<p>also, i don't think i could tolerate doing a joke major for 4 years. i have to challenge myself to stay motivated.</p>
<p>
[quote]
engineering is not much harder than regular bio-premed. From my experience it's the converse that's true.</p>
<p>Personally, understanding how electronic circuit works is way easier than memorizing the details of pentosephosphate cycle.
[/quote]
I think you misunderstand why Engineering is hard then. A single engineering class might not be hard. However, the entire curriculum is very hard. The volume makes it hard. It's hard for four years. The requirements for entrance into medical school are simply not that big, on a unit level.</p>
<p>"understanding how electronic circuit works is way easier than memorizing the details of pentosephosphate cycle."</p>
<p>This is true. But engineering is not simply about understanding. Engineering is more about calculating and designing. Disigning a working electronic circuit or a computer program is a lot harder than understanding and memorizing.</p>
<p>Finishing engineering is like running a marathon. Sure, if you look at each mile, it doesn't look that bad. But when those miles pile up, it gets challenging.</p>
<p>I think pre-med stuff is easy, my good friend is a chem eng and he says they are really easy, he is going to med school.</p>
<p>Zorz, I assume that friend doesn't go to your school, where he worked 15 hours a day for a C average and a couple of Fs? From what I gather, where you go most professors rarely give out A's or B's, some none at all. And I've never heard of a 2.0 student getting into med school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think you misunderstand why Engineering is hard then. A single engineering class might not be hard. However, the entire curriculum is very hard. The volume makes it hard. It's hard for four years. The requirements for entrance into medical school are simply not that big, on a unit level.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, that might be true. But I'm not a premed so I don't know the details. Also if you notice I said "personally" in front of my statement. So I don't know if it's just me or anyone else experienced the same thing. </p>
<p>
[quote]
"understanding how electronic circuit works is way easier than memorizing the details of pentosephosphate cycle."</p>
<p>This is true. But engineering is not simply about understanding. Engineering is more about calculating and designing. Disigning a working electronic circuit or a computer program is a lot harder than understanding and memorizing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>might be true for general population but I found that I do better in engineering class than in my biochem class (I'm not a premed, so I took the Grad level biochem class where you actually have to "design" experiment and not just "memorize" and "understand" stuff). </p>
<p>Maybe I haven't stumbled upon the rock which is the bane of all engineers yet.</p>
<p>"might be true for general population but I found that I do better in engineering class than in my biochem class "</p>
<p>Maybe you have a knack for it.</p>
<p>Maybe you should turn to the dark side of the force</p>
<p>(substitute engineering in place of dark, science in place of force..)</p>
<p>
[quote]
might be true for general population but I found that I do better in engineering class than in my biochem class (I'm not a premed, so I took the Grad level biochem class where you actually have to "design" experiment and not just "memorize" and "understand" stuff).
