ETD Listserv Survey on Electronic Technology

Here is the outcome of the survey I posted to the ETD Listserv in November.  This is my analysis and understanding.

The percentage totals for some questions do not add up to 100% because not all participants answered all questions and/or in many cases participants selected two or more choices.

The comments to the last question are particularly interesting and telling.  Worth a read.

1.       How is your ET program doing today?

a.       Doing well and growing.                        36%

b.      Healthy but flat with no growth.       41%

c.       In decline.  Losing enrollment.           10.2%

d.      Recently closed.                                       10.2%

This is positive news.  77% of programs are doing OK and some growing.  The growth has more to do with local jobs and related activity.  And aggressive recruiting efforts really help.  All this is in contrast to the status of things several years ago.  There has been some improvement.  Still, I hate to see programs closing but often little can be done if there is no jobs market for the graduates.  It’s a local problem.

2.       What factors contribute to the status of your program?

a.       Local industry needs.                             43.6%

b.      Job growth                                                 18%

c.       Lack of jobs                                                                12.8%

d.      Interest in new programs.                   30.6%

e.      Other.  What? 

a.       Quality of program and efficacy of our recruiting efforts.

b.      Transfer to university.

c.       Poor students.

d.      Students do not have the skills to survive the program.

e.      Declining enrollment.

f.        Only one instructor.

g.       Active recruiting.

h.      Students don’t know what electronics is any more and what you can do with it.

Clearly local industry needs are the clues to a healthy program.  Develop local companies as partners and your program can prosper.  Note the 30.6% interest in new programs.  New offerings that match job needs are a positive step to healthy program growth.

 

3.       What new courses or programs have you added lately?

a.       None                                                             23%

b.      Alternative energy (solar, wind, etc.)33.3%

c.       Electric utility                                             10.2%

d.      Wireless/communications                   2.5%

e.      Biomedical                                                  10.2%

f.        Other.  What?

a.       BSEET

b.      Networking (2)

c.        Computer forensics

d.      2^nd microcontroller course

e.      Arduino course (a type of micro)

f.        EE Engineering

g.       Industrial electronics

h.      Robotics (2)

i.        Data acquisition

j.        Electric/mechanical drives

k.       Nanotechnology (2)

l.        Industrial maintenance.

Alternative energy programs have attracted some new enrollments in the past several years.  It is an interesting and exciting field.  Many of these new programs came about with grant funding to support the green energy movement.  Unfortunately, as most schools have learned, there are few if any jobs available in this field.  Some do exist but in areas were the need and availability of techs is greatest.  Wind farms find it hard to find workers but few are willing to do the tower climbing needed in most cases.  And only affluent sunny areas can afford solar.  Another field with this problem is nanotechnology.  Grants are available to fund some courses but where are the jobs?  It is OK to take the grant money and build some courses or a program but just remember there may be no real jobs available.  Maybe in the future.

 

My experience shows that jobs do exist in industry and in networking.  And a second micro course is a great idea.

4.       Have you heard of the system approach to teaching electronics?  If so what are your thoughts?

a.       Have heard of it.                      46.3%

b.      Considering it.                           18%

c.       Plan to incorporate.                                15.4%

d.      Have not heard about it.       7.7%

e.      Do not plan to incorporate. 5.1%

f.        Need more information.      7.7%

g.       NOTES:  Already using.  Have used it for 20 years.  Already doing it.  Not entirely sold.  Not sure yet.

The system approach has been around for five to eight years now and it is surprising to see so many who have not heard of it.  The majority have heard of it and some are already using it.  It is the way of the industry at least for technicians and AAS graduates.  Some do not agree with its premises but I doubt they know the real truth about what goes on in the modern industry.  Others are open minded and still willing to evaluate the concept.  If you have not seen  MATEC’s www.esyst.org  website, take a look to get the full explanation.

