Theory vs Practice

Among other things (most of which I'll never confess to!) I'm an Adjunct Professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. I was inspired to solicit some opinions from the forum by this thread:

http://www.plctalk.net/qanda/showthread.php?t=70375

The basic question is the appropriate balance between theory and practice in the standard four year curriculum. For example, the graduating engineers at UW are required to know calculus (which I haven't used in 25 years at least) but are not able to read or create engineering drawings (which I have to do every week).


So, the question is, what is the proper balance between theory and practice for the engineering student. I'm interested in opinions from the forum participants. I'm interested in this from BOTH the perspective of long term career growth as well as day-1 productivity.

1) I don't want this to be just engineer bashing - we can start another thread for that.

2) I don't want this to be just technician and mechanic bashing - we can start another thread for that too!

I'll withhold my opinion for a couple of days to avoid pre-prejudicing the group, but I promise I'll give my perspective.

If you throw in a required course on spelling, I'll give you a plus 1.

I think that most engineering colleges teach too much theory, and have too little hands-on training. There are some schools which do focus on the practical side. These are usually engineering schools with "Techincal" in their name. For example, on the third job I had after receiveing a 4-year BS degree in engineering school from a well-known state university, my boss knew how to do things that I never heard of, much less had training in: how to test motors, what kind of oil to put in transformers, how to wire up motor starters, how to trouble-shoot circuits. Every time he showed me something, I would ask "how did you ever learn that". His answer: "in engineering school at Xxxxxx Tech, where else?"

All I seemed to know right out of school was how to prove the theoreums of a bunch of ancient dead guys.

Hi Tom
I think we are both over the hill now.
I believe there is always something to learn no matter how trivial it may seem. As far as a ballance between theory and practical, I think a willingness to learn both is crutial.
change is so fast and so vast we all will have more to learn.
So long as we can and are prepaired to pass it on.

To be honest I really do not look at it as Theory and practice. I believe it is more practical knowledge.

Like you pointed out calculus as something you have not used in years, I believe there is alot of things taught that have no use in the real world.

In my opinion the best thing someone can get out of college is a method for thinking.

What I find is the weakest area for recent graduates is problem solving. How do you take the information you have and apply it to what you are working on.

Things us almost old timers and old timers take for granted: How to think logically. How to define a problem. How to test a theory.

This to me is the greatest failing of our education system right now. We have people who have spent 16+ years in school and have access to the largest amount of information on everything from basic electricity to advanced motion control. These same people can not even define a question to do a basic google search.

You want to help a college grad. Don't try to fill his head with facts. Teach him/her how to find the facts. Teach them how to form a question to look for the facts. Teach them how to analyze what they are doing.

Once you know how to think, everything else is just experience.

I think a willingness to learn both is crutial.

Click to expand...

I agree. In engineering school as a student, you really have little control over what you have to learn to get the degree. You can choose your major and field of study, but after that you have to learn what the school dictates in order to get the degree. If it is mostly theory, calculus, or Greek, then that is what you learn, or you flunk out.

A major curriculum change or change in focus has to come from outside the school, from demands of the final customers of the schools: the employers who hire the graduates.

Once you know how to think, everything else is just experience.

Click to expand...

That is kind of the problem in a nutshell. The school's idea is that by teaching theoretical knowledge, they are teaching how to think. I say that they are mostly teaching how to memorize facts. The guys with photographic memories do well under this system. They can regurgitate reams of data out of books and from memory, while not learning any skills, having no ability to interpolate old knowledge to solve new problems, trouble-shoot, or being able to wire up a 3-way switch.

I know an electrical engineer that is a rocket scientist for NASA. He can quote pages of stuff that he has read or seen, but when he has a problem at home with his HVAC or home computer network, he calls me.

I am just a PLC programmer promoted from maintenance tech (no degree, just 11 months of crash course in everything at vo-tech).

In my maintenance tech school we would spend a little time on theory and immediately go out in their shop and apply it. Then back in class for the next subject lecture/theory, then go apply that new bit of knowledge with our hands and minds.

In some areas, we spent more time in theory and very little in practice, in other areas (that we knew we'd have to apply on the job), we'd spend most of the time "hands on".

I think that was a pretty good approach.

I am not sure how practical that method would be at a real engineering school but applying what you just learned incrementally definitely seemed to help us with retention.

I agree Clay, but, (ther is always a but) I have had so many graduates make the statement everything is possible - then close their ears to the knowledge you have to offer.
Often I have let them go then showed them I was right.
Never get an appology though - I was being negative...

No one is pervect - not even me - just dont tell the wife

Clay B. said:

In my opinion the best thing someone can get out of college is a method for thinking.

Click to expand...

There are a lot of things I would considering changing in education, but critical thinking is number 1.

