<p>I believe the answer is no. It's not a useful course for chemical engineering. The typical chemical engineer will not dabble in electromagnetism, optics or wave mechanics, which are the typical topics covered in the second semester of physics. More practically, the course doesn't serve as preparation for any standard higher-level ChemE course. An engineering curriculum is packed as it is. There's no need to require a course that isn't really required to be a chemical engineer.</p>
<p>What do other ChemE students (and grad students and professionals, if you're out there) think?</p>
<p>I think if you wind up taking graduate courses in ChemE you’ll probably wind up needing some E&M background as you get down to small-scales and start worrying about quantum effects and sorts like that.</p>
<p>Other than that I guess the general benefit is the type of thinking that’s required. I think E&M was my first class that really required an in-depth understanding of calculus to properly grasp what was going on in problems.</p>
<p>College isn’t a technical school. Consider E&M sort of a “general scientific knowledge” subject for a ChemE. It just makes the person a more well-rounded “engineer”, regardless of the specific engineering they do. It expands the mental horizons.</p>
<p>Also, the other engineering majors all have to take chemistry (at my University, anyway). Their curricula are just as crowded as yours, so why should they take two semesters of it? Again, the reason is that you are assumed to have a basic knowledge of all the physical sciences.</p>
<p>Wave Mechanics is used in phsyical chemistry, and is a good introduction to probability functions. Which, dependent on what you do with your ChemE degree, is useful.</p>
<p>Most colleges seem to have some core curriculum, which might include various science classes. At my undergrad institution, the <em>creative writing</em> majors were required to take two semesters of physics (it was part of the core curriculum). If you’re going to say that people should only have to take classes that are obviously relevant to the average job in their intended profession, then colleges should do away with core curricula altogether (which is a different debate).</p>
<p>More skills never hurt anyone, and a basic understanding of the “primary colors” of science certainly never hurt any scientist or engineer.</p>
<p>As an engineer, you are assumed to have some knowledge in the area. It’s kinda like Sarah Palin who didnt know that Africa was split up into different countries or what the 3 countries in North America were. She probably could get by without knowing that as VP, however, she is expected to have that breadth.</p>
<p>Same with Chem E. You’re expected to have that breadth, even though you could get by without it.</p>
<p>Also, the goal of an engineering education is to prepare you for whatever comes your way. You have no way of knowing now what you will be doing after graduation, or where your career will take you. Thus, you need a very broad knowledge base now to make sure that you can succeed in whatever you decide to persue.</p>
<p>Why pay for a course you don’t need and have no desire to take? Why is breadth important? At what point is it too much? Why E&M and not biology or modern physics?</p>
<p>E&M form’s part of the coner stone of engineering in general. Since the boundaries of specific engineering disciplines often overlap, a core understanding of these “corner stone” areas are needed in any engineers education so that they have the most opportunites available to them.</p>
<p>In industry you may work as part of a team of engineers, and the more you know the better. This is especially true of the science that forms the foundation of all engineering disciplines.</p>
<p>I know at my school chemEs had to take basically take two modern physics courses since I hear it’s a big part of their curriculum. One is considered a physics course that all engineers take and the 2nd specific to the chemical engineering department.</p>
<p>Bad memories of physical chemistry, perhaps. I can’t be sure; I’m not a chemist.</p>
<p>I don’t see the necessity of modern physics. (I’m looking at a syllabus online. Relativity? Come on! Other topics overlap those covered in pchem).</p>
<p>For those of you in the real world (academia and work), exactly how much of other engineering disciplines are you expected to have a grasp of?</p>
<p>Hello, your an engineering major, the language of engineering is physics and math. You should be liking all of the classes you are taking. That is all you do while in college. Physics will be useful in everything. It expresses how the world works around us. Maybe we should just do what the russians did, and just test kids to see what there mental attributes are. Then if they are good at accounting, we stick them in classes and that is all they take their whole educational career. Could you imagine being in a class of 50 people or so who took nothing but accounting classes their entire lives.</p>
<p>The Russians didn’t do too badly for themselves in science and technology before communism collapsed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Math - absolutely, physics - no way. Physics is the basis from which engineering developed, but that’s not the same thing as it being the “language of engineering.”</p>
<p>I see it as this (and again, feel free to point out my ill assumptions): the material that is most germane to your engineering major is re-taught in lower-level engineering classes (thermo, stats, circuits and so on) while the other material is never touched upon again.</p>