 

5.       What factors most influence what you teach or how you update your courses and curriculum?

a.       Industry input.                                          77%

b.      What other schools are doing.           7.7%

c.       What the textbooks include.              18%

d.      Clearly visible industry trends.           49%

e.      Research.                                                    5.1%

f.        Other.  What?   Time available in curriculum.  Advisory board. (2)

I was happy to see that 77% use industry input to help decide what to teach.  How much of this is real and not lip service I do not know.  I have seen advisory boards recommend changes then after the meeting all is forgotten and the status quo is preserved.  In any case, it is always a good idea to defer to local industry ideas and suggestions.  Then actually implement the changes.

 

One problem I have seen is that some local industry representatives see the faculty as the experts in knowing what to teach.  In my experience, the faculty is competent but not in tune with the real world of work and current technology and needed skills.

 

I should have asked how faculty learns of the “clearly visible industry trends”.

 

6.       Do you use a standard textbook?

a.       Yes                                                                                                 92.3%

b.      No.                                                                                                 2.5%

c.       We use print hand outs and other supplements        25.6%

d.      We use an online text and references.                          10.2%

No mystery here.  Most do use standard texts at least for most courses.  There were multiple comments here saying that for some courses no texts were available so other materials are used.  Handouts and supplements are common place and no doubt consist of new material not in the textbooks.

 

7.       What are your thoughts about online courses?

a.       We have them now.                                               56.4%

b.      Like but do not currently use.                             12.8%

c.       Will eventually adopt.                                            5.1%

d.      Do not like them and will not use.                    10.2%

e.      For future consideration.                                     7.7%     

f.        Cannot do labs.                                                         25.6%

This result really surprised me.  I had no idea that so many online courses were being offered.  No full degrees but multiple courses are available.  And these courses are of the hybrid variety with some conventional lab or class activity combined with online instruction.

There is a small group of responders that are vehemently opposed to online work.  Maybe they perceive it as a threat.  Or mostly I think they have never tried an online course.  Online instruction is the wave of the future given the high cost of education today.  Several comments related to how online instruction was mandated at the dean level despite any opposition.

And by the way, there is a way to do labs.  Most think it cannot be done but it has been in the past.  I will have a blog entry up on this shortly.  www.electronictech.blogspot.com   

8.       What is currently your greatest concern or issue today?

a.       Disappearing feeder programs.

b.      Decrease in upcoming student populations.

c.       Lack of preparation of incoming students.

d.      Availability of jobs in local area.

e.      The quality of leadership of the dean.

f.        Program deactivation.

g.       Making sure course content is applicable to current industry requirements.

h.      Maintaining current student count.

i.        Lack of jobs

j.        Recruiting is limited to advisors without faculty input.

k.       Instrumentation and control AAS is going strong.

l.        Need new direction from outside the college.  The big picture.

m.    Lack of appropriate preparation of high school students for ET program.

n.      Failure of high school teachers to push mid-tech careers.

o.      The huge gap between the standard electronics courses and reality.

p.      Sufficient numbers of qualified students.

q.      Moving into a new building.  Logistical nightmare.

r.        I am training the bottom half of the high school class, need to get the tip half involved.

s.       A lot of subjects to add with less room left in the curriculum.

t.        Finding a balance between learning and industry needs.

u.      Getting the resources to incorporate new items.

v.       Maintaining program growth.

w.     Textbooks are mostly out of date with what industry is doing.

x.       State mandated curriculum.

y.       Few system approach textbooks available.

z.       Academic level and interest of students coming into the program.

aa.   What most industries need in an electronic technologist.

bb.  The crazy ideas from politicians and administrators for future solutions of problems.

cc.    Reaching out to potential students.  We have positions in industry we cannot fill.

These comments are priceless.  They really show what is going on and what the real concerns are.  The main issues are jobs, the preparation of students for college work, enrollment maintenance and growth, and textbooks.

Lou Frenzel

Technology Editor, Electronic Design Magazine

Adjunct Professor, Austin Community College

I'm Back

It has been a while since I posted anything new.  I  have been busy and there has not been enough interesting new stuff to say.  But that is changing.  There are lots os new topics of interest, so look for some new posts in the coming weeks and next year.

Hope all of you have a happy holiday season. 

The Future of the Bachelor's Degree in Technology

I want to discuss something serious. Like just where is the BSET degree going? I have always had the nagging feeling that it was not really necessary especially today. Maybe when those degrees were first offered they were just the right thing but with so many changes in electronics engineering over the years, maybe the BSET is just a redundancy.

