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?
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Continuing Education for ET Professors
Every electronic engineer and technician must participate in some form of continuing education if he or she intends to stay competent, retain a job and grow personally. As an engineer, technician or instructor, you live or die by what you know. To be successful in electronics you must know the latest technology and apply it to benefit your employer and to your company's customers. In an article for Electronic Design magazine a few years back, I wrote the following: "If you're not involved in some form of continuing education, then you are doomed to suffer the consequences of ignorance, peer contempt, technological obsolescence and eventual obscurity...and then you retire early." Does this sound like you?
I suspect that most practicing engineers do engage in some form of continuing education. But from what I have seen, not many instructors or professors from community college AAS degree electronic programs do. I hope I am wrong about you, but I bet I am not. Why? If instructors and professors were up to date with the latest knowledge, then the courses and curriculum would not be so out of whack with the real world. To say that today's curriculum is skewed from reality and that the instructors are living in some delusional world of the past is really being too kind. I'd like to use the phraseology of popular comedian Lewis Black, but that would not be professional. But for those of you who have heard Black's routine, you know what I mean. I can only attribute the the poor state of the curriculum to lack of adequate continuing education and exposure to actual technician and engineering work. I realize that as professors you cannot actually go out and get a job to see what it is really like, but you could at least engage in some kind of continuing education that would keep you informed about what is important and what is not. And that, hopefully, would lead to more current and relevant courses and curricula. I am probably just dreaming, but I can hope can't I?
Magazines
Continuing education need not be all that hard or time consuming or expensive. The fastest and easiest thing to do is subscribe to some of the many magazines devoted to electronics and related subjects. Most of the good publications are "controlled circulation" meaning that they are free. You cannot complain about the price. If you are a professor and engineer, just go to the relevant website and subscribe. The best ones are Electronic Design (this is the one I write for), EDN, and EE Times. The first two come out twice a month, the other weekly. If you do nothing more than read these three, you will be about as informed as possible about what is going on with components, circuits, technologies, applications, and issues.
One of the absolute best magazines is IEEE Spectrum. You have to join IEEE to get it but that is a good thing. Worth every penny. If you join you will also find out about all the other magazines they have and all of the other educational products and activities just for engineers. Check out www.ieee.org.
Then you should also subscribe to the only remaining popular hobbyiest/experimenter magazine, Nuts & Volts. It is a monthly and not that expensive. But it has lots of good articles and hands-on projects many of which are suitable for labs. Other good magazines to which you must actually subscribe are:
1. Circuit Cellar--Great magazine about embedded controllers, interfacing, etc.
2. Popular Communications--For those of you who teach communications and RF.
3. QST and CQ--The traditional ham radio magazines. Good sources.
4. Servo--A magazine devoted to hobby robots by the publishers of Nuts & Volts. Excellent articles and projects.
There are a whole slew of other magazines, but these are the core. Just reading these each month will keep you on top.
Conferences
Another good continuing education activity is attending conferences. The educational conferences like ASEE and SAME-TEC (matec.org) are good, but I am talking about electronics- related events. There are so many that I cannot even begin to list them all. If you read the magazines, you will hear about these events. And yes, they are expensive. But the sessions, workshops, and exhibits are so overwhelmingly good that you will come away with a head full of fresh knowledge, a whole new perspective and lots of good ideas. I recommend at least one a year. Try to put the expenses for this into your annual budget. It is worth it, believe me. Just try one and see.
Books
Books are always good for updating yourself. You can get some of them free for evaluation from publishers. But most you cannot. You will need a budget for this too. Books got expensive and the better ones approach $100 each and many exceed that. Your best bet to find these is to go to Amazon and search by subject. Otherwise, go directly to the publishers lists. Some of the better sources are Elsevier/Newnes, McGraw Hill, John Wiley, IEEE, Prentice Hall, ArchTech House, Noble, Addison Wesley, and Cambridge University Press. If you buy from Amazon, you can often find a used copy for much less. I usually buy used myself when they are available. Most are still in good condition.
Seminars and Workshops
Seminars and workshops still occur from time to time. These are given by private companies and university continuing education departments and are very expensive. They are really good, but probably beyond your budget. For some cheap and even free seminars check out the major semiconductor manufacturers who give annual workshops. Examples: Analog Devices, Freescale, and Texas Instruments.
Webinars, free online seminars have become amazingly popular. Most are given by companies promoting their products. But don't let that stop you as all of them give basics and fundamentals and other useful information. And don't forget, that the real engineering world is nothing but commercial components and products. You live and die by your knowledge of them. A good source of webinars is the TechOnLine website.
Back to School
As for going back to school for an advance degree, I say forget it. Most of you probably already have a masters anyway. If you do not have one, it probably is worth the time, effort and money if you are not approaching retirement in a few years. You get a good return on you investment. Not so for a PhD, at least in a community college. It is nice to have, but you won't get any more out of it than being able to say you are Doctor so-and-so. Some people do it just for that. Anyway, check out the National Technological University who can give you a fully accredited masters online.
