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...
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
A Postcard for ENE
Roman Aqueduct over the Gard River, France retired November 9, 2010 from
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/30/44052812_a0e766a843.jpg
With the recent email we received from Loretta about submitting our personal postcard for the ENE department, I have been thinking back to the first day of class when we presented our personal pictures on what is engineering… So now we have to submit a postcard on what is ENE and on top of that what pictorially represents our ENE research… Quite a task.
As I sit with my laptop and look around the room, I think engineering has touched most of the things I am looking at, even my little pets are microchipped. Engineering has profoundly touched my life. But is it my life? Engineering is an integral part of my world, but is it the world? This made me start thinking about Jeff’s post about the “interrelatedness” or the importance of the concept of the meso-level of analysis when considering engineering. Engineering (as well as most human activities) both shapes and is shaped by society. It is between the micro (individual) and macro (societal) levels. While it impacts these two levels profoundly, it operates between the levels… I really appreciated Jeff’s picture of the bridge and then I started thinking about engineering as a bridge between the individual and the society. By and large, it is engineering that allows me to bridge my life between Purdue and my home in Dayton, Ohio… Engineering creates a bridge between my home office and the virtual world so that I can complete my work, and yet engineering is neither the origination nor the destination…
Thinking of Hadi’s elegant post, this brought to mind the image of the Roman aqueducts over the Gard river: the layers, the space, the tensions. These artifacts are beautiful representations of elegant solutions. Along with this, this bridge is a beautiful visual metaphor of structure and agency. The physical structure of the bridge is permanent (structure), but the water is fluid and changing (agency). For the most part the water, the water follows the rules and stays within its engineered parameters, but occasionally it overflows and at times, has been known to take out the entire structure…
Another visual representation that I like is that these arches are built on top of one another. They need each other to accomplish their task, and somehow, in this elegant solution and visual pattern, they seem to acknowledge and pay tribute to those who support them…
These mental meandering really bring me no closer to a single image that represents engineering, but I do love the visual image of this ancient elegant solution…
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Women in Engineering at Purdue
I'm always inspired when I attend the Society of Women Engineers National Conference. I was at this conference last week. I think that it was probably my 10th SWE conference. I don't really go to the sessions, I don't go for personal or professional development. I go because we have lots of alums and corporate representatives that go, and networking with alums and corporate representatives is part of my job. But I'm always inspired. There were about 5,000 people at this year's conference, all of them excited and energetic about women in engineering. There's 60 years of history there, and lots of stories that get told to the younger generations.
I know that I missed participation in class last week, and that at least part of class time was spent on the concept and history of women in engineering. I admit that I know next to nothing about Purdue's Home Economics department and how it may have been a pre-cursor to the mainstream participation of women in Engineering at Purdue. But I do know quite a bit about the history of women in the engineering school at Purdue, and given some of the readings and blog posts, I thought I'd share it with you.
First, know this: except for its first year of operation, Purdue has never barred women from the engineering curriculum. Could Purdue have done things differently to be more welcoming, more open, more engaging to women? Absolutely!! And the University still can! But I'm proud to be an alum of an instutution that has been open to women since before the turn of the 20th century. I'm not sure I would feel the same sort of pride, if I coud do the job I do now, if Purdue hadn't been co-ed from almost the very beginning. I am inspired by the story of Doris (Dodie) Powers (AAE 49), who says she initially went to college in Texas, became interested in engineering, but the school wouldn't let her study it. So she transferred to Purdue, studied engineering here, and graduated with an engineering degree. And the Schickler sisters, the first sisters to graduate with engineering degrees. Louise (ME 1940) started at Purdue in mechanical engineering. Two years later, her sister Helen was accepted to go to school at Michigan State in engineering. Two weeks before classes began, MSU recinded its offer of admission because Helen was female. Louise talked to some people at Purdue, and Helen came here. She graduated in 1942 with a ME degree. From the first women engineering graduate in 1897 to 50 years later (1947), there were 57 women who earned engineering degrees. Currently, over 9000 women have earned engineering degrees from Purdue - one of the highest counts in the country.
