A Ph.D. Looks Back at Her Undergraduate Curriculum

Sharon Wong
Biomedical Engineering, Ph.D. candidate – Cornell University
Materials Engineering, B.S. – California Polytechnic State University , San Luis Obispo

After graduating with a B.S. in Materials Engineering in 1999, I felt more than ready to embark upon the “real world” with my newly acquired skills. And despite three extremely rewarding and formative years in industry, I found myself wanting more – more in the way of technical challenge and more in the way of making an even greater impact on society. So I took my newfound motivation and decided to go to graduate school to continue my quest for something more.

Though the transition back to academia was grueling, I eventually came to realize that going to graduate school was by far one of the best decisions I had ever made in life. And as I currently enter the third year of my Ph.D. program in Biomedical Engineering, I oftentimes reflect upon the experiences that have brought me to this moment and how I can convey them to others . To that end, I speak from the perspective of one who has had a taste of industry and two contrasting academic environments and about the personal lessons gained from these experiences.

Understandably, undergraduate and graduate engineering curricula provide differing things to their respective students. An undergraduate engineering curriculum tends to be more structured and rigorously course-intensive with the goal of providing a foundational education in the chosen major. Conversely, a graduate engineering curriculum tends to be less pre-determined and structured thereby affording students the autonomy to tailor their education to complement their own research and/or fulfill personal interests. And it is through this latter mode of curriculum that I have explored fields of study such as health policy, epidemiology, and gender and globalization studies, which a narrowly tailored curriculum may not have accommodated. But more importantly, it has opened my eyes to the various ways I could apply my engineering training towards alternative career paths that I would not have thought of otherwise.

Admittedly, I may not have been able to come to the same conclusions had I not taken a break from school and worked in industry, which ultimately led me to graduate school with a new perspective and a refreshed enthusiasm for learning. And I conjecture to say that most first-years entering college may not be of the same motivated mindset either. That is not to say, however, that a more self-directed undergraduate engineering curriculum is unsuitable. In fact, it may be beneficial and constructive, considering that when students are spoon fed their curriculum, they may not be motivated to question the system or “think outside the box”. But if the system is designed to require and encourage independent and mindful planning, students may discover, be it intentionally or coincidentally, what motivates them and what they want to pursue in life.

I make no pretensions of being qualified to direct any institutionalized curricula as I fully acknowledge that there may not be one framework that can unequivocally produce the desired effect. Nevertheless, I believe that the goal of any educational institution is to prepare their students with the knowledge, experiences, and the foundation necessary to make thoughtful decisions in all aspects of life. Part of that education process is challenging and guiding students to explore a diverse range of fields so that they can discover for themselves what interests them and, just as importantly, what does not. And therein lies the challenge of any academic curricula – to strike a balance between providing adequate technical training while allowing the freedom to explore other areas of study. I extend my experiences merely as a sort of case study to offer a distinct perspective to those in the formidable position of designing curricula which aim to achieve this balance.