why is engineering so hard?

College Majors Engineering Majors
41

<p>
[quote]
Secondly, even if what you are saying is true, then that just begs the question of why can't the foreign languages be made to be a vocation? For example, we could institute a rule that every single foreign language bachelor's recipient needs to know enough to work as an entry-level translator. Why not? Such a rule would clearly vastly raise the rigor level of all language undergrad majors.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course, I don't know the real answer to this, so I can only speculate. Maybe it can be made into a vocational major, but is there a demand for this change? Do students want it that way? Is the translator business booming so much that people are dying to get into that profession? Do students expect to become a translator after getting a degree in Spanish? No.</p>

<p>For physics... I don't know. I can only assume that people who choose that major go into it knowing that it's hard, so there's no demand for change. Can the difficulty level be changed? Probably.</p>

<p>Can engineering be made easier? Probably. Why don't they make it easier? I'll answer that with another question - why do med schools only take in so many people every year?</p>

42

<p>
[quote]
Of course, I don't know the real answer to this, so I can only speculate. Maybe it can be made into a vocational major, but is there a demand for this change?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I don't know that demand has necessarily anything to do with it. For example, until just recently, there hasn't exactly been a huge demand for, say, nuclear engineering in decades. But that doesn't mean that nuclear engineering programs made themselves easier because of lack of demand. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Do students want it that way?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ha! You're talking about as if programs actually care about what students want. Let's be perfectly honest, plenty of engineering students don't like the current state of engineering education, believing that to be unnecessarily painful and tedious. </p>

<p>*Early in her career, electrical-engineering professor Sherra Kerns was called on the carpet after her students said they enjoyed her introductory class in electrical-circuit theory. Fellow faculty members, puzzled by the strong student response, told Kerns that if her students liked the class so much, then she must not be teaching it properly. But that doesn't seem to cause the programs to do anything about it. </p>

<p>"Even today, the assumption is that engineering classes have to be painful to be effective," said Kerns, who is now vice president of research and innovation at Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering (Needham, Mass.). "Professors who have happy students are suspect because their classes may not be rigorous enough. *</p>

<p>EETimes.com</a> - If I'm happy, can this be EE school?</p>

<p>So if engineering programs don't really care what their students think, then why do Spanish programs need to care about what their students think?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Is the translator business booming so much that people are dying to get into that profession? Do students expect to become a translator after getting a degree in Spanish? No.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>To the first question, see above. Engineering programs don't seem to adjust their rigor in response to demand. For example, during the tech bust of 2001, EE/CS programs didn't reduce their rigor because of the lowered student demand. </p>

<p>To your second question, I think the answer is entirely endogenous. Students obviously right now can't expect to become translators after getting a Spanish degree because, like we both agree, the program is just too easy and doesn't force them to learn enough. But if the program did force them to learn enough, then maybe they would be able to expect to become translators. </p>

<p>
[quote]
For physics... I don't know. I can only assume that people who choose that major go into it knowing that it's hard, so there's no demand for change. Can the difficulty level be changed? Probably.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, exactly. Similarly, if Spanish were to change such that it became very hard, then people would then enter that major knowing that it is hard. </p>

<p>It's all a matter of setting expectations. If you set low expectations, then you end up with lazy and incompetent students. If you set high expectations, then you end up with diligent and qualified students. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I'll answer that with another question - why do med schools only take in so many people every year?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Simple: the AMA doesn't want them to. It's economic rent-seeking behavior, pure and simple. The AMA doesn't want more new doctors lowering the salaries of current doctors.</p>

<p>So now you are probably thinking that the difficulty of engineering is also a matter of rent-seeking by current engineers. However, the analogy breaks down quickly, for the following reasons:</p>

<p>*With the exception of Civil Engineering, you don't actually need an engineering degree to work as an engineer. Contrast that with medicine where you actually need a medical degree to work as a doctor. </p>

<p>Some of the best engineers I know don't have engineering degrees. For example, I know a girl who used to work as a wafer fab process engineer at Intel. But she doesn't have an engineering degree. Her degree was in chemistry. I know a guy at MIT who hasn't graduated yet but has already built himself a cool solar motorcycle and has already been offered an engineering job with an alternative energy firm before he completes his degree. </p>