The rest of the history was primarily written by Jane Daniels, the former Director of the Women in Engineering Program (1979-2001). I've added to it over the years, and while I believe it has many interesting points, the organization of the piece is a bit scattered. My apologies.
I know that I missed participation in class last week, and that at least part of class time was spent on the concept and history of women in engineering. I admit that I know next to nothing about Purdue's Home Economics department and how it may have been a pre-cursor to the mainstream participation of women in Engineering at Purdue. But I do know quite a bit about the history of women in the engineering school at Purdue, and given some of the readings and blog posts, I thought I'd share it with you.
First, know this: except for its first year of operation, Purdue has never barred women from the engineering curriculum. Could Purdue have done things differently to be more welcoming, more open, more engaging to women? Absolutely!! And the University still can! But I'm proud to be an alum of an instutution that has been open to women since before the turn of the 20th century. I'm not sure I would feel the same sort of pride, if I coud do the job I do now, if Purdue hadn't been co-ed from almost the very beginning. I am inspired by the story of Doris (Dodie) Powers (AAE 49), who says she initially went to college in Texas, became interested in engineering, but the school wouldn't let her study it. So she transferred to Purdue, studied engineering here, and graduated with an engineering degree. And the Schickler sisters, the first sisters to graduate with engineering degrees. Louise (ME 1940) started at Purdue in mechanical engineering. Two years later, her sister Helen was accepted to go to school at Michigan State in engineering. Two weeks before classes began, MSU recinded its offer of admission because Helen was female. Louise talked to some people at Purdue, and Helen came here. She graduated in 1942 with a ME degree. From the first women engineering graduate in 1897 to 50 years later (1947), there were 57 women who earned engineering degrees. Currently, over 9000 women have earned engineering degrees from Purdue - one of the highest counts in the country.
The rest of the history was primarily written by Jane Daniels, the former Director of the Women in Engineering Program (1979-2001). I've added to it over the years, and while I believe it has many interesting points, the organization of the piece is a bit scattered. My apologies.
A History of Women Engineers at Purdue
In 1897, Martha Dicks Stevens was the first woman to earn an engineering degree at Purdue University
The first sisters to earn engineering degrees from Purdue were Louise Schickler Rogers (ME, 1940) and Helen Schickler Lewis (ME, 1942). The first PhD granted to a women in engineering was in 1946 in Industrial Engineering – Orpha-Mae Thomas. Her thesis title was “A scientific basis for the design of institution kitchens.”
To cultivate fellowship among women engineering students—the Gamma Chapter of Pi Omicron was established on the Purdue campus. (first chapter at Syracuse Syracuse
In 1954, 5 years after the first meeting of the national Society of Women Engineers and 2 years after that society was incorporated, Purdue’s Pi Omicron officially changed their named to the Society of Women Engineers, Purdue Student Section. At that time there were approximately 20 members. The first Purdue SWE president was Kathleen Fraylick. (Purdue’s SWE section is the oldest continuously chartered SWE section in the country. The first collegiate SWE section was at Drexel.)
In 1967 the first SWE scholarship at Purdue University
In 1969, the Women in Engineering Program was started. It was part of the Department of Freshman Engineering. At that time, there were 47 women enrolled in engineering, which was less that 1% of the engineering population. In 1972, the graduation rate of women engineers was less than 25%.
In 1974, Purdue SWE was the first organization to enter a cart into the Purdue Grand Prix race with an all female crew and driver. Margo Hammel, SWE president was quoted in the student newspaper as saying, “We were talking about entering a queen candidate for the Grand Prix to prove we are not all toads.” In 1985, SWE driver Andrea Harrison won the pole position and finished 5th at the end of the race. This was and has been the best finish.
