Academic Requirements

[Darth Wong]

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.

I'm going by my own background in particular: engineers simply cannot specialize quickly; that would be incredibly irresponsible. Since an engineer may be called upon to literally make decisions that could put lives at risk, you need to know that he achieves a certain baseline of knowledge and competence, across his chosen field. Having a guy who learned just enough baseline to specialize would be a really bad idea.

An over-specialized engineer is useless. However, I suppose that an over-specialized physicist might still be able to get by. If his foundational knowledge is not broad at all, but he intends to go into research in a very narrow specialization, then perhaps he can get away with having a limited foundation. Still seems like a bad idea to me, though. And it kind of torpedoes the mental process where you say "OK, he has a degree in X, therefore he must know Y". The more you allow someone to specialize at the expense of foundational knowledge, the less you can actually make that connection.

[phongn]

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

Generally, no. There may be a few exceptions, but, for example, my own degree (PDF) has 18 CS courses, 10 of which are core courses, for a total of 54 hours.

I'm going by my own background in particular: engineers simply cannot specialize quickly; that would be incredibly irresponsible. Since an engineer may be called upon to literally make decisions that could put lives at risk, you need to know that he achieves a certain baseline of knowledge and competence, across his chosen field. Having a guy who learned just enough baseline to specialize would be a really bad idea.

Oh, yes, I certainly agree. I'm a software 'engineer' by education and we see much the same thing. The field moves so fast that the fundamentals are critical and overspecialization is a very risky proposition for us.

Still seems like a bad idea to me, though. And it kind of torpedoes the mental process where you say "OK, he has a degree in X, therefore he must know Y". The more you allow someone to specialize at the expense of foundational knowledge, the less you can actually make that connection.

I've noticed that in the pure sciences people tend to specialize very narrowly; it may be an artifact of the Ph. D. process (most people going into hard science tend to go for that - not many job prospects with a BS or MS). And, once you get into research, everything is about publishing - and generally on some new, novel and rather specialized area.

[brianeyci]

Well then, the rigor of a program is completely up to a student, which strikes me as a monumentally bad idea. If you got 54 hours for a CS degree, then 130 hours necessary to graduate, Americans can pick more than half their shit.

Looks like "I'm a physics major" can mean anything from utter crap to genius in America.

[brianeyci]

p.s. no offense, I'm a major too and not specialist in anything: specialists seem to be for graduate or further academic work. But up here "specialists are special" and the majors are the dinks, the wannabes.

[Darth Wong]

A lot of people on the Internet seem to think that the more specialized you are, the better you are. Why is this?

[brianeyci]

Specialist doesn't mean you're specialized in Arts and Science. It means that more of your courses are prescribed, around 70% of your courses. It means you're specialized in Physics, not that you take a lot of special Physics courses.

I'm aware that a guy can know a shitload in one field and nothing in another, meaning a solid undergraduate should focus on fundamentals.

[brianeyci]

ghetto edit: I think it's because in science fiction and media, the scientist is portrayed as all-knowing and expert at everything.

So uh, maybe a kind of reverse psychology where people reject that and say, the more you know a lot about one thing, the better it is so it's more REAL than the fake science fiction scientists. That's the best I can come up with .

[phongn]

Well then, the rigor of a program is completely up to a student, which strikes me as a monumentally bad idea. If you got 54 hours for a CS degree, then 130 hours necessary to graduate, Americans can pick more than half their shit.

Not quite - another 44 hours are non-negotiable; the balance are general-education requirements. Total hours are 120 but that looks a bit fishy; I could've sworn it was 132 for engineering majors (it may be that flowchart is hiding that minor fact).

Looks like "I'm a physics major" can mean anything from utter crap to genius in America.

Surely it can mean that anywhere?

[Darth Wong]

Looks like "I'm a physics major" can mean anything from utter crap to genius in America.

America's education system is strange. It's virtually common knowledge that its most prestigious universities are actually not necessarily superior in terms of academics, but they're the best for making connections. Other universities gain prestige due to the success of their football programs. I honestly wonder how Americans choose a university, given the pollution of university reputations with non-academic factors.

[brianeyci]

Looks like "I'm a physics major" can mean anything from utter crap to genius in America.

Surely it can mean that anywhere?

Well the way you Americans distinguish it is the better the school it is, the better the program.

I honestly think that is bullshit: I think someone going to a good city college can match a Harvard or a Princeton especially if they brag a lot about their school (they usually end up being fakers.) But how do you find a good city college?

Let's put it another way it seems like the standard deviation is insane down there.

