Every electronic engineer and technician must participate in some form of continuing education if he or she intends to stay competent, retain a job and grow personally. As an engineer, technician or instructor, you live or die by what you know. To be successful in electronics you must know the latest technology and apply it to benefit your employer and to your company's customers. In an article for Electronic Design magazine a few years back, I wrote the following: "If you're not involved in some form of continuing education, then you are doomed to suffer the consequences of ignorance, peer contempt, technological obsolescence and eventual obscurity...and then you retire early." Does this sound like you?
I suspect that most practicing engineers do engage in some form of continuing education. But from what I have seen, not many instructors or professors from community college AAS degree electronic programs do. I hope I am wrong about you, but I bet I am not. Why? If instructors and professors were up to date with the latest knowledge, then the courses and curriculum would not be so out of whack with the real world. To say that today's curriculum is skewed from reality and that the instructors are living in some delusional world of the past is really being too kind. I'd like to use the phraseology of popular comedian Lewis Black, but that would not be professional. But for those of you who have heard Black's routine, you know what I mean. I can only attribute the the poor state of the curriculum to lack of adequate continuing education and exposure to actual technician and engineering work. I realize that as professors you cannot actually go out and get a job to see what it is really like, but you could at least engage in some kind of continuing education that would keep you informed about what is important and what is not. And that, hopefully, would lead to more current and relevant courses and curricula. I am probably just dreaming, but I can hope can't I?
Magazines
Continuing education need not be all that hard or time consuming or expensive. The fastest and easiest thing to do is subscribe to some of the many magazines devoted to electronics and related subjects. Most of the good publications are "controlled circulation" meaning that they are free. You cannot complain about the price. If you are a professor and engineer, just go to the relevant website and subscribe. The best ones are Electronic Design (this is the one I write for), EDN, and EE Times. The first two come out twice a month, the other weekly. If you do nothing more than read these three, you will be about as informed as possible about what is going on with components, circuits, technologies, applications, and issues.
One of the absolute best magazines is IEEE Spectrum. You have to join IEEE to get it but that is a good thing. Worth every penny. If you join you will also find out about all the other magazines they have and all of the other educational products and activities just for engineers. Check out www.ieee.org.
Then you should also subscribe to the only remaining popular hobbyiest/experimenter magazine, Nuts & Volts. It is a monthly and not that expensive. But it has lots of good articles and hands-on projects many of which are suitable for labs. Other good magazines to which you must actually subscribe are:
1. Circuit Cellar--Great magazine about embedded controllers, interfacing, etc.
2. Popular Communications--For those of you who teach communications and RF.
3. QST and CQ--The traditional ham radio magazines. Good sources.
4. Servo--A magazine devoted to hobby robots by the publishers of Nuts & Volts. Excellent articles and projects.
There are a whole slew of other magazines, but these are the core. Just reading these each month will keep you on top.
Conferences
Another good continuing education activity is attending conferences. The educational conferences like ASEE and SAME-TEC (matec.org) are good, but I am talking about electronics- related events. There are so many that I cannot even begin to list them all. If you read the magazines, you will hear about these events. And yes, they are expensive. But the sessions, workshops, and exhibits are so overwhelmingly good that you will come away with a head full of fresh knowledge, a whole new perspective and lots of good ideas. I recommend at least one a year. Try to put the expenses for this into your annual budget. It is worth it, believe me. Just try one and see.
Books
Books are always good for updating yourself. You can get some of them free for evaluation from publishers. But most you cannot. You will need a budget for this too. Books got expensive and the better ones approach $100 each and many exceed that. Your best bet to find these is to go to Amazon and search by subject. Otherwise, go directly to the publishers lists. Some of the better sources are Elsevier/Newnes, McGraw Hill, John Wiley, IEEE, Prentice Hall, ArchTech House, Noble, Addison Wesley, and Cambridge University Press. If you buy from Amazon, you can often find a used copy for much less. I usually buy used myself when they are available. Most are still in good condition.
Seminars and Workshops
Seminars and workshops still occur from time to time. These are given by private companies and university continuing education departments and are very expensive. They are really good, but probably beyond your budget. For some cheap and even free seminars check out the major semiconductor manufacturers who give annual workshops. Examples: Analog Devices, Freescale, and Texas Instruments.
Webinars, free online seminars have become amazingly popular. Most are given by companies promoting their products. But don't let that stop you as all of them give basics and fundamentals and other useful information. And don't forget, that the real engineering world is nothing but commercial components and products. You live and die by your knowledge of them. A good source of webinars is the TechOnLine website.
Back to School
As for going back to school for an advance degree, I say forget it. Most of you probably already have a masters anyway. If you do not have one, it probably is worth the time, effort and money if you are not approaching retirement in a few years. You get a good return on you investment. Not so for a PhD, at least in a community college. It is nice to have, but you won't get any more out of it than being able to say you are Doctor so-and-so. Some people do it just for that. Anyway, check out the National Technological University who can give you a fully accredited masters online.
Online Learning
As I travel around for the magazine, I interview lots of engineers and executives. I ask them what they do to learn new things. They all mention briefly the things I mentioned above to some degree or the other. But...and here is the big secret.... most learn from the Internet. Busy professionals don't typically have the time to go to class for general education. Most have very specific learning needs related to the job, a current project or some future interest. Almost every one of these people gets that education informally with a Google or Yahoo search. Just type in the topic you want to learn, and voila', you get thousands of hits. Print it out, sort it, organize it, read it and then you know. You can give yourself a quickie education on virtually subject any time. It is fast, easy, and free. Give it a try.
An Experimentation Bench
One last thing. Personal experimentation. If you are a real tech, you probably have a bench where you still build kits, play around with circuits, fix defective products, etc. Nothing beats this kind of hands-on work. You can still learn a great deal by just doing practical real world experimenting. Get yourself a breadboard trainer, some parts, a DMM and a scope and play around. Play engineer as you were educated. If you don't have a shop of your own, do it in the school lab. It is fun and educational. Maybe I am just an incurable techie or geek....whatever...but I still do this.
And go learn something new.
Copyright 2006 Louis E. Frenzel Jr.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Instructors Teach What They Want, Not What is Needed
It being summer and all, I don't suspect many of you are reading this blog. It is a relief to take the summer off and get away from the stresses of academia, especially if it is Electronic Technology where there is little good news about enrollments. But for those of you still monitoring this site, here is something I wanted to get off my chest for a while. This is one subject I have been wanting to comment on for some time now. It affects all of us who teach and it certainly has an impact on our students and the employers who will eventually hire them.
At a department meeting in the college where I teach occasionally, we were discussing curriculum changes and changes to course content to bring each course up to date. As those discussions often go, we got into a harangue about teaching bipolar transistors and biasing methods. Many of us know that it is a rare thing indeed if an AAS graduate technician ever really does have to know ten ways to bias a BJT. It just never comes up in the real world. Most textbooks still go on and on about that subject and many instructors teach all the gory details like load lines, temperature stabilization, etc. The recommendation was to drop all of that and expand coverage of MOSFETs since over 80% of all electronic circuits today use MOSFETs and not BJTs. We should still teach that BJTs need bias and give an example or two but it is not purdent to spend half the semester teaching it in lieu of far more important stuff that never gets included.
Anyway, and here is the core of this note, one of the instructors said and I paraphrase, "Lou, you can change the content and curriculum all you want, but I am still going to teach it the way I have always been teaching it for the past 15 years." Within that statement you have a clear picture of what is wrong with Electronics Technology education today. It includes an attitude problem as well as a rejection of adding any thing new or relevant. No wonder programs are so dated. The instructors fail to change. They are hell-bent not to change. Are you one of them?
I got to thinking about this attitude and approach and realized that most instructors practice it to some degree. Especially the part about teaching what they want. Instructors tend to teach what is familiar and subjects they like and are intimately familiar with. For one thing they never have to waste time learning anything new. Just walk into class and spout the same old stuff semester after semester, even if that subject is obsolete. When a colleague of mine said, "Lou, we are just teaching the history of electronics." I couldn't help but agree fully. I had a professor in college that continued to teach vacuum tube circuits because he felt that the concepts were still valid. While that may be partially true, think of what we were not learning about transistors.
It is not a tragedy to teach older concepts and they are often useful as perspective and conceptual. But, in an AAS program where time is of the essence, it is almost a criminal act to use up what precious semester time we have teaching non-relevant material when so much new and essential concepts, products, technologies do not get taught. It is appalling to me to see this. It hurts our graduates and their future employers.
Look, we all teach what we want and like. I find myself doing it. But at least I try to include the new material. And in most cases, at least with me, what I want and like is the new and interesting technologies that turn me on. Am I so weird that I like to learn new stuff on a regular basis? I must be as so many of my colleagues hate the idea. Are you so lazy that you cannot be bothered to devote some time to learning what is new and relevant? Evidentally.
Let me get a bit preachy here. It is ok to teach what you know and like. But, each time you teach it, try to drop one dated subject and replace it with a newer and more relevant subject. If you did that every time you taught the course, the whole course would gradually be updated as would you. Why not give that a try? Your reward is the lightening of your guilt.
At a department meeting in the college where I teach occasionally, we were discussing curriculum changes and changes to course content to bring each course up to date. As those discussions often go, we got into a harangue about teaching bipolar transistors and biasing methods. Many of us know that it is a rare thing indeed if an AAS graduate technician ever really does have to know ten ways to bias a BJT. It just never comes up in the real world. Most textbooks still go on and on about that subject and many instructors teach all the gory details like load lines, temperature stabilization, etc. The recommendation was to drop all of that and expand coverage of MOSFETs since over 80% of all electronic circuits today use MOSFETs and not BJTs. We should still teach that BJTs need bias and give an example or two but it is not purdent to spend half the semester teaching it in lieu of far more important stuff that never gets included.
Anyway, and here is the core of this note, one of the instructors said and I paraphrase, "Lou, you can change the content and curriculum all you want, but I am still going to teach it the way I have always been teaching it for the past 15 years." Within that statement you have a clear picture of what is wrong with Electronics Technology education today. It includes an attitude problem as well as a rejection of adding any thing new or relevant. No wonder programs are so dated. The instructors fail to change. They are hell-bent not to change. Are you one of them?
I got to thinking about this attitude and approach and realized that most instructors practice it to some degree. Especially the part about teaching what they want. Instructors tend to teach what is familiar and subjects they like and are intimately familiar with. For one thing they never have to waste time learning anything new. Just walk into class and spout the same old stuff semester after semester, even if that subject is obsolete. When a colleague of mine said, "Lou, we are just teaching the history of electronics." I couldn't help but agree fully. I had a professor in college that continued to teach vacuum tube circuits because he felt that the concepts were still valid. While that may be partially true, think of what we were not learning about transistors.
It is not a tragedy to teach older concepts and they are often useful as perspective and conceptual. But, in an AAS program where time is of the essence, it is almost a criminal act to use up what precious semester time we have teaching non-relevant material when so much new and essential concepts, products, technologies do not get taught. It is appalling to me to see this. It hurts our graduates and their future employers.
Look, we all teach what we want and like. I find myself doing it. But at least I try to include the new material. And in most cases, at least with me, what I want and like is the new and interesting technologies that turn me on. Am I so weird that I like to learn new stuff on a regular basis? I must be as so many of my colleagues hate the idea. Are you so lazy that you cannot be bothered to devote some time to learning what is new and relevant? Evidentally.
Let me get a bit preachy here. It is ok to teach what you know and like. But, each time you teach it, try to drop one dated subject and replace it with a newer and more relevant subject. If you did that every time you taught the course, the whole course would gradually be updated as would you. Why not give that a try? Your reward is the lightening of your guilt.
