Why Students Are Leaving Engineering 1218
Ted writes "A former engineering major has written an interesting article explaining why he thinks many smart students are not studying engineering anymore." Many business leaders have commented on the lack of engineers and several companies have even started initiatives to help bolster our diminishing ranks. Will these measures be enough, or does the system require much more drastic measures?
Re:Students leaving engineering but no shortage ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Weed out courses (Score:5, Interesting)
With that said, this guys real problem was not that the university was too tough. The real problem is that his high school did not prepare him. More likely, it coddle him into thinking that he was one of the top. However, with US grade inflation, he was most like average. Hitting top course right off the bat would be difficult.
Now, as to the prof who could not teach, well, there are a lot of them out there. No university and curriculum is immune from it.
D in Discrete Math (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Alternative summary (Score:2, Interesting)
That could of course be because the people teaching aren't teachers at all. They are researchers - or want to be. It is certainly what they trained for during their PhD. The PhD, which, incidentally, is awarded all on the basis of your scientific work, and none whatsoever on any teaching experience or ability you may or may not have.
Thus many of the people in your faculty aren't there because they want to teach or have any actual aptitude for it. They are there becasue they desire to do science and the teaching is a regrettable sideline. They will of course all say that teaching is important and something they love doing - if they didn't say it, they would not get a position, and with no position you don't get grant money for your research.
Of course, for the most part being intelligent and capable people, many do manage to build up a reasonable ability to fake teaching, as in organizing a class, delivering lectures and administering tests. They do not hold a candle to a real, actual trained professional teacher of course; fortunately for them, since most "problem kids" won't be showing up in university, and since students are expcected to be adult and take responsibility for their own education, they do not have to deal with real teaching challenges the way a grade-school teacher has.
This does mean that if you want the best education you're really better off at a community college. The people teaching there do so because they really do love teaching and really are good at it. They don't see it as an annoying interruption, or a way to finance their research, or see a class as a cheap, convenient source of lab assistants/lecturers/test subjects.
You missed: it's going to get worse in the USA (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, there are some jobs that must be done locally, but the supply/demand ratio looks grim. Seems like a lot of hard work and expense to compete for such dismal prospects.
Still, engineering makes a lot more sense than computer science, which in turn makes a lot more sense than math.
Law school is the only way to go. An easy $150K after a few years. In the future, all USA citizens will make their living suing each other.
I have some ideas (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm way too social of a person for my own good sometimes, and I had a terrible time finding friends who were interested in anything that I liked. Nobody to go to concerts with at the various great venues in Atlanta. Plus, the school was fairly "greek or die" with respect to socialisation, and I despise the Greek system by and large (and I did, in fact, pledge a fraternity despite that) so my options were a bit limited. My impression of most of the other engineers/science majors there was that they were very antisocial, introverted people, whereas I was not.
Having switched to a school with few engineers, and changed my major to an outwardly-focused one, I'm so much happier.
I would bet there are other engineers/computing majors like myself who are smart enough to "hack it" in the program, but for one reason or another, simply cannot deal with the lifestyle that goes along with it.
One "tip" for dealing with professors. (Score:5, Interesting)
I had a very smart college professor (Dr. Verma) who was notorius for being a very hard class (even weedout levels- 50% drop/fail rates). Here is the tip that gave us close to an 85% pass rate that semester.
I figured out to ask him for a "trivial" example. When he gave a "trivial" example, at least half the class would understand what he had been trying to explain for 15 minutes. And often, the understanding was like "Oh my god- that's so easy, why was he saying it so complicated?"
Sometimes, all you need is just to comprehend a little edge or corner of the problem and suddenly the entire problem just peels open for you. The professors are speaking in jargon that you barely comprehend- if you can get them to drop the jargon and give an easy example in english, it may help.
Good luck!
Re:Article summary (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm told that learning physics from Feynman was like learning calculus from Spivak. Great for the one-percenters, but not what the typical engineering student (even a talented one) is paying for.
I also agree (Score:2, Interesting)
I studied Electrical Engineering for 2 years before dropping out and switching to Computing/IT. The reason for my choice, Well, at the University I went to the Electrical Engineers were few and we were lumped into the classes and courses of other streams, Mechanical, Civil and Mining engineering studies. Whilst there are many common themes and subjects that these streams share, what they don't is vastly different. We once brought our concerns to the assistant head of the school who told us that once we finished the subjects we would see the relevance, he once told us "Electricty in a circuit is just like water in a pipe"
That coupled with the fact that many of the good teachers were leaving the school to be replaced with Engineering lectures that had, at best, an arts degree and a year or 2 in management, I decided that the time had come.