<p>How about some more famous "engineers"? Steve Wozniak is widely noted for being one of the most brilliant computer engineers in history, having personally designed the motherboards and systems layouts of the Apple I and Apple II personal computers. But he didn't have an engineering degree at the time (he ended up getting one, but only years later after he had left Apple). Howard Hughes is widely credited with, among numerous achievements, being a brilliant aerospace engineer and designer, having personally designed numerous innovative aircraft such as the groundbreaking H-1 Racer (which broke numerous speed records) and, more famously, co-designed and co-built the Spruce Goose, which to this day, still has the largest wingspan of any aircraft in history. Yet he didn't have an engineering degree, having dropped out of aibarr's school. </p>

<p>Rent-seeking works best when you have a true monopoly, and the strongest monopolies are obviously those that are legally mandated. But, except for civil engineers, the engineering community doesn't have a legal monopoly on engineers. Anybody can potentially work as an engineer, whether they have an engineering degree or not. It's all a matter of simply finding somebody who is willing to hire you. The engineering community can't legally bar you from working as an engineer just because you don't have an engineering degree, in the way that the medical community can actually legally bar you if you don't have a medical degree.</p>

<p>*A higher percentage of engineering students won't work as engineers, whereas in medicine, almost every new MD will work as a physician. Like we have discussed, many new engineering graduates will end up going to law or med school, or go to other industries entirely (i.e. banking, consulting). Yet other than a few freaks like Michael Crichton, almost every new MD ends up working as a physician, at least in the beginning. </p>

<p>Hence, it makes more sense, from a social welfare perspective, for MD programs to take in so few people, because the few they take in are almost certainly actually going to work as doctors. In contrast, it makes less sense for engineering programs to be so hard when a significant chunk of students aren't going to be working as engineers anyway. </p>

<p>The biggest difference of all: MD programs are hard to *get in, but once you're in, as long as you do the work, you're going to pass. Practically nobody actually flunks out of med school. </p>

<p>Frankly, this is a model that I think engineering should follow. If engineering needs to be hard, then it should be hard in terms of admission. After all, if somebody isn't going to make it, then why even bother letting him into the program in the first place? It is far more humane to reject him from the very beginning so that he doesn't end up wasting time and ruining his academic transcript. </p>

<p>Lest any of you find this ridiculous, allow me to point out that this is precisely the model that is followed by a certain school in Palo Alto. It's extremely difficult to get admitted but also almost impossible to actually flunk out of that school. Yet nobody denigrates that school's engineering quality: indeed, it is widely respected as one of the elite engineering schools in the world.</p>

43

<p>Pampering engineers=conferring them with social status=higher salaries=higher cost for consumer goods, buildings, etc.</p>

44

<p>
[quote]
Pampering engineers=conferring them with social status=higher salaries=higher cost for consumer goods, buildings, etc.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You forgot the flip side of the equation:</p>

<p>Pampering engineers= more of the best people want to be engineers (instead of bankers, consultants, lawyers, etc.) = more technological innovation and economic growth. Having more lawyers certainly doesn't help economic growth (if anything, it detracts from growth), and it's debatable whether bankers and consultants really contribute to economic growth (as opposed to redistributing wealth created by others).</p>

45

<p>Pampered people aren't productive.</p>

46

<p>Are you saying we should treat people poorly in order to increase efficiency?</p>

47

<p>
[quote]
Ha! You're talking about as if programs actually care about what students want. Let's be perfectly honest, plenty of engineering students don't like the current state of engineering education, believing that to be unnecessarily painful and tedious.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Based on some other threads I've seen on this forum, I question as to whether engineering students actually want it easier! Take a look at all the "which major is harder" topics; it seems like everybody wants to say their major is hardest. You don't see anybody bragging about how easy their major is. It's the education version of "who can benchpress more?"</p>

<p>Perhaps it's this kind of mentality that makes engineering hard.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Frankly, this is a model that I think engineering should follow. If engineering needs to be hard, then it should be hard in terms of admission. After all, if somebody isn't going to make it, then why even bother letting him into the program in the first place? It is far more humane to reject him from the very beginning so that he doesn't end up wasting time and ruining his academic transcript.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But is someone's high school record really a good indicator of potential success as an engineering major? </p>

<p>Assuming you disagree with the above statement, how do you propose to make admission tougher than it currently is? Some schools already require you to apply specifically into the engineering school to get in, so the criteria is probably different from admission into the rest of the school. </p>

<p>One thing to consider is that no matter how tough you make admission into an engineering school, there is always an easier one to get into. If you're rejected from Stanford Engineering, then you apply to Ohio State Engineering. If you can't get into Ohio State Engineering, then you go to the next school. That person probably won't change majors if s/he is truly interested in engineering. The problem is the material you learn at Ohio State will probably be pretty similar to the material you learn at Stanford. You don't get to take fewer or easier engineering courses just because you went to a less selective institution.</p>

