Is Engineering the Right Career for Me?

[ZenOne]

I was very gung-ho about a year ago and have undertaken what most of my peers consider insane course loads and as a result I have completed 3 semesters of Mech. Eng. in 2. However, after doing most of the meaty courses in my degree I think I HATE engineering.

This may seem like a sweeping generalization but the students do NOT want to know anything about WHY they are using an equation etc...but are fully content just memorizing it (seriously 99% of my peers are like this). I know some are going to say--"so learn it on your own"--well, sadly, a by-product of engineering education is a ridiculous amount of busy-work (useless assignments that 99% of students just use Solution Manuals for and ridiculously long labs and tutorials).

I've concluded that the mantra of the engineer is "doesn't matter why--just remember this"--I have heard this COUNTLESS times from tutors and TEACHERS alike.

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.

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?

I keep hearing people talk about engineering jobs being super-stable etc..., however, during a few of my interactions with actual engineers they made it clear that it is not as rosy as people claim it is--they said they are subject to ageism (after many years one has too much experience, costs too much and is not worth the investment), they get pigeon-holed and have ridiculous working hours.

I have a 3.8 GPA BTW--so this isn't one of those "boo-hoo I'm failing posts"--any advice/insight would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Pkruse]

You have confirmed what I thought after mentoring many young engineers. Their education is not what I remember, and so they have difficulty learning how to be real engineers. Not all of them, but most.

 

[ZenOne]

That they lack the urge to actually UNDERSTAND the science?

 

[Locrian]

also, being an actuary is possible with the aforementioned degree as well, however, what are the career prospects for such a degree long-term?

Hard to know, long term. If the world economy either sputters along or improves, then the outlook is quite positive. In the case of a zombie apocalypse, actuaries will probably be about like everyone else – delicious.

It can be a tough field to break into these days, largely because other fields are even worse, thereby sending more students our way. If you can get a few years experience and get credentialed, I think most would consider it a stable career.

It’s low risk. The exam fees are very low compared, say to a CFA, masters or PhD (and B.S. is optimal for the actuarial career path). Pass a few exams, draw up a separate resume and give it a spin. You don’t have much to lose. Being geographically flexible will be critical.

 

[ZenOne]

Thanks for the response.

Quick question: would Statistics or Pure and Applied Mathematics be more valuable in terms of career prospects?

 

[ZapperZ]

I don't know if this seems obvious or not, but it appears that what you don't like is not engineering, but rather HOW it is taught!

This is important to realize, because you are discarding the message simply because you didn't like the messenger.

Note that there is nothing to prevent you from digging DEEPER into any particular topic, equations, etc. You are no longer in high school where everything is spoon-fed. In college, you CAN and are expected to be somewhat independent and pick up on your own whatever it is that interest you.

Go ahead and switch out of engineering, but make sure you do it for the RIGHT reason.

Zz.

 

[ZenOne]

Understood, however, I can comfortably say that PART of the reason I feel like I hate engineering is the TEACHING (you are dead-on--and even teachers aren't too keen on providing extra details on the materials); the other part is related to the physics work--the math is what I enjoy but when it comes to something like Dynamics or Thermo I feel like jumping out of a window (not that they are hard but I just don't find them all that interesting).

I guess I should have mentioned the aforesaid earlier; I did, however, like Materials Science (but hated Statics, Dynamics, Thermo, Mech. Drawing [this was the worst], Mechanics of Materials). Maybe I hate them because every teacher/TA just said--"do this--use this equation--solve", no awe, no wonder, no thought--just methods.

 

[luis20]

I really understand you when it comes to mechanical subjects. My friends just want the formula, I want to understand where it comes from. I dislike mechanics not because I love math, but because I love logic and being able to relate subjects, things I can't do with mechanics.

PS I also find motion a little boring to rationalize . I also preferred materials above all the analitical mechanics.

 

[Locrian]

Thanks for the response.

Quick question: would Statistics or Pure and Applied Mathematics be more valuable in terms of career prospects?

In general? I don’t know. For actuarial work, doesn’t matter. Employers want to see exams passed and office work experience. A mathematically involved major helps getting past HR.

 

[ZenOne]

Sadly, Luis, the job outlook for Materials Science is bleak--the only subject I enjoyed.

