3 ms·

Not anywhere near as rigorous in engineering than the pure disciplines. "Discrete math" is often the baby version of "Elementary Number Theory"/"Introduction t

by Bahamut 13y ago

Not anywhere near as rigorous in engineering than the pure disciplines. "Discrete math" is often the baby version of "Elementary Number Theory"/"Introduction to Higher Mathematics" type of class for example. The Physics 101 type class engineers take is often the baby version of the general physics classes given to those who intend on or are considering becoming physics majors. Engineers almost never see anything like real analysis, abstract algebra, or topology unless they go to graduate school, and the challenges in working your mind around the concepts, language, and proofs founded on hard logic. Physicists often don't see those topics either (a good portion do though due to necessity), but physics tests problem solving ability at a level engineering doesn't typically match. Not to say that engineers are necessarily inferior - there is a foundation that I'd say most don't have though in comparison.

balls187 13y ago
You failed to validate your claim that Physics and Math majors are better than Engineers at Critical thinking (to some degree where that makes them more valuable to companies). Further, the entry level physics & math classes at my school were the exact same classes that physic & math majors took. This clearly isn't universal, but you can't make a generalized statement that entry level physics & math classes are harder/better than they are for engineers. Physics 1,2,3 is Physics 1,2,3 (101,102,103 in uni numbers) I could insert some snark comment about if they were truly better at critical thinking, they would have pursued a degree that was more easily marketable, but that's besides the point. Engineers have skillsets that are in high demand, and that's why they're valuable degrees. Is critical thinking a part of that, probably. Is it as valuable from a Math/Physics major? We'll just let the market decide.
- Bahamut 13y ago
  My comments were based on what I have seen out of most typical universities. Engineers were often given their own watered-down type of classes (some schools give them different numbers, others don't) - this was also true where I went to graduate school (which is a top 5 engineering school overall, sometimes ranked #1), the pure version of the classes, even calculus, were more rigorous than the engineering versions of the same - some of the engineers were aware of this, and some of the sharper ones opted instead for the versions of the classes geared towards the respective majors. I have taught both these types of classes as a TA for math & physics, and tutored for the same & am thus better qualified to speak of the differences quite frankly. Companies that hire pure talent often have went after top math & physics types, especially Wall Street - that's no secret, and this has been true for decades. They are extremely marketable degrees, and attractive to any company when combined with domain knowledge in other fields - to give some examples of some of the things that some of my peers are doing who possess those degrees, they include public policy, programming, data science, statistics, academia, teaching, economics, patent law, and finance. The versatility is what is valuable, not necessarily the domain knowledge of math or physics itself, although that could be helpful too (i.e. the NSA, the largest employer of mathematicians, who often train them as programmers afterwards). It doesn't hurt that they are usually amongst the top degrees to have in various charts, and related careers to those skills are similarly rated very high (e.g. statistician being #2). Engineering (most notably computer science) has had a surge as of the past decade due to the talent crunch and surge in innovation in software, but at the top, many companies still are very interested in more traditional candidates who show initiative since you can teach someone many things if the person is well grounded in fundamentals, but you cannot necessarily do the reverse as easily.
  - slavik81 13y ago
    The fact that engineering programs are required to meet professional accreditation standards, on the other hand, means that the degree is more consistent. My father always complained about some of the other math majors in his program who worked hardest in finding the easy courses that satisfied their (very flexible) degree requirements. He encouraged me into engineering for that reason.

by Bahamut 13y ago

balls187 13y ago

You failed to validate your claim that Physics and Math majors are better than Engineers at Critical thinking (to some degree where that makes them more valuable to companies). Further, the entry level physics & math classes at my school were the exact same classes that physic & math majors took. This clearly isn't universal, but you can't make a generalized statement that entry level physics & math classes are harder/better than they are for engineers. Physics 1,2,3 is Physics 1,2,3 (101,102,103 in uni numbers) I could insert some snark comment about if they were truly better at critical thinking, they would have pursued a degree that was more easily marketable, but that's besides the point. Engineers have skillsets that are in high demand, and that's why they're valuable degrees. Is critical thinking a part of that, probably. Is it as valuable from a Math/Physics major? We'll just let the market decide.

Bahamut 13y ago
My comments were based on what I have seen out of most typical universities. Engineers were often given their own watered-down type of classes (some schools give them different numbers, others don't) - this was also true where I went to graduate school (which is a top 5 engineering school overall, sometimes ranked #1), the pure version of the classes, even calculus, were more rigorous than the engineering versions of the same - some of the engineers were aware of this, and some of the sharper ones opted instead for the versions of the classes geared towards the respective majors. I have taught both these types of classes as a TA for math & physics, and tutored for the same & am thus better qualified to speak of the differences quite frankly. Companies that hire pure talent often have went after top math & physics types, especially Wall Street - that's no secret, and this has been true for decades. They are extremely marketable degrees, and attractive to any company when combined with domain knowledge in other fields - to give some examples of some of the things that some of my peers are doing who possess those degrees, they include public policy, programming, data science, statistics, academia, teaching, economics, patent law, and finance. The versatility is what is valuable, not necessarily the domain knowledge of math or physics itself, although that could be helpful too (i.e. the NSA, the largest employer of mathematicians, who often train them as programmers afterwards). It doesn't hurt that they are usually amongst the top degrees to have in various charts, and related careers to those skills are similarly rated very high (e.g. statistician being #2). Engineering (most notably computer science) has had a surge as of the past decade due to the talent crunch and surge in innovation in software, but at the top, many companies still are very interested in more traditional candidates who show initiative since you can teach someone many things if the person is well grounded in fundamentals, but you cannot necessarily do the reverse as easily.
- slavik81 13y ago
  The fact that engineering programs are required to meet professional accreditation standards, on the other hand, means that the degree is more consistent. My father always complained about some of the other math majors in his program who worked hardest in finding the easy courses that satisfied their (very flexible) degree requirements. He encouraged me into engineering for that reason.