It feels like M.E. undergrad degree is a JOKE

  • Thread starter Thread starter Curl
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Degree Undergrad
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on frustrations with the Mechanical Engineering (M.E.) undergraduate curriculum, which is perceived as lacking depth and practical relevance. Core classes are criticized for being overly simplistic, focusing on rote memorization rather than meaningful understanding of concepts. Participants argue that while the degree provides foundational knowledge, it does not equip students with the skills necessary for real-world engineering challenges. There is a consensus that further learning and hands-on experience are essential after graduation to truly grasp engineering principles. Ultimately, the dialogue reflects a broader concern about the effectiveness of undergraduate engineering education in preparing students for their careers.
  • #31
Travis_King said:
I agree. Don't blame the fact that your school has a poor engineering department, and the fact that you did poorly in choosing a challenging and prestigious program, on the field in general.

My school provided challenging curriculum and prepared me for the continued education that is "industry". I use fluid dynamics and heat transfer equations literally every day, and the understanding of the fundamentals of structural design is imperitive to me successfully completing projects. And, my physics course supplemented my mech courses both in kinetics/kinematics (supporting structural dynamics courses) as well as electricity and magnetism (for my electrical design and control courses). And all of this has served me well in industry so far (obviously there are many things that I don't use given my particular field)

I'm sorry you had a bad experience, perhaps graduate school would be a nice experience for you. I would suggest applying to another school's program. The engineering industry offers tons of jobs that will expect the engineer to solve difficult and challenging problems by applying his anaylitical and critical thinking experience. But you have to decide whether you want to be an engineer or a theoretician/researcher.

To be fair, you're lucky. I'm not whining, but rarely do you get to do what you studied. The key to overcoming this is to find something that you can do in your spare time that you enjoy (or be very aggressive and find the job that you *truly* enjoy ;-) ).

I like computer science and love artificial intelligence. Compilers bore me to death and the school that I graduated from had a crappy AI program, so I bought some books, found stuff online and roll how I want to roll, because I'm awesome that way :-) .

No one will ever drop in your lap what you want or enjoy, got to get it yourself. Reach for the skies and grab the sun bro, even if you got to stand with your bare-feet on a cactus :-) .
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #33
to be honest, if you think your engineering degree is a joke then I think you're at the wrong university.

I go to UNC-Charlotte (the 49ers, NOT the tar heels) and it is the most underrated school in the nation when it comes to engineering. We compete with Duke and NC-State but our engineering department is small and we all have great relationships with our professors.

I had the chance to pursue engineering at Virginia Tech but UNC-Charlotte's program looked much more appealing.

I hear a lot of whining, probably coming from people that aren't making good grades
 
  • #34
mender in my opinion that's the best answer so far towards this cats rant.
 
  • #35
Curl said:
Give anyone in ME an original, abstract problem to solve and they won't be able to do it.

Give anyone from maths or theoretical physics a real world problem and they won't be able to do it. There is a reason that many engineering firms hire exclusively engineering graduates and not maths or physics ones. This is not me capping on maths and physics; it is just a statement of fact. Maths and physics students might be better at solving abstract problems, which many may find much more enjoyable. But in the real world you don't tend to come across "abstract" problems. Real world problems are very, very rarely about manipulating complex maths and solving equations.

Anyway it doesn't sound like engineering is for you. There is nothing wrong with that. It sounds like you are better suited to solving abstract problems from textbooks than real world problems. Again, there is nothing wrong with that, it's just unfortunate that in this world no-one will pay you to do that.
 
  • #36
I agree...sounds like engineering is not for you. Why not try Quantum Field Theory for yourself...put the 'many worlds theory or copenhagen interpretation' to bed...that will stop you from complaining and keep you quite...I doubt he's listening anymore anyway. :-)
 
  • #37
I don't know what is wrong with some people here ,personally i feel mechanical engineering is great! ,it is one of the oldest and broadest of all engineering branches ,although major developments took place during and after the Industrial revolution ,mechanical enigineering is thousands of years old!. I joined the course very recently,I too go to a college where things are thought properly but i don't care ,i study on my own.

