Academic Requirements

[JCady]

In the locked thread on academic qualifications, TJHairball claimed,

Engineers don't take courses in quantum. They don't address relativity. They don't deal with exotic phenomena. Engineers deal with tables, approximations, and very practical ranges of reality - something that's rare in fiction.

I know this is not categorically true because the undergraduate academic core requirements at my current university -- which everyone has to pass regardless of option -- does indeed include physics up to quantum and relativity. Specifically, we have a three-term freshman physics sequence which is Newtonian mechanics, electricity, magnetism, and relativity, then a two-term sophomore physics sequence which is statistical physics, waves, and quantum mechanics.

I'm wondering how typical/atypical this actually is.

[raptor3x]

In the locked thread on academic qualifications, TJHairball claimed,

Engineers don't take courses in quantum. They don't address relativity. They don't deal with exotic phenomena. Engineers deal with tables, approximations, and very practical ranges of reality - something that's rare in fiction.

I know this is not categorically true because the undergraduate academic core requirements at my current university -- which everyone has to pass regardless of option -- does indeed include physics up to quantum and relativity. Specifically, we have a three-term freshman physics sequence which is Newtonian mechanics, electricity, magnetism, and relativity, then a two-term sophomore physics sequence which is statistical physics, waves, and quantum mechanics.

I'm wondering how typical/atypical this actually is.

Freshman physics classes in Quantum Mechanics and Relativity aren't really comparable to the upper level classes that Physics majors take. They're usually just there to give you a general feel for the subject, but the depth of knowledge you obtain certainly isn't enough for you to actually apply it to anything. Furthermore, unless you're a NukeE, there's no reason to spend serious time studying those topics unless you're doing it as a hobby.

[brianeyci]

It is not comparable. Senior level physics have entire semesters dedicated to quantum.

Problem with the hairball approach was he made specific claims, that is 1. three times more education 2. lofty vantage aka his education was anything special compared to an engineer 3. any and everybody is inferior to him simply by virtue of agreeing Wars could crush Trek like a man stomping an ant. What's too bad is the physics majors of the board didn't come in and dirty their hands to flame him.

Thing is I don't even see that on his required courses. I see this:

PHY 1103 _____ (4) General Physics I (ND)
PHY 1104 _____ (4) General Physics II (ND)
OR
PHY 1150 _____ (5) Analytical Physics I (ND)
PHY 1151 _____ (5) Analytical Physics II (ND)

PHY 2010 _____ (4) Intermediate Physics I
PHY 2020 _____ (4) Intermediate Physics II
PHY 2210 _____ (2) Physics Laboratory Techniques & Data Analysis (W)
PHY 3210 _____ (3) Modern Physics I

Four first year courses (I assume 1000 level is first year) three second year and one third year. Meanwhile what I expect for a rigorous program worth bragging about is this:

400-SERIES COURSES

Note:
Some courses at the 400-level are cross-listed as graduate courses and may not be offered every year. Please see the Department’s undergraduate brochure for more details.

APM421H1
Mathematical Foundations of Quantum 39L

The general formulation of non-relativistic quantum mechanics based on the theory of linear operators in a Hilbert space, self-adjoint operators, spectral measures and the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics; functions of compatible observables. Schrödinger and Heisenberg pictures, complete sets of observables, representations of the canonical commutative relations; essential self-adjointedness of Schrödinger operators, density operators, elements of scattering theory.
Prerequisite: (MAT224H1, 337H1)/357H1

Just look at the course descriptions of his physics program. The words "general" "intermediate" etc etc They all scream general, general overview, no specialization, no detail. It's entirely possible that the program sucks, and it's hard to tell without being there. What is obvious is the burden of proof was with him and he failed to meet it, completely. If he didn't want people prying into his life he shouldn't have claimed "lofty vantage" and "three times the education" like a retard.

[brianeyci]

ghetto edit: quick answer to the op, Physics specialists outclass engineers in physics (they better damn well do) but Physics major education varies wildly to the point it's not worth bragging about unless you can show your degree is superior. Degrees worth bragging about in Arts and Science have:

1. Very limited number of first year classes, and the ones that are there are the more difficult ones, Analysis instead of Calculus, etc.