Thanks Locrian--I think I may end up leaning towards Statistics because Statscan (in Canada) is ALWAYS hiring Stats majors (in case Actuarial doesn't pan out). Starting pay at Statscan is 50k--not too shabby IMO.

 

[Aero51]

I had the same problem when I was in undergrad. People mindlessly "applied the formula" but had virtually no insight as to what they were doing, the limitations of their method, and why that method should be used. One thing I did my junior year is take up an independent study with a professor whom I got along with quite well. The result was probably the best decision I made in my undergraduate career. I read many technical papers and taught myself all the in-and-outs of fluid mechanics. I developed such a strong foundation in fluids that I could rival some of my professors with the questions they asked in class.

Currently I am teaching myself statistical thermodynamics to understand flows on the molecular level. One thing I would love to do, but for some reason cannot find the discipline, is to teach myself abstract mathematics. That will be my goal for graduate work.

 

[marcusl]

Sadly, I work often with the type of engineers that you describe, but I don't think it is like this everywhere. You might consider transferring to a high-caliber school where engineering involves critical thinking, serious math, and creativity. I'm thinking of schools like Stanford, CalTech, etc.

 

[Antiphon]

ZenOne, I'm completely baffled.

You're thinking of switching out because the *other* engineers-in-training aren't internalizing the profession the way you think they should?

If you learn the physics and science but they don't you'll be the better engineer.

I'm not seeing the connection to why you would switch out.

 

[Angry Citizen]

One main problem is that you're not even halfway through your engineering education. All the classes with term projects are in the second half of your degree, where you take all the math and programming and physics that you learned and BUILD STUFF.

Another is likely your school. My school is rigorous as hell. They work people to the bone, and then some. And not just busywork either.

Side note: Those who are just memorizing equations and using the solutions manual are the ones who aren't likely to stay in engineering much longer. The projects can and will kill them.

 

[ZenOne]

No--I'm thinking of switching out because the WAY other EIT's are trying to learn is the WAY we ARE being taught. Teachers and TA's alike have no respect for the foundation of the very material they teach--at least in my experience.

I'm in Canada and cannot relocate for I have a wife, a part-time job and a family; I go to one of the only 2 English universities in in my area--I don't have much of a choice.

 

[denjay]

I was in almost the exact situation as you in Engineering. I was an ME and hated how the other students acted toward the material. Some classes were actually done in a very respectable way so I do have to commend that. However, the thing that killed it for me was during the Engineering Orientation, one of the speakers/deans made a joke saying roughly "So, you're all here because you love engineering and not for the money right?" Like that's so outlandish that you actually want to do engineering for the sake of engineering.

I, personally, switched majors to Physics and love the atmosphere much more.

Now, I'm not saying I made the best decision. Engineering jobs are pretty much hands down more reliable to get than Physics. If you can motivate yourself to want to learn the material for its own sake, then I recommend sticking with it. Clearly, there was something early on that made you WANT to study Engineering. Maybe another engineering discipline would interest you more?

There are engineering students out there that legitimately want to learn the material that don't use solutions manuals to solve the homework. The one's that do use them are usually just louder.

 

[Astronuc]

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.

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?

In our work, my colleagues and I develop thermo-physical, thermo-mechanical, thermal-hydraulic and behavioral models of materials in integrated simulation systems - basically systems of coupled PDEs/ODEs. We have to understand the why and how, and we use a lot of mathematics.

I keep hearing people talk about engineering jobs being super-stable etc..., however, during a few of my interactions with actual engineers they made it clear that it is not as rosy as people claim it is--they said they are subject to ageism (after many years one has too much experience, costs too much and is not worth the investment), they get pigeon-holed and have ridiculous working hours.

Engineering jobs are stable for those who excel, i.e., those who are competent, proficient and diligent.

We prefer to hire folks who know the theory and how to apply it - especially to new problems for which the solution is not currently known.

I started in physics and migrated into nuclear engineering. Part of both programs was advanced mathematics. I encourage any engineer to take as much physics and mathematics as humanly possible.

Many of the top engineers I know ended up as corporate leaders or started their own companies. That also applies to a number of physicists I know.

 

[Pkruse]

We have a huge need for engineers who understand the reasons behind the methods. Those engineers are becoming a rare breed, but they tend to stay employed. Consider becoming one of them.

 

[clope023]

ZenOne, I'm completely baffled.

You're thinking of switching out because the *other* engineers-in-training aren't internalizing the profession the way you think they should?

