Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList
Thread
'[OT] USB to contact closure  now admin rant'
2009\06\14@131611
by
Wouter van Ooijen
> There are 2000 people on this list who don't want a selfappointed admin to
> turn the PIClist into his own virtual fiefdom.
Don't pretend to speak for me, I am very satisfied with the way the
admins run this list. And if you are not: why don't you volunteer to
join the admins?

Wouter van Ooijen
 
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu
2009\06\14@173926
by
Vitaliy
Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
>> There are 2000 people on this list who don't want a selfappointed admin
>> to
>> turn the PIClist into his own virtual fiefdom.
>
> Don't pretend to speak for me, I am very satisfied with the way the
> admins run this list.
Q.E.D.
> And if you are not: why don't you volunteer to
> join the admins?
OK, I think I will. What does one need to do, to become an admin?
Vitaliy
2009\06\14@231339
by
Xiaofan Chen
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Vitaliy<spam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmaksimov.org> wrote:
>> And if you are not: why don't you volunteer to
>> join the admins?
>
> OK, I think I will. What does one need to do, to become an admin?
>
I believe the current admins will have the final say on that.
So you'd better respect the current admins, at least on the
list admin side. ;)

Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com
2009\06\15@091152
by
Marechiare
2009\06\15@103945
by
Herbert Graf
On Mon, 20090615 at 16:11 +0300, Marechiare wrote:
> >> Don't pretend to speak for me, I am very satisfied with the way the
> >> admins run this list.
> >
> > Q.E.D.
>
> Quantum Electro Dynamics ?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Qed.jpg
For those who don't know:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.
In my experience, mostly used at the end of mathematical proofs, which
were by far my least favourite part of University math.
TTYL
2009\06\15@133655
by
Vitaliy
Herbert Graf wrote:
>> > Q.E.D.
>>
>> Quantum Electro Dynamics ?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Qed.jpg
>
> For those who don't know:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.
>
> In my experience, mostly used at the end of mathematical proofs, which
> were by far my least favourite part of University math.
I loved theorems (they tickled my brain), but I don't recall using
mathematical proofs beyond high school trig. :)
Vitaliy
2009\06\15@140433
by
Herbert Graf

On Mon, 20090615 at 10:35 0700, Vitaliy wrote:
> Herbert Graf wrote:
> >> > Q.E.D.
> >>
> >> Quantum Electro Dynamics ?
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Qed.jpg
> >
> > For those who don't know:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.
> >
> > In my experience, mostly used at the end of mathematical proofs, which
> > were by far my least favourite part of University math.
>
> I loved theorems (they tickled my brain), but I don't recall using
> mathematical proofs beyond high school trig. :)
My university had a "combined" sort of first year where every
engineering student, no matter what program they were in, took a course
from every engineering discipline.
The only exception really was math. It was recommended that elecs and
comps take a more "advanced" math course set. These courses were
insanely hard; I don't think ANY of us enjoyed those classes.
Part of these classes were doing actual mathematical proofs, which most
of us just never understood. I clearly remember the "horror" of the
deltaepsilon proof.
As an aside: in the end, it turns out that taking these courses actually
HURT most of us. Why? Well, these courses assumed that we already knew
differential equations (which none of us did since it was never taught
in the high school level) and therefore didn't teach them, while the
"lower" course set did. So in our later years none of us had any clue
what was going on any time a differential equation was brought in to
explain something. We told proofs that we'd never been taught
differential equations, none of them believed us.
To this day I have never been formally taught differential equations, I
think most engineering grads would be surprised at that statement given
how fundamental they are to our field, but that's how it was for us.
TTYL
2009\06\15@145730
by
solarwind

