<p>I've had a chat with my TA yesterday, and she tells me that the only thing I learn in school is really just problem solving. The technical skills will be taught when you actually do work.</p>
<p>Does it really matter which engineering program I enrol in? I'm pretty sure they all teach me the same problem-solving skills, but only through different courses. </p>
<p>How does engineering differ from say, math and computer science, in terms of the problem-solving skills taught?</p>
<p>It matters in some sense in that it is easier to get certain jobs with certain majors. It is true that most of the technical skills will be taught to you on the job itself, but that of course presumes that you will actually be able to get the job that teaches you such skills in the first place. </p>
<p>To give you an example, if you want to work in an oil refinery as a process engineer, you basically have to have a degree in chemical engineering. You might be able to get away with a degree in ME. But with any other degree, and especially a non-engineering degree, things will be very dicey. </p>
<p>Note, there is no hard and fast rule. For example, I know that Intel will hire semiconductor processing engineers who studied EECS, ChemE, physics, chemistry, materials science, and perhaps some other majors as well. But the point is, certain majors can give you more of an 'in' to certain industries. That's the real difference. </p>
<p>In my opinion, computer science is still the most flexible degree you can get, especially computational computer science. But that's not to say that other degrees don't have their uses.</p>
<p>CS is more flexible than ME? ME's can basically work in any physical engineering discipline. MEs can be hired in place of CE, Aero, IME, BME, ChemE, MATE. Certainly the amount of available jobs that MEs can do is quite high.</p>
<p>Well, the truth is, there are probably more computer-related jobs than there are ME jobs. According tot he BLS, there are more than twice the number of computer science/database jobs (which are just another kind of CS jobs) than there are ME jobs. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos042.htm#emply%5B/url%5D">http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos042.htm#emply</a>
<a href="http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm#emply%5B/url%5D">http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm#emply</a></p>
<p>Now, obviously, sheer numbers is not the sole factor at play here, so I don't want to get too hung up on that. I would also point to the fact that many former fields that were dominated by ME are not being taken over by computer functionality. For example, Huber and Mills, in the book "The Bottomless Well", illustrated how automobiles of the future will become progressively less and less mechanistically oriented, as more of the functions of steering, transmission, and power transfer will be taken over by computers. Already, the carburetor is largely obsolete, replaced by computer-controlled fuel injection. In the future, cars may no longer have actual transmission gears, as all of that machinery will be replaced by computer controls. Cars will no longer have mechanical steering, replaced by drive-by-wire. Much of the expense of modern airplanes is in the computer and electronic control systems. Frankly speaking, the directionality seems to be one-way. Computer functionality tends to take over mechanical controls, but almost never the reverse. You practically never see something that is computer-controlled that is later replaced by pure machinery.</p>
<p>Then of course there is the whole Internet economy which CS obviously participates in to a great extent, but ME participates hardly at all. YouTube is a 1-year-old company that was just sold for $1.6 billion. You don't really see that in ME anymore. Can you really envision somebody starting a company having to do with ME, and then, a year later, selling it for billions of dollars? </p>
<p>Hey, don't get me wrong. I am not saying that ME is bad. But from what I see, it seems to me that CS is a more flexible degree.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, the truth is, there are probably more computer-related jobs than there are ME jobs. According tot he BLS, there are more than twice the number of computer science/database jobs (which are just another kind of CS jobs) than there are ME jobs.
[/quote]
I agree with what you said. You are not disagreeing with my argument though.</p>
<p>ME jobs can include Civil, Industrial, Aero, Chem E, Petro, Nuclear. Surely you know that most physical engineering relies on the same concepts, with additional specialization. In fact, I'd reckon there are few Civil engineering jobs and virtually no industrial engineering jobs which an ME can not do. Surely this means the "available" jobs for ME, even if they do not have the ME label, is relatively high.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now, obviously, sheer numbers is not the sole factor at play here, so I don't want to get too hung up on that. I would also point to the fact that many former fields that were dominated by ME are not being taken over by computer functionality. For example, Huber and Mills, in the book "The Bottomless Well", illustrated how automobiles of the future will become progressively less and less mechanistically oriented, as more of the functions of steering, transmission, and power transfer will be taken over by computers. Already, the carburetor is largely obsolete, replaced by computer-controlled fuel injection. In the future, cars may no longer have actual transmission gears, as all of that machinery will be replaced by computer controls. Cars will no longer have mechanical steering, replaced by drive-by-wire. Much of the expense of modern airplanes is in the computer and electronic control systems. Frankly speaking, the directionality seems to be one-way. Computer functionality tends to take over mechanical controls, but almost never the reverse. You practically never see something that is computer-controlled that is later replaced by pure machinery.
