Not in Touch with the Real World?

It has long been assumed that school produced generalists, and their firm trained them to the specifics. Very good reasons for this include, schools cannot possibly keep up with some technologies, but good underlying skills (including the ability to retrain your self) would follow the technology's inevitable evolution.

I do believe you are right but this keeps confusion not cooperation. Somethings need to be standard a foundation to build on. That is why the challenge is to start something new a fad not an actual reality that one can build on. Hollywood in all technology does not give us much of anything but a phony false world. One who is starting a chartered school.

I always assumed that schools can only provide the basics and work does the hands on experience.

Right on! You definately hit the nail on the head.

I had started out as a tech myself but realised there's no need for that anymore in a vastly throw away society. I used to work for some company (No-name, even though I am still politically incorrect) where due to a non-writen commitment (as a kick-back I suppose) they used to put on anybody coming out of any part of defence. Boy! I saw some of the finest numb nuts (D-heads) who might have been politically correct in the eyes of the management but not in mine and least of all in the field of physics. Whatever they touched...was a disaster. Having seen all that I thank God that his laws of nature do not change and take sides with ours and do not compromise....with political correctness either.

However, it seems everything goes just fine as it is though.

Hello Isti80,

Thanks for your compliments.I had been thinking of initiating a discussion on the topic.It had come thro' other source and I took the chance.Today's educaton choice is just trend oriented ,that people rush in for ,no much of personal plans or ambitions.Given the situation ,education/educators should guide on opportunities available.Quality and result oriented focus on research areas-Engineers got pretty good deal of contributive role in solving social and environmental issues being faced.This motivation should originate from Institutions.As cultured society,the purpose of education prepares the next generation to face their future.Thanks to all contributors,individuals, scientists,engineers,organizations,social reformers who have made the world,what it is today.

Hi s.udhayamarthandan

Maybe I'm misreading you but, I'm going to have to disagree that the curriculums should entirely be formulated by educators. Education institutions are businesses that serve customers. Those customers are students AND often, the industry that wants to hire those students. (and may directly support the institution) AND any government AND parents of those children. In short, the customers are everyone but the educators.

Therefore, the needs of the customers are the drivers for what needs to be taught. I'm not even saying 'should' be taught, but MUST be taught, if that educational institution is to stay relevent and effective as a business.

Not only that, but the universities have shown themselves to be rather corruptible by interest groups with money to burn. I think that curriculae are too important to be left to educators, but obviously can't be controlled entirely by the students, industry, or other interest groups.

Where does that leave us? Independent third parties that have anti-corruption policies.

Chris

Hello Chris,

Just got pulled down from WWWF good answer mania.Never mind.The discussion is about improving the effectiveness of engineering education.

*i agree on your point that no compromise on planned high level education standards.There were times where limited seats were available,professional courses attracted meritorious student inputs.Today's trend is a free world.Any body can opt his choice of discipline and institute.As regards to conceivabilty,all engineers can not find managerial/design engineer jobs.Majority of people takes a livelihood on that.On those grounds,towards the collective welfare of every one an alteration in curriculum can benefit better.

*Look at the economic slow downs and uncertainty of jobs to professionals.At times a space craft engineer/aero plane pilot,should at least drive a taxi in case of needs.

*It could be obvious that people used to high positions in corporates,find little adaptability to sudden job losses.If versatile basic skills could have been obtained one can at least get fit to perform available chances,let it be paid or on his own.Such situations are part of risk prone life styles.Hands on practicals will be more valid than degree values.

People with hands of experience/trademenship adapt to changes[ITI Technicians for example],Whereas a qualified engineer is uncertain at times of difficulties.They pose more dependency than self sustainability.

Pursuing a course is more imposed on students by so called long term well wishers,expecting long term safety and survival.The education system can surely offer better inputs in facilitating their opportunities.

Governments,universities bear one goodwill of seeing welfare of their subjects.Education is still one of the valuable culture of human race, and that is why it's importance is always growing up.

Coming to your point of corruption etc.,I know little about-But one thing is sure, corruption hails from selfish,short cut seeking,so called donors/well wishing riches and the commons who get inspired,that it is the only way.It has become a mass activity.

On the process of grooming super engineers without super jobs,focus can be laid for average with scope of survival.It is intended for collective benefit,You can estimate this by assessing the pass percentage of engineering students in semester exams.

My comments are based on degrees in the US because this is what I am familiar with.

I disagree with your suggested change in direction of engineering education. To add the items you suggest would lengthen an engineering degree unless you removed the items you call "over stuffed with multi disciplinary engineering". The more technical approach is best because the engineer (after gaining experience) will be able to take on broader technical responsibilities.

