Seeking clarification of academic rigor at engineering colleges

[Anonymous]

My first week in E School, the Dean spoke to all the incoming E School students. He approximately said:

"Every one of you is fully capable of graduating. We filter our acceptances carefully to avoid giving false hope. Engineering is hard for everyone. Use faculty office hours to get help. Start homework when it is assigned, not the night before it is due."

It was good advice and that E school did have a 4-yr graduation rate above 90%.

HS friend who instead went to VT got the "look left and right, only 1 of you will graduate in engineering in 4 years" speech. He graduated on time from VT, but it was not in Engineering. Last I heard, he worked part time nights as a security guard and evenings as staff at a math tutoring center.

[Anonymous]

I remember many engineering courses where 50% correct was an A and 30% right was passing. All the courses were graded on a curve - and the average grade was curved to a 2.7. I also remember two courses where one could not get any partial credit on a test question. Professor said that attention to detail mattered at work, so he did not believe in partial credit.

My randomly assigned freshman roommate accidentally got a BA in History. Last I knew, he was a sales clerk selling shoes at a department store.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My first week in E School, the Dean spoke to all the incoming E School students. He approximately said:

"Every one of you is fully capable of graduating. We filter our acceptances carefully to avoid giving false hope. Engineering is hard for everyone. Use faculty office hours to get help. Start homework when it is assigned, not the night before it is due."

It was good advice and that E school did have a 4-yr graduation rate above 90%.

HS friend who instead went to VT got the "look left and right, only 1 of you will graduate in engineering in 4 years" speech. He graduated on time from VT, but it was not in Engineering. Last I heard, he worked part time nights as a security guard and evenings as staff at a math tutoring center.

All of the elite E schools --Mit, Caltech, ivies, Stanford, and a few more have 95% or even higher who finish a degree in Engineering. Which is excellent! Kid is at one and the support is very strong, and they are all repeatedly told the only accept those who can succeed.. however, getting accepted is the difficulty! It would be nice to know schools in the next tier down that do not have 1/3 or more drop Engineering or not make the GPA cut into the major.

[Anonymous]

I think the point about undergrad vs. grad focus for a program is important. There are E schools that are more undergrad focused and those that cater more to grad students. You'll want to assess how much interest professors take in undergrads and how available things like undergrad research opportunities are in practice not just on the website.

If you can, get in some visits at different sized schools before the application process gets rolling. There will be less pressure to make the list and your child can start getting a sense of what looks compelling and what doesn't. I was able to do this, and, although I thought my parents were nuts at the time, I entered the college search with some very clear ideas about what was going to work for me and what wasn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:another thing is that some schools really try to weed out the engineering majors. IMO this is not necessary. if you choose a school that is known for weeding out, then it is going to be a tough time.

True, but if you make it through a weed-out program, then you are among the best. Employers know this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have started to enter into the college admissions process. My DS is a sophomore and is very much interested in studying engineering in college. I know we are a little far from applying to colleges, but in my family, we believe in research and in making well-thought-out decisions about academic, social, and financial fit. I would appreciate some clarification about the rigor, selectivity, job prospects, reputation, etc., of engineering colleges.

Through our preliminary research, we came to know many engineering colleges, both private and public, offer various levels of academic rigor. A little background: I came to know about Harvey Mudd when my co-worker told me her son chose Mudd over Caltech. That piqued my interest in learning more about it. Last year, another student I came across in our school chose Mudd over CMU and Rice.

I have looked at more than 20-30 posts here at DC Urban for unbiased discussions, and whenever anyone speaks about Harvey Mudd, they seem to always add a disclaimer, “it is HARD,” “a pressure cooker,” or “it’s very tough to graduate…”

But at the same time, when talking about top colleges for STEM, names like Caltech, MIT, and CMU are suggested without any such disclaimer. They are also HARD, I believe. Are the students at Harvey Mudd not as meritorious (as other well-known colleges) in handling the rigor?

I understand that It is not a household name, but I know it’s very well-known in the STEM world. Then, why does Harvey Mudd carry such a disclaimer along with its name? Why is Harvey Mudd’s academic rigor emphasized so much when all the top STEM colleges have similar academic rigor?

The bolded is quite obnoxious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s just people not very well acquainted with Mudd. Some engineering students end up falling flat on their face in physics classes and have to take Pomona physics classes, which have better profs/more support, to pass.

