Are engineering assignments really so wrong?

In summary, the conversation discusses the issue of education in undergraduate engineering programs and whether they are adequately preparing students for the real world. The figures used in a particular problem are criticized for not making sense in a real-world scenario. The problem of students not being able to apply their knowledge in practical situations is highlighted, and the frustration of having to train new engineers who lack practical skills is expressed. The possibility of obtaining a license to become a professional engineer without a degree is mentioned. The concern that the educational process may not be rigorous enough to produce competent engineers is also raised. Overall, the conversation suggests that there is a significant problem in industry and technology with the quality of education in engineering programs.
  • #1
Artman
1,512
36
I didn't want to derail another thread or insult the person who started it, so I'm starting this one.

In the other thread the figures used in the question make no real world sense. No one would balance an HVAC system to a 100th of a gallon. Real world, you'd be lucky to get 1/2 a gallon. Nor would they be likely to use the temperatures stated in the problem as a design state.

I'm guessing this was an engineering school question, but I could be wrong. Have you ever come across any questions in a school book or on a test that just make no real world sense?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
Oh, Yeah! That's why it takes time for companies to retrain undergraduate students who are entry level engineers. Graduate students are more likely to have done research on real world problems, but even there some courses teach theory with outdated material.

This problem in education has been a big issue with me for 30+ years, and it is not getting better. In fact, its getting worse!
 
  • #3
Astronuc said:
Oh, Yeah! That's why it takes time for companies to retrain undergraduate students who are entry level engineers. Graduate students are more likely to have done research on real world problems, but even there some courses teach theory with outdated material.

This problem in education has been a big issue with me for 30+ years, and it is not getting better. In fact, its getting worse!
I was ranting a bit. I feel this problem strongly because I am an undegreed engineering designer. I can't call myself an engineer because I don't have a degree, but I do engineering on a higher level than my boss (he's pretty good, but out of practice. He mostly just does field work and meetings.). It gets frustrating when I have to train nubies, fresh out of engineering school, who can call themselves engineers and can't do it.
 
  • #4
Artman said:
I was ranting a bit. I feel this problem strongly because I am an undegreed engineering designer. I can't call myself an engineer because I don't have a degree, but I do engineering on a higher level than my boss (he's pretty good, but out of practice. He mostly just does field work and meetings.). It gets frustrating when I have to train nubies, fresh out of engineering school, who can call themselves engineers and can't do it.

That it is, I think overall even beyond engineering it takes 4-5 years to be a contender, perhaps the first two to flush out the excess and get the guys focused on what really matters.
 
  • #5
Artman said:
I was ranting a bit. I feel this problem strongly because I am an undegreed engineering designer. I can't call myself an engineer because I don't have a degree, but I do engineering on a higher level than my boss (he's pretty good, but out of practice. He mostly just does field work and meetings.). It gets frustrating when I have to train nubies, fresh out of engineering school, who can call themselves engineers and can't do it.
Artman, in my book that makes you an 'engineer'. I do have engineering degrees, but as far as I am concerned, if you can to the work, then you deserve the title. Actually, you could check into the Society of Professional Engineers and look into taking the EIT and Fundamentals exam, with which you would become a licensed engineer. Either one needs a degree from an accredited engineering program or one obtains experience by doing.

I have a big problem with those with degrees who cannot do the work.
 
  • #6
Astronuc said:
Actually, you could check into the Society of Professional Engineers and look into taking the EIT and Fundamentals exam, with which you would become a licensed engineer. Either one needs a degree from an accredited engineering program or one obtains experience by doing.

Astronuc,
Actually, the FE (previously the EIT) only qualifies you to take the PE exam. You are not a licensed engineer until you pass the PE exam.

I have a big problem with those with degrees who cannot do the work.

Ditto! Add on to that a cocky attitude and it all goes down hill from there.
 
  • #7
Within my rant though I had another point: It almost seems like those writing the materials have no idea what is happening in the field. This is a real shame. A student using information culled from that problem might design a real problematic system.

