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.
I wasn't trained for academia; rather I was trained to apply the principles of physics to any job. Most recent data for physics BS grads is only 24% go into an academic field and 59% go into private sector work.
Just looking at engineering degrees, our Georgia Tech engineering grads as a couple steps ahead of Somewhere Else State Tech engineering grads in the same field of engineering. The GT grads I can give them a general idea of a problem and watch them go. Somewhere Else State Tech I have to give them step 1 and step 2 and so on.
RamenAddict gives an outstanding answer to this question. He's spot on -- we're looking for employees who don't have to be hand held and spoon fed.
It's very clear that my program was training us for jobs where we're hired based on willingness to work long hours for low pay without complaining, and to weed out those who aren't interested in playing that game. But I avoided being weeded out by APing out of the weedout classes.
Our senior design project class (spread over 3 semesters) was taught by the owner of a local engineering firm. It was not a nationally known firm, but our professors acted as if you've truly made it when you were working for that firm. In that class, any absence, for any reason, was 10 points deducted from our average. Even if it was for a funeral or hospitalization, there was no exception to his policy. His logic was that we were first year employees who, at least at his firm, got no vacation time, so you would not be paid if you took time off for a funeral, but you would get paid if you showed up to work, even if you were drunk and refused to do any work. (This seemed to ignore the fact that by the 3rd semester, we would have been "working" for him for over a year and should have started to earn vacation time).
He also took a 3 week vacation during one of the semesters. During those 3 weeks, he had another professor come to the class, take attendance, and dismiss us. I felt that was totally ridiculous, since we were not getting the class that we were paying tuition for, yet he would still enforce his draconian attendance policy. His justification was that he had been working for more than a year, so he had earned vacation time. Not surprisingly, the other students always defended the professor, saying that he could run the class however he chose to do so, and that as a business owner, he can run his business however he wants.
I understand that as a business owner, he can run a business however he chooses. But I don't see how his style is ever going to attract the "best" employees, unless you consider the "doormat" employees to be the best. Even if there was a no vacation time the first-year policy, I would imagine that there would be some way to accommodate a first-year employee who was a valuable employee but had to miss work due to a funeral or hospitalization. Maybe unpaid time off, maybe allow the time to be made up by staying late or by working on a weekend, maybe allow the employee to borrow future vacation time. And, even if an employee who shows up drunk and refuses to work may get paid for that one day, most employers would fire such an employee.
Although my doormat classmates always defended this professor, the general consensus was that none of them would ever want to work for his firm, unless there was absolutely no other job available.
Our senior design project class (spread over 3 semesters) was taught by the owner of a local engineering firm. It was not a nationally known firm, but our professors acted as if you've truly made it when you were working for that firm. In that class, any absence, for any reason, was 10 points deducted from our average. Even if it was for a funeral or hospitalization, there was no exception to his policy. His logic was that we were first year employees who, at least at his firm, got no vacation time, so you would not be paid if you took time off for a funeral, but you would get paid if you showed up to work, even if you were drunk and refused to do any work. (This seemed to ignore the fact that by the 3rd semester, we would have been "working" for him for over a year and should have started to earn vacation time).
He also took a 3 week vacation during one of the semesters. During those 3 weeks, he had another professor come to the class, take attendance, and dismiss us. I felt that was totally ridiculous, since we were not getting the class that we were paying tuition for, yet he would still enforce his draconian attendance policy. His justification was that he had been working for more than a year, so he had earned vacation time. Not surprisingly, the other students always defended the professor, saying that he could run the class however he chose to do so, and that as a business owner, he can run his business however he wants.
I understand that as a business owner, he can run a business however he chooses. But I don't see how his style is ever going to attract the "best" employees, unless you consider the "doormat" employees to be the best. Even if there was a no vacation time the first-year policy, I would imagine that there would be some way to accommodate a first-year employee who was a valuable employee but had to miss work due to a funeral or hospitalization. Maybe unpaid time off, maybe allow the time to be made up by staying late or by working on a weekend, maybe allow the employee to borrow future vacation time. And, even if an employee who shows up drunk and refuses to work may get paid for that one day, most employers would fire such an employee.
Although my doormat classmates always defended this professor, the general consensus was that none of them would ever want to work for his firm, unless there was absolutely no other job available.
Oh, I don't know what I would have done in that situation. Honestly. Most likely, I would have dropped out.
Is engineering like a med school residency. Is every engineer program like this? Were there other options or professors? It might not be, but it feels illegal.
Oh, I don't know what I would have done in that situation. Honestly. Most likely, I would have dropped out.
It was a required class, and he was the only person who taught it, so no way to drop out. I did not have any reason to miss his class, so his policy never affected me. Also, since it was toward the end of my time at college, there were enough grades to offset one bad grade, so even if I had an absence, it would not have put my scholarship in serious jeopardy.
