<p>To addon to what WimpLo said, when you apply for internships, there's a question in almost every application that asks you whether you are Hispanic or Not Hispanic. Guess which on you check? +1.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Notice I said "I hardley"... I didn't say "I haven't seen even one opening for IE"</p>
<p>Learn to read.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Regardless of what type of wording you used, your message implied that employment outlook is bad for IEs. I just named a few examples that show otherwise. </p>
<p>Learn to spell and respect.</p>
<p>
[quote]
sakky, I don't think MIT or Caltech is a lot harder than other schools. I'm currently at a state school (ranked 30th in the nation, one of the best state schools in the NE USA... in other words, no where near MIT) and I think I would be a decent student had I got in. Why? I've compared my coursework/exams/quizzes with those posted on MIT OCW's website... not much difference. I'm learning the same thing. Now, it may also depend on the professor's teaching style, but in the end - I'm the type of person where I learn by myself on my own structured time. I could also do at least 85% of the questions posed in those exams. I've looked through their labs... somewhat of the same complexity. I've looked through their lecture notes... they were comparable. In some cases, I think my courses had better lecture notes in almost all the EE classes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, no, that's not at all how you measure the difficulty of a particular school. The difference is not in the content of the curriculum, which I agree is basically the same everywhere. No. The difference is in the grading curve, which is a function of both the teaching philosophy of the school and the skill of the other students. You can know most of the material for a particular course in a particular school...and get a failing grade anyway. </p>
<p>As a case in point, take a guy I know who scored around the mid-80's in a particular engineering exam. Pretty good, right? Wrong. Why? Because the mean of the exam was a 95. The grading curve was set such that his score basically turned out to be, at best, a D, and possibly an F. It didn't matter that he knew most of the stuff. What mattered is that he didn't know as much as the other students. </p>
<p>I think that's the feature to which most new engineering students have great difficulty adjusting. In high school, everybody could get an A. How well others did or knew had no impact on you. Not so in college engineering (and many other college majors, especially the sciences) at most schools. Now you are constantly being judged relative to the other students. If the other students do better, then you do worse. It's a painful zero-sum game, particularly at schools like MIT and Caltech that are filled with brilliant workaholics and harsh grade curves. Basically, at those schools, you can't stop studying because you know that other students are still studying and they will push your grade down. </p>
<p>The bottom line is that many students who flunk out of Caltech and MIT would have done just fine if they had simply gone to an easier school where they would not have to be perpetually judged against such intense competition. Somebody has to end up on the short end of the grading curve with the bad grade, and because so many MIT and Caltech students study so hard, that person who ends up losing on the curve can very easily be you. That is the major difference between the tough schools and the easier schools. </p>
<p>
[quote]
No doubt MIT is great for college, but material wise, you should be learning the same thing. The thing that would matter other than that is the quality of teaching by the professors, research currently going on (but as an undergraduate, it's a little more harder to do research with a professor, but still attainable), and prestige amongst employers. It's not the school that determines what you learn, it is solely dependent on the individual.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See above. The true value-add of degrees from those kinds of tough schools includes not only what you mentioned, but the mere fact that you were able to survive the grade competition. But of course, that is predicated on whether you actually survived. Not everybody does. </p>
<p>
[quote]
sakky, I don't think MIT or Caltech is a lot harder than other schools. I'm currently at a state school (ranked 30th in the nation, one of the best state schools in the NE USA... in other words, no where near MIT) and I think I would be a decent student had I got in. Why? I've compared my coursework/exams/quizzes with those posted on MIT OCW's website... not much difference. I'm learning the same thing. Now, it may also depend on the professor's teaching style, but in the end - I'm the type of person where I learn by myself on my own structured time. I could also do at least 85% of the questions posed in those exams. I've looked through their labs... somewhat of the same complexity. I've looked through their lecture notes... they were comparable. In some cases, I think my courses had better lecture notes in almost all the EE classes.</p>
<p>No doubt MIT is great for college, but material wise, you should be learning the same thing. The thing that would matter other than that is the quality of teaching by the professors, research currently going on (but as an undergraduate, it's a little more harder to do research with a professor, but still attainable), and prestige amongst employers. It's not the school that determines what you learn, it is solely dependent on the individual.</p>
<p>And also, if I'm interpretting this correctly, her ACT scores will say NOTHING about her ability to succeed in engineering. My history: I got a 1110 two times on the SATs (when they were out of 1600)... not that good, actually probably below average. My AP classes were good, but my SAT wasn't that good. I still got into a decent engineering school (which is heavily recruited by many employers and has decent research going on) and I'm doing really well. I've learned to adjust my attitude and know when and how to study. That is the most important element. SAT or ACT scores will tell you literally NOTHING about how you will do in college. It's just one of those tests you have to get out of the way.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, the ACT tells you literally nothing?. Oh really? I can quote you a ream of literature that demonstrates the positive, statistically significant correlation between standardized test scores like the SAT and college grades. Note, that's not to say that the correlation is perfect (no statistical correlation ever is). But the positive correlation does indeed exist. </p>
