Guess I am getting lazy or distracted and haven't been as consciencious about posting here. It is a matter of being busy more than anything. I still haven't run out of things to say.
Anyway, I wanted to comment more on the accusation that by changing the AAS electronics curriculum to more of systems approach, we are dumbing down the curriculum. That could not be further from the truth. Yet that is what the general opinion is. I hope to change that here.
As some of you know, there is an unofficial movement afoot in community colleges to revise the traditional electronic courses and curricula to bring it more in line with what employers want these days and what technology has changed over the years. Most schools are still stuck with curricula that were designed in the 1970s and 1980s to educate engineering technicians. Since those positions have virtually disappeared from industry, most programs are simply graduating students for jobs no longer available.
While there are plenty of good technician level jobs around, these are very few engineering tech positions in the electronics industry. Most of the better jobs are for techs in industries and businesses who use electronic equipment. They mostly involve troubleshooting, maintenance, installation, repair, and calibration. There are also some manufacturing jobs where the job is more related to test and measurement to specs or standards. What most of these jobs have in common is that the work is more at a higher level than just troubleshooting and repair at the component level. With the economics of electronics being such that it is, it is far more economical of both time and money to replace electronic equipment rather than repair it. It gets failed systems and facilities up and running faster thereby reducing downtime and saving money in the processes where the equipment is used. And it is cheaper to do it this way.
The big problem is that most AAS degree programs are still stuck in the mode where extensive circuit analysis and design is the focus. Perhaps at one time this was appropriate to teach, but today it is mostly irrelevant. As a result there is a movement to shift the curriculum to a more systems level approach that de-emphasizes component level circuit analysis and design. Instead, it looks at electronics at a higher level where it is taught more with block diagrams and signal flow analysis and troubleshooting, test and measurement is the emphasis. Few schools have accomplished this so in the meantime, curricula are skewed and students do not learn electronics as it is today. They are continuing to learn what is becoming the history of electronics. It is time for a change.
One of the big complaints of this approach is that instructors feel that curricula is being "dumbed down". By removing the advanced analysis and design techniques still routinely taught, the program is certainly less analytical but more in line with the knowledge required for present and new jobs. Here are a couple of good examples based on recommendations on how to revise the curriculum:
1. Remove advanced circuit techniques like mesh and nodal analysis. Technicians rarely used these techniques anyway, but they are still taught in many schools. Why? Even engineers rarely use them these days and if they need to they resort to circuit simulation software that does the calculations faster and with fewer errors. Why use up valuable course time with something never used and that drives students away because of the math?
2. Reduce BJT coverage. Who needs to know ten ways to bias bipolar transistor circuits? Certainly not the modern tech. All that BJT circuit coverage is virtually worthless. Yes, a tech needs to know how a BJT works and that bias is needed but that is about it. Today it is a MOSFET world. Over 90% of all circuits, both discrete and integrated, use MOSFETs. Yet, MOSFETs are barely covered in most courses today. And that coverage includes resistor biasing that is never used. MOSFETs are biased by active loads, current sources and sinks made with other MOSFETs not resistors.
3. Eliminate or reduce Karnaugh map coverage. Name one tech or even engineer who uses Karnaugh maps today? Almost none and those who do are probably engineers educated 30 years ago. This is a design technique anyway and techs do not design. A waste of time in today's digital world where everything is either an embedded processor or some PLD like an FPGA. You deal with all of these via software. Why waste time on Karnaugh maps?
These are only a few examples of how we are clogging up the curriculum with all the old methods that are no longer widely used. Why not make way for new material that better fits the jobs? Yet, when instructors are presented with the idea that these topics are no longer necessary, they balk. They say that taking these things out is just a way of dumbing down the curriculum, yet in reality it is not.
Why have instructors continued to fight to keep these obsolete topics? Here are a few reasons.
1. Instructors forget that huge advances have been made in semiconductor technology such that almost everything in now in IC form, even complete systems on a chip. Only a small cadre of engineers actually design these using sophisticated software. Other engineers design with and use the chips. It is rarely necessary to know design techniques today. Technicians do not design. You cannot get to the circuits inside a chip anyway, so what techs work with is inputs, outputs and power. Rarely do techs have to find a bad resistor. It is mainly a bad IC if anything.
2. Most instructors are EE graduates who learned all the old methods 20, 30 or more years ago. There is a tendency to believe that one needs to teach it the way you learned it. So that is what is done.
3. Most EEs have never worked as technicians so have little real knowledge of what techs actually need to know and do on the job. They infer, in most cases incorrectly.
4. Most instructor EEs still try to make engineers out of techs. As a result they try to teach "engineering lite" in AAS programs.
5, Instructor still feel that a heavy math approach is best. Yes, algebra is still essential. And maybe even a little trig. But who needs calculus? Certainly not techs. And ask any current engineer how much calculus he or she uses? Virtually none. Math makes programs harder thus driving students away. That is the opposite of what we should be doing.
Any changes that deviate from the old ways make the average EEs instructor feel that the program is "going to hell in a handbasket", to coin a phrase. Water it down. Dilute it. Make it easier. That is the impression of changing to a more systems level approach that is more focused on troubleshooting, test, measurement, calibration, and repair. Why do so many instructors fight this change when it is more appropriate for today? Instructors hate to change. It creates the need to learn new material. It changes their lecture notes. And they feel vulnerable because they are unfamiliar with the new topics and approaches. Let's face it, most community college instructors are way out of date technically. Not all, for sure, but I bet a majority are. They have not kept up. They still use TTL logic which is no longer used to implement digital equipment. They ignore communications and wireless although the whole wireless segment of electronics has become the largest segment and currently dominates in terms of widespread usage and industry revenue and profits. Frankly, it is appalling.
What instructors need to do is realize that changing the curriculum is a good thing, especially for students, graduates and the employers. Didn't schools eventually drop vacuum tubes from the curriculum? It is time to drop other just as dated topics and add the new ones that matter. It is not a case of dumbing down the curriculum, it is adjusting it to fit the modern world. The curriculum is not worse, it is just different but a better fit to reality. The curriculum is not watered down, it is just different and certainly more relevant.
Such changes should make the programs more attractive to students and employers and that in turn could boost enrollment levels to prevent program closure that has become a common problem today in many colleges.
It is time to face up to the changes and get a better attitude about them and just do it.
Lou Frenzel
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Dumbing Down the Curriculum or Giving Industry What It Wants?
I have struggled with the whole issue of updating EET curriculum. On one hand being from industry I clearly see how skewed the curriculum is from what is needed. It appalls me if you really want to know. And while I know what should be done, I know it is not easy. Because this semester I tried to implement what I think is a better replacement for the old approach.
This fall semester I taught the Solid State course at my college. It is like others of different names in other colleges. The traditional course covered semiconductor basics, diodes, bipolar transistors (BJTs), FETs, and basic power supply and amplifier circuits. I used the PH Paynter book but you may have used Floyd or Malvino. Whatever. They are all the same anyway and competent but very dated. What I tried to do is to tone down the nitty gritty circuit analysis approach and introduce a more systems approach that industry seems to endorse. And it is more of what a graduate needs today. It was hard to do.
In discussing this with colleagues, all I got was "you are dumbing down the course" by doing that. How could I not teach detailed BJT biasing? Just try to tell an entrenched EET instructor that you don't need load lines and BJT biasing details and see what happens. Yet in real life, a tech never does this. Even engineers rarely do it and those engineers are IC designers. With most transistors inside ICs, who cares how they are biased? It is insanity to spend so much time in a limited semester period pounding such trivia into students heads. In fact doing so will only make them disappointed later when they find out they never do this. In fact they quickly discover that most transistors today are MOSFETs not BJTs. What a let down.
Anyway, I did indeed teach BJT basics and a little of biasing but went on to put more emphasis on MOSFETs. Then I went on to covering real amplifier ICs instead of discrete BJT amps. Op amps got lots of coverage but I also covered power amps, class D switching amps, video amps and all the more common stuff you see in equipment today. I also went heavy on switching power supplies since over 80% of all supplies are of this type, not the linear type covered in the book. Switching regulators, DC-DC converters, power management ICs and so on.
Instead of bias I focused on a higher level view. Mainly signal flow in ICs from one stage to the next. Impedance matching and circuit loading, more testing and troubleshooting. All that is a far better fit than what the books do. (I hope some authors are reading this.)
I must admit, I felt strange with this approach having taught it the old fashion way for so long. But I can no longer stand the guilt of teaching the history of electronics rather than the current truth. Yes, I felt odd, but good at the same time. The books did not help with little or no coverage of the ICs and other techniques that are so "today". I used internet gleaned supplements, the WRE online modules (http://www.work-readyelectronics.org/) and some material I created.
As for the lab, I add more ICs and troubleshooting. Less discretes. Lots of amplifier chips of different types, regulators both linear and switching, DC-DC converters, and some oscillators including PLLs. I only did one experiment on a basic common emitter amplifier. And some on switching circuits like power MOSFETs and the 555 timer.
The bottom line is that the students got the fundamentals but with the flavor of the real world not some phoney story about all that biasing, analysis and design. Wake up guys. If you want to teach that stuff go to an engineering school and then don't be too disappointed if they don't teach as much of it as they used to.
Be brave. Update your courses yourself with this method yourself. It is far less boring than teaching the same old tired stuff year after year and you just may like it as well as more properly prepare the student for what he will actually see in the outside job.
Hope you all have a great Xmas.
This fall semester I taught the Solid State course at my college. It is like others of different names in other colleges. The traditional course covered semiconductor basics, diodes, bipolar transistors (BJTs), FETs, and basic power supply and amplifier circuits. I used the PH Paynter book but you may have used Floyd or Malvino. Whatever. They are all the same anyway and competent but very dated. What I tried to do is to tone down the nitty gritty circuit analysis approach and introduce a more systems approach that industry seems to endorse. And it is more of what a graduate needs today. It was hard to do.
In discussing this with colleagues, all I got was "you are dumbing down the course" by doing that. How could I not teach detailed BJT biasing? Just try to tell an entrenched EET instructor that you don't need load lines and BJT biasing details and see what happens. Yet in real life, a tech never does this. Even engineers rarely do it and those engineers are IC designers. With most transistors inside ICs, who cares how they are biased? It is insanity to spend so much time in a limited semester period pounding such trivia into students heads. In fact doing so will only make them disappointed later when they find out they never do this. In fact they quickly discover that most transistors today are MOSFETs not BJTs. What a let down.
Anyway, I did indeed teach BJT basics and a little of biasing but went on to put more emphasis on MOSFETs. Then I went on to covering real amplifier ICs instead of discrete BJT amps. Op amps got lots of coverage but I also covered power amps, class D switching amps, video amps and all the more common stuff you see in equipment today. I also went heavy on switching power supplies since over 80% of all supplies are of this type, not the linear type covered in the book. Switching regulators, DC-DC converters, power management ICs and so on.
Instead of bias I focused on a higher level view. Mainly signal flow in ICs from one stage to the next. Impedance matching and circuit loading, more testing and troubleshooting. All that is a far better fit than what the books do. (I hope some authors are reading this.)
I must admit, I felt strange with this approach having taught it the old fashion way for so long. But I can no longer stand the guilt of teaching the history of electronics rather than the current truth. Yes, I felt odd, but good at the same time. The books did not help with little or no coverage of the ICs and other techniques that are so "today". I used internet gleaned supplements, the WRE online modules (http://www.work-readyelectronics.org/) and some material I created.
As for the lab, I add more ICs and troubleshooting. Less discretes. Lots of amplifier chips of different types, regulators both linear and switching, DC-DC converters, and some oscillators including PLLs. I only did one experiment on a basic common emitter amplifier. And some on switching circuits like power MOSFETs and the 555 timer.
The bottom line is that the students got the fundamentals but with the flavor of the real world not some phoney story about all that biasing, analysis and design. Wake up guys. If you want to teach that stuff go to an engineering school and then don't be too disappointed if they don't teach as much of it as they used to.
Be brave. Update your courses yourself with this method yourself. It is far less boring than teaching the same old tired stuff year after year and you just may like it as well as more properly prepare the student for what he will actually see in the outside job.
Hope you all have a great Xmas.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Technology: The Twilight Zone
In speaking with a colleague on the west coast recently, he referred to the education and jobs for bachelor of technology graduates as the "twilight zone". I know what he means. Since he and many others in technology or engineering education have BSEE credentials, he cannot really know what it is like. The BSET degree seems to be a very misunderstood segment of engineering/technology education in industry and academia. Because I am a product of the system that produced bachelor of technology degrees as well as being on the hiring side in industry and academia, I can probably speak with some perspective on this subject. Here is my view.
Engineering Lite
Most of those with BSEE degrees think of BSET graduates as engineering lite. That is if they know anything at all about BSET degree programs at all which in my experience they do not. In fact they do not seem to recognize BSET grads at all and this is reflected in industry hiring. Are BSET grads capable of doing engineering? You bet. In fact, most BSET grads are actually employed as engineers. What else would they be employed as? Not techs as engineering tech positions dried up years ago. Originally the thought or goal was to have the BSET grad be a "super tech" that supported engineering but alternatively worked in manufacturing and other non-design jobs. These jobs were called technologists.
The term technologist is strictly a term dreamed up by the academicians that invented the BSET degree in the first place. In reality there never has been a real job in industry with that title. At least over the past 40 years, I have not seen it. If a BSET grad was hired it was as some super tech kind of job or as an engineer. Maybe it was as a field engineer or project engineer, but the job was officially engineering. I know the BSEE degree people really hate to hear that but it is true. I just wish that the administrators running BSET university programs would give up on the technologist term. Let it go. It is a myth....a mirage. It does not exist. Deal with it. But I guess it is the crutch that they use to distinguish themselves from the engineering departments who educate "real" engineers. An academic necessity as opposed to anything in the real world.
I initially went to school and got an AAS degree. That was in the hey day of engineering techs that did assist engineers in all manner of ways. I worked as an engineering tech for several years before realizing that I was stalled career-wise as I could rise no higher with my AAS degree. Lots of AAS grads hit this wall and feel the need and desire to go back to school and get the bachelors degree. I certainly did. But after finding out that none of my AAS work counted toward a BSEE degree, I was pretty depressed. Then in the mid-1960's the University of Houston offered the first bachelors of technology degree. It was called the Bachelors in Applied Science (BAS). It accepted AAS degree grads and gave them two more years of courses. It added some science and a full dose of math through differential equations, Laplace, etc. plus some additional social studies and advanced electronics courses.
I was somewhat skeptical what kind of reaction employers would have to my BAS degree. Most, of course, never heard of it and had no clue what a BAS grad could do. I think that is still the case 40+ years later today. Employers mostly do not have a clue to what these folks can do. In any case, there was an acute engineering shortage at that time and because I did have a "technical" bachelors degree I was hired as an engineer. Could I do the work? Of course. In fact, it was easy to compete with the recent BSEE grads who had far less hands-on practical and lab work than a technology grad has. And that is true even today. I remember hiring a recent BSEE from a major university. His first assignment was to design an amplifier to retrofit in a piece of telemetry gear. He did know how to design the amplifier but he was confused about what transistor to use, how to lay out a PC board and how to test it. That kind of info comes only from experience or, in many cases, a technology degree program.