The education you are describing: "more simplified basics" and less "theories and problems" exists today and in the US is called a "Bachelor of Technology" or something similar. These degrees are less theoretical and more hands on. They are valuable degrees but are not accredited engineering degrees.

If an engineer is not able to successfully "reduce to practice" his or her work, then they are not fulfilling part of their assignment and that situation should be handled accordingly.

Perhaps you are right DaveB. But this has to be understood by an Engineering student. And it has to be understood by industry. In a technical environment it seems that you must have an engineering degree to sweep the floor these days. And an engineer is not trained to do that job.

I know in automotive the push was to have engineers do the theory, design and development as well as the drawings. They are trained in school for only one or two of the four. Not fair to the Engineer or the techs that get bumped out of their jobs. (Who eventually come back on contract to do the job anyway.)

It should be up to the educational facility to determine the requirements of industry and deliver a graduate that can meet those needs. These schools make big $$ to do so.

In my time in the industry (almost 20 years... holy crap!!!) I've rarely seen an engineer required to do what engineers are trained to do. Software is the engineer.

I just couldn't agree more on both your statements below -

"Some days I think the term Engineer should have been left with locomotive operators."

As well as on this next one, especially on the bold part -

"I've rarely seen an engineer required to do what engineers are trained to do. Software is the engineer. Software is the engineer."

This part also reminds me of a recent forum of "Would you remember?"

Even many of the older engineers these days probably had to familiarise themselves with computers so much that they would have difficulty to remember the real basics that their predecessors had to know for sure!

It is a said fact though because this gradually takes away the very essence and thrill about being an engineer.

However, this on the other hand helps to speed up the manufacturing process and engineers can be replaced over night through agencies for the next day task, like in most fields.

Many of the posters are in my opinion missing the point. "Engineers" (and I talk of good University educated graduates with a 4 or 5 year degree) are the elite of the engineering world, trained to a very high academic level and able to work and think at that level. These people should be taught to "think" at this level through rigorous theoretical courses at University. (He or she should be able to afford to pay for someone else to use the screwdriver).

Vocational training for the more "common" engineer or technician should come through the technical colleges for a Bachelor of Technology or an English HND or Dutch HTS or some other less academic form of very good engineering education.

Then there are the trade schools or the apprenticeship systems (shows my age) where one learns to be a mechanic, fitter, turner/machinist, plumber, electrician etc.

All have their place and suit different individuals skills, abilities and interests, but they should not be confused. A good Engineer usually makes a lousy plumber and in most cases the opposite is also true. All should be respected and admired for their individual strengths and abilities and all contribute to the greater field of "engineering".

We need the high flying academically trained Engineers in the same way that we need a great tradesmen, we just need them for different things.

Industry these days insists on hiring people with degrees when what they really need is a good practical engineer with enough theory to know when he needs someone with a degree to help him. The result is an overqualified and unhappy practically incompetent member of your workforce. ----- Stepping off soapbox now!

My exposure is to the INDIAN engineering education system.I can understand that u.s education system will be more demonstrative-more diagrams,bigger letters,colour prints,simple and exemplary demonstrations leading to better understanding.The teachers and framing of syllabus content are equally important and reality oriented.Towards better conceivabilty by average students simplification can't be a bad idea.The undue importance burden on mathematics is really worth off loading.After all I could still remember,my school days' maths basics are ever helpful,not scaring college maths.

Reading this will help me decide on how to teach certain disciplines needed and guide students to develop behaviors needed TO HELP ACCOMPLISH GOALS. One who is trying to open a Chartered School in Wilmington, NC

I agree that the basics are lost to an engineering student. And I mean real basics. Like reading engineering prints. Engineers are expected to sign off on engineering drawings but they don't know what they mean.

And the focus on higher math leaves them with a lack of practical approach. During one project an engineer approached me with a full page of calculations declaring he had determined the result of a current issue. I wasn't aware of an issue and when he described what he had calculated I told him it could be applied as a simple ratio and calculated the answer right there in my head. My answer concurred with his to the decimal and he simply walked away totally confused.

Some days I think the term Engineer should have been left with locomotive operators.

I had an experience somewhat like that when I was at a job just out of high school.

I worked at a solar manufacturer, and we soldered 50 radiator tubes flat, into copper headers. They were about 40" wide, and we used generous squirts of liquid flux and acetylene torches to solder, 3 passes per side. This produced an amazing amount of fumes. The exhaust intake was a 1 foot wide flat dustpan shaped item connected to a flexduct and window exhaust fan.