<p>Besides, ask yourself, if standardized tests really did predict nothing at all, then why do colleges all ask for them? Are they all just being dumb? In fact, it seems to me that your college asked for standardized test scores. Does that you mean that your college was being dumb? Then that of course begs the question of why you would to go to a school that is dumb?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The most obvious one IMO is that the effort vs. reward ratio for IE's is higher than most other engineering majors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm fairly certain that you meant it the other way - that the *reward to effort * ratio is higher for IE's. {After all, who wants a high effort-to-reward ratio?} </p>
<p>
[quote]
In every company that I've been to, IE's have been useless.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I've met some pretty darn useless non-IE engineers. </p>
<p>
[quote]
[IE]isn't very much technical
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Seems to me that IE work can be just as technically complex as any other IE work. Ever try to read a model in a paper in an IE journal, i.e. Operations Research or Manufacturing and Service Operations Management? Most people can't even understand anything past the first few equations. </p>
<p>
[quote]
and pretty boring.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh yeah, and performing chemical engineering thermodynamic calculations like Maxwell Relations and fugacity constants (for chemical potentials) is real exciting. I don't know that too many people are champing at the bit to calculate the Gibbs Free Energy of a thermodynamic system. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You will not enjoy IE if you're interested in the other fields.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but that's tautological. I doubt you would enjoy any field if you are actually interested in some other field. In particular, I doubt that you would be interested in EE, ME, or ChemE if you are actually interested in IE. </p>
<p>
[quote]
When I interned last summer with some IEs, it was almost stupid. They knew what the problems were, but didn't fix them! They just sat down in their 4 person cubicle... complaining.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I too know many non-IE engineers who don't actually fix any problems but just complain about them. Heck, many of them don't even understand the problems, but complain about them anyway. </p>
<p>Look, the point is, I don't see IE as being any worse than any of the other engineering disciplines. Do some IE's do little work and know little of what is going on? Of course! But so do many non-IE's. Is some of the IE coursework useless? Sure! But, frankly, so is some of the coursework for non-IE's.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Seems to me that IE work can be just as technically complex as any other IE work. Ever try to read a model in a paper in an IE journal, i.e. Operations Research or Manufacturing and Service Operations Management? Most people can't even understand anything past the first few equations.
[/quote]
I doubt many would say that IE is harder, on average, than Chemical Engineering or EE or Aero or ME. And most people can't get beyond the first few equations in any technical journal...so I'm not sure what your point is. I believe most would say that IE/IME simply isn't as technical as the other engineering majors.</p>
<p>I agree with Sakky. Grad students here at UIUC who did their undergrad at MIT have told me that the difference between UIUC and MIT is not the curriculum, but the student intelligence and the grading curve. An exam that would be curved around 70 at UIUC would be curved around 90, according to those people. Schools like UIUC or Michigan might be a top engineering schools, but the quality of students are not quite the same caliber.</p>
<p>Thankyou for all the great threads. I am thinking about all those highly qualified people that apply to CALTECH and MIT, etc...don't get in and show up in LARGE numbers at other engineering schools. My GPA and ACT scores will be at top end or above range listed for "general" admission at some of these state schools, but it will still be a challange for me not to flunk out of their engineering programs? (Clemson, Arizona State, Oregon State)? Sang54, Sakky and others: Are average guys like me surviving at your schools? Looks like I need exit plan B and C at any school? Thanks again for all the input.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I doubt many would say that IE is harder, on average, than Chemical Engineering or EE or Aero or ME. And most people can't get beyond the first few equations in any technical journal...so I'm not sure what your point is. I believe most would say that IE/IME simply isn't as technical as the other engineering majors
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My point is simply disputing the notion that was posited by undefined that "IE isn't very much technical (sic)". While we can debate whether IE is as technical as some of the other engineering degrees, I think there is little dispute that IE is quite technical, and in particular, is probably more technical than certain other engineering disciplines (i.e. CivE).</p>
<p>
[quote]
But... I hardly see any openings for IEs (barely a few).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How so? Seems to me that IE's hold 12% of all engineering jobs out there. That seems to be a substantial amount. It's certainly a lot more jobs than the ChemE's hold. </p>
<p>[Engineers[/url</a>]</p>
<p>
[quote]
</p>
<p>Ok, I know I was being a little biased in my post above</p>
<p>But... I hardly see any openings for IEs (barely a few). There aren't many employers looking for people with experience in "general engineering stuff."</p>
