This is something that has always perplexed me.

I'm a military veteran, and in the military, when someone is teaching a class there is no question they are a subject matter expert, and have (depending on the skill) done it in the real world and have a real perspective on it.

I can't say that that was the case when I was in either a civilian trade school (airframe and power plant mechanics) or military tech school (aviation hydraulics and pneumatics -- or pneudraulics as it was officially called) in the mid-'80s. I had some fine instructors in both, don't get me wrong. But I had at least as high a fraction of poor ones (from a technical knowledge standpoint) as I did in college.

At the time I went to these schools, I had about 1.5 years of college behind me. Among the handful of "useless" classes I had "suffered" through were freshman physics and engineering statics. ( I say "useless" and "suffered" because that seems to be the common theme of many in this thread as well as of many college students taking those courses right now). The physics class had included about two weeks worth of introductory fluid mechanics.

First, at the civilian school, one night the instructor was introducing torque wrenches to the class and talked about using a crow's foot extension. I was expecting him to say that you needed to adjust the torque setting to compensate for the crow's foot and he didn't. So I asked and he said that it didn't matter, that it was a torque wrench. You set it for the torque you want and that's what it delivers. I tried a couple of times to point out how that made no sense, but got nowhere. So during a break I used the useless statics I had learned in college and derived the adjustment formula and showed it to him and he told me that he had twenty years of experience and had used a crow's foot many times and that you didn't need to do anything. He then wrote me up for being argumentative and disruptive. During lunch I went to the small library they had and confirmed that my formulas were correct, but I didn't make the mistake of pointing that out to him.

Then, in military tech school, I had one instructor that stated that a flow reducer was a part that reduced the flow of fluid in a system from whatever the system flow rate was to whatever the flow reducer was rated for. I scratched my head as he went on to give an example of what would happen if you put a 10gpm reducer in the pressure line going from a 30gpm hydraulic pump and stated that you would have 30gpm flowing into the inlet and 10gpm flowing out of the outlet. Keep in mind that there are only an inlet and an outlet port, no bypass port or anything else. I asked how that was possible and where was the other 20gpm going. He said that the 30gpm was a flow rate and not a volume of fluid. So I asked, "Okay, after one minute 30 gallons has flowed into the reducer and only 10 gallons have flowed out of it, where did the other 20 gallons go?" He said that you can't convert a flow rate into an amount of fluid. So I just shut up. After class, I got pulled aside and written up for insubordination. Gee, sounds familiar.

In Field Training Detachment for the F-15, there was a troubleshooting problem that said that the utility hydraulic system pressure was only 1500psi (instead of the normal 3000psi), what was the problem. It was obvious that the answer they wanted (on this exercise in an official Air Force tech training manual) was that a check valve in one of the two handpumps had failed since, it it did, it would expose a 1500psi relief valve to system pressure. So on my paper I wrote that as the intended answer but also wrote that if that were to happen that system pressure would almost certainly not fall much below the 3000psi because the physical size of the passage in the handpump would never support a flow of 104gpm (the capacity of the utility system on an F-15) while maintaining virtually no pressure differential across it. The FTD instructor marked my answer wrong and tried to explain to me, very patiently, that I needed to understand that a 1500psi relief value will not let the pressure exceed 1500psi. Period. I said that that analysis neglected the impedance of the pathway and that I didn't think you'd even get 10gpm through the pump but that it would heat up like a son of a gun.

At least this time I didn't get written up. Instead, I suggested that we take an F-15 JFS handpump back to the shop, take out the checkvalve entirely, and hook it up to the test stand and see what happens. He agreed. At 3000psi we got about 3gpm through the pump. He was gracious about it, but didn't change the grade on my exam.

In college this is not the case. Many of my teachers have never held a real job (That is, a job outside of academia. Ya know, the real world.) Heck, they're teaching a "Design methodology" course with an instructor who has literally never worked in industry. At the end of the day he has almost no experience working on a team, leading a team, or designing a product for market or industry. He has no idea what its like to work with people who just put in a 60 hour week, are exhausted, growing frustrated, and need leadership. He has no idea how to delegate, spot check, list requirements, and keep people on task without stifling creativity.

In my opinion, engineering instructors above the 1101 level should be required to have worked in industry. This isn't liberal arts; these students expect to get jobs, and they need to be taught the real skills they'll need for the workplace by people who have been there. Not the theory of a soft-bodied academic.

/Rant

I tend to agree. Many times, here and elsewhere, I have bemoaned the number of engineering professors -- and other academics -- that have little to no real-world, hands-on experience. It's a serious problem.

