Background- first year engineering student.
I don't have one mostly because I find that I'm taking my laptop with me to meetings or other times when I would need the calendaring, contact list, or task list features. (I suppose that might make me a nerd). This is partly because it's just useful to have for taking notes, or a quick email followup to someone not at the meeting (actually, for getting people not at student government meetings to volunteer for tasks, IM is great), and partly b/c if the meeting's boring, I like to have something else to do (email, read news).
For the times when I'm not carrying my laptop, it isn't that bad to just go and write something down or put a phone number in my cell phone.
What would make me get a PDA is a decently priced ($450) PDA Phone with reasonable data input and battery life, as well as 802.11b support. It's getting close- there's the Smart phone (Kyocera, I think...), Audiovox Thera, and Tmobile Pocket PC phone edition, Handspring Treo, but there still isn't the "right" one. I need something that will replace my phone (with the same, or close to the same, talk and standby time and not too much bigger) and would mean that I don't have to carry my laptop around quite as much.
I'm hoping they get there within a year, 18 months is probably more reasonable.
Student-faculty ratios don't tell the whole picture. In my opinion, it's better to have dynamic and interactive professors. The best professor I ever had was for a class of 100+! (And yes, I've had a small class of 5 students.)
I agree, and ours are. Trust me, I've work with them every day. They also watch movies with us and play basketball with us. The 10:1 ratio is nice, because we don't have to compete for their attention.
Too bad that Olin is skipping out on ChemE. It's a great way to jump-start into the bio-tech field.
How familiar are you with chemical engineering? ChemE is more closely related to industrial engineering. Dictionary.com definition: "The branch of engineering that deals with the technology of large-scale chemical production and the manufacture of products through chemical processes."
Under our Engineering Degree (which may end up being called Engineering & Applied Science), we may end up offering specializations, such as Biotech (we've received a donation towards a biotech program and have some outstanding faculty in that area) or Entrepreneurship & Technology. This is just discussion right now; I think we will go where student demand takes us.
It's also too bad that chemistry is not required at Olin. Chemistry is a fundamental science that is very relevant in many aspects of engineering and science. I've seen too many engineering students brush chemistry aside. It'll come back to bite you if you ever decide to go bio-tech.
We've found that the students we are accepting have had decent chem courses in high school, and that physics (we have two semesters of it in our first year) covers a decent amount of chem courses. With a MatSci course that may be a bit chem heavy for a MatSci course, we believe we can cover the chem we should. If you're right, we'll find out and adjust.
I understand your point- there are also some unaccredited programs that have no intention of seeking accreditation ever, so in the case of Olin, we're trying to indicate that we are seeking it, and right on track to get it. But yeah, getting accredited is important and it is important that students understand the risks they are taking. I hope and think we accomplish this at Olin; I understood the risks before I applied.
Sorry, should have explained that accreditation is retroactive. Considering that our school was created in part as an answer to calls from ABET, the NSF, and ASEE, and that the curriculum is being designed with the new ABET criteria in mind (which is easier as a new school than it is for some existing institutions), we shouldn't have trouble getting accredited shortly after we graduate. I'm not worried.
Sorry if you thought I was trying to trick you. One, I actually think it's a pretty big thing, but then yes, I am a student there and that makes me biased.
If I wanted to trick you, I would have changed usernames. I'm smart enough to do that and know you're smart enough to figure out olin01 is probably someone from Olin.
What actually happened:
30 students were at Olin this year. In a hotel for a bit, then in modular housing (nice modular housing, but I won't miss it). Well, except for the month we went to France to find out what we did and did not like about international experiences, when we stayed in ENSAM's dorms and worked with Georgia Tech Lorraine.
We worked with the faculty, staff, and administration to design the curriculum (which consisted of a lot of meetings and testing various pedagogies out) as well as student life programs (honor code, student government, clubs, etc). We worked in six four to five week modules. The first, third, fourth, and sixth modules were curriculum development, the second was community service development, and the fifth was the international experience. We also had some side projects, such as competing against upperclassmen & grad students in the NASA MarsPort competition and earning an outstanding in the ICM. Great group of people to work & live with, we got a lot done.
