Those critics who claim that technological advance is ruining our planet and bringing suffering
to humankind should take a closer look at the pragmatic realities. If modern technology is so harmful to both humans and nature, how can we account for the fact that the standard of living is higher in the industrialized portions of the world than in those where technology lags behind? Why are the citizens in the industrial nations better fed and longer-lived? Why is more being done to protect the environment in the technologically-advanced nations than in those still at a primitive technological level (Kranzberg,Elkana, & Tadmor, 1989)? Can this be ascribed to mere coincidence? (pg.238)

This piece is coming from a very elitist point of view. The whole voice and tone of this paragraph is very smug and self-righteous. As I mentioned in class, Kranzberg only acknowledges and analyzes affects of technology on 'industrialized' nations. To assume that your technology, because it benefits you and your country directly, is so very beneficial to humankind is ignorance at its finest. It goes back to the classic question, "Who decides what is best for who?"[What way of living, what social structure, etc.] And it always seems that the 'first world' nations take it upon themselves to answer this question for peoples and nations they see lesser than themselves. Why is it important to measure the standard of living and effects of technology for only the industrialized nations? Are they, we, the only nations that matter? Do only we deserve to be better fed and longer lived than others?!

I have taken a closer look at the 'pragmatic realities' and see them very clearly. What stands out to me is war, human beings killing their brothers and sisters for so called democracy with this wonderful technology. In my eyes, technology has, if not always, mostly been about building stronger, faster, more powerful contraptions that kill one another more effectively. Technology has been a race to gain and maintain power over others. To me, it has never been about the people, it has been about power and profits.

This all may seem pretty radical, and some may argue, what about the medical advances we have made and so forth. But, I raise the issue again, these medical advances are not made available to all people around the globe, not even all people in our nation of 'equality'. These advances have always been and remain for the priveleged. How can you measure success and progress for humankind when only a select few have reeped the benefits and all others don't matter? How can we say we progress when we leave others behind?

Furthermore, I can argue that technological advances have put a lot of strain on the earth and that industrialized nations aren't protecting the environment more than these so called 'technologically primitive' nations. First, I'd argue that because of many circumstances, these nations don't have the money nor the resources to do so because any resources that they do have must go toward their basic survival. Second, Kranzberg fails to acknowledge that indigenous communities have taken care of this earth for thousands of years, and this industrialized society has managed to ruin it within a few hundred. There is a prime example when the Shoshone got their land that they've inhabited for centuries taken away. They lived on that land and took care of it in Nevada, but the government said otherwise and said they mistreated the land because they let their lievestock graze on it. When the gov't. gained control, they dessimated the land drilling for nuclear resources. This is just one example that the complete opposite of what Kranzberg is trying to argue is true. (Google it!!)

I can go on for days with many examples on just this paragraph, but I fear of rambling and also of not being clear with the linkages I make, it would take an entire book almost. But, I would like to urge all to be socially and politically responsible and aware. Take it upon yoursleves to to stay informed and always remember there is ALWAYS 2 truths, two sides of the story, so when one thing is benefitting us, it's probably at the suffering of others. And although there may have been some technological advances for the good of humankind, my thoughts and feelings remain the same:

TECHNOLOGY AND SO CALLED "TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES" HAVE GIVEN HUMANS THE POWER THEY ARE NEITHER MATURE ENOUGH FOR, NOR RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH FOR.

Mexika Tiahui

Reading Response #1 - Theory vs. Practice

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.

Reading Reaction #1

Reading about the early history of engineering in other countries was interesting because of the kind of parallels I have noticed in the field of computer science and software engineering, which have really only emerged as distinct fields in the last 20 years. One specific similarity I noticed was between the different ways Britain and France treated engineering and how current US universities and colleges treat software engineering as a discipline with respect to computer science. Many famous institutions, including UC Berkeley, Stanford, and MIT, do not offer a software engineering majors (and both UC Berkeley and MIT offer computer science as part of electrical engineering rather than it's own discipline, as well). UC Berkeley is especially well known for emphasizing theory over practice in education, much like France's theory based approach to engineering education. Cal Poly, which is famous for it's "Learn by doing" motto in contrast, does offer a software engineering major and acknowledges it as very similar to computer science but still distinct.

