engineering grad school?

Graduate School
1

<p>So I am/was a pre-med but now I'm not so sure anymore. I think I want to study more of chemistry and maybe even physics rather than biology... so now I'm considering possibly engineering.</p>

<p>I'm a second year undergraduate not in an engineering school but a biochemistry major (B.S.)... From what I've seen so far, it seems like you don't have to be an undergrad engineer to get admitted to an engineering graduate school but does being in an engineering school as an undergrad give better admission chances? Also, how does chemical engineering differ from chemistry in a graduate school level? I guess both content and workload wise...</p>

<p>Also... is it doable to be in 2 graduate programs (totally unrelated two) at the same time? For instance music and chemistry... or something like that, as long as they are both within a same school and its assumed that you've been admitted to both? I think I've heard of this but not sure of the realistic aspect of it.</p>

<p>Thank you so much in advance!</p>

2

<p>well chemical engineering is more industrially based. for example, one of the chemical engineering lab my friend was in studied enzymes. but instead of normal activity value a kinetic lab would measure, they measure the turnover rate, which means how many reactions an enzyme can carry out before it burns out. a lot of chem E labs r doing weird stuff like that, like use enzymes in organic solvents etc... i think they are more like process design. they develops a process to make the chemical on large scale in a factory whereas chemists r finding new way to make chemicals. </p>

<p>i dont think you want to do 2 graduate programs at the same time. and please dont do that to youself.</p>

3

<p>if you want to switch to ChemE, do it NOW before it's too late. if you are hesitant that you might need to spend more time in school in order to change your major, don't be. there are many people who change their minds and major in something else even though they have to spend an extra year or so.</p>

<p>biochem is a quite useless degree unless you want to go to a healthcare related professional school or devote your life to research and get a very low pay.</p>

<p>in addition, you are right that you don't necessarily have to major in engineering to be admitted into an engineering grad school. i am a biochem major and i just got admitted into a pretty good ChemE PhD program. but you have to realize that people like me have much smaller chances of getting in and we have to spend an additional year in grad school to make up our deficiency.</p>

4

<p>
[quote]
From what I've seen so far, it seems like you don't have to be an undergrad engineer to get admitted to an engineering graduate school but does being in an engineering school as an undergrad give better admission chances?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, how does chemical engineering differ from chemistry in a graduate school level?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As said above, engineering is basically an 'applied' version of a science, i.e. hence dealing with larger scale processes. </p>

<p>However, you should keep in mind that that's a generality. No well-defined boundary exists between chemistry and ChemE, and you will often times see chemical engineers and chemistry students working together in the same research lab and doing work that is practically indistinguishable from each other. Some chemistry grad students will choose to work under a professor of chemical engineering and vice versa. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Also... is it doable to be in 2 graduate programs (totally unrelated two) at the same time?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, let me put it to you this way. There are plenty of dual MBA/MS Engineering programs out there. While business and engineering are not totally unrelated, they aren't completely related either. But it's not terribly different from the other dual professional programs out there like the JD/MBA, the MD/PhD, the JD/PhD, or the MBA/PhD. </p>

<p>It is also not uncommon at MIT for people to get 2 SM degree (the SM is MIT's designation of the Master of Science degree). This happens most commonly with engineering - you could pursue 2 engineering SM's at the same time. For example, some people pursue an SM in the Engineering Systems Division (ESD) along with an SM in a traditional engineering program. </p>

<p>But the fact is, it's probably not worth it to do so. Truthfully, you don't gain much of an advantage in terms of employment with any of these joint degree programs, and certainly not enough to justify the extra effort. I know people who got dual-degrees that were highly related to a certain job (i.e. MBA/SM students going for technology management), and didn't get an offer, losing out to people who got just a single degree. I remember one of them ruefully saying that he should have spent less time in trying to get his second degree, and more time in recruiting/networking and practicing his interview skills, because that ultimately is what will really get you the job. What's so great about having all these degrees if you don't get the job you want? </p>

