Slashdot Mirror
Auburn University First To Offer Wireless Degree
EyesWideOpen writes "Auburn University in Alabama will become the first school in the country to offer a four-year bachelor's degree in the study of wireless technology this fall. Since its inception three months ago an estimated 30 to 50 students have signed up for Auburn's wireless engineering program. 'All engineering students are expected to complete liberal arts and general engineering classes the first two years of school. They then can focus on wireless during their last two years of study by taking courses such as Wireless Design Lab, RF Devices and Circuits, and 3G and 4G Wireless.'"
I can't wait to get my Wardriving degree, with a chalk marking hieroglyphics major. Let's not even get into the possibilities of fly-by wireless haxoring exams. Ooo, watch out for that tree little Jimmy!
s200.org - visit it (me), love it (me).
By the time you graduate 3g will be deployed.
Wouldn't this kids be better off with a degree in EE, concentrating in wireless? That's like getting a degree in web services instead of Computer Science.
~ The Fudge Report @ http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fudgereport/
With all the standards out there (11a, b, g, etc) they are going to need more than a BS, they're going to need a Ph.D.
"The ignorant fight to win, the wise win before they fight." -Sun Tzu
... or you really are stuck in the stone age, atleast here in Finland you have been able to study the subject in deep detail for years. Now, seriously, is this news there in US? This is not a flamebait, I am truly interested in this.
Now, juniors and seniors can bring Cell Phones to class and the professors don't have a say.
:/
"Tomorrow" ON SLASHDOT:
"Due to increasing interest, Auburn University will launch a first-in-the-country program next fall for a B.S. degree in
NOISE POLLUTION MANAGEMENT"
~Int
Cover your eyes and click this link!
3G and 4G Wireless
Oh, well, that's good. We all know that "3G" and "4G" are such important, well defined engineering terms.
Coming soon to the CS department "Software engineering principles of version 2 and version 3 software.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
First of all, it shouldn't take four years to learn most of how any kind of networking works. On the computer/electronics side, both are basically the same, it's the transmission that's different.
Now, why not combine wireless with wired networking as a major, and then get more people into that? While wireless is all "hip" and whatnot, you can't do everything wirelessly. Transmitting through thick rock and transmitting top secret data for example. However, if you're knowledgeable with both wired and wireless networks, you are of use to almost any company, even small ones who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford separate "in-house" and wireless network engineers.
Karma: \Kar"ma\, n. [Skr.] (Buddhism) One's acts considered as fixing one's lot in the future existence.
Oh, great. That ranks up there with a degree in Communications.
A good intro class would be "Build your own wireless network card" Professor: "Ok all the course materials will be available online which you can access using the campus' wireless gateway." Student: "But how Can i get to them if I dont have a wireless network card?" Professor: ::evil grin::
I'll let you know how well it goes in a few years. Woohoo...!....
just like the $EthnicGroup Studies majors. They should be specializations in either history or political science. What were beginning to do is produce college graduated who are way too over specialized. I know of EE's who think they dont need E-Mag because they are going to do VLSI.
Sorry for the rant its just my 2 cents.
He was the first to demostrate trasmitting information via wireless, right?
M0571y H@rml355.
Of course, research into "wireless technology" at Auburn mostly involves development of a cattle fence that doesn't use barbed wire...
A good Enginnering program will have sub-programs, which are a listed set of classes to take if you want to go into a given area. A crap program will almost always have 20 different 'joint majors' between two departments becuase it lies kind of between them. (note not all schools that have them are crap so dont get you underware in a bind yelling at me).
I'm still waiting for the REALLY cool stuff, 100% full online non-classroomed university.
Yes, I'm aware of U. of Phoenix, but the courses they offer are pretty minimal, and definately don't seem like they're going to get you much of a job anywhere (except perhaps the MBA).
Why can't a good university (Dalhousie? UBC? UCLA-Berkeley?) put out a fully virtualized, 100% online computer science degree? You'd think with the computing luminaries these universities churn out there'd be enough brainpower to overcome whatever technical problems are left to tackle. All the elements are there... streaming video for lectures, standards to deliver homework assignments... what else is needed but professors willing to get with the program, and administration willing to shell out a few bucks with the possibility of getting back much, much more?