It makes me wonder if the information in the question came from someone with limited knowledge of metric conversions, who just took a 20 deg Fahrenheit temperature difference and did the same for Celsius without converting it.
 
  • #8
FredGarvin said:
Astronuc,
Actually, the FE (previously the EIT) only qualifies you to take the PE exam. You are not a licensed engineer until you pass the PE exam.
Thanks for the correction Fred. I was not careful with my terminology.

I did mean PE (Principles and Practice) when I wrote Fundamentals.

Also, it is the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) which administers the tests.

About the FE - http://www.ncees.org/exams/fundamentals/ [Broken]
About the PE - http://www.ncees.org/exams/professional/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
Wait wait.. what are you guys talking about

you discussing the 'common sense' approach of creating solutions to problems? or like the mathematical reasoning of undergrads out of engineering schools?
 
  • #10
We are contemplating the quality of education, primarily in undergraduate engineering programs. For example, are the information and problems in textbooks up-to-date? The state of the art is continually changing, and we are wondering if the class lectures and texts are keeping up with the state-of-the-art.

Then there is the question of whether or not the educational process (in high school and university) is sufficient, thorough and rigorous enough to produce competent engineers at the entry level.

And the concern is not only discussed here in this forum, but in many industrial and technology sectors outside this forum.

A significant problem in industry and technology right now is the loss of institutional memory. In some areas, the experts are retiring and their knowledge will be lost.
 
  • #11
I think the original question ties in. The "unreality" of some of the questions posed dueing engineering school, while teaching topics of study, have no real world application. I know I had issues when making the leap from school to industry. From what I have seen of other engineering students, the curricula is not changing much. I would definitely like to see a bit more emphasis on some of the basic real world items and a little less on theory. Example, a brand new engineer taking force measurements with a hand held force gauge and reporting results to 3 decimal places.

A significant problem in industry and technology right now is the loss of institutional memory. In some areas, the experts are retiring and their knowledge will be lost.

"Institutional memory." I like that. I agree completely. My company just went through a couple of rounds of layoff...er...reductions in force. A lot of my mentors retired. In our particular case, upper management only looked at the money savings. They did not look at the loss of knowledge. The worst part is that, while they had been mentors, there was no real time to help others prepare to pick up their work loads and to share any remaining knowledge. Now there are engineers with 1-2 years under their belts being asked their profssional opinions on things.
 
  • #12
cronxeh said:
Wait wait.. what are you guys talking about

you discussing the 'common sense' approach of creating solutions to problems? or like the mathematical reasoning of undergrads out of engineering schools?
While the students coming out of college and entering the engineering business have a fairly good (much better than I have) competency in necessary math skills and theory, they lack a lot of practical information.

I get questions like, "What is an Air Handling Unit?" (Honest I've been asked that) because they just don't teach it. So, basically, I have to tell someone making nearly as much money as I do, even though I've been doing high level engineering for about 10 years and working in the business for over 20 years, what an Air handling Unit is. It makes me wonder what they are being taught.

I don't usually mind, but do you think they even pass on to the boss who told them? Of course not because they don't want the boss to know they didn't know what it was.
 
  • #13
Artman said:
While the students coming out of college and entering the engineering business have a fairly good (much better than I have) competency in necessary math skills and theory, they lack a lot of practical information.
In your opinion what is the purpose of higher education? Is it to teach a student to solve specific problems relevant to today's technology or to give the student methods of solving problems in general? I would say it is the later.

In this case it is perfectly acceptable for the new graduate not to have experience with some particular tool. However they should have knowledge on the theory of its operation, and equipped with a manual, they should be able to use it expertly in a reasonably short amount of time.

As technology advances both myself and the new grad will be using new tools so we will have close to the same amount experience in its application. The primary difference is I will have the experience to know it's broken, unreliable and I should not trust the manual or the guy who sold it. ;)

Case in point,
Q: What is an air handling unit?
A: http://blt.colorado.edu/html/bld_comps/ahu.html
So I don't feel so bad for not knowing since I am an electrical engineer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
egsmith said:
In your opinion what is the purpose of higher education? Is it to teach a student to solve specific problems relevant to today's technology or to give the student methods of solving problems in general? I would say it is the later.

