I know that UChicago does not have an engineering program and creating such program goes against their purpose, (Wanting to teach students not a particular field of study but rather teaching them the way to think and work in life). I love this way of thinking and how it emphasizes that life isn’t about only work and securing your future but rather you go to UChicago to learn and experience and be prepared. Will the physics program at UChicago allow for a feasible transition into an Engineering master’s program elsewhere? I’m specifically looking at Mechanical Engineering and Aerospace.
You can go from physics bachelor’s to an ME/AE graduate program, but you may have to take upper level undergraduate ME/AE courses to “catch up” to where entering ME/AE graduate students are expected to be in terms of prerequisites.
In addition, the time cost will be greater, and if the graduate program is not funded (professional master’s programs often are not, while PhD programs worth attending should be fully funded), it will add additional monetary costs as well, compared to attending an undergraduate school where one can complete a bachelor’s degree in engineering.
I guess you missed the $100 million they just got for their Institute of Molecular Engineering. Having said that IME is focused on Chemical, Biological and Quantum (physics) engineering, so if those area interest you then could easily go onto graduate school in Mech/Aero engineering. Otherwise its what @ucbalumnus said.
If you really like the education that UChicago offers then I would look into the Quantum Physics track of their Molecular Engineering program.
UChicago is not ABET accredited, and that makes a difference in finding jobs and even being accepted to graduate school. In all honesty, if you want to study mechanical engineering, you should not be applying to UChicago. A university which is not ABET accredited is NOT training engineers, it’s teaching students engineering concepts as an aside.
Choosing a school to do an undergrad in a field because they do not actually have a good program in that field is backward thinking. If you like engineering attend a college which will teach you to be an engineer, not a college which has engineering courses.
People’s lives depend on the work of mechanical engineers, and rather than teaching them “to learn and experience and be prepared”, they need to teach mechanical engineers how to make sure that the new, innovative steering system on your car won’t fall to pieces while you are driving at 70 miles an hour on the I-90.
That is why ABET accreditation even exists.
Basically, it seems a bad idea to a study engineering if you will not really be an engineer when you graduate.
If you want to study in Chicago, there are three ABET accredited schools in Chicago (Northwestern, IIT, and UIC), and three more of the best engineering schools in the world are within a few hours’ drive (UIUC, UMichigan, and Purdue).
If you want to study physics because you want a degree in physics, apply to UChicago, otherwise it makes no sense.
I’m going to be frank, MWolf has no idea what he is talking about. ABET accreditation has nothing to do with grad school acceptance. In the three areas that UChicago has engineering, Caltech and Stanford have foregone ABET accreditation in these areas due to the fast pace nature of these fields. ABET accreditation is important for civil engineering, some mechanical engineering and some EE (power transfer) fields. The OP may have to consider going to an ABET school for graduate school if they plan on pursuing mech/aero engineering which, of course, is not offered at UChicago. People often confuse when ABET is important and when it is not.
While Caltech and Stanford have foregone ABET accreditation in some areas, they have established well regarded engineering programs in those areas, so that employers and graduate programs tend to give them a pass on ABET accreditation where it is not strictly needed (PE licensing and patent exam).
But Chicago does not appear to have much in the way of offerings in ME/AE (its molecular engineering program is mostly chemical and biomedical focused), so the comment in reply #1 applies if the OP wants to go into ME/AE. A physics graduate may be able to get hired into some types of engineering jobs, but s/he would be a second choice compared to someone with an applicable engineering degree.
Can’t compare Stanford and or Caltechs programs. They deserved the right to do what ever they want. They are worldwide brand and reputation.
I met with Matthew Tirell at U Chicago when my son was considering it just as this program was in the launch phase. He is brilliant and a worldwide name but in nanotechnology etc.
He and the head of the math department there told us that you could just take classes similar to regular engineering and that companies do hire students with physics degrees to do things that are similar to what engineers would do. He suggested that if we we were looking into typical engineering fields that UChicago would most likely not be the right fit.
But if you like Molecular technology and engineering which is a growing field this quickly might be one of the best places for it.
I agree that civil/mech/aero aren’t good fits at UChicago because there are NOT offered. However, like most here, both of you make the same mistakes. 1. That the university makes the student , the students are what make the university. Stanford, Caltech and UChicago all have exceptional cohorts which is what makes the respective universities great. 2 Engineering is the application of math and science to real world problems and saying UChicago isn’t outstanding in both these areas is ridiculous. You really can’t get a better foundation in engineering.