Purdue has had a significant role in the national SWE organization. Although not the first student section, it is the oldest, continuously operating student section. The Purdue section has won the best section in Region H more than 10 times and in 1979 won the best Student Section in the nation (it placed 3rd in 2005 and second in 2007). In 2008, Outstanding Student Section competition changed into earning gold, silver or bronze certificates. Purdue SWE earned a gold in 2008, and a silver in 2009 and 2010. In 1978, there were 996 women enrolled in engineering at Purdue University and more than 700 of them were members of the Purdue student section of SWE. This was almost 10% of the total national membership of the organization that year. Purdue alumnae have served as National SWE presidents, national officers, board members, regional officers, and been elected as SWE fellows. And three Purdue Engineering alumnae have served as national president, Roberta Gleiter (1960 ChE), Ronna Robertson (1992 ChE) and Siddika Demir (MSCE 1996).
In 1984, two engineering students, Rhasmi Khanna and Abby MacDonald founded a sorority called Phi Sigma Rho. It is a social sorority (and now part of the Panhellenic organization) for engineering students. Over time, the sorority spread, and now has 22 chapters at engineering schools across the country.
In 1990, Jane Daniels, the Director of WIEP, along with Suzanne Brainard of the University of Washington and Susan Staffin Metz from Stevens Institute of Technology, founded WEPAN – the Women in Engineering ProActive Network. WEPAN is a national organization of approximately 600 members whose mission is to advocate for institutional transformation in higher education to promote the success of all women in engineering. Beth Holloway, the current Director of WIEP has served a term as president of this organization, and the membership services part of the organization is still run from the Purdue WIEP office.
In 1997, the Purdue Women in Engineering Program was recognized with a Presidential Award for Excellence in Science, Mathematics and Engineering Mentoring (PAESMEM).
Tomorrow's Professor
I wondered if you all are familiar with the "Tomorrow's Professor" listserv? It is compiled by Rick Reis, and sponsored by the Stanford Center for Teaching and Learning. Rick sends out messages about once a week or less, about all sorts of relevant topics. This week, the post was about "Bridging Learning Research and Teaching Practice." It starts with a question, "What is learning?" Since this reminds me of the question we ask in class quite frequently, "What is knowing?", I was hooked. I've copied the entire post below for your contemplation. Note that ANYONE can subscribe to the Tomorrows-Professor Mailing List by going to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/tomorrows-professor.
*****************************
The posting below is a very brief introduction to seven research-based principles for smart teaching discussed in much greater detail in the book: HOW LEARNING WORKS: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching, by Susan A. Ambrose, Michael W. Bridges, Michele DiPietro, Marsha C. Lovett, and Marie K. Norman. The book is based on the seven "Theory and Research-based Principles of Learning," which are used with permission of Carnegie Mellon University's Eberly Center for Teaching Exellence. The book is published by Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint. Copyright 2010 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. 989 Market Street, san francisco, CA 94103-1741[www.josseybass.com]. Reprinted with permission.
Regards,
Rick Reis
Tomorrow's Teaching and Learning
---------------------------------------- 1,364 words --------------------------------------------
Introduction: Bridging Learning Research and Teaching Practice
WHAT IS LEARNING?
Any set of learning principles is predicated on a definition of learning. In this book, we define learning as a process that leads to change, which occurs as a result of experience and increases the potential for improved performance and future learning (adapted from Mayer, 2002). There are three critical components to this definition:
1. Learning is a process, not a product. However, because this process takes place in the mind, we can only infer that it has occurred from students' products or performances.
2. Learning involves change in knowledge, beliefs, behaviors, or attitudes. This change unfolds over time; it is not fleeting but rather has a lasting impact on how students think and act.
3. Learning is not something done to students, but rather something students themselves do. It is the direct result of how students interpret and respond to their experiences -- conscious and unconscious, past and present.
OUR PRINCIPLES OF LEARNING
Our seven principles of learning come from a perspective that is developmental and holistic. In other words, we begin with the recognition that (a) learning is a developmental process that intersects with other developmental processes in a student's life, and (b) students enter our classrooms not only with skills, knowledge, and abilities, but also with social and emotional experiences that influence what they value, how they perceive themselves and others, and how they will engage in the learning process. Consistent with this holistic perspective, readers should understand that, although we address each principle individually to highlight particular issues pertaining to student learning, they are all at work in real learning situations, and are functionally inseparable.
