teach practical skills or theory? 7

[ProEpro]

Quoting from thread730-27967
SC asks this question.

Now that the thread is talking about the learning part, I would like to know which skills are more valuable for the graduate.

Do we teach them to be practical from day dot or do we give them all of the theory and let them learn the practical component in the field?

I am currently involved in helping a Uni restart its civil degree course and this seems to be the main question being asked. My feeling is that with the number of computer aids for design that are available today we should be teaching students to use them and to recognise when the results are up the creek. This can come from practical experience or theory.

So should we be creating a student that is street wise but basically behind in terms of deep theoretical knowledge or should we be creating a theoretical person who will need a lot of assistance to become street wise.

Regards

sc
ProEpro

http://www.whitelightdesign.com

 

[ProEpro]

What to teach. That is an on going debate with out end.

I went to Georgia Tech. It is one of the most theoretical schools on the plant. I never saw a drawing the whole time I was there in the ME program. If all I knew was what I was taught I would think that engineers just solved equations. All of my employers have been disappointed that I didn’t know anything about reading or writing drawings. They never complained that I didn’t know their cad package because they could always teach that too me with a couple of weeks of training classes.

Many students sought out practical exposure. Some though working while in school as a Co-Op. Others through design competitions such as SAE sponsors. These are the one that have gone on to be the most successful. I think it is because they were the ones that knew what to remember. They had a first hand knowledge that what they were learning was useful. The other students only learned how to answer questions on a test.

I believe the ideal balance is to mix practical experience with theoretical knowledge. You have to have exposure to the discipline and it’s tools and it’s applications. However you do not need to graduate with all the skills to do your job. However, you must have all the knowledge necessary to make the right decisions.

For example when I graduated I had solve a tire wear problem. I had more exposure to suspension design than most graduates because I had sought out practical experience in FSAE but I solved the problem using the analytical skills I had been taught. I knew how to conduct an experiment, analysis data, and solve kinematics problems. These were the engineer skills that got me further towards a solution than the gentlemen who had more practical experience but less education.

There are plenty of other examples where a detailed knowledge of the basic principals of physics or materials would avoid trying to violate the laws of thermodynamics or to compare material specifications. How many times have you seen some working forever to build a perpetual motion machine? How many patents are there for them? What about vendors comparing numbers that have no comparison?

The most common example you will get is FAE. You don’t even need to train the monkey for him to get numbers from the software. However, if you do not know what the problem is, how to set it up and what the answer would be and only use the software to do the math you will always get the wrong number. Even if you don’t you will use it in the wrong way.

So to answer SC’s question. Tech them the basics of science and engineering first. Make sure they get practical hands on real world exposure to their field. Then teach them the detailed theory and it’s applications. While you are at that give them some of the tools they will need to be more efficient. Don’t give them the software until they have a complete knowledge of what they are doing. Emphasize that they are engineers not programmers. Their goal is not good computer models or even good designs but good products.

ProEpro

http://www.whitelightdesign.com

 

[brad]

Any ABET-accredited Engineering program (and I distinguish this from Engineering Technology program) provides a reasonable theoretical background to be able to tackle many of the real-world problems which engineers in the field will encounter. The difficulty is that often the context of this theory is not well-presented. If I had a dollar for every time I heard somebody say "I don't see any use in differential equations" I wouldn't need to be working.

However, with practical exposure one can often see a real need for differential equations and other engineering theory/math. The problem is that lacking the context for the theory many engineers have forgotten some of these concepts by the time they get a chance to exercise them.

My undergrad was considered slanted well towards the side of "practical" vs. "theoretical". I did five years of co-op work to further this practical exposure. Yet I pushed for the most theoretical slant within my engineering electives that I could get. My graduate degree was from one of the most theoretical schools in the US, so I've seen both ends. I've also seen bad engineers on both ends.

A strongly-theoretical engineer must appreciate how to tie this theory into a reality, or else he is limited in his usefulness. Conversely, somebody who slants too far towards practical tends to roll his eyes at the "ivory tower" type who starts spouting first principles arguments (even though this is a very good approach).

