你果真以为自己是明白人么？ (转载)# Joke - 肚皮舞运动
H*y
1 楼
Dr. T is special to me, because he founded the Biomedical Engineering
Department at X University (XU), without which I might have left academia by
now. He is also special, compared with other interviewees who mostly focus
on research, in that he has tremendous experience in building academic
programs, designing curricula, exploring novel teaching techniques, and
helping underdeveloped countries.
Fiona: You worked in industry before you became a faculty member at Case
Western Reserve, and again in North Coast Engineering as the President
before you founded XU’s BME department. There seems to exist a “force”
that always drives you back to academic.
Dr. T: North Coast Engineering was my consulting group while I was a
professor at CWRU. Graduate students and I used NCE to work on a few
contracts outside of CWRU. The main effect was funding for graduate students.
Fiona: That was nice.
After my MS degree, I worked with Martin Marietta in Orlando. MM was a
defense contractor, and I worked in a research division where we
investigated new ideas and new techniques that could lead to new products.
On at least a dozen occasions, I was temporarily assigned to a short-term
project that was a kind of emergency for MM or for DOD. In each case, I
joined a small group of engineers in an assignment that could be
characterized by “here are the data from some situation, what does it mean,
and what should MM do”. While all those projects were classified, the
engineering content was great, and I had a chance to work with others whose
expertise differed from mine. All those projects provided great engineering
experience, and a few ventured into physics and chemistry.
My division directors at MM encouraged me to pursue a PhD degree. I recall
that family members thought I was crazy to quit a really good job in order
to go back to school. I moved for two reasons. As much as I enjoyed the
engineering work at MM, I wanted to learn about a new field called “bionics
” which was absorbed into biomedical engineering. I also wanted to work in
an area that focuses more directly on benefits to humans.
As a PhD student, I was recruited by CWRU after experience in teaching and a
few research projects. I did consider an industrial position, but for
reasons that are not totally clear, I thought a university environment was a
better fit for me.
Fiona: Well, sometimes our subconsciousness makes the best decisions for us.
What aspect of Higher Education attracts you the most?
Dr. T: Being a university professor and being an engineer in the MM research
division were not all that different. In both cases I worked on projects
that could be funded and projects that I found interesting. In university, I
had more control over my project selection and research directions, and
that independence was attractive. As a PhD student, I taught a course, and I
found that experience to be enjoyable and challenging. As a result, I was
attracted by the opportunity to teach and work with graduate students.
Fiona: What challenges or advantages you think are unique to faculty in
Engineering compared with other disciplines?
Dr. T: Engineering differs from other disciplines, but those differences are
not huge, and the differences often make work more interesting. At CWRU, I
was in engineering, but I also had an appointment in Experimental Psychology
, specifically in a Perception Lab that focused on vision. In that Lab, my
engineering expertise complemented the visual science and psychophysics
expertise of my colleagues. Of course, engineers build things – in hardware
or software. In order to investigate brief visual phenomena, I built a
video based system that opened some new avenues for research. We frequently
talked about our different approaches, but our differences were always
viewed as a strength in the Lab, and the differences enriched the experience
of the graduate student.
Fiona: Biomedical engineering is a relatively new a discipline. When you
tried to build the BME program at XU with limited resource, what were the
difficulties you had to face? Have you envisioned it to be what we have
today or something rather different?
Dr. T: I wanted to start the department with a PhD program first, and then
expand to an undergraduate program. The XU administration vetoed that
approach, and we compromised to an approach of undergraduate degree first,
and later a graduate program. At the beginning, that compromise was not
totally comfortable, but after 6 years or so, the result was effectively the
same. The department today is really what I wanted, thanks for you and the
other great young faculty.
Fiona: I’m glad to hear that. Do you have advice for educators in the
future who want to build new programs?
Dr. T: In terms of starting a new program, I see two ways to start. With
sufficient university commitment, a totally new department can emerge, i.e.,
Civil Engineering at XU. The second approach is to build a specialty using
faculty from multiple departments. For example, your Neuroscience program
did not start as a department, but you had a group of faculty with similar
interests who could work together to build something new. Both approaches
are valid and appropriate. Which you use depends on the area and the faculty
. The non-department start-up may be more appropriate when the focus is on
graduate research.
