Ramblings re: Zongyi's first post

Speaking from the (hopefully somewhat unbiased) point of view of someone who is still a little stuck choosing between pure physics and engineering, I have to disagree. I don't think engineers are quite getting the credit they deserve.

For the most part, scientists tend to be put up on a pedestal and engineers relegated to the role of a glorified technician. Case in point: do you ever see scientists working under engineers? If I remember correctly, I was once told by an engineer teacher/friend of mine that there is a sort of unofficial hierarchy in academia roughly organized as follows: theoretical scientists -> experimental scientists -> engineers. (I think he also grouped M.D.s and/or M.D.-Ph.D.s with theoretical scientists, but I'm not sure. They were on the upper end of the spectrum though.) Why is it that the more practical and more tangible results obtained from science and technology - and might I add, the exact same science and technology as that found in more theoretical work - the less recognition one receives? Improving city infrastructure is more useful (not even arguably, I think it's pretty obvious) to the general population than determining whether special relativity holds up under the rules of quantum mechanics... which only apply at the atomic level.

I guess it's a consequence of the fact that higher-level, abstract thinking has long been sought after as an ability belonging to a select few - since, say, the Greek philosophers, and arguably still others before them. Still, this is merely a possible explanation to the phenomenon, not by any means a justification. Engineers, I think, are simply more practically-minded individuals - they're not fundamentally incapable of doing theoretical work. As EngScis, I think we know this better than most. (Multivariable calculus and quantum mech in the first two years of undergrad, hello?) I have the good fortune of being able to call more than a few extraordinary individuals as friends, and they certainly would not lose to any pure science major - I actually would place my bet on them (my friends) in grasping abstract math or physics concepts first.

(A tangent: I get the impression that Artsies are continually surprised that we can do so well in our humanities electives - a friend of mine told me that someone in his linguistics tutorial exclaimed at one point, "But you're an engineer!")

And who builds the apparatus necessary to conduct scientific experiments in the first place? Engineers. (And I relent, experimental scientists to some degree, but the actual design/manufacturing is done by engineers.) The fact is that theory and practicality are necessarily symbiotic. For instance, flip the situation around a bit: the brightest theoretical minds are often incapable of functioning on a practical, day-to-day level in society. It is said that Princeton University had to lay down arrows going to and from Einstein’s residence - incidentally, a distance of mere blocks from his office on campus - as he frequently got lost. It would not be a stretch to claim that if some engineers are indeed “incapable” of processing higher-end abstractions, then theoretical scientists on their part are perhaps incapable of translating their ideas into something tangible.

So, to finally come back to the question at hand: why must engineers stay in the background, and if no adequate reason exists, how do we rectify the situation? Frankly, I’m going to have to give that one a bit more thought. While the idea of sacrificing recognition and toiling for the good of our fellow man lends some stoicism and sense of honour to the field, it’s something shouldn’t be glossed over. There's something to be said for more awareness for a career field that is clearly crucial to the functioning and advancement of our world.

On the one hand though, I have noticed that there seems to be a sort of self-recruitment process - many of my friends and I had never really considered engineering until the last few months before applying for university. And the people who by chance end up in engineering tend to be, for the most part, well-suited to it and have many common interests and personality traits, as demonstrated by the cohesiveness of Skule™ and the engineering community worldwide.

Curiously, I have also noticed a bit of apathy with regards to politics and inducing administrative change - we’re much more likely to just go and fix whichever broken structure or object ourselves. There seems to be a sort of collective resignation regarding bureaucratic inefficacy, and so we don’t bother trying to fight what seems to be a futile battle. … And since this post is getting really long, more on that later.