Industry input is critical but.....watch out.

We all know that our AAS electronics programs are designed to prepare techs for jobs in industry. That is why it is extremely important to involve industry in planning your curriculum and course contents. Some schools do this on a regular basis, especially in areas where the jobs are plentiful. We want our grads to get the jobs when industry is hiring. If we know what industry wants, it is relatively easy to adjust the curriculum to the need.

Yet, so many schools do not do this. At one time I taught for a community college in the eastern US. The department held an annual industry advisiory meeting. There were lots of local employers from diverse parts of the industry. So the input from these people was fabulous. Yet, after a meeting of several hours where industry expressed their needs, the department simply went back to business as usual. Essentially, the annual advisory meeting satisfied the accrediting people yet the suggestions and ideas produced at the meeting never produced any action or changes. This is more common than you think. Does this happen at your school?

In another college where I taught, the department decided to pursue ABET accreditation at the suggestion of the college president. We went through the usual hell associated with an ABET visit and evaluation. Lots of work and anxiety. After the visit, ABET had some suggestions for changes necessary for us to achieve the ABET seal of approval. One of these suggestions was to add PC circuit simulation software exercises to all courses. The second recommendation was to add calculus to the curriculum. (I am not making this up.) Both of these suggestions were doable but to say the faculty was distressed is an understatement. Since the president of the college coveted the ABET reputation, the department head was told to make the changes. And we did.

Both of these changes were unnecessary. AAS degree techs do not design or analyze circuits so the simulation exercises added a huge burden to an already challenging curriculum. Neither do techs use calculus. At least I have never run across a tech that did. Adding the calculus courses increased the total semester hours for the degree above the state maximum so two other courses had to be dropped. These happened to be two popular electronic courses one of which was requested by the local industry.

You can only imagine the impact that these changes had. First, the drop out rate increased measurably. The more difficult courses and the calculus caused a significant exodus from the program. The local industry was not happy because their course was not taught so the grads, few that they were, did not have the background or preparation they previously had. That company abandoned the college. What was once a thriving electronics program was reduced to about half the previous size or less. But, the important thing was the department could say with pride that they were ABET accredited. What employer ever asked if the department was ABET accredited? Probably none. Most do not even know what ABET is, or care.

So in this case, industry input was ignored to satisfy some academically-oreinted president. What was he thinking anyway? Those of us who teach don't think like that. Is that what getting a Ph.D does to one?

Let me say this about ABET. I am all for accreditation and the benefits that it brings. But only if the accrediting body people know what the hell they are doing. In the case of engineering and four year technology programs ABET seems to know their business....maybe. But they sure do not know much about technicians, their jobs and what they really need to know. It certainly is not calculus and heavy duty analysis and design. Those ABET reviewers had no clue about technicians or their jobs and they ignored the needs of industry out of hand. Based on this experience, I would never recommend ABET accreditation to any AAS program. Not only doesn't it produce more enrollments and retention, it does just the opposite and invariable does not respond to industry needs. Community colleges are suppose to serve their communities meaning the students, graduates and the employers. ABET actually hurt in that regard.

Don't write and tell me how great ABET is. I do know that ABET has changed its approach and procedures over the past years. I suspect things may be better now, hopefully. I still do not recommend it if you are training techs for jobs in industry. If your graduates transfer primarily to a 4-year technology program then maybe ABET is important since the 4-year schools tend to more readily accept transfers from 2-year ABET accredited programs. Otherwise, forget ABET. They tend to want to make techs into engineers. And that is just not what techs do. They do not design and analyze. They install, manufacture, test, service, repair, maintain, operate and other wise work with the equipment. And you had better think twice about the expense of obtaining and maintaining ABET accreditation. It requires a huge budget that could otherwise go to better lab equipment.

One more thing about industry input. It can sometimes hurt you rather than help you. Again based on my own experience, I can tell you that industry needs can misdirect you. One example I can site is the case of a very large electronic manufacturer who desparately needed techs. They came to the college and asked what we could do to help crank out more graduates sooner. But they needed changes to the curriculum. These were not just minor changes. They were significant in that they changed the content of many courses, added new specialized courses and even added some new prerequisites. At first the college resisted the changes. But because the big company said they would contribute funds to the college to help develop and implement the new program and promote it, the college relented and we made the changes. The result was a program that specifically fulfilled the needs of the company but was so narrowly foucused that it made the graduates unsuited for many other electronic jobs. Within four years, the industry went into a major down turn and actually laid off virtually all of the previously hired graduates. That program exists only on paper today. Ouch.....

Industry can also be very naive. In another instance, industry came to the college and asked about a program to prepare techs for them. They were not very specific or demanding and in fact asked the college to put together a curriculum for them thinking the faculty was the experts. That was easy because the college simply proposed what they had and one or two other related courses. The industry people put their faith in the faculty and department rather than in their own knowledge and needs.

Now I am not knocking faculty here (well maybe a bit), but most faculty have not worked in industry for years. They are not truly up to date on the latest components, equipment, methods, etc. And it is questionable that the faculty could actually fulfill the industry's subtle and even hidden needs. The usual result of a total faculty design is a dated curriculum and course content that often does not serve the local industry or the graduate. Just keep that in mind if you run into this situation. Force industry to give you their needs in detail and let them bring you up to date as you put together any new program or courses. And by all means, try to maintain some kind of balance, that is keep the program generic and broad as possible so that the graduate can adjust to the enevitable changes that occur in the industry over and over again at light speed.

Enough ranting and raving for one day.