Can manufacturing effectively be taught, only in the class.

[fay's unKle]

What all these engineering schools are doing in educating engineers to carry on the great work that technology has done so far. Actually they have not changed the course they follow for decades, they only change some procedures of secondary importance but not of substance.

Theory first for higher education, there is no question about it, only theory though in engineering education is half the work done.

The subject chosen, manufacturing, is a sound example in my opinion. I believe that 90% of universities don't teach their students what really manufacturing is, because they don't send them to the factory floor to complement their theoretical knowledge and students can't "see" really from books processes that involve tools for plastics injection machines, presses etc.

Some will work on them, so for a number of years they are still students. One could mention a lot more, but it's not proper, just one thing: Where are the famous optico-acoustical media to be used. (at least)

[Phi for All]

Can you provide a link that supports the claims you're making about "90% of universities"? You say you "believe" this, but do you know for certain that only 10% have programs that coordinate with actual manufacturing experiences instead of classroom only teaching? This seems like an incredulous rant if you can't provide some basis in reality.

[DrP]

Through my University years I was lucky enough to have several secondments, placements and work experiences in industry. I also think I was lucky enough to have a few teachers that were interested in getting us ready for industry... they would give example of how things were relevant.

 

The problem with having a 'manufacturing' course or an 'Industry' course is that it is too broad. It depends upon WHAT is being manufactured as to what academic discipline is best suited to learn to get you ready for the job. Uni courses and schools aren't there to make you 100% ready for your chosen job (what if someone else gets the job you train for anyway).... they are there to prepare you with a basic set of skill and knowledges for the rest of your career... If you get a degree in Chemistry for example, you are a long way off from being a professional chemist or a coatings manufacturer or a firework designer... but you have your degree which proves in part that you can learn and retain complex information that will be useful. When you get your job or academic placing even, you THEN learn all that is required to make you an expert in THAT field, often calling from the experiences you picked up from uni.

 

Also - my Ph.D. was more useful than my degree for such things... doing a degree may have taught me academic things... but doing a Ph.D. APPLIED what I had learnt as we discussed in meetings the projects that the group was undertaking, all of us having inputs into the meetings. My secondments were mainly during this time also and I got experience of how to apply the learning I had acquired in the previous years. You just can't teach everything... you need a balance of learning AND experience as you grow and progress through your career. I still learn new things all of the time.

[studiot]

 

Can manufacturing effectively be taught,

 

However others teach it, it certainly can't be taught from ignorance.

[swansont]

In addition to DrP's point about manufacturing having a broad meaning, universities are also not vocational schools.

[fiveworlds]

I believe that 90% of universities don't teach their students what really manufacturing is, because they don't send them to the factory floor to complement their theoretical knowledge and students can't "see" really from books processes that involve tools for plastics injection machines, presses etc.

 

 

Just in america or worldwide? The college I am in at the moment has massive workshops and machines for making pretty much anything and garages for fixing vehicles and in secondary school technology (a mix of woodwork and metalwork) was mandatory for all first years.

[Sensei]

What all these engineering schools are doing in educating engineers to carry on the great work that technology has done so far.

Actually they have not changed the course they follow for decades, they only change some procedures of secondary importance but not of substance.

Quite extraordinary claim..

It didn't change in decades?

Are not computers used for everything now?

Are not students learning computer programming, and how to use it to calculate something they will need in future engineering projects.. ?

Are not students learning f.e. AutoCAD and similar CAD applications?

CAD means "Computer-aided design"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-aided_design

 

Theory first for higher education, there is no question about it, only theory though in engineering education is half the work done.

 

The subject chosen, manufacturing, is a sound example in my opinion. I believe that 90% of universities don't teach their students what really manufacturing is, because they don't send them to the factory floor to complement their theoretical knowledge and students can't "see" really from books processes that involve tools for plastics injection machines, presses etc.

 

If somebody is studying robotics and automation, will have to make some computer controlled devices (or even controlled remotely by wifi etc.), or robots. f.e. Arduino projects. Now common are 3D printers and CNC.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Sensei

[fay's unKle]

.... but you have your degree which proves in part that you can learn and retain complex information that will be useful.

 

 

Although there's nothing to change my opinion, I APPLAUD TO THIS for its content, very general but relevant.