How would you improve the engineering curriculum?

>>7740951
>3 physics classes at once

>>7740951
>not having a year-long capstone

>>7740951
>CALC 4

>>7740951
Taking statics and dynamics at the same time is fucking stupid.

>>7740951
Having them take all of the electives in bulk with no time to explore and see what they like isn't good.

Replace Matlab with a real language, like Lisp.

>>7740974
probably means a class in ODEs

>>7740951
Needs more manufacturing classes. It tremendously helps in the real world when engineers understand how their project/products are made and why certain machines were selected for the job.

>>7740951
Looking back, engineering undergrad is some bullshit.

>>7741010
pls explain

>>7740951
>F1
calc 1
matrix alg
physics 1
matlab
chem 1
econ 1
>F2
calc 2
physics 2
chem 2
econ 2
statics
circuits
>S1
calc 3
ODEs
physics 3
dynamics
electronics
digital design
>S2
probability and statistics
mechanic of materials
thermodynamics
signals
electromagnetics 1
computer organizations
>J1
communications systems
electromagnetics 2
controls
fluid mechanics
structural mechanics
elective
>J2
numerical analysis
mat sci
microprocessors
heat transfer
CAD
instrumentation
elective
>N1
power electronics
DSP
vibrations
complex variables
elective
elective
>N2
capstone
elective
elective
elective
elective
elective

>>7740951

>Calculus 1 and Physics 1 at the same time

Why

>>7740951
Change the first 3 years to be literally the pure mathematics curriculum.

Pack every practical class for the 4th year but allow students to take a test at the beginning so that they can skip some of the practical classes if they prove that they could derive all that shit by themselves/self studied.

Give only those that were able to skip half of all the practical classes the legal engineering title. Everyone else who has to go and take most of the practical classes gets an inferior degree, something like 'Engineering assistant' that lets them only work under a real engineer. No chance to manage a project or to make their own company.

Then, /sci/, you could claim that engineers are actually top tier and the true STEM master race.

>>7740951
>calc 4
Wtf even is that? How many calculus classes do you yanks have?

>>7741056

calc 4 is ODEs

>3 physics classes in one semester
>being able to take all those physics classes before completing calc 1

why?

>>7741036
that's absolutely retarded

>>7741152
Yeah, you are right.

I am indeed GLAD that the people building our infrastructure, ALL OF IT, could be people who barely passed uni or could be just average guys with no real talent or passion for what they do and thus causing mistakes all over the place.

I just love it. There is no reason why we should push engineering degrees to be harder to get, specially those like civil, industrial and electrical. I'm just glad that any retard who can manage to get a passing GPA is in charge of building everything I see.

>inb4 you oppose this because you would never get your license this way

What the fuck OP
>3 physics courses, all at the same time
>Statics and dynamics concurrently
>Calc 4
>All electives in last two semesters
This is literally the shittiest curriculum I have ever seen. 0/10

>>7741169
>just average guys with no real talent or passion for what they do and thus causing mistakes all over the place
>dat generalization
and just taking a bunch of useless pure math classes and then trying to cram in all of the important shit like thermo, fluids, heat transfer, circuit analysis, systems design, etc, into two semester is retarded

>>7741190
First, no engineering degree has to do all those you listed.

Second, I said the pure math curriculum but I do know that there is shit there that is useless to the modern engineer. Just the pure math classes that are the 'generalized' version of thermo, fluids, etc. All those come from a branch of mathematics so let them study the pure version of that and then apply it in the 4th year.

File: engr.png (330KB, 507x1285px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 507x1285px

>>7741219
>First, no engineering degree has to do all those you listed.
nuclear engineering does, and also includes neutronics, materials science, statics, dynamics, and interactions between radiation and matter
>let them study the pure version of that and then apply it in the 4th year
you cant fit that all into a program

>>7741243
Take out fundamentals of speech, programming and the general ed electives,

Those are 7 things, more than an entire semester. Taking that out you could push my curriculum easily.

