| jbtravers,collegemom16, justinmeche: yes, my description of engineering may have been geared a little too much to the design function, although I tried to make things less categorical by pointing out that things can depend a lot on your specialty or function. But, collegemom, I have to stand by my statement that engineering is fundamentally creative. Just as engineering is not the same as being a mathematician, it (should) also be different from being a mechanic- we have mechanics, millwrights, etc., to be mechanics. Engineers need to provide brainpower and leadership to solve problems, and the value-added comes when the engineer uses creativity to find novel solutions: if the solution is just a matter of turning a crank, there is really no need for engineering involvement in the first place (other than maybe legal, I guess). The quality of the solution also depends to a large degree on both technical and practical understanding. And justinmeche, I think maybe you don't give yourself enough credit. Solving problems as an engineer is as you know much broader than just figuring out how to design things up front. I think that understanding and solving technical issues related to operation and maintenance of equipment can demand as much creativity as designing the stuff in the first place. And, I have personally encountered a number of plant engineers who prove that routinely. You may have heard some of your colleagues at some point say that they understand the equipment better than the people who designed it. I hat to admit this, but there is sometimes truth in that.
Ultimately my answer to jbtravers attempted to convey that real-life engineering is not really predefined problems with predefined solution methods and all the required information, that you can rely on just math skills to solve. That sometimes seems to be the case in school. |