*angry rant* (or valiant rant)

  • Thread starter Color_of_Cyan
  • Start date
In summary: TL;DR: You need to give school 100% of your attention if you want to do well in physics and math. You need to practice, practice, practice, and don't skip your homework. Also, if you want to be a successful electrical engineer, don't bother trying.
  • #1
Color_of_Cyan
386
0
Hello I am new around here. Physics really is the whole enchilada for you guys isn't it?


Well... Oh my God. I think I have just finally realized that no one is supposed to take ANY physics subject lightly. By that I mean get ready to literally be a slave to only your studying and to only have physics and math problems as your ONLY hobby, and to literally GIVE YOUR SOUL to it. This is what I am about to do now.


Give all the time in the world THAT YOU SO PRECIOUSLY HAVE to math / physics / engineering. Give them a few hours each every day, no matter if you have more work to do on one subject than another.


I have just bombed yet another physics midterm (second one) and this isn't even my first time taking the class. This is mechanics too and I have declared myself an EE major. I've had almost no experience with physics before college (which is proabably another reason for this).


Before anybody says "oh then maybe physics is probably not for you, not your cup of tea, etc.," Saying that really doesn't help me at all.

Don't get me wrong, it really is satisfying and fun to get to solve physics problems. For me though, I am a little slow at doing them (math also), and it takes a lot of time (time being something I have stretched myself on), and I get extremely panicked whenever I get stuck on a problem or can't get the right answer, or fall behind in class.


If tl;dr then basically I am going to give school my 100% attention now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Have fun in the loony bin.
 
  • #3
Hey man, don't feel bad, the world needs ditch diggers just as much as it needs physicists, probably more. Gods and clods, you understand?
 
  • #4
Pengwuino said:
Have fun in the loony bin.[/QUOT
Thank you sir. What do you mean by that and why do you say that though?

PhDorBust said:
Hey man, don't feel bad, the world needs ditch diggers just as much as it needs physicists, probably more. Gods and clods, you understand?
Thanks also. what you describe sounds true yet tragic. I'm not prepared to simply give up though.
 
  • #5
If you want to do well in any subject you need to spend several hours a day doing it. That's why you go to school, right?
 
  • #6
You need to figure out where you're struggling. The mathematics used in physics I is pretty basic. If you're having trouble solving equations, you need to start re-reading your calculus textbook.

If you are having trouble setting up the equations properly, then that's a completely different thing. The first step should always be to write down EVERYTHING you know, and decide what it is you need to figure out. Take a whole page of paper to solve a problem if you need, don't try to take shortcuts. Draw pictures and draw them neatly. Make sure you include any constraints, such as the net force must equal zero, or that energy and momentum must be conserved.

And yes, you have to practice. Don't skip your homework or show up to midterms after sitting in class and never doing the work outside class.
 
  • #7
Pergradus has great advices, I'd take 'em.

Color_of_Cyan-- You seem to describe the problem most people have with the physics-math complex. It's slow and time-consuming. Don't worry, it's supposed to be this way. Yes, physics students tend to succeed by making this subject their god. It tends to help when you become fanatic and worship-loving to the subject you're studying. Especially when it gets more and more messy and complex and there are lots of elements to untangle-- since you're so fanatic you tend to want to overwork, oversolve, overdo, and that tends to overpay, and assures good grades. It's a "good obsession" to have. If you don't have that obsession-- don't worry, you might acquire it in time (it doesn't always comes naturally), or you can get around without it as well-- it'll just be a "tad" tougher.
 
  • #8
This is going to sound unfriendly, but it's not meant to be.

If you are "slow with math", I have no clue why you are trying to be an electrical engineer (or an engineer in the first place).

Did a guidance counselor tell you they make decent money? Because that is a dirty, dirty lie.
 
  • #9
Aherm... there's no such thing as "slow with math" IMHO. In fact, it's recommended you be "slow with math" so you get the right answer, rather than be "fast at math" and get the wrong answer. Of course, you could be "fast at math" and get the right answer, but that's a matter of time and practice. We tend to form a critical opinion of ourselves early on like that, and that's bad. I believe the best physicists and mathematicians know that being good at this game just means not backing up. Everybody got the brain power (minus Sarah Palin...) to figure out calculus and the hardest of physics if they just take it step by step.
 
