The Scientist and the Engineer 61 



Medical Association and the large number of engineers who 

 vote the straight RepubHcan ticket. 



From the student's point of view it is important to note 

 that this confidence in what Professor Galbraith has called 

 "the conventional wisdom" is reflected in the curriculum 

 and manner of teaching in many of our engineering schools. 

 The situation is changing somewhat, but it is more fre- 

 quently true than not that courses in engineering still regard 

 scientific generaUzations as laws of nature. The attitude is 

 that these laws and their corollaries are there to be memo- 

 rized as a basis for future action. After all, there is a massive 

 amount to be learned and you had better not waste your 

 time questioning what better men than you have figured 

 out. Sure it's tough and a lot of you are going to flunk out, 

 but those of you who survive will always be proud to have 

 graduated from good old Rule of Thumb Tech. 



In recent years many young people who have not trou- 

 bled themselves to draw a distinction between science and 

 engineering have suffered a rude shock when they have 

 encountered the attitude described in the preceding para- 

 graph. This shock is likely to become even greater and more 

 widespread as more and more students arrive in engineering 

 schools after having enjoyed the rapidly improving science 

 courses in high school. Already there is general concern 

 over the fact that enrollment in undergraduate engineering 

 schools has been falling off in the last few years. A phe- 

 nomenon such as this is always difficult to explain, but there 

 is more than a suspicion that part of the trouble arises in 

 the unimaginative, essentially unscientific atmosphere in 

 many of our engineering schools. 



However vahd the basic distinction between the scientist 

 and engineer may be as a matter of current fact, it may be 

 unwise to accept it uncritically as a guide to policy. We 