If you learn the physics and science but they don't you'll be the better engineer.

I'm not seeing the connection to why you would switch out.

A demoralizing environment will do that to people, I was in the same situation with electrical engineering; everyone and their mother were either cheating, or trying to get the teacher to tell them exactly what will be on the test so they can memorize the answers. It was truly ridiculous and would often make me want to quit and go do math and physics, hell sometimes I would read math and physics in place of my engineering assignments because the material left me with no desire to even look at it.

 

[ZenOne]

I appreciate all the different opinions--they are all food for thought.

Clope--you made me think of another thing that everyone does that just bugs me to no end--they study strictly for the final; by that I mean: the finals are all similar from year to year and people just acquire old solved exams and just study those. The aforesaid is NOT learning--I have never looked at a past final--I just don't get it (well I do grade-wise but shame on them AND the school for allowing this).

However, all the posts indicating the shortage of engineers with an understanding of the material is making me re-think my original position.

 

[Antiphon]

A demoralizing environment will do that to people, I was in the same situation with electrical engineering; everyone and their mother were either cheating, or trying to get the teacher to tell them exactly what will be on the test so they can memorize the answers. It was truly ridiculous and would often make me want to quit and go do math and physics, hell sometimes I would read math and physics in place of my engineering assignments because the material left me with no desire to even look at it.

That's bad but it's not a reflection on the profession- its a reflection on the school.

If you or the OP said you wanted to change schools ok. But change majors?

 

[homeomorphic]

I switched from EE to math and the math world was MUCH better for a while, but in the end, it turned out to be almost as bad. Sure, the mathematicians would want to prove a lot of stuff, but they still take tons of stuff on faith, and even if they go through the proofs, it doesn't mean they understand why they work. A lot of arbitrary and unmotivated stuff is introduced. Several of my graduate classes were an insult to the subjects they purported to teach, needlessly burying the intuition, which I had to tease out by a monumental effort, under a heap of ugly formalism and and unhelpful calculations. Before committing to math, I sensed the same thing was going on in physics, only worse and much more on the ugly calculations side, and I ran like hell. It was too late when I found out the truth about math. I have nowhere to run to now. Maybe I'll try to be an actuary, too.

I am teaching a calculus class now. I am remembering back to when math used to be useful for something and have some contact with reality.

It's not about which subject matter is the best. It's about people not caring about truth or beauty, and it's destroying math, physics, and engineering to a great extent. In any of those subjects, you'll find places were people care, and places where people are being destructive or heedless towards the concepts.

 

[ZenOne]

Thanks Homeo, that's great advice. I guess my issue is more with physics than with anything else because all the major things you mentioned are ESPECIALLY bad in physics--at least thus far.

I've taken the entire calculus sequence (including Fourier Analysis and PDE's/Laplace) and although I get what you're saying it has been the physics classes that have been the worst offenders of the "just do this but don't ask why" mentality I am referring to.

Do you regret your move?

 

[Skrew]

I switched from EE to math for this same reason(but the physics classes were just as bad).

Why is ignored, how is the only thing which is focused on and how only for very specific instances of a problem.

I had no interest in mindlessly computing things and applying formulas because that's what you are told to do.

No one cared about deriveing anything or looking at what underlying principles are actually used as the foundation of the theory.

I feel like these programs are closer to technical degrees and not really engineering or physics as compared to 30-40 years ago but maybe it was always like this.

 

[clope023]

That's bad but it's not a reflection on the profession- its a reflection on the school.

If you or the OP said you wanted to change schools ok. But change majors?

Why not, the environment in my schools math and physics department is better than in the engineering department; there are some very good teachers in the EE dept but they're few and far between.

I was too far in EE to change but I'm going to do a double major in physics, I'm doing research in plasma physics atm and I like what I see.

 

[homeomorphic]

Do you regret your move?

I don't know. It was working out very well until I got to grad school, and then things went downhill. I sometimes wish I could quit the PhD, but I'm annoyingly close to finishing the stupid thing. May as well sprint to the finish line and quit running when the race is over, rather than in the middle of it.

I just want to keep it as a hobby where it can be safe from corruption and outside pressure.

