School maths standards

gyansorova@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> Well you know it's a matter of opinion. I know a guy who graduated in
> the 1960s and says that you always need a min of a Masters to be a
> good design engineer. Nowadays they have more on the syllabus to cover
> than 30 years ago. Embedded systems didn't exist back then for
> instance, no FPGAs,concurrent programming and DSP was just theory in
> most places.

That much is clearly untrue. A syllabus adapts the the circumstances and 
time available. It always covers a similar amount in a similar time. 10 
years before I went to college thermionic valves were covered in great 
detail. When I was at college we only did a little about them. Now, I 
guess the get scant mention, especially with CRT TVs disappearing.

I studied almost no DSP at college, like everyone else at that time. 
Still, I had been grounded well enough in basics that I went into my 
first job developing signal processing from the chip level up without 
any real problems.

I think your list is very oddly focussed. Embedded systems always 
existed, and using FPGAs has no fundamental difference from any other 
logic design.

> The new M.Eng degrees make you learn a language as well in some places
> making it mcuh more like a European degree. In fact you may think that
> the 3 years you spent was all you needed but look at Europe and see
> that they have had 4 years for much longer - also Scotland and
> Ireland. In fact in Scotland in some places it was 5 years for a first
> degree if you include time in industry to go with it. Many of the top
> Unis had no industrial placement whereas the Polytechnics did - and
> they are the ones you are running down! The only problem was that the

I wasn't trying to run anyone down. The universities, polys and 
technical colleges served pretty well balanced purposes in the old days. 
If M. Eng degrees now make you take a language, it sounds like they have 
run out of solid engineering material to fill the courses with. Not long 
before I went to college you needed O-level Latin to get into an 
engineering degree course. As soon as that stupidity stopped, our Latin 
teacher was left with nobody to teach. She also taught German, so she 
didn't loose her job. :-)

> Polys were not as hot on research as the trad Unis so they took a long
> time to catch up and never have by all accounts. This is in contrast

This was extremely variable. Some of the old polys did excellent 
research work. It depended pretty much on who was there, and their 
motivations. Their position made it hard for them to get funding, 
though. Some of the old polys deserved to be renamed as universities, 
and I believe some have a fine reputation now.

> to the 1960s when many new Unis were formed but the Government poured
> money into them. Instead nowadays they changed the names and said they
> had to get their own money from student numbers and research - not
> possible unless you recruit different staff to get the research right.
> Also you will find that the old Polytechnic degress were also
> acredited by say the IEE whereas now many of them may not be.
> Standards have gone up, not down.

The expansion in the 60s was a good thing. Before that, university 
places were very limited in the UK. I think after that surge of 
expansion, pretty much any of the people I grew up with who could cope 
with a university syllabus were able to find a place. Beyond that time 
expansion was pure dilution, and it appears to have had dire consequences.

When I was at college, there were obviously good and bad universities. 
However, a moderation scheme balanced standards well enough that people 
asked first what class of degree you had, and only then where you got 
it. If the IEE won't even accredit some degrees, it sounds like the 
system has descended badly from there. The old centrally issued poly 
degrees (CNAA, was it?) were as valued as the degrees from most 
universities. If that is no longer true, it sounds like standards have 
descended into the toilet.