2. Specific, highly specialized courses, not "general" or "intermediate."

3. Majority of the courses third or upper second year, with several fourth year classes.

[Spin Echo]

In the locked thread on academic qualifications, TJHairball claimed,

Engineers don't take courses in quantum. They don't address relativity. They don't deal with exotic phenomena. Engineers deal with tables, approximations, and very practical ranges of reality - something that's rare in fiction.

I know this is not categorically true because the undergraduate academic core requirements at my current university -- which everyone has to pass regardless of option -- does indeed include physics up to quantum and relativity. Specifically, we have a three-term freshman physics sequence which is Newtonian mechanics, electricity, magnetism, and relativity, then a two-term sophomore physics sequence which is statistical physics, waves, and quantum mechanics.

I'm wondering how typical/atypical this actually is.

Your school is 'special', even among the top engineering schools. I doubt any other school in the world demands as much physics out of every student regardless of major. At my alma mater, you only had to take two physics courses, Newtonian Mechanics and E&M.

I wonder about the usefulness the extent of physics education at your school; it sort of strikes me as "Rar! We're h4rdk0r3!" more than practical. Really, when is a mechanical engineer or geologist going to need quantum mechanics?

[brianeyci]

Well really, people should not mention the "useful" part of it, because then someone can go, there's no useful point in forcing people to take this or that or this. The question is, can a degree be rigorous without quantum? The answer is yes. Can it be rigorous without Calculus? Probably not, even if Calculus isn't vocationally useful.

Focusing only on vocational needs in what should be a collegiate level would truly result in a "glorified plastics specialist" like hairball said. Of course the most important part according to hairball is the philosophy part, so every degree without philosophy courses is shitty, according to him.

[Spin Echo]

Well really, people should not mention the "useful" part of it, because then someone can go, there's no useful point in forcing people to take this or that or this. The question is, can a degree be rigorous without quantum? The answer is yes. Can it be rigorous without Calculus? Probably not, even if Calculus isn't vocationally useful.

Focusing only on vocational needs in what should be a collegiate level would truly result in a "glorified plastics specialist" like hairball said. Of course the most important part according to hairball is the philosophy part, so every degree without philosophy courses is shitty, according to him.

True, but you have to draw the line somewhere as to what is revelant toward a degree as you obviously have to start specialising at some point. A biologist is unlikely to ever need to solve schroedingers equation. It would be more beneficial to a biologist if the courses they took outside their specialitity were computer science or basic electrical engineering or even mechanical engineering.

[brianeyci]

That is true but then churns out the very ugly question of whether all people with biology degrees become biologists, or even the majority.

Science is a discipline where you want the best the top 0.1% working, because it's better to dump all the money and resources into the geniuses than on a large number of lesser grunts, unfortunately.

Meanwhile, that means the only way to judge the vast majority of graduates is to see if their degree is rigorous. I'm of the opinion a philosophy or humanities degree can be rigorous, depending on the institution and the program. Something like Caltech where the program is designed for half humanities half science is an example of a rigorous program that incorporates humanities.

So in summary: same answer that quantum isn't necessary, but different logic. I honestly think the "useful" discussion shouldn't be a part of it, because whether academics like it or not universities for the vast majority of people are not to train a person in a vocation, but to give them a rigorous education for the betterment of society. I know academics don't like seeing their institutions become huge babysitting centers for the masses, but that's what they are now, and raising a child is the most honorable profession so there's no problem thinking of it that way.

[JCady]

Well really, people should not mention the "useful" part of it, because then someone can go, there's no useful point in forcing people to take this or that or this. The question is, can a degree be rigorous without quantum? The answer is yes. Can it be rigorous without Calculus? Probably not, even if Calculus isn't vocationally useful.

Five terms of calclus in the core (Math 1abc + Math 2ab), plus you have to have completed four years of math including calculus during high school in order to be eligible for admission in the first place.

God I love and hate my school.

[JCady]

Well really, people should not mention the "useful" part of it, because then someone can go, there's no useful point in forcing people to take this or that or this. The question is, can a degree be rigorous without quantum? The answer is yes. Can it be rigorous without Calculus? Probably not, even if Calculus isn't vocationally useful.

Focusing only on vocational needs in what should be a collegiate level would truly result in a "glorified plastics specialist" like hairball said. Of course the most important part according to hairball is the philosophy part, so every degree without philosophy courses is shitty, according to him.

