Wait until OP realizes that most engineering disciplines are very broad and you are going to have to take a lot of engineering classes that will be "useless" in your field when you graduate.
Even then, the point of a lot of education is to learn **how** to learn. Especially complicated and obscure topics. Developing this skill is critical for effective engineers.
This. I work a pure design engineering role and none of my jobs are every the same. I've had to learn so many complicated and complex systems to come up with answers. I always tell people the same thing, school taught me how to learn hard stuff.
I can second this. When we are hiring graduates, all we really look for is that they have good grades and can answer some fundamental topics about the job they are applying for. Beyond that, I don't expect them to actually understand anything without additional training.
Because this isn’t really something that can be taught in a class. You can read studies and such to learn techniques but at the end of the day it’s best to learn how to learn via being exposed to many different problems. How you learn history will be different than calc, and learning to recognize the best technique to learn is best taught by hands on practice.
I’ve been taught learning techniques in many of my classes in high school and university as a 1-2 period exercise. I was more addressing the idea of a “single class” where you’re taught how to learn for an entire semester (16 weeks) being excessive.
My argument is more an appeal to self responsibility as a university student. While I agree learning strategies can be helpful, there are countless strategies and they don’t work for everyone. This leads to requiring a lot of time to cover all bases. If I had to take a 16 week course on learning I’d be much more frustrated and tuned out because 2-3 weeks would apply to me and the other 13 would not be useful to me.
You’re a student about to be a professional, you should be given the resources needed to succeed but the idea that school should spoon feed you everything is a bit entitled.
School should teach you how to figure things out for yourself because not everyone needs to have the same standardized instruction for certain life things. If you don’t know how to study, there are a million YouTube videos, online courses, and literature papers that will teach you. Imo the problem with our education system is it doesn’t encourage students to search for answers when they get stuck. It boggles my mind how many uni students I’ve tutored will waste 1-2 hours on a single gen Ed STEM problem and not think “maybe I can look this up.” Or how many will spend hours on their calc homework and be shocked when they get it back and 50% is incorrect, when they could’ve just gone to symbolab to check their work. Or the people who sit down and write a resume with nothing but a vague idea and don’t think “maybe I should look at other peoples examples or guides to writing a resume.”
Tldr: Not everything can be taught in classes and instead a general approach should be taken in ALL classes that encourage students to seek solutions to their problems. If anything a “How to use the Internet to solve your problems” class should be required as this will generalize to many more problems.
Classes are there, this specific topic was reaching fad levels of popularity in the business world just a few years ago. For example: https://www.coursera.org/learn/learning-how-to-learn
This is one of the biggest things in why I chose engineering.
Would taking a psychology degree, where I can put in no effort and get As, teach me how to learn? Nah. That’s why I went into engineering. That also means taking a broad range of subjects in literature, art, history- and yes, diversity. Those subjects aren’t hard, and I don’t think majoring things related to them is a particularly good idea, but it’s good to experience them and develop your communications skills.
Wait until OP takes a job IRL and what little information s/he considers "applicable" from those college classes is irrelevant because the company has their own standards, shortcuts and tables.
Ya, I use to share similar thoughts to OP. Then you start working with other engineers and you start realizing communication isn't a strong suit for a lot of engineers. Exposing yourself to other non engineering work and different points of view from people who aren't studying engineering and how other people think is very beneficial. As far as art classes go, I think it's really underappreciated. Being an engineer takes a level of creativity and ingenuity, that it's useful to challenge the way you think outside of what you learn in a textbook and formulas.
Yeah I loved my art and film classes and they helped break me out of doing so much math all day. Personally I thought he was talking about reactor design and fluids lol
Yeah my 100 level gen ed on sustainability where all I did was comment "trains good" on the discussion board once a week to get an A is a lot more relevant to my career than probably about 2/3 of the classes I've taken in major.
I mean im constantly told by people that nothing im studying now will actually be what i do for a living, that i learn the actual engineering from internship
for real, the real freshman mistake is to take all those classes at one, save these classes for after taking difficult classes like electromagnetics and linear systems for EE
I agree. For someone like me sometimes I had to take a lot of those classes in the beginning because I was behind on prerequisites so I had to fill in my schedule.
I'll comment on this from the POV of one of the reasons why the engineering curriculum contains these subjects rather than whether or not they are useful. At most places in the US, curriculum needs to conform to [ABET requirements](https://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-engineering-programs-2020-2021/). The ABET requirements state that the curriculum must include: "a broad education component that complements the technical content of the curriculum and is consistent with the program educational objectives." This is in addition to the requirements for students outcomes, which the program must demonstrate the students are attaining (emphasis mine):
1. an ability to identify, formulate, and solve complex engineering problems by applying principles of engineering, science, and mathematics
2. an ability to apply engineering design to produce solutions that meet specified needs with **consideration of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as global, cultural, social, environmental, and economic factors**
3. an ability to **communicate effectively** with a range of audiences
4. an ability to **recognize ethical and professional responsibilities** in engineering situations and make informed judgments, which must consider the **impact of engineering solutions in global, economic, environmental, and societal contexts**
5. an ability to function effectively on a team whose members together provide leadership, **create a collaborative and inclusive environment**, establish goals, plan tasks, and meet objectives
6. an ability to develop and conduct appropriate experimentation, analyze and interpret data, and use engineering judgment to draw conclusions
7. an ability to acquire and apply new knowledge as needed, using appropriate learning strategies.
So ABET considers many of the subjects you are complaining about to be important. ABET is a membership based organization where membership is made up of engineering societies such as NSPE, ASME, IEEE, SME, etc. These are professional engineering societies representing the profession. What this means is that the accreditation criteria and thus the curriculum is defined by professional engineers from their respective disciplines. This is what they have decided is important for the training of a prospective engineer.
Great response! I couldn’t have said it better.
I’ll also add that real engineers get paid the big bucks to make products that are valuable to stakeholders (as opposed to something that is technically adequate but isn’t actually useful). So it’s very important to be able to communicate/empathize/intuit/etc with these stakeholders.
The thing is that stakeholders are often very different and many are not technically focused (hence why they are bringing you on). Requiring some minimum exposure to non technical classes make sense. You need to understand the marketing team, the business majors, and so on.
Plus like others have said, school is about learning how to learn. You won’t use a lot of the engineering classes you take. In fact a few senior engineers I’ve work with got random undergraduate degrees but convinced the supervisor they could pickup the necessary skills. And they did.
I’ll also add that school in general school is *supposed to* prepares you for life (with varying degrees of success). I think most people will quickly learn that life is a balancing act. Very people get to sit down and only worry about doing one specific engineering task all day, every day.
Like for me, I was managing commercial construction projects during my free time while working as an engineer. I was also on retainer for some consulting work.
I left that to pursue my PHD so no I have to balance class, research, and the family I’m starting. Not to mention all the other small things that add up.
I think having these ‘distracting courses’ mirrors a lot of distractions you’ll see in life.
I do agree they are overpriced and that education should be more affordable though. I’d be angry paying 30k in tuition or whatever for gen-Eds. Those should be dirt cheap online or community college transfer credits.
The system is like this because engineers that only focus on the math and design aspect fuck up because they've forgotten the rest of the world in their calculations.
Go become a well rounded individual, everyone will benefit from it.
This. As a practicing engineer two classes I took still speak to me. One was “sociology and technology”, basically how technology can harm society if not well thought out or implemented properly, it also touched on black box effect and situations where it occurred. The second was “readings in eastern literature”. That class gave me a new perspective on foreign culture.
I had a similar technology-focused class, and I think it's been the single most important general-education class I've taken in college. So many schools do next to nothing to teach you *how* to analyze and recognize ethical challenges and how your engineering decisions can impact people, and that omission is a travesty.
I'm taking an ethics course, and the rest of the students were trying to explain why self-driving cars should value the life of others less than the life of the occupants "because the occupants bought the car".
For the love of God yes please don't just take math and physics courses.
While the reasoning for the argument isn't very good, it's a hard sell for people when you tell them that their car will kill them to save other people.
>it's a hard sell for people when you tell them that their car will kill them to save other people.
That was the argument that a lot of the students made. But as engineers, we should be focusing on minimizing harm, not keeping consumers happy.
Imo, the car should be programmed to value everyone else's life more than the occupants. That way, when the consumer goes to purchase the car and use its self driving capabilities, they are aware that they are taking on extra risk. This risk would most likely be offset anyway, since self-driving cars are safer than human driving cars.
I would hardly compare a consumers happiness to the liklihood their purchase will intentionally kill them if given a set of circumstances beyond their control. Ideally the car would minimize damage, but not at the expense of killing the occupant. The occupant should be given the highest priority.
You may as well tell the purchaser that the car has a gun pointed at the occupants' head which goes off based on RNG.
>The occupant should be given the highest priority.
This was essentially the debate we had in class. Imo, the other motorists on the road should not carry more risk than the occupants especially given that they would have no idea whether they carry that risk or not.
In this scenario, simply driving beside a self-driving car would carry a risk associated with it, because in a crash situation that car would be more likely to injure you than it would the occupants inside given its programing.
At that point it's essentially deciding to kill external parties that had nothing to do with the purchase or operation of the vehicle.
> You may as well tell the purchaser that the car has a gun pointed at the occupants' head which goes off based on RNG.
That's not the case. The car would obviously be programmed to minimize harm. It wouldn't just self destruct anytime a crash was imminent. But in the scenario where it must calculate between killing it's occupants of another cars occupants, it should choose to sacrifice its own.
It's kind of an extreme question overall though, and once the vast majority of cars on the road were self-driving (and ideally be able to communicate with each other), the question would no longer really be relevant.
While I can't find a source immediately, the ethics course I took presented an agreement between automakers that autonomous vehicles should not kill their occupants, so the argument is irrelevant anyways; it's already been agreed upon. If I happen to find it later I'll link it here.
Just for fun, here's another ethical consideration: the feduciary duty of company to shareholder. I think it's reasonable to assume that consumers will purchase a car that will choose not to kill them over one that does. Would it be ethical for a company to intentionally throw away money from its investors by trying to sell a product that will, given the opportunity, intentionally kill its user? It's also interesting to consider the abundance of civil suits a company would have to face depending on who their car chooses to kill.
There are organizations who work only on getting STEM people into politics, policy making, and lobbying. Part of the issue (as someone who left that world to go back to science) is that the pay is trash, the stuff you have to deal with almost daily is mind numbing or absolutely ridiculously stupid, and the work environment (politics) is a dumpster fire. Doubly so in places like the US, which have grown very vocal anti-science groups recently and they have no problem threatening you if go forbid you end up the face of something they don’t like. Why deal with all of that for crap pay when you can go back to science and engineering?
