Should engineering faculty be licensed? 13

[lacajun]

Opinion Piece on licensing of faculty

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC

 

[SNORGY]

lacajun,

My last point was intended to mean that:

In my opinion, if a professor with a PhD also had a "real life, practical" background, and if he or she was teaching an undergraduate course in engineering, there might be a propensity for him or her to, for example, skip some of the theoretical background (let's assume a vector calculus derivation of some expression or other) for a concept in order to "cut to the chase" and deliver the message to the student in a way that the student might otherwise not understand. Sort of like saying, "You don't need to worry about the derivation, the equation you arrive at is...". To me, that is dilution of theoretical teaching to at least some extent.

 

[lacajun]

SNORGY, that probably happens already, don't you think? It could happen more often if a prof was required to get industrial experience, too. BTW, you were at 'em early, eh?

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC

 

[SNORGY]

lacajun,

I totally agree with you; that indeed does happen already. Even in most textbooks, you see statements like, "...The derivation of equation (xxx) is beyond the scope of this textbook. Interested readers are directed to Reference (yyy)....".

I think the time of my last post (26 Jul 12 0:25) reflects Eastern Standard Time; I am in the Mountain Standard Time zone (25 Jul 12 10:25).

It was a bit of a late evening by the time I got off the tractor...

 

[moltenmetal]

Engineering school is inescapably BOTH education AND job training. Teaching it in a purely academic context is absurd in an APPLIED area of study such as engineering. Doing a bad job of the job training part doesn't improve the educational aspect at all. What's sad is that the job training aspect is wasted on 2/3rds of the grads because they don't end up working as engineers any more.

 

[Maui]

Snorgy, the "cut to the chase" approach has been used by professors for decades, but typically not for the reason that you describe. A good example of this would be in a freshman physics class for physics majors. Many of the students in such a class have never studied calculus, so knowledge of calculus is not expected at that level, and it is not a prerequisite to take the course. The text book that is used is therefore typically not calculus-based.

In derivating the basic equations for projectile motion in a gravitational field, the argument that is used in such a course is invariably based on geometry and the use of average values for quantities rather than a rigorous derivation based on calculus. It isn't that the material is purposely being presented to "cut to the chase". The student does not possess the level of sophisitcation in mathematical ability at this stage to understand a rigorous derivation based on the use of calculus. This does not represent a dilution of theory in my opinion, but a method for building on the knowledge that a student already possesses to prepare them later on in their studies to understand the more complex methods of analysis derived by Newton. I didn't learn vector calculus until I was a senior in college, and I had to learn it concurrently with a senior level course in electromagnetic field theory. Not fun.

You have to learn to walk before you can run.


Maui

http://www.EngineeringMetallurgy.com

 

[lacajun]

You have to learn to walk before you can run.

Unless you're in industry...

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC

 

[beej67]

in fact being a good teacher appears low on or absent from the selection criteria in many cases.

This is a very fundamental problem with education, particularly engineering education, in the United States, due a confluence of influences.

1) The qualities it takes to be a good teacher - e.g. communication skills and the ability to empathize with people who aren't you and understand what they might be thinking - are uncommon among individuals with engineering aptitude, but are *required* for high level business.

2) High level business pays better than teaching.

3) The act of teaching itself is commoditized within the educational community. As mentioned above, what brings in the research dollars is research acumen, not teaching acumen. And what brings in the student dollars is not teaching acumen, it's a school's academic reputation, which is tied primary to research not to teaching.

So there's every dollar incentive in the world to take your social skills towards business and away from teaching, if you're one of the (rarer than average) guys who has both social skills and engineering acumen.


There's your problem in a nutshell. Be damned if I've got a solution, particularly considering the impending higher education bubble.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[Maui]

Lacajun, it's at that point you're expected to sprint.

Maui

http://www.EngineeringMetallurgy.com

 

[lacajun]

ability to empathize with people who aren't you and understand what they might be thinking - are uncommon among individuals with engineering aptitude

Are you saying engineers are "emotionally disconnected?" :-0

Maui, most of us look pretty darned dorky sprinting. ;-) Seriously, it does bring up a point that's been bandied about for well over 10 years, which is that people cannot keep pace and they fall behind. This leads to all manner of issues with people and society as a whole. People are expected to run "marathons" every day but that's humanly impossible to do.

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC

 

[beej67]

I'm saying not everyone can be good at everything. It sure would be nice if there was a huge glut of people who can do high level mathematical theory, and also had high level social skills. People who are good at both are much rarer than people who are good at one or the other. And since you have to be good at the first one to be an engineer, it's highly doubtful we can find enough people who are good at both to satisfy the needs of both business and education.

The problem with requiring a PE to teach engineering, is that the people who intend on teaching engineering would just water down the pool of people with PEs. Making them take the test wouldn't give them any business experience, it'd just give them experience at beating the test.

The problem with requiring business experience to teach engineering, is that there simply aren't enough people with engineering business experience who want to teach. If you've got business experience, and you have the interpersonal skills to not only teach but teach well, chances are pretty good you're making a lot of money managing other engineers and don't have time to teach.

