How to Fix Things

In my talk at the conference, I suggested a list of changes I would like to see in courses. One of the professors summed up the situation with, “Lou, those kinds of changes scare me to death. You are probably right but we will not be changing anything soon.”

First, we need more lab work. Over the years, colleges and universities seem to have cut back on actual hands-on lab work. In some cases, it makes sense as the way engineers design today relies more on computer-based work like math analysis, automated design, simulation, verification, and so on.

There is less breadboarding and more validation by computer. Yet engineers on the job design and build hardware. It seems like there should be more of a hands-on component to the educational process. However, labs are expensive, they eat up vast amounts of time, and most professors hate lab work and have graduate assistants do it.

Most students do get a decent dose of embedded controller and FPGA design, but so many other areas are neglected. Analog, RF, and wireless seem to have less labwork, and there is a real shortage of test and measurement knowledge. All of that gear is very expensive, but that is what students will encounter in industry. I’ve interviewed BSEE grads that could not find pin 1 on any IC, find the cathode on an LED, or measure the frequency of a signal on an oscilloscope. But, they could really use the computer and do high-end math.

The technology schools do a better job at more practical hands-on engineering—I mean engineering technology (ET) as opposed to engineering. Many schools offer a BSET that pretty much covers what is in a BSEE, but with a bit less math and science and more practical design courses. If you are looking for a new engineer that can hit the ground running in a lab, I recommend a recent BSET grad as your best bet.

Second, help retain students rather than weed them out. I see and hear this on a regular basis, especially for those who teach the early electronics courses. The goal seems to be eliminating students in the early circuit analysis courses if they don’t do well. Schools deliberately make the courses too hard to kill off a huge percentage of students who want to be EEs. The result is fewer engineering graduates.

I can’t help but feel that doing more to aid retention of current students will boost the number of graduates more than external recruiting efforts. Yes, I know that some of those students who are weeded out probably should be, but not all. Most just need a little more help or time. Again, this is either an attitude problem or bad teaching. Professors don’t want to give that extra time and feel that if the student can’t make it so be it. Goodbye and good riddance.

How many students who really want to be EEs would be saved with a little more help and a better attitude from professors? Note to professors: Your goal is not to weed out; it is to help students learn. Why not try to save the students instead of dismissing them? Or could it be that you are just carrying out some higher-level policy at the institutions to limit enrollment for lack of funds?

Next, there’s a mixed picture when it comes to textbooks. All of the major publishers were at the conference, of course. There are many textbooks available for most courses. And there are some smaller publishers now addressing some of the niche or more exotic areas that the larger publishers won’t touch.

The big publishers work from a business model that thrives on high volume for profit. With declining enrollments and more specialized subjects, that volume will never occur. Yet a good book is usually necessary for a course. Thankfully, the smaller publishers seem to be addressing all sorts of these low-volume needs.

I also saw that many basic texts have not been changed in years. Again, I know that the basics do not change, but they could be presented in a way more suitable for the current technology. And many still emphasize the wrong topics or omit newer technologies. For instance, many books still teach you 1001 ways to bias a bipolar transistor while the industry has moved on to predominantly MOSFET design by software. Many texts still seem to omit switch-mode power supplies when most of the electronics gear today is predominantly switch-mode.

Another observation is that no one from industry writes the texts. I wish they would, as we may get a more practical, real-world feel for engineering and design that is missing in the books written by faculty. Given that we could get industry authors, would the faculty adopt new books?

And when are we going to get textbooks by the chapter as publishers have been promising for years? A few will do this if the volume is good, but otherwise, no. Again, it is a money/profit thing. I bet many professors would love to cherry-pick a book and use only what they want and need.

Also, publishers should push on through and give us electronic books—whole and chapter by chapter. They would be cheaper for students, and faster and easier to update. Most students were brought up with the computer and don’t mind reading from a screen. It is what this generation does. Excellent e-book readers and lower prices show that it is time.

Furthermore, no one mentioned continuing education at this conference. It used to be a hot topic in industry and academia. Did we abandon it? Industry hates to support it because it costs dollars and time, but it would benefit from bringing engineers up to speed.

Continuing education is an often indirect and long-term benefit, but technical obsolescence is a certainty and comes on you faster than you perceive. All we need is for the institutions to offer more courses geared for continuing education purposes. Price them right and you will get some industry participation.

In talking to some engineers about continuing education, most say the same thing. If they need to know something, they just Google it, and voila, instant knowledge. There’s big-time truth in those comments, but you do not always get the depth you need. It’s no wonder continuing education faded away. That point of view, more than ever, highlights the need for colleges to teach their students how to learn.

Finally, schools need to quit teaching the history of electronics, update their programs, curricula, and courses, and get more industry input. Meanwhile, industry should get more involved. So many of you in industry are afraid of academia. But in most cases, you know more than they do. They assume the ivory tower position, but only you industry people know what is really needed today.

Additionally, the accrediting bodies should give more credence to real industry experience over academic credentials. Even people with PhDs don’t know it all or even what’s best. Neither does a degree ensure that a person is a good teacher. That PhD grad is mostly academic, with a very narrow focus on some research topic that is not applied. It is the applied part that is missing in engineering, which by definition is truly an applied discipline. I’d rather have a student taught by a smart MSEE with industry experience than a PhD with little or no real experience.

Try to remember that not all EEs are alike. There is more than one type or level of engineering. Those who do go on for graduate work and the PhD need somewhat different courses to support research and greater subject depth than those who just want to do product engineering, test engineering, or manufacturing. A one-size curriculum does not always fit every job out there. Adjust accordingly.

Okay, so I have been critical, but it is needed. I can defend my opinions, as I have been a professor and have seen how it is. And I still teach as an adjunct professor every now and then. But that said, I do think that despite their faults, American institutions and faculty are still the best in the world. They could improve their efforts, however, at staying in tune with the industry they serve.

We need a strong educational system to keep this country in the forefront of technology. The institutions need to be less self-involved and more outward-oriented. They say all the right things in altruistic verbiage but often do not practice it. Instead they focus on tenure, benefits, grants, political maneuvering, and other internal, self-serving efforts to the detriment of the student. Just prove me wrong.