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Herbert Graf<.....hkgrafKILLspam@spam@gmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}> My university had a "combined" sort of first year where every
> engineering student, no matter what program they were in, took a course
> from every engineering discipline.
>
> The only exception really was math. It was recommended that elecs and
> comps take a more "advanced" math course set. These courses were
> insanely hard; I don't think ANY of us enjoyed those classes.
>
> Part of these classes were doing actual mathematical proofs, which most
> of us just never understood. I clearly remember the "horror" of the
> deltaepsilon proof.
>
> As an aside: in the end, it turns out that taking these courses actually
> HURT most of us. Why? Well, these courses assumed that we already knew
> differential equations (which none of us did since it was never taught
> in the high school level) and therefore didn't teach them, while the
> "lower" course set did. So in our later years none of us had any clue
> what was going on any time a differential equation was brought in to
> explain something. We told proofs that we'd never been taught
> differential equations, none of them believed us.
>
> To this day I have never been formally taught differential equations, I
> think most engineering grads would be surprised at that statement given
> how fundamental they are to our field, but that's how it was for us.
And this was in U of T? I'm going to be dead....................
2009\06\15@150548
by
William \Chops\ Westfield
On Jun 15, 2009, at 11:04 AM, Herbert Graf wrote:
> We told proofs that we'd never been taught differential equations,
> none of them believed us.
Wow. I don't think I've ever seen differential equations taught in
HS. Usually you get differentiation in 1st semester calculus or "AB"
AP calc, Integration in 2nd semester calculus or "BC" AP calc, and
Differential equations (f'(x) + f''(x) = 1) is a 2nd year thing with
no AP equivalent (doubleaccelerated HS math students here get to take
AP statistics if they complete AP Calc as juniors.)
BillW
2009\06\15@155846
by
Isaac Marino Bavaresco

William "Chops" Westfield escreveu:
> On Jun 15, 2009, at 11:04 AM, Herbert Graf wrote:
>
>
>> We told proofs that we'd never been taught differential equations,
>> none of them believed us.
>>
>
> Wow. I don't think I've ever seen differential equations taught in
> HS. Usually you get differentiation in 1st semester calculus or "AB"
> AP calc, Integration in 2nd semester calculus or "BC" AP calc, and
> Differential equations (f'(x) + f''(x) = 1) is a 2nd year thing with
> no AP equivalent (doubleaccelerated HS math students here get to take
> AP statistics if they complete AP Calc as juniors.)
>
> BillW
>
I studied my highschool equivalent here in Brazil in a Salesian
religious school.
Our chemistry, mathematics, physics and religion teacher for most of the
years was a priest, named Pe. Agreiter.
He was brilliant and had deep knowledge of the disciplines and replaced
the religion lessons with the other disciplines. He used to say: "I
know you don't like to study religion, so I will spend the time with
something you will really need."
But he was also very sarcastic with everybody and specially critic to
the girls, and was the terror of the students. He taught us some
calculus in the last year.
Surprisingly, I liked his teaching methods, but most of my colleagues
trembled when the tests were approaching.
Regards,
Isaac
__________________________________________________
Faça ligações para outros computadores com o novo Yahoo! Messenger
http://br.beta.messenger.yahoo.com/
2009\06\15@161125
by
Herbert Graf

On Mon, 20090615 at 19:57 +0100, solarwind wrote:
> > To this day I have never been formally taught differential equations, I
> > think most engineering grads would be surprised at that statement given
> > how fundamental they are to our field, but that's how it was for us.
>
> And this was in U of T? I'm going to be dead....................
It was, I have no idea whether it's the same today.
Assuming things haven't changed, part of the packages you get will have
some course selection options, i.e. do you want to take chem or
materials science (go materials science), and the other will be the math
stream (MAT186188 vs MAT196198 if memory serves). I recommend going
for the 18x courses.
Don't worry too much though, just realize that IMHO one of the goals of
undergrad studies is for students to realize how far their limit is, and
they will push you to reach (and cross over) that limit many times, it's
all part of the process. As a close friend of mine always said when
referring to us failing an exam or assignment: it all comes out in the
wash. He was right.
Just be glad you didn't go Eng Sci.
TTYL
2009\06\15@163429
by
Herbert Graf

