Materials Engineering and the Challenge of Teaching History in the Community College

Abstract

MY FRIEND SAM, a materials engineer in the oil industry, once tried to explain what he did for a living: When an explosion occurs in a refinery pipeline, it is my responsibility to find the cause. If Sam discovered a faulty pipe, he would design a new one. As he explained, Building a better pipe is easy. Just buy more expensive components. But increased spending risked the intervention of cost-conscious managers. Investing in cheaper supplies, on the other hand, heightened the risk of a dangerous and costly breakdown. Building a better pipe for less money, he concluded with a smile, that's materials engineering!1 Sam's explanation serves as a powerful metaphor for teaching history at the community college. Historians at two-year institutions also face contradictory impulses. We must maintain high academic standards in a student population often under-prepared for serious analytic scholarship. Building a better pipe regardless of cost in the community college history class might seem easy: deliver lectures at the highest intellectual levels and engage difficult historiographic issues. Demand long research papers and assign a reading list comparable to the reading lists of lowerdivision four-year university courses. This approach would promise to prepare students for upper-division work, would honor the matriculation agreements formed between community colleges and their respective