(04-20-2016 01:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: All engineering majors require 132 hours to graduate, none of which I believe count towards D1 or D2 credit.
If memory serves (based on a CEVE degree), you're also wrong about the elective requirements. I'm pretty sure none (or at best few) of the open and suggested electives offered by the CEVE department at the time I matriculated or graduated counted towards a D1 or D2. This means I was forced to take classes that did not count towards my degree requirement. I came in with AP credit, so I was able to graduate on time with little worry.
Currently, the CEVE hour requirement is 123 hrs of mandatory, CEVE related courses. There are also 9 hrs of recommended electives, and another 6 of "open electives." I can't remember if you can combine some classes with regards to the electives, but that means there is a chance of having a minimum hour requirement of 138 hrs of JUST CEVE requirements, without respect to D1 or D2 distributions.
I'm pretty sure that your math is wrong on that. The requirements appear to be:
54 hours core CEVE
15 hours elective CEVE
39 hours general science
24 hours distribution
That is 108 hrs science/engineering + 24 distribution = 132 total
So averaging 18 hrs/semester (144 hrs total), a CEVE major could take an average of 4.5 hrs/semester of non science/engineering classes including a total of 12 hrs of classes that do not count towards any CEVE, science, or distribution requirement.
That said, the total requirements do add up to more than 120 hrs.
You're right, I double counted the thrust areas - so 30 extra hours would turn 108 hrs into 138 hrs (or 93 to 123 like I did). Shouldn't have skimmed so fast...
Regarding your last comment, taking 18 hrs a semester, every semester, is very difficult, so I find little solace in the knowledge that a current student has 12 hrs to take any 3 or 4 classes they want, regardless of distribution or major requirement. However, you do get 8 (?) hrs from D3s that are covered by major requirements, so that helps free you up to 20 "free" hours if you take 18 hrs per semester, every semester.
Yeah, 18 hours every semester seems, to me, to be a recipe for burnout and stress. Maybe I'm just not as amazing as other Rice students/alum
And even at that, as RiceLad points out, that still only leaves 4.5 hours/semester for non-major required courses...one class a semester, maybe two classes (or less than one...if I remember, most intro level language classes are 5 hrs...or were 10 years ago). So one class per semester IF the classes I want to take happen to line up with distribution requirements.
But what happens if I'm not sure what I want to major in my first semester...or even my freshman year? Sure you can hedge bets, but any deviation from the plan from the moment you get to Rice and you're out of luck. I'm beginning to think, the view of 100+ hrs of major requirements as being a bit over the top are a minority view.
The problems you run into with engineering curriculum at least, is that they must meet accreditation standards, so to a certain extent, their hands are tied.
I think Rice could ease things up a bit if they allowed their distribution credits to be given more leniently. I struggled to find some distribution courses that actually interested me. Maybe they have gotten better recently.
When I went to Rice (mid to late 1980s), you had a lot of freedom to take whatever course you wanted. I liked writing, so I didn't shy away from any academ course, but I knew fellow EEs (actually fellow Physics/EEs) that would find courses that did not require you to write a paper. They went through with a pretty powerful degree never having written a college level paper (outside of the courses in their major). I think that was a very bad idea, and that Rice needed to provide more structure to make sure that students are getting a more balanced education.
(04-20-2016 05:10 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: Petitioning is probably a bureaucratic PITA. Also, how will ability to take more than 18 hours be assessed? Psychological screening?
From what I have read, it will be done the same way it previously was - a discussion between the student and their adviser.
If this makes it more difficult for students who actively have a reason to take more than 18 hrs, then it is a bad idea. But if the faculty really is seeing a significant amount of students signing up for 18+ worth of classes, and dropping them as they shop, keeping other students who want/need those courses from being able to take them, then I can understand the rationale.
If petitioning simply means asking your adviser to check a box saying you petitioned them then I don't have a strong objection to that**. But, I knew of students that took 22 hours, and they would not be able to do that under the new rules. For me, it's kind of like the discussion of birth control for Protestants in The Meaning of Life...
** And, with this comment, I do have an objection to the "soft", petition limit. Again, I have to wonder what was the problem they were trying to solve, and why did this seem important enough to address like this?
(04-20-2016 05:31 PM)McMOwl Wrote: I also think that semesterly meetings with major advisors would go a long way in planning future semesters, and would eliminate the need to "petition" - as Frizzy mentioned, it is a HUGE pain in the ass.
(This post was last modified: 04-20-2016 10:45 PM by I45owl.)
ExcitedOwl18 Wrote: -Lack of investment in teaching. $50million + for a new "leadership institute" but no money to maintain MECH equipment?
The credit limit thing strikes me as a tempest in a teapot that no one will care about in a couple years.
But your comment on the lack of investment in teaching concerns me. (Not the $50m for leadership, though - as far as I'm concerned, the Doerrs can designate their gift to any purpose they want as long as it's roughly on mission for the university). Has our MECH equipment rely fallen behind the times? In the late 90s, the machine shop in Ryon lab certainly wasn't cutting edge, but it was fine. Do they still have that, or has it been replaced by the "design kitchen"? Does Joe Gesenhues still run it?
(This post was last modified: 04-21-2016 12:16 AM by JOwl.)
ExcitedOwl18 Wrote: -Lack of investment in teaching. $50million + for a new "leadership institute" but no money to maintain MECH equipment?
The credit limit thing strikes me as a tempest in a teapot that no one will care about in a couple years.