The first bachelor's degrees in technology came along in the mid 1960's. I know. I have one called a Bachelor in Applied Science (BASc) given by the first school to award them, the University of Houston. The idea was to fill the need for jobs called "technologists". Not engineers or not technicians, technologists. Well as it turned out there never were any jobs called technologists in industry. I have never seen such a thing in my 30 plus years in industry. When I got my BASc in 1965, I was immediately hired as an engineer and all my subsequent jobs were with that title. Most employers never heard of technologists but of course knew what techs were and engineers. My BAS degree adequately prepared me to do most engineering. The only topics I did not get were statics, dynamics and thermo which I never used anyway.

The same thing is roughly true today. BSET grads mostly become engineers. Maybe more of them go into manufacturing, sales and marketing, field service but a large percentage of them do actual engineering. Don't tell those with PE licenses as they will have a hemorrhage. PEs never accept the fact that you don't actually have a PE license to do engineering work. That is especially true in electronics.

So what am I saying here? Is the BSET really necessary? Why don't we just call that degree a BSEE in applied engineering or something like that and make the BSET departments part of engineering? When I look at the curricula for EEs and ETs at the BS level they are so close that it seems silly to duplicate. Both BSEEs and BSETs take the same math and science any way, and the electronic courses mostly use the same texts and cover the same material just under a different rubric. How dumb is that? I know it is political and turf building more than anything.

Another part of the problem is that as AAS degree programs move toward a more systems approach and one less focused on circuit analysis and design they become a poorer fit for transfer to BSET programs. I say let AAS programs concentrate on the needs of technicians and industry and less on what is needed to transfer to a BSET program. I suspect the total transfers from AAS to BSET to be very small anyway. If an AAS grad wants a BS degree, he or she should go to a university offering an Industrial Technology degree. It is a better fit anyway.

What are your thoughts on this?

LF

New Book on the Systems Approach

You have probably been hearing about how the right way to update an AAS degree curriculum in electronics is to pursue a systems path. You can certainly read about it in one of my past posts. That approach is to begin emphasizing systems and equipment and concentrate less on components and circuits. Modern techs do not analyze or design circuits.....they are not engineers. And few if any are headed to be engineering techs even if such jobs were plentiful. Most techs today do troubleshooting, service and repair. They install and operate equipment. And the do lots of testing and measuring. Yet the current curricula is still stuck in the old "troubleshoot to the component level" thing or teaching ten ways to bias a BJT when MOSFETs clearly rule electronics these day.

So far I have not identified any system level texts to help you go the system route. But I did write a book that takes that approach. It is called Electronics Explained: The New Systems Approach to Learning Electronics. It is published by Newnes/Elsevier and is available now. You can get a copy through Amazon or Barnes & Noble. It is not a formal textbook, but more a trade book but it gives you a good look at what a text would cover and how it would cover it.

If you want to get a head start on revising to the highly touted systems approach, this book will get you started. And don't forget to go to the Esyst website that I mentioned in an earlier post. www.esyst.org.

LF

The Systems Approach to Electronic Technology Education

You have probably heard of this by now. Many are proposing that the teaching of electronic technology (ET) should take a more systems view rather than the circuit analysis approach that most schools use now. I am one of those who recognized this approach years ago. Employers have known about it for years but have never pushed the issue with the colleges. Yet, as technology and industry move on, it is time for the schools to adapt. Painful as it is for any school to change, it is a must if the ET program is to survive.

In a nutshell, the colleges teach a component and circuit oriented approach to electronics. Analyze discrete component circuits. Lots of calculations and even coverage of things that are no longer relevant. For example, think of how much time you devote to teach BJTs and biasing. Or teaching Karnaugh maps and TTL. Today, most circuits are ICs so who needs to know ten ways to bias a BJT? And most of those ICs are MOSFETs anyway. In the same way, most digital circuits are implemented with embedded controllers and FPGAs. TTL went away years ago anyway. Besides techs do not design or analyze these circuits anyway. It is a waste of time, especially in a 2-year program where time and efficiency rule the curriculum.