Online Learning
As I travel around for the magazine, I interview lots of engineers and executives. I ask them what they do to learn new things. They all mention briefly the things I mentioned above to some degree or the other. But...and here is the big secret.... most learn from the Internet. Busy professionals don't typically have the time to go to class for general education. Most have very specific learning needs related to the job, a current project or some future interest. Almost every one of these people gets that education informally with a Google or Yahoo search. Just type in the topic you want to learn, and voila', you get thousands of hits. Print it out, sort it, organize it, read it and then you know. You can give yourself a quickie education on virtually subject any time. It is fast, easy, and free. Give it a try.
An Experimentation Bench
One last thing. Personal experimentation. If you are a real tech, you probably have a bench where you still build kits, play around with circuits, fix defective products, etc. Nothing beats this kind of hands-on work. You can still learn a great deal by just doing practical real world experimenting. Get yourself a breadboard trainer, some parts, a DMM and a scope and play around. Play engineer as you were educated. If you don't have a shop of your own, do it in the school lab. It is fun and educational. Maybe I am just an incurable techie or geek....whatever...but I still do this.
And go learn something new.
Copyright 2006 Louis E. Frenzel Jr.
I suspect that most practicing engineers do engage in some form of continuing education. But from what I have seen, not many instructors or professors from community college AAS degree electronic programs do. I hope I am wrong about you, but I bet I am not. Why? If instructors and professors were up to date with the latest knowledge, then the courses and curriculum would not be so out of whack with the real world. To say that today's curriculum is skewed from reality and that the instructors are living in some delusional world of the past is really being too kind. I'd like to use the phraseology of popular comedian Lewis Black, but that would not be professional. But for those of you who have heard Black's routine, you know what I mean. I can only attribute the the poor state of the curriculum to lack of adequate continuing education and exposure to actual technician and engineering work. I realize that as professors you cannot actually go out and get a job to see what it is really like, but you could at least engage in some kind of continuing education that would keep you informed about what is important and what is not. And that, hopefully, would lead to more current and relevant courses and curricula. I am probably just dreaming, but I can hope can't I?
Magazines
Continuing education need not be all that hard or time consuming or expensive. The fastest and easiest thing to do is subscribe to some of the many magazines devoted to electronics and related subjects. Most of the good publications are "controlled circulation" meaning that they are free. You cannot complain about the price. If you are a professor and engineer, just go to the relevant website and subscribe. The best ones are Electronic Design (this is the one I write for), EDN, and EE Times. The first two come out twice a month, the other weekly. If you do nothing more than read these three, you will be about as informed as possible about what is going on with components, circuits, technologies, applications, and issues.
One of the absolute best magazines is IEEE Spectrum. You have to join IEEE to get it but that is a good thing. Worth every penny. If you join you will also find out about all the other magazines they have and all of the other educational products and activities just for engineers. Check out www.ieee.org.
Then you should also subscribe to the only remaining popular hobbyiest/experimenter magazine, Nuts & Volts. It is a monthly and not that expensive. But it has lots of good articles and hands-on projects many of which are suitable for labs. Other good magazines to which you must actually subscribe are:
1. Circuit Cellar--Great magazine about embedded controllers, interfacing, etc.
2. Popular Communications--For those of you who teach communications and RF.
3. QST and CQ--The traditional ham radio magazines. Good sources.
4. Servo--A magazine devoted to hobby robots by the publishers of Nuts & Volts. Excellent articles and projects.
There are a whole slew of other magazines, but these are the core. Just reading these each month will keep you on top.
Conferences
Another good continuing education activity is attending conferences. The educational conferences like ASEE and SAME-TEC (matec.org) are good, but I am talking about electronics- related events. There are so many that I cannot even begin to list them all. If you read the magazines, you will hear about these events. And yes, they are expensive. But the sessions, workshops, and exhibits are so overwhelmingly good that you will come away with a head full of fresh knowledge, a whole new perspective and lots of good ideas. I recommend at least one a year. Try to put the expenses for this into your annual budget. It is worth it, believe me. Just try one and see.
Books
Books are always good for updating yourself. You can get some of them free for evaluation from publishers. But most you cannot. You will need a budget for this too. Books got expensive and the better ones approach $100 each and many exceed that. Your best bet to find these is to go to Amazon and search by subject. Otherwise, go directly to the publishers lists. Some of the better sources are Elsevier/Newnes, McGraw Hill, John Wiley, IEEE, Prentice Hall, ArchTech House, Noble, Addison Wesley, and Cambridge University Press. If you buy from Amazon, you can often find a used copy for much less. I usually buy used myself when they are available. Most are still in good condition.
Seminars and Workshops
Seminars and workshops still occur from time to time. These are given by private companies and university continuing education departments and are very expensive. They are really good, but probably beyond your budget. For some cheap and even free seminars check out the major semiconductor manufacturers who give annual workshops. Examples: Analog Devices, Freescale, and Texas Instruments.
Webinars, free online seminars have become amazingly popular. Most are given by companies promoting their products. But don't let that stop you as all of them give basics and fundamentals and other useful information. And don't forget, that the real engineering world is nothing but commercial components and products. You live and die by your knowledge of them. A good source of webinars is the TechOnLine website.
Back to School
As for going back to school for an advance degree, I say forget it. Most of you probably already have a masters anyway. If you do not have one, it probably is worth the time, effort and money if you are not approaching retirement in a few years. You get a good return on you investment. Not so for a PhD, at least in a community college. It is nice to have, but you won't get any more out of it than being able to say you are Doctor so-and-so. Some people do it just for that. Anyway, check out the National Technological University who can give you a fully accredited masters online.
