engineering vs pure science?

Parents Forum
1

<p>well... i want to go into economics/business as a profession but my passion is in science, so i would like to study that in college and then pursue a career in investment banking perhaps(ive heard this transition is quite possible?)... maybe go back to science/math for a PhD for personal interest.</p>

<p>now i cant decide if i want to go into engineering or a pure science(physics). what are the major differences? i get the feeling from this board that pure science is a 'wimp' version of engineering, with engineering being more rigorous and more technical. maybe someone could clarify. i want to learn as much as i can in college.</p>

<p>id also like to double major in philosophy if that makes a difference, but i have to do a lot more research into that(ive heard bad things about teachers who chose that as a major).</p>

<p>thanks!</p>

2

<p>How about if you form your own opinions. PPl who speak of 'whimp' areas of learning are usually not good in those areas.</p>

3

<p>Engineering school leaves little room for exploration as electives,etc. quite limited....if you are unsure of your direction consider liberal arts given the greater flexibility...in other words you can load up on the science classes but also take econ,philosophy....</p>

4

<p>"How about if you form your own opinions. PPl who speak of 'whimp' areas of learning are usually not good in those areas."</p>

<p>erm... yea i would like to be able to form my own opinions... which is why i made this post for more information....</p>

<p>engineering major who's not good at physics? =/</p>

5

<p>"i get the feeling from this board that pure science is a 'wimp' version of engineering, with engineering being more rigorous and more technical."</p>

<p>Huh??? How did you get that feeling? I don't think that is true. Engineering is application of sciences to solve specific problems in specific domains. For example electrical and power engineering is application of laws of electricity and magnetism (laws of Physics) to design electrical circuits or to generate and distribute power. Or computer chip design is design of large scale integrated circuits using basic laws of Chemistry and Physics. </p>

<p>If you are 17 or 18 years old and looking at college now, I'd suggest you go to college, take courses and decide what action to take from there based on what you like. That does mean, you can't commit to Engineering as a major now if the college will not allow you to easily transfer out if you don't like it. For example, if you get into Columbia school of Engineering (SEAS?) , you cannot transfer to Columbia College, the liberal arts college.</p>

6

<p>OP, you have some unusual notions. There is nothing wimpish about pure science as opposed to physics. Taken seriously, they are both very demanding and challenging. I'm not a scientist but have both scientists and engineers in my family.</p>

<p>It is perfectly possible go from science or engineering into a business career. In fact a lot of CEO's come out of engineering training. What you might really give some thought to is getting a strong liberal arts education -- which means science, math, humanities (language, literature, philosophy), and social sciences. Then see what appeals to you.</p>

7

<p>but as oldman suggested, engineering leaves little room for exploration in liberal arts. At the most one (for example Economics), but no two (philosophy+economics).</p>

<p>And OP, pure science is not 'wimpy' ask any physics or math major.</p>

8

<p>If I'm not mistaken, doesn't a student have about a year before they need to decide whether to do engineering or not? Why not try a regular liberal arts curriculum, see how much you enjoy that, then make up your mind. No use struggling over it now.</p>

9

<p>As a former engineer, I'll throw my two cents into the fray.</p>

<p>I would not call the sciences "wimpy." Overall, you will work much harder than your liberal arts peers. Engineering, however, is often harder than the sciences. Quick example: chemical engineering v. chemistry. Chem-e, at my school, required seven chem courses as a foundation. In addition to that, we did four math, some physics, natural sciences, and then 12-15 engineering courses. Chemistry required about two maths, one physics, and ten chemistry courses - so basically, you take three more chem courses, fewer math, and skip the massive engineering requirement and call it a day. Neither one can be mistaken for any type of cakewalk, however. It also depends on the engineering and the school - there are probably schools where you would rather do civil engineering than biology. Generally though - engineering is a few degrees harder.</p>

<p>Depending on the school, you can certainly double-major - but you really have to take your courses carefully. Between the engin. and the philosophy, you would have no room for anything else, need to use AP credits, and perhaps take a summer course or two. With liberal arts, you would be able to pull off the science and philosophy with room to spare.</p>

<p>I am almost certain that you really don't have time to decide if you want to do engineering or not and graduate on time. Basically, engineering is really planned out - you have to do sciences and math your freshman year, sometimes in addition to engineering (basic programming and AutoCAD), in order to be on track. Technically, you could be in liberal arts and do that - but it's hard. It would be easier to do the more strict engineering, then transfer to l.a. if you don't like it. The math and science would be part of your major requirements (for sciences) or distribution requirements (for liberal arts).</p>

