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.

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.

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........

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

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.

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

Response to A Great Question & Merry Xmas

For those of you who did not see the comment to my Roy Is Right entry, here it is below. It is such a great question that it deserves a good answer.

"If you agree with this fact, why do your books still contain so much math and formulas? Why don't you WRITE what industry wants, so that we can TEACH what industry wants?"

A frustrated electronics instructor

There are actually a couple of answers to this question. And both are related to the textbook issues I have discussed here before. As an author, I am seriously concerned about what I write in my books. I want it to be what industry wants and needs but also something that the instructors will want to buy and teach. The main problem is there is a difference between the two.

Generally speaking, I do write about what instructors want. And they do seem to want all the theory, math, formulas and related technical stuff. Industry may not necessarily want it or need it, so do not reject it as long as we cover what they do want. When I write a book, guess who gets to review it? About a dozen instructors and potential adoptors of the book. They still seem to prefer the traditional engineering technician version of the material. So they tell the publisher to keep this, add that and do it this way. So the publisher does it.

Publishers are paranoid about their book contents. Their customers are not really the students who actualy pay for the books or the industry who employs the grads but the instructors who choose the books and buy them for their courses. So they give the instructors what they want or like. More often, what the instructors want is the status quo. They are comfortable with what they teach and they hate to change. Most instructors want new material and up to date coverage, but to include it, we must usually cut out something else so as not to exceed our page budget. In the past when I revise a book as I am doing now, I add the hot new interesting material but instructors scream when I take out the older dated material.....even if it is no longer used!! I am not making this up. I have literally had to cut out the newer relevant content for some older materials that the instructors like to teach regardless of its current application or relevance. So in order to keep my publisher happy and to sell some books that instructors want, I have to compromise the book.

Who can we blame? Not me, as I tried to update the material based on real research about what industry wants and what grads need to succeed. Not the publisher because they want to sell books. So put the blame where it belongs, on the instructors who insist on teaching the old stuff and not the new stuff.

In the past I have proposed a book or two that covers what industry wants and needs only to have them rejected by the publishers simply because their reviews by instructors are negative for the reasons given above. Yet, the instructors who have little if any recent industry experience do not truly know what is important, relevant or industry desired. The solution to this is to have publishers include industry representatives in their reviews. I have suggested this many times, but it has never happened.

So, the answer is, I do want to write what industry wants but it is rejected by the publishers and their college faculty reviewers who know less about what is needed. Thus the downward spiral of technological obsolesence in the texts continues.

There is some hope however. This downward trend in enrollments has really hurt publishers who sell far fewer books than before. I believe they recognize that part of the problem is dated courses, books, and curriculum. There is a hint that some publishers are taking a fresh look at content and producing books that are more on target. If one publisher sticks his or her neck out to update texts, and it is successful, the others will follow. That will eventually bring the books more into line with what industry wants and what students really need to know.

Does any one out there have any ideas about how to solve this perpetual problem?

Hope you all have a great Xmas weekend.

Roy is Right

Roy Brixen of San Mateo College in California recently posted some very interesting comments to my recent blogs. Check out his comments to my Gloom and Doom and Things They Don't Teach You in School blog entries.

I certainly have to agree with Roy about the gradual fading away of engineering technician positions in industry. There used to be at least one and maybe as many a 8 engineering techs assigned to an engineer. That need in the 1950's is what originally created the Associate degree in engineering technology. Today, there are very few engineering techs. An engineer is lucky to have one tech today and most have none. While engineering techs have not gone away entirely, they are a pretty rare breed today. Most of them tend to be in organizations where lots of R&D is done where special equipment and one-of-a-kind things are built. Today, the engineer himself or herself, does even the tech work as Roy indicates. Design and simulation software helps do it all in record time.

In my travels and visits around the country as a Technology Editor for Electronic Design magazine, I usually ask companies about what techs they employ and what they do. Mostly the companies I visit have NO techs. Yes, none. I am not making that up. Those that do have techs use them mainly for testing.

Most AAS degree programs in electronics were designed to teach engineering techs. That is why the programs and courses are still heavily vested in math and circuit analysis. These programs are out of sync with what is actually going on. And that may be one of the reasons that programs are in decline. They don't match up with the real needs.

So if there are not that many engineering techs jobs today, what kinds of tech jobs are there? The good news is that there are still lots of tech jobs out there. They just are not engineering tech type jobs. Instead, they are jobs more involved with installation, repair, service, troubleshooting, testing and measuring. And there are still a few good manufacturing jobs out there for techs.

A second point, as Roy pointed out, is that the jobs tend not to be in the electronic industry. They exist in any organization that uses electronic equipment of any kind. Some examples are instrument techs in a process control plant, a field service tech that works on office machines like copiers, an MRI machine maintenance tech, or a two-way radio tech working for city fire and police. Anyway, you get the idea. The fact is, most of these jobs are not called electronic techs. They have other names.

If you are looking to revise and update your programs, read Roy's comments they begin to think how you can adjust course content and curriculum to better meet the real need. And that should lead you to figure out how to name and promote your programs to attract new students.

Good luck with that and don't forget to share your comments with us here.

Thanks, Roy.

Gloom And Doom

While this block tries to take a positive approach to the declining enrollment problem, you should at least think about the possibility that your department could in the near future be phased out and closed. That has already happened to many schools from coast to coast. While they are in the minority, it is a grim reminder that, paraphrasing the old saying, "there but for the sake of God go I." Let's face it, it could happen to you. If you have been fighting the problem for a while, you should be more than a little concerned. Hard-hearted college administrators have little to lose by closing your department and making themselves look good by investing in some other newer more promising career areas.

I have heard more than a few say that if electronic technology AAS programs are fading away, so be it. There must be a good reason. A season for all things, so to speak. Maybe the need for techs has reached its low point and few if any are needed. At least the kind of techs we have been producing for the past few decades. Maybe the tech is becoming extinct. We should put them on the endangered species list and get some government aid or something. Electronic technology technicians seem to be so much more worthwhile that saving the salamander, the spotted owl, grizzly bear or cave spider.

While that view does have its own logic, I just cannot seem to subscribe to it. What I see is a bunch of academic programs that have not kept up with the times. Faculty burying their heads in the sand refusing to acknowledge the massive technological, social and economic changes going on or especially doing anything about them. Schools keep on doing what they have always done because it is easy and comfortable......not to mention irresponsible. Maybe the price you pay for inattention and inaction is technological obsolescence and eventual oblivion.

Your only hope at this point is to take things into your own hands and put together a plan to save the day, then implement it....FAST. If you have read this blog you already know there are lots of ideas and solutions in here. What you need to do is put together a plan based on what you think will work best in your own case. To take no action is to decide that you will simply ride it down to zero over the next few years. What a nice way to end a career. Wouldn't you rather go down fighting? I urge you to get started on some kind of plan now. No one else is going to do it. Even if you think that taking such an initiative is not your job as a professor, you may not have that job unless you do.

There is a basic rule in the business world that you should follow here. No, it is not that the business should make a profit for its stock holders. That is a priority in business, of course. But not the main priority. The number one priority is.....SURVIVAL. If you don't live to fight another day you have no business. Your goal at this point is to survive the down turn and come out bigger and better than ever. At least give it a try. You will most certainly feel better about yourself if you do lose your job to a closure. And who knows, it could turn things around or give you more time.

