Michael Brown's return to the subject of proper training in control engineering has touched areas that I have been taking a long look at. I believe that it is not just the control engineering sector, but rather the whole education system philosophy that is in need of an overhaul.
In my delving into how humans learn (as a result of an interest in artificial intelligence - and more recently, investigations into this ADD craze) I have seen that there is something staring us hard in the face and people just do not seem to get it: Humans DO NOT learn most effectively in lecture situations. Sure many can cram dead, dry facts - and pass an arbitrary exam... But the ONLY way that people attain a real `feel' for what they are doing is by working alongside more experienced mentors, and gradually taking on more and more responsibility as confidence and experience build up.
We are not sequential, digital machines that can just 'download' data. Our minds are incredibly complex, parallel, analog processors, with massive redundancy. Information is stored in a vague, diffuse fashion and it only gradually becomes clearer, more defined - and more accessible, with repeated, personal experience.
The apprenticeship method of days gone by was right on the button. Universities and Technikons do not make engineers. They only supply potential engineers with a whole bunch of useful-but-dry facts and formulae. Of course there is also personal aptitude. Some individuals are naturally predisposed to the engineering way of thinking - others just join the dots and follow the formulas - it is perhaps better that these guys become accountants. Men and women who have a passion for their fields and have developed an intimate engineering knowledge in nourishing mentorship environments, are the ones who typically make the most useful and practical engineers.
Highly theoretical work certainly has its place: Research and development and the design of cutting-edge technology. The useful engineer does not really need to involve himself to that sort of theoretical depth - unless he is directly involved with a very specialist task. What is important is that the engineer knows that the information exists, knows where to look it up when needed, and also has a good enough grip on reality to know when he is needing to look something up!
It is my contention that the educational system is flawed from grade one up. It is not a problem isolated to control engineering. It is a problem that should be readily noticed by the real engineers (as programming the human brain is a branch of engineering in my opinion). I feel that a lot may be learned from the Montessori approach. I believe that ADD is often merely a symptom resulting from killing the pioneering spirit by forcing the passionate enquiring mind to march in line with the rank and file - and 'do it by the numbers'.
Michael Brown has been sounding an alarm for a while now - and he is absolutely correct. There is a desperate need for companies to have proper mentorship schemes that will provide their young engineers with first-rate 'on-ramps' onto the 'control engineering freeway'. This lack is costing SA Industry MILLIONS. If nobody sows trainees, there will be no crop of properly prepared control engineers. It seems that many cannot see the merit in giving their engineers a 'leg up'. They think it smarter to simply employ a good engineer in the first place. Come on all you CEOs out there! If everybody thinks like that, just where in blazes can we expect these experienced and enthusiastic engineers to sprout from?
Paying trainee engineer salaries would be far cheaper than bearing the losses due to inefficient plants. Sadly, it appears that the only way adequate engineer training will begin is if it is made law. What a shame!
John Gibbs, Editor: SA Instrumentation & Control
031 764 0593, [email protected], www.technews.co.za
For past articles, visit our online publication at www.instrumentation.co.za
For all your I&C needs, use the I&C Buyers' Guide: www.ibg.co.za
© Technews Publishing (Pty) Ltd | All Rights Reserved