<p>EE hasn't been that bad for me. I have a life and 8 hours of sleep a night. I consider physics and math to be harder.</p>
<p>
[quote]
EE hasn't been that bad for me. I have a life and 8 hours of sleep a night. I consider physics and math to be harder.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I always thought EE was more difficult than math and physics due to intense amount of labs, but not the material itself? Let's be honest, EE is a lot more time consuming than physics or math.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I always thought EE was more difficult than math and physics due to intense amount of labs, but not the material itself? Let's be honest, EE is a lot more time consuming than physics or math.
[/quote]
There are a lot of abstract things in math that are extremely hard.
Have you taken real analysis,abstract algebra and topology?</p>
<p>well responding to the earlier post about a physics major at MIT saying that it is easy.</p>
<p>When you do pure fields like pure science or pure mathmatics, ie, theoretical physics or cosmology, or theoretical mathmatics, it is not hard to earn a degree, because it is only as hard as you allow it. Physics and math have the potential to get MUCH more difficult in engineering, but from what i hear, it is relativily easy to get your degree in either field, whearas electrical engineering things are forced on you like tensor dynamics and quantum eletrodynamics, from which I hear is so complicated that people want to shoot themselves in the head.</p>
<p>A standing joke among engineers especially in fields like electrical and nuclear engineering is calling the math "math", especially since it has more letters than numbers in it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There are a lot of abstract things in math that are extremely hard.
Have you taken real analysis,abstract algebra and topology?
[/quote]
<br>
In EE, there are not only lot of "abstract things", but also we need to apply those "abstract things" and make them into useful things. All engineering students have been exposed to at least some advanced math classes. As long as there is no meaningless proving, we are doing great. </p>
<p>Have you ever take any REAL EE classes like Analog Circuit or VLSI class that have ridiculous amount of lab and nasty projects? Have you ever done design on communication electronics using SPICE or put together useful device that has couple hundreds transistors using Cadence? Let's me tell you, these aren't easy,and extremely time consuming. However we learn a great deal from classes like those and that why we make big bucks.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When you do pure fields like pure science or pure mathmatics, ie, theoretical physics or cosmology, or theoretical mathmatics, it is not hard to earn a degree, because it is only as hard as you allow it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is not true at every school. Since we brought up MIT...MIT physics majors are required to take, among other things, stat mech, three terms of quantum, and, and the notorious "Junior Lab" which is considered to be one of the most difficult and time-consuming undergrad classes at MIT. And before any of that, they have to make it through a weeder class.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I always thought EE was more difficult than math and physics due to intense amount of labs, but not the material itself? Let's be honest, EE is a lot more time consuming than physics or math.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Both halves of what you are saying (the difficulty of the material, and the amount of work required) depend both on the school and what the individual person finds difficult.</p>
<p>This whole engineering vs. science thing is silly.</p>
<p>I would say that you will spend much more time doing engineering assignments, but the inherent difficulty of the material is marginally greater in the pure fields.</p>
<p>Engineers don't make more because their subject is harder; they make more because what engineers learn is more palatable - and more useful - to employers, by comparison to the pure sciences.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Have you ever take any REAL EE classes like Analog Circuit or VLSI class that have ridiculous amount of lab and nasty projects? Have you ever done design on communication electronics using SPICE or put together useful device that has couple hundreds transistors using Cadence? Let's me tell you, these aren't easy,and extremely time consuming. However we learn a great deal from classes like those and that why we make big bucks.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've already shared my experiences having done both math and electrical engineering at the graduate level. Electrical engineers DO NOT get exposed to the hardest math has to offer - trust me. Engineering does not have anywhere near the rigor of math. Yes stuff takes a long time in EE (as I have explained in my first post with the nightmare microprocessors class), but there's always a guarantee that if you put in the work that your outcome will be favorable. I've spent days on proofs for my math classes with no such guarantee.</p>
