I am hoping that most of you are familiar with what I am saying in the title above. I have been hearing something like this for a year or more now from industry and the colleges. In fact, I am one of the ones who has been saying it over and over again in talks and articles. For those of you who have not heard it, or for those of you who want to know more, read on.
Our current approach to teaching electronics technology to train techs has been the same forever. DC, AC, solid state components, circuits, digital and so on. I don't see the need to change the topics all that much but the emphasis is all wrong for today. We need to teach more systems oriented topics and less detailed circuit analysis and design. Here's why.
First, techs do not design. At least most of them do not. The dozen or so engineering techs left in the US at this time may do some simple design, but for the most part that is the job of the engineer, not the tech. When will you community college instructors realize that?
Second, there are fewer and fewer discrete component circuits in use today. Virtually everything is in an IC these days. Sure there are a few discrete component designs but they fall into the category of high power or high voltage. Yet, everyone insists on teaching detailed bias networks for bipolars and FETs when we rarely ever see any of these. No one ever has to deal with these on the job today. We waste a huge amount of time on such topics and neglect some of the more important system level topics.
Third, we all work at the system level today. We work with large scale ICs, PC boards, modules, and equipment more than discrete component circuits. We repair by replacing ICs or boards and not by troubleshooting to the component level. It is not economically viable any more. Only a few still need to do this.
Fourth, the military shifted to a systems approach with all their techs years ago by gradually eliminating all that excruitatingly detailed circuit analysis. Who needs it any way?
What I am advocating is not totally throwing away circuit descriptions but just eliminating all that detail in design and analysis that no one ever needs or uses. Explain how things work, then teach specifications, standards, and how to test. Keep the discussions at the system level, more block diagrams and signal flow analysis. More big picture theory and how it works as opposed to nitty gritty circuit details.
For those of us who work in industry it is easy to see that this is what should be done. Trying to convince you electronic instructors that change is needed is a tough thing to do because you do not see or recognize the huge changes that have occurred over the years. I don't blame you because you have your hands full teaching. But you cannot continue to ignore the fact that things are no longer like it was when you went to school or when you had your industry experience. It is an amazingly different world. And you need to adjust the curriculum and courses to it.
I am teaching a solid state course this semester and believe me I am trying hard to break the old habits of teaching BJT biasing details and trying to emphasize those things that are relevant. It has not been easy for me. Besides, the textbooks are still locked into the past. The book I am using has a 2007 copyright on it but it is still teaching all that detail that no one uses and omits critical new topics outright. (Switching amplifiers, switching power supplies, etc.)
Until we get some new texts I suspect that most of you will continue on the same path. Just start thinking about how you would update the courses you teach. Bring the level up from circuits to systems. Use more ICs and shift the focus to real world techniques. You are short changing your students or at least giving them a warped view of things. You are teaching the history of electronics rather than the current technology.
I will have some more specific suggestions for you in the future, but just start at least thinking about this problem and how you can be part of the solution.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Good Neews For a Change
Amazing..... I am actually teaching this semester. While I work for industry full time, I still teach as an adjunct professor at Austin Community College. It has been over a year since I have taught anything. With enrollments so low that it was tough to keep the full time faculty scheduled, there was no need for adjuncts.
What happened this semester was a very positive indicator. Enrollments have literally doubled from a year ago. After two years of relentless work by the ACC Electronics faculty, they finally succeeded in turning around the department. They did lots of high school recruiting, changed their department name, tweaked the curriculum, and started a new Electric Power Distribution program. With so many baby boom workers in electric utilitities retiring, there is a forthcoming nationwide shortage of those familiar with electric power. With some good promotion, the college filled all the available classes for this beginning program. It looks very promising. If your college has not looked into it, you should talk to your local electric utility about it.
