OK, I'm sure this has been edited to make it look bad, but really, nobody,
nobody entering engineering school should be able to fail this, let alone anyone graduating from one. Sadly, however, I think this situation is all too real:
https://youtu.be/aIhk9eKOLzQWe are doomed, I tell you. Doomed!
The video didn't really surprise me. There are bound to be people that don't know how to put theory into practice or end up needlessly making a situation more complicated than what it really is.
I remember during the first half of my Circuits Analysis class in undergrad the professor blew everyone's minds that a line drawn across a schematic connecting several components together could mean they were connected to a single node. Electrical Engineering students, that were seniors, didn't even know that other op-amps besides the 741 existed as that was all that was in the lab and what they had ran their experiments on during their time in school. The majority couldn't even make sense of a datasheet if presented with it.
That being said, almost everyone there at the end knew how to do things that the majority of electronics hobbyists would not even know about such as perform steady state analysis of RL, RC, and RLC circuits. Calculate and derive feedback loops used in PID controllers and switching converters, perform convolution related to continuous LTI systems, solve multi-parameter systems using linear algebra and differential equations, and so on and so forth.
I think the point of teaching just theory in college is to make sure everyone is well equipped to be critical thinkers and be able to use varying concepts to achieve a goal given a set of restrictions. The applicability can be easily taught on the job. If you want someone to build or repair something, hire a technician. If you want someone to design something, hire an engineer.
oh university students not being competent ? what a surprise. I need not remind you of the albeit many of the few people I have dealt with that can't use their brains in conjunction with what they are taught. The most amazing was the guy that claimed he could not use all 10 bits of an ADC in a uC while whinging about the resolution.
If you want someone to build or repair something, hire a technician. If you want someone to design something, hire an engineer.
Does that mean to manage a company you need to hire only a MBA?
The large > 100yr old oil company I worked for before retirement always selected the CEO from within the company and always with an engineering education, most frequently chemical engineer. Seemed to work out long enough for my retirement.
If you want someone to build or repair something, hire a technician. If you want someone to design something, hire an engineer.
Does that mean to manage a company you need to hire only a MBA?
The large > 100yr old oil company I worked for before retirement always selected the CEO from within the company and always with an engineering education, most frequently chemical engineer. Seemed to work out long enough for my retirement.
Why would you want to hire a MBA to run a company? If you followed my example then the MBA would only be hired to think about ways to get the company to run better. Leave the running to the person who actually knows how to get stuff done and has practical knowledge of what he/she is dealing with (in your case someone already in your company).
The video didn't really surprise me. There are bound to be people that don't know how to put theory into practice or end up needlessly making a situation more complicated than what it really is.
But I believe that practice comes before theory. When you are growing up as a child you are able to do practical things long before you are able to understand the theory behind them. If you are not doing practical things, making things and doing experiments before enrolling in an engineering program then I would doubt your aptitude to be an engineer. Lighting bulbs with batteries is something you learn to do when you are about 10 years old. It's not putting theory into practice, it is child's play, literally.
That being said, almost everyone there at the end knew how to do things that the majority of electronics hobbyists would not even know about such as perform steady state analysis of RL, RC, and RLC circuits. Calculate and derive feedback loops used in PID controllers and switching converters, perform convolution related to continuous LTI systems, solve multi-parameter systems using linear algebra and differential equations, and so on and so forth.
A good question would be, did they understand what was going on when solving these problems? Or were they just passing the test?
I think the point of teaching just theory in college is to make sure everyone is well equipped to be critical thinkers and be able to use varying concepts to achieve a goal given a set of restrictions. The applicability can be easily taught on the job. If you want someone to build or repair something, hire a technician. If you want someone to design something, hire an engineer.
I don't think you can apply theory well unless you have enough depth to understand the practical side. When I was at university the mechanical engineering students had a fully equipped workshop available where they could strip down and rebuild car engines. Nothing adds more clarity to the theory than seeing practical examples of how other engineers have designed things.
What is more surprising to me that they never became interested in building (obviously they cannot built anything).
It is obvious why so many times we get answers like "it cannot be done", "not worth the mess", not to mention the "you will never get the degree of commercial stuff" religion.
But I believe that practice comes before theory. When you are growing up as a child you are able to do practical things long before you are able to understand the theory behind them. If you are not doing practical things, making things and doing experiments before enrolling in an engineering program then I would doubt your aptitude to be an engineer. Lighting bulbs with batteries is something you learn to do when you are about 10 years old. It's not putting theory into practice, it is child's play, literally.
