WSU and future AAU membership

[Cougsocal]

Boy, after my son's visit, I don't see it happening any time soon. Here's why. We went through the College of Engineering sales pitch as part of an admitted student event. This is what they said. They have stopped "self limiting." They will only limit based on space, you are admitted to the college right up front, because they have plenty of space. "Don't let having difficulty with math or science dissuade you." That raised my eye brow a bit. Back in the day, you needed at least a B in math 171, 172 and Physics 201 to be admitted, end of story. Most of my freshman dorm floor came in wanting to be engineers, only a handful managed it, because of that gauntlet. Well, having heard that message, I assumed that what they were say was, "don't worry, we have the support in place to get you up to speed." Nope, they really meant it. I chatted with two engineering students as we waited to go on the facilities tour. Both admitted that they struggled to pass Math 171, and one said he had to take physics 201 twice, failing it in junior college.

WSU has sunk to the point that they are willing to hand out engineering degree to the most minimally qualified candidates now. It is all about enrollment numbers. Sad but true. It isn't only athletics that has collapsed under Schulz' watch.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Boy, after my son's visit, I don't see it happening any time soon. Here's why. We went through the College of Engineering sales pitch as part of an admitted student event. This is what they said. They have stopped "self limiting." They will only limit based on space, you are admitted to the college right up front, because they have plenty of space. "Don't let having difficulty with math or science dissuade you." That raised my eye brow a bit. Back in the day, you needed at least a B in math 171, 172 and Physics 201 to be admitted, end of story. Most of my freshman dorm floor came in wanting to be engineers, only a handful managed it, because of that gauntlet. Well, having heard that message, I assumed that what they were say was, "don't worry, we have the support in place to get you up to speed." Nope, they really meant it. I chatted with two engineering students as we waited to go on the facilities tour. Both admitted that they struggled to pass Math 171, and one said he had to take physics 201 twice, failing it in junior college.

WSU has sunk to the point that they are willing to hand out engineering degree to the most minimally qualified candidates now. It is all about enrollment numbers. Sad but true. It isn't only athletics that has collapsed under Schulz' watch.

That is a pretty sad report on the state of our alma mater.

One of Floyd's ambitions was to get an AAU invite. Don't think we ever came close. And during his tenure, selectivity and quality of students took a hit as we focused a lot on diversity. At this point it will never happen. Schultz has been a terrible president, thank Gawd he's leaving. And thank Gawd his Provost is leaving. Math 171 and 172 were a bitch when I was in school, although I was in Business not Engineering.

 

[95coug]

Boy, after my son's visit, I don't see it happening any time soon. Here's why. We went through the College of Engineering sales pitch as part of an admitted student event. This is what they said. They have stopped "self limiting." They will only limit based on space, you are admitted to the college right up front, because they have plenty of space. "Don't let having difficulty with math or science dissuade you." That raised my eye brow a bit. Back in the day, you needed at least a B in math 171, 172 and Physics 201 to be admitted, end of story. Most of my freshman dorm floor came in wanting to be engineers, only a handful managed it, because of that gauntlet. Well, having heard that message, I assumed that what they were say was, "don't worry, we have the support in place to get you up to speed." Nope, they really meant it. I chatted with two engineering students as we waited to go on the facilities tour. Both admitted that they struggled to pass Math 171, and one said he had to take physics 201 twice, failing it in junior college.

WSU has sunk to the point that they are willing to hand out engineering degree to the most minimally qualified candidates now. It is all about enrollment numbers. Sad but true. It isn't only athletics that has collapsed under Schulz' watch.

Two additional factors at work here:

WSU’s physics department has for decades been indifferent toward teaching anyone who wasn’t a physics major. When I took 201, I got a 22% on one of the exams…and that was above the class average. If I recall, 14% was still a passing score.

And, a problem with math is the fact that kids are coming out of high school barely able to do algebra. Trig isn’t a requirement anymore. Overall math capabilities are so low that it’s a struggle to get kids to where they can even take 171/172…forget about excelling. Math skills have been deteriorating for years, and we’re still in the thick of kids who took math via internet during covid (which mostly means they didn’t take math at all). It’s going to be a while before we get through the kids who are 2 years behind due to pandemic issues.

 

[Cougsocal]

That is a pretty sad report on the state of our alma mater.

