Y

You don't give enough information for me to give a really pertinent answer, but I'll try.

If you work in industry, status means pretty nearly nothing. The production/shipping schedule is the "mountain you die on" at least every month and possibly every week. If, in order to meet the shipping schedule, a senior engineer has to fetch parts for the wireman, he does it. No question!

I once worked in a small company where the owner would literally clean the bathroom, run prints, fetch lunch, almost anything to keep us technical guys working.

Many teaching staff are not prepared to do mundane or very junior work. They want to do senior work on day one.

So, IMHO (ha!), it is more of a question of attitude.

i'll try to tell u y?

because the student who were going to the industry can get the training in full flegde because he didn't learn anything at that stage and he don't know how to relate things theoritically at the begining. so they'll fully concentrate on practical and they forgot about the theory at that time . it is easy to train such kind of people.

But people who are sound in theoritical knowledge can't able get the training fully because their mentally is set like that to assume things and then design. so it is difficult to change their mentality and make them have a effective training. i think this is the reason.

People who worked in industry can survive in college because they had TOP DOWN APPROACH

These fresh recruits that they are hiring have been educated in the field of desire for the position. They have the attitude to go out in the world and use it. The educator was educated to do just that educate others. That is not what the employer is looking for. The educator has spent many years acquire the skills he needs to teach at a college level position. They are ingrained with knowledge of there particular field. Theory is not an argument that they will win over practical knowledge. An employer does not need that tension in their work force.

Not withstanding the poor English grammer, I attempted to apply logic principles to test the conclusion of Guest's premise to the "Y" thread.

Let A be the "educational institute" and B be the "experienced industry person".

Suppose C represents the "industry enterprise" while D is the "non-practical staff person with a teaching background".

Also suppose that C makes choices which weigh to the benefit of C using resources available from B and D.

Prove logically that "something" is better than "nothing".

A allows B to get chances.

C does not allow D to get chances because C believes D does not merit chances since D by definition is the subset of persons who are not practical.

Conclusion - C does not give chances to D because D does not meet C's requirements of Condition B.

That premise A allows B is independent from premise that C does not allow D.

Guest's conclusion to this logic premise that "something" is better than "nothing" is illogical given the premise arguments. The conclusion reached was not developed by the arguments. No, it was not circular logic, it was NO logic.

The key is that C's decisions are independent of D's need for chances. These events are independent events wherein the enterprise C is the final arbiture.

A big part of it is cost and ethics. A educated person has some expectations of value for his skills and services, he also has some understanding of what are the appropriate methods to use in certain sitautions, and the expectation of superior knowledge carries some public liability for quality. You expect a PhD to earn more, know more than one method to solve a problem and generate more accurate/precise solutions. The public expects a PhD to know the answer, but might believe a technician with a high school education just made a simple error and should not be held accountable (and therefore a company may get a pass on some liability). A PhD may be less flexible to solutions that violate his knowledge or understanding of the contracts, industry standards & practices, legal obligations, and general moral obligations. Where as a technicain may have a very limited knowledge of such things and only knows what the sales/marketing/management has told him is appropriate. If they enforced the legal requirements strictly regarding ignorance of the law and made managers/corporate officers much more accountable for product/deliverable quality, managers/officers might take a different perspective on quality.

I'm not sure I agree that we should expect a PhD to earn more. This is industry we're talking about, so my question is: does he produce more? Long ago when the world was green and Pittsburgh wasn't rusty, I was an engineering manager and I paid many of my engineers a fair amount more than I made, because I understood who did the work.

Umm, yeah that doesn't happen anymore. I have worked for a couple of large corporations, and all managers make substantially more then the professional staff, even if the professional staf has more experience in the service the company provide. This trend goes all the way up to the CEOs. I believe it promotes the current trend for mediocre work product with poor qa/qc by senior technical staff. Why would you spend the time and effort being technically competent when you could more easily get on a management fast-track and earn much more for less effort. These types of companies, however, favor working for government agencies, which will do their own reviews and comments of deliverables and explicitly direct staff on structure of, content of and methods for producing deliverables. I think work products would be better in the long run if we held corporations to the same legal liability we hold individuals. If an individual would have to spend time in prison, then similarly for a corporation committing such acts aresponsible management agent of the corporation would have to spend that equivalent time in prison on behalf of the corporation. Do the crime, then do the time should extend to management of corporations. At that point you would see management putting more effort into work product quality, and less focus would be on underbudget and maximizing profitability.

An interesting aside. I knew a manager who was told to pick an employee to be laid off (fired) in order to help the bottom line. This guy's group was fully committed to a profitable, long-term project so he said he couldn't spare anybody. Corporate came down on him like a ton of bricks and said he MUST submit the name of the person he could most easily spare. So, the manager submitted his own name. Corporate passed on the layoff and the morale in that guy's group went through the roof; as far as those people knew, he could walk on water.

Hmm, sounds like he wasn't on the planned career path of corporate management, but promoted through the ranks from staff. Corporation career managers never put their own heads on any block or even go near it.

The second part of that story is that the manager left that company and joined an employee-owned outfit. He retired to Mexico, a multimillionaire at age 50.