Huge misconceptions about engineering (in freshmen)-

[Mr_Payne]

<p>

A good aerospace engineer should be able to design a basic rocket engine without a textbook or sheet of equations. He/she should be able to start at square 1 and do the compressible flow parameters, the heat transfer, the rough injector design (impinging or shear coax), and calculate the specific impulse of the engine given an adiabatic flame temp. A solid understanding of the science/math makes a good engineer, IMHO.

It helps if someone is that smart, many times, human beings just are not. That’s the difference between HMU and pretty much any other university. HMU probably has the highest SAT score of any school in the US.</p>

<p>I don’t think anyone has a problem with saying that HMU engineers are very good, maybe the best, on average. However, when a school like ERAU is universally acclaimed in producing Aerospace Engineers, perhaps they actually…produce good engineers? Using phraseology is like ‘trained monkeys’ is just stupid (which you’ve recanted).</p>

[armaryland17]

<p>Engineering is a math intensive major… and Mr.Payne is right in that not everyone can handle that kind of math (me included). I just think that people need to take a second look at engineering, since even if one majors in CE or EE or ME, he or she has to maintain an decent GPA to get a job (which is hard to do for many students).</p>

[Lacero]

<p>I’m surprised many people don’t get why engineering is taught the way it is.</p>

<p>To say that companies like Intel, Shell, ExxonMobil, AT&T, GE, and Apple are populated by “trained monkeys” from “monkey-training school” doesn’t sound right.</p>

<p>Compare the curriculum of someone who studied Physics at undergrad to that of an EE/ME. Is it possible that the physics major could come up with something like a computer chip, an iphone or a Ferrari? The answer is probably a big fat NO. And If you think it can be done, show me engineering firms that hire undergraduate physics majors to do engineering work.</p>

<p>The reason for this is not because the physics major isn’t “smart” or anything like that, but because the volume of information needed to design such products (and needed in the engineering curriculum) can never be taught within 10 years at the level of detail “scientists” require.</p>

<p>The bottom line is that engineering and science are completely different and one isn’t a substitute for the other. Physicists don’t build bridges and chemical engineers don’t design drugs.</p>

[BCEagle91]

<br>

<p>And If you think it can be done, show me engineering firms that hire undergraduate
physics majors to do engineering work.</p>

<br>

<p>Dave Cutler (Microsoft) was a physics major.</p>

<p>We hired a physics major from MIT recently for software engineering. But then again we have an English Phd as a software engineer.</p>

[rocketDA]

<p>historically, i think the line between physicists and engineers was a bit more blurry… like 200 years ago.</p>

<p>now that the basic mechanics and electronics have been figured out, physicists are spending more time on things like quantum mechanics, nuclear fusion, and condensed matter physics. eventually this set of physics may become useful to engineers (quantum is getting there) but we’re still using a toolset that is about 100 years old… though getting very creative on the computing side of things.</p>

<p>so the divergence between engineers and physics is this:
*an engineer spends more time producing a product that can be used…thinking about worldly things like performance, cost, manufacturing. it is all about the technology.
*a physicist spends more time expanding the foundation of science. the direct applicability to technology is not a driving requirement. it is all about the knowledge.</p>

<p>the intersection is the study of tangible physical phenomena. </p>

<p><physicists tell=“” engineers=“” what=“” is=“” physically=“” possible,=“” and=“” try=“” to=“” do=“” it.=“”></physicists></p>

<p>another apology about the “trained monkey” comment. everything else i say, however, i stand by.</p>

[DocT]

<p>“now that the basic mechanics and electronics have been figured out, physicists are spending more time on things like quantum mechanics, nuclear fusion, and condensed matter physics.”</p>

<p>This is a pretty interesting comment considering now is > 80 years.</p>

[rocketDA]

<p>“It helps if someone is that smart, many times, human beings just are not. That’s the difference between HMU and pretty much any other university. HMU probably has the highest SAT score of any school in the US.”-mr payne</p>

<p>that’s a nice statement for you to make. however, i was hoping to keep hmc out of this asii’d like it to be clear of my motives. :)</p>

<p>“This is a pretty interesting comment considering now is > 80 years.”-doct
an understanding of semi-conduction is not more than 60 years old. quantum tunneling, high temperature superconductivity, and the “memristor” are all fairly new things that are just starting to get utilized in engineered systems.</p>

[DocT]

<p>They may be starting to be used in engineering but in physics they’ve been known for 80 years. Quantum tunneling is straight out of Schrodinger’s equation. Quantum mechanics etc all 80 years.</p>

[Mr_Payne]

<p>

Dave Cutler (Microsoft) was a physics major.</p>

<p>We hired a physics major from MIT recently for software engineering. But then again we have an English Phd as a software engineer.

Software engineering is a lot different from physical engineering.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

Compare the curriculum of someone who studied Physics at undergrad to that of an EE/ME. Is it possible that the physics major could come up with something like a computer chip, an iphone or a Ferrari? The answer is probably a big fat NO. And If you think it can be done, show me engineering firms that hire undergraduate physics majors to do engineering work.

