I usually decide if a ratio of this sort is acceptable based on its quantification. For example, the value of a ratio of 10:0 is 10*0=0, a ratio of 9:1 is 9, 8:2 is 16, 7:3 is 21, 6:4 is 24, and 5:5 is 25, so the higher the value, the more equality there is among both types of courses. I think this quantification rule is applicable since both types of courses are essential upon graduation, and having equal exposure to both allows for better understanding of how the two can be conjugated. Academic courses can guide a researcher to synthesize a profitable product, but without taking any practical courses, that researcher won't know the first step to launching their product to market, meaning that they will have to share their success with middle men in the best case scenario. Academic classes are necessary in determining if a student has the intellectual capacity to understand what they will be working with on a molecular level. Academic classes however, should not be prioritized over practical courses, mainly because no employer is going to expect you to know what a mitochondria is a few years after graduation. Knowing how to overcome FDA regulations and how to assemble/maintain a project team would be much more impressive when considering hiring a candidate. Practical courses on the other hand, may seem like a cakewalk even for individuals who have never worked towards a degree. This highlights the importance of academic courses because they can be seen as initiations into the biotech/medical device field that introduce the disciplinary aspects of pursuing such a career. Therefore I personally believe that a 5:5 ratio is ideal.

I do not like the idea that the school decides the ratio. Especially, once you are done with undergraduate studies you are more aware of what you would like to do with your degree. Therefore, if one desires more practical courses one should be able to take those courses over informational courses and vice versa. For example, I am currently pursuing a BME Ph.d at NJIT. Therefore, it would have been more beneficial for me if I was able to take more informational courses since the courses would have been pivotal in preparing me to pursue Ph.d level work. However, if one is coming from industry and pursuing a master degree they will significantly benefit more if they learn industry-related subjects which they can directly apply it to industry. Also, from a company's perspective as well they would like students to take practical courses so one will be able to apply the skills they learn directly towards industry once they are done. In addition, higher-level education should be a place where one is able to take relevant courses to increase there understanding of a field. Especially at a graduate level, one should take relevant courses which will help them develop skills which are applicable to one's interest. For master or Ph.D students in the industry did the informational classes help you towards your industry jobs or would you say that it was informative but not practical? 

Hello,

I am a master's student following biomedical instrumentation track and have chosen thesis option. As of practical vs informational courses I think for masters student it is more important to learn about the practical side. Mostly in undergrad we learn a little bit of every information. According to me master's is for get more knowledge about something specific rather than just beating around the bush. Personally I have taken few practical classes and with my thesis I think I will be ready to enter the industry and learn more about the real work rather than just studying about the topic. If you can't apply the knowledge you have gained, it is as good as wasting your time and money in school. 

I think that practical and informational courses should be given 40:60 ratio rather providing very little weightage to practical courses. As practical course provides hands on training to those who work after study. Informational courses are more worthy for those who want their desired path in academia side. There is a good match of learning obtained through practical course which is helpful for those who get easy start of job, without blindfold. Hence we must use both theoretical and practical knowledge in appropriate manner in the outside world.

Personally I feel the ratio should have been 5:5 as a master's student we already have gone through the basics of Biomedical Engineering in the bachelor's degree and most of us would want to work in the industry and not do Ph.D. So it is essential to have the balance in terms of the courses that should be offered also, I feel the current course structure is good for the people who want to continue studying.
There should be more courses that are practical so that people who are interested will take them and will be industry ready once they are out of college.

In my opinion the ratio of informational and practical courses should be 50:50 at a graduate level since the theoretical knowledge has been majorly covered in the undergraduate courses and master's being at an advanced level should help us learn about the practical experiences in the industry or even when one wants to continue studying further in order to apply the knowledge gained in a practical lab environment along with advanced level of the informational courses. Also, there should be a clear way to understand which courses would actually lead you to a practical experience that would be beneficial in the industry and which courses will help in the academic field.

It should depend on the profession the student is aiming for. For someone planning to go the PHD route, he/she should focus more on informational courses to build a stronger academic base to supplement their research. In that case, the 7:3 informational to practical course ratio should suffice. While some fundamentals were established in undergrad, I also see the importance of focusing on informational courses that teach you different software like SAS/R, LabView and Creo. Having BME MS students take at least 7 informational courses will also fill in any gaps for students with a different undergrad background. Even so, I think there should be more practical courses available for MS students who are interested in industry. They can provide more insight on what is to be expected when working at any company, the different departments that make up the company, and the device development to market process in industry. It can also give MS students is clearer idea of which department they should apply for.

As someone working in industry, I think that a student who is fresh out of school and looking to go into industry needs to have at least one of these courses under their belt. The 70/30 ratio would do well to prepare students, however since none of these classes are mandatory many student might not take any. Therefore, I think all graduate students should take at least one if they are not already working in industry. Design controls are such an important part (required by law) of medical devices, so these practical courses really prepare students and make their resumes stand out more.