Anyway, I have been gradually updating my class in Solid State Circuits. I am reducing the coverage of bipolar biasing and related dated circuits and increasing coverage of MOSFETs and their circuits. I am focusing more on IC amplifiers and less on discrete component designs. Furthermore I have added switching amplifiers which most schools never cover. The same with switching power supplies with make up over 80% of all supplies today. In any case, despite the fact that our Prentice Hall text does not cover any of this modern stuff, I am making our students get it so they will be aware of what is really being used. A good way to add this material is to use the online tutorials available at www.work-readyelectronics.org . I am using some of these and they are working great.
I hope all of you try to add new up to date material to your courses. A good practice is to pick out one new relevant technology, circuit, component, or applications not previously covered and add it each time you teach the class. In a few years, it will be much more current and relevant.
I hope all of your programs are picking up new enrollments. The tech turnaround is complete now and employment has enjoyed a brisk increase. There are plenty of tech jobs out there, now all we need are the students. The solution to your low enrollments is local action as ACC proved here.
Let me know if you are still experiencing low enrollments and why you think that is.
What happened this semester was a very positive indicator. Enrollments have literally doubled from a year ago. After two years of relentless work by the ACC Electronics faculty, they finally succeeded in turning around the department. They did lots of high school recruiting, changed their department name, tweaked the curriculum, and started a new Electric Power Distribution program. With so many baby boom workers in electric utilitities retiring, there is a forthcoming nationwide shortage of those familiar with electric power. With some good promotion, the college filled all the available classes for this beginning program. It looks very promising. If your college has not looked into it, you should talk to your local electric utility about it.
Anyway, I have been gradually updating my class in Solid State Circuits. I am reducing the coverage of bipolar biasing and related dated circuits and increasing coverage of MOSFETs and their circuits. I am focusing more on IC amplifiers and less on discrete component designs. Furthermore I have added switching amplifiers which most schools never cover. The same with switching power supplies with make up over 80% of all supplies today. In any case, despite the fact that our Prentice Hall text does not cover any of this modern stuff, I am making our students get it so they will be aware of what is really being used. A good way to add this material is to use the online tutorials available at www.work-readyelectronics.org . I am using some of these and they are working great.
I hope all of you try to add new up to date material to your courses. A good practice is to pick out one new relevant technology, circuit, component, or applications not previously covered and add it each time you teach the class. In a few years, it will be much more current and relevant.
I hope all of your programs are picking up new enrollments. The tech turnaround is complete now and employment has enjoyed a brisk increase. There are plenty of tech jobs out there, now all we need are the students. The solution to your low enrollments is local action as ACC proved here.
Let me know if you are still experiencing low enrollments and why you think that is.
You Missed a Good One
Back in July, the Maricopa Advanced Technology Education Center (MATEC) held its annual conference, this time in Albuquerque at the Hyatt. MATEC is an NSF-funded Advanced Technology Education (ATE) center and does a great deal of good work in developing materials and programs in semiconductor, electronics and manufacturing. A good example is the Work-Ready Electronics project with the great online tutorials. (www.work-readyelectronics.org) The conference is called Semiconductors, Automated Manufacturing, Electronics Training and Educations Conference (SAME-TEC). There was a turn out of about 300 community college instructors and administrators plus good industry representation. The workshops and sessions were terrific as usual.
There is no way I can summarize all what went on here but the main sessions are posted on the MATEC website . Go to matec.org, and look under conferences. There is a list of the presentations and a batch of photos.
I would particularly like you to look at the session by Garry Mullett of Springfield Technical Community College. The paper he gave was titled "Are the Electronics Technology Departments of Today Destined to Become Academic Service Departments of Tommorrow?" Gary puts forth most of the arguments and issues I have been hammering on here for the past year or so. He makes a lot of the same points and some new observations as well. As I told the audience after his presentation, "Everything he says is true."
