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.
"best professors" is a subjective thing, and the reason they are considered best has nothing to do with their ability to teach. It has to do with personal accomplishments that they have received in the research realm more than likely, and probably their ability to get more research money thrown at MIT. this is a problem with all engineering programs in that you ahve a lot of professors there that are not great teachers but good at engineering research. they have to do both but sadly colleges tend to weight the research thing more than the teaching component.
It's not like Clemson professors are underpaid. If they can't teach a class as well as a MIT professor simply b/c they aren't paid as well as the MIT professor, it begs the question why they are paid at all. Clemson attracts professors from all across the country...they can't all work at MIT, only so many slots there.
I should point out again that Clemson's tuition is much more affordable than MIT's. I don't think whatever advantage that you could gain from going to MIT is worth paying multiple of what you would pay to go to Clemson or NC State or Virginia Tech. I would say any engineering student who is paying that inflated cost or their parents have more money than sense, but to each his own. I think all colleges price gouge their students like crazy and their is little effort to try to keep tuition in a reasonable range.
We are talking past each other if you think engineers report to business guys. Sure it can happen, but that is extremely atypical. I'm not referring to engineering positions that interface with business guys, but reporting to somebody doesn't mean he's your supervisor in a real sense. You won't have anybody respect you if you find yourself in a role where engineers are reporting to you and you don't know jack about engineering. You wouldn't want a role like that.
I don't think business stuff is that abstract. I know at Clemson it seemed like half the people at graduation were graduating with a degree in business, so obviously there is something about engineering that limits the number of people who do it compared to business programs. I would suggest it has to do with engineering being a more challenging program for most people out there.
I don't think most Econ majors are making billions in the market. that's not what Econ is about anyway.
An engineering consulting firm that is set up correctly hires engineers to be engineering managers.
I agree with you on one point, we are going in circles. As a rule, economics is abstract. Econ 101 may seem elementary but, it is an intro course. There is no easy answer in economics whether you are using SAS or other statistical programs to determine relationships between interest rates, the market, money supply, inventory levels, housing levels, manufacturing, CPI, exchange rate ratios etc.....arm chair economist are funny when they claim to know more than others. if you had a total understanding economics, you could make great money in the market. If the economy was easy, folks would not be able to short mortgage companies in 2007 and walk away with billions. I doubt an engineer who claims to understand the economy could define supply side or Keynesian economics.
If MIT only has a few slots for professors and can pay more, don't you think they will get better professors than Clemson? And have better facilities? Or another way to look at it is that some for profit schools offer similar courses as Clemson, are their programs as good?
Location: South Carolina - staying with brother in Columbia
596 posts, read 938,182 times
Reputation: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vhammond
I agree with you on one point, we are going in circles. As a rule, economics is abstract. Econ 101 may seem elementary but, it is an intro course. There is no easy answer in economics whether you are using SAS or other statistical programs to determine relationships between interest rates, the market, money supply, inventory levels, housing levels, manufacturing, CPI, exchange rate ratios etc.....arm chair economist are funny when they claim to know more than others. if you had a total understanding economics, you could make great money in the market. If the economy was easy, folks would not be able to short mortgage companies in 2007 and walk away with billions. I doubt an engineer who claims to understand the economy could define supply side or Keynesian economics.
If MIT only has a few slots for professors and can pay more, don't you think they will get better professors than Clemson? And have better facilities? Or another way to look at it is that some for profit schools offer similar courses as Clemson, are their programs as good?
lol, well I can say there are no easy answers in engineering. Lot of times you are dealing with limited information and you have to make a lot of assumptions, logical ones but assumptions none the less. Engineering is often as much of an art than a science. you learn a lot of rules of thumb as a practicing engineer that you will never learn at college and much of what you learn in college you never use anyway.
I never said economics was easy, i just said that engineers could do it if they could do engineering work. Also, most business majors don't do economics, they generallly end up doing marketing or finance. I think even accounting doesn't have as many people in it b/c it's not a real glamorous career, and that's why their salaries have gone up in recent years b/c they are in demand but the supply of them isn't keeping up.
You seem to have missed my point about professors. I'm sure they "get the best professors" if terms of research prestige and personal accomplishments but that has nothing to do with teaching. MIT probably goes after guys who can secure more research money for the university. I think that I have said that MIT is probably better overall than Clemson at the graduate level where the research thing matters most although Clemson probably is stronger in research areas pertaining to automobiles and materials stuff. B/c they get less money overall for research, they target it at certain niche areas and it's probably they are actually much more funded in those areas than MIT is, so to to just look at total research revenue to assert that MIT is better is simplistic. every engineering uni has strengths and weaknesses in the research arena.