One of Floyd's ambitions was to get an AAU invite. Don't think we ever came close. And during his tenure, selectivity and quality of students took a hit as we focused a lot on diversity. At this point it will never happen. Schultz has been a terrible president, thank Gawd he's leaving. And thank Gawd his Provost is leaving. Math 171 and 172 were a bitch when I was in school, although I was in Business not Engineering.

The main reason why the UW is the #15 public university and we are #96 - selectivity. That is the reason why UCLA and Berkeley are tied at #1, the UCs have 5 schools in the top 10, and every UC is in the top 40 - selectivity. No matter what the rating services say, and what methodology they claim to use, is comes down to that. That is why small private colleges (like the Pomona Colleges) routinely misrepresent their admission rates. If WSU were, tomorrow, to demand more of high school applicants (heaven forbid), our ratings would jump, without having to spend a dime to improve our faculty. Sure we would lose enrollment in the short term, but it would bounce back. When kids know what the bar is, they will respond. College bound students in California aren't better or brighter than their Washington counterparts, they just know that they must apply themselves more, or face going to Cal State LA, Northridge or Oregon. Washington high school students need to be told, if they don't work harder its JC or directional school time - WSU doesn't give out warm milk and cookies to everyone anymore, like engineering students who are crap at math.

Another option (lesser) is to pursue out of state, particularly California, kids. It wasn't that long ago that Oregon was ranked below us. Now they are #49, based primarily on the high school academic prowess of 6000 California kids who now attend (without any WUE money). Half their kids are from out of state, from whom they demand far more academically.

 

[Observer11]

The main reason why the UW is the #15 public university and we are #96 - selectivity. That is the reason why UCLA and Berkeley are tied at #1, the UCs have 5 schools in the top 10, and every UC is in the top 40 - selectivity. No matter what the rating services say, and what methodology they claim to use, is comes down to that. That is why small private colleges (like the Pomona Colleges) routinely misrepresent their admission rates. If WSU were, tomorrow, to demand more of high school applicants (heaven forbid), our ratings would jump, without having to spend a dime to improve our faculty. Sure we would lose enrollment in the short term, but it would bounce back. When kids know what the bar is, they will respond. College bound students in California aren't better or brighter than their Washington counterparts, they just know that they must apply themselves more, or face going to Cal State LA, Northridge or Oregon. Washington high school students need to be told, if they don't work harder its JC or directional school time - WSU doesn't give out warm milk and cookies to everyone anymore, like engineering students who are crap at math.

Another option (lesser) is to pursue out of state, particularly California, kids. It wasn't that long ago that Oregon was ranked below us. Now they are #49, based primarily on the high school academic prowess of 6000 California kids who now attend (without any WUE money). Half their kids are from out of state, from whom they demand far more academically.

Or follow the Gonzaga model and get an elite level basketball team.

Not too long ago Gonzaga and academics weren’t in the same zip code.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Or follow the Gonzaga model and get an elite level basketball team.

Not too long ago Gonzaga and academics weren’t in the same zip code.

And did something change?

 

[Observer11]

And did something change?

They now get rich out of state kids who can’t read instead of just the locals who can’t read.

 

[dgibbons]

The main reason why the UW is the #15 public university and we are #96 - selectivity. That is the reason why UCLA and Berkeley are tied at #1, the UCs have 5 schools in the top 10, and every UC is in the top 40 - selectivity. No matter what the rating services say, and what methodology they claim to use, is comes down to that. That is why small private colleges (like the Pomona Colleges) routinely misrepresent their admission rates. If WSU were, tomorrow, to demand more of high school applicants (heaven forbid), our ratings would jump, without having to spend a dime to improve our faculty. Sure we would lose enrollment in the short term, but it would bounce back. When kids know what the bar is, they will respond. College bound students in California aren't better or brighter than their Washington counterparts, they just know that they must apply themselves more, or face going to Cal State LA, Northridge or Oregon. Washington high school students need to be told, if they don't work harder its JC or directional school time - WSU doesn't give out warm milk and cookies to everyone anymore, like engineering students who are crap at math.

Another option (lesser) is to pursue out of state, particularly California, kids. It wasn't that long ago that Oregon was ranked below us. Now they are #49, based primarily on the high school academic prowess of 6000 California kids who now attend (without any WUE money). Half their kids are from out of state, from whom they demand far more academically.

