Average age????? 4

[40818]

Rather a strange one, but a few weeks ago i started a thread about basic engineering loss. But it has just came to me the thought that any trend might be governed by how old we are. Maybe we are more likely to want newbies to learn the "proper" techniques that we were taught rather than just FEM if were slightly older?? I dont know.

I'm 33 and think new people dont know the basics.

Please feel free to give ages and opinions

 

[desertfox]

Hi 40818

Well I am a good deal older then you, but I agree that I think youngsters don't really understand the basics of engineering, my experience with them leads me to believe
they rely solely on the computor not just for stress analysis but drawing too.
Quite recently one of them said "I haven't much knowledge of 2D cad I'm from a 3D background".
Maybe I am wrong but I thought you needed to understand 2D
before you did 3D.
Dimensioning is another area, it seems they just put dimensions on without considering how the parts go together
and finally if you ask them to do tolerance stacks they say
"whats that" or attempt to hang themselves in the corridor if it gets to difficult.
The problem stems partly from scrapping the old apprentice
scheme, well thats what I believe anyway, it seems that most of the youngsters spend all there time learning the academic stuff without getting sufficient practical engineering.
Don't get me wrong there's nothing wrong with academic side as thats needed as much as the practical I just feel there needs to be a better balance in the youngsters education.

regards

desertfox

 

[Anemoi]

I think your both right in the sense that new engineering degrees don't often focus on practical real world issues such as manufacture; machining tolerances of parts.

From my own experience this relates to universities trying to reduce costs and limit liability from OH&S (Occupation, Health and Safety).

As a student currently studying Aerospace Engineering, I have had many lectures fight to continue to use lab equipment from the 60-70's, with non-engineering heads of the university saying "can't we just video tape it?" I have yet to machine anything.

I wish sometimes that I could have done my course 10-15 years ago and came out with some of the skills that other graduates in engineering have from this period.

But it is also fair to say that engineering tools have moved on. I did learn design, how to read and draw in 2D and 3D views. But most of time was spent learning how to make 3D CAD models on the computer. FEM tools are gaining popularity. The software is expensive, but hardware costs are diving; increasing its use.

Times change, we cannot expect every generation to be the same. Hopefully the industry will see the quality of my generation and take that time to help foster us, teach us some of the skills we might miss and utilize that skills have in abundance.

 

[GregLocock]

But that is the silly part. It takes industry only weeks to train someone in CAD, and the intro to FEA probably takes less than that. What we can't, easily, do is what universities used to do - teach visualisiation and stress analysis by hand.

So universities have short circuited their own function.

Unless they can deliver graduates who can understand the basics then they screwed up.




Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[reidh]

Desertfox,

I agree with just about everything you stated in your post except " I thought you needed to understand 2D before you did 3D"

I think it is quite the opposite. Since the world is 3D, it is relatively simple to model in 3D. I believe that in order to know 2D, you must know 3D first, but 2D drawing is not a requisite for 3D modeling.

You were spot on with your tolerance remarks.

-Reidh

 

[KENAT]

I went to uni in the 90s. We did minimal 2D CAD and no FEA.

The degree was almost all about proving formulas to then analyise things, be it stress, aerodynamics...

There was little teaching you how to design. There was one short (2-3 sessions) machining course which I didn't have to take because I'd done Design Technology (essentially shop with some Math & Physics) at school.

In fact there was relatively little practical analysis come to think of it.

desertfox, Due to the snobbery in many areas between 'Engineers' with degrees and Designers/Drafters/Technicians with apprenticeships etc many wouldn't consider some of the things you list as 'Engineering' tasks. I was taught/learnt the things you list on the job, not at school.

 

[monkeydog]

KENAT,
I thought what desertfox stated was on the mark.
He did preface with the fact that there is no mentoring going on. If there is no apprenticeship then it is up to the educational system to fill in the blanks. I just took his point of view of an engineer that has been working the hardware end of things. How can you design a product if you can't look at a blueprint in a machine shop and understand what it says, or tolerance the part to be fabricated?

 

[KENAT]

I wasn't disagreeing with him. I think most of the snobbery, or whatever it is, is ridiculous. Having a basic understanding of drawings (& MBD), manufacturing methods, tolerancing etc should probably be a requirement of a degree, but it doesn't seem to be.

In fact the more I read it the more I agree with what Desertfox says, I even have some sympathy for what he says about 2D & 3D that reidh didn't like.