[/quote]
Wait...are you comparing a grad level biochem class to undergrad level engineering classes?</p>
<p>You have only about 4 hard classes to deal with for premed. But engineering major has to deal with more than 8 hard classes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wait...are you comparing a grad level biochem class to undergrad level engineering classes?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>the biochem course that I took was the senior undergrad/beginning grad student course (so it can be counted as both). the teacher teaches the same material but the grading curve for grad students are separated from the undergrad. Maybe the grading is harsher for grads. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe you should turn to the dark side of the force</p>
<p>(substitute engineering in place of dark, science in place of force..)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thanks, I AM turning to the dark side now lol.</p>
<p>Pearlygate, a biochem major is going to have a handful of courses comparable to engineering, but the whole point is engineering majors have to take far more than 5. That's where it becomes hard. My old roommate was a biochem major, by her own admission, she said she had 5 hard courses (and she took some advanced courses), the rest of her degree was pretty easy.</p>
<p>but int he end is it the volume of work that students complain about or is it the difficulty? to me it doesnt seem like extremely intelligent people are the only ones who do well. if someone were a genius they woudnt need school.</p>
<p>To the Original Poster,</p>
<p>I am wrapping up my junior year as a Bio E & pre-med student.</p>
<p>The amount of work required to obtain a 3.5+ gpa in engineering is both mentally and physically unhealthy. I spend about 40 hours a week studying, and about 25 hours in class, lab, office hours etc. It takes me awhile to learn this stuff. I have a friend coasting with a 4.0 and he does half the work I do, but my friend is also a genius (lol). </p>
<p>Orgo I+II, Bio I+II, Biochem I+II, were easier and more interesting than most of my engineering classes (ie Linear Algebra for Engineers, Mechanics of Solids, Fluid Mechanics, Biological Physics, Principles of Biological Engineering, Differential Eqns for Engineers, Thermodynamics, et al). </p>
<p>Medical schools are looking for well rounded applicants, yet engineering curriculum's are designed to make you "un-well-rounded." I can tell that I am losing my ability to communicate effectively.</p>
<p>If you are smart enough to obtain a 3.5 in engineering, then you are smart enough to get a 4.0 in a non-engineering subject while doing half the work.</p>
<p>I hear med school admissions committees like philosophy majors.</p>
<p>At the end of highschool, I had to pick between going to art school for free (i had a scholarship), or loaning the money for engineering school.</p>
<p>If I could go back... I would still go with engineering.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you are smart enough to obtain a 3.5 in engineering, then you are smart enough to get a 4.0 in a non-engineering subject while doing half the work.
[/quote]
My friends speculated that it probably takes at least 3 times the work to get a comparable GPA in engineering as compared with a business major at my school.</p>
<p>yeh, also all those kids who were bright enough to get into mit engineering could have gone to nyu or wharton finance and would be set with so much money after they graduate. engineers max out at 200,000 if theyre lucky and starting a company is very rare. why put up with all the stuff in engineering when u could easily do the pre med, pre law or finance track?</p>
<p>Life isn't about money, and $200,000 aint half bad.</p>
<p>
[quote]
why put up with all the stuff in engineering when u could easily do the pre med, pre law or finance track?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ummm, some people ACTUALLY DO want to become engineers you know. Not all want to transition into business.</p>
<p>
[quote]
yeh, also all those kids who were bright enough to get into mit engineering could have gone to nyu or wharton finance and would be set with so much money after they graduate. engineers max out at 200,000 if theyre lucky and starting a company is very rare. why put up with all the stuff in engineering when u could easily do the pre med, pre law or finance track?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I think that's a bit extreme. Not everybody at Wharton or NYU gets the job that they want. The average salary of Wharton grads in 2006 was 57k, which is obviously pretty good. But that's only slightly more than what a chemical engineer or an electrical engineer from an AVERAGE school got in 2006. </p>
<p><a href="http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/13/pf/college/starting_salaries/index.htm%5B/url%5D">http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/13/pf/college/starting_salaries/index.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.vpul.upenn.edu/careerservices/wharton/surveys/Wharton2006Report.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.vpul.upenn.edu/careerservices/wharton/surveys/Wharton2006Report.pdf</a></p>
<p>Or consider the premed or prelaw tracks that you mentioned. What if you screw up and get low grades? Then you're not going to get into med school or a good law school (you can probably still go to a mediocre law school). But even if you're an engineering student who gets low grades at a mediocre school, you will still probably get a decently-paying job. It won't be the best engineering job, but it will still be an engineering job that pays relatively decently.</p>
<p>Which reinforces what I've always been saying - engineering is a really good deal for the * risk averse *. It's like insurance. Even if you don't do that well, you can still get a halfway-decent career - certainly a lot better than what a lot of other people (i.e. many liberal arts grads) end up with.</p>
<p>sakky, I'd bet the Wharton guys got, on average, much bigger bonuses than those engineers. Maybe nitpicking, but I think the average Wharton grad probably will make more money in his/her lifetime than an engineer from the vast majority of schools. Correct me if I'm wrong.</p>