Inherent Power Relations of Engineering's "Boot Camp" Mentality

I wanted to start off by noting that the abstract for Feminisms in Engineering Education: Transformative Possibilities threw me for a little loop; I was a little confused at the beginning. The abstract states outright that “The goal of this paper is to examine the possibilities for EXPLICITY feminine work in engineering and engineering education” (21, my emphasis), while going on to state that “thus feminist visions of engineering might address a BROAD set of concerns such as militarism, racism, and global economic inequality as well as sexism and heterosexism” (ibid, my emphasis). At first, this confused me, but as I read through the article I figured that a feminist LENS was being applied with a nod to intersectionality, i.e. looking at how different societal factors come together, as opposed to isolating one specific factor. Hence, this is why the word “explicitly” threw me off.

However, I wanted to focus specifically on the third feminist framework explored in this article, “Learning from Antiracist and Liberatory Feminist Approaches”. It is mentioned that post-colonial scholars in particular shape this framework, by introducing the discourse of power relations, and how power is used to oppress. An example of how this discussion is applied in the classroom is by making it part of the course content, in connection with the science material. This is a wonderful example of lending both contextuality and interdisciplinarity to course content. However, while thinking of power relations, I thought to connect this to a very important insight that Hess brings up in Conclusions: Science, Technology & Multicultural Education.

He identifies that engineering schools tend to have a “boot camp” mentality, and that this culture is masculinist in nature for the STEM curriculum (252). This harsh, unforgiving environment, I argue, is directly associated with the phenomenon of the engineering pipeline. I can apply it personally: sophomore year, first real aerospace engineering class, AERO 215: “this class is based on MATLAB, go ahead and buy it, and play around with it for about 30 hours for next week, because you’ll do your homework with it.” Nevermind that the course was only 2 units and we would be spending 20+ hours per week working outside of class, and that the MATLAB course offered by the Computer Science Department, CSC 111, was only recommended and not a perquisite for AERO 215, and on top of that, that there was no lab section offered to help the students learn the program through exercises. Oh, and also that it was taught by a grad student, in a department that has a small student size and adequate number of professors.

This might sounds like a rant, but this is the exact quarter when I decided that I was dropping AERO as a major. The worst part of it is that complaining gets you nowhere, as the older students and even professors might tell you, this is just the way it is, and if you want in, you’ll have to hurt. So the power that is being exerted here does not only have to do with course content, but more so with underlying expectations. These expectations, moreover, serve to weed out students, which I feel is an unspoken agenda of the College of Engineering, in my opinion. But which students are weeded out? I was one of them: a female, Chicana student. And I saw many other such instances of minority students being weeded out. And when they are “weeded out”, having been defeated by this “boot camp” mentality, they are required to STAY OUT. At least at CalPoly, you are told that you cannot be readmitted to the College of Engineering once you are kicked out.

The huge problem with this is that students are being kicked out not because they do not have the intelligence to learn, but that the expectations of the curriculum are often too hard to satisfy. And those students who come from white, economically-sound backgrounds usually have more resources to help them stay afloat, while minority students are drowning. And this makes for a showcase of “look, they can’t make it” thereby reinforcing stereotypes of underachievement and failure. There needs to be an “overhaul”, as Hess points out, of this mentality that reinforces the traditional, masculinist hierarchy of power, as feminists would point out, that just asks too much of any student.

Works Cited

Hess, David. "Conclusions: Science, Technology, and Multicultural Education." Science and Technology in a Multicultural World. New York: Columbia Univeristy, 1995. 250-59.

Riley, Donna, Alice L. Pawley, Jessica Tucker, and George D. Catalano. "Feminisms in Engineering Education: Transformative Possibilities." NWSA Journal Summer 21.2 (2009): 21-40.