<p>As far as salary goes, difficulty is not correlated with salary at all! This should be apparent from how lousy academics get paid.</p>
<p>As somone else said, it's going to vary person to person. I graduated EE from a top 5 school (Georgia Tech) and wasn't studying 8 hrs a day. Granted I did study alot and had the occassional all-nighter for some CS classes. The worst part of the degree was the labs. I actually disliked the CS labs MUCH more than the EE ones. EE labs were more hands on which I prefer. Anyway, one thing I wasn't prepared for was the competition amongst classmates for grades. Unlike high school where the teacher gives you a grading scale (usual 100-90 = A, 89-80=B...), the professor only gives out a certain % of A's, B's, etc at the end of the semester (at lot of times they just decide the % at the end too). So there were times were I knew stuff really really well but I came out with a C because in a class of 40, only 2 got A's and 5 got B's... So the 8th man in line, me, got the shaft. I'd been on the receiving end too, but it is a different flavor. Also, for EE classes the tests were impossible with grades usually in the 30's & 40's (i've has several in the teens) so where I felt like I knew all the material taught in class, the exams were so theoretical that I really felt like I learned nothing at all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I actually disliked the CS labs MUCH more than the EE ones.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I COMPLETELY agree with that. EE labs are enjoyable comparable to CS ones. Spending time on EE labs never bothered me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, for EE classes the tests were impossible with grades usually in the 30's & 40's (i've has several in the teens) so where I felt like I knew all the material taught in class, the exams were so theoretical that I really felt like I learned nothing at all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Another phenomenon I have experienced. In my opinion, the EE labs are nothing compared to the homework and tests, even though they are extremely time consuming.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This whole engineering vs. science thing is silly.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Seconded. Seriously. Engineering is applied science. It's all the same, it's just different approaches, and the approaches to learning the different disciplines vary between schools and fields, and there's no sense in saying one is easier or more difficult than the next. We've all experienced the super-theoretical test where the average was exceedingly low and we've wondered what we learned all semester (in my case, it was dynamics in the mechanical engineering department, and the average was 15)... </p>
<p>Yeah, engineering's tough, but there <em>seem</em> to be engineers out there <glances around="" busy="" office="" full="" of="" real,="" live="" engineers,="" recalls="" scores="" friends="" who="" are="" currently="" buying="" houses="" with="" money="" apparently="" earned="" as="" engineers="">, so it must be doable.</glances></p>
<p>Uh no engineering is not applied science. Scientists study things and write reports about what they study, Engineers design things and write reports detailing the things they created.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Scientists study things and write reports about what they study, Engineers design things and write reports detailing the things they created.
[/quote]
Good statement.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Uh no engineering is not applied science. Scientists study things and write reports about what they study, Engineers design things and write reports detailing the things they created.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The engineering design that you speak of <em>is</em> applied science.</p>
<p>Again no. Science is about studying the world around us. Engineering is about creating a world to live in.</p>
<p>Engineering IS applied science.</p>
<p>When you create something (engineer something), you are APPLYING the principles of SCIENCE, hence applied sciences.</p>
<p>Engineering</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
<p>Wiki, dude. First line.
"Engineering is the discipline and profession of applying scientific knowledge and utilizing natural laws and physical resources in order to design and implement materials, structures, machines, devices, systems, and processes that realize a desired objective and meet specified criteria."</p>
<p>Yes you are APPLYING science, but it isn't applied science, because it isn't science to begin with. Science has to do with knowledge and its accumulation, engineering is not about knowledge. There is a seperate field of study called applied science</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes you are APPLYING science, but it isn't applied science, because it isn't science to begin with. Science has to do with knowledge and its accumulation, engineering is not about knowledge. There is a seperate field of study called applied science
[/quote]
</p>
<p><em>blink, blink</em>...</p>
<p>Okay, I'm done.</p>
<p>I'm not done... I know this is a silly argument over semantics, but I'm feeling stubborn tonight, haha.</p>
<p>Okay, so what's the difference between applied science and engineering?</p>