On the Question of the Relationship Between General and Specialized Training in Engineering Education

D. N. Prikhodko

One of the crude propaganda assertions of certain American sociologists is the claim that Soviet students are trained according to narrowly specialized programs, which give them fairly good professional qualities but deprive the specialist of a broad professional and social outlook. This judgment is developed in detail, for example, by N. De Witt. He “explains” the narrow professionalism of Soviet technical education as follows. The Communist Party is allegedly interested in preventing the individual from having a broad professional and social outlook, for, having acquired such an outlook, he will take a critical attitude toward the ideology of Marxism and the social practice of Soviet society. Therefore, the Communist Party and the state allegedly seek to direct the training of the specialist along a narrow-professional path, limiting his professional-social role as much as possible to the duty of performing his narrow professional functions and not reflecting on the relationship of these functions to any broader aspects of social or professional activity. As a positive alternative to this supposedly personality-destroying “professionalism,” the practice of American higher educational institutions is set in opposition. Here is one of Witt’s typical arguments on this matter: “Specialization in the Soviet Union in the system of higher education is much narrower than in American professional education. There they train the individual in a narrowly defined field of professional knowledge, which the student receives in order to perform the job assigned to him. Professional specialization in the Soviet Union is expressed as sharply as nowhere else in the world. The Soviet philosophy of education is based on the conviction that man is intended to carry out narrowly specialized tasks in society”¹. In his further arguments, the sociologist-anticommunist attempts to formulate the conclusion that “the training of the Soviet specialist, with its lack of general education and its denial of cultural, ethical, and social values, although it leads to technical competence and mastery, limits the creative participation of the individual in solving the most important social and political problems that today confront the Soviet Union and the entire world”².

If one abstracts from the ideological-propagandistic context of B. N. Vitte’s reasoning, whose anti-communist character is, in general, obvious, then the problem of the correlation and interaction between the general training of a specialist in the fundamental sciences and professional, specialized training in the applied and special sciences is a complex and still not fully resolved problem of higher education, on whose solution many specialists are working both in the Soviet Union and in the United States of America. Moreover, most specialists believe that this problem pertains primarily to higher technical education.

In solving this problem, American specialists put forward three principal points of view. Let us note that this problem is least of all academic in character. In one of the annual reports of the President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, this problem and the main viewpoints regarding the path to its solution were posed and formulated precisely as practical problems, on whose solution the character of technical education will largely depend. The first point of view (the point of view of the “extreme liberals”) asserts that “the traditional program of engineering schools is completely obsolete. The development of technology is proceeding at such a rapid pace that it objectively plunges engineering-education programs into a body of fundamental sciences. The true foundations of the education of the future specialist consist in ensuring that, after receiving the bachelor’s degree, the specialist is equally able to choose a career either as a researcher or as a professional.”³ In other words, the main emphasis in modern technical education must be placed on the study of the fundamental sciences. Predominant and profound training in the fundamental sciences will make the specialist capable of meeting the demands of rapidly developing scientific and technological progress.

The second point of view (the point of view of the “conservatives”) asserts: “While agreeing that technology is based on the fundamental sciences, the functions of the engineer in society differ to the highest degree from the functions of the pure scientist. The engineer stands apart from laboratory research; he deals with various practical relations to his client or to his firm. His duties are connected with various kinds of responsibility; the engineer is called upon for various improvements and solutions. His mind is constantly resolving questions of cost and reliability, interchangeability and strength. These methods of thinking and working must be brought into the student’s consciousness as early as possible.”⁴

The third point of view is the “compromise” one. “Obviously, the easiest path,” writes Professor A. A. Stratton, President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with regard to this point of view, “consists in resolving the contradiction of these opposing viewpoints and saying: the country needs both types of engineers—both applied scientists and more empirical engineers.”⁵ Further, A. A. Stratton emphasizes that certain experimental programs, taking into account the rational elements of all viewpoints, are being partially conducted in American institutions of higher education. However, Stratton rightly points to

³ Report of the President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the completion of the academic year. July, 1958, pp. 7, 8.
⁴ Ibid., p. 9.
⁵ Ibid., p. 10.

complexity and difficulty in solving the problem³. In particular, if we adopt the viewpoint of the “extreme liberals,” then, say, the selection of applicants for the first year should be conducted solely on the basis of the criterion of their mathematical abilities. The question arises: will such a selection process not lead to an exceptionally disadvantageous outcome for the engineering program of a technical institution itself? A. A. Stratton, without joining either of these points of view, nevertheless increasingly adheres to a third, rightly noting that “the more deeply one enters into these difficult questions, the more illusions appear regarding quick answers to them, and the less easy it is to solve them”⁴. Here we shall not analyze the merits and shortcomings of these points of view. It may only be noted that each of them has definite weak and strong sides. Our attitude toward them will be determined by the view that we shall try to develop below.

