Why is engineering so hard?

College Majors Engineering Majors
101

<p>
[quote]
And how exactly would one measure the "entropy" of something?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Statistical mechanics? ;)</p>

<p>
[quote]
In fact, I think you just captured my frustration. You said that you took a class where you finally learned enough to apply thermo to the real world. What that implies is that your regular thermo class did not teach you how to apply it to the real world.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, I said "when you finally learn enough," not "when you finally learn how." My regular thermo class didn't teach me how to apply it to real systems because it was too fundamental of a class to learn how to apply it to real, non-ideal systems.</p>

<p>Also, I should say that the second thermo class required of all MSE students at CMU is called "Phase Diagrams and Transformations" which deals with the derivation of phase diagrams through various models of solutions (basically learning why different things happen when you mix different things). All of it drew upon the knowledge we had gained in thermo. The second half of that class was also dedicated to nucleation processes, which is generally one of the foremost things that materials engineers are concerned about.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Besides, I have to ask, if there are non-engineering classes at Caltech that you are not satisfied with, then why are you taking them? Is it because your program requires them? If so, then that means that your program is requiring that you take dissatisfyingly difficult classes.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's because I'm required to take them. Also, to be fair, the name of the department here is Materials Science, and not Materials Science & Engineering, and they did that intentionally. This department doesn't claim to be an engineering department, it's definitely much more aligned with applied physics in how the curriculum is designed (MS takes a three course series of materials science classes and APh takes a three course series of applied physics is the main difference).</p>

<p>
[quote]
It is one thing to try to teach the practical uses of something, but to just teach it poorly. It's quite another thing to not even try to teach the practical uses at all.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I forget who, but someone said in the thread said that most engineering professors are really scientists, and not practicing engineers. I think this really is one of the main reasons you don't see solid industrial applications demonstrated in your classes. One of my great professors had been a practicing engineer, and he really tried to make up for this. He'd often give us a random property of a material (say, magneto-resistance) and we'd have to come up with a variety of real-life applications for it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I frankly find it hard to believe what you are saying, because CMU has only an 87% overall 6-year graduation rate (in all majors), which is even worse than Berkeley's. But if you insist that nobody gets weeded out in ChemE in CMU, I'll take your word for it, for now. I think I'll post this on the CMU section of CC and see what response I get.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm sure there are people that get weeded out of every major at CMU, but I imagine that's more due to their own lack of work ethic than CMU putting the squeeze on them.</p>

<p>Also, I think a large portion of the 13% that don't graduate in six years is Architecture, since they're notorious for failing about 50% of their students out. Also, since CMU is notorious for not having the best aid, I'm sure we lose a few for financial reasons.</p>

<p>I actually know one guy from my brother's fraternity that was at CMU for CivE (considered the easiest undergrad engineering major there), but was doing very poorly, so he transferred to Pitt and was able to get a degree in Electrical Engineering with top grades. So I'm not sure if it's engineering that was causing his problems or the lack of fit between him and the school itself.</p>

<p>
[quote]
RacinReaver himself admitted that he didn't learn what thermo actually meant until he took the advanced class that was after basic thermo.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I knew what thermo was when I was taking the class. I knew it was a fundamental building block that I had to learn in order to understand material in my later classes. Much in the same way I had to take math, physics, and chemistry classes, I had to take thermo so I could understand more fundamentally why materials behave the way they do.</p>

102

<p>
[quote]
What I'm driving at here is that this guy probably didn't have much more understanding of electricity and magnetism other than magnetic fields induce current in wires. One of my division officers who was a EE grad couldn't tell a motor from a pump, let alone rewire a simple transformer and the guy from my shop was assembling motor controllers with three different emergency operation modes and variable speeds using salvaged components.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I guess what you could say is that the guy you're talking about would be considered by most engineers a technician, which is what most engineers would rather not become.</p>

103

<p>Most definitely he was a technician. I guess I failed to elaborate on my division officer he was a EE major but had little practical knowledge, even just for management where you don't need to know the details. Maybe he was an exception but I've also heard from my buddy at vtech how if they asked him to design a power distribution system for a real world problem he wouldn't know where to start due to lack of exposure to real systems.</p>

104

<p>
[quote]
Actually, I said "when you finally learn enough," not "when you finally learn how." My regular thermo class didn't teach me how to apply it to real systems because it was too fundamental of a class to learn how to apply it to real, non-ideal systems.</p>