I continue to be surprised how many seemingly (I don't know what their transcripts, test scores or AP test scores look like) upper tier high school graduates end up at WWU. I just don't understand the appeal.

I've probably mentioned this before, my daughter graduates from high school next month. She has a 4.0 GPA. Her AP test scores have been 3s and 4s. She scored above average, but not great on the SAT (I can't remember the number). Four academic letters, 9 letters in athletics, and three choir letters. She's getting about $6,000 a year in scholarships from WSU. That's about twenty percent of the full cost of attendance. uw offered zero. So, the point is even good ole fashioned cash apparently doesn't help.

 

[Observer11]

I continue to be surprised how many seemingly (I don't know what their transcripts, test scores or AP test scores look like) upper tier high school graduates end up at WWU. I just don't understand the appeal.

I've probably mentioned this before, my daughter graduates from high school next month. She has a 4.0 GPA. Her AP test scores have been 3s and 4s. She scored above average, but not great on the SAT (I can't remember the number). Four academic letters, 9 letters in athletics, and three choir letters. She's getting about $6,000 a year in scholarships from WSU. That's about twenty percent of the full cost of attendance. uw offered zero. So, the point is even good ole fashioned cash apparently doesn't help.

Psychodelics. Lots of smart kids enjoy their ‘shrooms.

Same as it ever was.

 

[chipdouglas]

Ray of sunshine: this will only get worse.

• The fertility rate is plummeting (fewer kids): well below replacement, and ~half of what it was in the 60s
• Since 1980, the cost of college attendance has increased at more than 5x the rate of inflation
• At the same time, job market is absolutely saturated with college diplomas: it's not uncommon to find job postings for lowly hourly clerical work which now require both a 4-year degree AND experience
• As Socal hints, diplomas mean less than ever: aversion to standardized testing, COVID education disruptions, and the 2nd/3rd world becoming the nation's key source of population growth essentially now requires the dilution of standards

The word is thus out: college just isn't worth it for more and more kids, and there are fewer and fewer kids. Yet administrative bloat and mission creep have turned universities into feeding troughs for entire metro areas, meaning hard choices (e.g., "be more selective in admissions") are no longer possible without economically leveling entire cities. Private unis are already getting hammered, and publics are on a timer.

 

[Suudy]

WSU’s physics department has for decades been indifferent toward teaching anyone who wasn’t a physics major. When I took 201, I got a 22% on one of the exams…and that was above the class average. If I recall, 14% was still a passing score.

This. I too remember 201/202 with the class average hovering in the mid-30s, and after the first test, half the class dropped. I admit, as a freshman 201 and my first test score of about 50% scared me and I dropped immediately. It wasn't until later I learned that would have been an A. I ended up with an A in both, and that was with nothing better than about 50% on any test.

And it wasn't just in physics. I remember Dr Wang was always grouchy that CPTS360 had too many people at about 20 people. The first test score average was about 15% (I managed a 60%), and the next day the class was down to about 10 people. He then announced, "I know who really wants to be here. Congratulations, you all get an extra 50 points on your exam for just coming back."

And it was like this throughout my undergraduate EE degree. Electromagnetics (EE331?) and the follow-on class (EE431?) were damn hard, with averages well below 50%. And the hardest yet was Analog Integrated Circuits (EE476?). Dr Fiez was brutal, and was about the most arrogant, unhelpful professor ever, and the average on exams was in the teens. All of these were fully a curve. All you had to do was be better than your peers.

 

[95coug]

This. I too remember 201/202 with the class average hovering in the mid-30s, and after the first test, half the class dropped. I admit, as a freshman 201 and my first test score of about 50% scared me and I dropped immediately. It wasn't until later I learned that would have been an A. I ended up with an A in both, and that was with nothing better than about 50% on any test.

And it wasn't just in physics. I remember Dr Wang was always grouchy that CPTS360 had too many people at about 20 people. The first test score average was about 15% (I managed a 60%), and the next day the class was down to about 10 people. He then announced, "I know who really wants to be here. Congratulations, you all get an extra 50 points on your exam for just coming back."