There are a few things Olin has done. One is the integration of sciences & math, and a project, where appropriate (this isn't a new idea, just a slightly different implementation than some other schools have done). In addition, math, science, and project courses are coordinated across the board.
This should work pretty well (in my opinion, but as many users have pointed out, I'm most definitely biased) for reducing the time learning some things will take. For example, your your physics homework and math homework could be the same, and the results of the homework could help you with the projects. Also, an engineering project can be adjusted to a product design project, including business skills as well as engineering skills and developing entreprenurial thinking.
There also was a trade-off. Olin graduates will almost certainly have less engineering knowledge than their peers from other schools. Olin's model is not to cut open students' heads and pour in knowledge. Instead, it is to expose them to knowledge through experience while at the same time developing their skills of self-learing. You could consider each project to be a shotgun blast of buckshot hitting a wall. Each time you do a project, you hit certain bits of knowledge. Now, the trick is to design projects and courses so that you cover the fundamental knowledge.
It will be an intense four years, but I don't think it will be overkill.
You can't accredit a program until you have graduated a class from that program. Since no Olin student has graduated yet (& won't until 2006), the school cannot possibly have any accredited programs.
Any college that creates new degree programs will, until someone graduates from them, have unaccredited programs. It's not that big of a deal.
Yes, this is something of a disadvantage if you are looking to transfer, and it is something explained to all applicants. It isn't that your credits definitely won't transfer, just that the college to which you transfer is less likely to accept them.
Not really- there are many things that people (with the right tools) can do better than (current) robots, and in some cases these advantages make it worth the cost to send humans.
I do think that anything we're thinking about sending humans to needs to be adequately explored by robots first so that the humans aren't going "just take a look" but instead to explore or do research to answer a specific set of questions or objectives.
There is also something magical about sending people as explorers. While this isn't a real advantage, it's important enough that it should not be overlooked.
If we can't get our act together on Earth, we should die here.
Re:Unlike a space station it could be self suffici
on
China Plans Moonbase
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Not only is anything on the surface sheltered from micrometeors, anything on or in the moon is much less threatened by space debris in general (though this advantage is sort of negated by the inability to dodge the rare bits of debris).
Not really... how long would it take to explain _ALL_ the rules of football? Including those for how the field is marked and constructed and requirements for safety equipment.
Agreed with the above. Teams get what they want out of it. If they allow a sponsor to take over the program, it'll happen. If they want to get in their and build it themselves, it'll happen.
The very first thing on the FIRST website is "FIRST has an imperative, singular focus: to excite more young people about the accessibility, fun, and importance of science and engineering." It accomplishes that. The regional competitions are big productions, and the national competition is amazing. NO WHERE does it say that it's purpose is to educate, and we really should only criticize FIRST if it is failing to achieve it's objectives. if you don't agree with the objective, don't participate.
In my experience, my team decided education was one of our priorities. We build just about everything ourselves, and the engineers from the sponor company served as resources. They were there to answer questions, point out where we were going wrong (in six weeks, you don't have time to make too many mistakes), and occassionally contribute suggestions. This was the way our team worked, and in my opinion, it is the best way for a FIRST team to be structured. That said, it's only the way our team did it.
Yes, we were frustrated by some of the engineer-led teams. One team revolted us particularly. We were curious about their drive system, so we asked some students how they made it. They didn't know. We found the engineers, and they were able to tell us. Curious, we asked what the students had done. Response: "Oh, we let them try to attach some parts we made, but they made some mistakes, so we took it from there." At the competition, only two students and the engineers were allowed to even touch the robot. This does seem to be an extreme that is to be avoided, but the criticism should not be directed at FIRST, instead, at the engineers that captured the project and at the advisers and students that allowed it to happen.
For anyone interested in a very basic overview of the parts (possibly below the level of slashdot geeks...), Olin College created a tutorial for new teams at http://first.robotics.olin.edu. Right now, the college's connection seems to be overwhelemed; a mirror is at http://www.logicalrealism.org/first/. It also includes some of the systems discussed in the kickoff, namely the light-sensor tracker and a thrower.