Here is a check list of some of the key tactics to implement your strategy.

• Change the name of the department to something more attractive and meaningful.
• Shift focus to some more promising and exciting field.
• Closely examine the local industry and job prospects and identify some new opportunities.
• Call your industry advisiory board together for an emergency session. Get some answers.
• Revise and up date the courses and curriculum.
• Get out and recruit in high schools and elsewhere.
• Advertise and use PR.
• Up date yourself technically by self study or with financial help from your department if available. Learn something new.
• Do something drastic and innovative. What have you got to lose?

As a back up plan, consider your options should your department close. If you are old enough, retirement is the best bet, but that is not a happy way to go. You may not have any other good choices. Maybe you can join another department assuming you have the credentials. How about computer technology or math? If you are young enough, you can always go back to industry. It is tough being away even for a few years because of the rapid and significant changes that occur continuously. Nevertheless, get back into industry if you can.

Another option is teaching at one of the local proprietary schools with AAS degrees. They are doing better than the public community colleges for sure. Schools, like ITT, Corinthian Colleges, DeVry and a few others would no doubt welcome you. I suspect that like most academics you are pretty uppity and arrogant so think that proprietary schools are beneath you. But, what do you really know about them? They are doing better than you are. And they are better than you think. Don't knock them until you have tried them. I have and can tell you will be surprised.

If you have the appropriate academic credentials, consider going to one of the 4-year bachelor of technology degree granting universities. These are still doing well, at least better than community colleges. If you love teaching and academia, this is a great option.

Anyway, the main message is do something, NOW. And let us all know via this blog how it works.

Things They Don't Teach You In School

As a writer/editor for one of the largest electronics magazines in the world, I get to see what is going on in the industry first hand. I go to the conferences, travel around and visit companies, and interview the exceutives and engineers. I get to see the new products, technologies, and techniques first hand. Then I get to write about it. It is fun.

What always amazes me is how fast things change in this industry. New products are introducted daily.....yes....read my lips....daily. And these new products get adopted rapidly mainly because if an electronic manufacturer wants to stay competitive, he must adopt the latest and best as fast as possible. Those companies with the shortest time to market, make to most profit. That makes the life cycle of an electronic product very short these days. For example, new cell phones are only good for 6 months to a year before new better ones are available. It is like that with almost every electronic product. The industry moves fast.

But what I do not see is our community college technology curriculum changing that fast. In fact I get the impression that it does not change at all. Just look at the textbooks and the course content taught today. OK, I admit that much of what is taught is fundamentals that do not change. I am OK with that, but at least the colleges could introduce some of the newer subjects and teach the fundamentals in the context of the latest technologies. Do community college professors even know what the latest technologies are? I recently asked all of the faculty at the college where I am an adjunct (7 professors) whether they read the electronic trade magazines. There must be a couple dozen of them, and all of them free. The answer: None of them read any of these magazines. Magazines are the first line of continuing education in electronics. If you don't read them, how can you legitimately say you are the electronic expert hired to teach our future techs? Amazing.

Anyway, when I left teaching full time in 2000 to go back to industry, it didn't take long to see the huge gap between what is going on in industry where the jobs are and what is being taught. Frankly I was appalled. It was worse than I ever imagined. Here is a list of the topics that jumped right out at me. These are common every day technologies in use in industry, many not even new, that somehow are forgotten in community college electronics courses.

1. Switching power supplies. Over 80% of all power supplies in use today are switchers. In fact, some industry statistics say over 90%. Switch mode power supplies include DC-DC converters, switching regulators, inverters, and others. Linear supplies and regulators are still used of course but are in the minority now. Yet that is what is taught. A few of the newer texts do include a paragraph or two on switching regulators but that is it. Talking with professors, I hear that most do not teach this subject. When every piece of electronic equipment has a power supply in it, it seems almost criminal not to teach this subject.

2. Class D amplifers. These are switching amplifiers used for audio amplificaiton. They are used widely today but it is another subject not taught. With so many battery operated portable and mobile devices today, the class D amp is the only way to go to get the efficiency as well as the power. I have only seen this covered in one text. Why?

3. Phase locked loops (PLL). PLLs are not new. And in fact, you can find them in just about every piece of electronic equipment. Just try to name a piece of electronic equipment that does not use one. (OK, a guitar amp. But what else?) This is a core circuit that is virtually ignored in most curriculum. Again, how could this be?

4. Digital signal processing (DSP). Like PLLs, DSPs are in everything today. It is hard to identify some modern electronic product that does not include it. I know this is a tough subject to teach because of the higher level math and programming needed for this subject, but it is possible to teach the concepts. It seems scary to me that we are graduating techs with little or no knowledge of DSP.

5. MOSFETs. Yes, I know, MOSFETs are taught in most schools. But out of proportion to their usage. MOSFETs account for well over 90% of all transistors sold and used today. Most are in ICs, but they also dominate in discrete applications such as power amplifiers and switches. Yet, the textbooks and courses still emphasize bipolars. Sure bipolars are still around but they account for less than 10% of the total. Shouldn't MOSFETs be taught first and then MOSFET circuits? Don't professors know of this shift in usage? Not really. It did occur gradually so escaped the notice of the instructors. If the professors were reading the literature, they would know this an adjust accodingly. I guess because the textbooks keep emphasizing bipolars the teachers will still focus on them while disregarding what is actually happening in the real world.

6. Programmable logic devices (PLDs). Today, most digital applications are implemented with either an embedded controller or a PLD. What do the colleges teach, TTL. Hey, look at the texts. TTL and CMOS discrete logic is the main topic. I do admit that the textbooks have almost caught up here, but that is not the emphasis in the classroom or lab. Students graduating without knowledge of PLAs, PALs, GALs, FPGA, and ASICs are doomed to look like idiots the first day on the job.

I believe that if you are not teaching these subjects, your program is way out of date. Your graduates are going out into industry with a good knowledge of the past but not of current technologies that he or she is sure to encounter. Doesn't that bother you? It does me.

A couple of years ago the NSF funded a project to create modules on these and other critical topics not taught in colleges. That project is nearing its end now but there are a dozen or so online modules on these topics and others. You can use them for continuing education yourself, assign them to your students as homework, or use them in class as lectures. And they are free. They are a great way to update yourself and your courses with minimum time and cost. Go to www.work-readyelectronics.org. It is time to bring community college curriculum kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

Dumbing Down, Part Deux

Thanks to all of you who posted responses to the latest commentary. Most of you are critical of the idea of "dumbing" things down, a bad way of saying making any changes in the curriculum. What I tried to get across was that just because you take out one topic and add another is not dumbing things down. I can only assume that to most of you taking anything out is considered dumbing things down even though it may not be relevant. As I said previously, try to think of any change, whether it be taking something out or adding something new, as positive as it is making the curriculum more relevant and up to date. I know that is hard to do, but at least give it a try.

I suspect that I am a traditionalist like most of you. I hate to take anything out especially if you have been teaching it for years. You have come to believe it is essential. But just because you believe it is absolutely necessary, does not make it so. What you have to do is ask yourself if that topic is relevant to the work most techs do today. What I am hearing and seeing in industry is that what is and is not relevant changes rather dramatically over time with the job. And if the job still exists.

