Engineering has become the business majors play thing. We no longer have control of our own projects. We are vastly becoming data entry and documentation experts. I feel that the Engineer's major downfall is that there is no mentoring within companies. Masters education in Engineering Management or MBA with an Engineering undergradute is the only way to move up the ladder!
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Direction of Engineering 7
- Thread starter Hobber
- Start date
-
2
- #2
I disagree, slightly. There was a recent study done (I apologize for not knowing by which organization at the moment.) that surveyed "top executives" to determine their educational background. Believe it or not, most did not have an MBA. Astoundingly, most CEO's and corporate presidents had engineering degrees in one form or another (BS, MS, MSE) in their chosen field of study (electrical, mechanical, aerospace, etc).
I do agree with you that companies do not have enough mentoring. There should be two levels of advancement in every company: management and technical. Engineers could choose to be demoted s-) into management or follow the other path to become chief engineer. Pay and benefits should be equal on both sides of the ladder, with, for example, chief engineer being equal to VP of Engineering. A chief engineer could still move over to management (and up the remaining positions to CEO, president, or whatever title the company creates) as desired.
I think that engineers are taken advantage of and thought of as paper pushers because of all the technical advances we've made. Now, just about anybody can throw some garbage into a computer program and get garbage out... What do they need engineers for? This follows another thread that covers whether or not engineers are designing themselves out of a job, since computers are able perform such complex "thinking."
Personally, just as engineers displaced factory labor during the past decades through automation, only to have those factory workers redefine themselves by becomming computer operators (now controlling the factory automation), we'll end up redefining our careers as well. We'll always need doctors, engineers, and laborers, (maybe even lawyers), just that our definitions of these careers may change with technology.
Off my soap-box.
--Scott
I do agree with you that companies do not have enough mentoring. There should be two levels of advancement in every company: management and technical. Engineers could choose to be demoted s-) into management or follow the other path to become chief engineer. Pay and benefits should be equal on both sides of the ladder, with, for example, chief engineer being equal to VP of Engineering. A chief engineer could still move over to management (and up the remaining positions to CEO, president, or whatever title the company creates) as desired.
I think that engineers are taken advantage of and thought of as paper pushers because of all the technical advances we've made. Now, just about anybody can throw some garbage into a computer program and get garbage out... What do they need engineers for? This follows another thread that covers whether or not engineers are designing themselves out of a job, since computers are able perform such complex "thinking."
Personally, just as engineers displaced factory labor during the past decades through automation, only to have those factory workers redefine themselves by becomming computer operators (now controlling the factory automation), we'll end up redefining our careers as well. We'll always need doctors, engineers, and laborers, (maybe even lawyers), just that our definitions of these careers may change with technology.
Off my soap-box.
--Scott
-
5
- #3
There was a study done some years ago at I believe it was the then Bell Labs. The study was on what differentiated
those with succesful technical careers from those who's
careers seemed to stall out.
Of the top 10 attributes in that very technical environment,
SEVEN were people skills.
Technology changes quite rapidly, and the days of the lone
inventor cooking up a steam engine or a time machine in
their barn are long gone (if they ever really existed).
The best way to be succesful is to partner with other people. This demands top-notch people skills. I don't mean
the kind of manipulative crap you see from PointyHeaded
Bosses. Instead I'm talking about the honest and forthright skills that
a) convey your ideas as clearly as possible
b) help you understand the ideas of others
c) help you get your ego out of the way of team interaction
d) help you to understand how to get your ideas accepted
by management
Yes there are creative individuals who 'invent' things all
on their own. But to a great extent they need even better
people skills. Because like it or not, the people who have
the money to fund your greatest invention, tend to want a solid understanding of how this will generate a return on
their investment.
I would suggest that there is almost a cult-myth that a great engineer cannot have great pepple skills. And I have
met many engineers in my 20+yr career who almost take pride
in their anti-social behaviour. They all remind me of my
14yo son who wears long hair and a black leather jacket
complete with scowl - not so much because 'being cool' is
that important, but more because he is afraid that if people
really got to know him they
a) wouldn't like him
b) wouldn't think him intelligent.
Neither of course is accurate.
As we go further and further into the pseudo-communication
of the internet, people skills become even more important
because the subtleties of online interactions are much
more delicate than Face to Face. F2F has all sorts of
cues about how the other person is reacting to you that
facilitates communication.
