All about the money

Recently, there was a discussion among faculty members and industry folks surrounding the role of training PhD students suitable for the workplace. The synopsis was something like this. Many students who get PhDs are interested in staying in academia but the realities are that for every 10-20 PhD students graduated, maybe 1 of them will get a faculty position. So what are the other PhD students supposed to do? Well, get jobs in industry. Except most of them have been trained to have an academic perspective on things and have not been trained to understand effective project management, deadlines, deliverables, etc. 

One of the ideas to solving this problem involves having the PhD student propose their thesis topic earlier in their training. The idea is that if the student identifies the scope of their PhD earlier, they can then focus more on getting those "deliverables" done. Also, from an advisor perspective, this is a contract of sorts where the PhD student can keep the advisor from moving the goal posts because there is an established stopping point to the student's work. 

While this is a grand idea and I whole-heartedly agree with it, it is simply not practical. And there is one simple reason for it. Money.

The most direct way that I see this relates to the size and duration of research funding awards. In my area, most research awards are 2-3 years with insufficient funding levels ($100k/yr) to establish instrumentation and equipment to complete a task. Thus, a student may start out on one project but because of my funding situation (for which the student has no control), that student may be forced to switch to multiple projects just so I can pay their stipend and satisfy multiple program objectives. However, these projects usually are not interlinked enough to draw a common thread for writing a thesis. This makes defining thesis objectives very nebulous when you don't know what task you will need to do to satisfy which program manager 6 months from now. I spend more of my time (probably 60%+) going after money than I do doing anything else, including actual research, teaching, service, mentoring, etc. As the PI, frankly I'm trying to solve the paycheck problem for my students first and then worry about the details like defining a thesis second. It is a sad state of affairs and I am disappointed in this but that's the practical realities that I face. 

The second way in which I see an issue with training PhD students for jobs in industry is that no funding agency actually awards funding for practical, applied research. (At least funding that is not ITAR controlled.) Virtually every response I get from review panels is "Wow, so-and-so company that wrote you a support letter should directly fund this.". I'm basically convinced at this point if you send anything practical to NSF it will get shot down for not being sciency enough. But they neglect that if they fund that research, it may turn into technology to spin off from the university, which may create jobs, which grows the tax base, and increases funding for entities like NSF. (BTW, that's the NSF standard lip service as to their motivation for funding projects). 

I've had a $2.1M NIH BioTech R01 turned down last week, an $875k fellowship turned down today, and two NSFs for about $800k turned down last month. All of them were doing some amount of science but all of them had practical applications which would be excellent training for students.That leaves 5 of my students with cloudy funding futures, several of which will have to put off their thesis proposals, because I can't secure funding. And that's not their fault. But the really infuriating thing about all of this is I have no shortage of companies that explicitly ask me to notify them when I have students graduating because they want students who have been trained in my area. But I fear I won't be in academia long enough for that to matter because the practical realities are that I need to bring in enough money to support the students and the funding agencies simply do not fund areas where students may be practically trained. 

Fantasy Curriculum: All out assault on Math!

A few weeks ago (7 eons in internet time...) I posted on Engineer Blogs a snippet of ideas for how I would change the mechanical engineering curriculum. This mainly focused around one thing: have all ME required courses taught by ME faculty. It's pretty simple. If you're a ME student, you probably have ~120 hours of ME degree courses that you need to take. If they're all not taught by ME faculty, you're getting shafted in your education. That's just my opinion. However, it seemed from the initial comments that there's bunch of people that would like that.

In my original post, I picked on a few non-ME courses that I would like to see changed. Today, I'm going to specifically discuss the Mathematics and Statistics curriculum parts of a typical ME program and how I'd like to change them. I realize I'm totally biased and haven't had a good math teacher in college but I'm also going to assume I'm not alone in this boat.

The biggest reason for swapping math profs for ME profs is the application of the math. When you're in a math class (even math for engineers) it's always math for the sake of math. I took a graduate math course called "Advanced Applied Engineering Mathematics". There was never any actual applying of the math. Engineers don't care about math just because it's math. They want to use it. If you don't have examples of it, you're talking to zombies. Math prof's don't give practical examples. However, ME profs can.

This brings me to the second biggest reason for changing profs. Math profs want to teach math students who think like them and approach problems like them. ME profs want to teach to ME students who think like them and approach problems like them. It's pretty simple and basic but it doesn't make sense. And ME profs are as qualified (if not more qualified) to teach engineering math courses because they use it on a regular basis.

