Education Improvements?
Education Improvements?
(OP)
I started this thread because there have been a number of threads recently that have touched on the level of knowledge and abilities of new graduates. What would you suggest for improving the quality of new graduates so they are able to hit the ground running and succeed?
Some ideas:
- Hire professors based on their experience doing what (most) of the students will be doing after graduation (as opposed to hiring PhDs or government researchers with little experience in typical industry)
- Mandatory internship. What would be a good length? How would you verify that each student receieved the same level of experience/training during the internship? Would you have the internship graded, or pass/fail?
- More design problems. When I was a student, most problems were given as the loading on a beam is such-and-such. What section modulus is required if the yield strength is 50ksi? Students were not even required to specify the beam, just find a minimum section modulus. I am thinking something more like a senior design project where a goal is given and there are many possible ways to accomplish it. Hopefully the design could be built and tested as well, but at the very least it should be checked for all thing requirements of an actual engineering design (i.e. how easy it is to build, cost, etc).
- Tours and visits of engineering offices and/or industries. For example, I work in machine design and had seen hardly any factories or industrial plants where the machines we create are used when I graduated.
- Separating different majors in "general" classes. For example, have different calculus classes for engineering and physics majors.
I look forward to the discussion and appreciate any thoughts!
-- MechEng2005
Some ideas:
- Hire professors based on their experience doing what (most) of the students will be doing after graduation (as opposed to hiring PhDs or government researchers with little experience in typical industry)
- Mandatory internship. What would be a good length? How would you verify that each student receieved the same level of experience/training during the internship? Would you have the internship graded, or pass/fail?
- More design problems. When I was a student, most problems were given as the loading on a beam is such-and-such. What section modulus is required if the yield strength is 50ksi? Students were not even required to specify the beam, just find a minimum section modulus. I am thinking something more like a senior design project where a goal is given and there are many possible ways to accomplish it. Hopefully the design could be built and tested as well, but at the very least it should be checked for all thing requirements of an actual engineering design (i.e. how easy it is to build, cost, etc).
- Tours and visits of engineering offices and/or industries. For example, I work in machine design and had seen hardly any factories or industrial plants where the machines we create are used when I graduated.
- Separating different majors in "general" classes. For example, have different calculus classes for engineering and physics majors.
I look forward to the discussion and appreciate any thoughts!
-- MechEng2005





RE: Education Improvements?
On the academic side we've got two choices: four academic years, or five. The value proposition for five years is pretty slim unless you can improve the wages to make the time investment more worthwhile. I say ditch some of the math to make room for what the students need to know when they graduate. We can argue about what that is until we're all blue in the face.
Co-op programs should be mandatory, as should mentored internship prior to mandatory, meaningful licensure. Without these, engineering is not a profession- it's just job training at best and a wanking exercise at worst- "pre-business" as one poster called it in another thread, or "the new liberal arts education" as I have unfortunately heard more than one engineering educator refer to it as. I just about puked when I heard that one the first time!
Hiring experienced engineers as lecturers implies hiring RETIRED engineers, or the rare few who suffer the privations of doing a PhD after working for a while. Working experienced engineers couldn't make a living out of lecturing alone, and even if they tried their skills would rapidly atrophy and rot. Supplementing the researcher profs with seasoned working engineer mentors/lecturers/project supervisors would work better. How to pay for that is a tougher one to figure out.
Controlling the engineering supply to better match market demand for engineers would also help. It's worked a charm for the medical professions but we engineers are a bunch of prima donnas when it comes to our own economic interests. The best pay and the best work opportunities attract the best candidates. Right now, a great many depart engineering not for lack of interest but for lack of suitable opportunities. Recent boom-time economics (in Canada) have lessened that burden here a bit, but I guarantee that nobody will be there to shut off the graduation and immigration supply taps when the bust (inevitably) comes around. So it has been for the past forty years, and so it will probably go in the next 10.
RE: Education Improvements?
My course had a mandatory internship requirement. One full year between school and university. Then Summer working throughout the course. Ideally a year after. As part of the application process they sent out a list of approved companies and expected you to contact them (scary stuff for a 17 year old).
On top of this, we had some week-long university seminars during our "year out", regular visits from the course liaison officer. During term time, our company HR/training people would attend meetings/dinners at college.
This is how it can work.
- Professors with experience
Many of our better ones lived two lives: their teaching and their industry consulting work.
- Steve
RE: Education Improvements?
That is an interesting point about the mathematics that highlights an inconsistency in todays course. What is the point of teaching high level mathematics and never teching them to use it in an engineering situation.
You will never use the high level maths if you allow the computer to do the work for you.
Better to teach less maths and more engineering fundamentals.
RE: Education Improvements?
"If you want something done right, do it yourself."