Online Learning
As I travel around for the magazine, I interview lots of engineers and executives. I ask them what they do to learn new things. They all mention briefly the things I mentioned above to some degree or the other. But...and here is the big secret.... most learn from the Internet. Busy professionals don't typically have the time to go to class for general education. Most have very specific learning needs related to the job, a current project or some future interest. Almost every one of these people gets that education informally with a Google or Yahoo search. Just type in the topic you want to learn, and voila', you get thousands of hits. Print it out, sort it, organize it, read it and then you know. You can give yourself a quickie education on virtually subject any time. It is fast, easy, and free. Give it a try.
An Experimentation Bench
One last thing. Personal experimentation. If you are a real tech, you probably have a bench where you still build kits, play around with circuits, fix defective products, etc. Nothing beats this kind of hands-on work. You can still learn a great deal by just doing practical real world experimenting. Get yourself a breadboard trainer, some parts, a DMM and a scope and play around. Play engineer as you were educated. If you don't have a shop of your own, do it in the school lab. It is fun and educational. Maybe I am just an incurable techie or geek....whatever...but I still do this.
And go learn something new.
Copyright 2006 Louis E. Frenzel Jr.
Instructors Teach What They Want, Not What is Needed
It being summer and all, I don't suspect many of you are reading this blog. It is a relief to take the summer off and get away from the stresses of academia, especially if it is Electronic Technology where there is little good news about enrollments. But for those of you still monitoring this site, here is something I wanted to get off my chest for a while. This is one subject I have been wanting to comment on for some time now. It affects all of us who teach and it certainly has an impact on our students and the employers who will eventually hire them.
At a department meeting in the college where I teach occasionally, we were discussing curriculum changes and changes to course content to bring each course up to date. As those discussions often go, we got into a harangue about teaching bipolar transistors and biasing methods. Many of us know that it is a rare thing indeed if an AAS graduate technician ever really does have to know ten ways to bias a BJT. It just never comes up in the real world. Most textbooks still go on and on about that subject and many instructors teach all the gory details like load lines, temperature stabilization, etc. The recommendation was to drop all of that and expand coverage of MOSFETs since over 80% of all electronic circuits today use MOSFETs and not BJTs. We should still teach that BJTs need bias and give an example or two but it is not purdent to spend half the semester teaching it in lieu of far more important stuff that never gets included.
Anyway, and here is the core of this note, one of the instructors said and I paraphrase, "Lou, you can change the content and curriculum all you want, but I am still going to teach it the way I have always been teaching it for the past 15 years." Within that statement you have a clear picture of what is wrong with Electronics Technology education today. It includes an attitude problem as well as a rejection of adding any thing new or relevant. No wonder programs are so dated. The instructors fail to change. They are hell-bent not to change. Are you one of them?
I got to thinking about this attitude and approach and realized that most instructors practice it to some degree. Especially the part about teaching what they want. Instructors tend to teach what is familiar and subjects they like and are intimately familiar with. For one thing they never have to waste time learning anything new. Just walk into class and spout the same old stuff semester after semester, even if that subject is obsolete. When a colleague of mine said, "Lou, we are just teaching the history of electronics." I couldn't help but agree fully. I had a professor in college that continued to teach vacuum tube circuits because he felt that the concepts were still valid. While that may be partially true, think of what we were not learning about transistors.
It is not a tragedy to teach older concepts and they are often useful as perspective and conceptual. But, in an AAS program where time is of the essence, it is almost a criminal act to use up what precious semester time we have teaching non-relevant material when so much new and essential concepts, products, technologies do not get taught. It is appalling to me to see this. It hurts our graduates and their future employers.
Look, we all teach what we want and like. I find myself doing it. But at least I try to include the new material. And in most cases, at least with me, what I want and like is the new and interesting technologies that turn me on. Am I so weird that I like to learn new stuff on a regular basis? I must be as so many of my colleagues hate the idea. Are you so lazy that you cannot be bothered to devote some time to learning what is new and relevant? Evidentally.
Let me get a bit preachy here. It is ok to teach what you know and like. But, each time you teach it, try to drop one dated subject and replace it with a newer and more relevant subject. If you did that every time you taught the course, the whole course would gradually be updated as would you. Why not give that a try? Your reward is the lightening of your guilt.
At a department meeting in the college where I teach occasionally, we were discussing curriculum changes and changes to course content to bring each course up to date. As those discussions often go, we got into a harangue about teaching bipolar transistors and biasing methods. Many of us know that it is a rare thing indeed if an AAS graduate technician ever really does have to know ten ways to bias a BJT. It just never comes up in the real world. Most textbooks still go on and on about that subject and many instructors teach all the gory details like load lines, temperature stabilization, etc. The recommendation was to drop all of that and expand coverage of MOSFETs since over 80% of all electronic circuits today use MOSFETs and not BJTs. We should still teach that BJTs need bias and give an example or two but it is not purdent to spend half the semester teaching it in lieu of far more important stuff that never gets included.
