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!
Should engineering faculty be licensed? 13
- Thread starter lacajun
- Start date
Yes, there are more than a few P.E.'s that lack the "common sense" to close their mouths while looking up at a rain storm and drown if the rain lasts long enough. There are more than a few industry-exempt engineers that are world-class. Having or not having a P.E. is more about a decision someone made to take the damn test or not.
Requiring a P.E. to teach engineering is not any kind of assurance that the individuals will be worth much, but it will assure that they've seen something other than school. When someone has worked as an Engineer they understand that most problems are solved with empirical equations, and that solving an ODE with real-life data is kind of rare. They will understand that a number will have an uncertainty range around it.
You still have to teach Diff Eq, but you don't have to be so very smug about it. I didn't even know that empirical equations existed till some time after graduation when I was trying (like may engineers do) to solve all fluids problems using Bernoulli because it is just about the only closed-form fluids equation that exists (my mentor took exception to me using it and made me go back and review the underlying assumptions I'm violating when I set my control volume at 15 miles of 20-inch pipe).
David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering
"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
Requiring a P.E. to teach engineering is not any kind of assurance that the individuals will be worth much, but it will assure that they've seen something other than school. When someone has worked as an Engineer they understand that most problems are solved with empirical equations, and that solving an ODE with real-life data is kind of rare. They will understand that a number will have an uncertainty range around it.
You still have to teach Diff Eq, but you don't have to be so very smug about it. I didn't even know that empirical equations existed till some time after graduation when I was trying (like may engineers do) to solve all fluids problems using Bernoulli because it is just about the only closed-form fluids equation that exists (my mentor took exception to me using it and made me go back and review the underlying assumptions I'm violating when I set my control volume at 15 miles of 20-inch pipe).
David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering
"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
Thanks for the corrections, xnuke. I can't say I'm pleased with the first correction, but I rather like the second one.
Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -
Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -
-
1
- Thread starter
- #23
It seems that if profs were registered, it would foster professionalism and perhaps elevate our status a bit. I've met some non-engineer types that truly believe engineers are dorks and nincompoops.
Outside of aiding the profession it's never mattered to me if profs registered or not. Now I think a bit differently. If I have to register in each state to stamp drawings, hang my shingle, etc., it seems fitting that profs register to instruct aspiring young engineering students. But, better heads than mine can work that out.
I know many excellent engineers who never registered. I don't fault any engineer for not doing it. Likewise, I don't want to be faulted because I did it. I've had more than a few derogatory comments from those not registered thrown my way. I did it because it was encouraged and recommended. I was young, stupid, and ignorant but my profs seemed knowledgeable and wise so I took their advice.
A former employer used having the PE as a criterion for promotion. It's opened doors in industry that wouldn't have been otherwise. The license was never used in those capacities but it was deemed worthy to some degree.
Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC
Outside of aiding the profession it's never mattered to me if profs registered or not. Now I think a bit differently. If I have to register in each state to stamp drawings, hang my shingle, etc., it seems fitting that profs register to instruct aspiring young engineering students. But, better heads than mine can work that out.
I know many excellent engineers who never registered. I don't fault any engineer for not doing it. Likewise, I don't want to be faulted because I did it. I've had more than a few derogatory comments from those not registered thrown my way. I did it because it was encouraged and recommended. I was young, stupid, and ignorant but my profs seemed knowledgeable and wise so I took their advice.
A former employer used having the PE as a criterion for promotion. It's opened doors in industry that wouldn't have been otherwise. The license was never used in those capacities but it was deemed worthy to some degree.
Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC
Years before I attended my Alma Mater the college of engineering lost its ABET accreditation. One of the steps they took to get it back was to have every faculty member sit for the PE exam. For most of the faculty members it was simply an exercise that they had to go through, and they even brought in coaches to advise these professors on developing a good test taking strategy. It worked -they all got licensed and their accreditation was returned during the next ABET review.
But the majority of these faculty members never worked a single day in industry, and the fact that they earned thier PE licenses basically did not change anything in the way that they taught their classes or how they viewed anything. For these reasons I would take this approach one step further. I believe that no one should even be considered for a full time faculty poisition in an engineering curriculum without having a minimum of 5 years of actual engineering experience under their belt in industry. No one. I believe that this would substantially broaden the perspective that engineering professors would have to teach from, and would allow them to better prepare their students for what they will encounter once they enter the workforce.
