I promised that I would give you an up date on my session at the SAME-TEC conference in Santa Clara July 25-28. Here it is.
First, there were over 200 attendees mostly community college instructors and administrators. My session was entitled EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES AND TRENDS IN ELECTRONICS. It was a panel session and my segment was called "Ultimate Opportunity, Minor Crisis, or End of Days?" The focus was on the declining enrollment problem and related issues. Other panelists were Roy Brixen from San Mateo College, Jonathan Plant from McGraw Hill, and Jim Cahow of National Instruments. A good balance of colleges, industry and textbook publishers. There were about 40 in attendance and the discussion was lively and very interesting.
Roy Brixen represents the California Electronic Teachers Association and indicated that enrollments had plummeted in the past years. He called it a real “blood bath”. Little was being done except talk about it. He indicated that most instructors in California and elsewhere fight change tooth and nail.
Jonathan Plant McGraw Hill asked about the relevance and content of today’s textbooks. Were they up to date enough or what is needed? There was no definitive answer, but the appearance of the Work-Ready Electronic online modules from MATEC indicates that the texts still may be skewed from today’s needs. Yet instructors seem to prefer the status quo to anything too new or different despite the radical job and technology changes.
Jim Cahow of National Instruments (NI) said they still hired techs but more and more were switching to 4-year engineering graduates. NI just bought Multisim/ElectronicWorkbench which is still popular in the schools.
We way over ran the 2 hours allotted. It is hard to summarize all that was said but I will try to bulletize it for you below.
1. Our wireless survey system was used to poll those present. 90% said that their school had experienced declining enrollments in the past several years. Declines in the 30 to 50% range were the most common.
2. A few colleges are doing well because mainly of a good local job availability, industry participation, and curriculum changes.
3. Most agreed that the declines are caused by a combination of outsourcing, offshoring, change in technology resulting in less need for techs, changes in how techs work (less circuit, more systems), dated and irrelevant courses and curricula, a lack of interest in math, science and technology, and an image problem.
4. Many agreed that the media has given engineering and technology a bad reputation with the continued harping on the offshoring and outsourcing. Most college prospects don’t see engineering or technology as having jobs or viable careers.
5. Most schools are only beginning to work on the problem. The lease effective approach is high school recruitment that produces little or no increase even with significant effort.
6. Little or nothing is being done on a national level to fix the problem. It is more of a local issue anyway.
7. I am working with Austin Community College to submit a grant proposal to NSF (in October) to fund a research project that will find the causes and suggest solutions. Wish me luck.
8. Most agreed that there were tech jobs still available that were in some cases still going unfilled. Two key factors emerged. Most of these jobs are not in the electronics companies. Engineering tech jobs for which most curricula are targeted have all but disappeared. The bulk of jobs exist in companies that use electronics extensively. Second, the title electronic technician is no long widely used or undertstood. Some good prospects for jobs are process control and instrumentation, bio-medical electronics, wireless, and consumer electronics. Several schools revealed that they were starting electrical power distribution programs since there are many openings due to baby boomer retirements in this mature but very strong industry.
9. The issue of certification came up many times at the conference. Most agreed that it was under utilized. Even though industry does not demand it, many recognize its usefulness and some schools are beginning to prepare students for selected certifications (ETA-I, ISCET, CEA, FCC license, etc.).
10. The state of the curriculum was discussed widely. Most agreed that the curriculum was dated and some even said it was preparing grads for engineering technician jobs that have virtually disappeared from the planet. The curriculum is no longer a good fit with what industry needs. One Alabama CC (Wallace) increased enrollments by completely revising the curriculum and changing the department name.
11. The consensus was that major changes are needed in the course content and curriculum. Many (but apparently not all) are willing to change. The big hang ups for most are the lack of money, lack of time, lack of administration support, and the difficulty of the change process with faculty, the college, the accrediting bodies, etc.
12. Finally, we need a major media/PR effort to make techs more visible and the jobs more desirable.
What are you doing at your school to fix things? Your input is always welcome.
P.S. Best wishes to all of you I met at the conference and thanks for your positive comments on the blog.
Saturday, July 30, 2005
Friday, July 29, 2005
Education is the answer.