Academics is academics. Industry is industry.
Definitely there is a practical learning curve to be traversed when one leaves academia and enters industry.
The 7/10 ratio works well. Coops and internships can also help bridge the difference.
However, an academic versus industry perspective does not quite encompass the whole range of experiences.  While working in industry an employee role can be very narrow an all consuming.
Leaving little time to get the big picture indicating the different aspects of industry. 
Also, employers may not really be very interested in teaching an employee about the business as a whole. Since their primary interest is to leverage productivity out of an employee in a specific role.
At the grad level there is more option for choosing a suite of courses that really align with ones decided area of interest. Unlike the under graduate experience of simply taking courses to fulfill degree requirement.  

I believe the ratio should be 50:50 if not 60:40, where the former being the practical course and the latter being the informational course. I believe it is very important for graduate students to have more knowledge towards the practical side because when we are out of college and out there in the field, we will be mostly involved with all the practical aspects and even if someone is bit weak on the academia side, they do provide some initial training during the initial days.  So I believe it should be at least 50:50

It also depends upon the goal of the student and the path which he/she wants to take once he/she graduates if one wants to go towards research/Ph.D. side then I guess 30:70 would be okay but if one wants to go towards industry/job then it should be at least 50:50.

Personally, I tend to agree with the respondents who advocate for close to a 50-50 split in practical vs. informational courses.  Academically, most of the Master's coursework repeats science that was studied at the undergraduate level.  These courses are very beneficial to me, because I'm so far removed from my undergraduate days, but if this was directly following my college graduation, it would be redundant.  Conversely, the practical courses are a godsend.  I have repeatedly said to myself, "Dang, how I come didn't know this 10 years ago?"  For example, I failed in an entrepreneurial effort to develop a more innovative approach to dialysis.  We had some good elements, but frankly, I didn't know nuthin' compared to what I gleaned from just ONE course on the biotechnology industry and one week in a medical device class.  From a technical standpoint, prospective investors were more concerned that we understood what we doing and were committed to delivering a viable commercial product.  They were NOT interested in getting a treatise on kidney physiology or the etiology of diabetes. Things that an NIH review panel cares about, investors could give two cents about!  Practical coursework brings our ideas to live and give meaning to the science that many of talented professors omitted.

@prateekch18

I agree with you about more emphasis on practical coursework.  Moreover, specifically in the Information Technology field, there are plethora of programs where even with just a high school diploma or GED, an individual with untapped talent can enroll in a WIOA program, and after anywhere from six weeks to nine months, they can join an apprenticeship program then entry level job upwards of $50,000 and sometimes more.  I will always prefer academic rigor that comes with college and graduate work, and the social experience is a plus.  I just want to make the case that it is definitely POSSIBLE to develop programs more geared to practical work experience and excellence and that existing models to copy from are out there.

When I was high school, I was enrolled in a summer premed program at Wright State University in Dayton, OH, and one of presenters was a doctor and biomedical engineer, and I'll never forget him saying, "If you try to do both you'll be in school forever."  By in large, he was right, the career and professional tracks are different. Now, some 20+ years later, the emergence of genomics, robotics and telemedicine are now being brought together.  The bigger problem, however, was that the cool things we did over the summer resembled nothing I experienced in undergrad, so I totally lost interest in biomedical engineering until recently as technology increasingly intersects with medical research and treatment.

I believe there is no right way to do it, my idea is making 2 different programs were the Student can choses the track they are interested in. For my self I am a practical person and I still wish that all the classes are practical, but I know that will not build my base knowledge the right way.

one more thing to add, when I graduated from my College I asked the professors to change the courses for the program to meet the field needs, his response was "the University program is build to cover all the basic requirements for students to build there knowledge and whatever they want to learn after -which they should- it will be easy for them to learn because they had the right base" 

In all honesty, I think it should depend on what the student prefers and on what will best supplement their education. Some students have already had a lot of experience in purely academic classes from undergrad, and require less introductory courses into such. For example, I went to NJIT for undergrad and many of the graduate-level courses teach similar if not the same material (albeit in different fashions). For graduate students who are new to the field of biomedical engineering, these courses are great and should make up a larger portion of the classes they take. For students who already have a background in biomedical engineering, I think taking more courses such as this one is essential for creating more well-rounded engineers.  It also depends on the student's experience. Some graduate students have worked in industry prior to returning to grad school and may already be familiar with the subjects taught in this class. Other students (such as myself) have only just graduated undergrad and are unfamiliar with academia and industry, making classes such as this essential for their growth and understanding of their future careers. 

So in short, determining a ratio of which classes to take depends on the student, their background, and their interests. There is no clear cut path that will be useful for everyone. 

Posted by: @dh239

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.

On the other hand, perhaps having the tidbit of practical knowledge could make someone an even better academic?