Uni Stuff > Engineering
Engineering question
Squida:
so I suppose mollie you'd opt for the rmit course which i THINK has a years wroth of work experience
Kopite:
--- Quote ---I did say "if anything".
--- End quote ---
Well, from intuition, B.Eng does not equal to a B.Comm/B.Sci + M.Eng. So from your statement, a Melbourne Model degree would be looked upon less favourably?? Yes? Why?
--- Quote ---I have seen some absolutely ridiculous breadth subjects in the MM that would only be studied because people MUST take subjects outside of their discipline. Many people don't need breadth subjects so why pay for them in both time and fees. As for all places being CSP if your average is >65%, that is easier said than done in engineering, and if you want to complete the MM in 5 years then you're going to have include eng subjects in your bachelors degree or spend three years doing your Masters by coursework. Some subjects have 60% fail rates and if you are one of those that does fail then that will make the 65% average harder to obtain.
--- End quote ---
People don't take easy subjects, just cos they're bludges. Students taking those subjects are the very small minority, and are only cheating themselves. Everyone I know doing a B.Sci/B.Comm going for a M.Eng is above the 65% required, including myself, and I'm a crap student.
--- Quote ---Work experience and marks are what will set you apart from your peers when it comes to gaining employment, not whether you have studied From Mateship to Mardi Gras or Genders, Bodies, Borders. Perhaps you think Seeing: The Whole Picture or Cinema and the City is going to give you a leg up over those who have studied Statics, Dynamics, Strength of Materials, Geotechnics etc from day one at uni, but I personally think you are just seeing a wank factor rather than really considering the worth (or IMO the lack of worth) of breadth studies. Do you really think an Engineer sitting with your academic transcript in from of them is going to see any extra value in you when they see subjects like that which for many will be taken solely because they believe them to be easy options.
--- End quote ---
You see, this is what happens when you bag out the Melbourne Model and don't even go to UoM. Ease off the exaggeration. Geez. I don't know anyone doing those subjects. Many science students take Commerce subjects, in economics+actuarial studies.
Mollie:
--- Quote from: Squida on January 17, 2010, 01:20:43 am ---so I suppose mollie you'd opt for the rmit course which i THINK has a years wroth of work experience
--- End quote ---
I'd probably opt for Monash. I'm one of those that believe prestige matters to some employers. A four year degree with the 12 week work experience requirement met is enough for the employers I'm looking at. Plus I have part-time work during uni.
--- Quote from: Kopite on January 17, 2010, 02:21:20 am ---You see, this is what happens when you bag out the Melbourne Model and don't even go to UoM. Ease off the exaggeration. Geez. I don't know anyone doing those subjects. Many science students take Commerce subjects, in economics+actuarial studies.
--- End quote ---
Maybe you should read some wider forums then and check out results threads. I only found out about courses like thes by reading through results from BSc and BCom students attending Melb Uni.
So much for there only being one fluff/rubbish subject. It didn't take me long to come up with a few. ::)
QuantumJG:
--- Quote from: Kopite on January 17, 2010, 02:21:20 am ---
--- Quote ---I did say "if anything".
--- End quote ---
Well, from intuition, B.Eng does not equal to a B.Comm/B.Sci + M.Eng. So from your statement, a Melbourne Model degree would be looked upon less favourably?? Yes? Why?
--- Quote ---I have seen some absolutely ridiculous breadth subjects in the MM that would only be studied because people MUST take subjects outside of their discipline. Many people don't need breadth subjects so why pay for them in both time and fees. As for all places being CSP if your average is >65%, that is easier said than done in engineering, and if you want to complete the MM in 5 years then you're going to have include eng subjects in your bachelors degree or spend three years doing your Masters by coursework. Some subjects have 60% fail rates and if you are one of those that does fail then that will make the 65% average harder to obtain.
--- End quote ---
People don't take easy subjects, just cos they're bludges. Students taking those subjects are the very small minority, and are only cheating themselves. Everyone I know doing a B.Sci/B.Comm going for a M.Eng is above the 65% required, including myself, and I'm a crap student.
--- Quote ---Work experience and marks are what will set you apart from your peers when it comes to gaining employment, not whether you have studied From Mateship to Mardi Gras or Genders, Bodies, Borders. Perhaps you think Seeing: The Whole Picture or Cinema and the City is going to give you a leg up over those who have studied Statics, Dynamics, Strength of Materials, Geotechnics etc from day one at uni, but I personally think you are just seeing a wank factor rather than really considering the worth (or IMO the lack of worth) of breadth studies. Do you really think an Engineer sitting with your academic transcript in from of them is going to see any extra value in you when they see subjects like that which for many will be taken solely because they believe them to be easy options.
--- End quote ---
You see, this is what happens when you bag out the Melbourne Model and don't even go to UoM. Ease off the exaggeration. Geez. I don't know anyone doing those subjects. Many science students take Commerce subjects, in economics+actuarial studies.
--- End quote ---
I'm doing science and am doing commerce subjects (revolving around personal finance or real estate finance) and these are no bludge. You have to do two assignments and tests.
Kopite:
--- Quote ---
So much for there only being one fluff/rubbish subject. It didn't take me long to come up with a few. ::)
--- End quote ---
Lol...never said there was ONLY ONE fluff/rubbish subject. You said 25% of a undergrad is 'fluff rubbish', which I'm assuming you're referring to as breadth. It's funny how, as a basis for your argument, you refer to subjects from the Arts faculty (no offence to Arts students), which would obviously not serve much help to a Science student, if only to stimulate some kind of interest. Then, comparing these to engineering subjects/areas of study which a Melbourne Model graduate would complete in a 5 year course, obviously makes it seem inferior/ridiculous. What you blindly, or maybe conveniently seem to miss, is that there are nine other faculties, from which you can take subjects; students aren't restricted to useless + easy breadth subjects like you're trying to make it seem like. And if you don't believe me-
--- Quote ---
I have seen some absolutely ridiculous breadth subjects in the MM that would only be studied because people MUST take subjects outside of their discipline.
--- End quote ---
You also assume that students are in it for the easy ride. Where, the mentality is that that is certainly not the case. Many students ARE looking to study meaningful and worthwhile subjects. So many students take commerce/law/language subjects as breadth within a B.Sci. Obviously I've stated this a few times, but you'll probably keep this out of mind when replying.
Certainly, the Melbourne Model + breadth is not for everyone. But to say that a B.Eng would be better than a B.Sci + M.Eng is pretty stupid.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version