Maui
But the majority of these faculty members never worked a single day in industry, and the fact that they earned thier PE licenses basically did not change anything in the way that they taught their classes or how they viewed anything. For these reasons I would take this approach one step further. I believe that no one should even be considered for a full time faculty poisition in an engineering curriculum without having a minimum of 5 years of actual engineering experience under their belt in industry. No one. I believe that this would substantially broaden the perspective that engineering professors would have to teach from, and would allow them to better prepare their students for what they will encounter once they enter the workforce.
Maui
Is there not one inherent fallacy in all of the foregoing discussions?
Namely, what evidence is there in support of the premise that all (or at least a substantial portion) of the theoretical subject matter that a student learned from their professors in University can be superseded or overruled by "real life" or "in reality" experience?
It appears to me that to suggest that the academic teachings gained from an undergraduate (or graduate or higher) program in engineering are useless unless augmented and (implied) superseded by "practical industry experience" (read "reality") is an affront to the very science (applied science) that we, as engineers, otherwise purport to believe in.
My suggestion is simple: leave academia alone, distinct and separate, and allow academia to excel in - and teach - all things theoretical that a young engineer entering the workforce ought to be expected to know. In other words, I don't see much wrong with the status quo.
Namely, what evidence is there in support of the premise that all (or at least a substantial portion) of the theoretical subject matter that a student learned from their professors in University can be superseded or overruled by "real life" or "in reality" experience?
It appears to me that to suggest that the academic teachings gained from an undergraduate (or graduate or higher) program in engineering are useless unless augmented and (implied) superseded by "practical industry experience" (read "reality") is an affront to the very science (applied science) that we, as engineers, otherwise purport to believe in.
My suggestion is simple: leave academia alone, distinct and separate, and allow academia to excel in - and teach - all things theoretical that a young engineer entering the workforce ought to be expected to know. In other words, I don't see much wrong with the status quo.
Snorgy, the problem is that some of the professors aren't even good teachers, in fact being a good teacher appears low on or absent from the selection criteria in many cases.
Of course you could argue we're stepping into the territory of if studying engineering at university is an education, or job training. If the former then indeed why care about real world experience, let alone PE status.
Of course you could argue we're stepping into the territory of if studying engineering at university is an education, or job training. If the former then indeed why care about real world experience, let alone PE status.
Posting guidelines faq731-376 (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
-
1
- #28
Kenat that definately could lead to an interesting off-shoot of the discussion..."is studying engineering an education or job training".
In my mind though, the heart of the discussion should be more philosophical. The notion of registration for all engineers whether in academia or professional practice can be directly tied to how we as a profession would like to be viewed by the public.
Engineers deserve distinction for what we do. We combine the principle of math, science, and, to a degree, art into practical solutions that serve society and the public. Few other professions require such a broad knowledge of difficult subject matter and few of the those that do put that knowledge directly towards serving the public in the same way that engineers are.
We, as a profession, deserve recognition for that level of commitment. In my mind, the PE licensure should be regarded in the same way that passing the Bar exam or gaining an MD is viewed...a right of passage and a visible display of the ones credentials and achievements.
That's why I feel the PE shouldn't just be something 'real world' engineers are concerned with. It helps us all. It should be something that the public can see and recognize is a mark of achievement and a distinguishing credential which designates an engineer.
In my mind, it boils down to that. Do we want the PE to be something that distinguishes us from other careers or just something we are required by state building codes to have?
PE, SE
Eastern United States
"If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death!"
~Code of Hammurabi
In my mind though, the heart of the discussion should be more philosophical. The notion of registration for all engineers whether in academia or professional practice can be directly tied to how we as a profession would like to be viewed by the public.
Engineers deserve distinction for what we do. We combine the principle of math, science, and, to a degree, art into practical solutions that serve society and the public. Few other professions require such a broad knowledge of difficult subject matter and few of the those that do put that knowledge directly towards serving the public in the same way that engineers are.
