Can we really blame the slow recovery of the economy on the lack of engineering students... 8

[JohnRBaker]

Well this should elicit some interesting discussion as the editor of 'Machine Design' magazine seems to think so, or at least he appears to be agreeing with someone who's written a book that includes this claim and supposedly has the data to back it up:

http://machinedesign.com/editorial-comment/those-dead-beat-liberal-arts-students

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[imcjoek]

For some inexplicable reason I have a divide in my mind between artists and humanities.

That is, the former makes music, art, etc, that makes life more enjoyable.
The latter studies the former, thereby not contributing a whole lot.

I can't comment on the truth of this division.

 

[cranky108]

Engineers build the walls of buildings, while artists cover the walls with nonsince.

 

[rconnor]

As far as the idea that engineers need to take arts and humanities courses to become "well rounded citizens", I think it's a naïve concept at best

I never said that, nor was I trying to imply it. My point was that those that take humanities should not be treated with the level of disdain that is ever present here and in society at large. Their education holds great value to our society due to the critical yet creative thought process that comes from it.

That being said, I’m not in full support of your argument. I do agree that critical thinkers can be developed without needing formal education in the humanities. However, that is dependent on the persons family and social circles. The majority of kids inherent their world views from their parents; they tend to share the same political affinity, religious practices and level of skepticism. There are, of course, exceptions but they are just that – exceptions. It is therefore important, to me at least, that people receive some amount of formal education in subjects such as critiquing arguments, logic, philosophy of thought, ethics, etc. I would also continue to defend that exposure to the arts is important, not just for developing the creative side of people but for the enrichment it offers. I would agree, partly, that this should be done during primary school rather than university.

I believe that the primary role of standardized education, and by that I mean primary level, state-supported education, is to develop a citizenry that can act in its own best interest, not the best interest of the state/those in power. To achieve this, you need to develop critical, creative, skeptical thinkers. The focus should be on developing the thought process, not the capacity to regurgitate answers. The former creates an empowered, effective citizenry, the latter creates drones. There is an obvious benefit to those in power (both politically and economically – if there is any difference between the two left) to create the latter but I believe the systemic issues are more to do with incompetence than malevolence.

I should stress the “partly” bolded above because I feel that the whole argument that the requirement for humanities is “watering-down” technical degrees is just BS from corporations who don’t want to spend a dime on actually training people. I guarantee you that most, if not all, people on this forum only use a handful of classes on a day-to-day basis. I took at least 4 classes on stress analysis but my job does not require me to know it. Heck, I took an aerospace option at school but ended up not working in the aerospace field. Meanwhile, two of my mandatory humanities, Philosophy 101: Critical Thinking and English 101, I use on a day-to-day basis. Furthermore, my ethics class, which was in the Department of Anthropology (historical view of human/technological relations), has allowed me to be a better engineer at my company than my Air and Spacecraft Performance and Design class. So to say that humanities are a waste of time is just not true because you cannot even say that a humanities class is going to be less important than a given technical class.

Engineering and its sub-disciplines are far too broad to tailor the education to any specific job. Frankly, it is impossible for universities to pre-train students for their job as neither knows what that will be. Instead, it is about developing a tool-box of knowledge to draw from; a critical and creative thought process is a huge part of that.

 

[BillPSU]

I had a unique experience when I was a about 12 years old. One of the neighbor girls designed a logo which is an icon for an industry. She was about 20-25 years old and was working for some sort of an industrial design studio. She didn't get paid any royalties but I am sure the company did. Everybody recognizes it and this was done by an "art" graduate.

Some of the people on this site own it and it is revered in some circles.



What is it?

It is the little horse logo we know as mustang.

 

[cranky108]

Something about goverment schools and watered down, seems to fit. Just about everything in goverment schools is watered down, and that might be why kids are not interested in science, or engineering.
What seems to be the most learned skill is avoiding getting beaten up, which is why the goverment schools are failing to inspire engineers. It all starts in the grade schools.

If you want more people with new ideas, then what is needed is a diversity of thought, not standardized education.

I mean really, the goverment schools should start teaching classes in stocking of store racks.

 

[JohnRBaker]

Actually I took Economics as a humanitys...

When I was getting my BSME back in the late 60's/early 70's we were required to take three terms of economics; two 'regular' classes covering Micro and Macro Economics, from the School of Business, and then a class in Engineering Economics, from the School of Engineering.