If education is the answer, what is the question? According to an article in the July 25, 2005 issue of Fortune magazine, education is the key solution to the problem of the USA losing its technical superiority worldwide. Yes, what we have taken for granted all these years is now slippling away very rapidly. While we are still the leader in high tech innovation and creativity, that is beginning to move to other centers like China and India. So not only is our manufacturing moving offshore to those places, but our researach, development and engineering is also moving there. We didn't get too upset as the manufacturing moved out, but we are really getting concerned when all our high end engineering and innovation are leaving too. This is truly a crisis. But like many of these trends it happens gradually so we either don't see it or we do not give it much credibility much less attention. Wrong...
Anyway, I urge you to read this article. By the time you get this it may be off the newstands, but you can probably find a copy in your college library. By all means read it.
Education is the answer, but how can we change the publics perception that technical education is good thing not just for a few geeks and gear heads? How can we attract more students into our programs? Let's work on that and by all means share your thoughts, ideas and rants here on this blog. They are always welcome.
Anyway, I urge you to read this article. By the time you get this it may be off the newstands, but you can probably find a copy in your college library. By all means read it.
Education is the answer, but how can we change the publics perception that technical education is good thing not just for a few geeks and gear heads? How can we attract more students into our programs? Let's work on that and by all means share your thoughts, ideas and rants here on this blog. They are always welcome.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Conference to discuss declining enrollments
Next week, July 25-28 in San Jose, CA, the Maricopa Advanced Technology Education Center (MATEC) is putting on their SAME-TEC conference. SAME-TEC means Semiconductor, Automated Manufacturing, Electronics, Traning and Education Conference. It has been going on for three years and even before that as a conference devoted to semiconductor manufacturing. Today the emphasis is broader convering manufacturing and more generic electronic education at the community college level. Already over 200 community college faculty and administrators have signed up and that figure is up over last year. So while there is a general decline in enrollments, interest in this conference is growing.
One of the key sessions this year is one addressing the declining enrollment problem many schools have been experiencing. The session will feature an audience polling system to get real-time input from the faculty present. Accompanying this session is a panel discussion with representatives from industry, book publishing, and academia. I am on that panel as well. We hope this session will better clarify the depth of the problem and begin to identify solutions.
It is still not too late to sign up for this terrific conference. The first day features a workshop on the Work-Ready Electronics project, an NSF funded development program to create online modules to update electronic courses and curricula. The major topic is how to teach DSP at the technician level and a look at what is being done to teach at the systems level rather than the old style component level. It should be interesting. For more information on this conference, go to www.matec.org and look under Conferences. Hope to see you at the Santa Clara Marriott.
If you are unable to attend, I will give a summary of these important sessions in this space week after next.
One of the key sessions this year is one addressing the declining enrollment problem many schools have been experiencing. The session will feature an audience polling system to get real-time input from the faculty present. Accompanying this session is a panel discussion with representatives from industry, book publishing, and academia. I am on that panel as well. We hope this session will better clarify the depth of the problem and begin to identify solutions.
It is still not too late to sign up for this terrific conference. The first day features a workshop on the Work-Ready Electronics project, an NSF funded development program to create online modules to update electronic courses and curricula. The major topic is how to teach DSP at the technician level and a look at what is being done to teach at the systems level rather than the old style component level. It should be interesting. For more information on this conference, go to www.matec.org and look under Conferences. Hope to see you at the Santa Clara Marriott.
If you are unable to attend, I will give a summary of these important sessions in this space week after next.
Friday, July 08, 2005
Book Publishers: Hurting or Helping?
One of you recently posted a comment here and asked, where are the textbooks and lab equipment for a proposed, revised, updated, more relevant curriculum? GREAT QUESTION!!
The short answer is, there are none. But that needs some explanation.
First, let me say that the publishers are doing a superb job of creating a text and getting it distributed. As a senior VP at one of the three major technology publishers at one time in my life, I can tell you that the process is very professional, detailed and expensive. The books today are excellent with full color and lots of ancillary support materials. Teachers have come to rely on the publishers to do a major part of their job which includes providing exams, overhead presentations, CDs with extra info, software, and even lab manuals. What's not to like?
But there is one hellacious problem. Many if not most of the books are dated. The fundamentals don't change, but they are now out of context. And the fundamentals that are important to jobs and industry today are a bit different. Some of the content is more for engineers than techs and other content just not needed. We need less theory and design and more practical material.
