READING REACTION #1
Being an engineering student here at Cal Poly, it is interesting to learn the differences between the British and French approaches to engineering. It appears to me that there are a number of overlaps in Cal Poly’s method of teaching engineering with both British and French influences, yet in the respective countries, the other’s method would likely seem mediocre. The two articles that struck me the most that I would like to talk about are the Buchanan piece titled “The Life-Style of the Victorian Engineers” and the Kranakis piece titled “The French Technologies: Constructing a Bridge: An Exploration of Engineering Culture, Design, and Research in Nineteen Century France and America”.
In the British perspective, having a practical background in engineering helps an incredible amount for people in learning how to use equipment in the work-force. The idea of creating a solution from supplies that may be limited becomes a way of looking at a problem, and creates a problem solving approach to finding a solution. This is done through experience: on the job training, apprenticeships, and intern-like positions. As cheezy as it sounds, it becomes a way of life, or more so, a way of looking at life that can change a person’s perspective on daily practices. In Buchanan’s piece, he states that
“The reason for the chronic hard work of the engineers, however, was the attitude towards their jobs generated by the successful members of the profession: stated simply, the engineers enjoyed their work and preferred it to most other activities. It was a matter of engineering psyche…” (Buchanan, page 2).
Being able to independently determine a solution to a problem and create a physical solution, like those taught in lab, allow for British engineers to acquire the experience and knowledge they need to be successful in their jobs. Their experience dictates their ability to advance and achieve higher responsibility jobs.
Having a theoretical background is also very important to the experience of being an engineer. Knowing why things happen the way they do, for what reasons these things change, and ways we can effectively manipulate these changes creates avenues to more appropriate engineering for the time and place. The French perspective on engineering provided a contrast to that of the British perspective, where manual labor was of a ‘lower-class’ alternative to a sophisticated knowledge set. This all having stayed nearly stagnant through the 18th century (Kranakis), the practical side of engineering was encouraged during the 19th century but the legislative power of resistance to that change made it return again in the late 1800s. The French took the position, at their top school, the Ecole Polytechnique, that their students needed to focus most on the theories and concepts of engineering more than trifling themselves with the daily grind of learning to use a machine. The thought of having to do manual labor was preserved for the construction/manual laborers, whose work was overseen by the knowledgeable engineers. As the Kranakis piece states, “students spent, on average, 6-7 hours per day in study rooms, going over their course work in small groups…Such a schedule left little time for laboratory work” (Kranakis).
I think that one major reason why engineers from Cal Poly make such a good impression when they first enter the work-force is that we are taught both the theoretical side and practical application of the engineering concepts that are taught. By teaching and instructing different methods of attaining a solution in the lab, and understanding that process in school helps to better our industry skills, but also trains the student to be able to think and act a certain way. I think that though not necessarily everyone shares these viewpoints on engineering- some people do it for the aspect of saving lives, some do it to better people’s lives, some do it to have the title and some others do it for the money, it all comes down to: the success of someone’s job choice depends on their enjoyment of what they study and how they study it.
I would agree that the United States seems to combine the theoretical and experience based approaches to engineering, although I think that a formal education and theory have a much larger influence. If an engineering company was given a choice between hiring a college graduate with good marks or someone who didn’t attend college but gained experience through an apprenticeship or series of internships, chances are they are going to choose the college graduate. Similarly, someone who had lots of internship or other practical experience but not as good of a GPA would automatically be ruled out from many job opportunities. It’s an interesting system that places a huge emphasis on grades and test scores and not as much about application of the skills taught in school. I do agree though that employers do appreciate students that come from institutions such as Cal Poly, where hands-on, practical knowledge is given such a large focus. That being said, it is interesting to note that many of the highly esteemed private institutions focus much more heavily on theory.
ReplyDeleteI also thought it was interesting to realize the distinct difference between what our culture classifies as an engineer and what falls under technician or mechanic. Technicians and mechanics often don’t go to a typical university and get a bachelors or masters degree for their work. Instead, they attend trade schools and receive lots of practical training in their field of interest. This seems very similar to the British method. Yet, for some reason our society generally doesn’t seem to recognize that path as an equally respectable career choice. We seem stuck on the idea that we won’t get anywhere without a college education. So while the United States does combine theory and experience to an extent, I think we are still very much focused on theory as the dominant means of engineering education.