The work of mechanical engineering ranges from the depths of the ocean to outer space !

http://www.mechlook.com/2009/08/history-of-mechanical-engineering/

If your college is not good, try to motivate yourself by knowing more about history of this branch.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
Shaun_W said:
Give anyone from maths or theoretical physics a real world problem and they won't be able to do it. There is a reason that many engineering firms hire exclusively engineering graduates and not maths or physics ones. This is not me capping on maths and physics; it is just a statement of fact. Maths and physics students might be better at solving abstract problems, which many may find much more enjoyable. But in the real world you don't tend to come across "abstract" problems. Real world problems are very, very rarely about manipulating complex maths and solving equations.

Anyway it doesn't sound like engineering is for you. There is nothing wrong with that. It sounds like you are better suited to solving abstract problems from textbooks than real world problems. Again, there is nothing wrong with that, it's just unfortunate that in this world no-one will pay you to do that.

"Real world" problems ARE abstract. The only problems engineering kids learn how to solve are those EXACTLY like the ones in the book because they can copy the examples in class or the ones on page XX in the book.
When do you ever, ever, ever in "real world" do you get a problem that's EXACTLY like the one you did in your homework? Never. That's why you must learn to THINK rather than plug&chug into formulas. The degree never teaches you to solve real world problems, all you do is punch numbers in a calculator without ever explaining to you what's going on. Sorry mate, but that's not what engineering is.
 
  • #39
Yea, but do you understand that that is a problem with your school's engineering department?

Besides, the engineering curriculum is designed to teach students the fundamental principles of engineering/mechanics/structures/whatever. If you go to a good school, you will have problems which force you to think; which force you to look elsewhere for information. As an engineer you will never have to derive the bending moment equation for a beam supported and loaded in a hundred different ways, you will have to simplify and design with contingency. Engineering is about optimization and practicality. If your school hasn't taught you that then, again, find a new program.

(edit): by "good" school, I mean a school with a challenging engineering curriculum which prepares the student for industry by teaching him/her how to think like an engineer as well as providing the fundamental principles.

Also, Plug-and-chug is merely a way to measure student's ability to either: (a) Grasp concepts, or (b) study super hard. A good program will have a healthy mix of both plug-and-chug as well as problems which are simple mathematically, but require complex and critical thinking (abstract) to solve. In this way, the program will weed out the people who cannot grasp the concepts, even those that can usually get by with over-studying.
 
  • #40
It isn't the school. It isn't the department. It's you. The professors an department aren't there to hold your hand and make sure you know more than just plug-and-chug. They present the material and assign problems but it is still your responsibility to learn it and understand it. You are an adult now. Take some responsibility. I learned how to tackle abstract and not-by-the-book problems quite effectively.

The bottom line is stop expecting handouts or for the school to do the work for you. Take some responsibility for your education and if you feel deficient, work to get to where you want to be.
 
  • #41
Curl said:
"Real world" problems ARE abstract. The only problems engineering kids learn how to solve are those EXACTLY like the ones in the book because they can copy the examples in class or the ones on page XX in the book.
When do you ever, ever, ever in "real world" do you get a problem that's EXACTLY like the one you did in your homework? Never. That's why you must learn to THINK rather than plug&chug into formulas. The degree never teaches you to solve real world problems, all you do is punch numbers in a calculator without ever explaining to you what's going on. Sorry mate, but that's not what engineering is.

You can teach a person what a brush is, you can even teach them how to paint.
You can't teach someone to be an artist.
 
  • #42
If it is just the department then why are "engineering" books also dumb just like the classes? For Systems class we used a book by MIT professors:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0132108089/?tag=pfamazon01-20

On page 507 here's what it says: "The derivation of the expressions for computing the coefficients in a Fourier series is beyond the scope of this book, and we simply state without proof..."

ROFL, thanks for making me memorize the result without telling me at least how you got there. In a sophomore level mathematics course they have no problem showing this derivation.
There are more examples of this kind of BS in every book, including heat transfer, materials, thermodynamics... lol in "engineering" thermodynamics books they don't even tell students what entropy is.

I don't have a problem studying on my own, I learned 10000000X more science/math on my own than from these courses, and I'm fine with that. However, I have a problem paying them money when they're not teaching me jack. It's $3700 per quarter this year, and if it wasn't for the scholarships/grants I got I'd rage really bad at this point.
Basically you're paying to get a paper that says you passed some dumb courses. It's about $30,000+ for the degree, that's a dam expensive piece of paper...
 
