Engineering Which Engineer Actually Uses the Most Math?

[Nspyred]

Hey all.

I am really interested in using math/physics/economics (maybe chem/bio too) to solve practical problems. However, I am not sure which engineering field to enter. I find certain specialties in all of the "big four" interesting. I don't care who makes the most (and I am insulted that that, rather than the actual work is so often used as a selling point in forums and by school departments).

I want to know: who actually uses the most math on the job? I know that elec/software engineers study the most math in classes, but then I also read that software engs don't actually use the math they learn. They use the reasoning skills that all of that math develops. I want to actually use math. And when I say math, I don't mean cost optimizations either. I don't care about managerial positions/supervising others etc (That is why I am kinda shying away from enviro).

Is it the electrical engineer with his/her imaginary numbers, the mechanical or chemical engineer with thermo, or the structural engineer who actually uses the most math daily?

Thanks for any input.

 

[Phrak]

Most of the afore mentioned are ill educated at the tasks they have been assigned, their math skills have become nearly nonexistent, they have become experts at pushing papers that have distant relevance to the physical world, and are perplexed or hostile at attempts to discuss the engineering aspects of their titled role or educational diploma, having scant retention of a dimly recalled and irrelevant education.

 

[Cyrus]

Hey all.

I am really interested in using math/physics/economics (maybe chem/bio too) to solve practical problems. However, I am not sure which engineering field to enter. I find certain specialties in all of the "big four" interesting. I don't care who makes the most (and I am surprised that that, rather than the actual work is so often used as a selling point in forums and by school departments).

I want to know: who actually uses the most math on the job? I know that elec/software engineers study the most math in classes, but then I also read that software engs don't actually use the math they learn. They use the reasoning skills that all of that math develops. I want to actually use math. And when I say math, I don't mean cost optimizations either. I don't care about managerial positions/supervising others etc (That is why I am kinda shying away from enviro).

Is it the electrical engineer with his/her imaginary numbers, the mechanical or chemical engineer with thermo, or the structural engineer who actually uses the most math daily?

Thanks for any input.

You have quite a lot of misinformation.

 

[Nspyred]

You have quite a lot of misinformation.

Educate me, then. It is from forums like this that I get the info.

 

[Cyrus]

Educate me, then. It is from forums like this that I get the info.

Please refine your question, as it is very broad and general. You can find very technical jobs in any area of engineering. If you are worried about this - don't.

This statement:

Is it the electrical engineer with his/her imaginary numbers, the mechanical or chemical engineer with thermo, or the structural engineer who actually uses the most math daily?

I'm not even sure where to begin on how this is wrong.

 

[Nspyred]

^
Coooool.
I have read of engineers being disillusioned at how little technical work they actually do, however.

Thanks.

Oh, and thanks for the tip as well. I will make any future posts more specific.

 

[Cyrus]

^
Coooool.
I have read of engineers being disillusioned at how little technical work they actually do, however.

I have no idea where you heard this. Again, it depends on what kind of engineering role they are doing. Where did you read this?

 

[Nspyred]

I have no idea where you heard this. Again, it depends on what kind of engineering role they are doing. Where did you read this?

I guess these three links would be the most influential.


http://www.thelavinagency.com/articles_covers/Devlin/devlinarticle1.pdf
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/engineering-majors/744690-what-type-engineer-requires-least-math.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_engineering#Modern_electronic_engineering

For the electronic eng article in wikipedia (I know, I know, wikipedia is a free-for-all and is generally not "peer-reviewed"), check under the "Project Engineering" subheading.

Also, 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".

I know that these are anecdotes, and there have been more (I just can't track down everything I have read over the past several months). Still, they stand out. I remember engineering STUDENTS writing about how tough their math is. I remember ACTUAL PROFESSIONALS saying that they don't really use it.

To be fair, when tracking down the above links, I did find that others have asked the same question (I will do a "lit review" before I post next time). The basic responses were that:

1. Those in design and testing WILL use math.
2. project engineers/managers may not use much if any of the math.
3. The math learned is internalized, so you understand mathematical relationships. You won't be sitting at a desk like you were in school.

 

[comp_math]

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. Design of things are generally done through established codes and standards, and putting together well-tested and qualified components. If you are in management, you may be spending your time negotiating for projects and writing proposals.

