<p>but seriously answering your question, my bf just got his bs in meche, and he didn't need any 4bl after he finished it</p>
<p>
I recommend Half.com above all other websites, but can only recommend the UCLA Ackerman Store for brick & mortar stores. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
Yeah, you'll need to work with an electroscope in CS 152A/EE M116L. Other than that... nope. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Flopsy,</p>
<p>Did you ever take MAE 20? For ChE 109, a background in MATLAB is recommended, so should I take it?</p>
<p>
<p>Did you ever take MAE 20? For ChE 109, a background in MATLAB is recommended, so should I take it?
I don't have to take MAE 20, so nope... if you don't have to take it, don't take it, because MATLAB is really easy to learn. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Did you ever take MAE 20?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's way easier than C++, since functions don't need to be declared. Visual Studio is a complainer, not a compiler!</p>
<p>Anyways, MAE 20 was required before CS 31 was installed. The only people left in MAE 20 are those from the older generations and haven't taken it (probably like 20 per quarter). I think in ChE 109, they will teach you the MATLAB you need to know. You'll be okay.</p>
<p>
[quote]
you learn how to suck up to TAs. that is a life skill needed anywhere.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But I have a serious disadvantage of not being a girl. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
[quote]
my bf just got his bs in meche, and he didn't need any 4bl after he finished it
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah .. such a bad class. It's the only hands on experience in electrodynamics and people
don't know the theory or what they're even trying to do .. just connect wires to the ADC, plot data, and leave.</p>
<p>I think that's a weakness in UCLA engineering. Undergraduates don't get practical situations but just learn theories from textbooks.</p>
<p>did you use breadboards in physics 4bl? how about oscilloscopes?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think that's a weakness in UCLA engineering. Undergraduates don't get practical situations but just learn theories from textbooks.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think it's better to possess sound theoretical knowledge that will help you to tackle future challenges in any area than to be exposed to a set amount of "practical situations." Regardless, the "weakness" as you perceive it is with UC in general, hence their reputation as research institutions.</p>
<p>The thing is, that it's better to learn theoretical stuff, since most companies have a specific way they want you to do things. People at CSUs are taught more practical stuff, but they don't actually learn the theory behind it, so essentially, they are plumbers. </p>
<p>That is why UCs are preferred over CSUs when hiring for something other than technicians.</p>
<p>and spark123, yes we used the o-scope.</p>
<p>One more thing Flopsy - this is kind of a dumb question, but do you know where I can get the course requirements and curriculum for chem eng? The departmental website has the old requirements up, since chem 153A is not up and I know on the new one ChE 100 is listed as a third year course. The little cards in Murphy are even worse. Is the updated version online anywhere?</p>
<p>Boelter - I did learn a lot though. I think, because I tried very hard, that I ended up in the physics reading room a lot. If you just do the lab reports at the minimum, of course you won't learn... and there are girl TAs too! And gay ones too, I'm sure. Bat your eyelashses and press your boobs up against them ;)</p>
<p>moldau, im sure these websites can help you, the first one is the curricula, the second one is a catalog description: </p>
<p>sigh, thanks. i wonder why the departmental website has the old one only.</p>
<p>would it be permissible to take physics 105a/105b instead of something wimpy like chem 110b or 113a?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think it's better to possess sound theoretical knowledge that will help you to tackle future challenges in any area than to be exposed to a set amount of "practical situations." Regardless, the "weakness" as you perceive it is with UC in general, hence their reputation as research institutions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So would you consider being at UCLA is a slight disadvantage? I think some schools balance between research and hands on.</p>
<p>I'm just saying that from the course material I've learned, I don't know how it will be used unless my field will be analysis. It seems like the job field isn't all practical; the UC training doesn't seem to spark creativity as other schools do it seems.</p>
<p>hi moldau,</p>
<p>i guess you can, it all depends on what your interested in and what your major is. </p>
<p>for chemical engineering, physics 105a probably wont do much, and you'll have to take chem 113a anyway. physics 105a isnt part of the requirements.</p>
<p>It says upper div chem electives... or physical science with talking to departmental. 113a isn't necessary, and it's INTRO. I don't understand why they would push intro to qm instead of something like 115a.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So would you consider being at UCLA is a slight disadvantage? I think some schools balance between research and hands on.</p>
<p>I'm just saying that from the course material I've learned, I don't know how it will be used unless my field will be analysis. It seems like the job field isn't all practical; the UC training doesn't seem to spark creativity as other schools do it seems.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, UCLA engineering students are not in any disadvantage. UCLA grads get hired by top engineering firms and various other companies. I am sure that they know what we are taught in the engineering curriculum and what they are getting in return. In fact, as someone else pointed out, if companies only looked for "practical knowledge" they would hire more CSU grads, which is probably not the case. I know what you are going through though, as several of my friends have made the same complaint, but companies hiring new grads often expect you to know nothing. They will teach you what you need to know to function effectively in their company and in this regard practical knowledge is of no use. Here is where a strong theoretical base will be immensely useful as it will allow you to adapt to any situation. As I said, UC engineering grads have gone on to work for top companies and research institutions, so who are we to question the effectiveness of its teaching methodology?</p>
<p>And if you feel that you are not getting the adequate "practical" knowledge in UCLA you can always take more lab and/or design courses. I am told that HSSEAS doesn't have any unit cap for engineering students so you can always enroll in many of the design courses offered there, given that you satisfy the pre-reqs of course .</p>
<p>Hi Moldau, </p>
<p>I really dont know, seems like a good question for a advisors. From the 2007-2008 catalog year, the chemical engineering curriculum doesnt require a chemistry elective, but i might've missed something. </p>
<p>Hi Citan,</p>
<p>your post was reassuring and smart. But I think that the unit max at HSSEAS is actually 213 units.</p>
<p>
No, we did not use breadboards in Physics 4BL. We used breadboards in CS 152A/EE M116L. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
[quote]
your post was reassuring and smart. But I think that the unit max at HSSEAS is actually 213 units.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>One of the HSSEAS counselors I talked to said that the max units didn't apply to us and we could take as many classes as we could.</p>