On Mon, 20090615 at 12:05 0700, William "Chops" Westfield wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2009, at 11:04 AM, Herbert Graf wrote:
>
> > We told proofs that we'd never been taught differential equations,
> > none of them believed us.
>
> Wow. I don't think I've ever seen differential equations taught in
> HS. Usually you get differentiation in 1st semester calculus or "AB"
> AP calc, Integration in 2nd semester calculus or "BC" AP calc, and
> Differential equations (f'(x) + f''(x) = 1) is a 2nd year thing with
> no AP equivalent (doubleaccelerated HS math students here get to take
> AP statistics if they complete AP Calc as juniors.)
I agree, I know it wasn't part of the curriculum when I was in HS, and
that was when HS was a 5 year program (these days it's 4 years, which
means even less is likely covered).
I never got a good explanation as to WHY we were never formally taught
DEs. Most profs didn't believe us, those that did were just surprised
and did their best to help us get through sections that needed them.
Funny thing is I had to take ALOT of math courses in the first few years
(I just looked it up):
MAT196F CALCULUS A
MAT198F LINEAR ALGEBRA
MAT197H1 CALCULUS B
MAT290H1 ADV.ENGINEERING MATH
MAT291H1 CALCULUS III
ECE203H1 DISCRETE MATHEMATICS
ECE302H1 PROBABILITY & APPL.
Obviously other courses also had alot of math in them, these were the
"math specific" ones.
I wonder how much has changed?
TTYL
2009\06\15@163512
by
Spehro Pefhany
2009\06\15@164053
by
Herbert Graf
On Mon, 20090615 at 16:38 0400, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> At 04:11 PM 15/06/2009, you wrote:
>
> >Just be glad you didn't go Eng Sci.
> >
> >TTYL
>
> Eng Sci rocks. ;)
Hehe, if you survive I suppose that's true! Lets just say that many of
the people I graduated with started in Eng Sci, but didn't end their
studies there! :)
TTYL
2009\06\15@191631
by
solarwind
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Herbert Graf<.....hkgrafKILLspam.....gmail.com> wrote:
> Just be glad you didn't go Eng Sci.
Of course I'm glad I didn't take Engineering Science. I don't want to
be an engineer. Duh!
If you're somehow implying that the program may be more "difficult",
you may be right in some respect. However, you're then misjudging the
difficulty and competition life science students face. In most
engineering courses, as long as you pass, you're good. In a life
science program, a mere pass will not suffice. Remember that med
school is the next step  and to get into a respectable med school,
you need a very high university GPA. And in U of T, that will be
difficult. Not because the nature of the study is hard  but because a
lot of TIME is required to memorize biological facts, terms, and
concepts.
2009\06\15@231045
by
William \Chops\ Westfield
On Jun 15, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Herbert Graf wrote:
> I never got a good explanation as to WHY we were never formally taught
> DEs. Most profs didn't believe us, those that did were just surprised
> and did their best to help us get through sections that needed them.
I was a bit nonplused that after 2.5years of calculus plus related
math coverage in physics and engineering classes (including
differential equations) (actually, I was really pleased with the way
the math in math, engineering, and physics all lined up at Penn), it
was all thrown away in favor of phasors and smith charts and the like.
>
> Funny thing is I had to take ALOT of math courses in the first few
> years
>
> MAT196F CALCULUS A
> MAT198F LINEAR ALGEBRA
> MAT197H1 CALCULUS B
> MAT290H1 ADV.ENGINEERING MATH
> MAT291H1 CALCULUS III
Huh. I'd have expected "calculus III" to include differential
equations, especially if linear algebra was a separate class... (and
differential eqn wouldn't normally have been a freshman class,
either... Weird.)
BillW
2009\06\16@095037
by
Herbert Graf