[/quote]
Relevance? ME, Aeros, Civils learn programming/controls for a reason. Anyway, this is more of an EE deal than CS.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Then of course there is the whole Internet economy which CS obviously participates in to a great extent, but ME participates hardly at all. YouTube is a 1-year-old company that was just sold for $1.6 billion. You don't really see that in ME anymore. Can you really envision somebody starting a company having to do with ME, and then, a year later, selling it for billions of dollars?
[/quote]
Considering how many of these companies are setup by people who know how to code and are not CS majors, it kind of weakens your argument. It seems you assuming MEs can code, which, of course, is false.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hey, don't get me wrong. I am not saying that ME is bad. But from what I see, it seems to me that CS is a more flexible degree.
[/quote]
When you include IT in the equation it certainly inflates the numbers. MEs can't do IT jobs? Hell, the amount of IT jobs inhabited by non-CS majors is quite high.</p>
<p>it seems, if you look at bls statistics alone, that the fastest growing engineering is environmental... mechE is average, and some engineering disciplines (mining) are actually declining. A large number of computer occupations are expected to explode, and it is increasingly more important to have a credential (EE, CS, CE degree) to leverage your marketability in the computer industry.</p>
<p>Hmm, these are some interesting ponits that are already helping me decide.</p>
<p>What do you guys think of a mechatronics program? Is it too broad or can it be considered as a distinct area? Is it better to focus on one side? I'm now thinking of doing either electrical or mechanical, coupled with CS.</p>
<p>Anyone else?</p>
<p>Stick with the engineering field that interests you most. Otherwise, you may end up hating your core classes, not doing well, and having limited career options (because of your GPA).</p>
<p>The program that I'm currently enrolled in is the one I'm interested in the most. It's a nanotechnology engineering program. I do not want to suffer the same fate as biomedical engineering graduates, only to a worse extent.</p>
<p>PS. I'm extremely interested in materials science. Not the fracture analysis (well, maybe it'd be kind of interesting), but the actual design of new materials. Some may recommend me chemical engineering but I fail to see any relevance to materials science. There's a lot of fluid mechanics and heat/mass transfer, which is too similar to mechanical engineering. That is pretty interesting, but not my main focus.</p>
<p>Maybe I should do something like mechanical engineering + (bio)chemistry?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Relevance? ME, Aeros, Civils learn programming/controls for a reason. Anyway, this is more of an EE deal than CS.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What I am saying is that these tasks are becoming more and more software oriented. In fact, many mechanical algorithms are being replaced with software. That is why I don't consider it an EE deal, as the value-add is becoming more centered around the software. You get a general off-the-shelf microprocessor and then you program it. Like I said the directionality seems to be one-way - software often times replaces machinery, but rarely does machinery replace software. </p>
<p>
[quote]
ME jobs can include Civil, Industrial, Aero, Chem E, Petro, Nuclear. Surely you know that most physical engineering relies on the same concepts, with additional specialization. In fact, I'd reckon there are few Civil engineering jobs and virtually no industrial engineering jobs which an ME can not do. Surely this means the "available" jobs for ME, even if they do not have the ME label, is relatively high.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But that is where the disagreement lies. All of these fields are becoming more computerized, therefore increasing the prominence of CS. I can't name a single engineering field that is actually becoming LESS computerized. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Considering how many of these companies are setup by people who know how to code and are not CS majors, it kind of weakens your argument. It seems you assuming MEs can code, which, of course, is false
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Huh? How does it weaken my argument? My argument is that the CS people have a clearer shot at IT jobs than, frankly, any other major does. That's not to say that other people don't get into IT, because of course they do. But to the extent that IT becomes more prominent, that helps the CS major more than it helps any other major, including ME. You must agree that as IT becomes more prominent, that creates more openings for CS people as opposed to ME people. </p>
<p>
[quote]
When you include IT in the equation it certainly inflates the numbers. MEs can't do IT jobs? Hell, the amount of IT jobs inhabited by non-CS majors is quite high.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See above. The key is the relative benefit. CS, relatively speaking, benefits more from the growth of IT than ME benefits.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What I am saying is that these tasks are becoming more and more software oriented. In fact, many mechanical algorithms are being replaced with software. That is why I don't consider it an EE deal, as the value-add is becoming more centered around the software. You get a general off-the-shelf microprocessor and then you program it. Like I said the directionality seems to be one-way - software often times replaces machinery, but rarely does machinery replace software.
