<p>Actually, many people who are in Engineering do view engineering with a liberal arts perspective (ie. it's good to have as general knowlege, but not necessarily the next step in life).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some time ago, I looked at the offerings at a particular LAC program and found that it didn't even offer upper level courses in civil or structural engineering. I don't know what that program is ranked. For all I know some ranking person put that school in the top 100, because the college has a big endowment or whatever.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I continue to be unimpressed by the argument that a school that doesn't offer a large variety of upper-level engineering coursework is automatically bad. To that, I have two words to say: Harvey Mudd.</p>
<p>Take a look at the engineering course catalogs available at Harvey Mudd and Yale. In terms of depth and breadth, they look basically the same to me.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.dof.hmc.edu/catalogue04-05/%5B/url%5D">http://www.dof.hmc.edu/catalogue04-05/</a></p>
<p>So if you believe that engineering quality is so dependent on upper-division course breadth, then you have to believe that Harvey Mudd is a bad engineering school. Why don't you come right out and say it, if that's what you believe?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I want to know if Cornell's College of Architecture is good. To do that I think I should look at how many of is graduates become investment bankers.</p>
<p>I want to know if Penn's School of Nursing is good. To do that I will look at how many of its graduates become Finance PhDs.</p>
<p>Liberal arts- known as nonvocational training. I didn''t make this up. Expected next steps vary widely. Law, etc. They are there to produce generalists</p>
<p>Engineering, architecture, nursing, hotel administration- vocational training. They are there to produce specialists. Whether or not that always happens, that's the mission.</p>
<p>Yes you can study architecture and then decide to be an investment banker.Waste of an undergrad education, if you ask me, but you can make that choice. But I'm not evaluating its architecture program on that basis. I'm evaluating it by it's production of architects.</p>
<p>Vocational training.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And that's EXACTLY the sort of attitude that MIT espoused about a in the past and has now completely repudiated. MIT started life as a vocational and trade school. MIT has publicly stated that while in the past, it was just interested in the narrow goal of producing scientists and engineers, now it sees its mission as producing diverse leaders of society. Leaders with strong technical knowledge to be sure, but leaders all the same. Caltech too has significantly diversified its offerings compared to what it had in the past. </p>
<p>So monydad, I understand your attitude now. You're like one of those old-time MIT dinosaurs who pines for the 'good old days' when MIT was content just to produce narrowly focused engineers. Well, sorry to inform you, but MIT has moved on, and the dinosaurs have been marginalized. You can complain all you want about how you don't want change, but that ship has sailed. </p>
<p>When the best engineering school in the country is no longer interested in being seen as just a vocational school, you know that change is afoot.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, I agree that that the average Yalie has a better shot at landing a job with McKinsey than the average Wolvie or Cornellie. But then again, the average Yalie is a little more accomplished and capable than the average Wolvie or Cornellie. However, if you want to compare apples to apples, if you stick student X at Yale, she/he will not receive a better education or have better opportunities upon graduation than if you stick her/him at Michigan or Cornell. In short, those three universities open the same doors and provide similar quality educations. But to Engineers, Cornell and Michigan provide superior educations and greater opportunites.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I continue to emphasize the point that a lot of people switch out of engineering. I seem to recall reading somewhere that less than half of incoming Cornell engineers will actually complete their Cornell engineering degrees. Of those that don't, most will switch to a non-engineering major, although some will transfer to another university and some will flunk out entirely. Given the choice between Yale and Cornell, you have to ask yourself how likely is it that you will switch out of engineering. If the likelihood is high, you are almost certainly better off at Yale.</p>
<p>its ok sakky, i've got your back</p>
<p>Sakky: as is often the case with you, you're shooting from the hip without really knowing what you are talking about.</p>
<p>What I wrote was, for example:
[quote]
Montana Tech, formerly the Montana School of Mines, has been nationally known for decades as a school with top programs in geology, mining engineering and chemical engineering.
[quote]
</p>
<p>What you said was
[quote]
I would venture to say that very few people have heard of New Mexico Tech or Montana Tech, but they are successful in minting engineers that obtain what are apparently quite decent job prospects.