Look at how many posts on this forum asking for help where the problem is not well-defined nor are the requirements well-defined.

If you can't figure out the question you will never be answer to answer it.

Timbert said:

There are a lot of things I would considering changing in education, but critical thinking is number 1.

Look at how many posts on this forum asking for help where the problem is not well-defined nor are the requirements well-defined.

If you can't figure out the question you will never be answer to answer it.

Click to expand...

I agree with this 100%.

I also agree with a class on spelling. Actually, teaching them to care about spelling would be even better. I admit I can't spell, and you will occasionally find either a typing or spelling error in my writing, but I care and do try to get it right.

My two cents gents...
I firmly believe that Theory vs. Practice should be split right down the middle when the subject at hand is Engineering...50% and 50% respectively...
One couldn't possibly absorb abstract concepts (while being told that they will be useful in the future) without being promptly presented with a realistic, practical example.
The reciprocal would also be true..."Monkey see, monkey do" might work for strictly unskilled labor, however, I think that "going on the beaten path" without trying to relate the pursued direction to the laws of the exact sciences is nothing but wasting one's capabilities...

Timbert said:

If you can't figure out the question you will never be answer to answer it.

Click to expand...

That pretty much sums it up.


Being able to break things down and put them back together is a must have ability in this business. Working thru differential equations...not so much

There are several good comments here.
Learning how to learn is the most important thing. One will never know that should be known getting out of college.
I feel strongly about learning 'forever knowledge' as opposed to the latest tech fad. Everything changes, 'forever knowledge' does not.

I am so so at reading hydraulic prints. The basic things I see in servo circuits I know but when I see kludge bang-bang circuits I may have to look up symbols that I don't use often.
That slows me down a little but a person that doesn't know how to do the math and physics often design these hydraulic circuits which is why I get involved in the first place.
The point is that it is easier to look up hydraulic symbols than it is to learn how to do hydraulic simulations which often require many differential equations be solved in parallel.

BTW, I took a drafting class in high school and aced it. I haven't had any problems with mechanical drawings.

Now here is the shocker. All the control theory, Kalman filters, ABG filters, etc I learned on my own and it has been a continual learning process. The last thing I learned was how to find the coefficients for a Pade approximation. That was last week. No that isn't quite right. I am learning how to write a ST compiler. Learning how to learn is important because I am learning all the time.

Start at the beginning, no before that, over there.....

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is a difference.

I have spent a long time explaining things to college graduates. Simple things they should know or be able to figure out. I have even had some amazing arguments with Mechanical Engineers about simple mechanical systems. I am amazed how something that looks so obvious to me is just unimaginable to others.

I have also met some really talented people with and without degrees.

A degree is a way for people to gain a base exposure to knowledge and to filter out those who are too crude, or undedicated or otherwise unable to attend. College also encourages people to loose their home town dialect and conform to the corporate mold. None of this is good or bad, it just is.

What we need is a way to filter for people who are really interested and capable of performing certain jobs.

The military tests applicants based on aptitude first, and then trains the person in something the person has a natural aptitude for.

My son is going to college and has no idea what he might be good at or interested in.

People just sort of guess. Or pick a career based on demand or salary.

I can't tell someone else what they might like.

When I took the family by my work to start a test on the weekend, he was not the least bit interested in anything in the building or what I was doing.

If I were in his place I would have had a million questions and wanted to stay there all day.

This leads me to believe he may not have the same level of interest in machines that I do.

He may or may not be happy as an engineer. Nobody knows yet.

And this is the main issue facing people starting out.

I was tested constantly from age 10 up, so I knew exactly what my strengths were. It was all documented. But no one helped me turn all that data into a career path until the military tests put my aptitude in clear numbers.

Suddenly it was so simple and obvious.

I knew what I liked to do, based only on what I had already done at that time. I didn't even know PLCs existed and I didn't have a PC until I was 23. I had no idea I would like programming anything. (nobody had a PC in the 80's)

I have always been a big advocate of vocational school in High School. Not to teach a trade, but to discover a trade or reveal an aptitude.

If I had been around robots and machine controls for a day or two it would have been obvious and I would have picked a different path.

All it takes is a couple weeks in each area to see where a persons interest is.

Then follow up on that direction the next year.

Seems so obvious to me. You need to pick a direction or general destination before you decide where to start.

Have you ever programmed a machine before you knew what it was supposed to do?

The other part of this learning thing is at what level or age do we learn what? I guess what I mean is that college should not need to teach what should have been taught and learned (there is a difference here too) at the high school level, etc.
Learning how to learn needs to be taught at a much earlier point. This should be done from day one by parents but sadly many of them do not know how either or even sadder don't care.
The older I get the more I worry about the up-coming generations.