View from the Top: Richard K. Miller, Olin College of Engineering

View from the Top: Richard K. Miller, Olin College of Engineering

August 14, 2019 1 By Stanley Isaacs


– Good afternoon. I’m delighted to welcome
Dr. Richard Miller, president of Olin College, as today’s speaker in our
View from the Top series. This series gives the college community a chance to hear from leading thinkers, on technology innovation, and
the driving force behind it, engineering education. I’d like to thank the
Berkeley chapter of ASME, the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers for cosponsoring today’s lecture, and they the folks in the
back of the room there, and the folks who greeted you, so thank you AMSE. (applause) I’m also honored to welcome
the alumni and members of our Dean Society who
are joining us here today. The loyalty and support of our alumni and other friends of the college play a key role in advancing our mission, which is educating leaders,
creating knowledge, and serving society. Before I introduce Richard Miller, I invite you to mark your calendars for two additional special
events coming to the college. March 18th. Let make sure I got this date right. On Tuesday March 18th, we’ll celebrate the third annual Ernie Kuh distinguished lecture with special guest Sehat
Sutardja, co-founder, and chairman, and CEO of Marvell, the Marvell Technology Group. The format will be a conversation with Professor Sujay Kingly and he will relate how
he and his co-founders took Marvell to Global Providence in semiconductor innovation
in just 20 years, and share his views on what’s ahead. This promises to be a
fantastic conversation, and I hope you’ll join us. The lecture will be Tuesday, March 18th, here in this room, in the Banatao Auditorium at four o’clock. Then on Thursday April 10th we will have the pleasure
of welcoming Dale Dougherty, founder and CEO of Maker Media. Dale has helped to promote hands-on learning and
engineering by spearheading the Make Magazine and the Maker Faire. And you might have seen
the most recent issue about how you build quad
rotors in your spare time. So that certainly seems to have gotten a lot of people excited. So more information
about all of these events may be found on our
website, coe.Berkeley.edu. Let me know introduce today’s
speaker, Richard Miller. As many of you know, we are huge believers in treating engineering
as a holistic discipline that draws from the Arts,
Humanities, and Social Sciences, as well of course, as the traditional
Science and Mathematics. We are especially
passionate about the role that design can play in making engineering responsive to human needs and relevant to pressing
global challenges. This is why we are so
delighted to introduce Richard Miller of Olin College to the Berkeley Engineering community and a special thanks to Jerry Fiddler here on the second row for having made the introduction, so thank you Jerry. Olin is a relatively new engineering college in Massachusetts that approaches education from an interdisciplinary perspective. Just as we’re doing here at Berkeley, Olin focuses on engineering
as a creative discipline and prepares students to
be engineering innovators. Richard Miller was appointed president and first employee of
Olin College in 1999. Previously, he served on
the Engineering Faculties of USC and UC Santa Barbara, and he served as Dean of the University of Iowa’s
College of Engineering from 1992 to 1999. As he was telling us before this, he’s been moving, gradually moving, from tropical climates to the more glacial climates of Boston. He was saying the, zero degrees was, thought maybe not the daytime high, but in Boston last night. With a background in applied mechanics, interest in innovation, he also said by the way, controlled, so I got a plug Nextronics in control. He was telling Tommy
just before the lecture, as well as interest in
innovation and higher education, Dr. Miller is the author of more than 130, 100 reviewed journal articles and other technical publications. Together with two Olin colleagues, he received the 2013 Bernard
M. Gordon prize from the National Academy of Engineering for innovation in Engineering
and Technology Education. Dr. Miller is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and the recipient of the Marlowe Award for creative and distinguished
leadership from ASEE, the American Society for
Engineering Education. He earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of California, UC Davis which recognized him with its distinguished
engineering alumnus award. His Master’s is from MIT and
his Ph.D is from Caltech. Please give a warm welcome to our speaker, Richard Miller. (applause) – Well it’s great to
be back in California. As I was telling the dean, it was quite cold when I left home, and we have two feet of
ice on our front yard. Can’t remember ever
seeing ice of that kind when I grew up in central California. So anyway, I really do believe
California is God’s country. Now let me tell you a little bit about what I’m hoping
to do with this talk, this time that we have together. I wanna cover four things
here sort of quickly, so that we’ll have some time for Q&A. How the school got founded and why, something about what it is,
the Olin Learning Model today, and then the lessons learned,
it’s really a laboratory. So we’ve spent quite a
bit of time experimenting and we think we’ve learned certain things that are transferable and
I’ll try to share that. And then finally, I’ll
talk about the road ahead, which has a lot to do
with our interactions with other universities. So first, the founding of the school. Franklin Olin, who you see
pictured there on the left, was the founder of the Olin Corporation, which is a materials and metals company, and he passed away in 1952. And his funds, the personal wealth from his wife and himself, were used for philanthropy
and higher education to give opportunities to others. And in fact there are 78 buildings on 58 university campuses
around North America that have Olin on them, and that’s my first encounter
with the Olin Foundation was in Olin Hall at USC when I was there. So the school itself was
created by Charter in 1997, by the FW Olin Foundation when it suspended the
building grants program and decided instead to devote
all the rest of their money, which was about $460 million, to starting over in higher education. And this was not something they did with a great deal of enthusiasm. It took them four years of hand-wringing to decide that this was needed. It’s a lot of work and a lot of risk, and they had considered instead, giving the money to an existing school that was doing everything really well. But they were convinced if they did that, that would not result
in change anywhere else. They considered giving it to a very successful private university that had everything except engineering, and then maybe they would
endow the engineering school, but they were worried that they would then inherit the academic
culture of the institution, including the promotion and tenure and the Provost and so forth, and so they decided reluctantly
we have to start over. And if you do the math they didn’t have enough money to start Berkeley, and so they needed partners, so that they wouldn’t have to build the athletic stadium and all the rest, and think of Clermont schools as a model, and that’s where they found
the folks at Babson College, who were willing to sell them the land, and that’s where we located. So now we have developed a partnership with other schools. I was the first employee,
as was mentioned. My wife still thinks of
this as my midlife crisis. (laughing) She frequently points it out
to me that I’m not smart enough to know how much trouble I’m really in, and she’s, she’s rarely wrong. I highlighted this 2001 year, when we did something call
the Olin Partner Year, and the Olin Partner
Year was an experiment with a group of 30 students who lived in construction
trailers on the parking lot near the soccer field for a year, while the buildings were being built. They were not students. There were 15 boys and girls. We were on first-name basis, and they were partners with
