Education

It is time for you to SHUT UP, as you don't know the spelling of AVOCATION!! AVOGATION-indeed; and you were finding fault with some one on his spelling!!Your aggressiveness is unwarranted in a forum of this kind.Please learn from masu, how to be cogent and pursuade with real contribution.

Instead of understanding the issues raised, you are arrogant enough to give advice, which is general knowledge.

Your HOME page is repeated over and over on all topics and there is nothing "ABOUT US".Please be courageous enough to reveal yourself.

I am sure you must be one of the mediocre "Engineers" (even if you are a Gold medallist) produced by the present rotten system of Engineering education in India, churning out people with no real engineering capability, but only the arrogance of possessing a "Degree" in engineering, as a status symbol of the "Well-to-do", newly rich.

No true designer (of machines or creative person) can be arrogant;humility is the hallmark.There is nothing worse than an expert than one who thinks he's an expert!!

I was away from computers and the net for some time and so the delay in replying to your UNPROFESSIONAL views.

eriew:

The threads you follow are totaly your choice.

The problems of the educational system(s) are not limited to India

CR4 is a place to exchange information & viewpoints, the education of engineers is certainly a topic of interest.

Political issues are intertwined with every aspect of our lives & are certainly worthy of discussion.

Thank you!

I was born at night and indeed it was last night so I need people to show me the way.

Again, I thank you.

But would that not be like the blind leading the blind?

That particular post was moderated, the pic was a from a silly email about cloning gone bad. Cock a doddle woof?

ii) The "late qualifiers" seem generally more focused and aware of the limitations of their courses.
Maybe it is simply that it is better to have done a few things in depth that many things superficially?

My experience is mostly as an end-user. The most effective course of training seems to be learn a few basics, spend some time dealing with the actual process or equipment, have more advanced training, after some time has passed. I can ask much better questions, when I am more familiar & have a better understanding of the critical points, really zoom in on areas where I may be unclear or the explanation provided in the literature is less than adequate.

This model applies to the higher level educational process. You can learn much more effectively, when practical application has shown you what you don't know or understand.

Second, that my hiring history** when taking on engineers (from whatever country) shows a weighting towards mathematicians, physicists, theoretical chemists, and people who took their engineering degree when already mature.

This speaks to the absurdity of having a 14-17 year olds decide their path in life. Youths need to be exposed to a variety experiences, so they can better understand the implications of this decision. A system that would use a series of 3-12 month internships to help define a students actual interests, is 1 possibility.

Do anyone have any thoughts or suggestions, of how to help people better define realistic educational goals?

Some kids are just wild & bored & should probably be cast out into the woods [world] for a few years, so they can live life & stabilize emotionally. Many cultures have used this method.

Random comments between your post and mine:
How weird to "moderate" the picture of a cog (dock, cock-a-doodle-woof or whatever) when some truly objectionable postings here have been left in place (or was there some obscene connotation that I missed?)

"The most effective course of training seems to be learn a few basics, spend some time dealing with the actual process or equipment, have more advanced training, after some time has passed"
According to my observations too, relevant experience of some kind is almost always needed to achieve depth - even (as in the case of mathematics) if the "experience" is all via communication and imagination.

"Some kids are just wild & bored & should probably be cast out into the woods [world] for a few years, so they can live life & stabilize emotionally. Many cultures have used this method."
I don't think I'm disagreeing with you here - but I'd like to emphasise that this too is a case of "horses for courses". For example, you shouldn't do this to mathematicians, who really need all the exposure they can get between the ages of about 14 and 22 (this varies between individuals of course).

Yea

another poster & I were jousting a bit & apparently I sniped a bit more than was acceptable. eh no big.

There should be no path, a range of choices is probably more appropriate. there will be 1-5% who are prodigies, math & music come to mind. These few should of course be afforded an accelerated path. Even these prodigies need balance so they can have proper socialization.

Hell I was totally bored [intellectually] by the 2nd grade, there were no options available. So I read & got into trouble. The basic structure is probably more rigid than is necessary. Teachers can be more like mentors, & less the oracles of knowlege. Different interactive learning & social groups could be formed & moderated by these mentors.

