

Work it out?  Or look it up ... - RiderOfGiraffes

Over on this item about measuring the distance to the moon ...<p>http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=802304<p>someone wrote:<p><pre><code>    REALLY smart school kids would go to
    wolfram alpha to get the distance to
    the Moon, and let the suckers analyze
    echo's from old NASA clips.
</code></pre>
I was going to dismiss this out of hand, when I remembered an old story.<p>================================<p>A class of engineering students were given the following question on an exam: How long should a three pound beef roast stay in a 325 degree oven for the center to reach a temperature of 150 degrees?<p>One student, described as a "Big Project man," didn't come up with an answer but did offer a plan for a series of precise experiments that would yield an accurate answer in six to nine months.<p>Another student, an advocate of the practical approach, went out and bought a roast, an oven thermometer, and a watch. He wrote his report while munching medium-rare roast beef sandwiches.<p>A third student used logic. Reasoning that animal tissue is mostly water and therefore should have about the same specific heat and conductivity, he applied heat transfer theory to produce his answer (it proved, incidentally, to be quite close to that of the second student).<p>The quickest answer, however, came from a student who called his mother on the phone and got the answer from her.<p>Which of these men promises to be the most effective engineer?<p>================================<p>Which would you rather have on your start-up team?  Which would you prefer your child to be?  Which ones make the money?  Which ones will be happiest in life?<p>Which would you rather be?
======
emmett
In my experience, the #1 attitude is required for academia - you want a fully
general theory of Roast Heating, not a practical answer right now.

The #2 and #3 attitudes make the best engineers - ideally you can switch
between those two modes depending on the problem. If you can only get one,
take someone with attitude #2: startups need the roast beef sandwiches[1].

The #4 attitude I've actually found to be anti-correlated with engineering
talent in general; the people who are best at that tend to be in business
development or sales.

[1] Often the most important thing you get out of tackling a problem is the
side product, not the thing you thought you wanted. PayPal thought they were
working on secure transactions between PDAs; while solving it they made The
Roast Beef Sandwich of Web Payments.

~~~
frossie
#2 is my sysadmin, #3 is my tech lead, #4 is my project manager, and #1 is the
person we take out for a beer once in a while to get us inspired.

Good teams have balance, and a creative tension in their problem-solving
approaches.

------
tc
If it was important, then I would buy the roast, thermometer, and stopwatch
(#2). While the thing was cooking, I would work out a formula or simulation
for the process as in #3. Then when finished with both, I would make a series
of calls as in #4 to see whether the common wisdom matched up with
experimental and analytical reality.

------
ErrantX
I wanted to reply to this even though it is a little old.

Simply because this is a fallacy: we are "supposed" to choose #4 because he
hacked the answer.

The problem is as follows. Whilst his was the best solution to _this problem_
with an _existing answer_ he is not necessarily demonstrating an ability to
crack an _unsolved problem_.

Unless your re-inventing the wheel then #2 and #3 are demonstrating much more
useful engineering skills :) (indeed the argument could be made they though of
calling mum and then realised that proved nothing)

------
DanielStraight
I would've given #4 an F for using a cell phone during an exam. ;)

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
What about the one who went out and bought some beef and a thermometer??!!

Clearly a take home exam, but point taken ...

~~~
DanielStraight
Ha, good point.

------
tnovelli
I'd want all of them on my team, but #4 makes the big bucks. (Looks like I'll
never get rich :-)

------
electronslave
This is completely silly. I'm going to give some silly answers. I'll assume
that these are male stereotypes, but only because I don't know enough female
engineers to extrapolate humorous traits.

#1 has no social life, grits his teeth constantly and will probably get
grudgingly, angrily married to an unwitting research assistant in his 30s/40s
after wondering (for a period of no less than 20 years) why stupid people
exist. No children, or an over-worked prematurely-balding vicarious living
vehicle, will result. Self-perpetuating cycle.

#2 has a weight problem, and will probably sink into a muttering pile of self-
loathing in his late 20s, only to rise again as a slightly-douchey fitness
freak or a committed family man. He will marry, be quite happy in mediocrity
and become a bearded old programmer. Lots of kids. Weirdly, this one is most
likely a gun-toting Republican. Kids will most likely be a bit less incurious,
which will make him proud.

#3 is cool and I want at least one on my team, but because he's a lone wolf by
definition, he gets uncomfortable easily. He's most likely a man of at least a
couple vices. Has a billion hobbies and a pile of old equipment. Least likely
to be academic, which is at odds with his vast knowledge. Simultaneously happy
with the present, but haunted by a hope for what could possibly be.

#4 also looks on Google for answers, cuts corners at every opportunity, is a
great engineer because he conserves all possible energy. Marriage is unlikely,
but will probably be an okay father if he manages to stick around for longer
than 10 years. Least likely to manage the money he makes without a stickler
for a wife.

I'm happy knowing all 4 types. I'm happy being a 3rd/4th hybrid. This really
scans like a palm reading, as does the question. ("Will I be rich? Will I have
love? Will I have children? Is that a good thing?")

~~~
dtargh
Now this is a response!!!!!