<p>Also, I should say that the second thermo class required of all MSE students at CMU is called "Phase Diagrams and Transformations" which deals with the derivation of phase diagrams through various models of solutions (basically learning why different things happen when you mix different things). All of it drew upon the knowledge we had gained in thermo. The second half of that class was also dedicated to nucleation processes, which is generally one of the foremost things that materials engineers are concerned about.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think that's the problem. I disagree with the notion that you can't teach practical implications at the same time as fundamental facts, or sometimes even before the fundamental facts.</p>

<p>For example, I would say that it is indeed intriguing to know that a mixture of ethanol and water has a lower boiling point than either pure water or pure ethanol. So why not present that fact in the first day of class? Or even better, have the students conduct precisely this simple lab experiment and hence shock themselves with the results? That gives motivation for students to then want to learn why, at which point you can then start diving into the deep waters of thermo. But at least you have framed the issue by giving them a real-world reason to want to understand thermo. You don't just dive immediately into a morass of equations. </p>

<p>Nor am I the only way to say so. Again, to quote from the quite excellent article that yagottabelieve posted:</p>

<p>*Why do students drop out? Student surveys say because the first year of an engineering program is all foundational theory and they don't see the connection to a career in engineering.</p>

<p>...What does Olin do?</p>

<pre><code>* Curriculum of engineering design and entrepreneurship. Students start by designing or reverse engineering popular products as a way to learn how things work. This hands on approach, right from the start, makes engineering real. Other engineering schools require students to take foundational courses in physics, thermo-dynamics, chemistry, and math for the first two years. Olin introduces these disciplines as needed throughout the 4 years. *
</code></pre>

<p>Don</a> Dodge on The Next Big Thing: 50% of US engineering students dropout - Why?</p>

<p>Hence, that begs the question of, if Olin can do that, why can't other programs? </p>

<p>
[quote]
I forget who, but someone said in the thread said that most engineering professors are really scientists, and not practicing engineers. I think this really is one of the main reasons you don't see solid industrial applications demonstrated in your classes. One of my great professors had been a practicing engineer, and he really tried to make up for this. He'd often give us a random property of a material (say, magneto-resistance) and we'd have to come up with a variety of real-life applications for it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Exactly, and this introduces yet another subtopic (to add to the numerous topics that have already been discussed). I think that engineering programs need to have more profs/lecturers who have actually worked in industry. Let's face it. Most engineering students are not going to become researchers. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I knew what thermo was when I was taking the class. I knew it was a fundamental building block that I had to learn in order to understand material in my later classes. Much in the same way I had to take math, physics, and chemistry classes, I had to take thermo so I could understand more fundamentally why materials behave the way they do.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What I said is that you didn't know what it meant, meaning that you didn't understand how to use it in a practical way. You said it yourself when you said: * "My regular thermo class didn't teach me how to apply it to real systems because it was too fundamental of a class to learn how to apply it to real, non-ideal systems."*</p>

<p>I think that's a problem. Every engineering class should provide you with some real-world takeaway, like Olin is trying to do. </p>

<p>Again, I can perhaps understand why a math or science class might not provide such a thing. But this is engineering we're talking about. Engineering is supposed to be practical. That's what makes engineering different from science/math. If we didn't want to learn any practical uses, we could have just taken another math/science class. </p>

<p>But, more importantly, this gets to my central point. You say that you needed to take thermo so that you can more fundamentally understand why materials behave the way they do. Yet that's exactly the point of contention: does that actually happen? Again, I certainly don't recall that my understanding was actually enhanced by my slashing through the M.R.'s. All I remember is a bunch of arbitrary and weird math manipulations with seemingly no point. Now, I'm sure there was a point somewhere, but I didn't know what it was, and I don't think too many other students knew either. Nor did we have time to find out. All we knew is that we needed to understand how to do the math so that we could avoid being weeded out. But what does the math actually mean? Who knows? </p>

<p>Now, RacinReaver, if you had a better thermo class in which you actually did learn the point, and not just a bunch of arbitrary math, then good for you! But not everybody has such a class. </p>

<p>So, I see time and time again, that you (and others) have stated that you need to take these classes so that you can understand fundamental engineering truths. Yeah, that's the ideal. But my point is that that often times doesn't actually happen. Instead, what often times ends up happening is that students just end up learning just the math (because that's what's graded), but not the actual meaning of the math. In other words, they don't learn any real engineering at all. </p>

<p>Look, I am convinced that you can probably get top grades at almost any engineering course, except the senior design course, without knowing anything about engineering, but by just having cracker-jack math skills. That is, if you know how to perform "equation gymnastics" very quickly and accurately, you are going to do very well on the engineering exams, because that's what they mostly are. </p>

