2011 ECAC Post-season

billhoward

amerks127

marty
Here is the GWG




Gate wins!

I was sitting next to two of Colgate's three fans - hence the polite clapping heard in the background. (Very nice folks by the way. I will likely mail them my next years Colgate at RIP tickets as I will be in Schenectady that night!)

RPI's postmortem.

[www.withoutapeer.com]

Considering how maudlin (and run-in) WRPI was in their post-game, this was pretty good including a couple sedason recollections such as winning a game in OT while killing a 5-minute major, on a penalty shot. They were too heartbroken to note it broke a 1-1 tie against, ahem, Colgate, back in January. Postmortem shows they're real hockey fans, too, despite choosing the wrong college to attend.

A great many RPI students chose RPI precisely because it wasn't an Ivy League college. I, for one, would not have been admitted to Cornell or another Ivy even if I had considered applying, and I would have been most unhappy with the liberal art requirements there. Thankfully, my HS guidance council told my parents that I would not be admitted, because undoubtedly they would have preferred the added prestige. I had enough of the highly competitive liberal arts atmosphere in HS to last a lifetime.

Tom Reale, on the other hand, definitely knows how to write, although he seems to enjoy getting other RPI fans mad at him on USCHO even more.

Assuming you go to RPI for engineering, Cornell really doesnt have much of a liberal arts requirement, 6 liberal arts classes is it, AP credit can get you out of most of it, end up only having to take 2 econ classes. I guess it is worse here for other majors

phillysportsfan
Assuming you go to RPI for engineering, Cornell really doesnt have much of a liberal arts requirement, 6 liberal arts classes is it, AP credit can get you out of most of it, end up only having to take 2 econ classes. I guess it is worse here for other majors

The econ courses probably wouldn't have bothered me. At least the ones in HS and college that I took didn't require writing, however I was a math major which I assume isn't in Engineering.

I've confirmed, by the way... if our series goes to a game three, that game will be at 7pm on Sunday.

So I'll just hope we sweep.

When I went to school, Cornell required 8 liberal electives for engineers - one per semester - plus two unrestriced electives senior year. While I wasn't going to enjoy the writing aspect of them, some of them (Psych 101, US History 1945-1980, and of course wine-tasting) turned out to be some of the most interesting classes I took at Cornell. OTOH, some of them (Econ 101 and 102) were dull and boring and simply served to complete the requirement.

You get out what you put in.

Jeff Hopkins '82
When I went to school, Cornell required 8 liberal electives for engineers - one per semester - plus two unrestriced electives senior year. While I wasn't going to enjoy the writing aspect of them, some of them (Psych 101, US History 1945-1980, and of course wine-tasting) turned out to be some of the most interesting classes I took at Cornell. OTOH, some of them (Econ 101 and 102) were dull and boring and simply served to complete the requirement.

Did they have "writing seminars" when you were a freshman?

nyc94

Jeff Hopkins '82
When I went to school, Cornell required 8 liberal electives for engineers - one per semester - plus two unrestriced electives senior year. While I wasn't going to enjoy the writing aspect of them, some of them (Psych 101, US History 1945-1980, and of course wine-tasting) turned out to be some of the most interesting classes I took at Cornell. OTOH, some of them (Econ 101 and 102) were dull and boring and simply served to complete the requirement.

Did they have "writing seminars" when you were a freshman?

I believe the freshmen writing seminars go back to either 1970 or 1969. They were in place when I arrived in 1970. Arguably one of the most useful classes I ever took.

Towerroad

nyc94

Jeff Hopkins '82
When I went to school, Cornell required 8 liberal electives for engineers - one per semester - plus two unrestriced electives senior year. While I wasn't going to enjoy the writing aspect of them, some of them (Psych 101, US History 1945-1980, and of course wine-tasting) turned out to be some of the most interesting classes I took at Cornell. OTOH, some of them (Econ 101 and 102) were dull and boring and simply served to complete the requirement.

Did they have "writing seminars" when you were a freshman?

I believe the freshmen writing seminars go back to either 1970 or 1969. They were in place when I arrived in 1970. Arguably one of the most useful classes I ever took.

The reason I ask is I was wondering if they cut back the number of liberal arts classes for engineers when the writing seminars were introduced. I feel like for my class it was six liberal arts/social sciences classes plus 6 credits of "free elective". The only other restriction I remember was that at least one of the liberal arts classes had to be 300 level and have a 100 level you had already taken as prerequisite. And 6 credits of "free elective" was a mild nuisance because Wines was 2 credits.

