UChicago Physics for a Possible Engineer Masters/Career?

Colleges & Universities University of Chicago
21

Often times people fail to differentiate between the STEM fields. The engineering curriculum is a very applied, pre-professional course of study, while physics is much more theoretical. I graduated from RPI in the 80’s, and there was a huge difference between the students in science and the students in engineering, and they rarely crossed over. I was invited to take a third semester honors physics course that was for physics majors, and despite using the same textbook, the focus was completely different. I believe I had only 8 courses outside of math, science, and engineering while I was at RPI. Pretty much the opposite of a LAC curriculum.

Please take a look at the course requirements at a school that offers both physics and the engineering field(s) that you are interested and see what interests you the most. Also research the worth/advisability of getting a masters in engineering (I think I remember some threads here on CC). It will probably take at least one extra year of coursework if you are coming in without an engineering degree.

If you really want an engineering degree combined with a liberal arts curriculum, take a look at the LACs that offer a three-two (or some other combination) program with an engineering school. There is a reason they take more than 4 years. Also look at the number that actually complete them - I understand it is quite low.

Good luck!

22

Engineering is not liberal arts. Engineering teaches the general and specialized body of knowledge needed to effectively practice engineering. Attempts to make it a “liberal art” - if that’s what some schools are trying to do - will fail and those students will be shortchanged. Doing away with ABET accreditation, which properly specifies what subjects are to be taught in an undergraduate program, is a detriment and removes the assurance that graduates of unaccredited programs will possess the required skills and background needed to effectively do engineering work. That said, all accredited engineering schools require a substantial liberal arts component. The foundation math and science courses in engineering are part of liberal arts (many traditional liberal arts majors take little or no high level math and science, in my experience by the way), and all schools require a certain amount of general education and humanities courses. Nothing stops an engineering student from taking additional courses in other areas in which he or she may be interested. Engineering is not a narrowly specialized course of study. When I took my EE degree, we didn’t just study one narrowly focused area within EE, we had to take many depth and breadth courses outside of some specific EE subject or focused application. We also took statics, dynamics, strength of materials, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, solid state physics, and many others that created a well rounded engineer capable of interdisciplinary problem solving. Liberal arts majors however, seem to regard any course that is specific to a profession to be “narrowly focused”. Engineering of course is an undergraduate professional field, hence, by necessity the professional training occupies a substantial portion of the four years of school. This is no different than professional training in medicine, law, architecture, accounting, or anything else requiring a specific curriculum.

When one advises taking a liberal arts program as an undergrad and “specializing later”, this is hard to do in engineering unless one gets a four year undergraduate engineering degree in addition to a liberal arts degree (there is nothing wrong with that, and we had several classmates who did just that). How would one “specialize later”? Get a master’s in engineering after the undergraduate liberal arts? A master’s degree does not substitute for a bachelor’s degree in engineering, since it really is specialized in a focused area (most commonly), and does not include the foundation interdisciplinary and disciplinary specific engineering courses, and the fundamental design work required of accredited undergraduate programs. A person with a master’s but no undergrad engineering is going to be severely lacking in the required base of knowledge.

Perhaps if engineering historically evolved as a graduate professional course of study (e.g., one goes to college for four years then to engineering school, similarly to medical or law students for example) this would be different, but that isn’t how engineering training evolved. In my opinion as well it isn’t even necessary for prospective physicians and lawyers to go to college. Some of the early medical and law schools in the US did not require applicants to have graduated from college when they were founded. Medical or law schools could be undergraduate professional fields as well. One could, conceivably, go to a community college for 2 years to get the prerequisites and then go on to the medical or law school (some nations have a system similar to this, by the way).

23

Thank you all for the helpful responses. I understand the debacle regarding engineering program and ABET accreditation, so that leads me to another question. Would the molecular engineering program be suitable for a transition to aero/mech or does the status of the school & the course catalog hinder that?

24

"Attempts to make it a “liberal art” - if that’s what some schools are trying to do - will fail and those students will be shortchanged. "

  • Isn't Harvey Mudd - self-described as a liberal arts college of engineering - also an example? How do you explain its excellent engineering reputation?

