One the expressions I keep hearing over and over again in the discussion of declining enrollments and curriculum reform is that we are "dumbing down the curriculum". That term is normally used when responding to ideas and actions initiated by some colleges to deal with declining enrollments. As it turns out, curriculum changes, in my humble opinion, are one of the keys to turning around a failing department. If you are not addressing the needs of industry, teaching the latest technology and presenting just the right subject matter, you are actually hurting your students and industry rather than helping. And along with that you have to address the student's attitudes, opinions, and learning styles. Electronics as well as our society is constantly changing and if we are not changing with it, we will eventually fail. Change has to be inherent in any electronics technology curriculum or you will be perpetuating a near criminal act on the students.
Yet, despite what would seem to be an obvious way to turn around the falling enrollments, most faculty and departments fight any change to make the necessary improvements. Many colleges insist on teaching the history of electronics rather than the current version. Why?
Most of the changes found to be beneficial in rejuvinating a department relate to decreasing the math load, taking out the heavy circuit analysis that continues to be taught, and replacing older technology with the newer technology. When recommendations for these changes are made the accusation is that we will only be "dumbing down the curriculum". And to me those are just the code words for those wanting to preserve the status quo. Those who oppose such changes know who you are and you know why you do not want to change. I won't embarrass you here by detailing those things here, but I hope you will reconsider your thinking on changes. Change is good.
Let me give you some examples of what should be changed.
1. Less Math - First, let's take out the calculus. Electronic technnicians do not need to learn calculus to do their jobs. If you have ever worked as a technician, observed techs at work or otherwise been involved with technician work, you know that calculus never comes up. I can't even think of an example where it may be used. Even electronic engineers do not typically use calculus. The world is digital these days and calculus is a fringe subject in most applications. There are occasions where it is helpful in some detailed analysis or design, but even then calculus is a real minority when it comes down to practical application of electronics. I suspect that we would attract more students to AAS programs if calculus was not listed in the curricula. It immediately turns off the prospect. Besides, if a potential student likes the idea of calculus, her or she is probable going to go to an engineering program anyway rather than an AAS tech program.
I know what some of you will say. I have to have calculus to get ABET accreditation. I have been through that ordeal and can tell you that adding calculus to an AAS program to achieve ABET accreditation nearly killed off the program I was in. I know many of you believe that ABET is the ultimate achievement for your department, but that is so self serving. Your first obligations and priorities should be to the students to be sure they know what they need to get the jobs that the employers have. Ask all your local employers of techs if they require calculus. I bet absolutely none do.
And don't tell me that calculus teaches a person to think. Yes, I know that it does, but there are other more relevant subjects we could include to teach thinking. We only have a precious few semester hours in an AAS degree program. We need to use them to teach what a tech needs not what we think will be good for him or her.
I also know that many of you believe you need the calculus to prep AAS grads for transfer to BSET programs. I understand that. But how about creating two AAS degrees, one for transfer and the other for techs who just want to go to work?
Many of you who now have a calculus requirement feel that you must have calculus to set yourselves above the rest. It is sort of a status symbol to have calculus. It is more for bragging rights. My program has calculus so that makes my program higher level and better than yours that does not have calculus. Again, so self serving. Just because you think it is necessary and important doesn't necessarily make it so. The bottom line here is, do you want more students and a healthy growing department or the pride of having calculus?
2. Less analysis - Most AAS programs also continue to teach circuit analysis. Mesh and nodal analysis, circuit theorems, temperature stabilized bias design and so on. It is in many textbooks so you still teach it. Again, do real techs ever use this? Mostly not. Even many engineers never use it. If they do, they plug all the data into a simulation or math software package and get the answer.
Techs do not design. Engineers design, techs repair, maintain, install, service, manufacture, test, and measure. They rarely do any detailed analysis similar to what they are taught. I had a graduate of one of the AAS programs tell me after he had been working in industry for a while that he was disappointed that his company would not let him design anything. He actually could design because our AAS program was very heavy into analysis and design including calculus thanks to ABET. But my student found out that companies only hire engineers to design, not techs. When will you instructors get that into your head?
Yes, I still believe we need to teach some circuit theory and calculaton. Ohm's and Kirchhoff's laws are essential. I also believe that Thevenin's theorem is also a must. But beyond that, why teach it?
