The Systems Approach to Electronic Technology Education

You have probably heard of this by now. Many are proposing that the teaching of electronic technology (ET) should take a more systems view rather than the circuit analysis approach that most schools use now. I am one of those who recognized this approach years ago. Employers have known about it for years but have never pushed the issue with the colleges. Yet, as technology and industry move on, it is time for the schools to adapt. Painful as it is for any school to change, it is a must if the ET program is to survive.

In a nutshell, the colleges teach a component and circuit oriented approach to electronics. Analyze discrete component circuits. Lots of calculations and even coverage of things that are no longer relevant. For example, think of how much time you devote to teach BJTs and biasing. Or teaching Karnaugh maps and TTL. Today, most circuits are ICs so who needs to know ten ways to bias a BJT? And most of those ICs are MOSFETs anyway. In the same way, most digital circuits are implemented with embedded controllers and FPGAs. TTL went away years ago anyway. Besides techs do not design or analyze these circuits anyway. It is a waste of time, especially in a 2-year program where time and efficiency rule the curriculum.

What techs really need to know today is how the equipment and systems work. Signal analysis and flow rather than circuit analysis. Block diagram analysis rather than schematics. Techs troubleshoot, service, maintain, test, measure, install, operate and otherwise work with the equipment. Repair is at the board and module level, not so much at the component level in most cases. All courses should be changed to reflect this systems approach that employers want and techs need to do the work today.

Some schools have already made some changes in this direction but more needs to be done. It is hard for faculty to discontinue what they have been doing for years. And it is hard to know exactly how to make the changes or what the changes should be. And there are no textbooks taking this approach, yet.

If you are interested in moving your ET program into the 21st century, you need to get on this bandwagon. A quick start way is to look at the work that has been done over the past 3 years on an NSF grant that funded a systems development program. Go to www.esyst.org. Lots of guidelines and detailed recommendations. It is time to change.

Lou Frenzel

Results of recent online survey on EET

Here is the result of my recent brief online survey of Electronics Technology. The response was excellent and I sincerely thank those of you who took the time to respond. I hope you will find the information useful. I leave the interpretation to you, however, I have provided my interpretation after the results if you are interested.

Lou Frenzel
Technology Editor, Electronic Design Magazine
Adjunct Professor, Austin Community College

1. Your school is
a. 2-year 61 %
b. 4-year 43%
Note: Total more than 100% since some institutions offer both AAS and BS.
2. Are your enrollments in electronics technology classes up or down?
a. Up 62.5%
b. Down 20.8%
c. Flat 16.7%
3. When was the last time you made significant changes to your courses or curriculum?
a. This year. 34.7%
b. 1 to 2 years ago. 26.4%
c. More than 2 years ago. 37.5%
Note: Total not 100% as some did not respond.
4. What new electronic majors or specialties have you implemented within the past 2 to 3 years?
a. Electric power/energy 20.8%
b. Wireless/communications 18%
c. Robotics 16.7%
d. Industrial/manufacturing 11.1%
e. Biomedical 16.7%
f. Other 33.3%
Note: Total is more than 100% since several indicated multiple additions. In the Other category here are those listed:
� None (Most often mentioned)
� Embedded controllers (Many mentions)
� Semi/Microelectronics
� Automotive electronics
� Networking
� Photonics
� Info tech/Computer science/programming
5. Are you familiar with the trend toward teaching a systems approach (rather than component/circuits approach) to electronics technology?
a. Yes 84.7%
b. No 9.7%
Note: Total not 100% as some did not respond.
6. Which of the following is the one most critical issue facing your college?
a. Low enrollments 38.9%
b. Retention 27.8%
c. Dated curriculum and courses 9.7%
d. Lab costs 11.1%
e. Other 18%
Note: Total is more than 100% as multiple items were selected. In the Other category the item most mentioned was budget limitations and lack of funding. Other items included bad management and uncooperative/under productive faculty.
7. What is your feeling about online electronic technology education?
a. A potential direction for the future. 52.8%
b. Looking forward to it 22.2%
c. Not in favor of it 25%
Note: Several indicated that they were already doing this in a hybrid program, lecture online and on-campus lab.
8. What is your opinion of current textbooks?
a. OK as is 25%
b. Dated but OK on the fundamentals 44.4%
c. Not relevant to current jobs 20.9%
d. Covers recent and advanced topics well 9.7%
Note: Lots of extra comments on this one.
� Too expensive.
� Lack of relevance to real world. (Multiple mentions)
� Can get along fine without text books.
� Need to go to e-books.
� Use/adapt engineering/scientific texts.

