Why Students Leave The Engineering Track

[curlycool89]

The problem is that many American students leave after obtaining their bachelors rather than pursue a doctorate.

A classmate of mine graduated with a 4.0 with a double major in EE and Physics. She was going to go on to graduate school but was offered an appealing job with Boeing earning upwards of 150K. Meanwhile for the foreign students it is much easier for them to apply for a student visa than to go on to work, so many stay on and study. Go into any graduate class in engineering or science and it is usually dominated by foreign students.

I would caution against pushing too much on that. You shouldn’t do grad school unless you are interested in it and you actually want to research something. Also, many people are not cut-out to do research. Personally, I have no interest in grad school because I didn’t find anything I learned about interesting enough that it made me want to study it more and research it.

Suggesting that people do grad school because no one else is is like suggesting that people should enter the Seminary and become priests because there’s a shortage. You just end up with a lot of people who really hate what they’re doing and felt like they were forced into it.

True, but I would guess that they give them for the same reason engineering classes do.

Depends on the class. Design courses are generally open book exams because it’s testing your ability to design (make good assumptions, pick correct values and equipment if applicable), not do the math. If you’re going to design a building, you don’t have the list of standard structural steel beam sizes with all their dimensions and properties memorized (unless you constantly work with on size) because there’s a big book that has all that stuff written in it (the design code).

 

[jilly4ski]

Depends on the class. Design courses are generally open book exams because it’s testing your ability to design (make good assumptions, pick correct values and equipment if applicable), not do the math. If you’re going to design a building, you don’t have the list of standard structural steel beam sizes with all their dimensions and properties memorized (unless you constantly work with on size) because there’s a big book that has all that stuff written in it (the design code).

Indeed, I had some professors, give open book, or open note (most notoriously my Tax law professor who would give us several years of old tests and their answers that we could bring in to the test), or take home tests (My health law professor gave us an obnoxious 8 hour take home that actually took close to 8 hours to complete), or just open statute tests. It really depends on the goals of the class and what the professor finds as a more persuasive measure of knowledge/skill. Is it to be able to memorize and spit out the pertinent information in a timely manner, is it the ability to write coherently about the subject, issue spotting, synthesizing all the material from the term or etc.
But the reasons to give a closed book timed exam, I would imagine are very similar.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Indeed, I had some professors, give open book, or open note (most notoriously my Tax law professor who would give us several years of old tests and their answers that we could bring in to the test), or take home tests (My health law professor gave us an obnoxious 8 hour take home that actually took close to 8 hours to complete), or just open statute tests. It really depends on the goals of the class and what the professor finds as a more persuasive measure of knowledge/skill. Is it to be able to memorize and spit out the pertinent information in a timely manner, is it the ability to write coherently about the subject, issue spotting, synthesizing all the material from the term or etc.
But the reasons to give a closed book timed exam, I would imagine are very similar.

One of my professors was “irked” because almost everyone flunked a quiz he gave.

So, he handed out a take-home closed book exam.

The grades were no better.

On one open-book exam, the professor wrote all the “stuff” on the back of the exam, and still most people flunked it.

[It has to do with understanding the basic principles. Not everything is a hot formula or is found in a handbook.][The fact that so much bunk is promoted as fact demonstrates that people do not understand basic principles.]

 

[Monte_RCMS]

It grieves me when excellent tradesmen with high school and tech school educations cannot prepare an invoice. So, they tell me their hours and hand me their receipts for materials and I prepare their invoice.

The point is that the only way someone can be fluent in addition and multiplication is to learn to be functional about two levels above where they want to work.

It just works that way.

So, if you want to be able to work addition and multiplication, then you need to study at the level of calculus.

I was chatting with a contractor and we were discussing cost per square foot of various materials. And he just couldn’t do the division.

 

[ProVobis]

So, if you want to be able to work addition and multiplication, then you need to study at the level of calculus.