And it was like this throughout my undergraduate EE degree. Electromagnetics (EE331?) and the follow-on class (EE431?) were damn hard, with averages well below 50%. And the hardest yet was Analog Integrated Circuits (EE476?). Dr Fiez was brutal, and was about the most arrogant, unhelpful professor ever, and the average on exams was in the teens. All of these were fully a curve. All you had to do was be better than your peers.

There’s no way any school should allow classes to have an average below 50. If that happens, it just means the instructor isn’t actually teaching anything.

 

[Suudy]

There’s no way any school should allow classes to have an average below 50. If that happens, it just means the instructor isn’t actually teaching anything.

For Dr Fiez, IMO it was two things: 1) a method to weed-out people and 2) determine who was a cut above the rest. While the average was in the teens, we had folk consistently get 80% or better. All Dr Fiez cared about was research (which is why she left WSU--they forced her to teach too many classes), and finding undergrads that were worthy of studying under her. When I was in grad school, she was a much different person. She actually helped her grad students.

I imagine it was similar for others. Some, like Dr Ringo, were damn difficult, but he had a pretty much wide open door policy. Same with Dr Fischer--tough but willing to help. Shira and John (the electromagnetics gurus) were super helpful. In fact, Shira approached me and a buddy at the end of EE331 suggesting we apply to the scholarship she was the chair, and said we were pretty much guaranteed it because of how well we did in her class. Most--if not all--cared a lot about all of us succeeding. There were just a few real a$$holes.

For intro classes like Physics 201/202, Math 171/172/315, etc., they need to offer help. And for my part, they did. Physics 201/202 had labs 2x/week and the grad students were helpful. Math 171 had a required tutorial that helped. Math 315 was taught by a grad student who was awesome and would stay after class to help. My experience in these classes was generally very positive, and it wasn't hard to pass them if you took advantage of the help.

Once you get into the department? Your mileage would totally vary.

 

[95coug]

For Dr Fiez, IMO it was two things: 1) a method to weed-out people and 2) determine who was a cut above the rest. While the average was in the teens, we had folk consistently get 80% or better. All Dr Fiez cared about was research (which is why she left WSU--they forced her to teach too many classes), and finding undergrads that were worthy of studying under her. When I was in grad school, she was a much different person. She actually helped her grad students.

I imagine it was similar for others. Some, like Dr Ringo, were damn difficult, but he had a pretty much wide open door policy. Same with Dr Fischer--tough but willing to help. Shira and John (the electromagnetics gurus) were super helpful. In fact, Shira approached me and a buddy at the end of EE331 suggesting we apply to the scholarship she was the chair, and said we were pretty much guaranteed it because of how well we did in her class. Most--if not all--cared a lot about all of us succeeding. There were just a few real a$$holes.

For intro classes like Physics 201/202, Math 171/172/315, etc., they need to offer help. And for my part, they did. Physics 201/202 had labs 2x/week and the grad students were helpful. Math 171 had a required tutorial that helped. Math 315 was taught by a grad student who was awesome and would stay after class to help. My experience in these classes was generally very positive, and it wasn't hard to pass them if you took advantage of the help.

Once you get into the department? Your mileage would totally vary.

When I took 201, there was only one lab per week. Grad student wasn’t helpful, he was a Chinese grad student with heavily accented English, and there were many words he didn’t know. There was a lab exercise that used the elevators, and he literally had to walk out of the lab and point to them so we could tell him the word. After that, I didn’t take 202, I dropped down and took 102.

Math 171 was also a factor. I think 172 was a prerequisite for physics 202, and my experience in 171 was so bad I refused to take more math. The professor was so soft spoken I could barely hear him in the lecture hall. He had an Indian accent too, so I couldn’t understand him. Might have been able to cope if I could have sat up front, but class was in Johnson Hall, and whatever I took before that was in Sloan so I was usually getting there as he was starting lecture. The weekly tutorial may have also helped, but the TA teaching mine didn’t know the material. She would work out examples on the board, look at it, and then turn to us and ask “does that look right?” Totally useless.

It’s just as well. I had been on an engineering track up until then, but I know now that wasn’t the right path.

 

[Suudy]

There’s no way any school should allow classes to have an average below 50. If that happens, it just means the instructor isn’t actually teaching anything.