Fiona: Do you have opinions about the general BME curriculum in the United
States? Do you think students, upon graduation, are ready for jobs in
industry? What aspects could have been strengthened?
Dr. T: I recall when biomedical engineering programs were in two categories.
The large majority was more engineering, i.e., more like the traditional
engineering majors. The minority moved more in the direction of the
biological sciences. In the past 20 years or so, those two populations have
merged. There are still differences among universities, mostly due to
different faculty expertise, but the differences are not that important.
I took my first job, after my MS degree, and I had doubts about my abilities
. I found myself in a division where I was the “new kid on the block”; the
next youngest was about 12 years older that I. The age difference quickly
disappeared. I found that I had a few skills that could be useful to my
group, and I found that others had engineering experience that I did not
have. It was a teaching-learning situation.
BME graduates today seem to face similar situations. Even when they join a
well-established group, our graduates have unique, and sometimes more up to
date, skills that make them valuable employees.
While we might talk about minor changes in the curriculum, the main
principle is to make the curriculum match the faculty. Secondly, graduates
will give valuable feedback. Graduates tell us that they had the skills to
be immediately productive, even while they learn new lab techniques. Faculty
from other universities tell me that our graduates are prepared to be
productive on day one.
Overall, maintain a curriculum that matches the faculty, listen to graduates
in their new positions, and listen to faculty and employers who hire our
graduates. Be willing to make minor corrections in the curriculum, and trust
your judgment on what changes need to be made.
Fiona: As a junior faculty, I am yet to develop a practical strategy to help
me get tenure. Do you have advice for non-tenured faculty in terms of self-
planning for their career and surviving academic politics?
Dr. T: My usual advice is to pursue you own interests and do the things you
like to do. I think that is good, but it omits a lot of details.
Preparing for tenure and promotion varies with the area and the person. But
generally, I suggest two things. First, the preparation should be the same
as If you anticipate going to a new institution. Again, that may or may not
be helpful. Secondly, create a track record and paper trail. The track
record will build naturally, with pubs and grants and students. The paper
train may be equally important. Record every act of research, teaching, or
service. Even the simplest of items should be included, like giving a guest
lecture in someone’s course, collaborating with colleagues in a start-up,
serving on a committee, visiting a local school, and other event that you
may consider to be minor.
Fiona: I know you have been constantly trying new teaching techniques. What
is the key in being an effective teacher, in your opinion? Are there useful
principles or tricks you would like to share with us?
Dr. T: Tough question. I started using personal computers in lab and in
courses, starting with the Apple II and a TRS80 (from Radio Shack). I did it
because I wanted to use the computers. In hindsight, the computing aspect
made courses more interesting and more challenging for students. The
introduction of computers into courses was not well planned; it just
happened. There was a lot of trial and error, and a lot of good advice and
feedback and assistance from students.
Different faculty have different talents. A few can entertain students with
a performance. Most of us in engineering do not have those entertainment
skills, at least not for more than a few minutes.
I have used a course website for many years, and that was another experiment
at the time. With or without a good textbook, students benefit from class
notes, videos, or other references. The videos are especially interesting.
The current undergraduates will be very attentive for any video, even a low-
quality video. During a video may be the only time, other than exams, when I
have their undivided attention. In ten years, the students and teaching
tools will be different, but for now videos work, just as a personal
computer worked in the 1980s.
From my own experience as a student and as a professor, I think the primary
element for success it to like the material you present in courses. Students
will recognize when a professor has enthusiasm for the course material or
if the professor is just going through the motions. I have always been
fortunate to teach courses that I really liked, and that made teaching fun
for me. When it is fun for me, that enthusiasm transfers to students.
Fiona: You just mentioned the curriculum should match the faculty’s
expertise, and I think it helps bring up the enthusiasm of the faculty
teaching courses relevant to their research. Thank you so much for the
invaluable advice, Dr. T! Before we end, I’d like to hear about your
exciting project in Haiti. Could you talk about the progress you made when
you last visited there with the 13 XU students? What is your goal next year?