In another instance, I was hiring a professor for an AAS degree program of which I was department head. Most of the candidates had MSEEs and a few PhDs. But not one of them, and I am serious about this, could pass the simple lab test I gave. It was to breadboard a 555 timer astable from a schematic with the components given then measure the frequency of the output on an oscilloscope. These folks didn't know the resistor color code, or how to find pin 1 on the IC or really know that an electrolytic capacitor was polarized. Reading an oscilloscope was also a major failure. Amazing really. But any of these guys could actually use the software to design a chip or to do extensive math analysis on the circuit. In any case, I hired the only technology graduate who had a BSET from Devry. He immediately built the circuit and gave me the frequency. Easy as pie. Hiring engineers to teach techs may not be the best thing to do, but that is what we have. BSEEs try to teach AAS students how to be an engineer and how to design when in today's world, techs don't really do those things. No wonder AAS degree programs are screwed up.
Anyway, I went on to a long engineering career working with NASA contractors on aerospace stuff and in the geophysical fields. About the only place I felt weak was with the very deep math analysis of very complex circuits and systems. But I was a whiz with the practical engineering stuff, especially digital which did not require all that mesh and nodal analysis and other similar methods.
Today's BSET grads are what I would call practical engineers. And there is more practical engineering in industry (the engineering grunt work if you will) than the heavy analysis and research engineering that really does need to be done by an MSEE or PhD. I just wish that those in industry knew this. A few do after years of hiring BSET's from local universities. But most do not and therefore allocate the BSET to the twilight zone. If you are ignorant of something you tend to avoid it. Human nature. A tragedy really as companies would benefit and there would be no so called engineering shortage.
Yes, BSET grads are in the twilight zone. Most know it or figure it out pretty fast after they graduate. They go into sales or marketing jobs, manufacturing or other support roles requiring a heavy technical background. But they can do engineering. The courses they take in the BSET programs are separate from similar courses in BSEE programs but the content is virtually the same and as I have discovered, the BSET guys use the same texts as the BSEE guys. But, and here is the real difference, the BSET guys get far more lab and hands-on work. The BSEE guys spend most time in front of a PC doing IC design work. As they well should.
It is really amazing how BSET programs have co-existed with BSEE programs for years and even grown. There are jobs out there for these grads. They are competent, knowledgeable, and in reality make better practical engineers than BSEE grads. They are denied access to professional engineering licensing because they are not real engineers. I have heard that some states actually recognize BSET grads to take the EIT and PE exams. Good for them. Do you think a person would actually apply for the EIT or PE exam if they did not think they could pass? Duh...... In fact, from my own examination of the PE exam, most of it is stuff you could actually learn on your own. God forbid they would let a self taught person take the exam even if he or she was a true genius or expert.
Proposal
Here is my current thinking on BSET grads and degrees. And it is not just because "I are one."
First, AAS grads really do need a path for higher education. The BSET is it. And in the real world, it matters less what the bachelors degree is in that just the fact that you have one at all. After years in the industry, what degree you have becomes nearly irrelevant (except in academia where they are totally hung up on what degree and where it is from). Keep giving the AAS grad a place to go and grow.
BSET grads for the most part do engineering work. Whether most colleges will admit to it or not. It is true. It is time to stop trying to separate or distinguish what is or is not real engineering. To do this I would merge BSEE and BSET departments and create a curriculum that provides one degree, the BSEE, that has two separate paths. One leads to a practical or applied engineering degree and the other a more advanced design and analysis slant that leads to the MSEE and PhD. The math, science and basic courses are all the same. AAS grads coming in for the BSEE would have to catch up on the math and some more in-depth electronics courses, but they could get in line for the degree. In the senior year, the paths diverge and the courses taken will steer the future education path. All that would be pretty easy to do in my mind. But I doubt we will ever see that. I am sure the BSEE departments wouldn't want their curricula to be dumbed down. Can you just imagine MIT and Stanford taking AAS degree transfers? Not really but it could be done with the proper restructuring of the engineering curricula to better match what is actually going on out in the real world.
Wouldn't it be great to start from scratch and build an engineering/technology degree program that better fit the real world? It would eliminate much of the current structure but it would also make the curricula much more relevant to the work and the technology of the 21st century. But that will never happen. So we will continue to live with degree programs that were designed for an earlier generation. Inwardly focused colleges and universities don't really care all that much about the industry they serve or the students they train. Some do of course but most don't. So the twilight zone continues to exist.
In speaking with a colleague on the west coast recently, he referred to the education and jobs for bachelor of technology graduates as the "twilight zone". I know what he means. Since he and many others in technology or engineering education have BSEE credentials, he cannot really know what it is like. The BSET degree seems to be a very misunderstood segment of engineering/technology education in industry and academia. Because I am a product of the system that produced bachelor of technology degrees as well as being on the hiring side in industry and academia, I can probably speak with some perspective on this subject. Here is my view.
Engineering Lite
Most of those with BSEE degrees think of BSET graduates as engineering lite. That is if they know anything at all about BSET degree programs at all which in my experience they do not. In fact they do not seem to recognize BSET grads at all and this is reflected in industry hiring. Are BSET grads capable of doing engineering? You bet. In fact, most BSET grads are actually employed as engineers. What else would they be employed as? Not techs as engineering tech positions dried up years ago. Originally the thought or goal was to have the BSET grad be a "super tech" that supported engineering but alternatively worked in manufacturing and other non-design jobs. These jobs were called technologists.
The term technologist is strictly a term dreamed up by the academicians that invented the BSET degree in the first place. In reality there never has been a real job in industry with that title. At least over the past 40 years, I have not seen it. If a BSET grad was hired it was as some super tech kind of job or as an engineer. Maybe it was as a field engineer or project engineer, but the job was officially engineering. I know the BSEE degree people really hate to hear that but it is true. I just wish that the administrators running BSET university programs would give up on the technologist term. Let it go. It is a myth....a mirage. It does not exist. Deal with it. But I guess it is the crutch that they use to distinguish themselves from the engineering departments who educate "real" engineers. An academic necessity as opposed to anything in the real world.
I initially went to school and got an AAS degree. That was in the hey day of engineering techs that did assist engineers in all manner of ways. I worked as an engineering tech for several years before realizing that I was stalled career-wise as I could rise no higher with my AAS degree. Lots of AAS grads hit this wall and feel the need and desire to go back to school and get the bachelors degree. I certainly did. But after finding out that none of my AAS work counted toward a BSEE degree, I was pretty depressed. Then in the mid-1960's the University of Houston offered the first bachelors of technology degree. It was called the Bachelors in Applied Science (BAS). It accepted AAS degree grads and gave them two more years of courses. It added some science and a full dose of math through differential equations, Laplace, etc. plus some additional social studies and advanced electronics courses.
I was somewhat skeptical what kind of reaction employers would have to my BAS degree. Most, of course, never heard of it and had no clue what a BAS grad could do. I think that is still the case 40+ years later today. Employers mostly do not have a clue to what these folks can do. In any case, there was an acute engineering shortage at that time and because I did have a "technical" bachelors degree I was hired as an engineer. Could I do the work? Of course. In fact, it was easy to compete with the recent BSEE grads who had far less hands-on practical and lab work than a technology grad has. And that is true even today. I remember hiring a recent BSEE from a major university. His first assignment was to design an amplifier to retrofit in a piece of telemetry gear. He did know how to design the amplifier but he was confused about what transistor to use, how to lay out a PC board and how to test it. That kind of info comes only from experience or, in many cases, a technology degree program.
In another instance, I was hiring a professor for an AAS degree program of which I was department head. Most of the candidates had MSEEs and a few PhDs. But not one of them, and I am serious about this, could pass the simple lab test I gave. It was to breadboard a 555 timer astable from a schematic with the components given then measure the frequency of the output on an oscilloscope. These folks didn't know the resistor color code, or how to find pin 1 on the IC or really know that an electrolytic capacitor was polarized. Reading an oscilloscope was also a major failure. Amazing really. But any of these guys could actually use the software to design a chip or to do extensive math analysis on the circuit. In any case, I hired the only technology graduate who had a BSET from Devry. He immediately built the circuit and gave me the frequency. Easy as pie. Hiring engineers to teach techs may not be the best thing to do, but that is what we have. BSEEs try to teach AAS students how to be an engineer and how to design when in today's world, techs don't really do those things. No wonder AAS degree programs are screwed up.
Anyway, I went on to a long engineering career working with NASA contractors on aerospace stuff and in the geophysical fields. About the only place I felt weak was with the very deep math analysis of very complex circuits and systems. But I was a whiz with the practical engineering stuff, especially digital which did not require all that mesh and nodal analysis and other similar methods.
Today's BSET grads are what I would call practical engineers. And there is more practical engineering in industry (the engineering grunt work if you will) than the heavy analysis and research engineering that really does need to be done by an MSEE or PhD. I just wish that those in industry knew this. A few do after years of hiring BSET's from local universities. But most do not and therefore allocate the BSET to the twilight zone. If you are ignorant of something you tend to avoid it. Human nature. A tragedy really as companies would benefit and there would be no so called engineering shortage.
Yes, BSET grads are in the twilight zone. Most know it or figure it out pretty fast after they graduate. They go into sales or marketing jobs, manufacturing or other support roles requiring a heavy technical background. But they can do engineering. The courses they take in the BSET programs are separate from similar courses in BSEE programs but the content is virtually the same and as I have discovered, the BSET guys use the same texts as the BSEE guys. But, and here is the real difference, the BSET guys get far more lab and hands-on work. The BSEE guys spend most time in front of a PC doing IC design work. As they well should.
It is really amazing how BSET programs have co-existed with BSEE programs for years and even grown. There are jobs out there for these grads. They are competent, knowledgeable, and in reality make better practical engineers than BSEE grads. They are denied access to professional engineering licensing because they are not real engineers. I have heard that some states actually recognize BSET grads to take the EIT and PE exams. Good for them. Do you think a person would actually apply for the EIT or PE exam if they did not think they could pass? Duh...... In fact, from my own examination of the PE exam, most of it is stuff you could actually learn on your own. God forbid they would let a self taught person take the exam even if he or she was a true genius or expert.
Proposal
Here is my current thinking on BSET grads and degrees. And it is not just because "I are one."
First, AAS grads really do need a path for higher education. The BSET is it. And in the real world, it matters less what the bachelors degree is in that just the fact that you have one at all. After years in the industry, what degree you have becomes nearly irrelevant (except in academia where they are totally hung up on what degree and where it is from). Keep giving the AAS grad a place to go and grow.
BSET grads for the most part do engineering work. Whether most colleges will admit to it or not. It is true. It is time to stop trying to separate or distinguish what is or is not real engineering. To do this I would merge BSEE and BSET departments and create a curriculum that provides one degree, the BSEE, that has two separate paths. One leads to a practical or applied engineering degree and the other a more advanced design and analysis slant that leads to the MSEE and PhD. The math, science and basic courses are all the same. AAS grads coming in for the BSEE would have to catch up on the math and some more in-depth electronics courses, but they could get in line for the degree. In the senior year, the paths diverge and the courses taken will steer the future education path. All that would be pretty easy to do in my mind. But I doubt we will ever see that. I am sure the BSEE departments wouldn't want their curricula to be dumbed down. Can you just imagine MIT and Stanford taking AAS degree transfers? Not really but it could be done with the proper restructuring of the engineering curricula to better match what is actually going on out in the real world.
Wouldn't it be great to start from scratch and build an engineering/technology degree program that better fit the real world? It would eliminate much of the current structure but it would also make the curricula much more relevant to the work and the technology of the 21st century. But that will never happen. So we will continue to live with degree programs that were designed for an earlier generation. Inwardly focused colleges and universities don't really care all that much about the industry they serve or the students they train. Some do of course but most don't. So the twilight zone continues to exist.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
What This Blog Is All About
The other day someone asked me what this blog was all about. The description in the heading gives the general range of coverage, but for those of you who have been here before know my recurring themes. Here is just a quick summary for some of you who are new to this blog.
Low Enrollment Problem
This has been going on for years for multiple reasons that are too complex to summarize here. Dig through the blog for lots on info on this subject. But in general, enrollments in electronics technology in 2-year community colleges have been on the down swing for years. Many of you are still suffering with this problem and some of you actually had your departments closed, downsized or merged simply for lack of students. This problem continues although in some parts of the country there are signs of recovery. As I keep saying, this is more of a local problem than a national problem, but the trend is cerainly national in scope.
Despite the low enrollments, the jobs for technicians are still out there. In their annual report, the American Electronics Association (AeA) indicated plenty of tech jobs and many that go unfilled simply there are not enough engineers and technicians are being graduated. And these jobs pay significantly better than the average job today. We just can't seem to interest young people to learn electronics. No one seems to know why.
Anyway, I am happy to report that at the school where I teach as an adjunct, enrollments are up after four seriously distraous years of declines and cut backs. The department worked hard to revise and update the curriculum and add new majors such as biomed and electrical power. I see signs here and there that some programs are coming back as enrollments gradually turn around.
Just keep working to update courses and curricula to reflect the jobs available today and work with local industry. And do try to promote the programs by whatever means.
Textbooks
The main publishers McGraw Hill, Delmar and Prentice Hall produce very high quality texts but they are still dated. The NSF grant I helped win a few years back was awarded based on that fact. To help solve the problem, which the publishers seem unwilling to address, we developed 25 online tutorials on topics that are relevent today but that are not covered in textbooks or receive mininal or dated coverage. This program has been a huge success as it provides the latest material that instructors can use supplement the dated texts.
The problem actually lies less with the publishers and more with the authors and those who adopt a book. Instructors tend to lack current industry experience and up to date technical knowledge. Yet these are the people who write the books. No wonder the books are dated.
Unlike most authors, I work in industry and keep right on top on all the latest developments as well as what is current and relevant and what is not. I wish we could get more industry people to write the books but I don't see that happening.
What publishers could do is get industry input through a panel of experts or at least reviewers who can say what is hot and what is not.
Publishers are still reluctant to change too drastically as all the older instructors want to keep teaching the material they are familiar with but may not be relevant today. I have been told by my publisher that I could not take out the old and dated material simply because the reviewers say they want it. Boy, what a problem. And the publishers, wanting to sell their books, do what their customers say, keep the old and dated and leave out the new and relevant stuff. I only hope you instructors reading this will reconsider. You need the books to be as up to date as possible. Give in to change and constant new developments that are an inherent part of electronics.
Teach Techs to Be Techs
So many, if not most instructors have EE degrees. Few actually have Technology degrees which I have come to believe are far better suited to teaching in a technology program. EE degreed instructors tend to teach what they learned in college which is engineering. Engineers analyze and design. But Techs do not. Yet, that is the way most instructors want to teach the subject. Furthermore, most instructors have never even worked as a technician. How can they really know what it is like? And certainly how it has changed so drastically over the years.
The curriculum, books and courses need to be reoriented to teach techs and about the jobs they do today. Engineering tech jobs have all but gone away and it is rediculious to keep teaching subjects that were irrelevant even a few years ago. I urge you all to go out and find out what the tech jobs are today and figure out just what you need to teach. Some of what you teach now is still valid but so much of it is not. You need to teach more systems and less circuits level material. Less math analysis and design and more practical testing, measuring and troubleshooting. And that is not what most of you guys want to hear.
You can find out more detail on all of the topics I listed here by just browsing the proeious entries and the responses.
And please feel free to chime right in here if you agree or disagree.
Thanks for listening.
Low Enrollment Problem
This has been going on for years for multiple reasons that are too complex to summarize here. Dig through the blog for lots on info on this subject. But in general, enrollments in electronics technology in 2-year community colleges have been on the down swing for years. Many of you are still suffering with this problem and some of you actually had your departments closed, downsized or merged simply for lack of students. This problem continues although in some parts of the country there are signs of recovery. As I keep saying, this is more of a local problem than a national problem, but the trend is cerainly national in scope.
