ABSTRACT
Three issues or “weaknesses” in geotechnical education are examined. The first is that there is too much emphasis on methods and not enough on concepts and principles. The second is that course layouts are unsatisfactory because too much time is spent on boring or uninteresting aspects of the subject such as phase relationships, clay mineralogy, Atterberg limits, and classification methods. The third is that important components of our basic conceptual and theoretical framework of the subject are no longer satisfactory. These weaknesses are examined and discussed and suggestions made for overcoming them.
