One the expressions I keep hearing over and over again in the discussion of declining enrollments and curriculum reform is that we are "dumbing down the curriculum". That term is normally used when responding to ideas and actions initiated by some colleges to deal with declining enrollments. As it turns out, curriculum changes, in my humble opinion, are one of the keys to turning around a failing department. If you are not addressing the needs of industry, teaching the latest technology and presenting just the right subject matter, you are actually hurting your students and industry rather than helping. And along with that you have to address the student's attitudes, opinions, and learning styles. Electronics as well as our society is constantly changing and if we are not changing with it, we will eventually fail. Change has to be inherent in any electronics technology curriculum or you will be perpetuating a near criminal act on the students.
Yet, despite what would seem to be an obvious way to turn around the falling enrollments, most faculty and departments fight any change to make the necessary improvements. Many colleges insist on teaching the history of electronics rather than the current version. Why?
Most of the changes found to be beneficial in rejuvinating a department relate to decreasing the math load, taking out the heavy circuit analysis that continues to be taught, and replacing older technology with the newer technology. When recommendations for these changes are made the accusation is that we will only be "dumbing down the curriculum". And to me those are just the code words for those wanting to preserve the status quo. Those who oppose such changes know who you are and you know why you do not want to change. I won't embarrass you here by detailing those things here, but I hope you will reconsider your thinking on changes. Change is good.
Let me give you some examples of what should be changed.
1. Less Math - First, let's take out the calculus. Electronic technnicians do not need to learn calculus to do their jobs. If you have ever worked as a technician, observed techs at work or otherwise been involved with technician work, you know that calculus never comes up. I can't even think of an example where it may be used. Even electronic engineers do not typically use calculus. The world is digital these days and calculus is a fringe subject in most applications. There are occasions where it is helpful in some detailed analysis or design, but even then calculus is a real minority when it comes down to practical application of electronics. I suspect that we would attract more students to AAS programs if calculus was not listed in the curricula. It immediately turns off the prospect. Besides, if a potential student likes the idea of calculus, her or she is probable going to go to an engineering program anyway rather than an AAS tech program.
I know what some of you will say. I have to have calculus to get ABET accreditation. I have been through that ordeal and can tell you that adding calculus to an AAS program to achieve ABET accreditation nearly killed off the program I was in. I know many of you believe that ABET is the ultimate achievement for your department, but that is so self serving. Your first obligations and priorities should be to the students to be sure they know what they need to get the jobs that the employers have. Ask all your local employers of techs if they require calculus. I bet absolutely none do.
And don't tell me that calculus teaches a person to think. Yes, I know that it does, but there are other more relevant subjects we could include to teach thinking. We only have a precious few semester hours in an AAS degree program. We need to use them to teach what a tech needs not what we think will be good for him or her.
I also know that many of you believe you need the calculus to prep AAS grads for transfer to BSET programs. I understand that. But how about creating two AAS degrees, one for transfer and the other for techs who just want to go to work?
Many of you who now have a calculus requirement feel that you must have calculus to set yourselves above the rest. It is sort of a status symbol to have calculus. It is more for bragging rights. My program has calculus so that makes my program higher level and better than yours that does not have calculus. Again, so self serving. Just because you think it is necessary and important doesn't necessarily make it so. The bottom line here is, do you want more students and a healthy growing department or the pride of having calculus?
2. Less analysis - Most AAS programs also continue to teach circuit analysis. Mesh and nodal analysis, circuit theorems, temperature stabilized bias design and so on. It is in many textbooks so you still teach it. Again, do real techs ever use this? Mostly not. Even many engineers never use it. If they do, they plug all the data into a simulation or math software package and get the answer.
Techs do not design. Engineers design, techs repair, maintain, install, service, manufacture, test, and measure. They rarely do any detailed analysis similar to what they are taught. I had a graduate of one of the AAS programs tell me after he had been working in industry for a while that he was disappointed that his company would not let him design anything. He actually could design because our AAS program was very heavy into analysis and design including calculus thanks to ABET. But my student found out that companies only hire engineers to design, not techs. When will you instructors get that into your head?
Yes, I still believe we need to teach some circuit theory and calculaton. Ohm's and Kirchhoff's laws are essential. I also believe that Thevenin's theorem is also a must. But beyond that, why teach it?