Engineering is always confined to the traditional form of engineering, such as electrical or bridge building. Many of the concepts are now used in financial engineering, where the math of derivatives, risks, forecasting, statistics is very much in play. It is true you will probably never have to integrate, for example, e^x^2, but nevertheless performing such exercises won’t hurt you or be a waste of time either. It gets you into the proper mindset for many careers.

 

[Ridgerunner]

But let me ask you a very simple question, can I take a senior English major and put him in an upper division Partial Differential Equations class? I doubt you would answer in the affirmative. However, let’s turn it around. Can you put a senior Mathematics major in an upper division English Literature class? Of course you can.

Why? Because EVERYONE in college (any college worth its tuition anyway) can read, analyze, criticize, and write.

The point of my rant: Do not pretend that all subjects are created equal in the undergraduate level, some of us are doing significantly more work than our peers.

I think this is an overstatement, at least in a quality school, it is. Back in the day when I was an undergraduate, science and math people were required to take a lot of credits in philosophy and in literature. Now and then one of them would be reasonably good at those things, but on the whole they weren’t. Maybe they just didn’t care about the moral structure of “MacBeth” or the flower symbolism in Lawrence or the philosophical underpinnings of Literary Naturalism. But none of the science or math people really distinguished themselves when it came to those things as far as I could ever see. Interestingly, some of the business majors sure did, and some of them were astonishingly successful later in life. Pre-legal people often did too.

I’m not putting down engineers. One of my own brothers is an electrical engineer. Frankly, I came to believe that certain abilities are simply innate. If you stink at math in grade school, you’re likely to stink at it for a lifetime. If you can’t figure out why in the world Faulkner was so concerned about a bear hunt at one point in your life, you’re not likely to figure it out later. Nor, frankly, is it going to teach you anything about human nature. Nor, probably, would you care.

I would agree heartily with those posters who lay at least a certain amount of blame on high schools, particularly ordinary public high schools. In my opinion, the general run of them are not at all good when it comes to science and math, but even worse when it comes to the humanities.

And I have seen the writings of all kinds of people, and i would mightily dispute that there has not been a severe falling off in that regard, across the occupational board.

 

[stevegravy]

And I have seen the writings of all kinds of people, and i would mightily dispute that there has not been a severe falling off in that regard, across the occupational board.

I remember the day i gradiated i thought yesterday I couldn’t spell it now I r one an engineer.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

A friend just sent me an email, of which this little essay is a part.

Thought it was appropriate to post it here:

Recently, when I went to McDonald’s I saw on the menu that you could have an
order of 6, 9 or 12 Chicken McNuggets.

I asked for a half dozen nuggets.

‘We don’t have half dozen nuggets,’ said the teenager at the counter.

‘You don’t?’ I replied.

‘We only have six, nine, or twelve,’ was the reply.

‘So I can’t order a half dozen nuggets, but I can order six?’

‘That’s right.’

So I shook my head and ordered six McNuggets.

(Unbelievable but sadly true…)

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I think this is an overstatement, at least in a quality school, it is. Back in the day when I was an undergraduate, science and math people were required to take a lot of credits in philosophy and in literature. Now and then one of them would be reasonably good at those things, but on the whole they weren’t. Maybe they just didn’t care about the moral structure of “MacBeth” or the flower symbolism in Lawrence or the philosophical underpinnings of Literary Naturalism. But none of the science or math people really distinguished themselves when it came to those things as far as I could ever see. Interestingly, some of the business majors sure did, and some of them were astonishingly successful later in life. Pre-legal people often did too.

I’m not putting down engineers. One of my own brothers is an electrical engineer. Frankly, I came to believe that certain abilities are simply innate. If you stink at math in grade school, you’re likely to stink at it for a lifetime. If you can’t figure out why in the world Faulkner was so concerned about a bear hunt at one point in your life, you’re not likely to figure it out later. Nor, frankly, is it going to teach you anything about human nature. Nor, probably, would you care.

