Engineering "boot camp" at universities should be a thing of the past 7

[josephv]

Last fall, I went to my 10 year university graduation reunion. Looking back, I am glad that I chose engineering as a career. I enjoy what I do for a living.

And although there were some aspects of my engineering education that I enjoyed at university, I have to admit that overall I was disappointed.

Sometimes, we need some distance to make an assessment. Now, I can look back at my engineering education and I can honestly say that it was the “boot camp” program in my university that I disliked.

“Boot camp” is le mot just, when you consider that approximately half of the students either failed or dropped out on the first year. To make matters worse, I sensed that many of the members of the academic staff were actually proud of this fact. Many students feel that the main goal of the university is to “weed out” students, instead of providing them with an education.

What did this outdated mentality accomplish, except turn young students away from our noble profession?

Unfortunately, too many universities and colleges still have “boot camp” programs in place. What I would like to see is university engineering programs that students can enjoy. Much can be done to make engineering school more appealing. For example, interesting design projects can be incorporated into courses.

Certainly, the programs should be challenging, but the outdated “weeding out” process must be a thing of the past. Our new generations will not buy into the old cliché that one must “pay your dues”.

An interesting fact that I learned at the reunion, was that many of the top students that had enjoyed this “boot camp” program, were selling mutual funds. And many of the students who truly enjoyed “the existential pleasures of engineering” (to quote from Samuel Florman), were working as engineers, designing, manufacturing and building things.

In the next five years we must say good bye to the old “boot camp” engineering school program, and put it in the dust bin where it belongs, and demand a better engineering education for future generations.

 

[xnuke]

The "weeding out" classes are usually the classes that teach the fundamental concepts of problem-solving and physical relationships that the students will build on during the rest of their education and continue to use in their careers. If a student can't learn the basics, why should they be allowed to become engineers?

I do have a problem with the system if a student having trouble can find no place to get help, but I expect them to make an effort to learn the information on their own before approaching the TA or professor and demanding they be led by the hand until they understand. Many don't really try.

I agree that we need to "demand a better engineering education for future generations" but I also believe that the engineering classes don't do enough to weed out the students with less aptitude. I took a sophomore-level class recently to prepare for graduate school in EE (and no, I hadn't been exposed to the material before - I have a degree in physics and math) where I received an A grade with a 97% average and a student received an A- grade with a 73% average. Looks like I worked too hard to learn the material. My fault. I shouldn't have tried so hard.

I think a better engineering education program could be developed by helping PhDs learn how to teach. Assuming they can because they have a PhD is just plain wrong. Many professors could benefit from a teacher-training course, and most have never had one (this pretty much applies to all subjects).

One problem I see with colleges that don't introduce students to a taste of difficulty (or even failure) is that they build egos. People are afraid to be wrong, or their feelings get hurt. Too bad. A program that lowers egos builds humility and teaches a student to learn (and respect) their ability level. An engineer that strays too far from their ability level due to overconfidence is asking for trouble.

By the way, I'm about to go back to school full time to get my PhD after 9 years in industry - so I can teach. I hope to get tenured somewhere, then make teaching my priority and research secondary (though I won't neglect it entirely). I really do want to work toward giving students a better engineering education, but their effort won't enter into their grades unless it shows up as knowledge of the material.

xnuke

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[rbcoulter]

I think this is an interesting point. I can appreciate your viewpoint but don't agree with it fully. The "weeding" out process, I believe, is usually justified.
It is true that some potentially good engineers fail to make it through the "weeding out" process. However, a less academically rigorous program will allow too many through that should not be engineers.

Companies can choose to hire B.S. engineer or B.S. engineering technology graduates. Interesting enough, they prefer the B.S. engineer even when the engineering technology graduate appears to be a better fit to the job.
The only explanation I can see for this is that the company figures that an unqualified person is more likely to have made it throught the engineering technology program and so does not want to take on the increased risk of hiring an ET graduate.

 

[Qshake]

As a lecturer in Structural Engineering at a local university and full time practioner I can say that the "weeding" out process is, in fact, justified.

The points that xnuke and rbcoulter make are valid ones. We need to understand the basics like as if it were simpley natural in order to fully appreciate the advance topics.

If your struggling over simple statics or mechanics of materials, you can't expect to learn much about the reinforced concrete or steel design if you problem lies in calculating the loads on the members.

Often times I teach engineering mechanics classes and I am really surprised each semester how little interest some students have in the subject. Many expect you do to thier homework for them...I could go on and on. I make myself available to them at anytime of the day. I practically have to beg them to come to me with problems or to call and set up a time for extra work/help.

I bring a lot of practical examples to class in an effort pique their interest. For some, its just not there. At that age, not everyone knows what they want to do.

When I was young I was timid about the so-called weed out classes but now I am in favor of them.

 

[ProEpro]

Should it be easy to get a medical degree?

Many engineers have more lives in thier hands with one design than doctor will in his entire life.



ProEpro

http://www.whitelightdesign.com

 

[RDK]

The weeding out process has to occur at some level. Is it better to have a broader first year class and let something like a level playing field be the determination factor or to use high school marks?

