Engineering School Grads - Tradesmen or Thinkers?

El Cubano asks: "ITworld is carrying a story (sorry, no printable version) saying that John Seely Brown (former chief scientist at Xerox and director of PARC, currently teaching at the University of Southern California) is encouraging engineering schools to change the way they educate. The article, quotes Mr. Brown saying the following: 'Training someone for a career makes no sense. At best, you can train someone for a career trajectory...'. What do you think? Should engineering schools be producing tradesmen (like an apprenticeship program) or should they be producing 'thinkers' (people who can cope with a wide variety of problem inside and outside their area of expertise)?"

Comments

Re:It takes both kinds

[smallfries]

The other problem is that while someone can learn how to think, it is very difficult to teach someone to think. A good engineer is one who understand why not to over-complicate the problem. People can be shown various sets of problems with a common theme, but it takes something from them to understand the connections.

As far as the NASA spacecraft goes ... someone who understands the principles and applications of duct tape. Lots of duct tape...

Duct tape is only half the solution

[benhocking]

You need WD-40, too. If it moves and it shouldn't, use the duct tape. If it doesn't move and it should, use the WD-40. (I've forgotten where I lifted that from.)

Re:Trade schools

[Anonymous Coward]

CS has become a joke, and most curriculum's resemble job training in Visual Studio.

Can you give a specific example? You sound like gramps complaining "back in my day we only had 1s and 0s to code in, and sometimes not even 1s"

Re:This is not a new question

[nate nice]

"Having said the above, however, learning skills and content are absolutely necessary. You might compare skills to a gun and creativity to bullets. If you lack either, you're doomed."

That's a good analogy. Thanks.

Next time in an interview, after the prospect passes all skill things we need to verify, I'm going to look him dead in the eye and say (in my best Eastwood voice):

"Listen, we can see you've got the gun. But do you got the bullets?"

More process than product

[Statecraftsman]

Education is not about filling a role. It's also not about setting a trajectory whatever that means.

Education is about inspiring each student to do their best. Point out the flaws in their work and challenge them to go beyond what they and others have done before.

Re:The education system.

[everyday17]

I'm not sure I can take a college seriously when 4 of the 7 upcoming events they have listed are LAN parties.

Re:handle

[Anonymous Coward]

What matters most for the 4 yrs is the density of education. And that comes from learning how to think, analyze, learn new methods, etc. Hands-on apprenticeships are typically little more than pattern-matching. A good education builds mental capability for a wide variety of pursuits.

A decade later, that apprentice is worthless when the market changes and he no longer has a job. With a good education, one can easily come up to speed on a completely new style of engineering because he has the mental tools to be effective.

My personal experience has been exactly the opposite.

Employers do not want employees who think. God no, that is the last thing they want. Are you silly?

Employers want employees who will follow orders unquestioningly regardless of how asinine they may be or how damaging their participation might be to their professional reputation.

In my experience the longest lived and most successful employees are the automatons. Or perhaps better expressed, the most successful employees are the ones who do not care about the work, and simply do what they're told no matter how silly it is.

I suspect you have not actually been in the real job market for very long.

Employees who think are very dangerous and are to be avoided at all costs.