<p>Usually, when you want an engineering manager to manage a project, it will be someone who has direct technical experience in that field. For example, if you work at Intel and you want someone to lead your Wireless Technology Group, you'll want someone who has experience in the field (most likely an EE who has worked as a wireless engineer for a considerable amount of time in the field).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, naturally if you are running an EE project, you would like to have an EE-educated manager. On the other hand, if you are running an IE project, you would like to have an IE-educated manager. For example, if you want to increase manufacturing yields, are you going to hire an EE?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, what type of engineering school do you go to where they do not have EE/MEs/CEs take probability & statistics? That's kind of odd.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What kind of engineering school does not require prob/stats from its engineers, you ask? How about MIT? Note, while some MIT engineers do indeed take prob/stat, it is not actually required for most of MIT's engineering programs. You can get an engineering degree from MIT without ever having taken a single course in prob/stat in your whole life, and many people do. So to follow your logic, are you willing to say that MIT is odd?</p>
<p>[url=<a href="http://web.mit.edu/catalogue/degre.engin.ch2.shtml%5DMIT">http://web.mit.edu/catalogue/degre.engin.ch2.shtml]MIT</a> Course Catalogue: Course 2](<a href="http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm#emply%5DEngineers%5B/url">http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm#emply)
MIT</a> Course Catalogue: Course 6-1, 6-2, 6-3
MIT</a> Course Catalogue: Course 10
MIT</a> Class of 2010: Right Now- The General Institute Requirements (GIRS)</p>
<p>Want another example? How about Caltech? Caltech also doesn't formally require prob/stat from many of its engineers. Does that mean that Caltech is odd? </p>
<p><a href="http://www.registrar.caltech.edu/Undergraduate%20Option%20Requirements%202006.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.registrar.caltech.edu/Undergraduate%20Option%20Requirements%202006.pdf</a>
ELECTRICAL</a> ENGINEERING: Academics
Department</a> of Chemical Engineering ::: CALTECH</p>
<p>How about one more? How about Stanford? Stanford also doesn't require prob/stat from many of its engineers.</p>
<p>How about one more, shall we? How about Berkeley. Berkeley does not require prob/stat from many of its engineers. Again, while some students do take prob/stat, they don't all have to.</p>
<p><a href="http://chemistry.berkeley.edu/ugrad_info/publications/chem_07-08.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://chemistry.berkeley.edu/ugrad_info/publications/chem_07-08.pdf</a>
<a href="http://www.coe.berkeley.edu/current_students/announce/eng-announce-07-08.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.coe.berkeley.edu/current_students/announce/eng-announce-07-08.pdf</a></p>
<p>So, is it now your position that MIT, Caltech, Stanford, and Berkeley are all "odd" engineering schools? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Supply chain management isn't engineering.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, whether you like it or not, IE is ABET-accredited. So at least ABET believes that IE work is engineering work. </p>
<p>
[quote]
But, I have friends in Accounting who work with SCM... so where's the engineering really?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, let me put it to you this way. Is computer science/software development really 'engineering'? Many people would argue otherwise. There are plenty of people who don't have college degrees at all who have become highly successful software developers, i.e. Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Mark Zuckerberg, Janus Friis. Heck, Friis didn't even graduate from high school. Plenty of other successful software developers have non-technical degrees. For example, Tom Anderson, the founder of MySpace, doesn't hold any engineering degrees. Rather, his degrees are in Rhetoric, English, and Film Studies. MySpace cofounder Chris DeWolfe also doesn't have an engineering degree, but rather holds a bachelor's in finance and an MBA. </p>
<p>Hence, if we can accept computer science/software development as 'engineering', despite the fact that numerous people become successful in software despite not holding engineering degrees (or sometimes no degree at all), then what exactly is wrong with people in accounting working on SCM?</p>
<p>
[quote]
And I also agree with you on another thing: Nascar >is< boring.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yet for whatever reason, NASCAR is the #2 most popular sport in the country, right behind the NFL. </p>
<p>Look, a lot of sports are boring. Let's face it. Baseball can be pretty boring, as there are long stretches in almost any baseball game where nothing happens. Yet, MLB is extraordinarily popular. Soccer can be quite boring at times, but that hasn't stopped soccer from becoming the world's most popular sport by far.</p>
<p>You could try Cooper Union in New York City.</p>
<p>Just checked out Cooper Union Website and Princeton Review. What a cool place! It looks very selective...but I would love to just visit!</p>
<p>The engineering school isn't as selective as it might look, it is about 20% as opposd to the art and architeture schools that are less than 6%.</p>
<p>I went to the Cooper Union for my undergrad, and statistically the engineering school isn't as selective as what the public perception is. It's the architecture school, (which admits maybe 5% of applicants?) that gives the Cooper Union its reputation. But the thing is, there's also a lot of self-selection. Because of the public perception, many people don't even apply because they don't feel they have a chance. Others are frightened away by the workload in the classes. The toughest part for engineering isn't getting in, but rather staying in. After my freshman year, one or two dozen people dropped out, which is pretty significant since we only started out with many 120 people. Another factor that affects the admission rate is that the school isn't particularly well-known. We don't get as many "random" applications. I've had friends who applied to some schools that were way out of their league (and they knew it), but they applied just for the heck of it because it was Harvard or Yale.</p>