We have better tools, but? 11

[BillBirch]

Recent postings give me a great cause for concern about the lack of knowledge of fundamental principals.

One guy writes that he is designing an ROV and wants buoyancy explained.

Another is designing a pump and wants to know how to calculate the moment of inertia and then discloses that he plans to use three bearings - (indeterminat loading and difficult to align).

Yet another was designing a rotating welding manipulator handling loads weighing tens of tonnes, which was eventually red flagged due to the heat that the thread was generating.

In all cases the posters referred to their solidworks designs. Are we getting blinded by the sophistication of the software and forgetting that garbage in = garbage out applies with software, or indeed any system.

I only know for certain that the last example was from an unqualified, but perhaps over-enthusiastic kid, but I hope that the other two are drafters with a healthy curiosity. If so, I hope that they are given sufficient experienced engineering supervision so that they do not waste too much time, design something impractical, dangerous or all of the above.

On the other hand, if the other posters are qualified, it suggests the following.

- Quality of education. In the examples given, buoyancy is a fundamental of physics that should have been understood in high school. Machine element design has fundamentals regarding constructability that should have been learnt in college.

- Insufficient supervision or inappropriate tasking. Are senior engineers too occupied with management to give the younger guys the necessary mentoring, and related to this, are the young guys being asked to undertake roles above their experience. Similarly, are companies cutting costs by employing graduates only, thus avoiding higher pay rates. This is a common complaint on this website, and although it is heartening to see the younger guys shouldering the challenge, it is also a concern that they may not realise the exposure of their situation and could easily be thrown to the wolves.

- Inadequate recruiting practices. Not everybody was good in all subjects in college and you would expect that career paths would reflect particular strengths. I may be wrong, but I suspect that ptoficiency in CAD seems to be driving a lot of selections. Are the correct skills being overlooked by recruiters who simply see a candidate as a two-for-the-price-of-one find, someone who can draft and do a bit of engineering?
Regards,
Bill

P.S If anybody recognises themselves in the examples, no offence was intended. The purpose of this post was not to ridicule, but to highlight what appears to be unreasonable expectactions on our junior colleagues or associates.

 

[SomptingGuy]

"Behavioural validation" was my favourite phrase when I used to build computer simulations. It sounds more professional than "Dicking around with the model until convinced that it smells right".

- Steve

 

[zdas04]

graybeach,
I have heard that most DOS programs will fail to run on Vista, but I haven't checked for myself. I have checked the security "dongle" web page, and they have a disclaimer that a security device updated for XP will be unlikley to run in Vista. I haven't found a compelling reason to "upgrade" so I don't know. I noticed that Dell offers either XP or Vista on new computers so I'm not going to spend the effort to learn Vista.

David

 

[graybeach]

Thanks for the heads up zdas. I have vista at home, and I hate it. Hopefully IT will not make me give up XP at work.

 

[MechEng2005]

I am myself a young engineer (BSME 2005). A few comments:

I was befuddled when the OP stated that buoyancy was a fundamental of physics and should have been learned in high school. I did not study buoyancy in any real sense until fluid dynamics (2nd or 3rd year of college). Even then, it was maybe 1 week of the course.

I agree that sometimes young engineers aren't given enough mentoring or given tasks that are beyond their qualifications. Personally, with about 3 years of experience, I have my own projects. When I am faced with an application or design that I'm not sure of, I either review it extensively with collegues, or take a long time to learn and verify everything to the best of my ability with the resources I have. This has caused some deadline issues, but I refuse to just "wing-it" when improper design could be a major performance or safety issue. I don't know if this is the case with all younger engineers, and could see how pressure for deadlines could cause many to just throw something together that they aren't completely confident of.

I think inadequete recruiting is coupled with the mentoring and training. If a wonderful mentor is available and enough time is given, I think anybody who is willing to learn could fit into just about any job. However, in some cases that may take years of mentoring. Obviously, mentoring alone will not make a new graduate a "senior engineer", as I feel that requires significant experience.

Also, I don't think the issues with blindly relying on software and GIGO (garbage in = garbage out) are solely the cause of the younger engineers. I feel that where I work I have a better visualization of the fundamentals than many (older) engineers I work with. I don't have the same experience level to rely and provide a "gut-instinct." However, I do verify my results. I also have been asked to do FEA analysis, for which I had a single course in my BSME class. Sometimes the model/loading can be quite complex, and I am very cautious when discussing my results. I explain the assumptions I have made and often say things like "I think we should buff this a little, just to be safe" even when the results based on the model do not exceed acceptable levels. However, I find often management is only interested in a pretty picture, and just wants verification of what they want to hear. I will say that they do not overlook safety however, and it is only issues that will affect the longevity of the machine that I have had concerns about.

