Education Improvements? 9

[MechEng2005]

I started this thread because there have been a number of threads recently that have touched on the level of knowledge and abilities of new graduates. What would you suggest for improving the quality of new graduates so they are able to hit the ground running and succeed?

Some ideas:

- Hire professors based on their experience doing what (most) of the students will be doing after graduation (as opposed to hiring PhDs or government researchers with little experience in typical industry)

- Mandatory internship. What would be a good length? How would you verify that each student receieved the same level of experience/training during the internship? Would you have the internship graded, or pass/fail?

- More design problems. When I was a student, most problems were given as the loading on a beam is such-and-such. What section modulus is required if the yield strength is 50ksi? Students were not even required to specify the beam, just find a minimum section modulus. I am thinking something more like a senior design project where a goal is given and there are many possible ways to accomplish it. Hopefully the design could be built and tested as well, but at the very least it should be checked for all thing requirements of an actual engineering design (i.e. how easy it is to build, cost, etc).

- Tours and visits of engineering offices and/or industries. For example, I work in machine design and had seen hardly any factories or industrial plants where the machines we create are used when I graduated.

- Separating different majors in "general" classes. For example, have different calculus classes for engineering and physics majors.


I look forward to the discussion and appreciate any thoughts!
-- MechEng2005

 

[csd72]

An interesting article:

http://www.asranet.com/Resources/Introduction.doc

 

[desertfox]

If we drop teaching the higher mathmatics then how do we expect New engineering graduates to do hand calc's to verify approximately that the computor is giving the right answer.

regards

desertfox

 

[moltenmetal]

electricpete: don't misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting that engineers be educated like technicians and technologists, with less emphasis on the theoretical. You've got to learn the fundamentals to BE an engineer, period. The practical is a life-long learning thing. Codes and standards change, etc.

Rather, I'm advocating the ditching of some of the analytical mathematics along the way, to make room for more of the practical. This, along with co-op terms and an internship, will generate better engineers. For example, I'd rather see chem engs lose analytical integration of partial differential equations rather than something like heat transfer, which is currently one of the courses they ditch when they take the environmental engineering specialty. I realize this is a discipline-specific thing: some disciplines are more analytical math-intensive than others.

 

[csd72]

desertfox,

The mathematics are meaningless without the basic engineering knowledge to be able to apply it.. So why are they teaching the mathematics and not the engineering.

That was my point above.

 

[cksh]

As an engineer in my current field (or any others I have been in for that matter) to do my job I could get by without knowing any math above Algebra. Even though all of the formulas I used are derived from higher level math, the formulas are plug and chug.

I guess the difference is that someone without the higher level math might not understand why they get the answers they do. Is this a bad thing? It can be but it also depends on your field. I have had jobs that as long as we were below 25 ksi and using a certain material we were golden. Do I need dif eq. for that. No, but it does help me to understand on a different level. When someone asks me why we can't do this or that I have an answer for them.

I was slightly dissapointed in my school. They pride themselves on having teachers that are from Industry. This can be a very bad thing for math classes.

Who would you rather have teaching you calculus: Someone who is an engineer in his chosen field or someone who has been teaching it for 30 years? I would think the engineer as it would be more practical to what I would need in my career, but unfortunately they have to teach what the school wants them to teach (which in my shools case was based on accreditation). A good portion of my teachers could not do the math they wanted us to learn. Needless to say I had to spend even more time studying because that was never an excuse not to learn it luckily some of my core engineering classes did have instructors from industry and I learned a lot.

I was also already in my field as I was going to school which helps. I got associate degrees (similar to what ITT would get you)out of high school which got me into engineering. After 4 years in an engineering department I went back to school. Took me 6 years of night classes but it did make alot of my classes easier to understand. By the time my core engineering classes came around I could apply them at work.

 

[KENAT]

theonlynamenottaken back in the UK (at least when I was in school) we quit worrying about being well rounded at 16. The last 2 years of highschool you only studied 3-4 subjects, typically slanted to what you wanted to study at university.

The Bachelors itself was then only 3 years, however all of it was engineering related. No history or arts etc. - the closest we got was our combined accounting/law/management module.

However, there were still people in the UK that didnt' think new grads were up to it etc.

So while I have some sympathy for dropping some of the non engineering stuff from a bachelors, especially given how expensive college in the States can be, it's not a magic bullet.

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

 

[Twoballcane]

Hmmm I don't think teaching the math and engineering theory in the same class would make any sense. These are two different subjects that the student has to learn and absorber. In essence, you should know the math before you go into the engineering class. So once they start deriving the equations (and it may be on the test) the student would understand the process.

