I was reading the "Best of What's New 2009" article in Popular Science, and one innovation seemed to be of general interest to everyone concerned about the hand-washing problem: the Xhale HyGreen.
The Xhale HyGreen is essentially a tracking system of healthcare workers' hand-washing habits. Every time a worker washes his hands, a sensor at the hand-washing station detects the alcohol from the alcohol-based sanitizer. The detector then sends a message to a wireless badge on the worker's shirt pocket. If a worker enters a patient's room without having washed his hands, the badge vibrates and displays a red light to remind them to wash their hands. Additionally, all the data from both the hand-washing events and the patient-interaction events are collected and stored, indexed by the worker's badge number and the patient's room.
This system adds personal accountability into the mix. We talked a lot about the reasons why healthcare workers fail to wash their hands, and inconvenience of the hand washing stations and lack of salient consequences are the main reasons I remember. This system adds salient consequences. A hospital's infectious disease staff can track each employee's compliance with hand-washing policies. Additionally, patients will know if a worker has failed to wash his hands and can advocate for themselves. It's sort of a nanny system, but maybe that's what healthcare workers need. The system doesn't seem to add any barriers to hand-washing, just consequences to its absence.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
It's tough to be a freshman
The first couple weeks of your freshman year are a whirlwind. Everything is new. It's the first time you are on your own. It's the first time you've lived in a dorm. It's probably the first major lifestyle change you've had to make in your life up to this point. It's kind of surreal: it feels like summer camp or a retreat. It feels impermanent, like a dream from which you will soon awaken. It does not feel like the next phase of your life. Classes are starting, and they are completely different from high school in every way--the way they're taught, their scheduling, the number of them you have to take, and the number of people in them. You're getting lost on campus. You are meeting hundreds of new people--in your dorm and classes especially. You barely have time to think.
You can't anticipate some problems you'll face because everything is so new. Typical problem: "What do you mean I 'missed' dinner? It's only 7:45! I usually eat at 8 or 9! How can I even 'miss dinner'? If the dining hall is closed, then just what am I supposed to eat?" You are dealing with the bottom rungs of Maslow's hierarchy. You are asking everyone around you for advice, but they are probably all freshmen, too. You don't know what to ask, let alone whom to ask. The RAs are helpful, and can help you navigate your new life, but there are not many of them. They are also most useful only when dealing with dorm issues--dining, roommate troubles, transportation trouble, etc. You'll outgrow them quickly.
A push from your RA will send you to quad day. You were overwhelmed before; now the inundation of new information is practically overpowering. The crowds are oppressive. The upperclassmen yelling at you from their booths are intimidating. Everyone wants a piece of you. You write your email down countless times on mailing list after mailing list. You're drowning in free pencils, fliers, cups, pamphlets, and even a houseplant from the horticulture club. The sheer volume of opportunities on campus leaves you in awe. You leave quad day dazed, and wondering just what you're in for with this whole college thing.
You didn't know it, but signing up for RSOs was your one chance to meet with upperclassmen on a regular basis. You won't see many of them in your dorm. You will see even fewer of them in your classes. RSOs do have upperclassmen. What's more, if you find that one day you're needing some career or academic advice from an upperclassman, your one hope was to sign up for a particular RSO: your professional society.
A love of Seinfeld, or the month of October, or skydiving can unite people, and these things are the basis of some RSOs; however, the bonds of friendship formed through these organizations may not be the most useful for establishing a mentoring relationship in terms of education and career goals. People in your professional society (e.g. Biomedical Engineering Society) have been through what you are going through. They know your curriculum. They know what is out there in terms of careers. Often it is part of the mission of your professional society to help freshmen like you who need guidance.
If you missed quad day, don't worry. You're probably being forced to take ENG100 or BUS101 or LAS100. You can be sure that your TA (who is probably an upperclassman, not a grad student) will present you with the opportunity to join your professional society. The class itself will also act as a sort of guide, introducing you to campus and your major. You will learn about what it means to be a student and the opportunities available to you. You will be presented with even more information, and you will need to take it, sort through it, and figure out what you still need to know.
This struggle to deal with the new realities of college life is strongest during those first few weeks, but it persists. Just as the newest freshmen don't even know to ask or worry about what time the dining hall closes, freshmen in general don't know what to ask about their major, their field, and their life goals. They don't know what they should be asking about. They don't know what is important. They can't be proactive about their careers because they can't anticipate the opportunities they'll have, let alone the problems they'll encounter.
