| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/17 |
| 2004/2/6-7 [Computer/SW/Languages/Java, Computer/SW/Languages/Functional] UID:12130 Activity:nil |
2/6 Am considering going back to school to get a BS in CompEng (I already
have a BA in wholly different field). Pros and cons of doing it at
Cal? Hayward? SFSU? Will I have to take Gen. Ed. all over again? Odds
of getting financial aid/grants?
\_ gen ed again? dont be ridiculous
\_ wtf is computer engineering? do you have to write interesting
\- i know in india most of the space "computer science"
majors go into is called "computer engineering" ...
which i suppose is more accurate than "computer science"
[certainly what they do is braoder than programming]
but i agree it sounds weird. --psb
\_ Damn, psb has the most consistently bad formatting
in motd history.
code? do you see transistors? is it engineering without the
harder stuff? do cs if you want to code, ee if you want to
do hardware. don't do some watered down bs program that still
won't get you a real job.
\_ Some idiot that just read /. article on how "Computer
Engineer" grads have higher/st starting salary.
\_ You tell me, tough guy:
http://csua.org/u/5vi (Slashdot)
\_ great. so wtf is a computer engineering degree? some
personal history... worked at a joint where the manager
had a real hard-on for cmu grads. flew like 5 of them
computer engineer major types out here to interview.
they can't do transmission lines (sort of important
when you're trying to build big buses and backplanes),
can't code worth a damn. didn't hire a single one of
them.
\_ Damned if I know. But say I want to do EECS. Should
I go back to Cal? I want to stay local (Bay Area).
\_ I think Cal undergrad program doesn't accept anyone who already
has a bachelor degree.
\_ this couldn't be further from the truth.
\_ it is very, very rare for Cal to grant a second bachelor's
degree. -tom
\_ Depends on what you want to do with your degree. A few variations:
Want to teach or do research? Get a high quality brand name degree.
Want to teach HS or low end CC? Get an easy degree and all A+s.
Want to work in industry? Some places only care about your GPA.
Get the easy degree for those. Other places are more picky and
won't even talk to you or if they do you won't ever get promoted
without a quality degree. For my field and what I want to do my
B-ish grades at Cal hurt me badly. I would have done better with
all As from CS Hayward. But then I wouldn't know all you lovely
people! It was worth it! Oh God! I'm shedding tears now!
\_ gen ed is a bit different in the college of engineering compared
to gen ed in the college of letters&science. in EECS, there are other
lower division requirements like CS61 series (especially if you
are thinking of computer engineering.) there is also the engineering
physics requirement (lower division) along with the 2 years of math
(calculus, linear algebra, diff equations, multivariable calculus)
and the one semester of a lower division science course (bio or
chem). there is a chance that you can waive some of the
requirements with high school AP courses (but not physics or
probably not CS courses.) (But, only one english course is
required!)
in terms of future employment, Cal is a much better choice (some
companies don't look at you if you went to Hayward or SFSU.. meaning
you won't get an interview.) although, i think that Cal Engr does
not take anyone beyond a sophomore. maybe, cs in l&s might be
possible.
SJSU or UCD might be a better choice (in terms of reputation among
companies..although it might a bit farther) and of course....
should i say it.... there is stanfurd..
i figure with computer engr, you can do digital design or write
hardware/software interface/drivers software.. i can't predict the
future, but digital design seemingly can be done overseas (as long
as the EDA keeps improving.) i'm starting to think that chemE
might have a better future..
\_ Waitressing can't be outsourced.
\_ Turns out EECS only takes 3-4 "Second Degree" students per year and
currently requires a 3.97 GPA. Go beah!
\_ 3-4 out of how many applicants? And if as a returning student
you can't manage a 4.0 in your forst year or two you are
pretty fucking lame. Can you imagine how easy it would be
to take all your freshmen classes now? You wouldn't even have
to try.
\_ That requirement is for your GPA from your *first* degree.
That is, only the best students get the opportunity. -tom
\_ And you're not re-taking freshman classes, either. It seems
unlikely you'll be one of those 3.97+ people returning so
don't worry your pretty little head about it.
\_ aren't there special programs/exceptions for women? (that is,
if you are a woman going into EECS)
\_ like women don't get enough freebies already.