  • #43
Curl said:
I learned 10000000X more science/math on my own than from these courses, and I'm fine with that.

Proof?

Also, feel this is appropriate
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #44
Curl said:
On page 507 here's what it says: "The derivation of the expressions for computing the coefficients in a Fourier series is beyond the scope of this book, and we simply state without proof..."

ROFL, thanks for making me memorize the result without telling me at least how you got there. In a sophomore level mathematics course they have no problem showing this derivation.

ROFL - and what makes you think that IN REAL LIFE anybody uses the elementary formulas in a sophomore level math course to calculate Fourier coefficients?

Over the decades I've seen a few people who thought they "knew everyting already" and tried to invent a "real world" version of Fourier analysis based on that much (or little) knowledge, and ended up with nonsense. More fool them for not accepting there are lots of things that you don't NEED to know every last detail, because they have already been done properly by other people.

Most engineers using signal processing as part of their daily work don't need to know exactly how to calculate Fourier coefficients, any more than most people who use a computer every day don't need to know how to design an multi-core microprocessor chip.
 
  • #45
Curl said:
"Real world" problems ARE abstract. The only problems engineering kids learn how to solve are those EXACTLY like the ones in the book because they can copy the examples in class or the ones on page XX in the book.
When do you ever, ever, ever in "real world" do you get a problem that's EXACTLY like the one you did in your homework? Never. That's why you must learn to THINK rather than plug&chug into formulas. The degree never teaches you to solve real world problems, all you do is punch numbers in a calculator without ever explaining to you what's going on. Sorry mate, but that's not what engineering is.

I very much disagree with your post, apart from homework problems not being the same as real world problems.

But that's irrelevant. Real world problems are not like engineering textbook problems, but they are much closer to engineering textbook problems than abstract maths and physics textbook problems. And I can tell you this from seeing real world problems.

Now obviously a university cannot give you real world problems to solve in exams because it's just not possible.

But they can give very basic approximations of real world problems. And this does help you learn the theory behind what goes on in solving a real world problem. It is entirely your fault if you try and rote learn problems without properly understanding the theory behind them.

On page 507 here's what it says: "The derivation of the expressions for computing the coefficients in a Fourier series is beyond the scope of this book, and we simply state without proof..."

Because that's what happens in real life. Engineers don't need to know the proofs behind the maths that they use. If someone has already proven it then that's fine. Less time doing the stuff that's already been done and more time on solving real world problems.

Now if you want to learn the abstract theory behind what you are doing then that's fine. But the real world is all about making as much money as possible, and having people derive the expressions for calculating the coefficients in a Fourier Series before actually calculating the expressions themselves is inefficient as its been done many, many times before, and thus does not make as much money as possible.

But if it interests you then you are free to learn how to do it in your own time. I actually used to work with a chap who did just that (an MSc in maths degree in his free time), but it didn't actually help him in his day job.
 
  • #46
Shaun_W said:
I very much disagree with your post, apart from homework problems not being the same as real world problems.

Real world problems are not like engineering textbook problems, but they are much closer to engineering textbook problems than abstract maths and physics textbook problems.

Good points in this post.

And further to this, an engineer tries to get the problem as close to a textbook case as possible whilst still being true to life. It's all about knowing or more often feeling if an assumption is valid or not.
 
  • #47
first of all, the reason why people hire engineers is because we are capable of learning new concepts quicker and more efficiently than anyone else.

I could take up any type of mechanical engineering job and not have a clue what to do coming into the job, but I guarantee you the company knows that I will be able to grasp the concepts and quickly learn. Engineering is more of an adjective than a major title when describing someone in my opinion.
 
  • #48
Curl said:
ROFL, thanks for making me memorize the result without telling me at least how you got there. In a sophomore level mathematics course they have no problem showing this derivation.

...That is an introductory system dynamics text...How detailed do you want them to get? Engineering is like any other subject, you can learn the basics in an introductory course, and you can learn the material in depth in higher study. The more detailed you get, the more limited your study of the field will be, however. As stated above, you'll never have to derive the calculations. They already exist, and are obviously fairly trivial to understanding the material, so just take them and put a bookmark in the page.