Ideally one needs a mixture. However if I had to choose between candidates on both ends, I would take the theorist. His foundation is built on rock, and I can build a lot on that. A purely practical (often Engineering Technologist or Associates) has a much a weaker foundation. Though the latter could be very well suited for a variety of tasks, there are set limits without the theoretical context.

But that's just my opinion

Brad

 

[Haf]

I agree. If the premium was solely put on the practical side, there would be no real reason to go to college. You could just do an apprenticeship, or something like that.

ProEpro: I find it surprising that your past employers were so disappointed that you couldn't read drawings right out of the gate. Almost any engineer that made it through the rigors of an ABET-accredited engineering school can be taught to read technical drawings. If your employer had no problem sending you to a couple of weeks of CAD classes, what's the problem with a couple of weeks of classes on technical drawing?

I came from a school that I feel did a pretty good job of mixing in the practical applications with much of the theory that was taught. But I also feel that the emphasis was put on the theory, and I believe that was the right approach. After working in my field for a limited amount of time, I can already see myself separating from many of my more experienced "practical" colleagues. Many of them are technicians that became part of the engineering/scientific staff after years (sometimes decades). Overall, they are good at their jobs and I can learn a lot from them. But typically, what they are good at and what I can learn from them is limited in scope. They tend to do the same things over and over. An engineer that has a solid understanding of fundamental physics and mathematics is usually better equipped to deal with new and challenging technical problems. In the long run, they are of more worth to their employer.

I submit that any employer that expects a new engineering grad to come into their workforce with rich practical experience is unreasonable and short-sighted. College, in general (especially undergrad), is for teaching fundamental skills that enable graduates to succeed in their chosen field. Experience comes on the job, or from a trade school or vocational school.

My two cents,

Haf

 

[RDK]

What the workplace really wants is a 25 year old with advanced theoretical degrees and 30 years practical experience.

Universities should mix and balance the two demands of practical and theoretical. This is difficult for them to do since the professors have PhD’s and are therefore biased towards the theoretical. The theoretical is also easier to teach since all you need is a classroom. Practical may need some lab tools or exposure to construction sites. Different students also get different levels of practical outside school due to background and summer jobs. Theoretical knowledge is difficult to appreciate and apply without some practical experience behind it.

There is also a four year (at least in Canada) work experience for new graduates before they can apply for P.Eng status. This will help balance the individuals background somewhat.

When I graduated in the 70’s, the only area where I was fully equipped (by university experience) to start on day one and actually do something was in hydrology. Unfortunately there had been many graduates from the same two professors before me and a downturn in hydro generation construction in our north, so these skills were not useful in the workplace since they were common. New P.Eng’s were competing with new graduates for entry level jobs.

Luckily for me I had had summer jobs working as a surveyor. This practical experience was enough to get me involved in some construction work as a surveyor. After some more exposure to the work place, I have made a career out of being a construction generalist.

I am also the father of a second year civil engineering student. I am making sure that he gets some practical experience in addition to his university education. By the end of last summer he could do basic surveying tasks, was a certified ACI field technician and can use a nuclear density meter. This summer will be for CAD and some basic design work. ( I have a municipal sub-division coming up that he will do most of the grunt work on.) By the time he graduates he will be much better prepared for the work place than I was.

A university education is designed to train your mind to think like an engineer. In doing this you are taught some tools and techniques that should make this easier. Once you have an engineering education you should be able to do almost anything in your field and in outside related fields. It should be your responsibility to make up for any shortfall in either your theoretical or practical background.

To bemoan the fact that new graduates cannot use a slide rule is missing the point. Who uses slide rules anymore anyway? I don’t even know where mine is. What good are those practical skills that were essential in the past? More important than learning how to use a slide rule or a computer is to learn how to apply your training, education and experience into a coherent whole that can meet the needs of the profession. Just as a modern computer program can generate a result that may not be the correct application, so can a slide rule if the user doesn’t understand the theory behind it. Garbage in garbage out applies to slide rules as well as computers. The computers just make pretty garbage.

