Geologists define resources. Mining engineers extract them. Metallurgists process them. Yet, they rarely communicate well with each other. In countries like Canada, the US, and Australia, mining education is structured along rigid disciplinary lines. Geologists spend years studying ore deposit formation, geochemistry/mineralogy and geostatistics, but rarely learn how their models affect downstream processing. Mining engineers focus on extraction and haulage techniques, but often overlook how blasting impacts processing. While metallurgists optimize processing circuits without considering how geological variability influences plant performance. By the time they enter the workforce, they already think in silos. These divisions date back to the early 20th century when mining education mirrored industry workflows: geologists found the ore, engineers mined it, and metallurgists processed it—each in isolation. By the 1980s, accreditation bodies reinforced these divisions. Committees of retired industry professionals resisted changes that might “dilute” technical expertise. Curricula stagnated while the industry evolved. Mining has changed drastically since the 90s. Yet, universities still train professionals in isolation. What does this look like in practice? Modern geology programs analyze ore deposits in extreme detail but rarely consider how models influence mine planning or processing. As John Steen of UBC’s Bradshaw Research Initiative put it: “Engineers don’t design for the orebody because they’ve never been taught to integrate geological variability into their models.” The result? Mines are designed based on optimistic ore interpretations, often overlooking real variability. When the orebody is more complex than expected (which it almost always is), engineers and metallurgists scramble to compensate. Mining engineers, trained to maximize extraction efficiency, prioritize high-tonnage bulk mining without considering processing impacts. And metallurgists? They inherit these problems without having been involved in the decisions that caused them. Processing programs emphasize extraction techniques but often overlook the geological origins of ore variability. Graduates excel at mass balancing and circuit design but struggle to optimize processes for fluctuating feed grades or mineralogical complexities. These silos create a culture of risk avoidance. It doesn’t have to be this way. In Brazil, where I studied (Escola Politécnica da USP), mining education is different. Instead of separate geology, mining, and processing degrees, we study Mine Engineering—a multi-disciplinary program integrating exploration, extraction, processing, and tailings management. And the difference is clear. Thinking across disciplines prevents problems from being designed into operations before they even start.