
Re: expanding the use of symbolic computation in engineering .. was Re:
Posted:
May 24, 2013 5:23 AM


I can only comment about my experience as well, but I beg to differ.
I believe my Mathematicaintensive sophomore course for materials scientists has resulted in Mathematica as being the tool of choice for the remainder of a student's undergraduate educationand 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 institutewide 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 offhand 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 courseresources to get assessment are rare.
Helen Read and Murray Eisenberg, I believe, also teach successful MathematicaIntensive 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...