So in the end, I believe that the skill sets MOST important
to engineers in their future careers - ESPECIALLY if they
do not want to become the 'play things of business majors',
are
a) people skills
b) writing skills - really good writing skills.
those with succesful technical careers from those who's
careers seemed to stall out.
Of the top 10 attributes in that very technical environment,
SEVEN were people skills.
Technology changes quite rapidly, and the days of the lone
inventor cooking up a steam engine or a time machine in
their barn are long gone (if they ever really existed).
The best way to be succesful is to partner with other people. This demands top-notch people skills. I don't mean
the kind of manipulative crap you see from PointyHeaded
Bosses. Instead I'm talking about the honest and forthright skills that
a) convey your ideas as clearly as possible
b) help you understand the ideas of others
c) help you get your ego out of the way of team interaction
d) help you to understand how to get your ideas accepted
by management
Yes there are creative individuals who 'invent' things all
on their own. But to a great extent they need even better
people skills. Because like it or not, the people who have
the money to fund your greatest invention, tend to want a solid understanding of how this will generate a return on
their investment.
I would suggest that there is almost a cult-myth that a great engineer cannot have great pepple skills. And I have
met many engineers in my 20+yr career who almost take pride
in their anti-social behaviour. They all remind me of my
14yo son who wears long hair and a black leather jacket
complete with scowl - not so much because 'being cool' is
that important, but more because he is afraid that if people
really got to know him they
a) wouldn't like him
b) wouldn't think him intelligent.
Neither of course is accurate.
As we go further and further into the pseudo-communication
of the internet, people skills become even more important
because the subtleties of online interactions are much
more delicate than Face to Face. F2F has all sorts of
cues about how the other person is reacting to you that
facilitates communication.
So in the end, I believe that the skill sets MOST important
to engineers in their future careers - ESPECIALLY if they
do not want to become the 'play things of business majors',
are
a) people skills
b) writing skills - really good writing skills.
Hear Hear! Good points from Karlsch and Swertel. But going back to Hobber's point about an MBA or MS degree reminds me of a conversation I had with a college dean of engineering a while back.
It seems the school was looking toward the future. How could it change it's program to make the graduating engineers better? More programs? More research? More classes? This was my answer (and I still believe it):
1) All students must become involved with a co-op or interning program as a prerequisite to graduation. (Nothing like finding out about the real world and gaining practical experience.)
2) The time in the program should be expanded to a 6-yr program, pushing out a BS degree to an MS degree.
3) The FE (or EIT) exam must be passed before a degree is conferred.
The engineer would then graduate with a Masters Degree, some practical experience, and a certification of knowledge. What better way to add value to a person and profession?
Hey, it's my opinion, and I didn't say that it didn't have a few open holes. But the truth of the matter is that we, as practicing engineers, need to think about how we can prepare the next generation. Mentoring is not widely accepted or practiced. Book learning can only take one so far. Inexperience can literally kill a company.
As a profession, we really do need to wake up...get our noses out of the technical jargon and reading...and start making ourselves valuable beyond a doubt. Then you will see the ladders of progression unfold.
My 2-cents.
It seems the school was looking toward the future. How could it change it's program to make the graduating engineers better? More programs? More research? More classes? This was my answer (and I still believe it):
1) All students must become involved with a co-op or interning program as a prerequisite to graduation. (Nothing like finding out about the real world and gaining practical experience.)
2) The time in the program should be expanded to a 6-yr program, pushing out a BS degree to an MS degree.
3) The FE (or EIT) exam must be passed before a degree is conferred.
The engineer would then graduate with a Masters Degree, some practical experience, and a certification of knowledge. What better way to add value to a person and profession?
Hey, it's my opinion, and I didn't say that it didn't have a few open holes. But the truth of the matter is that we, as practicing engineers, need to think about how we can prepare the next generation. Mentoring is not widely accepted or practiced. Book learning can only take one so far. Inexperience can literally kill a company.
As a profession, we really do need to wake up...get our noses out of the technical jargon and reading...and start making ourselves valuable beyond a doubt. Then you will see the ladders of progression unfold.
My 2-cents.
GregLocock
Automotive
1) Yes. my uni insisted on this 20 years ago.
2) SIX YEARS? Few engineers use anything much they learn beyond the first two years. I'm lucky, I use 1/2 of my final (third) year papers. Still, the longer they keep them in college the more money they make...
