Engineering Which Engineer Actually Uses the Most Math?

[Nspyred]

Thanks for the replies.
I guess my main concern is getting stuck in a non-technical role.

BTW, I actually am in math right now (I was going to minor in chem or physics). I was thinking of making a switch to engineering. An alternative could be to finish my degree then do engineering at the graduate level. I was thinking of switching ASAP because I read that you need to do an undergrad in engineering to get PE licensure. I am no longer so sure how much getting a license is necessary to do the technical work that I want to do if I am not in civil.

 

[Nspyred]

Sorry if this is kinda off topic, but there are lots of good replies in this thread so I figured I'd ask my question here. Does getting a PhD as an engineer play a huge difference in what you'll be doing as an engineer? If so, how so?

I would say that PhDs lead/take part in R & D initiatives. They could also be private consultants.

Don't take my word for it though. As you can see, I am being "schooled" in this thread on the actual profession of engineering.

 

[jegues]

Don't take my word for it though. As you can see, I am being "schooled" in this thread on the actual profession of engineering.

Anyone who's actually working in the industry care to voice their opinion?

 

[Freddy_Turnip]

Have you looked at a Digital Signal Processing (DSP) book?

 

[Ben Espen]

Anyone who's actually working in the industry care to voice their opinion?

I would say that PhDs lead/take part in R & D initiatives. They could also be private consultants.

Don't take my word for it though. As you can see, I am being "schooled" in this thread on the actual profession of engineering.

I suspect that if one had access to data comprising highest degree attained and working/not working in an R&D role, you would probably find a greater proportion of PhDs in the working in an R&D role category than those whose highest degree is a Bachelors or Masters degree.

This is not an iron clad rule however. As in so many things, it depends very much on where you work, and whether a credential is considered the same thing as a qualification. You can find engineers with Bachelors degrees leading or taking part in R&D work. When it comes to this kind of thing, knowing what you are doing is the most critical thing.

 

[Nspyred]

I suspect that if one had access to data comprising highest degree attained and working/not working in an R&D role, you would probably find a greater proportion of PhDs in the working in an R&D role category than those whose highest degree is a Bachelors or Masters degree.

This is not an iron clad rule however. As in so many things, it depends very much on where you work, and whether a credential is considered the same thing as a qualification. You can find engineers with Bachelors degrees leading or taking part in R&D work. When it comes to this kind of thing, knowing what you are doing is the most critical thing.

Oh yeaaaah... the overall moral of this thread!

 

[PhanthomJay]

IAlso, I was talking to a mid-40s or so structural engineer who told me that he could not remember the last time he did a differential eqn. He said that the work was all "procedural".

If a structural engineer had to do differential equations all day long, nothing would ever get built. Of course, one must take those math courses to be a good engineer. The key, however, when confronted with a problem, is to think it through and keep it simple. Most of my calculations deal with just P/A and Mc/I in some form or another, but the design is not near as simple as just using equations. There is so much more involved. If you like using diffyQ equations in your work, head for some field other than structural engineering. But if you like a rewarding challenge rather than doing math all day long, then engineering might be right for you.

 

[Nspyred]

I never said that I had to do math all day. It's just a tool-- a language. I posted here because of all of the anecdotes I had come across of engineers who say that they use little to no math. I wanted to know who was doing the math.

As I said, I like writing and doing presentations. I just want it to be at the end of a complete project where I also contributed to the technical analysis. I can't just do administrative or business development work all day.

I know that I will be expected to be able to program custom-made software. It's specializing in software eng that I am not so keen on. I am interested in energy: conversion, storage, recovery. I am also inspired by hydraulic engineering and structural engineering. Lately I was leaning more toward the energy disciplines (mech, elec, chem), but then yesterday I came across the post of a structural engineer arguing about how hard his field was (why do you guys always get into those arguments in the forums?) because of all the environmental factors he had to consider, and because of the hazards of being on site. THAT was inspiring (not the hazards part, but what can you do?).

For now, I think that I will just stick with my program in applied math and physics, do a masters in physics or engineering, then find my niche in applied physics.

 

[D H]

I suspect that if one had access to data comprising highest degree attained and working/not working in an R&D role, you would probably find a greater proportion of PhDs in the working in an R&D role category than those whose highest degree is a Bachelors or Masters degree.

This is not an iron clad rule however. As in so many things, it depends very much on where you work, and whether a credential is considered the same thing as a qualification. You can find engineers with Bachelors degrees leading or taking part in R&D work. When it comes to this kind of thing, knowing what you are doing is the most critical thing.

Nicely said, Ben. A PhD degree opens doors to leadership roles in technical arenas. A person with a PhD has to prove, through incompetence, that those doors should have been shut. Those with lesser degrees can and do have such leadership roles, but they have to prove, through competence, that the doors to those roles should be open.

Back to the main topic of this thread. The profession of engineering is very broad. There are jobs in practically any engineering discipline that call for the use of mathematics on a daily basis. There similarly are some engineers who rarely, if ever, use math beyond that used by an accountant. How you engineer your career, Nspyred, is, or at least can be, up to you.

