The comments on this topic were great. The 2018 NAP publication and the 2006 ASCE BOK2 (referred by KD Hall with supports from TJ Melton) laid the rationale very strongly for the need to include Humanities and Social Sciences in engineering education – as well generally in STEMM (science, technology, engineering, math and medicine) educations. The rationale was seen not only by the National Academies of Science and Engineering and ASCE, but also by many other countries and industry representatives. The needs were argued as a requirement for equipping the professionals better for the challenges of the 21^st century – these challenges are continuously evolving in part due to the complexities of dynamic interactions between cultures, ideas and issues – and also due to new advances and developments. Scientists and engineers having the backgrounds of Humanities and Social Sciences under their belt, it was argued, would likely have better mental capacity to comprehend a problem critically, enabling them to apply better judgments to articulate an innovative but robust solution.

On the comment on learning the materials of Humanities and Social Sciences voluntarily as one matures in professional life – it is my opinion that such efforts are needed – but cannot be considered as a replacement – or as a valid argument against inclusion of theses courses in higher education. Because life long learning is an asset anyway – of fundamentals, of technical advances, of professional issues and developments – because that is how we remain competitive and keep ourselves sharp.     

While the above is true and needed, the issues raised by (G Thien, JR Barnett, RR Bullard and JW May) are very real. Apart from visionary objectives, how does one justify the affordability of higher costs of education resulting from the increased loads of credit hours? How would those added efforts and hours translate to remunerations in jobs? How would the market forces accommodate the added loads of education to the science and engineering services? It appears that Law and Medical practitioners have better understood the rationality of questions similar like these – than the science and engineering practitioners. So it is not surprising that efforts by some engineering institutions to include additional courses faced resistances from students, parents and communities.

The comments on this topic were great. The 2018 NAP publication and the 2006 ASCE BOK2 (referred by KD Hall with supports from TJ Melton) laid the rationale very strongly for the need to include Humanities and Social Sciences in engineering education – as well generally in STEMM (science, technology, engineering, math and medicine) educations. The rationale was seen not only by the National Academies of Science and Engineering and ASCE, but also by many other countries and industry representatives. The needs were argued as a requirement for equipping the professionals better for the challenges of the 21^st century – these challenges are continuously evolving in part due to the complexities of dynamic interactions between cultures, ideas and issues – and also due to new advances and developments. Scientists and engineers having the backgrounds of Humanities and Social Sciences under their belt, it was argued, would likely have better mental capacity to comprehend a problem critically, enabling them to apply better judgments to articulate an innovative but robust solution.

On the comment on learning the materials of Humanities and Social Sciences voluntarily as one matures in professional life – it is my opinion that such efforts are needed – but cannot be considered as a replacement – or as a valid argument against inclusion of theses courses in higher education. Because life long learning is an asset anyway – of fundamentals, of technical advances, of professional issues and developments – because that is how we remain competitive and keep ourselves sharp.     

While the above is true and needed, the issues raised by (G Thien, JR Barnett, RR Bullard and JW May) are very real. Apart from visionary objectives, how does one justify the affordability of higher costs of education resulting from the increased loads of credit hours? How would those added efforts and hours translate to remunerations in jobs? How would the market forces accommodate the added loads of education to the science and engineering services? It appears that Law and Medical practitioners have better understood the rationality of questions similar like these – than the science and engineering practitioners. So it is not surprising that efforts by some engineering institutions to include additional courses faced resistances from students, parents and communities.

As a former consulting engineer and now as a university faculty, this discussion has begun to devolve into an either/or choice for some people. On one hand, there are people who argue that the humanities or arts, etc., are vital in addressing our ethics to the public and to understanding why "those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it" (paraphrase from George Santayana). On the other hand, there are people who argue that the cost of a college education and the pressure to make it a 4-year education for the average student result in the need to cut the "extras" in favor of the technical.

What I read is that only a few people are arguing over how to make change within the system we have, at least until a different system can be created. As noted by others, these credits are often termed 'general education' and are designed to instill in people a well-roundedness that cannot be obtained in only technical classes. However, in many schools, including mine, in general, they are free choices. When I went to school (30+ years ago), we had to have a focus to our general education selections in at least one area of general education. We couldn't sail through only intro level classes but we had to have at least one majors, upper division class in a general-education area of our choosing. Mine was history and political science. I loved my classes in Contemporary Ideologies, and the ones in Modern China, and Modern Latin America. (oh, and nuclear history and politics). I also found my intro courses in psychology to be helpful as early in my career, my boss threw me to the wolves to explain a project to the public. That is one possibility. Rework the General Education requirement to force a student to choose a specialty and take one advanced course in that specialty.

Another possibility is to focus on the engineering educator. Why are the educators in engineering unable or unwilling to bring these additional concepts into class and at least expose students to them? In sustainable engineering, after Hurricane Harvey's destruction, my students had to brainstorm suggestions for rebuilding after Harvey. We looked at transportation and communications systems. We thought about healthy cities. We discussed, even briefly, environmental justice. We discussed why people respond the way they do in times of environmental disasters (which requires understanding both psychology and sociology). Even in the end, when we reached the chapter on technological innovations and the creation of the telecommuter, we were able to bring in information on how the use of technology, rather than face-to-face meetings, affect an employee's ability/interest in participating, as well as the technological requirement of having reliable high-speed internet everywhere and for every employee to have work-ready equipment at home. We discussed the implications for people of moving from mobile pollution sources (cars, buses, trains) to stationary sources to generate all that power required to transform dispersed homes into functional workspaces.

There are options to fix this in the system we have but we have to have the support of the alumni to help rethink how students approach 'general education' to see the value in those courses and in why they should select courses that both interest them and will contribute to their person BoK. Then we need to figure out how to instill these soft-skills into the teachings of engineering in the classroom.

It's not an either/or choice. It is how we impart the knowledge of humanity into our new engineers. Many are hungry to make a difference in the world and they want us to challenge them with the discussions and skills to address the problems we are leaving them.

As a former consulting engineer and now as a university faculty, this discussion has begun to devolve into an either/or choice for some people. On one hand, there are people who argue that the humanities or arts, etc., are vital in addressing our ethics to the public and to understanding why "those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it" (paraphrase from George Santayana). On the other hand, there are people who argue that the cost of a college education and the pressure to make it a 4-year education for the average student result in the need to cut the "extras" in favor of the technical.

What I read is that only a few people are arguing over how to make change within the system we have, at least until a different system can be created. As noted by others, these credits are often termed 'general education' and are designed to instill in people a well-roundedness that cannot be obtained in only technical classes. However, in many schools, including mine, in general, they are free choices. When I went to school (30+ years ago), we had to have a focus to our general education selections in at least one area of general education. We couldn't sail through only intro level classes but we had to have at least one majors, upper division class in a general-education area of our choosing. Mine was history and political science. I loved my classes in Contemporary Ideologies, and the ones in Modern China, and Modern Latin America. (oh, and nuclear history and politics). I also found my intro courses in psychology to be helpful as early in my career, my boss threw me to the wolves to explain a project to the public. That is one possibility. Rework the General Education requirement to force a student to choose a specialty and take one advanced course in that specialty.

