The discussion centers on the value of pursuing a master's degree in interdisciplinary engineering from Purdue University, particularly in systems engineering or computational engineering, versus a traditional aerospace engineering master's. Participants emphasize that employers prioritize fundamental knowledge in math, physics, and chemistry over specific degrees. They argue that while interdisciplinary programs may offer flexibility, they often lack recognition compared to established engineering degrees, which are more likely to pass through HR filters. The consensus suggests that a well-recognized degree provides a clearer career path and greater job security.
PREREQUISITESProspective graduate students, career advisors, and hiring managers in engineering fields looking to understand the implications of interdisciplinary degrees versus traditional engineering qualifications.
A good point.boneh3ad said:I've never even heard of "interdisciplinary engineering," which is a statement you would probably hear a lot.
People who interviewed me in the past often asked 'can you figure this out' type questions, almost always being basic stuff in my field; if they liked how I responded and wanted to consider me as prime intherunning, they would ask for transcripts later. The positions were not engineering ones but usually the person doing the interviewing was an engineer.DaveE said:Just my opinion...
Focus on the basics: Math, Physics, Chemistry, etc. When I was hiring EEs, lack of basic knowledge in the sciences was a deal breaker, regardless of how much specific training people had. I never asked to see transcripts or grades, I just asked technical questions. Out in the real world people don't care about the details of an academic program and they don't care what grades you got. They care about what you know and can do. They want people who can adapt to new problems. That gives you some freedom to build your knowledge base as you like. If you know that you prefer one over the other then do that one. Otherwise it probably won't matter in the long run.
<<Emphasis added.>> I would not support such a broad generalization. Some employers don't care; others do. I once worked for a major Megacorps R&D lab. We targeted candidates who had the right knowledge and experience, the right abilities and capabilities, AND the right schools, degrees, and GPAs.DaveE said:Just my opinion...
Focus on the basics: Math, Physics, Chemistry, etc. When I was hiring EEs, lack of basic knowledge in the sciences was a deal breaker, regardless of how much specific training people had. I never asked to see transcripts or grades, I just asked technical questions. Out in the real world people don't care about the details of an academic program and they don't care what grades you got. They care about what you know and can do. They want people who can adapt to new problems. That gives you some freedom to build your knowledge base as you like. If you know that you prefer one over the other then do that one. Otherwise it probably won't matter in the long run.
I am a proponent of interdisciplinary training, but I am not a proponent of ad hoc degrees. You're better off getting a degree in a well-established major and taking electives in other programs. Employers have at least an approximate baseline reference of what to expect from a candidate with a masters in a well-established major. But what would they expect from a candidate with a masters in interdisciplinary engineering? Would hiring managers skimming through a stack of resumes take the time to find out? More to the point, in many organizations, initial filtering of resumes is done by HR, often via software searching for a match for specific degrees or work experience. "Interdisciplinary engineering" would not likely pass through the filter (perhaps if the filter is set broadly for "engineering", rather than more narrowly, for, e.g., "electrical engineering", "mechanical engineering", or "aerospace engineering").dcb942 said:I am considering a masters in interdisciplinary engineering from Purdue with a concentration in either systems engineering or computational engineering. Is this a waste of my time and money compared to just getting an aerospace masters and taking courses in systems engineering or computational engineering?
CrysPhys said:I am a proponent of interdisciplinary training, but I am not a proponent of ad hoc degrees. You're better off getting a degree in a well-established major and taking electives in other programs. Employers have at least an approximate baseline reference of what to expect from a candidate with a masters in a well-established major. But what would they expect from a candidate with a masters in interdisciplinary engineering? Would hiring managers skimming through a stack of resumes take the time to find out? More to the point, in many organizations, initial filtering of resumes is done by HR, often via software searching for a match for specific degrees or work experience. "Interdisciplinary engineering" would not likely pass through the filter (perhaps if the filter is set broadly for "engineering", rather than more narrowly, for, e.g., "electrical engineering", "mechanical engineering", or "aerospace engineering").
Ah, but how would "interdisciplinary engineering program from highly ranked school A" compare with "well-established engineering program from highly ranked school B"?StatGuy2000 said:After all, HR also filter for names of colleges/universities as well as the name of programs (among many other categories) and I would suspect that the filter programs have various ranking algorithms involved in terms of different categories (e.g. well-established engineering program from lesser school = interdisciplinary engineering program from highly ranked school).
CrysPhys said:Ah, but how would "interdisciplinary engineering program from highly ranked school" compare with "well-established engineering program from highly ranked school"?
There's also the issue of a fall-back Plan B (which everyone should have). An MS (or MSE) in interdisciplinary engineering may be OK if you are planning a career in, e.g, program or project management. But if you decide that's not for you, and that you'd really be happier as a hands-on engineer, you might have a hard time getting a job in a specialized engineering field. On the other hand, if you have an MS in a well-established engineering major (along with electives in other fields), you will have an easier time finding a job in a specialized engineering field should you choose to switch careers (or are forced to switch careers by changes in the job market); so you have more flexibility.
dcb942 said:I am considering a masters in interdisciplinary engineering from Purdue
Let me clarify with a simplified hypo. Suppose we have have three engineers:StatGuy2000 said:As to your second point, you do have a point about more flexibility with a well-established engineering major with suitable electives, at least in terms of finding a job in a specialized engineering field. That being said, if you are forced to switch careers by changes in the job market, it is generally the case that it is less likely you will find a position in another specialized engineering field unless that other field has considerable overlap.
On the other hand, someone with a graduate degree in an interdisciplinary engineering program working in program or project management could fairly easily work in a project management role in a different engineering company or even in a completely separate role entirely.
CrysPhys said:Let me clarify with a simplified hypo. Suppose we have have three engineers:
Eng A: Core expertise in EE, with some knowledge of ME
Eng B: Core expertise in ME, with some knowledge of EE
Eng C: Some knowledge of EE (on a par with Eng B), and some knowledge of ME (on a par with Eng A).
Suppose the job market is such that there is a demand for engineers with some knowledge of EE and some knowledge of ME, for which all three engineers are sufficiently qualified. All three engineers are employed in such interdisciplinary positions. Life is good. Then, one day, the market for such engineers dwindles. Eng A has the option for seeking a similar job elsewhere OR a job requiring core expertise in EE; Eng B has the option for seeking a similar job elsewhere OR a job requiring core expertise in ME; but Eng C is still limited to seeking jobs requiring only some knowledge of EE and/or some knowledge of ME.