<p>
[quote]
we have to spend an additional year in grad school to make up our deficiency.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, this varies from school to school. I know at MIT, you rarely if ever have to spend an additional year in grad school if you want to get an SM in something you didn't study before (PhD is a different story). The requirements are quite clear for SM candidates - they have to fulfill 66 approved units and a thesis. Nowhere is it required that people have to spend an additional year to make up any deficiency. Note, they might want to spend that extra year, but they certainly don't have to. </p>

<p>The trick, of course, is to simply get admitted to an SM program at MIT if you don't have the proper background. But if you do, you have the same graduation requirements as everybody else. There are no extra requirements for you.</p>

5

<p>
[quote]

Well, this varies from school to school. I know at MIT, you rarely if ever have to spend an additional year in grad school if you want to get an SM in something you didn't study before (PhD is a different story). The requirements are quite clear for SM candidates - they have to fulfill 66 approved units and a thesis. Nowhere is it required that people have to spend an additional year to make up any deficiency. Note, they might want to spend that extra year, but they certainly don't have to. </p>

<p>The trick, of course, is to simply get admitted to an SM program at MIT if you don't have the proper background. But if you do, you have the same graduation requirements as everybody else. There are no extra requirements for you.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Even though MIT might be a special case, I assume most students without any ChemE background would rather spend an additional year taking core ChemE classes before they start the graduate level classes totally unprepared.
However, if you happen to be extremely brilliant, you might not need to do so at all.</p>

6

<p>
[quote]
Even though MIT might be a special case, I assume most students without any ChemE background would rather spend an additional year taking core ChemE classes before they start the graduate level classes totally unprepared.
However, if you happen to be extremely brilliant, you might not need to do so at all.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, the thing is that many graduate-level courses are based on niches, in fact, so much so that you, frankly, don't really need to know a lot of the core ChemE stuff in order to pass the specialized stuff. Somebody with a sufficient background in that stuff (but not necessarily a ChemE background) can probably survive the classes.</p>

<p>Let's not use MIT as an example. Let's use Berkeley. Berkeley's graduate-level classes are numbered 200 and above. However, looking at the Berkeley general catalog, I can identify a number of ChemE grad courses that, frankly, you can probably pass without needing to know much about basic chemical engineering. </p>

<p>For example, consider ChemE 200 - Implications and Applications of Synthetic Biology. This is basically about the economics, sociology, and policy analyses of biotechnology. Frankly, I don't even think you need to be an engineer at all in order to pass this course - just having a background in economics, business, or public policy would probably suffice. The same could be said for ChemE 295D (Development of Biopharmaceuticals), 295P (Introduction to New Product Development), or 295Q (Advanced Topics in New Product Development).</p>

<p><a href="http://sis.berkeley.edu/catalog/gcc_list_crse_req?p_dept_name=Chemical+Engineering&p_dept_cd=CHM+ENG%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://sis.berkeley.edu/catalog/gcc_list_crse_req?p_dept_name=Chemical+Engineering&p_dept_cd=CHM+ENG&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Now, granted other grad-level ChemE classes requires a substantial amount of chemical engineering background knowledge. But the point is, at Berkeley (and most other schools), there are graduate-level ChemE classes you can pass without really needing a formal background in ChemE.</p>

7

<p>
[quote]

Well, the thing is that many graduate-level courses are based on niches, in fact, so much so that you, frankly, don't really need to know a lot of the core ChemE stuff in order to pass the specialized stuff. Somebody with a sufficient background in that stuff (but not necessarily a ChemE background) can probably survive the classes.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>well, if you happen to look at berkeley's admission web page, you will discover on their FAQ section that they require students w/ no ChemE background to take a whole bunch of ChemE core classes:</p>