-- MechEng2005

 

[jrhagen]

I think some of the grey beards are out of touch with what it is like when you are just starting a career. I am a relatively new engineer. (2.5 years work experience) I am currently at my second job after college due to being laid off (eligble for rehire) from my first job. I have found that most experienced engineers will not take the time to train or mentor a new grad. At both jobs I was simply placed in front of a work station and expected to be somewhat product from the start. I have had virtually no training or mentoring since I have started in my career. Everything I have learned I have taught myself. In one instance when I was asking an older more experienced engineer questions about a task we were working together on, I was reported to my manager for disturbing other employees. I can understand that an excessive amount of questions can be distruptive, but one to two per day seems more than reasonable for me.

I also beleive that the state of education in America is partly to blame. The quality of education at the highschool level is lacking in most schools and there are some problems with the college education system as well. My take on the issue is that the required amount of knowledge to be an engineer is greater now than it was 50 years ago. In school we have to learn all the concepts that were required 50 years ago plus learn new concepts and software. I found that several disciples that previously had an entire course dedicated to them have now been combined with other courses. IE where I went to school all calculus courses were combined into 2 classes. Linear algebra and numerical methods were also combines. Statics and dynamics were combined into one mechanics course. I was given the choice of taking CFD's or heat transfer. The semister I took aerodynamics 1 it had just been combined with aero 2 to make room for other required courses. Does anyone see a pattern here? I can say from experience that mechanical component design, GD&T, dratting, and complex analysis are simply not taught anymore in college. All of the course work deals with first priciples and simplistic problems. I believe that college only gives you the tools to learn things in a real work setting. I think that some people are expecting college grads to have knowledge that is simply not included in cirrculums anymore. Personally I would rather ramp up the BS degrees to a 6 year degree and I would scrap the masters programs entirely.

One point that I do agree with the OP on is that too many engineers blindly accept results gained from software. I was lucky enough to have an instructor that stressed first principles so I beleive that I have an edge on most new grads in that regard. Usually when using a new program I use test problems to verify that I am using the software correctly. I build a problem that I can verify by hand independently and increase the complexity of the problem as I learn each aspect of a new software. This helps you gain confidence in using the new software while keeping you grounded in reality.

 

[zdas04]

How many excuses can one person stuff into one post? No mentoring today? Sorry, there never has been much mentoring and at the salaries that entry level engineers are getting today I really don't blame companies for trying to get some productive work from them (especially when the norm is to only stay 2-3 years with a first company--something like two jobs in 2.5 years). Poor high schools? Both of my sons finished high school in a really economically depressed school system with two years of Calculus and at least one serious science class. Colleges cramming too much into the engineering curriculum? I bet you took all of your electives outside of the School of Engineering, if you have to choose between Heat Transfer and Aerodynamics, maybe the one you didn't choose could have been taken instead of Film Appreciation.

My point is that no one but you has any real control over what you learn, where you learn it, or if it "counts" toward some goal. If you felt your undergraduate education was inadequate, then you should have stayed longer--the requirements are a minimum not a maximum.

When I was going through University 30 years ago, there were a number of technical classes that weren't required but I felt they would add to my knowledge of my subject, so I took them. A couple of them couldn't be shoehorned into a spot on my graduation requirements so I didn't get graduation credit for them. When I started working I was given an office that had recently been vacated by a transfer and the expectation that I would get up to speed on the projects that he had left hanging. If I asked my boss for help I got a strong dose of "stupid kid" along with the "mentoring".

NOTHING FUNDAMENTAL EVER CHANGES. My first job out of college was managing computer-program development for engineering applications on the mainframe computer. Nothing in my undergraduate education prepared me for that role, so I learned on the job. The only difference I see between then and now is that at my 6 month review I could easily have been fired had I not gotten up to speed quickly enough. Today that outcome would be amazingly unlikely.

David

 

[jrhagen]

to zdas04

You obviously didn't read my post carefully. I find it funny that you immediately assume that I took the "easy" electives. Maybe some things have changed since you went to college, but a film appreciation class will have absolutely NO credit towards an engineering degree in colleges today. I was allowed to take 2 electives for my degree, one design elective and one technical elective. I choose to take CFD's and rocket propulsion. I hardly think I took the easy way out. I also think that you are out of touch with the concept of inflation. Most people I graduated with started at around 40k annually. This is not a very large sum, when a person could make the same or more managing a fast food restraunt, working in a factory, or working as a public servant with absolutely no college education. Some of the jobs I listed do not even require a highschool education in some cases. What I was trying to state, but when completely over your head, was that hiring mangaers and "old timers' can't expect a new grad to know stuff that is simply not taught in college anymore. You stated that first principles do not change. I agree with you there. If you read more carefully you would see that I said first principles are one of the few things that is still taught in college. As for taking extra courses beyond what is required, most colleges wont let you do that anymore. Incidently, most colleges wont let you dual degree anymore. In this case a student is left with the choice of auditing the course (often for X3 the regular price) or buying a book and teaching themselves. I opted to teach myself the material rather than paying the college more money. I do not see any problem with that. Also you can not blame new grads for not staying in jobs for 2-3 years when virtually all aerospace companies lay off employess several times in a year. I was laid off from my first job. I am eligble for rehire. I was contacted about 5 months after leaving the first job about coming back to work. Lay offs are common occurance now. I'm sorry but things have changed in the 30 YEARS since you have been in school.