I would agree heartily with those posters who lay at least a certain amount of blame on high schools, particularly ordinary public high schools. In my opinion, the general run of them are not at all good when it comes to science and math, but even worse when it comes to the humanities.

And I have seen the writings of all kinds of people, and i would mightily dispute that there has not been a severe falling off in that regard, across the occupational board.

Be nice … or I won’t fix your printer.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Be nice … or I won’t fix your printer.

Well, seems like when they develop a chronic problem, nobody can fix them anyway. I think there are these little timers in them and a program that tells them to develop a glitch nobody can fix. That timer is set to create the glitch whenever the company that sells printers needs to meet a new sales quota.

But I will add that I very much doubt the folks who fix printers are engineers.

 

[ProVobis]

But I will add that I very much doubt the folks who fix printers are engineers.

I hear people who can find the I-O switch are more in demand.

 

[ExLibris]

I think this is an overstatement, at least in a quality school, it is. Back in the day when I was an undergraduate, science and math people were required to take a lot of credits in philosophy and in literature. Now and then one of them would be reasonably good at those things, but on the whole they weren’t. Maybe they just didn’t care about the moral structure of “MacBeth” or the flower symbolism in Lawrence or the philosophical underpinnings of Literary Naturalism. But none of the science or math people really distinguished themselves when it came to those things as far as I could ever see. Interestingly, some of the business majors sure did, and some of them were astonishingly successful later in life. Pre-legal people often did too.

While I agree that those interested in arts do better in those subjects than math/science people, I was trying to get at something else with my post.

I’m comfortable with saying that on average the hard sciences are more difficult and consequently weed out the weak.

Clearly, an English major in a Microprocessor System Design class doesn’t have a prayer of passing.

Contrarily, throw a Physics major in a Gothic Literature Survey class and he might pull off a C-.

Science demands a logically rigorous foundation that must be mastered before one can graduate to the next level. There’s no “feeling” that something is correct. There’s no bull**** last minute paper.

LSAT scores by major:
uic.edu/cba/cba-depts/economics/undergrad/table.htm

Physics/Mathematics comes in at number 1. Philosophy/Theology comes in at number 2, which isn’t too surprising given that Mathematics is applied Philosophy.

Chemistry versus Political Science? #5 versus #18. (Though, certainly, there’s some confounding variables at work here).

All that said, I value humanities and arts majors.

 

[jilly4ski]

While I agree that those interested in arts do better in those subjects than math/science people, I was trying to get at something else with my post.

I’m comfortable with saying that on average the hard sciences are more difficult and consequently weed out the weak.

Clearly, an English major in a Microprocessor System Design class doesn’t have a prayer of passing.

Contrarily, throw a Physics major in a Gothic Literature Survey class and he might pull off a C-.

Science demands a logically rigorous foundation that must be mastered before one can graduate to the next level. There’s no “feeling” that something is correct. There’s no bull**** last minute paper.

LSAT scores by major:
uic.edu/cba/cba-depts/economics/undergrad/table.htm

Physics/Mathematics comes in at number 1. Philosophy/Theology comes in at number 2, which isn’t too surprising given that Mathematics is applied Philosophy.

Chemistry versus Political Science? #5 versus #18. (Though, certainly, there’s some confounding variables at work here).

All that said, I value humanities and arts majors.

LSAT scores? Such a small population of graduates take the LSAT, that it is a pretty useless statistic for overall performance of one major over another, unlike SAT or ACT scores. (My LSAT score as a political science major was the same as the average chemistry student).

 

[Toplink_pin]

While the emphasis on math skills has merit, I still hold that good Engineers are Born, not made. Which means that Engineering colleges are not Play-Doh factories; they do not squeeze out engineers from every student that walks in. A kid will either have “it”, or they don’t. Now you may be able to develop some hidden potential from some who walk in, but even if good math skills are present, we end up with non-creative engineers who are good at math.