[quote]
.</p>
<p>The fact is, Sakky, that while Montana Tech, Colorado School of Mines, New Mexico Tech and similar schools may not have been known to you, and perhaps not to many posters on CC, they have been nationally - that's right - nationally known for decades to those in the fields of geology, mining engineering and related engineering, as highly rated schools in these fields, not as just adequate. Ask anyone looking for geologists, mining engineers and engineers in general in the Rocky Mountain area.</p>
<p>Seems that you know about as much about engineering schools and engineering as you do about patent law.</p>
<p>from a post yesterday:</p>
<p>"But, at Cornell, for example, about 87-88% of the freshmen who start in engineering, graduate from engineering. It is probably similar at other top-tier engineering schools. At Caltech, where engineering and science are virtually the only options, the graduation rate is in the 88% range I think."</p>
<p>I haven't looked at any data, but this certainly jives with my own impression, having been there myself.</p>
<p>The program of studies I took was clearly vocational training. Though collaterally it may have had some aspects useful to other things one might want to do. </p>
<p>When I've looked at catalogs I've seen mostly the same courses. At my alma mater they even have the same course numbers, which amazes me.</p>
<p>But everyone interested should look at the courses and their content, and decide for themselves.</p>
<p>Maybe thermodynamics isn't thermodynamics anymore. Maybe it's now art history. And fluid mechanics is now actually philosophy. What do I know. Now back to my cave...</p>
<p>I clean forgot to mention the former Missouri School of Mines, now part of the University of Missouri-Rolla, and to point out that all of these schools were (and still are) also recognized for metallurgy.
Shame on me.</p>
<p>Rolla- good school, in some areas I know about anyway.</p>
<p>This is a bit off-topic, but if you are tabulating "mines" schools, you also might also want to mention the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. And also Michigan Technological University (formerly Michigan College of Mines). These schools are (like previously-mentioned Colorado School of Mines, Montana Tech, Missouri-Rolla, and New Mexico Tech) solid engineering schools today.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The fact is, Sakky, that while Montana Tech, Colorado School of Mines, New Mexico Tech and similar schools may not have been known to you, and perhaps not to many posters on CC, they have been nationally - that's right - nationally known for decades to those in the fields of geology, mining engineering and related engineering, as highly rated schools in these fields, not as just adequate. Ask anyone looking for geologists, mining engineers and engineers in general in the Rocky Mountain area.</p>
<p>Seems that you know about as much about engineering schools and engineering as you do about patent law.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Besides, name a single thing that I have said that wasn't factual about patent law. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for you to respond. So who's really shooting from the hip here? </p>
<p>Look, I don't doubt that Montana Tech and New Mexico Tech are respected within their niches. But by the same token, that also means that it's possible that Yale engineering could be respected within its niche. The point is, we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss Yale engineering just because it doesn't have a great fame among the engineering cognoscenti.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"But, at Cornell, for example, about 87-88% of the freshmen who start in engineering, graduate from engineering.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Consider this quote about the nationwide completion rate:</p>
<p>"Although approximately 2530 percent of students entering college in the United States intend to major in S&E fields, a considerable gap exists between freshman intentions and successful completion of S&E degrees. A National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) longitudinal study of first-year S&E students in 1990 found that fewer than 50 percent had completed an S&E degree within five years (U.S. Department of Education (NCES) 2000).[3] Students intending an S&E major in their freshman year explore and switch to other academic departments in undergraduate education, and approximately 20 percent drop out of college."</p>
<p>I hesitate to speculate too much about the Cornell stats. However, I seem to recall that that 87-88% Cornell engineering graduation rate has to do with incoming engineers who graduate from Cornell in ANY major, not just engineering. But again, since I'm not sure about that, I an open to new information. Does anybody care to supply a weblink?</p>
<p>Sakky, I am not sure about Cornell, but at Michigan, 75% of Freshmen engineers graduate in Engineering within 6 years. I remember reading somewhere that CMU and Cornell were between 80% and 85%.</p>
