Ohio is a great place for this kind of corporate gentrification. As a CMU grad, I know there was a collective desire to get students to stick around, but there was better lifestyle, more money, etc.. leaving after school and a fairly large number of us weren't from the area to begin with. Something like this can be a game changer for the region, plus, there will be dozens of additional companies that set up camp and start up there for support.
If it really works and the region supports it and leans in, all of the schools anywhere near by will step up their engineering programs.
As I have come to realize, when a mistake or delay costs $XX million, it often makes sense to hire with high educational background. I have also come to realize that your bog standard MS or Phd isn't as talented as you might think.
Between this, Ohio's shameful anti-LGBTQ laws, and the truly awful racism, it's really like the state is trying to drive people away. I moved to CA 7 years ago and couldn't imagine moving back after talking to friends who are still there.
They lament some social issues on campus from a populist perspective but sometimes I think it's not always without merit, or at least a discussion.
The political issue is at the elementary and high school level, and it's more about supporting families than it is the schools, where 'teacher quality' is a huge and ridiculous distraction. If every kid got a chance to attend school while living what most of us would call 'Normal Middle Class Circumstances' (i.e. decent parents, stable home, economic stability, no gangs or crime) there would be progress.
This investment is such a hugely important announcement, the number of really high quality jobs ... and the secondary economic factors will be even bigger.
The US Midwest has long been under utilized.
If US leadership could do anything, it would be to convince some of the big SV operators to invest decisively and aggressively in 2cnd and 3rd tier places which are frankly very prepared for it. Ohio, Miami, Raleigh, Michigan, Chicago etc..
Concentration in specific areas has been going on too long and is at least a decade past it's benefit.
The assertion wasn’t that Republicans are too stupid to know the value; but that knowing the value, they still want to make it difficult for more people to achieve it.
Rich people recognize the value of money while at the same time denying money to others.
The US spends more on education as a % of GDP than anywhere in the world. And - it has a very high GDP/capita as a starting point. And sends more people on to post-secondary education than most places, more than in most countries were post-secondary is socialized.
Germany, with fully socialized University has to ration it - the end up 'streaming' kids by age 15, and those slots are disproportionately allocated to rich kids, moreover, the number of post-secondary students (in College programs, not internships) is lower than in the US, kind of exacerbating the inequality problem.
To boot, the US has a massive problem with post-secondary debt.
University education itself is not the only key to success, rather, it was historically a status marker of the elite. Since it is not just that anymore, we have to be more practical about who we send to school.
I would argue we have too many liberal arts graduates, and not nearly enough trade programs and internships. While Liberal Arts programs absolutely embellish students with higher order thinking, and it would be nice if everyone could attend ... it's frankly the purview of the people who can afford to pay for it without having that cost related to a job on the other end.
And, given that in the US that basic literacy is still a serious problem for many of those in High School ... do we really think that the quantity of post-secondary students really the problem?
Probably not.
The US does a pretty good job at getting people into post-secondary programs, even when they generally would not be qualified, and it's arguably inefficient.
If this were 1970, then it would be an easy argument of 'getting more people into College'.
But conditions have changed and it's a much more difficult situation.
Keep the bars high and objective instead of trying to send everyone to College by virtue of magical thinking.
Maybe we can graduate everyone from highschool as a matter of social equality, but providing kids with projects they can sink their effort into and especially develop the middle-tier apprenticeship programs (i.e. Germany) would be probably a better approach.
I'll bet $1000 that these Intel Chip Fabs require just as many 'trained specialists' as they do College Grad designers.
I'd also bet $1000 that 'Republicans' (at least practically and ideologically) would back that kind of approach.
We could start by breaking 'Doctor' and 'Nurse' into more categories. By making college only 2 or 3 years + 2 years teachers college instead of requiring a 4 year degree. By defining and regulating some types of skilled trades, possibly even software. Etc.
And of course, probably by raising minimum wage, supporting automation and happily moving out non-productive jobs to Mexico and Vietnam where the net surpluses are greater anyhow.
In 2021, it's reasonable for people to take the position that fudging more people through college is just not the most productive or even equitable approach we should approach.
A bunch of victimhood to excuse their bad actions (and change the subject). So they are sacrificing assets and essential services to the American people for political revenge? They won't provide public goods to Democrats?
Which ones specifically? I’d like to learn more and this is something that I’ll pester my representative about. For Columbus specifically in day-to-day life I’m curious what effect these laws have. We have gay clubs and actually a reputation as a “gay mecca”. In Columbus we also have the doo-dah parade, a gigantic, corporate sponsored gay pride parade, and lots of drag events like during our big Halloween party.
> and the truly awful racism
Eh you can find racism in all 50 states, California included. People say this but it’s just the news talking that’s coloring your opinion.
They also have laws that allow medical providers to refuse treatment to LGBTQ.
This is just from a few moments on Google; there's a wiki article with more info: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Ohio
https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphori...
