This past weekend I had dinner with a good friend of mine. We taught together at Austin CC but like me he left to go back to industry.
This friend is in the training business. His current job is to teach basic electronics (DC, AC, semi, digital, etc) to techs employed by a major semiconductor company. These techs have been with the company for a while. For some unexplained reason, the HR department decided to give them a test to see just how much electronics they did know. Despite the fact these are all competent employees, only one of a batch of 20 passed the test. So in order for these employees to keep their jobs and be promoted, they had to be trained so they could pass that test. And so the courses my friend is teaching. Does that strike you as odd? Why not train them in fresh, new up-to-date subjects?
The interesting thing he said that even those these guys are techs, their job does not really involve knowing that much electronics. They operate equipment and maintain it but that process requires little or no electronics knowledge. Yet the company insists that they know those basics. My friend is happy as he has a nice job teaching what he knows.
That makes me wonder just how in touch the HR people or the managers are with what the employees really do and how that ties into the electronic fundamentals they insist that these guys know. Not much by the looks of it. No one has really sat down and tried to match knowledge and skills to education. Or maybe it was done in the past and no one ever updated it. Sound familiar?
I have seen things like this in the past. When I was department head, I went to most of the large companies locally that hired techs. I asked for a copy of any exam they give to new hires. I got three of them. Then I proceeded to match up the questions with what we taught. Basically, we covered most of the items with just a few glitches that were easily fixed.
The most amazing thing was how dated the tests were. Even though the AAS curriculum is pretty dated itself as are most texts, these tests were worse!! No kidding. They were mostly left overs from the 60s or 70s. No one ever bothered to up date them. I even saw one exam that had a question to identify a vacuum tube RC phase shift oscillator. Can you imagine? Those things haven't been used in a half century or so. Anyway, if we want our graduates to pass these little jewels from the past, we better keep teaching the technology of yesteryear. Forget all the new stuff.
Strange as it may seem, what do we really want for our graduates? Is it to be extremely knowledgeable and skilled in the very latest technology or just to get jobs? Apparently not. Hey, why not just teach the tests these companies give and be done with it. Who needs a new curriculum any way?
So I am thinking that it is not just the dated faculty that insists on teaching the dated unneeded materials. The companies want that too. Whether that comes from some HR wonk who doesn't know squat about electronics or a hiring manager, I do not know. Scary. I do know that I have heard some faculty and even some working engineers and managers who served on our industry advisory committees say something like, "we want our new hires to be trained like we were." I guess that is more important than a curriculum being up to date and in tune with the real world.
I am beginning to wonder if it is worthwhile to fight for a new and better curriculum. After all, maybe an AAS degree is just a credential to get your foot in the door. It may be mostly irrelevant what you learn along the way. I hate when that happens.
Monday, April 10, 2006
So, what else is new?
Those of you who are members of the ETD Listserv may have seen the recent posting. I am attaching it below for your information.
"We at Los Angeles City College District are undergoing the driest enrollment spell ever. We are wondering if this is something constrained to our local area or whether it is something afflicting a greater area and what measures, both proactive and reactive are being done to address the issue.
Thank you kindly for you time.
Regards,"
I have removed the name just in case he does not want to be known.
I did respond to him and pointed him to this blog. Maybe he will get something useful. At least he will know he is not alone with his problem.
"We at Los Angeles City College District are undergoing the driest enrollment spell ever. We are wondering if this is something constrained to our local area or whether it is something afflicting a greater area and what measures, both proactive and reactive are being done to address the issue.
Thank you kindly for you time.
Regards,"
I have removed the name just in case he does not want to be known.
I did respond to him and pointed him to this blog. Maybe he will get something useful. At least he will know he is not alone with his problem.
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Some Bad News
I think I mentioned in this blog before that I was involved with submitting a grant proposal to the National Science Foundation for funds to study the declining enrollment problem and propose ways to correct it. After submitting two years in a row and even being encouraged by the NSF to submit the second year, we did not get it funded. The NSF gave no real explanation. So, looks like that effort is over and done with. We did all we could. The NSF is just not interested.
