|
Here is a free tip: if you like the intellectual challenge of your engineering cirriculum, go to graduate school. You will be bored out of your mind if you go into industry with a B.S. I speak from experience  , but at least I'm changing that now.
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2009 15:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 12:35 |
|
|
Pfirti86 posted:Eh, probably nothing wrong with that, but realize that there's a pretty wide perception out there that it's actually easier to get an A in graduate courses than undergraduate. Yeah, I've had several professors tell us that as graduates, they expect most people in their classes to get A's and B's. Maybe 1 or 2 C's for people who have a bad day and bomb the final. Sucks because I was so proud of myself for getting straight A's which I never did as an undergrad
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2010 17:14
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:Seconding the idea of getting a job and letting work pay for your Masters. My job (defense contractor) paid for me to get my Masters in Systems Engineering and now they are paying for me to get my MBA. Once I finish up the MBA I'm giving strong consideration to going for a masters in Computer Engineering (Since my undergrad is in Aerospace but I work mainly with avionics integration) I'm going to put in a dissenting opinion. Last year I started an MS in Aerospace Engineering while working fulltime at an airline. I didn't want to drag it out, I wanted to get the degree done in 2 years, so I was taking a full course load (9 credits) and working 40 hours a week. It was hell. You have no social life whatsoever. I was either at work or at school 7 days a week and almost every single night was spent doing homework or studying. About a month into it I found a professor who wanted to hire me as a research assistant. I put in my two weeks notice the next day and I don't regret it for a second. I make a lot less money for the time being, but honestly my research and working for my advisor are going to be a lot more important for giving me the freedom to do what I want with my career than having a coursework only MS. I'm aware of two other people who entered my program with me who were doing the work/Masters degree thing. One of them dropped out after the first semester. The other is going to quit after this semester, because she's only been able to swing 6 credits per semester with work (need 30 for the degree) and can't stomach doing it for an entire additional year.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2010 15:28
|
|
|
Dr. Goonstein posted:You guys are awesome and have been really insightful on the whole subject matter of Master's degrees. I know it's many years down the road for me, but I like to have a rough plan of what I'll be doing later in life. not trolling, i hope you kill yourself before you engineer any new weapons.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2010 08:30
|
|
|
grover posted:I think you'd be hard pressed to find an engineer anywhere who wouldn't jump at the chance to work on aircraft carriers or F-22s. You have an extremely naive and/or narrow view of engineers if you think we'd all cream our pants at the opportunity to work on those types of things. Engineering is a craft and an art. What engineering should be is the application of human knowledge to make the world a better place for people to live in, even if all that means is making it easier for people to check their email. To the guy who said this thread isn't the place for a discussion of engineering ethics: you're dead wrong. Engineers play a huge role in modern society. It is up to the members of the engineering community to ensure we use our power for constructive, rather than destructive purposes. Every homicide bomber (like the F-22) that is built, every drone strike that is carried out should be seen as a failure of engineers to better the fate of Homo Sapiens. Anyone who works to further weapons or military technology is just a lace in the boot stomping on the face of humanity. So to add constructive criticism: to the dude I originally quoted - I hope you decide to become a watchmaker instead. UZR IS BULLSHIT fucked around with this message at 09:17 on Nov 26, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2010 09:14
|
|
|
slorb posted:While I agree that making weapons is extremely morally questionable, I don't think its the worst thing engineers are currently doing. Weapons are really just objects and some of the responsibility for their misuse accrues to the user. Oh, you're absolutely right about that. Which is why I say it is the duty of every engineer out there to do everything they can to work for the RESPONSIBLE use of knowledge and technology. Regarding the fact that users of weapons should be held accountable: you're right about that, too. But I'm not a world politician; I'm an engineer. So I'm going to hold boots to the fire where I can. UZR IS BULLSHIT fucked around with this message at 09:38 on Nov 26, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2010 09:34
|
|
|
Yeah, I'd say list the ones that are most directly relevant to the job you're applying for, but don't pad out your resume by putting every engineering course you've taken. Also, keep an eye out for keywords in the job posting. If it says they're looking for someone to do stress analysis or whatever, put down the structures/MatSci classes you've taken, and in your skills summary section list that you have strong competence in stress analysis. If you're applying to a large company, this will increase the chances of your resume making it through their initial filters.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2010 21:42
|
|
|
movax posted:e: Oh god, I almost forgot! I have no life and can't talk to women, so I've elected to spend some of my spare time exploring other disciplines. Can some ME and AE goons recommend some "classic" texts in their disciplines? Specifically: thermo, fluids, wing theory. I'd ask about physics textbooks, but this is an engineering thread, so... This book is what we used in my first two semesters of graduate fluids classes, and it seems to be pretty popular at other departments as well. I think this book is focused more on understanding the physical nature of fluid flows, than say doing an aerodynamic analysis of a wing, although that is touched on. I think this book is a good start if you are specifically interested in airfoil theory & analysis, and it includes some discussion about the basic ideas behind compressible flow as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2011 21:34
|
|
(seriously though, if you've got any physics recommendations, particles + waves specifically, that'd be great).