"Liberal arts majors however, seem to regard any course that is specific to a profession to be “narrowly focused”. "

  • That's just an incorrect characterization. CS, for instance, is a major in pretty much every liberal arts college around. Haven't even heard the philosophy or lit majors complaining about that.

“Engineering of course is an undergraduate professional field, hence, by necessity the professional training occupies a substantial portion of the four years of school. This is no different than professional training in medicine, law, architecture, accounting, or anything else requiring a specific curriculum.”

  • All of those other fields you have listed either offer the option for - or actually REQUIRE - professional study at the graduate level. Practically all strongly encourage a liberal arts degree first, and NONE requires that you obtain an undergraduate professional degree. Harvard, Columbia, MIT, Yale, Princeton and Penn don't even offer the B.Arch, although their graduate architecture programs are tops in the world and admit students with all sorts of educational preparation, including the liberal arts. How is Engineering any different?

“When one advises taking a liberal arts program as an undergrad and “specializing later”, this is hard to do in engineering unless one gets a four year undergraduate engineering degree in addition to a liberal arts degree (there is nothing wrong with that, and we had several classmates who did just that). How would one “specialize later”? Get a master’s in engineering after the undergraduate liberal arts? A master’s degree does not substitute for a bachelor’s degree in engineering, since it really is specialized in a focused area (most commonly), and does not include the foundation interdisciplinary and disciplinary specific engineering courses, and the fundamental design work required of accredited undergraduate programs. A person with a master’s but no undergrad engineering is going to be severely lacking in the required base of knowledge.”

  • As mentioned upthread, our state flagship - which is highly ranked across many engineering disciplines at the graduate level - does NOT require a 4-year undergraduate engineering degree in order admit to graduate study. Clearly, any deficit in specific engineering courses will need to be addressed; however, the time-to-completion won't preclude that. Also, some might just be able to pick up "engineering" quickly and won't need a whole lot of initial preparation.

OP can easily contact a few grad degree programs and chat with the director of graduate studies in order to scope out the feasibility of moving on to engineering from a liberal arts STEM background. It’s a simple phone call or series of e-mails to gather the information.

“Perhaps if engineering historically evolved as a graduate professional course of study (e.g., one goes to college for four years then to engineering school, similarly to medical or law students for example) this would be different, but that isn’t how engineering training evolved.”

  • Sure - but that doesn't mean the path isn't feasible (I happen to know a few who have done it). Graduate engineering isn't a common pursuit for most professional engineers. Students pursuing this might have highly specialized and/or academic interests, and may not resemble those undergraduates who are primarily seeking engineering "training." On the other hand, there is no doubt that undergraduate engineering will prepare you extremely well for additional graduate work in the discipline.

“In my opinion as well it isn’t even necessary for prospective physicians and lawyers to go to college. Some of the early medical and law schools in the US did not require applicants to have graduated from college when they were founded. Medical or law schools could be undergraduate professional fields as well. One could, conceivably, go to a community college for 2 years to get the prerequisites and then go on to the medical or law school (some nations have a system similar to this, by the way).”

  • US med and law schools in particular moved away from that thinking years ago. Our med schools dominate the list of world-class institutions both in research and clinical practice, so we are probably best off keeping things as they are and not shifting that down. Law, however, might be another matter; there we have definite competition with other countries (primarily ones with a basis in English law), despite our insistence on the seven-year path to the JD (which is on the longish side). We tend to dominate in terms of research, however. I do believe there are a couple states that allow you to take the Bar Exam w/o having much of any formal education, though you might have trouble getting licensed in other states if you choose that path.
25

“Would the molecular engineering program be suitable for a transition to aero/mech or does the status of the school & the course catalog hinder that?”

@CU123 answers that question upthread - #2, 3, 8 and 11.

26

I agree that the OP needs to reach out to some graduate programs and talk to the departments to fully understand if what he wants to accomplish makes sense to do.

27

Staying out of the discussion of ABET, taking engineering classes alongside physics courses might help you clarify your preference for engineering vs physics and may guide your future goals more strongly than anything else.

Our ds grew up with a dad and older brother who are both engineers; he knew loved physics and math. He started off doubling in EE and physics and quickly realized he did not want to take the engineering courses. He loves theory and physics and research.

