Theory and practice are two terms that come to mind when thinking about how different engineering approaches are in Great Britain and France. Although these the terms can come in successive order, as they do in the USA, the countries of France and Great Britain seem to have taken each of these as their mantras with respect to educating engineers. The fundamental difference in these two approaches comes down to the perception of what it is to be an engineer in the first place. In France, engineering was viewed as a technical profession; in Great Britain, engineering was regarded as a craft.
The origins of engineering in Great Britain started with craftsman who could, with the use of tools, build various machines or structures. As technology advanced and the demand for machinery increased, these craftsmen eventually became more specialized niches such as mechanical and structural. The knowledge was passed down on a first person basis, with tutelage or apprenticeship being the primary forms of educating new engineers. This form of education was based in the belief that practicing engineering was superior to strictly learning from a book. As Page 1998 states in The Formation of an Engineer: the British Method of creating Engineers, “…chosen to reflect the British view that an engineer is formed out of the sum total of their experiences, not just the initial training that they have received.”
The craftsman style approach to forming an engineer in Great Britain supported the education structure of a one-on-one tutelage. While this might have produced numerous famous and successful engineers there was no consistency in the methods that were employed to solve problems. This lack of a curriculum made it difficult to educate large numbers of engineers in a short amount of time. This fact was made glaringly obvious when in the 1870s when the country had a shortage of engineers.
So why would Great Britain stay with this method of education instead of creating a state sponsored curriculum? They stayed with the status quo of private education because the biggest economist of the time, Adam Smith, promoted the theory that individuals can make better decisions and outperform public institutions. The country of Great Britain was run largely on these principles.
This runs contrary to what the French view as technical excellence in engineering. As in Great Britain, engineering in France started out as craftsmen who were specialized in machinery or structures, but as the body of knowledge in science and mathematics began to grow the French incorporated that into the education of new engineers. As Ermenc states in The French Heritage of Engineering Schools, “Engineering design became based on rationalized procedures which were rooted in Newtonian mechanics amidst a rapidly accumulating body of scientific and mathematical knowledge.”
Because France believed that engineers should be educated by a scientifically sound mathematical method, they developed state run institutions for these purposes. Four schools, called corps, were created with the goal of having sufficient engineers for any need of the state. This regimented style of education might have produced a large number of engineers, but some might say that a lack of creativity and craftsmanship leads to mundane solutions.
While both of these countries have had a long history of success in the education and development of engineers, each has come about these successes in different ways. The choice of either theory or practice as the basis for education is a very telling sign about the culture of a society. We here in the US, and especially at Cal Poly, believe that a healthy mix of both theory and practice are essential to becoming an effective anything.
No comments:
Post a Comment