Engineering question

[Kopite]

I think the MM grads will be looked at less favourably if any differently. For starters 25% of their undergrad course is fluff rubbish courses that serve no real purpose to engineering companies, but do give Melb Uni 25% more fees. A Masters is only really viewed highly when it is a Masters by Research, and the MM masters isn't that. Having an ME behind your name might make a certain part of your anatomy feel bigger, but you'll pay a minimum $8000 more to get one, and only IF you get a CSP place. If you end up in a full fee spot then you'll likely regret the choice you made chosing MM for a very long time.

What subjects are you referring to as 'fluff rubbish'? Certainly ESD 1 is, however all the others provide valuable skills for further study.

From 2014 (inclusive) if you meet the 65% requirement, all students will be CSP.

Why would Melbourne Model graduates be looked at less favourably?

[dejan91]

I think the MM grads will be looked at less favourably if any differently. For starters 25% of their undergrad course is fluff rubbish courses that serve no real purpose to engineering companies, but do give Melb Uni 25% more fees. A Masters is only really viewed highly when it is a Masters by Research, and the MM masters isn't that. Having an ME behind your name might make a certain part of your anatomy feel bigger, but you'll pay a minimum $8000 more to get one, and only IF you get a CSP place. If you end up in a full fee spot then you'll likely regret the choice you made chosing MM for a very long time.

I'm sorry, but your post is too littered with bias against the Melbourne Model for you to make sense...

You do realise that:
- The Masters in Engineering is accredited by engineering companies (globally), and thus the pathway which you consider 'fluff' is too.
- Monash (which, I'm guessing, is your favoured Uni over Melbourne) has only one ME - Masters in Aerospace Engineering.
- The subjects you consider as 'fluff rubbish' are actually the basis upon which the Melbourne Model was introduced. You know, to be interdisciplinary across different fields of knowledge.

[enwiabe]

I think the MM grads will be looked at less favourably if any differently. For starters 25% of their undergrad course is fluff rubbish courses that serve no real purpose to engineering companies, but do give Melb Uni 25% more fees. A Masters is only really viewed highly when it is a Masters by Research, and the MM masters isn't that. Having an ME behind your name might make a certain part of your anatomy feel bigger, but you'll pay a minimum $8000 more to get one, and only IF you get a CSP place. If you end up in a full fee spot then you'll likely regret the choice you made chosing MM for a very long time.

I'm sorry, but your post is too littered with bias against the Melbourne Model for you to make sense...

You do realise that:
- The Masters in Engineering is accredited by engineering companies (globally), and thus the pathway which you consider 'fluff' is too.
- Monash (which, I'm guessing, is your favoured Uni over Melbourne) has only one ME - Masters in Aerospace Engineering.
- The subjects you consider as 'fluff rubbish' are actually the basis upon which the Melbourne Model was introduced. You know, to be interdisciplinary across different fields of knowledge.

Re: Monash...

Monash only has one Masters of Engineering by coursework.

You can get an Engineering Masters at Monash by research in any field you fancy.

[QuantumJG]

Doing a B.Sc & M.Eng will not make you worse off than getting a B.Eng. I'm sure a lot of high profile companies like the graduate degree part since you get more study experience.

I recommend doing a B.Eng iff your heart is set on engineering. I did science at Melbourne because this time last year I didn't know whether I wanted to do civil engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, physics or maths.

It will take you a while to realise whether science or engineering is for you and nobody can really tell you which is for you, this is a question you need ask yourself. With me I basically loved my maths and physics and poured ages of time into assignments, tests, etc. With engineering I found first year boring (well first year eng at UoM is boring) and thought that if I have no motivation in this work, it's probably a sign.

[Mollie]

Why would Melbourne Model graduates be looked at less favourably?

I did say "if anything". I suspect that too many of you are seeing "Masters" and thinking that you'll be better than anyone that just has BE (Hons) after their name. The fact is that most people won't even know what letters you have after your name unless you are egotistical enough use them constantly.

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.

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.

Personally I couldn't care less which uni people chose to attend. I chose an interstate uni because Vic didn't have any courses with the accreditation I was looking for.

Editted to Add: A couple of other things to think about would include the fact that gaining over 65% at university is a damned sight harder than achieving a similar result at school, and the fact that currently there is no income support payments (ie. youth allowance or austudy) for Masters by Coursework students.  If legislation remains as is, not only will you be paying a premium for your degree, but you will also lose any govt income support you could have kept had you studied engineering as an undergraduate or double degree (if breadth subjects are so important to you) at any other university in the nation.

[Squida]

so I suppose mollie you'd opt for the rmit course which i THINK has a years wroth of work experience

[Kopite]

I did say "if anything".

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?

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.

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.

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.

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]

so I suppose mollie you'd opt for the rmit course which i THINK has a years wroth of work experience

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.

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.  

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]

I did say "if anything".

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?

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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]

So much for there only being one fluff/rubbish subject. It didn't take me long to come up with a few.

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-

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.

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.

[Kopite]

I did say "if anything".

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?

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

+finance.

[Pappa-Bohr]

I go to melbourne uni, and have to say I agree that if you're dead set on doing engineering, don't come here. Go to Monash and save yourself a year of study.
UoM good for: arts/commerce (including econ)/law/maths/medical science
Monash good for: specific courses in engineering, surgery/medicine.

[Kopite]

Hi everybody

I was looking into doing engineering at uni this year (civil/structural specifically) and I was wondering which course would be more suited for me. Basically the three options are doing a bachelor or science at melb uni + masters in eng, doing the bachelor of engineering at melb uni orrrr doing the bachelor of civil and infrastructure at rmit.
I can't really figure out which course would be best for me so any input woulld be appreciated :p.

b.sci and b.eng is interchangeable for the first year and a bit? *i think*. so you don't have to worry if you'll be at uom for 4 or 5 years until the end of first year =]

[Mao]

I'm not sure what the hype is over 'Master' of Engineering. It has become apparent to me that the depth of knowledge taught in most coursework Masters is approx the same level in a Bachelors. It may seem more flashy having a post-graduate degree, but employers will be able to tell how well you are equipped.

And whilst the breadth subjects are good for demonstrating diversity of interest to employers, you can show that diversity through so many other pathways.

Just some food for thought.

[Mollie]

I go to melbourne uni, and have to say I agree that if you're dead set on doing engineering, don't come here. Go to Monash and save yourself a year of study.

Save a year of studies, save a year of fees, for those moving out of home save a year of accomodation, and if that isn't enough earn a decent salary a year earlier.

Engineering students need to be competant at maths, and the Maths of MM just don't add up.