5 ms·

> Every engineer is able to learn the process when it matters. A civil engineer is going to become an expert material scientist, "on need"? I doubt it.

• xorcist 5y ago
  Of course not. A basic understanding? Absolutely, yes. It's even widely accepted to be an important part of the education. Just as Karnaugh maps and parser theory is part of computer science engineering curriculums. It's not something that's expected to be used a daily basis but some general knowledge of how a processor works is absolutely necessary to be able to at least talk about cache line misses, performance counters, mode swaps etc.
  • analog31 5y ago
    One issue is that the divisions between engineering fields are somewhat arbitrary, and technology doesn't always respect those divisions, so we don't know in advance what education is going to be needed. A second problem is that we make it very hard for young engineers to maintain their technical chops when they can be quite busy and productive doing basic design. In fact, engineering students hear through the grapevine: "You won't use this stuff once you get a job." As a result, the industry settles on an "efficient" way of managing issues that require depth or breadth, which has to have a few people around who handle those things when needed. That becomes a form of division-of-labor.
    • xorcist 5y ago
      This is true, but perhaps a bit of a tangent to a parable. I was merely reacting to the statement that most construction engineeers wouldn't know "how concrete is made". Most of them could tell you a thing or two about it, it's even in the curriculum. They are even expected to know about different preparations. The idea that specialization doesn't exist is a bit of a straw man argument and not something anyone seems to argue.