We all know that our AAS electronics programs are designed to prepare techs for jobs in industry. That is why it is extremely important to involve industry in planning your curriculum and course contents. Some schools do this on a regular basis, especially in areas where the jobs are plentiful. We want our grads to get the jobs when industry is hiring. If we know what industry wants, it is relatively easy to adjust the curriculum to the need.
Yet, so many schools do not do this. At one time I taught for a community college in the eastern US. The department held an annual industry advisiory meeting. There were lots of local employers from diverse parts of the industry. So the input from these people was fabulous. Yet, after a meeting of several hours where industry expressed their needs, the department simply went back to business as usual. Essentially, the annual advisory meeting satisfied the accrediting people yet the suggestions and ideas produced at the meeting never produced any action or changes. This is more common than you think. Does this happen at your school?
In another college where I taught, the department decided to pursue ABET accreditation at the suggestion of the college president. We went through the usual hell associated with an ABET visit and evaluation. Lots of work and anxiety. After the visit, ABET had some suggestions for changes necessary for us to achieve the ABET seal of approval. One of these suggestions was to add PC circuit simulation software exercises to all courses. The second recommendation was to add calculus to the curriculum. (I am not making this up.) Both of these suggestions were doable but to say the faculty was distressed is an understatement. Since the president of the college coveted the ABET reputation, the department head was told to make the changes. And we did.
Both of these changes were unnecessary. AAS degree techs do not design or analyze circuits so the simulation exercises added a huge burden to an already challenging curriculum. Neither do techs use calculus. At least I have never run across a tech that did. Adding the calculus courses increased the total semester hours for the degree above the state maximum so two other courses had to be dropped. These happened to be two popular electronic courses one of which was requested by the local industry.
You can only imagine the impact that these changes had. First, the drop out rate increased measurably. The more difficult courses and the calculus caused a significant exodus from the program. The local industry was not happy because their course was not taught so the grads, few that they were, did not have the background or preparation they previously had. That company abandoned the college. What was once a thriving electronics program was reduced to about half the previous size or less. But, the important thing was the department could say with pride that they were ABET accredited. What employer ever asked if the department was ABET accredited? Probably none. Most do not even know what ABET is, or care.
So in this case, industry input was ignored to satisfy some academically-oreinted president. What was he thinking anyway? Those of us who teach don't think like that. Is that what getting a Ph.D does to one?
Let me say this about ABET. I am all for accreditation and the benefits that it brings. But only if the accrediting body people know what the hell they are doing. In the case of engineering and four year technology programs ABET seems to know their business....maybe. But they sure do not know much about technicians, their jobs and what they really need to know. It certainly is not calculus and heavy duty analysis and design. Those ABET reviewers had no clue about technicians or their jobs and they ignored the needs of industry out of hand. Based on this experience, I would never recommend ABET accreditation to any AAS program. Not only doesn't it produce more enrollments and retention, it does just the opposite and invariable does not respond to industry needs. Community colleges are suppose to serve their communities meaning the students, graduates and the employers. ABET actually hurt in that regard.
Don't write and tell me how great ABET is. I do know that ABET has changed its approach and procedures over the past years. I suspect things may be better now, hopefully. I still do not recommend it if you are training techs for jobs in industry. If your graduates transfer primarily to a 4-year technology program then maybe ABET is important since the 4-year schools tend to more readily accept transfers from 2-year ABET accredited programs. Otherwise, forget ABET. They tend to want to make techs into engineers. And that is just not what techs do. They do not design and analyze. They install, manufacture, test, service, repair, maintain, operate and other wise work with the equipment. And you had better think twice about the expense of obtaining and maintaining ABET accreditation. It requires a huge budget that could otherwise go to better lab equipment.
One more thing about industry input. It can sometimes hurt you rather than help you. Again based on my own experience, I can tell you that industry needs can misdirect you. One example I can site is the case of a very large electronic manufacturer who desparately needed techs. They came to the college and asked what we could do to help crank out more graduates sooner. But they needed changes to the curriculum. These were not just minor changes. They were significant in that they changed the content of many courses, added new specialized courses and even added some new prerequisites. At first the college resisted the changes. But because the big company said they would contribute funds to the college to help develop and implement the new program and promote it, the college relented and we made the changes. The result was a program that specifically fulfilled the needs of the company but was so narrowly foucused that it made the graduates unsuited for many other electronic jobs. Within four years, the industry went into a major down turn and actually laid off virtually all of the previously hired graduates. That program exists only on paper today. Ouch.....
Industry can also be very naive. In another instance, industry came to the college and asked about a program to prepare techs for them. They were not very specific or demanding and in fact asked the college to put together a curriculum for them thinking the faculty was the experts. That was easy because the college simply proposed what they had and one or two other related courses. The industry people put their faith in the faculty and department rather than in their own knowledge and needs.
Now I am not knocking faculty here (well maybe a bit), but most faculty have not worked in industry for years. They are not truly up to date on the latest components, equipment, methods, etc. And it is questionable that the faculty could actually fulfill the industry's subtle and even hidden needs. The usual result of a total faculty design is a dated curriculum and course content that often does not serve the local industry or the graduate. Just keep that in mind if you run into this situation. Force industry to give you their needs in detail and let them bring you up to date as you put together any new program or courses. And by all means, try to maintain some kind of balance, that is keep the program generic and broad as possible so that the graduate can adjust to the enevitable changes that occur in the industry over and over again at light speed.
Enough ranting and raving for one day.
Saturday, August 27, 2005
Thanks
Just a note to all of you who respond to the blog. My thanks for your input. Your input is valuable because it represents your views and experience. We need breadth and depth of knowledge to solve the declining enrollment and retention problems. Collectively we should have enough information to solve these problems. So keep writing and at some point a critical mass of information will exist for us to act. Keep writing and keep reading.
Best wishes to you all......
Best wishes to you all......
Sunday, August 14, 2005
The retention problem
My primary goal with this blog has been to understand why enrollments in electronics are dropping and students not enrolling. But just as big a problem in many schools is the retention problem. In other words, why do students drop after they first enroll? Having taught for many years and talked with students about this problem, I believe it a combination of student personal issues which the school cannot address (lack of money, family problems, illness, etc.) and school problems. Here are some of the things I see that are a factor in dropouts:
1. Boring classes - Most students drop out in the first several electronic courses. Typically these are the DC/AC courses where the theory is heavy. Most of this material is pretty boring stuff. I have had more than one student ask me, "Lou, why am I learning this? What does this have to do with electronics?" No kidding. The only answer you can give is that electrical theory is the basis for electronics and you have to learn that first. The student comes to learn the exciting things in electronics and is initially confronted with some heavy duty theory, physics derived, and we bore him or her to death.
2. Heavy math - Most of who teach electronics don't think that the algebra and little bit of trig required to learn DC and AC is any big deal. How could it be so difficult? Yet so many students come into these initial classes unprepared with the math. Even if a college algebra course is required as a prerequisite, it is often not enought and the student has the feeling that there is entirely too much math. So many ask, "why do I need to know this? When can I work on some electronic equipment?"
3. Failure to stimulate the student's interest - Shouldn't the very first courses a student encounters be positive experiences? I think so. Yet, in the public community colleges what you get is basic math, English comp, and other non-electronic stuff that is required. I can personally remember my own reaction my freshman year in college. When do I get to the electronics? Not for a long time, as it turns out. If we had any sense, we would treat each student as a treasure to be protected. We must stimulate him or her. Generate interest. Motivate. When I mentioned this idea at a meeting in the near past, one faculty member said that students should shut up and take the curriculum we offer in the way we offer it and not question when they get what. Maybe we have gotten away with that just about as long as we can. Students want to get on with their lives. We live in an instant gratification world and putting things off is not the way to gain a student's interest or loyalty.
4. Student attention span - Our students today were brought up on TV, video games and Game Boys. They are used to instant action. They are visual learners. They do not read well and they tune out in long lectures. They want to see something happen or make something happen. The attention span of the average person is supposed to be 15-20 minutes, but I bet that it is less in today's young people. Students get the impression in typical electronic courses, that things are moving too slowly and they want to get to the "good stuff" sooner. Why can't we accommodate that? At least a little bit?
5. Out of date irrelevant curriculum - I think that our typical AAS degree curriculum is archaic. Yes, students still have to learn the fundamentals but what fundamentals are needed today? Not the same ones we used to teach. We need to take a hard look at those fundamentals and ask, is this really necessary to know, today? So much of what we teach now is like that. It was once important because electronics was different. For example, we worked at the circuit level back then. Now we work at a higher systems level. Do you really need to learn Thevenin's theorem and loop and nodal equations? That is only the tip of the iceberg as far a curriculum goes. While most students don't know what they are supposed to know, they do have a sense of reality and they are not getting it with the current curricula.
I keep coming back to the curricula as the source of our problems not only for declining enrollments but also dropouts. Why can't we fix this? Let's turn the curriculum upside down and give students some interesting, cool stuff up front. Really turn them on to the subject, get them hooked and then later half way through the degree start saying, look you uys, you do have to know some theory and math so here it is. Then make the theory and math relevant and easier to learn in the context of the subject.
I will come back to this curruculum reform issue as it seems to me to be the core of the problem. Besides, just think how much fun it will be to do this. Let's take the generic curricula we use now, that is the same now as it was 40 or so years ago (I am not making that up, I can prove it.), and blow it away and start from scratch. If we do that, we may have the opposite problem of too many students and not enough space, teachers, etc. What a great problem that would be.