"People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
So, what, there's never been a degree in radio engineering before?
I'd go into the huge theory/practice techschool/university debate, but I've finally realized something:
The truly curious and intelligent will get the theory no matter what, because they want to know and find out. The dull masses will not get the theory even when it's taught to them for four years straight. They're probably better served by a practical course of study (with lots of flashing lights).
I got to attend a preview of one of the classes. I was asked to leave over a debate about whether or not two cans held together with a shoestring is a wireless technology. Despite the dictionary's support of my view, it is not classically considered a wireless technology.
I'd hire a plain vanilla degree with good grades and from a competative university any day. In three years the current fads will have changed and only the basics will matter.
Why is this a distince degree? It would seem to be self limiting, yes?
"I'm sorry but the job opening is for advanced networking design, I'm afraid that only wireless won't cut it"
This isn't a first, in any way whatsoever.
Many universities have EE programs that require a concentration. What's a common concentration in such programs? You guessed it, wireless. Even Cornell, which admittedly is not a "strong" school in wireless despite a top-notch EE program since the main physical-layer wireless guy was hired away by Illinois, has a pretty good wireless concentration. (Due to the fact that most of the domain of "wireless" can be covered quite well by the DSP, Information Theory, and the radar people in Space & Plasma Physics, all of which are fields where Cornell is top-notch) All in all, you'll get a much broader exposure to signal theory and RF in general than you would in a "Wireless" degree.
Whatever this program is, I'm sure it pales in comparison to the EE programs at Georgia Tech and the University of Illinios (They have two of the top wireless programs in the country - It's all under the EE umbrella.) I believe GaTech has an antenna testing range and numerous other facilities that rival that of most corporations in the field.
If you want to do wireless, go to Georgia Tech or the University of Illinios. I hear Ohio State is pretty good too, as are UCSD and probably Caltech. If you want to go to a wannabe program that won't get you a broad exposure that'll leave you with backup if wireless dries up, go to Auburn.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
I'm not a real proponent of specialized degrees, but the world is becoming a very specialized place. I'd also argue it's also getting tougher and tougher to make a living as a generalist, whether coming from a technical or liberal arts background.
Maybe we ought to take notice of why Auburn offered this degree, and the forces behind it, instead of just running up the, "Back in my day, we all got EE degrees and boy were we thankful!" flag.
Just my two cents. Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong. After all, I was an International Relations major, so what the fsck do I know about technical degrees?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
The Task is to implement a program that acts as a player in a multi-player robot game. Contributed programs will play against each other in a tournament.
Sounds a lot like IBM's Robocode for teaching Java.
http://www.kubuntu.org/
I've said it before, I'll say it again. You don't go to college to learn about computers. Designers/Artists, maybe. Technical stuff (programming especially), no. You learn it by deciding you want to do something, and doing it. You make mistakes, you learn what you did wrong, you fix it, you learn. This is a process that simply does not happen in college classes, thanks to a whole multitude of reasons/distractions that anyone who has been in college knows. Not to mention the fact that the technology will be dated before the graduates can attempt to apply said instruction.
I honestly hope this doesn't catch on, else in about 10 years we're going to be flooded with a whole new generation of people with degrees and zero practical knowledge, taking jobs from people who actually know what they are doing, yet have no degree. Joy.
With such insightful commentary from Auburn's engineering students, it's no wonder that Alabama is such a hotbed of intellectualism.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
correspondence schools have been around for decades and they're wireless!
Founder, Americans Allied Against Alliteration
"It's really neat that you can communicate just through the air," Trueblood said in an interview over his cell phone. "Without wires you aren't limited to one specific area. Wherever I go, people can call me. There are a lot of advantages to that."
Alot of advantages, yes. Too bad a rewarding job isn't one of them.
Seriously, I thought highly specialized technical degrees were becoming ever useless. As the dot.com bubble burst, and tech stocks swirl the toilet bowl, aren't employers looking for more versitile, well-rounded employees that can innovate?
The liberal arts background of this program bothers me. I've always believed that the focus in engineering and comp. sci should be in a solid understanding of math and science (esp. physics).
