“Natural lang po ba ang bumabagsak sa engineering (course)?”

Carl MaloneCarl Malone Saber Rattler PExer
I was asked one time: “Natural lang po ba ang bumabagsak sa engineering (course)?”

I think “natural” is a lethal or inappropriate or utterly discouraging word. It’s as if it is certain or expected or presumed that a student will fail subjects or at least a subject in the said course. Others would use “normal” instead of “natural”, which by English definition is less strong. But in Filipino usage “normal” and “natural” practically mean the same.

Anyway, to answer the question: No, it should not be “normal” or “natural” to fail a subject or subjects in the engineering course. I would say though that it is ordinary for ordinary students to get low or just passing grades due to the engineering course’s intrinsic difficulty.

Unfortunately, students’ failings in subjects become “normal” or “natural” because of the combination of the following:

1) Majority of entrant (high school graduate) students are unprepared for the kind and nature of subjects that they will encounter in the engineering course. Those who are capable or prepared come from the technical-oriented or science-intensive secondary (high) schools, which are few. Subjects in drafting, automotive, machine shop, carpentry, electricity and electronics are practically non-existent in most schools, public and private. Not many schools offer electives in calculus, intermediate physics, algebra and chemistry (apart from the elementary or introductory kind ordinarily taught in most schools). Laboratory equipment/facilities in chemistry or physics are either lacking or poor.

2) The entrants are not well oriented about what to expect and what the engineering course is all about. They chose the eng’g course for the wrong – stupid? – or poor reason(s): a) Madali ba makakuha ng trabaho diyan?; b) Okay ba ‘ung school? Hmm . . . mukhang maganda pakinggan ‘ung course ah . . Sikat ba ako/tayo dyan?; c) Eh kasi ‘un din ang type ng barkada/tatay/tito/pinsan ko eh, kaya napagaya or na-influence na rin ako.; d) Wala lang . . . basta type or feel ko lang . . . (WOW!)

3) Sadly, majority of the teaching staff in the engineering schools are not really good at communicating or imparting what they have to teach. It is even aggravated by the fact that many of them are not experienced engineers as they should be. I believe that the professional PEEs, PMEs, Structural Engineers should be the ones teaching students in their senior years in college, i.e., 3rd to 4th year.

I do not mean that the engineering course is not a difficult one, it is, it truly is! But it should NOT have been made infinitely MORE difficult by the above factors. Nakakalungkot talaga.

Your opinions, suggestions and even anecdotes are most welcome.

(Pakiusap lang po dun sa mga school bashers, I want this thread to be purely about comments, suggestions or anecdotes– which I most prefer – that are helpful and directly engage the topic.)
«134567

Comments

  • DacsDacs Bummed bу Αdmin ✭✭✭
    Saka na ako magbibigay ng 2 cents, lunchy muna ako :D
    It is even aggravated by the fact that many of them are not experienced engineers as they should be. I believe that the professional PEEs, PMEs, Structural Engineers should be the ones teaching students in their senior years in college, i.e., 3rd to 4th year.
    That's the reason I have plans teaching in the academe some day.
  • Carl MaloneCarl Malone Saber Rattler PExer
    ^ Dacs, thanks for the reply. :)
    I am eager to hear from you, make it a 5-cent worth post. ;)

    (May I also invite you to contribute sa aming munting thread: URL: http://www.pinoyexchange.com/forums/showthread.php?t=464759.
    It's a neutral topic. Mas naniniwala kasi ako sa pagtutulungan.)
  • DacsDacs Bummed bу Αdmin ✭✭✭
    I'd love to, but I've got deliverables to finish :D

    Maybe tonight, I'll chip in my opinion.
  • -jps--jps- Untouchable PExer
    I was asked one time: “Natural lang po ba ang bumabagsak sa engineering (course)?”

    I think “natural” is a lethal or inappropriate or utterly discouraging word. It’s as if it is certain or expected or presumed that a student will fail subjects or at least a subject in the said course. Others would use “normal” instead of “natural”, which by English definition is less strong. But in Filipino usage “normal” and “natural” practically mean the same.

    Anyway, to answer the question: No, it should not be “normal” or “natural” to fail a subject or subjects in the engineering course. I would say though that it is ordinary for ordinary students to get low or just passing grades due to the engineering course’s intrinsic difficulty.

