#1 Revision

Forgive me, I watched the wrong "Missing Basics" video! I thought I copied the url for the video at lecture correctly, and I didn't notice that there is a link on Compass. Please accept this new post as a revision of my last one.

Goldberg addresses several "missing basics" that new engineers lack when they enter the real world. Overall, I find his points to be interesting, but he lacked clarification on some of them, and I overall disagree with some of the concepts he points out.

The first missing basic he addresses is an inability to "ask good questions." I think that is a poor description of the concept that he's trying to address. He doesn't define what a good question is, but gives examples of questions he would have expected them to ask, such as "What worked?" "What hasn't worked?" and "What has been tried before?" What he is trying to say is that because the student's didn't ask those questions, they are at risk of working in vain. If they were to plan a design, and it turns out that that design has already been tried before, their efforts would be in vain because that design has already been proven to fail or succeed. Basically, because they didn't ask those questions, they really haven't helped the company advance. Goldberg says that new engineers don't "ask good questions," but he should have said that new engineers don't "acquire the necessary information for their work," or for a shorter label, they don't "request vital info." The definition of "good" is different for everyone and is too general for what he's addressing.

Ironically, the second missing basic he addresses is the "inability to label." By this he means that new engineers don't know the names of certain "pieces of technology" nor how to "label patterns in the data that will help them to solve the problems at hand." This sounds like a good point, but he didn't go into further detail. Of what pieces of technology don't we know the names and what does he mean by labelling patterns in the data? Some examples would have been nice.

Next he addresses the "inability to model." Basically, new engineers need to address problems in detail in words or diagrams. Well if that's the case, Goldberg himself needs to work on this. He has given lists of key points when addressing the missing basics we lack, but he has failed to elaborate in detail through examples, giving little clarification of what he means by these concepts.

Then he talks about the "inability to decompose." I very much disagree with this "missing basic." If anything, we as engineers decompose problems more than anyone else through math problems and science experiments. Math is generally something that needs to be broken up in steps, like when using the order of operations to simplify a problem. Let's say we need to evaluate (9+4)^2 - 8 / 2. We have to break this up into steps. First we simplify the expression in the parenthesis, (9+4) to 13; then we apply the square function to it to get 169. Next we divide the appropriate numbers 8 / 2 into 4, and finally we subtract 4 from 169 to get 165. So naturally we would do the same for solving real world problems.

The fifth concept is the "inability to measure." Here he demonstrates the inability to label things correctly. He doesn't say that we "can't" measure things correctly, but rather we "refuse to measure things unless forced to." He's not saying that we are unable to measure things correctly, he's saying we're lazy, I'm not going to comment about that...

His penultimate point is the "inability to visualize/ideate." Basically, we have trouble envisioning solutions to real world problems. That should be the last thing in which we would have trouble. If you can't visualize a solution, how can you call yourself an engineer? This makes me wonder what those seniors were doing in high school and college. He says that this important concept has almost been entirely removed from the engineering curriculum. Granted that's true, U of I still has many opportunities for practicing this concept, like Engineers Without Borders or internships. Those seniors must not have taken advantage of these opportunities.

Finally he addresses the "inability to communicate." Now I completely agree with this one. The university doesn't directly teach engineering majors how to present in front of people. Though I must say, those seniors must not have known the basic principles of engineering. If you can't visualize a solution or communicate your ideas to people, then why would you major in engineering? It makes no sense.

Now with those concepts in mind, these are the skills I want to improve:

1.) The ability to acquire vital information. I must remember to ask for information that can benefit me. To do this, I need to first be able to address what I deem as vital information. Perhaps I should first participate more in lectures/discussions. Once I get used to expressing my thoughts and opinions to a large group of people, I would be able to throw away my pride and ask questions when I should. I expect to have this ability greatly improved by the end of sophomore year.

2.) The ability to present in front of a large group of people. Frankly I'm satisfied with my presentation skills, but it never hurts to improve them. I can start by participating more in lectures and discussions for this as well. Naturally, if I talk more to people, I can also improve this skill as well. I shall have this improved by the end of the semester.

3.) The ability to formulate solutions to real world problems. This isn't something I need to drastically improve either, but it's definitely something that should be eternally improved. Since this is an ability that must be eternally strengthened, I don't have absolute deadlines for this, but by participating in activities beneficial for engineering, I can greatly improve this ability. I expect to be actively involved in an engineering-related activity by the end of september.