Is Engineering the Right Career for Me?

[astor]

Also, if your complaint is that the exams are not rigorous enough, please do get in the habit in your undergraduate years of not preparing only for exams.

If you are truly interested, master the material, at least at that level, outside of exams and the exam material should come naturally.

 

[homeomorphic]

I loved ODE, Multivariable Calculus, PDE's and Fourier Analysis (as well as my math modelling course); I would consider those far more MATHEMATICAL in a real sense than thermo--I could be wrong because the thermo I took was--here's a table--here's an equation--plug numbers--solution. If you are claiming that Pure Math classes follow the above mantra than you are correct--maybe I should not even consider the switch.

Pure math never follows that mantra. However, I find that it sometimes follows its own pretty bad and similar mantras. Lemma, Theorem, proof...often just the pure logic, not how to get the logic yourself. But without knowing how you would come up with the logic (and definitions!) in the first place, it's useless. For me, this was a nightmarish reincarnation of what I fled from in EE.

 

[jbrussell93]

There are various fields in electrical engineering that you can explore that are very mathematically involved, and theoretical in their own regard, separate from pure math theoretical.

There's signal processing, in which you'll use a lot of material covered in calculus 5 (Fourier analysis, Laplace Transforms, Z-Transforms, Wavelet Transforms, Probability & Statistics).

There's wireless communications, in which calculus 5 material is also a large portion of, with a lot of overlap with signal processing (Information Theory).

There's also control systems. Once you get to the advanced electives, you might be satisfied to find that you won't be seeing numbers anymore, and a lot of proofs, especially at the graduate level.

If you look around in many electrical engineering departments, you'll find some physicists and applied mathematicians as primary faculty, many contributing to signal processing, communications, solid state engineering, so perhaps they have found a place to satisfy their theoretical tastes that you might be interested in?

I often hear about how EE's are able to go into more "theoretical" or "mathematical" areas and are able to get the best of both worlds (math/physics and engineering). I'm studying biological engineering, but I have discovered that I enjoy math and physics more and have been considering switching to either of those or possibly EE. Are there any areas of biological engineering that are very math or physics heavy? It seems like optics/imaging could get pretty deep into physics and computational biology/neuroscience with math but what are some others?

 

[Antiphon]

I often hear about how EE's are able to go into more "theoretical" or "mathematical" areas and are able to get the best of both worlds (math/physics and engineering). I'm studying biological engineering, but I have discovered that I enjoy math and physics more and have been considering switching to either of those or possibly EE. Are there any areas of biological engineering that are very math or physics heavy? It seems like optics/imaging could get pretty deep into physics and computational biology/neuroscience with math but what are some others?

In EE it will be electromagnetics and quantum devices. The EM will be almost all math while devices has a lot of physics and math.

Why don't you marry them and do what we're all waiting decades for- a real-time full-brain simulation.

You could be the first person in history to have your dissertation write itself.

 

[Rika]

I switched from EE to Physics only to find out that I don't enjoy doing research at all :P

I don't regret it through and I also hated "plug n chug" stuff in EE (EE was all about circuits design and low level programming) However it wasn't EE fault but the TA's fault. If you want to do research as engineer you need to have deeper understanding of the subject.

There are plenty interesting subjects in a field of EE and Physics like quantum devices, quantum information, materials and other stuff. I suggest double major in EE and physics because it will open many doors.

 

[clope023]

I switched from EE to Physics only to find out that I don't enjoy doing research at all :P

I don't regret it through and I also hated "plug n chug" stuff in EE (EE was all about circuits design and low level programming) However it wasn't EE fault but the TA's fault. If you want to do research as engineer you need to have deeper understanding of the subject.

There are plenty interesting subjects in a field of EE and Physics like quantum devices, quantum information, materials and other stuff. I suggest double major in EE and physics because it will open many doors.

