From USCHO, the standings (adjusted for tie breakers)
Conference Only Overall
Pts GP Record Win% GF- GA GP Record Win% GF- GA
1 Union 36 22 17- 3- 2 .818 75- 43 36 25- 7- 4 .750 135- 73
2 Yale 35 22 17- 4- 1 .795 84- 46 29 23- 5- 1 .810 124- 62
3 Dartmouth 26 22 12- 8- 2 .591 70- 48 29 16-10- 3 .603 98- 74
[color=#d61616]4 Cornell 24 22 11- 9- 2 .545 57- 53 29 13-13- 3 .500 78- 78[/color]
5 RPI 24 22 11- 9- 2 .545 67- 52 34 19-10- 5 .632 103- 75
6 Princeton 24 22 11- 9- 2 .545 69- 70 29 16-11- 2 .586 98- 82
7 Clarkson 19 22 9-12- 1 .432 58- 78 34 15-17- 2 .471 93-109
8 Quinnipiac 19 22 6- 9- 7 .432 49- 62 34 13-13- 8 .500 83- 97
9 Brown 18 22 8-12- 2 .409 55- 70 29 10-14- 5 .431 83- 99
10 Harvard 15 22 7-14- 1 .341 49- 61 29 9-19- 1 .328 62- 85
11 St. Lawrence 13 22 6-15- 1 .295 53- 73 34 10-19- 5 .368 89-105
12 Colgate 11 22 4-15- 3 .250 51- 81 34 7-24- 3 .250 86-117
First Round Playoffs:
Colgate at RPI
St. Lawrence at Princeton
Harvard at Clarkson
Brown at Quinnipiac
OK, so nobody on chat last night wanted to talk about it, but I'd like to see us play Clarkson. Anybody else care?
Quote from: Jim HylaOK, so nobody on chat last night wanted to talk about it, but I'd like to see us play Clarkson. Anybody else care?
If we line up well against the Golden Crayolas then yes. But they beat Dartmouth and have had some impressive games. They dismantled RPI in Troy andd then lost to them in Potsdam. This league is the definition of parity - Cornell vs. Union being one of the exceptions.
Quote from: Jim HylaOK, so nobody on chat last night wanted to talk about it, but I'd like to see us play Clarkson. Anybody else care?
I still don't want to talk about it. ;)
As a 4 we could play anyone between 5 and 9. Cornell vs those teams:
5 RPI (2-0)
6 Princeton (1-1)
7 Clarkson (2-0)
8 Quinnipiac (2-0)
9 Brown (0-2)
Quote from: Jim HylaOK, so nobody on chat last night wanted to talk about it, but I'd like to see us play Clarkson. Anybody else care?
I'd be fine with it. At least I'd get to go to the games if Clarkson plays in Ithaca again.
Quote from: Trotsky Conference Only Overall
Pts GP Record Win% GF- GA GP Record Win% GF- GA
1 Union 36 22 17- 3- 2 .818 75- 43 36 25- 7- 4 .750 135- 73
I wonder if Roger ".500 is good enough" Hull is spinning in his grave yet...
[
Ed: Probably not since he's not actually dead.]
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: Trotsky Conference Only Overall
Pts GP Record Win% GF- GA GP Record Win% GF- GA
1 Union 36 22 17- 3- 2 .818 75- 43 36 25- 7- 4 .750 135- 73
I wonder if Roger ".500 is good enough" Hull is spinning in his grave yet...
[Ed: Probably not since he's not actually dead.]
I was wondering which of Hull's principles Union sold out first to start recruiting for athletics.
Quote from: RichHQuote from: KeithKQuote from: Trotsky Conference Only Overall
Pts GP Record Win% GF- GA GP Record Win% GF- GA
1 Union 36 22 17- 3- 2 .818 75- 43 36 25- 7- 4 .750 135- 73
I wonder if Roger ".500 is good enough" Hull is spinning in his grave yet...
[Ed: Probably not since he's not actually dead.]