Personally, I always struggled with math. It never kept me from pursuing engineering however. In my life I have met people, farmers, truck drivers, secrataries, etc who have better “engineering minds” than most. They either did not have the opportunites to pursue it, or they are not that interested.

Math is important to engineering, but it also requires some intuition as to how things work. Whether more tangeable like mechanical systems, or more theory-based like electronics, a person needs more than a “consumer grade” understanding as to what is going on inside the box. This does not start in college, it starts when they are kids.

The majority of parents reading my post will not have a clue what I’m talking about. Universities are fine with this, as long as your tuition check doesn’t bounce they will accept as many engineering students as they can.

 

[Cat]

While the emphasis on math skills has merit, I still hold that good Engineers are Born, not made. Which means that Engineering colleges are not Play-Doh factories; they do not squeeze out engineers from every student that walks in. A kid will either have “it”, or they don’t. Now you may be able to develop some hidden potential from some who walk in, but even if good math skills are present, we end up with non-creative engineers who are good at math.

Personally, I always struggled with math. It never kept me from pursuing engineering however. In my life I have met people, farmers, truck drivers, secrataries, etc who have better “engineering minds” than most. They either did not have the opportunites to pursue it, or they are not that interested.

Math is important to engineering, but it also requires some intuition as to how things work. Whether more tangeable like mechanical systems, or more theory-based like electronics, a person needs more than a “consumer grade” understanding as to what is going on inside the box. This does not start in college, it starts when they are kids.

The majority of parents reading my post will not have a clue what I’m talking about. Universities are fine with this, as long as your tuition check doesn’t bounce they will accept as many engineering students as they can.

I really agree with this.

I was a Straight A student throughout my school years, including high school. I graduated 2nd in my class.

But…

When we were in high school (back in the late 1970s), we all had to take an exam in “mechanical aptitude.” It had skills like looking at diagrams of line on paper, and marking what shape the paper would be if it was folded along those lines (origami). Also various mechanical questions, mainly general, about things like pressure, levers, circuits, etc. And there were very general questions about tools and their use.

My husband scored a 99%ile on this exam. (We were dating at the time.)

I scored a 15%ile.

Seriously, I took that exam and had absolutely no clue about any of the questions.

Even now, I have absolutely no mechanical aptitude. If something breaks, I stare at it.

I read somewhere that people who aren’t mechanically-inclined have problems with “completing incomplete pictures or puzzles.” They simply can’t see what’s missing in the broken machine.

That makes sense to me and it describes the way I am about lots of things. In Junior High School, girls were required to take Home Economics, including sewing. I never, ever was able to thread the sewing machine by myself. Throughout the entire semester, day in, day out, the teacher had to help me thread that stupid machine. As for my project (a jumper), I threw mine away as soon as I took it home. It was hideous. I simply could not take a piece of fabric, spools of thread, and a machine, and turn the stuff into a wearable useful article of clothing.

Also, I cannot do the game show, Wheel of Fortune. It’s really embarrassing. All the letters except one can be up on the screen, and I STILL can’t figure out the puzzle! Until they put the last letter in, I stare at it with no clue.

Card games–can’t play them. I used to think it was because I was raised Baptist and we weren’t allowed to play cards. But now I believe it’s because I can’t figure out what I’m supposed to do with these pieces of cardboard with symbols on them.

And when it comes to any arts and crafts projects, forget it. I can’t turn a pile of rick rack, a wooden applicator stick, and some beads into a charming Christmas ornament! To me, all those little pieces are separate, and I can’t get them together.

So I agree–engineers have a certain talent for the science that many of us don’t have.

I have a nephew who I believe will be a good engineer. At age three, he went out to the garage and used a pliers to dismantle his bicycle. He wanted to know how it worked. And I’ve watched him literally spend an hour examining a mechanical toy.

