Monday, January 09, 2006

Interesting Assignment

Based on a research given to us, one of my profs got us do a 5-10 page assignment in the first week and it is due the following monday. Unfortunately, based on the number of msn messages I recieved, no one understood what to do because the instructions are very unclear. I'm also unsure so here's what I did

1-2 pages of summarizing/regurgitating this paper
1 page talking about the positives of the paper
The rest of the time spent dissing the curriculum

To add insult to injury, I've been given this exact same assignment in another CHBE class. Here are the supposed instructions from our prof."To all students who are taking both 444&456:
For HW1: you prepare two reports, one for 444(emphasizing mass
transfer operations) and one for 456 emphasizing Chemical/
Biochemical Reactors."

Unfortunately due to the nature of the paper, I don’t see how can write about mass transfer or reactors. In the end, I’m basically going to be handing in the same thing twice. Hopefully the TAs are marking this and I hope there are two sets of TAs.

Anywhose, here’s the non mindless pap from my paper.





The overall principle behind system theory and mathematical modeling is promising. Normally, when a student takes a variety of courses, it may be difficult for the student to understand the “big picture” or how each course is relevant to his studies. This problem is especially prevalent in first year given the somewhat eclectic curriculum, (although the eclectic nature is a necessary prelude for second year because a student must choose a specialty from a wide range of options). System theory and mathematical modeling supposedly remedies this problem by unifying the course material emphasizing laws governing the rates of these processes and its dependence upon state variables. With these tools, the student will then be able to visualize the “big picture” easily along with any interactions between these processes and the effects resulting from these interactions. Therefore, a student might develop a greater appreciation for process X because it eventually leads to product Y. System theory and mathematical modeling is also practical, because in industry a process will usually consist of more than one or two unit operations. Whereas in the traditional approach to teaching, usually only one or two unit operations are examined at a time in a question.

However in the paper, a single sentence demonstrates the folly and specious reasoning behind the whole undergraduate engineering curriculum: “The basic principles of system theory can either be integrated into this course or may be taught in a separate course”. It’s obvious that the people on the accreditation board have never heard of the law of diminishing laws which states: “When one of the factors of production is held fixed in supply, successive additions of the other factors will lead to an increase in returns up to a point, but beyond this point returns will diminish”. For this situation, the fixed production factor is time (4-5 years), the other factors are lecture materials and the return is the amount that the student has learnt. The time range of four to five years could possibly be increased, but that would lead to another slew of problems (ie., an even more crippling student debt) beyond the scope of this essay. Professors and accreditation figure more materials should be taught in order to make engineers more knowledgeable. In reality, the point of diminishing returns likely occurs around the 9-12 UBC credits per term. Afterwards, the goal and mindset merely “learn how to pass the test instead of actually learning the material”. Using a real life example, in CHBE 242, students that pass the course may be able to calculate the efficiency of a Rankine cycle, but are usually unable explain what the second law of thermodynamics is. In essence, the student is learning how to solve a very specific theoretical problem (Rankine cycle) instead of learning of the general idea that is more applicable for future work (2nd law of thermo). It is also not uncommon for students to quickly forget most of what they have learnt once the examination period is over (as one of the lab TAs once aptly stated “I took a lot of math courses as an undergrad, but I still have no idea clue what a 2nd order differential equation is”.)

Another problem is that professors tend be out of touch with their students; in order to receive their PhD, a professor must have a high level of academic achievement, a level which most undergraduates will never hope to achieve. To put it bluntly, this situation is akin to a genius teaching calculus to mentally handicapped students without being sensitive to their genetic shortcomings.

The law of diminishing returns does not even account for physiological and psychological stress associated with the heavy course loads. The burden of the course load is especially felt around midterm and final examination time. The stress only pushes the student closer towards the mindset of “of learning how to pass the test instead of actually learning the material”. There is also the problem with the never ending shuffle of professors in the department as occasionally a new professor will have unrealistic expectations (ie. the class has only learnt about bananas. The new professor expects us to be well versed in apples by now).


Integration of system theory and mathematical modeling into the current curriculum would be challenging because it is unlikely any current courses or materials will be jettisoned. This compounds the diminishing returns problems because one of two scenarios may occur. In the first scenario, a new course is created and for obvious reasons, students will meet this change with minimal enthusiasm. In the second scenario, the work load for one course increases therefore increasing the likelihood that the student will be unable to pass this course. Of course, there is also the inevitable trial and error which negatively impacts the quality of education that the students receive.
If it is not obvious most of these criticisms are more about the curriculum rather than of any particular professor (whose flexibility is greatly limited by the accreditation board and universities).

Stylistic wise, the paper is alright although some sections could be stated more succinctly (this especially applies in the case of quotations).

posted by Edward @ 3:17 AM