[sci.electronics] Mass acknowledgement of comments on misc.engineers

lvron@earth.lerc.nasa.gov (Ronald E. Graham) (07/31/90)

Here is the charter for misc.engineers as it currently stands:

(1) To discuss strengths and weaknesses in engineering education.
(2) To inform participants of interesting university programs or
    curriculums.
(3) To help participants to prepare for advancement academically
    and professionally.
(4) To help participants to increase public awareness of engineering.
(5) To apply problem-solving techniques to the elimination of 
    educational and job-related problems.

Thanks to all who have participated in the misc.engineers discussion to
date:

drues@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (Michael E. Drues)
jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco)
bugsy@theoasis.Corp.Sun.COM (Lavonne Walton)
@yonge.csri.toronto.edu:browe@alias (Brian Rowe)
russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
gooch@portia.stanford.edu (Carl Gooch)
paterra@cs.odu.edu (Frank C. Paterra)
rauletta@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (R. J. Auletta)
marcel@vlsi.caltech.edu (Marcel van der Goot)
nulspace@eng.umd.edu (Michael Chang)
mmankins@eve.Wright.EDU (Mark Mankins)
steve@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Schallehn)
hkhenson@cup.portal.com (Keith Henson)
dd2f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Daniel Alexander Davis)
jjewett@math.lsa.umich.edu
la049137@zach.fit.edu (David Rackmales)
vkr@osupyr.mps.ohio-state.edu (Vidhyanath K. Rao)
arrizzo@cbnews1.att.com (Tony Rizzo)
hjp@ee.umr.edu (Hardy Pottinger) 
scubed!oiscola!gevans@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Gary K. Evans)
     (can't reach this guy at this address...)
mgo@inel.gov (Marcos Ortiz)
kenobi@Corp.Sun.COM (Rick Kwan)
garye@max.u.washington.edu
     (Soon to have a new internet address "erickson@seattleu.edu")
soules@ecs.umass.edu
johnb%srchtec.uucp@mathcs.emory.edu (John Baldwin)
rubio@ISF.Unisys.COM (Stuart Rubio)
mkg@dretor.dciem.dnd.ca (Mike Grasley (see Dr.Grodski))
hawthorn@wam.umd.edu (Ian James Hawthorn)
mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald)
starfiel@oregon.uoregon.edu (Douglas Starfield)
crawford@ruddles.sprl.umich.edu (Doug Crawford)
hadgraft@civeng.monash.edu.au (Roger Hadgraft)
ssimmons@unix.cie.rpi.edu (Stephen Simmons)
rob%autoctrl.rug.ac.be@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Rob A. Vingerhoeds)
chrish%videovax.tv.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET (Chris Hawes)
gt5614b@prism.gatech.edu (Butera (Jr.), Robert John)
mack@frc.ri.cmu.edu (Clark McDonald)
mehl@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (Mark M Mehl)
gwh%ocf.Berkeley.EDU@lilac.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert)
leff@dept.csci.unt.edu (Dr. Laurence L. Leff) 
n8035388@unicorn.WWU.EDU (Worth Henry A) 
mkg@dretor.dciem.dnd.ca (Mike Grasley (see Dr.Grodski))
LIM@ecs.umass.edu (Jonathan Lim)
ggraef@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (gerald graef) 
MXP122@psuvm.psu.edu (Malzor) 
roberts@iisat.uucp (Greg Roberts)
opurbo@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Onno W. Purbo)
convex!jhyde@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (John Hyde)
paivi@hila.hut.fi (Paivi Hyvarinen)
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) 

General comments:

The only bullet in the revised charter that seems to make anybody balk
at the proposal is (4).  Maybe that bullet needs to be explained better.
When I wrote it, I meant that public perception of engineers is, IMPO, 
somewhat skewed WRT the reality of the profession.  The question I want
answered is, how do we deal with any faults in public perception?  Or, 
do we even need to?

The call for discussion was posted in the following groups: soc.college,
comp.software-eng, comp.org.ieee, misc.education, sci.misc, sci.edu, 
sci.skeptic, sci.aeronautics, sci.energy, sci.electronics, sci.physics,
sci.space, sci.space.shuttle, and news.groups.  The call generated some
traffic in misc.education, news.groups, and sci.space.  Of the other groups,
I cannot think of one that did not at least generate e-mail responses. 
Of course, those other groups seem to have no middle ground between being
quiescent and being so busy that a single call could easily go largely
unnoticed.

Specific comments follow:

From: Roger Hadgraft <hadgraft@civeng.monash.edu.au>

I think your modified proposal is much better since it is broader in scope, and
will be a way of encouraging engineers of many disciplines to participate in 
net discussions - on education, professional status, and even technical topics 
eventually. I would like to see an ENG.* hierarchy eventually, and I think 
this is a way of getting started in a small way.

From: Chris Hawes <chrish%videovax.tv.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET>

I think good communication skills are something people want in theory but
are not putting a high enough priority on when it comes to the educational
curriculum or hiring for a job.  There is a problem in our society of
the technology outpacing the educational process even in technical areas.
So I think the time to concentrate on communication skills is before the
person gets to college, but from what I've read this is just not the case
in America.  By the time you get to college you should be well prepared
in all forms of verbal skills so that you could concentrate on your major 
where there is so much to learn.  I believe that some European countries
and Japan teach verbal skills to the masses more effectively than we do.
Our schools don't even teach grammar any more.  I think the time to get
to the student's brain is age 3 to 14.  Then let them go as technical
as they want from there.  All through high school, college, and their
career they would have those solid communication skills to pull them
through life. 

From: gt5614b@prism.gatech.edu (Butera (Jr.), Robert John)

I applaud your efforts and am fully in support of such a forum.  As
a college student continuing on to graduate school I along with many
others would have many questions for otherws to answer.  I am also
deeply concerned with many of the social/economic/political aspects of
engineering such as public awareness, revitalization of R&D, the 
need for engineers and current shortage of them in many fields, the
possiblity of an organization similar to Japan's MITI (like a civilian
version of DARPA), etc.   From my co-op job, I see working engineers
concerned with issues such as paid overtime (which rarely occurs in
engineering), continuing education, academic/degree requirements as
a part of promotional guidelines, why to go back to school for an advanced
degree, etc.   Just a few ideas that come to mind.

From: mack@frc.ri.cmu.edu (Clark McDonald)

I concur wholeheartedly with any and all of the above.  [Referring to 
revised charter...]

Particularly #4.

From: mehl@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (Mark M Mehl)

> (1) To discuss strengths and weaknesses in engineering education.

Good.

> (2) To inform participants of interesting university programs or
>     curriculums.

I assume this would include fostering joint research
projects/development programs between schools or between schools and
industry.  We do need more of this.

> (3) To help participants to prepare for advancement academically
>     and professionally.

Good.

> (4) To help participants to increase public awareness of engineering.

How so?  I don't think we need to post ads for the public.

> (5) To apply problem-solving techniques to the elimination of 
>     educational and job-related problems.

Individual problems should be solved in their respected newsgroup.
This proposed group should concentrate on problems or methods tried
that deal specifically with teaching the engineer.

> Second, the charter is not strictly based
> on education any more.  (This reflects the fact that a number of
> professionals are tuned in to the net.  We want to be sensitive to
> what they need as well.)

If this is the case (unfortunately), then take "edu" out of the name
for the newsgroup.  Call it talk.eng.needs or something.  I'll
probably not vote for such a group, but then I won't be inclined to
vote against it either because the name isn't right.

I would prefer calling it sci.eng.edu (or something) and insisted
that it focused on engineering education.

> Finally, there's a bullet
> in there about "advancement": this covers education, graduation, job-
> hunting, training, professional growth, career changes, etc.  all under
  ^^^^^^^
For job hunting, I would much rather see a misc.jobs.offered.eng-tech
group created.

> Further, I would like to propose a different name: misc.engineers.

Please keep the name short so we can build a hierarchy on it if
necessary.  Everyone on the net knows what "eng" stands for, so call
it misc.eng.  I would still prefer if we stuck to educational issues
(not publicity and stuff) and called the group misc.edu.eng or
something.  (I still prefer sci.eng.edu, but I'll vote for either of
the two.)

n8035388@unicorn.WWU.EDU (Worth Henry A) writes...
>     henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>>It would help, considerably, to undo the old merger that united Composition
>>and Literature into English.  English teachers like to teach Literature,
>>which does little or nothing for the communications skills, because
>>Composition is hard to teach.

>   Yes, and merge composition into nearly all of the engineering and science
>courses. Of course, the faculty would then have to learn how to grade 
>compositions...

From: mkg@dretor.dciem.dnd.ca (Mike Grasley (see Dr.Grodski))

I think the new charter is excellent--it seems to me that it offers more
avenues of discussion that the original, which should lead to wider
interest and more participation.

Here is a copy of an article I just posted to misc.education.  If a
newsgroup on engineering education gets started I will re-post it there.

[Posted article not included, but interesting...]

From: "William Jonathan Lim . U of Massachusetts" <LIM@ecs.umass.edu>

How about some kind of graduate school database containing information on the 
programs they offer; an on-line Peterson's Guide, basically. (I'm one of those 
college seniors looking for the right grad. school.)

From: ggraef@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (gerald graef) 

Its very interesting teaching intro-physics classes with a mix of
physical science and engineering students.  The two groups of 
students can be separated in the first week or so: the engineers always
have this expression that reads something like "skip the talk.  give me
the equation and I'll solve the problem."

From: leff@dept.csci.unt.edu (Dr. Laurence L. Leff) 

I would propose changing the charter to the following:

Discussion of all aspects of engineering.
Out of respect for earlier group (sci.analog and comp.vlsi), digital logic
and analog circuitry items should go to those groups.

Although ethical and social impact and job items are encouraged, they must be
relevant specifically to engineering, and not scientists or other professionals
as well.

From: Paivi Hyvarinen <paivi@hila.hut.fi>

Hi again - and sorry for not reading all of news.groups before replying.
I like this charter FAR better and I would still like to see it emphasized
that the group is for international discussion, not only American.