You can't become a physician without completing an internship. If your preferred profession is plumbing or you strive to be an electrician, you don't get a license to practice before logging countless hours of real-world apprentice work.
Yet that kind of on-the-job problem solving has not become an established part of most engineering curricula at universities and colleges. Traditionally, this segment is still stuck with programs that focus on the theoretical as opposed to providing a practical, hands-on approach to solving real engineering problems.
A recent blog post by my colleague Chuck Murray pointed out this gap in light of The Princeton Review's 2012 edition of the "Best 376 Colleges," where engineering schools once again dominated the list of "least happy students." One of the points Chuck made was that college administrators are still making little effort to link theoretical classes to real-world engineering problem solving, particularly in the initial semesters.
Arizona State University appears to have taken that message to heart, as illustrated by some big changes to its aerospace engineering program, reflecting students' desire for hands-on training and independent discovery. In response to a pilot study conducted by one of its engineering education researchers, the department found that students were generally doubtful about their mastery of course material and were skeptical that what they learned in junior-level courses was properly preparing them for future engineering roles.
Based on that feedback, two aeronautical engineering faculty members, with support from the school's director, embarked on a new, more practical approach to certain courses -- the goal being to better motivate students and to provide more useful training. Specifically, faculty member Dr. Valana Wells wanted to incorporate computational approaches in aerodynamics classes; and Professor Praveen Shankar, lecturer of aerospace engineering at ASU's School for Engineering of Matter, Transport, and Energy, wanted to build a solid understanding of flight simulation and visualization into the core curriculum for Aircraft Dynamics and Control courses to boost students' understanding of fundamental concepts.
"The basic idea in both courses was to invert the traditional theory to an application approach to improve student motivation," Shankar told me.
I can really appreciate the practical aspects of an engineering curriculum. As interesting as the theoretical foundations are, engineering requires a practical approach. To me the Scientists were usually engaged in more theory and research while the engineers were usually trying to figure out how to put some of those interesting discoveries to work.
A good hands on education that emphasizes solutions to problems is usually appreciated by engineering students.
The literal nuts and bolts are being ignored. Matlab / Solidworks in the curriculum gives a more practical basis, but you're still talking about simulations. There should also be something tangible, something memorable to the class. Doing a root-cause failure analysis on the 737 skin failure earlier this year works well in the Matlab simulations (varying rivet hole size, for instance). But that should be followed by several lab demonstrations to prove the Matlab simulations actually jibe with the real world. Watching a test to failure of something they initially design will be a memory students carry for their entire life.
So are you saying TJ, that providing the real-world design tools in the classroom to do simulation or virtual prototpying doesn't go far enough in terms of delivering that "nuts and bolts" education? Are you saying that there needs to be a hands-on physical prototyping aspect as well so students get their hands "dirty" not just with the technology tools, but with "bending real metal" etc. to learn by doing? If so, that's an interesting point given all of the focus today on virtual prototyping.
The focus on virtual prototyping is because it is inexpensive; electrons are essentially free, while cutting metal, or mixing chemicals, or building chips all cost money. The low-cost approach is not necessarily the best approach when it comes to education! It's awarding a building contract to the lowest bidder for the foundations of your career.
I believe the "classic" rounded education provided by most universities today is a waste of time and money. Why is a liberal arts education segment necessary for an engineer? I got NOTHING from that portion of my education. Well, maybe not "nothing". I know I will NEVER pick up another Flannery O'Conner book ever again. But I would probably not have in the first place, so let's call that a wash.
Engineering classes are taught simple to complex, has to be that way. But they're taught almost as an end to themselves. The student ends up with basic building blocks, but universities do not do a good job tying them into an integrated structure. The student leaves with a degree, and a jumble of blocks with no guidance as to how to put them together.That falls to their first employer.
ASU has the right idea, but it is just the first step.Simulations, virtual prototyping, by themselves, are not going to be memorable to a student. People experience this virtual world every day now; it's common. Necessary, but common.The simulation tools are a great way to learn, but students also need to see that the simulation actually SIMULATES the real world.The only way to do this is to duplicate the simulation results with a real test, to prove that what happens inside a computer is in fact an accurate representation what will really happen.
Take those simulations, have each build on the previous one, culminating in a real world build and ultimate static test to failure, and there will be a memory that lasts a lifetime, and with it a superior education.
TJ, I think your point about needing to integrate the physical prototyping with the newer virtual prototyping stuff is sound--the digital world is never going to fully supplant building something tangible, and learning the proper intersection between the two at an early stage is obviously a core lifelong skill engineers are going to need to master.
It seems like all of the zillions of student competitions I hear and read about all the time are definitely a good way to strike some of that balance. But you raise a good point about needing to integrate that same kind of hands-on work into the day-to-day stuff done in the classroom. Maybe engineering programs really do need to incorporate a residency or apprenticeship. But even if it evolves that way, I still think having a solid liberal arts background is important as well. It's called well-rounded balance.
Who defines "well rounded"? The university which is trying to make a profit? The classes were uninteresting, uninspiring, in some cases downright repulsive (Flannery O'Connor, take note!). The catastrophic failures class was a very cool history class; it tied history and engineering together.
When I went home on break, I talked about the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse. My father proceeded to tell me something NOT taught in the engineering history class: that the insurance salesman who sold the policy on the bridge POCKETED the premium, thinking "bridges don't collapse". The salesman commited suicide. There IS a lot to be said for a broad base for education, but the mind-numbing way it is currently taught makes it practically worthless.
History must be taught (else we are bound to repeat it). But the manner in which it is taught is almost guaranteed to cause it to be ignored. James Burke and his Connections series on PBS would be a terrific example of how to teach history.
