<p>Hmmm...</p>
<p>I would suggest that folks rethink operations research before making assumptions. If you look at even the financial engineering sub-area with the partial differential equations, martingales and other advanced mathematics and statistics...it is FAR from easy.</p>
<p>How is petoleum engineering harder than EE/CPE? I just don't see it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would suggest that folks rethink operations research before making assumptions. If you look at even the financial engineering sub-area with the partial differential equations, martingales and other advanced mathematics and statistics...it is FAR from easy.
[/quote]
Isn't that usually a masters course of study?</p>
<p>
[quote]
No not at all, I really respect IEOR. Honostly, many people from the IEOR department here at berkeley end up getting jobs that pay higher than other engineering because they are prime candidates for management consulting and finance. Just because its not as hard as other engineering majors, doesnt mean it should be thought of as a pointless major. It just depends on what your career goals are.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree with this. Just because a major is difficult doesn't mean that it pays well. Physics, for example, is an extremely difficult major, arguably the most difficult, but also doesn't pay all that well. To give you another example, at MIT, majoring in management at the Sloan School is often times derided as a cop-out by the hardcore tech students, and Sloanies are sometimes snickered at as students who 'weren't good' enough to handle the "real" MIT. But Sloanies also tend to get some of the highest starting salaries than most engineering/science students at MIT. In fact, this year, Sloan undergrads got the 2nd highest salaries of any major at MIT (2nd only to EECS). So when we're talking about salaries, who has the last laugh - the guy who completed the 'easier' Sloan degree, or the guy who completed the 'difficult' ChemE degree? </p>
<p>However, getting back to the original topic. What is the hardest engineering major? In terms of pure workload, I would say ChemE, simply because you have so many requirements. ChemE's basically have to complete almost an entire major in Chemistry, in addition to all of their ChemE stuff.</p>
<p>In terms of sheer incomprehensibility of the material, I would vote for computer science, especially theoretical CS. Theoretical CS is basically just math, including all of the proof-based concepts and clever insight that that entails. Advanced math is one of those things that you either get, or you don't. If you just don't get it, you can spend hours staring at it and still have no idea what to do. On the other hand, somebody with that clever insight will solve that problem with little trouble.</p>
<p>Now, of course, some would argue that theoretical CS isn't "really" engineering. Yeah, I can see why some people would say that. However, I would point out that computer science is an ABET recognized engineering program and many schools have their CS programs accredited. Hence, I would argue that CS, even theoretical CS, is "close enough" to engineering to be considered to be engineering.</p>
<p>''I would suggest that folks rethink operations research before making assumptions. If you look at even the financial engineering sub-area with the partial differential equations, martingales and other advanced mathematics and statistics...it is FAR from easy.''</p>
<p>Could you tell me a little bit more about IEOR and its applications in companies, agencies, organizations etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would suggest that folks rethink operations research before making assumptions. If you look at even the financial engineering sub-area with the partial differential equations, martingales and other advanced mathematics and statistics...it is FAR from easy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think we all agree that OR can be just as difficult as any other discipline. Nobody is disputing that. </p>
<p>The issue is not how difficult you can make a particular discipline, but rather how difficult it is complete a degree, and in particular, what is the easiest possible curricula you can get away while still getting the degree. And the truth is, many (probably most) IEOR bachelor's degree recipients never touch any of those skills that you mentioned. I know back at my undergrad school (a highly ranked IEOR program), you really can get a degree while never taking a class that's really that hard. The department lets you get away with it. Contrast that with, say, chemical engineering where even if you choose the easiest possible curriculum you can get away with, it's still pretty darn hard. Hence, you end up with the situation where you have people with IEOR degrees who, frankly, don't know all that much and never really had to work that hard, relative to the other engineering students. Sad but true. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Could you tell me a little bit more about IEOR and its applications in companies, agencies, organizations etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure. Supply-chain optimization. Distribution efficiency. Service improvements. Optimization of faculty lines, warehousing, retail store layouts.</p>
<p>Basically, IEOR people help organizations improve yields and service times. For example, you can redesign the layout of a factory to increase production. You can redesign a warehouse so that items can be found and shipped out faster. You can redesign a call-center so that callers get fewer busy signals and spend less time on hold. You can redesign a store to maximize sales by having customers walk past things that they are most likely to want to purchase as an impulse-buy. Things like that.</p>
<p>This depends a lot on the school too. But there are general trends.</p>
<p>"The issue is not how difficult you can make a particular discipline, but rather how difficult it is complete a degree, and in particular, what is the easiest possible curricula you can get away while still getting the degree."</p>
<p>Ok...I stand corrected then. Maybe IE is possible to do that.</p>
<p>I would say that many M.S. degrees in engineering are easy also. If you "grad-level" versions of courses you had as an undergrad then it can make your M.S. degree a whole lot easier.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I would say that many M.S. degrees in engineering are easy also. If you "grad-level" versions of courses you had as an undergrad then it can make your M.S. degree a whole lot easier.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>What makes you think an M.S degree is easy? Im currently in grad school and i see the contrary.</p>
<p>''Sure. Supply-chain optimization. Distribution efficiency. Service improvements. Optimization of faculty lines, warehousing, retail store layouts.</p>
<p>Basically, IEOR people help organizations improve yields and service times. For example, you can redesign the layout of a factory to increase production. You can redesign a warehouse so that items can be found and shipped out faster. You can redesign a call-center so that callers get fewer busy signals and spend less time on hold. You can redesign a store to maximize sales by having customers walk past things that they are most likely to want to purchase as an impulse-buy. Things like that.''</p>
<p>I hear some people saying there isn't much demand in this field.