Why are the books like this? For several reasons. Number one, the books are written by the professors who have little recent industry experience. Many professors are stuck in the decade when they stopped their industry careers to enter academia and haven't really kept up to date. Second, the publishers rely on other professors to review the books. These professors also tend not to have the experience or up to date industry knowledge to know when a subject is dated or whether key subject matter has been omitted. Industry reviewers would help, but would really upset things. So what we get is more of the same. I am not saying the books don't get updated, they do. But it is usually too little too late.
A few years ago I did a major research project to determine just how up to date electronic technology texts were. I compared the content of current books to a list of recent topics derived from industry focus and job needs. What I found was disturbing. Huge chunks of modern electronics are completely omitted from some texts or may only be mentioned in passing. The omissions and skew from what industry wants and needs was huge. The result of this research ultimately resulted in an NSF grant for nearly a million dollars to do something about this problem. We are in the third year of that grant which is helping colleges to update their courses where the texts books fail. www.work-readyelectronics.org
The whole issue is not that the publishers aren't sensitive to the problem. Believe me they are. But they are essentially afraid to do anything about it. They are terrified to change something that has been so successful in the past. They are afraid to go too far in updating the books. Why? Because it is you the professor who selects and buys the books. And professors tend to like the status quo. At textbook selection meetings, I have heard teachers argue for keeping the same text even if it is not as up to date strictly because it is too much trouble to change their notes, syllabi, presentation materials, handouts, exams, etc. Great excuse, huh? So the teachers, in effect, tell the publishers what they want and the publishers give them that, even if it is a bit dated and skewed. After, all publishers are in the business of selling books and making a profit. Please your customer, meet your sales projections, and profit. Ah, all is well. But, guess who gets short changed? The student and industry. And in the long run, the school and the professors.
So there are very few books that are really in tune with the real world. Some are close, but not there yet. All of them are from several decades back. What I wonder is when a publisher is going to take a bit of a chance and do something fresh, new, better, different and just what is needed TODAY? With the current low enrollment problem, publishers are hurting. Sales are lower than ever and most are in a hunkered down mode to protect their market share. Revisions are being delayed and some books are being dropped. And few if any new books are in the works.
Since we all rely on the textbooks as the core of our courses and even our own knowledge, we need publishers who are brave enough to give us books more in tune with real needs. It's a chicken and egg thing. Once we get the up to date books, professors will get updated as well as the courses. Which one of the major publishers will be first? McGraw Hill? Prentice Hall? Delmar? Which one has the guts to give us what the teachers need and the students and industry will benefit from? And which of you professors will be brave enough to buy them? Let's all buy books from that first publisher.
The short answer is, there are none. But that needs some explanation.
First, let me say that the publishers are doing a superb job of creating a text and getting it distributed. As a senior VP at one of the three major technology publishers at one time in my life, I can tell you that the process is very professional, detailed and expensive. The books today are excellent with full color and lots of ancillary support materials. Teachers have come to rely on the publishers to do a major part of their job which includes providing exams, overhead presentations, CDs with extra info, software, and even lab manuals. What's not to like?
But there is one hellacious problem. Many if not most of the books are dated. The fundamentals don't change, but they are now out of context. And the fundamentals that are important to jobs and industry today are a bit different. Some of the content is more for engineers than techs and other content just not needed. We need less theory and design and more practical material.
Why are the books like this? For several reasons. Number one, the books are written by the professors who have little recent industry experience. Many professors are stuck in the decade when they stopped their industry careers to enter academia and haven't really kept up to date. Second, the publishers rely on other professors to review the books. These professors also tend not to have the experience or up to date industry knowledge to know when a subject is dated or whether key subject matter has been omitted. Industry reviewers would help, but would really upset things. So what we get is more of the same. I am not saying the books don't get updated, they do. But it is usually too little too late.
A few years ago I did a major research project to determine just how up to date electronic technology texts were. I compared the content of current books to a list of recent topics derived from industry focus and job needs. What I found was disturbing. Huge chunks of modern electronics are completely omitted from some texts or may only be mentioned in passing. The omissions and skew from what industry wants and needs was huge. The result of this research ultimately resulted in an NSF grant for nearly a million dollars to do something about this problem. We are in the third year of that grant which is helping colleges to update their courses where the texts books fail. www.work-readyelectronics.org
The whole issue is not that the publishers aren't sensitive to the problem. Believe me they are. But they are essentially afraid to do anything about it. They are terrified to change something that has been so successful in the past. They are afraid to go too far in updating the books. Why? Because it is you the professor who selects and buys the books. And professors tend to like the status quo. At textbook selection meetings, I have heard teachers argue for keeping the same text even if it is not as up to date strictly because it is too much trouble to change their notes, syllabi, presentation materials, handouts, exams, etc. Great excuse, huh? So the teachers, in effect, tell the publishers what they want and the publishers give them that, even if it is a bit dated and skewed. After, all publishers are in the business of selling books and making a profit. Please your customer, meet your sales projections, and profit. Ah, all is well. But, guess who gets short changed? The student and industry. And in the long run, the school and the professors.
