<p>
[quote]
The Economist, has had some interesting articles on the differences between American and European higher education. I have to agree with The Economist that European higher education has fallen so far behind America's higher education because of the excessive government influence in Europe compared to in America. </p>
<p>Ultimately, I do not believe that putting legislators in charge of engineering curricula will solve any problems with engineering in America. And even if legislators could temporarily solve problems, I still believe that ultimately, their influence would have a net negative effect. The risks of legislators imposing truly harmful regulations outweighs any potential benefits. I can't imagine a world where we have the government imposing their will on what engineering programs can and cannot teach. This will only stifle future innovation and potential improvements in the system.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wouldn't even have to say that it has to be that heavy-handed.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that much of present-day US engineering education was developed because of government incentives, notably due to military spending during WW2 and the Cold War, as well as the Space Race vs. the USSR. MIT, for example, joined the pantheon of elite schools because of the growth of the US military-industrial complex during WW2 and afterwards. Before WW2, truth be told, MIT was basically seen as just a glorified trade school. It was the war that spurred MIT researchers to win a string of Nobel Prizes. It was the war that provided MIT with huge boatloads of government research funding. It was the Cold War and Space Race that spurred many of the best young Americans to want to study engineering in general and that spurred interest in admission to MIT. </p>
<p>The same story could be said of Stanford. Stanford was basically a no-name school before the Cold War. The same could be said of many of the other top US engineering schools. They are where they are today because of government policy, especially military/tech policy.</p>
<p>Hence, I don't envision a situation where government has to micromanage schools to teach this-and-that and not teach this-and-that. It could be far more free-flowing. Government could state that we want students to be competent in X, Y, and Z, and leave it to the universities themselves to accomplish those goals. Those schools who are able to accomplish these goals will increase in stature and research funding. Those who aren't will be left by the wayside. As a historical example, during the Space Race, the government stated that it wants competence in aeronautics and electronics. Lo and behold, MIT and other schools built hugely powerful and respected aeronautics and EECS departments. </p>
<p>My point is, we have had heavy government involvement in engineering education for the last 60 years, with no signs of it stopping. So if we're going to have government involvement anyway, we ought to ensure that it is the right kind of involvement. </p>
<p>But again, of course, that is predicated on whether we really want change. Keep in mind that only 5% of all US bachelor's degrees are engineering degrees, whereas in other parts of the world, like Europe, the percentage is easily in the double digits (for example, I think Germany is something like 25%). So the question is, do we want more engineers? Both Republicans and Democrats have decried the low number of Americans who study engineering. But the question is, do they really want the numbers to increase? If so, then we need reform. Now, if they don't really want the numbers to increase, then fair enough, we can just stay with the status quo and we will continue to have only 5% of American college grads being engineers. </p>
<p>Nor does pressure have to come from the government. It could come from NGO's. Bill Gates could use part of his charity to reward those schools who produced the best computer engineers in the world. That would spur schools to compete to produce a better computer education. It doesn't even have to involve money. It could just be a prize. Schools would compete for this prize in the same manner that they currently 'compete' for Nobels. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I can second many of airbarr accounts as to what I have seen at my current job (it is only an internship though). Like I mentioned in a previous post, I have literally used theory from more than half of my classes, and I see several practicing engineers doing the same thing. They all have multiple text books sitting on their desk.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I'll put it to you this way. I remember being an engineering intern - working with guys with PhD's in engineering, and strongly remembering how I was the only person in the whole department who could do calculus. In fact, I had to actually TEACH calculus to one of the guys who was trying to help his daughter learn calculus but then realized that he had forgotten it himself. </p>
<p>Now, obviously all these guys had LEARNED calculus in the past. But they had been out in the workforce for decades without using it, and hence had forgotten it all. Use it or lose it, and in their case, they lost it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I think part of the problem with your argument sakky is that you have failed to give me any concrete examples as to what parts of the engineering curriculum are so bad.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You want concrete examples? Here you are. For ChemE's, ALL of PChem (especially PChemLab) and Advanced Inorganic Chem is basically useless. Note, General Chem and Organic Chem lecture is somewhat useful. But PChem and IChem? Not so much. </p>
<p>For the guy who wants to know EE (but not CS), then classes on Data Structures/Computation Structures or Algorithms are basically useless. Note, Basic Computer Programming and Machine Structures are still useful. For the guy specializing in CS (but not EE), courses in Signals/Systems are worthless. I would argue that even the circuits/electronics classes are pretty worthless to the guy who just wants to do CS, but that's a judgment call. </p>
<p>I would also say that, for most people who want to learn CS, then time spent on Artificial Intelligence, or any topics that have to do with high CS theory, such as complexity theory, computation theory, intractability, and topics of this nature are basically useless. These topics are obviously extremely useful for that subset of people who hope to get PhD's and become researchers and theoreticians. But for those CS students who just want to get a job, which comprise most students, they are worthless. Nobody in the real world cares about P vs. NP-completeness or decideability vs. undecideability, or interactive proofs (or proofs of any kind). In, I would even say that algorithms beyond the basic level are of rather dubious value. With the exception of the search engines and other advanced software, most employers will not have their programmers write complex algorithms. Honestly, with the constant exponential advancement of hardware power due to Moore's Law, the ability to write efficient algorithms is becoming less and less important all the time. </p>
<p>The truth is, most CS jobs out there are little more than infrastructural plumbing. All you need to know is how to connect this dataset to that dataset, or present some dataset onto a GUI or onto a webpage. Or, simply, babysit some computer system, bring it back up if it goes down, and then upgrade it from time to time. It isn't rocket science. I agree that if you're going to work on the Google search engine, you need to know advanced algorithms, and you may even need to know some computation theory. But the fact is, even most Google programmers nowadays are not working on the Google search engine. They're working on ancillary products such as Google Base or Google Calendar or all those other myriad Google services that serve as add-ons to the search engine. You don't actually need to know that much theory to work on these tasks.</p>