Brig Bagley : Critical Response # 2

Brig Bagley

Critical Response #2

One very interesting contrast between Great Britain and France is the different statuses of engineers in each country. Their individual histories have shaped the image and roles of engineers, either by giving engineers an important place in society, or by considering engineering a lesser, even non-professional way of life. The same profession, so to speak, was completely different in different societies due to the specific situations these societies had to offer for engineers.

In Great Britain, engineers spawned from the crafting society, inventing—out of necessity—better ways of life. However, at that time in Great Britain, craftsmanship was considered inferior to positions such as lawyers and doctors—those who took years of theoretical and literature-based schooling. Having emerged from the “blue collar” area of society, engineers did not receive recognition, sufficient support, or even social status for many years. The appreciation for the skill and talent of the belittled craftsmen was years in the making. In the article “Engineers in Britain: A Study of in Persistence,” (28) Smith and Whalley emphasize the fact that “engineers have found it difficult to separate themselves from their manual, craft origins, and therefore issues of status have bedeviled the ‘occupation’ for over a century.” It is clear that the history of Britain and its earlier view of craftsmanship ruined the success of the engineering profession for decades.

France, in contrast, had a completely different historical story. About the time of the French revolution, everything in France changed. The government (before being overthrown) began to research and fund different types of engineering in hopes to gain the confidence of its people for a growing and superior military. Although this government failed, their plans did not. The newly established government continued the funding and support of engineering schools to train hundreds of new engineers. Because of this inflated view of engineering, the engineers of France did not often do what we in the United States think of engineers doing today. The engineers in France were revered and were given high leadership positions in all areas. In essence, engineers were the doctors and lawyers of France. In Ermenc’s article, “The French Heritage of Engineering Schools,” he mentions the engineering schools of France “supplied the needs of the government for naval, military, and strictly scientific and engineering personnel,” and that the objective of a particular school, the Ecole Centrale, was “to be the preparation of a corps d’elite of engineers for industrial leadership” (143). It is clear that the needs of France inflated engineering well beyond that of Great Britain. France put a great amount of respect and confidence into its engineers, and it is this history of France and engineers that influenced the greater part of engineering in the United States.

Although both Great Britain and France produced similar fields of engineering, the take and success in each country was greatly dependent upon its support by both the government and society. The freedoms and innovation and opportunities that we see in the United States were not available in either of the French or English states when engineering began. The history of that time primarily determined the growth and success of engineers and their careers.

Reading Reaction #1: Billy McVicker

When I think of engineering the three words that come to mind are technology, creativity, and innovation. These characteristics define what engineers strive to pattern their work life after. In the essay “The Life-Style of the Victorian Engineers,” Dr. Buchanan describes his findings of British engineers as hard-working, ethical craftsmen. British engineers in the early 19^th century were passionate about developing practical technology to help progress society. Buchanan focuses on the life-style of these engineers and the roles they played in the educational system. It is interesting to me how British engineers were so involved in training and mentoring the next generation of engineers through apprenticeships. I find this type of leadership and involvement in educating new professionals unique in other fields, such as the political field where competition for some position is very cut-throat. Buchanan goes on discussing the lack of British engineers’ willingness to incorporate theoretical knowledge and university training into the development of engineers’ training, yet I think this mindset comes from those that were raised in a society where this type of formal training is heavily pressed. I believe that the British engineers’ idea of training was developed from the thought that Cal Poly so eminently advertises, “learn by doing.” It is through this exposure to getting your hands on tools and building something that helps young professionals understand how things work that one can further understand the theoretical concepts of engineering. If you only read in a book about how a bicycle works, then you will be less capable of creating a better design. It is those that have ridden a bicycle and know the weak points of the design that can create new technology to solve problems to make bicycles better. British engineers founded many professional engineering institutions that contributed through papers to the theoretical base of engineering. When discussing the way engineers met and presented papers on their work, Buchanan states, “While this mass of readily available experience could not, any more than the traditional techniques of apprenticeship, impart new theoretical information, it did provide a very substantial foundation for the continuing education of British engineers…” I my experience at Cal Poly, I have found that working in the lab helps me understand the theoretical concepts taught in class. It is usually not until after I use the theoretical concepts in a practical hands-on setting that the theory becomes clear.

In the essay by Smith & Walley, “Engineers in Britain: A Study in Persistence,” it is stated, “In particular, the low status of British engineering and the relative lack of scientific and technical training have been held responsible for the state of Britain’s poor economic performance for over a hundred years.” I find this statement hard to believe because it was the craftsman that built the steam engine and the textile machinery during the early 19^th century. If these craftsmen could not quote the three laws of thermodynamics, then how could they build these machines that encapsulate the very concepts of basic physics? If one can understand what the problem is and knows what needs to be solved, then they are better equipped with the knowledge of how to use physics and chemistry to solve the problem. British engineers were very successful at creating new technology that drove the economy in the Industrial Revolution because of their passion, ability to collaborate with other engineers, and their ability to leave politics out of the picture to think logically about their situation.