 

[jrhagen]

BTW if you read the post more carefully I was given the choice between heat transfew and CFS's. ( there were other choices, but those two courses is what I narrowed my decision to) Engineering degrees today require both aero 1 and 2. What I was saying is that both of those courses are condensed into one course 3 days per week for one semester. How many courses did you take to learn incompressible and compressible flow? Was it one course 50 mins a day, 3 times a week for only one semester? I would wager that it was not.

 

[Gymmeh]

Very interesting thread.

To Reply to Bills three proposals:

- Quality of education.

Someone was seriously asking about buoyancy? This sounds more like laziness or not knowing how to research if they were asking a simple question. I just googled buoyancy and there is enough information to solve simple problems. I thought I got a good education for what it was. I would say a US BS is a just the tip of the ice burg/introduction/getting your feet wet. If a person feels its not enough to start their career, there are many avenues to get more education. Although fair engineering judgment is not really tough in Uni

- Insufficient supervision or inappropriate tasking.

Of the three places I have worked, I would say it is very hard to say. I can say that supervisors are not always where one can learn fair engineering judgment, however, I have meet some people (engineer or not) that are very willing to show young engineers the way and assign appropriate projects. Additionally I have been thrown in the deep end -for which i blame my one gray hair - and I would consider it an organizational issues. My time with Corporate America showed that some problems run from the board of directors all the way down because cutting cost is more important then moral or the future. (glad I quit)

- Inadequate recruiting practices.

The perception that a job interview is only to judge to candidate may also be a problem. Something I did pic up from the Forum in one manor or the other, is to also be very judging of the company you wish to work for. Asking good questions and getting as much out of the interview. Most young engineers dont learn or even know what to look for in a new job during an interview. There are tons of Drafter (or other non-eng) jobs, advertised as engineering jobs. As a result they (we) accept a job blindly, get in a bad situation for a young engineer. The young engineer may want to be an engineer but the job is not set up that way, and they are stuck drafting or doing sales.

I could list 100 examples. but the point being, its a ruff lesson to learn for young engineers that will never change...but the true engineers will find their way to the top or right place... the rest will get stuck as drafters or hopefully run across someone-like many of the people in the forum- that will help them (or kick them) the right way.


Best Wishes
J

 

[PSE]

The best tools in the world, wielded poorly, will still yield junk.

 

[TheTick]

Aces will still be aces; putzes will still be putzes. Tools won't change that.

 

[csd72]

I have read a great number of articles on this type of thing in the structural magazines and therefore know that it is a widespread issue.

The fingers are often pointed at the graduates and their education but I think a large portion of the blame could lie in the industry.

In previous years before the widespread use of computers drawings and calculations were done by hand. The projects therefore took a lot longer, but also you would not let a fresh graduate loose on a full set of calculations without breaking them in on smaller sections first. Thus not only did the employer have to think more on training their graduates but the graduate also had more time to think through the first couple of jobs.

These days everyone expects instant response they expect graduates to be able to use the latest set of analysis programs and to effectively hit the ground running. Engineering firms are some of the poorest trainers around but yet we still expect graduates to perform a very technical job without this vital mentoring.

 

[MechEng2005]

I agree with jrhagen that the fact that the engineering cirriculum is inadequete in most cases for a new grad to "hit the ground running." As with jrhagen, where I got my BSME the electives were very few and quite specific, with maybe 5 classes to choose from. The only humanities classes taken were those REQUIRED (for the well-rounded portion of a bachelors).

The fact that the cirriculum is not adequete is not necessarily the fault of the university or the student. I have worked in a few places since graduating. The required knowledge and focus at each one has been different. With the vast range of industries that BSMEs (and I presume all disciplines, to different degrees) can work in will determine how much education is required in different subjects. Therefore, I think mentoring and having people available for a new engineer is crucial. There is simply no way university could cover everything that an engineer could need to know to the required depth.

As far as taking extra classes not required for graduation, I agree that it certainly can be beneficial. However, when I graduated I was looking for an engineering job, and wasn't able to be too picky about my first job after graduation. Therefore, taking classes to enhance one specialty would have been useless if I got a job at a company that didn't utilize the specific subject that I took extra classes in.