In this case it is perfectly acceptable for the new graduate not to have experience with some particular tool. However they should have knowledge on the theory of its operation, and equipped with a manual, they should be able to use it expertly in a reasonably short amount of time.

As technology advances both myself and the new grad will be using new tools so we will have close to the same amount experience in its application. The primary difference is I will have the experience to know it's broken, unreliable and I should not trust the manual or the guy who sold it. ;)

Case in point,
Q: What is an air handling unit?
A: http://blt.colorado.edu/html/bld_comps/ahu.html
So I don't feel so bad for not knowing since I am an electrical engineer.
How about some courses that tell them that running 50 deg F water into a boiler that is running at about 195 deg F could cause a boiler explosion that could send a 1 ton chunk of hot cast iron a mile into the air instead of creating theoretical problems that imply that these numbers are typical in a hydronic system (which they are not).

I have no problem with the students getting thoroughly educated in the methods to solve problems. I also think they should get more than a single senior project as practical education in the systems they will be using when they enter the field.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
Artman said:
I also think they should get more than a single senior project as practical education in the systems they will be using when they enter the field.

Fair enough. An alternative might be to have junior engineers serve as an apprentice in industry on a couple projects before they get a project of their own. In my experience this is basically what is done now.
 
  • #16
egsmith said:
what is the purpose of higher education? Is it to teach a student to solve specific problems relevant to today's technology or to give the student methods of solving problems in general? I would say it is the later.
Both actually.

Teach students methods of solving problems in general, but use specific problems and information relevant to current (or even future) technology.

For example, there have been huge innovations in alloys used in special applications in aerospace and nuclear industries. These materials did not exist 30 years ago, or even 15-20 years ago. Problems based on the older alloys and their behavior would be of limited use, but teaching the students with the more modern information would be useful.

In addition, it would help if the students were exposed to problems in modern technology - e.g. microchemistry in corrosion processes, or micromechanics in structural materials. I suspect very few undergrad courses, and perhaps even few grad courses really expose students to real-world problems.

Wherever possible, professors need to introduce students to journal articles with actual data that supplements what is found in the textbooks.
 
  • #17
Okay, here's another example. I worked with a guy that had a masters degree in Mechanical Engineering, but no experience. My boss at this place put more faith in education than experience and he sent this guy to man a new office he had opened in a town about 40 miles away. He had one project to work on with an architect who had an office in the same building: he had to do the plumbing and HVAC design for a 4 story hotel that the architect was designing. A month went by and the boss went down to meet with the architect and our guy. HE came back from the meeting furious because over that month the guy had nothing on paper, except a few hand done calculations for building loads and some hand done calculations for ductwork.

30 or 40 years ago (before programmable calculators and computers were being used) that would have fine as a one month output toward a project. at the time he did it (about 5 years ago), I could have accomplished more in a day. The ductwork calculations could have been done using a ductulator (a kind of ductwork sliderule) in about 1/2 an hour and the building loads should have been done using a load calculating computer program.

My boss brought the guy back up to our office where he gave me the job of redesigning the 4 story hotel, which only had 2 weeks design time remaining, and at the same time, finishing my own work, a sprawling 2 story school renovation.

Now you would think that somewhere in a masters degree program that guy would have been taught to run a load program or at least make room take offs in preparation for one, select equipment, layout a usable design for ductwork and operate a ductulator. That is not even considering what hadn't been done on the plumbing.
 
  • #18
Artman,
In that example, I blame your boss more than the Masters program that he graduated from. To put someone as lead on a project right out of any school, without a mentor or guide is just plain bad decision making. How did his attitude towards experince change after this episode?
 
  • #19
FredGarvin said:
Artman,
In that example, I blame your boss more than the Masters program that he graduated from. To put someone as lead on a project right out of any school, without a mentor or guide is just plain bad decision making. How did his attitude towards experince change after this episode?
I agree with you on this. He should not have been placed in a remote office without a guide. I left that company not too much later because of just such poor decisions. As for my boss' attitude towards experience vs education: he was sorry to see me go.
 
