I agree with some others who claim that the ratio of practical to informational courses should be dependent on the goals of the student. Obviously, if someone would like to one day go into industry, they should take more practical courses as this would directly help them in the industry. On the other hand, someone who hopes to go into academia would want to take more informational courses. That being said, I believe it is important for some diversity in terms of all students taking some practical and some informational courses regardless of their goals.
Developing off of what Dr. Simon previously asked about practical knowledge being useful in academia, I know this to be true from previous experience. From research that I have done, I know that informational courses are very useful for connecting topics and discovering new things. However, plenty of those in academia may also have side projects that work in relation to industry. When I worked in a research lab, the information learned through practical courses was used to create a product that could be brought over into industry. I think that informational courses would provide the knowledge needed to come up with ideas. On the other hand, practical courses would give insight on how to best go about a project or a specific task.
I think a good comparison would be to “book smarts” versus “street smarts”. Obviously, both have their merits, but in the end, a combination of both would be best. After all, it is important to be well rounded, and the same would apply to students and the type of courses they are taking.
From my experiences, my undergrad major is mechanical engineering, and I worked before I started my masters degree in biomedical engineering. I was unprepared for labor market, so I spent more than one year to be ready for work as an engineer.
The significant dilemma is that some industrial jobs require qualified person(ready to work).
I think this ratio does not prepare NJIT students for non-academic jobs properly. It will be great if it is 5 practical courses and 5 academic courses, or if NJIT offers more than these practical courses. So, the student can select his/her track.
I think a minimum of a 50/50 balance needs to be given for practical and informational courses if not for a higher weightage for practical courses. No matter how theoretically we study and gain knowledge, it eventually comes down to the practical knowledge we have when we enter the industry. Since this does not occur in our current scenario, companies have to spend extra time and money on helping us gain practical knowledge by training us into what we are expected to do.
Again, this holds good for somebody who is more industry-driven. If somebody is more inclined to research, they may require a stronger academic hold.
I feel the coursework should be emphasised towards at least 60:40 if not 50:50 where the former being informational and latter being practical courses. At times, when the informational courses start getting too theoretical, we need to look at concepts that could be applied in industries. That makes it easier to learn and understand. But practical courses help cone our knowledge and skills during the coursework itself making us career-ready professionals.
Basically both type of courses should go hand-in-hand with each other to help us get a better perspective of book-based and practical knowledge.
Practical experience in our rapidly growing industry is necessary. Students begin searching for career related jobs either while studying or right after graduating. Companies nowadays give graduates a hard time with their requirements to start working. Some companies require some sort of practical Experience in the field even for an entry level position. This may be tough for some students because many students have only worked in unrelated positions in order to cover life's expenses, and do not have the experience needed to start. So, practical courses are necessary for students to develop hands-on/practical experience to have on the resume. I definitely agree with the 70/30 ratio because it is the institutions' responsibility to ensure that each student is ready for the real world practices through both informational and practical courses. A 50/50 ratio is possible but a 70/30 ratio is enough for a student to start working with a knowledge in the field to initiate with. Later on, students/graduates can learn the rest of the practical side of the jobs they start from their employers. There are many relations in the biomedical industry that students need to understand before entering the job world, and these regulations many not all be taught at work due to the heavy work load. A student taking 3 practical courses at NJIT should be prepared, but the university has to take action in ensuring that each student gets the enough experience needed.
I am a practical hands on kind of a student. I learn better with hands on experience. I am very grateful that I have the chance to take so far 2 practical courses during my masters because it did help me have better understanding of work protocols and regulation which is something a regular class lacks. While it is essential to have a strong academic background, it helps so much more to build a practical background because that way you stand out more at work and you’re not so lost when you start your first job. I feel masters degree should at least be half academic and half practical, given to that undergrad was all academic courses and barely any practical courses.
I feel the ratio should be at least 50/50, with a greater percentage of practical considerations. I thought I had learned a lot after graduating from college, but I had no idea that my education was only getting started. Even while your GPA may be important for your first employment, it appears that experience is the most important factor after that. Students who take more academic courses than practical courses (70/30) might have a good or negative ratio, depending on their professional goals. A student can do all academic courses and then get a co-op or position in industry and work their way up. It is conceivable.
As I said in the lecture for this module, this course is different. Whereas most courses seek to fill you with academic information in order to create a knowledge base for yourself, this course seeks to lay the groundwork for experience. I believe that both types of courses are necessary. After all, where would you be as a member of a medical device team if you knew all about Design Controls for making medical devices, but nothing about the body itself?
Nevertheless, what do you think is the right proportion of practical vs. academic courses in a person fresh out of school? Currently, the New Jersey Institute of Technology requires you to take 10 courses at 3 credits each for your MS. I offer three "practical" courses in that degree, and as far as I know I am the only one who does so. Thus, if you max out, you can have 3 out of 10 courses being practical and 7 out of 10 being academic. Is that a good ratio?
I personally do not think this is a good ratio because practical classes allows you to use the information you were taught and apply it hands on. In a field for medical devices I would at least expect there to be a balance between practical and informational courses. I highly feel that practical courses should be higher as far as the ratio between the two courses because it will benefit the student more. Hands on, physical, visual learning allows most individuals to retain their skill set opposed to lectures.
As I said in the lecture for this module, this course is different. Whereas most courses seek to fill you with academic information in order to create a knowledge base for yourself, this course seeks to lay the groundwork for experience. I believe that both types of courses are necessary. After all, where would you be as a member of a medical device team if you knew all about Design Controls for making medical devices, but nothing about the body itself?