We, as a profession, deserve recognition for that level of commitment. In my mind, the PE licensure should be regarded in the same way that passing the Bar exam or gaining an MD is viewed...a right of passage and a visible display of the ones credentials and achievements.
That's why I feel the PE shouldn't just be something 'real world' engineers are concerned with. It helps us all. It should be something that the public can see and recognize is a mark of achievement and a distinguishing credential which designates an engineer.
In my mind, it boils down to that. Do we want the PE to be something that distinguishes us from other careers or just something we are required by state building codes to have?
PE, SE
Eastern United States
"If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death!"
~Code of Hammurabi
lacajun, if you want the broader 'PE' discussion, then why did you make the thread OP just about profs etc.?
The issues related to 'should all engineers have to be PE'; 'would engineering have a higher status if we were all required to be PE'; 'should folks without PE be allowed to call themselves engineers'... has been discussed at length on various occasions. (Not to say you can't start the discussion again but I'm not sure anyone's opinion will be changed much).
I will say this, for a career you can undertake with only a bachelors degree (and for non exempt some fairly limited additional certification & ongoing education) Engineering pays pretty darn well. For law or medicine to get the required qualifications and certifications to really make the big money takes a lot more effort. Additionally not everyone in those fields makes as much as we may like to think in real terms.
Many other jobs/careers that require a bachelors degree pay much less than most engineers manage to make, my wife get's excited if she sees a job paying half what I make in her field than they usually require relevant bachelors.
Plus is the public perception of all doctors and lawyers especially so awesome that we want to emulate it? We already get accused of arrogance on occasion, not sure that elevating that to God Complex or adding to it 'bottom feeding shark' really helps much.
Maybe we should be less like the first hired hands who got a golden shekel for doing more work than the later hired hands who still got a golden shekel despite only working half the day etc. Maybe we should worry less about what others get paid for how much work we perceive they do and instead emphasize working for our 'masters' as if working for God.
The issues related to 'should all engineers have to be PE'; 'would engineering have a higher status if we were all required to be PE'; 'should folks without PE be allowed to call themselves engineers'... has been discussed at length on various occasions. (Not to say you can't start the discussion again but I'm not sure anyone's opinion will be changed much).
I will say this, for a career you can undertake with only a bachelors degree (and for non exempt some fairly limited additional certification & ongoing education) Engineering pays pretty darn well. For law or medicine to get the required qualifications and certifications to really make the big money takes a lot more effort. Additionally not everyone in those fields makes as much as we may like to think in real terms.
Many other jobs/careers that require a bachelors degree pay much less than most engineers manage to make, my wife get's excited if she sees a job paying half what I make in her field than they usually require relevant bachelors.
Plus is the public perception of all doctors and lawyers especially so awesome that we want to emulate it? We already get accused of arrogance on occasion, not sure that elevating that to God Complex or adding to it 'bottom feeding shark' really helps much.
Maybe we should be less like the first hired hands who got a golden shekel for doing more work than the later hired hands who still got a golden shekel despite only working half the day etc. Maybe we should worry less about what others get paid for how much work we perceive they do and instead emphasize working for our 'masters' as if working for God.
Posting guidelines faq731-376 (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
Oops, sorry that should be to kylesito, I got mixed up, apologies lacajun. Drink on me in the pub when you get there.
Posting guidelines faq731-376 (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
With respect to any changes to academia that are contemplated towards improving the engineering profession, to me, it depends on the approach and perspective.
One way is to simply "dumb down" the requirements for being qualified as an engineering professor. In other words, saying (in effect) that a PhD level degree is irrelevant (or of little practical use) because it tends to focus on things that do not prepare the majority of college / university graduates for their "job", per se. The other approach is to impose *additional* requirements beyond the PhD so that those doctorates teaching engineering have a better grounding in its practical, day to day application.
I would argue that both of the above approaches would probably water down the "theoretical" elements of the science, and that it would be a dangerous road to go down. In the latter approach, I would predict the evolution of an academic culture in which some of the teachers could teach only the theory but not the application, and the rest of them would be looking for ways to simplfy the theory in support of their effort to teach the application. It might also discourage certain PhD-qualified individuals to select a faculty other than engineering in which to teach and conduct research, thereby further diluting engineering talent.
