I attended the Service & Retail Convention (SRC06) last week in Las Vegas. The name does not imply any connection to electronics but it was relevant. This is a joint conference put on by the Electronic Technicians Association International (ETA-I), the United Servicers Association, and the North American Retail Dealers Association (NARDA). The ETA, of course, is the certifying organization that some of you may be familiar with. The USA is generally associated with applicance servicing, while NARDA is associated with consumer electronics sales and service. There were about 440 in attendance.
I was invited by the ETA to speak about the declining enrollment problem and its potential solution. A group of about 20 educators from community colleges, universities and technical schools attended. All were experiencing the low enrollment problem to some extent and were looking for answers. There were additional reports of electronic department closings and mergers and closures pending the outcome of implementing corrective action. Clearly the problem is not going away and my sense of it was that it may be getting worse. The big issue remains what to do. I think we all know the problem exists but, exactly what is the solution?
Any way, here are a few notes and comments I took away from the conference. Hope they are helpful to you in some way.
1. Consumer electronics is very healthy right now with big screen TVs leading the way. Stereo surround sound, satellite and HD radio are growing, and sales are booming. Techs are needed by the big box stores (Best Buy, Circuit City, etc.) but few are applying and there are NO schools teaching this today. A lost opportunity for sure.
2. Appliance repair is always a good career choice for those who like technician repair work. There is more electronics than ever in appliances today although they are still heavily mechanical and electrical (motors, etc.). The jobs pay well and are very stable. Why is no school teaching this?
3. I heard multiple times how the jobs for techs are out there but few if any candidates apply. Reports of 60-70 biomed tech jobs and dozens of wireless tech positions are going unfilled. No one seems interested. And few schools teach either subject. Why?
4. Most everyone agreed that the engineering tech jobs have mostly gone away. Yet, most programs still focus on that position. Time to change.
5. Most attendees agree that some curriculum change is a key part of implementing a turn around, but most also agree that the schools just do not have a way to promote their programs because of a lack of a budget or relevant marketing skills.
6. Certification is still a great way to get ahead in a job. And it is also a good way for colleges to better prepare grads for industry. The ETA has a college program that helps students and graduates prepare for an entry level certification that they can add to their AAS degree for an even better chance to get the good jobs. The key in my opinion is to ensure that the certification exams are up to date and include the latest technologies that are missing from many programs. The ETA works with industry to create these exams so I suspect they are more up to date than the curricula that is so dated. Check out their certifications programs at www.eta-i.org.
My overall feelings about the conference are that electronics education is in a real irreversible slump. I am getting more doubtful everyday about its recovery. I hate to be negative, but given all the talk I heard, no one has the "silver bullet" solution, yet. Faculty and department heads are trying but they need administration support to do the job. Administrators are loathe to promote a program that is in decline. But that is just what is needed to turn around enrollments.
I have come to believe that some kind of national effort is needed to put the word out about the jobs and the educational programs. We need to get the middle school and high school kids more interested and to educate the general public about the value of the jobs and education. It is probably going to take years to change things. In the meantime, how many more electronic departments will close?
I go to the Electronics meeting at the Texas Community College Teachers Conference (TCCTA) in Houston next week. I am speaking there also and will give you a report later of what happens.
Thanks for all of your individual contributions to this blog and the overall goal of saving electronics.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Proprietary Schools: Good News - Bad News
I have mentioned the proprietary schools in this blog several times before. They are without doubt one of the biggest reasons why your department is losing enrollments. These for-profit schools are doing well enrollment-wise since they not only promote and sell better than the community colleges, but also because they do a better job of targeting the jobs and industries. Despite the fact that these programs cost two to six times more than typical public community college tuition, students sign up by the droves. Why? Because the schools help them get jobs.