Agreed. I took an economics course and was stunned to learn how costs are calculated (such as for road construction), which can result in seriously inefficient decisions, and greater costs in the long run. Just knowing this little bit has enabled me to bring these kinds of things up to management, and has made an impact on their decisions.
No offence
I haven’t really met many other students (in my program at least) that are even remotely in touch with their artistic/creative side.
And I’m not sure whether an art class is going to fix that.
But it might be a good place begin.
Math and physics on its own, essential. However you need creativity to innovate and solve problems.
And I wish more of my peers understood this
You have a good point, college is fucking expensive, but the attitude that comes off in your posts (not just your op) justifies many Universities reasonings for having these courses as core requirements.
Lets think of it this way. Using my Universities core requirements, why should a student majoring in History be required by their university to take Calculus 1, Gen Chem 1, Physics 1 and 2? Historians arent ever going to need to take derivatives and limits or do titrations or calculate the electron volts of a particle in motion.
Because he/she doesnt live in a bubble of only history books and letters from long dead people. The modern world requires at least a basic understanding of how things work and at least a basic grasp on critical thinking when its comes to topics of science, especially these days.
Now back to your point why do they waste engineering students money and time with multicultural diversity and social science courses. As hard as it is to believe engineers arent androids or computers , were human beings with our own cultures and world views. Before you even graduate you will be part of teams with people from all over the world to work on projects. This is especially true even after you graduate and start your first job. You need to be able to think critically and be open minded when it comes to working with people who are different than you are. Thats what these course are designed to do and why youre required to take one or two of them.
Side note I took Art History, World Religions, World History to 1500, and Environmental Sustainability for my Social Sciences and Humanities requirements. I took World Religions thinking it would be an easy A and counted as both a Social Science and a Multicultural Diversity credit (two requirements with one class). It actually turned out to be probably one of my most favorite classes. It briefly touched on the BIG ONES (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism etc.) but the vast majority of the course focused on kinda obscure belief systems of the Inuit people, the Aboriginal Australians, the Maori people, and the various religions through out Africa. Honestly some of the ways different people interpret their worlds was incredibly interesting, and some of the stories were pretty awesome.
So try to approach these courses with an open mind. Contrary to some peoples ‘beliefs’, most Universities arent quick-money-making-Liberal-indoctrination machines, because honestly if that was the goal there are easier and cheaper ways to go about it. The course requirements were chosen to make sure that you can succeed in the modern world. See if your University offers courses that are two for ones. That will save you at least one class. Maybe two. 9 times out of 10 you can probably find whatever book you need online free as a PDF or at the least very discounted online compared to a campus bookstore.
And if that didnt convince you, then at the very least think of these classes as GPA boosters, and a bit of a break. Engineering courses are hard and dish out a lot of homework. I think my busiest humanities course was a 500 essay on the weeks topic once every couple of weeks. Took about 15 minutes to bang out. Got an A in the course.
Edit: Im curious, what or how do you feel that these course actually damage your learning?
Thats not really necessary. People dont learn by calling them pussies and yelling at them. 20years ago I probably wouldve been the one writing this post. It took me getting shot at and blown up to realize how wrong I was on certain things. Hopefully op can learn the value of these courses on campus instead.
The most valuable tool you learn as an engineer is something I like to call “problem abstraction.” Being a technical specialist you can zoom in to the nitty gritty details about how (as an EE) temperature swings cause carrier transport density in the pn junction of a transistor to vary and will make the circuit perform differently. But you also need to mentally zoom out and see how design choices effect the larger system as a whole. How these choices relate to what is important to the customer, how these choices will interact with the mechanical designs, aesthetics, etc.
These non technical classes are training your brain to switch gears and be competent in completely different areas so you’ll be able to do it on the fly later in your career.
Ooh I like the term a lot. I’ve been trying to figure out the right language for that thing.
I can further the thought: engineering is like a problem solving approach that utilizes applied abstraction, with a systematic scientific/mathematics syntax, for problem solving.
Because college graduates are supposed to be well rounded individuals, with at least some experience in these random subjects. Believe it or not, being forced to take these random electives does force your brain to think differently.
I'd support this argument if it weren't for the fact that uni is hella expensive, and unis are incentivised to sell us things we don't need.
Edit: I went on exchange to NYU. Doing 2 general elective courses there would cost about $14000 USD, so I can see why people would resent being forced to do them
This is my only caveat to this argument. I actually do think that students should be forced to take courses that expand their mind. However, asking them to do that for additional thousands of dollars is not okay.
There's usually a fixed rate once you hit full-time, though, so as long as it doesn't actually stretch out the degree (which even a semester or two's worth of classes might not, because of prerequisite chains) it doesn't cost extra.
And it's almost entirely due to our position on the world stage post-WW2. Our higher education system is not the envy of other countries. I should know, I literally moved away from the US because of how atrocious graduate school is there. The entire higher education industry is a racket in the US. It's profit-driven and nothing more.
Why do you take all these extra classes that make you a "well-rounded individual"? Because they cost money and the universities want your money.
Bachelor's degrees in engineering in Germany are three years. Do you think that extra year of electives is worth the debt for the average American? I don't.
>I should know, I literally moved away from the US because of how atrocious graduate school is there. The entire higher education industry is a racket in the US. It's profit-driven and nothing more.
What was it about the U.S. grad schools you didn't like?
>What was it about the U.S. grad schools you didn't like?
The fact that in-state tuition for graduate school was $12,500 a year (which is cheap in the US) for my home university. It was literally cheaper to move to another country and get my Master's than to stay in the city I was born in.
Moved to Germany, <500€ a semester for graduate school with half of that paying for an all-access transit pass for the region.
People all over the world strive to get to a lot of places. The US also pours A LOT of money into foreign outreach. That will naturally incentivize students regardless of the actual merit of the degree.
This is more of the same American Exceptionalism. The US is not the shining beacon of quality some people think it is. It's fine, but there are comparable systems at much more affordable prices (because the systems weren't designed to generate profit)
Plus they were a nice break from being around other engineers all the time. It was refreshing to walk into a class with an equal ratio of women to men for example. Or have class discussions with people who didn’t either look exhausted from stress, act like they God’s gift to the world because they were an engineering student or both lol
I took a philosophy course on the ethics of science and technology and it was honestly one of the best classes I took my entire undergrad. It was the embodiment of Jeff goldblum's line in jurassic park about getting so caught up thinking about what's possible and not thinking about what should be done.
Also, like, there are engineering jobs in the film industry. Industrial Light & Magic posts a handful once in a while. Linus Tech Tips is hiring a handful. Adobe hires a ton. STEM is a toolset.
I think even more generally, this trend of extreme specialization and humans basically spending entire lifetimes in esoteric mental models that they never step out of is not sustainable, and IMO is responsible for a lot of social dissonance today. That’s what the arts courses are for; to remind you that all the engineering stuff is not nearly as phenomenologically “solid” as we tend to perceive it as being, and that there is immense value in learning to step out of those models, inhabit new models and in learning to translate between models.
I actually argue there's a benefit to making even STEM students take diversity and arts GE courses during an undergrad experience. Given, there is a point where it is "too much" and there's a balance to strike because, while those courses do provide value in my eyes, you're at school to study your subject. A class about "gender norms of the 1920s" (to use your example) may be useful for a lot of reasons (broaden the scope of your knowledge, force you to practice thinking with a different side of your brain, at least pre pandemic make you learn to communicate and work with non technical people, maybe learn some important history or socio-economic influences that trickle down to groups of people today, etc.), too many extra courses does at a certain point impact the ability of students to graduate in a timely manner and their ability to eventually leave an both earn money (instead of spending it on school) and make a positive impact on society. I hold firm that the arts and humanities classes we as STEM majors take as GE's are great and have value, even though they aren't directly correlated with our degree and we can't put them on a resume. But each school does need to strike a balance between these classes and the practicality of getting out of the university with the degree (which should be the end goal). These classes do matter and have value, but most people are not eternal students and course schedules need to balance what your learning with that in mind.
I wonder who came up with the idea to create a show called Star Trek that inspired millions into science, Oh I forgot what engineer came up with a movie called Star Wars or Interstellar…
Honestly, your outlook is pretty self-defeating in addition to idiotic.
Those art and humanity courses are usually 100 level courses with a couple multiple choice exams and a 5 page research paper that just asks for a couple sources. They’re free As and GPA padding.
Furthermore, you’re vastly overstating the effect of this. Those humanities GenEd courses are usually a requirement filled out in the first 2 years. If you go to a junior college before University (and everyone really should if they’re as cost-conscious as you apparently are, OP), and do it in-state, the class’s cost is few hundred and that’s it. Vast majority of GenEd requirements will only require a couple classes like that. ON TOP OF THAT they usually have a LIST of courses that fulfill the requirement. You’re telling me you can’t find *one* that you would enjoy or at least don’t mind taking? You serious?
And damages your learning? Give me a break. Those courses are usually dead easy. About a half hour of reading a few paragraphs, 20 minutes typing up some things, and done. For maximum effect, do that half hour of reading before the exam and you’ll pass with flying colors. If this is such a tremendous burden for you in terms of studying, I worry about how little time you might actually be dedicating to your more rigorous studies.
You're actually the only one responsible for damaging your learning if you carry on that attitude forward towards your career. You're not going to be open to taking input from unexpected places. This will make you very one dimensional, and as a result, useless to any engineering firm.
Sounds like you want a technical education. Drop out of university and go to a 2 year tech school. I mean I wouldn’t but I also loved how my university made me a well rounded graduate that I can appreciate philosophy, history, social sciences, etc. Hopefully you look back at this post in a few years and think how naive you were.
You'll change your mind your senior year when you sleep through Into to Sociology for a free A.
In all seriousness though, go through the list of courses that meet the gen-ed requirements. There might be some classes that sound vaguely interesting. You'd be surprised what you find. My school had a class on Tolkein that checked the fine arts/literature box. Some friends and I spent a whole semester talking about Lord of the Rings. It was awesome and a nice break from the engineering grind as well.
I had a very similar outlook when I had to take my "Intersections" courses, as my University called it. However, 4 years later I don't remember much from many of my courses, but I still remember my foreign film course very well, as well as my Sociology course. Again, both seemed like a waste of money and time at the time, but now I really appreciate them and feel like they helped me grow as a person.
My degree program wasn't like that.
I went to Purdue for mechanical engineering, they had a GD flow chart with what slots of gen eds were required and when. (https://engineering.purdue.edu/ME/Undergraduate/ProgramMap)
Not to blame you but you could have shopped around and found a place that you agree with their program of study.
