Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Material to discuss is here

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

As a current college Freshman/Sophomore/Junior (came in with a lot of credits) some of this does hold true.

Note: Some of this may sound like a shameless plug for Iowa State University, to some extent it is but a lot of it has to do with what I actually believe is and will help me succeed in getting my undergraduate and masters degree

A lot of the general courses that hundreds of students take each semester are just awful. For example I am in statics and I don't blame anyone for dropping that class. Our book explains almost nothing you have to interpret what the equations mean and the professor only teaches to half of the class. I have seen juniors drop the course left and right because they simply can't learn the material. Additionally the course is graded on a 90+ A 80-89 B etc system, which becomes problematic when the average exam grade is 65 for the class. Many students simply won't pass the class, and a lot will be discouraged to try again.

Comparatively all of the Materials Engineering professors I have had are some of the nicest and best instructors I have had in my life. They are clear, actually care about the students and are willing to strike up a 10 minute conversation about the material after class. They seem to really enjoy what they do and care about the students doing well.

The problem is, you may not have them for your first 2 or 3 semesters so you are stuck with apathetic instructors teaching gen eds to a bunch of kids who are apathetic about the gen-eds and just want to get into their major. As a result they can't pull off the grades necessary to proceed and end up switching majors.

Another thing that has helped me so far this year is having a good network of upperclassmen and peers in my own classes who are willing to help other students get past hurdles and obstacles in their way. The Materials Engineering student room at ISU has students in it probably all daylight hours and sometimes 24 hours a day depending on when it is and almost everyone is willing to answer questions, talk about experiences, make suggestions etc.

People refer to us as a cult because we all study together, eat together, sit together in class, many of us live together and hang out together as well. But really, despite the negative connotation of the word cult we are really tight-knit and I think that is one of the strongest points of the Mat E program and why we have such stellar results and such a well ranked program here.

Without this networking underclassmen may struggle to get the help they need if they don't want to hire a tutor because there is just one hurdle they need to get over or one concept they need explained. Lots of colleges are pushing for learning communities and the like to help students network and help each other and I think that is a fundamental part of retention in engineering programs.

Additionally, the article touched on the application of all this engineering knowledge. In the case of being a Material Engineer at ISU I am lucky, first our professors constantly reference real world situations or scenarios where the course material occurred. Additionally we are home to Ames Lab a US Dept of Energy National Laboratory that does a lot of materials work (Dan Shechtman's Quasi-crystals anyone?) as well as a Center for Non-Destructive Evaluation that a lot of Materials Engineering undergraduates work at. Which allows students to do hands on work related to the material they are learning in class.

I couldn't imagine being at a school without all of these opportunities, and in typing this I am realizing how privileged I am at ISU to have such opportunities. I think the sense of belonging and professors eagerly encouraging are two of the biggest factors that will push me through to get my BS and MS here.

EDIT:
One last thing to chime in on is that students shouldn't forget to have fun when they are in college too. Who says you can't have fun while writing a lab report or doing homework? There are constantly jokes and conversations occurring in the student room while people do their homework (or play minecraft / flash games) on the computers, and we have a box of pre-2000 video game consoles people can take to a room and play on a projector if they want. If someone tries to get through college with a all work no fun and games atitude I think it would be hard to survive. If you can't sit back and laugh in hindsight about how you ended up with extra mass in chemistry or similar problems you will have a rough time in college.

Other majors think we are insane for doing materials engineering with how difficult many of them find the intro to materials engineering for non materials engineers course. One of my friends called me a masochist for going into it, I told him he is correct. I think to follow it through to the end you really have to want the end result and know that you want it.

Endnote: I am not saying that we should make classes easier or accept a lower grade. What I am trying to say with reference to statics and Gen Eds is that I think they are a make or break it course in whether someone sticks with engineering or not. When the teachers for these courses are not enthusiastic for the kids learning I think many kids lose interest and subsequently struggle. I am under the impression that the teaching style of these courses (big lecture halls) isn't as conducive to a high rate of people entering and leaving as engineers.

$0.02

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

STEM is the new cool, STEM is the new fun, but nobody said STEM is the new easy.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

If we make it the new easy we will graduate a lot more engineers. Maybe even 10,000. Heaven help us.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Statics is the best. Materials is the worst. ;)

Signed,
Mech E

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Trent,

For the statics problem you mention in terms of material difficulty, there really isn't a good solution. I had a great statics teacher, many of the class did well, yet the average was still incredibly low for what I had been used to.

It's maybe 10% as difficult as higher level engineering classes (possibly not even that difficult), so making it easier or grading on a more substantial curve isn't an option.

I'm not saying this is what you proposed, but we can't solve the problem of fewer engineers by making engineering easier.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

There's a reason why not everyone graduates with an engineering degree. The fact is, neither the job market can handle nor the general populace supply what it requires to be an engineer (and not just getting the basic, 4-year degree).

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Great topic -at both the university and secondary levels.
Should we be reactive or proactive in the pipeline of education?

Do the jobs already exist and go un-filled until we produce the graduate, or is the job created as the students progresses through their education, or worse yet, do we produce 10,000 graduates for jobs that don't exist?

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

I was talking with someone last night on a related topic, actually. The topic was, why would a political science major (almost graduated) be getting a second undergrad degree, but in civil engineering, at a different school? (See end for answer.)

OK, so I go to an engineering school where projects, while not necessarily part of the curriculum, are everywhere. There are 15 competition teams, 1 team without a competition (there's only one other school trying to do what they're working on), and I'm fairly sure there are a few other engineering problem-solving groups. Again, they aren't necessarily part of the curriculum unless you do them for your senior design project, but they do have a tendency to fit both the curriculum and the interest of the student.


(The answer: What's a political science degree really worth? And yes, that is pretty much what he said. Along with actually being able to do something for someone, which was another reason given.)

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Mr. Campbell brings up an EXCELLENT point (do we produce graduates for jobs that don't exist) that maybe students are catching on to quicker than those employed or retired. The reality is that engineering and hard sciences is not a sacred line of work that cannot be exported overseas (and I don't mean western Europe, Canada, Australia, and Japan, I mean India, China, Russia, Latin America, etc - places that have lower standard of living). I think some of us (myself included) thought this was the case. The fact is, you can do a lot of the work that engineers do overseas: Production, design work, and even research off the top of my head.
So, if the field is small and likely to get smaller, what is the drive to go into engineering and science? I don't have any actual data on hand, but I seem to recall in recent years, the number of graduates unable to get a full-time job in the engineering field to be quite high.
Now add to it that engineering/hard sciences are generally more expensive - often requiring more than four years with additional cost in each term (labs, tuition, etc) along with rising education costs overall. This often requires students to take on more debt, which cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, thus delaying when they can reasonably buy a home, car, start a family, etc even if they do find a job.
Then there is the biggest thing for a lot of college students: engineering and the hard sciences are difficult and require a lot more time and effort than other degrees. Instead of spending all weekend enjoying themselves, they often HAVE to study or do homework.

All this to say: students have many reasons for dropping out. Some of those reasons are the exact same reasons I think we (as part of the engineering / hard sciences community) should not push students without a genuine interest in the field to pursue it and even those that do have an interest should be told downsides to the field (and no, I have not given all of them) while also giving telling them about other options that may in fact be more interesting and practical (trade schools are one example).

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

So you can't "do something for someone" [presumably helpful to society, and not just lining someone's pockets] in today's political landscape? I'm glad someone actually admitted it. :D Returning to the main topic.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

No one said it was easy, but it is worth it.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Meh, it might be possible. Just might need a bit of pocket-lining to do it...:p

It just isn't as concrete as, say, being able to put a bridge where there was actually a need for one and there wasn't one before.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

I wonder how much punnage that bridge can withstand.