    Unfortunately, students’ failings in subjects become “normal” or “natural” because of the combination of the following:

    1) Majority of entrant (high school graduate) students are unprepared for the kind and nature of subjects that they will encounter in the engineering course. Those who are capable or prepared come from the technical-oriented or science-intensive secondary (high) schools, which are few. Subjects in drafting, automotive, machine shop, carpentry, electricity and electronics are practically non-existent in most schools, public and private. Not many schools offer electives in calculus, intermediate physics, algebra and chemistry (apart from the elementary or introductory kind ordinarily taught in most schools). Laboratory equipment/facilities in chemistry or physics are either lacking or poor.

    2) The entrants are not well oriented about what to expect and what the engineering course is all about. They chose the eng’g course for the wrong – stupid? – or poor reason(s): a) Madali ba makakuha ng trabaho diyan?; b) Okay ba ‘ung school? Hmm . . . mukhang maganda pakinggan ‘ung course ah . . Sikat ba ako/tayo dyan?; c) Eh kasi ‘un din ang type ng barkada/tatay/tito/pinsan ko eh, kaya napagaya or na-influence na rin ako.; d) Wala lang . . . basta type or feel ko lang . . . (WOW!)

    3) Sadly, majority of the teaching staff in the engineering schools are not really good at communicating or imparting what they have to teach. It is even aggravated by the fact that many of them are not experienced engineers as they should be. I believe that the professional PEEs, PMEs, Structural Engineers should be the ones teaching students in their senior years in college, i.e., 3rd to 4th year.

    I do not mean that the engineering course is not a difficult one, it is, it truly is! But it should NOT have been made infinitely MORE difficult by the above factors. Nakakalungkot talaga.

    Your opinions, suggestions and even anecdotes are most welcome.

    (Pakiusap lang po dun sa mga school bashers, I want this thread to be purely about comments, suggestions or anecdotes– which I most prefer – that are helpful and directly engage the topic.)

    Dapat hindi yung mga PMEs, PEEs or any equivalent nila ang nagtuturo. Yang mga yan ang pinakatamad na mga nagiging prof sa mga universities/schools based on my experienced as a engineering student before. Dapat ang magturo ay yung di lang may alam kundi pati dedication para maturuan ng maayos ang isang engineering student.
  • joma_sjoma_s HellBoundHeretic® PExer
    I did my engineering with plenty of failed grades, I dont think its natural. Of course, some of the subject then (and now) was difficult for me.

    Having said that, I have handful of friends who finished the 5 years course in about 4 years

    I studied in MapuaTech...where failing is "natural"
  • Carl MaloneCarl Malone Saber Rattler PExer
    -jps- wrote: »
    Dapat hindi yung mga PMEs, PEEs or any equivalent nila ang nagtuturo. Yang mga yan ang pinakatamad na mga nagiging prof sa mga universities/schools based on my experienced as a engineering student before. Dapat ang magturo ay yung di lang may alam kundi pati dedication para maturuan ng maayos ang isang engineering student.

    Thanks very much -jps- for a candid post. Pero alam mo, the PME's and PEE's we had back in college weren't like the ones you described -- well, one wasn't really lazy, he just had poor teaching skills. (Do you mind if you PM me that school? Just curious . . . :))

    But you're definitely right, the first qualification/criterion ought to be that they should have the dedication to teach well! *okay*
  • hornitexhornitex Member PExer
    Sali din ako,

    The following anecdote wil show that it is indeed "naturlal" for students to fail in a subject in engineering. Actually the following scenario is real as far as my school is concerned.

    Sa ibang colleges/Faculties, at the end of the semester, pag nagkita kita nag mga students sa school para kunin ang grades para enrollment for the next (2nd sem in particular) e ang normal na tanong ay "Anong ang grade mo sa ... say, Chemistry?" (Presumed agad na pasado)..

    Sa Faculty of Engineering eh ang usual na tanong ay "Pasado ka ba sa Chemistry?"

    In general, ang madalas na tanong eh "May bagsak ka ba?" or kung medyo positive naman e ang Tanong e "Ano Pare, pasado ba lahat?"
  • Carl MaloneCarl Malone Saber Rattler PExer
    hornitex wrote: »
    Sali din ako,

    The following anecdote wil show that it is indeed "natural" for students to fail in a subject in engineering. Actually the following scenario is real as far as my school is concerned.

    Sa ibang Colleges/Faculties, at the end of the semester, pag nagkita-kita ang mga students sa school para kunin ang grades para enrollment for the next (2nd sem in particular), eh ang normal na tanong ay "Anong ang grade mo sa ... say, Chemistry?" (Presumed agad na pasado)..