3. More Up to Date Technology - There are so many examples I could give I don't know where to start. So let me give you just a couple of really glaring problems.
a. Teaching bipolar transistors in excess when most transistors in use are MOSFETs. I am not just making this up. If you worked in industry instead of teaching then you would know this and have already adjusted your curriculum. Over 95% of all transistors used in modern electronic equipment are MOSFETs, both in ICs and discrete. Oh sure, bipolars are still used. They will always be around but MOSFETs have just about taken over the bulk of the work today. Yet, the textbooks still emphasize bipolars over MOSFETs. In fact, if you are lucky you may get one chapter on MOSFETs in even the most recents texts. Why? Do the authors not know that the emphasis changed years ago? I guess..... Most books and therefore your courses go on and on about bipolar biasing and circuit analysis. I have to wonder when some one is going to wake up and start making the changes needed here.
b. Teaching TTL when CMOS dominates and teaching discrete logic when everything digital is done either by an embedded processor of a programmable logic device (PLD) like a PAL or FPGA. Just try to find a TTL device in a modern piece of electronics. Yet, the colleges lumber on teaching the old digital when in the real world digital is a processor or a PLD. I know that some schools have finally started teaching more PLDs but the emphasis is still out of whack with reality. Again, why?
I believe we are dumbing down the curriculum by not making the changes I have cited. We are dumbing down the curricula by refusing to keep up with the technology. Let me ask you this. Do you believe that taking vacuum tubes and circuits out of the curriculum dumbed it down? Many think so. I know that many of you are not old enough to remember this but what happened was that we got the same argument. If we take out vacuum tubes the curriculum will be permanently damaged. We will dumb down the curriculum by just teaching transistors. The analogy fits here. Don't think of it as dumbing down. Think of it as making the curriculum more relevant. We are not downsizing, we are "right-sizing". Remember that expression from the dot-com/technology crash of 2000-2003? That is appropriate here.
Let me and the others who read this know what you think.
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Hope and Agenda
One of my favorite movies is called Love Actually, a British film that came out last year. It is a mix of love stories, comedy and music that is very entertaining. Anyway, one of the characters uses the expression "without hope or agenda". That expression hit a nerve with me as it seems like that is what so many colleges with declining electronic enrollments have, no hope or agenda. That is the problem. It is not that the schools do not care, it seems to be they just flat do not know what to do. As it turns out, there are lots of things you can do to turn things around.
Just recently I did a survey on the ETD Listserv regarding the state of declining enrollments. Some of you have have seen it and even participated. I thank you for your input. I am tabulating that survey now and will post the results here hopefully later this week. Watch for it.
One of the responses I got was from Chuck Safrit of Stanly CC in North Carolina. His school has experienced a 100% increase in enrollments over recent years. That is counter to what is happening most places so he explained what he had done. I suspect that there is no where else to go but up when y0u are at the bottom, but his experience shows what can be done. If ever there was hope and agenda, Chuck Safrit sure had it. Here is Chuck's response in full with his blessing.
Stanly Community College, Albemarle NC
Chuck Safrit, EET Program Head/Instructor
1. In the past 3 years, your enrollments have been:
a. Increasing
2. What is the approximate % of change?
a. Increase of 100%
3. If there is a decrease, what do you believe are the main causes?
Not applicable
4. If there is an increase, what did you do to initiate this improvement?
I took over the EET program at Stanly Community College in Jan 2002 with only 4 second-year students. Two graduated and two dropped out of the program. I spent 50 to 60 hours per week from Jan 2002-Aug 2005 rebuilding the program. The following are my strategies for success:
1. Take a vested interest in your program. The EET program at SCC had been through several program heads with short tenure prior to my arrival. Their lack of dedication to the program, students, curriculum, and equipment was quite evident.
2. Start an aggressive recruitment campaign. Sitting back and waiting for students to show up at the door for Fall registration does not work. Our recruitment strategies were as follows:
a) Call every student contact number you can find. Go through current and old records to identify future students or reclaim those who have fallen by the wayside.
b) Run tours of the college and EET program for every Middle School in your county. Target 7th and 8th graders. Most High School students are driving, dating, or have already made career choices. They are most difficult to influence and recruit. Challenge the students during the tour. Ask them hardball questions concerning their future and the current economy. Make them realize that farming, natural resource harvesting, and manufacturing are the only ways to make money from scratch. Electronics and Electrical Engineering are major players in automated manufacturing and future technologies.
c) Host a summer camp at your college. Again, target 7th and 8th graders. Take them on a tour of several local manufacturing plants. Have them design and build a product using AutoCAD, Electronics Workbench, and EET lab fabricating equipment. We host the Jim Wentz Manufacturing Camp each summer at SCC.
d) Host an Electronics and Engineering Competition at your college. Target High School Electronics, Math, and Physics students. Have the schools compete for individual and team awards. There should be written and practical sections of the competition. Encourage the local High Schools to form Skills USA, VICA, and JETS clubs. Encourage them to attend local, regional, and national competitions.
e) Build a red truck and hit the road! OK, I’ll explain. The SCC EET students built an electric truck during the Summer 04 semester. It has been to every parade, expo, festival, high school, and car show we can attend. It’s one of the best recruitment tools this college has ever developed.
