because it's a shitty program

Says the guy from software. Why don't you like it?

Originally Posted by MrPlinkett

Says the guy from software. Why don't you like it?

Well, it would make sense for someone in the program to make that claim, right?

Almost none of the professors have any sort of practical experience, or just simply aren't software/computer people (all math mostly). Many are completely disconnected with what's relevant in the industry today. A lot of what you learn is generalized beyond usefulness, painfully theoretical or simply just far too old. For example, in the class SFWR ENG 4AA4 you learn how to use a real time kernel called RTAI that was effectively abandoned by the maintainers nearly 10 years ago.

A lot of classes refocus themselves on "software verification" (McMaster's big software research project) which isn't relevant to what most students need to know.

Many classes are complete write-offs (software testing and user interface design) because random professors who know absolutely nothing about the material are subbed in to teach it.

Compare the program here to the computer science program at U of T/Waterloo or just the software engineering program at Waterloo: they learn about bleeding edge technology (computer vision, natural language processing, distributed NoSQL databases. etc). Here we get the absolute basics in its theoretical form.

Overall, it feels like software engineering was a program that was good when it was first introduced 10 years ago... and then nobody has bothered to maintain it since then.

General apathy all over the CAS department. The professors don't give a shit.

Tron is basically the same story, except its even worse because they have many highly redundant classes. They have at least 3 separate courses on analogue circuits with almost the same content. There does not appear to be any sort of regulation to the proportion of each stream they learn (software, electrical, mechanical. etc)... so they basically get intro to electrical a few times, a few random mechanics courses and then their program turns into software engineering.

The only "plus" I can think of for software/tron is its very easy to do well if you try. You don't get murdered pretty much regardless like people in computer/electrical do.

Waste of four fucking years...

Originally Posted by Ownaginatios

Well, it would make sense for someone in the program to make that claim, right?

Almost none of the professors have any sort of practical experience, or just simply aren't software/computer people (all math mostly). Many are completely disconnected with what's relevant in the industry today. A lot of what you learn is generalized beyond usefulness, painfully theoretical or simply just far too old. For example, in the class SFWR ENG 4AA4 you learn how to use a real time kernel called RTAI that was effectively abandoned by the maintainers nearly 10 years ago.

A lot of classes refocus themselves on "software verification" (McMaster's big software research project) which isn't relevant to what most students need to know.

Many classes are complete write-offs (software testing and user interface design) because random professors who know absolutely nothing about the material are subbed in to teach it.

Compare the program here to the computer science program at U of T/Waterloo or just the software engineering program at Waterloo: they learn about bleeding edge technology (computer vision, natural language processing, distributed NoSQL databases. etc). Here we get the absolute basics in its theoretical form.

Overall, it feels like software engineering was a program that was good when it was first introduced 10 years ago... and then nobody has bothered to maintain it since then.

General apathy all over the CAS department. The professors don't give a shit.

Tron is basically the same story, except its even worse because they have many highly redundant classes. They have at least 3 separate courses on analogue circuits with almost the same content. There does not appear to be any sort of regulation to the proportion of each stream they learn (software, electrical, mechanical. etc)... so they basically get intro to electrical a few times, a few random mechanics courses and then their program turns into software engineering.

The only "plus" I can think of for software/tron is its very easy to do well if you try. You don't get murdered pretty much regardless like people in computer/electrical do.

Waste of four fucking years...

I think the bigger waste was the fact that in 4 years, nothing was ever brought up to any committees to make this program better.

FYI, there's an elected student rep for Software, and an elected VP Academic. If you wanted change to happen, why didn't anyone MAKE it happen?

It's especially sad because this is how people leave University: Expecting that when you stay silent, and don't talk to people that can affect change, they can instigate change themselves.

I call bullshit if anyone says they tried to tell these people... Because I was involved at that capacity, especially in the past year.

Anyways... This digresses. If anyone wants to discuss the evolution of Mac's Engineering programs, start a new thread.

The only "plus" I can think of for software/tron is its very easy to do well if you try.

Says the guy who never took Eng Phys 2A04. This is a good description of what tron/eng phys students had to go through:



I do not agree about the mechanical courses being random. They cover the backbone of the whole mechanical thing, without going into manufacturing. The electrical circuits classes do repeat. But hey, since you are going to spend so much time building circuits, might as well get really really good at them.

Also, it's like I said, it's not what university can teach you, it's what you can make of yourself in 4 years. Meaning: noone is holding you back from working on something outside the classes, going to classes and passing the tests is just one thing, but University is an instrument, it is for you to use to gain experience.

Originally Posted by mike_302

I think the bigger waste was the fact that in 4 years, nothing was ever brought up to any committees to make this program better.

FYI, there's an elected student rep for Software, and an elected VP Academic. If you wanted change to happen, why didn't anyone MAKE it happen?

It's especially sad because this is how people leave University: Expecting that when you stay silent, and don't talk to people that can affect change, they can instigate change themselves.

I call bullshit if anyone says they tried to tell these people... Because I was involved at that capacity, especially in the past year.

