Saturday, January 21, 2006

Final (well maybe) post

When the Dean of the Applied Industrial Technology Department (Bill Verbeck) was “reassigned”, I couldn’t believe he just laid down & gave up the fight. After dealing with the inbred educational system here on Northern Nevada, I now see why (I have been very well educated)!! It has been like throwing marshmallows at a battleship (if it were an old bear there would at least be some response but…)
I too have given up the fight.
My new job as a power plant electrician and controls guy leaves me little time to continue training others (or to monitor TMCC's class offerings) but when TMCC asks for more money… I will oppose at every turn.
TMCC has decided to place their money on “soft skills” and let industry train in “specialized” topics. Maybe this is a good strategy (bottom-line wise) but not for the industrial economy. Industry wants trained, experienced employees) not trainees).
When any third party attempts to invade their “turf”…TMCC fights it.
My advice to vocational / technical potential students: Look to the online classes for the information, work experience (if you can get it) for the hands-on, or the specialized training offered by the national training and seminar companies (expensive but worth it).

Good Luck!

posted by cl @ 12:40 PM 0 comments

Post on "Target 2010 Northern Nevada’s New Economy"

Hopefully with a vocational high school in the works, young adults may be entering into the trades with more than the three "r's". But what if they want to continue their education (in vocational/technical subjects)? They will have to go elsewhere if they are looking into the electrical trades (or go through the apprenticeship programs currently administered by WNCC.
I WAS the Industrial Maintenance Instructor at TMCC until my contract was not renewed (if interested please see my "Technical Education in NV?" at http://dickinsonc.blogspot.com/ ).
This left a big hole to fill in electrical/instrumentation/automation curriculum (which has NOT been filled nor do I believe will be filled).
Until a third party (probably private) vocational training facility (like ITT Tech or NTT or UTI) comes into the area, we will lose these students (and they may not return especially given the cost of living and prevailing wage of the area).
Just my thoughts on this
Cl

Original post at: http://beta.target2010.org/forums/showthread.php?s=5a74a4e554457f8b35545ecb10d500db&postid=105#post105

posted by cl @ 12:35 PM 0 comments

Monday, January 16, 2006

A letter to Dr. Ringle President of TMCC

Dear Dr. Ringle:

As a new semester at TMCC rapidly approaches, again I offer my “perspectives” on the AIT department, specifically the IMT component which was my specialty.
This, as you will be relieved to hear, will be my last correspondence with the College.

Your letter of 5/19/05 stated your confidence that "no student would be disadvantaged and that programs would be strengthened". My observations on this:

1) Your hiring of a totally unqualified instructor for the IMT110 (Intro to Industrial Electricity) defiantly put students at a “disadvantage”. This class was the foundation of the electrical program. A failure to instill the basic concepts of electrical theory will seriously hinder any student who attempts further education in any phase of the electrical / electronics trades.
What I saw being taught in this class was not following the master course outline Dan Adams and I created. Just looking over the lab material (and especially the final exam) for the class one would deduce this was a “wiring” class, not the class as indicated in the outline. Note: There is a “challenge exam” on file I created. This exam was based on practical need to know information as gleaned from dozens of industry contacts (the civil service “facility electrician” exam as given by the City of Sparks is almost a direct copy of it, purely by chance).

2) The “dumbing down” of the “smart” classroom in EDSN209 also concerns me. When I observed the classroom (and the IMT110 class being taught), there was not an operating computer in the room (when I left there were 11) nor was an LCD projector in the room (the instructor was using an overhead and dry erase markers on plastic sheets).
It has been my experience that visual presentations (especially animations) are vital to conveying technical concepts. Internet links, animations, and up to date information on student questions made an internet connection (and computer and projector) vital to conveying information.

3) No new class offerings, no advanced class offerings, and a repetition of classes. How will students progress through a program when advanced classes (which continue the basic concepts) are not being presented?
As an example: The Intro PLC class (IMT210b) is a classic case. Letting the momentum slip for even a semester is unfortunate. This class barely scratches the surface of PLC’s. To be even slightly proficient one would need to take the IMT220 class (which builds on the basic instruction sets and really delves into how the PLC actually automates a process). There also needs to be a third class offering which would continue the instruction into communication protocols and HMI interfaces. I was in the process of developing this class (among others) when terminated.

4) The loss of the distance education portion of the program was probably the greatest loss to the community. Unlike the 9 to 5 M-F workweek academia takes for granted, the majority of blue collar jobs rely on positions being manned 24/7, and rotating shifts in this area are a fact of life.
I created the online classes (seven of them which were usually presented every semester) due to students who could not make it to class due to work, distance, or child-care problems. This will ultimately I believe be the demise of the program. If TMCC does not offer these programs, other entities will (and there won’t be any politeness of “sphere of influence” either).

5) I also have concerns with the IMT140 class (motors & drives). My main concern is that the motors and drives lab (in EDSN170) was virtually destroyed when the roof was repaired. All motor and drive equipment was removed from the north wall (It was not in the way, it was in less danger from damage on the wall than it’s current location piled on the floor, and there was no logical reason for removing it).
Again, from experience, this class cannot be adequately taught without a hands-on component. It took me and a volunteer student well over a month to build that drive wall… at no expense to the College except for miscellaneous construction items… even the sensorless vector drive units (state of the art and very expensive) were donated.
Of course all this is moot if there are no students sign up for the course. The 4pm start time will virtually guarantee this!

In closing, I realize I have talked this virtually to death. I see no reason to continue my observations and support of the College or it’s programs. While I am convinced you are a no nonsense practical businessman and believe your decisions on the technical programs at Edison were based on the bottom-line costs vs. students vs. limited funding and your desire to fund other course offerings (which I understand are also needed in this area). However, I still feel these investments in technical / vocational education were justified and that the programs were a work in progress (and progress was being made) . You had a good administrator (Dean Verbek) and a damn good instructor (me) whom you really did get for pennies on the dollar. It is really sad to see the programs in their current state. Ultimately the void in this educational / training area will be filled, but I don’t see TMCC taking the lead here.

posted by cl @ 10:40 AM 0 comments