Engineering schools that won’t crush my child’s soul

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Major tech companies are not just recruiting at top 3 publics. Most big tech companies also are recruiting at these regional public engineering programs like GMU, UMCP, UMBC, UVA, VCU, and VT.

I am sure they also recruit at other publics, but I know it is true for those publics.

Pushing "top ranked" is a DCUM thing across this forum. It is not reality for engineering degrees. ABET sets a high floor and most employers know this. A more supportive engineering program without the weed out classes also meets the standards and is NOT usually lower quality.

+1

Calc 1/2/3/4 and Physics 1/2 all cover the same material. If it's ABET accredited program, you will do well.

In reality, attending a school that is collaborative and whose goal is not to "weed out 40%" is much better IMO. Yes there will always be "weed outs" as the courses are difficult and some kids might realize "heck, engineering is not for me". But there is a difference between 50%+ flunk out and 25% do and also huge difference between the "average on a Chem 101 exam is 65/70 versus 30%".

People might want to look at the ASEE.org web site curves on average graduation rates with an engineering degree of students who start in engineering.

25% drop out would be 75% graduate with an engineering degree.

That's slightly better than average, but OP likely wants a program where that graduation rate percentage is 90% or higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"crush my child's soul" sounds awfully dramatic... engineering is hard but if your kid is reasonably smart and works hard, nothing will get crushed.

- engineer

Not op and I see what you mean but the fact is some kids do find it soul crushing, not because it’s so hard (though it’s pretty hard) but because the atmosphere isn’t for the or they personally don’t want to “grind it out” even if they are intellectually perfectly capable to do it.

Just look at the rash of suicides at wpi!

It’s not a bad thing to consider school culture and how your particular kid will like it (even if some other nice and smart kids feel differently about the place.)

[Anonymous]

"https://www.collegeevaluator.com/rankings/electrical-electronic-communications-engineering/graduation-rate/"

Above website lets one see graduation rates for various engineering degrees at well known engineering schools. Unfortunately not all universities seem to be available. Might be useful for some.

[Anonymous]

UF

I worked with Civil and Structural Engineers who were UF grads. Their souls were not crushed. They enjoyed their time at UF and had school spirit.

[Anonymous]

Purdue and Cornell fall in the 'crush the soul and happiness category' due to coursework, grading and weather.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Several threads discuss engineering schools that are hard to just survive. Some hint that there are alternatives

Could you list these alternatives?

Short background: my HS sophomore has great grades and tests well at a difficult school and has a general interest in engineering. But I don’t want him to drift into a situation where his soul could be crushed without choosing that.

Are there schools we could choose with engineering majors where you just learn how to do it without the excessive pressure and stress?

Crush the soul? Are their souls made with glass? Why do you have to worry? Is it you who is going to school? Or your dear child who can’t be and refused to be challenged?

As a prof, I am so shocked how protective today s parents are.

[Anonymous]

Hi professor.

I feel bad that you don’t get what this thread is about.

A lot of parents are still teaching their kids what to care about and look out for, what to weigh and balance as they enter adulthood. And I hope most of us recognize that if we offer suggestions to our children they often don’t have the independent knowledge to challenge what we tell them, go “do their own research,” or have some Jedi-esque passion well up in them to direct their lives.


Are you, or we, or society, interested in have our kids gain the skills to make a livelihood within? Are we sending them to compete in their profession as if it were a varsity sport? Are we sending them to a gatekeeping guild to be hazed and judged worthy? Are we sending them to be taught to think in ways that they have not considered before?

I believe it is all of these things, at various levels, and people can disagree about which is a priority.

I would hope not to have my children taught by someone who thinks pedagogy is a primarily about making life difficult for adolescents and seeing how they respond.

Basically, I can understand how a proud professional from a given field would have a hard time separating hazing would-be new entrants in their field from best practices in actual education. But since that’s not the right approach, I’m going to look out for me and mine.

Good luck as an educator and professional in your field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hi professor.

I feel bad that you don’t get what this thread is about.

A lot of parents are still teaching their kids what to care about and look out for, what to weigh and balance as they enter adulthood. And I hope most of us recognize that if we offer suggestions to our children they often don’t have the independent knowledge to challenge what we tell them, go “do their own research,” or have some Jedi-esque passion well up in them to direct their lives.


Are you, or we, or society, interested in have our kids gain the skills to make a livelihood within? Are we sending them to compete in their profession as if it were a varsity sport? Are we sending them to a gatekeeping guild to be hazed and judged worthy? Are we sending them to be taught to think in ways that they have not considered before?

I believe it is all of these things, at various levels, and people can disagree about which is a priority.

I would hope not to have my children taught by someone who thinks pedagogy is a primarily about making life difficult for adolescents and seeing how they respond.

Basically, I can understand how a proud professional from a given field would have a hard time separating hazing would-be new entrants in their field from best practices in actual education. But since that’s not the right approach, I’m going to look out for me and mine.

Good luck as an educator and professional in your field.

But any learning involves receiving negative feedback! And being in a peer group that is stronger the oneself doesn’t mean unhealthy competition. I always think being surrounded by driven peers is one of the best things can happen in college! So many American kids these days are so easy to be crushed by any negative feedback and peer pressure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Several threads discuss engineering schools that are hard to just survive. Some hint that there are alternatives

Could you list these alternatives?