True, but you have to draw the line somewhere as to what is revelant toward a degree as you obviously have to start specialising at some point. A biologist is unlikely to ever need to solve schroedingers equation. It would be more beneficial to a biologist if the courses they took outside their specialitity were computer science or basic electrical engineering or even mechanical engineering.

*groans* Tell the people here that, please. God, I hate Math 2a.

[Spin Echo]

*groans* Tell the people here that, please. God, I hate Math 2a.

You knew what you were getting into when you chose to go there.

[JCady]

1. Very limited number of first year classes, and the ones that are there are the more difficult ones, Analysis instead of Calculus, etc.

We don't have easy courses unless you consider humanities easy. Your first two years here are pretty much pure core classes; the only electives you have time for are the humanities and social sciences requirements included in the core itself.

2. Specific, highly specialized courses, not "general" or "intermediate."

Yeah, that's what third and four year are all about.

3. Majority of the courses third or upper second year, with several fourth year classes.

Students who are not math and physics majors end up taking 90% of their major work third and fourth year simply because the core is so extensive that very few people have the time and energy to take additional courses in their major during the first two years.

[JCady]

*groans* Tell the people here that, please. God, I hate Math 2a.

You knew what you were getting into when you chose to go there.

I also thought I was good at math and physics when I chose to go here. Apparently not at this level of it -- Caltech math and physics drives me up the wall, whereas junior college level math and phys (I did junior college instead of my junior and senior years of high school) was practically effortless.

[The Spartan]

Four first year courses (I assume 1000 level is first year) three second year and one third year.

Actually, if you look there's an "or" in there. A student can take General Physics (which I'm guessing is algebra/trig based) or Analytical Physics (which probably has Calculus as a prerequisite).

I seem to recall at Tarleton State that you could take algebra/trig based physics, but that was for non-science majors that weren't interested in biology or chemistry. I'm pretty sure UT Arlington was the same way.

Of course, being a math/engineering major I ended up in the courses that required calculus.

[SCRawl]

An engineering degree is unique among all undergraduate degrees, in the respect that it leads directly to a profession. In that respect, it really is a training ground for a specialized career, and as there's only so much that can be taught in the four (or so) years the student is learning how to be an engineer, one has to be selective about what is taught. Throwing in quantum mechanics or particle physics or poetry appreciation is pointless in this sense. Would you suggest that MD programs include QM as well? I'm just fine with my doctor not knowing any perturbation theory, just as I don't care how much Shakespeare the engineer who designed the heat exchanger in my furnace has read.

[Spin Echo]

That is true but then churns out the very ugly question of whether all people with biology degrees become biologists, or even the majority.

I'm not sure what I get what you mean. Biologists are unlikely to ever need quantum mechanics. If a person with a biology degree does to do something else, I'm going to make a wild guess here, but it's unlikely that it will be something that requires quantum mechanics.

So in summary: same answer that quantum isn't necessary, but different logic. I honestly think the "useful" discussion shouldn't be a part of it, because whether academics like it or not universities for the vast majority of people are not to train a person in a vocation, but to give them a rigorous education for the betterment of society. I know academics don't like seeing their institutions become huge babysitting centers for the masses, but that's what they are now, and raising a child is the most honorable profession so there's no problem thinking of it that way.

At some point the utility of what you're learning must come in play, though. Taking a rigourous course in electrical engineering is more likely to allow a biologist to better society than taking a rigorous course in quantum mechanics.

[Spin Echo]

*groans* Tell the people here that, please. God, I hate Math 2a.

You knew what you were getting into when you chose to go there.

I also thought I was good at math and physics when I chose to go here. Apparently not at this level of it -- Caltech math and physics drives me up the wall, whereas junior college level math and phys (I did junior college instead of my junior and senior years of high school) was practically effortless.

It didn't occur to you that everyone else going there would also be good at math and physics, so they might raise the bar on the standards of teaching?

[JCady]

You knew what you were getting into when you chose to go there.

I also thought I was good at math and physics when I chose to go here. Apparently not at this level of it -- Caltech math and physics drives me up the wall, whereas junior college level math and phys (I did junior college instead of my junior and senior years of high school) was practically effortless.

