Re: Refining My "Cutting Edge" Technical Writing Skills Post

[topsidefarm -at- mva -dot- net]

> <topsidefarm -at- mva -dot- net> wrote in message news:213465 -at- techwr-l -dot-  -dot-  -dot- 
> > So what of the future of TW degrees? I believe that we my be seeing the
> > last days of the free-standing TW degree, at least at the undergraduate
> > level. There just isn't enough time in a four year program to learn both
> > the technology and the communication skills required to be a good TW. The
> > graduate TW degrees are another story. Contrary to what was generally said
> > in another recent thread, the advanced TW degrees are of great value.
> > HOWEVER, there is a huge caveat that goes with that statement: it assumes
> > that your undergrad degree is in engineering, science, or technology.
> > Without the engineering, science, or technology undergrad degree, advanced
> > TW degrees are not really worth a whole lot.
> >
> 
> But an appropriately designed and placed TC degree *is* an engineering
> degree. TC is an engineering discipline, and if the undergrad degree doesn't
> require significant study for the "T" part, I wouldn't recommend that
> program.
 
Chuck, I'm glad you used the phrase "appropriately designed and placed TC
degree". The problem is that there's not one out there that I am aware of
that fits this description. I know this first-hand because when I was
looking to finish up my degree three years ago, I was looking specifically
for a TW degree based on a mix of technical and writing education. The
ones available here in New England would have required a lot of travel for
me, but I was willing to do that if they were worthwhile. When I started
looking closely at them, I found out that NONE of them required any
significant level of "technical" education. I then took a look at other
programs nationwide and discovered the same general trend. It became
obvious that the only way to get a "real" TC/TW degree would be to get a
minor in an engineering, science, or technology field, or do a double
major. So I figured why bother getting a TC/TW degree from a big-name
school if it really doesn't mean anything. Since the trend at that time
was that any BA/BS degree would help getting a job, I finished up at a
local school. I figured I would work on a science degree later, like I am
doing now.

Now that doesn't mean I disagree with your basic premise. It's right on
the money. A true TC/TW degree program should essentially require a double
major: TC/TW plus a ENG/SCI/TECH specialty. This would require that
schools either hack away a bunch of their Liberal Arts core courses (to
keep it within a four-year program), or turn it into a five-year program,
like so many of the engineering programs have become. I doubt we're likely
to see either very soon. As such, the undergrad TC/TW degree is probably
drawing its last breaths (in fact, a number of programs have already
folded). The same probably holds true of grad degrees. As long as people
can earn an advanced degree in TC/TW without having to demonstrate any
engineering, science, or technology knowledge (through either education or
experience), the degrees are not really going to be respected.

> > As an example, I'll use the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency) rules
> > and the engineering for a fuel pump assembly system (a project I have
> > recently been involved in). For over a decade under the Bush Sr. and
> > Clinton administrations, everybody in the auto industry "knew" that the
> > CAFE standards were not going to get any easier, and might actually be
> > tightened. This meant that everyone was planning on having to squeeze more
> > mileage out of the fuel their cars used. Given that the quality of a fuel
> > pump directly impacts fuel mileage, the designers of these pumps moved
> > toward greater and greater precision in the pumps. In turn, this required
> > greater and greater precision in the assembly systems, and a proportional
> > reduction in the speed of these systems. Now comes Bush Jr. The auto
> > industry "knows" that the CAFE rules are not going to get tighter and may
> > even be eased. That leads to a change id design standards leaning more
> > toward speed over precision. In turn, this leads to changes in some of the
> > technology being used in the assembly systems.
> >
> 
> I drive an Insight. I have averaged more than 55MPG during the past 2+
> years--not to mention the fewer pollutants I've spewed into the air.

And the Insight (along with other cars like it) require very high
precision components. They radically change the entire manufacturing
process. Awareness allows for anticipation.

> Consumer demand can drive engineering as much as politics, and consumer
> demand is driven by corporate advertising and societal whims.
> 
> Chuck Martin

Again, you're right. I used politics here as a broad, generic term.
Politics, economics, and culture (both societal and corporate) are all so
interrelated that I generally don't bother to try to discuss them
seperately. Where does one truly end and the others begin. The point
remains the same: you need to keep up on these issues even though
knowledge of them doesn't show on your resume.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

NEED TO PUBLISH YOUR FRAMEMAKER CONTENT ONLINE?
?Mustang? (code name) is a NEW online publishing tool for FrameMaker that
lets you easily single-source content to Web, intranets, and online Help.
The interface is designed for FrameMaker users, so there is little or no
learning curve and no macro language required! See a live demo that
will take your breath away: http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l3

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.