lt is a premise of this study that the objective of training is particularization – that is, a capacity that is specifically constructed in technical education programs. Within the framework of engineering education, this perspective deliberately runs counter to research on cross-curricular (transferable) skills as constituting the objectives of training. In terms of teaching methods and evaluation, the interest of such issues appears to consist precisely in characterizing what each discipline specifically has to offer, rather than necessarily and immediately seeking to construct metaknowledge common to all disciplines. This study then presents PYSTILE, a schema used to categorize technical knowledge from a training perspective. The fondamental data that must be acquired by specialists of a given field can be classified according to four categories: the operational environment; industrial products; simulated abjects; and the range of performance values. In particular, this schema serves as a basis for elaborating the components of the capacity to particularize. This portion of the analysis begins by deducing the observable features that reveal the existence of this capacity according to concepts of performance and primary failure mode. Based on the observations of 12 groups of two or three students, the gathered data suggest, empirically, that the capacity of particularization hardly exists. These results lead in turn to a fourth empirical finding – namely, that students have not developed this capacity at the educational level known in France as Licence de technologie mécanique (a degree awarded after one year of a Master's program in Mechanical Technology). Based on the authors' own observations, this incapacity is due to certain gaps in students' knowledge and to the maladapted teaching approach adopted by instructors. To begin with, students are unfamiliar with either the idea of operational environment or the concept of primary failure mode. Furthermore, the teaching approach most often encountered, which consists of heading students in the direction of 'the' solution, undoubtedly inhibits the activity of evaluation and, as a result, the activity involved in characterizing the operational environment by which students may particularize the technical solutions appropriate for application in this same environment. With some degree of caution, given the size of the sample, but in accordance with our experiences as practitioners, we believe a range of alternatives can be conceived of as a way of remedying the current shortcomings of higher technical education; in particular, changes in content (for example, by introducing the idea of area of operation), new activities (such as the comparison of pairings of operational environments and existing solutions), and adaptations of teaching approaches (for example, the systematic use of Web­based technical databases).