  • #20
I actually had a discussion with some female teacher friends of mine yesterday about how we'd do if we switched places for a day. I told them that though its helpful to have basic engineering knowledge in my job (I'm an HVAC engineer), right out of college, it is expected and accepted that you'll be utterly useless. The engineering knowledge flattens the learning curve, but the curve still starts near zero. Contrast that with teaching, where your first day on the job, you're expected to be able to teach.

Now, part of the difference may be that teachers get more on the job training when in college. I think that's important for engineers too, but rarely ever done. An internship where you can see first hand what enginers actually do gives a college student a huge advantage when they hit the market.
 
  • #21
russ_watters said:
I actually had a discussion with some female teacher friends of mine yesterday about how we'd do if we switched places for a day. I told them that though its helpful to have basic engineering knowledge in my job (I'm an HVAC engineer), right out of college, it is expected and accepted that you'll be utterly useless. The engineering knowledge flattens the learning curve, but the curve still starts near zero. Contrast that with teaching, where your first day on the job, you're expected to be able to teach.

Now, part of the difference may be that teachers get more on the job training when in college. I think that's important for engineers too, but rarely ever done. An internship where you can see first hand what enginers actually do gives a college student a huge advantage when they hit the market.

First, is it relevant that your teacher friends are female? Or did you throw that in just to see if I'm one of the people reading? :biggrin:

Yes, with teaching, one gets practical experience as part of their formal education. We even have programs available for PhD students to improve their teaching skills if they wish to remain in academics and teach.

I like the idea of co-ops and internships as a way to obtain practical experience to balance the theoretical experience. However, there are very few fields where this is expected. For most college graduates, not just engineers, you graduate with a lot of general knowledge about the theory and principles you will need to do your job, but have little to know experience in the practical applications (or often, more importantly, the practical limitations) of that knowledge. It would be challenging, if not impossible, to teach students about everything they needed to know about any job they might get after graduation in order to hit the ground running.

Though, from reading the examples given here, it does seem like it would be helpful to at least use examples in assignments that are closer to reality than what are used. But then that might require a sense of humor from the professors. :tongue: For example, in the problem you all seem to be talking about, it sounds like the numbers used for the example would lead to catastrophe, so have some fun and after giving the exercise for practice and to demonstrate the theory of how to use the equations and principles, toss in a question for a bonus point: What would happen if you really designed a system this way? Get the students to think about reality a bit.
 
  • #22
Moonbear said:
...For example, in the problem you all seem to be talking about, it sounds like the numbers used for the example would lead to catastrophe, so have some fun and after giving the exercise for practice and to demonstrate the theory of how to use the equations and principles, toss in a question for a bonus point: What would happen if you really designed a system this way? Get the students to think about reality a bit.
This is my point exactly. At least include real world concerns in the the theoretical homework.
 
  • #23
Moonbear said:
First, is it relevant that your teacher friends are female? Or did you throw that in just to see if I'm one of the people reading? :biggrin:
No, its not relevant and I'm not really sure why I said it. But now, I am aware, it would appear that you are following me around... :uhh:
 
  • #24
russ_watters said:
No, its not relevant and I'm not really sure why I said it. But now, I am aware, it would appear that you are following me around... :uhh:

*cues Twilight Zone music*

You know it's hard to not follow you around as you seem to post everywhere! How can you be in so many threads at once?
 
  • #25
I learned some immediately useful information in college [physics], but the value of the math and problem solving skills acquired in college have proven to be the most valuable. Practical experience is certainly important, but it seems to me a waste to spend too much time in college learning transient technologies in place of life long problem solving skills. All of those brain straining homework problems are worth the effort a thousand times over, IMO.
 
  • #26
Ivan Seeking said:
I learned some immediately useful information in college [physics], but the value of the math and problem solving skills acquired in college have proven to be the most valuable. Practical experience is certainly important, but it seems to me a waste to spend too much time in college learning transient technologies in place of life long problem solving skills. All of those brain straining homework problems are worth the effort a thousand times over, IMO.
I don't disagree with this. When I went back to school, I had some physics and college level algebra and precalculus that I find very useful, especially knowing what I already know about engineering.