Are there any examples of schools you admire?

How can we encorage business to commit more resources to training & education? This one is rough , as education has little short term affect on stock prices.

The tax code can encorage or discorage almost any behavior. political will is hard to come by.

Elementary and high schools are a real problem. I know of none that will suit all abilities or all personalities. The problem is that state-supported(?) schools are universally underfunded**. And although they try to compensate, privately-funded schools are inevitably socially selective (and even then not always adequately funded)
Taking my own case (only because I know it intimately, and it's probably as good an illustration of the issues as any), I went to one of the most selective schools in the UK, that still had a minimum of five internally-selected streams for every subject. Even there, I found myself irritated by the level of repetition in subjects where I had some talent, and unstimulated by the teaching in subjects where I had yet to develop an adequate interest. And, being entirely fee-paying or competitive scholarship, it was hugely unbalanced socially (and single-sex to boot)

Regarding universities, I can only judge by my limited experience of their graduates. I've seen only capable people in Engineering, the sciences and mathematics from MIT or Stanford; Oxford Chemists seem second to none (almost uniquely for Oxford this is a four year course); Oxbridge Mathematicians aren't too bad - I think you see my drift.

**There may be exceptions in parts of Scandanavia - but I have no knowledge.

D.RAMAKRISHNA NAIDU:

Education, is an issue that has caused me much consternation, I haven't been well served over the years. I received some fine instruction, from very educated & practical teachers. Circumstances & a move to another state interrupted my education. When I try ed to resume, I was told my credits wouldn't transfer to my local 2 year institution, only to the 4 year school? This left me stuck, unable to complete my 2 year degree, without starting from the beginning, or pursuing a different 2 year degree. my core general education classes are no problem, but my various electronics courses are of a higher level than are taught here in California [@ the community college level]?

This situation has soured me towards formal education in pursuit of a degree. My many years as a technician, have exposed me to many engineers. These engineers have had various skill levels, there is not always a correlation between the supposed quality of their schooling & the skill displayed.

The knowledge & practical application of the knowledge are the most important factors.

Bureaucracies are in place to perpetuate themselves, societal structures are going to have to catch up with the accelerated forms of communication & information transfer!

Garthh

I am sure you'll understand me when I say that it's not worthwhile chasing a degree course! I believe that in the US there's a system of awarding degrees to people who can present their engineering work experience. Some universities also have NON-Graduate faculty positions in the universities. May I suggest that while teaching as a NON_GRADUATE faculty, you apply for a Ph.D program and work on your theses in the same campus-as teaching work is a part of the requirement for the award of Ph.D. I believe OLIN College requires practical execution of a Project to gain admission and does not give weight to previous Academic record. Please check out these options as I really do not have authentic information on these.

Also, please get a hold of the Degree course work and do SELF-study to the best of your considerable abilities, just for closing the "Gap" in knowledge, if any.

You will find that you become a formidable technical presence in any "Engineering" discussion and many a Graduate engineer will wish that he had not fallen afoul of you!!

I believe you are mistaken. I don't think there are any accredited US universities which will grant an engineering degree based on work experience. I also don't think there are any accredited US universities with faculty with less than a Master's degree, except in very specialized areas (I have known of one glass blower and one machinist who were faculty members). There are sometimes lecturers who have only a bachelor's degree, but that is rare and they are usually adjunct faculty. Perhaps you are thinking of Teaching Assistants, graduate students who teach classes under the supervision of a regular faculty member?

Thank you for your kind words, formal recognition of my knowledge would be nice, but is not that high on my list of priorities.

In the non academic world, there are some positions that require degrees, this is mostly to prove the applicants ability to tolerate mindless bureaucracy. Many positions will allow work experience to be substituted for degree's.

Interestingly government institutions seem to be the most rigid, about the need for formal academic credentials.

"Interestingly government institutions seem to be the most rigid, about the need for formal academic credentials."

Our situation in India is IDENTICAL. I am sure, our guys learnt it all from your guys! Or maybe the origins are British-for both of us!

