Typing and Other Non-engineering Skills

By Richard G. Weingardt, P.E., Eng-i

 

Weingardt Column for Structural Engineer – Column No. 04-9 (September 2004)
________________________

Typing. When asked what’s the most helpful skill and/or course I ever took, my response is, “My high school typing class.” In today’s world of computers, the word “typing” seems like an antiquated term. Machines with keyboards nowadays aren’t for “typing”; they’re for “word processing” and “data entering.” And even they’re verging on obsolescence with the ever-increasing improvements in audio command devices. Until these tools get better, however, I’m sticking with “typing” information into my computers.

I took that typing class with a one of my teammates on the football team. We did it mostly on a dare, but we also thought it might be a great way to meet girls – the ones not taken by the deeds of athletes. And it worked, at least to get attention. We were the only boys in the class, and not very good typists in the beginning, so we received special consideration – especially because our typewriters were manuals and we were always getting the key levers jammed with our inept finger action.

But we did eventually learn to type! Not the best in the class, but we became adequate typists. Today, I’m tickled by the strange looks I get when people see my fingers flying across a keyboard as I enter engineering data or compose something. No dictating, then proofing, then reproofing someone else’s word processing of my work for me. Besides taking too long, the process allows too many miscues to creep into it to suit me.

Reflecting on how a beginning-level typing class has benefited me so well, I’ve often wondered what additional non-engineering training has greatly aided other structurals in their work. Over the years, I’ve queried many of my colleagues and actually conducted a nationwide survey of 200-some engineers. The overwhelming majority said the most helpful courses were those that improved their business and communications acumen – writing, public speaking and presentation skills. A handful even agreed with me about typing, and a few advocated “Dale Carnegie-type” courses as required training. Don Logan, head of a precast-concrete manufacturing operation in Colorado Springs, listed “logic, philosophy, current events, Latin and English.”

When questioned about what engineering classes were the most useful in their careers, many noted the basics – statics and dynamics, physics, structural analysis and strength of materials. Richard Meloy from Kansas City, Missouri, said, “If you can’t boil a structural problem down to a free-body diagram, you don’t really get it.” Added William Churchill of Omaha, Nebraska, “Knowing the sciences and mathematics (in particular, calculus and differential equations) is vitally essential in being able to solve engineering problems.”

Others favored their design classes – concrete, steel and wood design, and foundation engineering. Those from California and other high seismic zones singled out earthquake engineering as being their top program. Courses that required solving difficult statically indeterminate structures impressed Al Knott of Denver, Colorado. He said, “They taught me to think analytically and with precision.”

In capping off my survey, I asked if they would change anything about their college education if they could. The answers were all over the place. A high percentage said they wouldn’t change a thing, that it was perfect the way it was. Others thought a broader education – more humanities, business and management classes, and more development of their leadership and people skills – would have been beneficial. Twenty-five percent of the respondents said they would go on for an advanced degree, either a master’s or a doctorate. No one mentioned a desire to learn anything about nanotechnology.

Leslie Robertson, the legendary New York City structural designer of many of the world’s tallest skyscrapers, earned his bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering. If he were to go back in history, he said, “I’d study structural engineering.”

Overall, the American structural engineering community, by and large, seems to be content. Most of its members don’t feel passionate about changing either what they learned or the basic curriculum they took. Those who favor change said they’d strive to become more well-rounded and worldly by taking a wider array of non-engineering classes. A number agreed with John Nelson of Wellington, Colorado, who said, “I would take more courses in engineering law and economics.”

In today’s rapidly changing world with its slippery global-market practices and volatile political atmosphere, are we structural engineers being too complacent – and too self-approving – for our own good? As a profession, will unchecked passivity about how future engineers are educated – and about how global business trends impact U.S. engineers and engineering – benefit us as we move forward? Time will tell! In the meantime, keep honing those non-engineering skills – and remember not to underprize typing dexterity.