Another possibility is to focus on the engineering educator. Why are the educators in engineering unable or unwilling to bring these additional concepts into class and at least expose students to them? In sustainable engineering, after Hurricane Harvey's destruction, my students had to brainstorm suggestions for rebuilding after Harvey. We looked at transportation and communications systems. We thought about healthy cities. We discussed, even briefly, environmental justice. We discussed why people respond the way they do in times of environmental disasters (which requires understanding both psychology and sociology). Even in the end, when we reached the chapter on technological innovations and the creation of the telecommuter, we were able to bring in information on how the use of technology, rather than face-to-face meetings, affect an employee's ability/interest in participating, as well as the technological requirement of having reliable high-speed internet everywhere and for every employee to have work-ready equipment at home. We discussed the implications for people of moving from mobile pollution sources (cars, buses, trains) to stationary sources to generate all that power required to transform dispersed homes into functional workspaces.

There are options to fix this in the system we have but we have to have the support of the alumni to help rethink how students approach 'general education' to see the value in those courses and in why they should select courses that both interest them and will contribute to their person BoK. Then we need to figure out how to instill these soft-skills into the teachings of engineering in the classroom.

It's not an either/or choice. It is how we impart the knowledge of humanity into our new engineers. Many are hungry to make a difference in the world and they want us to challenge them with the discussions and skills to address the problems we are leaving them.

As a former consulting engineer and now as a university faculty, this discussion has begun to devolve into an either/or choice for some people. On one hand, there are people who argue that the humanities or arts, etc., are vital in addressing our ethics to the public and to understanding why "those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it" (paraphrase from George Santayana). On the other hand, there are people who argue that the cost of a college education and the pressure to make it a 4-year education for the average student result in the need to cut the "extras" in favor of the technical.

What I read is that only a few people are arguing over how to make change within the system we have, at least until a different system can be created. As noted by others, these credits are often termed 'general education' and are designed to instill in people a well-roundedness that cannot be obtained in only technical classes. However, in many schools, including mine, in general, they are free choices. When I went to school (30+ years ago), we had to have a focus to our general education selections in at least one area of general education. We couldn't sail through only intro level classes but we had to have at least one majors, upper division class in a general-education area of our choosing. Mine was history and political science. I loved my classes in Contemporary Ideologies, and the ones in Modern China, and Modern Latin America. (oh, and nuclear history and politics). I also found my intro courses in psychology to be helpful as early in my career, my boss threw me to the wolves to explain a project to the public. That is one possibility. Rework the General Education requirement to force a student to choose a specialty and take one advanced course in that specialty.

Another possibility is to focus on the engineering educator. Why are the educators in engineering unable or unwilling to bring these additional concepts into class and at least expose students to them? In sustainable engineering, after Hurricane Harvey's destruction, my students had to brainstorm suggestions for rebuilding after Harvey. We looked at transportation and communications systems. We thought about healthy cities. We discussed, even briefly, environmental justice. We discussed why people respond the way they do in times of environmental disasters (which requires understanding both psychology and sociology). Even in the end, when we reached the chapter on technological innovations and the creation of the telecommuter, we were able to bring in information on how the use of technology, rather than face-to-face meetings, affect an employee's ability/interest in participating, as well as the technological requirement of having reliable high-speed internet everywhere and for every employee to have work-ready equipment at home. We discussed the implications for people of moving from mobile pollution sources (cars, buses, trains) to stationary sources to generate all that power required to transform dispersed homes into functional workspaces.

There are options to fix this in the system we have but we have to have the support of the alumni to help rethink how students approach 'general education' to see the value in those courses and in why they should select courses that both interest them and will contribute to their person BoK. Then we need to figure out how to instill these soft-skills into the teachings of engineering in the classroom.

It's not an either/or choice. It is how we impart the knowledge of humanity into our new engineers. Many are hungry to make a difference in the world and they want us to challenge them with the discussions and skills to address the problems we are leaving them.

As a former consulting engineer and now as a university faculty, this discussion has begun to devolve into an either/or choice for some people. On one hand, there are people who argue that the humanities or arts, etc., are vital in addressing our ethics to the public and to understanding why "those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it" (paraphrase from George Santayana). On the other hand, there are people who argue that the cost of a college education and the pressure to make it a 4-year education for the average student result in the need to cut the "extras" in favor of the technical.

What I read is that only a few people are arguing over how to make change within the system we have, at least until a different system can be created. As noted by others, these credits are often termed 'general education' and are designed to instill in people a well-roundedness that cannot be obtained in only technical classes. However, in many schools, including mine, in general, they are free choices. When I went to school (30+ years ago), we had to have a focus to our general education selections in at least one area of general education. We couldn't sail through only intro level classes but we had to have at least one majors, upper division class in a general-education area of our choosing. Mine was history and political science. I loved my classes in Contemporary Ideologies, and the ones in Modern China, and Modern Latin America. (oh, and nuclear history and politics). I also found my intro courses in psychology to be helpful as early in my career, my boss threw me to the wolves to explain a project to the public. That is one possibility. Rework the General Education requirement to force a student to choose a specialty and take one advanced course in that specialty.

Another possibility is to focus on the engineering educator. Why are the educators in engineering unable or unwilling to bring these additional concepts into class and at least expose students to them? In sustainable engineering, after Hurricane Harvey's destruction, my students had to brainstorm suggestions for rebuilding after Harvey. We looked at transportation and communications systems. We thought about healthy cities. We discussed, even briefly, environmental justice. We discussed why people respond the way they do in times of environmental disasters (which requires understanding both psychology and sociology). Even in the end, when we reached the chapter on technological innovations and the creation of the telecommuter, we were able to bring in information on how the use of technology, rather than face-to-face meetings, affect an employee's ability/interest in participating, as well as the technological requirement of having reliable high-speed internet everywhere and for every employee to have work-ready equipment at home. We discussed the implications for people of moving from mobile pollution sources (cars, buses, trains) to stationary sources to generate all that power required to transform dispersed homes into functional workspaces.

There are options to fix this in the system we have but we have to have the support of the alumni to help rethink how students approach 'general education' to see the value in those courses and in why they should select courses that both interest them and will contribute to their person BoK. Then we need to figure out how to instill these soft-skills into the teachings of engineering in the classroom.

It's not an either/or choice. It is how we impart the knowledge of humanity into our new engineers. Many are hungry to make a difference in the world and they want us to challenge them with the discussions and skills to address the problems we are leaving them.

As a former consulting engineer and now as a university faculty, this discussion has begun to devolve into an either/or choice for some people. On one hand, there are people who argue that the humanities or arts, etc., are vital in addressing our ethics to the public and to understanding why "those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it" (paraphrase from George Santayana). On the other hand, there are people who argue that the cost of a college education and the pressure to make it a 4-year education for the average student result in the need to cut the "extras" in favor of the technical.

What I read is that only a few people are arguing over how to make change within the system we have, at least until a different system can be created. As noted by others, these credits are often termed 'general education' and are designed to instill in people a well-roundedness that cannot be obtained in only technical classes. However, in many schools, including mine, in general, they are free choices. When I went to school (30+ years ago), we had to have a focus to our general education selections in at least one area of general education. We couldn't sail through only intro level classes but we had to have at least one majors, upper division class in a general-education area of our choosing. Mine was history and political science. I loved my classes in Contemporary Ideologies, and the ones in Modern China, and Modern Latin America. (oh, and nuclear history and politics). I also found my intro courses in psychology to be helpful as early in my career, my boss threw me to the wolves to explain a project to the public. That is one possibility. Rework the General Education requirement to force a student to choose a specialty and take one advanced course in that specialty.