But once in Computing and as a whole the greater IT world I discovered why this is so. Universities need to pump out students to get reputations, the reputation leads to more students, Students = Money. Subjects are not taught at University, they are presented. the learning is more or less up to the students. however this creates problems of understanding. I know a 4th year honours student in computing who was afraid to install a sound card.
That aside the University enviroment helped me because I formed a good group of friends and since we were all in the same boat we managed to pull each other through. It's that communal enviroment that still makes University worthwhile
I now work at a company that offers IT Training and Certifications. we have many students, and while I would love to train each one to fully understand the Microsoft Windows system so that the MCSA exam material becomes second knowledge to them, that is not what they pay for, they pay money to get a certification. Students = Money, and if you have 'Money' you can equal 'Student' anywhere.
The reason I highlight this fact is that these are the expecations that our students have, that they can buy an education, and unfortunatly there is very little evidence to suggest that this is not true.
And this does not even begin to question the examination practices that simply prepare students to memorise slabs of text and develp no real problem solving abilities. Which is also a major problem in my eyes, in IT and Engineering. Why is this the case? Because standard mutiple choice/solve problem X for Y is much easier to mark, and we can get a computer to o it. who wants to read through an exam and see if the student has developed an understanding fo the material. Not us in IT certification it seems.
But how do you fix the system, change the expectations and really teach the material? University does prepare the students for the real world. it's a pity that this is what the real world wants.
Re:Article summary (Score:5, Interesting)
My undergraduate degree was from Cornell University - Most of my professors were top-notch, and my worst were nowhere near as bad as what the author of the linked article describes. I loved what I was doing, and didn't find things to be that difficult.
I am now finishing up my masters' degree at Rutgers University - While there are also some stellar professors there, the average and minimum quality of the professors is utterly horrendous, as is the quality of the academic facilities on the engineering campus. The roofs leak, half the desks in classrooms are broken, the bathrooms flood on a daily basis, and in one of the bathrooms a stall door has been broken without repair for over a year. These facts are especially sad given the $60 million state-of-the-art football stadium a half mile away which is in utterly perfect condition.
I have also had to change my definition of a bad professor since coming here - Before they were the boring ones that droned on in a monotone, but I've had professors here who would spend 20 minutes trying to work out a mistake they'd made in one equation, IF they even bothered to show up to class. My first semester here, one of my professors failed to show up to a quarter of the lectures, and did not even notify us.
Re:It;'s about the attitude. (Score:1, Interesting)
I think he is suggesting that before actually trying the curriculum he had a genuine interest in being an engineer, but in his classes, he was not show how this career path could be enjoyable, he was only shown how it could be miserable.
I for one am an ex-engineering major. I switched to a computer science degree because many of the math profs and engineering profs (and their TAs) were of foreign descent and I dread having to go to class and not only think about what I should be learning, but spending presious brain power on trying to decode what exactly they were saying.
The curriculum needs to be demanding, but it needs to properly demonstrate why it needs to be demanding (from the start), and it needs to show that inspite of being demanding, that the field can also be rewarding and enjoyable (again from the begining). Engineering curriculums need to try and keep that morale up while not sacraficing the difficulty.
I had a true genuine interest, and I still do, in being an engineer. Switching to computer science was one of the hardest decisions of my life. But when your professors are not motivated to teach you the subject, it's hard to be motivated to learn it. In the demanding and rigourous courses with good, motivated professors, I found it much easier to put forth the time and effort to do well than with those professors who are teaching merely so that they may continue their research.
Can you say "Self-Centered?" (Score:5, Interesting)
There is no complex cause for the engineering shortage. It's all right here, in his story. Only in his story. Hear it and learn.
Remember: Kern = real good at math and science.
Just because he got a 43 on a physics final, don't think he's dumb. Oh no! It was the system. The bad TAs. The ignorant teaching he got. He's quite smart, you see. Why? Well, because he says so right there.
