Why Are Engineers Viewed as Less Intelligent Than Physics & Math Majors?

[phoenix:\\]

Who cares what they think, people need engineers so they have value. Those who think this and that are superior, this and that are more intellectual, etc..., are people on the totem polls of regression. The gist of it is, those who validate themselves by their field and look down on others because of it, are children. I've grown past such a level of silliness.

Anything that's meant to help humans for the better, is valuable.

 

[ahsanxr]

I think the largest reason is why people majoring in the more "pure" fields such as physics and math look down on engineers is because most engineers don't appreciate and are not knowledgeable of the theory behind the science and math that they use. They simply plug numbers in the physics formulas, use mathematica for doing integrals and stuff like that and the math and physics people probably feel like their fields are being abused and under-appreciated. Obviously this is not true for all engineers but it does hold true for a majority of them (speaking from experience). However, this does not warrant a feeling of superiority. The mathematicians and physicists are obviously more superior to the engineers when it comes to math and physics, but the engineer has a different skill-set which the "purer" people don't (but they probably feel they could acquire it quite easily having been through quantum mechanics and real analysis and what not, another reason why they feel superior).

 

[wukunlin]

would this be the best or worst time to crack an engineer joke?

 

[clope023]

I think the largest reason is why people majoring in the more "pure" fields such as physics and math look down on engineers is because most engineers don't appreciate and are not knowledgeable of the theory behind the science and math that they use. They simply plug numbers in the physics formulas, use mathematica for doing integrals and stuff like that and the math and physics people probably feel like their fields are being abused and under-appreciated. Obviously this is not true for all engineers but it does hold true for a majority of them (speaking from experience). However, this does not warrant a feeling of superiority. The mathematicians and physicists are obviously more superior to the engineers when it comes to math and physics, but the engineer has a different skill-set which the "purer" people don't (but they probably feel they could acquire it quite easily having been through quantum mechanics and real analysis and what not, another reason why they feel superior).

Yeah because engineers never do real analysis and quantum mechanics and physicists never use mathematica for doing their integrals.

 

[phyzguy]

Why the disdain for using Mathematica to do an integral? You use a calculator to calculate trig functions, square roots, etc, and nobody thinks you should calculate them by hand. Why is using Mathematica to do an integral any different? Once you understand how to do integration, it's just 'grunt work' to calculate an integral. It's almost always faster and more accurate to let the machine do it.

 

[Lavabug]

There's plenty of disdain and scoffing both ways between pure sciences and engineering. However in most cases, I find its mostly people with insecurities that scoff at engineers and viceversa.

I still think pure sciences get an undeserved amount of discouragement though. Its not like people starve with pure science degrees, its not an entirely unmarketable degree like art history.

 

[jetwaterluffy]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=536426&page=2
"I think you guys misunderstood; I am agreeing with you. No one would hire a physicist to derive the chassis of a car (or whatever silly analogy one of you just made). I agree with this, and I'm saying this is a bad thing if you're a physicist trying to be an engineer. It's great that physicists are great problem solvers and if you have a Ph.D it's pretty obvious that an employer can throw some books at you and tell you to solve some problem, and you'll be able to do it. Most of the time, jobs don't consist of this. There is just too much that needs to be done in a very specific way (especially in engineering) because of standards in regards to efficiency or safety or whatever.

Anyway, learning methods makes you more drone-like. I'm not backing down on this terminology, because that is the very simple truth. Getting into semantics about word usage is best left to left-wing liberal nuts and I don't really care about it. My point was that engineering work is less fundamental than theoretical physics, and to be able to have the skills of an engineer you can't possibly do both in the same amount of time... so as an engineer, you end up learning a lot of methods that have been conceived already. There's nothing wrong with this, because most of the time this kind of happens in theoretical physics research as well. Still, recognizing the degree with which this happens in engineering will be helpful to any physicist who wonders why engineering firms don't want to hire him over a newly-minted B.S. engineer."

He doesn't seem to be anti- engineer to me, he just uses very controversial language.

 

[adaptation]

I'm surprised to see so many people claiming that there is not really a bias against engineers. I think it's cool that you guys are in an environment that is more enlightened. Sadly, most of us aren't.

That's not to say that these forums are anti-engineer. The more senior, more experienced members certainly don't seem to be. Every time I recall seeing some engineer bashing, it was from some arrogant undergrad, or it was just a joke.

The simple fact is that until most people reach a certain point (intellectual, spriritual, experiential, whatever), they think that the path that they've chosen is superior to everyone else's. I mean, why else would they choose it? Obviously, they choose the best path. I think it's just human nature. My tribe is better than your tribe, and all that.

I also think that most people grow out of that type of elitist attitude.

