Dumbing Down the Curriculum

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.