It seems to be remnants of guilds & inherited titles, devine rights & some such.

More a case of hierarchical protection against the blame culture, I think. Tends to be prevalent wherever there isn't a simple measure of performance (e.g. industry has profit).

But if you think the UK's personnel selection is overly paperbound, you should try most of mainland Europe.

≡"Tends to be prevalent wherever there isn't a simple measure of performance (e.g. industry has profit)."-Guest

This seems to be a good justification of the existence of the system.

Mr.Rajiv Gandhi, one of India's great youthful leaders had indeed wanted to DELINK Degrees from jobs even in the Government. It's unfortunate that we lost a very progressive leader too prematurely.In fact, we owe the high growth trajectories of our economy to his policies.

I am eager to place the following facts for your views:

1. Number of Academic days in the 4-year course rarely exceeds 165 days out of 365.25 in a year.

2. Utilisation of these Academic days comes only to 70%(≡115.5 days) at best.If we multiply this with the efficiency of Teaching ≤ 50%, we get 57.75 effective days, i.e. less than 2 months out of 12. Surely, there is Time enough to Vocationalise, get exposure to Industry through touring visits, attendence at Seminars/exhibitions (Even International) to update to current levels, interact with Professional experts (e.g.Garthh) and design/build/demonstrate absorption of "Knowledge".

3.There is also sufficient time within a "Tour" to socialise, besides the official provision for "Culturals".

Ragavan feels let down by the system because of what it promises and what it delivers. His own potential is lost in the desert sands of such a stifling system. Don't you think we owe it to him to say that he's right? At least until things come upto fulfilment levels, by which he can be proud of Alma Mater, through out life.

Till then Engineering degrees are worthless! A menace to society at best.

Sir, with all the things you and Ragavan have seen and experienced regarding the Indian educational system, what can you do to change it?

You already know what's wrong so finding the solution should not be difficult. Getting the solution to work will take some effort (a lot in fact) but if you don't start now, when will you start? If not you or Ragavan, who?

Your very own Mahatma Gandhi said, "Be the change you want to see in the world". Complaining about it will not bring about the change (unless it reaches someone who is willing to make the change). You've got a good idea and I'm sure there are others.

Dear Vulcan

Thank you for your wonderful words of encouragement and reminder of Mahatma Gandhi's words. I am indeed grateful.

I have been striving for the past 20 years to make the required changes through AICTE (All India Council of Technical Education), Updated and appealed to our Technocrat President Dr.A.P.J.Abdul Kalam, while he was in Office and interacted with a number of Local Engineering Colleges (both managements and Faculties (Deans included)). As affirmative action, I have been spending my time with batches of VI and VIII semester Engineering students, besides conducting Lecture demonstrations on Robotics both at my R&D center and on invitation at their respective colleges.

Yes, there is an effect on the individuals but no SYSTEMIC change, as the entrenched modus operandi has been in vogue for far too long. I have contemplated opening an Engineering college or taking over one and run it with the required quality.

I now have another very senior and well accomplished Engineer/Administrator associating with me towards these objectives. Both of us are too old to borrow from banks and are looking for like minded Industrialists and/or philanthropists.

Our anxiety is that there is insufficiency of good Faculty and so we are proposing to Industries that they should permit some of their Mid and Senior Technologists should lend their services while utilising our facilities for their focussed research, as Industry-Institution Interaction.

God knows the terrible toll on time and we are not young. Out of desperation we wanted to check out the situation elsewhere in the world and whether there are like-minded people. While there are a few positive people like you and Garthh, there is a lot of ridicule out there. However, your words do help to offset the negativism, and we will continue to plough on our lonely furrow till it's time for departure.

A very good illustration of another short coming of the present system. There are very few [if any] industries, that take extended breaks every few months, the way institutions of learning do. This can lead to huge adjustments for those joining the work force for the 1st time.

I worked for many years @ a food production plant. The plant ran 362 days/yr 24 hrs/day 7 days/wk. The reality of this came as a shock to many new hires. Telling them these facts was never quite as effective as the experience.