I suspect that we lost because, as usual, the NSF receives hundreds of good proposals each year. And with limited funds ($39 million this year), they simply funded the most interesting proposals and dropped the rest. The NSF seems to prefer big, glossy, high tech, innovative proposals for improving technology education. I can't blame them for that. Lots of great ideas get funded. But what I don't understand is their blindness to the declining enrollment problem. Surely they see it. I kept thinking, if this decline continues, then the funding for the other projects is pointless. There won't be any students left to use the innovative materials and programs. I realize that funding some research on a problem like this is not the exciting thing the PhDs at NSF want to see. Too much of a downer project.
Anyway, we will never know what the reviewers really thought about the idea. I wonder if the NSF has its head in the sand and is living in denial as many electronic departments are? Are they saying, "Let's be positive. Things will turn around as they always have." Not likely in my opinion.
Where do we go from here? I am not sure. I wish we had a national organization that would lead an industry funded effort. As Steve said in response to my Depressed blog entry, he is ready to sit down and work something out in a room full of peers with the common problem. I think there are others willing to do that as well. They just don't know what to do. Those who survive will be like Roy Brixen, someone who digs in figures out what is good locally then does something innovative about it. A collective effort would be worthwhile as well. We don't want to leave the electronic technician education business only to the proprietary schools? As I have said before, unless some action is taken, that is where we are headed.
What's next guys? Any ideas?
I suspect that we lost because, as usual, the NSF receives hundreds of good proposals each year. And with limited funds ($39 million this year), they simply funded the most interesting proposals and dropped the rest. The NSF seems to prefer big, glossy, high tech, innovative proposals for improving technology education. I can't blame them for that. Lots of great ideas get funded. But what I don't understand is their blindness to the declining enrollment problem. Surely they see it. I kept thinking, if this decline continues, then the funding for the other projects is pointless. There won't be any students left to use the innovative materials and programs. I realize that funding some research on a problem like this is not the exciting thing the PhDs at NSF want to see. Too much of a downer project.
Anyway, we will never know what the reviewers really thought about the idea. I wonder if the NSF has its head in the sand and is living in denial as many electronic departments are? Are they saying, "Let's be positive. Things will turn around as they always have." Not likely in my opinion.
Where do we go from here? I am not sure. I wish we had a national organization that would lead an industry funded effort. As Steve said in response to my Depressed blog entry, he is ready to sit down and work something out in a room full of peers with the common problem. I think there are others willing to do that as well. They just don't know what to do. Those who survive will be like Roy Brixen, someone who digs in figures out what is good locally then does something innovative about it. A collective effort would be worthwhile as well. We don't want to leave the electronic technician education business only to the proprietary schools? As I have said before, unless some action is taken, that is where we are headed.
What's next guys? Any ideas?
Follow Up, More Depression
There were some great comments to my Depressed posting of March 23rd. If you have not read them, by all means do so. Excellent input. My thanks to Steve, Roy Brixen and Joe Sloop.
Joe, thanks for taking the time to fill us in on the top down inverted curriculum. I certainly don't claim to have invented it and frankly it is good to hear some background about it. The Navy and possibly other services probably still have an electronics technician training program somewhat like that today. You just don't need a great deal of electronic theory to fix modern electronic equipment. I can give you some examples from my own experience.
When I was running Heathkit's education and publishing business, we talked often about developing a TV servicing course to complement our basic electronic courses. And Heathkit had a premire kit TV to go along with it. So we started in on the research. One of the developers, Phil Cole, did a great job of figuring out what industry really needed. After interviewing TV service personnel and even observing them as well as discussions with the manufacturers, the conclusion was that fixing TVs had very little to do with electronics. Looking at job duties and descriptions then trying to deduce learning objectives, it quickly became obvious, the instruction was going to be mostly non-electronic. You didn't need to know that much as modular nature of TV sets made them easy to diagonse and repair by just replacing modules. As Joe Sloop points out, that is the way it went in the 70s and 80s. What's electronics got to do with it?
