<p>
</p>
<p>I agree for most Americans. Engineers are not most Americans, and shouldn’t be taking watered-down math courses. That’s not the way to stay ahead.</p>
<p>Given all the talk on the value of office politics and the economics of a product, wouldn’t it be beneficial that engineering programs require at least a single introductory business course?</p>
<p>I do not intend to go as far as to pursue an MBA but I do at least intend to take an introductory business course. I think that it is important that the others in a company such as marketing and management understand at least the basic concepts in engineering but the reverse also applies with engineers knowing the basic concepts of marketing and business so as to work with a mindset that they are essentially creating a product with a given budget.</p>
<p>After all, to sell an idea to management of senior engineers, and idea, besides being technically flawless if possible, has to be sensible from a business perspective.</p>
<p>simba9, I agree in a sense. I learn best applying knowledge and concepts. For example, in Chemistry, I didn’t really get some thermodynamics and gas law stuff until I did some research on such thing being applied to stuff like HVAC systems and Refrigerators. Seeing the real world application make the concepts vivid and more palpable.</p>
<p>However, I do agree that understanding the theory and concept is just as important as the application. I just do some research and studying of concepts and theory applied outside classes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What, is office politics somehow covered in business courses? That’s not a business phenomenon; it’s a human phenomenon. It doesn’t matter your major, you will have to deal with office politics at some point. Chances are you will eventually deal with it in classes, too. There is no reason to formally learn something about it because you will learn it with life experience.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You don’t need a semester of business classes to put together a sound business proposal, though. You just need a simple understanding of something that is in demand, e.g. right now proposals that are somehow connected to renewable energy or to fuel economy are much more likely to be funded, and you don’t need a business professor to tell you that.</p>
<p>“What, is office politics somehow covered in business courses? That’s not a business phenomenon; it’s a human phenomenon.”</p>
<p>I misspoke. I mean’t office business specifically and not the human interactions of working at a company.</p>
<p>“There is no reason to formally learn something about it because you will learn it with life experience.”
Thanks for this gem of advice. I as well as some others might think that taking more classes than is necessary might be helpful when in some cases, it is simply a waste of time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Honestly, you can go ahead and take a class in it if you really want. I am not trying to discourage someone from going above and beyond if they so desire. My point is that it shouldn’t be required since an average person should pick up those skills on their own.</p>
<p>Ah ok. I see what you mean.</p>
<h1>12, I definitely didn’t express myself clearly. I was not referring to engineers directly selling their products or services, but instead to keep in mind that their products or services have to be sold. Probably an oversimplified example is that of the automobile design. While the design of the vehicle may be simple, there is a level of creativity that can be implemented to increase sales. The ergonomics, the appearance, the tactile sensations of the materials, smell, and sounds can all be modified to sell the vehicle. That’s what the engineer has to focus on in addition to the parameters of the design. This shouldn’t be solely up to marketing.</h1>
<p>It is an attention to details that has the engineer considering, “what would appeal most to my customers and win the sale of my product over my competitors.” I learned that lesson with my first project as an engineer. My software did exactly what my boss wanted. But my coworker, who was assigned the same task, developed a software that was not exactly what the boss wanted, but was fundamentally easier to use, faster, and upgradable. I did what I was told, my coworker did what would sell.</p>
<p>frugaldoctor, I think another part where “sales” expertise comes in handy for an engineer is in dealing with their boss. I’ve found it’s often useful to be able to sell an idea to your boss in the first place in order to have them agree it’s worth funding or exploring. The example with your co-worker is a great one. I’m hoping he was, in the end, able to sell that idea to management, so it was in turn able to be sold to the general market.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The impractical, overly-theoretical way math is taught in the US is driving people away from engineering.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well… I haven’t learned this in college (today is potentially my last day of college). So, how should I learn this?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not saying you are wrong because i have classmates who are not in positions to talk to customers. One works for a utility company and one works for an engineering firm. What i’m driving is at a University you are taught to be an engineer in the classical sense meaning most senior design classes teach marketing aspects of an engineer. You are also usually required to take Econ for Engineers and Ethics classes. With that in mind, the “Classical Engineer” role is still exists in today’s world</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with you here. It is not the university’s responsibility to make math fun. The goal is to train effective engineers. It isn’t the way math is taught in universities that is driving US students away from engineering; it is the way that math is taught in K-12 that does it. It is the job of the K-12 math teachers to convince students that math is practical for everyone; after all, this fact is important for everyone, not just engineers. By the time students leave high school, they should have the practical skills for life and a basis for further study in the topic of their choosing. Right now, many, if not most, students leaving high school do not have a basis in math and science topics as a result of their high school education.</p>