My Interpretation
I have been tracking the status of Electronic Technology for almost ten years now and have written about it extensively in this blog. My impression is that the current status is relatively positive compared to 3 to 5 years ago when enrollments were down and many colleges closed their Electronic Technology departments.
� Enrollments are definitely up. Several mentioned that the down economy was the main cause with many going back to school to improve their employability. Still, one third of enrollment are down to flat.
� Those of you who made changes in the program especially adding new majors or specialties survived the downturn of the past years and have turned their enrollment situation around.
� New majors seemed to help enrollments especially anything to do with power/energy, robotics, industrial and biomed.
� Despite a positive enrollment status, most indicated that low enrollments were the most critical issue. Retention was the second largest concern.
� The movement toward a systems approach to teaching electronics (the real world today) is clearly very well known but what I should have asked is who is doing it.
� I was surprised to see such a positive outlook for online programs. One quarter are clearly against this but anyone denying the online movement risks getting left behind. The Web/Internet is all powerful today and a key driver of our youth. It is the future.
� Two thirds indicated some dissatisfaction with the textbooks. They are dated and less relevant than in years past. Hope some publishers read this and give us some good updates or new texts.

Comments welcome.

Lou Frenzel

Every Electronic Product is a Computer

In case you have not already recognized this, virtually every electronic product made today is just one or more embedded controllers surrounded by the I/O and peripherals that make the product what it is. Think about it. Name one product that does not fit this model. A student of mine suggested a vacuum tube guitar amplifier and he is right. No embedded micro in there for sure. But consider any other product you use. Cell phone, automobile, iPod, TV set, CD player, and so on. Even our test equipment (like a digital oscilloscope) is computer based these days with software doing the measurement and analysis.

What I am trying to point up is that electronics centers around embedded controllers and their design and the software. Product design is more software and less hardware every day. Yet most colleges only devote one course to this topic. I keep feeling that we need to do more.

In my work as a technology editor for Electronic Design magazine, I talk to lots of engineers and travel around interviewing engineers, executives and others who design products. The core of all this work is centered on the embedded micros and all the interfaces and, of course, the software. It truly what engineers are doing.

It occurred to me a while back that many AAS degree grads could actually be good embedded designers. I have taught the embedded course in a community college many times and many students get interested and do a great job of creating embedded projects. You need to like software most of all but you do need some knowledge about all the interfaces that are used. Both are something in reach of any AAS degree student.

What I am advocating here is an AAS degree in embedded design. Take the existing curriculum and add more software and micro courses with plenty of project work making interfaces, controlling and monitoring other things, working with development systems and so on. Such a grad could really hit the ground running in an engineering setting where embedded work must be done. I am convinced that with the extra courses and plenty of real projects, any AAS grad could do what many BS degree engineers.

The big question is, would anyone hire one of these grads as an embedded designer? How would we make that happen?

Just a thought. Respond if you are interested and let me know your thoughts. Or am I just nuts and dreaming?

LF

An Update on Electronic Technology Education

Over the past year I have been busy with my job as a magazine editor but I have been active in the ET field with my work for the Maricopa Advanced Technology Education Center (MATEC) in Phoenix. This is an NSF funded project and I am working on the Esyst grant where we are putting together a new AAS degree program that is a better fit with industry and the technology in general. We are into the 3rd year of a 3 year project so progress has been made.

The declining enrollment problem seems to have mitigated a bit and in fact during this down turn I bet we will see some increase in community college active in electronics. The alternative energy programs are bringing in some new students as is biomed and electric power. We did lose a few AAS programs over the past few years but those who have survived have made some curriculum changes and updated here and there and some even added new programs. While enrollments are much less than they ever were in the past, there are still ET jobs out there if we can just get the students interested. Maybe this downturn will help.

The Esyst program I mentioned has taken the existing core courses most schools offer and enhanced them with a more systems view of electronics. Less analysis and design, less emphasis on components and circuits and more about systems and equipment. More test and measurement and troubleshooting. That's what employers seem to want these days. You don't need to know how to bias a BJT, you don't ever have to do a mesh analysis with determinants. Who does that at all these days anyway, including engineers?

