Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's supposed to be challenging

Of course it is. And these are students who have excelled in HS in: AP Physics C, AP Chem, AP Calc BC w/top grades. and tippy top math SAT.

Why TRY to weed them out?

This.

Soul-crushing is different from requiring diligence, hard work, and intelligence. People are not objecting to the latter 3.

I’m not convinced this is actually happening.

That's fine. Opinions on DCUM always vary. It also means this thread is not really intended for you.

OK, thread police. :lol:

I attended a rigorous engineering school myself and this just doesn't ring true. It seems like a narrative built on feelings over facts.

Another engineer here and I agree. So much drama with engineering here. I don't get it but whatever.

Because life is hard and we don't want it to be that hard for our kids.

Engineering is hard. It’s not for everyone. Don’t push your kid into a field that isn’t suitable for them.

Engineering programs ought not accept / admit students who can't do the work.

It is silly that 67% is a common graduation rate for engineering programs (per ABET stats online).

Why is it silly?

Very top engineering programs (MIT) have 90+% graduation rates. Some mid-tier engineering programs have 90+% graduation rates. The common factor is those programs only admit students who are capable of doing the work.

Why admit someone who can't succeed?

Why load them with student loan debt they can't repay?

Why set someone up to fail?

Why design any college program with a goal of failing out 33% of the students when by proper admissions filtering that isn't needed?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's supposed to be challenging

Of course it is. And these are students who have excelled in HS in: AP Physics C, AP Chem, AP Calc BC w/top grades. and tippy top math SAT.

Why TRY to weed them out?

This.

Soul-crushing is different from requiring diligence, hard work, and intelligence. People are not objecting to the latter 3.

I’m not convinced this is actually happening.

That's fine. Opinions on DCUM always vary. It also means this thread is not really intended for you.

OK, thread police. :lol:

I attended a rigorous engineering school myself and this just doesn't ring true. It seems like a narrative built on feelings over facts.

Another engineer here and I agree. So much drama with engineering here. I don't get it but whatever.

Because life is hard and we don't want it to be that hard for our kids.

Engineering is hard. It’s not for everyone. Don’t push your kid into a field that isn’t suitable for them.

Engineering programs ought not accept / admit students who can't do the work.

It is silly that 67% is a common graduation rate for engineering programs (per ABET stats online).

Why is it silly?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's supposed to be challenging

Of course it is. And these are students who have excelled in HS in: AP Physics C, AP Chem, AP Calc BC w/top grades. and tippy top math SAT.

Why TRY to weed them out?

This.

Soul-crushing is different from requiring diligence, hard work, and intelligence. People are not objecting to the latter 3.

I’m not convinced this is actually happening.

That's fine. Opinions on DCUM always vary. It also means this thread is not really intended for you.

OK, thread police. :lol:

I attended a rigorous engineering school myself and this just doesn't ring true. It seems like a narrative built on feelings over facts.

Another engineer here and I agree. So much drama with engineering here. I don't get it but whatever.

Because life is hard and we don't want it to be that hard for our kids.

Engineering is hard. It’s not for everyone. Don’t push your kid into a field that isn’t suitable for them.

Engineering programs ought not accept / admit students who can't do the work.

It is silly that 67% is a common graduation rate for engineering programs (per ABET stats online).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's supposed to be challenging

Of course it is. And these are students who have excelled in HS in: AP Physics C, AP Chem, AP Calc BC w/top grades. and tippy top math SAT.

Why TRY to weed them out?

This.

Soul-crushing is different from requiring diligence, hard work, and intelligence. People are not objecting to the latter 3.

I’m not convinced this is actually happening.

That's fine. Opinions on DCUM always vary. It also means this thread is not really intended for you.

OK, thread police. :lol:

I attended a rigorous engineering school myself and this just doesn't ring true. It seems like a narrative built on feelings over facts.

Another engineer here and I agree. So much drama with engineering here. I don't get it but whatever.

Because life is hard and we don't want it to be that hard for our kids.

Engineering is hard. It’s not for everyone. Don’t push your kid into a field that isn’t suitable for them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's supposed to be challenging

Of course it is. And these are students who have excelled in HS in: AP Physics C, AP Chem, AP Calc BC w/top grades. and tippy top math SAT.

Why TRY to weed them out?

This.

Soul-crushing is different from requiring diligence, hard work, and intelligence. People are not objecting to the latter 3.

I’m not convinced this is actually happening.

That's fine. Opinions on DCUM always vary. It also means this thread is not really intended for you.

OK, thread police.

I attended a rigorous engineering school myself and this just doesn't ring true. It seems like a narrative built on feelings over facts.

Another engineer here and I agree. So much drama with engineering here. I don't get it but whatever.

Because life is hard and we don't want it to be that hard for our kids.