[phongn]

America's education system is strange. It's virtually common knowledge that its most prestigious universities are actually not necessarily superior in terms of academics, but they're the best for making connections. Other universities gain prestige due to the success of their football programs. I honestly wonder how Americans choose a university, given the pollution of university reputations with non-academic factors.

Often what people will do is look at publications rating colleges; for example, US News & World Report publishes a major guide once per year; the WSJ publishes a report on business-schools. A few other companies do ratings as well, but those two are the most commonly used.

If you are fortunate, one's high-school guidance counselor will help you get into university (mine was quite good ... others, er, not so good) and advise on options as well. Most universities also have scheduled times for prospective students to visit, too, so people can get a general feel for it and talk with the faculty and other students.

And, er, yes, there are people who will go to a school just because it has a good football or basketball team, even if they aren't actually trying to get into athletics.

Well the way you Americans distinguish it is the better the school it is, the better the program.

Well, even with the 'prestigious schools' its more the other way around - solid programs make for a good school. While in some fields (especially business) you can get the 'halo effect' by having a fancy diploma, other fields (science, engineering) focus more on the school's actual performance. MIT, CalTech, Stanford and Princeton all produce solid engineers, after all, and it's not just the name.

I honestly think that is bullshit: I think someone going to a good city college can match a Harvard or a Princeton especially if they brag a lot about their school (they usually end up being fakers.) But how do you find a good city college?

Lots, and lots of searching around. And yes, someone who puts in hard work at a lower-tier public university can match someone who goes to one of the best ones. That said, they may not get the opportunities that someone gets at a better school.

[Edi]

I just looked up my old engineering school and the course requirements for a Bachelor's degree in computer engineering at the Espoo-Vantaa Institute of Technology.

Overview
Course structure in detail

I wonder how that compares with e.g. Mike's alma mater or some of the other places mentioned here. They've changed the scoring structure of the credits since I was there, that was a nation wide change, so now it's 240 credits total. Back when I attended, it was 160 credits total, so 160 in the old system is the equivalent of 240 in the new system. I completed 112 out of 160, so that'd be exactly 168/240.

My failure was essentially due to several of the core courses and then there were other extraneous facftors on top of that. For example, C0086 (Microprocessor programming) and C0125 (Basics of Digital Signal Processing), those two were my worst nightmares. I just couldn't hack them.

I didn't take a good look at the UW requirements, but I looked at TJHairball's bullshit degree enough to know it was worthless.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Looks like "I'm a physics major" can mean anything from utter crap to genius in America.

America's education system is strange. It's virtually common knowledge that its most prestigious universities are actually not necessarily superior in terms of academics, but they're the best for making connections. Other universities gain prestige due to the success of their football programs. I honestly wonder how Americans choose a university, given the pollution of university reputations with non-academic factors.

Personally, I chose based on the strength of the department, though the overall strength of the university is a factor (I don't want to take lame classes just to fulfill non-major related requirements. Some of these classes are boring enough as it is.) I wanted a department with excellent reputation for the major I was interested in. After all, research opportunities are definitely better which was indeed the case.

[sketerpot]

Exactly. At my uni there are classes in electrical engineering which cover enough QM to understand modern semiconductors, but the only people who take them are the people who might actually need to etch some transistors. And it's not a generic QM class, either -- it's specialized for practicality, even going so far as to include hands-on work at the university's chip fab alongside all the ℏ's and wave functions.

There's more stuff to study than we can possibly learn, so we have to prioritize.

[Master of Ossus]

America's education system is strange. It's virtually common knowledge that its most prestigious universities are actually not necessarily superior in terms of academics, but they're the best for making connections. Other universities gain prestige due to the success of their football programs. I honestly wonder how Americans choose a university, given the pollution of university reputations with non-academic factors.

Depends on what people are looking for, but it's pretty easy to search for things like "median SAT score," "High School grades," etc. and select something in your range. I know everyone bitches about the SAT not being accurate, but from my own experience it seems like it's reasonably correlated with intelligence, if not academic success.

[JCady]

Looks like "I'm a physics major" can mean anything from utter crap to genius in America.

America's education system is strange. It's virtually common knowledge that its most prestigious universities are actually not necessarily superior in terms of academics, but they're the best for making connections. Other universities gain prestige due to the success of their football programs. I honestly wonder how Americans choose a university, given the pollution of university reputations with non-academic factors.

You go to a school like Caltech which as no sports program worth speaking of. Case in point, our basketball team has won exactly once in the last 25 years -- we won a single game in the 2005/2006 season, breaking a 240+ game losing streak. We're perversely proud of how bad we are at sports.