One of the more interesting sessions was a special workshop put on by MATEC. It was an extra cost option to the conference and we had about 21 faculty and industry people show up for it. The title was "Designing the Electronics Curriculum for the 21st Century". It was our attempt to initiate some real action in changing the curriculum to reflect what is really going on in the jobs and industry. The panelists were Roy Brixen of the College of San Mateo, Wayne Philips of Chabot College, Tom McGlew of MATEC and myself, Lou Frenzel of Electronic Design magazine. We first presented some background about the declining enrollments problem then described some of the changes occuring in some schools around the country. In summary, we all agreed that the current curricula leave something to be desired. It is dated and skewed from what industry really wants and needs. Virtually all agreed, industry participants included, that we need less circuit analysis and design and more system level coverage in the courses. The current curricula and courses still focus too much on discrete components and circuits while technician work in the real world is at a board, module and equipment level. We discussed several ways to address that problem.
The afternoon session of the workshop had the participants divide up into four groups to beat out their version of a new curriculum. The results are too volumous to display here, but they all point in the direction of less circuits and more systems. The lack of textbooks to implement this approach was discussed although no solution was recommended. Electronics editor Jonathan Plant from McGraw Hill was there to hear what he needs to do. Thanks for being there, Jonathan.
Real progress was made, I think. The big problem is getting the results of this workshop out to the rest of you who are gutsy enough to attempt to bring your program kicking and screaming into the 21st century. MATEC recently submitted a proposal to NSF for a three year project to make this happen. Let's hope they win.
You may want to factor the SAME-TEC conference into your summer plans next year. It will be held in Texas, Dallas, I think. Check the MATEC website for details next year.
There is no way I can summarize all what went on here but the main sessions are posted on the MATEC website . Go to matec.org, and look under conferences. There is a list of the presentations and a batch of photos.
I would particularly like you to look at the session by Garry Mullett of Springfield Technical Community College. The paper he gave was titled "Are the Electronics Technology Departments of Today Destined to Become Academic Service Departments of Tommorrow?" Gary puts forth most of the arguments and issues I have been hammering on here for the past year or so. He makes a lot of the same points and some new observations as well. As I told the audience after his presentation, "Everything he says is true."
One of the more interesting sessions was a special workshop put on by MATEC. It was an extra cost option to the conference and we had about 21 faculty and industry people show up for it. The title was "Designing the Electronics Curriculum for the 21st Century". It was our attempt to initiate some real action in changing the curriculum to reflect what is really going on in the jobs and industry. The panelists were Roy Brixen of the College of San Mateo, Wayne Philips of Chabot College, Tom McGlew of MATEC and myself, Lou Frenzel of Electronic Design magazine. We first presented some background about the declining enrollments problem then described some of the changes occuring in some schools around the country. In summary, we all agreed that the current curricula leave something to be desired. It is dated and skewed from what industry really wants and needs. Virtually all agreed, industry participants included, that we need less circuit analysis and design and more system level coverage in the courses. The current curricula and courses still focus too much on discrete components and circuits while technician work in the real world is at a board, module and equipment level. We discussed several ways to address that problem.
The afternoon session of the workshop had the participants divide up into four groups to beat out their version of a new curriculum. The results are too volumous to display here, but they all point in the direction of less circuits and more systems. The lack of textbooks to implement this approach was discussed although no solution was recommended. Electronics editor Jonathan Plant from McGraw Hill was there to hear what he needs to do. Thanks for being there, Jonathan.
Real progress was made, I think. The big problem is getting the results of this workshop out to the rest of you who are gutsy enough to attempt to bring your program kicking and screaming into the 21st century. MATEC recently submitted a proposal to NSF for a three year project to make this happen. Let's hope they win.
You may want to factor the SAME-TEC conference into your summer plans next year. It will be held in Texas, Dallas, I think. Check the MATEC website for details next year.
Someone is Paying Attention - Is it too late?
I have delinquent in posting the past months which reflects how busy things have been. But that is a good thing. I have lots of new stuff to post so let me get started. Watch for some new material in the coming days.
