Science and Engineering Education Cuts Coming

[dennehym]

I wonder if you have even read the article.

Since it directly affects me, yes, oddly enough. And frankly, I don't see the IUA or IoTI being held in much regard by actual lecturers and researchers in the colleges. They might be included in the process; that doesn't mean lecturers and researchers are.

Lose your arrogance

Reread the language you chose to express yourself before issuing directives like that one!

[Gruffalo]

Since it directly affects me, yes, oddly enough. And frankly, I don't see the IUA or IoTI being held in much regard by actual lecturers and researchers in the colleges. They might be included in the process; that doesn't mean lecturers and researchers are.Reread the language you chose to express yourself before issuing directives like that one!

Ah so now we see it, are you afraid you will have to move? Glad to see there is no bias in your ranting.

As I said the IUA and IOTI are in favour and that carries more weight than your opinion. If you think that we should continue funding seriously undersubscribed courses, especially during recession, then perhaps you should explain why. What do you think should be done in this case?

[dennehym]

It's most unlikely I'd have to move.
And if you want to call it ranting, you don't want to actually discuss it.
If you do want to discuss it, you might consider why we're talking about combining courses in different universities instead of simply cutting the number of places offered in those courses, thus maintaining the geographic spread and facilitating those students who cannot travel long distances to study, given the recession in the economy...

[riven]

Engineering isn't about improvisation, it's about designing the system right in the first place, it's about conservatism in that design where necessary, and about being focussed on the application of the design in the real world, and how that design changes the real world we live in. It is, in short, about building things people use.

To lose the improvisation is to lose the very core of an engineer. Yes engineering is about all the things you say but improvisation is key to the whole porcess as the engineer is ultimately the person that makes the thing work, and that takes improv in many cases. Especially when that engineer will have to consider multiple issues regarding safety and reliability.

Having worked with multiple nationalities on a same level and PM basis I must say that Irish engineers have as much (and in many cases especially at MSc+ level) if not more knowledge than their counterparts. However their ability to apply all of this info in varied and challenging environments that do not exactly apply to their specific element of engineering (i,e, chemical, mechanical..) is lacking.

[mothball]

But true. Granted, the standards in Maths and English (the two LC subjects most needed in Engineering) have fallen dismally since the mid-90s when the LC Maths course syllabus was gutted of all the 'hard stuff', but that doesn't mean you can just chuck out what's left as irrelevant.No, because four to five years later, we've run them all through four to five years of maths they hadn't seen prior to college. Where the LC Maths comes in isn't in the quality of the graduate, but in the failure rate of the course. Of course you don't see the benefit of the LC Maths they did when they graduate, graduation acts like a high-pass filter.

As I said, I don’t know much about the courses provided by Institutes of Technologies. I do know that they do mathematics for longer and they take longer to get their degree. I was under the assumption that this brought them up to the educational level required to carry out the job. With this in the mind, secondary school mathematics is irrelevant; other than use as an indicator of potential university success.I think it is true to say that if they go to an IT then it is more than likely due to the fact they may have not had the entry requirements for an equivalent university engineering course.
The lower requirements bring in some people who are unable or disinterested in doing the required workload, but these leave or fail therefore ensuring a higher dropout rate which also means that the remainder are the best of the original students.
I agree that the better a student did in the leaving certificate, the higher the probability of them completing a course. Throwing up a barrier to others would have ensured that many of my colleagues wouldn’t be engineers. Concentrating on the academic best is one thing, but blocking out others is damaging. Real benefits would come from addressing why good engineers today did badly in school and preventing the loss of other ‘good guys’ to a flawed system.

Engineering isn't about improvisation, it's about designing the system right in the first place, it's about conservatism in that design where necessary, and about being focussed on the application of the design in the real world, and how that design changes the real world we live in. It is, in short, about building things people use.

Engineers are people who are faced with a challenge and work their way around it in order to fulfil the needs of a client. It is this which warranted my use of the term improvisation. It is certainly an oversimplification of the process, but I wasn’t exactly reading from a dictionary.
I was actually referring to “designing the system right in the first place”. Known that one needs to write an algorithm to interface between a dozen different systems is different to actually having one. It is not a straight forward process and I would argue that not everyone is capable of the lateral thinking which is required to create an efficient programme among other things.
My only basis for such an argument is my experience with people in the workplace as well as in university. These people were stumped when forced to work in a way which required some original thinking. Perhaps you think everyone can be consistently creative and the failure is in the education system or some sort artificial, elevated stature I have placed on engineers.

In case of pedantry, read on. Of course an engineer has to fulfil certain criteria in the design process; from conversing with clients, discussion with co-workers, creating specifications and improving the detail of the design as the process continues among many other things. These processes have to be learned. However, creativeness is not the sole preserve of a research and development team.

[Gruffalo]

It's most unlikely I'd have to move.
1.And if you want to call it ranting, you don't want to actually discuss it.
If you do want to discuss it,

2.you might consider why we're talking about combining courses in different universities instead of simply cutting the number of places offered in those courses,

3. thus maintaining the geographic spread and facilitating those students who cannot travel long distances to study, given the recession in the economy...

1. Fair point, I do however want to discuss it

2. We are talking about seriously undersubscribed courses here. Surely, they cannot be doing much other than losing us money? Cutting places means less registration money, less Government funding and will result in job losses anyway?

3. I understand the point about Geographical spread and this does have to be taken into account. I am sure this will be taking into account, and hopefully Lecturers and Students will be consulted. However, we can not keep having courses which are undersubscribed. I am all for supporting regional areas but some things just cannot be done.

[dennehym]

Gruffalo, when you say "seriously undersubscribed", can you give more specific figures? Are we talking 5% takeup? 10%? 20%? 50%? 70%?

[dennehym]

To lose the improvisation is to lose the very core of an engineer.

I think we're arguing over definitions - when I say improvisation isn't the core of an engineer, I'm referring to lash-ups and hacks. To me, the core of an engineer is not improvisation; it's creation. Which is, I'll admit, a slightly subtle difference, but it's nonetheless an important one. You don't want, for example, for an engineer to "improvise" a bridge you have to drive across, nor for them to "improvise" the ABS system on the car you're driving

[Gruffalo]

Gruffalo, when you say "seriously undersubscribed", can you give more specific figures? Are we talking 5% takeup? 10%? 20%? 50%? 70%?

I am using the language used in the article. It is a good question though as they have not provided an actual figure.

[wombat]

I think we're arguing over definitions - when I say improvisation isn't the core of an engineer, I'm referring to lash-ups and hacks.

I agree that engineering should be about eliminating lash ups which is easier said than done - telling your boss that he's wrong is not something that you learn in college, its learned painfully on the job. There are times when I feel like a politician, trying to persuade people that what I want to do is actually their idea. Anyway, that's experience, not academic training. I have two main concerns - are all courses of sufficiently high standard and is there too much specialisation at too early a stage - again, I'm basing my ideas on personal experience - I'm a mech. eng. but 3 years after graduating I was checking levels and layouts in Canada, using something I learned in first year.