Steve

On Aug 13, 1:10 pm, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
> gyansor...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Well you know it's a matter of opinion. I know a guy who graduated in
> > the 1960s and says that you always need a min of a Masters to be a
> > good design engineer. Nowadays they have more on the syllabus to cover
> > than 30 years ago. Embedded systems didn't exist back then for
> > instance, no FPGAs,concurrent programming and DSP was just theory in
> > most places.
>
> That much is clearly untrue. A syllabus adapts the the circumstances and
> time available. It always covers a similar amount in a similar time. 10
> years before I went to college thermionic valves were covered in great
> detail. When I was at college we only did a little about them. Now, I
> guess the get scant mention, especially with CRT TVs disappearing.
>
> I studied almost no DSP at college, like everyone else at that time.
> Still, I had been grounded well enough in basics that I went into my
> first job developing signal processing from the chip level up without
> any real problems.
>
> I think your list is very oddly focussed. Embedded systems always
> existed, and using FPGAs has no fundamental difference from any other
> logic design.
>
> > The new M.Eng degrees make you learn a language as well in some places
> > making it mcuh more like a European degree. In fact you may think that
> > the 3 years you spent was all you needed but look at Europe and see
> > that they have had 4 years for much longer - also Scotland and
> > Ireland. In fact in Scotland in some places it was 5 years for a first
> > degree if you include time in industry to go with it. Many of the top
> > Unis had no industrial placement whereas the Polytechnics did - and
> > they are the ones you are running down! The only problem was that the
>
> I wasn't trying to run anyone down. The universities, polys and
> technical colleges served pretty well balanced purposes in the old days.
> If M. Eng degrees now make you take a language, it sounds like they have
> run out of solid engineering material to fill the courses with. Not long
> before I went to college you needed O-level Latin to get into an
> engineering degree course. As soon as that stupidity stopped, our Latin
> teacher was left with nobody to teach. She also taught German, so she
> didn't loose her job. :-)
>
> > Polys were not as hot on research as the trad Unis so they took a long
> > time to catch up and never have by all accounts. This is in contrast
>
> This was extremely variable. Some of the old polys did excellent
> research work. It depended pretty much on who was there, and their
> motivations. Their position made it hard for them to get funding,
> though. Some of the old polys deserved to be renamed as universities,
> and I believe some have a fine reputation now.
>
> > to the 1960s when many new Unis were formed but the Government poured
> > money into them. Instead nowadays they changed the names and said they
> > had to get their own money from student numbers and research - not
> > possible unless you recruit different staff to get the research right.
> > Also you will find that the old Polytechnic degress were also
> > acredited by say the IEE whereas now many of them may not be.
> > Standards have gone up, not down.
>
> The expansion in the 60s was a good thing. Before that, university
> places were very limited in the UK. I think after that surge of
> expansion, pretty much any of the people I grew up with who could cope
> with a university syllabus were able to find a place. Beyond that time
> expansion was pure dilution, and it appears to have had dire consequences.
>
> When I was at college, there were obviously good and bad universities.
> However, a moderation scheme balanced standards well enough that people
> asked first what class of degree you had, and only then where you got
> it. If the IEE won't even accredit some degrees, it sounds like the
> system has descended badly from there. The old centrally issued poly
> degrees (CNAA, was it?) were as valued as the degrees from most
> universities. If that is no longer true, it sounds like standards have
> descended into the toilet.
>
> Steve


The CNAA was disbanded a long time ago - maybe 95 ish? Can't remember.
After that they started giving out degrees based on the CNAA model
which probably exists to this day in some (ex-poly) places.
The language was introduced as an asset so you could work in say
France or Germany as a prof engineer. This mirrors many European
degrees which also have say English to study as well as the other
technical parts.
I don't agree that it is any easier nowadays or just the same. They
did more maths in the 1970s in most places and they had to throw much
of it out to make way for more digital papers. Lots of places stopped
teaching power as it became less popular. Whilst valves may have all
but died we now have FETs of all sorts and varieties. CMOS IC design
(analogue) was unknown in the 1970s - which was almost exclusively
Bipolar (CMOS being the domain of the digital then). Data compression
was not so advanced either - no MP2 or MP3 players.
Of course we all got by but I doubt you would be as good a C++
programmer as those who are professionally trained.Software
engineering is now recognised as a subject in it's own right.
There was little or no simulation software either (much of it was
experimental on mainframes).  They also teach more management
nowadays. Professional accreditation groups demand it for some reason.

Look at this M.Eng

http://www.elec.gla.ac.uk/content/courses/coursestructure/cs_electricalelectronics.html

It's chock a block.

Randy Yates wrote:
> gyansorova@gmail.com writes:
>> [...]
>> Standards have gone up, not down.
> 
> My response would be "yes" and "no." I think a chasm has developed
> that separates the "good" math people from the "average" students, and
> "average" has been going down while "good" has been going up.


I agree in general except that I would classify the students as either 
'good' or 'poor.' I am not seeing all that many 'average' students in 
the Maths and Electronics classes I teach.