And isn't that what graduates want, jobs? They don't necessarily want an education but it is part of the price you have to pay to get the job. As academics we tend to believe all students are motivated by the desire to learn and get that mythical liberal education. Delusional as we are, in fact, what motivates students is money and that requires a job and that, in turn, means at least some education. I had a student put it in perspective for me one time. He said, Lou, if I pass this course, I graduate and get the degree. Now I can get the job. And then at last I will be able to buy the new pickup and boat. That says it all. Proprietary schools play to that mentality. We in the community colleges do not. No wonder our enrollments are down.
My daughter just recently graduated from a proprietary school where she went to be a chef. I won't mention the school, but they are well known and they do an excellent job. And they are VERY expensive. They do help you get a job. But the bad news is that they literally flood the market with new chefs. All of their grads are highly skilled and do superb work. But there are not enough jobs out there at the level to which they are educated to absorb them. So they literally crank out dozens of new highly qualified grads several times a year into unemployment. And they just keep doing it, of course, to keep their income and profit growing.
So while I fuss at the proprietary schools for this practice, I suppose that the community colleges would do the same thing if they had a continuing stream of students wanting to learn that field. During the semiconductor manufacturing boom, I saw community colleges cranking out fab techs for which there were no jobs. Back in the early 90's I saw colleges graduating robotics techs in droves for which there were no jobs except in Japan. They whole thing is irresponsible. But how do you balance or control that? Do you say to a student wanting to learn to be a chef or whatever that we cannot accept him or her because there are no jobs. No. We cannot and do not say that no matter what, public or proprietary school. What a problem.
What the proprietary schools do really well is teaching their specialty. They focus on it and do it well. At my daughter's school, the labs and kitchens are world class. Modern, clean and big. Everything is stainless steel and high end appliances. In the community colleges we would be so lucky to have such facilities. This really shows up when a student goes to visit schools to make a choice. It impressed me when I went with my daughter. The proprietary school labs were so much better than the local community college that it was a no brainer.
The chef school has the students attend 5 hours a day 5 days a week. A brutal schedule. And most of it is hands-on. They learn by doing. Of course there are "theory" classes but they make up a smaller part of the curriculum. The grads come out with many hours of real world hands- on experience. Not just a bunch of classroom hours. How I wish we could construct an electronics curriculum for techs like this. Techs need more good hands-on experience with equipment and less math and theory. Oh yes, we need some math and theory, but not as much as we give them now.
Wouldn't it be great to create a new curriculum and approach to teaching electronic techs? I do. It would be fun. Out of the box thinking all the way. A major stumbling block would be the big bucks for labs. It would be so far afield that most of you who are traditionalist to the max would kill it straight away. If it is not as you learned it or as you do it now, it must not be any good. I can hear it now. Such a program would not articulate with BSET programs. But so what? Most grads don't go that route anyway. They want jobs and industry wants competent employees. Yet, you insist on doing the same old thing year after year and wonder how come enrollments are going down. Duh....?? It is that attitude that keeps departments from moving ahead and from building enrollments. When will we ever break out of this situation? No one in academia is willing to do something so drastic. That's why all the innovation will come from proprietary schools who are not hampered with such dated thinking. And that is why they will increasingly continue to take away enrollments from you.
Think about that.
And isn't that what graduates want, jobs? They don't necessarily want an education but it is part of the price you have to pay to get the job. As academics we tend to believe all students are motivated by the desire to learn and get that mythical liberal education. Delusional as we are, in fact, what motivates students is money and that requires a job and that, in turn, means at least some education. I had a student put it in perspective for me one time. He said, Lou, if I pass this course, I graduate and get the degree. Now I can get the job. And then at last I will be able to buy the new pickup and boat. That says it all. Proprietary schools play to that mentality. We in the community colleges do not. No wonder our enrollments are down.
My daughter just recently graduated from a proprietary school where she went to be a chef. I won't mention the school, but they are well known and they do an excellent job. And they are VERY expensive. They do help you get a job. But the bad news is that they literally flood the market with new chefs. All of their grads are highly skilled and do superb work. But there are not enough jobs out there at the level to which they are educated to absorb them. So they literally crank out dozens of new highly qualified grads several times a year into unemployment. And they just keep doing it, of course, to keep their income and profit growing.