My advice to colleges would be if you find an engineer with business experience who also has the interpersonal skills to teach, and wants to teach, to scoop that guy up and give him a job teaching. But that advice doesn't really help the college grow, because colleges grow almost entirely through research, not teaching.

I have no good ideas for how to crack this nut.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[Maui]

I have a suggestion: make it mandatory that people cannot even be considered for a full time faculty position in engineering until they have worked for a minimum of five years in industry, and have sat for and passed the PE exam in their discipline.

Maui

http://www.EngineeringMetallurgy.com

 

[KENAT]

"and have sat for and passed the PE exam in their discipline. "

Neat trick given that at least some states don't even have a PE for certain disciplines.

However, by all means don't let that stop those of you in protected industry from imposing such requirements on those of us in exempt.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[Maui]

Kenat, you don't have to be a resident of a state in order to earn your license there. And if your particular state does not offer a PE exam in your discipline that may be an inconvenience but it is certainly not a show-stopper. As an example, a colleague of mine wanted to earn his PE license in New York (where he resided) but at the time the PE exam in Metallurgy was not offered there. So he took his exam in Pennsylvania where it was offered, and once licensed applied for licensure in NY through reciprocity. Simple.

By the way, I am in an exempt industry and I am also licensed in four states.

Maui

http://www.EngineeringMetallurgy.com

 

[Maui]

By the way, the suggestion that I made above is similar to the practice that has been in place in Germany for many years:

http://www.research-in-germany.de/info/junior-researchers/91042/research-careers.html

Professorship at a university of applied sciences
In Germany, alongside the universities entitled to award doctoral and habilitation degrees, which are primarily devoted to academic research and teaching, there are also so-called universities of applied sciences (Fachhochschulen), which focus more strongly on the application of knowledge. Candidates for a professorship at a university of applied sciences generally require a doctorate and at least five years of professional experience, including three years outside higher education.

Maui

http://www.EngineeringMetallurgy.com

 

[SNORGY]

I just worry about the perception (correct or otherwise) that if you set up a separate stream of schools or curriculae or programs that draw a distinction between (loosely) pure theoretical PhD-related engineering versus "practical", one will be seen as (here I go with that controversial term of mine again) the "dumbed down" version of the other, geared towards the intellectually inferior who couldn't make it as a real PhD or a real engineer. Sort of like "engineering trade school" versus "engineering university program".

I couldn't help but notice the choice of words, "...so-called universities of applied sciences...". Sounds to me like the feared perception is already a matter of fact according to some.

 

[Forensic74]

I think I agree with SNORGY; however, at the end of the day I think a lot of High School students are mislead into picking schools based on rankings that are established by research and not practical base of the faculty.

 

[MiketheEngineer]

Yes - the department head of Engineering at my University didn't even have an Engineering Degree!!! He was an idiot.

Most of my profs had little or no clue what is was like "working" in the real world!!

 

[SNORGY]

I think we should continue to view universities as institutions of higher learning wherein each student is given the opportunity to further his or her education to the limits of his or her intellectual and / or academic potential. The teachers in the best position to make that happen are those who are the most intellectually and / or academically qualified - provided that they can also teach effectively. Whether it is research or industry that drives the requirements for those teachers is irrelevant to me.

I would leave the practical, on the job training to the various experienced engineers, supervisors and mentors that have been in industry, and demand from ourselves that we step up to the plate and take on those roles. I believe that the responsibility falls upon us to help these kids make the leap from theory to practice, not just criticize them for not being well enough trained fresh out of school to make the leap themselves.

Maybe I feel that way because of the level of satisfaction I am deriving from mentoring some of these young people in my current role. It is actually, now, the only - and I do mean *the only* aspect of engineering left that I enjoy.

 

[lacajun]

I had Ph.D. EE prof that could not communicate and he had industry experience. He was Korean, which presented communication problems. He could be difficult, which presented communication problems. In electronics, he would stand a few inches from the chalk board, mumble, and write very, very small. Often his writing would get big but sloppy so you still didn't know what was on the chalk board. It did no good to ask questions because he had a tendency to make you into an ignoramus butt because you didn't understand. His favorite thing, when completing his teaching segment, was to suddenly swing around, face the classroom, and say, "It's eegee! Unnerstan?!?"

How much did I get from Electronics I/II? Very little.

I love the man but he could be challenging in the classroom and lab.

I don't think industry experience is a panacea nor do I think registration is a panacea. Both may instill more professionalism and that may help the profession overall. We, the US, already have a system in place, from my pea brain, to account for trades, skilled workers, and professionals in the technical world.

SNORGY, I am sorry your experiences have seemingly destroyed the joy of engineering for you. I hope you get them back!

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC

 

[KENAT]

I sometimes wonder if the time for 'education for the sake of education' for most in higher education has passed.

It may have made sense when only say the top 1% or less of the population went to higher education. However as the % of population that attends higher education rapidly increases (and other factors), maybe more focused 'teaching' for many in higher education may make sense.

Then again, I also can't get fully behind the elitist dislike of 'trade schools' so prevalent in the US.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​