<p>For example, I strongly recall that one of the questions (out of a total of 3) on one thermo exam was to take 2 given equations, and the question was to use the M.R.'s to show that those 2 equations are equivalent. The final answer was an entire page of derivations. That's it. That's all you were doing. Hence, if you're good at math, you could do that very quickly. But it has nothing to do with actual engineering. You don't need to know anything about engineering and you could have still have nailed that question perfectly. {And, since the average score on that exam was a 25/100, getting that question completely correct would have given you a 33% which all by itself would have worth an A, even if you got the 2 other questions completely wrong}. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I actually know one guy from my brother's fraternity that was at CMU for CivE (considered the easiest undergrad engineering major there), but was doing very poorly, so he transferred to Pitt and was able to get a degree in Electrical Engineering with top grades. So I'm not sure if it's engineering that was causing his problems or the lack of fit between him and the school itself.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But that's what I'm talking about. Many of the people I mentioned who were weeded out of Berkeley engineering could have almost certainly have graduated if they had gone to easier schools.</p>

105

<p>To an extent, I totally agree with your comment that those who are adept at manipulating math tend to do better in 1st and 2nd year level engineering courses. Some might just be really good with combining problem solving through association and dimensional analysis in order to solve problems. In a lot of those classes, a majority of the students probably understand very little of the concepts and therefore, do not know when to use certain equations they may have memorized.</p>

<p>I also agree that reverse engineering may also be an excellent technique in captivating the mind of first year engineer students, rather than throwing them into the endless pit of theories and complicated math (math that most are capable of doing but few understand why they are actually doing it). But then again, not everything can be reverse engineered and connected to concepts without a mastery of the fundamental principles.</p>

<p>Then really, it all goes down to which school a student chooses to attend. And that is probably the only unfair part of that because most high school students do not have the resources to correctly research how the courses in each university is taught and what the curriculum actually entails. A student that goes to a major public research university like Berkeley needs to be really self reliant in being able to understand the concepts in the first two years or so because the professors probably rarely care to be of any major help during office hours and there is a good chance of meeting a poor graduate student instructor/TA (language barrier, inability to bring the material down to intro level, etc.) to lead the discussions. Also, Berkeley probably pumps students through a sequence of courses that primarily focus on the theoretical side, where even labs are not enough to understand the concepts. Not to mention that top universities tend to have difficult grading curves, Cal probably being a university that is merciless because of the large classroom size.</p>

<p>There are lots of colleges that have many different techniques. It is difficult to say that everyone should follow a certain model. A better solution would be to create programs, free programs maybe funded by the government (although that may mean that the program is doomed to failure anyways), or a private organization that gets funding from the government, to inform high school students about various universities and their teaching methodolgy, campus life, etc. I really believe that the problem can be solved if somehow we can bridge the gap between high school and college. The failure rate in engineering is probably high, not only because of the difficulty of the program, but because MOST high schools do not prepare the students for engineering courseworks. Maybe that way America can keep the few students (compared to other countries) that actually want to do engineering in the path of becoming an engineer, or maybe invite more students into engineering. If all that is done and the student still fails, then they must really ask themselves if they have given it their all, and if so, whether engineering is right for them.</p>

106

<p>
[quote]
I understand your overall point sakky, but education can only go so far in teaching true intuition

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, but my point is that many schools don't even really try. </p>

<p>Which is why I am quite impressed with what is happening at Olin College. Consider some of the new ideas that Olin is trying:</p>

<p>*# Curriculum of engineering design and entrepreneurship. Students start by designing or reverse engineering popular products as a way to learn how things work. This hands on approach, right from the start, makes engineering real. Other engineering schools require students to take foundational courses in physics, thermo-dynamics, chemistry, and math for the first two years. Olin introduces these disciplines as needed throughout the 4 years.</p>

<h1>Entrepreneurship is part of the program - There is a startup incubator on campus. Students are required to create a product, write a business plan, and start a company.</h1>

<h1>Internships in Engineering - Students do a a significant, year-long engineering project for an actual client. *</h1>

<p>Don</a> Dodge on The Next Big Thing: 50% of US engineering students dropout - Why?</p>

<p>Hence, that begs the question of: if Olin can do that, why can't other schools? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, education is geared towards the masses; therefore, it is difficult to remove the convoluted math because the math is the basic foundation and standard of how scientists and engineers break down our complicated world into what they consider to be simple mathematical, empircal models.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, I have never argued that we should remove the (convoluted) math. Go ahead, teach the math. But while doing that, make sure that you are connecting it to real engineering work. </p>

<p>The main problem is that the programs insist on teaching the math, but then won't teach how that math is connected to the real engineering work. In other words, they are basically forcing engineering students to basically become mathematicians. If they wanted to do that, they would have just majored in math straight away. </p>

