Post: #51

Gender studies and other horseshit degrees aren't getting in the way of real engineering degrees getting real jobs.
The women who get these degrees, then get the jobs, are pushing aside the men who would get the job to support a family. Girls just only ever have jobs until they get pregnant, men have careers their whole lives.

I would rather the women do useless degrees for useless jobs, than to sabotage a man getting a career.

Post: #52

Slim Shady, I was pretty stunned at that Arts degree in Engineering deal too, thanks for clarifying. Makes no sense to graduate with the Arts degree then not go back for the BEng degree.

Either way, here are recent posted engineering grad stats.

vital stats:

Quote:Degrees Awarded 2016
AB (Bachelor of Arts): 119
BE (Bachelor of Engineering): 83
54% women

Quote:Degrees Awarded 2015
AB (Bachelor of Arts): 77
BE (Bachelor of Engineering): 82
39% women

Quote:Degrees Awarded 2014
A.B. (Bachelor of Arts): 104
B.E. (Bachelor of Engineering): 97
No gender statistics given.

So in 2014 we see 104 Arts grads, 83 of whom went on to get the BEng degree in 2015. In 2015 there were 77 Arts grads, and 83 BEng grads in 2016, so all of those 2015 arts kids plus six others got Eng degrees, some must have taken a year off. So I understand it better now. They introduced the gender statistics last year so clearly it will be prudent to keep an eye on BEng grads in 2017 to see if all 119 2016 Arts grads follow through with the difficult final year I guess to make sure Dartmouth isnt padding the stats. Wish I had better news to fit the narrative but Slim Shady appears to have nailed it!

Post: #53

For the first time, Americans are afraid to drive across their bridges or go above 10 floors in any skyscraper.

Post: #54

I applaud any young man that can make it through a top-20 engineering school in the modern world of academia.

It's been over a decade, but I left behind a scholarship and certain financial prosperity due to the 101-requisite shit classes that had a formidable liberal bend. 50% of my freshman Physics class failed the course and needed to take it again in the spring (I passed), and they are piling on the time wasters about how to be a steward of Mother Earth (barely passed).

Corporations know where to go for the brightest minds, and they aren't coming from the Dartmouth School of Engineering Sciences. The people working on the future of fuel cells, sub-sea technologies, alternative energy and optimization/ storage efficiency, etc., have a minimum of MS after their name and shortly it will be PhD. A BS from State U is not to be looked down upon, but there is real work and research (poorly compensated, mind you) being done at MIT and Cal Tech by the mid-20's grad students. These are the people "engineering science", and I promise you they don't care if you are a man or a woman if you have a head full of innovative ideas and the work ethic to prove your thesis.

It's my opinion that none of the graduates of this engineering program will go on to do anything of significance besides becoming another do-nothing paper pusher and project manager while they wait for future intelligence programs to be written and explained to them in their required continuing education classes.

Post: #55

Many Dartmouth engineering grads go into Finance/ I-Banking/ Hedge Fund/ Consulting careers immediately after college, and make a lot of money doing so. All of the top firms are full of Dartmouth Engineering grads, as well as Physics grads (which in my opinion is a much more difficult major anyways)

However, I do know a lot of Dartmouth engineers doing some very good work, for example leading SpaceX missions. One of them was actually a girl!

Trust me, if Affirmative Action has reached even Engineering Schools so deeply, Dartmouth is not the only one, MIT and CalTech are doing the same things.

Regardless, ofcourse you want to get a PhD if you want to do real work in ENGS (or Physics). You go to Princeton (or MIT) for Physics/ENGS Grad School, and Dartmouth (Tuck) for Business.

Post: #56

I was probably a bit harsh on the Dartmouth program from the perspective of what they can offer in the future. If they have the focus you describe, then that's cool.

Many of my friends graduated as Engineering majors of all different varieties from different schools. Some stopped at the BS level and while good people, really aren't doing anything special other than providing for their family. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, they are necessary.

Contrast that with the handful that did go to top programs and get their PhD, those guys are just on a whole different level from my experience. It was humbling to study next to them and watch them work things through in seconds regarding concepts I could barely wrap my head around, mainly advanced calculus.

---------------------

end derail

---------------------

Back on topic, it will be interesting to see how the promotion of diversity versus acceptance based on merit exposes future challenges for determining which are the top programs. Maybe it will just blanket all of them in time. I don't know the answer to that.