3. More Up to Date Technology - There are so many examples I could give I don't know where to start. So let me give you just a couple of really glaring problems.
a. Teaching bipolar transistors in excess when most transistors in use are MOSFETs. I am not just making this up. If you worked in industry instead of teaching then you would know this and have already adjusted your curriculum. Over 95% of all transistors used in modern electronic equipment are MOSFETs, both in ICs and discrete. Oh sure, bipolars are still used. They will always be around but MOSFETs have just about taken over the bulk of the work today. Yet, the textbooks still emphasize bipolars over MOSFETs. In fact, if you are lucky you may get one chapter on MOSFETs in even the most recents texts. Why? Do the authors not know that the emphasis changed years ago? I guess..... Most books and therefore your courses go on and on about bipolar biasing and circuit analysis. I have to wonder when some one is going to wake up and start making the changes needed here.
b. Teaching TTL when CMOS dominates and teaching discrete logic when everything digital is done either by an embedded processor of a programmable logic device (PLD) like a PAL or FPGA. Just try to find a TTL device in a modern piece of electronics. Yet, the colleges lumber on teaching the old digital when in the real world digital is a processor or a PLD. I know that some schools have finally started teaching more PLDs but the emphasis is still out of whack with reality. Again, why?
I believe we are dumbing down the curriculum by not making the changes I have cited. We are dumbing down the curricula by refusing to keep up with the technology. Let me ask you this. Do you believe that taking vacuum tubes and circuits out of the curriculum dumbed it down? Many think so. I know that many of you are not old enough to remember this but what happened was that we got the same argument. If we take out vacuum tubes the curriculum will be permanently damaged. We will dumb down the curriculum by just teaching transistors. The analogy fits here. Don't think of it as dumbing down. Think of it as making the curriculum more relevant. We are not downsizing, we are "right-sizing". Remember that expression from the dot-com/technology crash of 2000-2003? That is appropriate here.
Let me and the others who read this know what you think.
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Hope and Agenda
One of my favorite movies is called Love Actually, a British film that came out last year. It is a mix of love stories, comedy and music that is very entertaining. Anyway, one of the characters uses the expression "without hope or agenda". That expression hit a nerve with me as it seems like that is what so many colleges with declining electronic enrollments have, no hope or agenda. That is the problem. It is not that the schools do not care, it seems to be they just flat do not know what to do. As it turns out, there are lots of things you can do to turn things around.
Just recently I did a survey on the ETD Listserv regarding the state of declining enrollments. Some of you have have seen it and even participated. I thank you for your input. I am tabulating that survey now and will post the results here hopefully later this week. Watch for it.
One of the responses I got was from Chuck Safrit of Stanly CC in North Carolina. His school has experienced a 100% increase in enrollments over recent years. That is counter to what is happening most places so he explained what he had done. I suspect that there is no where else to go but up when y0u are at the bottom, but his experience shows what can be done. If ever there was hope and agenda, Chuck Safrit sure had it. Here is Chuck's response in full with his blessing.
Stanly Community College, Albemarle NC
Chuck Safrit, EET Program Head/Instructor
1. In the past 3 years, your enrollments have been:
a. Increasing
2. What is the approximate % of change?
a. Increase of 100%
3. If there is a decrease, what do you believe are the main causes?
Not applicable
4. If there is an increase, what did you do to initiate this improvement?
I took over the EET program at Stanly Community College in Jan 2002 with only 4 second-year students. Two graduated and two dropped out of the program. I spent 50 to 60 hours per week from Jan 2002-Aug 2005 rebuilding the program. The following are my strategies for success:
1. Take a vested interest in your program. The EET program at SCC had been through several program heads with short tenure prior to my arrival. Their lack of dedication to the program, students, curriculum, and equipment was quite evident.
2. Start an aggressive recruitment campaign. Sitting back and waiting for students to show up at the door for Fall registration does not work. Our recruitment strategies were as follows:
a) Call every student contact number you can find. Go through current and old records to identify future students or reclaim those who have fallen by the wayside.
b) Run tours of the college and EET program for every Middle School in your county. Target 7th and 8th graders. Most High School students are driving, dating, or have already made career choices. They are most difficult to influence and recruit. Challenge the students during the tour. Ask them hardball questions concerning their future and the current economy. Make them realize that farming, natural resource harvesting, and manufacturing are the only ways to make money from scratch. Electronics and Electrical Engineering are major players in automated manufacturing and future technologies.