What do they learn? The physics of electromagnitism and how signals propogate? Network topologies? How to calculate Sprints latest cellular payment plan? The article is weak on details.
I'm all for higher education, but this reeks of an industry-bought program designed to churn out tech support seatwarmers.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
If you want to concentrate very specifically on a field in depth (i.e. wireless), that's what graduate school is for.
I regret concentrating too much on RF as an undergrad, despite having taken a few courses outside of RF in DSP and information theory.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
HEY!
I am assuming from reading the article (*gasp*, yes I read it) and the comments that this is basically a EE degree with a high degree of specialization.
My Computer Engineering degree from Auburn is similar. Where at most schools, Computer Engineering is a EE with a specialization in Computer Science, at Auburn it is essentially a CS degree with a EE minor. I had to take the basic engineering courses, the bulk of the CS major courses, and the EE courses in digital electronics and computers. I thought (and still think) this combination is cool, but I found out later (when looking at graduate school) that it is kind of screwy. Basically, my credits didn't qualify me for admission to masters programs in CSE/EE in most schools without taking a few more undergraduate classes in analog electronics/powers/etc.
People taking the wireless major may have the same problem, but you can probably take most of the wireless classes as tech electives in a EE program and have the same result with a "standard" engineering degree.
As to why they did it, they wanted the money...
-- stream of did I lock the front door consciousness
I work for a wireless division of a large network equipment maker and almost all of the guys that do the advanced theory stuff and actually push the design of the next generation products are Phd's in particle or quantum physics, but the engineers who actually design the products are mostly MS and Phd in EE. We are in Ohio, so OSU is where most of our interns come from, and we have worked closely with GeTech for antenna testing and verification, as you said their facilities are better than most corporations.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
This continuing trend to greater specialization is killing our ability to innovate. Different specialists can never communicate well enough to replace a multi-disciplined individual. Teamwork can only go so far. There is no substitute for knowing it all.
For those interested, The University of Texas at Dallas offers a similar degree program called Telecommunications Engineering. Its scope is a bit broader than just wireless.
Check out UTD's page about the program for more information.
Integral? What's that?
Also, probably the most important. It's one thing to draw a circuit in PSpice or MentorGraphics and watch your simulations do their thing neatly and precisely. It's another thing altogether to deal with realities, like the fact that simple conductors actually do have finite impedances and capacitances, that wires arranged the wrong way can cause inductance problems and that the 60 Hz noise from the lights can cause a hum in your audio amplifier.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
It depends on your school. CS, CmpE, and EE are all equally tough where I went to school. Management and IE (aka Imaginary Engineers) got our drop outs. Now THAT's the kind of thing that inspires cynicism in the workforce long before you enter it. All the washouts and losers are going to be your boss!
...You know, not being an over-priced community college and all.
Of course, we didn't actually have an MIS degree.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
The wireless degree is essentially a EE degree with a hotter specialization on wireless applications. i.e. you still take power, but you deal with small scale voltages, etc. From a learning and administrative standpoint, keeping this program as a specialization of EE (as it always has been, at AU and other schools), makes more sense. Just like with the ECE (EE with computer option). It's easier to get an engineer to program, than a programmer to engineer. Plus, it's better to start broad and specialize on your way in, so you are better equipped to meet any challenge thrown at you. The traditional major may not know every in and out of an area like the specialist does, but will know a little bit about more things. So while the specialist will have no idea of stuff outside his field, the traditional major will have at least that little bit to fall back on and get going quicker.
BUT, If Samuel Ginn comes up and gives you 25 million dollars to make that specialization a full fledged curriculum,.... are you going to say no?
How about the 1898 wireless robot boat demo? Even though the focus is on power, it seems to me like he is transmitting information.
...is the tightness of focus. There's a LOT more to RF than just digital wireless networking devices, cellphones, etc.
;-)
I would hope that the college will include solid background material in RF circuit basics (oscillators, modulation techniques for both digital and analog, power amps, basic antenna theory and practice, receivers and demodulation, etc.) as well as the material on networking.
Failing that, I would hope that they at least encourage the kids to get their ham radio tickets, and to be experimenters. That'll at least get them some hands-on.
(Yes, I'm biased, I admit it. Don't ask about my plate voltage).