I was wondering which of Hull's principles Union sold out first to start recruiting for athletics.
Probably 'indifference.'
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: Trotsky Conference Only Overall
Pts GP Record Win% GF- GA GP Record Win% GF- GA
1 Union 36 22 17- 3- 2 .818 75- 43 36 25- 7- 4 .750 135- 73
I wonder if Roger ".500 is good enough" Hull is spinning in his grave yet...
Ed: Probably not since he's not actually dead.]
If this is living (http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Hull-says-part-time-mayor-bad-policy-1033718.php)
Quote from: martyQuote from: KeithKQuote from: Trotsky Conference Only Overall
Pts GP Record Win% GF- GA GP Record Win% GF- GA
1 Union 36 22 17- 3- 2 .818 75- 43 36 25- 7- 4 .750 135- 73
I wonder if Roger ".500 is good enough" Hull is spinning in his grave yet...
Ed: Probably not since he's not actually dead.]
If this is living (http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Hull-says-part-time-mayor-bad-policy-1033718.php)
Also interesting is this article (http://www.timesunion.com/default/article/Union-s-goal-No-foul-mouths-1032242.php) on Union trying to cut down on profanity at hockey games. Nice quote here:
QuoteAt a recent home game against Cornell University, he said, the entire student section was threatened with removal.
Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Union-s-goal-No-foul-mouths-1032242.php#ixzz1FIRBmvYs
Prior years' ECAC Tourney results (http://www.tbrw.info/ecac_Tourny/ecac_tourny_frame.html) for those interested.
I have been mucking about with the css and font sets -- please let me know if they aren't rendering on some of our stranger browsers. I tried to include the ubiquitous default families in each set.
Quote from: TrotskyPrior years' ECAC Tourney results (http://www.tbrw.info/ecac_Tourny/ecac_tourny_frame.html) for those interested.
I have been mucking about with the css and font sets -- please let me know if they aren't rendering on some of our stranger browsers. I tried to include the ubiquitous default families in each set.
Very nice summary
Finalists Named for League's Best Defensive Forward Award (http://www.ecachockey.com/men/2010-11/Weekly_Awards/20110403_M_Best_Def_Forward_Final). Tough to pick, since SLU has such a lousy record, but I'd go for Bogosian.
Quote from: BigRedHockeyFanQuote from: TrotskyPrior years' ECAC Tourney results (http://www.tbrw.info/ecac_Tourny/ecac_tourny_frame.html) for those interested.
I have been mucking about with the css and font sets -- please let me know if they aren't rendering on some of our stranger browsers. I tried to include the ubiquitous default families in each set.
Very nice summary
Indeed, very nice to have so much Cornell info in one place. I switch between thinking "does this man have a life?" and "Sssh, if he feels good doing it, more power to him." Thank you, Mr. T.
First Round Playoffs:
Colgate at RPI < 3-0 < FINAL RPI 4-2
St. Lawrence at Princeton < 3-1 < FINAL Princeton 4-1
Harvard at Clarkson < Harvard 1-0 < FINAL Harvard 2-1 (upset)
Brown at Quinnipiac < Q 4-0 < FINAL Q 4-0
So seeds 5 - 6 - 8 - 10(Harvard) win [edit fixing H was 10 not 11. They just seemed that bad.]
Colgate has scored twice in the third to cut it to 3-2 with about 1:30 to go.
Quote from: billhowardFriday games, start of the third period, one underdog winning. Teddy Donato must like his job after all:
First Round Playoffs:
Colgate at RPI < 3-0 < FINAL RPI 4-2
St. Lawrence at Princeton < 3-1 < FINAL Princeton 4-1
Harvard at Clarkson < Harvard 1-0 < FINAL Harvard 2-1
Brown at Quinnipiac < Q 4-0 < FINAL Q 4-0
So the only underdog to win was Harvard and it looks like they were outplayed. Oh well. Colgate played pretty well against RPI, so there may be some hope for an upset there. It would be tough to see the only upset as Harvard.