If you want professors with industry knowledge, become one. I did - I work full-time as an engineer and teach one class a term as an adjunct professor in the evening. I had to go back and get a MS to be able to do it, but it was worth it. I teach theory along with practice in my classes. My students have to implement the theory in practical situations. My students get introduced to codes and standards. I also was taught how to teach when I became an instructor in the military, so I have a leg up on those who are simply thrust into teaching after getting their PhD. I can also talent-scout for my company, and I have gotten several students hired along with referral bonuses.
As far as a mandatory internship goes, I'm all for it. However, I don't want the students to have engineering internships, but rather trades or technical internships. The big problem I see is that many graduating engineers today have no knowledge as to how things are put together (e.g., the MSEE grad who specified a welded thermowell to be used in a hot tap application instead of a threaded thermowell). At least two years worth of experience at the tech level is very valuable, and yes, I'm one of those engineers who started as a tech.
As far as design projects go, most engineering curricula seem to have a senior capstone design project now. Many schools even pair students with engineers from industry to assist the engineer in solving a problem. Sometimes, however, it is the academics who try to manage the students. Since they don't usually know what an industrial design process is like, the students don't get as much useful project experience.
Tours are good only if there is something to see. There isn't much to get excited about at my firm's offices - just a bunch of cubicles, computers, and a couple of plotters. Plant tours are usually much more interesting to students.
Keep in mind that academia has to perpetuate itself. All undergraduates are presented with material that should allow them a base to build on when they go to graduate school, whether they ever use that knowledge or not. If they weren't provided with this knowledge, the university system as a whole might die since there wouldn't be enough faculty members. As far as mathematics, perhaps there should be two tracks in engineering, one for those who want to go to work with a BS, and one for those who want to get further education, go into research, or become academics. The research track could be more math and theory intensive. The work-oriented track could have more attention paid to the design process, codes and standards, and project management. Schools could then create cross-over courses that would allow those students who took the work track to improve their math and theory knowledge prior to attending MS or PhD programs if they decided they wanted more education later. Alternatively, they could simple admit them conditionally to grad school with the requirement that they complete additional coursework at the undergraduate level. If students in the research track decided they wanted more practical knowledge, they could take cross-over courses to assist them into transitioning into the workforce.
Sorry for rambling so long, but engineering and education are both near and dear to my heart.
xnuke
"Live and act within the limit of your knowledge and keep expanding it to the limit of your life." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged.
Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Education Improvements?
I needed the third semester (vector calculus) for 2nd semester physics (electricity & magnetism). I suppose a structural engineer could skip the vector calculus & the E&M; a civil engineer getting into the fluid side of things might still need the vector calc though, and so does anyone who is going to touch thermodynamics.
Matrices and differential equations...in my field, I could have skipped those. (I did skip differential equations almost by accident when moving from one program to another.) But in other engineering fields, are those dispensable?
I guess I could have skipped optics & waves (the 3rd physics class).
But overall there's very little on the engineering side of my education I think I could have done without. My first program required us to do technical electives sampling various fields. I'm glad I did that. I had a semester of intro circuit theory that I would never have had otherwise, and a vague clue about things electrical that I would never have had otherwise. Thermodynamics is also not something I use, but that I'm really glad I did. And my first computer programming class (though maybe Kids These Days get that in high school?) was very important as well.
Even on the other side of my education...replace the literature class with a technical writing class and I have no complaints. Everyone should take economics. Civil engineers should take geology. Everyone should take some kind of history and/or government (civics) class or classes. Everyone, and especially civil engineers, should take some kind of public speaking class.
I just really don't feel like I spent a lot of my time in school spinning my wheels filling empty requirements (two unused linguistics degrees notwithstanding).
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: Education Improvements?
RE: Education Improvements?
Try taking advanced mechanics and doing continuously supported beams without understanding differential equations. Or try taking a matrix analysis course without understanding matrices.
You can get by in the design courses pretty much with algebra and trig, but you need the higher level maths for the advanced analysis/mechanics courses.
RE: Education Improvements?
Thats my point. They dont seem to be teaching the advanced analysis/mechanics courses anymore, so why teach the required mathematics?
Personally I think they should teach both, but they are not apparently.
RE: Education Improvements?
Design can be learned once they are in the company. There are so many different industries, companies, and technologies each with their own way of design. It is difficult to create a program that can suit each industry and technology, and on top of that, the program has to stay up to speed, which in these days, we can't event do that as individuals.
I feel that their education is just fine; I blame the companies for not spending the money on training. When I graduated and the first company I joined would not even sponsor me for IPC training, but we designed printed circuit board. The reason, I could learn all of that from the senior engineers. And we all know how that goes.
The new grads are primarily trained as Analysis and Test people, it is up to the company on how to best use their talents. If hired for something else and you did not train them, then how can you blame the college for not preparing them?
