RPI of old(one view), note to those considering technical institutes in general.
EightiesParent
1 replies1 discussionsRegistered User Posts: 2 New Member
Full Disclaimer - I attended in the late 1980's, much may have changed, but some lessons learned at the end may be helpful to some prospective students/parents, and are true of engineering curricula in general.
I'll also say my experience is drawn from data points gathered by an immature, mostly depressed younger self, and partly I'm writing this to exorcise some demons.
The institute functioned primarily as a filter to identify the elite 20% or so with the intelligence and or grit to endure the somewhat grim ordeal that was its educational experience, and the 'tute really existed to identify them on behalf of those coming to campus to hire. Another 20% or so would be culled due to outright failure or the attrition of those self-aware enough to realize they weren't a good match for the 'tute's draconian style of pedagogy. Of the remaining 60% many were merely casualties of the process, though with pretty good job prospects nonetheless.
With some notable exceptions (A. Bruce Carlson, Don Millard, Prof. Balaguer, and my Semicon & Elec. Devices prof.) the professors were drawn from the left-hand side of the Bell curve in terms of aptitude and motivation to communicate and convey knowledge and understanding. Their job was primarily to arrange a suitably difficult obstacle course for students to overcome, and observe and classify the results. 'Teaching' was not their concern. Broader context, purpose and meaning were also to be supplied entirely by the student. The overarching theme was adversarial. The institute's primary mission of filtration meant that extra assistance that might help a particular student grasp a key concept more easily was given stingily, less it mess up the curve on the other side of the filter. I have to admit, there is a certain logic and brutal beauty in what the 'tute was doing, but it's not suitable for everyone, and I think the middle 60% could have learned a lot more, a lot more pleasantly, in a more pedagogically friendly environment. The 'tute in that era was viewed with real animus by a significant minority of the student population, including me. Wise thing for such people is to leave, but such people, self included, typically have crappy grades, and options are limited, and one needs to accept heading to a much 'lesser' institution in that case - why not make a wiser pick in the first place? Hindsight. Hopefully things have changed for the better.
FOR ANY STUDENT THEN OR NOW CONSIDERING A TECHNICAL INSTITUTE:
- Know thyself. Do you really, truly want to be an engineer/scientist? Do you prefer to be around people mostly like you, or do you prefer more variety? If you have any doubt whatsoever about these questions, take up engineering/science at a broader university instead, you'll have more options if you change your mind later. Or, consider one of the few lliberal arts colleges that also offer engineering.
- It will be hard, necessarily so. You will require a lot of self motivation, even if the program is more 'friendly' than the one I described above. You will spend time in the pain cave. Your time management skills will be vital. That said, mastery of a challenging subject can be incredibly rewarding.
- Fully engage. Attend every class, do every reading assignment, every homework problem. Be aware when you don't get something and act immediately to seek resources to correct it. Falling behind is like being dropped from a peleton, it can be exceedingly difficult to catch up.
- NEVER CHEAT. If you are a person of conscience, as I was/am, it is incredibly self-damaging. The shame and regret, and (deserved) loss of self-respect/esteem will leave a mark, and is difficult to recover from, trust me. It is far, far better to fail honestly and try again than to cheat and 'succeed'.
19 replies I'll also say my experience is drawn from data points gathered by an immature, mostly depressed younger self, and partly I'm writing this to exorcise some demons.
The institute functioned primarily as a filter to identify the elite 20% or so with the intelligence and or grit to endure the somewhat grim ordeal that was its educational experience, and the 'tute really existed to identify them on behalf of those coming to campus to hire. Another 20% or so would be culled due to outright failure or the attrition of those self-aware enough to realize they weren't a good match for the 'tute's draconian style of pedagogy. Of the remaining 60% many were merely casualties of the process, though with pretty good job prospects nonetheless.