Friday, June 09, 2006
Interesting NEW Stuff. Don't Miss This!!
With all of you probably on summer break, I doubt that many of you will be reading this. But I can hope. I have a mix of new info and things to share.
1. New Newsletter. McGraw Hill has a new newsletter that most of you will be interested in. It is called the McGraw Hill Electronic Newsletter. Designed specifically for those of you who teach at the community college level, it is a mix of news, articles and book info. This first issue is full of interesting material. I urge you to sign up for it. Send an email with your name, school, phone number, and email address to Jean_Schmieder@mcgraw-hill.com. The plan is to publish twice a year. Book reviews of the new versions of the Grob and Malvino texts are there. Take a look.
2. New Relevant Article. I just had a new article published you may be interested in reading. It is titled: "Are We Teaching the Right Subjects in AAS Degree Electronics Technology Programs?" It was published in the online journal The Technology Interface. This is a peer reviewed journal and my initial submission was beat up pretty badly. However, I did manage to get it blessed. Go to http://TechnologyInterface.nmsu.edu. The article is in the April issue.
The Technology Interface is edited and managed by Jeff Beasley at New Mexico State University. He does a super job. Take a look at all the stuff in the back issues. This is a truly an under used treasure trove of information.
3. Conference of Interest. Coming up is the SAME-TEC conference July 24-29 in Albuquerque. This conference is in its third year and targets community colleges teaching electronics, manufacturing and semimconductor technology. It is a great conference and focuses on the issues and technical scope of electronic technology education. It is put on by Maricopa Advanced Technology Education Center in Tempe, AZ. This NSF funded organization has been around since 1996 and has some awesome materials for teaching. Go to www.matec.org and check it out. This conference details are also there. It is a small conference (about 200 or so) but very focused and a great chance to interact with colleagues around the US.
One of the pre-conference workshops is called "Designing The Electronics Technology Curriculum for the 21st Century". It is a full day event with the objective to bring into existence a new curriculum that is more in tune with what employers want and what is relevant today. This is a great chance to put your two cents worth in. I will be there to cheer you guys on. I look forward to meeting you.
Have a good summer and watch this blog for some new contributions shortly.
1. New Newsletter. McGraw Hill has a new newsletter that most of you will be interested in. It is called the McGraw Hill Electronic Newsletter. Designed specifically for those of you who teach at the community college level, it is a mix of news, articles and book info. This first issue is full of interesting material. I urge you to sign up for it. Send an email with your name, school, phone number, and email address to Jean_Schmieder@mcgraw-hill.com. The plan is to publish twice a year. Book reviews of the new versions of the Grob and Malvino texts are there. Take a look.
2. New Relevant Article. I just had a new article published you may be interested in reading. It is titled: "Are We Teaching the Right Subjects in AAS Degree Electronics Technology Programs?" It was published in the online journal The Technology Interface. This is a peer reviewed journal and my initial submission was beat up pretty badly. However, I did manage to get it blessed. Go to http://TechnologyInterface.nmsu.edu. The article is in the April issue.
The Technology Interface is edited and managed by Jeff Beasley at New Mexico State University. He does a super job. Take a look at all the stuff in the back issues. This is a truly an under used treasure trove of information.
3. Conference of Interest. Coming up is the SAME-TEC conference July 24-29 in Albuquerque. This conference is in its third year and targets community colleges teaching electronics, manufacturing and semimconductor technology. It is a great conference and focuses on the issues and technical scope of electronic technology education. It is put on by Maricopa Advanced Technology Education Center in Tempe, AZ. This NSF funded organization has been around since 1996 and has some awesome materials for teaching. Go to www.matec.org and check it out. This conference details are also there. It is a small conference (about 200 or so) but very focused and a great chance to interact with colleagues around the US.
One of the pre-conference workshops is called "Designing The Electronics Technology Curriculum for the 21st Century". It is a full day event with the objective to bring into existence a new curriculum that is more in tune with what employers want and what is relevant today. This is a great chance to put your two cents worth in. I will be there to cheer you guys on. I look forward to meeting you.
Have a good summer and watch this blog for some new contributions shortly.
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Relevant New Article and Blog Focus
My original focus in this blog was to address the low enrollment problem in 2-year AAS degree programs in electronic technology. This is still a nationwide problem and the blog will continue to address this critical issue and seek solutions.
But beginning with this posting, I want to switch emphasis to my secondary goal of curriculum reform. At the heart of the low enrollment problem lies the very dated curriculum that colleges are offering. The basics are still being taught but the whole curriculum is still skewed from the real world.
I recently wrote an article on this topic called "Are We Teaching the Right Subjects in AAS Degree Electronics Tecnology Programs?" This article was recently publised in the online journal TECHNOLOGY INTERFACE. To see my article and get familiar with this interesting publication, go to http://TechnologyInterface.nmsu.edu. Go to the Spring 2006 issue. Check out the back issues while you are on the site.
The TECHNOLOGY INTERFACE is published by Jeff Beasley at New Mexico State University. It is a nice mix of article on all aspects of engineering technology education. It is a peer reviewed journal. My personal thanks to Jeff for giving us a publication directed at technology issues and techniques.
And let me hear your comments about the article, for or against.
But beginning with this posting, I want to switch emphasis to my secondary goal of curriculum reform. At the heart of the low enrollment problem lies the very dated curriculum that colleges are offering. The basics are still being taught but the whole curriculum is still skewed from the real world.
I recently wrote an article on this topic called "Are We Teaching the Right Subjects in AAS Degree Electronics Tecnology Programs?" This article was recently publised in the online journal TECHNOLOGY INTERFACE. To see my article and get familiar with this interesting publication, go to http://TechnologyInterface.nmsu.edu. Go to the Spring 2006 issue. Check out the back issues while you are on the site.
The TECHNOLOGY INTERFACE is published by Jeff Beasley at New Mexico State University. It is a nice mix of article on all aspects of engineering technology education. It is a peer reviewed journal. My personal thanks to Jeff for giving us a publication directed at technology issues and techniques.
And let me hear your comments about the article, for or against.
Monday, April 10, 2006
An interesting perspective
This past weekend I had dinner with a good friend of mine. We taught together at Austin CC but like me he left to go back to industry.
This friend is in the training business. His current job is to teach basic electronics (DC, AC, semi, digital, etc) to techs employed by a major semiconductor company. These techs have been with the company for a while. For some unexplained reason, the HR department decided to give them a test to see just how much electronics they did know. Despite the fact these are all competent employees, only one of a batch of 20 passed the test. So in order for these employees to keep their jobs and be promoted, they had to be trained so they could pass that test. And so the courses my friend is teaching. Does that strike you as odd? Why not train them in fresh, new up-to-date subjects?
The interesting thing he said that even those these guys are techs, their job does not really involve knowing that much electronics. They operate equipment and maintain it but that process requires little or no electronics knowledge. Yet the company insists that they know those basics. My friend is happy as he has a nice job teaching what he knows.
That makes me wonder just how in touch the HR people or the managers are with what the employees really do and how that ties into the electronic fundamentals they insist that these guys know. Not much by the looks of it. No one has really sat down and tried to match knowledge and skills to education. Or maybe it was done in the past and no one ever updated it. Sound familiar?
I have seen things like this in the past. When I was department head, I went to most of the large companies locally that hired techs. I asked for a copy of any exam they give to new hires. I got three of them. Then I proceeded to match up the questions with what we taught. Basically, we covered most of the items with just a few glitches that were easily fixed.
The most amazing thing was how dated the tests were. Even though the AAS curriculum is pretty dated itself as are most texts, these tests were worse!! No kidding. They were mostly left overs from the 60s or 70s. No one ever bothered to up date them. I even saw one exam that had a question to identify a vacuum tube RC phase shift oscillator. Can you imagine? Those things haven't been used in a half century or so. Anyway, if we want our graduates to pass these little jewels from the past, we better keep teaching the technology of yesteryear. Forget all the new stuff.
Strange as it may seem, what do we really want for our graduates? Is it to be extremely knowledgeable and skilled in the very latest technology or just to get jobs? Apparently not. Hey, why not just teach the tests these companies give and be done with it. Who needs a new curriculum any way?
So I am thinking that it is not just the dated faculty that insists on teaching the dated unneeded materials. The companies want that too. Whether that comes from some HR wonk who doesn't know squat about electronics or a hiring manager, I do not know. Scary. I do know that I have heard some faculty and even some working engineers and managers who served on our industry advisory committees say something like, "we want our new hires to be trained like we were." I guess that is more important than a curriculum being up to date and in tune with the real world.
I am beginning to wonder if it is worthwhile to fight for a new and better curriculum. After all, maybe an AAS degree is just a credential to get your foot in the door. It may be mostly irrelevant what you learn along the way. I hate when that happens.
This friend is in the training business. His current job is to teach basic electronics (DC, AC, semi, digital, etc) to techs employed by a major semiconductor company. These techs have been with the company for a while. For some unexplained reason, the HR department decided to give them a test to see just how much electronics they did know. Despite the fact these are all competent employees, only one of a batch of 20 passed the test. So in order for these employees to keep their jobs and be promoted, they had to be trained so they could pass that test. And so the courses my friend is teaching. Does that strike you as odd? Why not train them in fresh, new up-to-date subjects?
The interesting thing he said that even those these guys are techs, their job does not really involve knowing that much electronics. They operate equipment and maintain it but that process requires little or no electronics knowledge. Yet the company insists that they know those basics. My friend is happy as he has a nice job teaching what he knows.
That makes me wonder just how in touch the HR people or the managers are with what the employees really do and how that ties into the electronic fundamentals they insist that these guys know. Not much by the looks of it. No one has really sat down and tried to match knowledge and skills to education. Or maybe it was done in the past and no one ever updated it. Sound familiar?
I have seen things like this in the past. When I was department head, I went to most of the large companies locally that hired techs. I asked for a copy of any exam they give to new hires. I got three of them. Then I proceeded to match up the questions with what we taught. Basically, we covered most of the items with just a few glitches that were easily fixed.
The most amazing thing was how dated the tests were. Even though the AAS curriculum is pretty dated itself as are most texts, these tests were worse!! No kidding. They were mostly left overs from the 60s or 70s. No one ever bothered to up date them. I even saw one exam that had a question to identify a vacuum tube RC phase shift oscillator. Can you imagine? Those things haven't been used in a half century or so. Anyway, if we want our graduates to pass these little jewels from the past, we better keep teaching the technology of yesteryear. Forget all the new stuff.
Strange as it may seem, what do we really want for our graduates? Is it to be extremely knowledgeable and skilled in the very latest technology or just to get jobs? Apparently not. Hey, why not just teach the tests these companies give and be done with it. Who needs a new curriculum any way?
So I am thinking that it is not just the dated faculty that insists on teaching the dated unneeded materials. The companies want that too. Whether that comes from some HR wonk who doesn't know squat about electronics or a hiring manager, I do not know. Scary. I do know that I have heard some faculty and even some working engineers and managers who served on our industry advisory committees say something like, "we want our new hires to be trained like we were." I guess that is more important than a curriculum being up to date and in tune with the real world.
I am beginning to wonder if it is worthwhile to fight for a new and better curriculum. After all, maybe an AAS degree is just a credential to get your foot in the door. It may be mostly irrelevant what you learn along the way. I hate when that happens.
So, what else is new?
Those of you who are members of the ETD Listserv may have seen the recent posting. I am attaching it below for your information.
"We at Los Angeles City College District are undergoing the driest enrollment spell ever. We are wondering if this is something constrained to our local area or whether it is something afflicting a greater area and what measures, both proactive and reactive are being done to address the issue.
Thank you kindly for you time.
Regards,"
I have removed the name just in case he does not want to be known.
