Material to discuss is here
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
STEM is the new cool, STEM is the new fun, but nobody said STEM is the new easy.
If we make it the new easy we will graduate a lot more engineers. Maybe even 10,000. Heaven help us.
**
Statics is the best. Materials is the worst. 
Signed,
Mech E
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.
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).
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?
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.)
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).
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. 
Returning to the main topic.
No one said it was easy, but it is worth it.
Meh, it might be possible. Just might need a bit of pocket-lining to do it…
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.
I wonder how much punnage that bridge can withstand.
Again, back to main topic.
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)
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.
Statics is in “Engineering Mechanics” pretty much all engineering majors take it.
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.
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.
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.