3) There is a big difference between passing an exam at uni (easy) and studying for the same thing while working and then putting some of your own experience into it. I think this devalues the exam to some extent.
We have a lot of co-ops, they are very good and fun to work with. But they are a big investment of time and resources on our part and I can't see that the industry as a whole can absorb the task of teaching every student for a year. I suppose you'd argue we end up doing that when they graduate and we employ them, but that's different. When we employ them we now they'll be working for us. Dropping someone into a program for a year, then pulling them out for two years, and then dropping them back in to work full time is no good to us.
Cheers
Greg Locock
2) SIX YEARS? Few engineers use anything much they learn beyond the first two years. I'm lucky, I use 1/2 of my final (third) year papers. Still, the longer they keep them in college the more money they make...
3) There is a big difference between passing an exam at uni (easy) and studying for the same thing while working and then putting some of your own experience into it. I think this devalues the exam to some extent.
We have a lot of co-ops, they are very good and fun to work with. But they are a big investment of time and resources on our part and I can't see that the industry as a whole can absorb the task of teaching every student for a year. I suppose you'd argue we end up doing that when they graduate and we employ them, but that's different. When we employ them we now they'll be working for us. Dropping someone into a program for a year, then pulling them out for two years, and then dropping them back in to work full time is no good to us.
Cheers
Greg Locock
When I was in schol, the only PhD's that brought up the PE were those that had it. I have a firm belief that the rest suffered from sour grapes in that they couldnt get one. My school required a student to take the EIT, but we needed not pass it. At least people were exposed to the process. I myself did get my PE and its a great tool. It is something that no one can take away and its mine to lose.
As for 6 years, I am not for that. Too many people underestimate the 4 year engineering degree. They equate it to pre law or teaching where you really do not learn anything half the time. I can count the electives I took on one hand, and they were mostly engineering related.
I think mentoring is the key, but everyone is right, where do the resources come for this?
BobPE
As for 6 years, I am not for that. Too many people underestimate the 4 year engineering degree. They equate it to pre law or teaching where you really do not learn anything half the time. I can count the electives I took on one hand, and they were mostly engineering related.
I think mentoring is the key, but everyone is right, where do the resources come for this?
BobPE
GregLocock
Automotive
I had a great mentor when I was learning the game.
I am now old and crabby enough to be worth talking to, but, oddly, the company I work for has no offical mentoring system (or else it is SEKRIT).
Silly eh?
Cheers
Greg Locock
I am now old and crabby enough to be worth talking to, but, oddly, the company I work for has no offical mentoring system (or else it is SEKRIT).
Silly eh?
Cheers
Greg Locock
When I took the EIT, there was a MASSIVE contingent of students in big groups. It turned out that one southeast Michigan university's ME department (I want to say it was either Wayne State or Eastern Michigan) required their seniors to pass the EIT before they graduated (at least this was what the students told us when we inquired). The majority of the people taking the exam (this was in Detroit) were students from that school.
I actually think this is a good idea--there was nothing in the EIT when I took it which had not been thoroughly covered in my undergraduate program. Any North American ABET accredited ME graduate (or near-term graduate) should have been exposed to the information within that test.
The EIT is easier for a fresh graduate (or senior) to pass than for somebody with experience. The test is broad, but is very shallow. The PE on the other hand is fairly deep in its topics, but the applicant can pick and choose what topics (to some extent).
Brad
I actually think this is a good idea--there was nothing in the EIT when I took it which had not been thoroughly covered in my undergraduate program. Any North American ABET accredited ME graduate (or near-term graduate) should have been exposed to the information within that test.
The EIT is easier for a fresh graduate (or senior) to pass than for somebody with experience. The test is broad, but is very shallow. The PE on the other hand is fairly deep in its topics, but the applicant can pick and choose what topics (to some extent).
Brad
Hey Greg!
I'd agree that co-ops and interns are a drain on a company's resources and it isn't very beneficial to drop them in and then they leave. But, as you said I'd argue: you end up training them anyway. Honestly, I even admitted there were "holes" in my theory!
If you look at any engineering firm or position, it is usually expected that the new hires have some sort of impact, especially in industrial situations. Very few companies (at least those I've been involved with) allow the time for newbies to get acclimated properly. In the metal industry I just came from it was "sink or swim". How wonderful it would have been to be able to hire college grads with some experience. The "sink or swim" would have been in a much shallower end of the pool. Unfortunately, there were very very very few we could hire with any type of industrial experience. In fact, a couple that I interviewed personally said that summer jobs, internships, co-op programs, etc. were NOT pushed by their schools. Just get the degree and get out. That is very sad. Personally, I interned at three different companies during engineering school and had meaningful projects and experiences at all. That experience helped me settle in quickly, learn the job function, and perform much better than some of my peers at the time.