 

[Astronuc]

If a structural engineer had to do differential equations all day long, nothing would ever get built. Of course, one must take those math courses to be a good engineer. The key, however, when confronted with a problem, is to think it through and keep it simple. Most of my calculations deal with just P/A and Mc/I in some form or another, but the design is not near as simple as just using equations. There is so much more involved. If you like using diffyQ equations in your work, head for some field other than structural engineering. But if you like a rewarding challenge rather than doing math all day long, then engineering might be right for you.

Most structural engineers involved in design probably use standard codes and software, so they do not have to solve differential equations necessarily. On the other hand, the engineers who develop the FEA software have probably long ago solved those differential equations and discretized those differential equations. Beyond design is analysis.

Various engineers now use various forms of FEA such as thermo-mechanical codes, CFD and multiphysics codes to do various analytical simuations.

The amount of math depends on one's role, and whether one does straight application or development from theory.

 

[Nspyred]

Thnx for the posts, everyone. I guess that I had only "felt" one part of the proverbial elephant. For my original expectations of engineering, I guess I interpreted the assertion that engineers can do everything, to mean that every engineer will be doing everything.

 

[Astronuc]

Thnx for the posts, everyone. I guess that I had only "felt" one part of the proverbial elephant. For my original expectations of engineering, I guess I interpreted the assertion that engineers can do everything, to mean that every engineer will be doing everything.

Engineering is too broad for any engineer to do 'everything', but it's a good idea to be somewhat diversified in skills.

 

[jefswat]

For what its worth, I work at a university in Nebraska. I'm a student but I work in a lab where many different Professors do their research so I get to see a lot of different parts of the structural engineering world. The vast majority of what we do is relatively unknown and we are in a sense, trail blazing. Naturally you will find this in a university/research setting than "real" world. I know I want the bridge I drive on to be a proven design and not something that may or may not work.
Most of the professors I work with use some form of math in their daily life. Finite Element requires knowledge of P.D.E. Most people use software that has it built in but a few people around my university have a deeper understanding. One guy researches the probabilty that a perfect design will fail based off of manufacturing considerations and so on. Other professors are on the cutting edge of Fluid mechanics. The point being, in my enviroment, you could study structural engineering and use math all day long. Or you could be a regular engineer and use little. My dad has been a civil engineer designing power lines for over 30 years and he claims he has used calculus twice at his job.

 

[Irukanji]

Aerospace would surely have to use the most math out of all of them... it is all math & applied physics, nothing else from what I've heard.

The least amount of maths would have to go to bio-medical or materials engineering.

I am doing petroleum engineering; very "mathsy".

 

[Phyisab****]

I'd say it depends more specifically on your role, you can have a very mathematical job in any field. I don't think it's reasonable to say materials engineering involves less math, it depends what you're doing. My old man is a mechanical engineer who uses some math mainly finite element method and such, but he works with other engineers who use much more math and many who use almost no math.

 

[jefswat]

For most senior engineers your day peoblably goes something like this. 33% meetings, 33% project managment, 33% engineering. If you happen to find a place where you do more than 1/3 engineering I'd love to know about it. I'm not a big people person.

 

[cronxeh]

Try becoming an actuary. Its a lot more fun than engineering

 

[Poopsilon]

I apologize for necromancing this thread, but since my questions are in the same spirit as those of the original poster, I thought it would be best to keep potential answers all within the same thread.

I have the opportunity to enter a masters program in applied math with a focus on electrical engineering and signal processing. I really like math, and I think I would enjoy applying mathematical analysis to solve real world problems a là signal processing.

The gist I get from this thread so far is that everything depends on the type of engineer you are, where you work, what role you fill etc. Thus I thought I'd ask specifically about digital signal processing engineering.

How much math should a dsp engineer expect to use with a mathematical background as strong as mine will be? (year of grad reals, year of grad complex, year of grad numerical, semester of fourier, and I'll probably study harmonic analysis on my own)

What a typical job for someone with a degree like mine should expect to have.

And just maybe what the dsp industry in general is like, on a day to day basis.

Thanks.

P.S. Yes I know I shouldn't expect to sit in a room by myself all day banging out complex math formulas, I'm fine with that, I enjoy working with other people, and I think I would enjoy handling the other aspects of the job: programming, working with clients, writing reports, troubleshooting, etc.

 

[jorano]

Unless you are designing a new untested complicated gizmo or coming up with a new model for predictive purposes (that is, if you are doing research), engineers in general don't use much math.

So why can't I get a job in electronics engineering or signal processing design with only a college diploma, even though I have plenty of knowledge and understanding of the concepts used in those fields? Every single job posting I've seen requires a bachelors of science and engineering and the only differences between those and engineering technologist programs is the few extra math courses and a few extra electives courses.

 

[chill_factor]

My 2 pesos: my manager at an internship had a PhD in materials science and claims to have never used math that couldn't be done on a pocket calculator at work. However, there are definitely positions that require very heavy math like quant finance and scientific software.

 

[kramer733]

So why can't I get a job in electronics engineering or signal processing design with only a college diploma, even though I have plenty of knowledge and understanding of the concepts used in those fields? Every single job posting I've seen requires a bachelors of science and engineering and the only differences between those and engineering technologist programs is the few extra math courses and a few extra electives courses.

Then take the math courses.