"Discreet Mathematics" is "how Kern dropped that class along with the rest of his engineering course load and signed into liberal arts classes, all on the last day he was eligible to do so, because he couldn't stand the stress, abuse, and lack of comprehension anymore."
Apparently, getting a 2.7 GPA is considered abuse. Maybe he should be calling his lawyer. We don't want his inner child stressed any more.
I know what you're thinking, and you're wrong. She was as American as I am. Spoke perfect colloquial English.
It seems that if someone can't communicate with him, we are to immediately assume that she's not a native English speaker, because, well, it couldn't be HIM that's the problem, right? After all, Kern is smart.
If you want more engineers in the United States, you must find a way for America's engineering programs to retain students like, well, me
No explanation for the self-centerdness needed here.
Personal note: I say these things as a man who went through something similar. I graduated High School with honors, got scholarships to college to study engineering, then found it exceedingly harder than I had ever imagined school could be. I matched Mr Kern's 2.7 GPA my first semester. I endured for a few years before Engineering school kicked my ass, and I flunked out. Not just the engineering program, but college entirely.
And I moped.
Then, six months later, I decided I was going to finish what I started, and I worked for three years just to earn enough money to pay my way back to finish college. Three years after I re-enrolled, I graduated with a Bachelor's in Electrical Engineering.
I graduated. I didn't bitch that the System wasn't to *MY* liking. I didn't whine that education had to change to keep more students like *ME*. I didn't complain when I had bad TAs as instructors. I didn't automatically assume that when an instructor and I couldn't communicate, it was due to their lack of mastery over the English language. I persevered.
That's what *I* did.
I didn't write an article blaming my quitting engineering on the system that didn't adapt itself to keep students like *me* around.
That's for a certain liberal arts major to do.
Re:Alternative summary (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, I realize that's a pessimistic and negative viewpoint, but from personal experience, all is not wine and roses in community colleges.
Re:The guy is right. (Score:2, Interesting)
Essentially public schools don't have the money to expand the staff the way they should. In order to attract research money, they need top tier profs.
Profs are tiered when they get their PhD depending on their school's tier. General rule is you are good enough to teach only your tier or below. Thus if I'm a Cal Tech PhD in physics, I can teach anywhere I please. But if I come from Mississippi State I can teach at state schools or community colleges, or small non-prestigious liberal arts schools. The skills required to make it in a PhD program are about scholarship and research. If you are a Caltech grad, you are damn sure a good academic and researcher. However, that doesn't make crap about teaching. The guy from M state might be fantastic instructor, and far better. But unless the school is directly looking for a great instructor they won't consider the M-State guy. Even if they want some one specifically for teaching, they will try and do a tier cutoff often enough.
If you go to a state university, look at your department's staffing. You'll find a great deal of folks who've gone to much better schools than yours. I know one department I was associated with had most of the profs from Harvard and Berkeley. One went to my school. I asked one prof how he ended up at my school, about 3000 miles from his top tier school He said it was simply that every single top tier school spot was taken by other top tier candidates.
Grad student's teach for a few reasons. It's cheaper to pay a grad student 16k/year and waive tuition to have them teach than hire a person with a masters or higher to teach those classes. Most departments have strict budgets, especially if it's a state school. They can't hire as much as they want, or need. They need to get the bodies some how, so they let grads teach. There have been attempts to change the rules and the budgets, but states are generally pulling money out from state schools.
I'm one of 2 grad students in my year not teaching. That's cause some states have rules about giving them to non-residents and can only offer so many. Next year I'll be a resident and will be teaching. TAs are often told, don't worry about doing a good job. We'd rather have you as a shitty TA than a shitty Grad Student. Teaching is secondary at research schools. I've met TAs who've just gotten in from Gambia, India, Pakistan, China, and are working on their English. They take it to heart, and do what they can teaching for the first time.
Re:Engineers (Score:5, Interesting)
It's funny how corporations love economics right up until the point where it involves paying intelligent people higher wages.
I have noticed this. They especially do not want to pay intelligent honest people! They will bribe congressmen to bring in more people from overseas. They will "outsource".
Where I work they are trying to create bureaucratic process as substitute for Engineering knowledge and experience. This is not working but the main players do not have the experience or knowledge to know it is not working.
Re:Engineers (Score:1, Interesting)
It's a tough 4 years and if you are lucky, you might find a job. Then after getting employed it's a lifetime of shit work for medium pay.
