<p>I just read a topic about how chemical engineers just design machines that mix chemicals. Is that really the case? Would I be exposed to more chemistry and less machinery as a materials engineer?</p>
<p>Actually, I've heard that ChemE's are basically nothing more than glorified plumbers, what with their emphasis on fluid mechanics and continuous flow process and so forth.</p>
<p>But seriously, I would say that while the notion that ChemE's are just Me's + chemicals has a grain of truth to it, ChemE is about far more than that. Chemical engineering is really about understanding chemistry at a large-scale, industrial level. It's not a matter of simply mixing chemicals, but about creating new chemicals by mixing reagents together. The crown jewel of the ChemE field is probably the oil refinery, just like the crown jewel of the ME field is probably the automobile. </p>
<p>As far as whether you would be 'exposed' to more chemistry and less machinery as a materials engineer, I would say perhaps, but it depends on what you want to do. In my opinion, there is no true defining line between ChemE and MatSci, there is only a fuzzy line. A lot of ChemE's do work that could easily be described as MatSci work. </p>
<p>Personally, from a simple career safety standpoint, I would stick with ChemE. After all, plenty of ChemE's get materials jobs. And if you can't get a materials job, then you can always just take a traditional chemE job. Chem E is one of the highest paying engineeering disciplines around, usually 2nd only to petroleumE.</p>
<p>Yeah, by the way, chemical engineers have the highest paying jobs of all classes of engineers.</p>
<p>ChemE's are 2nd in starting salary for new bachelor's degree recipients. PetE has held the #1 spot for many years.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm#earnings%5B/url%5D">http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm#earnings</a></p>
<p>well lah-dee-dah mr "what i say is well-referenced"</p>
<p>Hey, what can I say? Facts are facts.</p>
<p>One thing to remember is that even though PetroE majors have the highest starting salaries, there's a lot less jobs available. And there are less ChemE jobs than ME or EE jobs.</p>
<p>Another thing to consider is where are the majority of PetroE jobs located. Are most of the PetroE jobs located in rural areas? I know many Nuclear E's, there are not many Nuclear Power Plants located in large cities. Most NuclearE's that I know live in rural areas or are involved with the Navy somehow. One thing to consider when chosing a concentration is quality of life and not what will give you the highest salary.</p>
<p>
[quote]
One thing to remember is that even though PetroE majors have the highest starting salaries, there's a lot less jobs available. And there are less ChemE jobs than ME or EE jobs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is true. On the other hand, there are a lot fewer people getting PetE than ChemE degrees, and fewer people getting ChemE degrees compared to ME or EE. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm#emply%5B/url%5D">http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm#emply</a></p>
<p>So while there are less jobs, there is also less competition for the jobs. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Another thing to consider is where are the majority of PetroE jobs located. Are most of the PetroE jobs located in rural areas? I know many Nuclear E's, there are not many Nuclear Power Plants located in large cities. Most NuclearE's that I know live in rural areas or are involved with the Navy somehow. One thing to consider when chosing a concentration is quality of life and not what will give you the highest salary.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I completely agree with this, which is why you also have to compare not only where you want to live, but also what it will cost. For example, a lot of petroleum engineers work in rural West Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico and places like that where the oil is. Those places are low cost. So not only are you getting a quite good salary, but your living costs will be very low. So, from a disposable income standpoint, you'r really making good money. </p>
<p>You might also get sent to the Alaska North Slope or overseas, but then your living costs become effectively zero (because under those conditions, the company will pay for all of your living costs - as nobody actually "lives" on the Alaska North Slope, or lives overseas while working as a petroleum engineer). The point is, you can really bank a lot of money very quickly via petroleum engineering. </p>
<p>The same is true, to a lesser extent, of chemical engineering. Chemical engineering jobs tend to be located in rural industrial areas, especially along the Texas/Louisiana Gulf Coast. The long sequence of oil refineries and petrochemical plants on the Gulf Coast all make it 'chemical engineering heaven'. The Gulf Coast is a pretty cheap place to live. If you're making a 50k starting salary in rural Louisiana, you can live quite well. Contrast that with a 50k salary in Silicon Valley or Boston in which you will have to live quite modestly.</p>