A word to the new grads, don't unlearn what you've learned. This is your edge over the designers. Use your knowledge (math, physics, chem....etc) and analysis skills to weed out problems out of a design. You can see and calculate what others can not or forgot how to do. I can't tell you how many times I have found hidden problems by doing the analysis. You will be a star if you found problems and fixed using your "engineering (math, physics...etc)" knowledge. I have been at a job fair and I showed my portfolio on some of the designs I did with the analysis and the department mangers looking at it said "wow your doing real engineering work!". I was hired.
Tobalcane
"If you avoid failure, you also avoid success."
RE: Education Improvements?
RE: Education Improvements?
Tobalcane
"If you avoid failure, you also avoid success."
RE: Education Improvements?
ITT and others like it are not engineering schools. They are technician/technologist schools. They're more of a business than the university system. They just want the money that comes from keeping students in the seats. They make it almost impossible to fail.
I taught at ITT Tech for about 15 months after I got out of the military. Their entrance standards were low enough that I could've gotten accepted as a fourth-grader. Of approximately 100 students I taught at ITT, I would consider hiring around four. I liked teaching in the military; I hated teaching at ITT. Most of the students I had were seeking a piece of paper, not trying to learn anything. I had electronics students six months short of graduation that couldn't solve a simple DC circuit. Others couldn't use a transistor as a switch, much less an amplifier. I had a student who asked me how to do a hexadecimal math calculation the first day of my microprocessor lab. I asked him if he had taken and passed the digital course where students learn number systems; he said he had. I pointed him to the library, and he swore at me and told me to just f***in' tell him how to do it. I refused and told him to hit the books, and got a nice nasty-gram on my end-of-course evaluation: "Refuses to help students."
I blame the ITT HQ and the other instructors at my branch school. At the time I taught, there were instructors who gave students quizzes with four questions, where each question was worth 10% of the grade. They got 60% for showing up to take the quiz. ITT HQ controlled the content on the midterm and final exams, and some of the questions were just plain pointless. I taught my students the addressing modes of a microprocessor they studied: their names, how they worked, how to use them, etc. The final exam asked "How many addressing modes does the microprocessor have?" If they don't know how to use any of them, it doesn't matter if they know how many! That was typical content.
One student failed my course, then got a D when he repeated it. I found a job in industry in the same business park as the school and signed up to be on their curriculum advisory board, so they knew how to get in touch with me. About a year later, I ran into a classmate of the student mentioned above, and he told me that the student complained to the administration about his second grade, and they arbitrarily raised it to keep the kid happy. They never bothered to call me and ask me about the grade. I had detailed records, including all the kid's weekly quizzes and exams that I wrote and administered. I confronted the program director about it (who was by then working for a different school), and he said that it was easier than dealing with the conflict.
ITT divided each course up into six or seven different grading areas such as homework, quizzes, exams, midterm exam, final exam, attendance, participation. If a student failed one or two areas, they could still pass the class. I had a student fail every weekly exam and quiz I gave, so I knew his level of knowledge was low. However, he showed up every day and participated, and got mediocre grades on his homework. He got enough points on the ITT HQ midterm and final exams, so he passed the class. I would've failed him in a heartbeat if I had the opportunity. He had no clue what he was doing.
This was in the late '90s, so things may have improved at ITT (after the Dept. of Justice probe into their operations), but I doubt it. Again, this may have been just at my branch, but I doubt that, too. It seemed to be systemic. I left ITT on good terms, so I'm not disgruntled for any reason other than because I feel they did a disservice to the students. I would not encourage any student to go to ITT.
My apologies for going off like that.
xnuke
"Live and act within the limit of your knowledge and keep expanding it to the limit of your life." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged.
Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Education Improvements?
Interesting rant, though.
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: Education Improvements?
Structural hours have dropped off. The field of civil engineering seems to keep expanding and hours in other civil disciplines are added at the expense of either mandatory or optional structural hours.
Practicing engineers teaching fourth year and graduate structural design courses is fairly common. We had practicing engineers for some of our geotech courses and lawyers taught our law course as well.
Emphasis on seismic design, the full theory of which is not taught in undergrad, and the reduced structural undergrad hours have made a Masters degree required for most "interesting" structural engineering jobs. By interesting I mean those which do not mean the graduate spends year one designing simply supported beams, year two on one way slabs, year three on bearing walls etc.
In my opinion, the generally required Masters degree has pushed some of the brighter students into other disciplines, as an extra year or two of lost wages takes a long time to make up - which the required econ course makes sure they are aware of.
I believe that structural engineering needs to either be split off into an entirely different degree, say from third year on, or far more optional hours need to be given in third and fourth year. Either one would allow those who wish to enter structural engineering accumulate enough knowledge and abilities to be employable with a Bachelor's Degree.
RE: Education Improvements?