 

[Functor97]

I have to agree, engineers are looked down upon by the purer sciences, and with good reason. If scientists respected the process of engineers, then our science would be unrigorous and messy.

Science and Pure mathematics is a quest for knowledge, Engineers on the other hand want to make cool things that are of "use" to society. The other option and this is a very prominent one, is that engineers are in it for the money. I had many friends in high school who became engineers, and everytime i told them i was intending to study purer sciences they would lord their future income over that of a postdoc. I once even had a girl ask/tell me "Who is going to want to pay you?"
I am a purist through and through and to me knowledge is eternal. There is no denying that i live off the hard work of engineers, and i respect them greatly for this. However I know that the skills they require are much easier to gain than those of a research mathematician. Engineers for the most part have no interest in "why" something works, they just accept it and move along. There will be some engineers who look deeper into the reason for things, but their jobs mostly impede this process. To me research engineers are physicists, but the great majority are attending college so as to get a career.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have to agree, engineers are looked down upon by the purer sciences, and with good reason. If scientists respected the process of engineers, then our science would be unrigorous and messy.

Seriously? Engineers are unrigorous and messy?

 

[turbo]

Seriously? Engineers are unrigorous and messy?

Yes. Engineers are sloppy and they pick their noses. It's all true! Except one pretty engineer from McGill that I worked with. She never picked her nose in my presence, though she could have sneaked in a pick when my back was turned.

She'd bust a gut if she could read this.

 

[adaptation]

...Science and Pure mathematics is a quest for knowledge, Engineers on the other hand want to make cool things that are of "use" to society. The other option and this is a very prominent one, is that engineers are in it for the money...

Why do people say it this way? Is having money really so bad? Speaking as someone who has seen true poverty (I'm talking about sell your children for food poverty. Fighting over food waste poverty. *Real* poverty.), I don't think taking a job that allows one to take care of him/herself and her/his family is anything to be looked down upon.

Pure science may be noble to some, but ensuring that my family has a safe place to live and ample food to eat is noble to me.

It's hard to do science when you you've got no food and your baby's crying for lack of same.

 

[Functor97]

Seriously? Engineers are unrigorous and messy?

Yes, compared to mathematicians. That being said i do not think they are required to be rigorous, "if it works it works!" is a good motto for an engineer but not for a mathematician.

Of course, compared to other careers engineers are the height of sophistication.

 

[Functor97]

Why do people say it this way? Is having money really so bad? Speaking as someone who has seen true poverty (I'm talking about sell your children for food poverty. Fighting over food waste poverty. *Real* poverty.), I don't think taking a job that allows one to take care of him/herself and her/his family is anything to be looked down upon.

Pure science may be noble to some, but ensuring that my family has a safe place to live and ample food to eat is noble to me.

It's hard to do science when you you've got no food and your baby's crying for lack of same.

Firstly, i like how you took my sentence completely out of context. I did not say all engineers were in it for the money, but a significant number that i have met have been. Maybe my sample size is too small...

Secondly, what makes you think that a physicist/mathematician working at a university is going to be living in absolute poverty, unable to raise a family? By poverty i think you mean "can't afford two houses, and a private boat", because otherwise your claims are completely unsubstantiated. The wage most universty professors earn would be beyond the dreams of these people in absolute poverty... Whats more no one said you need to have a wife, let alone kids.

You only live once, what's the point in spending that lifetime earning a wage at a mind numbing job, when you would rather be out exploring our wonderful universe and getting paid?

 

[adaptation]

Firstly, i like how you took my sentence completely out of context. I did not say all engineers were in it for the money, but a significant number that i have met have been. Maybe my sample size is too small...

Tried to add more context where I quoted you. I didn't mean to imply you were talking about all engineers. I meant to highlight the idea that "being in it for the money" is somehow wrong.

Secondly, what makes you think that a physicist/mathematician working at a university is going to be living in absolute poverty, unable to raise a family? By poverty i think you mean "can't afford two houses, and a private boat", because otherwise your claims are completely unsubstantiated. The wage most universty professors earn would be beyond the dreams of these people in absolute poverty... Whats more no one said you need to have a wife, let alone kids.

Again, this is not what I meant to imply. My point is that working for money is not bad. I have frequently encountered the "they're in it for the money" sentiment. I just don't get it.

You only live once, what's the point in spending that lifetime earning a wage at a mind numbing job, when you would rather be out exploring our wonderful universe and getting paid?

I think the point is that you would rather be out exploring the universe. Your goals are not necissarily the same as others'.

 

[jetwaterluffy]

I have to agree, engineers are looked down upon by the purer sciences, and with good reason. If scientists respected the process of engineers, then our science would be unrigorous and messy.

