"Ditto civil engineering. Who needs theory? Just build it."

Civil Engineering requires a lot of theory...

What is the civil engineer's design manifesto?

As far as I can tell, their motto is "Essayons" (Motto of Army Corps of Engineers, largest civil engineering organization in North America).

"What is the civil engineer's design manifesto?"

What does this question even mean?

Architecture is replete with manifestos and theoretical critique. Where is the equivalent for civil engineering?

You do realize that civil engineers take architecture's drawings and make them actually work, right? You don't have to take a single course in physics to be an architect.

Right, I don't see how that's relevant to what I asked. Civil engineers design, yes? What is their philosophy on design?

And do we know that civil engineers even attempt to make landscape architects designs work? They don't seem to put much thought into sustainability or any other value except permanence.

The question was about theory. I'm asking what the theory is behind civil engineering design.

Putin33:

"So what? Reading is the basis of how you are graded for 'other work'. You cannot do the 'other work' without having read the material."
Come on now, don't be dense. The busy work prevents students from doing the reading. I thought that was pretty clear, my perseptive reader. When the reading is connected to the busy work it's even worse because it forces students to dedicate time on an excercise which won't help them (it depends on the students' learning style whether the excercise helps to any extent) instead of on a reading which will help.

"It's impossible to 'teach' if there is no expectation that your class will actually bother reading anything, and stare at you like a space alien anytime you open your mouth about the material. It takes that much longer and you learn that much less if reading isn't a big part of the course."
Look, I'm not advocating for the elimination of reading. But anything that has been written down can be taught. In fact, for the vast majority of papers students are expected to read, the argument is much easier to convey in person. Even readings that provide information instead of an argument can be summarized in class.

"If you have a student who's behind on reading, for whatever reason, I don't understand how it helps to be smug and moralising about it. Said student needs help, not put-downs."
Good point succinctly made, Putin should understand from very recent experience that sometimes you need help from your mates, he has forgotten so quickly the help he received. He would not be on here condemning a fellow player unless several of us had made impassioned pleas for his safe return.
Friendship is a 2-way street, sometimes you need your pals to help you out and other times they need your help, it is the basis of friendship and social cohesion.
You only have to scratch the surface of Putin to realize he is not very Socialist at all but really quite elitist.
So well done Jimbo for adding that short synopsis, I had never read the book so I enjoyed reading it, thank you. As to the rest of your contributions I think it is fair to say you have previous but you won't provoke or intimidate me no matter how hard you try, I've got your number mate, I know your game :-)

CivilEs design structures to not fall down. That requires an immense amount of theory. If you just randomly hammer things together, they will fall down. Building a bridge, for instance, requires plenty of theory. Where is the disconnect here?

I think we're misunderstanding each other on this subject Putin.I'm referring to compulsory (primary/secondary) education rather than higher education, which I actually agree with you on. Students who enter advanced courses of study with an understanding and acceptance of what will be expected/required of them with regard to reading or any other coursework have no grounds to complain about difficult or excessive amounts of coursework. In a university setting certain modes and methods of instruction can be determined ahead of time, and students can choose a university whose educational philosophy aligns with their desires for further learning.

But in state-required institutions how can you justify teaching/learning in only a single mode? You come to the point that "If you're not reading you're not learning. It is not possible to learn without reading."
First, this is patently untrue. There was teaching and learning before there was even writing. Before you knew how to read you had to be taught without it. Granted, the complexity and variety of subjects you can learn without once reading is limited by who is available to teach you, but reading is NOT necessary to all learning.

"Schools are for reading."
Nonsense. Libraries are for reading. Schools are teaching and learning. WHAT they teach may require reading or it may not. Whether it does depends on the goals and purposes of schooling.

There are several educational philosophies all with different goals and different means of achieving them. At present, American public education operates mostly under an essentialist model where a core curriculum including basic skills like reading, writing and math should be taught. You seem to be espousing the goals of a Perennialist where you want students to learn a core curriculum, but the goal is to get students to appreciate learning for its own sake. But you're trying to judge one philosophy on the goals of another. That's like expecting a Christian to be obedient to the Qur'an.

"There are plenty of accommodations for that as required in every collegiate syllabus I've ever seen."
Uh-huh. I'll decide whether or not to respond to this.

Is Nigee really going to do this routine where I'm supposed to shut up and kowtow out of gratitude to him every day and never disagree because he made posts to lobby to reinstate me? Is that what he in mind when he spoke so eloquently about the forum?

Good grief. Reminds me of Rush Limbaugh bitching at Bill Maher for being an 'ingrate' and daring to criticize him because Limbaugh condemned his firing in 2001.

"You only have to scratch the surface of Putin to realize he is not very Socialist at all but really quite elitist. "

Yes. I would be much less elitist if I spoke passionately in favor of inherited wealth, carpet bombing Syria, and the corporate agenda of NuLabour. You got me there, Nigee. I could never compare to your socialist street cred.

"CivilEs design structures to not fall down."

So that's the sum total of their design perspective, then? So how am I wrong? Sustainability, who cares?

Regarding the subject of actually reading the course material.
There has to be a certian amount of respect between the teacher and student. I haven't read a lot of this thread so I don't know how much of this had been gone over yet but I'm going to throw my two cents in here anyways.

I have no problem reading, I love it, in fact when I was younger I used to read te dictionary for fun because I had run out of normal books. So anytime I get the chance to do the readings for a class I try my best to do so. Up to this point there has only been one class that I absolutely refuse to do the readings in, this particular professor chooses to assign 50-80 pages of reading every two days (which is not the issue), but does not provide any sort of guideline on what they are supposed to accomplish. To actually search out what you are supposed to read for a certain class date is a 20 minute process in itself, and then the readings are never mentioned and the lecture is often directed toward a completely different subject that relates in no way to the reading.

