members of the community and other social and political forces that favor retention of such features.

Campus Mobility Options of 2050
The University of 2050 will have greater access to new mobility technologies and transportation options. As centers of innovation, universities will be receptive to new vehicular options, such as autonomous driving cars and E-bikes. With greater environmental concern, students and staff will prefer sustainable methods of transportation provided from responsible sources. More students and university staff will make choices that decrease their carbon footprint, avoiding traditional gas fueled vehicles. In the University of 2050, transportation will become more efficient, environmentally friendly, and available for faculty and students alike.

Autonomous Vehicles
Autonomous driving vehicles, like those being developed by Tesla and Cruise, will have been officially introduced to the campus of 2050 and the surrounding city. Given several incidents during the public testing of AVs through the 2020s and into 2030s, many US states will move to ban the deceptive advertising of partially autonomous vehicles and make AV companies responsible for accidents. Even before this, students in the university interested in innovative technology will likely adopt the use of AVs, although in small numbers. Despite some use, AVs will be more divisive among drivers and pedestrians up until 2050. By the start of the 2030s, autonomous shared vehicles will support the local transit system fleet surrounding campus. A study from the University of Minnesota showed that the implementation of an SAV network with a smart cloud computing system could decrease the amount of vehicles needed for the transit system by 22%. As AV technology improves, public perception of them will improve. Although in smaller numbers compared to manual vehicles, AVs will be a common presence around the campus of 2050. Students will likely use AVs similar to ridesharing vehicles. This can be especially helpful due to their all-day availability. Anyone away from home late at night, whether for studying, partying, or other reasons could find a ride easier. Ridesharing AVs could be cheaper than manned vehicles, like from Uber's drivers, in 2050. This could cause concern for employment of ridesharing drivers, however.

Sustainable Electronic Vehicles
Hybrid and fully electronic vehicles are no doubt a better alternative for the environment than gas powered vehicles. Electric vehicles have a smaller carbon footprint than gasoline vehicles, including their carbon footprint from electric energy sources. UVA has already started the transition to electric with several electric buses to be put into the transit fleet and 10% of the current vehicle fleet being electric. In the university of 2050, EVs will make up a large percentage of its transit and work vehicle fleets, further minimizing their carbon footprint. With stronger connections to colleges and their sustainability goals, local governments will make policies encouraging use of EVs, whether through price reductions or other means. Universities in 2050 will also ensure the responsible sourcing of materials used in EVs. Because of the scarcity of critical resources for modern EVs, new methods of acquiring them from new and old sources will be used in 2050. Lithium-ion battery recycling at this point will fill a large amount of the gaps in resource needs for EV production. Outside of recycling, humanitarian groups will provide improved methods of tracking the source of resources like lithium and cobalt so that EVs are made responsibly.

Micro Mobility
Smaller vehicles like bikes will become even more popular on campuses in 2050. A larger portion of the student and faculty population will use bikes over cars for both convenience due to low parking availability and shrinking their carbon footprint. As a motor vehicle alternative, improved E-bikes and electric bikes will support transportation at more reasonable prices. Current long range E-bikes are able to reach 138 miles on one charge, not considering pedaling. This will obviously improve by 2050. Campuses in 2050 will also have more infrastructure for shared bikes or scooters, allowing for more efficient travel and vehicle storage for students and staff who avoid using cars. This will decrease clutter, as shared bikes and scooters won't be placed in random, possibly vulnerable locations as often. More infrastructure will also improve maintainability of these bikes and scooters. Bikes are also a healthy micro mobility option. Students and staff without time for an official workout will get exercise during transit. With more bike use, there will be a healthier campus population.

New Cultural Norms of 2050
Mobility and culture are deeply interwoven and have influenced each other throughout history. Major changes mobility often have massive effects on cultures, from domesticated animals, wheels, roads, sailing, trains, planes, automobiles, and others. Transportation methods can be deeply ingrained in a culture’s identity, from Roman roads[11], Mongolian horses[12], Polynesian boats[13], to countless others. The world is again on the horizon of change. To combat the looming threat of climate change we must rapidly change mobility methods and cultural attitudes. Universities are an excellent melting pot of innovation, cultures, and technology where the melding of methods can be studied and extended to the larger world. This will likely result in the Campus of 2050 being the forefront of new mobility methods due to the open minded nature of college students and staff. This passage aims to examine how the interaction between college cultures and mobility will unfold by 2050.

Interest Groups

Determining who is involved in the development of cultures and technologies and why is critical to predicting how the future may unfold. Students are the most effected by changes in mobility, and seek convenient, low cost, and time saving transportation methods. Often openminded and flexible, students are the primary consumer and value their time and money. Professors often live away from campus, and are willing to have longer commutes to live somewhere that is more convenient. University management aims to cater to the needs of all parties involved, while reducing the costs needed to run operations and increase income. Many businesses depend on student patronage, so connecting to campuses will be their primary goal. There are also political connections to many universities, such as governor appointed positions that can sway university policy, who are often disconnected from the needs of students and professors. There will also be many outside interest groups, including companies trying to sell their various products to "solve" issues and advocacies pushing for various agendas.

