@Knowsstuff, that’s a common joke - refers to the stereotype of the dumb engineer.
I actually got it but didn’t expect it from you. Lol… Also looks like someone having a stroke… ?. Oh well…
@MaineLonghorn - yes, stereotype among lay public who benefit from the work of engineers, and use the results of engineering every day and in practically everything they do, but are too “dumb” to understand the degree of intellect and creativity that is required in engineering work. Another factor is that the lay public doesn’t deal directly with engineers, though they of course use and benefit from their work every day. Medicine for example would still be in the Dark Ages without engineering. Every medical technology and device is the result of engineering and engineers.
As I used to tell my students when I taught electrical engineering, “Engineers create the world”. Unfortunately, the layperson often doesn’t realize or appreciate that.
“At the end of the day, you still aren’t an engineer.”
“Chicago should not be calling this an engineering program.”
The word existed long before ABET or its predecessors. What part of the definition of engineering are you struggling with?
As for whether there is such a thing as “bio molecular engineering” or what is a “bio molecular engineer,” Wiki might help you out:
@MaineLonghorn talks more like an Aggie than a Longhorn.
Hey, insults are not permitted by the Terms of Service…
@MaineLonghorn - can we please keep on topic. No doubt engineers are grossly under-appreciated, but this thread isn’t the forum to discuss that.
Would like to correct, also, the confusion that seems to have cropped up about engineering curricula and liberal ed courses. No one has suggested that one precludes the other. What has been pointed out is the opinion that a liberal arts education can be had even with an interest in engineering. Those disagreeing with that opinion somehow decided that “liberal arts” must mean “liberal ed”. I humbly encourage those in this camp to go back and review those definitions.
It seems, op, that you are asking: If I choose the UChicago experience, will I lose out on a profession as an engineer, or should I forgo the UChicago experience in pursuit of an engineering degree. I think If you have the luxury of time and money, and not restricted to getting a job right away, then I would say go for the UChicago experience, because you won’t have an undergraduate experience again.
Going to UChicago will not prevent you from working as an engineer. You may need to take a bit more time to fill out on some of the foundational classes in engineering afterwards in order to get your ABET, which applies to the older physical engineering disciplines, such as aerospace, civil, mechanical, etc. It seems that the very first post on this thread from @ucbalumnus already answer the question on how to do that.
UChicago also has engineering, but in the newer fields, such as bio, quantum, molecular, etc. and these new disciplines do not have ABET. However, a foundation in physics and math, etc. will prepare you after undergrad in attaining your ABET for the older, physical engineering disciplines.
Op, you are very young, and shouldn’t waste your short university years studying something solely for an accreditation. Ironically you will likely be gainfully employed anyway no matter where you go to school because you sound ambitious, curious and driven.
If you’re not sure what it is you want to do yet, then take it a step at a time: when presented with choices right in front of you and you have no idea how to decide, then choose the one best one or the one that sounds most exciting, and keep choosing in that way forever. If UChicago sounds most alluring, go for it.
A look at NSF’s Survey of Earned Doctorates tells us all that we need to know. Between 1965 and 2017, that is 42 years, only 78 people who did their undergraduate degree at the University of Chicago went on to earn a PhD in any Engineering field. Just as a reminder, UChicago has one of the highest percent of undergraduates who go on to do PhDs.
During the same period, 659 graduates of Northwestern earned doctorates in Engineering, 632 graduates of Duke, 675 graduates of CWRU, and, of course, Stanford with 777, and CMU with 948.
I’m not even bringing in MIT, and I decided to only use colleges with similar enrollment numbers, and, except for CWRU, that all are “ranked” similar to UChicago.
As for jobs? graduates who have had one of more internships do far better at finding jobs than those who don’t. Colleges with engineering programs, usually have relationships with multiple engineering companies, who come and shop fir interns, while the interns shop for undergraduates. The companies put the most effort, of course, into schools whose graduates mostly go into industry, and, of course, into those which have a good reputation in the engineering worlds.
Chicago, without an engineering school, and without an engineering program, is severely limited in the engineering internships that are available for kids who want to be engineers. So kids doing their Physics BS at Chicago who want to work as engineers are going to find it difficult to do so. Even after fulfilling the missing courses needed for engineering, they are in a much worse position than, say, students from UIC who have done two or three internships, and have, by that time, worked a year or two. I won’t even consider hoe far behind kids from UIUC they are.
Paying $320,000 for a degree that puts you behind kids who have paid one quarter of that, in an industry which values experience and which does not consider your university to be “elite” in their field? What can I say? Sounds like a terrible idea to me, unless one has a very wealthy family, AND a lucrative engineering job lined up through family ties.
