Does It Suck To Be An Engineering Student?

Pickens writes "Aaron Rower has an interesting post on Wired with the "Top 5 Reasons it Sucks to be an Engineering Student" that includes awful textbooks, professors who are rarely encouraging, the dearth of quality counseling, and every assignment feels the same. Our favorite is that other disciplines have inflated grades. "Brilliant engineering students may earn surprisingly low grades while slackers in other departments score straight As for writing book reports and throwing together papers about their favorite zombie films," writes Rower. "Many of the brightest students may struggle while mediocre scholars can earn top scores." For many students, earning a degree in engineering is less than enjoyable and far from what they expected. If you want to complain about your education, this is your chance."

Comments

Lack of theory

[xRelisH]

I have a lot of friends who were in Engineering when I was an undergrad. The biggest complaint that they seemed to have was that they felt like they were just being fed equations and not taught to think for themselves. The second they came across a problem that was a slight deviation from the questions mentioned in class or from the textbook, they had some trouble, because the underlying theory was lacking. I suppose it's no surprise that the students who do the best in math or programming competitions like Putnam or ACM are typically under the math faculty. Don't get me wrong, I know lots of brilliant engineering graduates, but they often feel a little cheated.

It's for this reason why I chose Computer Science, which is a math-based program at the University of Waterloo in Canada. Although I can't recite as many equations from memory as my engineering colleagues, I know how derive them, and am able to handle curveballs that come by way because I developed logical thinking. As a plus, I was able to get a minor in physics with a specialization in quantum mechanics with the extra freedom in courses I had.

I'd really like to see real math and theory return to engineering. Some formula-feeding might need to be dropped, but a lot of that stuff isn't useful in the workplace anyway.

Spent a few years in Engineering..

[zboy]

I'd agree with all the points, but in the end, most of them should be expected. After leaving engineering for art (or maybe while leaving.. since a had a couple year transition), I realized one of the things I hated so much about it was how "strict" engineering is. In the sense that, if you're given a problem to solve, there's only one correct answer, and only one (or maybe 2) correct ways to arrive at that answer. If you take an art class (or a writing class, as they use the example of writing papers), when you're given a problem to solve, there's a nearly infinite number of correct answers. You can do some of your own thinking. Even an answer that one person feels is completely wrong could actually be correct and get a good grade.. it's much more subjective. The freedom to break the rules and think outside the box is one of the reasons I left engineering. That, and I didn't want some little mistake in a calculation to cause a catastrophic structural failure of some sorts that led to the death of innocent civilians...

Meh

[MBCook]

1. Every Assignment Feels the Same

   Write a short story. Write a slightly longer story. Write the story in rhyming verse. Write a non-fictional story. Write this story. Write that story. Writing assignments look boring to me. However, I saw challenges and differences in the engineering stuff I did. Maybe this guy is just ignorant of the necessary knowledge to see those differences.

2. Other Disciplines Have Inflated Grades

   Why chose a major you have to work for where you can find correct answers, when you can have one where you just have to BS enough that the teacher can't tell the difference between BS and insight? Clearly, you should just chose you major based on your possible GPA. I know they hire CEOs based on what their GPA was 30+ years ago.

3. Dearth of Quality Counseling

   Really? I had some wicked smart professors who could help with this. And I heard plenty from other students who thought this kind of thing about their non-engineering courses. I smell an anecdote.

4. Professors are Rarely Encouraging

   I had encouraging professors. I had interesting professors. I also had boring professors. Why is that every Engineering professor is a stodgy old bore, while the Lit students get class after class of Dead Poet's Society teachers? Oh, that's right, they don't. Besides, maybe if you were interested in the material instead of in it for the $$$, you wouldn't have this problem. You've never seen a teacher engage some students who are interested in the subject, while called terrible by the students who didn't care about the subject? I've seen that since at least middle school.

5. Awful Textbooks

   My Literature textbooks weren't very good at all. I've seen history books that were a joke. There were almost no good textbooks. Blame the publishers, blame the teachers requiring their own text book, blame the difficulty of writing a good one. Again, Engineering shouldn't be singled out

I call blog spam on this. You notice it's just a blog entry, not a real story at Wired.

It has ALWAYS sucked...

