News & Analysis
Commentary: Maybe 'they' should study some science instead?
Bill Schweber
2/1/2008 3:32 PM EST
First, I see nothing other than anecdotal evidence that such purportedly well-rounded engineers will be better at their jobs than those who focus their studies on science and engineering. Second, as the clich goes, there are only so many hours in the day, and if you take time to study one thing, you'll have to give up something else. The concern I hear from engineers and scientists at all levels is that there is already so much to know in their field that they are remiss at keeping up with even associated topics. Even more annoying, every time I hear some interest group with an agenda say something like, "Doctors should study more about nutrition/geriatrics/eating disorders, etc.," all I can say is, "OK, sounds good, but what would you have them not study, then?"
I am tired of the presumption that it's the engineers who need to become "well rounded." The typical engineer has broader knowledge and interests than the average non-engineer, in my experience. Then look at the abysmal understanding the public has about basic science and engineering topics; it would be funny if it wasn't so sad. These are the same people who call upon the technical community to solve every problem quickly, painlessly, and without tradeoffs. Tell me: Who needs to learn more about the other side of life?
The split between the technical and the non-technical communities is not a new story. It was discussed widely even in the 1950s by physicist and novelist C.P. Snow, in his essays such as "The Two Cultures," among others. Since that time, the divide he deplored has become even more dramatic than he foresaw, as technology's advance has accelerated while the understanding of it by the public which consumes it has declined.
There are many reasons for this decline, including the sheer complexity of today's technologies, a lazy and jaded public, and the dumbing down of education (have you seen today's high-school chemistry labs?), to name a few. But the basic principles of science and engineering are still vital and unchanged (force, power, gravity, the list could go on and on). Why should our community accept the premise that it is we who need to learn more about that non-technical side, rather than the other way around?
Comments
lensart
2/4/2008 4:29 AM EST
Absolutely! I agree without reservation.
This problem seems amplified in the work place. The favorite non-tech anthem toward engineers and programmers is that they lack the ability to 'simplify' complex problems sufficiently for non-techs to understand. Try as they might, reducing the number of lines in a TV image doesn't make the picture sharper.
Similar to the way in which the Peter Principle approaches career advancement, there appears to be a parallel in technical problem solving: "Conflicts regarding technology will escalate to the management level least capable of understanding the problem."
Given non-technical management, technological decisions will be based upon a combination of:
- popularity.
- familiarity.
- beauty.
- availability.
- trust.
- superstition.
- luck.
- crud.
- other qualities in no way related to the question at hand.
Kirk's Law...
Sign in to Reply
truant
2/4/2008 9:00 AM EST
I also concur. These are the same people who call upon the technical community to solve every problem quickly, painlessly, and without tradeoffs. Or without appreciation in the pay scales I might add. People wonder why few want to apply themselves to be great engineers, and the answer is obvious: Unless someone has it in their bones to do this kind of stuff, the rewards are sub-standard compared to the earnings potential of an [technically ignorant] upper management track.
Sign in to Reply
Lou Covey
2/4/2008 11:49 AM EST
We're all in the same boat, but on the other side. I raised two artists. My daughter is a dancer and an actor. My son a musician. The both did well in math and science in high school, but they hate both subjects with a passion. What they want to study is their art. If they were raised in Europe, that's what they would be studying now. But to get an education in the US, they have to have a "balanced" education that includes science and math in equal levels to what they intend to apply their lives to.
The result are technology classes filled with people who really don't care about the subject holding back all those that do.
And what comes out of those classes are technologists who believe they are smarter than management because they have seen their management fail in the same classes.
Technologists need to be attending to technology, managers need too manage, marketers need to market, and artists need to make art.
Sign in to Reply
harry12345678
2/15/2008 11:16 AM EST
Absolutely true
Sign in to Reply