Re: A step-by-step college program


In article <11hsfk4p2n82rac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, stj@xxxxxxxxxxx says...
>
> Hypothetical situation: College offers the following degrees.
>
> Associate's degree in Electrical Engineering Technician
> Bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering
> Master's degree in Electrical Engineering
> Doctorate degree in Nanotech Engineering
>
> Sound good? Logical? A student moving from one to the next being a good
> progression for them? Each step being a fairly good marketable degree?

Are you asking from the perspective of the college, or the student?

I came from a small school for my engineering work (bachelors and
masters) and they eventually had to shut down their EET program for
various reasons. Bradley did not offer associates degrees, however;
their EET program was a full four year program. I'm not sure what the
economics of EET programs are, any more. On the one hand, maybe larger
universities can still eke a profit out of an economy of scale; on the
other, do big research universities even offer two year degrees? I
didn't think so.

>>From a student perspective... no. Just, no.
Absent some pressing and peculiar economic need, I would not recommend
that anyone who wants to achieve a research degree (i.e., a doctorate in
anything related to engineering) start out with an associate, or even
four year, EET degree. It would be a plain waste of time. Just start
with the bachelor's degree.

That's not to say it can't be done that way. One of my favorite
professors as an undergrad started out as a tech. His company sent him
back for a BSEE. Then an MSEE. Then a PhD. Then he quit and got a
faculty job. But that's the looong way around. Note that this
gentleman, when he started out, had absolutely no idea that he wanted to
do research, ever. He just developed that way. For someone wanting to
do research, the tech degree is a waste of time.

The BSEE is a reasonable degree. The MSEE is a reasonable degree,
depending on the particular university. Some universities separate
their MSEE track from their PhD track, such that you aim for one or the
other; others have the MSEE as a milestone on the road to a PhD. Either
way, the MSEE is a very marketable degree which will give you a leg up
in a career. It's one of the few MS-grade degrees that actually has a
chance of paying for itself in the long term. I'm convinced mine has.

(If you're into those sorts of financial what-ifs, don't forget that a
two year MSEE program costs you not only two years of tuition, but two
years of real wages at BSEE levels, which is not inconsiderable.)

Now, the PhD in nanotech engineering.... Well. That's more realistic
today than five years. Five years from now, it will be even moreso. I
know there are a few universities out there offering such, and they're
not bad universities-- ASU and, uh, Washington State? Come to mind.
But I think they're a little premature. Also, I don't think the
transition from EE to Nanotech is particularly better than any other
similar transition. I don't know that it's particularly worse, though.

Nanotech is an extremely cross-disciplinary field right now. On the
upside, that means there are many fields from which you can transition
to nanotechnology. On the downside, that means you'll probably always
feel bewildered by some parts of it, especially those that have nothing
to do with your previous work. TO that end, I always suggest to people
that they:

1) Either double major as an undergrad, or take several diverse minors
2) Make sure that their senior projects use those other fields as much
as possible
3) Take all the weird electives you possibly can when you're in grad
school.


--
John S. Novak, III
The Humblest Man On The Net

.