<p>I know the thread mentions ME but I have a question about M.S. w/thesis. I am a disabled veteran and havent worked since 2005. Thats when I started school and about to complete my BS in ET and plan on attending U of H in the fall for my BS in EE finally completing my education with a MS in either BME or CS w/thesis because of the research experience. By the time Im done with everything I will be out of the workforce for almost 9 years. Im thinking this absence of work on my resume’ is going to hurt me. Do you guys think that I should get as much research experience as I can to sharpen my skills back up. I would like to work in the R&D field when Im done. Im thinking my research experience at school with letters of recommendation will compensate for my absence of work. Any opinions?</p>
<p>When it comes to R&D, especially if you have a pure research position, the research experience in schoolwill be just as valuable as industry experience. Additionally, the fact that you have been out of the workforce shouldn’t hurt you because you have an excuse, and good ones at that. Getting involved in research during undergrad is also a good idea to help get you into a thesis based MS program.</p>
<p>@40, BoneH
Not quite. DS got his MS in the area that he wanted (really like a senior capstone) but not entirely in what he was interested in doing. The similarities are that it’s a project management. a product design and analysis, CAD. The dissimilarity is that it wasn’t exactly what he had in mind. He decided what he didn’t want to do when he chose the undergrad school, the choosing of the grad school, and taking this job opportunity. He is happy-at least he better be
given that they are a lot worse off. </p>
<p>His strength is that he can take a project to completion. Since he now has a grant for his R&D business, he also now must learn to do some budgeting and accounting. BigTrees, in two years, DS may look you up. </p>
<p>He’s an engineer. He designs and builds what is needed. Not what he choses.</p>
<p>@41.
No, you have not been out of the workforce. Your JOB is to complete your training. No one will fault you on this, and if they did, shame on them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. .</p>
<p>I never said he didn’t design what was needed. But at most places, they hire MS and PhD holders based on a specific need of that specific expertise, not to do general engineering work.</p>
<p>All of the recent MS and PhD graduates that I know got jobs in their areas of specialization. If they did flight testing for their MS, they are doing flight testing commercially. If they did experimental aerodynamics for their PhD, they are doing experimental aerodynamics for their job.</p>
<p>I never said that someone who did their thesis on the fatigue of shape memory alloys or something was going to end up doing only SMA fatigue in their future job. What I am saying is that someone who focuses their MS on the thermal fluid science (heat transfer, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, etc) is going to end up in a job doing fluids and heat transfer related tasks.</p>
<p>The OP asked if someone who did their MS in CFD could still get a job doing stress analysis. Those are completely different subfields of mechanical (or aerospace) engineering, and as such, there aren’t going to be many, if any instances of that. I suppose you may get a job doing stress analysis if you did your masters thesis on numerical methods in fluids, but it isn’t going to be an MS-level job. It is going to be a BS-level job that doesn’t even require that MS-level specialization. If you want an MS-level (or higher) job doing things in the area that you are interested in, then do your thesis (or dissertation) in that same general area.</p>
<p>I’m about to graduate with chemistry major and math minor but I wanna get into chemical engineering… Non-thesis M.S or Master of Engineering should be a good choice, right?