  • #10
Femme_physics said:
Aherm... there's no such thing as "slow with math" IMHO. In fact, it's recommended you be "slow with math" so you get the right answer, rather than be "fast at math" and get the wrong answer. Of course, you could be "fast at math" and get the right answer, but that's a matter of time and practice. We tend to form a critical opinion of ourselves early on like that, and that's bad. I believe the best physicists and mathematicians know that being good at this game just means not backing up.

I assume he meant that his acquisition of mathematical knowledge is "slow"

Everybody got the brain power (minus Sarah Palin...) to figure out calculus and the hardest of physics if they just take it step by step.

Absolute, grade A, nonsense.
Who on Earth put this idea in your head? I assure you it's not only false, but demonstrably false.

In this case it's important to qualify where the OP is going to college. Doing poorly in calc-based physics at MIT probably qualifies you for most, if not all, engineering jobs out there... and you'd probably be damn good at them (some exceptions, but not many).

But implying that it's just a matter of effort to become GOOD at these subjects is complete hogwash. Even looking at the effectiveness of studying for a simple test like the GRE (simple to score perfect scores on I mean), +1 standard deviation increase above an initial score, given a near INFINITE time of studying (and tutoring even) are so astoundingly rare that the instances of them can be realistically attributed to the intelligent slacker factor.

Even the LSAT, which has no math at all, shows the same phenomenon.
+10 points from initial scores appears to be a maximum increase with study... and there are many many many people that have studied for years and cannot break past median.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Rebooter said:
[...]

In this case it's important to qualify where the OP is going to college. Doing poorly in calc-based physics at MIT probably qualifies you for most, if not all, engineering jobs out there... and you'd probably be damn good at them (some exceptions, but not many).

[...]

Do you have any data for this, or is it just your opinion?
 
  • #12
Dembadon said:
Do you have any data for this, or is it just your opinion?

For the 2nd part I'd qualify that as my experience being educated at such an institution. Being a "good" engineer these days is equivalent in many ways to being "cheap to employ". I cannot hope to convince you my idea of a good engineer, is an objectively good one.

However, I have plenty of employment data demonstrating that median MITers, even with 3.0s (not out of their 5.0, but 3.0 on the 4.0 scale when converted) are still landing great jobs at Microsoft, Apple and the rest of the big boys... with a lot of upward mobility being seen in follow up surveys.

PE firms, HFs, Consulting and other places, where most state school grads have no shot of even getting interviews, hire heavily as well, even among those with a moderate or average GPA.
MIT has all of this on their website as does Stanford.

All of my friends from college that were engineers (of any type) are gainfully employed, almost universally at jobs paying well above market. Some of these kids were, looking at the median GPA of the entire college, below expectations. In fact, one of my good friends is already director of his dept (at a Microsoft, Apple, IBM). He was bottom 40% in the class.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Well, Rebooter, growing up I always thought I naturally suck at math... so in my early twenties I went with biology and stuck with it till the age of 22. At 23, I began realizing the importance of math and physics and developed and unnatural love affair and obsession with it. I now like solving problems, I especially like understanding the core of it, understanding more of it (new ideas often blow my mind, and I get extremely enthused), and immersing myself in it. My grades are also reflecting my love accurately well, may I add. :) I feel like there are no limits to what I can reach. (I moved from biology to physics)

So, based on my experience, it's a matter of willpower, and core grasp to the importance of it, and loooooooove. It's also a matter of "knowing how to study math/physics", and not letting desperation beat you. Rather, keep plugging along. That's just what I believe. Authoritatively claiming my ideas are "class A hogwash" is... heh, nice, but we're really getting to the realm of psychology here where empirical evidents tend to be...not so empirical. I did start my post with IMHO, mind you, and never claimed anything authoritatively.

I assume he meant that his acquisition of mathematical knowledge is "slow"
Well, that may just mean he has hole/s to cover and should look over precalculus material.
 