It should be noted that the problem of the relation between general and specialized education is far from solved in American institutions of higher education. H. De Witt, out of purely ideological propagandistic aspirations, simplifies it and creates the illusion that this problem does not exist in the USA, that American higher educational institutions train some ideal type of specialist who, under the conditions of a “model pattern of social organization,” is capable of harmoniously combining general and specialized training in the interests of the improvement and development of his personality. De Witt’s reasoning finds no confirmation among many American researchers, who are inclined to regard narrow professionalism, which limits the creative possibilities of the specialist, as one of the defects of their educational system. A group of American sociologists and educational leaders, in a special report of the Presidential Commission on Higher Education, notes precisely the extreme professionalism of curricula as one of the shortcomings. The report states, in particular, the following: “The modern college program does not contribute to the appropriate development of students’ maturity either as specialists or as citizens. This occurs to a significant degree because the unity of liberal education has been split by overspecialization”⁵. The authors of the report consider one of the causes of overspecialization to be the presence of an enormous number of small, narrowly specialized curricula in higher educational institutions. “The number of courses has so increased that no student could study them all, or even most of them, in the course of his entire life. In a small Midwestern college, for example, the number of courses offered increased from 67 in 1900 to 269 in 1930. During the same period, a college of liberal arts, one of the large private universities, expanded its list of courses from 960 to 1897.” The authors then name several other causes which, in their view, produce an extremely strong specialization of higher education in the USA. Speaking of the social consequences of this specialization with respect to the individual and society, the authors of the report write that “they (graduates of higher educational institutions—D. P.) finish college without any idea of certain basic areas of human knowledge and without a general conception of human experience, which is highly essential both for the development of the individual and for social experience”⁶. On the negative influence of narrow

H. G. Rickover also points to the influence of general education and general professional training on the quality of the specialist: “...many of our outstanding people,” he writes, “who occupy leading positions in public and private organizations, in administration, and also in technology and in other fields, do not have the foundation of a broad and deep education in science and in the humanities. Without such a foundation they become those of whom the Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset said: ‘educated ignoramuses’—people who know very much about a narrow specialty and little about everything else.” Further, H. G. Rickover rightly observes that the activity of such people will be less effective even in the field of their own specialty⁷. Thus, the problem of the relationship between general and specialized education is sufficiently complex. It still requires its own searches and its own solution. The authors of the above-mentioned report of the Presidential Commission on Higher Education rightly note that “today colleges must find the proper relationship, on the one hand, between specialized training, which offers thousands of specialties, and general education, which transmits general cultural values, on the other.”⁸

The practice of the Soviet higher school has made a substantial contribution to solving the problem of the optimal relationship between the general and specialized training of the specialist. Soviet higher educational institutions provide future specialists with a broad education above all in the basic (fundamental) sciences—mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology. For example, the share of mathematics and physics in the curricula of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is significantly smaller than in the curricula of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. In the MIPT curriculum the mathematics program, in hours, exceeds that in the MIT curriculum by 16.6%, and physics by 5.2%. The Minister of Higher Education of the USSR, V. P. Elyutin, rightly emphasizes that “mastery of new technology is unthinkable without deep theoretical and practical knowledge,” without profound study of “higher mathematics, physics, mechanics, and other general-engineering and general-scientific disciplines.”⁹ Soviet higher educational institutions, irrespective of their specialized profile, provide students with a fairly broad humanities education, which they receive through the study of compulsory courses in the social sciences. In general, the share of the social sciences in Soviet higher-education programs is no smaller than in American higher educational institutions. N. D. Witt, in particular, points to this circumstance. As an advantage, in our view, it should be noted that the study of courses in the social sciences in Soviet higher educational institutions is strictly compulsory and is given in approximately the same scope in different institutions; in some American higher educational institutions (admittedly a minority), the study of the social sciences is either not strictly compulsory or is conducted on an elective basis, which gives students the opportunity to avoid studying these sciences. In this connection V. P. Elyutin emphasized that an exceptionally important advantage of the Soviet higher school is that its graduates receive a more comprehensive socio-political and humanities education.¹⁰ A harmonious combination of general and specialized training is realized in the Soviet higher school in the development of students’ scientific creativity. In our view, students’ research work (NIRS) objectively—