However, this difference in perspective on software engineering does make a lot of sense if you consider the non-differentiating schools more theory based and differentiating schools because the difference is mainly a practical one. Abstractly, one can say that software engineers and computer scientists do the same thing; they write computer programs. Of course, this is a very simplified version but it should give anyone a basic idea of what they do. At this level, there is not much difference and it makes sense that computer science is the major of choice for students looking to become software engineers. But there is a critical difference between what you do and how you do it, and this difference is what distinguishes computer science from software engineering. In short, this means that computer science is about coming up with algorithms (our intimidating and fancy word for how you make a computer do something) and software engineering is about using algorithms.

This aspect also struck a parallel with the current British attitude toward engineers expressed in the reading "The Formation of an Engineer: The British Method of Creating Engineers" by George Page where he describes "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." In the software industry education does count for a lot, but experience is very heavily weighted. Portfolios of past work are essential to getting hired. Knowing your theory is great, but if you haven't written programs and don't know the first thing about computer code, then your chances as a software engineer are slim.

On a different note, these readings also make me curious as to whether there were subsets of engineering that thrived and possibly continue to thrive in one of the countries we discussed and not the other because of their different approaches. It seems some branches, like chemical engineering, would be much harder to do in a situation with little to no theory than others, like mechanical or civil engineering. We already do know some of the limits of the old British system, such as how "ill-equipped to convey theoretical instruction in fields with which the master was not himself familiar," as stated by Dr. R. Angus Buchanan in The Lifestyles of the Victorian Engineer, but it seems like we have read little on where the limitations or advantages of the different styles push the types of engineering.

Andres Gonzalez

Reading Response #1

Brandon Grayson

Buchanan (1986), "Education or Training? The Dilemma of British Engineering in the 19th Century"

One aspect of this article that really caught my attention was the note about the lack of social life that these engineers had. Despite the lack of importance their occupation held in the eyes of other Brits, these dedicated workers (in my opinion) were determined to prove its significance. The time and effort to crank out the quantity of products that they worked on is simply amazing - this attests to how much of a significant portion of their time they spent doing what they loved and truly cared about, they occupation. This sacrifice of was completely necessary in order to achieve the advances in British engineering at the time, with the technology and education for engineering at the time. On page 6 it notes the amount of time and effort put into their work. Many any engineers even sacrificed nice homes for their family just to gain respect for their craft. One passage states, “Work, then, played a paramount role in the lives of the 19^th-century engineers, and little was allowed to compete for their attention with professional commitments. Some began to think of building country houses for themselves, and a few, like Armstrong at Cragside and Folwer at Braemore, succeeded.” These men’s dedication and commitment to work is very commendable and has obviously set the standard and paved the path what engineering has become since. Overall, this piece was very informative and insightful. It was very interesting as well, I knew very little on the history of engineering, let alone the history of British engineering and its evolution to becoming a respectable craft amongst other occupations. Before reading this I would have assumed that engineering would have always been a highly credible occupation considering Europe’s historical appreciation for arts

Page (1998), “The Formation of an Engineer: The British Method of Creating Engineers" Page.pdf

Although very dry, this reading was very informative as to how British engineers come to be. Their paths to attain different levels of standing are extremely tedious and I have that much more respect for these men and women. To my understanding, the process of becoming a professional engineer is quite different in Britain from the U.S. One interesting point that was emphasized in the reading was the importance of knowledge learned from experience by British engineers in training. One reference to this is on page two; it states, “ They must also write a 3,000 word report on how their work has formed them as engineers. Note the terminology that is used: their formation as an engineer. It is a quite deliberate choice of words – choen to reflect the British view that an engineer is formed out of the sum total of their experiences, not just the initial training they have received.” From a non engineering perspective, I completely agree with this policy. From my knowledge, the process of becoming a professional engineer in the U.S is based mostly on education and knowledge (passing the FE and the PE). I personally, would feel much more comfortable hiring an engineer with tons of hours of experience in the work place and education over an amateur who has just had the experience of education.