<p>However, I do agree that you also have to decide where you want to live. If you know that you want to live in San Francisco or NYC, then petroleum engineering is probably not right for you. Heck, if you want to live in those cities, probably engineering in general is not right for you. You should probably get a business degree and target jobs in banking, consulting, marketing, accounting, etc.</p>
<p>PetroEs are ChemEs, it's a subsection.</p>
<p>No they are not. I think most PetE's would STRONGLY bristle at the notion that they are a subsection of ChemE's. </p>
<p>Besides, I'll put it to you this way. If PetE's are just a subgroup of ChemE's, then why does Stanford, for example, actually run PetE in an entirely different school from ChemE? PetE is administered out of the SChool of Earth Sciences, whereas ChemE is administered out of the School of Engineering. How can they be administered within 2 entirely different schools if one is really a subgroup of the other? </p>
<p><a href="http://soe.stanford.edu/research/lab_ctr_dtl.php?org=3%5B/url%5D">http://soe.stanford.edu/research/lab_ctr_dtl.php?org=3</a>
<a href="http://ekofisk.stanford.edu/%5B/url%5D">http://ekofisk.stanford.edu/</a></p>
<p>Because most chemEs go to work for the oil industry.</p>
<p>Yeah, but that doesn't make them PetE's, at least in the context we are using here, and not in the way that the engineering schools define them to be. </p>
<p>The oil industry basically consists of 2 parts, upstream (exploring for oil and producing it out of the ground), and downstream (refining the oil into consistuent salable products such as gasoline, heating oil, jet fuel, etc.) PetE's know upstream, ChemE's know downstream. Most ChemE's don't know anything about how to explore for oil, how to get it out of the ground, or have ever been on an offshore oil platform or land derrick. Most PetE's know nothing about how to refine oil, and have never stepped foot in an oil refinery. </p>
<p>Compare the course curricula and you will see what the 2 disciplines emphasize. I don't know too many ChemE's that take courses on well logging, geological/geosystems engineering, or reservoir management. I also don't know too many PetE's who take classes on Separation Processes or Chemical Reactor Design. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.pge.utexas.edu/pdf/pe-2002.04.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.pge.utexas.edu/pdf/pe-2002.04.pdf</a>
<a href="http://www.engr.utexas.edu/che/students/undergrad/04-06%20SAC.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.engr.utexas.edu/che/students/undergrad/04-06%20SAC.pdf</a></p>
<p>Just something to think about. I go to the University of Pittsburgh and our department is chemical & petroleum engineering rolled into one. The only difference (on paper) between being a ChemE and a PetE is two courses in oil drilling and reservoir flows and one research project...most likely something in enhanced oil recovery. That doesn't mean they are the same or even almost the same. I'm just saying that from the standpoint of UPitt, that is the only difference.</p>
<p>chemical engineering enables u to use priniples of physics chem and math to manufacture processes.u will have a ton of thermodynamics,fluid mechanics and chemical reaction engineering.if u r doing chemistryi would tell u to give attention to rates of reactions and gas laws.</p>
<p>chemE is very lucrative because you can get your master's in Nuclear engineering or Petroleum Eng right? Can't you just transition into nuc/pet eng.? Isn't it like majoring in mechE and then wanting to transfer into Aerospace eng. down the line - OR - majoring in EE and wanting to switch into comp. science/signal processing later on - OR- majoring in civil engineering but wanting to transfer into architecture later on??</p>
<p>In theory, you can transition from anything to anything. I know a guy who transitioned from a Harvard bachelor's degree in Biology to a master's degree in Civil Engineering at MIT.</p>
<p>Furthering what sakky stated, my friend's dad graduated from Virginia Tech with an engineering degree but got a Master's and Ph.D from UVa in econ and is now a professor in business at Alabama.</p>
<p>I'll do you one better. Vernon Smith got a bachelor's degree in EE from Caltech, got an MA in economics from the University of Kansas, and his PhD in Economics from Harvard. He then later went on to win the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2002, specializing in experimental/behavorial economics. It's not clear to me what behavorial economics has to do with EE, but that just shows the versatility of an engineering degree.</p>
<p>Or maybe just the versatility of pure genius. That's just crazy.</p>