Dr. T: The 13 XU students and I traveled to the northern region of Haiti in
June 2015. We were accompanied by a Haitian student who expects to study
Business here. The 15 of us tutored students in the small town of Plaine-du-
Nord, where the XU students spent three days with more than 160 Haitian
students. We spend a day at the factory of Meds & Food for Kids where they
make a peanut-based food bar for undernourished children and pregnant women.
The XU students saw the process from growing peanuts to producing the final
food products, and the infrastructure of the factory that includes
producing its own electricity and potable water. On a day at a new campus of
the University of Haiti, we met with the university administration about
potential collaborations. Aside from those three main items, we made several
short trips, including a day at the most popular tourist site in Milot,
mass at the Cathedral in Cap-Haitian, and a morning at a beach. The trip was
a wonderful experience for all of us, and we continue to meet and recall
our Haiti experience.
Some current projects really started when we were in Haiti. There is so much
to do in Haiti, it’s hard to know what to do first. We are addressing the
lack of electricity and a new approach to reforestation. The goal is to
provide solar power to families, starting with basic cooking and lighting. I
want to have a few units of a prototype that can be tested by Haitian
families, starting in February or March. Fortunately, several BME students
are very excited about working on these projects, and of course, they
contribute their own ideas.
Fiona commented: I guess seeing their knowledge being applied to help people
was more rewarding than getting a good grade in class.
Dr. T: We are also working on some specific plans for collaborative projects
with the University of Haiti in Limonade. The university has a nice new
campus, but it suffers from a lack of faculty. Many courses do not have
teachers, and students cannot complete their degree requirements. We are
looking at ways that we might use graduate students or postdocs to go to
Haiti for 1-2 semesters to teach courses. That could relieve the current
crisis and maybe allow the University to reach its potential.
Fiona: If you were a junior faculty like me, I might look at the outreach as
a preparation toward NSF funding or tenure. But for someone who has just
retired, it shows how a scientist and engineer is tied to the human society.
What you have been doing matters, Dr. T, and I’m proud of you as a
colleague.
Department at X University (XU), without which I might have left academia by
now. He is also special, compared with other interviewees who mostly focus
on research, in that he has tremendous experience in building academic
programs, designing curricula, exploring novel teaching techniques, and
helping underdeveloped countries.
Fiona: You worked in industry before you became a faculty member at Case
Western Reserve, and again in North Coast Engineering as the President
before you founded XU’s BME department. There seems to exist a “force”
that always drives you back to academic.
Dr. T: North Coast Engineering was my consulting group while I was a
professor at CWRU. Graduate students and I used NCE to work on a few
contracts outside of CWRU. The main effect was funding for graduate students.
Fiona: That was nice.
After my MS degree, I worked with Martin Marietta in Orlando. MM was a
defense contractor, and I worked in a research division where we
investigated new ideas and new techniques that could lead to new products.
On at least a dozen occasions, I was temporarily assigned to a short-term
project that was a kind of emergency for MM or for DOD. In each case, I
joined a small group of engineers in an assignment that could be
characterized by “here are the data from some situation, what does it mean,
and what should MM do”. While all those projects were classified, the
engineering content was great, and I had a chance to work with others whose
expertise differed from mine. All those projects provided great engineering
experience, and a few ventured into physics and chemistry.
My division directors at MM encouraged me to pursue a PhD degree. I recall
that family members thought I was crazy to quit a really good job in order
to go back to school. I moved for two reasons. As much as I enjoyed the
engineering work at MM, I wanted to learn about a new field called “bionics
” which was absorbed into biomedical engineering. I also wanted to work in
an area that focuses more directly on benefits to humans.
As a PhD student, I was recruited by CWRU after experience in teaching and a
few research projects. I did consider an industrial position, but for
reasons that are not totally clear, I thought a university environment was a
better fit for me.
Fiona: Well, sometimes our subconsciousness makes the best decisions for us.
What aspect of Higher Education attracts you the most?