Anyway, and here is the core of this note, one of the instructors said and I paraphrase, "Lou, you can change the content and curriculum all you want, but I am still going to teach it the way I have always been teaching it for the past 15 years." Within that statement you have a clear picture of what is wrong with Electronics Technology education today. It includes an attitude problem as well as a rejection of adding any thing new or relevant. No wonder programs are so dated. The instructors fail to change. They are hell-bent not to change. Are you one of them?
I got to thinking about this attitude and approach and realized that most instructors practice it to some degree. Especially the part about teaching what they want. Instructors tend to teach what is familiar and subjects they like and are intimately familiar with. For one thing they never have to waste time learning anything new. Just walk into class and spout the same old stuff semester after semester, even if that subject is obsolete. When a colleague of mine said, "Lou, we are just teaching the history of electronics." I couldn't help but agree fully. I had a professor in college that continued to teach vacuum tube circuits because he felt that the concepts were still valid. While that may be partially true, think of what we were not learning about transistors.
It is not a tragedy to teach older concepts and they are often useful as perspective and conceptual. But, in an AAS program where time is of the essence, it is almost a criminal act to use up what precious semester time we have teaching non-relevant material when so much new and essential concepts, products, technologies do not get taught. It is appalling to me to see this. It hurts our graduates and their future employers.
Look, we all teach what we want and like. I find myself doing it. But at least I try to include the new material. And in most cases, at least with me, what I want and like is the new and interesting technologies that turn me on. Am I so weird that I like to learn new stuff on a regular basis? I must be as so many of my colleagues hate the idea. Are you so lazy that you cannot be bothered to devote some time to learning what is new and relevant? Evidentally.
Let me get a bit preachy here. It is ok to teach what you know and like. But, each time you teach it, try to drop one dated subject and replace it with a newer and more relevant subject. If you did that every time you taught the course, the whole course would gradually be updated as would you. Why not give that a try? Your reward is the lightening of your guilt.
Friday, June 09, 2006
Interesting NEW Stuff. Don't Miss This!!
With all of you probably on summer break, I doubt that many of you will be reading this. But I can hope. I have a mix of new info and things to share.
1. New Newsletter. McGraw Hill has a new newsletter that most of you will be interested in. It is called the McGraw Hill Electronic Newsletter. Designed specifically for those of you who teach at the community college level, it is a mix of news, articles and book info. This first issue is full of interesting material. I urge you to sign up for it. Send an email with your name, school, phone number, and email address to Jean_Schmieder@mcgraw-hill.com. The plan is to publish twice a year. Book reviews of the new versions of the Grob and Malvino texts are there. Take a look.
2. New Relevant Article. I just had a new article published you may be interested in reading. It is titled: "Are We Teaching the Right Subjects in AAS Degree Electronics Technology Programs?" It was published in the online journal The Technology Interface. This is a peer reviewed journal and my initial submission was beat up pretty badly. However, I did manage to get it blessed. Go to http://TechnologyInterface.nmsu.edu. The article is in the April issue.
The Technology Interface is edited and managed by Jeff Beasley at New Mexico State University. He does a super job. Take a look at all the stuff in the back issues. This is a truly an under used treasure trove of information.
3. Conference of Interest. Coming up is the SAME-TEC conference July 24-29 in Albuquerque. This conference is in its third year and targets community colleges teaching electronics, manufacturing and semimconductor technology. It is a great conference and focuses on the issues and technical scope of electronic technology education. It is put on by Maricopa Advanced Technology Education Center in Tempe, AZ. This NSF funded organization has been around since 1996 and has some awesome materials for teaching. Go to www.matec.org and check it out. This conference details are also there. It is a small conference (about 200 or so) but very focused and a great chance to interact with colleagues around the US.
One of the pre-conference workshops is called "Designing The Electronics Technology Curriculum for the 21st Century". It is a full day event with the objective to bring into existence a new curriculum that is more in tune with what employers want and what is relevant today. This is a great chance to put your two cents worth in. I will be there to cheer you guys on. I look forward to meeting you.
Have a good summer and watch this blog for some new contributions shortly.
1. New Newsletter. McGraw Hill has a new newsletter that most of you will be interested in. It is called the McGraw Hill Electronic Newsletter. Designed specifically for those of you who teach at the community college level, it is a mix of news, articles and book info. This first issue is full of interesting material. I urge you to sign up for it. Send an email with your name, school, phone number, and email address to Jean_Schmieder@mcgraw-hill.com. The plan is to publish twice a year. Book reviews of the new versions of the Grob and Malvino texts are there. Take a look.
2. New Relevant Article. I just had a new article published you may be interested in reading. It is titled: "Are We Teaching the Right Subjects in AAS Degree Electronics Technology Programs?" It was published in the online journal The Technology Interface. This is a peer reviewed journal and my initial submission was beat up pretty badly. However, I did manage to get it blessed. Go to http://TechnologyInterface.nmsu.edu. The article is in the April issue.
The Technology Interface is edited and managed by Jeff Beasley at New Mexico State University. He does a super job. Take a look at all the stuff in the back issues. This is a truly an under used treasure trove of information.
3. Conference of Interest. Coming up is the SAME-TEC conference July 24-29 in Albuquerque. This conference is in its third year and targets community colleges teaching electronics, manufacturing and semimconductor technology. It is a great conference and focuses on the issues and technical scope of electronic technology education. It is put on by Maricopa Advanced Technology Education Center in Tempe, AZ. This NSF funded organization has been around since 1996 and has some awesome materials for teaching. Go to www.matec.org and check it out. This conference details are also there. It is a small conference (about 200 or so) but very focused and a great chance to interact with colleagues around the US.