Roy Brixen of San Mateo College sent me the attached article from the Sacremento Bee. Take a look.
sacbee.com - The online division of The Sacramento Bee
Schools should prepare students for real-world jobs
By Jack M. Stewart - Special to the Bee, Sunday, October 15, 2006
The numbers are striking. Thirty percent of California high school students drop out prior to graduating, most of them citing school's irrelevance totheir lives. Of those who enter ninth grade, only one in four will go on toobtain a four-year college degree. Many of those who do not obtain abachelor's degree are left unprepared by the public school system foropportunities in the workplace for middle-wage jobs that do not require acollege degree. That's about 72 percent of the jobs in America.We have lost touch with the purpose of public education to prepare ourchildren for meaningful careers. Biases against career technical educationamong academia coupled with a growing pressure to teach to standardizedtests are forcing schools to prepare students for a future they will neverhave, rather than delivering graduates armed with the real-world skills totake 21st century jobs."We have trouble finding employees to fill family-wage jobs here," saysKellie Johnson, president of Ace Clearwater Enterprises, a partsmanufacturer based in Torrance. "Yet, when one of my mid-level employees wasrecently asked why he is in manufacturing, he responded with pride, 'I haveonly a high school diploma, I make $72,000 a year, and I design and makethings that go to the moon.' "Skilled manufacturers in California earn salaries of between $50,000 and$80,000 a year, according to the California Employment Department. Theaverage industrial technician, for example, earned $54,643 last year, whileall other full-time U.S. workers earned a median income of less than$34,000. Manufacturing jobs in California, by the process of elimination,are becoming one of the state's few sources of middle-class and family-wagejobs.Peter Zierhut of Haas Automation Inc., a machine tool builder based inOxnard that pays skilled workers up to $28 an hour with benefits, says, "Ihave visited dozens of community colleges and vocational training centers,all over America. Every school tells me the same story -- that localbusiness is overwhelming them with requests for new graduates withemployable skills."A recent survey of California community college students provides insight.In Contra Costa County, 75 percent of students stated that they had notconsidered applying for a manufacturing job because they thought the pay wastoo low. This perception has consequences that are harmful to the state'seconomy. Shortages of applicants have forced companies like Dow Chemical inContra Costa County, which pays skilled workers up to $100,000, to recruitlaborers outside California.California's education system is attempting to prepare all students for thesame future, while failing to embrace the evolution of our economy. Anexcessive emphasis on college prep courses leaves most high school studentswithout skills to apply for the fastest growing sectors in the Californiaeconomy. Bureau of Labor Statistics projections show less than a 1 percentincrease in the proportion of jobs in the national economy requiring abachelor's degree or higher in the next six years. Between 2003 and 2005, 27percent of all new California jobs were in the construction industry,according to the Employment Development Department. The Bureau of LaborStatistics' projections anticipate that 72 percent of American jobs will notrequire a four-year college degree.Exacerbating the problem in the state are the California High School ExitExam and standardized testing. The pressure is on educators to improve thenumbers associated with these oft-politicized tests, and any improvementwill undoubtedly come to the detriment of career technical education. Asschools focus more resources on teaching to these tests, students are beingremoved from rigorous courses such as career and technical education. In2005, 40,000 fewer students enrolled in courses that provided skills inrobotics, agriculture, automotive technology, business, construction,pre-engineering and manufacturing than in the previous year. Today,California has the lowest percentage of students enrolled in career andtechnical education courses in our state's history, according to the stateDepartment of Education.There are other forces at work that undermine career technical education.California's university system has a thinly veiled bias against vocationalstudies that has, as a practical effect, discouraged high schools fromexpanding career technical education courses. In an Aug. 7 letter, aUniversity of California lobbyist spelled out the institution's oppositionto legislation that would have barred the UC system from discriminatingagainst an applicant for secondary curriculum meeting State Board ofEducation standards, including career technical education courses.The letter reads: "SB 1543 could jeopardize the quality of studentpreparation by ... asking UC to accept courses that may not be related topreparation for college, such as cabinetmaking, food service, and weldingbut meet the State Board-approved standards that were written to preparestudents for those particular career paths."Ironically, under the bill, career