<p>Three out of the four BEST ENGINEERING SCHOOLS in the world are located in California. None of them offer an undergrad aero program. Berkeley doesn't even have an Aerospace Engineering Dept. Caltech and Stanford offer only graduate degrees. It's terrible for the top students who live in California and want to study Aero/Astro as undergrads at a powerhouse University. Yes, I'm aware of the "General Engineering" degree with Aero/Astro concentration at Stanford but it just isn't the same thing. The idea of this degree is to prepare students for graduate study in Aero/Astro. What about those that arent' sure about grad school but want a terminal degree in Aerospace Engineering? The next best school is UCLA and though it is a very good school, it's ranked lower than many of the other top engineering schools that offer aero degrees. Although I admit rankings aren't everything many of the top students have them in mind when applying to college. MIT definitely has an advantage over Stanford in this by offering an undergrad aero degree. I think Stanford could really lure a lot of potential aero/astro undergrads away from MIT by setting up an aero undergrad program. I've lurked on this site for a while and though i haven't posted yet, I already knkow of one CCer who is not considering stanford simply because of their lack of aero/astro undergrad degree. She is only applying to MIT, GaTech, and Michigan. She also disliked the idea of getting a degree in "General Engineering." It would make the school more competetive. I know i sure as hell would take Stanford over MIT anyday if they had an undergrad aero program. I don't expect Berkeley to invest the time and effort in setting up a department and i know caltech focuses on Engineering and Apllied Science as a whole rather than each specific branch of engineernig. I don't even think they had an ABET accredited Mech. E. program til i while back. Given California's huge Aerospace industry it seems only logical to me that a top school like Stanford should better cater to the needs of undergrads who want a BS in Aero/Astro. Thoughts?</p>
<p>In my opinion, the system is fine the way it is. Aero/Astro is nothing more than a specialization of Mechanical Engineering, much like Computer Engineering is just an offshoot of EE. So it makes little difference whether you major in GE w/AAE or an "official" AAE. The curriculum will pretty much look like an MechE major with a few senior AAE electives thrown in. Given the specialized nature of AAE, the most desirable jobs also prefer a master's degree, so that's why there aren't a lot of BS AAE programs out there. For example, US News shows 288 MechE programs at PhD institutions compared to just 73 in AAE. Bioengineering is very similar in that regard: there's not much industry demand for just a BS in it.</p>
<p>This is what Stanford's Aero/Astro website says about a Bachelor of Science Degree:</p>
<p>Undergraduates enter Stanford with their majors undeclared. Although Aero/Astro is primarily a graduate department, Stanford undergraduates may declare an Interdisciplinary Major in Aeronautics and Astronautics leading to the Bachelor of Science degree in General Engineering. The principal purpose of this degree is to prepare students who are strongly interested in aerospace for subsequent graduate study in the field.</p>
<p>Not perfect, but its Stanford, so I'd take it.</p>
<p>Website also says this:</p>
<p>Alternately, Stanford undergraduates may declare an undergraduate minor in Aero/Astro. The minor introduces students to the key elements of modern aerospace systems and their many spin-off technologies. Within the minor, students may focus on aircraft, spacecraft, or disciplines relevant to both.</p>
<p>So if you major in Mechanical Engineering and minor in Aero/Astro at Stanford, you're just as good as any other AAE major, without the "stigma" of a General Engineering degree.</p>
<p>Some of my closest friends majored in Aero at MIT and later regretted it. One eventually got a Phd in Mech. E.
Aero/astro is too specialized for undergrad... it is much, much better to major in Mech. E. and take your engineering electives in aero/astro...
then, get a MS in aero/astro later.</p>
<p>The aero/astro job market is incredibly FICKLE... it is better o have the mech eng. degree for undergrad... much more flexible... you can do aero/astro with a mech. eng. degree.</p>
<p>Thanks for your replies guys. Although I do agree that Aero and Mech. E are very related that curriculums are quite different after the sophomore year. And even if you minor in Aero Astro, you will only be minoring in specific discipline such as Controls so you will not be well versed in Aerospace Structures, Propulsion or Aerodynamiocs. I started out in Mech at UIUC and then switched to Aero because all the mech classes were boring. I iniitally thought about takin tech electives in aero but to do that all the pre-req classes were Aero classes so in the end the only way to take Aero tech classes is to be an Aero major. Mech E's take tons of Thermodynamics, Heat transfer, Machinery Design, Kinematics of gears none of which we had to take. Aero's take Orbital Mechanics, Flight Dynamics, Aerodynamics, Propulsion.. As for the common classes in Fluid Dynamics and Structures, they were quite different from what Mech E. take. They do not study thin-airfoil thoery nor do do though study elasticity at least here. Their controls classs is more "signal processing oriented" rather than "Controller technique" design oriented. Overall, I have found Aero to be much harder than Mech E. We also have to take 2 additional Math classes.</p>
<p>As an undergraduate, it is better to take core courses, which will give you a good foundation let you specialize later on, as a grad student. Even if you choose not to do graduate work after a BS, a Mech Engg degree will let you get all the jobs in aerospace that an Aero degree would.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Three out of the four BEST ENGINEERING SCHOOLS in the world are located in California. None of them offer an undergrad aero program. Berkeley doesn't even have an Aerospace Engineering Dept. Caltech and Stanford offer only graduate degrees. It's terrible for the top students who live in California and want to study Aero/Astro as undergrads at a powerhouse University. Yes, I'm aware of the "General Engineering" degree with Aero/Astro concentration at Stanford but it just isn't the same thing. The idea of this degree is to prepare students for graduate study in Aero/Astro. What about those that arent' sure about grad school but want a terminal degree in Aerospace Engineering?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I really think that you're getting FAR too hung up on the specific name of your degree.</p>