I did respond to him and pointed him to this blog. Maybe he will get something useful. At least he will know he is not alone with his problem.
"We at Los Angeles City College District are undergoing the driest enrollment spell ever. We are wondering if this is something constrained to our local area or whether it is something afflicting a greater area and what measures, both proactive and reactive are being done to address the issue.
Thank you kindly for you time.
Regards,"
I have removed the name just in case he does not want to be known.
I did respond to him and pointed him to this blog. Maybe he will get something useful. At least he will know he is not alone with his problem.
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Some Bad News
I think I mentioned in this blog before that I was involved with submitting a grant proposal to the National Science Foundation for funds to study the declining enrollment problem and propose ways to correct it. After submitting two years in a row and even being encouraged by the NSF to submit the second year, we did not get it funded. The NSF gave no real explanation. So, looks like that effort is over and done with. We did all we could. The NSF is just not interested.
I suspect that we lost because, as usual, the NSF receives hundreds of good proposals each year. And with limited funds ($39 million this year), they simply funded the most interesting proposals and dropped the rest. The NSF seems to prefer big, glossy, high tech, innovative proposals for improving technology education. I can't blame them for that. Lots of great ideas get funded. But what I don't understand is their blindness to the declining enrollment problem. Surely they see it. I kept thinking, if this decline continues, then the funding for the other projects is pointless. There won't be any students left to use the innovative materials and programs. I realize that funding some research on a problem like this is not the exciting thing the PhDs at NSF want to see. Too much of a downer project.
Anyway, we will never know what the reviewers really thought about the idea. I wonder if the NSF has its head in the sand and is living in denial as many electronic departments are? Are they saying, "Let's be positive. Things will turn around as they always have." Not likely in my opinion.
Where do we go from here? I am not sure. I wish we had a national organization that would lead an industry funded effort. As Steve said in response to my Depressed blog entry, he is ready to sit down and work something out in a room full of peers with the common problem. I think there are others willing to do that as well. They just don't know what to do. Those who survive will be like Roy Brixen, someone who digs in figures out what is good locally then does something innovative about it. A collective effort would be worthwhile as well. We don't want to leave the electronic technician education business only to the proprietary schools? As I have said before, unless some action is taken, that is where we are headed.
What's next guys? Any ideas?
I suspect that we lost because, as usual, the NSF receives hundreds of good proposals each year. And with limited funds ($39 million this year), they simply funded the most interesting proposals and dropped the rest. The NSF seems to prefer big, glossy, high tech, innovative proposals for improving technology education. I can't blame them for that. Lots of great ideas get funded. But what I don't understand is their blindness to the declining enrollment problem. Surely they see it. I kept thinking, if this decline continues, then the funding for the other projects is pointless. There won't be any students left to use the innovative materials and programs. I realize that funding some research on a problem like this is not the exciting thing the PhDs at NSF want to see. Too much of a downer project.
Anyway, we will never know what the reviewers really thought about the idea. I wonder if the NSF has its head in the sand and is living in denial as many electronic departments are? Are they saying, "Let's be positive. Things will turn around as they always have." Not likely in my opinion.
Where do we go from here? I am not sure. I wish we had a national organization that would lead an industry funded effort. As Steve said in response to my Depressed blog entry, he is ready to sit down and work something out in a room full of peers with the common problem. I think there are others willing to do that as well. They just don't know what to do. Those who survive will be like Roy Brixen, someone who digs in figures out what is good locally then does something innovative about it. A collective effort would be worthwhile as well. We don't want to leave the electronic technician education business only to the proprietary schools? As I have said before, unless some action is taken, that is where we are headed.
What's next guys? Any ideas?
Follow Up, More Depression
There were some great comments to my Depressed posting of March 23rd. If you have not read them, by all means do so. Excellent input. My thanks to Steve, Roy Brixen and Joe Sloop.
Joe, thanks for taking the time to fill us in on the top down inverted curriculum. I certainly don't claim to have invented it and frankly it is good to hear some background about it. The Navy and possibly other services probably still have an electronics technician training program somewhat like that today. You just don't need a great deal of electronic theory to fix modern electronic equipment. I can give you some examples from my own experience.
When I was running Heathkit's education and publishing business, we talked often about developing a TV servicing course to complement our basic electronic courses. And Heathkit had a premire kit TV to go along with it. So we started in on the research. One of the developers, Phil Cole, did a great job of figuring out what industry really needed. After interviewing TV service personnel and even observing them as well as discussions with the manufacturers, the conclusion was that fixing TVs had very little to do with electronics. Looking at job duties and descriptions then trying to deduce learning objectives, it quickly became obvious, the instruction was going to be mostly non-electronic. You didn't need to know that much as modular nature of TV sets made them easy to diagonse and repair by just replacing modules. As Joe Sloop points out, that is the way it went in the 70s and 80s. What's electronics got to do with it?
I saw this myself. At one time during my career I had a TV service business under my managment. It did a good job. One day I stopped by to see how things were going and asked my lead tech what he was doing and how he was doing it. He proceeded to attempt to explain his thinking based on the Howard W. Sams schematics he was using. But being the theory whiz I was, I could tell he was all wet. I was horrified. Yet, I did not say anything. He fixed the TV set successfully that day. It dawned on me that everything he did in the troubleshooting relied very little on electronic circuit theory and the other stuff we force on students today. Dumb....
Another time my younger son, after a couple years in college, decided he wanted to fix PCs for a living. It was right about the time the A+ certification came about. I asked him what his plan was for learning the electronics and digital that was the basis for PCs. He said, "Dad, you don't have to know anything about electronics to fix PCs!" And after some explanation and further consideration on my own, I realized he was right. He went on the pass the A+ exam on the first pass and he has moved onward and upward in the PC networking business.
Joe also hit upon a couple of other things that really nag at me. For example, no one would buy into the inverted curriculum. I suspect that would be the same today. I wonder sometime if we will ever be able to change. Look at elementary and secondary education. It will never change, even if we do discover something better. Faculty, wherever they may be, love their comfort zone. And, oh by the way, where is our salary increase? Sorry to be so cynical.
Another thing Joe said also hit home. State mandated curriculum and processes. His is North Carolina. Texas has something similar. In Texas changes are possible, but it is not easy. Complete course or curriculum changes would never make it though the system. Progress.
Anyway, let's keep trudging along. Never say die..... While nothing may ever be done, at least we tried. If we give up, nothing will ever happen. Think one word: HOPE
Joe, thanks for taking the time to fill us in on the top down inverted curriculum. I certainly don't claim to have invented it and frankly it is good to hear some background about it. The Navy and possibly other services probably still have an electronics technician training program somewhat like that today. You just don't need a great deal of electronic theory to fix modern electronic equipment. I can give you some examples from my own experience.
When I was running Heathkit's education and publishing business, we talked often about developing a TV servicing course to complement our basic electronic courses. And Heathkit had a premire kit TV to go along with it. So we started in on the research. One of the developers, Phil Cole, did a great job of figuring out what industry really needed. After interviewing TV service personnel and even observing them as well as discussions with the manufacturers, the conclusion was that fixing TVs had very little to do with electronics. Looking at job duties and descriptions then trying to deduce learning objectives, it quickly became obvious, the instruction was going to be mostly non-electronic. You didn't need to know that much as modular nature of TV sets made them easy to diagonse and repair by just replacing modules. As Joe Sloop points out, that is the way it went in the 70s and 80s. What's electronics got to do with it?
I saw this myself. At one time during my career I had a TV service business under my managment. It did a good job. One day I stopped by to see how things were going and asked my lead tech what he was doing and how he was doing it. He proceeded to attempt to explain his thinking based on the Howard W. Sams schematics he was using. But being the theory whiz I was, I could tell he was all wet. I was horrified. Yet, I did not say anything. He fixed the TV set successfully that day. It dawned on me that everything he did in the troubleshooting relied very little on electronic circuit theory and the other stuff we force on students today. Dumb....
Another time my younger son, after a couple years in college, decided he wanted to fix PCs for a living. It was right about the time the A+ certification came about. I asked him what his plan was for learning the electronics and digital that was the basis for PCs. He said, "Dad, you don't have to know anything about electronics to fix PCs!" And after some explanation and further consideration on my own, I realized he was right. He went on the pass the A+ exam on the first pass and he has moved onward and upward in the PC networking business.
Joe also hit upon a couple of other things that really nag at me. For example, no one would buy into the inverted curriculum. I suspect that would be the same today. I wonder sometime if we will ever be able to change. Look at elementary and secondary education. It will never change, even if we do discover something better. Faculty, wherever they may be, love their comfort zone. And, oh by the way, where is our salary increase? Sorry to be so cynical.
Another thing Joe said also hit home. State mandated curriculum and processes. His is North Carolina. Texas has something similar. In Texas changes are possible, but it is not easy. Complete course or curriculum changes would never make it though the system. Progress.
Anyway, let's keep trudging along. Never say die..... While nothing may ever be done, at least we tried. If we give up, nothing will ever happen. Think one word: HOPE
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Depressed
I like to maintain a positive attitude about our low enrollment situation and other problems plaguing community college electronics programs. Someone has to put on a happy face, so to speak, and boost the morale of those of you struggling with the problem. I actualy still do have hope that we can change things and develop a turnaround. But I have to admit, with predominantly bad news coming in, I get to feeling it is hopeless. A recent piece of news really knocked me down.
Just recently, I spoke with a department head at a California community college who had developed a new curriculum to help rebuild enrollments. The college had given him a year to correct the continuing downward spiral. He put together a very unique distance learning base curriculum. It is a form of the so-called "inverted" curriculum I have mentioned in this blog before.
An inverted curriculum is essentially the reverse of what most schools use now. That is, we teach bottom up. We start with the math and physics, add DC and AC, electronic components and circuits, then finally get to the equipment and applications. An inverted curriculum does the opposite. It starts with the big picture, applications and equipment, then digs deeper with components and cirucits and the electrical theory as needed. The idea is to get the student interested....actually turned on.....to the applications at a system level then dig deeper into the specifics as needed by the jobs to be filled. No one I have talked to has ever done this, at least that I have heard. If any of you have done something like this, do write and tell us about it.
Anyway, the new curriculum was a modified form of inverted. It started with a very general electronic theory course then went directly to microcomputers. Everything has an embedded controller in it anyway so why not start with this? And you can teach it with minimum electrical details. A digital course was next. Then there were courses in other electronic specialites. At the very end were circuit analysis and related courses.
The department head was all set to implement this when it was killed by the rest of the faculty. I guess they got cold feet or just could not stand such a drastic change. So at this point, the department is in limbo. I do think that the new curriculum if promoted aggressively would have turned things around. But, just like most faculties I have worked with, they cannot accept even the smallest change. Yet, surely someone as smart as a college professor should be able to see that if you don't change you will die. Guess the faculty would rather lose their jobs than change. It is an all so common problem. And with essentially no solution.
If there is a solution, what is it? Let me hear your ideas for change.
And like me keep repeating to yourself "we will survive".
Just recently, I spoke with a department head at a California community college who had developed a new curriculum to help rebuild enrollments. The college had given him a year to correct the continuing downward spiral. He put together a very unique distance learning base curriculum. It is a form of the so-called "inverted" curriculum I have mentioned in this blog before.
An inverted curriculum is essentially the reverse of what most schools use now. That is, we teach bottom up. We start with the math and physics, add DC and AC, electronic components and circuits, then finally get to the equipment and applications. An inverted curriculum does the opposite. It starts with the big picture, applications and equipment, then digs deeper with components and cirucits and the electrical theory as needed. The idea is to get the student interested....actually turned on.....to the applications at a system level then dig deeper into the specifics as needed by the jobs to be filled. No one I have talked to has ever done this, at least that I have heard. If any of you have done something like this, do write and tell us about it.