If you are looking for a way to update your curriculum, the Esyst approach is worth considering. Go to the website at www.esyst.org and take a look. And for a first hand look, go to the HI-TEC conference in Scottsdale July 19-22. We are having a workshop on the Esyst project. Check out the MATEC website at www.matec.org for details. And I will be talking about my experience with Esyst deployment at the ASEE conference in Austin, June 15th.

Hope you have a great summer.
LF

More on Dumbing Down....NOT!

Guess I am getting lazy or distracted and haven't been as consciencious about posting here. It is a matter of being busy more than anything. I still haven't run out of things to say.

Anyway, I wanted to comment more on the accusation that by changing the AAS electronics curriculum to more of systems approach, we are dumbing down the curriculum. That could not be further from the truth. Yet that is what the general opinion is. I hope to change that here.

As some of you know, there is an unofficial movement afoot in community colleges to revise the traditional electronic courses and curricula to bring it more in line with what employers want these days and what technology has changed over the years. Most schools are still stuck with curricula that were designed in the 1970s and 1980s to educate engineering technicians. Since those positions have virtually disappeared from industry, most programs are simply graduating students for jobs no longer available.

While there are plenty of good technician level jobs around, these are very few engineering tech positions in the electronics industry. Most of the better jobs are for techs in industries and businesses who use electronic equipment. They mostly involve troubleshooting, maintenance, installation, repair, and calibration. There are also some manufacturing jobs where the job is more related to test and measurement to specs or standards. What most of these jobs have in common is that the work is more at a higher level than just troubleshooting and repair at the component level. With the economics of electronics being such that it is, it is far more economical of both time and money to replace electronic equipment rather than repair it. It gets failed systems and facilities up and running faster thereby reducing downtime and saving money in the processes where the equipment is used. And it is cheaper to do it this way.

The big problem is that most AAS degree programs are still stuck in the mode where extensive circuit analysis and design is the focus. Perhaps at one time this was appropriate to teach, but today it is mostly irrelevant. As a result there is a movement to shift the curriculum to a more systems level approach that de-emphasizes component level circuit analysis and design. Instead, it looks at electronics at a higher level where it is taught more with block diagrams and signal flow analysis and troubleshooting, test and measurement is the emphasis. Few schools have accomplished this so in the meantime, curricula are skewed and students do not learn electronics as it is today. They are continuing to learn what is becoming the history of electronics. It is time for a change.

One of the big complaints of this approach is that instructors feel that curricula is being "dumbed down". By removing the advanced analysis and design techniques still routinely taught, the program is certainly less analytical but more in line with the knowledge required for present and new jobs. Here are a couple of good examples based on recommendations on how to revise the curriculum:

1. Remove advanced circuit techniques like mesh and nodal analysis. Technicians rarely used these techniques anyway, but they are still taught in many schools. Why? Even engineers rarely use them these days and if they need to they resort to circuit simulation software that does the calculations faster and with fewer errors. Why use up valuable course time with something never used and that drives students away because of the math?

2. Reduce BJT coverage. Who needs to know ten ways to bias bipolar transistor circuits? Certainly not the modern tech. All that BJT circuit coverage is virtually worthless. Yes, a tech needs to know how a BJT works and that bias is needed but that is about it. Today it is a MOSFET world. Over 90% of all circuits, both discrete and integrated, use MOSFETs. Yet, MOSFETs are barely covered in most courses today. And that coverage includes resistor biasing that is never used. MOSFETs are biased by active loads, current sources and sinks made with other MOSFETs not resistors.

3. Eliminate or reduce Karnaugh map coverage. Name one tech or even engineer who uses Karnaugh maps today? Almost none and those who do are probably engineers educated 30 years ago. This is a design technique anyway and techs do not design. A waste of time in today's digital world where everything is either an embedded processor or some PLD like an FPGA. You deal with all of these via software. Why waste time on Karnaugh maps?

These are only a few examples of how we are clogging up the curriculum with all the old methods that are no longer widely used. Why not make way for new material that better fits the jobs? Yet, when instructors are presented with the idea that these topics are no longer necessary, they balk. They say that taking these things out is just a way of dumbing down the curriculum, yet in reality it is not.

Why have instructors continued to fight to keep these obsolete topics? Here are a few reasons.

