Thanks for the reassurance. I need that sometimes, this school is quite tough. 
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.
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.
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.
**
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.
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.
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
My advice to people interested in improving education: become a teacher.
I learned far more in my two extended co-op sessions working for Delphi Packard (summer plus semester) and made more money (
) 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.
Hey everyone,
I have read most of the article and your opinions and I thought to shed a light over what is going on overseas.
I am from Israel and I am also a university student there, even though I am not taking anything related to engineering, I am taking several math classes and stats classes. I am doing a double major in psychology and biology.
here in Israel things are a little different since not like in other countries we have to draft to the army fresh out of high-school. girls serve for 2 years and guys serve for 3. after that we need to do an exam that is similar to the SAT’s in order to get in to universities. (BTW the funny thing is you need to get a higher score in that said test in order to get in psychology then into engineering).
(just for the record we are now an average of 3-4 years after high-school when we had any kind of class, math included).
most of us usually work for a while because we don’t have students loans here usually (most people don’t take them anyway) so we pretty much pay for tuition ourselves or our parents do.
so basically we go into university 4-6 years after we graduated from high school, without remembering anything about math, equations, or even chemistry, biology, anything like that, and of course we start at a university level math which as you all know is not that easy.
that make most people fail the classes, or simply drop out of them.
and not just in engineering.
I also believe that if we have more engineers, they will have work. the science field and engineering fields keep growing and finding new ways to combine fields that are no necessarily related (such as psychology and biology).
just a point for thought.
Or from Israel
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.
Really?
Please reconsider your blanket statements.
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.
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.
I think they were referring to this:
**
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.**
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.