I have attended (and presented) at several AU conferences in Las Vegas, and every time I attend I am left wondering, "Why isn't there a real Autodesk University?"
I often wonder if anyone at Autodesk even understands what they have in Autodesk Inventor (and related products).
There is a full mechanical engineering (or even physics) curriculum buried in the software. Who knows how to use this information? Where is the print or digital documentation (real documentation, not the limited garbage in the wikihelp). Where is the coursework, the case studies....? (I think I have identified most that exists, not much).
And where is the faculty that knows how to use modern, interesting, engaging digital tools to teach Digital Prototyping?
Anybody who thinks "School" is going to do this on their own should read
By Seymour Papert
("Educators with vested interest in the status quo will hate this book. It is about their demise.")
We need a new paradigm, forget the chalk and talk of classical engineering instruction, make the forumulas come alive in the digital world of the 21st century. Everybody wants to hold onto the classical techniques as sacred, techniques that have no technological defense, only a historical one.
We are looking for a new faculty person ( http://jobs.pct.edu - Engineering Design Technology).
http://www.pct.edu/catalog/majors/BEN.shtml
I doubt there is a single person in the entire world who (really) knows how to use Inventor for teaching digital prototyping.
I wonder how much interest there would be in Autodesk sponsored MS/PHD level School of Digital Prototyping at some university?
In my opinion, whoever recognizes this first will go down in history as spearheading the next industrial revolution of the 21st century.
JD Mather
That's why there are so many of us "Expert" Elites. We all know a little bit, about a little bit of the software. JD, as a teacher, you're the only one who gets to know a lot about all of it.
Chris Benner
Inventor Tube & Pipe, Vault Professional
Cad Tips Tricks & Workarounds | Twitter | LinkedIn
Autodesk University Classes:
Going With The Flow with Inventor Tube and Pipe | Increasing The Volume with Inventor Tube and Pipe | Power of the Autodesk Community | Getting to Know You | Inventor Styles & Standards |Managing Properties with Vault Professional | Vault Configuration | Vault - What is it & Why Do I Need It? | A Little Less Talk - Tube & Pipe Demo | Change Orders & Revisions - Vault, Inventor & AutoCAD | Authoring & Publishing Custom Content
The silence here (of the edu community) is defening.
What got us to this dance? (standard of living of the industrialized world)?
Where is the Elon Musk, Burt Rutan, Richard Branson, Jeff Bezos or Steve Jobs of Autodesk?
Ironic that much of the innovation those people are (or were in the case of Jobs) involved in revolves around modern design technology (Autodesk or other) yet how celebrated or even recognized is the design technology. How many could even name the CEOs of the leading companies? What are their visions of the 21st century?
This week John Ratzenberger, host of Made in America tv show is speaking to our students this week. "If you want to be truly famous, invent something that furthers mankind. Wake up each morning and put your hand to something useful.”... ...“I wanted to be with my heroes,” he told students. “People who actually know how to make things. The only thing that makes the country strong is manufacturing; it’s what brought us to the dance.”
Of course that should have been -
The silence here (of the edu community) is deafening.
Short-handed here - too much work on my plate.
Blair:
Sounds a LOT like the practice of Engineering, does it not? Show me an electrical engineer who can correctly specify a grade of steel for a pipeline, please. The same goes for graphical software. Ever read the credits for a Pixar movie? (... and you though CAD had narrow specializations!)
JD:
I think this is an idea whose time has come. I don't think it needs to be software-specific, but it couldn't hurt to at least start there. Apple generated a lot of sales by building a user base in the schools. When the decision came to buy a home computer, an Apple was what most students had learned on. One wonders what a cost/benefit analysis of that decision would look like now.
Wish I could give this post more than 1 Kudos point. It articulates what I've thought for years but never had the words to describe.
Unfortunately, I suspect that money is at the root of your question.
If there was money to be made by ADSK (above and beyond their current educational offerings) they'd certainly jump on it.
If there was money to be made in designing a CAD-based "higher-education" curriculum JD, I suspect that you'd be there instead of where you are?
Part of the "opportunity" would seem to me to be that a majority of educators (likely) are of an age where their own engineering skills were learned without a basis in CAD and let's remember that CAD was (for the most part) all about drafting. Its only been recently that CAD companies have grafted the more complex analysis onto their drafting/modeling systems. The stand-alone (after-market) tools that were previously used in conjunction with a modeling system only really came into their own following the more wide-spread use of CAD tools. To a degree this was driven by ADSK (from the bottom) and CATIA (from the top) driving products like ProEngineer and it's offspring (Solid Edge, SolidWorks and Inventor).
High-end analysis was the realm of aerospace and automotive design.
Now, high-powered tools are embedded within lots of systems but the average guy doing typical reconfiguration-design doesn't typically need to determine the stress loads on a fastener when every other fastener used by his design team is a 1/4-20 SHCS. Lots of design shops rely on their vendors for sizing product. The vendor will err on the side of over-kill (just to be safe).
Just some thoughts...
@Anonymous wrote:
.... The complexity of items around us now require specialists in each small area and aspect of design and manufacturing. The same can be said of Inventor.