EE's rigour isn't in the physics and the math; it's in the experiments and making your equipment work. I agree with Astronuc though about double majoring in physics, that's what I'm doing and I think the combination will give me a good grasp of theory and experiment; though physics can be just as bad as engineering in the low-intuition aspect.

 

[clope023]

Pure math never follows that mantra. However, I find that it sometimes follows its own pretty bad and similar mantras. Lemma, Theorem, proof...often just the pure logic, not how to get the logic yourself. But without knowing how you would come up with the logic (and definitions!) in the first place, it's useless. For me, this was a nightmarish reincarnation of what I fled from in EE.

Pure math is applied logic is it not? The logical absolutes come from the physical word IMO, ie law of non-contradiction could apply like a rock is a rock and not not a rock. Sets come from the physical world too, you could have a set of rocks that is closed under addition since you can constantly add or subtract rocks from your set. Am I totally off base here?

 

[homeomorphic]

Pure math is applied logic is it not?

Absolutely not. Atiyah commented in an interview that a lot of people think math is about logic, but it's not, and he wasn't very good at logic. Mathematicians use logic, but math isn't about logic. Logic in math is like spelling in writing. Behind the logic, there are ideas, and the logic often (but not always) hides those ideas. This is true, even in the subject of mathematical logic, itself.

The logical absolutes come from the physical word IMO, ie law of non-contradiction could apply like a rock is a rock and not not a rock.

No, formal logic doesn't really work well in the real world, unless you're a computer and have the processing power to deal with it. Is something blue or not blue? What if it's on the borderline between blue and purple? Actually, there are different degrees of being blue. You could encode that logically to an arbitrary precision (as your monitor does), but it's not the way we think.

Sets come from the physical world too, you could have a set of rocks that is closed under addition since you can constantly add or subtract rocks from your set. Am I totally off base here?

Sure, you can motivate the idea of a set that way. That's kind of the point. You have to look at examples to see what I mean. Some proofs give you intuition as to why something works and some just verify that things are true without giving you any insight. Many mathematicians are seemingly oblivious to the difference.

 

[clope023]

Absolutely not. Atiyah commented in an interview that a lot of people think math is about logic, but it's not, and he wasn't very good at logic. Mathematicians use logic, but math isn't about logic. Logic in math is like spelling in writing. Behind the logic, there are ideas, and the logic often (but not always) hides those ideas. This is true, even in the subject of mathematical logic, itself.

No, formal logic doesn't really work well in the real world, unless you're a computer and have the processing power to deal with it. Is something blue or not blue? What if it's on the borderline between blue and purple? Actually, there are different degrees of being blue. You could encode that logically to an arbitrary precision (as your monitor does), but it's not the way we think.

Sure, you can motivate the idea of a set that way. That's kind of the point. You have to look at examples to see what I mean. Some proofs give you intuition as to why something works and some just verify that things are true without giving you any insight. .Many mathematicians are seemingly oblivious to the difference.

Other mathematicians would disagree with you, Russell said math was symbolic logic, but he was a logician.

Can you give an example of such proofs? You seem to be speaking vaguely from my point of view.

 

[homeomorphic]

Other mathematicians would disagree with you, Russell said math was symbolic logic, but he was a logician.

I'm not too familiar with his math, but I don't actually think he would disagree that logic in math is like spelling in writing. He's just looking at it from a different point of view. I don't think he would advocate actually THINKING about math as if it were really just symbolic logic--that is, just formal manipulations of symbols. No mathematician would really go that far. But some mathematicians would want to reduce it down to that. Hilbert was one, yet Hilbert would be very sympathetic to my point of view here, since he was the coauthor with Cohn-Vossen of one of the most important intuitive math books of all time, Geometry and the Imagination.

Can you give an example of such proofs? You seem to be speaking vaguely from my point of view.