3. Have a number of diverse EET Electives. Our current EET elective courses are Programmable Controllers, Computer Upgrade/Repair, Basic Wiring, National Electrical Code, Motors and Controls, Telecom Cabling, Fiber Optics and Lasers, Industrial Safety, Data Communications & Networking, Electronics Application Project, and Co-op Work Experience. A student can focus in his or her career field by carefully selecting 10 hours of electives.
4. Create liaisons with local industry. Try to meet their training needs. Also, many workers seek promotions which require a degree.
5. Create articulation agreements with regional four-year colleges. Your students should be able to report as true Juniors when they transfer to a four-year college with their Associates Degree in hand.
6. Set up a night EET program. Most Community College students are non-traditional. Many have jobs and attend college part-time. If students take online (web) classes in addition to night classes, they can complete the SCC EET degree in two years. However, night programs require aggressive advertisement and a lot of nurturing to be successful.
7. Encourage graduates to return to college for industry certifications in specific areas such as A+, Net+, MOUS, CCNA. These certifications look good on a job application. SCC offers many industry certification courses. Students can take these classes online or seated.
8. Get a grant. Research and apply for multiple grants. You will not succeed if you wait for money from the state to support and grow your program. This is especially true for NC. Also remember, Community College teachers are among the lowest paid in the country. Once again, this is especially true for NC.
5. Do you believe curriculum content, currency, focus, or relevancy is a factor in the increase or decrease?
Students must be made aware that technology classes are challenging and change constantly. It is imperative they “keep up with the times”. They must be dedicated to the program, willing to put in the long hours, and not be afraid to take a math class. We cannot “dumb down” the EET curriculum and expect them to succeed in the real world. If the equipment plugs into the wall, EET students must be able to troubleshoot and fix it. That’s what employers want these days. I tell my students that a degree gets you to an interview. The wisdom and professionalism you display at the interview will get you the job.
Chuck Safrit
Electronics Engineering Program Head
Stanly Community College
That definitely shows what can be done if we get our rear ends in gear. Thanks Chuck for giving us all hope and agenda.
Just recently I did a survey on the ETD Listserv regarding the state of declining enrollments. Some of you have have seen it and even participated. I thank you for your input. I am tabulating that survey now and will post the results here hopefully later this week. Watch for it.
One of the responses I got was from Chuck Safrit of Stanly CC in North Carolina. His school has experienced a 100% increase in enrollments over recent years. That is counter to what is happening most places so he explained what he had done. I suspect that there is no where else to go but up when y0u are at the bottom, but his experience shows what can be done. If ever there was hope and agenda, Chuck Safrit sure had it. Here is Chuck's response in full with his blessing.
Stanly Community College, Albemarle NC
Chuck Safrit, EET Program Head/Instructor
1. In the past 3 years, your enrollments have been:
a. Increasing
2. What is the approximate % of change?
a. Increase of 100%
3. If there is a decrease, what do you believe are the main causes?
Not applicable
4. If there is an increase, what did you do to initiate this improvement?
I took over the EET program at Stanly Community College in Jan 2002 with only 4 second-year students. Two graduated and two dropped out of the program. I spent 50 to 60 hours per week from Jan 2002-Aug 2005 rebuilding the program. The following are my strategies for success:
1. Take a vested interest in your program. The EET program at SCC had been through several program heads with short tenure prior to my arrival. Their lack of dedication to the program, students, curriculum, and equipment was quite evident.