For my mandatory 'social studies and humanities' electives I took three terms of American History, one term of Diplomatic History and one term of Psychology.

As a side note, when I took the second part of my Professional licensing exam (after having gained 5 years of working experience) we were required to include at least one test problem from a group titled 'Economics'. If my recollection is correct, I chose a 'problem' that required the determination of an ideal economic lot size for the manufacture of some machined part. You had to take into account 'parameters' such as material costs, labor, machine tool rates, overhead, etc.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[Gymmeh]

Cranky,

Are you talking about Grade school or University? Either way, as far as I can tell the results of public education very extremely by region in the USA, success is mostly a result of socioeconomic's of an individuals parents relative to the local populous. Simply put, if your parents care about your education and have the money to support your education...you will most likely get educated regardless.

 

[cranky108]

I was talking about Grade/High school.

The problem is education in this country is not important to people. They will say it is, and complain if the public school is not doing what they want, but very few will poney up the money to send there kids to a privite school. I guess a new car, boat, or vacation is more important. And true, some people just don't make enough to be able to afford a privite school.

The issue is all the students are given the same treatment, or special treatment only if they are slow, or speak another language (it's a money thing). But really bright students are often held back to the averidge level. While true enough some schools have advanced classes, the kids are stilled bullied after school.

So the bright students learn to be as invisable as possible. To hide and not be seen.

After college many of them still try to be hidden, and don't speek up. This maybe why many engineers are not good at selling themselves, or there professions.

 

[KENAT]

"critical yet creative thought process"

I'm still not sold on arts/humanities really showing this across the board, and certainly not more so than most engineers.

I'm sure rconner can find some statistic to back it up but it doesn't ring true to my limited experience.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[rconnor]

I'm sure rconner can find some statistic to back it up

Haha, I read this as some form of backhanded/sarcastic compliment in response to the global warming threads. Not sure if that was intended but it made me laugh.

Anyways, I’ll bite. Admittedly, this isn’t statistical evidence proving those that study the humanities develop a “critical yet creative thought process”, for that is far too subjective a theory to quantify. However, education professionals, cognitive development scientists, neuroscientists and psychologist tend to agree that exposure to arts education is instrumental to cognitive development. Just a few references to support that statement. Ken Robinson is another good source.

…certainly not more so than most engineers

Why do we keep comparing the two? My defense of the humanities is not an attack on engineering. My point was “that those that take humanities should not be treated with the level of disdain that is ever present here and in society at large. Their education holds great value to our society.” Nothing comparing the two.

I just find it odd (and annoying) that we whine that engineers are not treated with enough respect (and we do) and then, in the same breath, spit on the humanities. It’s more than hypocritical, it’s illogical. What does an Arts grad have to do with our position in society? How does disrespecting one field make our field more respected?

I love engineering, I love science. Anyone that knows me knows I will never pass up an opportunity to advocate for science and science literacy (to nauseating lengths, according to some…ok most). However, that doesn’t mean that I, therefore, cannot appreciate and respect the humanities. So it always strikes me as odd that whenever I defend the Arts, I’m met with aggressive responses, as if I’m attacking engineering.

Speaking of which…

Engineers build the walls of buildings, while artists cover the walls with nonsince.

I think that statement would be pretty offensive to those in the Arts, namely English majors…

 

[cranky108]

I would hope it is as offensive as some of the stuff they try to pass off as art. And they expect tax dollars to fund that stuff, which is even more offencive.

Humanities can involve things that are useful, and things that are not (like the paintings done by monkeys).

Economists seem to do well in society, and we don't have to feed them goverment peanuts. However some artests don't do well, and expect goverment peanuts.

Singers are artests, and many do well, and some we throw penies at in the subway.

So yes some humanities grads do deserve our distain, just like some bad engineers deserve the same. It's just easer for us to see the bad artests.

 

[rconnor]

cranky, I think you mised the joke.

As for the rest of your post, it was nonsince and deserves my distain.

 

[KENAT]

Rconner, you got me on the backhanded compliment. While I may not share your viewpoint on a number of topics you've posted about in depth I can't dispute the general quality of your posting.

Quick browse of your links seemed to suggest they were mostly talking about arts in K-12 level education.

I'm certainly not suggesting they be expunged from that so like on so many issues it seems both parties are not actually discussing the same thing.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​