<p>I think I heard that most CEOs have engineering degrees.</p>

10

<p>I think that engineering is more work, but the work for physics is more difficult. I am sure it depends on the school, though. Engineering will have more required classes. At some schools, it is not difficult to switch from engineering to physics or vice versa after freshman year, although engineering to physics is slightly easier. Where I went to school, engineers and physicist were recruited for investment banking, especially if they had some finance courses, because of their strong analytical skills.</p>

11

<p>I had to make this decision too. All I did, however, was apply for Engineering, as its easier at Cornell to transfer from Engineering to Physics than the other way around, should I change my mind.</p>

12

<p>Scientists - spend their time discovering new things and new knowledge.</p>

<p>Engineers - spend their time converting knowledge into practical things.</p>

<p>Both are challenging and rewarding professions. Choose whichever one appeals to you more. Which would you rather do, discover new knowledge or turn that knowledge into useful products or applications?</p>

13

<p>Much of what I'm about to say is school- dependent.</p>

<p>The major differences:</p>

<p>Engineering school provides primarily vocational training for people who want to become engineers. You will have comparatively fewer elective slots available to explore subjects such as philosophy and economics. You will have to take more courses in particular technical areas specific to your engineering major. You will also have required distribution courses in other areas of engineering. This will not be a burden, if you want to be an engineer and actually use all this. Quite the contrary.</p>

<p>The science courses you will probably take may not be the same as the courses recommended for pure science majors. Your courses, while difficult, may focus more on areas of application and somewhat less on theoretical aspects. For example, more time spent on applications of Newton's laws, and less time on Relativity and Gravitation theory.</p>

<p>It will probably be possible to take the same sections that the science majors take, but your courseload will be hard enough that you may not want to.</p>

<p>You may be able to maneuver to areas such as Operations Research to get more business-related coursework, if you are ultimately oriented that way. And you will have some electives in any event, so you'll still be able to take a reasonable number of courses in the Liberal Arts areas.</p>

<p>Job prospects for engineers with bachelor's degrees are usually pretty good, though I don't follow this.</p>

<p>As a science major you will be learning more pure science, with relatively little exposure to applications. Unless you take some engineering courses too, which may be possible at some schools if you arrange your schedule accordingly. Your lab work will lead ultimately to research projects, vs. design projects for engineers.</p>

<p>The pure science courses intended for majors are usually harder than their counterparts in the engineering school, in my experience. The mathematical complexity gets to be quite high.</p>

<p>You will be usually in the Arts & Sciences school, and will probably have distribution requirements in these areas. You will have to read and write more, probably, than if you were in the engineering school. You will have a language requirement.</p>

<p>I don't think job opportunities in science are quite so plentiful with just a bachelor's degree .</p>

<p>If you decide to do investment banking, either track should be great.</p>

14

<p>great advice to far ... my suggestion is to find a school that has both great engineering and pure science (go Cornell!). (Overly simplified ...) Engineering involves the practical application of science/math while pure science involves the discovering of new stuff ... neither is wimpy in any way but they are very different.</p>

<p>I was not sure about engineering or science/math when I started school ... but the differences and the choice became clear after taking a few classes as a freshman and sophomore ... the difference was pretty dramatic not only in school work but in the kinds of jobs they typically lead to initially.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

15

<p>Monydad: Hum. My experience ('03 engin. grad) was different - so I'll throw my past in. </p>

<p>We took the exact same science courses as the science majors. We took the same math courses. There is no "math for engineers" (although Diff Eq comes close), nor any "physics for engineers" or "chemistry for engineers." It is all the same thing. Some schools (I'm guessing tech schools) may be different.</p>

<p>I got to take some highly theoretical courses - two of my three chem electives were quantum mechanics (undergrad and grad level). </p>

<p>I think the idea of "engineering as vocational training" is off. I will split hairs - but it's a professional degree, not a vocational degree. You learn how to think in a way (and acquire a vast amount of background knowledge) that is needed for a certain field, but it's not like learning to be an electrician or auto mechanic. Only 3% of what you learn will be needed in the workforce. They don't teach you how to do a job; even a course about plant design is still abstract and theoretical. Perhaps other engineering courses are different, but it's really not vocational training.</p>