Culture, Mobility, and Infrastructure

American mobility and Infrastructure are dominated by cars. While universities have reduced car usage due to walkability and public transport, they have to accommodate cars. Underclassman bans on vehicles along with expensive parking and ownership discourage the use of motor vehicles. As universities build more housing, more people will live on campus. This will improve walkability and commute, further reducing vehicle usage. A potential concern is the practice of forcing students to live on grounds as it could lead to price gouging, especially as universities are often not held to the same laws as a typical landlord. As more students live in university housing for longer, there will be new groups that form, including housing relations, dorm specific cultures, and others. Universities will also either need to provide more amenities, or connect to long distance transportation with ample luggage space, providing more opportunities for students. Employees will also need transportation options as car usage declines. This can be achieved either by extending public transportation options further, or with staff housing on campus. There will likely be resistance to this unless the accommodations provided are superior in both cost and quality, as the needs of professors are different. Professors living on campus could harbor a closer connection to the university and its students, leading to groups composed of both students and university employees. University administration will have no incentive to reduce cost without legal action. The trend of skyrocketing college costs is unlikely to stop without legal or cultural change, and most universities are effectively businesses. Ideally legal change will occur by 2050 to lower costs, or a cultural shift will reduce demand and price.


text:
The University of 2050/The Sustainable Campus

Introduction
At the university of 2050, the physical campus - the academic buildings, the residences, and the dining halls - will be adapted to better serve the students of 2050 sustainably. The following provides a desirable, feasible, and credible prediction of what this future looks like.

Academic Buildings
Academic buildings at any university have a significant impact on the electricity, water, waste production, air quality, and biodiversity, affecting the environment and sustainability on campus. At the University of Virginia (UVA), buildings are responsible for 95% of the University’s energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions, with over 80% of water consumption. By implementing a sustainability plan spanning 2020 to 2030, UVA reduced its carbon footprint by almost 43% between 2010 and 2021. The university’s sustainability plan aims to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030 and fossil fuel independence by 2050, while targeting a 30% reduction in water use, reactive nitrogen emissions, and waste footprint. UVA intends to achieve these goals by adhering to green building standards, including making all new buildings photovoltaic (PV) ready. UVA has required all construction or renovation projects to pursue green building or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification. A building efficiency program was implemented to provide whole-building performance contracting services for facilities across Grounds using a loan fund model. A green workplace program was implemented to engage UVA employees in actions that conserve resources, save money, and advance sustainability. By implementing a sustainability plan, it is feasible that by 2050, most universities should be carbon neutral and fossil fuel free.

It is important to note that without behavioral and cultural changes, finding sustainable options at a university may be difficult. Although there are new technologies that can decrease electricity consumption such as smart systems to regulate temperature and lighting, as a community, we must be aware of our surroundings. Education and awareness at a university is very important. Simple actions like turning lights when leaving rooms, unplugging devices, and using natural light when possible should be encouraged. By 2050, this should be the norm. Managing HVAC Systems will be essential in 2050. Students and faculty should be encouraged to only use natural ventilation. Closing blinds during hot days and opening windows can reduce reliance on heating and cooling systems. More behavioral changes like using stairs instead of elevators can contribute to energy savings.

Installing solar panels on all new and old buildings can improve sustainability by generating renewable energy. Solar panel installations can serve as a focal point for community engagement. In particular locations, wind energy systems can be installed on or near campuses to generate renewable energy and reduce the carbon footprint on campus. In 2050, it is expected that rooftop green spaces will be implemented on academic buildings to enhance air quality, mental health, and biodiversity for students. The University of Denver incorporated a green roof into the design of its new Community Commons building. Green roofs can help keep buildings cool, reduce building energy use, and absorb rainwater.

Looking ahead to 2050, universities should be striving for change to make their campus more sustainable. By implementing practical changes like installing renewable energy systems, encouraging behavioral changes, and creating rooftop gardens, universities in 2050 should represent an environmentally conscious community.

Residences
The future of college residences involves a careful balance between comfort and sustainability. Some aspects of this future require a reluctant departure from current norms, but by 2050, many will learn to accept and embrace these changes.