So there are very few books that are really in tune with the real world. Some are close, but not there yet. All of them are from several decades back. What I wonder is when a publisher is going to take a bit of a chance and do something fresh, new, better, different and just what is needed TODAY? With the current low enrollment problem, publishers are hurting. Sales are lower than ever and most are in a hunkered down mode to protect their market share. Revisions are being delayed and some books are being dropped. And few if any new books are in the works.
Since we all rely on the textbooks as the core of our courses and even our own knowledge, we need publishers who are brave enough to give us books more in tune with real needs. It's a chicken and egg thing. Once we get the up to date books, professors will get updated as well as the courses. Which one of the major publishers will be first? McGraw Hill? Prentice Hall? Delmar? Which one has the guts to give us what the teachers need and the students and industry will benefit from? And which of you professors will be brave enough to buy them? Let's all buy books from that first publisher.
Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be ....techs
My apologies to Waylon Jennings and Willie Nelson for my take off on their hit song. But the comment fits. Parents don't want their kids to grow up to be technicians. They want them to be, as the song continues, "doctors and lawyers and things". And I can confirm that this is true.
While I was department head here at Austin CC, we had orientations for prospective students to introduce them to the industry, the work and the currculum. Many students brought their parents. After the presentation, many of the questions centered on the percieved limited value of an AAS degree and a technician's job. The questions included: Where does this lead career-wise? Are jobs available? Wouldn't a bachelors degree be better? In general the overall tone was that most parents want their kids to get a bachelors degree. And it is difficult to argue with that. Even though a CC program would be measurably cheaper and the student would go to work sooner or the program was a better fit to the student's interests and mental capacity, parents were fighting it. As a parent myself, I guess I cannot blame them. On the other hand, I started out in life with an AAS grad, worked as a tech for years, but eventually went on to a bachelors in technology degree and a long successful career as an engineer. So there is hope, we just haven't communicated that to students and parents.
I saw this same scene play out again at a session one of the local manufacturers put on for potential employees. They promoted the local CC AAS program. But again parents said they didn't think it was in the best interest of their kid. The question was, why can't the kid just go on the get a BSEE and be an engineer? And, oh by the way, can the kid with the AAS go on and get a BSEE?
We seem to have two major probelms here. First is an image problem. A tech is viewed as being a lesser person than an engineer. I am not sure I see it that way as the work they do is vastly different, one more hands-on and practical and the other more theoretical. But for those who do not know the field, they think otherwise.
The second problem is an almost complete lack of knowledge of the difference between engineering and technology. The confusion over the differences keeps students from enrolling and parents from blessing technology, not to mention the on-going confusion with employers.
Seems like we really need to hire a PR firm to inform and educate on both fronts. The schools sure as heck are not going to do it.
While I was department head here at Austin CC, we had orientations for prospective students to introduce them to the industry, the work and the currculum. Many students brought their parents. After the presentation, many of the questions centered on the percieved limited value of an AAS degree and a technician's job. The questions included: Where does this lead career-wise? Are jobs available? Wouldn't a bachelors degree be better? In general the overall tone was that most parents want their kids to get a bachelors degree. And it is difficult to argue with that. Even though a CC program would be measurably cheaper and the student would go to work sooner or the program was a better fit to the student's interests and mental capacity, parents were fighting it. As a parent myself, I guess I cannot blame them. On the other hand, I started out in life with an AAS grad, worked as a tech for years, but eventually went on to a bachelors in technology degree and a long successful career as an engineer. So there is hope, we just haven't communicated that to students and parents.
I saw this same scene play out again at a session one of the local manufacturers put on for potential employees. They promoted the local CC AAS program. But again parents said they didn't think it was in the best interest of their kid. The question was, why can't the kid just go on the get a BSEE and be an engineer? And, oh by the way, can the kid with the AAS go on and get a BSEE?