I think you just need to read this for some elementary examples:

http://www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf

 

[MathWarrior]

I'm thinking of making a switch to pure and applied math and/or statistics. I've realized that the only subject that I consistently enjoy and want to learn more about is mathematics; however, I was wondering what the career options are besides graduate school--I would be doing a specialization (more credits than a major). I know that Statscan is a major employer of math graduates; also, being an actuary is possible with the aforementioned degree as well, however, what are the career prospects for such a degree long-term?

Check out these links:
http://weusemath.org/
http://www.siam.org/careers/thinking/pdf/brochure.pdf

 

[ZenOne]

Thanks a lot MathWarrior.

 

[chill_factor]

i agree. i dropped out of chemical engineering because it felt like accounting, but with moles instead of currency. had enough of mass balance, energy balance, stoichiometry and sizing PFRs and CSTRs.

no wonder they get paid huge amounts of money... they need to to get people to study this!

however be careful of switching... you may find that its not what you think, especially math.

physics is very similar to engineering, but a little bit more theoretical (though you still need to take huge amounts of things on faith as they're far too complicated or time consuming to derive yourself).

i personally find physics just theoretical enough so that it isn't ridiculously tedious and boring, but also applied enough so that its actually employable and learns things that are grounded in the real world and can be directly applied. you might not like that; it might not be theoretical enough for you.

math is different. it is not a physical science, because it does not have to describe anything physically happening. physics is nice because the final say is with experiments. the real world is always right, and if the theory doesn't agree, you toss the theory. in math, there's no "real world" proof. its all in your head. you might be fine with that though, so think about what you really want to do first.

 

[clope023]

I'm not too familiar with his math, but I don't actually think he would disagree that logic in math is like spelling in writing. He's just looking at it from a different point of view. I don't think he would advocate actually THINKING about math as if it were really just symbolic logic--that is, just formal manipulations of symbols. No mathematician would really go that far. But some mathematicians would want to reduce it down to that. Hilbert was one, yet Hilbert would be very sympathetic to my point of view here, since he was the coauthor with Cohn-Vossen of one of the most important intuitive math books of all time, Geometry and the Imagination.

Interesting article.

With regards to intuition, would you say this describes your opinion of it?

From Wiki:
Intuitionist definitions, developing from the philosophy of mathematician L. E. J. Brouwer, identify mathematics with certain mental phenomena. An example of an intuitionist definition is "Mathematics is the mental activity which consists in carrying out constructs one after the other."[23] A peculiarity of intuitionism is that it rejects some mathematical ideas considered valid according to other definitions. In particular, while other philosophies of mathematics allow objects that can be proven to exist even though they cannot be constructed, intuitionism allows only mathematical objects that you can mentally construct.

 

[homeomorphic]

From Wiki:
Intuitionist definitions, developing from the philosophy of mathematician L. E. J. Brouwer, identify mathematics with certain mental phenomena. An example of an intuitionist definition is "Mathematics is the mental activity which consists in carrying out constructs one after the other."[23] A peculiarity of intuitionism is that it rejects some mathematical ideas considered valid according to other definitions. In particular, while other philosophies of mathematics allow objects that can be proven to exist even though they cannot be constructed, intuitionism allows only mathematical objects that you can mentally construct.

I don't know why it's called intuitionism. Bad name, I think. It seems to be the case that constructive arguments might tend to be more intuitive, but that's not always the case. Sometimes non-constructive arguments are intuitive. Intuitionism is just one philosophy of mathematics. It's very philosophical and has relatively little to do with what I would call intuition, as in, being able to see that things are true, apart from having an actual logical proof. To me, and most mathematicians, philosophers of mathematics usually talk about stuff that is kind of obscure and removed from the actual practice of mathematics. It doesn't affect the way we practice mathematics. So, in other words, most mathematicians don't care too much about that whole "intuitionism, platonism, formalism" debate. They are more focused on just doing math, less focused on philosophical issues having to do with math. I'm no exception, there. The things that I am talking about are things having to do with how to actually think about math in practice, how to learn it most effectively, how to retain it, and how to have the best framework for coming up with new ideas.

