Why has maths been stripped from engineering subjects?

[ShootMyMonkey]

I did mine in 2002, but I had credits dating back to before high school and such, so I was eligible to take the "old track" curriculum instead of the "new track"... and among the things I noticed on the old track vs. the new one...

Only 1 numerical analysis course was required on the new one vs. 3 on the old (the reason for this change was actually quite explicitly stated to be "because a lot of students don't enjoy numerical analysis").
DiffEq was one of many options for your 3 numerical analysis courses in the old program, but was basically a required course unto itself in the new (doesn't count towards the major credits, but was a prereq for a whole lot).
Only one architecture course was required in the new program, vs. 2 + an ASM course on the old (also, the absence of an Assembler requirement was explicitly stated as "raising mean GPA by removing high failure-rate courses").
Extreme Programming I was a required course on the new program, didn't even exist on the old.
Linear Algebra was not required on the new program (though it was a prereq for a lot of other available classes), and was required on the old.
Statistics was not required on the new program, required on the old.
DHTML/Javascript was a required course in the new one, didn't exist in the old.

Note, of course, that this was CS, so it's a bit skewed into the stupid.

 

[Dresden]

While you and I are from completely different spectrums of education, I completely agree. I remember as a Criminal Justice major being in a class with people on probation, or major drug users.

 

[pc999]

I know I dont study science/enginnering maybe is just a preconcept, but how can someone be a engineer without know maths? Anyway from those who study and I know they all have maths.

 

[Fred]

I completely agree, some universities give the easy trek out. Rewarded to some extent by the GPA system, where taking easy classes tends to pay off for career choice.

Of course the counter argument is, there are some engineers who are perfectly good at what they do and have no capability to actually derive the algorithm that their computer is running. And that is somewhat the blessing and curse of math. Once you have solved a problem... You have solved the problem! You don't need to rederive it, and can instead look at the nice handy dandy formula.

 

[satein]

I completely agree, some universities give the easy trek out. Rewarded to some extent by the GPA system, where taking easy classes tends to pay off for career choice.

Of course the counter argument is, there are some engineers who are perfectly good at what they do and have no capability to actually derive the algorithm that their computer is running. And that is somewhat the blessing and curse of math. Once you have solved a problem... You have solved the problem! You don't need to rederive it, and can instead look at the nice handy dandy formula.

It is not always ture for that. Look in this way, a computer is just a computer. It is exactly no different to a great calculator, when you throw in any numbers, you will get results according to any algorithm the developer set for. However, in some case, engineering problem solving is not just to throw in numbers and get results. Most of the time, we (user) must know what are proper things to throw in at which assumptions based, what will be a proper algorithm or method need to be used to solve the problem. Thus, math is still a good basic on that for explaination thing. If we say just throw the problem into a computer and let software analise it... chance are... why the company will hire us to work with them since only buy a computer and a good program would help them out with out the need to pay for long term salary and pasion or maybe next they would just use google and wiki to answer their questions

 

[standing ovation]

And for the record, calculators were often not allowed for tests (depending on what was being taught and the goal of the test/section).

Ironically, science (or rather, scientific progress) is the culprit.

Technology frees us from analytical thinking.

When you were an engineering student, you probably used calculators to find answers that, by hand, would be non-trivial or too time consuming. Unlike engineers from the annals of history, you didn't have to worry about all of the tedious steps.

In the same way, students today have access to tools that further automate the problem-solving process. So there is even less focus on finding a solution and, tragically, gaining an understanding of the subject matter.

 

[rhink]

Some engineering schools give the easy way out, but there's no reason for it, and certainly not all of them do. You couldn't get through my engineering curriculum without something like 6-7 semester long math courses. And none of them permitted calculators on tests. A few courses in other disciplines did, but most of them even... no. There's no reason to use them, people learn to rely on them as a crutch, math tests at that level have no reason to be heavy in complicated arithmetic, and even the engineering tests can be designed such that heavy arithmetic is not needed to arrive at a solution... the test isn't about whether or not you can crunch numbers, it's about applying a principle or skill you've learned.

It's easy to tell the difference between people that have gotten a real education and people that just got their diplomas stamped out by some diploma mill that just doesn't give a shit about the education, once you're actually in the workforce. There's people I work with that have a masters in computer science that don't know jack about actual programming (I've seen one guy spending literally hours reading books like "how to program in java", while producing no useful work)- that get outperformed by several orders of magnitude by people with a bachelor's degree. Though, motivation can make up for a lot, if you're really interested in what you're doing, you're going to be willing to put in the extra time to catch up with what you need to know... it's even more dramatic when you look at people that are passionate about what they do, vs people that look at it as "just a job".

 

[standing ovation]

There's people I work with that have a masters in computer science that don't know jack about actual programming (I've seen one guy spending literally hours reading books like "how to program in java", while producing no useful work)- that get outperformed by several orders of magnitude by people with a bachelor's degree.

It is not uncommon to have an advanced degree and lack the fundamentals.

As a graduate, you can continue postgraduate studies and be awarded a master's (or maybe even a PhD) in an area that is not your major. And if you are employed in the field, it only seems natural that your contemporaries would loathe you because of your failure to grasp the basics.

Imagine the heap of trouble you'd be in if, after being awarded a Master of English degree, you began working as a journalist among seasoned reporters and recent grads with Literature degrees.

 

[Captain Chickenpants]

Yep. For sure, not computing related . May I just keep it to myself .

The other sad point of Google is that to find out how hard you can say what are you doing now is 'new' too. It seems like internet and Google made world become so small.

The reason I ask is that I have a friend who did a physics PhD at sheffield and is on the faculty there.