We seem to have two major probelms here. First is an image problem. A tech is viewed as being a lesser person than an engineer. I am not sure I see it that way as the work they do is vastly different, one more hands-on and practical and the other more theoretical. But for those who do not know the field, they think otherwise.
The second problem is an almost complete lack of knowledge of the difference between engineering and technology. The confusion over the differences keeps students from enrolling and parents from blessing technology, not to mention the on-going confusion with employers.
Seems like we really need to hire a PR firm to inform and educate on both fronts. The schools sure as heck are not going to do it.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
As usual, we are our own worse enemy.
Roy Brixen's comment to my previous entry called Top 10 Reasons... was right on target. If you have not done so, read it as it tells you what we all need to be doing and why.
I continuously wonder just how much of the low electronic enrollment problem is our own. That is, the problems with the college, curriculum, course content, and our own up to date knowledge. I have to think that this is a major piece of it but I haven't encountered too many of you who will stand up and say that. So many of you believe you are doing just the right thing. I am afraid I disagree.
First, I don't want to make any of you mad, but you have to quit living in the past and in denial. The AAS degree curriculum in electronics as it is currently taught in most community colleges is dated. It has not changed materially in the past 25 years since microprocessors were added. Yet, in that time electronics has really moved on. The jobs have changed as well as the knowledge and skill requirments of those to fill those jobs. Yet you ignore it. Why? Is it because you don't see and recognize the changes or you simply do not wish to take the time or make the effort to change things?
I should say that I was department head for 5 years and understand why instructors don't keep up to date or make changes. Usually they are too busy teaching their 4 courses per semester and doing all the usual academic meetings and stuff. Who has time? I recognize that problem, but it can no long be an excuse.
As a writer/editor for one of the largest electronic magazines in the world, I visit companies and talk to engineers, technicians, executives in industry every day. And what I see and hear is very much skewed from what is being taught in the colleges. It is a major skew. As an adjunct professor for one of these colleges, I do my best to include the latest components, circuits and methods to make sure the couse content is current. Yet, I feel I am only one of a very few who do this. All I can say is , that you are teaching the wrong things people. The emphasis and content is all wrong for today's jobs and technology.
I will say this if it makes you feel any better. Virtually all of the faculty I have ever seen do a superior job of teaching. The quality, committment, and materials are typically beyond approach. Yet, they are either seriously dated or simply no longer needed. The best example I can give is the continued massive devotion to teaching everything about BJT biasing when most (over 95%) of all transistors today are MOSFETs. You can claim all you want about how academically effective this is to improve thinking and so on, but I can tell you it is a huge waste of time as the modern tech never does bias a BJT. What a huge waste of time which is always so precious in an AAS degree program anyway. We all claim that there is never enough time to cover all that we need to cover. And it is true. But maybe if we eliminated the irrelevant or at least minimized it, we would have more room for the more recent and interesting material.
It is difficult to change courses and curricula, I recognize that. The college itself and its policies make it difficult. And the state and accrediting bodies don't make it any easier either. Yet we must try. My recommendation is to do it a little at a time. In each course you teach, each time you teach, introduce one new up to date item not cover before. That way it will take less time and eventually you will have an up to date course. Just a thought...
If you don't do it who will?
I continuously wonder just how much of the low electronic enrollment problem is our own. That is, the problems with the college, curriculum, course content, and our own up to date knowledge. I have to think that this is a major piece of it but I haven't encountered too many of you who will stand up and say that. So many of you believe you are doing just the right thing. I am afraid I disagree.
First, I don't want to make any of you mad, but you have to quit living in the past and in denial. The AAS degree curriculum in electronics as it is currently taught in most community colleges is dated. It has not changed materially in the past 25 years since microprocessors were added. Yet, in that time electronics has really moved on. The jobs have changed as well as the knowledge and skill requirments of those to fill those jobs. Yet you ignore it. Why? Is it because you don't see and recognize the changes or you simply do not wish to take the time or make the effort to change things?
I should say that I was department head for 5 years and understand why instructors don't keep up to date or make changes. Usually they are too busy teaching their 4 courses per semester and doing all the usual academic meetings and stuff. Who has time? I recognize that problem, but it can no long be an excuse.