</p>

<p>You’re on dangerous ground, my friend. You want an example of a firm that hires physics majors to develop computer chips? Fine, then how about the largest and most successful microchip firm in the world: Intel. Intel’s co-founder and first CEO was Robert Noyce, whose education was not in engineering, but rather in physics. Intel’s other co-founder and 2nd CEO was Gordon Moore, of the eponymous Moore’s Law fame. Moore never majored in engineering either, having studied chemistry and physics.</p>

<p>One possible counterargument is that the semiconductor industry may have been more open to non-engineering majors in the past, but is not so nowadays. Yet that claim does not stand up to scrutiny. For example, on its own web site, Intel states that it is willing to hire Applied Physics students for engineering jobs. Applied Physics is still physics. </p>

<p>[Jobs</a> at Intel, United States, Student Center, Where do I fit?](<a href=“http://www.intel.com/jobs/usa/students/fit/wheredoifit_5.html]Jobs”>http://www.intel.com/jobs/usa/students/fit/wheredoifit_5.html)</p>

<p>Furthermore, Intel also states explicitly that it will hire chemistry majors into engineering positions. Heck, I myself know one girl who majored in chemistry and became an engineer at Intel. If Intel is willing to hire chem majors for engineering jobs, is it really so outrageous to believe that Intel would do the same for physics majors?</p>

[rocketDA]

<p>Sakky, we need to buy you a cape.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

Sure, they are a small percentage of the total jobs available – but probably represent a larger percentage than the banking/consulting jobs available. All of the references that are made about engineering students leaving in droves take place at maybe five schools nationwide. Meanwhile some of the largest engineer recruiting firms offer rotational programs; GE, Boeing, Halliburton, Dow, HP, Rolls Royce, Genentech, Ingersoll Rand, Dell, Lockheed Martin, P&G, etc… These firms don’t restrict recruiting to only the most elite schools and surely represent a much larger percentage of the jobs available to engineering graduates than the very few finance/consulting positions available to only the top students at the top schools.

</p>

<p>That I’m not so sure about. While those firms may not be as restrictive with regard to recruiting as are the banks & consultancies, that’s not to say that those firms offer widespread positions in their leadership development programs. In fact, generally speaking, only a tiny fraction of applicants to those development programs are actually offered positions within them. In many cases, those development programs are nothing more than illusory carrots available only to those entry-level employees who perform ‘well enough’, but practically nobody actually performs well enough to qualify. In other words, while I agree that it is certainly easier to get a regular engineering job at Boeing or HP than it is to obtain a job in consulting or banking, whether it is easier to obtain a position in Boeing’s or HP’s development program is an entirely different question. Heck, I know people who waited for years for a leadership development position to open and never did, such that they eventually gave up, quit, and went to business school instead.</p>

<p>

Again, my point isn’t that they are necessarily better than consulting positions, only that there are career paths available outside of consulting to those who would like to have more variation in their work.

</p>

<p>Yet even so, the inherent weakness of every development program is that you are only allowed to rotate within a single firm. What if you find out that you don’t like that firm? Or, more generally - because most firms such as Boeing compete in only one industry - what if you find out that you don’t like that industry? Contrast that with a consulting position in which you will rotate amongst a variety of different clients in (usually) a variety of industries. If the goal is optimal matching - which is usually the case with most new hires - one is more likely to find that optimal match with a greater variety of cross-industry experiences. </p>

<p>

Perhaps you have tried traveling five days a week for a number of years straight? If so, I would say that we have a differing opinion of a social network. I define mine with those relationships that are social, not professional in nature. Sure, you may network professionally but that was not the point of my statement. Having relationships outside of the workplace is important, to me at least. I have moved around quite a bit in my life and I can tell you that, for me at least, even when living in one place it takes a very long time to develop meaningful relationships.

</p>

<p>Social networks are social networks - I make no distinction between the ‘social’ (no pun intended) and the ‘professional’. The truth is, whether we like it or not, we live in a world where the professional and the personal inevitably merge. The truth is, many - probably most - of your friends are going to be people you meet through work.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

The achille’s heal of sakky’s argument is, quite simply, that it applies only to those students whose primary professional and career goal is to maximize monetary compensation.