Dr. T: Being a university professor and being an engineer in the MM research
division were not all that different. In both cases I worked on projects
that could be funded and projects that I found interesting. In university, I
had more control over my project selection and research directions, and
that independence was attractive. As a PhD student, I taught a course, and I
found that experience to be enjoyable and challenging. As a result, I was
attracted by the opportunity to teach and work with graduate students.
Fiona: What challenges or advantages you think are unique to faculty in
Engineering compared with other disciplines?
Dr. T: Engineering differs from other disciplines, but those differences are
not huge, and the differences often make work more interesting. At CWRU, I
was in engineering, but I also had an appointment in Experimental Psychology
, specifically in a Perception Lab that focused on vision. In that Lab, my
engineering expertise complemented the visual science and psychophysics
expertise of my colleagues. Of course, engineers build things – in hardware
or software. In order to investigate brief visual phenomena, I built a
video based system that opened some new avenues for research. We frequently
talked about our different approaches, but our differences were always
viewed as a strength in the Lab, and the differences enriched the experience
of the graduate student.
Fiona: Biomedical engineering is a relatively new a discipline. When you
tried to build the BME program at XU with limited resource, what were the
difficulties you had to face? Have you envisioned it to be what we have
today or something rather different?
Dr. T: I wanted to start the department with a PhD program first, and then
expand to an undergraduate program. The XU administration vetoed that
approach, and we compromised to an approach of undergraduate degree first,
and later a graduate program. At the beginning, that compromise was not
totally comfortable, but after 6 years or so, the result was effectively the
same. The department today is really what I wanted, thanks for you and the
other great young faculty.
Fiona: I’m glad to hear that. Do you have advice for educators in the
future who want to build new programs?
Dr. T: In terms of starting a new program, I see two ways to start. With
sufficient university commitment, a totally new department can emerge, i.e.,
Civil Engineering at XU. The second approach is to build a specialty using
faculty from multiple departments. For example, your Neuroscience program
did not start as a department, but you had a group of faculty with similar
interests who could work together to build something new. Both approaches
are valid and appropriate. Which you use depends on the area and the faculty
. The non-department start-up may be more appropriate when the focus is on
graduate research.
Fiona: Do you have opinions about the general BME curriculum in the United
States? Do you think students, upon graduation, are ready for jobs in
industry? What aspects could have been strengthened?
Dr. T: I recall when biomedical engineering programs were in two categories.
The large majority was more engineering, i.e., more like the traditional
engineering majors. The minority moved more in the direction of the
biological sciences. In the past 20 years or so, those two populations have
merged. There are still differences among universities, mostly due to
different faculty expertise, but the differences are not that important.
I took my first job, after my MS degree, and I had doubts about my abilities
. I found myself in a division where I was the “new kid on the block”; the
next youngest was about 12 years older that I. The age difference quickly
disappeared. I found that I had a few skills that could be useful to my
group, and I found that others had engineering experience that I did not
have. It was a teaching-learning situation.
BME graduates today seem to face similar situations. Even when they join a
well-established group, our graduates have unique, and sometimes more up to
date, skills that make them valuable employees.
While we might talk about minor changes in the curriculum, the main
principle is to make the curriculum match the faculty. Secondly, graduates
will give valuable feedback. Graduates tell us that they had the skills to
be immediately productive, even while they learn new lab techniques. Faculty
from other universities tell me that our graduates are prepared to be
productive on day one.
Overall, maintain a curriculum that matches the faculty, listen to graduates
in their new positions, and listen to faculty and employers who hire our
graduates. Be willing to make minor corrections in the curriculum, and trust
your judgment on what changes need to be made.
Fiona: As a junior faculty, I am yet to develop a practical strategy to help
me get tenure. Do you have advice for non-tenured faculty in terms of self-
planning for their career and surviving academic politics?
Dr. T: My usual advice is to pursue you own interests and do the things you
like to do. I think that is good, but it omits a lot of details.
