UChicago Physics for a Possible Engineer Masters/Career?

First off My contact at the meetings would disagree about looking down. They do or did. It seems that UChicago will acknowledge engineering on their own terms.
I would also expect nothing less. No question the students and families that have kids there are outliers. Same with their programs at UChicago and I say that as a positive attribute. That is what makes UChicago what it is. I mean… who does where’s Waldo?

I just saw https://chicagopresents.uchicago.edu/third-coast-percussion. Last week there . This whole series is unique and different (and wonderful). This is what I expect from UChicago.

So the kids that tend to take the road less traveled. Who seem to be sorta unique and different (in a good way… people) is what I would expect from UChicago.

Again interesting conversations, always learn something new on cc, but I would implore the OP to look at his end game on this. If that appeals to him then great.

But someone mentioned some collaboration with Caltech and to me that is the best of both worlds and very interesting.

Mentioning MIT, Stanford, Caltech and not having or dropping some ABET is not really helpful in my opinion. They are outliers. They can pretty much do what they want and kids will get hired by shear name alone and reputation of the schools. That might not hold up well with Iowa State University. Nice program but without ABET many would not apply or possible get hired.

“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).”

  • Yes and it would be interesting to know whether they had a PE or graduated from an ABET-accredited program.

" 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."

  • And PE-licensed civil engineers working on traffic flow or ski-lifts are doing what, exactly?

“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.”

  • My dad (now retired) is an MD/Medical Scientist who had a clinical practice as well, so I have a bit of knowledge in this area. Medical schools are known for both, by the way. So not sure what "far beyond what medical school entails" means exactly. Same goes for law school. Not one renowned legal thinker in the United States has been exempt from the day to day grind of the law firm. That they do both research and practice is simply expected. And some do triple-duty by getting appointed Judge.

@Knowsstuff - When I interview people, I do not get swayed by the school they attended. I am only interested in their experience, intelligence, creativity, and (in the case of entry level positions) the courses they took and, to some extent, their grades. Things like internships and research also are factors. It doesn’t impress me by itself that one attended MIT, Stanford or Caltech. I attended MIT for master’s work, so what? I have worked with graduates of all the big name schools (including those three), and smaller names. All engineering graduates are intelligent. Engineering is a rigorous course of study in any school. In the case of graduates of ABET accredited schools, I know that the person has had the standard rigorous foundation and course of study, so, I have a common basis on which to evaluate their preparation. Without the accreditation, should I accept that one has had this preparation on MIT’s, Caltech’s, or Stanford’s word? Why should I? I refer back to the medical and law analogy. Does Harvard or Yale for example think they need to drop their accreditation from the medical (AAMC) and law (ABA) accreditors, claiming that they know more or that they can “innovate” without the “restrictions” of the accreditation criteria? Should medical and law licensing boards accept that their graduates are completely prepared just on their “name” or “brand”? I doubt such a claim would be accepted by them. Similarly, state engineering registration boards require that applicants have an ABET accredited degree for the same reason. I have worked with brilliant graduates of the state university for example, and a couple of MIT graduates who could not do design work effectively. Once one graduates, the quality of one’s work is the primary determiner of career progression and success. The school does not guarantee the quality of one’s work, the person is the gating item.

@Knowsstuff at #80 - ABET is a huge selling point for a whole bunch of engineering schools. Can’t see how that would ever change - or need to change - even if more schools at the top drop the accreditation. UChicago isn’t positioning itself against the ISU’s - the latter has that market secured. What UChicago seems to be doing is positioning itself among a different peer group in just a couple of specialties.

Totally agree to both comments and guess an assumption I made.

@JBStillFlying - “Yes and it would be interesting to know whether they had a PE or graduated from an ABET-accredited program” -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_Hounsfield

Godfrey Hounsfield, British electrical engineer (1919-2004) was a co-inventor of computed axial tomography. From the Wikipedia article:

"Shortly before World War II, he joined the Royal Air Force as a volunteer reservist where he learned the basics of electronics and radar. After the war, he attended Faraday House Electrical Engineering College in London, graduating with the DFH (Diploma of Faraday House). Faraday House was a specialist Electrical Engineering college that provided university level education and was established in 1890, before the advent of most university engineering departments. Faraday House pioneered the use of sandwich courses, combining practical experience with theoretical study.

The suggestion that Hounsfield lacked formal engineering education to the level of a Chartered Engineer does not reflect the nature of engineering education at the time when Hounsfield was a student, or the esteem in which Faraday House was held within the profession."