I thought I'd mention one other story about Dr Fiez, where the class average was routinely in the teens. This class helped me immensely. Perhaps I was better than most in learning the material, but I took it the fall of '95. Intel can to a campus recruiting event and I applied for a 6-month co-op. They flew me down to San Jose, and I interviewed all day. The position was to work on the team designing digital standard cells for use in the chipset designs. All the design work was at the transistor level.

EE476 made me an expert on how transistors operate. Both BJT and CMOS. And in my interview they asked lots of questions about how transistors work, and I could answer them all. At the end of the day, the hiring manager admitted that they couldn't stump me on transistor knowledge and admitted I probably had more knowledge than anyone on the interview team (though when I got there, I worked with a PhD that was absolutely brilliant).

And this co-op got my foot in the door and made me hiring material immediately upon graduation. Those 6-months of living in Santa Clara making peanuts sent me home with more debt than when I arrived. (When I asked my parent for help to pay off the credit cards I was living off, my father replied "What you have in your head and on your resume will pay those cards off in no time.") I immediately transitioned into another internship in Pullman with a (now defunct) company that designed chips for communications (undersea cable, satellite, etc.).

The only reason I did so well in the interview was because of Dr Fiez's class. I know I wasn't the only one, so she did manage to teach something. I did manage an A in the class, and IIRC my average for the tests was about 50%--well below the top guys in the class, but enough for an A. One guy I did graduate with ended up at Analog Circuits using exactly what he learned. We connected at a WSU football game some 10 years or so after graduation and we talked about our careers and reminisced about our instructors. Dr Fiez was damn tough--and a b$t$ch to boot--but we learned enough from her class(es) to launch our careers.

 

[95coug]

I thought I'd mention one other story about Dr Fiez, where the class average was routinely in the teens. This class helped me immensely. Perhaps I was better than most in learning the material, but I took it the fall of '95. Intel can to a campus recruiting event and I applied for a 6-month co-op. They flew me down to San Jose, and I interviewed all day. The position was to work on the team designing digital standard cells for use in the chipset designs. All the design work was at the transistor level.

EE476 made me an expert on how transistors operate. Both BJT and CMOS. And in my interview they asked lots of questions about how transistors work, and I could answer them all. At the end of the day, the hiring manager admitted that they couldn't stump me on transistor knowledge and admitted I probably had more knowledge than anyone on the interview team (though when I got there, I worked with a PhD that was absolutely brilliant).

And this co-op got my foot in the door and made me hiring material immediately upon graduation. Those 6-months of living in Santa Clara making peanuts sent me home with more debt than when I arrived. (When I asked my parent for help to pay off the credit cards I was living off, my father replied "What you have in your head and on your resume will pay those cards off in no time.") I immediately transitioned into another internship in Pullman with a (now defunct) company that designed chips for communications (undersea cable, satellite, etc.).

The only reason I did so well in the interview was because of Dr Fiez's class. I know I wasn't the only one, so she did manage to teach something. I did manage an A in the class, and IIRC my average for the tests was about 50%--well below the top guys in the class, but enough for an A. One guy I did graduate with ended up at Analog Circuits using exactly what he learned. We connected at a WSU football game some 10 years or so after graduation and we talked about our careers and reminisced about our instructors. Dr Fiez was damn tough--and a b$t$ch to boot--but we learned enough from her class(es) to launch our careers.

I don’t even remember who the physics professors I had were. One of them didn’t take questions, neither of them cared what we learned. Undergrad classes were beneath them. I learned the physics I needed eventually, no thanks to them.

Those classes were tough because they were bad teachers. Toughest class I took was biochem, but the professor was great. He’d explain things multiple ways and would spend extra time after class. Plus by that time I was smart enough to strategically use the pass/fail option.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

I don’t even remember who the physics professors I had were. One of them didn’t take questions, neither of them cared what we learned. Undergrad classes were beneath them. I learned the physics I needed eventually, no thanks to them.

Those classes were tough because they were bad teachers. Toughest class I took was biochem, but the professor was great. He’d explain things multiple ways and would spend extra time after class. Plus by that time I was smart enough to strategically use the pass/fail option.

The thing that really pissed me off in school was the multiple teachers I had that were foreign and could barely speak english. Computer Sci 220 and Math 172 (I think) come to mind.