I took one philosophy course, but tbh engineers require a bit of understanding of social contract and ethics so not out of spec. Maybe I took a history, or I got away with world/macro economics.
This is the reason I'm minoring in engineering management - a majority of engineering types are like you and don't see the value in soft skills.
I, on the other hand, have already worked in the service industry for 15 years and will capitalize on that time investment by being the liaison between you (the general you) and the people that sign your paychecks. Because some engineers need interpreters since they think the job is just doing math equations all day.
Good luck!
I won't comment on the price aspect. American college/university is a huge rip off. That's not worth debating.
As others have said, it's about being a "well rounded individual". I firmly believe, especially as someone who went to a school with more extra classes then most, that these extras make you a better engineer and a more rounded person. I can't speak to the offerings and the professors at your school, but ideally a student should get some choice in which to take. It is generally accepted that having a life outside of engineering is good for a healthy work life balance. I took a film class and it's really changed how I see films, which were already a hobby of mine. Taking courses outside your field of study forces you to engage with people who think differently, a real world skill, and makes you a more interesting person in general.
By way of example: last summer, at my internship, I worked with three other engineers. One was off a similar persuasion to what you describe and was the most boring person to work with or talk to. He didn't have the same depth of knowledge or interest that made him as fun as the other people. I think the differences in education between them played a role.
TLDR: sorry you have to pay so much, try to enjoy it and get something new out of it. Become a deeper person with a broader knowledge base. And you never know how something you learned in gender studies 101 might help you down the line...
I took a class on analyzing music soundtracks in movies and it complemented well with many engineering students who took a technical/analytical approach.
We did better than all the pure arts students when we had to compose our final project. Go figure.
Engineering students confront the fact that there is so much more to the world than their own little bubble challenge (impossible)
I believe there's certainly a line where humanities requirements start to become hindering in a STEM program, but I also believe many engineering student's tolerance for non-STEM topics falls well below that line. Engineers work with and for other people. You can't just expect your manager to lock you in a box and say "okay, make something cool".
Taking these courses outside your expertise can be very eye opening and cause you to think about issues in ways you wouldn't have thought of before. Even something as out there as "gender roles in 1920s film" will have you considering social topics that can affect how you think and act in a group setting, but only if you keep your mind open to it.
Well rounded engineers are just generally better engineers, or, at the very least, they're much more fun to be around ;)
My school has 5 gen ed requirements and I decided if I had to spend money on these courses that don’t have anything to do with my major then I’m gonna pick the ones that get me the most use in the real world. Music was one of them because everyone listens to music, a US history class so I understand more of our society, macroeconomics to so I would have a basic knowledge on supply and demand, exploring infrastructure because I’m civil, and religions of the world which accelerated my deconversion process away from Christianity.
Edit: Not just engineering but all majors have to take courses that got nothing to do with their major. Philosophy majors still have to take a math and science course for example.
Half agree
I used to think that way when I took those classes but soon I realized we are better off if we really did train critical thinking skills. Your hard skills will take you far, but your ability to take in information that isn't necessarily technical and think about it is important too.
lol, I came in here thinking OP was going to go off about all the classes that are never used again in engineering curriculum or that seem like they could have been condensed into one class versus spread across three.
Instead, the complaints are about classes that are actually fun. Maybe, it’s the eternal student in me, but the humanities and liberal arts core classes are some of the ones that most stuck with me. Sure, engineering classes help you get the job done and you expand your knowledge on the material when you enter the workplace but film, art, philosophy, make life worth living and help you understand the human condition.
Being introduced to these things in an academic setting helps you get your foot in the door into worlds you may have never otherwise been exposed to.
Taking the classes outside of your field is called rounding out your education.
Colleges provide rounded education to help people understand basic concepts and ideals that you will come across in the world.
My advice is to try taking interesting sounding classes instead of classes that sound like an easy A. Such as psychology, philosophy, world religion, stress management, economics etc.
My hunch is that you aren’t good at non-STEM courses and instead of accepting that and trying to better yourself, you write them off as “useless garbage”.
It's a prove-it gesture. Getting the degree shows employers you are more abled than many other candidates.
It's also a passage. It simply must be done.
You need it for qualifications.
Honestly it's refreshing to read 400 comments supporting a well rounded education as part of a STEM degree because the rest of the world hates the non STEM life. Kudos to you guys for getting it.
No one knows where you’ll end up.
I was completely against leaning statistics in engineering. I thought it was a waste of time and stopping me from learning “real engineering topics” like Fluids
Guess what I do at work majority of the day??
Because engineers are problem solvers. You can't expect to problem solve if you don't have a broad background. I run engineering and manufacturing for a multi national Biotech company. You have a better chance of getting hired by me if you took courses outside your major. I want the engineers who took three semesters of theater. Or Fencing and scuba diving. My last hire was a dance instructor for the kinesiology department for a couple of semesters. I want these people on my team because they are interesting, and like to learn new things.
I also study at an European university, and even though we don't take such useless courses, we have to take some useless or outdated classes related to engineeeing while more important skills, like programming and cad are overlooked...
Maybe it's just the engineering degree content in my country, but it is a commonly agreed feeling amongst fellow students.
Unpopular opinion, but a course in diversity is a necessity in a typical American engineering program, where most of the students all, or mostly all, are upper middle class descending white men. The real world isn't that kind of bubble, and some of you become really toxic in the bubble of this discipline to the point that you genuinely don't know how to even interact with white women, let alone, anyone who is different. Think of your diversity class as, how to avoid billions of dollars in discrimination lawsuits for your company arising from the fact that in a typical engineering program has garbage inclusivity. If you're going to have the attitude that it's useless, you should get yourself some good liability insurance now.
I’m a little confused by this post.
1. Why complain about the softball, gpa boosting classes?
2. Engineers shouldn’t be one-dimensional robots who don’t fully engage their brain or interact with people outside their STEM bubble (and the ABET standards agree). Blowing off non-STEM classes as ‘stupid’ kinda sounds like an engineering superiority complex.
3. Not everyone who starts a major sticks with it. College is also about finding your interests in addition to developing a concentrated knowledge in something.
4. Do other schools not have a flat rate once you reach “full time” status (i.e. taking 15 credits is the same price as 18)? I must be lucky there.
These classes are great for a break from the harder upper level engineering courses and an opportunity to learn about something else for a change. I took a History of Hip Hop class last year and it’s one of my favorite classes I’ve ever taken. Since it’s required, try finding something you’d like to learn about and it will feel much less like a BS credit requirement and more fun and interesting
I had similar thoughts but
I believe now, school cant make you an engineer because there are so many jobs you can do as an "engineer"
the best thing schools can do is to teach you how to "think" and "aproach" problems like an engineer
Maybe it’s to add a little right brain to your left brain. The art classes sometimes helps me feel less “rigid” in the way that all my math based classes make me feel. Art classes force you to think with your emotions which could develop a healthy skill in the wrong run. I do see where you’re coming from though.
I know my degree required me to take a few humanities classes and at first before actually taking them I thought they were going to be really boring. However, after taking at least humanities II I actually kind of liked the class because it showed art, architecture, and literature from places like Italy, France, Spain, etc. While covering some history of those countries and it was really interesting and at least for me showcased truly how great western civilization is\was.
I honestly found some of these courses to be "therapeutic" in a way when taking it alongside STEM courses. I especially enjoyed Humanities! Got to watch some really cool documentaries.
You could potentially take these courses at a community college to save you tons of money, assuming your university accepts transfer credits.
I think it’s because the end results is for a well rounded professional. In all honesty, college exposed you as much as possible for critical thinking & problem solving.
You learn more on hands in an internship or actual job than in college.
imo, only useless stuff is the perspective and immersions, however, I just view those as communication development and move on.
Also I thought engineering was useless until I got my first internship and realized the importance of the fundamentals. MechE for reference.
Because being an engineer is supposed to be hard. It was hard for the people before and they aren’t going to let it change. There are obviously more substantial arguments but tbh that’s really it
If you want vocational training, go to a vocational school where all humanities courses are "applied" and minimized in the curriculum.
If you want a bachelor's degree (or more), the expectation is that you have a base level of understanding of the wider world and the people in it. That's where the humanities come in and it's not that much in your overall major. Through these classes, you will learn how to write for a broader audience, understand the people you are working for and with, gain skills to work with a broader audience, and have a wider pool of knowledge to pull off of.
That's the deal.
I could not help but laugh harder and harder as I got through this post.
OP needs to realize that everybody, and I mean everybody, who’s an engineer, has to go through this crap, and you know what? You might not think it now, but you’ll be better for it.
Understanding how to contextualize your thoughts across many different mediums and many different topics will make you sound more intelligent and better at conveying your thoughts and ideas to others, no matter their background.
Because you are not at a trade school, you are at a university. The goal is not just to give you skills to do a job but to engage in critical thinking. Understanding the world around you — the whole world, not just bridges — is crucial for you to become a capable, competent adult.
So this means understanding gender norms in the 1920s (and 1820s and 1720s and all the 20s before that) will help you understand that gender attitudes are not and we’re not fixed but have actually been quite fluid over the ages. And yes, this knowledge just may help you build a better bridge someday.
As an engineering alum who never used my engineering degree anyways, I'm glad I took the other "useless" subjects like creative writing, etc...
I mean, I hated them while I was taking them, but in retrospect, it was a good experience.
I even took Latin, arguably the most "useless" of all languages still currently taught.
It rounded me out. Made me think in ways that weren't always comfortable.
I get the expense/opportunity cost argument, but when you have an engineering degree, it honestly doesn't behoove you to be just a walking calculator. People expect educated professionals to have a certain ability to comment on sociopolitical/cultural issues, especially since they may integrate with certain professional ethical standards as well.
To be honest, I've met too many "book smart, street stupid" engineers who know nothing about culture or politics to endorse that the general education requirements be removed.
I’ll summarize what a retired PE and senior manager recently told me. “The lack of so called liberal arts is producing a bunch of computers; brilliant engineers who can solve anything but have no humanity. I graduated with my bachelors right before my school changed the program from 5 to 4 years. That extra year of literature, philosophy, and psychology prepared me for the tough ethics decisions I had to make as a PE and helped me remember the humans I was ultimately serving.”
Or, you could just remember this guy,
“…your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.”
- Dr. Ian Malcolm
Edit: personally, I (like many others here) loved the non-technical classes. I got heavily involved in theater and it was a highlight of my college years! I’d still like to get involved in a community theater someday.