Short background: my HS sophomore has great grades and tests well at a difficult school and has a general interest in engineering. But I don’t want him to drift into a situation where his soul could be crushed without choosing that.

Are there schools we could choose with engineering majors where you just learn how to do it without the excessive pressure and stress?

Crush the soul? Are their souls made with glass? Why do you have to worry? Is it you who is going to school? Or your dear child who can’t be and refused to be challenged?

As a prof, I am so shocked how protective today s parents are.

Agree

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi professor.

I feel bad that you don’t get what this thread is about.

A lot of parents are still teaching their kids what to care about and look out for, what to weigh and balance as they enter adulthood. And I hope most of us recognize that if we offer suggestions to our children they often don’t have the independent knowledge to challenge what we tell them, go “do their own research,” or have some Jedi-esque passion well up in them to direct their lives.


Are you, or we, or society, interested in have our kids gain the skills to make a livelihood within? Are we sending them to compete in their profession as if it were a varsity sport? Are we sending them to a gatekeeping guild to be hazed and judged worthy? Are we sending them to be taught to think in ways that they have not considered before?

I believe it is all of these things, at various levels, and people can disagree about which is a priority.

I would hope not to have my children taught by someone who thinks pedagogy is a primarily about making life difficult for adolescents and seeing how they respond.

Basically, I can understand how a proud professional from a given field would have a hard time separating hazing would-be new entrants in their field from best practices in actual education. But since that’s not the right approach, I’m going to look out for me and mine.

Good luck as an educator and professional in your field.

But any learning involves receiving negative feedback! And being in a peer group that is stronger the oneself doesn’t mean unhealthy competition. I always think being surrounded by driven peers is one of the best things can happen in college! So many American kids these days are so easy to be crushed by any negative feedback and peer pressure.

Precisely this. Students grow when they are surrounded by similar level peers including peers that are stronger, and professors that push tehm, with difficult exam or pset Q that go well beyond the course content, leading to medians of 70% correct due to many questions being potentially unanswerable. Collaboration and innovation are fostered this way. Yes, there is competition with curves however at the most competitive-entry schools with the highest percentage of top peers, there is no real weed out: fewer than 20% of typical freshman classes receive Cs or below and there are plenty of supports if that happens.

[Anonymous]

How do you find the graduation rate for engineering by school? I looked at the ASEE website and could not find this info.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hi professor.

I feel bad that you don’t get what this thread is about.

A lot of parents are still teaching their kids what to care about and look out for, what to weigh and balance as they enter adulthood. And I hope most of us recognize that if we offer suggestions to our children they often don’t have the independent knowledge to challenge what we tell them, go “do their own research,” or have some Jedi-esque passion well up in them to direct their lives.


Are you, or we, or society, interested in have our kids gain the skills to make a livelihood within? Are we sending them to compete in their profession as if it were a varsity sport? Are we sending them to a gatekeeping guild to be hazed and judged worthy? Are we sending them to be taught to think in ways that they have not considered before?

I believe it is all of these things, at various levels, and people can disagree about which is a priority.

I would hope not to have my children taught by someone who thinks pedagogy is a primarily about making life difficult for adolescents and seeing how they respond.

Basically, I can understand how a proud professional from a given field would have a hard time separating hazing would-be new entrants in their field from best practices in actual education. But since that’s not the right approach, I’m going to look out for me and mine.

Good luck as an educator and professional in your field.

You are sending them to learn how to deal with the inevitable competition that will face them in the job market, or phd/grad admissions. It is not hazing to have tough courses and assign C's to those who are barely mastering the material.
It is a bigger problem for easier-admission schools to accept a student into the school of engineering and then have 30-40% of the students unable to master the first-year calc/physics material at a 3.0GPA cutoff to get into the major. That is not gate-keeping, it is poor admissions that are not assessing the skills of the applicants correctly, due to high school grade inflation as well as test-optional, as well as having to fill seats! Some of the less-popular engineering schools with over 60% admission yet under 25% yield have had to admit more at a lower bar just to get seats filled. The DCUM view that these schools are somehow less toxic because they do not have the cut-throat reputation of T20 is patently false when a large portion are unable to make the GPA to get the degree. Admission does not care if they are forced out of engineering into an easier major.

Better for you as a parent to accurately help your student figure out in high school if he or she has the raw math, physics, and chem competence to pursue engineering in the first place, rather than look for a perceived easier-entry school that is magically not going to be difficult coursework.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Purdue and Cornell fall in the 'crush the soul and happiness category' due to coursework, grading and weather.

and overly competitive structure of FYE for majors after first year.

[Anonymous]

DC is working hard at, yet enjoying, their engineering program at Lehigh. School retention rate is quite high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Purdue and Cornell fall in the 'crush the soul and happiness category' due to coursework, grading and weather.

Doesn’t every engineering program? I think there are certain sunsets of engineering that are less soul crushing: environmental, civil, biomedical..

But electrical and mechanical engineering are going to to be extremely hard and require a ton of work at any accredited engineering school