From: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin)
Newsgroups: soc.college.grad
Subject: Engr. Courses vs LA courses (was Re: Any Humanities Grads out there?)
Date: 14 Apr 92 08:20:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: eng.1992Apr14.082039.1135
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park
Originator: clin@coke.eng.umd.edu


In article <1992Apr14.061535.26424@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, millerj@lambda.ecn.purdue.edu (Snide Pucker) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.032047.27956@eng.umd.edu> clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin) writes:
>#>
>#>  Try attending a senior
>#>level course in an engineering course and a liberal arts course.
>#>Chances are (unless you select some philosophy course) you'll be able
>#>to understand about halh of what's going on in a liberal arts course
>#>and none of what's going on in an engineering course.
>
>   Engineers seem to take a sick pride in having a firm grasp on terminology
>   that no one else can understand.  The flagrant abuse of techno-jargon
>   means that the rest of the "ignorant world" can blunder in the dark while
>   engineers spout such combobulations as
>
>      "By linearising the higher-order expansions to the interfacial wave 
>       perturbations, significant downscaling of the time-stepping is achieved."
>
>   Indeed.  Makes perfect sense to me (it had better, it's in my field)
>

   I really can't stand the terminology either, but it seems to be a necessary
evil.  I could use a longer phrase than linearizing, but it would be just that --
longer.   Not everything difficult in engineering (and I extend this
to sciences and math) is terminology, but a lot is.  Often, it is how
aware you are of what the terminology means that get you through the material.
However, there are other abstract ideas that take a bit to understand.
I agree that the *explanations* of these concepts can be done without
resorting to jargon.   I wish people could express themselves well enough
in books to do so.

>
>   There seems to be a belief that spouting techno-jargon translates to an
>   understanding of the field (e.g. using buzzwords or catch-phrases).
>   I consider it another way engineers distance themselves from the public.
>   I don't trust lawyers for the same reason, too much reliance on cryptic
>   phrasing and terminology.  
>

    I agree.  I find it bothersome that people are somehow unable to
explain things without their techno-words.  Even down to the phrase
"Let z be a blah-and-blah field" or "Without loss of generality..."
Not terribly original phrases.

>   I believe the true test of understanding is to explain it to someone who
>   hasn't the foggiest idea of what you are talking about (i.e. zero background).
>   Kinda like teaching a class....=)

   This can also prove to be very difficult.  You can get some of the
qualitative ideas across but you can oversimplify to the point where
you've only given a rough approximation of what you really want to say.
To also get the accuracy you want, you may be spending a lot of time.
For example, I could say integration is some procedure that allows you
to calculate areas under curves, but I think I would have a much
harder time trying to explain why 1/3 x^3  is the integral of x^2.
It's still worth oversimplifying though because at least one
can understand how to do it.  Abstracting an idea to a simpler form
is a good skill to have.

>
>
>#>  A lot of what the humanities teaches you, from a practical
>#>point of view, is the abiity to organize your arguments effectively.
>
>   Indeed, which is why so many engineers who take the fast track through
>   college are incomprehensible.  

   I'm not sure what you mean by fast track through college.  You mean
those who want to get out in three years and stuff?

--
   ______    __    __   ___  ____
  / ____ \  |  |  |__| |   \ |  |    Charles Lin
 | /    \_| |  |   __  |    \|  |    e-mail: clin@eng.umd.edu
 | |        |  |  |  | |  |\    |   
 | |     _  |  |  |__| |__| \___|    University of Maryland
 | \____/ | |  |____                 "I hate big sigs." -- Moo
  \______/  \_______|