Is Engineering the Right Career for Me?

[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.

 

[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.