Reading Response #1: Brig Bagley

Brig Bagley

Reading Response #1

Engineering in the United States has a very distinct image: white collar, male, smart, technology, and innovation are all terms that often go synonymously with the term engineering. The process of engineering also has a well defined sequence of actions: see a problem or need in society or in an item, find a better solution, test the solution and throw it out into the public, repeat. To those of us in the United States, it is almost accepted that all of these terms and sequences are true for the majority of engineers and engineering in general. Few, if any, realize that engineering does not mean the same thing around the world. In fact the different views of engineers across the world differ so much that some may not even consider the other view to be engineering at all. Because of the differing perspectives of engineering, it is imperative that engineers are aware of the conflicts between cultures to be successful. In addition, engineering must not be labeled or categorized for certain types of people, backgrounds, or even defined as one distinct and particular process.

Engineering has a very bare minimum of universal ground. Although the perspectives may be different, engineers in near all countries are looking to better the world. Needless to say, nearly all professions hope to better the world.This makes engineering seem as uniform as the countries of the world. But it is true. According to the article, “The Globally Competent Engineer: Working Effectively with People Who Define Problems Differently,” by Downey and others, “engaging ways of thinking and understanding that differ from your own can refer either to ways of solving or of defining problem” (2). The very core of engineering depends on how people define problems and identify solutions to those problems. If engineers of differing cultures cannot agree on whether a problem is a problem, or determine if a solution is a solution, how can we expect any progress? Engineers must be aware of certain cultural differences to maintain common ground as well as respect the differing needs within that culture.

Society (especially in the United States) often labels every part of life and puts images on top of all aspects of the world. Women are refined and classy. Men are strong and dominant. Nurses are female assistants to doctors. Engineers are white-collar men. We as human beings are very aware of their social status and where they lie in all of these labels. We are also aware of where we fit into these patterns, and where we do not. As expected, we tend to move towards the labels that society associates with us. According to Lucena, “dominant images create expectations about how individuals in that location are supposed to act or behave” (5). Why would someone try to swim against the current? It’s much easier to go along with the direction things are going. Because of this mindset, the diversity and individuality that could benefit all of these different aspects of life is lost. To overcome this loss, it is imperative that people, (and in our case specifically, engineers), remove the social labels and barriers that confine the possibilities within the realm of engineering.

The title and content of this class, may seem to the Westernized mind a contradictory topic: Global Engineering. The word "global" carries a connotation of communication, culture and language, while the word "engineering" evokes words such as math, technology and physics, we know this from our first class exercise. However, regardless of how mathematical or technological a topic maybe, it can be and must be investigated through the lens of society and culture because both are so dependent upon each other.

This is the idea Melvin Kranzberg communicates in his article "Science-Technology-Society: It's as Simple as XYZ!"He explains that the correlation between these three are so strong because they are manufactured by society and for society. He says, "Science and technology are very human activities and, as such, they are an inherent part of our social milieu. Society includes all sorts of human activities, thoughts, values, and hopes and our social environment extends, largely as a result of the applications of science and technology, to the whole world" (235). Science and technology are human tools that are informed by biases and thoughts represented from society because its members are its creators. This concept allows us to take a more indepth look at the construction of engineering and the correlation on a global scale because society does inform who does engineering, how they do engineering and for what purposes engineering is done. For example, compact, efficient technology such as the Apple Ipad are growing in popularity in order to fit the need of a society that is constantly doing work on the go. Another example of correlated effects are societal instituations such as education or corporations that dictate who gets the jobs as engineers and what type of skill set is required whether its theory based or experience based.

I think that the another article we read entitled "Science and Technology in a Multicultural World" by David J. Hess, expands upon Kranzberg's idea. Hess takes the concept that science and technology are informed by society further by saying that this implies that different societies will inform science and technology in different ways. He says, "A cultural perspective implies studying science and technology from the point of view of different groups of people" (11). Although there are societies, that have greater impact on the science and technology being produced around the world, we have to take into consideration both, the needs of other societies and be open to the manners in which other societies view the processes of science and technology. The values of different societies effect the formation of their engineereing needs. In class we discussed an example of running water being established in homes in a community in Africa. This would have a large effect on the community if the water source had been the cultural gathering place. Although running water in the homes might seem more efficient from a Western perspective, someone from the community might argue that it would be detrimental to the fiber of the society.

Therefore looking at engineering from a global perspective can open our eyes to see the correlation between how society and technology influence on another but also how different societies can take part in an exchange regarding this topic.

