Educators Must Impart Engineering Mindset
I just received my copy of Engineering@
Nebraska. This is a response to the feature
about women in engineering.
For the record, I graduated with a BSEE
in ’58, spent a career at General Electric (my
division of which morphed into Lockheed
Martin) in the aerospace field and am currently
retired and residing in West Chester,
Pa., where we’ve lived for 40 years. (I worked
in King of Prussia.)
I happen to subscribe to Science magazine
and a perennial issue is how to
increase the numbers of women in
science and promote more to levels
of management and leadership. I also
frequently give the staff and columnists
at the Philadelphia Inquirer
(newspaper) the “benefit” of my critiques
of their commentary (not often
appreciated). You might be wondering
how these two things are related. I’ll
explain.
My first three years with GE were
on what was called the engineering
program. Along with rotating work
assignments it consisted of weekly
lectures over a wide range of technical
subjects followed with an engineering
problem that we were required to work
and report on the next week. The format
of the report was prescribed. Part one
was problem definition. Part two was
assumptions. Part three was problem
approach. Part four was analysis. Part
five was discussion of results. In other
words, it was the structure of problem
solving. Most of my comments to the
Inquirer staff and columnists concern
the abysmal facility many of the so-called
solons of pontification (not a few associate
professors of this or that and think tank
advocates) to think and analyze perceptively
and objectively. Often (usually?)
their terms are ill-defined and objectives
not clearly articulated.
My point is that education in science
and engineering teaches one how to think,
how to rely on evidence and fact, and also
to recognize essential uncertainty and take
that into account and the necessity for well
thought-out planning. These things apply, or should apply, to issues of all sorts, not just to
technical problems. In order to have a career
in science and engineering one must, of
course, have an aptitude for the mathematical
and technical. However, I suggest that
in recruiting efforts there needs to be more
attention given to the merits of learning how
to think and solve problems. This, of course,
applies to males as well as females, but the
females are more likely to be put off by the
geek/nerd images that too often are the ones
projected.
The thought goes through my head that perhaps we should be less concerned with
trying to lure women into science and engineering
fields and more about imparting the
mental discipline that science and engineering
has to offer into other fields that women
find attractive. I don’t know what today’s
curricula have to offer but some efforts at
hybridization seminars, so to speak, both to
college and high school students might be
something to think about. They might even
change some minds.
—Clay W. Crites, ’58, West Chester, Pa.