1. Boring classes - Most students drop out in the first several electronic courses. Typically these are the DC/AC courses where the theory is heavy. Most of this material is pretty boring stuff. I have had more than one student ask me, "Lou, why am I learning this? What does this have to do with electronics?" No kidding. The only answer you can give is that electrical theory is the basis for electronics and you have to learn that first. The student comes to learn the exciting things in electronics and is initially confronted with some heavy duty theory, physics derived, and we bore him or her to death.
2. Heavy math - Most of who teach electronics don't think that the algebra and little bit of trig required to learn DC and AC is any big deal. How could it be so difficult? Yet so many students come into these initial classes unprepared with the math. Even if a college algebra course is required as a prerequisite, it is often not enought and the student has the feeling that there is entirely too much math. So many ask, "why do I need to know this? When can I work on some electronic equipment?"
3. Failure to stimulate the student's interest - Shouldn't the very first courses a student encounters be positive experiences? I think so. Yet, in the public community colleges what you get is basic math, English comp, and other non-electronic stuff that is required. I can personally remember my own reaction my freshman year in college. When do I get to the electronics? Not for a long time, as it turns out. If we had any sense, we would treat each student as a treasure to be protected. We must stimulate him or her. Generate interest. Motivate. When I mentioned this idea at a meeting in the near past, one faculty member said that students should shut up and take the curriculum we offer in the way we offer it and not question when they get what. Maybe we have gotten away with that just about as long as we can. Students want to get on with their lives. We live in an instant gratification world and putting things off is not the way to gain a student's interest or loyalty.
4. Student attention span - Our students today were brought up on TV, video games and Game Boys. They are used to instant action. They are visual learners. They do not read well and they tune out in long lectures. They want to see something happen or make something happen. The attention span of the average person is supposed to be 15-20 minutes, but I bet that it is less in today's young people. Students get the impression in typical electronic courses, that things are moving too slowly and they want to get to the "good stuff" sooner. Why can't we accommodate that? At least a little bit?
5. Out of date irrelevant curriculum - I think that our typical AAS degree curriculum is archaic. Yes, students still have to learn the fundamentals but what fundamentals are needed today? Not the same ones we used to teach. We need to take a hard look at those fundamentals and ask, is this really necessary to know, today? So much of what we teach now is like that. It was once important because electronics was different. For example, we worked at the circuit level back then. Now we work at a higher systems level. Do you really need to learn Thevenin's theorem and loop and nodal equations? That is only the tip of the iceberg as far a curriculum goes. While most students don't know what they are supposed to know, they do have a sense of reality and they are not getting it with the current curricula.
I keep coming back to the curricula as the source of our problems not only for declining enrollments but also dropouts. Why can't we fix this? Let's turn the curriculum upside down and give students some interesting, cool stuff up front. Really turn them on to the subject, get them hooked and then later half way through the degree start saying, look you uys, you do have to know some theory and math so here it is. Then make the theory and math relevant and easier to learn in the context of the subject.
I will come back to this curruculum reform issue as it seems to me to be the core of the problem. Besides, just think how much fun it will be to do this. Let's take the generic curricula we use now, that is the same now as it was 40 or so years ago (I am not making that up, I can prove it.), and blow it away and start from scratch. If we do that, we may have the opposite problem of too many students and not enough space, teachers, etc. What a great problem that would be.
Monday, August 01, 2005
What we have here is a failure to.....advertise.
If you will pardon my French, community colleges (CCs) do a crappy job of promoting their electronic programs. In fact, I should say that community colleges in general do not even promote their electronics programs. Is it any wonder that enrollments are down? I bet most of the potential students in your area don't have a clue that your program exists and what it can do for them.
If you have proprietary college teaching electronics in your area, you may be wondering why they are getting more students than your college even though yours costs much less. While these schools are no doubt also suffering from the declining enrollment problem, they are probably doing far better than the public CCs. Why? Simply because they promote, advertise, and sell. I know the mind set at most colleges is that we are an academic institution and we do not sell. (The "if we build it theywill come" attitude.) In today's competitive day and age this is a seriously bad attitude. It is particularly detrimental to electronics departments who are in decline and in some cases fighting for their lives. I have even heard one CC marketing person say that they do not support programs that are in decline. Duh...?
Let me give you a few good examples of how promotion or the lack thereof can help or hurt.
Several years back when I helped start the Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology (SMT) program for a local college, we initially had problems getting students. It wasn't hard for us to figure out that the prospects for this program didn't have a clue about what a SMT tech did. What was the job, duties, pay, potential, etc? In fact, what is the semiconductor industry? Luckily, the local semiconductor companies were hurting for employees so they chipped in an helped the college with promotion. We did ads, bill boards, direct mail, and extensive PR. The public orientation meetings were a big help. But the one thing that did the best job was the newspaper articles, TV news spots and other PR. Wow... Enrollments went from the initial 54 to almost 500 in just over a year of promotion. The point here is that you have to educate your prospect.
Today, I don't think most prospects know what an electronic technician is or does. It is pretty vague. PC and networking tech positions are more focused and easier to understand. What do you tell someone if they ask what an electronic tech does? As you know, the answer is very broad and complex. Again, no wonder the prospects go to other programs where the jobs and future is clearer. Promotion can help educate the prospect and ultimately them into your program. Promotion is an educational process. If we are such good educators as we believe, why is this a problem?
Another example comes from a colleague of mine who shall remain nameless here. He is the department head of a CC electronics department. He recently did a personal survey of the local electronic programs at proprietary schools. Believe it or not, there are five (I am not making this up.) of them here locally. CCs with their usual holier than thou attitude think they have no peer. Wake up people, you have major competition and it is not just in electronics. Anyway, this Dept Head went to each school and got the pitch, looked at the facilities and program. He was very surprised at how good they actually are. He was treated well and given personal attention. He also went to his own college in cognito and was not treated nearly as well. The counselor was not familiar with electornics and told him to take the entrance exams and come back. There was no individual treatment or facilities tour.
I can say that my own experience has been similar. My daughter who wants to be a chef recently went to this CC and asked for information on its culinary program. She was also turned away by a counselor who was not up to speed on the program. No tour or info. Just go take the entrance exams. That same day she also visited one of the Le Cordon Blu accredited proprietary college here locally. She was welcomed with open arms and given a complete tour of the kitchens and classrooms. When I went to check it out, I too was welcomed and treated with respect and interest. I went by the CC just to satisfy my own curiosity and found ablsolutely no one to talk to. Guess which school my daughter chose? The cost of her proprietary education is about 5 times what the CC charges but I am satisfied that she will get a good education.
I don't have any great suggestions as to how to solve this promotonal dilemna but I know it is a key part of the declining enrollment crisis. CC marketing departments have limited budgets and dozens of departments competing for promotional dollars, limited as they usually are. And their attitude leaves much to be desired. My best advice is to offer them something new. Change or update your curriculum, add a new major specialty, and get some local industry support. Then you will have something new, better and interesting to sell. Your chances of getting promotional dollars will go up many times. If you keep doing the same old thing, you are going to get the same old result. So the solution is change.
If you have proprietary college teaching electronics in your area, you may be wondering why they are getting more students than your college even though yours costs much less. While these schools are no doubt also suffering from the declining enrollment problem, they are probably doing far better than the public CCs. Why? Simply because they promote, advertise, and sell. I know the mind set at most colleges is that we are an academic institution and we do not sell. (The "if we build it theywill come" attitude.) In today's competitive day and age this is a seriously bad attitude. It is particularly detrimental to electronics departments who are in decline and in some cases fighting for their lives. I have even heard one CC marketing person say that they do not support programs that are in decline. Duh...?
Let me give you a few good examples of how promotion or the lack thereof can help or hurt.
Several years back when I helped start the Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology (SMT) program for a local college, we initially had problems getting students. It wasn't hard for us to figure out that the prospects for this program didn't have a clue about what a SMT tech did. What was the job, duties, pay, potential, etc? In fact, what is the semiconductor industry? Luckily, the local semiconductor companies were hurting for employees so they chipped in an helped the college with promotion. We did ads, bill boards, direct mail, and extensive PR. The public orientation meetings were a big help. But the one thing that did the best job was the newspaper articles, TV news spots and other PR. Wow... Enrollments went from the initial 54 to almost 500 in just over a year of promotion. The point here is that you have to educate your prospect.
Today, I don't think most prospects know what an electronic technician is or does. It is pretty vague. PC and networking tech positions are more focused and easier to understand. What do you tell someone if they ask what an electronic tech does? As you know, the answer is very broad and complex. Again, no wonder the prospects go to other programs where the jobs and future is clearer. Promotion can help educate the prospect and ultimately them into your program. Promotion is an educational process. If we are such good educators as we believe, why is this a problem?
Another example comes from a colleague of mine who shall remain nameless here. He is the department head of a CC electronics department. He recently did a personal survey of the local electronic programs at proprietary schools. Believe it or not, there are five (I am not making this up.) of them here locally. CCs with their usual holier than thou attitude think they have no peer. Wake up people, you have major competition and it is not just in electronics. Anyway, this Dept Head went to each school and got the pitch, looked at the facilities and program. He was very surprised at how good they actually are. He was treated well and given personal attention. He also went to his own college in cognito and was not treated nearly as well. The counselor was not familiar with electornics and told him to take the entrance exams and come back. There was no individual treatment or facilities tour.