 

[GregLocock]

My degree (1980) we did six weeks drawing castings and so on in a summer school. I really enjoyed that. We also did more general design classes (eg design a toy that will fall over and right itself). I didn't like that. We did huge amounts of stress analsysis by hand. I accepted that. We had one course of FEA theory. I skipped that.

I can accept that if you don't start with a drawing board it is easier to design in 3d, and then work back to 2d. That is how my brain works anyway, because I machine things in my head. On the other hand analysis of 3d is very difficult by hand, so one's ability to abstract a 2d representation from a 3d system is invaluable.



Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[rigarc00]

I'm relatively new to the industry (6 months)and can simpatize with all the new hires who don't have proper mentoring. The jump from university to the real world is harder than any test i ever took in school. I stay longer hours and ask plenty of questions trying to extract as much experience knowledge from my coworkers to fill-in holes education didn't cover.

I work in a very high pace design team and my ability to work in 3D software has facilitated design not only for me but for the whole team which does not work from a single location. The actual air vehicle is in CA and most of the teams is on the East Coast (polical reasons). Several times i have been asked from other sub-systems to validate installations using my 3D working model i keep updated. From an analysis point most designs i've been assigned have large margins of safety and are subtantiated with classical methods (Niu and Bruhn). No FEA yet here.

My questions for the experienced folks is what was expected of new hires in the old days and what was done to facilitate the transition? What is different in today's education? Is this the first generation experiencing this lack of fundamental knowledge or has this being a topic of discussion for years between generations of engineers? (I can only speak for myself but i find it hard to believe that all these new engineers were able to graduate without basic knowledge). Is this complaining by the older engineers reflective of their unwillinginess to teach?

I think the problem is three fold. We have students who think they are owed a job after graduating and don't dedicate 100%, just getting by is good enough for them. Then, we have the experienced engineers who think society owes them a decent job because of their track record and don't see why they should spend the extra effort passing their knowledge on to the new crop, in their minds universities should take care of all the teaching. Lastly, we have universities who put their academic prestigue above the interest of their student, encouraging them to participate in endless "physics projects" (UAV's mostly) which would never pass any type of airworthiness certification and are not reflective of real world design.

I of course generalize. Beginning to ramble so i'll stop here....

 

[GregLocock]

Last thing first, don't knock design and build projects even if they are a bit silly. I wish I'd done a complex, multidiscipline, one at uni.

So, add up all the time you spent at uni on the tube. How many hours was that? Now imagine spending all that time learning/doing manual analysis and labs. /that/ is the tradeoff that's been made, albeit in compensation you didn't have to learn manual drawing, so that's probably 200 hours or so in your favour.






Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[MechanicalChef]

Engineers coming out of school are expected to be stupid. You may be brilliant now, but when you were handed your diploma, you weren't. However, all engineers are expected to learn quickly, and with guidance, be able to rollback to the basic *fundamentals* which are still being taught and apply them. That's where you guys come in.

When I learned to drive, I knew "the basics." By virtue of that alone didn't make me a good driver by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[ewh]

My understanding of what Desertfox pointed out regarding 2D vs 3D is that if you have to start out with 2D, you are forced to conceptualize in 3D. When your mind develops this ability, 3D modeling becomes 2nd nature.

 

[wes616]

It is possible to sketch a quality 2D three view on the back of a scratch sheet of paper on the shop floor. Not so with a 3d model (unless you are a really good artist).

Anyway, the comments about the education system should not be limited to colleges. I took my first drafting class in 8th grade industrial tech class, and continued with 4 years of it in high school. Probablly unheard of now. Not "college track".

Wes C.
------------------------------
No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

 

[structures282]

40818: I just read this post and thought I might throw out my two cents. I am 25 and I have been working as a structures repair engineer for an operator for two years. A little background about myself: I worked full time through college, 4 years I worked under a Tool Designer (Mech Engr) and recieved loads of valuable knowledge just about basic Engineering principles (fits, tolerances, materials, surface finishes, specs, etc etc). The stuff they don't teach in college. My last year (I was a super senior) I worked in the rapid prototyping industry, which although not a lot (if any) of Engr involved, still gave me exposure to working with Engineers for devloping models and low-production runs. With that all said, I think a massive problem with the education system today is the lack of real world training in college, and Senior Design doesn't count. Look at a doctor, he has to do his/her residency before becoming a doctor. An Engineer though, some are just dumped into a position and expected to know what to do. I'm not whining about being dumped into a position, but I seriously believe internships and co-ops should be taken advantage of during college, if not required! Am I off base here?

 

[IRstuff]

There's really nothing "new" in the that perception.