Anyway, if you aren’t exposed to in-depth engineering courses early on, you might find that you wished you had been immersed in engineering courses earlier bc that is what you really enjoy and wished you had focused on or pure physics instead bc you want theory over applied.

That might be one disadvantage from attending a school without a focused engineering program.

28

No, it isn’t, even if you’re in the quantum track. However, there’s a new exchange program with Caltech, so you might be able to take some courses there if you qualify.

29

@JBStillFlying - While Harvey Mudd may describe itself as a liberal arts college, their engineering curriculum being ABET accredited still must satisfy the ABET criteria. You still take mostly engineering, foundation science, lab, and design courses as in any ABET accredited school. It is not a liberal arts curriculum with engineering electives added on, it is still a purpose-designed engineering curriculum. According to Harvey Mudd’s engineering website:

“Humanities, Social Sciences, and the Arts
Thirty cu are required in the humanities, social sciences and the arts to complete the requirement of 128 cu for graduation from the college.”

So, only 25% of the undergraduate program is devoted to traditional liberal arts subjects (outside of math and science, which of course is common to engineering), therefore, again, this is an engineering program, not a liberal arts program with engineering tacked on. Harvey Mudd’s liberal arts/general ed requirements are comparable to those of most other ABET accredited schools. If it were, significantly more than 128 credits would be required (when I attended Stevens we graduated with 148-152 credits, reflecting the additional depth and breadth courses that were required compared to many other engineering schools for example). 128 credits seems light for an engineering program.

“…all sorts of educational preparation, including the liberal arts. How is Engineering any different?” - Engineering is different because the “first professional” degree in engineering is an undergraduate, four year course whereas in medicine, law, some architecture programs, etc., the first professional credential is a graduate degree. Since the professional training in those fields is done after one goes to college (the real necessity of going to college before studying them IMO is debatable however) they have the luxury of devoting the initial four years of college to liberal arts or any other course of study. In engineering, since the academic background and professional training is done at the undergrad level, one cannot add a standalone liberal arts curriculum (or anything else unrelated) to the engineering courseload without significantly increasing the time and credits required (would most students like to have to take say, 160-180 credits for a four year degree?). The 150 credits or so required at Stevens is essentially a five year course compressed into four, which is highly unusual in American universities.

“- As mentioned upthread, our state flagship - which is highly ranked across many engineering disciplines at the graduate level - does NOT require a 4-year undergraduate engineering degree in order admit to graduate study. Clearly, any deficit in specific engineering courses will need to be addressed; however, the time-to-completion won’t preclude that. Also, some might just be able to pick up “engineering” quickly and won’t need a whole lot of initial preparation” - Except that you cannot adequately address the deficiencies with a few makeup courses that one did not have as an undergraduate. ABET accredited schools require design work in each semester of the undergrad program, as well as many nonspecialized and discipline-specific lab courses. The engineering graduate school cannot make these up in a short amount of time, and does not require them to enter the program (they may require two or three academic engineering undergrad courses as a “makeup”, for no credit). This is still not the equivalent of a four year undergraduate curriculum in engineering.

“Pick up engineering quickly” - seriously? Do you really want to drive across a bridge, ride in an airplane, live near a chemical plant producing dangerous chemicals, et al, “designed” by an “engineer” who “picked up” engineering quickly? That is no more sensible than wanting to be operated upon by a surgeon who “picked it up quickly”, seriously.

No matter how “smart” a person may be, you cannot “pick up” adequately design work that you never did. That is why the undergrad program exists in the current form. I likely would not hire an “engineer” who did not have an undergraduate engineering degree. Again, a master’s degree does not substitute for a bachelor’s degree.

Some decades back the predecessor of ABET (the Engineers’ Council for Professional Development, ECPD) recommended reforming engineering schools from the current four year undergraduate “first professional” course to a graduate course. In that proposal, one would have gone to college for four years studying math, physics, chemistry, or even liberal arts (including the foundation math and science courses), then go to engineering school for three years resulting in a master of engineering degree (which would have served as the “first professional” credential). That would have been a similar system as law or medicine, but, it (not surprisingly) didn’t gain much traction. With the cost and time associated with college today, convincing prospective students to stay in college for seven years when the current four year system works adequately well for initial entry into the profession is a very tough sell I am sure you would agree!