In the paragraphs below, we briefly summarize each of the principles in the order in which they are discussed in the book.
(1) Student's prior knowledge can help or hinder learning.
Students come into our courses with knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes gained in other courses and through daily life. As students bring this knowledge to bear in our classrooms, it influences how they filter and interpret what they are learning. If students' prior knowledge is robust and accurate and activated at the appropriate time, it provides a strong foundation for building new knowledge.
However, when knowledge is inert, insufficient for the task, activated inappropriately, or inaccurate, it can interfere with or impede new learning.
(2) How students organize knowledge influences how they learn and apply what they know.
Students naturally make connections between pieces of knowledge. When those connections form knowledge structures that are accurately and meaningfully organized, students are better able to retrieve and apply their knowledge effectively and efficiently. In contrast, when knowledge is connected in inaccurate or random ways, students can fail to retrieve or apply it appropriately.
(3) Students' motivation determines, directs, and sustains what they do to learn.
As students enter college and gain greater autonomy over what, when, and how they study and learn, motivation plays a critical role in guiding the direction, intensity, persistence, and quality of the learning behaviors in which they engage. When students find positive value in a learning goal or activity, expect to successfully achieve a desired learning outcome, and perceive support from their environment, they are likely to be strongly motivated to learn.
(4) To develop mastery, students must acquire component skills, practice integrating them, and know when to apply what they have learned.
Students must develop not only the component skills and knowledge necessary to perform complex tasks, they must also practice combining and integrating them to develop greater fluency and automaticity. Finally, students must learn when and how to apply the skills and knowledge they learn. As instructors, it is important that we develop conscious awareness of these elements of mastery so as to help our students learn more effectively.
(5) Goal-directed practice coupled with targeted feedback enhances the quality of students' learning.
Learning and performance are best fostered when students engage in practice that focuses on a specific goal or criterion, target an appropriate level of challenge, and is of sufficient quantity and frequency to meet the performance criteria. Practice must be coupled with feedback that explicitly communicates about some aspect(s) of students' performance relative to specific target criteria, provides information to help students progress in meeting those criteria, and is given at a time and frequency that allows it to be useful.
(6) Students' current level of development interacts with the social, emotional, and intellectual climate of the course to impact learning.
Students are not only intellectual but also social and emotional beings, and they are still developing the full range of intellectual, social, and emotional skills. While we cannot control the developmental process, we can shape the intellectual, social, emotional, and physical aspects of the classroom climate in developmentally appropriate ways. In fact, many studies have shown that the climate we create has implications for our students. A negative climate may impede learning and performance, but a positive climate can energize students' learning.
(7) To become self-directed learners, students must learn to monitor and adjust their approaches to learning.
Learners may engage in a variety of metacognitive processes to monitor and control their learning--assessing the task at hand, evaluating their own strengths and weaknesses, planning their approach, applying and monitoring various strategies, and reflecting on the degree to which their current approach is working. Unfortunately, students tend not to engage in these processes naturally. When students tend not to engage in these processes naturally. When students develop the skills to engage these processes, they gain intellectual habits that not only improve their performance but also their effectiveness as learners.
WHAT MAKES THESE PRINCIPLES POWERFUL?
The principle strength of these seven principles is that they are based directly on research, drawing on literature from cognitive, developmental, and social psychology, anthropology, education, and diversity studies, and research targeting not only higher education but also K-12 education. Although, of course, this is not an exhaustive review and any summary of research necessarily simplifies a host of complexities for the sake of accessibility, we believe that our discussions of the research underlying each principle are faithful to the scholarship and describe features of learning about which there is widespread agreement. Indeed, several of our principles converge with those that others have delineated (Pittsburgh Science of Learning Center, 2009; American Psychological Society, 2008), a convergence that we believe attests to their salience.
Not only are these principles research-based, but as we have shared them with colleagues over the years, we have found that they are Domain-indepentent: They apply equally well across all subject areas, from biology to design to history to robotics; the fundamental factors that impact the way students learn transcend disciplinary differences.