does not require a combination of narrowly professional knowledge and knowledge of the fundamental sciences, including the humanities. Without a harmonious combination of this knowledge, even a modest contribution to genuinely scientific creativity is objectively impossible. Introducing students to scientific creativity at a higher educational institution is one of the necessary conditions for the all-round development of the personality of the future specialist, for participation in student research work promotes the discovery and development of the student’s abilities, develops theoretical thinking, and fosters initiative, originality, and independence of thought.

There is another aspect to this question. Under conditions in which the volume of scientific and technical information is constantly expanding (a variable quantity), and the amount of free time (a quantity that, in the final analysis, is constant) which a specialist must devote to becoming acquainted with and studying information in his specialty in order to keep pace with scientific and technological progress is limited, the skills and certain experience in scientific research acquired by the specialist at the higher educational institution also acquire social significance. In this case these skills and experience may prove to be the basic method by which the specialist will be able not only to master universally the colossal results of scientific and technological progress, but also to become one of the conscious creators of that process. In this respect, the judgment of Academician N. M. Zhavoronkov is highly characteristic: “In the future, the task of education will to an ever lesser degree be the communication of knowledge, and to an ever greater degree the preparation of young people for scientific research.”¹¹ The Communist Party is making a whole series of efforts to develop student research work, regarding it as an exceptionally important and positive phenomenon. The position of the Party and the government in this respect was formulated with utmost clarity and depth by the Minister of Higher Education, V. P. Elyutin: “We must take measures for the broad development of students’ scientific and technical creative work. Every department and every instructor must consider it their duty to draw students into scientific research. It is precisely in the course of such work that, around major scholars, a scientific school will take shape, and that the part of the student body most capable of science will be selected and brought forward. At the same time, the skills of scientific creative work must be instilled in all students. Therefore, alongside the work of student design bureaus and scientific circles, real course and diploma design work and other forms of research and design activity must be developed more broadly.”¹² Moreover, noting the positive experience of higher educational institutions in organizing student research work and, in particular, in carrying out real diploma design, V. P. Elyutin emphasized that “in the country’s leading higher educational institutions—the Tomsk Polytechnic Institute, the Moscow Power Engineering Institute, the Bauman Moscow Higher Technical School, and many others—more than 50% of diploma projects are developed on real topics.”¹³

An important step in the development of student research work was the inter-institutional scientific-methodological conferences devoted to generalizing the experience of higher educational institutions in organizing student research work and to discussing ways of scientifically organizing this creative activity of instructors, held in Tomsk in February 1967 and in May 1972.¹⁴