You can reread what I wrote. But will add the head of the math department said as a mathematician you can do anything. I totally agree with what you are saying. The students make the school no doubt. The professors I stated said with a degree from UChicago will open many doors into just about any industry and I do believe that. For my son and others they just want a more conventional route in engineering.
Neither of us is claiming what you claim we are claiming (1 and 2 above). We are only stating what you agree with, which is that Chicago is not a great academic fit for a student who wants to do ME/AE.
A student interested in ME/AE who wants cohorts or prestige can apply to many other universities that have that and an ME/AE program. However, that may not be the OP’s reason for wanting Chicago (“Wanting to teach students not a particular field of study but rather teaching them the way to think and work in life”). But what the OP wants here is not unique to Chicago either (Chicago and most other universities require a major in a particular field of study, and general education or core courses to teach them the way to think and work in life as each school sees it).
Back to what the OP was asking, OP wants to attend UChicago for its unique educational experience, OP realizes that UChicago does not offer Aero/Mech engineering. The question is would OP be disadvantaged by majoring in physics at UChicago and then getting a masters in Aero which @ucbalumnus has answered satisfactorily. Then next question is would the OP be disadvantaged by majoring in Engineering (quantum physics track) at UChicago and then getting a masters in Aero? the answer is unequivocally no, nor would the OP have to take any “extra” classes in order to do so.
@CU123 Caltech and Stanford are both accredited for Mechanical Engineering (the OP’s prefered major), and Stanford is also accredited for chem engineering and civil engineering.
Also, those are two schools. Good ones, but only two, and the number of engineers that the produce is fairly small. MIT, GTech, UIUC, and all of the engineering powerhouses which produce the vast majority of engineering undergraduates are still seeking and maintaining accreditation.
Besides, both Caltech and Stanford have good enough reputation and name recognition that their graduates don’t really need ABET accreditation to “prove” that they’re well trained. This is NOT true for graduates of the vast majority of universities out there, and this is definitely not true for UChicago graduates.
BTW, here, for example, is Brown’s statement as to why they consider their ABET accreditation to be important. https://www.brown.edu/academics/engineering/abet-accreditation
If you look closely to the last bullet point under the “Accreditation of Programs in Engineering” title, you will see that it says, pretty clearly: “ABET accreditation is also a consideration for admission to many graduate programs.”
So I guess that you understand graduate admissions in engineering better than the people at Brown’s School of Engineering?
So maybe I DO know what I’m talking about?
PS. While there is a distinct possibility that an increasing number of engineering programs will no longer seek ABET accreditation, and that it will eventually lose its value in the future, that is a decade or two into the future, and will not have occurred by the time the OP graduates.
Moreover, I can see no time in the future in which a UChicago graduate will have an advantage in either acceptance to engineering graduate school or in job offers as engineers over the graduates of dozens of universities and colleges, all which are looked down upon by UChicago.
Well, maybe non-funded master’s degree programs (engineering schools’ cash-cows) will prefer to accept UChicago graduates, because they can charge them extra money for the extra courses they will be required to take…
Ok if you think that an UChicago IME graduate is going to have a hard time getting into a graduate program…you’re just wrong.
“Besides, both Caltech and Stanford have good enough reputation and name recognition that their graduates don’t really need ABET accreditation to “prove” that they’re well trained. This is NOT true for graduates of the vast majority of universities out there, and this is definitely not true for UChicago graduates.”
- OP didn't say he/she was planning to enter the engineering profession upon graduating from UChicago. It was pretty clear that engineering would be a specialty sought at the master's level of education. The question is whether OP's "training" (I prefer the word "education") at UChicago would be sufficient enough to get him/her in.
“If you look closely to the last bullet point under the “Accreditation of Programs in Engineering” title, you will see that it says, pretty clearly: “ABET accreditation is also a consideration for admission to many graduate programs.””
- The problem with ABET accreditation is that in fulfilling those requirements, oftentimes students have to sacrifice on the liberal ed. portion of their college education - the very courses that, if taught well, can enhance your intellectual experience in college and enrich your learning. I can see OP's point about seeking a liberal education at the undergraduate level, then specializing later on. As long as he/she ends up academically prepared, then the admission requirements - at least at U of MN, our state flagship - for the Master's in either ME or Aero seem to be top recs, grades, GRE scores, etc. The same stuff that's required in all grad programs. Notably absent from the admissions requirements is an "ABET" -accredited undergraduate degree. Furthermore, at least for aero, they make clear that the master's program accepts science and math majors as well as engineers.