<p>A. Admission to the graduate program in chemical engineering at the University of California at Berkeley is highly competitive. While an undergraduate degree in chemical engineering is not a formal requirement for admission, we expect students to have completed the equivalent of our own undergraduate required curriculum. </p>

<p>This includes (number of semester units in parentheses): </p>

<p>General Chemistry (8)
Organic Chemistry (5)
Inorganic Chemistry (3)
Physical Chemistry (6)
Physical Chemistry Laboratory (3)
Introduction to Chemical Process Analysis (3)
Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics (3)
Chemical Kinetics and Reaction Engineering (3)
Transport Processes (6)
Separation Processes (3)
Chemical Engineering Laboratory (3)
Chemical Process Design (3)
Dynamics and Control of Chemical Processes (3)</p>

<p>(<a href="http://cheme.berkeley.edu/grad_info/faq.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://cheme.berkeley.edu/grad_info/faq.html&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]

Let's not use MIT as an example. Let's use Berkeley.

[/quote]

why not? MIT is one of finest engineering/science institutions in the world. it should serve as a very good indicator for what many other good schools require in their curriculum.
indeed, the graduation requirements for MS in ChemE include:</p>

<p>Numerical Methods in Chemical Engineering 10.34
Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics 10.40
Analysis of Transport Phenomena 10.50
Chemical Reactor Engineering 10.65
(<a href="http://web.mit.edu/cheme/graduate/mscep.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.mit.edu/cheme/graduate/mscep.html&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p>

<p>which are all engineering intensive courses.</p>

<p>i've done a lot of research on many schools. almost all of them require graduate level courses in mass/heat transport, chemical engineering thermodynamics, and mathematical methods of chemical engineering analysis.
take cornell, for example: <a href="http://www.cheme.cornell.edu/cheme/graduate/courses.cfm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cheme.cornell.edu/cheme/graduate/courses.cfm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>in my opinion, it is also for the students' own benefits to complete these "core courses" if they want to become successful in this discipline. i won't call myself a chemical engineer if i possess no solid knowledge and experience in fluid mechanics or reactor design.</p>

8

<p>
[quote]
well, if you happen to look at berkeley's admission web page, you will discover on their FAQ section that they require students w/ no ChemE background to take a whole bunch of ChemE core classes:

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, actually, no they don't. Read it again. You will see that they don't strictly * require * anything.</p>

<p>Obviously it is true that it is difficult to get into the program if you don't have the proper background. But if you are somehow are to do it, there is no formal requirement that you take any additional coursework over somebody who does have the proper backgroudn. But that's exactly what I've been saying. </p>

<p>
[quote]
why not?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why not? Because I am attempting to show that my argument is generalizable, and not specific only to MIT. </p>

<p>
[quote]
MIT is one of finest engineering/science institutions in the world. it should serve as a very good indicator for what many other good schools require in their curriculum.
indeed, the graduation requirements for MS in ChemE include:</p>

<p>Numerical Methods in Chemical Engineering 10.34
Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics 10.40
Analysis of Transport Phenomena 10.50
Chemical Reactor Engineering 10.65
(<a href="http://web.mit.edu/cheme/graduate/mscep.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.mit.edu/cheme/graduate/mscep.html&lt;/a&gt;)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, no, that's not what I'm talking about. </p>

<p>What you have delineated is the MIT master's degree in Chemical Engineering Practice. But not everybody in ChemE is getting that particular master's degree. </p>

<p>In particular, I can tell you right now that those people who are in LFM (the MIT dual Sloan MBA + Master's of Science in Engineering) program who have elected Chemical Engineering as an option do not have that core requirement that you listed above. Heck, of the classes you listed above, I think are only required to take one of them (as long as they completed the 66 unit requirement). Heck, knowing one of these guys quite well, I can tell you exactly what his Chemical Engineering coursework was:</p>