The most common college residence, the dormitory, will see major changes as it's currently extremely energy intensive. Research has found that the average dorm room consumes 30.2% of its electrical energy while vacant. By 2050, this issue will be addressed through the use of technology and social strategies. Occupancy and daylight sensors will be a commonality in dorm rooms as they're proven to reduce energy consumption, though it's important to note that by 2050, this technology will see improvements to ensure that it better serves the user. Some deem this technology inaccurate, but with improvements already being made, their effectiveness will only increase. A significant amount of power is drawn from appliances such as mini-fridges and microwaves that remain plugged in, but many students aren't aware of this. It will become a regular practice to provide dorm residents with access to a document detailing the many ways to live more sustainably. This will include information on energy-efficient appliance choices, promoting the use of fans over AC or a hoodie over heating, leaving outlets vacant when appropriate, sustainable laundry habits, etc. In order to persuade students to adopt these practices they will need to become more convenient than wasteful alternatives. This means that more universities will provide or offer energy-efficient appliances, dormitories will be redesigned to better suit the local climate, and those who follow these practices will be rewarded. Strategies similar to Cool Biz, a movement started by Yuriko Koike to promote dressing for hotter temperatures, will be used to encourage students to change what they're wearing before turning to the thermostat. We will also see an increase in the use of social initiatives that capitalize on the competitive nature of college students to address this issue. In 2015, two colleges in Maine, Bowdoin and Colby, challenged each other to see who could further reduce energy consumption in dormitories, which resulted in saving a combined 22,536 kWh. By 2050, competitions such as this will be common at universities, as well as similar social initiatives that incentivize dorm residents to cut energy consumption.

Another issue that will be addressed involves the inherently wasteful process of moving out. Every year, students move out of their dorms and discard perfectly fine appliances, furniture, and other items. This is typically due to a lack of somewhere to store them over break and/or the item only being useful in the dorm setting (shower caddy, mini-fridge, etc.). By 2050, the process of moving out will not only be significantly less wasteful but also vastly less stressful. Through the use of technology, universities will be able to connect students who plan to discard items that other students may be in need of. Through the use of social techniques and technology, the average student will be well informed of opportunities to donate items they no longer need, and if they choose to discard them, they will be informed of how to do so in a sustainable fashion. Efforts similar to this have found success at the University of Colorado Boulder, where in 2018 they managed to save about 34 tons of waste.

Sustainable Food Sources:
In order to achieve a more sustainable campus, university sustainability plans must align with student wishes. Many universities appease the public eye by implementing small scale gardening areas, aiming to provide volunteers and campus food banks with sufficient produce. To reach a better outcome by 2050, campuses are likely to expand gardening areas, finding space on rooftop green areas, or with sustainable landscaping. A path toward this future may begin with collaborating locally with small gardens, food banks, and organizations. The University of Massachusetts Lowell has proven its feasibility, fitting 500 square feet of gardening space inside academic buildings, utilizing space previously untouched. Not only are elevated gardens convenient, rising heat and proximity to sunlight display positive outcomes. The current campus must turn away from extensive building structures and provide students with a layout that integrates natural green spaces to align with the land. By prioritizing the expansion of gardening areas, universities can create environments that meet the needs of both students and the surrounding community. Not only will student health and wellness excel, large scale gardening efforts will provide for those in need of food, with potential to increase sustainable produce that dining halls can use in everyday service.

Off-Campus Sustainability:
In 2023, reusable to-go containers have aided dining halls in their sustainability efforts, but many students dine off-campus after their freshman year. The use of reusable to-go containers benefits those in close proximity to them. To expand upon the benefits of reusable containers, campuses in 2050 may partner with local restaurants through off-campus dining services like Elevate. By offering a choice of restaurants on one app and giving incentives for using and returning containers, this collaboration can boost sustainability in college towns. To persuade students to choose sustainability over convenience, strong incentives will be to first step in changing behavior. The advantage lies in universities being responsible for distributing the containers, instead of restaurants. Universities must take on the logistical responsibility that comes with sustainability. Student’s are more inclined to opt for a reusable container if they can return it to any restaurant, rather than just the one they ordered from.

Combating Food Waste:
A typical feature of dining halls in 2023 are reusable to-go containers. Campuses across the nation have provided this option for students that have sustainability in mind. As sustainability grows more popular, use of choice architecture in future dining halls may persuade students. Presenting to-go containers in different areas will eliminate a single default choice. Instead of solely offering these containers upon entrance, placing them near exits and trash cans may encourage individuals to take potential food waste home as leftovers.

University dining halls limit the “self-serve” approach to cut food waste. In theory, students don’t take more than what’s needed, but in reality, many find themselves overserved. Inspired by the success of the app, MyFitnessPal, which allows users to achieve their health goals through the input of personal data, dining halls in 2050 may adopt similar technology. Student’s will continue to prioritize health in the future and campuses will address this by using technology systems to personalize meals based on students’ health, diets, and fitness goals. To further reduce waste from expired goods, future dining halls can draw from the app, SuperCook, that generates recipes based on available ingredients. Implementing this tech on a larger scale in 2050, kitchen staff could ensure soon-to-expire ingredients are prioritized by creating customized recipes.