 

[Engineerman2]

Pay attention to how you are feeling and consider changes while you're young and have a lot of freedom to do so. I had the same frustrations in Engineering shool. A lot of engineering courses force a lot of remembering what to do, and minimize importance of understanding why. That was particularly frustrating for me. I rammed my way through anyway, though, figuring this was just a hurdle to get over, and a responsible action toward a good career, and I earned a degree in Mechanical Engineering. I got a job. I have been at that job more than 20 years. I am paid reasonably well, but I dread going in every day and yet, feel like it would be an unwise move financially to leave this job, or career path. That's not a nice place to be, and the money isn't really worth it. Look at Engineering job postings today and make sure you see some that describe things that you'll want to be doing in a few years.

 

[Shaun_W]

I also went to shadow a couple of engineers and concluded that they use VERY LITTLE of the math that they studied--this is disheartening, to say the least.

Welcome to the real world.

Your view of what engineering is about seems to be quite different from the reality.

Engineering is about making money.

Doing mathematical proofs, derivations doesn't make money. If someone wants to know them, they can buy a book which has them; this is much, much cheaper than paying an engineer's wages.

Ultimately, yes, many engineering students are only interested in passing their exams so they can get the certificate at the end. Although this phenomenon applies to any discipline, it probably applies to engineering much more.

However, there is nothing stopping you from properly mastering the material on your own. If you want to go into academia or research then you'll need to do this as rote learning equations will show sooner or later. You'd probably be a lot happier as a researcher or academic than just another engineer in a large company by the sounds of things.

 

[homeomorphic]

Doing mathematical proofs, derivations doesn't make money. If someone wants to know them, they can buy a book which has them; this is much, much cheaper than paying an engineer's wages.

That's not so clear. In fact, there is a lot of utility to understanding stuff that might not be so apparent at the surface. The way I remember everything is by knowing how to derive it. Not so much the formal proofs, but the intuition behind them. So, if the results are useful, then so are the derivations, provided they are good and instructive derivations. So, the question is only whether the results are useful. If the results are useful, then it follows that the derivations are also useful by extension.

 

[ZenOne]

Doing mathematical proofs may not make money directly but if you really think that there are no jobs linked to being a Math/Stat major you are simply wrong.

As I said, in Canada, both Statisticians and Actuaries are quite in demand--far more than Mechanical Engineers, however, this is according to our Labour Statistics.

I realize people keep saying study the subjects in depth ON YOUR OWN TIME--I ask: what time? I have 15-18 credits, between labs, classes and tutorials I have 40 hours of CLASS TIME a week (this does not include studying).

Either way, I booked an appointment with an adviser for this coming week--hopefully she can help clarify things a little.

 

[Shaun_W]

That's not so clear. In fact, there is a lot of utility to understanding stuff that might not be so apparent at the surface. The way I remember everything is by knowing how to derive it. Not so much the formal proofs, but the intuition behind them. So, if the results are useful, then so are the derivations, provided they are good and instructive derivations. So, the question is only whether the results are useful. If the results are useful, then it follows that the derivations are also useful by extension.

I don't agree with that logic at all, but I'm not saying that the derivations aren't useful to any individuals: I'm saying that the derivations aren't useful to the company as a whole, as books and other material can be purchased giving them for much cheaper than an engineer's wage. This is why engineering degrees do not dwell too much on derivations beyond the very basics. Engineering degrees have to produce employable graduates above all else, and that doesn't have much to do with deriving equations.

 

[homeomorphic]

Engineering degrees have to produce employable graduates above all else, and that doesn't have much to do with deriving equations.

But the people who can derive the equations will do better in classes and get better grades. The ones who can't think for themselves will be too dependent on professors and books. Someone who can think for themselves is much more valuable to a company. It's not that the company wants them to do theory.