I can say that my own experience has been similar. My daughter who wants to be a chef recently went to this CC and asked for information on its culinary program. She was also turned away by a counselor who was not up to speed on the program. No tour or info. Just go take the entrance exams. That same day she also visited one of the Le Cordon Blu accredited proprietary college here locally. She was welcomed with open arms and given a complete tour of the kitchens and classrooms. When I went to check it out, I too was welcomed and treated with respect and interest. I went by the CC just to satisfy my own curiosity and found ablsolutely no one to talk to. Guess which school my daughter chose? The cost of her proprietary education is about 5 times what the CC charges but I am satisfied that she will get a good education.
I don't have any great suggestions as to how to solve this promotonal dilemna but I know it is a key part of the declining enrollment crisis. CC marketing departments have limited budgets and dozens of departments competing for promotional dollars, limited as they usually are. And their attitude leaves much to be desired. My best advice is to offer them something new. Change or update your curriculum, add a new major specialty, and get some local industry support. Then you will have something new, better and interesting to sell. Your chances of getting promotional dollars will go up many times. If you keep doing the same old thing, you are going to get the same old result. So the solution is change.
Saturday, July 30, 2005
Conference sessions reveal critical information
I promised that I would give you an up date on my session at the SAME-TEC conference in Santa Clara July 25-28. Here it is.
First, there were over 200 attendees mostly community college instructors and administrators. My session was entitled EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES AND TRENDS IN ELECTRONICS. It was a panel session and my segment was called "Ultimate Opportunity, Minor Crisis, or End of Days?" The focus was on the declining enrollment problem and related issues. Other panelists were Roy Brixen from San Mateo College, Jonathan Plant from McGraw Hill, and Jim Cahow of National Instruments. A good balance of colleges, industry and textbook publishers. There were about 40 in attendance and the discussion was lively and very interesting.
Roy Brixen represents the California Electronic Teachers Association and indicated that enrollments had plummeted in the past years. He called it a real “blood bath”. Little was being done except talk about it. He indicated that most instructors in California and elsewhere fight change tooth and nail.
Jonathan Plant McGraw Hill asked about the relevance and content of today’s textbooks. Were they up to date enough or what is needed? There was no definitive answer, but the appearance of the Work-Ready Electronic online modules from MATEC indicates that the texts still may be skewed from today’s needs. Yet instructors seem to prefer the status quo to anything too new or different despite the radical job and technology changes.
Jim Cahow of National Instruments (NI) said they still hired techs but more and more were switching to 4-year engineering graduates. NI just bought Multisim/ElectronicWorkbench which is still popular in the schools.
We way over ran the 2 hours allotted. It is hard to summarize all that was said but I will try to bulletize it for you below.
1. Our wireless survey system was used to poll those present. 90% said that their school had experienced declining enrollments in the past several years. Declines in the 30 to 50% range were the most common.
2. A few colleges are doing well because mainly of a good local job availability, industry participation, and curriculum changes.
3. Most agreed that the declines are caused by a combination of outsourcing, offshoring, change in technology resulting in less need for techs, changes in how techs work (less circuit, more systems), dated and irrelevant courses and curricula, a lack of interest in math, science and technology, and an image problem.
4. Many agreed that the media has given engineering and technology a bad reputation with the continued harping on the offshoring and outsourcing. Most college prospects don’t see engineering or technology as having jobs or viable careers.
5. Most schools are only beginning to work on the problem. The lease effective approach is high school recruitment that produces little or no increase even with significant effort.
6. Little or nothing is being done on a national level to fix the problem. It is more of a local issue anyway.
7. I am working with Austin Community College to submit a grant proposal to NSF (in October) to fund a research project that will find the causes and suggest solutions. Wish me luck.
8. Most agreed that there were tech jobs still available that were in some cases still going unfilled. Two key factors emerged. Most of these jobs are not in the electronics companies. Engineering tech jobs for which most curricula are targeted have all but disappeared. The bulk of jobs exist in companies that use electronics extensively. Second, the title electronic technician is no long widely used or undertstood. Some good prospects for jobs are process control and instrumentation, bio-medical electronics, wireless, and consumer electronics. Several schools revealed that they were starting electrical power distribution programs since there are many openings due to baby boomer retirements in this mature but very strong industry.
9. The issue of certification came up many times at the conference. Most agreed that it was under utilized. Even though industry does not demand it, many recognize its usefulness and some schools are beginning to prepare students for selected certifications (ETA-I, ISCET, CEA, FCC license, etc.).
10. The state of the curriculum was discussed widely. Most agreed that the curriculum was dated and some even said it was preparing grads for engineering technician jobs that have virtually disappeared from the planet. The curriculum is no longer a good fit with what industry needs. One Alabama CC (Wallace) increased enrollments by completely revising the curriculum and changing the department name.
11. The consensus was that major changes are needed in the course content and curriculum. Many (but apparently not all) are willing to change. The big hang ups for most are the lack of money, lack of time, lack of administration support, and the difficulty of the change process with faculty, the college, the accrediting bodies, etc.
12. Finally, we need a major media/PR effort to make techs more visible and the jobs more desirable.
What are you doing at your school to fix things? Your input is always welcome.
P.S. Best wishes to all of you I met at the conference and thanks for your positive comments on the blog.
First, there were over 200 attendees mostly community college instructors and administrators. My session was entitled EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES AND TRENDS IN ELECTRONICS. It was a panel session and my segment was called "Ultimate Opportunity, Minor Crisis, or End of Days?" The focus was on the declining enrollment problem and related issues. Other panelists were Roy Brixen from San Mateo College, Jonathan Plant from McGraw Hill, and Jim Cahow of National Instruments. A good balance of colleges, industry and textbook publishers. There were about 40 in attendance and the discussion was lively and very interesting.
Roy Brixen represents the California Electronic Teachers Association and indicated that enrollments had plummeted in the past years. He called it a real “blood bath”. Little was being done except talk about it. He indicated that most instructors in California and elsewhere fight change tooth and nail.
Jonathan Plant McGraw Hill asked about the relevance and content of today’s textbooks. Were they up to date enough or what is needed? There was no definitive answer, but the appearance of the Work-Ready Electronic online modules from MATEC indicates that the texts still may be skewed from today’s needs. Yet instructors seem to prefer the status quo to anything too new or different despite the radical job and technology changes.
Jim Cahow of National Instruments (NI) said they still hired techs but more and more were switching to 4-year engineering graduates. NI just bought Multisim/ElectronicWorkbench which is still popular in the schools.
We way over ran the 2 hours allotted. It is hard to summarize all that was said but I will try to bulletize it for you below.
1. Our wireless survey system was used to poll those present. 90% said that their school had experienced declining enrollments in the past several years. Declines in the 30 to 50% range were the most common.
2. A few colleges are doing well because mainly of a good local job availability, industry participation, and curriculum changes.
3. Most agreed that the declines are caused by a combination of outsourcing, offshoring, change in technology resulting in less need for techs, changes in how techs work (less circuit, more systems), dated and irrelevant courses and curricula, a lack of interest in math, science and technology, and an image problem.
4. Many agreed that the media has given engineering and technology a bad reputation with the continued harping on the offshoring and outsourcing. Most college prospects don’t see engineering or technology as having jobs or viable careers.
5. Most schools are only beginning to work on the problem. The lease effective approach is high school recruitment that produces little or no increase even with significant effort.
6. Little or nothing is being done on a national level to fix the problem. It is more of a local issue anyway.
7. I am working with Austin Community College to submit a grant proposal to NSF (in October) to fund a research project that will find the causes and suggest solutions. Wish me luck.
8. Most agreed that there were tech jobs still available that were in some cases still going unfilled. Two key factors emerged. Most of these jobs are not in the electronics companies. Engineering tech jobs for which most curricula are targeted have all but disappeared. The bulk of jobs exist in companies that use electronics extensively. Second, the title electronic technician is no long widely used or undertstood. Some good prospects for jobs are process control and instrumentation, bio-medical electronics, wireless, and consumer electronics. Several schools revealed that they were starting electrical power distribution programs since there are many openings due to baby boomer retirements in this mature but very strong industry.
9. The issue of certification came up many times at the conference. Most agreed that it was under utilized. Even though industry does not demand it, many recognize its usefulness and some schools are beginning to prepare students for selected certifications (ETA-I, ISCET, CEA, FCC license, etc.).
10. The state of the curriculum was discussed widely. Most agreed that the curriculum was dated and some even said it was preparing grads for engineering technician jobs that have virtually disappeared from the planet. The curriculum is no longer a good fit with what industry needs. One Alabama CC (Wallace) increased enrollments by completely revising the curriculum and changing the department name.
11. The consensus was that major changes are needed in the course content and curriculum. Many (but apparently not all) are willing to change. The big hang ups for most are the lack of money, lack of time, lack of administration support, and the difficulty of the change process with faculty, the college, the accrediting bodies, etc.
12. Finally, we need a major media/PR effort to make techs more visible and the jobs more desirable.
What are you doing at your school to fix things? Your input is always welcome.
P.S. Best wishes to all of you I met at the conference and thanks for your positive comments on the blog.
Friday, July 29, 2005
Education is the answer.