It didn't occur to you that everyone else going there would also be good at math and physics, so they might raise the bar on the standards of teaching?

Oh, absolutely; I was rather bored at junior college. I came her because I wanted the challenge, but I didn't fully anticipate the order-of-magnitude difference in challenge. No one really ever does; that's why all freshman classes are pass/fail.

[SpacedTeddyBear]

An engineering degree is unique among all undergraduate degrees, in the respect that it leads directly to a profession. In that respect, it really is a training ground for a specialized career, and as there's only so much that can be taught in the four (or so) years the student is learning how to be an engineer, one has to be selective about what is taught. Throwing in quantum mechanics or particle physics or poetry appreciation is pointless in this sense. Would you suggest that MD programs include QM as well? I'm just fine with my doctor not knowing any perturbation theory, just as I don't care how much Shakespeare the engineer who designed the heat exchanger in my furnace has read.

I have a friend who likes to joke that when you get an bachelors in engineering, you're officially an engineer. When you get a bachelors in physics, you're officially an engineer who needs a bit more on the job training. You're not really a physicist until you get your PhD.

[Darth Wong]

Why would anyone think that QM or other "exotic physics" would be more necessary or useful for a technological analysis than an engineering background anyway? Do they understand that engineering is all about applied physics and technology, rather than "exotic physics"?

Trekkies have always been guilty of wanking over the word "quantum", but in reality, a thorough knowledge of QM (not that hairball would get one anyway, with his lightweight low-end degree) is completely unnecessary for what we do when we try to determine the capabilities of the technology in use on sci-fi shows. If you want to design a more compact microprocessor, QM might come in handy. Figuring out how much firepower a weapon system has, on the other hand, has no particular relation to QM at all.

When sc-fi shows need to do something that deviates from good ol' applied Newtonian physics, they use something called "made up physics", not "exotic physics".

[phongn]

Just look at the course descriptions of his physics program. The words "general" "intermediate" etc etc They all scream general, general overview, no specialization, no detail.

I think you have to be careful, here - you're comparing what are effectively introductory physics courses with an upper-level course. I'm looking through their course catalog (PDF) and there are more specialized upper-level courses available.

[Darth Wong]

Actually, the ability to specialize is not the biggest flaw of that program. It's the lack of core requirements. Part of the nature of a good degree is that you have certain guarantees, ie- you know that someone who has this degree has broad, strong foundational knowledge of the subject matter, in addition to whatever specialization he chose.

A degree like hairball's degree, where you take a smattering of core courses and then immediately specialize, strikes me as a dilettante degree, which is what I said from the beginning. In fact, if my own education was any indication, the specialization courses were actually easier than the core courses. After all, when you specialize, you get to choose the courses you're interested in, and skip the ones you don't like. A broad core curriculum does not give you that luxury, nor should it. A solid, useful education is not restricted to the things you find interesting; it also includes other things you may not enjoy at all, but which you might need.

[brianeyci]

Well looks like I missed out on the fourth year course, and there are harder physics electives. I just cut and paste Mike's words from one of his posts, so he must have missed the fourth year course.

It looks like a solid physics major. Definitely not something to brag a ton about though: majors are a dime a dozen and there looks to be no specialist program, 14/20 credits or what would be 80 or 90 semster hours out of 130 instead of the 50ish out of 130 he needs there.

[phongn]

Mike, I was actually most surprised at the sheer number of core courses Waterloo required for its physics degree. I was looking through the requirements of some various other reputable schools and they didn't seem to require anywhere near that number of core courses.

It looks like a solid physics major. Definitely not something to brag a ton about though: majors are a dime a dozen and there looks to be no specialist program, 14/20 credits or what would be 80 or 90 semster hours out of 130 instead of the 50ish out of 130 he needs there.

That's not that unusual; my own university (admittedly not a first-tier one!) requires 44 hours out of 120 for a BS Physics. I looked at a few other schools (highly-ranked and not-so-highly-ranked) and the numbers look pretty similar.

[brianeyci]

Physics degree in what, a major which is 8/20 courses or around 50 semester hours out of 130 for you damn yanks, or 14 out of 20 courses which is more than 80 semester hours out of 130??

Do Americans not have specialist degrees where around 75% of their courses are prescribed and core?