|
grover posted:there are constants for the Rankine scale just like Kelvin and temperature doesn't benefit much from the metric scale, especially in thermodynamics. You've obviously never seen a plot of BTU/ft^2 sec
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2011 17:26
|
|
|
Colmface posted:I'm about 8.5 months done with a one-year EE internship at a research centre for a multi-national company. I received the internship through my school and one of the perks of doing these internships is that they should count towards the time spent as an EIT, so I should receive my PEng sooner. I wouldn't worry about it. I don't know what "running tests" involves, but it actually sounds more involved than most internship experiences I've heard about, including my own. I don't think anyone's going to expect you to have picked up on all this real world knowledge in the span of a year as an intern, especially if you're going to be looking for jobs outside this specific research center. If you're looking for a job that's in depth technically, it will take you a few years of hands on work to really get a handle on what you're doing, and people who are hiring new graduates understand this.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2011 19:29
|
|
|
JamesWatt posted:How can I make my plan for becoming an engineer better? If your goal is to get a job as an engineer this might work. There are people who get engineering positions without an engineering degree. But, that usually comes about by working for a company in a non-engineering position that works closely with engineering (technician, materials management, etc) and demonstrating a competency in whatever technical knowledge that company specializes in. Quite a few engineering jobs would be better described as project management. But, if your ultimate goal is to "invent something new in the energy industry"...I find it seriously unlikely that you will ever land a job where you'll be in a position to "invent" something as a part of your work without at least a BS. Or even a job where you'll be learning anything that will help you invent something. Which means you'll be doing your inventing in your garage, which is fine, but then why go through all this trouble of getting an engineering job? Not trying to crush your dreams, just offering some perspective.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2011 02:10
|
|
|
DeathByDoubleDip posted:Need some help here. Physics BS going into MSEE at Stanford. The MSEE (terminal) is going to run me about 10k/quarter for tuition, with 5 quarters of classwork needed to graduate. I can get TAships/RAships, but it'll be competitive as poo poo since those are generally set aside for the PhD students (understandably, since they do research that rakes in funding and builds on the school's name). Paying for grad school yourself is a terrible idea. Not only that, but if you aren't doing a research project for your Master's degree (as it sounds like you aren't, otherwise I'd expect you to have a TA or RA position that would be paying tuition + stipend), it'd be a colossal waste of your time. Going to grad school in engineering is about getting to work with professors who are leading the direction of the field that you're interested in working in. The classes are almost an afterthought (as far as what they'll do for your job prospects). If you aren't working for a prof doing research and presenting at conferences, you're not going to make the connections that will get you a job in industry.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2011 18:50
|
|
)
|
Just passed my oral examination for my Masters today  Now, about that job situation... 
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2011 22:13
|
|
|
Bronze posted:The Grad School megathread suggested I come here to ask the following: First question - is this a coursework only track, or do you have to do research under an advisor? Second - how is the degree being paid for?