Reading Rxn 1: Morgan Miller

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 18^th century (Kranakis), the practical side of engineering was encouraged during the 19^th 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.

tanner starbard

“But machines are not something apart from humanity. Instead all technical processes and products are result of human creative imagination and human skills, hands and mind working together. “ (Kranzenberg 236)

My disagreement with this statement is not without wary. I understand where Kranzenberg is coming from, however, I could not initially confide in his proposal fully. I thought that there must be a certain point at which the mechanical, the unhuman, overtakes the humanness of a product. This point is undefined, it cannot be found via complex formulaic manipulations of data. The threshold of humanness can only be felt, and as is often the case with feelings, a precise description can scarcely be constructed. Still, though, I felt that point must exist somewhere. Somewhere where the distance between the human and the machine is too vast. Humans created the computer that did the math to construct an image of an object that was sent electronically to a different machine that created it. The humanness of this product is a couple of steps away- the actual object was product of both mechanical imagination and production. Sure the human created the computer and the machine that eventually produced the product, but how far down the line can humans take credit?

In basketball and soccer, an assist goes to the person who directly passed the ball to his teammate who scored. One pass away. In hockey, an assist can be awarded to not only that player who made the final pass before the shot, but also the player who passed to the passer. Two passes away. In both cases, a player other than he who actually scored the goal was given partial credit for the goal. The puck/ball going into the net is what actually socres the point, but credit is given to the scorer because they caused the goal to happen. The goal is like the tool that the human created and thus gets credit for. An assist can be awarded to a human who created a machine that created another machine. A hockey assist can be given to a human who created a machine that created another machine that created another machine. At this point, the actual humanness is beginning to wane. The effect that the human has on the product compared to the effect that machines have on the product is proportionately decreasing. A player that is 5 passes removed from the goal scoring receives no credit in the statistician’s book because his pass is not deemed to have had enough impact on the actual goal scoring. An argument can be made that without his pass, the other passes would not have occurred and thus he should receive at least partial credit for the goal. Partial credit may be due, but the portion of credit due is so small that it doesn’t really count for much. Mathematically, the portion of credit for the player 5 passes away is so much closer to zero credit than full credit, that no credit is appropriately awarded. Now, back to the machines. If a human created the machine that created the machine that created the machine…. And so on… how many machines away can that human be and still justly receive credit for the final product. At some point the human influence has become less than that of the machines. That some point is where Kranzenberg’s argument is also diminished. Machines are indeed something apart from humanity.

Why does this matter? It is so abstract and theoretical that it doesn’t really apply to the subjects we are looking at in the course. The machines we come in contact with today are not often so far removed from humans and thus maintain a level of humanity worth crediting. I suppose my argument was in part for argument’s sake, but also I wanted to entertain the idea that perhaps we, as humans, give ourselves undue credit too often, which leads us to exploring problems we don’t need to be a part of. Our influence on the natural world is ever-increasing. In some ways this is good; but in many ways it isn’t. We research for knowledge’s sake; invent for creation’s sake; but at what point do knowledge and creation overtake living for life’s sake? When do we know too much? Can we know too much? At Disneyland, ignorance is the happiest bliss on Earth and when we learn how Cinderella and Jasmine actually ended up in the same place as Mickey Mouse, the mystique and enjoyment is gone.

This course is on the connection of society with science and technology. We have learned of the past and will conjecture about the future; well, here is my bleak conjecture about the future: The mechanical automation of daily occurrences will severely subtract from life itself. For those who have seen Wall-E, a vision of overweight, muscle-less, humans coasting around on hovercrafts that drive for them has appeared in my head.

Connect society with science and technology. We, especially as Americans (Westerners?) love inventions. We love new things. We love things to be easy. Our mindset is that research and gaining knowledge is the best thing we can do. When will society employ a different perspective on science and technology and their effect on our lives? How many machines away from the final product will we still give ourselves credit for?

“The history of technology, he tells us, shows how a return to ancient knowledge may be useful to the technologist.” (Kranzenberg 466)

The future of technology, I tell you, shows how a return to ancient knowledge may be useful to human beings.