Again, back to main topic.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

I guess to try and clarify that point. The material is hard, no way around that it is what it is. But it seems like many of the gen ed professors are more apathetic than the ones teaching courses that are in a particular major. Because of this they often aren't as clear on what they are trying to teach, as a result kids get confused do poorly on the exams and start to give up. When this happens and the prof sees people dropping left and right or just not trying anymore, why should they try so hard to teach. Thus we enter the vicious cycle.

I am not sure what the best way out is.

And hey Akash, let me know next time you need a material for your engineering project. Oh wait, everything is made of materials isn't it? (sarcasm)

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Your issue might be with the course itself. Our school doesn't run Statics & Mechanics as a gen ed class whereas Fundamentals of Materials is gen ed for all engineering students. I love my statics class, loathe materials.

It really just depends where you are, if you enjoy the material in class in the first place, and who your teachers are.

I thin its also really important that kids from FRC have some idea of real world applications of what they are learning in class. In my case, I absolutely love statics and dynamics because I know where I can apply it to a robot. Lots of things come into play.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Statics is in "Engineering Mechanics" pretty much all engineering majors take it.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

No, don’t make the content or grading any easier. None of us want to drive over a bridge that was designed by and approved by engineers that did not understand statics, but passed because most everyone else in their class was equally incompetent. However, we do want to provide an environment where that same difficult content is easier to learn.

The success rate for students in a particular class is not determined solely by the difficulty of the content. I have seen a lot of students do poorly in classes where the concepts and technical content were trivial compared to most engineering courses. I once had to take a class in cost accounting that seemed incredibly simple on the surface, but was so boring that I just could not focus. And it did not help that I could not see how I would ever want to apply any of what I was learning. I really struggled with that class. On the other hand I breezed through some classes that by comparison were much more technically challenging simply because I saw the value in understanding and applying what was being taught, and was highly motivated.

When students are motivated, difficult topics seem less challenging and doing the work required to do well is much less tedious. For some students, the challenge of taking a difficult class is motivation enough, and anyone would do well to learn a bit from these highly self motivated individuals. But for many of us there needs to be more. Perhaps they need a clear link to the real world, or a bit of fun. That is why I think FIRST is so great. It offers the kind of real world hands-on experience that often is exactly the thing many students need to encourage them over some of the difficult hurtles that exist in any STEMS program.

Today’s technology teachers have a difficult task before them. How do you motivate students who cannot see how what they are learning applies to the real world. And how do you even make those connections when the world itself is so much more complex and abstract today.

When I went to engineering school building and repairing things was already in my blood. I took things apart and repaired them or built them into new devices. I saw engineering skills as just another way to expand my skills. Being able to see the value of what I was learning is what I think helped me through some of the very challenging classes, and perhaps is why I never gave up.

But many students today do not have as much of those hands on skills. Building and repairing almost anything seems a bit like a lost art. In our throw away world there are fewer opportunities to learn those skills on your own. And with the complexity of many consumer devices today there are fewer role models for that type of behavior. Not too long ago, almost everyone I knew did some amount of appliance repair, electrical wiring, auto repair, or at least kit building at home. But, today most people do not bother to try, and many homes do not even have adequate tools and equipment to do so.

That is why I think FIRST has such resonance with many students and teachers today. Science can be fun. Difficult classes can be made more appealing. And boring topics can be made interesting by finding the right vehicle to bring the concepts to life. And, it would be hard to find a better vehicle than FIRST to do that for most STEMS courses.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

A big part of the problem is the lack of really good engineering professors.

It is hard to produce an engineer. It is exceptionally difficult to produce an engineer, that has experience doing engineering AND is a good TEACHER.

IMHO Georgia Tech is great research university and great for going to grad school. I'm not so sure that it is so hot in undergraduate teaching. Many universities have this problem.

I spent nearly a week this summer at MIT. Before I went I had the impression that they were only for "theorists". I left impressed at the breadth and depth of undergraduate lab and research opportunities. These opportunities are fantastic ways to help students learn and to keep them motivated.

Rose Hulman is noted to be an undergraduate teaching university. They don't do research. Just great teaching. Ditto for the Air Force Academy.

A second part of the problem is career guidance. Some people should not choose an ABET engineering career, they possibly should be choosing an ABET engineering technologist career.

FYI, Professor Woodie Flowers is a recovering member of BTA bad teachers anonymous.

A lack of great teachers, and a dearth of good guidance counseling, formal or informal, is a big part of the problem.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

I think the problem is a cultural one, in two senses. First, not enough value is placed on the STEM fields in our society, though people are slowly becoming aware of that and working to change it. It's difficult for people to initially become motivated to go into the STEM fields, and when they then experience how difficult it is, it often doesn't seem worth it to stick with it. Second, internally to STEM departments at universities, there seems to be a culture of valuing insane workloads and little sleep. This occurs to different extents at different schools, but it seems to exist everywhere in some form or another. Professors have insane expectations (I once had a class that assigned four, 20-page minimum lab reports to be due on the same day, several times throughout the semester), and students seem to add to it by frequently comparing how much work they have, how little sleep they've gotten and how many hours they've been awake - those who are most overworked and sleep-deprived are worshiped. This is obviously not healthy. If you're in a field you're excited about, working on things you love, then there isn't so much of a problem with staying motivated to continue. Overall, I love my school and my major, and I have some great memories from all-hours problem set sessions with my friends, but it's easy to see how a lot of people can get discouraged by four plus years of that type of lifestyle.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

I'd also suggest that some people consider taking 5 years to get the 4 year degree. Manage how you take courses.

Another thing to consider is co-op. It will take 5 or 6 years but they do better also..... And you will make money and not have as much debt when graduating.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

I was going to try and get a masters, 3 specializations (only need 2) and a minor in 4 years, I decided to extend it to 4.5, drop my credits from 18+ to about 16 a semester and add study abroad. Worth it to me.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

I came in a similar situation to you. Statics is I think the only engineering class I've taken in my college career that was not curved, and RPI is known for not inflating grades. It looks awful for the professor if they fail half a class.

There is only so much they can teach you in four years, and engineering requires a lot of theory. The current policy of teaching students a little bit of everything is a good one, I think. When you consider what it takes to apply every class, there simply isn't time. I think hands on application is great, but ultimately it is up to the student to find these opportunities. If you don't do something hands on getting an engineering degree, you're definitely doing it wrong. It puts you head and shoulders above the kids who don't. Real hardware has problems that just don't show up in the math, and often times don't show up in the CAD. Those unforseen problems are often the annoying kind that you have to solve on an engineering team like Formula Hybrid or Design/Build/Fly. You also get a healthy dose of grace under pressure and real teamwork experience. Colleges often like to tout their project based classes, but I found my working relationships during my internship to be much closer to the relationships I have with my friends on intercollegiate design teams than the ones I had in my group projects.

Mentoring is a huge deal in industry, and I think many college students miss out on this. Fraternities and Sororities are pretty good at this, I think there may be some good things to be gleaned from that model. I definitely benefited from having my DBF friends, in terms of schoolwork help and general life advice. That general life advice bit can be really important in college too.

I don't think engineers are masochists. I don't like it when things hurt, and I love engineering. I think that is part of the 'problem' and I really have no idea what the solution is. A lot of people just really never learned how to work hard, and they aren't willing to work hard. I play hard, but I work even harder. (And if you want to talk about laughing at mistakes, you can watch the wing fall off the r/c airplane I spent waaaaaaayyyyyyy too many hours on for Design/Build/Fly in my signature by clicking on 'whoops')

One of the annoying things about taking semester(s) off is that many of your friends will leave, which can be kind of annoying. I think you get just as much benefit out of interning, and that lets you graduate on time.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

One more thing to consider is the language barrier that seems to be a popular issue in math and science classes with foreign professors. In high school, I had people telling me "yes, you will have foreign professors, you won't be able to understand them, and you will still be expected to pass the class." My engineering fundamentals professor speaks English very well, but he still has an accent and there is still a slight barrier to overcome in understanding him. My classes with American-born professors and TAs are significantly easier to pay attention in because I can understand them clearly. I was fortunate to only get one professor with an accent, but some of my friends absolutely cannot understand their lab assistants or calc professors and are incredibly frustrated by the classes. Many first-year engineering students take the same sets of classes, and they are almost all weeder classes. While other people have posted about how bad those are, not being able to understand the professor makes a class that much harder.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Ian to further elaborate, I realize the classroom has its limitations on what you can cram in and often theory takes precedent over application. I guess where I think it may be lacking in some areas is the department and college's push for students to get opportunities to apply their theories in the real world.