RSOs, especially professional organizations, are a great way for freshman to learn to know upperclassmen, who can help them sort through the sensory overload of their first two semesters. The college introductory classes (ENG100, etc.) are also a great tool to get students thinking about why they are at the university, and what they hope to accomplish during their undergraduate careers. Only when freshmen get this initial understanding of what it means to be at their university, in a specific college, studying a specific field, will they have the tools to seek out formal mentoring or continue the informal mentoring that can help them successfully harness the opportunities at the university.
You can't anticipate some problems you'll face because everything is so new. Typical problem: "What do you mean I 'missed' dinner? It's only 7:45! I usually eat at 8 or 9! How can I even 'miss dinner'? If the dining hall is closed, then just what am I supposed to eat?" You are dealing with the bottom rungs of Maslow's hierarchy. You are asking everyone around you for advice, but they are probably all freshmen, too. You don't know what to ask, let alone whom to ask. The RAs are helpful, and can help you navigate your new life, but there are not many of them. They are also most useful only when dealing with dorm issues--dining, roommate troubles, transportation trouble, etc. You'll outgrow them quickly.
A push from your RA will send you to quad day. You were overwhelmed before; now the inundation of new information is practically overpowering. The crowds are oppressive. The upperclassmen yelling at you from their booths are intimidating. Everyone wants a piece of you. You write your email down countless times on mailing list after mailing list. You're drowning in free pencils, fliers, cups, pamphlets, and even a houseplant from the horticulture club. The sheer volume of opportunities on campus leaves you in awe. You leave quad day dazed, and wondering just what you're in for with this whole college thing.
You didn't know it, but signing up for RSOs was your one chance to meet with upperclassmen on a regular basis. You won't see many of them in your dorm. You will see even fewer of them in your classes. RSOs do have upperclassmen. What's more, if you find that one day you're needing some career or academic advice from an upperclassman, your one hope was to sign up for a particular RSO: your professional society.
A love of Seinfeld, or the month of October, or skydiving can unite people, and these things are the basis of some RSOs; however, the bonds of friendship formed through these organizations may not be the most useful for establishing a mentoring relationship in terms of education and career goals. People in your professional society (e.g. Biomedical Engineering Society) have been through what you are going through. They know your curriculum. They know what is out there in terms of careers. Often it is part of the mission of your professional society to help freshmen like you who need guidance.
If you missed quad day, don't worry. You're probably being forced to take ENG100 or BUS101 or LAS100. You can be sure that your TA (who is probably an upperclassman, not a grad student) will present you with the opportunity to join your professional society. The class itself will also act as a sort of guide, introducing you to campus and your major. You will learn about what it means to be a student and the opportunities available to you. You will be presented with even more information, and you will need to take it, sort through it, and figure out what you still need to know.
This struggle to deal with the new realities of college life is strongest during those first few weeks, but it persists. Just as the newest freshmen don't even know to ask or worry about what time the dining hall closes, freshmen in general don't know what to ask about their major, their field, and their life goals. They don't know what they should be asking about. They don't know what is important. They can't be proactive about their careers because they can't anticipate the opportunities they'll have, let alone the problems they'll encounter.
RSOs, especially professional organizations, are a great way for freshman to learn to know upperclassmen, who can help them sort through the sensory overload of their first two semesters. The college introductory classes (ENG100, etc.) are also a great tool to get students thinking about why they are at the university, and what they hope to accomplish during their undergraduate careers. Only when freshmen get this initial understanding of what it means to be at their university, in a specific college, studying a specific field, will they have the tools to seek out formal mentoring or continue the informal mentoring that can help them successfully harness the opportunities at the university.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Learning
I'm sitting in the EWS [engineering workstation] computer lab on the fourth floor of Engineering Hall. The guy next to me is pretty busy doing Physics 212 homework online (electricity and magnetism), and he has so much going on that his papers are spilling over onto my desk. One of these interlopers is an old Differential Equations exam. This guy could have been me, way back in second semester freshman year: same classes, same problems, same computer lab, same paper overload.
Ever curious, I take a closer look at the diff. eq. exam. The visible problem asks the student to find the general solution for the homogeneous problem given an inhomogeneous linear second order differential equation, y'' + (w^2)y = x cos(x). The exam goes on to ask the student formulate the first step toward solving the equation using the method of undetermined coefficients.
