butsurigakusha wrote:"The problem with engineers is that they're just as nerdy and socially inept as physicists, but they're as dumb as rocks."
Now, I don't really think that engineers are dumb; many of my good friends are engineering students, and my dad is an engineer. I just thought it was a funny quote and wanted to share it.
marten wrote:I have noticed a general tendency for engineering to want to know: "What's the formula? Where can I plug the numbers in?" I spent a whole year in an engineering program at a university where the primary method of education was "plug-n-chug".
The amount of what is taught in 3years of Bsc (equivalent to BS) physics...
whereas from the posts on this forum i realise that any motivated physics student in US can get a chance to work on really big research right at undergrad level
trupti wrote:Actually I am also not very correct in what i wrote in my above post..Its not only about quality of education..but as engineering is very much in demand all the best students in our country go to engg... generally what is taught in first year BS physics in US is taught to all scince students in our place (even if they end up doing medical or bio later on !!). The amount of what is taught in 3years of Bsc (equivalent to BS) physics can be learnt by a good and interested student within a year and half by sincere self study...But what what is taught in 4 years on engg cannot be learnt on your own because its very specialised plus a major part of the learning process involves learning, using and understanding complicated and costly machines and softwares which won't be available at home!!
At our place physics is more about theory..one has to be really to lucky to pursue experimental physics using sophisticated, hi-tech facilities at undergrad level so three years in physics one my spend only reading books and writting exams with shoddy practical expierence..whereas from the posts on this forum i realise that any motivated physics student in US can get a chance to work on really big research right at undergrad level
Also when a person is working in industry there is a great pressure of deadline..people want right solutions very fast..so an engineer has to give solution on time. It doesn't matters whether the person presenting the solution really understands every smallest detail of the solution..while if a person is doing research in physics (theory or exp) its okay if you form a new theory a year or two late as long as its a good one, bring some new ideas in the field
Every science/engineering major in the US takes first year physics as well (they all take first year chemistry, too)
Anyway, no engineers are fun people to around, but just sometimes i am like... you really do live under a big rock. The programs are usually so specified that I would be bored to death to take like half the courses. Take the statics course for mechanical engineers... my god.... i would rather shot myself then solve variations of the same problem for a semester, i.e. if a bridge is stable or not. Also there is a lack of depth. I had two engineers in my general relativity course. One gave up after 2 weeks the other is getting through without knowing what a lagrangian is. Looking at their dynamics exercises i am really asking myself why would you solve it using newton, if the lagranian gives you the answer in 3 lines.
twistor wrote:This reminds me of a joke I once heard:
A electrical engineering student asks his professor what the most important equations in his field are so he can memorize them. The professor thinks a bit and replies that there are 3 fundamental equations everyone in the field should memorize.
The most important equation is V = IR.
The second most important equation is I = V/R.
The third most important equation is...
twistor wrote:t's not a bad deal if you enjoy wearing starchy clothes and sitting in a cubicle (plastered with Dilbert comics, I'd imagine)
Usually the people that think like you are the ones that need a degree to feel important or superior to somebody else, probably because they don't have enough confidence in themselves and they need a paper to tell them who they are and to fill the void of their empty lives.
Smart people that I know are not touched by these little fights to see who's best, you don't seem to belong to that group, au contraire you sound like an 8-year-old comparing your great toys to some other kid's, while the grown-ups are busy dealing with real problems.
Man: the world is full of both dumb and bright physicists and engineers and you're no exception to that. Your comments are not a surprise to me: you're a tiny tiny human being.
secander2! wrote:I've worked with projects which involve both physicists and engineers and I agree with you that both are necessary. Still, due to the fact that I'm a physicist, I will usually make fun of engineers every chance I get... it's just how it works... kinda like Cal Tech and MIT. Don't take twistor too seriously, and definitely don't be offended by him, his posting history shows that he enjoys making fun of everything and everyone. I personally find his posts hilarious as they add a little bit of spice to this forum, if you don't like them, it's probably just best to ignore them.twistor wrote:t's not a bad deal if you enjoy wearing starchy clothes and sitting in a cubicle (plastered with Dilbert comics, I'd imagine)
Anyways, getting back to the topic at hand, I think it is clear that physicists are better... in contrast to engineers, we sit in a dark basement room wearing unwashed clothes with Ph.D. comics plastered to our walls!!!
And twator: of course I'm not smart! how could a smart person end up discussing with you? No offense.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests