In truth, the subject line says it all, but I'll elaborate because I feel verbose as usual. "What is the current half-life of a college education?"
I Googled the question but my results were less than specular. I found the half-life of an "engineering" degree in the 1940's estimated to be 14 years. I remember 6 years from the 1970's, and one undated item (search results of a subscription service) gave 6 months currently, current to when I have no idea. Another result indicated 20% of a subject's time (One day per work week) should be devoted to continuing education, just to keep current. Heck, I had class mates who earned their degree putting in less time than that. I do know that an unsuccessful Google search is a really bad sign for me, but then, I'm retired.
What is the current half-life of a college education?
-
Mike Holmes
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm
I think that your google was a success.
Basically the half-life has become low enough to drop out of the equation. That is, degrees these days, if they're worth anything, do not teach you engineering principles (or, in my case, software programming languages or the like). They teach you instead how to learn in short order the latest technology.
That is, education now should no longer be "This is how it is," it should instead be, "Here's how to find out and use what exists now."
Unfortunately this shift has been slow to be accepted in learning institutes, and they still teach - not just todays technology - technology that's so fifteen minutes ago. Professors hate to admit that what they know is out of date. But there are some places that are changing, and adapting to having passed this horizon of technological advance. It's not so bad, of course... learning one programming language does teach you a lot about how to learn another. To some extent, education has always been about how to learn. We just need to lean a little more in that direction.
Mike
Basically the half-life has become low enough to drop out of the equation. That is, degrees these days, if they're worth anything, do not teach you engineering principles (or, in my case, software programming languages or the like). They teach you instead how to learn in short order the latest technology.
That is, education now should no longer be "This is how it is," it should instead be, "Here's how to find out and use what exists now."
Unfortunately this shift has been slow to be accepted in learning institutes, and they still teach - not just todays technology - technology that's so fifteen minutes ago. Professors hate to admit that what they know is out of date. But there are some places that are changing, and adapting to having passed this horizon of technological advance. It's not so bad, of course... learning one programming language does teach you a lot about how to learn another. To some extent, education has always been about how to learn. We just need to lean a little more in that direction.
Mike
Funny... I don't remember learning much "so fifteen minutes ago" during my MecE undergrad... It was more Newtonian dynamics and solid mechanics and fluid mechanics and calculus and differential equations and statistics and acoustics and thermodynamics and the fundamentals of numerical methods and stuff like that. I took Aerodynamics and Principles of Turbomachines as options; those haven't changed since the '60s (at least, the parts I learned haven't). Even the stuff we learned about dynamic control systems is pretty fundamental...
Possibly the most dated stuff I learned was in the Mechanics of Machines course in third year; lots of internal combustion engine stuff in there... Oh yes, and how could I forget that drafting course? - my Pro/ENGINEER knowledge was obsolete by the time I started my M.Sc.... but it did help me in the engineering design courses, so it wasn't a waste...
I think you guys are thinking of engineering TECHNOLOGISTS. They're the ones that learn new technology and have to keep current with it. Engineering degrees shouldn't teach you technology (except as a tool to learn the fundamentals, like Matlab in a numerical methods course) - that's what job training is for.
Possibly the most dated stuff I learned was in the Mechanics of Machines course in third year; lots of internal combustion engine stuff in there... Oh yes, and how could I forget that drafting course? - my Pro/ENGINEER knowledge was obsolete by the time I started my M.Sc.... but it did help me in the engineering design courses, so it wasn't a waste...
I think you guys are thinking of engineering TECHNOLOGISTS. They're the ones that learn new technology and have to keep current with it. Engineering degrees shouldn't teach you technology (except as a tool to learn the fundamentals, like Matlab in a numerical methods course) - that's what job training is for.
-
Jeff Peachman
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:47 pm
Yep, I'm a senior in Aero right now and that's pretty much what it is. Everyone complains that theres too much theory and too little practical knowledge, like how to actually build something, but they don't realize that a lot of the most basic theory and math just won't change. There will be more theory to add on, but theres a lot of basic knowledge out there needed to understand everything else.93143 wrote:Funny... I don't remember learning much "so fifteen minutes ago" during my MecE undergrad... It was more Newtonian dynamics and solid mechanics and fluid mechanics and calculus and differential equations and statistics and acoustics and thermodynamics and the fundamentals of numerical methods and stuff like that. I took Aerodynamics and Principles of Turbomachines as options; those haven't changed since the '60s (at least, the parts I learned haven't). Even the stuff we learned about dynamic control systems is pretty fundamental...