On Tue, 20090616 at 00:16 +0100, solarwind wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Herbert Graf<EraseMEhkgrafspam_OUTTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:
> > Just be glad you didn't go Eng Sci.
>
> Of course I'm glad I didn't take Engineering Science. I don't want to
> be an engineer. Duh!
Sorry about that, for some reason I had assumed you were going into
engineering.
> If you're somehow implying that the program may be more "difficult",
> you may be right in some respect. However, you're then misjudging the
> difficulty and competition life science students face. In most
> engineering courses, as long as you pass, you're good. In a life
Most certainly not true of regular engineering at UofT (eng sci being
even more competitive, the last stat I heard was 50% fail to proceed).
Failing was common, reason being they made the courses harder then
average and then "bell curved" everybody to make the final average high
C low B. This meant that most people got really low marks that magically
got higher. This also meant that you had to ensure your marks, whatever
they were, were not at the bottom. I don't remember exact numbers, but I
know that a good number of people in my first year were not in the same
program in the last year.
> science program, a mere pass will not suffice. Remember that med
> school is the next step  and to get into a respectable med school,
> you need a very high university GPA. And in U of T, that will be
> difficult. Not because the nature of the study is hard  but because a
> lot of TIME is required to memorize biological facts, terms, and
> concepts.
That depends on the student, what is hard for one student is easy for
another. I graduated with some students that had amazing memories, but
had trouble with more intuitive type content. You cannot generalize a
program like that.
TTYL
2009\06\16@103329
by
Herbert Graf

On Mon, 20090615 at 20:10 0700, William "Chops" Westfield wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Herbert Graf wrote:
>
> > I never got a good explanation as to WHY we were never formally taught
> > DEs. Most profs didn't believe us, those that did were just surprised
> > and did their best to help us get through sections that needed them.
>
> I was a bit nonplused that after 2.5years of calculus plus related
> math coverage in physics and engineering classes (including
> differential equations) (actually, I was really pleased with the way
> the math in math, engineering, and physics all lined up at Penn), it
> was all thrown away in favor of phasors and smith charts and the like.
Funny, the best word I could use to describe how I felt when phasors and
smith charts were introduced was relieved. Here was something that I
could intuitively understand. Imaginary numbers were horrible for my
brain to grasp, phasors, not a problem.
University really ruined math for me. In high school I really enjoyed
it, I found it challenging at times, but it was an interesting
challenge. In university most math courses were taught by math profs
that had the opinion that engineers "abused" their work. I remember one
prof basically stating he didn't like engineers since all they do is use
the results of his work. Obviously a prof with an attitude like that
wasn't going to be the best teacher.
{Quote hidden}> >
> > Funny thing is I had to take ALOT of math courses in the first few
> > years
> >
> > MAT196F CALCULUS A
> > MAT198F LINEAR ALGEBRA
> > MAT197H1 CALCULUS B
> > MAT290H1 ADV.ENGINEERING MATH
> > MAT291H1 CALCULUS III
>
> Huh. I'd have expected "calculus III" to include differential
> equations, especially if linear algebra was a separate class... (and
> differential eqn wouldn't normally have been a freshman class,
> either... Weird.)
Well all I know is that the only math course that specifically taught DE
was the first year math courses in the "less hard" stream. Go figure! :)
TTYL
2009\06\16@162454
by
Marechiare
> Of course I'm glad I didn't take Engineering Science.
> I don't want to be an engineer. Duh!
Yes, too much routine work to be EE, not fun at all. They are required
to have finished projects, not cool ones.
> ...Remember that med school is the next step...
More room to have fun.
The more fun,  the cooler the subject :)
2009\06\16@175814
by
Vitaliy
Marechiare wrote:
> Yes, too much routine work to be EE, not fun at all. They are required
> to have finished projects, not cool ones.
You couldn't tell by visiting a local college's student project fair. :)
Vitaliy
2009\06\16@202612
by
Dwayne Reid
At 03:57 PM 6/16/2009, Vitaliy wrote:
>Marechiare wrote:
> > Yes, too much routine work to be EE, not fun at all. They are required
> > to have finished projects, not cool ones.
>
>You couldn't tell by visiting a local college's student project fair. :)
Question is: did you mean "cool" or "finished" <grin>.
I recently saw some projects that were neither cool nor finished. Oops.
dwayne

