Education For Engineering - Should Be Devoted 50% To Basic Sciences - 50% To Study Of Man Through Literature, History, Biology, Economics - Relegate Specifics To Graduate Work

ENGINEERING education today is like a crazy quilt of somber wools and gaudy shoddy, chain-stitched on an academic assembly line, and sold at ever mounting prices to inexperienced youths for lifetime use. Each engineering school offers a half-dozen or so patterns with essentially the same skimpy wool content. Sales appeal is in the color of the shoddy, denoted by the hopeful adjectives chemical, civil and the like. This article is argument for an all wool product made by slow, careful handwork. Bluntly it proposes a thorough four-year undergraduate drill in fundamental science and general engineering empirics, leavened by continuing study of the third of the engineer's troubles: Man. It is not contended that existing methods of engineering education have failed to start men on the path to successful engineering practice (too many of you have started that way); rather, social conditions and the bounds of knowledge have changed tremendously, and corresponding alterations in the pattern of engineering education are overdue. We'll Teach the Specifics The first part of this contention is illustrated by excerpts from a letter received recently from an officer of one of the largest corporations: "We are interested in employing two or three outstanding young engineers to be placed on a special training program to develop them as design and construction engineers.... "We propose to put these men on a four-month indoctrination and orientation course after which they would be given job-training assignments for a period that will vary from about six months to about a year and a half depending upon the aptitudes, abilities and intelligence of the candidates.... "I am not too fussy about what kind of engineers the men might be insofar as academic courses are concerned. They could be.. . in almost any engineering classification.... We can furnish the additional training beyond the academic fundamentals. "The starting rate for these jobs would be $326 per month...." This letter is not unique; rather it is representative of a practice that has become common. It is industry's enforced response to the general refusal by young graduates to submit to union domination in order to gain operating experience at the labor level. The message to engineering schoolteachers is plain: You teach the fundamentals; we'll teach our practice and pay the graduate to learn it. The letter means to the student that time spent in school studying the specific practices of particular industries is waste compounded. The school can't give the equivalent of what industry teaches, wherefore industry will still demand apprenticeship. The student must pay for the specific instruction at school instead of being paid to take it later. And time-consuming specifics crowd out drill in basic scientific and technical subjects as well as liberal arts.