<p>Engineering physics is totally different. This degree is just called Bachelor of Science in General Engineering. This degree will enable you to pick any engineering of your choice to focus on during graduate school. The disadvantage is that you can't specialize at work immediately after you get out of undergraduate. You're sort of forced to go to grad school if you want to specialize later on.</p>
<p>Think more along the lines of Harvey Mudd... it's less that you're majoring in engineering in general, and more that you're majoring in ALL OF ENGINEERING. It's pretty intense. Seems worth it, though... My brother's a rising soph. @ Mudd and already has a patent application from one of his course projects.</p>
<p>Even so, I can't imagine all the work he would have to go through if he wanted to enter my field and become a design structural engineer. He'd have to spend at least a year and a half making up all the courses that he wouldn't have taken. I wouldn't make it through, but then again, I've already been through 5+ years of college/grad school, so I'm a bit academically exhausted at the moment...!</p>
<p>It can be done, and you get a broader education in all of engineering, but I'd prefer to major in something a wee bit more specific, in the general direction of where I'd want to go, than to get a very broad major. Again, though, that could just be the part of me talking that's reeeeally tired of school. =)</p>
<p>HMC's general engineering program is fantastic. Swarthmore and The Cooper Union have one as well.</p>
<p>Aibarr: Would you see The Cooper Union being just as good as HMC? I'm just trying to compare the smaller, elite, schools with each other.</p>
<p>Someone actually asked me that a while ago.... Unfortunately, I'm not as familiar with Cooper Union's program as I probably ought to be. I need to research it more. Can anybody who knows both programs speak about how they compare?</p>
<p>"I believe in order to be flexible and do practically any engineering of your choice in graduate school, you have to major in an undergrad. major called General engineering. Only a few select schools in the country offer it though."</p>
<p>This is true. If the only thing being considered is what to major in within undergrad that will allow you to do graduate work in as many fields of engineering as possible, this is almost certainly true.</p>
<p>However, again, I think there is a trade-off taking place here as well. While I"m sure that many people have been successful while going this route, including the V.P. of Engineering at the company I'm currently interning with (he earned his Gen Eng degree from UIUC), I think this also is restricting in that, what happens if you decide that you've had enough of school, and you don't want to go to graduate school, at least not right away?</p>
<p>I think you have some much better job perspectives with a B.S. in EE, ME, Civ E, or Chem E than you would with an undergraduate Gen Eng degree. So, to some extent, I think that at the age of 18 you are almost COMMITTING yourself to pursuing graduate school.</p>
<p>I"m certianly not saying that pursing a General Engineering degree from a good Engineering school is a bad move... it's just not the move I would recommend because of how it may work out if you decide to work first before going to grad school.</p>
<p>I made a call to the grad. admissions office for various engineering departments including electrical engineering and civil engineering at the more prestigious schools including Cal-tech and MIT. </p>
<p>I spoke to a few admissions officers and they said that in order to be eligible for entering the master of engineering -OR- master of science program in either electrical or civil engineering; I would NOT had to have been an undergrad. major in EE or cE. </p>
<p>They have people applying as math majors, physics majors, and all kinds of other engineering majors into these specified graduate programs in engineering and IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOUR UNDERGRADUATE MAJOR is so as long as it is involves a significant amount of math and critical thinking.</p>