<p>
[quote]
BTW, it would be a shame in today's world if let's say a Thomas Edison went to an engineering program and flunked out, hindering his entrance into the mainstream industry. But then again, would Thomas Edison have given up just because he failed? Edison is the one quoted saying, "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Edison would have surely dropped out of college and started his own company, which is exactly what he had done anyway. </p>

<p>But my point is simply to ask what exactly is the purpose of an engineering program if it would weed out somebody like Edison? Or a potential dyslexic like Leonardo? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Possibly what sakky is trying to say is that education must evolve to better suit the minds of the time. However, learning science and engineering has involved mathematics for as long as the empirical model has been in existence. And while it is true that some inventions and ideas were basechink
d more on intuition than on math, the world has advanced in the areas of science and technology that inventions built off of intuition and the advancement of current technology require heavy mathematical proofs in order to be actualized in almost all cases.</p>

<p>For example, I can't say exactly which mathematical model or scientific idea the scientists/engineers used to develop the transistor, but much has to be accredited to the scientists that laid the foundation in order for it to be created. And although many of the scientists used thought experiments to formulate parts of their models, math was used to explain most of it. Einstein applied his theory of light being photons to Max Planck's quantum hypothesis to explain the photoelectric effect. Although it was mostly theory, it had to be proven mathematically by Millikan through experimentation, who was in fact trying to disprove Einstein's idea that light was a photon. Schrodinger was able to use these ideas to develop his model, the equation named after him. The developers of the transistors, whether they knew it or not, were basically applying the scientific ideas and mathematical proof for these ideas to make the transistor. The developers of the transistor also had to know how to calculate or understand the Hall Effect, the photovoltaic effect; not to mention the ideas of Faraday and Maxwell on static electricity/electro-magnetism.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I have 3 responses to that. </p>

<p>The first is really a philosophical/categorical point. You say that heavyweight mathematical models is used to explain most sciences. That's not entirely true. Large-scale mathematical modeling used only in certain sciences, notably in physics and in related sciences (i.e. physical chemistry). However, the biological sciences and related disciplines (i.e. organic chemistry) use relatively little math to this very day, which you can verify by comparing a college physics textbook to a college biology textbook. Somebody with minimal mathematics background is far more likely to be able to understand the latter rather than the former. </p>

<p>Secondly, you seem to be equating science with engineering, when I see those fields as quite distinct. There is no doubt that scientists need to concern themselves with theoretical and highly analytical models. But do engineers? The job of the engineer is not to create theoretical/mathematical models of the world, but rather to produce practical technologies. However, engineering students, just to pass their courses, often times end up paradoxically having to learn more math than their science counterparts. For example, chemical engineering students certainly must learn far more math than do chemistry students. </p>

<p>Thirdly, I have no problem with those engineers who want to learn the theoretical and stylized modeling, i.e. those who want to be researchers, to be allowed to learn those topics. They are perfectly free to do that. My question is, why are all engineering students forced to do that, including those who know that they don't want to be researchers. For example, if you just want to be a chemical process engineer in an oil refinery, you don't really need to know how to manipulate the Maxwell Relations. It may be nice to know that, but you don't really need to know that. You're not inventing new thermodynamics theories. You're not mapping new phase diagrams. You are perfectly content to use existing, published thermo data. </p>

<p>Again, I am not stopping anybody who wants to learn those topics. You want to know, then go right ahead and take the appropriate courses as electives. My question is why is everybody forced to know? </p>

<p>
[quote]
I believe that these great minds and great inventors benefit from the many that try to understand the math behind phenomenons of the world. If everyone or most everyone was just sitting around trying to invent a light bulb, while only a few were trying to understand what current actually is, could we have come to the same conclusion? Possibly. But I think it is because there were so many learning the concepts of current in a time when electricity was not understood that helped lead to the invention of the light bulb. Not everyone can be great, but we can all try to reach greatness. And maybe on the way, we might actually be inspired or we might actually inspire someone with innate intuition to do great things.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There's a big difference between trying to achieve greatness and getting punished if you fail to achieve that greatness. Which leads to my other point. For those who don't do well in engineering courses, why not just let them leave the major with a clean slate? That is, why not just let them switch to another major with a clean transcript? If they're not going to major in engineering anyway, what does it matter if they failed a bunch of engineering courses? The guy attempted to achieve "greatness" (or, at least, the "greatness" of an engineering degree), it didn't work out, fine, then let him move on. </p>