Slashdot Mirror
Background- first year engineering student. I don't have one mostly because I find that I'm taking my laptop with me to meetings or other times when I would need the calendaring, contact list, or task list features. (I suppose that might make me a nerd). This is partly because it's just useful to have for taking notes, or a quick email followup to someone not at the meeting (actually, for getting people not at student government meetings to volunteer for tasks, IM is great), and partly b/c if the meeting's boring, I like to have something else to do (email, read news). For the times when I'm not carrying my laptop, it isn't that bad to just go and write something down or put a phone number in my cell phone. What would make me get a PDA is a decently priced ($450) PDA Phone with reasonable data input and battery life, as well as 802.11b support. It's getting close- there's the Smart phone (Kyocera, I think...), Audiovox Thera, and Tmobile Pocket PC phone edition, Handspring Treo, but there still isn't the "right" one. I need something that will replace my phone (with the same, or close to the same, talk and standby time and not too much bigger) and would mean that I don't have to carry my laptop around quite as much. I'm hoping they get there within a year, 18 months is probably more reasonable.
Student-faculty ratios don't tell the whole picture. In my opinion, it's better to have dynamic and interactive professors. The best professor I ever had was for a class of 100+! (And yes, I've had a small class of 5 students.)
I agree, and ours are. Trust me, I've work with them every day. They also watch movies with us and play basketball with us. The 10:1 ratio is nice, because we don't have to compete for their attention.
Too bad that Olin is skipping out on ChemE. It's a great way to jump-start into the bio-tech field.
How familiar are you with chemical engineering? ChemE is more closely related to industrial engineering. Dictionary.com definition: "The branch of engineering that deals with the technology of large-scale chemical production and the manufacture of products through chemical processes."
Under our Engineering Degree (which may end up being called Engineering & Applied Science), we may end up offering specializations, such as Biotech (we've received a donation towards a biotech program and have some outstanding faculty in that area) or Entrepreneurship & Technology. This is just discussion right now; I think we will go where student demand takes us.
It's also too bad that chemistry is not required at Olin. Chemistry is a fundamental science that is very relevant in many aspects of engineering and science. I've seen too many engineering students brush chemistry aside. It'll come back to bite you if you ever decide to go bio-tech.
We've found that the students we are accepting have had decent chem courses in high school, and that physics (we have two semesters of it in our first year) covers a decent amount of chem courses. With a MatSci course that may be a bit chem heavy for a MatSci course, we believe we can cover the chem we should. If you're right, we'll find out and adjust.
I understand your point- there are also some unaccredited programs that have no intention of seeking accreditation ever, so in the case of Olin, we're trying to indicate that we are seeking it, and right on track to get it. But yeah, getting accredited is important and it is important that students understand the risks they are taking. I hope and think we accomplish this at Olin; I understood the risks before I applied.
Sorry, should have explained that accreditation is retroactive. Considering that our school was created in part as an answer to calls from ABET, the NSF, and ASEE, and that the curriculum is being designed with the new ABET criteria in mind (which is easier as a new school than it is for some existing institutions), we shouldn't have trouble getting accredited shortly after we graduate. I'm not worried.
Olin is directly adjacent to Babson College, and close to Wellesley College. Olin is also gender-balanced.
Sorry if you thought I was trying to trick you. One, I actually think it's a pretty big thing, but then yes, I am a student there and that makes me biased.
If I wanted to trick you, I would have changed usernames. I'm smart enough to do that and know you're smart enough to figure out olin01 is probably someone from Olin.
Heh. I'm one of those people.
What actually happened:
30 students were at Olin this year. In a hotel for a bit, then in modular housing (nice modular housing, but I won't miss it). Well, except for the month we went to France to find out what we did and did not like about international experiences, when we stayed in ENSAM's dorms and worked with Georgia Tech Lorraine.
We worked with the faculty, staff, and administration to design the curriculum (which consisted of a lot of meetings and testing various pedagogies out) as well as student life programs (honor code, student government, clubs, etc). We worked in six four to five week modules. The first, third, fourth, and sixth modules were curriculum development, the second was community service development, and the fifth was the international experience. We also had some side projects, such as competing against upperclassmen & grad students in the NASA MarsPort competition and earning an outstanding in the ICM. Great group of people to work & live with, we got a lot done.
At the end of the week we become freshmen.