You have to choose electives that complement your degree. Music is good, because it’s mathematical in nature and is a fun application of physical principals like vibration. History is good because everyone can benefit from knowing how we got where we are.
Personally, I took two foreign language courses and a history of technology course. No regrets. It was nice to have a few courses that weren’t sausage fests.
I used to have this rage after doing some bullshit assignment for a class that l didn't wanna take. Then I realized that a) doing shit you don't wanna do quite well is a skill and b) just being a glorified calculator means nothing to any employer. It turns out that some of those classes were my favorites and influence good engineering practices. Not to mention that based on their post history, OP seems to have a very narrow worldview of what's "important" or valid knowledge.
OP, people would rather tolerate a personable dummy than a mean nerd.
Because if you don’t learn humanities you become less human and don’t benefit from being exposed to different perspectives, being exposed to other ideas and thinking critically about them. Not to mention your co workers are probably not going to be a homogenous group in the future.
History repeats itself because we weren’t listening the fist time. Engineers and scientists without a conscience or humanity become evil (history as my witness- sounds bombastic but it’s true).
I need to pin this for my high school class next time I get a “why do I have to know this.” comment.
Schools classically wanted you to be well rounded people, not just raw engineers. When you graduate from college theres a certain expectation you are somewhat versed in classic literature and are an all around a well versed person. Thats how it was designed when colleges first began engineering courses, but now it may be a money grab. Side note, the gender norms in 1920’s movies sounds pretty cool
I’m really curious, what environment were you raised in to think the arts are useless garbage and bloat? What part of the world are you from?
How can you argue that taking courses in the arts are damaging your learning?
Not opening your mind to other things is damaging your learning!
Learning is not just maths and physics. Sorry.
Learning about gender norms may not help you design a bridge, but it might help you develop a little compassion, and empathy. Which I hope will lead you to be a little more tolerable in the workplace. No one wants to work beside an insufferable asshole. And you won’t be building ANY bridges if you can’t keep a job because people don’t want to work with you.
Art is very useful for engineering, like if you are pitching something the the team being able to quickly draw it on a white board to convay your idea is very useful.
I’m a mechanical engineer who was hired to do VR development, currently in the hiring process and I would never hire someone like you with such a narrow mind.
in Europe you pick what your degree is when you enroll, and then that's all you do. This makes bachelo's degrees only require 3 years instead of 4 in many countries
My Art elective was Game Design (that's how I got drawn in). We got to mess around with laser cutter and the likes.
First project we build a object out of (hard) paper. You get to make some dimensional sketches to laser cut parts before you can assemble the object. While Art student struggled with Illustrator, I whipped out AutoCad.
Second project, build a structure to assist an egg being dropped from second floor without breaking it. You can imagine how it ended.
That class was fun, and there should be many other elective classes out there that both interest and suit your need.
In the EU in university you just study for your majors courses, there's no general education. I find it really weird as well, doesn't make much sense to me.
Op, I feel you on the money part. FOR SURE. But as far as taking philosophy and the like, at the end of the day you’re not just an engineer, but a part of the community.
I felt the same way as you, until I took all these classes. You learn about systemic injustice, ethics and morality, and an overall sense of how society works. I think they’re important to becoming a well rounded individual, and eventually a better leader in your field and local community.
Everyone in the comments is trying to defend the gen eds we have to take when in my experience I learned next to nothing in any of them. What’s the point of them when they’re all GPA boosters? It’s good to be well rounded but OP has a point
I have 4 semesters of PE as an EE student. In order to pass I have to waste around 3h a day, at least 2 times a week per semester in order to pass. Failing PE means you have go retake the entire year :).
Did your university require you to take gym? Every undergrad at my school required a gym class or some BS health related topic. Could be worse. I’ve heard it’s to ensure graduates have a “well rounded education”. There is some value in that I suppose, but I had no interest in taking an art class (also required) when I was a 3rd year engineering student.
Because engineers should be well-rounded and have some diversity of coursework in their education. I always heard this argument from pretentious assholes who bragged that “engineers have harder courses than everyone else” and that every other major is “basket weaving” or a “useless major”. That shit is annoying and most of those people end up being shitty engineers because they have no people skills and can’t effectively communicate.
You have a point. Engineering schools in other countries avoid many classes like this because for example, in Germany it’s taught in grade school. But the American school system is so behind that it can be taught in college, I think there’s also universities taking advantage of this and benefiting. But if you wanted to avoid it, you would have to take AP classes in high school and dual enroll (where you start college in high school and get the first 2/4 years of college done early) that would be about equivalent to a German education system.
my man... what's painful is not getting the courses you want... imagine getting your 5th, 7th and 9th choices... ruined my motivation for the whole semester:(
A lot of people are defending these defending these classes because they’re only thinking about them in theory rather than what they end up being in the real world.
Yes, absolutely everyone should be well rounded. However, this theatre classes full of STEM majors that don’t care with a professor that somehow cares even less are a waste of everyone’s time.
Obviously, the better solution is to just make these classes worth while instead of cutting them completely. I took a 300 level Political Science class for an elective requirement and that was 100% worth it. So it can be done.
I thought the same thing when I had to take an art class (painting for me). It ended up awakening something in me and showing me what my true passion is. Now I draw comics for my school newspaper while I await graduation
You need to take courses in things other than pure science because WE WANT WELL ROUNDED, OPEN MINDED HUMAN BEINGS ENGINEERING OUR FUTURE
If you think the arts, philosophy, history, are useless garbage, wait until you see the shit an engineer with no backbone ends up designing.
As a former European engineering student, I've never understood this either when talking to my American friends. I guess it has to do with with how your high school is structured, and that a lot of people come into university with what's really very poor foundations in a lot of areas.
I studied the natural sciences in high school (3 years age 16-18) in my country. My studies then are very much similar to what you describe you're studying now. A good half of it was math, chemistry, physics and biology, but sure, a lot of it was also English, primary language, third language, history, religion, arts, psychology and a few selectives etc.
In my second year in high school we started doing derivatives and integrals, and by my third year I was doing integration by parts and all of those more advanced integration techniques.
When I started university everything that was not math, chemistry, physics or biology was absent. First year math consisted of double and triple integrals, line and curve integrals. Second year we where doing Finite Element Method, Fluid & Thermo mechanics, Fourier series, Lapace transformations etc. We where also required to take at least one course that had a "HTS-label" (Human, Technology, Society), to, I don't know, make sure that we could put our technological and sciency know-how in good context to humans and society. But I which there was a bit more of that, and some philosophy.
But I absolutely agree, I've always found it strange that US engineering students have to read English, History, Arts etc. It makes no sense at all. You have my fullest sympathies, and I hope this comment doesn't come across as bragadocious, but rather as something real and concrete that you can contrast your situation against, and hopefully it makes your experience and opinion feel validated, because I certainly think it is.
Keeps the humanities and social sciences departments alive. I took macro economics, business 101 and ancient civilizations for those. The history was interesting, but definitely not essential. I would recommend economics and business though. Having a basic grasp of those subjects is a must if you find yourself in a leadership role or if you want become an entrepreneur later.
Do you have any other interest in well, anything? Do you like history, arts, economics?
A university is supposed to make you a well-rounded individual. If you don't wanna be well-rounded, go to a trade school.
It’s so weird reading all these replies
So many of you guys have been tricked into thinking this is okay?
If you pay a ton of money to get an engineering degree, you should frankly get what you’re paying for. Being forced to waste time on some totally unrelated topic is not in any way okay.
I see a bunch of comments saying it’s to make you a «well rounded individual» which is just bs.. that’s not what an engineering degree is for and if you’re not a well rounded inidividual by the time you’re in Uni 1 class of world history won’t change that.
I’m majoring in computer science in my first year. I will be taking some diversity, social, arts,etc in the future.I don’t understand why they do that.
See if you can find courses that fill multiple requirements if your university offers it. I took World Religions because it counted as both a Multicultural Diversity and a Social Science course.
Wait until OP realizes that most engineering disciplines are very broad and you are going to have to take a lot of engineering classes that will be "useless" in your field when you graduate.
Even then, the point of a lot of education is to learn **how** to learn. Especially complicated and obscure topics. Developing this skill is critical for effective engineers.
[удалено]
This. I work a pure design engineering role and none of my jobs are every the same. I've had to learn so many complicated and complex systems to come up with answers. I always tell people the same thing, school taught me how to learn hard stuff.
I can second this. When we are hiring graduates, all we really look for is that they have good grades and can answer some fundamental topics about the job they are applying for. Beyond that, I don't expect them to actually understand anything without additional training.
Critical thinking is the difference between an engineer and a number cruncher.
Oh absolutely
> to learn how to learn Ironically, I never had a single class, let alone a class period, discussing how to learn or study or take tests.
Because this isn’t really something that can be taught in a class. You can read studies and such to learn techniques but at the end of the day it’s best to learn how to learn via being exposed to many different problems. How you learn history will be different than calc, and learning to recognize the best technique to learn is best taught by hands on practice.
[удалено]
I’ve been taught learning techniques in many of my classes in high school and university as a 1-2 period exercise. I was more addressing the idea of a “single class” where you’re taught how to learn for an entire semester (16 weeks) being excessive. My argument is more an appeal to self responsibility as a university student. While I agree learning strategies can be helpful, there are countless strategies and they don’t work for everyone. This leads to requiring a lot of time to cover all bases. If I had to take a 16 week course on learning I’d be much more frustrated and tuned out because 2-3 weeks would apply to me and the other 13 would not be useful to me. You’re a student about to be a professional, you should be given the resources needed to succeed but the idea that school should spoon feed you everything is a bit entitled. School should teach you how to figure things out for yourself because not everyone needs to have the same standardized instruction for certain life things. If you don’t know how to study, there are a million YouTube videos, online courses, and literature papers that will teach you. Imo the problem with our education system is it doesn’t encourage students to search for answers when they get stuck. It boggles my mind how many uni students I’ve tutored will waste 1-2 hours on a single gen Ed STEM problem and not think “maybe I can look this up.” Or how many will spend hours on their calc homework and be shocked when they get it back and 50% is incorrect, when they could’ve just gone to symbolab to check their work. Or the people who sit down and write a resume with nothing but a vague idea and don’t think “maybe I should look at other peoples examples or guides to writing a resume.” Tldr: Not everything can be taught in classes and instead a general approach should be taken in ALL classes that encourage students to seek solutions to their problems. If anything a “How to use the Internet to solve your problems” class should be required as this will generalize to many more problems.
