Posted by mareserinitatis in personal.
Tags: 10K, C25k, couch to 5k, exercise, running, training
see more Lolcats and funny pictures, and check out our Socially Awkward Penguin lolz!
I mentioned recently that I’d signed up to do a 10k in May. Today, I completed a step in that direction: I finished the couch-to-5k program I started back in October. It took two weeks longer than expected due to knee issues and illness, but I made it. This means that I can run for 30 minutes solid, but in my case, that’s not enough to finish a 5k.
Since it was my last run on the program and the weather outside was gorgeous (50 degrees….in January…I’m serious), I decided to do try my hand at jogging outside.
There are several differences: my legs got tired in different places, I only need moderately upbeat music to keep my distracted (versus the treadmill, which requires a very special set of VERY upbeat music), and my asthma started acting up immediately. I also noticed, when finished, that the GPS in my iPhone doesn’t work when the phone is against my body (damn antenna detuning).
My solution to the last two is to begin using my Garmin Forerunner. It has GPS, and I suspect that keeping an eye on my heart rate will help me gauge whether my exertion level is inappropriate. My asthma likely started because I was pushing myself too hard. After all, the allergens here are pretty few in number right now because even if it’s warm, it’s still January.
I’m giving myself a week with shorter workouts and then jumping to the Bridge to 10k program. Wish me luck!
Posted by mareserinitatis in career, education, engineering, societal commentary.
Tags: education, graduates, training, work
FrauTech is contemplating how employers are viewing engineers as commodities (my words, not hers).
One aspect of this argument really bothers me: I’ve heard over and over how companies can’t find ‘qualified’ engineers. Friends have mentioned not being able to find people with the right qualifications and training.
From my perspective, it seems that the employers want is an engineer who has both a grasp of the fundamentals as well as someone with specific background and skills. Getting a degree in engineering in four years makes these two things nearly mutually exclusive.
But why?
The goal of (most) universities is to train engineers who can be adaptable to many jobs, hence the focus on theory. This should theoretically be of benefit to the students, especially in light of the current economic situation. It’s obvious that companies don’t care about the long-term job prospects of their employees, so the employees need to be able to have a broad enough background to pick up new job skills in the face of the fact that, with jobs being shipped overseas, they will have to continually reinvent themselves as different types of engineers. Some universities and colleges don’t think this, of course: they want their grads to be competitive and so focus far more on applied aspects of the job. Having a high placement rate means you’re doing something right.
However, the educational institutions that remain theory focused are usually in one of two camps: there is a set of institutions that have such awesome reputations that their students seldom if ever have difficulty finding jobs, while the rest of universities without this reputation may leave their students feeling as though their education was a waste. The students don’t have the benefit of the reputation of their institution, nor do they have the benefit of the applied education that other students have. They remain in job search limbo for a long time, wondering if they should have really considered switching to business.
I personally prefer the theory approach. The grads that come out with a more applied skill set may be able to find a job quickly (at least prior to the recession), but they are essentially trading off instant gratification for adaptability down the road. If they’re taught applications, it’s questionable whether they will have the necessary background knowledge to learn something new, and it may cost them their employment in the long run. Adaptability is essential because otherwise one risks tracking themselves into a dead-end job.
I also think that having a more general background should, in theory, force a company not to treat its engineers (and hopefully other employees) as commodities that can be used and thrown out once the product is developed. It would be nice if companies actually invested in their employees (and thus their own future), but this is highly unlikely in the face of all the outsourcing going on and the fact that there is (and probably always will be) a large subset of students with application-based training.
I also blog at Engineer Blogs, home away from home to some of the best engineering blogs.
Theoretically, I’m an engineer January 14, 2011
Posted by mareserinitatis in career, education, engineering, societal commentary.Tags: education, graduates, training, work
5 comments
FrauTech is contemplating how employers are viewing engineers as commodities (my words, not hers).
One aspect of this argument really bothers me: I’ve heard over and over how companies can’t find ‘qualified’ engineers. Friends have mentioned not being able to find people with the right qualifications and training.
From my perspective, it seems that the employers want is an engineer who has both a grasp of the fundamentals as well as someone with specific background and skills. Getting a degree in engineering in four years makes these two things nearly mutually exclusive.
But why?
The goal of (most) universities is to train engineers who can be adaptable to many jobs, hence the focus on theory. This should theoretically be of benefit to the students, especially in light of the current economic situation. It’s obvious that companies don’t care about the long-term job prospects of their employees, so the employees need to be able to have a broad enough background to pick up new job skills in the face of the fact that, with jobs being shipped overseas, they will have to continually reinvent themselves as different types of engineers. Some universities and colleges don’t think this, of course: they want their grads to be competitive and so focus far more on applied aspects of the job. Having a high placement rate means you’re doing something right.
However, the educational institutions that remain theory focused are usually in one of two camps: there is a set of institutions that have such awesome reputations that their students seldom if ever have difficulty finding jobs, while the rest of universities without this reputation may leave their students feeling as though their education was a waste. The students don’t have the benefit of the reputation of their institution, nor do they have the benefit of the applied education that other students have. They remain in job search limbo for a long time, wondering if they should have really considered switching to business.
I personally prefer the theory approach. The grads that come out with a more applied skill set may be able to find a job quickly (at least prior to the recession), but they are essentially trading off instant gratification for adaptability down the road. If they’re taught applications, it’s questionable whether they will have the necessary background knowledge to learn something new, and it may cost them their employment in the long run. Adaptability is essential because otherwise one risks tracking themselves into a dead-end job.
I also think that having a more general background should, in theory, force a company not to treat its engineers (and hopefully other employees) as commodities that can be used and thrown out once the product is developed. It would be nice if companies actually invested in their employees (and thus their own future), but this is highly unlikely in the face of all the outsourcing going on and the fact that there is (and probably always will be) a large subset of students with application-based training.