Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cuae2!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!j.cc.purdue.edu!h.cc.purdue.edu!pur-phy!piner
From: piner@pur-phy.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.misc
Subject: Re: James Burke
Message-ID: <2143@pur-phy.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Feb-87 03:02:30 EST
Article-I.D.: pur-phy.2143
Posted: Thu Feb 19 03:02:30 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Feb-87 22:37:40 EST
References: <2818@udenva.UUCP> <7008@ut-sally.UUCP> <937@mips.UUCP> <3266@j.cc.purdue.edu> <954@mips.UUCP> <3305@j.cc.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: piner@pur-phy.UUCP (Richard Piner)
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue Univ. Physics Dept., IN
Lines: 56

In article <3305@j.cc.purdue.edu> rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Wombat) writes:
>In article <954@mips.UUCP> hansen@mips.UUCP (Craig Hansen) writes:
>>In article <3266@j.cc.purdue.edu>, rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu (Wombat) writes:
>>> We have already seen examples of technology that has been lost...
>>
>>Well, I guess I'm still not making myself clear. Along with the scientific
>>developments, society has put an elaborate system in place of recording,
>>publishing, and training others in scientific methods and discoveries.
>
>Okay, I'll try to surprise you with an example: vacuum tubes.  Twenty
>years ago, most graduating electrical engineers learned about tubes in
>their curriculum the way today's EE's learn about CMOS and TTL
>technologies.  But just try to find a [recently graduated] EE today who
>can even tell you what the pins on a 6V6GT are, how to bias it, or even
>what it might *do*.  I'd be willing to bet that not one in a hundred of
>the EE's around here (and we have a couple thousand) could do it.  In
>another twenty years, vacuum tubes will be nearly forgotten, except in
>those applications where they're still needed (and there aren't many)
>and by those people working on those applications.
>
>>... but the capacity to recreate that technological item from the
>>"technology matrix," provides a robust mechanism to ensure the continued
>>progress of technology.
>
>Mostly, yes.  But I don't find that mechanism quite as robust as you do
>(I think); especially in the case of catastrophic events.  However, I
>do agree that in most cases, it's hard for things to get lost.
>
Well, I'll toss in my two cents worth two. My cousin's husband is
getting ready to retire from his post as a plant engineer. He is a
Purdue grad. He has, of course, interviewed a number of recent Purdue
grads as replacements. He is not happy with the results. He needs
a person that understands motors, three phase juice, and high power systems.
Twenty years ago he would have found lots of graduates to fill the bill,
but now it is almost impossible. Finding someone with basic electrical
engineering skills is almost impossible. In our rush to "high tech"
we are forgetting the fundamentals. While things might be written down
in some text book somewhere, that is not the same as practical
experience. Text books don't make factories run. Our system is on
very shaky ground. When the post-world war two engineers all retire,
the US will have a very hard time replacing them. Our schools no
longer have the people to teach "bread & butter" engineering to young
people. While the knowledge is not lost in the academic sense, it
is not in the hands of enough people to meet practical economic needs.
So we are in a pinch. If all our engineering grads are schooled in new
sexy technologies, we will come to a time when we can build great
computers, but there won't be any power plants to provide the
electricity. On the other hand, if we change course, and start
teaching basic engineering skills needed by more mundane applications,
we will have a short fall in people needed to advance technology.
Clearly, we just plain need both. Which means more engineering grads.
Which means a bigger University system. Which means more support.
Which means higher taxes. Which means we are in deep trouble.

					Richard Piner
					piner@galileo.physics.purdue.edu