Page 137 - Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century

Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11338.html

120 EDUCATING THE ENGINEER OF 2020

neering. In 1900, the debate focused on social status and prestige, issues
that had motivated the shift to classroom learning in the first place. A
professional was expected, almost by definition, to be a “gentleman,” a
term that connoted a well-rounded education. Generally, engineers as-
sumed they could achieve such a distinction through exposure to courses
in the liberal arts, but various engineering educators pressed for differ-
ent classes and subjects in the humanities and social sciences. They ar-
gued for the special value of everything from foreign languages to litera-
ture, political science to philosophy. Their rationales ranged from a need
to smooth the rough edges of engineering students to the value of cer-
tain courses for future careers (Baker, 1900; Crandall, 1901; Jackson,
1901; Johnson, 1903; Jones, 1906; Raymond, 1900; Tulleen, 1908).
The discussions focused on three topics, however. First, written
communication skills were considered especially important for engi-
neers; hence, engineering schools encouraged the teaching of technical
writing, and courses in this area were required for most engineering
students (Kynell, 1995; Kynell-Hunt, 1996). Second, nearly all observ-
ers felt that engineers needed to understand economics to be better de-
signers and to understand the calculus of profit and loss. In short, they
wanted engineers to fit easily into the large corporations that dominate
our capitalist society. Third, was history—especially the history of sci-
ence and engineering. Bridge designer J.A.L. Waddell argued, for ex-
ample, that engineers needed role models to assume the positions in
society they deserved and that historical examples were ideally suited to
advancing their professional education. Moreover, the history of past
and present accomplishments in technology could teach the general
public why engineers deserved to be leaders in society (Fleming, 1920;
McDonald, 1921; Pendred, 1923; Prelini, 1920; Waddell, 1903;
Zwilgmeyer, 1925).
The list of fields of study that could benefit young engineers was
not static. Changing circumstances, as we shall see, led to different em-
phases at different times. But calls for improving the nontechnical side
of engineering education were more or less constant. Every study of
engineering education in this century, beginning with the Wickenden
report in the 1920s, directed attention to broadening the engineering
curriculum.
An especially significant report, The Aims and Scope of Engineering
Education, was produced by a committee chaired by H.P. Hammond of
Penn State. Released in 1940, this study noted that because engineers

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.