<p>Which gets to another reason why engineering is difficult. Engineering is merciless towards those students who do poorly, i.e. those who are weeded out. I see nothing to gain from permanently marking on his transcript with a bunch of terrible engineering grades a person who isn't going to major in engineering anyway. But engineering programs sadly will do that. To extend your analogy, Einstein wouldn't have gotten punished professionally if had tried to understand Planck's work yet was unsuccessful. He would have been allowed to move on with his life with a clean slate.</p>

<p>So that summarizes why I think engineering is hard. It is hard because the way that engineering is taught is not just that it is math-centric, but rather that the connection of the mathematics to real-world engineering is often times never made clear. It is doubly hard because if you don't understand the mathematics, you will be tagged with bad grades that will be burned onto your transcript forever.</p>

107

<p>
[quote]
Hence, that begs the question of: if Olin can do that, why can't other schools?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>1) Olin: superselective. Motivated students, incredibly driven to succeed. Motivation isn't hurt by the free tuition perk, either. Also the fact that there's not a lot to transfer into. You've got... engineering, and engineering. It'd be interesting to see what students do in a setting where they're paying tuition and where they can change their entire focus without uprooting their lives and moving elsewhere.</p>

<p>2) Have you seen that Olin has teamed up with Illinois in a massive effort to change how engineering is taught? I'd say that's a step in the right direction... Maybe we'll be able to see how the Olin methods work in alternate environments.</p>

108

<p>
[quote]
1) Olin: superselective. Motivated students, incredibly driven to succeed.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And like I've always said, other engineering programs should also be highly selective. Why admit students into the program who are just going to flunk out anyway?</p>

109

<p>^^^Like Berkeley? Totally agree with you anyway.</p>

110

<p>
[quote]
And like I've always said, other engineering programs should also be highly selective. Why admit students into the program who are just going to flunk out anyway?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How would you determine whether a student was going to flunk out before they'd been admitted?</p>

111

<p>
[quote]
Exactly, and this introduces yet another subtopic (to add to the numerous topics that have already been discussed). I think that engineering programs need to have more profs/lecturers who have actually worked in industry. Let's face it. Most engineering students are not going to become researchers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hmmm, that's asking a lot, for individuals to leave their industry jobs to become professors.</p>

<p>As to your broader point, some US professors I've spoken to on this subject feel it's their responsibility to teach principles that can be applied in many ways (academia, research, industry, entrepreneurship, and so forth). They don't view themselves as training students for the workforce. They would rather leave that to schools like DeVry.</p>

<p>Now it may be the case that what has traditionally become a university engineering education does not fit the faster-paced, profit-driven (technology) business world. If Olin is able to satisfy that need, more power to them. But IMO there is some value in traditional engineering curriculum for people who can and want to make use of it.</p>

<p>I could make an argument here that it's important for prospective students to "shop around" for the education that best suits them. Unfortunately, everyone does not know what they want to do before they enter college. (I didn't even know that the Internet existed before I entered college; arguably, it was just a research network back then, but I wouldn't have had a chance to work with and study under some of the creators of the Internet if I'd pursued what would have been an industry-focused engineering education at the time.)</p>

112

<p>
[quote]
Hmmm, that's asking a lot, for individuals to leave their industry jobs to become professors.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hire adjuncts on a part-time basis, which is possible depending on the location. Some of the best courses I've had were taught by adjuncts, mainly because they tend to focus on the connection to real-world practices.</p>

113

<p>
[quote]
Hmmm, that's asking a lot, for individuals to leave their industry jobs to become professors.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am not asking necessarily for professors to leave industry jobs. They can do it part-time.</p>

<p>Impossible? Consider the example of Andrew Grove. Yes - THAT Andrew Grove - the former Chairman and CEO of Intel and Time Magazine's Person of the Year in 1997. While managing Intel, he was able to still teach an engineering course at Berkeley (his alma mater). Granted, it was a small graduate level course on semiconductor devices. But, it was still a course. Similarly, Alex D'Arbeloff, co-founder and former President of Teradyne, used to also teach a mechanical engineering course at MIT. If guys like Grove and D'Arbeloff could teach courses, surely other engineers could do the same.</p>

<p>Furthermore, you may not actually have to ask anybody to leave industry, as they may have already left. I can think of quite a few engineers (with PhD's) who had worked in industry for decades and are now retired, and probably wouldn't mind teaching an undergrad course or two for a nominal salary. It would allow them to keep their minds fresh and give them a feeling of satisfaction, and they would be able to impart knowledge they gained from their many years in industry (not to mention valuable industry connections for students who are looking for jobs). Perhaps on a bit sadder note, nowadays, I am sure there are quite a few laid-off engineers who wouldn't mind teaching a course or two. </p>