I can hear some of you screaming now and pulling away and saying "Fundamentals are fundamentals and they never change and a person needs to know all of them. Period." Believe me, I understand that thinking. I like to teach the full range of fundamentals myself. We don't really know where a graduate will work and what fundamental knowledge he or she will have to draw on. We should teach it all. It is distressing to leave some things out. For example, in teaching AC Circuits this semester, I am going to do a better job of teaching Fourier theory than I have in the past. Why? Many colleges and texts either leave it out or do a horrible job of explaining it. Yet, a frequency domain view of electronics really helps explain what goes on in a circuit or a piece of equipment these days. In fact , is some areas of electronics, the work is more frequency domain and less time domain. Communications is the best example, but it works for any field. And believe me it is possible to teach this at a technician level without the calculus.

To have the time to teach Fourier, I run out of days in the semester. So, what do I leave out? I took out most of the heavy, complex AC circuit analysis. I know that most techs never use this. Another common thing instructors leave out is the 3 phase material. I am appalled this, but I understand why this is done. You could say that three phase is for power guys and electricians not electronic techs. Of course that is not true either as sooner or later most techs have the need to understand three phase power. Can you imagine a tech going into a factory or process control plant with no 3-phase knowledge?

The point is we only have so many hours in an AAS degree program. We CAN'T teach everything and we cannot teach it at the engineering level. Wake up. I agree that our students should know all these fundamentals and the related math at the engineering level. That would be great. But our charter as AAS degree institutions is to teach techs. And, yes, we should try to prep them to go on the BSET programs. But do we do that at the expense of teaching them real world practical material that is less mathematical? Just because something does not have lots of math explanations does not mean it isn't technical.

Is this the answer?

I have come to believe that what we really need is two different technician education programs. One of them would be the traditional one we all try to teach. This AAS program is designed to teach engineering technicians. That was the original intent of electronic technology education in the first place if you read the history of this field. Yet, the need for engineering techs has greatly decreased over the years. If you do not agree with this then go check out the web job boards, local workforce placement agencies, and government research sources. Engineering techs are in decline because the nature of electronic engineering has changed. Working directly in the field I see this happening first hand. Most community college instructors do not. But I am being generous here and advocating that we keep an AAS program focused on a declining job area because that is the path to BSET transfer programs. I still think that is a good thing as it was a successful path for me in my education. Yet, only a few percent of AAS grads ever go on to a BSET program. Such transfers vary from area to area, but nationwide, the transfer percentage is very very low. Do you even know what the percentage of BSET transfers occur in your students?

A second need is a modern program to prepare individuals for electronic tech jobs that are not engineering in nature. This is a program with less theory and math. Some is needed of course, but not to the depth of the engineering tech degree. In fact, I wonder if a two year degree is needed. A one year certificate program may be fully sufficient to prep grads for the huge number of electronic tech jobs available today. Why not do that? Some faculty actually look down upon such jobs, jobs that are more like electrician jobs. This is a snobbish view, in my opinion. Just because a person is not an engineering technician doesn't mean he or she is dumb, less valuable, lower class, more blue collar or whatever. It is just a different type of job and one that does not usually require the mathematical and analytical depth that an engineering tech requires. Is that a bad thing?

The current curriculum and course structure won't support the proposed two track arrangement but with changes it could be done. And it would be great if the one year certificate courses could lead into the regular engineering tech courses if a student wanted to upgrade. Just as an AAS grad may want to go on to a BSET. In other words, we could have our cake and eat it too. The challenge is to create the courses and curriculum that would meet the current and growing need but maintaining some backward compatibility with the status quo despite is continuing decline. How's that for a compromise?

The real truth.

In perspective, aren't we all currently teaching a dumbed down version of engineering? You know that is true but hate to admit it. An AAS degree in engineering technology is just a shortened EE degree with less math and analysis. Many instructors keep trying to make it more engineering-like and at a higher level just because they were educated this way. It is always good to teach students more than they will need in the real world, but with such limited time in an AAS program, we have to be more efficient, selective and focused on the objective which is educating techs not engineers. It is business as usual in the colleges. The focus is always inward. It is all about what the instructors think and want and not what our constitutients (students, grads, and industry) want and need.

In closing, let me ask you this question. If you had your choice to retain the status quo and ride your program down to closure or to change the curriculum by removing some previously sacred cow material to help increase enrollments and save the department, what would you do? By not changing you have already answered this question.

Impossible Dream: Changing Education

There was a great piece on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, the Friday, November 4, 2005 issue. It is called S.O.S. (Save Our Schools). The author is Chris Whittle, the CEO of Edison Schools, a private company that contracts to run public schools. Whittle has been a critic of our current school system for years and is one of a few who have actually tried to improve things by putting his money where is mouth is. His new book, "Crash Course - Imagining A Better Future for Public Education" offers some hope and suggestions. Read it if you can.

There were a couple of paragraphs in his editorial that I thought fit our own situation in electronic technology education and declining enrollments. Consider these:

"I believe that our current school "design" is suffering from educational "metal fatigue", and that we must intentionally seek - and invest in - a fundamentally new gestalt."

Or how about this:

"So what might schools of the future be like? Althought our vision may be osbscured by our attendance at "old design" schools for most of our formative years, educational visionaries can see, through the mist, the coastlines of these new schools. They see schools in which students are much more ehngaged in their "job" of learning; schools where teachers are paid like other professionals; schools that are hybrids between our current brick-and-mortar model and home schooling techniques; schools where the assets of our magical digital age are fully unleashed, not to replace teachers, but rather to work in seamless combination with them."

Like the public school system, we need to change but we do not. Why? Who is at fault? Who is holding us back? I say it is the faculty. What do you think?

You Don't Have to Have an AAS Degree to be a Great Electronic Technician

I am sure that all of you who teach in 2-year AAS degree programs hate to hear this, but it is true whether you care to believe it or not. It has always been true to some degree, but I believe it is even more true today than ever simply because the nature of electronic tech work has changed greatly over the years. You really don't need an AAS degree to be a good electronic tech.

I have seen numerous examples of this during my career both as a tech and later as an engineer. But here are a few stories that have really stuck with me. And, I am not making any of this up.

Some of the best techs I have ever known come from a military training background. All of the services are heavy electronics users so have excellent training facilities. They do a supurb job of preparing technician level people for typical technician work like installation, repair, maintenance, serivcing, etc. No engineer or design related work. I think that because the training is so focused on equipment and repair and related duties like operation, it eliminates a great deal of the unnecessary theory that prevails in AAS degree programs. As an AAS degree graduate myself, I encountered may military trained techs in my work. They were good. They knew the related theory but most of all really understood how to apply it to equipment. I think that is still the case. In my experience the Navy techs were the best, but Air Force and Army techs were also good. No wonder these guys were able to get good jobs as techs once they left the service. Industry really recognizes good training and still does.

It is also still possible for a person to be self taught. Most colleges and university academics look down upon those who can teach themselves, I am sad to say. And most companies don't like to hire people who are "supposedly" self taught. How can that be? Doesn't every idiot know you have to go to school to learn properly?

