Engineering Education: Too Narrow or Too Broad?
Engineering Education: Too Narrow or Too Broad?
(OP)
I've had discussions with many friends about the merit and return on investment of a college education. Engineering is one of the few 4-yr degrees that offer relatively high job placement and salary right out of school. Most liberal arts majors must spend more years and $$$ geting masters and even doctoral degrees before having a shot at a decent paying job in their field.
By comparison, two years of trade school might put you on track as a CNC machinist. Like engineering, the money and job demand are generally good in the field, and earnings in the same ballpark.
Other issues aside, it seems that financially speaking, the more you can concentrate on technical education alone, the better the investment.
With more engineering students taking 5 years instead of 4 to finish, why should they have to take the liberal arts course requirements? Should engineering be treated more as a technical trade from an educational standpoint? Do any of you think the liberal arts aspect to your education has paid for itself during your engineering career, or was it just a way for the college to get more tuition from you?
By comparison, two years of trade school might put you on track as a CNC machinist. Like engineering, the money and job demand are generally good in the field, and earnings in the same ballpark.
Other issues aside, it seems that financially speaking, the more you can concentrate on technical education alone, the better the investment.
With more engineering students taking 5 years instead of 4 to finish, why should they have to take the liberal arts course requirements? Should engineering be treated more as a technical trade from an educational standpoint? Do any of you think the liberal arts aspect to your education has paid for itself during your engineering career, or was it just a way for the college to get more tuition from you?





RE: Engineering Education: Too Narrow or Too Broad?
In the UK engineering degrees are accredited by the engineering institutions, that is, they don't count as 'real' engineering degrees unless they meet certain requirements. At the time I left school neither of the big two uni's offered an accredited engineering degree, and so after leaving university I would have had to take another paper, called 'The Engineer in Society'.
As you might imagine, this was socially 'relevant' piffle, not technical.
Fortunately, having taken it once and failed it (the only 'real' exam I ever failed) they retrospectively granted accreditation to my degree.
The problem is, with the exception of (keen) lawyers and medics, engineers had the highest workload at university. I had at least 3 lectures six mornings a week, labs most afternoons, and tutorials and reports and exercises to fit in as well.
Adding an arts requirement would not have been physically possible without dropping some technical subject, or extending the length of the degree.
Cheers
Greg Locock
RE: Engineering Education: Too Narrow or Too Broad?
RE: Engineering Education: Too Narrow or Too Broad?
Seriously.
Have you got ANY data to support the rather extreme assertion "Most engineers have very poor social skills "
which, deconstructed, implies that >50% of engineers have social skills that would measure as being "very poor" on some scale.
Since engineering is a cobination of analysis and communication I find that a most peculiar assertion.
Cheers
Greg Locock
RE: Engineering Education: Too Narrow or Too Broad?
How can you appreciate the beauty in an elegant design if you never have studied art appreciation?
How can you appreciate the global economic discussions that effect engineering judgment if you have never studied economics?
How can you appreciate the finer points of a legal argument, which affects engineering, if you have never studied law?
How can you understand the role of the engineer in society if you have never studied sociology?
How can you understand professional ethics if you have never studied ethics?
How can you understand the philosophy of engineering if you have never studied philosophy?
How can you be a logical thinking engineer if you have never studied logic?
How can you understand the role of politics in the profession if you have never studied political science?
How can you understand the accounting, finance and other business aspects of the profession if you have never studied commerce?
The basic fact that this question is even being raised indicates to me that the lessons of the non-technical courses were missed.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com
RE: Engineering Education: Too Narrow or Too Broad?
QCE, many engineers are fortunate in having excellent social skills; however, they choose when to use them. Most engineers can choose the way they impact people, and many don’t have any interest in putting on the kid’s gloves to have a discussion. Hence, one might falsely believe that engineers do not have warm and fuzzy social skills.
With that said, I believe that the best information available to enhance one’s social skills is found in Dale Carnegie’s book, “How to Win Friends and Influence People.” The Dale Carnegie group offers a course centered on this book and is coupled with practice in public speaking. I highly recommend this course to anyone that has the desire to succeed.
Liberal art’s courses added little to my educational experience. I never regretted selling my liberal arts text books back to the school book store. I kept all my science, math, and engineering books and refer to them occasionally. Keeping them was a great investment into my engineering career. Perhaps the real question would be to ask how many engineers kept their liberal art's text books. And if they did, have they ever opened them since they graduated.
CRG
RE: Engineering Education: Too Narrow or Too Broad?
In my personal experience, communication skills (both verbal and written) are the single most important facet in job promotion and success. It is important to learn technical skills in school, but usually these are greatly enhanced by on-the-job training -- this is a normal, acceptable practice (compare any recent college grad with a 2-yr engineer and you will see what I mean).