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
Havn't we had 'radio engenering' for like decades?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
This degree is meaningless to me unless I can take it in online courses via GPRS and/or 802.11b.
Ok, who knows what I'm talking about?
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
As a resident of the state of Alabama, I'm greatly appalled that one of our major schools is actually offering something like this. I mean, this is like, progressive or something....
Actually, in reality, this is nice and all, but I agree with most other people in this post: it's rather worthless because it's too specific and based on the current trend. Sounds like AU just wanted to get some national recongition for something else besides football and their upcoming SACS accreditation review.
Basically, all this really means is that the best engineering school in the state is the one in my backyard, UAH.
In 3010, the potatoes triumphed
Upgrade path: they cut the string between the tin cans.
"Heyyyyy Bubba, y'all got'cher ears on? Come on. Over."
shweeeee Convoy!
This makes as much sense as moving the computer science school into the college of engineering...
Anyone who posts about bad moderation are themselves off-topic and should be moderated accordingly.
If I remember correctly isn't Auburn the college that just fired a professor for stating in class that all the hijackers on 911 Arab. Why would you want to go to a school that fires teahcer for stating the truth.
Whatever this program is, I'm sure it pales in comparison to the EE programs at Georgia Tech and the University of Illinios
So, what's your definition of 'pale'? And what data from both sides of the coin do you have to back this statement up?
Just asking for clarification...
-BxT
The Auburn Wireless graduates would have just about the right amount of education for our tech lines!
future Auburn Wireless graduate
I see a lot of comments bashing Auburn for creating a specialized degree. Relax! I've seen it, and it looks like a solid program rooted in good EE principles. As a grad student (now at the University of Texas), trust me: if you want to know a lot about wireless communications, the old answer was: get your Master's degree or PhD. That's still the answer, and if you'll look at the class listings, you'll see that a lot of this effort is concentrated in graduate-level courses.
They're not replacing the EE degree. They're just adding more courses; undergrads can take them until their ears bleed and get a degree with a title that emphasizes their interest, or they can get a graduate degree heavy on wireless.
(That said, I'd still get an EE. But I'm a computer architecture gEEk, not a wireless gEEk.)
I agree. This really is not any different than other specializations. I do think it is a little overhyped. I guess if you don't suck up to people who give you $25e6, they'll be less likely to give you $ in the future.
I'm not too big on specialization anyways. At least at an undergraduate level. It's crutch that helps you get a job right off of the bat. I think in the long run the ability to think rationally and objectively are more important than any specific knowledge about some currently hot field. I do think good undergraduate engineering programs can help develop these skills though. I know several people that are doing pretty good in fields that weren't even their major much less any specialization.
this is kind of hokey. It's more like a trade than a degree.
3G? You mean cellular services? So they are offering a degree in cellular?
Degree has ceased to mean what it used to mean in America.
We do have NASA! :D
What kind of crap is this?
Isn' this a specialization.
"Hi, I know little about other forms of communication, but I have a BS in an extremely focussed area".
I can't stand people who talk about their BS vendor certs, now I have to deal with some engineer-lite?
Please
Karma: Anything remotely associated with Boy George I have no interest in.
Testing can be done in a sterile environment... Not to much interference from the single traffic light and Wal-Mart in Opelika.
31-7!!!!!
"Your mother sent me here to kill you..."
- "Bill Cosby - Himself"
This might be new in the US. I know a number of places are offering the Telecoms and Embedded Systems niche EE degrees. See an example at www.eese.bee.qut.edu.au/courses. For some reason, industry seems to think grads should be plug and play, with the result of the degrees being sought by entrants. A short sighted viewpoint but people with MBA's seem to think all degrees and graduate skills are the same as theirs.
Reputation, quality of program, broadness (Well-rounded engineer with extra knowledge in wireless vs. wireless-only engineer who is screwed if the industry goes tits-up, or gets dragged down by the fact that most of the equipment manufacturers were also involved heavily in optical networking), and facilities.
If you ask someone "in the industry", i.e. someone who is hiring, which they would rather hire - Either one of these Auburn "wireless" engineers or a GaTech EE that concentrated in wireless, they'll probably say GaTech because of its reputation and the fact that a lot of the major players do large amounts of business with GaTech.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?