us in inventing the program. So we tried all kinds of outrageous things that we knew would fail just
so we could watch them fail. Now, you can’t do that
when you’re offering a course for credit and
people are real students. So it’s a very rare opportunity. A lot of what happened that
year really turned us around, in terms of understanding
how people learn, and you see it embedded
in our program now. That was a key thing. So Mr. Milas, whose picture you see there, was the president of the Olin Foundation whose vision it was to create the school with the remainder of their funds. And he had been talking with
a lot of people for four years about the unhappiness about
the way engineering is taught. And he’s really talking about
undergraduate engineering, not the PhD level program, the large leak in our pipeline. I’m sure you all know that in this room, but last year only about four percent of the bachelor’s degrees awarded to universities anywhere in the US went to students studying
any kind of engineering, and it’s a declining market share. In about half of the students
who enroll in engineering in the fall will never
graduate in engineering. They will transfer to
something else, or just leave. And only 18 percent of the students who graduate in engineering are women. Obvious issues, and this is despite a lot of time and
trouble trying to fix it, including the work that Joe
Bordogna did at NSF in the ’90s. Some of you might remember that the Engineering
Education Coalitions program spent a lot of money for groups of universities
to work together and then abandoned it when the Southwest Research
Institute study of that work concluded that it wasn’t really working. John Prados at ABET was the leader of the Criteria 2000 effort, was also one of the first
people in our Board of Trustees. So the founding precepts of Olin include this interesting statement: Olin College is intended to be different, not for the mere sake of being different, but in order to become an important and constant contributor to the advancement of
engineering education in America and throughout the world. So right from conception
the Olin Foundation imagined that the school would become
sort of a national laboratory, that would experiment and share
results with other schools. If all it does is produce a small number of great engineering students,
it wasn’t worth the money. That’s what I hear from my
Board of Trustees, okay? So, that’s why I can’t do that by sitting at home teaching class. I have to get on planes
and go to other places. So, Olin college is intended
to become a laboratory. Now, let me tell you a little bit about what the school has to become today, so we’re fast-forwarding to 2014. The current learning model, what Olin is, a small residential
undergraduate engineering school. Every student at Olin is enrolled in an engineering degree program. We don’t offer any other degrees. There’s only 350 total, and we’re not planning
to grow the enrollment. With that size we’re like a test tube. We can reinvent and
redeploy the whole program in about nine months. We have about a nine to
one student faculty ratio. You can read the rest. The interesting part
are these prescriptions from the Olin Foundation, okay? Olin does not have academic departments. We don’t offer tenure. Everything at Olin has an expiration date, and we have very low tuition. Okay, this is because they
wanted to change the culture in higher ed, not just the
academic program in engineering. That’s what the campus looks like, at least when it’s not frozen. Sorta remember what leaves look like. Now this is, this is just a brief, this is really all I’m gonna
say about the academic model that we’re using today. First off, we have this thing
called candidate’s weekend. We just finished last week. No student gets into Olin,
except by spending a weekend of, you might call it interviews,
but they’re really, interview is the wrong word, because an interview conjures up the idea, that you put a tie on and
you sit across the table from somebody who asks you questions about thermodynamics, and
that’s not what happens. We put them in groups, and they spend the
entire weekend together. There are people from our community embedded in their group. They do challenges and it’s
not about science and math. It’s about teamwork, vision,
creativity, and passion. It’s quite different. But that goes on and nobody gets in, admitted, unless they
go through that program. For those who are familiar with it, the, really, the core backbone on which all of our learning is
based is design thinking, and design thinking is
an academic pedagogy that development art schools rather than engineering schools. And you actually don’t need
science to do design thinking. Science though is a great
compliment in the sort of the power tools that
allows you to do it better. This culminates in senior
projects which we call SCOPE. SCOPE are corporate-sponsored projects. Each student team of about four to six has to work for a client for a year. The client provides the ideas. They also provide $50,000
in funding for the project. They’re often non-disclosure agreements. Students have statement of work. They have a schedule of
deliverables and terms of reports. And we shut down the campus
at the end of the year and there is a kind of projects day, where we bring all of the
corporate folks on campus and the students present. This is quite a bit like the
Harvey Mudd Clinic program. So if you’ve seen that, it
has a lot of similarities, except that the students here
are more interdisciplinary. We often have students
on these project teams from Babson College, which
are MBA students in business, sometimes students from Wellesley College, which might be a mathematician or a physicist or something. So it’s a little broader
but quite similar. And EXPO is completely different. EXPO is our version of a
recital in a music school. At the end of every semester, every student has to play
something for an audience. Well at the end of every semester at Olin, every student has to perform
in front of an audience, something from their project work, okay? They get to select it, and
we have about 350 visitors. They come and so, they have either to do a 30-minute lecture or they have to do a poster
presentation with Q&A. Every student by the
time they’ve graduated has done that eight times, and that really has quite an impact. It changes who you are. Anyone who’s a musician knows if you stand on stage at
Carnegie Hall and you play solo, it changes who you are,
not just what you know. And that sort of thing you can see. There is this requirement to complete an independent study on your own, for which you do not
have the prerequisites, so it’s learning how to learn,
which we call the Self Study. Every student has to do a Capstone project in arts and humanities or
else in entrepreneurship. All students have to
start and run a business or an enterprise in one of the courses. This is borrowed from the
pedagogy at Babson College. And of course the curriculum
is continuously under review. In fact, we have, before we graduated our first student, we reinvented the program twice, which was a little nerve-wracking and a little difficult for
the accreditation board to get their arms around, too. Change is a good thing but you know, enough change. But actually, it’s not about the courses, and that’s why I don’t
want to go into this of great deal or detail. If you were to come and say, oh, we wanna do what Olin does. Let’s copy down the
syllabus and the textbook, and deploy it here, it wouldn’t happen. Because it’s not about the courses. It’s really about the culture. It’s the learning culture, which is a relationship, it’s how the students think about who’s responsible for learning, and why they’re doing this, and how the faculty members think about their role in the institution. That’s what’s different. And you can do this in
many different ways. Our metric, best metric for deciding whether the culture is
right is the statement which you hear frequently
from Olin students. They’ll tell you, we’ve never