The academic schedule doesn't reflect the reality in most industries. Even Vermin's cushy government research job probably spends: 20% socializing+30-40% administration[paperwork]+40-50%meaningful tasks. Some salaried positions may require 60-70 hrs per week. There are 2 extremes of this.

1] the large amount of hrs are required, not to do the work, but to conform to the expectations of peers & superiors. Anyone seen to be accomplishing their assigned tasks in a more rapid time frame will be the recipient of negative feedback from peers.

2] Various positions have been combined, in an effort to reduce costs. The resulting set of tasks are impossible to accomplish in a reasonable amount of time.

Determining quantifiable indicators of actual performance, can be difficult & many times just reverts back to how well you get along & do your superiors like you [It's not who you know, It's who you blow].

I would not say there is no need for degrees, just that there should be a wide range of educational opportunities. Part of the curriculum should more nearly reflect the reality students will face when they move to positions in the real world.

Most industries are implementing automation solutions to reduce labor costs & increase efficency. These solutions require more skilled operators, technicans, managers & engineers.

How best to provide the education necessary?

Education like industy will need to improve efficency, this doesn't mean more information in less time. A higher rate of retention for more useful information & methods!

Life is open book!

Math is a good example.

Calculators are a wonderful time saving tool, but without an understanding of the problems you are solving & the order of magnitude you expect of the answers.... totally useless!

I'm not all that familiar with present educational arrangements (least of all in India), but what you describe could in principle be part of a very good system of education - but it should not be the only possibility, as it will not suit everyone, and indeed some people respond better to training than to a more general education.

Very many years ago, when I took my three-year degree in the UK, you were required to be "in residence" for 30 weeks a year, and that included a maximum of 115 teaching days, on which days (voluntary) lectures occupied a maximum of 4-hours (and more typically two). We also had a couple of hours of tutorial each week, where work was set and reviewed, and we had the opportunity to ask questions. Other than being a three-year course instead of four, that sounds rather similar to your description.

Unlike high-school ("teaching"), the amount of repetition in lectures was very small, so this not only covered the basic coursework, but gave lecturers and students the opportunity to stray down interesting diversions. In addition, many of us attended as many lectures in subjects outside our nominal courses of study as within them. That sort of opportunity should be why it is called "university", not just college; the freedom to study on your own and make the most of opportunities is also essential if students are to be equipped to continue developing after they graduate.

Obviously, this system places demands on the student to supplement the lectures by reading and working on things that were not individually stated to be required. It also requires that high-schools have prepared the students to effectively control their own education. Even at that time, this was clearly not universal in the UK, and the system relied on the students supporting each other. It's a long way from perfect - but many of the alternatives are less-so.

Personally, I supplemented my degree-course with work in some of the vacations (only a small proportion of this work was of direct relevance to the course). However, I learned more as a result of that variety than I would have from many of the formal placements (tied into courses) that I have seen.

Perhaps the distinguishing feature was that, although the courses were largely funded by the state, the universities had almost complete independence of action. That unfortunately is no longer the case; combined with prescriptive syllabuses at high-school level it seems to mean that we see an increasing proportion of ill-motivated and narrowly-based graduates.

Look, both of you guys, I would love to walk into one of several laser manufactures in my area and say, "Put me to work in your R&D division. I have some interesting ideas regarding new lasers." and I do have some practical laser background. However, since they'll be paying me and I'll be using their resources, they need some way to determine my capabilities in relation the their needs. Sure, they can ask me questions to see if I know what I'm talking about, but I can understand their desire to know whether I have a fundamental knowledge of ALL the math and physics I'll need to be effective.

To this point, I would not fault a company for wanting to know my educational background!

Dear Vermin

Please be informed that now in India the trend is changing to the extent that the Industry recruiters doing Campus interviews are IGNORING the Engineering academic achievement and are evaluating High school records. I hope you get some encouragement out of this.