Higher paid professors doesn't mean they are better teachers. MIT pays them that money so they can say they have prestigious professors in research on their staff which is used to attract students who want to do research but most engineering students don't do research.
Facilities don't matter that much. Clemson has enough money to have the kind of labs all engineering programs have. The main thing is to teach and all you need is a building with some desks for that. It doesn't have to be a real nice building.
It's my understanding that MIT has some horrible dorms and the school in general resembles a prison so despite that jacked up tuition it's not a that great from an overall facility standpoint.
Are you Indian, by the way? YOu remind of an Indian guy that I know from high school. His parents expected him to either be an engineer or a physician b/c they saw it as more prestigious and he did business and we would always have these kind of engineer vs. business debates. I think he always felt guilt for shaming his family by majoring in business. LOL
Last edited by SwampFox35; 03-03-2013 at 03:26 PM..
Until you prove MIT is superior, I can say Clemson is just as good. I do think the fact that I am a mechanical engineer does give me more credibility on this than somebody with no engineering degree.
Hmmm. Okay, let me retry this-two questions:
First-
Just throwing out some schools randomly-since you think Clemson is as good as MIT-
Is Virginia Tech engineering as good as Clemson?
Is Georgia Tech as good as MIT?
Is UCLA engineering as good as University of Washington?
I'm honestly curious-do you think ALL schools of engineering are created equal?
Second:
What's your feeling about disciplines that do not normally pursue the PE designation but are traditionally located in schools of engineering-e.g., Computer Engineering or Computer Science? Are non-PE's 'real' engineers?
Location: South Carolina - staying with brother in Columbia
596 posts, read 938,182 times
Reputation: 188
I think most engineering programs are the same thing at the undergrad level. I'm not going to comment on your random list of colleges and I have no knowledge of schools like UCLA and Washington but I would be surprised if somebody was bragging about going to those two schools. I can't see any employer in the southeast being more impressed by those schools as compared to Clemson. My twin brother did his masters in EE program at Va Tech (and his undergrad at Clemson, and he thinks they are equal. I will go with an engineer who has attended both schools before somebody who has attended neither school.
The exceptions would be historically black colleges like North Carolina A&T and SC State which either don't require SAT scores or accept students with very low SAT scores. I know for a fact employers in Greensboro NC don't like to hire engineers out of North Carolina A&T and they view the college as kind of a degree factory. A branch school like University of Tenn. -Chattanooga may be somewhat lacking as well in comparison to the bigger schools and a lack of reputation in engineering.
The only engineering program at a larger school that I have heard isn't that good is U. of Colorado-Boulder. It's supposedly a school for hippie types and I hear it is not that challenging as long as you put in min. effort.
I don't care about computer engineering or science, but I would hope that a computer engineer has a supervisor with a engineering education and work experience. It does seem like some people can get into computer stuff easier without a degree b/c it's a hobby for a lot of people out there, but that would probably be limited to computer science, and computer engineering probably requires formal education.
Computer engineering in general is kind of a niche thing and it's not a traditional engineering discipline in my view like mechanical, civil, electrical, and chemical. You probably don't need a PE in that field. Getting your license as an engineer is similar in my mind as getting your license as a lawyer or physician or pharmacist. It probably should be required to practice engineering but a lot of engineers would oppose that. I think it would be good b/c then you wouldn't have people with no degrees worming their way into our profession because a few companies do things in a shady way.
Last edited by SwampFox35; 03-03-2013 at 05:10 PM..
lol, well I can say there are no easy answers in engineering. Lot of times you are dealing with limited information and you have to make a lot of assumptions, logical ones but assumptions none the less. Engineering is often as much of an art than a science. you learn a lot of rules of thumb as a practicing engineer that you will never learn at college and much of what you learn in college you never use anyway.
I never said economics was easy, i just said that engineers could do it if they could do engineering work. Also, most business majors don't do economics, they generallly end up doing marketing or finance. I think even accounting doesn't have as many people in it b/c it's not a real glamorous career, and that's why their salaries have gone up in recent years b/c they are in demand but the supply of them isn't keeping up.
You seem to have missed my point about professors. I'm sure they "get the best professors" if terms of research prestige and personal accomplishments but that has nothing to do with teaching. MIT probably goes after guys who can secure more research money for the university. I think that I have said that MIT is probably better overall than Clemson at the graduate level where the research thing matters most although Clemson probably is stronger in research areas pertaining to automobiles and materials stuff. B/c they get less money overall for research, they target it at certain niche areas and it's probably they are actually much more funded in those areas than MIT is, so to to just look at total research revenue to assert that MIT is better is simplistic. every engineering uni has strengths and weaknesses in the research arena.