The honors program at ISU tries to get freshman into research opportunities their second semester. And I can say for the Mat E department I get at least 1 email a day that was forwarded from a faculty member because someone sent them an email looking for students to employ. I have a folder of at least 100 potential employers because there is such a push in my department and the university to apply your knowledge and do research or internships or co-ops.

Also I wasn't implying engineers are masochists (it is sorta my way of joking it, one of the ways to stay sane when you spend 10 hours on a lab report every weekend), he is a mechanical engineer taking a materials course because it is required, it is similar to Akash liking statics and hating materials. There is that gradient of difficulty in similar courses when you compare the gen-ed vs the required one (eg Mat E for Engineers and Mat E for Mat Es) My friend is taking a materials engineering for non materials engineers or more of a "gen-ed" style course and finds it awful, difficult and thinks I am a masochist for wanting to go into it. Comparatively my Materials Engineering professor in my intro course is one of the greatest instructors I have ever had. So again it comes down to that gen-ed's seem to be harder than the actual courses in my experience.

As for the accent part that has huge variation, I am used to first or second generation immigrants as they made up a lot of my friends so accents don't phase me. But I know people who went to 100% white high schools in 100% white towns. As far as they knew, minorities could have been a myth/propaganda and here they are in a university where many professors received their degrees in other countries and possibly other languages. It doesn't hinder me at all but I can understand why some may have trouble.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

I am just curious. Does anyone have the statistic for FIRST alumni that successfully graduate from college with a degree in STEM compared to student who have not gone through FIRST. Or the drop/transfer out rate also?

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

#2 and #1 reasons that classes are hard and students drop.

They are hard because your teacher is not always ideal (did you ever think that professors aren't really trained to teach?).

They are hard because they were meant to be hard. Not everyone was meant to be an engineer.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

I got my masters degree from RPI in 1985 while working at GE in Pittsfield, MA. I had one more class to take to finish and I didn't really care what it was so I picked a class that had no tests. The first day of class, the professor said the reason he doesn't give tests is that no-one can even do the homework so there wouldn't be any point. I survived with a C, but to this day I don't understand why they would structure a course like that...

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Neither are teachers

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

That may be true but I was always led to believe otherwise. I heard the opinion that I had stated from my teacher-mother, and I was always under the impression that many teachers took classes on learning theories and other classroom processes. I don't know, as I'm not a teaching student.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

In some of the talks I give to groups I ask "everyone that is a teacher raise your hand" and then I ask "of the teachers here, if you learned how to teach AFTER you left college, raise your hand". Most all teachers learn how to teach after teacher college. In college they learn a lot of stuff, including a lot of learning and teaching theories. They even get to do an internship called student teaching. But the real learning comes later, in the class, after graduation.

In engineering college it is commonly the same. Learning a lot of theory about a lot of stuff. Really learning how to be an engineer often waits until after college, after a lot of work, and hopefully under the mentor ship of a good engineer...hopefully.

So where does an engineering professor learn how to be a professor ?
.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

I can't believe this section has not gotten more attention:
From the article...
“You’d like to think that since these institutions are getting the best students, the students who go there would have the best chances to succeed,” he says. “But if you take two students who have the same high school grade-point average and SAT scores, and you put one in a highly selective school like Berkeley and the other in a school with lower average scores like Cal State, that Berkeley student is at least 13 percent less likely than the one at Cal State to finish a STEM degree.”

A 13% higher success rate of graduating a STEM student should be investigated.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Berkeley could easily improve their "success rate" by dumbing-down their curriculum.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Or by improving services to students, such as better teaching, tutoring, access to learning labs ...

Without an in-depth study of what goes on in the two programs, you can't say why one school has a better success rate than the other. Nor can you say what the "worth" of the degree is to those who complete the program.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Yup. Or whether Cal State's "success" rate is actually "better" than Berkeley's.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

This concerns me. I'm having trouble at a tough school. If my odds of success are better at decent-but-not-spectacular state schools, should I just go to those?

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

I've thought a lot about our current educational process and wanted to share a few of my concepts for revolutionizing education (particularly collegiate engineering):

1. Direct Competition - As we have all experienced within FIRST, competition is an incredible motivator. Properly structured, competition can both make learning fun and motivate us to keep going farther than we might ever have thought possible. MIT's 2.007 competition is a perfect example. With regards to courses like statics, I could see integrating CAD products within physics simulation engines to create games requiring statics principles to excel.

2. Use Technology - Just imagine if every university recorded video of all the statics lectures covered this year and made them available to all the students. This would enable students to get multiple perspectives that best align with an individual student's learning style. The students could then rate lectures and submit questions for topics not covered (or not covered well). Within a short period of time we would have a comprehensive library of lectures comprehensively covering the material and from a multitude of perspectives. A useful byproduct of this approach would be to give the professor's more time to dedicate to game design (note that I'm not proposing this to eliminate the role of teaching but rather to recast the role of teacher).

3. Reduce Abstraction - Teaching fundamental equations and relationships is good but in my opinion equations need to be tied to a physical understanding of the world. Real-world problems would be used to teach how principles are applied and the limitations in doing so. Collaboration with industry would be a great way to bridge the issue with domain expertise.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

The flaw with comparing schools success rates is like the flaw of saying that an apple is much better than an orange. Unless what their graduates come out knowing is the exact same (and it's impossible for it to be, as the experience at a school is unique), saying X is > Y because of Z is impossible to verify because all the variables are qualitative.

I'm assuming you go to RPI? While a state school might have an accredited program just the same, small schools/programs like that excel because they're focused on producing far-more-than-competant engineers, rather than just a bunch of guys/gals that have a diploma with a BS in [field] engineering because they got by on a bunch of C's and some B's while partying for four years. Yes, it's tougher at some schools, because that's the primary point of going to one of those schools. If the latter was the goal, then you probably might want to transfer.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

As some one who recently graduated from the same tough school I can tell you that there are huge benefits to going to one of the tougher schools instead of a decent state school. Prior to graduating I had multiple offers from major companies, including some that were willing to hire me into non-entry level positions. I have friends who went to decent state schools (it should be noted that there are some state schools with extraordinary programs as well as private schools with poor programs) and they are were not as well prepared to enter the work force as I was. Going through RPI I thought some of the classes were crazy, one example, I wanted to take a signal processing class at another school while on co-op, however I could not find a class that RPI would accept because all of the classes at other schools took two semesters to learn what we covered in one.

I know I could have gone to a decent state school for a much lower cost and probably graduated with a higher gpa but I would have lost out on the Academic Intensity, Undergraduate Research, Professional Development, and Networking opportunities that a school like RPI offered. After 4 years in Troy, countless hours studying (often things I wil never use again like Mat Sci) and student loans that total the same as what my parents payed for there first house I can tell you that I am still confident that I made the best decision for myself and my career when I passed up my Full Scholarship to go to URI and went to RPI instead.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Sorry - Woodie beat you to it, here jump to the 26:00 mark to see super-produced educational material.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Thanks for the reassurance. I need that sometimes, this school is quite tough. :)

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

This is a great idea but it does lack to some extent in practicality, There is already a ton of information to cover in a semester, adding in these types of projects (in addition to what already exists, I completed atleast one design project a semester while at RPI) just increases work load.