Is there any truth to it?</p>
<p>"What makes you think an M.S degree is easy? Im currently in grad school and i see the contrary."</p>
<p>Well, for my M.S., I had a few grad-level versions of courses I had as an undergrad:</p>
<p>Graduate Linear Algebra
Graduate Probability & Statistics
Graduate Database Systems</p>
<p>They covered the same topics but maybe in greater detail as my undergraduate versions. I used them for easy A's.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I hear some people saying there isn't much demand in this field.
Is there any truth to it?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>IEOR is such a broad field that it's difficult to generalize. Some fields are probably declining in demand in the US. For example, traditional manufacturing industrial engineering, especially for bulk goods, is declining in the US (although is burgeoning in other countries like China), because bulk manufacturing of commodity goods in the US is declining. Call-center optimization will become less important as more call-centers move overseas. However, transportation and shipping applications will become more important as the world becomes more globalized, increasing the amount of world trade and thus requiring more things to be shipped around. Heck, I would argue that transportation/shipping IEOR is one of the hottest fields in the world right now.</p>
<p>So in the aggregate, I will say that IEOR will encounter average demand Apparently the BLS agrees with me. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Industrial engineers are expected to have employment growth about as fast as the average for all occupations through 2014. As firms seek to reduce costs and increase productivity, they increasingly will turn to industrial engineers to develop more efficient processes to reduce costs, delays, and waste. Because their work is similar to that done in management occupations, many industrial engineers leave the occupation to become managers. Many openings will be created by the need to replace industrial engineers who transfer to other occupations or leave the labor force
[/quote]
</p>
<p>One thing I will definitely say is in IEOR's favor is that it definitely gives you a quite clear shot at management, because the skills you learn in IEOR are useful in a wide range of management contexts. Learning how to write software or design a circuit doesn't really help you be a manager, but knowing how to improve productivity out of any operation is something that every manager would find useful.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now, of course, some would argue that theoretical CS isn't "really" engineering. Yeah, I can see why some people would say that. However, I would point out that computer science is an ABET recognized engineering program and many schools have their CS programs accredited. Hence, I would argue that CS, even theoretical CS, is "close enough" to engineering to be considered to be engineering.
[/quote]
The ABET argument is not entirely accurate. Yes, it's true that ABET does accredit CS programs...but the CS programs are accredited separately from the engineering programs. Technically, CS programs have ABET/CAC accreditation, while engineering programs have ABET/EAC accreditation. ABET also accredits programs in fields like engineering technology, surveying, and industrial hygiene, but again these are accredited separately from the engineering programs (ABET/TAC or ABET/ASAC).</p>
<p>From a legal standpoint, I don't think any state licensing board will accept CS, technology, surveying, or industrial hygiene degrees -- even if they are ABET accredited -- as equivalent to ABET/EAC engineering degrees. Some states will require additional work experience for applicants without ABET/EAC degrees; other states will reject non-ABET/EAC degrees entirely.</p>
<p>Note also that ABET distinguishes between "Computer Science" and "Computer Engineering" programs. ABET Computer Engineering degrees do have ABET/EAC accreditation, and do qualify as "legal" engineering degrees. However, the more common ABET Computer Science degrees do not.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
"What makes you think an M.S degree is easy? Im currently in grad school and i see the contrary."</p>
<p>Well, for my M.S., I had a few grad-level versions of courses I had as an undergrad:</p>
<p>Graduate Linear Algebra
Graduate Probability & Statistics
Graduate Database Systems</p>
<p>They covered the same topics but maybe in greater detail as my undergraduate versions. I used them for easy A's.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>So far my workload is more than I had as undergrad. Im constantly swamped with the 15 credits Im taking. The tests are much harder than undergrad. And if you think about it the competition has been raised a lot since the "weaker" engineers were weeded out. Even though there are curves, you still need to keep up with your classmates.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Note also that ABET distinguishes between "Computer Science" and "Computer Engineering" programs. ABET Computer Engineering degrees do have ABET/EAC accreditation, and do qualify as "legal" engineering degrees. However, the more common ABET Computer Science degrees do not.</p>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What I meant is that many schools offer CS degrees that are formally accredited as "Computer Engineering" degrees, but really, they are Computer Science degrees.</p>