<p>Thirdly, you can have profs themselves improve their knowledge of industry. Entrepreneurship may be the clearest method for this to occur. For example, Amar Bose, while a professor of EECS at MIT, also founded and still serves as Chairman of the Bose Corporation. His personal net worth was about $1.8 billion in 2007 according to Fortune Magazine. The initials RSA in the company RSA Security stood for the last names of the 3 cofounders, all of whom were (and still are) current engineering professors: Ron Rivest at MIT, Adi Shamir of the Weizman Institute of Israel, and Leonard Adelman of USC. RSA was acquired by EMC 2 years ago for over $2 billion. </p>

<p>Hence, you can indeed have professors who are knowledgeable about what is happening in industry, either because they used to work there, or because they've started their own companies or engage in active consulting for industry. But the truth is, most engineering professors are pure academic researchers who don't know industry and don't WANT to know industry. Granted, I have no problem with those who just want to be researchers. What I question is whether such people ought to be teaching undergrads. After all, like I said, most undergrad engineering students will not become academics. They are going to industry. </p>

<p>
[quote]
As to your broader point, some US professors I've spoken to on this subject feel it's their responsibility to teach principles that can be applied in many ways (academia, research, industry, entrepreneurship, and so forth). They don't view themselves as training students for the workforce. They would rather leave that to schools like DeVry.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, first of all, the reality is that they don't actually teach any principles at all. At least, not well. A quote from the weblink that you yourself posted said as much:</p>

<p>The second most common complaint is poor quality teachers that are more interested in their own research than in teaching undergraduate students.</p>

<p>Don</a> Dodge on The Next Big Thing: 50% of US engineering students dropout - Why?</p>

<p>Consider the following quotes:</p>

<p>*Practically every engineering dean and department chair can tell horror stories detailing massive student complaints about poor teaching. *</p>

<p>Educating</a> teachers | ASEE Prism | Find Articles at BNET</p>

<p>I’m not sure if it’s by design or due to the general ineptitude of most engineering professors, but engineering tends to be really poorly taught. I certainly don’t blame the professors. Most of them were hired to do research. They simply aren’t there to engage you in the content, and the textbooks certainly don’t help.</p>

<p>The</a> value of engineering education | Enter Venture</p>

<p>In a 1998 study, fully 98 percent of students switching from engineering to another major cited poor teaching as a major reason for their departure</p>

<p>Educating</a> the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century</p>

<p>Secondly, even if what you are saying is true, then that only points to a core problem that engineering programs have in that they specifically choose not to provide what the students are really there for. Let's be honest. Most college students - especially engineering students - just want to get a good job. That's all they want. That's why they're in college. After all, if a college degree did not provide a boost to your career prospects, then very few people would choose to go to college, and probably even fewer parents would pay to put their kids through college. Yet engineering programs seem not to want to admit such a basic fact to themselves. While I have problems with the philosophy behind MBA programs, I give them great credit for at least acknowledging the true reason for why the students are there, and then tailoring their offerings accordingly. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Now it may be the case that what has traditionally become a university engineering education does not fit the faster-paced, profit-driven (technology) business world. If Olin is able to satisfy that need, more power to them. But IMO there is some value in traditional engineering curriculum for people who can and want to make use of it.</p>

<p>I could make an argument here that it's important for prospective students to "shop around" for the education that best suits them. Unfortunately, everyone does not know what they want to do before they enter college. (I didn't even know that the Internet existed before I entered college; arguably, it was just a research network back then, but I wouldn't have had a chance to work with and study under some of the creators of the Internet if I'd pursued what would have been an industry-focused engineering education at the time.)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yet none of that addresses what I consider to be the greatest weakness of engineering programs and consequently why engineering programs are so hard. I am sure that engineering programs are indeed appropriate for some students. But what about the others? In particular, what about those students who perform poorly? Why not just let them switch to another major (or another university entirely) with a clean slate? Why do they need to tattoo their transcripts with a kaleidoscope of failing grades? They're not going to major in engineering at your school anyway, so who cares what their engineering grades were? I certainly support the idea of students being allowed to explore, but those who find out that engineering is not for them should be allowed to walk away penalty-free. </p>