Most universities have the math courses front-loaded before the ME courses. A better approach is to actually teach the math in the same course where it's applied. I'll give you an example. One of the basic things about derivatives (and 2nd derivatives) and integrals is the relationship between position, velocity, and acceleration. I don't ever remember hearing those three words in my basic calc classes. That's a shame. Probably these concept should be taught as part of the basic physics course.

Now, rather than rant forever, I'll try to discuss some constructive things. I'm going to assume a student needs the following math courses (some universities may vary)

Calc I

Calc II

Calc III

Diff Eq

Linear Algebra

Statistics

For Calc I and II, I'd combine those into one course called Engineering Calc. I would keep derivatives, integrals (only shorthand methods), partial derivatives, equations of motion, and complex numbers/conjugates. Everything else, deep six it. You're not going to remember it anyway and if you need it later, you can learn it later. Also, I would hack down Calc III and Linear Algebra and combine them into one class called Multivariable Calc. You can only take some much of vectors intercepting a plane is space for so long before you kill yourself. And when you're talking about multi-variable problems, it probably good to introduce some matrices.

Statistics, I would kill completely. Totally useless course except for the first 2 concepts you learn about standard deviations and distributions. Everything else in the course was of the theory of statistics persuasion which is useless for UG engineers. Instead, I would tack that on to a lab course. I'll go back over this when I talk about chemistry.

Lastly, Diff Eq. Wow, words cannot begin to express how much I disliked Diff Eq. However, it is needed for Fluids, Vibrations, and Heat Transfer so it has to stay. It depends on how the curriculum is set up, but I think most students take this during their Sophomore year. Instead, I would pick whichever class needs it and shows up first (say Fluids) and have it co-taught with that class. This way, you'd take 6 hours of Diff Eq and Fluids but the profs would have to work in tandem. I know it's tough but we're trying to get the students to learn more useful information.

I think the math curriculum can be trimmed from 18 hours to 9 hours with some supplemental stuff added to a few courses. That frees a lot of space for other courses. I'm slowly building to my complete Fantasy Curriculum. Over the next few days, I'll tackle some more subjects. Thoughts on my assault on math?

Senior Engineer vs Tenured Faculty

On Tuesday, over at Engineer Blogs, I guest-posted about how universities are changing their new shiny into User Facilities. An Old Engineer posted a (loosely connected) comment on how some of the undergraduates are “in college only to learn the basics”. An Old Engineer then goes on to discuss how my generation doesn’t know anything. Kate summed up a response that I knew was coming: "The old folks always bitch about the young ones not knowing anything and wanting to move up fast. The young folks always bitch about the old ones not ever wanting to change anything."

I thought more and more about An Old Engineer’s comments, specifically on young engineers expecting to be senior engineers within 5-10 years. I didn’t want to be rash which is why I didn’t post yesterday. (I know, shocking. For those that know me, I sometimes “see by the light of my burning bridges [Terry Pratchett]”).

And you know what? If I pursued work in industry, rather than academia, I would expect to be promoted to a Senior Engineer within 5-10 years if I kept to the same standard that I hold myself to now. The main reason is because within 7 years, I’ll either be booted from SnowU or have tenure, which to my eyes is the same thing as being labeled a Senior Engineer.

I can do “bolt torque calculations” and I don’t need any help setting up proof-of-concept experiments. Oh, and that is after I’ve built my system by using my skills on a mill and lathe. And once I’m done with the experiment, I can write it into an effective report (or in my case, journal paper). I have numerous instances of that. And lastly, once I have the results, I have no problem standing in front of a crowd and saying “these are our results, look at how cool our research is.” That’s the sales aspect that you need in academia and in industry.

I’ve spent extra 6 years in school, wrote effectively 2 books (MS Thesis and PhD Thesis) on two entirely different topics. I’ve learned how to juggle class work, several research projects (even self initiated ones), publishing, academic politics, mentoring students, occasionally teach, and serve on committees in the university and the community at large. And the few universities that did manage to look past my lack of a postdoc on my CV and application package thought I was good enough to bring in for an interview and ultimately offered me a tenure track position.

So yes, if I keep on the same track, I would expect to be a “Senior Engineer” in 5-10 years. I’ll have to prove that I can bring in research money, successfully mentor my graduate students, and effectively reach undergraduates, some of whom might only “be in college for the basics”.

How is that any different, in principle, to what would be expected of a Senior Engineer? What do you expect Senior Engineers to do? How would that be different from Tenure Faculty? What are the correlations between the two? Thoughts? Comments?

How PowerPoint ruins America’s STEM Education

On Monday, I alluded to some things that could be changed about America’s Higher Education system, particularly focusing on STEM Education. One of those changes would be to wipe PowerPoint from every computer, in every university, and pass out some chalk.

