<p>Some 4 year uni's also have technology programs. RIT is one. There are others, lurking in the shadows, calling themselves engineers and discrediting the value of your education in the process. There's also the sanitation engineers...</p>
<p>
[quote]
How is a university supposed to stop a person from trying in the first place?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, some schools do it by running a separate admissions track for engineering students. So if you're not on that track, you can't even try. </p>
<p>I happen to think this is a rather blunt tool. I would far prefer to simply run tighter admissions and then allow your admitted students to freely choose any major they want. This is what Stanford and MIT do: it's extremely difficult to get in, but once you're in, you are free to major in anything you want. </p>
<p>
[quote]
But those who pursue engineering in college do have a level of respect matched by few other disciplines.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, if you're just looking at disciplines. However, I think back and look at who were the most popular students in my undergrad days, who had the entourages, who were always invited to the best parties, and who were considered the stars on campus. The answer is clear - it was without question, the football players, especially the ones who were clearly going to make it to the NFL. It didn't really matter what they were majoring in (in fact, many of them could be said to be "majoring" in football itself). </p>
<p>The bottom line is many of the engineering students at my school wished they could be star football players instead. However, I highly doubt that any of the star football players wished that they could be engineering students. ESPN and other sports channels would often times showcase the football team. But I don't see any TV channels looking to showcase the engineering students. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Wow! I wish I would've known Stanford's program was 'relaxed', I would've tested my luck there, lol.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I actually thought this was rather common knowledge that Stanford is the main exception to the general trend of engineering & difficulty, but is an important exception precisely because of Stanford's elite engineering status and crucial position within the nexus of Silicon Valley. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The networking is, frankly, even more of a reason to go to top engineering schools like MIT or (especially) Stanford. That's because much of the hiring/recruiting that is performed within technology clusters like Boston's Technology Highway and Silicon Valley is based on networking. These clusters are not so much 'technology systems', they're really social systems. Silicon Valley, in particular, is the most innovative technology cluster in the world because of its unique social ties among entrepreneurs, engineers, and venture capitalists. It's not really that Silicon Valley people are more intelligent than people elsewhere (the people in Cambridge Mass are probably the most intelligent in the world in terms of sheer brainpower per capita), it's really that Silicon Valley has the right social balance. {One problem with Cambridge is that the people there are more interested in learning as much as they can than in actually making money.} </p>
<p>But that simply illustrates the importance of social connections. For example, most of the early employees at Google were old Stanford buddies of Sergey and Larry. Similarly, most of the early employees at Yahoo were old Stanford buddies of Jerry and David. {Note, this is no different from the fact that the reason why Steve Ballmer is CEO of Microsoft is simply that he was Bill Gates's old poker-playing pal in Currier House at Harvard.} </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, but the point was to simply contrast why engineering is different from medicine. I agree that most engineers actually have engineering degrees. But not all, and especially in the computer industry, there really are a lot who don't. However, to practice medicine, you need a medical degree as a matter of law: it is actually illegal for you to practice otherwise. However, if you don't have an engineering degree, and yet somebody still wants to hire you as an engineer, nobody is going to arrest you for it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would far prefer to simply run tighter admissions and then allow your admitted students to freely choose any major they want. This is what Stanford and MIT do: it's extremely difficult to get in, but once you're in, you are free to major in anything you want.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, you can't make it difficult to get into for every school. There have to be 3rd tier schools somewhere that aren't that selective; otherwise they wouldn't have any students! The problem is probably more noticeable there than at top schools like Stanford and MIT. I remember someone posting retention rates for tech schools and they were good/ok at top schools, but the rate quickly dipped once you got to the third tier schools. You can keep potential flunkers out of one school, but you can't keep them out of every school.</p>
<p>I would support a study attempting to relate engineering education success and high school indicators. I don't see why anyone would object to this, especially since some engineering schools already have a separate admissions. All this study would do is to improve the criteria that engineering schools use.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, you can't make it difficult to get into for every school. There have to be 3rd tier schools somewhere that aren't that selective;
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why is that necessarily the case? If engineering really is supposed to be a profession, then we can make it like a profession similar to medicine. Every<a href="accredited">/i</a> medical school is difficult to get into, even the 4th tier schools. I believe the majority of all applicants to med school get rejected from *every med school they apply to. Not coincidentally, the flunkout rate in med-school is practically zero. It is widely understood that once you're in, you're going to graduate. The trick is simply to get in. </p>
