I think in reality they are both important. 70:30 seems a fair proportion for me in terms of studying both academic skills enough for basically knowing where I am in the overall knowledge network of the BME-related subjects and practical ones for dealing with the real industry world. But on campus I do admit they tends to focus more on the academic aspects of the knowledge probably under the influence of a traditional concept of learning. People including the course administrators at NJIT may always overestimate the difficulty of learning in adequate amount of theories and principles to grasp a certain discipline, and underestimate the difficulty of the student stepping out the campus and searching for a suitable job without any work experience. So I think, there are indeed needs for making more room for practical courses that benefit students to a greater extent.

I don't think that that is a good ratio at all. I think that the students should be able to receive an education that consists of an even number of academic courses and practical courses rather than an education where one outweighs the other. While academic courses provide you with the background information that you need, it won't be useful when it comes to applying for jobs if you do not know how to apply that information to the real world. I know most jobs do provide training on site but they would much rather hire someone who already has hands-on experience working with an instrument over someone who just knows the science behind the technique. Practical courses allow students to gain valuable experiences that they can list on their resumes or talk about at interviews.

My opinion is that this is not a good ratio. I agree that informational courses are important and necessary for the career, but ultimately, it does not give you the skills recruiters are looking for. the background information gives us the foundation but having practical courses that will actually teach me skills I can add in my resume will stand out and serve more in a job. Students often focus just on learning theory and keeping the highest GPA, however, when I have asked recruiters for their advice they all agree that what they are looking for is technical skills. Eventually, the GPA does not matter to them, they focus on what a candidate's practical experience. To me, the ration should be more of 60:40. The theory does teach us to develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills, but increasing the number of practical courses can certainly help students understand what their career will actually be about, and provide them with essential skills for a job.

In my opinion, the ratio of practical vs. academic courses should be equal in the undergraduate program. I understand why you are suggesting practical should be higher proportion compared to academic courses. However, I think when both courses are waged equal then students will learn both the real world and theory knowledge. After high school, college education plays an important role in our life. If one was provided with more practical courses and real-world experience, then I think a person would be unaware of its theories, understanding of things and its reasons. I feel like receiving an academic conception, we are able to teach and explain to the people around us on why things work and how. Also, the practical knowledge is as much important because without experiencing the real world fieldwork, it is very challenging finding a place in the industry. Certain things are only learned when we do it by ourselves. So, therefore, I think both courses should be equal which can help us succeed in the industry.

I do not agree. I think once we are in our masters we should take more practical courses. We do still need academic courses but we need more than 3 practical courses. Once in the real world, practical courses may be more useful than academic courses. You may know all the knowledge behind biology, chemistry and physiology but if you do not know how to use it in a practical setting you may be lost if you get a job in industry. For me I believe it is more useful to know how to work in the industry before going into it. I will be completely overwhelmed if I have to go into a profession and have to learn how to use my knowledge practically from scratch.

Until this course I had no idea what I would be doing in the real world because I was not told about professions in industry. I only knew about academic jobs and that was never an option for me. I believe this course and courses like it are very helpful for student especially ones like myself who don't see themselves as teachers or researchers. Through this course I will learn what is going to be wanted from me when I do start working in the industry. I will learn what needs to be done and how it should be done. I will now not be overwhelmed when I start working because I already know what to expect and what is expected of me as an engineer.

I believe there should be more than just 3 practical courses for this program to be ready for the industry. Practical courses help with having a better understanding of what to do in the industry, how to handle the position, what to do in these positions, and what different kind of positions are in the industry. Academic courses are also important and there should be a higher percentage of courses in that area, but practical courses should be increased to more than just 3. I believe having more access to practical courses will help benefit students in being prepared when they go out and look for jobs. Academic courses definitely build a better foundation for the future but practical courses are what get you started in the industry.
Having more practical courses helps students not to feel like they’re entering a new place and finding themselves again to see what they like. Even though biomedical engineering is a broad industry, there are many academic courses that allow you to choose which industry you would prefer to go into, and you have many more options in these courses to pick from. The academic courses are broken down into different concentrations to help you figure out which one you want to go into, but you do not have the same flexibility in the practical courses. I believe the NJIT curriculum is good the way it is because the fact that it should require you to take at least one practical course to help the students succeed in the industry better. I also believe it shouldn’t be considered an elective because you learn valuable material that can be applied anywhere in the biomedical engineering industry.

A mix is definitely an necessity, but I think the courses cater more towards different end goals. In my opinion those practical courses teach you skills that will be more beneficial if you want to go into industry and the academic courses teach you more about things that would help when doing research in a lab. Lets compare two classes, this one and a academics based one, lets say an anatomy class. If I want to go into industry and create a device to help treat pain it is going to be far more useful to me to know the regulations I will have to work around for the device than to know the exact parts of the body. But if I want to do research to try and understand what exactly is the cause of the pain then then an anatomy class will help me understand the function of the body so I can conduct the research.

So I ask you guys, should there be identifiers to show which classes are academic or practical for people who want to go into industry versus academia?

To cjm64's question, absolutely yes. The problem is that NJIT requires most courses you take, leaving it almost useless. NJIT has way too many courses that aren't useful for those looking to go to into industry.