Over the years I have seen the classical 'bell' distribution break up 
into a sort of 'camel' curve showing broad peaks typically centred on 
marks of 45% and 75%.  Class results typically show plenty of Fails and 
Distinctions, with relatively few Passes.

We were advised recently by an educational expert that we are now 
dealing with 'Generation-Y,' and we have to tailor our teaching to their 
strengths and weaknesses.  Their weaknesses include, apparently, a short 
attention span, and an inability to use traditional resources such as 
print.  We can overcome this we were told, by breaking classes into 
short five-minute segments (so they don't get bored) and presenting our 
material in a variety of media.  The students could be assessed in a 
series of tests, presumablly before the impact of the recent multi-media 
presentations have worn off.

All this seemed disturbingly familiar.  Then I remembered that about 
fifteen years ago I attended a similar presentation from another 
educational expert, only this time she was talking about the needs of 
students with learning disabilities that had been caused by various 
medical problems.  I find it hard to believe that half the students are 
now in this category.  Even if they are, I don't think that prospective 
employers will be rushing to structure their work-day into interesting 
five-minute experiences involving a number of media.


Too many able students are failing though.  Many Generation-Y students 
seem to take the attitude that "nothing should be this hard," and will 
accept failure rather than do real work.  Attitudes change with 
maturity, and some later undertake part-time study to complete their 
qualifications.  They generally succeed, but this time around they have 
the added responsibilities of a full-time job and a family, and that is 
really hard work!

gyansorova@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 13, 1:10 pm, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
>> gyansor...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Well you know it's a matter of opinion. I know a guy who graduated in
>>> the 1960s and says that you always need a min of a Masters to be a
>>> good design engineer. Nowadays they have more on the syllabus to cover
>>> than 30 years ago. Embedded systems didn't exist back then for
>>> instance, no FPGAs,concurrent programming and DSP was just theory in
>>> most places.
>> That much is clearly untrue. A syllabus adapts the the circumstances and
>> time available. It always covers a similar amount in a similar time. 10
>> years before I went to college thermionic valves were covered in great
>> detail. When I was at college we only did a little about them. Now, I
>> guess the get scant mention, especially with CRT TVs disappearing.
>>
>> I studied almost no DSP at college, like everyone else at that time.
>> Still, I had been grounded well enough in basics that I went into my
>> first job developing signal processing from the chip level up without
>> any real problems.
>>
>> I think your list is very oddly focussed. Embedded systems always
>> existed, and using FPGAs has no fundamental difference from any other
>> logic design.
>>
>>> The new M.Eng degrees make you learn a language as well in some places
>>> making it mcuh more like a European degree. In fact you may think that
>>> the 3 years you spent was all you needed but look at Europe and see
>>> that they have had 4 years for much longer - also Scotland and
>>> Ireland. In fact in Scotland in some places it was 5 years for a first
>>> degree if you include time in industry to go with it. Many of the top
>>> Unis had no industrial placement whereas the Polytechnics did - and
>>> they are the ones you are running down! The only problem was that the
>> I wasn't trying to run anyone down. The universities, polys and
>> technical colleges served pretty well balanced purposes in the old days.
>> If M. Eng degrees now make you take a language, it sounds like they have
