Given the choice between an EE graduate who can solder up a circuit, use an oscilloscope, and one who's able to quote verbatim Maxwell's four equations, I'm 100% sure who I'd go for.
You're free to hire anyone you want, of course, but I disagree that there is any equivalency between these two skills. In fact, I'd say the second thing isn't even a skill at all, it's a strawman.
….
All these things require EEs to understand the physics of the equations - not just quoting them.
Just like owning an oscilloscope or a soldering iron is no guarantee they know how to use it.
But I explicitly never made that claim, you did. And you accuse me of making a strawman?! ;-)
You’re also misrepresenting my general position for some reason.
You claimed that I, by teaching how to use Maxwell's Equations, am teaching 'unnecessary irrelevant details' and I'm better off spending more time on the intricacies of oscilloscopes or something. And, while not in direct response to me, seemed to equate the notion of understanding the Maxwell's to merely quoting them. Am I wrong?
For the last time, I am not suggesting that the general basis and awareness of these fundamentals aren’t taught, I’m questioning the level of depth imposed, particularly at the undergrad level, when it’s at the expense of other skills they’ll need from day one, like being able to measure things with an oscilloscope or read and understand a datasheet for example.
I make students read datasheets and use meters in lab. But that's neither here nor there. Let's move this forward a bit - how much is too much depth for you? In the context of this discussion, the depth is teaching the Poynting Vector and that energy in the EM field does not flow IN wires but in the space around them, even at DC. Is that too much detail? And if it is... then how the heck are students supposed to understand how a coax works? Where do the datasheet parameters on a transmission line come from? Why is there such a thing as impedance matching? Reflection coefficient? SWR? Harmonics?
I still don’t know why you’d need a working understanding at such a deep level of the details of the physics of Maxwell’s equations when no EE I know of ever thinks at that level, even when using EM design tools. As someone mentioned earlier, it’s the same as the holes and electron doping model of PN junctions, it’s an interesting sidebar for an EE, but unless you’re building semiconductors from raw materials, it has zero relevance in how an EE goes about their daily tasks. EEs are not physicists or chemists, they are about providing practical solutions built on scientific principles, but the vast majority of the time they have no need to do the scientists’ jobs for them.
Because I'm training engineers - not technicians. How is an engineer supposed to know the difference between a PNP and a NPN transistor without understanding electron-hole and doping theory? Why do diodes have a threshold voltage? Why do MOSFETs have zero gate current? Where does the equivalent model come from? Why do transistors have active, triode, and saturation regions? What do those terms even mean?
When I was doing my MSEE I had a professor who worked for Samsung come teach a class on advanced amplifier design and he was appalled at the lack of understanding in the graduate students about all these things.
Finally, in conclusion, no, I am not suggesting ceasing the teaching of Maxwell’s equations et al, I’m merely questioning the value of going any further than a general awareness to the vast majority of EEs and undergrad level when there are so many other skills they’ll actually need from day one. A chef doesn’t need to be a biologist or a chemist to make a great omelette or soufflé.
So, a typical EE's direct educational exposure to Maxwell's Equations is:
1 course on vector calculus (Stokes' Theorem, curl, divergence, vector and scalar products, so Heaviside's expression of Maxwell is comprehensible. Fun fact - it was Heaviside and Gibbs applying vector calculus to EM that caused it to be adopted by ALL of physics)
1 course on undergraduate EM physics
1 course on Applied EM
And that's too much?
I go a step further and ask my students to conceptually apply the equations to topics studied in lab. Earlier in this thread, you told me that's too much?
And the part in bold is funny you should mention that. I have a friend who is a professionally trained chef who is always talking about the Maillard Reaction, sugar breakdowns, caramelizations, and the different temperature thresholds involved in making great omelettes and souffles. I suppose your mileage varies but I was impressed to learn how much physical chemistry education he received:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maillard_reactionThere is a difference between a chef and a common line cook.