Anyway, the new curriculum was a modified form of inverted. It started with a very general electronic theory course then went directly to microcomputers. Everything has an embedded controller in it anyway so why not start with this? And you can teach it with minimum electrical details. A digital course was next. Then there were courses in other electronic specialites. At the very end were circuit analysis and related courses.
The department head was all set to implement this when it was killed by the rest of the faculty. I guess they got cold feet or just could not stand such a drastic change. So at this point, the department is in limbo. I do think that the new curriculum if promoted aggressively would have turned things around. But, just like most faculties I have worked with, they cannot accept even the smallest change. Yet, surely someone as smart as a college professor should be able to see that if you don't change you will die. Guess the faculty would rather lose their jobs than change. It is an all so common problem. And with essentially no solution.
If there is a solution, what is it? Let me hear your ideas for change.
And like me keep repeating to yourself "we will survive".
Creat Comments
If you have not looked at my blog called Conference Report of 2/19 please do so. Then take a look at the two posted comments. Both contain excellent feedback and information.
I thanks to those who comment. We need all the input and views possible.
I thanks to those who comment. We need all the input and views possible.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Conference Report
I attended the Service & Retail Convention (SRC06) last week in Las Vegas. The name does not imply any connection to electronics but it was relevant. This is a joint conference put on by the Electronic Technicians Association International (ETA-I), the United Servicers Association, and the North American Retail Dealers Association (NARDA). The ETA, of course, is the certifying organization that some of you may be familiar with. The USA is generally associated with applicance servicing, while NARDA is associated with consumer electronics sales and service. There were about 440 in attendance.
I was invited by the ETA to speak about the declining enrollment problem and its potential solution. A group of about 20 educators from community colleges, universities and technical schools attended. All were experiencing the low enrollment problem to some extent and were looking for answers. There were additional reports of electronic department closings and mergers and closures pending the outcome of implementing corrective action. Clearly the problem is not going away and my sense of it was that it may be getting worse. The big issue remains what to do. I think we all know the problem exists but, exactly what is the solution?
Any way, here are a few notes and comments I took away from the conference. Hope they are helpful to you in some way.
1. Consumer electronics is very healthy right now with big screen TVs leading the way. Stereo surround sound, satellite and HD radio are growing, and sales are booming. Techs are needed by the big box stores (Best Buy, Circuit City, etc.) but few are applying and there are NO schools teaching this today. A lost opportunity for sure.
2. Appliance repair is always a good career choice for those who like technician repair work. There is more electronics than ever in appliances today although they are still heavily mechanical and electrical (motors, etc.). The jobs pay well and are very stable. Why is no school teaching this?
3. I heard multiple times how the jobs for techs are out there but few if any candidates apply. Reports of 60-70 biomed tech jobs and dozens of wireless tech positions are going unfilled. No one seems interested. And few schools teach either subject. Why?
4. Most everyone agreed that the engineering tech jobs have mostly gone away. Yet, most programs still focus on that position. Time to change.
5. Most attendees agree that some curriculum change is a key part of implementing a turn around, but most also agree that the schools just do not have a way to promote their programs because of a lack of a budget or relevant marketing skills.
6. Certification is still a great way to get ahead in a job. And it is also a good way for colleges to better prepare grads for industry. The ETA has a college program that helps students and graduates prepare for an entry level certification that they can add to their AAS degree for an even better chance to get the good jobs. The key in my opinion is to ensure that the certification exams are up to date and include the latest technologies that are missing from many programs. The ETA works with industry to create these exams so I suspect they are more up to date than the curricula that is so dated. Check out their certifications programs at www.eta-i.org.
My overall feelings about the conference are that electronics education is in a real irreversible slump. I am getting more doubtful everyday about its recovery. I hate to be negative, but given all the talk I heard, no one has the "silver bullet" solution, yet. Faculty and department heads are trying but they need administration support to do the job. Administrators are loathe to promote a program that is in decline. But that is just what is needed to turn around enrollments.
I have come to believe that some kind of national effort is needed to put the word out about the jobs and the educational programs. We need to get the middle school and high school kids more interested and to educate the general public about the value of the jobs and education. It is probably going to take years to change things. In the meantime, how many more electronic departments will close?
I go to the Electronics meeting at the Texas Community College Teachers Conference (TCCTA) in Houston next week. I am speaking there also and will give you a report later of what happens.
Thanks for all of your individual contributions to this blog and the overall goal of saving electronics.
I was invited by the ETA to speak about the declining enrollment problem and its potential solution. A group of about 20 educators from community colleges, universities and technical schools attended. All were experiencing the low enrollment problem to some extent and were looking for answers. There were additional reports of electronic department closings and mergers and closures pending the outcome of implementing corrective action. Clearly the problem is not going away and my sense of it was that it may be getting worse. The big issue remains what to do. I think we all know the problem exists but, exactly what is the solution?
Any way, here are a few notes and comments I took away from the conference. Hope they are helpful to you in some way.
1. Consumer electronics is very healthy right now with big screen TVs leading the way. Stereo surround sound, satellite and HD radio are growing, and sales are booming. Techs are needed by the big box stores (Best Buy, Circuit City, etc.) but few are applying and there are NO schools teaching this today. A lost opportunity for sure.
2. Appliance repair is always a good career choice for those who like technician repair work. There is more electronics than ever in appliances today although they are still heavily mechanical and electrical (motors, etc.). The jobs pay well and are very stable. Why is no school teaching this?
3. I heard multiple times how the jobs for techs are out there but few if any candidates apply. Reports of 60-70 biomed tech jobs and dozens of wireless tech positions are going unfilled. No one seems interested. And few schools teach either subject. Why?
4. Most everyone agreed that the engineering tech jobs have mostly gone away. Yet, most programs still focus on that position. Time to change.
5. Most attendees agree that some curriculum change is a key part of implementing a turn around, but most also agree that the schools just do not have a way to promote their programs because of a lack of a budget or relevant marketing skills.
6. Certification is still a great way to get ahead in a job. And it is also a good way for colleges to better prepare grads for industry. The ETA has a college program that helps students and graduates prepare for an entry level certification that they can add to their AAS degree for an even better chance to get the good jobs. The key in my opinion is to ensure that the certification exams are up to date and include the latest technologies that are missing from many programs. The ETA works with industry to create these exams so I suspect they are more up to date than the curricula that is so dated. Check out their certifications programs at www.eta-i.org.
My overall feelings about the conference are that electronics education is in a real irreversible slump. I am getting more doubtful everyday about its recovery. I hate to be negative, but given all the talk I heard, no one has the "silver bullet" solution, yet. Faculty and department heads are trying but they need administration support to do the job. Administrators are loathe to promote a program that is in decline. But that is just what is needed to turn around enrollments.
I have come to believe that some kind of national effort is needed to put the word out about the jobs and the educational programs. We need to get the middle school and high school kids more interested and to educate the general public about the value of the jobs and education. It is probably going to take years to change things. In the meantime, how many more electronic departments will close?
I go to the Electronics meeting at the Texas Community College Teachers Conference (TCCTA) in Houston next week. I am speaking there also and will give you a report later of what happens.
Thanks for all of your individual contributions to this blog and the overall goal of saving electronics.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Proprietary Schools: Good News - Bad News
I have mentioned the proprietary schools in this blog several times before. They are without doubt one of the biggest reasons why your department is losing enrollments. These for-profit schools are doing well enrollment-wise since they not only promote and sell better than the community colleges, but also because they do a better job of targeting the jobs and industries. Despite the fact that these programs cost two to six times more than typical public community college tuition, students sign up by the droves. Why? Because the schools help them get jobs.
And isn't that what graduates want, jobs? They don't necessarily want an education but it is part of the price you have to pay to get the job. As academics we tend to believe all students are motivated by the desire to learn and get that mythical liberal education. Delusional as we are, in fact, what motivates students is money and that requires a job and that, in turn, means at least some education. I had a student put it in perspective for me one time. He said, Lou, if I pass this course, I graduate and get the degree. Now I can get the job. And then at last I will be able to buy the new pickup and boat. That says it all. Proprietary schools play to that mentality. We in the community colleges do not. No wonder our enrollments are down.
My daughter just recently graduated from a proprietary school where she went to be a chef. I won't mention the school, but they are well known and they do an excellent job. And they are VERY expensive. They do help you get a job. But the bad news is that they literally flood the market with new chefs. All of their grads are highly skilled and do superb work. But there are not enough jobs out there at the level to which they are educated to absorb them. So they literally crank out dozens of new highly qualified grads several times a year into unemployment. And they just keep doing it, of course, to keep their income and profit growing.
So while I fuss at the proprietary schools for this practice, I suppose that the community colleges would do the same thing if they had a continuing stream of students wanting to learn that field. During the semiconductor manufacturing boom, I saw community colleges cranking out fab techs for which there were no jobs. Back in the early 90's I saw colleges graduating robotics techs in droves for which there were no jobs except in Japan. They whole thing is irresponsible. But how do you balance or control that? Do you say to a student wanting to learn to be a chef or whatever that we cannot accept him or her because there are no jobs. No. We cannot and do not say that no matter what, public or proprietary school. What a problem.
What the proprietary schools do really well is teaching their specialty. They focus on it and do it well. At my daughter's school, the labs and kitchens are world class. Modern, clean and big. Everything is stainless steel and high end appliances. In the community colleges we would be so lucky to have such facilities. This really shows up when a student goes to visit schools to make a choice. It impressed me when I went with my daughter. The proprietary school labs were so much better than the local community college that it was a no brainer.
The chef school has the students attend 5 hours a day 5 days a week. A brutal schedule. And most of it is hands-on. They learn by doing. Of course there are "theory" classes but they make up a smaller part of the curriculum. The grads come out with many hours of real world hands- on experience. Not just a bunch of classroom hours. How I wish we could construct an electronics curriculum for techs like this. Techs need more good hands-on experience with equipment and less math and theory. Oh yes, we need some math and theory, but not as much as we give them now.
Wouldn't it be great to create a new curriculum and approach to teaching electronic techs? I do. It would be fun. Out of the box thinking all the way. A major stumbling block would be the big bucks for labs. It would be so far afield that most of you who are traditionalist to the max would kill it straight away. If it is not as you learned it or as you do it now, it must not be any good. I can hear it now. Such a program would not articulate with BSET programs. But so what? Most grads don't go that route anyway. They want jobs and industry wants competent employees. Yet, you insist on doing the same old thing year after year and wonder how come enrollments are going down. Duh....?? It is that attitude that keeps departments from moving ahead and from building enrollments. When will we ever break out of this situation? No one in academia is willing to do something so drastic. That's why all the innovation will come from proprietary schools who are not hampered with such dated thinking. And that is why they will increasingly continue to take away enrollments from you.
Think about that.
And isn't that what graduates want, jobs? They don't necessarily want an education but it is part of the price you have to pay to get the job. As academics we tend to believe all students are motivated by the desire to learn and get that mythical liberal education. Delusional as we are, in fact, what motivates students is money and that requires a job and that, in turn, means at least some education. I had a student put it in perspective for me one time. He said, Lou, if I pass this course, I graduate and get the degree. Now I can get the job. And then at last I will be able to buy the new pickup and boat. That says it all. Proprietary schools play to that mentality. We in the community colleges do not. No wonder our enrollments are down.
My daughter just recently graduated from a proprietary school where she went to be a chef. I won't mention the school, but they are well known and they do an excellent job. And they are VERY expensive. They do help you get a job. But the bad news is that they literally flood the market with new chefs. All of their grads are highly skilled and do superb work. But there are not enough jobs out there at the level to which they are educated to absorb them. So they literally crank out dozens of new highly qualified grads several times a year into unemployment. And they just keep doing it, of course, to keep their income and profit growing.
