Comment by lukan

Comment by lukan 3 days ago

3 replies

We had the task of building a highly insulated small house. Big enough to hold a hot cup of tea (and meassure how good it holds its temperature inside).

Our design was very, very good in that regard. (I used insulation building material from the house my family build at that time) But granted, it was not so pretty.

But that was not a stated goal. But when it came to grades, suddenly design and subjective aesthetics mattered and a pretty house, but useless in terms of insulation won. And we did not failed, but got kind of a bad result and I stopped believing in that teachers fairness.

potato3732842 2 days ago

I mean, the other side of the coin is that engineering schools are a giant circle jerk that churn out thousands of graduates every year who if left to their own devices will design things that cannot be made out of inputs and using processes that are not appropriate.

I'm not saying you gotta prioritize looks but you gotta think a few steps ahead and understand what the ancillary criteria that will make or break a design all else being equal, or nearly equal are or what the unstated assumptions of the party evaluating your work (e.g won't look like ass, can be made in volume, etc.) are.

  • lukan 2 days ago

    The main design goals were:

    - construct a house with good insulation

    No word of it being pretty. Houses should look pretty, but it wasn't art class, but physics. And the physics teacher clearly said insulation is the goal (so we learn about the concept).

    We had a funtional house (roof, walls, windows, door) with very good insulation. The winning house just looked pretty and its insulation was basically nonexistent.

    • potato3732842 2 days ago

      I get that, and think that "pretty" is a dumb goal because what's "pretty" is usually just cargo culting of whatever works. But I think reading your customer is a useful lesson, but probably should be taught intentionally not accidentally via bad teaching.