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

 

[Focht3]

ProEpro:

I think you are confusing a specific skill - reading and detailing a drawing - with engineering. I took two years of drafting in junior high, one year in high school, and one semester in college. I know the difference between sepia, vellum and Pounce. And what to do with nib pens and a Leroy set. But those skills are not as important as the theoretical knowledge I gained as an undergraduate and in grad school. And they are skills that I could have learned quite easily on the job. My drafting didn't teach me much - if anything - about tolerances. And I was naturally good at visualizing 3-D problems.

I earned my BSCE at Rice University in Houston; it is an education that I appreciate even more with the passing of time. From the day I started engineering classes, my professors pounded a consistent message into my thick skull. The following is a paraphrased summary of the mini-lectures we all received: "You are here to learn to think. We won't teach you handy shortcuts to solve problems - we will teach you how to derive those shortcuts. Yes, you will be at a disadvantage in comparison with graduates from (a (nearby unnamed) agricultural & mechanical university) until the formulas they memorized are no longer in use, or they hit upon a problem for which no handy formulas exist. The disadvantage may last 4 or 5 years, or a decade. But you will be better off in the long run." Other schools share that philosophy.

I believe that the practical part of engineering comes during our four year apprenticeship after graduation - before we become licensed. This is a time when it is more difficult to learn theoretical relationships given the twin pressures of schedule and budget. I guess that the part of your argument that bothers me the most is your implicit assumption that your education ended with the receipt of your diploma. If it has, then you really are an "expensive engineer"!

And I still have my slide rule - and those of my Dad and Granddad. Ever seen a circular slide rule? A cylindrical pocket slide rule? They are in shadow boxes - hanging on my office wall.

 

[chastst]

Nice try Focht3, but I am not going to let you get away with it. The "nearby unnamed" agricultural and mechanical university turns out some of the best each year. I know my education was built on problem solving skills, just as yours was. No need to get boastful about Rice (except in baseball).

 

[rhodie]

gig 'em aggies!


The segment of engineers at A&M learnt firsthand what poor planning can do to a civil project: tradegy has taken the bonfire away forever.

 

[Focht3]

I did leave it unnamed - didn't intend to insult...

 

[rhodie]

Focht3

Aw, just sounds like some trash talking to me...

(You didn't do anything to insult anybody.)

 

[Focht3]

I honestly expected some trash talking from Stanford alums - posted my comment before Game 3 began. I doubt we'll hear much after that 14-2 drubbing, although they have a great team and school.

My wife's stepdad and brother-in-law are Aggies; and I bleed burnt orange (we have graduated four generations of Longhorns.) So I'm used to the trash talking...


[The only thing I don't like about the CWS setup is that teams from the same region play each other before getting to the final series. I would have liked to see Rice and UT play that best of 3 series.]

 

[brad]

Focht3,
As you well suggested--I almost took the bait, but what is there to say . . .
I commented to my wife last night that the only consolation was that we got our butts handed to us, so it is pretty unequivocal who deserved the win (the woulda-coulda-shoulda happened Friday night).

Congratulations. Your team earned it. We also got beat in Women's tennis a few weeks back (generally a forgone conclusion for a championship), so it's been a bleak spring sports schedule.

One minor dig--I read this is your school's first national championship. We had six in a single year when I was a student. We can't win em all, but we can try.

Brad

 

[ProEpro]

Focht3
The point of my post was that balance is required. You are correct that you need to know where the formulas come from not some cookbook method of engineering. However, you can't leave out the skills beyond calculations for the employer to teach on the job as you suggest.

It may be the difference between mechanical and civil but I’ve never worked anywhere that could wait 4 years for me to be able to perform the most basic part of my job (commutating what my theoretical training says is the best way to do something through a drawing). Actually I don’t know any engineers that graduated since my time in school that have worked for the same company for 4 years.


ProEpro

http://www.whitelightdesign.com

 

[Focht3]

I didn't wait four years to "perform the most basic part of my job." I began producing immediately; it's just that my employer knew that my education wasn't complete. I did, too.

Seriously, I have a hard time understanding what would take more than a few weeks to learn about mechanical drawings - at least from the standpoint of being productive. No, I was not ready to be responsible for an entire building as soon as I graduated from college. It took time. And patience - on everyone's part. You seem to believe that you should have every possible skill you might need the minute you walked across that stage. In my view, that's totally unrealistic. Your position seems to be symptomatic of the "everything NOW" attitude that pervades the current work environment. What has happened to patience?

Will someone older than 35 with a ME background please step in here - ProEpro doesn't seem to think that a CE can understand his "unique situation." Please!

 

[brad]

Please refer to this thread @February timeframe--I think that ProEPro is implying (intentionally or otherwise) that depth of "practical" is important.

As somebody who has interviewed and hired plenty of engineers, I agree that I can always teach the practical more readily than the theoretical.

By virtue of somebody having learned a practical skill in school via classroom exposure, one should by definition be able to teach on-the-job that same practical skill to a better level in less time than the course.

The same cannot be said of the theoretical. An example--the theoretical foundation of a first (basic theory) class in FEA presumes knowledge of a full calculus sequence, differential equations, matrix algebra, numerical methods, statics, dynamics, vibrations, and solid mechanics. I've got to teach the "pure" technician no fewer than 10 pre-req's before I even start explaining shape functions to him. A CAD package on the other hand generally requires rudimentary knowledge of high-school level calculus, along with basic drafting skills (also a not-uncommon high school course) as its foundation.

I acknowledge that expert proficiency in CAD is a long process. However, it is clear from my experience that it is much easier to teach a CAD package to a pure theoretician than it is to teach FEA theory (or any other junior-level or higher course) to a pure technician.

To be most "employable" and rounded, balance is important--skewing too far in either direction limits people in many situations. However, there are situations in which an extreme on either is ideal (but these are not the norm).

Brad

 

[brad]

And Focht3--I do qualify on the ME part, and some days I feel like I'm forty . . . (I'm creeping to 35 at this point).

Cheers,
Brad