<p>So yes, if I wanted to receive a master's degree in structural engineering; I could potentially apply as a chemical engineer or any other kind of engineer. The adcom. member even told me that they had architects applying for these specified engineering programs and were taken quite seriously.</p>
<p>It is not necessary to have the general engineering degree.</p>
<p>No one's saying you can't get an MS in a subject other than your BS. It's simply that switching from, say, EE to ChemE may be more difficult (in terms of the amount of work, time to get the degree, etc) than sticking with ChemE all the way through. </p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>Quote:</p>
<p>07-26-2005, 11:18 AM #19<br>
eternity_hope2005 </p>
<p>I believe in order to be flexible and do practically any engineering of your choice in graduate school, you have to major in an undergrad. major called General engineering. Only a few select schools in the country offer it though. </p>
<p>I go to a private christian unversity, Olivet Nazarene, and I'm majoring in Engineering with a Mechanical Concentration. They also offer Electrically concentrated but the MC's also do some EC stuff like digital systems etc. Would General Engineering be about the same as the program offered here?</p>
<p>UC san diego doesnt have a broader civil engineering degree, only structural E. Do you think this would largely limit your choice of options in that general area, compared to UC irvine or UCLA, who have the civil E major? (where structural E is just one subdegree of that)</p>
<p>rbledsaw- someone like Olivet Nazarene's general engineering program isn't going to be comparable to the general engineering programs at, say, Harvey Mudd or Olin, simply because Olivet Nazarene's focus isn't on engineering and science education. The schools' purposes are different. I think you'll get a solid engineering background, but I'm honestly unsure of what the higher-ranking grad programs and larger corporations are going to think of a gen eng degree from Olivet Nazarene. You'll have to really prove yourself in student leadership opportunities and internships and have a great GPA to get full rides to grad programs like MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, or UIUC. For the vast majority of engineering positions, though, I think that what your college choice says about your priorities and your character will overshine any lack of engineering prowess that your program might have had.</p>
<p>cjdoor- It depends upon what the UCSD student really wants to go into. If they have their heart set upon going into structural engineering, then UCSD is an excellent place to end up. They have some of the most incredible full-scale testing facilities I've ever read about, and their faculty pool is quite strong. Still, if a student wasn't sure whether they wanted to go into structural engineering or, say, traffic engineering or hydrology, then UCSD probably wouldn't offer the breadth of program that this hypothetical student would want.</p>
<p>Just a parent jumping in here with a question. My son is an engr freshman and needs to declare a major at the end of the spring term. He is thinking of either mechanical engr or engr physics. He likes that mechE is broad and encompasses aerospace, but he also likes physics and astronomy. Any opinions that may help in choosing?</p>
<p>You can always get a Mech degree and take electives to specialize in physics and astronomy, but going the other way is much more difficult... I think going that way would provide him with more options later on.</p>
<p>rbledsaw,</p>
<pre><code>Yes, the general degree you are getting is very similar to what is offered at Harvey Mudd and other places. It may not have the same national reputation, but the coursework is similar. I grew up in Chicago and I knew of Olivet well before I knew of Harvey Mudd. In fact, in that area you'll probably find that Olivet will be better known. I think a general engineering degree is a very marketable degree. Many employers want a well rounded engineer.
</code></pre>
<p>lkf725,</p>
<pre><code>I recommend students start out broad and get more focused later on. A broad degree like MechE will give him more options later on.