If education is the answer, what is the question? According to an article in the July 25, 2005 issue of Fortune magazine, education is the key solution to the problem of the USA losing its technical superiority worldwide. Yes, what we have taken for granted all these years is now slippling away very rapidly. While we are still the leader in high tech innovation and creativity, that is beginning to move to other centers like China and India. So not only is our manufacturing moving offshore to those places, but our researach, development and engineering is also moving there. We didn't get too upset as the manufacturing moved out, but we are really getting concerned when all our high end engineering and innovation are leaving too. This is truly a crisis. But like many of these trends it happens gradually so we either don't see it or we do not give it much credibility much less attention. Wrong...
Anyway, I urge you to read this article. By the time you get this it may be off the newstands, but you can probably find a copy in your college library. By all means read it.
Education is the answer, but how can we change the publics perception that technical education is good thing not just for a few geeks and gear heads? How can we attract more students into our programs? Let's work on that and by all means share your thoughts, ideas and rants here on this blog. They are always welcome.
Anyway, I urge you to read this article. By the time you get this it may be off the newstands, but you can probably find a copy in your college library. By all means read it.
Education is the answer, but how can we change the publics perception that technical education is good thing not just for a few geeks and gear heads? How can we attract more students into our programs? Let's work on that and by all means share your thoughts, ideas and rants here on this blog. They are always welcome.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Conference to discuss declining enrollments
Next week, July 25-28 in San Jose, CA, the Maricopa Advanced Technology Education Center (MATEC) is putting on their SAME-TEC conference. SAME-TEC means Semiconductor, Automated Manufacturing, Electronics, Traning and Education Conference. It has been going on for three years and even before that as a conference devoted to semiconductor manufacturing. Today the emphasis is broader convering manufacturing and more generic electronic education at the community college level. Already over 200 community college faculty and administrators have signed up and that figure is up over last year. So while there is a general decline in enrollments, interest in this conference is growing.
One of the key sessions this year is one addressing the declining enrollment problem many schools have been experiencing. The session will feature an audience polling system to get real-time input from the faculty present. Accompanying this session is a panel discussion with representatives from industry, book publishing, and academia. I am on that panel as well. We hope this session will better clarify the depth of the problem and begin to identify solutions.
It is still not too late to sign up for this terrific conference. The first day features a workshop on the Work-Ready Electronics project, an NSF funded development program to create online modules to update electronic courses and curricula. The major topic is how to teach DSP at the technician level and a look at what is being done to teach at the systems level rather than the old style component level. It should be interesting. For more information on this conference, go to www.matec.org and look under Conferences. Hope to see you at the Santa Clara Marriott.
If you are unable to attend, I will give a summary of these important sessions in this space week after next.
One of the key sessions this year is one addressing the declining enrollment problem many schools have been experiencing. The session will feature an audience polling system to get real-time input from the faculty present. Accompanying this session is a panel discussion with representatives from industry, book publishing, and academia. I am on that panel as well. We hope this session will better clarify the depth of the problem and begin to identify solutions.
It is still not too late to sign up for this terrific conference. The first day features a workshop on the Work-Ready Electronics project, an NSF funded development program to create online modules to update electronic courses and curricula. The major topic is how to teach DSP at the technician level and a look at what is being done to teach at the systems level rather than the old style component level. It should be interesting. For more information on this conference, go to www.matec.org and look under Conferences. Hope to see you at the Santa Clara Marriott.
If you are unable to attend, I will give a summary of these important sessions in this space week after next.
Friday, July 08, 2005
Book Publishers: Hurting or Helping?
One of you recently posted a comment here and asked, where are the textbooks and lab equipment for a proposed, revised, updated, more relevant curriculum? GREAT QUESTION!!
The short answer is, there are none. But that needs some explanation.
First, let me say that the publishers are doing a superb job of creating a text and getting it distributed. As a senior VP at one of the three major technology publishers at one time in my life, I can tell you that the process is very professional, detailed and expensive. The books today are excellent with full color and lots of ancillary support materials. Teachers have come to rely on the publishers to do a major part of their job which includes providing exams, overhead presentations, CDs with extra info, software, and even lab manuals. What's not to like?
But there is one hellacious problem. Many if not most of the books are dated. The fundamentals don't change, but they are now out of context. And the fundamentals that are important to jobs and industry today are a bit different. Some of the content is more for engineers than techs and other content just not needed. We need less theory and design and more practical material.
Why are the books like this? For several reasons. Number one, the books are written by the professors who have little recent industry experience. Many professors are stuck in the decade when they stopped their industry careers to enter academia and haven't really kept up to date. Second, the publishers rely on other professors to review the books. These professors also tend not to have the experience or up to date industry knowledge to know when a subject is dated or whether key subject matter has been omitted. Industry reviewers would help, but would really upset things. So what we get is more of the same. I am not saying the books don't get updated, they do. But it is usually too little too late.
A few years ago I did a major research project to determine just how up to date electronic technology texts were. I compared the content of current books to a list of recent topics derived from industry focus and job needs. What I found was disturbing. Huge chunks of modern electronics are completely omitted from some texts or may only be mentioned in passing. The omissions and skew from what industry wants and needs was huge. The result of this research ultimately resulted in an NSF grant for nearly a million dollars to do something about this problem. We are in the third year of that grant which is helping colleges to update their courses where the texts books fail. www.work-readyelectronics.org
The whole issue is not that the publishers aren't sensitive to the problem. Believe me they are. But they are essentially afraid to do anything about it. They are terrified to change something that has been so successful in the past. They are afraid to go too far in updating the books. Why? Because it is you the professor who selects and buys the books. And professors tend to like the status quo. At textbook selection meetings, I have heard teachers argue for keeping the same text even if it is not as up to date strictly because it is too much trouble to change their notes, syllabi, presentation materials, handouts, exams, etc. Great excuse, huh? So the teachers, in effect, tell the publishers what they want and the publishers give them that, even if it is a bit dated and skewed. After, all publishers are in the business of selling books and making a profit. Please your customer, meet your sales projections, and profit. Ah, all is well. But, guess who gets short changed? The student and industry. And in the long run, the school and the professors.
So there are very few books that are really in tune with the real world. Some are close, but not there yet. All of them are from several decades back. What I wonder is when a publisher is going to take a bit of a chance and do something fresh, new, better, different and just what is needed TODAY? With the current low enrollment problem, publishers are hurting. Sales are lower than ever and most are in a hunkered down mode to protect their market share. Revisions are being delayed and some books are being dropped. And few if any new books are in the works.
Since we all rely on the textbooks as the core of our courses and even our own knowledge, we need publishers who are brave enough to give us books more in tune with real needs. It's a chicken and egg thing. Once we get the up to date books, professors will get updated as well as the courses. Which one of the major publishers will be first? McGraw Hill? Prentice Hall? Delmar? Which one has the guts to give us what the teachers need and the students and industry will benefit from? And which of you professors will be brave enough to buy them? Let's all buy books from that first publisher.
The short answer is, there are none. But that needs some explanation.
First, let me say that the publishers are doing a superb job of creating a text and getting it distributed. As a senior VP at one of the three major technology publishers at one time in my life, I can tell you that the process is very professional, detailed and expensive. The books today are excellent with full color and lots of ancillary support materials. Teachers have come to rely on the publishers to do a major part of their job which includes providing exams, overhead presentations, CDs with extra info, software, and even lab manuals. What's not to like?
But there is one hellacious problem. Many if not most of the books are dated. The fundamentals don't change, but they are now out of context. And the fundamentals that are important to jobs and industry today are a bit different. Some of the content is more for engineers than techs and other content just not needed. We need less theory and design and more practical material.
Why are the books like this? For several reasons. Number one, the books are written by the professors who have little recent industry experience. Many professors are stuck in the decade when they stopped their industry careers to enter academia and haven't really kept up to date. Second, the publishers rely on other professors to review the books. These professors also tend not to have the experience or up to date industry knowledge to know when a subject is dated or whether key subject matter has been omitted. Industry reviewers would help, but would really upset things. So what we get is more of the same. I am not saying the books don't get updated, they do. But it is usually too little too late.
A few years ago I did a major research project to determine just how up to date electronic technology texts were. I compared the content of current books to a list of recent topics derived from industry focus and job needs. What I found was disturbing. Huge chunks of modern electronics are completely omitted from some texts or may only be mentioned in passing. The omissions and skew from what industry wants and needs was huge. The result of this research ultimately resulted in an NSF grant for nearly a million dollars to do something about this problem. We are in the third year of that grant which is helping colleges to update their courses where the texts books fail. www.work-readyelectronics.org
The whole issue is not that the publishers aren't sensitive to the problem. Believe me they are. But they are essentially afraid to do anything about it. They are terrified to change something that has been so successful in the past. They are afraid to go too far in updating the books. Why? Because it is you the professor who selects and buys the books. And professors tend to like the status quo. At textbook selection meetings, I have heard teachers argue for keeping the same text even if it is not as up to date strictly because it is too much trouble to change their notes, syllabi, presentation materials, handouts, exams, etc. Great excuse, huh? So the teachers, in effect, tell the publishers what they want and the publishers give them that, even if it is a bit dated and skewed. After, all publishers are in the business of selling books and making a profit. Please your customer, meet your sales projections, and profit. Ah, all is well. But, guess who gets short changed? The student and industry. And in the long run, the school and the professors.
So there are very few books that are really in tune with the real world. Some are close, but not there yet. All of them are from several decades back. What I wonder is when a publisher is going to take a bit of a chance and do something fresh, new, better, different and just what is needed TODAY? With the current low enrollment problem, publishers are hurting. Sales are lower than ever and most are in a hunkered down mode to protect their market share. Revisions are being delayed and some books are being dropped. And few if any new books are in the works.
