Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

50% of US engineering students drop out - Why?

dondodge.typepad.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–109 of 109 posts

Re: 50% of US engineering students drop out - Why?

#101

Post by rsheridan6 »

rms wrote: post #81
emmett wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biology is worthless as a major; as long as you take the pre-med requirements, they don't care what your major is. Granted, Biology requires a lot of the same classes, so it might be easier to be a bio major if you're already pre-med, but the biology degree itself isn't worth anything.

For the purpose of getting into med school, as long as you take the pre-med requirements, you are better off majoring in anything but biology.

That's news to me. It seems like majoring in anything else would be a waste of time because you would have to take more irrelevant classes.

Re: 50% of US engineering students drop out - Why?

#102

Post by aswanson »

potatolicious wrote: post #84
blader wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, if it's so easy to just go get an MBA and make awesome money, why don't all us engineers just go do it then? The belief there's some kind of massive inefficiency in the market that disproportionally rewards a bunch of frat-boy do-nothings at the expensive of us geeks reeks of a little sour grapes.

I'll actually be graduating soon from an engineering program, and myself and all of my classmates face the same issues. Some have been offered lucrative careers in tech, some in consulting, some in management, and some are considering MBAs. The answer? Because some of us actually like tech. There are two types of people who join engineering: those who have been doing it in some amateur form or another for years , and…

The answer? Because some of us actually like tech.

More than a wage commensurate with your intelligence? So much that you are willing to not only explore it on your own but solve any problem, no matter how mundane, that anyone places in front of you just because it's tech? For decades on end?

Rock on.

Re: 50% of US engineering students drop out - Why?

#103

Post by nazgulnarsil »

LogicHoleFlaw wrote: post #76
nazgulnarsil wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I slot accounting under finance. but yes. the reason those two B.S.s are useful is that there is ALWAYS work for book keepers and coders. any city, any time. Might not always be good work, but you'll always be in demand.

I'm a programmer writing accounting software... not always exciting work but there's no shortage of work to be done.

handling software for accountants is probably the holy grail of "can't be fired".

Re: 50% of US engineering students drop out - Why?

#104

Post by jhancock »

carterschonwald wrote: post #67
jhancock wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many aspects to consider in the differences in drop-out rates. One is that not all engineering programs are the same. MIT's education is very different than RPI's or Georgia Tech's (I'm went to GT). The RPI or GT style is more like 5 years of boot camp (yes, its really a 5 years program, another problem to consider when comparing against a management degree). Its a non-stop grind of 6 classes at a time with…

what types of students would you consider better suited to each type of environment? [edit] Also, what manner of 6 classes every semester courseloads are we talking about? Because some 6 course combos are easily manageable whereas I've seen other combos only a person who can score a perfect on the putnam exam while drunk could manage comfortably.

I went to Georgia Tech because I lived in Georgia and if was going to college at all it had to be in state at a public school. I think cost factors trump most other considerations for the bulk of people making college decisions.

When I was at GT (late 80s) we were on the quarter system, they've since changed to semesters. If you wanted to finish a BSEE in 4 years, you needed to take 7 or 8 classes a quarter. 6 was a common load and hence the average time to graduate was 5 years. There were no "crib" courses. Every class made you work for your grade; every one. If you had a bad week, your grades would suffer as there were tests and graded assignments every single week. I was told when I was there that there had not been an EE student in anyone's memory that finished with a 4.0 GPA. Even the most gifted student with perfect study skills would eventually get taken down a notch.

Most all classes were graded on a bell curve. Even in your junior or senior year, you were reminded by professors that 40% of the class would repeat the course.

Schools like GT have a social obligation to take on more than they can handle. That means doing more (more students) with less (less faculty, less support structure). That said, I think they do a great job.

If they had more funds to provide students with more tutors and more private scholarship money to allow students forgiveness if they needed to take a quarter off to rest, the graduation rates might improve. Keep in mind that most students at a school like GT are at least half operating off state and federal support funds. These systems do what they can, but are unforgiving if you need to take a break or require some other support like a tutor.

I'm a proud alum. I support my school scholarship funds through alumni channels. I think if people want to see things improve, look at schools that are working hard and doing things right and throw more money at them; they always need it.

Re: 50% of US engineering students drop out - Why?

#105

Post by Elepsis »

jhancock wrote: post #104
carterschonwald wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what types of students would you consider better suited to each type of environment? [edit] Also, what manner of 6 classes every semester courseloads are we talking about? Because some 6 course combos are easily manageable whereas I've seen other combos only a person who can score a perfect on the putnam exam while drunk could manage comfortably.

I went to Georgia Tech because I lived in Georgia and if was going to college at all it had to be in state at a public school. I think cost factors trump most other considerations for the bulk of people making college decisions. When I was at GT (late 80s) we were on the quarter system, they've since changed to semesters. If you wanted to finish a BSEE in 4 years, you needed to take 7 or 8 classes a quarter. 6 was a…

I should note that things at Georgia Tech today are not quite so dire as jhancock describes them being. Yes, classes are still quite hard and you still have to take a lot of painful ones to get through (often simultaneously, especially if you want to pursue other opportunities like research, internships and co-op).

