As a writer/editor for one of the largest electronics magazines in the world, I get to see what is going on in the industry first hand. I go to the conferences, travel around and visit companies, and interview the exceutives and engineers. I get to see the new products, technologies, and techniques first hand. Then I get to write about it. It is fun.
What always amazes me is how fast things change in this industry. New products are introducted daily.....yes....read my lips....daily. And these new products get adopted rapidly mainly because if an electronic manufacturer wants to stay competitive, he must adopt the latest and best as fast as possible. Those companies with the shortest time to market, make to most profit. That makes the life cycle of an electronic product very short these days. For example, new cell phones are only good for 6 months to a year before new better ones are available. It is like that with almost every electronic product. The industry moves fast.
But what I do not see is our community college technology curriculum changing that fast. In fact I get the impression that it does not change at all. Just look at the textbooks and the course content taught today. OK, I admit that much of what is taught is fundamentals that do not change. I am OK with that, but at least the colleges could introduce some of the newer subjects and teach the fundamentals in the context of the latest technologies. Do community college professors even know what the latest technologies are? I recently asked all of the faculty at the college where I am an adjunct (7 professors) whether they read the electronic trade magazines. There must be a couple dozen of them, and all of them free. The answer: None of them read any of these magazines. Magazines are the first line of continuing education in electronics. If you don't read them, how can you legitimately say you are the electronic expert hired to teach our future techs? Amazing.
Anyway, when I left teaching full time in 2000 to go back to industry, it didn't take long to see the huge gap between what is going on in industry where the jobs are and what is being taught. Frankly I was appalled. It was worse than I ever imagined. Here is a list of the topics that jumped right out at me. These are common every day technologies in use in industry, many not even new, that somehow are forgotten in community college electronics courses.
1. Switching power supplies. Over 80% of all power supplies in use today are switchers. In fact, some industry statistics say over 90%. Switch mode power supplies include DC-DC converters, switching regulators, inverters, and others. Linear supplies and regulators are still used of course but are in the minority now. Yet that is what is taught. A few of the newer texts do include a paragraph or two on switching regulators but that is it. Talking with professors, I hear that most do not teach this subject. When every piece of electronic equipment has a power supply in it, it seems almost criminal not to teach this subject.
2. Class D amplifers. These are switching amplifiers used for audio amplificaiton. They are used widely today but it is another subject not taught. With so many battery operated portable and mobile devices today, the class D amp is the only way to go to get the efficiency as well as the power. I have only seen this covered in one text. Why?
3. Phase locked loops (PLL). PLLs are not new. And in fact, you can find them in just about every piece of electronic equipment. Just try to name a piece of electronic equipment that does not use one. (OK, a guitar amp. But what else?) This is a core circuit that is virtually ignored in most curriculum. Again, how could this be?
4. Digital signal processing (DSP). Like PLLs, DSPs are in everything today. It is hard to identify some modern electronic product that does not include it. I know this is a tough subject to teach because of the higher level math and programming needed for this subject, but it is possible to teach the concepts. It seems scary to me that we are graduating techs with little or no knowledge of DSP.
5. MOSFETs. Yes, I know, MOSFETs are taught in most schools. But out of proportion to their usage. MOSFETs account for well over 90% of all transistors sold and used today. Most are in ICs, but they also dominate in discrete applications such as power amplifiers and switches. Yet, the textbooks and courses still emphasize bipolars. Sure bipolars are still around but they account for less than 10% of the total. Shouldn't MOSFETs be taught first and then MOSFET circuits? Don't professors know of this shift in usage? Not really. It did occur gradually so escaped the notice of the instructors. If the professors were reading the literature, they would know this an adjust accodingly. I guess because the textbooks keep emphasizing bipolars the teachers will still focus on them while disregarding what is actually happening in the real world.
6. Programmable logic devices (PLDs). Today, most digital applications are implemented with either an embedded controller or a PLD. What do the colleges teach, TTL. Hey, look at the texts. TTL and CMOS discrete logic is the main topic. I do admit that the textbooks have almost caught up here, but that is not the emphasis in the classroom or lab. Students graduating without knowledge of PLAs, PALs, GALs, FPGA, and ASICs are doomed to look like idiots the first day on the job.
