<p>Intersting stuff well thanks everybody</p>
<p>As others have mentioned, the main issue with 3-2 is attrition due to factors such as lack of advising and reinforcement at the liberal arts college and not wanting to leave after three years, when at that point getting a science BS and then going for a masterās in an engineering discipline may be an alternative.</p>
<p>But even having cleared that hurdle, the engineering part of 3-2 is still not really the same as if one started out in engineering in the first place.</p>
<p>Donāt know about Columbia, but at my engineering school students took an intro exposure to engineering course, plus a group of actual distribution engineering courses in different areas of engineering, during their first two years. In addition to the core math and science courses. This afforded them the opportunity to learn more about what they liked/didnāt like and were good/not good at, within the broad umbrella of āengineeringā. These engineering content courses, plus discussion with engineering advisers from day one no doubt influenced many peopleās choice of areas and sub-areas to specialize in during the upperclass years and thereafter.</p>
<p>if someone instead has to compress all engineering courses into two years, there is no chance for this type of self-discovery or to change oneās mind , without delaying the graduation date. It would seem to me.
(Plus theyāll die because that is entirely too many hard courses, in too short a time!!)</p>
<p>Additionally, these sophomore level engineering courses were prerequisites for upper level courses. This allowed one to take more advanced courses in the upperclass year than would seemingly be possible if no engineering prerequisite courses are taken during the first two years.</p>
<p>So one can compress all engineering courses in that fashion, and gain much more exposure in the liberal arts. But do not be deluded into thinking that there is no trade-off on the engineering side in doing so. Your engineering training will be less-informed, and less advancedā¦</p>
<p>Iāve read that a relatively low proportion of Columbia SEAS grads actually become engineers, maybe 1/3?? donāt recall precisely. Perhaps relatively more of them want to be doctors, dentists, podiatrists and, especially, wall street numbers crunchers. After all, the school title includes āAnd Applied Scienceā, not just āEngineeringā. These are desirable enough future destinations to keep the applicant numbers up, even if the engineering program itself isnāt extraordinarily highly rated. Plus the NYC location and overall prestige of the university also add to the schoolās allure.</p>
<p>If one doesnāt actually want to be an engineer, and just wants to graduate with a degree from a school that they could never get admission to as a freshman, and then apply to dental school, then the potential detriments may be of little significance. Ditto if grad school is part of the picture. [Unless it adversely affects admission to grad school].</p>
<p>There are also potential social implications of switching schools, of course.</p>
<p>All engineering programs Iām aware of incorporate some liberal arts electives. But as a matter of general education, nothing prevents engineers from taking additional liberal arts courses at night, just for fun, after they graduate from college. (Other than time, of course,but FWIW I had more regular hours as an engineer than as anything else Iāve done.) .
Iāve taken quite a number of courses at night myself, over the years. Oneās general;education does not necessarily have to end with a bachelorās degree.</p>
<p>I think most of these posts miss the benefits of 3-2 programs. Its design is not to enable a backdoor entrance to a good school. I think the so-called āhateā on 3-2 programs is from those who are focused on college as a path to a degree for a money job. Those who look at education more broadly do see appeal in these programs.</p>
<p>The 3-2 starting at an LAC offers much broader learning experience than traditional four year engineering programs will offer. And while @monydad makes a good point that the existing students in the destination school have had more exposure to engineering, the student from the at the source (3) school will have other courses, plus an extra year of education and self-discovery, often in a more diverse and personalized learning community, before diving deep into engineering. </p>
<p>For another angle, as this Washington Post article demonstrates, for the highest salary straight out of college, tech schools do wonders, but Liberal Arts Colleges like Haverford, feature prominently in the list of colleges where salaries increase the most over time. </p>
<p><a href=āhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/11/where-to-go-to-college-if-you-want-the-highest-starting-salary/ā>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/11/where-to-go-to-college-if-you-want-the-highest-starting-salary/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is only true if the ā3ā school allows any major there. Some (many?) ā3ā schools are restrictive about what major the student can do there (e.g. limited to physics or chemistry, sometimes even more limited depending on the target engineering major), while others allow any major as long as the student completes the frosh/soph engineering prerequisites. So a student doing a 3+2 program specifically to get an extra year of breadth (presumably H/SS) course work needs to choose ā3ā schools carefully.</p>
<p>Of course, the usual concerns about admission to the ā2ā school, financial aid at the ā2ā school, and the extra year of cost need to be considered by any such student.</p>
<p>Worldspirit, you misunderstand the observations voiced here about 3/2 programs I donāt see criticism of the liberal arts component. What I find is that what people are skeptical about is the success of these programs. Again, for various reasons many students do not complete the program or discover that the plan has lost its appeal after year 3 at their LAC. What I and others have said is that engineering majors who start out at a STEM university from the get-go can often exploit many opportunities for broad exposure to non-engineering courses, if they look for it. With so many kids entering college with AP credit these days, there are openings in their STEM schedule to allow for distribution courses of all sorts.</p>
<p>Iām not opposed to the extra year to allow broader variety of classes (for students that have the time and money to do so). But per my research (admittedly not extensive), the idea to spit the education experience across 2 schools did not make sense to me. </p>
<p>Splitting the educational experience across two schools is commonly done by students who start at community colleges (for cost reasons or because their high school records were subpar) and then transfer to four year schools later. But the reasons for going this route seem to be quite different from the reasons that students consider 3+2 programs.</p>
<p>3+2 programs seem to be a better idea in theory than in practice. I would have loved it if I heard more success stories, but alas that is not the case.</p>
<p>"Splitting the educational experience across two schools is commonly done by students who start at community colleges " - I knew a lot of them at my STEM school (including DH). They started at CC for economic reasons, and there was good value to starting at the CC feeder program. But making the switch was tough. Given the choice, I believe most would have preferred 4 years of continuity. </p>
<p>Yes, I agree with Colorado Mom about community college students. Students, including STEM students, opt for community college for various reasons.</p>
BiganthonyāI am on track to do the exact same thing you are doing next year. Could I get somehow exchange emails or PM to see what your experience has been like this year?
