I disagree (surprise).

1) I tend to refer to the subjects as “hard” to “soft” depending on the degree of confidence one can have the the conclusions reached by the methods of said field. The less room for disagreement on interpretation, the “harder” the subject. Physics = hard. Anthropology = soft. Humanities = REALLY soft. I’m a bit skeptical about “gender bias” arguments based on this language… Just because an interpretation is possible does not mean it is warranted.

2) There is no way to “balance” without detracting from the “traditional content matter.” Engineering is already on the verge of needing to be a five year program. The only way to give more ethics, communication, and “context” without going to a longer program is to scrap a not-insignificant portion of the technical content.

Related Posts

1. Engineering Education: Dumbed Down?
2. Engineering Education: Dumbed Down? (Part II)