I can only comment about my experience as well, but I beg to differ.
I believe my Mathematica-intensive sophomore course for materials scientists has resulted in Mathematica as being the tool of choice for the remainder of a student's undergraduate education---and know of many cases where students continue to use Mathematica as a tool for graduate research and private sector careers.
I've been teaching this course for about 12 years and have won MIT's institute-wide teaching award and the school of engineering teaching award; both awards derive primarily from the results of this course.
I only have student accounts and letters, and off-hand comments from other faculty about the benefits of my course; these are uniformly positive but the sample is probably biased. I am hoping to get an objective critical assessment of the educational benefits of this course---resources to get assessment are rare.
Helen Read and Murray Eisenberg, I believe, also teach successful Mathematica-Intensive courses; they may have obtained objective assessment.
W Craig Carter Professor of Materials Science, MIT
On May 23, 13, at 4:06 AM, Richard Fateman wrote:
> On 5/21/2013 11:18 PM, mathgroup wrote: >> I want to comment on my experience , limited of course, with students of >> Engineering, Engineers and Professors of Engineering.....my background is >> Physics... >> >> First, I get the impression that , in the main, Symbolic Computation, etc. >> is not something they are really interested in... > ... >> Again, of course, this is my limited experience...Perhaps others have had >> different and better ones... >> >> Jerry Blimbaum >> >> > > I think your experience is typical, and that the "sweet spot" for > engineering computation is not in symbolic computation nor Mathematica > in particular. Certainly educators don't view symbolic computation > as key to any particular course that is in the core curriculum. See > for example...