I proposed to the newly minted engineer one day a simple method of widening the intake box to the full width of the absorber, and increasing the rpm of the fan... seemed simple to me.

He literally and definitively told me it was "impossible", and walked away. About 3 weeks later, because the front office staff was getting just as choked with the fumes as we were (high as a kite), the president assigned this engineer to fix the problem. He came back to me, asked me to repeat my suggestion (as he was apparently at a loss), which we then imlemented and it worked perfectly... I will never forget the feeling of being a lowly farm-educated mechanically inclined HS grad knowing much more about simple equipment and airflow than a mathematically trained engineer. (I was ecstatic)

All that being said, and having worked with engineers for a subsequent 10 years, I see that in managing specifications and compliance (and being responsible legally for the outcome) can be an immensely challenging task, for which training in ethics, specs, and math are absolutely required. (and I've seen engineers almost killing themselves with work and responsibility, so I do have a great deal of respect for them)

so... there is always more to the story.

If you can't lengthen the duration of the course, by adding practical training, then the courses must be accelerated somehow, by increasing the efficiency of the training. In training soldiers for war, they put them on their bellies in the mud and live ammunition over their heads. that seems to accelerate their understanding of war, and the need for functional decision making and thinking under duress.

Chris

That is an excellent experience of a type of problem that often exists. Some peoples ego prevents them from listening to suggestions. It was possibly the young engineers ego that that made him say your idea was impossible. I am glad this young man came back to you for help. Anyone who makes decisions must be humble enough to look for help and suggestions outside their own mind and then give credit where it is due. Much of the equipment I have implement is based on input from various sources and the input is often contradictory, so the one technically responsible has some hard decisions at times.

Sometimes having a title puts a big bulls eye on your back. I worked for a custom machine company. When anything in the shop would not go together perfectly the shop manager would turn toward the design department that bordered the shop and shout "stupid engineers". He did this not out of fun but for spite. I must admit that assembly problems often caused him overtime. This kind of stuff makes it hard on everybody. When dealing with the large number of drawings and assemblies that that company was dealing with, not everything is going to fit. I quickly learned not to be afraid of torches and hammers even around delicate equipment.

I would also like to add that no company should ever hire an inexperienced engineer to do engineering that is not reporting to (or at least has easy access to) someone experienced in the field they are working. Over the years I have also worked with some very competent technical people that did not have formal technical training.

Practical application in my opinion is more about attitude and "get it done" thinking than it is about adding more to the curriculum list.

The spirit of responsibility,a true involvement and commitment, the pleasure of seeing your remedy really working,convincing the non acceptors and getting pats-the true stepping stones of a committed engineer.An engineer's real journey starts after taking the plunge into the field,the learning spirit and applying theory into practice calls for a spontaneous display of knowledge and analytical faculty.The problem based learning could polish our engineering students by imparting sound practical basics.The way of grooming youngsters/students-a classroom with such brainstorming sessions is likely to bring out smart engineers.The engineering jobs calls for day to day application of learned values,bits of experience and creativity and genuine adaptability to situations

Whatever happened to prerequisites for a given course? Maybe 6 months at technical school should be required, in repair and maintenance for instance. Many engineers I know would bleed if they picked up a screwdriver. There is no substitute for 'hands on' experience, and the 'go to' guy is usually the one that started as a shade tree mechanic on a farm.

Essentially it's a left brain / right brain problem. Using both hemispheres in tandem makes for what others call genius.

Hi Tippycanoe,

Well said. A tradesman technician of lower qualification with more hands on work is seen always comfortable. Whereas an engineer with mere degree feels handicapped to suggest and suffer dependency. Field work demands fluency. At the cost of replacement of possible lesser important portions, institutes can prepare engineers to that level. Better chances of professional survival in a competitive world.The engineers also need a self drive and clear cut goal and preparations for sustainability.The software drive had washed away many core engineering professional pursuits.

I noticed that when i came back from my working my year at companies as part of my studies, how far the teachers had become dejected from the practical side of things, i guess technical teachers should get refresh courses.

Thank you so much for your comments. I needed to know the truth. I am trying to start a Chartered School Called Real Life Academy. I had started with preschoolers and now I am torn between just going into Vocational Training or What. I am also going back to school to take Environmental Policy to get my masters. I am in this Blog section to get some insight on reality and support. Thank you for your support. I am using purpose driven concepts, and the accomplishments of G W Carver as foundations and a motivation for Developing a school. Please help me. Thank you very much.

Please let me know more about this study. I am trying to start a Chartered School. I would like contacts.

Thanks