 

[Major_Energy]

I would agree with comp math and Nspyred. I'm a project engineer and maybe 1% of my job is calculation, 9% is figuring out what to calculate, 70% is communicating with and managing people and 20% is quality assurance and looking for critical errors.

After a while you can just look at things in your field, make changes without using math and be more accurate than some dude doing a whole day of calculating. For example, I designed a concrete slab for an unusual situation once on a napkin and gave it to the drafter to draw it up. When she asked where the rebar was supposed to go, I just pointed on the screen. The intern freaked out - then I told him to go ahead and calculate all the shear, moments, cross section of steel, etc.

24 hours later to the interns amazement I was accurate within 4 decimal places. Kinda freaked me out also to be honest.

 

[jasonRF]

It really depends - I know that is a lame answer. It depends upon where you work, what your role is, and what you consider to be "math". Let me tell you about my workplace. We mainly hire electrical engineers, physicists, and mathematicians, with some computer-science mixed in, plus a few mechanical, materials, etc. We supposedly specialize in research and development. The reality is that 95% of the interesting work goes to folks with PhD's. I am lucky that I have a PhD (electrical)! Even then, most PhDs spend half (or more) of their time doing work that is not so hard-core technical. My current project is 99% drudgery (they would pay me even less if it was all fun!), but most projects allow me to do interesting technical work for about 50% of my time. I use real math (meaning math beyond elementary linear algebra, probability, statistics, or Fourier analysis) for <5% of my work. There are a few "stars" that do a lot more math, but they are definitely smarter then me, and also have a long history of spending their own time (read weekends and nights!) doing interesting, publishable work that is beyond the work required for their job. By the way, I find a lot of enjoyment in solving problems that don't require a lot of math. It is the act of technical problem solving that is fun for me. Some engineers find that they like management - I have dabbled in it and hate it.

I my opinion, being happy at work requires: reasonable people to work with, reasonable work environment, reasonable numbers of work hours, and having the attitude that I will find something interesting in whatever I am doing. As long as I am doing technical work for a few hours a day and like my co-workers (and am not working >50 hours a week) I am pretty happy. With my current project, the only way I stay sane is to teach myself math when not at work! Every job has its ups and downs.

jason

 

[CheckMate]

So basically , engineers use very little math when working ?

 

[Ben Espen]

So basically , engineers use very little math when working ?

Haha, no. You are the victim of a bit of a joke. Engineers and scientists like to complain about how much time they spending doing things that are not actually engineering/math/science. This is just the nature of the work. You need to spend time writing reports, making presentations, putting in face time with your colleagues, procuring equipment, etc, etc.

If you can't do the math, you can't be an engineer, it is very necessary for the job. But, depending on the specific thing you are doing, the amount of time you spend running the numbers will likely be small. This is normal. I have a test running right now at work that takes a week to get results, and I will only have a handful of data points. I have another test I will run later that takes 6-8 months, and the data analysis will probably take 15 minutes. There are some specialists who spend a greater proportion of their time doing calculations, if you really want to do this you need to specialize appropriately.

jasonRF is quite right that it depends on what you call real math. I would define real math quite differently, but I'm in a different field doing different things. I cannot remember the last time I used a differential equation for anything. This is because I do not need to. There is no point in using this technique when a simpler one will get the result I need. However, it is important that I understand them, and understanding the concept gives me insight into how things behave. [STRIKE][/STRIKE]

 

[Saladsamurai]

Most of the afore mentioned are ill educated at the tasks they have been assigned, their math skills have become nearly nonexistent, they have become experts at pushing papers that have distant relevance to the physical world, and are perplexed or hostile at attempts to discuss the engineering aspects of their titled role or educational diploma, having scant retention of a dimly recalled and irrelevant education.

I wish I had the slightest idea as to what you are actually saying here. Then I might rebut. Are you implying that an engineer's education is irrelevant? Or that engineers have "become experts at pushing papers that have distant relevance to the physical world" ?

Please enlighten me.

 

[Astronuc]

I have no idea where you heard this. Again, it depends on what kind of engineering role they are doing.

Exactly. Some engineers who go into sales or management may use little math. Other engineers who are responsible for product design, manufacturing or performance use a lot of math.

