<p>And oh btw, at Caltech, Physics is known to be the hardest major followed by EE... (again in terms of workload and requirements to obtain the degree)</p>
<p>course 16's difficulty is in the sheer number of requirements and volume of work. I disagree with rtkysg. I don't think I know anyone here who'd consider 6 (EECS) more difficult than 18 (math). 6 has double if not triple the requirements but the course 18 classes once you get into that major are so difficult that it takes balls of steel to even sign up for them. Most engineers don't dare and most physics majors get spanked stupid for their curiosity. 18.100b for example, is a popular trial higher-level math course on my hall (filled with physics/math/engineering majors), and did it ever take a sledgehammer to everyone's GPA and self-esteem. In the wake of its destruction I don't think more than 3 or 4 people ever took another 18 class. And maybe 1 is still intending to pursue math.</p>
<p>
[quote]
We at MIT think Course 6 EECS is the hardest major, .
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is somewhat debatable, but regardless the answer doesn't seem to be overwhelmingly math or physics. </p>
<p>
[quote]
but again, this perception only prevails in undergraduate level, where being harder is associated with being more difficult to get the degree (more workload, etc) instead of being more difficult to understand the subject
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Be it because of the workload, and/or the subject matter feeling inherently difficult, several engineering majors (AE,EE, ChemE, Nuclear for ex.)are harder and more rigorous than the physics/math majors (see im a blue's post). Particularly, at the undergrad level. </p>
<p>In my own experience with physics (anyhow) I would have to agree.</p>
<p>
[quote]
From your post, I would guess that you are not a PhD student or haven't done a lot of graduate level research, have you?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You are right about that. At least not in Engineering anymore.
I used to be an Astronautical Engineering student for my Master's and dropped out within a year.</p>
<p>Now I am a graduate student in physical volcanology/dynamic meteorology (with planetary focus) and find it infinitely easier than aerospace engineering. </p>
<p>
[quote]
As I said, Engineering is basically formulating/adapting/adjusting equations given a set of constraints, and to solve the crafted equation, they simply use known tools from Physics/Math. It's different from Physics/Math which have many abstract concepts that is indeed hard to understand.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now you are referring to the graduate level. </p>
<p>In which case, Turbulence, 'nuff said.</p>
<p>In any case, in contrast to math/physics where the difficulty is in coming up with new theory or mathematical formulae, in engineering the difficulty lies in the application of known formulae to solve outstanding technological problems. These are two different approaches and BOTH are difficult. The same way it requires insight to understand a poorly understood abstract concept in physics it also requires phenomenal insight to think outside the box in engineering and invent something new nobody before you has thought up before.</p>
<p>I don't think you can make a case that one or the other is more difficult. And any attempt to do so is only going to reflect your own personal strengths, weaknesses, and preferences.</p>
<p>ok. it's possible to tip-toe around the hardest courses in 18 but they also happen to be the most interesting courses. I suppose I'm just speaking from the perspective of people who are actually looking for an education rather than a piece of paper degree. Yes, you can build for yourself a relatively easy time in course 18 but you sure as hell won't get much farther in the field of mathematics with that.</p>
<p>and your friends will mock you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
umm... i don't believe so, necessarily. there are no analytical solutions to fluid fields, thero fields, gasodynamics, etc.. you limit engineering to applied engineering and not research stuff. there is a $1 million prize for a signifcant breakthrough in the mathematical discription of fluid motion. </p>
<p>the supercomputer was invented to provide computational approximations to thermo-gas flow. come up with a better mathematical of turbulence and you have yourself $1 million and an honorary phd... not to mention that it your breakthrough will be considered one of the biggest math/science breakthroughs of the century.</p>
<p>i may go so far as to say that engineering holds some of the most difficult problems. unfortunately, these problems are so freaking difficult that no one has come along smart enough to solve them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I second RocketDa's post. My sentiments exactly.
