The Dangers of Confusing Engineering with Science

Illustration: Harry Campbell.

From IEEE Spectrum article "Engineering is not Science."

I'd like to quickly highlight an article that brings us back to a seemingly timeless question: what exactly is an engineer? Henry Petroski, a professor of engineering and history at Duke University, writes about the importance of distinguishing scientists and engineers in this month's IEEE Spectrum. (note: IEEE stands for the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and is a non-profit professional association. Spectrum is their monthly magazine.)

In the article, Mr. Petroski argues two key points:

1. Engineering and science are distinct fields. "Science is about understanding the origins, nature, and behavior of the universe and all it contains; engineering is about solving problems by rearranging the stuff of the world to make new things."
2. The United States government should increase funding for engineering fields. "Scientists might argue that the government needs to invest in basic scientific research that will lead to unspecified discoveries about energy, water, and waste. Although a good deal is already known about those things, it certainly would not hurt to know more, but what would really move things forward would be investments in engineering."

This underfunding and confusion between the fields leads to a dangerous impact: "...it can leave politicians,policymakers, and the general public unable to make informed decisions about the technical challenges facing the world today."

While I agree that it is important to make the distinction between the fields, I was bothered by the article's implication that science and scientists are "higher ranking" than engineering. Upon reflection, that public perception is probably true -- how many times when news broadcasts have discussed solving world issues has a scientist been brought in as the expert vs. an engineer? (Another question to consider is how many times has that technical expert been a woman -- but that's an issue for another post.)

If you take the time to read the article, be sure to check out the comments section. Being engineers, most of the commenters are quick to agree with the "We are definitely NOT scientists! HMPH!" sentiment. Something that struck me, however, was a quip that was being copied over and over again: Engineers learn to build. Scientists build to learn. Really? Engineers = builders? Is anyone else conjuring up images of the children's television show Bob the Builder? I can understand trying to come up with a succinct statement to remember how to differentiate the two fields -- hey, it worked for 'i' before 'e' except after 'c' or the sound of 'a' as in "neighbor" and "weigh". Even if we agree with the statement, then a new question arises -- how are we different from designers? Yikes. We recognize that engineering is a complex intersection of math, science, designing, and a multitude of other fields. I don't think it's wrong to state that fact openly -- we should give the American public more credit for being able to understand fields aren't always black and white.

As a final note, the article highlights the issues that arise when engineering and science are not properly distinguished. However, it fails to mention any solutions for how we can promote engineering and emphasize its differences from science. How do you think this can be accomplished? I'd love to hear your responses in the comments!

Wikipedia Entry

Our Wikipedia entry for "engineering education research" has been published! Check it out below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering_education_research

Please feel free to continue editing! Hurrah!

Building boundaries with Tosin and Nikitha

Last week, Tosin, Nikitha, and I, recorded a dialogue about the essay and the boundaries we have been talking along the class.

Here is a "short" edition of what we talked...

Same Question, Different Times

While we're making the transition this week to tracing the history of engineering education, I'd like to highlight a recent event in the context of Amy Slaton's Race, Rigor, and Selectivity in U.S. Engineering.

After reading the paper, one issue regarding the inclusion of minorities in engineering schools stuck out to me: the idea of "qualified" students vs. "qualifiable" students. IIT's President Martin considered the problems regarding minority representation in engineering in two parts parts. First, schooling that occurred prior to college was not adequate in bringing students up to the required level of knowledge for college. Second, stronger scholarly performance was needed from students during their collegiate years. During the 1970s, universities focused their efforts on recruiting minority students that were "qualified" rather than "qualifiable. The results were twofold: 1.) institutions then became exempt from the work of catching disadvantaged students up to speed academically and 2.) institutions were able to maintain academic rigor by discarding remedial classes. I wondered if schools were looking to universities to bring students up to speed and prepare them for jobs, and universities depended on schools to prepare students for college, where did the responsibility for creating "qualified" students really lie?

This past month, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan gave a "call to service" speech at Harvard University. A pattern in his discussion of education in public has been to drill the economic importance of improving education in the United States; this speech, however, was unique in its addressing of cultural and social factors:

"But education is more than an economic issue. It's the civil rights issue of our generation. If you can ride at the front of a bus, but you cannot read, you are not truly free. President Obama and I are dedicated to providing every child a world-class education, regardless of his or her skin color, nationality, ethnicity, or ability. The truth is, however, that virtually everyone professes to believe that all children deserve a world-class education."

He went on to highlight the existing achievement gap:

"The Education Department's office for civil rights is finding that too many black students and English language learners don't have the access to a challenging curriculum that prepares them for success in life. And we're seeing the cost of that lack of opportunity. Almost half of black and Hispanic students drop out before they graduate. Black students earn college degrees at about half the rate of white students. Hispanic number are even less. To close the achievement gap, we must get serious about closing the opportunity gap."

In remembering this speech, I thought again about whose responsibility it is to create "qualified" students.

"We need to make education our national mission. I invite you to a life of service that embraces that mission. Be a teacher. Tutor a student. Volunteer at a school. Transform the life chances of children. Education reform is a daily fight for social justice.

The battle for a quality education is about so much more than education. It is a daily fight for social justice. Please join us in that fight."

Arne Duncan believes part of the responsibility lies with society, and individual efforts can make a big difference in transforming education.

So What?

In class, we discussed the fact that the same questions keep being brought up throughout time. This issue of an achievement gap in "qualified" students is another example of history repeating itself. The sense of urgency still remains, and time will tell how this generation chooses to address the same problem.