I believe that it might be best to dedicate a course or set of courses concerned with practical applications of the theory as part of a mandatory core curriculum, and if necessary, look for those individuals who are appropriately qualified based on a combination of academic and professional practice credentials, to staff those faculty positions. I think that might be enough to help the students "make the leap" once they graduate.
With respect to "PE" versus "not a PE", or for that matter, "P.Eng." versus "not a P.Eng.", at the functional level, it's probably no different in Canada than it is in the United States, apart from the fact that there is little to no market value for non-P.Eng.'s up here, since without a P.Eng. signing off on everything you do, it's effectively useless. With that in mind, I do favour regulation, as opposed to deregulation, of the profession.
One way is to simply "dumb down" the requirements for being qualified as an engineering professor. In other words, saying (in effect) that a PhD level degree is irrelevant (or of little practical use) because it tends to focus on things that do not prepare the majority of college / university graduates for their "job", per se. The other approach is to impose *additional* requirements beyond the PhD so that those doctorates teaching engineering have a better grounding in its practical, day to day application.
I would argue that both of the above approaches would probably water down the "theoretical" elements of the science, and that it would be a dangerous road to go down. In the latter approach, I would predict the evolution of an academic culture in which some of the teachers could teach only the theory but not the application, and the rest of them would be looking for ways to simplfy the theory in support of their effort to teach the application. It might also discourage certain PhD-qualified individuals to select a faculty other than engineering in which to teach and conduct research, thereby further diluting engineering talent.
I believe that it might be best to dedicate a course or set of courses concerned with practical applications of the theory as part of a mandatory core curriculum, and if necessary, look for those individuals who are appropriately qualified based on a combination of academic and professional practice credentials, to staff those faculty positions. I think that might be enough to help the students "make the leap" once they graduate.
With respect to "PE" versus "not a PE", or for that matter, "P.Eng." versus "not a P.Eng.", at the functional level, it's probably no different in Canada than it is in the United States, apart from the fact that there is little to no market value for non-P.Eng.'s up here, since without a P.Eng. signing off on everything you do, it's effectively useless. With that in mind, I do favour regulation, as opposed to deregulation, of the profession.
Snorgy, I completely disagree with your assessment. Having actual examples of how the theory is applied in an industrial setting not only enhances the education that students receive by providing them with the ability to understand how the theory can actually be applied, but it also gives them a much greater appreciation for it which makes them more inclined to learn it. At some point during the semester I would ask my students what they liked/disliked about the way in which I taught my class. And every time that we had this discussion they mentioned one of the things they appreciated the most was my ability to relate the theory that I taught in class to examples of how it can actually be applied in an industrial setting. This is something that their other professors were unable to do becasue none of them had ever worked outside of academia. Each semester I would take my students on a tour of the steel mill where I worked full time, and allowed them to see first hand each of the operations that I had described in class. This engineering course was taught by me in the fall, and in the spring by another professor. Each year that I taught it, my class grew in size and the spring class shrank in size. The last year that I taught this class I had 86 students sign up, and they had to give me a lecture hall. And this was for a junior/senior level engineering course.
Most students don't want to sit through a class that is pure theory that can't be applied in some manner to accomplish an objective. Having the ability to relate the material to something they are likely to encounter on the job provides them with preparation they are eager to obtain, and makes them better prepared for the work they have in front of them.
Maui
Most students don't want to sit through a class that is pure theory that can't be applied in some manner to accomplish an objective. Having the ability to relate the material to something they are likely to encounter on the job provides them with preparation they are eager to obtain, and makes them better prepared for the work they have in front of them.
Maui
There just isn't a "black" version and a "white" version here, just like EVERYTHING in Engineering it is all gray. The point about "where do you put the application" is an important one. It would be wrong to dumb the theory down to make room for the application, but as Maui pointed out if you can relate the theory to something that a person can feel and touch they'll get it better.
What exactly makes application "dumber" than theory anyway? In both undergraduate fluids and a half dozen graduate-level fluids classes I never once had a professor mention "gas volumes at standard conditions". So when I started working, I was REALLY fuzzy on what the hell those SCF things were. That fuzziness caused me to do some reasonably stupid stuff (e.g., calculating velocity using standard volume is pretty stupid) which a couple of times led me to conclusions and recommendations that were not supported by the correctly calculated data. That is "application", but the way it works is pretty damn theoretical.