Yes, switch. Being a doctor gets you the $$$, the chicks, and the social respect that you really wanted from you geek friends, but from regular human beings.
Re:Wimp (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Engineers (Score:4, Interesting)
Most (good) engineering schools take a bit longer than 4 years. Ga Tech (where I happened to go for Mech. E) generally takes 5 years, and thats only for undergrad. The engineers in charge of engineering stuff that has potential to kill people/destroy stuff are usually required by law to get a PE (Professional Engineer) certification. To get that, you have to first get an EIT (Engineer In Training) certification by passing the FE (Fundamentals of Engineering) test, and getting some work experience under another PE, just as medical students are required to do their residency under supervision of other doctors before becoming doctors. Going through this process can easily take as long or longer than finishing med school.
The difference being alot of jobs are available for engineers that do not go through all (or any) of the above steps. Simply obtaining a BS is good enough for alot of jobs, they just do not have as high a pay rate, nor the serious consequences for screwing something up. Its generally suggested to get EIT and at least a masters degree to get a successfull job of the type most people go to engineering school to get. It takes 6-7 years of engineering school (not taking summers or overloading your schedule...and passing everything the first time around), which most people (like myself) are burned out from after the first round. For now Im stuck in a lower paying job, doing mostly non-engineering type work (of the mechanical type, at least), waiting and telling myself Ill continue on and get a real engineering job soon...
tm
Re:I had no passion for it and still made it. (Score:1, Interesting)
It runs both ways, too (Score:5, Interesting)
Yet I will not teach. Why?
Because I do not love research enough to enslave myself to the professor's life, which frankly put, is 80% grubbing for money so one's graduate student/post-doc army can spew out more papers. Teaching is completely an afterthought. Of course, I could teach at a community college or even a high school, but I would be paid only half what I would make working in the corporate world. As much as I love teaching, the difference between $40k and $80k is too much too pass up.
Hence, though I want to teach, and it would be to the obvious benefit of my students that I teach, the system forces in another direction.
Teaching and research are different skills. We should quit pretending otherwise.
Re:What complete BS (Score:5, Interesting)
What he described sounds suspiciously like the Computer Science department at my alma mater. Though we did have additional joys of professors asssigning problems that they haven't even bothered to look at first, which frequently resulted in professors who COULD NOT SOLVE THEIR OWN PROBLEM. Now, they'd be happy to give you the final answer, read out of the list of solutions provided by the author, but go ahead and ask them how to solve it. Ummm... errr....
I even took one course where it was the professor's first year teaching that course (not teaching a CS course at all, just this one) and all he did was use the lecture notes left from the previous professor. That doesn't sound too bad, does it? Well, imagine going in EVERY DAY and having your lecture consist of reading from the notes used by the previous professor for that day --whatever they are. You can't be bothered to glance at them beforehand to see what they're about before you walk into class, let alone actually READ them beforehand! You're a busy man, right? And yes, this even extended to our midterm. After which, a friend of mine confronted him in the hall and asked if our dear professor even wrote that midterm himself. "I...uh...
I don't know, is a 75-90% drop-out rate in EACH class normal? I don't mind tough courses, but at least be able to teach the course. All I got out of university was what I taught myself while trying to wade through this mess.
Yes, I graduated. Yes, I got a good GPA --thanks to the wonderful grading curve. Perhaps my mind is still stuck in my public school years, but if the highest grade I received in a class was a 53%, shouldn't I fail? No, instead I pass the class with flying colors because everyone else is just as lost as I am and the grading curve saves the day, doesn't that mean there's something very, very broken here? You can blame the professor, you can blame the students, you can blame the system, but can you really say that there's nothing WRONG?
It has to do with *how* it is applied. (Score:3, Interesting)
While getting my Master's in CS we had a course on software development. We spent a whole class talking about whether programmers today are engineers. My conclusion is most definately no.
Why not? I spent a short time working as a junior engineer doing power and lighting for buildings before the market drove me back to school. While there I was exposed to the whole "Professional Engineer" process. Really, to become a leading Engineer (capitalization intended) at the organization you would need to get your Professional Engineer (PE) certificate. That alone would allow you to approve a design for use. When the design documents were finalized, one of the PE certified engineers would open up their safe and get out their stamp. They would stamp the design and sign it. From there on out any flaws found, including possible deaths or damages, would be on his head. Before participating in this process I had no idea how important it was for an Engineer to truly and wholly know and understand the final design. Their approval is worth its weight in gold.