I believe that if you are not teaching these subjects, your program is way out of date. Your graduates are going out into industry with a good knowledge of the past but not of current technologies that he or she is sure to encounter. Doesn't that bother you? It does me.
A couple of years ago the NSF funded a project to create modules on these and other critical topics not taught in colleges. That project is nearing its end now but there are a dozen or so online modules on these topics and others. You can use them for continuing education yourself, assign them to your students as homework, or use them in class as lectures. And they are free. They are a great way to update yourself and your courses with minimum time and cost. Go to www.work-readyelectronics.org. It is time to bring community college curriculum kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Dumbing Down, Part Deux
Thanks to all of you who posted responses to the latest commentary. Most of you are critical of the idea of "dumbing" things down, a bad way of saying making any changes in the curriculum. What I tried to get across was that just because you take out one topic and add another is not dumbing things down. I can only assume that to most of you taking anything out is considered dumbing things down even though it may not be relevant. As I said previously, try to think of any change, whether it be taking something out or adding something new, as positive as it is making the curriculum more relevant and up to date. I know that is hard to do, but at least give it a try.
I suspect that I am a traditionalist like most of you. I hate to take anything out especially if you have been teaching it for years. You have come to believe it is essential. But just because you believe it is absolutely necessary, does not make it so. What you have to do is ask yourself if that topic is relevant to the work most techs do today. What I am hearing and seeing in industry is that what is and is not relevant changes rather dramatically over time with the job. And if the job still exists.
I can hear some of you screaming now and pulling away and saying "Fundamentals are fundamentals and they never change and a person needs to know all of them. Period." Believe me, I understand that thinking. I like to teach the full range of fundamentals myself. We don't really know where a graduate will work and what fundamental knowledge he or she will have to draw on. We should teach it all. It is distressing to leave some things out. For example, in teaching AC Circuits this semester, I am going to do a better job of teaching Fourier theory than I have in the past. Why? Many colleges and texts either leave it out or do a horrible job of explaining it. Yet, a frequency domain view of electronics really helps explain what goes on in a circuit or a piece of equipment these days. In fact , is some areas of electronics, the work is more frequency domain and less time domain. Communications is the best example, but it works for any field. And believe me it is possible to teach this at a technician level without the calculus.
To have the time to teach Fourier, I run out of days in the semester. So, what do I leave out? I took out most of the heavy, complex AC circuit analysis. I know that most techs never use this. Another common thing instructors leave out is the 3 phase material. I am appalled this, but I understand why this is done. You could say that three phase is for power guys and electricians not electronic techs. Of course that is not true either as sooner or later most techs have the need to understand three phase power. Can you imagine a tech going into a factory or process control plant with no 3-phase knowledge?
The point is we only have so many hours in an AAS degree program. We CAN'T teach everything and we cannot teach it at the engineering level. Wake up. I agree that our students should know all these fundamentals and the related math at the engineering level. That would be great. But our charter as AAS degree institutions is to teach techs. And, yes, we should try to prep them to go on the BSET programs. But do we do that at the expense of teaching them real world practical material that is less mathematical? Just because something does not have lots of math explanations does not mean it isn't technical.
I have come to believe that what we really need is two different technician education programs. One of them would be the traditional one we all try to teach. This AAS program is designed to teach engineering technicians. That was the original intent of electronic technology education in the first place if you read the history of this field. Yet, the need for engineering techs has greatly decreased over the years. If you do not agree with this then go check out the web job boards, local workforce placement agencies, and government research sources. Engineering techs are in decline because the nature of electronic engineering has changed. Working directly in the field I see this happening first hand. Most community college instructors do not. But I am being generous here and advocating that we keep an AAS program focused on a declining job area because that is the path to BSET transfer programs. I still think that is a good thing as it was a successful path for me in my education. Yet, only a few percent of AAS grads ever go on to a BSET program. Such transfers vary from area to area, but nationwide, the transfer percentage is very very low. Do you even know what the percentage of BSET transfers occur in your students?
