<p>
[quote]
Not really. The majority of engineers out there aren't really the ones that use calculus/diff eq/linear algebra or any kind of advanced math to do their jobs (with the exception of the ones who do "real engineering" work in a sense... but those are very few). Most engineers do work that is not related to anything that they learned in their classes. The goal of making them take such hard math classes is not because they will use the material when they are on the job... but to see if that person can handle the weeder classes which shows that they are hard working and are able to pick up things fast (thats the goal). Unless you're working for a think tank that does nothing but mathematics all day, then the higher level math/physics ect classes are completely worthless for engineers.
<p>Here's a little secret.....for engineering you might use perhaps 5%-10% of what you learned in school. Regardless of where you work. What job is going to magically incorporate Fluids, Thermo, FEA, Vibrations, Controls together in something which would provide high value added for the customer? Simply put, it's better to have 5 people who are <em>very</em> good at each individual topic than to have five well rounded engineers. Job specialization - it's capitalism baby. Also, the computerized tools being used today have eliminated much of the number crunching that used to exist (although some jobs do have substantial number crunching involved).</p>
<p>While you won't use more than 10-15% of what you learned, this guy is saying you will use nothing that requires math over basic high school algebra.</p>
<p>Well. You do use trig. That's above high school algebra, right? :)</p>
<p>If you work in anything that is not considered design there is incredibly large chance you won't do any high level math. Even if you work within design there is a significantly large chance you won't do what one usually thinks of as high level math.</p>
<p>I don't believe you are an engineer, because of the quesitions you are asking. You seem to think that engineers do a lot of high level math within their classes...</p>
<p>No, I am math major. But I know some engineers, and they do use alot of advance math in their work. But that just might be them. I just have a hard time believing that only a tiny percentage of engineering jobs require knowledge of calculus.</p>
<p>Engineers, in many situations, are simply bodies filling a chair. Why were they (as an engineer) selected? Because, when stuff starts breaking they are gonna need someone who is intelligent and has broad technical knowledge to trouble shoot and problem solve their way out of it. Working in an automotive/manufacturing plant and/or power plant is perhaps the best example of something like this.</p>
<p>I agree with Mr P, I think most engineers do not use that much math, and their main purpose really is to "fix" things and come up with practical applications, as compared to "design" things, particularly in the manufacturing industry. It's my impression that because of this reality, there has been an increase in 4-yr engineering technology degrees- a kind of grey area that covers duties between engineers and 2-yr technical/trade degrees and that involves even less math than regular engineering degrees because that's what the industry demand is. When we looked at engineering programs for my son, we actually considered engineering technology since it appeared that most engineer majors (esp mechanical) would get starting jobs very similar to eng tech majors, but then rejected eng tech as an option since it was too limited and would not leave much room for advancement. But of course it also depends upon what area of engineering you are talking about; at the same time, there are more mechanical engineers than any other and they would be the ones to end up in manufacturing areas--and jobs that require little math.</p>
<p>I somewhat disagree the assertation "advanced math is worthless for engineers". Sure, I believe most EE engineers don't write differential equations and punch complex numbers in their HP or TI calculators on a daily basic. This is, in large part, because they use the software that does the real calculation and validation. </p>
<p>Hopefully, teaching of the advanced math in college helps convinces the future engineers that those golden formula/principles they will soon rely on are indeed built on solid ground.</p>
<p>lol my mother is a networking engineer and has worked for some big-name companies (like thousands of other engineers) and she uses advanced math all the time</p>
<p>Applying "advanced math" to practical applications is nearly impossible. Most equations/trends given in engineering texts have something like a 20% error built into them as they are generally just estimations (see heat transfer/fluid mechanics for that one). It is not as simple as read a clearly defined problem out of your diff eq book that you can just apply equations or theory to solve. Real world problems are extremely complex and must be simplified such that you don't have to apply ridiculous mathematic models to them. Because frankly, what most people call "advanced" math (things like lin alg, calc, diffeq) is not advanced enough. There has to be some level of simplication such that you do not need to apply calc/diff eq to everything because at its routes, engineering is just applied physics which could lead to everything using math well beyond your average engineer. Simplication is needed and is a good thing for engineering.</p>
<p>Solving engineering problems has a lot to do with intuition and knowledge of theory. In many cases this will require advanced math, but in many cases it won't. But don't think that because not all engineers apply advanced math concepts to their professions that engineering loses any of its validity.</p>
<p>a. When you get your degree, you have done about 20% of the education you need for your career. But, learning the advanced math prepares you for the more specialized education and training you will need later in life.</p>
<ol>
<li>Working in your major is rare. Spending a career in your major is rarer than hen's teeth. You will be forced by circumstances to re-invent yourself many times. </li>
</ol>
<p>iii. I've seen many vacancy notices that have requirements like "degree in physical science, math, or engineering." They are looking for people who are not intimidated by technology and technical details.</p>
<p>Well, I can say that with the work that's done in my office, on the surface, I do a lot of algebra. I do a lot of addition, subtraction, multiplication, division...</p>
<p>But the required level of understanding for the things that I do requires that I understand many, many layers of complex science and physical principles. In order to have a firm enough understanding to say, "Okay, these are the forces that are causing this cracking in this concrete slab," then I need to understand the extent of the force flow in that slab, and in order to understand how the forces interact with the slab, I need to understand how concrete behaves. In order to understand and quantify and model how concrete behaves, I need to understand all manner of complex analysis and design methods.</p>
<p>In order to understand all those complex analysis and design methods, I need to be able to understand the higher math and physics concepts that were involved in their development.</p>
<p>So while the actual physical calculations I perform on a daily basis are primarily just high school algebra, there's a lot more going on in my head than meets the eye, and a large part of that is based on calculus and differential equations and all the other seemingly "useless" stuff I learned in college.</p>
<p>In any field, one is not going to necessarily utilize probably 80 to 90% of what one learned. However, nearly all learning provides context to what one does use, and the process itself of learning the (sometimes never used) subject has benefits - that can improve one's mind in general and actually improve the skill level in the subjects that are being utilized.</p>
<p>Consider the report issued on Sept 12, 2006 by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics which has now completely reversed its disasterous recommendations from 1989. In that widely influential decision 17 years ago, the Council advised that elementary school students focus on learning the so-called "critical thinking" component of math, and therefore in effect caused 1000's of school districts in the United States to de-focus on rote learning, multiplication tables, drills and similar basic learning. Instead schools were advised to give young students calculators so they good focus on "understanding" math versus actually doing math problems </p>
<p>The ultimate result was obvious: kids ending up in middle school and beyond with math computational skill levels sometimes beneath 2nd grade level, however armed with buzz word vocabularies fed to them by fuzzy math textbooks who (as one example) presented lists of ways to approach a problem, such as estimation methods which were intended to allow the kids to cross-check their calculator computations</p>
<p>The bottom line is that advanced thinking and analytical abilities have their foundation in hard work on the basics, including study of many different subjects.</p>