<p>I think you can find people using little or lots of math in any engineering or technical discipline. That being said, here are my thoughts (as a guy who did math in school and who does software now):</p>
<p>Computer science can mean a lot of math or a little math, depending on your interests and where you go to school. It’s not the kind of math most people probably think about when they talk about “math” in the context of engineering; however, computer science students get the opportunity (that’s one way of saying, heh) to do kinds of math that most engineering students don’t… combinatorics, logic, proofs, etc. Generally speaking, though, these kinds of math courses are the bane of most undergraduate CS students’ existences (or so I’m told). You’ll never be asked to solve a diffy-Q in a CS course, unless you’re taking some sort of numerical methods course or something. In a real sense, though, CS is - like mathematics - a formal science, so everything you do (except in parts of some computer architecture/hardware courses that are more like EE-lite for CS majors) can be seen as “mathematics”… techniques for managing memory, scheduling processes, sorting numbers, constructing universal Turing machines, writing a program that adds a list of numbers, etc. All of it’s math.</p>
<p>Industrial engineering (or operations research) is heavily based on mathematics as well, probably moreso (as a proportion of time spent in the curriculum) than most other “engineering” majors. The key words here are probability and statistics, and you can probably swing a degree in this area in more than a few directions. As far as I know, there’s not a lot of empirical science behind this kind of stuff… it, too, is based more on a formal science, although I don’t think it’s technically as “mathematical” as some (perhaps more rigorous than the norm) CS programs.</p>
<p>I feel like Mechanical, Aerospace, Civil, Electrical, etc. are probably pretty much a wash. If you can handle Calculus I-III, Linear Algebra and Differential Equations, you won’t need to learn anything else in any real depth in order to get the gist. That’s my impression, anyway, and is based only on anecdotal evidence and reviewing a few undergraduate curricula. It’s the lack of “physics” content behind the other two that makes me think those are probably the top contenders… and the fact that, historically, they have come from mathematics, rather than physics.</p>