A year between school and university is not an Internship, it is a years holiday from study.
It would be like a doctor doing his internship before starting university.
It has to be at least 1 year and possibly 2-5 and has to be a controlled on the job mentored training/education period after completing the study part of the degree.
RE: Education Improvements?
I did what was known as thick sandwich, 1 year in industry, 3 years uni, 1 year after (plus a bit during).
This was run by the company, not the uni.
I breezed through my first year at uni partly because I worked hard, and partly because the preceeding year had taught me how engineers work to some extent.
Cheers
Greg Locock
SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Education Improvements?
One big thing for me based on my experience at Uni would be to improve the quality of teaching. I have no doubt all our lecturers were very clever and good researchers. However some of them were awful teachers, for a variety of reasons including in at least 2 cases language barriers.
That said, some people still managed to get good grades in their classes, maybe these were the self starters who put in the extra effort in the library etc. to find out the information that was almost impossible to obtain from the lecturers. So maybe the apprantly poor teaching served a purpose.
One recurring theme I've heart in both UK & USA is that most high school graduates aren't at the level they used to be/aren't ready to dive into Engineering. A big part of the first year of Engineering at Uni is just getting everyone up to speed - which then limits what can be covered.
For instance I took 'old school' double maths pure & applied at VI forme/highschool. However most of my peers going onto Engineering took single math, in many case a more modern modular form called SMP maths(or Simple Minded Peoples maths as we reffered to it). Fast forward to university and I had already covered 90% of the first year math & mechanics at VI form, while many of my peers hadn't seen most of it before and some really struggled to the point of dropping the course.
rapt - what? There is a difference between a 'GAP year' as it was called in the UK, and a year 'internship' directly related to your intended area of study.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Education Improvements?
I have to come back on the year out thing too. My course too was a fully planned 1-3-1 sandwich course.
The first block of 3 months was spent full time at a technical college studying most of the practical aspects of engineering (drawing, machining, materials, electronics, engine & fuel pump building, all wrapped around a pretty comprehensive design & make project).
Then 9 months spread around 3 research departments, given real projects to work on and seriously good access to experienced engineers, including a dedicated mentor.
I once asked our personnel manager why the company was prepared to devote so much effort, with no guarantee that the students would either contribute or return. He said it was the most economical way to produce good engineers.
For me it made choosing ang getting a job I knew I'd like and be good at very easy. Most of the better engineers where I work were either sponsored by that company or by some other part of the auto industry.
- Steve
RE: Education Improvements?
Getting into one of the approved sponsoring companies was much harder than getting into university. During my first interview I asked about the numbers involved:
3000 requests for application forms.
2000 forms sent out.
500 first interviews
60 second interviews (tests, team activities, 3 more interviews).
30 taken on.
I failed at the final hurdle this time, exhausted and devastated. It was the most emotionally draining experience of my life to that point (and the first notable failure). Then I applied for a load more and eventually got an offer.
So while most of my school friends were living it up at university, I was doing 9-5 in some shabby research facility in the arse end of London, earning peanuts. Hardly a holiday.
- Steve
RE: Education Improvements?
Each uni is different, and they change over time. When I was taught, there were a few profs with industrial experience. The others did some industrial consulting, but narrowly related to their specific field of research. But those folks have long ago retired. The new crop at my uni are all hard-core academics with little to no industrial experience relevant to engineering per se. They're judged on their ability to crank out journal papers and write grant proposals. The sudents leaving a four-month co-op placement at my firm have a far better and more practical understanding of process equipment sizing and selection than the prof who will later attempt to teach them the subject.
I agree that many employers expect the universities to do substantially ALL their job training for them, which is patently ridiculous. Here in Canada, over twenty plus years, firms got addicted to a job market swamped with experienced people desperate for relevant work. The programs they had in place to train new hires and provide mentorship became irrelevant and were forgotten. Newer firms like ours never needed to develop such programs- until recently.
RE: Education Improvements?
It's all in the perspective. The industrial engineering degree felt more like a co-op job/internship, where the engineering classes didn't do more than skim the surface and throw theory at you.
Ironically enough I'm going back to school through the engineering math/physics and going for a masters in mechanical engineering. Now that after 10 years experience I see the value in the basics I want to strengthen that part of my experience.
I've seen enough "engineers" that are HORRIBLE designers, and isn't the purpose of engineering to make things? Things like taking no ergonomics, maintenance, etc into account, or evening be able to construct a proper blueprint. It's like they can do math, but have no vision. I've solved more problems by taking a step back and envisioning the rhetorical simple line from A to B. When you really simplify things the raw calculations always seem to fall right into place.
Maybe I'm just rambling, but a little more application than raw theory would go a long way. It's like a generation of number crunchers who can't see the forest for the trees.
James Spisich
Design Engineer, CSWP
RE: Education Improvements?