Experience-indepentent: The principles apply to all educational levels and pedagogical situations. In other words, although the pedagogical implications of a principle will be somewhat different for first-year undergraduate students in a lab environment as opposed to graduate students in a studio environment, the principle still applies.
Cross-culturally relevant: Although the research we identified has been conducted primarily in the Western world, faculty colleagues in other countries have resonated with the principles, finding them relevant to their own classes and students. However, it is important to bear in mind that culture can and dose influence how the principles should be applied as instructors design and teach their courses.
INTENDED AUDIENCES
This book is intended for anyone interested in understanding more about how students learn and in applying that information to improve instruction. This includes--but is not limited to--faculty members, graduate students, faculty developers, instructional designers, and librarians. It also includes K-12 educators. In addition, the principles outlined here are valuable for instructors at all experience levels. They can help new and inexperienced instructors understand the components of effective course design and classroom pedagogy. They can help experienced instructors troubleshoot problems or adapt effective strategies to suit new courses or student populations. They can also help highly successful and experienced instructors reflect on what makes their approaches and methods effective. Finally, the principles can enable faculty members to better support student learning without having to rely on outside experts (a benefit that is particularly valuable for faculty at campuses without teaching and learning centers).
TOMORROW'S PROFESSOR(sm) eMAIL NEWSLETTER
Archives of all past postings can be found at:
Sponsored by
Stanford Center for Teaching and Learning
The College as a Philanthropy
Hi all,
I've been missing lately from the blog as I've been focusing recently on my job, and I'm working to catch up.
I was reading the Chronicle of Higher Education tonight, and the last article of the paper was truly interesting, inspiring, idealistic, and, more to the point, relevant to our class. It was an opinion piece written by Dick Merriman, the president of Southwestern College in Kansas. Dr. Merriman posits that college is a philanthropy - that as such, students are not customers, and they are not commodities. They are being given a gift - the gift of an education worth more than they are paying, and worth more than they can afford, and the opportunity to work with people who truly care about them.
He makes an argument that students are not consumers, that college is not a business. He uses the example that anyone can go into a McDonald's and they will sell you a Big Mac if you have the money to buy it. However, not just anyone can go to his college and buy an education. I especially liked the wit of the following paragraph:
"What I'm trying to say is that you [the student] may believe you are here because you chose this college. And it is true, of course, that you have something to say about which college you attend. But it is more relevant, and truer, to say that you are here because we chose you. You certainly wouldn't be here otherwise."
If that was all he has written, it might have come off as arrogant, but he also adds this: "Because the college is a philanthropy, because we are committeed to your growth and development, because we love you, you are permitted to make mistakes here, you are permitted to be confused here, and you are permitted to change your mind and change your plans here. What you are not permitted to do here is waste our time. Because we have made an investment in you. Because we chose you to receive a fabulous gift. All we ask of you is that you honestly make your best effort to capitalize on this opportunity.....We owe you our very best efforts, in instruction, in our campus-life programs, in the residence halls, in everything we do."
I find that I like Dr. Merriman's perspective. Feel free to check out the entire article at: http://chronicle.com/article/The-College-as-a-Philanthropy/125176/
I've been missing lately from the blog as I've been focusing recently on my job, and I'm working to catch up.
I was reading the Chronicle of Higher Education tonight, and the last article of the paper was truly interesting, inspiring, idealistic, and, more to the point, relevant to our class. It was an opinion piece written by Dick Merriman, the president of Southwestern College in Kansas. Dr. Merriman posits that college is a philanthropy - that as such, students are not customers, and they are not commodities. They are being given a gift - the gift of an education worth more than they are paying, and worth more than they can afford, and the opportunity to work with people who truly care about them.
He makes an argument that students are not consumers, that college is not a business. He uses the example that anyone can go into a McDonald's and they will sell you a Big Mac if you have the money to buy it. However, not just anyone can go to his college and buy an education. I especially liked the wit of the following paragraph:
"What I'm trying to say is that you [the student] may believe you are here because you chose this college. And it is true, of course, that you have something to say about which college you attend. But it is more relevant, and truer, to say that you are here because we chose you. You certainly wouldn't be here otherwise."