Another possibility is to focus on the engineering educator. Why are the educators in engineering unable or unwilling to bring these additional concepts into class and at least expose students to them? In sustainable engineering, after Hurricane Harvey's destruction, my students had to brainstorm suggestions for rebuilding after Harvey. We looked at transportation and communications systems. We thought about healthy cities. We discussed, even briefly, environmental justice. We discussed why people respond the way they do in times of environmental disasters (which requires understanding both psychology and sociology). Even in the end, when we reached the chapter on technological innovations and the creation of the telecommuter, we were able to bring in information on how the use of technology, rather than face-to-face meetings, affect an employee's ability/interest in participating, as well as the technological requirement of having reliable high-speed internet everywhere and for every employee to have work-ready equipment at home. We discussed the implications for people of moving from mobile pollution sources (cars, buses, trains) to stationary sources to generate all that power required to transform dispersed homes into functional workspaces.

There are options to fix this in the system we have but we have to have the support of the alumni to help rethink how students approach 'general education' to see the value in those courses and in why they should select courses that both interest them and will contribute to their person BoK. Then we need to figure out how to instill these soft-skills into the teachings of engineering in the classroom.

It's not an either/or choice. It is how we impart the knowledge of humanity into our new engineers. Many are hungry to make a difference in the world and they want us to challenge them with the discussions and skills to address the problems we are leaving them.

As a former consulting engineer and now as a university faculty, this discussion has begun to devolve into an either/or choice for some people. On one hand, there are people who argue that the humanities or arts, etc., are vital in addressing our ethics to the public and to understanding why "those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it" (paraphrase from George Santayana). On the other hand, there are people who argue that the cost of a college education and the pressure to make it a 4-year education for the average student result in the need to cut the "extras" in favor of the technical.

What I read is that only a few people are arguing over how to make change within the system we have, at least until a different system can be created. As noted by others, these credits are often termed 'general education' and are designed to instill in people a well-roundedness that cannot be obtained in only technical classes. However, in many schools, including mine, in general, they are free choices. When I went to school (30+ years ago), we had to have a focus to our general education selections in at least one area of general education. We couldn't sail through only intro level classes but we had to have at least one majors, upper division class in a general-education area of our choosing. Mine was history and political science. I loved my classes in Contemporary Ideologies, and the ones in Modern China, and Modern Latin America. (oh, and nuclear history and politics). I also found my intro courses in psychology to be helpful as early in my career, my boss threw me to the wolves to explain a project to the public. That is one possibility. Rework the General Education requirement to force a student to choose a specialty and take one advanced course in that specialty.

Another possibility is to focus on the engineering educator. Why are the educators in engineering unable or unwilling to bring these additional concepts into class and at least expose students to them? In sustainable engineering, after Hurricane Harvey's destruction, my students had to brainstorm suggestions for rebuilding after Harvey. We looked at transportation and communications systems. We thought about healthy cities. We discussed, even briefly, environmental justice. We discussed why people respond the way they do in times of environmental disasters (which requires understanding both psychology and sociology). Even in the end, when we reached the chapter on technological innovations and the creation of the telecommuter, we were able to bring in information on how the use of technology, rather than face-to-face meetings, affect an employee's ability/interest in participating, as well as the technological requirement of having reliable high-speed internet everywhere and for every employee to have work-ready equipment at home. We discussed the implications for people of moving from mobile pollution sources (cars, buses, trains) to stationary sources to generate all that power required to transform dispersed homes into functional workspaces.

There are options to fix this in the system we have but we have to have the support of the alumni to help rethink how students approach 'general education' to see the value in those courses and in why they should select courses that both interest them and will contribute to their person BoK. Then we need to figure out how to instill these soft-skills into the teachings of engineering in the classroom.

It's not an either/or choice. It is how we impart the knowledge of humanity into our new engineers. Many are hungry to make a difference in the world and they want us to challenge them with the discussions and skills to address the problems we are leaving them.

As a former consulting engineer and now as a university faculty, this discussion has begun to devolve into an either/or choice for some people. On one hand, there are people who argue that the humanities or arts, etc., are vital in addressing our ethics to the public and to understanding why "those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it" (paraphrase from George Santayana). On the other hand, there are people who argue that the cost of a college education and the pressure to make it a 4-year education for the average student result in the need to cut the "extras" in favor of the technical.

What I read is that only a few people are arguing over how to make change within the system we have, at least until a different system can be created. As noted by others, these credits are often termed 'general education' and are designed to instill in people a well-roundedness that cannot be obtained in only technical classes. However, in many schools, including mine, in general, they are free choices. When I went to school (30+ years ago), we had to have a focus to our general education selections in at least one area of general education. We couldn't sail through only intro level classes but we had to have at least one majors, upper division class in a general-education area of our choosing. Mine was history and political science. I loved my classes in Contemporary Ideologies, and the ones in Modern China, and Modern Latin America. (oh, and nuclear history and politics). I also found my intro courses in psychology to be helpful as early in my career, my boss threw me to the wolves to explain a project to the public. That is one possibility. Rework the General Education requirement to force a student to choose a specialty and take one advanced course in that specialty.

Another possibility is to focus on the engineering educator. Why are the educators in engineering unable or unwilling to bring these additional concepts into class and at least expose students to them? In sustainable engineering, after Hurricane Harvey's destruction, my students had to brainstorm suggestions for rebuilding after Harvey. We looked at transportation and communications systems. We thought about healthy cities. We discussed, even briefly, environmental justice. We discussed why people respond the way they do in times of environmental disasters (which requires understanding both psychology and sociology). Even in the end, when we reached the chapter on technological innovations and the creation of the telecommuter, we were able to bring in information on how the use of technology, rather than face-to-face meetings, affect an employee's ability/interest in participating, as well as the technological requirement of having reliable high-speed internet everywhere and for every employee to have work-ready equipment at home. We discussed the implications for people of moving from mobile pollution sources (cars, buses, trains) to stationary sources to generate all that power required to transform dispersed homes into functional workspaces.

There are options to fix this in the system we have but we have to have the support of the alumni to help rethink how students approach 'general education' to see the value in those courses and in why they should select courses that both interest them and will contribute to their person BoK. Then we need to figure out how to instill these soft-skills into the teachings of engineering in the classroom.

It's not an either/or choice. It is how we impart the knowledge of humanity into our new engineers. Many are hungry to make a difference in the world and they want us to challenge them with the discussions and skills to address the problems we are leaving them.

As a former consulting engineer and now as a university faculty, this discussion has begun to devolve into an either/or choice for some people. On one hand, there are people who argue that the humanities or arts, etc., are vital in addressing our ethics to the public and to understanding why "those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it" (paraphrase from George Santayana). On the other hand, there are people who argue that the cost of a college education and the pressure to make it a 4-year education for the average student result in the need to cut the "extras" in favor of the technical.

What I read is that only a few people are arguing over how to make change within the system we have, at least until a different system can be created. As noted by others, these credits are often termed 'general education' and are designed to instill in people a well-roundedness that cannot be obtained in only technical classes. However, in many schools, including mine, in general, they are free choices. When I went to school (30+ years ago), we had to have a focus to our general education selections in at least one area of general education. We couldn't sail through only intro level classes but we had to have at least one majors, upper division class in a general-education area of our choosing. Mine was history and political science. I loved my classes in Contemporary Ideologies, and the ones in Modern China, and Modern Latin America. (oh, and nuclear history and politics). I also found my intro courses in psychology to be helpful as early in my career, my boss threw me to the wolves to explain a project to the public. That is one possibility. Rework the General Education requirement to force a student to choose a specialty and take one advanced course in that specialty.