One of the pre-conference workshops is called "Designing The Electronics Technology Curriculum for the 21st Century". It is a full day event with the objective to bring into existence a new curriculum that is more in tune with what employers want and what is relevant today. This is a great chance to put your two cents worth in. I will be there to cheer you guys on. I look forward to meeting you.
Have a good summer and watch this blog for some new contributions shortly.
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Relevant New Article and Blog Focus
My original focus in this blog was to address the low enrollment problem in 2-year AAS degree programs in electronic technology. This is still a nationwide problem and the blog will continue to address this critical issue and seek solutions.
But beginning with this posting, I want to switch emphasis to my secondary goal of curriculum reform. At the heart of the low enrollment problem lies the very dated curriculum that colleges are offering. The basics are still being taught but the whole curriculum is still skewed from the real world.
I recently wrote an article on this topic called "Are We Teaching the Right Subjects in AAS Degree Electronics Tecnology Programs?" This article was recently publised in the online journal TECHNOLOGY INTERFACE. To see my article and get familiar with this interesting publication, go to http://TechnologyInterface.nmsu.edu. Go to the Spring 2006 issue. Check out the back issues while you are on the site.
The TECHNOLOGY INTERFACE is published by Jeff Beasley at New Mexico State University. It is a nice mix of article on all aspects of engineering technology education. It is a peer reviewed journal. My personal thanks to Jeff for giving us a publication directed at technology issues and techniques.
And let me hear your comments about the article, for or against.
But beginning with this posting, I want to switch emphasis to my secondary goal of curriculum reform. At the heart of the low enrollment problem lies the very dated curriculum that colleges are offering. The basics are still being taught but the whole curriculum is still skewed from the real world.
I recently wrote an article on this topic called "Are We Teaching the Right Subjects in AAS Degree Electronics Tecnology Programs?" This article was recently publised in the online journal TECHNOLOGY INTERFACE. To see my article and get familiar with this interesting publication, go to http://TechnologyInterface.nmsu.edu. Go to the Spring 2006 issue. Check out the back issues while you are on the site.
The TECHNOLOGY INTERFACE is published by Jeff Beasley at New Mexico State University. It is a nice mix of article on all aspects of engineering technology education. It is a peer reviewed journal. My personal thanks to Jeff for giving us a publication directed at technology issues and techniques.
And let me hear your comments about the article, for or against.
Monday, April 10, 2006
An interesting perspective
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.
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.
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
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Depressed
I like to maintain a positive attitude about our low enrollment situation and other problems plaguing community college electronics programs. Someone has to put on a happy face, so to speak, and boost the morale of those of you struggling with the problem. I actualy still do have hope that we can change things and develop a turnaround. But I have to admit, with predominantly bad news coming in, I get to feeling it is hopeless. A recent piece of news really knocked me down.
Just recently, I spoke with a department head at a California community college who had developed a new curriculum to help rebuild enrollments. The college had given him a year to correct the continuing downward spiral. He put together a very unique distance learning base curriculum. It is a form of the so-called "inverted" curriculum I have mentioned in this blog before.
An inverted curriculum is essentially the reverse of what most schools use now. That is, we teach bottom up. We start with the math and physics, add DC and AC, electronic components and circuits, then finally get to the equipment and applications. An inverted curriculum does the opposite. It starts with the big picture, applications and equipment, then digs deeper with components and cirucits and the electrical theory as needed. The idea is to get the student interested....actually turned on.....to the applications at a system level then dig deeper into the specifics as needed by the jobs to be filled. No one I have talked to has ever done this, at least that I have heard. If any of you have done something like this, do write and tell us about it.
Anyway, the new curriculum was a modified form of inverted. It started with a very general electronic theory course then went directly to microcomputers. Everything has an embedded controller in it anyway so why not start with this? And you can teach it with minimum electrical details. A digital course was next. Then there were courses in other electronic specialites. At the very end were circuit analysis and related courses.
The department head was all set to implement this when it was killed by the rest of the faculty. I guess they got cold feet or just could not stand such a drastic change. So at this point, the department is in limbo. I do think that the new curriculum if promoted aggressively would have turned things around. But, just like most faculties I have worked with, they cannot accept even the smallest change. Yet, surely someone as smart as a college professor should be able to see that if you don't change you will die. Guess the faculty would rather lose their jobs than change. It is an all so common problem. And with essentially no solution.
If there is a solution, what is it? Let me hear your ideas for change.
And like me keep repeating to yourself "we will survive".
Just recently, I spoke with a department head at a California community college who had developed a new curriculum to help rebuild enrollments. The college had given him a year to correct the continuing downward spiral. He put together a very unique distance learning base curriculum. It is a form of the so-called "inverted" curriculum I have mentioned in this blog before.
An inverted curriculum is essentially the reverse of what most schools use now. That is, we teach bottom up. We start with the math and physics, add DC and AC, electronic components and circuits, then finally get to the equipment and applications. An inverted curriculum does the opposite. It starts with the big picture, applications and equipment, then digs deeper with components and cirucits and the electrical theory as needed. The idea is to get the student interested....actually turned on.....to the applications at a system level then dig deeper into the specifics as needed by the jobs to be filled. No one I have talked to has ever done this, at least that I have heard. If any of you have done something like this, do write and tell us about it.