To this day, if presented with two candidates who were "equal" through schooling, but one had shown initiative to do an internship or co-op program, I'd have to hire the one that had the engineering experience. In fact, I'd probably even hire a 3.0 student with good work credentials over a 4.0 student who did nothing but went to school. In other words, I really think that an engineering-work program during college is a great thing.
My 2-cents.
I'd agree that co-ops and interns are a drain on a company's resources and it isn't very beneficial to drop them in and then they leave. But, as you said I'd argue: you end up training them anyway. Honestly, I even admitted there were "holes" in my theory!
If you look at any engineering firm or position, it is usually expected that the new hires have some sort of impact, especially in industrial situations. Very few companies (at least those I've been involved with) allow the time for newbies to get acclimated properly. In the metal industry I just came from it was "sink or swim". How wonderful it would have been to be able to hire college grads with some experience. The "sink or swim" would have been in a much shallower end of the pool. Unfortunately, there were very very very few we could hire with any type of industrial experience. In fact, a couple that I interviewed personally said that summer jobs, internships, co-op programs, etc. were NOT pushed by their schools. Just get the degree and get out. That is very sad. Personally, I interned at three different companies during engineering school and had meaningful projects and experiences at all. That experience helped me settle in quickly, learn the job function, and perform much better than some of my peers at the time.
To this day, if presented with two candidates who were "equal" through schooling, but one had shown initiative to do an internship or co-op program, I'd have to hire the one that had the engineering experience. In fact, I'd probably even hire a 3.0 student with good work credentials over a 4.0 student who did nothing but went to school. In other words, I really think that an engineering-work program during college is a great thing.
My 2-cents.
I agree that some work experience is a good thing.
However I have worked with some co-op students and usually all they are capable of doing is the basic grunt work. The effort to train them and supervise them is usually not worth the amount of work that they can perform. They simply are to green to be of much practical use until at least third year. Also a 4 month term is simply too short to be of practical use unless they are to do only one simple task. Eight months is better but still too short.
The university that my son is going to has a interesting spin on the co-op process. It’s a internship period and is either 12 or 16 months long. The student takes a year off between third and forth years to work. This is long enough to encompass a complete (or nearly complete) project cycle in most industries and is long enough that the student actually becomes of some use during the process.
The university also claims that this time counts as time towards the experience requirement for P.Eng but I would want to hear that from an association. I do know that the Manitoba association takes a long and hard look at pre graduation experience. The university is in Ontario, and may have convinced the Ontario association to accept the experience.
I would strongly recommend this type of program, especially if the student was not clear on his career direction going into 4th year.
In Canada there is a requirement that all P.Eng applicants have 4 years practical work experience and that during this time they must take some professional development programs. These include exposure to the people skills area that was lacking during my university experience. (In my son’s program there is more emphasis on these areas now as well.)
Since P.Eng is the norm for all working engineers in Canada, the expanded work experience and professional development requirements makes someone with a P.Eng more qualified than was the case in the past.
Personally, I’d like to see the requirement for a master’s degree added to retain P.Eng status or to get to the second level of qualifications in a two stage system. (I was told that Australia has a similar approach. Is this true?)
It still does not solve the catch 22 of wanting people with initial experience and not wanting to train them. There are jobs that students and new graduates can fill and become developed into qualified engineers. I believe that just as someone once gave us our initial chances, we owe it to the profession to give the same chances to others. While we may train and then lose qualified engineers, they will benefit the profession if we train them well and sooner or later we will get some return from them because they will be in a position to speak well of us with potential clients.
This has happened to me with an engineering technologist. He worked for me for about 6 months and then moved on at the end of the project. He then went to work for a major construction company and 6 years later was in a position to be able to recommend me for some work. Unfortunately I was already busy but the opportunity was still there.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
However I have worked with some co-op students and usually all they are capable of doing is the basic grunt work. The effort to train them and supervise them is usually not worth the amount of work that they can perform. They simply are to green to be of much practical use until at least third year. Also a 4 month term is simply too short to be of practical use unless they are to do only one simple task. Eight months is better but still too short.