Another possibility is to focus on the engineering educator. Why are the educators in engineering unable or unwilling to bring these additional concepts into class and at least expose students to them? In sustainable engineering, after Hurricane Harvey's destruction, my students had to brainstorm suggestions for rebuilding after Harvey. We looked at transportation and communications systems. We thought about healthy cities. We discussed, even briefly, environmental justice. We discussed why people respond the way they do in times of environmental disasters (which requires understanding both psychology and sociology). Even in the end, when we reached the chapter on technological innovations and the creation of the telecommuter, we were able to bring in information on how the use of technology, rather than face-to-face meetings, affect an employee's ability/interest in participating, as well as the technological requirement of having reliable high-speed internet everywhere and for every employee to have work-ready equipment at home. We discussed the implications for people of moving from mobile pollution sources (cars, buses, trains) to stationary sources to generate all that power required to transform dispersed homes into functional workspaces.

There are options to fix this in the system we have but we have to have the support of the alumni to help rethink how students approach 'general education' to see the value in those courses and in why they should select courses that both interest them and will contribute to their person BoK. Then we need to figure out how to instill these soft-skills into the teachings of engineering in the classroom.

It's not an either/or choice. It is how we impart the knowledge of humanity into our new engineers. Many are hungry to make a difference in the world and they want us to challenge them with the discussions and skills to address the problems we are leaving them.

Dear Dilip Barua, I agree that general education and soft skills ("being indeed the hard ones") would be desirable in engineering education. This is why many competence models -- e.g. Engineers Europe and the Intern. Engg. Alliance -- demand a minimum of non-technical lectures for acquiring so-called transferable skills (incl spoken languages, programming, ethics, etc.).

However, there is an unfortunate tendency to "dilute" engineering syllabus with the aim to produce "ready-made" employees with knowledge project management, risk management, cost management & controlling, etc. These are subjects for CPD, witch you should be able to learn either on the job, during advanced studies (CAS or micro-credential courses); but you will hardly be able to learn the analysis of structures after your university graduation. This is why we at Engineers Europe adhere to the classical engineering competences of knowledge, analytical and design skills, investigation and innovation -- no matter how user-friendly computer tools and other digital means are available.

That is not to say that the ideal, broadly educated and socially competent engineer is unrealistic to achieve, but it is a matter of lunch-hour lectures, self-study and life-long learning rather than modifying engineering curricula. If you take the challenge of including sustainability issues, for instance, this is matter of integration sustainability and life-cyle thinking into all engineering subjects, rather than introducing sustainability course on the expense of less mechanics or basic natural science lectures.

Of course, 

Thanks Joerg-Martin for giving life to this thread again. You have brought in, let's say, EURO-perspectives on this important issue. And it's very valuable.

I like the term "dilute" you have used – diluting the core engineering courses with rather unconventional humanities/liberal arts materials. I gather from your statement – a minimum of non-technical lectures for acquiring so-called transferable skills – that EU institutions, following the suggestions of competence models, have already recognized its importance.

Perhaps – it is convenient to discuss it further under the captions of 'foundational level' and 'retrofitting level'.

The former refers to imparting non-technical transferable skills to students during the college years. There have been suggestions that educating as such may be done in the banner of 'facultative courses'. 

The question is how much dilution of technical courses (by non-technical courses) is desirable? Obviously, not too much – because it can neither be justified, nor employers and students would support any overwhelming pressure on them by non-technical courses. Engineering is a serious business of balancing things – therefore, a balanced approach that strengthens one's technical prowess with transferable skills is desirable.

The retrofitting level learning – on the other hand, is supposed to happen during the professional life of an engineer. We all do it as we gather experience – as our responsibility widens – as we mature, we all learn non-technical skills. It is part of professionalism. And there are no shortage of materials to tap on – in this era of Internet age. But, perhaps we come across some 'ifs' at a certain time. If I knew this before – if I would have been exposed to some basic courses on this, etc. etc. And there comes the rationality of imparting some foundational level non-technical courses in college years – to close or narrow – as reasonably close as practicable – the educational gap and the gap in providing sound engineering services.

* * *

To further reinforce the discussion, I like to share (it has also been shared before in Collaborate) a paragraph from Civil Engineering on our Seashore. It is about engineering 'habits of mind'.

In NAP #12635 Publication the following texts elucidate the understanding of engineering practices in a very detailed and useful manner (I have rearranged the lines somewhat for clarity).
Engineering "habits of mind" (refer to the values, attitudes, and thinking skills associated with engineering; AAAS 1990) align with what many believe are essential skills for citizens in the 21st century. These include:
(1) Systems Thinking: systems thinking equips students to recognize essential interconnections in the technological world and to appreciate that systems may have unexpected effects that cannot be predicted from the behavior of individual subsystems;
(2) Creativity: creativity is inherent in the engineering design process;
(3) Optimism: optimism reflects a world view in which possibilities and opportunities can be found in every challenge and an understanding that every technology can be improved. Engineering is a "team sport";
(4) Collaboration: collaboration leverages the perspectives, knowledge, and capabilities of team members to address a design challenge;
(5) Communication: communication is essential to effective collaboration, to understanding the particular wants and needs of a "customer," and to explaining and justifying the final design solution; and
(6) Attention to Ethical Considerations: ethical considerations draw attention to the impacts of engineering on people and the environment; ethical considerations include possible unintended consequences.

Indeed, it has to be the habits of mind – sort of the second nature of a professional. Does it not?

Dilip

---------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

Dear Dilip Barua, I agree that general education and soft skills ("being indeed the hard ones") would be desirable in engineering education. This is why many competence models -- e.g. Engineers Europe and the Intern. Engg. Alliance -- demand a minimum of non-technical lectures for acquiring so-called transferable skills (incl spoken languages, programming, ethics, etc.).

However, there is an unfortunate tendency to "dilute" engineering syllabus with the aim to produce "ready-made" employees with knowledge project management, risk management, cost management & controlling, etc. These are subjects for CPD, witch you should be able to learn either on the job, during advanced studies (CAS or micro-credential courses); but you will hardly be able to learn the analysis of structures after your university graduation. This is why we at Engineers Europe adhere to the classical engineering competences of knowledge, analytical and design skills, investigation and innovation -- no matter how user-friendly computer tools and other digital means are available.

That is not to say that the ideal, broadly educated and socially competent engineer is unrealistic to achieve, but it is a matter of lunch-hour lectures, self-study and life-long learning rather than modifying engineering curricula. If you take the challenge of including sustainability issues, for instance, this is matter of integration sustainability and life-cyle thinking into all engineering subjects, rather than introducing sustainability course on the expense of less mechanics or basic natural science lectures.

Of course, 

Dear Dilip, your distinction between "foundational" and "retrofitting" level is a little unfamiliar to my. In European usage the terminology  would be rather basic education and reskilling/upskilling in life-long learning (LLL). Because undergraduate engineering courses are usually full of mathematics and mechanics, without getting to know what engineering is about, a very useful approach is teaching engineering history with all pitfalls -- in order to become equally proud, humble and aware of engineering responsibility. Also examples of forensic engineering, including both technical and non-technical origines of failures, are very helpful.