 

[BSpike76]

I don’t even remember who the physics professors I had were. One of them didn’t take questions, neither of them cared what we learned. Undergrad classes were beneath them. I learned the physics I needed eventually, no thanks to them.

Those classes were tough because they were bad teachers. Toughest class I took was biochem, but the professor was great. He’d explain things multiple ways and would spend extra time after class. Plus by that time I was smart enough to strategically use the pass/fail option.

I had Miles B.Dresser, of Science in the News fame, on KOL.

 

[95coug]

I had Miles B.Dresser, of Science in the News fame, on KOL.

NAme is familiar, but I can't remember for sure if that's who I had. I remember he was kind of small and seemed really timid if anyone approached him after class.

 

[BSpike76]

NAme is familiar, but I can't remember for sure if that's who I had. I remember he was kind of small and seemed really timid if anyone approached him after class.

He was fairly tall and approachable. He did a weekly radio spot. I had the wrong middle initial. Should be J.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

While we are strolling down memory lane...I was taking 171/172 and Phys 201/202 in the late 70's. At that time there was no required performance in those classes to move ahead in engineering school (thank God). There was no 171/172 tutorial (there was one for 201/202, but it was not mandatory). I should have started in pre-calc; I did not realize how unprepared I was, and I had to work hard to get C's my freshman year in 171/172. I had a good physics instructor (don't remember his name). I got A's in 201/202 in my soph year; I was helped by 20% of the grade being the lab reports, and it also helped that I was taking Statics at the same time as 201 and so much of the material was redundant. I had it in Statics first (where I got a C), but then it made Phys 201 much easier. I squeaked by with a Cum Laude, but if you took out the math, Statics & Chemistry grades (I loathed Chemistry), my GPA was much higher.

Over the 44 years since I graduated and worked in the HVAC/Mechanical contracting field, I've noted that WSU engineering grads compare favorably with most. WSU in general (chalk it up to what ever you wish) does a good job of teaching students how to be resourceful and think. WSU kids also tend to be a bit more socially comfortable overall; they are not afraid of talking to people, which is super important in collaborative situations. The only school I've noted that tends to be a bit above WSU in terms of people I'd hire are from the Cal Polys. Their "learning by doing" slogan is apt. They have the best 4 year tech degree labs that I've seen, and labs are a huge focus of the standard BS in engineering. The lab emphasis also puts a priority on team effort, and it is hard to slip through all those labs by doing little, communicating poorly, and relying on others to do all the work.

You can point to metrics and bemoan our students and our selectivity. There are certainly numbers that back that up. But my personal experience...and I've hired well over 100 tech degree folks by now...is that a WSU experience is comparable to pretty much anywhere if you are working in the real world. Grad school? I have no idea. But in a career where you have to figure it out, negotiate solutions and where time is money, and people get fired when they make the same mistake repetitively, we have nothing for which an apology is needed with regard to our graduates. I can't say the same for UC and UW grads, where a portion of the class having no practical grounding at all is almost a meme in my industry. Certainly not all of their grads are like that...but the failure percentage is probably as high or higher than at the WSU's, OSU's and Cal Polys of the world. And I have one of those UC ME's as a son, so my biases are relatively balanced.

 

[Stretch 74]

While we are strolling down memory lane...I was taking 171/172 and Phys 201/202 in the late 70's. At that time there was no required performance in those classes to move ahead in engineering school (thank God). There was no 171/172 tutorial (there was one for 201/202, but it was not mandatory). I should have started in pre-calc; I did not realize how unprepared I was, and I had to work hard to get C's my freshman year in 171/172. I had a good physics instructor (don't remember his name). I got A's in 201/202 in my soph year; I was helped by 20% of the grade being the lab reports, and it also helped that I was taking Statics at the same time as 201 and so much of the material was redundant. I had it in Statics first (where I got a C), but then it made Phys 201 much easier. I squeaked by with a Cum Laude, but if you took out the math, Statics & Chemistry grades (I loathed Chemistry), my GPA was much higher.