1. Instructors forget that huge advances have been made in semiconductor technology such that almost everything in now in IC form, even complete systems on a chip. Only a small cadre of engineers actually design these using sophisticated software. Other engineers design with and use the chips. It is rarely necessary to know design techniques today. Technicians do not design. You cannot get to the circuits inside a chip anyway, so what techs work with is inputs, outputs and power. Rarely do techs have to find a bad resistor. It is mainly a bad IC if anything.

2. Most instructors are EE graduates who learned all the old methods 20, 30 or more years ago. There is a tendency to believe that one needs to teach it the way you learned it. So that is what is done.

3. Most EEs have never worked as technicians so have little real knowledge of what techs actually need to know and do on the job. They infer, in most cases incorrectly.

4. Most instructor EEs still try to make engineers out of techs. As a result they try to teach "engineering lite" in AAS programs.

5, Instructor still feel that a heavy math approach is best. Yes, algebra is still essential. And maybe even a little trig. But who needs calculus? Certainly not techs. And ask any current engineer how much calculus he or she uses? Virtually none. Math makes programs harder thus driving students away. That is the opposite of what we should be doing.

Any changes that deviate from the old ways make the average EEs instructor feel that the program is "going to hell in a handbasket", to coin a phrase. Water it down. Dilute it. Make it easier. That is the impression of changing to a more systems level approach that is more focused on troubleshooting, test, measurement, calibration, and repair. Why do so many instructors fight this change when it is more appropriate for today? Instructors hate to change. It creates the need to learn new material. It changes their lecture notes. And they feel vulnerable because they are unfamiliar with the new topics and approaches. Let's face it, most community college instructors are way out of date technically. Not all, for sure, but I bet a majority are. They have not kept up. They still use TTL logic which is no longer used to implement digital equipment. They ignore communications and wireless although the whole wireless segment of electronics has become the largest segment and currently dominates in terms of widespread usage and industry revenue and profits. Frankly, it is appalling.

What instructors need to do is realize that changing the curriculum is a good thing, especially for students, graduates and the employers. Didn't schools eventually drop vacuum tubes from the curriculum? It is time to drop other just as dated topics and add the new ones that matter. It is not a case of dumbing down the curriculum, it is adjusting it to fit the modern world. The curriculum is not worse, it is just different but a better fit to reality. The curriculum is not watered down, it is just different and certainly more relevant.

Such changes should make the programs more attractive to students and employers and that in turn could boost enrollment levels to prevent program closure that has become a common problem today in many colleges.

It is time to face up to the changes and get a better attitude about them and just do it.

Lou Frenzel

Dumbing Down the Curriculum or Giving Industry What It Wants?

I have struggled with the whole issue of updating EET curriculum. On one hand being from industry I clearly see how skewed the curriculum is from what is needed. It appalls me if you really want to know. And while I know what should be done, I know it is not easy. Because this semester I tried to implement what I think is a better replacement for the old approach.

This fall semester I taught the Solid State course at my college. It is like others of different names in other colleges. The traditional course covered semiconductor basics, diodes, bipolar transistors (BJTs), FETs, and basic power supply and amplifier circuits. I used the PH Paynter book but you may have used Floyd or Malvino. Whatever. They are all the same anyway and competent but very dated. What I tried to do is to tone down the nitty gritty circuit analysis approach and introduce a more systems approach that industry seems to endorse. And it is more of what a graduate needs today. It was hard to do.

In discussing this with colleagues, all I got was "you are dumbing down the course" by doing that. How could I not teach detailed BJT biasing? Just try to tell an entrenched EET instructor that you don't need load lines and BJT biasing details and see what happens. Yet in real life, a tech never does this. Even engineers rarely do it and those engineers are IC designers. With most transistors inside ICs, who cares how they are biased? It is insanity to spend so much time in a limited semester period pounding such trivia into students heads. In fact doing so will only make them disappointed later when they find out they never do this. In fact they quickly discover that most transistors today are MOSFETs not BJTs. What a let down.

Anyway, I did indeed teach BJT basics and a little of biasing but went on to put more emphasis on MOSFETs. Then I went on to covering real amplifier ICs instead of discrete BJT amps. Op amps got lots of coverage but I also covered power amps, class D switching amps, video amps and all the more common stuff you see in equipment today. I also went heavy on switching power supplies since over 80% of all supplies are of this type, not the linear type covered in the book. Switching regulators, DC-DC converters, power management ICs and so on.

Instead of bias I focused on a higher level view. Mainly signal flow in ICs from one stage to the next. Impedance matching and circuit loading, more testing and troubleshooting. All that is a far better fit than what the books do. (I hope some authors are reading this.)