Higher paid professors doesn't mean they are better teachers. MIT pays them that money so they can say they have prestigious professors in research on their staff which is used to attract students who want to do research but most engineering students don't do research.
Facilities don't matter that much. Clemson has enough money to have the kind of labs all engineering programs have. The main thing is to teach and all you need is a building with some desks for that. It doesn't have to be a real nice building.
It's my understanding that MIT has some horrible dorms and the school in general resembles a prison so despite that jacked up tuition it's not a that great from an overall facility standpoint.
Are you Indian, by the way? YOu remind of an Indian guy that I know from high school. His parents expected him to either be an engineer or a physician b/c they saw it as more prestigious and he did business and we would always have these kind of engineer vs. business debates. I think he always felt guilt for shaming his family by majoring in business. LOL
I don't think my ethnic background is relevant. Funny that you bring up that story, especially about guilt. The only engineer in our family seems disgruntled because the business majors have all done better. His engineering degrees are from Columbia University, I am sure you will claim it as a peer of Clemson.
I disagree that engineers can do economics, accounting or finance. Sure, they may get through 101 and buy into some goofy AM radio economist but, the disciplines are much more than you have depicted. In fact, I love to hear engineers talk about economics and wish I could somehow sell them securities based on the discussion, talk abour making money. Economics, finance, accounting and marketing are very mathematical once you get into the majors, especially at good business schools. Upper level finance and marketing courses are very demanding. Look, I don't think engineers are dumb but, business majors are not even close to being as exact as engineering. Now, understand what I said, I did not say engineering was not exact, just more exact than econ or the business majors.
I do "get" what you are saying about teaching. It is obvious that you are proud of your profession and school. But, there is also the real world. You mentioned getting thoughts from MIT grads, maybe you should start a thread on the Mass. page, I am sure you will get a lot of interesting comments.
Location: South Carolina - staying with brother in Columbia
596 posts, read 938,182 times
Reputation: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vhammond
I don't think my ethnic background is relevant. Funny that you bring up that story, especially about guilt. The only engineer in our family seems disgruntled because the business majors have all done better. His engineering degrees are from Columbia University, I am sure you will claim it as a peer of Clemson.
I disagree that engineers can do economics, accounting or finance. Sure, they may get through 101 and buy into some goofy AM radio economist but, the disciplines are much more than you have depicted. In fact, I love to hear engineers talk about economics and wish I could somehow sell them securities based on the discussion, talk abour making money. Economics, finance, accounting and marketing are very mathematical once you get into the majors, especially at good business schools. Upper level finance and marketing courses are very demanding. Look, I don't think engineers are dumb but, business majors are not even close to being as exact as engineering. Now, understand what I said, I did not say engineering was not exact, just more exact than econ or the business majors.
I do "get" what you are saying about teaching. It is obvious that you are proud of your profession and school. But, there is also the real world. You mentioned getting thoughts from MIT grads, maybe you should start a thread on the Mass. page, I am sure you will get a lot of interesting comments.
Isn't Columbia an Ivy League school? I don't much about it but I doubt it has a good reputation as an engineering school, people will associate it with liberal arts and a stepping stone school to law or medical school like they do with other Ivy League schools. I was surprised that any Ivy League schools had engineering programs b/c I could see them as seeing engineering as "vocational" kind of work. Ivy League schools just seem to be more about writing long papers in my mind and probably most of all that is fluff stuff. Grade inflation at Ivy League schools is notoriously bad as well, and I know that doesn't happen at large state schools like Clemson. They expect a certain number of students to drop out of Clemson every year. Typically the freshman year physics, calculus, and chemistry classes weed out most of the students who can't handle it.
given your politics, i have a hard time believing you are good at economics. Some people seem to think the government spending money at alarming rates somehow stimulates the economy despite this been proven not true over and over. It seems like economics programs differ by political outlook, some schools have an Austrian view, some have Keynsian, and I think there are other varieties. So I understand what you mean when you say it's not a hard science. I'm not so sure that is a good thing. LOL
I think most engineering programs are the same thing at the undergrad level. I'm not going to comment on your random list of colleges and I have no knowledge of schools like UCLA and Washington but I would be surprised if somebody was bragging about going to those two schools. I can't see any employer in the southeast being more impressed by those schools as compared to Clemson.
The only engineering program at a larger school that I have heard isn't that good is U. of Colorado-Boulder. It's supposedly a school for hippie types and I hear it is not that challenging as long as you put in min. effort.
The list was completely random for a reason. I get where you're coming from now. I disagree with you, and I'm not so sure why you feel qualified to comment about the teaching at MIT without ever having been there, but we can agree to disagree. That's an unassailable assertion, such as someone saying "CU Boulder is not that challenging."