Remember that the content and grading in high school courses is all over the map. What may be an A at one high school could only be a C at another. One high school could get students to the start of calculus another may only be teaching introductory algebra.

I would rather see the weeding out stage at the first year of university. That way the determining factors can be the same for all.

Having said that the weeding out should be somewhat humane. There should be additional help for struggling students and a second chance for those who fail. The average student who applies himself or herself should be able to succeed.

My graduating class was just less than half the starting class. We lost most of these after first year. There were a few dropouts after second and almost none past that point.

What’s better finding out early that you are not suited to be an engineer or put in the full four years and then find out in the real world?



Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[Binary]

I, too, believe that some "weeding out" needs to happen.

I understand that some countries have national exams for university students which might have some merit in the US.

I took a degree in chemistry after engineering. At that school, the final for each chem course was a standardized test developed by the American Chemical Society. The benefit there is that you remove the variation in difficulty level that exists between different profs. It's also nice to see how you stack up against a large pool of students.

That's my biggest gripe with universities, the lack of uniformity between individual teachers. Inside of two semesters everybody knows who to try to dodge. Ideally, an 'A' from Duke should represent the same subject mastery as an 'A' from Podunk State. This should be especially true in different sections at the same university. Unfortunately, it's not.

 

[brad]

I've seen both sides of "weeding out"--as a student and as a TA. I can say from both perspectives that the majority of those who "got weeded" were either not intellectually qualified to be engineers or else were a bit too lazy to survive.

I don't make the above statement intending to be glib--as an undergrad something close to 40% of the engineering students either dropped out or changed majors at my school. Discounting the kids who transferred due to lack of funds (and went to other engineering programs), I don't recall more than a handful of students who would've (in my estimation) made even mediocre engineers.

As a TA at a prestigious school, we still had to weed out kids. I can say that the professor and TA staff did everything we could to allow students opportunities to pass the class (a sophomore-level introductory course). Out of about 60 students, only a few failed. None of those who failed garnered an ounce of sympathy from the staff (in each case for this course, it was laziness over intellectual capacity).

I agree with the above comment made about doctors--leave the liberal arts majors to deal with fragile egos. Engineering and sciences are much more quantitative (and riskier). One can opine forever on the merits of an artist over others in a LA curriculum; in this even hacks can earn a living. Hacks should not be allowed to debate whether or not a bridge or building will stand--this process demands some level of skill. If in the process of requiring competence some people find themselves not up to snuff, that is the sad reality of life. It's better than the alternative (needless deaths).

Brad

 

[cbiber]

I am a bit fuzzy on exactly what people think constitutes "weeding out". I'm all in favor of maintaining high standards. On the other hand, there are so many subjects and directions within a major, for example ME, that students shouldn't be expected to master all of them equally. In my own case, I somehow stuck it out through all the solids mechanics courses that I didn't understand, until I finally got to something I understood during my senior year!

The big thing I think should be taught is problem solving. Once you know how to do that, you can apply it to any subject; you just need to gain the appropriate background in the subject. But at my own prestigious alma mater, such a thing wasn't taught. You had to learn it by "sink or swim" in freshman physics, without even knowing that it was essential, and without being given any direction. Luckily for many of us, freshman physics was pass/fail, which took the grades pressure off the adjustment period.

Are there "The engineering approach to problem solving" courses out there? (There's a "problem solving" course in the program I teach in now, but it's not really about problem solving; it's about programming. Not the thing I have in mind. Programming's a useful tool, but it's not the first thing you have to do to solve a problem.)

If such subjects do exist, I'd be interested to see the approach -- maybe something I could incorporate into my own teaching.

 

[sc]

Nothing wrong with weeding out.

As a mature aged student, I underwent the first year of engineering with my eyes closed to the reality of the engineering degree. At exam time I soon learnt that you need to really apply yourself to the theory so that you can solve problems. My learning curve included a couple of interviews with lecturers and the head of faculty as well as discussions with "mentor" engineers. I also stood back and looked at whether or not I really wanted to do engineering. It was an extremely tough time, academically, emotionally and financially.


This learning curve lasted 2 years and helped me to avoid being weeded out.

Students who were in similar situations dropped out, some stayed. I think that the process helped people to re-organise their priorities and refocuss them on there chosen career. Our course treated many students as potential engineers and gave those that weren't the chance to swap to other courses often taking credit for subjects with them where appropriate. So even though students were weeded out they weren't pushed aside from university.

regards
sc

 

[josephv]

There is something very wrong with engineering education, when a university focuses on “wedding out” students, instead of proving them with an excellent engineering education.

What is an excellent engineering education?

For me an excellent engineering education is one that is challenging, but also interesting. It is an education that helps develop engineers with outstanding communication skills.

Why does the stereotype of the nerd engineer with poor communication skills exist?

It is in part because engineering education lacks courses that help develop the students’ communication skills.

Why are there still so few women engineers? Why are there so few minorities? There are many women in law and in medicine, so what is wrong with engineering?

It is not because of scholastic aptitude, it is because the engineering program in university is seen by others (including many intelligent women) as being dull and cumbersome. There is an overkill of math and science courses, and too few “interesting” design and group projects.