  • #14
Femme_physics said:
So, based on my experience, it's a matter of willpower, and core grasp to the importance of it. It's also a matter of "knowing how to study math/physics", and not letting desperation beat you. Rather, keep plugging along. That's just what I believe. Authoritatively claiming my ideas are "class A hogwash" is... heh, nice, but we're really getting to the realm of psychology here where empirical evidents tend to be...not so empirical. I did start my post with IMHO, mind you, and never claimed anything authoritatively.

You misunderstand, whether or not the OP can/will change and do well in Physics is not judged by a single class.
People can gain and lose interest in something, not try and do poorly and do well when they try hard.

What you need to pay attention to in life, but also in career choices, is when you try really hard to do something and continue to do poorly (not one class you understand, some profs just like messing with people).

I wanted to be clear about your last point, because it is so false, yet is the banner cry of modern, liberal society.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Color_of_Cyan said:
Give all the time in the world THAT YOU SO PRECIOUSLY HAVE to math / physics / engineering.

That's ridiculous. Why would I do that ? Using 100% of your time to study is like using 100% of your time to train physically. There is a reason why rest is such a powerful tool. Personally, I don't really spend much time. Understand the concept, do some work, and review. However, procrastination can make these three steps a pain in the butt.
 
  • #16
It really sounds to me like you are missing critical background material for the class. Are you absolutely sure you understand the basic mathematical prerequisites?
 
  • #17
Rebooter said:
In this case it's important to qualify where the OP is going to college. Doing poorly in calc-based physics at MIT probably qualifies you for most, if not all, engineering jobs out there... and you'd probably be damn good at them (some exceptions, but not many).

Whether a person is qualified is a different question from whether a person has gone to a name-brand school. I don't think anyone doing poorly in any calc-based physics course is qualified for an engineering job of a particularly high level.

I will add that I know at least one idiot who went to MIT and got As in his physics courses. It's true, he's gainfully employed, but as I indicated above--this doesn't change the fact that he is probably less competent than a large number of hard-working engineering students who went to less well-known schools.

Rebooter said:
But implying that it's just a matter of effort to become GOOD at these subjects is complete hogwash. Even looking at the effectiveness of studying for a simple test like the GRE (simple to score perfect scores on I mean), +1 standard deviation increase above an initial score, given a near INFINITE time of studying (and tutoring even) are so astoundingly rare that the instances of them can be realistically attributed to the intelligent slacker factor.

Studying to do significantly better on the GRE has nothing to do with studying to become good at calc-based physics.
 
  • #18
holomorphic said:
Whether a person is qualified is a different question from whether a person has gone to a name-brand school. I don't think anyone doing poorly in any calc-based physics course is qualified for an engineering job of a particularly high level.
Depends entirely upon if a Gaussian distribution for grading is maintained or not... but even so, your average C student at MIT in physics is going to be much much more intelligent than your average 3.5 student in physics at a state school.
I have real evidence this is the case.
Studying to do significantly better on the GRE has nothing to do with studying to become good at calc-based physics.
You're right, it's probably much easier to get a 800 quant than get an A in the weed out courses (Orgo/Calc-physics) at these institutions.
I was, however, addressing the flawed concept that studying and hard work is all it takes to become good at something
 
Last edited:
  • #19
Rebooter said:
Depends entirely upon if a Gaussian distribution for grading is maintained or not... but even so, your average C student at MIT in physics is going to be much much more intelligent than your average 3.5 student in physics at a state school.
I have real evidence this is the case.

Besides the fact that we were actually discussing whether a bad physics student at MIT is qualified for engineering jobs...

You say state school as if all state schools are on the same level.

I'm interested that you have "real evidence" that C-grade physics students at MIT are more intelligent than a B+/A- grade physics student at any state school. What form does this evidence take other than anecdotes and employment data which do not necessarily correlate with intelligence?

Do you also think that physics students are, in general, more intelligent than other majors on campus?
 
  • #20
holomorphic said:
I'm interested that you have "real evidence" that C-grade physics students at MIT are more intelligent than a B+/A- grade physics student at any state school. What form does this evidence take other than anecdotes and employment data which do not necessarily correlate with intelligence?