Anyway, the new curriculum was a modified form of inverted. It started with a very general electronic theory course then went directly to microcomputers. Everything has an embedded controller in it anyway so why not start with this? And you can teach it with minimum electrical details. A digital course was next. Then there were courses in other electronic specialites. At the very end were circuit analysis and related courses.
The department head was all set to implement this when it was killed by the rest of the faculty. I guess they got cold feet or just could not stand such a drastic change. So at this point, the department is in limbo. I do think that the new curriculum if promoted aggressively would have turned things around. But, just like most faculties I have worked with, they cannot accept even the smallest change. Yet, surely someone as smart as a college professor should be able to see that if you don't change you will die. Guess the faculty would rather lose their jobs than change. It is an all so common problem. And with essentially no solution.
If there is a solution, what is it? Let me hear your ideas for change.
And like me keep repeating to yourself "we will survive".
Creat Comments
If you have not looked at my blog called Conference Report of 2/19 please do so. Then take a look at the two posted comments. Both contain excellent feedback and information.
I thanks to those who comment. We need all the input and views possible.
I thanks to those who comment. We need all the input and views possible.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Conference Report
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.
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.
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........
Thursday, January 26, 2006
ABET Accreditation in Community Colleges
I received an interesting email that I wanted to share with you. It is about ABET accreditation in community colleges. Something I have heard many times and even had some experience with. Anyway, here is the note:
Mr. Frenzel
Have you ever thought of commenting on the effects of the new ABET TAC criteria on whether two[-year] schools decide to continue with the accreditation? The reason why I ask this is my school is up for reaccredidation and there are some in the Engineering Technology department who question the expense of being accredited verse its benefits. The feeling is that the cost outweighs the benefits and not being accredited would give us the flexibility in creating a program that would attract more students.My feeling is that ABET does not understand that most of the students from a two year program get jobs and do not continue on to a four year school. The TAC accreditation for two year programs seems to be aimed at preparing students for a four year degree not employment.
Thanks for the Blog. Keep up the good work.
Philip Regalbuto
Here was my response:
Good to hear from you. You asked a great question and one that I have not commented on in the blog. But I can give you a brief background on my own experiences and opinion for that that is worth.
First, let me say that the ABET has good intentions and does a good job at at what they do. In my opinion, they just do a good job at the wrong thing, at least for AAS technician degree programs. But they are really dead on target for the BSET programs. And I agree with your comment that they do not seem to recognize the fact that AAS grads usually go on to jobs and not a 4-year BSET. I have never seen any hard data on what percentage of AAS grads go on to a BSET but from what I have heard it is very low, only a few percent. However, if the community college is very near a university offering a BSET the percentage is much higher. That is not the usual case. Here at Austin CC in Texas, we are near Texas A&M and Texas State U but our transfer rate is less than 1%. Most grads want jobs asap. I suspect that some AAS grads do eventually go back but it is rare. For that reason, what good is ABET?
My own experience with ABET has been awful. A few years back at a CC in Florida, the president asked why our dept wasn't ABET accredited. The dept head at the time asked us why not. We all agreed to pursue it, dumb as we were at the time. Putting together the applilcation, we all began to realize that what we were doing may not actually be as good for us as we thought. When we had our formal review a committe visit, we all knew we should have declined. The reviewers keep thinking that all techs needed to be more like engineers. They asked us to add calculus to the AAS degree. They asked that we add more design and simulation to each course.
The dept head agreed to make the changes and we did. The overall result is that we had to drop some courses from the program, courses that some of the local companies depended on. The industry advisory committee was furious. The addition of calculus forced some (most as I recall) students to fuss and gripe and many to drop out. And there were other problems. The bottom line is that we lost students and industry support. And the cost of maintaining the accreditation was very high, something no one expected. At least the president and dept head could boast of being ABET accredited. This accreditation seems to be more of an academic ego thing. Besides I have never heard of any company demand or for that matter even know about ABET accreditation. I suspect there are exceptions to that, but for the most part industry is happy with your regular regional accrediation and either doesn't know about ABET or care.
While I was dept head at Austin CC where I am now an adjunct, I went through the same procedure. My dean said to look into ABET. I related my past experience but decided to do more. I conducted a survey on the ETD listserv and asked about AAS degree accreditation With ABET. I have the results of this some where but I can sum it up rather easily. 48% of those who responded were ABET accredited. Most did it to ensure positive articulation with BSET schools although most admitted few grads actually transferred. Those who were ABET accredited universally griped about the cost to maintain accreditation. Most also said they would not do it again knowing what they know now. The non-ABET group was happy with their decision as it gave them far more flexibility to create programs and courses that fit the job opps and meet local industry needs. Jobs is what it is all about these days. We did NOT pursue ABET accreditation at ACC. And you know what? The BSET schools still accept most couses for credit transfer anyway.
I know ABET has revised its policies but from those I have talked with I can discern the same smug academic positioning that says AAS programs should be more robust and more engineering-like. Techs are not engineers. Even the engineering tech has essentially gone away. What ABET needs is a group that knows what today's techs actually do and establish an accreditation for that rather than some mythical engineering-like person.