There are a few things Olin has done. One is the integration of sciences & math, and a project, where appropriate (this isn't a new idea, just a slightly different implementation than some other schools have done). In addition, math, science, and project courses are coordinated across the board.
This should work pretty well (in my opinion, but as many users have pointed out, I'm most definitely biased) for reducing the time learning some things will take. For example, your your physics homework and math homework could be the same, and the results of the homework could help you with the projects. Also, an engineering project can be adjusted to a product design project, including business skills as well as engineering skills and developing entreprenurial thinking.
There also was a trade-off. Olin graduates will almost certainly have less engineering knowledge than their peers from other schools. Olin's model is not to cut open students' heads and pour in knowledge. Instead, it is to expose them to knowledge through experience while at the same time developing their skills of self-learing. You could consider each project to be a shotgun blast of buckshot hitting a wall. Each time you do a project, you hit certain bits of knowledge. Now, the trick is to design projects and courses so that you cover the fundamental knowledge.
It will be an intense four years, but I don't think it will be overkill.
You can't accredit a program until you have graduated a class from that program. Since no Olin student has graduated yet (& won't until 2006), the school cannot possibly have any accredited programs. Any college that creates new degree programs will, until someone graduates from them, have unaccredited programs. It's not that big of a deal. Yes, this is something of a disadvantage if you are looking to transfer, and it is something explained to all applicants. It isn't that your credits definitely won't transfer, just that the college to which you transfer is less likely to accept them.
I'm a student there.... care a lot about the school, including getting our name out. At least I'm honest about from where the story is coming.
No- the US has not ratified the treaty banning mines, saying we need them in Korea and Cuba.
300 feet above ground level. Not 300 feet above sea level.
Not really- there are many things that people (with the right tools) can do better than (current) robots, and in some cases these advantages make it worth the cost to send humans. I do think that anything we're thinking about sending humans to needs to be adequately explored by robots first so that the humans aren't going "just take a look" but instead to explore or do research to answer a specific set of questions or objectives. There is also something magical about sending people as explorers. While this isn't a real advantage, it's important enough that it should not be overlooked.
If we can't get our act together on Earth, we should die here.
Not only is anything on the surface sheltered from micrometeors, anything on or in the moon is much less threatened by space debris in general (though this advantage is sort of negated by the inability to dodge the rare bits of debris).
Not really... how long would it take to explain _ALL_ the rules of football? Including those for how the field is marked and constructed and requirements for safety equipment.
Agreed with the above. Teams get what they want out of it. If they allow a sponsor to take over the program, it'll happen. If they want to get in their and build it themselves, it'll happen. The very first thing on the FIRST website is "FIRST has an imperative, singular focus: to excite more young people about the accessibility, fun, and importance of science and engineering." It accomplishes that. The regional competitions are big productions, and the national competition is amazing. NO WHERE does it say that it's purpose is to educate, and we really should only criticize FIRST if it is failing to achieve it's objectives. if you don't agree with the objective, don't participate. In my experience, my team decided education was one of our priorities. We build just about everything ourselves, and the engineers from the sponor company served as resources. They were there to answer questions, point out where we were going wrong (in six weeks, you don't have time to make too many mistakes), and occassionally contribute suggestions. This was the way our team worked, and in my opinion, it is the best way for a FIRST team to be structured. That said, it's only the way our team did it. Yes, we were frustrated by some of the engineer-led teams. One team revolted us particularly. We were curious about their drive system, so we asked some students how they made it. They didn't know. We found the engineers, and they were able to tell us. Curious, we asked what the students had done. Response: "Oh, we let them try to attach some parts we made, but they made some mistakes, so we took it from there." At the competition, only two students and the engineers were allowed to even touch the robot. This does seem to be an extreme that is to be avoided, but the criticism should not be directed at FIRST, instead, at the engineers that captured the project and at the advisers and students that allowed it to happen.
For anyone interested in a very basic overview of the parts (possibly below the level of slashdot geeks...), Olin College created a tutorial for new teams at http://first.robotics.olin.edu. Right now, the college's connection seems to be overwhelemed; a mirror is at http://www.logicalrealism.org/first/. It also includes some of the systems discussed in the kickoff, namely the light-sensor tracker and a thrower.