In order for OP to figure out whether a physics or ME major at UChicago does, indeed prepare you for graduate work in at least some engineering fields, OP should take a look at the program of study for both majors (see links below) and should also check out each department on the UChicago website to get more information and to connect with undergraduate advisor. It’s also possible to walk through the B.Eng(Aero) and B.Eng(Mech) curricula that satisfies ABET accreditation and compare to the curricula of physics and Molecular at UChicgo, keeping in mind that you can also supplement as needed with “electives” in math and/or science (assuming the course you need is taught).
http://collegecatalog.uchicago.edu/thecollege/physics/
http://collegecatalog.uchicago.edu/thecollege/molecularengineering/
Of course, it appears that @CU123 who has a kid currently majoring in ME has probably figured all this out already so is a great source of information as well.
Finally, I’d contact some of these master’s programs and ask them whether they have students who graduated with a non-engineering major and/or from a liberal arts program. Personally, I’ve known several over the years, and my LAC back in the '80’s offered a five-year joint BA/M.Eng combined degree with a private uni. nearby (a little-known school by the name of Stanford). So at least once upon a time liberal arts kids were interested in and accepted to grad. engineering.
For clarity, ABET accreditation for engineering programs requires at least the following:
- 1/4 (25%) of the course work in math and natural science (which are liberal arts).
- 3/8 (37.5%) of the course work in engineering science and engineering design.
- an unspecified amount of general education (probably at least 1/8 in humanities and social studies, based on Brown, but many colleges require more).
This means that the liberal arts portion of an ABET accredited engineering bachelor’s degree program can be about 3/8 (37.5%) to 5/8 (62.5%) of the course work. Enough? A matter of opinion…
For comparison, Chicago molecular engineering quantum physics track requires 31% in math and natural science and 21% in engineering science and engineering design. General education includes another 21% in humanities and social studies, so liberal arts makes up 52% to 79% of the program.
Engineering science and engineering design courses can also enhance one’s intellectual experience and enrich one’s learning.
In any case, the path the OP is considering (not necessarily Chicago-specific) of doing physics undergraduate and ME/AE master’s is certainly possible, but the OP must consider the factors listed in reply #1.
"For clarity, ABET accreditation for engineering programs requires at least the following:
- 1/4 of the course work in math and natural science (which are liberal arts).
- 3/8 of the course work in engineering science and engineering design.
- an unspecified amount of general education (probably at least 1/8 in humanities and social studies, based on Brown, but many colleges require more).
This means that the liberal arts portion of an ABET accredited engineering bachelor’s degree program can be about 3/8 to 5/8 of the course work. Enough? A matter of opinion…"
Well, a UChicago physics major will EASILY meet the non-engineering portion of that so ABET isn’t necessary unless, of course, the remaining 3/8 of engineering is strictly necessary for the master’s program.
“Engineering science and engineering design courses can also enhance one’s intellectual experience and enrich one’s learning.”
- Naturally. However, when I look just at the aerospace engineering major at our state flagship (as an example), I see that out of the 120 or so credits needed to graduate (approximately 5 courses per semester or 40 courses over the four years), over 100 are related to the major. Lib. ed. barely squeezed in there, and no chance of non-major electives. Hence, very little breadth. Haven't looked at Brown specifically so can't compare. On the other hand, Physics at UChicago requires only 2000 out of a total of 4200-4800 credits (20 out of 42-48 courses) related to the major (including pre-reqs). That leaves plenty of room for remaining liberals and elective credits. You can even fit a minor or another major in there if you plan carefully. ME is going to be more intensive - about 25 out of 42-48 courses are related to the major so a little over 50%, but that still leaves plenty of room for breadth/minor field of study. So a liberal arts education can certainly be more intellectually fulfilling for someone looking for that type of comprehensive exposure to a variety of subjects - and no, it doesn't have to be UChicago. But Uchicago is also known for being very rigorous and challenging, particularly in the physical sciences, so that's going to help with preparation for engineering grad work.
I agree with MWolf. If your desire is to become an engineer, start out in an undergraduate engineering program at an ABET accredited school.
Engineering and physics are two different things. They are certainly related, and physics is used tremendously in engineering, however, a physics curriculum is largely intended to produce future physicists who will perform research in the field and, possibly, apply physics to other fields. Engineering has specific applied science and, especially, design courses that traditional physics curricula do not have. It is not just a matter of learning basic sciences and math that makes one an engineer - though they are most assuredly prerequisites - but in addition to them one must have hands-on design experience in school. All ABET accredited schools of engineering require the engineering specific lab and design work.
