Standardised testing. 14

[SomptingGuy]

@KENAT:

You need to realise that jokey jibes and sarcasm don't work around here. If it's pointy and can dig holes, it needs a big "spade" sign around its neck and an arrow pointing to it.

- Steve

 

[rconnor]

A numbers focused industry recruiting from another numbers focused industry for additional specialized, numbers focused education. Please expand on how this supports the position that further reduction in humanities classes in engineering education will save the quality of young engineers.

 

[SomptingGuy]

Law is not a "numbers focused industry". Engineering isn't either, unless you are in the business of counting widgets. I suppose accountancy is "numbers focused".


- Steve

 

[rconnor]

Right because numbers are only used in counting and never come up in engineering.

As for law, let's look at the numbers (which I was taught to do in engineering, which is apparently quite peculiar):
For example, Michigan's law program distribution of undergrad degrees (which I'd argue is likely fairly typical) is as follows:
[image

http://www.law.umich.edu/prospectivestudents/admissions/PublishingImages/2013/majors_13.jpg

]

This is not surprising considering more humanities/social science career paths lead into law than engineering does.

So, unsurprisingly, the quantity of humanities/social science majors surpasses engineers, but what about quality? Which major scores the highest on the LSAT? Well, according to a 2013 poll of data from LSAC:
[image

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-d6pGPiSYh...jors+Get+The+Best+LSAT+Scores+LSAT+Blog+1.png

]

Mechanical engineering is the highest engineering major, at 13th, right in between History (aka "past basket-weaving") and Anthropology (aka "how humans weave baskets"). At the top, classics (aka "meta basic-weaving"). Even art history (aka "appreciation and interpretation of woven baskets throughout time"), at 4th, philosophy (aka "thinking about basket-weaving"), at 6th, and music (aka "playing baskets like a drum"), at 11th, sit above mechanical engineering. If Law is being used as a "general" degree to compare how well different majors "teach you how to think", then engineering does a worse job than some of the most basket-weaving-y "basket-weaving" majors. Again, I don't mean to disparage engineering degrees (as 13th is nothing to sneeze at) but I want to highlight the importance and benefit of the humanities/social-sciences.

To bring this back to the debate at hand, none of this supports the arguments that further reductions in humanities will improve engineering education or that a technically focused education (sans humanities) leads to just as (if not more) well-rounded graduates. The former argument has never been addressed (just assumed to be true) and the latter appears to be weakened, if not contradicted, by the fact that those with humanities majors do better on the LSAT, which attempts to be a general critical-thinking exam, than those with engineering majors.

This leaves us with:
(1) No evidence that the quality of engineering grads is in decline (besides anecdotes)
(2) No evidence that, even if the above was true, it was due to the "dilution" of engineering education by the humanities
(3) No evidence that, even if the above was true, the solution would be more technical classes in place of humanities classes
(4) Some evidence to suggest that those with a background in the humanities perform better in more "general" critical-thinking areas, such as LSAT scores, than those in engineering
(5) By combination and extension of (1) to (4), replacing humanities classes with technical classes may lead to a decrease in the general critical-thinking capacity of graduates, especially when dealing with the subjective elements of life in a multi-cultural democracy, and no guarantee of an increase in technical competency, which there is little to no evidence to suggest is in decline. (Which is my argument in a nutshell)

 

[SomptingGuy]

I was describing the UK market as it was when I passed through it. Engineering grads from good UK universities going into City law firms (and similar non-engineering professions). Given how different the stated aims of US and UK 1st (bachelor) degree programs are, it makes no sense to assume US data is relevant in discussing how the UK system functions in practice. I did state quite clearly that I think our world is crazy. I am not advocating one position/system over the other. But it is amusing when people get defensive.

I do have an issue with the expression: "teach you how to think". Nobody can be taught to think. They can be encouraged or discouraged, not taught.

- Steve

 

[IRstuff]

LSAT scores would seem to have little to do with what would have made a good engineer in school. One might argue that more "classics," or even more math, would get engineers better LSAT scores.

Interestingly, the Wikipedia article on LSAT has a similar table, wherein pre-law and criminal justice majors scored the lowest average scores, compared to the other majors.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

 

[Sparweb]

Somptinguy-: "...I do have an issue with the expression: "teach you how to think". Nobody can be taught to think. They can be encouraged or discouraged, not taught..."