That would be a problem with society and education in general. A large majority of engineering students (at least from when I was an electrical engineering undergrad from 2005-2009) wanted to get into engineering because they thought it would either be financially secure, they had an interest that was close to it such as building computers/liked science fiction, or that's what their parents told them to do. Very few individuals did any electronics outside of the classroom or what was required beyond homework. As far as learning practical things before understanding them, you will have to talk to the education department about that. Theory is usually taught before you go to the lab as the pre-lab assignment involved doing the calculations before seeing them in real life.
A good question would be, did they understand what was going on when solving these problems? Or were they just passing the test?
Oh, by majority, passing the test for sure. It would take them less time to relearn it if they were required but by far most already forgot how to do such things by graduation. To put it this way: they just are familiar enough with the material to be able to pick it back up if needed.
I don't think you can apply theory well unless you have enough depth to understand the practical side. When I was at university the mechanical engineering students had a fully equipped workshop available where they could strip down and rebuild car engines. Nothing adds more clarity to the theory than seeing practical examples of how other engineers have designed things.
That is true but getting students to do stuff outside of required class work is hard.
I was an electronics hobbyist prior to go into electrical engineering as an undergrad. Often I would wonder why more practical stuff was being taught but that was partially extinguished when I had to learn theory and do hundreds of problems just to make sure I could go through the motions of solving test problems. I hated electromagnetics especially (there was no lab for that so it was all theory). Still, I did make an impact by getting my professor in my digital circuits class to invest in those Diligent FPGA boards for everyone. That was cool but it fell apart because no one actually used them to build anything outside or inside of class. For homework problems, why go through the motions of having to spend time downloading files, setting things up, and writing a program in Verilog when you could just do it by hand on paper? It is much faster, and if you couldn't get the answer on your own just ask the gunner student for the answers before class.
The problem is we don't do hobbies anymore so children learn no practicl skill or analytical thinking. For as ling as I can remember i tried to design and make stuff.
The problem is we don't do hobbies anymore so children learn no practicl skill or analytical thinking. For as ling as I can remember i tried to design and make stuff.
The hobbies still exist, they have just changed (for the worse usually).
Before the internet and ubiquitous personal computers there was only one obvious outlet for someone who wanted to know how modern technology worked, DIY electronics.
Now DIY electronics has to compete for attention with the multitude of other things on their phones and online.
But the number of engineering students who had done DIY electronics before they studied it was always small, like a handful at best, even in my days of the late 80's and early 90's. They were easy to spot, they were reading Electronics Australia.
I can't vouch for before that though, but it was likely a bit higher?
I get the impression that if you go back to the 50s everybody had a hobby even parents. Children grew up in an engaged atmosphere where they had an interest or their parents had an interest in something and they got their hands on to something and had something to think about. As time has gone on the whole population has become more lazy. I suppose TV started it and then computers and then the Internet and of course Facebook. But these days I just don't find anybody who actually has an interest in how something works or want to solve a problem or make something better or do anything that requires thinking. Everybody seems to be more interested in being better than each other or watching TV or doing some other brain fading activity. We just don't have the aptitude any more. And then you go to work and you realise that actually nobody gives a shit. Everybody is just doing the job for the money and they will do whatever job they think gets the more money. Granted I hate my job but this is because of the way the company is managed and how management think of the work I do. But my role is one I would expect to enjoy and sometimes I do when I am left to get on with something on my own and come up with the perfect solution or I am allowed to sit down with our official electronics subcontractor who is also a member of this forum and between us we come up with perfection if we are allowed to do it. But this is because I have an interest in my work it goes beyond just doing it for the money. These days everybody just wants money so they can buy stuff they think is going to make them look good while they are slouched in front of the TV or nattering to their friends on Facebook or doing both at once. Nobody has an interest any more in making anything except for an extreme select few. Nobody collect stamps any more, nobody reads books nobody does so many things that although not directly related to work in schools or personal development do in fact improve these areas of their life as well. When I started writing essays at school the teacher turned round in front of the whole class and said to me "you read a lot don't you" I said yes how did you know, she said by the style of your writing. Now I never ever cared about good writing style or about writing at all. I just had a zest for reading books mostly Enid Blyton books but this indirectly contributed to my schoolwork. I did not read books to improve my schoolwork I read the books because I found them interesting but it also helped in other areas of my life.
