In this article I am going to talk about a fault many engineers are cursed with, but, by definition, should not be. It is also a fault that can be exacerbated in a global context so it is even more important for global engineers.
If you want to ensure you are not cursed with this fault, then read on.
The curse I talk of is using indicators as opposed to facts to make your engineering decisions.
Each word above makes sense to you, I am sure; and the sentence likely seems sensible enough as well. But I will use 4 examples I have experienced personally to make it clearer to you.

Caulking glue for precise location control
This was an interaction between two engineers who needed to find an adhesive to:

1. Mount objects that needed to stay in place as the adhesive cured.
2. Release minimal chemicals during curing so that it did not pollute other nearby systems.

One engineer did the sensible thing, reviewed test data on as many available adhesives and then tested samples of those showing most promise.
The winner was an adhesive used in domestic applications, was cheap and came in a big caulking tube like one you would see on construction sites.
The other engineer, upon seeing the winning adhesive expressed surprise and apprehension. They were expecting something that would come in small containers, like you would see in a laboratory, require mixing, and be expensive.
The other engineer, given the scientific rigour used to select the winning adhesive, should have checked their bias. But they did not, they actually let this bias continue to guide them.

Metal putty or metal augmented two-part epoxy matrix
When a company was looking for a way to adhere a part to an assembly for quick experimental assessment, one engineer used metal putty. If you do not know what this is, then it is basically a glue (a two-part glue) with a high concentration of metal whiskers added. These whiskers make it much stronger than ordinary two-part glue. And, once mixed, it is mouldable like a putty. So you can work it into any shape you like – ideal for experiments when you want to explore different geometries.
The experiment worked, but others had issues trusting the results.
Why?
Because of the word “putty”. It just sounded so agricultural or domestic to them. I know this is the case because they actually said this.
If it had been called “Metal Augmented Two-Part Epoxy Matrix” or “MAT-PEX”, then they probably would have been more accepting of the results.
Of course, you know, when you think about it, that the name should have no influence on the rigour of the experiment or the results at all.

Old textbooks
When new editions of a textbook are published, it usually involves a few extra sections based on feedback from lecturers, the use of different units, case studies that seem more recent, or maybe to leverage new learning technologies. The fundamentals will not change. Nevertheless, I have had cases where people thought they would not learn as well because they had an older textbook.
This was not because of the difficulty cross-referencing reading tasks allocated for their studies. It was simply because the book looked old.
Assuming they could read Latin, such people would look at an original copy of Newton’s Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica and assume, because it is so old, that it had nothing useful on the laws of motion.

University education
Does it matter where you studied engineering? Do you think you are taught different fundamentals at different universities? Do some say “now, everyone, keep this quiet – the real formula is F = m a2!”?
The answers to the above in order are: no, no, no.
What is more important are things like: how you studied, and the specific educators and the assignments they set.
Nevertheless, people will, at times like when they are employing engineers, think the place of study will reflect someone’s engineering knowledge and engineering skill. This is at its worst when people assume foreign universities offer less applicable education – without even knowing anything about those universities.
I have mentioned in a prior issue the best way to select an engineer when employing – and it had nothing to do with the place of study.
​
The common theme and the lesson for the global engineer
You can likely induce from the above that the general issue at play is an emotional bias based on perceptions that are not questioned – as opposed to the use of facts and logic. The last example is likely the most applicable to the global engineer – for practical reasons – but, as you move from one place to another, the use of logic over instinct, bias and intuition becomes even more important.
So, do you tend to judge based on feelings or logic? When you read the above examples, can you imagine yourself making those same mistakes or would you look at the unadulterated facts? 

The last article I wrote for this newsletter elicited a lot of responses. It is the most read and commented upon article in the series thus far. That tells me that many of us have a deep interest in the education and training of engineers. It also revealed something else – many seemed to assume that if you do well on the exam, then you understand the respective theory.
I am going to explore that assumption more in this article: Do good exam marks really mean good understanding?
It’s all on the surface.
When I was an academic and involved in education research, I was introduced to a phenomenon called surface learning. It is where students study to pass the exam as opposed to studying for understanding. We all probably have some experience doing this, where we drilled questions (maybe even used Schaum’s) or we remembered things. Or we know a fellow student who would get good marks, but never seemed to actually understand anything. That’s all surface learning.
You can get away with this when the exam is set such to allow for this.
And many exams are like that.
They don’t assess understanding, just your ability to drill problems to pick up on the procedure and repeat it at speed.
As an example of how pervasive this is, take the time to watch the video below. It features Eric Mazur, a physics lecturer, talking about his students and how shocked he was when he assessed conceptual (read “actual”) understanding after the first year of physics.

Some key points from the video:

• He never asked himself how he would teach.
• He still got high satisfaction ratings.
• He thought the students did well.
• He thought he was a great teacher.
• Exams went well – based on marks.
• He used typical textbook problems.
• When he found that many students at other universities did not learn well, he was convinced his Harvard students were learning.
• He was wrong – it is impressive that he chose to be so scientific about this.
• There was a difference between how students think in daily life and how they think for exams.
• The students used what he called “recipes” (read “surface learning”).
• Once he came up with a better teaching method, one where students actually learned, he does not say anything about how his satisfaction ratings went.

You can infer from this, that his students were engaged in surface learning until he corrected both his teaching style and assessment method.
Surface learning isn’t just about the student it is encouraged by most exams in engineering courses around the world.
As I mentioned in the previous article: many exam questions will list only the variables needed to find the answer. In such a scenario, students only need to recognise the pattern (or the recipe).
This is why grades don’t always (and often don’t) reflect understanding. The exam format can encourage procedural fluency at the cost not conceptual understanding.
But what to do about it now?
If you would like to improve your conceptual understanding of first principles, and you should, then one of the best sites you can go to is Arbor Scientific. They offer numerous teaching resources that you can sign up for, but they also have a great conceptual questions page - https://www.arborsci.com/pages/next-time-questions. Go check them out and get the resources once you are done. I liked the double boiler question and the bikes and bee question.  See which ones get you thinking or reveal your lack of understanding so you can improve it.
Before I finish though, I’d like to ask: what conceptual understanding tools do you know of? I am always keen for more and others here can benefit from them too.