If these results held for the series, the QF would be:
Harvard at Union
Quinnipiac at Yale
Princeton at Dartmouth
RPI at Cornell
Quote from: billhowardFirst Round Playoffs:
Colgate at RPI < 3-0 < FINAL RPI 4-2
St. Lawrence at Princeton < 3-1 < FINAL Princeton 4-1
Harvard at Clarkson < Harvard 1-0 < FINAL Harvard 2-1 (upset)
Brown at Quinnipiac < Q 4-0 < FINAL Q 4-0
So seeds 5-6-8-11 win
Bill, that last one is 10 instead of 11.
Quote from: billhowardSo seeds 5 - 6 - 8 - 10(Harvard) win [edit fixing H was 10 not 11. They just seemed that bad.]
They didn't at Lynah a couple weeks ago.
Quote from: Josh '99Quote from: billhowardSo seeds 5 - 6 - 8 - 10(Harvard) win [edit fixing H was 10 not 11. They just seemed that bad.]
They didn't at Lynah a couple weeks ago.
The Cantabs had help.
USCHO reports only 758 attended the Princeton - St Lawrence game at Baker Rink. Another reason why talented players should want to attend
Cornell - where hockey matters!
Quote from: CASUSCHO reports only 758 attended the Princeton - St Lawrence game at Baker Rink. Another reason why talented players should want to attend
Cornell - where hockey matters!
Well, if players still go to Harvard, then you know you've already lost the argument.
Quote from: CASUSCHO reports only 758 attended the Princeton - St Lawrence game at Baker Rink. Another reason why talented players should want to attend
Cornell - where hockey matters!
Except those suffering from agoraphobia. :)
Quote from: ursusminorQuote from: CASUSCHO reports only 758 attended the Princeton - St Lawrence game at Baker Rink. Another reason why talented players should want to attend
Cornell - where hockey matters!
Except those suffering from agoraphobia. :)
There is more D, C and B goraphobia at Cornell than at some of the others.
SLU up on Princeton 3-2 late in their game 2 (early start).
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: billhowardFriday games, start of the third period, one underdog winning. Teddy Donato must like his job after all:
First Round Playoffs:
Colgate at RPI < 3-0 < FINAL RPI 4-2
St. Lawrence at Princeton < 3-1 < FINAL Princeton 4-1
Harvard at Clarkson < Harvard 1-0 < FINAL Harvard 2-1
Brown at Quinnipiac < Q 4-0 < FINAL Q 4-0
So the only underdog to win was Harvard and it looks like they were outplayed. Oh well. Colgate played pretty well against RPI, so there may be some hope for an upset there. It would be tough to see the only upset as Harvard.
Colgate pretty much won the second period Friday and was all over RPI in the third. One nice touch at the game was that the rink electrical wizards with the help of RPITV.org was using the new scorboard to better advantage. The penalty clock didn't take up all the real estate on the TV section. Some replays of the infractions leading the the penalties were played as the penalties were announced.
Quote from: TrotskySLU up on Princeton 3-2 late in their game 2 (early start).
And that's how it ended.
Colgate has 1:4? left on a power play to start their second period leading 1-0. They won the first ten minutes with RIP revived from their moribund state as the period progressed.
The morgue has more fans in the seats tonight and that::cheer::'s a good thing.
From the Clarkson radio announcers:
Clarkson on the penalty kill late in the 1st period ...
"Clarkson is looking more like Cornell, which is a good thing."
They went on to explain that Cornell PKers hang the stick out there to disrupt passes and such, but without getting a penalty. They were glad to see their Golden Knights learning good technique.
Nice compliment.
Midway through the second:
Quinnipiac 2 Brown 0
Clarkson 2 Harvard 1
Colgate 2 RPI 1
Start of third:
Quinnipiac 2 Brown 0
Clarkson 3 Harvard 2
Colgate 3 RPI 2
If the current leaders/winners of game 2 won their series, the QFs would be:
Colgate at Union
SLU at Yale
Quinnipiac at Dartmouth
Clarkson at Cornell
Harvard on 5min major; Clarkson up 3-2 in the 3rd.