As a kid I always came up with ideas for building things. It was not until my later teens that I actually was able to build anything but for as long as I can remember I schemed and design things in my head. These days I trump other people because I not only do the electronics but I also do the mechanical design and I devise complete solutions. I'm not specifically trained in either area but because I had a personal interest it has helped me later in life
You should not need to hook up a light bulb in safe space. When a safe space is designated by the university administration, all human needs should be included and functional.
Upon graduation, student can then move from their college safe space, to the safe space at their place of employment. Hooking up a light bulb is beneath them; at their place of employment, there should be people that do that kinds of chores.
To be fair to the MIT graduates, in several of the segments no one could light that particular bulb with that battery. Were the graduates thinking it was a trick question? Others were dealing with physical coordination problems, trying to hold the light bulb, wire and battery in position with only two hands and no clamps, vices or other aids. Geeks and nerds are notoriously low on the physical coordination scale.
To be fair to the MIT graduates, in several of the segments no one could light that particular bulb with that battery. Were the graduates thinking it was a trick question? Others were dealing with physical coordination problems, trying to hold the light bulb, wire and battery in position with only two hands and no clamps, vices or other aids. Geeks and nerds are notoriously low on the physical coordination scale.
In the early segments, the bulbs used was a good bit larger. One look at the light bulb one can see it is probably not a 1.5v bulb. But, I expected the MIT grads to quickly realize that. The excitement of graduation probably got them off balance.
On the other hand, the Harvard grads, I don't know. The Harvard kids were probably turned off by the bulb being a big white bulb perhaps with too much privilege to light up. So, they didn't try hard. They were probably preoccupied with thinking about having bulbs of other color to make the line up diverse.
I really wanted the MIT graduates to be dumb,but,looking at the first part of the clip,I think they were"set up".
The "light bulb" they were provided with was not a 1.5v one,or certainly, was unlike any bulb for that voltage which I have ever seen.
The "bunnies" could have connected the circuit correctly,got no light ,& started to doubt themselves.
Fair Go,guys---Either ask them:- "Why the bulb doesn't illuminate?"( which would be a more serious test),or use the correct bulb for the circuit voltage.
This is classic TV show crap--I remember a programme which purported to show that TV Repair Shops were ripping off their customers.
They found some so-called "Engineer" to put a fault on a TV.
He did this by tweaking a trimmer pot.
The Station had dozens of Techs & several EEs who could have made a more convincing fault,(Hell,even the old "drawing pin in a capacitor" would have been better),but no,they got this dope.
The TV was sent out to various Repair shops.
Naturally,they assumed the trimmers were all correctly set,& looked everywhere else,before ultimately readjusting the trimpot & returning the TV with a note that they had adjusted it to work,but asking the owners to return it if it failed again.
The "Engineer" pontificated at length on how they should have found the maladjusted pot in a couple of minutes.
All the Techs & EEs at our Studio called BS on this,but we only had decades of "hands on " experience--what did we know?
I really wanted the MIT graduates to be dumb,but,looking at the first part of the clip,I think they were"set up".
The "light bulb" they were provided with was not a 1.5v one,or certainly, was unlike any bulb for that voltage which I have ever seen.
The "bunnies" could have connected the circuit correctly,got no light ,& started to doubt themselves.
It is true that it may have been a mains bulb, but I would have expected them to recognize that in an instant and ask for a low voltage bulb instead (as one guy evidently did).
The clip was obviously set up for students to fail. To be honest I probably would have asked if it was a 1 1/2 V bulb. I'd be surprised if any light bulb lit up one battery.
Same sort of thing really for the TV. You can make anything out of anything these days and this is one of the reasons why I don't own a TV or watch any form of TV because I know it's all manufactured nonsense. I also don't read any of the tabloids or get time to read any newspapers for that matter because they all have a pretty much declared bias so what is the point in reading something with the aim of finding facts when there is a declared bias. The TV programme was the same there was a declared bias they were going to prove that the TV shops were no good. When I've taken TVs into repair to people that I do know on behalf of other people when I lived in Italy the guy was always quite honest with me and often will tell me about how many hours he had spent chasing down a dry joint for example. It is simple stuff that takes hours in repair but of course Joe public seem to think that the simpler the fault of the easier to find.
Of course.there is sometimes the "exception that proves the rule".
We decided to outsource domestic type TVs rather than fix them ourselves.
That said,we still did "first in" checks .
On one occasion,we did the most obvious checks,before "buttoning it up" & sending it off,attaching a note saying what the symptoms were & what we had checked.
When we got it back it still had the repair shop's job docket attached,with (under "Nature of fault"):-
"It doesn't work". 
