The advancement of computing has created a great challenge in today's engineering education. J.K. Yates explores this divide in her article "Engineering Knowledge versus Skills" in ASCE's Leadership and Management in Engineering Journal. She discusses the debate between whether or not it is best to teach engineering fundamentals or "Knowledge", or if it is best to teach engineering "Skills" or software manipulation. She states that there is a debate between many engineering faculty and professionals regarding this issue. Some argue that the skills of computer software should be taught in the classroom as that is what will be relied upon in the industry. However, others contend that if knowledge is taught in the classroom, young engineers can easily learn the software skills and will be able to recognize inconsistencies in the software results.
I know where I stand on this issue, but you may believe different. I feel that it is absurd to replace engineering fundamentals with teaching software in the classroom. I will admit that a short course in AutoCAD and LandDesktop Software specific to Civil Engineering would have been beneficial for our Capstone Design Project. However, it is hard to believe how anyone feel safe leaving engineering judgment to someone who only understood how to input data into a computer with no "Knowledge" of how the results should appear.
It is difficult though to determine what level of computing should be incorporated into the classroom setting. If students are completely unskilled in computer it will be very difficult for them to make the transition to the industry. However, most students today seem to be well versed general computing and far less concerned for the details. You decide an experienced, knowledgeable, fundamental engineer, or a highly skilled AutoCAD monkey.
I have always thought the lecture/lab combo was one of the best ways to learn in school. As long as the student cares about what they are learning it can be enjoyable and beneficial on every level. You get the background knowledge and basic understanding and then you practice what you have been taught and directly apply it to the software you will be working with in your profession.
ReplyDeleteClemson Engr seems to do a good job of relating the fundamentals of different topics so that they sink in and I think these are the things that make a good engineer who can solve problems and think outside the box. The classes that have been teaching me the stuff that you called skill are for the most part much less related, but I see why engineers who are prolific at coding and such things would be appealing to a company as well.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you completely. The software is useless if you can't interpret the results or know if something is bogus. I've used some FEA and CFD simulation and the majority of the time the results were flawed, but being able to recognize this allowed me to fine tune and get useful results. Also, at my job there were "CAD Jockeys" and then there were engineers in charge of them.
ReplyDeleteI agree that knowledge fundamentals should be taught in classes, because AutoCAD will always come out with new software updates, but the basic skills that make an engineer an engineer will never change. I had an 84 year old professor work a problem in under half the time it took the rest of the class with their graphing calculators and books.....and he used a sliderule he bought in 1966. You cant beat raw knowlege and fundamental skills and he took us to school to prove it (pun intended).
ReplyDelete