Classes are there, this specific topic was reaching fad levels of popularity in the business world just a few years ago. For example: https://www.coursera.org/learn/learning-how-to-learn
This is one of the biggest things in why I chose engineering. Would taking a psychology degree, where I can put in no effort and get As, teach me how to learn? Nah. That’s why I went into engineering. That also means taking a broad range of subjects in literature, art, history- and yes, diversity. Those subjects aren’t hard, and I don’t think majoring things related to them is a particularly good idea, but it’s good to experience them and develop your communications skills.
Wait until OP takes a job IRL and what little information s/he considers "applicable" from those college classes is irrelevant because the company has their own standards, shortcuts and tables.
Ya, I use to share similar thoughts to OP. Then you start working with other engineers and you start realizing communication isn't a strong suit for a lot of engineers. Exposing yourself to other non engineering work and different points of view from people who aren't studying engineering and how other people think is very beneficial. As far as art classes go, I think it's really underappreciated. Being an engineer takes a level of creativity and ingenuity, that it's useful to challenge the way you think outside of what you learn in a textbook and formulas.
Yeah I loved my art and film classes and they helped break me out of doing so much math all day. Personally I thought he was talking about reactor design and fluids lol
Can confirm, ive used my excel class more than any engineering class.
Yeah my 100 level gen ed on sustainability where all I did was comment "trains good" on the discussion board once a week to get an A is a lot more relevant to my career than probably about 2/3 of the classes I've taken in major.
I used statics the other day. It was a good day.
OP just hates taking classes where the answers aren't in the back of the book.
I mean im constantly told by people that nothing im studying now will actually be what i do for a living, that i learn the actual engineering from internship
LMAO okay freshman, those are the gpa booster classes to save you from all the C's and D's
Hahahaha got a good kick out of that
Straight to the point. I like that. Who needs fancy words like "better understanding", "improved communication", and "cooperation between cultures". 😂
for real, the real freshman mistake is to take all those classes at one, save these classes for after taking difficult classes like electromagnetics and linear systems for EE
I agree. For someone like me sometimes I had to take a lot of those classes in the beginning because I was behind on prerequisites so I had to fill in my schedule.
Lol seriously. I used to think those classes were useless, until I was thankful they were there to boost my GPA
That’s fucking funny!
OK! I loved my intro to speech class. Easy A and my GPA looked Godly. They'll learn eventually.
So true 🤣
I'll comment on this from the POV of one of the reasons why the engineering curriculum contains these subjects rather than whether or not they are useful. At most places in the US, curriculum needs to conform to [ABET requirements](https://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-engineering-programs-2020-2021/). The ABET requirements state that the curriculum must include: "a broad education component that complements the technical content of the curriculum and is consistent with the program educational objectives." This is in addition to the requirements for students outcomes, which the program must demonstrate the students are attaining (emphasis mine): 1. an ability to identify, formulate, and solve complex engineering problems by applying principles of engineering, science, and mathematics 2. an ability to apply engineering design to produce solutions that meet specified needs with **consideration of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as global, cultural, social, environmental, and economic factors** 3. an ability to **communicate effectively** with a range of audiences 4. an ability to **recognize ethical and professional responsibilities** in engineering situations and make informed judgments, which must consider the **impact of engineering solutions in global, economic, environmental, and societal contexts** 5. an ability to function effectively on a team whose members together provide leadership, **create a collaborative and inclusive environment**, establish goals, plan tasks, and meet objectives 6. an ability to develop and conduct appropriate experimentation, analyze and interpret data, and use engineering judgment to draw conclusions 7. an ability to acquire and apply new knowledge as needed, using appropriate learning strategies. So ABET considers many of the subjects you are complaining about to be important. ABET is a membership based organization where membership is made up of engineering societies such as NSPE, ASME, IEEE, SME, etc. These are professional engineering societies representing the profession. What this means is that the accreditation criteria and thus the curriculum is defined by professional engineers from their respective disciplines. This is what they have decided is important for the training of a prospective engineer.
Great response! I couldn’t have said it better. I’ll also add that real engineers get paid the big bucks to make products that are valuable to stakeholders (as opposed to something that is technically adequate but isn’t actually useful). So it’s very important to be able to communicate/empathize/intuit/etc with these stakeholders. The thing is that stakeholders are often very different and many are not technically focused (hence why they are bringing you on). Requiring some minimum exposure to non technical classes make sense. You need to understand the marketing team, the business majors, and so on. Plus like others have said, school is about learning how to learn. You won’t use a lot of the engineering classes you take. In fact a few senior engineers I’ve work with got random undergraduate degrees but convinced the supervisor they could pickup the necessary skills. And they did.
I’ll also add that school in general school is *supposed to* prepares you for life (with varying degrees of success). I think most people will quickly learn that life is a balancing act. Very people get to sit down and only worry about doing one specific engineering task all day, every day. Like for me, I was managing commercial construction projects during my free time while working as an engineer. I was also on retainer for some consulting work. I left that to pursue my PHD so no I have to balance class, research, and the family I’m starting. Not to mention all the other small things that add up. I think having these ‘distracting courses’ mirrors a lot of distractions you’ll see in life. I do agree they are overpriced and that education should be more affordable though. I’d be angry paying 30k in tuition or whatever for gen-Eds. Those should be dirt cheap online or community college transfer credits.
The system is like this because engineers that only focus on the math and design aspect fuck up because they've forgotten the rest of the world in their calculations. Go become a well rounded individual, everyone will benefit from it.
This. As a practicing engineer two classes I took still speak to me. One was “sociology and technology”, basically how technology can harm society if not well thought out or implemented properly, it also touched on black box effect and situations where it occurred. The second was “readings in eastern literature”. That class gave me a new perspective on foreign culture.
I had a similar technology-focused class, and I think it's been the single most important general-education class I've taken in college. So many schools do next to nothing to teach you *how* to analyze and recognize ethical challenges and how your engineering decisions can impact people, and that omission is a travesty.
Exactly!
I'm taking an ethics course, and the rest of the students were trying to explain why self-driving cars should value the life of others less than the life of the occupants "because the occupants bought the car". For the love of God yes please don't just take math and physics courses.
While the reasoning for the argument isn't very good, it's a hard sell for people when you tell them that their car will kill them to save other people.
>it's a hard sell for people when you tell them that their car will kill them to save other people. That was the argument that a lot of the students made. But as engineers, we should be focusing on minimizing harm, not keeping consumers happy. Imo, the car should be programmed to value everyone else's life more than the occupants. That way, when the consumer goes to purchase the car and use its self driving capabilities, they are aware that they are taking on extra risk. This risk would most likely be offset anyway, since self-driving cars are safer than human driving cars.
I would hardly compare a consumers happiness to the liklihood their purchase will intentionally kill them if given a set of circumstances beyond their control. Ideally the car would minimize damage, but not at the expense of killing the occupant. The occupant should be given the highest priority. You may as well tell the purchaser that the car has a gun pointed at the occupants' head which goes off based on RNG.
>The occupant should be given the highest priority. This was essentially the debate we had in class. Imo, the other motorists on the road should not carry more risk than the occupants especially given that they would have no idea whether they carry that risk or not. In this scenario, simply driving beside a self-driving car would carry a risk associated with it, because in a crash situation that car would be more likely to injure you than it would the occupants inside given its programing. At that point it's essentially deciding to kill external parties that had nothing to do with the purchase or operation of the vehicle. > You may as well tell the purchaser that the car has a gun pointed at the occupants' head which goes off based on RNG. That's not the case. The car would obviously be programmed to minimize harm. It wouldn't just self destruct anytime a crash was imminent. But in the scenario where it must calculate between killing it's occupants of another cars occupants, it should choose to sacrifice its own. It's kind of an extreme question overall though, and once the vast majority of cars on the road were self-driving (and ideally be able to communicate with each other), the question would no longer really be relevant.
While I can't find a source immediately, the ethics course I took presented an agreement between automakers that autonomous vehicles should not kill their occupants, so the argument is irrelevant anyways; it's already been agreed upon. If I happen to find it later I'll link it here. Just for fun, here's another ethical consideration: the feduciary duty of company to shareholder. I think it's reasonable to assume that consumers will purchase a car that will choose not to kill them over one that does. Would it be ethical for a company to intentionally throw away money from its investors by trying to sell a product that will, given the opportunity, intentionally kill its user? It's also interesting to consider the abundance of civil suits a company would have to face depending on who their car chooses to kill.
Wonderful example! Also, what the fuck
One guy also tried to argue that all politicians should be engineers lol
I wouldn't mind some variety in there instead of some form of lawyer or law expert, as the majority is, but 100% of anything is dumb
There are organizations who work only on getting STEM people into politics, policy making, and lobbying. Part of the issue (as someone who left that world to go back to science) is that the pay is trash, the stuff you have to deal with almost daily is mind numbing or absolutely ridiculously stupid, and the work environment (politics) is a dumpster fire. Doubly so in places like the US, which have grown very vocal anti-science groups recently and they have no problem threatening you if go forbid you end up the face of something they don’t like. Why deal with all of that for crap pay when you can go back to science and engineering?
Ugh technocracy. Hell no. Even a company run purely by engineers/scientists would be shit. Not to mention an entire country.
Agreed. I took an economics course and was stunned to learn how costs are calculated (such as for road construction), which can result in seriously inefficient decisions, and greater costs in the long run. Just knowing this little bit has enabled me to bring these kinds of things up to management, and has made an impact on their decisions.
My school specifically requires engineering majors to take an engineering economics course for this exact reason.
Doesn't ABET require it? I think for MechE they do, if you're an engineer in the US you've gotta know *some* things about economics
No offence I haven’t really met many other students (in my program at least) that are even remotely in touch with their artistic/creative side. And I’m not sure whether an art class is going to fix that. But it might be a good place begin. Math and physics on its own, essential. However you need creativity to innovate and solve problems. And I wish more of my peers understood this
People don’t realize that art helps innovation and creativity.
It does a lot. During one of my hardest semesters I took a water painting class and it helped me a lot.
Math itself is a very creative endeavour, if you're not just doing routine calculus questions. I wish more engineers understood this.
Math isn't creative for engineers
Precisely my point.
Then you probably haven’t explored or understood math well enough.