I saw this myself. At one time during my career I had a TV service business under my managment. It did a good job. One day I stopped by to see how things were going and asked my lead tech what he was doing and how he was doing it. He proceeded to attempt to explain his thinking based on the Howard W. Sams schematics he was using. But being the theory whiz I was, I could tell he was all wet. I was horrified. Yet, I did not say anything. He fixed the TV set successfully that day. It dawned on me that everything he did in the troubleshooting relied very little on electronic circuit theory and the other stuff we force on students today. Dumb....
Another time my younger son, after a couple years in college, decided he wanted to fix PCs for a living. It was right about the time the A+ certification came about. I asked him what his plan was for learning the electronics and digital that was the basis for PCs. He said, "Dad, you don't have to know anything about electronics to fix PCs!" And after some explanation and further consideration on my own, I realized he was right. He went on the pass the A+ exam on the first pass and he has moved onward and upward in the PC networking business.
Joe also hit upon a couple of other things that really nag at me. For example, no one would buy into the inverted curriculum. I suspect that would be the same today. I wonder sometime if we will ever be able to change. Look at elementary and secondary education. It will never change, even if we do discover something better. Faculty, wherever they may be, love their comfort zone. And, oh by the way, where is our salary increase? Sorry to be so cynical.
Another thing Joe said also hit home. State mandated curriculum and processes. His is North Carolina. Texas has something similar. In Texas changes are possible, but it is not easy. Complete course or curriculum changes would never make it though the system. Progress.
Anyway, let's keep trudging along. Never say die..... While nothing may ever be done, at least we tried. If we give up, nothing will ever happen. Think one word: HOPE
Joe, thanks for taking the time to fill us in on the top down inverted curriculum. I certainly don't claim to have invented it and frankly it is good to hear some background about it. The Navy and possibly other services probably still have an electronics technician training program somewhat like that today. You just don't need a great deal of electronic theory to fix modern electronic equipment. I can give you some examples from my own experience.
When I was running Heathkit's education and publishing business, we talked often about developing a TV servicing course to complement our basic electronic courses. And Heathkit had a premire kit TV to go along with it. So we started in on the research. One of the developers, Phil Cole, did a great job of figuring out what industry really needed. After interviewing TV service personnel and even observing them as well as discussions with the manufacturers, the conclusion was that fixing TVs had very little to do with electronics. Looking at job duties and descriptions then trying to deduce learning objectives, it quickly became obvious, the instruction was going to be mostly non-electronic. You didn't need to know that much as modular nature of TV sets made them easy to diagonse and repair by just replacing modules. As Joe Sloop points out, that is the way it went in the 70s and 80s. What's electronics got to do with it?
I saw this myself. At one time during my career I had a TV service business under my managment. It did a good job. One day I stopped by to see how things were going and asked my lead tech what he was doing and how he was doing it. He proceeded to attempt to explain his thinking based on the Howard W. Sams schematics he was using. But being the theory whiz I was, I could tell he was all wet. I was horrified. Yet, I did not say anything. He fixed the TV set successfully that day. It dawned on me that everything he did in the troubleshooting relied very little on electronic circuit theory and the other stuff we force on students today. Dumb....
Another time my younger son, after a couple years in college, decided he wanted to fix PCs for a living. It was right about the time the A+ certification came about. I asked him what his plan was for learning the electronics and digital that was the basis for PCs. He said, "Dad, you don't have to know anything about electronics to fix PCs!" And after some explanation and further consideration on my own, I realized he was right. He went on the pass the A+ exam on the first pass and he has moved onward and upward in the PC networking business.
Joe also hit upon a couple of other things that really nag at me. For example, no one would buy into the inverted curriculum. I suspect that would be the same today. I wonder sometime if we will ever be able to change. Look at elementary and secondary education. It will never change, even if we do discover something better. Faculty, wherever they may be, love their comfort zone. And, oh by the way, where is our salary increase? Sorry to be so cynical.
Another thing Joe said also hit home. State mandated curriculum and processes. His is North Carolina. Texas has something similar. In Texas changes are possible, but it is not easy. Complete course or curriculum changes would never make it though the system. Progress.
Anyway, let's keep trudging along. Never say die..... While nothing may ever be done, at least we tried. If we give up, nothing will ever happen. Think one word: HOPE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)