Hmmm…it occurred to me after I posted that maybe this is why I do not text. I don’t think I would be able to figure out what the abbreviations are, and I would probably end up with huge texts that no one would bother to read.

And…I can’t figure out how to work a cell phone. Other than taking calls and making calls (and I have problems doing that–often I will shake the phone and think something is wrong with it when I don’t hear a dial tone), I can’t do a thing on my cell phone. I can’t even retrieve my messages. I don’t give out my cell phone number very often, and even my own children know better than to leave messages on my cell phone.

:doh2:

 

[Ridgerunner]

While the emphasis on math skills has merit, I still hold that good Engineers are Born, not made. Which means that Engineering colleges are not Play-Doh factories; they do not squeeze out engineers from every student that walks in. A kid will either have “it”, or they don’t. Now you may be able to develop some hidden potential from some who walk in, but even if good math skills are present, we end up with non-creative engineers who are good at math.

Personally, I always struggled with math. It never kept me from pursuing engineering however. In my life I have met people, farmers, truck drivers, secrataries, etc who have better “engineering minds” than most. They either did not have the opportunites to pursue it, or they are not that interested.

Math is important to engineering, but it also requires some intuition as to how things work. Whether more tangeable like mechanical systems, or more theory-based like electronics, a person needs more than a “consumer grade” understanding as to what is going on inside the box. This does not start in college, it starts when they are kids.

The majority of parents reading my post will not have a clue what I’m talking about. Universities are fine with this, as long as your tuition check doesn’t bounce they will accept as many engineering students as they can.

I was amused to read this. In my mind, there’s “math” and “math”. I’m terrible at math. Always have been, always will be. Everybody knows it, and I have mentioned that to my business partners at times.

One day, though, one of my partners who doesn’t know much about the stock market was wondering about investing some money. So, I picked out a bank stock and explained how, given the PE of it and its peers, along with its trend line and price/book ratio, it appeared undervalued to me by the usual measurements. I reviewed the capital positions and then told her what the prospects would be, in numbers, assuming the bank’s eventual rising to the levels of its peers in terms of PE, price/book and profit trend line, assuming its spread remained as it was, all without impairing capital relative to regulatory requirements or its peer group. I then told her what her after tax gain could be in that event, and when. I did it all in my head.

She exclaimed, half joking: “What a liar! You told me you are terrible at math, but you just went through all those calculations without even using paper”. I found myself, perhaps a bit to my own surprise, responding “That’s not math, that’s business.”

 

[Ridgerunner]

While I agree that those interested in arts do better in those subjects than math/science people, I was trying to get at something else with my post.

I’m comfortable with saying that on average the hard sciences are more difficult and consequently weed out the weak.

Clearly, an English major in a Microprocessor System Design class doesn’t have a prayer of passing.

Contrarily, throw a Physics major in a Gothic Literature Survey class and he might pull off a C-.

Science demands a logically rigorous foundation that must be mastered before one can graduate to the next level. There’s no “feeling” that something is correct. There’s no bull**** last minute paper.

LSAT scores by major:
uic.edu/cba/cba-depts/economics/undergrad/table.htm

Physics/Mathematics comes in at number 1. Philosophy/Theology comes in at number 2, which isn’t too surprising given that Mathematics is applied Philosophy.

Chemistry versus Political Science? #5 versus #18. (Though, certainly, there’s some confounding variables at work here).

All that said, I value humanities and arts majors.

I’m not sure the LSAT score comparison tells us very much. Engineers who go to law school (and therefore take the LSAT) usually want to be patent attorneys or products liability lawyers. You almost have to be an engineer to do either of those very well. So, did those LSAT takers ever really intend to be engineers, or are they of another type mind and orientation altogether? One suspects it.