As for an employer; "their desire to know whether I have a fundamental knowledge of

To this point, I would not fault a company for wanting to know my educational background! ", if they care for their own good, which I'm sure they do, they'll recruit you regardless of your educational background, if you update yourself with "ALL the math and physics I'll need to be effective.".

Everbody now realise the qualifications are not worth the paper itself-that's why interviews are conducted.

Private industry seeks people who can deliver results.

Qualifications only give a starting-point - but a good starting point is essential. Employers then need to assess whether the information was assimilated or merely learned for exams, the ability to apply any information and techniques they have learned, personality, communications skills, motivation...

I've always looked carefully at high-school results; and at other interests and achievements. Partly because they show different aspects from the class of degree; but also because consistency is of importance.

[Unfortunately, these days high-school results are also not that indicative - I see students with 7 grade As at A-level who don't seem any different to their predecessors with three or four (not apparently brighter, nor do they appear to have worked harder, been force-fed etc. - indeed, the only conceivable distinguishing feature would be if there was now a range of easier exams available) ].

Not that long ago, the UK norm would have been to study 3 subjects at A-level. Studying 7 subjects clearly means that the depth of knowledge on each is less. This is probably reflected by first year University drop-out in Engineering courses. Many students lack mathematical skills that were once viewed as rudimentary. Increasing subjects at A-level does nothing to help thinking ability or breadth of knowledge (which the curious will acquire anyway). I once had to help a bunch of first year Engineering students in a lab test - not one of them could figure out how to measure displacement with a mechanical dial gauge. Simply moving the needle and seeing the effect on dial reading was beyond them. It's a miracle that any of them had tied their shoe-laces.

"Employers then need to assess whether the information was assimilated or merely learned for exams, the ability to apply any information and techniques they have learned, personality, communications skills, motivation

Thank you for puting "Qualifications" in its proper place-a good starting point.

Now, my expectations as an employer have always been that a fresh Graduate Engineer knocking on my office door is a "Finished" product of a revered body such as an ENGINEERING COLLEGE. The person has been GRADUATED as an ENGINEER. He or she is expected to be ready to be "tuned" to the Company's requirements thereafter-not requiring "Spoon-feeding" in basics and fundamentals on my premises-on the other hand is expected to tell us what is the "CURRENT" technology in the public domain and we should be able to carry the company forward, if the GRADUATE ENGINEER given ample elbow room.

They become a "BURDEN" to the company for as much as 6 months to a year and when we feel they are okay to be entrusted with some assignments, they get ready to "Fly off" with the technology of the company they would have been exposed to.The company loses whatever salary they would have drawn without any "payback" benefit whatsoever to the company that trained them. The company is not an "Educational" institution collecting fees for Tuition. They get paid to LEARN!!; AND THEY WALK AWAY WITHOUT ANY COMPUNCTION to the "BIG" label organisations. This is a real loss for the vast majority of Small and Medium enterprises wherein the owners are the technical resources having put in massive efforts at R&D and evolved technologies for being competitively useful to their customers. What is even worse is that these persons are absorbed by the "Customers" and they sit in a "judgemental" position, quite often to the chagrin of their benefactor S&M enterprises-adding insult to injury.

Two things - the first that my elementary-school teachers countered the (invariable) refrain "I did not start it" with a (variably-worded) reply that effectively meant "it was your responsibility whether and how you joined in". A salutary early lesson.

Second, that my hiring history** when taking on engineers (from whatever country) shows a weighting towards mathematicians, physicists, theoretical chemists, and people who took their engineering degree when already mature. This may be indirect prejudice (in that I can communicate more easily with these people), but I think it more likely that:
i) The mathematicians and physicists have only addressed the fundamentals during their courses, so they have had the time to develop a more secure grasp of these - and they don't believe they know 'all about engineering', so seem more open to different ways of doing things.
ii) The "late qualifiers" seem generally more focussed and aware of the limitations of their courses.
Maybe it is simply that it is better to have done a few things in depth that many things superficially?

**The work is somewhat specialised, so this wouldn't cover all areas of activity; and of course there are many exceptions. N.B. that hiring is the result of interview - I still see more people with engineering degrees than from all other disciplines combined.