Without some practical experience how can we really know that that beam should be twice as large? The numbers work out. It is practical experience that allows us to realize that the computer or slide rule was used incorrectly , an error was made or something missed and some checking is needed. However if all we have is practical experience then we will always do things the same way and not advance either individually, as a profession or as a society.

Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[Watermelon]

Theory or practical?

Both, in equal dosages.

 

[ProEpro]

Haf
The feeling of my employers which I agree with is that in most cases the only thing that a mechanical engineer produces as output is drawings and specifications. Someone else usually makes the product in those drawings. A drawing is also the most basic form of engineering communication. What is the point of pilling on English classes and even foreign langue classes on top of those from High school if you don’t teach drawing? It is a large contrast to the education of the older engineers and managers who were taught to draft by hand.
My employer did send me to a mechanical drawing/cad class at a local technical school but they were still disappointed that this expensive engineer from a fancy school didn’t have the same basic skills as their technicians.
ProEpro

http://www.whitelightdesign.com

 

[Haf]

ProEpro,

I understand where you are coming from but I respectfully disagree with many of your assertions. Technical drawings are an important aspect of mechanical engineering, but I disagree that in most cases an ME's only output is drawings and specifications. I know several ME's that have never produced a true technical drawing and probably never will. ME is a diverse field, and those with specialties in fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, heat transfer, finite element analysis, dynamics, electromechanics, and others very rarely deal with technical drawings. In most cases, simple drawings (that any ME without training in technical drawing can read) are all that is necessary for engineers who work in those areas.

In some cases, even engineers who specialize in machine design do not necassary get down and dirty with technical drawings. I once worked for a large company that manufactured heavy earth-moving equipment. The engineers did all of the design of the various machine components, and produced all of the CAD solid models. The solid model was then handed off to a detailer, who produced the technical drawing based on the model. That company did not expect their ME's to have the technical drawing skill of the detailers, and why should they? The detailers had associates degrees in technical drawing and/or years of experience with technical drawings. Over time, of course, the more experienced engineers would learn a lot about technical drawings from working with the detailers and from taking a class here and there. The junior engineers, however, would simply work with the detailers to stress the important aspects of the design, which the detailers then reflected through the dimensioning scheme and geometric dimensioning and tolerancing.

I also submit that it's absolutely ridiculous for any employer to demand that an "expensive engineer" from a "fancy school" have the same skills as their technicians. Are they serious? The technicians I work with have training and experience that I do not. They work with high speed cameras, advanced high speed digitizers, signal generators, signal analyzers, etc. If I took the time, I could learn to operate much of this equipment when I do tests/experiments, but I am not paid to do this. They are. Does your employer also expect you to know how to weld, since their technicians can weld?

I am a relatively inexperienced engineer, and my specialty is in the thermal sciences. However, I do, on occasion, produce technical drawings. When I suspect that geometric dimensioning and tolerancing is required, I work with the machine shop to hammer out the drawing, and I learn on the way. In the future, I will probably do this less as I learn more. But I see no problem with this approach. The true skills that my employer is paying for are the ones that allow me to design the part in the first place. And I learned those in college.

Of course, this is only my opinion and I could be wrong.

Haf

 

[brad]

No Haf, you're right.
TA.

Brad

 

[GregLocock]

Great post Haf. Sounds like your earth moving employer actually understood CAD/CAE better than most.

Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[skills]

Mathmatics, not drawings, is the fundamental communication medium among engineers, and an engineer who produces nothing but drawings is a draftsman. No state in the union, to the best of my knowledge, accepts drafting or drawing time as experience to satisfy work requirements prior to taking the 'Fundamentals of Engineering' exam requisite for
registration.