Reading Reaction #1 : Daisy

Important issues that were brought up in Science –Technology-Society: It’s as Simple as XYZ! by Kranzberg is, “technology has become ‘autonomous’ and is pursued for its own sake” and another would be that” as well as , “ technology is the prime factor in shaping our values, institutions, and other elements of our society” (236). These two quotes were interesting to me because I remembered some one in class mentioning that the engineering is the same all around the world. And because I also have that assumption so to me the comment means that the concepts and interpretations of enginneering should be similar because it is understood the same globally. However, these quotes demonstrated to me that interpretations of engineering are different and there must be a reason why. I read the history of France and Britain and noticed how they different their history was. This lead me see how the history of engineering affected the meaning engineering in that country.
When reading about France and Britain, I realized how different these two countries were when it came to concerning engineering. To me it seemed the engineering in Britain was never readily accepted as a form of education as Meikins and Smith point out in Engineering Labor, “Engineers have found it difficult to separate themselves from their manual, craft origins and therefore issues of states have bedeviled the occupations for over a century.” (28). The beginnings have shaped the engineers of Britain in a completely different way when compared to France and/or the United States. Since engineering was identified as being a manual work, then the past of engineering in France, through my view, would have affected the development of engineering. However, in France, the French Revolution provided, a way for change to come to the engineering world. Ermenc explains in The French Heritage of Engineering Schools, “…in 1794 when a combined military and public works engineering school was begun. Admission was secured by competitive examination “(145). He also goes on to explain that the, “…first institution of higher learning to be established after the Revolution was an engineering school and the prototype of the modern engineering college.” He also goes on to explain that the United States got their education and knowledge of an effective engineering institution form France. Once again, the evolution of engineering in France affected how high of a standard engineering was held to. At the same time, I felt it was important to note that France started from “scratch” and the United States was able to model their schools from France. So even though, the United States modeled engineering education after France does not mean their experiences and the evolving idea of engineering was the same because France did go through a Revolution (radical) and the history of the United States differs from that of France.
These two different countries have different views and beginnings of engineering and this , to me, felt important in pointing out the concept that engineering is global or worldwide is challenged. It is challenged because the beginnings of engineering are different, specifically in France and Britain. And referring to the quotes at the beginning of my essay demonstrates that engineering and its purpose can be interpreted differently, that also demonstrates that engineering is different and not the same. I do not mean to pick on the comment made in class that engineering is global but it sparked my interest as to why and where the comment came from. Because I saw I was not alone in that form of thinking. I saw engineering as numbers.
However, through the readings, the history and different meanings of engineering also struck me as interesting because I also felt that engineering was the same and universal. So I also came to question my own assumption. At the same time, I do have to take note that I am only comparing two countries. And through this class I hope to learn more about this history and different meaning of engineering. I also understand that the meaning global could have different meanings. Was global/worldwide meant in the way that engineering is practice everywhere? Global in the way that engineer collaborates with different cultures? As I am writing this reading response more thoughts are popping in my head but I feel it may be confusing, so ill leave it at that.

Reading Reaction #1: A Happy Medium

After learning how the British engineering program has been installed in their society and also how the French ended up developing their way of training professionals, it is only natural that I picked out all of the best methods each country had established. From doing so, I concluded that it is unfortunate Britain and France can not collaborate their styles of educating to create one outstanding school for engineering.

Although I, of course, already have a bias opinion of Cal Poly because I am a Cal Poly student, I concluded that Cal Poly’s engineering program is definitely an exception to the other engineering schools in the United States and one of the schools closest to achieving a combination of the two different methods Britain and France designed. Cal Poly could, in fact, be described or seen as a happy medium of Britain and France’s engineer programs.

Jean-Louis Barsoux explains in her article, “Leaders for every Occasion” that “in France, engineering education does not play second fiddle to medicine, law or architecture - it is the recognized way to the top” (Barsoux 26). And George Page describes the SARTOR approach and how Britain emphasizes work experience as being the key to success. The two very different pathways to an engineering career explain why an occupation as an engineer is seen and has been installed very differently in both regions. In France, it is looked upon as an honorable goal and the US would compare an engineer’s merits earned as an equivalent to obtaining your Masters degree. The simple fact Barsouxs’ article is actually titled “Leaders for Every Occasion” speaks for itself. The French look upon engineers with very high regard.

