jtstang wrote:Not every engineer uses CAD man. I practiced in the aerospace field for four years full time and two years as a co-op and logged zero hours on a CAD terminal.
I mean, I'm aware of that, but these students should be able to function on it if it's asked of them. Don't need to make them experts, but make sure they have some exposure to it.
You don't need to have a degree n engineering to generate ideas, only to flush them out and sign the drawings.
. First of all, CAD doesn't help tell you what's feasible and what's not.
Not what I said. I said that an engineering degree helps tell you what's feasible and what's not
whitwiki wrote:CAD is shipped to India these days. If you want a good job you need to be able to think creatively. The skunk works lab teaches you how to do that in teams with real deadlines.
You don't need to have a degree n engineering to generate ideas, only to flush them out and sign the drawings.
And no, CAD isn't shipped to India these days.
It is in my world. Not 3D stuff, but all of our flow diagrams etc are.
whitwiki wrote:CAD is shipped to India these days. If you want a good job you need to be able to think creatively. The skunk works lab teaches you how to do that in teams with real deadlines.
You don't need to have a degree n engineering to generate ideas, only to flush them out and sign the drawings.
And no, CAD isn't shipped to India these days.
It is in my world. Not 3D stuff, but all of our flow diagrams etc are.
Or we just ship it to the contractor, who usually sends it to "low cost center offices" ...India
Here's the bottom line. There will always be a CAD class at SMU. I took one in the '80s as an engineering elective. If you want it, take it. You don't need it to be a good engineer. What engineers have lacked in the past, and in my experience will make better engineers in the future, is a broad philosophical approach to identifying problems that need solving and the concepts that go into the solutions. The earlier students are exposed to these issues the better, and that is what Orsak advocates.
smu diamond m wrote:And CAD was never the actual topic of any post in this thread ugh
I know...I just used it as an example.
My point is that what Dean Orsak is proposing is all well and good (and I REALLY LIKE the idea that he wants to get more students involved in research) but the fundamentals still have to be there. I also questioned the need for two leadership classes. Perhaps you could shed some light on that?
smu diamond m wrote:Thanks for reading the whopping first sentence of my post.
Flow diagrams? Use MS Office and a hot secretary. I would bet that VERY few sealable drawings are done out of the country of origin.
Not that type of flow diagram. Process flow. For equipment and other drawings, we source vendors and engineering firms all over the world... I think we are speaking different languages here.
Anyway I'm happy with Orsaks vision and I don't know how we got derailed onto CAD haha.... someone post the girls of engineering calendar and diffuse this thread.
My problem with the engineering "leadership" aka business/management classes were that they were entirely worthless. The material was about as shallow as can be. I don't understand why they don't get some really qualified professors out of Cox to teach these classes, ditch the material you can learn off the internet in 15 minutes and do something of value with those classes.
I think couch'em is right. If you're going to have these engineering/business hybrids, bring in some of the Cox guys to teach them.
As for the new skunk works lab and the like, and Orsak has had a large hand in getting those projects off the ground, not to mention bringing in the support of the Lyles, and I think he's going to make SMU engineering a prestige program.