I took the class Differential Equations, and I like to think I learned something about the subject of differential equations from the course: It was an important pre-req that has been built upon in many of my subsequent classes.
There's a problem, though. I can't remember what it is that distinguishes the homogeneous differential equation from the inhomogeneous one. I certainly can't remember the method of undetermined coefficients. I can't solve this exam problem. I know that I learned these concepts, in part because I was tested on them while I took the course, in part because I've learned higher level concepts in later courses that use these concepts as building blocks, and in part because I have the hard-to-define feeling of simply knowing that I had learned them. But if I learned it, why can't I solve it?
Which brings me to the topic at hand: How do I know if I've learned something? I know only if I'm tested--in an academic setting or in any other experience in general. I know I've learned something if I approach a situation I've encountered before in a new way. I know I've learned something if I act differently than I would have before I learned. I know I've learned something if I can apply what I've learned.
This makes it sound like I must be cognizant that I'm applying what I've learned, and, in the vast majority of cases, I think I am. Whether it's something small, like the fact that the hot and cold faucet handles are switched in my grandparents' bathroom, or something large, like a cultural awareness fostered by Introduction to American Indian Studies, I think that I am usually aware that I am acting in a new way based on what I've learned.
[A 'small' thing would be something that only impacts a few of my actions/interactions/aspects of my life--like washing my hands when I visit my grandparents. A 'large' thing would be something that impacts me daily--like my perceptions of culture, my perceptions of my culture, and my attitudes towards interpersonal interaction.]
This sentiment of learning manifested as changing behavior is certainly not new. Virtually all of my classmates wrote variations on the same thing in this past week's reflections. [I was going to link to all of them, but that would have been ridiculous, so you get this obnoxious aside instead.] All had slightly different takes on the subject, but the essence of most of what I read was that learning is proven by demonstration of that learning, or as I would say it, that learning involves the changing of thought processes, and that the outward manifestation of these changes is behavioral.
If you are so inclined, see my previous post for my views on the workings of the mind. From this lens, learning is like trying to communicate with yourself: you can only learn if you are able to overcome your current thought processes and forge new connections in your brain. People have different learning methods because different things help them to form these new connections--for some (e.g. me) the auditory stimuli of a lecturer combined with diligent note-taking and a receptive attitude is the preferred combination.
A quick dip into the internet (<10 min.) has reacquainted me with homogeneous differential equations and the method of undetermined coefficients. I was able to 're-learn' this material much faster than I learned it the first time. I think that this is because the connections to deal with differential equations already exist in my brain; they had just become re-discovered. Someone exposed to differential equations for the first time would obviously need much longer than 10 minutes to decipher the problem given on this exam, much less begin to solve it. The upshot seems to be that learning isn't permanent: just as connections can be made, so too can they be lost.
Incidentally, for anyone who cares, the solutions are:
y=A cos(w*x) + B sin(w*x)
yp [which is the particular solution] =(Ax+B)cos(x) + (Cx+D)sin(x)
Ever curious, I take a closer look at the diff. eq. exam. The visible problem asks the student to find the general solution for the homogeneous problem given an inhomogeneous linear second order differential equation, y'' + (w^2)y = x cos(x). The exam goes on to ask the student formulate the first step toward solving the equation using the method of undetermined coefficients.
I took the class Differential Equations, and I like to think I learned something about the subject of differential equations from the course: It was an important pre-req that has been built upon in many of my subsequent classes.
There's a problem, though. I can't remember what it is that distinguishes the homogeneous differential equation from the inhomogeneous one. I certainly can't remember the method of undetermined coefficients. I can't solve this exam problem. I know that I learned these concepts, in part because I was tested on them while I took the course, in part because I've learned higher level concepts in later courses that use these concepts as building blocks, and in part because I have the hard-to-define feeling of simply knowing that I had learned them. But if I learned it, why can't I solve it?
Which brings me to the topic at hand: How do I know if I've learned something? I know only if I'm tested--in an academic setting or in any other experience in general. I know I've learned something if I approach a situation I've encountered before in a new way. I know I've learned something if I act differently than I would have before I learned. I know I've learned something if I can apply what I've learned.
This makes it sound like I must be cognizant that I'm applying what I've learned, and, in the vast majority of cases, I think I am. Whether it's something small, like the fact that the hot and cold faucet handles are switched in my grandparents' bathroom, or something large, like a cultural awareness fostered by Introduction to American Indian Studies, I think that I am usually aware that I am acting in a new way based on what I've learned.
