Reflections

By Benjamin Smith

Senior year is but drawing to a close, rather rapidly I suppose. Having been here for three and a half years, I suppose now is good time to reflect upon what has been. Columbia Engineering has been a gracious host for the last few years of my young life. I have had a good time, had a few laughs, taken a few interesting courses, fallen in love (not with Columbia mind you), become engaged, and done otherwise okay for myself. I do have some thoughts, and some suggestions on my last few years I'd like to share.

I suppose it all started my first year when registration came around. All of you first-years know that there are two physics sections: one at the 1400 level and the other in the 1600 level. The former met on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays; the other on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Seems pretty easy to set up your schedule and register for all those other wonderfully unexciting freshman-sophomore required classes. My advisor and student-advisor, when queried about the difference in the two classes, stated the obvious meeting days. Like I couldn't figure that out for myself. Well, lo-and-behold, there is a difference the level on which it is taught. The 1600 level course was a more intensive, rigorous course - obviously something they left out of the course description and the advisor's handbook (which doesn't exist but would be nice if it did). You may think my distinguishing between the two courses is petty, but it raises some serious doubts about the advising at this esteemed institution. Through my years here my advisor has been the School's bulletin. I am given a list of requirements by my department and I have four years to meet them. Nobody has suggested a course of study or particular courses to meet my areas of interest. For awhile I wasn't even sure that I had enough courses to graduate. The person who signed my registration form counted courses and totaled up the points but never checked to see if I had even taken the required courses for my major. In some departments the graduation requirements aren't even clear (for you Bioengineers you know what I am talking about). It is my belief that undergraduates would be better served if we as students, who after exiting from the eagle-eyed attention of the Student Affairs Office, had advisors who knew what requirements were to be fulfilled, took some time with the students to find an interesting course of study within the confines or the major, and had advice for us for the long-term. Maybe then we as alumni-to-be would be more "cheery" about contributing in the future, and more happy about our time spent here.

Many of you have started down that road to be a something-engineer, be it Chemical, Mechanical,etc., or for those in the minority, an engineering-something. Having picked your major, are you happy? I mean really happy? On the bright side I will venture so far as to say that most of you are. But what about the rest of you. What is it that bothers you about the major? Is it the facilities (or lack there-of)? The courses? Can't really nail it down, can you. I would again venture to say that most of your unhappiness surrounds aging facilities and course foundations. The current triumvirate in charge of the Engineering School acknowledges this first point and has made significant strides toward rectifying this situation. For those underclassmen they can now look forward to future use of the Gateway Laboratory with its Silicon Graphics machines, a Computer-Aided Design lab for Mechanical Engineers and newer, more modern computing facilities. I realize that this is must be the first stage in an attempt to modernize this institution. I would like to suggest a few more to accompany these capital gains. For starters more access to our computer facilities. Find me a number of engineers who can finish all of their work within the confines of the posted lab hours and I'll show you a bunch of engineers who don't do much else. I know many people, including myself, who work better at odd hours or the day. We should not be forced to invest $4.50 a month or $30 a semester to allow for dorm access to the campus computer network to finish our work. One University springs to mind where there computer facilities are available 24 hours a day 7 days a week by card reader. I realize that within the boundaries of our 6x1 block area it isn't easy to find a place to put such a facility but there must be someplace. (I would suggest Butler with its 24-hour access, but well, it needs to be renovated as well). Undergraduates would also be better suited with some more modern lab equipment. Remember your days in Physics lab? The equipment seemed, in my day, to pre-date even the School. We should not be forced to test even the most basic of scientific or physical properties with materials that are older than some of my relatives. I do understand fiscal responsibility at times are tough, but isn't an investment in the future a little more important than forcing another generation to test conservation of momentum with air tracks my high school had, and to test measurement accuracy by throwing darts at a dartboard?

The need for more modern facilities is accompanied by a need to investigate the curriculum from all angles. Now I do not purport to be a certified educator nor someone who is familiar with all the intricacies of ABET requirements but I have, on a number of occasions wondered exactly what am I going to do with this classroom material. Finally in my senior year I have had the opportunity to practice what has been taught in a few courses. The problem is that I have been here for three. It is wonderful to take courses in the Theory of Such-and-such (Dislocation, Vibration, to name but a few) and the Mechanics of So-and-so (an equivalent pattern but in it you study lots of theories rather than just one or two). The question arises, after finishing these courses what do I do with them. If you look at the Electrical Engineering courses they have a circuits design lab. One can easily figure out that it must be to practice what has been learned in the classroom. But what about the rest of us? No, I am not proposing that every department immediately institute sixteen undergraduate lab courses, but maybe we could build in some practical uses into the course curriculum. The ultimate reason being so that when it comes time to leave and find a job we can as engineering graduates go out into the "cold, cruel world" and succeed.

Also holding curricula revisions by the hand should be other changes in graduation requirements. Logic and Rhetoric, you know that use-a-metaphor-for-a-page and talk about time and what it means course, is a step in the right direction. What we as engineers truly need is another writing course. One was suggested to me, Structure and Style, and I actually enjoyed it. (Did it help me to write better, well you be the judge of that). But a course in writing should be required, not suggested. Making sure that your co-workers, clients and superiors know exactly what you are doing or speaking of requires a clear accurate written representation. It needs to be structurally sound and make sense, otherwise your multi-million dollar job contract will go to someone else whose proposal was written better. We need a writing course, which is similar to something like structure and style, which also reflects the fact that we are engineers and speak in techno-jargon ‹ a technical writing course required for graduation. I know what you are thinking. You think that I view engineers as unintelligible communicators when it comes to the written word and that we need more graduation requirements. Well, we could use a writing course. It can't hurt and maybe more employers would be excited about the fact that you can write that technical memo so that such-and-such a newspaper gets it in English and doesn't confuse or panic the population. Well now that I have reached the end of my four years here, it is time to find something to do with my life. A job might be nice, maybe even graduate school. For those of you seeking employment in that "real world" a little help from the Career Services people might be nice. A few more technically oriented employers might even help. One look down the list in Graduating Engineer lists companies such as Rockwell, E-Systems and IBM to name but a few. Sure some of them come to campus to recruit but where are the others. Where are the Miscrosofts, Apple Computer, NASA laboratories, and others? Most engineers come to engineering school to become engineers and to practice engineering, not to drop resumes for Merrill-Lynch and other investment banks. (Don't get me wrong $50-80,000 a year is better than $20-30,000 but I want to be an engineer not a financial analyst). One must ask a question, why don't these above named firms come? If it is because of either the school or its graduates then the school must find out what is wrong and fix it promptly. If it is because no one has bothered asking them to come, maybe they should. To paraphrase an over-used quotation from Field of Dreams, if you bring them, they will drop resumes. We might even get jobs as engineers, something we came here four years ago to accomplish.

This piece may sound negative and left out many of the positives which should be accentuated, but it sometimes the weakest link that brings down the entire structure. Columbia's School of Engineering and Applied Science is a good school on its way to becoming better. What it needs is your support and input on making it better. The administration and faculty are trying hard, just give them some time and your input. Remember that schools exist for the benefit of its students. I have taken what I wanted from here and I am thankful for all that Columbia has given to me. So here I am at the end of four years off to do something with my life, let's hope that I have both worked hard enough and been schooled correctly.


Top of the Moment...