<p>True, Caltech offers only the "Engineering and Applied Sciences" degree instead of a formal Aero degree. But so what? I don't think the Caltech aero students are hurting for employment. JPL and the greater SoCal aerospace industry hires plenty of Caltech bachelor's degree students. They don't seem to be too concerned that they don't have a formal aero degree. </p>
<p>Besides, look at Harvey Mudd. Mudd only offers General Engineering degrees. So what? Seems to me that Mudders do just fine when it comes to employment. Nobody seems to mind. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I already knkow of one CCer who is not considering stanford simply because of their lack of aero/astro undergrad degree. She is only applying to MIT, GaTech, and Michigan.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I find this incredibly shortsighted, for the simple reason that most undergrads end up switching majors from what they thought they would major in. What if you don't apply to Stanford and get into Georgia Tech for the aero program and matriculate there, and then find out once you're there that you don't really want to major in aero anymore? I'm guessing that you might wish you had applied to Stanford. </p>
<p>Furthermore, as harvard<em>and</em>berkeley said, aero is really just an offshoot of ME. Aerospace companies like Boeing and Lockheed hire plenty of ME's (and other engineers). In fact, of all of the engineers I know who work at Boeing, not a single one has a degree in aero. Instead their degrees are in things like ME, EE, Materials Science, Industrial Engineering. I'm sure there have to be some engineers at Boeing with aero degrees. But the point is, Boeing is not going to say "You have the exact skills that we want, but because you have a ME degree and not an aero degree, we're not going to hire you." Never happen.</p>
<p>first off, jambajuice, i have yet to find an undergraduate who has any type of intuition when it comes to aerospace. it is disgusting that "engineers" can do the calculations but have no feel for the field.</p>
<p><strong><em>FOR HUMOR:
i will tell you were the three best undergraduate rocketry people are in southern california:
usc- aerospace engineering
hmc- general engineering
unknown - unknown<br>
*</em></strong>****** can you guess which one i am? :) </p>
<p>anyways, as someone who is a massive rocket enthusiast, people are not ready to dive into rocket principia before they have 4 years of a rigorous technical education. it is like building the pyramids from the top down.</p>
<p>Sakky, Very good points. I agree with what most of you say. I think that maybe as a sophomore i'm still i bit of an idealist. I can guarantee that i want to work in aerospace after i graduate and i probably will go to grad school. I have wanted to be an aerospace engineer since as far back as i can remember. Anyway, I agree that the name of the degree is quite trivial but it's quite funny how when you tell a layperson you're an Aerospace Engineer, their "eyes light up" and go "oooooh". The reaction isn't quite the same when you tell them you're a Mechanical Engineer; Not that that's a big deal. </p>
<p>rocketDA, I agree with most of what you say. But don't lumps is all in the same pile. I have been a rocket enthusiast sinice very early. I also built and flew several ducted-fan R/C jets and more importantly I also have a pilot's license and have been flying since 16. Believe me, when we talk about spins, immelman's, loops, cuban eights,post-stall gyrations, I KNOW. I'VE DONE THEM. It's not just some mathematical equation of motion to me when i see it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have wanted to be an aerospace engineer since as far back as i can remember. Anyway, I agree that the name of the degree is quite trivial but it's quite funny how when you tell a layperson you're an Aerospace Engineer, their "eyes light up" and go "oooooh". The reaction isn't quite the same when you tell them you're a Mechanical Engineer; Not that that's a big deal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, look, you can always say that you are an aerospace engineer without actually getting a formal aerospace engineering degree. Like I said, Boeing and most other aerospace companies hire plenty of people who don't have formal aerospace engineering degrees. If you have a degree in ME or some other engineering, but you're working on wing design of the 787 (the Dreamliner) at Boeing, I think you are perfectly within your rights to say that you are an aerospace engineer. You may not have a formal degree in aerospace engineering, but you are working as an aerospace engineer. </p>
<p>This gets to a more general point which is that just because you get a degree in some field doesn't mean that you are obligated to work in that field. For example, most history majors will not become historians. Most poli-sci majors will not become political scientists. Furthermore, just because you don't have an undergrad degree in that field doesn't mean that you're barred from that field. For example, the noted historian David McCollough, author of the best-selling biography "John Adams"), and former President of the Society of American Historians, does not have a degree in history. Rather his degree is in English literature. </p>
<p>The point is, you don't need a formal aerospace degree to get a job in the aerospace industry, and furthermore, just because you have a formal aerospace degree does not guarantee you a job in aerospace. You earn an aerospace degree and then find the exact aerospace company you want ... and then get beat out for the job by some other guy who does not have an aerospace degree. Employers care about skills and talent, not the specific kind of degree you have. No employer is going to say "Well, we have 2 candidates, and candidate A has poor skills and a bad personality, and candidate B has excellent skills and a great personality, but I see that A has an aerospace degree and B doesn't, so we're going to hire A". Never happen.</p>