Really? Do you have so little faith in the ability of teachers and role models to encourage young people to practise critical analysis, logic, or reasoning (be it technical or otherwise)? Is that really what you mean?


STF

 

[SomptingGuy]

Err SparWeb no. I said pecisely that: "They can be encouraged". The ability is inherent, a good teacher will bring it out.

I suppose you are right in that people (anyone) can be taught analysis/reasoning techniques and given handy tools ... sounds like the kind of things a tradesman would recieve in a trade school. Given enough training and practice, they might even appear to be thinking for themselves.

- Steve

 

[rconnor]

SomptingGuy, as I have continually said, my argument is not for or against UK vs US systems of education (especially as I'm a product of neither); my argument is about the merits of including the humanities in an engineering curriculum, or any other primary and secondary curriculum for that matter. More specifically, my argument can be summarized in point (5) at the end of my last post.

Your point on encouraging/discouraging thinking is well put but is nevertheless purely semantic (it addresses my diction and says nothing about the underlying argument). Replace "teach you how to think" with "teach general critical-thinking skills" or similar and my argument remains unchanged.

IRstuff, “LSAT scores would seem to have little to do with what would have made a good engineer in school”

The LSAT test critical thinking and logical analysis, especially in dealing in the subjective. Are you suggesting that engineering school doesn’t prepare students for that as well as those “basket-weaving” classes everyone loves to bash? I would agree, it’s kind of my point.

The humanities teach students how to think critically, how to be logical and analytical in a creative and open-minded manner. This allows them to deal well with the subtleties of the subjective. In our modern, multi-cultural democracy, these skills become increasingly important. As I have argued, they are important aspect of both high school and university education and should receive more attention, not less.

 

[KENAT]

rconner, I assume you are aware that many standardized tests such as LSAT are gradually becoming discredited in many circles as effectively only testing how much those taking the test think like the people that wrote the test, not necessarily any fundamental measure of a persons intelligence or ability.

So if the test is written by a bunch of ivory tower academic basket weavers;-) then those that are culturally like them will do well. Those that think more like trade school oompa lumpa's may not score as highly.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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

 

[IRstuff]

"Are you suggesting that engineering school doesn’t prepare students for that as well as those “basket-weaving” classes everyone loves to bash? I would agree, it’s kind of my point."

Not what I was getting at; but similar to Kenat's point. Engineering education is almost all purely fact-based, and while "logic" is used in both engineering and philosophy, the contexts are quite different, and the thought processes are different. One of the biggest challenges that a new engineer faces is the lack of facts, which takes years to get over.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

 

[SomptingGuy]

Re: LSAT

Amusingly we seem to have strayed back on-topic - teaching to the test.

- Steve

 

[IRstuff]

I don't think schools are "teaching to the test," per se. The fact that pre-law scores even lower than engineering would belie that assertion.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

 

[IRstuff]

I would further argue that the US, as a whole isn't actually "teaching to the test" either; test scores in the US have not budged in a decade of comparisons against the world. As a country that is most likely to be capable of teaching to the test, we should be excelling at it, if that's what we're really doing. Countries with far fewer resources are doing better. Our academic curricula at the K-12 level belies any notion that we are demanding better performance. In many countries, algebra and geometry are taught at least two years earlier than in the US. All students in high school should be REQUIRED to complete 1 year of physics and 1 year of chemistry; right now, that's only required of students wanting to go to college. Asians consider tutoring services as a requirement, rather than a band-aid for poorly performing students; getting within spitting distance of 2400 (or 1600, whichever) on the SAT is demanded, so off to tutoring go the kids.

Again, it's not a supply-side problem, it's a demand problem; other countries are invested at every level to excel in academics, while in the US, being smart gets you labeled as a "nerd" or "4-eye," even by the parents. I, as a parent, demand nothing less than the absolute best that my children can accomplish; "B"s are barely tolerated, and "C"s are not acceptable. Our culture continues to see engineers and scientists as quaint and peculiar lab rats, while athletes are adored and showered with money; succeeding in sports is Plan A, while doing well in school is Plan B.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

 

[KENAT]

Or implies those taking pre-law genuinely aren't as intelligent;-)

Steve there at least 2 different types of testing that have now been covered by this topic.

SAT, LSAT, IQ, 11 plus are all intended to be more generic tests of persons intelligence & ability or perhaps for LSAT aptitude for a general field of study.

The standardized testing in the UK system is about testing your knowledge & ability withing some specific field of study/topic such as math(s), or physics...

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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