@MWolf , those statistics are indeed shocking: Who would have imagined there could be so many Chicago undergrads who go on to do engineering Ph.D.s? You seem to be drawing the inference that the Chicago numbers, when compared to those of schools with undergraduate engineering programs, suggest some kind of failure. Surely the more obvious and correct inference is that Chicago undergrads rarely apply to graduate engineering programs.
Why is that surprising? The interesting statistic for all these schools would be the rate of failure of those who do apply. We can’t know it from these figures. However, it is reasonable to assume that far more than ten times as many apply from schools with undergraduate engineering programs as apply from Chicago, a school without a program and with few of its undergrads interested in such a career. The fact that Chicago undergrads do in fact go on to engineering Ph.D.'s to the tune of about ten percent of the numbers from these other schools probably indicates that the playing field among them is pretty even - for those who want to play the game. Of course the Chicago playing field also offers the rather unique undergraduate education OP seems to be attracted to.
Or maybe after going to UChicago, they’re no longer interested in working as an engineer, lol.
Funny story is that my husband graduated from Columbia with an electrical engineering major (30 years ago,) and while he enjoyed all his classes (circuitry and whatnot), he had no intention of pursuing engineering as a profession. Right from the get-go after graduation, he looked for and got a job, and now profession, that he does enjoy (not engineering.)
"Going to UChicago will not prevent you from working as an engineer. You may need to take a bit more time to fill out on some of the foundational classes in engineering afterwards in order to get your ABET, which applies to the older physical engineering disciplines, such as aerospace, civil, mechanical, etc. It seems that the very first post on this thread from @ucbalumnus already answer the question on how to do that.
UChicago also has engineering, but in the newer fields, such as bio, quantum, molecular, etc. and these new disciplines do not have ABET. However, a foundation in physics and math, etc. will prepare you after undergrad in attaining your ABET for the older, physical engineering disciplines"
Well, uh, no. Let’s assume for a moment that the OP doesn’t want to do “older physical” engineering work in which an ABET accredited degree is a large advantage or a prerequisite for certain types of work. When you say “get your ABET afterwards” (that is, after receiving an accredited undergraduate degree) the only option to do that would be to get an ABET accredited master’s degree in engineering (or, to go back to undergraduate school and get a second, accredited bachelor’s degree in engineering, which is not a very efficient use of time and money). There are a few ABET accredited master’s programs in the US but ABET primarily is for undergraduate programs. Some engineering positions require an accredited undergraduate degree, so even with the ABET accredited master’s degree the applicant would be at a disadvantage. Some state engineering registration boards (again, I acknowledge that the OP may not be interested in the type of work that requires a PE) may let ABET accredited master’s degree holders to sit for the exam, but, in general, most require an accredited undergraduate engineering degree.
The OP mentioned mechanical and aerospace engineering for graduate study. The overwhelming majority of jobs in ME and AE are more akin to what you describe as “older physical disciplines” than the Chicago program may cover. As such, IMO, the biomolecular undergrad and the master’s in ME/AE would not be as marketable to those openings as an accredited undergraduate ME or AE degree (with or without the master’s).
As repeated many times in this thread, if the OP is interested in traditional ME or AE work, the many engineers commenting here well advise him/her to get an ABET accredited undergraduate engineering degree. If he/she is interested in those “new fields” then Chicago’s program is a good choice.
He/she should consider the marketability of such a program. It won’t be as marketable in “older physical disciplines” as an actual accredited undergrad engineering degree, but if it has a good track record in nontraditional types of jobs, then yes, there’s nothing wrong with it. I would advise the OP to do his or her due diligence and homework however. It would be a bad situation to pay $300k in tuition and then find out there aren’t any openings or funded graduate research in those fields.
Finally, I am amused that Chicago’s faculty looks down on engineering as “not a peer profession” but at the same time calls its program “engineering”. Peer to what? Law or medicine? Engineering requires more creativity than both of them, since it is frequently advancing the state of the art and producing new knowledge, whereas the other two (clinically) merely apply an existing body of knowledge. Chicago “looks down” on engineering, yet, they use the term “engineering” to describe their program - which isn’t really engineering anyway. If they think describing the program as engineering will improve its marketability or saleability to prospective students, then they are hypocritical at the same time looking down on engineering.
Al the best to the OP. I am certain he/she will be a success in whatever endeavor he/she pursues.
“Just as a reminder, UChicago has one of the highest percent of undergraduates who go on to do PhDs.”
