Why is engineering so hard?

College Majors Engineering Majors
121

<p>It's been a while since I took accounting, but I remember it as being painful, and involving an unpleasant amount of statistics (give me DiffEq any day, I hate stat).</p>

<p>As to whether there's theory behind nursing, I think y'all are way underestimating the amount of theory that nurses have to learn. It's not like they just learn to draw blood and take blood pressures and they're done with it. There <em>is</em> a lot of holistic care and practical applications that they're responsible for, but nursing's about a lot more than just learning how to make your patient feel comfortable. Not that Wikipedia is the leading authority on everything in this wide world, but it's close: "Pre-requisites [for nursing school] often include math, English, and other basic level courses. Basic courses in biology, anatomy and physiology are required. Core coursework includes anatomy, physiology, pathology, and pharmacology. Additionally, a strong emphasis is placed on procedural education such as insertion of intravenous and urinary catheters, sterile dressing changes, proper administration of medications, physical examinations, caring bedside manner, and other vital skills." So... be nice to the next nurse you talk to; he or she had to go through a fairly rigorous education that involved a lot of theory.</p>

<p>Your collective points still stand, though. Carry on. This was just parenthetical information so that if you go to your doctor's office and start spouting opinions, you don't end up with a thermometer stabbed into your jugular.</p>

122

<p>I would still say it is fair to say that accounting has less theory behind it than engineering. Engineering is a science major while accounting is business. Not that business majors have no theory classes; I just don't think it can compare to a science major. I also have taken accounting and as I recall we were rarely tested on what could be considered theory. </p>

<p>I can see your point with nursing and you are absolutely correct. I forgot all the chemistry and biology that they are required to take.</p>

123

<p>I took a bunch of business courses in undergrad: several accounting courses, one finance course, organizational behavior and marketing. These were all easy compared to courses in the hard sciences.</p>

124

<p>
[quote]
Not that business majors have no theory classes; I just don't think it can compare to a science major.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Agreed. My main beef was with the nursing comment... A good friend is a neonatal intensive care flight nurse, which is superbly hard core. I was just thinking about how she'd give me quite the earful if I said her career had no theory behind it.</p>

125

<p>i hear it again and again if you are a bad student just take nursing.
program is easy and pay is good and job is to smelly.</p>

126

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure, I'll give you probably the most striking example of all. Consider Stanford's glittering reputation when it comes to entrepreneurship: Stanford not only sits right at the heart of Silicon Valley, it basically created Silicon Valley. The greatest concentration of startup companies in the world is centered around Palo Alto and nearby areas, and the world's richest and most prestigious venture capital firms are located within jogging distance of the Stanford Golf Course. "Silicon" Valley is now basically a misnomer, as plenty of other regions around the country, not to mention the rest of the world, have their own 'silicon' semiconductor manufacturing facilities. But to this day, nobody has yet figured out how to build a system that fosters entrepreneurship in any way comparable to Silicon Valley, despite decades of trying. It's not merely a matter of money, as other countries have poured billions of dollars into certain 'special economic zones', and all they got was a bunch of large, established companies to move in, with little entrepreneurship to show for it. It's not just a matter of proximity to top technical universities, as many other regions of the world have such access but do not compare to the Valley when it comes to new firm generation. For example, Cornell University is a top engineering school, and yet how many successful tech startups were founded in Ithaca? {Note, there are plenty of innovative technology ideas that were spawned in Cornell, but few actual companies.}</p>

<p>Entrepreneurship is, by definition, the complete antithesis of hand-holding. Startup firms have no buffer. There are no second chances. Nobody is there to prop you up, and, unlike auto companies, nobody is coming to bail you out if you fail. Your product either works to the satisfaction of your customers, or it doesn't. Even if your product does satisfy your customers today, that doesn't mean that it will tomorrow, and competitors are always looking to take your customers. I've heard the competition within Silicon Valley being described as the epitome of savage cutthroat-ness, which is a big reason why those firms that survive the initial competition within the Valley are strong enough to succeed in the rest of the world. </p>

<p>The point is, if Silicon Valley startup engineers screw up, they don't get pencils thrown at them. Rather, their company goes under. Startups are directly exposed to the brutal honesty of the market, and there is no more brutal taskmaster than that. </p>