I do a lot of calculations, most using automated codes. Some programming might be involved if we introduce a new model.

Model development involves reading journal articles or reports from experiments then building numerical models (of material properties or behavior (e.g., consitutive models)) from equations that describe the physics of whatever phenomenon being tested/observed, then integrating the model into a multiphysics code to simulate a system. Inputs are taken from measurements and best estimates (environmental (boundary) conditions, thermomechanical and thermophysical properties, . . . .). The ouputs are state variables or observables of the system. This approach applies to engineers in EE, Mech E, Aerospace, Civ E, Nuclear E, i.e. just about any engineering discipline.

Simulations can be done in order to determine stresses/strains, thermal performance (efficiency and/or degradation), mechanical response to fluid-structure interaction.

Some projects require more calculation than others. Some projects simply involve discussing better approaches to engineering.

 

[Nspyred]

I wish I had the slightest idea as to what you are actually saying here. Then I might rebut. Are you implying that an engineer's education is irrelevant? Or that engineers have "become experts at pushing papers that have distant relevance to the physical world" ?

Please enlighten me.

I think he means that those engineers who end up doing little math are the less talented ones.

 

[Nspyred]

Thanks for the responses, everyone. I like writing, and preparing presentations. I just don't want to be stuck in a role in which I just stamp papers, attend meetings and manage technicians and scientists who get to do the technical stuff. I sure as heck don't want to be in sales.

Keep 'em coming!

 

[Astronuc]

I much prefer the technical work, but I also have to write proposals, write technical reports, run training programs, write papers, and do adminstrative work.

 

[Nspyred]

I think he means that those engineers who end up doing little math are the less talented ones.

Of course, that is not necessarily MY opinion (I don't know enough to formulate one yet). I imagine that people move into mgmt and away from technical roles for a variety of reasons: increase in salary, a different challenge, economic restructuring of the firm, etc.

 

[Nspyred]

I much prefer the technical work, but I also have to write proposals, write technical reports, run training programs, write papers, and do adminstrative work.

Do you have a PhD? I think I read somewhere before, echoed a few posts back, that the PhDs and Master's degree holders get the lion's share of the technical/conceptualization roles.

Thnx for the input.

 

[Astronuc]

MS+. I work for a privately owned company, and I've known some of the management since grad school.

 

[skeptic2]

In many cases engineers work the same problems over and over again with different numbers. In other words, many of the problems lend themselves to being solved by spreadsheet or computer program. It is unusual when the engineer has to tackle a new problem every time and derive a mathematical solution anew each time.

 

[froze2deth]

Hey all.

I am really interested in using math/physics/economics (maybe chem/bio too) to solve practical problems. However, I am not sure which engineering field to enter. I find certain specialties in all of the "big four" interesting. I don't care who makes the most (and I am insulted that that, rather than the actual work is so often used as a selling point in forums and by school departments).

I want to know: who actually uses the most math on the job? I know that elec/software engineers study the most math in classes, but then I also read that software engs don't actually use the math they learn. They use the reasoning skills that all of that math develops. I want to actually use math. And when I say math, I don't mean cost optimizations either. I don't care about managerial positions/supervising others etc (That is why I am kinda shying away from enviro).

Is it the electrical engineer with his/her imaginary numbers, the mechanical or chemical engineer with thermo, or the structural engineer who actually uses the most math daily?

Thanks for any input.

You could work in special effects (i.e. shader effects) it depends on what you mean by "math" doing things like artists tools and trying to create software that makes everyone's life easier is pretty "mass intensive", i.e. figuring out how to solve complex problems. Remember it's not merely crunching numbers, it's HOW you develop algorithms to solve real world problems that matters. Sometimes you won't be using math everyday but you still need to solve problems, i.e. figure out what you need to do then mathematize it. If you are great at math, imho, software engineering needs you. Most software absolutely sucks because their are not enough math guys in the field.

Nerds tend to not see the forest from the tree's, "yes math is cool", but your job as a technical/problem solver is to make life easy for other people, or enhance their creative abilities (i.e. artists, etc).

