Conference thoughts
Overall, I thought the conference went well. A met a lot of people and have some ideas to mull over. It's interesting getting to see how 2 different areas work. Going from being a senior student in one area to a junior-ish student in another is somewhat awkward, but I can at least take my previous experience with me and try to avoid past mistakes.
I met a grad student from another institution who went to Harvey Mudd for undergrad. He said at HM, the engineers were the "jocks," chemistry/ biology/ physics majors were "normal" and CS/ math majors were the "nerds." I'd never thought of characterizing the majors in this way, but there's definitely more than a grain of truth to calling engineers jocks. What do y'all think?
I met a grad student from another institution who went to Harvey Mudd for undergrad. He said at HM, the engineers were the "jocks," chemistry/ biology/ physics majors were "normal" and CS/ math majors were the "nerds." I'd never thought of characterizing the majors in this way, but there's definitely more than a grain of truth to calling engineers jocks. What do y'all think?
posted by Random Questioner at
9:59 PM
1 Comments:
I'll buy that. It took me a long time to understand why engineering was considered as less intellectual than the natural sciences, since it was so much more exclusive/prestigious at State U. just by virtue of the way that school was organized. But if you're at a place like Harvey Mudd (or MIT), then yep, makes sense.
By
asterisk, at 12:02 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home