There are already schools and professors that do this, I spent a ton of time sitting in the student union watching vidoes of my professors solving equations as well as downloading lectures from simmilar classes at MIT, CMU and Stanford that were available online. Looking through iTunesU can provide some incredible resources. I do agree these videos are extrmely helpful especially when you have a professor who can't communicate clearly (Ian and Chris might be able to back me up if they took Diff Eq with Boudjelkha, the Schmidtt calculus videos were a life saver)



Top engineering schools are doing this, mostly in the last two years once you already have a decent theoretical back ground. I do however firmly believe that a solid theoretical background is the base of what makes a good engineer a good engineer. There are plenty of alented designers and technicians with all the real world experience that you can imagine, however these guys (and gals) are not engineers. In my engineering department there is a whole range of ability levels, both theoretical and practical. I agree that practical experience is great but just because something worked once in one situation doesn't mean it will work again, the number of times I have seen boards fail because the designer "just used what we always used" and the part wasn't up to the current spec for the circuit is astonishing. There is alot to be said for knowing not just what equations to use but why you use them and where they came from.

Engineering is inherently difficult, it requires a firm grasp of advanced math and science, as well as a practical knowledge of how real world situations influence the mathmatical models. Engineering is jsut not for every one, it is hard and college is alot more fun when you don't spend hours studying or in lab. I definitely didn't go out and party as much in college as I could have with an easier major but I still had a great time and made great friends, and now that I am collecting a paycheck as an engineer every 2 weeks I can assure you that the work is worth it.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Huh, and here I thought the reason that I made it through ME at Purdue was because the professors had undergone a rigorous revamp of their undergraduate engineering program after nearly loosing their ABET accredidation during the late 70's due to too much focus on research. I thought having the professors that wrote the textbooks that all of my friends from other schools were using was a big advantage, but it turns out must have been a lower standard...:yikes: (this is a joke/dig).

In reality, it is important to find a school that fits you well and has a solid program. "Fit" can mean a lot of different things to different people. Larger Universities tend to have more opportunities. That being said there is also a larger population, and one of the big opportunities is to get lost in the crowd (not good for many).

Ether:
I am not sure that a less rigorous schedule would in fact graduate more from some of the more selective universities. Frequently the students going to those schools MUST be the top of their class. When they go to a school where they become AVERAGE, this can be a very bad experience. From some of the stories I have heard from some highly selective smaller schools, the imposed pressure can reach incredibly unhealthy levels. There is a very dark metric for this unhealthiness.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

I think you may have taken my comment the wrong way. I didn't say to dumb-down the selection process. I said dumb-down the curriculum.

Anyway, it was intended in lighthearted way. Certainly not what I would expect (or wish) Berkeley would do.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Thanks! I'm not at all surprised that Woodie is still trailblazing. He is one of my heroes. His work with 270 shaped my thinking even while a high school student. His comments about equations and their relevance (at the 15:15 mark in the referenced video) are spot on. Equations without insight do not make an engineer. While there has been some progress over the last couple of decades in utilizing technology the traditional framework remains mostly in place. I suspect this has a lot more to do with organization momentum than critical thinking and problem solving though.

I wasn't intentionally proposing more work load but rather suggesting a change in the current work load and evaluation mechanism. The games don't have to be as elaborate as in FRC or 2.007. During my time at college, I only had one course that did this. It was an industrial engineering course that was outside my major that I took because the professor was one of the best in the world. The game showed the complications of supply and demand on the production process and was definitely a motivator for me.

Glad to hear this is catching on. Curious to hear your feedback on what the impact would be if the traditional lecture were removed and replaced with these video resources.

I've had the good fortune to have a complex engineering job which over the past couple decades has leveraged the vast majority of my college coursework in some form or fashion. I am thus painfully aware of the distinction between abstract theory and the practical implementation of theory. After mentoring numerous young engineers fresh from college, I've realized that this less than smooth transition was not unique nor has the problem gotten much better over time. Hopefully other engineering jobs don't experience this but it sure would be nice not to have to teach each and every new engineer what their coursework really meant when applied to this particular domain.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

This was mainly what I was getting at, Big vs. Small. Places like Berkeley certainly have quality; it's just that the quality can be hard to get at sometimes when there's a few thousand people trying to get it all at once, and those that don't get to the top right away just don't. Small schools can have an easier time providing resources to students because there's less students and it's not as easy to fall through the cracks. It's just as possible at the larger schools that offer engineering, although the problem of scale is always an issue.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

My experience as someone who graduated from Northeastern University in 2010 with a BS in Mechanical Engineering:

The first couple of semesters at NU for an engineering student were definitely a shock to some. I felt much more prepared for engineering school than most of my peers and I think that had to do with taking several AP classes, and my participating in FIRST throughout high school. Many of my peers had issues adjusting to college and learning to balance social life with school work. You could see definite struggles for people who coasted through high school without having to really dig in (I credit my AP Chemistry teacher in high school for really showing me and my classmates how hard work can result in a remarkable improvement in understanding the subject matter- best teacher I ever had).

Being on the FIRST team also instilled this in a couple of ways. First, you had to learn to balance robotics with school work in high school (in addition to social life). On top of that, you also learned to really dig in and solve problems. It taught me that putting actual hard work into something can yield promising results. If i were to estimate, I'd say 1/4 of my classmates freshman year understood this principle. I'd say another 1/2 eventually figured it out, and the last 1/4 eventually threw in the towel. Obviously these are not concrete numbers, but I'd say they are close estimate to reality.

If you can reasonably estimate that the top 25% of students can handle engineering coming into the school, and the bottom 25% are most likely not cut out- the question for me becomes how do you keep the middle 50% sticking around?

For Northeastern they do it with co-op. Co-op is the reason I chose Northeastern, and it quite literally has shaped my life. For those unfamiliar with NU, it is a 5 year school where you spend 18 months working full-time at a company. This 18 months is split into (3) 6 month chunks. Oh, and you lose your summers because you must take classes to make up for the lost time spent on co-op. This last fact turns a lot of people off, but co-op has made a world of difference for me and my classmates.

Spending time at an engineering job and learning how that job works helps people in several ways. You learn what being an engineer is like in a couple different companies which helps to show you the spectrum of jobs available. It shows you a real world application for some of the material you are learning in class. Lastly, it gives you a respectable paycheck which can show you what sticking with engineering can result in (not to say you cannot make money in other disciplines).

Northeastern has been climbing college ranking boards at a blistering pace because they have really embraced cooperative education. It may not be for everyone, but in terms of engineering and retaining students, it seems like an obvious answer to me.

-Brando

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

My advice to people interested in improving education: become a teacher.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

:) I learned far more in my two extended co-op sessions working for Delphi Packard (summer plus semester) and made more money (:cool:) than I did for the one short summer session I participated in.

The extended co-op sessions allow you to spend more time with your mentors and get involved in real-world projects at a much deeper level. My two extended sessions better prepared me for my eventual job more than anything else I took part in during my college career (which, sadly, was devoid of FIRST, even though Team 48 was just getting started at the time I was on co-op. Did anyone think to invite the n00b co-op student to help out and go to Disney and win the Championship Event in 1999? NooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Yeah, I'm not bitter. ;) )

Did I mention they pay you money to do this? Co-op is highly recommended.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

I agree, with perhaps some caveats. I think if there are specific fields you are interested, the prestige is probably worth it. Outside of that, I am not so sure. My best friend from high school is an EE at the University of Maine and has had no problem getting job offers -- he was an EE intern after his freshman year on his own merit, and has had multiple offers every year since. On the other hand, I most definitely would not have my internship/subsequent full-time offer designing airplanes if I didn't go to school in lovely Troy, NY.

I'm sure -- I'm reasonably confident I learned more stuff in 3 months at Boeing than I have in the past 3 years, and that's not because I've been slacking off in school. I suppose since I'm moving from NY/Maine to Washington state when I graduate it makes me value the time I have left living with all the friends I've made up until this point.

Summer interns get paid too. ;)

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Really?