worked this hard in our life, and there’s nothing else
we’d rather be doing. When you get those together, people are infected with a disease now, and you can’t stop them from learning. You couldn’t pay them to quit because they’re obsessed
with trying to become an expert in certain things
which they really care about. Okay so, I said design thinking is one of the keys to what we do. So this is really the definition of design that I inherited as a
faculty member before Olin. You start with specifications you knew, and you go through the design process until you develop a prototype. You put that in the outbox and you put a check in the transcript that says, I completed my design course. At Olin, it starts with people and it ends with people in the market. One illustration of this is a course that every student has to take, in which we ask them at the
beginning in small groups, identify a group of people whose lives you wanna change, okay? This may be your grandmother who just was recently
diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and so they put her in assisted living. It may be that you absolutely love coffee and you hang out constantly at Starbucks and your heroes are the
baristas at Starbucks. We don’t really care. We then identify about a dozen people in that group for the
students to interview and to spend time with
for about five weeks. They develop a sociological
profile of who those people are. Then they pitch ideas for a technology or a system or a device that doesn’t yet exist
to that client group until the client group tells them that we changed their lives and they would do anything to own this, but it doesn’t exist. And then the students have to develop the specifications for this technology that doesn’t yet exist, and if they had a second page that had a schematic of how you build it, it would be a patent and they’re 19 okay? That kind of purpose-driven contextualized learning of engineering is what infects students with this obsession to continue to learn. It does have some unintended consequences, we’ll tell you about later. Now, Olin, as was mentioned
earlier takes a holistic view of what it means to be an engineer. It’s not just about applied science, and for us we think it’s
related to this intersection between engineering,
business, and liberal arts. At Olin we accomplish that
with our partnerships. In fact, we have a very close partnership with Babson College
which I mentioned before, but also Wellesley College
which is two miles away, and there is a shuttle bus
that leaves every 20 minutes that goes between the campuses, and students in heavily crossing roll. And in fact sentence freely cross the roll there’s no fee in char- involved at all. And Olin bought the land from Babson, so as we’re fond of saying
Olin is closer to Babson than Babson is, because our dining hall is
closer to their residence halls than their dining hall, so
we see them all the time, which is a good thing. And actually we’ve been thinking of this trio of universities as a virtual university. And in fact I have a close partnership with the presidents of
the other two schools. One of my techniques for
building this was quite simple. I reached out to the other two presidents and invited them to
co-teach a course with me. Of course in leadership and ethics, which used to be very common in the liberal arts
colleges 100 years ago, but over the years
universities have shied away from the role of talking about values, and it’s not an easy conversation to have. So, I got them both to
agree, and what this does, we teach a senior seminar that has students from all three campuses. It gets me on the calendar
for one on one time with both presidents
once a week for a year. And there you have an opportunity
to build a partnership. And we’ve done quite a lot with that. Okay, so there is founding of the school, and the learning model, now let me tell you a little
bit about lessons learned. So, what happened, what
has changed in our thinking about what engineering
and education is about. So, I wanna do this in
sort of four pieces. First, we believed that education really has to change everywhere. There are forces at work here that are larger than any of us. And secondly we need
to change three things about how we teach. We need to change who we teach, okay? That’s gonna take a while to sink in. We need to change what we teach, and we need to change how we teach, because you can say in a way we’re teaching the wrong people, we’re teaching them the wrong stuff, and we’re using pedagogical methods which are known to be largely ineffective. Otherwise, we’re doing a great job, okay? And, that’s why we only have four percent and it’s declining and half
of them are going away. A lot of the students by the way, who transfer out of engineering, have higher GPAs than the kids who stay. So, that’s not because
they couldn’t do the math. Alright, why is it, that
education has to change? Well, a couple of things that I think are really interesting. First off, I still like
this hockey stick graph, which you probably have seen. The global population over
all of recorded history, and you can see that it
was below one billion until about 1920, and then since then look at this spike. What will slow it down? It’s going to be nine billion
by the middle of this century. I personally believe there
isn’t one aspect of life on the planet that won’t
be affected by that fact. This has to do with sustainability
or natural resources. It has competition for
resources is going to spike. Conflict and security
issues, global health, health becomes a completely
different concern when you have a densely populated planet, where everybody is at
35,000 feet in an airplane. And by the way, not everything
that’s important in life is about protection from
some threat to your life. We have developed
thankfully, in our population an expectation that every generation will have a better life
than those before us. Now, try to figure out how to do that, with this hockey stick spike. You can see the the NAE’s Grand Challenges for the 21st Century, which are quite different
from their summary of the greatest achievements of technology in the 20th century, which
were all about things. You know, it’s a wonderful
coffee table book. If you have an aunt or an uncle like I do, that don’t really know
what an engineer is, and you keep trying to explain it. Well, if you have this coffee table book, it says you know, go back
100 years in the early 1900s, and you think about what’s happened, engineers were responsible
for electrification, for clean drinking water,
for the automobile, for the telephone, for the
airplane, for the internet, for the radio, for TV, for space travel, and on and on and on. These are things. And we keep thinking of
the model of innovation is you go to into a garage
and you invent some thing. You get it to work, you throw it over the
wall to the free market, and somehow the world
changes for the better. That’s the 20th century, okay? Now you look at the 21st century. What’s going on here? Sustainability, which is pretty much what is happening up there. Unintended consequences of the technologies of the 20th century. Okay, global climate, carbon, when we were thinking about
designing the the car, way back, the idea that
a very tiny fraction of the exhaust gas was unburned fuel, didn’t seem significant, particularly as you walked
around the streets of New York and you could smell
what horses left behind that we were replacing, seemed
like a pretty good deal, but when you apply it
over that many people, these small percentages have enormous unintended consequences, and to design for this world, you need to get your arms around unintended consequences, and that’s part of the
engineer’s responsibility. So, basically the problems
in the 21st century are inherently global. They cross the disciplines,
they cross time zones, they cross political boundaries. And they are inherently complex. They involve not just
scientific principles, but social, economic, political,
even religious dimensions, because if you’re going
to get a solution to work the population has to be willing