    Sa Faculty of Engineering, eh ang usual na tanong ay "Pasado ka ba sa Chemistry?"

    In general, ang madalas na tanong eh "May bagsak ka ba?" or kung medyo positive naman e ang Tanong e "Ano Pare, pasado ba lahat?"

    There are many I know who share this experience, hornitex. Ika nga nila, ang Faculty of Engineering ay ang 'Summer Capital' ng (buong) University niya, kasi nga dito ang may pinaka-maraming nagsa-summer classes -- take two sa ibinagsak na subject(s)!
  • hornitexhornitex Member PExer
    Marami ang bumbagsak sa Freshman and Sophomores. Many of my former batch mates in First and Secoond year have either shifted to another course or transferred to anopther school to pursue same course before they could reach third year. I do not know the exact figure or exact percentage of the no. of students who did not make it to third year . Pero sa batch namin. I would say that about 40 to 50 or even higher did not make it to third year(again I must say na perception at rough estimate ko lang eto) based eto on the total no. of sections noong first year kami at kung ilan na lang ang total no. of sections ng lahat ng Department sa year ko ngayon. It could be a different percentage sa ibang batch sa school ko. Even sa third year and fourth year, ordinary pa rin na meron bumbagsak kahit salat na. I would say that it is a big accomplishment to finish a Engineering Course without failing in any subject. Kaya pag sa school ko, pag kumukuha ng summer class ay alam na ang ibig sabihin iyon, he,he . Pati yong term na "Octoberian" (with due respect) e medyo iba ang dating ..he,he,he...No offense meant .. peace .
  • zgmf_x20Azgmf_x20A Member ✭✭✭
    para sa akin mali yung norm na "normal" yung pagbagsak ng isang estudyante. parang lumalabas kasi na okay ang bumagsak at weird ka kung pasado or mataas yung grades mo sa engineering.

    although some of my friends in college pag tinanong ko bakit ka nag ece at ang sagot nila kasi daw madali yung pera sa ece at madali kang makakapag-abroad. nasabi ko lang sa sarili ko na parang ang babaw naman nung dahilan. sila kasi yung nakikita kong nahihirapan talaga sa mga subjects so parang lumalabas hindi nila talaga gusto yung ece they just go with the flow na okay yung ece kaya ece na lang ako sa college.

    naexperience ko din yung mga tanong na "nagbaba ba ng passsing si sir/ma'am?". lumalabas na umaasa ka na magbaba ng grades ang prof para makapasa. (guilty ako dito :))

    yung mga gusto kong magturo yung mga profs na may actual experience sa actual working environment yung tipong nagwork muna sa ece field before magturo. they can provide practical things regarding kung ano talaga yung kailangan mong matutuhan.
  • JupiterJrJupiterJr Banned by Admin PExer
    joma_s wrote: »
    I studied in MapuaTech...where failing is "natural"

    it's not natural. it's just that your school is not Pinagpala.

    either that or your students are just mahina.
  • joma_sjoma_s HellBoundHeretic® PExer
    JupiterJr wrote: »
    it's not natural. it's just that your school is not Pinagpala.

    either that or your students are just mahina.
    ikaw naman, hinde mo kinuha ang full context ng post ko.
  • dakilangungazdakilangungaz Kapampangan Pride ✭✭✭
    natural lang bumagsak...


    pag di ka nagaral :glee:


    :blowsmoke:
  • dakilangungazdakilangungaz Kapampangan Pride ✭✭✭
    pero sa totoo lang mahirap Engineering Course...


    basta yun determination and effort para pumasa, at yun dedication sa nakuha mo coure.. kung gusto mo yun course, papasa ka... ;-)


    TS,. masarap maging inhinyero... more opportunities, yun naghihintay pag natapos at pumasa ka ng board exam...

    :blowsmoke:
  • anopaanopa Member PExer
    Do NOT take Jupiter jr. seriously, ignore him He's a TROLL like me.
  • DacsDacs Bummed bу Αdmin ✭✭✭
    As promised :)
    1) Majority of entrant (high school graduate) students are unprepared for the kind and nature of subjects that they will encounter in the engineering course. Those who are capable or prepared come from the technical-oriented or science-intensive secondary (high) schools, which are few. Subjects in drafting, automotive, machine shop, carpentry, electricity and electronics are practically non-existent in most schools, public and private. Not many schools offer electives in calculus, intermediate physics, algebra and chemistry (apart from the elementary or introductory kind ordinarily taught in most schools). Laboratory equipment/facilities in chemistry or physics are either lacking or poor.
    The technical courses aren't really a necessity to become proficient in engineering (but a whole plus to have those skills overall).

