The Observer, February 29, 2008
Volume XL, Issue 19
SAGES decision should be up to CSE
To the Editor:
I was alarmed at the amount of uproar brought on by the proposed modifications to the SAGES program for engineering students. The decision should be left up to the individual colleges about whether or not to incorporate these seminars. As a senior, my class was given the option to take the SAGES program, or let sleeping dogs lie. And as a BME, I'm glad I chose the latter. Engineering students are bombarded with 125-135 credits required for graduation. I've had at least 17 credits every semester up until senior year, though more often than not it's been 18 credits. There is little room for shuffling of schedules to make room for a certain seminar. The humanities/social science sequence option I chose allows students to fit those courses in when it best suits their academic calendar. With no intention of setting off a CSE versus Arts and Sciences debate, I will hazard the following remark: the average Arts and Sciences degree is about 30-60 credits. Understandably, most of these students take on a second or even third major, or they pursue a B.S. instead of a B.A. (which essentially doubles their credit requirement). But to argue that all students must take the same core just for homogeneity is just ignorant; there are times when there is just no room for another course in an engineering student's schedule without having to overload. Different students have different needs; this should be reflected in the options that are presented to them. The only people who should worry about the engineering program are the School of Engineering and the ABET representatives who come in to accredit the program. Everyone else should mind their own business.
Matt Estadt
Undergraduate student
