In his paper, “Motivating Engineering Students to Publish,” Dr. Herman A. Estrin describes the experiences that he has had in teaching engineering students to write, and particularly to write publishable material. This professional approach to writing has paid off, as Mr. Millard's article demonstrates.

A good many teachers of technical writing are guilty of blindly following tradition and convention in teaching students to rely on the outline as an organizing device, in categorically condemning the passive voice, in magnifying the importance of form and format, and in insisting on a set of inflexible rules for grammar and style that ignore widespread usage. Implicit in the attack on shibboleths is a plea for honest pragmatism in determining effectiveness in technical writing.

It is misleading to take for granted that scientific writing need not be pleasurable reading. Aiming only for clarity, simplicity, brevity, and directness, the writer may still produce writing that is tedious reading. The student scientist or engineer may learn to write with style and creative imagination by developing sensitive critical faculties through reading literature (even scientific literature) that displays these qualities.

The revival of interest in rhetoric raises the question of the relevance of the discipline to the modern student, particularly the engineering student. In general, rhetoric can be defined as the study of language emphasizing its practical rather than its aesthetic qualities. As a theory of composition, classical rhetoric stresses writing as communication rather than self-expression, and provides a systematic method for dealing with problems of achieving cooperation among men. As a “systems approach” to composition, rhetoric is suited to the mental style of the engineering student. Moreover, engineers and scientists skilled in rhetoric would be equipped to deal with the problem of alienation between the scientific community and society at large.