\_ the admissions committee might give a bit more leeway here
esp. if the candidate is borderline..
\_ Don't there exist (Masters Degree?) CS or EE programs already
specially targeted at people who have a BA degree in some other field
who want to get fast into EECS?
\_ if the ba degree is something related (eg, i can see physics
majors going into ee specializing in applied physics or
semiconductor physics/materials or chem majors going into
semiconductor process), then ee programs exist for those from
a different field. something related would be a mba in mis..i
suppose.. not having the prereqs for grad courses makes it
pretty difficult.. (it's a bit different from not having the
prereqs in undergrad.. and even this is not easy.. depending on
the program & university..)
\_ what about getting courses prereq at a community college
then take a Masters? Or maybe some Masters will allow you
to take some prereqs.
\_ This is an excellent idea. Thank you.
\_ most masters will allow their students to take undergrad
prereqs..
community college might be a good intro.. but courses like
a graduate level parallel architecture class (a typical
comp engr course) will more likely need a upper division
class like cs150 and/or eecs141..
\_ hahahaha... mcb huh?
\_ i majored in both eecs&mcb..and mcb classes were just as
difficult as eecs classes..
\_ MCB is commonly known as a "hell major" at cal. Along with
CS, and Architecture.
\_ Architecture!?!? That's a joke, right?
\_ um, no. architecture guys apparently have crazy big
projects (or maybe just tedious and time-consuming).
\_ please don't frighten the EECS droids by suggesting
that other students at Cal work hard. -tom
\_ architecture people, on average, work a hell of a lot
harder than EECS people while in school *and* after
school and definitely get way less money after school
99% of the time.
\_ what about taking prerequisites at a community college
then take a Masters? or some masters program may allow
you to take prerequisites first. |
| 5/17 |
|
| csua.org/u/5vi -> slashdot.org/articles/04/02/06/1336234.shtml?tid=146&tid=187&tid=98&tid=99 This is the way it is in China, the US has no real say in what tariffs that China imposes on imported goods, but obviously the Chinese government in this situation has chosen to protect its local industry from foreign competition by forcing the competitions prices for their citizens through the roof. The same applies even to the Canadian/American agreement see softwood lumber, and grain disputes. The American government has repeatedly placed huge tariffs on Canadian goods currently over 25 on grain, and upwards of 50 on lumber because the American companies cant compete with Canadian producers. However in this case with a WTO binding free trade agreement, this is illegal. Which is in fact, why we have been to court on 13 different occasions to have these tariffs repealed and won, every time. Score:2, Informative by theycallmeB 606963 on Friday February 06, 01:53PM 8204083 While I dont know about the grain dispute, or the total number of times disputes have gone to court, Canada has not won everytime. The most recent ruling on the softwood lumber dispute was mostly in favor of the US. The court determined that Provincal governments were selling timber on public lands to lumber companies at below market value and that this constituted an illegal subsidy. The court did continue to disagree with the amount the tariff was set at and I see to remember 33 being the highest, but that was a couple months ago. Also, I think that US-CAN trade disputes are settled under NAFTA provisions, which are more restrictive than the WTO treaties with regard to tariff levels. China is currently a WTO member and is supposed to be phasing in tariff reductions by the 2005/2006 timeframe. Chinese imports to the US are currently charged a very low tariff rate due to the granting of Most Favored Nation trading status by Congress. The imbalance is not so much that China unilaterally increased its rates, but rather that the US unilaterally reduced its rates. Score:1 by zx75 304335 on Friday February 06, 03:49PM 8205951 Ill apologize in advance because I feel that the term free trade when referring to NAFTA and Canada/US FTA is misleading. The softwood lumber dispute, there has been numerous court decisions due to appeals from both sides, and for the most part it has flip-flopped from ruling for one side to the other. The crux is that in the FTAs, there is a clause that the US and not vice versa has the provision to allow for protectionist tariffs on goods that are subsidized by the government. In this case, it is not that the government is selling wood to loggers at below market rates, it is that our government owns all forestry rights on Canadian soil, and is selling logging permits to companies who must still pay their own way for the actual logging and milling of the wood. Which is the reason for debate, whether government owned land constitutes unfairly subsidizing of the industry. It was indeed the grain trade that I was referring to that Canada has won every time the first 13 I believe, it is near there at