Re: [Phys-l] Degree in Photonics?

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 03/24/2012 07:55 AM, Peter Schoch wrote:

> We have (yet another) new President at Sussex CCC.  He's got it in his head that:
>
> 1.  degrees are superfluous
>
> 2.  certificate programs and AAS degrees are the thing that must be emphasized
>
> 3.  transfer programs should be minimized

> [4] he's now locked onto us doing a photonics degree

I assume point #1 intended to refer to 4-year baccalaureate degrees.
Otherwise point #2 and point #4 contradict point #1, adding additional
layers of ridiculousness to an already-ridiculous situation.

> The level of "training/education" seems to be VERY LOW. 

I agree.

For those who are wondering what "VERY LOW" means, see e.g.
  http://www.floridaphotonicscluster.com/pdf/PhotonicsTechCert2.pdf [1]
and
  http://www.ce.ucf.edu/Program-Search/1319/Photonics-Certificate-Program/  [2]
  Start with the "description" tab, then click on the "course outlines"
  tab for more details, including fees.

I would say this training program is equivalent to completing a single 
*course* at a mediocre school (not completing a "degree").  Based on
this you could put together an AA degree with a *course* in optical 
technology ... but if they're trying to sell this as a "degree" or
even a "certificate" based on this curriculum alone, it is a disgrace.

If you need help meeting your Recommended Daily Allowance of nonsense,
think about all the things that are left out of the "curriculum".
 -- No mention of electronics, even at the level of clipping bulbs to 
  batteries ... let alone Ohm's law or AC circuits.  This is a big 
  deal, because I always thought photonics included opto-electronics,
  which includes electronics.
 -- No mention of basic fabrication skills.  Do they really think I'm
  going to hire a technician who has never seen a drill, or a saw, or 
  a soldering iron?
 -- Amazingly little math.  On the "description" tab of reference [1],
  click through to see the material covered by the "basic math tutorial".
  I looked at the "algebraic operations" and the "solid geometry".  It
  was all at the mechanical, rote level.  No understanding required.
  Not a single story problem.
 -- No mention of computer programming, even at the level of declarative 
  languages (i.e. spreadsheets) ... let alone imperative languages (c++ 
  or java or even BASIC).

  Reference [1] mentions "progress towards computer ray tracing of complex
  lens systems."  They don't say /how much/ progress.  Yesterday I took a 
  step northward, which counts as "progress" toward the north pole ... but
  it doesn't make me Roald Amundsen.  Or, as Yoda would say:  There is no 
  "try".  There is only do or not do.

>  he's now locked onto us doing a photonics degree from these people:
> http://www.op-tec.org/

That's amazing.  It sounds like he wants somebody to come in and install
a certificate program the way you would install a replacement household 
refrigerator.  Just roll it into place and hook up the utilities.  To the
extent he thinks that might work, it speaks volumes about the superficiality
of what he is trying to achieve.  I say that because:
 -- If some folks on the local faculty already have expertise and experience
  in the subject area, it is not necessary to have "installers" come in.
 -- If the locals don't have experience and expertise, it is nowhere near
  sufficient to have "installers" come in.  Seriously, look at it from the
  students' point of view:  What's the point of taking a course from somebody
  who doesn't know the material?

=================

More importantly:  I can /just barely/ imagine a hiring situation where 
I might give /some/ preference to somebody with a certificate based on 
a couple dozen hours of coursework.  Specifically, to complete a sudden
rush job, I have on occasion hired somebody who had exactly the narrow 
skill-set I needed.  For example, if I needed to splice a gazillion optical 
fibers in the next two weeks, I might give a two-week job to somebody who 
knew how to splice optical fibers.

In contrast, for a long-term job, I would instantly disqualify anybody 
with such a narrow skill-set.  For example, whatever fiber-splicing
technique he learned in school would probably be irrelevant, because 
my equipment is different ... and more to the point, I prefer to hire 
somebody who has a well-rounded education and the demonstrated ability 
to learn new things.  He can learn on the job, learning whatever narrow 
skills and factoids are required by the task du jour.  That's important 
because whatever the job description is today, it will be different 
next year, and different again the year after that, et cetera.

Einstein said "An education is what remains after you have forgotten 
everything you learned in school."  I would clarify that as follows:  
General-purpose thinking skills remain after all the domain-specific 
factoids you learned in school have become obsolete.
  http://www.av8n.com/physics/thinking.htm

I advise all students:  Do not plan a career around a specific narrow
skill-set.  The narrower it is, the more quickly it will become obsolete.
Plan for flexibility.

The guy I want to have on permanent staff is the guy to whom I can say:  
"We're gonna need to splice a gazillion fibers" and he says "Yeah, I 
know.  I already bought a splicer.  I found a used one for 3k.  I roped 
some people into helping.  We read the instructions and spent half a day 
practicing.  I reckon we're ready to go."

** I realize that not everybody is cut out for the job described in the
** previous paragraph;  see next message (education and careers for Muggles).

> 1.  degrees are superfluous

I /halfway/ agree with that.

Never confuse a symbol with the thing being symbolized.  The degree itself
is just a symbol that (supposedly) represents a certain level of accomplishment.
Sometimes people have the accomplishment without the degree, and sometimes
vice versa.

For example, I have never taken any courses in computer science.  Not a single
one.  I've taught them, but never taken them.

On the other hand, symbols are useful.  A symbol "should" mean something.
It is neither necessary nor sufficient, but it should mean /something/.

> 3.  transfer programs should be minimized

That's amazing.  A community college that wants to minimize transfer programs?
Really?

That violates one of the founding principles and defining properties of the
"community college" movement.