HOME  |  NEWS  |  BLOGS  |  MESSAGES  |  FEATURES  |  VIDEOS  |  WEBINARS  |  INDUSTRIES  |  FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS
  |  REGISTER  |  LOGIN  |  HELP
Page 1/7  >  >>
James Patterson
User Rank
Silver
Just how good are these physics programs anyway?
James Patterson   1/21/2014 4:44:36 PM
If you are graduating fewer than five students a year average (less than 25 in five years) just what kind of resources are available to the students? What are the quality of laboratories etc? What is the quality of the professor(s)? Are these "me too" programs? Maybe there really should only be 300 good schools with the rest being shut down. Let's look at the quality of these programs.

bobjengr
User Rank
Platinum
LAWS OF PHYSICS
bobjengr   9/21/2013 8:22:21 PM
NO RATINGS
Excellent post Geoffrey.  I could not agree with you more.  I'm amazed at how our country has "folded" relative to promoting STEM subjects AND addressing the great need for early involvement of middle school and certainly high school students. We no longer have a national vision or national goal the manned space program provided.  We get absolutely no help from the "fed" whose participants are too busy trying to get reelected.  In the long run, our country will be the losers.

mechannovator
User Rank
Iron
Interesting Perceptions of Texas
mechannovator   4/24/2013 7:30:35 PM
"Oddly, science and engineering play an extraordinarily important role in this state."

 

Maybe I am uninitiated on the possible meanings of this statement, and prefer not to criticize a well-written article that I personally believe _needs_ to be written again and again. As a native Texan who has always seen technological enterprise as a dominant force, I ask... oddly? Substantiate.

Ann R. Thryft
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Sputnik
Ann R. Thryft   1/19/2012 4:03:10 PM
NO RATINGS

Chuck, that's really interesting. What was car reliability being so poorly engineered back then and apparently, only in that decade? I've heard that residential construction in that decade was poorly engineered and shoddily made. What was going on during the 1970s to encourage or demand such lousy quality in both fields?


Charles Murray
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Sputnik
Charles Murray   1/18/2012 11:24:48 PM
NO RATINGS
Most automotive engineers will admit that vehicle reliability was poor in the '70s. Even the staunchest apologists will admit that the reliability of cars in North America climbed when American automakers realized they were in a dogfight in the late 1980s. That's another way of saying, "We could have made better cars, but we didn't start doing it until we were forced to."

Ann R. Thryft
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Sputnik
Ann R. Thryft   1/10/2012 12:38:47 PM
NO RATINGS

That makes me think of another thread:

http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1395&doc_id=236267#msgs

where I mentioned the shift in the mid-70s to smaller Japanese cars, which seemed to me like an '"evolutionary" process at the time. But I was thinking of mileage and small size, not lousy engineering--I didn't realize that was going on at the time. That would obviously add a big impetus to the shift!


Charles Murray
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Sputnik
Charles Murray   1/9/2012 11:15:32 PM
NO RATINGS
Going from the '60s to the '70s, when American engineers were most notable for building lousy cars, there was a precipitous drop in esteem for engineers.

Ann R. Thryft
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Sputnik
Ann R. Thryft   1/5/2012 3:59:42 PM
NO RATINGS

You know, I think this whole thrust towards STEM that occurred during the Sputnik years also gave engineers a lot more respect, to bring in the topic of a thread from another article:

http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1381&doc_id=236938&itc=dn_analysis_element&

Engineers and scientists were seen then more as the heroes that were helping us win the race for space.


Charles Murray
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Sputnik
Charles Murray   1/4/2012 11:34:14 PM
NO RATINGS
Good point, Ann. Sputnik was easy for the masses to support, especially given the way American politicians were characterizing it. Given the fear of nuclear war at the time, many Americans believed that Russian spacecrafts would be flying overhead, flinging hydrogen bombs down on us from on high. Lyndon Johnson famously said, "I do not believe that this generation of Americans is willing to go to bed each night by the light of a Communist moon." For pure sense of national mission, it's tough to match that.  

Ann R. Thryft
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Sputnik
Ann R. Thryft   12/14/2011 3:56:50 PM
NO RATINGS

Alex, that's an interesting point about many Sputniks instead of just one. Not only did the one Sputnik sway public opinion and galvanize US education efforts, its singularity made the whole issue easy to understand for many people, as well as making it easy to believe we could "win". I think the fact that now there are many Sputniks makes it harder to identify the issue--which is basically the same--harder to sway public opinion, and harder to galvanize education efforts.


Page 1/7  >  >>


Partner Zone
Latest Analysis
The engineers and inventors of the post WWII period turned their attention to advancements in electronics, communication, and entertainment. Breakthrough inventions range from LEGOs and computer gaming to the integrated circuit and Ethernet -- a range of advancements that have little in common except they changed our lives.
The age of touch could soon come to an end. From smartphones and smartwatches, to home devices, to in-car infotainment systems, touch is no longer the primary user interface. Technology market leaders are driving a migration from touch to voice as a user interface.
Soft starter technology has become a way to mitigate startup stressors by moderating a motor’s voltage supply during the machine start-up phase, slowly ramping it up and effectively adjusting the machine’s load behavior to protect mechanical components.
A new report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) makes a start on developing control schemes, process measurements, and modeling and simulation methods for powder bed fusion additive manufacturing.
If you’re developing a product with lots of sensors and no access to the power grid, then you’ll want to take note of a Design News Continuing Education Center class, “Designing Low Power Systems Using Battery and Energy Harvesting Energy Sources."
More:Blogs|News
Design News Webinar Series
3/31/2015 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
2/25/2015 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
12/11/2014 8:00 a.m. California / 11:00 a.m. New York
5/7/2015 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
May 4 - 8, Designing Low Power Systems using Battery and Energy Harvesting Energy Sources
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6 |  7


Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Last Archived Class
Sponsored by Proto Labs
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Sponsored Content

Technology Marketplace

Copyright © 2015 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service