Anyways... This digresses. If anyone wants to discuss the evolution of Mac's Engineering programs, start a new thread.

Buddy, I complain harder than anyone I know about this kind of stuff. I actually fill out everything that sucks about 90% of the courses I take on those course review things. I wouldn't be surprised if all of it gets dismissed as "oh, well this guy's just a hater".

Why go to the student rep when I can just go to the professors themselves? If you're referring to the software engineering or mechatronics club people - those are definitely not who I would be going to to make change happen.

They openly asked students to come to a meeting when I was in second year to complain about the program. I and a few other people went, and they thanked us for our insight... and then nothing happened.

I'm guessing you were part of that sort of thing for engineering as a whole. I'm not sure if you're aware, but the CAS department is pretty disconnected from the rest of engineering. Any changes there aren't likely to trickle down to the fringe that software/tron lay at.

I'll agree with you, most students don't complain even though they're unhappy. Most of the complaints I hear are naive though - something akin to "omg why do we have to learn about control systems, I won't be doing that as a software engineer" (which isn't true if you want to at all be a good well-rounded software engineer). Most people don't even know what they should be complaining about, seeing as probably 70% of the people in programs like software don't actually give a shit about software, only entering the program because their average was too low for whatever they wanted to do or because "they like video games". How can these guys complain about not learning about things they don't even know exist?

Like you said, I'll move this discussion to another thread should one appear.

Originally Posted by MrPlinkett

Says the guy who never took Eng Phys 2A04

I thought 2P04 was the course that really railed people. I don't recall anyone I know complaining about 2A04. Maybe second year is tough, but it's definitely a cake walk after that for the most part.

I do not agree about the mechanical courses being random. They cover the backbone of the whole mechanical thing, without going into manufacturing.

Perhaps I'm talking to the wrong group of mechatronics students then.

The electrical circuits classes do repeat. But hey, since you are going to spend so much time building circuits, might as well get really really good at them.

I would agree with you if it didn't fuck over everyone else taking those courses as the net result. Take ENG 3N03 for example; by the time mechatronics students take this course, they've literally covered the entire content in ENG PHYS 2E04, MECH TRON 3TA4 and I believe one other course I cannot recall the code of.

Some genius decided second year software embedded and mechanical students should also take this course. Since mechatronics comprises at least 70% of the course, they influence how much time is spent on each topic.

Net result? Software engineers get shafted on everything related to analog circuits, seeing as they have no background going in - and mechanical really gets shafted seeing as they don't know that nor digital circuits.

It's been complained about many times in the past, but some bureaucracy states that engineering physics must have some minimum stake in the mechatronics program.

Also, it's like I said, it's not what university can teach you, it's what you can make of yourself in 4 years. Meaning: no one is holding you back from working on something outside the classes, going to classes and passing the tests is just one thing, but University is an instrument, it is for you to use to gain experience.

Obviously; 99% of what I've learned of "software engineering" has been outside of class. I believe if anything, university should be making you aware of things. I can't go learn about something on my own really if it doesn't exist. How is your average student supposed to know and learn about the newest things if their professors don't even know they exist?

My point is, there is a minimum standard that should be met by the university before it's up to what the students themselves get out of it - and as far as I can tell, they haven't met that standard.

I thought 2P04 was the course that really railed people. I don't recall anyone I know complaining about 2A04.

Yeah 2P04 wasn't cake either. But with 2A04 they changed the prof and everything, and now it's more like math a mix of Phys 1E03 and Math 2ZZ3. Only minus all the practice so you got no idea what you are doing.

Perhaps I'm talking to the wrong group of mechatronics students then.

I guess what you get out of course varies with person.

Obviously; 99% of what I've learned of "software engineering" has been outside of class. I believe if anything, university should be making you aware of things. I can't go learn about something on my own really if it doesn't exist. How is your average student supposed to know and learn about the newest things if their professors don't even know they exist?

I think it's the problem with the field in general. Software engineering is like art, it's not about what you can do, it's more about how you can do it, how well you can do it and what techniques you use to achieve the best results. So basically it's all about practicing, which means coding, over and over and over, learning what you need to punch into the code to make it do something that you want. The more experience you have, the better programmer you are.

In software engineering is 65% theory and 35% actually doing stuff, which is not what people expect to do. That's just how software engineering is. Can't really fix it. I know when I was in school my teacher (who taught us how to write on assembler, really cool guy) basically said, if you want to learn how to program, go to Mohawk, they will teach you same theory only much cheaper and faster, and then they will teach you the application which is essentially what being a programmer is in make people's minds, it's application.

I don't know man. We can argue about it forever.

Originally Posted by MrPlinkett

In software engineering is 65% theory and 35% actually doing stuff, which is not what people expect to do. That's just how software engineering is. Can't really fix it.

Well that's the thing, I think professors use that as their hook for why they don't need to be up to date with technology. Only thing is, software engineering isn't like electrical, civil or mechanical engineering where physics isn't going to change. A lot of these theoretical design patterns we learn about aren't used by anyone anymore because of different newer design patterns out there that take modern problems into account (i.e. big data).

