<p>
[quote]
I think that is pretty simple--engineering is a difficult major!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But the question is - why? Why should it be such a difficult major? See below. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Grades and professors aside, which can vary from schol to school, the engineering curriculum is much more difficult than other majors. Upper division classes combine theories and ideas from previous classes and build on them. For example, how can one understand a Thermal Fluids class if they can't understand Heat Transfer and Fluid mechanics and consequentally Calculus?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The better question is why do you NEED to understand thermal fluids? {Actually, I have never even heard of "thermal fluids", but I'll go with it}. I would argue, and you seem to agree, that for most engineering jobs, you don't actually need to know that. So why do they FORCE you to learn it? </p>
<p>Don't get me wrong. Hey, if you want to learn it, you are free to do so. But why do you NEED to learn it? </p>
<p>
[quote]
You are right, the majority of an engineering curriculum and ANY major/profession is often irrelevant to future jobs. In the end experience is king but I feel the reason they still teach us these topics is to nevertheless build a foundation for the future or just to prepare you for the next step of life. Look, I see a degree as just a "check mark" that proves that you are intelligent. Do you need a degre to be an engineer? No! I can study all the theory I want on pipe valves but that pipe technician who dropped out of high school will know exactly how to fix the pipe and all the specifications. However, could he design a new system or explain what would happen if we induce turbulence? Probably not, his experience hasn't exposed him to those ideas yet my education has given me a broad base to consider it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But has it? You said it yourself - most of the material that you have learned actually turns out to be irrelevant. In fact, if you read my examples again, you will see that much of the material isn't even learned. Like I said, it's hard to find ANY practicing chemical engineers who will confidently say that they truly understand what the Maxwell Relations actually mean in a real-world sense. Sure, they can solve a bunch of problem sets that have Maxwell Relations question on them. But so what? They can't actually apply what they know. So why did they have to learn it?</p>
<p>This all gets to what a general point regarding engineering: much (probably most) of it is simply superfluous and hence actually serves to hinder the overall development of technology. It's a broken system. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Heck, look at premed majors. There is nothing in UG studies that can train you as a doctor. Whats the point of a premed major? To prepare yourself for the medical school "check marks", the MCAT. I doubt that 10 years down the line a doctor is going to need to remember an Alkane synthesis to diagnose a patient. However, the rigorous Organic course helped prepare him for the MCAT which helped prepare him for the difficulties of medical school, which helped give him a education that provided a foundation for his experience.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have always agreed that the premed system is a broken system also. But that doesn't mean that engineering should be broken too. Just because some other profession does something wrongly doesn't mean that you should do it wrongly too. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You are right, formalized education as a whole can be superfluous IF you look retrospectively at the jobs students are entering. Look, I think college is supposed to be a place where one can learn more about a subject AND themself. Most of the things we learn are "just in case". Sure, if all the computers in the world died I could theoretically use a numerical method technique to find a root--would it happen, probably not, but I COULD because I have the education. Finally, I think the most important point is that professors are here to teach and broaden our perspectives.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yet here you are presuming that everybody is going to finish their educations. We know that is simply false. Like I have pointed out, plenty of engineers flunk out completely. It is precisely those people that I am worried about the most. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Sure, the working ChemE might have little use with the Maxwell equations but there might have been that one guy who was intrigued by it and went on to study it further. In short, most students have no clue what they want to do with their life at age 18 and college/engineering degree gives them a wide set of options
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For the one guy who actually likes Maxwell's, fine, let him do it. But why do the other students have to risk actually flunking just to satisfy that one guy, especially when practicing chemical engineers hardly ever use Maxwells anyway? </p>
<p>Look, the bottom line is that I am attempting to help those people who are currently being hurt by the current state of engineering education, of which there are many. Like I have always said, for those people who try out engineering and do poorly, why not let them leave with a clean slate? Why do they have to carry around their poor grades forever? Absolutely nothing that you have said addresses this point. All you have said is nothing more than simple quibbling that does nothing to help these people. </p>
<p>At the end of the day, what I am looking for is a system that provides a strong educational experience to as many people as possible, not one where certain students who just happen to choose their initial major poorly simply got tossed on their arses and left to rot. If you try something and don't do well, you should be free to try something else penalty-free. The present system hurts numerous people. </p>
<p>Now, if you're just not interested in helping these people, then just say so, and at least we will know where you stand. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You are right but do they have the resources to RUN those upper division courses sucessfully?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course they do. If they didn't, they would just reduce the official number of seats. After all, it's not only engineers who take these courses. Often times, you will find that natural science and math students will want to take these courses also, and the profs can't stop them if there are available seats. If the profs wanted to stop this possibility, they would have simply reduced the number of total official seats in the class. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Engineering on the other hand (should) involve the comprehension of difficult topics and concepts. I bet a lot more people can memorize facts and figures than those who can think analytically. In the end I feel that most people fail out of engineering because they might not just "get" the topics or like engineerimg while in medical school, they can't handle the work load or stress.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is it? Why does engineering always need to involve the comprehension of difficult topics? </p>
<p>Look, you talk to most working engineers on the job, and most of them will tell you that most of their job is quite straight-forward and common sense. They don't actually need to know that much in order to do their jobs, and certainly not most of what they learned while in school. The harsh truth of the matter is that most engineering jobs out there are not that complicated. Maybe they should be, but they're not. </p>
<p>Now, when you get to intensive R&D-type engineering jobs, yes, that's when the job gets complicated. But most engineers don't have those kinds of jobs. </p>
<p>Which gets back to the point I've been making before. My real goal here is to help those engineering students who are struggling to the point that they're facing expulsion. For example, Berkeley expels numerous engineering students, and when I say 'expel', I mean truly expel - meaning that they are kicked out of Berkeley completely. They can't go to another major, they can't get another degree - they are out completely. Why? Now, I might agree that if they were truly not meeting the absolute barest minimum necessary to graduate from any major at Berkeley, then OK, they deserve to be out. But the truth of the matter is, almost all of those expelled engineers could have almost certainly graduated if they had simply chosen another (easier) major. Furthermore - and perhaps even more importantly - many of those expelled engineering students would have probably graduated in engineering if they had simply gone to an easier school. More to the point, they probably know enough to handle most regular engineering jobs (which, like I said, aren't that complicated). Sure, they probably won't be able to handle the higher-end R&D type roles, but they're not interested in that anyway. Hence, these guys could have done perfectly fine in most engineering jobs, but now they've been kicked out school completely. Why? </p>
<p>Nor is Berkeley a singular exception. Numerous engineering schools do the same thing. Why? Why does it need to be this way? It is my stance that schools should be trying to help those students who don't do well. After all, the school did admit them, so they are the school's responsibility (if the school didn't want this responsibility, then the school shouldn't have admitted them in the first place, which is one of the subpoints I discussed previously). But given that you did admit them, I think it is your responsibility to help them out. The worst choice you can make, which is the current choice, is to admit subpar students and then not help them when they do poorly. That's a problem.</p>