@ridmehta I agree with a lot of your points especially that there should be more than 5 practical courses to choose from. Where I disagree is in the ratio, I believe a 70/30 of practical to academic classes should be applied to coursework. I believe that having 30% of your classes cover the more "abstract" material you will find within BME applications is enough to stimulate your interest and creativity of the true possibilities of BME. If you find this interesting you can continue your career with the academic route. However, the majority of students will enter some form of industry where practical fundamentals will be more useful in the specialization or field you choose. 30% of academic classes would be enough give you a larger perspective of BME in your role in industry whether in quality, product development, advanced operations, etc.

I do have say I believe whatever split NJIT BME students currently have or will have it will have little affect on their work once leaving their schooling. I am a firm believer that for the most part, anyone can learn to do any job starting on their first day, with the obvious exceptions of course like surgeons and pilots for example. Often times your performance at any job comes down to your innate way of understanding problems and how to address them, rather than solely understanding the "theory" behind a problem like you would learn in a classroom. I'm interested to hear if anyone else shares this opinion considering it maybe unpopular due to the fact BME's undergo such a rigorous course load just for me to say our jobs can be done by the "average joe".

Having a 70 to 30% ratio as a graduate student i believe is not sufficient enough for biomedical engineers. Reason being, is that we have spent 4 years doing a lot of informational courses. Specifically with the current times, many of us lost out on a year of research, experience, and interaction. I think for a graduate student, there should be more of a 50/50 balance. The classes that are informational should be half of the curriculum because it will further enhance your knowledge or give you the ability to for instance if you were a biomaterials undergrad, you would be able to take more biomechanics or bioinstrumentation courses. The same goes for the practical classes, they would teach you how to properly interact with people, do group discussions, understand how to work in a group, use the informational courses and apply it to critically think in actual scenarios. Additionally, having the practical classes gives better insight on what you could potentially do in the industry so it expands your horizons instead of keeping you in a small bubble of only one speciality like in undergrad courses. Finally, having the ability to have a professor that encourages us to network, put ourselves out there, is some guidance informational courses don't offer because of them being heavily focused on material, examination, and merit. It also assists in when you go into the industry, you are not overwhelmed or like you do not belong because you cannot function in a working environment. Instead you have a better grasp of how to adapt, get time efficiency, and also work with people. 

As many of the previous posts have stated, a 30/70 practical to academic ratio is not the best. I, like many, learn better from hands-on experience. Courses aimed at teaching you the practical applications of concepts you learn in class would have better prepared me for entering the work environment. The first class I took with Dr. Simon dealt with the FDA process and management structures which I was not exposed to previously in-depth. It was fascinating to learn about something that I was actually experiencing and would be valuable knowledge to anyone entering the medical device field. At my job, we are currently working towards getting a product FDA approved and I found it extremely helpful to know the timeline of the process and what milestones to expect. However, I acknowledge that it might make more sense for more practical courses to be incorporated when pursuing higher education like a master’s and to learn the concepts and basics during your undergrad years.

I think the practical courses should be increased in the program. There should be a ratio of 50/50 or at least as close as possible to this ratio especially for a Masters program. The Masters program should have courses that prepare you more for the work environment. The ratio could be a little lower for the undergraduate program as it should teach students the academia base first. With my own personal experience, I saw that practical courses have helped me succeed more in my job. When you start a new job, you don’t really necessarily use all the academics that are used in school. I had to teach myself entirely new concepts and skills. I think schools don’t teach their students enough practical skills so that they can better transition into the work environment. 

I would agree with those who have said that their practical vs academic ratio should be higher for the academic area of interest. I actually believe that the ratio should be closer to 70% practical courses and 30% academic for a graduate degree. There are many principles that were covered in the undergraduate curriculum for an engineering student that already laid the foundation for their understanding. The next step should be gaining practical knowledge that isn't covered during academic courses unless one is staying the path of academia for a PhD where they will be exposed to practical information during their research. The rest of the student population should try to get their foot in the water through classes that can give them a knowledge that translates to the industry they are aiming for. My company has a policy for development that has one 70% of our development in a year should be from on the job training as the skills you use everyday are the most important to keep growing. 