Yes, I agree that engineering school must always be challenging. But at the same time it should be interesting, it should appeal to women and minorities, and it should help students become better communicators.

 

[brad]

josephv:
"There is something very wrong with engineering education, when a university focuses on “wedding out” students, instead of proving them with an excellent engineering education."

I agree entirely, and I think any school which focuses on "weeding out" students for that purpose alone is a poor school. I personally have not experienced the case in which this happened by design. Rather, "weeding out" happens as part of the rigors of a difficult curriculum. In essence, "weeding out" is the unfortunate reality of a challenging curriculum (such as you have recommended), not an end in itself.

A certain amount of communications courses are required for an engineering accreditation. Should there be more? Perhaps, but at the expense of what other courses?

The dearth of minority and female engineers (and scientists for that matter) is much more due to a prevailing negative societal stereotype with math and science (best exemplified by talking Barbie stating "Math is hard&quot. Based on my experiences, good engineering requires a grasp of "high-level" (to non-engineers) mathematics such as calculus. Most girls and under-represented minorities in the US are discouraged from striving to appreciate and conquer math and science. This happens long before they enter a university.

Calculus is the foundation for math, science, and engineering. Most people I know who consciously eliminated engineering as an academic option did so because of calculus, not because of the courses which followed. Are you advocating an elimination of a calculus sequence? I don't think anything short of such a bold move will correct the problem (if the problem is indeed what you suggest it to be).

Cheers,
Brad

 

[rhodie]

(best exemplified by talking Barbie stating "Math is hard&quot.

One of my favorite stories of all time is when Mattel got the ram chips messed around in the production line and had a bunch of talking G.I. Joes that said "Math is hard" in their best valley girl voice, and a bunch of Barbies that shouted "Get 'em boys! Move in!" in a grizzled sea-bass type drawl. The error went unnoticed until some got placed on the toy store shelves.

 

[ProEpro]

Josephv
Any accredited school will have lots of typical communications course like English, literature, public speaking, and foreign languages. They don’t build people skills. They don’t make you more interesting. The only real difference in between a liberal arts degree and an engineering degree is that the liberal arts majors have more time for socialization.

What they should haveinstead are “Engineering Communications” classes. These should cover things like drawings, specifications, work instructions, lingo, and explaining complex issues.


ProEpro

http://www.whitelightdesign.com

 

[Focht3]

Oh, please!


The only thing engineers don't need is turning all their attention away from a well-rounded education. We need a good balance of letters, science and art. All science and no art makes for a very dull boy indeed.

And don't give me that nonsense about they "have more time for socialization." My poly sci friends spent their spare time sleeping, or playing foosball. Or watching reruns of Hogan's Heroes (I know nothink! Nothink!) They weren't honing "socialization skills"!

Having said all that, engineering education isn't what it used to be. Literally. In the 1970's, it took around 145 credit hours to earn a BSCE or BSME. Now it only takes 120. You had a lot more time to socialize than we did!

 

[brad]

Focht3:
Did you also walk uphill both ways in the snow?

Those gray hairs are showing.

Brad

 

[chajakedude]

weeding out is good for two reasons i think:
1) engineering isnt always a cake walk. there is a lot of thinking and effort that has to be put into each design problem. if someone drops out of a class because it was "too hard" then good riddance. if you cant handle a difficult class, how are you going to handle a tough problem in the "real world." you cant just 'take a zero on it' you have to figure the problem out.

2) i personally dont want a mediocre engineer designing things that i will be using some day. if anyone is allowed to pass through as an engineer, a lot of crappily designed, unsafe things are going to be made and i might get hurt. i dont want to get hurt.

i do agree though that instructors need to provide help outside of class. 'sink or swim' isnt an effective teaching tool.

 

[Focht3]

bradh:
Actually, I had to swim both ways - remember, it was in Houston! And as to the gray hairs, well, mine's turning loose before it turns gray!

But seriously, the reduction in credit hours is quite serious. ASCE is so concerned that they are now pushing for a Master's degree to be considered the first professional degree. Expect most of the other engineering societies to follow suit over the next decade.

It's all about money - literally. Universities can generate higher total fees - without raising tuition - by taking in more students without increasing staff or facilities. They have done this by lowering the credit hours required, which reduces the number of classes that must be taken. Capitalism at work!

I wonder why ABET hasn't dealt with this by threatening to withhold accreditation; I guess they're all bark and no bite.

 

[brad]

I'm a bit puzzled how this could come about--I was deeply involved in an ABET accreditation. ABET accreditation ultimately is not about credit hours; in fact it is contact hours (which is credit hours times contact/credit hour). In other words 3 credits of a 10 week quarter is worth 30 contact hours, while 3 credits of a 15 week semester is worth 45 contact hours. Unless ABET has lowered their total for contact hours over the last few decades, it's not clear to me how accreditations have not been yanked.
Note that I'm not disputing your statement; in fact I may be corroborating it.
Interesting . . .
Brad

 

[Focht3]

I'm confused, too. But it's real. And I can see the difference in "recent" grads...