However, it is not acceptable to learn how to write on the job. You must be able to convey your thoughts to your boss/coworkers/clients in clear, concise speaking or writing. In my experience, few college grads have well-developed communication skills, and it has been a career limiting factor for at least 50% of the coworkers I have had over the years.
I have never worked in an organization where the best technical engineer was the best paid engineer. It was always someone technically competent but with exceptional communication skills that held that distinction.
RE: Engineering Education: Too Narrow or Too Broad?
All of your points are valid, and I personally agree with them. But the market in general doesn't financially reward non-technical education as well as technical education. While I can think of many individual exceptions, the salary statistics show that, other factors being equal, you get the quickest and often best payoff from technical education. I'd consider medicine and the law as technical fields as well as plumbing, welding, etc.
I guess my point is that a liberal arts grounding is good for personal reasons and helpful in support of technical skills, but for an individual with limited finances, is it worth investing $50-$100K plus years of lost wages for the indirect benefits? If the job market thinks a well rounded person is valuable, why don't they pay english majors as much as CAD draftsmen?
RE: Engineering Education: Too Narrow or Too Broad?
I agree, “The non-technical courses are intended to make you a well rounded person.”
The problem is, not everyone has the same definition of what a well rounded person is.
CRG
RE: Engineering Education: Too Narrow or Too Broad?
Communication skill was one that I missed. In my undergraduate courses, including my non-technical electives, I never had to write an essay or make a presentation to a group.
This has changed but that was my experience.
When I started MBA school the class was split into technical (mostly engineers but also a couple of computer science types) and arts types (including a few commerce graduates but a lot of arts graduates).
At the start of the program the arts could not figure out how to turn on their calculators let alone how to use them. The engineers could not write their way out of a wet paper bag.
At the half way point the arts types had found the on switch but could not add 2+3 and get any number between 4 and 6. The engineers were holding their own in the written part.
By the end of the program, the engineers with their superior logic skills and precision were better business writers than the arts types who by then were confused as to why 2x3 was the same as 3x2.
When I look back at my classmates the arts types generally went into areas (HR, marketing) where math skills were not as important and the engineers went into the management areas where math skills were important.
The biggest predictor of success was the communication skills (written, verbal and presentation) of the individual.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com
RE: Engineering Education: Too Narrow or Too Broad?
If I had the option of those electives being technical classes I would have been able to get three degrees within my four years. Engineering, Physics, and Mathematics. However, I think my brain might have rebelled at such a load. At almost $25K per year to go there (almost 20 years ago), I did not have the means to stay beyond 4 years. One of my enjoyable courses was on Shakespeare, the professor stated during the very first lecture that (sonets aside), reading it was boring and that it should be acted out rather than just read. He proceeded to do just that for the remainder of the course. Today I still enjoy going to Stratford Canada for the Shakespearean performances they offer.
Regards,
RE: Engineering Education: Too Narrow or Too Broad?
I agree that engineers need communication skills and would benefit from them. Ditto economics and ethics. However, the courses I took about "Athletics of the Greeks and Romans" and "The politics of Richard J. Daly and the Chicago Democratic Regime" weren't very helpful. (I grew up in Chicago and was a track jock so I thought I could relate ie: work less). No one guided me to courses that would have developed useful skills or were just fun. It was more important to find classes that fit my schedule. How are things today?
Since I left engineering school I completed a MS and bunches of courses in literature, communications, arts & crafts, writing and music. They were fun, didn't affect my GPA and expanded my horizons.
There were technical courses I couldn't fit into my schedule that would have been beneficial. I would have prefered to get four years of an engineering education.
RE: Engineering Education: Too Narrow or Too Broad?
I'm afraid that engineers have a rep as "social retards". From what I have seen in the feild it is some what true. I was not making a personnel attack on you just stating what I have seen. If you want an example of the stereotype check out a Dilbert comic.
It has been stated many times in this thread that communication skills are the key to success in an engineering job. However many engineers sit in their cubicles cranking out designs and have poor interacting skills. My point is that the arts classes are there to improve commication skills.
Sorry I could not point you to a satisfactory study of the dorkiness of some of my peers. Maybe I can get funding for the study.
QCE
RE: Engineering Education: Too Narrow or Too Broad?
Your call.
Cheers
Greg Locock
RE: Engineering Education: Too Narrow or Too Broad?
The university imposed a 9 credit philosophy and theology requirement. Waste of time? From a career perspective, maybe. However, I graduated knowing that I got more than a 4+ year oversized tech school degree. Also, it was a good experience writing for those classes. Quite an experience writing an "A" paper on a subject that one doesn't think relevant. Also, where else is a male engineering student going to meet female students?