2. Start an aggressive recruitment campaign. Sitting back and waiting for students to show up at the door for Fall registration does not work. Our recruitment strategies were as follows:
a) Call every student contact number you can find. Go through current and old records to identify future students or reclaim those who have fallen by the wayside.
b) Run tours of the college and EET program for every Middle School in your county. Target 7th and 8th graders. Most High School students are driving, dating, or have already made career choices. They are most difficult to influence and recruit. Challenge the students during the tour. Ask them hardball questions concerning their future and the current economy. Make them realize that farming, natural resource harvesting, and manufacturing are the only ways to make money from scratch. Electronics and Electrical Engineering are major players in automated manufacturing and future technologies.
c) Host a summer camp at your college. Again, target 7th and 8th graders. Take them on a tour of several local manufacturing plants. Have them design and build a product using AutoCAD, Electronics Workbench, and EET lab fabricating equipment. We host the Jim Wentz Manufacturing Camp each summer at SCC.
d) Host an Electronics and Engineering Competition at your college. Target High School Electronics, Math, and Physics students. Have the schools compete for individual and team awards. There should be written and practical sections of the competition. Encourage the local High Schools to form Skills USA, VICA, and JETS clubs. Encourage them to attend local, regional, and national competitions.
e) Build a red truck and hit the road! OK, I’ll explain. The SCC EET students built an electric truck during the Summer 04 semester. It has been to every parade, expo, festival, high school, and car show we can attend. It’s one of the best recruitment tools this college has ever developed.
3. Have a number of diverse EET Electives. Our current EET elective courses are Programmable Controllers, Computer Upgrade/Repair, Basic Wiring, National Electrical Code, Motors and Controls, Telecom Cabling, Fiber Optics and Lasers, Industrial Safety, Data Communications & Networking, Electronics Application Project, and Co-op Work Experience. A student can focus in his or her career field by carefully selecting 10 hours of electives.
4. Create liaisons with local industry. Try to meet their training needs. Also, many workers seek promotions which require a degree.
5. Create articulation agreements with regional four-year colleges. Your students should be able to report as true Juniors when they transfer to a four-year college with their Associates Degree in hand.
6. Set up a night EET program. Most Community College students are non-traditional. Many have jobs and attend college part-time. If students take online (web) classes in addition to night classes, they can complete the SCC EET degree in two years. However, night programs require aggressive advertisement and a lot of nurturing to be successful.
7. Encourage graduates to return to college for industry certifications in specific areas such as A+, Net+, MOUS, CCNA. These certifications look good on a job application. SCC offers many industry certification courses. Students can take these classes online or seated.
8. Get a grant. Research and apply for multiple grants. You will not succeed if you wait for money from the state to support and grow your program. This is especially true for NC. Also remember, Community College teachers are among the lowest paid in the country. Once again, this is especially true for NC.
5. Do you believe curriculum content, currency, focus, or relevancy is a factor in the increase or decrease?
Students must be made aware that technology classes are challenging and change constantly. It is imperative they “keep up with the times”. They must be dedicated to the program, willing to put in the long hours, and not be afraid to take a math class. We cannot “dumb down” the EET curriculum and expect them to succeed in the real world. If the equipment plugs into the wall, EET students must be able to troubleshoot and fix it. That’s what employers want these days. I tell my students that a degree gets you to an interview. The wisdom and professionalism you display at the interview will get you the job.
Chuck Safrit
Electronics Engineering Program Head
Stanly Community College
That definitely shows what can be done if we get our rear ends in gear. Thanks Chuck for giving us all hope and agenda.
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Blog Spam
When I saw that I had three comments to my latest rantings, I said, Oh Boy, here it comes. What did I say? Anyway, I was surprised to find that the comments were SPAM. No kidding. I wasn't aware there was such a thing as blog spam. These were ads for golf clubs, big screen LCD TV sets and a diet program. Weird.
Anyway, you will see three deleted comments. I would never delete valid comments from those of you interested in this blog even if they do not agree with me or blast me. But I do delete random spam.
Keep responding.
Anyway, you will see three deleted comments. I would never delete valid comments from those of you interested in this blog even if they do not agree with me or blast me. But I do delete random spam.
Keep responding.
Monday, September 05, 2005
How Much Electronics Does a Tech Really Need to Know?
In a recent and rather heated discussion of DC/AC principles in the AAS program at the college where I teach, we addressed the issue that many of you have only thought about. That is, how much DC/AC theory does a person really need to know to do a superior job as an ET? I won't try to relate all of the gory details here, but I must say that most faculty are more emotional than logical about this subject. It is not unlike the discussion of whether to teach conventional current flow vs. electron flow. In the end, it does not really matter to the student, but it become a major issue with faculty often with ugly outcomes.
