<p>Can some of you who are in or have completed the engineering program at NU tell me if you believe the "engineers first" (or whatever they call it) really is a different/better way of learning vs. how most other schools do engineering. The concept seems to have merit but I have to wonder if it is a better way of teaching then you would think all of the other schools would have already adapted similar concepts ? Since most programs are ABET accredited can there be that much of a difference ?</p>
<p>Do you believe the undergraduate engineering experience at NU is as good or better than the other Big 10 schools?</p>
<p>
[quote]
but I have to wonder if it is a better way of teaching then you would think all of the other schools would have already adapted similar concepts?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, first of all, a huge change like this takes a huge initiative. Inertia is a powerful force. This is not a program without any risk. You really have to be very careful in designing it. You are supposed to be changing for the better but what if the opposite happens? That would look really bad and pepole may think this is too risky. It's a little more complicated to implement in semester schools as they have less flexibilty. Also, a program like this is a huge investment for an <em>undergrad</em> program and most schools and faculty focus on graduate research and probably have their hands full already. The leadership may not view this as high on their priority list. Also, it takes a lot of time and effort from faculty members to develop the curriculum and someone has to be willing to do it. But having gone through the tradiational curriculum myself, I know exactly what they said about the problem with that curriculum. From what I read, this curriculum makes perfect sense.</p>
<p>ABET refers to the core courses for your major, nothing to do with the intro curriculum. Yes, there's a huge difference between this first year curriculum and the traditional one.</p>
<p>One more thing: the faculty involved with EA are always evolving its pedagogy. This requires extra human resource for an undergraduate program and it doesn't improve graduate ranking or any chance for prestigious external awards for faculty. Another reason why other schools don't do it.</p>
<p>Basically, traditional curriculum is mostly just first year calculus/chemistry/physics and a computer programming course and liberal arts requirement. So you'd have almost no exposure to engineering during your first year. If you have taken AP, the traditional program is very much like it except it may have a little tougher problem sets and exams in college. So you already have an idea what it's about. It's like a HS extension, just a bit more labor intensive. Does it teach engineering? Not really.</p>