I’m not sure I understand “all engineering labs at many schools.”
Not all schools have lab components for every class. At many, Vibrations is simply a math course. My point wasn’t to say Cal Poly was unique, only to illustrate another way, one that isn’t represented everywhere…
It seems like engineers come in at least two flavors: hands-on and analytical, and I would say I know a lot more analytical types than hands-on engineers. I think both types benefit from some experience outside of their comfort zone, everyone should see some hardware and everyone should certainly get a good foundation in both science and in solving engineering problems through design and analysis work. When you go off to work, many people are probably happier if they stay in their comfort zone, but they should know what the analyst they are getting hardware drawings or requirements from does or they should know what the hardware looks like, how it goes together, what can go wrong, etc and not analyze or design something made with magical processes out of unobtainium.
I would still say CAD and Matlab are analytical more than hands-on and honestly nowadays almost all mechanical design starts with CAD and all testing is done with Matlab type software and you do need a lot of computer skills to actually do most jobs until you can start managing something which is all about people skills.
In general, I think you can teach people how to use new tools including software and analysis tools (they should probably have used one in college) and working with others is a skill you can work on in ECs as well as school (but some people do need to be forced). I still never want to have to teach someone basic physics or math skills or even how to set up a problem, unless they are working for co-op wages and even then … why?
@coolweather I didn’t know CS folks read books … or to be less flippant, wouldn’t programming and simulations be the center of your degree? And is that theory based or hands on?
^ My degree was in CS and CE. It had classes that required programming like data structures, compiler designs, database design, operating system design (light programming), comparative study of programming languages (some programming), numerical analysis, microprecessor design,… Besides I had physics labs, circuit labs,…
CS students do read books. Besides the theory, it have problem sets.
“all engineering labs” I meant that many schools have engineering labs , some probably more than others, and I was agreeing with you that these labs, research , are another way to get “hands on” experience.
@PickOne1 I forgot to mentioned some other heavy programming classes I took: assembly language programming (the old time), computer graphics.
CS courses have books to read. Of course, most of them have programming assignments and projects as well. Hardware type courses like computer architecture can have hardware design projects.
A few CS courses are purely theory (e.g. discrete math, algorithms and complexity, theory of computation) and are more similar to math courses where you do problem sets and take exams.
I’m not sure anyone with these failings could blame it on their institution. Certainly there are going to be graduates with less horsepower, but I think that’s more about the individual than the institution (taking into consideration of course that some schools get a higher caliber of student on average).
Lots of engineering programs have these kinds of courses beyond the usual ABET-required capstone design course. At my university, Illinois Tech, every student needs to take the [Interprofessional Projects Course](http://ipro.iit.edu/) twice. Many of the projects are sponsored by local industry.
I remember when I took my DD to an Olin open house and the general Q&A session had a lot of parents questioning whether Olin graduates lacked the theoretical skills to fare well in graduate school. The official answer was that while Olin grads started behind in the theoretical area in grad school they soon caught up.
If this is indeed true, it wouldn’t surprise me that Olin students could catch up given their caliber to begin with. But I can see it being an issue with less selective project based curricula.
If I was any college USA and parents asked me that question, I would say the exact same thing 
I don’t how they would know that unless they follow their grads to their graduate schools and monitor them in some way.
Olin is a fairly unique example. Not only do they do more project based learning, they put a higher emphasis on arts, humanities and social sciences. In addition, they put a high focus on entrepreneurship. It’s more than just project based learning that is stealing from those theory hours.
Regarding entrepreneurship - what good is theory and research if you can’t get anyone to fund it?
All kidding aside there is some push to introduce entrepreneurship to engineers because from what I understand practicing engineers may have to rely on it when the ground shifts beneath them given the eventual layoffs and changes in technology.
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) journal recently published an article that sort of addresses this issue of hands on vs theory (“Five Major Shifts in 100 Years of Engineering Education” Froyd, et al., Proc. IEEE vol 100, 2012.) The authors identify 5 trends in Engineering Education:
The last three shifts are in progress, and perhaps another one needs to be added: entrepreneurship?