to adopt it in large way, so you have to be thinking
about who these people are, and why do they behave the way they do. The key I believe is the multidisciplinary global and systems thinking. Now, the way I learned engineering, we started quite narrow, okay? I remember teaching for
years in the mechanics field. We would have courses that would talk about solutions to
problems in two dimensions, and then the solution to
problems in three dimensions, the problem in cylindrical coordinates, the problem in rectangular coordinates, the problem in spherical coordinates with lots and lots of formulas, and the kids raised their
hands, always the same question. Dr. Miller, is this gonna be on the test? Are you gonna give us these formulas, or do we have to remember them, you know? Not multidisciplinary, not Global, and certainly not thinking
about people at all. The idea of how you
formulate the problems, how you can create the context, understand what the
solution should look like, is left for some later day. It’s always trust me, you know, this is the stuff you need to know. And I kept waiting and
waiting and that never, that day never came, because
I went to graduate school, and in graduate school
it just got more narrow, okay, and deeper. The PhD got extremely narrow and deep. So, I became a terrific
expert in this one thing, but I never got around to the people part, and I think that there’s a sense in which students are wet cement, and you can’t just stick this on to them when they’re 35 at mid-career. They need to begin to think
in multidisciplinary ways. They need to be able to
communicate with people in different disciplines early. That’s what we’re not doing. So, we need a new kind
of engineering innovator. We certainly need innovators, but we need to be a different
kind of engineering innovator. Now, I’m going to get in
a lot of trouble here, but I think this is true. Our traditional higher education,
the way we’ve organized it may actually be preventing us from producing these innovators. I could talk a lot about this, but I’m just going to briefly summarize. When kids are in K through 12, they have largely a common curriculum. They learn about math, science, art, history, physical education. Then they graduate, and
they go off to college. When they go to college, like Berkeley, they’ll enroll in something
like the School of Engineering, and when you do that, this could actually be a map
of the Berkeley campus, okay? There’s a quad up here where
the engineering school is, and all those buildings are within easy walking
distance of each other, because students are gonna
take most of their courses, like three quarters of their courses, are gonna be taken in that quad. On the other hand there’s a
business school somewhere. I actually don’t know
where the Haas School is, but it’s probably not right here. And then there are students
that major in things like psychology, arts, and humanities, okay? The engineering folks, take, in fact to to be a better credited three-quarters of the
course work that you take has to be related to
science, math, engineering. And actually that’s a good thing. Every time you buckle up on
an airplane on the way home, I’m glad the kids had a lot of science, math, and engineering. Okay, that’s not an accident. And the other hand it results in thinking about the
world through a lens, unintentionally maybe, but every question that you
ask in an engineering school is related to feasibility. Can this be done? Is this consistent with what
we know about the natural law? It’s all about what you can
do, the feasibility lens. But if you go to the business school, you have a different lens, in fact to be AACSB-Accredited, one half of all your coursework
has to be in this model, where viability is the primary lens that you look at the world, management, accounting, and so forth. Which is great, I’m glad we have accountants that have had courses like that. That’s a good thing, but
you see what’s happening is that originally they were, the students were all in the middle. They ran into each other a lot, and now they’re gone off
and they specialized. And the students by the way, that major in psychology,
arts, and humanities have a completely
different outlook on life. You could say the lens that
they’re looking through is desirability, it’s
about human intention. For example students in this
field have questions like, what’s the meaning of truth? Or, what’s the meaning of beauty? Well, what’s the meaning of love? You know, these are important things, and this is what motivates people. These are the kinds of questions that are not answered by
numbers though, or graphs. It takes narrative and context,
and experiential learning in order to appreciate
what the context is. So, they all look at the world that way. In fact it’s possible to
go through this domain, and never have a science or a math course. I know this ’cause I have
a daughter who did it. (audience laughter)
Okay? We have discussions
about this all the time. She said but Dad I got a
very high score on my AP math when I was in high school so
they put a check in that box and they didn’t require
me to take any more. And so she never had a natural science and she graduated kum
laude, and did really great, but we can’t talk about you
know global climate change. Anyway, does this matter? I think this is huge okay? Why? Because these things are fundamental to the
notion of innovation. I don’t think you’ll be able
to think of any innovation that isn’t simultaneously
feasible and also viable and also desirable in the free-market. So in one head, somebody
has to have the concept of how all three of these
things come together. And in fact, I can say when
I was a young faculty member, my understanding of what
innovation is was quite different. It was, basically it all comes
from just in case science. So I was sort of prepared
to go to Washington and to talk to my congressman or senator and lobby for increase in the NSF budget so they could send more
money to our universities, because we will create more science, and then we’ll throw them over the wall to the tech transfer office who will sprinkle them with pixie dust and they’ll turn into businesses, and that will generate new revenue, which will go back in the tax system, so you can send more
money to the universities. That’s pretty much it, okay? That’s what I call a pathway to innovation through feasibility. It does work but it’s not
the only thing, alright? And as an engineer, I can say, see, we made airplanes
this way, we’ve made cars, we made the internet, and
it’s generated revenue, lots of new companies. So QED, that’s it. And, but unfortunately,
through my experience, I’ve been asked to be a member
of the Board of Trustees at Babson College, which
is an interesting place. It’s a business school. Now, they talk about
innovation all the time. They never mention science or engineering, and for years I thought, well, you know, just, you know, I’m doing
service to humanity. I’ll just sit here– (laughing) Not say anything. And then it dawned on me, what is innovation, anyway? So we began to scratch our heads
and think a lot about that. We eventually came up with, for us, a way of thinking about it
and how it’s differentiated. It’s a very overused word. So we think that creativity is the process of having
original ideas and insights, and that’s not our definition. I think Sir Ken Robinson had that. And inventiveness is the process of having original ideas and insights
that have value, okay? So, it’s not just art, although art has value, too. And innovation is the process of having original ideas and
insights that have value, and then implementing them in such a way that it changes the way people live, okay? Without the implementation,
it’s not an innovation. It’s just an idea. And a really profound innovation is an innovation that changes
the world so profoundly that you can’t remember what life was like before it happened. My kids still can’t
imagine how the caveman must have lived without the cell phone. It’s just not possible to
