<p>Hello! I'm currently a Junior (rising Senior), have straight A's, and want to know which engineering major will suit the following description.
I know English will hunt me as an engineer, so I'm taking AP English this semester and I have a grade of 84 (lowest grade in my entire high school life), but I'm going to tutorials and it seems that my final grade will average out to an A. Which is what I'm striding for to keep my straight A's record.
I'm in UIL Math, Robotics and Student Council. Robotics is my specialty, I love taking a part and building back up and I won't mind programing (LABview). I know how to make websites with Dreamweaver, photoshop, and use microsofts's tools (power point, word, publisher, etc.).
My favorite subjects are <em>Math</em> and science. I'm currently taking Pre-Calc, College Algebra and Pre-AP Physics which I'm doing excellent on.
I'm trying to learn as much as I can of Math and Physics by participating in UIL Math and almost forcing the UIL Science coach to take me as a disciple.
Both of my Robotics years (Sophmore & Junior) I've got to state finalist.
I'm planing on going to UT Austin with a tution paid for due to stay under government care (Foster Care). And, I'm pursuing an Engineering degree dealing with me building something. At first I wanted to be an Aerospace Engineer but I fund out that N.A.S.A was shutting down due to funding. Soon I found out that Mechanical Engineers somehow have to deal with robots (hands-on), and I will ask you all to please guide me in the right direction to making the right decision for my future job.</p>
<p>Mechanical Engineering is an excellent choice as is Electrical Engineering. They tend to be a bit broader than some of the other engineering disciplines.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There have been a lot of misconceptions about NASA and the budget that I have heard, but this has to take the cake.</p>
<p>I assure you, NASA is not shutting down.</p>
<p>EVERY engineering discipline has specialities and jobs that are hands on and others that are hands off. As an EE I certainly know engineers who essentially spend every day in lab, and others who work entirely on computers and in meetings.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While I’m inclined to agree w/ you boneh3ad, I’m not quite as faithful… with that being said, if, IF, NASA does “shut down” one day then the demand for space exploration/tourism will be met by the private sector.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Based on what? I work with NASA constantly. They are not shutting down. They very well may eventually stop being the primary player in terms of space travel, and some may argue they already have, but that isn’t the same as shutting down. They are the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Just because budgetary constraints have forced them to scale back the space side of things doesn’t mean that it is going away and doesn’t mean anything as far as the aeronautics side of things.</p>
<p>
Simmer down killer… You seem to have skimmed over my initial “I agree w/ you” statement. The only thing I said was that I wasn’t as sure as you seem to be. While I acknowledge you do seem to be better and closer acquainted to the space industry than I, the point I was trying to make is that nothing is for certain. That is all.
Making absolute, all-encompassing statements such as you have is just a dangerous thing to do IMO. That is all.</p>
<p>I reiterate, I do believe NASA will be around and will have a strong presence for generations to come.</p>
<p>I over dit it with the “shut down,” but I’ll share with you all a true story.
During my Sophomore year when my dream was to become a N.A.S.A Engineer (It is still there) I worked hard to get in the summer I.N.S.P.I.R.E Experience. Which I did but first I had to participate in the Online Learning Community. Okay, the program was going to take place in the summer before my Senior year, and the only thing left was to participate in the OLC, all the other tough stuff was clear. But, one day, I got an e-mail that read like this “Program will not be available due to funding.” This message hit me strong and from there on I started noticing many conversations about “budgeting,” not only on N.A.S.A but government related agencies for example: Public Schools, teachers getting laid off.
Thank you all! For the advice and I welcome more.</p>
<p>Hate to tell you, but that happens on pretty much anything ever that has a budget. It’s not isolated to public sector projects, the same thing occurs in private companies (possibly even moreso since they’re typically driven by a strong profit motive, and if they don’t like the results you’re putting out, then your program is shut down).</p>
<p>^Yup, what RacinReaver said. Sorry, but you’re going to hear that over and over as a college student…I have applied for lots of programs that have had funding cut/mentioned the possibility of funding cut…private sector, government funded (often NSF funding), whatever. Everyone has a budget, and it’s usually not enough 
(Obviously, there are some exceptions, but speaking generally).</p>
<p>Yeah but if NASA shut down, nobody would notice. Which is all the more reason why it should be shut down.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I hope this is sarcasm.</p>
<p>If you want to do Robotics, major in Electrical Engineering. Other option is to do Mechanical Engineering with emphasis on control theory and electrical engineering (Mechanical Engineering is the broadest of all engineering majors, with flexibility to focus on whatever you’re interested in). </p>
<p>As for the hands-on part, some companies just give most engineers mindless paperwork, especially those that are more sales or profit-driven (usually companies in the public sector since they always have to answer to their shareholders who are only interested in $$$).