When I finished Uni I struggled to do my first design because I really didnt know where to start. I asked people, got enough advice and then moved on.
I get the feeling that many employers these days expect a graduate to be ready for anything but that is not the case now, nor has it ever been. A fresh graduate needs to be taught on the job how to be an engineer.
RE: Education Improvements?
Somewhat off the original topic, how long do you think it typically takes a new grad to become acceptable with experience or training (if any on-the-job training is supplied)? Or what length of time should hiring firms expect?
-- MechEng2005
RE: Education Improvements?
RE: Education Improvements?
I also agree with those who feel industry has dropped the ball. For those who go the PE route, we're supposed to spend four years as an "engineer in training" (or "engineer intern" I think they call it now). That means we're supposed to be TRAINED by someone, not dropped in the middle of the soup because budget cuts mean staff is down to the bare minimum and they fired all the experienced people because they cost more. That wasn't really what went on at my workplace, but nevertheless I had about two years working under someone who had something to teach me, and the rest of the time I was supervised by those who attested to my work in all the legal ways, but didn't really contribute to my professional worth. I think I turned out okay anyway (partly because of the network of people outside my workplace that the first boss helped me set up), but I don't think that's what was originally in the mind of whoever set up the system lo these many decades ago.
And since college programs don't have PE or non-PE tracks, if the person headed for the PE is supposed to have 4 years of training directly under another engineer before they can function on their own, surely people falling under the "industrial exemption" are equally in need of such training--and yet even less likely to get it because there's no mandate for supervision by a PE, so they may be the only engineer there.
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: Education Improvements?
RE: Education Improvements?
I realize that a lot of students don't know exactly what they are going for when the get to college, but thats what change of major forms are for. I used one once, they work.
RE: Education Improvements?
I've worked with a few fresh-from-school engineers, and many of them complained that they were stuck in roles where they were prevented from using more than their MS Excel skills. Even after they'd doing a job several years, their "mentors" would snatch work away from them rather than let them work through it. They'd get left out of the loop in discussions, etc., when they needed to be engaged to learn, the while the "mentors" would gripe to each other in the lunch room about how kids these days don't learn anything.
RE: Education Improvements?
xnuke
"Live and act within the limit of your knowledge and keep expanding it to the limit of your life." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged.
Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Education Improvements?
Kids leaving with a Bachelors' degree have no idea where they're going to find their first job, and pidgeon-holing them into a sub-sub discipline right out of school will come at the cost of some core competencies they'll (ie. we'll) very likley need later.
We've seen and been disgusted with this very trend. We refer to it as "buzzword engineering". Any term that gets media exposure as the hot new thing rapidly gets an engineering sub-discipline named after it. It's used as a means to expand the uni and attract additional government funding. In reality, they dropped core subjects from one of the other disciplines in order to make room for the hobby horse specialist classes of a few of the research profs. At my alma mater it was environmental, biotech, then nanotechnology engineering and mechatronics...Local industry has no freaking idea what to do with these students and hence they have trouble finding co-op placements. Great for the kid who knows they want a PhD right out of high school I guess.
RE: Education Improvements?
I think you are taking the term specialisation a bit further than dgillie intended. Most structural engineers effectively do a civil engineering degree with some structural subjects.
Civil and structural have many common threads, but I would argue that they are as different as say chemical and industrial engineering.
RE: Education Improvements?
What about the first two years of undergraduate that you spent learning History, Psychology, Health, Social Sciences, Foreign Languages, and other courses that really weren't and haven't been applicable to your future/present career?
I once dated a German girl - the daughter of a German engineer. We were discussing my plans for getting a Masters in structural engineering when I asked him about his education. He said a Master's degree wouldn't help him much because he got his Bachelor's degree in Germany. He said the curriculum was engineering from day one. They had upper level math (see my math comments below), one "Writing for Engineers" class, 'Engineering in History' (highlighting failures and so forth), and from there it was dedicated engineering courses. Furthermore, the engineering courses strive to provide not only theoretical knowledge, but practical knowledge as well.
Of course, to offer such an engineering curriculum as I've described does require very "prepared" freshmen. (see KENAT's post above). My overall point is that I don't believe that higher education has to be "well-rounded" to create a "well-rounded" adult mind. Are we creating scholars or engineers? I certainly don't agree with the thinking that, "We had to do it, so these kids will have to endure it as well..."
My personal technique for obtaining a "pseudo" version of this curriculum in undergrad was to attend community college for a year and half, then I transferred to Georgia Tech with all my "core crap" complete. I worked alot during community college and successfully saved the funds necessary to complete my Bachelor's after transferring. Even my guidance counselors at Georgia Tech praised this methodology. (Note of advice: If you plan to pursue such a path, or to recommend this to a young mind, listen to your 'eventual school' admissions counselors over the community college's counselors to avoid losing course hours in transfer...)