16

<p>At Cornell, we have a separate math track for engineering, but for science its basically the same classes. The physics engineers take is the same as the physics majors. For chem, they recommend chem 211 for most engineers, except for ChemE, BioE, or any who are also premed, who then take chem 207 and 208. 207/208 are your basic intro chem classes that everyone takes, whereas 211 is 207 and 208 combined into one with a more physical spin.</p>

17

<p>I'll have to agree with Ariesathena on the "engineering isn't vocational school" thing. It's been my experience that as an engineer you take almost all the math courses that the physicists take, particularly through your second year. The difference in coursework comes later on when, as juniors and seniors, pure scientists study problems that are not as well defined or manufacturing oriented as engineers do; both sets of students apply the tools they obtained earlier (math, chem, etc) to approach those problems. The only difference I've experienced is that engineering classes tend more toward using computational tools like Matlab while in physics and chemistry there is more of a tendency towards doing things by hand. </p>

<p>If you end up doing undergraduate research, or doing that PhD for personal interest, you'll find that in research the distinction between science and engineering is almost non-existent; scientists use engineering all the time to devise new ways to do experiments. Engineers need to do research that ends up being basic science when they approach translational research.</p>

18

<p>Ok, some other perspectives. As I said, it is school-dependent, to a degree.</p>

<p>At the school I attended there were certainly different math courses, after first-year calculus. The second year math courses for engineers were actually taught by engineering school faculty. And there was essentially no math required for engineers beyond this second year, I believe. Physics majors were required to take many more math courses, all taught in the Math department.</p>

<p>With respect to science courses, engineers at my school were only required to take one year of chemistry and I believe 3 semesters in Physics. Although future pure science majors could take these courses, they were considered a lower level track for majors, and other more advanced intro courses were strongly suggested. Taking Ducks<em>Go</em>Moo's example, if engineers were required to take Chem 207-208, there was another sequence, say Chem 215-216,which was recommended for future Chemistry majors. Some future ChemE's might elect to take the 215-216 sequence as well, but most engineers would not.</p>

<p>It was the same in Physics. Engineers might be required to take, say Physics 112-213, but there were higher level intro courses, say Physics 116-217, that were highly recommended by the Physics department for future Physics majors.</p>

<p>The bigger changes came in the upper level courses, beyond the intro courses. No further coursework in the pure sciences was generally required for engineers, though some specific courses were required for specific majors. The individual engineering branches had their own courses that covered aspects of intermediate-level physics and higher, but these courses were generally easier in my experience than their Physics equivalents, and more focused on applications and less on theory. There are a couple of engineering schools that offer an "engineering physics" major; in this case the theory courses actually are more or less interchangeable with those taught by the physics department. However few schools have this major.</p>

<p>The other big differences, as I mentioned previously, were in how students utilized the rest of their non-major coursework. Physics majors would likely be taking relatively more courses in language, literature, philosophy, political science, etc- liberal arts. Majors in a particular engineering discipline would be taking relatively more electives in other, related engineering disciplines.</p>

<p>And I guess y'all are right, it's not really vocational training, more a program in vocational background & prerequisites. Real training comes on the job. This background can wind up being useful for other things as well. But if your goal from the outset is to do other things, at the end of the day when you look back you might conclude in retrospect that you spent a lot of time learning stuff you don't care about.</p>

<p>Oh by the way, for what it's worth I hold a bachelor's in physics, via liberal arts college,and a master's degree in engineering. I also worked for a time as an engineer. As an undergrad I actually took upper and lower level courses in both the sciences via liberal arts school and in the engineering school. What I said may not hold in all cases but I'm not making this stuff up.</p>

<p>I'm sure a great deal has changed over the (many) years, but I find it interesting that at my school a lot of the courses still after all these years have the same course numbers and descriptions.</p>

19

<p>If you're stuck between majoring engineering or physics, then i'd suggest a 3-2 program. There's a high chance that you won't complete the program, but you'll be able to major physics for 3 years, then if you want, you can either continue and get your degree in physics in your fourth year, or you can go on to major engineering for 2 years, then get a degrees in both engineering and physics. the bad thing about it is that the majority of people who start a 3-2 program don't go through all 5 years, but just go the four year path. from there you could do engineering for grad school, so engineering is never completely out. Also, my dad was a physics major, got his masters in physics, but his job is basically electrical engineering. so, no matter what, engineering is an option.</p>