If that was all he has written, it might have come off as arrogant, but he also adds this: "Because the college is a philanthropy, because we are committeed to your growth and development, because we love you, you are permitted to make mistakes here, you are permitted to be confused here, and you are permitted to change your mind and change your plans here. What you are not permitted to do here is waste our time. Because we have made an investment in you. Because we chose you to receive a fabulous gift. All we ask of you is that you honestly make your best effort to capitalize on this opportunity.....We owe you our very best efforts, in instruction, in our campus-life programs, in the residence halls, in everything we do."
I find that I like Dr. Merriman's perspective. Feel free to check out the entire article at: http://chronicle.com/article/The-College-as-a-Philanthropy/125176/
Sunday, November 7, 2010
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.
The missed pages in Slaton's Race, Rigor and Selectivity in US engineering
As I mentioned in the class, the pp. 102-111 are missed from the pdf document. This contains the conclusion part of chapter 4. I read that book in the library, and my personally favorite sentences are right in those pages:
In pp. 109-110:
"According to Paslay [, dean of UIC's College of Engineering from 1976 to 1978], employers of UIC engineering graduates, "have a right to expect a level of technical competence competitive with major engineering schools. When we fail to provide this level of competence, [if we are going to provide maximum opportunity in an urban setting to students who have received public pre-college training, ] we hurt the graduates, the college, and the profession." The vulnerability that Paslay ascribes to the engineering profession is telling. In actuality, admitting students in need of remedial support has no direct connection to the graduation of under-qualified practitioners, only to the necessity of expending more resources on the education of those particular students if one wishes to maintain existing standards of professional qualification. "
In pp. 111:
"By the end of the 1960s, [...] With contractions in the defense industry and fears of a general recession on the rise, many engineers saw an imminent "no-growth" situation; it was no longer the case that "anybody who wanted to work could work". [...] Under such conditions, pursuing a measurably expanded domestic labor pool through racial diversification would not have made much sense without a much stronger impulse toward racial equity for its own sake. "
I recognize through this sentence that, there is never equity for the sake of equity itself. All the motivation of equity or diversity is derived from certain social needs. When during the war time described in Bix 2005, large amount of engineers were needed, so women gained more access to engineering, and they also began to appreciate the potential talent of women working in engineering. However, then by the end of 1960s as mentioned above, there was no need of that many engineers, so they closed the door to women and minorities, though they knew that women and minorities have the potential to do a good work in engineering.
In pp. 109-110:
"According to Paslay [, dean of UIC's College of Engineering from 1976 to 1978], employers of UIC engineering graduates, "have a right to expect a level of technical competence competitive with major engineering schools. When we fail to provide this level of competence, [if we are going to provide maximum opportunity in an urban setting to students who have received public pre-college training, ] we hurt the graduates, the college, and the profession." The vulnerability that Paslay ascribes to the engineering profession is telling. In actuality, admitting students in need of remedial support has no direct connection to the graduation of under-qualified practitioners, only to the necessity of expending more resources on the education of those particular students if one wishes to maintain existing standards of professional qualification. "
In pp. 111:
"By the end of the 1960s, [...] With contractions in the defense industry and fears of a general recession on the rise, many engineers saw an imminent "no-growth" situation; it was no longer the case that "anybody who wanted to work could work". [...] Under such conditions, pursuing a measurably expanded domestic labor pool through racial diversification would not have made much sense without a much stronger impulse toward racial equity for its own sake. "
I recognize through this sentence that, there is never equity for the sake of equity itself. All the motivation of equity or diversity is derived from certain social needs. When during the war time described in Bix 2005, large amount of engineers were needed, so women gained more access to engineering, and they also began to appreciate the potential talent of women working in engineering. However, then by the end of 1960s as mentioned above, there was no need of that many engineers, so they closed the door to women and minorities, though they knew that women and minorities have the potential to do a good work in engineering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)