News in engineering education in Spain effective from 2010 in presence of external changes and mixed crisis, looking mostly to agro and civil engineers.

The engineering careers models were diverse in Europe, and are adopting now in Spain the Bolonia process for European Universities. Separated from older Universities, that are in part technically active, Civil Engineering (Caminos, Canales y Puertos) started at end of 18th century in Spain adopting the French models of Upper Schools for state civil servants with exam at entry. After 1800 intense wars, to conserve forest regions Ingenieros de Montes appeared as Upper School, and in 1855 also the Ingenieros Agrónomos to push up related techniques and practices. Other Engineers appeared as Upper Schools but more towards private factories. These ES got all adapted Lower Schools of Ingeniero Tecnico. Recently both grew much in number and evolved, linked also to recognized Professions. Spanish society, into European Community, evolved across year 2000, in part highly well, but with severe discordances, that caused severe youth unemployment with 2008-2011 crisis. With Bolonia process high formal changes step in from 2010-11, accepted with intense adaptation. The Lower Schools are changing towards the Upper Schools, and both that have shifted since 2010-11 various 4-years careers (Grado), some included into the precedent Professions, and diverse Masters. Acceptation of them to get students has started relatively well, and will evolve, and acceptation of new grades for employment in Spain, Europe or outside will be essential. Each Grado has now quite rigid curricula and programs, MOODLE was introduced to connect pupils, some specific uses of Personal Computers are taught in each subject. Escuela de Agronomos centre, reorganized with its old name in its precedent buildings at entrance of Campus Moncloa, offers Grados of Agronomic Engineering and Science for various public and private activities for agriculture, Alimentary Engineering for alimentary activities and control, Agro-Environmental Engineering more related to environment activities, and in part Biotechnology also in laboratories in Campus Monte-Gancedo for Biotechnology of Plants and Computational Biotechnology. Curricula include Basics, Engineering, Practices, Visits, English, ?project of end of career?, Stays. Some masters will conduce to specific professional diploma, list includes now Agro-Engineering, Agro-Forestal Biotechnology, Agro and Natural Resources Economy, Complex Physical Systems, Gardening and Landscaping, Rural Genie, Phytogenetic Resources, Plant Genetic Resources, Environmental Technology for Sustainable Agriculture, Technology for Human Development and Cooperation.

Urbanism and dictatorship: perspectives of the field of urban studies

In 1933 public letter to Wilhelm Furtwängler, Joseph Goebbels synthesized the official understanding of the link between politics, art and society in the early steps of the Third Reich. By assuming the ethos of art, politics acquired a plastic agency to mold its objects —population and the state— as a unified entity in the form of a ‘national-popular community’ (Volksgemeinschaft); in turn, by infusing art with a political valence, it became part of a wider governmental apparatus that reshaped aesthetic discourses and practices. Similar remarks could be made about the ordering of cities and territories in this period. Dictatorial imaginations mobilized urbanism —including urban theory, urban design and planning— as a fundamental tool for social organization. Under their aegis the production of space became a moment in a wider production of society. Many authors suggest that this political-spatial nexus is intrinsic to modernity itself, beyond dictatorial regimes. In this light, I propose to use dictatorial urbanisms as an analytical opportunity to delve into some concealed features of modern urban design and planning. This chapter explores some of these aspects from a theoretical standpoint, focusing on the development of dictatorial planning mentalities and spatial rationalities and drawing links to other historical episodes in order to inscribe the former in a broader genealogy of urbanism. Needless to say, I don’t suggest that we use dictatorships as mere templates to understand modern productions of space. Instead, these cases provide a crude version of some fundamental drives in the operationalization of urbanism as an instrument of social regulation, showing how far the modern imagination of sociospatial orderings can go. Dictatorial urbanisms constituted a set of experiences where many dreams and aspirations of modern planning went to die. But not, as the conventional account would have it, because the former were the antithesis of the latter, but rather because they worked as the excess of a particular orientation of modern spatial governmentalities — namely, their focus on calculation, social engineering and disciplinary spatialities, and their attempt to subsume a wide range of everyday practices under institutional structuration by means of spatial mediations. In my opinion the interest of dictatorial urbanisms lies in their role as key regulatory episodes in a longer history of our urban present. They stand as a threshold between the advent of planning in the late 19th and early 20th century, and its final consolidation as a crucial state instrument after World War II. We need, therefore, to pay attention to these experiences vis-à-vis the alleged ‘normal’ development of the field in contemporary democratic countries in order to develop a full comprehension thereof.