Don't get me wrong, I think that college graduates entering the field learn very fast. The scary thing is if they are not watchdogged, they can make some grave errors. Also, when they first enter the field following school, they seem to believe they are worth a lot more to their employer than they will be worth for at least a few years.
 
  • #27
Artman said:
Don't get me wrong, I think that college graduates entering the field learn very fast. The scary thing is if they are not watchdogged, they can make some grave errors.

That happens in a lot of fields. Consider the M.D. who not only has 4 years of undergraduate work, but also another 4 years of med school, yet still needs at least another 2-3 years of residency to be competent enough to go off and work on their own.

Isn't that the point of having EIT exams (or whatever you call them now), to remind them that they are only engineers-in-training? :tongue: Seriously, engineering is one of the few fields I can think of where they blatantly tell graduates, via an exam, that they are only in training and not yet professionals. If I'm not mistaken, you need several years of work experience before you are permitted to take the PE exam; is that correct?

Also, when they first enter the field following school, they seem to believe they are worth a lot more to their employer than they will be worth for at least a few years.

Again, this isn't a trait exclusive to recent engineering graduates. But, hey, I've done my share of knocking the arrogance of a few engineering students/grads, let me at 'em! (Okay, I was a bit younger then, but I used to have fun giving my roommate and friends a hard time; "So, when you take your ideal bridge built entirely in an ideal system out into the real world, how long before it collapses?") :tongue2: Anyway, anyone in the business of hiring recent grads should know this and be prepared to give them specific on-the-job training and mentoring. It's their boss' responsibility to make sure they are only given tasks suitable to their experience (or inexperience) and to ensure they are reminded of the limits of their experience/knowledge while they are still learning.
 
  • #28
Based on what I've seen, in many companies the error lies with management. Too much is dumped on new engineers who haven't even begun to learn how the real world works. College prepares a person to begin a career but not to be experts right out of graduation. Really you have been given the tools to learn a profession but that's all. However employers want people to hit the ground running. In today's world I think it is the employers who must adjust. There is more than enough to try to learn in college. But then again, in our proud new service economy, maybe all that we really need are trade schools. :wink:
 
  • #29
Astronuc said:
Oh, Yeah! That's why it takes time for companies to retrain undergraduate students who are entry level engineers. Graduate students are more likely to have done research on real world problems, but even there some courses teach theory with outdated material.

This problem in education has been a big issue with me for 30+ years, and it is not getting better. In fact, its getting worse!
Actually it is getting better in some schools but not because the curriculum is better. The reason is that there actually some colleges that actually combine education and work in the specific field. You work six months as an engineer and then go to school for six months. Of course it's a scary thought that I am expected to contribute something with only three semester's worth of schooling. Nice though I get a year and a half of work experience before I even graduate and I get paid too.
 
  • #30
This one hits home for me... My apologies for being harsh, but this is a real world we live in, not a dream one. The one thing I must mention however, is my opinions are based upon my experience as a startup, and as a small manufacturer. In a large organization, I would assume the expectations would be different.

I've hired a fair amount of people, including seasoned folks and recent grads over the years. I think there is one thing missing from the discussion. As a business, we are in business to make money, we are not educational institutions, we are not charities, we have stockholders to keep happy, we do not have the time to be altruistic.

We do expect the newbie to hit the ground running. If we did not, we would hire liberal arts grads, or even folks without educational credentials and train them. I hired a violinist/electronics tech years ago and trained him. From a creative standpoint, as well as a technical standpoint, he was a lot more capable than most senior level engineers in short order. Still, the training overhead is high, but in reality, not much higher than some entry level engineers with a BSEE. The key imho, is not vast technical competance, but the ability to learn, and to learn quickly.

