There are a lot of people who think that the whole educational system needs some changes, not just in the engineering field. Edlantis.com is the best informational source that could offer a different approach in order to solve this problem.
There is no future for engineering in North America in my opinion...I think the kids understand that and don't pursue education in this field...no amount of change in education is going to change that...engineering is a commodity, can be done in India, China or Russia
Engineering should be taught everywhere, not just in engineering schools. The knowledge is important in order to understand our world. But don't count on an engineering job. Those jobs are for the migrant workers. Engineering is a commodity.
Engineering education is OK. If what was covered reflected the nature of work now that would have driven me elsewhere, and that might be as it should be. The problem lies in the present nature of work. From contacts across many industries and companies, what once was satisfying for the reward of accomplishment, building, dealing with concrete physical (real) problems, getting results and learning is now rare, and jobs that use knowledge and skills learned are few. Struggling to stay employed, if not leaving altogether, what I hear is the wail of increasing overloads to cover things that are a waste of any engineer?s training. With technical questions that can be performed after two years of education we don?t need more engineers. A ?good? answer is often judged solely by salesmanship while ignoring whether it is sound. Challenges are plowing through the unending messes created at work. How often do you hear you have to sell yourself. How often do you hear choose your battles wisely. How often do any of these truly resolve following technical savvy. How often have you heard the comment that Dilbert is a documentary.
i agree I am OK with the whole, more school if you want it scenario that we have now, and All jobs have a learning curve that takes a while to get into. Since engineering is a technical job, the curve is just much steeper. Even if every engineer had a PhD, there would still be at least a 1 year break in period wherever you get a job. Heck, right now, Im a HS student busing tables at a restaurant, and it took me about 8 months to get the job down well. What I am opposed to though is changing the process of getting an engineering degree by requiring some stupid Liberal arts and crafts degree before you can go to "engineering school" and the meat and potatoes of crunching numbers.
[url=http://www.freecarforum.com]New Cars[/url]-New Cars
I am OK with the whole, more school if you want it scenario that we have now, and All jobs have a learning curve that takes a while to get into. Since engineering is a technical job, the curve is just much steeper. Even if every engineer had a PhD, there would still be at least a 1 year break in period wherever you get a job. Heck, right now, Im a HS student busing tables at a restaurant, and it took me about 8 months to get the job down well.
What I am opposed to though is changing the process of getting an engineering degree by requiring some stupid Liberal arts and crafts degree before you can go to "engineering school" and the meat and potatoes of crunching numbers.
New Cars--New Cars
I agree that engineering education needs some help. However, I think that a good engineering education should be hard. It is the nature of the subject matter. Today?s American engineers are more innovative and more capable than any in the world. The real issue with student ?shortfalls? is compensation. A hard curriculum does not translate to high pay. Which discourages the faint of heart. The thought of making engineering schools easier is misguided at best. It is like trying to fix a symptom without addressing the problem. The end result of this effort will make mediocre engineers that aren?t worth much.
One reason interest in engineering is on the decline in the U.S. is because a fresh graduate may have a decent job for three maybe four years and then be replaced by cheap labor from India. If you want to raise a family and have long term employment, engineering is not the field to be in the U.S., unless you are from India. There is no shortage of engineers in this country. Corporate America has been pushing this since 1991. Corporate America keeps pushing this because they want the cheap labor from India. An example is several months ago AC Nielsen laid off over 200 American engineers and replaced them the next day with Indian engineers that they had already brought into the country. AC Nielsen give the American engineers a choice, sign a document saying you are leaving voluntary and you will get severance pay. If you do not sign you will be laid off with no severance pay I believe this is called extortion. No shortage of American engineers. Of course this should be investigated by the U.S. Department of Labor and the FBI. Extortion is a crime. The secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor is very anti-labor. She continuously parrots industry lobbyists bad mouthing Amerivan engineers without knowing the real story. Also engineers in other countries are respected as creators and MDs are at about the same level as the engineers are treated in this country. American engineers are the ones that design and create medical equipment and all other high tech marvels. Examples: The internet, cell phones, PCs, automible and aircraft electronics, space shuttle. None of these and much more were not engineered by Indians or Chinese. Indians and Chinese, unless born in this America, do not seem to be able to think out of the box. Its the culture in America that fosters this type of thinking. Now to be sure I am only referring to about 85% of the Indian and Chinese engineers. The remaining 10%-15% are very good. But they normally stay in their own countries because they know they will move up in their structure in Indian.
And the U.S. Congress continues to allow the assault on American engineers to appease the corporations that pass out big money to the members of Congress.
I have observed over the past 8-10 years that many high school grads going on to college/university with the goal to study engineering, switch majors after their first or second year. Most often the switch is to a major that is less challenging and less rewarding at the end. In addition to the change needed in engineering education, is step-by-step/periodic motivation and encouragement to help students into their third year of engineering studies.
As we unveil EE Times’ 2015 Silicon 60 list, journalist & Silicon 60 researcher Peter Clarke hosts a conversation on startups in the electronics industry. Panelists Dan Armbrust (investment firm Silicon Catalyst), Andrew Kau (venture capital firm Walden International), and Stan Boland (successful serial entrepreneur, former CEO of Neul, Icera) join in the live debate.