justanengineer

Issue: A true university education encompasses far more than the narrow, specialized study of a single discipline. Only through exploring the broad spectrum of liberal arts courses can students become truly learned. Knowledge is a vast ocean of information, facts, hypothesis, assumptions and other innumerable aspects. How does one then become truly learned? By knowing all this knowledge? It is simply impossible for anyone to achieve all the knowledge that is available out there. Thus one is inclined to think that to be truly learned , one must at least specialise in one the aspects among the vast expanse of knowledge. Consider the area of engineering which has so many sub fields ranging from architecture to telecommunication. Each field with its own area of specialisation. Even if one spends his entire lifetime studying all the subjects of engineering, one would not be able to learn all that there is to learn. And this is only regrading engineering when one wants to be aware of arts, he has to learn about differnt works of art, which is grossly impossible. On the other hand one can specialize in a specific area and then become a scholar in that field. This path is feasible as one can gain knowledge in a relatively narrow field of science or arts and then can use this specialized knowledge to render something valuable in his lifetime that can solve some of the problems or challenges faced by the society rather than try to glean knowledge from every field and in the end spend all their resources on learning rather than contributing anything new to any of the field. Also there is very little interdisciplinary aspects for example there is no relevance between medicine and art. Medicine being engaged in the curing of the diseases and illness has very little to do with art that deals with aspects like paintings, music, literature and many more. It is superfluous for a person practising medicine to have knowledge in literature. One might then argue that knowledge of literature will help a medical personnel to write better journals and thesis. However, basic knowledge of English is apt to write about path breaking research done by specialising in that filed Thus in the bulk of the evidence presented above i stand of the view that one does not become truly learned by exploring the broad spectrum of all the aspects of knowledge but rather by advancing in a specialized study and contributing zealously to that field of studyKnowledge is a vast ocean of information, facts, hypothesis, assumptions and other innumerable aspects. How does one then become truly learned? By knowing all this knowledge? It is simply impossible for anyone to achieve all the knowledge that is available out there. Thus one is inclined to think that to be truly learned , one must at least specialise in one the aspects among the vast expanse of knowledge. Consider the area of engineering which has so many sub fields ranging from architecture to telecommunication. Each field with its own area of specialisation. Even if one spends his entire lifetime studying all the subjects of engineering, one would not be able to learn all that there is to learn. And this is only regrading engineering when one wants to be aware of arts, he has to learn about differnt works of art, which is grossly impossible. On the other hand one can specialize in a specific area and then become a scholar in that field. This path is feasible as one can gain knowledge in a relatively narrow field of science or arts and then can use this specialized knowledge to render something valuable in his lifetime that can solve some of the problems or challenges faced by the society rather than try to glean knowledge from every field and in the end spend all their resources on learning rather than contributing anything new to any of the field. Also there is very little interdisciplinary aspects for example there is no relevance between medicine and art. Medicine being engaged in the curing of the diseases and illness has very little to do with art that deals with aspects like paintings, music, literature and many more. It is superfluous for a person practising medicine to have knowledge in literature. One might then argue that knowledge of literature will help a medical personnel to write better journals and thesis. However, basic knowledge of English is apt to write about path breaking research done by specialising in that filed Thus in the bulk of the evidence presented above i stand of the view that one does not become truly learned by exploring the broad spectrum of all the aspects of knowledge but rather by advancing in a specialized study and contributing zealously to that field of study

Knowledge is a vast ocean of information, facts, hypothesis, assumptions and other innumerable aspects. How does one then become truly learned? By knowing all this knowledge? It is simply impossible for anyone to achieve all the knowledge that is available out there. Thus one is inclined to think that to be truly learned , one must at least specialise in one the aspects among the vast expanse of knowledge. Consider the area of engineering which has so many sub fields ranging from architecture to telecommunication. Each field with its own area of specialisation. Even if one spends his entire lifetime studying all the subjects of engineering, one would not be able to learn all that there is to learn. And this is only regrading engineering when one wants to be aware of arts, he has to learn about differnt works of art, which is grossly impossible. On the other hand one can specialize in a specific area and then become a scholar in that field. This path is feasible as one can gain knowledge in a relatively narrow field of science or arts and then can use this specialized knowledge to render something valuable in his lifetime that can solve some of the problems or challenges faced by the society rather than try to glean knowledge from every field and in the end spend all their resources on learning rather than contributing anything new to any of the field. Also there is very little interdisciplinary aspects for example there is no relevance between medicine and art. Medicine being engaged in the curing of the diseases and illness has very little to do with art that deals with aspects like paintings, music, literature and many more. It is superfluous for a person practising medicine to have knowledge in literature. One might then argue that knowledge of literature will help a medical personnel to write better journals and thesis. However, basic knowledge of English is apt to write about path breaking research done by specialising in that filed Thus in the bulk of the evidence presented above i stand of the view that one does not become truly learned by exploring the broad spectrum of all the aspects of knowledge but rather by advancing in a specialized study and contributing zealously to that field of studyKnowledge is a vast ocean of information, facts, hypothesis, assumptions and other innumerable aspects. How does one then become truly learned? By knowing all this knowledge? It is simply impossible for anyone to achieve all the knowledge that is available out there. Thus one is inclined to think that to be truly learned , one must at least specialise in one the aspects among the vast expanse of knowledge. Consider the area of engineering which has so many sub fields ranging from architecture to telecommunication. Each field with its own area of specialisation. Even if one spends his entire lifetime studying all the subjects of engineering, one would not be able to learn all that there is to learn. And this is only regrading engineering when one wants to be aware of arts, he has to learn about differnt works of art, which is grossly impossible. On the other hand one can specialize in a specific area and then become a scholar in that field. This path is feasible as one can gain knowledge in a relatively narrow field of science or arts and then can use this specialized knowledge to render something valuable in his lifetime that can solve some of the problems or challenges faced by the society rather than try to glean knowledge from every field and in the end spend all their resources on learning rather than contributing anything new to any of the field. Also there is very little interdisciplinary aspects for example there is no relevance between medicine and art. Medicine being engaged in the curing of the diseases and illness has very little to do with art that deals with aspects like paintings, music, literature and many more. It is superfluous for a person practising medicine to have knowledge in literature. One might then argue that knowledge of literature will help a medical personnel to write better journals and thesis. However, basic knowledge of English is apt to write about path breaking research done by specialising in that filed Thus in the bulk of the evidence presented above i stand of the view that one does not become truly learned by exploring the broad spectrum of all the aspects of knowledge but rather by advancing in a specialized study and contributing zealously to that field of study