48

<p>The question that comes up in my mind about language majors is, what is the motive of pursuing a degree in a specific language for a student? Without personally knowing somene receiving a pure language degree or having any immediate personal experience, I always had the perception of language degrees as a means to an end. For example, students planning on a career in business would receive a degree in Chinese in order to get an edge in the global economy. Or an aerospace engineering major would receive a degree in French in order to improve his/her opportunity to work for a France-based aerospace company. Or a student planning on working for Amnesty International would pursue a degree in language in order to communicate with the vast international network.</p>

<p>There is certainly a group of students who plan on pursuing a career as a pure translator. The question is, how many? Surely many Language Departments have networks setup with universities in the native speaking country for these students to attend. Also, I don't know how many units of a certain language gets you a degree, but if it is 60 units, that seems like plenty to prepare students for a certain level of oral and expository communication with native speakers. Or at the least, it will set a firm foundation that the students can rely on to build up their language proficiency when the students go learn the native tongue at the respective country.</p>

49

<p>
[quote]
Well, I don't know about that. By that same argument, I would say that math, especially theoretical math, is really an 'IQ sort'. But that doesn't mean that I think everybody should major in math.

[/quote]
Math is an IQ sort. A major being an IQ sort has no bearing on whether I think people should go into or not. It simply makes the degree more valuable.</p>

50

<p>
[quote]
Pampered people aren't productive.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>They aren't? Seems to me that the engineers from that school in Palo Alto are some of the most productive engineers in the world. To be perfectly honest, they've arguably been behind more successful technical innovations in the last 25 years than even the engineers from MIT.</p>

51

<p>^Agreed. Pampered people are productive. The more incentives people have to do their jobs, the harder they will work and the more productive they will be.</p>

52

<p>
[quote]
Based on some other threads I've seen on this forum, I question as to whether engineering students actually want it easier! Take a look at all the "which major is harder" topics; it seems like everybody wants to say their major is hardest. You don't see anybody bragging about how easy their major is. It's the education version of "who can benchpress more?"</p>

<p>Perhaps it's this kind of mentality that makes engineering hard.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, I know, and they're fools for doing so, and I'm going to continue to point to Stanford as the ultimate counterexample. Stanford is widely noted as a school that offers a highly relaxed environment relative to most other engineering schools, yet nobody questions Stanford's status as an elite engineering school. Stanford is living proof that you can provide a top-tier engineering education with relatively little pain. </p>

<p>
[quote]
But is someone's high school record really a good indicator of potential success as an engineering major?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why not? That's what Stanford does in determining admissions. Frankly, that's also what other elite engineering schools like MIT, Caltech, Berkeley, etc. do. These schools will make a judgment on your high school record and they don't admit every high school senior who applies. Far from it. The vast majority of applicants will be rejected from those schools. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Assuming you disagree with the above statement, how do you propose to make admission tougher than it currently is?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Schools should perform a statistical analysis to determine who are actually successfully graduating from their engineering programs and who are flunking out and determine what statistical markers that denote a high chance that somebody will flunk out, and then simply admit (at least into their engineering programs) fewer people in the future who have those markers. For example, perhaps it is the case that a certain group of high schools produce an unusually high percentage of people who enter your engineering program and then flunk out. The answer is then to admit fewer people from those high schools. </p>

<p>Lest you find this practice unsavory because one might argue that those future rejectees are effectively being punished for the sins of their predecessors, I would remind you that this is precisely what insurance companies have been doing for decades. For example, health insurance companies have found that smokers tend to run up far higher health costs than do nonsmokers, and so smokers are charged higher premiums. Surely that's not fair to that minority of smokers who never suffer from bad health, but statistically speaking, you have to go by what the data tells you. </p>

<p>Lest we forget, I would point out that the act of flunking out is not a joke. It has great repercussions on everybody, especially on the students themselves. A student who flunks out has damaged his future permanently, as his (failed) academic record will follow him wherever he goes. Sad but true. Even if he manages to finish his degree in some other program, any grad school and any employer can ask for his old transcripts whereupon he will have to reveal that he had flunked out of engineering, and then that grad school or employer can simply choose to reject him based on that fact. In other words, in this world, it's unfortunately true that it's better to not try engineering at all than to try it and flunk out. </p>

<p>Note, this points to another possible reform which I also advocate: that engineering programs should expunge the records of those who flunk out. After all, if the guy isn't going to get an engineering degree anyway, who cares what engineering grades he got? Seal his records. Let him leave with a clean slate. </p>