Do you also think that physics students are, in general, more intelligent than other majors on campus?

I'm not even talking about physics majors. This thread, and topic, was about level 1 physics students and their grades.
Many schools (including the ones I've mentioned) force engineering students to take calc-based physics. It is often considered a weed out course (and Organic Chem).

I could go on, and on about first hand evidence from people I personally know (and hell, I did this as well!) that attended one of the schools described and decided to completely change gears (boosting their grades for med school, taking organic chem they failed at Stanford/MIT/etc somewhere else and transfer it).

I personally went from a 4 class/semester load prior to graduating from HYPS, after deciding I chose the wrong thing, to a 28-3x credit hour load at 3 different state schools (at once at first), all science and math based to finish completely different majors in the shortest time possible. I did way better doing this, than with the 4 class load.

My GPA? 4.0 after 3 semesters of >25 credit hours (until last semester I was also working 40 hrs/week)... all physics/high level math classes.
I could be more specific, and give you more evidence from friends of mine that aced organic chem over the summer during undergrad at their hometown's nearest mid-level state school, but the support is so overwhelming to me, based upon post-graduate test scores from these schools compared to state schools, I see no reason to go further here.

People are going to grasp onto their worldview that a 4.0 at CUNY >a 3.5 at Stanford. It simply isn't...
I wish it were the same, since it would mean the work I've put in since graduating was equivalent to doing it at HYPS, but I know, deep down, it def isn't. Had I attempted 8 math and physics courses in a single semester, I would have failed all of them there.

I'm speaking generally. I've attended a HYPS and the top state school in my home state (east coast, well regarded state school), and there just isn't a comparison.
Of course Berkley or Michigan would be tougher than the examples I've given.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
Rebooter said:
People are going to grasp onto their worldview that a 4.0 at CUNY >a 3.5 at Stanford. It simply isn't...

Ah, it sounds like you're talking about grade inflation, which has nothing to do with intelligence or qualification in engineering. Your phrasing makes it sound like you believe students who do poorly at Stanford or MIT are more qualified than students who do well at any state school.

When you said "real evidence," I assumed you were not referring to anecdotal evidence. Nevermind.
 
  • #22
Let me just add that in industrial engineering, I can name, off of the top of my head and without consulting silly rankings, three of the top five schools that are state schools.
 
  • #23
holomorphic said:
When you said "real evidence," I assumed you were not referring to anecdotal evidence. Nevermind.

There is no scientific evidence that is reasonable, and institutions don't seem interested in verification of the above experience.

However, just looking at average GPA vs average test scores on G-loaded tests from these schools, paints a truly excellent picture of the phenomenon.

Let's look at LSAT scores (data I knew where to find, thanks to LSAC):
Valdosta State University 145
Southern Illinois University 146
Richard Stockton College of New Jersey 148
Towson University 148
Cal State Fullerton 148
Baruch - 149
UNC Wilmington - 149
Kennesaw State 149
City Univ. of NY 149
U New Mexico 149
Houston 149
Marist College 149
The Citadel 149
Uni. Nebraska - Omaha 149
University of Mississippi 150
U Hawaii 150
Wright State 150
University of Saskatchewan - 150
Franklin & Marshall 151
Ohio University 151
U Cincinnati 151
Marquette 151
Grand Valley State University - 152
St. John's 152
UConn 152
Michigan State 152
Arizona State 152
U Oklahoma 152
Saint Louis 152
Purdue University 152
Southern Utah University 152
University of Tennessee 152
Penn State, 152
Texas Christian University (TCU) 153
Indiana Bloomington 153
Ursinus College 153
Virginia Tech 153
University Maryland - Baltimore County 153
Baylor 153
Touro 153
American 154
Ohio State 154
U Oregon 154
Da Gators 154
U Iowa 154
U Santa Cruz 154
University of Mary Washington 154
Uni. Nebraska - Lincoln 154
UGa 155
University of Minnesota 155
Texas A&M 155
The College of New Jersey 155
Rensselaer Polytech Ins 155
U Illinois 155
U Washington 155
UCSB 155
UNC Chapel Hill - 155
CU Boulder 155
UC Davis 155
Wisconsin Madison 156
Lawrence University - 156
BU 156
Calvin College 156
Rutgers College 156
UCSD 156
Texas 156
George Washington 157
Wake Forest 157
USC (Southern Cal) 157
NYU 158
UCLA 158
Uva 158
WUSTL 158
U Michigan 158
Brandeis 158
St. John's College (NOT St. John's University) 158
UDallas 158
Georgia Tech 158
Vanderbilt 159
Bryn Mawr College 159
BYU 159
Colby College 159
Emory 159
Berkeley 159
Johns Hopkins 159
William & Mary 160
Georgetown 161
Haverford College 161
Washington & Lee 161
Northwestern 161
Notre Dame 161
U Chicago 162
Rice 162
Claremont McKenna 162
Columbia 163
Dartmouth 163
Duke 163
UPenn 163
MIT 163
Stanford 164
Pomona College 164
Yale 165
Harvard 166