Preparing for tenure and promotion varies with the area and the person. But
generally, I suggest two things. First, the preparation should be the same
as If you anticipate going to a new institution. Again, that may or may not
be helpful. Secondly, create a track record and paper trail. The track
record will build naturally, with pubs and grants and students. The paper
train may be equally important. Record every act of research, teaching, or
service. Even the simplest of items should be included, like giving a guest
lecture in someone’s course, collaborating with colleagues in a start-up,
serving on a committee, visiting a local school, and other event that you
may consider to be minor.
Fiona: I know you have been constantly trying new teaching techniques. What
is the key in being an effective teacher, in your opinion? Are there useful
principles or tricks you would like to share with us?
Dr. T: Tough question. I started using personal computers in lab and in
courses, starting with the Apple II and a TRS80 (from Radio Shack). I did it
because I wanted to use the computers. In hindsight, the computing aspect
made courses more interesting and more challenging for students. The
introduction of computers into courses was not well planned; it just
happened. There was a lot of trial and error, and a lot of good advice and
feedback and assistance from students.
Different faculty have different talents. A few can entertain students with
a performance. Most of us in engineering do not have those entertainment
skills, at least not for more than a few minutes.
I have used a course website for many years, and that was another experiment
at the time. With or without a good textbook, students benefit from class
notes, videos, or other references. The videos are especially interesting.
The current undergraduates will be very attentive for any video, even a low-
quality video. During a video may be the only time, other than exams, when I
have their undivided attention. In ten years, the students and teaching
tools will be different, but for now videos work, just as a personal
computer worked in the 1980s.
From my own experience as a student and as a professor, I think the primary
element for success it to like the material you present in courses. Students
will recognize when a professor has enthusiasm for the course material or
if the professor is just going through the motions. I have always been
fortunate to teach courses that I really liked, and that made teaching fun
for me. When it is fun for me, that enthusiasm transfers to students.
Fiona: You just mentioned the curriculum should match the faculty’s
expertise, and I think it helps bring up the enthusiasm of the faculty
teaching courses relevant to their research. Thank you so much for the
invaluable advice, Dr. T! Before we end, I’d like to hear about your
exciting project in Haiti. Could you talk about the progress you made when
you last visited there with the 13 XU students? What is your goal next year?
Dr. T: The 13 XU students and I traveled to the northern region of Haiti in
June 2015. We were accompanied by a Haitian student who expects to study
Business here. The 15 of us tutored students in the small town of Plaine-du-
Nord, where the XU students spent three days with more than 160 Haitian
students. We spend a day at the factory of Meds & Food for Kids where they
make a peanut-based food bar for undernourished children and pregnant women.
The XU students saw the process from growing peanuts to producing the final
food products, and the infrastructure of the factory that includes
producing its own electricity and potable water. On a day at a new campus of
the University of Haiti, we met with the university administration about
potential collaborations. Aside from those three main items, we made several
short trips, including a day at the most popular tourist site in Milot,
mass at the Cathedral in Cap-Haitian, and a morning at a beach. The trip was
a wonderful experience for all of us, and we continue to meet and recall
our Haiti experience.
Some current projects really started when we were in Haiti. There is so much
to do in Haiti, it’s hard to know what to do first. We are addressing the
lack of electricity and a new approach to reforestation. The goal is to
provide solar power to families, starting with basic cooking and lighting. I
want to have a few units of a prototype that can be tested by Haitian
families, starting in February or March. Fortunately, several BME students
are very excited about working on these projects, and of course, they
contribute their own ideas.
Fiona commented: I guess seeing their knowledge being applied to help people
was more rewarding than getting a good grade in class.
Dr. T: We are also working on some specific plans for collaborative projects
with the University of Haiti in Limonade. The university has a nice new
campus, but it suffers from a lack of faculty. Many courses do not have
teachers, and students cannot complete their degree requirements. We are
looking at ways that we might use graduate students or postdocs to go to
Haiti for 1-2 semesters to teach courses. That could relieve the current
crisis and maybe allow the University to reach its potential.
Fiona: If you were a junior faculty like me, I might look at the outreach as
a preparation toward NSF funding or tenure. But for someone who has just
retired, it shows how a scientist and engineer is tied to the human society.
What you have been doing matters, Dr. T, and I’m proud of you as a
colleague.