technical education courses, like thosedescribed in the letter, and which meet the academically rigorous standardsestablished by the Board of Education, are rejected, while visual andperforming art courses such as "dance movement," "tap-dancing" and "choir"are accepted by the UC system.But some education leaders are catching on to the trend in technicalcareers. Founded 10 years ago in California's wine country, Napa's NewTechnology High School prepares students with project-based courses thatrequire students to work in teams on group tasks to give them real-worldwork force experience."In the wake of regional (military) base closures and our growing economy,the business community came to the school board and pressed for the creationof a new type of learning," says Susan Schilling of New TechnologyFoundation. "The result was the creation of our innovative high school whereall courses -- everything from English to technical courses -- are taught asinteractive and project-based. The students employ the tools of the modernworkplace including technology and group collaboration. We prepare them foradmission to the UC or the modern workplace, wherever they set theirsights."Sparked by new state and federal investment funds, Freestyle High School in Mountain View is another one of the few high schools focusing on technicaleducation. "More districts are starting to look at this and finding this isa great way to deal with the dropout problem," said Pat Ainsworth, assistantstate superintendent of schools and director of career technical education.Gone are the nostalgic days when the majority of American workers couldbuild a successful career and support a family without a high schooldiploma. But conversely, it is unrealistic to expect that every high schoolstudent will earn a bachelor's degree and be guaranteed a highfalutincorporate salary.The future of California's economy clearly demands that lawmakers andeducation leaders embrace career technical education as an equal partner inthe matriculation of our youth. Anything less will result in the outsourcingof our best family-wage jobs, and with them, California's future.
Jack M. Stewart is president of the California Manufacturers & TechnologyAssociation in Sacramento.
Roy's comments to me were: "Some voices from outside are beginning to ask questgions. Only problem is, will there be any programs left to train and educate workers by the time reality hits the system." For those of us who teach in electronics, this is the painful truth. Looks like solutions lie at the state and local levels for sure. What are you doing to prolong the life of your program?
Roy Brixen of San Mateo College sent me the attached article from the Sacremento Bee. Take a look.
sacbee.com - The online division of The Sacramento Bee
Schools should prepare students for real-world jobs
By Jack M. Stewart - Special to the Bee, Sunday, October 15, 2006
The numbers are striking. Thirty percent of California high school students drop out prior to graduating, most of them citing school's irrelevance totheir lives. Of those who enter ninth grade, only one in four will go on toobtain a four-year college degree. Many of those who do not obtain abachelor's degree are left unprepared by the public school system foropportunities in the workplace for middle-wage jobs that do not require acollege degree. That's about 72 percent of the jobs in America.We have lost touch with the purpose of public education to prepare ourchildren for meaningful careers. Biases against career technical educationamong academia coupled with a growing pressure to teach to standardizedtests are forcing schools to prepare students for a future they will neverhave, rather than delivering graduates armed with the real-world skills totake 21st century jobs."We have trouble finding employees to fill family-wage jobs here," saysKellie Johnson, president of Ace Clearwater Enterprises, a partsmanufacturer based in Torrance. "Yet, when one of my mid-level employees wasrecently asked why he is in manufacturing, he responded with pride, 'I haveonly a high school diploma, I make $72,000 a year, and I design and makethings that go to the moon.' "Skilled manufacturers in California earn salaries of between $50,000 and$80,000 a year, according to the California Employment Department. Theaverage industrial technician, for example, earned $54,643 last year, whileall other full-time U.S. workers earned a median income of less than$34,000. Manufacturing jobs in California, by the process of elimination,are becoming one of the state's few sources of middle-class and family-wagejobs.Peter Zierhut of Haas Automation Inc., a machine tool builder based inOxnard that pays skilled workers up to $28 an hour with benefits, says, "Ihave visited dozens of community colleges and vocational training centers,all over America. Every school tells me the same story -- that localbusiness is overwhelming them with requests for new graduates withemployable skills."A recent survey of California community college students provides insight.In Contra Costa County, 75 percent of students stated that they had notconsidered applying for a manufacturing job because they thought the pay wastoo low. This perception has consequences that are harmful to the state'seconomy. Shortages of applicants have forced