Does anyone else believe that NJIT should have an academic vs an industry track with the subdivisions of the ones we currently have?

I feel like we've taken many courses over and over again (ex. 5 different physics classes that teach almost the same thing). Many of which, if we're being honest, has been mostly forgotten. We realistically hold onto snippets of information from the 4+ years it takes to graduate. When applying for jobs, the relevant coursework section is a tiny portion of your resume. The majority is skills and projects you've done. Frankly, we're lucky that capstone is two semesters, many other majors only have one! In my opinion we should have two years of capstone, not necessarily with the same project/team, but it'd be more useful. Of course we should have the basic courses of physiology, chemistry, math, and physics. The problem is when we have tracks that barely have us utilizing these skills. I wholly disagree with the idea of making a ratio between theoretical and practical solely because everyone has different interests. First year students should get a job in a lab to get academia experience. Then, if they don't like it, when they choose tracks second year they can go into a industry based track. Vice versa if they like it. More tracks along with more allowance on personalizing their education would allow students to enjoy what they're learning not just be forced by requirements. Of course requirements would still be in each track but students would appreciate the diversity. Individualized learning under the umbrella of certain necessary classes would be much more preferable to the system now.

Courses offered by NJIT are mostly informative and knowledge based. Honestly, I don't mind that it is not all skill based. I think it is fair to pay to receive knowledge, but I wouldn't think it is worth it to pay to be working practically, in turn it makes sense to get paid for it. Therefore, getting into research, getting internships, etc are good ways to get practical skills and experience to land you an actual job, while getting paid (even if it's unpaid at least you aren't paying a grand like you do for other courses). It also expands your field of horizon as you're not stuck in NJIT to receive all the skills and knowledge you need to get a job. It forces you to move around and challenge yourself by taking on more than just classes.

The point jr377 makes is one that resonates with me greatly. Within my own time in undergraduate BME studies at NJIT, there come to mind 3-4 classes (within the biomechanics concentration specifically) that were just repeats of elementary physics or simple applications of concepts repeated constantly from class to class. There are only so many times you can take the same information being repackaged under another course name before you start to wonder the practicality of paying for information that you've technically already received. It would truly benefit the students as well as NJIT's own reputation if they were to include more project/team based classes or in other words, classes that gave useful skills. I understand the need to have more informational classes within the first year or two of an undergraduate degree or during the first semester or so of a masters: it is completely necessary to have a solid foundation to build off of. However, going with the analogy, if you spend all of your time building the foundation with no actual building to show for it, how useful was all that prep work? In other words, having a solid foundation is fine, but doing only preparation and core information skills without practical skills does not set up a student well for industry. As many can attest, the most common thought when going through industry is that what you learned in school did not prepare you for what you are doing within your job. With all that in mind, I think it would be best to have a more even split of informational classes and practical classes, something like 60/40 or 50/50 (skills/informational).

As many have mentioned (jr377 in particular went into detail), I believe that students should be given the chance to tailor their degree to the ratio they believe will help the reach their end goal. Of course, students will have the help of experienced advisors to navigate through which classes makes sense to complete their degree. This way a student who already gains practical experience by working at a lab or BME company can choose to take more informational classes to balance their skills. The same is also true for students who are not able to gain practical experience otherwise and can choose to take courses that are structured like this one. I thought it would especially be helpful if we had time to do more projects so that we can take on a few of the roles that interest us so that we can really get a feel for the tasks and responsibilities.
While it may not be necessary to have it be an official "track" or division within the current ones offered, it would certainly be beneficial for students to have the option to take more practical classes if they want.

While having a more even split between practical and informational courses sounds amazing, with the amount of information we as BME students have to learn, it would not work without some reform to the curriculum. For example, we take half of hour undergraduate careers doing introductory courses and decide which track we want to follow. If the curriculum was changed so that we chose our track at the end of our freshman year and had to take the corresponding science courses based on that, then it would be more feasible. For example, if we chose biomaterials for out track, we would then take the chemistry courses and physics courses that we need rather than taking all the chemistry courses and both physics one and two only to never use a majority of what we learned from those courses. This would not only narrow down the amount of courses we need to take as undergraduates, but it would give us another full year to prepare ourselves both informationally as well as practically in order to succeed in the real world.

I think that the ratio definitely needs to be more balanced, especially for MS students. As undergrads, we definitely get most, if not all, academic based courses. I feel that since undergrad provides such an academic heavy education, graduate school should add focus on the practical side of the field. Working in the industry makes you realize that although academics is important, practical knowledge, critical thinking and hands-on experience is much more helpful to succeeding in the field.

I believe there should be 50:50 ratio of practical and academic courses throughout the degree program. You can read as much as you want about running an instrument but until you actually run it, you’re not proficient enough. You could read as much as you want about lifting weights or swimming but until you actually do it, you wouldn’t grasp it completely. There has to be a balance in obtaining theoretical and practical knowledge. One should not outweigh the other. Academic education gives you deeper understanding of the concepts whereas practical education comes through the act of doing. There are things you can’t learn without actually doing it.