</p>

<p>Wrong. Like I’ve said before, if your primary goal was to maximize monetary compensation, then I would recommend you join a hedge fund or perhaps a private equity firm. I am not recommending that here. </p>

<p>My argument applies most poignantly to those people who want to enjoy fulfilling and interesting careers, and the fact is, unfortunately, many (probably most) engineering jobs do not provide those sorts of opportunities. I wish they did, but they do not. Let’s be perfectly honest. Most engineering jobs do not allow you to rotate amongst various business tasks. They do not allow you to quickly tackle high-value and high-impact projects. They do not allow you, as a young employee, to shepherd projects from beginning to end. Instead, they will tend to assign you to lock you into constrained tasks within constrained projects, such as providing bug fixes for a software package that the company isn’t even selling anymore, but is still contractually obligated to support. Again, I wish it wasn’t true, but it is true. Most entry-level engineers are relegated to playing ‘small ball’ and consigned to tediously climb the corporate ladder.</p>

<p>Again, I leave you with the prophetic yet tragic words of Nicholas Pearce:</p>

<p>*Even at M.I.T., the U.S.'s premier engineering school, the traditional career path has lost its appeal for some students. Says junior Nicholas Pearce, a chemical-engineering major from Chicago: “It’s marketed as–I don’t want to say dead end but sort of ‘O.K., here’s your role, here’s your lab, here’s what you’re going to be working on.’ Even if it’s a really cool product, you’re locked into it.” *</p>

<p>[Are</a> We Losing Our Edge? - TIME](<a href=“http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1156575-6,00.html]Are”>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1156575-6,00.html)</p>

<p>I feel Pearce’s pain. Nobody wants to feel that they’re locked into a single technical project without opportunities to advance and learn. But that is unfortunately what many engineering positions provide. </p>

<p>I’ve always said that the best solution that firms could implement is to simply provide better opportunities for their engineers. Perhaps if they allowed ampler career freedom to its engineers, they would find that they would not need to engage so many consultants. But that sadly does not seem to be happening. Again, I wish it did.</p>

[Mr_Payne]

<p>No matter. Consultants don’t exist in any real capacity in 3rd world countries. We’ll all be poor soon enough.</p>

[DocT]

<p>I’m in the semiconductor industry, I know a lot of people at Intel and IBM. I’m a physicist and a lot of the people who I know in these places are physicists.</p>

[BCEagle91]

<p>I read papers from Intel from time to time and it seems to me that there are quite a few physics guys authoring those papers. I don’t think that engineers came up with HK/MG.</p>

[rocketDA]

<p>“I don’t think that engineers came up with HK/MG.”</p>

<p>What is this supposed to mean? Choose your words carefully.</p>

[BCEagle91]

<p>High-K, Metal Gate.</p>

[Lacero]

<p>

You’re on dangerous ground, my friend. You want an example of a firm that hires physics majors to develop computer chips? Fine, then how about the largest and most successful microchip firm in the world: Intel. Intel’s co-founder and first CEO was Robert Noyce, whose education was not in engineering, but rather in physics. Intel’s other co-founder and 2nd CEO was Gordon Moore, of the eponymous Moore’s Law fame. Moore never majored in engineering either, having studied chemistry and physics.

</p>

<p>Neither of those men where undergraduate physics majors. They spent 4 extra years of their lives getting PhD’s. </p>

<p>So it turns out it isn’t really possible to come up with a computer chip with an undergraduate in physics. As you’ve rightly pointed out you need a PhD for that (my point exactly). If you asked any of the founders of Nvidia though, they’d probably tell you a BS in EE would do.</p>

<p>[Nvidia</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“Nvidia - Wikipedia”>Nvidia - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>

One possible counterargument is that the semiconductor industry may have been more open to non-engineering majors in the past, but is not so nowadays. Yet that claim does not stand up to scrutiny. For example, on its own web site, Intel states that it is willing to hire Applied Physics students for engineering jobs. Applied Physics is still physics. </p>

<p>Jobs at Intel, United States, Student Center, Where do I fit?</p>

<p>Furthermore, Intel also states explicitly that it will hire chemistry majors into engineering positions. Heck, I myself know one girl who majored in chemistry and became an engineer at Intel. If Intel is willing to hire chem majors for engineering jobs, is it really so outrageous to believe that Intel would do the same for physics majors?

</p>

<p>Applied Physics at Intel.</p>

<p>

Your expertise has a direct impact on Intel’s mission to be the preeminent technology platform supplier to the global information systems economy. In Integrated Circuit Manufacturing, you’re part of our worlwide manufacturing and assembly/test brain trust.

</p>

<p>Chemistry at Intel.</p>

<p>

Advancements and innovations often get their start at the building blocks of your science. As part of Integrated Circuit Manufacturing, you’ll work on teams to develop new design techniques that will improve the performance of future generations of Intel architecture.

</p>

<p>For the sake of this argument lets assume applied physics and chemistry at Intel isn’t electrical/mechanical/chemical engineering work. Those guys/girls (I’m still assuming they have PhD’s) where hired to do physics/chemistry/manufacturing/materials science work.</p>

<p>Electrical Engineering at Intel.</p>

<p>

Working with some of the top enigineers in the world. you can bring a fresh perspective to our advanced system-level software and hardware development.

</p>

<p>@DocT,
Can you imagine you or your physics colleagues being able to perform with only your undergraduate physics knowledge? Better, can you imagine getting that same job with a BS in physics?</p>

<p>@BCEagle91,
They probably aren’t regular engineers and they’re even less likely to hold only a BS in Physics/Chemistry.</p>

[DocT]

<p>There are very few people whether physicists or engineers where I work who do not have a Ph.D.</p>