I agree that there are probably a lot of improvements to be made in undergraduate engineering education.<p>However...<p>I think it's a big mistake to assume that every engineering dropout represents a failure of the college, or even a failure of the student. Maybe it's simply a question of incoming students not having the slightest idea what an engineering degree is all about. I seem to remember a lot of people who signed up for engineering <i>before</i> they discovered that you need to learn a lot of fairly difficult math and physics to be an engineer, after which they switched to something else.<p>That's why the dropout rate is so much smaller at MIT and other elite engineering schools: The students are preselected for their affinity for math and/or physics. For example, I can't help but notice that Olin's "redefinition of engineering education" includes this bullet point:<p><i>Applicants are required to spend a weekend at Olin before acceptance. During the weekend they participate in team engineering projects to assess their teamwork and technical skill.</i><p>Note: "Assess their technical skill." Now, I'm not saying that Olin's not a great school, but if you get to hand-pick the students, and then <i>you give them a 100% scholarship</i>, having a low dropout rate isn't much of an achievement. I assume with confidence that the vast majority of calculus-phobic people get weeded out before they ever get to Olin. At least, I hope so, because otherwise this practice would be cruel and unusual punishment:<p><i>Other engineering schools require students to take foundational courses in physics, thermo-dynamics, chemistry, and math for the first two years. Olin introduces these disciplines as needed throughout the 4 years.</i><p>If there's anything worse than hitting the wall in year one, it's being encouraged to go through a year or two in the major before you hit the wall.