Please reconsider your blanket statements.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Please do, you can't discredit state schools like that. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign is incredibly highly ranked in many engineering fields as a state school.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

When did I ever discredit them? You're trying to get more out of what I said than my simple statement. I was merely pointing out that, while UIUC certainly has quality to it, It's a school with well over 30,000 undergraduate students. Specifically, RPI has under 6,000, and although I'm sure the engineering/science departments at UIUC are only a fraction of the total undergrad population, it's much easier to become one of many when there's 29,999 other students that are potentially just as good as you, versus at smaller schools where it's harder to get lost because there are simply less people.
Also, please note that UIUC is a top-notch school; I'm sure they do well because they have these things figured out. Other state schools (and there are tons, for sure) have variable quality.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

I think they were referring to this:

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

I think that's what a lot of people are getting annoyed at. You're implying that they're getting by on C's and B's while partying. And let me tell you this: To date, I have taken ONE C (and a few retakes) in my engineering classes (Thermo II, to be exact); I have another 4 in my math courses. For me, it's a bunch of B's and a bunch of A's, and very little partying, and I'm in my 5th year.

I'm more annoyed because you're assuming all state schools are large. SDSM&T, where I go, has somewhere in the neighborhood of 2,000 undergrad students, and is a state school, and specializes in engineering/science. And we're highly rated. (Don't even get me going about our competition teams--we've had at least one year where every team--at that time, 12 of them--was in the top 10 at competition.)

Stereotyping negatively doesn't exactly make you the most liked person in the area that you stereotype negatively, for some reason.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

If the quality of the educational system or of the graduates was unknown or below acceptable levels, then the university would not be accredited. All universities, regardless of size, location, or tradition, must constantly prove their worth to a myriad of professional, educational, and institutional societies to keep their status as educators. Suggesting otherwise, as some of the posters have assumed was done, can be offputting, especially for alumni of large state schools.
Boiler Up.

I think I understand what you were trying to say, and it is noble, but I will not expand on it for fear of putting words in someone's mouth. Suffice it to say that students get out of college what they put in to it.

Effort = Education.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

That wording was an error on my part. I meant large, not state. The purpose of my statement was to say it's an easier to get by with less at a large school with tons of students than at a smaller school where everyone knows you, and doing poorly can equate to everyone knowing you're not a good student. I'm quite sure there are just as good students at large schools.

Edit: My use of figurative language at times is a problem, considering how literal it appears. Taylor is far more eloquent than I am.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

I will just counter the large schools one with this.

I go to Iowa State University a school with 25,000 undergraduates. I am one of about 150 Materials Engineers on campus. You can't look at the size of a school to generalize either, you have to do in depth analysis of the program.

You know what they say about what happens when you assume.

Maybe I am overly defensive but ISU's Mat E program is one of the better programs in the country and we have the most engineering grad students at ISU. The student to faculty ratio in Mat E is 6:1, pretty crazy for a state school of 25,000 and we also have things like Ames Lab and the Center for Non-destructive Evaluation. You cannot base anything on a single statistic.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Your point? Unless the Material Engineering program is completely isolated from the rest of the university, or any program at any school, to generalize, the first year or two at the majority of schools is going to be spent taking basic, general courses with the rest of the first/second year class, with some exceptions. This thread is about how certain schools have such low graduation rates after 4-6 years, and the retention rate after the first year directly affects that number; I don't think I have to say that if you can survive the first two years just fine, you're probably going to graduate within 4-6. Never did I refer to the quality of different programs at small versus large schools, I was instead referring to how at smaller schools (which includes both small state schools and large schools that have split off departments that rarely interact), it's much easier to get help when you need it and talk to others, rather than just getting by without truly understanding the classes.

I never mentioned specifics in my post because it's impossible to have the time to point out every single specific instance of where some schools do it right and others do it wrong. If your's happens to do it right by making sure most students can transition to the more demanding curriculum within the first two years, props for it.

The number of grad students is completely irrelevant to what I was saying, unless they all happen to be TA's and working with all undergraduates.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

I guess to elaborate on that, many schools have a peer network. All the freshman in Mat E as well as other departments have peer mentors as well as regular study nights to work on stuff related to classes they all are taking. Just because a school is large does not mean they do small scale networking to try and get kids the help they need. Learning communities are a big part of many schools I have visited too.

Regardless gen eds are a problem I will acknowledge but school size is not so much an issue as the peer network or lack thereof in my mind.

I have too much on my mind right now to battle over semantics and misinterpretations as a result of converting thoughts to text.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Next time, say the bolded part straight out. If you had done so in the first place, instead of making generalizations, we would still be on the main topic.

The other thing that I'd like to point out is something that was pointed out earlier--the fit of the school is more important than the size. If the school doesn't fit the student or vice-versa, it doesn't matter how big the school is, the student will probably drop out. Two years ago, at the school I'm going to, there was a student who attended a school that has a FIRST team; he played football for the college. Last year, I didn't see him at all; I'm almost certain he changed schools. On the other hand, I know a student who was initially planning to just get general courses out of the way at a particular school, but wants to go to that school for a degree now--the school is a good fit.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Has anyone thought about the quality of the high school educations that the colleges and universities are inheriting when they accept students into their sciences or engineering programs? The problems start before college. Way before.

Jane

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

I agree Jane. The students we have in our high school classes are not graduating with the academic skills necessary to complete a rigorous engineering curriculum in college - even at an Associate Degree Engineering Technology program.
I'm not sure where the loss is happening. I feel that the loss of traditional "shop" classes, music, and other elective courses in the schools may be a big part of the issue. These cuts, whether due to the shrinking budgets, cuts or apathy towards early application of skills are certainly factors in my opinion.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Way before indeed. A big achievement gap exists even on the first day of kindergarten, and it never goes away in subsequent years of schooling. The engineering colleges would be better off if the students inherited by kindergarten teachers were better prepared. AND, I think that would make a significantly bigger difference than reforming high school and/or college education (though I am in favor of making smart changes to those, too).

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

I'm a huge fan of reforming our education system pre-college. I haven't had enough college yet to determine how I feel about its methods of education and I'm not entirely sure how I would reform the system if I were given the chance, but I still don't think that reforming is a bad idea.

However, there is a man, Sir Ken Robinson who has given TED Talks (as well as a shorter spliced-speech animation) about the failings of our system. I would discuss the content of the videos in length, but I'm having a hard time linking the information to both the new and old topics in this thread. Nonetheless they are out there, because I believe that everyone should hear his ideas.

I will quickly say that he argues that college does not begin in Kindergarten. Part of what I believe he in implying (and this is using other information from the second link) is that college is not for everyone. Some people where born to dance, others to be engineers and so on.

This leads me to think that one the bigger failing of our system is pushing everyone to attend college and get a degree and live happily ever. Sir Robinson tells the story of a firefighter who had wanted to be a firefighter since he was kid and as he got older his teachers told him that he is wasting his time and his potential. The man did not let this get in his way, and we went on to live a fulfilling life saving people.

And now that I've thought this out while writing this post, I don't think I blame the education system. In fact, while there are some things I would change*, I almost congratulate the education system. Weeding kids out doesn't only get rid of those who won't work hard, but its also removes the kids who don't really want it (read: it prevents miserable people).

*There are still a lot of things that could be changed/improved. See Sir Ken Robinson Paragraph.

Long Story Short: Maybe "Its just too hard" is not a bad thing.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

I do agree that there can be severe issues when transitioning from an easy high school curriculum to a college-level engineering curriculum; however, blaming the high drop-out rate from STEM fields is just scape-goating the issue.

The freshman curriculum at most schools is designed to do two things: start a good college education while providing a transition to the rigor of college. At the same time, I've noticed that it also easily turns off anyone who is not really that interested in a STEM job that requires a lot of math/science.