Upper Level Math: I agree with the split engineering education system in the U.S. - Engineering & Engineering Technology. If you don't want to get into the "heady" side of engineering and you want to be in the field and get your hands dirty - get an Engineering Technology degree. The math is not as daunting and it creates very practical, common sense engineers/engineering technicians. If you want to crunch numbers, design, analyze, etc - you need some upper level math.
Total Engineering Education: (see csd72's post above) To truly become an "Engineer's Engineer" requires life long learning, regardless of college. Take your Continuing Education requirements seriously, pore through manuals, codes and guidebooks for pleasure, admire and take from other's works and experiences, and never, ever think that you know it all...
RE: Education Improvements?
RE: Education Improvements?
I think I was leaning to say what theonlynamenottaken was getting at as well. For the first year or so they want you to have "core" classes, fine. After that I think your classes should reflect reasonably specific course work. As I mentioned earlier, I don't see how transportation engineering, for example, has helped me become a more rounded structural engineer. Take out classes that are not as relevant and allow more study in the field the student is interested in. More classes to help prepare them for work, of course this might only ammount to (3) or (4) classes but it might be enough to help new graduates "hit the ground running and succeed" better. Not a complete overhaul of the educational system which would take years to see, but a small modification that I think would produce results in a few years.
RE: Education Improvements?
- More design problems.
All of our design problems were made up. We did try to organise our team to be like a real one: the structural guy, the fluids guy, the nuts & bolts guy, the secretary (wealthy foreign student with his own computer and photocopier). But ultimately it was just an exercise.
But these days automotive people have Formula SAE/Formula Student/etc. I can't think of something more interesting and relevant for a budding automotive engineer. My work sometimes involves interaction with some of these teams and you can see the pride and interest oozing out of them.
I couldn't have cared less if my hypothetical nuclear rod handling device would have worked if built.
- Steve
RE: Education Improvements?
I do feel that the programs should be discipline specific (or emcompass, at the most, two disciplines to afford some flexibility if you don't truly know what you want to do), but that you can't get rid of the maths and sciences and advanced mechanics/analysis classes.
The design courses are extremely easy....... extremely easy. Even the basic analysis/mechanics courses are pretty easy. It is the advanced mechanics/analysis courses where you really find out what you're made of and test (as well as further develop) your intuition and understanding of structural behavior. I'm sure it is similar in other disciplines.
RE: Education Improvements?
Sorry, I just re-read your post and I always feel the need to clarify when I see comments regarding "engineering" degrees vs. "ET" degrees.
While it is true that ABET doesn't require math beyond calculus, many ET programs do.
The biggest difference between a CE degree and an ET degree is the number of disciplines you are required to demonstrate competency in. A CE degree requires competency in (4) disciplines, an ET degree requires competency in (2).
I took math up to diff. eq., and calc based physics. As an undergrad I took (2) steel courses, (2) concrete courses, (1) foundation course, (2) analysis courses - including matrix analysis and energy methods, (1) course on wind/seismic analysis, and a comprehensive senior project that required design and detailing of a small building. That was in addition to the typical static, dynamics, strength of materials, soil mechanics, fluid mechanics, material science, surveying.
That was all undergrad. That is more structural classes than most undergrad CE degrees will let you take. Not necessarily because they aren't offered, but because you have to dedicate class time to other disciplines.
The only point I am making is that saying you can't get into the "heady side" of engineering with an ET degree demonstrates a lack of understanding of the programs, a lack of interaction with someone out of a decent ET program, interaction with someone out of a poor ET program, or some combination of the three.
RE: Education Improvements?
The fast growing engineering fields that may have the most potential for the future may include nano technologies, mechatronics and applications with both machinery and computer controls, bio-mechanics, biologic process design including water and wastewater technologies, and of course sustainable engineering practices . A freshman eng student should be advised of these new technologies prior to their selecting a final major, although not all eng schools are prepared to educate their students in all of these mentioned areas.
RE: Education Improvements?
One aspect debated was the value of the math (and perhaps theory), as opposed to practical aspects.
As a very new graduate, I felt a little overwhelmed by all the real-world stuff that I had not been exposed to and I tended to think the theoretical parts of my training were a waste of time.
Now, 20+ years out of college (man, do I feel old!), I feel the opposite. I have had to do a lot of on-the-job learning in various job responsibilties along the way. There is no practical training that could have given me all that. But having the core math/theory skills made that on-the-job learning a lot easier.
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: Education Improvements?
http://www.asranet.com/Resources/Introduction.doc
RE: Education Improvements?
If we drop teaching the higher mathmatics then how do we expect New engineering graduates to do hand calc's to verify approximately that the computor is giving the right answer.
regards
desertfox
RE: Education Improvements?