Check out Intel fluid simulation PDF's (for games)

http://isdlibrary.intel-dispatch.com/vc/2743/Fluid%20Simulation%20for%20Video%20Games%20Pt1.pdf

http://isdlibrary.intel-dispatch.com/vc/2739/Fluid%20Simulation%20for%20Video%20Games%20Pt2_120909.pdf

 

[Nspyred]

You could work in special effects (i.e. shader effects) it depends on what you mean by "math" doing things like artists tools and trying to create software that makes everyone's life easier is pretty "mass intensive", i.e. figuring out how to solve complex problems. Remember it's not merely crunching numbers, it's HOW you develop algorithms to solve real world problems that matters. Sometimes you won't be using math everyday but you still need to solve problems, i.e. figure out what you need to do then mathematize it. If you are great at math, imho, software engineering needs you. Most software absolutely sucks because their are not enough math guys in the field.

Nerds tend to not see the forest from the tree's, "yes math is cool", but your job as a technical/problem solver is to make life easy for other people, or enhance their creative abilities (i.e. artists, etc).

Check out Intel fluid simulation PDF's (for games)

http://isdlibrary.intel-dispatch.com/vc/2743/Fluid%20Simulation%20for%20Video%20Games%20Pt1.pdf

http://isdlibrary.intel-dispatch.com/vc/2739/Fluid%20Simulation%20for%20Video%20Games%20Pt2_120909.pdf

Thnx, but I never really considered sw eng an option. I want to use math to deal with physics concepts. I don't know much about sw eng, so I may be wrong. It just doesn't seem like my cup of tea.

 

[Cyrus]

Thnx, but I never really considered sw eng an option. I want to use math to deal with physics concepts. I don't know much about sw eng, so I may be wrong. It just doesn't seem like my cup of tea.

Perhaps you need some insights into 'actual' engineering vs. 'book' engineering. In reality, there are very few things we can find closed form solutions for. In other words, all that math becomes intractable. The derivations in all your books make many simplifying assumptions. Enter the role of the experimentalist. They fit trends and find relationships to the data. Sometimes this can be correlated from equations derived from first principles, most time not.

If your goal is to 'do the most math' in engineering, then you have missed the point of engineering entirely. Go major in math. The point of math in engineering is to understand the language of what is going on, and gain insights into any data you may have. At the end of the day, we care about what is physically happening. For my area, Aerospace controls, it is highly mathematical. But then again, if you want to do something like CFD, it can very quickly become extremely complex. (Here I don't mean USE CFD, but WRITE CFD code). Using the code is undergrad level.

It is exactly the lack of closed form solutions that we have FEA/CFD software to examine fluid flow, heat transfer, and structural problems. With out these advanced software packages, one would have to resort to a series of engineering 'rules of thumb' that are verified later with testing. Still, one has to verify via testing the output of any software code, but the hope is that it is much more accurate than using rules of thumb. There is still tradeoffs between rule of thumb or software depending on what kind of answer you care about: ballpark, or fine resolution.

 

[Ben Espen]

Amen brother.

 

[jegues]

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?

 

[-DB]

Thnx, but I never really considered sw eng an option. I want to use math to deal with physics concepts. I don't know much about sw eng, so I may be wrong. It just doesn't seem like my cup of tea.

I just recently graduated college and I'm probably going to graduate school next Fall, so I don't have too much "real world" experience, but from what I noticed is that it seems that the field of engineering is more business than mathematics and physics - something that universities seem to fall short on mentioning during the course of an engineering degree. Like one of the previous posters kind of said, engineering is more about using well known and time tested procedures than hard calculations, and it becomes more of a copy-and-paste and modify sort of routine rather than one of design through rigorous calculation. When you really think about it though, the idea of engineering is to make things FIT a specific need as EFFICIENTLY and ECONOMICALLY as possible, and that involves more business than number crunching. I'd say, if you "want to use math to deal with physics concepts," then my advice: enjoy your undergraduate classes!

Oh yeah, if all of this makes you doubt a career in engineering, remember, when you have a job you're going to have to do things you don't necessarily LIKE - that's why it's a JOB and not a HOBBY.

 

[Freddy_Turnip]

RF / Microwave engineers use a fair bit of maths. Smith charts, S-parameters, dB's, link budgets, antenna plots etc... Digital Signal Processing...

 

[Nspyred]

^^^^Oh.

 

[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.