<p>I've read from collegeboard that only 1/3 of engineering students finish in four years. Is that true for both private and public schools? I talked to my college conselor today about what universities to consider. Since I was thinking of engineering, I was thinking of UC schools. He then told me I would have to study for more than 4 years, maybe up to 6 years, whereas in a private school I can definetely finish in 4 years. I would consider private schools, but they're just wayyy too expenive than the UC schools What do you guys think?</p>
<p>hmm. i havent heard anything on that. so i cant really say anything other than at UCSB i can get a bachelor's AND a master's in 5 years through the college of engineering.</p>
<p>The 1/3 number needs to be put in perspective. I think I read somewhere that half of all college students, of any major, never even graduate. Or those that do, plenty of them also take more than 4 years, even those majoring in the liberal artrs. Many reasons explain this. Some students run out of money and have to drop out to go to work to make some money before they can return (and many don't return). Some students find they just don't like college or find something they are more interested in, and so drop out. Some obviously flunk out because the school is too hard for them, or out of sheer laziness or immaturity.</p>
<p>i go to UC Berkeley and the maximum time they will give you to graduate from the College of Engineering is 9 semesters (4.5 years).</p>
<p>I'm double majoring in ME/MSE and am graduating in 4 years, so the program here doesn't have THAT many courses. Of course summer school always helps.</p>
<p>Are you taking any AP courses in high school? Being able to place out of courses my freshman year helped me stay on track with little difficulty.</p>
<p>even if one has taken 0 AP classes, and everything is bare bones one should still be able to graduate in engineering within 4 years.</p>
<p>Credit wise it's significantly easier to graduate at a UC as compared to Cal Poly San Luis (if you were thinking about this).</p>
<p>I dunno, I think my college conselour was trying to scare me a bit with the UC part. But yea, I got a 3 on the AP U.S. History, a 4 on the Spanish, and I'm taking AP Physics, Chem, and Calc 1,2 my current senior year, and I'm sure I can pass all of them. Oh and I'm considering taking the AP Lit and AP Spanish Lit exam this year, even though I haven't taken the classes. But yea back to the main part, I think my college conselour said that because it's so competitive at UC schools. And yea I do want to know more about the competition at UC schools, because my conselor was like "you're going to be on your own, people at UC schools especially the school of engineering don't really care about learning and helping other people learn, and the classroom sizes are so big." i dunno, again I like the UC schools (Berkeley's my dream school) but the whole competition thing kinda worries me and private schools are too expensive.</p>
<p>the competition thing is so over-exaggerated. I've worked in so many different groups here, whether it be in lab, on problem sets or projects. I've never had a problem, and people are usually more than willing to help if you ask. If not, theres always graduate student instructors and office hours with professors.</p>
<p>Yea but then I heard the professors really only care about their research, and the graduate student instructors only care about getting their own job done.</p>
<p>Usually it is a critical course that postpones an engineering student's track. For example, if you are an EE, and do not pass your first analog circuits course, then you basically wasted a whole semester. It is a course that is a prerequisite for electronics, em fields, circuits 2, etc. So instead of continuing on with these courses, you use another semester retaking circuits and take mostly "filler" courses to be classified as a full time student. This is the scenario that gets a lot of students at my university. Not passing a course within your actual program is forgivable, but failing a critical tracking course such as physics, calculus, or first engineering course can be pretty devastating. And it really turns off a lot of prospective students. </p>
<p>But the point is as long as your work hard, are careful, and keep in mind of your ultimate goals-- you will succeed. Even at a school like Berkley.</p>
<p>Engineers who finish in 4 years are pretty rare here. Usually from co-oping</p>
<p>At my school they schedule out the Aero. Eng. program to be 4 years, but that has you taking 16-18 credits a semester, with every semester pretty much having at least one lab class, sometimes two. (one credit, but 3 hours long) Senior year is prelim. and detail design where you are in class about 4 hours for it but work enough out of class for it to be a full-time job, on top of other classes.</p>
<p>So, most students take 5 years, and sometimes more because of internships or ROTC. I'm a junior and because of AP credits and summer school I'm on the track for 4 years but I'll see how it goes...</p>
<p>So let's say I get a 3 on English Lit and Comp, U.S. History, and Spanish Literature. And I get a 4 on Spanish Language, Physics C Mechanics, and Chemistry. I know it depends on what UC school and college i go to, etc. But do you think after taking these AP's do you think I can stay on track for 4 years?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Usually it is a critical course that postpones an engineering student's track. For example, if you are an EE, and do not pass your first analog circuits course, then you basically wasted a whole semester. It is a course that is a prerequisite for electronics, em fields, circuits 2, etc