<p>ESD.751J(Engineering Probability and Statistics)
ESD.60 (Lean/Six Sigma Processes)
ESD.730J (Materials Selection, Design and Economics)
15.874 (System Dynamics for Business Policies)
10.579 (Applications of Technology in Energy and and the Environment)
10.65 (Chemical Reactor Engineering)
...and one more class of 6 units that can count as engineering credits.</p>

<p>Notice how, frankly, you don't even really need to have an engineering background of any kind in order to pass the first 5 courses listed above. Those are very general courses that even somebody with only a general technical background of some sort could pass. Yet the ChemE department didn't object. That guy managed to earn his Master's in Chemical Engineering (along with his Sloan MBA). Furthermore, his other colleagues in LFM completed fairly similar curriculas. </p>

<p>Nor is LFM the only program of its kind. Many MIT graduate students are basically "dual-students", with a primary affiliation in one department, but have decided to pick up an additional master's degree in another department. LFM is just one example of that. Hence, many such students will end up taking an 'alternate' version of the curriculum in their 'secondary' department. </p>

<p>But the point of all this is that you can complete a master's degree in chemical engineering even if you don't have a background in it. It's hard to get into the program, but if you do somehow manage to get in, there are ways to complete the program without having to build that background. </p>

<p>
[quote]
i've done a lot of research on many schools. almost all of them require graduate level courses in mass/heat transport, chemical engineering thermodynamics, and mathematical methods of chemical engineering analysis.
take cornell, for example: <a href="http://www.cheme.cornell.edu/cheme/graduate/courses.cfm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cheme.cornell.edu/cheme/graduate/courses.cfm&lt;/a>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, actually, that doesn't show it at all. What you have shown here is what is required of the Cornell ** PhD ** students. Your link does not talk about what you need to do to get just a master's. And that's what we're talking about here - just a master's. Nobody is disputing that you need a strong background if you want to get a PhD in chemical engineering. The question is, what do you need to do for just a master's. </p>

<p>
[quote]
in my opinion, it is also for the students' own benefits to complete these "core courses" if they want to become successful in this discipline. i won't call myself a chemical engineer if i possess no solid knowledge and experience in fluid mechanics or reactor design.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, I think it's a matter of what you really want to do. Frankly, a lot of engineers at MIT and other schools, even graduate-level guys, do not actually intend to work as engineers, but are instead going to run off to consulting or banking. For example, as you can see here, in 2004 (where there is data for MS chemical engineers available), on p. 10 of the pdf, only 4 of the 6 reported new MS chemical engineers from MIT actually took engineering jobs (and one of them, Power Advocate, is rather questionable as far as engineering goes, because that one has to do with supply-chain and optimization and hence is probably more like management/operations consulting). The other 2 guys went to strategy consulting (McKinsey and Bain). </p>

<p>Or consider some of the other engineering disciplines. Look at the masters' degree EECS graduates from MIT (also on p.10), and notice all of the consulting and banking firms that they go to - Accenture, AT Kearney, Goldman Sachs, McKinsey, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, etc. etc. </p>

<p>And that of course, doesn't even include LFM students, which are counted as Sloan management students in the MIT career survey. I think it's safe to say that basically * none * of these students are going to work as engineers ever again. They may work as technology managers or technology entrepreneurs, but not as engineers anymore. After all, nobody gets an MBA from an elite school like Sloan, and then decides that they want to go back to being engineers. </p>

<p>Hence, whether you agree with it or not, a significant number of MIT engineering students are not planning to work as engineers. They just want to get a engineering degree from MIT before they go off to doing other things. I am quite certain that the same thing happens at Stanford and other schools - guys getting master's degrees in engineering and then immediately running off to consulting or banking. </p>

<p>If you don't actually intend to work as an engineer, then, honestly, who cares whether you completed the core courses? </p>

<p>{Note, one might then ask, if you don't actually intend to work as an engineer, why are you even getting a master's degree in engineering at MIT? To that, I would proffer 2 answers. #1, a lot of people may come to MIT thinking that they want to be engineers, but once they're there, they quickly find out about all the other career options they have (particularly consulting and banking), so they quickly change their mind. And, #2, there are people like LFM students who just want to get that engineering master's for the purpose of improving their chances at getting into tech management, but not to actually work as an engineer.}</p>