[A 'small' thing would be something that only impacts a few of my actions/interactions/aspects of my life--like washing my hands when I visit my grandparents. A 'large' thing would be something that impacts me daily--like my perceptions of culture, my perceptions of my culture, and my attitudes towards interpersonal interaction.]
This sentiment of learning manifested as changing behavior is certainly not new. Virtually all of my classmates wrote variations on the same thing in this past week's reflections. [I was going to link to all of them, but that would have been ridiculous, so you get this obnoxious aside instead.] All had slightly different takes on the subject, but the essence of most of what I read was that learning is proven by demonstration of that learning, or as I would say it, that learning involves the changing of thought processes, and that the outward manifestation of these changes is behavioral.
If you are so inclined, see my previous post for my views on the workings of the mind. From this lens, learning is like trying to communicate with yourself: you can only learn if you are able to overcome your current thought processes and forge new connections in your brain. People have different learning methods because different things help them to form these new connections--for some (e.g. me) the auditory stimuli of a lecturer combined with diligent note-taking and a receptive attitude is the preferred combination.
A quick dip into the internet (<10 min.) has reacquainted me with homogeneous differential equations and the method of undetermined coefficients. I was able to 're-learn' this material much faster than I learned it the first time. I think that this is because the connections to deal with differential equations already exist in my brain; they had just become re-discovered. Someone exposed to differential equations for the first time would obviously need much longer than 10 minutes to decipher the problem given on this exam, much less begin to solve it. The upshot seems to be that learning isn't permanent: just as connections can be made, so too can they be lost.
Incidentally, for anyone who cares, the solutions are:
y=A cos(w*x) + B sin(w*x)
yp [which is the particular solution] =(Ax+B)cos(x) + (Cx+D)sin(x)
Friday, November 13, 2009
Don't even try to read this.
every time I add to the beginning this gets less accessible
I keep going back to the beginning and adding things--this has long since ceased to be this week's reflection; I guess I'll have to try that later (I'm not even being sarcastic for once)
Sarcasm is hard to detect when written. Sarcasm is easy to detect when written.
*disclaimer: this post might be entirely nonsensical if you're not me.
===post still under construction===
Attribution is hard for me.
I lead an internal life--most of what I think, what I value, what I know, and what I am exists only in my head. I latch on to information that is intriguing or different no matter the source. The only thing that matters is the value of that information, or rather, whether or not the information is valuable. If it's valuable, I process the information (in ways I don't understand). Then--once I have totally assimilated the information, figured out its content, its significance to myself, and its bearing on the world--I drop it. I move on. I don't ever think about it again.
So as I've been writing this particular post, I've come to realize that I'm being unclear about a crucial point. All the thought processes I describe are subconscious. I don't actually decide what information is valuable, I've got a hard-wired filter that decides for me. I can't help it. That is pretty much true for every instance where it sounds like I'm just being dumb, or intransigent, or something--it's not meeeee, it's my braaain.
I don't mean that I have trouble writing a works cited page for a research paper. I mean that I have trouble answering questions like, "Please describe a situation in which you worked on a team and encountered a problem. How did you overcome this problem?" Give me a situation, and I'll tell you how I would act. Don't ask me about the past--it's over and done with and it doesn't matter right now. Anyways, what kind of problem should I talk about? Why are you even asking me this question? What's the point? What kind of team? Why?
This is also why I find writing this stupid blog so difficult. Sure, I like thinking about the issues presented in class and in the prompts (sometimes--it depends whether I see any value in them or not). But as soon as I reach a conclusion or draw a bit of insight, I immediately loose the drive to write it down. I've figured it out. It's old news. It is now so commonplace to me that there is no point in recording it in a blog--Why on earth would I write down the obvious?
I see that this presents a lot of problems in a class like ours. Communication of our ideas is paramount for fostering discussion, which in turn leads to (uhh, whatever it is, I'm sure it's important). [[so as I'm sitting here typing this, I drifted off into another train of thought, and had a small epiphany about language and its role {in society/for individual humans/across culture/re:my difficulties understanding prof. Arvan's modus operandi/etc.}, which I can't seem to bring myself to write down because it's so obvious that it doesn't need to be written down]]
Which doesn't lead into [the topic of] criticism, although I've been trying to lead into criticism for almost a month. I just haven't found exactly what I think about criticism. I think I tend to only listen to criticism if I see the value in it. I don't think hurt feelings are usually a problem for me. I tend to judge the criticizer on whether they are able to pick up on the important aspects of my performance. I dismiss criticism if I don't think it's warranted or valid. I don't get a lot of criticism. Unless I do and I just don't notice it.
broken disjointed disconnected intermittently-comprehensible abortive stilted underdeveloped unclear ineffective blurry bleary bleak blah bloated bland I don't care if you get it because it makes sense to me logorrhea
I hate writing (this blog? in general?).