The result of this discussion was our merging or DC and AC into a single 4 semester hour course. The logical prevailed over the emotional which is probably a good thing in this case.
Let's take DC first and analyze what is NOT needed. One thing for sure is that we really do not have to know much about mesh and nodal analysis. This is strictly for the engineer or scientist and even those guys don't use it all that much. I still do some engineering and design on a consulting basis and I haven't used it in years. If I do need to use it, I simply resort to one of the simulation or math software packages that I use. I am not really sure that other engineers really use it all that much either as that sort of problem is usually solved in software. So why not just leave it out? Techs don't design anyway, and that analysis is certainly not going to help with what techs really do on the job: troubleshoot, measure, test, service, instally, maintain, manufacture, etc.
Another thing that most textbooks include is the delta to wye and wye to delta conversions in resistor networks. Does any one really use this? I never have but some faculty believe that since it is in the book, it must be taught. Really.....? Why?
Magnetic circuits is another area of consideration. Just how much does not really need to know? Most books present far more breadth and depth than needed. Most of that theoretical instruction is more physics and design than tech stuff. Most techs will never design a coil or transformer, select a ferrite core or otherwise need all that detail on Teslas and Maxwell's. Some magnetic background is definitely needed but not at the analytical level.
In AC we have a similar thing. Just how much RC and RL circuit analysis is enough? Techs need to know about reactance, complex impedance, phase shift and resonance, but how much is relevant to the job? Cerainly it is not necessary to design complex AC circuits like filters. And the AC course should factor in RF. It seems that most texts and courses emphasize 60 Hz, audio and other low frequencies and forget to mention that the AC we use today is at least up to 10 GHz in many practical apps.
What I worry about most is what is missing. Like detailed coverage of wiring and cabling. Just think about how much of a techs job is fixing, running, making and troubleshooting cables. We need major coverage of that. And AC power wiring. It is not rocket science to be sure but every tech eventually has to deal with the AC breaker boxes, outlets, wiring, ground, GFI, etc. It needs to be taught. And a littl three phase as well. We don't need to teach all that complex three phase math and power calcualtions however.
I could go on here, but you get the picture. Some theory is good and necessary. Ohm's and Kirrchoff's laws and even Thevenin's theorem are essential. Calculating impedance and phase angle as well as resonance is fine, but beyond that, it is useless for a tech in the real world.
Several times in the past I conducted a formal job and task analyses for technician jobs as a way to determine what the tech needed to know to do that job. It is a tedious process but one that is very revealing. Several years back I analyzed a TV repair tech job for example. As it turns out in actually observing techs fix TV sets, VCRs, etc. and in discussions with them about how they do this job, very little actual electronics theory is needed. In fact, a good number of the most successful techs had no formal electronics training. They simply learned to fix TVs by fixing TVs. It is more about knowing the product and its flaws, what goes bad and how to replace it.
Isn't fixing PCs the same way? Most PC repair techs do not know electronics. My son who got his career started by fixing PCs told me one time when I asked when he was going to learn electronics that you don't need to know much about electronics theory to fix a PC. He is right.
As it turns out, most tech jobs are like this, even more so today simply because techs cannot access the circuits that the were once trained to access. They simply replace boards, modules, subassemblies or maybe an IC. Most of the work is test, measurement and troubleshooting. They do need to know how to use a multimeter and a scope and more than ever the spectrum analyzer.
The point here is that the courses and textbooks are still skewed to design and analysis when they should be focused on the real needs. Faculty will nearly fight to the death to keep all that math and analysis in a course needed or not. I guess if that is the way you learned it, you probably still believe that is the way it should be taught. And chances are you were trained as an engineer to analyze and design rather than do tech work. I wish just for once, that those who teach electronics technology would go to work in a job for which they are training people and find out what they really need to know. I have. It is not what you learned in school and not what you think.
The bottom line is that when changing your course content and curriculum, just try to minimize the theory, math and analysis and focus on the real needs in industry.
If I get any response at all to this little diatribe it is probably going to say that a such a dumbed down DC/AC course is never going to transfer to a 4-year BSET program. So...? If that is your sole concern and not what is needed for jobs, then by all means keep teaching your engineering level DC and AC and ignore everything I have said here. Just remember, that only a few percent of all AAS degree graduates actually go on to a BSET program. For most colleges, teaching for the minority, or their own self gratification, is apparently more important than for preparing grads for real jobs and meeting employer/s needs.