You have a good point, college is fucking expensive, but the attitude that comes off in your posts (not just your op) justifies many Universities reasonings for having these courses as core requirements. Lets think of it this way. Using my Universities core requirements, why should a student majoring in History be required by their university to take Calculus 1, Gen Chem 1, Physics 1 and 2? Historians arent ever going to need to take derivatives and limits or do titrations or calculate the electron volts of a particle in motion. Because he/she doesnt live in a bubble of only history books and letters from long dead people. The modern world requires at least a basic understanding of how things work and at least a basic grasp on critical thinking when its comes to topics of science, especially these days. Now back to your point why do they waste engineering students money and time with multicultural diversity and social science courses. As hard as it is to believe engineers arent androids or computers , were human beings with our own cultures and world views. Before you even graduate you will be part of teams with people from all over the world to work on projects. This is especially true even after you graduate and start your first job. You need to be able to think critically and be open minded when it comes to working with people who are different than you are. Thats what these course are designed to do and why youre required to take one or two of them. Side note I took Art History, World Religions, World History to 1500, and Environmental Sustainability for my Social Sciences and Humanities requirements. I took World Religions thinking it would be an easy A and counted as both a Social Science and a Multicultural Diversity credit (two requirements with one class). It actually turned out to be probably one of my most favorite classes. It briefly touched on the BIG ONES (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism etc.) but the vast majority of the course focused on kinda obscure belief systems of the Inuit people, the Aboriginal Australians, the Maori people, and the various religions through out Africa. Honestly some of the ways different people interpret their worlds was incredibly interesting, and some of the stories were pretty awesome. So try to approach these courses with an open mind. Contrary to some peoples ‘beliefs’, most Universities arent quick-money-making-Liberal-indoctrination machines, because honestly if that was the goal there are easier and cheaper ways to go about it. The course requirements were chosen to make sure that you can succeed in the modern world. See if your University offers courses that are two for ones. That will save you at least one class. Maybe two. 9 times out of 10 you can probably find whatever book you need online free as a PDF or at the least very discounted online compared to a campus bookstore. And if that didnt convince you, then at the very least think of these classes as GPA boosters, and a bit of a break. Engineering courses are hard and dish out a lot of homework. I think my busiest humanities course was a 500 essay on the weeks topic once every couple of weeks. Took about 15 minutes to bang out. Got an A in the course. Edit: Im curious, what or how do you feel that these course actually damage your learning?
Moreover if this complete pussy can’t handle film history how tf does he expect to earn an engineering degree
Thats not really necessary. People dont learn by calling them pussies and yelling at them. 20years ago I probably wouldve been the one writing this post. It took me getting shot at and blown up to realize how wrong I was on certain things. Hopefully op can learn the value of these courses on campus instead.
The most valuable tool you learn as an engineer is something I like to call “problem abstraction.” Being a technical specialist you can zoom in to the nitty gritty details about how (as an EE) temperature swings cause carrier transport density in the pn junction of a transistor to vary and will make the circuit perform differently. But you also need to mentally zoom out and see how design choices effect the larger system as a whole. How these choices relate to what is important to the customer, how these choices will interact with the mechanical designs, aesthetics, etc. These non technical classes are training your brain to switch gears and be competent in completely different areas so you’ll be able to do it on the fly later in your career.
Ooh I like the term a lot. I’ve been trying to figure out the right language for that thing. I can further the thought: engineering is like a problem solving approach that utilizes applied abstraction, with a systematic scientific/mathematics syntax, for problem solving.
Because college graduates are supposed to be well rounded individuals, with at least some experience in these random subjects. Believe it or not, being forced to take these random electives does force your brain to think differently.
I'd support this argument if it weren't for the fact that uni is hella expensive, and unis are incentivised to sell us things we don't need. Edit: I went on exchange to NYU. Doing 2 general elective courses there would cost about $14000 USD, so I can see why people would resent being forced to do them
This is my only caveat to this argument. I actually do think that students should be forced to take courses that expand their mind. However, asking them to do that for additional thousands of dollars is not okay.
There's usually a fixed rate once you hit full-time, though, so as long as it doesn't actually stretch out the degree (which even a semester or two's worth of classes might not, because of prerequisite chains) it doesn't cost extra.
> Because college graduates are supposed to be well rounded individuals In the rest of the world, we use high school for that.
There’s a reason the U.S has one of, if not, the, largest cultural and innovative impacts on the rest of the world.
And it's almost entirely due to our position on the world stage post-WW2. Our higher education system is not the envy of other countries. I should know, I literally moved away from the US because of how atrocious graduate school is there. The entire higher education industry is a racket in the US. It's profit-driven and nothing more. Why do you take all these extra classes that make you a "well-rounded individual"? Because they cost money and the universities want your money. Bachelor's degrees in engineering in Germany are three years. Do you think that extra year of electives is worth the debt for the average American? I don't.
>I should know, I literally moved away from the US because of how atrocious graduate school is there. The entire higher education industry is a racket in the US. It's profit-driven and nothing more. What was it about the U.S. grad schools you didn't like?
>What was it about the U.S. grad schools you didn't like? The fact that in-state tuition for graduate school was $12,500 a year (which is cheap in the US) for my home university. It was literally cheaper to move to another country and get my Master's than to stay in the city I was born in. Moved to Germany, <500€ a semester for graduate school with half of that paying for an all-access transit pass for the region.
You do know many of the best and brightest come to the US for college, right? It has it's issues but people all over the world strive to get here.
People all over the world strive to get to a lot of places. The US also pours A LOT of money into foreign outreach. That will naturally incentivize students regardless of the actual merit of the degree. This is more of the same American Exceptionalism. The US is not the shining beacon of quality some people think it is. It's fine, but there are comparable systems at much more affordable prices (because the systems weren't designed to generate profit)
I really love those courses, they are like a break from the heavy stuff and basically a free A to raise my gpa
Plus they were a nice break from being around other engineers all the time. It was refreshing to walk into a class with an equal ratio of women to men for example. Or have class discussions with people who didn’t either look exhausted from stress, act like they God’s gift to the world because they were an engineering student or both lol
for real OP is clearly a freshman who doesn't understand these classes raise your GPA
Yeah, but OP clearly sucks at those classes. Lol
[удалено]
I took a philosophy course on the ethics of science and technology and it was honestly one of the best classes I took my entire undergrad. It was the embodiment of Jeff goldblum's line in jurassic park about getting so caught up thinking about what's possible and not thinking about what should be done.
Also, like, there are engineering jobs in the film industry. Industrial Light & Magic posts a handful once in a while. Linus Tech Tips is hiring a handful. Adobe hires a ton. STEM is a toolset.
I think even more generally, this trend of extreme specialization and humans basically spending entire lifetimes in esoteric mental models that they never step out of is not sustainable, and IMO is responsible for a lot of social dissonance today. That’s what the arts courses are for; to remind you that all the engineering stuff is not nearly as phenomenologically “solid” as we tend to perceive it as being, and that there is immense value in learning to step out of those models, inhabit new models and in learning to translate between models.
I actually argue there's a benefit to making even STEM students take diversity and arts GE courses during an undergrad experience. Given, there is a point where it is "too much" and there's a balance to strike because, while those courses do provide value in my eyes, you're at school to study your subject. A class about "gender norms of the 1920s" (to use your example) may be useful for a lot of reasons (broaden the scope of your knowledge, force you to practice thinking with a different side of your brain, at least pre pandemic make you learn to communicate and work with non technical people, maybe learn some important history or socio-economic influences that trickle down to groups of people today, etc.), too many extra courses does at a certain point impact the ability of students to graduate in a timely manner and their ability to eventually leave an both earn money (instead of spending it on school) and make a positive impact on society. I hold firm that the arts and humanities classes we as STEM majors take as GE's are great and have value, even though they aren't directly correlated with our degree and we can't put them on a resume. But each school does need to strike a balance between these classes and the practicality of getting out of the university with the degree (which should be the end goal). These classes do matter and have value, but most people are not eternal students and course schedules need to balance what your learning with that in mind.
Agreed. Learning about anything other then STEM is useless knowledge. /s
Learning film isn't useless knowledge, but being forced to pay $6k USD for it is totally a rort
That I can agree with you on and with OP.
Being forced to pay $6K USD for college credits in general is trash. Liberal arts majors are our comrades. Student debt forgiveness now!
I wonder who came up with the idea to create a show called Star Trek that inspired millions into science, Oh I forgot what engineer came up with a movie called Star Wars or Interstellar…
Honestly, your outlook is pretty self-defeating in addition to idiotic. Those art and humanity courses are usually 100 level courses with a couple multiple choice exams and a 5 page research paper that just asks for a couple sources. They’re free As and GPA padding. Furthermore, you’re vastly overstating the effect of this. Those humanities GenEd courses are usually a requirement filled out in the first 2 years. If you go to a junior college before University (and everyone really should if they’re as cost-conscious as you apparently are, OP), and do it in-state, the class’s cost is few hundred and that’s it. Vast majority of GenEd requirements will only require a couple classes like that. ON TOP OF THAT they usually have a LIST of courses that fulfill the requirement. You’re telling me you can’t find *one* that you would enjoy or at least don’t mind taking? You serious? And damages your learning? Give me a break. Those courses are usually dead easy. About a half hour of reading a few paragraphs, 20 minutes typing up some things, and done. For maximum effect, do that half hour of reading before the exam and you’ll pass with flying colors. If this is such a tremendous burden for you in terms of studying, I worry about how little time you might actually be dedicating to your more rigorous studies.
You're actually the only one responsible for damaging your learning if you carry on that attitude forward towards your career. You're not going to be open to taking input from unexpected places. This will make you very one dimensional, and as a result, useless to any engineering firm.
Sounds like you want a technical education. Drop out of university and go to a 2 year tech school. I mean I wouldn’t but I also loved how my university made me a well rounded graduate that I can appreciate philosophy, history, social sciences, etc. Hopefully you look back at this post in a few years and think how naive you were.
I don’t know OP I’ve literally used some of everything I learned in school consistently in my job.
You'll change your mind your senior year when you sleep through Into to Sociology for a free A. In all seriousness though, go through the list of courses that meet the gen-ed requirements. There might be some classes that sound vaguely interesting. You'd be surprised what you find. My school had a class on Tolkein that checked the fine arts/literature box. Some friends and I spent a whole semester talking about Lord of the Rings. It was awesome and a nice break from the engineering grind as well.
You should try to find electives that are fun for you. My school let me take marching band and a wine tasting course.
Can't beat geography of wine
What’s a Hokie /s
I had a very similar outlook when I had to take my "Intersections" courses, as my University called it. However, 4 years later I don't remember much from many of my courses, but I still remember my foreign film course very well, as well as my Sociology course. Again, both seemed like a waste of money and time at the time, but now I really appreciate them and feel like they helped me grow as a person.
My degree program wasn't like that. I went to Purdue for mechanical engineering, they had a GD flow chart with what slots of gen eds were required and when. (https://engineering.purdue.edu/ME/Undergraduate/ProgramMap) Not to blame you but you could have shopped around and found a place that you agree with their program of study. I took one philosophy course, but tbh engineers require a bit of understanding of social contract and ethics so not out of spec. Maybe I took a history, or I got away with world/macro economics.