>> run out of solid engineering material to fill the courses with. Not long
>> before I went to college you needed O-level Latin to get into an
>> engineering degree course. As soon as that stupidity stopped, our Latin
>> teacher was left with nobody to teach. She also taught German, so she
>> didn't loose her job. :-)
>>
>>> Polys were not as hot on research as the trad Unis so they took a long
>>> time to catch up and never have by all accounts. This is in contrast
>> This was extremely variable. Some of the old polys did excellent
>> research work. It depended pretty much on who was there, and their
>> motivations. Their position made it hard for them to get funding,
>> though. Some of the old polys deserved to be renamed as universities,
>> and I believe some have a fine reputation now.
>>
>>> to the 1960s when many new Unis were formed but the Government poured
>>> money into them. Instead nowadays they changed the names and said they
>>> had to get their own money from student numbers and research - not
>>> possible unless you recruit different staff to get the research right.
>>> Also you will find that the old Polytechnic degress were also
>>> acredited by say the IEE whereas now many of them may not be.
>>> Standards have gone up, not down.
>> The expansion in the 60s was a good thing. Before that, university
>> places were very limited in the UK. I think after that surge of
>> expansion, pretty much any of the people I grew up with who could cope
>> with a university syllabus were able to find a place. Beyond that time
>> expansion was pure dilution, and it appears to have had dire consequences.
>>
>> When I was at college, there were obviously good and bad universities.
>> However, a moderation scheme balanced standards well enough that people
>> asked first what class of degree you had, and only then where you got
>> it. If the IEE won't even accredit some degrees, it sounds like the
>> system has descended badly from there. The old centrally issued poly
>> degrees (CNAA, was it?) were as valued as the degrees from most
>> universities. If that is no longer true, it sounds like standards have
>> descended into the toilet.
>>
>> Steve
> 
> 
> The CNAA was disbanded a long time ago - maybe 95 ish? Can't remember.
> After that they started giving out degrees based on the CNAA model
> which probably exists to this day in some (ex-poly) places.
> The language was introduced as an asset so you could work in say
> France or Germany as a prof engineer. This mirrors many European
> degrees which also have say English to study as well as the other
> technical parts.
> I don't agree that it is any easier nowadays or just the same. They
> did more maths in the 1970s in most places and they had to throw much
> of it out to make way for more digital papers. Lots of places stopped
> teaching power as it became less popular. Whilst valves may have all
> but died we now have FETs of all sorts and varieties. CMOS IC design
> (analogue) was unknown in the 1970s - which was almost exclusively
> Bipolar (CMOS being the domain of the digital then). Data compression
> was not so advanced either - no MP2 or MP3 players.
> Of course we all got by but I doubt you would be as good a C++
> programmer as those who are professionally trained.Software
> engineering is now recognised as a subject in it's own right.
> There was little or no simulation software either (much of it was
> experimental on mainframes).  They also teach more management
> nowadays. Professional accreditation groups demand it for some reason.
> 
> Look at this M.Eng
> 
> http://www.elec.gla.ac.uk/content/courses/coursestructure/cs_electricalelectronics.html
> 
> It's chock a block.
> 
I think teaching some well focussed management material might be useful. 
I certainly think law for engineers needs much more emphasis than in did 
when I was at college. We saw the law for engineers option as a course 
for people who couldn't cut it with the hard stuff. That was naive, and 
a little guidance could have changed that perception.