 

[ProEpro]

HAF
Even the engineers you mention produced some kind of specification for the parts if not a drawing. To make a 3D model you need to understand dimensioning to sketch the geometry. Even if a draftsman produces the drawing the engineer needs to be able to read it and check it. To stay on the topic of this thread. I think that it is an essential tool that should be included in the practical balance of good engineering education. For example, it is very hard to understand the theoretical science of toleranceing if you do not understand drawings. If you do not understand toleranceing you can not design parts that can be manufactured. This isn’t limited to Mechanical Engineers. Any engineer needs to be able to understand and create the basic specifications of his field. EEs needs to be able to read and write schematics.

I personally believe that if I am going to ask someone to do something else for me that I should understand what they are doing and be willing to do it myself. If it is so hard or so nasty that I would never want to do the job I should think of another way to do it. If not I should not ask them to do it. Of course they will be better at it or I would not ask them to do it. Lets take welding as an example. I understand welding theoretically. I know what happens when the metal melts and flows together (better than many welders). I know some of the things you can do to make it stronger and weaker. I have even done it many times before. However, I know where my limits are, and when someone else can do a better job. Because I understand the process I will not expect unreasonable things like welding steel to aluminum. I understand his problems when I ask him to do something difficult am able to compromise on a solution. That is why engineers need practical skills. So that things can get made. ProEpro

http://www.whitelightdesign.com

 

[brad]

Haf and ProEPro,
I don't think that you are really that far apart in your views. Let me submit this statement, which I think you will both agree with:
"It is more desirable to teach the concepts of engineering graphics at university than it is to teach high-level usage of a particular CAD package without regards to the theory implicit in that package".

This is really the crux of this thread--theory vs. "practical".

I don't think Haf has suggested that an understanding of engineering graphics is not important. Instead, he has implied that for an engineering student knowledge of the field (in this case a graphics course) is a reasonable expectation, rather than technician's skills in a particular software within that field.

Brad

 

[sc]

G'day,

Having prompted this thread, I would like to add to it that I do not think the course should be biased in one way or the other. I really belive that the courses should show an engineering student the practical result of their theoretical studies. That is, teach them to design a beam, column, slab etc on the theoretical basis and then show them how it is done on a practical basis. To me the education should involve three distinct areas as follows;

1. teach the theory in reasonable detail and without reference to formal standards (eg. Building codes, construction standards, etc)

2. teach the practical design methods (eg how it would be done in an engineering office, including short cuts, codes, computer programs, etc)

3. Teach the practical methods (eg take the students out in the field, show them the end results, get them to talk to contractors, make them learn that the theory is not the ultimate answer).

The reason for the first step is that many standards contain short cut methods which vary around the world. So a student from say, Singapore who is educated in Australia may have limited knowledge due to the variation between Aust. Standards and standards in Singapore. As a reult they may require further training and not be considered as employable in their own country.

The second step is there to say, hey now that you have some understanding of the theory ahve a look at how it is applied to problems in the real world.

The third step lets the student know that the theoretcial and design world are often interpretted differently when it comes to contruction.

Many universties already do the first two steps by teaching theory and setting practical projects to be completed in accordance with standards and codes. BUT they do not show the student the result of their design, they do not often get to see the how their design is built in detail. Sure they might get to see some slides or a video, but this is not good enough to actually make them see the real method of construction, or indeed how horribly impractical some design solutions can be.

So from the above what I advocate is that the highly theoretical subjects such as FE, design of high rise buildings, etc be reduced in content and replaced with practical how to build type subjects.

As a result of an engineers education, what appears to frustrate many employers is the lack of ability of a graduate to be able to "turn on a CAD package, open a file, look at it and print a drawing". Many employers do not expect the student to draw their own design or to have a detailed knowledge of CAD, but they do need the graduate to know how the end drawing/construction (result of the design process) is produced so that it works.


Regards

sc

 

[Maui]

There is a fundamental problem confronting most college professors. They have no practical work experience. Most of the professors that I know have never held a job outside of an academic institution. If their students are expecting to be taught practical engineering concepts that can be implemented directly on the job that they will be working after graduation, then they will be sorely disappointed. A professor can't teach his students what he doesn't know.