I count myself as very fortunate. Of all of the college professors I've had, I can only think of perhaps five that I would considered truly unqualified to teach the topic they were teaching because they so lacked any connection with reality; I've had far, far more professors that were truly outstandingly qualified. But then the particular school I went to for most of my education (and teach at now) has always had a much stronger tie to industry than most and a respectable fraction of the faculty have significant industry experience -- though I do believe that is trending toward the norm seen at other schools as time goes on.

 

Rather than fretting over unhappy experiences with educators, perhaps we ought to be more concerned about the incompetence (or worse - corruption) demonstrated by various political leaders - at home and abroad. On what basis are they qualified and equipped to guide & prosper nations through turbulent times?

Another thought - on what basis are people "qualified" to parent children? No one taught me to parent and I've made many mistakes which I'll carry with regret to my grave. I'll bet when we scratch the surface, we'll encounter many more people with a gripe about their parents than their teachers.

 

I can't say that that was the case when I was in either a civilian trade school (airframe and power plant mechanics) or military tech school (aviation hydraulics and pneumatics -- or pneudraulics as it was officially called) in the mid-'80s. I had some fine instructors in both, don't get me wrong. But I had at least as high a fraction of poor ones (from a technical knowledge standpoint) as I did in college.

At the time I went to these schools, I had about 1.5 years of college behind me. Among the handful of "useless" classes I had "suffered" through were freshman physics and engineering statics. ( I say "useless" and "suffered" because that seems to be the common theme of many in this thread as well as of many college students taking those courses right now). The physics class had included about two weeks worth of introductory fluid mechanics.

First, at the civilian school, one night the instructor was introducing torque wrenches to the class and talked about using a crow's foot extension. I was expecting him to say that you needed to adjust the torque setting to compensate for the crow's foot and he didn't. So I asked and he said that it didn't matter, that it was a torque wrench. You set it for the torque you want and that's what it delivers. I tried a couple of times to point out how that made no sense, but got nowhere. So during a break I used the useless statics I had learned in college and derived the adjustment formula and showed it to him and he told me that he had twenty years of experience and had used a crow's foot many times and that you didn't need to do anything. He then wrote me up for being argumentative and disruptive. During lunch I went to the small library they had and confirmed that my formulas were correct, but I didn't make the mistake of pointing that out to him.

Then, in military tech school, I had one instructor that stated that a flow reducer was a part that reduced the flow of fluid in a system from whatever the system flow rate was to whatever the flow reducer was rated for. I scratched my head as he went on to give an example of what would happen if you put a 10gpm reducer in the pressure line going from a 30gpm hydraulic pump and stated that you would have 30gpm flowing into the inlet and 10gpm flowing out of the outlet. Keep in mind that there are only an inlet and an outlet port, no bypass port or anything else. I asked how that was possible and where was the other 20gpm going. He said that the 30gpm was a flow rate and not a volume of fluid. So I asked, "Okay, after one minute 30 gallons has flowed into the reducer and only 10 gallons have flowed out of it, where did the other 20 gallons go?" He said that you can't convert a flow rate into an amount of fluid. So I just shut up. After class, I got pulled aside and written up for insubordination. Gee, sounds familiar.

In Field Training Detachment for the F-15, there was a troubleshooting problem that said that the utility hydraulic system pressure was only 1500psi (instead of the normal 3000psi), what was the problem. It was obvious that the answer they wanted (on this exercise in an official Air Force tech training manual) was that a check valve in one of the two handpumps had failed since, it it did, it would expose a 1500psi relief valve to system pressure. So on my paper I wrote that as the intended answer but also wrote that if that were to happen that system pressure would almost certainly not fall much below the 3000psi because the physical size of the passage in the handpump would never support a flow of 104gpm (the capacity of the utility system on an F-15) while maintaining virtually no pressure differential across it. The FTD instructor marked my answer wrong and tried to explain to me, very patiently, that I needed to understand that a 1500psi relief value will not let the pressure exceed 1500psi. Period. I said that that analysis neglected the impedance of the pathway and that I didn't think you'd even get 10gpm through the pump but that it would heat up like a son of a gun.

At least this time I didn't get written up. Instead, I suggested that we take an F-15 JFS handpump back to the shop, take out the checkvalve entirely, and hook it up to the test stand and see what happens. He agreed. At 3000psi we got about 3gpm through the pump. He was gracious about it, but didn't change the grade on my exam.



I tend to agree. Many times, here and elsewhere, I have bemoaned the number of engineering professors -- and other academics -- that have little to no real-world, hands-on experience. It's a serious problem.

