<p>Here's the thing: I'm fascinated by engineering. I really want to major in engineering in college, and maybe do something engineering related post-college.</p>
<p>It also happens that I'm not a huge fan of calculus and theoretical physics--I'm like practical approaches. (I'm not interested in BME, ChemE, btw. Mostly EE, Civil E, Indus E). So the question: </p>
<p>Which schools offer a more practical approach towards engineering?</p>
<p>I don't want to spend my days sitting through advanced theoretical jargon (I know that stuff's great for many people, but not me). Trying to find a good fit, so I wanted your opinions.</p>
<p>I should note that I applied to Brown, Dartmouth, UVA, Michigan, Washington, LA, Berkeley. I know some schools on that list aren't known for engineering, but I have my reasons for applying as an eng major to those schools. THANKS!</p>
<p>I hope this doesn’t come off the wrong way, but they probably get more practical the lower you go on the rankings list. The philosophy at the top schools is that a conceptual approach turns out the best engineers, and that’s probably true for the most part.</p>
<p>For engineering, you will have to learn both the theoretical basis and put it into practice in design projects.</p>
<p>Some schools do promote themselves as adding additional emphasis on the practice, such as Cal Poly SLO (“learn by doing”) and Northeastern (strong emphasis on co-op employment, though such can be done at other schools). But you will have to learn math and physics in any engineering degree program.</p>
<p>No one says you have to be a huge fan of calculus. Just study it for a couple quarters and move on to other things. If you can’t buckle down and study something you’re not interested in, you’re not going to make it in the industry anyway. I’m not a huge fan of writing Perl scripts…</p>
<p>Pretty much every one of those schools to which you applied is going to have a nice heavy dose of theory. If you want a light dose of theory and just want to “do” then maybe Engineering Technology is a better fit for you.</p>
<p>I have nephews who went to U Dayton who were able to work at Wright Patt AF base by their junior year I think. One is ee and the other boy is computer e. Wright Patt employs quite a few kids from Dayton. I have heard that upper tier schools, especially Ivies, focus more on prepping their engineering kids for academia than on becoming working engineers.</p>
<p>I go to Michigan and I’d say that undergrad is mostly applied, grad is mostly theoretical. I don’t know about what math/physics classes you’ve had, but the standard ones here are not theoretical.</p>
<p>I’m not really sure if I’m answering what you’re asking, but if you have specific questions I can try better to answer them.</p>
<p>Honestly, from what I know, all the schools you listed trend towards the theoretical…for someone who doesn’t like calculus, wants a practical focus, etc., these schools kind of seem like the opposite of what you’re looking for :/</p>
<p>Any respectable engineering degree requires you to be well versed in higher level math and physics because that is the underlying framework for describing how things work. If you really can’t handle the math or physics learn a trade and be a technician.</p>
<p>You can’t get away from abstract math and science. However, I think that schools where relatively few students are interested in grad school / research are a good place to look. Such places might include useful skills such as drafting or surveying in the freshman curriculum.</p>
<p>The great irony of this thread is that all engineering programs are supposed to be highly practical. Isn’t that, after all, the cardinal characteristic that differentiates engineering from the sciences or math? Why even have engineering at all if it’s just going to be as abstract and as theoretical as a physics or math major? </p>
<p>But of course as many of us know from painful experience, many engineering programs are indeed impractical. Plenty of students complete those programs - with some even doing very well - without ever really learning how to do anything practical.</p>
<p>OP writes " I should note that I applied to Brown, Dartmouth, UVA, Michigan, Washington, LA, Berkeley. I know some schools on that list aren’t known for engineering, but I have my reasons for applying as an eng major to those schools. THANKS!"</p>
<p>That’s an interesting mix of schools. I think some of them pride themselves on not being practically oriented. If you look at the engineering department/college websites, how many have alumnus bios that show their graduates working as patent lawyers, in public policy or in sales versus an engineering design position?</p>
<p>I couldn’t disagree with you more, sakky. To be a good engineer, you need a firm grasp of the theoretical as well as the practical. Engineering technology degrees exist for those people and jobs that require mostly practical with only a taste of the theory. The real problem is that those degrees are underutilized, not that traditional engineering degrees should be made less theoretical.</p>
<p>Really? I continue to run into practicing engineers who can’t remember even a smidgen of calculus - not even how to take a simple derivative. Nor can they, frankly, remember most of the engineering formulae that they had been forced to learn as students. Outside of academia or perhaps the highest-levels of corporate R&D, how many engineers actually sit down and hurriedly derive pages after pages of calculus-based equations within the space of an hour, on pain of being fired if you don’t derive enough correct equations? Yet that is precisely what you must do to pass your engineering exams. </p>
<p>Put another way, what percentage of practicing engineers with decades of experience would do well on their old theoretical engineering exams if they had to retake them right now? Heck, how many of them would even pass? I’m going to guess that the percentage is pretty close to 0%, and certainly no more than 10%. </p>
<p>But that’s actually not the issue at hand. Rather, what I am proposing is that the term ‘theoretical engineering’ is somewhat oxymoronic. After all, what exactly is the point of an engineering education that isn’t actually practical, as the OP implied occurs (and of which I agree does sadly occur)? Isn’t the point of an engineering education to provide you with practical skills? Engineering is not - or at least, I don’t think it should be - just a branch of mathematics or science.</p>