Nevertheless, what do you think is the right proportion of practical vs. academic courses in a person fresh out of school? Currently, the New Jersey Institute of Technology requires you to take 10 courses at 3 credits each for your MS. I offer three "practical" courses in that degree, and as far as I know I am the only one who does so. Thus, if you max out, you can have 3 out of 10 courses being practical and 7 out of 10 being academic. Is that a good ratio?
I think that the right ratio is 50/50. You should be balanced on both sides because if you choose to switch the focus you will have some knowledge. Not being able to pull your own weight at a job because you are unsure of how to do it is very uncomfortable. You want to have the book knowledge always because that comes in handy and is mostly used by others. But the amount of experience should be high because hands-on experience is the best teacher. They both go hand and hand so 50/50 in my eyes would be the best fit.
I think NJIT needs to add more practical classes such as this one; as Dr. Simon mentioned in the lecture "The Story Behind this Course," it is a shock graduating school and finding yourself not prepared for the market.
We can not deny the importance of academic classes, we do not apply all we learn in school when we get a job; on the other hand, it is frustrating to spend five years as an undergrad and maybe another five or even more in grad school and graduate with minimal knowledge about the field's regulations. While we cannot add everything we learn in school on the resume, A practical class not only can add to your resume but can also get you a job. A practical class can add the knowledge of FDA regulations, GDP, GMP, design control, and many more that the employer needs to see on the employee's resume.
As a recent undergrad graduate, I would have preferred to take many courses that would be considered more practical. I oftentimes found myself wondering when will this knowledge be used or how will this positively impact me. Now, it appears that 30% of my MS courses will be practical. This certainly is an increase, but I do not believe it is enough. In my opinion the ratio should be 50/50 because school is where a student learns the fundamentals, but it should also prepare them for life after school. I have met many young individuals who are academically intelligent, but they lack practical skills. Additionally, I have spoken with professionals in industry, specifically NJIT alumni, that have said they have not used all of their academic skills and have learned necessary ones while on the job. If these academic course materials are not always revisited, why are they considered requirements? I would much prefer to be prepared for life itself as equally as my professional work.
Being a relatively recent graduate and having worked in the medical device field, doing a large amount of process and equipment validation, I have found that a lot of engineers have trouble applying the knowledge they have learned in school to industry jobs. In my opinion, one of the biggest reasons for this is the lack of practical classes that give students a chance to learn specifics about the industry and apply the information that they learn effectively. For example, I have worked with engineers that have a great understanding of physics and math, but can't execute an installation qualification because they do not know how to use certain tools or complete certain processes. And to your point Dr. Simon, I am sure that many Biomedical Engineers that have graduated are not familiar with process validation as a whole. For this reason, if a student is interested in going into industry, practical classes have to be prioritized accounting for at least 60% of their schedule. If a student is interested in going into academia, I understand the need for more theory based classes, but practical classes should still be learned accounting for closer to 40% of their schedule. It really depends on which route the student wants to take.
@amandaally1029 I agree with you Amanda, there are definitely not enough practical courses being taught, at least that was my experience at the undergraduate level. While physiology and other academic courses are important, they will not always help in the industry. Most of the physiology classes I took during my undergraduate at BME focused on the heart more than anything else, which is important to know about, however, that information will not be very helpful in what I want to do when I complete my master's, which is to work in orthopedics. The few practical classes I took at NJIT are the ones that have helped me the most in my current position as a technician for a medical device company, such as my Senior Capstone class. In that class, we had to develop a medical device to industry standards and while it was perhaps one of the most difficult classes, I am grateful for the practical experience I had developing test plans because now my entire job is just reading test plans and carrying them out. I believe that schools could benefit by having a more 50/50 approach when it comes to practical vs. informational courses, or at least more practical applications brought into the informational courses.
As I begin my second year into my MS degree, I am also taking my last elective which will satisfy my degree requirements. This accounts for 30% of courses which I have taken in the mechanical engineering program. I think there should be a balance between theoretical courses and practical ones. However, in the same token companies can make the argument that research experience or theoretical knowledge may prove itself useful to the specified job and therefore is the edge between a candidate with more work experience rather than time in academia. Others may say that it shows a passion for the coursework which one has chosen. Nevertheless, there should be a balance between the two methods of coursework which will provide a stepping stone should the student decide to pursue a career in industry rather than research.
I know the question focuses on NJIT's masters program but I would like to make the distinction that I do think its important to have a larger academic courses proportion during a student's undergrad as its important to have a strong technical background to set you up for success in finding your first job out of college. With little to no experience, companies can only judge you based off your GPA and your course "experiences" even if your specific role is learned on the job. (Do I think it's the best system? No. But is it the reality? In my opinion, yes.) I'd say a 30/70 practical to academic ratio would be sufficient.
As for the masters program (assuming you are doing this part time while working in industry), I think it's absolutely important for more practical courses as you are no longer seeking your first job out of college. Your work experience will speak for itself. Now, you're at the point where you're ready to learn the tools to apply your learnings either in your current role or a future role and a 50/50 ratio would be best. However, if the student is full time and still seeking their first job after the masters I'd resort to my previous response. I think it really does depend on what point of your career you're at as once you leave undergrad the world is your oyster and you have a multitude of options to get to where you want (such as getting a masters degree or collecting 10 years worth of work experience or even getting an MBA vs a PhD). I also think NJIT should have more than 5 practical course options as not all students have the same interests, similar to why we have courses spread across biomaterials, bioinstrumentation, and biomechanics so why shouldn't that apply to practical ones too?