[coolmoose25]

This is nothing new. I got a ME degree from UCONN in the early 80's. My first class had a professor who barely spoke English. His first quote was "I teach you Engineering, You teach me Engrish". His second line (in broken English) was the classic "Look to your left, look to your right. Neither will be with you when you graduate" We assumed he meant ONE of them won't be there, but he turned out to be correct. 2/3 of the entry class flunked out or transferred to PolySci or some other squishy humanity degree. I graduated with a 2.7 cumulative - with a 3.5 cumulative in my non-engineering classes. My roommate was a ChemE who went to PolySci - he graduated with a 3.5... studied about half as much as I did. I ended up going to graduate school because the smarmy recruiters didn't think a B- average was good enough to be a real engineer... Got an MBA in IT and Finance... never looked back. It's too bad because I would have made a pretty good engineer - actually am a "Software Engineer" now... Bottom line is that the grade inflation that took hold of all the other disciplines never translated to the engineering schools... So even though my degree was probably 4 times harder to get, it didn't count for squat due to the costs of inflation. And now America is SCREAMING for more engineers...

Re:NO IT DOES NOT

[p0tat03]

The books do tend to suck a lot more than non-engineering subjects. I suspect it's because engineers who are well-versed in their respective fields have trouble breaking down concepts for relative newcomers. It's not surprising for me to find an advanced concept wedged into the introductory chapters, and helpful beginners' explanations stuck curiously near the end of the book.

I cannot even begin to count the number of times where I've been doing my course readings, and completely not understanding a concept... and then running across a neat little paragraph explaining it all in a very concise way... in an unrelated chapter, half a book later.

I've been in school four years now, and I've had maybe 3 textbooks that I felt were truly helpful. The rest were just shameless wastes of my dollars and many trees. In their defense, all the information is in there somewhere, but rarely where you'd expect it to be.

Re:at least you're learning

[Rukie]

I'm in a mechanical engineering degree. In the past 10 years, fewer than 10 people have recieved 4.0 gpas. It is ridiculously difficult. The classes are ridiculously difficult. However, by the time I graduate RIT I'll know this stuff so well.. I spent all weekend on 3 problems. what the heck! lol It takes me two hours to write a decent 10 page paper, it takes me 10 hours to answer 1 math problem. I definitely agree, other fields have inflated gpas, but you know what, I know a hell of a lot more than someone with an inflated grade, and that makes me proud.

Re:NO IT DOES NOT

[boris111]

As an engineering student that took a film class as an elective I can attest to that! I would write papers that had A's while the students to the left and right of me earned C's. My paper comparing Hidden Fortress to Star Wars scored especially well. Alfred Hitchcock was an Engineering student BTW.

Re:You are Freaken Arrogant!

[Man On Pink Corner]

You really think Math, Science and Engineering students can make better films?

It depends on the definition of "better." Some of Hollywood's most influential directors, from Stanley Kubrick to Jim Cameron, were/are hardcore engineering geeks. But most movies made by geeks end up being made for geeks... more like Primer, in other words, than The Terminator.

It would suck if nerdhood was the only point of view represented in the film industry.

Bologna.

[Weaselmancer]

I paint and let me tell you that to get inspiration for a painting is hard. And please don't get me started on "how I could do that in five minutes." If you think like that then you actually don't understand art.

If you're talking about the "looks like 5 minute art" being the modern variety, then I must call shenanigans on you. Modern art is bollocks.

Disclaimer: I'm not an artist. What I know about art you could fit in a thimble. But, I'm an engineer and scientist, and I have tested this. Albeit accidentally.

Over a dozen years ago I went to the Met in NYC with a girlfriend. At the time I had long hair, was only slightly balding, and wore military clothing with lots of pins all over it. I looked eccentric. I looked...like what you'd think of when you think "artist".

So we're at the Met. And to make my SO laugh, I start doing my best "LA Story" impression on the modern art display. I was a little louder than I should have been (I blame the extra-fun Manhattan bars for this). Other people could hear me - I didn't know this. I began spouting nonsense.

"It says a lot by saying a little. It's artistic without being artsy."
"It's amazing how much of a conversation you can have with just green, isn't it?"
"You can see the effort but not the grace. Yellow can be so unforgiving."

And so on.

What I didn't realize was that other art people were looking over my shoulder and nodding at every single thing I was saying. I had the weird hair and the odd jacket. And nothing I was saying was making sense. Since it was all zooming over their heads, they erred on the side of caution and assumed I was a genius. And I had improved their day with my "insight", which was nothing more than half-drunken babbling. When I turned around and saw a half a dozen people following me around, I knew I had learned something important:

Art, modern art anyways - is a load of rubbish.

It's the emperor's new clothes.

