The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(08-24-2020 09:35 AM)colohank Wrote:  

(08-24-2020 07:17 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-21-2020 04:24 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(08-21-2020 02:33 PM)RuckleSt Wrote:  

(08-21-2020 02:25 PM)colohank Wrote:  I'm trying to imagine a world where every college grad is an illiterate engineer.

We would have far fewer problems because logic and reason would rule as opposed to emotion and idealism.

We wouldn't have fewer problems, just different ones. Consider, for example, the situation in Hong Kong. Why, you might wonder, are its citizens risking their freedom and their lives to protest? Is it because they disagree with the logic and reason of Xi Jinping? He's not only General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, he's also an engineer. Logic and reason, it turns out, are in the eye of the beholder.

As always, logos, pathos, and ethos. It takes all three.

Hmm...do engineering students even study symbolic logic, or is that considered one of the liberal arts?

Really? Your argument is "Xi Jinping is an engineer," so therefore "engineers don't know everything"?

If you think anyone in liberal arts at a government school is learning Ethos, then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

No, my point, as clearly stated, was that logic and reason are in the eye of the beholder. Just because an engineer's decisions may be based on his or her framework of logic and reason (though that's extremely doubtful) doesn't mean that they'll be palatable to each of the rest of us. That's why I mentioned Xi Jinping. He may love his decisions and believe that they're grounded in logic and reason, but the folks in Hong Kong apparently aren't so pleased with them.

Just think of all the crappy products that have been designed by engineers using their unique grasp, in your opinion, of logic and reason. Oftentimes, engineers are tasked by bean counters to produce incremental savings by shaving a few pennies or dollars off the cost of each part in a complex assembly. Given economies of scale, those little savings can add up. But the result is usually a cheaper (as in less durable) though not necessarily less expensive consumer product. Have you ever noticed how the engineers who designed pre-LED iterations of Chevys, Cadillac Escalades, and GM trucks were unable to produce a vehicle with two operable running lights or headlights? Were the engineers who designed the wiring harnesses at fault, or the ones who designed the switches or light bulbs? I don't know, but that particular defect endured through years of production. I guess the engineers who design Toyotas use a different kind of logic and reason.

(08-24-2020 01:05 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(08-24-2020 11:43 AM)Helicopter Wrote:  

(08-21-2020 02:25 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(08-21-2020 12:53 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-21-2020 12:37 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Yep. There's no going back. I just wish some of the academic fluff in many institutions across this great nation would also make cuts. This is a topic for another board but universities have had no real incentive to run lean and teach courses that actually, you know, teach something tangible and useful. Many have become academician swamps of no return. Why no incentives? Students largely borrow the money to pay up.

Schools have those incentives. The consequences are just really, really long-term for schools that have billion dollar endowments or are state-sponsored.

Even state-sponsored schools like Chicago State & Wright State are in extreme danger of closing because of horrible decisions over the past 2 decades.

There's a reason that liberal arts schools like Illinois Wesleyan are dying, while engineering schools like Rose Hullman are thriving.

I'm trying to imagine a world where every college grad is an illiterate engineer.

Engineers by far are some of the most brilliant people in all fields. An average engineer would be top percentile in nearly every degree offering at a University, including English.

No doubt some, but far from all. Being brilliant in one field of endeavor doesn't qualify one for excellence in another. Passion or the lack thereof probably has something to do with it.

An average engineer? By definition, half of all engineers are below average. In other words, they aren't all brilliant, even as engineers.

Ok, ANY engineer should be able to demonstrate how stupid your argument is with two bell curves.