[Spin Echo]

I've noticed that in the pure sciences people tend to specialize very narrowly; it may be an artifact of the Ph. D. process (most people going into hard science tend to go for that - not many job prospects with a BS or MS). And, once you get into research, everything is about publishing - and generally on some new, novel and rather specialized area.

I imagine it's a side effect of the PhD program. I've been told that having a PhD in an engineering field can be a detriment to getting a job out in industry. People assume you're too theoretical.

[Winston Blake]

A lot of people on the Internet seem to think that the more specialized you are, the better you are. Why is this?

Clearly university is simply a matter of grinding hours, where occasionally you 'level up'.

*jingle*
Your Masters Student reached Level 36.
Your Masters Student evolved into PhD Student.
PhD Student learnt a new special attack: Poverty!

[sketerpot]

A lot of people on the Internet seem to think that the more specialized you are, the better you are. Why is this?

Clearly university is simply a matter of grinding hours, where occasionally you 'level up'.

*jingle*
Your Masters Student reached Level 36.
Your Masters Student evolved into PhD Student.
PhD Student learnt a new special attack: Poverty!

You see a crazy thesis advisor. The crazy thesis advisor speaks:

Crazy thesis advisor: "Why don't you just sit down and write your dissertation sometime? It should take about a week. That's how long it took me."

The crazy thesis advisor hits for 2718.28 damage, then throws those weird pointy d4's at you for a while. You are dead. Do you want your posessions identified? [Y/n]


More seriously, I think the reason people think of specialized=awesome is because specialization requires studying some stuff that looks very hard to people who have never seen it. If you have a thick book about "lattice theory" on your desk, people will tend to assume that you know about all sorts of obscure headachey crap.

[Darth Wong]

Funny piece of trivia: the majority of engineers in my class who went on to a Masters degree got an MBA, not a research specialization. If the majority of engineers wanted to go into research, that would kind of defeat the purpose of engineering as a profession. We're supposed to be the people who design things in the real world, by applying principles that other people have researched. That's why we get applied science degrees.

[Spin Echo]

Funny piece of trivia: the majority of engineers in my class who went on to a Masters degree got an MBA, not a research specialization. If the majority of engineers wanted to go into research, that would kind of defeat the purpose of engineering as a profession

Really? Back before I realised I wanted to play with magnets as opposed to build and maintain nuclear plants, my advisor recommended to me that I get a masters degree. He said that a bachelors is good for getting a solid foundation but a masters degree is what really makes you marketable. A large percentage of people at my alma mater in the engineering disciplines do stay on to do a masters degree. And in Scandinavia, you don't even think of going for an engineering job without a master's degree.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Funny piece of trivia: the majority of engineers in my class who went on to a Masters degree got an MBA, not a research specialization. If the majority of engineers wanted to go into research, that would kind of defeat the purpose of engineering as a profession

Really? Back before I realised I wanted to play with magnets as opposed to build and maintain nuclear plants, my advisor recommended to me that I get a masters degree. He said that a bachelors is good for getting a solid foundation but a masters degree is what really makes you marketable. A large percentage of people at my alma mater in the engineering disciplines do stay on to do a masters degree. And in Scandinavia, you don't even think of going for an engineering job without a master's degree.

There are an increasing number of colleges in the USA which offer non-Thesis based MS degrees for engineering subjects, I believe, precisely to give engineers a much more considerable preparation and improved marketability while at the same time not trapping them in unnecessary research for their actual functions. If one wishes to go into expanded study in an engineering field that sort of Masters programme seems to be the best bet.

[Spin Echo]

There are an increasing number of colleges in the USA which offer non-Thesis based MS degrees for engineering subjects, I believe, precisely to give engineers a much more considerable preparation and improved marketability while at the same time not trapping them in unnecessary research for their actual functions. If one wishes to go into expanded study in an engineering field that sort of Masters programme seems to be the best bet.

I know that non-thesis masters are on the rise. A couple of women I worked with at NCI went back to school to get non-thesis bio and environmental science degrees. However, the Masters of Engineering degrees I've seen are thesis based.

[Il Saggiatore]

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.

Most researchers are not geniuses.

If you want research to be done, you need grunts. Highly qualified and competent PhDs, but grunts nonetheless, that make up a "working class" for research.

[Edi]

And in Scandinavia, you don't even think of going for an engineering job without a master's degree.

I don't think that's actually true. For the top positions, you need a Master's degree, but the number of actually unemployed engineers with a Bachelor's degree is fairly small here. Could be it's different in Norway and Sweden, but you will find work with an Bachelor's degree in engineering here.