live without this thing. Must have always been there. That’s a profound innovation. Okay, well in business, there are number profound innovations. Has anybody ever heard of the credit card? You think that’s change
life on the planet? It didn’t in fact result, I mean, it isn’t the result of a new basic science in physics. It’s a way of organizing transactions. It’s quite different. The desirability path may
be the most profound, okay? What does Facebook sell exactly? I think it’s sells the
opportunity to tell your story to someone else. It’s a very convenient platform to tell what you’re passionate about to someone else who has similar beliefs. That’s a fundamental force of nature that wasn’t really discovered before, at least not paid, no one
paid real attention to it. And why, I’m gonna speculate is that every human that was ever born has a profound need to be the most important person
in somebody else’s life, and when that’s, and the way you do that is you do that by telling your story. And as a result, when you give them an opportunity to do that,
billions of people sign up, and they become extraordinarily creative. They use visuals, they use
video, they use images, and probably some that
they shouldn’t, okay? Become very creative in doing this. That is one of the, you know, Facebook is one of the
skyrocketing companies that’s capitalized on the stock market in the last 10, 15 years. If you don’t understand that, I don’t think you have a
chance to be an innovator who changes the game in the 21st century. So we have to broaden what we think about in education for engineering. You need all three. Okay let’s move on. Who we teach. Are we attracting the right
people into engineering? To begin with, this is a
different task now than, you know, solving mechanics equations in two dimensions and
spiracle coordinates. Do we need a broader
definition of engineering to attract people in that
are going to do this work? And frankly, I think this, if you did nothing else, this would probably make a huge change in the four percent number. The what we tell the rest of the world that engineering is about couldn’t be more off-putting, okay? And we’ve got numbers to prove it. Nevertheless, we continue to stay there. So what is an engineer? And we spent a fair amount of time scratching our head thinking about this. I claim that I was actually
trained as an applied scientist. That’s what I, that’s what I got from Caltech and from MIT, in particular. I know how to write papers to
get them reviewed in journals. Same thing happens in life science. If somebody gets really
worried about a disease, and NIH spends a lot of money, what happens if you get
a lot of research papers. You don’t actually get a cure. Somebody else has to make the cure. It’s applied science. It’s very important but it’s
not exactly an engineer. If you talk to people from
Merriam-Webster Dictionary, interesting definition, doesn’t
mention the word science. Isn’t that funny? If you talk to somebody at ABET, they’ll tell you this is what they are. If you talk to somebody in a corporation, one of my favorites is the definition of former president of Wellesley College, to engineer is to make, okay? She’s a poet. I think she got pretty close to this. Has anybody heard of the maker movement? That’s us. That’s what engineers do. Why did they have to create
a movement to do that? We’ve been doing this all the time, okay? At Olin, our definition is, an engineer is a person who
envisions what has never been and does whatever it
takes to make it happen. Now, the science is buried in the whatever it takes to make it happen. But look, it starts with vision. What is it about the SAT
test that identifies vision? And by the way, you can
know what the answer is and not have the courage and the passion and the determination and the obsession to make things happen
against the adversity. Both of those things are fundamental to this definition of what an engineer is. So if that’s the kinda
people we’re gonna produce, maybe we should look for
them at the beginning. Why am I here? Because my math teacher in high school said I was good at math. I had actually never met an engineer till I became a freshman at
the University of California, and I’d never met a
person with a PhD either. I just took it on faith that apparently it has something to do with math, okay? There’s a lot that we could benefit from by thinking differently and talking differently about engineering. Okay, when you start
thinking more broadly now, we ran into the work of Howard Gardner. Has anybody heard of Howard
Gardner in the audience>Usually there’s a few hands go up. Cognitive scientist at Harvard. He won the MacArthur prize in 1983 for the theory of multiple intelligences. Basically what he was doing
was a very curious sort of guy, investigating the validity of the IQ test. Everybody thought the IQ
test was a great idea. I mean, you might as well have
it tattooed on your forehead. It tells you what you can do in life. However, when you start
looking closely the data, it actually doesn’t work that well. In fact, he found it has
almost no correlation with success in life. It does have a small
correlation with how you’ll do on the next course in college. Once you graduate, it doesn’t tell you whether you’re going to
be a Nobel Prize winner or a taxi driver or whether you’re going to
be successful in a marriage or whether you gonna have chronic disease in the midlife or any of that. It actually doesn’t help very much. And along the way, he
discovered that all humans have at least seven
independent intelligences, most of which are the result
of significant brain circuits, which are not available
to your memory or logic. If you haven’t thought about this, this is something that, that, there’s a lot here okay? The explosion in neuroscience in the last decade is profound. In fact, I was telling one
of our board members today, if I was a freshman starting over, I would be really tempted
to study neural science rather than engineering, ’cause I think it explains
so much of what’s going on. Okay a good example of this, so how did Olin deal with this? We started directly looking for people with multiple intelligences, and we found, for example, Diana Dabby. Diana is a professor of
electrical engineering in music, and no, we don’t give music degrees, okay? But that’s who she is. It’s not her title. Diana started life as a concert pianist. She’s played solo at Carnegie Hall. She teaches part-time at Juilliard. She’s a composer, she has
toured Europe and Asia, and in mid-career, she became interested in electronic music and decided she needed
to go back to school. So against all odds, she completed a PhD in electrical engineering at MIT, working for MR Bose. You heard of those, speaker guy, okay? Her thesis is in Chaos Theory, applied to the variations
of musical scores by Bach and Gershwin and so she has a nonlinear oscillator that generates variations
on the musical score. She’s got a patent on this. We talked to her about her career, and she said, well I’m
teaching circuit design at MIT on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and then I’m teaching music theory at Tufts University on
Tuesday and Thursday, and I’m not telling the
other one what I’m doing. (laughing) Because if they find out,
they won’t respect me. And we said, oh no no, it’s
time to come out of the closet. That’s what we do at Olin, and we have a number of faculty, they’re not all like this, but we have a number of
faculty members like this. This is the home for people
with multiple intelligences. Okay, by the way, as you think about the challenges in the 21st century, the value of having an
encyclopedic knowledge of all those formulas
in spherical coordinates has got a very low half-life. A lot of the challenges
that we’re going to face in the 21st century are not defined yet. And in fact, the ability
to be adaptive, creative, and to conceive of new
sciences and new technologies may be more valuable than having a perfect test scores on the SAT. So that brings up the question that maybe creativity is something that should be
as important as knowledge. So that raises, so what