Language teaching in an engineering degree is sheer stupidity. Its like 
buying a TV, and being pushed a free DVD player you don't want, instead 
of a decent discount. You just end up wasting resources on something 
that doesn't fit. Do UK universities offer Cantonese or Mandarin as 
language options for engineers? It turns out those are the only foreign 
languages I have actually needed. People complain about the lack of 
foreign language skills in many English speaking countries. However, if 
your mother tongue is not English, the choice for a useful second 
language is generally pretty clear. When your mother tongue is English, 
you get pushed into learning whatever languages the education system has 
historically geared itself up to push.

I think in general an engineer writes better C++ than someone 
professionally trained in C++. A generalist always wins in the long 
term. :-) This is the quality a successful degree course should help 
develop in someone. At this time software engineering is a pretty bogus 
subject. Ask 10 seasoned professionals about engineering software, and 
you'll get 10 totally different answers. :-)

Actually, there was quite a lot of simulation software in the 70s. Most 
modern simulation tools have long histories. The notable exception would 
be the lack of a matlab type of tool back then.

Regards,
Steve

John Monro wrote:
> Randy Yates wrote:
>> gyansorova@gmail.com writes:
>>> [...]
>>> Standards have gone up, not down.
>>
>> My response would be "yes" and "no." I think a chasm has developed
>> that separates the "good" math people from the "average" students, and
>> "average" has been going down while "good" has been going up.
> 
> 
> I agree in general except that I would classify the students as either 
> 'good' or 'poor.' I am not seeing all that many 'average' students in 
> the Maths and Electronics classes I teach.
> 
> Over the years I have seen the classical 'bell' distribution break up 
> into a sort of 'camel' curve showing broad peaks typically centred on 
> marks of 45% and 75%.  Class results typically show plenty of Fails and 
> Distinctions, with relatively few Passes.
> 
> We were advised recently by an educational expert that we are now 
> dealing with 'Generation-Y,' and we have to tailor our teaching to their 
> strengths and weaknesses.  Their weaknesses include, apparently, a short 
> attention span, and an inability to use traditional resources such as 
> print.  We can overcome this we were told, by breaking classes into 
> short five-minute segments (so they don't get bored) and presenting our 
> material in a variety of media.  The students could be assessed in a 
> series of tests, presumablly before the impact of the recent multi-media 
> presentations have worn off.
> 
> All this seemed disturbingly familiar.  Then I remembered that about 
> fifteen years ago I attended a similar presentation from another 
> educational expert, only this time she was talking about the needs of 
> students with learning disabilities that had been caused by various 
> medical problems.  I find it hard to believe that half the students are 
> now in this category.  Even if they are, I don't think that prospective 
> employers will be rushing to structure their work-day into interesting 
> five-minute experiences involving a number of media.
> 
> 
> Too many able students are failing though.  Many Generation-Y students 
> seem to take the attitude that "nothing should be this hard," and will 
> accept failure rather than do real work.  Attitudes change with 
> maturity, and some later undertake part-time study to complete their 
> qualifications.  They generally succeed, but this time around they have 
> the added responsibilities of a full-time job and a family, and that is 
> really hard work!

I wonder how much of this reflects changes in the average young person, 
and how much reflects changes in the kind of young people entering an 
engineering course.

When I left college 30 years ago, most of my classmates found an 
engineering job, doing some kind of real engineering. I think even the 
guy who was the son of a cabinet minister did so. :-) The last time I 
heard, only 15% of the graduates from that faculty were going into 
actual engineering jobs. This is one of the UK's top colleges. I don't 
know what figures might be like for other colleges. I think there have 
clearly been changes in the kinds of people taking engineering degrees, 
and what they hope to get out of them. What that means for the technical 
abilities or attention spans of the students I can't say.

Regards,
Steve

On Aug 13, 2:22 pm, John Monro <johnmo...@optusnet.removethis.com.au>
wrote:
> Randy Yates wrote:
> > gyansor...@gmail.com writes:
> >> [...]
> >> Standards have gone up, not down.
>
> > My response would be "yes" and "no." I think a chasm has developed
> > that separates the "good" math people from the "average" students, and
> > "average" has been going down while "good" has been going up.
>
> I agree in general except that I would classify the students as either
> 'good' or 'poor.' I am not seeing all that many 'average' students in
> the Maths and Electronics classes I teach.
>
> Over the years I have seen the classical 'bell' distribution break up
> into a sort of 'camel' curve showing broad peaks typically centred on
> marks of 45% and 75%.  Class results typically show plenty of Fails and
> Distinctions, with relatively few Passes.
>
> We were advised recently by an educational expert that we are now
> dealing with 'Generation-Y,' and we have to tailor our teaching to their
> strengths and weaknesses.  Their weaknesses include, apparently, a short
> attention span, and an inability to use traditional resources such as
> print.  We can overcome this we were told, by breaking classes into
> short five-minute segments (so they don't get bored) and presenting our
> material in a variety of media.  The students could be assessed in a
> series of tests, presumablly before the impact of the recent multi-media
> presentations have worn off.
>
> All this seemed disturbingly familiar.  Then I remembered that about
> fifteen years ago I attended a similar presentation from another
> educational expert, only this time she was talking about the needs of
> students with learning disabilities that had been caused by various
> medical problems.  I find it hard to believe that half the students are
> now in this category.  Even if they are, I don't think that prospective
> employers will be rushing to structure their work-day into interesting
> five-minute experiences involving a number of media.
>
> Too many able students are failing though.  Many Generation-Y students
> seem to take the attitude that "nothing should be this hard," and will
> accept failure rather than do real work.  Attitudes change with
> maturity, and some later undertake part-time study to complete their
> qualifications.  They generally succeed, but this time around they have
> the added responsibilities of a full-time job and a family, and that is
> really hard work!