But your comment on the lack of investment in teaching concerns me. (Not the $50m for leadership, though - as far as I'm concerned, the Doerrs can designate their gift to any purpose they want as long as it's roughly on mission for the university). Has our MECH equipment rely fallen behind the times? In the late 90s, the machine shop in Ryon lab certainly wasn't cutting edge, but it was fine. Do they still have that, or has it been replaced by the "design kitchen"? Does Joe Gesenhues still run it?
None of the MECH labs have been updated since about the 70s. We still use lab reports written at that time. A TA in a lab I had, which was only being done because the equipment for another lab had broken, commented that the report we were doing hadn't been used in 10 years. He had to look up solutions and notes to even complete it himself. There was a huge town hall last week about the problems of the MECH department:
ExcitedOwl18 Wrote: -Lack of investment in teaching. $50million + for a new "leadership institute" but no money to maintain MECH equipment?
The credit limit thing strikes me as a tempest in a teapot that no one will care about in a couple years.
But your comment on the lack of investment in teaching concerns me. (Not the $50m for leadership, though - as far as I'm concerned, the Doerrs can designate their gift to any purpose they want as long as it's roughly on mission for the university). Has our MECH equipment rely fallen behind the times? In the late 90s, the machine shop in Ryon lab certainly wasn't cutting edge, but it was fine. Do they still have that, or has it been replaced by the "design kitchen"? Does Joe Gesenhues still run it?
None of the MECH labs have been updated since about the 70s. We still use lab reports written at that time. A TA in a lab I had, which was only being done because the equipment for another lab had broken, commented that the report we were doing hadn't been used in 10 years. He had to look up solutions and notes to even complete it himself. There was a huge town hall last week about the problems of the MECH department:
Chemical engineering lab was the same way a couple of years ago. Some of the labs can't even be done because the equipment is 30 years old. When I was a freshman the senior chemical engineering class was ~15 students. When I graduated the sophomore class was ~70 (they don't really count the freshmen as a class). No change in number of faculty. They even let a class favorite post doc who taught heat transfer leave to go to UT instead of offering a professorship spot.
I understand and agree that donors should get to choose what their money goes to but the university administration has a responsibility to guide them towards things that actually matter on campus and not things that are trendy and look good in headlines. OEDK was a nice use of funds for example and the necessity to expand it almost immediately (last year?) shows how much the undergrads needed it.
I agree that most of Rice's engineering programs outside of BioE seem to have been neglected by the admin in regards to equipment and lab funding. But I have a feeling this is a much more complex issue than we think, especially given that most of those departments secure outside funding that they themselves could use to address some of these issues.
And a minor comment regarding the post-doc who left the ChemE department, most people in academia don't stay at the same university they do their post-doc at. That way they get a broad range of experiences to build their resume and research interests. Wouldn't use that as a way to judge the department.
Quote:Computer science professor Luay Nakhleh, a voting member of the Faculty Senate, sent out an email to students expressing his rationale for voting in favor of the proposal in spite of student opposition.
“For me, the overriding issue was a simple question: What are students learning when they take too many courses?” Nakhleh wrote.
In his email, Nakhleh explained his concern that students who enroll in too many courses don’t master the material as well as if they had taken a lighter load. Though they may succeed grade-wise, he said they still fail to delve into content at a deeper level possible with fewer classes. In addition, Nakhleh said curves in difficult courses have become a crutch for students who are performing at a lower capacity due to overcommitment.
“What we end up with is shallow knowledge in a large number of subjects,” Nakhleh said. “As a professor at this institution, I advocate for deep knowledge in a smaller number of subjects.”
Nakhleh also said that students are unaware how often professors are asked for extensions and alternatives for making up missed work, additional results of student overcommitment. ...
“I also do hope that students recognize that faculty members want the best for them, and have a much broader view of the issues and much more experience dealing with hundreds and even thousands of students,” Nakhleh concluded his email. “I truly believe that our mission as a university is to educate and produce scholars, and not to give away accolades.”
Quote:Computer science professor Luay Nakhleh, a voting member of the Faculty Senate, sent out an email to students expressing his rationale for voting in favor of the proposal in spite of student opposition.
“For me, the overriding issue was a simple question: What are students learning when they take too many courses?” Nakhleh wrote.
In his email, Nakhleh explained his concern that students who enroll in too many courses don’t master the material as well as if they had taken a lighter load. Though they may succeed grade-wise, he said they still fail to delve into content at a deeper level possible with fewer classes. In addition, Nakhleh said curves in difficult courses have become a crutch for students who are performing at a lower capacity due to overcommitment.
“What we end up with is shallow knowledge in a large number of subjects,” Nakhleh said. “As a professor at this institution, I advocate for deep knowledge in a smaller number of subjects.”
Nakhleh also said that students are unaware how often professors are asked for extensions and alternatives for making up missed work, additional results of student overcommitment. ...
“I also do hope that students recognize that faculty members want the best for them, and have a much broader view of the issues and much more experience dealing with hundreds and even thousands of students,” Nakhleh concluded his email. “I truly believe that our mission as a university is to educate and produce scholars, and not to give away accolades.”
Curves these days are a crutch to all students. Saw an interesting article the other day that looked at the average GPA at universities over time. More students get A's now than any other grades and it started during the Vietnam war when professors didn't want to fail their students out of college. Since then universities have become beholden to the consumers (students) and their money so grades keep inflating.