This is strange. Do you mean that a prestigious STEM college doesn't have better profs than Pomona? Physics is hard, but that is not a prof's fault if the student is finding it hard. As far as I know, one of Mudd's physics prof is a visiting faculty at Caltech. ALL of Mudd's faculty have a PhD from a prestigious institution, and to be a faculty at Harvey Mudd, one needs to teach extremely well.

Read between the lines a bit - Pomona has easier physics courses

DD attends Pomona as a math major and hates taking classes at Mudd. It’s not that the classes are harder, because the content is more difficult; the professors at Mudd suck and are eager to mark down than up- this is great for students who don’t need high scores since they’ll be going to Google or Apple, but DD wishes to go to grad school and Mudd profs are really unhelpful.

Mudd students struggle just as hard in Pomona math courses as Pomona students.

This follows with what I noticed with my own kids. DS went to Williams and worked much harder than DD, and is now at a top grad school for math, but DD’s grades were pitiful coming from an engineering school, and I’m not convinced that it was that “she’s not smart enough.” The engineering profs breed a culture of bullies and there’s a strange desire to show how rigorous you are when it doesn’t actually make for better students or researchers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s just people not very well acquainted with Mudd. Some engineering students end up falling flat on their face in physics classes and have to take Pomona physics classes, which have better profs/more support, to pass.

This is strange. Do you mean that a prestigious STEM college doesn't have better profs than Pomona? Physics is hard, but that is not a prof's fault if the student is finding it hard. As far as I know, one of Mudd's physics prof is a visiting faculty at Caltech. ALL of Mudd's faculty have a PhD from a prestigious institution, and to be a faculty at Harvey Mudd, one needs to teach extremely well.

Read between the lines a bit - Pomona has easier physics courses

DD attends Pomona as a math major and hates taking classes at Mudd. It’s not that the classes are harder, because the content is more difficult; the professors at Mudd suck and are eager to mark down than up- this is great for students who don’t need high scores since they’ll be going to Google or Apple, but DD wishes to go to grad school and Mudd profs are really unhelpful.

Mudd students struggle just as hard in Pomona math courses as Pomona students.

This follows with what I noticed with my own kids. DS went to Williams and worked much harder than DD, and is now at a top grad school for math, but DD’s grades were pitiful coming from an engineering school, and I’m not convinced that it was that “she’s not smart enough.” The engineering profs breed a culture of bullies and there’s a strange desire to show how rigorous you are when it doesn’t actually make for better students or researchers.

You solved your own mystery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:another thing is that some schools really try to weed out the engineering majors. IMO this is not necessary. if you choose a school that is known for weeding out, then it is going to be a tough time.

True, but if you make it through a weed-out program, then you are among the best. Employers know this.

Engineering is a licensed profession wth low-variane in careers. Employers don't care. They just need people to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:another thing is that some schools really try to weed out the engineering majors. IMO this is not necessary. if you choose a school that is known for weeding out, then it is going to be a tough time.

True, but if you make it through a weed-out program, then you are among the best. Employers know this.

It's a lazy approach. Instead of teaching students, you select for those who already knew the content before arriving or who can self teach. You end up with students who graduate knowing less, with worse collaboration skills, and with weaker problem solving chops than those from a program with a focus on teaching.

Sure, every program has a few kids who aren't a good fit, but admissions should select kids who have the chops to succeed. Then the program needs to actually team them. Offer solid problem sets. Have strong lecturers. Have really good TAs who can explain things in office hours. Have a culture of study groups where students teach each other. Have design-based engineering classes where students solve real problems.

[Anonymous]

I have a niece who goes to Caltech. I have known her explaining that even though many profs are well-known, they are really not good teachers. She says all students have to learn the material on their own. Profs come to class, teach, and leave. The TAs are there but are not experienced enough to teach the material clearly. I asked her if she would choose Caltech if given a chance. She clearly said no. For grad school, maybe yes, but certainly not for undergrad.

This was eye-opening for me. They are 18 or 20, and no matter how brilliant they are, these kids need excellent teaching from the profs. This is the age when students learn the material to make a solid foundation in STEM.

Imagine if the chief engineers and their team are not completely involved in the construction of the foundation of a building, and the ground workers are left on their own! No matter how high the building is, it is surely not a strong one.