<p>We can question the supposed 'softness' of the Stanford engineering educational model, but what is clearly indisputable is that, somehow, they prepare their students extremely well for the harsh arena of entrepreneurship. It's an extremely interesting historical question as to why Silicon Valley grew up around Stanford and not some other school, such as, well, Berkeley, which is only 40 miles away, and in what is indisputably a far more interesting area (the greatest complaint about Silicon Valley is that it's boring, there's nothing to do, but that's not a problem in the East Bay). Yet as it stands, many Berkeley engineering students, upon graduation, will immediately move down to Silicon Valley to take engineering jobs at startups, but very few Stanford engineering graduates will move to Berkeley/East-Bay to work at startups. The ones that do go from Stanford to Berkeley are doing so because they are going to Berkeley for graduate school, and then when they finish that, they will often times move right back down to Silicon Valley to join a startup. That serves as a prime example of how Stanford engineers, with their supposedly 'soft' educations', have nevertheless somehow been able to succeed in entrepreneurship, the harshest engineering environment that I know of.</p>

<p>In fact, I suspect that there may actually be an inverse relationship happening here. It may well be true that it is because Stanford engineering students don't have to worry about flunking out, that they can then devote their time to more useful endeavors such as coming up with ideas for their own companies. There's an actual saying around Stanford that engineering students may not make it to graduation, not because they flunk out, but because they decide to drop out to start their own company. I think that's an exaggeration (as most Stanford engineering students will graduate), but that just serves to illustrate Stanford's embedded entrepreneurial culture. At no other school - not even at nearby Berkeley - do the engineering students constantly talk about dropping out to start their own firm, as if graduation is 'optional'.</p>

127

<p>I worked in stones throw from Stanford for about 5 years and in the San Jose area for about 8. I can say for certain that Stanford does produce some of the top minds around. Is this because Stanford made them that way or because they were that way when they went in? Or, is it because they take the top and enable to continue to be the top. I think that's it. This doesn't mean you can be the top from a lower school, you'll just have to work harder at it and find encouragement, know how, and your mentors outside of school; i.e. real life.</p>

<p>Note: Stanford, itself, is a town flanked by Menlo Park, Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, and Palo Alto Hills; All real hotty-toity, 'cept E. Palo Alto which is a slum with an IKEA.</p>

<p>Also, to support sakky, note that Sand Hill Road runs betwe 280 and 110ish just north of Stanford. If you recall Sand Hill Road is noted for it's Venutre Capital firms, and the west coast VC really had it's orgins there. I have a feeling that the VCs have a hand in the entrep. of the Stanford students.</p>

128

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course. I never claimed otherwise. The point I was trying to make was that what makes [a professor] a good teacher has more to do with the teacher's attitude towards the students and conveyance of the material, not whether the teacher also works in industry.</p>

<p>I've had some professors who were also very good teachers. A lot of what made them good teachers was that they spent a lot of time thinking about how to present the material so that it was both well understood (from a theory/principles perspective) and could be applied practically.</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I've had high school math teachers who were better teachers than my college professors (of similar/related material). But there are differences between HS and college that have some bearing on why the teachers were better. For one, the teachers were required ONLY TO TEACH - they did not have to do research, manage a lab, raise funding, get graduate students through doctoral programs, etc. Another issue is that I had the same teacher, every day, for the same subject (over the course of a semester, and in some cases, several consecutive semesters). This allowed for a sense of continutity. For me, some other key factors were that homework was assigned and graded regularly; tests tended to track the syllabus as reflected by in-class exercises and homework assignments; tests were held fairly often (at least once every two weeks); the lowest grade was dropped. So there were many more opportunities for students to get a good assessment of how well they were doing, relative to your typical university setting where there is a large student-teacher ratio; grad students may be teaching the sections (thereby some continutity is lost); there might be as few as two exams per quarter or semester with little or no weight given to other assignments.</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you can figure a way to get and keep the best teachers (professors or not) teaching, you'll have solved a difficult problem in the education profession. It is a well-known fact that schools of all levels lose teachers to other, better-paying, better-prospect professions.</p>

129

<p>
[quote]
I've had high school math teachers who were better teachers than my college professors (of similar/related material). But there are differences between HS and college that have some bearing on why the teachers were better. For one, the teachers were required ONLY TO TEACH - they did not have to do research, manage a lab, raise funding, get graduate students through doctoral programs, etc.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Exactly. So why not have faculty members who are there, as you said, ONLY TO TEACH? That is, they are not there to conduct research or run labs. Their only job responsibility is to teach. </p>

<p>In fact, schools do this already. There are lecturers at top engineering schools, whose only job is to teach. Just not a lot of them. You usually end up taking classes under a star researcher who is a lousy teacher. </p>