<p>I know some engineering students whose engineering grades were so poor as to paradoxically convince them to actually stay in engineering. How's that? Since their academic record is already completely trashed, they figured that even if they did switch to some easy liberal arts major, their overall GPA will still be quite poor. For example, if you have a 1.5 GPA in your first 2 years of engineering (as some people I know did), then even if you did switch to some creampuff major and got straight A's during your last 2 years of college, your overall GPA is still only going to be a 2.75, and you can't really do anything with such a low GPA with a creampuff degree. Hence, you might as well stay in engineering and try to gut it out. However, a far more optimal solution would be to simply let those students wipe those 2 bad years away off their transcripts. They tried out engineering, found out it wasn't for them, so why not let clean the slate and let them move on with their lives? </p>

<p>But schools refuse to do this. That's a key reason as to why engineering is hard.</p>

114

<p>It seems to me like the only way to improve the dropout rates is to make engineering easier. Reduce the amount of theory taught, and include more classes on practical skills useful for industry, so engineering students don't have to learn them on their own time.</p>

<p>The only problem I see with this is that it turns the engineering curriculum into a series of just-so stories, and it seems weird that a university would offer a major where you just learn how to do things and not why they are true. </p>

<p>Personally, I don't think too many theory classes are being taught. In my experience as an undergraduate student in ECE, we aren't really drowning in theory--EE's don't have to learn as much physics or math as physics majors, and Comp.E's don't take as many classes on the theory of computer science as CS majors. It seems that engineering is way less theoretical than physics/math/CS.</p>

<p>Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but if you don't need a good understanding of theory to be able to work as an engineer in industry, then why are companies not hiring engineers from technical schools?</p>

115

<p>
[quote]
Hire adjuncts on a part-time basis, which is possible depending on the location. Some of the best courses I've had were taught by adjuncts, mainly because they tend to focus on the connection to real-world practices.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I've known professors who've held adjuncts while working in industry, and people with doctorates who held titles such as Lecturer who also worked in industry. The quality of teaching tends to vary. Just having worked in industry did not make them automatically better. Also, it is difficult in general to do two very separate things well. Without incentives, I doubt this would be a permanent solution.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but if you don't need a good understanding of theory to be able to work as an engineer in industry, then why are companies not hiring engineers from technical schools?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If I understand what was meant by the above, as with most things, companies and situations tend to vary. It is not always possible to predict what skills are needed for a particular project. To give an example, in the search engine industry, what started out as a means of fetching content from web sites and indexing it turned into a far more complex problem of determining whether or not sites "artificially" boost their rankings.</p>

<p>Google's</a> Downfall: Search Engine Optimization - Seeking Alpha</p>

<p>So some of the theory and principles that a computer scientist or engineer learned might be useful in developing trust models, fraud detection, etc.</p>

116

<p>
[quote]
Just having worked in industry did not make them automatically better.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But similarly, just being a star researcher doesn't automatically make you a good undergrad teacher. In fact, many top researchers are quite terrible teachers. They don't know how to teach, and, even worse, they don't care. Yet the top engineering schools seem to have no problem having those profs confuse and demoralize entire classrooms of undergrads, year in and year out. </p>

<p>As a case in point, although not an engineering example, some of my college math profs were clearly far worse teachers than my old high school math teacher. Sure, he wasn't a star researcher with a CV full of publications in top journals. Heck, he didn't have a single publication at all. But so what? At least he knew how to teach math in a way that made it accessible and exciting, something that those college math profs never could. Nor do you really need a star researcher to teach you the kinds of lower-division math necessary for an engineering program. After all, we're just talking about linear algebra, multivariable calculus, and basic differential equations. You don't really need an active researcher to teach these topics; all you really need is somebody who can explain the concepts clearly and make them interesting to learn. </p>

<p>Ideally, what you would do is not just have anybody from industry coming in to teach engineering courses, but rather have screen for the best teachers. Somebody who actually has enthusiasm for teaching and can show how to apply the concepts in the real world. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, it is difficult in general to do two very separate things well. Without incentives, I doubt this would be a permanent solution.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would argue that the existing incentives are quite strong: an industry engineer would be able to add to his resume that he is an adjunct member of the faculty at school X. I think most ambitious engineers would jump at a chance to say that, especially at a name-brand school. Imagine a guy being able to list on his resume that he is a part-time engineering faculty member at a school like Berkeley or Stanford?</p>

117

<p>
[quote]
It seems to me like the only way to improve the dropout rates is to make engineering easier.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, I've always preferred the "Stanford" way: maintain brutally selective admissions. Then, provide extensive hand-holding and a relaxed grading atmosphere for the students that do get admitted. Practically nobody ever actually flunks out of Stanford, not even in engineering. I am convinced that many people who flunked out of engineering at schools like Berkeley could have probably graduated if they had gone to Stanford. Granted, they would have gotten mediocre grades. But at least they would have graduated. </p>

