By: Jon Champaigne _欧洲杯决赛竞猜app_欧洲杯足球网-投注|官网

Jon Champaigne
Sun, 25 Sep 2016 23:16:09 +0000

While this seems like a good idea at first glance from an industry perspective, how does PCC intend to get students to this "level", especially considering quality equipment is priced in the millions of dollars? (excluding the yearly salary of someone who can both operate and teach both the equipment and class(es), which I imagine to be about equal to the amount you have annotated in cash plus benefits, retirement, etc.) Machining and manufacturing is an art, not just a technical skill. Understanding trigonometry, unit circles, and polynomial equations are just a small part of the required skill set. One learns how to run a lathe first (after spending two years watching and sweeping up the vicinity), because then one understands innately (and more intimately) the job and methods involved in programming or debugging more dynamic equipment -- such as a CNC, water-jet, laser-mill, or largescale 3D printer. Conversely one is not simultaneously constricted by technology, but still able to break out the drill press and cut gears the old-fashioned way -- when required. Also, I think producing a vast amount of workers that can "program" a CNC or similar from instructions, is ultimately unfair to both the student and community. We already get such labor from temporary agencies and technical schools, neither of which has been successful in reinventing or revitalizing the United States manufacturing industry. Those that have been successful outside of large corporations and conglomerates, have been individuals with the knowledge and initiative to create an original product with an original design -- one that is created with care and craftsmanship which is learned through time, trial, and error. This is an entirely different and separate construct from the mostly antiquated style utilized at PCC -- to the best of my knowledge. Perhaps I myself am the antiquated one -- but I believe firmly that sweeping the floor, cleaning the tools, watching before doing, planing before proceeding, building one's toolbox by hand, and knowing the history is far more important than the required math. One comes to the understanding of tooling and it's calibration through breaking tooling and producing bad parts, these data are placed inside one's "memory_box"; which keeps you safe and informs your future actions; this is not something you can learn from a book but is rather something that comes from working with a master in the craft and drowning oneself in the environment and methods. As such, it requires me to annotate, nontraditional students can't practically afford internships (traditionally). This is the actual limiting factor to their success. As such, this is the service the college should provide. Investing in students to work on and design real products, making real mistakes they can learn from, in the 'real world'. The more traditional lecture or technical school model doesn't work, not in a world where one is required to hit the ground running on day one. What I hear in this article are aspirations and generalizations -- what I don't hear is real and detailed plans which provide a road map for these platitudes to be actualized.