<p>I took AP Chem last year and absolutely fell in love. I've done Chem Olympiad, and interned for a local professor where I worked with porous silicon on various projects.</p>
<p>Now is the type of chemistry I've been exposed to so far closer to chemical engineering or chemistry? I really cannot figure out a definitive distinction between the two. </p>
<p>I can't decide if I want to apply to Princeton or Harvard early. Harvard doesn't even have chemical engineering while Princeton's chemE is decent. I think figuring out which I want to major will help me along that line.</p>
<p>Also, if I still can't decide by the time I actually have to apply, is it wiser to apply as an engineering major, and switch out later if I choose to do so, or just apply as pure chemistry major? I've heard that putting engineering may make admissions tougher at some schools but also that it's much harder to switch into engineering than out of it.</p>
<p>Finally, I've been thinking about pre-med but haven't decided if I want to do it for sure. Would doing engineering undergrad while completing a pre-med track be foolish/unnecessary? Would it be better to go pure chemistry instead?</p>
<p>First, regarding admissions. For a given school, if you are admitted by major, chemical engineering is generally more difficult to gain admission to than, say, chemistry or philosophy. However, I believe that neither Harvard nor Princeton admit by major: once you’re in, you can pick whatever you’d like from the available options (the real difficulty with these two is getting admitted at all). At most public schools, switching into engineering is harder than being admitted to it, usually (as getting the necessary GPA for coursework is harder than secondary school GPA).</p>
<p>Premed. Chemical engineering at most schools requires a year of general chemistry, a year of organic, and 1-2 terms of physical. At many schools, chemical engineering also requires a course of biology, which you would have to supplement for medical school, but chemical engineering requirements align very nicely with med school admissions requirements. </p>
<p>Chemistry research. The type of chemistry you’ve been exposed to thus far is, by definition, chemistry. In the chemical engr research groups at my school, there is some overlap with both materials and chemistry research, but chemical engineering is not chemistry and so much of the research is unrelated (e.g., chemists don’t do process dynamics research). You only use the basics of chemistry in the undergraduate engineering coursework (mole balances, enthalpy of rxn, etc.): the rest is glorious applied math (such as endless partial differential equations in transport phenomena).</p>
<p>Yes, but you cover just about the same amount of chemistry as a chemistry major. Just a few less electives and a lot less chemistry equipment (you learn about engineering equipment instead).</p>
<p>You can usually go from ChemE BS to Chem grad school without a hitch. Since Chem isn’t really that useful with only an undergraduate degree, if you plan to go to graduate school then ChemE is the “safer” option.</p>
<p>I see. I’ve heard for engineering majors school doesn’t matter as much. To what extent is I that true? For example, if I had a choice between MIT and Yale, although MIT’s engineering programs are considerably stronger, would it be a bad decision to attend Yale if I like Yale overall much more?</p>
<p>As long as the program is ABET accredited, you will be good to go for undergraduate in chemical engineering. The difference between opportunities at Yale and MIT are not significant; the difference may be more significant between, say, South Montana State U. v. MIT, but if the former is an ABET accredited program, you’ll still probably good for employment. Choose what you like for college, as you’ll be there for four long years.</p>
<p>Well, if you’re dead set on a Ch-E department at MIT or the Ivy League, they are all ABET “approved” so no problem thus far. As for the distinction between Chemistry and Ch-E, whether or not that difference will significantly impact you depends upon your objectives and where you matriculate.</p>
<p>Ch-E is a very broad discipline. It’s not that straight Chemistry is narrow, but that at present Ch-E researchers and professionals are involved in work as various as drug delivery, composites and polymers for consumer use, sustainable energy, petroleum derivatives, manufacturing processes, etc. I question whether or not Yale is strong in any of these areas, by the way. In any event, the holder of a B.S. in Chemistry may not have such a broad array of career possibilities ahead of himself/herself as a Ch-E major would. But keep in mind, major industrial corporations still hire ‘Scientists’ with graduate degrees in Chemistry.</p>
<p>However, you will be enrolling in undergraduate studies: the engineering course material will be more or less the same regardless of the institution (thermodynamics, transport phenomena, reactions, process dynamics, separations, design). There is a good chance the different schools use the same books (Bird/Lightfoot, Fogler, Smith/Van Ness, etc.) for the engineering coursework. Humourous exception: people in the chemical engineering option at Caltech do a year of complex analysis, because complex integrals are fun.</p>
<p>Yeah Vanimelde, I was very surprised to discover that despite the plethora of Chemical Engineering textbooks and textbook authors, the same authors and titles keep appearing in Ch-E Department curriculums at many, many schools. Like you said; Fogler, Van Ness, Koretsky, Cengel etc. </p>
<p>Isn’t Princeton known to have grade deflation policies? I’ve heard it said that getting an A at Princeton is much harder than getting one at Harvard, for example.</p>
<p>Is 35% A~ high or low compared to other colleges?
Also, will the fact that Princeton students will have slightly lower GPAs on average compared to Harvard or whatever hurt their chances at grad school or employment?</p>
<p>It is high compared with large, public universities (e.g., UC campuses, Univ. of Washington - Seattle). For example, in a baby statistics class a friend of mine did at a UC campus last term, the distribution of grades was designed to include, at most, 20% A. Be aware that the grade inflation phenomenon is led by the humanities and social sciences.</p>
<p>As Princeton students have not massed in protest of their unfair treatment, relative to students at other Ivy League schools, although they are complaining, I suspect the change in outcomes is minor at worst.</p>
<p>Princeton did an internal study on grade deflation and determined it had no impact on grad school and employment chances. That study was designed and interpreted by the very people who implemented the grade deflation policy. Subsequently, a study was done (by, I believe, UCLA) which proved that the grade deflation policy was harming the students chances.</p>
<p>We can debate endlessly the effects. However, the tests at the intro levels (physics, chem, math) are designed not to determine who has mastered the material; rather the tests are designed to create a curve. I know for a fact (since my D is a Chem. E. Major there) that this past semester an email was sent to parents explaining that the 37% mean grade in a required math-prequisite was not the intended result of grade deflation, but instead was the result of the test being too difficult.</p>
<p>Not to denigrate state schools, and I fully appreciate that the top portion of state school classes are competitive with any school in the country (state school grad here), but the “bench” is not as deep at state schools as MIT, Princeton, Harvard. </p>
<p>Moreover, in order to conform to the grade deflation policy, profs give out fewer top grades in intro classes in order to give out more top grades in advanced classes (since the policy is measured by department).</p>
<p>At Princeton, IMHO, the forced curve is debilitating to engineering students. As I said, when mastery of the material taught is not the measure of a grade, but your standing amongst your fellow students is, efficient team work is compromised. My D has been on both sides of the policy - and is bewildered most of the time by it.</p>