    The other issues have something to do with the overall status of our basic education, which is sorely lacking.

    I think the model of science HS are quite OK since not everyone wants to become an engineer (or scientist). Those schools cater for those who do.
    2) The entrants are not well oriented about what to expect and what the engineering course is all about. They chose the eng’g course for the wrong – stupid? – or poor reason(s): a) Madali ba makakuha ng trabaho diyan?; b) Okay ba ‘ung school? Hmm . . . mukhang maganda pakinggan ‘ung course ah . . Sikat ba ako/tayo dyan?; c) Eh kasi ‘un din ang type ng barkada/tatay/tito/pinsan ko eh, kaya napagaya or na-influence na rin ako.; d) Wala lang . . . basta type or feel ko lang . . . (WOW!)
    Very much true.

    But I suppose we're just as hypocrites (in the industry) to claim otherwise. We, after all, strive to get the fattest paycheck :lol:

    Nothing wrong with that line of thinking, as long as you can cope up with the challenges (read: lots of math and science) that go along with it.
    3) Sadly, majority of the teaching staff in the engineering schools are not really good at communicating or imparting what they have to teach. It is even aggravated by the fact that many of them are not experienced engineers as they should be. I believe that the professional PEEs, PMEs, Structural Engineers should be the ones teaching students in their senior years in college, i.e., 3rd to 4th year.
    Very much true.

    But on the other hand, I can see the advantage of academic "purists" teaching the n00bs in the academe since some people in the industry (like me) tend to have biases in the practice.

    I'm afraid that I may pass those to my students if I were to teach.

    I suppose a balanced mix should do the trick.
    I do not mean that the engineering course is not a difficult one, it is, it truly is! But it should NOT have been made infinitely MORE difficult by the above factors. Nakakalungkot talaga.

    Your opinions, suggestions and even anecdotes are most welcome.

    (Pakiusap lang po dun sa mga school bashers, I want this thread to be purely about comments, suggestions or anecdotes– which I most prefer – that are helpful and directly engage the topic.)
    To close, I think we have to realize that not everyone has the aptitude to take on match/science-inclined courses, much the same way as I'd surely fail in social sciences :lol:
  • -jps--jps- Untouchable PExer
    Maglagay sana ng mga elective subjects na pangScience HS or mga sinlevel na subject sa college gaya ng college algebra etc. sa mga non-science Highschool para sa mga nagnanais na kumuha ng engineering at natural sciences na courses upang maging handa pagtuntong ng college ang isang student kung mahirapan man siya sa unang pagtake nito at least pagdating ng college review na lang siya para makapagfocus na sa mga higher mathematics gaya ng calculus. Pansin ko talaga pag mga 1st year at 2nd year walang kaalam-alam or kahit man lang background sa mga mathematics ang mga student kahit mag-3rd year na di pa din alam kung paano magsolve ng isang simpleng equation.
  • borge543borge543 Member PExer
    Pag sa engineering walang bagsak, matalino yun :lol:. Minsan ka lang makakakita ng eng stud na walang failed.
  • Carl MaloneCarl Malone Saber Rattler PExer
    Dacs, salamat at tumupad ka sa ‘yong pangako. :)
    Dacs wrote: »
    As promised :)

    The technical courses aren't really a necessity to become proficient in engineering (but a whole plus to have those skills overall).

    The other issues have something to do with the overall status of our basic education, which is sorely lacking.

    I think the model of science HS are quite OK since not everyone wants to become an engineer (or scientist). Those schools cater for those who do.

    The ‘technical’ subjects might not be absolutely necessary, but I would rather that we make it easier for students by arming them early, i.e., for those who have the inclination or aptitude for science or engineering courses. Nakakaawa kasi sila pagtungtong nila sa eng’g or other technical courses. Take for instance a guy who hasn’t handled or even seen/touched equipment/machines that you will encounter in the Machine shop subject. The lack of confidence in handling such equipment has implications to that individual’s safety during laboratory class. Sa Physics or Chem lab, argabyado ‘ung mga estudyante na first time pa lang makakahawak ng mga lab instruments. Meron pa dyan takot humawak o magkabit ng mga measuring devices kasi baka daw masira at pagbabayarin ‘yun group nila. Tinatawanan lang sila ng mga marurunong. Pangit tignan eh, hindi magandang experience. Kung ako’y magulang, ayaw kong sapitin ‘yan ng aking anak.