I count myself as very fortunate. Of all of the college professors I've had, I can only think of perhaps five that I would considered truly unqualified to teach the topic they were teaching because they so lacked any connection with reality; I've had far, far more professors that were truly outstandingly qualified. But then the particular school I went to for most of my education (and teach at now) has always had a much stronger tie to industry than most and a respectable fraction of the faculty have significant industry experience -- though I do believe that is trending toward the norm seen at other schools as time goes on.

It seems to be a common scheme, incompetent and dangerous people being part of large engineering chain processes.

If this is true (and I believe it is), then how can we have such marvels of engineering, such as people in orbit and 1km tall skyscrapers, especially without casualties?

 

If this is true (and I believe it is), then how can we have such marvels of engineering, such as people in orbit and 1km tall skyscrapers, especially without casualties?

Because its not really true, or at least its exaggerated. After 20 years in the field, I can state without doubt that the field does a good job of discarding incompetent personnel.

 

Because its not really true, or at least its exaggerated. After 20 years in the field, I can state without doubt that the field does a good job of discarding incompetent personnel.

What grinds my grits, is the length of time it takes for the particular field to dispose of the boneheads... and how much irreconcilable damage they can do before they are cashiered...

 

What grinds my grits, is the length of time it takes for the particular field to dispose of the boneheads... and how much irreconcilable damage they can do before they are cashiered...

At one company I worked for when I first got my class B CDL upgraded to a class A CDL, so I could drive tanker trucks, they had a severe need for competent and capable truck drivers yet they had two idiots as mangers that ran off at least 50 good drivers in the 4 months I was there due to their incompetence and willingness to defend their job positions at all costs.

One had absolutely no management skills and let his ego dictate everything he did and the other was equally as poor at managing people plus had near zero workable knowledge of the trucking industry despite supposedly having been in it for 20+ years.

 

one large company I worked for hired a group of technicians, and those that were incompetant were made managers. not a good idea at all. another took machinists that couldnt operate their machines and made them managers, also not a good idea.one guy who broke many cutters and parts before promotion got busted back to operator after a few years, he didnt get any better on his machine. there seems to be an atmosphere of "friends and family members" involved in selecting managers.

 

I think WBahn is echoing my statement in post #5. Correcting the instructor is useless and correcting him in public is suicide. Just resolve to get an education in spite of the instructors.

 

Perhaps but some days taking someone off their high horse is worth a bit of social suicide now and then.

The needs for proper education of the many outweigh the egotistical needs of the few or one.

How many college level people do all of us see on the online forums who are senior year students that have worse understandings of electronics than most junior high kids of 30 years ago?

Is it their fault they didn't get properly educated in basic theory or is ti the teachers and educational systems fault and how much of that came from someones ego getting in the way of their teaching?

 

and how much is from the current methods the govt sets for schools? my daughter is a teacher, her class has several kids who ocasionally scream or throw things due to mental problems, one kid who uses a tray with yes and no on it to answer questions. this is a public school, how can the kids who arent disabled learn anything in this environment?

 

Perhaps but some days taking someone off their high horse is worth a bit of social suicide now and then.

As long as you do it tactfully, one-on-one, it becomes a he-said-she-said affair that the idiot cannot prove...

'Cause as some sage [ Alonzo ] said... it ain't what you know, it's what you can prove !!

No witness ... no case

 

I tend to agree. Many times, here and elsewhere, I have bemoaned the number of engineering professors -- and other academics -- that have little to no real-world, hands-on experience. It's a serious problem.

I was luckier because all of my professors in engineering classes were real world veterans. The only know-nothing bozos were in either physics or math.

My greatest enjoyment was listening to the guy who had worked in the electric power industry telling his war stories about what the idiots who ran the power plants did. Really hysterical.... and a little frightening.

 

and how much is from the current methods the govt sets for schools? my daughter is a teacher, her class has several kids who ocasionally scream or throw things due to mental problems, one kid who uses a tray with yes and no on it to answer questions. this is a public school, how can the kids who arent disabled learn anything in this environment?

They can't, but that is the legacy of the court decisions which force the public schools to be day care providers for disabled kids.

 

I think WBahn is echoing my statement in post #5. Correcting the instructor is useless and correcting him in public is suicide. Just resolve to get an education in spite of the instructors.