However, I see that NukE is probably on the heavy side of things and maybe should start doing the applications in the 6th semester rather than the 7th.

But seriously. 7 useless classes? That is ridiculous! my curriculum has at most 2 useless classes and they are both electives. I feel bad for those nuclear engineers, they already have such a big workload and then the university shits on them with bullshit they don't need.

>>7741252
>Take out fundamentals of speech, programming and the general ed electives,
speech is pretty shitty, but programming is pretty necessary, and if i had to replace gen eds like society, culture, and rock and roll, or art appreciation with extra math courses i'd probably slit my fucking throat.

>>7741036
You do realize that mathematics is very small part of engineering right?

You might as well have them take 3 years of english lit.

>>7741036
wow, asshurt math major here.

i dont even major in engineering. you are projecting or shitposting.

>>7741219
>First, no engineering degree has to do all those you listed.
ChemE does.

>>7741219
>Just the pure math classes that are the 'generalized' version of thermo, fluids, etc.
We obviously learn the most generalized forms. In each of those classes we derive the fundamental PDEs before we start with applications.
>All those come from a branch of mathematics
Not even true in the slightest sense. Thermodynamics strictly grew out of engineering. Fuilds, maybe if we're talking the baby models up to N-S, but the modern engineering applications is far more important and difficult to master.

>>7741036
>teach them pure math
>have them derive engineering applications

do you know what pure math is? change it to an applied math degree and then it's still far-fetched but still possibe

>>7741032
That's normal. I'm taking Calc 2, Physics 2, chemistry 2 and Bio 2 next semester. It's the 3 physics that doesn't make sense.

>>7741252
Except communication and programming skills are more important to an engineer than pure math.

>NukE is probably on the heavy side of things and maybe should start doing the applications in the 6th semester rather than the 7th.
Every engineering degree at a non-shitty school (not OP) has a curriculum like that. He's actually missing a bunch of courses that NukeEs should usually take.

>>7741310
>programming is pretty necessary

No it isn't, at least not for the people in that degree. The truth is that no nuclear engineer will work on big software ever. They will likely touch software but never to the sort of scale that you need to have a semester long education of it. Just read a python book for a week and you'll be fine.

>i'd probably slit my fucking throat
That is your problem. Knowing about art, culture and rock and roll does not help you become a better nuclear engineer. It does not help become a good scientist or engineer in general. Keep that shit as your hobby. There are plenty of books about those topics you can read on your own. However, I am talking about eliminating them so that you can put more of the math that would be further down the line into the earlier semesters, not to add extra math electives.

>>7741330
That is retarded. I have seen engineering curriculums and the shit that has to do with workplace ethics, business and law make sense but having 5 gen ed electives? Come the fuck on. Even worse is the fact that you can choose artsy hobbyist bullshit instead of an actual education.

>>7741332
I already gave my response to that. Scroll a bit down.
>asshurt math major
I am a math major but I have been literally praising engineering for their importance in society and difficult workload all over this thread. You are just making excuses to be angry I guess.

>>7741336
I believe I already addressed most of what you are saying. I do not disagree that the applications are more difficult to master but that is what the last 2 (or 3, I guess) semesters would be for. I'd rather have math savvy engineers than formula plugging caricatures.

>>7741340
Indeed I already addressed my poor wording of it. Have them learn generalized applied math, as you say.

>>7741354
>The truth is that no nuclear engineer will work on big software ever
SCALE, MCNP, TRACE, LAMMPS are a few big ones, not to mention matlab
>>7741343
>He's actually missing a bunch of courses that NukeEs should usually take
what exactly is missing

>>7741343
I strongly believe that any non-retard can learn to communicate before even entering college. However, one college level writing class should be mandatory just to polish out.

Source: When I was a kid I got an A on an international english test and english is my second language. Communicating is pretty trivial.