As far as the NROTC and military experience goes, I learned much about what it takes to keep any organization moving in a productive manner. Learning in detail about leadership and management from a military perspective has made me both a better employee and a better leader.
RE: Engineering Education: Too Narrow or Too Broad?
As you stated:
"Since engineering is a cobination of analysis and communication I find that a most peculiar assertion."
I totally agree with your statement. However I find it amazing how some engineers in companies I have worked for fear public speaking, hide in their offices and in general only communicate via e-mail because they don't like to talk in person.
I will retract my statement:
"Most engineers have very poor social skills"
and replace it with:
I have met quit a few engineers that could take a public speaking or communications class. Maybe even a few extra arts classes.
RE: Engineering Education: Too Narrow or Too Broad?
I'm afraid that engineers have a rep as "social retards". From what I have seen in the feild it is some what true. ... If you want an example of the stereotype check out a Dilbert comic.
Well, that "rep" may apply to you EEs, but not us "civil" engineers!
It has been stated many times in this thread that communication skills are the key to success in an engineering job. However many engineers sit in their cubicles cranking out designs and have poor interacting skills.
That may be the case for engineers working for a small number of large design firms and/or manufacturers. But I'd say the trend is away from that model for small to medium size firms. Everyone has to produce, and be presentable, these days. Or you don't have a job.
My point is that the arts classes are there to improve commication skills.
One can achieve the same goal by requiring students to make presentations, write papers, etc. for their engineering classes. This also encourages critical thinking and logic skills as well as good communication - particularly when your peers are permitted to challenge your work! And I disagree that "art" classes are about communications. They are about appreciating and understanding, not communicating. English classes, and a handful of classes on communications, are the only ones intended to improve communication skills.
Sorry I could not point you to a satisfactory study of the dorkiness of some of my peers.
I've known a few of them myself. Pocket protectors, polyester pants / suits, out of style hair, shoes, etc. But I think your mistake was in generalizing the condition to "most" engineers. You clearly missed the boat on that assertion. Those guys are the exception, not the rule.
By the way, do you have any figures to identify the number of practicing graduate engineers by discipline? I think you will find that the vast majority are civil engineers closely followed by mechanical engineers. Perhaps the problem is that your pool of experience is entirely too small...
Maybe I can get funding for the study.
Seems like a waste of money to me -
Please see FAQ731-376 by VPL for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
RE: Engineering Education: Too Narrow or Too Broad?
RE: Engineering Education: Too Narrow or Too Broad?
Now, down here in Texas, a class in bird hunting would have helped my business communications immensely. Come to think of it, a class like that might have helped ol' Dick Cheney, too!
Please see FAQ731-376 for great suggestions on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
RE: Engineering Education: Too Narrow or Too Broad?
If engineering skills alone are qualifications for success, then I believe that probably everyone here is successful. However, to be considered a true success, one must significantly contribute to society in some way. It is not about grabbing all the cash you can and living in a 3 bdrm home with 2.5 kids a dog and a fish. To be a successful human being you need to think about how what you do will impact on others. In order to do that you must have some understanding of economics, politics, history, philosophy, religion, and the written and spoken word.
Forget the idea that kids are taking five years to get through school now. If technology continues to grow, then the time for students to graduate will also grow. There is just a lot more for them to learn. Certainly you wouldn't want students to use FEA methods without understanding von Mises failure criteria would you? As technology expands, the basics must still be taught. So the time it will take students to graduate will eventually expand. However, as far as I know, the number of credits students must acquire to graduate college with an engineering degree has not changed significantly for the last 20 years (at least in the US).
Whatever the case may be in the future, the removal of liberal arts requirements will not make you more successful nor will it make you a good citizen and it will not increase your return on investment. Without over-engineering, failure in one part of the design eventually leads to failure of the entire design. If there are no safety factors, then building on the edge will lead to a greater number of failures. Human beings are already operating on the edge of interpersonal skills and citizen responsibility. In many ways our society is failing (socially), further reduction in academic requirements will lead ultimately to complete failure of the system. Not the idea of success presented earlier. Anyway, I think you need some minimum number of liberal arts courses to help you make valuable decisions at some point in your life.
RE: Engineering Education: Too Narrow or Too Broad?
You raise excellent and valid points. My complaint about the LA coursework isn't that it wasn't beneficial, it was that it wasn't focused. There should be special courses aimed at technical professionals.
Why does no one seem to make the argument that history majors wouldn't benefit from having a better understanding of math and technology. But, that's another thread.
RE: Engineering Education: Too Narrow or Too Broad?
Add journalists to that list!
RE: Engineering Education: Too Narrow or Too Broad?