I've worked in aerospace for 30 yrs, and the very FIRST year I worked, my boss was lamenting that these "young" engineers, read "my generation," weren't capable of doing the hand calculations to verify that their MSINC (predecessor to SPICE) analyses were valid.

I'm sure that the old blacksmiths were lamenting that the new generation of ironworkers that had never operated a foundry by hand and only knew about coke-fired furnaces.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[MechanicalChef]

I would have zero problem with universities requiring their grads to have a co-op/internship, assuming there was a way to guarantee a student was able to get one. At my alma-mater of MTU, the demand for jobs FAR outstripped the availability of said jobs. So many people, myself included, simply couldn't find gainful employment.

 

[COSTASTSAPROUNIS]

I agree with the initiator pf the discusion.
My job is doing stress analysis with FEA.
But behind every project is the stress analysis made by hand.
The classical mechanics approach goves you the ability to design correct and finally go to FEA for estimating the stresses in some difficult regions.
The engineering has three tools in his hand
1. Hand made calculations
2. Numerical methods
3. Testing
The correct design comes out from teh combination of these methods.
But the start for the design is alway our pencil.


Dr. Costas J. Tsaprounis

 

[WKTaylor]

40818... and all...

I am 54-yrs-young... and 28-yrs+ as a "self-supporting" aero engr [apr 79]. My "bio" as more info... for anyone curious enough to care..

The first true aero engineer I met was John Thorp. Brilliant; practical; hands-on; licensed professional engineer; experienced in aero-structural-mechanical-materials-electrical design and analysis; good draftsman; OK pilot; street drag-racer in his spare-time; all-around-auto-and-acft-mechanic; and capable buisnessman. What a guy: put a sheet of white paper in front of him, with a tasking order to design an aircraft, an acft Mod, or a telescoping crane, and he could do it under-budget and on-time... and it will be quite satisfactory. And THEN he would assist in the prototype fabrication, development and all aspecst of testing (ground and flight). In response to hard technical questions, JT could quickly run some "round-numbers" in his head and on a napkin; for an approximate answer... then, if needed, hit the slide-rule and calculator to firm-up a workable answer in a few days. I witnessed him do this several times for my Dad when he was modifying his homebuilt T-18 wings and fuel system for long-range flights (IE: integral wing-tanks)... in the early 1970's. He was the consumate "all-skills-engineer" of the 1940s-to-1980s. I have tended to model my careeer on his amazing example (too bad earning a living $$ has taken prescedence over being an independent engineer).

and then...

I've worked with some incredibly bright engineers [PHD, aerodynamics and FEA types] that had "0" [zero] practical sense of structures and mechanical "things", aging acft, flight operations, etc. What a nightmare... authority with NO practical value or experience. These folks couldn't chew bubble-gum and walk as straight-line... and had little credibility as an engineer (analysts are NOT engineers... unless they also walk-the-walk).

and...

I have worked with GI and civilian mechanics/technicians that span the spectrum from brand-new to old-gray-beards. The guys who wanted to do their work correctly and efficently, became masters at the trade... constantly learning and experiencing their craft... AND soaked-up experiences in other skill-fields. These guys and gals taught me hands-on skills in various fields/disciplines.. and critical, common-sense and out-of-the-box thinking processes. Many of the techs-mechs that appeared to be duds ("slow/lazy")... often became motivated when confronted with the broad/deep aspects of their career and mystical questions everyone askes themseles... such as "why-we-do-this, this-way" or "what are the implications of this", "is there a "best-way", etc... were addressed with hard facts... not smoke-and-mirror answers.

What I am saying, is that engineers (techs-mechs, etc) who attain and use a variety of knowledge, experience, hands-on skills, mechanical and technical "tools"... and are not put-off by hard-work and difficult choices [decision making] in the heat-of-action... are able to effectively solve complex-multi-faceted problems.

On the other-hand engineers with limited abilitys and skill-sets often approach complex problems with "no-clue" and fail by degrees. There is an old wise saying that expresses this thought: If the only tool You have is a hammer, then everying looks like a nail...

For insight into why some things work so well... and other things fail (in degrees), I suggest (2) small/obscure books for Your intellectual pleasure:

"Augustine's Laws" by Norman R. Augustine

"Systemantics: How Systems Work and Especially How They Fail" by John gall

After reading these You will be more concious of the reasons for broad skills, honest/critical thinking/criticism and "war-gaming" to look for pitfalls and quagmires in the work ahead.

Regards, Wil Taylor

 

[KENAT]

wktaylor

Your type of thought would be welcome on thread731-194524

Star for you!

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...