what's so fun about chemE???

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, to be fair, the truth is, most bachelor’s degree level engineering jobs in any engineering discipline will consist of little more than optimizing a small segment of a large-scale project. For example, if you’re working as an entry-level software developer at Microsoft, your responsibilities may entail little more than testing and patching the code of the pivot-table feature of MSExcel or some other boring task. Yet Microsoft is one of the most desirable employers of software developers: imagine being a developer at one of the numerous enterprise software firms or data processing firms. Necessary jobs to be sure, but not exactly jobs that most young people dream of obtaining. Similarly, many mechanical engineers that I know ended up working on the shop floor of factories producing intermediate mechanical goods. For example, I know a guy whose job is to optimize the production of a particular flange that is used in the construction of office plumbing systems. Note, he isn’t even optimizing the construction of complete plumbing systems, he’s just optimizing the manufacture of the flange that is then used as an intermediate product by other manufacturers to build a plumbing system.</p>

<p>hmm and sakky that applies even to students at the top of their class?</p>

<p>UG ChemE (at my school, and I’m sure at others) requires two semester of OChem, 1 of p-chem, and 1 of biochem. That’s a whole lot of chemistry. I think when people say “more physics than chemistry” your major, ChemE classes, have a more physics-like approach than a chem one. </p>

<p>Better engineering jobs I think, come after an M.Sc or higher degree. (Is this true?)</p>

<p>Ha! Well, as I’ve discussed in other threads, many of the top engineering students - whether ChemE or otherwise - won’t even work as engineers at all, but instead will take jobs in consulting or finance, or will head to law/business/medical school. </p>

<p>For example, Ankur Luthra, arguably the most distinguished Berkeley engineering undergrad in the last decade. After completing an MS at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, he earned his MBA at Harvard and then became a venture capitalist. He’s never actually worked as an engineer. </p>

<p><a href=“http://coe.berkeley.edu/engnews/spring03/16S/ankur.html[/url]”>http://coe.berkeley.edu/engnews/spring03/16S/ankur.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>[theculturalconnect.com</a> | Venture Capital Firm VP & Rhodes Scholar Ankur Luthra](<a href=“http://www.theculturalconnect.com/magazines/desi/2006-11-14/pro]theculturalconnect.com”>theculturalconnect.com | Login)</p>

<p>A fast elevator to the corporate corner office, an engineering career unfortunately does not provide, even to the top students. But that’s hardly specific only to ChemE.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think a lot of this depends on what you mean by “how stuff works.” To a guy at Meineke, an engineer probably knows a lot more about how an engine works than himself. To an engineer working on engines, a physicist probably knows a lot more about the dynamics of the actual atoms’ behavior in the engine. I figure if you want to know how devices work, then engineering is as low as you need to go. If you want to know how “everything” works, then a fundamental science would be more important (though that’ll just tell you how the constituent parts work, and not necessarily how they work once put together).</p>