c) Host a summer camp at your college. Again, target 7th and 8th graders. Take them on a tour of several local manufacturing plants. Have them design and build a product using AutoCAD, Electronics Workbench, and EET lab fabricating equipment. We host the Jim Wentz Manufacturing Camp each summer at SCC.
d) Host an Electronics and Engineering Competition at your college. Target High School Electronics, Math, and Physics students. Have the schools compete for individual and team awards. There should be written and practical sections of the competition. Encourage the local High Schools to form Skills USA, VICA, and JETS clubs. Encourage them to attend local, regional, and national competitions.
e) Build a red truck and hit the road! OK, I’ll explain. The SCC EET students built an electric truck during the Summer 04 semester. It has been to every parade, expo, festival, high school, and car show we can attend. It’s one of the best recruitment tools this college has ever developed.
3. Have a number of diverse EET Electives. Our current EET elective courses are Programmable Controllers, Computer Upgrade/Repair, Basic Wiring, National Electrical Code, Motors and Controls, Telecom Cabling, Fiber Optics and Lasers, Industrial Safety, Data Communications & Networking, Electronics Application Project, and Co-op Work Experience. A student can focus in his or her career field by carefully selecting 10 hours of electives.
4. Create liaisons with local industry. Try to meet their training needs. Also, many workers seek promotions which require a degree.
5. Create articulation agreements with regional four-year colleges. Your students should be able to report as true Juniors when they transfer to a four-year college with their Associates Degree in hand.
6. Set up a night EET program. Most Community College students are non-traditional. Many have jobs and attend college part-time. If students take online (web) classes in addition to night classes, they can complete the SCC EET degree in two years. However, night programs require aggressive advertisement and a lot of nurturing to be successful.
7. Encourage graduates to return to college for industry certifications in specific areas such as A+, Net+, MOUS, CCNA. These certifications look good on a job application. SCC offers many industry certification courses. Students can take these classes online or seated.
8. Get a grant. Research and apply for multiple grants. You will not succeed if you wait for money from the state to support and grow your program. This is especially true for NC. Also remember, Community College teachers are among the lowest paid in the country. Once again, this is especially true for NC.
5. Do you believe curriculum content, currency, focus, or relevancy is a factor in the increase or decrease?
Students must be made aware that technology classes are challenging and change constantly. It is imperative they “keep up with the times”. They must be dedicated to the program, willing to put in the long hours, and not be afraid to take a math class. We cannot “dumb down” the EET curriculum and expect them to succeed in the real world. If the equipment plugs into the wall, EET students must be able to troubleshoot and fix it. That’s what employers want these days. I tell my students that a degree gets you to an interview. The wisdom and professionalism you display at the interview will get you the job.
Chuck Safrit
Electronics Engineering Program Head
Stanly Community College
That definitely shows what can be done if we get our rear ends in gear. Thanks Chuck for giving us all hope and agenda.
Just recently I did a survey on the ETD Listserv regarding the state of declining enrollments. Some of you have have seen it and even participated. I thank you for your input. I am tabulating that survey now and will post the results here hopefully later this week. Watch for it.
One of the responses I got was from Chuck Safrit of Stanly CC in North Carolina. His school has experienced a 100% increase in enrollments over recent years. That is counter to what is happening most places so he explained what he had done. I suspect that there is no where else to go but up when y0u are at the bottom, but his experience shows what can be done. If ever there was hope and agenda, Chuck Safrit sure had it. Here is Chuck's response in full with his blessing.
Stanly Community College, Albemarle NC
Chuck Safrit, EET Program Head/Instructor
1. In the past 3 years, your enrollments have been:
a. Increasing
2. What is the approximate % of change?
a. Increase of 100%
3. If there is a decrease, what do you believe are the main causes?
Not applicable
4. If there is an increase, what did you do to initiate this improvement?
I took over the EET program at Stanly Community College in Jan 2002 with only 4 second-year students. Two graduated and two dropped out of the program. I spent 50 to 60 hours per week from Jan 2002-Aug 2005 rebuilding the program. The following are my strategies for success:
1. Take a vested interest in your program. The EET program at SCC had been through several program heads with short tenure prior to my arrival. Their lack of dedication to the program, students, curriculum, and equipment was quite evident.