Many, many students in middle/high school these days are told that you need a college degree to earn money and do big things with your life (I'm not going to debate this, it just happens). Given the glorification of the STEM field and how there are always news reports about how more and more STEM graduates are needed than currently graduate, I think that part of the reason that the dropout rate is so high is because capable students with not much prior STEM exposure enter the university prepared to graduate with a STEM degree. However, after the first year, I think quite a few of those students realize that they really do not want to do what STEM graduates do for a living, and so switch majors to something else.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

I went to a state-funded magnet school for three years of high school, and was definitely significantly more ready for college because of it. I even had so many AP credits I am graduating a year early carrying a normal course load for my 3 years of college.

However, I'm not really an exception. Four of my friends are/were in a similar situation, and all of them went to a typical high school, albeit in nice suburban areas. I agree there are certainly big leaps that can be had in certain segments, but on a whole I think the Honors/AP kids get a pretty good education. At any rate, I'd say its the students who receive a quality high school education that get the "opportunity" to drop out of a collegiate engineering/science program, the kids who get the really subpar high school educations likely don't make it that far. :(

I think being a good engineer requires passion. There are just so many facets to doing it well that you really don't get in a 4 year education unless you spend time outside of class working on those issues. The "I'm just doing engineering to make big bucks", makes it very hard to actually find a job when you don't have any relevant experience. To be honest I think the relevant experience bit has really significantly brought up how prepared engineering graduates are, with design teams like Steel Bridge, Formula SAE, Formula Hybrid, AeroDesign, etc.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Thank you for clarifying; this makes a lot more sense. However, it's still a generalization. I haven't found this problem at all in my large state school. Disclaimer: I am in the university's honors college. While this is quite small (<2%) and ranked highly, it is not a separate educational entity. I take classes with everyone else, though it does help open a lot of the ever-numerous doors at such a large university. (Also, scholarships--did I mention this is basically free? there's something my RPI cohorts would love to say.)


I go to a public university with 39,000 undergrads. 8,600 of us are engineering students, and 814 are in mechanical engineering with me. The largest class I've ever had to take was ~40 students. (I've taken a few lectures deliberately.) This less than a third of what most of my friends at smaller universities have to take. Most of my professors have contacted me personally for other opportunities, including every single one I made an effort to get to know (which is quite easy and which I often do). They've also worked with me to facilitate my many academic goals, including a double major and 6 minors/certificates across both engineering and political science. Many of these opportunities, support mechanisms and resources simply aren't available at smaller universities. I've never gotten "lost" or felt a lack of rigor here.

As to retention via practical experience, I agree this is crucial. Design is integrated into many classes, and I've had almost as many design courses as primarily theoretical ones. I've also had constant and countless extra opportunities since first semester freshman year. Of the several I've taken, all have been incredible. Most recently, I worked in Kenya this summer and am now publishing at least two peer-reviewed articles on the work. In contrast, my friends at smaller universities often lament at the scarcity of even local opportunities. This doesn't even consider my intriguing political science research, in addition to training at the arguably the top AFROTC detachment* in the country. This thread isn't about other disciplines, but excellence across them is another benefit to good larger universities to those interested.


*The military training has made me less familiar with co-ops and post-graduation job offers, but almost all of my graduating friends have jobs or graduate schools lined up. Penn State constantly tops the charts in job recruitment (#1 WSJ 2010) and career services (#3 Princeton Review 2011), in addition to excelling international rankings (94 QS, 51 Times).

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Related story in the Wall Street Journal

Generation Jobless: Students Pick Easier Majors Despite Less Pay

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...98573518.html?

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

While I'm sure that you yourself are quite an outstanding student (especially given what you've said), I was making generalizations also because this is a statistical phenomena, and isn't related to any few people. Studies have shown that,

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2009/01...egree-get-you/

Specifically, this small text: => assuming Ivy's are pretty small, yet the quality is high, =>
(I'm aware it's not directly relatable to the main topic, It's about the next part) that great students (There are probably quite a few who are in/have been attracted to FIRST, and are thus on CD) generally do well wherever they go, be that big, small, or whatever other options there are. Statistically speaking, the issue is with up to half of the other 99% of your class that might end up dropping school/switching majors because they either just can't handle the work or hate what they're doing (some observations from yourself would be great on the matter concerning the entire student body).


That's an interesting article, RoboMom. It seems to show that it might be just as much of a strange psychological issue as it is a course material issue, given that students across the board appear to be dropping just because they don't want to really do all the work. However, based on what was said about how GIT remodeled their CS course, instead of making it easier, but making it more interesting and applicable to the student's futures, I think that's probably the best way to move forward while trying to see what sticks and keeps students in these programs. Ex. There's no use forcing CS majors to go through statics if they're going to like to work on databases, etc. or as the article put it, making architects learn the computing theory.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Yes, free would have been nice, then again if I went to school for free I wouldn't have the joy of paying back loans now. If you ever feel that your missing out on paying loans let me know, I'd be happy to share mine.



It is almost impossible to compare small schools and big schools. I am almost certain (though I have no data to back it up) that on a whole a school like RPI has a higher percentage of undergrads doing research and has more resources per student to provide. This is simply because RPI doesn't accept the same number of students as a big school like Penn State. By SAT score (a terrible way to characterize students, but the best I can easily find) the top 75% of students at RPI score about the same as the top 25% at Penn State. These two groups are probably academically comparable and I think that if you were to compare the educational and professional opportunities presented to these two groups you would see a lot of simmilarities. The whole of Penn State with 40,000 students is obviously not comparable to RPI, comparing Penn State's Science and Engineering departments to RPI would be a much more apt comparison.

As far as interdisiplinary opportunities not being available at smaller private schools, just as unfair as it is to group all Big Schools into the party and skate by mentality it is also unfair to group all small school engineering programs into one category, the people at CMU, Stanford, Dartmouth and any number of other schools with top tier humanities and engineering programs would have something to say about it. I agree that big schools offer more opportunity outside of Engineering, however if you aren't pretty much convinced you want to be an engineer you don't go to a school like RPI. Even my humanities at RPI were focused on things like Engineering Ethics, Sustainable Development and Cognitive Science. It is a specialty school, and as the campus has seen with recent attempts to diversify, the Alumni don't want to see it as anything other than a Science and Engineering school.


Those studies are always very subjective there isn't any good way to track job placement and success of students.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

I would personally hate it and I think that it would hurt student retention severly. There is something to be said for being in lecture and recitation and being able to ask and answer questions. I think that videos are very useful to fill in the blanks that you discover as you get into home work and test prep but I definitely don't think they are a viable replacment for the live lecture.

There is certainly a learning curve in industry for new engineers. However I think it varies greatly depending on the engineer's background. I came in and withi the first couple of weeks was working on projects on my own, I credit this to the faact that in school I was able to get practical experience in class, in the research positions I had and through internships. I know other engineers who after a couple of months are still only doing support work for their supervisors.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

I go to the University of Wisconsin, which has an enrollment of 42,000 and I have never once felt that it was difficult to get additional help. For all the gen ed classed (basic chem, physics, math) office hours for all TAs in the course are open to any student. They also have various tutoring programs, and free tutoring for math at the dining halls twice a week.

It is also very easy to get help from your peers, your lectures are ~300 students, thats 300 people you can form study groups with, etc. Each gen ed class also has discussion sections 1-3 times a week, with ~20 students with a TA. These are a very relaxed feeling, where you can ask any question.

I have never understood why so many people seem to be dead set against large schools.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

People don't pay to go to school so they can learn from their peers ( I hope, there are better things money can be spent on if that's the case); they pay to go there to learn primarily from the professors, and their work. Conferences led by TA's definitely help, though.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

I think we--possibly all three of us--are actually saying exactly the same thing. I'm not sure if this was intentional or not, but I admit I didn't notice it. In essence, saying that "it's much easier for you to get help when you need it and talk to others" at a small school (you didn't say this) ignores who the "you" is. That's what I was trying to point out, maybe I didn't do a very good job:

If "you" are one of the top 75% RPI, SATs or top 25% Penn State SATs, or the top 90% of Penn State-Honors College SATs* (all of which are the same number), you're going to see very similar resources, support, training, graduation rates--most everything--at most of the good universities for your program. The amount of effort this takes "you" will not be strongly correlated to the size of the university, how much you pay, or what you mascot is.