Over the 44 years since I graduated and worked in the HVAC/Mechanical contracting field, I've noted that WSU engineering grads compare favorably with most. WSU in general (chalk it up to what ever you wish) does a good job of teaching students how to be resourceful and think. WSU kids also tend to be a bit more socially comfortable overall; they are not afraid of talking to people, which is super important in collaborative situations. The only school I've noted that tends to be a bit above WSU in terms of people I'd hire are from the Cal Polys. Their "learning by doing" slogan is apt. They have the best 4 year tech degree labs that I've seen, and labs are a huge focus of the standard BS in engineering. The lab emphasis also puts a priority on team effort, and it is hard to slip through all those labs by doing little, communicating poorly, and relying on others to do all the work.

You can point to metrics and bemoan our students and our selectivity. There are certainly numbers that back that up. But my personal experience...and I've hired well over 100 tech degree folks by now...is that a WSU experience is comparable to pretty much anywhere if you are working in the real world. Grad school? I have no idea. But in a career where you have to figure it out, negotiate solutions and where time is money, and people get fired when they make the same mistake repetitively, we have nothing for which an apology is needed with regard to our graduates. I can't say the same for UC and UW grads, where a portion of the class having no practical grounding at all is almost a meme in my industry. Certainly not all of their grads are like that...but the failure percentage is probably as high or higher than at the WSU's, OSU's and Cal Polys of the world. And I have one of those UC ME's as a son, so my biases are relatively balanced.

As a Boeing Facilities guy, I had the opportunity to work with a lot of engineers over my 35 years there. Best one of the bunch was an electrical engineer from WSU. Was a PE, and very smart on many things, provided primary support to a 200,000 sf data center. I think a key to his knowledge and expertise was that after graduation he worked in the field, becoming a journeyman electrician before going into administration and then getting hired into Boeing from the contractor. A good man for sure.

On the other hand, I still recall a uw engineer asking me one day if the 500 ton hydraulic press I submitted for a foundation design actually weighed 500 tons! Are you kidding me? Looks like he didn't get full value out of his mutt education.

 

[dgibbons]

As a Boeing Facilities guy, I had the opportunity to work with a lot of engineers over my 35 years there. Best one of the bunch was an electrical engineer from WSU. Was a PE, and very smart on many things, provided primary support to a 200,000 sf data center. I think a key to his knowledge and expertise was that after graduation he worked in the field, becoming a journeyman electrician before going into administration and then getting hired into Boeing from the contractor. A good man for sure.

On the other hand, I still recall a uw engineer asking me one day if the 500 ton hydraulic press I submitted for a foundation design actually weighed 500 tons! Are you kidding me? Looks like he didn't get full value out of his mutt education.

Maybe the same dude did the software for the Max?

Couldn't resist. One of the things I did well last year was selling my Boeing stock a few days before that door plug blew out.

 

[Stretch 74]

Maybe the same dude did the software for the Max?

Couldn't resist. One of the things I did well last year was selling my Boeing stock a few days before that door plug blew out.

I believe it was reported that the Max software was done by foreign guest workers that were paid a lot less than the American workers that had the work taken away from them. Could be wrong on that, but I don't think so. And if the engineer I was was referring to had been in charge, I guarantee it would have been done correctly.

 

[Suudy]

Over the 44 years since I graduated and worked in the HVAC/Mechanical contracting field, I've noted that WSU engineering grads compare favorably with most. WSU in general (chalk it up to what ever you wish) does a good job of teaching students how to be resourceful and think. WSU kids also tend to be a bit more socially comfortable overall; they are not afraid of talking to people, which is super important in collaborative situations.

I too have hired quite a few engineers over the years. In terms of proficiency, it waxes and wanes, but seems to do so in rhythm with the other schools. I've interviewed quite a few of WSU, UW, and UofI grads (and a few from around the west coast). Consistently, WSU and UW grads understand the theory, but lack practical knowledge. UofI grads can identify patterns and apply appropriate formulae to solve them, but lack the theoretical knowledge. The WSU/UW grads can derive whatever they need; it takes longer but they can get to the correct answer. The UofI grads, if they are unable to detect any patterns or misidentify them, fail miserably.

But your social observation is dead on. The UW grads are all hardcore nerds, seriously lacking social skills. We joke that all engineers are on the spectrum somewhere, but these folk are way out on it. The WSU/UofI grads are far more personable. But I think that ties right into that selectivity. If UW is picky and only wants the best book-smart people, this is what you get. But in the real world, you need smarts and social skills. Especially if you want to work into any level of management at all.