There is still, despite limited enrollment programs and other ways of controlling entrance, a high percentage of freshman going into engineering who do not go on to become engineers, or to be more specific to earn an engineering degree.
Also, junior year in any engineering program on a 4 year plan is going to be brutal, even if you have taken all your classes at that same school and have made whatever study buddy arrangements and what have you. Social life will be limited.
Having 3 years to cover the 2 years of math and science prerequisites and maybe learn a bit of something other than math and science that will contribute to your personal growth and understanding of society - I donāt see any harm in that. Yes, you have to work hard, regardless of your competition or lack thereof, to really understand your math and physics prerequisites, chem for chem Es, but so does everyone at say a 80 ranked large state school who hangs out with theater majors.
I think this is a cost effectiveness issue and also likely that people who chose 3+2 programs are somewhat less likely to be really into engineering than say someone who goes to RPI.
Does someone actually have statistics on how many people enroll in 3+2 programs and do go on to complete their engineering degree ? If it is higher than 30%, I think this is a valid path for all the reasons I state above, especially if a liberal education is important to you.
If itās like 10% then maybe it is just window dressing ā¦ but is it that bad to graduate from a good liberal arts school (I doubt they take transfers from E-NW Poduck school of deep thought ) after having a credible path to engineering that you just chose not to take ?
I would also argue that if you want to go to dental school, engineering is a peculiar path unless you are really smart and interested in engineering and open minded enough that if you enjoy engineering, you are happy to not become a dentist. Your GPA wonāt be stellar unless you are really smart, you will do well on the MCAT ā¦ etc, etc.
Seems to be some hate on Columbia - but if you are a 3-2 person, maybe you do want some Columbia flavor to your education and are content with not being at the TOP school in your particular discipline. You are not going to graduate not understanding engineering, and you will gain contacts in the business world and rich people and more exposure to business related things which could be great for technical management or venture capital or whatever.
Not everyone really wants an RPI education (I am picking on RPI for no particular reason, really mean any engineering school that is predominantly engineers) or a boatload of future gung-ho engineers who can pick up quantum physics in a day. Some people want the business or other flavors of engineering.
There should be a reason for doing the work of, and paying for, an additional year in college. What is that reason?
If it is because thereās not enough educational breadth in an engineering program, can there not be a less disruptive way of solving the problem than transferring between colleges/universities?
If one gets weeded out early in engineering in the traditional 4-year program, one will be able to get going in another practical major before oneās tired of - and perhaps bearing considerable debt from - college. In the 3-2 arrangement, will people do studies that are not strong for jobs in their initial 3 years? What will they face should they THEN get weeded out of engineering?
Carleton College has some numbers for its own students.
https://apps.carleton.edu/curricular/physics/for_students/department_links/engineering/questions/
If we assume that 50-60 is over three years (so about 16-20 students per class), the 0-3 who actually apply (not necessarily even being admitted or decide to transfer if admitted) is very few.
I think LakeWashington is misinformed about the quality of engineering at Columbia. Columbiaās engineering is ranked 18 at the undergraduate level, and number 14 at the graduate level. Considering there are about 1,100 engineering schools in the US, meaning Columbia is in the top 2% of engineering schools. The school is part of Columbia University which is a world class university ranked number 4 in the US. Getting in is near impossible with an admission rate of 6%, one of the top 4 most selective in the nation. Columbiaās engineering school is one of the oldest and one of the best in the country. The Manhattan Project (the first atomic bomb) was designed at Columbia.
āEmployers tend to look very favorably on students who graduate from these programs. Columbiaās engineering school reports that, in recent years, the dual degree students have had better job opportunities, with higher starting salaries, than students who go directly through traditional engineering programs. Employers value the reasoning, critical thinking, problem solving, and communications skills which students acquire at the liberal arts college. These skills, combined with the outstanding technical preparation from the engineering courses, make for an attractive job candidate.ā
That would be a physics accomplishment more than an engineering one.
@akin67 You are a bit too hung up on rankings. Also, selectivity has nothing to do with the quality of the program.
Also, the atomic bomb was by designed at Columbia. It was designed at Project Y, now Los Alamos National Laboratory, in Los Alamos, NM. Columbia split the first uranium atom in the US and invented gaseous diffusion.
@intparent The atomic bomb was every bit as much of an engineering achievement as it was a physics one.