Towerroad

nyc94

Jeff Hopkins '82
When I went to school, Cornell required 8 liberal electives for engineers - one per semester - plus two unrestriced electives senior year. While I wasn't going to enjoy the writing aspect of them, some of them (Psych 101, US History 1945-1980, and of course wine-tasting) turned out to be some of the most interesting classes I took at Cornell. OTOH, some of them (Econ 101 and 102) were dull and boring and simply served to complete the requirement.

Did they have "writing seminars" when you were a freshman?

I believe the freshmen writing seminars go back to either 1970 or 1969. They were in place when I arrived in 1970. Arguably one of the most useful classes I ever took.

Before then; they were in place when I was a freshman in 1967.

ACM

Towerroad

nyc94

Jeff Hopkins '82
When I went to school, Cornell required 8 liberal electives for engineers - one per semester - plus two unrestriced electives senior year. While I wasn't going to enjoy the writing aspect of them, some of them (Psych 101, US History 1945-1980, and of course wine-tasting) turned out to be some of the most interesting classes I took at Cornell. OTOH, some of them (Econ 101 and 102) were dull and boring and simply served to complete the requirement.

Did they have "writing seminars" when you were a freshman?

I believe the freshmen writing seminars go back to either 1970 or 1969. They were in place when I arrived in 1970. Arguably one of the most useful classes I ever took.

Before then; they were in place when I was a freshman in 1967.

This prompted me to do a little research. [www.arts.cornell.edu]

1966
Cornell revitalizes the teaching of first-year writing by replacing a program based solely in the Department of English with freshman humanities courses taught in nine departments. The program continues to be administered by the English Department.

Also, the program was endowed and named ("The John S. Knight Writing Program" in 1986 which might explain why I thought it was younger than it is.

nyc94

Towerroad

nyc94

Jeff Hopkins '82
When I went to school, Cornell required 8 liberal electives for engineers - one per semester - plus two unrestriced electives senior year. While I wasn't going to enjoy the writing aspect of them, some of them (Psych 101, US History 1945-1980, and of course wine-tasting) turned out to be some of the most interesting classes I took at Cornell. OTOH, some of them (Econ 101 and 102) were dull and boring and simply served to complete the requirement.

Did they have "writing seminars" when you were a freshman?

I believe the freshmen writing seminars go back to either 1970 or 1969. They were in place when I arrived in 1970. Arguably one of the most useful classes I ever took.

The reason I ask is I was wondering if they cut back the number of liberal arts classes for engineers when the writing seminars were introduced. I feel like for my class it was six liberal arts/social sciences classes plus 6 credits of "free elective". The only other restriction I remember was that at least one of the liberal arts classes had to be 300 level and have a 100 level you had already taken as prerequisite. And 6 credits of "free elective" was a mild nuisance because Wines was 2 credits.

Yeah I forgot about the writing seminars but those two writing seminars despite being painful were well worth it

Towerroad
I believe the freshmen writing seminars go back to either 1970 or 1969. They were in place when I arrived in 1970. Arguably one of the most useful classes I ever took.

My writing seminar was utterly useless. The grad student teaching it clearly didn't give a crap, and I didn't learn anything useful about writing except that I should use "he or she" instead of "he" when gender is indeterminate. (Yes, 16½ years later I still remember that.)

IMO, learning to write well takes practice writing about things that are important to the writer: that provides incentive for making the prose interesting and (if applicable) persuasive.

That was not my experience. I took an anthropology course, which was interesting, but we had to produce an essay every week. My first ones were bad, real bad and the teacher told me so. I went to him for help he made me come back week after week at office hours and every week he went over the basics, outlining, drafting, revising, and in my case writing the way I speak. By the end of the class I was a much more confident and competent writer. I can't tell you what the class was about or even the Professors name but I am forever thankful for his help, the course, and the program.

nyc94

Towerroad

nyc94

Jeff Hopkins '82
When I went to school, Cornell required 8 liberal electives for engineers - one per semester - plus two unrestriced electives senior year. While I wasn't going to enjoy the writing aspect of them, some of them (Psych 101, US History 1945-1980, and of course wine-tasting) turned out to be some of the most interesting classes I took at Cornell. OTOH, some of them (Econ 101 and 102) were dull and boring and simply served to complete the requirement.

Did they have "writing seminars" when you were a freshman?