Sorry for the long rant. Maybe I should post this for the blog. Thanks for asking. I know you need to gather your own data and make the decision best for your school. My advise would be to drop ABET and go your own way based on jobs and local industry needs. You will never go wrong with that. And maybe it will send a signal to ABET that change is needed.
Very best wishes,
Lou Frenzel
Mr. Frenzel
Have you ever thought of commenting on the effects of the new ABET TAC criteria on whether two[-year] schools decide to continue with the accreditation? The reason why I ask this is my school is up for reaccredidation and there are some in the Engineering Technology department who question the expense of being accredited verse its benefits. The feeling is that the cost outweighs the benefits and not being accredited would give us the flexibility in creating a program that would attract more students.My feeling is that ABET does not understand that most of the students from a two year program get jobs and do not continue on to a four year school. The TAC accreditation for two year programs seems to be aimed at preparing students for a four year degree not employment.
Thanks for the Blog. Keep up the good work.
Philip Regalbuto
Here was my response:
Good to hear from you. You asked a great question and one that I have not commented on in the blog. But I can give you a brief background on my own experiences and opinion for that that is worth.
First, let me say that the ABET has good intentions and does a good job at at what they do. In my opinion, they just do a good job at the wrong thing, at least for AAS technician degree programs. But they are really dead on target for the BSET programs. And I agree with your comment that they do not seem to recognize the fact that AAS grads usually go on to jobs and not a 4-year BSET. I have never seen any hard data on what percentage of AAS grads go on to a BSET but from what I have heard it is very low, only a few percent. However, if the community college is very near a university offering a BSET the percentage is much higher. That is not the usual case. Here at Austin CC in Texas, we are near Texas A&M and Texas State U but our transfer rate is less than 1%. Most grads want jobs asap. I suspect that some AAS grads do eventually go back but it is rare. For that reason, what good is ABET?
My own experience with ABET has been awful. A few years back at a CC in Florida, the president asked why our dept wasn't ABET accredited. The dept head at the time asked us why not. We all agreed to pursue it, dumb as we were at the time. Putting together the applilcation, we all began to realize that what we were doing may not actually be as good for us as we thought. When we had our formal review a committe visit, we all knew we should have declined. The reviewers keep thinking that all techs needed to be more like engineers. They asked us to add calculus to the AAS degree. They asked that we add more design and simulation to each course.
The dept head agreed to make the changes and we did. The overall result is that we had to drop some courses from the program, courses that some of the local companies depended on. The industry advisory committee was furious. The addition of calculus forced some (most as I recall) students to fuss and gripe and many to drop out. And there were other problems. The bottom line is that we lost students and industry support. And the cost of maintaining the accreditation was very high, something no one expected. At least the president and dept head could boast of being ABET accredited. This accreditation seems to be more of an academic ego thing. Besides I have never heard of any company demand or for that matter even know about ABET accreditation. I suspect there are exceptions to that, but for the most part industry is happy with your regular regional accrediation and either doesn't know about ABET or care.
While I was dept head at Austin CC where I am now an adjunct, I went through the same procedure. My dean said to look into ABET. I related my past experience but decided to do more. I conducted a survey on the ETD listserv and asked about AAS degree accreditation With ABET. I have the results of this some where but I can sum it up rather easily. 48% of those who responded were ABET accredited. Most did it to ensure positive articulation with BSET schools although most admitted few grads actually transferred. Those who were ABET accredited universally griped about the cost to maintain accreditation. Most also said they would not do it again knowing what they know now. The non-ABET group was happy with their decision as it gave them far more flexibility to create programs and courses that fit the job opps and meet local industry needs. Jobs is what it is all about these days. We did NOT pursue ABET accreditation at ACC. And you know what? The BSET schools still accept most couses for credit transfer anyway.
I know ABET has revised its policies but from those I have talked with I can discern the same smug academic positioning that says AAS programs should be more robust and more engineering-like. Techs are not engineers. Even the engineering tech has essentially gone away. What ABET needs is a group that knows what today's techs actually do and establish an accreditation for that rather than some mythical engineering-like person.
Sorry for the long rant. Maybe I should post this for the blog. Thanks for asking. I know you need to gather your own data and make the decision best for your school. My advise would be to drop ABET and go your own way based on jobs and local industry needs. You will never go wrong with that. And maybe it will send a signal to ABET that change is needed.
Very best wishes,
Lou Frenzel
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Things They Don't Teach You in School, Part 3: Video
VIDEO
It is one of the biggest electronic product sectors in the world and it is getting bigger every day. It is also one of the most complex. Yet, what schools actually teach video in any form or fashion? None that I know of. I would love to hear from any of you who actually do teach TV, video or anything like it.
Four recent events got me to thinking about the dearth of video instruction. First, I just finished updating the chapter on Television in my McGraw Hill textbook. I updated it last about 3 years ago, but the content was already out of date. The bulk of the chapter covered the usual NTSC TV standards from the 50s and 60s. I had to add all the latest info on digital TV and HDTV. Satellite TV is digital as it the high definition programs you get on some of your cable subscriptions. The over-the-air HDTV is in most cities know but few watch it. But its popularity is growing. There is also IP TV, that is, TV over the Internet soon to be offered by your telephone company. And there are lots of new services beginnning to offer TV over cell phones. They handsets are not yet available but they are on the way. Europe already has digital TV with their digital video broadcast (DVB) standard and all its related variations. The US is behind both Europe and Asia in digital TV. As I was updating my chapter with all this good new stuff, I had to ask the question: who actually teaches this stuff? My answer is, probably no one in a community college. Why?
