<p>So you want me to voluntarily PM you? What's so bad about PM-ing me?</p>
<p>No, I want you to post your bio publicly so that everyone can enjoy and revere your qualifications. I want people to be able to get an idea about the person writing all these (massive) statements and opinions. I want them to be able to decide how much weight to place on your arguments.</p>
<p>I want people to be able to make an informed decision and not have to rely on gut instinct or faith that you're qualified to say what you say.</p>
<p>I want this information out so that people can find it, so others can point to it when someone asks about what you've written, and I want it out so that people don't have to be in your good graces (or sink so low as to "push your buttons") to get this information PM'd to them.</p>
<p>Does that make any sense?</p>
<p><em>applauds</em></p>
<p>
[quote]
No, I want you to post your bio publicly so that everyone can enjoy and revere your qualifications. I want people to be able to get an idea about the person writing all these (massive) statements and opinions. I want them to be able to decide how much weight to place on your arguments.</p>
<p>I want people to be able to make an informed decision and not have to rely on gut instinct or faith that you're qualified to say what you say.</p>
<p>I want this information out so that people can find it, so others can point to it when someone asks about what you've written, and I want it out so that people don't have to be in your good graces (or sink so low as to "push your buttons") to get this information PM'd to them.</p>
<p>Does that make any sense?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No it doesn't. If you want to know who I am, then PM me, I will tell you privately, and that ought to be good enough for you. If other people want to find out, they can do the same.</p>
<p>
[quote]
. . . and that ought to be good enough for you. If other people want to find out, they can do the same.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, you can lead a horse to water... </p>
<p>Okay, and if people don't put a whole lot of stock, trust, or weight on your opinion -- and take them with a grain of salt -- then that will have to be good enough for you. Because if other people like me think the way I do, they WILL do the same.</p>
<p>As I've always said, those who really want to know should be willing to take the initiative to PM me. It's not that hard. You just make a few mouseclicks. </p>
<p>Look, if you're not even willing to put in that kind of effort, then I don't know that you deserve to know my biography.</p>
<p>It's a matter of principle, Sakky, that's all. I don't feel the need to "beg" you via a PM for your bio, because I know enough to make my own decisions. Other people, those trying to figure out what they're going to do with their lives, might not be so lucky.</p>
<p>If you've spent <em>any</em> time at all in an academic program, then you would know that you have to back up what you say with sources. Any thesis or published paper that has, as a citation, "I'm experienced and I know what I'm talking about. If that's not good enough for you, you may write to ______ and I will forward a copy of my real sources." would be laughable. And that's essentially what you're doing here.</p>
<p>But go on, keep putting opinions out there "for free" with no "effort" required... and make people jump through hoops to get the most basic information about you, fully expecting them to not bother and therefore just take your word for it. Because that's what you're really doing.</p>
<p>Surely you're not implying that I haven't spent any time in an academic program, are you? </p>
<p>Furthermore, this is not an academic program. After all, you must agree that an academic program would not take to flaming and simple general insults, as you have seen happen here. Hence, my reluctance to post my bio. </p>
<p>I'm not asking for people just to trust me. I am giving them a mechanism for them to verify, if they wish. If they elect not to do that, then they have nobody to blame but themselves. It's like an NDA. Lots of companies force you to sign an NDA before they tell you anything useful. If you're not willing to sign, then they won't tell you anything. That's not unusual. So is my behavior really that unusual? </p>
<p>In particular, I know that if you want to write an academic thesis that has to do with the inner workings of a particular company, you have to sign an NDA. And the thesis that you release to the public can discuss only generalities, with only generic numbers and figures. Those people who read your thesis and who want to know more about your specific sources and your specific numbers will themselves have to agree to sign the NDA. That's how it works. Is that so odd?</p>
<p>For a corporation or government agency, no.</p>
<p>For a person publicly trying to give "advice" to young people starting their lives, yes, it is. You're speaking as an expert. Whether it be on the news, a talk show, or in an article, experts are generally expected to have known qualifications. Those aren't necessarily "academic" settings, but it still applies just as it does here.</p>
<p>"Put up, or shut up," as they say. Nothing personal, just a request for the good of the group. (And for the record, no one's requesting any personally-identifiable information -- i.e. that which could actually <em>gasp</em> reveal your identity.)</p>
<p>Sakky, you're giving academic opinions. Like I said, it's just a measure of good faith, and not wanting people around the office to poke fun at the fact that you've posted 3500 times on a college admissions board isn't a good enough reason to withold your information. I don't think it's a good reason whatsoever.</p>
<p>Your behavior <em>is</em> unusual, and you're being stubborn, and there's absolutely no reason for it. That's what we're trying to say. I shouldn't have to sign a non-disclosure agreement in order to know that a total stranger is qualified to give me information about engineering, when I don't even know that he's worked in the field, or has a degree in it, or even has a vested interest in promoting my enthusiasm for engineering.</p>
<p>You know guys, I have dropped many a public clue about what my biography is. It's not that difficult to figure out.</p>
<p>And besides, like I said, I don't particularly see what the problem is in cloaking my identity and having people aski me privately. That's what ariesathena does. That's what a number of other people here on this board do. It's no different from them.</p>
<p>I also never said that I was an expert. I am perfectly willing to let people believe what they want to believe. It's when people publicly challenge me on my biography, when they know nothing at all, is when the gloves come off.</p>
<p>
In particular, I know that if you want to write an academic thesis that has to do with the inner workings of a particular company, you have to sign an NDA. And the thesis that you release to the public can discuss only generalities, with only generic numbers and figures.