It's also called the MTV generation. They expect information to be
presented professionally and to be entertaining! A big ask when many
lecturers are as interesting as a bar of soap!
Of course when we were young the older generation also said similar
unflattering things about us no doubt. In their day they needed Latin
before they got into University and before that they used to have
their lectures in Latin. They also needed a foreign language. The
cream always rises to the top however nomatter how you mix it.The
dregs always fall to the bottom..

On Aug 13, 3:15 pm, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
> John Monro wrote:
> > Randy Yates wrote:
> >> gyansor...@gmail.com writes:
> >>> [...]
> >>> Standards have gone up, not down.
>
> >> My response would be "yes" and "no." I think a chasm has developed
> >> that separates the "good" math people from the "average" students, and
> >> "average" has been going down while "good" has been going up.
>
> > I agree in general except that I would classify the students as either
> > 'good' or 'poor.' I am not seeing all that many 'average' students in
> > the Maths and Electronics classes I teach.
>
> > Over the years I have seen the classical 'bell' distribution break up
> > into a sort of 'camel' curve showing broad peaks typically centred on
> > marks of 45% and 75%.  Class results typically show plenty of Fails and
> > Distinctions, with relatively few Passes.
>
> > We were advised recently by an educational expert that we are now
> > dealing with 'Generation-Y,' and we have to tailor our teaching to their
> > strengths and weaknesses.  Their weaknesses include, apparently, a short
> > attention span, and an inability to use traditional resources such as
> > print.  We can overcome this we were told, by breaking classes into
> > short five-minute segments (so they don't get bored) and presenting our
> > material in a variety of media.  The students could be assessed in a
> > series of tests, presumablly before the impact of the recent multi-media
> > presentations have worn off.
>
> > All this seemed disturbingly familiar.  Then I remembered that about
> > fifteen years ago I attended a similar presentation from another
> > educational expert, only this time she was talking about the needs of
> > students with learning disabilities that had been caused by various
> > medical problems.  I find it hard to believe that half the students are
> > now in this category.  Even if they are, I don't think that prospective
> > employers will be rushing to structure their work-day into interesting
> > five-minute experiences involving a number of media.
>
> > Too many able students are failing though.  Many Generation-Y students
> > seem to take the attitude that "nothing should be this hard," and will
> > accept failure rather than do real work.  Attitudes change with
> > maturity, and some later undertake part-time study to complete their
> > qualifications.  They generally succeed, but this time around they have
> > the added responsibilities of a full-time job and a family, and that is
> > really hard work!
>
> I wonder how much of this reflects changes in the average young person,
> and how much reflects changes in the kind of young people entering an
> engineering course.
>
> When I left college 30 years ago, most of my classmates found an
> engineering job, doing some kind of real engineering. I think even the
> guy who was the son of a cabinet minister did so. :-) The last time I
> heard, only 15% of the graduates from that faculty were going into
> actual engineering jobs. This is one of the UK's top colleges. I don't
> know what figures might be like for other colleges. I think there have
> clearly been changes in the kinds of people taking engineering degrees,
> and what they hope to get out of them. What that means for the technical
> abilities or attention spans of the students I can't say.
>
> Regards,
> Steve

Well, when I was a kid electronics mags were easily found and had
inteersting projects. It was my life. Very few people are interested
in electronics nowadays beyond interfacing their mpeg player to a pc!
Many students study engineering just for a job rather than a vocation
or lifetimes ambition. That's the biggest difference though there are
still a few old style students about if you look hard enough.