After reading how prestigious France’s Polytechnic school is it is so fascinating to read what Page has to say about the steps to take for applying to become a chartered engineer. In Britain, any school that a possible employer’s candidate might have attended means nothing to the employer. “The application form will want a statement of where they have trained and what jobs they have had since graduation” (Page 166).

Cal Poly’s engineering program definitely takes from both what the French and British value as important. The overly used mission statement, “learn by doing” seems to adhere to what the British would desire while the 4-5 year program closely resembles the French’s basic layout. What is different about France’s 5 year program, however, is that the student doesn’t declare his or her concentration until their last year while Cal Poly, of course, makes their students decide right away; France definitely has the more appropriate timeline of when to declare a concentration. But, Cal Poly’s commonly stated “Learn by doing” mission statement speaks to any British employer’s heart and Cal Poly’s engineer information page on their main website declares that Cal Poly “engineers are highly sought by industry because they are known to "have two feet on the ground and two hands on the problem"” (Calpoly.edu).

It is hard to understand Britain’s idea of what status an engineer carries in their society and how they believe becoming an engineer is best formulated, but it makes sense that we in the United States would agree and relate to France’s method since it was, in fact, the Polytechnic school that the United States was inspired by.

Reading Reaction #1 | Beverley Kwang

Every person is different through their formation of intersectionality through their culture, race, gender, class, etc. Not only that, but “as people move across roles and through life, their social position changes” (Hess 14). It is important to look through cultural and international lenses to understand that people are different from the shaping of their cultural images. We can use these lenses to look at technology and the different meanings that science and technologies can bring to different cultures and different people. I saw this on the first day of class; because of our different backgrounds in very different fields (Engineering students and Ethnic Studies students), we each had very different lenses and different focuses or importance that we brought up in class. I noticed that when we read the same articles, we pick up on different portions of them and formulate different questions about them. And even though the class is divided into two “cultures”, they are also divided into smaller subcultures which we form ourselves due to our personal identities. This is like different cultures viewing science and technology – other cultures may see different things that we don’t necessarily pick up on.

Before taking this class, I saw science and technology as same for everyone, a routine of creating things better through repetitions of trial and error. What I forgot to even question is the differences ways people would use them and, as Kranzberg stated, sometimes “its misuse and abuse” (236). But who are we to judge what is good to use or what is bad to use. Nowadays with the easy access of world news, we can be quick to judge other countries and their ways of using science and technologies. People in other countries value different things and may have different circumstances where technology we may seem as harmful could be a huge benefit to them. We saw this in Kranzberg’s example of the use of DDT in India as a problem solver and helped save thousands of lives. Also people may solve things differently or work at things in another manner than you may go about in a situation. I feel like this applies to all sorts of careers, not just those in science and engineer.

When Kranzberg explained life as constantly making tradeoffs (239), he mentions that “we trade one ‘good’ for another, or … choose the least of the evils besetting us” (239). He explains this as choosing the solution with the least amount of harmful effects. I sometimes question this idea since I see technology as a way of improving. So why not instead of just settling for the “less dangerous” solution, try to come up with a better product or model. Also, the question of what is considered “good” should be thought about. Is the concept of “good” only applied to being “good” for humans (what we would probably care about the most) or “good” for all living things or “good” for the planet?

Reading Reaction #1 - Tyler Smith

I believe the article, The Life-Styles of the Victorian Engineers, did a remarkable job of creating an insightful look into the mind and body of what it took to be a 19^th century engineer in Britain. Buchanan was very straight-forward in noting that these observations of Britain’s engineers could only come from the few and far-between that stood out as Britain’s best. I find it very difficult to summarize the ideals of an entire profession (if it may even be called that according to previous readings) based on a small sample size of engineers who were probably atypical; however, giving the circumstances and lack of documentation of every engineer that has walked this earth, I think Buchanan was able to make very reasonable conclusions of the common engineer of that time period. One overlying theme of this article was the diligent work ethic of British engineers and many examples were given to show that indeed these engineers worked grueling hours and under harsh conditions. What I found interesting in his argument was the depth of his understanding of what makes these engineers work so hard. Not once did Buchanan mention the pay of these engineers or money at all within the paper. Comparatively, an engineering career today is highly regarded for its comparable pay as well as its stress on a strong work ethic. One point I would like to stress from this article comes from the following excerpt, “Most important of all, 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.” I find this statement to be very profound because it embodies the ideals of British Engineers during that time period that is still true in many ways to engineers from The United States. Another reading added a detail to this stating that the Engineers of that time period were held in low regard compared to the typical professions of philosophy, law and medicine. With that being said it would appear very strange today to see a career held in such low esteem yet on the other hand known for having hard-working and dedicated workers. Personally, this embodies my idea of what a global engineer should be, in terms of hard work, dedication, and enjoying your profession without the need of being so highly revered in society. I agree with Buchanan on the motivational reasoning behind being an engineer and I find it very interesting how different the process of becoming an engineer is and also the perception of what an engineer is from a country that many would say is similar to the US in many ways but clearly not from an engineering standpoint. I would like to dive deeper into the daily life and culture of the British population to see why there are so many difference compared to engineers today in both Britain and The United States respectively.