As a writer/editor for one of the largest electronic magazines in the world, I visit companies and talk to engineers, technicians, executives in industry every day. And what I see and hear is very much skewed from what is being taught in the colleges. It is a major skew. As an adjunct professor for one of these colleges, I do my best to include the latest components, circuits and methods to make sure the couse content is current. Yet, I feel I am only one of a very few who do this. All I can say is , that you are teaching the wrong things people. The emphasis and content is all wrong for today's jobs and technology.
I will say this if it makes you feel any better. Virtually all of the faculty I have ever seen do a superior job of teaching. The quality, committment, and materials are typically beyond approach. Yet, they are either seriously dated or simply no longer needed. The best example I can give is the continued massive devotion to teaching everything about BJT biasing when most (over 95%) of all transistors today are MOSFETs. You can claim all you want about how academically effective this is to improve thinking and so on, but I can tell you it is a huge waste of time as the modern tech never does bias a BJT. What a huge waste of time which is always so precious in an AAS degree program anyway. We all claim that there is never enough time to cover all that we need to cover. And it is true. But maybe if we eliminated the irrelevant or at least minimized it, we would have more room for the more recent and interesting material.
It is difficult to change courses and curricula, I recognize that. The college itself and its policies make it difficult. And the state and accrediting bodies don't make it any easier either. Yet we must try. My recommendation is to do it a little at a time. In each course you teach, each time you teach, introduce one new up to date item not cover before. That way it will take less time and eventually you will have an up to date course. Just a thought...
If you don't do it who will?
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Top 10 Reasons Why Electronic Enrollments Are Low
I have been researching the low enrollment problem for over 3 years now. After lots of literature research, a major survey, and talking with faculty and administrators at conferences, it is clear that there is not just one over riding problem. The problem is multi-faceted and complex. Here, for whatever it is worth to you, is what I have come to believe. (And incidentally, these are not listed in any order of priority or importance.)
1. Offshoring - This is the movement of manufacturing from the US to other countries like China, Mexico, etc. This has indeed reduced the need for manufacturing and service techs. However, this will continue clearly because it is beneficial to the companies. The offshoring process won't eliminate manufacturing completely in the US but it will continue to reduce it.
2. Outsourcing - This is the use of workers in other countries to do US support jobs. Again, the goal is saving money. US companies are continuing to outsource many jobs. My own view is that this has hurt the computer industry more than electronics but still jobs that may have gone to AAS technology graduates have been outsourced to India particularly. Most of these are programming and help desk jobs. Since many electronic jobs require hands-on contact with the hardware, it is impossible to outsource them. Lucky for us.
3. Technology and Economics - Technology advances especially in semiconductors have made electronic equipment far more reliable so less repair is needed. Furthermore, electronic products have gotten much more complex and are extremely difficult to troubleshoot and repair. The fact that all the circuitry is in just a few chips on a tiny printed circuit board means that the product is typically not repairable at the board level. In fact, the economics of the situation due to high labor costs (not to mention healthcare) is such that it is cheaper to throw away a defective product and buy an newer more advanced unit than repair it. This one fact alone is a major influence in how may electronic techs we do NOT need. The nature of tech work today is higher level systems-like troubleshooting and less component level troubleshooting and repair. Component level service is not completely dead but you can certainly see where the emphasis has shifted.
4. Major shift to PCs - Beginning in the 1980's, most students abandoned electronics to ride the wave of the PC industry success. It was good for them as jobs were plentiful and certification offered big bucks not attainable in an electronic tech job. Who is to blame them. Many schools added new PC departments while others added PCs to electronics. In the end, PCs dominated. Many electronic departments simply faded away leaving a computer technology department.
5. Less interest in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). This declining interest in STEM has been going on for years. High school students don't want to be geeks and nerds. Our society is one that rewards celebrities in movies, TV, music and sports. People want to be rich and famous and not buried in a lab somewhere. College bound students want to study law, business and journalism(media). Anything but STEM. A great deal of this has to do with the "math problem" which was extensively discussed recently on the EDT Listserv.
6. Bad PR - The tech bubble bust of 2000/2001 really put electronics into a tailspin. We have the negative press to blame for an on-going disregard for engineering and technology jobs. While the problem is mostly over now, there is still a lingering reluctance to touch anything related to the Internet, technology and the like for fear that will hit again. Well...duh...Any one who has ever worked in electronics, the semiconductor industry or computer industry knows that these are very cyclical businesses. It is natural to have the ups and downs In fact, most businesses have naturally occurring higs and lows. This most recent downturn was a big one, however, and it has really put off many who might have otherwise chose electronics as a career. Where can we get some positive PR?