I know from experience (I had access to it obv) my class at one of the bottom schools had a median GPA of 3.1, but as an example Duke's is 3.12
UNC-wilmington claims their median graduating GPA is a 3.2
UNC-Chapel Hill ALSO has a 3.25 median GPA

holomorphic said:
Let me just add that in industrial engineering, I can name, off of the top of my head and without consulting silly rankings, three of the top five schools that are state schools.

That's because this isn't a real engineering degree.
No respectable institution has it.
 
  • #25
holomorphic said:
Let me just add that in industrial engineering, I can name, off of the top of my head and without consulting silly rankings, three of the top five schools that are state schools.

Rebooter said:
That's because this isn't a real engineering degree.
No respectable institution has it.
Guess again. Cut the nonsense.

https://engineering.purdue.edu/IE/
 
  • #26
holomorphic said:
I'm interested that you have "real evidence" that C-grade physics students at MIT are more intelligent than a B+/A- grade physics student at any state school. What form does this evidence take other than anecdotes and employment data which do not necessarily correlate with intelligence?

I think these facts are self-evident. Take the bottom 25% of MIT students and the top 25% of students from any public school, let's say UCLA. Measuring by SAT scores for the upper and lower quartile as published by college board. These correspond almost exactly.

680,740 for upper quartile at UCLA and 670,740 for lower quartile at MIT. Scores are Critical Reading and Math, respectively.

I go to a respectable tier 1 state university and have a 4.0, it's not really an accomplishment, more like a certificate that you're not a complete dimwit.
 
  • #27
PhDorBust said:
I think these facts are self-evident. Take the bottom 25% of MIT students and the top 25% of students from any public school, let's say UCLA. Measuring by SAT scores for the upper and lower quartile as published by college board. These correspond almost exactly.

680,740 for upper quartile at UCLA and 670,740 for lower quartile at MIT. Scores are Critical Reading and Math, respectively.

You are assuming C-grade students achieved the lower SAT scores at MIT, but SAT scores do NOT strongly correlate with grades over a four year period at any such school. You could tell me that this has to do with the range accepted at those schools, but you probably won't be able to measure that effect very well. And it would still not justify your assumption.
 
  • #28
Rebooter said:
However, I have plenty of employment data demonstrating that median MITers, even with 3.0s (not out of their 5.0, but 3.0 on the 4.0 scale when converted) are still landing great jobs at Microsoft, Apple and the rest of the big boys... with a lot of upward mobility being seen in follow up surveys.

I'd love to see it. Can you provide a link? Although, I don't know how this would show that those graduating from state schools aren't landing the same positions.

Rebooter said:
PE firms, HFs, Consulting and other places, where most state school grads have no shot of even getting interviews, hire heavily as well, even among those with a moderate or average GPA.
MIT has all of this on their website as does Stanford.

I couldn't find anything on either website that substantiates your claim about most state school grads having no shot at getting interviews at the places you've mentioned.

Rebooter said:
All of my friends from college that were engineers (of any type) are gainfully employed, almost universally at jobs paying well above market. Some of these kids were, looking at the median GPA of the entire college, below expectations. In fact, one of my good friends is already director of his dept (at a Microsoft, Apple, IBM). He was bottom 40% in the class.

