quote:

---

> I happen to come across a brochure from the U of Minn.
> (I graduated many years ago, and my children went to the U, so I get
> these brochures extolling the U's virtues and requesting a check.)
>
> They are trying to be a leading University, and their plan towards
> excellence of the past few years has revolved around cutting
> undergrads in order to get the best undergrads. It has not worked out,
> as evidenced by the increased loss of their top professors.
> (Hey, its not my plan - and after writing it down just now, it does
> seem
> to be a pretty stupid way to get top profs - by allowing only the best
> students in and then later having these desired profs cut half the
> best of the best.)
> So the Uof Minn wants more money to continue along the same course.
> And
> I thought how oddly theoretically academic that it hasn't worked but
> they want to keep doing it.
>
> And then the brochure numbers regarding their engineering school
> struck
> me as kind of odd and contra-logical. So I thought I'd post it and see
> if anyone else has seen this at other universities.
>
> some background-
>
> First, to apply to the engineering school as a freshman at that
> University, you must be in the top 25% of your HS class and have an
> ACT around 26. And of those who apply, according to the President of
> the U last month, only one in four makes it in. (Proudly said by them
> as evidence of their high standards, BTW.)
>
> Second, much of the grading in IT is done on a curve of those in the
> particular class.(I suppose it doesn't matter if it wasn't, the
> 5-15-40-15-5 a-b-c-d-f ratio holds, I assume). Thus, a C means you are
> average, i.e., among the 40% of a class.
> Except this class is the best of the best, as they say.
>
> Third, to get into the dept of mechanical engineering at the U of Minn
> after completing two years of lower division, you must have a B- in
> your technical grades (math, physics, chemistry). No matter your other
> grades, like was required in the balanced engineer of old: it has now
> been set up to skew so pure-geeks advance.
> So if you do not have the B- in the techs, you will not be allowed
> into
> Mech Eng. upper division. On face value, seems logical - except the
> curve was on the hand-picked best of the best.
> So you must score much better than the select group's median C to
> stay in
> their school.
>
> Fourth, you may apply only once in your lifetime to upper division (I
> know, it sounded stupid, but I checked - and that is absolutely
> correct.), and it must happen at 60 credits earned.
> Be way above average at the U of Minn in order apply to the
> school, and
> you can get rejected by the ME department for not being above average
> enough in your above average group, and you will never get a degree at
> the U of Minn. It seems to somehow go against basic engineering, and
> does it say something about the engineering approach of such a school?
> (land-grant, at that)
>
> The contra-logic inherent in the system is from having a relatively
> high
> entrance standard and then having to be better than the average of
> that highly-selected group to advance. It automatically cuts (no,
> actually it rejects from the University) over half of the
> highly-selected group. Now, if the entry standards were lower, say
> comparable to non-U engineering colleges, then maybe - maybe, it might
> make sense.
> OK, at first blush it seems to say - You need to have a solid
> technical
> background to advance.
> But that is NOT what it says, given the highly select entry
> requirements - it actually says that the professors the department
> selects are not able to teach that very select group they started
> with, or it says that we will start with a select group and dump over
> half based not on overall ability, but on physics and math skills.
>
> Kind of like giving an engineer 100 bars of special T&G stainless
> steel
> and having him ruin 50 because he can't get them machined properly.
> It's not like I gave him 100 bars of crap steel and he had to cull
> them. He ruins half the best we can get and thinks nothing of it.
> It somehow seems very un-engineering-like to waste the best material
> on
> those who profess to be engineers and cannot use it properly
>
> Looking at the mechanical engineering school logic another way, if
> the
> top 100 professors of mechanical engineering from Caltech, Stanford,
> and MIT are accepted and take classes at the U of Minn, over half will
> be rejected and not allowed to advance to upper division because they
> are unable to meet the standards. (Hey, MIT profs apparently just
> can't cut it at the U of Minn Dept of Mechanical Engineering undergrad
> program!)
>
> Oddly enough, I didn't find that as being the most egregious problem
> with
> their solicitation for money.
> It seems that the cut for selection for upper division is entirely
> done
> on technical credits, and not done on other engineering skills like
> leadership, management skills, business acumen, foreign language,
> understanding of surroundings, and those skills gained not from
> calculus, but rather from non-technical courses in other schools at a
> University.
>
> What I am going to get in my firm is not the engineers of old, who
> can
> meet and talk with people and run projects, but rather the blind
> techie chosen by the blind techie professors who seem to have some
> theory that lower division tech ability translates into upper division
> creativity and then into good engineers.
> The old saw about unscrewing the new engineers for a year after
> school
> before they are useful is going to have to be revised.
>
> So my question is -
> Do other schools use this method of very high entry selection
> standards
> and then a reselection to reject 50-60% at the halfway point?
> Or is the U of Minn plowing new ground in this apparent nitwitdom?
>
> thanx....
>
>