I started reading Engineers and Ivory Towers by Hardy Cross. I found reference to it in Scott Berkun’s book, Making Things Happen. As Berkun puts it [1]:
It’s an extended rant by an engineer on the state of the engineering profession circa 1952.
Cross was a civil engineer, and the book is, so far, skewed a bit toward civil engineering, especially the human element in designing buildings, bridges, etc. I am an electrical engineer and a software engineer, but there is still a fair amount of the human element in my work (e.g. usability and ergonomics in designing user interfaces).
However, I also consider myself a scientist (lasers, optics, physics in general, etc.), so I’ve found the first chapter of the book quite interesting. Cross discusses differences between his definitions of scientists and engineers and how popular conception blurs the line. He seems to want to separate the two endeavors fairly sharply [2]:
Engineers are not, however, primarily scientists. If they must be classified, they may be considered more humanists than scientists. Those who devote their life to engineering are likely to find themselves in contact with almost every phase of human activity.
While I don’t disagree with this, and in fact take some pride in it, I hope he will not go on to suggest that one cannot be both engineer and scientist. If, however, he does pose this rule, I hope I can stand as an exception that proves it.
I’m sure there is more to come in future posts.
Follow
Link
Subscribe