Another reading I found to be very interesting was the article by Adam Smith about classical economics. An excerpt from The Wealth of Nations about laissez-faire economics and the “invisible hand” that I found very intriguing states, “By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.” The reason this is true today in economics, as well as many other aspects of society is because this creates a strong sense of competition between individuals and groups. This competition, sometimes very intense I might add, is the source of brilliant creativity and resourcefulness all in the selfish aims of being the best. Some might argue that by pursuing your own interest you may tend to work more diligently and thus create a better product (or whatever the goal might be). However, I respectfully disagree with Adam Smith by comparing his work to John Forbes Nash, a fellow Economist and Nobel Prize winner in Economics. What is now referred to as Nash Equilibrium, states almost the opposite of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” ideology. Simply put, Nash Equilibrium means that by working together and incorporating each other’s decisions as a group, each person in a group would make the best decision possible taking into account the other member’s decision. The difference between Smith and Nash’s ideologies is taking into consideration the other members decisions and using those decisions as a way of helping each other rather than attempting to “beat” the other person. Although in the grand scheme of things Adam Smith’s laissez-faire principles reign supreme, on the contrary in highly organized businesses and notably on executive boards Nash equilibrium is quite common. Looking at the core of these two economics principles shows a strong characteristic in trusting people. The main argument I see for the laissez-faire rationale is that nobody trusts anyone and as a result, instead of working together for a common goal, selfish aims take over and the invisible hand economics becomes dominant. When a goal can solely be achieved by cooperation between individuals do you see a trend in Nash’s equilibrium and trust being negotiated or instilled in the relationships. Although these two individuals were famously known in their fields of economics, these principles follow us in our day-to-day life and have personally changed the way I view society and a macro and microscopic level.

After comparing and contrasting the readings as well as comparing my own life experiences with these intriguing findings, I can already see a change in my perspective on what it means to be a global engineer as well as removing the black and white notions of right vs. wrong when designing and building. I think I have noticed a wall created by my own ignorance that caused me to be closed minded based on the formal education that I have received. I have always thought that a formal education was needed for becoming an engineer and only through rigorous learning of theory would I ever be useful in industry and the British clearly disproved this. In conclusion I found that I am heavily influenced by my own culture, specifically in the discipline of engineering, in ways that I had never fathomed and there is much more to becoming a global engineer than I anticipated but it is well worth the challenge.

Reading Reaction #1 - Joseph White

Solving problems seem to be the purpose of the engineering profession (I’ll use the term loosely, for as Donovan points out, “what it means to be a professional has become seriously confused” (4)). Although this does not tend to come easily or quickly, there is a method used for approaching the optimal solution. When this method is not used, the culprit must be “wrong.” This poses an interesting problem when the topic of Global Engineering is considered and when thought is given to the conflict created in varying environments and possible causes or further effects of this mindset.

In my opinion (and I’m not sure too many would argue against it), most engineers tend to be arrogant and hard-headed: stubborn, personifying the idea of “wrong” mentioned above. They believe that the way they solve or approach a problem must be the “right” way, and they likely try to force this “correctness” on forms of opposition. An engineer must open his or her mind if only slightly, though, to other ways of thinking, for our society is becoming increasingly global. A mindset where one believes his or her own method is superior without accounting for other methods is simply ignorant. This behavior, unfortunately, does not appear to be unique.