any rate times it went to court. However, recently the US yet again imposed tariffs on Canadian wheat, which has forced us to go through the appeals process once more even though there has been no change to the way we do business. In the case of the grain trade, Canada has an entity known as the Canadian Wheat Board an independant organization that is recognized by the government which is simply a marketing organization for Canadian farmers. It does have a monopoly on the marketing and selling of grain in Canada, farmers are required to go through the CWB, but allows for every farmer to sell their grain at a fair price on the world market for the amount and quality they produce, and be able to spend less time, money, and effort doing so. Score:1 by Quikah 14419 on Friday February 06, 01:59PM 8204170 The latest WTO ruling on the matter has ruled that the tariffs are legal. Score:2 by banzai51 140396 on Friday February 06, 11:28AM 8202183 Last Journal: Wednesday July 09, 03:13PM The auto companies made this arguement against Japan in the 80s. More to the point, is the market selling in China really big enough not potentially, realy to support his business? Or is he getting his ass kicked domestically and just wants to shift blame rather than spend money to improve just like the Big 3? Score:1 by BSD Yoda 701352 on Saturday February 07, 08:10AM 8211041 The US didnt sign the Kyoto protocol because it could have been devastating to the economy. Bottom Line: Mexico and the like need simply do nothing until the last year of a new requirement, then show some evidence that they cant afford to pay, then wed be forced to retrofit their factories and clean up their lakes and streams. God Bless George Bush for not signing this piece of crap I dont like GWB and rarely say such things, perhaps one decent advisor snuck through. I want to help the environment, but I dont feel compelled to pay $1,000 a year in additional taxes in 2009 because theyve got some factories puking sludge that need to be cleaned up. In global agreements of any kind, America generally gets screwed, we should enter into very few of them. Score:5, Insightful by duffbeer703 177751 on Friday February 06, 10:00AM 8201106 US Steel was able to reorganize itself from a state of near bankruptcy to modest profitability due to the steel tariff. The guy that the parent poster would like to export stuff to China, which is growing at hyper-speed and has plenty of tool and die customers. But the Chinese govt slaps a 30 tariff to encourage local industry. The US is utterly dependent on the Chinese government and Industrialists buying US Government debt that we accept that situation. Heck, the free market people have even convinced people like you that the destruction of our nation is a good thing! Think of all the companies in the US, cars, construction workers, machines, that rely on steel. They all had to pay this insane rates because the steel workers couldnt adapt. Hidden jobloss in these sectors from companies that cant compete well, not to mention inflated prices on the goods these companies produce. Make no mistake, tariffs are ALWAYS a bad thing, regardless of which side institutes them Re:Good luck to new graduates! Score:2 by duffbeer703 177751 on Friday February 06, 12:56PM 8203275 FUD Alert! US Steel now produces steel for 1/3 the cost of what Korean steelmakers do. Korean steelmakers, known as the cheapest on the world market require twenty men for what US Steel does with two. A steel company that employes 3,000 people today has to pay 100 of the health insurance costs of 40,000 retirees. Health insurance is increasing in price, thanks to the the government, at a 10-15 annual rate. Once upon a time, the Federal government was funded by tariffs rather than onerous and invasive income taxes. They also allow domestic industry to flourish in the face of uneven labor and currency markets. A steel company that employes 3,000 people today has to pay 100 of the health insurance costs of 40,000 retirees. This is why traditional pensions and retirement benefits are such a bad idea. Its also why big companies are happy to have social security and govenment healthcare, because its not their problem then. In reality, individuals ought to be the owners of THEIR retirement money. Score:1 by Killswitch1968 735908 on Friday February 06, 07:28PM 8208297 You have some of the most disturbing economic beliefs I have ever heard. The saddest part is you are one of a multitude of Americans who have spent too much time watching Lou Dobbs and not enough time thinking about things logically sensibly. They are a tax on consumer goods, its just a more subtle of implementing them. And the second person to comment is also correct: Government should have no right to take peoples money for Retirement. That money, if invested, would reap 3 times the monthly payments as the laughable US system does. So any booms during intervening years prior to recent trade liberalizations were artificial/unsustainable? Capitalism is a fantastic system where people are always driven by greed. Right, which is why we currently have low tariffs on things... |