<p>
[quote]
If you can figure a way to get and keep the best teachers (professors or not) teaching, you'll have solved a difficult problem in the education profession. It is a well-known fact that schools of all levels lose teachers to other, better-paying, better-prospect professions.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't think it is that difficult, as I am not asking those other people to necessarily give up those 'better-paying' prospects. Like I said, have them come teach part-time. Why not? That's what Andrew Grove and Alex D'Arbeloff did while at the same time that they were successfully managing large companies. </p>

<p>The top schools wouldn't have to pay much at all, as they could "pay" in the form of prestige. I can think of a lot of engineers who would take only a nominal fee just to be able to list on their resume that held a (possibly part-time) faculty position at a top school. Heck, I can think of some people who would themselves probably pay for the privilege, as they would be able to advertise that fact for the rest of their career. For example, I'm sure that most engineering consultants who would love to be able to legitimately say that they used to be (or still are) on the faculty at MIT, Stanford or Berkeley. Heck, I know plenty of MIT faculty who right now are running their own side-consulting businesses and are using the MIT brand name as an advertising tool to attract clients. </p>

<p>It would be good for the students too if the schools could attract people with strong industry experience and strong teaching abilities. Seems like a win-win. The only people who would 'lose' are those researchers who are bad teachers, but hey, I don't exactly feel much sympathy for them. If you can't or don't want to be a decent teacher, then maybe you shouldn't be teaching, at least to undergrads. Maybe you should just pursue what you seem to actually enjoy, which is the research. Hence, the researchers get to do what they like and avoid what they don't like. You bring in engineers, screened for teaching ability, who will teach part-time and who are paid mostly in the form of prestige. The undergrads get better and more relevant teaching. Hence, it really does seem to like a win for everybody.</p>

130

<p>
[quote]
There are lecturers at top engineering schools, whose only job is to teach. Just not a lot of them. You usually end up taking classes under a star researcher who is a lousy teacher.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure. But this goes back to what I wrote earlier. Being a star researcher is what more professors aspire to than being a lecturer. Universities reward star research with tenure. Teaching is icing on the cake.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Heck, I know plenty of MIT faculty who right now are running their own side-consulting businesses and are using the MIT brand name as an advertising tool to attract clients.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are they good teachers?</p>

<p>
[quote]
It would be good for the students too if the schools could attract people with strong industry experience and strong teaching abilities. Seems like a win-win. The only people who would 'lose' are those researchers who are bad teachers, but hey, I don't exactly feel much sympathy for them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure, it would be good, but how many people like that are out there? Again, what makes a teacher good is not just that they worked in industry, it is that they are able to effectively communicate the material to students who come from a wide range of educational backgrounds.</p>

<p>The other thing you need to consider is that even if some engineering schools are reporting 50% dropout rates, there are still 50% who are graduating. This in and of itself is enough to compel other students to attend these schools. We're not seeing a mass exodus of students from engineering; there are (perhaps) fewer than in nations like India and China, but certainly there is no acute shortage. So even if, as you say, grading is too harsh, and students are flunking out needlessly, the fact that there are still substantial numbers of applicants filling the pipeline means they do not have to make signficant changes to their mode of operation. In fact, many engineering professors would rather see smaller class sizes comprised of students who really wanted to learn engineering, rather than those who think engineering is some kind of ticket to wealth. It is a known fact in the education profession that smaller class sizes facilitate better teaching and learning. (This is one reason why professors prefer working with their graduate students, because there are a smaller number of them, and each can be given individual attention.)</p>

131

<p>
[quote]
Sure. But this goes back to what I wrote earlier. Being a star researcher is what more professors aspire to than being a lecturer. Universities reward star research with tenure. Teaching is icing on the cake.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And that gets back to what I was saying earlier. For those guys who just want to be researchers and don't want to teach (undergrads), then don't have them do it. Just let them do research and take on grad students. If they don't like teaching undergrads and aren't good at it, then they shouldn't do it. Backfill the teaching load with cheap (but skillful) lecturers. See below. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Are they good teachers?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Some of them are, some of them aren't. For the ones that aren't, then they shouldn't teach undergrads. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Sure, it would be good, but how many people like that are out there? Again, what makes a teacher good is not just that they worked in industry, it is that they are able to effectively communicate the material to students who come from a wide range of educational backgrounds.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Like I said, I can definitely think of plenty of engineers in industry who would love to teach, at least at the top schools, just for the career-boosting prestige of saying that they taught at a top school. Obviously, like you said, not all of them are going to be good teachers. But I would have to imagine that there would be enough such applicants (at the top schools) that you would be able to hire only the ones who were good: you can give them tryouts as mock lecturers, as judged by the students themselves, and the best ones get hired. The judging doesn't stop when they get hired: if their teaching ratings aren't high enough at the end of each term, then you just dismiss them and hire somebody else. {To ensure that they don't just boost their teaching ratings simply by bribing students with easy grades, you can dictate what grading curve they must use.} </p>

