Once again, the shorthand of twitter leads to anger and misunsderstanding. So lets try a few more words.

What I tried to say was that the march of technology is pretty much inevitable but it behoves teachers to be careful what they chuck out when they embrace it in place of old fashioned techniques. That is not a criticism of students, or of graduates. Indeed, the best students will always pick up the depth of learning needed from somewhere.

The first point I need to make is that I am a Civil/Structural engineer and my views only really fit in that sphere.

In my early years as a student, 1965 since you ask, I spent 2 full afternoons, 2 evenings and much of Sunday each week for the first 13 weeks learning the elements of draughtsmanship and projection. The projection stuff was difficult, many of my colleagues really struggled. I had doe some of the work in school as extra urricular courses. a very few could see instantly what was going on and get straight to the point. In particular we had to learn to project true shapes, angles and lengths from odd views of objects. Time and again since, and certainly with increasing frequency as the years have passed, I have been confronted by details that just don't work because someone thought that a 3view projection told the whole story. The most damaging and obvious case is where a right angle is assumed to be a right angle in a particular view. In face there is only one view in which a right angle appears true.

I am often told that we don't need to teach that suff any more because things can be spun in space in Autocad, but my answer to that is;

Only if they were drawn by someone who understood and only if the user knows they need to do it. It is perfectly easy to draw ipossible things in Autocad and they only eventually show up when some poor joiner/fabricator/steelfixer has to make it work in real space.

If thta necessary skill is removed from the undergraduate course (and in most courses it was at least 20 ears ago) it either needs to be learned somewhere else or we will get unbuildable stuff arriving on site (at best, or collapses through misunderstanding at worst.)

I also mentioned precision, accuracy and surveying. We were browbeaten about this only in surveying, but our only "calculator" worked to 2 or a best 3 significant figures. Computers churn out maybe 15 and users need to understand that is a lie. The most accurate material used in construction is steel. Concrete can be pretty accurate but only if it is done in steel moulds so the stell has to be made first. Steel sections are rolled to a 2% tolerance. That means that for structural engineering work the gravitational constant in SI units is 10 (to the same precision). No matter how good the machine doing the calculation, nothing more than "slide rule accuracy" can ever be achieved in practice.

The real crashes in that scenario stem from serious misunderstandings of accuracy achievable. These days, bridge bearings are most frequently sliding units with plastic layers that can tolerate a certain amount of misalignment. Over recent years I have been working on the bearngs on Cleddau bridge which are rollers machined to about 1 micron but put betwee steel plates that are positioned to +- 3mm. They don't fit. The surrounding steel gets overloaded locally and deforms to improve the fit but it will never be perfect and the rollers will never run true.

More on that story another time. That error was made in 1971, of course, by people who did have training in accuracy and precision.