I believe that this thought process is not only apparent, but can be attributed (at least in part) to our American society and the ways of thinking that it perpetuates. One example is our political system. It focuses deeply on 2 main parties that are constantly warring against one another. Occurrences of someone being persuaded over to the other side are almost unheard of: one’s own party is “right,” the other is “wrong:” many refuse to even listen to opponents. This is not a particularly practical method of choosing political ideologies though, because it doesn’t allow for easily combining belief systems or “the best of both worlds.” Another example is morality or how we as a society define these terms of “right” and “wrong.” Most would define them through religion and for many in America, this means Christianity. This belief system, though, also teaches these immobile ideas of “right” and “wrong,” allowing many Americans to extrapolate these ideas to other areas of their lives, and in regards to our discussion, includes engineering.

To achieve this idea of Global Competency in engineers, Downey et. al. specifies 3 important learning objectives: knowledge, ability and predisposition (4). In this same paper, the key element is given succinctly: “The key element…is the…image…of engineers working effectively with people who define problems differently than they do” (4). This element provides what I think to be the most important part (and method for solution) to this problem of thinking one’s method is “right” or the “best:” the fact that people define problems differently. One must ask the question: “How can my answer hold true for someone who does not even see the problem in the same light as I?” This question is important because it strongly affects what the solution to a problem might be based on who is working on it. One must take a great deal into account when considering how an individual may approach a problem, as Hess points out: “…culture includes not only the intangible beliefs of a people but also the domain of social action: rituals, work, trade, political institutions, family and kinship…” (Hess 2). Any aspect of a person’s life or background may influence how a particular problem is approached, proving that a “right” solution is not only an arbitrary assignment, but could easily be someone else’s “wrong.”

Reading Reaction #1: Christina Hernández

With Terry Shin’s article Science, Tocqueville, and the State: The Organization of Knowledge in Modern France, I must admit that before I began reading with the following question in mind: France a forerunner in science and technology? However, what came to mind was another European country that seems to be name-dropped in conjunction cutting-edge science, technology, and engineering: Germany. After reading Lucena’s discussion of dominant cultural images (DN 5), I was able to identify that my aforementioned initial reaction was in response to a dominant cultural image of modern-day Germany as a technological powerhouse to which I feel consistently exposed. This initial assumption was challenged in Shin’s article when he states that “‘les corps savants’ were the envy of France’s neighbors” (50).

To balance out my reaction, however, one can think of a dominant cultural symbol of France: the Eiffel Tower. Placed in historical context, the Eiffel Tower is a symbol of France’s technological savvy, as upon its completion in 1889 it was the tallest structure in the world, and named for its French engineer, Gustave Eiffel. The Eiffel Tower, when built, was meant to represent innovation and engineering mastery on massive display for the rest of an industrializing Europe to gaze upon. While on this path of recollection, the Statue of Liberty, an icon of the United States, was designed by French sculptor Frederic Bartholdi and dedicated in 1886. I would like to comment on the pattern of my thought process, as it went from “France: a technologically advanced country?” to “Yes, I do have some background knowledge that supports the claims in these articles.” I believe that the reason why this information, regardless of its presence in my mind, seems to be on the backburner has to do with my ideological formation as an American. This ideological formation comes back to the dominant cultural image of the United States as a technological superpower.

That France was to be envied was aided by the establishment of the grandes ecoles, the feeder institutions that were created by the state to meet the needs of les corps savants. To my knowledge, this is the first mention I have heard of a curriculum that we can understand nowadays as a “major”. If I think back to our first day of class, it was mentioned that American engineering is a hybrid that takes its elements both from British and French engineering. Speaking to France’s 18^th and 19^th centuries’ effort to be conservative in regards to the social status given to those educated in the grandes ecoles, I feel that a parallel can be drawn to the status we bestow upon engineers in the United States. They are rewarded with higher entry level and capping salaries, coupled with a mysticism surrounding their course subjects, where the language of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) is understood and mastered by a privileged few. The importance of this mysticism I believe is not intuitively lost on engineering students, as in my experience they tend to be the only one to proclaim: “I am a 2^nd year Aerospace engineer”, when they have not yet received their B.S. This is an observation, and for fairness’ sake, I realize that I was adhering to a possibly elitist view that an engineer includes only those who have passed their EIT.