HardySpicer wrote:
> On Aug 13, 3:15 pm, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
>> John Monro wrote:
>>> Randy Yates wrote:
>>>> gyansor...@gmail.com writes:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> Standards have gone up, not down.
>>>> My response would be "yes" and "no." I think a chasm has developed
>>>> that separates the "good" math people from the "average" students, and
>>>> "average" has been going down while "good" has been going up.
>>> I agree in general except that I would classify the students as either
>>> 'good' or 'poor.' I am not seeing all that many 'average' students in
>>> the Maths and Electronics classes I teach.
>>> Over the years I have seen the classical 'bell' distribution break up
>>> into a sort of 'camel' curve showing broad peaks typically centred on
>>> marks of 45% and 75%.  Class results typically show plenty of Fails and
>>> Distinctions, with relatively few Passes.
>>> We were advised recently by an educational expert that we are now
>>> dealing with 'Generation-Y,' and we have to tailor our teaching to their
>>> strengths and weaknesses.  Their weaknesses include, apparently, a short
>>> attention span, and an inability to use traditional resources such as
>>> print.  We can overcome this we were told, by breaking classes into
>>> short five-minute segments (so they don't get bored) and presenting our
>>> material in a variety of media.  The students could be assessed in a
>>> series of tests, presumablly before the impact of the recent multi-media
>>> presentations have worn off.
>>> All this seemed disturbingly familiar.  Then I remembered that about
>>> fifteen years ago I attended a similar presentation from another
>>> educational expert, only this time she was talking about the needs of
>>> students with learning disabilities that had been caused by various
>>> medical problems.  I find it hard to believe that half the students are
>>> now in this category.  Even if they are, I don't think that prospective
>>> employers will be rushing to structure their work-day into interesting
>>> five-minute experiences involving a number of media.
>>> Too many able students are failing though.  Many Generation-Y students
>>> seem to take the attitude that "nothing should be this hard," and will
>>> accept failure rather than do real work.  Attitudes change with
>>> maturity, and some later undertake part-time study to complete their
>>> qualifications.  They generally succeed, but this time around they have
>>> the added responsibilities of a full-time job and a family, and that is
>>> really hard work!
>> I wonder how much of this reflects changes in the average young person,
>> and how much reflects changes in the kind of young people entering an
>> engineering course.
>>
>> When I left college 30 years ago, most of my classmates found an
>> engineering job, doing some kind of real engineering. I think even the
>> guy who was the son of a cabinet minister did so. :-) The last time I
>> heard, only 15% of the graduates from that faculty were going into
>> actual engineering jobs. This is one of the UK's top colleges. I don't
>> know what figures might be like for other colleges. I think there have
>> clearly been changes in the kinds of people taking engineering degrees,
>> and what they hope to get out of them. What that means for the technical
>> abilities or attention spans of the students I can't say.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Steve
> 
> Well, when I was a kid electronics mags were easily found and had
> inteersting projects. It was my life. Very few people are interested
> in electronics nowadays beyond interfacing their mpeg player to a pc!
> Many students study engineering just for a job rather than a vocation
> or lifetimes ambition. That's the biggest difference though there are
> still a few old style students about if you look hard enough.

I think you are looking too close up.

Obviously things change over time.  There was a lot more playing with 
basic electronics when I was a kid, and a lot more playing with meccano 
when my dad was a kid. However, when I was a teenager I would have given 
a lot of dump the simple tools I had available to me, and be able to 
work with the kind of stuff I run very casually on the cheap computers 
we all have today. If the smart valve radio hobbyists of old have not 
moved through discrete transistor and IC radios, to be experimenting 
with digital radio today I would be surprised. I think the smart 
hobbyists have the least visibility, though. You only really get 
visibility of the kids playing with the pre-packaged science kit toys 
from Tandy.

Steve

Steve Underwood wrote:
> HardySpicer wrote:
>> On Aug 13, 3:15 pm, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:

   ...