<p>As things stand now, none of this happens. Teaching ability matters little when tenure-track engineering professors are hired. Furthermore, engineering professors are hardly judged on their teaching ability. You can have a terrible teacher be running the same class (terribly) year after year, continually screwing over a new batch of undergrads over and over again. This can change. Instead of having teachers who don't really care because they'd rather be researching, have teachers who actually really do care about the teaching, are good at it, and are highly incentivized to do well. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The other thing you need to consider is that even if some engineering schools are reporting 50% dropout rates, there are still 50% who are graduating. This in and of itself is enough to compel other students to attend these schools. We're not seeing a mass exodus of students from engineering; there are (perhaps) fewer than in nations like India and China, but certainly there is no acute shortage. So even if, as you say, grading is too harsh, and students are flunking out needlessly, the fact that there are still substantial numbers of applicants filling the pipeline means they do not have to make signficant changes to their mode of operation.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, look, the national government has published numerous reports saying that the level of engineering knowledge in the nation is a problem. So do many CEO's of the top tech firms. If they are to be believed, then that means that we need to encourage more students to study engineering, then we need to make reforms to the educational process. One of the easiest ways to do so is, as I said, to reduce the penalties of trying out engineering and finding out that it is not for you. For example, if you decide to switch out of engineering, then why not wipe out your bad engineering grades from your transcript? Who cares what those grades are if you're not going to major in engineering anyway? Right now, as it stands, many students rationally decide that they don't even dare to try engineering because they don't want to risk marring their transcripts. It's rational but sad. </p>

<p>
[quote]
In fact, many engineering professors would rather see smaller class sizes comprised of students who really wanted to learn engineering, rather than those who think engineering is some kind of ticket to wealth. It is a known fact in the education profession that smaller class sizes facilitate better teaching and learning. (This is one reason why professors prefer working with their graduate students, because there are a smaller number of them, and each can be given individual attention.)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This precisely conforms to my favorite solution which I call the "Stanford solution": by far the best method is to simply admit only a highly selective group of students, and then heavily protect those students.</p>

132

<p>
[quote]
As things stand now, none of this happens.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't think that's as true as you think it is... At Rice, I'd say about a quarter of my courses were taught by adjunct professors who are at the top of their fields. Based upon how well we know geotechnical engineering (we were taught by the VP of engineering at Fugro geotech, which is a great worldwide firm), Rice ended up hiring more adjuncts from industry to teach courses.</p>

<p>At Harvey Mudd, they have, in the past, given tenured professors the boot for being lousy teachers. Granted, they were TRULY lousy teachers... But it's been done. Profs there are hired specifically <em>for</em> their teaching prowess, since they have no grad students and essentially do no research.</p>

<p>The pressure at larger universities is unfortunately such that these sorts of emphases on teaching don't really get a fair shot there, but my grad advisor at Illinois used to work, for several years, for the same company at which I got my own start. He then went back, got a PhD, and ended up teaching a lot of the steel design courses. He knows his stuff and is generally known as a really good teacher, and made associate professor a couple of years ago, so he's well on his way to full tenure, despite his really being an industry guy.</p>

<p>I don't think <em>all</em> universities discount teaching ability. I think there are some out there that are pretty savvy to the idea that you need to actually be able to teach the undergrads something if you're going to be a success.</p>

<p>I don't think that there's a revolution going on quite yet, but with the advent of Olin and the realization that schools like Olin and Mudd really do have something going on in the production-of-amazing-alumni department, and this new idea that Mudd isn't some sort of anomaly, I think (hope...) we're going to start seeing more and more higher-quality teaching being emphasized at the superstar universities.</p>

<p>
[quote]
This precisely conforms to my favorite solution which I call the "Stanford solution": by far the best method is to simply admit only a highly selective group of students, and then heavily protect those students.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't disagree with you, but I have some concerns that this would throw the engineer-shortage issue into a full-blown crisis situation. Unfortunately, we need the less-talented engineers, too, to do the more mundane engineering work. How would we accomodate that need under the "Stanford model"?</p>