Compare that with a software product. Yes, it is approved at the end by a small group of highly experienced individuals before it ships, but if somthing goes wrong it's "We found a bug". Sometimes it has a large impact, but it doesn't have the career impact that an Engineer faces once their design is found to be flawed. There is just a difference in how the two groups operate and the requirements that are placed on them. Don't get me wrong, programmers and software architects are often highly intelligent and creating things of wonder, but the software industry just does not have the rigorus and formal tools and processes that the older engineering fields do.
The thing to remember is that software engineering is still almost entirely R&D for every project. Because they are operating with tools that have no substance and really only mathematical limitations they can do *anything* at creation time. This makes the sky the limit every time a programmer sits down at their keyboard. As further processes and design styles are developed the industry will mature. You also need to remember that computer science is really only about 40 years old. This is very young for an engineering field, and especially for one that is based purely on mathematics and not physical limitations. Back in the early 1900's there were no electrical engineers, only scientists - the schools taught applied electrical sciences. Eventually the processes and methods were given more form and eventually the schools developed the concept of an electrical engineer, not just an applied scientist. Someday applied computer scientists will get to that level, and the signs point to sooner than people think, but not yet.
It is an area of deep discussion because it goes to the roots of what makes an Engineer more than just an applied scientist, but there is a difference. Seeing it is tough if you have never been exposed to the process of what makes an Engineer what they are, and the responsibilities that come with it.
Just so you know. My bachelor's was electrical engineering, but a lack of jobs around 2001 lead me to sysadmin jobs and now I've wrapped up a MSCS and I'm looking at Phd programs. Being an Engineer is very hard, especially after you graduate. It's more than just hard work, it's responsibility to the world around you.
The other side of the coin (Score:2, Interesting)
Basically correct (Score:2, Interesting)
Most top colleges are research schools. Research schools (as the name would imply) have one primary motivation: research. The professors they hire tend to reflect this. Most of these professors are very, very good at research and are often not so good at teaching. But this doesn't really matter. In the day to day business of these schools, teaching undergrads is a burden, not a serious responsibility. Many of them do what they can to try to get rid of non-optimal undergrads. Not because the undergrads show no promise, but because it simply takes too much time and effort to help them. To be fair, there are a good number of a very dedicated teaching professors and lecturers, but these people are not well supported by the administration (and are in the minority).
There is a LOT more that could be done to further teaching of engineering in the US. Sadly, if you want an engineering degree, the best places to get them are often the second tier universities. Live in California? Want an engineering degree? Many people think the best place in CA to get a degree is the UC system (and this IS true of grad school), but the truth is, the CSU system (Cal State University) is often a better place for undergraduate learning than the UC system. Placing undergraduates above research would be a HUGE step up for much of the US college system, but undergraduates have not (until recently) paid as well as research. In the CSU system, you are often more likely to find professors who are dedicated to teaching, rather than research. In the UC system, research is the #1 goal, and anything else (including teaching undergrads often) is a bit of a distraction.
To blame TAs completely would be unfair, and to blame professors completely would be unfair. In my experience, most of the blame lies squarely with the top administration, and their funding priorities. They tend to want to hire professors who ONLY want to do research, and view teaching as an ugly chore. Many of my undergrad classes had 200+ students (some as many as 800+). Physics was all about weeding out the weak (first semester core physics contained 350+ people, 5th semester contained 25 people). The whole atmostphere was one of destroying all but the ubermensch. Those unprepared (or not perfectly motivated) were left to fail.
Luckily for me I do well in such circumstances, but if the US wants to do well over the long haul, it would be best not to get rid of everyone who isn't just like me. Most of my colleagues in grad school are either Chinese, Indian or German. I wish all of them the very best (they are all incredibly bright and motivated), but I wish that more of my own countrymen were here as well. I know that many of them are quite smart, but I also know that many of them are defeated by poor professors, and poor support. Not to mention (of course) very good pay outside of the engineering/science world.
Re:no point to be an engineer in the US (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:me (Score:3, Interesting)
Philosophy (upper division)
Abstract Mathematics (Specifically complex analisys)
Quantum Mechanics (Yeah, I have weird hobbies)
Practical Theater
Modern Dance
And that's just picked from three arbitrary semesters. What's this about me being screwed now?