At ETH Zurich I had the priviledge to attend lunch-hour lectures on science history given by Paul Feyerabend. I strongly recommed to have a look at his work: Paul Feyerabend - Wikipedia

In professional practise, reflection can be trained as an active member in professional societies and by post mortem project reviews as stipulated by the PMI SIG Troubled projects, focussing on stakeholder management, risk management, and validation of project goals. Of course, working in direct customer contact, or as site supervisor, is a great chance to become exposed to richer feedback. I trained my own softskills in quality managment auditing and a course on solution-oriented coaching. I found that attending lectures in work psychology and sociology is also very enlighteni

Thanks Joerg-Martin for giving life to this thread again. You have brought in, let's say, EURO-perspectives on this important issue. And it's very valuable.

I like the term "dilute" you have used – diluting the core engineering courses with rather unconventional humanities/liberal arts materials. I gather from your statement – a minimum of non-technical lectures for acquiring so-called transferable skills – that EU institutions, following the suggestions of competence models, have already recognized its importance.

Perhaps – it is convenient to discuss it further under the captions of 'foundational level' and 'retrofitting level'.

The former refers to imparting non-technical transferable skills to students during the college years. There have been suggestions that educating as such may be done in the banner of 'facultative courses'. 

The question is how much dilution of technical courses (by non-technical courses) is desirable? Obviously, not too much – because it can neither be justified, nor employers and students would support any overwhelming pressure on them by non-technical courses. Engineering is a serious business of balancing things – therefore, a balanced approach that strengthens one's technical prowess with transferable skills is desirable.

The retrofitting level learning – on the other hand, is supposed to happen during the professional life of an engineer. We all do it as we gather experience – as our responsibility widens – as we mature, we all learn non-technical skills. It is part of professionalism. And there are no shortage of materials to tap on – in this era of Internet age. But, perhaps we come across some 'ifs' at a certain time. If I knew this before – if I would have been exposed to some basic courses on this, etc. etc. And there comes the rationality of imparting some foundational level non-technical courses in college years – to close or narrow – as reasonably close as practicable – the educational gap and the gap in providing sound engineering services.

* * *

To further reinforce the discussion, I like to share (it has also been shared before in Collaborate) a paragraph from Civil Engineering on our Seashore. It is about engineering 'habits of mind'.

In NAP #12635 Publication the following texts elucidate the understanding of engineering practices in a very detailed and useful manner (I have rearranged the lines somewhat for clarity).
Engineering "habits of mind" (refer to the values, attitudes, and thinking skills associated with engineering; AAAS 1990) align with what many believe are essential skills for citizens in the 21st century. These include:
(1) Systems Thinking: systems thinking equips students to recognize essential interconnections in the technological world and to appreciate that systems may have unexpected effects that cannot be predicted from the behavior of individual subsystems;
(2) Creativity: creativity is inherent in the engineering design process;
(3) Optimism: optimism reflects a world view in which possibilities and opportunities can be found in every challenge and an understanding that every technology can be improved. Engineering is a "team sport";
(4) Collaboration: collaboration leverages the perspectives, knowledge, and capabilities of team members to address a design challenge;
(5) Communication: communication is essential to effective collaboration, to understanding the particular wants and needs of a "customer," and to explaining and justifying the final design solution; and
(6) Attention to Ethical Considerations: ethical considerations draw attention to the impacts of engineering on people and the environment; ethical considerations include possible unintended consequences.

Indeed, it has to be the habits of mind – sort of the second nature of a professional. Does it not?

Dilip

---------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

Dear Dilip Barua, I agree that general education and soft skills ("being indeed the hard ones") would be desirable in engineering education. This is why many competence models -- e.g. Engineers Europe and the Intern. Engg. Alliance -- demand a minimum of non-technical lectures for acquiring so-called transferable skills (incl spoken languages, programming, ethics, etc.).

However, there is an unfortunate tendency to "dilute" engineering syllabus with the aim to produce "ready-made" employees with knowledge project management, risk management, cost management & controlling, etc. These are subjects for CPD, witch you should be able to learn either on the job, during advanced studies (CAS or micro-credential courses); but you will hardly be able to learn the analysis of structures after your university graduation. This is why we at Engineers Europe adhere to the classical engineering competences of knowledge, analytical and design skills, investigation and innovation -- no matter how user-friendly computer tools and other digital means are available.

That is not to say that the ideal, broadly educated and socially competent engineer is unrealistic to achieve, but it is a matter of lunch-hour lectures, self-study and life-long learning rather than modifying engineering curricula. If you take the challenge of including sustainability issues, for instance, this is matter of integration sustainability and life-cyle thinking into all engineering subjects, rather than introducing sustainability course on the expense of less mechanics or basic natural science lectures.

Of course, 

Thanks again Joerg-Martin for reacting to the two terms I used: 'foundational' and 'retrofitting'. The former is also used by others as 'foundation' and 'foundations' (I am still trying to figure out where I have seen it, and will let know later). And as I see it, this term conveys a deeper meaning than 'basic'.

As for the latter, I have used it in the context of 'Gap in Engineering'. But, I agree, perhaps 'upskilling' is a better word – its relevance becomes clear once the 'foundational' base is firmly in place. 

There is an interesting article by Atsushi Akera: Setting the Standards for Engineering Education: A History, Proceedings of the IEEE | Vol. 105, No. 9, September 2017. Labeled as SCANNING OUR PAST, it can be downloaded from this NSF Website.

In this paper, the author thoroughly chronicled the developments of Standards for Engineering Education – starting from the 1862 Morrill Act to the time of his paper.

The paper highlights something very interesting, and I have highlighted the first para from this paper:

Who controls engineering education? And how has this control evolved over time? While some folks may presume that ABET has undisputed control over engineering degree programs in the United States, those familiar with ABET Engineering Criterion 2000's origins know otherwise [1]. Moreover, history

shows that the development of new standards in engineering education has always been a shared responsibility, with this responsibility being distributed in ways that reflect the broader fragmentation of the engineering profession. Still, the flurry of concern generated by ABET's proposed new accreditation standard suggests that issues of control, or governance, will remain a common feature

within U.S. engineering education [2], [3]. As we converge around ABET's latest standard, we should use the broader lessons of history to understand how our recent conversations fit within a broader historical pattern, and use this to guide our future actions. . .

[1] J. W. Prados, G. D. Peterson, and L. R. Lattuca, "Quality assurance of

engineering education through accreditation," J. Eng. Edu., vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 165–184, Jan. 2005.

[2] C. Flaherty, Watered-Down Gen Ed for Engineers?. Inside Higher Ed, Jun. 2015.

[Online]. Available: https://www.insidehighered.com

[3] R. Pool, Forum on Proposed Revisions to ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission General

Criteria. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press, 2016.

ABET – Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology.

Dilip

---------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

Dear Dilip, your distinction between "foundational" and "retrofitting" level is a little unfamiliar to my. In European usage the terminology  would be rather basic education and reskilling/upskilling in life-long learning (LLL). Because undergraduate engineering courses are usually full of mathematics and mechanics, without getting to know what engineering is about, a very useful approach is teaching engineering history with all pitfalls -- in order to become equally proud, humble and aware of engineering responsibility. Also examples of forensic engineering, including both technical and non-technical origines of failures, are very helpful.