Despite the low enrollments, the jobs for technicians are still out there. In their annual report, the American Electronics Association (AeA) indicated plenty of tech jobs and many that go unfilled simply there are not enough engineers and technicians are being graduated. And these jobs pay significantly better than the average job today. We just can't seem to interest young people to learn electronics. No one seems to know why.
Anyway, I am happy to report that at the school where I teach as an adjunct, enrollments are up after four seriously distraous years of declines and cut backs. The department worked hard to revise and update the curriculum and add new majors such as biomed and electrical power. I see signs here and there that some programs are coming back as enrollments gradually turn around.
Just keep working to update courses and curricula to reflect the jobs available today and work with local industry. And do try to promote the programs by whatever means.
Textbooks
The main publishers McGraw Hill, Delmar and Prentice Hall produce very high quality texts but they are still dated. The NSF grant I helped win a few years back was awarded based on that fact. To help solve the problem, which the publishers seem unwilling to address, we developed 25 online tutorials on topics that are relevent today but that are not covered in textbooks or receive mininal or dated coverage. This program has been a huge success as it provides the latest material that instructors can use supplement the dated texts.
The problem actually lies less with the publishers and more with the authors and those who adopt a book. Instructors tend to lack current industry experience and up to date technical knowledge. Yet these are the people who write the books. No wonder the books are dated.
Unlike most authors, I work in industry and keep right on top on all the latest developments as well as what is current and relevant and what is not. I wish we could get more industry people to write the books but I don't see that happening.
What publishers could do is get industry input through a panel of experts or at least reviewers who can say what is hot and what is not.
Publishers are still reluctant to change too drastically as all the older instructors want to keep teaching the material they are familiar with but may not be relevant today. I have been told by my publisher that I could not take out the old and dated material simply because the reviewers say they want it. Boy, what a problem. And the publishers, wanting to sell their books, do what their customers say, keep the old and dated and leave out the new and relevant stuff. I only hope you instructors reading this will reconsider. You need the books to be as up to date as possible. Give in to change and constant new developments that are an inherent part of electronics.
Teach Techs to Be Techs
So many, if not most instructors have EE degrees. Few actually have Technology degrees which I have come to believe are far better suited to teaching in a technology program. EE degreed instructors tend to teach what they learned in college which is engineering. Engineers analyze and design. But Techs do not. Yet, that is the way most instructors want to teach the subject. Furthermore, most instructors have never even worked as a technician. How can they really know what it is like? And certainly how it has changed so drastically over the years.
The curriculum, books and courses need to be reoriented to teach techs and about the jobs they do today. Engineering tech jobs have all but gone away and it is rediculious to keep teaching subjects that were irrelevant even a few years ago. I urge you all to go out and find out what the tech jobs are today and figure out just what you need to teach. Some of what you teach now is still valid but so much of it is not. You need to teach more systems and less circuits level material. Less math analysis and design and more practical testing, measuring and troubleshooting. And that is not what most of you guys want to hear.
You can find out more detail on all of the topics I listed here by just browsing the proeious entries and the responses.
And please feel free to chime right in here if you agree or disagree.
Thanks for listening.
Friday, May 04, 2007
Change is Hell
I am just wrapping up a Digital Fundamentals course I taught this semester at the community college where I used to be department head. As some of you may know, I left in 2000 to go back to industry simply because of the frustration with academia in general and the delusional practices that keep the curriculum and courses in the last century. I still like to teach so do so occasionally as an adjunct. It gives me a chance to practice what I preach here. Sometimes it is possible to do more good from outside than inside. And it provides me a solid excuse for not having to say "do as I say not as I do". If you get my drift. I do practice what I preach. But I can truthfully say that it is, to coin another phrase, easier said than done. Anyway, this piece is dedicated to all of you guys and gals who are trying hard to update the program to reflect what techs do in industry today and what they REALLY need to know.
First let me say that over the past few years, the college has chosen to make Digital Fundamentals one of those courses that requires few if any prerequisites. While I was department head, a student had to have completed DC, AC and a Solid State Circuits course. Today the prerequisite is DC and College Algebra. What that means is that students come into this course with just some basic DC theory and nothing else. They do not know how a transistor works, or basic circuit concepts. I wasn't really prepared for this.
Yes, I know why the college did this. It is tough to squeeze in all the courses into a four semester, 2-year program so you have to double up on some and make the prerequisites looser. And I also know that you can indeed teach digital without circuit knowledge by just teaching the logic functions and applications. Yet as I have discovered, it leaves the student with a very liminted and somewhat warped view of the digital world. It is tough to present some material especially like how logic gates work, the source and issues regarding propagation delay, rise/fall times, and 3-state logic just to name a few. Very awkward to say the least. But I managed to get through it. But I have a very uneasy feeling that the students got a watered down, or as some of you like to say, dumbed down version of what it really should be. I hate that feelilng. If I had my way, I would juggle things to make sure the courses are set up as they used to be with more relevant prerequisites.
In looking at what techs do today, I have been able to juggle the subject matter to make sure the student gets what is needed. And I can question some of the traditional material to see if it is still relevant. You are probably saying who the devil am I to say that I know what is needed? Easy, I work in industry in a job that lets me clearly see a wide range of tech jobs and what the duties are. It is not like it used to be, believe you me. For example, there are few if any engineering tech jobs left. They are just not needed today given the heavy use of ICs and software design. Most techs install, service, repair, maintain, operated, troubleshoot, test, measure, calibrate, and otherwise take care of electronic equipment. They do NOT analyze or design. That makes some of the subjects we used to teach borderline at best.
Take Boolean circuit minimization and Karnaugh maps for instance. Do we really need to teach that? Techs don't design digital circuits anyway so why bother? Even engineers rarely use manual minimization methods much less Karnaugh maps. It is all done with software today.
This is one of those decision points in updating a course that we all face. This is the "hell" I referred to in the title. My decision was more or less made for me as the state requirements for this course said I should teach Boolean and Karnaugh. So I did. I couldn't legally take it out even if it were the most obsolete procedure in the world. And that really points up a key factor. What the devil do state governments have to do with setting content standards anyway? I suppose for transferrability purposes between state colleges. But, there is no provision for changing or updating these requirements. So the dated and irrelevant material is perpetuated eternally.
Anyway, the state guidelines don't say to what degree each subject has to be taught so I did the bare minimum. At least the students know the procedures and why and when you use them but they are not experts. That level of coverage is about right. And the student goes away with the vocabulary and familiarity with these subjects without really being competent. Just as it probably should be. Now if we can get the textbook authors and publishers to adjust the coverage to better fit the real world.
By the way, I had one instructor tell me, Lou how could you take out that part of the subject matter that is the most fun to teach? Most fun? What that really says is that teachers teach what they know and like and not necessarily what is really needed. But I should be fair and say that most of those instructors are living in denial anyway since the do not have a clue what is important today and not.
The biggest problem I had with this course was the lab. We used to use basic breadboard trainers and TTL ICs to teach digital and I bet most of you still do. Yet, when was the last time you saw an electronic product made with lots of TTL chips? Not for a long time. The way digital circuits are realized today are with embedded controllers and programmable logic devices (PLDs). You can still get TTL (and CMOS) SSI and MSI chips but few if any find their way into new designs. Yet this is what the student learns. Well, not the circuit details becasue they don't know what a transistor is at this point. Another disturbing issue to deal with.
My decision was more practical than relevant. I resorted to using the old breadboard trainers and TTL chips simply nothing else was available. How does one teach a digital lab anyway? I felt bad about this but what else could I do given the time and budget constraints? At least the students learned the logic and got to play around with the various circuits.
Did I teach PLDs? Definitely. I introduced them but did not venture too much into their actual programming even though the college recently invested in the latest Altera FPGA development boards and software. Such an advance device is over kill for a fundamentals course and a huge amount of time is required to learn the programming language and hardware. And what I see in industry is that techs do not design with or program FPGAs or any other PLD. Techs have to know what they are and how they work but not the details of design and programming. That's not just my opinion, it is fact.
One of the professors at the college has reworked his digital labs to completely eliminate the old TTL and trainers and implements all experiments on the Altera FPGA, even the basic gates and flip flop labs. I give him credit for making such an effort to use the latest technology. I wish more professors were willing to learn the latest hardware and incorporate it into their courses. But I feel he went too far. The poor students come into his course with DC under their belt and they immediately start learning the software. Their heads are spinning. I had 5 students in my class who had previously dropped out of this professor's class just because it was too much for them.
Incidentally, I spoke with 5 other instructors teaching digital this semester about what they taught and how. (Yes, 5 other instructors, 3 full time faculty and 2 other adjuncts besides me. Enrollments are really up at the college this semester so lots of teachers were needed, just like the olden days.) Every one of us teachs digital in a different way. Academic freedom and all that. But the variations are so great it got me to worrying about consistency in content. There doesn't seem to be any way to be sure the student comes away with all the basic needs. Instructors do just what they want to do and not so much what they should do. And each one has the same attitude: "What are you going to do, fire me?" You get the picture.
Change is indeed hell. The colleges, the curricula, the courses, the labs, the textbooks and so on are still partly stuck in the past but slowly moving to the future. A real mixed bag. It is a miracle that students graduate with what they need. EE trained instructors are still trying to teach engineering to techs who won't ever do it in real life and will feel disappointed in their tech jobs because their bosses tell them they are not engineers. Fine state of affairs.
Keep plugging away at your courses and curricula to bring them up to date. I feel your pain.
Lou Frenzel
First let me say that over the past few years, the college has chosen to make Digital Fundamentals one of those courses that requires few if any prerequisites. While I was department head, a student had to have completed DC, AC and a Solid State Circuits course. Today the prerequisite is DC and College Algebra. What that means is that students come into this course with just some basic DC theory and nothing else. They do not know how a transistor works, or basic circuit concepts. I wasn't really prepared for this.
Yes, I know why the college did this. It is tough to squeeze in all the courses into a four semester, 2-year program so you have to double up on some and make the prerequisites looser. And I also know that you can indeed teach digital without circuit knowledge by just teaching the logic functions and applications. Yet as I have discovered, it leaves the student with a very liminted and somewhat warped view of the digital world. It is tough to present some material especially like how logic gates work, the source and issues regarding propagation delay, rise/fall times, and 3-state logic just to name a few. Very awkward to say the least. But I managed to get through it. But I have a very uneasy feeling that the students got a watered down, or as some of you like to say, dumbed down version of what it really should be. I hate that feelilng. If I had my way, I would juggle things to make sure the courses are set up as they used to be with more relevant prerequisites.
In looking at what techs do today, I have been able to juggle the subject matter to make sure the student gets what is needed. And I can question some of the traditional material to see if it is still relevant. You are probably saying who the devil am I to say that I know what is needed? Easy, I work in industry in a job that lets me clearly see a wide range of tech jobs and what the duties are. It is not like it used to be, believe you me. For example, there are few if any engineering tech jobs left. They are just not needed today given the heavy use of ICs and software design. Most techs install, service, repair, maintain, operated, troubleshoot, test, measure, calibrate, and otherwise take care of electronic equipment. They do NOT analyze or design. That makes some of the subjects we used to teach borderline at best.
Take Boolean circuit minimization and Karnaugh maps for instance. Do we really need to teach that? Techs don't design digital circuits anyway so why bother? Even engineers rarely use manual minimization methods much less Karnaugh maps. It is all done with software today.
This is one of those decision points in updating a course that we all face. This is the "hell" I referred to in the title. My decision was more or less made for me as the state requirements for this course said I should teach Boolean and Karnaugh. So I did. I couldn't legally take it out even if it were the most obsolete procedure in the world. And that really points up a key factor. What the devil do state governments have to do with setting content standards anyway? I suppose for transferrability purposes between state colleges. But, there is no provision for changing or updating these requirements. So the dated and irrelevant material is perpetuated eternally.
Anyway, the state guidelines don't say to what degree each subject has to be taught so I did the bare minimum. At least the students know the procedures and why and when you use them but they are not experts. That level of coverage is about right. And the student goes away with the vocabulary and familiarity with these subjects without really being competent. Just as it probably should be. Now if we can get the textbook authors and publishers to adjust the coverage to better fit the real world.
By the way, I had one instructor tell me, Lou how could you take out that part of the subject matter that is the most fun to teach? Most fun? What that really says is that teachers teach what they know and like and not necessarily what is really needed. But I should be fair and say that most of those instructors are living in denial anyway since the do not have a clue what is important today and not.
The biggest problem I had with this course was the lab. We used to use basic breadboard trainers and TTL ICs to teach digital and I bet most of you still do. Yet, when was the last time you saw an electronic product made with lots of TTL chips? Not for a long time. The way digital circuits are realized today are with embedded controllers and programmable logic devices (PLDs). You can still get TTL (and CMOS) SSI and MSI chips but few if any find their way into new designs. Yet this is what the student learns. Well, not the circuit details becasue they don't know what a transistor is at this point. Another disturbing issue to deal with.
My decision was more practical than relevant. I resorted to using the old breadboard trainers and TTL chips simply nothing else was available. How does one teach a digital lab anyway? I felt bad about this but what else could I do given the time and budget constraints? At least the students learned the logic and got to play around with the various circuits.
Did I teach PLDs? Definitely. I introduced them but did not venture too much into their actual programming even though the college recently invested in the latest Altera FPGA development boards and software. Such an advance device is over kill for a fundamentals course and a huge amount of time is required to learn the programming language and hardware. And what I see in industry is that techs do not design with or program FPGAs or any other PLD. Techs have to know what they are and how they work but not the details of design and programming. That's not just my opinion, it is fact.
One of the professors at the college has reworked his digital labs to completely eliminate the old TTL and trainers and implements all experiments on the Altera FPGA, even the basic gates and flip flop labs. I give him credit for making such an effort to use the latest technology. I wish more professors were willing to learn the latest hardware and incorporate it into their courses. But I feel he went too far. The poor students come into his course with DC under their belt and they immediately start learning the software. Their heads are spinning. I had 5 students in my class who had previously dropped out of this professor's class just because it was too much for them.
Incidentally, I spoke with 5 other instructors teaching digital this semester about what they taught and how. (Yes, 5 other instructors, 3 full time faculty and 2 other adjuncts besides me. Enrollments are really up at the college this semester so lots of teachers were needed, just like the olden days.) Every one of us teachs digital in a different way. Academic freedom and all that. But the variations are so great it got me to worrying about consistency in content. There doesn't seem to be any way to be sure the student comes away with all the basic needs. Instructors do just what they want to do and not so much what they should do. And each one has the same attitude: "What are you going to do, fire me?" You get the picture.
Change is indeed hell. The colleges, the curricula, the courses, the labs, the textbooks and so on are still partly stuck in the past but slowly moving to the future. A real mixed bag. It is a miracle that students graduate with what they need. EE trained instructors are still trying to teach engineering to techs who won't ever do it in real life and will feel disappointed in their tech jobs because their bosses tell them they are not engineers. Fine state of affairs.
Keep plugging away at your courses and curricula to bring them up to date. I feel your pain.
Lou Frenzel
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
TCCTA Report - Reflection on What's Happening
I promised to report to you about the happenings at the Texas Community College Teacher's Association Electronics meeting this month. Here is a summary.