But in my 5+ years at GT I've never felt a lack of support made available to me. TAs, professors, tutors (in some cases) and other resources have always been pretty readily available. Most of all, the "fight the shaft" perspective means students are generally willing to help eachother out and work together.

Far fewer classes are graded on a bell curve, too, though the average GPA at Tech remains around a 2.7 or 2.8 and it really is uncommon for people in the harder majors to graduate with a 4.0.

That's not to say that the Institute can't use more resources to do a better job than it is currently doing. But for better or worse, GT is no longer the throw you in the pool and see if you manage to swim school it once was.

Re: 50% of US engineering students drop out - Why?

#106

Post by jhancock »

Elepsis wrote: post #105
jhancock wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went to Georgia Tech because I lived in Georgia and if was going to college at all it had to be in state at a public school. I think cost factors trump most other considerations for the bulk of people making college decisions. When I was at GT (late 80s) we were on the quarter system, they've since changed to semesters. If you wanted to finish a BSEE in 4 years, you needed to take 7 or 8 classes a quarter. 6 was a…

I should note that things at Georgia Tech today are not quite so dire as jhancock describes them being. Yes, classes are still quite hard and you still have to take a lot of painful ones to get through (often simultaneously, especially if you want to pursue other opportunities like research, internships and co-op). But in my 5+ years at GT I've never felt a lack of support made available to me. TAs, professors, tutor…

Very happy to hear your report. I was told that switching to semesters was an attempt to deal with the fast pace we always felt under the quarter system.

It really was a great education and the pains we experienced did bond the students in natural support groups. I have several life long friends from that journey. Other than going to UGA and having more access to women, I wouldn't have done it any other way ;).

Re: 50% of US engineering students drop out - Why?

#107

Post by bcostlow »

Alex3917 wrote: post #92
bcostlow wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A direct quote from that result: "The AP and IB courses, while including some of the best education in the subject currently available at the secondary level, tend in general to be out of date, too broad, and too inflexible in their curricula." So the argument the NRC is making is that the AP curriculum needs to be improved, but is currently some of the best available. In addition, the curriculum is being overhauled.…

So what exactly is the problem with advocating increasing AB and IBO students when, even though there are problems, it's currently some of the best education available, and an overhaul to bring it in line with the NRC/NSF recommendations is underway? First, "including some of the best education currently available" != "currently some of the best education available." What the report is actually saying is that a few c…

I did read it. The AP gets it rougher than the IBO. But maybe I'm not used to reading Academic-ese, because it didn't seem to me that they were taking a complete shit on the AP.

In any event, I don't disagree that the AP and IBO need work, I just haven't seen a proposal for what we should be doing instead.

(Maybe if those people learned to say what they mean directly, the non-academic advocates of school reform would have an easier time sorting things out.)

A lot of the AP course problems seemed to stem from the 'teach to the test' mentality, which occurs because college admissions and school rating agencies use the test results in ways the Collge Board/AP did not intend, so schools and teachers are rewarded by gaming the system.

In that respect, almost everything bad you can say about the AP or IBO courses can be said about regular classes thanks to NCLB. At least where my children attend high school, about 2/3 of all classes suffer from the same issues as AP classes, due to the need to put the kids through the state testing grinder.

In that context, the difference between the two is that the AP classes, at least in math and science, while far from ideal, do expose the students to more advanced concepts than they would encounter otherwise.

So, given the choice between AP classes, and non-AP classes that have the same fundamental problems except the course material is easier, what would you do?

I expect your answer is neither, and you would propose something else? Do you have pointers to that info? I really am curious.

Re: 50% of US engineering students drop out - Why?

#108

Post by emmett »

rsheridan6 wrote: post #101
rms wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the purpose of getting into med school, as long as you take the pre-med requirements, you are better off majoring in anything but biology.

That's news to me. It seems like majoring in anything else would be a waste of time because you would have to take more irrelevant classes.

Taking more irrelevant classes is probably harder (as I said), but because it's harder it is also more impressive and thus looks better on your resume (as rms said).

Re: 50% of US engineering students drop out - Why?

#109

Post by Alex3917 »

bcostlow wrote: post #107
Alex3917 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what exactly is the problem with advocating increasing AB and IBO students when, even though there are problems, it's currently some of the best education available, and an overhaul to bring it in line with the NRC/NSF recommendations is underway? First, "including some of the best education currently available" != "currently some of the best education available." What the report is actually saying is that a few c…

I did read it. The AP gets it rougher than the IBO. But maybe I'm not used to reading Academic-ese, because it didn't seem to me that they were taking a complete shit on the AP. In any event, I don't disagree that the AP and IBO need work, I just haven't seen a proposal for what we should be doing instead. (Maybe if those people learned to say what they mean directly, the non-academic advocates of school reform would…

I don't really have any specific recommendations beyond what's in the Kohn book I referenced. (I don't endorse everything in that book, but it's a good starting place because it at least asks the right questions.)
Post reply on HN