I think.
"Language fits over experience like a strait-jacket." -William Golding
"Childhood is a disease- a sickness that you grow out of." -William Golding
Stephen King sometimes writes in unconventional ways that I find very accessible. Do you agree with this? The arts allow communication that transcends language. "let's argue semantics" Let's not. I think law is stupid (inane? frivolous? pointless? dangerously definitive? do any of these words convey the same meaning that "stupid" did for me?).
Now I have a compelling urge to delete all this. It's very weird.
a)afraid of judgment
b)does this fit the goals of the blog?
c)why on earth would anyone care to read this
The conscious answers are b) and c), but I can't quite convince myself a) isn't true.
You may have gathered that I like reading stream of consciousness writing which is what this has devolved into. We read a stream of consciousness Reklam in my German Literature class that was easier for me to understand than a lot of the other things we read.
anyways,
I keep going back to the beginning and adding things--this has long since ceased to be this week's reflection; I guess I'll have to try that later (I'm not even being sarcastic for once)
Sarcasm is hard to detect when written. Sarcasm is easy to detect when written.
*disclaimer: this post might be entirely nonsensical if you're not me.
===post still under construction===
Attribution is hard for me.
I lead an internal life--most of what I think, what I value, what I know, and what I am exists only in my head. I latch on to information that is intriguing or different no matter the source. The only thing that matters is the value of that information, or rather, whether or not the information is valuable. If it's valuable, I process the information (in ways I don't understand). Then--once I have totally assimilated the information, figured out its content, its significance to myself, and its bearing on the world--I drop it. I move on. I don't ever think about it again.
So as I've been writing this particular post, I've come to realize that I'm being unclear about a crucial point. All the thought processes I describe are subconscious. I don't actually decide what information is valuable, I've got a hard-wired filter that decides for me. I can't help it. That is pretty much true for every instance where it sounds like I'm just being dumb, or intransigent, or something--it's not meeeee, it's my braaain.
I don't mean that I have trouble writing a works cited page for a research paper. I mean that I have trouble answering questions like, "Please describe a situation in which you worked on a team and encountered a problem. How did you overcome this problem?" Give me a situation, and I'll tell you how I would act. Don't ask me about the past--it's over and done with and it doesn't matter right now. Anyways, what kind of problem should I talk about? Why are you even asking me this question? What's the point? What kind of team? Why?
This is also why I find writing this stupid blog so difficult. Sure, I like thinking about the issues presented in class and in the prompts (sometimes--it depends whether I see any value in them or not). But as soon as I reach a conclusion or draw a bit of insight, I immediately loose the drive to write it down. I've figured it out. It's old news. It is now so commonplace to me that there is no point in recording it in a blog--Why on earth would I write down the obvious?
I see that this presents a lot of problems in a class like ours. Communication of our ideas is paramount for fostering discussion, which in turn leads to (uhh, whatever it is, I'm sure it's important). [[so as I'm sitting here typing this, I drifted off into another train of thought, and had a small epiphany about language and its role {in society/for individual humans/across culture/re:my difficulties understanding prof. Arvan's modus operandi/etc.}, which I can't seem to bring myself to write down because it's so obvious that it doesn't need to be written down]]
Which doesn't lead into [the topic of] criticism, although I've been trying to lead into criticism for almost a month. I just haven't found exactly what I think about criticism. I think I tend to only listen to criticism if I see the value in it. I don't think hurt feelings are usually a problem for me. I tend to judge the criticizer on whether they are able to pick up on the important aspects of my performance. I dismiss criticism if I don't think it's warranted or valid. I don't get a lot of criticism. Unless I do and I just don't notice it.
broken disjointed disconnected intermittently-comprehensible abortive stilted underdeveloped unclear ineffective blurry bleary bleak blah bloated bland I don't care if you get it because it makes sense to me logorrhea
I hate writing (this blog? in general?).