Dwayne Reid <dwaynerspam_OUTplanet.eon.net>
Trinity Electronics Systems Ltd Edmonton, AB, CANADA
(780) 4893199 voice (780) 4876397 fax
http://www.trinityelectronics.com
Custom Electronics Design and Manufacturing
2009\06\16@222904
by
solarwind
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Herbert Graf <@spam@hkgrafKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:
> That depends on the student, what is hard for one student is easy for
> another. I graduated with some students that had amazing memories, but
> had trouble with more intuitive type content. You cannot generalize a
> program like that.
And so it is for Enginnering Science as well. To each is own.
2009\06\16@223344
by
solarwind
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Marechiare<KILLspammarechiareKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:
>> Of course I'm glad I didn't take Engineering Science.
>> I don't want to be an engineer. Duh!
>
> Yes, too much routine work to be EE, not fun at all. They are required
> to have finished projects, not cool ones.
Part of the reason I didn't chose EE. I want to chose whatever EE
stuff I make, what schedule I make it on, and how I want to make it.
Besides, the PICLIST can actually be fun and useful at times (for a
hobbyist)  when people are not too busy lobbing insults at each
other, that is.
>> ...Remember that med school is the next step...
>
> More room to have fun.
> The more fun,  the cooler the subject :)
Fun is not a word I would use to describe that...
2009\06\17@035956
by
Alan B. Pearce
>Yes, too much routine work to be EE, not fun at all. They
>are required to have finished projects, not cool ones.
>
>> ...Remember that med school is the next step...
Hmm, I wouldn't want to be part of an unfinished med school project ...
2009\06\17@120826
by
Vitaliy
Dwayne Reid wrote:
>>You couldn't tell by visiting a local college's student project fair. :)
>
> Question is: did you mean "cool" or "finished" <grin>.
Sadly, both. Two of the projects I saw were obviosly thrown together at the
last moment, and the students took no pride in their work.
Two of the best projects were sponsored by our company, and one of them was
even working as originally designed. :)
The bar had definitely been lowered. I remember that as recently as 2006,
the projects were a lot more challenging: parts delivery robot, GPS drones,
robotic arm systems. Lately it seems like every other project is a
rudimentary climate control system (temperature above some arbitrary value =
turn on the fan).
Vitaliy
2009\06\18@050951
by
Chris McSweeny

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Herbert Graf<RemoveMEhkgrafTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 20090615 at 20:10 0700, William "Chops" Westfield wrote:
> I remember one
> prof basically stating he didn't like engineers since all they do is use
> the results of his work.
Well there's a quick easy answer to that one  if the engineers didn't
use the results of his work that would mean his whole life was
completely pointless (though I suppose that's not something you
actually say to a prof).
Being from the UK, what exactly is engineering science? Is that what
you call engineering over there, or is it engineering lite? I did a 3
year engineering degree (general engineering the first year, gradually
specialising in electronic, communications and software). Really
enjoyed the maths course in my first year (was slightly surprised to
find when I was in my second year I could then help my first year
girlfriend who was studying maths with her work). Kind of regret
choosing maths as a 3rd year option though, as I found that really
tough! Would still like to go back and study for a maths degree though
given the chance...
Chris
2009\06\18@064044
by
Ruben Jönsson

Would still like to go back and study for a maths degree though
> given the chance...
>
> Chris
> 
Math is one language I really would like to be able to speak and understand
fluenty. At the time I went to school I didn't really grasp the usefullness of
this subject and just barely managed it.
Now I really have learnt to apreciate it and I especially admire the physicists
who early in the twentieth century built mathematical models of for example
atoms and subatomic particles. Things that actually couldn't be verified with
real experiments until a couple of decades later. Come to think about it, this
still happens today  string teory, quantum mechanics, black holes, antimatter,
dark matter, the big bang, superconductors and a lot of other phenomenons.
/Ruben
==============================
Ruben Jönsson
AB Liros Electronic
Box 9124, 200 39 Malmö, Sweden
TEL INT +46 40142078
FAX INT +46 40947388
spamBeGonerubenspamBeGonepp.sbbs.se
==============================
2009\06\18@105141
by
Herbert Graf