I agree that young engineers need to be pro-active in learning after graduation. This could include taking formal or informal classes or a mentor or whatever. However, I don't think that spending 10 years in university to take every possible class is reasonable.

My point is that not everything should/could be taught in college, and that mentoring or providing resources for young engineers to learn is very important.

- MechEng2005

 

[Tophinater]

I fall into catagory #2. I'm a 22 year old electromechanical engineer with a degree in mechanical engineering doing a job that several experts should be doing. And I have to say, I completely agree with every point made in this thread. I work for an engineering firm that mostly does CAD stuff in the auto industry. I however dont do any CAD anymore as I hate it. I work on some experimental venture capital and think I was chosen for this job because I’m a lot cheaper than an expert with a masters and 10+ years experience.

However, I don’t find myself being mentored like I would like, instead I have people with one and sometimes two MS degrees in mechanical engineering asking me how to solve a simple dynamics problem because Catia wont do it for them. Most of my job consists of performing calculations and modeling of many complex and non-linear systems. The only thing I have to verify my work is a few bits of data from a couple professors who’s data contradicts each other. First thing I do is go to my notebook or textbooks but most go directly to CAD or some other software. What it really all comes down to is money I think. Bean counters thing a new graduate can do the same as an expert because of software like CAD.

And honestly, I can not say that college prepared me for any of this. It was my ambition to learn, a solid knowledge of the fundamentals (most from particle physics), and my engineering sense that allows me to do what I do. In my opinion college isn’t good for much other than getting a very expensive piece of paper.

 

[csd72]

Tophinater,

And our fellow engineers are just as bad in their lack of appreciation for the value of experience.

In my industry, you are looked down upon if you are still doing calculations after 15 years. People are encouraged to leave their engineering behind and become managers just at the point that they are actually becoming truly proficient.

 

[KENAT]

As to quality of education, college degrees (and below) seem to vary so much over time and space that it’s probably difficult for most of us to speak knowledgably about this subject. We know what we did, we know more or less what a few friends/colleagues did, maybe we researched a few other options when we were looking (or maybe our kids) etc. but few of us probably really have a good grip on this. “Kids today” may come into it as has been mentioned before.

On the supervision thing, the amount I got varied. Generally little but my drawings got checked before being released and my designs were verified by the stress guy etc., plus occasionally someone would sit down and show me something or take time answering a question. I used to try and spend a lot of time with interns/junior staff but these days I’m busier and have trouble finding the time.

The proficiency in CAD thing is stupid.

Most CAD packages can be learnt to a basic level relatively quickly, a week or two course will get you about as far as I perceive you'll learn on most degree courses. In fact someone smart enough to get a degree should be able to get started from the built in tutorials etc that most CAD systems have. However, for the employer, not having to pay for this training and/or time spent on that training may be attractive I suppose.

Few places seem to teach the intricacies of drafting to any significant level, such as drawing convention, MBD convention, GD&T or tolerance analysis etc.

Any monkey can be taught to press the right buttons and click the right clicks on the more user friendly CAD systems and come up with a pretty picture but really capturing design intent and communicating that clearly takes a lot more skill, still not necessarily a bachelors degree but more than most CAD users come across seem to have.

The ability to throw a model together that looks pretty can cause all kinds of problems. Some manager seem to think that if there’s a model of it the design’s finishes. Some Engineers/drafters/designers/CAD Monkeys seem to think that if you can model it you can build it & it will work. Some think that if the model fit together then real parts will fit together, no need to worry about tolerance…

Use properly CAD is awesome, used to substitute for suitably skilled & experienced Engineers/Designers it’s a menace. To some extent the same with FEA, CFD etc if used wrongly.

I remember that welding rig post, it was kind of scary.

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

 

[ykee]

While I do agree with many of the sentiments above, maybe we should be asking: do new buildings fall down more often than old buildings? do new cars fail more often than old cars? In other words: do engineers design products that are inferior to older products -- I know its not entirely fair, because we always build on the knowledge of the past, on codes etc. that have had the benefit of history. The point is: I think modern designs tend to be superior, and the only way to design within the time frame demanded by a competitive marketplace is to use software.

 

[KENAT]

ykee, I see a lot of time wasted because of CAD, I think part of my point is that used properly we could save even more time/money than we do at present and/or design better end products.

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

 

[graybeach]

I think today's young engineers are sharp or dull in the same proportion they have always been. In "Atlas Shrugged," published in 1957, A railroad executive laments the lack of any good engineers to hire. Really excellent engineers have always been few and far between. The rest of us have to slog along the best we can.
I totally agree with KENAT about CAD. Instead of learning CAD in school, students should go back to learning mechanical drawing with scales and triangles.

 

[TheTick]

90% of what makes me a CAD wiz is what I learned in high school geometry.