About engineering education (part 1)

As a practicing engineer, with two sons who are active engineers and a grandson studying engineering, all, like me, at our beloved UFRJ, I write this text with a constructive spirit, but outside the current customs of “political correctness” often used to avoid criticism and leave everything as it is.

On July 16, 2011, almost 14 years ago, under the title "Signs of Regression", an important Brazilian newspaper published, in the OPINION column, an article signed by the then vice-director of the Polytechnic School of USP, complaining about the possible approval of a certain federal bill 220 of 2010:

"Amends Law No. 9,394/1996 (Law of Guidelines and Bases of National Education) to allow the admission of teachers, holders of a bachelor's degree, to work in the areas of technology and infrastructure, provided that they demonstrate relevant professional experience in accordance with the regulations provided for."

Now, this bill 220 could end the “market reserve” for academic careers in a field where mixing it with practice is essential. The vice-director proposed leaving everything as it was! And he succeeded! The bill was rejected and shelved!

Soon the vice-director of the glorious Polytechnic of USP, a hotbed of so many exceptional Brazilian engineers, belittling our engineering schools.

The "active engineers" are well acquainted with Brazilian engineering schools, whether state-owned or not, as they receive workers from universities where, in practice, only MS.C. (with a master's degree) and Ph.D. (with a doctorate) teach.

As a result, what we see more and more are professionals coming from these schools, with no practical knowledge of engineering, taught by teachers “raised in captivity”, and therefore without practical experience.

The nickname “raised in captivity”, a common term used in the field, is ironic and says it all. They are professors, restricted to academic life, due to the requirement of exclusive dedication and the need to produce more and more works that need to be bureaucratically published so that the authors can be promoted within the structures in force.

It is a true re-edition of "art for art's sake", in which teachers, often arrogant and full of themselves, feed prejudices and set up schemes in which they isolate themselves (or hide) behind a pseudo-university autonomy, and can no longer see that, instead of training engineers, they can only train teachers of theoretical engineering and/or aimed at "passing exams".

Those who really want to be engineers need to seek internships in engineering companies, factories, farms, construction sites, etc., extending their training period to 7 to 10 years, whereas 50 years ago, 4 to 5 years was enough. This puts an unnecessary burden on themselves and, therefore, on society. Worse, it transfers the vanguard that we had to other countries.

On the other hand, although it is understood that universities are responsible for preparing professionals for the job market, Brazilian engineering schools are running the risk of becoming an end in themselves, feeding off each other. It seems that, increasingly, the goal is to train teachers who will join or replace existing ones, seeking jobs and nothing more.

Whether it is a consequence or not, the result is that this arrangement, mercenary or not, has given rise to internal consulting offices in engineering schools, which end up competing for the job market of those who graduate and want to go outside the box. Worse still, in contracts arranged by fraternities under a thousand pretexts, thereby monopolizing the essential theoretical skills and harming companies and cutting-edge consulting. And don't come at us with the usual exceptions, more of an individual nature than of units or schools. Exceptions only serve to confirm rules.

The discussion on existing legislation, developed during military governments (1964-1989), should be centered on how many percent of teachers need to have a "master's degree" and/or "doctorate" and not on the obligation to have these titles.

One way would be to change the laws so that the composition of engineering teachers (and other professions such as doctors, chemists, pharmacists, architects, etc.) is not just theoretical or laboratory-based.

For example, creating three “categories” (quotas?) of teachers:

· 1/3 of the professors, composed of full-time academics (exclusive dedication), permanent staff (with stability) and with the freedom to use up to 20% of their time in work with engineering companies;

· 1/3 of full-time or nearly full-time teachers, made up of leading professionals in the field, with fixed-term contracts with schools for 5 to 10 years, with the freedom to use up to 15% of their time working with engineering companies.

· 1/3 of the teachers are professionals who are prominent in the field, with employment contracts, who would have 4 to 6 hours per week to teach engineering courses for 5 to 10 years.

The first category (quota) would follow the current requirements. Categories (quotas) 2 and 3 would be made up of personnel selected in a transparent manner through processes managed by nomination, selection and invitation boards (not competitions), boards made up of representatives of professional entities and participation of personnel from the academic world, with 60% of each board filled by graduates from a school other than the one they will teach in, perhaps even from another state, to minimize "fraternities" and nepotism, direct or crossed.

And we are not reinventing the wheel, as it is said that other countries have set up teacher selection processes similar to the one proposed here with great success.

50, 60 years ago, on the first day of class, in engineering schools, it was tradition for a teacher to write this equation on the blackboard:

engineering = physics + mathematics + common sense (today I would add + biochemistry) ,

how, mathematically It's the same, then some student would go to the board and write:

engineering – common sense = physics + mathematics

It seemed like a joke, but it's the pure truth. Common sense can only be learned through practice.

In dealing with this issue, with this bill, it seems that there was a lack of common sense and love for the profession. Personal interests and corporate positions prevailed. The issue is important and could be a "sign of progress" if treated in a less selfish and more altruistic way.

It would be very good for Brazilian engineering and for Brazil.

Miguel Fernandez y Fernandez, civil engineer

President of AQUACON Engineering,

graduated from EE at UFRJ in 1970, professor in the civil engineering course at PUC-Rio for 4 years, former tenured engineer at SABESP and MONTREAL-IESA.

Member of the National Academy of Engineering (chair 101), partner of IE - Institute of Engineering (since 1971) director of IE for Rio de Janeiro.