What techs really need to know today is how the equipment and systems work. Signal analysis and flow rather than circuit analysis. Block diagram analysis rather than schematics. Techs troubleshoot, service, maintain, test, measure, install, operate and otherwise work with the equipment. Repair is at the board and module level, not so much at the component level in most cases. All courses should be changed to reflect this systems approach that employers want and techs need to do the work today.

Some schools have already made some changes in this direction but more needs to be done. It is hard for faculty to discontinue what they have been doing for years. And it is hard to know exactly how to make the changes or what the changes should be. And there are no textbooks taking this approach, yet.

If you are interested in moving your ET program into the 21st century, you need to get on this bandwagon. A quick start way is to look at the work that has been done over the past 3 years on an NSF grant that funded a systems development program. Go to www.esyst.org. Lots of guidelines and detailed recommendations. It is time to change.

Lou Frenzel

Results of recent online survey on EET

Here is the result of my recent brief online survey of Electronics Technology. The response was excellent and I sincerely thank those of you who took the time to respond. I hope you will find the information useful. I leave the interpretation to you, however, I have provided my interpretation after the results if you are interested.

Lou Frenzel
Technology Editor, Electronic Design Magazine
Adjunct Professor, Austin Community College

1. Your school is
a. 2-year 61 %
b. 4-year 43%
Note: Total more than 100% since some institutions offer both AAS and BS.
2. Are your enrollments in electronics technology classes up or down?
a. Up 62.5%
b. Down 20.8%
c. Flat 16.7%
3. When was the last time you made significant changes to your courses or curriculum?
a. This year. 34.7%
b. 1 to 2 years ago. 26.4%
c. More than 2 years ago. 37.5%
Note: Total not 100% as some did not respond.
4. What new electronic majors or specialties have you implemented within the past 2 to 3 years?
a. Electric power/energy 20.8%
b. Wireless/communications 18%
c. Robotics 16.7%
d. Industrial/manufacturing 11.1%
e. Biomedical 16.7%
f. Other 33.3%
Note: Total is more than 100% since several indicated multiple additions. In the Other category here are those listed:
• None (Most often mentioned)
• Embedded controllers (Many mentions)
• Semi/Microelectronics
• Automotive electronics
• Networking
• Photonics
• Info tech/Computer science/programming
5. Are you familiar with the trend toward teaching a systems approach (rather than component/circuits approach) to electronics technology?
a. Yes 84.7%
b. No 9.7%
Note: Total not 100% as some did not respond.
6. Which of the following is the one most critical issue facing your college?
a. Low enrollments 38.9%
b. Retention 27.8%
c. Dated curriculum and courses 9.7%
d. Lab costs 11.1%
e. Other 18%
Note: Total is more than 100% as multiple items were selected. In the Other category the item most mentioned was budget limitations and lack of funding. Other items included bad management and uncooperative/under productive faculty.
7. What is your feeling about online electronic technology education?
a. A potential direction for the future. 52.8%
b. Looking forward to it 22.2%
c. Not in favor of it 25%
Note: Several indicated that they were already doing this in a hybrid program, lecture online and on-campus lab.
8. What is your opinion of current textbooks?
a. OK as is 25%
b. Dated but OK on the fundamentals 44.4%
c. Not relevant to current jobs 20.9%
d. Covers recent and advanced topics well 9.7%
Note: Lots of extra comments on this one.
• Too expensive.
• Lack of relevance to real world. (Multiple mentions)
• Can get along fine without text books.
• Need to go to e-books.
• Use/adapt engineering/scientific texts.