I must admit, I felt strange with this approach having taught it the old fashion way for so long. But I can no longer stand the guilt of teaching the history of electronics rather than the current truth. Yes, I felt odd, but good at the same time. The books did not help with little or no coverage of the ICs and other techniques that are so "today". I used internet gleaned supplements, the WRE online modules (http://www.work-readyelectronics.org/) and some material I created.

As for the lab, I add more ICs and troubleshooting. Less discretes. Lots of amplifier chips of different types, regulators both linear and switching, DC-DC converters, and some oscillators including PLLs. I only did one experiment on a basic common emitter amplifier. And some on switching circuits like power MOSFETs and the 555 timer.

The bottom line is that the students got the fundamentals but with the flavor of the real world not some phoney story about all that biasing, analysis and design. Wake up guys. If you want to teach that stuff go to an engineering school and then don't be too disappointed if they don't teach as much of it as they used to.

Be brave. Update your courses yourself with this method yourself. It is far less boring than teaching the same old tired stuff year after year and you just may like it as well as more properly prepare the student for what he will actually see in the outside job.

Hope you all have a great Xmas.

Technology: The Twilight Zone

In speaking with a colleague on the west coast recently, he referred to the education and jobs for bachelor of technology graduates as the "twilight zone". I know what he means. Since he and many others in technology or engineering education have BSEE credentials, he cannot really know what it is like. The BSET degree seems to be a very misunderstood segment of engineering/technology education in industry and academia. Because I am a product of the system that produced bachelor of technology degrees as well as being on the hiring side in industry and academia, I can probably speak with some perspective on this subject. Here is my view.

Engineering Lite
Most of those with BSEE degrees think of BSET graduates as engineering lite. That is if they know anything at all about BSET degree programs at all which in my experience they do not. In fact they do not seem to recognize BSET grads at all and this is reflected in industry hiring. Are BSET grads capable of doing engineering? You bet. In fact, most BSET grads are actually employed as engineers. What else would they be employed as? Not techs as engineering tech positions dried up years ago. Originally the thought or goal was to have the BSET grad be a "super tech" that supported engineering but alternatively worked in manufacturing and other non-design jobs. These jobs were called technologists.

The term technologist is strictly a term dreamed up by the academicians that invented the BSET degree in the first place. In reality there never has been a real job in industry with that title. At least over the past 40 years, I have not seen it. If a BSET grad was hired it was as some super tech kind of job or as an engineer. Maybe it was as a field engineer or project engineer, but the job was officially engineering. I know the BSEE degree people really hate to hear that but it is true. I just wish that the administrators running BSET university programs would give up on the technologist term. Let it go. It is a myth....a mirage. It does not exist. Deal with it. But I guess it is the crutch that they use to distinguish themselves from the engineering departments who educate "real" engineers. An academic necessity as opposed to anything in the real world.

I initially went to school and got an AAS degree. That was in the hey day of engineering techs that did assist engineers in all manner of ways. I worked as an engineering tech for several years before realizing that I was stalled career-wise as I could rise no higher with my AAS degree. Lots of AAS grads hit this wall and feel the need and desire to go back to school and get the bachelors degree. I certainly did. But after finding out that none of my AAS work counted toward a BSEE degree, I was pretty depressed. Then in the mid-1960's the University of Houston offered the first bachelors of technology degree. It was called the Bachelors in Applied Science (BAS). It accepted AAS degree grads and gave them two more years of courses. It added some science and a full dose of math through differential equations, Laplace, etc. plus some additional social studies and advanced electronics courses.

I was somewhat skeptical what kind of reaction employers would have to my BAS degree. Most, of course, never heard of it and had no clue what a BAS grad could do. I think that is still the case 40+ years later today. Employers mostly do not have a clue to what these folks can do. In any case, there was an acute engineering shortage at that time and because I did have a "technical" bachelors degree I was hired as an engineer. Could I do the work? Of course. In fact, it was easy to compete with the recent BSEE grads who had far less hands-on practical and lab work than a technology grad has. And that is true even today. I remember hiring a recent BSEE from a major university. His first assignment was to design an amplifier to retrofit in a piece of telemetry gear. He did know how to design the amplifier but he was confused about what transistor to use, how to lay out a PC board and how to test it. That kind of info comes only from experience or, in many cases, a technology degree program.