At that time, engineering schools in Britain were less formally established than the US. The Faraday Electrical Engineering College was specifically a school teaching EE as it existed at that time as compared to later schools that taught the interdisciplinary foundation of knowledge. Apparently, it was quite well regarded by the standards of the day. The English equivalent of PE licensure, Chartered Engineer, was established later, I believe. Licensing of engineers began in the US in Wyoming in 1907. It is interesting that the first PEs came from a non-industrial, non-technological state. In the 1800s until the early part of the 20th century, there were many failures of bridges, buildings, and steam plants (boilers) in buildings, on ships, trains, etc. that took many lives. The requirements for anyone presenting or holding themselves out as engineers were created to protect the public safety. Engineering schools in the US were also in their infancy at that time, but it became apparent that engineers must have a foundation of science and its applications in order to safely and effectively do engineering work. The first engineering schools modeled themselves after the scientific schools of Europe and got away from the shop-oriented curricula of their ancestors. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (1824) was a pioneer in establishing the value of laboratory work in engineering and science, Stevens Institute of Technology (1870) a pioneer in incorporating the European scientific model and rigorous study of mathematics, physics, and chemistry in engineering, among many others.

Medical devices do not require PEs to approve their designs, since their safety and effectiveness are regulated at the federal level by the FDA (same for aircraft (FAA), nuclear reactors and equipment (NRC), automobiles (DOT and FHA), many consumer products (CPSC), and others).

“- And PE-licensed civil engineers working on traffic flow or ski-lifts are doing what, exactly?”

PEs are required to approve the designs of public works and other projects that can be hazardous to public safety if improperly designed. Bridges, highways, tunnels, public transportation systems such as trains (which are also regulated at the federal level by DOT, NTSB, and Federal Railroad Administration), airports (also federally regulated by FAA) etc. require PE approval. PEs are also generally accepted as expert witnesses in court proceedings involving engineering (particularly product liability and injuries resulting from failures). Large buildings, retaining walls, large civil engineering projects such as dams, aqueducts, mines, reinforced concrete structures, commercial building electrical and plumbing systems, etc, traffic engineering and signaling, et al require PE approval. Many public engineering positions with transit agencies, federal and state government, and local municipality engineering require PEs. A ski lift on private property likely would require some type of state inspection, but unsure if a PE is required to sign off the design and plans for one. Perhaps companies that build ski lifts have PEs on staff, as architectural and structural engineering firms do.

To get any kind of design position in a civil engineering firm, even if one is not the one “sealing” (approving) the design, is going to require a PE. Most firms hiring newly minted engineers out of undergrad school are going to require them to sit for the exam when they acquire the required experience (4 years in most states), and will require the ABET accredited degree (since it is required to sit for the exam). Engineering students in ABET accredited programs are eligible to sit for the first part of the PE exam (the Engineer in Training or EIT) as seniors in school. Most engineering firms will require that of applicants.

In the US, it is illegal for one to “hold out” as an engineer (that is, advertise engineering services to the public) without a PE license. The specific title “Professional Engineer” is legally restricted to those holding the license. In most states, firms that use the word “Engineering” in their name and holding out must have a PE on staff or available.

Engineering work for which PEs are required is regulated primarily at the state level and each state has its own licensure (which is similar to that for medical and legal practicioners). Regulations may vary somewhat from state to state, but the public safety aspect is common to all. Some states accept other states’ licensed people by reciprocity for licensure, others require one to take the exam in that state to be licensed there.

I once saw a job ad for engineers from a major automaker where a PE was listed as a requirement. They apparently felt that it eases their certification process with the federal DOT, even though it was not required by that agency.

“- My dad (now retired) is an MD/Medical Scientist who had a clinical practice as well, so I have a bit of knowledge in this area. Medical schools are known for both, by the way.” - Yes, but the average MD is not a scientist. The majority of medical school graduates intend to practice clinical medicine, not specifically do research. Those who do frequently obtain more training on top of the basic MD requirements. Some have both MD and PhDs. The garden variety physician whom you see when you are not feeling well is not a scientist per se. He/she applies the body of knowledge to diagnosing and treating your illness, not contributing new knowledge to that body.

“The suggestion that Hounsfield lacked formal engineering education to the level of a Chartered Engineer does not reflect the nature of engineering education at the time when Hounsfield was a student, or the esteem in which Faraday House was held within the profession.”

  • Never suggested. It's obviously possible - even today - to obtain an excellent engineering education w/o ABET accreditation. Nor does lack of a PE license mean someone isn't "properly educated." Don't confuse licenture and accreditation with curriculum.

“Yes, but the average MD is not a scientist. The majority of medical school graduates intend to practice clinical medicine, not specifically do research. Those who do frequently obtain more training on top of the basic MD requirements. Some have both MD and PhDs. The garden variety physician whom you see when you are not feeling well is not a scientist per se. He/she applies the body of knowledge to diagnosing and treating your illness, not contributing new knowledge to that body.”

  • Yes. And as I noted above, the PE/ABET-accredited civil engineer working on roadways and ski-lifts is doing what, exactly? There are PLENTY of examples of "applying the body of knowledge" in engineering as well. BOTH professions, as well as pretty much any other that requires some degree or other at a professional school, will include 1) 100% practitioners, 2) practitioners who do research, 3) Researchers who have a practice and 4) Researchers who primarily - or exclusively - stick to research.