Quote from: trainbowHarvard on 5min major; Clarkson up 3-2 in the 3rd.
H4-C3 H get 2 on 5 min. Last one on review.
It's good.
5-4 now H-C
RPI goes on pp midway through the 3rd, still Colgate 3-2.
Quinny now up 3-zip on Brown. Only question is whether the Bears will get a goal in this series.
Back even strength at Houston, 5 minutes to go in regulation, 3-2 Gate.
H 6-4
I listened to the 2nd intermission of the RPI radio feed and they were explaining the RPI/Pairwise and how it affected RPI. Ouch! my head really hurt at the end of that discussion.
4-2 Colgate with less than a minute left.
Clk pulls goalie then gets called for too many men. Wanted 7 I guess.
Looks like RPI and Colgate will need game 3. 5-2 Colgate with 2.3 seconds. Now Final.
Q wins 4-0 and sweeps.
Coupla empty netters and Colgate beats RPI 5-2.
Harvard sweeps. 2 PP goals the difference. So 2 games tomorrow.
Hahvahd lives for another week and knocks out Clarkson.
I'm very disappointed that there aren't any OT games. :`-(
I think I got this right:
If RPI advances they play at Cornell. Princeton v. SLU would be irrelevant to us.
If Colgate and Princeton win we get Princeton.
If SLU and Colgate win we get Quinnipaic
Quote from: nyc94I think I got this right:
If RPI advances they play at Cornell. Princeton v. SLU would be irrelevant to us.
If Colgate and Princeton win we get Princeton.
If SLU and Colgate win we get Quinnipaic
But who would we rather play. Yes, I know I asked this before.
For me, probably Princeton first, then QPac, then RPI. I'd be worried about RPI most because they're tough in goal, play a fast, uptempo game, and can shoot. Don't think we'd beat them four games out of five, and I'm happy we escaped with 2 already. Princeton beat us once at Lynah, and I don't think they can do that three times in one season. I'd be afraid QPac, as a non-traditional rival, wouldn't generate the intensity we need to play our best.::uhoh::
Quote from: TimVFor me, probably Princeton first, then QPac, then RPI. I'd be worried about RPI most because they're tough in goal, play a fast, uptempo game, and can shoot. Don't think we'd beat them four games out of five, and I'm happy we escaped with 2 already. Princeton beat us once at Lynah, and I don't think they can do that three times in one season. I'd be afraid QPac, as a non-traditional rival, wouldn't generate the intensity we need to play our best.::uhoh::
Tim, your analysis is spot-on. Princeton is beatable no matter what they did to us earlier. RPI is a good team and were it not for their main goalie missing some injury time, they might have finished third.
I most of all would like to play Harvard (I know it's not possible with the pairings) because beating Harvard 100 times in a season in all sports is barely good enough. (Remember the joke, What do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?)
Q'pac would be okay to play. The fans wouldn't get psyched. The players would be up for the game.
From the fan's perspective, it seems like we've played Colgate and Clarkson more than we needed to the past five years. So enough. Clarkson is a worthy foe, though, most years. Plus our ex provost (?) Bob Plane whipped them into even better academic shape as their president. I know Cornell is kind of remote, but why would a sane person attend a college with little to do in the summer when they're away and less in the winter. Oh, sorry, I forgot snowmobiling for phys ed credit.
If RPI advances to play us, they'll beat us because the Gods of Irony want both Union and RPI in the ECAC final four now that it's gone from Albany. For the same reason, Princeton (closest school) cannot advance to Atlantic City. I could see the title game drawing 4,000.
It doesn't matter. In the end, we're all cannon fodder for Union and Yale. I'm starting to think of Union (small school, good academics, good hockey) as Colorado College East. Love to see Union with the NCAA championship then lose everyone to the pros or academic issues and revert to seventh place ECAC finishes and folds in the ECAC quarterfinals.
