🚀 go-pugleaf

Steven Pollack writes
> As expected everybody flamed me on this one.  I should have phrased this
> one differently.  Most MS&E Departments have evolved from Metallurgy
> Programs.  As such, the general trend has been to take a bandaid
> approach in adding in the necessary topics relevent to the polymers and
> ceramics that would fall under the same catagories as those taught in
> the traditional Physical Metallurgy class.  We have a pair of courses
> entitled Science of Materials I & II and they are of this ilk. I am, as
> a polymer scientist, trying to assess what should be taught it this sort
> of course that crosses the three subdisciplines.  I am in no way
> advocating that we drop Phys. Met. from the MS&E curriculum.  I am
> looking for a less specific introductory class for the three
> subdisciplines that is a a level higher than a general engineering
> introduction to materials (al'a van Vlack/Smith/Callister etc.).  
> 
> So....  
> 
> Topics?
> Textbooks?

hi!

well, i am a grad student in MS&E at UH, and i have had some thoughts about  
this.  it seems (from what i've encountered) that it is very difficult to get  
an advanced, general-level course put together.  the reason is that the amount  
of material to teach/learn would be immense!

speaking from a student's point of view, i wouldn't WANT such a course.   
instead, i'd prefer a curriculum (maybe 2-3 courses) which deal with all of the  
areas systematically and sequentially (kind of like the way calculus is taught  
in 3 parts : differential, integral, and multi-variable).  that way, all of the  
"necessary" material (no pun intended) could be taught without having to cram  
things together.

just my opinions,
-purna