The university that my son is going to has a interesting spin on the co-op process. It’s a internship period and is either 12 or 16 months long. The student takes a year off between third and forth years to work. This is long enough to encompass a complete (or nearly complete) project cycle in most industries and is long enough that the student actually becomes of some use during the process.
The university also claims that this time counts as time towards the experience requirement for P.Eng but I would want to hear that from an association. I do know that the Manitoba association takes a long and hard look at pre graduation experience. The university is in Ontario, and may have convinced the Ontario association to accept the experience.
I would strongly recommend this type of program, especially if the student was not clear on his career direction going into 4th year.
In Canada there is a requirement that all P.Eng applicants have 4 years practical work experience and that during this time they must take some professional development programs. These include exposure to the people skills area that was lacking during my university experience. (In my son’s program there is more emphasis on these areas now as well.)
Since P.Eng is the norm for all working engineers in Canada, the expanded work experience and professional development requirements makes someone with a P.Eng more qualified than was the case in the past.
Personally, I’d like to see the requirement for a master’s degree added to retain P.Eng status or to get to the second level of qualifications in a two stage system. (I was told that Australia has a similar approach. Is this true?)
It still does not solve the catch 22 of wanting people with initial experience and not wanting to train them. There are jobs that students and new graduates can fill and become developed into qualified engineers. I believe that just as someone once gave us our initial chances, we owe it to the profession to give the same chances to others. While we may train and then lose qualified engineers, they will benefit the profession if we train them well and sooner or later we will get some return from them because they will be in a position to speak well of us with potential clients.
This has happened to me with an engineering technologist. He worked for me for about 6 months and then moved on at the end of the project. He then went to work for a major construction company and 6 years later was in a position to be able to recommend me for some work. Unfortunately I was already busy but the opportunity was still there.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
GregLocock
Automotive
"In fact, I'd probably even hire a 3.0 student with good work credentials over a 4.0 student who did nothing but went to school. "
Check.
"Personally, I’d like to see the requirement for a master’s degree added to retain P.Eng status or to get to the second level of qualifications in a two stage system. (I was told that Australia has a similar approach. Is this true?)"
Not so far as I know in Mechanical Engineering. MEng or PhD in engineering are fairly uncommon here, mostly pursued by perpetual students. They are far more common in the USA, in the comapny I work for over there, if you want to stay in the technical stream and get promoted after you are 40 you'd better have a masters at least.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Check.
"Personally, I’d like to see the requirement for a master’s degree added to retain P.Eng status or to get to the second level of qualifications in a two stage system. (I was told that Australia has a similar approach. Is this true?)"
Not so far as I know in Mechanical Engineering. MEng or PhD in engineering are fairly uncommon here, mostly pursued by perpetual students. They are far more common in the USA, in the comapny I work for over there, if you want to stay in the technical stream and get promoted after you are 40 you'd better have a masters at least.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Revelation19
Mechanical
Just for thoughts....
We use summer co-ops here where I work, and many of them are quite useful. However, it seems that their usefulness is in doing the things that many times we do not want to do: The grunt work, as has been mentioned. In fact, in one group, we were discussing various ideas for development and had one task which was a "mindless", data entry and formatting type of task, that we actually set aside for one of these students to do when they arrived on the scene several months later.
Another program, which I think has much benefit, though we may not implement it properly just yet, is the rotation program. This is one where the newly hired engineers are placed in several different groups (perhaps 6) for a two month stint each. This exposes the new hire to several different areas of the company and many of the senior engineers. Usually, they get some of the work that we would have given to a summer intern, but we also grab these guys (or gals) to tag along with us to meetings and out to the shop. Even if they can't contribute in that instance, they get a good view of where they want to fit in. Usually this makes for a more satisfied employee in the long run, which also benefits the company.
We use summer co-ops here where I work, and many of them are quite useful. However, it seems that their usefulness is in doing the things that many times we do not want to do: The grunt work, as has been mentioned. In fact, in one group, we were discussing various ideas for development and had one task which was a "mindless", data entry and formatting type of task, that we actually set aside for one of these students to do when they arrived on the scene several months later.
Another program, which I think has much benefit, though we may not implement it properly just yet, is the rotation program. This is one where the newly hired engineers are placed in several different groups (perhaps 6) for a two month stint each. This exposes the new hire to several different areas of the company and many of the senior engineers. Usually, they get some of the work that we would have given to a summer intern, but we also grab these guys (or gals) to tag along with us to meetings and out to the shop. Even if they can't contribute in that instance, they get a good view of where they want to fit in. Usually this makes for a more satisfied employee in the long run, which also benefits the company.