So while I fuss at the proprietary schools for this practice, I suppose that the community colleges would do the same thing if they had a continuing stream of students wanting to learn that field. During the semiconductor manufacturing boom, I saw community colleges cranking out fab techs for which there were no jobs. Back in the early 90's I saw colleges graduating robotics techs in droves for which there were no jobs except in Japan. They whole thing is irresponsible. But how do you balance or control that? Do you say to a student wanting to learn to be a chef or whatever that we cannot accept him or her because there are no jobs. No. We cannot and do not say that no matter what, public or proprietary school. What a problem.
What the proprietary schools do really well is teaching their specialty. They focus on it and do it well. At my daughter's school, the labs and kitchens are world class. Modern, clean and big. Everything is stainless steel and high end appliances. In the community colleges we would be so lucky to have such facilities. This really shows up when a student goes to visit schools to make a choice. It impressed me when I went with my daughter. The proprietary school labs were so much better than the local community college that it was a no brainer.
The chef school has the students attend 5 hours a day 5 days a week. A brutal schedule. And most of it is hands-on. They learn by doing. Of course there are "theory" classes but they make up a smaller part of the curriculum. The grads come out with many hours of real world hands- on experience. Not just a bunch of classroom hours. How I wish we could construct an electronics curriculum for techs like this. Techs need more good hands-on experience with equipment and less math and theory. Oh yes, we need some math and theory, but not as much as we give them now.
Wouldn't it be great to create a new curriculum and approach to teaching electronic techs? I do. It would be fun. Out of the box thinking all the way. A major stumbling block would be the big bucks for labs. It would be so far afield that most of you who are traditionalist to the max would kill it straight away. If it is not as you learned it or as you do it now, it must not be any good. I can hear it now. Such a program would not articulate with BSET programs. But so what? Most grads don't go that route anyway. They want jobs and industry wants competent employees. Yet, you insist on doing the same old thing year after year and wonder how come enrollments are going down. Duh....?? It is that attitude that keeps departments from moving ahead and from building enrollments. When will we ever break out of this situation? No one in academia is willing to do something so drastic. That's why all the innovation will come from proprietary schools who are not hampered with such dated thinking. And that is why they will increasingly continue to take away enrollments from you.
Think about that.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
More Certificate Programs, Fewer Engineering Techs
If you take a look at the types of technician jobs available today, you will come to the realization, as I have, that many of them simply do not require the rigor of a 2-year AAS degree. Most AAS degree programs were originally set up to prepare a person to be an engineering tech. There are not too many of those jobs out there today. As I travel around the country and talk to those who hire (an do NOT hire) techs, what I see is very few engineering techs but lots of service and repair techs. And most of those service jobs do not need a complete comprehensive engineering tech curriculum. Seems to me what we need is more shorter certificate programs of some sort.
Some of you are probably saying, wooooah, wait a minute. What ever happened to the engineering tech? Back in the 50's through 70's there was a big need for 2 to 5 or so techs for each engineer. But no more. Thanks to things like large scale ICs, computer simulation and design software, it is now possible for an engineer to design, test and finalize a design without a tech. Any prototypes are often laid out by the engineer, built by the engineer and tested by the engineer. It is just the way it is today.
When I ask about engineering techs at the companies I visit, I get one of two answers: we no longer have engineering techs or we have a few and are not hiring. Most existing engineering techs are older and more expenienced types anyway. A dying breed. Most of those hiring engineering techs these days are research and development labs. And those jobs are few and far between. So basically what I have come to realize is that the community colleges are training graduates for jobs that for the most part are no longer there. If you don't believe me, go check this out for yourself. Check your local papers for ads, check the online job boards and websites. Ask around. See if I am not right.