I have seen many self taught techs. An example is a person who got a ham radio license in their teens and then built on that with experience in building ham gear, kits and other hobby related electronics. This person then probably got entry level jobs in TV repair, or got an FCC commercial license, and so on. There used to be some great home study courses in electronics that such people took to learn the theory, math and other material. (There are still a few of these left such as Atlantic International Institute and Cleveland Institute of Electronics). These persons were also ones likely to legitimize their knowledge by getting certified by ETA-I, ISCET or one of the others. I have met many of these guys and they are good. I believe that these are the REAL techs.

One time I was an engineer working for a computer company in Houston and I was given the job to get two computers ready for shipment. Both had been manufactured (mainframe/mini sized computers) but not checked out and configured as required. I had two techs to help me. One was an AAS degree grad and the other one of these self taught types. I assigned one computer to each and turned them loose. The AAS grad found the manuals and went off to his cube to read them and learn the product. The other guy simply plugged the computer in, turned it on and went to work. As it turns out, this guy got his computer running several days before the other did. Both got the job done, but the way they went about it was quite different. I think the AAS grad could explain the computer better and understood the operation better, but the self taught guy had just as satisfactory end result. He could set it up, troubleshoot and fix it faster too. So guess which tech I took with me to the computer shows with exhibits?

When I was running the education and publishing division at Heathkit, we at one time decided to develop a TV/VCR servicing self study package which we were famous for. I wanted once and for all to find out first just what a person really needs to know about electronics to fix TV sets and VCRs. So we initiated a formal job and task analysis. We interviewed numerous techs, observed them doing the work and spoke with supervisors. We clearly identified all the knowledge and skills needed then worked backwards to pin-point just what electronics knowledge matched up to this requirement. Boy, were we surprised. TV/VCR techs really didn't need to know as much electronics as we thought. Most repairs required more specific knowledge of certain TV models and what commonly failed on them. Many repairs were just board swaps. And VCR repairs seem to be either heads or belts. Very few if any actual electronics problems that required a scope, etc. Bummer.... We actually decided not to do a TV/VCR training package. Most of the knowledge and skills are learned on the job or in manufacturer seminars and workshops.

I also got this same message from my son some time back. After a few years at college he decided to get into the PC repair and networking business. And he was completely self taught by just doing the work. He did go off and study for the A+ exam and passed the first time. He had a job within a week and since then he has done well in this field getting certifications passed by self study and working his way up the ladder. He makes lot more money than I do. I asked him one time what electronics he needed and where he learned it. He said, "Dad, you don't need to know anything about electronics to work on PCs." And since then I have discovered he is right. I suppose it helps to know how some of it works but it is not necessary to get the job done.

A great deal of electronics is like that these days. Techs do not design or analyze and theory is almost irrelevant. Some is good and healthy but it does not to be the deep analytical electronics that community colleges try to teach. If those of you who teach electronics would go out and work as a tech or even observe and interview techs as part of a job and task analysis, you would get the picture. With today's electronics buried in ICs, modules and PC boards, it is rarely necessary to work at the component level. Techs work with systems and are concerned with signal flow not electron flow, and their main knowledge is centered around specs, testing, measuring, and the like. Yet we still don't teach that. Why?

Declining Enrollments Survey Results

Here is the complete tabulated results of my survey on declining enrollments that I conducted via the ETD Listserv that some of you subscribe to.

The first survey I did in 2002 was similar but the decline was 77% at that time. The decline is less now, but those indicating a "flat" result had to work like crazy to keep enrollments from declining. What does not show up here was mention of four more complete electronic department closings due to low enrollments. That makes dozens over the past several years. Still not a good sign.

Anyway, perhaps somewhere in the comments you will see something to help you.

You comments are always welcome.

Lou

RESULTS
Survey on Declining Enrollments in 2-Year AAS Degree Programs in Electronics Technology

Louis E. Frenzel
10/2/05

Original survey sent out via the ETD Listserv on 9/7/05.

Total surveys received: 52

Not all participants answered all questions.

1. In the past 3 years, your enrollments have been:
a. Increasing 15.7%
b. Decreasing 66.7%
c. Flat 17.6%

2. What is the approximate % of change?
a. Increase 4 – 100% (Average 28.4%)
b. Decrease 2 – 100% (Average 30.1%)

3. I there is a decrease, what do you believe are the main causes?
I think there are many factors such as the economy, general attraction of technology on this generation, the lack of proper PR and low science and math skills for incoming candidates.
The Public misconception that electronics is only consumer products which are typically considered disposable.
Improving local economy.
Two factors: First, and most significant, the nationwide decrease is due to Baumois disease.
Second, the decrease is exaggerated. Enrollment levels in electronics technician programs from about 1997 to 2000 were overstated due to the Microsoft and Cisco certification hype . . . these certification seeking students were not really degree seeking students but most colleges (I suspect) declared them as electronics majors and lumped the FTE into the regular program statistics.
I think that the main causes of a decrease in the Electrical Technology program may be because of the inability of students to gain employment in the electrical field within the Wheeling, WV – Steubenville, OH area. That is, all of the steel mills and several other facilities in our local area have lain off a lot of workers due to global competition, etc.
Local industry (i.e. semiconductor mfg) doesn’t need techs., College doesn’t promote program (i.e. Chemeteka CC, 40 miles away gets 80 new students each year and ITT-Tech fills their incoming class every quarter). Raised program math level to comply with ABET-TAC.
High tech downsizing and outsourcing; many other employment paths available to students; lack of preparation of high school students to enter an engineering technology program.
..a serious decline. Part of the problem is that electrical studies require hard work. A knowledge of math principles is also required. Also, as electrical engineers, we also don’t value our profession.
Lack of serious marketing of programs here at our college. The attitude is, if you offer it they will come.
Some students were in National Guard and were activated. Employment in the area is good with only 2.5% unemployment.
I believe that this is due in part to an antiquated program and also to a mismatch between jobs available in our area and the AAS degree. Several studies in our area have shown that people with 2 year AAS degrees are no better off in the marketplace than those with a high school diploma. This seems to be especially true in technology fields.
Lack of effective marketing (mostly NONE) and the misunderstanding b y prospective students of what “technology” entails. A number of students have told me that they thought it was “something taught at a community college”.
Companies have stopped their apprenticeship programs. No marketing of Engineering technology programs by the College. New students lack math skills upon admission.
Lack of public awareness of what Electronic Technician does. Relatively fewer ET related jobs than 10 yrs ago.
Overall decreasing. One reason, from my personal view, is that you can get a higher paying job in the service industry and you don’t have to think analytically or do rote work. An other technology changes faster than curriculum & catalog changes so that puts the offerings at a disadvantage – especially when technical folks have to deal with non-technical folks.
Program cancelled.
In the past 3 years, enrollments have been flat.
Flat. For many programs and I happen to see some of these programs as I am an accreditor for ABET, I feel strongly that the decline is due to the failure of many programs to modernize their curriculum. The electronics business has changed greatly and schools simply have failed to keep u. Also, many schools have failed to address the learning styles of their students and do not teach in a way that helps students with diverse learning styles.
Since our main focus is networking and computer maintenance, the decline in that job market has produced a decline in enrollment. There are other factors as well.
The perception or the reality that electronic de vices are throwaway items and the general downturn in the technical economy for enterprise type jobs in our region.
Supply and Demand . . . High reliability of electronic equipment (less repair or self-diagnosing of problems), Low cost of electronic equipment (cheaper to throw away defective electronics), US gov/industry push to increase H1Bs (too few jobs for too many workers), too many schools teaching electronics.
Perception that there are no jobs. They are all going offshore. For community colleges, an associate degree is no longer sufficient to land a job. Student resistance to math science technology.
Erosion of the manufacturing base has caused a shifting to service areas.
Schools teach mostly dry theory and math. If we are to succeed, we must intrigue students into self-study and discovery. Some of the brightest electronics are done by hackers.
Negative press for manufacturing employment. Increase in similar programs at other universities.
Lack of prepared students and public awareness of employment opportunities.
Math, fewer technicians, lack of publicity for field.
Lack of preparing students in 9-12 for a technology career. Students are not prepared in math and science as they were 20 years ago. Also Technology does not have the appeal as it once did. We are competing against an entertainment world where video games far surpass the sex-appeal of technology, When students in the past came to technology, they were motivated and entertained with what they were seeing in front of them and learning. Now it is viewed as a lot of math and science that is too much hard work. Lastly, industry is now looking more for an individual that can do a variety of skills. Skills such as electronics, some mechanical/machining, assembly and service. No longer are the multiple opportunities of assembly line techs and field service techs. It seems that industry, in my area, want more of what is referred to as a “Mechatronics” individual.
Declining job market. Disconnected administrators who worry more about numbers than quality of education.
Perceived lack of jobs, due primarily to US business practices (electronic design, except in certain industries being done offshore, most manufacturing leaving US).
Lack of Practical Skills, Math and Physics Courses do not motivate students. Job outlook. Difficulty of subject compared to returns. Time required to complete program. .com fall, fewer students interested in math and science, downturn in economy and especially with large companies like INTEL and Micron getting negative publicity, emphasis from parents and school counselors of the perceived necessity to get a 4 year degree, and fewer students period.
Manufacturing going overseas. There is a perception that there are no jobs. Hi tech market is flat.
1. A poor job market that existed in this area (So. Colorado) from 2001 thru 2004. This resulted in poor job placement for the relatively large number of graduates in 2002, 2003 and 2004. The job market has picked up significantly this year and I expect it to be very good for at least the next 5 years.
2. Lack of effective recruiting, advertising and marketing.
3. Confusion over a name change from Electronics Technology to Automated Systems Technology.
4. Competition from private colleges that have moved into the area.



