I don't believe there is a right or wrong answer as to what the ratio should be that is offered. I believe that it is solely dependent on what ones overlying goal is upon completion of their degree.

Sure, NJIT can offer more practical courses that will help in industry. However, I believe, they offer a lot of classes that provide SKILLS as opposed to practical knowledge that is needed in the medical device industry. Actually knowing the skills is more important since a lot of the practical knowledge such as FDA regulations, Product Lifecycle Management, Design Controls, etc, is learned on the job. However, that is not to take away from the fact that knowing this information prior to entering the industry is highly valuable.

I find that the MS courses are more so directed toward moving students into industry whereas undergraduate is based on theoretical knowledge and trying to set students up for a Ph.D. If the school is open to reforming the curriculum, it should start at the undergraduate level and letting students pick more courses that they are interested in instead of having a set curriculum in place just as the MS degree offers. By doing that, this ratio of practical to academic wouldn't be an issue.

I would like to see more professors speak to their industry experience more as opposed to their research interest. From what I have seen, a lot of professors have worked in industry, yet as students we know more about their lab and what research field they are interested in. I think having professors discuss topics on their personal industry experience will provide some practical knowledge that many students can walk away with.

I think the 3 out of 10 ratio for practical classes versus 7 out of 10 for academic classes is perfect. The student will pick up and learn things on the job and just needs a few classes to get him or her started. The student will never get the academic classes again so I think its a good idea for the majority of the classes be academic. There is a place for the practical classes. I value and appreciate them but, they are practical and teach things that reflect stuff in industry. The student will have the next 20-40 years in industry doing a career where they can pick this up. They only have 7 out of 10 classes here to pick up the academic coursework that might apply to a wider range of jobs and life scenarios.

The 3:7 ratio of practical classes to academic classes feels as though it is a missed opportunity; however, it could be worse. I'll start by saying that I feel as though this ratio should be 1:1 or at least 4:6 or 6:4. This is because while academics are important, it is not going to prepare anyone for the actual job market. It is practically known that employers value a recipient's experience in a field as opposed to his or her supposed knowledge. Experience is simply, in my opinion, an easier merit to base a recipient's skill on as opposed to knowledge the recipient may or may not remember from previous courses. This is why out of the 10 courses required to get an MS, I feel that the university should require one or two "practical" courses to graduate. I can only see this helping the students because although learning the theories behind a subject is important it will not truly stick unless the knowledge is applied in actual situations.

Being a current undergraduate student at NJIT, I believe there should be more practical courses implemented not only at a graduate level but also at an undergraduate level. Most classes that I have taken have been heavy knowledge based. While yes, this helps provide a foundation of knowledge, it does not tell me what to do with it. After taking many of these courses, I am left wondering where and how will I ever apply this information. One way to fix this is by incorporating lessons about practicality of the learned information throughout the course. This would allow students to connect the dots and understand the lectures from a large perspective. When classes do not tend to be practical, students learn the information enough to do well on exams. However, after the exam most students tend to forget or not care about what they have learned. To me, this is one of the biggest flaws in the educational system. Practical classes provide us students with a medium to test our knowledge in a useful and pragmatic way.

I think it is a 70:30 is perfect, because Biomedical engineering is a very diverse field their is a so much course work that undergrad in BME is not good enough. As an undergrad I experienced orthopedic medical device Master course and I think that course should be offer as undergrad because the last 25% of the course will teach the undergrad about the industry so that course is best for undergrad to give them the idea what to expect. Other than that I think NJIT undergrad curriculum is solid(Exclude unnecessary electives) It actually prepare the student's from the base meaning focus on conceptual understanding and also it gives a lot of opportunity to student's for hands on experience for example FED 101, BME385 and etc. The only problem is they can't cover everything in undergrad because as I said earlier BME is really wide filed so they try to focus more deep as much as possible in masters and again it all depend on students so some don't take this kind of courses in the master which actually teach them about the industry. What I strongly suggest is they should make these 3 courses mandatory for master non-thesis to maintain that 70/30 ratio.

I currently work in the industry as a manufacturing engineer and I am primarily focused on Design Control. Before starting this job, I had very little understanding of the industry. When I first started, my coworkers and management tossed around words like validation, verification, design control, DMR, DHF all the time and I had to pick up on concepts and ask MANY questions. Most of my day-to day responsibilities and how to execute them I learned on the job. I think it would have been very beneficial to have some understanding of design control before entering the industry.
I learned HOW to do my job when I got there, but everyday I am still trying to uncover the WHY. What does the FDA mandate that makes the company structure processes/procedures the way they do?
I don’t believe that that 30/70 is a horrible ratio at a Masters level but I do think that NJIT should 1) increase the number of “practical” courses for undergrads 2) challenge more professors other than Dr. Simon to develop "practical" courses and 3) incorporate “practical” lessons within current curriculums.
My undergrad and graduate career has been full of technical design projects, group projects, research and technical writing. I think it would be a great for students to get more exposure to industry related projects such as stepping through the design control process.