</code></pre>
<p>Thanks for the input! I know that engineering physics is more theoretical, but I'm not sure exactly what you can use it for. At least I know employed mechanical engineers!</p>
<p>Hey,</p>
<p>I just happened to come upon this page while searching for an answer to a question I had, similar to the one posed in the title of this thread. Like everybody else here i'm strongly entertaining the engineering profession, but was interested in the Aerospace field. I didn't want to limit myself to "bolts of a flap" type boring applications though, so after reading this thread through I think ive convinced myself that a more appropriate route would be to study Mechanical Engineering, instead.</p>
<p>I'm a bit curious about school choice, though. If I post my circumstances, I'd appreciate any sort of feedback or comments because you all seem quite knowledgable of the field and schools.</p>
<p>I'm looking at Embry-Riddle, MSOE (Milwaukee School of Engineering), UIUC, and Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology.</p>
<p>Embry-Riddle i've almost ruled out -- it seems like a good school, but I don't know that I want to major in Aerospace Engineering.. and it just seems more expensive than the other schools.</p>
<p>MSOE seems to have a good reputation, and there is a chance I may be awarded a full scholarship to attend. If I go here, is it comparable to UIUC or Harvey Mudd or Rose-Hulman? Do I still stand a good chance of attending MIT or Cal-tech (assuming good academic performance and community involvement, etc)?</p>
<p>UIUC -- This one I kick myself for: I could have attended as a freshman, but instead I was talked into "saving money" by going to a community college by my dad. Unfortunately, now I can't transfer into UIUC because I don't have 60 transferable credit hours.. and to do so would involve taking another year and a half at another school or the same community college (which I don't even want to consider).</p>
<p>Rose-Hulman is ranked number 1 for ME by US News, but rankings can be misleading or based on unimportant or inaccurate statistics.. and US News has been criticized for its "ranking system" plenty before. However, it seems to be a great engineering school. But in comparison to MSOE, is it worth the money to go therre and blow off a full or partial scholarship to MSOE?</p>
<p>I need to make my decision soon, but I plan to get my masters and doctoral degree from a highly regarded institution like MIT or Caltech, maybe even U of I.</p>
<p>Thanks for the input,</p>
<p>Kevin</p>
<p>Appreciate your comment a lot. I tired of constant bickering from electrical, mechanical and chemical average students that civil is the easiest among the four core engineering degrees. Yeah it’s easiest because you guys keep excluding structural. If, however a question of when Structural engineering is separated from civil…this is currently been debated in the industry, you guys will realize it’s a difficult major. It would be on par with Aerospace, Ocean and Navel Architecture. It should arouse curiosity to many of you as to why we are sought after by Aerospace, Navel architecture and marine engineering industry. I did intern in Aerospace and offshore engineering firms, I was surprised as to how many structural engineers were working there. I was dumfounded. Pretty much all the senior engineers and junior I came across were structural engineers. Very smart people. Then, I decided to go the structural route. Very broad discipline, you can go the conventional route of structural design for high rise, buildings and bridges or go into oil and gas offshore structures, Navel architecture and aerospace design. </p>
<p>One thing I observe was that Aerospace, marine, ocean and Naval architects respect structural engineers more as coworkers in that they know that structural engineers can do pretty what they do than they would for mechanical. All the structural engineer needs to do to get on par with Aerospace and Ocean/marine/Naval architects is simply to take some courses in Hydrodynamics, aerodynamics and vibrations. </p>
<p>We structural engineers don’t like that word “civil” and loathe to be identified as “civil engineer”. You will observe that we love to be identified as “structural engineers” only.
I couldn’t think of any other engineering major besides aerospace, ocean, marine and Naval architecture out of the conventional engineering degree( I wanted something unique with less people and job competition in it) that has prestige and makes more money as Structural engineering. If you went the aerospace or marine/ocean/offshore engineering route which 90% of us in the industry don’t know about it’s possible to to do, you could be making over 150k in 7-10 yrs of experience. I know few people who are currently making that and they are all in their 30s. </p>
<p>In closing, It’s a new field with respect to its application outside of the conventional structural design. I bet you by 2020, it will be separated from civil and will be on par in terms of prestige and difficulty with aerospace and naval architecture. All of the smartest kids I knew back in college in civil engineering all went the structural route. These were the same kids that were beating the asses of mechanical, chemical and electrical students in foundation courses as: statics, dynamics, mechanics of materials, fluid mechanics, thermo and many others. I say this because I keep getting the same constant repetitions from electrical, chemical and mechanical that civil is easy; well, lets accept for a moment its easy excluding structural, the rational question to ask is…didn’t we take the same engineering foundational courses with you all? If we did and excelled in those courses; wouldn’t it be rational also to assume that if we went the mechanical, chemical and electrical route, we would be doing equally better, perhaps more than you guys are doing? We chose Civil not because it’s easy or couldn’t excel in other engineering majors, but because we love CIVIL. This is common sense!</p>