companies like Dow Chemical inContra Costa County, which pays skilled workers up to $100,000, to recruitlaborers outside California.California's education system is attempting to prepare all students for thesame future, while failing to embrace the evolution of our economy. Anexcessive emphasis on college prep courses leaves most high school studentswithout skills to apply for the fastest growing sectors in the Californiaeconomy. Bureau of Labor Statistics projections show less than a 1 percentincrease in the proportion of jobs in the national economy requiring abachelor's degree or higher in the next six years. Between 2003 and 2005, 27percent of all new California jobs were in the construction industry,according to the Employment Development Department. The Bureau of LaborStatistics' projections anticipate that 72 percent of American jobs will notrequire a four-year college degree.Exacerbating the problem in the state are the California High School ExitExam and standardized testing. The pressure is on educators to improve thenumbers associated with these oft-politicized tests, and any improvementwill undoubtedly come to the detriment of career technical education. Asschools focus more resources on teaching to these tests, students are beingremoved from rigorous courses such as career and technical education. In2005, 40,000 fewer students enrolled in courses that provided skills inrobotics, agriculture, automotive technology, business, construction,pre-engineering and manufacturing than in the previous year. Today,California has the lowest percentage of students enrolled in career andtechnical education courses in our state's history, according to the stateDepartment of Education.There are other forces at work that undermine career technical education.California's university system has a thinly veiled bias against vocationalstudies that has, as a practical effect, discouraged high schools fromexpanding career technical education courses. In an Aug. 7 letter, aUniversity of California lobbyist spelled out the institution's oppositionto legislation that would have barred the UC system from discriminatingagainst an applicant for secondary curriculum meeting State Board ofEducation standards, including career technical education courses.The letter reads: "SB 1543 could jeopardize the quality of studentpreparation by ... asking UC to accept courses that may not be related topreparation for college, such as cabinetmaking, food service, and weldingbut meet the State Board-approved standards that were written to preparestudents for those particular career paths."Ironically, under the bill, career technical education courses, like thosedescribed in the letter, and which meet the academically rigorous standardsestablished by the Board of Education, are rejected, while visual andperforming art courses such as "dance movement," "tap-dancing" and "choir"are accepted by the UC system.But some education leaders are catching on to the trend in technicalcareers. Founded 10 years ago in California's wine country, Napa's NewTechnology High School prepares students with project-based courses thatrequire students to work in teams on group tasks to give them real-worldwork force experience."In the wake of regional (military) base closures and our growing economy,the business community came to the school board and pressed for the creationof a new type of learning," says Susan Schilling of New TechnologyFoundation. "The result was the creation of our innovative high school whereall courses -- everything from English to technical courses -- are taught asinteractive and project-based. The students employ the tools of the modernworkplace including technology and group collaboration. We prepare them foradmission to the UC or the modern workplace, wherever they set theirsights."Sparked by new state and federal investment funds, Freestyle High School in Mountain View is another one of the few high schools focusing on technicaleducation. "More districts are starting to look at this and finding this isa great way to deal with the dropout problem," said Pat Ainsworth, assistantstate superintendent of schools and director of career technical education.Gone are the nostalgic days when the majority of American workers couldbuild a successful career and support a family without a high schooldiploma. But conversely, it is unrealistic to expect that every high schoolstudent will earn a bachelor's degree and be guaranteed a highfalutincorporate salary.The future of California's economy clearly demands that lawmakers andeducation leaders embrace career technical education as an equal partner inthe matriculation of our youth. Anything less will result in the outsourcingof our best family-wage jobs, and with them, California's future.
Jack M. Stewart is president of the California Manufacturers & TechnologyAssociation in Sacramento.
Roy's comments to me were: "Some voices from outside are beginning to ask questgions. Only problem is, will there be any programs left to train and educate workers by the time reality hits the system." For those of us who teach in electronics, this is the painful truth. Looks like solutions lie at the state and local levels for sure. What are you doing to prolong the life of your program?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)