In another instance, I was hiring a professor for an AAS degree program of which I was department head. Most of the candidates had MSEEs and a few PhDs. But not one of them, and I am serious about this, could pass the simple lab test I gave. It was to breadboard a 555 timer astable from a schematic with the components given then measure the frequency of the output on an oscilloscope. These folks didn't know the resistor color code, or how to find pin 1 on the IC or really know that an electrolytic capacitor was polarized. Reading an oscilloscope was also a major failure. Amazing really. But any of these guys could actually use the software to design a chip or to do extensive math analysis on the circuit. In any case, I hired the only technology graduate who had a BSET from Devry. He immediately built the circuit and gave me the frequency. Easy as pie. Hiring engineers to teach techs may not be the best thing to do, but that is what we have. BSEEs try to teach AAS students how to be an engineer and how to design when in today's world, techs don't really do those things. No wonder AAS degree programs are screwed up.

Anyway, I went on to a long engineering career working with NASA contractors on aerospace stuff and in the geophysical fields. About the only place I felt weak was with the very deep math analysis of very complex circuits and systems. But I was a whiz with the practical engineering stuff, especially digital which did not require all that mesh and nodal analysis and other similar methods.

Today's BSET grads are what I would call practical engineers. And there is more practical engineering in industry (the engineering grunt work if you will) than the heavy analysis and research engineering that really does need to be done by an MSEE or PhD. I just wish that those in industry knew this. A few do after years of hiring BSET's from local universities. But most do not and therefore allocate the BSET to the twilight zone. If you are ignorant of something you tend to avoid it. Human nature. A tragedy really as companies would benefit and there would be no so called engineering shortage.

Yes, BSET grads are in the twilight zone. Most know it or figure it out pretty fast after they graduate. They go into sales or marketing jobs, manufacturing or other support roles requiring a heavy technical background. But they can do engineering. The courses they take in the BSET programs are separate from similar courses in BSEE programs but the content is virtually the same and as I have discovered, the BSET guys use the same texts as the BSEE guys. But, and here is the real difference, the BSET guys get far more lab and hands-on work. The BSEE guys spend most time in front of a PC doing IC design work. As they well should.

It is really amazing how BSET programs have co-existed with BSEE programs for years and even grown. There are jobs out there for these grads. They are competent, knowledgeable, and in reality make better practical engineers than BSEE grads. They are denied access to professional engineering licensing because they are not real engineers. I have heard that some states actually recognize BSET grads to take the EIT and PE exams. Good for them. Do you think a person would actually apply for the EIT or PE exam if they did not think they could pass? Duh...... In fact, from my own examination of the PE exam, most of it is stuff you could actually learn on your own. God forbid they would let a self taught person take the exam even if he or she was a true genius or expert.

Proposal
Here is my current thinking on BSET grads and degrees. And it is not just because "I are one."
First, AAS grads really do need a path for higher education. The BSET is it. And in the real world, it matters less what the bachelors degree is in that just the fact that you have one at all. After years in the industry, what degree you have becomes nearly irrelevant (except in academia where they are totally hung up on what degree and where it is from). Keep giving the AAS grad a place to go and grow.

BSET grads for the most part do engineering work. Whether most colleges will admit to it or not. It is true. It is time to stop trying to separate or distinguish what is or is not real engineering. To do this I would merge BSEE and BSET departments and create a curriculum that provides one degree, the BSEE, that has two separate paths. One leads to a practical or applied engineering degree and the other a more advanced design and analysis slant that leads to the MSEE and PhD. The math, science and basic courses are all the same. AAS grads coming in for the BSEE would have to catch up on the math and some more in-depth electronics courses, but they could get in line for the degree. In the senior year, the paths diverge and the courses taken will steer the future education path. All that would be pretty easy to do in my mind. But I doubt we will ever see that. I am sure the BSEE departments wouldn't want their curricula to be dumbed down. Can you just imagine MIT and Stanford taking AAS degree transfers? Not really but it could be done with the proper restructuring of the engineering curricula to better match what is actually going on out in the real world.

Wouldn't it be great to start from scratch and build an engineering/technology degree program that better fit the real world? It would eliminate much of the current structure but it would also make the curricula much more relevant to the work and the technology of the 21st century. But that will never happen. So we will continue to live with degree programs that were designed for an earlier generation. Inwardly focused colleges and universities don't really care all that much about the industry they serve or the students they train. Some do of course but most don't. So the twilight zone continues to exist.