At ETH Zurich I had the priviledge to attend lunch-hour lectures on science history given by Paul Feyerabend. I strongly recommed to have a look at his work: Paul Feyerabend - Wikipedia

In professional practise, reflection can be trained as an active member in professional societies and by post mortem project reviews as stipulated by the PMI SIG Troubled projects, focussing on stakeholder management, risk management, and validation of project goals. Of course, working in direct customer contact, or as site supervisor, is a great chance to become exposed to richer feedback. I trained my own softskills in quality managment auditing and a course on solution-oriented coaching. I found that attending lectures in work psychology and sociology is also very enlighteni

Thanks Joerg-Martin for giving life to this thread again. You have brought in, let's say, EURO-perspectives on this important issue. And it's very valuable.

I like the term "dilute" you have used – diluting the core engineering courses with rather unconventional humanities/liberal arts materials. I gather from your statement – a minimum of non-technical lectures for acquiring so-called transferable skills – that EU institutions, following the suggestions of competence models, have already recognized its importance.

Perhaps – it is convenient to discuss it further under the captions of 'foundational level' and 'retrofitting level'.

The former refers to imparting non-technical transferable skills to students during the college years. There have been suggestions that educating as such may be done in the banner of 'facultative courses'. 

The question is how much dilution of technical courses (by non-technical courses) is desirable? Obviously, not too much – because it can neither be justified, nor employers and students would support any overwhelming pressure on them by non-technical courses. Engineering is a serious business of balancing things – therefore, a balanced approach that strengthens one's technical prowess with transferable skills is desirable.

The retrofitting level learning – on the other hand, is supposed to happen during the professional life of an engineer. We all do it as we gather experience – as our responsibility widens – as we mature, we all learn non-technical skills. It is part of professionalism. And there are no shortage of materials to tap on – in this era of Internet age. But, perhaps we come across some 'ifs' at a certain time. If I knew this before – if I would have been exposed to some basic courses on this, etc. etc. And there comes the rationality of imparting some foundational level non-technical courses in college years – to close or narrow – as reasonably close as practicable – the educational gap and the gap in providing sound engineering services.

* * *

To further reinforce the discussion, I like to share (it has also been shared before in Collaborate) a paragraph from Civil Engineering on our Seashore. It is about engineering 'habits of mind'.

In NAP #12635 Publication the following texts elucidate the understanding of engineering practices in a very detailed and useful manner (I have rearranged the lines somewhat for clarity).
Engineering "habits of mind" (refer to the values, attitudes, and thinking skills associated with engineering; AAAS 1990) align with what many believe are essential skills for citizens in the 21st century. These include:
(1) Systems Thinking: systems thinking equips students to recognize essential interconnections in the technological world and to appreciate that systems may have unexpected effects that cannot be predicted from the behavior of individual subsystems;
(2) Creativity: creativity is inherent in the engineering design process;
(3) Optimism: optimism reflects a world view in which possibilities and opportunities can be found in every challenge and an understanding that every technology can be improved. Engineering is a "team sport";
(4) Collaboration: collaboration leverages the perspectives, knowledge, and capabilities of team members to address a design challenge;
(5) Communication: communication is essential to effective collaboration, to understanding the particular wants and needs of a "customer," and to explaining and justifying the final design solution; and
(6) Attention to Ethical Considerations: ethical considerations draw attention to the impacts of engineering on people and the environment; ethical considerations include possible unintended consequences.

Indeed, it has to be the habits of mind – sort of the second nature of a professional. Does it not?

Dilip

---------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

Dear Dilip Barua, I agree that general education and soft skills ("being indeed the hard ones") would be desirable in engineering education. This is why many competence models -- e.g. Engineers Europe and the Intern. Engg. Alliance -- demand a minimum of non-technical lectures for acquiring so-called transferable skills (incl spoken languages, programming, ethics, etc.).

However, there is an unfortunate tendency to "dilute" engineering syllabus with the aim to produce "ready-made" employees with knowledge project management, risk management, cost management & controlling, etc. These are subjects for CPD, witch you should be able to learn either on the job, during advanced studies (CAS or micro-credential courses); but you will hardly be able to learn the analysis of structures after your university graduation. This is why we at Engineers Europe adhere to the classical engineering competences of knowledge, analytical and design skills, investigation and innovation -- no matter how user-friendly computer tools and other digital means are available.

That is not to say that the ideal, broadly educated and socially competent engineer is unrealistic to achieve, but it is a matter of lunch-hour lectures, self-study and life-long learning rather than modifying engineering curricula. If you take the challenge of including sustainability issues, for instance, this is matter of integration sustainability and life-cyle thinking into all engineering subjects, rather than introducing sustainability course on the expense of less mechanics or basic natural science lectures.

Of course, 

Dear Dilip Barua, I agree that general education and soft skills ("being indeed the hard ones") would be desirable in engineering education. This is why many competence models -- e.g. Engineers Europe and the Intern. Engg. Alliance -- demand a minimum of non-technical lectures for acquiring so-called transferable skills (incl spoken languages, programming, ethics, etc.).

However, there is an unfortunate tendency to "dilute" engineering syllabus with the aim to produce "ready-made" employees with knowledge project management, risk management, cost management & controlling, etc. These are subjects for CPD, witch you should be able to learn either on the job, during advanced studies (CAS or micro-credential courses); but you will hardly be able to learn the analysis of structures after your university graduation. This is why we at Engineers Europe adhere to the classical engineering competences of knowledge, analytical and design skills, investigation and innovation -- no matter how user-friendly computer tools and other digital means are available.

That is not to say that the ideal, broadly educated and socially competent engineer is unrealistic to achieve, but it is a matter of lunch-hour lectures, self-study and life-long learning rather than modifying engineering curricula. If you take the challenge of including sustainability issues, for instance, this is matter of integration sustainability and life-cyle thinking into all engineering subjects, rather than introducing sustainability course on the expense of less mechanics or basic natural science lectures.

Of course, 

Well-said. I agree.

Bill

Dear Dilip Barua, I agree that general education and soft skills ("being indeed the hard ones") would be desirable in engineering education. This is why many competence models -- e.g. Engineers Europe and the Intern. Engg. Alliance -- demand a minimum of non-technical lectures for acquiring so-called transferable skills (incl spoken languages, programming, ethics, etc.).

However, there is an unfortunate tendency to "dilute" engineering syllabus with the aim to produce "ready-made" employees with knowledge project management, risk management, cost management & controlling, etc. These are subjects for CPD, witch you should be able to learn either on the job, during advanced studies (CAS or micro-credential courses); but you will hardly be able to learn the analysis of structures after your university graduation. This is why we at Engineers Europe adhere to the classical engineering competences of knowledge, analytical and design skills, investigation and innovation -- no matter how user-friendly computer tools and other digital means are available.

That is not to say that the ideal, broadly educated and socially competent engineer is unrealistic to achieve, but it is a matter of lunch-hour lectures, self-study and life-long learning rather than modifying engineering curricula. If you take the challenge of including sustainability issues, for instance, this is matter of integration sustainability and life-cyle thinking into all engineering subjects, rather than introducing sustainability course on the expense of less mechanics or basic natural science lectures.

Of course, 

When it comes to "Soft Skills", or what I call Success Enabling Skills©, these courses were eliminated from Engineering curricula back in the late 50's. The Summary of the Report on Evaluation of Engineering Education, issued in 1955, also known as the Grinter Report, made numerous recommendations regarding the importance of Soft Skills in Engineering curricula, such as, The inclusion of elective subjects to develop the special talents of individual students, to serve the varied needs of society, and to provide flexibility of opportunity for gifted students, and, A continuing, concentrated effort to strengthen and integrate work in the humanistic and social sciences into engineering programs.