I believe the freshmen writing seminars go back to either 1970 or 1969. They were in place when I arrived in 1970. Arguably one of the most useful classes I ever took.

The reason I ask is I was wondering if they cut back the number of liberal arts classes for engineers when the writing seminars were introduced. I feel like for my class it was six liberal arts/social sciences classes plus 6 credits of "free elective". The only other restriction I remember was that at least one of the liberal arts classes had to be 300 level and have a 100 level you had already taken as prerequisite. And 6 credits of "free elective" was a mild nuisance because Wines was 2 credits.

During my time (2000-2004), if I'm remembering right, it was two semesters of writing seminar and 6 liberal arts electives, and I think the electives had some minimums for certain categories of liberal arts electives. I don't recall if a certain number had to be at a specific level or if the requirement was in terms of courses or credits.

French Rage

nyc94

Towerroad

nyc94

Jeff Hopkins '82
When I went to school, Cornell required 8 liberal electives for engineers - one per semester - plus two unrestriced electives senior year. While I wasn't going to enjoy the writing aspect of them, some of them (Psych 101, US History 1945-1980, and of course wine-tasting) turned out to be some of the most interesting classes I took at Cornell. OTOH, some of them (Econ 101 and 102) were dull and boring and simply served to complete the requirement.

Did they have "writing seminars" when you were a freshman?

I believe the freshmen writing seminars go back to either 1970 or 1969. They were in place when I arrived in 1970. Arguably one of the most useful classes I ever took.

The reason I ask is I was wondering if they cut back the number of liberal arts classes for engineers when the writing seminars were introduced. I feel like for my class it was six liberal arts/social sciences classes plus 6 credits of "free elective". The only other restriction I remember was that at least one of the liberal arts classes had to be 300 level and have a 100 level you had already taken as prerequisite. And 6 credits of "free elective" was a mild nuisance because Wines was 2 credits.

During my time (2000-2004), if I'm remembering right, it was two semesters of writing seminar and 6 liberal arts electives, and I think the electives had some minimums for certain categories of liberal arts electives. I don't recall if a certain number had to be at a specific level or if the requirement was in terms of courses or credits.

Edit: Here's the current page: [www.engr.cornell.edu]. Looks to be roughly what I said. In my case, thank god for AP credits!

French Rage

nyc94

Towerroad

nyc94

Jeff Hopkins '82
When I went to school, Cornell required 8 liberal electives for engineers - one per semester - plus two unrestriced electives senior year. While I wasn't going to enjoy the writing aspect of them, some of them (Psych 101, US History 1945-1980, and of course wine-tasting) turned out to be some of the most interesting classes I took at Cornell. OTOH, some of them (Econ 101 and 102) were dull and boring and simply served to complete the requirement.

Did they have "writing seminars" when you were a freshman?

I believe the freshmen writing seminars go back to either 1970 or 1969. They were in place when I arrived in 1970. Arguably one of the most useful classes I ever took.

The reason I ask is I was wondering if they cut back the number of liberal arts classes for engineers when the writing seminars were introduced. I feel like for my class it was six liberal arts/social sciences classes plus 6 credits of "free elective". The only other restriction I remember was that at least one of the liberal arts classes had to be 300 level and have a 100 level you had already taken as prerequisite. And 6 credits of "free elective" was a mild nuisance because Wines was 2 credits.

During my time (2000-2004), if I'm remembering right, it was two semesters of writing seminar and 6 liberal arts electives, and I think the electives had some minimums for certain categories of liberal arts electives. I don't recall if a certain number had to be at a specific level or if the requirement was in terms of courses or credits.

They had the "Freshman Seminars" when I was there. The first one I took,called "Fantasy" was totally useless. However, in the other,called "Science as Literature" we read some quite interesting stuff. For example, we read "The Double Helix" by Watson and Crick, a volume of essays by Einstein, and the play "In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer" among others.

Regarding the liberal electives, there was a very specific list of courses which were acceptable. Any course in certain departments, such as English or History were allowed, but other courses with a more scientific or mathematical bent, such as Statistics, were not allowed.

Jeff Hopkins '82
They had the "Freshman Seminars" when I was there. The first one I took,called "Fantasy" was totally useless. However, in the other,called "Science as Literature" we read some quite interesting stuff. For example, we read "The Double Helix" by Watson and Crick, a volume of essays by Einstein, and the play "In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer" among others.