Other than that,

I strongly believe that any non-retard can learn programming on their own, specially when they won't be working on heavy and long software. As I said, read a python book for a week and you will be fine. There is no reason to fuck with engineers by forcing a semester of programming down their throats when programming is pretty trivial and being good at programming is more about being good at something that then you can turn into a program than being good at programming itself.

Source: I won a programming contest as a child. Clearly, programming is trivial.

>>7741336

>difficult to master

Don't think so kid.

>>7741359
No no, I made to be the one programming the big software. Because it is only when handling big data (as the programmer) that you actually need good knowledge of modern programming practices and algorithm analysis.

If you just want to automate something you can only read the manual for the machine and library you are using to do what you need.

Seriously, no nuclear engineer will ever work as a full time software developer.

>>7741354
>The truth is that no nuclear engineer will work on big software ever. They will likely touch software but never to the sort of scale that you need to have a semester long education of it. Just read a python book for a week and you'll be fine.
Honestly, I have to agree with this. Programming courses are just a formality and are generally very shitty because the lecturer doesn't really know how to teach it. Especially when it's taken before numerical methods classes.

>5 gen ed electives? Come the fuck on.
Yeah. Most programmes have 2 humanities electives at the most. 5 electives is pretty retarded.

>I'd rather have math savvy engineers than formula plugging caricatures.
But that's why we still have mathematicians in the first place. Sure we could have 8 year programs to train engineers, or -you know- team work and we save the economy billions. But also "formula plugging caricatures" isn't always a bad thing, I assume you've never done real world engineering problems, but often times processes are so complex no mathematical model can meaningfully represent it (like you would be able to model it with several thousand coupled non-linear SPDEs, but you can't use that do design anything with current computer technology). That's where heuristics come in and you incorporate engineering art to solve the problem. These processes aren't uncommon at all, in compressible flow in a pipe for example still has no accurate model that can meaningfully simulate all the flow regimes, so dimensionless analysis is used in design estimates. Having a "math savvy engineer" on the team is nice and almost always necessary (and usually the highest paid), but not all engineers need to be.

>>7741359
>what exactly is missing
Control engineering. I've told you before that you need this and you said you don't, but you do, many NukeE programmes has it.

>>7741364
Uh, huh, and how would you know that? Based on memes spread in your academically inbred department?

I have taken both a graduate course from an applied math programme and gone through an engineering undergrad and I can tell you that the app. math course was far easier than engineering fluid mech (or continuum mechanics as my programme called). I got an effortless A while spending most of the semester working on my research with little time to study.

I would knock it down to my previous exposure, except the material was completely different. The App. Math course -aside from being surprisingly lite overall- never went further than the models that was covered in the first few weeks of the engineering course. The focus was first of all on reviewing PDEs, then proofs (only major difference between the math proofs and the engineering proofs was that you were allowed to use limits in engineering while more math require more rigorous [math]\epsilon - \delta[/math] type approach proofs) and then it was all N-S IBVPs with known solutions (a few of these we were tested on in engineering undergrad as well). By the end of it most of the math students honestly believed that N-S was there is to fluid mechanics, it's ridiculous, I feel like I wasted my time on the course because I didn't gain any new insights, all I learned was that there was a few IBVPs with analytical solutions that I wasn't aware of before, I could've googled those to be honest.

Von Karman integral problems alone was far more difficult to do than anything in the postgrad course.

>>7741400
Also, the lecturer spent like fucking 2 hours trying to explain the material derivative to some retard. I'm pretty sure you do this in undergrad, so that girl was just retarded and graduated by sucking dick or something.

What really pissed me off is that the entire reason I took the course was because I really wanted to understand how and why the viscous energy dissipation tensor term works, but we never even got to any energy conversation models. It was all momentum (and obviously the mass continuity).

File: Meguruguru.gif (587KB, 276x590px) Image search: [Google]

587KB, 276x590px

>>7741022
Just meant that it's a lot of work. It's a good thing I didn't know that to begin with, or I probably couldn't motivate myself to do it. My current schedule of full time work and part time grad school seems easy by comparison, though that might just be because I'm finally having fun.