I dono the people who are discussing abt this may be great and may be in big positions. If any body is like that take a survey of people who like to study engg and who hates it and u can know clearly. because i had done this to some extent.

Ragavan,

If it's any consolation, there seems to be a similar trend in the US. The good schools like CMU, Drexel, MIT, Ga Tech, etc, continue to emphasize hands-on engineering, but a number of schools (and I won't name them) have eliminated labs, don't require drafting, and emphasize formulas and math solutions without any reference to real materials and situations. The only saving grace is that probably most engineering students still have a good out-of-school background in auto mechanics, ham radio, etc.

Formal engineering education is inevitably imperfect, but it gives students the opportunity to develop skills and techniques that would be impractical to learn in the timescales required for practical engineering. It also provides space to make your most important mistakes without delaying projects (or worse, killing people) - and, believe me, you learn more from your mistakes than from anything else.

Assuming that the student has aptitude and a critical mind, formal education is great for imparting basic principles and (especially) the mathematics that go with them. You should also be set a range of experiments and projects to conduct. These will (hopefully deliberately) be imperfect and over-constrained; but, if you approach them with a constructive mind ("what are the limitations" "how can I improve it (precision speed...)" you will undoubtedly learn things that will be useful to you in the future. [The same applies to theory - try to anticipate where your lectures are taking you, and see what you can do with the resultant theory beyond what is set]

The academic environment also provides the opportunity to become involved in various extra-curricular activities. You should become involved in some that are unrelated to your studies - this will both be enjoyable and help your communication skills. But you should also involve yourself with some that have a connection with your chosen area of engineering; here you can learn the practical aspects without the difficulties of time-scales that are unrealistic for your stage of development.

A penultimate - I have over the years seen many graduates that have 'gone through the motions' of their courses without assimilating what they are doing - work learned "just for the test" and either 'instantly forgotten' or 'not well understood' is of no use to an employer. Some of these people may have high-class degrees - but employers still conduct interviews, and it takes but five minutes to discover their omissions (plus a further 25 for fairness).

And finally - although I have not directly used everything I have learned on courses (I have yet to need mathematical "measure theory", for example), even (perhaps especially) many of the abstract and apparently irrelevant activities have equipped me to handle problems where normal intuition** on its own is insufficient to provide a solution.

Go, do with conviction, do well, and benefit.

Fyz

**I see intuition as the sum of practical experiences; this is not quite the same as the sum of experience, however.

Education is not only and what is given to you. It is what you are able to absorb. If you think you are wasting your time, than I can tell you who you are, either a genius or a dumb. Take your pick.

As a matter of curiosity, I have divided the various posters as per their geographic location and their belief universities are a waste of time or not. Do that exercise yourself and you will have a clear idea where your next engineer will come from, or in what part of the world you will enroll your kid for his engineering studies.

Wangito

This is a very long thread and my eyes have glazed over reading all this. What I can say is that my engineering school was one of the better ones on Canada, and while I never really used calculus, and the majority of my studies was mind numbing, I did learn one very important lesson. This, in my mind, is the most important lesson any school can teach. Before I get to it, let me say I was a prety bright high school student and never had any trouble studying or learning, so I was quite prepared to tackle university. Now, the important lesson - I knew nothing! High school education is so soft and easy graduates think they know everything about everything. Fact is, we knew nothing. I learned in university that there's a lot of knowledge out there, most of which I would never know. That's when my education really started. Once I stopped being cocky, I learned from experienced folk, be they engineers, tool and die makers, plumbers or whatever. Experience is the teacher, and you need to develop your own.

ragavan

I'm certain I am not the only responder to this thread who had to work through college. Engineering principles abound in the construction world. If you are fortunate enough to have your education paid for you might choose to work part time as an entry level employee in a field of interest. If you do so and are asked to sweep the floor consider it as you would an required entry level college course. Do not fail to take advantage of what the uneducated person sweeping next to you has to teach.