Ok, well that’s not entirely fair. I do believe in fair arguments so there are times when PowerPoint is a great tool for teaching. PP is great when used as an accent. Having trouble describing a system on the chalk board? No problem. Show a picture of it in PP. Need to demonstrate a little gizmo? Build a small animation in PP. PP is also great for presentations. It’s the standard medium for most (all?) conferences. It helps keep you on track and gives your audience something to look at while you’re explaining how great you are.

The problem with PowerPoint is that it’s taken for granted. Everyone expects you to give a presentation and it is soooo common, that no one teaches you how to do it effectively. Luckily, at UGU, they stressed giving presentations so you learned how to convey your information in PP without getting lost in PP. I was one of the fortunate ones. A lot of people I talk with didn’t get that during their education. Making graphs? Be sure to change the axes and font sizes. That’s a common mistake that kills me every time I see it. You know when you’re standing in the audience that you hate not being able to read the labels, make sure to fix it for your own presentation. You spend more time trying to figure out if it’s “nm” or “mm”, rather than focusing on what’s important.

Equations + PowerPoint = Knife in my Temple. Sitting through PP lectures in STEM fields which rely heavily on math makes me want to kill myself. As the student, an equation *magically pops up and on the next slide, it’s *magically in the form you need it. Those 4 pages of derivation? Don’t worry about those. Most times math is presented in PP missing huge steps and little tricks/transformations/substitutions. That’s where some real learning occurs.

If you have the PP and the note, what’s the point of going to class? Read it on your own time. Students shouldn’t be reading the PP before the class. They should be reading the textbook, otherwise why assign it? It’s like looking at the Cliff’s Note before the class and saying you’ve read the book.

On the professor side of the equation (which I’ll have to deal with soon enough), I think PP makes you a less effective teacher. You are already stressed with proposals, papers, and students. Who has time for teaching? Oh, lecture at 1 pm today… hmmm.. there’s that presentation that I gave a few years ago… maybe that’ll work. That’s an unfair oversimplification but I think it gets my point across. Once you’ve made your PP slides and tweaked them after the first semester or two, you probably rarely go back and change them. And that leads into a downward spiral where you assume you’ll remember the lecture once you’ve seen the slides so you don’t need to prepare. I was the culprit for this once. I gave a guest lecture one year and was asked to give it again the following year. I assumed I’d remember the material once I saw it, but that wasn’t the case. It was one the worst presentations I’ve ever given.

When PP is not used as an accent and is the sole medium for conveying information, that’s when you have problems. And, as more and more distance learning/web learning is pushed at universities, you’re going to have more and more problems. Apparently, PP is a huge problem for the US military (albeit for different reasons). Let’s not make it a huge problem for education.

Screw Shakespeare, Learn Engineering Skills

So FrauTech in her guest blog at Scientopia discussed why there aren't more engineers in the blogging. One of her first comments was by Colin who brought up the very valid point that US schools are falling behind in STEM fields in high school but in fact, most high schools don't teach engineering. DrugMonkey followed up with a comment that engineering didn't necessarily need to be in high school. I couldn't disagree with this statement more. This brings up the point I would like to make:

Screw Shakespeare, Learn Engineering Skills.

Learning literature skills like interpreting Shakespeare is waaaay less important for students to learn in high school than engineering skills. The world needs more people to be able to build stuff and advance society rather than another person working on yet another interpretation of The Taming of the Shrew (10 Things I Hate About You is great, but I digress).

Aside from teaching the specific discipline topics (mechanical, civil, electrical, chemical, etc etc), engineering teaches PROBLEM SOLVING. What does the world have plenty of right now? Problems. Clean water, clean energy, food sources, climate issues. I don't think having students recite Macbeth to a contaminated well is a good way to clean it. However, showing the students how to build a filter and a mini-windmill to pump the water will teach them real skills, like solving problems.

I remember reading an article in the paper a few years ago about a study done about 10-15 years ago for junior high students. Half of the students took the normal curriculum, whereas the other half had 1 task in their "science class" (why couldn't they call it engineering?). Their task was to figure out what it takes to launch 15000 lbs into space and what minimum velocity it takes to orbit earth. I can't find the link to the study right now but basically, an overwhelming majority of those students went on to university degrees in engineering and science (most engineering), and a significant number went on to get advanced degrees. The control group had only a hand full of students go into engineering/science careers.

That study was a clear indicator of what happens when you introduce engineering (under the veil of a "science class") at a young age. We need more of that at a young age in society and a lot less Shakespeare.