@aaq2 I agree that practical courses provide greater awareness in an industry application, however I do believe that the academic courses for a Master's degree may be even more important. The purpose of the Master's, at least for me personally, is to gain more technical expertise- to become a true "Master" of the biomedical sciences, math, and engineering. Hard skills and knowledge are really important and academic courses, like Solidworks classes or tissue engineering classes, can provide this, and the application of this knowledge will come with an industry job. That being said, the Master's should also prepare its students to enter the workforce and equip them with practical experience to lean back on. Therefore, there should be more practical courses offered for those pursuing the Master's that have not had any industry experience yet, so that they have the choice of customizing their education to more practically fit their needs. The current model at NJIT seems to be more geared for students who already have industry or research experience. Would students who are in the NJIT Master's program that have not had any industry experience agree with this?

Both types of courses are important. But there should be an increase in the types of practical courses offered. Academic courses can offer, to a certain degree, a hands-on approach but from my experience it focuses more on understanding and being able to replicate/explain the material. While practical courses force the students to make sense of the academic lessons and put them into play. Practical lessons are also better environments for group work and how different ideas and mindsets can work together to complete a task, something that is a key skill going into the work field/industry. But not only there, it plays an important role in academia by working in labs with other researchers, which helps drive the point that it is needed. Having three classes out of ten be practical isn’t the best ratio and seeing as only one professor offers the course at NJIT for this masters program, the availability of getting those courses also seems somewhat low. So it would be better to have a larger variety of practical courses so future students would have a more manageable time making the ratio more even. This isn’t to say that practical is more important than academic classes because they both can work off one another. Academic classes allow there to be some structure and foundation when applying to practical classes, and practical classes can help make a clearer connection to the lessons taught in academic classes. Both types of classes can benefit from one another so it would be beneficial to make the ratio more even but including more practical courses.

Initially, my thought was that there should be more practical courses as I find the practical courses to be of most value to my career and personal growth. However, from an unbiased POV, I think the ratio for the practical courses for MS depends on the goals of the student. Most students spend their undergrad learning theories and concepts, which is the main focus of the informational courses. These courses feed students the material primarily to prepare them for an exam, most of which is seemingly useless in industry. In my opinion, the informational courses are great for those that seek a future in academia but for those that would like to start a career in industry, practical courses would better prepare students for what's expected in the profession. Maybe having a mandatory "Academia or Industry" course at the start of each student's graduate program could assist in advising the ratio of practical to informational courses per student. Hopefully, this would allow students to easily navigate a curriculum that best suits them to be well prepared once they graduate from their programs. 

I think the ratio would depend on if the person is going to add in the thesis option to their master's. Overall, I think most people learned their academic portion in the undergraduate work, however, because some people are coming from different majors to get a master's I think some background on the basics is necessary. Most people obtaining a master's are coming to progress their career, so I do think that more hands-on practical classes are important in the field they are trying to either move up in or move to. If the person picks the thesis option, they could max out on the classes taught by Dr. Simon (9 credits) and have 6 credits of hands-on lab experience in learning how to think scientifically. Biomedical engineering is a very diverse field, and students would benefit if NJIT had more hands-on experience in other areas not just medical devices for people seeking to learn more about other aspects of BME.

I know that many people are coming from already beginning their careers and doing their masters at night, so a thesis is not always possible, but do you think that a thesis adds a lot more value to yourself when applying and searching for jobs? I know the research that you do may not match, but I find a lot of value in finding a problem, researching it, and developing an experimental design to answer a question. Is this something that industry is looking for when applying for jobs?

Based on my experience as a student at NJIT, there needs to be more of an emphasis on impractical classes. Of course, at the start of your college experience, it's important to have practical courses as part of your curriculum. These courses are the foundation at which your knowledge and experience in a certain field is based on. But after a certain point, the courses should set out to shape students for a career post graduation, one that focuses more on industry and not on academics. There shouldn't be any reason for me to sit in class and learn about the fundamentals of stress/strain for the fourth semester in a row in a 400 to 500 level class. At a point where I'm so close to graduation, PLEASE teach me something about the industry. What are different parts of the production process that I can get involved with based of what I know? What sort of software programs are industry standard that I should be experienced in? How do I know if the company I am applying to is right for what I want to achieve in my career? Not to put too many of my grievances out there, but I graduated four months ago and feel like I have nothing to show for it. The ratio for me has to be at least 50/50 but I would much rather it be skewed towards the side of impractical classes, maybe 70/30.

