Throughout this course, I find myself very interested in the engineering education of other countries. As an engineering in the United States, I wonder how alike or how different my education is from, say, a Soviet engineer in the mid 1900s (approximately 1930-1965). The U.S. curriculum allows for specialization, but it also heavily targets broad categories, such as the humanities. To me, it is perfectly clear why Soviet engineers lacked the innovation to move their country forward in technological advancements. In the Ghost of the Executed Engineering, chapter 4, the author makes a bold statement that resonates and directly correlates with the fall of the soviet union: “..engineering students in the Soviet Union received a stunted and narrow education; it was intellectually impoverish, politically tendentious, socially unaware, and ethically lame”. This brings now to the concept of technocracy, where over half of the political leaders had received an engineering education. When I think of a politician, and thought is heavily influenced by the fact that I live in the U.S., I think of a well-rounded individual who could have a technical background, but above all, is knowledgeable in the different forms of government. The Soviet Union engineers received a grand total of three courses outside their specified technology, and these three courses were all based on communist theory. Even the course labeled as political economy only focus on one specific form of economy, communist! How then did the Soviet Union expect for growth when their brightest minds were enclosed to such a narrow curriculum? We see the disaster of Chernobyl, not because these engineers were incapable of noticing such a danger, but because they were never taught basic environmental engineering issues and human factors, especially in the category of safety, that could have prevented such a disaster.
After reading about these engineers, it is obvious that organizations such as EWB-USA need to be in place. Aside from these engineers using their extensive engineering knowledge, they are practicing all the other courses and practices they learn when becoming an engineer in the U.S. Although some engineers hate to admit it, it is crucial for our education to take courses like political economy, public speaking, and ethnic studies, even if it means we spend less time in our engineering courses. I agree that not every engineer will work in such an organization like EWB, but I’m sure each engineer will be faced with at least one instance when the knowledge learned in the non-engineering courses might be handy. EWB’s vision is “a world in which the communities we serve have the capacity to sustainably meet their basic human needs, and that our members have enriched global perspectives through the innovative professional educational opportunities that the EWB-USA program provides”. In this vision, I see the key words ‘global perspectives’, which most engineers would not consider as part of their engineering education, yet it is so crucial to obtain such perspectives. We have read about engineers that did not have these opportunities, whose education was so narrow they were not called mechanical engineers. Instead, they were called ‘ball bearing for paper mills engineers’. It is without say that as engineers who want to make a difference, we must focus on the outside courses with such vigor as we do with our engineering courses. This is why I think organizations such as EWB-USA encompass true engineers at its finest.
Engineers Without Borders, http://www.ewb-usa.org/
Graham, Loren. The Ghost of the Executed Engineer. Chapter 4: Technocracy, Soviet Style
No comments:
Post a Comment