2. Start an aggressive recruitment campaign. Sitting back and waiting for students to show up at the door for Fall registration does not work. Our recruitment strategies were as follows:
a) Call every student contact number you can find. Go through current and old records to identify future students or reclaim those who have fallen by the wayside.
b) Run tours of the college and EET program for every Middle School in your county. Target 7th and 8th graders. Most High School students are driving, dating, or have already made career choices. They are most difficult to influence and recruit. Challenge the students during the tour. Ask them hardball questions concerning their future and the current economy. Make them realize that farming, natural resource harvesting, and manufacturing are the only ways to make money from scratch. Electronics and Electrical Engineering are major players in automated manufacturing and future technologies.
c) Host a summer camp at your college. Again, target 7th and 8th graders. Take them on a tour of several local manufacturing plants. Have them design and build a product using AutoCAD, Electronics Workbench, and EET lab fabricating equipment. We host the Jim Wentz Manufacturing Camp each summer at SCC.
d) Host an Electronics and Engineering Competition at your college. Target High School Electronics, Math, and Physics students. Have the schools compete for individual and team awards. There should be written and practical sections of the competition. Encourage the local High Schools to form Skills USA, VICA, and JETS clubs. Encourage them to attend local, regional, and national competitions.
e) Build a red truck and hit the road! OK, I’ll explain. The SCC EET students built an electric truck during the Summer 04 semester. It has been to every parade, expo, festival, high school, and car show we can attend. It’s one of the best recruitment tools this college has ever developed.
3. Have a number of diverse EET Electives. Our current EET elective courses are Programmable Controllers, Computer Upgrade/Repair, Basic Wiring, National Electrical Code, Motors and Controls, Telecom Cabling, Fiber Optics and Lasers, Industrial Safety, Data Communications & Networking, Electronics Application Project, and Co-op Work Experience. A student can focus in his or her career field by carefully selecting 10 hours of electives.
4. Create liaisons with local industry. Try to meet their training needs. Also, many workers seek promotions which require a degree.
5. Create articulation agreements with regional four-year colleges. Your students should be able to report as true Juniors when they transfer to a four-year college with their Associates Degree in hand.
6. Set up a night EET program. Most Community College students are non-traditional. Many have jobs and attend college part-time. If students take online (web) classes in addition to night classes, they can complete the SCC EET degree in two years. However, night programs require aggressive advertisement and a lot of nurturing to be successful.
7. Encourage graduates to return to college for industry certifications in specific areas such as A+, Net+, MOUS, CCNA. These certifications look good on a job application. SCC offers many industry certification courses. Students can take these classes online or seated.
8. Get a grant. Research and apply for multiple grants. You will not succeed if you wait for money from the state to support and grow your program. This is especially true for NC. Also remember, Community College teachers are among the lowest paid in the country. Once again, this is especially true for NC.
5. Do you believe curriculum content, currency, focus, or relevancy is a factor in the increase or decrease?
Students must be made aware that technology classes are challenging and change constantly. It is imperative they “keep up with the times”. They must be dedicated to the program, willing to put in the long hours, and not be afraid to take a math class. We cannot “dumb down” the EET curriculum and expect them to succeed in the real world. If the equipment plugs into the wall, EET students must be able to troubleshoot and fix it. That’s what employers want these days. I tell my students that a degree gets you to an interview. The wisdom and professionalism you display at the interview will get you the job.
Chuck Safrit
Electronics Engineering Program Head
Stanly Community College
That definitely shows what can be done if we get our rear ends in gear. Thanks Chuck for giving us all hope and agenda.
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Blog Spam
When I saw that I had three comments to my latest rantings, I said, Oh Boy, here it comes. What did I say? Anyway, I was surprised to find that the comments were SPAM. No kidding. I wasn't aware there was such a thing as blog spam. These were ads for golf clubs, big screen LCD TV sets and a diet program. Weird.
Anyway, you will see three deleted comments. I would never delete valid comments from those of you interested in this blog even if they do not agree with me or blast me. But I do delete random spam.
Keep responding.
Anyway, you will see three deleted comments. I would never delete valid comments from those of you interested in this blog even if they do not agree with me or blast me. But I do delete random spam.
Keep responding.
Monday, September 05, 2005
How Much Electronics Does a Tech Really Need to Know?
In a recent and rather heated discussion of DC/AC principles in the AAS program at the college where I teach, we addressed the issue that many of you have only thought about. That is, how much DC/AC theory does a person really need to know to do a superior job as an ET? I won't try to relate all of the gory details here, but I must say that most faculty are more emotional than logical about this subject. It is not unlike the discussion of whether to teach conventional current flow vs. electron flow. In the end, it does not really matter to the student, but it become a major issue with faculty often with ugly outcomes.
