What do you think is the proper balance between “theoretical” (the science and the mathematics) and “practical” (use of programs, various machines, etc.) aspects of engineering education, and which universities do you think best emulate this balance?
I’ve heard good arguments for holding the pendulum on either side of the equation, and I’m hesitant to try to judge myself, partly because I’m still just a student, and also because I’m pretty pretty biased - I have an inclination towards theory and personally benefit from having my performance depend on it.
There’s a pretty big flaw in the assumption that seems to be underlying this question. That assumption is that all “hands on” programs, or as Cal Poly calls it “Learn By Doing,” offer less of a theory foundation. I only have direct experience with CP, but in their case, I can’t find any evidence that the “experience” portion of the curriculum is anything but additive.
@eyemgh I’d imagine that there are only a limited number of hours in a day, and resources in a school’s budget.
It seems like there’s a trend for more prestigious universities to focus heavily on theory, and for “lesser” schools to try to advertise their hands on component.
I’m not sure whether or not you’ve been keeping up with the evolution of engineering curricula or not, but almost every institution is changing their curricula to get students “hands on” earlier. The changes are based on the recommendations of many national institutions including ASEE and NSF.
@eyemgh Sure, I’m witnessing this firsthand - that doesn’t contradict my statement which was a comparative between schools. MIT and Caltech are still far more theoretical than UMD.
College Park is a very well respected engineering school in basically all circles. I’m not sure why you would use that as an example of “lesser” schools.
At any rate, some (many) people learn best by doing, and that’s great. It’s useful. However, things like using specific programs and machines can (and should) be handled mostly on the job since all jobs will have different requirements in this regard. On the other hand, most companies do not have the resources or desire to educate new employees about the theory underlying engineering. For that reason, the focus of a university degree should always be on building a solid theoretical foundation upon which a broad array of job-specific skills can be built.
@boneh3ad I go to College Park, but I’ll be the first to admit that it is “lesser” (jeez, does everyone understand what the quotations are supposed to do?) school compared to MIT and Stanford when it comes to prestige, which is what the context was referring to.
I agree with you, and I think that’s a very strong argument for the theoretical approach. I am a little ambivalent of the fact that College Park’s theoretical section seems to be at least somewhat undeveloped - we only have to take the three Calculus courses and differential equations with regards to math, for example. We also don’t have the courses on engineering ethics I was told other universities do, which is a shame.
Well engineering ethics is not a technical theory kind of course anyway. I think it’s a waste of time. When I got my BS at UIUC they just wrapped that into one lecture in a required seminar course and even that was a huge waste of time.
There are other well-regarded programs that only require those math courses of which I’m aware, though I’d argue that statistics and linear algebra should also be requirements. I know Texas A&M, for example, is similar to what you describe at Maryland, though at least one department is possibly changing that.
I misread your original question, what’s the proper balance. Sorry about that!
The bottom line is that all engineering programs have a minimum amount of theory and all become “hands on” at some point in their program. The question, how much and when should it start, is a good one.
There are clearly schools that do it well at both ends of the spectrum. I don’t however think Caltech is a great example. They aren’t widely regarded as producing great practicing engineers right out of UG. Maybe they take the balance too far in the other direction. Two former Caltech profs told my son that it is an awesome graduate program, but not to apply there for undergrad.
As for who does the hands on approach well, Cal Poly is the school that invented the concept. Their motto has been “Learn By Doing” since the school’s inception. Few would argue that they don’t produce well respected engineers.
I think as @boneh3ad and @ucbalumnus, two long time and well respected CC posters and engineers pointed out, the balanced approach is best.
BTW, what projects are you doing at Maryland and what do you feel you’re missing out on as a result?
I think that is hard to say, because the variation in grad school expectations and industry positions varies tremendously - there is no one balance that is proper for a majority of students. I got my BSEE from PSU and think it needed more theory, am working on my PhD at UIUC and think they are a little shortchanged on the practical, and both schools nonetheless do a pretty good job of preparing their students for their post-undergrad careers.
I have seen this as well, but it is complicated. Employers often recruit at different universities to fill different types of engineering positions, schools send varying percentages to different levels and types of graduate programs (not just engineering, but law and business and others too), and the faculties themselves have different agendas as well. In general, the higher the ranking the greater the emphasis there is on theory, because graduates are more likely to go into less hands-on positions in industry, are more likely to go to grad school, and are better positioned to help their faculty to meet their research goals (which are generally tougher in the top departments).
That having been said: [ul]
[] The variation is minimal within the core curriculum - students rarely see more than a course’s worth of variation between the most hands-on and most theory-focused departments.
[] The variation in electives and activities tends to overwhelm this - students looking for more hands-on work can find it even in the most theoretical of programs, and students looking for more theory rarely have much trouble finding it.
[li] I am certain that there are departments that defy this trend, going a little theory-heavy despite a “lower” ranking, or incorporating lots of hands-on work despite being “elite”.[/li][/ul]
QUOTE=ABET one and one-half years of engineering topics, consisting of engineering sciences and engineering design appropriate to the student’s field of study. The engineering sciences have their roots in mathematics and basic sciences but carry knowledge further toward creative application. These studies provide a bridge between mathematics and basic sciences on the one hand and engineering practice on the other. Engineering design is the process of devising a system, component, or process to meet desired needs. It is a decision-making process (often iterative), in which the basic sciences, mathematics, and the engineering sciences are applied to convert resources optimally to meet these stated needs.
Ethical, social, and political implications of engineering can be important to understanding what goes on when engineering projects are started, changed, or cancelled. (Of course, if the courses on such topics are not done very well, the may still be wastes of time.)
Ok, I stopped reading after the engineering ethics part. I agree it’s total BS. At one company that I’ve worked, it’s usually the biggest bosses that screwed up and the little people like me and other engineers had to take the ethics classes.
I think there should be a business ethics and not engineering ethics class.