Now, if "you" are not one of those people, "you" aren't likely to end up at the honors college or RPI. "You" are statistically more likely end up at a large state school or something similar. "You" may well feel you have less support, access, opportunities, or whatever it is. This is not entirely the school's fault: those opportunities are out there, advertised, sometimes even pushed on you. They may even be more numerous at the typical large university. (Inconclusive; I have no good way to quantify this.) Yes, "you" may end up feeling like a number, but much of this is student complacency in ignoring these resources. Such complacency would likely have a similar effect at RPI (in fact, I've seen this), but it has fewer students there who are prone to this.

In summary, the statistics on this issue (or any issue) should not be taken out of context. "You", as far as the statistics I have seen, are not really more likely to do poorly, drop out, or switch majors at a large school than a small school, or vice versa for that matter. "You" won't even necessarily have a more difficulty accessing resources at a large school. I argue this is not a case of a few, but a trend of the many. Schools' resources differ, their curricula differ. But in the end they're just that: different. High dropout rates correlating to certain aspects does not indicate a causation between the characterized systems and the rates.


*I agree, SAT scores are really not a very good way to measure this. Insert some non-existent perfect measure of intelligence here.


EDIT: To clarify on the topic of class sizes, I think I've had 2 courses in which grad students did part of the teaching. One was absolutely outstanding--one of the best teachers I've ever had--and I took him deliberately. The other was for a lecture class that I took because I wanted to be able to leave early for robotics (this course also went very well). All of the rest of my classes have been taught by completely professors. Almost all of them have been outstanding teachers as well as exceptionally gifted engineers/scientists/whathaveyou. As for being irrelevant to intro classes, I have friends that got into those groundbreaking labs as freshmen--first semester freshmen. Granted, they weren't doing anything profound, but they were there--and they still are. Only now they're publishing, writing theses, speaking at conferences.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

And the big schools generally have professors doing ground breaking research. My current physics professors work at CERN, when one prof is lecturing for the month, the other is in Switzerland. I have also had multiple professors that have written the textbooks for their subjects.
That said, their work is highly irrelevant towards students studying intro level classes. My physics professors have some interesting stories that they tell on occasion, but they have no affect on me learning physics. It really doesnt matter if a university physics professor, or a high school physics teacher teaches me about kinematic equations, I will learn it either way.

Just because the school is big, doesnt mean you cant talk to your professors. They will answer questions that students have during lecture, and they also have scheduled office hours. If their office hours dont fit someones schedule, they can email the professor and set up a time to meet.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

And the small schools generally have professors doing ground breaking research. It just so happens that, statistically speaking, it's much easier to contact a professor who's class you're taking, or other professors to get in on their research, when you're one of a few, rather than one of many, which is the case at smaller schools.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

But again this misses the other side of the equation. Is it easier to talk to a given professor when you're in a small class and/or when you're competing with fewer people? Sure. But bigger universities also have more professors doing more research, usually with more diversity, possibly with more extensive facilities.

This corresponds to more opportunities, though the ratio varies by school (for both small and large, of course). I've gotten in good contact with many of my professors. Some have become close research/professional partners, a few are friends. I know several lab directors by their first names. The alumni network is huge (record-holding) and also great for these opportunities.

I've built this up over the years, of course, but had a strong base by late freshman and sophomore year. I've never had a professor that I wanted to correspond with and couldn't. I've never felt limited by the school size, and am perennially impressed by the quantity and quality of opportunities and people it brings together. Do 90% of Penn Staters do this? No, but thousands do. I'm below average in this list in some ways (largely because of my commitment to ROTC). These systems understandably have a huge impact on retention for those with the interest.

How many students at RPI engage in similar things? (Sorry, looking for an all-encompassing term.) How do the opportunities compare? I honestly don't know. Can anyone shed some light on this?

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

EDIT: I realized this may come off as rude... trying to adjust.

Yes, you like your small school. Some of us like larger schools. Some of us learn better when working with our peers. I enjoy my 400 student chemistry lecture. Some of us like the large amount of opportunities presented by a larger school. Some people like the intimacy of a smaller school.

Not everyone is just like you. Just because a small school is the right fit for you, doesn't mean its the right fit for everyone. I love my large school. I would most likely be miserable at a small school. You like your small school. You probably would not be happy a big school. People are different. Understand that one size does not fit all.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

I can't speak for other departments, but in the aero department our flow control research center is top notch. They push undergraduate research pretty hard, I know a couple of people have done research in the physics department or with the CivEs (they have a huge soil centrifuge somewhere). I've never had a problem getting in contact with professors, just some of them are so busy researching you've got to bug them a couple of times to actually finish letters of recommendation. ;) Another pretty neat place is our combustion lab, where there have been a couple of undergrad rocket engine firings, and a whole ton of ignition research.

Like I said earlier, I got my job at Boeing because of RPI's alumni, and UTC subsidiaries and GE are always here hiring people. My friends who have graduated are working on projects like the 787, F135, Purepower Geared Turbofan, Hummingbird UAV, and the Falcon 9... so at least our recent alumni work on neat things!

That said, there are a million ways to success... I firmly believe that successful people will be successful regardless of where they go to school.

[quote=Katie_UPS]I enjoy my 400 student chemistry lecture.[/QUOTE
Why? Not a dig, genuinely curious why you'd prefer 400 kids in a class vs. 40 or so where you might get a chance to ask a question if you were confused.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Its part of how my teacher structures the class that makes me like it, but I can't fully explain. What I can explain though, is that there is something comforting knowing that there are other people taking this class with me (versus my four person higher level physics class in high school). If I need help, I can easily find another student in my class, who likely thinks similarly to me and can explain whatever it is I don't understand. There are enough of us around that someone probably understands it.

Additionally, I can ask questions if I'm confused. There are tricks (ie sitting in the front of the classroom) that allow for you to get the small school feel in a big school setting.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

What I am seeing from several of the previous posts is a common theme - All of you are passionate. Passionate about your education - big school, small school, peer groups and most importantly your education. This is the key ingredient to recruit and retain students in any educational career field. Passion is what is missing in most high school and middle school classrooms where the students lose interest. Passion fuels curiosity which leads to engagement which leads to learning and retention.
Ask any friend if they have a favorite music group. Ask them if they know the lyrics to their favorite songs from that group. The answer is going to be yes. They are likely passionate about that group and music.
Develop passion for content in schools, both teacher and student, and the dropout rates of challenging courses will drop.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Absolutely

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Katie I totally agree with you on the point that everyone has their own tastes. Everyone learns differently and in their own way. Part of the college experience is really understanding yourself and how you can become the best student you can be.

When I reread Alex's statement that you quoted above, I think you may be jumping to a conclusion slightly. When I read what he says that "people don't pay to go to a school so they can learn from their peers" I think he's generally correct. People attend college expecting to learn from intelligent professors. While PLENTY of learning occurs from your peers, the general idea I think is that someone is there to help if you get REALLY stuck and your peers can't help. I think your last paragraph above kind of points to this. You go to class, sit up front so you can hear and be seen. You pay attention so that if you do get confused you can ask the professor questions, not your fellow classmates (even though they may be able to help you get the answer).

-Brando

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

You're right, I do like my small school. It's quite nice, and although I wouldn't give it up for anything, I know that others do function better at larger schools. What I've been trying to do is figure out whether there's any real difference in the rates for changing majors between the smaller schools and larger schools, and if so, whether that's attributable to size.