7. Loss of industry support - I think industry has somewhat abanonded support for many AAS programs simply because they no longer need as many technician level people as they did in the past. With less manufacturing, testing and service jobs there simply is less or even no need for tech workers. No need to support something that is not there. Of course, tech work hasn't gone away entirely but it is down. Many industries still need techs but with different knowledge and skills that we were supplying in the past. Or even today. So many schools have reffuse to give industry what they need so industry has taken off on its own to provide the training that some schools have been reluctant to supply. Finally, I am also appaled at how some schools actually never talk with industry to see what they need. There are pockets of need all around. Each school has to dig these out and adapt. Otherwise, expect to see enrollments continue to decline.
8. Dated curricula and courses - Perhaps one reason industry has less interest in current programs is that seem to be the same as they were 20 or 30 years ago. Many programs are training students for jobs that no longer exist. Why? There is an unusual resistance to change in the community colleges. As humans we all resist change but not to the degree I have witnessed in the CCs. Where I teach, faculty rabidly fights for the status quo. I guess for many faculty, the idea of having to learn new technolgy and teach it is just unacceptable. Since technican work has changed drastically, some rework of the curricula is desparately needed. We do not need to teach as much math and theory as before. Techs just don't need it to do their jobs. Of course, all techs need some theoretical background, it just does not have to be as rigorous as it once was. Faculty see this as dumbing down the curriculum. I see it as just adapting to the real world, giving students what they really need to survive and do well. We are hurting students and industry by not changing. It is a selfish characteristic of faculty that I see nationwide. Today we are in a change of die situation and I do not see much change going on.
9. Prospects do not know what electronics is these days - Go out and ask a high school student, graduate or anyone for that matter what an electronic technican is or does. You will find as I have that no one actually knows. They used to, but not today. It is an enigma of a job. People do know what computer techs and programmers do, but not electronic techs. Do we even know what an electronic tech is today? No wonder fewer and fewer students enroll. They have no clue what the job is or what they will do. Part of the problem is that the term electronic tech is used less and less. Instead, we see jobs for field service techs or engineers, manufacturing techs, maintenance techs, customer representatives, installers, and the like. This would seem like a problem that could be solved with department name changes, course name changes and so on. A good PR program would also help.
10. Lack of promotion - I guess all schools lack promotion. You need to get out and sell in this day and time to expect any increase in enrollments. I witnessed this first hand at my college. When we didn't advertise, we got few enrollments. When we advertised, we got many, many more. It really works well. Schools simply won't spend the money. The academic mind set is "if we build it they will come". Not necessairly. You can go on saying that until you department flounders then what the administration will say is simply that we will not fund promotion for a department that has been in decline for so long. Sayonora... In the mean time, the proprietary schools (DeVry, ITT Tech, Cornithian, NTI, and ECPI and others) only get more students. If you ever wondered how these schools continue to grow and prosper which equivalent CC programs are in decline, now you know.
If you know of any other reasons that I missed, let me hear from you. Input from all of you is welcome anytime.
1. Offshoring - This is the movement of manufacturing from the US to other countries like China, Mexico, etc. This has indeed reduced the need for manufacturing and service techs. However, this will continue clearly because it is beneficial to the companies. The offshoring process won't eliminate manufacturing completely in the US but it will continue to reduce it.
2. Outsourcing - This is the use of workers in other countries to do US support jobs. Again, the goal is saving money. US companies are continuing to outsource many jobs. My own view is that this has hurt the computer industry more than electronics but still jobs that may have gone to AAS technology graduates have been outsourced to India particularly. Most of these are programming and help desk jobs. Since many electronic jobs require hands-on contact with the hardware, it is impossible to outsource them. Lucky for us.
3. Technology and Economics - Technology advances especially in semiconductors have made electronic equipment far more reliable so less repair is needed. Furthermore, electronic products have gotten much more complex and are extremely difficult to troubleshoot and repair. The fact that all the circuitry is in just a few chips on a tiny printed circuit board means that the product is typically not repairable at the board level. In fact, the economics of the situation due to high labor costs (not to mention healthcare) is such that it is cheaper to throw away a defective product and buy an newer more advanced unit than repair it. This one fact alone is a major influence in how may electronic techs we do NOT need. The nature of tech work today is higher level systems-like troubleshooting and less component level troubleshooting and repair. Component level service is not completely dead but you can certainly see where the emphasis has shifted.