I might be able to succeed in academia if I could be more specialized, but I took all these general classes, so I saw all this broken math that needs to be fixed. I can't forget about it and just focus on one narrow area. Most of the other guys just move on when they see these things because they know if they spend too much time on them, they won't be able to publish "new results" and their careers will suffer. I can't do that. First, I have to clean everything up that came before, otherwise, I don't see a point to researching something new. The math we have is a mess and no one cares because you can only get funding if you publish new results. The few people who do write textbooks are often conformists who just copy the same unenlightening stuff that they've been taught, perpetuating the problem.

 

[seaofghosts]

Are there any research opportunities at your school?

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

I don't know. It was working out very well until I got to grad school, and then things went downhill. I sometimes wish I could quit the PhD, but I'm annoyingly close to finishing the stupid thing. May as well sprint to the finish line and quit running when the race is over, rather than in the middle of it.

I just want to keep it as a hobby where it can be safe from corruption and outside pressure.

I might be able to succeed in academia if I could be more specialized, but I took all these general classes, so I saw all this broken math that needs to be fixed. I can't forget about it and just focus on one narrow area. Most of the other guys just move on when they see these things because they know if they spend too much time on them, they won't be able to publish "new results" and their careers will suffer. I can't do that. First, I have to clean everything up that came before, otherwise, I don't see a point to researching something new. The math we have is a mess and no one cares because you can only get funding if you publish new results. The few people who do write textbooks are often conformists who just copy the same unenlightening stuff that they've been taught, perpetuating the problem.

I understand your problem, but I guess that this is with any technical occupation, you need to take some stuff on faith, though sometime a good skepticism about your subject is in place.

I mean the sheer volume of knowledge of math and sciences is huge!
and still we don't know everything (a never ending Tom and Jerry catchup).

Yes it looks chaotic, and you don't seem to see any cetral theme that binds the math you learn. Some of this mess you're talking about is coming from the fact that there are cross fertilization between different branches of mathematics, so a good research mathematician should know quite a lot about different branches in mathematics.

Nobody said maths is easy (it's easy when you understand it, but not when the text or lecturer is hardly understood).

 

[homeomorphic]

I understand your problem, but I guess that this is with any technical occupation, you need to take some stuff on faith, though sometime a good skepticism about your subject is in place.

The stuff I am talking about goes further than that. It really is an unnecessary impediment. Someone could have just told me, and I could have avoided mountains of work discovering it on my own. What's worse is that this kind of stuff that people don't want to talk about--the motivation, the intuition is the whole reason I came to math in the first place. If I have to skip the parts that I like to get ahead, then to hell with it. Not to mention, it's the wrong way to do it, anyway. I don't want to give the impression that ALL math is being done this way. But enough of it is being done this way to be a major thorn in my side.

Baez made some comment on his website that there must be hundreds of mathematicians walking around thinking that operads are very hard to understand. He circumvents the problem by drawing a few pictures. Sometimes, that's all it is.

 

[StatGuy2000]

No--I'm thinking of switching out because the WAY other EIT's are trying to learn is the WAY we ARE being taught. Teachers and TA's alike have no respect for the foundation of the very material they teach--at least in my experience.

I'm in Canada and cannot relocate for I have a wife, a part-time job and a family; I go to one of the only 2 English universities in in my area--I don't have much of a choice.

Just out of curiosity, I take it you must be a student from Quebec, and probably a student at either McGill or Concordia (based on the description you gave about being in the only 2 English universities in your area). Am I correct about this?

Anyways, back to the original point you raised. I suspect that the reason that teachers and TA's have no respect for the material they teach is that more than likely they hate teaching -- the professors were hired for their research acumen and teaching is a requirement for continuing to be employed, at least until they are tenured. As for TA's, they are graduate students who are required to teach as a condition of receiving funding. Therefore, there is no passion to teach (and I suspect that some of the TA's may not have a solid enough understanding of the material they teach to give you an explanation of the why's of how things work, but are too embarrassed to admit this).

Unfortunately, this is a situation that you will encounter in almost any program at any university, at least some of the time. Even in the physics or math departments there will be professors or TA's in those departments who will approach the material in the same way your engineering professors and TA's do.

What you need to do is think for a moment about why you initially chose to study engineering to begin with -- what motivated you, what you initially liked about it, etc. Then determine for yourself whether there is enough in your program that interests you and motivates you that you can continue to stay in the program. If you want to develop a deeper understanding of the program, then you should take the initiative to seek the answers, by researching on your own (if there is an independent study component in your program, take advantage of it) or by constantly asking/seeking advice to different professors, and don't give up asking (this shows you have persistence and passion).