>>> When I left college 30 years ago, most of my classmates found an
>>> engineering job, doing some kind of real engineering. I think even the
>>> guy who was the son of a cabinet minister did so. :-) The last time I
>>> heard, only 15% of the graduates from that faculty were going into
>>> actual engineering jobs. This is one of the UK's top colleges. I don't
>>> know what figures might be like for other colleges. I think there have
>>> clearly been changes in the kinds of people taking engineering degrees,
>>> and what they hope to get out of them. What that means for the technical
>>> abilities or attention spans of the students I can't say.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Steve
>>
>> Well, when I was a kid electronics mags were easily found and had
>> inteersting projects. It was my life. Very few people are interested
>> in electronics nowadays beyond interfacing their mpeg player to a pc!
>> Many students study engineering just for a job rather than a vocation
>> or lifetimes ambition. That's the biggest difference though there are
>> still a few old style students about if you look hard enough.
> 
> I think you are looking too close up.
> 
> Obviously things change over time.  There was a lot more playing with 
> basic electronics when I was a kid, and a lot more playing with meccano 
> when my dad was a kid. However, when I was a teenager I would have given 
> a lot of dump the simple tools I had available to me, and be able to 
> work with the kind of stuff I run very casually on the cheap computers 
> we all have today. If the smart valve radio hobbyists of old have not 
> moved through discrete transistor and IC radios, to be experimenting 
> with digital radio today I would be surprised. I think the smart 
> hobbyists have the least visibility, though. You only really get 
> visibility of the kids playing with the pre-packaged science kit toys 
> from Tandy.

The world really has chanced for tinkerers. We ground our own telescope 
mirrors years ago because we couldn't afford to buy them and silvered 
them in the kitchen with Brashear's solution. In a big city, they had to 
be resilvered too frequently. Today. I can but a ground, aluminized, and 
overcoated mirror for less than the cost of the blanks to make it, to 
say nothing of the abrasives, pitch, and incidentals.

I built my first transistor radio, a superregen built around CK721. 
Today, I can buy a complete radio for less than the parts to make a 
duplicate, and the case is thrown in free.

Audio amplifier? From components? Forget it! A chip is cheaper and 
probably better. Few amateurs make their own chips.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;&macr;

On Aug 14, 12:29 am, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> Steve Underwood wrote:
> > HardySpicer wrote:
> >> On Aug 13, 3:15 pm, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
>
>    ...
>
>
>
> >>> When I left college 30 years ago, most of my classmates found an
> >>> engineering job, doing some kind of real engineering. I think even the
> >>> guy who was the son of a cabinet minister did so. :-) The last time I
> >>> heard, only 15% of the graduates from that faculty were going into
> >>> actual engineering jobs. This is one of the UK's top colleges. I don't
> >>> know what figures might be like for other colleges. I think there have
> >>> clearly been changes in the kinds of people taking engineering degree=
s,
> >>> and what they hope to get out of them. What that means for the techni=
cal
> >>> abilities or attention spans of the students I can't say.
>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Steve
>
> >> Well, when I was a kid electronics mags were easily found and had
> >> inteersting projects. It was my life. Very few people are interested
> >> in electronics nowadays beyond interfacing their mpeg player to a pc!
> >> Many students study engineering just for a job rather than a vocation
> >> or lifetimes ambition. That's the biggest difference though there are
> >> still a few old style students about if you look hard enough.
>
> > I think you are looking too close up.
>
> > Obviously things change over time.  There was a lot more playing with
> > basic electronics when I was a kid, and a lot more playing with meccano
> > when my dad was a kid. However, when I was a teenager I would have given
> > a lot of dump the simple tools I had available to me, and be able to
> > work with the kind of stuff I run very casually on the cheap computers
> > we all have today. If the smart valve radio hobbyists of old have not
> > moved through discrete transistor and IC radios, to be experimenting
> > with digital radio today I would be surprised. I think the smart
> > hobbyists have the least visibility, though. You only really get
> > visibility of the kids playing with the pre-packaged science kit toys
> > from Tandy.
>
> The world really has chanced for tinkerers. We ground our own telescope
> mirrors years ago because we couldn't afford to buy them and silvered
> them in the kitchen with Brashear's solution. In a big city, they had to
> be resilvered too frequently. Today. I can but a ground, aluminized, and
> overcoated mirror for less than the cost of the blanks to make it, to
> say nothing of the abrasives, pitch, and incidentals.
>
> I built my first transistor radio, a superregen built around CK721.
> Today, I can buy a complete radio for less than the parts to make a
> duplicate, and the case is thrown in free.
>
> Audio amplifier? From components? Forget it! A chip is cheaper and
> probably better. Few amateurs make their own chips.
>
> Jerry
> --
> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
> =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF

That's right but where's the fun or sense of achievement. It's all
gone and been translated to a few lines of c code!