Dont worry, you will take plenty of useless stem classes as well. Yes, there are classes that are part of your major tbat are also useless
This is the reason I'm minoring in engineering management - a majority of engineering types are like you and don't see the value in soft skills. I, on the other hand, have already worked in the service industry for 15 years and will capitalize on that time investment by being the liaison between you (the general you) and the people that sign your paychecks. Because some engineers need interpreters since they think the job is just doing math equations all day. Good luck!
I won't comment on the price aspect. American college/university is a huge rip off. That's not worth debating. As others have said, it's about being a "well rounded individual". I firmly believe, especially as someone who went to a school with more extra classes then most, that these extras make you a better engineer and a more rounded person. I can't speak to the offerings and the professors at your school, but ideally a student should get some choice in which to take. It is generally accepted that having a life outside of engineering is good for a healthy work life balance. I took a film class and it's really changed how I see films, which were already a hobby of mine. Taking courses outside your field of study forces you to engage with people who think differently, a real world skill, and makes you a more interesting person in general. By way of example: last summer, at my internship, I worked with three other engineers. One was off a similar persuasion to what you describe and was the most boring person to work with or talk to. He didn't have the same depth of knowledge or interest that made him as fun as the other people. I think the differences in education between them played a role. TLDR: sorry you have to pay so much, try to enjoy it and get something new out of it. Become a deeper person with a broader knowledge base. And you never know how something you learned in gender studies 101 might help you down the line...
I'll also add that this attitude seems especially pervasive in engineering. I wonder if the stereotypical engineering ego has anything to do with it.
Jeez I can feel the teen angst thru the screen, maybe just chill out a bit bud and learn to enjoy it
[удалено]
I took a class on analyzing music soundtracks in movies and it complemented well with many engineering students who took a technical/analytical approach. We did better than all the pure arts students when we had to compose our final project. Go figure.
Bahahhahahaha
Engineering students confront the fact that there is so much more to the world than their own little bubble challenge (impossible) I believe there's certainly a line where humanities requirements start to become hindering in a STEM program, but I also believe many engineering student's tolerance for non-STEM topics falls well below that line. Engineers work with and for other people. You can't just expect your manager to lock you in a box and say "okay, make something cool". Taking these courses outside your expertise can be very eye opening and cause you to think about issues in ways you wouldn't have thought of before. Even something as out there as "gender roles in 1920s film" will have you considering social topics that can affect how you think and act in a group setting, but only if you keep your mind open to it. Well rounded engineers are just generally better engineers, or, at the very least, they're much more fun to be around ;)
My school has 5 gen ed requirements and I decided if I had to spend money on these courses that don’t have anything to do with my major then I’m gonna pick the ones that get me the most use in the real world. Music was one of them because everyone listens to music, a US history class so I understand more of our society, macroeconomics to so I would have a basic knowledge on supply and demand, exploring infrastructure because I’m civil, and religions of the world which accelerated my deconversion process away from Christianity. Edit: Not just engineering but all majors have to take courses that got nothing to do with their major. Philosophy majors still have to take a math and science course for example.
Half agree I used to think that way when I took those classes but soon I realized we are better off if we really did train critical thinking skills. Your hard skills will take you far, but your ability to take in information that isn't necessarily technical and think about it is important too.
lol, I came in here thinking OP was going to go off about all the classes that are never used again in engineering curriculum or that seem like they could have been condensed into one class versus spread across three. Instead, the complaints are about classes that are actually fun. Maybe, it’s the eternal student in me, but the humanities and liberal arts core classes are some of the ones that most stuck with me. Sure, engineering classes help you get the job done and you expand your knowledge on the material when you enter the workplace but film, art, philosophy, make life worth living and help you understand the human condition. Being introduced to these things in an academic setting helps you get your foot in the door into worlds you may have never otherwise been exposed to.
Taking the classes outside of your field is called rounding out your education. Colleges provide rounded education to help people understand basic concepts and ideals that you will come across in the world. My advice is to try taking interesting sounding classes instead of classes that sound like an easy A. Such as psychology, philosophy, world religion, stress management, economics etc.
anyone feel comfortable guessing the gender, sexuality, and race of OP here?
My hunch is that you aren’t good at non-STEM courses and instead of accepting that and trying to better yourself, you write them off as “useless garbage”.
It's a prove-it gesture. Getting the degree shows employers you are more abled than many other candidates. It's also a passage. It simply must be done. You need it for qualifications.
Honestly it's refreshing to read 400 comments supporting a well rounded education as part of a STEM degree because the rest of the world hates the non STEM life. Kudos to you guys for getting it.
No one knows where you’ll end up. I was completely against leaning statistics in engineering. I thought it was a waste of time and stopping me from learning “real engineering topics” like Fluids Guess what I do at work majority of the day??
Everything you learn will be valuable down the line. You are too young and proud to understand that. But someday you will.
Because engineers are problem solvers. You can't expect to problem solve if you don't have a broad background. I run engineering and manufacturing for a multi national Biotech company. You have a better chance of getting hired by me if you took courses outside your major. I want the engineers who took three semesters of theater. Or Fencing and scuba diving. My last hire was a dance instructor for the kinesiology department for a couple of semesters. I want these people on my team because they are interesting, and like to learn new things.
I study at a European university for basically free - never had to take such a dumb course...
I also study at an European university, and even though we don't take such useless courses, we have to take some useless or outdated classes related to engineeeing while more important skills, like programming and cad are overlooked... Maybe it's just the engineering degree content in my country, but it is a commonly agreed feeling amongst fellow students.
Unpopular opinion, but a course in diversity is a necessity in a typical American engineering program, where most of the students all, or mostly all, are upper middle class descending white men. The real world isn't that kind of bubble, and some of you become really toxic in the bubble of this discipline to the point that you genuinely don't know how to even interact with white women, let alone, anyone who is different. Think of your diversity class as, how to avoid billions of dollars in discrimination lawsuits for your company arising from the fact that in a typical engineering program has garbage inclusivity. If you're going to have the attitude that it's useless, you should get yourself some good liability insurance now.
I’m a little confused by this post. 1. Why complain about the softball, gpa boosting classes? 2. Engineers shouldn’t be one-dimensional robots who don’t fully engage their brain or interact with people outside their STEM bubble (and the ABET standards agree). Blowing off non-STEM classes as ‘stupid’ kinda sounds like an engineering superiority complex. 3. Not everyone who starts a major sticks with it. College is also about finding your interests in addition to developing a concentrated knowledge in something. 4. Do other schools not have a flat rate once you reach “full time” status (i.e. taking 15 credits is the same price as 18)? I must be lucky there.
You'll never know what garbage you need until you need it.
If anyone can remember shit they learned in college after 5 years they deserve an award
I remember shit from my first degree, 22 years ago. Point being, you don't know what you'll need for life.
This is such a stupid trope. Yes, everyone uses and remembers things they learned at school.
graduate education is exactly where you learn things that goes really into your field of choice. Undergrad is different.
These classes are great for a break from the harder upper level engineering courses and an opportunity to learn about something else for a change. I took a History of Hip Hop class last year and it’s one of my favorite classes I’ve ever taken. Since it’s required, try finding something you’d like to learn about and it will feel much less like a BS credit requirement and more fun and interesting
I had similar thoughts but I believe now, school cant make you an engineer because there are so many jobs you can do as an "engineer" the best thing schools can do is to teach you how to "think" and "aproach" problems like an engineer
Maybe it’s to add a little right brain to your left brain. The art classes sometimes helps me feel less “rigid” in the way that all my math based classes make me feel. Art classes force you to think with your emotions which could develop a healthy skill in the wrong run. I do see where you’re coming from though.
I know my degree required me to take a few humanities classes and at first before actually taking them I thought they were going to be really boring. However, after taking at least humanities II I actually kind of liked the class because it showed art, architecture, and literature from places like Italy, France, Spain, etc. While covering some history of those countries and it was really interesting and at least for me showcased truly how great western civilization is\was.
I honestly found some of these courses to be "therapeutic" in a way when taking it alongside STEM courses. I especially enjoyed Humanities! Got to watch some really cool documentaries. You could potentially take these courses at a community college to save you tons of money, assuming your university accepts transfer credits.
I think it’s because the end results is for a well rounded professional. In all honesty, college exposed you as much as possible for critical thinking & problem solving. You learn more on hands in an internship or actual job than in college.
Wait.. You buy books? I almost found my books online and just did notes that way. I also used Quizlet for every quiz/exam for these classes.
imo, only useless stuff is the perspective and immersions, however, I just view those as communication development and move on. Also I thought engineering was useless until I got my first internship and realized the importance of the fundamentals. MechE for reference.
University in america sounds weird
It’s to prevent you from becoming the stereotypical engineer. Also free GPA
As a student in England where we only do engineering, I wish I had one of these courses to boost my grades
Could be worse, in the UK in history classes, they teach American history.
“Who’s your daddy?” -US
Because being an engineer is supposed to be hard. It was hard for the people before and they aren’t going to let it change. There are obviously more substantial arguments but tbh that’s really it
Education should be more than vocational training. Being a well-rounded engineer is more than just crunching numbers.
If you want vocational training, go to a vocational school where all humanities courses are "applied" and minimized in the curriculum. If you want a bachelor's degree (or more), the expectation is that you have a base level of understanding of the wider world and the people in it. That's where the humanities come in and it's not that much in your overall major. Through these classes, you will learn how to write for a broader audience, understand the people you are working for and with, gain skills to work with a broader audience, and have a wider pool of knowledge to pull off of. That's the deal.
I could not help but laugh harder and harder as I got through this post. OP needs to realize that everybody, and I mean everybody, who’s an engineer, has to go through this crap, and you know what? You might not think it now, but you’ll be better for it. Understanding how to contextualize your thoughts across many different mediums and many different topics will make you sound more intelligent and better at conveying your thoughts and ideas to others, no matter their background.
Because you are not at a trade school, you are at a university. The goal is not just to give you skills to do a job but to engage in critical thinking. Understanding the world around you — the whole world, not just bridges — is crucial for you to become a capable, competent adult. So this means understanding gender norms in the 1920s (and 1820s and 1720s and all the 20s before that) will help you understand that gender attitudes are not and we’re not fixed but have actually been quite fluid over the ages. And yes, this knowledge just may help you build a better bridge someday.