Working for a start-up or a company heavy on R&D would probably give you more opportunities in working on hands-on projects. Even companies in the private sector can just go ahead and design and build whatever they want at a faster pace. Honestly, I always have a thing against business people in top management who don’t know anything about techonology and they’re making all those useless business models, downsizing on the engineering department while increasing the sales force. Technology companies should always focus on innovation (R&D) and all that money-making business will come along as a side dish. Here’s my 2 cents: try to avoid companies that have a CEO who is just a business or marketing major.</p>
<p>It’s not. What do we need NASA for?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>An incredibly large number of the technologies we all use every day got their start in NASA programs. If NASA was shut down, sure some people wouldn’t notice right now, but 10 or 15 years from now, we’d be noticing quite a bit. There are plenty of people who would notice it right away.</p>
<p>Just because something isn’t the most visible program in the world doesn’t mean it should be shut down. Think about if they shut down the National Institutes of Health. I bet if they did, most of us would think “What? Who cares?” Of course 10 years from now when medicine has barely advanced we’d look back and wonder what the heck we were thinking. Same thing with any other research organization (DARPA, NSF, etc) or anything similarly “behind-the-scenes” that the general public wouldn’t immediately notice its absence.</p>
<p>The minute we (as humans, not necessarily as Americans) stop investing in scientific research is the minute when our civilization stops advancing.</p>
<p>What would you say are the top MECHANICAL engineering undergraduate programs? Are they all on massively large campuses?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m so sick of hearing this. It’s passed around as gospel without ever being scrutinized. Most of the useful technology I use was developed for use in the private sector.</p>
<p>[More</a> NASA Spinoff Urban Myths - NASA Watch](<a href=“http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/04/more-nasa-spino.html]More”>More NASA Spinoff Urban Myths - NASA Watch)
[Bursting</a> The NASA Spinoff Myth - NASA Watch](<a href=“http://nasawatch.com/archives/2012/04/bursting-the-na.html]Bursting”>Bursting The NASA Spinoff Myth - NASA Watch)</p>
<p>The last refuge of a NASA defender is to claim that “we” (meaning the tax-payers) need to fund scientific research. Well, the private sector does a lot of its own research, usually focused on things people actually want, rather than things that nerds think are cool.</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong, I’m studying physics and I will go to grad school for physics, and I’d like to contribute to theoretical physics. I’m not “against” science or research, I just don’t see why it has to be in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats, instead of in the hands of private industry and private benefactors, like it used to be.</p>
<p>When it comes to genuinely beneficial, widely-used technology that comes from government spending, you can always trace it back to some <em>military</em>-funded program. I’m not saying this to say that we need more military spending, but the point is that whether it comes from private industry or from the military, research with a mind towards a goal (not necessarily goal-driven, non-pure research) tends to produce the best results <em>when we are talking about engineering</em>.</p>
<p>
Which I find pretty funny, because I use a heck of a lot of technology with strong roots in NASA and publicly-funded research.</p>
<p>
There are several reasons, primarily because most companies will not invest in really risky programs, or in technologies that will take a long time to develop and pay off, or in technologies that (however useful they are to society) have a low level of profitability. In the past this was not as big a deal because (a) investment in science and engineering used to be much cheaper proportionately than it is now and because (b) investment in science and technology was a status thing (not as much any more).</p>
<p>
And when you trace back those <em>military</em>-funded programs (like the ones I have worked on) you often find that THEY rely on a lot of NASA research.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As a note, the projects I’m currently working on are funded by the Air Force, Navy, JPL, and NASA. The projects all overlap with each other, and each funding agency is usually interested in whatever we’re working on for the other. </p>
<p>I’ve been told by a few people pretty high in the Army research funding structure that they’re particularly NOT interested in supporting research which is immediately applicable to Army applications. They’re much more interested in putting money towards long-term fundamental ventures. Our lab has had a project or two in the past where it was getting close to a real, usable product for the Army at which point the funding was stopped and, we assume, redirected to an Army lab that operates dark.</p>
<p>Do you feel the same way about the DOE, NSF, and the NIH as NASA?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good luck getting the private sector to fund anything theoretical or overly fundamental. Instances of that are few and far between. Perhaps you will learn this in time when you get to graduate school. In a capitalist society, it is generally bad business to invest in extremely fundamental research that won’t enhance the bottom line for years to come. That isn’t to say it never happens, but companies tend to rely on government/academic research (a.k.a. publicly funded) for the fundamentals and then expand on that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is generally a hierarchy in terms of applied vs. fundamental research that gets done and eventually feeds into these products. Generally, for the really fundamental stuff, the military, NSF, NIH, etc. tend to fund academic labs. More applied than that is the publicly-funded NASA. The military then does the very applied research in-house where they can keep a lid on it if need be once it becomes close enough to a usable product. In other words, most of your “military-funded” products likely have a fair amount of publicly-funded NASA and/or academic research on which they are built.</p>
<p>NASA isn’t just about firing things into orbit. It is a giant research and technology organization with programs in all sorts of (mostly) applied research areas. The only real problem is that politicians generally don’t know what they are doing when it comes to research, but the idea of publicly-funded research is an important one. Also, for what it’s worth, the military research you seem to extol is also publicly funded.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is irrelevant. Whether we are talking about physics or engineering or biology or anything else, the only way a private company will fund you is if it looks to positively impact their bottom line. In all other cases, you rely on public money.</p>