Another fluids example--compressibility (or deviation from ideal behavior). I never heard (in a fluids class) that a gas could deviate from ideal behavior in a predictable way. The first time I saw a P/Z chart I was stupefied (and felt pretty stupid to boot). I can think of a half dozen places I would put a compressibility discussion in an undergraduate fluids class, and would never use air in a changing-pressure example.
What I'm saying is that folks like Maui can teach theoretical subjects and use illustrative examples from the planet we live on. That in no way "dumbs down" the theoretical discussion, it drives it home.
As to a "practical" class, I think that that class should be senior design which should never be taught be someone who hasn't been on the economy.
David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering
"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
What exactly makes application "dumber" than theory anyway? In both undergraduate fluids and a half dozen graduate-level fluids classes I never once had a professor mention "gas volumes at standard conditions". So when I started working, I was REALLY fuzzy on what the hell those SCF things were. That fuzziness caused me to do some reasonably stupid stuff (e.g., calculating velocity using standard volume is pretty stupid) which a couple of times led me to conclusions and recommendations that were not supported by the correctly calculated data. That is "application", but the way it works is pretty damn theoretical.
Another fluids example--compressibility (or deviation from ideal behavior). I never heard (in a fluids class) that a gas could deviate from ideal behavior in a predictable way. The first time I saw a P/Z chart I was stupefied (and felt pretty stupid to boot). I can think of a half dozen places I would put a compressibility discussion in an undergraduate fluids class, and would never use air in a changing-pressure example.
What I'm saying is that folks like Maui can teach theoretical subjects and use illustrative examples from the planet we live on. That in no way "dumbs down" the theoretical discussion, it drives it home.
As to a "practical" class, I think that that class should be senior design which should never be taught be someone who hasn't been on the economy.
David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering
"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
My apologies for using the term "dumb down", it was not intended to be derogatory.
The fact is, not everyone who has what it takes to be an engineer also has what it takes to get a PhD in engineering. If this was not true, then all of us would have PhDs and would be able to derive everything from first principles and intelligently formulate the calculus behind 3-dimensional fluid flow problems, making direct application of theorems such as Green's, Gauss' and Stokes. But we can't all do that. In my view, a PhD is to be held in the regard that it deserves: a higher level of education achieved by someone of generally superior intellect who has been able to master the more complex level of academic rigotr than that associated with a lower degree. Who better to teach the science than that?
I don't consider myself "dumb", but I certainly consider myself "dumber than someone with a PhD".
I am also a bit shorter than Shaq. That's one reason why he became a center for the Lakers (and others) and I became...well...an engineer.
I agree with David's (zdas04's) comment insofar as:
"What I'm saying is that folks like Maui can teach theoretical subjects and use illustrative examples from the planet we live on. That in no way "dumbs down" the theoretical discussion, it drives it home. As to a "practical" class, I think that that class should be senior design which should never be taught be someone who hasn't been on the economy."
I think the disconnect arises from my perception that I think that, as a sweeping generalization, it is probably more accurate to state that most PhD folks would not do as good a job of teaching the practical side of things as would other (for lack of a better way of putting it) less educated but more experienced folks. Those who could do both would probably, in my opinion, be more the exception than the rule.
The fact is, not everyone who has what it takes to be an engineer also has what it takes to get a PhD in engineering. If this was not true, then all of us would have PhDs and would be able to derive everything from first principles and intelligently formulate the calculus behind 3-dimensional fluid flow problems, making direct application of theorems such as Green's, Gauss' and Stokes. But we can't all do that. In my view, a PhD is to be held in the regard that it deserves: a higher level of education achieved by someone of generally superior intellect who has been able to master the more complex level of academic rigotr than that associated with a lower degree. Who better to teach the science than that?
I don't consider myself "dumb", but I certainly consider myself "dumber than someone with a PhD".
I am also a bit shorter than Shaq. That's one reason why he became a center for the Lakers (and others) and I became...well...an engineer.