After graduating, I spent nearly 4 years working for a company in Japan. They had a mentoring system in place. I though it worked great and I had a good relationship with my 'Sensei'. Unlike the western system, they seemed to take a longterm view to training. That made sense I guess, as employees seemed to move company less.
The problem with a mentoring system is that the mentor has to be good, and so a valuable employee whose time would be wasted training someone who is going to leave anyway. Speedy
"Tell a man there are 300 billion stars in the universe and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint on it and he'll have to touch to be sure."
The problem with a mentoring system is that the mentor has to be good, and so a valuable employee whose time would be wasted training someone who is going to leave anyway. Speedy
"Tell a man there are 300 billion stars in the universe and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint on it and he'll have to touch to be sure."
GregLocock
Automotive
I nearly agreed with your post. In my opinion mentoring is a two way process, NOT a waste of time for the mentor. It isn't high quality training, but it is good to force yourself to go through the basics, and explain them to someone. How much time a week did you spend with your Sensei? Cheers
Greg Locock
Greg Locock
I worked in a number of departments ( R&D and manufacturing),in each I was assigned a Sensei or 'teacher'. These people were responsible for initial training, but were also available informally on an ongoing basis for any questions I may have had.
There was no structured time allocated, per se. I did feel though that, being a Sensei was something they took great pride in. I guess experienced engineers are always willing to help those who are just starting out....probably why this website is so successful.
Speedy
"Tell a man there are 300 billion stars in the universe and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint on it and he'll have to touch to be sure."
There was no structured time allocated, per se. I did feel though that, being a Sensei was something they took great pride in. I guess experienced engineers are always willing to help those who are just starting out....probably why this website is so successful.
Speedy
"Tell a man there are 300 billion stars in the universe and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint on it and he'll have to touch to be sure."
I guess I should say that I'm probably one of the lucky few who:
1) was given meaningful projects and responsibilities in each internship and job I had in college (with respect to engineering tasks); and,
2) was given an ample amount of time in my first job to learn about steelmaking (from cradle to grave and everything inbetween).
The sad thing is that I didn't see that in my last job. Engineers were just thrown to the wolves in a "sink-or-swim" atmosphere. (The current job is better, but still has a small bit of that attitude.)
Personally, even with almost 12 years of varied experience, I would still like to have a mentor (or sensei). (Especially since I just changed career directions.) Unfortunately, in this neck of the woods, that is just plain hard to find.
My 2-cents again!
1) was given meaningful projects and responsibilities in each internship and job I had in college (with respect to engineering tasks); and,
2) was given an ample amount of time in my first job to learn about steelmaking (from cradle to grave and everything inbetween).
The sad thing is that I didn't see that in my last job. Engineers were just thrown to the wolves in a "sink-or-swim" atmosphere. (The current job is better, but still has a small bit of that attitude.)
Personally, even with almost 12 years of varied experience, I would still like to have a mentor (or sensei). (Especially since I just changed career directions.) Unfortunately, in this neck of the woods, that is just plain hard to find.
My 2-cents again!
Nicklemet,
I am also one of the "lucky few". I have only been in the post-college working world for about 2.5 years, but my co-op experiences were EXTREMELY valuable! I was a co-op at Sikorsky, and while I spent about 3-4 months in three different groups, I was given real tasks (which felt EXTREMELY good for a lowly co-op) and given a chance to see what specialties I might want to focus on when I graduated. I went to work for the NAVAIR after I graduated, and my supervisor told me one of the principal reasons he hired me was because of my experience. I'm doing test engineering now, but co-op allowed me to get a feel for helicopter design, as well as getting comfortable around the aircraft.
I wish that NAVAIR would do the 2-month rotations at the beginning of each engineer's career. There is supposedly a program in place for engineers to get a rotation in a different department than they were hired in, but the department heads don't let the engineers go. I still wish I had more chances to explore the different groups before being worked into a specific group, if for nothing else than to get a real feel for how everyone else works.