That was my experience in the tech school world. It has NOT been my experience in the college world (and, again, I acknowledge that I have been very fortunate in where I went to school and the professors I have had). I tend to stick on a point with some persistence -- as I'm sure many here have observed directly -- and on many, many occasions I have gotten into lengthy debates in class about something that was unclear. More often than not I've been right (but just because I'm the one that chose to start the discussion and I don't persist too strongly in such discussions except when I'm pretty confident that I am right) and I can't recall a single time when anything adverse has happened or even been implied, at least not by the instructor. I have had other members of the class tell me to basically shut up and just accept the official line, but even that's been rare -- perhaps half a dozen times, if that. Several professors have figured out that the best approach is to let the discussion continue for a very short amount of time and then say, "Come see me in my office and we can continue this." At which point I drop it and then go see them in their office and we continue it, sometimes for an hour or more. Those meetings have been among my most enjoyable and memorable experiences in my life, not just my college experience, and I have learned much in them -- particularly when it was I that was wrong in the first place.

 

Perhaps but some days taking someone off their high horse is worth a bit of social suicide now and then.

The needs for proper education of the many outweigh the egotistical needs of the few or one.

How many college level people do all of us see on the online forums who are senior year students that have worse understandings of electronics than most junior high kids of 30 years ago?

Is it their fault they didn't get properly educated in basic theory or is ti the teachers and educational systems fault and how much of that came from someones ego getting in the way of their teaching?

As with all things, there are lots of factors. A big one is that when all the other factors come into play an instructor ends up with a class of students that, to a large degree, is simply not prepared to learn everything that that course is supposed to teach. It is natural to automatically slow down the pace and reduce the level to whatever is needed to reach your students, but in doing so you end up adding to the problem because now the students will leave your course even less prepared for the next instructor's course. What needs to happen, of course, is that you say that here are the standards and here is the slowest I am willing to go and those that can't meet the standards fail. The problem is three-fold, however. First, few instructors enjoy failing a student and will try to avoid approaches that will all but ensure that a good fraction of them will, no matter how much they deserve to fail or how good for them in the long run it might be. Second, the administration of most schools is not going to look kindly on any course or instructor that is failing a significant fraction of students. Finally, student end-of-course feedback is weighed too heavily in retention and promotion decisions at most places and so faculty are often forced to let that weigh too heavily in their teaching decisions.

 

It seems to be a common scheme, incompetent and dangerous people being part of large engineering chain processes.

If this is true (and I believe it is), then how can we have such marvels of engineering, such as people in orbit and 1km tall skyscrapers, especially without casualties?

When I was in the service I noted that, in our shops, that literally over 90% of the work was performed by less than 25% of the people. I have long since concluded that something similar rules in most places. The people that are good and motivated find ways to work around the sea of incompetence that they swim in. Often times this involves taking the truly incompetent ones that can't be gotten rid of and putting them in nice, prestigious positions that have absolutely no real responsibility or authority so that the doers can get on with getting the work done.

 

When I was in the service I noted that, in our shops, that literally over 90% of the work was performed by less than 25% of the people. I have long since concluded that something similar rules in most places. The people that are good and motivated find ways to work around the sea of incompetence that they swim in. Often times this involves taking the truly incompetent ones that can't be gotten rid of and putting them in nice, prestigious positions that have absolutely no real responsibility or authority so that the doers can get on with getting the work done.

You nailed it!

 

...
Is it their fault they didn't get properly educated in basic theory or is ti the teachers and educational systems fault and how much of that came from someones ego getting in the way of their teaching?

It's the fault of politicians who institute systems to put more people in universities rather than have them on the unemployment figures.

So the stupidest, laziest, least competent class are now filling up the universities (and coming here so we can do their class assignments for them).

And the pollies can claim "Look! We lowered unemployment figures by X% and have increased the educational level of the population! We're doing such a great job!"

Because its not really true, or at least its exaggerated. After 20 years in the field, I can state without doubt that the field does a good job of discarding incompetent personnel.

The FIELD might, but do academic institutions "do a good job of weeding out" incompetent teachers?

Because with the increased political push to get a lot more mediocre bums on seats in the classroom, they need a lot more teachers...

 

The FIELD might, but do academic institutions "do a good job of weeding out" incompetent teachers?

Unless they get caught doing something highly illegal and thrown in jail for life no they don't.

They just move to another school and work there and keep doing that until they settle in to a school system like what I grew up in is. The lowest of the low that can keep a job while not doing anything illegal enough to serve jail time.

 

And what about the economic and cultural pressures that result in less competent students being taught by less competent professors? I graduated a few generations ago and can honestly state that I would not consider any of my professors less than competent. I got introduced to chaos in the early 70's. Programming and system design as well. I would meet with my professors outside of class and have great theoretical discussions.

Fast forward to my children. Online classes with little or no contact with an instructor. Instructors who were barely understandable, whether because of accent or English speaking skills. "Teaching" by rote rather than exploration.