I agree with David's (zdas04's) comment insofar as:
"What I'm saying is that folks like Maui can teach theoretical subjects and use illustrative examples from the planet we live on. That in no way "dumbs down" the theoretical discussion, it drives it home. As to a "practical" class, I think that that class should be senior design which should never be taught be someone who hasn't been on the economy."
I think the disconnect arises from my perception that I think that, as a sweeping generalization, it is probably more accurate to state that most PhD folks would not do as good a job of teaching the practical side of things as would other (for lack of a better way of putting it) less educated but more experienced folks. Those who could do both would probably, in my opinion, be more the exception than the rule.
Or, perhaps at least some of the phd's figured they'd put off getting into the real world by hanging around university for a few more years on the tax payer's (or other source of research grants etc.) dime. Or maybe it was there way to citizenship/residency... in another country. Or all kinds of other factors beyond them necessarily being 'the cream of the crop'.
I work with a lot of phd's. Not all of them are as much more intelligent than me than I'd have hoped, and we have a few non phd's around that are outright smarter than many of the phd's.
Hmm, sounds like you've been working on that MBA again to think you can really get away with claiming 'dumb down' isn't meant to be derogatory.
I work with a lot of phd's. Not all of them are as much more intelligent than me than I'd have hoped, and we have a few non phd's around that are outright smarter than many of the phd's.
Hmm, sounds like you've been working on that MBA again to think you can really get away with claiming 'dumb down' isn't meant to be derogatory.
Posting guidelines faq731-376 (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
Most people are not cut out to teach. Most people are not cut out to do the esoteric arithmetic that a graduate degree in Engineering requires. It is purely a coincidence when they come together in one person. Of the two, students value the first and schools value the second.
We can all point to specific professors that did an amazing job of engaging the class to the material. We can all point to specific professors that should have never left their lab without a native guide. The "P.E. for professors discussion" will in no way fix the second group (or keep them out of the classroom). What it would (could?) do is get people who pick examples because of their applicability instead of because of their tidy arithmetic. On the other hand there would be a number of the P.E.'s who don't really have 50 years experience, they have 6 months experience a hundred times and will stand in front of the class and tell sea stories for a semester.
There isn't a silver bullet here. Having a P.E. just guarantees that you were able to pass a test at one time. We've all passed a test at one time or another.
David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering
"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
We can all point to specific professors that did an amazing job of engaging the class to the material. We can all point to specific professors that should have never left their lab without a native guide. The "P.E. for professors discussion" will in no way fix the second group (or keep them out of the classroom). What it would (could?) do is get people who pick examples because of their applicability instead of because of their tidy arithmetic. On the other hand there would be a number of the P.E.'s who don't really have 50 years experience, they have 6 months experience a hundred times and will stand in front of the class and tell sea stories for a semester.
There isn't a silver bullet here. Having a P.E. just guarantees that you were able to pass a test at one time. We've all passed a test at one time or another.
David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering
"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
- Thread starter
- #40
SNORGY said:
An EE prof many years ago said he studied digital theory at the doctoral level because it was new. It was a sophomore level course in my degree plan. It helped me understand how new theories incubate in academia. I've used digital theory in my work a number of times, which has been really practical work. I know you don't subscribe to dumbing anything or anyone down. You reminded me of that lesson my prof may not have known he taught.
Your last point I don't quite understand your ultimate conclusion for: probably diluting theoretical teaching. Work backed up my education tremendously and highlighted areas I slacked in and shouldn't have. It seems profs would experience the same thing and be better prepared to inform students of where to apply themselves for specific reasons.
KENAT, I'll take you up on that beverage in the pub.
All Ph.D.'s are not equal but we don't have a perfect world. Since they are the "groomers" of each generation of engineers, it seems they should have a responsibility to professionalism and fostering it. They should teach the theory and prepare students for the workforce and research interests. However, as JohnRBaker wrote elsewhere, education isn't just about learning to crunch the numbers and apply the theory. It includes other areas of responsibility.
If profs take the lead on fostering professionalism, perhaps more students would choose to do it, too, and strive for the profession to have a better image than I perceive it to have. After you've taken so many exams, what's one or two more?
Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Article