I am also one of the "lucky few". I have only been in the post-college working world for about 2.5 years, but my co-op experiences were EXTREMELY valuable! I was a co-op at Sikorsky, and while I spent about 3-4 months in three different groups, I was given real tasks (which felt EXTREMELY good for a lowly co-op) and given a chance to see what specialties I might want to focus on when I graduated. I went to work for the NAVAIR after I graduated, and my supervisor told me one of the principal reasons he hired me was because of my experience. I'm doing test engineering now, but co-op allowed me to get a feel for helicopter design, as well as getting comfortable around the aircraft.
I wish that NAVAIR would do the 2-month rotations at the beginning of each engineer's career. There is supposedly a program in place for engineers to get a rotation in a different department than they were hired in, but the department heads don't let the engineers go. I still wish I had more chances to explore the different groups before being worked into a specific group, if for nothing else than to get a real feel for how everyone else works.
ERaymond:
Believe me, I understand the need for wanting to see the other side of the coin. I was extremely lucky in my first job in that it provided me a wealth of knowledge and that I was able to develop a new position based on my perceived wants and needs.
And, I'm also lucky that my current job is back with the company that afforded me the internships I had during college. Practical experience before graduation does count and it helps build the engineer. I had always wondered how I would do with this company, now I get to see how it pans out. (So far, so good.)
But, getting back to the topic of this thread, I truly believe that engineering programs and companies alike are going to have to adapt drastically in the future concerning the knowledge base. Too much has been lost in the last 20-years that was never documented or mentored to the next generation. Companies cannot continue to treat engineers like grunts, throwing them away when hard times hit or letting them go just because they aren't willing to keep the fields green. (And this isn't just about engineers, other worker-types are also similarly affected.) Additionally, the higher education system is going to have to adapt to produce engineers that come out with a good balance of practical knowledge, theoretical wisdom, common sense approaches, and aggressive problem solving and documenting. To do this, on both sides, will take an adaptation of huge proportions...a MAJOR paradigm shift.
Sorry guys and gals, it may seem that I'm overly pessimistic but I just have an education/career theory that doesn't mix with most conventional programs.
My personal opinion still stands that specialists are a dying breed, especially with the state of business and opportunity in today's world. Generalists seem to thrive, jumping on new opportunities, expanding their knowledge base, yet not deeping the knowledge pool. Take your pick, but an engineer today is not the same as an engineer from yesteryear.
My 2-cents, my paradigm....enjoy life ya'll.
Believe me, I understand the need for wanting to see the other side of the coin. I was extremely lucky in my first job in that it provided me a wealth of knowledge and that I was able to develop a new position based on my perceived wants and needs.
And, I'm also lucky that my current job is back with the company that afforded me the internships I had during college. Practical experience before graduation does count and it helps build the engineer. I had always wondered how I would do with this company, now I get to see how it pans out. (So far, so good.)
But, getting back to the topic of this thread, I truly believe that engineering programs and companies alike are going to have to adapt drastically in the future concerning the knowledge base. Too much has been lost in the last 20-years that was never documented or mentored to the next generation. Companies cannot continue to treat engineers like grunts, throwing them away when hard times hit or letting them go just because they aren't willing to keep the fields green. (And this isn't just about engineers, other worker-types are also similarly affected.) Additionally, the higher education system is going to have to adapt to produce engineers that come out with a good balance of practical knowledge, theoretical wisdom, common sense approaches, and aggressive problem solving and documenting. To do this, on both sides, will take an adaptation of huge proportions...a MAJOR paradigm shift.
Sorry guys and gals, it may seem that I'm overly pessimistic but I just have an education/career theory that doesn't mix with most conventional programs.
My personal opinion still stands that specialists are a dying breed, especially with the state of business and opportunity in today's world. Generalists seem to thrive, jumping on new opportunities, expanding their knowledge base, yet not deeping the knowledge pool. Take your pick, but an engineer today is not the same as an engineer from yesteryear.
My 2-cents, my paradigm....enjoy life ya'll.
GregLocock
Automotive
How narrowly are you going to define specialisation? I have worked for 15 years in vehicle noise and vibration - which is a specialised field, yet I regard myself as a generalist - and am quite happy switching fields, as I have done recently. Surely a generalist is merely a specialist in several fields?
I agree entirely with you about the lost knowledge over the past couple of decades, I always get the feeling that we (corporately) are one early retirement away from a nasty avoidable incident.
Cheers
Greg Locock
I agree entirely with you about the lost knowledge over the past couple of decades, I always get the feeling that we (corporately) are one early retirement away from a nasty avoidable incident.
Cheers
Greg Locock
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Article