- Jeff Peachman
-
Mike Holmes
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm
I was speaking not of engineering in specific, but of sciences in general. Specifically I can speak to my field, computer science. And while the Basic, C and Pascal I learned in school still has some minor uses here and there, these langauges are very much obsolete. And were by the time I started working in my field. I've had to learn new technologies over and over. The latest is .net. And that's not the latest in technology, either.
It would have done a lot more good in my education not to focus on specific languages (maybe one, just to have an example), but how to learn how to program in whatever computer programming language is presented - or how to learn the language. Fortunately, in seeing the three I mention above over the years, I got that skill. But it was more or less because of the specifics of my case than any skill taught to me in school. Later I was able to learn C++ from C, and VB from what I knew of C++, Lotus Script as an adjunct of VB, etc.
To the extent that engineering is, in fact, a discipline that teaches basics on how to apply technologies, individually learned on the job, it has things right.
Mike
It would have done a lot more good in my education not to focus on specific languages (maybe one, just to have an example), but how to learn how to program in whatever computer programming language is presented - or how to learn the language. Fortunately, in seeing the three I mention above over the years, I got that skill. But it was more or less because of the specifics of my case than any skill taught to me in school. Later I was able to learn C++ from C, and VB from what I knew of C++, Lotus Script as an adjunct of VB, etc.
To the extent that engineering is, in fact, a discipline that teaches basics on how to apply technologies, individually learned on the job, it has things right.
Mike
The half life of an education depends on how close to the sun you are. 
Actually half life is not an appropriate analogy.
A better one would be a launch catapult.
It gets you up to speed but you have to fly it from there.
Actually half life is not an appropriate analogy.
A better one would be a launch catapult.
It gets you up to speed but you have to fly it from there.
-Tom Boydston-
"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn’t be called research, would it?" ~Albert Einstein
"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn’t be called research, would it?" ~Albert Einstein
Tom,
That's a good analogy but Half-Life has been used descriptively for over 50 years. If we change terminology, Google searches won't work so well, not to mention us old codgers who won't know what you're talking about.
We have a lot of students who read this forum so I'll try to make my point more clearly. The heart of the matter is this, "All else being equal, after how many years can an engineer who disavows continuing education, other than OJT, expect to loose his job to a new college graduate?" Or should he/she make or expect management to find a niche for him/her to retire into?
(I know, all else will never be equal in a capitalistic economy.)
That's a good analogy but Half-Life has been used descriptively for over 50 years. If we change terminology, Google searches won't work so well, not to mention us old codgers who won't know what you're talking about.
We have a lot of students who read this forum so I'll try to make my point more clearly. The heart of the matter is this, "All else being equal, after how many years can an engineer who disavows continuing education, other than OJT, expect to loose his job to a new college graduate?" Or should he/she make or expect management to find a niche for him/her to retire into?
(I know, all else will never be equal in a capitalistic economy.)
Aero
I'm not sure how long someone can stop learning in engineering. Usually to master a subject someone once evaluated the time needed to be 7 years.
If there is new development in that field after the person finish learning about it to be considered a master, I guess you could suppose another 7 year of amelioration in the field will make the knowledge too outdated to be useful.
Still, if the person continue in that field even "stopping" learning thing, but use the new stuff he will maintain the mastery level he acquired. For completely stopping learning about something you have 2 choice: stop doing it or being dead.
Also before losing it's job are we talking about private sector or public because there is a big difference between the 2.
If there is new development in that field after the person finish learning about it to be considered a master, I guess you could suppose another 7 year of amelioration in the field will make the knowledge too outdated to be useful.
Still, if the person continue in that field even "stopping" learning thing, but use the new stuff he will maintain the mastery level he acquired. For completely stopping learning about something you have 2 choice: stop doing it or being dead.
Also before losing it's job are we talking about private sector or public because there is a big difference between the 2.
And in a socialist economy some will be more equal than others.Aero wrote:Tom,
That's a good analogy but Half-Life has been used descriptively for over 50 years. If we change terminology, Google searches won't work so well, not to mention us old codgers who won't know what you're talking about.
We have a lot of students who read this forum so I'll try to make my point more clearly. The heart of the matter is this, "All else being equal, after how many years can an engineer who disavows continuing education, other than OJT, expect to loose his job to a new college graduate?" Or should he/she make or expect management to find a niche for him/her to retire into?
(I know, all else will never be equal in a capitalistic economy.)
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.