On Thu, 20090618 at 10:09 +0100, Chris McSweeny wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Herbert Graf<TakeThisOuThkgrafEraseMEspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:
> Being from the UK, what exactly is engineering science? Is that what
> you call engineering over there, or is it engineering lite? I did a 3
> year engineering degree (general engineering the first year, gradually
> specialising in electronic, communications and software).
Unfortunately, and this has been discussed before, North America is a
little different in the way engineering is treated vs. the rest of the
world.
Here Engineering is a 4 year program (5 if you do a coop), and you end
up with a full university degree (usually called either bachelor of
science, or in my case bachelor of arts and science). Difficulty wise
it's one of the hardest undergrad programs to get in to in many schools.
The flip side being the post grad isn't as hard as other "professional"
programs like law or medicine.
Engineering Science (and note this is restricted to the definition of
the university I attended, I'm sure there's variation) is a "super hard"
version of Engineering, focusing even more on the abstract concepts.
It's meant for more specialized engineering disciplines and those most
interested in research. Examples include biomedical engineering,
aerospace engineering, etc.
For the first few years EngSci students have their own courses. In years
3 and 4 they take some of the same courses as "regular" engineering
students.
The problem with EngSci is it's nowhere near as universally recognized
as regular engineering is. A common complaint from EngSci grads is that
their degree doesn't seem to hold any more "weight" with most employers
then a "regular" engineering degree, and the fact that the program is
harder, and they end up with lower grades means it can actually hurt
them.
The last info I had showed about a 50% drop out rate for the EngSci
program (which is very hard to get in to to begin with), many dropping
out end up in "regular" engineering.
TTYL
2009\06\19@153515
by
Sean Breheny
Hi Herbert,
This sounds like what was called "Engineering/Applied Physics" at
Cornell. When I went there, I was trying to decide between EE and EAP.
I eventually came to the conclusion that the only advantage of EAP was
for those who were definitely going to grad school. With a little
work, one could get just as comprehensive an education in EE. In the
end, I did go to grad school, even though I majored in EE and not EAP.
I don't think it would have made a difference in my case. One
disadvantage of EAP was that there were more required nonEE courses,
so fewer slots for electives within EE.
Sean
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Herbert Graf <RemoveMEhkgrafTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}>
> Unfortunately, and this has been discussed before, North America is a
> little different in the way engineering is treated vs. the rest of the
> world.
>
> Here Engineering is a 4 year program (5 if you do a coop), and you end
> up with a full university degree (usually called either bachelor of
> science, or in my case bachelor of arts and science). Difficulty wise
> it's one of the hardest undergrad programs to get in to in many schools.
> The flip side being the post grad isn't as hard as other "professional"
> programs like law or medicine.
>
> Engineering Science (and note this is restricted to the definition of
> the university I attended, I'm sure there's variation) is a "super hard"
> version of Engineering, focusing even more on the abstract concepts.
> It's meant for more specialized engineering disciplines and those most
> interested in research. Examples include biomedical engineering,
> aerospace engineering, etc.
>
> For the first few years EngSci students have their own courses. In years
> 3 and 4 they take some of the same courses as "regular" engineering
> students.
>
> The problem with EngSci is it's nowhere near as universally recognized
> as regular engineering is. A common complaint from EngSci grads is that
> their degree doesn't seem to hold any more "weight" with most employers
> then a "regular" engineering degree, and the fact that the program is
> harder, and they end up with lower grades means it can actually hurt
> them.
>
> The last info I had showed about a 50% drop out rate for the EngSci
> program (which is very hard to get in to to begin with), many dropping
> out end up in "regular" engineering.
>
> TTYL
>
> 
2009\06\19@181518
by
solarwind
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Sean Breheny<shb7EraseME.....cornell.edu> wrote:
> Hi Herbert,
>
> This sounds like what was called "Engineering/Applied Physics" at
> Cornell. When I went there, I was trying to decide between EE and EAP.
> I eventually came to the conclusion that the only advantage of EAP was
> for those who were definitely going to grad school. With a little
> work, one could get just as comprehensive an education in EE. In the
> end, I did go to grad school, even though I majored in EE and not EAP.
> I don't think it would have made a difference in my case. One
> disadvantage of EAP was that there were more required nonEE courses,
> so fewer slots for electives within EE.
I know what you mean. I am forced to take useless courses like history
in my life sciences program.
More... (looser matching)
 Last day of these posts
 In 2009
, 2010 only
 Today
 New search...