Re:NO IT DOES NOT

[Mr Z]

There's surprising variability in text book quality. Some are written for scientific rigor, precision and conciseness at the expense of readability and accessibility. Others give a little on using the precise scientific terms at every turn, focusing instead on being approachable and accurate. For example, consider the following paragraph from my Thermodynamics book, introducing the 2nd law:

An object at an elevated temperature Ti placed in contact with atmospheric air at temprature T0 would eventually cool to the temperature of its much larger surroundings, as illustrated in Fig. 5.1a. In conformity with the conservation of energy principle the decrease in internal energy of the body would appear as an increase in the internal energy of the surroundings. The reverse process would not take place spontaneously, even though energy could be conserved: The internal energy of the surroundigns would not decrease spontaneously while the body warmed from T0 to its initial temperature.

That was from Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics by Moran and Shapiro, 2nd Ed., p 160. I took this as an electrical engineering student many years ago (1995, I believe).

Some years later, my girlfriend at the time was studying toward her mechanical engineering degree. Her textbook (which I don't have handy), introduced the topic in what I thought was a much more approachable manner. Paraphrasing, it went something like this:

Consider, for example, a cup of hot coffee placed in a room at room temperature. As you would expect, the cup of coffee will eventually cool to the temperature of the room. In the process, it will transfer energy to the air in the room and energy is conserved. The reverse process, spontaneously heating the cup of coffee by drawing energy from the cool room would not occur, even though energy would still be conserved.

Both are engineering texts covering the same material, but with completely different treatments. Both cover the same range of topics, the same steam tables, the same cycles... everything. But, which text book is more accessible? Which text book is more effective? All I know is I had a really hard time in Thermo, whereas she picked it up very quickly. (I did manage to eke out a B, but she aced it as I recall.) Some of it's aptitude—we each picked our disciplines for a reason—but a big factor is accessibility. I found myself understanding Thermo much better than I had, just reading portions of her book.

And that's kinda how it goes. Some classes have impenetrable texts, others don't. These days, the wealth of online materials is astonishing compared to what I had when I was in school—1992 - 1996—and so that helps a lot.

The main thing is to have fun. If you're not having fun doing engineering, then maybe another line of work is better for you. Sure, the projects are challenging, the homework is difficult and often draining, but it's all worth it when you get to the other end and see things come to life. If that doesn't make it worth it to you, then perhaps it's not your field.

--Joe

So what?

[raehl]

They will, however, get better grades with less native ability

Why does that matter? They're getting better grades in film classes. Being mad that students in film classes have an easier time getting high marks than students in engineering classes makes about as much sense as being mad that students in 2nd grade have an easier time getting high marks than students in engineering classes.

This disparity is corrected for in the real world - try getting a job with a 4.0 film degree vs. a 3.0 engineering degree. You'll get any job the film degree candidate can get, with the possible exception of jobs where the film degree's GPA doesn't matter (actual film jobs, where they are evaluated primarily on their portfolio of work, an area where anyone who actually has any talent in film is going to kick your (or my) sorry engineering ass.)

More generally, if you really feel that someone else is getting a better deal than you, stop bitching about it and go do what they're doing! Enroll in the film program, get your easy A's, finish college with a 4.0 in your major, and enjoy your years of paying off your student loans while working as a car salesman/insurance agent/whatever else Liberal Arts majors do to actually feed themselves when you could have gotten that same job not going to school at all!

You have to understand what a Liberal Arts major is. For a very select few people, it's a stepping stone to being a professor, or research, or something else at the top of the field. For the vast majority however, a liberal arts degree is an opportunity to do some partying, find a mate, and prove that you're able to show up on time. So yeah, you can get a 4.0 liberal arts degree much easier than you can get an engineering degree, but you won't be able to be an engineer with one!

Re:So what?

[a whoabot]

You have to understand what a Liberal Arts major is. For a very select few people, it's a stepping stone to being a professor, or research, or something else at the top of the field. For the vast majority however, a liberal arts degree is an opportunity to do some partying, find a mate, and prove that you're able to show up on time. For a long time, and for many still today, an arts major (not just liberal arts, some of the above posters were talking about making art which is much more associated with fine arts degree) was "a rich person's education." Not too many rich people get engineering degrees, because, for most, designing circuits or something isn't as fun as discussing philosophy or poetry.

As an aside, I hope making money isn't the only reason people choose to go into an engineering program. If that's the case, you would probably be much better off getting a business degree, or furthering your education to medical or law school, and I'm sure anyone who can get an engineering degree is sharp enough to pass medical school. You must expect to derive pleasure from doing engineering itself. [For a good number of girls in university, they'd probably maximise their income by forgetting about education and be prostitutes and pornographic actors (what was that Eliot Spitzer prostitute making, $5000/hour? There's some number of girls just as good-looking as her in every university), but I don't think maximising their income is their only interest -- that's an argument against people who say that money is everything, or nearly everything -- would they suggest the same to their daughters?]