Anecdotes about a few of your friends, who could be imaginary for all I know, aren't very convincing.
 
  • #29
Rebooter said:
That's because this [industrial engineering] isn't a real engineering degree.
No respectable institution has it.
Georgia Tech, arguably one of the best engineering schools in the world, let alone the US, is #1 in industrial engineering according to the rankings. They're also top 5/top 10 in other engineering disciplines (computer/electrical, aerospace I believe).

I mean, if you don't know this I don't know how you can give advice about engineering.
 
  • #30
Dembadon said:
I couldn't find anything on either website that substantiates your claim about most state school grads having no shot at getting interviews at the places you've mentioned.
Anecdotes about a few of your friends, who could be imaginary for all I know, aren't very convincing.

Again, if you are out there doing superficial research you will come up with nothing. State schools do not advertise their inability to place students into highly desirable jobs.

However let's take 2010 summers for front office analysts at Barcap:
Penn/Wharton 12
Harvard 4
NYU/Stern 5
P/Y 2-3
Penn State, ASU, and Cal Poly had one kid each.
Lehigh and Notre Dame had 2-3 each.
BC had 4.

That means at Penn State you had a 0.002% shot at getting an offer from one of the largest banks in the US (there aren't many of them... and that is a ton of summers).
Citigroup for instance had around 140 summers and 47 of them were from UPenn which is a 1-5% chance (upwards of 2000 times greater than Penn state or ASU had at Barcap)

Hell the data I can find shows only sporadic chances (1 kid from this state school here and another from a totally different one at this other firm).
Maybe 2-3 per 50,000 land these lucrative jobs?
I'm sure it's not because they're "too good" for it or anything.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
PhDorBust said:
I think these facts are self-evident. Take the bottom 25% of MIT students and the top 25% of students from any public school, let's say UCLA. Measuring by SAT scores for the upper and lower quartile as published by college board. These correspond almost exactly.

680,740 for upper quartile at UCLA and 670,740 for lower quartile at MIT. Scores are Critical Reading and Math, respectively.

I go to a respectable tier 1 state university and have a 4.0, it's not really an accomplishment, more like a certificate that you're not a complete dimwit.

As someone that graduated from a HYSP undergrad then switched gears back to a tier 1 state school for 2 years more, I can attest to this fact.

Last semester I took nearly 3 times as many classes (all high level math/science) than in my worst semester at HYSP and worked 20-30 hours per week. I still have my 4.0 here.

Also even assuming that "SAT/ACT scores do not correlate to GPAs in college" (they do actually) what does it mean if a MIT student in the top 25% SAT/ACT scores for that school winds up being lower 25% in GPA?
I certainly don't think you could make any reasonable argument that they'd be even close to bottom 25% at any tier 1 state school.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
At this point you all have strayed pretty far from the OP's question, and have begun re-hashing a debate that has taken place in other threads. This is a dead thread.
 
  • #33
Rebooter said:
Again, if you are out there doing superficial research you will come up with nothing. State schools do not advertise their inability to place students into highly desirable jobs.

However let's take 2010 summers for front office analysts at Barcap:
Penn/Wharton 12
Harvard 4
NYU/Stern 5
P/Y 2-3
Penn State, ASU, and Cal Poly had one kid each.
Lehigh and Notre Dame had 2-3 each.
BC had 4.

That means at Penn State you had a 0.002% shot at getting an offer from one of the largest banks in the US (there aren't many of them... and that is a ton of summers).
Citigroup for instance had around 140 summers and 47 of them were from UPenn which is a 1-5% chance (upwards of 2000 times greater than Penn state or ASU had at Barcap)

Hell the data I can find shows only sporadic chances (1 kid from this state school here and another from a totally different one at this other firm).
Maybe 2-3 per 50,000 land these lucrative jobs?
I'm sure it's not because they're "too good" for it or anything.

Why are you providing information about analyst positions at Barclays? Weren't we talking about engineering degrees/positions?