 

[homeomorphic]

The truth of the matter is this. If engineering profs taught teach the concepts, the students start whining about it. Engineering school is messed up because of trying to please the students because most of them have no appreciation for conceptual stuff. Why? Because the high schools have poisoned their intellects. So, actually, that article that I linked a couple posts back is quite relevant to the thread (Lockhart's lament), even though it seemed as though we were going off on a tangent there.

 

[ZenOne]

I completely agree Homeomorpic--the school caters to the students. Any time a teacher even attempts to derive an equation a sea of groans is heard across the room/auditorium. It's quite shocking.

 

[bryan.cfii]

I myself have found that I am fully capable of the work in engineering school, I just don't find any of it interesting. It's not that it's not challenging, because all of it is, but it's all so boring. For example, I hate computers and have no desire to ever program anything. Yet I've had to take more than one programming class. Waste of my money as far as I am concerned.
The math thing of rearranging numbers into pretty patterns over and over is monotonous. Overall, the point of the class is to competitively place students in the class, not teach us anything. It's me that goes above and beyond and dissects the material. Also, a lot of the people in my classes are just out right cocky arrogant jerks. We never really do anything that I find interesting personally but we certainly tell ourselves we are smart. I don't think I fit in personality wise. The atmosphere sucks and the delivery can definitely suck. It's the people that kill it for me.

 

[analogdesign]

I myself have found that I am fully capable of the work in engineering school, I just don't find any of it interesting. It's not that it's not challenging, because all of it is, but it's all so boring. For example, I hate computers and have no desire to ever program anything. Yet I've had to take more than one programming class. Waste of my money as far as I am concerned.
The math thing of rearranging numbers into pretty patterns over and over is monotonous. Overall, the point of the class is to competitively place students in the class, not teach us anything. It's me that goes above and beyond and dissects the material. Also, a lot of the people in my classes are just out right cocky arrogant jerks. We never really do anything that I find interesting personally but we certainly tell ourselves we are smart. I don't think I fit in personality wise. The atmosphere sucks and the delivery can definitely suck. It's the people that kill it for me.

It sounds like engineering might not be right for you. The fact is you're probably going to have to do significant computer work and programming in almost any engineering role. It's a key skill of the profession.

I remember being disheartened by a lot of grasping, cheating co-students at my college. In graduate school there is much less of that. If you go to a good company there will be even less of that because they try to screen those people out. I think a lot of those people leave engineering.

I go to work each day with a bunch of A players and I have my whole career. The career path for competent engineers in entirely separate from mediocre engineers. The key is networking. If you can get into an organization like that, you could be happy. But you'll still have to program some.

 

[deluks917]

Maybe you should look more into numerical analysis. I also find a lot of "applied" computational methods boring because the majority of problems cannot be exactly solved by any means anyway. However a large bulk of what you learn in numerical analysis is immediately useful to real problems people want to solve. There is a very large amount of good work being done in simulating PDEs with applications to econ, biology, etc in addition to the obvious physics.

edit: Oh I missed your post about computers. I think probably you have no choice. Unless you are a professor of pure mathematics you are going to need to do some computer work.

Overall, the point of the class is to competitively place students in the class, not teach us anything.

I actually agree with you the primary (not only) purpose of the education system is to sort people. If you can jump through the hopes at school employers will correctly assume you are likely to be capable of being a good employee. Educational achievement even in subjects not directly related to a field signals a mix intelligence, determination, ability to get along with others. In engineering you certainly need to have learned certain things but even in engineering I think high grades in engineering show you are smart and hard working enough to get them.

 

[afil]

Hi, I've just been reading this whole thread. Very good points overall. Does anyone care to weigh in an opinion if this type of mindset among professors/engineering students is more common in an undergraduate curriculum versus graduate? I would think graduate programs have a higher maturity associated with them and dictate more responsibility of the student to learn the concepts more instead of just rote formulas.

