Well, one thing's for sure -- Engineer in a Box 2.0 will not likely come with the stupid arrogance that seems to be associated with a lot of engineers you encounter in the real world today.
I am a fairly recenet computer engineering grad myself, and I can say quite clearly that this situation with people graduation without a clue as to how the math relates to the real world stuff they are engineering certainly extended to my faculty.
I can recall working in groups in labs with some of the straight A students that, despite never having seen a resistor before, insisted that their way of wiring the circuit was correct, and I must be wrong. This, ofcourse, let to erroneous data, small electical fires, exploding electrolytic capacitors, etc. Still, these people are the straight A students, they know everything, and how dare I imply that the component fire had anything to do with them being incorrect.
I don't know if this is something new or not, but universities are graduating mechanical engineering students that are not mechanically inclined, electical engineering students that can't connect their (often regurgitated) equations to a physical, electic circuit. (Don't get me started about the anti-social Sociology people I know).
Engineering really is nothing without the mathematics, but what I find is that the unviversities seem to be doing a poor job tying this to real world applications -- making it an APPLIED science. What's worse is the Engineers Rule the World (ERTW) sentiment that seems to get pumpmed into the students so they just know when they graduate that they REALLY DO know everything, and how dare anyone without an engineering degree argue with them.
I can see Engineer in a Box 2.0 being a popular alternative to a real engineer in the future. At least the end user of this software will not have to put up with the stupid arrogance of the real many of its real life counterparts.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, one thing's for sure -- Engineer in a Box 2.0 will not likely come with the stupid arrogance that seems to be associated with a lot of engineers you encounter in the real world today.
I am a fairly recenet computer engineering grad myself, and I can say quite clearly that this situation with people graduation without a clue as to how the math relates to the real world stuff they are engineering certainly extended to my faculty.
I can recall working in groups in labs with some of the straight A students that, despite never having seen a resistor before, insisted that their way of wiring the circuit was correct, and I must be wrong. This, ofcourse, let to erroneous data, small electical fires, exploding electrolytic capacitors, etc. Still, these people are the straight A students, they know everything, and how dare I imply that the component fire had anything to do with them being incorrect.
I don't know if this is something new or not, but universities are graduating mechanical engineering students that are not mechanically inclined, electical engineering students that can't connect their (often regurgitated) equations to a physical, electic circuit. (Don't get me started about the anti-social Sociology people I know).
Engineering really is nothing without the mathematics, but what I find is that the unviversities seem to be doing a poor job tying this to real world applications -- making it an APPLIED science. What's worse is the Engineers Rule the World (ERTW) sentiment that seems to get pumpmed into the students so they just know when they graduate that they REALLY DO know everything, and how dare anyone without an engineering degree argue with them.
I can see Engineer in a Box 2.0 being a popular alternative to a real engineer in the future. At least the end user of this software will not have to put up with the stupid arrogance of the real many of its real life counterparts.