In the "real world" if you have to design a piping system, your company isn't going to want you to derive the equations for 3D turbulent flow in a pipe to calculate exactly the head loss. You'll just look at a book with approximated values already there and make a close estimate. Then you'll fudge that a bit anyway, just to be safe.

As I said, engineering is also about learning what needs to be considered meticulously and what does not. It's about time management. Don't dedicate too much time to increase accuracy beyond the level where it is value added.
 
  • #49
Curl said:
If it is just the department then why are "engineering" books also dumb just like the classes? For Systems class we used a book by MIT professors:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0132108089/?tag=pfamazon01-20

On page 507 here's what it says: "The derivation of the expressions for computing the coefficients in a Fourier series is beyond the scope of this book, and we simply state without proof..."

ROFL, thanks for making me memorize the result without telling me at least how you got there. In a sophomore level mathematics course they have no problem showing this derivation.
There are more examples of this kind of BS in every book, including heat transfer, materials, thermodynamics... lol in "engineering" thermodynamics books they don't even tell students what entropy is.

I don't have a problem studying on my own, I learned 10000000X more science/math on my own than from these courses, and I'm fine with that. However, I have a problem paying them money when they're not teaching me jack. It's $3700 per quarter this year, and if it wasn't for the scholarships/grants I got I'd rage really bad at this point.
Basically you're paying to get a paper that says you passed some dumb courses. It's about $30,000+ for the degree, that's a dam expensive piece of paper...

It really sounds like you want to be doing a Maths or Physics degree. Engineers have no need to prove the formulae they use, as long as they work in a practical situation.
 
  • #50
iaing94 said:
It really sounds like you want to be doing a Maths or Physics degree. Engineers have no need to prove the formulae they use, as long as they work in a practical situation.

here's a practical situation:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=544619
I'm an engineer, not a theorist and I say it won't work.
lol

say what?
 
  • #51
How, in any way, can you justify a calling a ship floating in a non defined 'bucket of water' a 'practical situation'? Hint (It just isn't. It's hypothetical bollocks.)

A practical situation regarding buoyancy and stability is:
We have requirement for a navigation buoy with a focal height of 7m to be stable in a port with fast flowing current (peak current of 5 knots) to a depth of 40m at high tide. We have a 2m diameter float with 4.5Te of gross buoyancy. The buoy will have an elastomer float, steel central structure and aluminium superstructure. All proposed fasteners are 316 stainless. The customer also has a requirement that 32mm chain must be used as it's whathe has lying around.

Does out existing largest float meet the requirements?
Will the buoy meet stability criteria?
Will the buoy last for a service life of 10 years?

The customer is looking at competitors rotomoulded buoys (a cheaper but less durable alternative) so there is a drive for costs to be low as possible to meet a 30% margin. We will never match on price, but the salesman must be able to sell our buoy as a better alternative.

That ^_^ is a real life question for a man with money wanting to purchase a buoy.
 
  • #52
Everyone, stop trying to set Curl straight. He clearly wants to sit on a mountain top, on a golden throne with 'Physicist' inscribed on it and have the lowly engineers bring him offerings of worship and adoration. He's joyfully full of himself; he's pretending that he wants to be convinced that engineering is a worthwhile enterprise, when in reality he's just fueling the fire to see how big he can make it. This guy is a waste of anyone's time, online or off.
 
  • #53
Oh, well I don't know about that...I have had fits of hubris in my lifetime, as I'm sure most of us have. Engineers, physicists, mathematicians, many of us have had the shared experience of quickly grasping abstract concepts and watching as our peers struggled to understand the fringes. He is somewhat right, that undergraduate study doesn't teach engineers how to design cargo ships. Many people go into school and engineering with the idea that they will learn how to build entire planes and only later in their studies discover that engineering school teaches you the fundamentals, and prepares you to think like an engineer. Granted, some schools have more challenging curriculum than others (I know some of my aero classes were pretty rough), but when one goes into it thinking they will learn to design buildings and they spend a week analyzing a simply supported beam, or a one dimensional airfoil (whatever that means lol) there is a certain degree of dissillusionment.

