Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think it's the degrees, it's the lack of hand-on experience of those with newly awarded degrees. I once watched a guy with a Masters in Mechanical Engineering install 4 brake pads backwards in the front calipers of his car, wasn't exactly a testament to his mechanical know how. I'll take an engineer with dirty hands over one with lotsa books any day.
It is a balancing act to be honest. I have known those like you describe and I also have known those who are all experience and while they are great at the detailed aspects of their practical solutions and application, they also lack the basic aspect of technical design and process which is just as important.
My experience with such was in programming and you had the fresh out of college theory guy and the practical based experience guy. Both have their strengths if they are the ideal of their position, but what I saw is a combination of both being terrible concerning the solutions.
That is, you would have the fresh out of school theory guy walk in completely ignorant of practical application and also to be honest, not well versed on the theory side either to which his direction was pure trouble as they misapplied their theory due to lack of practical understanding or they swam in a lake of impractical design.
Then you had the practical based experience guy who could make anything work, but due to their lack of theory concepts in the field, their applications were novice level solutions being strung together for a complex solution which created huge headaches over longer term.
At the same time, I have seen those with little experience, mostly education walk in and slam out complex solutions that were fast, efficient and practical to the situation. Though these often were people who strove to take their education and apply it in practical ways.
Same with the practical based experience types and they took their hands on understanding through experience and sought to learn more efficient ways through theory based sources. That is, while they didn't have traditional education, they understood the same level of concepts that those who did (educating themselves), but also had already learned to adapt that knowledge to a practical means.
In the end, I really don't think it is possible to generalize one or the other as it really depends on the individual and the effort the put into their work.
I don't think it's the degrees, it's the lack of hand-on experience of those with newly awarded degrees. I once watched a guy with a Masters in Mechanical Engineering install 4 brake pads backwards in the front calipers of his car, wasn't exactly a testament to his mechanical know how. I'll take an engineer with dirty hands over one with lotsa books any day.
Unfortunately in this day and age, companies prefer you have a piece of paper that says you specialized in this course rather than actual know-how
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,350 posts, read 54,496,641 times
Reputation: 40804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
It is a balancing act to be honest. I have known those like you describe and I also have known those who are all experience and while they are great at the detailed aspects of their practical solutions and application, they also lack the basic aspect of technical design and process which is just as important.
My experience with such was in programming and you had the fresh out of college theory guy and the practical based experience guy. Both have their strengths if they are the ideal of their position, but what I saw is a combination of both being terrible concerning the solutions.
That is, you would have the fresh out of school theory guy walk in completely ignorant of practical application and also to be honest, not well versed on the theory side either to which his direction was pure trouble as they misapplied their theory due to lack of practical understanding or they swam in a lake of impractical design.
Then you had the practical based experience guy who could make anything work, but due to their lack of theory concepts in the field, their applications were novice level solutions being strung together for a complex solution which created huge headaches over longer term.
At the same time, I have seen those with little experience, mostly education walk in and slam out complex solutions that were fast, efficient and practical to the situation. Though these often were people who strove to take their education and apply it in practical ways.
Same with the practical based experience types and they took their hands on understanding through experience and sought to learn more efficient ways through theory based sources. That is, while they didn't have traditional education, they understood the same level of concepts that those who did (educating themselves), but also had already learned to adapt that knowledge to a practical means.
In the end, I really don't think it is possible to generalize one or the other as it really depends on the individual and the effort the put into their work.
Personally, I'd like to see more schools offering co-op programs where after freshman or sophomore year students spend alternating periods in the classroom and working in industry.
I just read an interesting article in Time. It suggested a dude (Bob Lutz) is writing a book about how American business started to tank when we started putting MBAs in charge, instead of engineers.
Actually you started falling apart when the "you-Harvards" took over and started running the show.
I just read an interesting article in Time. It suggested a dude (Bob Lutz) is writing a book about how American business started to tank when we started putting MBAs in charge, instead of engineers. Apparently the engineers really cared about doing good work and making great products for the customers. The MBA brainpower apparently goes mainly toward securing profits for stockholders with the minimum, and usually most short-sighted efforts, and innovation and quality have hit the skids.
It resonated with me, because I have wondered how we went from the most creative and powerful manufacturing economy on earth to a country that make a few computer gadgets (I Phone, big whoop) and a bunch of financial derivatives, securities, and other worthless bs. Here's the link:
Do you think there is any truth to the notion? I would like to see us get back on top by being the best innovators, not through financial shell games.
First of all, recognize that the overwhelming drivers of massive outsourcing from this country have been twofold, and they have nothing to do with whether one is an MBA or an engineer (and many are both).
(1) Capitalism - I'm not saying this system is bad; it's the best we humans can produce. But this system will always allocate resources to those areas where return is maximized. And if that is overseas, then that is where the jobs and investment dollars will go - because shareholders demand competitive returns and businesses are always trying to maximize their bottom lines above and beyond their competitors. That's just the nature of the game.
(2) Improving Technology and Global Business Environment - This reduced the costs of doing business half-way across the world and enabled globalization to feasibly work. Things that didn't make sense before do now when you have the globe-spanning instant web-based technology. And when cheap places like China open their doors for business and offer qualified work forces that can work for a quarter of current cost, the table is set for an advantageous deal with American businesses. Which American CEO in a capitalistic world is not going to take advantage of this?
So again, it doesn't matter if you're an MBA or an engineer - the markets will force you to do the same thing. This is a quantum shift, much like the industrial revolution. This would have happened anyways, because it is a natural consequence of reduced global frictions in a capitalistic environment. Think of it as water; if you remove the barrier, it's going to flow to the lowest point. It doesn't matter who specifically removed the barrier.
Businesses hire enginerrs for a very specific purpose. Not to run a comnay and make profits. let a engineer have his head and like you would ahve a product that can compete in the market.That si why few engineers every get to the top of the corporate world in managing the business day to day decision.
I just read an interesting article in Time. It suggested a dude (Bob Lutz) is writing a book about how American business started to tank when we started putting MBAs in charge, instead of engineers. Apparently the engineers really cared about doing good work and making great products for the customers. The MBA brainpower apparently goes mainly toward securing profits for stockholders with the minimum, and usually most short-sighted efforts, and innovation and quality have hit the skids.
It resonated with me, because I have wondered how we went from the most creative and powerful manufacturing economy on earth to a country that make a few computer gadgets (I Phone, big whoop) and a bunch of financial derivatives, securities, and other worthless bs. Here's the link:
Do you think there is any truth to the notion? I would like to see us get back on top by being the best innovators, not through financial shell games.
I'm going to have to pick up that book. Lutz had a great reputation as a "car guy", not another bean counter running General Motors. They were trying to recover from the Roger B. Smith days for 20 years, after his rule in the 80s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell
Personally, I'd like to see more schools offering co-op programs where after freshman or sophomore year students spend alternating periods in the classroom and working in industry.
Kettering University (formerly General Motors Institute aka GMI) has a co-op program throughout their entire degree program. It offers a great look at what the profession is all about, as well as offering an income opportunity. Their focus is engineering. Back when I attended, it was a 5 year program, with the last year involving a significant project for the student's sponsoring company, and requiring a thesis. I don't know of any other undergraduate engineering programs that do this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Actually you started falling apart when the "you-Harvards" took over and started running the show.
Back "in the day" the largest percentage of students in the Harvard MBA program had undergraduate degrees from Harvard. #2-GMI. A lot of engineers have gone the MBA route.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