“US med and law schools in particular moved away from that thinking years ago…” - Medical schools require only a few background fundamental science courses (one year of calculus usually, physics, biology, general and organic chemistry, and a few others). One could conceivably take those courses in two years in a community college or a four year college. Requiring any more is superfluous. Some nations’ medical schools accept students out of secondary school and give the foundation sciences as part of the medical curriculum (many of those schools require 5 or 6 years, as opposed to the US four years, but that is still less time than 8 years combined).

And once again - there is still nothing stopping an engineering student from taking extra liberal arts or other courses if that is his/her interest (yes, engineering is a high workload in any school, and one must be disciplined. We had many classmates who did that. Some had minors in music, art, history, etc., and a few got BA degrees in addition to their BE/BS degree.

Still recommend to the OP - if you are interested in engineering, start out in engineering at an ABET accredited school. I don’t think U of Chicago’s molecular “engineering” program is going to serve you well if you are planning to go into aerospace or mechanical engineering. I’m sure that it’s a very fine program, but it isn’t engineering.

30

“So, only 25% of the undergraduate program is devoted to traditional liberal arts subjects (outside of math and science, which of course is common to engineering), therefore, again, this is an engineering program, not a liberal arts program with engineering tacked on.”

  • This isn't correct. HMC divides the curriculum into three components: 1) Common Core (including Pys Ed) for 40.5 cu's; 2) Engineering Core 48.5 cu; 3) Humanities, Social Sciences and the Arts 30 cu. Out of 128 cu needed for graduation, 40.5+30 = 70.5 is non-engineering and it may be higher if you choose non-engineering for your electives. Harvey Mudd doesn't require a "specialization" for engineering, though students are welcome to specialize if they want to. They believe that a general approach encourages better preparation for keeping up with changing technology and human needs.

HMC is also known for sending a good number on to graduate school - looks like 30-40% with a sizable number enrolling in top PhD programs. That’s gotta be higher than what you see coming out of the “typical” college of engineering with its PE-focused training program. Not that the latter is a bad thing at all! HMC just has a different academic experience and attracts a slightly different “engineering student” than some here may be used to.

“128 credits seems light for an engineering program.”

  • Harvey Mudd's outcomes speak for themselves, but I think this comment is instructive in that it highlights a particularly specific viewpoint that OP might not share. There is more than "one way" to study engineering.

“Engineering is different because the “first professional” degree in engineering is an undergraduate, four year course whereas in medicine, law, some architecture programs, etc., the first professional credential is a graduate degree. Since the professional training in those fields is done after one goes to college (the real necessity of going to college before studying them IMO is debatable however) they have the luxury of devoting the initial four years of college to liberal arts or any other course of study. In engineering, since the academic background and professional training is done at the undergrad level, one cannot add a standalone liberal arts curriculum (or anything else unrelated) to the engineering courseload without significantly increasing the time and credits required (would most students like to have to take say, 160-180 credits for a four year degree?). The 150 credits or so required at Stevens is essentially a five year course compressed into four, which is highly unusual in American universities.”

  • yes but the real question is whether that "first professional degree" is strictly necessary if you are planning a more academic track (ie grad school).

“Except that you cannot adequately address the deficiencies with a few makeup courses that one did not have as an undergraduate. ABET accredited schools require design work in each semester of the undergrad program, as well as many nonspecialized and discipline-specific lab courses. The engineering graduate school cannot make these up in a short amount of time, and does not require them to enter the program (they may require two or three academic engineering undergrad courses as a “makeup”, for no credit). This is still not the equivalent of a four year undergraduate curriculum in engineering.”

  • 1) As stated upthread a couple of times, ABET is not necessary for grad school. Best not to confuse an engineering education with ABET. 2) The grad program directors are probably a better judge of whether someone with a STEM but non-engineering background has "deficiences" LOL.

“seriously? Do you really want to drive across a bridge, ride in an airplane, live near a chemical plant producing dangerous chemicals, et al, “designed” by an “engineer” who “picked up” engineering quickly? That is no more sensible than wanting to be operated upon by a surgeon who “picked it up quickly”, seriously.”