Seems like freshman writing seminars are basically like anything else: some of them are useful and some aren't. Some are taught by instructors who care about helping the students learn and some aren't. There were core classes in my engineering major I found to be pretty useless in the long run too.

As with anything worthwhile, if you aren't being challenged, challenge yourself.

Trotsky
As with anything worthwhile, if you aren't being challenged, challenge yourself.

I totally agree. One of the things I really liked about CU was the ability to go outside your area of expertise. I remember taking a course in Medieval History. It was recommended by a history major based upon some conversations we had. I had no lower level history courses, unless you count high school as really lower, I didn't get a great grade, but it was a lot of fun. The prof knew I was an engineer and worked with me, and I really enjoyed the course.

An Aggie recommended that I take a course in Ag. Ec. and learn about the futures markets; I got to do some simulated trading during the semester. That wasn't as challenging as Med. His. but fun. The fact that I could socialize with students in other colleges was really key.

Josh '99

Jeff Hopkins '82
They had the "Freshman Seminars" when I was there. The first one I took,called "Fantasy" was totally useless. However, in the other,called "Science as Literature" we read some quite interesting stuff. For example, we read "The Double Helix" by Watson and Crick, a volume of essays by Einstein, and the play "In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer" among others.

Seems like freshman writing seminars are basically like anything else: some of them are useful and some aren't. Some are taught by instructors who care about helping the students learn and some aren't. There were core classes in my engineering major I found to be pretty useless in the long run too.

Well, RPI was my, dare I say it, 5@#&+^ school. At Cornell we had to take freshman English. I remember reading Orwell and D.H. Lawrence. I didn't understand them at such a tender age, but how else do you learn to understand the all-time greats? I took a philosophy class on symbolic logic and aced it. But then my department chair in Engineering said it shouldn't have been allowed as a liberal arts elective for engineers. He was right. If anything, I wish Cornell had made me take more liberal arts, especially history, real philosophy, and history of or comparative economic thought.

I agree that lots of the engineering core was useless. Why make an electrical engineer take chemistry? On the other hand, maybe they wanted to expose us to the different engineering specializations, and I still love the fact that I learned quantum mechanics, even though I only use it when I'm doing home repairs on weekends.

As for the difference between A&S and Engineering, I think it's really overblown. The last time I looked, average SAT's were something like 690V/740M in Engineering and 740V/690M in A&S. Students in either school should be quite good with either side of their brains.

Psych 101, on the other hand, was quite a waste of time, except it taught me about rat psychology and B. F. Skinner. I wish I had learned more about human psychology. Then I might have gotten a job showing Congressional delegations around Afghanistan.

One of the most humorous aspects of Cornell is how people from A&S and Engineering each have a delusional superiority complex.

(Particularly since it's the Ag School that rocks.)

There were plenty of courses I wanted to take but due to Engineering course load couldn't. I would have liked to take a foreign language course, but couldn't afford 6 credits of language on top of 15+ of Engineering core requirements. And biology would have been fun, except it was a pre-med weed-out course. There's even more courses that I'd find interesting now. If I knew then, what I knew now...

The courses that in retrospect have turned out to be the most useless were all Engineering core requirements. I had to take 3 semesters of math, and I've used calculus once in a 30 year career. Worse, I knew going in I wouldn't need it. I had three relatives who were ChemE's and they all said they didn't need calculus. The only physics I've used out of 3 semesters I learned in high school. I've never used any P-Chem (8 credits) or Materials Science (3 credits). So there's 1/4 of my Cornell education that was of zero value to me.

I'm actually really surprised there are Engineers who don't use Calculus. I thought it was ubiquitous in the kind of analysis they do.

Trotsky
I'm actually really surprised there are Engineers who don't use Calculus. I thought it was ubiquitous in the kind of analysis they do.

You'd be even more shocked at all the engineers who *can't* use calculus. I use it constantly (e,g. tracking rates of change of temperatures and fuel quantities in aircraft fuel tanks), and it is always somewhere between amusing and depressing to see established, successful engineers' eyes glaze over the instant I mention integrating mass flowrates....

NM

Trotsky
I'm actually really surprised there are Engineers who don't use Calculus. I thought it was ubiquitous in the kind of analysis they do.

These days, software packages pretty much do all the grind-work for those that need to do such analyses. I would hope that people still need to understand what is actually happening underneath the front end, and be able to plug-in complex assumptions and required conditions to a problem to allow computers to chug through the "turning the crank" calculations we were taught in college. But I'd be willing to bet the whole "the software spits out an answer" has made the practice and application of calculus somewhat rare.