Re:You are Freaken Arrogant!

[Beardo the Bearded]

Hear, hear.

I'm an EE. (EIT)

The students I went to school with were, for the most part, arrogant, stuck-up, and useless. One guy said, "It's nice that there are stupid people - otherwise we'd have to scrub toilets."

I pointed out that the janitor worked part-time, was a union employee, and probably got paid about 50k a year. (For part-time, remember?) The janitor was a nice guy, actually, and he was aware that most people thought of him as a "non-entity."

I've always felt that the other subjects are just as hard as Engineering to complete - they just require a different mindset. Yes, some people can game the system to get a bunch of slacktastic courses. That's true for 1st year, for certain. It's not true for later years. Sure, second year math has a 70% failure rate. I'm sure that there's some musical course or art appreciation course that's just as tricky. What about Ethical matrices for solving very difficult situations? Or something else that I'm not aware of because I didn't take 4th year A&S electives? University and College are hard, no matter what degree you try to attain. Engineering isn't some elite cadre of the Brainiacs.

Other students despised me because I invented things and didn't bother going for the 9.0 average. (I realized that I could do half the work and get a nice B average.) One of my friends said "they hate you because you don't give a FUCK. Not at all. It's all they care about, and you're still here, and you don't give a FUCK. It's hilarious."

I also realized that what we learn at school has NOTHING TO DO WITH ENGINEERING. IEEE taught me that with a phrase akin to, "It's hard for people who have entered the workforce to pursue a Master's Degree, because they haven't used the theories or mathematics since graduation."

I don't paint. I can't think of what I'd make. (Although I can put a fresh coat of latex on a wall with the best of them. ;) ) I can play a musical instrument quite well (20 years) and I can sing (8 years in a classical choir).

Re:This isn't high school

[ATMAvatar]

No one who has an opinion worth a damn will ever look at a Liberal Arts major with a 3.8 and think it's equivalent to a 3.8 in chemical engineering.

The clerks handling academic scholarships do.

There are states that offer scholarships that require one maintains their GPA above a certain level. While the types of students who would earn an academic scholarship aren't the types that would switch to a relatively easy Liberal Arts major to maintain the scholarship, it is commonplace to see students taking LA classes to pad their grades and maintain scholarships. This incentive to take irrelevant (but easy!) classes should not exist.

You must be a liberal arts major...

[raehl]

Given the ease with which you made up and propagated that bullshit, there's a good chance you have or are on your way to having a BA.

But lets try getting you to provide some real information.

List for us World Leaders and CEOs who only have a Bachelor of Arts degree. I'm sure there are a couple. Now figure out (if you ever learned how to do this) the percentage of CEOs and World Leaders (or even members of congress) who just have Bachelor of Arts degrees. To keep the problem manageable, you might consider only looking at Fortune-50, -100, or -500 companies.

Here, let me help you:

Fortune Top 10:

- Wal Mart: Lee Scott, Business degree
- Exxon: Rex Tillerson, B.S. in Civil Engineering
- General Motors: B.A. in Economics, MBA Harvard
- Chevron: David O'Reilly, B.S. Chemical Engineering
- Conoco Phillips: JAmes Mulva, BA in Business and MBA
- General Electric: BA Applied Mathematics, MBA
- Ford: Alan Mulally, BS and MS Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering
- Citigroup: Vikram Pandit, BS and MS in Engineering, PhD in finance
- Bank of America: Ba Finance
- American Intl. Group: MArtin J Sullivan, degree unknown (he's british)

So out of the top 10, you have four engineers, four business/finance, and one applied math guy.

*ZERO* Liberal Arts majors. Maybe we can give you one out of 10 with credit for the math guy, even though it was APPLIED math.

So for CEOs, looks like engineers kick liberal arts major ass. For Heads of State, I think you'll find that the vast majority of Heads of State have MBAs or JDs (or BLs) in developed nations, or are the children of political families in lesser-developed nations, or are former warlords in even less developed nations.

But, with a statement as stupid as "ALL of the heads of state in the world today are, or can be considered Liberal Arts majors", (ALL? Really? Don't make it hard to be proven wrong or anything...) I doubt you're going to have much to say here, even if you did use your Liberal Arts training to insert your 'cover my don't know anything ass' statement of "or can be considered". Can be considered? Either they have liberal arts degrees or they don't!

It must really gall you how you just got trounced by an engineer though.