I think that you chaps (two most recent posters) misunderstand me a bit - I don't disagree with the use of UAVs in engineering education, nor do I have a particular issue with the programmes to some extent being centred on the flight vehicle. After all, aeronautical engineers surely should be expected to put the flight vehicle first to a greater or lesser extent. Also, whilst I admit to finding manned vehicles a lot more fun, I've also worked on UAV programmes, and agree that they are going to continue to be a very important part of our industry.
What I'm objecting to is the gross simplification of the complex issues of a "non-toy" flight vehicle, to the point where I don't believe that the students are getting a genuine appreciation of the deep and complex aeronautical issues that are equally applicable to commissioning a Global Hawk replacement, or a B737 replacement - or even a small mission capable palmtop MAV: but one to do a real job.
I highlighted the Heavy Lift Challenge, because I think it does buck the trend - forcing students to concentrate on design optimisation, mission fit, and certification issues (and having talked to a few teams doing these, the students have a shedload of fun as well). But this is not, in my opinion, typical of how many universities are doing it - who are changing a potentially valuable educational tool, into, frankly, a toy aeroplane.
G