My field (optics) relies more on linear algebra unless we really dive down into Maxwell's Equations (which rarely happens). Otherwise, the design work I do relies on knowing the subtle effects of components/elements have on a system and finding elegant/cheap solutions to problems others didn't anticipate. Matlab/Mathmatica or specialized optical modeling software does the grunt work. The rest of my work deals with the problems that arise from physically building & testing complex systems.

RichH

Trotsky
I'm actually really surprised there are Engineers who don't use Calculus. I thought it was ubiquitous in the kind of analysis they do.

These days, software packages pretty much do all the grind-work for those that need to do such analyses. I would hope that people still need to understand what is actually happening underneath the front end, and be able to plug-in complex assumptions and required conditions to a problem to allow computers to chug through the "turning the crank" calculations we were taught in college. But I'd be willing to bet the whole "the software spits out an answer" has made the practice and application of calculus somewhat rare.

My field (optics) relies more on linear algebra unless we really dive down into Maxwell's Equations (which rarely happens). Otherwise, the design work I do relies on knowing the subtle effects of components/elements have on a system and finding elegant/cheap solutions to problems others didn't anticipate. Matlab/Mathmatica or specialized optical modeling software does the grunt work. The rest of my work deals with the problems that arise from physically building & testing complex systems.

Interesting. I've never met an Engineer who wasn't also a good mathematician (not a freak genius like jtw, but solid and competent), but I can see how the tools have advanced to where Engineering becomes more a matter of gathering requirements, designing solutions, and anticipating (or responding to) all the myriad complications and problems of real world implementation.

Trotsky

RichH

Trotsky
I'm actually really surprised there are Engineers who don't use Calculus. I thought it was ubiquitous in the kind of analysis they do.

These days, software packages pretty much do all the grind-work for those that need to do such analyses. I would hope that people still need to understand what is actually happening underneath the front end, and be able to plug-in complex assumptions and required conditions to a problem to allow computers to chug through the "turning the crank" calculations we were taught in college. But I'd be willing to bet the whole "the software spits out an answer" has made the practice and application of calculus somewhat rare.

My field (optics) relies more on linear algebra unless we really dive down into Maxwell's Equations (which rarely happens). Otherwise, the design work I do relies on knowing the subtle effects of components/elements have on a system and finding elegant/cheap solutions to problems others didn't anticipate. Matlab/Mathmatica or specialized optical modeling software does the grunt work. The rest of my work deals with the problems that arise from physically building & testing complex systems.

Interesting. I've never met an Engineer who wasn't also a good mathematician (not a freak genius like jtw, but solid and competent), but I can see how the tools have advanced to where Engineering becomes more a matter of gathering requirements, designing solutions, and anticipating (or responding to) all the myriad complications and problems of real world implementation.

I came out of Engineering with a Computer Science degree. I don't really use much of that in the day to day even though I am still somewhat in the industry.

So is this what we have gotten to, a discussion about degree requirements while we all wait for the weekend?

judy

Trotsky

RichH

Trotsky
I'm actually really surprised there are Engineers who don't use Calculus. I thought it was ubiquitous in the kind of analysis they do.

These days, software packages pretty much do all the grind-work for those that need to do such analyses. I would hope that people still need to understand what is actually happening underneath the front end, and be able to plug-in complex assumptions and required conditions to a problem to allow computers to chug through the "turning the crank" calculations we were taught in college. But I'd be willing to bet the whole "the software spits out an answer" has made the practice and application of calculus somewhat rare.

My field (optics) relies more on linear algebra unless we really dive down into Maxwell's Equations (which rarely happens). Otherwise, the design work I do relies on knowing the subtle effects of components/elements have on a system and finding elegant/cheap solutions to problems others didn't anticipate. Matlab/Mathmatica or specialized optical modeling software does the grunt work. The rest of my work deals with the problems that arise from physically building & testing complex systems.

Interesting. I've never met an Engineer who wasn't also a good mathematician (not a freak genius like jtw, but solid and competent), but I can see how the tools have advanced to where Engineering becomes more a matter of gathering requirements, designing solutions, and anticipating (or responding to) all the myriad complications and problems of real world implementation.

I came out of Engineering with a Computer Science degree. I don't really use much of that in the day to day even though I am still somewhat in the industry.