The competitions are fun, but again, they stand alone as ends unto themselves. An integrated approach will give more and make a better graduate.
TJ, you obviously have strong feeling about this. In your view, what would the top three or four pillars be for an integrated curriculum that would really make those key connections?
Funds. (It's always about the money). How are the funds to be spent? A university education is already too expensive, so something must be jettisoned to make room for these changes. I am strongly for drastically cutting back on the liberal arts portion, leaving only enough to properly teach an engineer how to communicate (good techincal writing), and a better history curriculum.
Commitment. A university has to decide that the "classic" way needs to be revamped, and commit whole-hog. EVERY teacher gets involved in crafting a new curriculum to create the integrated building block approach. Each teacher can then point to where the student should have come from, and where the student will go next.
Interest. Engineering takes a lot of hard work to learn. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be interesting and inspiring. The simulation approach by ASU is the start, with real world tools (MatLab and Solidworks are terrific for this). But the simulations must be proven to actually simulate the world, and that is where some practical, physical tests come in.
Someone should be arguing that that is what lab classes are for. Haven't heard that yet. Yes, lab classes would fit the bill, but they are also treated as ends unto themselves.
I'm minded of the supersonic aerodynamics class I took. The lab consisted of undergrad students huddled in a dark room, waiting for compressors to fully pressurize the storage tanks. This took at least forty minutes. The actual wind tunnel run lasted about 15 seconds. Then we got to take home whatever data was collected. I learned NOTHING from this lab. Grad students ran the tunnel. We stood around for an hour, for fifteen seconds of noisy, meaningless test.
I suppose we learned that supersonic lab testing is expensive and time consuming. But I think we could have gotten more from it with better preparation.
I agree with all of your points, TJ, except your comments about the liberal arts background. I'm not an engineer by degree or training--I'm a journalist--so perhaps that makes me biased in a certain way. I think that good engineers still need strong communications and writing skills as you well point out, and they also need a fundamental understanding of the business and a broader context of how and where their products fits into the marketplace.
Having covered information technology for years, there was always this focus early on for professionals to concentrate on their core technical skills as a way to get a competitive edge. Today, it's all about having a dual focus not just on the technical stuff, but how to apply the technical stuff to solve real business problems in the context of how the business operates. Shouldn't the engineering challenge be the same and don't you need a well-rounded education and balance in order to deliver that context? I'm not saying in lieu of integrated and practical engineering training, I'm saying in addition to.
It can be easy to criticize engineering curricula for not providing a hands-on learning experience, but hands-on experience can be difficult and expensive for universities. Kudos to The MathWorks for lending a helping hand here. Engineering programs need this kind of help to provide a solid learning experience.
It seems to me that more participation from vendors like MathWorks should be a no-brainer. By providing their software and support to engineering programs and doing their part to add a practical slant to the curriculum, they get a built-in potential customer base as graduating students are already versed and hooked on their programs.
There is definitely lots of activity in terms of design tool vendors sponsoring student competitions and doing regular donations of software. Let's hope that all of the effort pays off in terms of helping to fuel this shift.
When I graduated from Iowa State they had just started to encourage internships at some point during your college studies. Now I know they stress them more than ever. An internship typically includes the summer and either the fall after or the spring semester before but wither way a good 7 months working in an engineering environment in incredibly valuable and I encourage any student to take advantage of the opportunity. As for employers, this can be a great way to find good engineers that you may want to hire in the future. It can be a win, win.
Internships are a definite win-win for the students and the prospective employers no matter what industry or profession. But the internships need to be structured and tied to the curriculum that's being taught in the schools as opposed to being a check box for the student--show up at the job and get the credits. That kind of laissez faire attitude doesn't help the engineer-in-training or the employer.
I'm all for it jmiller. At Virginia Tech, it was called the CoOp program. It was not in any way integrated though. It was suggested as being a good thing for students to use, and that's about it.
Having graduated from General Motors Institute (when it was still owned by GM) I have long believed that co-op is the most sensible approach to an engineering education. (GMI is now known as Kettering University). By tying every semester of education to practical applied experience, students learn not only engineering theory but, on a personal level, whether they even really want to be an engineer.
Most university professors are so enamored with theory that they are hardly capable of designing a practical curriculum. When students come to the class with real world experience they are far better ready to push their limits and demand that the school contribute what they need educationally.
Laura Sapiens' Ego! Smartmouse offers users a unique interactive experience by providing 2D and 3D connectivity, hardware identity authentication, data storage, and more.
From Dell / Intel® New Paradigms in Design Work Scott Hamilton, vertical market strategist for Dell Precision workstations, 5/2/2013 3
Early in my career, I worked as a draftsman and remember the days of drawing on vellum with numbered pencils and Mylar with plastic lead. This was a fun experience in the sense that I ...
I've been using workstations for more than 10 years and love finding ways to get more performance from my system. With demanding professional applications that require more power each ...
A lasting memory from my first job as an engineer in an auto assembly plant is standing on hard concrete at six in the morning, vending-machine coffee clutched in hand, listening to ...
A quick look into the merger of two powerhouse 3D printing OEMs and the new leader in rapid prototyping solutions, Stratasys. The industrial revolution is now led by 3D printing and engineers are given the opportunity to fully maximize their design capabilities, reduce their time-to-market and functionally test prototypes cheaper, faster and easier. Bruce Bradshaw, Director of Marketing in North America, will explore the large product offering and variety of materials that will help CAD designers articulate their product design with actual, physical prototypes. This broadcast will dive deep into technical information including application specific stories from real world customers and their experiences with 3D printing. 3D Printing is
To save this item to your list of favorite Design News content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This
3 