<p>
[quote]
One thing to consider is that no matter how tough you make admission into an engineering school, there is always an easier one to get into. If you're rejected from Stanford Engineering, then you apply to Ohio State Engineering. If you can't get into Ohio State Engineering, then you go to the next school. That person probably won't change majors if s/he is truly interested in engineering.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And I think right there is actually part of the problem: how many people really are that sure they're interested in engineering? A lot of applicants are more interested in the school rather than the major, and rationally so. Let's face it. Most high school seniors don't really know what they want to do for a career, and they don't even know what they want to major in. That's why most of them will shop around and try on different majors before finally settling on one. This is especially true of engineering, as unlike the sciences or humanities, engineering education is not offered to most high school students, and hence most of them don't really know what it entails. Even MIT - which has been the world's premier engineering school for decades - recognizes that many students aren't sure about engineering and hence offers a plethora of other majors and doesn't require students to choose a major until after 2 years. </p>

<p>
[quote]
One thing to consider is that no matter how tough you make admission into an engineering school, there is always an easier one to get into. If you're rejected from Stanford Engineering, then you apply to Ohio State Engineering. If you can't get into Ohio State Engineering, then you go to the next school. That person probably won't change majors if s/he is truly interested in engineering. The problem is the material you learn at Ohio State will probably be pretty similar to the material you learn at Stanford. You don't get to take fewer or easier engineering courses just because you went to a less selective institution.
The problem is the material you learn at Ohio State will probably be pretty similar to the material you learn at Stanford. You don't get to take fewer or easier engineering courses just because you went to a less selective institution.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yet even if there is no difference in the coursework, the employers nevertheless seem to think there's a big difference in the final outcome. Consider this quote regarding the hiring practices at Google:</p>

<p>*For the most part, it takes a degree from an Ivy League school, or MIT, Stanford, CalTech, or Carnegie Mellon--America's top engineering schools--even to get invited to interview. *</p>

<p>Can</a> Google Grow Up? Google is one of the best things to happen to the Net. So will its IPO, expected this spring, be a must-buy? A look inside reveals a talented company facing trouble. - December 8, 2003</p>

<p>Now, granted, that was regarding the hiring practices of Google in 2003. Things have changed greatly since then. Google nowadays is a far bigger, and hence, much less selective employer. Nevertheless, the fact remains that many top engineering employers will tend to recruit at only the top programs. You can't just say that even though you went to Idaho State University, your engineering curriculum was the same as that of Stanford's or MIT's and so you ought to get the same interviews that those guys got. The top employers aren't going to care. They won't even give you an interview.</p>

53

<p>
[quote]
The question that comes up in my mind about language majors is, what is the motive of pursuing a degree in a specific language for a student? Without personally knowing somene receiving a pure language degree or having any immediate personal experience, I always had the perception of language degrees as a means to an end. For example, students planning on a career in business would receive a degree in Chinese in order to get an edge in the global economy. Or an aerospace engineering major would receive a degree in French in order to improve his/her opportunity to work for a France-based aerospace company. Or a student planning on working for Amnesty International would pursue a degree in language in order to communicate with the vast international network.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Or, more commonly, somebody is simply looking to become a high school language teacher. For example, my high school Spanish teacher unsurprisingly majored in Spanish. </p>

<p>But more mundanely, as it stands right now, a lot of people take language classes not really to learn anything but just because they're easy. For example, a lot of people are already fluent in that language (having spoken it since they were kids) and view those classes as a way to get a bunch of easy A's for very little work. For example, one serious problem at Berkeley regards Asian students who are already fluent in Asian languages, but nevertheless take courses in those languages, especially the elementary courses, just to get a string of easy A's to pad their GPA's. It's gotten to the point that the courses have prescreening procedures where an instructor will see whether you will be allowed to take the course or not and will actually try to trick you to reveal yourself as a native speaker.</p>

54

<p>I can't say that I agree with all of sakky's ideas, but I have to agree that something should be done to try to improve either: a) admission into an engineering program or b) preventing the flunk out rate at engineering programs.</p>