Rather, I'm advocating the ditching of some of the analytical mathematics along the way, to make room for more of the practical. This, along with co-op terms and an internship, will generate better engineers. For example, I'd rather see chem engs lose analytical integration of partial differential equations rather than something like heat transfer, which is currently one of the courses they ditch when they take the environmental engineering specialty. I realize this is a discipline-specific thing: some disciplines are more analytical math-intensive than others.
RE: Education Improvements?
The mathematics are meaningless without the basic engineering knowledge to be able to apply it.. So why are they teaching the mathematics and not the engineering.
That was my point above.
RE: Education Improvements?
I guess the difference is that someone without the higher level math might not understand why they get the answers they do. Is this a bad thing? It can be but it also depends on your field. I have had jobs that as long as we were below 25 ksi and using a certain material we were golden. Do I need dif eq. for that. No, but it does help me to understand on a different level. When someone asks me why we can't do this or that I have an answer for them.
I was slightly dissapointed in my school. They pride themselves on having teachers that are from Industry. This can be a very bad thing for math classes.
Who would you rather have teaching you calculus: Someone who is an engineer in his chosen field or someone who has been teaching it for 30 years? I would think the engineer as it would be more practical to what I would need in my career, but unfortunately they have to teach what the school wants them to teach (which in my shools case was based on accreditation). A good portion of my teachers could not do the math they wanted us to learn. Needless to say I had to spend even more time studying because that was never an excuse not to learn it ;) luckily some of my core engineering classes did have instructors from industry and I learned a lot.
I was also already in my field as I was going to school which helps. I got associate degrees (similar to what ITT would get you)out of high school which got me into engineering. After 4 years in an engineering department I went back to school. Took me 6 years of night classes but it did make alot of my classes easier to understand. By the time my core engineering classes came around I could apply them at work.
RE: Education Improvements?
The Bachelors itself was then only 3 years, however all of it was engineering related. No history or arts etc. - the closest we got was our combined accounting/law/management module.
However, there were still people in the UK that didnt' think new grads were up to it etc.
So while I have some sympathy for dropping some of the non engineering stuff from a bachelors, especially given how expensive college in the States can be, it's not a magic bullet.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Education Improvements?
I had made an effort in the past many years to apply what I have learned in school to my designs especially the math up to calculus and found that you can get a deeper understanding of your design. That is the difference between an ITT grad and a college grad.
Just because one choose not to practice what one has learned in school and apply it to one's design does not mean the subject is useless in practice.
Tobalcane
"If you avoid failure, you also avoid success."
RE: Education Improvements?
I'd have liked to see more on approximation methods, or numerical integraton ,and such like, rather than classic calculus, although to be fair we apparently did far more calculus at high school than USAns do at uni these days.
Cheers
Greg Locock
SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Education Improvements?
I agree with your earlier statement that both should be taught but seperately.
When I was at college I was told that maths was seperate, so that when I went to the mechanic's classes the teacher could concentrate on mechanic's and not have to get into mathmatical manipulations.
Engineering is based on mathmatics therefore without them and the mechanical theory there is no point.
I don't understand why an educational establishment would choose to teach one or other on there own, what I can tell you is that quite recently I have come across several honour degree gradutes that couldn't work out the mass of a cylinder, let alone a beam in bending.
regards
desertfox
RE: Education Improvements?
A lot of Design Project classes, or Final Year Projects kind of hit on this, but a lot of them don't. A separate class where each week a different problem is presented and the class comes up with a logical plan to attack the problem would be great.
Being able to solve a calculation by hand is important, but figuring out that you need to do that calculation and how to get the info you need to perform that calculation is important too. The most effective engineers I work with are the ones with the best problem solving skills, and Engineering schools should do more to help their students graduate with this skill.
Bob
RE: Education Improvements?
FYI some universities are starting to do something similiar by creating a general first year course on the design process and problem solving. Here is a link from University of Toronto:
h
APS111F - Engineering Strategies and Practice I
This course introduces and provides a framework for the design process, problem solving and project management. Students are introduced to communication as an integral component of engineering practice. The course is a vehicle for understanding problem solving and developing communications skills. This first course in the two Engineering Strategies and Practice course sequence introduces students to the process of engineering design, to reverse engineering as a design methodology, and to design for human factors, society and the environment. Students will write a technical report and an essay and give presentations within a discussion group.
RE: Education Improvements?
If I were to change the curriculm, I would mandate co-op's for a 1-2 years (hopefully, in the area of specialization) after the sophmore year to give a better idea of what a given field is like. My exposure to power engineering in school was boring and dull and did not give me at all a picture of what it was like in the real world.
RE: Education Improvements?