Secondly remember your youthful enthusiasm and challenge of the "system" in years to come when you will be the teacher whether or not in a formal setting. The spark of youth, even if sometimes impetuous, challenges us all to reevaluate or perspectives. I appreciate it even when I do not agree.

Perhaps you jest?

High-school physics [A levels, Baccalaureate, etc.] would have given you sufficient to know that Nichrome wire was inappropriate to pass high current without loss, and that you need a regular structure at near atomic level to diffract X-rays. [To say nothing of a supervisor letting you loose unsupervised on X-rays when you apparently have such scanty background to ensure you own safety]

Jest? Safety? Supervision? You're talking to an idiot savant (and recently I found out savant is just an old family nickname).

I'm now getting long in the tooth and have decades of experience and education but, several years ago when we were looking at the idea of burning acetylene in a 100% oxygen atmosphere in a Nernst cell, I got tired of the theoretical calculations and haggling, did a quick calculation and saw the energy was less than an M80 firecracker.

So, I just hooked it up and turned it on. I put on safety goggles and stood back about 25 feet. It was only bad luck that the plant manager walked in and ignored my yells to stand back just as the rotameter exploded in a ball of flame. Oh well, I didn't want to retire from there anyway.

I read up to the 90th entry in this thread and have voted a number of them as good awswers but in my openion, your answer is excellent.

In addition, i appreciate Ragavan's sentiment. His is an agitated mind mirrowing the decay in the educational system in many parts of the world.

To Ragavan,

Do not be discouraged, challenge yourself to study harder. In addition to the advice on use of library facilities, you are blessed you have the internet arround. There are millions of resource materials starting with CR4, hence use it effectively.

Again that knowledge of "lack", should spur you into going the extra mile.

Also seek assistance from Engineers in the industries if you can.

Cheers,

ethobil

Thank you for your kind words.

Without reading everyones replies.

I agree but more than less disagree. A 4 year undergrad degree merely teaches basic fundamentals. This practical education you speak of requires "applied experience." Most good engineering university programs require or recommend coops or internships. In addition, if you really want to apply yourself to a specific field, you will require post graduate education.

If your lazy and only walk off with a 4yr degree on your resume you'll have no chance to become anything greater than an assistant. Unless of course your an entrepreneurial genius and successfully work for yourself.

Does anyone else find it amusing that a one liner post can generate such a long trail of replies / opinions?

Has anyone read ragavan's other posts? Particularly the 2-stroke question?

The education endeavor is to introduce you to the tools (math, science, etc..) you will need to solve the problems. Dont rush too fast it is more fun to stay in school.

There are various factors @ work. The format for school is to spend 20 years & get a advanced degree, This is probably not the best plan for many people. The late teens can be a time of many emotional upheavals.

The other side of the equation is how much academic knowledge do you need to train a good technician? You have to be able to do practical troubleshooting, which has some similarities to engineering. You can teach anyone to change a light bulb, but as the complexity of the failure increases, the need for technical knowledge increases.

The observations are correct about having a desire to do the work is 1 of the most important factors determining your future success!

A combination of practical & theory/academic is the best path. Different combinations will better suit different personalities. There should be more opportunities for practical experience, to produce well rounded individuals.

I had an amazing set of teachers, they were literally rocket scientists, who were reassigned from the Apollo rocket program. They were teaching @ Delgado community college in new Orleans. East of town was the a martin Marietta plant & they just couldn't hire enough skilled employees to build the moon rockets. All these guys had come through WW2 & the accelerated development required. The war effort brought relaxed definitions of job functions. An engineer might draw up a design & send it down to be fabbed up. When things weren't quite right, sleeves were rolled up. Things had to happen quickly, all production was on accelerated time lines. The different levels had to work together & learn from each other.

We need to encourage this sort of interaction. Institutions of learning are still using a entrenched system, the worst sort of bureaucracy. The advances in information technology can bring knowledge to more & more people, closer to where the work happens. The collabrative efforts this makes possible will continue the acceleration of change.

More later

4 years of university of mechanical engineering didn't teach me much on how the real world operate. One thing I learn and I believe is the most important is problem solving.

