The great thing about CPP is their learn by doing philosophy vs a UC. However, I have heard that UCs go more in depth with theoretical engineering concepts that are needed for more complex systems whereas CPP doesn’t teach theory as much because they are more focused on creating projects and labs.
Of course CPP teaches fundamental theory but my question is do they teach advanced theory like UCs or will I miss out on advanced concepts for the trade off of greater hands on skills?
This is not a defense or refutation of a project based curriculum like WPI has had since the late 70s. Unlike WPI however, neither Cal Poly or Cal Poly Pomona have a project based curricula. At WPI and schools that espouse that type of learning, teaching engineering concepts is partially baked into doing group and individual projects. At WPI specifically a student can do a freshman project and is required to do a junior and a senior project. Cal Poly and Cal Poly Pomona require a senior capstone project like nearly every other engineering program.
Where Cal Poly differentiates itself and I’m assuming Pomona does too, is that they have advanced labs like vibrations and rotational dynamics, that many other schools don’t have. Students also tend to be heavily involved in clubs like Formula SAE.
I haven’t seen any evidence that any but a small handful of schools (Caltech for sure and possibly MIT and HMC) go into much deeper theoretical depth than at least Cal Poly SLO. I’m not certain about CPP, but it was hatched as a men’s only satellite campus from Cal Poly and the curriculum is similar. They don’t have quite the strength of student body as SLO, but they are still pretty selective for engineering.
Maybe others can chime in. What it seems like though is that there’s more similarity among engineering programs than there are radical differences. Much of the opinions you hear/read are really nothing more than a UC/CSU turf battle and a self affirmation of UC prestige. JMHO YMMV
Any ABET accredited engineering school has the same classes and curriculum. The only differences is that time not used for more labs will be used for more in-depth theory. One has 30% of the time in labs, the other only has 10% of the time. One system isn’t necessarily better than the other, but at the end of the day what stands out for you?
For me, I prefer this learning style hands-down over pouring through text books(which I already do the other 70% of the time) , but it depends on the student and their future aspirations.
@r77r77, the first sentence is not correct. ABET sets a MINIMUM standard. How a program achieved it can vary. For example, ABET required math through Dif Eq for ME, but Cal Poly also requires Linear Algebra. Many schools don’t. IME 142 and 143 won’t be found in almost any ME curriculum you look at. So, in general, curricula have LARGE similarities, but the are not all the same.
What ever theory you think you will gain at a UC will be self taught. I am at a UC, I self-teach everything. I am only tested on the mechanics and not theory. You’re better off gaining a solid applied foundation and learning theory on your own during you education.