<p>Take MIT as an example. MIT consolidates both EE and CS into a unified EECS department. Most students in EECS are completing what is called Option 3, or the Computer Science option. If you do option 3, you can (and many students do) choose a curriculum that basically comprises of * all * computer science and * no * engineering, with the possible exception of the 6.033 Computer System Engineering lower-division prereq, and even that's somewhat debateable as to whether that's "really" an engineering course or whether that's just another CS course. </p>
<p>Hence, you can obtain a fully ABET-accredited engineering degree from MIT while taking minimal or arguably no real engineering courses, by just choosing most of your classes to be CS, because of the way that MIT encapsulates its CS program within the greater EECS department. I mean seriously - the "engineering" classes like 6.840J (Theory of Computation), 6.841J (Advanced Complexity Theory), or 6.852J (Distributed Algorithms), or 6.856J (Randomized Algorithms)? Yeah, they're taught by an engineering department, but come on, these are not really "engineering" classes. In fact, they're actually just fancy math courses, to the extent that all of these classes are actually cross-listed with the MIT math department and are often times used by math majors for math credit. But you could use these courses to fulfill a whole bunch of requirements to your way to an ABET accredited "Computer Science and Engineering" degree without having done any real engineering. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.eecs.mit.edu/ug/brief-guide.html#bach%5B/url%5D">http://www.eecs.mit.edu/ug/brief-guide.html#bach</a>
<a href="http://www.abet.org/accredit.asp#M%5B/url%5D">http://www.abet.org/accredit.asp#M</a>
<a href="http://student.mit.edu/@7677612.15709/catalog/m6c.html%5B/url%5D">http://student.mit.edu/@7677612.15709/catalog/m6c.html</a></p>
<p>The same thing is true at Berkeley, another school that offers CS within the greater EECS framework. Many of the "engineering" courses within EECS are really just computer science courses. You can get a BSCS from Berkeley while taking only a couple of "real" engineering courses, with the rest of your curriculum consisting of theoretical CS. I mean really - Berkeley EECS 172 (Computability and Complexity), EECS 174 (Combinatorics and Discrete Probability), EECS C182 (The Neural Basis of Thought and Language). These are not really engineering classes. But you can complete a Berkeley curriculum full of these courses and still get an ABET -accredited engineering degree, under the ABET designation of "Computer Science and Engineering". But would that "really" be an engineering degree? That's somewhat debatable. </p>
<p><a href="http://student.mit.edu/@7677612.15709/catalog/m6c.html%5B/url%5D">http://student.mit.edu/@7677612.15709/catalog/m6c.html</a>
<a href="http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Programs/Notes/newnotes.shtml#chapter2%5B/url%5D">http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Programs/Notes/newnotes.shtml#chapter2</a>
<a href="http://www.abet.org/accredit.asp#C%5B/url%5D">http://www.abet.org/accredit.asp#C</a></p>
<p>I think Corbett was talking about CS and CE, not EECS and CSE. The former pair is much more common than the latter,</p>
<p>OK, I think Sakky's point is basically valid. As I understand it (although this is not my area of expertise), the primary difference between an ABET/EAC "Computer Engineering" degree and an ABET/CAC "Computer Science" degree is that the former requires more basic general science (e.g. physics and chemistry). ABET takes the traditional view that all engineers -- even those that deal primarily with software -- must have a solid grounding in the principles of physical science. NCEES takes a similar view with the FE exam (which includes a 4-hour "general" section in addition to a 4-hour "discipline-specfic" section).</p>
<p>And as I understand it, MIT takes a similar view with its institutional requirements. Since MIT requires CS students to also take general physical science courses, their degrees can qualify as legal "engineering" degrees.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think Corbett was talking about CS and CE, not EECS and CSE. The former pair is much more common than the latter,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>All I'm saying is that the distinction between an engineering-accredited CS degree and a non-engineering-accredited CS degree is pretty arbitrary and it is rather debatable as to whether CS classes that may count as engineering classes really contain much engineering content.</p>
<p>I don't think EE classes are hard, it's just the math/physics curriculum that kills me.</p>
<p>Try attending Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Biomed will kick your ass. Sorry for the language- but true.
Hardest engineering here- ChemE. I know cuz I switched out and half the starting class did as well. I think engineering is so difficult here because no one actually teaches you anything. If you want to be taught and not rip your hair out, do Biomed at Stony.</p>