This simply isn’t true anymore. http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-chicago/1969353-uchicagos-ranking-as-a-phd-feeder-school-p1.html
Agree that marketability can and should be a consideration, but electricians and plumbers and accountants are pretty marketable too.
Definitely have much respect for engineers, who are in a very marketable profession, but just wanted op or future readers to know that they if they already have a high level interest in exploring what a particular university can offer, and have the luxury of doing so, they should explore it.
“When you say “get your ABET afterwards” (that is, after receiving an accredited undergraduate degree) the only option to do that would be to get an ABET accredited master’s degree in engineering. There are a few ABET accredited master’s programs in the US but ABET primarily is for undergraduate programs.”
- That is correct that very few master's programs are ABET-accredited. Only a small few in Aero. However, the fact that Stanford and Cal Tech are dropping ABET-accreditation in at least some programs (Chemical Engineering, for instance) might be an indicator that ABET isn't quite what it's presented as on this thread. Do Stanford and Cal Tech engineers get shut out of PE licensure due to lack of ABET? Go back and read the article that @CU123 posted because it's quite instructive. Here is the link again:
https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i48/time-leave-behind-chemical-engineering.html
Salient points:
-
Practically no one fromCal Tech Engineering bothers with a PE license.
-
MIT is the next major Engineering school to plan a revamp w/o regard to ABET in at least one program: chemical engineering.
-
MIT advocates for curricula to be driven by faculty so that they can more quickly meet the needs of a rapidly changing chemical engineering environment.
-
Stanford is focusing on curricula - and NOT ABET - in order to prepare its students to be LEADERS in Engineering.
-
Students at Cal Tech and Stanford responded ENTHUSIASTICALLY to the announcement that ABET-accreditation was being dropped in some programs.
-
Dropping ABET allows students to incorporate other courses or undergraduate research into their program of study.
To be sure, some programs of study should probably remain ABET-friendly. Mechanical is likely so. Aero - no.
“Finally, I am amused that Chicago’s faculty looks down on engineering as “not a peer profession” but at the same time calls its program “engineering”. Peer to what? Law or medicine? Engineering requires more creativity than both of them, since it is frequently advancing the state of the art and producing new knowledge, whereas the other two (clinically) merely apply an existing body of knowledge.”
- The Nobel Committee actually awards the prize in medicine to some fairly creative scientists. As one example.
@Parent0347 is a #1 fan of Engineering - and that’s great. What he/she fails to understand is that NO ONE is dissing engineering here. So it’s not necessary to mis-characterize what goes on in other disciplines as a back-handed way of making engineering look better LOL. The engineering discipline is quite able to stand on its own as a crucial course of study.
“Chicago “looks down” on engineering, yet, they use the term “engineering” to describe their program - which isn’t really engineering anyway. If they think describing the program as engineering will improve its marketability or saleability to prospective students, then they are hypocritical at the same time looking down on engineering.”
- Did I miss some crucial quote? Or are you talking about @Knowsstuff's comment which was very likely a correct characterization of the conversation. UChicago is not a peer of institutions or programs of study that depend on ABET for survival. Like Cal Tech, Stanford and MIT, they want their curricula to be driven by faculty.
What you need, @Parent0347, is context. UChicago will very likely NEVER have an undergraduate college of Engineering. As OP stated, that “goes against their purpose” - ie, isn’t consistent with a liberal arts program. They also don’t have an undergraduate college of fine arts, music, nursing, business, architecture, etc. What they HAVE been doing over the past several years, however, is finding ways to work a “traditionally professionalized” course of study INTO that liberal arts setting. The two most recent additions are molecular engineering and Business Economics (the discussion of which on cc included about as much outrage as we’ve seen on this thread). Most recently, the Pritzker Family donated a good chunk to help establish a graduate degree program in molecular engineering. So it’s safe to say that UChicago does NOT “look down” on Engineering. There is no need for worry.
@JBStillFlying - I don’t agree with Caltech and Stanford’s dropping of ABET. That essentially means if I wanted to go to one of them with the intention of becoming a PE (say, I wanted to study civil engineering and do CE work) I could not do it, or at the very least, the registration board of my state would have to evaluate my credentials and experience on a case basis (which they sometimes do). Just because one goes to Caltech or Stanford is not enough, by itself, to sit for the exam. I’m an EE by training and my graduate work was in Physics. I work in the aerospace industry. I have a PE and never did work for which it was required, but I considered it a mark of professionalism to get licensed. So, a chemical engineer from MIT (if MIT drops ABET for that major), or an EE or Chem E from Caltech or Stanford for example either cannot or must go through more experience/vetting if they want to be a PE. I think those schools are doing a disservice by doing that. I hope they explain this to prosepective students, but, if that is the student’s desire they need to do their homework before attending of course.