Oh, and I seem to recall Dr. Asimov deciding one day that he didnt' want to be a chemist and switching to a career in writing. It's honestly not that hard to do something else with an engineering degree, most jobs just require a degree, period, not one specifically related to the job itself. I actually know a lot of people that went to law school on a B.S. in engineering. All of them got admitted to the law school they wanted. What's that, our school's prelaw program only has a 50% acceptance rate at first-choice schools? BWAHAHAHAHAAH
Solution: Community College (Seriously!) (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Top AP scores (5) on Calculus AB and Physics, and a really good (4) score on English Lit/Comp.
2. Four semesters of partial failure at my first Smartypants U, much of which didn't transfer.
3. Computer-type vocational training at a Community College (that didn't transfer at all), and finally:
4. 30 or so hours at another CC to finish up an Engineering Associate's and make damn sure my time at the uni was minimized (i.e. no GE, nothing at the uni that I could take at the CC).
What I've learned from all this is that the CC is the best value for the time and the money from both a hours-treadmill perspective and from a "what you actually learn" perspective. Period. Too many full-on universities (or at least uni profs) ignore the educational needs of their students, and Engineering, CS and other Math and Science-related degrees are too damned hard to entrust smart students to people who don't care.
Community college instructors, on the other hand, generally have no writing/research requirement, and often have interesting day jobs that directly relate to their material. They are generally better at teaching (as opposed to researching), and there are never any TAs that the class is pawned off onto. Lecture-hall classes of hundreds of students are unheard of (common in lower-division at big unis), and class sizes are generally smaller overall. At best, CC instructors match up nicely with the better uni profs, and at worst, they're at least waaaay less expensive and distracted.
Furthermore, if you live in a state where the CC and uni systems are tight (like in California), there are things like direct course articulation (e.g. http://artic.sjsu.edu/ [sjsu.edu] and general ed certification, so you can plan for and avoid transfer pitfalls. And CCs are at least an order of magnitude cheaper. As long as you stick to stuff that will transfer, you (and whoever's financing you) WILL be happier at a CC than slogging your way through lower-division at a big uni.
I enthusiastically recommend CCs to all incoming freshmen and to anyone returning to school with lower-division left to complete, doubly so if their planned major is tough. CCs might not get much respect in the academic world, but they are far and away the best bridge from the generally conscientious (and professional) educators in high school to the part-time, often lackluster educators in big unis. While not necessarily all CC instructors are top-drawer, they're far better as a class than those at Smartypants U, and far cheaper.
calling the shots (Score:4, Interesting)
It has been my experience that very, very few engineers actually understand business. I'm not going to defend The Suits, I'm just saying that as a person with a Business degree who works as a technical designer (PCB's to be precise) I have often been amused by engineers who offer naive opinions of what is going on in the business or what the managers should do in a way that makes it clear that they don't grasp all the fundamental concepts. And whats more, I'd have to teach them the terms first before I could even begin to explain why they were wrong.
See, just being smart or having common sense or mastering something that is really hard, doesn't mean you can just pick up something else you don't understand and figure it out. Not without the fundamentals.
Re:Article summary (Score:3, Interesting)
Inadequate teaching in fundamental courses like calculus is inexcusable, and any college that's failing its students like that needs a major wake-up call.
Re:too funny (Score:3, Interesting)
Several of the lectures stressed me to my limits of understanding in tuition times, so that's why I joined a study group. That helped patch over the flaws.
We had an absolutely terrible Computing teacher (I knew that, as I'd been coding professionaly for about 4 years, and on an amateur basis for almost 10, before hitting the Chem Eng course). His grasp of the subject was distinctly lacking (the concepts he was trying to teach were about 15 years out of date, and would seriously curtail anyone's aptitude in that field).
On about the 5th lecture, when he was trying to explain the most effective way to obtain data from a set was using the read/restore directives, I put my hand up, waited for him to get to me, and explained (reasonably diplomatically) that he was talking out of his nether orifice.
The stock reply of "If you think you can do better, you teach it" was put my way.
So that's exactly what I did. And it worked really well.
For the rest of the year's computing lessons, I prepared the lessons, according to the requirements of aptitude for the course. And frequently delivered the lectures too.