Since we all rely on the textbooks as the core of our courses and even our own knowledge, we need publishers who are brave enough to give us books more in tune with real needs. It's a chicken and egg thing. Once we get the up to date books, professors will get updated as well as the courses. Which one of the major publishers will be first? McGraw Hill? Prentice Hall? Delmar? Which one has the guts to give us what the teachers need and the students and industry will benefit from? And which of you professors will be brave enough to buy them? Let's all buy books from that first publisher.
Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be ....techs
My apologies to Waylon Jennings and Willie Nelson for my take off on their hit song. But the comment fits. Parents don't want their kids to grow up to be technicians. They want them to be, as the song continues, "doctors and lawyers and things". And I can confirm that this is true.
While I was department head here at Austin CC, we had orientations for prospective students to introduce them to the industry, the work and the currculum. Many students brought their parents. After the presentation, many of the questions centered on the percieved limited value of an AAS degree and a technician's job. The questions included: Where does this lead career-wise? Are jobs available? Wouldn't a bachelors degree be better? In general the overall tone was that most parents want their kids to get a bachelors degree. And it is difficult to argue with that. Even though a CC program would be measurably cheaper and the student would go to work sooner or the program was a better fit to the student's interests and mental capacity, parents were fighting it. As a parent myself, I guess I cannot blame them. On the other hand, I started out in life with an AAS grad, worked as a tech for years, but eventually went on to a bachelors in technology degree and a long successful career as an engineer. So there is hope, we just haven't communicated that to students and parents.
I saw this same scene play out again at a session one of the local manufacturers put on for potential employees. They promoted the local CC AAS program. But again parents said they didn't think it was in the best interest of their kid. The question was, why can't the kid just go on the get a BSEE and be an engineer? And, oh by the way, can the kid with the AAS go on and get a BSEE?
We seem to have two major probelms here. First is an image problem. A tech is viewed as being a lesser person than an engineer. I am not sure I see it that way as the work they do is vastly different, one more hands-on and practical and the other more theoretical. But for those who do not know the field, they think otherwise.
The second problem is an almost complete lack of knowledge of the difference between engineering and technology. The confusion over the differences keeps students from enrolling and parents from blessing technology, not to mention the on-going confusion with employers.
Seems like we really need to hire a PR firm to inform and educate on both fronts. The schools sure as heck are not going to do it.
While I was department head here at Austin CC, we had orientations for prospective students to introduce them to the industry, the work and the currculum. Many students brought their parents. After the presentation, many of the questions centered on the percieved limited value of an AAS degree and a technician's job. The questions included: Where does this lead career-wise? Are jobs available? Wouldn't a bachelors degree be better? In general the overall tone was that most parents want their kids to get a bachelors degree. And it is difficult to argue with that. Even though a CC program would be measurably cheaper and the student would go to work sooner or the program was a better fit to the student's interests and mental capacity, parents were fighting it. As a parent myself, I guess I cannot blame them. On the other hand, I started out in life with an AAS grad, worked as a tech for years, but eventually went on to a bachelors in technology degree and a long successful career as an engineer. So there is hope, we just haven't communicated that to students and parents.
I saw this same scene play out again at a session one of the local manufacturers put on for potential employees. They promoted the local CC AAS program. But again parents said they didn't think it was in the best interest of their kid. The question was, why can't the kid just go on the get a BSEE and be an engineer? And, oh by the way, can the kid with the AAS go on and get a BSEE?
We seem to have two major probelms here. First is an image problem. A tech is viewed as being a lesser person than an engineer. I am not sure I see it that way as the work they do is vastly different, one more hands-on and practical and the other more theoretical. But for those who do not know the field, they think otherwise.
The second problem is an almost complete lack of knowledge of the difference between engineering and technology. The confusion over the differences keeps students from enrolling and parents from blessing technology, not to mention the on-going confusion with employers.
Seems like we really need to hire a PR firm to inform and educate on both fronts. The schools sure as heck are not going to do it.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
As usual, we are our own worse enemy.
Roy Brixen's comment to my previous entry called Top 10 Reasons... was right on target. If you have not done so, read it as it tells you what we all need to be doing and why.
I continuously wonder just how much of the low electronic enrollment problem is our own. That is, the problems with the college, curriculum, course content, and our own up to date knowledge. I have to think that this is a major piece of it but I haven't encountered too many of you who will stand up and say that. So many of you believe you are doing just the right thing. I am afraid I disagree.
First, I don't want to make any of you mad, but you have to quit living in the past and in denial. The AAS degree curriculum in electronics as it is currently taught in most community colleges is dated. It has not changed materially in the past 25 years since microprocessors were added. Yet, in that time electronics has really moved on. The jobs have changed as well as the knowledge and skill requirments of those to fill those jobs. Yet you ignore it. Why? Is it because you don't see and recognize the changes or you simply do not wish to take the time or make the effort to change things?
I should say that I was department head for 5 years and understand why instructors don't keep up to date or make changes. Usually they are too busy teaching their 4 courses per semester and doing all the usual academic meetings and stuff. Who has time? I recognize that problem, but it can no long be an excuse.
As a writer/editor for one of the largest electronic magazines in the world, I visit companies and talk to engineers, technicians, executives in industry every day. And what I see and hear is very much skewed from what is being taught in the colleges. It is a major skew. As an adjunct professor for one of these colleges, I do my best to include the latest components, circuits and methods to make sure the couse content is current. Yet, I feel I am only one of a very few who do this. All I can say is , that you are teaching the wrong things people. The emphasis and content is all wrong for today's jobs and technology.
I will say this if it makes you feel any better. Virtually all of the faculty I have ever seen do a superior job of teaching. The quality, committment, and materials are typically beyond approach. Yet, they are either seriously dated or simply no longer needed. The best example I can give is the continued massive devotion to teaching everything about BJT biasing when most (over 95%) of all transistors today are MOSFETs. You can claim all you want about how academically effective this is to improve thinking and so on, but I can tell you it is a huge waste of time as the modern tech never does bias a BJT. What a huge waste of time which is always so precious in an AAS degree program anyway. We all claim that there is never enough time to cover all that we need to cover. And it is true. But maybe if we eliminated the irrelevant or at least minimized it, we would have more room for the more recent and interesting material.
It is difficult to change courses and curricula, I recognize that. The college itself and its policies make it difficult. And the state and accrediting bodies don't make it any easier either. Yet we must try. My recommendation is to do it a little at a time. In each course you teach, each time you teach, introduce one new up to date item not cover before. That way it will take less time and eventually you will have an up to date course. Just a thought...
If you don't do it who will?
I continuously wonder just how much of the low electronic enrollment problem is our own. That is, the problems with the college, curriculum, course content, and our own up to date knowledge. I have to think that this is a major piece of it but I haven't encountered too many of you who will stand up and say that. So many of you believe you are doing just the right thing. I am afraid I disagree.
First, I don't want to make any of you mad, but you have to quit living in the past and in denial. The AAS degree curriculum in electronics as it is currently taught in most community colleges is dated. It has not changed materially in the past 25 years since microprocessors were added. Yet, in that time electronics has really moved on. The jobs have changed as well as the knowledge and skill requirments of those to fill those jobs. Yet you ignore it. Why? Is it because you don't see and recognize the changes or you simply do not wish to take the time or make the effort to change things?
I should say that I was department head for 5 years and understand why instructors don't keep up to date or make changes. Usually they are too busy teaching their 4 courses per semester and doing all the usual academic meetings and stuff. Who has time? I recognize that problem, but it can no long be an excuse.
As a writer/editor for one of the largest electronic magazines in the world, I visit companies and talk to engineers, technicians, executives in industry every day. And what I see and hear is very much skewed from what is being taught in the colleges. It is a major skew. As an adjunct professor for one of these colleges, I do my best to include the latest components, circuits and methods to make sure the couse content is current. Yet, I feel I am only one of a very few who do this. All I can say is , that you are teaching the wrong things people. The emphasis and content is all wrong for today's jobs and technology.
I will say this if it makes you feel any better. Virtually all of the faculty I have ever seen do a superior job of teaching. The quality, committment, and materials are typically beyond approach. Yet, they are either seriously dated or simply no longer needed. The best example I can give is the continued massive devotion to teaching everything about BJT biasing when most (over 95%) of all transistors today are MOSFETs. You can claim all you want about how academically effective this is to improve thinking and so on, but I can tell you it is a huge waste of time as the modern tech never does bias a BJT. What a huge waste of time which is always so precious in an AAS degree program anyway. We all claim that there is never enough time to cover all that we need to cover. And it is true. But maybe if we eliminated the irrelevant or at least minimized it, we would have more room for the more recent and interesting material.
It is difficult to change courses and curricula, I recognize that. The college itself and its policies make it difficult. And the state and accrediting bodies don't make it any easier either. Yet we must try. My recommendation is to do it a little at a time. In each course you teach, each time you teach, introduce one new up to date item not cover before. That way it will take less time and eventually you will have an up to date course. Just a thought...
If you don't do it who will?
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Top 10 Reasons Why Electronic Enrollments Are Low
I have been researching the low enrollment problem for over 3 years now. After lots of literature research, a major survey, and talking with faculty and administrators at conferences, it is clear that there is not just one over riding problem. The problem is multi-faceted and complex. Here, for whatever it is worth to you, is what I have come to believe. (And incidentally, these are not listed in any order of priority or importance.)