Post: #57

Pretending industrial design is engineering:

Engineering Sciences Major Modified with Studio Art
http://engineering.dartmouth.edu/academi...ified/art/

Post: #58

Not sure what it's like in America, but in Australia, lots of job ads love to use the word Engineer to describe the advertised positions, which have nothing to do with actual engineering. Maybe this college is using the same trick, e.g Gender Studies -> Equality Engineering

Women in STEM get huge preferential treatment. I work in STEM, and am involved in hiring (technical skill assessment). It's a rule here, if there's HR, that you have to interview at least a woman candidate if one applies. Usually there's no woman, but if there's one, even if she's hilariously bad (e.g had one whose academic transcript reveals a 50-something out of 100 score average of all technical subjects she took), she will still get interviewed and we will have to write very carefully to HR to explain why she's turned down for the job. If she's about 70% as good as the best male candidate, she will be strongly considered, and may even get the job (exception is if the position is really important to the company's revenue).

Post: #59

I only have this story to contribute regarding female engineers:

I use to know a chick deep in an engineering program who one day was stuck on a project while working with some sort of proprietary engineering software. She had some basic instructions from the teacher but for the life of her couldn't figure things out. She spent several hours trying to solve the issue presented in the case. She was getting very frustrated and basically had hit a wall; partially blaming the teacher for this and that.

Eventually I show up and offer to help just sort as a lark. I'm not a engineer, I have never taken a engineering course, I don't read engineering shit in my free time, and I never even made it to pre-calculus in school.

In 45 minutes, I resolved the issue and had everything working. Again, I had ZERO familiarization with the field or the software. All I had were some basic instructions to work with. I broke things down and was able to figure things out. That's it.

The aforementioned woman went on to graduate from a competitive engineering program and work in the engineering field.

Stay safe gentlemen.

Post: #60

After mixing art with Engineering next up will be Gender studies mixed with Engineering.

The extreme liberal way of thinking has fully taken over top universities. There is no value of merit and hard work anymore. It is all about diversity,feminist support, extracurricular that have the 'feels', who you know and elitism.

Rather than it being about top schools making diamonds out of hardworking students, its about what the the students bring to top school's table so that these schools gain rise in popularity and look awesome in the eyes of public and social media : "Oh wow Darthmouth graduated more female Engineers than males.O My Gaad! thats like the most awesomest thing evaah"

This way Daddy government and big businesses throw large funds to the schools so that they look like they are supporting the best cause ever when in reality weak, less hardworking, having Hillaryesque leadership style, unprepared for the real world students would be graduating. Most of them will get good jobs through hand holding and school based reputation or network and they will do fuck all,tanking the economy in the process.

Just look at the latest example and this might deserve a thread of its own: Harvard Business School enrolls Banned Female Athlete Maria Sharapova.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/29/tennis...index.html

This is pathetic stuff from HBS. A school where many prospective candidates worked hard right since their undergrad and later at work with the dream to get in. In comes Sharapova and takes the spot of one of these deserving candidates, whose ambitions get crushed. That too by a banned athlete.What did she do to get in ? Did she even write the GMAT? And what the fuck will she do there? She already has the network and brand name to promote her business. If she really needs some business education then she can just lookup stuff online.

Also, if Sharapova was a male banned athlete, liberal media would have gone berserk and people would have been up in arms against Harvard's decision. Harvard itself would have never taken in a banned male athlete.

Now the media get to spin their narrative and paint both Harvard and Sharapova in a positive light. Harvard benefits. Sharapova benefits.Liberal Agenda and Media benefits. The Hardworking and deserving people don't. The Country sure as hell doesn't.

Post: #61

George Bush was accepted into Harvard Business School, this is the same guy that was not even good enough to get into U of T business school.

Carly Fiorina was a stupid liberal art major, accepted into some fancy MIT graduate program.

In fact, if you look at MIT incoming student body ratio, it is roughly 50/50 men and women all the way, for the last decade or so. Which means the number of qualified men are trimmed down to bump the number of women to achieve a roughly 50/50 gender ratio.

I just dug up the info from MIT webpage itself:

http://web.mit.edu/ir/cds/index.html

Take a look at 2014/2015: http://web.mit.edu/ir/cds/2015/c.html
(Men that applied: 12,765; Men accepted: 740
(Women that applied: 5,591; Women accepted: 707)

Take a look at 2013/2014. http://web.mit.edu/ir/cds/2014/c.html
(Men that applied: 13,380; Men accepted: 808
(Women that applied: 5,609; Women accepted: 740 )

Take a look at 2012/2013. http://web.mit.edu/ir/cds/2013/c.html
(Men that applied: 12,718 ; Men accepted: 834
(Women that applied:5,391 ; Women accepted: 786 )

On and on and on like that.... you can take a look at the data here since 2003. http://web.mit.edu/ir/cds/index.html

It is very clear and obvious, that the number of highly qualified young men in honors and AP classes completely outstrips girls; and the number applying to MIT completely outstrips girls. But miraculously, the number admitted seems to be almost 50/50 everytime. That is just bullshit.