Life is hard no matter what you do or trying to control for your kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's supposed to be challenging

Of course it is. And these are students who have excelled in HS in: AP Physics C, AP Chem, AP Calc BC w/top grades. and tippy top math SAT.

Why TRY to weed them out?

This.

Soul-crushing is different from requiring diligence, hard work, and intelligence. People are not objecting to the latter 3.

I’m not convinced this is actually happening.

That's fine. Opinions on DCUM always vary. It also means this thread is not really intended for you.

OK, thread police.

I attended a rigorous engineering school myself and this just doesn't ring true. It seems like a narrative built on feelings over facts.

Another engineer here and I agree. So much drama with engineering here. I don't get it but whatever.

Because life is hard and we don't want it to be that hard for our kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's supposed to be challenging

Of course it is. And these are students who have excelled in HS in: AP Physics C, AP Chem, AP Calc BC w/top grades. and tippy top math SAT.

Why TRY to weed them out?

This.

Soul-crushing is different from requiring diligence, hard work, and intelligence. People are not objecting to the latter 3.

I’m not convinced this is actually happening. Which schools are trying to have kids fail out?

Engineering naturally weeds out the kids who are less prepared and/or less apt at engineering/problem solving. It’s a kid issue not a school issue.

+1
This thread is bizarre. There are certain things you have to learn in engineering. You have to be suited for it. Med school is difficult too - should we expect these students to just be coddled along and handed a degree? Of course not. Choose another field if it’s too hard for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's supposed to be challenging

Of course it is. And these are students who have excelled in HS in: AP Physics C, AP Chem, AP Calc BC w/top grades. and tippy top math SAT.

Why TRY to weed them out?

This.

Soul-crushing is different from requiring diligence, hard work, and intelligence. People are not objecting to the latter 3.

I’m not convinced this is actually happening.

That's fine. Opinions on DCUM always vary. It also means this thread is not really intended for you.

OK, thread police.

I attended a rigorous engineering school myself and this just doesn't ring true. It seems like a narrative built on feelings over facts.

Another engineer here and I agree. So much drama with engineering here. I don't get it but whatever.

Anonymous wrote:My kid is debating between Clemson, South Carolina and Penn State at the moment. Still needs to hear back from a handful of schools, but these are current top contenders. Any feedback on these programs? Looking for balance between social life dnd academic rigor. Also wants sports and Greek life. We will be visiting all in February

Clemson - good engineering program. lots of opportunities for internships and jobs in nearby auto and mfg engineering.

Penn State, I would avoid. bad weather, over saturated classes and very stiff and limited chances for jobs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's supposed to be challenging

Of course it is. And these are students who have excelled in HS in: AP Physics C, AP Chem, AP Calc BC w/top grades. and tippy top math SAT.

Why TRY to weed them out?

This.

Soul-crushing is different from requiring diligence, hard work, and intelligence. People are not objecting to the latter 3.

I’m not convinced this is actually happening.

That's fine. Opinions on DCUM always vary. It also means this thread is not really intended for you.

OK, thread police.

I attended a rigorous engineering school myself and this just doesn't ring true. It seems like a narrative built on feelings over facts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's supposed to be challenging

Of course it is. And these are students who have excelled in HS in: AP Physics C, AP Chem, AP Calc BC w/top grades. and tippy top math SAT.

Why TRY to weed them out?

This.

Soul-crushing is different from requiring diligence, hard work, and intelligence. People are not objecting to the latter 3.

I’m not convinced this is actually happening.

That's fine. Opinions on DCUM always vary. It also means this thread is not really intended for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's supposed to be challenging

Of course it is. And these are students who have excelled in HS in: AP Physics C, AP Chem, AP Calc BC w/top grades. and tippy top math SAT.

Why TRY to weed them out?

This.

Soul-crushing is different from requiring diligence, hard work, and intelligence. People are not objecting to the latter 3.

I’m not convinced this is actually happening. Which schools are trying to have kids fail out?

Engineering naturally weeds out the kids who are less prepared and/or less apt at engineering/problem solving. It’s a kid issue not a school issue.

UF.

My coworkers had a good college life and went to athletic events.

Civil and Structural Engineering

My kid is debating between Clemson, South Carolina and Penn State at the moment. Still needs to hear back from a handful of schools, but these are current top contenders. Any feedback on these programs? Looking for balance between social life dnd academic rigor. Also wants sports and Greek life. We will be visiting all in February

Anonymous wrote:

It's supposed to be challenging

Of course it is. And these are students who have excelled in HS in: AP Physics C, AP Chem, AP Calc BC w/top grades. and tippy top math SAT.

Why TRY to weed them out?

This.

Soul-crushing is different from requiring diligence, hard work, and intelligence. People are not objecting to the latter 3.