<p>
</p>
<p>False. 100% false. You clearly don’t have an understanding of ME. They are two different disciplines for a reason. Furthermore, if chemical engineers were qualified for “basically all ME jobs”, then their job outlook wouldn’t be worse than that of an ME [1][2]. Seriously, this isn’t even remotely true. That isn’t to say that either chemical engineers or mechanical engineers are inherently better than the other, but they absolutely cannot even come close to doing each others’ jobs. Don’t say things you can’t back up with facts. You just look silly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is, once again, patently false. There is definitely some overlap, particularly when it comes to transport processes, but there is a lot to mechanical engineering that chemical engineers will never touch: e.g. dynamics and controls, strength of materials and solid mechanics, or machine design. Of course, there are plenty of things that chemical engineers do that mechanical engineers will never touch as well. The thing is, the only thing that says about the research in each field is that it is different.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a statement based 100% on opinion. You think it is a more exciting field. That has nothing to do with which one is newer, and even then, it is arguable to say that one is newer than the other. In reality, both have been around since antiquity in one form or another.</p>
<p>At any rate, just because a field is old does not mean that it doesn’t do any new or cutting edge research. Both disciplines, for example, are doing a lot with nanotechnology these days despite the age of both fields, and that is cutting edge. Micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) technology is new and cutting edge. Plastics that self-repair, ceramics that can withstand ultra-high temperatures, shape memory alloys, lab-on-a-chip fluid systems, vision-based robotics, and so many more fields are cutting edge and fall under a discipline as “old” as mechanical engineering. There are doubtless plenty of similarly new technologies for chemical engineers as well. The important thing is that you can’t base the amount of research being done in a field on how old or new it is. That is just silly. If anything, older fields are going to still have plenty to do, which is why they have been around so long.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The issue here isn’t whether or not you are disparaging mechanical engineering, it is that what you are saying is at best misleading, and at worst (and probably more accurately) flat out wrong. I in no way think either is inherently better than the other, and people should pick based on their interests. However, the information they receive should be objectively true; something your posts don’t even approach.</p>
<p>Sources:
[1] ME Outlook: [Mechanical</a> Engineers : Occupational Outlook Handbook : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics](<a href=“Mechanical Engineers : Occupational Outlook Handbook: : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics”>Mechanical Engineers : Occupational Outlook Handbook: : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)
[2] ChemE Outlook: [Chemical</a> Engineers : Occupational Outlook Handbook : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics](<a href=“Chemical Engineers : Occupational Outlook Handbook: : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics”>Chemical Engineers : Occupational Outlook Handbook: : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)</p>