The synopsis of my research is as follows: This dissertation is an examination of how an institutional shift in support of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (“STEM”) has transformed how students at Yale, a traditionally liberal arts college, prepare as 21^st century knowledge workers. In particular it analyzes a cohort that uses the resources associated with this strategic shift to assemble a portfolio of skills: a wide toolbox. At its core this wide toolbox defines a unique level of preparedness for future leaders of the 21^st century knowledge workforce. Students’ interest in innovation, design, and entrepreneurship is a manifestation of Yale’s strategic shift in favor of STEM. There is an emerging debate, nonetheless, about the role of the humanities in American education and concerns about the STEM disciplines eclipsing humanities fields in relevance and career prospects. The wide toolbox skill-set, ironically, is formed at the intersection of the humanities and technology.

During the process of thinking about how to contextualize my research it is becoming clear to me that because colleges and universities are innovation hubs they are part of a global competition among businesses for talent and the competition among national governments for economic prosperity and in some respects, their national security. At the level of universities and colleges, there is competition to attract the top students and faculty, as well as offer a compelling vision of the future to prospective patrons who are deciding whether to support a college or university’s development campaigns.

A fundamental question about my research at Yale is whether Yale is representative of a sea change in how technology, science, engineering, and innovation are being conceptualized, taught and practiced or whether it is unique in American higher education. The evidence supports the conclusion that Yale is representative of a sea change in how technology, science, engineering and innovation are being reimagined in secondary education, and a trend in education to allocate more resources to STEM:

• In 1994, reestablished the dean of engineering post.
• In 2000, Yale committed to invest more than $1 billion in facilities for science, medicine, and technology.
• In 2005, the Daniel L. Malone Engineering Center was completed.
• In 2008 the Faculty of Engineering was recognized as the School of Engineering & Applied Sciences.
• Setting an admissions target of 30% of incoming freshmen as prospective STEM majors.
• Creation of the Center for Engineering, Innovation and Design as a design studio for undergraduates.

The macro-level context for these changes is the realization that a primary driver of our national economy and related job creation is innovation, largely derived from advances in technology, science and engineering. The 2010 governmental report “Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited” updated a 2005 report that “focused upon the ability of Americans to compete for employment in a job market that increasingly knows no geographic boundaries.” One of the conclusions of the 2010 report is that “Substantial evidence continues to indicate that over the long term the great majority of newly created jobs are the indirect or direct result of advancements in science and technology, thus making these and related disciplines assume what might be described as disproportionate importance.”

There appears to be unprecedented institutional support for preparing students beyond the traditional career paths of Wall Street, management consulting, law and medicine. Yale seems to be making resources available for students ranging from mentors to help a student ideate and conceptualize a market opportunity, and build a sustainable business to providing seed or early-stage capital so that students are not dependent on venture capitalists to fund budding enterprises. Several question arise concerning the Yale model: What are the challenges to implementing the model? Is successful implementation dependent on having the level of resources that Yale has? These questions are important to determine whether the Yale model is applicable to other educational institutions. The five key elements of the Yale model are:

• Student-orientated infrastructure that covers entrepreneurship pedagogy, academic maker spaces, venture creation, and for profit and social entrepreneurship.
• Mentors for students from academia, business, government, and not-for-profit sectors.
• Alumni engagement and active participation.
• Championing led by the institution’s governing Board, administration, and faculty.
• Encourage learning that develops a wide toolbox: critical thinking skills, history, design thinking, an ability to work with and interpret numbers and statistics, access to the insights of great writers and artists, a willingness to experiment, the ability to navigate ambiguity, basic understanding of technology, science and engineering.