4. Major shift to PCs - Beginning in the 1980's, most students abandoned electronics to ride the wave of the PC industry success. It was good for them as jobs were plentiful and certification offered big bucks not attainable in an electronic tech job. Who is to blame them. Many schools added new PC departments while others added PCs to electronics. In the end, PCs dominated. Many electronic departments simply faded away leaving a computer technology department.
5. Less interest in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). This declining interest in STEM has been going on for years. High school students don't want to be geeks and nerds. Our society is one that rewards celebrities in movies, TV, music and sports. People want to be rich and famous and not buried in a lab somewhere. College bound students want to study law, business and journalism(media). Anything but STEM. A great deal of this has to do with the "math problem" which was extensively discussed recently on the EDT Listserv.
6. Bad PR - The tech bubble bust of 2000/2001 really put electronics into a tailspin. We have the negative press to blame for an on-going disregard for engineering and technology jobs. While the problem is mostly over now, there is still a lingering reluctance to touch anything related to the Internet, technology and the like for fear that will hit again. Well...duh...Any one who has ever worked in electronics, the semiconductor industry or computer industry knows that these are very cyclical businesses. It is natural to have the ups and downs In fact, most businesses have naturally occurring higs and lows. This most recent downturn was a big one, however, and it has really put off many who might have otherwise chose electronics as a career. Where can we get some positive PR?
7. Loss of industry support - I think industry has somewhat abanonded support for many AAS programs simply because they no longer need as many technician level people as they did in the past. With less manufacturing, testing and service jobs there simply is less or even no need for tech workers. No need to support something that is not there. Of course, tech work hasn't gone away entirely but it is down. Many industries still need techs but with different knowledge and skills that we were supplying in the past. Or even today. So many schools have reffuse to give industry what they need so industry has taken off on its own to provide the training that some schools have been reluctant to supply. Finally, I am also appaled at how some schools actually never talk with industry to see what they need. There are pockets of need all around. Each school has to dig these out and adapt. Otherwise, expect to see enrollments continue to decline.
8. Dated curricula and courses - Perhaps one reason industry has less interest in current programs is that seem to be the same as they were 20 or 30 years ago. Many programs are training students for jobs that no longer exist. Why? There is an unusual resistance to change in the community colleges. As humans we all resist change but not to the degree I have witnessed in the CCs. Where I teach, faculty rabidly fights for the status quo. I guess for many faculty, the idea of having to learn new technolgy and teach it is just unacceptable. Since technican work has changed drastically, some rework of the curricula is desparately needed. We do not need to teach as much math and theory as before. Techs just don't need it to do their jobs. Of course, all techs need some theoretical background, it just does not have to be as rigorous as it once was. Faculty see this as dumbing down the curriculum. I see it as just adapting to the real world, giving students what they really need to survive and do well. We are hurting students and industry by not changing. It is a selfish characteristic of faculty that I see nationwide. Today we are in a change of die situation and I do not see much change going on.
9. Prospects do not know what electronics is these days - Go out and ask a high school student, graduate or anyone for that matter what an electronic technican is or does. You will find as I have that no one actually knows. They used to, but not today. It is an enigma of a job. People do know what computer techs and programmers do, but not electronic techs. Do we even know what an electronic tech is today? No wonder fewer and fewer students enroll. They have no clue what the job is or what they will do. Part of the problem is that the term electronic tech is used less and less. Instead, we see jobs for field service techs or engineers, manufacturing techs, maintenance techs, customer representatives, installers, and the like. This would seem like a problem that could be solved with department name changes, course name changes and so on. A good PR program would also help.
10. Lack of promotion - I guess all schools lack promotion. You need to get out and sell in this day and time to expect any increase in enrollments. I witnessed this first hand at my college. When we didn't advertise, we got few enrollments. When we advertised, we got many, many more. It really works well. Schools simply won't spend the money. The academic mind set is "if we build it they will come". Not necessairly. You can go on saying that until you department flounders then what the administration will say is simply that we will not fund promotion for a department that has been in decline for so long. Sayonora... In the mean time, the proprietary schools (DeVry, ITT Tech, Cornithian, NTI, and ECPI and others) only get more students. If you ever wondered how these schools continue to grow and prosper which equivalent CC programs are in decline, now you know.
If you know of any other reasons that I missed, let me hear from you. Input from all of you is welcome anytime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)