How Engineering Education Changed: CHE article

[polly_mer]

Non-paywalled for now: Boeing Wanted Better Engineers

The very premise of these new outcomes-oriented standards, dubbed Engineering Criteria 2000, was revolutionary. They rested on the principle that an engineering degree should demonstrate that graduates held certain skills, not just completed certain classes. Outputs, not inputs. Prados said the new ABET curriculum, which had fewer credit-hour restrictions, allowed for greater emphasis on project work.

...

[a skeptical professor took a faculty fellowship at Boeing]
Once he arrived at Boeing in 2004, the program made him see the company in a new light. He wandered the company's Seattle-area facilities and felt awe. Money can't buy this kind of experience, he thought. He began to understand Boeing's anxieties, about a future wave of retirements. He also learned about its frustrations — that it wanted engineers who understood the whole problem before jumping onto a computer. That told him that Boeing valued engineers who understood the issues in depth.

In contrast, by following a string of clickbait this week, I came across "There is No Case for the Humanities", written by a historian who nonetheless wants the humanities to remain the core of the university from 2018 that dovetails nicely with this week's review of The College Made Whole that argues strongly for everyone doing a liberal arts degree and then doing some other kind of education/training if they really need a job.

[spork]

Unfortunately the way humanities courses are frequently taught makes them bad places to acquire applied problem-solving and project management skills.

[marshwiggle]

From the article:

What employers want, as they tell us in survey after survey, are people who can work in teams, communicate clearly, engage in ethical decision making and understand systems and how to navigate them. In other words, they are looking for integrative learners and thinkers, not merely technicians in possession of a narrow set of skills.

I wonder how many employers don't care if their employees are "technicians in possession of a narrow set of skills" in the first place (as is sort of implied), and how many require that they possess the technical skills to be even considered in the first place (which is a vastly different reality).

[polly_mer]

From the article:

What employers want, as they tell us in survey after survey, are people who can work in teams, communicate clearly, engage in ethical decision making and understand systems and how to navigate them. In other words, they are looking for integrative learners and thinkers, not merely technicians in possession of a narrow set of skills.

I wonder how many employers don't care if their employees are "technicians in possession of a narrow set of skills" in the first place (as is sort of implied), and how many require that they possess the technical skills to be even considered in the first place (which is a vastly different reality).

We certainly do a first cut on specific knowledge and then make a second cut on the listed skills.