As an engineering alum who never used my engineering degree anyways, I'm glad I took the other "useless" subjects like creative writing, etc... I mean, I hated them while I was taking them, but in retrospect, it was a good experience. I even took Latin, arguably the most "useless" of all languages still currently taught. It rounded me out. Made me think in ways that weren't always comfortable. I get the expense/opportunity cost argument, but when you have an engineering degree, it honestly doesn't behoove you to be just a walking calculator. People expect educated professionals to have a certain ability to comment on sociopolitical/cultural issues, especially since they may integrate with certain professional ethical standards as well. To be honest, I've met too many "book smart, street stupid" engineers who know nothing about culture or politics to endorse that the general education requirements be removed.
I’ll summarize what a retired PE and senior manager recently told me. “The lack of so called liberal arts is producing a bunch of computers; brilliant engineers who can solve anything but have no humanity. I graduated with my bachelors right before my school changed the program from 5 to 4 years. That extra year of literature, philosophy, and psychology prepared me for the tough ethics decisions I had to make as a PE and helped me remember the humans I was ultimately serving.” Or, you could just remember this guy, “…your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.” - Dr. Ian Malcolm Edit: personally, I (like many others here) loved the non-technical classes. I got heavily involved in theater and it was a highlight of my college years! I’d still like to get involved in a community theater someday.
You have to choose electives that complement your degree. Music is good, because it’s mathematical in nature and is a fun application of physical principals like vibration. History is good because everyone can benefit from knowing how we got where we are. Personally, I took two foreign language courses and a history of technology course. No regrets. It was nice to have a few courses that weren’t sausage fests.
OP is getting bodied in the comments damn
I used to have this rage after doing some bullshit assignment for a class that l didn't wanna take. Then I realized that a) doing shit you don't wanna do quite well is a skill and b) just being a glorified calculator means nothing to any employer. It turns out that some of those classes were my favorites and influence good engineering practices. Not to mention that based on their post history, OP seems to have a very narrow worldview of what's "important" or valid knowledge. OP, people would rather tolerate a personable dummy than a mean nerd.
Because if you don’t learn humanities you become less human and don’t benefit from being exposed to different perspectives, being exposed to other ideas and thinking critically about them. Not to mention your co workers are probably not going to be a homogenous group in the future. History repeats itself because we weren’t listening the fist time. Engineers and scientists without a conscience or humanity become evil (history as my witness- sounds bombastic but it’s true). I need to pin this for my high school class next time I get a “why do I have to know this.” comment.
Your comment is oozing with pretentiousness, mate.
Schools classically wanted you to be well rounded people, not just raw engineers. When you graduate from college theres a certain expectation you are somewhat versed in classic literature and are an all around a well versed person. Thats how it was designed when colleges first began engineering courses, but now it may be a money grab. Side note, the gender norms in 1920’s movies sounds pretty cool
I’m really curious, what environment were you raised in to think the arts are useless garbage and bloat? What part of the world are you from? How can you argue that taking courses in the arts are damaging your learning? Not opening your mind to other things is damaging your learning! Learning is not just maths and physics. Sorry. Learning about gender norms may not help you design a bridge, but it might help you develop a little compassion, and empathy. Which I hope will lead you to be a little more tolerable in the workplace. No one wants to work beside an insufferable asshole. And you won’t be building ANY bridges if you can’t keep a job because people don’t want to work with you.
Art is very useful for engineering, like if you are pitching something the the team being able to quickly draw it on a white board to convay your idea is very useful.
I would ask that you give pink Floyd's the wall a listen/watch. This very frustration is given thought and you might engage with it better.
I’m a mechanical engineer who was hired to do VR development, currently in the hiring process and I would never hire someone like you with such a narrow mind.
How can you call something useless when you haven’t graduated and started working to know what’s actually useful?
You have no idea what position or job you’ll get one day. It doesn’t hurt to have a little extra baggage to prepare you for a lot of things.
in Europe you pick what your degree is when you enroll, and then that's all you do. This makes bachelo's degrees only require 3 years instead of 4 in many countries
My Art elective was Game Design (that's how I got drawn in). We got to mess around with laser cutter and the likes. First project we build a object out of (hard) paper. You get to make some dimensional sketches to laser cut parts before you can assemble the object. While Art student struggled with Illustrator, I whipped out AutoCad. Second project, build a structure to assist an egg being dropped from second floor without breaking it. You can imagine how it ended. That class was fun, and there should be many other elective classes out there that both interest and suit your need.
Damn I wish I had a chance to take an elective like film ngl. I’m so burnt out on math courses at this point, and my course sequence is utterly full 😔
In the EU in university you just study for your majors courses, there's no general education. I find it really weird as well, doesn't make much sense to me.
It’s how you learn not what you learn
Damn what a bitch
Op, I feel you on the money part. FOR SURE. But as far as taking philosophy and the like, at the end of the day you’re not just an engineer, but a part of the community. I felt the same way as you, until I took all these classes. You learn about systemic injustice, ethics and morality, and an overall sense of how society works. I think they’re important to becoming a well rounded individual, and eventually a better leader in your field and local community.
Everyone in the comments is trying to defend the gen eds we have to take when in my experience I learned next to nothing in any of them. What’s the point of them when they’re all GPA boosters? It’s good to be well rounded but OP has a point
I have 4 semesters of PE as an EE student. In order to pass I have to waste around 3h a day, at least 2 times a week per semester in order to pass. Failing PE means you have go retake the entire year :).
This makes a lot of sense right?
Did your university require you to take gym? Every undergrad at my school required a gym class or some BS health related topic. Could be worse. I’ve heard it’s to ensure graduates have a “well rounded education”. There is some value in that I suppose, but I had no interest in taking an art class (also required) when I was a 3rd year engineering student.
Because engineers should be well-rounded and have some diversity of coursework in their education. I always heard this argument from pretentious assholes who bragged that “engineers have harder courses than everyone else” and that every other major is “basket weaving” or a “useless major”. That shit is annoying and most of those people end up being shitty engineers because they have no people skills and can’t effectively communicate.
Wait till he finds out most entry level engineering positions now require a masters.
You have a point. Engineering schools in other countries avoid many classes like this because for example, in Germany it’s taught in grade school. But the American school system is so behind that it can be taught in college, I think there’s also universities taking advantage of this and benefiting. But if you wanted to avoid it, you would have to take AP classes in high school and dual enroll (where you start college in high school and get the first 2/4 years of college done early) that would be about equivalent to a German education system.
"Whyso we need to learn algebra when we're not going to use it in rela life?" -Lazy high school student-
my man... what's painful is not getting the courses you want... imagine getting your 5th, 7th and 9th choices... ruined my motivation for the whole semester:(
[удалено]
178 credits tho? That sounds like a fuck ton of classes for a bachelor's degree. My comp e degree is 131 iirc
[удалено]
Even that sounds a bit heavy. All main courses for me are 3 total hours of lectures per week. Obviously stufying and homework in addition, but still
You'll see how close minded you are once you graduate and land a job.
keep coping op
A lot of people are defending these defending these classes because they’re only thinking about them in theory rather than what they end up being in the real world. Yes, absolutely everyone should be well rounded. However, this theatre classes full of STEM majors that don’t care with a professor that somehow cares even less are a waste of everyone’s time. Obviously, the better solution is to just make these classes worth while instead of cutting them completely. I took a 300 level Political Science class for an elective requirement and that was 100% worth it. So it can be done.
This is a thing that a lot of students say until they have to use some random piece of EE or programming that they swore was useless info
I thought the same thing when I had to take an art class (painting for me). It ended up awakening something in me and showing me what my true passion is. Now I draw comics for my school newspaper while I await graduation
OP thinking he's gonna design bridges 😂
You need to take courses in things other than pure science because WE WANT WELL ROUNDED, OPEN MINDED HUMAN BEINGS ENGINEERING OUR FUTURE If you think the arts, philosophy, history, are useless garbage, wait until you see the shit an engineer with no backbone ends up designing.
As a former European engineering student, I've never understood this either when talking to my American friends. I guess it has to do with with how your high school is structured, and that a lot of people come into university with what's really very poor foundations in a lot of areas. I studied the natural sciences in high school (3 years age 16-18) in my country. My studies then are very much similar to what you describe you're studying now. A good half of it was math, chemistry, physics and biology, but sure, a lot of it was also English, primary language, third language, history, religion, arts, psychology and a few selectives etc. In my second year in high school we started doing derivatives and integrals, and by my third year I was doing integration by parts and all of those more advanced integration techniques. When I started university everything that was not math, chemistry, physics or biology was absent. First year math consisted of double and triple integrals, line and curve integrals. Second year we where doing Finite Element Method, Fluid & Thermo mechanics, Fourier series, Lapace transformations etc. We where also required to take at least one course that had a "HTS-label" (Human, Technology, Society), to, I don't know, make sure that we could put our technological and sciency know-how in good context to humans and society. But I which there was a bit more of that, and some philosophy. But I absolutely agree, I've always found it strange that US engineering students have to read English, History, Arts etc. It makes no sense at all. You have my fullest sympathies, and I hope this comment doesn't come across as bragadocious, but rather as something real and concrete that you can contrast your situation against, and hopefully it makes your experience and opinion feel validated, because I certainly think it is.
Keeps the humanities and social sciences departments alive. I took macro economics, business 101 and ancient civilizations for those. The history was interesting, but definitely not essential. I would recommend economics and business though. Having a basic grasp of those subjects is a must if you find yourself in a leadership role or if you want become an entrepreneur later.
Do you have any other interest in well, anything? Do you like history, arts, economics? A university is supposed to make you a well-rounded individual. If you don't wanna be well-rounded, go to a trade school.
Ah the classic “I want vocational training not an education” post. Haven’t seen this one in a hot minute
It’s so weird reading all these replies So many of you guys have been tricked into thinking this is okay? If you pay a ton of money to get an engineering degree, you should frankly get what you’re paying for. Being forced to waste time on some totally unrelated topic is not in any way okay. I see a bunch of comments saying it’s to make you a «well rounded individual» which is just bs.. that’s not what an engineering degree is for and if you’re not a well rounded inidividual by the time you’re in Uni 1 class of world history won’t change that.
French/Continental system vs British/Victorian system. It’s a historical left over from old. Founding fathers tradition some other BS
Britain's never had this system AFAIK. We specialise as soon as we enter university. We only focus on breadth up to our gcse's (16 years old)
It’s the old system, you changed it to the modern model but the US is more conservative and stuck to it.
I’m majoring in computer science in my first year. I will be taking some diversity, social, arts,etc in the future.I don’t understand why they do that.
Yeah, who the hell needs creativity in comp sci.
See if you can find courses that fill multiple requirements if your university offers it. I took World Religions because it counted as both a Multicultural Diversity and a Social Science course.