Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure, if you're aiming to work at Goldman Sachs or Google you're going to want to go to the top-tier colleges. But for most people, a community college degree, or a degree from a third tier school is enough to work everywhere else.
Agreed, if you simply want to check off that you have a degree. Unfortunately, it provides a horrible opportunity for education. So if you want that too, skip the community college and third tier school.
Agreed, if you simply want to check off that you have a degree. Unfortunately, it provides a horrible opportunity for education. So if you want that too, skip the community college and third tier school.
But that is the reason the vast majority of people go to college today. So they can check off that box, and hopefully have a shot at a living wage job. Most people can't afford to to be "hobby" students.
+1 engineering. there is specific education that you just dont learn 'in 'da streetz'.
like that to calculate power spectral density, parsevals theorem can be used to in fourier tranforms since power in frequency domain is equal to power in time domain.
or to measure noise on an unsheilded wire should we use spherical (rho, theta, phi) or cylindrical (rho, d-rho, d-theta) coordinates.
or if the dc-offset on a polar non-return-to-zero line encoding scheme is greater than a bi-polar nrz (50% duty-cycle).
even the smartest and hardest working high-schooler would not be able to configure a gps satellite without that education.
Last edited by stanley-88888888; 12-10-2017 at 10:44 AM..
While I agree with you in general... you are confusing engineers with scientists and mathematicians. Sure, in the 16th century (the time your article references) you often had to be 2 or three of those to be a successful engineer. But these days there are tools (primarily software) that does all the math for you. You simply need to understand it at an abstract level.
So, while scientists and mathematicians need to understand all those formulas to do their jobs, engineers really don't.
i think you are confusing engineer with technician ?
much of engineering coursework is heavy in sciences (chemistry, physics, ...) the ability to hypothesize, test, theorize, experiment, control variables, extrapolate results, without jumping to conclusions is important.
a lot of lay-people (ew) call it-help desk people engineers but the actual engineering discipline is much more about creating and following methodical and logical processes.
Worst case scenario for going to college; maturing, getting out on your own, making connections, taking responsibility. Do all that and FINISH college. People recognize people who set a goal and finish it, education being one of them.
Applying yourself once in the "real world", that's all on you and how you handle it.
While I agree with you in general... you are confusing engineers with scientists and mathematicians. Sure, in the 16th century (the time your article references) you often had to be 2 or three of those to be a successful engineer. But these days there are tools (primarily software) that does all the math for you. You simply need to understand it at an abstract level.
So, while scientists and mathematicians need to understand all those formulas to do their jobs, engineers really don't.
There is so much wrong with your statement I don't even know where to begin. That's why I have grown to hate MATLAB. Every young engineer learns it in college these days and comes out thinking just because they can hack up some code and Google up some values to enter and they think that makes them an engineer. Yet they don't have the slightest clue what it actually means or how to interpret it. That's part of the difference we were talking about that they learn in 3rd tier vs top tier engineering schools.
+1 engineering. there is specific education that you just dont learn 'in 'da streetz'.
like that to calculate power spectral density, parsevals theorem can be used to in fourier tranforms since power in frequency domain is equal to power in time domain.
or to measure noise on an unsheilded wire should we use spherical (rho, theta, phi) or cylindrical (rho, d-rho, d-theta) coordinates.
or if the dc-offset on a polar non-return-to-zero line encoding scheme is greater than a bi-polar nrz (50% duty-cycle).
even the smartest and hardest working high-schooler would not be able to configurs a gps satellite without that education.
I am not saying anyone can learn EVERYTHING on their own. Just that, if your goal is to simply make money, you can teach yourself what you need to know to start doing so on your own.
I am earning way more than all my friends who have a Master's degree or CPA license and i work way less hours than them.
I went to college for four years and learned alot of amazing things about Accounting. 95% of those knowledge aren't being used at my current job as an accountant/financial analyst.
But that is the reason the vast majority of people go to college today. So they can check off that box, and hopefully have a shot at a living wage job. Most people can't afford to to be "hobby" students.
That's a problem in today's society. Just send everyone to "college" so they can get a piece of paper, rather than teaching them trade skills they can use on the job. Not everyone is fit for a college education.
That's a problem in today's society. Just send everyone to "college" so they can get a piece of paper, rather than teaching them trade skills they can use on the job. Not everyone is fit for a college education.
Not everyone is fit for college, very true. 99% are fit for getting out of the house and being responsible for something.
Too many are not motivated enough to move out of ma'mas house. Some cords weren't cut at birth.
While I agree with you in general... you are confusing engineers with scientists and mathematicians. Sure, in the 16th century (the time your article references) you often had to be 2 or three of those to be a successful engineer. But these days there are tools (primarily software) that does all the math for you. You simply need to understand it at an abstract level.
So, while scientists and mathematicians need to understand all those formulas to do their jobs, engineers really don't.
I'm sorry, but you are making the common error of assuming that one can simply plug in some numbers to a simulation program and get the right answer. REAL engineers know what a simulation is, and what it can and cannot do.
If you just plug in some numbers to a simulation program (and the problem set forth above, while fairly complicated, is by no means highly exotic) the most likely result is that you will not get an answer; the routine simply won't converge. Why? Is the software fatally flawed? No, the problem is that because you didn't understand the problem correctly, you set it up wrong.
A slightly less likely result, but much much more troublesome, is that you will get an answer, the wrong one. I don't mean "wrong" in the sense that "all models are wrong, but some are useful", I mean "wrong" in the sense that "the device will fail to work, and may blow up causing property damage and injury to personnel". That result of a simulation is much more troublesome because any idiot can recognize that he didn't get an answer, but the same idiot is likely to run with the first convergent answer he gets, without adequately reviewing it.
For that matter, if you don't recognize the phrase "all models are wrong, but some are useful" you have no business calling yourself an engineer, or speaking about what engineering consists of.
You are right, the software does the math for you. But it doesn't do the thinking. The software doesn't know anything about engineering. All it is, is a very fast calculator optimized (usually) for matrix math. If it tells you that a steel part gets shorter when you heat it up, it's up to you to look at that result, say "well, heck, that doesn't make a lick of sense" and revise your calculations.
Finally, the problem posed above is absolutely NOT either a mathematical or a scientific problem. It requires the use of mathematics and scientific knowledge to solve, to be sure, but it is a pure engineering problem. A scientific problem based on some of the same stuff might be: "how is it that the molecules of the constituents of FR-4 material absorb atmospheric water vapor, and how can we predict the conductivity of the material at different degrees of water vapor absorption when the fractions of each constituent vary?" A mathematical problem might be: " When we multiply these two matrices together, what if we make an assumption that the matrix is essentially symmetrical about a diagonal, and thus simplify the multiplication; how would the error term increase as the actual asymmetry of the matrix increases compared to the assumed symmetry?" The engineering problem posed, which is emphatically not either a mathematical or scientific problem, is "in a particular assembly of parts and components, designed for a particular practical purpose, how will practical characteristics A, B, and C (for example, physical dimensions, electrical conductivity, dielectric strength, etc.) vary with changes in temperature and relative humidity?"
Last edited by turf3; 12-10-2017 at 11:41 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
