Sometimes I disagree because I enjoy arguing with you. I’m not going to lie. But I’m with Smith on this one.

1. Identifying engineering as a discipline in which we have confidence in because of its lack of ambiguity ignores two things. First, we have confidence in a lot of things produced by the humanities–we tend to like not having slaves any more, for example. Second, the ambiguity of the humanities is a feature rather than a bug. Disagreement about interpretations is productive in the humanities, so decrying the “softer” disciplines for that is missing the point of what the humanities does. Third, sufficiently advanced physics is ambiguous also, which skews your characterization.

2. I don’t think that Smith is adding a bunch of ethics courses to the standard engineering course work. They seem to be attempting to integrate ethics and such into such classes. I think it’s plausible that the two could be balanced. Furthermore, engineers are only pure engineers in the early parts of their careers anyway (if ever). They have to communicate and such more and more once they’re out of school and actually employed. And people should be ethical no matter where they are and what they’re doing.

Related Posts

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