133

<p>
[quote]
I don't think that's as true as you think it is...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What I meant is that none of this happens at the most famous name-brand engineering research universities, and by 'this', I mean a strong emphasis on teaching over research. Obviously I have always agreed that there are schools like Olin, but as it stands, Olin does not (yet) have a major brand name. Instead, what you have are famous schools like Caltech that are absolutely notorious for bad teaching, a notion to which my brother freely concedes. </p>

<p>The problem is really one of an (arbitrary) social focal point. The brand name attracts the top students which then attracts top employers which then attracts even more top students, even though the undergrad teaching is mediocre. Many of those top students would probably prefer to go to Mudd but don't dare to do so because they are afraid that the employers won't follow them. Hence, we have a social coordination problem, or a 'sub-optimal Nash equilibrium', where the safe thing to do is to simply choose a name-brand school, even if the teaching is subpar. Olin faces the same problem (although they are attempting to spur things along through free tuition). </p>

<p>The optimal solution would of course be for these 'top' name-brand universities to actually care about teaching undergrads. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't disagree with you, but I have some concerns that this would throw the engineer-shortage issue into a full-blown crisis situation. Unfortunately, we need the less-talented engineers, too, to do the more mundane engineering work. How would we accomodate that need under the "Stanford model"?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>A solution to that would be to offer lower-end, easier, "engineering-technology" type degrees at lesser schools, where the students don't have to learn much theory (like the M.R.'s). After all, since they're going to be doing only the mundane work anyway, do they really need to learn deep theory? Furthermore, as a matter of fairness, I could also offer them a program to transfer to one of the top schools if they actually show that they are one of the top students and hence can handle high-end theory. </p>

<p>But more importantly, I suspect that there really isn't a true shortage of engineers at all. If there is a shortage of anything, it is a shortage of a willingness to pay the engineers and/or to offer them better career opportunities. Like I said before, a significant chunk of graduating engineers from MIT won't take jobs in engineering, instead opting for jobs in consulting or banking. The same is true at Stanford. So that means that you have many of the very best engineering graduates in the world who decide not to work as engineers, because they found what they perceive to be better opportunities. If there were truly a shortage of engineers, then engineering companies would surely be trying to hire these guys by offering improved pay and improved opportunities. </p>

<p>What I think is more likely is that the country has a shortage of cheap, low-end engineers. So if that is the case, then we can surely train a lot more of these engineers by just not forcing them to learn high-end, difficult theory (for, after all, since they're just going to be doing low-end work anyway, they don't need to know the theory). </p>

<p>But I fear what that means for the future of the profession. If present trends continue - if fewer and fewer of the top engineering students actually want to take jobs as engineers - then eventually engineering will be seen as another one of those crappy jobs that nobody really wants to do. I hope that doesn't happen, but I can see that that future is possible.</p>

134

<p>
[quote]
I don't disagree with you, but I have some concerns that this would throw the engineer-shortage issue into a full-blown crisis situation. Unfortunately, we need the less-talented engineers, too, to do the more mundane engineering work. How would we accomodate that need under the "Stanford model"?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There is no shortage of engineers. There is perhaps a shortage of superstar engineers (in the US). Companies complain that they can't find enough STEM candidates, when what they really mean is that they can't get that superstar engineer (in the US), because they're working for the competition, for themselves, or in another profession. So they feel they have to go outside the US, where even now, some of those superstarts don't want to stay (or even come) to the US, because there are opportunities for them in their native lands.</p>

<p>This is the discussion that should be taking place in the US Congress, but is not. Instead, the likes of Ballmer, etc., insist that there just aren't enough STEM candidates, period.</p>

<p>You make a good point that we need the less-talented (but not UNtalented) engineers to do work that requires less talent. In fact, I would make a stronger argument that someone may not be an across-the-board superstar, but can excel in a few specialty areas, perhaps even outperforming the across-the-board superstars. But in the US, not only these people, but even the superstars, are being discouraged from entering engineering. But this is the fault of Ballmer, etc., not universities.</p>

135

<p>
[quote]
There is perhaps a shortage of superstar engineers

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I saw management hiring wonderful, well rounded candidates, then sticking them in a cube w/o much career advancement. They quit and many obtained great positions elsewhere. The company would have been better off hiring 'lesser' engineers who are good at technical topics and are not potential managers. So very few are needed to advance to management - so why look for a potential superstar with every hire?</p>

<p>Answer - cause it takes guts to hire candidates that aren't 'no brainer' hires. It's easier to whine that you can't find good people.</p>