<p>Yet at the same time, nobody disputes that Stanford is one of the elite engineering schools in the world.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Reduce the amount of theory taught, and include more classes on practical skills useful for industry, so engineering students don't have to learn them on their own time.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>To repeat, I have never said that the amount of theory should necessarily be reduced. What I have said is that the theory needs to be clearly connected to real-world problems. You don't teach theory just for the sake of theory, math just for the sake for math. We're engineers here. We're not math majors, and we're not science majors, and the difference is that we are supposed to know how the theory and math are actually used in the real world. Otherwise, if the practical uses are never taught, we might as well just be majoring in math or a pure science. </p>

<p>
[quote]
and it seems weird that a university would offer a major where you just learn how to do things and not why they are true.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would argue that this is no different from any other professional degree program, of which engineering is one. For example, many schools offer bachelor's degrees in nursing. Even an Ivy (UPenn) offers such a program. While I don't presume to be an expert on nursing education, I would argue that much of such a program would consist of learning how to be a nurse, and relatively little on the theory of nursing (if such a concept even exists). </p>

<p>Similarly, many schools offers bachelor's degrees in accounting, another example of a professional program. I would think that relatively little accounting theory is taught in such a program, for that is something best left to accounting PhD students. As an accounting undergrad, you would spend most of your time learning how to actually do accounting.</p>

<p>I would argue that that's what engineering is supposed to be. It's supposed to be a professional degree. Which means that you're supposed to actually learn how to create or maintain practical technologies. Now, does that mean that you never have to learn theory? No, I never said that. What I am saying is that the theory needs to be balanced with real-world applications. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but if you don't need a good understanding of theory to be able to work as an engineer in industry, then why are companies not hiring engineers from technical schools?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because the confounding factor is that the best students don't go to technical schools like Devry or ITT. Surely you remember high school - the top students weren't dreaming of going to Devry. They're dreaming of going to schools like Berkeley, Stanford and MIT. Companies choose to hire from those schools basically because they know those schools tend to have the people with the top raw brain horsepower, even if they may not have necessarily been taught useful things at that school. As has been stated in another thread, even after graduating from a top engineering program, you still don't really know how to do much that is practical, and so companies have to provide training. They are willing to do that if they are convinced that you have the raw talent. </p>

<p>But wouldn't it be more efficient if the engineering students with the top brainpower would also be paired with schools that provided them with a highly practical education? Seems to me that that's what Olin is trying to do. They're combining a highly selective admissions process (heavily sweetened with a full-tuition scholarship for everybody) with a revamped engineering education that emphasizes practical knowledge. I think we be witnessing the budding of a revolution in engineering education. The only thing that Olin obviously lacks is a powerful brand name, but what do you expect from a school that admitted its first full class only 6 years ago?</p>

118

<p>
[quote]
I would argue that this is no different from any other professional degree program, of which engineering is one. For example, many schools offer bachelor's degrees in nursing. Even an Ivy (UPenn) offers such a program. While I don't presume to be an expert on nursing education, I would argue that much of such a program would consist of learning how to be a nurse, and relatively little on the theory of nursing (if such a concept even exists). </p>

<p>Similarly, many schools offers bachelor's degrees in accounting, another example of a professional program. I would think that relatively little accounting theory is taught in such a program, for that is something best left to accounting PhD students. As an accounting undergrad, you would spend most of your time learning how to actually do accounting.</p>

<p>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's because nursing and accounting have little or no theory to teach. There's no natural sciences behind accounting. </p>

<p>You haven't mentioned computer science which involves heavy theory and not much practical work (software engineering courses).</p>

119

<p>
[quote]
Actually, I've always preferred the "Stanford" way: maintain brutally selective admissions. Then, provide extensive hand-holding and a relaxed grading atmosphere for the students that do get admitted.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Is there any follow-up about how Stanford engineers (I don't know any, myself) do if they choose to go into industry, where there isn't any hand-holding? The demands of industry create some pretty tense situations, and you have to jump in the water and swim in the deep end on your own because your superiors don't have any time to walk you through every little thing... I mean, I've had pencils chucked at me by angry bosses (who later admitted that the issue wasn't my fault!), and I figure I'd have reacted pretty poorly and would've certainly jeopardized my job if I hadn't already learned how to take care of myself in the brutally honest world of engineering.</p>

<p>
[quote]
That's because nursing and accounting have little or no theory to teach. There's no natural sciences behind accounting.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Wooooaaaaah, you're wrong.</p>

120

<p>
[quote]
Wooooaaaaah, you're wrong.

[/quote]

Perhaps my view on what theory is is different, but how so?</p>