Regardless of your political stance on the matter, this is off topic. You should ask yourself why you feel compelled to thrust this subject here.
In Aerospace, within both U.S. government and industry, midwest engineering schools are widely seen as producing more undegrad-level engineers who actually want to be engineers than places like Stanford.
Stanford, in particular, seems to attract proportionally way more engineering majors that want to use engineering credentials as a gateway out of engineering (high finance, startup executives, management, etc.). A colleague of mine in Big Aerospace says there's a pretty consistent pattern of not being able to hang on to many Stanford or MIT grads for very long. Granted Big Aerospace can be a miserable place to work in a number of ways, but if you want to hone your craft in a number of aerospace disciplines, you'll need some level of exposure to that kind of knowledge/experience-base. You're not going to get that at the next delivery drone or flying taxi startup.
1. Caltech
2. Stanford
3. Cal
4. UCLA
5. Harvey Mudd
6. USC
7. UCSD
8. UCD
9. UCSB
10. CPSLO
11. UCI
12. CPP
13. UCSC
14. UCR
California has 840 miles of coast line. Absolutely no shortage of water.
Desalination and PV technology keep improving, too.
1. Northwestern
2. Notre Dame
3. Wisconsin Madison
4. Ohio State
5. Minnesota Twin Cities
6. Carnegie Mellon
7. University of Chicago
8. Purdue
9. Penn St
10. Washington University St. Louis
11. UIUC
12. Case Western
13. Michigan
So there are plenty of world class educational institutions in the Midwest. Frankly I’d take this list over your list and that’s not including other brand name universities like Indiana, Pitt, Michigan State, Nebraska, or Iowa, some of which do “non-sexy” research in agricultural science and other fields. Ohio State has the only undergraduate wedding engineering program in North America even. It really is an absolute powerhouse of a region with far more national brand name recognition and reputation and monster enrollment numbers.
California has all that stuff because it’s literally further from SF to LA than it is from Columbus to DC.
I was just going off of the “Midwest” versus distance.
> California has all that stuff because it’s literally further from SF to LA than it is from Columbus to DC.
Yea it’s a big state. I’d love to go off of distance though so we can include lots of other fantastic universities just to further drive home my point.
Oh I know plenty of Californian cities, such as Los Angeles, San Francisco and Google.
The other ones are good schools, but in a distinctly second tier to that group.
What on earth do you mean by second tier?
For example, when it comes to hardware & electrical engineering, UCSD alone is as productive as say Purdue & Illinois combined. And it’s a young university too.
No, Davis, Berkeley, and Stanford are all 350+ miles from LA.
1- Big 10 is not an “engineering school conference”.
2- In what world is Pitt a prominent engineering school? You have no idea what you’re talking about.
University of Illinois at Urbana Champagne was the pre-eminent school for Computer Science. It’s still a fantastic school but most don’t seem to want to live in a cornfield.
As for getting in-depth information on topics, you don't need a university for that anymore. Library Genesis and sci-hub has more in-depth information on topics than you could ever possibly absorb, assuming it's legal in your country. What universities uniquely offer is community, financial support, and research: without universities, sci-hub would be a pretty empty place.
As for computer architecture, OSU is not heavily into computer architecture. It's much more focused on custom accelerators and ASICs as well as semiconductor research. And it is recognized as one of the best ECE programs in the world with one of the main problems with it being that the CS department is comparatively weak.
My graduating class, in a December, was still over 1,000 engineers. Spring graduation typically had 2.5-3.5K/yr.
I'd make a stronger statement than "You're not going to learn electrical and computer engineering by reading stuff on Sci-Hub." You aren't going to learn by reading. You have to actually do stuff in order to construct the knowledge inside your own mind, and as you say, that's hard. But the information is available, even if it isn't academically published; in electrical engineering, in addition to sci-hub stuff, you have Bob Pease columns, appnotes (especially the ones from Analog and Linear), The Art of Electronics, EEVblog, allaboutcircuits, Hackaday, Marco Reps, Camenzind's book, Jeri Ellsworth's Short Circuits, Don Lancaster's website, Forrest Mims's books, patents, Adafruit, etc. LTSpice is proprietary but gratis, while QUCS, ngSpice, and WR-SPICE are free software, and now you can get stuff mostly automatically fabbed by JLCPCB for ridiculously low prices. And with the rise of iceSTORM it's becoming practical to design gateware without signing a support contract with Xilinx. Just like the undergraduate EECE curriculum, a lot of this stuff is aimed at beginners (you can learn a lot by fiddling with Falstad's circuit.js even if it doesn't do Monte Carlo simulation), so it doesn't go very deep, but some of it is very much not.
(Still, there is a lot of information that isn't publicly available at all, because it's a trade secret of TSMC or Lam Research or Intel. But the professors aren't walking undergraduates through that stuff either.)