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2011 02:24
|
|
|
Bronze posted:Not sure. I suppose it would only be coursework? Okay. I mean, what do you want to do with this degree? The point of grad school in engineering is to do research. You get to work with professors who are doing cutting edge stuff and you make all sorts of connections at conferences and what have you. An MS in engineering where you only do coursework isn't going to mean very much especially if you don't have a Bachelor's. Not only that but most classes in grad school aren't really like undergrad classes. Also, grad school is insanely expensive. I don't think paying out the rear end for this degree is going to net you a good return. If you had an employer paying for it or something that would be one thing. Honestly? If you really want a degree in engineering, I think you should consider a second Bachelor's. You'll actually get a good base understanding of the field, and it might even cost less than the Masters.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2011 17:44
|
|
|
The specialization/advanced topics issue is sort of why I don't think a coursework based degree is good for him. That's why I asked what he wants to do with his degree. If he just wants to get it so he can get a job as an engineer, without a specific thing he wants to do, he's better off getting a BS. If you don't have a specific area you want to either do research in, or a specific job you want to get that requires an advanced degree, then grad school isn't really the right place to be. I mean, if it's a place with a decent graduate department in his field, that 30 credit degree is going to probably cost him at least $20k. But, Bronze, those are just my own thoughts. What you should do is email the Director of Graduate Studies for the department(s) you're interested in. That person will be best able to figure out if you and the program are a good fit for each other.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2011 22:08
|
|
|
rockamiclikeavandal posted:Dang this is a long thread, but it's got a lot of good info. Chemistry is completely unnecessary for an AE undergrad.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2011 03:08
|
|
|
Kire posted:To the PhD's out there: According to some PhD biologists, they said not to go for a PhD thinking that it would improve job prospects, because it only prepares a person for academic research, which isn't what most companies are interested in. Does this hold true for engineering? I just finished an MS in Aerospace Engineering, after having worked in industry for 3 years after finishing my undergrad. I can give you my opinion on why I didn't continue for a Ph. D. My first job out of college was a very "hands on" type situation, working closely with technicians in a shop-floor type environment. It was great, I liked applying my technical knowledge to making things happen in the real world. But I was sort of unhappy because it didn't require a lot of "difficult" engineering work - basically, it was too easy. I decided I needed an advanced degree to get myself a job where I'd be doing more interesting stuff. I lucked out big time as far as the school and my advisor matching very well with my interests (CFD). The last 2 years have been awesome and I really like working for my advisor. However I see way too many guys who end up on the track to becoming a professor, which isn't what I want. Hell, my advisor has four postdocs who are all well into their 30's. I'm 27 now, and I don't want to spend the next 10 years developing research level code - I want to get out there and put my skills to practical use. Now, that isn't to say that everyone in my research group goes on to be a professor - but I think that most of those who don't go on to work for various government research agencies. Basically if your goal is to improve job prospects, an MS in engineering will do that almost as well as a Ph.D. And a note as to your specific situation: there are probably more opportunities for satellite design jobs outside of academia than in it. Profs who do research in this field are more likely to be doing things like researching new methods in say satellite control, from a fundamental point of view, than in seeing the design of a satellite through from start to finish.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2011 21:37
|
|
|
grover posted:If you really want to get ahead in engineering with a masters degree, don't get an MS in engineering, get an MBA. That's the ticket to the big bucks. Of course, you'll no longer be doing much engineering if you go this route... If you want to be a manager, sure. Don't listen to this advice if your goals are to do something interesting as an engineer.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2011 22:51
|
|
|
lu lu lu posted:Does anyone have any recommendations for good aerospace/aeronautical programs? Aerospace is a pretty diverse field, and what specifically you are interested in will affect the answer to this question. Also whether you are talking graduate or undergrad programs.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2011 16:03
|
|
|
Just a tip, get it in writing from the science/engineering college as well as the EE department that those credits will transfer.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2011 02:58
|
|
|
I'm sure they do, but at my public school I knew a lot of people who had issues where a counselor told someone that their CC credits would transfer, but then they either didn't or the department didn't consider their CC courses to fulfill the necessary requirements. So what I'm saying is he should get in writing that his specific courses will get him the standing with the EE department that he's going for. UZR IS BULLSHIT fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Jun 22, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2011 04:50
|
|
|
Nam Taf posted:I just know from experience that a not insignificant number of people use linear static analysis, see large deformations and assume that it's all correct. Hell, I've seen people see parallel plates deform through one another (as in no contact analysis) and assume the stress results were right! This is why you never, ever trust someone using a commercial simulation tool if they haven't had at least some background in coding up their own solvers. Push a button, get an answer, make a pretty picture! Who needs to understand what the gently caress the program is actually doing? To help out with the actual question at hand, there might be more people able to help out in this thread, although I don't know how many people in there are fluent with ANSYS.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2011 16:21
|
|
|
We need to revamp the OP of this thread. If you're interested in going to grad school, talk to professors you'd be interested in working with, talk to the director of graduate studies at schools you're interested in, and see if you can find a place where you'd be a good fit. Also: don't try to find an undergrad research position, find one. If you don't get the specific job you want, don't give up on another position just because you aren't as interested in the research. Ultimately it doesn't matter, you aren't going to have any real responsibilities, and any research position in undergrad is better than none. UZR IS BULLSHIT fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Jun 30, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2011 04:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 12:35 |
|
|
There's no longer any reason whatsoever to spend money on a graphing calculator. At home you can use WolframAlpha, or Mathematica if your school has a student license set up, which is leagues above anything a handheld calculator can do. If you need a fancy calculator to pass a test, you don't actually understand the material, and will probably bomb the test anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2011 18:14
|
|