At this big state-wide conference, there is usually an Electronics specific set of meetings each year. This year it was on Feb 22 at the Renaissance Hotel in Austin. Only a handful showed up for the meeting this year. Total attendance was about 25 by my count. A few said that with the meeting on Thursday, it was difficult for many instructors to attend because of class responsibilities as well as the really long drive times typical of traveling in Texas. I agree. It should have been on Friday.
I suspect the word did not get around as widely as hoped since the program coordinator this year, Rickey McFadden of Paris Junior College, had by-pass surgery. He is doing fine but Scott Williams of Texarkana College did a great job of filling in.
I spoke on the requirements of a 21st century curriculum and the low enrollment problem. Tom McGlew of Maricopa Advanced Technology Education Center in Tempe, AZ talked about their NSF- funded Work-Ready Electronics program which is going well. If you ever need up-to-date supplements to your courses, go to www.work-readyelectronics.org and download their online modules.
The remainder of the talks were vendors of lab equipment like Heathkit and Nida. The only publisher attending was Michelle Cannnistraci of Delmar/Thomson. Of course, McGraw Hill and Prentice Hall were at the exhibits.
The relevant issues and problems of the day are really discussed at the traditional Saturday breakfast. Most schools are still suffering the low enrollment syndrome. Lots of jobs available but few students interested in learning electronics. The reasons are many as this blog has rehashed many times. Only two schools reported increases, Austin CC where I teach part time and Amarillo College. Both schools did extensive recruiting, curriculum revisions, local employer contacts, grants and new programs over the past two years. That's is what you have to do today not only if you want to survive but also to grow.
The prevailing attitude of many is still "I am an instructor and it is not my job to recruit, meet with industry, or update curriculum". Of course that is not true as most schools, and states, mandate this but the instructors just hate to do it.
The only suggestions I heard were to find a way to get more grants and to write to our state legislators who supposedly might give the schools money to survive if they find out that the source of technicians will go away if they do not. Nowhere was there any indication of the schools or professors doing anything themselves. No wonder these schools are down. Hey you guys, things change. You have to change too. Quit whining and complaining and do something about it. And that starts with working with the local employers or at least taking an in-depth look at the local job situation and that extends up to 100 miles away.
The final recommendation was to attend the SAME-TEC conference sponsored by MATEC this year in Dallas on July 25-29. The goal is to meet again to discuss issues and to potentially start up a state wide Electronics Instructors Association. California has had one for many years (California Council of Electronic Instructors). The possibility of forming a national electronic teachers association will also be discussed. It is really needed as there is no organization devoted to this. Certainly not ASEE. As good as they are, they almost ignore the CCs.
SAME-TEC has become THE conference covering electronics and related subjects at the CC level. It was in Albuquerque last year and the attendance was about 300. Very focused and relevant. Go to the MATEC website at www.matec.org for details. Be there......
At this big state-wide conference, there is usually an Electronics specific set of meetings each year. This year it was on Feb 22 at the Renaissance Hotel in Austin. Only a handful showed up for the meeting this year. Total attendance was about 25 by my count. A few said that with the meeting on Thursday, it was difficult for many instructors to attend because of class responsibilities as well as the really long drive times typical of traveling in Texas. I agree. It should have been on Friday.
I suspect the word did not get around as widely as hoped since the program coordinator this year, Rickey McFadden of Paris Junior College, had by-pass surgery. He is doing fine but Scott Williams of Texarkana College did a great job of filling in.
I spoke on the requirements of a 21st century curriculum and the low enrollment problem. Tom McGlew of Maricopa Advanced Technology Education Center in Tempe, AZ talked about their NSF- funded Work-Ready Electronics program which is going well. If you ever need up-to-date supplements to your courses, go to www.work-readyelectronics.org and download their online modules.
The remainder of the talks were vendors of lab equipment like Heathkit and Nida. The only publisher attending was Michelle Cannnistraci of Delmar/Thomson. Of course, McGraw Hill and Prentice Hall were at the exhibits.
The relevant issues and problems of the day are really discussed at the traditional Saturday breakfast. Most schools are still suffering the low enrollment syndrome. Lots of jobs available but few students interested in learning electronics. The reasons are many as this blog has rehashed many times. Only two schools reported increases, Austin CC where I teach part time and Amarillo College. Both schools did extensive recruiting, curriculum revisions, local employer contacts, grants and new programs over the past two years. That's is what you have to do today not only if you want to survive but also to grow.
The prevailing attitude of many is still "I am an instructor and it is not my job to recruit, meet with industry, or update curriculum". Of course that is not true as most schools, and states, mandate this but the instructors just hate to do it.
The only suggestions I heard were to find a way to get more grants and to write to our state legislators who supposedly might give the schools money to survive if they find out that the source of technicians will go away if they do not. Nowhere was there any indication of the schools or professors doing anything themselves. No wonder these schools are down. Hey you guys, things change. You have to change too. Quit whining and complaining and do something about it. And that starts with working with the local employers or at least taking an in-depth look at the local job situation and that extends up to 100 miles away.
The final recommendation was to attend the SAME-TEC conference sponsored by MATEC this year in Dallas on July 25-29. The goal is to meet again to discuss issues and to potentially start up a state wide Electronics Instructors Association. California has had one for many years (California Council of Electronic Instructors). The possibility of forming a national electronic teachers association will also be discussed. It is really needed as there is no organization devoted to this. Certainly not ASEE. As good as they are, they almost ignore the CCs.
SAME-TEC has become THE conference covering electronics and related subjects at the CC level. It was in Albuquerque last year and the attendance was about 300. Very focused and relevant. Go to the MATEC website at www.matec.org for details. Be there......
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Comments
There has been a rash of spam comments to this blog recently. Where on earth does this stuff come from? Some of it is just stupid and undecipherable. Some are profane. I have removed this stuff so hopefully none of you saw it. Not good.
However, your comments are always welcome. That is why I started this blog. It is a place to exchange ideas. I have never removed a valid related comment even though it may conflict with my opinions. It is an open blog so we can figure out how to boost enrollments and improve the curriculum in our AAS degree programs in electronics technology. So share your knowledge and experiences here.
I am speaking at the Texas Community College Teachers Association meeting in Austin on Feb 22. They have a full day program devoted to Electronics. I will let you know what I said and what was said at the various sessions. It should be interesting. Stay tuned.
However, your comments are always welcome. That is why I started this blog. It is a place to exchange ideas. I have never removed a valid related comment even though it may conflict with my opinions. It is an open blog so we can figure out how to boost enrollments and improve the curriculum in our AAS degree programs in electronics technology. So share your knowledge and experiences here.
I am speaking at the Texas Community College Teachers Association meeting in Austin on Feb 22. They have a full day program devoted to Electronics. I will let you know what I said and what was said at the various sessions. It should be interesting. Stay tuned.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Wish List For 2007
Here is my wish list for 2007. These are the things I think that would improve electronic technology education, help increase enrollments, and improve relevancy to industry.
1. A more responsive faculty.
I wish that faculty were more positive about change and willing to make the changes needed to update the curriculum and improve course coverage with the latest technology. Most faculty react rather than act on their own initiative. They tend to wait to see what is happening and what is needed but then do little or nothing. If faculty could be more motivated to make improvements on an on-going basis there would be less need to force such changes. In fact, changes should come from faculty, not the administration. But with a "what's in it for me" attitude, faculty just doesn't want to bother. I just wish faculty would be more willing to learn new things and to actually practice the engineering they learned in school.
2. Fund continuing education.
Most colleges require a specific amount of education for hiring and most accredit bodies ask that faculty to get continuing education. But despite the big emphasis on educational requirements, colleges are hypocritical and simply fail to fund continuing education whether it is a higher degree or even a conference or seminar. Education is expensive and faculty cannot be required to totally fund this themselves. In a field like electronics, it is critical to recognize how fast things change and how continuing education is not only fun but essential to maintaining faculty competence and curriculum currency. Such activities like conferences and seminars can provide at least some of the much needed incentive and motivation to faculty. This lack of continuing education funding is one of the major reasons for the condition of most electronics departments today. Wake up you administrators.
3. Up to date textbooks.
Publishers of technology texts do splendid work but the books they produce are all virtual clones of one another. If one author adds a feature, all the other publishers follow suit to stay competitive. All these books look alike. Competitiveness helps of course but the books are still dated. They omit so much of the latest circuitry and applications while perpetuating the old circuits and methods. Since most professors follow the text to implement their courses, no wonder the courses and curriculum are out of date. The problem can be traced to the professors who write the books. Their knowledge and experience are dated. Most authors are not in regular touch with industry, trends and the latest developments and practices. Publishers should vet authors better and add industry reviewers that know what's really going on and what's important to cover.
That's not too much to ask is it?
1. A more responsive faculty.
I wish that faculty were more positive about change and willing to make the changes needed to update the curriculum and improve course coverage with the latest technology. Most faculty react rather than act on their own initiative. They tend to wait to see what is happening and what is needed but then do little or nothing. If faculty could be more motivated to make improvements on an on-going basis there would be less need to force such changes. In fact, changes should come from faculty, not the administration. But with a "what's in it for me" attitude, faculty just doesn't want to bother. I just wish faculty would be more willing to learn new things and to actually practice the engineering they learned in school.
2. Fund continuing education.
Most colleges require a specific amount of education for hiring and most accredit bodies ask that faculty to get continuing education. But despite the big emphasis on educational requirements, colleges are hypocritical and simply fail to fund continuing education whether it is a higher degree or even a conference or seminar. Education is expensive and faculty cannot be required to totally fund this themselves. In a field like electronics, it is critical to recognize how fast things change and how continuing education is not only fun but essential to maintaining faculty competence and curriculum currency. Such activities like conferences and seminars can provide at least some of the much needed incentive and motivation to faculty. This lack of continuing education funding is one of the major reasons for the condition of most electronics departments today. Wake up you administrators.
3. Up to date textbooks.
Publishers of technology texts do splendid work but the books they produce are all virtual clones of one another. If one author adds a feature, all the other publishers follow suit to stay competitive. All these books look alike. Competitiveness helps of course but the books are still dated. They omit so much of the latest circuitry and applications while perpetuating the old circuits and methods. Since most professors follow the text to implement their courses, no wonder the courses and curriculum are out of date. The problem can be traced to the professors who write the books. Their knowledge and experience are dated. Most authors are not in regular touch with industry, trends and the latest developments and practices. Publishers should vet authors better and add industry reviewers that know what's really going on and what's important to cover.
That's not too much to ask is it?
Friday, January 05, 2007
How I Updated a Traditional Course
It has been a while since I have posted any thing new. It was a busy last quarter.
I did teach last semester and did my best to update the course as much as possible. My school, unlike so many others, is at least trying to bring the curriculum and the courses kicking and screaming into the 21st century. The main opponents are....you guessed it....you guys. The instructors and professors just hate to change. This is especially true of the older guys who are truly living in the past and in denial. Most of them still think that things are the same now as they were when they were working in industry. At my college, most of those guys haven't worked in industry since the late 70s or early 80s. That is 20 to 30 years which in the field of electronics is many generations.
Anyway, we are lucky to have a few younger guys (30s and 40s) who recognize the problem and are trying to gradually morph the curriculum and the courses into something that industry will recognize as "modern". One of the first revisions was to merge DC and AC into one course. There was lots of grumbling about this but it has happened and all seems well. Taking out all that advanced mathematical analysis and design didn't hurt anything and it turns out and now more students are getting through these courses than before. I took the next course in the sequence which we call Solid State Devices and revised it this past semester. This is the course where the student learns semiconductor operation and application like diodes and transistors. It covers basic linear circuits. And since the advanced linear course we used to have was dropped from the curriculum we added all of the op amp and other advanced linear coverage to this course. So the project was one of having to take some stuff out to make room for the new stuff. And I wanted to take a more systems/IC approach than the previous discrete component circuit approach of the past. Furthermore there was lots of new technology to cover that was not being addressed. The whole project turned out to be tougher than I thought. I won't go into the nitty gritty but here is a summary of what I did.
First, I severely cut the bipolar transistor coverage. Yes, these devices are still widely used, but if you work in the real world you already know that over 90% of all transistors, discrete and integrated are MOSFETs. And most of those are inside ICs where you cannot get at them. Bipolars are still used in many linear circuits, mainly ICs, and find their way into many RF and microwave circuits. SiGe and HBTs are very common but I bet none of you even mention them much less cover them in detail. I at least mentioned them.
I toyed with the idea of teaching MOSFETs before BJTs but gave up on that as all the text books still do it the old fashion way, that is give you 15 chapters on 1001 ways to bias a BJT and only one chapter on MOSFETs. Bass ackwards from the real world. I suppose that eventually some author will write a text with MOSFETs first but I suspect no one would buy it because it is so "radiacal". Call me cynical.
I did teach the basic BJT common emitter amplifier but greatly reduced the time I spent on it. Even though you would be hard pressed to find any such circuit in the real world today, most instructors hammer the analysis home for months. Yet few if any students ever need that. I kept more of that analysis than I thought I would but it was just because several local employers have a queston on common emitter amplifiers in their technician hiring exam.
Incidentally, you may want to go get some of the tech hiring exams given by local employers just to see what they look for. I did that not too long ago and got three of them. I had a really good laugh. These exams are as dated if not more so than the curricula and textbooks. And yes, most of them did have a question about a BJT common emitter stage. One of the exams actually had a vacuum tube RC phase shift oscillator on it. I kid you not. Anyway, at least you will know what you need to teach your students to pass the exams. At least teach the minimum and not the full blown version.
With lots of extra time I picked up I covered more IC amplifiers like op amps, power amps, instrument amps, and so on. I added class D switching amps which are everywhere today.
I also expanded the power supply coverage. First I added Schottky diodes that most texts do not cover. They are used in just abut 100% of all power supplies today yet, most books and courses still do not cover them. I added switching regulator coverage, DC-DC converters, inverters and UPS, and the more common bus oriented power supplies. And of course power management chips which are inside almost everything today. As usual, the text did not cover most of this stuff. We use the latest (2006) PH text by Paynter but it contains nothing about the most widely used power supply circuits and equipment. In case you are interested, over 80% of all power supplies are of the switching variety yet coverage is slim to none in books or courses. I used the Work-Ready Electronic online modules for the course materials. (www.work-readyelectronics.org) I used the Switching Amps, Switching Power Supplies, Contemporaty Power Supplies and MOSFET modules. Look those up as they are great for your own continuing education and provide online self instruction the students can use. They give you a fast way to update a course.
Anyway, I documented the course content and changes for the rest of the faculty but it remains to be seen whether others will pick this up. At least my students got a more accurate picture of the circuits and applications of today than the history of electronics that so many other instructors still pontificate on.
Now if only the textbook publishers would wise up and do a real update on the books. Yet the people who write the books are the very instructors who are not technologically on top of it, so to speak. Hope we are not doomed to suffer with that problem for ever. Any ideas for a solution?
Happy New Year.
I did teach last semester and did my best to update the course as much as possible. My school, unlike so many others, is at least trying to bring the curriculum and the courses kicking and screaming into the 21st century. The main opponents are....you guessed it....you guys. The instructors and professors just hate to change. This is especially true of the older guys who are truly living in the past and in denial. Most of them still think that things are the same now as they were when they were working in industry. At my college, most of those guys haven't worked in industry since the late 70s or early 80s. That is 20 to 30 years which in the field of electronics is many generations.