136

<p>
[quote]
There is no shortage of engineers. There is perhaps a shortage of superstar engineers (in the US).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I disagree. There is no shortage of superstar engineers. Instead, there is a shortage of a willingness to pay for superstar engineers.</p>

<p>As a case in point, I was just talking to a guy who graduated with his BS and MEng in EECS as well as a BS in physics (hence, three degrees) all in just 4 years, all from MIT, with near-perfect grades. Not only that, he has authored several published papers on a new parallel processor design that he worked on. I also think he may only be 20 years old, maybe even younger. I think we can agree that he's a superstar engineer by any measure. </p>

<p>Where's he working now? McKinsey. </p>

<p>Right there is the problem: many of the superstar engineering minds don't actually want to work as engineers. They perceive that the opportunities are better elsewhere. I'm sure that if an engineering company were to offer that guy the same sort of pay and career potential that McKinsey did, he would be working there. But they didn't. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I saw management hiring wonderful, well rounded candidates, then sticking them in a cube w/o much career advancement. They quit and many obtained great positions elsewhere.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yep, that's the problem. Either that, or they don't even take that engineering job in the first place because they know they'll be stuck in a cubicle w/o much career advancement potential. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The company would have been better off hiring 'lesser' engineers who are good at technical topics and are not potential managers. So very few are needed to advance to management - so why look for a potential superstar with every hire?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Or, an even more poignant question, why force all the students to train to be superstars, when the fact is, there aren't that many superstar jobs available? Again, why force all the chemical engineers to learn the M.R.'s when the vast majority of them will never need to know it? {Note, I am not preventing anybody from learning those topics. Those who want to do so are free to take the class...as an elective. So if somebody like RacinReaver feels that he needs to know it, he can do so. But why force everybody to do it?}</p>

137

<p>
[quote]
But why force everybody to do it?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Lifting weights has nothing to do with playing football. You don't run up during a game and bench press the other team's quarterback. But there you see all the football players in the weight room all the time, pumping iron. What gives?</p>

<p>Just as those football players want total strength and flexibility in their entire body, we as engineers want strength and flexibility in our minds. Grappling with problems during college teaches us how to grapple with problems in real life. Maxwell's Relations, while tangential to some engineers, at least serves as a handy set of free weights.</p>

<p>Might as well ask why eighth graders have to learn history when they're dead set upon being an astronaut, or why they have to learn multiplication when they're sure that they're going to be an artist. If I hadn't been strong-armed into taking a few dynamics courses (if I'd had my choice, I'd have avoided it like the plague), I wouldn't have found out that I really, really liked it, and that I was good at it, and my company wouldn't have a pedestrian bridge vibration buff working for it. I've found things that certainly didn't seem applicable at the time, that seemed <em>far</em> too tangential to ever be of use to me, that I now use all the time.</p>

<p>I don't think we can draw the conclusion that these things that we learn are unnecessary, and I don't think we can draw the conclusion that if we had better teachers in universities that things would be easier.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Or, an even more poignant question, why force all the students to train to be superstars, when the fact is, there aren't that many superstar jobs available?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well... Do you want to tell the kid who wants to go to the moon that he needs to board the short bus for the first time in his life? It presents a logistics problem, and it's a question of letting kids screw up a little and still allowing them to realize their dreams later on. There's a good article cited recently in the Parents' Cafe called "After Credentials," where it talks about how difficult it is to use things like SATs and entrance exams to predict future success, and about how, mercifully, it's mattering less and less where you went to school, and it's mattering more and more how you <em>do</em> there.</p>

<p>I think you're talking about weeding out even more of the kids who want to be engineers as they get to the undergrad level, right? How do you do that? Would you really deprive the superstars-in-the-rough of a decent education, shunting them off to an engineering technology program, while everyone else is learning Maxwell's Relations and is figuring out how to grapple with tough problems? Thermo is considered to be something of a fundamental course. By the time you're talking about putting them into the mainstream program after they've proven themselves in the lower programs, I think it'll be too late.</p>

<p>I'm not disagreeing with you, I think that there's got to be a better way to do engineering education. I don't think that the quality of teaching at the undergraduate level is quite so bad as you're thinking it is, but I do agree that it needs to improve. I do feel like it's moving in that direction, though, slowly but surely. I don't think that there's nearly as much chaff in the programs as you think there is, though, and I don't think that teaching it is unnecessary, and I'm not sure that it's fair to not give everyone the same set of tools. Because then it really <em>would</em> be cutting off engineering opportunities to some who otherwise would really deserve good opportunities.</p>

