Its not a problem. We can always bring in engineers from overseas.
Engineering only cares about results...really. i bet countless minorities throughout history disagree...
Are some minorities unqualified?? Hell yes...but what about all the ones that wereand never had a chance...
I find this Engineering Educamation vector to be, at a minimum, a milliagression.
I do notice that in many countries engineers are much more admired and have a much higher status than here.
"I seek to revise engineering curricula to be relevant to a fuller range of student experiences and career destinations, integrating concerns related to public policy, professional ethics, and social responsibility; de-centering Western civilization; and uncovering contributions of women and other underrepresented groups…. We examine how technology influences and is influenced by globalization, capitalism, and colonialism…. Gender is a key…[theme]…[throughout] the course…. We…[examine]… racist and colonialist projects in science….”Henceforth, I sure don't want to fly in airplanes or drive over bridges designed by Purdue grads.
That's because Liberals and minority grievance groups attack that which they cannot master or perform.
Engineering and medicine were the last holdouts against a college and university system that surrendered to cultural Marxism.
And now STEM has surrendered as well.
Simple:
Don’t study engineering in the West, apparently. And don’t hire those that do.
You can’t cheat the laws of physics. Eventually the affirmative action engineers lack of merit will out, and things will break and stop working.
The law of gravity needs to be diversified and made more socially responsible.
It is indeed a great insult to engineers, but I’d not worry. Any person capable of passing the true science part of the curricula (e.g. NONE of the social “science” crap) easily will see through the BS being spread by the low IQ left part of the Bell Curve. They will pretend to listen, then subsequently file the worthless drivel into the bit bucket.
The social science crowd has been, is, and always will be laughed at by their mental superiors.
Sorry, but dat’s the way ‘tis.
I graduated from the University of Arizona College of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering in 1978. The professors we had actually worked in the private sector prior to teaching, most of them were WWII veterans. My advisor was a Naval Aviator who flew airships. I got a great education that served me well. Unfortunately, those days are gone forever.
As I posted on a thread about affirmative action:
The fluid in the pipe at the chemical plant doesn’t care if the plant engineer is black or white, male or female. It does not take race, gender, or sexual orientation into account. If the pressure and temperature of the fluid is wrong, the plant blows up and people die. It’s not being racist, sexist or homophobic. It is going to do what various natural laws demand will happen. It is truly “blind” to any sort of bigotry or prejudice.
Either you know what you are doing or the plant blows up. Period.
There is no room for “social engineering” in the real engineering fields.
The recently appointed 'dean' of Purdue's 'school of engineering education', Dr. Donna Riley apparently is ignorant of the fact that math, physics and chemistry pay no respect to political correctness. Math and scientific engineering are correct or the structure fails.
As a parent of a Purdue engineering student, it seems safe to assume Donna is/was not a successful 'stem' graduate climbing the academic ladder. With any luck that glass ceiling will come crashing down on her PC 'open mindedness' ASAP.
Bookmark
Not sure about STEM, but I’ve noticed a distinct lack of them in business majors. The pushy, vocal kind either were rare where I was(Information Systems Management), even less in more traditional business disciplines(like Finance).
If that’s not making the people in stupid majors take smart stuff, they shouldn’t many people in real majors take propaganda.
In the comments section of the original article one will find the following abstract to a paper by the Dean of Purdue’s School of Engineering Education:
“Thermodynamics is a subject area in engineering that is deeply relevant as it deals with energy use in society. However, students often struggle to connect their experiences with energy course content traditionally based in theoretical discoveries from 19th century Western Europe. The work of French philosopher Michel Foucault is similar to thermodynamics in that its abstract poststructuralist theory strikes fear in the hearts of students, but can be made deeply relevant when its understanding is grounded in one’s experience”; abstract to “Power/Knowledge: Using Fourcault to promote critical understandings of content and pedagogy in Engineering Thermodynamics” by Dr. Donna Riley, Dean of Purdue’s School of Engineering Education
The errors, deceptions and diversions in just those three sentences of that abstract boggle one’s mind.
Students struggle with thermo NOT because they can’t connect it with their experiences, but because thermo is hard - and anybody who has taken a course in thermodynamics would know that.
Thermodynamics was not developed as a strictly theoretical proposition, but (as in most science) through an interplay of theory and experiment - heck, one could argue that the fundamental experimentation (which involved careful observation of processes as mundane as the heat generated when boring cannons) was more critical than the development of the mathematical theory related to it.
The fact that thermo was developed largely in 19th century Europe is totally and completely irrelevant - the Carnot cycle would describe a thermodynamic phenomenon equally well whether it was proposed by a Frenchman born in 1796 or a Korean born in 1896 or an Egyptian born in 1696.
The work of Foucault has practically nothing in common with thermodynamics - one would be hard-pressed to find to realms in academia more dissimilar: thermo provides a detailed understanding of a portion of physical reality with profound practical consequences; Foucault postulates a system of philosophical approaches best-described as a load of bull-pucky, which has mostly served the purpose of providing a pay check for poseurs like Riley.
One would hope post-structuralist theory WOULD strike fear in the hearts of undergrads; sadly what it does instead is provide an academic hiding place for students who have neither the intellectual ability nor the work ethic to handle stuff like thermo.
I could go on, but I don’t want to have to hit a booster dose of my blood pressure meds.