So while I fuss at the proprietary schools for this practice, I suppose that the community colleges would do the same thing if they had a continuing stream of students wanting to learn that field. During the semiconductor manufacturing boom, I saw community colleges cranking out fab techs for which there were no jobs. Back in the early 90's I saw colleges graduating robotics techs in droves for which there were no jobs except in Japan. They whole thing is irresponsible. But how do you balance or control that? Do you say to a student wanting to learn to be a chef or whatever that we cannot accept him or her because there are no jobs. No. We cannot and do not say that no matter what, public or proprietary school. What a problem.
What the proprietary schools do really well is teaching their specialty. They focus on it and do it well. At my daughter's school, the labs and kitchens are world class. Modern, clean and big. Everything is stainless steel and high end appliances. In the community colleges we would be so lucky to have such facilities. This really shows up when a student goes to visit schools to make a choice. It impressed me when I went with my daughter. The proprietary school labs were so much better than the local community college that it was a no brainer.
The chef school has the students attend 5 hours a day 5 days a week. A brutal schedule. And most of it is hands-on. They learn by doing. Of course there are "theory" classes but they make up a smaller part of the curriculum. The grads come out with many hours of real world hands- on experience. Not just a bunch of classroom hours. How I wish we could construct an electronics curriculum for techs like this. Techs need more good hands-on experience with equipment and less math and theory. Oh yes, we need some math and theory, but not as much as we give them now.
Wouldn't it be great to create a new curriculum and approach to teaching electronic techs? I do. It would be fun. Out of the box thinking all the way. A major stumbling block would be the big bucks for labs. It would be so far afield that most of you who are traditionalist to the max would kill it straight away. If it is not as you learned it or as you do it now, it must not be any good. I can hear it now. Such a program would not articulate with BSET programs. But so what? Most grads don't go that route anyway. They want jobs and industry wants competent employees. Yet, you insist on doing the same old thing year after year and wonder how come enrollments are going down. Duh....?? It is that attitude that keeps departments from moving ahead and from building enrollments. When will we ever break out of this situation? No one in academia is willing to do something so drastic. That's why all the innovation will come from proprietary schools who are not hampered with such dated thinking. And that is why they will increasingly continue to take away enrollments from you.
Think about that.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
More Certificate Programs, Fewer Engineering Techs
If you take a look at the types of technician jobs available today, you will come to the realization, as I have, that many of them simply do not require the rigor of a 2-year AAS degree. Most AAS degree programs were originally set up to prepare a person to be an engineering tech. There are not too many of those jobs out there today. As I travel around the country and talk to those who hire (an do NOT hire) techs, what I see is very few engineering techs but lots of service and repair techs. And most of those service jobs do not need a complete comprehensive engineering tech curriculum. Seems to me what we need is more shorter certificate programs of some sort.
Some of you are probably saying, wooooah, wait a minute. What ever happened to the engineering tech? Back in the 50's through 70's there was a big need for 2 to 5 or so techs for each engineer. But no more. Thanks to things like large scale ICs, computer simulation and design software, it is now possible for an engineer to design, test and finalize a design without a tech. Any prototypes are often laid out by the engineer, built by the engineer and tested by the engineer. It is just the way it is today.
When I ask about engineering techs at the companies I visit, I get one of two answers: we no longer have engineering techs or we have a few and are not hiring. Most existing engineering techs are older and more expenienced types anyway. A dying breed. Most of those hiring engineering techs these days are research and development labs. And those jobs are few and far between. So basically what I have come to realize is that the community colleges are training graduates for jobs that for the most part are no longer there. If you don't believe me, go check this out for yourself. Check your local papers for ads, check the online job boards and websites. Ask around. See if I am not right.
As for those tech jobs that do exist, they need a different type of educational program. In some cases, an AAS degree is overkill. For example, consumer electronics tech jobs are hot today. Installing and servicing big screen TVs, surround sound systems, car/truck stereos, and the like. No school actually teaches this these days. At least I cannot identify one and no one in my area here does. Why not? Anyway, these jobs do not require a great deal of math, circuit analysis and the related stuff. They do need to know basics like DC and AC and basic circuits, but what they really need to know is the technology at a higher level and how to trouble shoot at the system level. Signal flow and that sort of thing. You could probably put together a two semester program, maybe 15 to 30 semester hours and offer a certificate in lots of subjects.
There are probably some other electronic specialties that would adapt to such a certificate program. Wireless and communications is another one. How about wiring and cabling? A huge growing field that does not require you to be a rocket scientist. None of these would be too difficult to devleop and undoubtedly you could use your existing basic courses in the first semester.
Offering shorter certificate programs in high demand high profile fields and promoting them would seem to be a great way to build enrollments. There are lots of potential students who would like a shorter program so they can graduate sooner and go to work. And local industry would get the grads sooner. It is a win-win for everyone concerned.
We have some certificate programs here at Austin CC, mainly because the state of Texas says we have to offer certificates. But these are more generic and none address any of the hot new jobs. No students are taking advantage of them either.
This appears to be a BIG missed opportunity. I suppose that most of you are pining away for the good old days of lots of engineering techs. Those days are gone my friends. Time to change things. You can still offer engineering tech programs, but your grads will end up finding jobs in some other area. Why not go with what is current and in need? One of the real rules of marketing is "find a need and fill it". One more way to save your department and job.
Best wishes........
Some of you are probably saying, wooooah, wait a minute. What ever happened to the engineering tech? Back in the 50's through 70's there was a big need for 2 to 5 or so techs for each engineer. But no more. Thanks to things like large scale ICs, computer simulation and design software, it is now possible for an engineer to design, test and finalize a design without a tech. Any prototypes are often laid out by the engineer, built by the engineer and tested by the engineer. It is just the way it is today.
When I ask about engineering techs at the companies I visit, I get one of two answers: we no longer have engineering techs or we have a few and are not hiring. Most existing engineering techs are older and more expenienced types anyway. A dying breed. Most of those hiring engineering techs these days are research and development labs. And those jobs are few and far between. So basically what I have come to realize is that the community colleges are training graduates for jobs that for the most part are no longer there. If you don't believe me, go check this out for yourself. Check your local papers for ads, check the online job boards and websites. Ask around. See if I am not right.
As for those tech jobs that do exist, they need a different type of educational program. In some cases, an AAS degree is overkill. For example, consumer electronics tech jobs are hot today. Installing and servicing big screen TVs, surround sound systems, car/truck stereos, and the like. No school actually teaches this these days. At least I cannot identify one and no one in my area here does. Why not? Anyway, these jobs do not require a great deal of math, circuit analysis and the related stuff. They do need to know basics like DC and AC and basic circuits, but what they really need to know is the technology at a higher level and how to trouble shoot at the system level. Signal flow and that sort of thing. You could probably put together a two semester program, maybe 15 to 30 semester hours and offer a certificate in lots of subjects.
There are probably some other electronic specialties that would adapt to such a certificate program. Wireless and communications is another one. How about wiring and cabling? A huge growing field that does not require you to be a rocket scientist. None of these would be too difficult to devleop and undoubtedly you could use your existing basic courses in the first semester.
Offering shorter certificate programs in high demand high profile fields and promoting them would seem to be a great way to build enrollments. There are lots of potential students who would like a shorter program so they can graduate sooner and go to work. And local industry would get the grads sooner. It is a win-win for everyone concerned.
We have some certificate programs here at Austin CC, mainly because the state of Texas says we have to offer certificates. But these are more generic and none address any of the hot new jobs. No students are taking advantage of them either.
This appears to be a BIG missed opportunity. I suppose that most of you are pining away for the good old days of lots of engineering techs. Those days are gone my friends. Time to change things. You can still offer engineering tech programs, but your grads will end up finding jobs in some other area. Why not go with what is current and in need? One of the real rules of marketing is "find a need and fill it". One more way to save your department and job.
Best wishes........
Thursday, January 26, 2006
ABET Accreditation in Community Colleges
I received an interesting email that I wanted to share with you. It is about ABET accreditation in community colleges. Something I have heard many times and even had some experience with. Anyway, here is the note:
Mr. Frenzel
Have you ever thought of commenting on the effects of the new ABET TAC criteria on whether two[-year] schools decide to continue with the accreditation? The reason why I ask this is my school is up for reaccredidation and there are some in the Engineering Technology department who question the expense of being accredited verse its benefits. The feeling is that the cost outweighs the benefits and not being accredited would give us the flexibility in creating a program that would attract more students.My feeling is that ABET does not understand that most of the students from a two year program get jobs and do not continue on to a four year school. The TAC accreditation for two year programs seems to be aimed at preparing students for a four year degree not employment.
Thanks for the Blog. Keep up the good work.
Philip Regalbuto
Here was my response:
Good to hear from you. You asked a great question and one that I have not commented on in the blog. But I can give you a brief background on my own experiences and opinion for that that is worth.
First, let me say that the ABET has good intentions and does a good job at at what they do. In my opinion, they just do a good job at the wrong thing, at least for AAS technician degree programs. But they are really dead on target for the BSET programs. And I agree with your comment that they do not seem to recognize the fact that AAS grads usually go on to jobs and not a 4-year BSET. I have never seen any hard data on what percentage of AAS grads go on to a BSET but from what I have heard it is very low, only a few percent. However, if the community college is very near a university offering a BSET the percentage is much higher. That is not the usual case. Here at Austin CC in Texas, we are near Texas A&M and Texas State U but our transfer rate is less than 1%. Most grads want jobs asap. I suspect that some AAS grads do eventually go back but it is rare. For that reason, what good is ABET?
My own experience with ABET has been awful. A few years back at a CC in Florida, the president asked why our dept wasn't ABET accredited. The dept head at the time asked us why not. We all agreed to pursue it, dumb as we were at the time. Putting together the applilcation, we all began to realize that what we were doing may not actually be as good for us as we thought. When we had our formal review a committe visit, we all knew we should have declined. The reviewers keep thinking that all techs needed to be more like engineers. They asked us to add calculus to the AAS degree. They asked that we add more design and simulation to each course.
The dept head agreed to make the changes and we did. The overall result is that we had to drop some courses from the program, courses that some of the local companies depended on. The industry advisory committee was furious. The addition of calculus forced some (most as I recall) students to fuss and gripe and many to drop out. And there were other problems. The bottom line is that we lost students and industry support. And the cost of maintaining the accreditation was very high, something no one expected. At least the president and dept head could boast of being ABET accredited. This accreditation seems to be more of an academic ego thing. Besides I have never heard of any company demand or for that matter even know about ABET accreditation. I suspect there are exceptions to that, but for the most part industry is happy with your regular regional accrediation and either doesn't know about ABET or care.
While I was dept head at Austin CC where I am now an adjunct, I went through the same procedure. My dean said to look into ABET. I related my past experience but decided to do more. I conducted a survey on the ETD listserv and asked about AAS degree accreditation With ABET. I have the results of this some where but I can sum it up rather easily. 48% of those who responded were ABET accredited. Most did it to ensure positive articulation with BSET schools although most admitted few grads actually transferred. Those who were ABET accredited universally griped about the cost to maintain accreditation. Most also said they would not do it again knowing what they know now. The non-ABET group was happy with their decision as it gave them far more flexibility to create programs and courses that fit the job opps and meet local industry needs. Jobs is what it is all about these days. We did NOT pursue ABET accreditation at ACC. And you know what? The BSET schools still accept most couses for credit transfer anyway.