With some notable exceptions (A. Bruce Carlson, Don Millard, Prof. Balaguer, and my Semicon & Elec. Devices prof.) the professors were drawn from the left-hand side of the Bell curve in terms of aptitude and motivation to communicate and convey knowledge and understanding. Their job was primarily to arrange a suitably difficult obstacle course for students to overcome, and observe and classify the results. 'Teaching' was not their concern. Broader context, purpose and meaning were also to be supplied entirely by the student. The overarching theme was adversarial. The institute's primary mission of filtration meant that extra assistance that might help a particular student grasp a key concept more easily was given stingily, less it mess up the curve on the other side of the filter. I have to admit, there is a certain logic and brutal beauty in what the 'tute was doing, but it's not suitable for everyone, and I think the middle 60% could have learned a lot more, a lot more pleasantly, in a more pedagogically friendly environment. The 'tute in that era was viewed with real animus by a significant minority of the student population, including me. Wise thing for such people is to leave, but such people, self included, typically have crappy grades, and options are limited, and one needs to accept heading to a much 'lesser' institution in that case - why not make a wiser pick in the first place? Hindsight. Hopefully things have changed for the better.
FOR ANY STUDENT THEN OR NOW CONSIDERING A TECHNICAL INSTITUTE:
- Know thyself. Do you really, truly want to be an engineer/scientist? Do you prefer to be around people mostly like you, or do you prefer more variety? If you have any doubt whatsoever about these questions, take up engineering/science at a broader university instead, you'll have more options if you change your mind later. Or, consider one of the few lliberal arts colleges that also offer engineering.
- It will be hard, necessarily so. You will require a lot of self motivation, even if the program is more 'friendly' than the one I described above. You will spend time in the pain cave. Your time management skills will be vital. That said, mastery of a challenging subject can be incredibly rewarding.
- Fully engage. Attend every class, do every reading assignment, every homework problem. Be aware when you don't get something and act immediately to seek resources to correct it. Falling behind is like being dropped from a peleton, it can be exceedingly difficult to catch up.
- NEVER CHEAT. If you are a person of conscience, as I was/am, it is incredibly self-damaging. The shame and regret, and (deserved) loss of self-respect/esteem will leave a mark, and is difficult to recover from, trust me. It is far, far better to fail honestly and try again than to cheat and 'succeed'.
Replies to: RPI of old(one view), note to those considering technical institutes in general.
I too wonder things have changed with even institutions like RPI trying to survive.
In 1983 it appears that US news did not rank RPI-perhaps they only ranked the top 25 schools. At that time they were ranking CalTech at 12, CMU at 13 and MIT at 10. in 1996, apparently the first time RPI made the list (which was apparently extended), RPI was ranked at 39 but the following year it disappears, suggesting that it fell below the top 50. It reappears the following year at 48. From then until 2004 it hovered in the 40's. MIT and CalTech stayed mostly in the single digits while CMU was mostly in the low 20s although it occasionally fell to 28. Between the years 2008 and 2015 RPI had an average rating of 42.75-with ratings as high as 41 but hitting 50 once (2012). During that same interval, MIT averaged 5.9, CalTech averaged 7.1 and CMU averaged 22.9.
Reputation is notoriously hard to change quickly. I don't think RPI's reputation has tanked. In fact I think it has gotten a bit stronger. It is highly ranked regardless.
https://publicuniversityhonors.com/2017/09/13/u-s-news-rankings-for-57-leading-universities-1983-2007/
https://publicuniversityhonors.com/2015/06/13/u-s-news-national-university-rankings-2008-present/
There can also be a camaraderie to get through the intense curriculums these schools have, when there are so many students all on the same track. With those schools that have a large variety of offerings, it can be a distraction, temptation, problem to be in the other courses of study, taking those courses with the same sort of students and issues that were problematic.
These schools, however, are rigorous and have a type of culture that is not for everyone. And if you don't do well at college, your transfer options can be limited Schools like RPI often have steep grading curves. Non tech majors may still not meet the desires of some students who really want out of the environment and into a more mainstream general education type school.