6 ms·

This is largely the duality between a school of engineering, and a school of technology as well. Purdue University has both. Engineering is this 150 year trad

This is largely the duality between a school of engineering, and a school of technology as well. Purdue University has both. Engineering is this 150 year tradition that literally made Indiana the crossroads of America. Top 5 in most of it's disciplines year after year. But that consistency has brought the hordes. Thus, freshman engineering is this gauntlet to run. Profressors are busy with reasearch, TAs are just reciting teleprompters. If you make it through, it's because you were self sufficient, and didn't rely on the university for much of anything. The school of technology, on the other hand, requires professors have 15 years experience in industry. No research is performed. Every single core class has a lab section. It is literally disrupting the school of engineering by taking the students who aren't yet polyglots at 18, and actually teaching them to be engineers. It is effectively a bypass to the same destination of becoming an Engineer. But there's more lanes, better signage,its well lit, more efficient maintenance, and I arrive at my destination refreshed, instead of frazzled because of all that big city gridlock.

dhimes 8y ago
Is there someplace I can learn more about this? Any writeups or articles you know of?
- flyingcircus3 8y ago
  This is all anecdotal. I've found though from simply asking around, that most Engineering schools, as well as other fields, have weed out classes. They aren't technically labelled as such, but there is no better description, given their passing rates. They are curved grading, so by simple distribution of scores, large numbers of people will fail. There are so many students per teacher, the scarcity of resources demands a competition. I suppose on the larger scale though, as universities compete for students, and their money, it makes sense economically to let in anyone with the base level of aptitude, because there are plenty of other programs you can switch to from engineering. But the easiest time to lock in your customer base is when they are making the decision to buy for the very first time. Almost like a car salesman. Just keep them on the lot long enough to convince them to buy something, in lieu of the thing they wanted when they first showed up.
  - dhimes 8y ago
    My focus is on the student who gets to college and has all of the aptitude but simply doesn't know how to learn. In engineering, they go to class, listen to the theory, work the problems, and hope for the best on the test. They don't understand that there is a way to learn abstract concepts or even what an abstract concept is- what they are good for, and so on. They need to be taught that consistent review is essential- and how to do it. So the idea that Purdue has a back-channel for students who may not be as academically gifted, meaning they don't learn well in the manner that traditional courses are taught, is interesting. This happens outside of E-school and the sciences though. A helluvalotta students are showing up not being able to "do" college. High school was so easy they never had to learn how to learn.
    - flyingcircus3 8y ago
      I found in my experience that there were too many things to learn, and not just in class. I was also learning about being self sufficient, and restraining my impulses, and basic life habits that had been taken care of for me my whole life up to that point. Turns those courses are fraught with peril as well. The confluence of social pressure, having to take care of all my domestic needs, and being exposed to tens of thousands of healthy young adults from all walks of life was nothing short of a quantum leap for me. Not to conclude that the school of technology fixed all or any of those things for me. But their teaching method was infinitely more contextual to me, at where I was at that point in my life.
Meegul 8y ago
There's a lot of similarity between the Computer Science program at Purdue University and the Engineering program. The professors are quite swamped with work outside of their teaching responsibilities and that leaves most of the teaching left to TAs who are, more often than not, terrible teachers. But the curriculum is still decided by the professors with ample experience. Actually graduating with a Computer Science degree shows an ability to self-teach, not an ability to be taught. The first two years are a constant sprint to stay on top of the coursework with little outside help. It's made most of my peers who've managed to stay in the program quite adept when working, but I'm not sure if this is the right way to go about building those skills. Surely you shouldn't need to struggle in the dark so much to learn.
- throwawayjava 8y ago
  > Surely you shouldn't need to struggle in the dark so much to learn. You have it all wrong, IMO. Successfully clawing their way out of the dark is by far the most important skill they're learning.
  - Meegul 8y ago
    I recently had to write a scheduling algorithm for our home-grown operating system. I was running into some very difficult to debug issues, so I asked my TA for help. They had no clue and told me to consult the professor. The professor wouldn't help. Our textbook offered no guidance. We're not allowed to discuss projects whatsoever with other students. So after north of 5 hours spread over a few days of trying to figure out my issue, I gave up. How was this a beneficial experience?
    - ams6110 8y ago
      5 hours over a few days is nothing. You gave up too soon.
      - Meegul 8y ago
        5 hours on a single issue. I had spent north of 20 hours on my implementation before that. This was for a semi-weekly lab project.
throwawayjava 8y ago
I've seen something similar at other institutions. The School of Engineering, in this case, is trying to teach something more than just domain knowledge about engineering disciplines. The goal is to take those "18 year-old polyglots" and turn them into world-class problem solvers. You see this is every elite educational program. Mathematics at Chicago. Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon. Engineering at MIT. Their programs have a difference in kind, and are very intentionally not built for "the average college student". It's good that there's an alternative path within the same institution for those students who need to focus their efforts on baseline competence. But it's also good that strong programs expect more out of their students.
- paulie_a 8y ago
  While those are big name schools. When I review a resume I never even look at the education section. I will never be impressed by that.
  - flyingcircus3 8y ago
    I would say, to firm that up even more, every school can point to their accomplishments, and the graduates/professors that worked on them, as to why they are in rarified air. You can look through Wikipedia at all of these renowned scientists, and who their advisors were, and who their students were. So you can say they stood on the shoulders of giants, and also stood tall for others to perch even higher. But not a single one of those heroes of science should rightly be remembered primarily or even secondarily because of where they studied. The underlying fallacy is that you can only learn the best skills from the best people in a short window if time in your early adulthood.
  - throwawayjava 8y ago
    I'm not sure I understand how this is relevant.
- flyingcircus3 8y ago
  You've simply recited the fallacy. You've framed the very debate in terminology that assumes you are correct. But that's what all entrenched interests do. Schools of technology are not simply teaching baseline competence. They teach the theory of the same subjects, with a more hands on approach emphasized. They are showing up to civil war reenactments with tanks and planes. The old timers are in a huff about it, but what else is new?