If one majors in physics with the intent of going to an engineering master’s program afterwards, he/she will likely not have any design and many of the applied lab courses that are part of the undergraduate engineering curriculum. Master’s programs in engineering typically are specialized in one focused area within an engineering specialty (e.g., signal processing subspecialty within EE, turbomachinery within ME, reinforced concrete within CE, processes within ChemE, et al.). Few have any hands-on design work, and even if they did, it would not be the equivalent of eight semesters of undergraduate engineering coursework. There are also many non-discipline specific labs in undergraduate engineering (digital and analog electronic circuits, thermodynamics, strength of materials, energy conversion, and others, in addition to discipline specific lab work that would not normally be part of a master’s program.
If you are going into a field in which PE licensure is required, or if you want to sit for the patent bar exam (either as an attorney or enrolled agent) later on, you must hold an ABET accredited engineering degree. Additionally, most of the engineering positions in government agencies require an ABET accredited undergraduate degree. There are a few schools that have ABET accredited master’s programs in engineering, but they are uncommon. Perhaps sometimes a state engineering registration board might allow a non-ABET graduate to sit for the PE exam on a case-by-case basis, but they will have to go through much more vetting than the holder of an ABET accredited degree, who is automatically qualified to sit for the exam upon obtaining four years of PE supervised work experience.
With regard to Caltech, Stanford, and any others that think ABET accreditation is not needed, I strongly disagree. As an employer, how do I know that their graduates have all the required interdisciplinary and disciplinary specific lab, design, and other hands-on skills that are required in ABET accredited programs? (no, their “brand” by itself is not enough). Harvard and Yale have well established and highly regarded “brands” for their medical, law, and business schools for example. Would they forego AAMC (medical), ABA (law), or AACSB (business) accreditation claiming that their “brand” is so “good” that the accreditation is unnecessary? Doubt it. Would state medical and bar examiners accept their graduates for licensure without accreditation?
Peoples’ lives depend upon the practice of competent engineers. ABET assures a minimum standard of quality is being maintained and serves as an independent quality control. Schools cannot seriously claim that they are above the accreditation just because they have a “name” or “talented students” (engineering is a tough subject in any school, and anyone who graduates with an engineering degree has a considerable amount of talent).
One really does need an accredited undergraduate degree to be an engineer. If you want to be an engineer, attend an ABET accredited school. If you want to be a physicist, by all means attend U of Chicago, but it is not an engineering school.
So instead of believing whatever personal opinions are on ABET, I’ll quote some of those who actually teach it. Personally when I managed a government program I regularly waived the ABET requirement when I hired for engineering positions, had a physics major running an engineering department because he was just smarter/ more talented.
A couple of articles and a quote from the Stanford Daily
“Numerous Stanford departments, the latest being Electrical Engineering, have chosen to stop structuring their major programs around ABET-accreditation, Professor Tom Kenny said in an interview with the Stanford Sphere. He said that the EE major saw increases in enrollment after the change was made. At Stanford, only two major programs — Mechanical Engineering and Civil Engineering — are still ABET-accredited, less than the number of accredited programs at Princeton, Yale and Harvard.
Goldsmith instead encouraged the University to focus on making a liberal arts education mandatory in the curriculum, counteracting the pressure faced by students to pursue narrowly-technical classes perceived by students to increase future job prospects. “
https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i48/time-leave-behind-chemical-engineering.html
ABET may come around but they have ticked a whole bunch of really smart talented engineering professors off.
“At Caltech, chemical engineering has, until recently, had more requirements than any other discipline at the university. Faculty efforts to reduce the number of credits required for a chemical engineering degree to that required for any other degree at Caltech while still satisfying ABET left students with only one free elective. Dropping ABET opens the door for students to incorporate other courses or undergraduate research into their studies.”
- That sums up the drawback to ABET. It's the same issue I mentioned in #16.
However, in OP’s case, it sounded like the master’s would likely take care of any requirement for an accredited curriculum? If so, then a critique of ABET is irrelevant to this thread; a discussion of curriculum and educational experience (UChicago vs. other places) might make more sense. For instance, is OP really looking for a liberal arts program, or is a non-engineering-specific science institute such as Cal Tech or MIT a better fit?