Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

Register Log in

Standardised testing. 14

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oompa Loompas of science anybody?

Sparweb, honestly I think you make your comments mostly out of ignorance (somewhat ironically given what you're positing). Did you read anything but the last line of my post?

Let me try and say it again, the education system (not just university) is quite different in other places in the world, it can be difficult to get your head around - even having been with my stepson going through the US system all the way up to college there's still aspects I struggle to grasp - but on a site like this with members from all over the place it helps to keep that in mind as at least a possibility for the discrepancy in views & experience.

Universities such as Cambridge and Oxford teach a very wide range of subjects, and yet if you go there to study say mechanical engineering you'll spend nearly all your time studying mechanical engineering and directly related/foundational topics.

As to your 'engineers place in society' well that strikes me as pretensious nonsense, which I'd half expect from someone so obsessed with the humanitites...;-)

Posting guidelines faq731-376 (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​
 
I think "culture" even applies to engineering disciplines other that your own. Some random discipline might have a commonly used tool for them that may be applicable to your own needs. Up until about 20 years ago, there was never any need for mathematicians in a hospital, other than as computer programmers. Now, some leading edge research hospitals has staff mathematicians because many of the body's systems operate in concert to chaos theory.

We use a tool that was developed by NIH for looking at biological and x-ray imaging, but it works awesomely for some of our imaging needs.

While I didn't take psychology in college, that might have more quickly helped my understanding of how people work, since we, as engineers, are often baffled by the "logic inverters" used by management. My boss explained the basic concepts to me, when we were once faced by a set of seemingly nonsensical management decisions.

TTFN
faq731-376
7ofakss

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529
 
Wow,
I have some of the most intelligent and worldly minded members of the forum P/O'd with me now. I'm in a hole so I'd better stop digging.
It will take me a while to figure out what went wrong anyway. Maybe some finger-painting will help me think.

STF
 
SparWeb,
Its Ok I am not P/O'd with you, but then again I am not , one, of the most intelligent and worldly minded members on here.

By the current standards of this post I am most definitely a tradesman. Of course I have been called that from an early age.

I most vividly remember taking a brand new Television as a teenager with my father to a stately house, when it took two people to carry a TV bigger than 14". We walked up to the front door with this, to be met by the Butler. Who took one look at us, and said " tradesmen to the side entrance round there!" and he did not even say please.
B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.
 
I don't know about the others SparWeb but I'm not PO'd - I was a bit when it first came up in a previous post but frankly it's not worth me getting PO'd about.

It does puzzle me that I and my cohorts have been unable to explain the situation in a way that you and others can grasp but there you have it.

Posting guidelines faq731-376 (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​
 
Firstly, as I’m coming into this conversation late, I’d be remised if I didn’t thank Berkshire for posting that video. It was incredibly stimulating and thought-provoking. I think I’ve missed the boat on the discussion about the content of the lecture but I’ll leave you with this comic.
[image ]

Defining Terms
Now onto the topic at hand. It appears that the only people that are using “trade school” in any form of a derogatory sense are those that feel they are being “accused” of going to a “trade school”. I feel, and correct me if I’m wrong, Sparweb is merely using the term “trade school” to refer to institutions that focus solely on specialized technical knowledge/understanding and differentiating from institutions that require/encourage classes outside the specialized area. This can be further distilled down to “teaching how to do a job” and “teaching how to think”; I’ll use these terms from here on out, rather than the other loaded terms. Neither is inherently “better” than the other, as both aim to do two different things.

More Technical Education = Better Technical Understanding
It could be argued that “teaching how to do a job” creates better engineers (or whatever specialization you are going for) than “teaching how to think” does. Your classes are solely focused on your specialization and as such you have a heightened knowledge/understanding on the specific technical elements. Although I don’t necessarily agree with this (ex. I took an aerospace option but once entering the field, I ended up working in an unrelated area. My aerospace classes are about as useful to me in my day-to-day job as “basket-weaving” would have been), I don’t need to argue this to illustrate my point (and build off of Sparwebs). So let’s assume (incorrectly but nevertheless unimportantly) that I agree with the notion that institutions that “teach how to do a job” create better technical experts than institutions that “teach how to think” upon graduation. (the last caveat is important)

Some Additional Education in the Humanities = More Well-Rounded
Conversely, it could be argued that “teaching how to think” creates more well-rounded citizens than “teaching how to do a job” does (again, upon graduation). Immediately, this statement reeks of elitism as an extension of it can be interpreted as “people that go to institutions that “teach how to do” are worse citizens than people that go to institutions that “teach how to think””. However, this is no more elitist than to say “people that go to institutions that “teach how to think” are worse engineers than people that go to institutions that “teach how to do””. Furthermore, both these statements work off the same core assumption – the more formalized education one has in a subject, the better they will understand it. Either this statement applies to both arguments or it applies to neither. If we toss out this assumption then we must also toss out the conclusion that “more technical education one has, the better engineer they will become”. To apply it to one but not the other would be contradictory and rather hypocritical.