Which is why there should be an Autodesk School of Digital Prototyping. Educators would get a rigorous introduction to all of Inventor and related Autodesk products. Then they would go back to their home schools and specialize in certain areas of digital prototyping - just like they do now with classical engineering curriculums. There are certain areas where I specialize now, while my colleages in our program specialize in other areas, but we closely work together because we all have more than a casual knowledge of the tools.
I had someone from Autodesk Education comment to me that Inventor was a commodity (the MCAD class, SolidWorks, SolidEdge, Creo - like milk). I agreed for a minute and then after hanging up the phone and going to teach my Dynamic Simulation class, I wished I had challenged that notion. The basics are essentially a generic across MCAD programs, but dig a little deeper......
While Autodesk would naturally focus any such program they support around their products, the engineering principles, the software funtions, if not the tools - are generic. Therefore the principles learned are transferable. But is not trivial to learn these tools. If I don't have time to learn all of Inventor, I certainly don't have the additional time to learn all of the functionality of another companies solutions.
Billy Vaughn Koen writes about, "Beware the captured expert...", but I see that statement as a business opportunity for Autodesk (or SolidWorks, or PTC...). BTW - that is another book (engineering) educators don't like.
graemev wrote:I think this is an idea whose time has come. I don't think it needs to be software-specific, but it couldn't hurt to at least start there. Apple generated a lot of sales by building a user base in the schools. .....
The principles are the same - regardless of the software used, but learning the tools are not so easy that it is a trivial endeavor. I think one company could "own" the future of digital prototyping.
I think the Autodesk Fusion 360 development recognizes the Apple in schools influence. I noticed several years back that attending AU classes - Carl Bass would always make an appearance at Fusion classes. Now look at the names of the deskers involved in Fusion 360. All the Inventor brainpower has moved to Fusion. But wherever it is going - Fusion 360 is a long long way from replacing Inventor in my opinion.
@Anonymous wrote:
Unfortunately, I suspect that money is at the root of your question.
If there was money to be made by ADSK (above and beyond their current educational offerings) they'd certainly jump on it.
If there was money to be made in designing a CAD-based "higher-education" curriculum JD, I suspect that you'd be there instead of where you are?
..but the average guy doing typical reconfiguration-design doesn't typically need
And money should be the root, the foundation of digital prototyping.
By, "I suspect that you'd be there instead of where you are", I would have to take that to mean "School" the institution, not me personally. The future of Digital Prototyping is a much bigger issue for everyone in this field (and indeed, for everyone) than my puny influence. Life circumstances, a 35k annual net income, and Polar Vortex parked over PA have combined to make my biggest concern how to pay my current heating bill. Al Gore may be the inventor of the Global Warming that will take care of my heating bill sometime in future years, but Autodesk owns the Algor and Inventor that pays my bills for now. My comfort, now and future is vested on Autodesk success in attracting students into this field with awesome design products.
Because Autodesk is a publicly traded company, without the founder(s) at the helm, I think my vision would require someone with the same vision but also very deep pockets to make it happen. Unfortunately I suspect that there is no short-term return on investment to compel ADSK or any other company to jump on it. But I see what visionary individuals at IDEO and several other companies are investing in .....
Well enough of this for now - getting late and I don't have my SolidWorks sheet metal lecture ready for the morning... ...time to get back to the paying job.
When I was teaching, one of my greatest frustrations actually perpetuated what JD is talking about.
I had enough time built into the curriculum to cover topics briefly, but never enough time to cover them sufficiently.
My students would get only a glimpse of what Inventor could do, but not enough time to actually put the tools into use.
Maybe at a secondary school it may have been different, but at the high school level, everything, and I mean EVERYTHING is geared towards simply passing the government required standardized tests.
Anything that is beyond what is covered on the stardard test is considered unecessary.
I actually got reprimanded during one of my observations for having my students conduct a critical thinking exercise, because it was not deemed part of the required learning. It was one of the things that drove me out of education.
Of course it hasn't gotten much better in industry. I see so much reluctance to learn new technology and workflows, when just "doing what we've always done" is considered a sound business practice. It echoes the days when we were transitioning to CAD from the drafting board. The same reluctance to change is still out there, surprisingly even from the folks who have gone through it before.
Sorry for the rant...
Reluctance to change can be well founded. I've been through several changes and others who have been around longer have seen even more. We remember when things don't turn out as good as promised, and the chaos when things *really* went wrong. Change always comes with a cost and it can be too high.
@Anonymous wrote:
I actually got reprimanded during one of my observations for having my students conduct a critical thinking exercise, because it was not deemed part of the required learning.
That sort of thing piddles me off to no end. Students finally get to a point where critical thinking skills can be absorbed and applied and then Administration deems those skills to be unimportant and/or not related to education. Critical thinking skills are some of the few skills that transfer to almost every aspect of one's life, both personal and professional. Critical thinking, brain-storming, and other non-subject-specific skills should be a course unto themselves and be compulsory for at least one grade of high school.
Agreed. Making a case/evangelizing these days amounts to little more than "You're stupid because my idea is better!", along with a mindset of total victory or nothing.
Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.