Quote from: nyc94I think I got this right: ...
... why I didn't attempt to write what you did. Three years ago we could've just said PM you-know-who for the real story.
Of the teams remaining, I think Harvard is the most bothersome. They could beat either Union or Yale. Now if that happens, and we win, we're third, maybe beating Dartmouth. Harvard then plays the other U or Y, beats them, and we play Harvard for the title.::banana::
Quote from: Jim HylaOf the teams remaining, I think Harvard is the most bothersome. They could beat either Union or Yale. Now if that happens, and we win, we're third, maybe beating Dartmouth. Harvard then plays the other U or Y, beats them, and we play Harvard for the title.::banana::
I love your scenario. I had the same optimism last spring when Army upset Syracuse in lax in the first round and that virtually guaranteed our place in the title game on account of the path there led through Army and Notre Dame, two beatable teams.
By definition, whoever we'll play will be playing good hockey.
As for advancing only to be cannon fodder, since Yale will be losing most of their talent this summer I'm sure our players would like one more crack at beating the "super team." It would be great to send them home on their shields.
Quote from: billhowardI love your scenario. I had the same optimism last spring when Army upset Syracuse in lax in the first round and that virtually guaranteed our place in the title game on account of the path there led through Army and Notre Dame, two beatable teams.
...mutter mutter mutter... Bemidji State...
Quote from: nyc94I think I got this right:
If RPI advances they play at Cornell. Princeton v. SLU would be irrelevant to us.
If Colgate and Princeton win we get Princeton.
If SLU and Colgate win we get Quinnipaic
Looks correct http://www.withoutapeer.com/2011/03/mens-hockey-playoff-scenario-update.html
FYI... SLU's free audio link for the Princeton game is here. (http://www.stlawu.edu/athletics/saints/radio). Another 4 pm start from Hobey Baker Rink.
The St Lawrence radio sounded very muddy. The Princeton radio is clear as a bell.
So you could easily hear a pin drop at the rink when StLU went up 2-0 in the 1st period.
I wish the RPI game was first, I don't know who to cheer for, probably PU.
Still 2-1 SLU, 7 mins to go in the third. SLU has hit two posts in the game.
Still, 2-1, 4 mins to go, target practice on the SLU net (16-5 in the first, 18-3 in the third) but the Tigers can't convert.
1 min to go, PU net empty.
Princeton loses. Cornell will play either RPI or Quinnipiac.
Shots 49-16 PU
The #11 has now beaten the #6 three straight years:
2009 RPI upset Dartmouth
2010 Brown upset RPI
2011 SLU upset Princeton
The #11 has beaten the #6 in 5 of the 9 seasons of the present playoff system.
#12 1-7 vs #5
#11 5-4 vs #6
#10 4-5 vs #7
#9 3-6 vs #8
49 shots on goal and one goal. ::bugeye::
That is one hero goalie.
Quote from: trainbowThe St Lawrence radio sounded very muddy. The Princeton radio is clear as a bell.
So you could easily hear a pin drop at the rink when StLU went up 2-0 in the 1st period.
Looking at this realistically, you could probably also have heard a pin drop if it had been Princeton leading.
Colgate up 1-0 after 1 on a shorty. RPI very sloppy.
RPI ties it on a Gate breakdown. 1-1, late 2nd.
Getting very chippy. Should be a good finish. Bailen who looked like a brilliant pick up for RPI has really struggled today. I think his skating led to a goal last night too.
Quote from: martyGetting very chippy. Should be a good finish. Bailen who looked like a brilliant pick up for RPI has really struggled today. I think his skating led to a goal last night too.
A loss pretty much ruins any hope RPI had of an at large bid so they have plenty to play for.
OT
OT
Rita gets her wish. :)
Quote from: martyOT
Colgate is looking great in the OT. RPI seems to be running out of gas. They're going to need a break-out or major mistake by Toothpaste to win this one.