But I’ll go one further and address the argument “how does a class in art history (or music or “basket-weaving” etc.) make me a better citizen?”. A good citizen is one who is able to understand and appreciate the wants and needs of all members in a society, not just those that share common interests. To have a brief education in fine art allows one to understand and appreciate why it is important (and in some cases quintessential) to some people, even if they don’t share that mentality. This is important to reduces ignorance and prejudice, which is really the goal of any citizenry. Other classes, such as philosophy, ethics, anthropology, sociology, etc. have a more direct and obvious impact on being a more informed, more rational, more accepting citizen.

It should be noted that I would absolutely support and push for a scientific element being included in arts/business education. To quote Carl Sagan, “We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster”. Frankly, I believe that an understanding of cosmology feeds a sense of connectivity that forces people to be more accepting of one another.

General vs. Anecdotal Arguments
Before I get any anecdotal arguments that “I went to an institution that “taught how to do a job” and I consider myself an informed, rational, accepting citizen”, we need to understand that, again, that argument can cut both ways. X went to an institution that “taught how to think” and X consider herself/himself a strong, technical proficient engineer. Again, for one side to talk in generalities as the bases for their argument but then use anecdotes to attack the generalities of the other side is inconsistent. Either we agree to BOTH discuss in general terms or we must simply swap anecdotes until we are blue in the face.

The reason for these anecdotal “exceptions” to the rule is that in reality, we don’t study and live in vacuums where are only exposure to knowledge and experience. We are influenced by our culture, our family, our friends, our boss, our co-workers, our employer. Neither an engineer’s nor a citizen’s developing stops when they graduate. So part of the debate needs to be focused on when and where is the appropriate time to get this development. I will discuss this in more depth below.

What’s More Desirable: Better Technical Understanding or More Well-Rounded Citizen
This is the crux of the debate and the crux of the issue surrounding the purpose of education: is educated there to create pre-trained, ready-to-work employees or is education there to create a more well-rounded, informed, rational, accepting citizenry.

I am, rather obviously, in the latter camp. I feel that the desire to create pre-trained, ready-to-work employees is the result of the excessive influence corporations have on our government (through lobby groups/campaign contributions), culture (through advertising and the continued rise of a consumption-centric zeitgeist) and education (through threats of “employability”). Companies have developed a way to convince us all that they should not need to train their employees, that they should come pre-trained. Whether it’s asking for 4-years experience for entry level wages, demand for more H1B visas (where brilliant people can work for a fraction of what they should be making and become indentured servants as their legal status is tied to their employment) or the demolishing of internal training programs, this becomes more and more obvious. However, as obvious as these tactics are, we continually blame the education system for not producing grads that can do the job of a 5+ year veteran. We eat up the argument that it’s because “our education system has become diluted with “basket-weaving” classes”. We rely on the ubiquitous anecdotal arguments “back in my day, when I graduated, I already knew all this stuff!” to support this viewpoint. Each and every generation has said that the next generation is going to be the death of society. Each and every generation has been dead wrong on that front.

Beyond that, how could one possibly expect universities to pre-train students for their career path when the students cannot know where that career path will take them? Many careers that exist today did not exist 5-10 years ago. In addition, although company X and company Y produce the exact same widget, they produce them in completely different ways. The basic skills are transferable but the specifics are endlessly diverse. So, are people arguing that institutions that focus on “teaching how to think” do so many “basket-weaving” classes that students don’t learn the fundamentals? Are they seriously saying that any accredited school has, for example, a mechanical engineering degree that doesn’t teach heat transfer? If so, that is an issue with the accreditation program, not with the more general teaching philosophy of the school.

I argue that expecting the result of education to be to create pre-trained, ready-to-work employees is not just wrong but impossible. It’s wrong because the onus to train employees should sit with the employer, not the school (the onus is on the school to make trainable employees). It’s impossible because the school cannot possibly predict or know what specific skills each student will require in their career.