Attention should be paid to two fundamentally important points: should the organization of student research work be obligatory in character (for example, the introduction of research programs into the compulsory curriculum—the so-called Educational Research Work of Students), or should the organization of student research work be strictly voluntary? Without entering into an analysis of the various points of view on this matter, which on the whole reduce to the two alternatives just mentioned, the following judgment seems rational to us: where the issue is the need to instill in students research skills and research experience at, so to speak, the primary level, at the level of the requirements of modern production, which it places upon the bulk of practical specialists, student research-work programs should be obligatory. In a certain sense one may accept L. A. Gorbunova’s judgment that the content of students’ scientific-research work will come to be determined and justified by the depth of the connection between scientific and educational activity at the higher educational institution.^18 Only in this respect can one also share the point of view reflected in the formula: “research skills for every engineer.” It is clear that an approach to student research work in the spirit of this formula presupposes the obligatory character of programs of students’ scientific activity, whether this be actual diploma and course design, Educational Research Work of Students, or other forms of student research work. But it is obvious that such a formula is unacceptable if what is meant is not a “specialist with research skills,” but the training of a theoretical specialist in the field of the fundamental sciences—mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, etc. Of course, Educational Research Work of Students helps to discover such “potential researchers” and to develop their abilities in part. But it is unlikely that a compulsory research program (Educational Research Work of Students) could develop or even fully reveal the abilities of “potential theoreticians.” If every student, generally speaking, possesses the capacity to acquire certain skills and experience in research work, then only a few possess abilities for theoretical scientific activity. F. Engels rightly regarded the capacity for theoretical thinking as an innate property of the personality. It is unlikely that a compulsory research program, introduced into the mandatory schedule, is capable of developing these innate abilities of the personality or even of satisfying its interests. It seems to us that the theoretical search for the future scholar should not be limited by any compulsory Educational Research Work program. The subjective basis of such searches is precisely the innate capacity for theoretical thinking, a peculiar obsession with scientific inquiry, about which Academician A. A. Aleksandrov wrote so brilliantly and profoundly in his well-known article “Let There Be More of the Obsessed.”^19 The objective basis for the search for the “obsessed,” the guarantee of the success of these searches, may be the theoretical activity of the large scholarly collective headed by him.

V. P. Elyutin also sees two basic functions in student research work: first, to form the future scholar. In this connection he writes: “... it is precisely in the process of such work (student research work—D. P.) that scientific schools will take shape around major scholars, and the part of the student body most capable of science will be selected and promoted.” And, second, “it is necessary to instill the skills of scientific creative work in all students.” In our view,

^18 L. A. Gorbunova. On the question of the methodological basis for organizing students’ scientific-research work in a higher technical school. Proceedings of TPI, vol. 220. Social Questions of the Development of Science and Higher Education. TSU Press, 1970, p. 36.

^19 See: Komsomolskaya Pravda, 1962, February 14.

In the most general form, the approach to this problem could be formulated as follows:

First. Mandatory SRWS programs for all those who, after graduating from a higher educational institution, will act in the professional role of a “practical specialist” with a certain amount of experience and skills in scientific-research work.

Second. The creation of opportunities for activity outside the mandatory SRWS program for those students who have shown extraordinary abilities for theoretical thinking. Of course, what is meant is that the activity and the search for such “possessed” individuals will take place under the general guidance of a major scholar, and that a future scholar can be formed only alongside an already outstanding scholar.

1. N. De Witt. Training and Utilization of Specialists in the USSR. Russian Research Center, Harvard University, 1961, p. 225. ↩

2. N. De Witt. Soviet Professional Manpower. Its Education, Training and Utilization. Washington, 1955, p. 185 (in English). ↩

3. Let us note that the judgments of the Polish sociologist J. Podgórecki are close to the “compromise” point of view. See: Science and Technology for Development. Report on the United Nations Conference on the Application of Scientific and Technical Knowledge to Meet the Needs of Less Developed Areas, vol. 4, New York, 1963, p. 91. ↩

4. Report of the President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the Occasion of the End of the Academic Year, July 1956, p. 10. ↩

5. American Higher Education. History in Documents, vol. 2. University of Chicago Press, 1961, p. 987 (in English). ↩

6. Ibid. ↩

7. H. Rickover. American Education—A National Failure. New York, 1963, p. 112 (in English). ↩

8. American Higher Education. History in Documents, p. 987 (in English). ↩

9. V. P. Elyutin, The Higher School at a New Stage. All-Union Conference of Higher-School Workers in the Kremlin, July 4–7, 1961. Moscow, 1961, p. 26. ↩

10. Ibid., p. 23. ↩

11. Science and Technology for Development. Report of the United Nations Conference on the Application of Scientific and Technical Knowledge to Meet the Needs of Less Developed Areas. Vol. VI. Education and Training. New York, 1963, p. 77. ↩

12. V. P. Elyutin, Higher Education at a New Stage. All-Union Conference of Workers of Higher Education in the Kremlin, July 4–7, 1961, p. 30. ↩

13. Ibid., p. 29. ↩

14. See, for example, on this subject the collection of materials and speeches presented at the conference Organization and Effectiveness of Students’ Scientific Research Work in Higher Educational Institutions, Tomsk, 1967. ↩