Someone else could say "I think Clemson is for wanna-bes who couldn't get into a better school." If someone said that, there's not a lot you can do to prove them wrong. They're always going to believe what they want to believe no matter how odd it seems.
Isn't Columbia an Ivy League school? I don't much about it but I doubt it has a good reputation as an engineering school, people will associate it with liberal arts and a stepping stone school to law or medical school like they do with other Ivy League schools. I was surprised that any Ivy League schools had engineering programs b/c I could see them as seeing engineering as "vocational" kind of work.
given your politics, i have a hard time believing you are good at economics. Some people seem to think the government spending money at alarming rates somehow stimulates the economy despite this been proven not true over and over. It seems like economics programs differ by political outlook, some schools have an Austrian view, some have Keynsian, and I think there are other varieties. So I understand what you mean when you say it's not a hard science. I'm not so sure that is a good thing. LOL
Yes, it is an Ivey league school. He did not seem to have a hard time finding work so, I doubt folks look down on an Ivery League education in engineering.
As for my "politics" and economics, I think you are making assumptions that would embarass you. As for your other statements, they are just wrong, we'll leave it at that.
But, you are right in one respect, it is a science that can be viewed many different ways and that is the reason I think engineers would have a problem. For instance, you seem to have me labeled which in your mind discounts anything further that I say. And that's fine. But, in the finance world, economics world, or business world in general, that type of thinking will put you out of business in a month. So, I am glad that engineers are so black/white, plenty of opportunity to make money.
Location: South Carolina - staying with brother in Columbia
596 posts, read 938,182 times
Reputation: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgiaTransplant
The list was completely random for a reason. I get where you're coming from now. I disagree with you, and I'm not so sure why you feel qualified to comment about the teaching at MIT without ever having been there, but we can agree to disagree. That's an unassailable assertion, such as someone saying "CU Boulder is not that challenging."
Someone else could say "I think Clemson is for wanna-bes who couldn't get into a better school." If someone said that, there's not a lot you can do to prove them wrong. They're always going to believe what they want to believe no matter how odd it seems.
I don't care either way. Trash talk about my school all you want. Your premise seems to be that MIT is by default the better teaching school and I have to prove that it is not the better one. I don't think it works like that. I've laid out why MIT is considered the "superior"school (research money) and most engineers will agree with me that research stuff is irrelevant to most of the students.
I think Clemson is better than MIT for getting jobs in the Carolinas and Atlanta, just due to fact that there are a lot of Clemson grads in the area. Employers probalby going to look at your GPA and how you do in the interview more than what engineering school you went to, I think.
I had a lot more fun at Clemson than I think I would have had at a school like MIT, and it cost my parents a fraction of the cost of MIT. MIT is catering to more of the nerd type of engineer which is fine but I am not that type of guy. I know some guys who came over to Clemson after a few years at G Tech and they didn't think Clemson was easy, it just had less of the prison vibe.
Location: South Carolina - staying with brother in Columbia
596 posts, read 938,182 times
Reputation: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vhammond
Yes, it is an Ivey league school. He did not seem to have a hard time finding work so, I doubt folks look down on an Ivery League education in engineering.
As for my "politics" and economics, I think you are making assumptions that would embarass you. As for your other statements, they are just wrong, we'll leave it at that.
But, you are right in one respect, it is a science that can be viewed many different ways and that is the reason I think engineers would have a problem. For instance, you seem to have me labeled which in your mind discounts anything further that I say. And that's fine. But, in the finance world, economics world, or business world in general, that type of thinking will put you out of business in a month. So, I am glad that engineers are so black/white, plenty of opportunity to make money.
most things are black and white, it's just more hipster cool to pretend everything is murky and grey.
I have not discounted anything you have said, I have actually shown more interest in what you say than I think most engineers would have after some of your previous commentary. I only brought up your politics after you used the AM talk radio line which I assumed was you taking a shot at mine.
What I like about engineering is it is still one of the few programs at colleges that can't be hijacked by people with a political agenda. You can't say that about economics, sadly. I didn't want to spend 4 years in college basically just learning professor's political opinions about stuff and that happens all the time in liberal arts and economics and other majors.
I don't think that I've suggested people should look down on engineering programs at Ivy League schools. I do remember an engineer telling me that for a long time Harvard refused to be ABET accreditted in engineering because they thought they were too good for that, which I find to be interesting.
Clemson is largely known for engineering and architecture despite being solid in the other stuff it offers. Ivy League schools generally are not known for engineering. I think USC has a good engineering program but it is known for it's business programs. That is what I mean by reputation.
Last edited by SwampFox35; 03-03-2013 at 05:51 PM..
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.