I know ABET has revised its policies but from those I have talked with I can discern the same smug academic positioning that says AAS programs should be more robust and more engineering-like. Techs are not engineers. Even the engineering tech has essentially gone away. What ABET needs is a group that knows what today's techs actually do and establish an accreditation for that rather than some mythical engineering-like person.
Sorry for the long rant. Maybe I should post this for the blog. Thanks for asking. I know you need to gather your own data and make the decision best for your school. My advise would be to drop ABET and go your own way based on jobs and local industry needs. You will never go wrong with that. And maybe it will send a signal to ABET that change is needed.
Very best wishes,
Lou Frenzel
Mr. Frenzel
Have you ever thought of commenting on the effects of the new ABET TAC criteria on whether two[-year] schools decide to continue with the accreditation? The reason why I ask this is my school is up for reaccredidation and there are some in the Engineering Technology department who question the expense of being accredited verse its benefits. The feeling is that the cost outweighs the benefits and not being accredited would give us the flexibility in creating a program that would attract more students.My feeling is that ABET does not understand that most of the students from a two year program get jobs and do not continue on to a four year school. The TAC accreditation for two year programs seems to be aimed at preparing students for a four year degree not employment.
Thanks for the Blog. Keep up the good work.
Philip Regalbuto
Here was my response:
Good to hear from you. You asked a great question and one that I have not commented on in the blog. But I can give you a brief background on my own experiences and opinion for that that is worth.
First, let me say that the ABET has good intentions and does a good job at at what they do. In my opinion, they just do a good job at the wrong thing, at least for AAS technician degree programs. But they are really dead on target for the BSET programs. And I agree with your comment that they do not seem to recognize the fact that AAS grads usually go on to jobs and not a 4-year BSET. I have never seen any hard data on what percentage of AAS grads go on to a BSET but from what I have heard it is very low, only a few percent. However, if the community college is very near a university offering a BSET the percentage is much higher. That is not the usual case. Here at Austin CC in Texas, we are near Texas A&M and Texas State U but our transfer rate is less than 1%. Most grads want jobs asap. I suspect that some AAS grads do eventually go back but it is rare. For that reason, what good is ABET?
My own experience with ABET has been awful. A few years back at a CC in Florida, the president asked why our dept wasn't ABET accredited. The dept head at the time asked us why not. We all agreed to pursue it, dumb as we were at the time. Putting together the applilcation, we all began to realize that what we were doing may not actually be as good for us as we thought. When we had our formal review a committe visit, we all knew we should have declined. The reviewers keep thinking that all techs needed to be more like engineers. They asked us to add calculus to the AAS degree. They asked that we add more design and simulation to each course.
The dept head agreed to make the changes and we did. The overall result is that we had to drop some courses from the program, courses that some of the local companies depended on. The industry advisory committee was furious. The addition of calculus forced some (most as I recall) students to fuss and gripe and many to drop out. And there were other problems. The bottom line is that we lost students and industry support. And the cost of maintaining the accreditation was very high, something no one expected. At least the president and dept head could boast of being ABET accredited. This accreditation seems to be more of an academic ego thing. Besides I have never heard of any company demand or for that matter even know about ABET accreditation. I suspect there are exceptions to that, but for the most part industry is happy with your regular regional accrediation and either doesn't know about ABET or care.
While I was dept head at Austin CC where I am now an adjunct, I went through the same procedure. My dean said to look into ABET. I related my past experience but decided to do more. I conducted a survey on the ETD listserv and asked about AAS degree accreditation With ABET. I have the results of this some where but I can sum it up rather easily. 48% of those who responded were ABET accredited. Most did it to ensure positive articulation with BSET schools although most admitted few grads actually transferred. Those who were ABET accredited universally griped about the cost to maintain accreditation. Most also said they would not do it again knowing what they know now. The non-ABET group was happy with their decision as it gave them far more flexibility to create programs and courses that fit the job opps and meet local industry needs. Jobs is what it is all about these days. We did NOT pursue ABET accreditation at ACC. And you know what? The BSET schools still accept most couses for credit transfer anyway.
I know ABET has revised its policies but from those I have talked with I can discern the same smug academic positioning that says AAS programs should be more robust and more engineering-like. Techs are not engineers. Even the engineering tech has essentially gone away. What ABET needs is a group that knows what today's techs actually do and establish an accreditation for that rather than some mythical engineering-like person.
Sorry for the long rant. Maybe I should post this for the blog. Thanks for asking. I know you need to gather your own data and make the decision best for your school. My advise would be to drop ABET and go your own way based on jobs and local industry needs. You will never go wrong with that. And maybe it will send a signal to ABET that change is needed.
Very best wishes,
Lou Frenzel
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Things They Don't Teach You in School, Part 3: Video
VIDEO
It is one of the biggest electronic product sectors in the world and it is getting bigger every day. It is also one of the most complex. Yet, what schools actually teach video in any form or fashion? None that I know of. I would love to hear from any of you who actually do teach TV, video or anything like it.
Four recent events got me to thinking about the dearth of video instruction. First, I just finished updating the chapter on Television in my McGraw Hill textbook. I updated it last about 3 years ago, but the content was already out of date. The bulk of the chapter covered the usual NTSC TV standards from the 50s and 60s. I had to add all the latest info on digital TV and HDTV. Satellite TV is digital as it the high definition programs you get on some of your cable subscriptions. The over-the-air HDTV is in most cities know but few watch it. But its popularity is growing. There is also IP TV, that is, TV over the Internet soon to be offered by your telephone company. And there are lots of new services beginnning to offer TV over cell phones. They handsets are not yet available but they are on the way. Europe already has digital TV with their digital video broadcast (DVB) standard and all its related variations. The US is behind both Europe and Asia in digital TV. As I was updating my chapter with all this good new stuff, I had to ask the question: who actually teaches this stuff? My answer is, probably no one in a community college. Why?
Another event was the Xmas selling season. Large screen TV sales boomed. Prices of plasma, LCD, DLP and other big screens have plummeted making them highly desirable comsumer produts, at last. Do you have one? Do you know how it works or even how to hook one up?
Third, the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) this past week in Las Vegas was heavily focused on video, HDTV, DTV and all other related items. Big screens, TV on cell phones, wireless video, BlueRay or HD-DVD video recording formats, and so on. I have also, as a result, been bombarded with press releases from chip companies offering all the latest digital video and TV products. I will be writing about them for my magazine Electronic Design. It is a HOT topic.
Fourth, a friend of mine recently called me and asked me where he could find a good video technician. He is a video producer and runs a studio where he makes promotional videos, instructional videos, and special TV programs for PBS. He says that his long time tech quit to go else where and he has not been able to find one. The ads have not brought one response and the local community college says they don't teach that. So where does an employer go to find a good tech who knows about cameras, recorders, mixers, special effects, titlers, and all the audio stuff that goes along with it?
The video field is growing and offering jobs to techs interested in TV and video. Recent articles talk about Circuit City and Best Buy who cannot find techs or technical savvy sales persons for sellling, installing and repairing HDTV and surround sound systems. But video is not one of those fields where hundreds or thousands techs are needed immediately. The overall need is small but still there. It is like most other electronic tech jobs these days. Lots of different ones in low volume. Just because the need is less does that mean we don't support or teach that specialty? I hope not.
All it would take is one or two good courses to teach this video as a specialization in any AAS electronic degree. For a few thousand bucks and some donations you could set up a lab.
Just a thought. One more way to justify and save our programs.
It is one of the biggest electronic product sectors in the world and it is getting bigger every day. It is also one of the most complex. Yet, what schools actually teach video in any form or fashion? None that I know of. I would love to hear from any of you who actually do teach TV, video or anything like it.
Four recent events got me to thinking about the dearth of video instruction. First, I just finished updating the chapter on Television in my McGraw Hill textbook. I updated it last about 3 years ago, but the content was already out of date. The bulk of the chapter covered the usual NTSC TV standards from the 50s and 60s. I had to add all the latest info on digital TV and HDTV. Satellite TV is digital as it the high definition programs you get on some of your cable subscriptions. The over-the-air HDTV is in most cities know but few watch it. But its popularity is growing. There is also IP TV, that is, TV over the Internet soon to be offered by your telephone company. And there are lots of new services beginnning to offer TV over cell phones. They handsets are not yet available but they are on the way. Europe already has digital TV with their digital video broadcast (DVB) standard and all its related variations. The US is behind both Europe and Asia in digital TV. As I was updating my chapter with all this good new stuff, I had to ask the question: who actually teaches this stuff? My answer is, probably no one in a community college. Why?
Another event was the Xmas selling season. Large screen TV sales boomed. Prices of plasma, LCD, DLP and other big screens have plummeted making them highly desirable comsumer produts, at last. Do you have one? Do you know how it works or even how to hook one up?
Third, the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) this past week in Las Vegas was heavily focused on video, HDTV, DTV and all other related items. Big screens, TV on cell phones, wireless video, BlueRay or HD-DVD video recording formats, and so on. I have also, as a result, been bombarded with press releases from chip companies offering all the latest digital video and TV products. I will be writing about them for my magazine Electronic Design. It is a HOT topic.
Fourth, a friend of mine recently called me and asked me where he could find a good video technician. He is a video producer and runs a studio where he makes promotional videos, instructional videos, and special TV programs for PBS. He says that his long time tech quit to go else where and he has not been able to find one. The ads have not brought one response and the local community college says they don't teach that. So where does an employer go to find a good tech who knows about cameras, recorders, mixers, special effects, titlers, and all the audio stuff that goes along with it?
The video field is growing and offering jobs to techs interested in TV and video. Recent articles talk about Circuit City and Best Buy who cannot find techs or technical savvy sales persons for sellling, installing and repairing HDTV and surround sound systems. But video is not one of those fields where hundreds or thousands techs are needed immediately. The overall need is small but still there. It is like most other electronic tech jobs these days. Lots of different ones in low volume. Just because the need is less does that mean we don't support or teach that specialty? I hope not.
All it would take is one or two good courses to teach this video as a specialization in any AAS electronic degree. For a few thousand bucks and some donations you could set up a lab.
Just a thought. One more way to justify and save our programs.
Happy New Year
Just a short note to wish you all a happy and prosperous 2006. Thanks for reading the blog. And I welcome all of you to comment and contribute. We need all the ideas, opinions and information we can get. We are all concerned about enrollments and the plight of the AAS degree in electronics technology. Let's pool our knowledge and efforts and work toward a national solution we can all agree upon. Share your thoughts here.
May your enrollments increase this year.
Best wishes,
Lou Frenzel
May your enrollments increase this year.
Best wishes,
Lou Frenzel
Friday, December 23, 2005
Response to A Great Question & Merry Xmas
For those of you who did not see the comment to my Roy Is Right entry, here it is below. It is such a great question that it deserves a good answer.
"If you agree with this fact, why do your books still contain so much math and formulas? Why don't you WRITE what industry wants, so that we can TEACH what industry wants?"
A frustrated electronics instructor
There are actually a couple of answers to this question. And both are related to the textbook issues I have discussed here before. As an author, I am seriously concerned about what I write in my books. I want it to be what industry wants and needs but also something that the instructors will want to buy and teach. The main problem is there is a difference between the two.
Generally speaking, I do write about what instructors want. And they do seem to want all the theory, math, formulas and related technical stuff. Industry may not necessarily want it or need it, so do not reject it as long as we cover what they do want. When I write a book, guess who gets to review it? About a dozen instructors and potential adoptors of the book. They still seem to prefer the traditional engineering technician version of the material. So they tell the publisher to keep this, add that and do it this way. So the publisher does it.