1. Offshoring - This is the movement of manufacturing from the US to other countries like China, Mexico, etc. This has indeed reduced the need for manufacturing and service techs. However, this will continue clearly because it is beneficial to the companies. The offshoring process won't eliminate manufacturing completely in the US but it will continue to reduce it.
2. Outsourcing - This is the use of workers in other countries to do US support jobs. Again, the goal is saving money. US companies are continuing to outsource many jobs. My own view is that this has hurt the computer industry more than electronics but still jobs that may have gone to AAS technology graduates have been outsourced to India particularly. Most of these are programming and help desk jobs. Since many electronic jobs require hands-on contact with the hardware, it is impossible to outsource them. Lucky for us.
3. Technology and Economics - Technology advances especially in semiconductors have made electronic equipment far more reliable so less repair is needed. Furthermore, electronic products have gotten much more complex and are extremely difficult to troubleshoot and repair. The fact that all the circuitry is in just a few chips on a tiny printed circuit board means that the product is typically not repairable at the board level. In fact, the economics of the situation due to high labor costs (not to mention healthcare) is such that it is cheaper to throw away a defective product and buy an newer more advanced unit than repair it. This one fact alone is a major influence in how may electronic techs we do NOT need. The nature of tech work today is higher level systems-like troubleshooting and less component level troubleshooting and repair. Component level service is not completely dead but you can certainly see where the emphasis has shifted.
4. Major shift to PCs - Beginning in the 1980's, most students abandoned electronics to ride the wave of the PC industry success. It was good for them as jobs were plentiful and certification offered big bucks not attainable in an electronic tech job. Who is to blame them. Many schools added new PC departments while others added PCs to electronics. In the end, PCs dominated. Many electronic departments simply faded away leaving a computer technology department.
5. Less interest in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). This declining interest in STEM has been going on for years. High school students don't want to be geeks and nerds. Our society is one that rewards celebrities in movies, TV, music and sports. People want to be rich and famous and not buried in a lab somewhere. College bound students want to study law, business and journalism(media). Anything but STEM. A great deal of this has to do with the "math problem" which was extensively discussed recently on the EDT Listserv.
6. Bad PR - The tech bubble bust of 2000/2001 really put electronics into a tailspin. We have the negative press to blame for an on-going disregard for engineering and technology jobs. While the problem is mostly over now, there is still a lingering reluctance to touch anything related to the Internet, technology and the like for fear that will hit again. Well...duh...Any one who has ever worked in electronics, the semiconductor industry or computer industry knows that these are very cyclical businesses. It is natural to have the ups and downs In fact, most businesses have naturally occurring higs and lows. This most recent downturn was a big one, however, and it has really put off many who might have otherwise chose electronics as a career. Where can we get some positive PR?
7. Loss of industry support - I think industry has somewhat abanonded support for many AAS programs simply because they no longer need as many technician level people as they did in the past. With less manufacturing, testing and service jobs there simply is less or even no need for tech workers. No need to support something that is not there. Of course, tech work hasn't gone away entirely but it is down. Many industries still need techs but with different knowledge and skills that we were supplying in the past. Or even today. So many schools have reffuse to give industry what they need so industry has taken off on its own to provide the training that some schools have been reluctant to supply. Finally, I am also appaled at how some schools actually never talk with industry to see what they need. There are pockets of need all around. Each school has to dig these out and adapt. Otherwise, expect to see enrollments continue to decline.
8. Dated curricula and courses - Perhaps one reason industry has less interest in current programs is that seem to be the same as they were 20 or 30 years ago. Many programs are training students for jobs that no longer exist. Why? There is an unusual resistance to change in the community colleges. As humans we all resist change but not to the degree I have witnessed in the CCs. Where I teach, faculty rabidly fights for the status quo. I guess for many faculty, the idea of having to learn new technolgy and teach it is just unacceptable. Since technican work has changed drastically, some rework of the curricula is desparately needed. We do not need to teach as much math and theory as before. Techs just don't need it to do their jobs. Of course, all techs need some theoretical background, it just does not have to be as rigorous as it once was. Faculty see this as dumbing down the curriculum. I see it as just adapting to the real world, giving students what they really need to survive and do well. We are hurting students and industry by not changing. It is a selfish characteristic of faculty that I see nationwide. Today we are in a change of die situation and I do not see much change going on.
9. Prospects do not know what electronics is these days - Go out and ask a high school student, graduate or anyone for that matter what an electronic technican is or does. You will find as I have that no one actually knows. They used to, but not today. It is an enigma of a job. People do know what computer techs and programmers do, but not electronic techs. Do we even know what an electronic tech is today? No wonder fewer and fewer students enroll. They have no clue what the job is or what they will do. Part of the problem is that the term electronic tech is used less and less. Instead, we see jobs for field service techs or engineers, manufacturing techs, maintenance techs, customer representatives, installers, and the like. This would seem like a problem that could be solved with department name changes, course name changes and so on. A good PR program would also help.
10. Lack of promotion - I guess all schools lack promotion. You need to get out and sell in this day and time to expect any increase in enrollments. I witnessed this first hand at my college. When we didn't advertise, we got few enrollments. When we advertised, we got many, many more. It really works well. Schools simply won't spend the money. The academic mind set is "if we build it they will come". Not necessairly. You can go on saying that until you department flounders then what the administration will say is simply that we will not fund promotion for a department that has been in decline for so long. Sayonora... In the mean time, the proprietary schools (DeVry, ITT Tech, Cornithian, NTI, and ECPI and others) only get more students. If you ever wondered how these schools continue to grow and prosper which equivalent CC programs are in decline, now you know.
If you know of any other reasons that I missed, let me hear from you. Input from all of you is welcome anytime.
1. Offshoring - This is the movement of manufacturing from the US to other countries like China, Mexico, etc. This has indeed reduced the need for manufacturing and service techs. However, this will continue clearly because it is beneficial to the companies. The offshoring process won't eliminate manufacturing completely in the US but it will continue to reduce it.
2. Outsourcing - This is the use of workers in other countries to do US support jobs. Again, the goal is saving money. US companies are continuing to outsource many jobs. My own view is that this has hurt the computer industry more than electronics but still jobs that may have gone to AAS technology graduates have been outsourced to India particularly. Most of these are programming and help desk jobs. Since many electronic jobs require hands-on contact with the hardware, it is impossible to outsource them. Lucky for us.
3. Technology and Economics - Technology advances especially in semiconductors have made electronic equipment far more reliable so less repair is needed. Furthermore, electronic products have gotten much more complex and are extremely difficult to troubleshoot and repair. The fact that all the circuitry is in just a few chips on a tiny printed circuit board means that the product is typically not repairable at the board level. In fact, the economics of the situation due to high labor costs (not to mention healthcare) is such that it is cheaper to throw away a defective product and buy an newer more advanced unit than repair it. This one fact alone is a major influence in how may electronic techs we do NOT need. The nature of tech work today is higher level systems-like troubleshooting and less component level troubleshooting and repair. Component level service is not completely dead but you can certainly see where the emphasis has shifted.
4. Major shift to PCs - Beginning in the 1980's, most students abandoned electronics to ride the wave of the PC industry success. It was good for them as jobs were plentiful and certification offered big bucks not attainable in an electronic tech job. Who is to blame them. Many schools added new PC departments while others added PCs to electronics. In the end, PCs dominated. Many electronic departments simply faded away leaving a computer technology department.
5. Less interest in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). This declining interest in STEM has been going on for years. High school students don't want to be geeks and nerds. Our society is one that rewards celebrities in movies, TV, music and sports. People want to be rich and famous and not buried in a lab somewhere. College bound students want to study law, business and journalism(media). Anything but STEM. A great deal of this has to do with the "math problem" which was extensively discussed recently on the EDT Listserv.
6. Bad PR - The tech bubble bust of 2000/2001 really put electronics into a tailspin. We have the negative press to blame for an on-going disregard for engineering and technology jobs. While the problem is mostly over now, there is still a lingering reluctance to touch anything related to the Internet, technology and the like for fear that will hit again. Well...duh...Any one who has ever worked in electronics, the semiconductor industry or computer industry knows that these are very cyclical businesses. It is natural to have the ups and downs In fact, most businesses have naturally occurring higs and lows. This most recent downturn was a big one, however, and it has really put off many who might have otherwise chose electronics as a career. Where can we get some positive PR?
7. Loss of industry support - I think industry has somewhat abanonded support for many AAS programs simply because they no longer need as many technician level people as they did in the past. With less manufacturing, testing and service jobs there simply is less or even no need for tech workers. No need to support something that is not there. Of course, tech work hasn't gone away entirely but it is down. Many industries still need techs but with different knowledge and skills that we were supplying in the past. Or even today. So many schools have reffuse to give industry what they need so industry has taken off on its own to provide the training that some schools have been reluctant to supply. Finally, I am also appaled at how some schools actually never talk with industry to see what they need. There are pockets of need all around. Each school has to dig these out and adapt. Otherwise, expect to see enrollments continue to decline.