9

<p>Uhh...actually, I am not talking about master's only. I am talking about graduate school in general. That's why I pointed out both master's and PhD. In addition, I assume most people who plan to pursue a graduate degree (i.e master's) go with the Master of Science or Master of Engineering track instead of the dual degree track you mentioned.</p>

<p>Yes, it's true that many engineers head off to other fields after they graduate. In fact, many engineers do not work as an engineer for their entire career life. However, it does not mean that just because you probably won't work as an engineer in the future, you don't need to have a solid foundation in engineering. People expect you to be able to practice engineering if the school decides to give you the diploma in engineering.
Your dual degree track example is very different, because these people's choice of study obviously refelcts what they plan to do with their degrees, namely, management and entrepreneurship. And I think MIT does it right by focusing the curriculum on a broader range of topics.</p>

10

<p>
[quote]
Uhh...actually, I am not talking about master's only. I am talking about graduate school in general.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, look, the truth is, more people who get engineering graduate degrees will get master's degrees than will get PhD degrees. </p>

<p>
[quote]
In addition, I assume most people who plan to pursue a graduate degree (i.e master's) go with the Master of Science or Master of Engineering track instead of the dual degree track you mentioned.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's just a topical example. The point is, if dual-degree students can get away with what I explained above, single-degree students can do so too. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Yes, it's true that many engineers head off to other fields after they graduate. In fact, many engineers do not work as an engineer for their entire career life. However, it does not mean that just because you probably won't work as an engineer in the future, you don't need to have a solid foundation in engineering. People expect you to be able to practice engineering if the school decides to give you the diploma in engineering.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would then argue that the problem then lies with the school. If a school were to offer me a diploma, I'm going to take it. Whether I 'deserve' it or not, well, that's up to the school. If I don't really deserve it, then it's really the school's responsibility not to give it to me, and if they do anyway, you should complain to them.</p>

<p>Furthermore, it's also the fault of any company who would later hire me as an engineer. It's their job to do the proper due diligence. If they hire me without properly checking me out, that's their fault. </p>

<p>The sad truth of the matter is that people get hired all the time for jobs they don't really 'deserve', and that's not specific to engineering, but happens across the gamut. I've known plenty of people who were completely incompetent that not only got hired (not only as engineers, but as managers, marketers, salesmen, etc.) , but then later got promoted in spite of their incompetence. </p>

<p>Besides, I'll put it to you this way. There are people who get degrees in other subjects who, frankly, don't really know the subject well at all. I've known people who got degrees in humanities/social sciences who, by their own admission, know very little about their fields. They freely admit that they chose their majors just because it was easy and gave them plenty of free time and allowed them to get high grades without having to work very hard or know very much. And then they ended up with nice jobs in management consulting. If those guys can do that, then I hardly see how it is any worse for an engineering student to do the same - not know very much about engineering, and then also end up with a very cushy job in management consulting. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Your dual degree track example is very different, because these people's choice of study obviously refelcts what they plan to do with their degrees, namely, management and entrepreneurship. And I think MIT does it right by focusing the curriculum on a broader range of topics.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, I don't know. I think one could argue that the fault lies with MIT in that MIT should then not be giving that 2nd degree (in engineering) to these people. In fact, many LFM students have themselves jokingly questioned whether they 'really deserved' to get that 2nd degree. But the attitude of the students generally is that if MIT is going to hand them the 2nd degree, they'll happily take it.</p>

<p>But anyway, this is all just one big digression. The point is, frankly, you don't really need to have a solid foundation in engineering in order to get a master's degree in engineering. Now, I am not saying that you shouldn't pursue such a foundation. There is a big difference between what you SHOULD do and what you CAN do.</p>