The problem, as I experience it, is not limited to engineers, but is true of any speciality degree in the sciences - and that is a "narrow point of view". By that I mean and inability or a refusal on some folks parts, to look outside their own technical area of expertise to find an answer to a probelm. The univeristies and much or our industry is based on "specialties" and though that helps in specific areas, it does not allow for "synthesis" of information, techniques, etc. that can lead to new and innovative solutions. Too narrow a focus and you loose the forest for the trees. 30%+ (according to the national news) of CEO's in this country are liberal arts graduates - Why? Because these folks have a "little bit of knowledge on a wide range of subjects" meaning they can synthasize information to find a solution. Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, and others did this - they understood various mechanics (chemical, structural, electrical, etc.) and could "see" a soution, though needed a wide range of various "specialists" concerned with only one aspect of the problem to resolve various issues, then took all the answers and put them together to create the main/large view solution.
The "well rounded definition" that the universities use, ahs been bastardized to diminish the engineer and technical student as a matter of social standing - meaning that without liberal arts, the "technical monkeys" would never undestand classical music, art, literature, etc. That's B.S. - the main reason for a wider educational base is to see the "whole" picture - to be able to synthesise the information from your own and other disciplines to find the answer to the problem - especially new and innovative answers.
I think liberal arts majors do not get enought technical teaching - but the main problem is one of the colleges and universities not teaching how to merge and synthesize (different then analizing)various ideas and knowledge to resolve issues - this includes issues outside of the sciences - there are just as many narrow minded specialists in the social sciences too, let alone archeology,anthropology, history, etc.
That's my thoughts..
RE: Engineering Education: Too Narrow or Too Broad?
(Although you're not on anyone's side but your own...)
I will agree that many college students graduate with too narrow a focus. They don't get the "larger picture" that (many of us believe)was more prevalent 100 years or so ago. I was already a student of music, the arts, and literature before I went to college - I did not need to take a college class in order to appreciate Tennyson, Poe, C.S. Lewis or many other great writers and poets. I had six years of private music lessons, including music theory, before I filled out my first college application. I already enjoyed the theater, opera and symphony. And I had already spent lots of time in museums and art galleries.
Could I have learned more about these areas in college? You bet. Do I have some gaps in my liberal arts education? Probably. Would they have enhanced my "social value" at cocktail parties? Perhaps. But I'm not devoid of an appreciation of art, music and literature simply because I took a limited number of liberal arts classes in college. After all, there are such things as extracurricular activities - and they don't entirely revolve around alcohol...
Please see FAQ731-376 for great suggestions on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
RE: Engineering Education: Too Narrow or Too Broad?
Nice post, but.....
A technical shortcoming in your post. You state that 30% of CEO's have liberal arts degrees. So what?
What percentage of overall graduates have liberal arts degrees?
How successful are the CEO's w/ liberal arts degrees compared to others?
What degrees do other CEOs have? (business etc.). What about advanced degrees? Many MBA's have liberal arts BA's.
http://www.EsoxRepublic.com
RE: Engineering Education: Too Narrow or Too Broad?
My wife's Interior Design professor explained the difference between an architect and an engineer to the class yesterday: An architect designs buildings that fall down and kill people; an engineer designs buildings that make people want to kill themselves.
Maybe if architects and engineers had broader educations I wouldn't think that was funny...
RE: Engineering Education: Too Narrow or Too Broad?
Communication skills are not only the key to professional success in an engineering career, but are usually the key to personal success in other parts of one's life such as marriage. Engineers are rather gifted in terms of technical competence, and are usually able to communicate their ideas effectively to other engineers. But put them in front of a group of pharmacists or some other unrelated profession and they don't communicate very well at all. This is because they lack the ability to translate their ideas into the jargon that is typically used in these other professions. If you're going to get your point across, you've got to learn the language used by your audience. I have personally known engineers who were considered to be socially challenged. I've known others who were just the opposite.
The liberal arts courses required to complete an undergraduate engineering education serve several purposes. They provide the engineer with exposure to topics and points of view that differ from their core engineering courses. This has the potential to make the student more "well rounded" as others have pointed out. And if the student is very perceptive, they eventually come to realize that their college education is simply the starting point, and that their education will continue throughout their careers. An engineer should never stop learning. If they do, then it's time to retire. One of the other justifications for the liberal arts courses is to generate additional revenue for the university.
Yes, engineers have an overwhelming tendency to use logic and reasoning to draw conclusions from a given set of facts. That's what they are taught to do in college, and what they are hired to do professionally. Would you hire an engineer that didn't share these traits?
Maui
RE: Engineering Education: Too Narrow or Too Broad?
RE: Engineering Education: Too Narrow or Too Broad?
In such a situation I generally try to find out what their job is and then perhaps relate my work in a similar manner the distinction being technology. Sometimes it is just fun to watch their eyes glaze over. It depends on how I am reacting to the individual at the time. I do like your last statement though. Well put!
Regards,