<p>Sakky: the fact is that you really know nothing about patent law; you have just read things and heard of things and have a lot of opinions based on that reading and hearing. Probably the same is true of engineering. Are you an engineer? Have you ever been a student in an engineering school?</p>
<p>And by the way, Montana Tech, University of Missouri-Rolla and the other schools aren't just respected in some little "niches". They are respected in some major fields of science and engineering (metallurgy and geology, for example) and have built up from that into full-range engineering programs by becoming part of their state university systems.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky: the fact is that you really know nothing about patent law; you have just read things and heard of things and have a lot of opinions based on that reading and hearing. Probably the same is true of engineering. Are you an engineer? Have you ever been a student in an engineering school?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And if I have, are you going to come back here and publicly eat your words? I won't hold my breath waiting for you to do so.</p>
<p>I have invited you to come back and report what exactly I have said about patent law that you disagree with. Just as I expected, you have come back with nothing. We'll leave it to the other readers here to decide who is shooting from the hip and who isn't. If you have a specific problem with something that I wrote, then pull out the specific quote that you don't like, and let's discuss it. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, well...</p>
<p>I have never talked about the University of Missouri, but speaking specifically about Montana Tech, you are only simply reinforcing my point that a school that may not have the highest engineering rating in the world can nevertheless be considered a decent engineering school. I never said that Montana Tech was a bad school, I am simply pointing out the fact that the school is not highly ranked and that most people here have probably never heard of it, yet nonetheless it can still produce respectable engineers. Hence, if Montana Tech can do that, I don't see why Yale can't do the same. You're only reinforcing my central point which is that Yale engineering is not that bad.</p>
<p>Sakky: you're right not to hold your breath for me to come and waste my time arguing with somone who just likes to express opinions for the heck of it, but has no experience or knowledge on which to base any of those points, just opinion on opinion.<br>
Bye.</p>
<p>Good riddance, dadofsam. I'm not shedding any tears in watching you go.</p>
<p>Of course, if you want to continue to challenge me on who I am, and specifically on whether I have an engineering degree, and from where, I am ready to completely humiliate you on that question anytime you want. I am perfectly willing to stack my engineering credentials against a guy who CLEARLY has far far less engineering knowledge and engineering credentials than I do. Just say when and where.</p>
<p>Message to ariesathena. What do you think - should I tell dadofsam who I am? I am basically leaning towards not doing so, because I almost want dadofsam to challenge me on this question.</p>
<p>Hunh. How'd this become a poo-flinging contest? Is this absolutely necessary? Is fight-picking an absolute necessity, or can we discuss engineering, as the original poster had talked about?</p>
<p>This is the "not-helpful" and "not-staying-on-topic" that I was griping about in another thread...</p>
<p>We're here to <em>HELP</em> people who are <em>CONSIDERING CAREERS AND LIFE CHOICES</em>. How is this even ABOUT patent law? How is this even ABOUT attacking others' opinions? How can you guys <em>ARGUE</em> like this when these kids are desperately trying to make informed decisions about their own DESTINIES? </p>
<p>As the elders and senior posters of this forum, we CANNOT keep picking fights with one another, or we undermine the effectiveness of this forum. We have a social obligation, in this society of CC, to discuss things in a mature and informed manner. We must provide BACKUP for our opinions, or we must refrain from saying our opinions as fact. We must provide our BACKGROUND to show qualifications on our authority on a given subject, otherwise how are these kids to trust what we say?</p>
<p>Remember the baseline purpose of this forum.</p>
<p>Don't be jerks. Treat people with respect.</p>
<p>I agree. Which is why I didn't want to engage Dadofsam. But hey, I am not going to stand here and just suffer from abuse either. I don't want to be a jerk, but I ain't no patsy either. This guy is challenging me on my engineering credentials, when the fact is, he doesn't know the first thing about me. I am very close towards spilling my biography on this forum just to shut him up. It would almost be worth it just to shut him up.</p>
<p>However, my central point in this entire thread is that while Yale engineering is not the best, it's really not that bad. You can go to Yale and still have a solid career as an engineer.</p>