<p>I understand that it is probably more cost effective to accept a bunch of students and have a certain percentage flunk out then to spend money on studies to try to abate the flunk out rate. But as sakky mentioned, flunking out is no joke and it seems like every year there are probably one too many engineering students who get into engineering programs with no engineering degree to show for it, but a tarnished academic record instead. I remember at my freshman engineering orientation, the lead admissions officer told us to look at the person next to us because one out of those 2 students will not be in the college of engineering in a year. Of course the sole responsibility of the student's well being should not be in the hands of the university. How is a university supposed to stop a person from trying in the first place? But if that is the case and the university accepts more students than they know will last in the engineering program, then the university should take the responsibility to guide "at risk" students to make better decisions that eventually do not lead to a bunch of F's or D's on their record.</p>

<p>Probably the best alternative is for all engineering programs (or all universities in general) in the U.S. fund a program to study how they can improve the level of competency in high school students in terms of engineering (or any other major). This would help improve high school education, as well as cultivating the next generation of engineers at an early age to continue the U.S.'s edge in technological innovation and advancement. There is no point in having a bunch of flunkees out in the open market. Develop the interest at a young age and help young kids determine whether they can handle the pressure.</p>

55

<p>To joewhiz
what about making the high school pre-reqs harder? If we made high school physics as hard as mechanics1 it would give the high school kids a better idea if they can handle engineering or not. I found there was a huge transition between high school physics and mechanics 1.
Another issue is grade inflation. Half my high school class was getting A's. This boosted everyones confidence but most of these kids were then crushed in university...</p>

56

<p>I think 'geeks' and 'nerds' aren't envied in grade school. But those who pursue engineering in college do have a level of respect matched by few other disciplines. I was valedictorian of my class and was actually very popular. I won't say I would've been a regular at the 'A' table but definitely a strong 'B+' candidate, lol. You have to be able to balance your academic interests and social skills and have a little swag. Thinking about it, the top 20 seniors in my class were all very popular, including some of the school's best looking girls..</p>

57

<p>That's because girls study 24/7 and get really really high grades on essays with incredible consistency. Also high school math teachers are phenomenally nerdy and enjoy female approval A LOT so they always give the girls high grades, or structure the class in the way that homework counts for half the grade so the girls ace it.</p>

<p>Every school is different, some are full of well behaved overachieving kids with yuppie parents, others are full of average kids. Keep in mind the average IQ is 100, and the average SAT is ~1000. At the typical hs, these numbers are about right, as it was with mine. At my hs, I didn't just sit at the A table, I ran it. The nerdy kids weren't popular because they weren't like most kids there. They didn't drink, weren't sexually active because a highly active cerebrum takes blood away from parts of the brain which control reproductive urges, plus smart guys usually have small *****es that they aren't in a rush to use anyway (chicken/egg?), and they didn't get invited to parties, so no hookups.</p>

<p>Also for some reason, nerds at my hs had a tendency to do TERRIBLE if the teacher was a coach, etc. This kid who did all his chem labs PERFECTLY, finished all of them really fast, etc., and wrote lab reports in near-caligraphic cursive with strokes of brilliant insight FAILED that particular class for one reason or another.</p>

58

<p>Wow! I wish I would've known Stanford's program was 'relaxed', I would've tested my luck there, lol. College prejudice by employers can be a problem but like the saying goes, sometimes it is not what you know but who you know. Networking is just as important (fortunately or unfortunately) as grades and experience. I knew I didn't wanna go to school very far from home and even now I wouldn't choose to do so; however, sometimes I do wish I would've chosen to attend a more prestigious engineering school. Then, I take a look at some of my classmates and realize that I am sitting to some of the most brilliant, hard working, determined, and innovative peers I have ever met. A prestigious school may place you at the door to a great career, but everyone can start at the bottom step and climb up.</p>

59

<p>
[quote]
^Agreed. Pampered people are productive. The more incentives people have to do their jobs, the harder they will work and the more productive they will be.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think how productive someone is has a lot more to do with their own personality and the personal satisfaction they derive from work than from any other external force. I mean, if your company suddenly gave you free health care instead of you having to pay your part of the premiums every month, would you suddenly be able to cure cancer?</p>

<p>I think these companies that give such fantastic benefits packages do so in order to lure the "right people" away from other companies, not to necessarily get them to work any better.</p>

60

<p>Sakky</p>

<p>For all practical purposes, I think that engineering includes those professions which typically require a BS in engineering. I am basing my definition of engineering on what has been determined by universityes. I notice that a lot of community colleges (not a bash on any community college, student, etc) may offer 2 year degrees in 'engineering technology'. This is not engineering by the definition I am following. I think they are trying to capitalize on the success of actual engineering. There are exceptions of course. Someone without an engineering degree who has experience can of course perform the same work that an engineer would do but that is an exception not the norm.</p>