Things only a rocket scientist can truly appreciate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
These are two different approaches and BOTH are difficult. The same way it requires insight to understand a poorly understood abstract concept in physics it also requires phenomenal insight to think outside the box in engineering and invent something new nobody before you has thought up before.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree that both are difficult in each way. But when you ask which major has more of classes that are difficult to <em>understand</em>, then Math is definitely the winner.</p>
<p>pure math and theoretical physics for the win.</p>
<p>
[quote]
umm... i don't believe so, necessarily. there are no analytical solutions to fluid fields, thero fields, gasodynamics, etc.. you limit engineering to applied engineering and not research stuff. there is a $1 million prize for a signifcant breakthrough in the mathematical discription of fluid motion. in addition, continuum mechanics is a pretty darn challenging subject matter. second moment of inertias are not easy to derive.</p>
<p>the supercomputer was invented to provide computational approximations to thermo-gas flow. come up with a better mathematical of turbulence and you have yourself $1 million and an honorary phd... not to mention that it your breakthrough will be considered one of the biggest math/science breakthroughs of the century.</p>
<p>i may go so far as to say that engineering holds some of the most difficult problems. unfortunately, these problems are so freaking difficult that no one has come along smart enough to solve them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree with rocketDA to an extent. What he is talking about are the Navier-Stokes equations for fluid flow, which are a set of PDE's that describe fluid motion. There is a 1 million millenium prize for anyone who can solve these equations analytically.</p>
<p>The best we can do is approximate. The field is called CFD (computational fluid dynamics), which solves these equations numerically using code and supercomputers and parallel computing.</p>
<p>It really depends on how you define engineering. Many people believe it is all application, but there is such a thing as "theoretical engineering", which can be as tough as "theoretical math".</p>
<p>yeah, i guess the navier-stokes eq is starting to become fuzzy as to whether it is math/physics/engineering.</p>
<p>:(</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>RocketDA: you can't do engineering without physics and math</p>
<p>you can't do physics without math, but can do without engineering</p>
<p>you can do math without either</p>
<p>Citan, uncalled for, in the extreme.</p>
<p>Hey, wrprice. I'm an engineer! I'm a chick! You've met me! Am I hot?</p>
<ol>
<li>I know aibarr is an engineer.</li>
<li>I know that aibarr is female.</li>
<li>She's pretty damn hot.</li>
</ol>
<p>But that's okay, Citan, you're not good enough for the hot ones anyway, with that attitude.</p>
<p>Right on. Thank you, wrprice.</p>
<p>//shakes fine booty and solves a differential equation.</p>
<p>like natalie portman? heh.
actually, one of the most beautiful girls i know (my ex, haha) is EECS at berkeley.
umm...also, there is an engineering major/ go go dancer at my school... who models as well.</p>
<p>Citan, dude, I completely agree. The best looking girls in my engineering classes last semester were 5-6/10's. I just began my spring class, and the girls are more of the same. Mostly 3-4/10's.</p>
<p>There just doesn't seem to be any good looking girls in engineering... it's depressing.. However, I DO actually know of a hot chick that is going to be coming to my school for engineering next year... that's something to look forward to.</p>
<p>Most of the good looking girls that I know are in arts or sciences. Ofcourse there are a few exceptions, but life doesn't revolve around exceptions; it's based around the norm.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree that both are difficult in each way. But when you ask which major has more of classes that are difficult to <em>understand</em>, then Math is definitely the winner.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's only because you haven't taken aeroelasticity, virtual work, advanced rocket propulsion, turbulence and other <em>real</em> rocket science classes (There is a reason it is called rocket science). Those were the hardest classes to understand I have ever taken in my life. And this is just for undergrad.</p>
<p>And from your posts, I can tell you have never done graduate work in engineering? Graduate level engineering is a totally different beast altogether as RocketDA's has pointed out and much more akin to grad level physics/math. As cherry pointed out the line between pure physics/math and engineering is blurred at the graduate level and your little analogy about engineering just being nothing more than the re-formulation of known equations to solve problems doesn't quite hold here. At the grad level, engineering is extremely theoretical and heavily research-based.</p>
<p>But this is ridiculous. Arguing over which one is harder is silly because not only is it subjective but particularly at the graduate level you are arguing about different sides of the same coin.</p>
<p>As far as hot engineering chicks, many of the hot ones are in ChemE. The other branches don't have any females to speak of.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's only because you haven't taken aeroelasticity, virtual work, advanced rocket propulsion, turbulence and other <em>real</em> rocket science classes (There is a reason it is called rocket science). Those were the hardest classes to understand I have ever taken in my life.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>C'mon I'm majoring in EECS and I could find something similarly advanced like Advanced Fuzzy Neural, Combinatorial Optimization, Advanced Language Processing, and Advanced complex algorithm. But still it would never beat Fermat's last theorem, Goldbach's conjecture and multifold dimension theory. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And from your posts, I can tell you have never done graduate work in engineering? Graduate level engineering is a totally different beast altogether as RocketDA's has pointed out and much more akin to grad level physics/math.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>LOL, Wrong guess!! I am a PhD student in EE (although I'm thinking to move to industry very soon), I've been in engineering industry and I'm a regular publisher at Infocomm and communications journal. That's why I know the nature of engineering subject in advanced level (believe me, I can still give you many optimization theorems that requires you to write 15-20 pages to prove). In fact the hardest graduate classes are the ones that are close to abstract maths. To give you an example: you can understand a complicated engineering theorem if someone is there to guide your flow of thinking, in contrast you may not be able to understand a math concept even if Eric Demaine is there with you for 24 hours.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To give you an example: you can understand a complicated engineering theorem if someone is there to guide your flow of thinking, in contrast you may not be able to understand a math concept even if Eric Demaine is there with you for 24 hours.
[/quote]
Erm...any proof of that? Not sure I get the validity of that as an argument...at all...</p>