I had made an effort in the past many years to apply what I have learned in school to my designs especially the math up to calculus and found that you can get a deeper understanding of your design. That is the difference between an ITT grad and a college grad.

Just because one choose not to practice what one has learned in school and apply it to one's design does not mean the subject is useless in practice.


Tobalcane
"If you avoid failure, you also avoid success."

 

[GregLocock]

In an average 3 month period at work I will be analysing fourier transforms, solving ODEs, and crunching many matrices. The last is a canned routine, and one that I wasted many hours on, manually, at uni. Matrix manipulation really is plug and chug, once you've done a 3x3 is there really any more to be gained from calculating larger matrices by hand?

I'd have liked to see more on approximation methods, or numerical integraton ,and such like, rather than classic calculus, although to be fair we apparently did far more calculus at high school than USAns do at uni these days.







Cheers

Greg Locock

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

 

[desertfox]

Hi csd72

I agree with your earlier statement that both should be taught but seperately.
When I was at college I was told that maths was seperate, so that when I went to the mechanic's classes the teacher could concentrate on mechanic's and not have to get into mathmatical manipulations.
Engineering is based on mathmatics therefore without them and the mechanical theory there is no point.
I don't understand why an educational establishment would choose to teach one or other on there own, what I can tell you is that quite recently I have come across several honour degree gradutes that couldn't work out the mass of a cylinder, let alone a beam in bending.

regards

desertfox

 

[Ataloss]

I think one class that every single engineering program should teach is "practical problem solving". An Engineer's whole job is about solving problems, and many Engineers' first exposure to actually solving a problem is when they get their first jobs. If they have a good boss/mentor, or they are good at looking around and picking up on how others approach a problem, they become good at it themselves, otherwise they languish and take much longer to complete a project than they should.

A lot of Design Project classes, or Final Year Projects kind of hit on this, but a lot of them don't. A separate class where each week a different problem is presented and the class comes up with a logical plan to attack the problem would be great.

Being able to solve a calculation by hand is important, but figuring out that you need to do that calculation and how to get the info you need to perform that calculation is important too. The most effective engineers I work with are the ones with the best problem solving skills, and Engineering schools should do more to help their students graduate with this skill.

Bob

 

[josephv]

Very good point, Bob

FYI some universities are starting to do something similiar by creating a general first year course on the design process and problem solving. Here is a link from University of Toronto:

http://www.mineralengineering.utoronto.ca/current/curriculum/Year_I.htm

APS111F - Engineering Strategies and Practice I
This course introduces and provides a framework for the design process, problem solving and project management. Students are introduced to communication as an integral component of engineering practice. The course is a vehicle for understanding problem solving and developing communications skills. This first course in the two Engineering Strategies and Practice course sequence introduces students to the process of engineering design, to reverse engineering as a design methodology, and to design for human factors, society and the environment. Students will write a technical report and an essay and give presentations within a discussion group.

 

[jeebusmn]

I haven't been out of school that long but here is my take. The harder math should be required. If you have ever taken calculus, you'll probably never forget how to do basic algebra. I have seen some strange algebra clangers by people who have never taken calc but almost never by anyone that has taken calc.

If I were to change the curriculm, I would mandate co-op's for a 1-2 years (hopefully, in the area of specialization) after the sophmore year to give a better idea of what a given field is like. My exposure to power engineering in school was boring and dull and did not give me at all a picture of what it was like in the real world.

 

[gwynn]

I think one class that every single engineering program should teach is "practical problem solving". An Engineer's whole job is about solving problems, and many Engineers' first exposure to actually solving a problem is when they get their first jobs. If they have a good boss/mentor, or they are good at looking around and picking up on how others approach a problem, they become good at it themselves, otherwise they languish and take much longer to complete a project than they should.

We did have this course, for which I am thankful. One of our fourth year optional courses (I forget the name of it) consisted entirely of design problems. In groups the class had to work through things like launching a bridge truss, designing cable stay systems and working out how to build cast in place piers in a navigable channel. Yes, the instructor was a former bridge designer. We did have other non-bridge related projects, but most of my work is with bridges now so those are the one I remember.