  • Wow. No disrespect to the fine and obviously qualified professional engineers who help design those bridges and planes and materials and chemicals and so forth. Graduate study requires a higher aptitude (or innate ability) than undergraduate in the same subject, and engineering is no exception. The large majority of engineers - or physicists, chemists, etc. - can't get into a top grad program. That's just a fact. So even among the smart ones, you will have parsing. After all, who is coming up with all the ground-breaking research that supports that new design or material?

“With the cost and time associated with college today, convincing prospective students to stay in college for seven years when the current four year system works adequately well for initial entry into the profession is a very tough sell I am sure you would agree!”

  • I don't agree. But maybe I'm biased due to my eight years of academic preparation (including two years of theoretical and applied training at a top business program that - incidentally - also saw a LOT of engineers!). Simply put, some are not going to school in order to get out as quickly with a professional degree. Especially if they have the aptitude for higher-level studies. Engineering may be a professional discipline but it's also an intellectual one. Also - small point - most of my grad school engineering acquaintences managed to find funding somewhere. Maybe because they were super-de-dooper smart :wink:
31

I agree. At least for structural engineers, there is no way you could get enough design classes without getting an undergraduate degree in engineering.

32

Why doesn’t the OP call the HR of some companies and ask the question. Go on LinkedIn and the like and see if companies are hiring with someone with the background he is planning on going into

33

“- yes but the real question is whether that “first professional degree” is strictly necessary if you are planning a more academic track (ie grad school).” - What is the purpose then of going to grad school in engineering, if not to do engineering work at hopefully a more advanced level than what a typical engineer with an undergraduate education does? Engineering is still a profession whose objective specifically is the research, development, and design of physical entities and processes that serve the needs of society. If one is doing just pure academic research in engineering and never designs anything, sure, maybe one can do without the first professional credential, but that is the minority of engineers. I know quite a few engineering professors who never actually did engineering work and whose entire experience is in academia. Frankly, those are not the ones I would want to learn engineering from.

Perhaps you don’t need the first professional credential if your objective is to later get into some type of theoretical research (as many physics majors hope to do), but I assumed that the OP was interested in doing engineering design work in a professional setting, which is the intent of the majority of engineering students.

“- Wow. No disrespect to the fine and obviously qualified professional engineers who help design those bridges and planes and materials and chemicals and so forth. Graduate study requires a higher aptitude …” - I would say that designing a safe bridge, aircraft, chemical plant, et al requires a high degree of aptitude. Many engineers by the way do get graduate degrees. I used to work for the leading industrial R&D lab in the world in the field of communications engineering and electronics. We had 5,000 PhDs under one (corporate) roof including myself. We did some very high level theoretical research in solid state electronics and physics, but at the end of the day (or month, year, etc.) we had to transfer our new technology to actual products. That is the real purpose of engineering.

"Engineering may be a professional discipline but it’s also an intellectual one. Also - small point - most of my grad school engineering acquaintences managed to find funding somewhere. Maybe because they were super-de-dooper smart :wink: " - Agree, but the intellectual aspect of engineering is not the exclusive domain of graduate study. It is also nurtured in the undergraduate professional program.

A hypothetical 7 year program in engineering - where the outcome would be the first professional degree after that time - again, was - and will be - a tough sell. In the current engineering education system, graduate school in engineering is not intended to replace the first professional course, rather, it is intended to add depth and possibly research capability to some specific specialty in engineering (which is also the case for most graduate study programs in science and many other fields). A PhD in engineering is intended to develop high level research capability and to contribute original knowledge and new discovery to a specific area. It does not replace the first professional training but rather builds upon it.

I suppose this is somewhat digressing from the OP’s original question, but to reiterate, I recommend he/she start out in an undergraduate engineering program at an accredited school assuming he/she decides to work as an engineer in industry. He/she still has the option of going to graduate school (in engineering or physics, for example) and getting into a more research oriented track. As one of the other commenters pointed out, there are several fine ones in the Chicago area.

Enjoyed the discussion!

34

“Why doesn’t the OP call the HR of some companies and ask the question. Go on LinkedIn and the like and see if companies are hiring with someone with the background he is planning on going into”

  • Or he/she can connect with some of the DGS's at various research uni's and see if they even accept someone with no or few engineering courses in the first place. Grad programs care about placement and vet for that.
35

If you’re planning to do engineering, then NO, I don’t recommend getting a degree in physics. You’d be literally wasting your money. It’s NOT engineering and it won’t prepare you to be an engineer, or even a good graduate program. Even if you managed to get in with no engineering background, You’d be in school an extra 1-2 years taking leveling courses…so you can actually take engineering classes at the graduate level. Most schools would just tell you to come back when you have a degree in engineering.