4. If there is an increase, what did you do to initiate this improvement?
· Personal Comment: I was at Sinclair Community College in July for a benchmarking visit meeting with a number of the Sinclair faculty and staff. Sinclair has the second largest engineering technology enrollment in the nation … and their enrollment is growing. Not too many colleges reporting this for electronics programs.
· In the middle of the Spring 2005 semester I began a serious marketing campaign which resulted in 16 new students this semester and I believe of these, 10 to 12 will continue as sophomores in the program. The thing that motivated me to do this was the desire to save the program and the realization that there are good jobs available to those who continue and get a BSET degree. We have a transfer agreement with NJ Institute of Tech. whose graduates are being placed in jobs, and I use this as a “carrot” to keep my advisees motivated. In summary, I think the job market has improved for the type of student we graduate and I believe this is the reason for the increase in enrollment.
· High demand for computer skills in employees seems to be driving the computer increase.
· Improved promotion of just what electronics (EET) is amongst key employees of the college. Especially working with admissions staff closely about job opportunities and high starting salaries. I have trained other people at the college to be my sales representatives for me by establishing a personal relationship with these important college constituents.
· Our college has been attempting to increase enrollments in the technologies in general by publicizing in newspapers, billboards and at career symposiums. Our department has worked at increasing enrollment in Electrical/Electronic Engineering Technology programs by the following methods:
- Attending career symposia
- Encouraging high schools to bring students on tours of the facilities.
- Increasing awareness of Electrical/Electronic Technology by contributing expertise to the College’s Solar Car (North American Solar Car Challenge)
- Providing FREE instruction to grad4e 7 kids to help them plan their future
- Changing curricula to reflect realities of the 21st century (lower math skills of entrants, more digital electronics/less analog
- “Tooting our own horn” wherever and whenever possible.
· While the numbers are flat, we are seeing stronger students entering the program. The HVAC industry has decided that our graduates compete well with BS engineering grads but are cheaper to hire.
· I also feel that if schools are increasing enrollment, it is because they both have modernized their curricula and are also doing a good job of teaching their students.
· We have contracted with a company called EI Academic that publishes a site “Engineering and Technology programs” – Last year a recruiter was hired to recruit specifically into this college, which probably had as much ass anything to do with the improvement.
· Enrollment is cyclic and we were due for an upswing here. We have also started a new electronics option in nanofabrication technology, in conjunction with Penn State University. This has drawn a few additional students into the program. We just built a nice new technology building which may have helped too. Overall, we have always had a very strong electronics program, with a great reputation with local businesses and universities to which our graduates have transferred for their EET and BSEE degrees.
· We typically do the normal recruiting activities; however, I think perhaps the economy has impacted the growth.
· The reason why it stayed flat is because of increased recruitment, otherwise it would have decreased.
· One area in particular that has increased is the Computer networking and Maintenance Program. We have articulation with an on site Computer science Engineering and a computer Science Engineering Technology degree with the University of Toledo. A combination of service orientation and the potential articulation to the 4 year degree with the University partnership have lead to a very strong program at this community college.
· This past spring we had three new classes start in technology which we have not had in years. What we attribute it to is:
i) Partnering and development training classes for local high school technology teachers who in turn promotes our programs.
ii) Ii) Industry advisory boards and multiple industry visits/presentations at industrial group meetings.
iii) Iii) Constant high school visits and open houses.
iv) Iv) Obtaining grants to increase the number of women and minorities in the technology programs.
None of these is a silver bullet but a constant diligence on doing each of these each month keeps the numbers alive. The biggest thing though makes a big impact is getting industry to talk to the parents about careers in this field and that their sons/daughters can make a great living at it. The local community has no idea as to where, what or how much one can make if they pursue such a career. I would not venture to guess nor would most of my colleagues.
· Students tend to have poor math skills; we are still teaching color codes when the world has gone to surface mount. Still haven’t embraced the metric system, teaching logic gates rather than LSI design.
· A lot of work with area companies, military and public schools.
· A. – Availability of a BS degree at our campus. Previously, we were viewed as just a transfer program. Now we are viewed more seriously as a “normal” university.
B. – I have done quite a lot of outreach. I visit ALL the local high school electronics programs EVERY YEAR. I have gotten to know the teachers and, in turn, they have encouraged their students to come to our campus.
C. - The economy. Something like 65% of our local high school students go on to college. Just five years ago, it was something like 25030%. High school counselors have gotten across the message that you need to go to college to get a decent job.
D. – Our new chancellor arrived about four years ago. He has concentrated on publicizing our campus and creating an image that appeals to young people.
E. – We changed our name from EET to ECET (Electrical and Computer ET) a few years ago. This has helped attract students who are interested in computers, but don’t want to become a programmer.
· Competition from private colleges that have moved into the area.
· Revision of Electronic Technician program, creation of Electrical Engineering Technology program.. 2+2 with the Milwaukee School of Engineering’s EET program.