The result of this discussion was our merging or DC and AC into a single 4 semester hour course. The logical prevailed over the emotional which is probably a good thing in this case.
Let's take DC first and analyze what is NOT needed. One thing for sure is that we really do not have to know much about mesh and nodal analysis. This is strictly for the engineer or scientist and even those guys don't use it all that much. I still do some engineering and design on a consulting basis and I haven't used it in years. If I do need to use it, I simply resort to one of the simulation or math software packages that I use. I am not really sure that other engineers really use it all that much either as that sort of problem is usually solved in software. So why not just leave it out? Techs don't design anyway, and that analysis is certainly not going to help with what techs really do on the job: troubleshoot, measure, test, service, instally, maintain, manufacture, etc.
Another thing that most textbooks include is the delta to wye and wye to delta conversions in resistor networks. Does any one really use this? I never have but some faculty believe that since it is in the book, it must be taught. Really.....? Why?
Magnetic circuits is another area of consideration. Just how much does not really need to know? Most books present far more breadth and depth than needed. Most of that theoretical instruction is more physics and design than tech stuff. Most techs will never design a coil or transformer, select a ferrite core or otherwise need all that detail on Teslas and Maxwell's. Some magnetic background is definitely needed but not at the analytical level.
In AC we have a similar thing. Just how much RC and RL circuit analysis is enough? Techs need to know about reactance, complex impedance, phase shift and resonance, but how much is relevant to the job? Cerainly it is not necessary to design complex AC circuits like filters. And the AC course should factor in RF. It seems that most texts and courses emphasize 60 Hz, audio and other low frequencies and forget to mention that the AC we use today is at least up to 10 GHz in many practical apps.
What I worry about most is what is missing. Like detailed coverage of wiring and cabling. Just think about how much of a techs job is fixing, running, making and troubleshooting cables. We need major coverage of that. And AC power wiring. It is not rocket science to be sure but every tech eventually has to deal with the AC breaker boxes, outlets, wiring, ground, GFI, etc. It needs to be taught. And a littl three phase as well. We don't need to teach all that complex three phase math and power calcualtions however.
I could go on here, but you get the picture. Some theory is good and necessary. Ohm's and Kirrchoff's laws and even Thevenin's theorem are essential. Calculating impedance and phase angle as well as resonance is fine, but beyond that, it is useless for a tech in the real world.
Several times in the past I conducted a formal job and task analyses for technician jobs as a way to determine what the tech needed to know to do that job. It is a tedious process but one that is very revealing. Several years back I analyzed a TV repair tech job for example. As it turns out in actually observing techs fix TV sets, VCRs, etc. and in discussions with them about how they do this job, very little actual electronics theory is needed. In fact, a good number of the most successful techs had no formal electronics training. They simply learned to fix TVs by fixing TVs. It is more about knowing the product and its flaws, what goes bad and how to replace it.
Isn't fixing PCs the same way? Most PC repair techs do not know electronics. My son who got his career started by fixing PCs told me one time when I asked when he was going to learn electronics that you don't need to know much about electronics theory to fix a PC. He is right.
As it turns out, most tech jobs are like this, even more so today simply because techs cannot access the circuits that the were once trained to access. They simply replace boards, modules, subassemblies or maybe an IC. Most of the work is test, measurement and troubleshooting. They do need to know how to use a multimeter and a scope and more than ever the spectrum analyzer.
The point here is that the courses and textbooks are still skewed to design and analysis when they should be focused on the real needs. Faculty will nearly fight to the death to keep all that math and analysis in a course needed or not. I guess if that is the way you learned it, you probably still believe that is the way it should be taught. And chances are you were trained as an engineer to analyze and design rather than do tech work. I wish just for once, that those who teach electronics technology would go to work in a job for which they are training people and find out what they really need to know. I have. It is not what you learned in school and not what you think.
The bottom line is that when changing your course content and curriculum, just try to minimize the theory, math and analysis and focus on the real needs in industry.
If I get any response at all to this little diatribe it is probably going to say that a such a dumbed down DC/AC course is never going to transfer to a 4-year BSET program. So...? If that is your sole concern and not what is needed for jobs, then by all means keep teaching your engineering level DC and AC and ignore everything I have said here. Just remember, that only a few percent of all AAS degree graduates actually go on to a BSET program. For most colleges, teaching for the minority, or their own self gratification, is apparently more important than for preparing grads for real jobs and meeting employer/s needs.