Now as far as expecations go for newbies. Its pretty easy to determine whether a candidate is on the ball and capable or not during the interview. If I am hiring someone, the basics better be rock solid. More than a few times, I gave them some simple circuit issues to solve, only to come back, and find they were clueless. Thats pretty disheartening. I'm not going to teach basic circut theory to a 4.0 BSEE who states, I just memorized that for the test, I never knew I might need to use it.

By the same token, I don't expect the newbie to know my CAE tools, business processes, regulatory issues, or manufacturing technology I do expect them to take the books home and study to get up to speed. I also expect a newbie to put in long hours, much of it devoted to learning these peripheral issues. That is where a good program with substantial non-engeering course work enters the picture. The ability to learn quickly is often times a greater asset than being a guru at theoretical engineering calculations, at least from my perspective.

The other issue I have is the overly simplified and overly complex methods that are used in education. Many students become masters of the complexity of solving differential equations from a theoretical math standpoint. Real world problems have real world effects that do not fit into easily solvable mathematical processes. If I take a real world circuit, and try to theoretically analyze it, I will remove variable, after variable until it fits within a nice solvable math model. SPICE macromodels are probably the most common example of fitting the part to the math instead of the other way around which is why I rarely use them. If I add in real world effects, the math model becomes so complex, it may well take a poor student a whole semester to analyze it, and even then, more than likely he will get it wrong.

By the same token, there are many scenarios where a slide rule is a huge time saver. We don't need to dwell on the minutia, often times a ball park is more than adequate.

I'm not saying we need to throw theoretical math out the window. What I am saying is that its a small part of the solution, and that real world problem solving is drastically different. I'd rather see one less semester on calculations, and one more semester in the lab, where things physicially happen. My ideal analog lab course, if I were to make one would include how to use a simple high gain op amp circuit as a force sensor, humidity sensor, temperature sensor, humidity sensor and an airflow sensor, and then an attempt to model such a part with these real world phenomena. Note, I am not saying to interface an op amp to a sensor, but to use the actual op amp as the sensor itself. I'd also include a section on Smith charts, nomographs, and slide rules such that students could see the ball park methods as well, despite the fact that many of those methods have been superseeded by a computers. Lastly, the lab course would involve troubleshooting and repair. Its a rare prototype that works perfectly on power up. The exposure to real world noise mitigation, tracking down glitches, solder shorts, and open traces, combined with situations where one is sure that Mr Maxwell and his equations were wrong would add a lot of value to the experience. A newbie doesn't need mastery, but he should have at least a minimal exposure to the real world. A single team oriented senior design project usually falls way short of such exposure.

As far as co-ops and internships go, its pretty difficult. Usually the intern gets grunt work a fair amount of the time. Occasionally they get some real experience, and sometimes the fortunate are able to get in the trenches. Its better than nothing for sure, but too many times, its way too easy to put them in a corner doing grunt work. I know, I'm guilty of it, despite trying very hard to include them in the day to day activities. When a customer has a problem, that's the priority, not the intern.

After my 2nd intern, I did come up with a solution. When I got too busy, I'd put him to work as a tech. I'd have him build cables, solder prototypes, work with the machine shop guys, and troubleshoot various low priority circuits. Granted, most engineers do very little tech stuff... but it is a skill we need to pull out of the closet from time to time, and it does take a while to learn. After the internships, I'd often get comments as to the psotive experience of being exposed to the technician work. Its a whole lot easier learning that side of being an engineer as an intern, than having to learn ones soldering skills in a motel room the day before a big tradeshow.

Ron
 
  • #31
I have to agree with a lot that has been said here.

I am in my 2nd year of mechanical eng. At the moment, I have no practical skills. I would not know where to start something practical. Its a bit of a worry actually.

I am hoping to get a years worth of work experience after 3rd year, which should give me more of an understanding about what is really expected of me.
 
  • #32
Don't get yourself in a tizzy over this. School is there to give you the basics so you can understand what will be expected of you when you get to an employer. Colleges can't teach practical things down to the levels we'd want because that tends to change from place to place. Learn all you can and don't sweat being able to do a job the first day you show up. You won't be able to do that.
 