exactly is creativity? This slide actually tells a story. For years, I used to tell students, when you graduate from the university, you’re not an educated person, okay? You’re just beginning
your career of learning. So in fact, you have to
continually learn every day. So I’m gonna give you a challenge. I think every student here from the day you graduate, should raise your right
hand and make a commitment, I will read at least one non-fiction book in every semester, for
the rest of my life, okay, in a field outside of your major, so you have some hope of running into what’s happening in
those other two circles that we were looking at. And so they all say, wow,
that’s a great idea, Dr. Miller. What have you read? (laughing) Ha. So, I started putting
books in my briefcase, every time I would fly, and I decided where I’ll start is in cognitive science and education, because that’s what I’m doing, I thought, shouldn’t I
know something about this? So these are like 10 of my
favorite books recently, readings, and you have to
read them cover to cover, or doesn’t count right? It’s not reading the jacket of the book. Three of them, if you were going to start, that I’d highly recommend
are these three, okay? In particular, Jonah
Lehrer’s book, How We Decide, will change the way you think
about how the brain works and how you make decisions. It’s not all about logic. Norm Doidge’s book, The
Brain That Changes Itself, is about brain plasticity and explains very eloquently
why I can’t speak Spanish, even though I had four
years of it in high school. The brain apparently is a
dynamic allocation memory, and it’s like a chalkboard and you write things on it, and when you don’t use it
for a long period of time, your brain notices that and it erases it and puts the stuff that you did use. So it’s gone, you have
to use it constantly, which has a lot to do with
pedagogical work as well. By the way, if you have not done this, and this is a school, so I’m gonna give you homework, alright? Now this is, you don’t
have to read anything. This is a YouTube homework. It’s a TED Talk in 2006
by Sir Ken Robinson. Has anybody heard of this? Already? Yeah a lot of people have. It should change the way you think about what creativity is and why it’s important. Okay, so maybe who we teach could change. What about what we teach? Are we teaching the right stuff? Alright well, watching those students in the Olin Partner Year
deal with challenges, we came up with some
conclusions that in fact, engineering has a cycle to it. It starts with there must be
a better way of doing this, and that lead you to an idea, which then leads you to build a prototype, which then leads you to test it, and it almost never works, and that leads you to, well
there must be a better idea, and you keep doing this. That’s how the aircraft
industry was developed in a bicycle shop in Ohio,
not in a physics lab, okay? There wasn’t a theorem about aeronautics that led them to implement it. They experimented with it
until they got to work. The theorems came later
to explain why it works. That’s really fundamental here. So we concluded actually that
engineering is a process. It’s not a body of knowledge. Now, it involves a body of knowledge. You can have a transcript that has grades in
thermodynamics and mechanics and electrical circuits and so forth, and it doesn’t make you an engineer. Learning how to take
an idea, implement it, and change lives is what
an engineer is about, and we teach very little of the process. I had like one course in
my undergraduate career that had that as its goal, and by the way, it didn’t
work when I got to the end, which, and they gave me a degree anyway, which I always wondered about. So, how serious can they be? You know, it’s like
giving you one math test and you failed it and it’s okay. Just go on out the door. (laughing) So, it’s not just about that. There are a lot of other folks who have been worrying about this as well. One of them is Professor
Warren Seering at MIT, and he did a deep dive study of alumni and what alumni tell them
about their education at MIT versus their career and they, and the students basically concluded they didn’t use hardly any
of what they learned at MIT. Most of what they needed
was not taught at MIT and they had to learn later. This is eloquently provided in
another YouTube presentation, about 40 minute presentation
by Woodie Flowers. Has anybody heard of Woodie Flowers? Yeah, Woodie is a great friend of ours. He was in fact, an adjunct faculty for the first decade or so at Olin. In addition to what you know, probably more important now is learning how to learn independently, because most of the
stuff you’re gonna need is not gonna be there
when you’re in school. And deciding what to learn. What book do you put in your briefcase? That’s where we need guidance. This is also developed by the NAE Report, the Engineer of 2020, and
a very interesting book, Holistic Engineering Education by Domenico Grasso and his crew. So this is not just Olin,
we’re just catching up. Finally, how we teach. What do we do about the
pedagogical approach to teaching? By the way, what is the
best way to teach today? And there’s a whole lot written on this. I’m sure they’re people
in the education school that could give you courses
on it for a long time. Let me just summarize this with a recent book by John Seely Brown. You folks know John Seely Brown? I mean, he’s a good resident
here in the Bay Area, former Chief technology officer. (muffled speaking off mic)
Oh good, good, very good. So I’m going over old ground here. Basically, the idea is the traditional way of thinking about education
is knowledge transfer from my head to yours. You need to know what those formulas are in spherical coordinates, and so I’m giving them to you. The new way of thinking about it is we’re teaching you to construct this knowledge in your head, so the only thing that
counts is your ability to build the knowledge from scratch. In addition to that, this approach basically
breeds a can’t do attitude. No matter how hard you try, there’s another more advanced course in math after this one, and no matter how much
you ask the teacher, can I build the airplane now? Oh no no, you can’t pick up a
wrench until you’re a senior, and after you’ve had these other courses. It’s a can’t do thing. And in fact, the newer
model is empowering, can do. The old model is follow orders, put your pencil down, it’s eight o’clock. Okay, test is over with. Don’t talk to your neighbors. The new model is follow your passions. What do you really care about? There are no boundaries. Learn in class versus learn 24/7. Learning alone, now learning in teams. The old model, I’m gonna claim this problem-based learning, where somebody gives you the problem and you go in and solve it. The new model is designed based learning where nobody gives you the problem, you have to be creative, in creating, diagnosing, and creating the context for the problem, exercising those creative
skills right from the beginning. By the way, that’s not new. This is in fact, the pedagogy that we use in the PhD program all the time. It’s also not only the
pedagogy of the PhD program. If you ever heard of
Montessori schools okay, we’ve also use this in K-12. What’s happened is in the middle, we somehow industrialized
education and lost it, and that’s, needs to be restored. My favorite quote from the book, for most of the 20th century, our educational system has been built on the assumption that teaching is necessary for learning to occur. Actually is it? Okay, can creativity be taught, okay? Can entrepreneurship be taught? Can music be taught? Can any creative activity be taught? Well, I can tell you, you get
better at playing the piano if you practice, okay? You get more creative
if you practice as well. These are two of my favorite
books in this field. Tony Wagner is a good
friend of ours at Harvard. He has a 40, a 23 page
section in this book on the Olin Learning Model, where he explains how it
helps to prepare innovators. And this Tom Kelly at Stanford
who I’m sure you know, talking about developing