The whole design scheme of our capstone project felt like it came from the 1980s...

Something that professors in software seem to like to throw around here: "if your requirements and design are well thought out, then coding is trivial". Sounds an awful lot like someone who's never done much coding before...

It's a pretty well known fact that a software engineer who isn't up to date is functionally obsolete.

Oh well, I'm going to stop hijacking this guy's thread now...

Some words for Mech.
Almost none of the courses in upper year mech involves Inventor (except 4th year CAD course), but projects in every year and (more importantly) out in a job requires at least some degree of CAD drawings. Did you mean you don't like freehand drawings only? or Inventor 2D drawings? If you don't like CAD drawings, chances are you will find it hard while most ppl out there expects you to do it.
In general mech is full of math, so be aware, but the hard part is to understand it physically and formulate it. Getting the math done isn't that bad. 2nd and 3rd year have a lot more statics that I expected (boring math and stuff IMO). only a few basic dynamics and manufacturing courses that are interesting
4th year gets much better, as you can take technical electives like CFD, CAD or product design or more in-depth manufacturing course, something I found it much closer to reality than previous courses.
And although I can't compare to other departments, but a lot of mech ppl got co-op as I observe, which might be a plus for you.

Welcome to ECE! LOL

I'm totally fine with using Inventor (im assuming CAD is similar), solid modeling, going from drawings to models, and creating drawings from models. It is really only the freehand drawing that I'm not a fan of.

Originally Posted by Injekt

I'm totally fine with using Inventor (im assuming CAD is similar), solid modeling, going from drawings to models, and creating drawings from models. It is really only the freehand drawing that I'm not a fan of.

Nobody really 'freehands' unless you're giving a rough idea of something on the back of a hankerchif. Actual drawing is done in a way that many changes can be made, precise metrics applied, etc . Yeah, you need to be able to make a sketch of something, but it isn't vital. As you gain proficiency with it, you'll get used to perspective and whatnot.

Originally Posted by RyanC

Nobody really 'freehands' unless you're giving a rough idea of something on the back of a hankerchif. Actual drawing is done in a way that many changes can be made, precise metrics applied, etc . Yeah, you need to be able to make a sketch of something, but it isn't vital. As you gain proficiency with it, you'll get used to perspective and whatnot.

Yep, that's about it. Although giving rough ideas by free hand dwg is quite a useful tool to demonstrate your idea to your boss, its probably not like those in 1C03 course where it requires 'accurate scales'.

Originally Posted by Ownaginatios

Well, it would make sense for someone in the program to make that claim, right?

Almost none of the professors have any sort of practical experience, or just simply aren't software/computer people (all math mostly). Many are completely disconnected with what's relevant in the industry today. A lot of what you learn is generalized beyond usefulness, painfully theoretical or simply just far too old. For example, in the class SFWR ENG 4AA4 you learn how to use a real time kernel called RTAI that was effectively abandoned by the maintainers nearly 10 years ago.

A lot of classes refocus themselves on "software verification" (McMaster's big software research project) which isn't relevant to what most students need to know.

Many classes are complete write-offs (software testing and user interface design) because random professors who know absolutely nothing about the material are subbed in to teach it.

Compare the program here to the computer science program at U of T/Waterloo or just the software engineering program at Waterloo: they learn about bleeding edge technology (computer vision, natural language processing, distributed NoSQL databases. etc). Here we get the absolute basics in its theoretical form.

Overall, it feels like software engineering was a program that was good when it was first introduced 10 years ago... and then nobody has bothered to maintain it since then.

General apathy all over the CAS department. The professors don't give a shit.

Tron is basically the same story, except its even worse because they have many highly redundant classes. They have at least 3 separate courses on analogue circuits with almost the same content. There does not appear to be any sort of regulation to the proportion of each stream they learn (software, electrical, mechanical. etc)... so they basically get intro to electrical a few times, a few random mechanics courses and then their program turns into software engineering.

The only "plus" I can think of for software/tron is its very easy to do well if you try. You don't get murdered pretty much regardless like people in computer/electrical do.

Waste of four fucking years...

Yep. I know a couple first and second years in Waterloo SE. They blow a lot of fully graduated Mac software people out of the water (basically anyone who didnt do substantial programming outside of class). Just look at first year programming. An absolute waste of a program. They teach all the wrong things and push a lot of people away from programming.

Most decent programs have 2 streams (with REAL distinctions) being computer science (math+structure+theor etical) and SE which should be mostly practical. For example 2nd year programming should have a single course that makes the student write a full Android, iOS and BB/WinPhone app (3 apps in one semester). And then continue on this pace throughout third and fourth year targeting different platforms and languages.

@Mike
Complaining usually doesnt do a lot. Example: 2z03 and 2zz3. Some of the worst courses available at mac. Note those were examples. Not meant to hijack the thread

Damn, I was planning to do Software Engineering but now I'm going to have to choose another engineering stream after hearing all this negative feedback about SE at Mac. :(
Now I regret choosing Mac over Waterloo..