  • #33
FredGarvin said:
Don't get yourself in a tizzy over this. School is there to give you the basics so you can understand what will be expected of you when you get to an employer. Colleges can't teach practical things down to the levels we'd want because that tends to change from place to place. Learn all you can and don't sweat being able to do a job the first day you show up. You won't be able to do that.
This is true. Most places with decent leadership will recognize your experience level and challenge you without expecting you to know everything. My current employer is in this class, my former one was not. Just don't underestimate the help available in the form of designers and draftspeople with a lot of experience even if they do not have a degree. :wink:
 
  • #34
Artman said:
Just don't underestimate the help available in the form of designers and draftspeople with a lot of experience even if they do not have a degree. :wink:
And watch out for cocky engineers who think they know everything. :mad: :grumpy:

I used to audit manufacturing shops, and I was astounded to learn that some engineers would never visit the shop floor and actually see the product that they designed. That to me is a piss poor attitude.

Anyway, as Fred and Artman alluded to, school is meant to teach the basics. Then the novice engineer needs to search out a mentor, not necessarily a senior engineer - it could be a designer or draftsman who has had lots of 'practical' experience.
 
  • #35
Having the engineers regularly drop by the shop floor is extremely valuable to a company. First, you find out where there are problems in the design that are causing rework or other difficulties. Second, an engineer can frequently, in just a few minutes, design a test fixture that will greatly assist the shop in putting out a product. Engineers frequently don't appreciate how important the manufacturing test equipment is.

In addition to the engineers who don't visit the shop floor, there's a fairly large number who won't work the bugs out of their own designs.

Carl
 
<h2>1. Are engineering assignments really necessary for a scientist?</h2><p>Yes, engineering assignments are an important part of a scientist's education and career. They provide hands-on experience and practical skills that are essential for conducting experiments and analyzing data.</p><h2>2. Why do scientists often struggle with engineering assignments?</h2><p>Many scientists come from a background focused on theoretical concepts, rather than practical applications. As a result, they may not have the same level of experience or knowledge in engineering principles and techniques.</p><h2>3. Can scientists benefit from completing engineering assignments?</h2><p>Absolutely. Completing engineering assignments can help scientists develop critical thinking, problem-solving, and technical skills that are valuable in their research and future career opportunities.</p><h2>4. How can scientists improve their performance on engineering assignments?</h2><p>One way to improve performance on engineering assignments is to seek out additional resources, such as textbooks, online tutorials, or seeking help from a mentor or tutor. Additionally, practicing and applying engineering principles in real-world scenarios can also improve performance.</p><h2>5. Are there any specific types of engineering assignments that scientists struggle with more than others?</h2><p>It varies among individuals, but some common areas that scientists may struggle with in engineering assignments include coding, building prototypes, and using specialized equipment or software. However, with practice and dedication, these skills can be developed and improved upon.</p>

1. Are engineering assignments really necessary for a scientist?

Yes, engineering assignments are an important part of a scientist's education and career. They provide hands-on experience and practical skills that are essential for conducting experiments and analyzing data.

2. Why do scientists often struggle with engineering assignments?

Many scientists come from a background focused on theoretical concepts, rather than practical applications. As a result, they may not have the same level of experience or knowledge in engineering principles and techniques.

3. Can scientists benefit from completing engineering assignments?

Absolutely. Completing engineering assignments can help scientists develop critical thinking, problem-solving, and technical skills that are valuable in their research and future career opportunities.

4. How can scientists improve their performance on engineering assignments?

One way to improve performance on engineering assignments is to seek out additional resources, such as textbooks, online tutorials, or seeking help from a mentor or tutor. Additionally, practicing and applying engineering principles in real-world scenarios can also improve performance.

5. Are there any specific types of engineering assignments that scientists struggle with more than others?

It varies among individuals, but some common areas that scientists may struggle with in engineering assignments include coding, building prototypes, and using specialized equipment or software. However, with practice and dedication, these skills can be developed and improved upon.

Similar threads

  • General Engineering
3
Replies
75
Views
13K
Replies
3
Views
579
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
906
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
15
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
793
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
15
Views
323
Back
Top