8. Dated curricula and courses - Perhaps one reason industry has less interest in current programs is that seem to be the same as they were 20 or 30 years ago. Many programs are training students for jobs that no longer exist. Why? There is an unusual resistance to change in the community colleges. As humans we all resist change but not to the degree I have witnessed in the CCs. Where I teach, faculty rabidly fights for the status quo. I guess for many faculty, the idea of having to learn new technolgy and teach it is just unacceptable. Since technican work has changed drastically, some rework of the curricula is desparately needed. We do not need to teach as much math and theory as before. Techs just don't need it to do their jobs. Of course, all techs need some theoretical background, it just does not have to be as rigorous as it once was. Faculty see this as dumbing down the curriculum. I see it as just adapting to the real world, giving students what they really need to survive and do well. We are hurting students and industry by not changing. It is a selfish characteristic of faculty that I see nationwide. Today we are in a change of die situation and I do not see much change going on.
9. Prospects do not know what electronics is these days - Go out and ask a high school student, graduate or anyone for that matter what an electronic technican is or does. You will find as I have that no one actually knows. They used to, but not today. It is an enigma of a job. People do know what computer techs and programmers do, but not electronic techs. Do we even know what an electronic tech is today? No wonder fewer and fewer students enroll. They have no clue what the job is or what they will do. Part of the problem is that the term electronic tech is used less and less. Instead, we see jobs for field service techs or engineers, manufacturing techs, maintenance techs, customer representatives, installers, and the like. This would seem like a problem that could be solved with department name changes, course name changes and so on. A good PR program would also help.
10. Lack of promotion - I guess all schools lack promotion. You need to get out and sell in this day and time to expect any increase in enrollments. I witnessed this first hand at my college. When we didn't advertise, we got few enrollments. When we advertised, we got many, many more. It really works well. Schools simply won't spend the money. The academic mind set is "if we build it they will come". Not necessairly. You can go on saying that until you department flounders then what the administration will say is simply that we will not fund promotion for a department that has been in decline for so long. Sayonora... In the mean time, the proprietary schools (DeVry, ITT Tech, Cornithian, NTI, and ECPI and others) only get more students. If you ever wondered how these schools continue to grow and prosper which equivalent CC programs are in decline, now you know.
If you know of any other reasons that I missed, let me hear from you. Input from all of you is welcome anytime.
Monday, June 27, 2005
This book explains much of the low enrollment problem
I just finished reading Thomas L. Friedman's book The World is Flat. It has been on the best seller list for quite a while and you may have heard of it. I can strongly recommend it to those of you trying to understand why enrollments are low and things are as they are in technology education today. It explains alot.
Friedman is a New York Times editor. I have been reading him for a while and don't always agree with his positions but he is astute. He has put together an excellent balanced account of what is going on in the world and how it is affecting us. We all know things are changing, and faster than we want, but we sit around in our comfort zones thinking that the changes will have limited impact on us. The changes have been gradual up to now, but we are finally beginning to feel the affect these changes are having. And they are devistating in some cases. And we are not doing much to improve matters. The terms complacent and "living in denial" come to mind.
Essentially what he is saying is that because of PCs, the Internet and other technologies, the world is flatter, meaning more countries have become or are becoming more competitive with the US. Offshore manufacturing and outsourcing are only some of the changes that have hurt technology education in general It is too complex to cover in this note, but I urge you to get a copy of this book and read it. It took me several weeks to plow through it, but you will be rewarded with a better understanding of things in general. Friedman points out that a major part of the solution to the impact of globalization on the US is more and better science, math, technology and engineering education. Yet, the trends in all those areas are down in the US.
Now, how can we take this knowledge and use it to save electronic technology education?
Friedman is a New York Times editor. I have been reading him for a while and don't always agree with his positions but he is astute. He has put together an excellent balanced account of what is going on in the world and how it is affecting us. We all know things are changing, and faster than we want, but we sit around in our comfort zones thinking that the changes will have limited impact on us. The changes have been gradual up to now, but we are finally beginning to feel the affect these changes are having. And they are devistating in some cases. And we are not doing much to improve matters. The terms complacent and "living in denial" come to mind.
Essentially what he is saying is that because of PCs, the Internet and other technologies, the world is flatter, meaning more countries have become or are becoming more competitive with the US. Offshore manufacturing and outsourcing are only some of the changes that have hurt technology education in general It is too complex to cover in this note, but I urge you to get a copy of this book and read it. It took me several weeks to plow through it, but you will be rewarded with a better understanding of things in general. Friedman points out that a major part of the solution to the impact of globalization on the US is more and better science, math, technology and engineering education. Yet, the trends in all those areas are down in the US.
Now, how can we take this knowledge and use it to save electronic technology education?
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Help is on the way, I hope.
I wonder just how much is being done to solve the declining enrollment problem in electronics. I suspect there are individual efforts in schools to do something, but I have never heard of any national effort. I have spent the last few years and not a small amount of my own money to get the word out, but nothing big has happened. Maybe it never will and besides, who really cares except for a handful of us.
Yet, I kept feeling some action was required. Last year with the cooperation of Austin CC, I helped write and submit a proposal for an NSF grant to study and help solve this problem. It was not awarded. Despite the favorable feedback we got from the reviewers, no funding was available. I was astonished. Is it just me that thinks this is a critical problem?
The NSF is a great organization providing funding for all sorts of advanced technical and educational research. Their Advanced Technology Education (ATE) group does a great job funding various projects for CC level technology education. I have worked on such grant projects before and I work on one now. It is terrific work. Over the years, the competition for the limited NSF funding has gotten greater. I don't know what the ratio of submitted proposals to funded proposals is but it must be huge, 10 to 1 or more I bet. Unless you have a great idea and a superior proposal, your chances are slim.
What I have to wonder is why declining enrollments was not a critical topic worth funding. Are the NSF reviewers even aware of the problems and potential stakes of losing this kind of education? Or do they think we already know why enrollments are going down hill but we are just not doing anything about it? Who knows. I have met and worked with some NSF reviewers and they are a very smart, astute bunch. They do a good job of picking the best ideas. But they may be one step removed from industry and academia where the real problems exist. Hopefully they will realize at some point that the projects they are actually funding are those designed to assist programs that are fast disappearing. What good is that?
Anyway, we rewrote the proposal and submitted it again for a prelimenary review this past April. We are hoping that we will be invited or encouraged to submit a full proposal in October for funding in 2006. That is already too late for many of you who have already lost your department or are being downsized. Yet, if it is funded, at least we can do some more formal research about the problem and develop some practical solutions that can be implemented quickly in schools that are hurting.
Just so you know, some one is trying to do something. Wish us luck.
Yet, I kept feeling some action was required. Last year with the cooperation of Austin CC, I helped write and submit a proposal for an NSF grant to study and help solve this problem. It was not awarded. Despite the favorable feedback we got from the reviewers, no funding was available. I was astonished. Is it just me that thinks this is a critical problem?
The NSF is a great organization providing funding for all sorts of advanced technical and educational research. Their Advanced Technology Education (ATE) group does a great job funding various projects for CC level technology education. I have worked on such grant projects before and I work on one now. It is terrific work. Over the years, the competition for the limited NSF funding has gotten greater. I don't know what the ratio of submitted proposals to funded proposals is but it must be huge, 10 to 1 or more I bet. Unless you have a great idea and a superior proposal, your chances are slim.
What I have to wonder is why declining enrollments was not a critical topic worth funding. Are the NSF reviewers even aware of the problems and potential stakes of losing this kind of education? Or do they think we already know why enrollments are going down hill but we are just not doing anything about it? Who knows. I have met and worked with some NSF reviewers and they are a very smart, astute bunch. They do a good job of picking the best ideas. But they may be one step removed from industry and academia where the real problems exist. Hopefully they will realize at some point that the projects they are actually funding are those designed to assist programs that are fast disappearing. What good is that?
Anyway, we rewrote the proposal and submitted it again for a prelimenary review this past April. We are hoping that we will be invited or encouraged to submit a full proposal in October for funding in 2006. That is already too late for many of you who have already lost your department or are being downsized. Yet, if it is funded, at least we can do some more formal research about the problem and develop some practical solutions that can be implemented quickly in schools that are hurting.
Just so you know, some one is trying to do something. Wish us luck.
Friday, June 24, 2005
Is industry training replacing formal education?
Last night while I was watching some TV, I saw an ad by Time Warner Cable, my local cable company. It was promoting jobs and training for the cable TV techs they need. I have never seen a community college program that ever taught anything about cable TV. Yet that is one place where the jobs actually are. Since the cable companies cannot get the techs they need with the right education, they advertise not only for the job but also for the training they will give you to do the job.
I think this is one of the trends the CCs are fighting as I am seeing this process over and over again. It is happening with the cell phone industry, consumer electronics and elsewhere. Wake up people. The stubborn CCs insist that they know what to teach, but today I am almost convinced that the current curricula is not what is needed any more. More and more, industry is taking it upon themselves to provide their own training. If they cannot get what they want or need from the colleges, why not? The result is less industry support for the colleges. This certainly makes the case for greater awareness in the colleges of what local industry needs are? No one at the college ever thought to contact Time Warner Cable and ask what can we do for you. Isn't that the mission of local CCs? To serve the local community? Looks like the CCs are not fulfilling their missions to industry or the individuals who need the jobs. The result, lost income, fewer students, diminished relevance and ultimately the demise of the department.
If you are sitting around saying, "it is not my job to contact industry", then you are truly a part of the problem. Hopefully you will be able to retire before they shut the doors of your department.