dhimes 8y ago

Is there someplace I can learn more about this? Any writeups or articles you know of?

flyingcircus3 8y ago
This is all anecdotal. I've found though from simply asking around, that most Engineering schools, as well as other fields, have weed out classes. They aren't technically labelled as such, but there is no better description, given their passing rates. They are curved grading, so by simple distribution of scores, large numbers of people will fail. There are so many students per teacher, the scarcity of resources demands a competition. I suppose on the larger scale though, as universities compete for students, and their money, it makes sense economically to let in anyone with the base level of aptitude, because there are plenty of other programs you can switch to from engineering. But the easiest time to lock in your customer base is when they are making the decision to buy for the very first time. Almost like a car salesman. Just keep them on the lot long enough to convince them to buy something, in lieu of the thing they wanted when they first showed up.
- dhimes 8y ago
  My focus is on the student who gets to college and has all of the aptitude but simply doesn't know how to learn. In engineering, they go to class, listen to the theory, work the problems, and hope for the best on the test. They don't understand that there is a way to learn abstract concepts or even what an abstract concept is- what they are good for, and so on. They need to be taught that consistent review is essential- and how to do it. So the idea that Purdue has a back-channel for students who may not be as academically gifted, meaning they don't learn well in the manner that traditional courses are taught, is interesting. This happens outside of E-school and the sciences though. A helluvalotta students are showing up not being able to "do" college. High school was so easy they never had to learn how to learn.
  - flyingcircus3 8y ago
    I found in my experience that there were too many things to learn, and not just in class. I was also learning about being self sufficient, and restraining my impulses, and basic life habits that had been taken care of for me my whole life up to that point. Turns those courses are fraught with peril as well. The confluence of social pressure, having to take care of all my domestic needs, and being exposed to tens of thousands of healthy young adults from all walks of life was nothing short of a quantum leap for me. Not to conclude that the school of technology fixed all or any of those things for me. But their teaching method was infinitely more contextual to me, at where I was at that point in my life.

Meegul 8y ago

There's a lot of similarity between the Computer Science program at Purdue University and the Engineering program. The professors are quite swamped with work outside of their teaching responsibilities and that leaves most of the teaching left to TAs who are, more often than not, terrible teachers. But the curriculum is still decided by the professors with ample experience. Actually graduating with a Computer Science degree shows an ability to self-teach, not an ability to be taught. The first two years are a constant sprint to stay on top of the coursework with little outside help. It's made most of my peers who've managed to stay in the program quite adept when working, but I'm not sure if this is the right way to go about building those skills. Surely you shouldn't need to struggle in the dark so much to learn.

throwawayjava 8y ago
> Surely you shouldn't need to struggle in the dark so much to learn. You have it all wrong, IMO. Successfully clawing their way out of the dark is by far the most important skill they're learning.
- Meegul 8y ago
  I recently had to write a scheduling algorithm for our home-grown operating system. I was running into some very difficult to debug issues, so I asked my TA for help. They had no clue and told me to consult the professor. The professor wouldn't help. Our textbook offered no guidance. We're not allowed to discuss projects whatsoever with other students. So after north of 5 hours spread over a few days of trying to figure out my issue, I gave up. How was this a beneficial experience?
  - ams6110 8y ago
    5 hours over a few days is nothing. You gave up too soon.
    - Meegul 8y ago
      5 hours on a single issue. I had spent north of 20 hours on my implementation before that. This was for a semi-weekly lab project.

throwawayjava 8y ago

I've seen something similar at other institutions. The School of Engineering, in this case, is trying to teach something more than just domain knowledge about engineering disciplines. The goal is to take those "18 year-old polyglots" and turn them into world-class problem solvers. You see this is every elite educational program. Mathematics at Chicago. Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon. Engineering at MIT. Their programs have a difference in kind, and are very intentionally not built for "the average college student". It's good that there's an alternative path within the same institution for those students who need to focus their efforts on baseline competence. But it's also good that strong programs expect more out of their students.

paulie_a 8y ago
While those are big name schools. When I review a resume I never even look at the education section. I will never be impressed by that.
- flyingcircus3 8y ago
  I would say, to firm that up even more, every school can point to their accomplishments, and the graduates/professors that worked on them, as to why they are in rarified air. You can look through Wikipedia at all of these renowned scientists, and who their advisors were, and who their students were. So you can say they stood on the shoulders of giants, and also stood tall for others to perch even higher. But not a single one of those heroes of science should rightly be remembered primarily or even secondarily because of where they studied. The underlying fallacy is that you can only learn the best skills from the best people in a short window if time in your early adulthood.
- throwawayjava 8y ago
  I'm not sure I understand how this is relevant.
flyingcircus3 8y ago
You've simply recited the fallacy. You've framed the very debate in terminology that assumes you are correct. But that's what all entrenched interests do. Schools of technology are not simply teaching baseline competence. They teach the theory of the same subjects, with a more hands on approach emphasized. They are showing up to civil war reenactments with tanks and planes. The old timers are in a huff about it, but what else is new?