If you decide that somehow your interests are more towards math, then indeed it may be a good decision to switch majors, but the same advice I gave you in the previous paragraph will still apply.

Just my 2 cent's worth.

 

[luis20]

I might be able to succeed in academia if I could be more specialized, but I took all these general classes, so I saw all this broken math that needs to be fixed. I can't forget about it and just focus on one narrow area. Most of the other guys just move on when they see these things because they know if they spend too much time on them, they won't be able to publish "new results" and their careers will suffer. I can't do that. First, I have to clean everything up that came before, otherwise, I don't see a point to researching something new. The math we have is a mess and no one cares because you can only get funding if you publish new results. The few people who do write textbooks are often conformists who just copy the same unenlightening stuff that they've been taught, perpetuating the problem.

I agree with you 100%. We need revolutionaries writing textbooks. What you want to do is very noble.

We need to value one of the greatest professions of all: The real teacher!Edit: You are right when you say we spend a lot of time figuring out things that an experient teacher could just tell us. Why no one cares about the truth?

 

[AlephZero]

the other part is related to the physics work--the math is what I enjoy but when it comes to something like Dynamics or Thermo I feel like jumping out of a window (not that they are hard but I just don't find them all that interesting).

I guess I should have mentioned the aforesaid earlier; I did, however, like Materials Science (but hated Statics, Dynamics, Thermo, Mech. Drawing [this was the worst], Mechanics of Materials).

You say you like math, but you "hate" the most mathematical parts of engineering (Dynamics, Thermo) and you liked Mat Sci (which IMO must be one of the most math-free engineering topics)??

Either you have got a very warped idea of what those subjects were about, or there's something very strange here IMO.

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.

You can't draw many conclusions from a sample of size two (not if you plan to be a competent engineer, at least!). In any case, engineering is fundamentally a pragmatic discipline. You don't "use math" because you happen to like math and know know a lot of it. You use it when it helps achieve what you are trying to achieve.

As one of my mentors in industry once said, "If you can see something is no **** good just by looking at it, don't waste your time calculating that it's no **** good to 6 decimal places."

 

[ZenOne]

Sorry Aleph but I don't think you read my previous posts--I indicated WHY I hate Dynamics and Thermo etc..., maybe they are--usually--quite mathematical but at my school they are purely PLUG 'n CHUG courses.

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.

Liking Materials Science has nothing to do with math--I just found the subject matter interesting because we had labs and were forced to learn the true inner-workings of the subject. Also, I hate chemistry, however, Mat Sci put a nice spin on it.

Maybe Dynamics is mathematical in other schools but we had a 2 page cheat sheet with pretty much every equation and derivation already there. The most mathematical thing about it was finding angles--in my experience, of course.

 

[DrummingAtom]

I don't like the way engineering classes are taught and I've spent a lot of time learning stuff on my own in a deeper light. It's incredibly inefficient to think I'm going to school spending money and time on something that I'm going to end up self learning anyway but oh well. I'm torn between math, physics and EE, but mostly physics and EE. I'm taking some extra physics classes in place of some engineering classes, if your school can let you take some math instead of engineering then I would do that. If you truly hate engineering then of course switch but if you're on the fence I would say stay in engineering and get your fix of the math in a minor or double major if you can.

 

[astor]

Perhaps explore other engineering disciplines before making such sweeping judgements ("I Kind of Hate Engineering...").

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?

Of course, it appears as though you're having more issues with the way it's taught at your particular school and not the field in general. If you really do want to delve deeper and have a genuine interest in the theory behind it all, I personally think that in wanting to change majors just so you are more "spoon fed" the structure of theory might be more trouble than exploring the deeper topics yourself; I'll have to agree with the other poster that you're in college now and expected to be more independent, and it should be something you pursue independent of whether or not your classmates and sloppy.

Also, explore thermodynamics some more. I'm sure that if you borrow a chemistry textbook covering thermodynamics from your library, you'll find that it is, indeed as others have mentioned, quite full of math and the theory behind thermodynamics, derived from starting with math and physics. Most chemistry thermodynamics textbooks I have encountered actually review a lot of multivariate calculus in detail, not in the mechanically solving problem sense, before you even start proving all the laws and applying them, as you'll really have to understand your total differentials and the various partial derivative identities, as well as path integrals and other various topics.