Which means the males will be very competitive, while the females not soo much. Who do you think is carrying these females through their class work? The males. I am also sure, there are special programs in place whining about the number of women graduating at MIT, so they will want to have a 50/50 gender ratio graduation rate. Basically, garbage in, garbage out all in the name of liberalism.

It isn't all about merit.

Who knows, with LGBT37$##^?. They too will start demanding affirmative action, then will need to have equal number of men, women, trans, etc to balance everything evenly.

(06-29-2016 09:12 AM)bk19xsa Wrote:  ...... Just look at the latest example and this might deserve a thread of its own: Harvard Business School enrolls Banned Female Athlete Maria Sharapova.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/29/tennis...index.html

This is pathetic stuff from HBS. A school where many prospective candidates worked hard right since their undergrad and later at work with the dream to get in. In comes Sharapova and takes the spot of one of these deserving candidates, whose ambitions get crushed. That too by a banned athlete.What did she do to get in ? Did she even write the GMAT? And what the fuck will she do there? She already has the network and brand name to promote her business. If she really needs some business education then she can just lookup stuff online.

Also, if Sharapova was a male banned athlete, liberal media would have gone berserk and people would have been up in arms against Harvard's decision. Harvard itself would have never taken in a banned male athlete.

Now the media get to spin their narrative and paint both Harvard and Sharapova in a positive light. Harvard benefits. Sharapova benefits.Liberal Agenda and Media benefits. The Hardworking and deserving people don't. The Country sure as hell doesn't.

Post: #62

^

Most of my personal experiences with Affirmative Action have been negative, and stats presented above explain it.

Women are accepted at TWICE the rates as men. They then do half-assed work and half of them drop out of the workforce to become mothers. Good men get nothing and the country goes to hell.

Post: #63

It was highly unfortunate that the SCOTUS recently upheld AA. I do think that the chick was just salty and attention whoring, but the principle was sound.

The SC has recently made quite a few rulings with far reaching consequences and there has been suspiciously little play on some of those that matter a lot.

Post: #64

(06-27-2016 11:26 PM)PauBrasil Wrote:  Better have more women studying engineering than gender studies or women studies or some crap like that.

They still have minors and liberal electives though.

Post: #65

Slightly off topic, but based on a lot of what I've read about modern education and not just engineering in general, "grading" on the whole is less about actual talent or aptitude and more simply about being able to follow instructions and complete assignment.

Education system on the whole is actually far more "time / employment" training, than it is about the actual knowledge acquired (John Zerzan discusses this); a student with an IQ of 160 who writes a genius thesis but is lose about following instructions is more likely to get a bad grade than a student with an IQ of 99 who writes a generic thesis but follows instructions to the letter.

The reason for this is because the system (K-12 through college) is designed primarily simply to train a person simply to function in the workplace rather than "be smart, enlightened, a leader etc" - and in most jobs a boss, at least as far as entry-level employees are concerned is going to be a lot more concerned with protocol and simply "following orders" than he is with how "smart" the person's ideas are. Likewise the state arguably doesn't have much economic interest in people being "leaders" other than those who are already in charge; in fact it would likely be easier for the state to function if all men, other than the politicians themselves, were submissive bitches.

This is actually a big part of the reason why women tend to 'get higher grades' in the modern education system; because women are more naturally submissive to authority than men; they're not being graded primarily on their 'intelligence' or their actual abilities as a problem solver, simply on the ability to use rote memorization and do everything their superiors tell them, something which even a 10 year old kid can do.

(This is why you can't churn out Einsteins and Teslas simply by "sending them to college", and why many geniuses and successful individuals actually made poorer grades in standard education - they were being poorly graded primarily simply because they were creative and result-oriented versus ridgedly compliant to their superiors; essentially being 'punished' for demonstrating critical thought, good leadership qualities, and the traits that make successful men successful to begin with).

So these chicks aren't even necessarily the 'best' qualified to be engineers, simply the best qualified at following orders (ironically something which sounds counter-productive in higher-level engineering careers, where critical thought and ability to make independent decisions without someone leaning over your shoulder is a lot more important in the success of a project).