I would seriously scratch UChicago off your list. It would not be a good choice for you. Technical degrees are designed for specific professions for skills to do specific things. You can’t go wrong with an ABET accredited program.

36

I have been in touch with a tenured faculty-chaired professor of Aeronautical Engineering at a top-15 research university (for that program). Here are my questions and his response:

Me: “Can someone major in a non-engineering subject such as Physics at UChicago (or similar) and be adequately prepared to do master’s level grad work in something like Aerospace or Mechanical? The person asking really likes UChicago for the perceived academic experience (explore many fields, rigor in STEM, etc.) but doesn’t want to be shut out of doing engineering eventually. Would lack of undergraduate engineering courses be an issue? Would conventional engineers have an advantage over other STEM majors in being considered for admission?”

Prof: “I think your questions really depend on the graduate program. Here we are very mathematical and applied physics-oriented, so having a physics undergrad is fine. We have physics majors as grad students all the time; most will take a couple of senior-level undergrad courses to come up to speed some topics. For example, my students with that kind of background will often take aerodynamics and or aerospace propulsion to get the basics. I don’t think there is a disadvantage during admission.”

Me: “UChicago has a relatively new Molecular Engineering major that offers a bio, chem, or quantum track as specialized study. Here is a link to the curriculum, FYI http://collegecatalog.uchicago.edu/thecollege/molecularengineering/ It’s not ABET-accredited, and while there are core engineering courses, “engineering” doesn’t dominate the major requirements the way that the other science courses do. Do you see either of these issues (lack of ABET, relatively little “engineering”) as a drawback if the student wants to go on and do engineering at the master’s level? Or are the higher level chem or physics courses with some core engineering exposure (in design and thermodynamics etc.) adequate preparation? "

Prof: “I personally have no concern about lack of ABET accreditation. ABET is just a bunch of bean-counters and a very bad program can still be accredited if all the beans add up. It’s not about quality. So that is not an issue for grad school. For us, it’s about having a strong math and analytic background and a willingness to learn new things — I am sure Chicago is very good on those fronts.”

OP, I hope this post provides some guidance for you and gives you the confidence to look a bit further into this potential path. As you can read from the above, any insistence on an ABET-accredited engineering program is simply incorrect information.

37

^If you want to be licensed as a professional engineer, attending an ABET-accredited engineering program is a requirement.

And it sounds like the program you reference is an outlier since it’s so theoretical. From my experience, I would never recommend an engineer get a bachelor’s degree in another field.

38

That remark by the U of C professor that “ABET is bean counters …” simply betrays his/her lack of knowledge of what accreditation is. Chicago’s molecular “engineering” program seems more like a materials/biotechnology program than a traditional engineering program which is what ABET primarily addresses. ABET IS a standard of quality, regardless of what he/she says. Since Chicago is not an engineering school and never had any accredited engineering programs (or any, at all, apparently), their opinion of ABET means little. A very bad program likely cannot be accredited. ABET has specific outcome rubrics for accredited programs that must be satisfied, it is not just about meeting a specific course description or curriculum (which certainly is a component of accreditation).

ABET provides a standard of quality and thoroughness for the first professional curricula. Chicago’s program is not a “first professional” program, so ABET is not a factor for the same.

39

@MaineLonghorn at #36 - the program I have referenced is as much an “outlier” as the top-25 list of graduate schools of engineering on US News. Furthermore, the professor I contacted (who is a friend) is in the very field that OP wanted to look into. His experience - he works primarily with graduate students - makes him an authority on this very subject. If this is indeed so “theoretical” - all the better, since that’s kind of what OP can expect for undergraduate at UChicago.

40

I agree with @Parent0347. I’m familiar with ABET accreditation because my dad was head of an engineering department for many years. He would not agree with the other professor’s characterization of the program. Dad is in the National Academy of Engineering and the Russian Academy of Engineering. He worked with graduate students for 50 years.