<p>Haha just curious. Is it because that aircrafts are such complex systems? It seems like aeros learn a little of everything (avionics, structures, composites, mechanics, propulsion) plus fluid dynamics. Why, say, is there not an "automotive engineering" (beside being a concentration within mech eng in most US schools)?</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>There is an automotive engineering major, at least via an 'engineering technology' degree.</p>
<p>You can also get a master's degree in automotive technology from UM.</p>
<p>Aero/Asto, Naval Architecture and automotive engineering are each havens of engineering education heaven. To succeed one needs to understand the mechanical, electrical and system design, plus a good dose of computers engineering - cross cutting all departments. You graduate with systems thinking and problem solving skills, which employers love. You don't spend your 4 or 5 years studying arcane engineering principles in a single engineering discipline that only navel-studying PH'd care about. You deal with real design problems. </p>
<p>Olin has it right. Daniel Webster is a rising star as well. MIT Aero/Asto is a leader as well, but MIT blew it when they killed the ocean engineering department by stuffing it in Mechanical engineering. Virgina Tech has the right idea: Aero is in the same department with Naval Architecture.</p>
<p>engineering technology is not REAL engineering. do not be mistaken.</p>
<p>toadstool. what is it with you and these small schools? face it, they are set apart in rankings for a reason. MIT =/= Olin, Daniel Webster, Mudd</p>
<p>aero is a specific yet well rounded discipline. paradoxically focused on an industry yet teaching all types of engineering.</p>
<p>It depends. It's not at all about "who get their own discipline." Its about where a subject fits in. At this time, automotive fits in better with other disciplines (i.e mechanical) because it branches out of these disciplines.</p>
<p>Also, aero is divided into some unique research areas, whereas automotive generally stems only from other disciplines.</p>
<p>Its is not a good thing that there are too many labels for engineering because it dilutes and weakens the profession. It is best to have 5 or 6 major types such as: Electrical, Mechanical, Civil, Chemical, Mining and Metallurgical. Automotive or aerospace, aeronautical should be subsets of mechanical much like geotechnical and structures are parts of civil engineering.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>mining? seriously? why would that be included in your list. that screams of offshoot.</p>
<p>I didn't make up this list. In Canada anyway and at most Canadian universities traditionally, these are the traditional six areas of engineering. You have to remember that mining is huge in Canada - I would think a bigger % of GDP than in USA.</p>
<p>well in the US, the main ones are Electrical, Mechanical, Civil, Chemical, Material, and Industrial.</p>
<p>Aero is an odd case...because at the undergrad level it is basically mechanical with a few different courses (which can easily be taken as electives by MEs), but diverges significantly in graduate school.</p>