<p>Now, if you think that idea is too radical and you think you need to provide an opportunity for some less qualified students to nevertheless try to become engineers, then I would once again proffer an idea that I had stated: for those students who do poorly in engineering and hence have to leave the major, then wipe out their academic records. Let them pursue another major with a clean slate. Since they aren't going to get engineering degrees anyway, who cares what their engineering grades are? Why do you need to permanently mar their academic records? Let them move on with their lives.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If engineering really is supposed to be a profession, then we can make it like a profession similar to medicine. Every (accredited) medical school is difficult to get into, even the 4th tier schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The reason medical schools are so hard to get into is that there are more applicants than there are openings. In other words, there is a shortage of medical schools. Engineering schools, however, are abundant. Making engineering admissions similar to medical school admissions is synonymous with closing engineering schools all over the country and laying off many professors. I don't think this option is very reasonable.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The reason medical schools are so hard to get into is that there are more applicants than there are openings. In other words, there is a shortage of medical schools. Engineering schools, however, are abundant. Making engineering admissions similar to medical school admissions is synonymous with closing engineering schools all over the country and laying off many professors. I don't think this option is very reasonable.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, I'm afraid that that logic is not correct. </p>
<p>First off, right now, just like for med schools, there are in fact more applicants to engineering schools than there are openings. After all, hardly any engineering programs run open admissions. Even the lowest ranked, 4th tier programs usually have some sort of admissions processes that reject some people. And of course the very top engineering schools like MIT and Stanford reject the vast majority of applicants. Hence, right now, there are indeed more engineering applicants than there are openings. Hence, since engineering schools already have admissions processes, all I would be advocating is that those processes be made tighter. </p>
<p>Furthermore, there are clearly far more engineering applicants than there are actual *graduation openings<a href="if%20that%20makes%20sense">/i</a>. What I mean by that is that there are far more people who apply or get in to engineering programs than will actually graduate with engineering degrees. Like I said, many engineering students will drop out or flunk out and hence won't get engineering degrees.</p>
<p>In other words, what I am saying is not synonymous with closing engineering schools or laying off professors. It simply means aligning the number of students who are admitted with the number who are actually going to graduate. </p>
<p>What it would mean is having smaller introductory classes, which is where most of the weeding takes place. For example, instead of having, say, 200 students in your intro engineering class, you would have only 100. But that doesn't necessarily imply laying off professors. After all, whether you teach a 200-student class or a 100-student class, you still only need just one professor. </p>
<p>The only operational difference would be if you had that 100-student intro class, you know that all 100 of those students were going to graduate, whereas if you had that 200 student class, you know only half of them will make it (but the problem is, you don't know which half).</p>
<p>I think the problem with comparing a post-undergraduate degree like med school with an undergrad degree like engineering is that many people try engineering to see what it's like, only to switch out due to realizing it's not for them. People that went on to med school that I know often worked in hospitals, did medical research, or became involved in those sorts of activities during their undergraduate careers.</p>
<p>People don't fail out of med school because they know they want to be doctors; many people fail out of engineering school because they lose interest in the subject and don't feel the motivation to put in the work when they don't care about the material. I mean, seriously, how are you really supposed to know if you want to major in mechanical engineering or physics when you're sixteen or seventeen years old? How many of us were able to work in engineering related fields prior to having started college?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think the problem with comparing a post-undergraduate degree like med school with an undergrad degree like engineering is that many people try engineering to see what it's like, only to switch out due to realizing it's not for them. People that went on to med school that I know often worked in hospitals, did medical research, or became involved in those sorts of activities during their undergraduate careers.</p>
<p>People don't fail out of med school because they know they want to be doctors; many people fail out of engineering school because they lose interest in the subject and don't feel the motivation to put in the work when they don't care about the material. I mean, seriously, how are you really supposed to know if you want to major in mechanical engineering or physics when you're sixteen or seventeen years old? How many of us were able to work in engineering related fields prior to having started college?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree, which only reinforces the other proposal I have made: for those people who try out engineering and find out it's not for them, why not let them leave penalty-free? If they're not going to earn engineering degrees anyway, then who cares whether they failed their engineering classes? What does it matter? Just let them go to another major with a clean slate. </p>
<p>To follow the parallel example of medicine, if I'm thinking of becoming a doctor so I decide to work in a hospital or do medical research, and I perform poorly because I don't like it, I simply walk away. No harm, no foul. Nobody is going to hold it against me. In fact, nobody is even going to know. I am not going to have a black mark on my record for the rest of my life because I explored a potential medical career and didn't like it. Nobody is going to say "Well, I see that you explored being a premed and so you did some clinical volunteer work, but your work was poor which caused you to stop being a premed. But nevertheless, because your volunteer work was poor, we've decided we're not going to give you a job offer, or a grad school admission spot, or a scholarship, even if it has nothing to do with medicine. "</p>