“- Never suggested. It’s obviously possible - even today - to obtain an excellent engineering education w/o ABET accreditation. Nor does lack of a PE license mean someone isn’t “properly educated.” Don’t confuse licenture and accreditation with curriculum”

Engineering today is far more highly developed than in 1900. Modern technology requires explicit formal education. Engineering affects the lives of the public to a far greater extent than could have been imagined in its formative time. There was once a time when one could be a lawyer or a physician without having gone to a formal school for those fields (Abraham Lincoln never went to law school for example). Accreditation came later. Accreditation assures that the curriculum meets an adequate level of content, coverage, and teaching effectiveness. I am a believer in accreditation as an independent third party assessment of quality. I do not accept a school telling me that just on faith or because of their “name”.

Licensure and education are two different things. Education is a prerequisite to licensure. Licensure is needed in those areas that impact public safety to ensure that those doing the work are competent to do so. Would you want an unlicensed physician to be treating you or an unlicensed attorney to be representing you? As I said before, drive across a bridge or through a tunnel designed/approved by an unlicensed engineer? Ride an elevator to the 100th floor of a high rise whose structure was designed by an unlicensed person? Not me, certainly.

"- Yes. And as I noted above, the PE/ABET-accredited civil engineer working on roadways and ski-lifts is doing what, exactly? There are PLENTY of examples of “applying the body of knowledge” in engineering as well. "

Of course. And there are engineering researchers as well doing research in academic, government, and industrial organizations. I worked for the world’s leading industrial R&D lab in the communications and electronics industry for 25 years for example. Our work had elements of both research and application.

@Parent0347 Clearly you work in a field of engineering where ABET is important, I, as I have previously alluded to, didn’t think ABET important in my hiring, albeit this was mostly due to scientists I was hiring for engineering positions. They ones I hired were clearly head and shoulders above the ABET engineers I interviewed. So it is clear that we work in different engineering fields, none of my projects ever had to be approved or looked at by a PE, I’ll assume in your field they did. While this has been fun, and has reached five pages, all of these posts have illustrated the salient points for those of us who disagree on which “road to travel”.

@CU123 - As previously stated - I work in the aerospace industry. I am a PE but never did work for which it was required. None of my projects were required to be sealed by a PE either. I considered it a mark of professionalism to get licensed. I likely would not hire a nonengineer (which I define as one who does not have an ABET accredited undergraduate degree in engineering) for an engineering job. If you interview a representative sample of engineers I am certain that some of them will be as or more capable as the scientists you hired. There is a reason why engineering has evolved to and exists as a distinct course of study, and why a typical science curriculum does not confer the same capabilities as engineering. Yes, been fun. All the best.

Well then you missed out on some great people, but I certainly understand your position.

@CU123- We had very specific requirements that most science majors would not have experience with (design of inertial navigation systems, Kalman filters, GPS signal processing, and others). Most engineers would not have this experience either unless they came from a similar position in another company. Most electrical engineers though take signal processing, Kalman filters in many cases, and the related mathematics (signals and systems, integral transforms, linear algebra, etc), and the aforementioned engineering design courses in which they had to complete a capstone design project which is required in an ABET accredited program. So, I know they are capable of doing design work effectively. You mentioned that you hired a nonengineer to manage an engineering group. Were the people doing the actual work actually engineers? I once hired a physics and math graduate for an analysis position we had - which was doing mathematical analysis and simulation for navigation systems - which was an ideal role for a mathematician and physicist - but he was not expected to design.

All of this doesn’t change a basic fact - for somebody who wants to be an engineer, AND is willing and able to pay $320,000 for an undergraduate degree, UChicago is a bad bet. This is especially true for mechanical engineering, the field in which the OP expressed interest.

Yes, I know that some people have a couple of anecdotes, and there are two or three exceptions. Nonetheless, the best way to get a job as an engineer is to have an engineering degree and engineering internships. UChicago provides neither.

@MWolf - No undergrad degree is worth $300k+ in my opinion. Suspect however the average student there gets at least some financial aid.

@MWolf and @Parent0347 - you are both welcome to peruse the UChicago forum for threads pertaining to cost and financial aid, in order to educate yourselves further on that aspect (among others) of the place.

“Mentioning MIT, Stanford, Caltech and not having or dropping some ABET is not really helpful in my opinion. They are outliers.”

I would not call them outliers but leaders in the field of engineering.

Perspective is required here, no car is worth $250K, no boat is worth $5 million, no shoes are worth $1500, but they sell a lot of each of them…

An education at UChicago… priceless…

Buying a $250,000 car to use as a taxi isn’t a very good idea.

If a person needs an engineering degree as a vanity degree, and does not need the income, then starting with a physics degree at UChicago is just as good as studying for an engineering degree anywhere else.

If a person needs an engineering degree as a vanity degree, and does not need the income, then starting with a physics degree at UChicago is just as good as studying for an engineering degree anywhere else.

[/quote]

Don’t quite get the above. Sounds like you think engineers couldn’t really have an interest in the sort of education available at UChicago, which you stigmatize as a vanity project. That’s an aspersion on the honor of engineers as well as a blinkered conception of education.