That's it for the first OT. Still 1-1
Lots of action in that first period. I'm hoping for 4 more followed by an RPI goal and a line brawl.
Quote from: releck97Quote from: martyOT
Colgate is looking great in the OT. RPI seems to be running out of gas. They're going to need a break-out or major mistake by Toothpaste to win this one.
I'm only listening, but I have to agree. Also the shots are evening out. Now 38-34 RPI, but they had a much wider advantage, if I remember correctly.
RPI all over Gate early in the second.
Quote from: TrotskyRPI all over Gate early in the second.
Now Colgate seems to be picking steam. Hard to believe a team that spent a lot of the year in the top 15 is having trouble making the ECAC round of 8.
Colgate scores in the second OT and wins 2-1. So Cornell hosts Quinnipiac starting Friday. That's better than playing host to RPI. Hard to believe a team with as much talent as the Engineers couldn't make it to the ECAC round of 8.
Gate wins. Cornell will play Quinnipiac.
Quote from: billhowardColgate scores in the second OT and wins 2-1. So Cornell hosts Quinnipiac starting Friday. That's better than playing host to RPI. Hard to believe a team with as much talent as the Engineers couldn't make it to the ECAC round of 8.
Though careful what you wish for. Quinnipiac destroyed the Brown team that beat us.
Quote from: billhowardColgate scores in the second OT and wins 2-1. So Cornell hosts Quinnipiac starting Friday. That's better than playing host to RPI. Hard to believe a team with as much talent as the Engineers couldn't make it to the ECAC round of 8.
Read the paper in the AM, I'm sure it was due to the officials.:-D
So the two teams tied for fourth who didn't win the tiebreaker both don't advance to the quarterfinals.
So the surviving seeds are (have I got this right)
1. Union
2. Yale
3. Dartmouth
4. Cornell
8. Quinnipiac at Cornell
10. Harvard at Dartmouth
11. SLU at Yale
12. Colgate at Union
Shots 1 2 3 OT Total
Colgate 6 6 11 11 39
Rensselaer 10 12 8 8 41
gate did really pick it up.
Quote from: billhowardSo the surviving seeds are (have I got this right)
1. Union
2. Yale
3. Dartmouth
4. Cornell
8. Quinnipiac at Cornell
10. Harvard at Dartmouth
11. SLU at Yale
12. Colgate at Union
But it screws up my Harvard beating U OR Y.::twak::
Go gate, go SLU(T).
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: billhowardColgate scores in the second OT and wins 2-1. So Cornell hosts Quinnipiac starting Friday. That's better than playing host to RPI. Hard to believe a team with as much talent as the Engineers couldn't make it to the ECAC round of 8.
Though careful what you wish for. Quinnipiac destroyed the Brown team that beat us.
...and the last time Cornell was a #4 seed they lost to Quinny in two.
Quote from: TrotskyRita gets her wish. :)
ECAC needs to get these games put on Sirius/XM satellite radio so that fans who happen to be driving, like on Alligator Alley, can tune in and listen. :-).
Here is the GWG
Gate wins! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVhsrJjpWBM)
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!)::burnout::
We also beat QPac twice this season, so way better than facing Brown IMHO
Quote from: ithacat...and the last time Cornell was a #4 seed they lost to Quinny in two.
Indeed, in 2007 (http://www.tbrw.info/games/cornell_ECAC_Series_Icon.html).
Quote from: ithacatQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: billhowardColgate scores in the second OT and wins 2-1. So Cornell hosts Quinnipiac starting Friday. That's better than playing host to RPI. Hard to believe a team with as much talent as the Engineers couldn't make it to the ECAC round of 8.
Though careful what you wish for. Quinnipiac destroyed the Brown team that beat us.
...and the last time Cornell was a #4 seed they lost to Quinny in two.
