Re-Engineering Engineering

So, what kind of subjects does Olin stress?

I happen to be a well-rounded individual who knows a lot about engineering. I think that the individual has a propensity to be one sort of person or another, and education has only a small part to play in one's personality. Of course, there are people born every minute who will become engineers and who will also develop the stereotypical engineering personality, but that isn't written in stone.

Back to the original question: What kind of subjects does Olin stress? English and humanities are required studies in most engineering curriculums. Partying isn't. The ability of an individual to socialize with others, regardless of their interests, is built into their brains, their environment (social and economic), their life as a child, their educational experience (before and during their pursuit of a degree in engineering), and many other life experiences and outside influences.

The fact that engineers may know of problems with systems, such as the tile damage with every space shuttle launch, does not mean that they haven't reported such things to their supervisors. What it does mean is that when such things are reported, and dissemination of that information is suppressed, is that their supervisors, or the supervisors' supervisors, decided that the problem may be insignificant.

The fact that engineers' reports of problems may not ever reach the public, because of the potentially damaging effects they may have on the public's view of so and so program, may well be due to being threatened with the losses of their jobs. Should a journeyman engineer lose his job for whistle blowing, or should his boss, with a combination of engineering and MBA, lose his? Both may be party animals and have great, well-rounded personalities.

The greatest problems are political, and that's part of our cultures, and cultures change slowly.

Truly, the politics of engineering and how to deal with said politics is a major failing within our engineering schools and within our society. Any time that technical issues are judged on the basis of political advantage VS scientific methodology there is a disaster waiting to happen.

I think the real problem isn´t to have engineers with "soul". According to my belief everybody have one of them (even politicians). I think the matter is to get technicians with the mind well trained and with a solid basic knowledge.

I teach as "free lance" in a mechanical engineering university and have over 30 year engineering experience and every day I realize that many people with an engineering degree (included those who are trying it) fail because this lack of basic knowledge.

Of course the cultural tradition and habits in each country are different and I talk about my own and I'm claiming for a better training system, but here it seems the only goal is to get people with a degree, no matter the real abilities.

I'm not familiar with other countries educational systems, but trough my professional experience I've had in contact with engineers of many countries coming from all continents and I've found everywhere good engineers as well as some others whose "mean free path" between neuronal sinapsis can be measured in miles, so I think in some way the problem is much more common than desirable.

Kwetz,

For the most part I do agree, Yet I have seen engineers (not often, one that comes to mind) confronted with problems and when brought forth are politically put down.

And and in a twist, the engineer instead of making his case, resides back with the view you will see. Almost in a retribution or revenge.

The Engineer walks away, as the problem goes critical or begins to surface.

Do you blame the engineer? Should the engineer make more of an effort (if any) to state his case.

Its seems hard enough to do a job when one does'nt have to get political, just keep it professional. (ethical).

I did not think that this was wide spread to even think of having a course about it.

I am glad that I have seen this rarely, at least the results of what can happen. I was called in to mop up. And when I looked into the situation, it seemed that the engineer was insulted that he was questioned, and made no effort to improve the situation while he was there.

It was a small company, like alot of companies. So he was not just a number. The president of the companys door was right next to his immediate supervisior?

I believe alot can and is being dealt with in a course in ethics, which is already offered.

phoenix911

To add to this, this same engineer had allot of projects that was not performing. The nonperformance issues was the reason I was asked to assist.

The performance issues was basically due to poor planning, poor engineering due to lack of cross discipline concepts and communication within the company.

Phoenix911,

Nothing in my mind about blaming engineers nor any other proffesionals. I blame the educational system (at least in my country) that seems to me to have been degrading since more than ten years ago.

I just claimed for giving engineers with the tools they will need to perform his work in the best way. And this can only be achieved if they reach the university with a solid background.

Let me show you just two examples:

- The recent law about education in Spain, allows the children to pass the following year in the basic education with four (4) matters not passed (for example: matemathics, language, physics and one more).

- Two years ago, in the university, I was teaching on stress analysis in the last year of mechanical engineering. Students were divided into two groups. Due to peculiarities of the calendar, one group had programmed one more session than the other. The delegate of one group came to me to ask for eliminating the last session because in other case they have one more than the other group. I answered that the program and the rules were published from the very beginning of the year and that they should feel happy to have the opportunity to get a little more knowledge, solve or comment any doubts...

The answer let me astonished:"I'm not interested in knowledge, just in getting the degree".

You see, that culture of minimum effort is what I blame.

I LOVE engineering

Kwetz

Hello Kwetz,

your comment,

"I blame the educational system (at least in my country) that seems to me to have been degrading since more than ten years ago."

Again I am with you, At a small local Technical college in my area, their technical programs had a high drop out rate, an example is one program 42 people enrolled at a electro-mechanical program OUT OF THE 42, 3 graduated, and what they did to all the technical programs is lower the bar and made it easier to obtain a degree. Result a lower quality of graduates.

All due the money it gets from the government as to the number of people it can get through the system. The school is a business and the students its products. Maybe little quality control needed here.

Then the recent graduate, does not realize is that a degree only opens the door a little wider for them to get a job, once a job is landed, then the real work starts.

Do not know how the curriculum here is regulated here though.

your comment,

"You see, that culture of minimum effort is what I blame."

I noticed that here also, but one thing what we have going here is that most of the people who are getting a degree in engineering, is passionate about it and takes a personally interest on obtaining it.

phoenix911

Well put. The actual problem isn't that engineers don't report problems they encounter. The real problem is that their superiors, who may not even be engineers, may suppress the reports of the problems and may even penalize the engineers who reported them.

The real problem that should be dealt with are ambitious executives who knowingly suppress reports of problems that may endanger safety out of their own selfish desire for personal gain, not engineers who may choose to remain silent after seeing their coworkers who had the courage to speak out get victimized for doing the right thing.