5. Do you believe curriculum content, currency, focus, or relevance a factor in the increase or decrease?
a. Yes 69.2%
b. No 30.8%
· Yes, but in what ways? – this is a big topic. There is a social stigma associated with careers in manufacturing.
· Yes, very much so.
· No.
· Relevancy … the economic reality is the market is not demanding as many electronics technicians as in prior years.
· I think that curriculum content / relevancy of courses is another factor in the decrease of enrollments in two year electrical and/or electronic technology programs nationwide. I have taken steps to curb this decline here at JCC by adding a course in Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs); I have heard a lot of plants and employers wanting to hire students with experience in programming and troubleshooting/repairing PLCs.
· Yes.
· Yes.
· Possibly! This question does not have a black and white response.
· I do not think this is the problem. Our program tries very hard to keep current with industry needs.
· No.
· The content is current and relevant but the students have as misconception of it.
· Making as many people aware if what we do has helped me immensely. This also includes high school teachers and especially high school counselors. Everyone thinks they know what a doctor, nurse, lawyer, and plumber do, but few if any know even one single acquaintance that is an electronics tech. Also establishing relationships with local HR reps. Finally, making my electronics labs feel as much like home for my commuter students We have our own microwave, refrigerator, toaster (for the pop tarts), and coffee pot as well as snack food and pop sales on the honor system. I could lead an entire workshop on how to make this work for others. By the way, I use your electronic communications book. Very well written and illustrated.
· Yes, relevancy of course work to today’s job market is a big factor.
· Absolutely. The applicants need to see that there is a demand for the program.
· I think that it has a lot to do with the grapevine. Living in a small community, a good track record for job placement gets told to family and friends at work, church, etc. But if a kid can’t find a job, the word gets out to avoid that program.. Example, our EET program enrollment is down this year and I think it is because we had to hire a PT faculty to replace one on medical leave. Word got back to the HS students that the program is not as strong today.
· I think all of these are critical in whether the enrollment is increasing or decreasing.
· YES. It’s a difficult curriculum compared to most all of the other programs in our institution. The student must take math through calculus and three physics’ courses as well as the math based circuit analysis classes.
· Although we have changed curriculum and focus with the intent of improving enrollment, the changes haven’t been in place long enough to have had much of an impact – so I would say it isn’t a factor.
· Somewhat. Yes.
· I think some folks are realizing that the future is in technology, so to some degree, relevancy has an impact.
· We updated our program, but I doubt it has had much of an effect on enrollment.
· No. I revised the curriculum content and program in 2002-2003 to provide good relevancy to our local manufacturing job market.
· Electronics has evolved into a selected technical core for other programs. Example, Electrical, Industrial Maintenance. The decrease in Electronics enrollment has occurred during the past five years. The college here at Northeast deleted the regular Electronics program and added the title to the Electrical program. The program is now called “Electrical/Electronics Technology”. The Electrical program has an electronic core of subjects.
· I believe our society is changing (now a world market) ... we are becoming more like middle men because of outsourcing. Our courses need to be blended more with business/management/project management courses. I can’t believe I just wrote that .. but I’ve seen a case where this helped. As you know, the MBAs are now becoming more specialized towards a technical field.
· Yes, to some extent. In the community college IT programs will need to work with other programs to strengthen the technology component as jobs will require more and more technology from everyone. The old IT career based programs in the community college are on their way out.
· Of course.
· No.
· Relevance of curriculum is important. We need to update our curriculum.
· Yes, I think we have been slow to convert to generalist areas as opposed to specific areas. That seems to be what our local industry wants.
· Absolutely. We have had great success by updating and changing content to meet industry and what is hot in the business world. As an example, we integrated the Cisco networking program into our technology program. We have a few individuals making well over $80,000 with a two year degree because they have the networking attached. Students who combine the electronics with the automotive do exceptionally well because they can repair the electrical problems in today’s cars. Face it, the mechanical parts of cars today do not wear out but the electrical problems are the most costly.
We are this year trying to determine where our focus and content should be the next 5-10 years. We are looking at integrating home networking and home theater certifications to attract more individuals. In essence put into the program what excites people. If you think about it, you can implement telecommunications, electronics, computers, networking, etc. Should we be teaching transistors and op-amps, we are trying to figure that out and would love to work with the masses to figure where we go from here.
The important items to keep in mind are that students must be able to make a career with what they learn and we must have programs that can be justifiably supported.
· Nothing.
· Absolutely, however, you need to have your administration to get involved in focus in students’ academic success rather than kissing ass with higher ups to maintain their employment.
· Yes.
· No.
· For us that is a factor in maintaining enrollment, also things like job placement, salaries, and transferability of courses.
· Yes. We focus more on computer hardware and networks. This has “modernized” our image.
· No. I revised the curriculum content and program in 2002-2003 to provide good relevancy to our local manufacturing job market.
· Yes. The American youth are just not excited about understanding technology, they are just users of it.
· Yes, we raised the bar and the reputation of the program also rose. By expecting more out of the students, we were able to give them a better education. In doing so, they are doing very well in the work place.

Dumbing Down the Curriculum

One the expressions I keep hearing over and over again in the discussion of declining enrollments and curriculum reform is that we are "dumbing down the curriculum". That term is normally used when responding to ideas and actions initiated by some colleges to deal with declining enrollments. As it turns out, curriculum changes, in my humble opinion, are one of the keys to turning around a failing department. If you are not addressing the needs of industry, teaching the latest technology and presenting just the right subject matter, you are actually hurting your students and industry rather than helping. And along with that you have to address the student's attitudes, opinions, and learning styles. Electronics as well as our society is constantly changing and if we are not changing with it, we will eventually fail. Change has to be inherent in any electronics technology curriculum or you will be perpetuating a near criminal act on the students.

Yet, despite what would seem to be an obvious way to turn around the falling enrollments, most faculty and departments fight any change to make the necessary improvements. Many colleges insist on teaching the history of electronics rather than the current version. Why?

Most of the changes found to be beneficial in rejuvinating a department relate to decreasing the math load, taking out the heavy circuit analysis that continues to be taught, and replacing older technology with the newer technology. When recommendations for these changes are made the accusation is that we will only be "dumbing down the curriculum". And to me those are just the code words for those wanting to preserve the status quo. Those who oppose such changes know who you are and you know why you do not want to change. I won't embarrass you here by detailing those things here, but I hope you will reconsider your thinking on changes. Change is good.

Let me give you some examples of what should be changed.

1. Less Math - First, let's take out the calculus. Electronic technnicians do not need to learn calculus to do their jobs. If you have ever worked as a technician, observed techs at work or otherwise been involved with technician work, you know that calculus never comes up. I can't even think of an example where it may be used. Even electronic engineers do not typically use calculus. The world is digital these days and calculus is a fringe subject in most applications. There are occasions where it is helpful in some detailed analysis or design, but even then calculus is a real minority when it comes down to practical application of electronics. I suspect that we would attract more students to AAS programs if calculus was not listed in the curricula. It immediately turns off the prospect. Besides, if a potential student likes the idea of calculus, her or she is probable going to go to an engineering program anyway rather than an AAS tech program.