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree. But the sad part is that a lot of the 'prereqs' are not truly prereqs in that you don't really need to know the material in the prereq class to get by in the following classes. Obviously it's useful if you do know it, but the fact is, you often times don't really need to know it. Or you might need to know maybe only 1-2 chapters of the book in the prereq. But the school still bars you from taking the later classes because you didn't pass the prereq. </p>
<p>I'll give you an example. Take Berkeley's Chemical Engineering sequence. To take Chemical Heat/Mass Transfer (ChemE 150B), you need to have taken a computer programming course prereq (i.e. Engineering 77 or CS 9A). But, honestly, why? The truth is, you don't need to know computer programming to understand heat/mass transfer. These are different disciplines that basically have nothing to do with each other. </p>
<p>I am convinced that a lot of engineering courses out there at many schools simply have unnecessary prereqs, and that tends to hold people back. I don't mind the concept of holding people back if they don't understand something that they really need to know. But holding people back because they don't understand something that they don't really need to understand - that's a problem.</p>
<p>I'm going to GaTech, and 5 and 6 year college spans are common here because the school is so damn hard. The 4 year schedule has you taking 16-20 hours per semester, but most people prefer 12-15 hours. Also, co-opping spans out schooling.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree. But the sad part is that a lot of the 'prereqs' are not truly prereqs in that you don't really need to know the material in the prereq class to get by in the following classes. Obviously it's useful if you do know it, but the fact is, you often times don't really need to know it. Or you might need to know maybe only 1-2 chapters of the book in the prereq. But the school still bars you from taking the later classes because you didn't pass the prereq. </p>
<p>I'll give you an example. Take Berkeley's Chemical Engineering sequence. To take Chemical Heat/Mass Transfer (ChemE 150B), you need to have taken a computer programming course prereq (i.e. Engineering 77 or CS 9A). But, honestly, why? The truth is, you don't need to know computer programming to understand heat/mass transfer. These are different disciplines that basically have nothing to do with each other. </p>
<p>I am convinced that a lot of engineering courses out there at many schools simply have unnecessary prereqs, and that tends to hold people back. I don't mind the concept of holding people back if they don't understand something that they really need to know. But holding people back because they don't understand something that they don't really need to understand - that's a problem.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I couldn't agree more, sakky. I have known students that didn't do so well in their first circuits course, but did great for the rest of the program. What I find funny is that the department firmly believes that a student not understanding analog circuits will not understand the rest of the program. When I took circuits 1, I remember all the software emphasis computer engineers complaining about why they have to take a course they probably will never use. Some of those students were sitting in the class for the second or third time. Honestly, why would a software engineering major care about circuits? </p>
<p>That is an aspect of the engineering program that annoys me. We are forced to take courses that are not applicable to our interests. I'd rather take more EE courses rather than statics, thermo, bio; courses the department make us take so that we are more "well rounded." </p>
<p>I'll give you another example on unnecessary prereqs. For the signals and systems course here, they require you to have taken multivariable calculus and computer programming (c++). I promise you, I never once had to use Stoke's theorem or write a program. It is a course you should be allowed to take your first semester if you want to. </p>
<p>Why do they do this? My guess is that they want their program to appear as rigorous as possible. And so if they limit the prereqs for their courses, then their department appears weak in comparison to other departments in the nation. A more flexible program would allow students to take courses that more appropriately fit their interests. It would go a long way in producing more qualified engineers in industry.</p>
<p>Mannnnn....</p>
<p>Do not....I repeat do not feel pressured to do engineering (or some applied sciences) in 4 years. Trust me, there is no shame in it and folks nowadays pretty much expect it.</p>
<p>I am not trying to knock other non-engineering/science majors, but trying to take a Calculus, Physics, Engineering, Engineering Lab & Computer Science schedule in the same semester is a killer.</p>
<p>You wanna at least have a chance to acquire some social skills, have a girlfriend (or two) and attend a pep rally before leaving school.</p>
<p>No difference between a 22-year old engineering fresh grad and a 23-year old engineering fresh grad.</p>
<p>I second what many have said. I did some pretty heavy courseload -- 16-18 credits during regular semesters and 5-8 during summer. I could have graduated in 3.5 years. Instead, I spent an extra year on co-op and internship which were pivotal to my post college career. So, you should spend whatever the extra time needed to help you to have a decent college life, gain some work experience or just get better grade.</p>
<p>Having all that said, you really want to "time" your graduation when the job market is hot ... :)</p>
<p>I did it in 4 years. I knew I wanted to go to graduate school so I didn't want to take any extra time. Many students in my program finish in 4 years, but many do not. I'd say about half of the students take an extra semester or year.</p>