Not many take the LSAT without intending law school, at least at the moment, though one of my daughters who had no intention of ever going to law school did, just to see how she would do. Some people take it, thinking they will perhaps go to law school, but for some reason change their minds. I took the LSAT and later went into business. I had a double major in English and Philosophy. I did significantly better on the LSAT than those science folks in your post, notwithstanding that I stink at math, and always have. I am pretty sure I know which parts of the LSAT that would be easier for a math person and those parts that would be easier for a literary person.

As an aside, in my mind, at least, Philosophy and Literature are closely akin. They’re practically the same academic subject. Why people associate Philosophy with Math except at very narrow margins, is a mystery to me.

All people have their own purposes. Engineers determine things with exactitude, and evidently like being in that world. I would want an engineer, not a lawyer, to design a bridge I crossed. But when it comes to figuring out what an adversary is going to do in advance, and the reasons for it, I would pick the lawyer over the engineer. Those are different capacities of the mind.

My engineer brother expressed it well in stating his dislike for what I do. “I like being able to determine something exactly. In your world, nothing is known except approximately, and then there are a hundred happenstances than can change it, and at least five different ways of looking at it.” When it comes to pure analysis, my brother is far better than I am. When it comes to intuitive solutions, I’m a hundred miles ahead of him. We both know.

When it comes to understanding human nature, I think I would listen to the literary or philosophical person before I would listen to the math person.

 

[ProVobis]

Also, I cannot do the game show, Wheel of Fortune. It’s really embarrassing. All the letters except one can be up on the screen, and I STILL can’t figure out the puzzle! Until they put the last letter in, I stare at it with no clue.

Card games–can’t play them. I used to think it was because I was raised Baptist and we weren’t allowed to play cards. But now I believe it’s because I can’t figure out what I’m supposed to do with these pieces of cardboard with symbols on them.

Yes, but how good are you with spreadsheets or data bases, the knowledge of which is rapidly growing in the workplace?

 

[LovePatience]

The majors of the top 1% economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/what-the-top-1-of-earners-majored-in/# suggest that the engineering track is probably undervalued in today’s society and that’s why people leave it. It probably has a lower ceiling than many other majors since Miscellaneous Psychology, Philosophy and Religious Studies, International Relations, Political Science and Government, and Area, Ethnic and Civilization Studies - supposedly easier majors - all have higher %'s in the first engineering major: chemical engineering. We live in a world of people who make decisions based on limited information and for emotional reasons.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The majors of the top 1% economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/what-the-top-1-of-earners-majored-in/# suggest that the engineering track is probably undervalued in today’s society and that’s why people leave it. It probably has a lower ceiling than many other majors since Miscellaneous Psychology, Philosophy and Religious Studies, International Relations, Political Science and Government, and Area, Ethnic and Civilization Studies - supposedly easier majors - all have higher %'s in the first engineering major: chemical engineering. We live in a world of people who make decisions based on limited information and for emotional reasons.

Something we don’t know is who the people are. Take, for example, an engineering major who came off the farm and heads for the big city after graduation versus the psychology major who is well connected, has a fairly well-to-do family and marries wealth and further connections. Connections can, and do, outweigh raw talent a good part of the time. Personality can as well. There was an interesting Wall Street Journal that touched on this in a way. It appears those in the “upper strata” tend to stay there, and those in the lower strata do too. Both appear to be hardening, both in an economic and in a cultural sense.Yes, education is part of it. Undoubtedly, so is cultural literacy. So are habits and mores. The upper strata of folks (interestingly enough) appear to be more religious and don’t have children out of wedlock, for example. But the longer a strata stays cohesive and fairly hard to break into, connections are increasingly important.

So, the engineering major might be a more talented guy and his education might have been more demanding than the “religious studies” guy. But if the latter has connections and the former doesn’t, he might do much better.

Finally, while math cannot be easy for one whose home environment is not particularly conducive to study, math is still “culturally neutral”. But lots of other disciplines and occupations aren’t. In them, “cultural literacy”, which is more a family-inculcated thing than anything else, can be a determining factor in lots of occupations in which math ability is not.