Anyway, we are lucky to have a few younger guys (30s and 40s) who recognize the problem and are trying to gradually morph the curriculum and the courses into something that industry will recognize as "modern". One of the first revisions was to merge DC and AC into one course. There was lots of grumbling about this but it has happened and all seems well. Taking out all that advanced mathematical analysis and design didn't hurt anything and it turns out and now more students are getting through these courses than before. I took the next course in the sequence which we call Solid State Devices and revised it this past semester. This is the course where the student learns semiconductor operation and application like diodes and transistors. It covers basic linear circuits. And since the advanced linear course we used to have was dropped from the curriculum we added all of the op amp and other advanced linear coverage to this course. So the project was one of having to take some stuff out to make room for the new stuff. And I wanted to take a more systems/IC approach than the previous discrete component circuit approach of the past. Furthermore there was lots of new technology to cover that was not being addressed. The whole project turned out to be tougher than I thought. I won't go into the nitty gritty but here is a summary of what I did.
First, I severely cut the bipolar transistor coverage. Yes, these devices are still widely used, but if you work in the real world you already know that over 90% of all transistors, discrete and integrated are MOSFETs. And most of those are inside ICs where you cannot get at them. Bipolars are still used in many linear circuits, mainly ICs, and find their way into many RF and microwave circuits. SiGe and HBTs are very common but I bet none of you even mention them much less cover them in detail. I at least mentioned them.
I toyed with the idea of teaching MOSFETs before BJTs but gave up on that as all the text books still do it the old fashion way, that is give you 15 chapters on 1001 ways to bias a BJT and only one chapter on MOSFETs. Bass ackwards from the real world. I suppose that eventually some author will write a text with MOSFETs first but I suspect no one would buy it because it is so "radiacal". Call me cynical.
I did teach the basic BJT common emitter amplifier but greatly reduced the time I spent on it. Even though you would be hard pressed to find any such circuit in the real world today, most instructors hammer the analysis home for months. Yet few if any students ever need that. I kept more of that analysis than I thought I would but it was just because several local employers have a queston on common emitter amplifiers in their technician hiring exam.
Incidentally, you may want to go get some of the tech hiring exams given by local employers just to see what they look for. I did that not too long ago and got three of them. I had a really good laugh. These exams are as dated if not more so than the curricula and textbooks. And yes, most of them did have a question about a BJT common emitter stage. One of the exams actually had a vacuum tube RC phase shift oscillator on it. I kid you not. Anyway, at least you will know what you need to teach your students to pass the exams. At least teach the minimum and not the full blown version.
With lots of extra time I picked up I covered more IC amplifiers like op amps, power amps, instrument amps, and so on. I added class D switching amps which are everywhere today.
I also expanded the power supply coverage. First I added Schottky diodes that most texts do not cover. They are used in just abut 100% of all power supplies today yet, most books and courses still do not cover them. I added switching regulator coverage, DC-DC converters, inverters and UPS, and the more common bus oriented power supplies. And of course power management chips which are inside almost everything today. As usual, the text did not cover most of this stuff. We use the latest (2006) PH text by Paynter but it contains nothing about the most widely used power supply circuits and equipment. In case you are interested, over 80% of all power supplies are of the switching variety yet coverage is slim to none in books or courses. I used the Work-Ready Electronic online modules for the course materials. (www.work-readyelectronics.org) I used the Switching Amps, Switching Power Supplies, Contemporaty Power Supplies and MOSFET modules. Look those up as they are great for your own continuing education and provide online self instruction the students can use. They give you a fast way to update a course.
Anyway, I documented the course content and changes for the rest of the faculty but it remains to be seen whether others will pick this up. At least my students got a more accurate picture of the circuits and applications of today than the history of electronics that so many other instructors still pontificate on.
Now if only the textbook publishers would wise up and do a real update on the books. Yet the people who write the books are the very instructors who are not technologically on top of it, so to speak. Hope we are not doomed to suffer with that problem for ever. Any ideas for a solution?
Happy New Year.
Friday, October 27, 2006
It's time to take a systems approach
I am hoping that most of you are familiar with what I am saying in the title above. I have been hearing something like this for a year or more now from industry and the colleges. In fact, I am one of the ones who has been saying it over and over again in talks and articles. For those of you who have not heard it, or for those of you who want to know more, read on.
Our current approach to teaching electronics technology to train techs has been the same forever. DC, AC, solid state components, circuits, digital and so on. I don't see the need to change the topics all that much but the emphasis is all wrong for today. We need to teach more systems oriented topics and less detailed circuit analysis and design. Here's why.
First, techs do not design. At least most of them do not. The dozen or so engineering techs left in the US at this time may do some simple design, but for the most part that is the job of the engineer, not the tech. When will you community college instructors realize that?
Second, there are fewer and fewer discrete component circuits in use today. Virtually everything is in an IC these days. Sure there are a few discrete component designs but they fall into the category of high power or high voltage. Yet, everyone insists on teaching detailed bias networks for bipolars and FETs when we rarely ever see any of these. No one ever has to deal with these on the job today. We waste a huge amount of time on such topics and neglect some of the more important system level topics.
Third, we all work at the system level today. We work with large scale ICs, PC boards, modules, and equipment more than discrete component circuits. We repair by replacing ICs or boards and not by troubleshooting to the component level. It is not economically viable any more. Only a few still need to do this.
Fourth, the military shifted to a systems approach with all their techs years ago by gradually eliminating all that excruitatingly detailed circuit analysis. Who needs it any way?
What I am advocating is not totally throwing away circuit descriptions but just eliminating all that detail in design and analysis that no one ever needs or uses. Explain how things work, then teach specifications, standards, and how to test. Keep the discussions at the system level, more block diagrams and signal flow analysis. More big picture theory and how it works as opposed to nitty gritty circuit details.
For those of us who work in industry it is easy to see that this is what should be done. Trying to convince you electronic instructors that change is needed is a tough thing to do because you do not see or recognize the huge changes that have occurred over the years. I don't blame you because you have your hands full teaching. But you cannot continue to ignore the fact that things are no longer like it was when you went to school or when you had your industry experience. It is an amazingly different world. And you need to adjust the curriculum and courses to it.
I am teaching a solid state course this semester and believe me I am trying hard to break the old habits of teaching BJT biasing details and trying to emphasize those things that are relevant. It has not been easy for me. Besides, the textbooks are still locked into the past. The book I am using has a 2007 copyright on it but it is still teaching all that detail that no one uses and omits critical new topics outright. (Switching amplifiers, switching power supplies, etc.)
Until we get some new texts I suspect that most of you will continue on the same path. Just start thinking about how you would update the courses you teach. Bring the level up from circuits to systems. Use more ICs and shift the focus to real world techniques. You are short changing your students or at least giving them a warped view of things. You are teaching the history of electronics rather than the current technology.
I will have some more specific suggestions for you in the future, but just start at least thinking about this problem and how you can be part of the solution.
Our current approach to teaching electronics technology to train techs has been the same forever. DC, AC, solid state components, circuits, digital and so on. I don't see the need to change the topics all that much but the emphasis is all wrong for today. We need to teach more systems oriented topics and less detailed circuit analysis and design. Here's why.
First, techs do not design. At least most of them do not. The dozen or so engineering techs left in the US at this time may do some simple design, but for the most part that is the job of the engineer, not the tech. When will you community college instructors realize that?
Second, there are fewer and fewer discrete component circuits in use today. Virtually everything is in an IC these days. Sure there are a few discrete component designs but they fall into the category of high power or high voltage. Yet, everyone insists on teaching detailed bias networks for bipolars and FETs when we rarely ever see any of these. No one ever has to deal with these on the job today. We waste a huge amount of time on such topics and neglect some of the more important system level topics.
Third, we all work at the system level today. We work with large scale ICs, PC boards, modules, and equipment more than discrete component circuits. We repair by replacing ICs or boards and not by troubleshooting to the component level. It is not economically viable any more. Only a few still need to do this.
Fourth, the military shifted to a systems approach with all their techs years ago by gradually eliminating all that excruitatingly detailed circuit analysis. Who needs it any way?
What I am advocating is not totally throwing away circuit descriptions but just eliminating all that detail in design and analysis that no one ever needs or uses. Explain how things work, then teach specifications, standards, and how to test. Keep the discussions at the system level, more block diagrams and signal flow analysis. More big picture theory and how it works as opposed to nitty gritty circuit details.
For those of us who work in industry it is easy to see that this is what should be done. Trying to convince you electronic instructors that change is needed is a tough thing to do because you do not see or recognize the huge changes that have occurred over the years. I don't blame you because you have your hands full teaching. But you cannot continue to ignore the fact that things are no longer like it was when you went to school or when you had your industry experience. It is an amazingly different world. And you need to adjust the curriculum and courses to it.
I am teaching a solid state course this semester and believe me I am trying hard to break the old habits of teaching BJT biasing details and trying to emphasize those things that are relevant. It has not been easy for me. Besides, the textbooks are still locked into the past. The book I am using has a 2007 copyright on it but it is still teaching all that detail that no one uses and omits critical new topics outright. (Switching amplifiers, switching power supplies, etc.)
Until we get some new texts I suspect that most of you will continue on the same path. Just start thinking about how you would update the courses you teach. Bring the level up from circuits to systems. Use more ICs and shift the focus to real world techniques. You are short changing your students or at least giving them a warped view of things. You are teaching the history of electronics rather than the current technology.
I will have some more specific suggestions for you in the future, but just start at least thinking about this problem and how you can be part of the solution.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Good Neews For a Change
Amazing..... I am actually teaching this semester. While I work for industry full time, I still teach as an adjunct professor at Austin Community College. It has been over a year since I have taught anything. With enrollments so low that it was tough to keep the full time faculty scheduled, there was no need for adjuncts.
What happened this semester was a very positive indicator. Enrollments have literally doubled from a year ago. After two years of relentless work by the ACC Electronics faculty, they finally succeeded in turning around the department. They did lots of high school recruiting, changed their department name, tweaked the curriculum, and started a new Electric Power Distribution program. With so many baby boom workers in electric utilitities retiring, there is a forthcoming nationwide shortage of those familiar with electric power. With some good promotion, the college filled all the available classes for this beginning program. It looks very promising. If your college has not looked into it, you should talk to your local electric utility about it.
Anyway, I have been gradually updating my class in Solid State Circuits. I am reducing the coverage of bipolar biasing and related dated circuits and increasing coverage of MOSFETs and their circuits. I am focusing more on IC amplifiers and less on discrete component designs. Furthermore I have added switching amplifiers which most schools never cover. The same with switching power supplies with make up over 80% of all supplies today. In any case, despite the fact that our Prentice Hall text does not cover any of this modern stuff, I am making our students get it so they will be aware of what is really being used. A good way to add this material is to use the online tutorials available at www.work-readyelectronics.org . I am using some of these and they are working great.
I hope all of you try to add new up to date material to your courses. A good practice is to pick out one new relevant technology, circuit, component, or applications not previously covered and add it each time you teach the class. In a few years, it will be much more current and relevant.
I hope all of your programs are picking up new enrollments. The tech turnaround is complete now and employment has enjoyed a brisk increase. There are plenty of tech jobs out there, now all we need are the students. The solution to your low enrollments is local action as ACC proved here.
Let me know if you are still experiencing low enrollments and why you think that is.
What happened this semester was a very positive indicator. Enrollments have literally doubled from a year ago. After two years of relentless work by the ACC Electronics faculty, they finally succeeded in turning around the department. They did lots of high school recruiting, changed their department name, tweaked the curriculum, and started a new Electric Power Distribution program. With so many baby boom workers in electric utilitities retiring, there is a forthcoming nationwide shortage of those familiar with electric power. With some good promotion, the college filled all the available classes for this beginning program. It looks very promising. If your college has not looked into it, you should talk to your local electric utility about it.
Anyway, I have been gradually updating my class in Solid State Circuits. I am reducing the coverage of bipolar biasing and related dated circuits and increasing coverage of MOSFETs and their circuits. I am focusing more on IC amplifiers and less on discrete component designs. Furthermore I have added switching amplifiers which most schools never cover. The same with switching power supplies with make up over 80% of all supplies today. In any case, despite the fact that our Prentice Hall text does not cover any of this modern stuff, I am making our students get it so they will be aware of what is really being used. A good way to add this material is to use the online tutorials available at www.work-readyelectronics.org . I am using some of these and they are working great.
I hope all of you try to add new up to date material to your courses. A good practice is to pick out one new relevant technology, circuit, component, or applications not previously covered and add it each time you teach the class. In a few years, it will be much more current and relevant.
I hope all of your programs are picking up new enrollments. The tech turnaround is complete now and employment has enjoyed a brisk increase. There are plenty of tech jobs out there, now all we need are the students. The solution to your low enrollments is local action as ACC proved here.
Let me know if you are still experiencing low enrollments and why you think that is.
You Missed a Good One
Back in July, the Maricopa Advanced Technology Education Center (MATEC) held its annual conference, this time in Albuquerque at the Hyatt. MATEC is an NSF-funded Advanced Technology Education (ATE) center and does a great deal of good work in developing materials and programs in semiconductor, electronics and manufacturing. A good example is the Work-Ready Electronics project with the great online tutorials. (www.work-readyelectronics.org) The conference is called Semiconductors, Automated Manufacturing, Electronics Training and Educations Conference (SAME-TEC). There was a turn out of about 300 community college instructors and administrators plus good industry representation. The workshops and sessions were terrific as usual.
There is no way I can summarize all what went on here but the main sessions are posted on the MATEC website . Go to matec.org, and look under conferences. There is a list of the presentations and a batch of photos.
I would particularly like you to look at the session by Garry Mullett of Springfield Technical Community College. The paper he gave was titled "Are the Electronics Technology Departments of Today Destined to Become Academic Service Departments of Tommorrow?" Gary puts forth most of the arguments and issues I have been hammering on here for the past year or so. He makes a lot of the same points and some new observations as well. As I told the audience after his presentation, "Everything he says is true."
One of the more interesting sessions was a special workshop put on by MATEC. It was an extra cost option to the conference and we had about 21 faculty and industry people show up for it. The title was "Designing the Electronics Curriculum for the 21st Century". It was our attempt to initiate some real action in changing the curriculum to reflect what is really going on in the jobs and industry. The panelists were Roy Brixen of the College of San Mateo, Wayne Philips of Chabot College, Tom McGlew of MATEC and myself, Lou Frenzel of Electronic Design magazine. We first presented some background about the declining enrollments problem then described some of the changes occuring in some schools around the country. In summary, we all agreed that the current curricula leave something to be desired. It is dated and skewed from what industry really wants and needs. Virtually all agreed, industry participants included, that we need less circuit analysis and design and more system level coverage in the courses. The current curricula and courses still focus too much on discrete components and circuits while technician work in the real world is at a board, module and equipment level. We discussed several ways to address that problem.
The afternoon session of the workshop had the participants divide up into four groups to beat out their version of a new curriculum. The results are too volumous to display here, but they all point in the direction of less circuits and more systems. The lack of textbooks to implement this approach was discussed although no solution was recommended. Electronics editor Jonathan Plant from McGraw Hill was there to hear what he needs to do. Thanks for being there, Jonathan.
Real progress was made, I think. The big problem is getting the results of this workshop out to the rest of you who are gutsy enough to attempt to bring your program kicking and screaming into the 21st century. MATEC recently submitted a proposal to NSF for a three year project to make this happen. Let's hope they win.
You may want to factor the SAME-TEC conference into your summer plans next year. It will be held in Texas, Dallas, I think. Check the MATEC website for details next year.
There is no way I can summarize all what went on here but the main sessions are posted on the MATEC website . Go to matec.org, and look under conferences. There is a list of the presentations and a batch of photos.
