Engineering curriculum the way it should be ?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on concerns regarding the engineering curriculum in a developing country, specifically the order in which foundational science courses are taught. The original poster expresses dissatisfaction with their university's sequence, suggesting that taking calculus courses before physics would enhance understanding and retention. They note that many U.S. universities require calculus as a prerequisite for physics courses, which contrasts with their experience. Participants in the discussion confirm that in the U.S., calculus is often required before physics, and linear algebra is typically not mandatory but beneficial for advanced topics. The conversation highlights the impact of high school education quality on university preparedness and the importance of course sequencing in engineering education.
Kadris
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Engineering curriculum the way it should be !?

Hello guys

Am a new member, and from a 3 world country. and i have been having serous doubts about the way engineering is taught here where i come from. and frankly it feels like am the only one here who cares, and at the fear of sounding paranoia-ed to everyone i know, i am seeking knowledge for this problem elsewhere. some where out of my country where i might find a good answer.
So my question is what is the right order in witch you take your science classes in the first two years of an Engineering degree ?
the subjects am talking about are:
1.cal 1
2.linear algebra
3.physics 1
4. deferential equations
5. chemistry
6. calc 2
7. calc 3
8. physics 2
of course lab 1 and lab2 physics and chemistry lab

where i come from, witch i think its weird the way they do it here.
they take semester 1: calc1,phy1,lab phy1, english,
semester 2: is calc2,phy2,,chemistry, linear algebra
semester 3: calc3, deferential equations
and then life goes on, is this right, well i went through this and i felt that i could have learned more if took calc 1,2 before physics 1 and linear algebra, deferential equations and calc 3 before phy 2, and i have searched on many curriculum in US universities and i found them to be close to what am saying yet there are some Universities who are a bit different maybe they have better students. but where i come from , our high school education is not really that good and the shift from highshcool level to Uni level is quite a jump considering the the textbooks that where using in uni our high school books in comparision look more like children coloring books !

and am quite amazed that though every one is complaining about how hard the curriculum is nobody like me is linking this unnecessary hardness with the fact that we might be taking the courses in the wrong order.

so can somebody shed some light on this matter
Student Kadris
 
Physics news on Phys.org


That is a strange curiculum. In my University here in the States, we are required to take Calculus 1 before we can enroll in Physics 1 (intro to mechanics). However, we are only required to have Calculus 2 in order to enroll in Physics 2 (Electricity and Magnetism), although the department strongly reccomends being enrolled in Calculus 3 at the same time.

In majority of cases, Linear Algebra is not even required. In my program, chemical engineering, we are only required to take Calculus 1-3 and Differential Equations.
 


Thank you styrkur for your replay, you don't know how revealed I am, yet still in deep distress over the fact that our university is lying to us but at the same time am relived to know that am not paranoia-ed, as for linear algebra i think it could come in handy for phy 2 in the part where you have to solve multiple equations for the electric circuit and as for calc 3 would introduce multi variable calc in a more abstract manner preparing the students for phy 2. yet that's my opinion and i may be mainly saying that because of our bad high school education but if you have a good high school education i think there is no problem with your curriculum .
can you give me the name of your university ?
 


Linear Algebra comes in handy for almost everything past Calc. 2 IMO.

Have fun in ODE with no idea about solving systems of linear equations--triple that for Laplace Transforms (at least at my school).
 
I’ve been looking through the curricula of several European theoretical/mathematical physics MSc programs (ETH, Oxford, Cambridge, LMU, ENS Paris, etc), and I’m struck by how little emphasis they place on advanced fundamental courses. Nearly everything seems to be research-adjacent: string theory, quantum field theory, quantum optics, cosmology, soft matter physics, black hole radiation, etc. What I don’t see are the kinds of “second-pass fundamentals” I was hoping for, things like...
TL;DR Summary: I want to do a PhD in applied math but I hate group theory, is this a big problem? Hello, I am a second-year math and physics double major with a minor in data science. I just finished group theory (today actually), and it was my least favorite class in all of university so far. It doesn't interest me, and I am also very bad at it compared to other math courses I have done. The other courses I have done are calculus I-III, ODEs, Linear Algebra, and Prob/Stats. Is it a...

Similar threads

Back
Top