My Interpretation
I have been tracking the status of Electronic Technology for almost ten years now and have written about it extensively in this blog. My impression is that the current status is relatively positive compared to 3 to 5 years ago when enrollments were down and many colleges closed their Electronic Technology departments.
• Enrollments are definitely up. Several mentioned that the down economy was the main cause with many going back to school to improve their employability. Still, one third of enrollment are down to flat.
• Those of you who made changes in the program especially adding new majors or specialties survived the downturn of the past years and have turned their enrollment situation around.
• New majors seemed to help enrollments especially anything to do with power/energy, robotics, industrial and biomed.
• Despite a positive enrollment status, most indicated that low enrollments were the most critical issue. Retention was the second largest concern.
• The movement toward a systems approach to teaching electronics (the real world today) is clearly very well known but what I should have asked is who is doing it.
• I was surprised to see such a positive outlook for online programs. One quarter are clearly against this but anyone denying the online movement risks getting left behind. The Web/Internet is all powerful today and a key driver of our youth. It is the future.
• Two thirds indicated some dissatisfaction with the textbooks. They are dated and less relevant than in years past. Hope some publishers read this and give us some good updates or new texts.

Comments welcome.

Lou Frenzel

Every Electronic Product is a Computer

In case you have not already recognized this, virtually every electronic product made today is just one or more embedded controllers surrounded by the I/O and peripherals that make the product what it is. Think about it. Name one product that does not fit this model. A student of mine suggested a vacuum tube guitar amplifier and he is right. No embedded micro in there for sure. But consider any other product you use. Cell phone, automobile, iPod, TV set, CD player, and so on. Even our test equipment (like a digital oscilloscope) is computer based these days with software doing the measurement and analysis.

What I am trying to point up is that electronics centers around embedded controllers and their design and the software. Product design is more software and less hardware every day. Yet most colleges only devote one course to this topic. I keep feeling that we need to do more.

In my work as a technology editor for Electronic Design magazine, I talk to lots of engineers and travel around interviewing engineers, executives and others who design products. The core of all this work is centered on the embedded micros and all the interfaces and, of course, the software. It truly what engineers are doing.

It occurred to me a while back that many AAS degree grads could actually be good embedded designers. I have taught the embedded course in a community college many times and many students get interested and do a great job of creating embedded projects. You need to like software most of all but you do need some knowledge about all the interfaces that are used. Both are something in reach of any AAS degree student.

What I am advocating here is an AAS degree in embedded design. Take the existing curriculum and add more software and micro courses with plenty of project work making interfaces, controlling and monitoring other things, working with development systems and so on. Such a grad could really hit the ground running in an engineering setting where embedded work must be done. I am convinced that with the extra courses and plenty of real projects, any AAS grad could do what many BS degree engineers.

The big question is, would anyone hire one of these grads as an embedded designer? How would we make that happen?

Just a thought. Respond if you are interested and let me know your thoughts. Or am I just nuts and dreaming?

LF

An Update on Electronic Technology Education

Over the past year I have been busy with my job as a magazine editor but I have been active in the ET field with my work for the Maricopa Advanced Technology Education Center (MATEC) in Phoenix. This is an NSF funded project and I am working on the Esyst grant where we are putting together a new AAS degree program that is a better fit with industry and the technology in general. We are into the 3rd year of a 3 year project so progress has been made.

The declining enrollment problem seems to have mitigated a bit and in fact during this down turn I bet we will see some increase in community college active in electronics. The alternative energy programs are bringing in some new students as is biomed and electric power. We did lose a few AAS programs over the past few years but those who have survived have made some curriculum changes and updated here and there and some even added new programs. While enrollments are much less than they ever were in the past, there are still ET jobs out there if we can just get the students interested. Maybe this downturn will help.

The Esyst program I mentioned has taken the existing core courses most schools offer and enhanced them with a more systems view of electronics. Less analysis and design, less emphasis on components and circuits and more about systems and equipment. More test and measurement and troubleshooting. That's what employers seem to want these days. You don't need to know how to bias a BJT, you don't ever have to do a mesh analysis with determinants. Who does that at all these days anyway, including engineers?

If you are looking for a way to update your curriculum, the Esyst approach is worth considering. Go to the website at www.esyst.org and take a look. And for a first hand look, go to the HI-TEC conference in Scottsdale July 19-22. We are having a workshop on the Esyst project. Check out the MATEC website at www.matec.org for details. And I will be talking about my experience with Esyst deployment at the ASEE conference in Austin, June 15th.

Hope you have a great summer.
LF

More on Dumbing Down....NOT!

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

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.

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.

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.