<p>Fewer than 13% of all high school graduates end up even starting in math and science disciplines after high school when moving on to college. This isn’t a problem with the university, as they haven’t even seen any of the shortcomings of university education yet. The problem is that they have been so turned off to math in K-12 that they don’t even consider it when it comes time to choose a course of advanced study and a career. Many feel like they can make more money with less math by studying business anyway (regardless of that statement’s veracity).</p>
<p>There were a pair of articles a week or two ago arguing these two different sides: [in</a> The New York Times](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/08/opinion/sunday/who-says-math-has-to-be-boring.html]in”>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/08/opinion/sunday/who-says-math-has-to-be-boring.html) taking what appears to be your perspective, and [in</a> Slate](<a href=“http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/12/10/american_student_pisa_scores_math_has_to_be_at_least_a_little_boring.html]in”>American student PISA scores: Math has to be at least a little boring.) taking mine. They are good reads that people in this thread may be interested in browsing.</p>
<p>You can’t water down math. Math just is.</p>
<p>It’s like making physics more accessible by making it non-calculus based. Better yet, Physics for Poets, it’s not even algebra based. It’s not Physics anymore, but a completely different tool.</p>
<p>With that said, there’s no doubt in my mind that some teach it more effectively than others. Who would you rather have as a professor, Neil Degrasse Tyson or Ferris Bueller’s Principal?</p>
<p>Math is extremely cumulative. If you’re deep in your schooling and without a solid math foundation, it’s hard to back fill enough to be effective going forward. That’s the sad reality. A better instructor can help, but making the material “easier” means you’re just getting different material.</p>
<p>Math just is.</p>
<p>I don’t think math is the big problem. Maybe people would be better off if there was better math education in K-12, but it’s not hard to reason through. You can see what you’re doing in math in a way you can’t in most subjects which allows people with weak background but good reasoning ability to just “figure it out.” If you’re going to talk about a lack of preparation, a lack of science preparation would be a better argument as you can’t just “figure out” science (unless it’s science that can be easily abstracted into math). </p>
<p>I do think standard intro Calc classes are pretty poor though, and put far too much focus on formulas (memorize the integral of arctan type stuff). The concept from Calc are important, but they teach that much more so in an Analysis class than intro Calc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d argue that, particularly with physics, if you have a good background in calculus, physics is quite straightforward. If you understand that a derivative is a rate of change and that an integral is essentially adding up a bunch of tiny parts to describe the whole, you are going to have a lot easier time understanding things like dynamics or electromagnetics than if you just see a derivative as the slope of a line or an integral as the area under some arbitrary curve (simple examples, yes, but hopefully illustrative).</p>
<p>Chemistry is different since it seems a lot of early chemistry is just memorizing facts and formulae, and it isn’t until you get into physical chemistry that you learn physically why a lot of those things are the way they are. Perhaps that is why I never much cared for chemistry.</p>
<p>That’s why so many HATE p-chem. They are so deep in the chemistry and physics/math that if they don’t have a solid background they just can’t get a grasp on it. It’s why I never took it. :D</p>
<p>In my day, the intense academics caused the engineering exodus. Sometimes by choice, sometimes by flunking and/or loosing a scholarship. Now there seems to be al lot of team rojects, reports etc - that’s a good thing in my opinion. </p>
<p>All engineering students must endure the intense academics to graduate. The jobs after graduation will leverage problem solving skills but usually only a subset of the specific coursework.</p>
<p>I don’t think engineering majors should take the easy route and take applied mathematics and science courses. In essence, that is exactly what engineering classes do. You take the pure sciences first before you can understand applied sciences in engineering. A better science foundation makes a better engineer. Also, don’t be undermined by those math, physics, and chemistry majors. We’re better than that! Lol</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><strong><em>Yawns</em></strong> Yeah, right</p>
<p><strong><em>Math major with graduate engineering degree</em></strong></p>