A second need is a modern program to prepare individuals for electronic tech jobs that are not engineering in nature. This is a program with less theory and math. Some is needed of course, but not to the depth of the engineering tech degree. In fact, I wonder if a two year degree is needed. A one year certificate program may be fully sufficient to prep grads for the huge number of electronic tech jobs available today. Why not do that? Some faculty actually look down upon such jobs, jobs that are more like electrician jobs. This is a snobbish view, in my opinion. Just because a person is not an engineering technician doesn't mean he or she is dumb, less valuable, lower class, more blue collar or whatever. It is just a different type of job and one that does not usually require the mathematical and analytical depth that an engineering tech requires. Is that a bad thing?
The current curriculum and course structure won't support the proposed two track arrangement but with changes it could be done. And it would be great if the one year certificate courses could lead into the regular engineering tech courses if a student wanted to upgrade. Just as an AAS grad may want to go on to a BSET. In other words, we could have our cake and eat it too. The challenge is to create the courses and curriculum that would meet the current and growing need but maintaining some backward compatibility with the status quo despite is continuing decline. How's that for a compromise?
I suspect that I am a traditionalist like most of you. I hate to take anything out especially if you have been teaching it for years. You have come to believe it is essential. But just because you believe it is absolutely necessary, does not make it so. What you have to do is ask yourself if that topic is relevant to the work most techs do today. What I am hearing and seeing in industry is that what is and is not relevant changes rather dramatically over time with the job. And if the job still exists.
I can hear some of you screaming now and pulling away and saying "Fundamentals are fundamentals and they never change and a person needs to know all of them. Period." Believe me, I understand that thinking. I like to teach the full range of fundamentals myself. We don't really know where a graduate will work and what fundamental knowledge he or she will have to draw on. We should teach it all. It is distressing to leave some things out. For example, in teaching AC Circuits this semester, I am going to do a better job of teaching Fourier theory than I have in the past. Why? Many colleges and texts either leave it out or do a horrible job of explaining it. Yet, a frequency domain view of electronics really helps explain what goes on in a circuit or a piece of equipment these days. In fact , is some areas of electronics, the work is more frequency domain and less time domain. Communications is the best example, but it works for any field. And believe me it is possible to teach this at a technician level without the calculus.
To have the time to teach Fourier, I run out of days in the semester. So, what do I leave out? I took out most of the heavy, complex AC circuit analysis. I know that most techs never use this. Another common thing instructors leave out is the 3 phase material. I am appalled this, but I understand why this is done. You could say that three phase is for power guys and electricians not electronic techs. Of course that is not true either as sooner or later most techs have the need to understand three phase power. Can you imagine a tech going into a factory or process control plant with no 3-phase knowledge?
The point is we only have so many hours in an AAS degree program. We CAN'T teach everything and we cannot teach it at the engineering level. Wake up. I agree that our students should know all these fundamentals and the related math at the engineering level. That would be great. But our charter as AAS degree institutions is to teach techs. And, yes, we should try to prep them to go on the BSET programs. But do we do that at the expense of teaching them real world practical material that is less mathematical? Just because something does not have lots of math explanations does not mean it isn't technical.
Is this the answer?
I have come to believe that what we really need is two different technician education programs. One of them would be the traditional one we all try to teach. This AAS program is designed to teach engineering technicians. That was the original intent of electronic technology education in the first place if you read the history of this field. Yet, the need for engineering techs has greatly decreased over the years. If you do not agree with this then go check out the web job boards, local workforce placement agencies, and government research sources. Engineering techs are in decline because the nature of electronic engineering has changed. Working directly in the field I see this happening first hand. Most community college instructors do not. But I am being generous here and advocating that we keep an AAS program focused on a declining job area because that is the path to BSET transfer programs. I still think that is a good thing as it was a successful path for me in my education. Yet, only a few percent of AAS grads ever go on to a BSET program. Such transfers vary from area to area, but nationwide, the transfer percentage is very very low. Do you even know what the percentage of BSET transfers occur in your students?