On the other hand, expecting the result of education to be to create a well-rounded, informed, rational, accepting citizenry is both more appropriate and more reasonable. It’s more appropriate because a formalized education is the only place where, as a society, we can expose students to a variety of different viewpoints and opinions that can counter the prejudices that can be developed through culture, family, friends and work. Sometimes these areas will be great at minimizing prejudices but in many cases, they are the source. Institutions that “teach you how to think” tend to be much more progressive and much more critical of the current establishment and dominate culture than any other institution. For example, academic law is largely centered around the criticism of practical law and exposing it’s prejudices and biases. This is essential for people to understand, especially when they grow-up in a privileged reference frame that is not exposed to or affected by the prejudices and biases in law, culture, business or government that adversely affect those in disenfranchised positions.

It’s more reasonable because the timing is ideal for students to understand these concepts. When a student enters post-secondary school, they are the optimal balance between quite mature but still open-minded (and the change in environment and expectation that comes with post-secondary education also aids in this). Any earlier and they might not have the ability to process the concepts and any later and they might be already too influenced by their surroundings.

A very valid argument is “why should we leave these concepts to be taught in post-secondary school, which not everyone will attend; shouldn’t they be taught in grade school instead?”. I agree with this in part although it’s important to realize this is not at all an argument for more technical specialization in university. I feel that grade school should do a much better job at teaching things like critical thinking, moral philosophy and how law impacts society, rather than rote memorization of facts (again, building on the concept of “teaching how to think” not “teaching how to do”). These are important concepts that help make a person a well-rounded citizen and shouldn’t be reserved only for those that go to post-secondary school. However, I feel these should be introductory as they are quite heavy for the average grade school student. Post-secondary school should build off these concepts in more depth, even if they are not central to the specialization. I should also add that I feel that there should be fewer financial (tuition costs) and cultural (biased testing) barriers for people entering post-secondary schools.

TL;DR
- Neither “teaching how to do” nor “teaching how to think” is inherently better than the other – both have their strengths
- It could be argued that “teaching how to do” produces better technical experts. But, by extension of that logic, it would also have to be argued that “teaching how to think” produces more well-rounded citizens. It’s both or neither.
- The question then becomes “do we want more technical proficient engineers upon graduation or more well-rounded citizens upon graduation?”
- I argue that as long as engineers have been adequately trained on the fundamentals, they can (and should) acquire the more specialized knowledge on the job. It’s impossible for schools to predict or know what specialized knowledge each student will need for their career.
- Students entering post-secondary institutions are prime candidates for developing a greater understanding of how to be a more well-rounded, informed, rational and accepting member of their society and post-secondary institutions are the prime institution to teach those lessons.
- Therefore, I feel that it is more important to focus on producing more well-rounded citizens upon graduation.
 
Yet another apparently intelligent and erudite member who misses the point myself and others have tried to make.

By your definition rconner

rconner 30 Jun 14 17:35 said:
...using the term “trade school” to refer to institutions that focus solely on specialized technical knowledge/understanding and differentiating from institutions that require/encourage classes outside the specialized area.
Click to expand...

Implies, that pretty much anyone that was educated in the UK, including at institutions like Oxford & Cambridge, went to trade school.

Posting guidelines faq731-376 (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​
 
I agree. A rounded engineer should look outside of the core topics. The art of précis, for example. A dying skill.

- Steve
 
"“teaching how to do a job”"

The general consensus is that almost no university, or college, does that, at least, for engineering. Many, including the graduates, have complained about this, about how woefully unprepared new grads are to start doing real work.

TTFN
faq731-376
7ofakss

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529
 
KENANT, the three words previous to where you started your quote ("SparWeb is merely...") will help you understand how you missed my point. I was paraphrasing what I believed SparWeb's definition was. I specially chose not to use those words because I don't think they were accurate. I don't consider Oxford to be a "trade school" but a school "focused solely on a specific technical understanding/knowledge" for engineering; the latter was the definition that I ran with. Furthermore, I went on to say that neither is inherently better. No one is attacking Oxford or Cambridge (or any other school for that matter), I (and I believe SparWeb) are merely trying to develop an argument for why "basket-weaving" classes are important (which are constantly ridiculed on these forums). I'd love to hear your thoughts on that aspect of my argument.

SomptingGuy, haha well played. Perhaps you'd like to skip to the very bottom of my post. Brevity has never been a strong suit of mine, nor has it been a goal (despite the fact I know how much eng-tips loves pithy one-liners! :)).