I would particularly like you to look at the session by Garry Mullett of Springfield Technical Community College. The paper he gave was titled "Are the Electronics Technology Departments of Today Destined to Become Academic Service Departments of Tommorrow?" Gary puts forth most of the arguments and issues I have been hammering on here for the past year or so. He makes a lot of the same points and some new observations as well. As I told the audience after his presentation, "Everything he says is true."
One of the more interesting sessions was a special workshop put on by MATEC. It was an extra cost option to the conference and we had about 21 faculty and industry people show up for it. The title was "Designing the Electronics Curriculum for the 21st Century". It was our attempt to initiate some real action in changing the curriculum to reflect what is really going on in the jobs and industry. The panelists were Roy Brixen of the College of San Mateo, Wayne Philips of Chabot College, Tom McGlew of MATEC and myself, Lou Frenzel of Electronic Design magazine. We first presented some background about the declining enrollments problem then described some of the changes occuring in some schools around the country. In summary, we all agreed that the current curricula leave something to be desired. It is dated and skewed from what industry really wants and needs. Virtually all agreed, industry participants included, that we need less circuit analysis and design and more system level coverage in the courses. The current curricula and courses still focus too much on discrete components and circuits while technician work in the real world is at a board, module and equipment level. We discussed several ways to address that problem.
The afternoon session of the workshop had the participants divide up into four groups to beat out their version of a new curriculum. The results are too volumous to display here, but they all point in the direction of less circuits and more systems. The lack of textbooks to implement this approach was discussed although no solution was recommended. Electronics editor Jonathan Plant from McGraw Hill was there to hear what he needs to do. Thanks for being there, Jonathan.
Real progress was made, I think. The big problem is getting the results of this workshop out to the rest of you who are gutsy enough to attempt to bring your program kicking and screaming into the 21st century. MATEC recently submitted a proposal to NSF for a three year project to make this happen. Let's hope they win.
You may want to factor the SAME-TEC conference into your summer plans next year. It will be held in Texas, Dallas, I think. Check the MATEC website for details next year.
Someone is Paying Attention - Is it too late?
I have delinquent in posting the past months which reflects how busy things have been. But that is a good thing. I have lots of new stuff to post so let me get started. Watch for some new material in the coming days.
Roy Brixen of San Mateo College sent me the attached article from the Sacremento Bee. Take a look.
sacbee.com - The online division of The Sacramento Bee
Schools should prepare students for real-world jobs
By Jack M. Stewart - Special to the Bee, Sunday, October 15, 2006
The numbers are striking. Thirty percent of California high school students drop out prior to graduating, most of them citing school's irrelevance totheir lives. Of those who enter ninth grade, only one in four will go on toobtain a four-year college degree. Many of those who do not obtain abachelor's degree are left unprepared by the public school system foropportunities in the workplace for middle-wage jobs that do not require acollege degree. That's about 72 percent of the jobs in America.We have lost touch with the purpose of public education to prepare ourchildren for meaningful careers. Biases against career technical educationamong academia coupled with a growing pressure to teach to standardizedtests are forcing schools to prepare students for a future they will neverhave, rather than delivering graduates armed with the real-world skills totake 21st century jobs."We have trouble finding employees to fill family-wage jobs here," saysKellie Johnson, president of Ace Clearwater Enterprises, a partsmanufacturer based in Torrance. "Yet, when one of my mid-level employees wasrecently asked why he is in manufacturing, he responded with pride, 'I haveonly a high school diploma, I make $72,000 a year, and I design and makethings that go to the moon.' "Skilled manufacturers in California earn salaries of between $50,000 and$80,000 a year, according to the California Employment Department. Theaverage industrial technician, for example, earned $54,643 last year, whileall other full-time U.S. workers earned a median income of less than$34,000. Manufacturing jobs in California, by the process of elimination,are becoming one of the state's few sources of middle-class and family-wagejobs.Peter Zierhut of Haas Automation Inc., a machine tool builder based inOxnard that pays skilled workers up to $28 an hour with benefits, says, "Ihave visited dozens of community colleges and vocational training centers,all over America. Every school tells me the same story -- that localbusiness is overwhelming them with requests for new graduates withemployable skills."A recent survey of California community college students provides insight.In Contra Costa County, 75 percent of students stated that they had notconsidered applying for a manufacturing job because they thought the pay wastoo low. This perception has consequences that are harmful to the state'seconomy. Shortages of applicants have forced companies like Dow Chemical inContra Costa County, which pays skilled workers up to $100,000, to recruitlaborers outside California.California's education system is attempting to prepare all students for thesame future, while failing to embrace the evolution of our economy. Anexcessive emphasis on college prep courses leaves most high school studentswithout skills to apply for the fastest growing sectors in the Californiaeconomy. Bureau of Labor Statistics projections show less than a 1 percentincrease in the proportion of jobs in the national economy requiring abachelor's degree or higher in the next six years. Between 2003 and 2005, 27percent of all new California jobs were in the construction industry,according to the Employment Development Department. The Bureau of LaborStatistics' projections anticipate that 72 percent of American jobs will notrequire a four-year college degree.Exacerbating the problem in the state are the California High School ExitExam and standardized testing. The pressure is on educators to improve thenumbers associated with these oft-politicized tests, and any improvementwill undoubtedly come to the detriment of career technical education. Asschools focus more resources on teaching to these tests, students are beingremoved from rigorous courses such as career and technical education. In2005, 40,000 fewer students enrolled in courses that provided skills inrobotics, agriculture, automotive technology, business, construction,pre-engineering and manufacturing than in the previous year. Today,California has the lowest percentage of students enrolled in career andtechnical education courses in our state's history, according to the stateDepartment of Education.There are other forces at work that undermine career technical education.California's university system has a thinly veiled bias against vocationalstudies that has, as a practical effect, discouraged high schools fromexpanding career technical education courses. In an Aug. 7 letter, aUniversity of California lobbyist spelled out the institution's oppositionto legislation that would have barred the UC system from discriminatingagainst an applicant for secondary curriculum meeting State Board ofEducation standards, including career technical education courses.The letter reads: "SB 1543 could jeopardize the quality of studentpreparation by ... asking UC to accept courses that may not be related topreparation for college, such as cabinetmaking, food service, and weldingbut meet the State Board-approved standards that were written to preparestudents for those particular career paths."Ironically, under the bill, career technical education courses, like thosedescribed in the letter, and which meet the academically rigorous standardsestablished by the Board of Education, are rejected, while visual andperforming art courses such as "dance movement," "tap-dancing" and "choir"are accepted by the UC system.But some education leaders are catching on to the trend in technicalcareers. Founded 10 years ago in California's wine country, Napa's NewTechnology High School prepares students with project-based courses thatrequire students to work in teams on group tasks to give them real-worldwork force experience."In the wake of regional (military) base closures and our growing economy,the business community came to the school board and pressed for the creationof a new type of learning," says Susan Schilling of New TechnologyFoundation. "The result was the creation of our innovative high school whereall courses -- everything from English to technical courses -- are taught asinteractive and project-based. The students employ the tools of the modernworkplace including technology and group collaboration. We prepare them foradmission to the UC or the modern workplace, wherever they set theirsights."Sparked by new state and federal investment funds, Freestyle High School in Mountain View is another one of the few high schools focusing on technicaleducation. "More districts are starting to look at this and finding this isa great way to deal with the dropout problem," said Pat Ainsworth, assistantstate superintendent of schools and director of career technical education.Gone are the nostalgic days when the majority of American workers couldbuild a successful career and support a family without a high schooldiploma. But conversely, it is unrealistic to expect that every high schoolstudent will earn a bachelor's degree and be guaranteed a highfalutincorporate salary.The future of California's economy clearly demands that lawmakers andeducation leaders embrace career technical education as an equal partner inthe matriculation of our youth. Anything less will result in the outsourcingof our best family-wage jobs, and with them, California's future.
Jack M. Stewart is president of the California Manufacturers & TechnologyAssociation in Sacramento.
Roy's comments to me were: "Some voices from outside are beginning to ask questgions. Only problem is, will there be any programs left to train and educate workers by the time reality hits the system." For those of us who teach in electronics, this is the painful truth. Looks like solutions lie at the state and local levels for sure. What are you doing to prolong the life of your program?
Roy Brixen of San Mateo College sent me the attached article from the Sacremento Bee. Take a look.
sacbee.com - The online division of The Sacramento Bee
Schools should prepare students for real-world jobs
By Jack M. Stewart - Special to the Bee, Sunday, October 15, 2006
The numbers are striking. Thirty percent of California high school students drop out prior to graduating, most of them citing school's irrelevance totheir lives. Of those who enter ninth grade, only one in four will go on toobtain a four-year college degree. Many of those who do not obtain abachelor's degree are left unprepared by the public school system foropportunities in the workplace for middle-wage jobs that do not require acollege degree. That's about 72 percent of the jobs in America.We have lost touch with the purpose of public education to prepare ourchildren for meaningful careers. Biases against career technical educationamong academia coupled with a growing pressure to teach to standardizedtests are forcing schools to prepare students for a future they will neverhave, rather than delivering graduates armed with the real-world skills totake 21st century jobs."We have trouble finding employees to fill family-wage jobs here," saysKellie Johnson, president of Ace Clearwater Enterprises, a partsmanufacturer based in Torrance. "Yet, when one of my mid-level employees wasrecently asked why he is in manufacturing, he responded with pride, 'I haveonly a high school diploma, I make $72,000 a year, and I design and makethings that go to the moon.' "Skilled manufacturers in California earn salaries of between $50,000 and$80,000 a year, according to the California Employment Department. Theaverage industrial technician, for example, earned $54,643 last year, whileall other full-time U.S. workers earned a median income of less than$34,000. Manufacturing jobs in California, by the process of elimination,are becoming one of the state's few sources of middle-class and family-wagejobs.Peter Zierhut of Haas Automation Inc., a machine tool builder based inOxnard that pays skilled workers up to $28 an hour with benefits, says, "Ihave visited dozens of community colleges and vocational training centers,all over America. Every school tells me the same story -- that localbusiness is overwhelming them with requests for new graduates withemployable skills."A recent survey of California community college students provides insight.In Contra Costa County, 75 percent of students stated that they had notconsidered applying for a manufacturing job because they thought the pay wastoo low. This perception has consequences that are harmful to the state'seconomy. Shortages of applicants have forced companies like Dow Chemical inContra Costa County, which pays skilled workers up to $100,000, to recruitlaborers outside California.California's education system is attempting to prepare all students for thesame future, while failing to embrace the evolution of our economy. Anexcessive emphasis on college prep courses leaves most high school studentswithout skills to apply for the fastest growing sectors in the Californiaeconomy. Bureau of Labor Statistics projections show less than a 1 percentincrease in the proportion of jobs in the national economy requiring abachelor's degree or higher in the next six years. Between 2003 and 2005, 27percent of all new California jobs were in the construction industry,according to the Employment Development Department. The Bureau of LaborStatistics' projections anticipate that 72 percent of American jobs will notrequire a four-year college degree.Exacerbating the problem in the state are the California High School ExitExam and standardized testing. The pressure is on educators to improve thenumbers associated with these oft-politicized tests, and any improvementwill undoubtedly come to the detriment of career technical education. Asschools focus more resources on teaching to these tests, students are beingremoved from rigorous courses such as career and technical education. In2005, 40,000 fewer students enrolled in courses that provided skills inrobotics, agriculture, automotive technology, business, construction,pre-engineering and manufacturing than in the previous year. Today,California has the lowest percentage of students enrolled in career andtechnical education courses in our state's history, according to the stateDepartment of Education.There are other forces at work that undermine career technical education.California's university system has a thinly veiled bias against vocationalstudies that has, as a practical effect, discouraged high schools fromexpanding career technical education courses. In an Aug. 7 letter, aUniversity of California lobbyist spelled out the institution's oppositionto legislation that would have barred the UC system from discriminatingagainst an applicant for secondary curriculum meeting State Board ofEducation standards, including career technical education courses.The letter reads: "SB 1543 could jeopardize the quality of studentpreparation by ... asking UC to accept courses that may not be related topreparation for college, such as cabinetmaking, food service, and weldingbut meet the State Board-approved standards that were written to preparestudents for those particular career paths."Ironically, under the bill, career technical education courses, like thosedescribed in the letter, and which meet the academically rigorous standardsestablished by the Board of Education, are rejected, while visual andperforming art courses such as "dance movement," "tap-dancing" and "choir"are accepted by the UC system.But some education leaders are catching on to the trend in technicalcareers. Founded 10 years ago in California's wine country, Napa's NewTechnology High School prepares students with project-based courses thatrequire students to work in teams on group tasks to give them real-worldwork force experience."In the wake of regional (military) base closures and our growing economy,the business community came to the school board and pressed for the creationof a new type of learning," says Susan Schilling of New TechnologyFoundation. "The result was the creation of our innovative high school whereall courses -- everything from English to technical courses -- are taught asinteractive and project-based. The students employ the tools of the modernworkplace including technology and group collaboration. We prepare them foradmission to the UC or the modern workplace, wherever they set theirsights."Sparked by new state and federal investment funds, Freestyle High School in Mountain View is another one of the few high schools focusing on technicaleducation. "More districts are starting to look at this and finding this isa great way to deal with the dropout problem," said Pat Ainsworth, assistantstate superintendent of schools and director of career technical education.Gone are the nostalgic days when the majority of American workers couldbuild a successful career and support a family without a high schooldiploma. But conversely, it is unrealistic to expect that every high schoolstudent will earn a bachelor's degree and be guaranteed a highfalutincorporate salary.The future of California's economy clearly demands that lawmakers andeducation leaders embrace career technical education as an equal partner inthe matriculation of our youth. Anything less will result in the outsourcingof our best family-wage jobs, and with them, California's future.
Jack M. Stewart is president of the California Manufacturers & TechnologyAssociation in Sacramento.
Roy's comments to me were: "Some voices from outside are beginning to ask questgions. Only problem is, will there be any programs left to train and educate workers by the time reality hits the system." For those of us who teach in electronics, this is the painful truth. Looks like solutions lie at the state and local levels for sure. What are you doing to prolong the life of your program?
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Continuing Education for ET Professors
Every electronic engineer and technician must participate in some form of continuing education if he or she intends to stay competent, retain a job and grow personally. As an engineer, technician or instructor, you live or die by what you know. To be successful in electronics you must know the latest technology and apply it to benefit your employer and to your company's customers. In an article for Electronic Design magazine a few years back, I wrote the following: "If you're not involved in some form of continuing education, then you are doomed to suffer the consequences of ignorance, peer contempt, technological obsolescence and eventual obscurity...and then you retire early." Does this sound like you?
I suspect that most practicing engineers do engage in some form of continuing education. But from what I have seen, not many instructors or professors from community college AAS degree electronic programs do. I hope I am wrong about you, but I bet I am not. Why? If instructors and professors were up to date with the latest knowledge, then the courses and curriculum would not be so out of whack with the real world. To say that today's curriculum is skewed from reality and that the instructors are living in some delusional world of the past is really being too kind. I'd like to use the phraseology of popular comedian Lewis Black, but that would not be professional. But for those of you who have heard Black's routine, you know what I mean. I can only attribute the the poor state of the curriculum to lack of adequate continuing education and exposure to actual technician and engineering work. I realize that as professors you cannot actually go out and get a job to see what it is really like, but you could at least engage in some kind of continuing education that would keep you informed about what is important and what is not. And that, hopefully, would lead to more current and relevant courses and curricula. I am probably just dreaming, but I can hope can't I?
