 |
Letters to the editor
The flat world fuss
In response to Dean Newton's message [spring 2006], the world
is indeed "flat." But Friedman is wrong about our technological
and economic preeminence being in jeopardy because more degrees are coming
out of Asia. Every engineer with a degree tries to develop a product that makes
life better or makes millions of dollars. I was able to do this even without
a degree, so we shouldn't feel threatened.
TREVOR J. BUCKINGHAM
Senior Software Engineer and Owner, QL2 Software Company
Chicago (EECS 1998-2002)
Defining engineering excellence
The brave new world of engineering excellence Dean Newton envisions [spring 2006] looks rather different to me. I agree that the quality of life of any society depends greatly on what the society chooses to do locally. But I suspect I am attending to different criteria and constraints.
You refer to goals of caring for one another, educating our children, creating new industries and well-paid jobs and investing in infrastructure. However, it is not clear to me that the kind of engineering projects and prototypes I see in the pages of Forefront are at all optimal in terms of our long-term quality of life, that is to say, sustainability.
What we should be doing is importing and expanding the output/input definition engineers are accustomed to by explicitly describing the desired output: necessities—that is, food, shelter and clothing—for all before luxuries for the few. Failure to explicitly describe the desired ends of the economic process allows people to delude themselves that the means they happen to be using at the time are actually the ends they really want.
By using money and transaction volume as indicators for economic health, we have ended up with a system that is much better at maximizing monetary profit than actual well-being. And as long as engineers and engineering students—not to mention lawyers, accountants, physicians and businessmen—keep thinking that money is what is important, we will continue to perpetuate the unhealthy materialism that is denounced by both left and right.
A notable example of the kind of wild-goose chase induced by this mistaken
emphasis on means rather than ends is the widely proposed revival of nuclear power in the face of rising oil prices. As it happens, Per Peterson and I have disagreed on this point since we were colleagues in grad school.
I am not aware of any comprehensive analysis demonstrating that nuclear power is the way to obtain the maximum amount of necessities for the least cost in energy and resources. We are far from solving the waste disposal problem and there are a litany of other thorny health and environmental problems still plaguing the field of nuclear technology.
MURIEL STRAND
Sacramento (B.A.’76 French, M.S.’88 ME)
Clear choice for suicide barrier
The spring 2006 issue of Forefront shows three options for a suicide barrier for the Golden Gate Bridge. The modified pedestrian rail option has a number of distinct advantages over the other options. It has an attractive, clean look and utilizes cable construction, which is compatible with the main bridge vertical support cables. It is the easiest to install at the lowest cost and is similar to cable restraint barriers now being installed in structures like stadiums and, as such, it is very difficult to climb. Finally, it creates only minimum blockage to a photographer’s camera lens.
BILL SCHICK
Los Altos (B.S.’57, M.S.’58, ME)
Engineering ties to industry
The article in the spring 2005 issue of Forefront about faculty-industry ties is very appropriate and interesting.
I have worked 20 years as a professional engineer in industry and academics, including 15 years in the Bay Area and as a professor and department chair at North Dakota State University. I am also on the Body of Knowledge committee of the American Society of Civil Engineers, working to develop the required knowledge and skills a civil engineer will need in the future to function as a professional.
When I was in the Bay Area, it was common knowledge that much of the local industry was developed or nurtured by faculty from Berkeley and Stanford. I have good memories of Berkeley from my years as a graduate student. Most of the faculty I had contact with had a good balance of research and practical engineering experience.
The National Academy of Engineering 2020 report on education recommends that engineering faculty have practical experience. It is unfortunate that many are lacking in this regard. In my opinion, it is a serious handicap for those trying to educate engineers for a profession of practice when they themselves have so little.
MERLIN KIRSCHENMAN, Professor Emeritus, NDSU
Moorhead, Minnesota (M.S.’76 CE)
Write to us at forefront@coe.berkeley.edu or send your letters to Forefront letters, 1925 Walnut St., #1704, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1704. Please include the writer's name. Note that we cannot include all letters received, and those published may be edited for length and clarity. |
|
FOREFRONT takes you into the
labs, classrooms, and lives of professors, students, and alumni
for an intimate look at the innovative research, teaching, and
campus life that define the College of Engineering at the University
of California, Berkeley.
Published twice a year by the College of Engineering Office of Marketing & Communications. Have a comment about Forefront? E-mail
your letter to the editor. Click here
to learn more about the magazine.
|
|
