Advocating Breadth In A World Of Depth

1 Abstract A typical four-year engineering curriculum is chock-full of courses, concepts, and ideas. However, four years is simply not enough time to explore the vast landscape of engineering knowledge thoroughly. Thus trade-offs are made selecting material within a course as well as selecting courses within a curriculum. One of these trade-offs is depth versus breadth. At the extremes, the specialist is too narrow while the generalist is too shallow. Most curricula locate themselves between these two poles, with general engineering programs leaning somewhat towards breadth. One might think that students who choose general programs would be appreciative of the breadth of the curriculum. However, even here some students object to required courses that are not immediately and obviously applicable to their anticipated career path. How can we convince students that breadth is just as important, if not more so, than depth? As a case study, I describe my approach in an introductory electrical engineering course that is taught to students interested in a variety of engineering disciplines – many of whom are not necessarily interested in electrical engineering per se. Using a variety of pedagogical and curricular techniques, I dispel a number of myths related to the breadth versus depth debate.