So is this what we have gotten to, a discussion about degree requirements while we all wait for the weekend?

Believe me, we could do far worse and have done so on numerous occasions.

Towerroad

judy

Trotsky

RichH

Trotsky
I'm actually really surprised there are Engineers who don't use Calculus. I thought it was ubiquitous in the kind of analysis they do.

These days, software packages pretty much do all the grind-work for those that need to do such analyses. I would hope that people still need to understand what is actually happening underneath the front end, and be able to plug-in complex assumptions and required conditions to a problem to allow computers to chug through the "turning the crank" calculations we were taught in college. But I'd be willing to bet the whole "the software spits out an answer" has made the practice and application of calculus somewhat rare.

My field (optics) relies more on linear algebra unless we really dive down into Maxwell's Equations (which rarely happens). Otherwise, the design work I do relies on knowing the subtle effects of components/elements have on a system and finding elegant/cheap solutions to problems others didn't anticipate. Matlab/Mathmatica or specialized optical modeling software does the grunt work. The rest of my work deals with the problems that arise from physically building & testing complex systems.

Interesting. I've never met an Engineer who wasn't also a good mathematician (not a freak genius like jtw, but solid and competent), but I can see how the tools have advanced to where Engineering becomes more a matter of gathering requirements, designing solutions, and anticipating (or responding to) all the myriad complications and problems of real world implementation.

I came out of Engineering with a Computer Science degree. I don't really use much of that in the day to day even though I am still somewhat in the industry.

So is this what we have gotten to, a discussion about degree requirements while we all wait for the weekend?

Believe me, we could do far worse and have done so on numerous occasions.

You're right, so let's take the discussion in a slightly different direction. Why does it seem that so many of the people on this board studied in the College of Engineering?

Swampy
You're right, so let's take the discussion in a slightly different direction. Why does it seem that so many of the people on this board studied in the College of Engineering?

That's partly because you're seeing the Engineering alumni speak up on matters relevant to them. As an English department alum, I have nothing to add on a discussion of what the liberal arts requirements are for Engineering students or whether RPI would have been a good alternative for me.

Plus, it's the geeks who will have the most to contribute to computational threads.

In other words, it's the Engineering alumni who have most recently had reason to speak up about which school they attended or offer playoff scenario algorithms. That doesn't make them a majority of participants on this board, just the most vocal about particular recent topics.

Beeeej

Swampy
You're right, so let's take the discussion in a slightly different direction. Why does it seem that so many of the people on this board studied in the College of Engineering?

That's partly because you're seeing the Engineering alumni speak up on matters relevant to them. As an English department alum, I have nothing to add on a discussion of what the liberal arts requirements are for Engineering students or whether RPI would have been a good alternative for me.

Plus, it's the geeks who will have the most to contribute to computational threads.

In other words, it's the Engineering alumni who have most recently had reason to speak up about which school they attended or offer playoff scenario algorithms. That doesn't make them a majority of participants on this board, just the most vocal about particular recent topics.

The short answer is, because we're awesome!

Trotsky
One of the most humorous aspects of Cornell is how people from A&S and Engineering each have a delusional superiority complex.

(Particularly since it's the Ag School that rocks.)

Hey I'm in A&S and I don't think we're any better than Ag or ILR or Hum Ec. I can't really comment of AA&P and Hotel though because those schools are just so completely different than every other program on campus. My dad was an ILRie and I happen to think (though I'm a gov student) that pre-meds who are aggies are smarter than the A&S pre-meds because they pay less for essentially the same program. That said there are people in A&S and Engineering who do act superior to the state portions. It's kind of a shame because thats the kind of elitism that I specifically didn't apply to Hahvahd for.

Trotsky
I'm actually really surprised there are Engineers who don't use Calculus. I thought it was ubiquitous in the kind of analysis they do.

Much of chemical engineering tends to be steady-state calculations. Mix A & B to get C. Once you have the data to scale up, those really don't need any calculus.

The main use of calculus in ChemE is for non-steady state operation, that is time-dependent calculations. So much of that is done with computerized numerical methods rather than true calculus. So if there is calculus involved, it's hidden to me.

Jeff Hopkins '82

Trotsky
I'm actually really surprised there are Engineers who don't use Calculus. I thought it was ubiquitous in the kind of analysis they do.

Much of chemical engineering tends to be steady-state calculations. Mix A & B to get C. Once you have the data to scale up, those really don't need any calculus.