I can’t add anything about engineering, but am interested nonetheless in this thread.
@JBStillFlying and @Parent0347…it would be so much easier to follow your posts if you did one of two things to get the quotes you are replying to in gray bars: use the quote button (found below the post you want to quote), or quote the old HTML way…type the word quote (enclosed by brackets), then the text you want to quote, then /quote (enclosed by brackets)
Now on to more content…
@JBStillFlying - “The Nobel Committee actually awards the prize in medicine to some fairly creative scientists. As one example.”
Of course they do. The Nobel Prize is for groundbreaking work (by the way, there were several engineers who won the Nobel Prize in Medicine, such as the inventor of the CAT machine for example). I’m distinguishing here between the garden variety clinical physician and a real medical research scientist. The majority of physicians aren’t scientists. They apply the existing body of medical knowledge to diagnosing and treating illness. They do not - in general - add to the body of knowledge. Medical scientists - those with research training and experience on top of just having graduated from medical school - in many cases, far in excess of what medical school entails - create the new body of knowledge. That is the distinction here.
“@Parent0347 is a #1 fan of Engineering - and that’s great. What he/she fails to understand is that NO ONE is dissing engineering here. So it’s not necessary to mis-characterize what goes on in other disciplines as a back-handed way of making engineering look better LOL. The engineering discipline is quite able to stand on its own as a crucial course of study.”
Nobody is mischaracterizing anything. Again, the OP’s original question boils down to should he/she attend this U of C “engineering” program if he/she wants to later go to graduate school for engineering (AE or ME). The answer to that question, as reiterated by several of the commenters, is that if he/she is interested in doing the type of ME or AE work most often done in industry as a practicing engineer, he/she will be far more marketable with an ABET accredited undergraduate engineering degree. The OP did not specifically state what his/her intent was, but, if one asks about engineering, it is reasonable to assume that he/she has the intention of doing engineering work as is the case for the majority of undergrad engineering students. If the OP is more interested in the type of work that the U of C program might prepare for - which is not traditional engineering work, (I argue that it isn’t engineering at all regardless of what the gurus of U of C decide to call it), then it is certainly worth a look.
Yes, engineering is quite able to stand on its own as a crucial and distinct course of study and profession. That has been the case for a long time.
With respect to the question of getting a graduate AE or ME degree after graduating with that Chicago major, yes, it is possible. Some engineering graduate schools will accept non engineering undergrads, others require the applicant to have an engineering degree, and some require that degree to ABET accredited. ABET is not as much of a factor in graduate programs even in traditional engineering disciplines. But as I an several others here point out, one will not be as capable (and, in my opinion, not an engineer at all) with a non-engineering undergraduate degree, because graduate programs in engineering do not replace, nor are they intended to replace, the foundation of lab, design, interdisciplinary, and discipline specific engineering courses that are required in an accredited undergraduate program. That’s all.
Does MIT, Stanford, Caltech, et al really believe that foundation of accredited programs, which has been codified over many decades as conferring the essential skills to do engineering work, is not really needed? They’re wrong if they do.
@Parent0347 at #76 - my “very much an outsider”'s viewpoint tells me that perhaps some things are changing in the field of engineering. I have EE friends who would absolutely agree with you, and - as we know - a faculty member or two who doesn’t. Change isn’t always good, and the merits are typically observed after-the-fact.
Your comment is instructive: “I work in the aerospace industry. I have a PE and never did work for which it was required, but I considered it a mark of professionalism to get licensed.” Who can disagree with this? I worked in finance and the CFA, while not necessary, demonstrated a high level of professional achievement. It was a 3-year process with tons of study outside the normal job hours (which - in finance - can run rather high on a weekly basis). For those going into personal financial consulting or trust fund management, the CFA was considered necessary. For corporate finance or those working in quantitative market modeling, technical skill and school you attended was valued way more. And then there was a variety of finance-related professions in between (including mine) which moved rapidly away from the CFA to quality of education as a criteria. It wasn’t necessary to paint everyone with the same brush, and those firms that tried to were often left behind in the fierce competition to find new and creative ways to help the clientele. My work was in privately-held interests, but the complexity of financial products there was rapidly increasing, just like it was in the public markets. Brains, not CFA certification, got you new clients. That’s NOT how it was only a year or two before I joined, btw, which shows you how rapidly things can change sometimes.
So perhaps what’s going on with Engineering is similar? Again, my viewpoint is from the outside.