Paper ID #14994Why a Testing Career is Not the First Choice of EngineersDr. Pradeep Kashinath Waychal, NMIMS University Dr Pradeep Waychal is a founder trustee and the chair of Guruji Education Foundation that provides holistic support to the education of underprivileged students and operates on funding from friends. The foundation has recently extended its work in diverse areas such as research in engineering education, youth employability and teaching computer science to adolescents. Earlier, Dr Waychal has worked at Patni Computer Systems for 20 years in various positions including the head of innovations, NMIMS as
empirical environments,exposure to industry problems and expertise, and establishing future employment connections forstudents as benefits[6-8]. Industry members cite access to new research techniques, developmentof new products and patents, generating knowledge and advancing technology by using facultyand student expertise, and engaging with potential employees [9-11]. Current literature offersevidence that partnerships generate benefits at both the macro level (organization) as well as atthe micro level (individual student/employee).Yet there appears to be some conflict with research and practice as evidenced by continuedconversations about career readiness of graduates, debate about the skills required for earlycareer success, and high attrition
including business development, marketing, product development, and operations. Throughout her career, Rachel and her team have provided education solutions for several industries including defense, life science, high-tech, energy, healthcare, manufacturing, and construction. Rachel currently serves on the Board of Directors of INCOSE as the Director of Marketing and Commu- nications. In addition, she is on the Board of Directors for AUVSI New England. Rachel has a B.S. and M.S. in the life sciences, as well as an M.B.A. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 Rethinking the Corporate Partnership – A focus on corporate needs vs. traditional institutional
very specific to the company. Internship and co-opprograms also prepare students and make them more “hirable”. In the current competitive environment,for both students and companies, new approaches need to be designed that support development ofcompetencies and skills needed by new graduates to be productive from start of their career.1.2 Industry and academia partnership to develop competenciesCorporations and employers have frequently pointed to a lack of professional awareness and low levels ofcommunication and teamwork skills in engineering graduates [11-14] These issues have led the U.S.Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) [15] to transform their accreditationcriteria from a content-based approach to an outcomes
eventually led to her passion and interest in EWB-USA. After six years as the volunteer Exec- utive Director, Ms. Leslie joined EWB-USA as the second Executive Director since the organization’s founding in 2002. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 The Engineering Competency ModelABSTRACT:An Engineering Competency Model has been developed to serve as a guide for the developmentof professionals in the engineering workforce. The Engineering Competency Model (“themodel”) provides a career ladder/lattice for the engineering profession and promotes anunderstanding of the skill sets and competencies that are essential to educate and train a globallycompetitive engineering
facilitate the problem solution.According to its focus, educational collaboration can be classified in three groups (Thune2011): development of new educational programs, industry invocation in teaching and learning process by thesis supervision, lecturing or conducting research projects, transfer between studies and work life (internships, career fairs, trainee or other recruitment programs).While the last group of activities is relatively easy to realize in short-term, the first two typesof cooperation might cause certain difficulties. The problems mostly occur because of thedifferences in nature and culture of the academia and industry worlds (Bruneel et al. 2010;Cerych and Frost-Smith 1985
future employers.Question 11 in the student survey and questions 4 and 7 in the presenter survey attempt to gainfeedback from students and industry professionals to answer this question. These questions arepresented below.Question 11 from the student survey: “Was it helpful to you to meet industry professionals inperson and network with them with the intention of possibly working with them in the future?”(Y / N)Question 4 from the presenter survey: “Do you think that the proposed course would benefitindustry professionals by providing them with a recruiting / networking tool in the form of thiscourse?” (Y/N)Question 7 from the presenter survey: “In addition to the traditional approach of networkingwith students (i.e., campus career fair), do you
to optimize the model. In our contrived problem, students are forced torethink the model, and how experiment can feed back and integrate to modeling efforts. Thisprofoundly reinforces the importance of virtual and real systems integration as a skill for the newknowledge manufacturing age.Current Course Status and ExpansionWe have now offered this course twice to a total of 32 graduate students. The courses have beenco-instructed by two faculty, one Adjunct Professor (with a 35-year professional career) in thefinite element-based simulation content of the course, and the second instructor in theexperimental and data analysis portion of the class (Figure 3). The OEM P.E. also gave lecturesin the importance and the use of testing and
their knowledge of industry’s needs and gainingperspectives on how they could better prepare students for industry careers.24DiscussionCollaborations between industry and academia took a number of different forms, and haddifferent purposes. The collaborations examined in this abbreviated study range from very smallefforts to extremely large ones, with little infrastructure required to those requiring largeorganizational structure. Collaborations were found in all levels of education and research with avariety of combinations to suit both the academic and industrial partners.While industry-academia collaboration is widely accepted to be desirable and beneficial, thereare many issues that should be studied in order to improve its implementation
improvement could become a norm.Professional development education requires a different business model than that of traditionalundergraduate and graduate education. Topics are different, students engage differently in thelearning process, and an understanding of evolving workforce needs by faculty is paramount.Early career faculty members adapting to traditional teaching norms may find professionaldevelopment courses in conflict with the world of tenure-track faculty. Some more experiencedfaculty members, particularly among land-grant institutions whose mission includes service tothe broader community, may be more inclined to espouse the value of continuous learning. Thetransition from theory-based education to professional development is unique
paper sheds light on: the mission, the nature, andrelevant benchmarks of this collaborative effort. Modifying curricula and programs towardindustrial relevance and the “practice”, regarded by many as a step in the right direction, willhelp equip graduates with the “tools of the trade”, thus lessening the burden on the industry inthe locale, in having to spend time and effort preparing and training employees at the start oftheir career. If engineering faculty and program planners would slant curricula and programsmore in the direction of “industrial relevance” and the “practice”, it would help a great deal inequipping engineering graduates with the “tools of the trade” , thus lessening the burden on theindustries. In this endeavor, the author