I think.
"Language fits over experience like a strait-jacket." -William Golding
"Childhood is a disease- a sickness that you grow out of." -William Golding
Stephen King sometimes writes in unconventional ways that I find very accessible. Do you agree with this? The arts allow communication that transcends language. "let's argue semantics" Let's not. I think law is stupid (inane? frivolous? pointless? dangerously definitive? do any of these words convey the same meaning that "stupid" did for me?).
Now I have a compelling urge to delete all this. It's very weird.
a)afraid of judgment
b)does this fit the goals of the blog?
c)why on earth would anyone care to read this
The conscious answers are b) and c), but I can't quite convince myself a) isn't true.
You may have gathered that I like reading stream of consciousness writing which is what this has devolved into. We read a stream of consciousness
anyways,
Friday, November 6, 2009
The Bioengineering Curriculum
The Bioengineering curriculum is jam-packed. There are 132 required hours, which averages out to 16.5 hours per semester for a typical 4-year student. 1 hour is devoted to introducing bioengineering freshman to their major, college, and university through Engineering 100 and Bioengineering 120. BIOE 120 specifically consists of guest lecturers in the field of bioengineering; this course allows students to see the applications of their chosen program, which is important as they take the generic math, biology, and chemistry classes first semester.
34 hours comprise the "foundational mathematics and science," which includes two semesters of chemistry and lab, 4 semesters of calculus/differential equations, and 3 semesters of physics. These courses provide the basic scientific fundamentals that are needed for all engineering disciplines.
52 hours are components of the "technical core," which includes most of the courses that are actually in the bioengineering department as well as a lot of biology. There are also statistics and organic chemistry courses. 2 additional hours are an ethics/professionalism component of Senior Design, the capstone course in the Bioengineering sequence.
15 hours are used for the track electives, which allow the student to develop their program of study in one of five tracks: Biomechanics, Biomolecular, Cell and Tissue Engineering, Computational and Systems Biology, or Imaging and Sensing. I am in the Imaging and Sensing track, and my track electives have included electrical engineering classes that have given me a background in medical imaging methodologies such as ultrasound and MRI.
18 hours are devoted to social sciences and humanities. Students must fulfill a variety of requirements through these general education classes, including taking classes with both a Western and a non-Western cultural component. An additional 4 hours are taken by Rhetoric 105, which introduces students to effective writing techniques.
The remaining 6 hours are set aside as free electives. Students are allowed to use these hours in any way they wish.
I don't think there is any way to reduce the foundational course load. The foundational courses are aptly named: They really are important for a basic scientific background, and the skills learned through them are called on throughout the curriculum and in industry as well. Calculus and differential equations are important in almost every engineering application, both in the university setting and elsewhere. The physics and chemistry skills are essential for understanding the concepts of the upper level courses, and important background skills for engineering applications as well.
The core courses are a slightly different story. Depending on the path you choose, you may not need the skills and knowledge learned in a specific course that is part of the core curriculum. For instance, a engineer who works with a pharmaceutical company may not need to know the electrical systems learned about in Bioinstrumentation. That being said, I personally would not feel comfortable calling myself a bioengineer without having had all the core classes, even though I may not be using everything in my job after graduation.
One big reason I feel this way is that most people do not have the same job their whole lives. A degree gives you something to fall back on, and if you remove some of the importance and depth of the degree, it is not as valuable. Obviously a classroom setting is not the only way to gain the learning needed for a degree, but the core classes offer a breadth of knowledge that cannot be replaced by experiential learning unless those experiences are in the right sub-fields of bioengineering, and then it would serve little purpose to replace the core courses.
The track electives allow for a depth of learning in one specific branch of bioengineering. I can only speak to the Imaging and Sensing track, which I am in. If anything, I think that the track could benefit from more courses. 15 hours is just barely enough to catch up with the electrical engineering knowledge and specific applications to bioengineering. There is certainly no room to prune any hours.
What is left? The social sciences/humanities hours and the 6 free hours. These hours are designated by the College of Engineering (not the Bioengineering Department) to round out the education. The specific requirements are supposed to ensure that students are getting an education that includes a lot of different viewpoints and skills. ('supposed to' because engineering students often take soft options to satisfy these requirements, like Technical Writing for the advanced composition requirement. This is understandable if you consider that 15 technical hours is a lot of work in one semester--no one wants a lot of work in a gen-ed class they probably aren't all that interested in on top of that.)
