Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Dynamic Loading

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Yes.. I agree with your premise that too much engineering education is
nearly ALL theory.   We have all addressed this in a previous thread.   I
forget that when debating in favor of the six-year degree that I worked in
nuclear power and offshore marine construction for twelve years before going
back for my MS.   
I recall walking through a construction site with a fellow grad student
while attending Lehigh.   He picked up a piece of thick wire coated with
what appeared to be tightly packed sand and enquired..."Hey what is
this??".... I replied that it was a welding electrode.    Which of course
reinforces your argument work and all education may contain little

		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Bill Polhemus [mailto:polhemus(--nospam--at)]
		Sent:	Tuesday, June 01, 1999 10:50 AM
		To:	seaint(--nospam--at)
		Subject:	RE: Dynamic Loading

		I don't agree with this proposition.
		Too much of engineering is learned on-the-job. The "cachet"
attached to additional years of school might look and smell great, but it is
actually, practically worthless, as anyone who's ever hired graduate level
students will tell you. If the schools taught more in practicum, it would be
one thing (after all, much of med school is clinicals, etc., which the
public insists must be done before you can trust a newly-minted M.D. to
practice on your person). But they are nearly ALL theory, with little of
practical benefit to be gained.
		BTW, I have an MSCE.
			> -----Original Message-----
			> From:	DEVERE, PETER P. (JSC-ES)
			> Sent:	Tuesday, June 01, 1999 10:43 AM
			> To:	'seaint(--nospam--at)'
			> Subject:	RE: Dynamic Loading
			> Add this to the argument that a basic structural
			> degree be based
			> on a six year matriculation!