I am sure this is a less common issue, just figured I could use this to vent a tad bit ;) Carry on.

"Look, I'm not advocating for the elimination of reading. But anything that has been written down can be taught."

Yes, if you want your education to be a series of book reports provided by your professor. Instead of using the readings as background for further analysis and synthesis. Education should be a one-way street where the student is expected to do little but listen and not read and analyze for himself or herself. People complain about "indoctrination" and professors assigning their own pet books but yet simultaneously want students to read less! How does that work? How do you learn to think independently if people want the professors to read and analyze everything for them?

"When the reading is connected to the busy work it's even worse because it forces students to dedicate time on an excercise which won't help them"

If the exercise is connected to the reading how won't it help? Such exercises test whether the student understands the reading.

The pedagogy being advised here doesn't make any sense.

" There was teaching and learning before there was even writing. "

None of the subjects taught in the school setting can be learned without reading. And society has advanced quite a bit since the time when learning took place without writing having existed.

" At present, American public education operates mostly under an essentialist model where a core curriculum including basic skills like reading, writing and math should be taught. "

At present, we treat education like a business and pupils as future cogs in the economic machine. Very little thought is going into actual education.

"Is Nigee really going to do this routine where I'm supposed to shut up and kowtow out of gratitude to him every day and never disagree because he made posts to lobby to reinstate me?"
Possibly yes, I do the chuckle test, I write something and then read it back to myself, if it makes me chuckle I leave it in. My comments were put in for Putin as I expected the exact response it got, some call it trolling but hey that's just semantics :-)
Humour is not just puns, it can be making fun of people or taking the mickey out of them, I never thought I would have to explain this in public but I realize that some people here have swapped their comedy genes for an over-inflated ego; Putin I am of course teasing you and if you keep over-reacting it just encourages me to do it more, what can I say, I'm a bad man :-)

@putin "At present, we treat education like a business and pupils as future cogs in the economic machine. Very little thought is going into actual education."

I don't know about the rest of your argument but this statement is absolutely spot on. So are you saying this a bad thing because it doesn't encourage students to actually learn for the sake of knowledge?

Here's some friendly advice.

http://www.wikihow.com/Stop-Laughing-After-Every-Comment

"So are you saying this a bad thing because it doesn't encourage students to actually learn for the sake of knowledge?"

Yes, that's the main point I am making.

"So that's the sum total of their design perspective, then? So how am I wrong? Sustainability, who cares? "

You said that CivEs use no theory and just randomly building things, which is demonstrably false.

I'm not sure why you think CivEs don't care about sustainability. Take a look at the PE exam for Civil Engineering, of which 20% of the breadth exam is on water and environment (http://cdn2.ncees.co/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/PE-Civ-Structural-Apr-2008_with-1404-design-standards.pdf)

I'm really confused by this post, Putin. "Education should be a one-way street where the student is expected to do little but listen and not read and analyze for himself or herself. People complain about "indoctrination" and professors assigning their own pet books but yet simultaneously want students to read less! How does that work? How do you learn to think independently if people want the professors to read and analyze everything for them?"

Are you saying that education should be that one-way street or saying that approach is part of the problem? Because quite frankly, I don't see how a completely one-way approach to education can really hope to encourage students to desire learning. It seems as impersonal and problematic as treating them as cogs in an economic machine.

How can you hope to inspire the desired attitude without adapting the methods of study, at least in some part, to students' learning styles?

I agree with that point, higher education is largely seen as being nothing more than an obstacle on the way to making more money. And thanks to our economic system that's often all that it is.
People who absolutely hate learning are being extremely pressured to go those extra four years simply for the piece of paper and job opportunities that it opens up. In my opinion that is one of the main downfalls that we are having to deal with. Along with the outrageous price of higher education.

"Such exercises test whether the student understands the reading."
And how does that help the student if the student already understands the reading? More to the point, if the student already has the time to properly analyze the reading, what point does an exercise serve? All adding an exercise can do is act as a painful distraction.

@JECE

If he already understands the reading then why would he need sparknotes? The ability to discern useful information from noise, such as the plot from the rest of the book, is an invaluable skill that can be used in all aspects of life, but it needs to be honed, such as by reading.

"It seems as impersonal and problematic as treating them as cogs in an economic machine. "

Sorry that was unclear. I was being sarcastic with the one-way street point.

"How can you hope to inspire the desired attitude without adapting the methods of study, at least in some part, to students' learning styles?"

Because it leads to the lowest common denominator instead of pushing students to increase their attention span and literacy. The customer service model of education has not worked, does not work.

"Yes, if you want your education to be a series of book reports provided by your professor. Instead of using the readings as background for further analysis and synthesis."
The whole point would be to engage and analyze in class too. Class hours would need to be much longer to make everything fit, but I am convinced that it can be done. "Using the readings as background for further analysis and synthesis" might serve as a description of the remaining reading material. In the best classes I took, the readings complemented learning in the classroom; they didn't substitute it. I'm certainly not worried about indoctrination; I expect professors to give their opinion and don't understand their reluctance to do so.

Hey I should congratulate everyone for turning a dumb thread into an actually interesting conversation. I sincerely mean it.

Troll defeated.

abgemacht: Yes, by reading! Not by extraneous, obligatory busy-work. I don't care about what grking may or may not have done.