Date: May 24, 2013 5:23 AM
Author: W. Craig Carter
Subject: Re: expanding the use of symbolic computation in engineering .. was Re:

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

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 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...