The Grinter Report was issued to the Engineering industry for review, and to make a long story short, the Engineering Industry recommended that Soft Skills would be taught by industry after graduation, and that Engineering curricula should focus only on just that, Engineering. Suffice it to say, it's not the Engineering graduate's fault they have a skills gap between Soft and Technical skills.

In 2008, my firm, the Engineering Leadership Institute, originated an launched an online Learning Management System (LMS) based upon the United States Department of Labor Engineering Competency Model, to close the Soft Skills gap in Engineering. Ultimately, the LMS was unsuccessful short of additional iterations needed to make it a success. However, I continue to teach Success Enabling Skills© at Engineering conferences, and to provide Professional Development Hours to Engineering Societies and groups.

For the full background on the Engineering Leadership Institute and Success Enabling Skills©, please refer to this 13-minute video on YouTube. 

Thank you.
  

Well-said. I agree.

Bill

Dear Dilip Barua, I agree that general education and soft skills ("being indeed the hard ones") would be desirable in engineering education. This is why many competence models -- e.g. Engineers Europe and the Intern. Engg. Alliance -- demand a minimum of non-technical lectures for acquiring so-called transferable skills (incl spoken languages, programming, ethics, etc.).

However, there is an unfortunate tendency to "dilute" engineering syllabus with the aim to produce "ready-made" employees with knowledge project management, risk management, cost management & controlling, etc. These are subjects for CPD, witch you should be able to learn either on the job, during advanced studies (CAS or micro-credential courses); but you will hardly be able to learn the analysis of structures after your university graduation. This is why we at Engineers Europe adhere to the classical engineering competences of knowledge, analytical and design skills, investigation and innovation -- no matter how user-friendly computer tools and other digital means are available.

That is not to say that the ideal, broadly educated and socially competent engineer is unrealistic to achieve, but it is a matter of lunch-hour lectures, self-study and life-long learning rather than modifying engineering curricula. If you take the challenge of including sustainability issues, for instance, this is matter of integration sustainability and life-cyle thinking into all engineering subjects, rather than introducing sustainability course on the expense of less mechanics or basic natural science lectures.

Of course, 

When it comes to "Soft Skills", or what I call Success Enabling Skills©, these courses were eliminated from Engineering curricula back in the late 50's. The Summary of the Report on Evaluation of Engineering Education, issued in 1955, also known as the Grinter Report, made numerous recommendations regarding the importance of Soft Skills in Engineering curricula, such as, The inclusion of elective subjects to develop the special talents of individual students, to serve the varied needs of society, and to provide flexibility of opportunity for gifted students, and, A continuing, concentrated effort to strengthen and integrate work in the humanistic and social sciences into engineering programs.

The Grinter Report was issued to the Engineering industry for review, and to make a long story short, the Engineering Industry recommended that Soft Skills would be taught by industry after graduation, and that Engineering curricula should focus only on just that, Engineering. Suffice it to say, it's not the Engineering graduate's fault they have a skills gap between Soft and Technical skills.

In 2008, my firm, the Engineering Leadership Institute, originated an launched an online Learning Management System (LMS) based upon the United States Department of Labor Engineering Competency Model, to close the Soft Skills gap in Engineering. Ultimately, the LMS was unsuccessful short of additional iterations needed to make it a success. However, I continue to teach Success Enabling Skills© at Engineering conferences, and to provide Professional Development Hours to Engineering Societies and groups.

For the full background on the Engineering Leadership Institute and Success Enabling Skills©, please refer to this 13-minute video on YouTube. 

Thank you.
  

Well-said. I agree.

Bill

Dear Dilip Barua, I agree that general education and soft skills ("being indeed the hard ones") would be desirable in engineering education. This is why many competence models -- e.g. Engineers Europe and the Intern. Engg. Alliance -- demand a minimum of non-technical lectures for acquiring so-called transferable skills (incl spoken languages, programming, ethics, etc.).

However, there is an unfortunate tendency to "dilute" engineering syllabus with the aim to produce "ready-made" employees with knowledge project management, risk management, cost management & controlling, etc. These are subjects for CPD, witch you should be able to learn either on the job, during advanced studies (CAS or micro-credential courses); but you will hardly be able to learn the analysis of structures after your university graduation. This is why we at Engineers Europe adhere to the classical engineering competences of knowledge, analytical and design skills, investigation and innovation -- no matter how user-friendly computer tools and other digital means are available.

That is not to say that the ideal, broadly educated and socially competent engineer is unrealistic to achieve, but it is a matter of lunch-hour lectures, self-study and life-long learning rather than modifying engineering curricula. If you take the challenge of including sustainability issues, for instance, this is matter of integration sustainability and life-cyle thinking into all engineering subjects, rather than introducing sustainability course on the expense of less mechanics or basic natural science lectures.

Of course, 

Reflective thinking is very important in engineering and should be instigated by the way of teaching engineering subjects, i.e. by didactics (cf. IFEES and similar). For instance, group work and project-oriented teaching are ways to enhance soft skills. At ETH Zurich, in the hydraulic department, it was customary to select the subject in collaboration with engineering consultancies and to compare the results of the diploma thesis with the actually chosen design. In this a professional discussion, not merely technical aspects but also including social / stakeholder awareness and technology impact assessment were reflected (e.g. in dam engineering).

When it comes to "Soft Skills", or what I call Success Enabling Skills©, these courses were eliminated from Engineering curricula back in the late 50's. The Summary of the Report on Evaluation of Engineering Education, issued in 1955, also known as the Grinter Report, made numerous recommendations regarding the importance of Soft Skills in Engineering curricula, such as, The inclusion of elective subjects to develop the special talents of individual students, to serve the varied needs of society, and to provide flexibility of opportunity for gifted students, and, A continuing, concentrated effort to strengthen and integrate work in the humanistic and social sciences into engineering programs.

The Grinter Report was issued to the Engineering industry for review, and to make a long story short, the Engineering Industry recommended that Soft Skills would be taught by industry after graduation, and that Engineering curricula should focus only on just that, Engineering. Suffice it to say, it's not the Engineering graduate's fault they have a skills gap between Soft and Technical skills.

In 2008, my firm, the Engineering Leadership Institute, originated an launched an online Learning Management System (LMS) based upon the United States Department of Labor Engineering Competency Model, to close the Soft Skills gap in Engineering. Ultimately, the LMS was unsuccessful short of additional iterations needed to make it a success. However, I continue to teach Success Enabling Skills© at Engineering conferences, and to provide Professional Development Hours to Engineering Societies and groups.

For the full background on the Engineering Leadership Institute and Success Enabling Skills©, please refer to this 13-minute video on YouTube. 

Thank you.
  

Well-said. I agree.

Bill

Dear Dilip Barua, I agree that general education and soft skills ("being indeed the hard ones") would be desirable in engineering education. This is why many competence models -- e.g. Engineers Europe and the Intern. Engg. Alliance -- demand a minimum of non-technical lectures for acquiring so-called transferable skills (incl spoken languages, programming, ethics, etc.).

However, there is an unfortunate tendency to "dilute" engineering syllabus with the aim to produce "ready-made" employees with knowledge project management, risk management, cost management & controlling, etc. These are subjects for CPD, witch you should be able to learn either on the job, during advanced studies (CAS or micro-credential courses); but you will hardly be able to learn the analysis of structures after your university graduation. This is why we at Engineers Europe adhere to the classical engineering competences of knowledge, analytical and design skills, investigation and innovation -- no matter how user-friendly computer tools and other digital means are available.

