THE PERSONAL SIDE
As to the personal side of engineering
as a career, if it would be a source of gratification
to you to know that you were helping to build up the
civilized world, then you should enter the engineering
profession. Because men differ in their ideas
as to what constitutes a full life some
placing ideal homes above all things, some seeking
continuously diversified sources of pleasure, some
wanting nothing better than a fine library or freedom
to cultivate taste in pictures, some wishing only
to surround themselves with interesting people, some
wanting nothing but an accumulation of dollars, some
wishing but for power of control over others all
men would not find the full life in engineering.
Yet the majority of men would, because the profession
holds that which would appeal to a great many different
ideas as to what a complete life consists of.
Engineering as a profession is scientific, idealistic,
constructive, profitable. It is combative in
the sense that it shapes nature’s forces and
it calls for a sense of artistry in its practitioners.
Added to these, it embraces a certain kind of profound
knowledge the possession of which is always a source
of pride to the owner.
Let me explain this last. The
engineer, being as he is a man who views things objectively,
notes details in everything that comes under his eye,
be it dwelling or automobile, or bookbinding or highway.
The layman does not. The layman, outside his
work, sees only the thing itself, when looking at
it the general outline. But the engineer,
trained to note details in construction, observes
detail at a glance, and does it almost subconsciously,
if not immediately after leaving school, then assuredly
later, after he has been practicing his profession
for a time. His outlook is objectively critical.
Entering a house for the first time, and trained as
a mechanical engineer, he will note the character of
the woodwork, the decorations, the atmosphere, the
arrangement of the furnishings, all with the same
facility that he will note details upon entering for
the first time a power-station or a manufacturing
plant things within his own province.
Nor is this faculty confined to the
concrete. Engineers are of that deeply instinctive
race of folk who perceive cause in effect with the
lightning swiftness of a wild animal. If they
are not this when entering upon the profession, assuredly
they become so after a period spent in the work.
Something about the practice of engineering breeds
it breeds this objective seeing and abstract
reasoning and to be possessed of it is
to get more out of life than otherwise is possible.
Which possibly accounts for the fact that engineers
as a group seem to have a common-sense viewpoint of
things, one that is frankly acknowledged and drawn
upon when needed by men in other walks of life.
Engineers are extremely practical-minded, and this
makes for a certain outlook that will not permit of
visionary scaring away from the common sense and the
practical on the part of its possessor. Engineers
know why things occur without having witnessed even
the occurrence itself. Their powers of reasoning
are developed to degrees beyond the average or
they seem to be and out of this comes one
of the sources of gratification on the personal side
to the man who pursues engineering as a profession.
The thing spreads out as I contemplate
it. I would make so bold as to say that the man
of engineering training will see more at a glance when
first viewing the Grand Canyon, say, than will any
other professionally trained man. Should the
Canyon collapse, he would know instantly why it collapsed.
He could give an opinion on the wonderful color effects
that would interest the artist, and he would know
without hesitation how best to descend to the bottom
and wherein to seek the easiest trail. All this,
without his being a civil or a mining engineer, understand;
merely a man trained in constructive mechanics.
On the other hand, the mining or the civil man would
view the wreckage of a locomotive accident and see
in the debris, select from the snarl of tangled wheels
and driving-arms and axles a ready picture of the
nature of the accident and how much of the wreckage
offered possibilities for repair. Again, the
engineer sees in a tree, with its tapering trunk, the
symbol of all tower construction, just as he sees
in the shape of a man’s arm the pattern to follow
when devising a cast-iron lever for an automatic machine.
He sees things, does the engineer; sees objectively;
follows nature throughout.
All this being true, the engineer
has a rather interesting life of it. For not
only does he see a little more clearly than otherwise
would be possible to him without his education and
training, but also he does things with his hands that
come easy to him without previously having undertaken
them. The engineer can do much around his own
home, if he so choose, that of itself is a source
of great satisfaction. Engineers can swing doors,
build fireplaces, landscape, erect fences, make garden,
and can perform these tasks with a degree of neatness
and skill that brings favorable comment from journeymen
whose vocations this work is, and do the work without
training whatsoever in the work. Wall-papering,
painting, carpentering, laying up of brick, or the
placing of a dry wall plastering, glazing the
list is endless that as side-plays are possible to
the man with an engineering training. He need
not do these things, ever; but if he wants ever to
do them, he finds that he can do them and do a creditable
job of each, and this without his ever having turned
his hand to the work before.
Which sums up in a measure the personal side. The
engineer is not a superior being. Merely he is a man possessed of a highly
specialized education and training which peculiarly fits him for any practical
work, and out of this work, for practical thinking of the kind known as
constructive. Being constructive with his hands, he cannot but in time
become constructive with his brain. Being constructive as a thinker first,
he cannot but become constructive as a doer later. The one hinges closely
on the other, and having both, as the engineer must who would be a successful
engineer, he has as much of the world under his control as comes to any man,
and, in a great degree, more than is the favorable lot of most men. For
the engineer is both a thinker and a doer. Ponder that you. Men are
either one or the other most men and rarely are they both. Either side of
their brain has been developed at the expense of the other side. Not so
with the engineer. The successful engineer is both thinker and doer must
be in his profession. It seems to me that engineering has many beautiful
attractions as a profession.