<p>But that does happen with engineering. As I'm sure we remember, most of the weeder courses are early in the process. Hence, before you even know anything about engineering at all, you are forced to enter the weeders, and if you perform poorly, as many people do (for that is the point of the weeders), then those bad grades stay with you for life. Why? Like I said, if a guy isn't going to major in engineering anyway, then who cares that he got a bunch of bad engineering grades, especially in the weeders? That only serves to discourage people from even trying engineering. Currently, engineering majors force students to commit - and put their transcripts at risk - before they even really know what engineering is all about. Why is that? </p>
<p>This all gets to the general point I've been making, which is that I believe engineering programs need to be seriously overhauled. With the exception of that one elite school in Palo Alto, engineering programs as they stand now are unnecessarily painful and risky. It doesn't need to be this way.</p>
<p>Anything can be extremely hard. It just depends on your school and your professors ;)</p>
<p>I don't think the comparison of medical school students to undergraduate engineers is fair--medical school is a professional school. A better comparison would be medical school students versus engineering graduate students. </p>
<p>An undergraduate engineer can fail or do relatively poorly in the weedout classes but if they maintain a 3.0+ GPA or can get relevant experience, they can still get a job. On the other hand, a prelaw/premed student with a 3.0 GPA would have a hard time gaining admission .</p>
<p>nshah9617: </p>
<p>I think that the comparison IS fair. Especially with Civil Engineers or anyone who wants to become a professionally licensed engineer. Just because there are students who are able to get by in college with a half-decent GPA and land a job after graduating, it does not mean that they will excel in the industry. In order to become a Professional Engineer you need to pass a rigorous 2 day examination that has a passing rate of about 60%.</p>
<p>In some fields, your degree may be considered worthless if you are not professionally licensed. Also, in order to even take the exam you need to pass the EIT/FE and have X years of experience (depending on your state). I know for a fact that if you work for the Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering and don't pass the EIT/FE within 3 years of being hired, you will be fired.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think that the comparison IS fair. Especially with Civil Engineers or anyone who wants to become a professionally licensed engineer. Just because there are students who are able to get by in college with a half-decent GPA and land a job after graduating, it does not mean that they will excel in the industry. In order to become a Professional Engineer you need to pass a rigorous 2 day examination that has a passing rate of about 60%.
[/quote]
Relevance? Civil engineers can still pay a mortgage without a PE. And the EIT/FE is very easy.</p>
<p>2+2=5,</p>
<p>I know that the PE is rigorous but think about it this way, doctors MUST pass a multitude of exams (USMLE Step 1, Step 2, Step 3) in order to even be able to practice medicine and their typical specialties are dictated by such scores.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Civil engineers can still pay a mortgage without a PE.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not recommended, to not take the PE exam.</p>
<p>Also, if you want to do more advanced engineering in the civ field, you have to take and pass more exams, and accrue more qualifying experience.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think the comparison of medical school students to undergraduate engineers is fair--medical school is a professional school. A better comparison would be medical school students versus engineering graduate students
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, as 2+2=5 state above, I think the comparison is fair. After all, engineering is supposed to be a professional school too, even at the bachelor's degree level. After all, it is supposed to be preparing you for a profession, is it not? </p>
<p>
[quote]
An undergraduate engineer can fail or do relatively poorly in the weedout classes but if they maintain a 3.0+ GPA or can get relevant experience, they can still get a job. On the other hand, a prelaw/premed student with a 3.0 GPA would have a hard time gaining admission .
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have to take exception to this on several grounds. First off, I hardly find it credible that somebody could actually fail weeder classes yet still somehow maintain a 3.0+GPA, for the simple reason that if you fail your weeder classes, you probably won't even be allowed to continue in the school: instead, you will be expelled. </p>
<p>{Incidentally, this only serves to bolster my other point regarding the wipeability of weeder courses: if somebody decides to leave engineering, then who cares what his engineering weeder grades were? Why not just wipe them from his record? He's not going to be an engineering student anyway, so what does it matter? But as it stands now, that sadly does not happen. Those failed grades stay there forever. Why?}</p>
<p>Secondly, like I said, you failed to mention the other main difference between engineering and medicine (and to a lesser extent law) which is that it is practically impossible to actually flunk out of the latter, once you've been admitted. Of course, gaining admission is the trick, but once you're in, you're basically assured of graduating. </p>
<p>But all of that is neither here nor there. The real question is whether a bachelor's degree in engineering is really a professional degree or not. If it is, then why don't we treat it like other professional degrees like the MD, in which it is difficult to get in, but relatively easy to stay in? On the other hand, if it is not a professional degree, and it's just like all of the rest of the bachelor's degrees, then why do we need to make it so much more difficult than the other bachelor's degrees? For example, you don't see undergrad poli-sci programs weeding out half their undergrads. </p>
<p>Hence, my point is, you shouldn't have it both ways. Undergrad engineering is either a professional degree or it isn't. If it is, then let's run it like other professional degree programs. If it is not, then let's run it like a regular undergrad liberal arts degree. Right now, as it stands, you have the worst of both worlds.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not recommended, to not take the PE exam.