That is not to say that the ideal, broadly educated and socially competent engineer is unrealistic to achieve, but it is a matter of lunch-hour lectures, self-study and life-long learning rather than modifying engineering curricula. If you take the challenge of including sustainability issues, for instance, this is matter of integration sustainability and life-cyle thinking into all engineering subjects, rather than introducing sustainability course on the expense of less mechanics or basic natural science lectures.

Of course, 

When it comes to "Soft Skills", or what I call Success Enabling Skills©, these courses were eliminated from Engineering curricula back in the late 50's. The Summary of the Report on Evaluation of Engineering Education, issued in 1955, also known as the Grinter Report, made numerous recommendations regarding the importance of Soft Skills in Engineering curricula, such as, The inclusion of elective subjects to develop the special talents of individual students, to serve the varied needs of society, and to provide flexibility of opportunity for gifted students, and, A continuing, concentrated effort to strengthen and integrate work in the humanistic and social sciences into engineering programs.

The Grinter Report was issued to the Engineering industry for review, and to make a long story short, the Engineering Industry recommended that Soft Skills would be taught by industry after graduation, and that Engineering curricula should focus only on just that, Engineering. Suffice it to say, it's not the Engineering graduate's fault they have a skills gap between Soft and Technical skills.

In 2008, my firm, the Engineering Leadership Institute, originated an launched an online Learning Management System (LMS) based upon the United States Department of Labor Engineering Competency Model, to close the Soft Skills gap in Engineering. Ultimately, the LMS was unsuccessful short of additional iterations needed to make it a success. However, I continue to teach Success Enabling Skills© at Engineering conferences, and to provide Professional Development Hours to Engineering Societies and groups.

For the full background on the Engineering Leadership Institute and Success Enabling Skills©, please refer to this 13-minute video on YouTube. 

Thank you.
  

Well-said. I agree.

Bill

Dear Dilip Barua, I agree that general education and soft skills ("being indeed the hard ones") would be desirable in engineering education. This is why many competence models -- e.g. Engineers Europe and the Intern. Engg. Alliance -- demand a minimum of non-technical lectures for acquiring so-called transferable skills (incl spoken languages, programming, ethics, etc.).

However, there is an unfortunate tendency to "dilute" engineering syllabus with the aim to produce "ready-made" employees with knowledge project management, risk management, cost management & controlling, etc. These are subjects for CPD, witch you should be able to learn either on the job, during advanced studies (CAS or micro-credential courses); but you will hardly be able to learn the analysis of structures after your university graduation. This is why we at Engineers Europe adhere to the classical engineering competences of knowledge, analytical and design skills, investigation and innovation -- no matter how user-friendly computer tools and other digital means are available.

That is not to say that the ideal, broadly educated and socially competent engineer is unrealistic to achieve, but it is a matter of lunch-hour lectures, self-study and life-long learning rather than modifying engineering curricula. If you take the challenge of including sustainability issues, for instance, this is matter of integration sustainability and life-cyle thinking into all engineering subjects, rather than introducing sustainability course on the expense of less mechanics or basic natural science lectures.

Of course, 

The 1955 Grinter (Linton E Grinter, then University of Florida Graduate Dean) Report enlightens us on many aspects we have been discussing – and, sadly I was not aware of it (as it did not appear in many of our years-long discussions under various threads). Thanks Randy for the reference. Among others, the report, published in the 1994 January edition of the Journal of Engineering Education, is listed for download in the ASEE Website.

I am still reading the report, and there are many interesting and thought-provoking materials. It is sad that the recommendations of the report were watered-down by . . . Engineering Industry recommended that Soft Skills would be taught by industry after graduation, and that Engineering curricula should focus only on just that, Engineering . . . as you have pointed out, Randy.

Among others, a few headlines and the materials discussed in them deserve attention in the context of our present discussion. They are:

A. Objectives of Engineering Education

. . . Engineering is far from static, for it is essentially a creative profession . . .

J. Humanities and Social Studies

The goals of engineering education already outlined require for their achievement adequate attention to subjects in the humanistic and social fields. In addition to technical knowledge and skill, the professional engineer needs to have some acquaintance with the subject matter of fields other than his own, with their influence upon the lives of men, and with their relationships to his own profession . . . The Committee has found no reason to disagree with the recommendations of previous ASEE Committees that about one fifth of the curriculum should be devoted to humanistic and social studies . . . The diluting process, as Joerg-Martin is talking about.

K. Realization of Broad Social Objectives

To realize the overall objectives of the undergraduate program, a reasonable portion of the curriculum, such as a sequence of courses throughout the undergraduate years, should be allotted to formal courses in the humanities and social studies . . .

Dilip

---------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

When it comes to "Soft Skills", or what I call Success Enabling Skills©, these courses were eliminated from Engineering curricula back in the late 50's. The Summary of the Report on Evaluation of Engineering Education, issued in 1955, also known as the Grinter Report, made numerous recommendations regarding the importance of Soft Skills in Engineering curricula, such as, The inclusion of elective subjects to develop the special talents of individual students, to serve the varied needs of society, and to provide flexibility of opportunity for gifted students, and, A continuing, concentrated effort to strengthen and integrate work in the humanistic and social sciences into engineering programs.

The Grinter Report was issued to the Engineering industry for review, and to make a long story short, the Engineering Industry recommended that Soft Skills would be taught by industry after graduation, and that Engineering curricula should focus only on just that, Engineering. Suffice it to say, it's not the Engineering graduate's fault they have a skills gap between Soft and Technical skills.

In 2008, my firm, the Engineering Leadership Institute, originated an launched an online Learning Management System (LMS) based upon the United States Department of Labor Engineering Competency Model, to close the Soft Skills gap in Engineering. Ultimately, the LMS was unsuccessful short of additional iterations needed to make it a success. However, I continue to teach Success Enabling Skills© at Engineering conferences, and to provide Professional Development Hours to Engineering Societies and groups.

For the full background on the Engineering Leadership Institute and Success Enabling Skills©, please refer to this 13-minute video on YouTube. 

Thank you.
  

Well-said. I agree.

Bill

Dear Dilip Barua, I agree that general education and soft skills ("being indeed the hard ones") would be desirable in engineering education. This is why many competence models -- e.g. Engineers Europe and the Intern. Engg. Alliance -- demand a minimum of non-technical lectures for acquiring so-called transferable skills (incl spoken languages, programming, ethics, etc.).

However, there is an unfortunate tendency to "dilute" engineering syllabus with the aim to produce "ready-made" employees with knowledge project management, risk management, cost management & controlling, etc. These are subjects for CPD, witch you should be able to learn either on the job, during advanced studies (CAS or micro-credential courses); but you will hardly be able to learn the analysis of structures after your university graduation. This is why we at Engineers Europe adhere to the classical engineering competences of knowledge, analytical and design skills, investigation and innovation -- no matter how user-friendly computer tools and other digital means are available.

That is not to say that the ideal, broadly educated and socially competent engineer is unrealistic to achieve, but it is a matter of lunch-hour lectures, self-study and life-long learning rather than modifying engineering curricula. If you take the challenge of including sustainability issues, for instance, this is matter of integration sustainability and life-cyle thinking into all engineering subjects, rather than introducing sustainability course on the expense of less mechanics or basic natural science lectures.

Of course,