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.

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.