creative confidence. The key to all of this is the
same, learning to improvise. It’s, being creative is
about learning to improvise, and I learned this by being the, the chair of the accreditation committee that visited Berkeley
College of Music last year. And a couple years ago, I was a chair of the
accreditation committee for the New England Conservatory Committee, which is completely different. One is classical, it’s playing the notes that Beethoven wrote 200 years
ago and doing it perfectly, and the other one is
a musical conversation where you have to invent
it on, live, on stage, in contact with somebody else. And in fact, it uses a
different part of your brain, and that’s now very easy
to see in FMRI studies. So we have to teach engineering so that it uses that
other part of the brain, which shows up when a
jazz musician is on stage, and that will do more
for creating innovators than anything else. Finally motivations
play a key role in this. I don’t know if anybody has heard of James Heckman at the
University of Chicago, who is a Nobel Prize winning economist who’s been looking at why it
is that students don’t succeed. This is a fascinating book. I highly recommend it, and then the bottom line
here is that he concludes that grit is a three times better predictor of career success than knowledge or intelligence, okay? So what is grit? Well, grit has to do with determination, an unwillingness to stop no matter what, a belief that you can do it, and a commitment to do
whatever it takes to succeed. And, in fact, Angela Duckworth
who’s a MacArthur Fellow last year at University of Penn is now doing deep dive
studies in to figure out how do you teach grit? Because if you can get that across, the other stuff pretty
much takes care of itself. We have concluded that
intrinsic motivation is a key source of grit. If students already care about this and they’re passionate about it, they become obsessed, they
spend all their time doing it, they will learn and you can’t
stop them from learning. So, using intrinsic motivation as a part of your pedagogical arsenal is going to be highly
effective at producing success. By the way, another YouTube. Does everybody know about this book? Dan Pink’s book on Drive? If you haven’t, there’s a 10 minute video that will give you all
of the key highlights. It’s a great book. Finally, we’re almost done. Chuck Vest, many of you
know recently passed away, one of our greatest
academic leaders I believe. His words, making universities
and engineering schools exciting, creative, adventurous, rigorous, demanding, and empowering millieus, is more important than
specifying curricular details. And we couldn’t agree with him more. Finally, outcomes. So Olin is doing all this stuff. Does it work? You know, if you’re doing this, aren’t you not doing something else? So you come out with artists or something, but they’re not engineers. So what happens? And so here’s some summaries
of what’s happening to the Olin student so far. They, here’s the
confirmation of our culture, Princeton Review, you may know about that. It’s a college guide, it looks at students in all universities. Last year, Olin was ranked
number two in America among all universities where
students study the most. It’s not a place you go to put your heels up on weekends and go party. These kids are intensely committed. It’s also number eight in the
happiest students in America. Now, do that at the same time and you’ve got this
learning culture, okay? It’s not drudgery, it’s
something they enjoy. Companies have discovered it too, so the kids are now in great demand. A significant fraction of that is because they’re being bought by a few computer software
companies, who are paying … One company has recruited
20% of our graduating class for each of the last three years. They would recruit all of them, if they could get them to do it. Now, I thought I would
end by just showing you what happens to outcomes. This is the most authentic
way of talking about outcomes that I could think of. That’s our entire class
of 2006, every student There, you know that
they’re in their t-shirts when they’re freshmen showing up. So, these are the ones who became PhDs, or MDS, or JD’s by now, and I can show you sort of what they did That’s the first kid, Michael Curtis, who in 3-1/2 years got his PhD in atomic and Laser physics at Oxford. The next one, Que Ahn Nguyen,
went here UC Berkeley. Is an NSF Fellow, Material Science. Polina, went to Stanford NSF Fellow. Kate Basek, another
NSF Fellow at Stanford. Etosha Cave, another
NSF Fellow at Stanford. Janet Tsai, NSF Fellow, Colorado, Jay Gantz is a Fulbright who
went MD, PhD at Washington. Tom Cecil got his law degree. He’s a patent attorney in Dallas. Chris Murphy got his
PhD at MIT in robotics. Caitlyn Foley is getting
her MD PhD in progress at Tufts University. Takes a long time to do that, by the way. Drew Harry has, got his PhD at MIT. Sutee Dee, he’s doing genetics
at University of Chicago. Jersey, he’s doing statistics
at Carnegie Mellon. Juliana did her PhD in Math at Columbia. She’s a professor of math
at Sacred Heart University. Sean Munson, he’s PhD in
Information at Michigan, assistant professor of engineering, University of Washington Seattle. kathy King, a PhD in
operations research at Cornell. By the way, the class is so small, my wife and I invite
every student to our house in small groups for dinner every year. So, we sorta think of
them as our own kids. It helps with the empty
nest syndrome a little bit. Amanda Blackwood is doing her PhD in WPI. These are the ones who decided to go the business route, okay? And so, Erin McCusker got her MBA at Duke. She’s a consultant. Francis Haugen is a manager here at Google with a Harvard MBA. Dan Lindquist got is MBA at
Northwestern is doing Deloitte. That’s an interesting thing, a lot of engineering schools
have kids that go to business, and they are financial consultant. Two percent of Olin’s alumni have gone into financial consulting. They want to make stuff,
something about the program. Kim, MBA at Harvard. Nicole is a nuclear
engineer, Mikell Taylor, Matt Hill is an MS at Stanford, he’s at Apple. Krystin Stafford, Adam Horton is at Tesla. Susan Fredholm, NSF Fellow, MIT. Will Clayton, MBA at Harvard. These are the ones who did odd stuff, things that you wouldn’t expect, okay? Like, Nick Zola, who
got his PhD in religion, and he’s a professor of Old
Testament or something like that at this Christian School. Kate Walsh started a
new company at Stanford. Leighton Ige started a new company in his sophomore year in
college, he is still running it. Emma Goodman is an actress, so she’s a on-stage performer
in New York and in Boston. Kevin Tostado is a film producer. He had his capstone
project in his senior year, won the independent film
festival award in 2007 the next year after he graduated. Sarah Oliver is a farmer, and
she’s a cheesemaker, okay? Jeff Satwicz started a
company called BigBelly Solar which makes solar
powered trash compactors. They’re now all over the world. Last piece, so what’s ahead for Olin? And this has to do with Berkeley. We call it decade two. The first decade was spent
learning how kids learn and building a new program
from the ground up. Decade two is about meeting our mission, which is to become a laboratory
for this, for everyone else, so we’ve been visited by more than 300
universities in four years. We have actually a whole staff team that does nothing but hosts visits. Berkeley folks would be
welcome to visit, okay? It with not be a burden,
it would be an honor. Next, some of our many collaborators include these institutions. Maybe you’ve heard of the
University of Illinois out there on the Plains. These guys have chartered an airplane, and on March 11th they’re
bringing 10 people, including the dean of engineering and a number of department
chairs to visit us again. We have started a partnership with them about five years ago. As a result of work together,
they have reengineered their undergraduate engineering program, so that all 1500 incoming freshmen take a co-designed program in engineering. And they’re now so enthusiastic about it, they wanna spread it into
