Labs in uni for engineering

So do unis provide you with just basic components so you can build things in your spare time let's say i wanna create a small rc drone can i just go get components from the lab or how does the system work

Did you actually read that carefully? They do ONE bit each - ha ha! Not very impressive - and in Year 2. Groups of six are too big for real hands-on experience.

Really, just stop trying to justify the Cambridge Engineering degree as making them industry ready - other unis are doing far more complex stuff in Year 1.

You still haven't said when you last spoke to a Cambridge lecturer about their course ....

No I haven't spoken to a lecturer about the weekly timetabling or specific details of what they do. I'm a parent, not a student.

The IDP is one item in one term. As I said they have many hours of practical labs per week in addition. And a multi-disciplinary team project like the IDP strikes me as very relevant for real world engineering.

It seems your definition of "completely theoretical" is shifting somewhat.

So do unis provide you with just basic components so you can build things in your spare time let's say i wanna create a small rc drone can i just go get components from the lab or how does the system work

Even some of the lecturers feel it is 'too theoretical' - it would be very easy to be in a group and do NO hands on stuff at all. Hence my definition of completely theoretical ..it will be for many.
Compare that to unis where each student has to complete practical tasks in Year 1 and they need proper boots etc from day one.

Surely you spoke to a lecturer at some point?!! So everything you know is second-hand?!

If they really developed practical engineers then their Formula Student team might be better ...

Depends on the uni - most 'new' unis have timetabled sessions where you do set tasks. When you get to do your finals project you have to order any specific components you need.
At some RG unis the course is completely theoretical.

Just because labs are 'scheduled' doesn't mean you are hands-on making things or have access to new technology such as 3D printing. The skills are more than following someone's instructions to perform an experiment.

You are very Oxbridge biased and I'd strongly advise any student to speak to their teachers for proper advice on Engineering. How recently have you actually visited Oxbridge or spoken to lecturers on the course?

The unis you name have very limited access compared to newer unis - look at the costs you are expected to cover as well

e.g. Cambridge
Year 3


It also implies that safety boots aren't used before the third year so they can't be doing much.

For goodness sake, I was just giving you one example. They start Week 1 of Year 1 with a practical task: The Lego Mindstorms challenge, and continue with practical work through all their years.

Year 1 coursework - https://www.admissions.eng.cam.ac.uk/course/1styearcw

Anyway, you've clearly made your mind up that Oxbridge isn't for your pupils, I get it. My son's insurance was Loughborough and he was very happy to have it as one of his choices, and would have enjoyed it there too (he already has friends there).

But the fact is he's also really enjoyed his time so far at Cambridge - yes it's intensive and hard and theory-heavy (not theory-only) but, for example, he was able to land a good summer placement where he became a very valued team member with an open invitation for further work. Most students at Cambridge don't seem as worried as you are about their future career opportunities.

I think you should stop promoting a course our own child is on without revealing this fact - it is very biased advice.

I often mention it. It's not a secret. Tell you what I'll add it to my profile.

And for the avoidance of doubt, I was not promoting Cambridge. You stated the course is "completely theoretical" at some RGs when it quite simply isn't. Perhaps it's *more* theoretical, but that is a completely different assertion which wouldn't have attracted my comment.

If you continue to post myths about "some RGs" you should expect them to be questioned.

There is no guarantee that someone at Cambridge HAS to touch any practical work at all - hence it can be totally theoretical.

You seem to have a strange definition of 'theoretical' - only doing 'controlled practicals' is theooretical. That's what some courses are like -

As I said if you want to work in industry DON'T go to Cambridge ...

How did the Formula Student team do?

a) nobody except you cares that much about formula student, including the people I know who have competed in it

b) at Cambridge all first and second year engineering students have required labs (approx 4 hours per week, which is more than a fair number of universities). 30% of third year marks are from experimental work. 43% of final year marks are from the project which may or may not be "experimental" depending on student interests. Computational projects are just as, if not more, relevant to industry as experimental ones. Final year students may additionally have some further lab based worked depending on options chosen.

c) all engineering students are required to spend a minimum of 6 weeks in industry at Cambridge (something I didn't realise until recently) - few universities require this and a few aren't even able to offer it. Most I know at Exeter for example did not spend any time in industry.

There is no guarantee that someone at Cambridge HAS to touch any practical work at all - hence it can be totally theoretical.

You seem to have a strange definition of 'theoretical' - only doing 'controlled practicals' is theooretical. That's what some courses are like -

As I said if you want to work in industry DON'T go to Cambridge ...

How did the Formula Student team do?