I’m definitely not interested in research btw. Also, would it be a good idea if I go straight to grad school after college or try to find a job?</p>
<p>In order to get funding as a full time grad student, you will most likely have to write a thesis. If you are not interested in research, then grad school might not be the best idea. If you get a job and do grad school part time, it will probably be non-thesis.</p>
<p>your username fits.</p>
<p>You know, I am going to take the higher road here and just say this:</p>
<p>Going off of first-hand experience, you will not be doing jobs that are completely different than your area of specialization. They will rarely be the same exact thing as your thesis, but they will basically never be in an entirely different subfield. It would be very difficult to do something outside of the thermal fluid sciences if your thesis was on anything in that subfield, and likewise for any other subfield. The exception is if you are doing some sort of numerical work where the underlying concept can be applied to various subfields.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What first hand experience is that? Which companies have you worked at as an engineer? What positions have you held?</p>
<p>I suppose I should say first and second-hand experience. I have worked at Rolls-Royce primarily, and everyone I knew, spoke to, met, and otherwise interacted with who had an advanced degree was working at least in the same subfield as their thesis. The guys who did aeroelasticity were doing mainly (but admittedly not only ) aeroelasticity work, though ALL of their work was at least in the aerodynamics and structures subfields (given that aeroelasticity is a hybrid field). The pure aerodynamics guys I knew and worked with were all doing fluids related work, including myself.</p>
<p>With an MS, as someone’s career progresses, they are more likely to move into non-technical areas than a PhD, so obviously, someone with an MS doing management is another obvious exception, but everyone who was still doing technical work was doing it in the general area that they did their theses in.</p>
<p>It doesn’t make good business sense for a company to hire an engineer who has all sorts of specialization in one subfield to be their guy for a completely different field. That is common at the BS-level (I did a systems engineering job as a fluids guy during one of my undergrad internships, for example), but even at the BS level, they try and match your aptitudes to at least some of your major projects. The whole reason companies hire thesis-MS and PhD students with all their specialization and research experience is because they have a need in that particular area. They wouldn’t waste their money to pay someone to do a job outside their area when there are 10 more engineers that are equally qualified but specialized in that area also vying for the job. That would be unbelievably inefficient.</p>
<p>I stand by my claims, as my experience has shown them to be true in the general case. The original question that sparked this was along the lines of “could I do my thesis on, say, CFD but then work somewhere like stress analysis.” To me, that means can you specialize in CFD and then in your job, function primarily as a stress analyst. My answer to that is it would be very uncommon for that to happen. You may have parts of your job that involve stress analysis, but you are not going to be functioning primarily as a stress analyst, you will be functioning as a fluids guy who MAY have some stress related parts of your projects. You could certainly then use your time at the company to slowly gain enough competencies to be qualified to move to a position that does mainly stress analysis, but you wouldn’t be doing that straight after graduation. They will hire the guy who specialized in stress analysis for that.</p>
<p>I don’t claim that your job is going to be 100% what you want 100% of the time or exactly like your research. For instance, my research involves experimentally studying the stability of hypersonic flows. Do I think that, when I am done, I am going to get a job doing stability experiments for hypersonic flows? Not one bit. However, I do expect that I will get a job doing something in fluid mechanics/aerodynamics, and most likely on the experimental side of things.</p>
<p>With that, I WILL claim that for the vast majority of cases, the primary function of the job that somebody gets is going to at least be in the same subfield as their thesis work. It may not (and probably will not) be exactly the same thing as their thesis, but fluids guys will stay MOSTLY in fluids, structures guys will stay MOSTLY in structures, and dynamics guys will stay MOSTLY in dynamics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed! .</p>
<p>The world is so much better off when the fluids people and the solids people stay with their own. </p>
<p>Agreed too, mostly.</p>
<p>sorry to bump up this old thread, but i had a few more questions</p>
<ol>
<li>“What I am saying is that someone who focuses their MS on the thermal fluid science (heat transfer, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, etc) is going to end up in a job doing fluids and heat transfer related tasks.”</li>
</ol>
<p>This may be a redundant question, but if you do your MS thesis in CFD or aerodynamics, you can still find an R&D job in heat transfer, right? </p>
<ol>
<li>‘The other thing is that it isn’t unusual (in fact it is the norm) for MS students to start out unfunded and then get funding after a semester or two. If you really are interested in going to grad school, you should start looking at other professors. I guarantee other professors offer RAships, you just have to get to know them and know how to solicit them.’</li>
</ol>
<p>Well what if I do my MS in engineering even though I got my BS in physics, and thus, I have to start the MS program by taking some undergrad engineering classes before I can take the grad-level courses? Will I still be likely to get funding after a semester or two?</p>