We did have this course, for which I am thankful. One of our fourth year optional courses (I forget the name of it) consisted entirely of design problems. In groups the class had to work through things like launching a bridge truss, designing cable stay systems and working out how to build cast in place piers in a navigable channel. Yes, the instructor was a former bridge designer. We did have other non-bridge related projects, but most of my work is with bridges now so those are the one I remember.
RE: Education Improvements?
-We want courses on design taught by experienced engineers but are worried about finding the instructors. Have a few multi-discipline "Design Courses" taught by generalists from industry; people who have worked their way into managing multi-disciplinary projects. In this way, you can have two or three engineers taking a break from work for 3 years, servicing all of your students in all of your disciplines. This also gets the multi-disciplinary teamwork ball rolling
-Design courses can be set to take design projects from industry. This way, industry can get a cheap source of labour/ideas/potential hires. The industry pays the school, earning schools money. The students get a real job experience, real item on their resume, and hopefully mentoring from the client's real engineers
-Some courses add design projects as adjuncts to or replacements for exams. This gets things a little practical. The danger is that every professor wants to put their design project at the end of the year, so you end up with such a mad scramble that exams become a relaxing break
-The problem with any team design project is the inherent unfairness of team projects
-Public speaking, technical writing, economics, and MS Office skills need more attention. They are *REAL* priorities, and something you can guarantee almost every grad will use.
-Given the importance of computers in design, I think everyone should do a tiny bit of programming. I see a lot of engineers writing sloppy calculations by hand or Excel. A little attention to good documentation, calculation structure, and commentary would help a lot. Also, it would help people understand programs specific to their discipline, why iterating programs don't converge to the same result, etc. But only one simple course of this should be required for most disciplines.
-Internships or summer co-ops are a great idea, but I worry about adding too many. Some people have to go home for the summer to help the family business
-Engineering extra-curricular design teams are a good way for people who want it to reach for practical knowledge. But this requires money, space, and enthusiasm from the schools
-People should be allowed to expand their degree by an extra year to get more courses in a non-engineering speciality if they want. People should be given the academic freedom to pursue other interests
-Professors and grad school teaching assistants who are horrible teachers or have poor communication skills are a real problem, but I don't see an easy way for schools to avoid it since they need excellence in the research side. All they can do is tie more pay/prestige to good marks in student surveys
-If companies are failing to properly train their new hires, maybe in addition to engineering mentorship programs, professional engineering bodies should start offering subsidized industry-specific mini courses that will help new workers. Or, offer industry extremely cheap courses and newsletters on mentoring new hires. However, this would cost money, and that brings up questions of fairness
-Another idea might be to create some kind of "ISO"-equivalent to mentoring new hires: a voluntary process that companies could buy into to increase their attractiveness to graduates
RE: Education Improvements?
-Internships or summer co-ops are a great idea, but I worry about adding too many. Some people have to go home for the summer to help the family business
"
Nope, driving tractors over the summer is not going to do much for an engineer's technical education. My uni insisted that EVERY first year engineer did a 3 month workshop practice/drafting industry placement, so at least in the 2nd year they could assume that every student had some practical knowledge of the workplace.
Cheers
Greg Locock
SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Education Improvements?
RE: Education Improvements?
It is not the fault of universities that the industry is not mentoring or training their graduates. My wife does a far far less technical job than mine but receives much much more training each year than I ever have.
The industry complains that engineering graduates don't have enough knowledge of engineering fundamentals but then also ask for them to be well rounded. These are two opposing goals and cannot both be completely met at the same time.
I strongly believe that engineering courses should prepare you to be a good engineering graduate rather than an engineering manager, the latter should come with experience. By the time you get to management level you would have forgotten what you learnt at uni anyhow.
RE: Education Improvements?
"-Given the importance of computers in design, I think everyone should do a tiny bit of programming."
Huh?????
Amphoteric, where/when did you go to college? With the exception of MS Office skills (which I learned as a co-op) all of these things were part of my undergraduate engineering curriculum.
I had numerous projects in school, both on an individual and team basis where I was required to stand up and present it in front of my class. I also learned in class how to write a technical paper. I also was required to take two semesters of economics: macro nad micro. Isn't that enough? One semester of a programming language was also required of all engineering students. Furthermore, I remember at least two of my upper level engineering classes had projects that required students to write a program.
RE: Education Improvements?
There is also no substitute for a mastery of the basic fundamentals. In engineering, to have the breadth and depth needed, you have to go through an incredibly hardcore program with great intensity.
My thoughts are that school is around to drive home the theory and basics, and industry is for the real world experience. If you are like me and you come out of school with little real world experience, then you get punished by being less marketable and getting paid less when you first start.
It's not the school's responsibility to provide the real world experience and I would never advocate that they do. I made less when I started but I'd bet I will make more when I finish. I've worked with those who came from more of a trades school environment, and while more productive on day one, those grads lack the depth of knowledge to give them a great deal of leeway in their careers.