The main use of calculus in ChemE is for non-steady state operation, that is time-dependent calculations. So much of that is done with computerized numerical methods rather than true calculus. So if there is calculus involved, it's hidden to me.

I worked as an economists use a fair amount of calculus but it was pretty basic simple partial derivatives and occasional integration of an income distribution curve.

Swampy
You're right, so let's take the discussion in a slightly different direction. Why does it seem that so many of the people on this board studied in the College of Engineering?

I'll point out that I was Econ, Gov't, and Math in A&S (yes, that's right, all three). Like the engineering students, I didn't get to take very many electives because I was filling out the requirements for three departments. Although, that said, I still took my fair share of courses pass/fail just for kicks because I thought they'd be interesting. If such a thing existed as a minor in War and Battl studies, I'd have it. Conveniently, I placed out of the language requirement coming into Cornell already fluent in more than one language - that would have killed taking all my other required courses.

Of course, I'll also point out that I'm getting a second bachelor's degree in nursing because I didn't like doing statistical analysis work, which is what I'd been doing for a psych research lab. It's amazing how many PhD level students can't write or run their own statistical models. It turns out all my math and applied statistics has helped me do is calculate dosages in my head when weight is a factor for amount of meds given.

Towerroad

Jeff Hopkins '82

Trotsky
I'm actually really surprised there are Engineers who don't use Calculus. I thought it was ubiquitous in the kind of analysis they do.

Much of chemical engineering tends to be steady-state calculations. Mix A & B to get C. Once you have the data to scale up, those really don't need any calculus.

The main use of calculus in ChemE is for non-steady state operation, that is time-dependent calculations. So much of that is done with computerized numerical methods rather than true calculus. So if there is calculus involved, it's hidden to me.

I worked as an economists use a fair amount but it is pretty basic simple partial derivatives and occasional integration of an income distribution curve.

Return to freshman writing.

judy

Trotsky

RichH

Trotsky
I'm actually really surprised there are Engineers who don't use Calculus. I thought it was ubiquitous in the kind of analysis they do.

These days, software packages pretty much do all the grind-work for those that need to do such analyses. I would hope that people still need to understand what is actually happening underneath the front end, and be able to plug-in complex assumptions and required conditions to a problem to allow computers to chug through the "turning the crank" calculations we were taught in college. But I'd be willing to bet the whole "the software spits out an answer" has made the practice and application of calculus somewhat rare.

My field (optics) relies more on linear algebra unless we really dive down into Maxwell's Equations (which rarely happens). Otherwise, the design work I do relies on knowing the subtle effects of components/elements have on a system and finding elegant/cheap solutions to problems others didn't anticipate. Matlab/Mathmatica or specialized optical modeling software does the grunt work. The rest of my work deals with the problems that arise from physically building & testing complex systems.

Interesting. I've never met an Engineer who wasn't also a good mathematician (not a freak genius like jtw, but solid and competent), but I can see how the tools have advanced to where Engineering becomes more a matter of gathering requirements, designing solutions, and anticipating (or responding to) all the myriad complications and problems of real world implementation.

I came out of Engineering with a Computer Science degree. I don't really use much of that in the day to day even though I am still somewhat in the industry.

So is this what we have gotten to, a discussion about degree requirements while we all wait for the weekend?

Well, how about those who don't have one, think about purchasing a game worn jersey.

Time Warner in the Capital District will broadcast the Friday and Saturday Toothpaste at Onion games.

Will the Vaughn concocted hygienic if not minty fresh passing game overcome the foulness of Leaman's defensive minded mercaptans? Stay tuned.

marty
Time Warner in the Capital District will broadcast the Friday and Saturday Toothpaste at Onion games.

Will the Vaughn concocted hygienic if not minty fresh of passing game overcome the foulness of Leaman's defensive minded mercaptans? Stay tuned.

As will TWCNY.

marty
Here is the GWG




Gate wins!

I was sitting next to two of Colgate's three fans - hence the polite clapping heard in the background. (Very nice folks by the way. I will likely mail them my next years Colgate at RIP tickets as I will be in Schenectady that night!)

Here is the reason that I brought my camera to the rink on Sunday.

The new video scoreboard is now set to show replays (from RPITV.org) during games. Earlier in the season there was no real estate available for replays during penalties as the whole video screen was used as a penalty clock. This is the improved version including the infraction announcement which can't typically be heard because of the crowd's "sucking".




RPI Scoreboard Replay