As for those tech jobs that do exist, they need a different type of educational program. In some cases, an AAS degree is overkill. For example, consumer electronics tech jobs are hot today. Installing and servicing big screen TVs, surround sound systems, car/truck stereos, and the like. No school actually teaches this these days. At least I cannot identify one and no one in my area here does. Why not? Anyway, these jobs do not require a great deal of math, circuit analysis and the related stuff. They do need to know basics like DC and AC and basic circuits, but what they really need to know is the technology at a higher level and how to trouble shoot at the system level. Signal flow and that sort of thing. You could probably put together a two semester program, maybe 15 to 30 semester hours and offer a certificate in lots of subjects.
There are probably some other electronic specialties that would adapt to such a certificate program. Wireless and communications is another one. How about wiring and cabling? A huge growing field that does not require you to be a rocket scientist. None of these would be too difficult to devleop and undoubtedly you could use your existing basic courses in the first semester.
Offering shorter certificate programs in high demand high profile fields and promoting them would seem to be a great way to build enrollments. There are lots of potential students who would like a shorter program so they can graduate sooner and go to work. And local industry would get the grads sooner. It is a win-win for everyone concerned.
We have some certificate programs here at Austin CC, mainly because the state of Texas says we have to offer certificates. But these are more generic and none address any of the hot new jobs. No students are taking advantage of them either.
This appears to be a BIG missed opportunity. I suppose that most of you are pining away for the good old days of lots of engineering techs. Those days are gone my friends. Time to change things. You can still offer engineering tech programs, but your grads will end up finding jobs in some other area. Why not go with what is current and in need? One of the real rules of marketing is "find a need and fill it". One more way to save your department and job.
Best wishes........
Some of you are probably saying, wooooah, wait a minute. What ever happened to the engineering tech? Back in the 50's through 70's there was a big need for 2 to 5 or so techs for each engineer. But no more. Thanks to things like large scale ICs, computer simulation and design software, it is now possible for an engineer to design, test and finalize a design without a tech. Any prototypes are often laid out by the engineer, built by the engineer and tested by the engineer. It is just the way it is today.
When I ask about engineering techs at the companies I visit, I get one of two answers: we no longer have engineering techs or we have a few and are not hiring. Most existing engineering techs are older and more expenienced types anyway. A dying breed. Most of those hiring engineering techs these days are research and development labs. And those jobs are few and far between. So basically what I have come to realize is that the community colleges are training graduates for jobs that for the most part are no longer there. If you don't believe me, go check this out for yourself. Check your local papers for ads, check the online job boards and websites. Ask around. See if I am not right.
As for those tech jobs that do exist, they need a different type of educational program. In some cases, an AAS degree is overkill. For example, consumer electronics tech jobs are hot today. Installing and servicing big screen TVs, surround sound systems, car/truck stereos, and the like. No school actually teaches this these days. At least I cannot identify one and no one in my area here does. Why not? Anyway, these jobs do not require a great deal of math, circuit analysis and the related stuff. They do need to know basics like DC and AC and basic circuits, but what they really need to know is the technology at a higher level and how to trouble shoot at the system level. Signal flow and that sort of thing. You could probably put together a two semester program, maybe 15 to 30 semester hours and offer a certificate in lots of subjects.
There are probably some other electronic specialties that would adapt to such a certificate program. Wireless and communications is another one. How about wiring and cabling? A huge growing field that does not require you to be a rocket scientist. None of these would be too difficult to devleop and undoubtedly you could use your existing basic courses in the first semester.
Offering shorter certificate programs in high demand high profile fields and promoting them would seem to be a great way to build enrollments. There are lots of potential students who would like a shorter program so they can graduate sooner and go to work. And local industry would get the grads sooner. It is a win-win for everyone concerned.
We have some certificate programs here at Austin CC, mainly because the state of Texas says we have to offer certificates. But these are more generic and none address any of the hot new jobs. No students are taking advantage of them either.
This appears to be a BIG missed opportunity. I suppose that most of you are pining away for the good old days of lots of engineering techs. Those days are gone my friends. Time to change things. You can still offer engineering tech programs, but your grads will end up finding jobs in some other area. Why not go with what is current and in need? One of the real rules of marketing is "find a need and fill it". One more way to save your department and job.
Best wishes........
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)