Publishers are paranoid about their book contents. Their customers are not really the students who actualy pay for the books or the industry who employs the grads but the instructors who choose the books and buy them for their courses. So they give the instructors what they want or like. More often, what the instructors want is the status quo. They are comfortable with what they teach and they hate to change. Most instructors want new material and up to date coverage, but to include it, we must usually cut out something else so as not to exceed our page budget. In the past when I revise a book as I am doing now, I add the hot new interesting material but instructors scream when I take out the older dated material.....even if it is no longer used!! I am not making this up. I have literally had to cut out the newer relevant content for some older materials that the instructors like to teach regardless of its current application or relevance. So in order to keep my publisher happy and to sell some books that instructors want, I have to compromise the book.
Who can we blame? Not me, as I tried to update the material based on real research about what industry wants and what grads need to succeed. Not the publisher because they want to sell books. So put the blame where it belongs, on the instructors who insist on teaching the old stuff and not the new stuff.
In the past I have proposed a book or two that covers what industry wants and needs only to have them rejected by the publishers simply because their reviews by instructors are negative for the reasons given above. Yet, the instructors who have little if any recent industry experience do not truly know what is important, relevant or industry desired. The solution to this is to have publishers include industry representatives in their reviews. I have suggested this many times, but it has never happened.
So, the answer is, I do want to write what industry wants but it is rejected by the publishers and their college faculty reviewers who know less about what is needed. Thus the downward spiral of technological obsolesence in the texts continues.
There is some hope however. This downward trend in enrollments has really hurt publishers who sell far fewer books than before. I believe they recognize that part of the problem is dated courses, books, and curriculum. There is a hint that some publishers are taking a fresh look at content and producing books that are more on target. If one publisher sticks his or her neck out to update texts, and it is successful, the others will follow. That will eventually bring the books more into line with what industry wants and what students really need to know.
Does any one out there have any ideas about how to solve this perpetual problem?
Hope you all have a great Xmas weekend.
"If you agree with this fact, why do your books still contain so much math and formulas? Why don't you WRITE what industry wants, so that we can TEACH what industry wants?"
A frustrated electronics instructor
There are actually a couple of answers to this question. And both are related to the textbook issues I have discussed here before. As an author, I am seriously concerned about what I write in my books. I want it to be what industry wants and needs but also something that the instructors will want to buy and teach. The main problem is there is a difference between the two.
Generally speaking, I do write about what instructors want. And they do seem to want all the theory, math, formulas and related technical stuff. Industry may not necessarily want it or need it, so do not reject it as long as we cover what they do want. When I write a book, guess who gets to review it? About a dozen instructors and potential adoptors of the book. They still seem to prefer the traditional engineering technician version of the material. So they tell the publisher to keep this, add that and do it this way. So the publisher does it.
Publishers are paranoid about their book contents. Their customers are not really the students who actualy pay for the books or the industry who employs the grads but the instructors who choose the books and buy them for their courses. So they give the instructors what they want or like. More often, what the instructors want is the status quo. They are comfortable with what they teach and they hate to change. Most instructors want new material and up to date coverage, but to include it, we must usually cut out something else so as not to exceed our page budget. In the past when I revise a book as I am doing now, I add the hot new interesting material but instructors scream when I take out the older dated material.....even if it is no longer used!! I am not making this up. I have literally had to cut out the newer relevant content for some older materials that the instructors like to teach regardless of its current application or relevance. So in order to keep my publisher happy and to sell some books that instructors want, I have to compromise the book.
Who can we blame? Not me, as I tried to update the material based on real research about what industry wants and what grads need to succeed. Not the publisher because they want to sell books. So put the blame where it belongs, on the instructors who insist on teaching the old stuff and not the new stuff.
In the past I have proposed a book or two that covers what industry wants and needs only to have them rejected by the publishers simply because their reviews by instructors are negative for the reasons given above. Yet, the instructors who have little if any recent industry experience do not truly know what is important, relevant or industry desired. The solution to this is to have publishers include industry representatives in their reviews. I have suggested this many times, but it has never happened.
So, the answer is, I do want to write what industry wants but it is rejected by the publishers and their college faculty reviewers who know less about what is needed. Thus the downward spiral of technological obsolesence in the texts continues.
There is some hope however. This downward trend in enrollments has really hurt publishers who sell far fewer books than before. I believe they recognize that part of the problem is dated courses, books, and curriculum. There is a hint that some publishers are taking a fresh look at content and producing books that are more on target. If one publisher sticks his or her neck out to update texts, and it is successful, the others will follow. That will eventually bring the books more into line with what industry wants and what students really need to know.
Does any one out there have any ideas about how to solve this perpetual problem?
Hope you all have a great Xmas weekend.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Roy is Right
Roy Brixen of San Mateo College in California recently posted some very interesting comments to my recent blogs. Check out his comments to my Gloom and Doom and Things They Don't Teach You in School blog entries.
I certainly have to agree with Roy about the gradual fading away of engineering technician positions in industry. There used to be at least one and maybe as many a 8 engineering techs assigned to an engineer. That need in the 1950's is what originally created the Associate degree in engineering technology. Today, there are very few engineering techs. An engineer is lucky to have one tech today and most have none. While engineering techs have not gone away entirely, they are a pretty rare breed today. Most of them tend to be in organizations where lots of R&D is done where special equipment and one-of-a-kind things are built. Today, the engineer himself or herself, does even the tech work as Roy indicates. Design and simulation software helps do it all in record time.
In my travels and visits around the country as a Technology Editor for Electronic Design magazine, I usually ask companies about what techs they employ and what they do. Mostly the companies I visit have NO techs. Yes, none. I am not making that up. Those that do have techs use them mainly for testing.
Most AAS degree programs in electronics were designed to teach engineering techs. That is why the programs and courses are still heavily vested in math and circuit analysis. These programs are out of sync with what is actually going on. And that may be one of the reasons that programs are in decline. They don't match up with the real needs.
So if there are not that many engineering techs jobs today, what kinds of tech jobs are there? The good news is that there are still lots of tech jobs out there. They just are not engineering tech type jobs. Instead, they are jobs more involved with installation, repair, service, troubleshooting, testing and measuring. And there are still a few good manufacturing jobs out there for techs.
A second point, as Roy pointed out, is that the jobs tend not to be in the electronic industry. They exist in any organization that uses electronic equipment of any kind. Some examples are instrument techs in a process control plant, a field service tech that works on office machines like copiers, an MRI machine maintenance tech, or a two-way radio tech working for city fire and police. Anyway, you get the idea. The fact is, most of these jobs are not called electronic techs. They have other names.
If you are looking to revise and update your programs, read Roy's comments they begin to think how you can adjust course content and curriculum to better meet the real need. And that should lead you to figure out how to name and promote your programs to attract new students.
Good luck with that and don't forget to share your comments with us here.
Thanks, Roy.
I certainly have to agree with Roy about the gradual fading away of engineering technician positions in industry. There used to be at least one and maybe as many a 8 engineering techs assigned to an engineer. That need in the 1950's is what originally created the Associate degree in engineering technology. Today, there are very few engineering techs. An engineer is lucky to have one tech today and most have none. While engineering techs have not gone away entirely, they are a pretty rare breed today. Most of them tend to be in organizations where lots of R&D is done where special equipment and one-of-a-kind things are built. Today, the engineer himself or herself, does even the tech work as Roy indicates. Design and simulation software helps do it all in record time.
In my travels and visits around the country as a Technology Editor for Electronic Design magazine, I usually ask companies about what techs they employ and what they do. Mostly the companies I visit have NO techs. Yes, none. I am not making that up. Those that do have techs use them mainly for testing.
Most AAS degree programs in electronics were designed to teach engineering techs. That is why the programs and courses are still heavily vested in math and circuit analysis. These programs are out of sync with what is actually going on. And that may be one of the reasons that programs are in decline. They don't match up with the real needs.
So if there are not that many engineering techs jobs today, what kinds of tech jobs are there? The good news is that there are still lots of tech jobs out there. They just are not engineering tech type jobs. Instead, they are jobs more involved with installation, repair, service, troubleshooting, testing and measuring. And there are still a few good manufacturing jobs out there for techs.
A second point, as Roy pointed out, is that the jobs tend not to be in the electronic industry. They exist in any organization that uses electronic equipment of any kind. Some examples are instrument techs in a process control plant, a field service tech that works on office machines like copiers, an MRI machine maintenance tech, or a two-way radio tech working for city fire and police. Anyway, you get the idea. The fact is, most of these jobs are not called electronic techs. They have other names.
If you are looking to revise and update your programs, read Roy's comments they begin to think how you can adjust course content and curriculum to better meet the real need. And that should lead you to figure out how to name and promote your programs to attract new students.
Good luck with that and don't forget to share your comments with us here.
Thanks, Roy.
Monday, December 05, 2005
Gloom And Doom
While this block tries to take a positive approach to the declining enrollment problem, you should at least think about the possibility that your department could in the near future be phased out and closed. That has already happened to many schools from coast to coast. While they are in the minority, it is a grim reminder that, paraphrasing the old saying, "there but for the sake of God go I." Let's face it, it could happen to you. If you have been fighting the problem for a while, you should be more than a little concerned. Hard-hearted college administrators have little to lose by closing your department and making themselves look good by investing in some other newer more promising career areas.
I have heard more than a few say that if electronic technology AAS programs are fading away, so be it. There must be a good reason. A season for all things, so to speak. Maybe the need for techs has reached its low point and few if any are needed. At least the kind of techs we have been producing for the past few decades. Maybe the tech is becoming extinct. We should put them on the endangered species list and get some government aid or something. Electronic technology technicians seem to be so much more worthwhile that saving the salamander, the spotted owl, grizzly bear or cave spider.
While that view does have its own logic, I just cannot seem to subscribe to it. What I see is a bunch of academic programs that have not kept up with the times. Faculty burying their heads in the sand refusing to acknowledge the massive technological, social and economic changes going on or especially doing anything about them. Schools keep on doing what they have always done because it is easy and comfortable......not to mention irresponsible. Maybe the price you pay for inattention and inaction is technological obsolescence and eventual oblivion.
Your only hope at this point is to take things into your own hands and put together a plan to save the day, then implement it....FAST. If you have read this blog you already know there are lots of ideas and solutions in here. What you need to do is put together a plan based on what you think will work best in your own case. To take no action is to decide that you will simply ride it down to zero over the next few years. What a nice way to end a career. Wouldn't you rather go down fighting? I urge you to get started on some kind of plan now. No one else is going to do it. Even if you think that taking such an initiative is not your job as a professor, you may not have that job unless you do.
There is a basic rule in the business world that you should follow here. No, it is not that the business should make a profit for its stock holders. That is a priority in business, of course. But not the main priority. The number one priority is.....SURVIVAL. If you don't live to fight another day you have no business. Your goal at this point is to survive the down turn and come out bigger and better than ever. At least give it a try. You will most certainly feel better about yourself if you do lose your job to a closure. And who knows, it could turn things around or give you more time.
Here is a check list of some of the key tactics to implement your strategy.
I have heard more than a few say that if electronic technology AAS programs are fading away, so be it. There must be a good reason. A season for all things, so to speak. Maybe the need for techs has reached its low point and few if any are needed. At least the kind of techs we have been producing for the past few decades. Maybe the tech is becoming extinct. We should put them on the endangered species list and get some government aid or something. Electronic technology technicians seem to be so much more worthwhile that saving the salamander, the spotted owl, grizzly bear or cave spider.
While that view does have its own logic, I just cannot seem to subscribe to it. What I see is a bunch of academic programs that have not kept up with the times. Faculty burying their heads in the sand refusing to acknowledge the massive technological, social and economic changes going on or especially doing anything about them. Schools keep on doing what they have always done because it is easy and comfortable......not to mention irresponsible. Maybe the price you pay for inattention and inaction is technological obsolescence and eventual oblivion.