Another event was the Xmas selling season. Large screen TV sales boomed. Prices of plasma, LCD, DLP and other big screens have plummeted making them highly desirable comsumer produts, at last. Do you have one? Do you know how it works or even how to hook one up?
Third, the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) this past week in Las Vegas was heavily focused on video, HDTV, DTV and all other related items. Big screens, TV on cell phones, wireless video, BlueRay or HD-DVD video recording formats, and so on. I have also, as a result, been bombarded with press releases from chip companies offering all the latest digital video and TV products. I will be writing about them for my magazine Electronic Design. It is a HOT topic.
Fourth, a friend of mine recently called me and asked me where he could find a good video technician. He is a video producer and runs a studio where he makes promotional videos, instructional videos, and special TV programs for PBS. He says that his long time tech quit to go else where and he has not been able to find one. The ads have not brought one response and the local community college says they don't teach that. So where does an employer go to find a good tech who knows about cameras, recorders, mixers, special effects, titlers, and all the audio stuff that goes along with it?
The video field is growing and offering jobs to techs interested in TV and video. Recent articles talk about Circuit City and Best Buy who cannot find techs or technical savvy sales persons for sellling, installing and repairing HDTV and surround sound systems. But video is not one of those fields where hundreds or thousands techs are needed immediately. The overall need is small but still there. It is like most other electronic tech jobs these days. Lots of different ones in low volume. Just because the need is less does that mean we don't support or teach that specialty? I hope not.
All it would take is one or two good courses to teach this video as a specialization in any AAS electronic degree. For a few thousand bucks and some donations you could set up a lab.
Just a thought. One more way to justify and save our programs.
It is one of the biggest electronic product sectors in the world and it is getting bigger every day. It is also one of the most complex. Yet, what schools actually teach video in any form or fashion? None that I know of. I would love to hear from any of you who actually do teach TV, video or anything like it.
Four recent events got me to thinking about the dearth of video instruction. First, I just finished updating the chapter on Television in my McGraw Hill textbook. I updated it last about 3 years ago, but the content was already out of date. The bulk of the chapter covered the usual NTSC TV standards from the 50s and 60s. I had to add all the latest info on digital TV and HDTV. Satellite TV is digital as it the high definition programs you get on some of your cable subscriptions. The over-the-air HDTV is in most cities know but few watch it. But its popularity is growing. There is also IP TV, that is, TV over the Internet soon to be offered by your telephone company. And there are lots of new services beginnning to offer TV over cell phones. They handsets are not yet available but they are on the way. Europe already has digital TV with their digital video broadcast (DVB) standard and all its related variations. The US is behind both Europe and Asia in digital TV. As I was updating my chapter with all this good new stuff, I had to ask the question: who actually teaches this stuff? My answer is, probably no one in a community college. Why?
Another event was the Xmas selling season. Large screen TV sales boomed. Prices of plasma, LCD, DLP and other big screens have plummeted making them highly desirable comsumer produts, at last. Do you have one? Do you know how it works or even how to hook one up?
Third, the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) this past week in Las Vegas was heavily focused on video, HDTV, DTV and all other related items. Big screens, TV on cell phones, wireless video, BlueRay or HD-DVD video recording formats, and so on. I have also, as a result, been bombarded with press releases from chip companies offering all the latest digital video and TV products. I will be writing about them for my magazine Electronic Design. It is a HOT topic.
Fourth, a friend of mine recently called me and asked me where he could find a good video technician. He is a video producer and runs a studio where he makes promotional videos, instructional videos, and special TV programs for PBS. He says that his long time tech quit to go else where and he has not been able to find one. The ads have not brought one response and the local community college says they don't teach that. So where does an employer go to find a good tech who knows about cameras, recorders, mixers, special effects, titlers, and all the audio stuff that goes along with it?
The video field is growing and offering jobs to techs interested in TV and video. Recent articles talk about Circuit City and Best Buy who cannot find techs or technical savvy sales persons for sellling, installing and repairing HDTV and surround sound systems. But video is not one of those fields where hundreds or thousands techs are needed immediately. The overall need is small but still there. It is like most other electronic tech jobs these days. Lots of different ones in low volume. Just because the need is less does that mean we don't support or teach that specialty? I hope not.
All it would take is one or two good courses to teach this video as a specialization in any AAS electronic degree. For a few thousand bucks and some donations you could set up a lab.
Just a thought. One more way to justify and save our programs.
Happy New Year
Just a short note to wish you all a happy and prosperous 2006. Thanks for reading the blog. And I welcome all of you to comment and contribute. We need all the ideas, opinions and information we can get. We are all concerned about enrollments and the plight of the AAS degree in electronics technology. Let's pool our knowledge and efforts and work toward a national solution we can all agree upon. Share your thoughts here.
May your enrollments increase this year.
Best wishes,
Lou Frenzel
May your enrollments increase this year.
Best wishes,
Lou Frenzel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)