138

<p>
[quote]
Lifting weights has nothing to do with playing football. You don't run up during a game and bench press the other team's quarterback. But there you see all the football players in the weight room all the time, pumping iron. What gives?</p>

<p>Just as those football players want total strength and flexibility in their entire body, we as engineers want strength and flexibility in our minds. Grappling with problems during college teaches us how to grapple with problems in real life.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The analogy breaks down in one very simple way: football players are judged by their actual football performance separate from their weight training. That is to say, if you for some reason you are a complete weakling in the weight room, but you can nevertheless play football great, you're going to be given a starting position. On the other hand, you can be a total beast in the weight room. But if you're incompetent on the field, then you're going to get benched. Heck, when I used to play high school ball, there were some guys who were weight room monsters. Heck, one guy I know won a regional powerlifting championship title in his age group. But he couldn't actually play ball well. He got benched, and rightfully so. After all, the goal is to field the best possible football team: the team that gives you the best chance to win. Not to necessarily field the team of the physically strongest players. </p>

<p>But like I said before, those engineering students who couldn't handle the math of the M.R.'s would fail the class and hence be kicked out of the program. Hence, they weren't even given the chance to try to do any engineering work. Similarly, we had other guys who were clearly not engineers, in the sense that they could hardly build a darn thing. But they were really good at math. Hence, they passed that class with little trouble. </p>

<p>Football players lift weights because being stronger helps them to play better. But nobody is actually required to lift a certain weight as a precondition to even play at all. Nobody is going to institute a rule that everybody needs to bench press 300 pounds or they won't get to even be on the team. If you're a star player but for some reason can't press 300 pounds, you're still going to be able to play. But if you can't handle the math of the M.R.'s, you won't be allowed to 'play' engineering. It doesn't matter that nobody actually uses the M.R.'s on the actual job. They won't let you play if you can't pass that class. </p>

<p>Again, nobody is preventing anybody from learning the M.R.'s. You want to learn it? Go right ahead and do so. What I question is why everybody should be forced to learn it, as a matter of weeding. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Might as well ask why eighth graders have to learn history when they're dead set upon being an astronaut, or why they have to learn multiplication when they're sure that they're going to be an artist.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The obvious difference is that 8th grade isn't using history as a weeding mechanism. Half the class doesn't flunk 8th grade history because of an enforced curve. Let's be honest. The only people who ever flunked classes in 8th grade are those students who clearly didn't care. You put in any modicum of effort at all, and you are going to pass the 8th grade. </p>

<p>Not so in college engineering, especially in the weeders. As I'm sure we can all painfully remember, you can work like a dog...and still fail. </p>

<p>
[quote]
As to the quality of engineering education, sure, a lot of things are left to be desired, but I've encountered things that didn't make any sense the first three times I read them (reading! static text!) that made a lot of sense the fourth time. And these were important concepts in highly recommended textbooks.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I have reviewed the M.R.'s countless times, and I still don't know what they actually mean, from a real world engineering standpoint. I have also asked numerous engineers, including some with PhD's, and they have all admitted that they don't really understand them either. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Well... Do you want to tell the kid who wants to go to the moon that he needs to board the short bus for the first time in his life? It presents a logistics problem, and it's a question of letting kids screw up a little and still allowing them to realize their dreams later on.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But right now we don't do that. I'll say it again: those students who try out engineering and do poorly should be allowed to leave with a clean slate. But we don't do that. I know many who got terrible grades in engineering, and those grades are marked on their transcripts forever. Their chances of getting into grad school or getting a good job are marred for the rest of their lives. Anytime they are asked the question of 'Have you ever been put on academic probation', they are going to have to answer 'Yes'. They switched out of engineering a long time ago, yet they still have to suffer from their bad engineering grades. Why? Even personal bankruptcies are - by law- wiped from your credit report after 7 years. Yet your academic record stays with you forever. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I think you're talking about weeding out even more of the kids who want to be engineers as they get to the undergrad level, right?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>With the Stanford model, I suppose I am. Admissions should be much tighter. Then you protect the students that you do admit. Again, why admit people only to flunk them out later? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Would you really deprive the superstars-in-the-rough of a decent education, shunting them off to an engineering technology program, while everyone else is learning Maxwell's Relations and is figuring out how to grapple with tough problems?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>We don't need to deprive anybody. We can leave the advanced theoretical topics as electives. Those students who want to take those courses are free to do so. Those who don't will not be forced to. </p>

