2c. “Engineering classes are lecture – the prof has knowledge that he needs to impart to you. Humanities classes are discussion-based, experiential, and tentative, none of which are characteristics of engineering classes.” This isn’t always the case. The ways classes are taught isn’t immutable either. So if we change the pedagogy, we could change the content, couldn’t we?

3. The benefits of the Smith program seem obvious: more female engineers, who have, at least on my view, a better education than many of their counterparts from other schools. That seems to be worth the costs in this case.

I was invoking Jurassic Park as a classic example of “technology out of control,” not because of the particular faults displayed in the film.

Of course I think that ethics is more important than engineers generally think ethics is! Of course I think that the humanities ought to be more important for more people. And of course I think that teaching is helpful. But these are normative claims. I think that people ought to view these things as more important than they are. Don’t you?

As for my ignorance about engineering–what did you expect, really?

We’d be a hilarious argument blog, I’m not going to lie. Want to do it?

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)
7. Engineering Education: Dumbed Down? (Part VII)
8. Engineering Education: Dumbed Down? (Part VIII)
9. Engineering Education: Dumbed Down? (Part IX)