Magazines
Continuing education need not be all that hard or time consuming or expensive. The fastest and easiest thing to do is subscribe to some of the many magazines devoted to electronics and related subjects. Most of the good publications are "controlled circulation" meaning that they are free. You cannot complain about the price. If you are a professor and engineer, just go to the relevant website and subscribe. The best ones are Electronic Design (this is the one I write for), EDN, and EE Times. The first two come out twice a month, the other weekly. If you do nothing more than read these three, you will be about as informed as possible about what is going on with components, circuits, technologies, applications, and issues.
One of the absolute best magazines is IEEE Spectrum. You have to join IEEE to get it but that is a good thing. Worth every penny. If you join you will also find out about all the other magazines they have and all of the other educational products and activities just for engineers. Check out www.ieee.org.
Then you should also subscribe to the only remaining popular hobbyiest/experimenter magazine, Nuts & Volts. It is a monthly and not that expensive. But it has lots of good articles and hands-on projects many of which are suitable for labs. Other good magazines to which you must actually subscribe are:
1. Circuit Cellar--Great magazine about embedded controllers, interfacing, etc.
2. Popular Communications--For those of you who teach communications and RF.
3. QST and CQ--The traditional ham radio magazines. Good sources.
4. Servo--A magazine devoted to hobby robots by the publishers of Nuts & Volts. Excellent articles and projects.
There are a whole slew of other magazines, but these are the core. Just reading these each month will keep you on top.
Conferences
Another good continuing education activity is attending conferences. The educational conferences like ASEE and SAME-TEC (matec.org) are good, but I am talking about electronics- related events. There are so many that I cannot even begin to list them all. If you read the magazines, you will hear about these events. And yes, they are expensive. But the sessions, workshops, and exhibits are so overwhelmingly good that you will come away with a head full of fresh knowledge, a whole new perspective and lots of good ideas. I recommend at least one a year. Try to put the expenses for this into your annual budget. It is worth it, believe me. Just try one and see.
Books
Books are always good for updating yourself. You can get some of them free for evaluation from publishers. But most you cannot. You will need a budget for this too. Books got expensive and the better ones approach $100 each and many exceed that. Your best bet to find these is to go to Amazon and search by subject. Otherwise, go directly to the publishers lists. Some of the better sources are Elsevier/Newnes, McGraw Hill, John Wiley, IEEE, Prentice Hall, ArchTech House, Noble, Addison Wesley, and Cambridge University Press. If you buy from Amazon, you can often find a used copy for much less. I usually buy used myself when they are available. Most are still in good condition.
Seminars and Workshops
Seminars and workshops still occur from time to time. These are given by private companies and university continuing education departments and are very expensive. They are really good, but probably beyond your budget. For some cheap and even free seminars check out the major semiconductor manufacturers who give annual workshops. Examples: Analog Devices, Freescale, and Texas Instruments.
Webinars, free online seminars have become amazingly popular. Most are given by companies promoting their products. But don't let that stop you as all of them give basics and fundamentals and other useful information. And don't forget, that the real engineering world is nothing but commercial components and products. You live and die by your knowledge of them. A good source of webinars is the TechOnLine website.
Back to School
As for going back to school for an advance degree, I say forget it. Most of you probably already have a masters anyway. If you do not have one, it probably is worth the time, effort and money if you are not approaching retirement in a few years. You get a good return on you investment. Not so for a PhD, at least in a community college. It is nice to have, but you won't get any more out of it than being able to say you are Doctor so-and-so. Some people do it just for that. Anyway, check out the National Technological University who can give you a fully accredited masters online.
Online Learning
As I travel around for the magazine, I interview lots of engineers and executives. I ask them what they do to learn new things. They all mention briefly the things I mentioned above to some degree or the other. But...and here is the big secret.... most learn from the Internet. Busy professionals don't typically have the time to go to class for general education. Most have very specific learning needs related to the job, a current project or some future interest. Almost every one of these people gets that education informally with a Google or Yahoo search. Just type in the topic you want to learn, and voila', you get thousands of hits. Print it out, sort it, organize it, read it and then you know. You can give yourself a quickie education on virtually subject any time. It is fast, easy, and free. Give it a try.
An Experimentation Bench
One last thing. Personal experimentation. If you are a real tech, you probably have a bench where you still build kits, play around with circuits, fix defective products, etc. Nothing beats this kind of hands-on work. You can still learn a great deal by just doing practical real world experimenting. Get yourself a breadboard trainer, some parts, a DMM and a scope and play around. Play engineer as you were educated. If you don't have a shop of your own, do it in the school lab. It is fun and educational. Maybe I am just an incurable techie or geek....whatever...but I still do this.
And go learn something new.
Copyright 2006 Louis E. Frenzel Jr.
I suspect that most practicing engineers do engage in some form of continuing education. But from what I have seen, not many instructors or professors from community college AAS degree electronic programs do. I hope I am wrong about you, but I bet I am not. Why? If instructors and professors were up to date with the latest knowledge, then the courses and curriculum would not be so out of whack with the real world. To say that today's curriculum is skewed from reality and that the instructors are living in some delusional world of the past is really being too kind. I'd like to use the phraseology of popular comedian Lewis Black, but that would not be professional. But for those of you who have heard Black's routine, you know what I mean. I can only attribute the the poor state of the curriculum to lack of adequate continuing education and exposure to actual technician and engineering work. I realize that as professors you cannot actually go out and get a job to see what it is really like, but you could at least engage in some kind of continuing education that would keep you informed about what is important and what is not. And that, hopefully, would lead to more current and relevant courses and curricula. I am probably just dreaming, but I can hope can't I?
Magazines
Continuing education need not be all that hard or time consuming or expensive. The fastest and easiest thing to do is subscribe to some of the many magazines devoted to electronics and related subjects. Most of the good publications are "controlled circulation" meaning that they are free. You cannot complain about the price. If you are a professor and engineer, just go to the relevant website and subscribe. The best ones are Electronic Design (this is the one I write for), EDN, and EE Times. The first two come out twice a month, the other weekly. If you do nothing more than read these three, you will be about as informed as possible about what is going on with components, circuits, technologies, applications, and issues.
One of the absolute best magazines is IEEE Spectrum. You have to join IEEE to get it but that is a good thing. Worth every penny. If you join you will also find out about all the other magazines they have and all of the other educational products and activities just for engineers. Check out www.ieee.org.
Then you should also subscribe to the only remaining popular hobbyiest/experimenter magazine, Nuts & Volts. It is a monthly and not that expensive. But it has lots of good articles and hands-on projects many of which are suitable for labs. Other good magazines to which you must actually subscribe are:
1. Circuit Cellar--Great magazine about embedded controllers, interfacing, etc.
2. Popular Communications--For those of you who teach communications and RF.
3. QST and CQ--The traditional ham radio magazines. Good sources.
4. Servo--A magazine devoted to hobby robots by the publishers of Nuts & Volts. Excellent articles and projects.
There are a whole slew of other magazines, but these are the core. Just reading these each month will keep you on top.
Conferences
Another good continuing education activity is attending conferences. The educational conferences like ASEE and SAME-TEC (matec.org) are good, but I am talking about electronics- related events. There are so many that I cannot even begin to list them all. If you read the magazines, you will hear about these events. And yes, they are expensive. But the sessions, workshops, and exhibits are so overwhelmingly good that you will come away with a head full of fresh knowledge, a whole new perspective and lots of good ideas. I recommend at least one a year. Try to put the expenses for this into your annual budget. It is worth it, believe me. Just try one and see.
Books
Books are always good for updating yourself. You can get some of them free for evaluation from publishers. But most you cannot. You will need a budget for this too. Books got expensive and the better ones approach $100 each and many exceed that. Your best bet to find these is to go to Amazon and search by subject. Otherwise, go directly to the publishers lists. Some of the better sources are Elsevier/Newnes, McGraw Hill, John Wiley, IEEE, Prentice Hall, ArchTech House, Noble, Addison Wesley, and Cambridge University Press. If you buy from Amazon, you can often find a used copy for much less. I usually buy used myself when they are available. Most are still in good condition.
Seminars and Workshops
Seminars and workshops still occur from time to time. These are given by private companies and university continuing education departments and are very expensive. They are really good, but probably beyond your budget. For some cheap and even free seminars check out the major semiconductor manufacturers who give annual workshops. Examples: Analog Devices, Freescale, and Texas Instruments.
Webinars, free online seminars have become amazingly popular. Most are given by companies promoting their products. But don't let that stop you as all of them give basics and fundamentals and other useful information. And don't forget, that the real engineering world is nothing but commercial components and products. You live and die by your knowledge of them. A good source of webinars is the TechOnLine website.
Back to School
As for going back to school for an advance degree, I say forget it. Most of you probably already have a masters anyway. If you do not have one, it probably is worth the time, effort and money if you are not approaching retirement in a few years. You get a good return on you investment. Not so for a PhD, at least in a community college. It is nice to have, but you won't get any more out of it than being able to say you are Doctor so-and-so. Some people do it just for that. Anyway, check out the National Technological University who can give you a fully accredited masters online.
Online Learning
As I travel around for the magazine, I interview lots of engineers and executives. I ask them what they do to learn new things. They all mention briefly the things I mentioned above to some degree or the other. But...and here is the big secret.... most learn from the Internet. Busy professionals don't typically have the time to go to class for general education. Most have very specific learning needs related to the job, a current project or some future interest. Almost every one of these people gets that education informally with a Google or Yahoo search. Just type in the topic you want to learn, and voila', you get thousands of hits. Print it out, sort it, organize it, read it and then you know. You can give yourself a quickie education on virtually subject any time. It is fast, easy, and free. Give it a try.
An Experimentation Bench
One last thing. Personal experimentation. If you are a real tech, you probably have a bench where you still build kits, play around with circuits, fix defective products, etc. Nothing beats this kind of hands-on work. You can still learn a great deal by just doing practical real world experimenting. Get yourself a breadboard trainer, some parts, a DMM and a scope and play around. Play engineer as you were educated. If you don't have a shop of your own, do it in the school lab. It is fun and educational. Maybe I am just an incurable techie or geek....whatever...but I still do this.
And go learn something new.
Copyright 2006 Louis E. Frenzel Jr.
Instructors Teach What They Want, Not What is Needed
It being summer and all, I don't suspect many of you are reading this blog. It is a relief to take the summer off and get away from the stresses of academia, especially if it is Electronic Technology where there is little good news about enrollments. But for those of you still monitoring this site, here is something I wanted to get off my chest for a while. This is one subject I have been wanting to comment on for some time now. It affects all of us who teach and it certainly has an impact on our students and the employers who will eventually hire them.
At a department meeting in the college where I teach occasionally, we were discussing curriculum changes and changes to course content to bring each course up to date. As those discussions often go, we got into a harangue about teaching bipolar transistors and biasing methods. Many of us know that it is a rare thing indeed if an AAS graduate technician ever really does have to know ten ways to bias a BJT. It just never comes up in the real world. Most textbooks still go on and on about that subject and many instructors teach all the gory details like load lines, temperature stabilization, etc. The recommendation was to drop all of that and expand coverage of MOSFETs since over 80% of all electronic circuits today use MOSFETs and not BJTs. We should still teach that BJTs need bias and give an example or two but it is not purdent to spend half the semester teaching it in lieu of far more important stuff that never gets included.
Anyway, and here is the core of this note, one of the instructors said and I paraphrase, "Lou, you can change the content and curriculum all you want, but I am still going to teach it the way I have always been teaching it for the past 15 years." Within that statement you have a clear picture of what is wrong with Electronics Technology education today. It includes an attitude problem as well as a rejection of adding any thing new or relevant. No wonder programs are so dated. The instructors fail to change. They are hell-bent not to change. Are you one of them?
I got to thinking about this attitude and approach and realized that most instructors practice it to some degree. Especially the part about teaching what they want. Instructors tend to teach what is familiar and subjects they like and are intimately familiar with. For one thing they never have to waste time learning anything new. Just walk into class and spout the same old stuff semester after semester, even if that subject is obsolete. When a colleague of mine said, "Lou, we are just teaching the history of electronics." I couldn't help but agree fully. I had a professor in college that continued to teach vacuum tube circuits because he felt that the concepts were still valid. While that may be partially true, think of what we were not learning about transistors.
It is not a tragedy to teach older concepts and they are often useful as perspective and conceptual. But, in an AAS program where time is of the essence, it is almost a criminal act to use up what precious semester time we have teaching non-relevant material when so much new and essential concepts, products, technologies do not get taught. It is appalling to me to see this. It hurts our graduates and their future employers.
Look, we all teach what we want and like. I find myself doing it. But at least I try to include the new material. And in most cases, at least with me, what I want and like is the new and interesting technologies that turn me on. Am I so weird that I like to learn new stuff on a regular basis? I must be as so many of my colleagues hate the idea. Are you so lazy that you cannot be bothered to devote some time to learning what is new and relevant? Evidentally.
Let me get a bit preachy here. It is ok to teach what you know and like. But, each time you teach it, try to drop one dated subject and replace it with a newer and more relevant subject. If you did that every time you taught the course, the whole course would gradually be updated as would you. Why not give that a try? Your reward is the lightening of your guilt.
At a department meeting in the college where I teach occasionally, we were discussing curriculum changes and changes to course content to bring each course up to date. As those discussions often go, we got into a harangue about teaching bipolar transistors and biasing methods. Many of us know that it is a rare thing indeed if an AAS graduate technician ever really does have to know ten ways to bias a BJT. It just never comes up in the real world. Most textbooks still go on and on about that subject and many instructors teach all the gory details like load lines, temperature stabilization, etc. The recommendation was to drop all of that and expand coverage of MOSFETs since over 80% of all electronic circuits today use MOSFETs and not BJTs. We should still teach that BJTs need bias and give an example or two but it is not purdent to spend half the semester teaching it in lieu of far more important stuff that never gets included.
Anyway, and here is the core of this note, one of the instructors said and I paraphrase, "Lou, you can change the content and curriculum all you want, but I am still going to teach it the way I have always been teaching it for the past 15 years." Within that statement you have a clear picture of what is wrong with Electronics Technology education today. It includes an attitude problem as well as a rejection of adding any thing new or relevant. No wonder programs are so dated. The instructors fail to change. They are hell-bent not to change. Are you one of them?
I got to thinking about this attitude and approach and realized that most instructors practice it to some degree. Especially the part about teaching what they want. Instructors tend to teach what is familiar and subjects they like and are intimately familiar with. For one thing they never have to waste time learning anything new. Just walk into class and spout the same old stuff semester after semester, even if that subject is obsolete. When a colleague of mine said, "Lou, we are just teaching the history of electronics." I couldn't help but agree fully. I had a professor in college that continued to teach vacuum tube circuits because he felt that the concepts were still valid. While that may be partially true, think of what we were not learning about transistors.
It is not a tragedy to teach older concepts and they are often useful as perspective and conceptual. But, in an AAS program where time is of the essence, it is almost a criminal act to use up what precious semester time we have teaching non-relevant material when so much new and essential concepts, products, technologies do not get taught. It is appalling to me to see this. It hurts our graduates and their future employers.
Look, we all teach what we want and like. I find myself doing it. But at least I try to include the new material. And in most cases, at least with me, what I want and like is the new and interesting technologies that turn me on. Am I so weird that I like to learn new stuff on a regular basis? I must be as so many of my colleagues hate the idea. Are you so lazy that you cannot be bothered to devote some time to learning what is new and relevant? Evidentally.