Post: #66

Innovation over memorization

Post: #67

Really interesting thread,

I only have a few particular comment, this one is in response to RexImperator on the first page (on my phone, can't quote):

A lot of people quit engineering programs because they're hard. They may not seem hard to you, as you probably have a very high IQ. I had this "problem" as well. I blazes through a top 10 US engineering program. Only much later did I realize that it was easy for me, hard for the average engineer, impossible for the average person.

EDantes, I can't comment on education in general. But at my program (once again top 10 engineering school), it was always men far outdoing women grade-wise. Unless I see evidence otherwise, I will hold the position that since good engineering programs are designed to test aptitude (senior thesis, senior design, minimum of 3-4 core lab courses with experiments etc), they do not suffer from the knowledge over aptitude problem.

On a side note, some geniuses did struggle with school, e.g. Einstein. Others not so much. For example Feynman did attend MIT as an undergrad and Princeton for grad school. I think there is more to the story here, a lot might just have to do with personality traits rather than true intelligence (the argument that really intelligent people struggle in school).

Post: #68

Also, just wondering out loud: yes, it does seem that things nowadays break more easily than stuff made 20 years ago. I remember oscilloscopes and parameter analyzers from the 1980s still working (about a decade ago), while smartphones crap out after 2 years.

There could be a few things happening:

1. Planned obsolescence - I know of a hunch of companies that went bankrupt. Why? Because their products were so good they never broke, the company ran out of customers and went bankrupt. If cars never broke down, you would not have the major car companies you have nowadays.

2. More complexity. Like I said the $250,000 parameter analyzer from the 80s still works 30 years later. But phones crash after a few years. Though the reality is that the smartphone is probably more complex and has more fragile features. I predict this to become the norm in the future, with software/electronics being the weak point.

Anyway, for the time being I still see a bright future for engineering. Perhaps it's naive from my point of view (considering I'm only looking at it from an elite engineering school). But as long as we have ABET and as long as we have a process and a certain bar for people to become PEs, we'll be fine.

As for those saying we should be afraid of future bridges: my understanding from the civil engineering field (and I know quite a bit about it) - it takes many many years to get your professional engineering license and be able to sign off on construction plans. They don't let rookies design bridges and hand off the plans to a general contractor. Which reminds me, there's usually a lot of back and forth going on between the general contractor, architect, civil engineers and subcontractors when construction is happening. I find it hard to imagine someone wouldn't notice major design flaw in a bridge.

My guess is also that nowadays software would have built-in checks to make sure buildings don't collapse. I remember using AutoCAD and it would throw you errors if your design was off. Though don't quote me on this one.

That said, yeah this engineering female and diversity pushing is a sad fucking thing. And I would not be surprised if people start asking more and more where you got your degree. Schools that cater to this non-sense will suffer. Hardcore engineering schools, especially the ones in the Midwest who cannot ever achieve gender parity due to their size (and tbh don't seen to give a fuck), like Illinois, Michigan, Purdue, will most likely thrive. When you have 10,000 engineering students, very very hard to get 50% girls. Just not enough women applying in the first place.

Post: #69

The US education system is crazy, accepting people into university because of their sex. I'm doing an M.Sc. in an engineering programm in Europe and will graduate next semester. We are about 50 students and have only 8 girls. I guess that's a realistic ratio, since the admittance is merit based.

Post: #70

(06-30-2016 02:33 AM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  Anyway, for the time being I still see a bright future for engineering. Perhaps it's naive from my point of view (considering I'm only looking at it from an elite engineering school). But as long as we have ABET and as long as we have a process and a certain bar for people to become PEs, we'll be fine.

The future is indeed bright for you and other male engineers who make it through the Affirmative Action process. Because our schools do not produce nearly as many qualified engineers as they would without Affirmative Action programs, it means those who make it through will be in very high demand and make a ton of money (provided of course we don't flood the country with illegal/H1-B1 visa labor and Trump is elected).

Still, it's not fair to the guys who get denied. America loses with less skilled labor.

Post: #71

(06-29-2016 09:29 AM)Herr Lucifer Wrote:  In fact, if you look at MIT incoming student body ratio, it is roughly 50/50 men and women all the way, for the last decade or so. Which means the number of qualified men are trimmed down to bump the number of women to achieve a roughly 50/50 gender ratio.

I just dug up the info from MIT webpage itself:

http://web.mit.edu/ir/cds/index.html

Take a look at 2014/2015: http://web.mit.edu/ir/cds/2015/c.html
(Men that applied: 12,765; Men accepted: 740
(Women that applied: 5,591; Women accepted: 707)

What are the official rules for identifying as a woman (or otherkin) on your engineering school application these days?

How much would you need to do to get away with it all the way from the online application to the in-person interview?

Asking for a friend.