Quote:
Is engineering like a med school residency. Is every engineer program like this?
Other posters seem to think that other engineering schools weeded students out with difficult material, rather than by forcing students to be doormats.
Quote:
Were there other options or professors?
No
Quote:
It might not be, but it feels illegal.
It was definitely against university policy, since professors were not supposed to penalize a student for missing a class due to a hospitalization, funeral, or religious holiday. Usually, if a professor who had a policy penalizing a student for such an absence, they would just remind us that they had tenure and that there was nothing we could do. In this case, since he was an adjunct, I assume that he was not tenure track. But the other students all supported this professor, saying that he was preparing us for the real world, so nobody ever tried to challenge his policy.
I think another important detail was that I was the only person in the civil engineering program who was an 18-22 year old out of state student living on campus. Everybody else was non-traditional aged and lived nearby and commuted. They were more in a real-world mentality than I was, where the professor was the boss and could do whatever he/she wanted, and there were no excuses for missing class. Plus, they were not affected by the dorm schedules.
I've always been a proponent of GE. It's been 4 decades but my AA Degree is in General Education according to the diploma. I could have taken it to any public college or university in the State and specialized in something for 2 years. I didn't because life happened instead, but I knew a little bit about a lot of things and could talk about it. I eventually taught myself more about things I enjoyed.
OK, so you had a bad experience. I assure you the majority of engineers don't have similar experiences.
This has been repeated to this poster numerous times over numerous threads. If you go to a more traditional university, the education is different. The aim is typically to give students the knowledge they need to be able to find and research information on their own. Commuter universities often teach people the information they need for a variety of reasons- they may be older already and just need the specific content to transition into a new career, or if they are traditional, may not have the cognitive ability to teach themselves on their own.
Since engineering tends to be more rigorous, I would imagine that the majority of people tend to have more of the former experience than the latter.
This has been repeated to this poster numerous times over numerous threads. If you go to a more traditional university, the education is different. The aim is typically to give students the knowledge they need to be able to find and research information on their own. Commuter universities often teach people the information they need for a variety of reasons- they may be older already and just need the specific content to transition into a new career, or if they are traditional, may not have the cognitive ability to teach themselves on their own.
Since engineering tends to be more rigorous, I would imagine that the majority of people tend to have more of the former experience than the latter.
I did attend a traditional university. But, for whatever reason, at least when I was there, most of the civil engineering majors were non-traditional age commuters. That was not the case in most other majors. I think that was because when I was in college, high achieving students were encouraged to go to the most expensive school they can get into, and to follow their passion, and I ignored both pieces of advice.
I did attend a traditional university. But, for whatever reason, at least when I was there, most of the civil engineering majors were non-traditional age commuters. That was not the case in most other majors. I think that was because when I was in college, high achieving students were encouraged to go to the most expensive school they can get into, and to follow their passion, and I ignored both pieces of advice.
The most expensive, as opposed to the most prestigious? To be clear, I don’t think that blindly following prestige is good advice either, but there’s more rhyme and reason to that than selecting the school with the biggest price tag—especially in engineering, where most of the best programs (apart from standouts like MIT, Caltech, and CMU) are at flagship-level state schools.
The most expensive, as opposed to the most prestigious? To be clear, I don’t think that blindly following prestige is good advice either, but there’s more rhyme and reason to that than selecting the school with the biggest price tag—especially in engineering, where most of the best programs (apart from standouts like MIT, Caltech, and CMU) are at flagship-level state schools.
My guidance counselor and our principal actually told us to go to the most expensive school we can get into (not the most prestigious) and not worry about money. And to follow our passion and not worry about finding a job. Like I said, I ignored that advice.
(Previous post had the word “dive” somehow added by mistake and it’s too late to edit it. )
My guidance counselor and our principal actually told us to go to the most expensive school we can get into (not the most prestigious) and not worry about money. And to follow our passion and not worry about finding a job. Like I said, I ignored that advice.
(Previous post had the word “dive” somehow added by mistake and it’s too late to edit it. )
The advice I got was slightly different. It was pretty much figure out what you want to do (passion if you want to call it that), then attend the best school that teaches that degree you can get into. Best does not necessarily mean most expensive. In many cases the best will be a public flagship.
When my kids hit the college hunt, the biggest problem with the school counselor's advice was they were too focused on the same set of nearby (nearby being relative, we're still talking dorms, not commuting from home). These we mainly schools that sent advisors (salespeople) to visit the counselors and were not necessarily the best fit schools. We ensured out kids went to best fit rather than the limited list the school counselors used.
Something you mention in your posts, both about high school and college, is how important grades were to your scholarship. And you mention how bad your teachers/professors were. Do you feel like your scholarship trapped you in a bad situation?
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.
