<p>I heard this statement thrown around this forum lately. I just wanted to know if that has any merit. Does the statement mean that engineering majors can apply to jobs in different fields and get accepted over other majors? Or does it mean that like a liberal arts degree, and engineering degree is worthless?</p>
<p>The short answer:</p>
<p>No</p>
<p>The long answer:</p>
<p>Nooooooooooooooooooo</p>
<p>“I heard this statement thrown around this forum lately.”</p>
<p>Where?</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/engineering-majors/988575-uncertain-about-chem-eng-vs-other-options.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/engineering-majors/988575-uncertain-about-chem-eng-vs-other-options.html</a></p>
<p>That thread is where we were talking about it…</p>
<p>I think when people say it’s the new liberal arts degree they mean that in a positive way. In other words, various employers will value your critical thinking skills. You are not stuck in one area.</p>
<p>Computer science is software, while Computer Engineering emphasizes the digital aspects of electronic systems.</p>
<p>Oops! Wrong thread ;)</p>
<p>The idea of engineering as the “new liberal arts” comes from at least the 1950s. If the phrase’s connotation is limited to maximizing one’s chances of securing a job after undergraduate, then said connotation is appropriate. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the Liberal Arts man was the most valuable type of man to society and obtaining a Liberal Arts education allowed man to secure a prestigious position in said society.</p>
<p>After the Industrial Revolution, there was greater need for specialists to handle the ever more complex systems being invented, developed, etc. Thus, technical disciplines, and especially engineering, became more valuable to business. As Andrewsky expressed, an engineering education provides the greatest chances of securing a job. The trade-off is that, increasingly, engineers have to specialize more and more and that leaves less and less room for the humanities education so badly needed in our current world. This last part is the reason I’ve decided to major in Physics instead (plenty of room to add History and Philosophy classes).</p>
<p>I recommend reading The Organization Man by William H. Whyte for a fresh (and actually decade-old) perspective on the current situation. Hint: corporations have been clamoring for engineers since the 50s, when it was claimed there was a “shortage” of engineers.</p>
<p>I think I saw the quote at the Columbia university website where they talk about their engineering program. If they really mean that, why do they require SAT II Physics, not any science SAT IIs like MIT?</p>
<p>
I laughed. Keep them coming. If business and industry want people who analyse Shakespeare and can weave baskets underwater, you may have a valid point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And this comment nicely proves my point.</p>
<p>The reason analyzing Shakespeare, Dovstoyesvky, Twain, Dickens, Austen, and other great writes is extremely important today is because these individuals, as well as many others, provide a glimpse into the human psyche. </p>
<p>That glimpse into the human psyche is a businessman’s most powerful weapon: understanding the emotions that drive an individual’s economic actions allows one to become better capable of delivering the product that will satisfy those emotions. If you want to understand the current world, it would behoove people to read Adam Smith and Thomas Malthus; Shakespeare and Dovstoyesky; Experience Monet’s and Courbet’s paintings.</p>
<p>It is not surprising that you do not understand what a Liberal Arts education is. William H. Whyte predicted the following back in 1956:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Reading Joyce, Nabokov, Beckett, Faulkner, or Fitzgerald is certainly not going to manufacture the day-to-day articles I need. Starting with the computer I’m using to communicate via this medium.</p>
<p>Cal - you nailed it. No amount of lofty rhetoric will build that computer either.</p>
<p>That said, to put this nonsense to rest, engineering does not require these things, you said yourself business requires them. Additionally, economic action is analysed by economics, a social science, not a liberal art if I recall. If said arts are so useful as you describe, why are those with liberal arts degrees predisposed to be paupers?</p>
<p>Finally, if I might inquire as to the authority from which you speak on these matters? Seeing as you did not cite the why and the wherefore within your little diatribe, surely you speak from observation and experience? Perhaps you will resort to your Plato’s Cave-like ruse that I nor others here do not know what a ‘liberal arts education’ is, something you yourself did not define? That would be interesting, for I would be poised to devour you like my I shall devour Odin upon Ragnarok.</p>
<p>Nor should anyone expect to manufacture commercial products utilizing Liberal Arts knowledge - that is not the purpose of a Liberal Arts education.</p>
<p>What is Liberal Arts? What is its purpose? The purpose of a Liberal Arts education is to endow the individual with general knowledge about the world, instill rational thinking, and encourage intellectual pursuits. Basically, a generalist who will see the “big picture.” In contrast, professions such as engineering, finance, nursing, law, et al training specialists who focus on a specific area of knowledge. </p>
<p>But our current world values the specialist much more than the generalist. Unfortunately, a very large number of specialists focused on their specific, narrow areas of expertise is detrimental to society, if said society lacks an appropriate number of generalists who will “see the big picture.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Close to the truth. And if engineering guys are good at liberal arts stuff also, others are really in trouble.</p>
<p>I love how when someone accuses engineers of not being able to do the liberal arts subjects, the language in the ensuing posts gets about a dozen times more flowery.</p>
<p>Flowery language is inefficient!</p>
<p>Columbia U is known as a “reading school”. Admission Rep will tell you that APPLY TO COLUMBIA IF YOU LOVE READING.</p>
<p>There is definitely something to be said for people who have mastered the art of being succinct.</p>
<p>That is probably why I never really liked Hemingway.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do physics or chemistry SAT IIs require more reading than other science SAT IIs for the engineering school? Maybe a rep can offer a better explanation.</p>
<p>Enginox - so society benefits and I lose with all these frivolous liberal arts requirements that I had to endure. There is nothing under heaven that one cannot learn from just picking up the damn book, and reading it, so I do not know what that fuss is about. </p>
<p>I will feast upon the worm-eaten corpse of your civilisation in due course. The west was doomed from the start because it placed value on being a ■■■■■. Until then, enjoy seeing the ‘big picture’ and what little that yields for one’s self.</p>
<p>One more thing…I hope you ceded the points that you did not address, otherwise you may be said to have dodged the subject :D</p>
<p>lake, the statement has nothing to do with the admission . I am just re-stating what Columbia’s admission rep told us: if you don’t like reading then Columbia isn’t for you.</p>