 

[analogdesign]

Yep you pretty much described a *good* grad program. Keep in mind though that it varies a LOT on your professor so try to get the inside scoop on how your professor treats his or her students before you start. I did and I heard that my professor was demanding and intense, but he was fair and did his best to help you get a job. This all turned out to be true. I really enjoyed graduate school... my first job was less work!

 

[afil]

Yep you pretty much described a *good* grad program. Keep in mind though that it varies a LOT on your professor so try to get the inside scoop on how your professor treats his or her students before you start. I did and I heard that my professor was demanding and intense, but he was fair and did his best to help you get a job. This all turned out to be true. I really enjoyed graduate school... my first job was less work!

So does this often extend to the kinds of jobs engineers have with an MS than simply a BS? As in posts earlier described that many engineers do not use much of their more theoretical knowledge in the workplace.

 

[Idun]

This seems to be an old topic. Regardless let me add a few comments.I am European and had a very similar experience as the thread starter. Back in our days we still had to do an entree exam before we could start engineering studies. Since my grades were so high, I started the program as soon as possible. During my second year I became very unhappy the way engineering was taught. I had the feeling being programmed like a robot. Formulas coming from nowhere, being applied to something you cannot relate to. In the end I didn't learn a single thing at all. I became very frustrated.Mind you, I am a visual thinker, so mathematical and numerical analysis, geometry, mechanics and material science come natural to me. Most engineering students hated these courses. I had to quit with the engineering program because it was way too much focused on remote learning and I have a bad memory. Math was too abstract, so I opted for Physics, a good middleground between mathematics and engineering. I was very happy with my decision. It gives you a very broad education and a really good foundation to understand pretty much anything technology related. I ACTUALLY learned something during my physics courses. You should read Schopenhauer's chapter about what TRUE learning is. This is like the true opposite of what's going on in most schools and universities.

 

[Hedgehog16]

Hey Zen, since this topic is fairly old I am sure you have made your decision by now and I am wondering how it turned out. I thought I would still throw my two sense in in case anyone else reads this topic and actually makes it down to my post. My background: I was an engineering student who finished in four years with a BS in civil. I got a job right out school with a good company and disliked the job immensely - not the company, the job. I didn't hate everything about it and the money was good so I stuck with it for three years before finally leaving. I wish I had been more like you and realized a little sooner that it might not be the career for me. Personally, I think the signs that you have talked about are all very valid reasons to be concerned and in general even just a vague feeling that you might not enjoy your current major warrants a good hard look and some introspection on what career is best for you and really what you want out of a job and life. These are questions that many people put on hold or don't ask themselves enough thinking they've got time. Time goes by quickly, I recommend always checking in with yourself with are you on the right path questions.

Not enjoying your classes for whatever reason can be a big sign for not enjoying an engineering major. I thought the opposite that the real world would be nothing like my classes and therefore not liking them held no bearing on whether or not I would enjoy my job. I was very wrong about that. I was shocked at how extremely similar my job was to my classes and how everyday engineering functioned. That topic can be saved for another discussion.

My main concern for you (which also happens to be a big similarity between us) is that you say you LOVE the math part but not many of the other classes. Again, I am a little slow on the uptake but for me, I finally realized this was one of the main reasons I was not happy with an engineering job.

For one, as you astutely noticed while shadowing engineers... they don't actually use that much math. In my job I hardly used any. It is all done with computers if it was ever really done. The hardest math I ever had to do or use regularly was conversions. The theory is already done for you. Its plug and chug. So, no hard math is a bummer and if you don't love the other parts of engineering that can be an issue as well.

Other things that I didn't like were- Very little creativity
-long hours - this was mainly in the consulting world - you will likely have a different experience working for say the government - although I couldn't say for sure
-After three years I did start to get pigeon holed. These are all things you mentioned. If I had known this ahead of time I doubt I would have changed careers or fields but, who knows maybe... I can say it was definitely my reasons for leaving.

Of course everyone's experience is different. Maybe just going in knowing these things would make all the difference. Whatever you chose I wish you good luck!