The next five days will be full of positioning and recollections of past playoff lapses, so someone can say Told You So if Cornell sweeps in 2 or loses in 2 (please, no) or whatever. This is a bridge-to-the-future year. I think Cinderella will be able ride the carriage until Friday in Atlantic City.
Quote from: billhowardQuote from: ithacatQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: billhowardColgate scores in the second OT and wins 2-1. So Cornell hosts Quinnipiac starting Friday. That's better than playing host to RPI. Hard to believe a team with as much talent as the Engineers couldn't make it to the ECAC round of 8.
Though careful what you wish for. Quinnipiac destroyed the Brown team that beat us.
...and the last time Cornell was a #4 seed they lost to Quinny in two.
The next five days will be full of positioning and recollections of past playoff lapses, so someone can say Told You So if Cornell sweeps in 2 or loses in 2 (please, no) or whatever. This is a bridge-to-the-future year. I think Cinderella will be able ride the carriage until Friday in Atlantic City.
Further if Colgate can pull of another crazy upset.
One final meeting with Yale before they graduate everybody would be a way for Cornell to have a Great Moment. This season has already been a tremendous success, but to defeat their recent nemesis in AC would cap it.
But before dreaming of that, they will face a difficult QF.
Quote from: martyHere is the GWG
Gate wins! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVhsrJjpWBM)
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!)::burnout::
RPI's postmortem.
http://www.withoutapeer.com/2011/03/dream.html
Quote from: amerks127Quote from: martyHere is the GWG
Gate wins! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVhsrJjpWBM)
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!)::burnout::
RPI's postmortem.
http://www.withoutapeer.com/2011/03/dream.html
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.
Quote from: billhowardQuote from: amerks127Quote from: martyHere is the GWG
Gate wins! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVhsrJjpWBM)
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!)::burnout::
RPI's postmortem.
http://www.withoutapeer.com/2011/03/dream.html
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
Quote from: phillysportsfanAssuming 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.
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82When 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?
Quote from: nyc94Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82When 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.
Quote from: TowerroadQuote from: nyc94Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82When 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.
Quote from: TowerroadQuote from: nyc94Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82When 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.
Quote from: ACMQuote from: TowerroadQuote from: nyc94Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82When 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. http://www.arts.cornell.edu/knight_institute/history.htm
Quote1966
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.
Quote from: nyc94Quote from: TowerroadQuote from: nyc94Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82When 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
Quote from: TowerroadI 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.
Quote from: nyc94Quote from: TowerroadQuote from: nyc94Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82When 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.
Quote from: French RageQuote from: nyc94Quote from: TowerroadQuote from: nyc94Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82When 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: http://www.engr.cornell.edu/academics/undergraduate/curriculum/liberal_studies.cfm. Looks to be roughly what I said. In my case, thank god for AP credits!
Quote from: French RageQuote from: nyc94Quote from: TowerroadQuote from: nyc94Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82When 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.
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82They 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.
Quote from: TrotskyAs 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.
Quote from: Josh '99Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82They 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.
Quote from: TrotskyI'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
Quote from: TrotskyI'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.
Quote from: RichHQuote from: TrotskyI'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.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: RichHQuote from: TrotskyI'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?
Quote from: judyQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: RichHQuote from: TrotskyI'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.
Quote from: TowerroadQuote from: judyQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: RichHQuote from: TrotskyI'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?
Quote from: SwampyYou'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.
Quote from: BeeeejQuote from: SwampyYou'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!
Quote from: TrotskyOne 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.
Quote from: TrotskyI'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.
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: TrotskyI'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.
Quote from: SwampyYou'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.
Quote from: TowerroadQuote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: TrotskyI'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.:-}::bolt::
Quote from: judyQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: RichHQuote from: TrotskyI'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. (http://cornellbigred.com/news/2011/3/9/GEN_0309115425.aspx)
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. ::yark::
Quote from: martyTime 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. ::yark::
As will TWCNY.
Quote from: martyHere is the GWG
Gate wins! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVhsrJjpWBM)
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!)::burnout::
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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiLr9iF4WQo)