There could be countless other factors messing with the results; one person, for example, mentioned that certain schools are specifically catered to only special programs. WPI and RPI both are great engineering schools, while not nearly as big in the other fields, and the students entering there know they're great engineering schools. On the other hand, students at large schools have a much easier time switching to different programs because of the available options and such.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

There is nothing worse than taking a class with a professor that teaches from a book he wrote. You just never get a different explanation, the way it is taught in class is the way it is spelled out in the book. This happened to me when I took Engineering Probability, the professor was without a doubt one of the smartest men I have ever met, however he was not a good teacher and his book was difficult to follow.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Same thing for me with my Circuits professor. Great guy, decent teacher, terrible terrible book.

-Brando

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

What is cross-discipline education like at polytechs, if this is generalizable at all? I ask because Penn State has 45 credits of required "general education". Even the intro courses can be excellent: small classes, great teachers, even full profs, research opportunities. This is part of what convinced me to pick up a double major in international politics here.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Could you be a bit more specific in what you're referring to with cross-disicpline? Like, what's required, or what you can do, or what? Also, what exactly are the general education classes you're talking about?

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Those pesky English, humanities, and social science classes that engineering freshmen and sophomores (and, depending on your school, the odd junior or senior) have to take or risk being held back until you take them.

At my school, that's a combined 21 credits, plus 2 PE credits, plus 4 credits taken after sophomore year.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Well, what's required first, but also what you can do. For instance, Penn State requires an general writing (probably still the best course of my college career--amazing professor), public speaking, technical writing (another great course), physical education, roughly at least two courses each in humanities and social sciences (all amazing for me), a US cultures course, an international cultures course, a course that applies writing across the curriculum, and a few others I'm missing. Basically, it exposes you to the other disciplines--very well if you're interested. Of course, some people who aren't interested use it to take film watching and ballroom dance (though these are also both very good), but if you're willing to explore even the intro courses can be absolutely fantastic. We're required to have 45 total, though some are worked into your major. I know different universities count credits differently, so for perspective, I need 131 total to graduate in M E.

I've seen some people switch majors--both in an out of technical fields--because they just honestly loved what they did in these courses. They didn't give up on anything; they just realized they liked something else more. (I'm not implying this is why everyone switches, but I have seen a good number just in my limited exposure thus far.) Do places RPI or other small schools offer similar opportunities? Do people take them, given what we were discussing before about the types of people each school tends to attract?

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

Yes, but not to that extent. We are required to take 22 Humanities and Social Sciences credits, 2 of which are Professional Development II (classes designed to prepare you for working an engineering job), and depending on your major you will have a certain number of free electives where you can take whatever class you want. AeroE has 12 credits of free elective, I believe it varies by major, and is eliminated if you double/dual major. In addition, nothing stops you from going above and beyond, I'll graduate with ~140 credits while only 128 are required.

We are required to take at least 2 Humanities and at least 2 Social Sciences (and to hit 22 you've got to take a third in one of the two). In my case I took an intro level class called Science, Technology and Society taught by RPI's Science and Technology Studies department, which is apparently a relatively unique major. I thought it was a total waste of my time, but know people that enjoyed the class.

I've taken multiple economics classes, and LOVED them. Mostly with the same professor who is a triple threat. He really knows his stuff, he does great research, and has multiple teaching awards. As part of a class called Structure of Industry I had to write a 25 pager about the business strategy of IBM when they rolled out their System/360, and I really had no interest in the subject. Turns out it was a fascinating subject, I now know more than anyone should know about mainframe computing in the 1960s, and the same business practices have lots of applications to other businesses. I'm taking RPI's public speaking class next semester (which is not required), but I've only heard very good things about it.

There are also some fairly esoteric classes, last spring their was a class called "Inflatable Public Sculpture" that one of my friends took. It was exactly what it sounded like, and some really neat inflatable sculptures popped up around campus. I don't know anyone who has switched majors because they really enjoyed an elective though, only people who switched because they couldn't handle the workload of a technical major.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

It is probably worth noting that RPI's Humanities and Social Sciences do not quite require you to get out of Engineering. My H&SS electives included Intro to Logic, Intermediate Logic, Computability and Logic, and Cognitive Robotics which required a stronger background in programming than almost any of my CS courses.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

At WPI, it's a bit different, primarily due to how the courses work. The school is a quarter system, with 3 courses per quarter here, or an average, recommended load of 6 courses per semester, which makes things go by really fast as courses last two months. I.E. Most undergrad classes here are worth 3 credits; for juniors and seniors that have the background, they could take the graduate courses for no extra cost at around 4-5 credits per class.

The degree requirements for any major are essentially the same, a person has to graduate with 139 (15*3*3?) credits minimum. Of those,
9 are free electives for any major (which again, usually disappear into another major if you double for the sake of graduating earlier than 5-6 years)

18 have to be in the humanities department (art, history, music, philosophy, int. studies, etc.) The final course taken must be a 3000-level seminar or practicum, and 3 of those taken must be in the same field.
Per se, there aren't any required courses, except for the depth requirement, which means you end up taking a few in the same field to get a firm grasp on the content and communication skills.


6 are required for the social sciences (economics, psychology, gov., etc)

There is a PE requirement of 3 credits, but the classes aren't even a credit and so they're just taken in addition to the normal load over a few years.

The last general requirement here is the Interactive Qualifying Project (IQP), which is a 9 credit project during the Junior year that requires students to study some interaction between society and technology.

The last 90 credits are left up to each major; for engineering specifically, it's generally a situation where 30 credits are "math and basic sciences", most of the basic calculus/physics/chemistry/comp sci classes are taken in this area as a stepping stone to the 60 credits which are required in the major field. Of those 60, 9 are reserved for the MQP, which is the senior capstone project.

One thing to note is that these are just graduation credits; the only time-based requirement for taking them is that you have to have them all by the time you want your degree (exceptions are the IQP's/MQP's/Humanities seminar, those are organized by the professors with their own requirements, so you can't just go in and do them as a freshman).

As to what was said about the cool classes, those definitely are here, although they tend to exist as the 3000-level, smaller courses that are taken sophomore/junior level. I know an engineering student that, despite failing a few classes here, took seven because he liked them so much, and can still manage to graduate in 4 years.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

I do not like this model of education. Society tells kids from an early age to pursue “success” that is measured by materialistic worth. That is compounded by the fact that most students’ motivation derives from trying to get that number one rank in school, that perfect GPA or to get into that college. Even from an early age, that mentality is drilled into the minds of children; elementary teachers reward kids with stickers or points to gauge their performance. While that positive reinforcement does encourage students to excel, it also promotes materialism in the long run. Students don’t experience the pleasure of finding things out because it is not their focus. I believe that society has lost sight of what education truly is. It is not a means to get a better paying job, or to get a degree. Education is liberation from ignorance. Most students students stop short of truly understanding a concept and just regurgitate it on the test. Those concepts were never fully digested and engraved into their minds. That is why believe tests are counterproductive. All a typical student cares for is that “A” on the test, and to get that “A:, all he need to do is memorize. One can know all the equations, but without imagination, it is impossible to grasp the subject. Long term projects, on the other hand, induce a deeper learning experience than tests and lectures. It is human nature to learn from failures; that is how the institution of science was founded. Some philosophers had false preconceived notions and another philosopher comes along refuting the formers’ ideas. Then the new ideas are verified through experimentation. Tests do not give the students the opportunity to confirm or modify their ideas. Most students just take the information as is and never challenge or confirm them. The teacher moves onto a different topic after the test. We should teach students to embrace knowledge in its purest form and to always question.

Re: Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)
 

You're not wrong that education is more than just the pursuit of good marks and material things. But you are wrong about your concept of a typical student.

Unfortunately, many—perhaps a plurality in some places—don't care enough to get that A, by process of regurgitation or otherwise. And few can realistically see themselves being ranked first in their classes. It's not always their fault, either. Sometimes they haven't been given a reason to care, and their circumstances are such that they can be forgiven for not finding it within themselves to be passionate about education.

You're definitely right that education is liberation from ignorance—it's just that that liberation comes in many varieties, and doesn't proceed at the same pace for everyone.