My "payment" for this was that the lecturer bought me a pint of beer and a pizza for lunch the day of the lectures to be held. It was entirely unofficial, and was treated as me being his student assistant and volunteer, so it was shoehorned into complying with regulations.
That aside, the guy was a top notch physical chemistry teacher; He was quite miffed the Uni had put him in charge of the Computing side of the course, as he knew he lacked the real up to date skills.
a former electrical engineering student (Score:1, Interesting)
neilgx
Re:Article summary (Score:3, Interesting)
Our labs were supposed to be open 24/7. Should we ever find them (or the building) locked, it was perfectly acceptable and encouraged that we call him no matter what time it was so that the building and labs could be opened.
Quite a statement, especially considering that he the undergrad chair.
Re:Still hard, less reward -- was: Re:Article summ (Score:3, Interesting)
Two semesters of Calculus, two semesters of Physics, tho semesters of Chemistry, Chem Lab, a Social Science intro (I chose Economics), a Humanities intro (I chose music theory), a Foreign Language (I continued the German I had taken in High School), Computer Science, and an elective, Energy and Society. But then again, we weren't expected to choose a major until the end of the Freshman year. I started with an advisor in the Mechanical Engineering department (I thought I wanted to design and build robots), and he steered me to Systems Engineering.
Now, I write software.
College is for generalized education. And a bit of specialized training.
Re:Still hard, less reward -- was: Re:Article summ (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Article summary (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree the guy's a whiner...etc.
As far as course load though, one of the things that really bothered me while getting my B.S. in aerospace engineering was the fact that to graduate from my university in any degree program other than engineering or physics, required 125 credit hours. For most of the engineering degrees it required 135 credit hours. Physics was 138. Aerospace Engineering required 145 credit hours, and Electrical required 146. The only reason E.E. was one more than A.E. was that their Sophmore lab counted as 2 credit hours, while the A.E. equivalent only got counted as 1. Other than that E.E. sophmore lab, all the lab classes for engineering and physics only counted as 1 credit hour. Of course you actually were required to spend a minimum of 3 scheduled course hours in the lab, plus the fact that writing up the results and analysis each week involved much more homework time than say an equivalent English class. If the actual scheduled course hours were used, my degree took me 157 hours to earn.
Now if you do the math, you see that at "standard" full-time of 15-18 course hours, 125 can be easily gotten in 4 years (8 semesters) of study. 145 takes 10 semesters, and 157 takes a minimum of 9 semesters with every one being 18 course hours per semester. Our final year of what had been turned into an unofficial 5-year degree program all of us were harrassed by the university administration via letters about the fact that we were "a full year" behind on our 4-year degree program.
So not only is the course work much harder than what the typical Business or Psych student faces, but the pace is much more intense. And as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, you end up working for, and being paid considerably less than, those business and management majors that skated through. To be honest, even though I am 12 years into a fairly well paying engineering career, and my son is very interested and good at math and science, I am counseling him to go into a business degree program rather than the much harder degrees.
Re:Article summary (Score:1, Interesting)
Aside from that, Mr. Kern's article describes my experiences exactly, except I wanted to be a computer engineer. Nobody wanted to actually teach, or really even COULD teach, for that matter. It was pathetic.
Best comment in this entire thread! (Score:3, Interesting)
The biggest problem with post-secondary, I've found, is that we're sending teenagers into it, entirely unprepared. I can only speak for my own experiences, but up in the Great White North, high school is EASY. Dead easy. It's more of a social experience than anything, and it's just kind of something you do, because your parents make you, but also because everyone you know also does it.
University/College? Costs a hell of a lot of money. Even worse, it might be paid for you, in which case you really don't care if you blow it off. Trying to envision your life 4-5 years down the road when you're 18? Good luck. I've met maybe 3 people in my entire life who could seriously think more than a year ahead at that age.
My story: I did the usual, University straight out of high school. Did a microbiology degree, because it looked "interesting". Didn't think CS had a promising future, and it seemed "hard", even though I was a natural ever since our Vic20, and loved doing it. Needless to say, at 18 you have no clue what you want to do, nor the motivation to stick with anything. I hurried to finish the degree so that I could start making some money finally. As a Micro degree basically qualifies you for minimum wage tech work (at least in the city I lived in at the time), I ended up spending the next 5 years doing something entirely unrelated, and ended up managing a small business.