You're not learning all those equations, you're learning how to use them to solve problems. You learn the technique and resource needed to a problem.

If all you do is memorizing everything in class, you're in the wrong business.

1) "You're not learning all those equations, you're learning how to use them to solve problems. You learn the technique and resource needed to a problem.

2) "If all you do is memorizing everything in class, you're in the wrong business."

Answer 1:This is precisely NOT what's happening (in most Indian Colleges)....and this is precisely Ragavan's point, which you have unfortunately missed out.

Answer 2: Ragavan's is NOT in the wrong business as he has demonstrated his capabilities as a good engineer (even though he's in the Third year of the 4 year course); again you've missed his point that memorising is a compulsion and therefore a waste of time.He wants improvement.He wants the system to correct itself..and what's wrong in his yearning for that?

One thing that seems to be missing (I read as well and fast as I could given the time) but all the "non usable school information" gives you a wide reference to discern problems you have no knowledge or experience with.

Yes school has a lot of BS and even bad teaching, wrong information, bad habits. But it would take how many years of study to get that far on your own.

I find myself defending a system I find problematic at best but how do you engineer a better one?

Plan: you are here!; You Want to be there!; what are your resources?; what of these resources aid you?; what resources do you need that you don't have?; what resources are practical to get to help you?; is your goal practical?

I'm self taught but school is what you make it. Intel asked me to be an engineer because I could do the research and apply my findings. Their complaint was new engineers take two to three years of holding their hand to get them up to speed.

I don't always agree with my professors but I agree to disagree and go on. Later I'll usually find that my limited view was correct for that instance but over all was lacking because my knowledge was too narrow. So even if they were only 80% correct (low for point) that is 4 times better than me. Is it efficient for me to complain about the 20% error or learn to spot the 80% good information?

My issue of the problem is with the feedback loop to fix issues with the system. This is a dynamic I find deficient in many systems. Does this mean the system is bad? No only slow to correct.

ragavan you see a problem. Define the problems root cause (harder than it seems). Is the problem what you thought? Correct the problem for yourself. If that works publish for peer review or teach it yourself.

But first become a good engineer by using your head. Dynamics are social as well as mechanical. You approach your boss with the attitude you have used here and he will find a more tactful tool.

I wish you a successful career.

Brad

Hey! Somebody please stop this thread. It has become annoying. Surely I am unsubscribing from this thread.

interesting, but its difficult to answer because everyone has different opinion at it.

I thnk from my experience, if you would work in another field while you studied one different subject in college without sufficient basic knowledge, you will find the knowledge is useless, if you take a change to work in the field you ever studied in college, you will say its very useful. all is unilateral.

modern education is supplying a foundation for your future work. only tech vocational school trains you a typical tech which you can use immidiatally in your career.

for example, if you dont know ohm law, you will dont learn well electrics etc. if you know you would have a good foundation of design a good equipment.

why people has such tone? even in our china has such speaking. I think practice job is very complex, not every theory you learned can express all and you have to try and trial by yourself step by step.

another example,

If you think you are wasting it, Boss, then do something about it. Spending the rest of your life formulating opinions would be such a waste.

Hey, I just had to give you a vote for that vermin.

Another fine subject.

Can inspiration be taught?

How about creativity?

Do you provide yourself [& others] the conditions promoting creativity.

Maybe Kekule read Alice in Wonderland.

'Bucky' Fuller must have been seriously tripped-out.

For my 2-cents, I'd say we are all born curious in order to survive. Society soon makes us conform so we can co-exist, but this tends to stifle imaginative thought. A lot of history's most imaginative thinkers have been non-conformists. That's a bit of a paradox - society can't work if everyone is an eccentric, but eccentrics can't exist without society. New lambs that skip around playfully soon become sheep. Wow, this is nearly as depressing as the flu-thread ! Diversity of knowledge/experience possibly offers the best chance to find inspiration, and the earlier the better. By way of analogy, It's hard to escape the accent you have by the time you hit your twenties.

There seems to be a relationship between bouts of mental illness & creativity

Also another random pictureSquiraroo?