Vocational Education VS. the Ivory Tower
08/01/1997
Vocational education vs. the ivory tower
There seems to be a conflict between the business world`s measures of success and its prescriptions for education, between what we value ourselves and what we offer the next generation. It worries me that universities and their corporate partners seem to be prescribing a drug that they themselves don`t value. Universities, all agree, need to "prepare students to compete in the global economy." The arguments happen when we try to define what that means for curricula.
For instance, what college courses were most useful to you? When I asked this question around our offices, everyone, regardless of background or job function, mentioned a fundamental, often introductory course: thermodynamics, solid state physics, journalism 101, freshman English, public speaking, abstract algebra. These courses were valuable, they said, because they provided a fundamental understanding of how things work, a set of tools to use over and over again, or a framework for further study.
Or, consider external measures. What makes the star performers in your organization special? What do you look for in interviews? Asked these questions, managers often use words like creativity, problem-solving, communications skills, and leadership. Managers say they want people who can apply concrete knowledge to new situations, extract key information from complex data, and build consensus with co-workers and other departments.
The conflict between what we say and what we do comes when companies make curriculum suggestions to local universities. These suggestions tend to emphasize hands-on instruction with the latest equipment, knowledge of specific processes and software programs, and a solid grounding in business.
In response, universities brag about their microelectronics laboratories, about letting students take wafers through a complete CMOS process. I`ll be the first to agree that any engineering program without a laboratory component shortchanges its students, but I worry when the word "training" slips into these boasts. As in, "we train students in lithography, mask-making, wet chemistry..." and on and on - a laundry list to be checked off, bullet points for a resume. I worry when I don`t hear words like scientific method, problem-solving, or independent research. The emphasis seems to be on manipulating equipment, not understanding the world, on resist processing, not resist chemistry. I worry that future breakthrough technologies will leave alumni of these programs unemployable, while the industry will again face personnel shortages. I also worry that too much emphasis on tools of the present will leave students without the foundation to build the tools of the future.
Some fortunate, well-funded universities manage to supply heavy doses of both practical experience and the underlying science. Such universities don`t have to teach remedial algebra before they can offer calculus, either, and can usually find funding for new labs and comprehensive libraries. The rest of academia, serving the vast majority of future engineers, usually has to make tradeoffs. Labs are expensive and funding is tight. It`s very tempting to give industry the tightly focused programs it says it wants, but overspecialization is a disservice to both students and their prospective employers. The state of the art changes every 18 months, while a graduating senior may have a 40-year career ahead.
Instead of merely becoming expensive trade schools, universities should provide a broad education in scientific fundamentals, require students to develop analytical and communication skills, and look to co-op and other industrial liaison programs for job training. Industry, for its part, should remember that on-the-job training pays dividends in loyalty, and that summer co-op programs are a low-risk way to train and audition prospective employees. Tools come and tools go, but the ability to learn lasts a lifetime.