[/quote]
When dealing with computerized control of electronic systems then you are dealing with EEs over CS majors (90% of the time).</p>
<p>
[quote]
But that is where the disagreement lies. All of these fields are becoming more computerized, therefore increasing the prominence of CS. I can't name a single engineering field that is actually becoming LESS computerized.
[/quote]
Perhaps you can explicate a bit further. That doesn't even seem to be a response to what I said that the pool of ME jobs is very high, close to that of CS jobs (if not more).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Huh? How does it weaken my argument? My argument is that the CS people have a clearer shot at IT jobs than, frankly, any other major does. That's not to say that other people don't get into IT, because of course they do. But to the extent that IT becomes more prominent, that helps the CS major more than it helps any other major, including ME. You must agree that as IT becomes more prominent, that creates more openings for CS people as opposed to ME people.
[/quote]
I'm not sure how the growth of any field implies that the major best suited for that field means it's a more flexible major.</p>
<p>
[quote]
See above. The key is the relative benefit. CS, relatively speaking, benefits more from the growth of IT than ME benefits.
[/quote]
We are talking job flexibility, are we not? This doesn't say anything about job flexibility. The core issue was that the relative amount of jobs are the same.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When dealing with computerized control of electronic systems then you are dealing with EEs over CS majors (90% of the time).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The programming of such electronic systems is more of a CS function than an EE function, and getting to be more so over time. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Perhaps you can explicate a bit further. That doesn't even seem to be a response to what I said that the pool of ME jobs is very high, close to that of CS jobs (if not more).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My response is simple - it's what I said before. If you can add all of the 'related' jobs of AeroE, CivE, etc. to the pool of ME, then I am equally justified in adding all of the IT and Internet programming jobs to the pool of CS. Examine the BLS figures for these types of jobs under these expanded pools, and the CS pool (however you define the word 'pool') is still larger. </p>
<p>
[quote]
We are talking job flexibility, are we not? This doesn't say anything about job flexibility. The core issue was that the relative amount of jobs are the same.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, see above. You talk about ME's moving on to adjoining fields. I can talk about the same. For example, I know people who majored in CS who took jobs that were, effectively, EE or CompE jobs. I know quite a few who are doing Industrial Engineering (especially the operations research aspect of IE, which is basically a lot of computer modeling and optmization). And of course, plenty of CS people do modeling for many other industries, especially in the areas of finance/insurance, </p>
<p>A narrow definition of the field indicates that there are about double the number of CS jobs than there are ME jobs, strictly defined. Now, you could argue that ME people can take jobs in other fields. True. But so can CS guys. Either with a narrow or expanded view, it's hard for me to see that ME is any more broad than CS is. This is especially so moving forward, as I presume that this is a prospective discussion, not a retrospective one, as like I said, I can't name a single field that is becoming less computerized.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I do not want to suffer the same fate as biomedical engineering graduates
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I was hoping you might expand on this. To which fate are you referring?</p>
<p>sakky, you have persuaded me. However, I think CompE is more flexible than CS, under your argument.</p>
<p>steevee - "PS. I'm extremely interested in materials science. Not the fracture analysis (well, maybe it'd be kind of interesting), but the actual design of new materials. Some may recommend me chemical engineering but I fail to see any relevance to materials science. There's a lot of fluid mechanics and heat/mass transfer, which is too similar to mechanical engineering. That is pretty interesting, but not my main focus."</p>
<p>haha this is virtually exactly my situation. any comments on this?</p>