I know what some of you will say. I have to have calculus to get ABET accreditation. I have been through that ordeal and can tell you that adding calculus to an AAS program to achieve ABET accreditation nearly killed off the program I was in. I know many of you believe that ABET is the ultimate achievement for your department, but that is so self serving. Your first obligations and priorities should be to the students to be sure they know what they need to get the jobs that the employers have. Ask all your local employers of techs if they require calculus. I bet absolutely none do.

And don't tell me that calculus teaches a person to think. Yes, I know that it does, but there are other more relevant subjects we could include to teach thinking. We only have a precious few semester hours in an AAS degree program. We need to use them to teach what a tech needs not what we think will be good for him or her.

I also know that many of you believe you need the calculus to prep AAS grads for transfer to BSET programs. I understand that. But how about creating two AAS degrees, one for transfer and the other for techs who just want to go to work?

Many of you who now have a calculus requirement feel that you must have calculus to set yourselves above the rest. It is sort of a status symbol to have calculus. It is more for bragging rights. My program has calculus so that makes my program higher level and better than yours that does not have calculus. Again, so self serving. Just because you think it is necessary and important doesn't necessarily make it so. The bottom line here is, do you want more students and a healthy growing department or the pride of having calculus?

2. Less analysis - Most AAS programs also continue to teach circuit analysis. Mesh and nodal analysis, circuit theorems, temperature stabilized bias design and so on. It is in many textbooks so you still teach it. Again, do real techs ever use this? Mostly not. Even many engineers never use it. If they do, they plug all the data into a simulation or math software package and get the answer.

Techs do not design. Engineers design, techs repair, maintain, install, service, manufacture, test, and measure. They rarely do any detailed analysis similar to what they are taught. I had a graduate of one of the AAS programs tell me after he had been working in industry for a while that he was disappointed that his company would not let him design anything. He actually could design because our AAS program was very heavy into analysis and design including calculus thanks to ABET. But my student found out that companies only hire engineers to design, not techs. When will you instructors get that into your head?

Yes, I still believe we need to teach some circuit theory and calculaton. Ohm's and Kirchhoff's laws are essential. I also believe that Thevenin's theorem is also a must. But beyond that, why teach it?

3. More Up to Date Technology - There are so many examples I could give I don't know where to start. So let me give you just a couple of really glaring problems.
a. Teaching bipolar transistors in excess when most transistors in use are MOSFETs. I am not just making this up. If you worked in industry instead of teaching then you would know this and have already adjusted your curriculum. Over 95% of all transistors used in modern electronic equipment are MOSFETs, both in ICs and discrete. Oh sure, bipolars are still used. They will always be around but MOSFETs have just about taken over the bulk of the work today. Yet, the textbooks still emphasize bipolars over MOSFETs. In fact, if you are lucky you may get one chapter on MOSFETs in even the most recents texts. Why? Do the authors not know that the emphasis changed years ago? I guess..... Most books and therefore your courses go on and on about bipolar biasing and circuit analysis. I have to wonder when some one is going to wake up and start making the changes needed here.
b. Teaching TTL when CMOS dominates and teaching discrete logic when everything digital is done either by an embedded processor of a programmable logic device (PLD) like a PAL or FPGA. Just try to find a TTL device in a modern piece of electronics. Yet, the colleges lumber on teaching the old digital when in the real world digital is a processor or a PLD. I know that some schools have finally started teaching more PLDs but the emphasis is still out of whack with reality. Again, why?

I believe we are dumbing down the curriculum by not making the changes I have cited. We are dumbing down the curricula by refusing to keep up with the technology. Let me ask you this. Do you believe that taking vacuum tubes and circuits out of the curriculum dumbed it down? Many think so. I know that many of you are not old enough to remember this but what happened was that we got the same argument. If we take out vacuum tubes the curriculum will be permanently damaged. We will dumb down the curriculum by just teaching transistors. The analogy fits here. Don't think of it as dumbing down. Think of it as making the curriculum more relevant. We are not downsizing, we are "right-sizing". Remember that expression from the dot-com/technology crash of 2000-2003? That is appropriate here.

Let me and the others who read this know what you think.

Hope and Agenda

One of my favorite movies is called Love Actually, a British film that came out last year. It is a mix of love stories, comedy and music that is very entertaining. Anyway, one of the characters uses the expression "without hope or agenda". That expression hit a nerve with me as it seems like that is what so many colleges with declining electronic enrollments have, no hope or agenda. That is the problem. It is not that the schools do not care, it seems to be they just flat do not know what to do. As it turns out, there are lots of things you can do to turn things around.

Just recently I did a survey on the ETD Listserv regarding the state of declining enrollments. Some of you have have seen it and even participated. I thank you for your input. I am tabulating that survey now and will post the results here hopefully later this week. Watch for it.

One of the responses I got was from Chuck Safrit of Stanly CC in North Carolina. His school has experienced a 100% increase in enrollments over recent years. That is counter to what is happening most places so he explained what he had done. I suspect that there is no where else to go but up when y0u are at the bottom, but his experience shows what can be done. If ever there was hope and agenda, Chuck Safrit sure had it. Here is Chuck's response in full with his blessing.

Stanly Community College, Albemarle NC
Chuck Safrit, EET Program Head/Instructor

1. In the past 3 years, your enrollments have been:

a. Increasing

2. What is the approximate % of change?

a. Increase of 100%

3. If there is a decrease, what do you believe are the main causes?

Not applicable

4. If there is an increase, what did you do to initiate this improvement?

I took over the EET program at Stanly Community College in Jan 2002 with only 4 second-year students. Two graduated and two dropped out of the program. I spent 50 to 60 hours per week from Jan 2002-Aug 2005 rebuilding the program. The following are my strategies for success:

1. Take a vested interest in your program. The EET program at SCC had been through several program heads with short tenure prior to my arrival. Their lack of dedication to the program, students, curriculum, and equipment was quite evident.

2. Start an aggressive recruitment campaign. Sitting back and waiting for students to show up at the door for Fall registration does not work. Our recruitment strategies were as follows:

a) Call every student contact number you can find. Go through current and old records to identify future students or reclaim those who have fallen by the wayside.

b) Run tours of the college and EET program for every Middle School in your county. Target 7th and 8th graders. Most High School students are driving, dating, or have already made career choices. They are most difficult to influence and recruit. Challenge the students during the tour. Ask them hardball questions concerning their future and the current economy. Make them realize that farming, natural resource harvesting, and manufacturing are the only ways to make money from scratch. Electronics and Electrical Engineering are major players in automated manufacturing and future technologies.

c) Host a summer camp at your college. Again, target 7th and 8th graders. Take them on a tour of several local manufacturing plants. Have them design and build a product using AutoCAD, Electronics Workbench, and EET lab fabricating equipment. We host the Jim Wentz Manufacturing Camp each summer at SCC.

d) Host an Electronics and Engineering Competition at your college. Target High School Electronics, Math, and Physics students. Have the schools compete for individual and team awards. There should be written and practical sections of the competition. Encourage the local High Schools to form Skills USA, VICA, and JETS clubs. Encourage them to attend local, regional, and national competitions.

e) Build a red truck and hit the road! OK, I’ll explain. The SCC EET students built an electric truck during the Summer 04 semester. It has been to every parade, expo, festival, high school, and car show we can attend. It’s one of the best recruitment tools this college has ever developed.