Your only hope at this point is to take things into your own hands and put together a plan to save the day, then implement it....FAST. If you have read this blog you already know there are lots of ideas and solutions in here. What you need to do is put together a plan based on what you think will work best in your own case. To take no action is to decide that you will simply ride it down to zero over the next few years. What a nice way to end a career. Wouldn't you rather go down fighting? I urge you to get started on some kind of plan now. No one else is going to do it. Even if you think that taking such an initiative is not your job as a professor, you may not have that job unless you do.
There is a basic rule in the business world that you should follow here. No, it is not that the business should make a profit for its stock holders. That is a priority in business, of course. But not the main priority. The number one priority is.....SURVIVAL. If you don't live to fight another day you have no business. Your goal at this point is to survive the down turn and come out bigger and better than ever. At least give it a try. You will most certainly feel better about yourself if you do lose your job to a closure. And who knows, it could turn things around or give you more time.
Here is a check list of some of the key tactics to implement your strategy.
- Change the name of the department to something more attractive and meaningful.
- Shift focus to some more promising and exciting field.
- Closely examine the local industry and job prospects and identify some new opportunities.
- Call your industry advisiory board together for an emergency session. Get some answers.
- Revise and up date the courses and curriculum.
- Get out and recruit in high schools and elsewhere.
- Advertise and use PR.
- Up date yourself technically by self study or with financial help from your department if available. Learn something new.
- Do something drastic and innovative. What have you got to lose?
As a back up plan, consider your options should your department close. If you are old enough, retirement is the best bet, but that is not a happy way to go. You may not have any other good choices. Maybe you can join another department assuming you have the credentials. How about computer technology or math? If you are young enough, you can always go back to industry. It is tough being away even for a few years because of the rapid and significant changes that occur continuously. Nevertheless, get back into industry if you can.
Another option is teaching at one of the local proprietary schools with AAS degrees. They are doing better than the public community colleges for sure. Schools, like ITT, Corinthian Colleges, DeVry and a few others would no doubt welcome you. I suspect that like most academics you are pretty uppity and arrogant so think that proprietary schools are beneath you. But, what do you really know about them? They are doing better than you are. And they are better than you think. Don't knock them until you have tried them. I have and can tell you will be surprised.
If you have the appropriate academic credentials, consider going to one of the 4-year bachelor of technology degree granting universities. These are still doing well, at least better than community colleges. If you love teaching and academia, this is a great option.
Anyway, the main message is do something, NOW. And let us all know via this blog how it works.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Things They Don't Teach You In School
As a writer/editor for one of the largest electronics magazines in the world, I get to see what is going on in the industry first hand. I go to the conferences, travel around and visit companies, and interview the exceutives and engineers. I get to see the new products, technologies, and techniques first hand. Then I get to write about it. It is fun.
What always amazes me is how fast things change in this industry. New products are introducted daily.....yes....read my lips....daily. And these new products get adopted rapidly mainly because if an electronic manufacturer wants to stay competitive, he must adopt the latest and best as fast as possible. Those companies with the shortest time to market, make to most profit. That makes the life cycle of an electronic product very short these days. For example, new cell phones are only good for 6 months to a year before new better ones are available. It is like that with almost every electronic product. The industry moves fast.
But what I do not see is our community college technology curriculum changing that fast. In fact I get the impression that it does not change at all. Just look at the textbooks and the course content taught today. OK, I admit that much of what is taught is fundamentals that do not change. I am OK with that, but at least the colleges could introduce some of the newer subjects and teach the fundamentals in the context of the latest technologies. Do community college professors even know what the latest technologies are? I recently asked all of the faculty at the college where I am an adjunct (7 professors) whether they read the electronic trade magazines. There must be a couple dozen of them, and all of them free. The answer: None of them read any of these magazines. Magazines are the first line of continuing education in electronics. If you don't read them, how can you legitimately say you are the electronic expert hired to teach our future techs? Amazing.
Anyway, when I left teaching full time in 2000 to go back to industry, it didn't take long to see the huge gap between what is going on in industry where the jobs are and what is being taught. Frankly I was appalled. It was worse than I ever imagined. Here is a list of the topics that jumped right out at me. These are common every day technologies in use in industry, many not even new, that somehow are forgotten in community college electronics courses.
1. Switching power supplies. Over 80% of all power supplies in use today are switchers. In fact, some industry statistics say over 90%. Switch mode power supplies include DC-DC converters, switching regulators, inverters, and others. Linear supplies and regulators are still used of course but are in the minority now. Yet that is what is taught. A few of the newer texts do include a paragraph or two on switching regulators but that is it. Talking with professors, I hear that most do not teach this subject. When every piece of electronic equipment has a power supply in it, it seems almost criminal not to teach this subject.
2. Class D amplifers. These are switching amplifiers used for audio amplificaiton. They are used widely today but it is another subject not taught. With so many battery operated portable and mobile devices today, the class D amp is the only way to go to get the efficiency as well as the power. I have only seen this covered in one text. Why?
3. Phase locked loops (PLL). PLLs are not new. And in fact, you can find them in just about every piece of electronic equipment. Just try to name a piece of electronic equipment that does not use one. (OK, a guitar amp. But what else?) This is a core circuit that is virtually ignored in most curriculum. Again, how could this be?
4. Digital signal processing (DSP). Like PLLs, DSPs are in everything today. It is hard to identify some modern electronic product that does not include it. I know this is a tough subject to teach because of the higher level math and programming needed for this subject, but it is possible to teach the concepts. It seems scary to me that we are graduating techs with little or no knowledge of DSP.
5. MOSFETs. Yes, I know, MOSFETs are taught in most schools. But out of proportion to their usage. MOSFETs account for well over 90% of all transistors sold and used today. Most are in ICs, but they also dominate in discrete applications such as power amplifiers and switches. Yet, the textbooks and courses still emphasize bipolars. Sure bipolars are still around but they account for less than 10% of the total. Shouldn't MOSFETs be taught first and then MOSFET circuits? Don't professors know of this shift in usage? Not really. It did occur gradually so escaped the notice of the instructors. If the professors were reading the literature, they would know this an adjust accodingly. I guess because the textbooks keep emphasizing bipolars the teachers will still focus on them while disregarding what is actually happening in the real world.
6. Programmable logic devices (PLDs). Today, most digital applications are implemented with either an embedded controller or a PLD. What do the colleges teach, TTL. Hey, look at the texts. TTL and CMOS discrete logic is the main topic. I do admit that the textbooks have almost caught up here, but that is not the emphasis in the classroom or lab. Students graduating without knowledge of PLAs, PALs, GALs, FPGA, and ASICs are doomed to look like idiots the first day on the job.
I believe that if you are not teaching these subjects, your program is way out of date. Your graduates are going out into industry with a good knowledge of the past but not of current technologies that he or she is sure to encounter. Doesn't that bother you? It does me.
A couple of years ago the NSF funded a project to create modules on these and other critical topics not taught in colleges. That project is nearing its end now but there are a dozen or so online modules on these topics and others. You can use them for continuing education yourself, assign them to your students as homework, or use them in class as lectures. And they are free. They are a great way to update yourself and your courses with minimum time and cost. Go to www.work-readyelectronics.org. It is time to bring community college curriculum kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
What always amazes me is how fast things change in this industry. New products are introducted daily.....yes....read my lips....daily. And these new products get adopted rapidly mainly because if an electronic manufacturer wants to stay competitive, he must adopt the latest and best as fast as possible. Those companies with the shortest time to market, make to most profit. That makes the life cycle of an electronic product very short these days. For example, new cell phones are only good for 6 months to a year before new better ones are available. It is like that with almost every electronic product. The industry moves fast.
But what I do not see is our community college technology curriculum changing that fast. In fact I get the impression that it does not change at all. Just look at the textbooks and the course content taught today. OK, I admit that much of what is taught is fundamentals that do not change. I am OK with that, but at least the colleges could introduce some of the newer subjects and teach the fundamentals in the context of the latest technologies. Do community college professors even know what the latest technologies are? I recently asked all of the faculty at the college where I am an adjunct (7 professors) whether they read the electronic trade magazines. There must be a couple dozen of them, and all of them free. The answer: None of them read any of these magazines. Magazines are the first line of continuing education in electronics. If you don't read them, how can you legitimately say you are the electronic expert hired to teach our future techs? Amazing.
Anyway, when I left teaching full time in 2000 to go back to industry, it didn't take long to see the huge gap between what is going on in industry where the jobs are and what is being taught. Frankly I was appalled. It was worse than I ever imagined. Here is a list of the topics that jumped right out at me. These are common every day technologies in use in industry, many not even new, that somehow are forgotten in community college electronics courses.
1. Switching power supplies. Over 80% of all power supplies in use today are switchers. In fact, some industry statistics say over 90%. Switch mode power supplies include DC-DC converters, switching regulators, inverters, and others. Linear supplies and regulators are still used of course but are in the minority now. Yet that is what is taught. A few of the newer texts do include a paragraph or two on switching regulators but that is it. Talking with professors, I hear that most do not teach this subject. When every piece of electronic equipment has a power supply in it, it seems almost criminal not to teach this subject.
2. Class D amplifers. These are switching amplifiers used for audio amplificaiton. They are used widely today but it is another subject not taught. With so many battery operated portable and mobile devices today, the class D amp is the only way to go to get the efficiency as well as the power. I have only seen this covered in one text. Why?
3. Phase locked loops (PLL). PLLs are not new. And in fact, you can find them in just about every piece of electronic equipment. Just try to name a piece of electronic equipment that does not use one. (OK, a guitar amp. But what else?) This is a core circuit that is virtually ignored in most curriculum. Again, how could this be?
4. Digital signal processing (DSP). Like PLLs, DSPs are in everything today. It is hard to identify some modern electronic product that does not include it. I know this is a tough subject to teach because of the higher level math and programming needed for this subject, but it is possible to teach the concepts. It seems scary to me that we are graduating techs with little or no knowledge of DSP.
5. MOSFETs. Yes, I know, MOSFETs are taught in most schools. But out of proportion to their usage. MOSFETs account for well over 90% of all transistors sold and used today. Most are in ICs, but they also dominate in discrete applications such as power amplifiers and switches. Yet, the textbooks and courses still emphasize bipolars. Sure bipolars are still around but they account for less than 10% of the total. Shouldn't MOSFETs be taught first and then MOSFET circuits? Don't professors know of this shift in usage? Not really. It did occur gradually so escaped the notice of the instructors. If the professors were reading the literature, they would know this an adjust accodingly. I guess because the textbooks keep emphasizing bipolars the teachers will still focus on them while disregarding what is actually happening in the real world.
6. Programmable logic devices (PLDs). Today, most digital applications are implemented with either an embedded controller or a PLD. What do the colleges teach, TTL. Hey, look at the texts. TTL and CMOS discrete logic is the main topic. I do admit that the textbooks have almost caught up here, but that is not the emphasis in the classroom or lab. Students graduating without knowledge of PLAs, PALs, GALs, FPGA, and ASICs are doomed to look like idiots the first day on the job.
I believe that if you are not teaching these subjects, your program is way out of date. Your graduates are going out into industry with a good knowledge of the past but not of current technologies that he or she is sure to encounter. Doesn't that bother you? It does me.
A couple of years ago the NSF funded a project to create modules on these and other critical topics not taught in colleges. That project is nearing its end now but there are a dozen or so online modules on these topics and others. You can use them for continuing education yourself, assign them to your students as homework, or use them in class as lectures. And they are free. They are a great way to update yourself and your courses with minimum time and cost. Go to www.work-readyelectronics.org. It is time to bring community college curriculum kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)