1) I’m cool with agreeing to disagree.

2ab) You hit the crux of th matter with your “and those engineers are still competent” qualification. I doubt the technical competence of the engineers being educated in this manner. You don’t. I agree that requirements aren’t static; changing technology determines what it is important for an engineer to know. But, it does not obviate the need for their education to focus on the technical matters.

2c) But without the humanities approach, all one can achieve in ethics education (barring full-on indoctrination attempts) is some sort of professional-code legalism. That’s not ethics education, it’s an education in sophistry and post-hoc rationalization.

I agree that this program would produce more humanities-oriented engineers, but only at the expense of some amount of technical competence. Why is this desirable? Humanities can make one a more well-rounded individual, possibly even a better person in the examined-life sense, but engineering is a program that is intended to prepare one for a profession where, frankly, the humanities add very little value. Liberal education: good. Technically sufficient education: good. Unfortunately, not all goods are mutually compatible given finite resources (i.e. time).

It all comes down to which we think is most important. I think you value education for its capacity for aiding personal growth. I see this as irrelevant to an engineering education. The engineering education is for producing competent engineers, not better people. That’s why I generally want to keep the two realms in somewhat separate boxes.

Related Posts

1. Engineering Education: Dumbed Down?
2. Engineering Education: Dumbed Down? (Part II)
3. Engineering Education: Dumbed Down? (Part III)
4. Engineering Education: Dumbed Down? (Part IV)
5. Engineering Education: Dumbed Down? (Part V)
6. Engineering Education: Dumbed Down? (Part VI)