I have worked as a Senior Metallurgist at a specialty steel mill for 8 years, and for the past six years I have also taught a materials class at Syracuse University. My class size increases every semester because in addition to teaching the fundamental theoretical concepts in materials properties and selection, I also give my students practical insight into how these theoretical concepts are actually applied in an industrial setting. More importantly, I provide them with examples of where you can go wrong in applying these concepts, and how to avoid some very costly mistakes.

A fundamental theoretical base is essential to every engineering curriculum. Without it, more advanced concepts cannot be understood. But by ignoring the practical aspects of applying these concepts in an industrial setting, I think that we shortchange our students. What good is theory if you have no clear idea of how to apply it to resolve a problem? Isn't problem solving the point of engineering?

 

[mbph]

I'll agree a balance is good. I think most schools are just too cheap to do the practical end. In a fraction of the classroom time a theory can be demonstrated. I think it's the cost that drives most programs more into theory.

 

[PSE]

In many or perhaps the majority of cases, the "output" of the engineering profession is information. The information may need take different forms (ie. drawings, specifications, procedures, reports) depending upon the requirements of any particular business. Educational institutions seem to do very well on the initial side in teaching methods of dealing with data input (applied theory) but fall a bit short on the output side. Schools may find it impractical to spend much time on engineering output due to the myriad of tools in use by business. Which one(s) do you try to teach? How many mechanical CAD programs can you name? How many board design programs can you name? How many FEA? I think the best thing that any school can do is to encourage students to do work/study or intern programs with business while perhaps having a sampling of the various tools used by businesses. Either way, businesses need to accept that there is a learning curve. The newly minted engineer or indeed any engineer starting a new position, has to find out how to use their employer's business operating systems. Experience can't be taught. However, someone elses practical experiences are extremely useful, as maui points out, in making those learning curves as short as possible.

Good thread!

 

[GregLocock]

<Maui> Absolutely spot on.

The best lecturers we had were (or had been) real engineers as well. Our structures lecturers were the best of the lot since they had used the design of buildings we were in to validate new (at the time) theories (design of reinforced concrete structures using moments of plasticity). We also had a control theory lecturer who was good, he didn't bother too much with needless complexity, was far more concerned with the fundamentals and the simple, everyday, examples. Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[ProEpro]

PSE
Good point about the information and the number of cad packages. However, schools shouldn't skip the subject all together just because they want to decide on a cad package. The point isn't the make the students experts on a cad package. It is to make them comfortable with using them and let them know what they should and should not be used for. Imagine a computer science degree program where they never taught programming because they didn't want to decide on a language.

ProEpro

http://www.whitelightdesign.com

 

[xnuke]

In my opinion, there are three major areas a university engineering curriculum should develop: theoretical knowledge, practical knowledge, and communications ability.

This is a point I've been arguing with the electrical engineering department head at my local university. They do a decent job teaching theory (though they push too hard in the direction of IC design/semiconductor area and don't require classes in certain major areas of EE). They teach little that is practical, and argue that it is up to the company hiring their graduate to provide that training. Most companies do not want to make the investment to finish an engineer's education on company time and at company expense these days.

Before hiring me, representatives of my company interviewed several new college graduates for my position (I'm not in a position requiring a lot of experience). The engineer doing the interviewing told me that these applicants were woefully prepared to be engineers as they had never been exposed to electrical codes and standards, common wiring practices, motor control, common industrial controllers, etc. I could list a hundred other deficiencies.

I started out as a technician and worked hard to earn my degree. As a result, I have both practical and theoretical knowledge, and I'm continuously working to improve both. I believe that no person should be granted an engineering degree from a university without a couple of years (yes, years, not terms) of experience as an engineering intern or technician. I think a technician position is actually better than an engineering one while a student is still in school - the student will learn what it is like to work for an engineer, and be exposed to lessons about how to treat people who work for them. In addition, an engineer who knows the technician's trade will usually be a lot more respected and do a better job designing than one who doesn't. I'm sure many engineers have similar gripes about working for managers who have an MBA but no engineering knowledge.

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