I think this is one of the trends the CCs are fighting as I am seeing this process over and over again. It is happening with the cell phone industry, consumer electronics and elsewhere. Wake up people. The stubborn CCs insist that they know what to teach, but today I am almost convinced that the current curricula is not what is needed any more. More and more, industry is taking it upon themselves to provide their own training. If they cannot get what they want or need from the colleges, why not? The result is less industry support for the colleges. This certainly makes the case for greater awareness in the colleges of what local industry needs are? No one at the college ever thought to contact Time Warner Cable and ask what can we do for you. Isn't that the mission of local CCs? To serve the local community? Looks like the CCs are not fulfilling their missions to industry or the individuals who need the jobs. The result, lost income, fewer students, diminished relevance and ultimately the demise of the department.
If you are sitting around saying, "it is not my job to contact industry", then you are truly a part of the problem. Hopefully you will be able to retire before they shut the doors of your department.
Correction
I gave an incorrect URL in my posting of yesterday. For those of you who tried to access my ASEE paper "The Disappearing Two-Year Associate Degree Program in Electronics Technology", the correct URL is:
www.asee.org/acPapers/2003-287_Final.pdf
I hope I got it right this time.
www.asee.org/acPapers/2003-287_Final.pdf
I hope I got it right this time.
A good example of what is happening.
I received this email in response to my message about this blog. Jack did not post this as a comment so I asked him if I could. He said OK so here it is. Depressing to say the least, but it is exactly what is going on across the country. What are we doing about it?
Lou:
I'll take a look at the blog. Makes sense, but too late here at MHCC (Gresham, OR -- where we 'did' use one of your texts). Too late because the electronics program has been killed due to: 1. Low enrollment 2. NO local industry support 3. College admin that wants to reduce professional-technical programs and increase transfer concentrations even though the program on paper is ABET-TAC --
Jack
It could happen to any of us.
Lou:
I'll take a look at the blog. Makes sense, but too late here at MHCC (Gresham, OR -- where we 'did' use one of your texts). Too late because the electronics program has been killed due to: 1. Low enrollment 2. NO local industry support 3. College admin that wants to reduce professional-technical programs and increase transfer concentrations even though the program on paper is ABET-TAC --
Jack
It could happen to any of us.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
One more reason why enrollments may be declining
In the Monday, June 20th issue of USA Today on the first page of the Money section, is an article that may give all of you some concern. The title of the piece is Perplexed consumers dial up tech 'geeks'. It talks about the great growth in consumer electronics and how Best Buy just hired 1500 more employees to its Geek Squad. Their total Geek Squad is 8000 strong and they expect as many as 12000 by next year. These are the guys who install, service and support consumer electronic installations with big screen HDTV, DVD players, TiVo, surround sound, stellite radios and other sophisticated gear. It has gotten tougher and tougher for the average consumer to handle the complexity. What I wonder is where are these new employees coming from? Where did they learn this or how did they acquire the necessary background?
One thing for sure, they didn't learn consumer electronics in a community college. It is just not taught.
I suspect that these employees are really a type of electronic technician. They are not called that, but what they do is clearly electronic. They probably do not have to know how to bias a bipolar transistor or solve mesh equations which is what we are teaching our students now. You have to wonder why. Today everything is at the systems level rather than the component level. Something CCs do not teach. Again, why?
The good news here is that there are jobs for technical types that are in fact electronic techs even though they are not called that. The bad news is that the CCs are not part of the education solution.
In an earlier Wall Street Journal article, both Best Buy and Circuit City indicated a shortage of persons who knew this stuff. I can't help but think that CCs should have a consumer electronic curriculum or at least some courses on these subjects. I bet that would help enrollments not only because the jobs are there but also because the subject is so interesting.
One thing for sure, they didn't learn consumer electronics in a community college. It is just not taught.
I suspect that these employees are really a type of electronic technician. They are not called that, but what they do is clearly electronic. They probably do not have to know how to bias a bipolar transistor or solve mesh equations which is what we are teaching our students now. You have to wonder why. Today everything is at the systems level rather than the component level. Something CCs do not teach. Again, why?
The good news here is that there are jobs for technical types that are in fact electronic techs even though they are not called that. The bad news is that the CCs are not part of the education solution.
In an earlier Wall Street Journal article, both Best Buy and Circuit City indicated a shortage of persons who knew this stuff. I can't help but think that CCs should have a consumer electronic curriculum or at least some courses on these subjects. I bet that would help enrollments not only because the jobs are there but also because the subject is so interesting.
Some background on the enrollment decline
I first got worried about the enrollment decline in community colleges after I left teaching in 2000. While I was at Austin CC, the semiconductor manufacturing technnology program I headed was amazingly successful. During the 1997-98 period enrollments peaked at about 500 not including the 250 in other electronic programs. We eventally graduated hundreds into jobs in industry. Following 9/11, everything seemed to crash including enrollments.
I reported on this phenomenon in my ASEE paper " The Rise and Fall of a 2-Year Semiconductor Manufacturing Industry-Education Program". I presented this at the CIEC conference in Tucson in 2003. You can see that paper at fie.engrng.pitt.edu/ciec2003.
I also did an informal survey in 2002 on the ETD Listserv to find out if anyone else was having enrollment problems. Wow, what a response I got. It seems to be hurting all but a few colleges. That was my wake up call.
I also did a paper for the ASEE national conference in Nashville in 2003. This paper titled, " The Disappearing Associate Degree Program in Electronics Technology", really sums up the problem. Take a look if you are interested at www.asee.org/acPapers2003-287_Final.pdf.
In January 2005, I presented a paper on this subject at the CIEC in Savannah. The title was "Does Industry Still Really Need Electronic Technicians? Where have all the jobs for AAS degrees technology granduates?" I also presented a paper at the Texas Community College Teacher's Association (TCCTA) in February with a similar theme but focusing on the textbook problem.
Anyway, I am worried that we are not doing enough to address this problem. Most faculty are aware of the problem but few are doing anything about it. In my networking at the various conferences, I get the same response: "we have the problem but do not know what to do." I have always felt we needed a national forum to discuss this and find solutions but there is not one for this segment of education. Hopefully this blog will serve that purpose.
In any case, I am on a crusade I guess to get out the word and to get everyone talking about the problem and sharing information and success stories. Let me know what is happening out at your school and what you are doing if anything. Most of all, tell us what works.
I reported on this phenomenon in my ASEE paper " The Rise and Fall of a 2-Year Semiconductor Manufacturing Industry-Education Program". I presented this at the CIEC conference in Tucson in 2003. You can see that paper at fie.engrng.pitt.edu/ciec2003.
I also did an informal survey in 2002 on the ETD Listserv to find out if anyone else was having enrollment problems. Wow, what a response I got. It seems to be hurting all but a few colleges. That was my wake up call.
I also did a paper for the ASEE national conference in Nashville in 2003. This paper titled, " The Disappearing Associate Degree Program in Electronics Technology", really sums up the problem. Take a look if you are interested at www.asee.org/acPapers2003-287_Final.pdf.
In January 2005, I presented a paper on this subject at the CIEC in Savannah. The title was "Does Industry Still Really Need Electronic Technicians? Where have all the jobs for AAS degrees technology granduates?" I also presented a paper at the Texas Community College Teacher's Association (TCCTA) in February with a similar theme but focusing on the textbook problem.
Anyway, I am worried that we are not doing enough to address this problem. Most faculty are aware of the problem but few are doing anything about it. In my networking at the various conferences, I get the same response: "we have the problem but do not know what to do." I have always felt we needed a national forum to discuss this and find solutions but there is not one for this segment of education. Hopefully this blog will serve that purpose.
In any case, I am on a crusade I guess to get out the word and to get everyone talking about the problem and sharing information and success stories. Let me know what is happening out at your school and what you are doing if anything. Most of all, tell us what works.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
First Thoughts and Comments
Over the past years, there has been a steady decline in the enrollments in most community colleges offering 2-year AAS degrees in electronics technology. The same for private technical colleges. In some cases, the enrollment declines have been so great as to cause colleges to close their departments or merge them into other departments. Mostly, electronic departments have survived although with fewer students and in some cases fewer faculty.
The big question is: What is going on here? Why is this happening and what can we do about it?
Already most faculty are aware of this problem and in some cases steps have been taken to improve the situation. But as I have gleaned from speaking with many of you, little or no improvements have been noted. The downward trend continues and unless something is done it may ultimately lead to the closing of your own department.
As the old saying goes, "If you keep doing the same old thing, you get the same old result." As a result, you are going to have to get out of your comfort zone and do something. We are already at that point where it is change or die.
In this blog, I will offer my own findings, ideas, suggested solutions, and related information. And I also want to hear from you. What have you experienced? What have you done? What is working and not working? What are your suggestions? Together, I believe we can find a way. Email me with your thoughts.
The big question is: What is going on here? Why is this happening and what can we do about it?
Already most faculty are aware of this problem and in some cases steps have been taken to improve the situation. But as I have gleaned from speaking with many of you, little or no improvements have been noted. The downward trend continues and unless something is done it may ultimately lead to the closing of your own department.
As the old saying goes, "If you keep doing the same old thing, you get the same old result." As a result, you are going to have to get out of your comfort zone and do something. We are already at that point where it is change or die.
In this blog, I will offer my own findings, ideas, suggested solutions, and related information. And I also want to hear from you. What have you experienced? What have you done? What is working and not working? What are your suggestions? Together, I believe we can find a way. Email me with your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)