3. Have a number of diverse EET Electives. Our current EET elective courses are Programmable Controllers, Computer Upgrade/Repair, Basic Wiring, National Electrical Code, Motors and Controls, Telecom Cabling, Fiber Optics and Lasers, Industrial Safety, Data Communications & Networking, Electronics Application Project, and Co-op Work Experience. A student can focus in his or her career field by carefully selecting 10 hours of electives.

4. Create liaisons with local industry. Try to meet their training needs. Also, many workers seek promotions which require a degree.

5. Create articulation agreements with regional four-year colleges. Your students should be able to report as true Juniors when they transfer to a four-year college with their Associates Degree in hand.

6. Set up a night EET program. Most Community College students are non-traditional. Many have jobs and attend college part-time. If students take online (web) classes in addition to night classes, they can complete the SCC EET degree in two years. However, night programs require aggressive advertisement and a lot of nurturing to be successful.

7. Encourage graduates to return to college for industry certifications in specific areas such as A+, Net+, MOUS, CCNA. These certifications look good on a job application. SCC offers many industry certification courses. Students can take these classes online or seated.

8. Get a grant. Research and apply for multiple grants. You will not succeed if you wait for money from the state to support and grow your program. This is especially true for NC. Also remember, Community College teachers are among the lowest paid in the country. Once again, this is especially true for NC.


5. Do you believe curriculum content, currency, focus, or relevancy is a factor in the increase or decrease?

Students must be made aware that technology classes are challenging and change constantly. It is imperative they “keep up with the times”. They must be dedicated to the program, willing to put in the long hours, and not be afraid to take a math class. We cannot “dumb down” the EET curriculum and expect them to succeed in the real world. If the equipment plugs into the wall, EET students must be able to troubleshoot and fix it. That’s what employers want these days. I tell my students that a degree gets you to an interview. The wisdom and professionalism you display at the interview will get you the job.

Chuck Safrit
Electronics Engineering Program Head
Stanly Community College

That definitely shows what can be done if we get our rear ends in gear. Thanks Chuck for giving us all hope and agenda.

Blog Spam

When I saw that I had three comments to my latest rantings, I said, Oh Boy, here it comes. What did I say? Anyway, I was surprised to find that the comments were SPAM. No kidding. I wasn't aware there was such a thing as blog spam. These were ads for golf clubs, big screen LCD TV sets and a diet program. Weird.

Anyway, you will see three deleted comments. I would never delete valid comments from those of you interested in this blog even if they do not agree with me or blast me. But I do delete random spam.

Keep responding.

How Much Electronics Does a Tech Really Need to Know?

In a recent and rather heated discussion of DC/AC principles in the AAS program at the college where I teach, we addressed the issue that many of you have only thought about. That is, how much DC/AC theory does a person really need to know to do a superior job as an ET? I won't try to relate all of the gory details here, but I must say that most faculty are more emotional than logical about this subject. It is not unlike the discussion of whether to teach conventional current flow vs. electron flow. In the end, it does not really matter to the student, but it become a major issue with faculty often with ugly outcomes.

The result of this discussion was our merging or DC and AC into a single 4 semester hour course. The logical prevailed over the emotional which is probably a good thing in this case.

Let's take DC first and analyze what is NOT needed. One thing for sure is that we really do not have to know much about mesh and nodal analysis. This is strictly for the engineer or scientist and even those guys don't use it all that much. I still do some engineering and design on a consulting basis and I haven't used it in years. If I do need to use it, I simply resort to one of the simulation or math software packages that I use. I am not really sure that other engineers really use it all that much either as that sort of problem is usually solved in software. So why not just leave it out? Techs don't design anyway, and that analysis is certainly not going to help with what techs really do on the job: troubleshoot, measure, test, service, instally, maintain, manufacture, etc.

Another thing that most textbooks include is the delta to wye and wye to delta conversions in resistor networks. Does any one really use this? I never have but some faculty believe that since it is in the book, it must be taught. Really.....? Why?

Magnetic circuits is another area of consideration. Just how much does not really need to know? Most books present far more breadth and depth than needed. Most of that theoretical instruction is more physics and design than tech stuff. Most techs will never design a coil or transformer, select a ferrite core or otherwise need all that detail on Teslas and Maxwell's. Some magnetic background is definitely needed but not at the analytical level.

In AC we have a similar thing. Just how much RC and RL circuit analysis is enough? Techs need to know about reactance, complex impedance, phase shift and resonance, but how much is relevant to the job? Cerainly it is not necessary to design complex AC circuits like filters. And the AC course should factor in RF. It seems that most texts and courses emphasize 60 Hz, audio and other low frequencies and forget to mention that the AC we use today is at least up to 10 GHz in many practical apps.

What I worry about most is what is missing. Like detailed coverage of wiring and cabling. Just think about how much of a techs job is fixing, running, making and troubleshooting cables. We need major coverage of that. And AC power wiring. It is not rocket science to be sure but every tech eventually has to deal with the AC breaker boxes, outlets, wiring, ground, GFI, etc. It needs to be taught. And a littl three phase as well. We don't need to teach all that complex three phase math and power calcualtions however.

I could go on here, but you get the picture. Some theory is good and necessary. Ohm's and Kirrchoff's laws and even Thevenin's theorem are essential. Calculating impedance and phase angle as well as resonance is fine, but beyond that, it is useless for a tech in the real world.

Several times in the past I conducted a formal job and task analyses for technician jobs as a way to determine what the tech needed to know to do that job. It is a tedious process but one that is very revealing. Several years back I analyzed a TV repair tech job for example. As it turns out in actually observing techs fix TV sets, VCRs, etc. and in discussions with them about how they do this job, very little actual electronics theory is needed. In fact, a good number of the most successful techs had no formal electronics training. They simply learned to fix TVs by fixing TVs. It is more about knowing the product and its flaws, what goes bad and how to replace it.

Isn't fixing PCs the same way? Most PC repair techs do not know electronics. My son who got his career started by fixing PCs told me one time when I asked when he was going to learn electronics that you don't need to know much about electronics theory to fix a PC. He is right.

As it turns out, most tech jobs are like this, even more so today simply because techs cannot access the circuits that the were once trained to access. They simply replace boards, modules, subassemblies or maybe an IC. Most of the work is test, measurement and troubleshooting. They do need to know how to use a multimeter and a scope and more than ever the spectrum analyzer.

The point here is that the courses and textbooks are still skewed to design and analysis when they should be focused on the real needs. Faculty will nearly fight to the death to keep all that math and analysis in a course needed or not. I guess if that is the way you learned it, you probably still believe that is the way it should be taught. And chances are you were trained as an engineer to analyze and design rather than do tech work. I wish just for once, that those who teach electronics technology would go to work in a job for which they are training people and find out what they really need to know. I have. It is not what you learned in school and not what you think.

The bottom line is that when changing your course content and curriculum, just try to minimize the theory, math and analysis and focus on the real needs in industry.

If I get any response at all to this little diatribe it is probably going to say that a such a dumbed down DC/AC course is never going to transfer to a 4-year BSET program. So...? If that is your sole concern and not what is needed for jobs, then by all means keep teaching your engineering level DC and AC and ignore everything I have said here. Just remember, that only a few percent of all AAS degree graduates actually go on to a BSET program. For most colleges, teaching for the minority, or their own self gratification, is apparently more important than for preparing grads for real jobs and meeting employer/s needs.