On Wed, 31 May 2023 22:56:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<
frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On 5/31/2023 10:27 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>
>> Here's Tom's original "library" statement:
>> 06/07/2022
>> <
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/QNPNSofg064/m/Xaamy15iBQAJ>
>> "I would warrant that I've read more than 20 times more books than you
>> have. I read out three public libraries, the military library and all
>> of the books I used to gain the knowledge to become an engineer."
>>
>> Tom was in the USAF in about 1965. Even back then, books were good
>> for learning fundamentals, but were also a mediocre way of staying up
>> to date on current technology.
>I'd say that merely reading books on engineering, as Tom claimed, is not
>even a mediocre way of gaining knowledge to be an engineer - let alone
>to stay up to date as technology changed.
>
>Tom probably has no conception of this, but when attending an actual
>school to actually learn engineering, reading is just a tiny part of the
>education.
I beg to differ somewhat. Prior to about 1960, the common term was
"reading for a degree in xxxxx" where xxxxx is something like
mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, aviation engineering,
etc. This was because many colleges taught general education and
basics in the first 3 years of a 4 year degree, and only specialized
in the desired engineering discipline in the last year of college.
There were minimal labs during the first 3 years and everything came
from a book or study guide. Teaching consisted of the instructor
providing a list of books that the student was expected to read. If
it was a library book, the queue for checking out the few copies in
the library could easily be several months. There was only one exam
at the end of the semester. If there were any questions during the
semester, the student was encouraged to as the teachers assistant. If
that was insufficient, they could make an appointment to meet with the
instructor (or professor). In addition to readings, students were
required to attend demonstrations, where the instructor, lab
assistant, and some "volunteers" demonstrated various experiments.
Student would sit in the lecture hall and take notes. I almost
attended such a college (UCLA) but rapidly transferred to a different
college (Cal Poly Pomona) when I discovered that everything was theory
and I would only get a few classes in electronics. Cal Poly Pomona
was the exact opposite (Learn by Doing) where there were electronics
classes and labs during all 4 years.
>Students are given thousands of tasks to accomplish,
>everything from homework problems requiring a page or two of
>calculations, to class projects and lab exercises requiring over ten
>times as much work, to research projects taking weeks. Classes have
>exams that must be passed. And most classes beyond the freshman level
>require competence in the lower level subject matter; IOW, the
>requirements become greater.
The assigned reading, homework and projects tended to take far more
time that was available. Instructors had the irritating habit of
assuming that the only thing the student should be doing while awake
was working on the instructors assignment. This was obvious from the
start resulting students determining what was important and what could
be ignored. Only the very best students and fastest readers were able
to complete all the reading assignments. Also, end of semester or
quarter short-term cramming was epidemic. Out of 6 years in college,
I worked at part time jobs for 5 of those years, in order to pay my
tuition and expenses. I applied what I learned in school to those
jobs which helps explain why I was fired by only one employer. If I
had to rely totally on book learning, I would not have done well at
any job.
I had a good example of learning by the book versus learn by doing.
Our physics teacher hired some students to help lay floor tiles in his
kitchen. I wasn't doing well in his class, so I volunteered in the
hope that it would improve my grade. It didn't. When we arrived, we
soon discovered that he had purchased several extra boxes of floor
tiles thanks to faulty calculations. This was someone who lived in a
world of complex equations, yet he couldn't do the comparatively
simple arithmetic needed to calculate the number of 1ft x 1ft floor
tiles required.
>When I began my engineering major, one professor said "Take a look at
>the students around you. Nine out of ten of them won't graduate with
>this degree." It turned out he was right.
I went to college during the Vietnam War era. The colleges were at
full capacity with student who wanted to get a student deferment (2S).
Many of these undergrad students weren't really qualified and would
eventually drop out. To hasten the process, the college
administration would do almost anything within its authority to make
room for other students who might have a better chance at obtaining a
diploma. The result was a temporary tendency for students to take
getting an education rather seriously.
I heard "Look to your left and look to your right. One of them won't
be here next semester (or quarter)". Repeated at once per calendar
year for 4 or 6 years, that's a chance of 1 in 16 to 1 in 64 of
graduating with a diploma. If repeated every semester or quarter, the
odds are much lower. Most students took 5 or 6 years to graduate
because they wanted to extend their student deferments.
During my rather checkered career, I met many technicians who were
very competent with hardware. However, most were held back because
they lacked an understanding of the fundamentals and concepts that
could best be learned from a book. Many went back to school or took
correspondence courses (usually under the GI Bill) to learn these and
eventually obtained a degree. I only know one person who spent
endless hours reading library books and eventually became an engineer.
I soon discovered there were large gaps and holes in his self
education, where something was lacking because some author chose to
omit the topic from his book. Some of these omissions were rather
important.