I think that, overall, ME250 this semester was
a fantastic learning experience, imparting real-world applicable knowledge and
the theory behind it. Many aspects of the design, machining, and manufacturing
of simple mechanical machines were covered. This course did a great job of
building the students up to the point where building our final machines was
actually feasible-- I imagine that, had I zero experience with machining and
mechanical design, I would still have been able to produce a working machine for
my final project (although I doubt it would have won).
What the course taught us about teamwork and time management was equally important as the actual coursework. The system of early milestones (MS1-MS5), where each group member is responsible for bringing their own designs and ideas to discuss and integrate into the final machine design, was successful in forcing a certain degree of communication and involvement. The entire team aspect is so important because it is how real-world engineering works. If I'm not a team player, no sane engineering company will be hiring me.
What the course taught us about teamwork and time management was equally important as the actual coursework. The system of early milestones (MS1-MS5), where each group member is responsible for bringing their own designs and ideas to discuss and integrate into the final machine design, was successful in forcing a certain degree of communication and involvement. The entire team aspect is so important because it is how real-world engineering works. If I'm not a team player, no sane engineering company will be hiring me.
I was bothered, along with some of my friends
in the course, by some of the lecture material, and especially the CAD labs. The
bottom line is that it was far to simplistic for the knowledge base and skill
level of many of the students in the course. On the flip side, I also know of
many students for whom the CAD labs started off at a perfect level and
progressed them through basic computer modeling. I understand that no course
can be expected to teach to every single skill level present, but you also have
to take into account that this is a required core engineering course, at the
University of Michigan. If we are actually “the best and the brightest”, and
every one of us will pass through this course, shouldn’t we be able to
demonstrate our mastery of this facet of the course beforehand? Perhaps allow
students to test out of it at the beginning of the course? I’m not sure of the
answer to this conundrum, but I do feel that students who haven’t had any
experience with CAD should be taught it.
I do think that there were some issues with the course. My most top-level problem is the amount of time spent on lectures and early milestones vs. the actual engineering and building of our final project. In my opinion, spending two to four more weeks on the final project, and condensing the information in the lectures and labs, would benefit future students in the course. The way it is structured right now, most teams barely finished their robot by the final week. With another month, every team would be able to go through at least one design iteration, something that is so incredibly important to the design process. Allowing students to make mistakes is great, but making a mistake does not teach one anything. If you then force students to evaluate those problems, devise solutions, and then deploy those solutions, they will take away lessons from this course that are applicable in every walk of life.
Our performance could have been improved by another week or two of design and problem solving on our machine. With three other courses, homework, and the extremely tight machining schedule we were forced to adapt to in the ME Machine Shop, our team struggled to finish our machine in time. We chose from the start of our project to attempt to build a machine that was both novel and high scoring. I think that our ideas were fantastic, but the execution did not live up to the original plan. Frankly, we may have bit off more than we could chew.
Whatever hardships we went through and disagreements we had, I can truly say I am happy and proud to have been a part of this team. Each one of us brought something different to the table-- Miguel's experience, Mark's dogged determination, Haipei's numerical skills and total dominance of the class schedule. I couldn't have asked for a better GSI in David, he was instrumental in helping every team in his section succeed, and, in a turn of events I did not expect, I believe I will be keeping in touch with one of my GSIs.
Thank you Mike and Albert for a great start to the MEx50 series of classes, I look forward to the rest.
Thanks for the great experience.
Julien Cohen
I do think that there were some issues with the course. My most top-level problem is the amount of time spent on lectures and early milestones vs. the actual engineering and building of our final project. In my opinion, spending two to four more weeks on the final project, and condensing the information in the lectures and labs, would benefit future students in the course. The way it is structured right now, most teams barely finished their robot by the final week. With another month, every team would be able to go through at least one design iteration, something that is so incredibly important to the design process. Allowing students to make mistakes is great, but making a mistake does not teach one anything. If you then force students to evaluate those problems, devise solutions, and then deploy those solutions, they will take away lessons from this course that are applicable in every walk of life.
Our performance could have been improved by another week or two of design and problem solving on our machine. With three other courses, homework, and the extremely tight machining schedule we were forced to adapt to in the ME Machine Shop, our team struggled to finish our machine in time. We chose from the start of our project to attempt to build a machine that was both novel and high scoring. I think that our ideas were fantastic, but the execution did not live up to the original plan. Frankly, we may have bit off more than we could chew.
Whatever hardships we went through and disagreements we had, I can truly say I am happy and proud to have been a part of this team. Each one of us brought something different to the table-- Miguel's experience, Mark's dogged determination, Haipei's numerical skills and total dominance of the class schedule. I couldn't have asked for a better GSI in David, he was instrumental in helping every team in his section succeed, and, in a turn of events I did not expect, I believe I will be keeping in touch with one of my GSIs.
Thank you Mike and Albert for a great start to the MEx50 series of classes, I look forward to the rest.
Thanks for the great experience.
Julien Cohen