I guess I could've been more precise with my previous response. Do you think that the hiring practices/preferences of engineering and finance are comparable? If so, how? Do you believe that the rank of one's undergraduate school is as important to employers seeking engineers as those who are seeking to fill business/finance positions? If so, what is your reason for thinking this?

Edit: Just saw Holo's post. He's right, this has gone off-topic, and I don't want to perpetuate an off-topic discussion.

*backs away from thread*
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Dembadon said:
Why are you providing information about analyst positions at Barclays? Weren't we talking about engineering degrees/positions?

I guess I could've been more precise with my previous response. Do you think that the hiring practices/preferences of engineering and finance are comparable? If so, how? Do you believe that the rank of one's undergraduate school is as important to employers seeking engineers as those who are seeking to fill business/finance positions? If so, what is your reason for thinking this?

A similar statistical analysis (based upon engineering placement) at these schools is possible. Luckily places like MIT/Stanford etc try to document their placement and into what companies for their classes.

It's very very hard to come up with this data for even tier 1 state schools, but I know from first hand experience it is much much worse...
I'm sure many 2nd tier state schools cannot even employ all of their engineering grads into their fields, let alone provide real opportunities for management level work.

Looking at the available data from a scientific perspective, what I say is not far fetched at all, and is well supported by available data (that opportunities even for C level engineers from top schools are pretty good).
I see no reason to reject this data because it is "uncomfortable"
 
  • #35
I respectfully suggest that any thread with a title like this go directly into the spam filter.
 
<h2>1. What causes someone to go on an angry rant?</h2><p>Anger is a natural emotion that can be triggered by a variety of factors, such as feeling frustrated, disrespected, or overwhelmed. In some cases, underlying mental health issues or past traumas may also contribute to someone's tendency to go on an angry rant.</p><h2>2. Is it healthy to go on angry rants?</h2><p>While expressing anger in a healthy way can be beneficial, going on frequent and uncontrolled angry rants can have negative effects on both mental and physical health. It can lead to increased stress, strain relationships, and even impact cardiovascular health.</p><h2>3. How can someone control their anger and avoid going on angry rants?</h2><p>There are various techniques that can help individuals manage their anger and avoid going on angry rants. These include deep breathing, practicing mindfulness, and finding healthy outlets for anger such as exercise or talking to a trusted friend or therapist.</p><h2>4. Can angry rants be productive in bringing about change?</h2><p>While angry rants may temporarily release pent-up emotions, they are not typically effective in bringing about long-term change. In fact, they can often create more division and conflict. Constructive communication and finding common ground are more productive ways to address issues.</p><h2>5. Are there any benefits to going on angry rants?</h2><p>There is limited evidence to suggest any significant benefits of going on angry rants. In some cases, it may provide a temporary sense of relief, but it can also lead to negative consequences. It is important to find healthy and productive ways to express and manage anger.</p>

1. What causes someone to go on an angry rant?

Anger is a natural emotion that can be triggered by a variety of factors, such as feeling frustrated, disrespected, or overwhelmed. In some cases, underlying mental health issues or past traumas may also contribute to someone's tendency to go on an angry rant.

2. Is it healthy to go on angry rants?

While expressing anger in a healthy way can be beneficial, going on frequent and uncontrolled angry rants can have negative effects on both mental and physical health. It can lead to increased stress, strain relationships, and even impact cardiovascular health.

3. How can someone control their anger and avoid going on angry rants?

There are various techniques that can help individuals manage their anger and avoid going on angry rants. These include deep breathing, practicing mindfulness, and finding healthy outlets for anger such as exercise or talking to a trusted friend or therapist.

4. Can angry rants be productive in bringing about change?

While angry rants may temporarily release pent-up emotions, they are not typically effective in bringing about long-term change. In fact, they can often create more division and conflict. Constructive communication and finding common ground are more productive ways to address issues.

5. Are there any benefits to going on angry rants?

There is limited evidence to suggest any significant benefits of going on angry rants. In some cases, it may provide a temporary sense of relief, but it can also lead to negative consequences. It is important to find healthy and productive ways to express and manage anger.

Similar threads

  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
13
Views
271
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
12
Views
470
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
11
Views
967
Back
Top