</p>
<p>Speaking of which...
Since I have, with what I consider to be infinite patience, PM'd sakky and eventually garnered a response, I'd like to present my thesis on sakky's background to the public, discussing only generalities of the situation!</p>
<p>Sakky got his undergraduate degree in chemical engineering from a top university and is now a grad student studying business and computers from another top university.</p>
<p>I didn't even sign an NDA, and I still haven't burst sakky's identity bubble. Gosh, what a nice person I am.</p>
<p>There. Can I go to sleep now? Can we close this thread?</p>
<p>Yeah come on, it's not that hard to send a PM. I think you wasted more time posting that long reply, wrprice, rather than to send a PM.</p>
<p>(See I just sent one right now)</p>
<p>Actually, I was pretty sure he had something to do with engineering and buisness. Let's see if I can guess the universities right!</p>
<p>You're right... I wasted more time than sending a PM. But a PM only benefits me, and that's not why I'm here. Ciao, guys, until next time. :-)</p>
<p>Wow, where were all you engineers until now? For the benefit of prospective college-pickers,if anyone else has actual informed opinions, based on their personal actual experience as working engineers and/or engineering employers, about whether breadth and depth of engineering training such as is given at the larger programs is important, or other relevant informed observations pertaining to the central concerns of this topic, you really ought to have weighed in about that.</p>
<p>Anyway, getting back to the particular matter at hand, this is what I will do, when I get a chance. Wasting more time than I have already, but just for yucks..</p>
<p>I will see whether I could have pursued studies in my own chosen sub-field in electrical engineering if I'd gone to Yale. Or Harvey Mudd. Assuming that info is in those two links. I'm not interested in making this a term project. After all MY kid has no interest in engineering whatsoever. </p>
<p>I started my engineering studies with one particular area in mind, but as so often happens, my interests changed as I went on in my studies and learned more about what was available. Through a rather convoluted path I wound up choosing an engineering area that I didn't even think about when I started.
I believe this happens more often than not- IF your program is comprehensive enough to offer advanced training in the various practice areas.</p>
<p>AS it happens, my alma mater did provide training in this sub-field. Though if I'd known about it from the beginning, it wouldn't have been the absolute best place to go. But still it was ok. I will see if I could have even pursued this area if I'd attended these other two schools.</p>
<p>I will report back after I look.</p>
<p>OK I've looked.</p>
<p>If I'd attended either one of those schools I would have had to transfer from there to pursue the program of studies I ultimately undertook. Neither of these two schools offers a single course in it.</p>
<p>This does not mean that these two programs are in any way alike. I didn't look beyond what I said above. but the point is, interested students should look. Just count the upperclass courses actually offered in a particular semester, would be one starting place. Can you follow your actual realized sub-area of interest in your junior and senior years, as these interests evolve and emerge at that time, that's what you want to determine. And I've just determined I couldn't have.</p>
<p>From my brief glance, it doesn't appear that Yale even offers Civil Engineering. At all. Forget subfields, they don't even have the whole big field. </p>
<p>From my post #19, take out the word "potentially".</p>
<p>(I <em>did</em> weigh in, monydad! I was the first one to weigh in, as a matter of fact! ;) )</p>
<p>Yale has chemical engineering. That's what the OP wanted to study. I still think that the undergrad experience is the most important factor in making a decision about where to go for an undergrad degree, so if the Yale experience was what the OP was looking for, I personally believe that trumps the fact that Yale doesn't have a top-ten chem eng program.</p>
<p>Eh, just my two cents.</p>
<p>Clarification: "Other" meaning other than those engineers who have already weighed in on this, not just other than me.</p>
<p>Look, I agree that Yale engineering is certainly not broad and is not for everybody. So for those engineers who want to switch around and explore all kinds of other opportunities, Yale may not be the best place to go. I have never disputed that. </p>
<p>However, I would point out that the same is true of other well respected but small engineering schools like Harvey Mudd. And I would again point out that the same is true of some of the ostensibly broad schools. Like Berkeley. For example, Yale may not have civil engineering. On the other hand, while Berkeley does have civil engineering, you may not be able to get into it. If you didn't apply to and get admitted to Berkeley as a declared Civil Engineering student, and decide you want to switch in later, you have to apply to switch in, and the competition to switch in is fierce, such that there is a significant chance that you will be denied and be forced to major in something else. I'm not sure, but I think the same is true for many of the other UC's - you aren't allowed to simply switch around into any engineering major anytime you want. For example, I know that EE and CS at UCLA are heavily impacted and the ability to switch in is greatly restricted.</p>
<p>So, really, what's the difference beween not having the engineering discipline you want at all, and having it, but not allowing you as a student to switch into it? Either way, you don't get to major in it. </p>
<p>The point is, while I clearly don't think Yale is the greatest engineering program in the world, it's not that bad. Yale engineering has flaws, but a lot of other programs have flaws too.</p>