    In my case wala gaano problema, kasi elementary pa lang, may drafting, woodworking, electrical shop at metal crafting kami nuon. By high school may drafting, automotive, at practical electricity and electronics kami.

    Indeed, not everyone is meant or intends to be an engineer or scientist. That is why I suggest that the ‘technical’ subjects be made optional or elective.

    Dacs wrote: »
    Very much true.

    But on the other hand, I can see the advantage of academic "purists" teaching the n00bs in the academe since some people in the industry (like me) tend to have biases in the practice.

    I'm afraid that I may pass those to my students if I were to teach.

    I suppose a balanced mix should do the trick.

    Tama ka dyan Dacs. Balanced mix. Balance between theory and application. It seems that there is too much time given to, or stress (?) on, the theoretical or science or mathematical aspect as opposed to their consolidation and application. Ipaubaya na natin ‘yung theory and discovery sa mga physicists and chemists and mathematicians. If you have few or no practicing engineers in your faculty, the curriculum content and manner of teaching become static and stale. Tuloy nabubulok at mapagiiwanan tayo ng ibang bansa in terms engineering and technology!
    Dacs wrote: »
    Very much true.

    But I suppose we're just as hypocrites (in the industry) to claim otherwise. We, after all, strive to get the fattest paycheck :lol:

    Nothing wrong with that line of thinking, as long as you can cope up with the challenges (read: lots of math and science) that go along with it.

    I find nothing wrong in one desiring to be a big money earner. :bop: The engineers I found 'successful', if you mean those who rose to the important managerial/corporate positions with BIG pay or those who became financially independent entrepreneurs, were NOT actually those who were dean's listers or latin-honor graduates. They were that 'successful' because of their character, sincerity and goal-driven personality.

    Don't get me wrong though, there are other measures or definitions of success. The universe does not require us to conform to any one of them.
    Dacs wrote: »
    To close, I think we have to realize that not everyone has the aptitude to take on match/science-inclined courses, much the same way as I'd surely fail in social sciences :lol:

    Very true Dacs. I shudder to think if everyone is of the similar aptitudes! *okay*
  • Carl MaloneCarl Malone Saber Rattler PExer
    Salamat zgmf_x20A!
    zgmf_x20A wrote: »
    para sa akin mali yung norm na "normal" yung pagbagsak ng isang estudyante. parang lumalabas kasi na okay ang bumagsak at weird ka kung pasado or mataas yung grades mo sa engineering.

    Agree, 110%! Hindi okay sa estudyante at hindi rin okay sa magulang or du'n sa nagpapaaral sa 'yo.
    zgmf_x20A wrote: »
    although some of my friends in college pag tinanong ko bakit ka nag ece at ang sagot nila kasi daw madali yung pera sa ece at madali kang makakapag-abroad. nasabi ko lang sa sarili ko na parang ang babaw naman nung dahilan. sila kasi yung nakikita kong nahihirapan talaga sa mga subjects so parang lumalabas hindi nila talaga gusto yung ece they just go with the flow na okay yung ece kaya ece na lang ako sa college.

    'Yan nga ang ibig kong sabihin eh. Wala sa puso kaya mababaw. Isang dahilan: Ang mga eskwela natin sa elementarya at high school ay may pagkukulang. They should design tests and curricula that are able to detect and gauge the students aptitudes, temperament and inclinations.

    [QUOTE=zgmf_x20A;48471
    433] naexperience ko din yung mga tanong na "nagbaba ba ng passsing si sir/ma'am?". lumalabas na umaasa ka na magbaba ng grades ang prof para makapasa. (guilty ako dito :)) [/QUOTE]

    Halos lahat guilty, palagay ko. ;)
    zgmf_x20A wrote: »
    yung mga gusto kong magturo yung mga profs na may actual experience sa actual working environment yung tipong nagwork muna sa ece field before magturo. they can provide practical things regarding kung ano talaga yung kailangan mong matutuhan.

    Tama ka na naman diyan. Sayang naman 'un binayad sa tuition at panahon at pagod ng magaaral kung hindi magkakaganyan.
«134567

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file