[/quote]
Well, I assume that most CEs who can't pass the PE just go into a field like construction management.</p>
<p>First, many of the pre-med/science majors still have to take the same "weeder" classes that engineers do--Calculus 1-3, Physics 1-2, Chemistry and in some cases, Organic Chemistry. Therefore failing these classes isn't really an exclusive black mark for engineering. Of course it varies greatly by the program but at my school you won't be expelled for failing a weeder class. Sure, if you fail it 3 times, you won't be able to continue as an engineer but one D/F won't completely destroy you. </p>
<p>My point is that NO major forgives bad grades even if you abandon further studies in that major. If a pre-med or pre-law failed a Calculus class or Fluids class, med schools won't glance over it. The nature of those schools are driven primarily by GPA and therefore any faltering can be detrimental. </p>
<p>Yet engineering can be considered a bit more leniant in lower GPAs due to the sheer difficulty of the work. Heck, the common rule of thumb is that a GPA above a 3.0 in engineering is decent and anything above 3.75 is great. These same GPA conventions don't really translate to other majors. Employers also
have different admission standards than graduate schools--some might look at your cumulative GPA while others value your "major" GPA and therefore a bad mark in a weeder class CAN be corrected in good grades in the more pertinent upper divison courses. Finally, just from personal experience, I have had friends that failed classes many times but still were able to secure jobs.</p>
<p>I think the main difference between medicine/law and engineering professions are licensing. My view is that a profession differs from an occupation since a profession is bound by a set of laws and ethics. Unfortunately the PE isn't mandatory for all engineering majors (i feel it should be) but however if you want any chance of practicing medicine or law, you MUST pass a licensing exam. Maybe because enginereing has a very vague definition but it isn't illegal to practice engineering without an associated degree. </p>
<p>Also, you don't need formal schooling or a degree to become an engineer but you MUST to become a doctor/lawyer. Engineering can be picked up through experience and you can even qualify or waive the FE/PE exams if you have had X years of experience. For example, at the oil company I worked with last year, they would train you to become a "drilling engineer" as long as your major was technical. I'm not a licensed PE yet but I can still practice engineering but I can't diagnose a patient with a disease or provide legal counsel--I'm not licensed or hold the necessary degrees.</p>
<p>
[quote]
then why do we need to make it so much more difficult than the other bachelor's degrees? For example, you don't see undergrad poli-sci programs weeding out half their undergrads.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think the main reason that colleges weed out students is for limited spaces in upper division classes and for preparation. Engineering is so much more difficult since it covers and demands a mastery of a wider range of topics. If you can't handle Calculus 1 how are you supposed to handle Fluid Mechanics or Heat Transfer? I feel that engineering departments only have the resources to support the students who want to be engineers not "might" want to be an engineer, so they weed out the latter in order to accommodate the others. Also, it IS possible to fail out of medical school. However, the school usually has vast resources to assign tutors and what not to help you out. Finally, I feel as a whole that medical/law school students are more motivated to finish the degree since it is required for their profession.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not a licensed PE yet but I can still practice engineering
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, you may not practice engineering! You are not even legally allowed to call yourself an engineer in most states.</p>
<p>Just as med students do clinical rotations in med school, so goes the tenure of an EIT. We are supervised by practicing engineers. Our job functionality may be the same as engineers at times, but the difference is that we are not held accountable for our work. Same thing with med students at teaching hospitals -- you perform procedures on patients under the close supervision of medical doctors.</p>
<p>If they drive a train, can they be called an engineer then, aibarr? :p</p>
<p>Sakky, I agree with nshah9617, the weeder courses usually aren't even within engineering. We see questions all the time on these forums about "How do I prepare for physics/chemistry/calc/bio/organic?" I don't think I've seen anyone going "What textbook should I get for my Intro to MechE course so I can study and get a leg up on during the summer?" That's one of the biggest problems with "engineering" weeder classes; they're not even classes in engineering!</p>
<p>What we really need to do is make those weeder courses aimed more towards the engineering students that are forced to take them instead of sticking them in classes with all of the people that are majoring in them. My undergrad school divided the Physics curriculum into one track for engineers, one track for science students, one track for "super science" students (high interest), and one track for humanities students. Hardly any of my friends had a hard time with those classes, because they were taught in a style corresponding to our majors. However, the math track was not divided, and we all found the level of teaching for those classes to be considerably lower.</p>
<p>With regards to weeder courses- why don't schools just accept fewer kids who want to do engineering rather than have them go through all this weeding hell?</p>