IRstuff, that speaks to SparWeb's point that currently universities try to do both (pre-trained and well-rounded) and fail at both. I would agree with this point however I feel that the solution isn't less "soft-skill" classes but a refocusing on what the goal is. I presented two alternative directions of that focus and argued in favour for one of them.
 
rconner, what can I say I come in to this with the history that Greg alluded to. I did actually try to read your entire post but admit by the last couple of paragraphs was struggling and skimmed it some. Still not seeing how I missed the point but maybe I can't see for the giant chip on my shoulder.

I've mentioned before that I wonder if concepts of well rounded liberal arts education invented when only a very small proportion of the population went to university and most subjects only had so much depth really make sense in a time when a much larger % of the population go onto uni and many fields have incredible depth of existing knowledge.

Posting guidelines faq731-376 (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​
 
One other way of looking at it is if the US system produces an engineer with as much technical depth as the old UK 3 year degree, then at most the US graduate, after 4 years, has the additional equivalent of a first year liberal/arts general course.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
 
Except, according to the equivalency review I had done of my UK education based on my A-levels (end of high school exams) alone I was at sophomore (2nd year) level of US system. Based on that it's perhaps more a case that well rounding is done by the end of secondary school and/or A-levels are at least partially equivalent to some of the Advanced Placement courses at US high schools.

I find it quite hard to compare the systems, there's no doubt my step-son had some classes which covered stuff not touched on in my UK education. For instance his high school geometry class covered stuff I don't think I'd ever seen at school even thru university.

Posting guidelines faq731-376 (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​
 
I think what we in the US call International Baccalaureate at the high school level is supposed to be equivalent to A-level. This seems to be the trend that's been going on for the last couple of decades or so. The IB classes are comparable to AP classes and there are 6 exams to pass to get the Diploma.

My son's high school has both AP and IB and took 13!! exams junior and senior year. He entered college with 71 credits out of 162 needed to graduate. His college humanities classes:

ANTHRO 003AC INTRO SOC/CULT AC
PHILOS 001B READ & COMP PHILOS
MUSIC 108M PERCEPT COGNITION
PHILOS 141 PHIL GAME THEORY
MUSIC 044 VOICE CLASS

Everything else was engineering related. But, I think this is not even remotely typical, given that the average college student takes 4.8 yrs to graduate.

While we ponder the ins and outs of the educational system, we have to apportion some of the blame/credit to both parents and the general culture. In the US, sports is still king; my neighbors delayed their son's entry into kindergarten so that he would be competitive in sports whereas we were interested in getting our son in as soon as mathematically possible. The hours spent in Pop Warner, etc., are hours not spent studying. Obviously, too much studying can be detrimental, but I find US culture and most parents to be somewhat anti intellectual and anti education, despite what any other metrics might show. Given the lack of "push" and expectations from parents, why should children excel in STEM, when fathers are only interested in bragging about touchdowns or home runs scored?

TTFN
faq731-376
7ofakss

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529
 
I suppose I'm starting to understand that American phrase: "College Degree" now. A degree in going to college.

- Steve
 
If you love conspiracies, I think there's a conspiracy to drive up the number of college grads in an attempt to push down salaries. Open any new source, and there'll be an article talking about all the great jobs to be had if you major in CompSci, or Business, or whatever, but there aren't really that many jobs, and I think most people wind up in college without a real clue about what they want to do. I think most people simply hear, "go to college" without the rest of the context, so they major in unemployable majors like Psych, and wind up working in a $30k job trying to pay off a $200k loan.

TTFN
faq731-376
7ofakss

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529
 
I wonder how much of a scam all the figures about 'college grads earn X times as much as highschool grads' are.

If they are based on historical data where less people went to college then can they actually be extrapolated forward with any confidence?

Sure folks retiring now that have a college degree may have earned a lot more than non college grads the same age but what proportions of the population went to college 40+ years ago?

In the field my wife's existing bachelors is in a lot of the jobs nominally requiring a bachelors degree may not even pay 2X minimum wage. Also at least some of these jobs didn't require a bachelors when she first entered the field. Do they require it now because highschool &/or associates don't give applicants the required education, or has the job changed slightly so it needs more education, or is it just based on availability of all these folks with a bachelors...

Posting guidelines faq731-376 (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

unclerob
  • Locked
  • Question
Advice Wanted: Engineer from Repair Station to Field Testing
Replies
0
Views
1
unclerob
unclerob
nuche1973
  • Locked
  • Question
Structural testing
Replies
6
Views
7
abusementpark
abusementpark
Back
Top