If Physicists used the methods of any other subject, their science would be unrigorous and messy. This is because physics techniques are designed for physicists, while mathematical/ engineering/ biological/ geography techniques are designed for mathematicians/ engineers/ biologists/ geographers. It's a bit of a meaningless statement, and doesn't prove any of them are "better".

 

[DaveC426913]

If Physicists used the methods of any other subject, their science would be unrigorous and messy. This is because physics techniques are designed for physicists, while mathematical/ engineering/ biological/ geography techniques are designed for mathematicians/ engineers/ biologists/ geographers. It's a bit of a meaningless statement, and doesn't prove any of them are "better".

word

 

[AlephZero]

That being said i do not think they are required to be rigorous, "if it works it works!" is a good motto for an engineer but not for a mathematician.

Oh, sure. When engineers are designing skyscrapers, or cars, or planes, they just make up any any old **** they like if they think it might work.[/irony].

 

[D H]

Seriously? Engineers are unrigorous and messy?

Yes. Engineers are sloppy and they pick their noses. It's all true!

Yep. Every single bit of the stereotype is true. Engineers have zero fashion sense, have politics closer to those of plumbers than the intellectually advantaged, are still virgins at 40, etc.

The recent rumor at PF that musicians and engineers have something in common is patently untrue. Musicians are cool. Engineers: Not.Now I need some help removing my tongue from my cheek. It is rather firmly planted there with this post.

 

[ode_to_joy]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=540702
"(No offense to engineers but, statiscally or generally, pure math requires rigorus understanding of concept hence they need to be smarter)"

Why don't you conduct an experiment? Pick arbitrary mathematicians and assign an engineering project and pick arbitrary engineers to make them understand Riemann's Hypothesis? Now, statiscally speaking, engineers usually end up with a Bachelor's Degree where phD is a minimum requirement for a mathematician.

I am not saying that mathematicians are inherently smarter. If engineers go through extensive graduate school course work, they will reach or even higher level of intelligence. But if you arbitrarly pick an engineer and a mathematician, chances are, the mathematican is smarter than the engineer.

Also, it is not right to condscend a certain group of people because they are intellectually inferior. How is it different from racism, sexism, or classism? I still do believe that statiscally mathematicians are smarter, but I never express it.

 

[micromass]

Why don't you conduct an experiment? Pick arbitrary mathematicians and assign an engineering project and pick arbitrary engineers to make them understand Riemann's Hypothesis? Now, statiscally speaking, engineers usually end up with a Bachelor's Degree where phD is a minimum requirement for a mathematician.

I am not saying that mathematicians are inherently smarter. If engineers go through extensive graduate school course work, they will reach or even higher level of intelligence. But if you arbitrarly pick an engineer and a mathematician, chances are, the mathematican is smarter than the engineer.

Also, it is not right to condscend a certain group of people because they are intellectually inferior. How is it different from racism, sexism, or classism? I still do believe that statiscally mathematicians are smarter, but I never express it.

Oh please, this is the most biased opinion I read today. Firstly, I would be interested in that experiment. I don't think many engineers would have difficulty with abstract mathematics, and certainly not with the Riemann hypothesis.

Engineers and mathematicians are people who are very alike. Engineers just like applied problems and mathematicians don't. You're not seriously claiming that liking applied problems makes you dumber?

Engineers have a really difficult study. They must understand the theory and the applications. Mathematicians just have a theory they study. So the engineers have the harder studies (in my opinion).

So instead of starting to insult all engineers and call them dumb, why not provide proof for your statements?? Because proof is what a scientist must base himself on.

 

[Null_]

I'm an engineer(ing) student and agree with micromass ^. I find pure math easier in the sense that it is what it is: simple and beautiful. In real-world applications, there are a lot of things that you have to consider outside the realm of perfect mathematics which make it more challenging for me.

 

[RandomGuy88]

Why don't you conduct an experiment? Pick arbitrary mathematicians and assign an engineering project and pick arbitrary engineers to make them understand Riemann's Hypothesis?

HAHA! Seriously? My money would be on the engineers to understand Riemann's Hypothesis long before the mathematician could successfully complete the engineering project. Most mathematicians I know barely know which end of the hammer to use let alone how to design and conduct experiments.

 

[ode_to_joy]

Oh please, this is the most biased opinion I read today. Firstly, I would be interested in that experiment. I don't think many engineers would have difficulty with abstract mathematics, and certainly not with the Riemann hypothesis.

Engineers and mathematicians are people who are very alike. Engineers just like applied problems and mathematicians don't. You're not seriously claiming that liking applied problems makes you dumber?