Long story short, I ended up again doing tech stuff as a part of the job, but for less than half what a CS grad would have made doing the same type of work. Quit the job, went back to school, graduated at 30. Positively ancient. Best thing I've ever done, even though I'm 8 years behind my peers in terms of retirement savings and mortgage payments.
I've watched 18-21 year olds in school, when I was that age. I've now watched them from a vastly different perspective. Know what I realized? University is really friggin easy, IF YOU'RE MOTIVATED. I spent half the time on homework and studying as the rest of the class, and I was 8 years out of high school calculus, etc, so I had a lot more catching up to do. But I was able to focus, and realize that 4 years of my life was nothing. School was a breeze, and I'm not any smarter than I was 10 years ago. Probably less so, because I really forgot most higher maths.
I realize most parents can't handle the thought of being a bit cruel to their children, but I wholeheartedly agree: make your kids WORK for a year or three. They'll work 10x harder when they finally do get their education. They'll also do a lot better, simply because they can finally see the bigger picture.
Re:Engineers (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Article summary (Score:2, Interesting)
It takes a bit of effort to remember that concepts typically seem obvious when you already understand them and a bit more effort to figure out clever ways to explain those concepts in terms a novice will grasp. When I couldn't adequately convey something I went away and tried to think of some other ways to explain it. I'm glad to say I almost never failed to make something clear, and I always let students know that if they weren't understanding then it meant I was failing to explain adequately.
When I was at university I had a math lecturer who despite having a class of over 200 students managed to explain concepts in multiple ways and was always willing to take the time to explain things again. If you went to him outside class he'd explain again, and he never turned anyone away. Contrast that with an engineering lecturer who would basically say he'd already explained it and if you don't understand you obviously hadn't put any effort in so go away, you're wasting his time. By all accounts this guy was a brilliant electrical engineer and they did eventually do the sensible thing - stuck him in a lab, let him do his research and kept him away from students.
Re:Article summary (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps lazy, but on to something (Score:2, Interesting)
From my understanding, that's the majority of jobs that are being offshored. Y'all sound pretty (understandably) bitter. But worth keeping in mind that this guy isn't necessarily "better off" not being in engineering.
2) Engineering shouldn't have to be painful.
Why *should* I have to have TAs who barely speak English? The Chinese graduating from Chinese engineering schools, I imagine, have all Chinese-speaking TAs. They seem to be getting on just fine without "toughing it out" through the "typical" engineering curriculum. Also, I go to a school (Olin College; was Slashdotted at one point when we first opened) whose entire mission is to make engineering useful, applicable, and not just a washout program. I got my butt kicked by freshman math and physics, sure, but combining it with *actual* engineering, immediate application, and teachers who gave a damn sure made it worthwhile. I don't think I'm learning that much less. I'm just learning it without needing to go on Prozac in the process.
3) The nature of engineering
Last year's president of the ASEE (American Society for Engineering Education) is also one of my school's VPs, and I've heard her talk a lot about her beliefs in engineering. One of her key points it that we need to get out of the mindset of cut-and-dry, plug-in-crank-out engineering that is so prevalent and fits much into the stereotypical state school engineering mold. We have to get into innovation, design, and the business side of things, because those are the things that are the next step in engineering. Education machines in India and China are churning out millions of engineers who can do the things computers will be doing in 20 years. We have to stop whining about not being able to keep up with the numbers and look forward to the next big thing in technology and science. Pity parties and "In my day" reminiscing don't do us any good.
Re:Universities NOT the problem! (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree with the grandparent. The teacher should just be there to give direction and be another aid in learning. Tests and homework should be there to serve as a test of knowledge so that you know where you're supposed to be and what you still need to learn and a way of learning more (actually by practicing instead of just listening to lecture, etc).
Having said that, however, both teachers and students get it wrong when they're more concerned with the grade letter (and society has helped perpetuate this image) than the actual knowledge the grade letter is supposed to represent.
What (IMO) the grandparent is trying to say is not that the teachers are not supposed to be teaching at all and you're supposed to learn everything on your own, but that teachers are supposed to be an additional resource to help you learn the material. They're there to guide you to where you can find the answers, answer questions you may not be able to find (or don't exist within the context of the textbook) and to show you what you should be learning in that class. Lecture should be just another method of learning what's already in the textbook.