Removing hours from the engineering courses to devote to free electives does not make sense to me. There are simply no hours to spare from the curriculum. If the goal the university education were to fully develop life skills (like learning to learn, communications skills, and a sense of citizenship) with just enough technical skills to pass into a job, then a dramatic restructuring of the curriculum would be in order. I think the university presents an opportunity to become an expert in a field: that is what a degree signifies. Obviously life skills are important, but they can be developed through other avenues than class (i.e. experiential learning). I could have amazing life skills, but I would not feel comfortable with my degree without the depth and breadth of knowledge and skills in my field conferred by the curriculum as it stands.
34 hours comprise the "foundational mathematics and science," which includes two semesters of chemistry and lab, 4 semesters of calculus/differential equations, and 3 semesters of physics. These courses provide the basic scientific fundamentals that are needed for all engineering disciplines.
52 hours are components of the "technical core," which includes most of the courses that are actually in the bioengineering department as well as a lot of biology. There are also statistics and organic chemistry courses. 2 additional hours are an ethics/professionalism component of Senior Design, the capstone course in the Bioengineering sequence.
15 hours are used for the track electives, which allow the student to develop their program of study in one of five tracks: Biomechanics, Biomolecular, Cell and Tissue Engineering, Computational and Systems Biology, or Imaging and Sensing. I am in the Imaging and Sensing track, and my track electives have included electrical engineering classes that have given me a background in medical imaging methodologies such as ultrasound and MRI.
18 hours are devoted to social sciences and humanities. Students must fulfill a variety of requirements through these general education classes, including taking classes with both a Western and a non-Western cultural component. An additional 4 hours are taken by Rhetoric 105, which introduces students to effective writing techniques.
The remaining 6 hours are set aside as free electives. Students are allowed to use these hours in any way they wish.
I don't think there is any way to reduce the foundational course load. The foundational courses are aptly named: They really are important for a basic scientific background, and the skills learned through them are called on throughout the curriculum and in industry as well. Calculus and differential equations are important in almost every engineering application, both in the university setting and elsewhere. The physics and chemistry skills are essential for understanding the concepts of the upper level courses, and important background skills for engineering applications as well.
The core courses are a slightly different story. Depending on the path you choose, you may not need the skills and knowledge learned in a specific course that is part of the core curriculum. For instance, a engineer who works with a pharmaceutical company may not need to know the electrical systems learned about in Bioinstrumentation. That being said, I personally would not feel comfortable calling myself a bioengineer without having had all the core classes, even though I may not be using everything in my job after graduation.
One big reason I feel this way is that most people do not have the same job their whole lives. A degree gives you something to fall back on, and if you remove some of the importance and depth of the degree, it is not as valuable. Obviously a classroom setting is not the only way to gain the learning needed for a degree, but the core classes offer a breadth of knowledge that cannot be replaced by experiential learning unless those experiences are in the right sub-fields of bioengineering, and then it would serve little purpose to replace the core courses.
The track electives allow for a depth of learning in one specific branch of bioengineering. I can only speak to the Imaging and Sensing track, which I am in. If anything, I think that the track could benefit from more courses. 15 hours is just barely enough to catch up with the electrical engineering knowledge and specific applications to bioengineering. There is certainly no room to prune any hours.
What is left? The social sciences/humanities hours and the 6 free hours. These hours are designated by the College of Engineering (not the Bioengineering Department) to round out the education. The specific requirements are supposed to ensure that students are getting an education that includes a lot of different viewpoints and skills. ('supposed to' because engineering students often take soft options to satisfy these requirements, like Technical Writing for the advanced composition requirement. This is understandable if you consider that 15 technical hours is a lot of work in one semester--no one wants a lot of work in a gen-ed class they probably aren't all that interested in on top of that.)
Removing hours from the engineering courses to devote to free electives does not make sense to me. There are simply no hours to spare from the curriculum. If the goal the university education were to fully develop life skills (like learning to learn, communications skills, and a sense of citizenship) with just enough technical skills to pass into a job, then a dramatic restructuring of the curriculum would be in order. I think the university presents an opportunity to become an expert in a field: that is what a degree signifies. Obviously life skills are important, but they can be developed through other avenues than class (i.e. experiential learning). I could have amazing life skills, but I would not feel comfortable with my degree without the depth and breadth of knowledge and skills in my field conferred by the curriculum as it stands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