A second need is a modern program to prepare individuals for electronic tech jobs that are not engineering in nature. This is a program with less theory and math. Some is needed of course, but not to the depth of the engineering tech degree. In fact, I wonder if a two year degree is needed. A one year certificate program may be fully sufficient to prep grads for the huge number of electronic tech jobs available today. Why not do that? Some faculty actually look down upon such jobs, jobs that are more like electrician jobs. This is a snobbish view, in my opinion. Just because a person is not an engineering technician doesn't mean he or she is dumb, less valuable, lower class, more blue collar or whatever. It is just a different type of job and one that does not usually require the mathematical and analytical depth that an engineering tech requires. Is that a bad thing?
The current curriculum and course structure won't support the proposed two track arrangement but with changes it could be done. And it would be great if the one year certificate courses could lead into the regular engineering tech courses if a student wanted to upgrade. Just as an AAS grad may want to go on to a BSET. In other words, we could have our cake and eat it too. The challenge is to create the courses and curriculum that would meet the current and growing need but maintaining some backward compatibility with the status quo despite is continuing decline. How's that for a compromise?
The real truth.
In perspective, aren't we all currently teaching a dumbed down version of engineering? You know that is true but hate to admit it. An AAS degree in engineering technology is just a shortened EE degree with less math and analysis. Many instructors keep trying to make it more engineering-like and at a higher level just because they were educated this way. It is always good to teach students more than they will need in the real world, but with such limited time in an AAS program, we have to be more efficient, selective and focused on the objective which is educating techs not engineers. It is business as usual in the colleges. The focus is always inward. It is all about what the instructors think and want and not what our constitutients (students, grads, and industry) want and need.
In closing, let me ask you this question. If you had your choice to retain the status quo and ride your program down to closure or to change the curriculum by removing some previously sacred cow material to help increase enrollments and save the department, what would you do? By not changing you have already answered this question.
Impossible Dream: Changing Education
There was a great piece on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, the Friday, November 4, 2005 issue. It is called S.O.S. (Save Our Schools). The author is Chris Whittle, the CEO of Edison Schools, a private company that contracts to run public schools. Whittle has been a critic of our current school system for years and is one of a few who have actually tried to improve things by putting his money where is mouth is. His new book, "Crash Course - Imagining A Better Future for Public Education" offers some hope and suggestions. Read it if you can.
There were a couple of paragraphs in his editorial that I thought fit our own situation in electronic technology education and declining enrollments. Consider these:
"I believe that our current school "design" is suffering from educational "metal fatigue", and that we must intentionally seek - and invest in - a fundamentally new gestalt."
Or how about this:
"So what might schools of the future be like? Althought our vision may be osbscured by our attendance at "old design" schools for most of our formative years, educational visionaries can see, through the mist, the coastlines of these new schools. They see schools in which students are much more ehngaged in their "job" of learning; schools where teachers are paid like other professionals; schools that are hybrids between our current brick-and-mortar model and home schooling techniques; schools where the assets of our magical digital age are fully unleashed, not to replace teachers, but rather to work in seamless combination with them."
Like the public school system, we need to change but we do not. Why? Who is at fault? Who is holding us back? I say it is the faculty. What do you think?
There were a couple of paragraphs in his editorial that I thought fit our own situation in electronic technology education and declining enrollments. Consider these:
"I believe that our current school "design" is suffering from educational "metal fatigue", and that we must intentionally seek - and invest in - a fundamentally new gestalt."
Or how about this:
"So what might schools of the future be like? Althought our vision may be osbscured by our attendance at "old design" schools for most of our formative years, educational visionaries can see, through the mist, the coastlines of these new schools. They see schools in which students are much more ehngaged in their "job" of learning; schools where teachers are paid like other professionals; schools that are hybrids between our current brick-and-mortar model and home schooling techniques; schools where the assets of our magical digital age are fully unleashed, not to replace teachers, but rather to work in seamless combination with them."
Like the public school system, we need to change but we do not. Why? Who is at fault? Who is holding us back? I say it is the faculty. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)