The huge thing about custom accelerators and ASICs and semiconductor research, though, is that you can't really do it in your basement. MPW/shuttle programs like MOSIS and CMP go a long way to making chip design accessible, but it's going to be tough to even run DRCs on your designs without proprietary software, and then it still costs you US$10k to get back 10 chips that don't work. Going to a university for EECE, even for undergrad, might give you the chance to go through that painful cycle enough times to actually get something working, and the mentorship you need to find out what you don't know.
There were 1800 engineers in my graduating class (1995).
IU is a great liberal arts school - but doesn't compete in engineering by design.
One night while struggling with a problem for work I took a walk and wandered by where I calculated the IBM 650 must have been located back in the day, hoping for some kind of inspiration, or something. It was a good distraction but it did not work at all.
Took a violin course; the teacher, one on one, was FAR too good for what I needed and later played the Brahms concerto in Toronto! According to the rules, at the end had to play for the violin faculty, including the former concert master of the Cleveland Symphony -- poor guy! Eventually I made it through much of the Bach E Major Partita and the Chaconne! Great fun! Met my wife.
The math department had some good mathematicians. The weekly seminar flew in some of the best mathematicians in the world. Later where I got my Ph.D., at a much more famous school, the seminars were nowhere near as good.
As a grad student, since I was teaching ugrad courses, I got paid, enough actually to live nicely, e.g., eat all my meals in restaurants, and save some money!
But I didn't fit into their program: (1) My first semester they put me in their abstract algebra course. Okay: I'd done well in a similar course in ugrad school, and my ugrad honors paper was on group representations. So that I wouldn't have to waste time in the course, the prof and I had an unspoken agreement: At the end he gave me a little oral exam in his office -- I went through some Galois theory! (2) They put me in a topology course, from the famous book by Kelley. In the first class, the prof said that the homework was to work all the exercises! HA! Some of the exercises were notoriously difficult! I wondered if HE could work all the exercises! Besides, in ugrad school I'd taken a reading course from that book -- once a week gave a lecture to a prof, chapter by chapter, one week on the theorems and the next week on the exercises. For the material on Moore-Smith convergence, a second prof showed up -- maybe he wanted to learn some about that topic! I wrote out solutions to about 1/3rd of the exercises (to be honest not the same ~1/3rd I'd done in ugrad), turned them in at the end, and did show for the final exam. (3) They put me in a real analysis course. On the first test, with just one exercise, in set theory, the prof wanted to "see me after class". He had marked my test paper as wrong. Gee, I doubt that many students got that exercise. Since the previous summer I'd had a course in axiomatic set theory, the test was easy for me. When I explained to the prof that my notation, I didn't have time on the test to define, was standard, he saw that (A) my solution was correct and (B), as we both noticed and he confessed, was one step shorter than his. I didn't know that prof, had never had any interaction with him, but concluded he was for whatever reason on my case. My victory over him on that test was enough for me -- I never saw him again. No biggie loss: The book he was using was awful, e.g., was just some typed notes -- Royden, one of the best math texts ever, was MUCH better!
So, net, I did my teaching, used some of the money I was getting, more than I needed, to have fun while saving some money, did my teaching, met my wife, and started violin -- I liked it!
Since that was Indiana, that is, out in the Midwest flat farming country, a lot of the other grad math students were pretty good athletes. So one afternoon I showed up at the volley ball game those students held. Soon I was very much not wanted! I was the last to be chosen! And soon even the other team would make sure I never got to touch the ball! Those guys took athletics VERY seriously, much more seriously than the math!
But in the ugrad teaching, nearly all the girls tried hard to look pretty and be sweet! One course I taught was some math for elementary education majors. There were maybe 30 students in the class. There was one boy there, maybe looking to meet the girls! So, all the rest were girls. And they had their career direction decided, no doubt, high determination -- they'd get a teaching certificate, a husband, a home, and some babies. NO DOUBT! And they were just AWFUL at that math, and soon just terrified of it! Due to the influence of computing, I had to teach them about base 2 and base 16 -- that was more painful for them than having their teeth pulled! I also taught calculus, trigonometry, etc., and in those courses the girls did fine, no angst! So, there was something about elementary education majors!!!
The problem was the author of the book had no idea why they were doing this, or what the purpose of this was. It provided the curriculum, but had already lost the inherent reason behind it.
When was this? Nowadays the grad students are constantly complaining that they don't get paid enough to live and mandatory fees are too high.
The money: I lived with low rent, in a dorm that had the option of no meals in a university cafeteria. Since I was teaching, I paid no tuition and, as I remember, paid no fees. My teaching was a bargain for the university, i.e., I was no doubt MUCH cheaper per course taught than a prof. They had me teaching a wide variety of courses and, one semester, two courses. That wasn't fair to me, but I didn't mind.
It was an old dorm, REALLY nice. And it was next to the music school and, still, not far from the math department or lots of places to eat.
Am I the only one who thinks it's weird that football leagues are used to categorize engineering institutions?
Not sure the NM sizes being made at these sites off hand.