<p>
M.S funding is very rare at my school. Most of the fellowships and RAships are given to PhD candidates. The only chance of M.S funding is a GSR, but then the only chance of getting one is having done extensive undergrad research at the same school or being a 4.0 student (mostly international students get that).</p>
<p>Also, it seems that the only way (at my school) to get funding is doing the thesis-option. If you are doing the 9 course option, the only funding you may get is doing TA or reader.</p>
<p>To be fair, BoelterHall, UCLA is hurting right now along with the entire state of California. Funding at state schools is often tied somewhat to the fiscal situation of the state, so a lot of state schools are having a rough time right now.</p>
<p>MS funding seems to be more common than most people let on, but it is very uncommon to have it for the entirety of your tenure at the school. It is also a lot more common for a professor to shell out some money if you decide you want to stay for a PhD. MS students are rarely funded by the department, so you basically have to find a professor who is willing to fund an MS student, which means that finding a professor with a large budget is an advantage. The good news is that the fluids area is absolutely full of funding, and is one of the more lucrative areas to be for research.</p>
<p>Don’t expect MS funding right when you start unless you have like a 3.9 UGGPA and have previous research experience. However, don’t get too pessimistic, as it is certainly possible to get funding, especially in the thermal fluid sciences area.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is entirely possible since they are related areas. You may have to make sure you take ample coursework and have ample experience in the heat transfer area for them to feel comfortable with you doing their heat transfer stuff, but it isn’t too far of a stretch to say that you could easily get that experience. Make sure you take heat transfer classes. Of course doing something heat transfer related during your research would be the ideal way to do it, but not the only way.</p>
<p>Still, I think it is important to tell you that saying you are going to do your graduate work in CFD is kind of a misnomer. Many graduate students, even on the experimental side, know how to run FLUENT/GAMBIT and do CFD. The graduate students/professors that work on numerical fluids are more typically working on new CFD codes and methods, such as direct numerical simulation. If this is something that interests you then it is a great area to get into and gets a lot of attention from industry. However, it is a lot more than just sitting down and running CFD programs. I would suggest you look into this or ask around before you commit to it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have a friend doing his MS/PhD in Aerospace Engineering whose undergrad was in Physics. He is fully funded. It helps, though, that he is in the dynamics and controls area, which means he has done all the stuff he needs for his research before and just needs to learn fluids and materials to pass the qualifying exam. Basically, he was already plenty qualified for his position and so he got funded. If you did your undergrad in physics and are wanting to do your grad work in fluids or something, chances are that you would have a hard time getting funded as easily and would also probably have to spend more time in school catching up before you could do any real research anyway since you don’t have that fluids/heat transfer background.</p>
<p>I also got admitted to UCLA and am considering starting my MS program there. But if funding at state schools is really that much more uncommon than at other schools, I might just reapply to other MSME programs. </p>
<p>‘Don’t expect MS funding right when you start unless you have like a 3.9 UGGPA and have previous research experience.’</p>
<p>well I had a 3.77 gpa in physics and did two different undergrad research projects in physics. Is that even relevant as those weren’t in engineering?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong, it isn’t UNcommon to get funded at a state school. I know most people in my department at Texas A&M are funded, and this is a state school. Then again, the state of Texas is still doing very well because of oil money, so that could play a part in it.</p>
<p>And any research experience is relevant because it gets you close to professors who can attest to your abilities and thus proves that you can be useful in a laboratory setting. The line between engineering and physics gets blurred a little bit in grad school anyway. The thing is, proving you are capable in a lab setting doesn’t do anything to make you qualified to do real lab work in a subject that is vastly different from your previous experience, so while a professor may be just fine with taking you on as an undergrad physicist, he also may want to wait to fund you until you are up to speed with what an undergrad in his department would know.</p>
<p>Of course this is all purely hypothetical, as each professor and school is slightly different. Your experience may vary.</p>
<p>sorry to bump this thread, but how important is it to actually like the research project you’re working on? For instance, I may be able to obtain a research position with a professor, but the work may involve lots of experimental work. I hated my lab courses but enjoy doing numerical/computational work, so thats why I want to focus on areas such as CFD and FEA. I know that with the current funding situation that I shouldn’t be picky. But if I want to eventually obtain an R&D position focusing on numerical work, will having done primarily experimental work hurt my chances? Also, I’m also considering getting a phD after I complete my MS, and I want to do numerical work if I get a phD. How will doing experimental work affect that?</p>