I believe practical courses should have more weight than informational courses. Due to MOOCs and a wide range of platforms for digital learning, it has become easy to learn concepts on your own. The traditional information courses heavily focus on knowing facts that the industry may not require. Practical courses cannot be understood on their own, nor can they be replicated, at least in biology and chemistry. It requires an instructor and a sophisticated environment to carry out experiments. The practical courses force students to learn concepts on their own and implement them in the form of projects which automatically train them to think in a more industry or research-specific manner.

I think it is important to have both types of classes as the informational knowledge is needed to be able to work in a practical setting. For example, if someone is working within risk management and they are working on assessing the risks of a drug-filled syringe, practically they could say a risk is underdosing, but with the theoretical knowledge, they would be able to describe why it is a risk to the patient. Therefore, it is very important for biomedical engineers to have both theoretical and practical courses. Not only is it important for students to have courses in physiology, electronics, and mechanics, it is important for them to be exposed to how medical devices are developed, FDA regulations for medical devices, design controls, as well as other courses that prepare them for life in industry. I think a ratio of 7 informational courses to 3 practical courses is a good balance, and may even support the idea of 6 informational courses to 4 practical courses since most of the undergraduate courses in the NJIT Biomedical Engineering department are more informational. More practical courses would help students be more aware of what the medical device and pharma industries look like, as well as the different positions/departments they might be interested in within those industries.

The graduate program at the New Jersey Institute of Technology should contain a better ratio of academic to practical courses, I believe the ratio should be 50/50 to better prepare the students to the skills, knowledge and responsibilities needed for the jobs in the industry today.   Academic and practical are two different approaches to understanding and solving problems.  Academic refers to concepts or ideas that are based on abstract reasoning and speculation rather than practical applications or direct observations.  Academic knowledge is often developed through scientific research, mathematical modeling, or philosophical inquiry. It involves analyzing data, identifying patterns, and developing hypotheses to explain phenomena.  Practical, on the other hand, refers to the application of knowledge to real-world situations. It involves using existing knowledge, skills, and resources to solve problems and achieve specific goals.  Practical knowledge is gained through experience and hands-on application, such as learning a skill through practice, or applying scientific principles to solve real-world problems.  Academic and practical knowledge are often complementary, with Academic knowledge providing a framework for understanding and explaining phenomena, and practical knowledge providing the tools and methods to apply that knowledge to real-world problems. In many fields, including science, engineering, and medicine, the two approaches are often integrated to provide a comprehensive understanding of complex systems and phenomena.  In summary, Academic knowledge is based on abstract reasoning and speculation, while practical knowledge is gained through hands-on experience and real-world application. Both approaches are important for gaining a complete understanding of complex systems and for solving practical problems.

I think the ratio isn’t good enough because it would lead the master degree be like one year of  bachelor degree as people who take masters usually intend to go to industry compared to PhDs. Moreover, they also take masters either for career shift or job promotion. Therefore, it is best that the master degree should be more practical and less theoretical like around 6 practical course and 4 theoretical. Even more, the person would try to market the practical master courses by mentioning them in resume in terms of courses or as experience or during the interview.

I believe that the graduate program here at NJIT should contain a better ratio of practical to informal courses than what is given. As stated by Dr. Simon, the ratio between the two types of courses currently sits at about 30/70 being in favor of informal classes. This needs to change to at least a 50/50 ratio with a possibility of having more practical classes. Practical courses are able to provide students with a more hands-on approach, forcing them to learn how to do something rather than understanding the theoretical knowledge from informal teaching. As a student-athlete who has found it difficult to gain experience in any type of research lab due to the amount of time I have to dedicate to my sport, I find practical courses that force social interaction and present real world problems to be far more beneficial. While I do fully appreciate the immense knowledge gained through the informal courses that I took during my undergraduate degree, I feel that my graduate year should be the time to incorporate more practical courses. This is not to say that one type of course is better than the other in terms of individual learning and understanding, but as for the graduate program, practical courses should be of more focus.