Engineers have a really difficult study. They must understand the theory and the applications. Mathematicians just have a theory they study. So the engineers have the harder studies (in my opinion).

So instead of starting to insult all engineers and call them dumb, why not provide proof for your statements?? Because proof is what a scientist must base himself on.

Yeah you are right. Sorry about that

 

[Functor97]

Oh please, this is the most biased opinion I read today. Firstly, I would be interested in that experiment. I don't think many engineers would have difficulty with abstract mathematics, and certainly not with the Riemann hypothesis.

Engineers and mathematicians are people who are very alike. Engineers just like applied problems and mathematicians don't. You're not seriously claiming that liking applied problems makes you dumber?

Engineers have a really difficult study. They must understand the theory and the applications. Mathematicians just have a theory they study. So the engineers have the harder studies (in my opinion).

So instead of starting to insult all engineers and call them dumb, why not provide proof for your statements?? Because proof is what a scientist must base himself on.

Micromass i tend to disagree. An engineer will learn enough theory to get by, they will not have to take a class in real analysis let alone complex analysis (unless they take it for an elective). So i think it is a mistake to state that they learn the theory and the applications, they learn some theory and some applications.

 

[micromass]

Micromass i tend to disagree. An engineer will learn enough theory to get by, they will not have to take a class in real analysis let alone complex analysis (unless they take it for an elective). So i think it is a mistake to state that they learn the theory and the applications, they learn some theory and some applications.

Yes, you are right. They learn some of the theory and some of the applications. But in my opinion, combining theory and applications is much harder than learning only theory.

My response was to somebody claiming engineers to be dumber.I think most engineers are able to handle theoretical stuff like real analysis, so they aren't dumb at all.

 

[ahsanxr]

Yes, you are right. They learn some of the theory and some of the applications. But in my opinion, combining theory and applications is much harder than learning only theory.

My response was to somebody claiming engineers to be dumber.I think most engineers are able to handle theoretical stuff like real analysis, so they aren't dumb at all.

It balances out I guess. Engineers need to know some theory (although most know a very minimal amount in my experience) and a fair amount of applications but don't need to have a flawless understanding of either to get by. While mathematicians and physicists need to know the theory alone VERY well (and maybe some applications too depending on their particular sub-fields) if they are to do anything with their fields. So at the end, I guess it's quite similar in terms of workload.

 

[Functor97]

Yes, you are right. They learn some of the theory and some of the applications. But in my opinion, combining theory and applications is much harder than learning only theory.

My response was to somebody claiming engineers to be dumber.I think most engineers are able to handle theoretical stuff like real analysis, so they aren't dumb at all.

hmmm that would make physicists the most reputable, seeing as they must deal with a lot of theory but also must apply their work to the real word.

Learning mathematics is far different from creating it (as i am sure you are aware), so i imagine almost any scientist or academic is capable of taking real analysis and getting something from it, but actually formulating or discovering new mathematics is another ball park away. I do not want to claim applications are not important, they are, but to me application means understanding our own world, applying to "real" problems. I see engineers as designing, or building rather than seeking to model as a physicist, economist or computer scientist would.

 

[ahsanxr]

hmmm that would make physicists the most reputable, seeing as they must deal with a lot of theory but also must apply their work to the real word.

Learning mathematics is far different from creating it (as i am sure you are aware), so i imagine almost any scientist or academic is capable of taking real analysis and getting something from it, but actually formulating or discovering new mathematics is another ball park away. I do not want to claim applications are not important, they are, but to me application means understanding our own world, applying to "real" problems. I see engineers as designing, or building rather than seeking to model as a physicist, economist or computer scientist would.

One thing complements the others. Mathematicians, without physical or outside motivation come up with new mathematics and discover and expand upon relationships within. Physicists, without thinking about what a physical theory could be used for, try to come up with these physical theories and model the universe using the math that the mathematicians developed. Then the engineer builds (no pun) on both of these and uses them to design and build things directly applicable to our lives and society. So in terms of "purity" the engineers are at the end, but that doesn't make them inferior. In fact what would our society be like if we only had mathematics and the theory but no one to use them to improve it?

However, the importance of engineers established, the average physicist or mathematician is usually smarter than the average engineer (even most engineers would admit that). That's not to say engineers are dumb. It's just that physics and mathematics has a lot of bright people (how many child prodigies chose engineering?) As an example, just look at the amount of schooling each has to go through in order to get their respective titles.

 

[micromass]

However, the importance of engineers established, the average physicist or mathematician is usually smarter than the average engineer (even most engineers would admit that).

I don't these kind of sentences without any form of proof. Please post proof that they are smarter. If you can't, then it's only your own opinion and not fact.