<p>Let me put it to you this way. You say that I am depriving people of an education. However, the fact is, the present system is already doing that, by just flunking them out. That's harsh. For example, take Berkeley. At Berkeley, you have to learn the M.R.'s whether you like it or not. And if you can't , you flunk out. Hence, we end up with a situation where everybody is either a 'superstar' (because they are forced to learn the M.R.'s), or they flunk out completely. </p>

<p>What I am proposing is a middle ground. Instead of flunking students out, give them an option of a 'lighter' engineering degree, where they don't have to learn all the heavy theory. Ok, sure, maybe it won't prepare you well for engineering grad school or a highly intense engineering job. Heck, maybe it won't even be an accredited engineering degree. But hey, at least you will still be getting a Berkeley degree. That's obviously a million times better than just flunking out entirely. And, frankly, it will still be a more rigorous and more marketable degree than are some of the other majors at Berkeley (i.e. "American Studies" which is what many of the Cal football players major in). </p>

<p>I see nothing to be gained from flunking these students out. If you really didn't want to grant them a degree at all, then just don't admit them in the first place. But since you did admit them, then let them get some sort of degree. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Thermo is considered to be something of a fundamental course.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Thermo is a fundamental topic. But the M.R.'s are not. Look at how many engineers here had no idea what the M.R.'s are, and in fact, had confused them with the Maxwell Equations. </p>

<p>It's one thing to learn the general principles of thermo, especially the implications of the 1st and 2nd law. However, it is an entirely different proposition to be forced to spending time deriving pages and pages of math equations. The real value of thermo is in understanding the intuition of entropy and the tendency to randomness (the "Arrow of Time"). You gain relatively little value in actually manipulating the equations, unless you plan to be a thermo researcher (which most students will not be).</p>

139

<p>
[quote]
The analogy breaks down in one very simple way: football players are judged by their actual football performance separate from their weight training. That is to say, if you for some reason you are a complete weakling in the weight room, but you can nevertheless play football great, you're going to be given a starting position. On the other hand, you can be a total beast in the weight room. But if you're incompetent on the field, then you're going to get benched. Heck, when I used to play high school ball, there were some guys who were weight room monsters. Heck, one guy I know won a regional powerlifting championship title in his age group. But he couldn't actually play ball well. He got benched, and rightfully so. After all, the goal is to field the best possible football team: the team that gives you the best chance to win. Not to necessarily field the team of the physically strongest players. </p>

<p>But like I said before, those engineering students who couldn't handle the math of the M.R.'s would fail the class and hence be kicked out of the program. Hence, they weren't even given the chance to try to do any engineering work. Similarly, we had other guys who were clearly not engineers, in the sense that they could hardly build a darn thing. But they were really good at math. Hence, they passed that class with little trouble. </p>

<p>Football players lift weights because being stronger helps them to play better. But nobody is actually required to lift a certain weight as a precondition to even play at all. Nobody is going to institute a rule that everybody needs to bench press 300 pounds or they won't get to even be on the team. If you're a star player but for some reason can't press 300 pounds, you're still going to be able to play. But if you can't handle the math of the M.R.'s, you won't be allowed to 'play' engineering. It doesn't matter that nobody actually uses the M.R.'s on the actual job. They won't let you play if you can't pass that class.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You said it yourself. Football players lift weights because it helps make them better players. Engineers learn various things that may not seem useful at first but in the end learning it will make them a better engineer. </p>

<p>You're right if they don't pass the class they won't graduate. They expect you to do your job as a student and learn it. Nothing is impossible to understand if you really put forth the effort. You also won't graduate if you fail compisition, speech, ethics, sociology, or whatever required humanities/social science classes you have. Are these directly related to engineering? Should we remove them because they don't relate to engineering? No because they make you a better well rounded invidividual. Think about it. If you can learn thermodynamics, you can learn a LOT of other difficult topics. Part of school is learning how to learn.</p>

140

<p>
[quote]
I disagree. There is no shortage of superstar engineers. Instead, there is a shortage of a willingness to pay for superstar engineers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I believe I covered this case in the part of my post (that you omitted) that states that the superstar engineers are either working for themselves, the competition, or in another field.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But I fear what that means for the future of the profession. If present trends continue - if fewer and fewer of the top engineering students actually want to take jobs as engineers - then eventually engineering will be seen as another one of those crappy jobs that nobody really wants to do. I hope that doesn't happen, but I can see that that future is possible.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Unlikely, but if it does happen, the companies who are unable (or unwilling) to make use of non-superstars will be the ones to blame, not universities. One might ask how it is possible that professions like healthcare are able to take struggling engineering students and make functional, competent professionals out of them.</p>