The result of this discussion was our merging or DC and AC into a single 4 semester hour course. The logical prevailed over the emotional which is probably a good thing in this case.
Let's take DC first and analyze what is NOT needed. One thing for sure is that we really do not have to know much about mesh and nodal analysis. This is strictly for the engineer or scientist and even those guys don't use it all that much. I still do some engineering and design on a consulting basis and I haven't used it in years. If I do need to use it, I simply resort to one of the simulation or math software packages that I use. I am not really sure that other engineers really use it all that much either as that sort of problem is usually solved in software. So why not just leave it out? Techs don't design anyway, and that analysis is certainly not going to help with what techs really do on the job: troubleshoot, measure, test, service, instally, maintain, manufacture, etc.
Another thing that most textbooks include is the delta to wye and wye to delta conversions in resistor networks. Does any one really use this? I never have but some faculty believe that since it is in the book, it must be taught. Really.....? Why?
Magnetic circuits is another area of consideration. Just how much does not really need to know? Most books present far more breadth and depth than needed. Most of that theoretical instruction is more physics and design than tech stuff. Most techs will never design a coil or transformer, select a ferrite core or otherwise need all that detail on Teslas and Maxwell's. Some magnetic background is definitely needed but not at the analytical level.
In AC we have a similar thing. Just how much RC and RL circuit analysis is enough? Techs need to know about reactance, complex impedance, phase shift and resonance, but how much is relevant to the job? Cerainly it is not necessary to design complex AC circuits like filters. And the AC course should factor in RF. It seems that most texts and courses emphasize 60 Hz, audio and other low frequencies and forget to mention that the AC we use today is at least up to 10 GHz in many practical apps.
What I worry about most is what is missing. Like detailed coverage of wiring and cabling. Just think about how much of a techs job is fixing, running, making and troubleshooting cables. We need major coverage of that. And AC power wiring. It is not rocket science to be sure but every tech eventually has to deal with the AC breaker boxes, outlets, wiring, ground, GFI, etc. It needs to be taught. And a littl three phase as well. We don't need to teach all that complex three phase math and power calcualtions however.
I could go on here, but you get the picture. Some theory is good and necessary. Ohm's and Kirrchoff's laws and even Thevenin's theorem are essential. Calculating impedance and phase angle as well as resonance is fine, but beyond that, it is useless for a tech in the real world.
Several times in the past I conducted a formal job and task analyses for technician jobs as a way to determine what the tech needed to know to do that job. It is a tedious process but one that is very revealing. Several years back I analyzed a TV repair tech job for example. As it turns out in actually observing techs fix TV sets, VCRs, etc. and in discussions with them about how they do this job, very little actual electronics theory is needed. In fact, a good number of the most successful techs had no formal electronics training. They simply learned to fix TVs by fixing TVs. It is more about knowing the product and its flaws, what goes bad and how to replace it.
Isn't fixing PCs the same way? Most PC repair techs do not know electronics. My son who got his career started by fixing PCs told me one time when I asked when he was going to learn electronics that you don't need to know much about electronics theory to fix a PC. He is right.
As it turns out, most tech jobs are like this, even more so today simply because techs cannot access the circuits that the were once trained to access. They simply replace boards, modules, subassemblies or maybe an IC. Most of the work is test, measurement and troubleshooting. They do need to know how to use a multimeter and a scope and more than ever the spectrum analyzer.
The point here is that the courses and textbooks are still skewed to design and analysis when they should be focused on the real needs. Faculty will nearly fight to the death to keep all that math and analysis in a course needed or not. I guess if that is the way you learned it, you probably still believe that is the way it should be taught. And chances are you were trained as an engineer to analyze and design rather than do tech work. I wish just for once, that those who teach electronics technology would go to work in a job for which they are training people and find out what they really need to know. I have. It is not what you learned in school and not what you think.
The bottom line is that when changing your course content and curriculum, just try to minimize the theory, math and analysis and focus on the real needs in industry.
If I get any response at all to this little diatribe it is probably going to say that a such a dumbed down DC/AC course is never going to transfer to a 4-year BSET program. So...? If that is your sole concern and not what is needed for jobs, then by all means keep teaching your engineering level DC and AC and ignore everything I have said here. Just remember, that only a few percent of all AAS degree graduates actually go on to a BSET program. For most colleges, teaching for the minority, or their own self gratification, is apparently more important than for preparing grads for real jobs and meeting employer/s needs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)