Bottom line, Curl, Engineering school is there to teach you how to become an engineer and provide you with the literature and resources to construct a foundation of experience that you can use to build your personal career on. It provides a place where like-minded people can go to learn the field and work together to get a better understanding of the concepts.

No one is going to teach you how to build a plane from scratch. If they could, they wouldn't be teaching, they would be building planes from scratch.
 
  • #54
Why are people still replying to this OP? He isn't going to listen and he clearly doesn't understand what engineering i and how it is applied. I too like to learn where things come from to get a better understanding of the problem but I am no mathematician and I'm happy with that. I also don't remember everything I've learned in my years of studying, however I know where to find it and when I do find it, I will remember how to apply it. I'm not the smartest person in the world but guaranteed I'll be a better engineer than this OP.
 
  • #55
go work for a suppermarket
 
  • #56
an engineer learns terms and expressions in class but puts it in real life when he joins a company. but Unfortunately u could not did d same
 
  • #57
Go tell your profs that their courses are jokes. I'm sure that they will be most interested in your evaluation, and will do their best to up-grade the course content to challenge you. They really do not want you to be bored! Tell them that their classes are way too easy and that they need to increase the quantity of material in their courses, cover more and at much greater depth, so that you will have a chance to really learn something!

In the 17 years that I taught ME, I never heard your complaint about any of my classes. If you have gone to a poor school, and there are plenty of them around, that was a bad choice that you will have plenty of time to regret in the future. You will be in a better position to evaluate when you find out whether you really did learn anything or not, and whose fault it was.
 
  • #58
where are you studying?
Chances are it's not Purdue, or MIT
go study there, and see if it's a joke.
job prospects? Do you have any?

more importantly, do you have any interesting in creating something? If you want to create something, then you have to know the concepts covered in your program.
an undergrad degree gives you awareness about concepts that are important, but you can not be taught how to create something. if you are not a creator, then a degree in engineering is wasted on you.
consider taking a career aptitude test to see if there are any fields better suited towards your interests
 
  • #59
I fully support Curl in his harsh evaluation. When I got an engineering degree in the 80's at a major state university every course was very difficult and the texts went way deeper into the material than there was time to cover. I kept nearly all these books and still use them as engineering references. I knew I was getting my money's worth.

Some colleges water down the curriculum to keep from losing enrollment. You're probably in one of these.

Curl, you're in the right degree but the wrong college. One of the big ten or PAC ten or ivy league engineering schools would have done right by you.
 
  • #60
OldEngr63 said:
Go tell your profs that their courses are jokes. I'm sure that they will be most interested in your evaluation, and will do their best to up-grade the course content to challenge you. They really do not want you to be bored! Tell them that their classes are way too easy and that they need to increase the quantity of material in their courses, cover more and at much greater depth, so that you will have a chance to really learn something!

In the 17 years that I taught ME, I never heard your complaint about any of my classes. If you have gone to a poor school, and there are plenty of them around, that was a bad choice that you will have plenty of time to regret in the future. You will be in a better position to evaluate when you find out whether you really did learn anything or not, and whose fault it was.


due to financial reasons, I can only afford a "poor school"- Northern Illinois University is not competitively ranked, by any means. but the students there are smart! and I have aspirations.
any tips on improving my general knowledge, as well as my job prospects?
best case scenario- I want to have my own shop, where I develop soft robots, UAVs, and whatever else interests me. I know I'll need more than a basic Mechanical Engineering degree for that!
worst case scenario- I make sketches in solidworks/ all day for 40 years. I wouldn't be ok with that!
I definitely want to get my EIT and PE!

I guess my question is, how do I know what I need to know?
 

Similar threads

My physics exam preparations feel like rote actions, I'm not understanding
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Other Feeling Inadequate in Physics: Junior Undergrad Struggles
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
How to switch from engineering with unknown undergrad name to Physics?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Programs Which physics concentration should I declare for my degree?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Schools Which Canadian university should I go to for physics undergrad?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Programs Take a 5th year to do more research?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Struggling in Dynamics Class? Learn from MIT's Expert Videos and Ace Your Exams!
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Admissions Applying to PhD programs after a few years out of academia
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Physics makes me feel really worthless
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
11K
Admissions Statement of purpose critique request (high-energy theory PhD)
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K