It was funny when the mechanical engineering student said she's not an electrical engineer
That's like me saying I can't assemble Ikea furniture.
To be honest I probably would have asked if it was a 1 1/2 V bulb.
That's exactly the response I would expect from an MIT graduate!
And it's a good response asking such questions first, it shows you know the basics and are actually thinking.
As a kid I always came up with ideas for building things.
Every kid is.
Any parent will tell you that every kid is born curious. Evolution seems to have designed us to be curious creatures, we need to explore are natural world and figure out how things work.
Seemingly annoying stuff like banging pots and pans together is actually a child experimenting to see what noise it will make (potential acoustics engineer there).
If you are not doing practical things, making things and doing experiments before enrolling in an engineering program then I would doubt your aptitude to be an engineer.
Amen to that!
Reminds me of one of several different jobs where I was the one-man R&D department. I have no qualifications as an engineer. We got this EE in as my helper who had been qualified for maybe 3 years. I asked him to draw me up a 2nd order low pass filter for a particular application. Several days later he came back to me with five foolscap pages of poles and zeros and letters that are not even in the alphabet. I asked him yeah, but how about a circuit to build the LPF??? He just shrugged; he didn't know.
As a kid I always came up with ideas for building things.
Every kid is.
Any parent will tell you that every kid is born curious. Evolution seems to have designed us to be curious creatures, we need to explore are natural world and figure out how things work.
Seemingly annoying stuff like banging pots and pans together is actually a child experimenting to see what noise it will make (potential acoustics engineer there).
Well I don't have much experience of children although I think I went on to wonder for longer than most children perhaps and this is probably the case for those of us that become engineers. Yes children probably are born curious but I think in a lot of cases parents ignore this and tell children why bother all that has already been done I don't think all parents try to nurture that creativity. When I was a teenager I was still trying to design things I think most teenagers these days have other interests. Obviously as a teenager up my ideas were more realistic and I have carried on into adult hood with a zest for solving practical problems with devices.
But I believe that practice comes before theory.
The issue with universities is the perfection. Look at the, saying they are the best of the best, and they actually believe it. If you are doing practice, something is going to go wrong. You connect things the other way around, blow up stuff, fail, sometimes succeed. Universities discourage failure. The entire thing is built up to punish failure. You fail a test, you get "punished" the more you fail, the worse the punishment is.
Practice is not easy. You need to try several approaches, and there just isn't enough time to do it. So you better get it right the first time, don't take chances. They also dont teach you problem solving skills, because the majority of engineers are not going to need it in their life. I've seen an automotive manufacturer looking for a team of 40 people to design a 12V lead acid battery power meter project, which will be 2-5 years. Are you kidding me? How much administrative overhead do you think there is in that company? How much time a hobbits need to put it together? 2 days after the components arrive?
For every competent engineer, there will be 40 people whos job is button mashing. They go home, to their wifes, and they have 0 interest for electronics, and the most difficult task in their professional life will be choosing the wine for their bosses birthday.
That is what the university prepares people for.
Fair Go,guys---Either ask them:- "Why the bulb doesn't illuminate?"( which would be a more serious test),or use the correct bulb for the circuit voltage.
This is classic TV show crap--I remember a programme which purported to show that TV Repair Shops were ripping off their customers.
They found some so-called "Engineer" to put a fault on a TV.
He did this by tweaking a trimmer pot.
The Station had dozens of Techs & several EEs who could have made a more convincing fault,(Hell,even the old "drawing pin in a capacitor" would have been better),but no,they got this dope.
The TV was sent out to various Repair shops.
Naturally,they assumed the trimmers were all correctly set,& looked everywhere else,before ultimately readjusting the trimpot & returning the TV with a note that they had adjusted it to work,but asking the owners to return it if it failed again.
The "Engineer" pontificated at length on how they should have found the maladjusted pot in a couple of minutes.
All the Techs & EEs at our Studio called BS on this,but we only had decades of "hands on " experience--what did we know?
Back in the days of Muscle Cars, Plymouth used to sponsor a Troubleshooting Contest which included parts deliberately manufactured as defective. Stuff you wouldn't immediately think about.
https://books.google.com/books?id=TtQDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA168&lpg=PA168#v=onepage&q&f=falseOne thing about those days, we kids certainly knew how to make cars go fast! Turning wasn't nearly as advanced. And, no, I wasn't a participant in the contests but we did have a couple of Dodges and a Plymouth that were pretty quick. Seven liter engines tend to pump out gobs of horsepower!