the junior and senior year. And Dean Otaceta, who was
our partner became Provost, and now he wants to talk about doing this across the whole university, sorta the maker University concept. So, they’re big supporters. Insper is a school in Brazil. It’s building an entirely
new university on this model, so as we speak there, the construction is underway
for a new engineering school. University of Texas at El Paso, it’s a very important partner
for us because we’re learning about a completely different
student population. We’re worried about whether
the pedagogies that we use will not be effective in
different student populations, and the only way to do
this is to experiment. And we’ve done some work with Stanford. Harvard is reengineering their program. So, what’s this about? Through consultation and co-design, and collaboration with other universities, we intend to become an important
and constant contributor to the advancement of
engineering education in America and throughout the world. And that’s what I had to
say, so thank you very much. (applause) – Thanks, questions? Any questions, huh? (persons muffled speaking off mic) Please identify yourselves also. – [Chris] Hi Chris Kenney,
I am a highschool teacher, and also got my PhD here at Berkeley. I like a lot of what you had
to say and my question would be what recommendations do you have to implement what you’ve talked about to for the lack of a
better word, the naysayers, the people who, yeah I
guess leave it at that. – I think it’s important that the country has a variety of approaches to learning. It’s just fine if you have
some traditional schools that don’t change, I don’t think there’s a problem with that. But what we need to do
is stop talking (mumbles) is exactly the same in every institution. If you actually want to make
change within an institution, it’s more complicated than starting with a blank
sheet of paper, like Olin did. And then you have five
rules that are important for making very important
for making change within a university,
just like I pointed out. (mumbles) – [Woman] Here, are you guys, no? No, my bad. Here. – [Woman] Hi, so Olin is a
very small private college, and Cal is a very large public university. How do we implement some
of the changes here at Cal? – Improvise, right? It takes willing people. I think the the model that happened at Illinois is a good example because Illinois is at least
as large I think as Berkeley, in terms of enrollment. And, what happened there
was the chancellor of, actually the Provost at
Illinois was a good friend, who had seen some of the things that we’re going on here at Olin, and wanted them to show up at Illinois, so she dropped some
bread crumbs down a path for like-minded faculty
members to pick up. Several of them did, including a guy that we
think is a singularity. His name is David Goldberg. I don’t know if you know Dave Goldberg, but he was the leader of the Illinois team that did the experiments in
the first couple of years that proved that it
could be done at Illinois with really less resources than you think. And they have something
called the iFoundry there. If you go to the Illinois website, you can see this really well demonstrated. And over the period of the first summer, I think there were 100 volunteer students that wanted to do experiments. There were a handful of faculty members. They came out to visit Olin a few times. They benchmarked some things. Modified it for their
environment and launched it. And while it almost crashed
and burned the first time because the students revolted. This is not the way students
are used to learning either. When you come in and you tell
them you have to build this, and then you go sit in the
corner and fold your arms, they complain to the dean, I paid tuition. These people are supposed
to be teaching me. They’re apparently you know,
vacationing or something. What’s going on? And eventually one of
the kids figures it out, and then it takes off like wildfire. There’s a longer story to this, but we have some literature on it, which I could send you if you want. – Hi, so my name is Josh.
– Josh, go ahead. – [Josh] Oh, and I’m a
fourth year undergrad. And so, oh sure. (laughing) And so, what you said
really resonated with me, at like a deep level. I just came through four years
of working with the system, and sometimes in spite of the system to teach, to learn, right? And a lot of what I’ve been going through, feel like it just really
hit me hard, like, Berkeley successes and sorts of loss. And so, my question for you is someone coming out of this system, how do I help change that? How do I move to a new path? – Yeah, well this is a
question that happens actually quite a lot. Our own students often tell us that they really want to
make change in education when they graduate. We thought we were teaching engineering. They thought we were
teaching education reform. And I can’t imagine how they
would get that idea, but … So, what to do with them,
and it’s not an easy answer. I mean, if you have a bachelor’s
degree in engineering, what can you do about education reform? A number of them get
involved right away in K-12, and we’ve had a number of
students who immediately, they’re high school teachers
in the different areas, and they are making an
impact, from in fact, I personally worry more about high school than I do about first two years
in undergraduate colleges. They’re both leaky pipelines, but I think we could do
a lot for this country if we could reinvent them. The students who are more patient, we can encourage to continue and to get a PhD in engineering education and spend their career
working to change universities from the inside. We have a number of them
they’re off doing that now from Olin. Okay? (muffled speaking off mic) – Yeah. You know I have to say this has been just a wonderful and stimulating talk, and you know, I was quite
struck when you put up John Seely Brown’s book, and I remember feeling
the same sort of charge and call to action that
I felt from your talk, so for me personally and
if I can address Josh, you know, we are with Professor Miller, President Miller, in terms of what we need
to do at Berkeley you know, and if I can sort of just add to this dialogue in this campus, you know, what President
Miller has argued for is really a much more engaged, customized education, sort of the anti-muke of education, and I hope that we all remember this, because there is a campus debate about whether you teach to millions, or you provide a really
good experiential education, but you learn to learn. And I am on the side of President Miller, and the challenge, I
think you asked about, what the challenges are for Berkeley is we’re gonna have to
figure out how to provide a customized education
without breaking the bank. And he has shown that it is possible, and his very first slide, President Miller’s very first slide is he keeps the tuition low, and you know his student faculty
ratio is only nine to one, and maybe it will become
less than nine to one. Our challenge is gonna be to bring more people to
the classrooms to be the, so the coach of the sidelines rather than the sage of
the stage, which is the, which is what you said throughout. So, thank you very much. You know this is really
wonderful, national debate. I’m really glad you’ve kicked this off. We will, I know the, Jim Plumber had all his department chairs fly out. Maybe they’ll fly out in
a bigger contingent here to come and see you. May after the thaw though. (laughter) – Wait ’til May. – This concludes our View from the Top, and please join me in
thanking President Miller. (applause) Fantastic talk. Oh, I think that we are
talking about YouTube. So, this talk will be
on our YouTube channel before the end of the week, and in the interim, we’ll,
small token of appreciation, a Berkeley engineer shirt. I’d like to thank our student
group co-sponsor ASME, and I look forward to
seeing you March 18th, at the cool lecture
featuring Sehat Sutardja. Goodbye and go Bears. Fabulous talk, just a fab–