Let me get a bit preachy here. It is ok to teach what you know and like. But, each time you teach it, try to drop one dated subject and replace it with a newer and more relevant subject. If you did that every time you taught the course, the whole course would gradually be updated as would you. Why not give that a try? Your reward is the lightening of your guilt.
Friday, June 09, 2006
Interesting NEW Stuff. Don't Miss This!!
With all of you probably on summer break, I doubt that many of you will be reading this. But I can hope. I have a mix of new info and things to share.
1. New Newsletter. McGraw Hill has a new newsletter that most of you will be interested in. It is called the McGraw Hill Electronic Newsletter. Designed specifically for those of you who teach at the community college level, it is a mix of news, articles and book info. This first issue is full of interesting material. I urge you to sign up for it. Send an email with your name, school, phone number, and email address to Jean_Schmieder@mcgraw-hill.com. The plan is to publish twice a year. Book reviews of the new versions of the Grob and Malvino texts are there. Take a look.
2. New Relevant Article. I just had a new article published you may be interested in reading. It is titled: "Are We Teaching the Right Subjects in AAS Degree Electronics Technology Programs?" It was published in the online journal The Technology Interface. This is a peer reviewed journal and my initial submission was beat up pretty badly. However, I did manage to get it blessed. Go to http://TechnologyInterface.nmsu.edu. The article is in the April issue.
The Technology Interface is edited and managed by Jeff Beasley at New Mexico State University. He does a super job. Take a look at all the stuff in the back issues. This is a truly an under used treasure trove of information.
3. Conference of Interest. Coming up is the SAME-TEC conference July 24-29 in Albuquerque. This conference is in its third year and targets community colleges teaching electronics, manufacturing and semimconductor technology. It is a great conference and focuses on the issues and technical scope of electronic technology education. It is put on by Maricopa Advanced Technology Education Center in Tempe, AZ. This NSF funded organization has been around since 1996 and has some awesome materials for teaching. Go to www.matec.org and check it out. This conference details are also there. It is a small conference (about 200 or so) but very focused and a great chance to interact with colleagues around the US.
One of the pre-conference workshops is called "Designing The Electronics Technology Curriculum for the 21st Century". It is a full day event with the objective to bring into existence a new curriculum that is more in tune with what employers want and what is relevant today. This is a great chance to put your two cents worth in. I will be there to cheer you guys on. I look forward to meeting you.
Have a good summer and watch this blog for some new contributions shortly.
1. New Newsletter. McGraw Hill has a new newsletter that most of you will be interested in. It is called the McGraw Hill Electronic Newsletter. Designed specifically for those of you who teach at the community college level, it is a mix of news, articles and book info. This first issue is full of interesting material. I urge you to sign up for it. Send an email with your name, school, phone number, and email address to Jean_Schmieder@mcgraw-hill.com. The plan is to publish twice a year. Book reviews of the new versions of the Grob and Malvino texts are there. Take a look.
2. New Relevant Article. I just had a new article published you may be interested in reading. It is titled: "Are We Teaching the Right Subjects in AAS Degree Electronics Technology Programs?" It was published in the online journal The Technology Interface. This is a peer reviewed journal and my initial submission was beat up pretty badly. However, I did manage to get it blessed. Go to http://TechnologyInterface.nmsu.edu. The article is in the April issue.
The Technology Interface is edited and managed by Jeff Beasley at New Mexico State University. He does a super job. Take a look at all the stuff in the back issues. This is a truly an under used treasure trove of information.
3. Conference of Interest. Coming up is the SAME-TEC conference July 24-29 in Albuquerque. This conference is in its third year and targets community colleges teaching electronics, manufacturing and semimconductor technology. It is a great conference and focuses on the issues and technical scope of electronic technology education. It is put on by Maricopa Advanced Technology Education Center in Tempe, AZ. This NSF funded organization has been around since 1996 and has some awesome materials for teaching. Go to www.matec.org and check it out. This conference details are also there. It is a small conference (about 200 or so) but very focused and a great chance to interact with colleagues around the US.
One of the pre-conference workshops is called "Designing The Electronics Technology Curriculum for the 21st Century". It is a full day event with the objective to bring into existence a new curriculum that is more in tune with what employers want and what is relevant today. This is a great chance to put your two cents worth in. I will be there to cheer you guys on. I look forward to meeting you.
Have a good summer and watch this blog for some new contributions shortly.
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Relevant New Article and Blog Focus
My original focus in this blog was to address the low enrollment problem in 2-year AAS degree programs in electronic technology. This is still a nationwide problem and the blog will continue to address this critical issue and seek solutions.
But beginning with this posting, I want to switch emphasis to my secondary goal of curriculum reform. At the heart of the low enrollment problem lies the very dated curriculum that colleges are offering. The basics are still being taught but the whole curriculum is still skewed from the real world.
I recently wrote an article on this topic called "Are We Teaching the Right Subjects in AAS Degree Electronics Tecnology Programs?" This article was recently publised in the online journal TECHNOLOGY INTERFACE. To see my article and get familiar with this interesting publication, go to http://TechnologyInterface.nmsu.edu. Go to the Spring 2006 issue. Check out the back issues while you are on the site.
The TECHNOLOGY INTERFACE is published by Jeff Beasley at New Mexico State University. It is a nice mix of article on all aspects of engineering technology education. It is a peer reviewed journal. My personal thanks to Jeff for giving us a publication directed at technology issues and techniques.
And let me hear your comments about the article, for or against.
But beginning with this posting, I want to switch emphasis to my secondary goal of curriculum reform. At the heart of the low enrollment problem lies the very dated curriculum that colleges are offering. The basics are still being taught but the whole curriculum is still skewed from the real world.
I recently wrote an article on this topic called "Are We Teaching the Right Subjects in AAS Degree Electronics Tecnology Programs?" This article was recently publised in the online journal TECHNOLOGY INTERFACE. To see my article and get familiar with this interesting publication, go to http://TechnologyInterface.nmsu.edu. Go to the Spring 2006 issue. Check out the back issues while you are on the site.
The TECHNOLOGY INTERFACE is published by Jeff Beasley at New Mexico State University. It is a nice mix of article on all aspects of engineering technology education. It is a peer reviewed journal. My personal thanks to Jeff for giving us a publication directed at technology issues and techniques.
And let me hear your comments about the article, for or against.
Monday, April 10, 2006
An interesting perspective
This past weekend I had dinner with a good friend of mine. We taught together at Austin CC but like me he left to go back to industry.
This friend is in the training business. His current job is to teach basic electronics (DC, AC, semi, digital, etc) to techs employed by a major semiconductor company. These techs have been with the company for a while. For some unexplained reason, the HR department decided to give them a test to see just how much electronics they did know. Despite the fact these are all competent employees, only one of a batch of 20 passed the test. So in order for these employees to keep their jobs and be promoted, they had to be trained so they could pass that test. And so the courses my friend is teaching. Does that strike you as odd? Why not train them in fresh, new up-to-date subjects?
The interesting thing he said that even those these guys are techs, their job does not really involve knowing that much electronics. They operate equipment and maintain it but that process requires little or no electronics knowledge. Yet the company insists that they know those basics. My friend is happy as he has a nice job teaching what he knows.
That makes me wonder just how in touch the HR people or the managers are with what the employees really do and how that ties into the electronic fundamentals they insist that these guys know. Not much by the looks of it. No one has really sat down and tried to match knowledge and skills to education. Or maybe it was done in the past and no one ever updated it. Sound familiar?
I have seen things like this in the past. When I was department head, I went to most of the large companies locally that hired techs. I asked for a copy of any exam they give to new hires. I got three of them. Then I proceeded to match up the questions with what we taught. Basically, we covered most of the items with just a few glitches that were easily fixed.
The most amazing thing was how dated the tests were. Even though the AAS curriculum is pretty dated itself as are most texts, these tests were worse!! No kidding. They were mostly left overs from the 60s or 70s. No one ever bothered to up date them. I even saw one exam that had a question to identify a vacuum tube RC phase shift oscillator. Can you imagine? Those things haven't been used in a half century or so. Anyway, if we want our graduates to pass these little jewels from the past, we better keep teaching the technology of yesteryear. Forget all the new stuff.
Strange as it may seem, what do we really want for our graduates? Is it to be extremely knowledgeable and skilled in the very latest technology or just to get jobs? Apparently not. Hey, why not just teach the tests these companies give and be done with it. Who needs a new curriculum any way?
So I am thinking that it is not just the dated faculty that insists on teaching the dated unneeded materials. The companies want that too. Whether that comes from some HR wonk who doesn't know squat about electronics or a hiring manager, I do not know. Scary. I do know that I have heard some faculty and even some working engineers and managers who served on our industry advisory committees say something like, "we want our new hires to be trained like we were." I guess that is more important than a curriculum being up to date and in tune with the real world.
I am beginning to wonder if it is worthwhile to fight for a new and better curriculum. After all, maybe an AAS degree is just a credential to get your foot in the door. It may be mostly irrelevant what you learn along the way. I hate when that happens.
This friend is in the training business. His current job is to teach basic electronics (DC, AC, semi, digital, etc) to techs employed by a major semiconductor company. These techs have been with the company for a while. For some unexplained reason, the HR department decided to give them a test to see just how much electronics they did know. Despite the fact these are all competent employees, only one of a batch of 20 passed the test. So in order for these employees to keep their jobs and be promoted, they had to be trained so they could pass that test. And so the courses my friend is teaching. Does that strike you as odd? Why not train them in fresh, new up-to-date subjects?
The interesting thing he said that even those these guys are techs, their job does not really involve knowing that much electronics. They operate equipment and maintain it but that process requires little or no electronics knowledge. Yet the company insists that they know those basics. My friend is happy as he has a nice job teaching what he knows.
That makes me wonder just how in touch the HR people or the managers are with what the employees really do and how that ties into the electronic fundamentals they insist that these guys know. Not much by the looks of it. No one has really sat down and tried to match knowledge and skills to education. Or maybe it was done in the past and no one ever updated it. Sound familiar?
I have seen things like this in the past. When I was department head, I went to most of the large companies locally that hired techs. I asked for a copy of any exam they give to new hires. I got three of them. Then I proceeded to match up the questions with what we taught. Basically, we covered most of the items with just a few glitches that were easily fixed.
The most amazing thing was how dated the tests were. Even though the AAS curriculum is pretty dated itself as are most texts, these tests were worse!! No kidding. They were mostly left overs from the 60s or 70s. No one ever bothered to up date them. I even saw one exam that had a question to identify a vacuum tube RC phase shift oscillator. Can you imagine? Those things haven't been used in a half century or so. Anyway, if we want our graduates to pass these little jewels from the past, we better keep teaching the technology of yesteryear. Forget all the new stuff.
Strange as it may seem, what do we really want for our graduates? Is it to be extremely knowledgeable and skilled in the very latest technology or just to get jobs? Apparently not. Hey, why not just teach the tests these companies give and be done with it. Who needs a new curriculum any way?
So I am thinking that it is not just the dated faculty that insists on teaching the dated unneeded materials. The companies want that too. Whether that comes from some HR wonk who doesn't know squat about electronics or a hiring manager, I do not know. Scary. I do know that I have heard some faculty and even some working engineers and managers who served on our industry advisory committees say something like, "we want our new hires to be trained like we were." I guess that is more important than a curriculum being up to date and in tune with the real world.
I am beginning to wonder if it is worthwhile to fight for a new and better curriculum. After all, maybe an AAS degree is just a credential to get your foot in the door. It may be mostly irrelevant what you learn along the way. I hate when that happens.
So, what else is new?
Those of you who are members of the ETD Listserv may have seen the recent posting. I am attaching it below for your information.
"We at Los Angeles City College District are undergoing the driest enrollment spell ever. We are wondering if this is something constrained to our local area or whether it is something afflicting a greater area and what measures, both proactive and reactive are being done to address the issue.
Thank you kindly for you time.
Regards,"
I have removed the name just in case he does not want to be known.
I did respond to him and pointed him to this blog. Maybe he will get something useful. At least he will know he is not alone with his problem.
"We at Los Angeles City College District are undergoing the driest enrollment spell ever. We are wondering if this is something constrained to our local area or whether it is something afflicting a greater area and what measures, both proactive and reactive are being done to address the issue.
Thank you kindly for you time.
Regards,"
I have removed the name just in case he does not want to be known.
I did respond to him and pointed him to this blog. Maybe he will get something useful. At least he will know he is not alone with his problem.
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Some Bad News
I think I mentioned in this blog before that I was involved with submitting a grant proposal to the National Science Foundation for funds to study the declining enrollment problem and propose ways to correct it. After submitting two years in a row and even being encouraged by the NSF to submit the second year, we did not get it funded. The NSF gave no real explanation. So, looks like that effort is over and done with. We did all we could. The NSF is just not interested.
I suspect that we lost because, as usual, the NSF receives hundreds of good proposals each year. And with limited funds ($39 million this year), they simply funded the most interesting proposals and dropped the rest. The NSF seems to prefer big, glossy, high tech, innovative proposals for improving technology education. I can't blame them for that. Lots of great ideas get funded. But what I don't understand is their blindness to the declining enrollment problem. Surely they see it. I kept thinking, if this decline continues, then the funding for the other projects is pointless. There won't be any students left to use the innovative materials and programs. I realize that funding some research on a problem like this is not the exciting thing the PhDs at NSF want to see. Too much of a downer project.
Anyway, we will never know what the reviewers really thought about the idea. I wonder if the NSF has its head in the sand and is living in denial as many electronic departments are? Are they saying, "Let's be positive. Things will turn around as they always have." Not likely in my opinion.
Where do we go from here? I am not sure. I wish we had a national organization that would lead an industry funded effort. As Steve said in response to my Depressed blog entry, he is ready to sit down and work something out in a room full of peers with the common problem. I think there are others willing to do that as well. They just don't know what to do. Those who survive will be like Roy Brixen, someone who digs in figures out what is good locally then does something innovative about it. A collective effort would be worthwhile as well. We don't want to leave the electronic technician education business only to the proprietary schools? As I have said before, unless some action is taken, that is where we are headed.
What's next guys? Any ideas?
I suspect that we lost because, as usual, the NSF receives hundreds of good proposals each year. And with limited funds ($39 million this year), they simply funded the most interesting proposals and dropped the rest. The NSF seems to prefer big, glossy, high tech, innovative proposals for improving technology education. I can't blame them for that. Lots of great ideas get funded. But what I don't understand is their blindness to the declining enrollment problem. Surely they see it. I kept thinking, if this decline continues, then the funding for the other projects is pointless. There won't be any students left to use the innovative materials and programs. I realize that funding some research on a problem like this is not the exciting thing the PhDs at NSF want to see. Too much of a downer project.
Anyway, we will never know what the reviewers really thought about the idea. I wonder if the NSF has its head in the sand and is living in denial as many electronic departments are? Are they saying, "Let's be positive. Things will turn around as they always have." Not likely in my opinion.
Where do we go from here? I am not sure. I wish we had a national organization that would lead an industry funded effort. As Steve said in response to my Depressed blog entry, he is ready to sit down and work something out in a room full of peers with the common problem. I think there are others willing to do that as well. They just don't know what to do. Those who survive will be like Roy Brixen, someone who digs in figures out what is good locally then does something innovative about it. A collective effort would be worthwhile as well. We don't want to leave the electronic technician education business only to the proprietary schools? As I have said before, unless some action is taken, that is where we are headed.
What's next guys? Any ideas?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)