In agreeance with puneet and hc225, I personally believe that there is not enough practical courses available at NJIT for both undergraduates/ graduates alike to pursue. Currently, as Dr. Simon states, there are only his 3 online courses that really focus in on medical device terminology and regulations which is really only enough to get a small(yet extremely useful) taste of what industry has to offer. I propose, at least for the graduate level courses, that there should be many more practical options for students to peruse. The way the course selection stands now, the course load tailors more towards academia/ research as a career rather than a smooth transition into industry. By having a greater number of practical courses available, depending on the particular students ambition to go into other industry or academia, they can effectively tailor their course load most effectively to suite their life’s goals and ambitions.

If I were to set rough course selection guidelines, I would mandate every student take at least 3 practical courses, 3 academic courses, and then the remaining 4 courses tailored to their desired career path in either academia or industry.

I think that there should be a 50-50 ratio with practical learning and academic learning. I believe that there is importance in both because that’s how real-life learning works. It is important to understand basic principles in the classroom but it is also important to learn how to properly apply these principles in a lab setting. I think it’s a good thing to learn a lot about the different facets of engineering in different ways. Also, I think it’s important to do practical applications as well because it helps in remembering the material better and there are some lessons that can be learned through it.

My personal opinion is 60-40 of academic and practical would be a better option. Of course we need a practical approach of the knowledge which we gain. But, this is the place where we are going to study and after this school education we are going to apply the stuff which we studied here. So its better to learn as much as possible. Practical application of 40 would gives you the preliminary experience for working in a challenging environment. I feel this would be a good ration for a Master's Program.

Personally, I do believe practical knowledge is essential in order to learn the various tasks required in the job market as a BME, but informational classes are just as necessary. Informational classes detail the information that needs to be learned, while practical classes give you a way to apply that information, which strengthens the understanding of the material. Personally, I am a visual and tactile learner, so I am better off in a practical set classroom. However, not everyone functions the same way I do. A lot of people are auditory and visual learners, meaning they learn best from lectures and powerpoint slides. So the ratio of practical classes to informational classes does seem reasonable. Everyone has a different learning style, and each class provides them an opportunity to discover it themselves. Practical classes reinforce already learned knowledge from informational classes. As an undergraduate student, I have trouble with classes that are solely informational. Classes that are both informational and practical has the best outcome in terms of grades for me, and this is reasonably expected.

In my personal experience, the theoretical courses are essential during undergraduate courses. These courses usually also have a lab component with hands-on learning. However, once students get to higher education it is essential to have a more balanced ratio. Having a 50/50 ratio of practical and informational courses would prepare students for the "real" world. Employers would prefer a candidate with a wealth of knowledge in both aspects. By understanding both the science of body systems and the hands-on engineering, a biomedical student could become a true biomedical engineer.

I agree with Puneet, hc55, akashranpura, and dag 56 that NJIT should provide and require practical courses for graduate students. It is important to have a strong academic foundation and skillset for students to apply these concepts in industry as ec53 mentioned. I think 70/30 is a reasonable ratio for undergrads since they are still creating an academic foundation and 60/40 for grad students since they are swiftly approaching the job market. Kak33 also made a good point that professors should incorporate more practical lessons within the curriculum. I have an MS and an MBA and here I am at NJIT taking a course because my current education didn’t prepare me for responsibilities I have in my current role. It’s critical to have a solid academic foundation, but practical courses will allow the students to understand how to use it.

I feel like you can not call it a 70/30 based off that this is the only course that i know of that is set up this way. Also as a current undergraduate student there is not offere of these practical classes. I do believe that BMEs specifically are well know for their diversity and large range of knowledge, but I do not believe that college has prepared me for my job any better than High School did. MY job has required a minimal amount of medical or engineering knowledge but rather skills that are very specific to the job. WHen I interviewed for my job my boss directly stated that the hardest part about breaking into the work-force is realizing that you have learned very little to prepare you for this job. I believe that current set up only really prepares students to do research and try to develop new ideas. This is a great form of education but it needs to be seen that it is not the only form. We should be educated to be able to have a job.

I feel that practical courses are far more important than informational courses at a higher, graduate level. Undergraduate courses should be informational as they lay down a foundation. Once the graduate level is reached, courses should be specific and targeted towards advancing one's career. I would like a 1 to 1 ratio ideally.

Practical courses do fall short to informational courses when research or academia is the goal of the student. For professionals and those looking to go into industry, practical courses are perhaps the most important. For that reason, a wide variety of both should be present, and each student should have their own mix in order to decide for themselves.