 

[Amphoteric]

Here are some techniques I've seen schools adopting, and other ideas that are worth chewing on:

-We want courses on design taught by experienced engineers but are worried about finding the instructors. Have a few multi-discipline "Design Courses" taught by generalists from industry; people who have worked their way into managing multi-disciplinary projects. In this way, you can have two or three engineers taking a break from work for 3 years, servicing all of your students in all of your disciplines. This also gets the multi-disciplinary teamwork ball rolling

-Design courses can be set to take design projects from industry. This way, industry can get a cheap source of labour/ideas/potential hires. The industry pays the school, earning schools money. The students get a real job experience, real item on their resume, and hopefully mentoring from the client's real engineers

-Some courses add design projects as adjuncts to or replacements for exams. This gets things a little practical. The danger is that every professor wants to put their design project at the end of the year, so you end up with such a mad scramble that exams become a relaxing break

-The problem with any team design project is the inherent unfairness of team projects

-Public speaking, technical writing, economics, and MS Office skills need more attention. They are *REAL* priorities, and something you can guarantee almost every grad will use.

-Given the importance of computers in design, I think everyone should do a tiny bit of programming. I see a lot of engineers writing sloppy calculations by hand or Excel. A little attention to good documentation, calculation structure, and commentary would help a lot. Also, it would help people understand programs specific to their discipline, why iterating programs don't converge to the same result, etc. But only one simple course of this should be required for most disciplines.

-Internships or summer co-ops are a great idea, but I worry about adding too many. Some people have to go home for the summer to help the family business

-Engineering extra-curricular design teams are a good way for people who want it to reach for practical knowledge. But this requires money, space, and enthusiasm from the schools

-People should be allowed to expand their degree by an extra year to get more courses in a non-engineering speciality if they want. People should be given the academic freedom to pursue other interests

-Professors and grad school teaching assistants who are horrible teachers or have poor communication skills are a real problem, but I don't see an easy way for schools to avoid it since they need excellence in the research side. All they can do is tie more pay/prestige to good marks in student surveys

-If companies are failing to properly train their new hires, maybe in addition to engineering mentorship programs, professional engineering bodies should start offering subsidized industry-specific mini courses that will help new workers. Or, offer industry extremely cheap courses and newsletters on mentoring new hires. However, this would cost money, and that brings up questions of fairness

-Another idea might be to create some kind of "ISO"-equivalent to mentoring new hires: a voluntary process that companies could buy into to increase their attractiveness to graduates

 

[GregLocock]

"
-Internships or summer co-ops are a great idea, but I worry about adding too many. Some people have to go home for the summer to help the family business

"

Nope, driving tractors over the summer is not going to do much for an engineer's technical education. My uni insisted that EVERY first year engineer did a 3 month workshop practice/drafting industry placement, so at least in the 2nd year they could assume that every student had some practical knowledge of the workplace.

Cheers

Greg Locock

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

 

[davidbeach]

If the student has to go home over the summer to support the family business, the student won't be able to take a full time job on completion of the studies, so there is no point even beginning the studies. The apron strings need to be cut at the start of university studies.

 

[csd72]

I can't help but think that maybe we are expecting too much from universities simply to make up for the industries shortcomings.

It is not the fault of universities that the industry is not mentoring or training their graduates. My wife does a far far less technical job than mine but receives much much more training each year than I ever have.

The industry complains that engineering graduates don't have enough knowledge of engineering fundamentals but then also ask for them to be well rounded. These are two opposing goals and cannot both be completely met at the same time.

I strongly believe that engineering courses should prepare you to be a good engineering graduate rather than an engineering manager, the latter should come with experience. By the time you get to management level you would have forgotten what you learnt at uni anyhow.

 

[spongebob007]

"-Public speaking, technical writing, economics, and MS Office skills need more attention. They are *REAL* priorities, and something you can guarantee almost every grad will use."

"-Given the importance of computers in design, I think everyone should do a tiny bit of programming."

Huh?????

Amphoteric, where/when did you go to college? With the exception of MS Office skills (which I learned as a co-op) all of these things were part of my undergraduate engineering curriculum.

I had numerous projects in school, both on an individual and team basis where I was required to stand up and present it in front of my class. I also learned in class how to write a technical paper. I also was required to take two semesters of economics: macro nad micro. Isn't that enough? One semester of a programming language was also required of all engineering students. Furthermore, I remember at least two of my upper level engineering classes had projects that required students to write a program.

 

[jimgineer]

There is no substitute for real world work experience.

There is also no substitute for a mastery of the basic fundamentals. In engineering, to have the breadth and depth needed, you have to go through an incredibly hardcore program with great intensity.

My thoughts are that school is around to drive home the theory and basics, and industry is for the real world experience. If you are like me and you come out of school with little real world experience, then you get punished by being less marketable and getting paid less when you first start.

It's not the school's responsibility to provide the real world experience and I would never advocate that they do. I made less when I started but I'd bet I will make more when I finish. I've worked with those who came from more of a trades school environment, and while more productive on day one, those grads lack the depth of knowledge to give them a great deal of leeway in their careers.