The result of this discussion was our merging or DC and AC into a single 4 semester hour course. The logical prevailed over the emotional which is probably a good thing in this case.
Let's take DC first and analyze what is NOT needed. One thing for sure is that we really do not have to know much about mesh and nodal analysis. This is strictly for the engineer or scientist and even those guys don't use it all that much. I still do some engineering and design on a consulting basis and I haven't used it in years. If I do need to use it, I simply resort to one of the simulation or math software packages that I use. I am not really sure that other engineers really use it all that much either as that sort of problem is usually solved in software. So why not just leave it out? Techs don't design anyway, and that analysis is certainly not going to help with what techs really do on the job: troubleshoot, measure, test, service, instally, maintain, manufacture, etc.
Another thing that most textbooks include is the delta to wye and wye to delta conversions in resistor networks. Does any one really use this? I never have but some faculty believe that since it is in the book, it must be taught. Really.....? Why?
Magnetic circuits is another area of consideration. Just how much does not really need to know? Most books present far more breadth and depth than needed. Most of that theoretical instruction is more physics and design than tech stuff. Most techs will never design a coil or transformer, select a ferrite core or otherwise need all that detail on Teslas and Maxwell's. Some magnetic background is definitely needed but not at the analytical level.
In AC we have a similar thing. Just how much RC and RL circuit analysis is enough? Techs need to know about reactance, complex impedance, phase shift and resonance, but how much is relevant to the job? Cerainly it is not necessary to design complex AC circuits like filters. And the AC course should factor in RF. It seems that most texts and courses emphasize 60 Hz, audio and other low frequencies and forget to mention that the AC we use today is at least up to 10 GHz in many practical apps.
What I worry about most is what is missing. Like detailed coverage of wiring and cabling. Just think about how much of a techs job is fixing, running, making and troubleshooting cables. We need major coverage of that. And AC power wiring. It is not rocket science to be sure but every tech eventually has to deal with the AC breaker boxes, outlets, wiring, ground, GFI, etc. It needs to be taught. And a littl three phase as well. We don't need to teach all that complex three phase math and power calcualtions however.
I could go on here, but you get the picture. Some theory is good and necessary. Ohm's and Kirrchoff's laws and even Thevenin's theorem are essential. Calculating impedance and phase angle as well as resonance is fine, but beyond that, it is useless for a tech in the real world.
Several times in the past I conducted a formal job and task analyses for technician jobs as a way to determine what the tech needed to know to do that job. It is a tedious process but one that is very revealing. Several years back I analyzed a TV repair tech job for example. As it turns out in actually observing techs fix TV sets, VCRs, etc. and in discussions with them about how they do this job, very little actual electronics theory is needed. In fact, a good number of the most successful techs had no formal electronics training. They simply learned to fix TVs by fixing TVs. It is more about knowing the product and its flaws, what goes bad and how to replace it.
Isn't fixing PCs the same way? Most PC repair techs do not know electronics. My son who got his career started by fixing PCs told me one time when I asked when he was going to learn electronics that you don't need to know much about electronics theory to fix a PC. He is right.
As it turns out, most tech jobs are like this, even more so today simply because techs cannot access the circuits that the were once trained to access. They simply replace boards, modules, subassemblies or maybe an IC. Most of the work is test, measurement and troubleshooting. They do need to know how to use a multimeter and a scope and more than ever the spectrum analyzer.
The point here is that the courses and textbooks are still skewed to design and analysis when they should be focused on the real needs. Faculty will nearly fight to the death to keep all that math and analysis in a course needed or not. I guess if that is the way you learned it, you probably still believe that is the way it should be taught. And chances are you were trained as an engineer to analyze and design rather than do tech work. I wish just for once, that those who teach electronics technology would go to work in a job for which they are training people and find out what they really need to know. I have. It is not what you learned in school and not what you think.
The bottom line is that when changing your course content and curriculum, just try to minimize the theory, math and analysis and focus on the real needs in industry.
If I get any response at all to this little diatribe it is probably going to say that a such a dumbed down DC/AC course is never going to transfer to a 4-year BSET program. So...? If that is your sole concern and not what is needed for jobs, then by all means keep teaching your engineering level DC and AC and ignore everything I have said here. Just remember, that only a few percent of all AAS degree graduates actually go on to a BSET program. For most colleges, teaching for the minority, or their own self gratification, is apparently more important than for preparing grads for real jobs and meeting employer/s needs.
Saturday, August 27, 2005
Industry input is critical but.....watch out.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)